E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Tannen Maury / EPA
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney speaks to customers while campaigning at Charley Parker's Diner in Springfield, Ill.
It’s shaping up to be another déjà vu week in the GOP race… With Romney’s Puerto Rico win, here’s NBC’s new delegate count: Romney 443, Santorum 184, Gingrich 137, Paul 34… Romney’s gas attack on Obama… McCain calls GOP race “the nastiest I have ever seen” (and that’s saying something)… Haley Barbour says he voted for Newt… Team Obama rakes in $45 million in February for campaign/DNC… Obama’s energy swing this week… Dem memo/poll: Lugar “fighting for his political life” in Indiana… And DCCC tries to make more hay out of Ryan, Medicare.
*** Deja vu: This is shaping up to be another déjà vu week in the GOP presidential race: Mitt Romney widens his delegate lead by winning all of Puerto Rico’s 20 delegates yesterday; Romney is poised to win Tuesday’s primary in Illinois, but it once again could be closer than all of Romney’s advantages (money, organization, front-runner status) suggest; and Rick Santorum continues to have a problem qualifying for a full slate of delegates (raising the question of whether Romney would still have a commanding lead if he didn’t face such a disorganized challenger). Campaigning in Illinois yesterday, Romney responded to his Puerto Rico win: "Those people who don't think Latinos will vote for a Republican need to take a look in Puerto Rico and see there that conservative principles and Latino voters go together -- and that Hispanic voters are going to vote for Republicans if we stand for something.” But a little caveat: Those Puerto Ricans who voted in yesterday’s GOP primary CAN’T participate in November’s general election.
Caption: NBC's Mark Murray and Domenico Montanaro discuss Mitt Romney's widening delegate lead over his GOP rivals and team Obama's raking in $45 million-plus in donations for the campaign and DNC .
*** NBC’s delegate count: After Romney’s victory in Puerto Rico yesterday, here’s NBC’s official delegate count: Romney 443, Santorum 184, Gingrich 137, Paul 34. (Note: This delegate count doesn’t reflect some caucus results, since those delegates haven’t been officially allocated yet and since the allocation will NOT be based on the straw votes that have taken place.) And get this fun fact: Romney has won 52 out of 54 possible delegates in all of the U.S. territories (Guam/Northern Mariana/U.S. Virgin Islands/America Samoa/Puerto Rico) that have participated in the GOP race -- and that represents 20 percent of his delegate lead over Santorum. Wow … just another reminder why organization matters.
*** Romney gas attack: Also yesterday, Romney leveled a new charge at President Obama. "There's one promise he's kept, one promise he's kept. When he campaigned he said he wanted to raise the price of gasoline.” But NBC’s Garrett Haake reported that independent fact-checkers have found that charge to be false. In a Jan. 2008 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board, then-candidate Obama said his cap-and-trade plan would cause electricity costs to rise, but he did not reference gas prices. At a second event, Romney corrected himself. "[Obama’s] one promise that comes to mind that he kept was the one related to energy. His energy policies he said would cause energy prices to skyrocket. And when asked one time about gas prices going up so quickly he said he would prefer they just went up gradually. Well we’ve seen the results of his policies." But Romney is wrong here again too, Haake says. The "policies" he is technically referring to, which Obama said would cause electricity prices to skyrocket, was cap-and-trade, which was never implemented.
*** McCain calls GOP race “the nastiest I have ever seen”: On “Meet the Press,” John McCain -- who has endorsed Romney -- summed up the conventional wisdom about the Republican primary race so far: It has hurt the GOP and Romney. “Mitt Romney will tell you, first of all, he's got to do a better job. He's working on doing a better job. He's got to focus more on the economy. He's been giving major speeches on the economy and jobs. And I think he is improving dramatically as a candidate,” McCain said. “But also, the proportional distribution of the delegates, any campaign before, we had winner take all. If it was winner take all, you would have seen those numbers significantly different. Also, the Super PACs have played a key role, unfortunately in my view, because most of them are negative ads. They've driven up the unfavorable of all of the candidates and made it much more difficult, frankly, to win the election in November.” He later added, “This is the nastiest [campaign] I have ever seen.” The fact that McCain -– who was the subject of a nasty attack in 2000 and who launched some tough attack ads of his own in ’08 -- is saying this means something
*** Barbour says he voted for Newt: Here’s another gut punch for Romney: Former Mississippi Gov. -- and onetime potential presidential candidate -- Haley Barbour said he voted for Gingrich in last week’s primary, citing his friendship with Gingrich. We’ve noticed so many big-name conservatives continue to stay on the sidelines (Barbour/Daniels/Jeb/Ryan, etc.). And it makes us wonder: What are they waiting for? They are not still debating between Romney and Santorum are they? Or Gingrich? Are they so afraid that coming out for Romney now COULD look bad for them with conservatives four years from now? Could some of these folks really be so calculating about how “supporting Romney” could look in a primary TV ad four years from now that they are afraid of going out on this limb in 2012? Or are they actually holding back because they think it’s only 50-50 that Romney gets to 1144 by June 5?
*** On the trail: All the activity is in Illinois and with just two candidates: Romney starts off his day in Springfield, gives an economic speech in Chicago and holds a town hall in Peoria … Santorum has rallies in Rockford, Moline and East Peoria.
*** Team Obama rakes in $45 million-plus in February, up from last month: On President Obama's official Twitter account this morning, the campaign announced that it raised more than $45 million -- for the campaign and DNC -- in the month of February. It added that amount came from more than 348,000 donors (105,000 giving for the first time), and the average donation was $59. To put that $45 million February haul into perspective, Team Obama raised $29 million in January, including $11.9 million for the campaign (with the rest going to the DNC and the Obama Victory Fund). And in comparison, Romney has already released his February fundraising total -- $11.5 million (that's strictly campaign money). Note: We won't know until the campaign officially files with the Federal Election Commission (the deadline is tomorrow) what the actual campaign vs. DNC split is. In 2008, however, Obama raised a whopping $57 million for his campaign in February, although that haul came during his historic primary battle against Hillary Clinton. Bottom line: Obama’s money situation continues to be GOOD, but not GREAT (at least by the 2008 standard; just see this Washington Post piece).
*** Obama’s energy swing: Given the heat on gas prices he’s taking from Romney (see above) and the Republican Party, Obama is making an energy-related swing this week “to promote and defend his energy policies -- including his approach to the Keystone XL pipeline,” USA Today writes. “Obama travels Wednesday and Thursday for energy events in Nevada, New Mexico, and Ohio, as well as Cushing, Oklahoma; Cushing is the starting point for the southern half of the Keystone pipeline. That segment ‘will transport oil from Cushing to the Gulf of Mexico, which will help address the bottleneck of oil that has resulted in large part from increased domestic oil production in the Midwest,’ said a White House statement.” Per NBC’s Shawna Thomas, this continues a pattern of Obama’s official outside-D.C. events focusing mostly on energy since late February. Actions speak louder than words, and it’s clear the Obama White House is worried, BIG TIME, about the politics of the energy and gas price issue.
*** Lugar “fighting for his political life” in Indiana: The pollster for Joe Donnelly (D), who is running for the U.S. Senate in Indiana, has released a survey showing that incumbent Sen. Dick Lugar leads his GOP primary opponent Richard Mourdock by just six points, 45 percent to 39 percent. From the pollster’s memo: “After more than 30 years as Indiana’s senator, Richard Lugar is fighting for his political life. Despite spending millions, Lugar continues to lose ground in the Republican primary and faces the very real possibility that on May 8, he will be out of a job.” But it’s also striking that the memo doesn’t reveal any of Donnelly’s poll numbers against either Lugar or Donnelly.
*** DCCC tries to make hay out of Ryan, Medicare: With House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan releasing his new budget this week, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee says it’s launching “a new paid and grass-roots campaign called “Medicare March” in 41 Republican districts to hold them accountable for the new GOP budget that chooses “Millionaires over Medicare.” More from the DCCC: “The first phase of the DCCC’s campaign will hold these targeted Republicans accountable with automated phone calls that will patch voters through to their Member of Congress' office so they can urge them to vote against the new Republican budget that ends the Medicare guarantee for seniors, while protecting tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy.”
Countdown to Illinois primary: 1 day
Countdown to Louisiana primary: 5 days
Countdown to Election Day: 232 days
Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower
Leave a Comment:
The Republican tug of war continues. It's been months where Mitt Romney has been the "inevitable" candidate with the money and organization, yet he is now closer to securing a meaningful level of support among the GOP's conservative electorate. Romney and Santorum are puling support from two completely opposite electorates and splitting the GOP in half. 99 percent of every ad run in the GOP primary has been negative. The GOP is a mess.
Don Quixote Trump is affronted by windmills.
Trump delivered one of his classic whoppers last Thursday:
"Wind is destroying the environment in many, many places. People are going crazy over the horrible, noisy, disgusting windmills. And they are horrible and a horrible intrusion, ruining communities, and solar is weak and has not been effective and is very, very expensive."
Can a bad hair conditioner actually morph reality?
Our hero is surely ignorant of how many centuries we've used windmills for milling grain, irrigation, producing electricity..."As the 21st century began, rising concerns over energy security, global warming, and eventual fossil fuel depletion led to an expansion of interest in all available forms of renewable energy.
Worldwide there are now many thousands of wind turbines operating, with a total nameplate capacity of 194,400 MW." (Wikipedia)
Now endorsed by Mr. Trump, Mitt Romney says "wind energy development is a joke."
Global oil is peaking or has already peaked.
We are second in wind energy production globally and considered to be pioneers of wind energy. Wind produces significant energy...and does not pollute.
Those sunny Trump holiday resorts.
In what way is solar "weak"?
Trump & Associates are not telling the truth. It is well-known that solar energy has made enough technological advances that it is highly competitive with traditional energy sources. Now it needs to be funded and implemented on a larger scale.
The Trump/GOP/Koch-sters, who oppose clean renewable energy in America & lobby for Big Oil, want you to give a round of applause for the future of $50-a-gallon gas at the pump from Tar Sands Oil:
The dirtiest, most polluting, most costly oil extraction process in the world.
Now, that's ironic coming from the feeble minded old man who unleashed the lipstick wearing pit bull on the rest of the 49 states!
So that's the noxious odor in the air the last few days here around here... lol
Looks like ole Barry is learning that being President is not the same thing as being a King. Maybe he should try the old fashioned political bartering of “Here’s what I want and I’ll give you something you want in return for giving me what I want.”
Naaahhhh. Barry “knows” what he wants is what’s” best for everybody” and the Republican’s should simply just cave in to his omnipotence.
From Politico:
Going it alone only goes so far
By: Carrie Budoff Brown
March 19, 2012 04:39 AM EDT
Stymied by Republicans, an exasperated President Barack Obama told the nation he would go it alone and use his executive authority to get things done.
“We can’t wait for an increasingly dysfunctional Congress to do its job,” he said in Las Vegas in October. “Where they won’t act, I will.”
But five months and almost three dozen announcements later, a closer look at the We Can’t Wait program shows just how hamstrung the president has been in acting on his own to provide expansive or quick relief to struggling Americans.
Some initiatives involve little more than a new website, a pilot program or a brochure. Others are basically repackaged announcements of programs already well under way. Yet others are works in progress, waiting on the government bureaucracy to catch up with the urgency of Obama’s “we can’t wait” mantra.
Deja Vu
When I read the headline I thought it was going to be a story about Obama's budget deficit. Is he going for the all time record of over a trillion dollar deficits in a row?
So perhaps he can explain what is going to happen in December. You know when the Bush tax cuts expire and the mandatory spending cuts kick in. Is this when the economy is going to be recovered enough that we can start removing the Federal Governments' excessive spending?
It will be an interesting lame-duck session. What's the betting that nothing will happen?
It's good to see such decisive leadership from Washington.
TheActivist,
No matter how messy the primary process,
All the GOP candidates are pushing the same agenda. They are for putting Big Corporations in charge of our lives.
Another week started out with a big Romney lie. Does this guy ever tell the truth? Answer NO. That's how you get by in the corporate world, you lie out your teeth and take credit for everyone else's ideas. You can tell by listening to Romney he's got where he is by clinging to someone else's skirt tales and taking credit for someone else's ideas. Romney is the biggest phony ever.
The overwhelming victory from the Puerto Rico 80% vote for Romney is a strong indicator that Romney can win the majority of the Latino votes stateside as well come 11/6/12! Looks like a Romney/Rubio ticket come August will be more formidable than originally thought. 5 bucks plus for a gallon for gas will only help their efforts here.
No limit to Big Oil demands:
Even after making record profits, BP and Conoco are demanding a $2Billion tax break to drill Alaska's North Slope. BP and Conoco Philliops told the state senate that they will only increase investment in drilling if their state taxes are given this massive tax cut.
How is this fair?
"McCain calls GOP race “the nastiest I have ever seen”
That's not all Senator McCain said on Meet The Press yesterday. He also railed against the Citiizens United decision as being one of the worst the Supreme Court had ever made and attributed it to their "naivete and sheer ignorance". He went on to decry the pending Arizona anti-contraceprtion law and indicated he believes it will never take effect. And finally, he said that he was "proud" of the treatment that returning veterans have been given by both the President and the First Lady.
This from the man who ran against the President just four years ago. How far the Republican Party has come in four short years. I hope they're just as proud.
Backhouse,
"All the GOP candidates are pushing the same agenda. They are for putting Big Corporations in charge of our lives."
And Santorum wants the church to run the country. Of course, only Santorums' church is the true church praying to the only true god.
So instead of God and Country, it will be god and corporation.
The Activist, so true, the GOP is in a tug of war.
Backhouse, leave it to Donald Trump who has probably never been anywhere near the wind turbine fields I've seen in Iowa and Illinois. They are not in the middle of town, they are out where the wind has always powered old-fashioned windmills which once dotted the farming landscape. The GOPers are out there screaming anti-progress, anti-future and Big Oil is laughing all the way to the bank.
Willard, we have a problem!!!
Republican Party ACCOMPLISHMENTS
http://ametia.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/gop-fail-chart.jpg?w=640
ICKY Ricky, we have a problem!!!!
Here’s the inconvenient truth:
Turnout Might Be Low For Illinois GOP Primary
Early voting among Republican voters for the presidential primary is up only slightly from 2008, despite the still competitive race between Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum. The Chicago Tribune looked at the numbers from early voting, which ended yesterday, and found that they were only a few hundred more GOP ballots cast early this year in Will County and DuPage County, two Chicago suburban counties with a significant Republican constituency.
The low turnout could be a bad sign for Romney. The Tribune reports that Romney is leaning on suburban voters, while Santorum's strong suit is supposed to be downstate Republicans
http://progressillinois.com/news/content/2012/03/16/turnout-might-be-low-illinois-gop-primary
Please, righties try and reason by using well thought out objections. Okay?
JusBidenMyTime
Considering the overwhelming proportion of voters in Puerto Rico are Latinos it matters naught by how many votes you win in a primary from that group.
Jody, Trump, Romney @ Associates must know,
The USA consumes more energy than any other country, so investing in alternative energies is a reality and no longer a choice.
AWEA on Southern energy needs: "Renewable energy and energy efficiency can complement each other to effectively reduce fossil fuel use."
*waves to Bev*
My sides are still aching from all the laughing we did Friday! ;o))
Well, here we go again. Romney says Latinos will vote for him. He just won Puerto Rico (Latinos right?). What a idiot. Only Latino Republicans voted in the Primary. Plus Puerto Rico can't vote in the General Election. DAH.
And as usual the Repugs are trying to renig on the binding agreement they made on Defense cuts. These clowns are so dangerous to our Country that it's hard to believe what would happen if they got back in power.
And for you women, I can't believe any women could possible vote for the Republicans. They have no respect for you and look at you as a second class citizen. Stick together and vote NO on anything Republican. WOMAN POWER.
Obama in 2012.
@Joe
Last I saw, "ol' Barry" offered to compromise with Mr. Boehner on some major legislation just last summer and Mr. Boehner, after some discussion with his Republican colleagues, said "No." Regardless of how polite (or, more often, NOT) it's been, "No" seems to be the definitive answer from members of the GOP no matter what Mr. Obama tries. I'd like to see ANYONE get any work done when all they get from the very people they depend on to help them get that work done is a preemptive "**** you, buddy." I don't recall Mr. Bush ever dealing with such selfish, calculating, malicious inefficiency from the opposition during his tenure -- maybe on occasion over specific pieces of legislation, but never for so long, and not out of sheer spite, which is what is happening to Mr. Obama now. You're welcome to try, but I am quite certain that YOU CANNOT DISPROVE THIS POINT. Mr. Obama may not be the best president, but he is far from being the worst.
We do, however, quite possibly have THE WORST congress ever, and I exempt no party from that label. That said, please everyone, regardless of party or political affiliation, take the time to EDUCATE yourselves on who you are voting for. Incumbents leave a track record of votes; look it up and find out IF and WHEN they are voting, and WHAT they are voting for. If you support a new face, find out what it is they stand for BEYOND just rhetoric, cheap talking points, and catchphrases. Find out what your guy is FOR, not just what he or she is against. Pick people who will do what you would do if you were in their place; as for the rest, VOTE THE BUMS OUT!!!
The Republican primaries remind me of the myth we learned as children "The Emperor's New Clothes"---when does someone say that Mitt Romney is the emperor?? (sorry to put that image in everyone's head on Monday morning). He wins races he can buy or where people who can't vote can support him or in states he won't carry anyway.
Good Morning Feisty
So that's the noxious odor in the air the last few days here around here... lol
I knew it wasn't the stockyards!!! this time it was worse after the rain
It's Raining Mitt!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Esavfe8Um7s&feature=player_embedded
Backhouse ... perhaps the agents against Algae need to read a bit deeper ... even General Dynamics like what we are doing up here. Bombardier will be testing other bio-fuels this year ... but the link below is the key to a better future.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/30/business/energy-environment/30iht-renalg.html?_r=1&src=busln
I think it's a blessing (pun intended) that Santorum is disorganized. I can't even begin to imagine the permanent damage that would be done to the Republican party if a Santorum nomination ever came to pass.
What a sad view you have of the business world. Would you care to elaborate on your experiences and please name names as I would like to avoid working for the companies who employ such immoral employees.
The low turnout could be a bad sign for Romney. The Tribune reports that Romney is leaning on suburban voters, while Santorum's strong suit is supposed to be downstate Republicans
Beverly:
Ordinarily, I might agree with you, but given the most recent (PPP) poll that shows Romney leading by 15 points (RCP average of 8.5), coupled with the fact that Santorum didn't file for full slates of delegates in all of the districts in Illinois , I expect Romney to win with relative ease.
SI
JoAnne in PA
So, both Obama and his 2008 opponent think that the Citizens United ruling by the radical right Roberts Supreme Court was garbage (although their opinions were stated in more polite language). I wonder if Alito will throw another hissy fit over McCain the way he did when Obama dared to state the obvious. Roberts and his cronies made such a mess of campaign financing law that we'll need an amendment to the Constitution to fix it.
