In context:

Turns out "Republicans who have negotiated with Lew" found him to be formidable.

Their problem with Mr. Lew is that he is incredibly fast on his feet, and can respond with the Math under pressure, in negotiations.

THAT is why GOP/McConnell would prefer NOT to have to deal with him.

Good morning, everyone. Now that I have a new computer at work that can handle First Read, I thought I would mosey over and see whether anyone here can explain to me how the recent shooting of the pistol-toting soccer mom by her parole officer husband fits in with their Second Amendment uber alles philosophy. I see David has already done a pretty good number on the issue, but I figured a little piling on couldn't hurt in the context of a real live -- or dead -- case.

There are only two choices in this case, both of them bad. Either the husband grabbed her gun and shot her, or his gun trumped hers. Either way, the mom's gun failed to protect her in the exact way that she needed protection. Either way, their kids are orphaned because of a gun. They would no doubt have said they were responsible gun owners and scoffed at the rest of us pansies. But this case proves once again how it is all too easy to pick up a gun to settle a heated dispute. I guess it means that marital counseling is out.

The only good news here is that they didn't take the kids with them, which so often happens in domestic violence cases.

I'm waiting, Second Amendment advocates, for you to blame this one on the liberals.

Hey, Anna Molly, welcome back - you've been missed.

And I'm sure the explanation is quite simple. As I understand it, the couple's children were home at the time - a 10-year-old boy, and two girls, ages 6 and 2. Okay, we'll cut the 2-year-old some slack here, but obviously if the older kids had also been armed, this tragedy could easily have been prevented.

Sorry....I don't really mean to make light of what's obviously a tragic situation. Now that I 've got the snark out of my system, I will only say that the stock response of more guns preventing more deaths doesn't quite seem to apply here. But I'll wait for the Second Amedment crowd to educate me.

Debt Ceiling Debate

Congress already wrote and mailed the checks to our creditors and the creditors have deposited the checks and are now waiting for the check to clear so they can pay their employees and creditors. To not pay is to default causing economic distress around the world.

The only legitimate purpose for a Debt Ceiling in the current process is to create a discussion that allows politicians make points about the size of our debt but since the money has already been spent it should not be an excuse to deny an increase of the debt ceiling.

It is not used by most other countries – The U.S. and Denmark are the only democratic countries in which Congress has to approve borrowing separately from spending. In most other countries the authority to borrow money is tied to the authority to spend money.

Solution: Change the process so the authority to borrow is part of every spending bill. Using that method will force Congress to address the amount of spending for each and every spending bill. Or use a less full-proof method by voting to increase the debt ceiling at the same time as final passage of the budget.

Feisty, it's terrible isn't it? Journalists don't do much do they? They see a photo and decide to make an issue out of it. I don't watch Scarborough, however I did have his program on the morning after the election. I had read throughout the years that he was pretty disrespectful to Mika, but wasn't sure if it was true. When I turned him on after that particular morning, I couldn't believe how he was treating her. I was shocked by his tone towards her.

Isn't his round table made up of mostly men on most mornings?

This Administration is and has been working - around the clock - the Romney campaign didn't. That's the difference. The Romney campaign as well, were damn disrespectful to women throughout their campaign, just so they could please "the right".

Anna, haven't seen you - Happy New Year.

David...it's an Internet message board. It doesn't matter, it's not real life. You'd think this is a big deal or something. Likes, green stars, pats on the back...it's all meaningless.

It reminds me of an old Styx tune...

Bobster got 19 votes for his stupid, and easily debunked lie. These people refuse to learn under any circumstances. We have to realize this and ignore them. That's really how you Whack-a-troll.

Thanks David. Old Bobster most likely lives in his mom's basement.

Hey, just look at the diversity with the White House Press Corp. This photo is from yesterday.

Look who gets front row seats - white men.

http://twitter.yfrog.com/ke637thj

As a matter of fact, the deer in our yard are happy to keep us company, while eating our flowers/veg.

We constantly assist the local deer to cross the road.

The obvious fact: Deer are completely defenceless.

We have to realize this and ignore them

Walker says after a 1000 word diatribe, complete with a cut and paste saved history of comments, about the poster.

Walker, ignore doesn't mean what you think it means.

Come on lets keep borrowing! We can borrow our way to prosperity. Tax the wealthy, take it all and keep on spending. No shortage of stupidity from liberals that believe we can finance our government. Obama is the one sitting in the Oval Office today, and he has done absolutely nothing to address this nations fiscal condition. The real fiscal cliff is fast approaching, and it will not be the politicians that caused it or could have prevented it that get hurt. Obama simply does not care how much debt is run up on his watch, just so long as he can be safely out of office before the financial collapse occurs. It is not if, but when, and voters are solely to blame for continually sending the same people to Washington but expecting different results. So I say continue to point fingers, blame everyone else, make up excuses, and as a reward for your ignorance nothing will ever get solved.

But the new liberal aristocracy is far less discreet than the old. Most are self-made multimillionaires who acquired their money through government service, finance, law, investment, or marriage. If the old-money liberals lived it up tastefully within their walled family compounds, the new liberal aristocrats are unashamed about living openly in a manner quite at odds with their professed populist ideology.

Take former vice president Al Gore. He has made a fortune of nearly a billion dollars warning against global warming — supposedly shrinking glaciers, declining polar-bear populations, and the like — while simultaneously offering timely remedies from his own green corporations, all reminiscent of the methodology of Roman millionaire Marcus Licinius Crassus, who profited from fires and putting them out.

Now Nobel laureate Gore has sold his interest in a failing cable-television station for about $100 million — and to the anti-American Al-Jazeera, which is owned by the fossil-fuel-rich royal family of Qatar. Gore rushed to close the deal before the first of the year to avoid the very capital-gains tax hikes that he has advocated for others less well off. That’s a liberal trifecta: enhancing a fossil-fuel consortium, attempting to beat tax hikes, and empowering an anti-American and anti-Semitic media conglomerate run by an authoritarian despot — all from a former vice president of the United States who crusades for ending our reliance on fossil fuels and for raising taxes on the wealthy.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/337123/new-liberal-aristocracy-victor-davis-hanson#

"the White House is receiving criticism for a lack of diversity"

oh, lighten up, the poet who will speak at the inauguration is a young, gay Cuban-American who lives in Maine! Take that!

If I thought the Republicans truly cared about the debt ceiling and hadn't done it themselves it would be one thing but I know they are just being obstructionist and doing whatever they can to stop the President from doing the things we elected him to do. My only consolation is that they are finishing themselves as a national party.

Amy---I hadn't realized the poet lives in Maine---sure a big weather difference from Cuba. I have the same comments about the GOP who talk about diversity in the Cabinet---the same people who had 5 white men on a panel about women's health issues and NO women chairing committees in the House until people said something and then they made a woman chair of the administration committee--you know, in charge of paper clips.

Bombs and guns don't kill people. In Tel Aviv, a bomb detonated, killing 7 people. Now according to the NRA and gunners, if those 7 victims had all been packing bombs, they could have in turn denoted their 7 'good guy' bombs, negating the 1 'bad guy' bomber. Now, I realize I'm just a simple liberal, but no matter how I run the scenarios through my head, I cannot find a scenario where a total of 8 bombs going off in a crowded market place, school, or theater, would have lowered the death rate. Perhaps one of those super intelligent 'gunners', or heck, that Utah pistol packing teacher, could whip up an excel spreadsheet showing us one of those cool bar graphs and the downward trending deathrate as more bombs are exploded.

Ben - you post shows you are beyond delusional and into the completely wacked out stage. YOU are one of those people who should never be allowed to own a gun. Go ahead with your babbling. It makes for great comic relief!

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

*** The disorganized cabinet shuffle:

For some strange reason, I find this headline to be hysterically funny!!! LOL

Talk about ginning up a NONtroversy!

With everything going on in this country, the MSM wants to spend a week creating even MORE drama!

On that topic, Errin Burnett on CNN spent two months promoting the Republican smear campaign against Susan Rice, and now she's attacking Obama for not having enough diversity in his cabinet choices!

WOW Ben! Now I know I've seen it all!!! They honestly take this *&%# seriously!

Seeking, caaalllllmmm down...it's just an imaginary Internet message board.

Just give the GOP all the Rope they need and the Blackmail will end !

Bycrackee - oh, I see you didn't address delusional Ben. Why is that, exactly????

On that topic, Errin Burnett on CNN spent two months promoting the Republican smear campaign against Susan Rice, and now she's attacking Obama for not having enough diversity in his cabinet choices!

It's a shame that shrew didn't end up on NewsforDumbFux, she would be right at home there!

Thankfully, I haven't had the displeasure of listening to her rhetoric since she left MSNBC...

On another note the Today Show outed Gotcha Gregory earlier in the week as being the biggest "diva" on NBC when it comes to the hair & makeup chair!

WHY does that not suprise me... LMAO

It makes me sad to see Obama announce status quo white men repeatedly for high level posts in his cabinet. If anyone was going to be sensitive to needs of outreach, I would think Obama and his adviser Jarrett would be.

If a Republican president did this, progressives would be all over it, all day, talking about the retro patterns of behavior in govt leadership.

It's been almost laughable to see MSNBC pundits struggle to find a workaround (let's look at the whole, or, it's not over yet) for this optic or, in the case of Rev Al, simply ignore it. Just months ago, Rev Al was berating the Republican leaders for only appointing white men to committee chairs.

And, listen, inviting blacks or cubans to an inaugural party does not equal jobs in leadership positions.

Because THIS, Seeking:

"right now I'm thinking this had to be a inside job somehow.... This is some SCARY @!$%#! "

...is too funny to ignore!

KeenInsight

It makes me sad to see Obama announce status quo white men repeatedly for high level posts in his cabinet. If anyone was going to be sensitive to needs of outreach, I would think Obama and his adviser Jarrett would be.

Have you been living under a rock for the past three months? Two angry old white men in the GOP, John McCain and Lindsey Graham, smeared Susan Rice, a thoroughly qualified black woman, to the point where she got fed up and withdrew her name for consideration as Secretary of State. But let's blame Obama anyway.

And finally, it’s a process story. At the end of the day, it’s likely that Obama’s second-term cabinet will have plenty of diversity and top-notch names. But the process hasn’t been pretty. Question for the White House: Why didn’t it have a second-term transition director? Someone whose full-time job was to keep an eye on the optics of how and when to announce, on the leaks etc.?

===================

Sooooo, in other words, all of what you said before you really didn't mean b/c in the end, what is pasted below is what you know the real truth is?

Based off of that, my takeaways:

1) the story line is media driven, vs fact driven (nothing new on that front)

2) 2nd term transition Director...so we can hear some in the Public and the entire GOP delegation speak to more "czar" for the tax payer to pay so so the President can make sure someone is looking out for the "optics"....that would go over like a lead brick.