Ideology,
Very interesting article. Big oil would hate it, but if you could get the commodities traders (aka speculators) on board, it could really take off!
Backhouse and Jody:
You hit the nail dead square center.
Right-wing posters demonstrate a woeful ignorance of the world around them. It is hard to imagine they go further than their local grocery store. When they commute to work, they are insulated in their tiny little world listening to right-wing loudmouths who fill their vacuous little heads with talking points that are false. My guess is most of them have only seen a wind turbine on TV and can't appreciate their contribution to our power grid.
The power of wind is enormous. As more is harnessed, it will provide greater amounts of electricity. The problem is we need a more effective grid to transport that energy and we need efficient batteries to store excess power. Of course, that would mean investment. But alleged capitalists like Bain, REMOVE capital from the market. The government is going to have to take the lead on this, and there will be mistakes and losses along the way. That's why "capitalists" will not invest. Too risky. But when it's finally in place, they'll be happy to use vast amounts of cheap electricity while they complain about development costs.
Our world is all about energy. We die if our bodies do not convert convert fuel to energy. It's quite that simple. All flora and fauna are dependent on energy. ALL ENERGY comes from the sun and how efficiently we convert the sun's energy to our use is the most important issue facing us today, as it was yesterday, and as it will be tomorrow.
The importance of clean energy dwarfs any other issue on the planet. None of the Republican candidates have the tiniest understanding of this. Romney, Mr. I Know Numbers, is either a liar or a first-order ignoramus, when he talks about White House control of gas prices. This clown obviously doesn't understand supply and demand. World demand exceeds supply. Period. Mitt Romney is a liar.
Gingrich and his $2.50 gallon of gas BS is ridiculous. It can't be done without destroying the environment. However, Gingrich is the epitome of greed and will do or say anything to line his pockets. Gingrich is a liar.
Santorum has, for all intents and purposes, avoided the debate on energy. He has the crazed evangelical cockroaches behind him. There is no need to show his ignorance on the subject of energy, when he will be getting votes from the "Down with Brown" crowd. God don't like brown people, don't ya know? Besides, when Santorum strays from his "I'm chosen by God" message, he is exposed as an influence-peddling whore. Santorum is a liar.
If there's one thing I've learned about this field of Republican candidates - at virtually all levels - is to never say they can't get crazier.
Donald Trump is upset about wind turbines because they were approved to be put in the ocean right off a resort he was planning on building in Scotland. The wind turbines would ruin his ocean view, THAT'S why he doesn't like them.
All Democrats in Illinois who don't have a competitive primary going on (which is most of us) should vote for Santorum or Ron Paul in the Republican primary tomorrow. All you have to do is ask for the R ballot. Have some fun and take some votes away from Mr. Inevitable. Too bad Carribou Barbie is not running, we could have some real fun.
Seattle Indie
Beverly:
Ordinarily, I might agree with you, but given the most recent (PPP) poll that shows Romney leading by 15 points (RCP average of 8.5), coupled with the fact that Santorum didn't file for full slates of delegates in all of the districts in Illinois , I expect Romney to win with relative ease.
Seattle Indie
You are correct. I may have not been clear there. My point was no matter how many delegates he picks up; voter apathy is low which I interpret to mean come Nov he won't win.
Cook County not down state where Robney is pandering is what carries Illinois.
Everyone knows it's a given ICKY Ricky isn't going anywhere
David, You've quoted Santorum as saying he was "chosen by God." Do you have a source for this? If you don't, you're a LIAR. As usual.
And where are you getting this "down with brown" nonsense? Are you implying that, because many people (including millions of Dems) are against illegal immigration? Also, what makes you think that being against illegal immigration automatically turns off Latinos to Republicans? Are you implying or saying that all Latinos SUPPORT lawbreaking? Interesting.
Backhouse, Jody ... why doesn't Donald like wind power? It ruins the view of his golf resort.
Poor little Donald, don't the Scotts know how important he is?
Ideo, great article, thanks! Says about Algae:
"Capable of converting sunlight and carbon dioxide into lipids and oils, photosynthetic algae can typically generate 10 to 20 times more fuel per acre than agricultural commodities like corn, used to make ethanol.
Moreover, algae do not require arable land and so need not compete with food crops for growth space. And as voracious consumers of carbon dioxide, photosynthetic algae have the potential to abate greenhouse gas emissions."
What does it take for the Grinch, Trumplington, Romney & Company to acknowledge what the rest of the informed world has known for a long time?
He's bringing a billion dollar investment to an area that will benefit from the economic activity, and they also know how to spell Scots. It's not the same as the company that makes porridge.
Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL
*waves to Bev*
My sides are still aching from all the laughing we did Friday! ;o)
Girlfriend we had a ball. I'm still chuckling every time I think about all the fun we had. I meant to call Clara to wish her a safe trip home.
My point was no matter how many delegates picks up; voter apathy is low which I interpret to mean come Nov he won't win.
I misunderstood. To this point, I would have to say that it remains to be seen. I actually expect the general election to be very competitive. Democrats need to be cautious here, as voter apathy in a race for the nomination that is all but decided, may not translate to apathy in the general where the Republicans are highly motivated to change the status quo.
SI
Romney gas attack:
It's nice of NBC not to mention that oil drilling has dropped over 70% under Obama, and that Obama has placed millions of acres of oil rich areas 'off-limits' with 'executive orders'. And does anyone seriously believe that Obama's 'moratoriums' on drilling in the Gulf has not reduced supply?
It's nor hard to see where NBC stands - squarely in Obama's corner, carrying his water for him.
T.O.G. - Yes, that's the buzz - more Trumpery!
The word is that the wind turbines blocking the view at his golfing resort in Scotland, is getting the Trumpster all riled up.
A dyed in the wool Me-Me-Me-er.
So why are we still subsidizing ethanol at a time of record deficits? Why do we force refineries to close in spring to re-tool to blend more ethanol into gasoline? If the science is against it, and this is a science based Administration, why after three years has nothing happened? What exactly has Steven Chu being doing since his appointment?
Ideology - No matter how much we drill for oil now, at some point in the future,we will run out of oil.
People prefer simplistic answers to difficult truths,but when we reach the end of the line on oil, it will be too late. Other countries will hold all of the cards for clean energy.
Instead of trying to gain political points by blocking all attempts at trying to form some type of renewable energy foundation for this country to build on, I would think all of our leaders would be working together to hammer out the parameters - not to exclude oil,but to start to investigate and invest in other sources.
Even the Donald is one of Jock Tamson's bairns.
BTW Didn't Kennedy, Kerry and all the other 1%'ers protest the same thing up at Nantucket? Seems NIMBY crosses political affiliations.
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-3445_162-560595.html
@ Makes-UP-His-Own-Facts=ROY WILSON,
U.S. oil production is at an 8 year high. US gas and oil production is increasing. Our dependence on foreign oil has diminished each year of President Obama's office and is at 45%, way down from 60% in 2005.
The US is exporting oil for the first time in 60 years. Imported oil is down by 10% = down a million barrels per day in 2011.
President Obama raised fuel efficiency standards, and increased renewable energy production. We have more efficient trucks and cars on the road. We are using less and importing less, but still gas prices are going up due: to oil speculation, unrest in the middle east, and countries like China and India using more cars (one million more last year in China).
Your other 'facts' are false as well. That is why NBC didn't "mention" them.
Backhouse "Ideo, great article, thanks! Says about Algae:"
If Algae works, great, but every effort so far has been a big bust. Maybe Obama should shovel a few more $Billion of taxpayer money into it, like he did SOLYNDRA, etc.
There's a huge gap between 'theory' and 'reality' when it comes to 'alternative energy'.
I'm all for the government funding sound research on alternative fuels, but leave the 'venture capital' projects to the experts, who know the difference between 'investments' and throwing money away.
Backhouse
Trump is also affronted by truth.
Trump's new claim is that President Obama is spending 95% of his time (since he's been elected) on campaigning. Trup also claims that 95% of usage of Air Force One is for that purpose only and the taxpayer is paying for it.
Is it a prerequisite for the GOP clowns to throw out "information" out there with no solid proof? Are they this desperate or this ignorant?
DW, You are on target. The republican conservative machine is about conserving a petro world. They want nothing of a future that moves away from petroleum energies. They are totally invested in oil. It is odd but everything about the conservative movement in this country today is nostalgic. They are not forward looking at all. Their social agenda is archaic, along with their puritanical religiosity, their energy positions are retro/petro, and their notions of the world are colonial, almost a return to "manifest destiny." I wonder sometimes if they are for real, or is this all a kind of "Wizard of Oz",con game they are running on ignorant voters. "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain". It all comes down to power and control, and the old guard is clinging tenaciously, albeit futilely to the past.
ROY WILSON,
Re Algae
Republicans from Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) to Sen. Mike Johanns (R-NE) have requested Department of Energy grants for algae research. All three lawmakers wrote that algae investments would reduce America’s oil use. For instance, Johanns wrote that an algae biotechnology center “would develop technology to decrease our dependence on imported oil.”
Republican allies in the oil industry have also invested in algae, including No. 1 oil lobbyist ConocoPhillips and Exon Mobil, which sunk $600 million in algae biofuel research.
ROY WILSON-336103
Roy, there is a reason why the GOP didn't do more of their anal probing (that they love so much) into Solyndra. Ask yourself why: did GOP know there was nothing much to it or were they affraid to open the can of worms to their own pet projects?
Dennis, yes, Wilson is desperately parroting the GOP game show.
ExxonMobil and Synthetic Genomic opened a new greenhouse facility for research and testing algae biofuels in La Jolla CA: as part of their "ongoing commitment to advance breakthrough energy technologies to help address the world's long term energy challenges."
http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/energy_vehicle_algae.aspx
The Grinch/GOP Presidential candidate 'drilling versus algae' is a non-zero-zero-zero-issue. Biofuel from algae is a known source and pursued source of low emission, affordable transportation fuel.
Backhouse "Makes -UP-His Facts-ROY-WILSON, U.S. oil production is at an 8 year high. US gas and oil production is increasing."
Yes, thanks to the 80% increase in wells drilled under Bush, which took several years to produce and get to market.
Under Obama, the number of wells drilled has DROPPED by over 70%, so we can look forward to much lower production in the next few years.
THIS IS SILLY - Obama trying to take credit for increased production authorized under Bush because of the several year "Lag Factor", while ignoring his dramatic reduction in well drilling permits.
It's almost comical how the Liberals will try to 'Blame Bush' for the current state of the economy, yet try to give Obama 'credit' for the policies under Bush that are resulting in increased oil/gas production now. Just wait a few years, and we'll see how Obama's DRAMATIC decrease in well drilling affects future supply.
bayllie "Roy, there is a reason why the GOP didn't do more of their anal probing (SOLYNDRA)"
Since the Justice Department is controlled by Holder, we can expect the administration to ignore prosecutions of Obama's campaign contributing 'buddies'.
No surprise there.
Why? What makes you think our "leaders" need to be involved with this at all? The private sector is where technology advancements occur, not government.
As for the fact that we will run out of oil - it will be quite a long time from now - 50 - 100 years. To suggest that we need to reduce oil consumption now in favor of unproven technologies doesn't make any economic sense. If, and when, there is a viable alternative, then it will make sense to ween ourselves off of oil. Until that time, we must have sufficient energy around the world to keep things going.
At no point in my posts today did I mention President Bush.
The latest Bloomberg poll shows that two-thirds of Americans blame rising gas prices on: "oil companies and Middle East nations who are taking advantage of the situation to make more money..."
FACT: Under President Obama, US oil production is the highest in 8 years and are foreign oil imports are way down. The Auto Industry is back on it feet, and we've been shifting to more fuel-efficient cars.
Meanwhile, Big Oil has been closing refineries, producing less gas, exporting it and making record profits.
Dennis, Columbus, Ohio "ROY WILSON, Re Algae Republicans from Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) to Sen. Mike Johanns (R-NE) have requested Department of Energy grants for algae research"
Did you read my post re: Algae? To repeat;
"If Algae works, great,.....I'm all for the government funding sound research on alternative fuels"
I just don't want my taxpayer money 'invested' in companies run by Obama's campaign 'bunndlers', like SOLYNDRA.
ROY WILSON-336103
Yes, thanks to the 80% increase in wells drilled under Bush, which took several years to produce and get to market.
2 points:
1) we are not aloud to talk about Bush (the past is the past, remember?)
2) Why did gas prices hit up $4.50 under Bush (breaking the rule here) under this oil-friendly president? The Bush/Cheney duo was in the oil business so why high prices?
I know you will tell me oil was $1.84 when Bush left the office blah, blah, blah but that was due to the stock market hitting the rock bottom.
January 4, 2008 $97.91
January 11, 2008 $92.69
January 25, 2008 $90.71
February 1, 2008 $88.96
February 8, 2008 $91.77
February 15, 2008 $95.50
February 29, 2008 $101.84
March 14, 2008 $110.21
March 28, 2008 $105.62
April 4, 2008 $106.23
April 18, 2008 $116.69
May 2, 2008 $116.32
May 16, 2008 $126.29
May 30, 2008 $127.35
June 6, 2008 $138.54
June 13, 2008 $134.86
June 27, 2008 $140.21
July 4, 2008 $145.29
July 11, 2008 $145.08
August 1, 2008 $125.10
August 8, 2008 $115.20
August 15, 2008 $113.77
August 29, 2008 $115.46
September 12, 2008 $101.18
October 3, 2008 $93.88
October 17, 2008 $71.85
October 31, 2008 $67.81
November 14, 2008 $57.04
November 28, 2008 $54.43
December 12, 2008 $46.28
December 31, 2008 $44.60
see the pattern?
Like many large states, Illinois has 3 large disparate groups. Cook County is slightly to the left of Moscow. Democrats, unions, victims. Some working class that have not been driven out by crappy schools and high taxes. Some ultra wealthy that do not care. Probably not many voters in tomorrow's primary. Pretty Catholic, so that could help Santorum.
Suburbs are still solidly mainstream GOP. Normally Romney country, but evangelicals/tea party folks are tired of business as usual could help Santorum.
Downstate is conservative red state. Ignored by the media and the pollsters. Very rural, with a few college towns thrown in.
Too close too call.
my boys can swim
Feisty,
How was the St paddy's parade in Chicago? Was the river colored green?
Not only was the Chicago river green so was the fountain in front of the White House.
http://obamadiary.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/x61036.jpg?w=655
That is what happens when you have a half Irish President in the White House.
Video from our Chicago River on St. Patrick's day.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/videogallery/68878525/News/Video-Chicago-River-going-green-for-St-Patrick-s-Day
Clara KC went to the parade. I can tell you it was wild even though I didn't go because the leprechauns were partying in my neck of the woods until the wee wee hours of the morning. It was wild!!!
Pics from our St. Patrick's day 2012 downtown parade.
Enjoy
http://chicago.metromix.com/content_image/full/2501284/518/370
http://chicago.metromix.com/content_image/full/2501285/518/370
http://chicago.metromix.com/content_image/full/2501287/518/370
http://chicago.metromix.com/content_image/full/2501294/518/370
http://chicago.metromix.com/content_image/full/2501310/518/370
http://chicago.metromix.com/content_image/full/2501303/518/370
http://chicago.metromix.com/content_image/full/2501306/518/370
http://chicago.metromix.com/content_image/full/2501329/518/370
http://chicago.metromix.com/content_image/full/2501322/518/370
Yesterday, ABC's This Week, hosted by Jonathan Karl, was pretty over the top for whoppers left unchallenged, IMO. Especially on the issue of gasoline prices. The host, Karl, began a discussion on gasoline prices citing two newspaper articles, one from the WSJ and the other, a piece in the NYT's.
The WSJ article, No Relief in Sight at Pump, by Jerry A. DiColo, states several reasons for the high cost of gasoline. The reasons include refineries closing/idled on the East Coast, geopolitical problems and yes, speculators. Here are two excepts:
A must read for those having a hard time with facts on why the price of gas at the pump is high.
Great posts Baillie, thanks!
Dennis,
When you consider how much research went into creating new technologies like the Internet and Computers, how much investment was involved. Some of the projects went forward and some of it did not. That is how those ideas were successfully evolved.
If a person tattooed all the thousands of research projects the U.S. has invested in on his backside -- just the ones that fell by the wayside in a long process:
You wouldn't see the word 'Solyndra' through the hundred pounds of Ink on their arse.
You are one serious hypocrite, Joe. Everybody KNOWS how the republicans have been so ticked off that they lost to Obama that they have voted down every bill they could and filibustered bill after bill just to make the president seem ineffectual and deliver him his "Waterloo".
In otherwords, the president has not been trying to rule and the article does NOT imply that. He has tried to work with the republicans and rather than the republicans working with him they have used his reluctance to be a jerk (as they have been behaving) against him.
Anyone who has a couple of functional neurons to rub together can see that they have voted "no" to win their political game and the health and happiness of the average American citizen be damned.
Spare us your typical obsessive, right wing extremist, hogwash.
David, again you show your financial ignorance with almost beyond ridiculous comments regarding Bain or capitalists. Bain or any private equity or hedge fund is investing other institutional money. So Bain is making money for your buddies the union pension plans not pulling capital out for themselves. There are hundreds of billions of dollars just sitting waiting to be invested in companies, technology, real estate etc where the investors can produce adequate returns for their investment. There are plenty of green energy funds where high risk and high reward investments are made. The problem is that until green energy or any similar companies can prove or show that they can produce cash flow, they wont attract the capital. There is no Robert Ludlum style black helicopter new UN world Order conspiracy by the GOP and oil companies to prevent investments. You guys including Backhouse sound crazier than the Unabomber with your silly notions of corporations taking over the world.
If alternative energy investments made financial sense, trillions of dollars would flow into that business sector and we would have a boom. Was ATT or any of the phone companies or retailers able to prevent the internet investment boom in the late 90s from destroying their business models and as money just flew into those companies. The same thing would happen now and the oil companies could do nothing about it if these investments made sense. It shows Obama's lack of financial acumen in that he thinks the government can create the investment boom. He wants to drive up the cost of gas by stopping drilling and reduce oil, gas, coal usage here which he hopes will make green energy alternatives and investment more attractive. He just doesnt understand the unintended financial and economic consequences and that government cant create the market. I cant tell at times if he really is that clueless or his idealogy like yours is just too strong to overcome the experience and knowledge of others to explain why he is wrong.
Feisty and Beverly!
Thanks so much, ladies, for hosting us in your wonderful city! We had a BLAST Friday and I am still cracking up over the conversation and camaraderie! And Feisty, thanks again for the wonderful Corned Beef and Cabbage on Saturday - Girlfriend can COOK!
Bev, we were down amongst the revelers all day Saturday; but didn't technically see the parade, however we were RIGHT there when the river was dyed!
I cannot wait until my return!