First Read:

This gap between the Republican vote and the seats they won is on the high side, but certainly not without precedent over the past 40 years. If you began your career as a Republican trying to win the House in the 1970s and 1980s, you would adopt, as I do, the borrowed adage 'there's no crying in redistricting.'"

Gerrymandering is something that both sides really do. That's not a false equivalency argument. It takes a lot of nerve for John Boehner to lie to the public about how the voters decided to give the Republicans control over the House. The voters did no such thing, and gave the popular vote majority to the Democrats. But you never hear the corporate media call out Boehner for his lie.

Tweet/TOD:

The Obama admin's gender breakdown is 50-50 according to @msnbc yet they and their cronies manufacture a "Obama has a women problem" drivel.

Ben at #1.17,

Is not fooling me - and probably not too many others - that he thinks I am Navy.

Not buying it.

"Disorganized?"

Shockingly unexpected.

Pigotry

Can you believe that in just a few weeks, there will be another fight over the debt ceiling which was first put up by Congress in 1917 during WWI to manage borrowing? The US is no longer an isolationist rural nation today. But the GOP is still stuck in the 'bad old days'.

Wait. That's your excuse for removing the debt ceiling? LOL! Too funny!

Can we allow the Republicans to hold the nation hostage for their own partisan self-interest? The last time
(summer 2011), the fight led to the downgrade US AAA credit rating for the first time since 1917 when the US first earned AAA.

If you're pushing for unlimited debt then you got NO business crying and whining about what OTHERS are willing to do to our credit rating.

The GOP has not learned anything from their election losses in November. The Voters are ready to punish the GOP more,s tarting November 2014.

Did the dems learn anything after their shellacking in 2010? Do any politicians ever learn anything?

@ Joanne --

Thank you for the welcome back. But if you're waiting for this crowd to educate you, you'll be waiting a while. All snark aside (and appreciated for what it was, by the way), even "reasonable" gun laws (and I hear you Backhouse) would not have saved these parents.

Right up to the day they died, they no doubt complied with all applicable gun laws.

What killed these parents was not laws, or lack thereof. It was the ready availability of guns.

Indeed, as is always the case, the only common denominator in gun crimes is ... guns.

Is not fooling me - and probably not too many others - that he thinks I am Navy.

@Backhouse - as I understand Ben's paranoia, it is this:

USNavy aka Backhouse is Tom Brokaw

Feisty is Jen Psaki

Ron I. is Jon Stewart

John B. is Bill Maher

GBM is Barbara Walters

NewDay is Whoopi Goldberg

Dennis is Steven Colbert

Amy is Barbara Streisand

And your are all crazy socialist, communist, Marxist, Fascist liberals intent on silencing;

Boblotsa Numbers who is the murderer Charles Manson

Benlotsa Numbers who is the conspiracy theorist Rush Limbaugh.

Wow, what a power group. Can I have ya'll autographs?

AM, hi.

Guns plus Ammo.

Hagel: A Petty Pick

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/337184/hagel-petty-pick-jonah-goldberg

Obama isn't showing “bipartisan spirit” in choosing his secretary of defense.

It’s official. President Obama has named former senator Chuck Hagel (R., Neb.) as his nominee for secretary of defense. Hence, we may be in store for the worst defense-secretary-nomination fight since George H. W. Bush’s failed appointment of Senator John Tower (R., Texas) more than 20 years ago.

The interesting question is, why? Why waste the political capital? Why pass over more qualified candidates who would sail through confirmation, including Michele Flournoy — who’d be the first female defense secretary?

The most ridiculous answer is among the mainstream media’s favorites: bipartisanship. According to Politico, the choice “appeals to Obama’s bipartisan spirit.” The Washington Post, in a front-page news story, says that “Hagel’s successful nomination would add a well-known Republican to the president’s second-term Cabinet at a time when he is looking to better bridge the partisan divide, particularly after a bitter election campaign.”

What is particularly bizarre about this talking point is that it often appears in articles that go on to talk about how tough and grueling the nomination battle will be thanks to strong Republican opposition. So which is it? Is it a bridge across the partisan divide? Or is it an “in-your-face” nomination (South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham’s words) aimed at eliciting a fight with Republicans?

From the perspective of nearly everyone on the right, it’s the latter. Whether it’s payback for the scuttled non-nomination of Susan Rice to be secretary of state or whether it’s simply of a piece with Obama’s efforts to divide and conquer the GOP that were on display throughout the “fiscal cliff” negotiations, the consensus in much of conservative Washington is that Obama is making this nomination at least in part out of spite.

Indeed, that’s one major reason Hagel has so many unlikely friends these days. Hagel — never overburdened with too heavy a reputation for insight, knowledge, or humility — is loathed, with ample justification, by many foreign-policy hawks, Israel supporters, and neocons (those are overlapping but hardly synonymous groups, by the way). He is arguably the most prominent opponent of sanctions on bad actors in the Middle East. He’s heaped scorn on those who would take a hard line with Iran. His geopolitical acumen is of the sort that fails to shine even in the comment sections on blogs. The Iraq war, for example, was according to Hagel a war for oil.

And Hagel’s views on Israel are, to be generous, hard to reconcile with those of the man who successfully campaigned for president just a couple of months ago as a staunch friend of that country. Even if Hagel’s gaffe about the perfidious influence of the domestic “Jewish lobby” was accidental, his coolness to Israel is hard to dispute. For instance, when Palestinian suicide bombers were tearing the country apart in 2002, Hagel insisted in an op-ed article that this was the time for Israel to “take steps to show its commitment to peace.”

For some, the thinking seems to be that if the Hagel nomination is a thumb in the eye of the neocon crowd, it must be worth it. David Greenberg writes in The New Republic that many “liberals are bending over backward to praise Hagel, in effect saying they would prefer an archconservative male mediocrity to a liberal female rising star.” Why? Because punishing Hagel’s enemies is worth a potentially lousy defense secretary.

This spirit results in some really batty arguments for Hagel’s confirmation. For instance, New York Times columnist Roger Cohen writes that the “chief” reason Hagel should be confirmed is that doing so “will provoke a serious debate on what constitutes real friendship toward Israel.” Even if you agree with Cohen’s barmy views of geopolitical “friendship,” Hagel’s got real problems if this is the best case for his nomination.

The Defense Department faces imminent cuts, Chinese and Russian nationalism are ascendant, the Middle East is becoming even more destabilized and theocratic, and we’re still at war in Afghanistan, but Hagel’s chief qualification is that he’ll be a great conversation starter? Wow.

The coming nomination fight will undoubtedly focus on the strength of the case against Hagel. But the real indictment of Obama’s pick is the weakness of the case for Hagel — and the pettiness of the pick in the first place.

— Jonah Goldberg is editor-at-large of National Review Online and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Guns plus Ammo.

What's the point of having a gun without it, Backhouse?

I am disturbed by the argument that if we limit the clips from 100 round to 10, we've somehow solved this problem.

What? The first ten are free?

CheddarIsBetter

Obama wants a blank check. Sorry Obummer, you've already spent enough!

writing blank checks were the specialty of the Bush Adminitration. And sorry but "Obummer" had not spent "enough" as you claim since his biggest bills are: the unpaid Bush tax cuts, the unpaid Bush wars, the unpaid Medicare Part D.

I'll tell you what: you write to your fiscally IRresponsible Republican Congressmen to magically erase those 3 "little" bills, and we can actually have a discussion about spending.

AM - the size of clips.

Have you been living under a rock for the past three months? Two angry old white men in the GOP, John McCain and Lindsey Graham, smeared Susan Rice, a thoroughly qualified black woman, to the point where she got fed up and withdrew her name for consideration as Secretary of State. But let's blame Obama anyway.

So what? They've also smeared Chuck Hagel, but the president nominated him anyway. Anyway, David Axelrod has stated that Obama never even considered Rice for nomination. And by looking at his current slate of picks, it certainly doesn't appear that she would fit in with the trend.

I can be upset that these are all white men. But I'm even more upset about the views they represent which are decidedly status quo. We have serious problems in this country with employment, banking behavior, civil liberties, health care, etc. and we leave it in the hands of white men whose conservative views are well documented, to decide. They all agree on everything--they all nod yes at the urinal.

RedDevs/O'Donnell,

OOF!

You've been & gorn & let the Cat out of the bag!

Rick - Obama's has learned through his welfare mother and Chicago politics that you don't have to earn money, you just spend somebody elses. Pretty simple policy, Why do you think Obama went to Chicago? To learn how to be a better liberal. And why don't we look at Illinois debt problem Obama helped create. 100 BILLION in stolen Pension and rising fast, what did the all Democrat in Illinois due last session? Nothing, just like Obama has done. He learned a lot from being in Chicago. Bankruptcy here we come, nice legacy.

Anna Molly

But this case proves once again how it is all too easy to pick up a gun to settle a heated dispute. I guess it means that marital counseling is out.

And this case- http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/dramatic-911-call-released-in-intruder-shooting/nTrLK/ once again proves how easy it is to pick up a gun and defend your life and those of your children.

Should we really not be allowed to defend ourselves because some people abuse that right? That actually makes "sense" to people?

I think the most profound quote I have heard lately came from a person that I didn't note their name. For which I am sorry. So I will use this unnamed source which will probably cause some diversion. However this person said. "adding more guns to an incident like The theater shooting, or the school in New Town would have had the effect of throwing gas on a fire to put it out."

More guns and more powerful ammunition has been tried, since the assault rifle ban was allowed to expire even more of these weapons are on the streets of our cities and that is a problem. In Michigan we have open carry now and a group of gunners showed up at a city commissioner meeting wearing their weapons to protest that cities gun laws which states that no one is to be armed at public meetings. Yes nothing happened, but with a half a dozen armed people in the room I can't imagine what the sight would been if a person showed up armed and with malice in their heart. Between the armed police officer and the armed public what a gun fight that would have been with the cop trying to figure out who was the bad guy.

I think we need to remember that the difference between a good guy with a gun and a bad guy with the gun can change with just one squeeze of the trigger.

Oh my, getting back to cabinet appointments, all of the cable news jockeys this morning are blaring that the NY Times has pointed out that the new appointees are all WHITE MALES! They also published two photos taken the Emperor's office; the first showed an all white, all male group assembled. Then the showed a photo the white house quickly provided showing a mixed male/female group. What say you libs about this bigoted travesty....afterall, this administration is supposed to "look like America"....what's with all of the rich old white dudes?

Suggestion to Obama: if you want your staff to look like America, why don't you appoint some teenagers sitting on their obese butts, and texting or playing games on their "devices"?

"But some legitimate excuses for it:"

Typical - FR making excuses for Obama.

The press nitpicks President Obama's recent appointments as being males, nitpicks one photo--here's looking at you Chuck Todd in yesterday's briefing room--these same press folks never once question their own duplicity in assisting the GOP to eviscerate UN Ambassador Susan Rice who might have been nominated to be Secretary of State. Everyday, we watched the press willingly allow the GOPers every opportunity to engage in character assassination through slander and lies without some much as the blink of an eye. So, media who-ies, take a look in the mirror and ask why you did that.

Reality check: does anyone honestly think that right now a female nominee for Secretary of Defense would not be filibustered and blocked by the GOP? A female nominee would be given the same treatment the GOP gave Susan Rice and the press would be willing participants in their cause. Yet these same press corps dares question what they perceive as a lack of diversity. Face it, the GOP still resides with a mindset that women shouldn't even serve in the military but rather they should be home, as Romney put it, making dinner.

And this case-

Tell us again how this is an example of a good guy with a gun winning out over a bad guy with a gun? This was a gun against a crowbar. Try, try again.

Oh, and how about that Education Sec. Arne Duncan. Came from Chicago Public Schools, They are only 1 BILLION dollars in debt. Another great Obama cabinet pick. Don't forget the $500,000 dollar reward for the minority kids killing each other in Chicago with a 2X4. That's some great education reforms! Go Obama!!! Picking a guy from one of the worst education systems in america, how damn dumb can you be!

its a disaster:

- the GOP dug its heels in and has a total disfunction thing going on

- the fiscal cliff showdown was terrible... both sides lost

- the gun control thing is already lost, Obama has backed way off and actually said his goal is to get legislation done by year end.... it's become a bargaining chip for the debt ceiling... game over

- the cabinet process is completely bungled

- republicans are crossing their arms and basically sayin: we took two years off and were gonna take the next 4 off also... and were gonna get away with it...

the entire govt needs to get fired

David Walker

Let's help each other out. When we identify a troll, when we identify someone who comes only to add noise, let's out them. It's easy, and it's very important to do this. I'm going to play Whack-a-troll with Bobster-1557895.

Per the NewsVine Code of Honor-

1-Above all else, respect others. Address issues and arguments and refrain from
making personal attacks. If you see something disrespectful or inappropriate,
report it - rather than further inflaming the situation.

b- Harassment and/or intimidation of others on Newsvine will not be tolerated,
and patterns of such behavior may result in account cancelation.

So should we all run and report YOU to the mods as being a malicious user??? Just sayin'

If you can't take it you probably shouldn't dish it out lest you make a hypocrite of yourself.

"There is no question that Team Obama’s campaign operation outgunned the Romney effort last year."

Why did Obama win?

Obama increased the number of people dependent on the government for assistance (the number of people getting food stamps, free health care and/or cash aid increased from about 30 million in 2008 to about 47 million in 2012). That's an increase of about 17 million getting 'free' assistance from the government.

Obama's campaign then implied that “If Romney is elected, he will take away your food stamps”.

Obama won this group by about 11 million votes, while Romney won the group that pays the income taxes to fund the welfare by about 6 million votes – Net win for Obama of about 5 million votes.

Simple, but effective.

According to Exit Polls from the election, there were about 50.8 Million (41% of total) voters in the income group averaging under $30,000 per year, and 30.9 Million of them voted for Obama, vs only 19.9 Million for Romney – that's a net gain for Obama of 11 million votes, and Obama won overall by less than 5 million votes.

On that topic, Errin Burnett on CNN spent two months promoting the Republican smear campaign against Susan Rice, and now she's attacking Obama for not having enough diversity in his cabinet choices!

But you are quick enough to jump on Republicans over comments like "Binders of Women". We have evidence that the Obama WH is a "boys club" and a hostile environment to women, but that will not stop you from giving this Administration a pas on ANYTHING.

The actual charges themselves have been examined by authors of previous books about Obama. But in "Confidence Men," Suskind suggests that the male-dominated hierarchy and boy's club culture inside the White House was more alarming than has previously been reported. He writes that when Dunn joined the election team as the first significant female hire, she was shocked to see that the campaign "had more to do with frat house antics than third-wave feminism." (Suskind's words). The most provocative section came next.

"But looking back," recalled Anita Dunn, when asked about it nearly two years later, "this place would be in court for a hostile workplace... Because it actually fit all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women."

According to "Confidence Men," the president and his communications team were late to start thinking about the issue, only addressing the role of women in the administration after sitting down with several top female aides during a November 2009 dinner. Dunn doesn't dispute the idea that there was, at one point in time, cause for concern about whether or not women were being valued inside the White House. Her full quote, as relayed in the Post, implies that much. But she insists that the president should be credited for both controlling and changing that climate.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/20/ron-suskind-anita-dunn-obama-women_n_972253.html

Now you can argue that the President has changed the culture and this report is a he-said, she-said argument, but when it comes to the top jobs that the President picks, not when it is politically expedient as in the case of SOS Clinton, he picks men.

Where are your "Binders of Women" Mr President?

Actions speak louder than words, and having a Cuban-American poet at the inauguration is a fig leaf.

I would like an honest response and just wanted to put a disclaimer that I am not trying to feed our right wing posters with this question.

As a minority, I feel a little bothered with this article. I never like the idea that there HAS to be a minority candidate. If the people the President elected for the job are capable picks I do not understand how he erred. To claim that it is a debacle simply because there are no minorities seems counter-productive to the idea of diversity and inclusion. My personal opinion is it actually feeds the idea that when a minority does reach one of these high levels other people were overlooked because they were searching specifically for a minority candidate.

I have seen this wayof thinking in many areas and would just like to hear others thoughts. Do you think there HAS to be a minority candidate just to give the public the assurance that discrimination was not a factor in selection? S

Sorry if my wording made the question provocative, was not sure how to phrase.

RedDevPS

Tell us again how this is an example of a good guy with a gun winning out over a bad guy with a gun? This was a gun against a crowbar. Try, try again.

And what exactly is your point? That the woman was not in danger because the man only had a crowbar? I don't need to try again, I proved the point I was trying to make. You apparently don't even have one.

writing blank checks were the specialty of the Bush Adminitration.

and the current one seems to have adopted the crappy policies of Bush. Seems Big O doesnt quite understand the definition of Change.

Sure glad he has the E.O. power like a good Imperator to ban guns. Im also thankful that Obama and the Government know what to do, I would hate those Reichwingers controlling my life.

All Hail Imp. Obama savior of America

RedDev, cheers for that list!

Akeem - Agreed, but this monster was created by the liberals. A person should only be judged by his content period. But, alas, the left has been destoying minorites for years with thier policies and will not take credit for that!

Akeem,

What I here is a lot of complaining but no one is giving names of minorities that have both the qualifications and would fit in an Obama / Liberal administration other than the vice-Sec. of Defense

Backcountry - you proved nothing. The premise from the NRA and the gunners is that good guys with guns is the only way to overpower bad guys with guns. In the story you provide, the bad guy didn't have a gun. You could make the weak argument that guns don't kill people. The mother shot the home invader 5 times and he is still alive.

Feisty is Jen Psaki

Red,

But... but... I WANT to be Rachel Maddow! ☺

@Akeem

Maybe it would be easier if diversity was not promoted so strongly as a strength of the Democratic party. It comes over as hypocritical that they had a convention, a campaign and an election that emphasized their diverse roots but there are no candidates other than "male,stale and pale" appointed to the top jobs in the administration.

The way I look at this type of criticism (or lack there of from the left), if this had been a Romney Administration announcing these candidates what would the reaction from the left be?

@ Backcountry --

RedDevPS makes a good point. In addition, for every one like this that you hear about, you hear about many more than one like the one I posted.

A home intruder case is one thing. And even in that case, the intruder was evidently not deterred by the possibility that the homeowner might have a gun. What if he had also had a gun?

A domestic violence case is something else. And there are plenty of them.

For example, take the case of the police officer in a Milwaukee suburb, who was shot 5 times by her enraged husband outside the public safety building, even though she was armed herself. What good did her gun do her in that case?

Much more often than not, that's the way it goes. The point is that the mere fact that the good person also has a gun does not always protect them. The only way to really protect that person is to get the gun out of the hands of the bad guy in the first place.

KeenInsight

If a Republican president did this,

ahhh, but Republican presidents have been doing that - yes, Bush had Condi Rice - which is extra hypocritical of the Republlicans to make a stink about Susan Rice. Susan Rice was criticized for her Benghazi talking points given to her by the intel. But McCain And Graham - the 2 village idiots - defended Condoleezza Rice over her testimony claiming that there was evidence of WMDs in Iraq which we know today is a total manipulation of facts by the Bush Administration.

As sad as the deaths of 5 Americans in Benghazi are, they do not compare to the thousands of dead American soldiers, and tens of thousands of fathers/mothers, brothers/sisters, sons/daughters who came home broken.

Dennis that is exactly my problem, this article would make a lot more sense if there was a list of names of people who should have been considered for the position. Without that, I do not understand its point.

Alan, you are probably right, there may have been some reaction I will not argue there, but will only state that it is hypothetical. Clearly with my reaction to what is being said about the Democrats I, clearly would not have been among that crowd. I would say something probably along the lines of the Republicans have a history of doing this, which you may consider the same thing, but let's not start hypothetical arguments. I just do not like the idea of "this slot is reserved for a minority".

'but without a high-profile woman or minority thrown into the mix' ???

What does that have to do with a nominee? Are we still on the black and white thing? I imagined that the best one for the job would be nominated?

Do we need a token black person, woman, or how about an oriental???? I would have hoped for the best qualified person to be nominated!

President Obama ordered the cabinet to cut $100,000,000.00 ($100 million) from the $3,500,000,000,000.00 ($3.5 trillion) federal budget.

I'm so impressed by this sacrifice that I have decided to do the same thing with my personal budget. I spend about $2,000 a month on groceries, household expenses, medicine, utilities, etc., but it's time to get out the budget cutting axe, go through my expenses, and cut back.

I'm going to cut my spending at exactly the same ratio (1/35,000) of my total budget. After doing the math, it looks like instead of spending $2,000 a month, I'm going to have to cut that number by six cents. Yes, I'm going to have to get by with $1999.94, but that's what sacrifice is all about.

I'll just have to do without some things, that are, frankly, luxuries, six cents worth.

Did this President actually think no one would do the math?

You f*cking libtards are a joke. An absolute joke. Keep blaming conservatives because they dont want to tax the wealthy and cause an even more stagnant economy. You liberals are a joke!!! You will not stop till this country is sucked dry. Even if the top 2% were taxed at 100% Obama would still find a way to spend the money......but let me guess....we are going to still blame Bush. You liberals will ruin this country.

geo-1957883

Rick - Obama's has learned through his welfare mother and Chicago politics that you don't have to earn money

Sorry amigo, but that's a big, fat stinking lie.

So Chuckles, who is your political leader? Which politicians do you like? You obviously don't follow anyone because you never talk about THEM. You get paid by the Koch Brothers to spread lies from Drudge, Rush, and Faux sNewzzzzz.