Lunch with the President on Friday was AWESOME, too! lol - there is nothing quite like a car picnic!
myboyscanswim..apparently, they can't. And I thought everyone knew penquins can swim-they just can't fly! At least, it was obvious to me... ;-)
Kirk do not be naive enough to say that corporations will not try and stop progression. If it will disrupt profits they will try their best to eitehr stop change or atleast delay it until they can figure a way to profit it from it.
The whole thing with Baine, I will not say they remove capital from the economy, but I would find it foolish to say the add caiptal. They may save some businesses but IMO it probably at best leads to a zero sum game.
ROY WILSON-336103
I'm sorry, is Darrell Issa also "buddies" with the Obama administration? Because Darrell Issa attended fundraiser held by Solyndra lobbyist. Issa was featured on the invitation to a fundraiser in Washington for Mitt Romney's presidential campaign co-hosted by Alex Mistri of the Glover Park Group, a lobbyist for Solyndra.
Issa was also in charge of investigating Solyndra as chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform - investigation that went nowhere.
So again Roy, is the GOP unable to find something on Obama/Solyndra or they choose not to because they have something to hide?
Cynbad,...
I thought that was a re-reg of a BANNED poster! No doubt the conspiracy theories will commence!
Backhouse
Thank you, and I enjoy reading your posts. They are excellent.
I love all the Roy Wilsons as well. They put out their " information" out there and when you challenge them, they dance around the answers like cute, little ballerinas.
What are you smoking?
Rubio is of Cuban descent. Puerto Rican- Americans vote differently than do Cuban- Americans, so don't count any chickens based on the primary in Puerto Rico.
You got that right Bayllie, and I might add it is low-information. For what these narrow-minded folks fail to see concerning Solyndra is that we should have doubled-down on our investment into American solar companies. Instead, we let them fail, which basically turns over, what was once American, an entire industry to the Chinese. And now, when the world turns up its reliance on solar, it is the Chinese that will reap the trillions in the market they cornered, with America left in the dust.
Yes, Roy usually provides raw data with false conclusions... add a little logic, analysis, and trends and they tell a different and truer story...
For instance: Roy claims Bush's unemployment averaged 5+% while Obama's is more like 9%. While that is true, the real story is that Bush pushed it to near 10 or 11% and Obama's policies have helped bring it back to 8%... a different and truer story.
but I digress...
When I saw the headline: "A squeaker may be shaping up for GOP race in Illinois", I couldn't decide which candidate was the "squeaker"... Ron Paul? He squeaks.
Kirk,
You apparently don't understand the power of an oil industry. Algea is a substitute product to oil. Do you really think that the oil industry will allow ANYTHING to take it's place?
The threat of substitution in an industry affects the competitive environment for the firms in that industry and influences those firms’ ability to achieve profitability. The availability of a substitution threat effects the profitability of an industry because consumers can choose to purchase the substitute instead of the industry’s product. This is basic business strategy stuff. Don't have to have a Ph.D. in Business to know it.
I find it absolutely sickening and totally PATHETIC that you losers would resort to such tactics. How desperate and fearful you have become!
I also find it interesting that you losers say there is no need for voter ID laws... what you propose here IS voter fraud! You make me sick!
(show me the clown nose, fisty!)
SickOfTheBickering -
This is just a suggestion, but perhaps if you didn't keep referring to the opposition as pathetic losers and telling them how sick they make you, one or two people might actually be more likely to believe that you truly ARE sick of the bickering. I'm just sayin'.....
It isn't voter fraud to vote the candidate that pleases you, regardless of your motivation. Voter ID laws would be pointless.
Dearest JoAnne...
I am not really sick of the bickering... you see... I am employing something call sarcasm in the choice of my name... you are obviously not quick enough to pick up on that ;-)
And regarding my post above, I find it interesting that you only focus on my name calling, and not my disdain for the deplorable tactics of your pathetic party! HAHAHAH!
Have a nice day, nonetheless!
--------------------------------------------------------
BTW RedDev,
It is obvious that the libbies are AFRAID of what is coming. That is why they do underhanded crap like this. They do all they can to cause chaos in the rank of they opponents because they are AFRAID of what will happen when the other side unifies. Well I hate to tell you losers, but one the right DOES settle on a candidate, we will all stand behind him. (and your butts are toast!)
---------------------------------------------
(show me the clown nose, fisty!)
You got that right driver! lol
You are always welcome at Feisty's 'casa'!
Glad you made it home safe & sound even if you did take a detour! ;o)
SickOfTheBickering
It's hard to bicker with you on this one. I'm against ANYONE or ANYTHING that "games" the system.
That means I'm against:
cross-voting in primaries,
pretending to be TV and/or radio "news" while being bought and paid-for,
non-transparent Super-PACs and their overwhelming ability to shape elections,
suppression of votes through falsely charged voter identification laws,
lobbyists in general,
and blatant lying in political ads.
It could be said that neither party cab gripe about the other's tactics.
We know SOB .. when democrats do it, it is underhanded, when republicans do it, it is above-board and respectable and most of all, the American way.
Romney responded to his Puerto Rico win: "Those people who don't think Latinos will vote for a Republican need to take a look in Puerto Rico
======================
What Mutt fails to tell you is that over half of all PRs receive some form of government handout. So I guess they realize if they vote rethugli-con Mutt would be the their best bet for continued government lagress.
But then Mutt also had his individual mandated health care reform in MA that Obamacare was modeled after. Mutt still thinks his was good but Obama's is bad. That seems to be the main characteristic of the rethugli-con field this year: it's ok for the rigt to do something but it isn't ok for the left to do the EXACT same thing.
BTW----Mitt Romney is a liar.
----------------------------------------------
ROY WILSON-336103
There's a huge gap between 'theory' and 'reality' when it comes to 'alternative energy'
Roy,
Do you do anything thinking before you post? Based on the majority of your posting I'd wager not. In almost every major endeavor there is a hugh gap between 'theory' and 'reality'. One example, the atom bomb. It took lots of money and years to develop but it worked, ended WW2 sooner and saved an estimated million American casualties.
'Alternative energy' isn't going to happen over night (you need to get off television reality---things don't get done in an hour or two) and it will cost money but in the end it will work.
Romney/Rubio eh?
You do realize the only Latino votes Rubio will pull will be from those segments of the Hispanic population who traditionally vote GOP, right? The Cubans always break for the GOP, other than that the Latin vote will go Democrat, as always.
Puerto Rico is a lovely place and the people are friendly and charming. My wife and I enjoyed our brief stop there during our last Carribbean Cruise and we'd love to go back for a longer visit.
Since we snatched Puerto Rico from Spain way back in 1898 we should either make them the 51st state or give them their independence. In either case, or perhaps the third choice is things remain the same, but whatever the future of Puerto Rico should be decided by the Puerto Rican people.
Mr. Santorum, Spanish is the NATIVE LANGUAGE of Puerto Rico although most Puerto Rican speak better English than youl. Puerto Rico was part of the Spanish colonial holdings we snatched during the Spanish American War of 1898, along with Cuba, including Quantanamo, and the Phillipines. We gave Cuban (except for Quantanamo) back to the Cubans and the Phillipines back to the Philipinos, don't you think it's about time we let the Puerto Ricans decide their own future?
I'd welcome them as the 51st State.
And for heaven's sake give Quantanmo back to the Cubans. sheesh.
Obama/Biden 2012
The campaign season is really starting to become interesting. The Democrat bloggers are campaigning on 'bad' Republicans. The Republican bloggers are campaigning on 'bad' Democrats.
Ron Paul supports are attempting to show the merits of their candidate. Obama supporters are defending their candidate's record. No one is actually supporting or defending Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, or Newt Gingrich.
Mitt Romney is campaigning on boxing analogies, math, and inevitability.
Rick Santorum is campaigning on wedge issues and trying to define 'true' conservatism.
Newt Gingrich is campaigning on being a 'spoiler' and the standard bearer for 'establishment' conservatism.
Ron Paul is campaigning on converting America to the Eurozone with no central government, no central bank, and no military.
Barack Obama is beginning to campaign on what he has accomplished and defending his record.
As the summer progresses - the candidate that becomes the leader will be the one that has a positive outlook on America's future and a believable narrative that America can move forward. The outcome of this election will not be about wedge issues or which party is 'worse'. Americans are ready to move forward - not backward. Americans don't care about big government or small government - they care about where the country is headed. America is tired of 'slogging' - tired of 'status quo' - tired of 'principled stances'. America is ready to create and celebrate success.
Not what I said... but go right ahead and put words in my mouth. (as usual you are unable to actually understanding anything written by someone other than a flaming liberal.) Sad!
(show me the clown nose, fisty!)
bayllie "2) Why did gas prices hit up $4.50 under Bush"
Because oil hit $145 per barrel in July, 2008 because of international tensions in the Middle East- DUH
As for Darrell Issa, he brought hearings to expose the close relationship between Obama and SOLYNDRA's campaign bundler/owner, which he did. Issa cannot bring actual charges - that's the job of Holder's Justice Department, who will no doubt drag out the process until after he leaves office to protect Obama.
Deja Vu, yup that pretty much sums it up. Different day, same pandering, still nothing of any real substance. Lower taxes on the richest to non-existant, bomb some sh** in the dessert, gay people are bad, women are bad, immigrants are bad, corporations are good...
Seriously, I can not fathom how so many people have yet to see through this load of bs.
Baylie--you probably should get a PHD in economics because your conspiracy theories just dont make any sense. First do you really think that the oil companies are more powerful that the phone companies, travel industry or retailers who were significantly impacted by the internet but couldnt stop it? Do you really think the Wall Street types you probably hate would intentionally not make money and avoid investing in algae if it had a higher yield than oil? Or do you really think the countries who have no oil reserves basically all of Europe avoid investing and developing alternative green energy and investing their billions if it made financial sense because the US oil companies told them to stop it or else. All of you progressives constantly question the intellect of people who vote GOP but just pause for the moment and stop and critically think instead of just parroting the party line and ask yourself how logical is it that green energy wouldnt attract trillions of private capital if at the moment it made financial sense. There is nothing wrong with Obama doing what Reagan did and create tax incentives for research and development but he was smart enough to let the private side through the workings of the market decide who wins or loses. Obama thinks he can pick the winners and losers--sort of like letting him decide Betamax or VHS and see how that turned out.
Sarah--you seem like a reasonably intelligent person so you have to know you are embellishing your comments and to what purpose? First, both parties bomb whatever in the dessert and have since the beginning of time. Thats all Obama does is bomb from drones including US citizens. Obama is against gay marriage so not sure how you reconcile that. There is a huge difference between being prolife or being against certain government intrusions on religion and thinking women are bad. I assume you dont believe all people who own guns are bad just because you are anti gun. I assume you want governtment out of your body but you have no problem intruding on religious issues. By the way I am pro choice and anticatholic so its more about respecting the opinions than supporting them. I also dont think being for immigration reform including stopping the border as anti immigrant. By the way, corporations are good unless you hate Coca Cola, Mcdonalds, all the drugs that make you well. Corporations employ millions and help make us a better country and using a few bad apples to spin or embellish doesnt change the underlying benefits. As for taxes, its a perfectly reasonable position to want the wealthy to pay a progressive rate or even to ask our seniors who are living on dividends, interest and capital gains to pay a higher rate than they are, but stop acting like the wealthy dont pay all the tax currently unless you see social security as welfare and the payroll tax isnt their retirement contribution.
If your load of BS eliminated the hyperbole and embellishments and stuck the issues and facts, we could make some progress.
Sarah:
You lucky person, you have been granted "reasonably intelligent person" status by Kirk. You must be dancing with joy.
It looks as though he has been to see the word doctor and has gotten an "embellishment" refill.
And yes, if you could eliminate the hyperbole and embellishments you could make some progress, which is to say you would fully agree with everything Kirk says, even though what he writes is virtually incomprehensible to all but the most muddled of minds.
Priceless .. comparing development of alternate energy sources, something critical to the continuation of the country, to the capitalistic 'war' between Betamax vs. VSH. Some say 'money makes the world go 'round', some say oil, one says movies.
LMarcT "Yes, Roy usually provides raw data with false conclusions... add a little logic, analysis, and trends and they tell a different and truer story..."
What you call 'a little logic, analysis, and trends' is what most people call 'spin'.
Thanks for the laugh.
Personaly, I think that overall records over 8, or even 30 years are a bit more indicative of a President's performance than your 'spin' about what may have happened on 'x' date - using your criteria, people might assume that FDR did a pretty bad job based on what happened on December 7, 1941.
David, sorry that my posts are above your comprehension level aimed at personal attacks and idealogical opinion based partisan hatred. I prefer to actually have a discussion of the issues than flame throwing attacks that serve no purpose. Have you noticed that at least 5 of your last responses to me are personal attacks rather than any critically thought out counter or reply. If you disagree that Bain is making billions for your union pension funds and that there are billions in investment funds waiting to invest in green energy no different than the internet boom, then dispute me.
Did I tell Sarah something wrong? Is Obama's stated position not against gay marriage so does that mean her comment was meant for the BS put forth by the democrats? Come on David, I am happy to have a discussion with you where you can prove me wrong and I promise I wont even call you some brilliant name that is meant to create laughter with the Fiesty crowd.
Sick Of... The Republicans in the last primaries here in Texas were instructing their voters to vote in the Democratic primary to keep it going so the eventual winner would be weaker and easier to defeat. Seems a little hypocritical now that it is Dems doing it it's wrong and evil. Get off it it's an open primary and anyone can vote in any parties primary.
Sarah-3043284 " Lower taxes on the richest to non-existant, bomb some sh** in the dessert"
Personally I enjoy digging into my dessert (I like chocolate ice cream), but I'd hate to clean up the mess if it blew up.
You sound like a man-hater. Did you have some bad experiences?
Kirk,
Pertaining to women, here's a little something I call the "Female Agenda"...
1. To be able to sleep with a man, if I so desire, without facing scorn or judgment.
2. To have access to affordable/dependable BC and sexual/reproductive health services.
3. If I fall victim to rape/assault/harassment, to have access to justice that is equivalent to the crime committed against me and trust in my society that I will be safe if I come forward.
4. If I fall on hard times, most likely due to being a single parent (child support is surprisingly easy to dodge), to have access to reasonable programs that will assist me in regaining my feet and protecting my children.
5. To be paid the same as a male with an equivalent work/educational history, and job. Also, to have access to recourse against employers who fail to do this.
6. If I find myself scared, alone, and pregnant, to be able to make a decision that effects my body and my life (and only MY body and MY life only) without being subjected to name calling or vitriolic, religious based hate. Or any hate for that matter. Specifically from people who have never been in my shoes. And most importantly, to have the same right to make decisions about my body and the same right to privacy as a man.
That's it. Is it really so outrageous of us to ask for these things from our society that we contribute to? Find me a Republican who's position doesn't contradict every item on this list, and I'll consider voting for him/her. Until than, don't tell me the GOP has my gender's best interests at heart.
Pertaining to the economy...
The deficit??? Get real. Romney's tax plan, according to Forbes, would add 3 trillion to the deficit, over the course of 10 years. Not to be out done, Gingrich's would add 1 trillion, in a single year. And Santorum's would have federal revenues declining by about 900 billion by 2015.
According to the CBO, on average our discretionary budget is about 1.35 trillion. Our defense spending is about 1.45 tillion. And, of course, approximately 1.56 trillion on entitlements.
So, basically, if you wanted to offset Romney's or Santorum's revenue decreases with spending cuts, we would have to not spend a single dime. On anything. And Gingrich's, well that wouldn't even be possible.
Now, put this all together with these three guys crying for more war in the middle east, how on earth, would we pay for it? What's their plan for getting out of Afganistan? Not one of them has given any details or provided any kind of plan in regards to the war we already have going, yet here they are talking about starting a second. Like two wars and tax cuts worked so well the first time around?
And yes, let's talk about healthcare. We all know they hate "Obamacare", but how would they fix the system we have? The system that sucks the life and finances, literally, out of both the insured and the uninsured. Besides repealing AHA, what would they do to stop the racket which is our health industry?
And, since they all hate spending so much, how do they propose we fix our infrastructure and education? Wave magic wands???
What about Wall St? How are they going to reform and regulate the big banks so as to keep this crap from happening again? What's their plan in regards to Dodd-Frank vs. Glass-Stegall?
What do these three suggest we do about China's currency manipulation, or the fact that they have MFN without abiding by the fair tariff policy? How are they going to compete with China's cheap labor market to bring jobs back here? Those corporations you love so much, yeah they employ millions, IN CHINA. And you're right, corporations aren't bad. However, affording them greater legal consideration, representation, and rights, in other words, treating them like human beings, well that is.
Pertaining to immigrants...
Anyway, since we're all so concerned about following the law and none of us want to be hypocrits, we're all willing to spend $12,500 per "illegal" in order to deport them the legal way and follow the rule of law, correct? That means $12,500 x 11,000,000, equaling about two years of HLS's annual budget.
And, since we're all so concerned with the law and immigration, we know that 1996 Welfare Reform disqualified illegal immigrants from means tested assistance, right? And that immigrated here legally takes about eight years and is limited to those who have the means to navigate the beaurocracy and are already established professionals, right?
And knowing what a huge deal money is, I'm sure we've all studied up on this and know that the SSN numbers used by illegal immigrants have been ruled by SCOTUS to not constitute identity theft per se, and that the IRS assigns ITIN numbers to collect pay roll taxes from everyone regardless of immigration status, right? And that, the money collected from those ITIN numbers doesn't get claimed, ergo it is used on citizens, right? Oh yes, and that 8 out of 11 million undocumented workers file personal income taxes, right?
And, can any of you please explain to me, why this outrage isn't directed at EVERYONE who cheats on their taxes each year? Why not go after them with such veracity?
Oh, wait, I know... It isn't as easy for politicians to pander and created big scary, wedge issues out of the majority or those who resemble the majority, duh.
So, in light of the truth, please show me a Republican candidate who makes any sense regarding immigration.
Pertaining to Muslims, voter ID's, and poor people...
Spying on citizens (Muslims)? How are the TP backed laws, like those that place unwarranted suspicion on Muslims, Mexicans, and poor people, i.e. drug testing without probable cause, infiltrated religious organizations without probable cause, and holding people indefinitly until THEY prove THEIR innocent (Alabama's immigration law), limiting government??? As well as allowing for states to violate the supremacy clause and invade the jurisdiction of the Federal government laid out in our Constitution???
Voter ID's??? I've never said we didn't have a reason to indentify people who are voting, I said we didn't have an uber compelling state reason to INCREASE identification standards. Can you find me one, just one, non-partisan study that found a voter fraud rate higher than 1%? You can't. The current rate according to every federal investigation and non-partisan study shows it to be about .0002%, which is completely negligible. So what's the reason, that passes strict scrutiny, for making ID's for voting harder?
So yes, Democrats aren't great, but they're a hell of a lot better than what I see coming from the right.
Everyone Else,
Sorry this was so long.
Roy,
You sound like the "creepy internets dude." That's all.