You lie about President Obama becuase you are insecure and and coward and a worthless troll.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

* * *

How's that, David W?

Whack-a-Troll is soooo much fun.

Salud

The reason people post on here is because they like the sound of their own voice. That being said, here are my two cents worth. *smiles*

Where are the nominees for female candidates? Why are the names coming out only males? This thread was supposed to be about a disorganized potential cabinet, yet everything is on the table again...? Ok so, why were the taxes raised on the 2% ONLY to allow them cracks to slip through? Why is it that common sense is under attack when it is the people with delusions or intent to cause harm are behind the craziness? Why are We The People under such scrutiny when the Washington can't get their act straight?

*smiles*

Caesar Augustus --

I would hate those Reichwingers controlling my life.

As opposed to the gun lobby, you mean?

You don't seem to mind that.

RedDevPS - Do you not understand what country you live in? Do you not understand how this country was founded? All with wars and guns! I personally hate guns. I wish they did not exist. Is that logical? Is this going to happen in America a country founded by killing people with guns? NO! You will not be able to take guns away form the citizens of this country. It will not happen. Obama will do what he does best, Pander, but NOTHING will come out of this. Especially with Biden in charge.

ROY WILSON-336103

Why did Obama win?

Obama increased the number of people dependent on the government for assistance (the number of people getting food stamps, free health care and/or cash aid increased from about 30 million in 2008 to about 47 million in 2012). That's an increase of about 17 million getting 'free' assistance from the government.

OMG, Roy, don't stoop to this stupid propaganda. Turn off the Fox News for crying out loud!

Reality check: does anyone honestly think that right now a female nominee for Secretary of Defense would not be filibustered and blocked by the GOP? A female nominee would be given the same treatment the GOP gave Susan Rice and the press would be willing participants in their cause.

So what are you saying? That Obama is right in not selecting any women or ethnic minorities because he'd run into opposition. You know, fighting for your principles is often a good thing. We progressives complained that Obama didn't fight for anything during his first term, caving constantly to Republican demands. Are you saying he should continue that trend?

My personal opinion is it actually feeds the idea that when a minority does reach one of these high levels other people were overlooked because they were searching specifically for a minority candidate.

Somehow, this post seems contrived. I've served on many selection committees in which candidates are chosen based on existing relationships and friendships. In this way, you usually get a homogenous group who share the same point of view.

There are plenty of fully capable women and ethnic minorities capable of filling these positions. To say that only these white men are qualified is insulting.

geo-1957883

Rick - Obama's has learned through his welfare mother and Chicago politics that you don't have to earn money

I guess getting a degree from Harvard must be easy if lazy Obama could do it. And if lazy Obama could do it, what does that make you, geo, because I'll bet you have never even seen a copy of a diploma from Harvard.

ThomasGrande - What jobs did Obama's mother have? I watch MSNBC, don't listen to Rush, and don't watch Fox. I watch MSNBC for all the half-truths and deception they bring on nightly. It humors me greatly!

As opposed to the gun lobby, you mean?

they never forced me to buy a gun how bout you?

geo-1957883

Do you not understand how this country was founded? All with wars and guns!

show me a country that wasn't...and before guns there were sabres.

You will not be able to take guns away form the citizens of this country.

no one is taking you gun away, why freak out? But since you are using the time this country was founded, show me where during that time, our Founding Fathers were packin' AK-47s or AR-15. No civilian should own one. PERIOD.

As a liberal, I will be happy to go on record as thinking that the President's failure to appoint female cabinet members is somewhat disturbing. To me, it would not be a valid reason not to appoint a female who was well-qualified because she might run into opposition. I sincerely hope that this is not the case. The unwillingness to confront unreasonable opposition and obstruction is, as Caesar ironically points out, not the way to bring "change" to Washington.

On the other hand, since the President took office, he has appointed two female Supreme Court justices, a female Secretary of State, and several other female cabinet officers.

So, I don't think it's fair to generalize some sort of sexism out of it. Cowardice, perhaps, or even obliviousness to the issue -- which is ironically what happens in the ideal world when you are not biased and don't spend your time thinking about it -- but not sexism.

Caesar --

they never forced me to buy a gun how bout you?

Not yet. But don't rule it out.

In my case, however, knowing how I feel about them, I don't really think they'd want to arm me.

Baylie - HOW did Obama get to Harvard? Public assistance? We don't know! Were his grades good enough? We don't know! Do we know what his grades were? We don't know! Why don't we know? I will show you my grades from Harvard as soon as Obama does, fair?

I just do not like the idea of "this slot is reserved for a minority".

On this we are in complete agreement.

However, although the comment was pounced on, Romney was right that you have to be pro-active in finding qualified candidates. Some of the Democrats from the convention from Texas were pretty impressive, but probably too young. I'm actually shocked that there were no "minorities" for treasury secretary. I would rather have seen a candidate from business, not Wall Street.

When you actually look at the Republicans, they have some diversity at the top level when you look at the governors they have. Not a lot on the Democrats bench in executive positions (maybe at mayoral level).

KeenInsight let me clarify. My issue is with the article not the concept. The article does not imply that there are a list of qualified minority candidates it is only saying that there were no minority selections. I am confused to its purpose in the way it was written. It seems to say that among selections there HAS to be a minority candidate regardless of qualifications, it sounds too close to me to the idea of a quota.

I did not mean for my argument to sound contrived, I apologized in my original post for my wording, but I couldn't seem to take anything out of it while still getting my point across.

I see racism is alive in the dem world. Why does it matter what colour or sex you are? It should be who is best for the job. As long as we keep this racial concept of putting more people of colour and women in jobs they are not qualified to do in positions this will be the downfall of america. Don't get me wrong I don't care who or what you are but if you can do the job the best.

About this trillion dollar coin if I was the one being paid with it I would have to laugh at the usa gov. I would think people would understand this could be a way of telling the lenders we will not pay our debts so heres a rock but we say its worth a trillion so its this or nothing.

Say what you will but I still think a party thats backed by communist and socialist parties with a potus tied to acorn is trying to bankrupt america and the first step and prioity is to disarm the public.

now all you dems can insult me that seems to be your way

bayllie "OMG, Roy, don't stoop to this stupid propaganda."

The truth hurts, doesn't it?

Obama spent his entire campaign turning Americans against each other on the basis of income, ethnicity, gender, legal status, etc.. Is it any wonder that he now has a problem 'bringing Americans together'?

He hasn't even tried to 'compromise' on taxes and spending - There were no cuts in spending, but huge increases in taxes - where's the 'balance' in that?

President Obama didn't put more people on welfare, the banks did, all President Obama's administration did was make sure that the people that the bank ****ed over, can live. Why is helping people out of work such a bad thing. I have never figured out why the same people who will donate to charities to help people, don't like paying less in taxes to help the same people. I know you choose do do one, and the other is not a choice, but if helping the less fortunate is your goal, what's the difference.

Now I know the Trolls will suddenly start talking about welfare queens, but the majority of people needing government assistance are not welfare queens, they are normal Americans just trying to get by. I have a friend who works at a fast food joint flipping burgers, she earns minimum wage and has no benefits. If she is sick and needs to stay home, she doesn't get paid. She has no health insurance because the fast food joint won't give it to her (they have told her that her hours will be cut to avoid them having to give her health insurance) She needs food stamps just to make ends meet. She has NEVER taken drugs, doesn't drink, doesn't smoke., goes to church every Sunday, but flipping burgers is the only job she can get.

She married straight out of high school, has two children and her husband did a bunk when the youngest was two. No child support as the husband IS a deadbeat. So please can somebody tell me why it is wrong for the government to help this woman out.

Not yet. But don't rule it out.

I kinda thought so. thanks

Back to trolling for me

Anna Molly

As a liberal, I will be happy to go on record as thinking that the President's failure to appoint female cabinet members is somewhat disturbing. To me, it would not be a valid reason not to appoint a female who was well-qualified because she might run into opposition. I sincerely hope that this is not the case.

I doubt that it is because Susan Rice' name would have never come up even if she was never officially nominated.

the New York Times reviewed personnel data in the Obama administration (link to article), finding that 43% of Obama's appointees have been women -- about the same percentage as in the Clinton administration and a larger percentage than in President George W. Bush's administration

So don't get influenced by the all-male pictures circulating out there.

Bull...This "mis-step" or "stumble" in the cabinet selection/revision process is nothing more than a further example of the lack of leadership in the White House...and we voted for it to continue when we had the opportunity to change it.

Folks...bend over, grab your ankles and smile...you did it to yourselves!

O'Bama's Cabinet problems mirror his leadership (or lack of Leadership skills) and his Administration as a whole. As far as naming 3 White Men thus far, only those that are guilty of Discrimination are complaining. They must not be aware that under FEDERAL EEOC GUIDELINES you can not base appointments or hiring based on a number of different things some of which are RACE and SEX!! You have to base your selection(s) based solely on qualifications. You can't have it both ways, FEDERAL LAW applies to everyone regardless of their Race, Sex, Ethnic Group, etc.. The ethnic group that got everything for the last 50 years is no longer the minority.

geo,

Ann Dunham 1942-1995
From 1968 to 1970, Dunham taught English.
From 1968 to 1972, Dunham was a co-founder and active member of the Ganesha Volunteers
From 1972 to 1975, Dunham was crafts instructor at the Bishop Museum in Honolulu
In March 1977, Dunham, under the supervision of agricultural economics professor Leon A. Mears, developed and taught a short lecture course at the Faculty of Economics
From June 1977 through September 1978, Dunham carried out research on village industries
In May and June 1978, Dunham was a short-term consultant in the office of the International Labor Organization
From October 1978 to December 1980, Dunham was a rural industries consultant
From January 1981 to November 1984, Dunham was the program officer for women and employment in the Ford Foundation
From May to November 1986 and from August to November 1987, Dunham was a cottage industries development consultant for the Agricultural Development Bank
From January 1988 to 1995, Dunham was a consultant and research coordinator for Indonesia's oldest bank, Bank Rakyat Indonesia (BRI) in Jakarta

All Hail Imp. Obama savior of America

Parker, do tell that your fingers were too tired to type 'Imperial' and that you were not just slyly dropping a Ch.

geo-1957883

Baylie - HOW did Obama get to Harvard? Public assistance?

if you actually looked it up you would quickly find out that it was a mixture of student/loans/scholarships/working while in school

Were his grades good enough?

are you seriously asking this question????? Do you even know what Harvard is then? Do you know what their acceptance rate and acceptance criteria are? Seriously man, think before you write!

ROY WILSON-336103

The truth hurts, doesn't it?

what truth? we don't live in your Rabid Fox News world. Show me the proof that shows votes Obama got are a direct result of him giving out food stamps. I'll wait. other than that STFU!

Parker, do tell that your fingers were too tired to type 'Imperial' and that you were not just slyly dropping a Ch.

nope, just short for Imperator. look at some of my old coins, you'll see (try Otho for example).

Mousesj "President Obama didn't put more people on welfare, the banks did,"

Actually, Obama dramatically loosened the requirements to qualify for 'Food Stamps', which increased the number of people getting 'free' government assistance by about 17 million in 4 years.

I have several grandchildren that now get over $200 per month in EBT (free food and/or cash aid). They are single and have no children, and just loaf around every day. And most of their friends take their EBT cards and sell them to buy drugs. The amount of fraud in this system is MASSIVE.

We have always tried to have a 'safety net' for those truly in need, but the current system is just an expensive joke.

PS - My grandchildren say they voted for Obama because they heard that "Romney was going to cut off their food stamps".

and the libbies rush in to blame this reshuffle on the gop in 3 - 2- 1.. woops, beat us to it!

bayhllie --

So don't get influenced by the all-male pictures circulating out there.

Who, me? I'm a big believer in "all-male" pictures.

Akeem, both CNN and Fox this morning listed a bunch of people that were minorities and qualified. I don't remember the names but some sources are listing names.

Of course this "news" outlet won't because that would be questioning the administration.

(FYI - PBO can assign pretty much who ever he wants IMO) But the left said the repubs were racist for all the Susan Rice stuff, but ignores this. I believe that to by hypocrisy.

I also believe PBO threatening executive orders for things he wants is hypocrisy, since he went after BUSH for the same.

Does anybody remember when Joe Biden told a crowd that PBO wasn't taking his shot gun or Beretta?

Mousesj - I struggle with this. The government should make sure people don't go hungry. But understand giving money or food to someone has to come from someone else working hard for the money. Is it fair to give someone elses hard earned money to someone else? We borrow TRILLIONS of dollars to pay our bills. This can not go on very much longer. Thier has to be a line we can't cross. Obama is willing to spend our childrens America for political gain, how sicking. Union bailouts, illegals, etc.

"There is a sucker born every minute"- Al Gore (now richer than Mitt Romney)

nope, just short for Imperator. look at some of my old coins, you'll see (try Otho for example).

Parker, I lost them all during my last stop in Vegas at Caesar's Palace of Perfidy.

You will not be able to take guns away form the citizens of this country

Geo, I am not aware of, nor am I interested in, any group advocating the removal of all guns from its citizenry. What I am aware of is a small segment of society trolling the internet boards and news media accusing liberals and progressives of supporting that goal. If I were interested in hysterical, gossipy, chatter full of half-truths, lies, and rumors, I would visit a beauty parlor, gay bar, office of a conservative congressman, or an NRA meeting.

bayllie "ROY WILSON-336103 Show me the proof that shows votes Obama got are a direct result of him giving out food stamps."

I gave you the figures and the source - But it does require that you actually 'think' about it. Here - I'll repeat the information on the welfare eligible group of actual voters;

"According to Exit Polls from the election, there were about 50.8 Million (41% of total) voters in the income group averaging under $30,000 per year, and 30.9 Million of them voted for Obama, vs only 19.9 Million for Romney – that's a net gain for Obama of 11 million votes, and Obama won overall by less than 5 million votes."

This means that Romney won by 6 million votes among the people who actually work and pay income taxes to support those on welfare, and Obama won the 'welfare eligible' group by 11 million votes.

LOL! I got a really good laugh after reading the article and then Pigotry's opening comments. The entire top of the comments section was filled with liberals all trying to change the topic! The bottom line is that the rats are jumping ship and there is always a good reason for that! Maybe if there were some more transparency as promised and promised and promised, we would know! Let's not forget that I predicted on here well before Bengahzi that Hillary was done. Eric Holder should have resigned a LONG time ago and he is one of the ones that is staying??? WOW!

Roy, that CAN'T be true. According to the liberals, they are the ones who are highly educated, have good jobs, and earn a lot of money. Oh, but at the same time, the GOP is "old rich white men" that I guess are uneducated and got their money be some means other than education and hard work. There is so much spin, I can't keep it all straight!

Parker, I lost them all during my last stop in Vegas at Caesar's Palace of Perfidy.

less time at the tables and more in the forum Ikarus. Besides your wax wings are bound to melt under the heat (of pressure)

Why the suprise? Have you looked at the lack of results for this corrupt crew lately?

The one and only item they have proved proficient in is dividing the country - hands down

This group is a very much a "head-less horseman"

Admission - often hard for liberals

Anna Molly

Who, me? I'm a big believer in "all-male" pictures.

well, that's a different discussion ;)

PS - My grandchildren say they voted for Obama because they heard that "Romney was going to cut off their food stamps".

Just because Roy raised a bunch of moochers, it doesn't mean that the majority of those needing public assistance are as useless as Roy's grandchildren. Typical conservative philosophy, blame everyone else for your own personal failings.

David Walker,

Ok you don't want to recognize District of Columbia V Heller for you feel that DC is not a sovereign entity of the U.S.. Does that also go for Purto Rico? Some more reading for you then;

U.S. v Emerson

Mcdonald v Chicago

Silveira v Lockyer

Nordike v King

Parker v District of Columbia (just for giggles ok)

Now I have no problem with large clip ban, 10 and under should suffice. But would that apply to hand guns as well?

Now here is a problem I have with Assault weapons ban, I own and had for many years a Ruger Mini 14. It is patterned after 50's eara m-15. Just because it was patterned after a 50's era m-14 and resemble the military rifle it was Banned. OK but I own M-14's in my gun collection (in firing condition) but they were not banned due to age. The actual military rifle. Ok would this also be part of new ban for it is an actual military rifle from the 50's. I Own a rifle from the Civil War, would that be banned for it is a military rifle? See my point here?

Instead of Bans why not create responsible gun ownership? Why penalize millions of safe and responsible gun owners? I have an idea if you would like to hear it.

Foot note here,

Yes I have a conceal carry permit. Besides home defence etc I got it for I also hunt with hand guns. When I wear my cold weather gear the coat would cover the hand gun in the holster. Now there is not question to my legality when I use it.

Fiesty before you jump here take a look at your own back yard first. Chicago land of the social programs, over 500 murders, and some of the toughest gun regulations in the country. So how is that all working out? Ill bet the shooters are following ALL the regulations in place now right?

Gun Control - yet another distraction opportunity for Obama and the democrats to keep the focus off of spending, jobs and the economy

We can't be this stupid America?

Where's the rage on alcohol and all the violence and innocent deaths it contributes to?

Can't we see the hypocrisy that's going on here?

RedDevPS

Just because Roy raised a bunch of moochers, it doesn't mean that the majority of those needing public assistance are as useless as Roy's grandchildren

if Roy was smart enough he would have used "other people's" grandchildren intead of his own to come up with his "people voted for Obama because he gave them food stamps" so-called proof.

Roy, you either need to look at your family's financial and moral health or you are a despicable man for using your grandkids to feed your silly propaganda.

Roy Wilson - Sorry to hear you have a bunch of DavidWalker, Pigotry, Bayllie, Seeking Insanity, Fiesty, Bev, RedDevPS and ThomasGrande in your gene pool, I'm sure it sickens you.

concernedamerica

[Let's not forget that I predicted on here well before Bengahzi that Hillary was done.]

How could go wrong when Hillary said when she accepted
the nomination in 2009 that she would only serve for 4 years?

2007 - John Edwards - was voted "Father of the Year"

2012 - Bill Clinton - voted "Father of the Year"

Not too bad for a couple a ole Dirty Democrat's Doing the No No's

on the very day the New York Times ran a piece observing the lack of women in the administration.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

So, where are all the limp-wristed Libbies protesting? Where is the outrage? Where is the typical Liberal anger, hate, racism, rage and vitriol?

Where is the media frenzy?

Where is the "WAR ON WOMEN" accusations?

Yesterday they ran a photo-op of the "good ole boys" gathering in the oval office,,,no women to be found anywhere. A short while later another photo-op surprisingly popped up magically with 3 very easily noticeable women in the picture. Hell, they had them look right into the camera so you wouldn't miss them.

ROTFLMAO!!!!

You liberal hypocrites must have such a difficult time living with yourselves. Where are all the blacks? Where are all the black women? How about the Latinos? Where is the diversity?

Oh the humanity!!!!!!

This administration is so dysfunctional, and you Libbies keep believing in it.

Maybe if the Democrats paid their women better they could attract more to the administration. Patty Murray (D., Wash.) pays her female staff 33% less than similar male staffers. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) pays females 41% less than males. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.) pays her female staff 7% less.

The employee gender pay gap among Senate Democrats was not limited to Murray, Boxer, and Feinstein. Of the 50 members of the Senate Democratic caucus examined in the analysis, 37 senators paid their female staffers less than male staffers.

Where is Lily Ledbetter when you really need her rather than just another condescending photo-op?

The blatant hypocrisy of the Liberals/Progressives is embarrassing to real Americans. Liberals don't care, their whole life revolves around emotions rather than policy.

Symbolism over substance.

Talk about diversity, tolerance, equality and other bleeding-heart issues, but when you compare the results it's just typical lip service.

Astroturf!

Maybe the little Libbies want to improve their self destructing image they might ask Mitt Romney how he managed to have so many women and minorities in his administration as Governor of Massachusetts. Maybe you Lefties need a few binders so you don't keep forgetting until you're exposed for your hypocrisy.

Liberals, so easy.

Well Tom if that is the case they did a bad job here. Simply just naming a few other candidates rather than a "hypothetical minority candidate" would appease me. I dint meant it as a jab at the administration or any particular group, the article just seemed to rub me the wrong way.

geo-1957883

ThomasGrande - What jobs did Obama's mother have?

Thanks for proving my point.

At least Roy, Caesar and other RW bloggers talk about the politicians and ideology THEY support.

You're just a liberal-bashing hack who follows pre-written rules and scripts for blogging.

Care to proposing some solutions for all our nation's problems?

Salud

We can't be this stupid America?

We ALL are, some thing a gun ban would help and others think spending more money helps a debt problem, and others argue with these people.

Ban everything - if it means it saves even only one life - right?

What a group of hypocrites trying to run this dog and pony called the Obama Administration - pathetic

Bayllie - WHY no grades from anywhere? Cover-up?

Ah, another great day reading the funny liberal posts on the FR Nationalsozialistische Progressiv Arbeiterpartei site.

For the person that presented the argument that Hitler supposed to provide guns to the citizens to aid in the overthrow of the government, then removed them fom their homes is fact. Don't suppose this happened, it did.

Some say ban .223 ammunition for that is what the AR-15 uses.

Do you then realize how many other hunting rifles us .223? Do we then render them obsolete?

Do you realize who many Russian Companies besides other countries manufacture .223 ammunition? Would this not do anything but create a very lucrative black market?

geo-1957883

Roy Wilson - Sorry to hear you have a bunch of DavidWalker, Pigotry, Bayllie, Seeking Insanity, Fiesty, Bev, RedDevPS and ThomasGrande in your gene pool, I'm sure it sickens you.