Kirk,
Anyone who has ever tried to have a conversation with you realizes it is futile. If you were capable of critical thinking, we would try to have a conversation with you. But as people on this Vine have told you time and time and time again, your arguments are circular. And nonsensical.
Well, bickering...Rush Limbaugh actively promoted the "voter fraud" that dirp101 is promoting during the Obama/Clinton primary in 2008 - and even took credit for the idea (though it's been done in open primaries long before the fat klan-man "thought" of it). It's nice to see that you have joined our side and, to avoid any appearance of blatant hypocrisy, will be joining us in boycotting all companies that advertise on Rush's little aryan-nations propaganda show.
ROY WILSON-336103
Issa has a history of blending his personal business interests with his work as a member of Congress like the companies owned by the Issa family, including a firm called DEI (an acronym for Issa’s initials), for which he secured a $1 million earmark.
or
Issa began requesting millions of dollars worth of earmarks to widen and improve the highway adjacent to Vista Medical Center, which also owns.
or
He earmarked another $570K, bringing his total to $815,000, to add parking lots, widen the road, add bus stops, improve the sewer system, and other utility work.
Issa is a self-made multimillionaire with a net worth estimated at almost $450 million, making him one of the wealthiest members of Congress.
The twice arrested (never convicted) on illegal weapons charge, Issa?
Issa who was accused of repeatedly using his public office for personal financial gain? Issa's office rejected the allegations and the Office of Congressional Ethics has not responded publicly to the complaint.
I can keep going on, Roy. The point is that if you are going to complain about a politician spending taxpayers money improperly, be fair. Apparently, Issa has -as you put it - "no doubt drag out the process."
And again, what has the GOP proven with Solyndra because you have not answered that AGAIN? Let's assume that DoJ is dragging its feet - it still doesn't prevent the GOP to expose the smoking gun but I guess all the proof is hidden with the
Kirk, you err when you say my attacks are based on ideological (that's the correct spelling, by the way) opinion based hatred, whatever that is.
I just hate you. You see, it is impossible to reason with someone who comes to an argument with preconceived notions that are utterly without foundation. As an example, you have referred twice now to my union pension funds. I have never belonged to a union in my life.
As another instance, I would point to the millions of dollars Romney holds as personal wealth. That's not capital? What the hell is it, pixie dust?
By now, it should be obvious that most people avoid tangling with you. That is not attributable to your intellectual prowess, which you erroneously believe to be the case. It is because what you write is all too frequently tangled and incomprehensible, and is based on discredited - dare I say it? - ideology.
Nope, this has nothing to do with my beliefs, I just hate stupidity.
If by chance you should have a moment, could you enlighten me on bombing desserts. Is that what you get when a waiter asks what the diner would like for dessert, and the diner says, "Oh, just surprise me."
Reddev--that must be one of the most outlandish statements ever made by a progressive. You equate the development of green energy sources as crucial to the continuation of the country? So if Obama isnt successful what do you think will happen, the US will not survive? You must not think very highly of all the other countries in the world who are unlikely to develop green energy or even have their own energy sources today? So if France were to figure it out, somehow the US will disappear? Or if, 100 trillion more barrels of oil are discovered eliminating the need for green energy, the US will disappear? Oh global warming you say, read Superfreakinomics maybe some facts will help you. If you didnt like the beta max example, should I have used Eastman Kodak?
Jack and David, again thanks for proving your true colors, avoid addressing any substantive issue and personally attack me. Jack you for one have never had a substantive discussion with me outside of your attacks so deflecting by creating this false circular reasoning BS doesnt cut it. David, first you didnt mention Romney in your post, you mentioned Bain and you do you want to discuss investment in Green energy and investment strategy and politics or spew hatred towards Romney. I was addressing your point and you deflect with personal attacks. This is only about your beliefs regardless of your attempt to deflect by trying to create intellectual issues for me. You can call me stupid all you want, it doesnt change the facts when I prove you wrong or provide the critical thinking behind the issue and your ideological based venom.
ROY WILSON-336103
... we're here to entertain... you're very welcomed.
Now wait a minute. Let me restate what just happened and see if I got this right... You provide raw data that represents "instants in time". I suggest we add analysis, logic, and trending data (which says take a bigger view), and you call it spin... but then you tell me that the larger the picture the better? I don't get it. Too slow I guess....
Do I win an award? Is it the K-w-irk-y Award?
Kirk,
Not at all true. I did try, and you took what I said and twisted it all around backwards. It was so convoluted that I sat there for a long moment wondering whether you were trying to be provocative, or whether it simply reflected the way your mind worked. To your credit, I came to the conclusion that you were being sincere. Unfortunately, it didn't speak well of you in another way. . . .
As David noted above: "it is impossible to reason with someone who comes to an argument with preconceived notions that are utterly without foundation." That describes exactly my experience with you.
Finally, Fiesty said about a week ago that she had given up trying to have a conversation with you because your reasoning is circular. Also true, and reflective of David's comment that you come to an argument with preconceived notions. It is your inability to put aside those preconceived notions that make it a waste of time to have a discussion with you because it doesn't go anywhere--except in circles.
How the hell did I miss this by ROY WILSON.
ROY, so the tensions in the Middle East are over in 2012????????????????
According to Roy:
2008 - gas prices are high because of tensions in ME.
2012 - gas prices are high because of Obama.
Roy Wilson - you're wrong - whether intentional or not, I don't know. Oil production under President Obama is at the highest level it has been in the last 8 years. Next?
Kirk,
If you understand economics to the level you claim, you would understand there could be many reasons why even if algae was a better source for fuel/energy than oil why it is currently not being used. Large changes like a switch of fuel source have large start up cost. In the case for algae it could easily be the cost of developing the technology (in the short term) is greater than the cost of sticking with oil (in the short term). This easy to understand phenomenom would easily explain why countries like France would shy away. Since you like entertainment examples, think of HD TVs. They used to be expensive now they are cheap.
I like to give numbers (fake of course) incase people don't understand. Lets say over 100 years the cost of supplying fuel with oil is 5 trillion dollars and the cost of algae is 3 trillion obviously algae is the correct choice. However supplying with oil is flat across the 100 years so that would amount to 50 billion a year.
The cost of algae is 2 trillion the first 20 years but 1 trillion over the next 80. So for those first 20 it comes out to 100 billion dollars a year. but is only 12.5 billion come year 21.
I won't go into crazy details like NPV and interest rates and things like that I just want to make the point what incentive is there for someone in office or at the head of a company to double their cost to make huge profits in 20 years? There is none the benefits are simply to far away.
The only reason we ever heard of this stuff was suddenly as the price of oil shot up as it was a few years ago the algae alternative does not look as bad. Its very simple and I only used concepts from my econ 101 class.
Sarah, thanks for your post. There is alot maybe even most of statements or views in your reply that I agree with. Not sure that I believe that the GOP or democratic party can be so easily labeled as being for or against those issues. In most cases its alot more gray or nuanced but I can easily understand why someone would vote for a certain candidate based on those beliefs. That said, I would hope you would listen and respect opinions or positions of others who dont feel the same. For example, none of the GOP in Illinois or at least near Chicago have conservative social issue views. I personally cant stand many of the GOP conservative social issue platform views. As you know, President Obama is against gay marriage but you obviously forgive him for that and still vote for him. Put aside Santorum, the GOP candidates dont care who you are sleeping with and contraceptives are and always will be free or readily available so thats a non issue. Dont think rape, safety net or discrimination in the work place is a political party issue. The safety net has increased and will never go back and you know it. Do you really believe that Obama in 3 years if he has his economic recovery is going to cut government assistance back to where it started before the recession. Same for discrimination, there are so many laws on the books, its already incredibly easy for the trial lawyers to sue at the slightest provacation. Woman make up more than half of law schools, med schools, business schools and they make just as much or more than men at every level until they start dropping. You know the reasons. Can it be better and will it? Absolutely but the GOP nor democrats have any say in that. So at least here in Illinois, there are plenty of us who get behind each of those and plenty in office.
As for Romney's plan, he is doing exactly what Obama did in 08 and you know it. Its called campaigning and pandering for votes. Obama made a ton of outlandish promises and claims during his campaign remember that he didnt even try to live up to. Some right wingers on here post that list all the time. I personally could care less because its not the promises that have no chance of being passed its about the approach and financial positions that the president will take. I am sure Obama didnt plan on having $1.5 trillion annual deficits for as long as can be forecasted. Do you remember all the promises he made to get votes? He will make more so focusing on the details is like the people who focus on Obama not getting unemployment down below 8%. I could care less its more about whether his policies will work or not. So to me the issue is whether Romney is focused on reforming the tax code to eliminate the loopholes and make it fair, simpler and progressive and hopefully reducing the rates to do this and still raise income. You could keep the top rate at 20% and eliminate all deductions and increase revenue because the average effective rate is below 20%. So I would not be for tax cuts to the only people who are paying tax anyway which would be a mistake but I dont think Romney will really do that. I hope we do revise or adjust or add on to Obamacare to address the expense side of the equation otherwise it will eventually be repealed. You already saw that the latest CBO report has it costing 900 billion more than Obama originally claimed and it will only get worse. But I am not against the individual mandate, it just didnt go far enough. As for education reform, dont blame the GOP for that as you know who is standing in the way of education reform and closing the education gap and the biggest driver of income inequality. China is a tough one because I agree with some of it but its not so easy to say fix the currency manipulation and bring the jobs back. First, globalization goes both ways. So when Apple or GM sell overseas they are benefiting workers both in foreign countries and creating employment here. Manufacturing in China has also allowed us to keep inflation down and productivity high again creating employment in the US. Can you imagine the inflation and the recession far worse than this one if we all of sudden increased costs to reflect the labor distortion in order to bring jobs back. I am not even sure it would balance or be a positive so thats much more nuanced and certainly not a democrat vs GOP issue.
Immigration--I agree with alot but some of what you say is clearly distorted. Very few illegal immigrants are paying personal income taxes as they would need to make above 50k and if they have a family much more but they could pay payroll and sales tax. This issue is far more nuanced than the political posturing by either party and yes you are correct, sending them back isnt an answer but neither is doing nothing and not protecting our borders. In addition, illegal immigration is a big factor is depressing wages and eliminating union and middle class jobs and causing additional income inequality so its not a zero sum game here. I dont see either party doing much to advance the ball productively on this issue.
Voter ID laws are a losing issue for democrats regardless of fraud discovered. First, you cant tell because how do you really know how many dead people, felons or illegal immigrants have voted in Illinois? Happens frequently and I would bet for every person that is disenfranchised (seriously how many people cant get an ID or figure it out) there is a person who shouldnt be voting. So to me the democrats are the losers on this issue because it defies common sense to try and act like most people cant get a picture Id when one is required for far more things than voting.
I understand why you feel the way you do and I respect your views on voting for the issues. I just wish others were so eloquent in thier support. In past elections, I have used the same method and voted for the independent candidate--John Anderson in 1980, the democratic candidate and president Bill Clinton both terms and Kerry against Bush the second term. At other times, because of the importance I placed on economic policy I voted for Reagan second term, unfortunately for Bush the first term and McCain last election. If Romney is the GOP candidate then the economy wins out and he is a pragmatist on social issues and I vote for him. If Santorum wins, then I probably dont waste my time going to the polls. So unlike others who love to personally attack rather than debate or discuss the issues, I would rather talk about issues rather than tell me how great Obama is or Romney is.
Establishment Republicans like Jeb Bush have already stated why they are not getting behind these candidates (though the Bush Sr. support Romney as the lesser of evils). Jeb said the Party has gone too far to the Right.
Tim Pawlenty, Chris Christie, etc. also back Romney as the lesser of evils (probably Mitch Daniels too), but voting against other candidates is not an enthusiastic vote, just as in the general and voting against President Obama rather than voting FOR someone they really believe in.
The rest of the field, including VP speculations like Bob McDonnell, who is just as much a religious radical as Santorum, or Nikki Haley, even Marco Rubio, and Haley Barbour himself have been flawed by recent scandal and controversy. I can't think of one Republican who would be a good candidate for POTUS (let alone VP) right now.
bayllie
So you dislike Issa - Whoop de doo. I doubt that he has nearly as much influence as Obama.
When I talk about long term results, I'm talking about things like this;
The election this year will focus on whether we can afford 4 more years of Obama.
Here are the Deficit figures for the last 5 Presidents - with a link to the official government source to verify;
Reagan (1981-1988) = $1.339 Trillion over 8 years, or $167 Billion per year.
Bush 1 (1989-1992) = $933 Billion over 4 years, or $233 Billion per year.
Clinton (1993-2000) = $320 Billion over 8 years, or $40 Billion per year.
Bush 2 (2001-2008) = $2.006 Trillion over 8 years, or $251 Billion per year.
Obama (2009-2012p) = $5.453 Trillion (Proj) over first 4 years, or $1,363 Billion per year. That's $4.6 Trillion more than Bush spent in his first 4 years.
If Obama is reelected, he projects another $5 Trillion of Deficits in the next 4 years, or over $10 Trillion which our children and grandchildren will have as a 'millstone' around their necks for their
entire lives. Running up huge debts is a great way to 'pander for votes', but somebody will have to pay it back (our children) - with interest.
Here's the official government link - See Table 1.3;
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
Akeem, I agree with you and have no problems with economics discussed in that fashion. If that were the points being made, I would respect those opinions and potentially agree (I dont know enough about algae to make an informed statement). But the comments were all personal attacks against Bain and making claims that they just pull money out of the system or conspiracy theories that make fiction novels or white militia pamphlets look tame. In Bain's case, it all depends on the investment criteria for a certain fund and you could be right that Bain was all about turn around investments, some work, some dont and they dont make long term strategic investments. But it sounds like you know that there are billions of funds that do make those types of investments and would not shy away from making heavy capital investments up front for a longer term payoff. Lets face it, thats the basis for our real estate industry and it seems to have survived with billions of dollars ready to invest. But I agree with you and if we kept the discussion to the financial issues and the impact or opinions of someone's policies to influence those issues, that would be fine. But I cant help replying to the ridiculous claims by David and partisan personal attacks by the paid bloggers so thats why I leap in.
Jack, first off I have never had a substantive discussion with Fiesty and if you havent noticed she never posts about substance. Her whole purpose is to make personal attacks against a GOP candidate or poster on this blog. She got mad at me once because I called her a religious bigot because some of the horribly mean comments she made and told her that even though I didnt share some of the views of religious right, using that rhetoric is just wrong. She didnt like that. But we have never had an issue based discussion.
As for you and I, you made an opinion based claim regarding contraception and I replied that it was about economics and politics and not gender. You also made a claim and tried to make light of my description of a cosmetic procedure when I provided the insurance based cite showing you I was correct including why the use of the word cosmetic is different for insurance benefits than common usage. So maybe you took it as circular, I took it as differences of opinion. If you havent noticed no matter how hard you want to personally attack, I wont engage, so you can be like David and continue to personally attack and try to make light of me and laugh or engage and prove me wrong. Just because I dont agree with all of Obama's economic policies or some of the outlandish comments and claims on her by the self described progressives doesnt make me wrong. At the same time, I will be happy to admit when I am wrong as my wife and kids do on a daily basis.
SeekingSanity "Roy Wilson - you're wrong - whether intentional or not, I don't know. Oil production under President Obama is at the highest level it has been in the last 8 years. Next?"
I refer you to my Post #1.49. Next?
Wells drilled in 2008 (Bush's last year) increased to over 5,000 from the low level of about 2,000 in Clinton's last year (2000). In 2010 (last available data), they dropped down to less than 1,500.
Any increased production we see now is because of oil drilled under Bush. The dramatic reduction in wells drilled under Obama will be felt in a few years. It takes a ferw years between drilling a well and bringing production on-line.
When Obama says that 'production is higher', it's because of the Bush Administration, not Obama's Administration.
The true policy of the Obama Administration is revealed by the following comment by Obama's Energy Secretary Chu;
"Millionaires over Medicare." Love it -- not just because it can fit on a bumper sticker for the low-information voter, but because it is TRUE.
Akeem, New Jersey-- Good points. People forget what a big deal it was to make gasoline safe to use, and to create a distribution system for it. Take natural gas, for example, which we have a lot of and is cleaner to burn--but try finding a pump after you buy a CNG vehicle.
The main reason for research on algae is: 1) it is not a crop in the current food chain; 2) it does not require more fuel to grow and harvest than the fuel it creates; and 3) Dubya promoted corn for ethanol, and we've been there done that and don't need to do it again even with non-consumable crops like switch grass (see #2). IMO, Dubya did this to prevent real competition for Big Oil, and probably profited from corn speculation, but I can't prove it (to quote Bill O'Really).
Side Note: It seems like we must suffer the immense proliferation of drivel from Brianb or Kirk. I'm starting to suspect they are one and the same like other trolls who have come and gone...
True Patriot--why not open your mind to listen and maybe you can learn something. Do you really want to go through life only talking to people who look like you, talk like you and think like you? Why do you want to always be the minority looking up trying to figure out why life is passing you by? If you believe anything I said is drivel, explain what part. So far today, not one person has provided any claim or statement disputing anything I have said. Must not be drivel then is it. Sometimes True Patriot, other people have life experiences and opinions that may be different than yours and its generally better to respect them for their differences and point them in a different direction when you think they have left the right path. And no I am not Brianb but why are you afraid of different life experiences and opinions?
Jack, and so you wonder why I sound circular trying to respond to posts like Reddev? Explain how I am going to reply and why my mind works in a disappointing way to you. Reddev cant defend his emotionally charged but lacking factual support reply with something about Quirky awards in an attempt to be funny in order to belittle me. So when in doubt and when having no actual experience or ability to reply, we attack and belittle in order to make us sound more credible. And you are worried about how my mind works?
What I dont understand is that there is plenty of stuff to use as a basis to not vote for Romney or any of the other candidates. Sarah provided a bunch of reasons why she would not vote for a GOP candidate. I dont get why its necessary to personally attack and make stuff up to the point of outlandish embellishment and silliness. Same thing with Obama, you can still vote for him and admit his weaknesses and failures to this point its not going to change your vote so why are people so bent on proving things I post wrong even when they obviously are not wrong. Reddev does that constantly and I noticed he deflects and ignores the obvious truths like Obama is against gay marriage while making statements that attack the GOP for the same thing. Let it go and provide some real substance to your posts reddev or dont bother
Roy,
Here you go again with your numbers per president. Can you honestly compare the Bush administration to the Obama administration based on the state of the economy each president inherited?
You keep throwing numbers around like we live in a vacuum but until you cannot tell me that 2001=2009, so you can take your numbers and shove them. Bush did not have 2 unpaid wars and a financial meltdown to deal with. As a matter of fact Bush had too much money so he sent everyone a $600 check.
No, I don't like Issa because he is one of the biggest hypocrites out there. He lies, cheats, and manipulates like no other, yet he is one of the most influencial Republicans out there.