OMG! I made "the list"!!!

Geo, for you to include me in with with those awesome, veteran, big-league class acts of First Read, I must say, I am humbled and honored.

And with all due respect to Roy, he's a big boy and dishes it out as much as he takes it.

Salud

ROY WILSON-336103

I gave you the figures and the source - But it does require that you actually 'think' about it.

Roy, I am not disputing that people are on foodstamps (A), and I am not disputing that people voted for Obama (B) but I am asking you to show me proof that these are NOT 2 independent of one another events (which YOU claim are not). I needs you to prove to me that (B) was dependant on (A).

you came up with this thesis so now you prove it. Saying something happened without validating it is USELESS, Roy. WTF did you do in school? SLEEP???

RedDevPS

If I were interested in hysterical, gossipy, chatter full of half-truths, lies, and rumors, I would visit a beauty parlor, gay bar,,,,

Shame on you Red!

Ridiculing women and gays of hysterical, gossiping, chatterers full of half-truths, lies and rumors.

I thought you limp-wristed Libbies were more tolerant, more sympathetic, more unbiased and less misogynistic and homophobic.

I guess it’s just like all the rest of your delusions, full of hypocrisy.

Try to keep up Spanky.

Goebbels would be proud of these creatures. They have certainly taken his message to heart,but we all have moved on since those days,No? well it takes the dumb a lot longer. It is much more entertaining to have different points of view than those ridiculous easily dismissed falsehoods. I did have someone in particular that I wanted to address this comment to but I had to go too far down and lost the comment which I wanted to address,So please don't ask me what my point was,Sorry 'bout that.

Thomasgrande - Bashing liberals is easy, and fun. The only way to get America going is to stop spending more than we take in. Pretty simple. Stop buying votes would be a good start. Stop pandering to certian segments of our country and come up with a plan for everyone! Ease loans for small buisness instead of sucking off unions. Which would create more jobs? Tighten disability from slackers, encourage work instead of Obama phones. A President with a thought would help! Hell, a President with a budget would be a start! What has Obama done for the biggest job creator on America, small buisness? NOTHING!!!! Does he even talk about it! NO. If he was smart he would come out tomorrow with a small buisness/banking loan program that would stimulate jobs and the economy without costing the tax-payer a dime! Entrepreneurs willing to use thier own assets as collateral. But being a selfish union guy that won't happen! Dependency kills, and Democrats and our President thrive off it. How sad for the human race! Whats your plan genius?

geo-1957883

Bayllie - WHY no grades from anywhere? Cover-up?

you didn't go to college, did you, because every single college freshman signs a piece a paper to authorize (or not) someone in his/her family to have access to his/her school records - and I would hope every singe person reads that piece of paper prior to signing it.

It's called The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).

Basically this law automatically seals your record, and only you or the person you authorize can view it. No big conspiracy here - just a law that protects every single person who is attenting or had attended school.

Again, educating doesn't hurt, geo. Expand your horizons and pick up a book or read something that is not spoonfed to you by morons like Hannity or Rush Limbaugh.

Roy Wilson:

Why do you assume that every person making less than $30k voted for Obama? We all know that the red states have more on food stamps and collecting unemployment than the blue states. Your lack of logic is stunning, and expected, because you watch Faux Newzzzz.

TomasGrande

Roy Wilson - Sorry to hear you have a bunch of DavidWalker, Pigotry, Bayllie, Seeking Insanity, Fiesty, Bev, RedDevPS and ThomasGrande in your gene pool, I'm sure it sickens you.

It always makes me happy when I am included in such good company!

You have to love the fact that liberals seem puzzled by the lack of diversity Obama is displaying with his new cabinet nominations. The answer as to why they lack diversity is really pretty simply, this is Obama's second and final term, so he no longer has to pander. Obama certainly pandered with many of his first term appointments, but this is the term he feels grants him the greatest flexibility to be and do whatever he wants. So the Obama second term appointments will be ideologically driven.

I am disturbed by the argument that if we limit the clips from 100 round to 10, we've somehow solved this problem.

This says it all. what is a 100 round clip? I wonder if AM even knows the error of the statement. Must be getting the 'truth' from one of those non-propaganda news outlets like NBC.

At least Roy, Caesar and other RW bloggers talk about the politicians and ideology they support

what Politician and ideology do i support oh Beret wearing, cheese eating surrender monkey?

Care to proposing some solutions?

would it really matter if one conservative/right leaning blogger proposed anything on FR? can you really be honest with yourself about that?

geo-1957883

Thomasgrande - Bashing liberals is easy, and fun. The only way to get America going is to stop spending more than we take in.

Reagan - 8 yrs of deficits

Bush1 - 4 years of deficits

Bush2 - 8 yrs of deficits

yeah, your Republican record is something to be proud of.

Ben (lots of numbers) and (ex-poster on here prior to the election) -

You ramble on and on Sir, yet say nothing worth while, true or of interest. Are you getting paid by the word for your ramblings? I think so.

Pig-go-try, Feisty, and Seeking Insanity,

You all need some therapy. You no longer are "Liberals" but are rather paranoid "Projectionists" with personality disorders.

According to Sigmund Freud, projection is a psychological defense mechanism whereby one "projects" ones own thoughts, motivations, desires, and feelings onto someone else or group.

In psychopathology, projection is an especially commonly used defense mechanism in people with certain personality disorders: Patients with paranoid personalities, for example, use projection as a primary defense because it allows them to disavow negative personal feelings and attribute them to others.

In this sense, projection is related to denial, arguably the only more primitive defense mechanism than projection, which, like all defense mechanisms, provides a function whereby a person can protect the conscious mind from a feeling that is otherwise repulsive.

GET SOME HELP! so you can actually make a contribution to society.

Yes the fight over the debt ceiling led to the downgrade not the actual $16 trillion debt and counting. It is 16 1/2 now by the way. Your avatar speaks volumes for your actual character. The president is elected on a macro platform. Politics is local and that is why the republicans rule the House. Nobody in their right minds thinks we should go on spending.

Sorry to hear you have a bunch of DavidWalker, Pigotry, Bayllie, Seeking Insanity, Fiesty, Bev, RedDevPS and ThomasGrande in your gene pool, I'm sure it sickens you.

Rest assured I am not from Roy's gene pool. If I were, I would have self-aborted.

Spence - where did I once say I disliked women and gays. I love a good gossip session, especially the ones coming out of beauty parlors and gay bars. Much better than anything you will get from TMZ.

Obama increased the number of people dependent on the government for assistance (the number of people getting food stamps, free health care and/or cash aid increased from about 30 million in 2008 to about 47 million in 2012). That's an increase of about 17 million getting 'free' assistance from the government.

Roy Wilson: You ignore that not only did food stamps explode after our economic meltdown under Bush but that it was his policies that made food stamps easier to get not Obama. Interesting you blame Obama for allowing non citizens to get food stamps when that provision was part of the 2002 farm bill. A bill supported by the GOP to support mega farmers.

Gingrich would have been correct to say the number now on food aid is historically high. The number stood at 46,224,722 persons as of October, the most recent month on record. And it’s also true that the number has risen sharply since Obama took office.

But Gingrich goes too far to say Obama has put more on the rolls than other presidents. We asked the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition service for month-by-month figures going back to January 2001. And they show that under President George W. Bush the number of recipients rose by nearly 14.7 million. Nothing before comes close to that.

And under Obama, the increase so far has been 14.2 million. To be exact, the program has so far grown by 444,574 fewer recipients during Obama’s time in office than during Bush’s.

It’s possible that when the figures for January 2012 are available they will show that the gain under Obama has matched or exceeded the gain under Bush. But not if the short-term trend continues. The number getting food stamps declined by 43,528 in October. And the economy has improved since then.

Update, Feb. 5: Revised USDA data released in February showed the downward trend continued for a second straight month in November, when the number of persons getting food stamps was 134,418 fewer than it had been at the peak.

The 2002 Farm Bill expanded eligibility to noncitizens, increased benefits for families with more children, adjusted benefits for inflation and made it easier to enroll. Further easing of eligibility requirements followed in the 2008 Farm Bill, which contained more than 30 provisions relating to food stamps, including higher minimum benefits. As the data show, spending after changes in eligibility grew by $185 billion between 2002 and 2008.

bayllie "you came up with this thesis so now you prove it."

Very few things in the 'social sciences' can be 'proven' - It would be like saying "Prove that Flying Saucers don't exist" - it's not possible, but if one lands at the White House, I can then prove that they DO exist.

By the way - I didn't write a 'thesis' - I merely proposed a 'hypotheses', and provided the evidence to support it. If people who get 'free' government assistance voted overwhelmingly for Obama, while people who pay the taxes to support those 'free' services voted heavily for Romney, I would like to see a different 'plausible' explanation from you.

And by the way - if you come up with a different 'plausible' argument, can you 'PROVE' it?

Pig-go-try, Feisty, and Seeking Insanity,

You all need some therapy. You no longer are "Liberals" but are rather paranoid "Projectionists" with personality disorders.

Another right wing bald faced liar caught... lol

How the hell do you know what I'm "projecting" when all you do is brag about having me on ignore?

That's the problem with liars, they tell so many, sooner or later they can't keep their stories straight! ☺

You're dismissed, little buddy!

Piggy, It seems that the Republicans think it is 1913 instead of 2013.

Baylie - We knew Clinton,Gore,Kerry and Jrs why not the chosen one? My guess is he recieved preferential treatment! Shouldn't the the story above say Liberals packing Barney Frank for interim Senate appointment!

Caesar --

I wonder if AM even knows the error of the statement.

Diversion doesn't change the point, and you know it.

bayllie "Reagan - 8 yrs of deficits......Bush1 - 4 years of deficits.....Bush2 - 8 yrs of deficits"

There has not been a single year in the last 50 years where there has been a reduction in the National Debt - under both Republican AND Democratic Presidents - and that includes under Clinton.

But the biggest and fastest increases have come under Obama in only 4 years.

Total Debt increase under Reagan in 8 years (1981-1988) = $1.692 Trillion

Total Debt increase under Clinton in 8 years (1992-2000) = $1.627 Trillion (about same as Reagan).

Total Debt increase under Bush in 8 years (2001-2008) = $4.357 Trillion.

Total Debt increase under Obama in 4 years (2009-2012) = $5.849 Trillion.

Anybody that thinks this is a healthy trend is smoking something that should be illegal.

@ Fiesty,

Can I ask what happened to Navy? Typically I didn't agree with his perspectives, but I did enjoy his argument behind them. Haven't seen him in a while and was hoping that all was OK with him.

Diversion doesn't change the point, and you know it.

kinda makes the point moot when you have no idea what you are even talking about. and you guys whine about 'parroting' Faux Newzz

Larry-367607 "Roy Wilson: You ignore that not only did food stamps explode after our economic meltdown under Bush but that it was his policies that made food stamps easier to get not Obama"

Ah yes, another 'Blame Bush' Liberal.

It was Obama that changed the eligibility standards to make it so easy to get food stamps, not Bush.

The Obama Administration has issued lots of new 'regulations' on a wide variety of issues - such as telling the Immigration Department to "Ignore the existing laws on deporting illegal immigrants and give work permits to those who came illegally as children".

I have to wonder how 'legal' it is for the President to issue DECREES (Executive Orders) that effectively block the enforcement of existing laws. I think it's time for the Supreme Court to resolve the issue.

Caesar Augustus-

what Politician and ideology do i support oh Beret wearing, cheese eating surrender monkey?

My guess, and it's only a guess, is that if it's in your best interest, you're "there".

Kind of like everyone else in your brown-shirt flock.

"Viva la resistance!!!"

Salud

cdahl,

Navy left Newsvine shortly after taking a very demanding job.

dr821

Pig-go-try, Feisty, and Seeking Insanity, You all need some therapy.

Great use of Projection, dr. Karl Rove is so proud to have you on his side.

Roy Wilson

Anybody that thinks this is a healthy trend is smoking something that should be illegal.

Hmmm,

Therapy or illegal smoke.

I’ll take Roy’s advice on this one.

Salud

During the campaign the liberals were screaming that, if Romney became President , it would be the death of minorities serving in high positions in government (despite the fact that Romney had a very good track record of appointing women and minorities to important positions). Now they sit there quietly with hands folded and mouths shut as Mr. Obama appoints one old white male after the next. I guess they are afraid to criticize Obama for fear they will have to label themselves racist if they do. So they let him run rough shod over their core beliefs. They have cowed themselves. Poor fools.

Piggy, It seems that the Republicans think it is 1913 instead of 2013

Yeah, no. Our dept to GDP was around 1/2 of 1% in 1913 now it is over 100%. Nobody is naive enough to think it is 1913 when it comes to spending. The Zombie Apocalypse will soon be here.

Dennis you mean one on you trolls actually got a real job, what happened, got tired of living in parents basement.

Caesar --

kinda makes the point moot when you have no idea what you are even talking about. and you guys whine about 'parroting' Faux Newzz

Okay, genius. I'll just leave it to you to tell me how many deaths are acceptable before the shooter has to change ammunition clips.

KeenInsight, NO, that was NOT what I said; you ignored the remainder of that paragraph which points out the media now nitpicking the male lineup of cabinet members yet the MEDIA aided the GOP in eviscerating a viable female Sec of State candidate.

Any President has a right to pick the person he/she thinks is the most qualified and the right fit for that particular position; the person with whom he feels most comfortable and likely has an existing working relationship. That is what he has done. We should respect that. The press should respect that and stop creating non-troversies just to have something to discuss on TV.

What bothers me with this whole discussion is what AKEEM mentioned in his #1.62 comment. This FT article and the media discussion has a negative impact on how we perceive women and minorities--they are not nor should they ever be "tokens" yet this is the second day in which the media is treating them as exactly that. No doubt there are qualified female and minority candidates out there but any President must choose someone he/she knows, has worked with, and trusts will implement his/her policies for these high-level posts. It is easy to be an arm-chair quarterback and criticize President Obama's choices or whine about those we think should have been nominated. President Obama has a country to run. He needs people in these slots and needs them approved as soon as possible and he cannot spend all his time nor his staff's time trying to get people confirmed. We have the debt ceiling, the sequester, gun violence prevention, immigration reform, tax code reform, and a miriad of big problems which need solutions.

Caesar --

would it really matter if one conservative/right leaning blogger proposed anything on FR?

I'm a woman. Humor me.

ROY WILSON-336103

Very few things in the 'social sciences' can be 'proven' - It would be like saying "Prove that Flying Saucers don't exist" - it's not possible, but if one lands at the White House, I can then prove that they DO exist.

so why don't you just admit that you can't prove sh*t and get it over with.

or

you can get out there with your pen and questionnaires to collect field-based data. The you can analyze your objective research and then get back to me.

your little theory here is as entertaining as Fox News Glenn Beck's claim that he could not debunk the claim that President Obama was building FEMA concentration camps....

geo-1957883

Baylie - We knew Clinton,Gore,Kerry and Jrs why not the chosen one?

easy - show me. I know GWB was out there because SOMEONE LEAKED IT so it does not count since it was not done by GWB. So show me the transcript-revealing precedence by the US presidents and/or the presidential candidates!

Pull this one out of your a$$!

@ Seeking --

I believe that George W. Bush, by his own admission, got a "C" in economics, and Andrew Shepard got a "C-" in Women's Studies because it wasn't about what he thought it was going to be about.

Wouldn't you love to know Mitt Romney's grade in Women's Studies?

Ann probably had to take his tests for him.

What I like best about this discussion about grades and such is that Republicans, when it suits their purposes, like to remind us that, other than age, and in the case of the President, being born here, there are no threshold qualifications for federal office, such as an understanding of the Constitution.

And we don't need to see their transcripts to believe it, either.

RedDevPS

Backcountry - you proved nothing. The premise from the NRA and the gunners is that good guys with guns is the only way to overpower bad guys with guns. In the story you provide, the bad guy didn't have a gun. You could make the weak argument that guns don't kill people. The mother shot the home invader 5 times and he is still alive.

I don't give a rat's ass about what the NRA says about jack @!$%#. People here are suggesting we'd be better off without guns. I proved that's not the case. Whether the intruder lives or dies is moot, he left the house and the threat was mitigated the moment she pulled the trigger.

Jody, "they are not nor should they ever be "tokens"

Weird you say that now that the election is over, the left made complete tokens out of them all the way up until they are no longer needed for advantage.

You know Gays, undocumented workers, Hispanics, women, blacks and poor vs. Rich.

ROY WILSON-336103

By the way - I didn't write a 'thesis' - I merely proposed a 'hypotheses' , and provided the evidence to support it. If people who get 'free' government assistance voted overwhelmingly for Obama

here is something you can chew on:

(A) red states are predominantly Republican

(B) red states recieve more of federal benefits (aka taxpayer subsidies)

Conclusion: red states are moochers while blue states support them

according to your standard, I don't have to prove it - it just is.

WoW! you guys are crazy with the parroting. every single newsvine board you people on the left and some on the right say the same thing over and over and over and over, there is nothing new any of you are saying, most of you are lying. we have words for people like you, its indoctrinated, puppets, stooges, lackeys, brainwashed, trolls, basically you offer nothing positive or substantial to any topic and instead just lambast the opposition while completely ignoring the same from the people you support. you can barely get out a sentence without calling other people insulting names with the intent to push them away, silence them.

obama is a puppet, he has zero qualification or experience in anything he is trying to do as president. please can anyone please explain what qualifies obama to be president? he literally has no work experience in life but thats why we have indoctrinated democrats to vote for this puppet. dems will and have vote for crackheads and pimps before they will vote for anyone positive or productive for this country.

Pigotry

P.S.: Thanks
to an odd loophole in current law, the U.S. Treasury is technically allowed to
mint as many coins made of platinum as it wants and can assign them whatever
value it pleases.

this is what i mean by my post, pigotry has no clue to what they are saying because they are a puppet to the dems. if they bothered to even read the US constitution they will find they have been lied to.

Article. I.

Section. 8.The Congress shall have Power To.......To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

hmm i dont see the US treasury in there at all, only congress can do that of which you speak and no they cannot coin trillion dollar platinum coins, thats just plain stupid.

ROY WILSON-336103

sorry to be picking on you but you make it SOOOOOO easy!

There has not been a single year in the last 50 years where there has been a reduction in the National Debt - under both Republican AND Democratic Presidents - and that includes under Clinton.

first, learn the difference between deficit and debt and then join the adult conversation!

Hey look, it's the cast of Mad Men!

Uh, no - that's Obama's all-male cabinet!

What a chauvinist he is!!!

Anna Molly

RedDevPS makes a good point. In addition, for every one like this that you hear about, you hear about many more than one like the one I posted.

Right, you hear about so many more. That doesn't mean one is that much more prevalent tyhan the other. We hear about every single violent act committed with a gun now but even with all of the attention on gun violence in the media we NEVER hear that it is HALF what it was just 20 years ago. Newsflash- the mainstream media focuses their attention on thing things people WANT to hear.

Even the government estimate 100,000 uses of firearms in self-defense every year with the majority of the people never firing a shot. But we don't hear about any of those stories do we?

Much more often than not, that's the way it goes. The point is that the mere fact that the good person also has a gun does not always protect them. The only way to really protect that person is to get the gun out of the hands of the bad guy in the first place.

Well have you spoken to your fairy godmother about that? Perhaps she'd be willing to magically make that happen. In case you've somehow failed to notice mankind has been trying to keep guns out of the hands of bad guys since they were invented. How's that going so far? Even in the countries with the strictest controls bad guys still manage to get them. So why is anyone supposed to take people seriously when they can't even accept reality? Your fantasies will never happen, guns will never be banned, even the Brady bill didn't actually "ban" any guns. Why don't you try to come up with some solutions that A- are based in reality and B- aren't just useless new laws meant solely to pacify sheeple by giving them a false sense of security.

LOL where were you conservatives when George bush, put a person in charge of women's health, that was a veterinarian with a degree in animal husbandry. lol you guys will turn anything into a conspiracy. I should start selling tin foil hats in conservative areas. probably make a fortune.

bayllie first, learn the difference between deficit and debt and then join the adult conversation!

do you understand the difference? i dont think roy was out of place on his post, the national debt has been increasing for about that time, since WW2 but we had debt before that, post war brought us tons revenue. clinton never paid down the debt once cent and only had a budgetary (200 something billion) surplus on paper during his last year to which bush2 gave that away as taxable rebates to stimulate the economy during a recession, it worked. if bush was a big spender then obama is his teacher, trillion dollar deficits with nothing to show for it and no way to pay for it but borrow.

i bet you dont even know about how interest rates, inflation/deflation affects our debts, you just blindly support one-sided views.

the low information voter strikes again, due to democrat union thug teachers teaching one sided education

I smell Stinky (Feisty), Blowjob 1, soiled amy from portland, and outhouse!!!!! Love to see all libtards present, and great to see our lack luster president is still losing!!!!

Swagganaut

do you understand the difference? i dont think roy was out of place on his post,

you need to follow the conversation. My post #1.134 was in response to geo-1957883 's

Thomasgrande - Bashing liberals is easy, and fun. The only way to get America going is to stop spending more than we take in

so I simply pointed out that Republicans are hypocrites because Reagan had 8 solid yrs of deficits, Bush1 had 4 solid yrs of deficits, and Bush2 - had 8 solid years of deficits.