The Republicans hoped to prove that the Solyndra loan was a political favor to wealthy investors with Democratic ties, but they have failed to make this case - so give it up, Roy. This is another failed attempt by the Republicans that you, for some reason, keep hanging on to. Even the Republicans gave it up - didn't you get the memo?
who gives a crap why it's higher - what's important is that it is the highest. The production is up, the demand in this country is down and the only thing that is keeping the prices up (or so they claim) is the demand in China and India and the constant instability in the Middle East.
In one sentence you say that the prices of oil are high because Obama is decreasing the production. In the next sentence you say that the production is the highest because of Bush. You cannot have it both ways! Sorry to be picking on you, my friend, but you go round and round and round. And everytime I ask you a question, your rebuttal is another batch of meaningless numbers.
At least there are times when the right-wing admits that the US (even all of North America, which includes Canada) is only one large oil reserve, but in comparison to truly large oil reserves in the Middle East, ours would only last one to two generations. I saw this and laughed out loud. I mean 50-100 years, seriously?! Civilizations that have been around for thousands of years (e.g., China) see the ridiculousness of this, but even a nation a little more than 200 years old should see the silliness of this.
If you have food in your pantry that will last a week, but know you will live for a year, do you eat all the food up? Or do you get busy securing other food? You right-wingers are truly daft. BTW, Social Security will last that long too, so why do you run around like Chicken Little saying it is going bankrupt, but have no concern about a real and viable energy policy? Or how about climate change and predictions that there could be serious issues by 2050? Daft and hypocritical.
Kirk - Talk to the hand, and run along now. Homey don't play that troll game.
True Patriot--but this is where you miss out. I dont even know what a troll game is and your inability to have a discussion doesnt impact us it only impacts you. You are right we could be totally misinformed and just toying with you or maybe there is some real truth and experience in our posts. If we are toying with you nobody gets hurt either way but if we are accurate, you are then leaving the discussion no matter how slight the chance in your mind with incorrect facts and knowledge that could make you look like a fool next time you make wrong statements in public. You can only learn and benefit by engaging wtih people who have different experiences and opinions and knowledge.
For example, you make the wrong statement about social security that people have proven to you over and over is wrong. Social security could last forever but it cant under its current state and I have seen people without a political agenda try to explain basic cash is fungible concepts to you and you still walk away probably explaining incorrect facts and statements to others.
Again Jack? Is my mind muddled here too?
bayllie -- Yes indeed. Solyndra and Fast and Furious are suddenly absent from the right-wing propaganda machines of FOX Noise and Hate Radio, because loans for Solyndra began during Dubya, as well as Operation Wide Receiver in the ATF.
The right-wing Haters are so desperate to smear President Obama they have even resorted to video of his speech about Professor Derrick Bell--I found it to be impressive--or taking out of context what he said about America (labeled as the president "hating" America, though he says nothing close to that--in fact once again it was impressive), and of course Romney's most recent BS about the president wanting higher gas prices. There is no smoke let alone a gun!
More efficient vehicles have resulted in lower tax revenue from the pump. Dems openly discuss this unfortunate consequence. Quite frankly, many changes are not being made, e.g., getting rid of health insurance middlemen because of the loss of jobs in that industry. Conservatives like to whine about "kicking the can down the road" but when it comes to biting the bullet for the long-term and "our children's future" they always crap out.
This is what conservatives are left to do--to make sh!t up--because in reality President Obama is the only adult in the room. I don't understand why true Evangelicals don't support President Obama, who actually is a good role model for morality, ethics, and values -- especially in comparison to the GOP/TP clowns.
Kirk-2957282
First, yes, the oil industry is more powerful than a travel industry or telephone industry. You cannot compare the oil industry to a travel industry or a telephone industry - that is just ridiculous and any basic business class will teach you that.
Yes, each industry, with no exceptions, has its threats so did travel and telephone and no, they could not stop it once it started. Don't forget, the internet started in 1950s and in 2012 we have what we have. Internet did not start as a substitute to telephone or travel. It became that. Just like plastic was not invented as a substitute to glass or metal bumpers. They became that down the road.
Algae is looked as a SUBSTITUTE to our dependence to oil. Usually the industry will do anything to control the substitutes and in this case, it migh not. When you have an alternative to a product, the prices go down because now the consumer has a choice - as long as both products fulfill the basic need.
a little reading will go a long way , Kirk. I'm not sure what the conspiracy here is but you tell yourself that. I suggest Porter's 5 Competitive Forces as a start. You might learn something.
I read a really good quote recently defining trickle-down economic theory:
"The principle that the poor, who must subsist on table scraps dropped by the rich, can best be served by giving the rich bigger meals." - William Blum
Now Kirk: You start off your reply addressing Jack, but end it asking me for a response. So it begs the question, who are you talking to, and if you don't know, how is anyone else suppose to know?
You also claim;
Now, last week your response to belittle in order to make you sound credible was;
And my response was;
So Kirk - when you type your ramblings, what comes across is that while attempting to chide me, you are actually describing yourself.
No need for a response - this is being provided for you to ponder when you wonder why folks cannot follow your self-described superior critical thinking skills, while belittling David/Jack/I as having no critical thinking skills.
Bayllie, I would be happy to read it but if you think ATT wasnt as powerful as the oil companies, then you dont know history either. Regardless of when the internet was created its about when its use could be seen as profit driven business model driver which happened in the 90s. Although Prodigy was a company before AOL that started down the social networking path even earlier. Sorry but there is nothing the oil industry can do to stop a substitute to oil in this global economy if it truly will create a profitable enterprise. Again, think of the European countries and the various private equity, and venture capital funds in the various countries that would invest hundreds of billions to have an alternative energy source because they dont currently have any reserves themselves. A little reading does go along way and make sure you read all the sources not just those that fit your ideology. I read both sides which is how I stay more entertained and not so confined to my party affiliation as those of you progressives on this board.
TruePatriot-445959
Even the Republicans know when to quit their probing. Too bad some here don't know when to quit.
Kirk,
and why don't we address the issue why: All presidents, except Obama (and including Clinton) robbed Social Security blind. They spent the money, and left worthless IOUs. Now, that there is no money left, the Republicans blame it on Gramma who is ready to retire.
Yes, I blame the Republicans because 3 out of last 4 Presidents were Republicans. The only Democrat who dipped into the piggy bank left with low unemployment, a balanced budget and the smallest debt. The other 3 bozos left with deficits, debts, biggest governments, biggest spending, biggest unemployment, biggest military and unpaid wars.
Now the Republians want Obama to fix this problem today and criticize him for not doing it today.
Roy - the wells drilled statistic is those done on public land. Well being drilled on private land are through the roof. Why? Because public areas are made more costly by delays in approval by this administration.
The Obama administration is approving only 35% of applications and for those that are approved they are taking 176 days or 6 months to get a decision.
Before Obama an application took 61 days and 73% of all applications were approved.
BTW applications to drill in the gulf are way down despite the administration "streamlining" the application process last june. Apparently, the industry does not want anything to do with the government, and for that we all pay at the pump.
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/11/24/obama-administration-approving-only-35-percent-of-gulf-drilling-plans/
Kirk-2957282
just for the fact that you compare AT&T (1 company) to the entire oil industry tells me you don't know what you are talking about. Again, telephone industry and the oil industry are not even comparable. You can compare individual threats but you have to take their scale into consideration.
The telephone industry could and did adapt to the threats: they either bought them out or created them (internet, cells, etcs). The oil industry has 1 product: oil. Yes, you have coal electricity, solar panels, natural gas, etc. as substitutes to home heating but that's it's on a small scale. Now if you can find something that will REPLACE all oil needs, then you have a problem.
I will not claim that I know anything about algae and its powers. But if possible, it could take down the oil cartel - here or anywhere else in the Middle East. And oil is power - bigger power than gold or cash.
What is the best way to ensure that algae does not happen? Elect a president that is pro-oil and anti-alternatives. Now call this a conspiracy theory if you wish but money buys our politicians today. Thanks to our SC, they don't even have to tell you who "they" are. And if you think that the oil industry is sitting quietly and waiting to see how this will pan out, you are very naive.
Reddev--never mind your circular reasoning on stuff totally unrelated to the issues being discussed. If you dont understand your deflection and your lack of responsiveness as issues.
Baylie, ATT if you remember had the phone monoply and was a cartel so you probably are too young to understand the threat to them. I never said oil wasnt power or they didnt have a cartel but I dont buy that they are bigger than any of the other monopolies and industry cartels from the past that couldnt stand in the way of progress. Oil will be no different but thanks for the put down. Of course oil is not sitting down quietly and they shouldnt. Great companies learn how to adapt and if they were smart they would be at the forefront of the change otherwise they will become extinct so no I am not naive. I am also not a conspiracy theory thinking that there is a cabal of men in a smoky room slowly dictating world wide green energy investments and how much money flows into these. Of course they will try and keep their own business model alive and profitable as long as possible but it cant stop a viable green alternative.
bayllie "Roy, Here you go again with your numbers per president. Can you honestly compare the Bush administration to the Obama administration based on the state of the economy each president inherited?....In one sentence you say that the prices of oil are high because Obama is decreasing the production. In the next sentence you say that the production is the highest because of Bush. You cannot have it both ways!"
Why not? I seem to remember that Bush had to deal with the aftermath of 9/11, which caused unemployment to spike by about 1.5% for several years. Fortunately, his pro-growth policies returned us to prosperity, while Obama's policies have not. Obama said in 2008 "Elect me, I know how to turn things around" - He has FAILED. Do you REALLY think that Obama's policies of 'moratoriums' on Gulf drilling and stopping exploration in ANWAR and off-shore activities on the East and West Coasts will not affect oil prices in the future (and possibly now)? There is a 'temporary' increase in production because of the dramatic increase in drilling under Bush, but with the significant decline in drilling on Federal lands under Obama, we can expect supplies to be tight in future years.
How you can believe that Obama's anti-drilling policies will not have an effect on oil prices is beyond me.
Roy wilson - again, not true. More drilling is being done now than ever. The wells are not producing yet because it takes years for them to produce but the drilling is being done. You chose to slant "facts" any way you want. Again, oil prices are not determined by the President as everyone who really cares to admit the truth knows. And your touting Bush's policies as turning things around is correct - but not the way you tell it. He is the reason our economy has tanked. And, had his budgets actually included the costs of the two wars he started you would have to admit that. He had no hand in our recovery. That is all Obama. I understand the truth doesn't fit your goals but it is the truth anyway!
True Patriot:
You make my heart sing. The reduced tax revenues as a result of increased fuel economy played out in a different energy venue some years ago. When homes and other building were losing vast amounts of energy because of horrible insulation, incentives were granted to reduce waste. While the savings were enormous for end users, utilities were facing a revenue crunch. Regulators had to deal with this reality by increasing rates.
Consumers, in the main, could not grasp the reasoning behind this. However, they also reaped long-term benefits by NOT burning fuel that would be available in the future.
As far as gasoline prices rising, it would certainly be wonderful if the right wing took a break from their usual "lying is fun" tactics and told the truth. While U.S. demand is down as a result of fuel efficiency, worldwide demand continues to increase, driving prices up. World demand still exceeds supply.
While the federal government has no incentive to let prices rise, local governments have no serious complaints about increases. The federal tax is a flat amount per gallon. For the states, sales taxes levied on gasoline increase right along with increasing fuel prices.
Kirk-2957282
I would thank you for the "too young" comment if you ment it as such but I know that was a way to insult me. Didn't work my friend.
I will try to make one more attempt at this. Oil industry does not equal telephone industry even if the tel. industry was At&T as you are trying to convinve me. AT&T was proof that the only sustainable monopolies are those granted and enforced by government. Now here is a little secret: AT&T had it's monopoly (I'm sticking to your reasoning to make this easier for you) in the United States of America. Which means, that this one company had it's claws in this market while other countries of this world (remember we are not the only country on this planet) had their own. Now take the oil industry: their product is a commodity which means that the product's price is determined by the current market (simplifying it). The higher the price, the bigger the profit for the involved parties. AT&T did not have equivalent control in the world, and the At&T's product is/was not sold as a commodity. Since commodities are traded on exchanges, their prices are not set by a single individual or entity (like AT&T).
About your "phone" cartel: other than some lobbying done by the company to influence regulation, I don't think any country's economy was ever influenced by the "power" of AT&T. Take away the access to oil, and see what it does to the economy. Take away access to a phone (when it was this big monopoly) and you see what?
Roy,
Bush returned us to prosperity? Now I know you're off your meds.
SeekingSanity "Roy wilson - again, not true. More drilling is being done now than ever."
Not on Federal lands, where Obama has some control. I will look for the link, but wells completed in 2000 (Clinton's last year) were just over 2000, and it had increased to about 5,100 in 2008 (Bush's last year), but is down by over 70% to only about 1,480 in 2010 (Obama's last year).
Trying to give credit to Obama for the increased wells drilled under Bush is LUDICROUS.
bayllie "Roy, his pro-growth policies returned us to prosperity.................Bush returned us to prosperity? Now I know you're off your meds."
Gross Domestic Product in 2000 (Clinton's last year) was $9.821 Trillion.
Gross Domestic Product in 2008 (Bush's last year) was $14.394 Trillion, an increase of 46.6% in 8 years (5.82% per year average).
I'm sure you don't want to know Obama's record over the last 3 years.
You were saying???????????
Gotta go now - Time to put my 6 year old daughter to bed.
Sounds like Gingrich, eh? Newtie is just misunderstood. Why if all the American people only realized his genius and that he is God's gift to the world, then finally he would take his seat on the thrown as Ruler of the Universe. When it is millions of people to one, guess who isn't "understanding" it -- You.
David Walker -- Thanks. And good point about utilities as well. Also, due to the warmer winter, they were not as profitable. There is a long list of double-edged swords such as ending illegal immigration. So many companies depend on the cheap labor that it can't be ended suddenly. A blind eye is turned by every administration regardless of Party because of the economic impact. But we need to become long-term thinkers, and phase things in or out accordingly. It's not going to get easier later.
Teapublicans who are owned by Wall Street and Big Oil, and many who aren't very bright (Perry, Palin, Bachmann), are not the leaders our country needs now. President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and so many other Dems are far more qualified.
Roy,
Here you go throwing your useless numbers aroung AGAIN instead of answering the question that I have been asking you forever.
Do you think that Obama inherited THE SAME economy that Bush did from Clinton? Yes or no?
Again, the state of this country does nt get reset every time a new president takes over so your numbers are useles because you do not take all variables into the account.
2 UNPAID wars, growing unemployment, growing debt, growing government, growing military, growing deficit, financial meltdown, housing market collapsing - those are just the few examples that Obama inherited while Bush did not.
By the way, I cannot find anything that would support your numbers, so a link would be greatly appreciated.
The New Ryan Budget
House Republicans are planning to pull the defense-spending cuts mandated by sequestration off the table in their version of the budget expected to be released this week.
“With regards to the Budget Control Act, an across-the-board $97 billion discretionary spending cut will be imposed on January 2, 2013, including devastating cuts to our national security,” Ryan said in statement provided to National Journal. “House Republicans are continuing their efforts to reprioritize the savings called for under the Budget Control Act, because our troops and military families shouldn’t pay the price for Washington’s failure to take action.”
At a House Budget Committee hearing, Chairman Paul Ryan, told Defense Sec. Panetta he felt entitlement spending should be on the table.
Here we go again with Republicans trying to renege on yet another deal they made. Do they have any idea how childish this looks? Why on earth would anyone agree to something in the first place that they really don’t agree with and then try to weasel their way out of it? Stand like a person of honor, accept what you agreed to and put in the hard work to find another solution to reducing the deficit and avoid the mandatory cuts.
In other words the reps like defense spending and rich people...of course so many of them choose to stay put when it comes to actually fighting their faux wars on terror that you have to wonder if the defense budget is a substitute for a lack of manly parts for many of the chickenhawk party
Dennis,
You answered Joe in Albany lament that is Obama's fault that is preventing compromise with Congress.
Your example of the ugly deal agreed to last summer with Boehner and company is not to their liking. Not only do they look childish , they look desperate...
Hard to find compromise with crazy...
Dennis, well said. These GOPers have no shame and least of all do they have much in the way of brains and compassion; and definitely they do not keep their word and do what they agreed to do. It's lunacy. We could have a great and powerful military but if that is all we have, we become like the old USSR, and now North Korea because we sacrifice everything else to achieve it.
"...our troops and military families shouldn’t pay the price for Washington’s failure to take action.”
What a crock!!! Make no mistake, people, most of that budget money is going into the pockets of already-wealthy defense contractors, and the rest of the GOP's concern is how much Federal money is flowing into their state's coffers via the military bases. Invoking our troops and military families is downright manipulative and disingenuous at best.
One very simple, and effective method of reducing the deficit, increase the top marginal rate AND eliminate most of the tax preference items for the wealthy and corporations. The best thing which could be done would be to means test them. If your personal or corporate income before taxes is over $1,000,000, you don't need the tax breaks to turn that into net tax losses.
Historically, the Defense budget has always been cut after a war ends. Makes sense - you can not have a high budget for defense and a high budget for domestic issues at the same time. Countries that continue to have very high military budgets in peace time tend to be countries that are run by the military.
If the Pentagon would actually spend the money on the vets that are coming home, I would be all for keeping the defense budget high. If I thought the money went for their health issues,went for job counseling and training - including both trade and college... if I thought it went toward helping them get homes - it would be worth it to me because of the sacrifice our soldiers have made. But if the proportional amount they actually would get is smaller than the amount that goes to the military industry - if it goes into future toys instead, then I can't see it.
Former Secretary of Defense Gates said one of the things that shocked him when he first went to the Pentagon,long before he became the Defense secretary was that the Pentagon,both civilian and military, were more focused on their pet future projects than protecting the soldiers in the war they were currently fighting. They would argue against any money being diverted to items like protection on transportation vehicles,because it was not offensive based.
For all of the promises - the Ryan budget will do the same - not only on the backs of the returning vets, but on the backs of seniors.
Katheryn: I guess we can add active military and Veterans to the list the GOP plans to destroy:
1. Women
2. Elderly
3. Disabled
4. Middle Class
5. Poor
6. Active Military
7. Veterans
8. All non-white groups.
I can understand wealthy, evangelical, christian conservatives voting for Republicans, but why would anyone else vote for the GOP ?
Stand like a person of honor, accept what you agreed to and put in the hard work to find another solution to reducing the deficit and avoid the mandatory cuts.
=======================
Dennis,
The words rethugli-cant and honor are an oxymoron. rethugli-cants DON'T have any idea what honor means.
.
Republican obstructionism..and the approval rating of Congress is what, 9%?
Mitch "Turtle" McConnell votes against the highway bill he backed!
http://therationalprogressive.com/cms/2012/03/mitch-mcconnellsenate-republican-votes-against-highway-bill-he-backed/
Nothing says obstructionism quite like good old two-faced McConnell! And you can read the bill here:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.1813:
Interestingly,
Well Cynthia, 9% seems to be a part of the Presidents plan to get re-elected. In fact his actions forced the issue. He never wanted a debt deal, so he could lie about a "Do-nothing Congress to the American people.
Try reading this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obamas-evolution-behind-the-failed-grand-bargain-on-the-debt/2012/03/15/gIQAHyyfJS_story_1.html
Seems Boehner called Obama's bluff and offered nearly a Trillion dollars in Tax increases. As usual Obama panicked and lied to us.
OK then folks:
I'm going to suggest the same thing as White Collar Auto: Read the link. However, I'm going to suggest that you go a step further. Comprehend the content of the article.
What you'll see is a picture of Speaker John Boehner desperately trying to balance the unrealistic demands of the idiot teabag faction, and the other Republicans who know that the budget must be balanced, but understand their political constraints.
Boehner is negotiating with a President who knows that there are programs considered sacred by Democrats. Yet, he also knows that there must be cuts and reforms in the entitlement programs.
It appears that both men were very close to agreement until the Gang of Six weighed it at a most unwelcome time. They complicated Boehner's position by suggesting even greater tax increases. The President was also hamstrung by the Gang of Six.
What the article really shows is how dysfunctional Washington has become. The Speaker and the President were very, very close to agreement. Both were willing to take a tough fight back to their parties, but that was canned, probably inadvertently by the Gang of Six. That doesn't alter the fact that a miss is as good as a mile.
After this, it seems that agreement on any reform is even further away. We lose.
So David, why then did Obama lie to us?
Why did your President make a speech to the American public blaming just the Republicans?
Why does this President continue to lie to us?
Most transparent Presidency ever, my ass.
rwnj Déjà vu: Obaahhhhhma 2012!
...so, with Republicans continuing to attempt to make hay by railing against oil and gas prices, perhaps now would be an appropriate time to ask them...
"How many people are getting rich off of oil and gas prices and how much of that money is being donated to your
political slush fundsSuperPACs?"(Oh, that's right, you "don't know" because you're not allowed to coordinate...wink-wink!)
Voter Fraud Update
Last week I posted here about the suspicious phone call I received from some outfit called the "Public Engagement Group", warning me that "their records" showed that I was not registered to vote and that they were urging me to do so. Since I have been registered in the same county for 40 years and have voted every time for the last 35 of those at the exact same polling location, I asked repeatedly who this group was and how they had obtained these records, to no avail. After repeatedly stumbling and stammering and consulting with someone on the other end, the person eventually hung up, and when I tried *69 to call them back, I got only a recorded message telling me no one was available to take my call. Since Pennsylvania had just that very day signed their new Voter ID law into effect, I was even more suspicious. A subsequent Internet search turned up no such organization having anything to do with voter registration, so the next day I took the time to go to my local registration office in person and verify that I am in fact still registered and to report this apparent scam.
Well.....the plot thickens. Friday I received a mailing from this same outfit, with what appears to be a legitimate voter registration form attached.. Still no indication of who's behind it, just a PO Box in Virginia. BUT.....the mailing includes a grim-looking black and white photo of a shuttered factory along with even grimmer looking bullet point lies about "1.1million Jobs Lost", "9% Unemployment" and "Skyrocketing Health Care Costs" on one side.......and on the other, a lovely color picture of a young boy holding an American flag at sunrise with the words "AMERICA: THE SHINING CITY ON A HILL - Today, You Can Make A Difference". Now let's see......where have I heard that before? Was it perhaps.....Ronald Reagan?
Okay, fine - Republicans have every bit as much a right to encourage voter registration as do Democrats. But why do they have to hide who they are and who's paying for this? I did voter registration during the 2008 campaign and never once did so without clearly identifying myself as an Obama campaign volunteer(as if the hat and t-shirt didn't already give that away).
So the question now becomes.....why is the party that's so concerned about voter fraud so eager to engage in
it themselves?
I can't wait to hear what my Republicancongressman's office has to say about this.....
They the Republicans are up to their same dirty tricks. I pray that the Justice Department keeps watch over such operations, because we know that no good in behind such tricks.
Nice protest. Non-violent and makes the point.
Now if some porn stars would also like to protest a Santorum rally can they make sure the press are notified ahead of time?
BTW I actually agree with Santorum's statement on Afghanistan. "If we're not there to win we should get out now". We're obviously not there to win so it's time to leave.
joAnne,
Not only would I call my elected official, I would call the local investigator reporter at your tv station. I am sure you weren't the only one who has gotten phone calls and maiings. Some group has lots of money and want to hide behind a P.O. Box.
Keep us informed as you follow this in PA.
JoAnne---they can't win on ideas (because they have none), they have limited success smearing President Obama with lies (birtherism, Muslim, etc) and they haven't made up a faux issue like same sex marriage this year so what is left for the Republican party but to disenfranchise their opponents?
The tea people Koch republicans know if they try to register voters without their lies everyone will register as a democrat.
Now Alan you and Santorum need to explain to us just what winning looks like to you and what tactics you would use to accomplish that goal. It's easy to say we should stay till we win, the hard part is explaining just how to accomplish that goal. Romney has no plan, just sound bites.
I don't as I never advocated "winning". Address your question to the Senator. The only thing Bush got right here was to begin leaving in 2003. He made the mistake of
a) not bringing everybody home
b) starting a war in Iraq.
You tell me, what's the point of staying to 2014? What was the point of send 30,000 more troops there in 2009?
Alan, NJ
How, exactly do you define "winning"? Is that when the commanding general of the Taliban army hands over his sword to the commanding general of the NATO forces and all the Taliban "soldiers" pile their rifles in nice neat piles?
I'm having two problems with this story-
First, some group, (probably looking for a donation), tells you that 'their records' indicate you are not registered to vote. Leave aside the fact that YOU know you're registered; leave aside the fact that YOU easily confirmed that you were registered- they followed up the phone call with a VOTER REGISTRATION FORM.
That's hardly the behavior of any group seeking to disenfranchise anyone.
Second, using the information you provided, I Googled the group. Know what I got? A government funded 501c(3) group- that advocates for the Arts and Humanities.
There is something fishy about this story, okay. . .
JoAnne, Northstar is right. Time to turn that over to the local media and to your local representatives. A VA PO Box for voters in PA?
Shouldn’t we be doing everything possible to make it easier to vote, not harder?
Many of the expansions like no excuse to be able to file absentee were done to save the State money and cut down the long lines at the polls. With the expansion of availability to vote the percentage of Registered Voters casting votes has gone up – is that a good or bad thing?
True Americans should be finding ways to expand access to vote not ways to restrict it. Only people that do not believe in true democracy would want to restrict people’s right to choose our leaders.
About a dozen states are actively considering legislation that would make voting much more difficult for college students, minorities, the elderly and the disabled. In some states, like Ohio, it is estimated that close to one million people would be affected by these changes.
http://www.prwatch.org/news/2011/05/10711/voter-suppression-bills-sweep-country
Houston!
I think that would be a better question to ask our government instead of Alan NJ. I think it is unfair to expect an answer from him when we can't even get a clear answer from our own government on what constitutes a win in Afghanistan
JoAnne in PA - How is a group encouraging people to register to vote voter fraud?
NoJo a group "that advocates for the Arts and Humanities." Are you suggest this all just an art project ... some form of Installation Art?
It looks like there are multiple groups out there using "public engagement group". I doubt that Arts and Humanities group is the one in question.
JoAnne: apparently they are doing it in Indiana too. Senator Dick Lugar and his wife tried to vote in a district where they are not eligible to vote.
JoAnne in PA:
I've been following your story for a few days now. The tactics reek of Richard Viguerie, who if memory serves, is headquartered in Virginia.
He is a right-wing money grub who pretty much wrote the book on direct mail fundraising. Hard to believe I know, but he is allied with the right-wing evangelical movement, and just about any hard right candidate.
If you're into such things, check the addresses of "polls", solicitations, campaign flyers, and the like, when they start flooding your mailbox around election time. You will be amazed how many list P.O. boxes. They are surprisingly often nothing more than a mail drop at a "Mailboxes R Us" outfit.
Im suggesting that there is something not quite right about the entire story.
As in, maybe it should have started "Once upon a time".. . .
NoJoe -You can also find an organization with the same name that's affiliated with the Oxford Biomedical Research Centre and one with a similar name, The Public Engagement Working Group, that "is charged by the Advisory Committee to the Associate University Librarian for Services to promote Library activities
that support the public engagement mission of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign." I doubt either one of them was involved with this.
Skup - I used the term "fraud" in connection with the basis given for our Republican-controlled legislature's passing of our new voter ID law last week that this came right on the heels of. Yet when pressed, neither the legislature nor the governor has yet been able to provide any actual examples of such "fraud" occuring - so maybe they as well as I should use the term in quotation marks. As I said, I have no problem with encouraging people to register to vote. But doing so under the guise of a "public" interest group while advertising Republican talking points certainly seems a little fishy to me. How about you?
David Walker - As I said last week, I'm publicizing this to try to raise EVERYONE's awareness of the deceptive practices that are already going on and will only increase as the election gets closer. I admit I've never heard of Richard Viguerie, but thanks for the info - I'll pursue it more when I get the time.
Deceptive practices? Again, the gist of your story is that they were trying to make you believe you were not registered to vote. I presume you want readers to infer that such misinformation would lead a less determined person to stay home on election day.
If that was the intent- why would they mail you a voter registration form?
Your story does not make sense. . .
JoAnne, sounds like Karl Rove is doing a little consulting work in Pennsylvania, this is just like something he might pull.
JoAnne in PA - Are you seriously going to act as if there are not Democrat groups out there that do the same exact thing?
Now, as with many times in our past, is an appropriate time to look back and reflectively calculate the claims to actual policy of the republican party. While we democrats know our party isn't pretty, we can at least, be sure of the legitimacy of our species. The republicanism contrast historically looks much like Hyenas and Vultures from the top side working in conjunction with Maggots and various grubs from the bottom. Don't believe me? Have a good look and listen to Wisconsin's Paul Ryan sometime. That's a tick sucking the dark haired necks of working Americans everywhere.
Skup
The typical Republican excuse for every bad thing they do is "Democrats do it too;" it's called the "false equivalency argument," and I think the American public is starting to catch on to this excuse.
Which Party's actions resulted in the term 'swift boating' entering the lexicon as a synonym for political slander?
Which Party made claims about voter fraud, to justify stricter measures, which proved to be completely false? (In Maine, the head of the Republican Party claimed voter fraud was widespread among college students; an official investigation found this was completely untrue. That Republican is still head of the Party in Maine, and possibly responsible for disenfranchising Ron Paul voters in our recent caucus.)
Romney can be summed up easily... douche bag !
Afghanistan (sigh) - I find I am very conflicted on this topic because it was a no-win from the get-go that had to be addressed anyway.(I know,people will say it is naive to trust the military's position on this,but I do listen to them)
I trust Senator McCain, I respect Senator Graham, I trust President Obama,I respect former Senator Nunn. And each of them are saying totally opposite things about Afghanistan - and there is truth in what each of them says.
Regardless of whether you think we should increase our military presence and the duration of the that presence as McCain and Graham say (and there are very valid reasons for that approach) or you think we should stay the course as Obama says (valid reasons for that too) or we should get out and not put boots on the ground in any Muslim country as Nunn says (also valid reasoning) - the one fact I do know.
Even if we decided this very minute to move all of our people out of Afghanistan as quickly as we could --- it would take us a minimum of 1 year to move the 90,000 troops out. And longer to get our equipment out, which we don't want to leave.
And I know it is going to be a messy leave taking. As much as we want to make a (I know I'm not using the correct terminology here) protected departure, I keep remembering how it was with Vietnam or even further back - Burma, and I think it'll be bloody no matter what we do.
Those poor soldiers caught in the middle.
ROFLMA. And how often have you used Bush to justify Obama's actions? Let me count the ways
1. Patriot Act
2. Deficit Spending
3. Drone Attacks
4. Gitmo/Baghram
5. Recess Appointments
6. Reconciliation
7. Debt Ceiling
8. National Defense Authorization Act
9. Oil prices
10. Favors to big Donors
My favorite this morning was when a pundit claimed that Obama's foreign policy was the same as Bush's only better.
Hope and Change my ass. How's that Nobel Peace Prize working out.
96ws6
He's the person who talked about how the US is not there to "win", so he should be the one who explains what he means by the word. In my opinion, the word is meaningless in the context of Afghanistan.
Alan, your backside is not something I care to contemplate but clearly your list is used toilet paper.
I have no idea what "win" means in Afghanistan either so I am for getting out ASAP, and was for getting out long ago. Do you agree or do you think we should keep to the Administrations's timetable?
LOL. It would be even funnier if this Administration was not so similar to the last one.
Absolutely! For those American citizens that are legally registered to vote!
For everyone else... we should be making equal effort to prevent them from distorting the will of the people. (psssst... by 'the will of the people' i mean the will of those that took the time to legally register to have their voice heard)
(show me the clown nose, fisty!)
Afghanistan: Stay with the Administration's time table. This is the best-fit compromise to work through the COIN strategy planned by Petraeus.
There are risks and costs for both staying and leaving Afghanistan. I've weighed the cost-benefit analysis, and believe that that staying the course in Afghanistan is appropriate. A drawdown to a counter-terrorism force of 20K-25K US troops by 2014 is accepable for me.
But that is my opinion. I strongly supported the decision to invade Afghanistan in 2001 and still support that decision. Consequently, I do not favor the cut and run approach by anti-war Lefties or Obama-Derangement-Syndrome affected Righties that simply can not stand the current president being Commander in Chief.
'Winning' in the traditional sense in Afghanistan is not an option at this moment in time. COIN strategy goals take years to implement and assess. A war-weary nation such as ours no longer has the stomach for the successful conclusion of the COIN straegry. The battlefront as a whole is effectively won already with the continued repression of the Taliban, death of OBL and removal of AQ from the nation (for the most part). That is as good as it gets. I'm cool with that.
Katheryn,
Wonderful post. It may get lost in the din out here, but you are so correct.
I'm curious as to what you think the benefits are in staying until 2014 as against leaving ASAP (which I accept will be around a year). I too was for the decision to invade in 2001 but think we should not have tried to nation build and left around 2003. I did not agree with the decision to send additional troops in 2009. However, this is a "no-good solution" problem so I am interested in why you think it is worth staying longer.
Dennis,
Hi Dennis, how are you today? Should be happy you have 4 Ohio teams in the Sweet Sixteen. There were some good games last week end.
Dennis, I don't agree that anyone is trying to stop college students, the elderly, and minorities from voting because of the picture ID laws being passed in some states. I never agreed when the democrats pushed to let college students to register and vote in the state they were attending college in and still feel they should vote by absentee ballot in their home states. (Military personnel can not vote in the state or in local elections where they are stationed unless they are citizens of that state.) They is plenty of time between now and November for people to get pictured ID cards if they don't have one. I believe voter rolls should be purged of people who have not voted in the last general election.
Amy B. Portland, ME - How is pointing a hypocrisy a "false equivalency argument"? No were in my comment did I say that the organization was justifed in sending out that litaruture because Democrats were doing the same thing. My personal opinion is that all campaign ads should be done away with.
Hi Sarge,
As I understand it college students must, just like everyone else, meet the residency requirements to vote in elections for the district and state where they attend school otherwise they must do as you suggest and vote absentee. When I lived in VA and CT when I was in the military, I registered in the district I lived in and they accepted my military ID.
How about in Texas where a hunting license (which can be obtained by out-of-state hunters) is acceptable as a valid ID and a student ID is not. Not all students (18-20 years old) have drivers license or State ID’s - they just don't need them.
Kath,
Excellent post, yes there are opinions on all sides, at this point I agree with Nunn, we shouldn't have boots on the ground in any muslim country at this time. But, I support Dr Paul's position of we shouldn't have boots on the ground anywhere except the good ol' USA..... ;-)
30 days maximum, and that's if we decided to take our time. (only if a hard order is issued, 75-90 days for a structured withdrawal. back when we had twice that many? maybe)
Alan, NJ
Personally, I'd like to see US troops gone in the dead of night tonight. That would be a big surprise for Karzai. But the administration's timetable is at least better than the GOP timetable, which involves staying until we "win" (meaning forever).
Houston,
IMO, win is when the objective has been met. When one sends the military into combat, there should be a defined objective that is to be accomplished. For instance when President Bush sent troops into Afghanistan it was for the purpose of capturing or killing Osama Bin Laden and high ranking members of Al Qaeda. Had the Taliban turned over OBL and others, we would not have invaded. Since they refused we had to overthrow the Taliban government.
Now both objectives have been accomplished, we overthrew the Taliban and the people of Afghanistan voted in a new government. Bin Laden was killed as were several high ranking Al Qaeda members. To me that means mission accomplished, objective met, so now lets get the hell out as soon as possible, like within the next 6 months. President Obama made a mistake when announcing a complete withdraw in 2014 regardless of the results. I see no reason why the military should keep sending combat units back for 3 4 or more tours of duty.
Egilman,
One problem I do know of in getting out of Afghanistan - Pakistan. They have closed the routes in and out of Afghanistan. That is a real problem with getting the equipment out.
You see that's not true. The GOP is divided on this issue. Of the leading candidates Ron Paul wants out now. Newt Gingrinch has questioned if we should be there any longer. George Will is openly advicating withdrawal.
At some point politicians will catch up with public opinion and realize it's time to leave.
Romney Noodle can be summed up in five words:
Mashed up bag of Meat.
Alan, NJ
You're right, of course. I should have said that some GOP members are for indefinite engagement in Afghanistan like John McCain (along with independent Joe Lieberman). Ron Paul certainly is for a quick end to the war, and apparently, so is Newt Gingrich. I'm not sure about Romney, though.
sfcret
I believe voter rolls should be purged of people who have not voted in the last general election.
My daughter was in the hospital giving birth during the last general election, but you would purge her from the rolls because she was unable to leave the hospital to go vote? I think your statement is unrealistic.
They mail you a postcard to remind you to vote and where. If you bring that postcard with you to the polls, chances are - you still live there, you're still eligible to vote and you should be allowed to vote.
Photo ID's are more 'solutions' to a problem that doesn't exist. I'd sure like to see proof that dead people have voted and the voter rolls have been tampered with. Hand a provisional ballot to anyone who does not have a current piece of mail from the REGISTERED address and then let it ride. for pete's sake. Republicans can make the simplest things a bureacratic nightmare because they believe ALL people are as corrupt and evil as THEY are,...(well okay, that was a generalization; but hopefully I made my larger point which is - THEY PROJECT TOO MUCH!)
Can you believe the audacity of Timothy Tross and Ben Clifford?
The nerve!
They had the unmitigated gall to stand up in the middle of a rally for Rick Santorum and...*gasp*...KISS EACH OTHER!!!
(Gentlemen, I approve of your protest!)
I'm surprise the jackboots didn't beat them to death
Two men kissing is friggin' disgusting. I don't care how much many of you libs say you support gays, you still find the idea of male on male or female on female repulsive. You know you do. That kind of display is right up there with those "Gay Rights" marches they have. You know, with the thongs, dog collars, makeup etc...The kind of crap that sets their cause back for years.
We may find it repulsive, but if that's what two consenting adults what to do we have no right to stop them.
I find Rush Limbaugh disgusting and repulsive to look at, but, for some reason, Republicans bring him to all their big events.
Maybe if gays and lesbians start becoming corporations folks like "Damage" will start treating them like people.
I find Santorum disgusting to listen to. All this regulation of womens wombs and godspeak. The guy needs to move back to the 16th century.
Maybe if they practiced a little decorum they would gain the respect they seek.
It is called intimacy for a reason, yet there they are shoving it in the face of America and whining when we find it appalling. I hate to tell you, but I would not approve of a heterosexual couple doing that crap in front of my little kids so why should I accept it from these jerks!
Do what you want to in your own bedroom... just keep it there, OK!
(show me the clown nose, fisty!)
They aren't the only group "shoving it in the face of America". Have you watched TV lately?
Damage123
Methinks thou doth protest too much...
Would a heterosexual couple have been kicked out of the rally?
Would you have been so offended that you would refer to that couple as "jerks"?
Hope that didn't ignite Santorum's burning down there during his speech. It sure seems to have lit up Damage and SOB like a Christmas tree - it is doubtful an extinguisher could dowse that burning ember down there.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-february-22-2012/moment-of-zen---rick-santorum-s-fire
SOTB: "but I would not approve of a heterosexual couple doing that crap in front of my little kids so why should I accept it from these jerks!"
I believe this thread actually started with a discussion about kissing.
My parents used to do "that crap" - kiss - all the time in front of their kids. I kind of thought everybody's parents did. I learn something new here every day. Gosh, what jerks my parents were!
Speaking of "Deja Vu" - from four years ago yesterday in Philadelphia:
"In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more and nothing less than what all the world's great religions demand — that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother's keeper, scripture tells us. Let us be our sister's keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.
For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division and conflict and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle — as we did in the O.J. trial — or in the wake of tragedy — as we did in the aftermath of Katrina — or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.
We can do that.
But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.
That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, "Not this time."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88478467
The bolding of course is mine. And this is just a small excerpt - I had an almost impossible time deciding which fragment to use - of a speech that urgently needs to be read again today in its entirety. Some may recognize it as then-Senator Barack Obama's speech on race in Philadelphia on March 18, 2008 in the wake of the Jeremiah Wright controversy, decide that I'm "playing the race card", and blow it off. In re-reading it yet again today, I maintain that it's about so much more than that.
I've said before how this speech - and the mocking disdain shown for it by two former co-workers as we all heard it together - inspired me to take the first step out of my lifelong shell of shyness and timidly walk into the local Obama office that same evening and sign on as a campaign volunteer for the next several months. But that's not my point today.
No, today I keep coming back to those last few lines. Here we are at that next election already. And we're STILL talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one.
But that doesn't have to be ALL we ever talk about. I worked my heart out for this President because in this one speech alone he proved to me that he thinks we're better than that. I suspect that even if he could read the petty bickering and name-calling that goes on here every day, he would STILL believe that of us. ALL of us.
The question is - do we still believe it of ourselves? Can we still come together and say "Not this time"?
I somehow doubt it. I don't even trust myself. But four years later, I believe even more in and will proudly vote again for the man who still says "Yes.....we can".
I was asked on Friday by a Tea Party person if I was still supporting President Obama. My answer----more than ever. As she sputtered her disbelief I replied that he has worked hard for all of us every day, he has kept many of his promises and tried to keep more in the face of opposition unlike any we've seen in recent history and that the kind of change we want takes a lot of work that still needs to be done. I'll take hope and optimism any day of the week and that is what President Obama offers.
@ my boys
I don't think there was a major recession going on when he made that speech. Different circumstances call for different actions -- given a choice between a higher debt ceiling (hopefully a temporary measure) and total insolvency/financial ruin, the former at least has a CHANCE of working out. Don't know if it will, but there's a chance. And don't bite my head off either, just sayin'.
my boys can't swim -
I actually agree with you completely that the debt issue is one worthy of debate. I don't claim to be an economist, but I do know how to balance my own checkbook, and I know that if I had the sort of debt that the country has right now, just cutting back on my spending wouldn't be a drop in the bucket towards reducing that debt; I'd be looking for ways to increase my income to start paying it down. And I would never have "bought" something like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan without thinking long and hard about how I was going to pay for them in the first place.
But hey.....I'm not here to bite your head off; that was the whole point of my post. I actually loved your comment up above about the St. Patrick's Day parade scene in "The Fugitive" - never get tired of watching that movie again!
Steeler Fan - My thoughts exactly. Thanks.
JoAnne, excellent post.
Joann what a mistake, I voted for him to not this time. No we can't.
@JoAnne #8:
Excellent post, my dear. After what happened to that young black teen in Florida, it's people like you and this message that reaffirm the hope I've always had in people's ability to rise above their prejudices and see a bit of themselves in one another.
Black people can't shed our skin color (or the stereotypes that come with it) in America easily, or without help (Anglo immigrants from Germany or Poland would routinely change their surnames in order to be seen as "American"...particularly as performers or entertainers...)...
...but I do agree with you. If we as one nation and one people can't deal directly and honestly with what's in fornt of us...
...we're all going to get run over by it. But I suppose, in that case....
...we could always find the black folks and hang it all on them...it's worked before....
ted patrick - voting for anyone but Obama would be the real mistake. Tell me, which of the buffoons with no plans who are running for the GOP would you actually vote for? Go ahead - embarrass yourself!
The Politics of Hate Finds its Way to March Madness. Since 2007, we have watched politics turn from negative attacks to pure hate speech, to demonizing of particular groups of Americans. We watched Sarah Palin become the presidential campaign poster child for red meat tossing to those eagerly waiting to catch it; her words were laced with racist and anti-Muslim dog whistles; her intent was to promote fear and mistrust with little regard to the damage she was doing to society as a whole. It was not just Sarah Palin, it was FOX with their birtherism, secret Muslim chatter, he's not one of us; it was Limbaugh's blatent bigotry.
Since the 2008 campaign, we have watched and heard the GOP demonize minorities by using illegals to drive a wedge, to stir the fear pot once more. During economic downturns, it pays to have a scapegoat to blame. We watched GOP Rep Peter King demonize American Muslims with his so-called "hearings". We watched the southern states pass "papers please" legislation. We hear the drum beat that anyone who remotely looks hispanic must be an illegal. The GOP and their media voices have been demonizing President Obama for 5 years, now. We are once again seeing the late Andrew Breitbart, Sarah Palin, FOX, Limbaugh once again use race and fear as part of another presidential campaign.
During March Madness we saw what happens when hate speech achieves its goal. A Kansas-State player was subjected to Southern Mississippi fans who yelled to see his "green card" among other things. The KS player was born in Puerto Rico and is a US citizen because he was but that never occurs to bigots. Southern Mississippi officials apologized for the behavior as they should. It is probably good that Kansas State beat Southern Mississippi since one game displaying racial hatred was enough.
What a sad commentary for our country when the politics of bigotry and hatred being provided by the Conservative party, the Grand Old Party, has successfully erroded the strides we have made toward tolerance and recognition that the color of your skin is irrelevant.
Read some of the anti Obama posts on this site, and while they don't come out and say it plainly, it is the fact that they can't stand a black man in the White House. I know it would never happen, but to really make their little brains explode, paint the White House a different color.
I have associated with people of different backgrounds, different skin color, etc, and when scratched, their blood is just as red as anyone else's is. But leave it to the pugbags, they just gotta hate someone.
I heard that Jody & couldn't believe my ears...
Earlier in the day someone sent me this pic of a bumper sticker reading;
Don't Re-Nig in 2012!
http://www.google.com/search?q=don't+renig&hl=en&biw=1024&bih=599&prmd=imvnsu&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=CzlnT8KuIMKQgwe7hND5Ag&ved=0CFgQsAQ
Appears there are web-sites dedicated to selling bigotry & racism!
All Republicans may not be racist, BUT all racists are Republicans - Bill Maher
Unfortunately Ohio Democrat Senator Brown, while speaking on MSNBC, elected to use a word which many believe that given it similarity to the racial slur is better not used. Other words one may have chosen: reluctant to give or spend; stingy; miserly; meanly or ungenerously small or scanty.
“Of course we’re falling short,” he said. “There are people, as you know Matt, in this Congress who will always send a blank check when it comes to spending money on defense or war, but are a little more niggardly, if you will, on spending money on the actual veterans when they come home. And that means we don’t greet them well enough in terms of getting them the right testing when they’re back in Conshocken, Cleveland or Lime, Ohio.”
Any constructive thoughts regarding his poor choice?
The word niggardly has no relation or connection to the other racially charged N word.
The root word is Niggard, a 16th century term for a miserly or stingy person. Also it may have some connection to the old norse verb Nigla, meaning to fuss about small matters. Its root word is NOT the other N word. Just because they sound the same doesn't mean they are the same or even closely connected. The other racist N word has its connection with negre, French for Black.
This is why college is a good thing. We go there to learn our words.
ryan -- college is a good thing. i am simply pointing out in today's contentious political setting that it is interesting that a Senator has chosen to use a word, similar in its sound and pronunciation, to the racial slur.
if you were his chief of staff would you have cringed a bit as you heard him say that on television? could he have not used one of the synonyms or phrases that i included?
That's right, FR. Quote Bill maher who calls women the most vile, disgusting names in the world.
Ryandubya,
I love looking up the derivation of words.
"The root word is Niggard, a 16th century term for a miserly or stingy person. Also it may have some connection to the old norse verb Nigla, meaning to fuss about small matters. Its root word is NOT the other N word. Just because they sound the same doesn't mean they are the same or even closely connected. The other racist N word has its connection with negre, French for Black."
Sorry, your explanation will not fit on a bumper sticker, not even those big ole SUV's !!!
From - The Straight Dope:
Sure, the origin of "niggard" is unclear, but not its timeline, which predates the N-word in the English language by a couple hundred years at least. "Niggard" comes up as early as Chaucer, late 14th century. The most commonly speculated origin is Scandanavian nig/Old Norse hnoggr, meaning miserly. Don't know how much faith you want to put in Indo-European roots, but one meaning of the root ken- is conjectured to relate a family of words with a connotation implying closing, tightening, or pinching (the family of related words is hypothesized to include such n-words as nap, nibble, nod, nosh, neap, nip). The racial slur "@!$%#," on the other hand, doesn't enter the lexicon until the 1500's, first as "neger" or "neeger," obviously from the same root as the French negre and Spanish negro, words for the color black, which are derived from the Latin niger.
Me:
So each word has different origins even though they sound very similar. But, your point is noted. Why invite ridicule for the use of the word when something like 'miserly' would serve with much less consternation.
Actually, James, what you brought up is déjà vu all over again. . .
Some years ago in my state, there was a meeting to wrangle more state funds for one of our cities. One of the folks in the room used exactly that word to complain about the amount being sent them- and a woman at the meeting ran, literally, screaming, from the meeting.
Contacted the press.
Now, everyone else at the meeting was kind of stunned- but our state paper tried its best to jack it up into some kind of controversy.
The real controversy, it seems to me, is the poor vacabulary skills of supposedly educated people. Be that as it may, I can pretty much gurarantee you that there will be no issue here- Brown is a democrat.
We're he a republican, on the other hand, this would be front page, screaming headline, fodder. First Read would have led with it. All because some might either not understand the word- or mishear it- most, deliberately.
Sad times we live in. . .
Ryandubya: you are absolutely gramatically correct, as was the Sen. Brown. Unfortunately, most people do not (as they never have) pay attention to grammar or context. They hear what they want to hear and ignore the rest.
A few examples: the ACA will take away all insurance and put medicine in the governments hands. Hardly, rather it will add requirements to insurers and doctors to actually require more results oriented medicine. Further, it will put coverage into the hands of private insurance companies. So, you have the lie and reality.
Just as Paul Ryan's plan is meant to keep Medicare alive, it will, effectively, destroy it.
And you have the GOP economic plan which will "help the middle class", when in reality it will likely eliminate the middle class.
SallyAnn, Feisty, I know, I could not believe what I was hearing. It makes you angry and sad at the same time that once again open bigotry is acceptable. We know there are bigots on both sides of the aisles but I blame the GOP lawmakers who were too cowardly to call a lie, a lie; too cowardly to stand up to Rush Limbaugh and FOX liars and hate spewers. While Senator McCain had an occasional moment of honesty and, in my view, an awakening to what his campaign had done, his failure was in waiting so long to stop the madness coming from Palin, and allowing his staff to use the "terrorist" fear card and back-handed racial stereotyping because winning was all that mattered. I remember watching McCain give speeches, remember his uncomfortable flinching when he heard the supporters yelling terrorist, send him back to Kenya, socialist, and others which I will not repeat it but it was too late. The 2008 McCain/Palin campaign will always be remembered by me as the campaign that took this country back to the pre-civil rights days. It will be years before the GOP removes the tarnish of that from their politics.
james, as Ryandubya already pointed out, you would be wise to use the dictionary first before posting.
james-1937467
Turn off FOX NOISE so you can learn something
nig·gard·ly
[nig-erd-lee] Show IPA
adjective
1.
reluctant to give or spend; stingy; miserly.
2.
meanly or ungenerously small or scanty: a niggardly tip to a waiter.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/niggardly
=============================================
That sounds a lot better than calling the President a tar baby as one your tea bagger leaders.
Just so you know the GOP/TEA are niggardly and miserable because they tried being stingy in order to wreck this economy just so the President could. Remember McConnell, Palin, Boehnor etc. said their priority is to make Barack Obama a "one term president"
Now that it is coming back they are miserably sick.
If Rush Limbaugh or a Repub pol had said someone was being "niggardly", you libs (especially the Black libs) would be flipping the hell out. "It's a code!"...and all kinds of other crap. Once again, you people are hypocrites with a CAPITAL "H".
yeah, we'd flip out because it would be used incorrectly in a sentence and it would be OBVIOUS he didn't know what he was talking about
but other than that,...I'm sure he'd mean NO HARM by it,...
ha
Excellent Responce Jody:
"The Politics of Hate Finds its Way to March Madness"
@Damage.
Everytime I have posted, I have stated there needs to be less rhetoric and jumping to conclusions.
I personally would not have a problem with someone using the word Niggardly. Because I know what it means. I know it has no racial overtones.
And we can argue that it 'sounds like' something bad but that's a false statement as well. When I say Rick Santorum went off 'half cocked' do I mean he only has half a penis? No. Because that's not what it means. People need MORE schooling, not less. Then we would not worry so much about the rhetoric from either side and think for ourselves (in regards to BOTH parties).
Now where I WOULD have a problem with it is if someone was using it and they made known that they thought (like some people here) that it had racial overtones. But again, I can't see someone admitting to that.
Seems to me the choice of words was totally intentional and designed to stir up exactly these types of arguments.
If the original poster REALLY cared about working together or racial tolerance they would have avoided that word and used one of its synonyms. I mean lets face it... stingy or even miserly are much more commonly used and understood by all. No... that word was selected for a reason.
We see the choice of words for what it was and that choice says all we need to know.
(show me the clown nose, fisty!)
and boom goes the dynamite,...
there's SOB yelling from the rafters, "...My ignorance is equal to YOUR knowledge..."
priceless!
Jody - you left out the stupid AZ sheriff and legislature trying to keep President Obama off the ballot - still claiming his birth certificate is not real.
James, I actually agree with you. Although the meaning of the word niggardly is not a racial slur, during these times it might have been better to avoid this word and use another.
Thought of many of you when this was seen over the weekend. A comment about President Obama.
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting an inexperienced man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama Presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their President. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their President."
james-1937467 -
Your comment would be at least somewhat more meaningful if you would identify a link to who actually said it. Apparently, you can't - as I just googled it and found at least six different right wing sites who display it, none of whom can identify the author other than it was supposedly "someone" in the Czech Republic - back in 2010.
Another chain e-amil, perhaps?
james,
So what is being said, if you don't vote for the side you favor, one is a fool? I somehow think that while some voters may be foolish - not all are. I find the comment offensive to all voters. Just because one disagrees with a candidate does not make one foolish who favors said candidate. The same comment could apply to anyone running for office that one disagrees with and their supporters. The majority of voters cannot be all foolish - and after all, the one who wins does so with the majority of votes.
joanne -- it is a comment and an opinion. no need for a source. i respect your disagreement with its premise. you are entitled to your opinion just as i am.
phine - really? with all of the nastiness folks here say about republicans almost every day. the most recent being -- all republicans are racists (Dumb FUX 9.2)?
i find many of the comments on this site offensive to all voters. i disagree with President Obama on most things and am thereby labeled a racist. how does that reconcile in your mind? absolutely the same or similar things can be said about many (i do believe there are some honest politicians that have the will of the people foremost in their mind and not their own job security).
james,
I can only speak for myself, not others. But, to call voters "fools" just is one of those things that bugs me. For example, while I personally dislike our governor, Rick Scott, and heartily disagree with those who voted for him, I don't think that all who voted for him were fools. (BTW, one can disagree with the president and not be racist, at least in my view. Although some who are do have a problem with his race. But probably more a problem with the fact that he is a democrat)
Some voters can be misguided by voting only for party affiliation (I find that foolish, but to each his own). Or listening to ads and not doing due diligence in checking out each candidate and issue, but I find to lump a group of voters for voting for one candidate over another as fools just offensive to our form of government.
james, this is just my own personal opinion. As I said, I can speak only for myself.
phine -- thanks for your comments. we are clearly on opposite sides of the political spectrum on most things talked about here. it is a comfort to know that we can agree to disagree. i respect your thoughts and opinions.
have a nice day.
@james
Regardless of source or at whom it is directed, that quote is highly elitist. Clearly the author believes the common man is a dull-witted, contemptible beast and this opinion hints heavily that maybe only the so-called "worthy" should be enfranchised. Clearly, this elitist author would prefer an oligarchy.
Well, this is America and that's not how we do things here.
PS: You misquoted and/or misread the line from 9.2. Bill Maher is a professional jerk whose job is to be funny, so don't read too much into it; you're just wasting your time.
Hey First Read! Why ahven't we seen anything about the hilarious news that came out last week regarding Osama, Obama and Biden? It seems that Osama bin Laden was working on a plot to kill the POTUS, Obama. That's not the funny part. The funny part is that Osama wanted to assassinate our prez because it menat that BIDEN would then take over and EVEN OSAMA bin LADEN knows what a hapless, idiotic tool Biden is. Apparently, Osama's quote was that "Biden is woefully unprepared to be president and it will cause a CRISIS in America." Glad the fiflthy Islamofacists was never able to pull it off but it says ALOT about Biden and how obviously OUT THERE he is. And you dimwits got the nerve to talk about Palin...
Damage,
While I hesitate to respond to any of your posts, you obviously do not know much about Joe Biden. For a his verbal gaffes (and yes, I do know he makes them), he has one of the best minds in regards to foreign affairs. And I truly worry about someone who finds even talk of assassinating the president (whoever it may be) humorous truly offensive and disgusting.
Damage123:
Thanks for implying that Obama is doing his job adequately. Never thought I'd see you admit it.
Btw, if McCain had won, Osama would have had the same objective with the same anticipated result of making Palin the foolish president - unless she quit of course. You just never know if she would have hung around to finish her term.
james,
In my experience, most voters are voting for the person that represents their local values/concerns. For example, if you lived in a community where a defense contractor was the largest employer, you might vote for someone who is more hawkish (local jobs). Just an observation and a testament to the idea that all politics is local. (Not foolish)
phine -- if i were to concede that the Vice President knows foreign affairs so well why do you suppose the President did not select him to be the Secretary of State?
what were Secretary Clinton's skills that landed her the job?
ryan -- i stand corrected on the quote. I do find Mr. Maher as offensive an individual as there is in entertainment industry today.
i do not see the same elitist inference in the comment so we can disagree on that.
well the source was cited for the quote about All Racists being Republican,...so that misses the mark on its face,...
james,
I truly do not have the answer for you except that maybe Mrs. Clinton did not want the VP slot. Also, I consider her time as First Lady a valuable learning tool in foreign affairs (and her time in the senate). And, you must admit, her husband would be a terrific source to go to.
(And, cynically, having her at State kept Bill out of the White House)
Damage123: "Apparently, Osama's quote was that "Biden is woefully unprepared to be president and it will cause a CRISIS in America."
So are you saying that you respect the opinions and beliefs of Osama bin Laden more than you respect the President and Vice-President of the United States of America and the 65 million of your fellow Americans who voted for them? Really?
Just tribal message for the zany tribe.
For a guy who had nothing to do with the attack on Ms Fluke, Bill Maher sure is getting a lot of publicity around it.
Republicans try to play the "other side does it too" card, as if, even if it were true, which it isn't, that would excuse Limbaugh calling for a law school student standing up for greater access to contraception for young women, a slut.
Amen Ames!
Did Bill Maher go on a three day rampage demanding sex tapes???
The comparision is not even close...
Hi Clara
I'm glad you made it home safely. I really had so much fun. We gotta do it again.
I going to vote now by absentee @ City Hall since I missed early voting. I can see righties heads exploding. (voter fraud!)
Will talk to you when I get back.
amy -- the message that i try to share on this site is that while clearly a very left-leaning place which either has folks with blinders or rose-colored glasses through which they "see the news" that many of the attacks launched are from a pure bias-driven perspective.
It is not deflection or just simply saying the other side does it too but rather to show that there are generally two sides to a story and neither side is always right nor always wrong.
Having an opposing view is not sufficient reason to be berated and insulted; President Obama continues to call for a civil discourse. let's see if those of us here can abide by his wishes.
Here comes the Damaged one again, The Fool On the Hill, The No where Man.
Just wish he would go spew his hate somewhere else, anywhere else but here.
Oh, c'mon myvote...If damaged didn't post on here we would actually have to LISTEN to Grand Wizard Rush to know what his daily KKK talking point is. Although a pathetic one, even damaged serves a purpose.
...and then we get blessed with the fact that, in the course of attepting to put down Vice President Biden, damaged actually ALLIGNED him/herself with bin Laden!!! Damaged thought he/she was making an "intelligent" argument and ended up proving that he/she is in agreement with the man responsible for 9/11. It really doesn't get more low-information teabagger than that!!
And what exactly does Mitt Romney stand for? Somebody? Anybody?
Maybe the Mitt is going to use his Bain capital to invest in Flip Flops - summer is almost here!
Excellent post, Jody and so sad. To me it starts at the top---when Republicans refuse to treat the President with the respect due to his office (if not the person)---like yelling "you lie" during a state speech, and perpetuating lies about the President, the message seeps down to their supporters that this sort of bigotry is acceptable.
It started when the Chief Justice couldn't properly give him the oath of office. Before he could even get his whole staff aligned, Rush limpdick was telling his minions he had to fail. In all of the obstructions thrown in front of him, he has kept his dignity and poise. And the pugbags keep getting mad because Obama has acted decently when faced with that BS they throw at him.
remember, republicans do not have exclusivity when calling a President a liar in a public forum:
"President Bush is a liar. He betrayed Nevada and he betrayed the country."
Harry Reid, Meet the Press, December, 2004
james,
did W lie about WMD's or not? Calling someone a LIAR when they've lied isn't scurrilous,...it's just TRUTH.
Apparently Obama's comments on the Citizen United Supreme Court decision were, in fact, ACCURATE! so for Alito to shake his head and mutter "not true",...well, again, can't help but point out his LIE. Oh, and Wilson's petty, disrespectful outburst? Yep,...NOT TRUE!
James,
Harry Reid didn't yell it out during President Bush's State of the Union speech.
James, a comment on MTP is not comparable to GOPer Joe Wilson yelling "you lie" during a Presidential State of the Union address. No democrat has ever done that to any republican president. There is no excuse for that. What Joe Wilson did was dispicable and showed complete disrespect for the office of president. There is only one explanation for what Joe Wilson did, he does not accept that a man named Barack Obama who isn't white was President of the United States and that lack of acceptance and respect made him feel emboldened to yell "you lie". Those who defend Wilson by deflecting to a comment made on MTP is merely looking for an excuse. Joe Wilson lied about what President Obama's health care bill would do. Sorry, but President George Bush and VP Cheney did lie to the American people in their lead-up to our invasion of Iraq. When a lie is a lie, it needs to be called a lie and those making the comments need to be called what they are--a liar. The SOTU is not the place for it.
Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich tell whopper lies, dozens of them every day, to their supporters which makes them liars--where's the conservative outrage over the lies they are being told daily? Wanting to believe the lies is no excuse for failing to do one's own homework to get the facts.
But Jody, it's not a lie if you believe it... lol
Who in their right mind, outside of being a 1 percenter, would vote Republican?
Steeler - I am appalled at the behavior of people who should know better.
Joe Wilson's demonstration was beneath contempt. Honestly, where was this man raised that they did not teach basic good manners?
And Justice Alito - I was so disappointed with his gesture - and that was on top of the whole Citizen United decision. The Justices that wrote the majority paper will become known for this one bad decision.
President Obama should have had Wilson removed. Let him be ushered out in front of everyone, that is what they do to idiot parents at sporting events.
Thanks for the comments, all. My point, Katheryn, was that the coarsening of our discourse in politics has spread throughout our culture so that people don't have a problem yelling ethnic taunts and worse. I don't care if someone voted for him or not, Barack Obama is the President of the United States and deserves respect for that. And the young man playing basketball for his college did not deserve epithets shouted at him either.
based on the available information at the time i do not believe that President Bush lied about the WMD. Several agencies from both the United States and international governments held the same view. Several democrat Senators saw the same information and agreed with him.
was wilson's remark in poor taste -- most certainly.
was the President's chastising the Supreme Court during the state of the union in poor taste -- most certainly.
james - but Condi Rice had information that the "tubes" that we were told had to do with the deliver of WMD's could not be used for that purpose and she had given that info to Bush/Cheney. They chose to disregard that. She also said they were warned about air attacks on the US but chose not to alert the airlines because they didn't know how they would be carried out.
I don't have any problem with the President calling out the Supreme Court (not really so Supreme) about a decision to let our public offices be up for sale to the highest bidder. It was a HORRIBLE decision and they knew it when they did it. Just like Alito knew he should recuse himself from the case involving Cheney's buddies after he went hunting with Cheney. There are times you have to call people on stupid acts.
"There's one promise he's kept, one promise he's kept. When he campaigned he said he wanted to raise the price of gasoline.” But NBC’s Garrett Haake reported that independent fact-checkers have found that charge to be false."
NBC taking sides as usual. "Independent fact checkers" , my foot. The liberal media covering for the President.
"..it’s clear the Obama White House is worried, BIG TIME, about the politics of the energy and gas price issue."
So MSNBC will work hard to obfuscate the truth: Obama 's hatred of the American oil industry, and his alternative energy policy has been an unmitigated disaster and led to the high gas prices at the pump.
They ignore a 2008 interview by the President where he says gas price increases should be "gradual", and offset by tax cuts...
Boring conspiracy theory. Yawwwwnnnnn.
The truth is the following:
Press Release - Barack Obama's "Gradual Adjustment" To Higher Gas Prices
June 12, 2008
Read more at the American Presidency Project:John McCain: Press Release - Barack Obama's "Gradual Adjustment" To Higher Gas Priceshttp://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=91547#ixzz1pZUmoXBe
In An Interview With CNBC, Barack Obama Said He Would Have Preferred A "Gradual" Increase In Gasoline Prices.BARACK OBAMA: "Well, I think that we have been slow to move in a better direction when it comes to energy usage. And the president, frankly, hasn't had an energy policy. And as a consequence, we've been consuming energy as if it's infinite. We now know that our demand is badly outstripping supply with China and India growing as rapidly as they are. So..." HARWOOD: "So could these high prices help us?" BARACK OBAMA: "I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment. The fact that this is such a shock to American pocketbooks is not a good thing. But if we take some steps right now to help people make the adjustment, first of all by putting more money into their pockets, but also by encouraging the market to adapt to these new circumstances more quickly, particularly US automakers, then I think ultimately, we can come out o f this stronger and have a more efficient energy policy than we do right now." (CNBC, 6/10/08)
Read more at the American Presidency Project:John McCain: Press Release - Barack Obama's "Gradual Adjustment" To Higher Gas Priceshttp://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=91547#ixzz1pZU5Kpt7
shhhhhhhh, Job1
Repubs don't want CONTEXTUAL reference to their spoon fed drivel! They want a CANNED ditto head response!
Don't spoil their 'fun'!
Job1, well done!
Hard to imagine that the GOPers would think that a perference for "gradual" gas price increases means President Obama wants higher gas prices. Common sense should tell conservatives that increased global demand will result in higher gas prices but why allow the truth to enter the conversation when twisting the words to suit their narrative is their version of common sense.
Like it or not, the price of gas will continue to rise, The President was stating that he would prefer a more gradual increase. I think most of us realize the price will not be coming down much, if at all. How do you take the presidents words on this and twist it to him promising to increase gas prices?? Sounds pretty STUPID to me!
Interesting, isn't it. If someone quotes Romney saying he like firing people, Bob in the "Probe Me" state is the first to jump all over them for taking precious little Mittsy out of context.
Guess who is the first to take President Obama's words out of context. Bob in the "Probe Me" state. I guess we shouldn't be surprised that the supporter of a pathological liar has to be a liar to defend him.
Why doesn't Willard ever mention his record as governor on the campaign stump? Oh yeah, it is because he was a miserable failure. 47th in job creation, a big increase in debt, a real sore spot on the Romney "record" to be sure". And then there is crategate.
As he said, himself in the debate - He wasn't handed a great economy in MA and he did the best he could.
Which begs the question,...what is the 'best he can' in relation to THIS golden opportunity he'll be receiving?
Outsourcing to the lowest bidder and selling America's assets to the highest bidder? The man's a fool who has NO CLUE about government. Everytime I see a business guy make these grandiose claims about their 'experience' it just underscores how very LITTLE they understand government. In business, you can be a raider and a dictator. In government, you HAVE to work in coalitions and cooperation.
There is NOTHING about Willard Mitt Romney to indicate he is capable of either, other than his complete willingness to say ANYTHING for a vote. In that regard,...he is an adequate politician; but STILL nowhere close to a LEADER!
Mitt can't comment on any actual plans or proposals he has because he doesn't have any. His big game plan is to put Obama down. He doesn't have a clue about what he would do if he got into office - other than close more companies and send more jobs to China.
Obama/Biden 2012
It's creepy and stinks of Karl Rove. When all the little righty-thighty posters on here started screaching "Obama can't run on his record" all I could think was, "What are they trying to hide?"
Sure enough - the cream of there failed crop is precious little Mittsy - a "man" (to use the word loosely) who most certainly can not run on his record as a politician and was too stupid to think that his "career" in the "business world" would make him look like a destroyer of American jobs...not a creator of American jobs.
What the Rovian righties and the aryan Rushies want to hide about their impotent candidates is painfully obvious - they try to blame President Obama for it first.
The desperate Obama apologists at BSNBC just can't stop stumping for the weaker candidate.
Thermen Merman
Why doesn't Willard ever mention his record as governor on the campaign stump? Oh yeah, it is because he was a miserable failure. 47th in job creation, a big increase in debt, a real sore spot on the Romney "record" to be sure". And then there is crategate
How about all those jobs Robney created over seas?
Pueo-1105519
The desperate Obama apologists at BSNBC just can't stop stumping for the weaker candidate.
President Obama waves to revelers after he celebrated St. Patrick's Day during a stop at the Dubliner pub in Washington.
http://img4.allvoices.com/thumbs/image/609/480/90804100-obama-waves.jpg
Where were the Romey & Ricky suppoetere
Santorum listed by CREW as one of the top most CORRUPTED Senators. Romney isn't pro-small/medium business, he is a pro-conglomerate elitist. 1 candidate has been banned from the media.
More importantly, for news that affects everyone in this nation, why do I have to get it from another country?
youtu.be/iUbFy9eiJvy
I give up. Does this sum up the race so far?
Meanwhile President Obama is collecting free campaign material without paying one dime.
I see nothing on streamlining regulations to help ease the burden on small businesses. I see nothing on the government overstepping its authority with past and future attempts at SOPA or PIPA. I see nothing on budgeting so the government can actually pay its bills. I see nothing attacking the root cause of the stalemate in government which is the lobbyist money. Arghhhhhhhh.
Well, they took the first video down. Try this before it's gone:
youtube.com/watch?v=iUbFy9eiJvY&feature=youtu.be
www.dogsagainstromney.com
@FEISTY DEADHEAD: How is that boycott Rush Limbaugh and get him off the radio going, LMAO He gets more people listening to him in one day than the Commander and Thief gets in one month. How are you liking these gas prices, I'm loving them hope they go to $10.00 a gallon then I can sit back and watch you Liberals beg Obama to buy your gas for you!!! If you ever need a ride both my new cars always have a full tank, LMAO, I really love all this new hope and change Obama has provided!!!!
Spoken like a true Rush Bagger.
Man does not live by bread--or cars alone.
Wow! Cliff sounds like he's about 11 years old! Does your mommy know you're playing on the internet again? Does mommy listen to Rush the Lush? Maybe after a few narcotics and booze?
cliff-567 - yet many of his advertisers have left him. And, no matter who listens, without advertising dollars his time will be limited.
Your little mind is still not understanding that our President doesn't determine gas prices. And, I doubt your little toy cars will hold anyone in them. But, you go ahead and play with them, okay???
The Republicans are beating each other up and Obama is smiling. Even with his 41% approval rating, Obama is slightly ahead of Romney and Santorum. However, you can bet once the primaries are over and a nominee is chosen, the tide will change. All conservatives, many independents and even some Democrats will be saying anyone but Obama. Only 233 days left of Change We Never Got.
Approval rating is 51%, not 41%. The voters may be stupid, but they are not dumb enough to go back to the failed Bush policies that caused the economic mess in the first place. That is all that Romney offers, the exact same sh!t as Bush.
Women are better off with the Democrates- period-exclamation point. It is called equal pay and choice.
Thermen,
Uh, in case you haven't been paying attention the last three years, Obama is Bush. He has repeated every single one of Bush's policies. And yes, it is 41%, the latest CBS-Washington Post poll.
National Journal joins Reuters and Pew in showing Barack Obama back to a 50% or better rating on job approval
Road Warrior,...that poll was proved to be an outlier - sample was SKEWED:
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/03/14/an-obvious-outlier-the-nine-point-presidential-approval-drop-that-probably-isnt/
Road Warrior - ratings are at 50% or better for Obama. And, once his competition is announced, Obama's ratings will be higher. Neither Romney nor Santorum has a plan, a proposal, nothing!
Obama/Biden 2012
Time to take all that Chicago trash to the curb. Romney is a real breath of fresh air. Obama leaving will be like the White House passing gas.
Obama shelved in 2012
What are you talking about? He's been [unsuccessfully] running for office for how many years?
Ruken,
I seem to recall someone named Nixon who failed the first time. Went on to win two terms.
I expect Romney will win easily this time. His incredibly successful record will garner his second term. He will emerge as the very best of our Presidents. So popular amongst those in the know, that he will be able to just name his successor in 2016.
Obama will go down in history as that failed social experiment that hurt our nation so much, and wasted four precious years. A time when America temporarily lost it's way.
The Democratic party?? Well.....it may well become an insult to even be called a Democrat. Like being called an idiot.
I also recall him resigning in disgrace.
Good comparison with Nixon and Romney---Instead of gas passing---both liked cash passing to the caribbean/ Romney wins with feces dog feces passing also.
Joseph, are we taking about Mitt's successful record as Governor? The one where job creation in his state fell to 47th in the nation? That record? Or the one where he left his state in debt? That record? Looking forward to your clarification.
Romney was beaten by McCain in the 2008 GOP race. McCain got his fancy pants azz kicked by Obama in 2008. How and what will Romney do to not get his azz kicked by Obama in 2012?
U so krazy. Seek help. Chicago Trash? What do you call the crap Seamus deposited on the Romney station wagon?
Joseph Parent - you smoking those funny cigarettes again??? Or something stronger? Romney has not been successful at any job he was elected to. And, when he was buying companies, he closed them then sent the jobs to China. If that's success, you're welcome to it!
Joseph Parent...wow. I guess if you have your head shoved up Rush's bum 3 hours a day, even Mitt Romney can seem like a breath of fresh air. When you call the President of the United States "Chicago trash" you revoke your right to wonder why sane people consider the "tea" party to be racist.
You embarass yourself without even noticing. That would be a tell-tale sign of "low information".
The rightwing loonies are out in full force, as usual. The thing that jumped out at me the most was the part about Haley Barbour voting for the Newtster because Newt's his friend. Haha! So that's it, Haley? You cast your vote for him for that? Might as well, since there's no other reason you could possible have. So, Ricky says that if he wins Illinois he'll get the nomination. Ooohh, Ricky....that was a bold statement. But it goes along with all the other moronic ones you've made when you get overly excited and go off-script. No discipline, whatsoever. And you want to be President? Uh.....no. Then there's Mittens. Another weekend spent telling lie after lie, because he thinks it's his turn to be President. The whole Republican Party is one big joke. I can't wait til Nov. 7th when all these wannabes go away. OBAMA/BIDEN 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Romney has a fantastic, excellent and unmatched jobs record....in China.
I realize that you are just repeating what you were told, but if one looks at what is going on now, one would realize that Obama has a good jobs program for China, too. Even GM, the bailout that defined his presidency, is now investing in France and building plants in China. Why can't the Chinese by American made Buicks?
Roger - GE is building 4 manufacturing centers in the US and bringing back 70% of it's production. Car manufacturing plants are adding new shifts and building new facilities. Sorta makes you wrong, right?