Since Roy could not come up with anything clever about my point, he decided to put Clinton down (who had 4 yrs of balanced budgets) and said that even Clinton did not lower the debt.

So Roy either doesn't understand the difference between deficit (the topic of my post) and the debt or he cannot admit that no Republican president in our modern history has been good with balancing budgets - pick one.

Backcountry164 --

Why don't you try to come up with some solutions that A- are based in reality and B- aren't just useless new laws meant solely to pacify sheeple by giving them a false sense of security.

On the subject of "false sense of security," tell me this --

Which "solution" is guaranteed to be more likely to prevent a shooting?

A. The victim also has a gun? (0 for 2 in the examples I gave) or

B. The shooter does not have a gun in the first place?

I'll give you some time to think that over. Get back to me when you work it through your pea-sized brain.

By the way, apparently you do hear those stories. Your stories apparently don't say, however, how many people who brandished a gun in self-defense were actually facing another gun, which is what Wayne LaPierre was talking about, and what I'm talking about. And they don't say how many people were killed or injured in those incidents.

On the other hand, there are nearly 30,000 deaths and 200,000 non-fatal injuries every year from firearms. These injuries cost many, many thousands of dollars each for medical treatment as well as many more thousands of dollars in lost productivity to society. That's billions of dollars in total every single year, all so that insecure paranoids, misanthropes, and xenophobes can feel more powerful.

I guess we probably could find the money to get guns off the streets if we wanted to, couldn't we?

But we don't really want to, do we?

What else do you have for me? I'm singularly unimpressed.

America has a budget problem??? Oh well, I'd like to have a taxpayer funded security detail for me and my wife forever.

"Obama signs law giving himself, Bush lifetime Secret Service guard"

"President Barack Obama on Thursday signed into a law a measure giving him, George W. Bush and future former presidents and their spouses lifetime Secret Service protection, the White House announced...

The legislation rolls back a mid-1990s law that imposed a 10-year limit on Secret Service protection for former presidents. Bush would have been the first former commander in chief affected. At the time, lawmakers who supported the measure said it would save the government millions of dollars. They also argued that former presidents could hire private security firms."

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-signs-law-giving-himself-bush-lifetime-secret-184305122--politics.html

How on earth could a former president possibly afford their own security??? Thank goodness Obama was able to ensure that he and Michelle can continue robbing Americans for decades to come. Once a Dictator always a Dic.

On the topic of whether a good guy with a gun is the only one who can stop a bad guy with a gun --

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/10/us-usa-shooting-california-idUSBRE90910H20130110

The lone suspect, a 16-year-old male student, was arrested after a teacher and a school administrator who confronted him persuaded the boy to put his gun down, Youngblood told a televised news conference.

Teachers, of course, being so well paid to risk their own lives talking down gunmen.

Given that it was completely unexpected, it seems highly unlikely that this particularly shooting could have been prevented by having armed teachers or an armed guard in the school.

But it probably would have been prevented if the shooter had not had a gun in the first place.

@ Dennis.

Thanks for the update. Best wishes and success for his endeavor and maybe someday he will find time to post his perspective again.

Ben-Now Nobel laureate Gore has sold his interest in a failing cable-television station for about $100 million — and to the anti-American Al-Jazeera, which is owned by the fossil-fuel-rich royal family of Qatar.

First,I dispute that Al Jazeera is anti-American. They MAY oppose some policies that they think are wrong. But that's not the same as being anti-American,except to a neo-con. Second,I wonder if your outrage extends to the second biggest investor/owner of FOX NEWS being the Saudi Prince Alwaleed,nephew of the Saudi King and a big supporter of Sharia Law.

Team
Obama trips on cabinet shuffle

Well yes, these idiots are tripping for the last four years. What is not sure yet is, what are they taking? Must be quite powerful to screw up everything they touch.

ROY WILSON-336103

bayllie "ROY WILSON-336103 Show me the proof that shows votes Obama got are a direct result of him giving out food stamps."

I gave you the figures and the source - But it does require that you actually 'think' about it. Here - I'll repeat the information on the welfare eligible group of actual voters;

"According to Exit Polls from the election, there were about 50.8 Million (41% of total) voters in the income group averaging under $30,000 per year, and 30.9 Million of them voted for Obama, vs only 19.9 Million for Romney – that's a net gain for Obama of 11 million votes, and Obama won overall by less than 5 million votes."

This means that Romney won by 6 million votes among the people who actually work and pay income taxes to support those on welfare, and Obama won the 'welfare eligible' group by 11 million votes.

Hasn't it ever crossed your mind that Romney didn't appeal to the poor and unemployed??? You right wingers seem to think that Romney is the reincarnation of your god Reagan and that everyone ought to worship him. Don't you think that the 47% comment had a bit to do with the poor actually going to Obama, even though poor people (mostly in the South and Midwest) often vote for Republicans??? Face it, Republicans: when you call poor people lazy, welfare moochers and constantly use the number of people on food stamps and in poverty as a tool for criticism instead of compassion (as you did to the unemployed and the "job creators"), poor people don't vote for you. They vote for the other guy; did you see Obama say poor people are lazy??? No, you did not. And by the way, Obama didn't give people welfare; THE ECONOMY did. When the economy goes into a recession, people automatically go on unemployment insurance and food stamps because (A) they have no jobs and (B) they still have to pay their bills.

ROY WILSON-336103

bayllie "Reagan - 8 yrs of deficits......Bush1 - 4 years of deficits.....Bush2 - 8 yrs of deficits"

There has not been a single year in the last 50 years where there has been a reduction in the National Debt - under both Republican AND Democratic Presidents - and that includes under Clinton.

But the biggest and fastest increases have come under Obama in only 4 years.

Only if you discount inflation, economic growth, population growth, and the fact that he inherited a recession ON TOP of Bush's structural deficits.

Total Debt increase under Reagan in 8 years (1981-1988) = $1.692 Trillion

Yet he tripled the debt and increased it's debt levels to nearly 51% of GDP from around 30% of GDP in 1981. He also started the entire concept of drastically cutting taxes and helped caused the savings and loans crisis in 1987 via deregulation of savings and loans institutions, which led to the largest taxpayer bailout of the financial industry (even larger than TARP).

Total Debt increase under Clinton in 8 years (1992-2000) = $1.627 Trillion (about same as Reagan).

Yet debt levels stabilized and even decreased slightly from around 70% to perhaps 60% of GDP (the largest adjusted reduction of the debt in recent US history). That is what you should focus when you talk about deficits and debt from a long time ago, as those deficits shrink due to different inflation levels and populations.

Total Debt increase under Bush in 8 years (2001-2008) = $4.357 Trillion.

Actually, Bush increased the deficit by roughly $5.5 trillion, assuming that he had a $5.7 trillion debt to start with and an $11.2 trillion (including half of the 2009 deficit, even though incumbent presidents usually take responsibility for the balance of the year after the election).

Total Debt increase under Obama in 4 years (2009-2012) = $5.849 Trillion.

Actually, it's more in the ballpark of $5.2 trillion. And you fail to realize that we were undergoing a RECESSION during the first year of his presidency and a slow recovery during the remainder. Republicans claim to be the best presidents when it comes to creating economic growth but fail to realize what happens to the budget when there is a recession. Recessions lead to lower consumption, lower consumption leads to lower profits, lower profits leads to layoffs, and layoffs lead to more government spending on social programs and less tax revenue from the labor force. It's as simple as that.

http://www.dropshots.com/GCaplan#date/2013-01-07/19:20:10

Obama’s Steady Road to Austerity

by BAR executive editor Glen Ford

"...Four years later, it is impossible not to hear the tolling of the bell. As early as mid-February, the pending debt ceiling impasse will provide another opportunity to take the axe to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Only fools believe that Obama will resist the impulse, since to do so would be to repudiate his entire first term in office. With methodical calculation, Obama laid the groundwork for a grand austerity bargain, beginning with his handpicked Simpson-Bowles Deficit Reduction Commission. The “fiscal cliff” was a trap set jointly by Obama and the GOP in the summer of 2011, after their deal for $4 trillion in cuts foundered on the issue of modest tax increases on the rich. With this month’s agreement to make Bush’s tax cuts permanent for 98 percent of the public, Obama and the Republicans’ positions are closer than ever. All that is required for Obama to achieve his true legacy – to drive a stake in the heart of what’s left of social welfare in the U.S. – is to marginalize hard core Tea Party budget purists and, much more importantly, bludgeon the “left” wing of the Democrats into line, which has always been Obama’s job in the corporate political division of labor.

The odds are that Obama and his Republican tag-teammates will triumph. In many ways, they already have. By embracing the notion that the deficit is the nation’s number one problem, Obama has firmly embedded the logic of austerity – which is the logic of Wall Street – into Democratic Party politics…"

http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/obama’s-steady-road-austerity

Freshieee

Thanks for the 'excuses' you give for blaming the Republicans and absolving the Democrats for the Debt crisis.

And I find it humorous that the $1.692 Trillion increase in the Debt under Reagan was 'horrible', but virtually the same $1.627 Trillion increase under Clinton was 'commendable'.

As for 'allocating' much of the 2009 Debt increase to Bush, it overlooks some basic FACTS, such as the Democratic Congress refusing to give Bush a 2009 Budget to sign/veto, so Bush only authorized spending at the same level as in 2008 (See links for proof). Virtually ALL of the huge $535 Billion (18%) increase in Spending for fiscal 2009 was approved by Obama about 8 weeks after taking office, after passing his huge $860 Billion 'Stimulus' bill.

https://www.aamc.org/advocacy/washhigh/highlights2008/159056/president_signs_spending_bill.html

www.chieftain.com/news/local/bush-signs-budget/article_0d64329f-0c6f...

bayllie "So Roy either doesn't understand the difference between deficit (the topic of my post) and the debt or he cannot admit that no Republican president in our modern history has been good with balancing budgets - pick one."

I understand the difference quite well, which is why I posted the CORRECT information that Clinton increased the National Debt by essentially the same amount as Reagan, while you tried to glorify Clinton and denigrate Reagan.

The 'Deficit' is a convenient masquerade that the government uses to cover up the REAL spending problem by borrowing money and pretending that it 'lowers the Deficit', when in reality it merely increases the Debt. That's why the total Deficits over the last 30 years have been $9.5 Trillion, yet the National Debt during the same 30 years increased by $15.1 Trillion. That's a difference of $5.6 Trillion from the government's 'phony accounting' practices, and the reason that libbies laud Clinton's so-called 'Surpluses', but ignore the FACT that the National Debt increased in every single year under Clinton.

bayllie

To put the way that the government calculates the so-called 'Surplus' each year in perspective, it would be like you earning $60,000 per year and then borrowing $200,000 from the bank to buy a house, and then bragging to your friends "I made $260,000 last year".

That's the so-called 'Surplus' under Clinton, and why the National Debt increased each year despite claims of a 'Surplus'.

The question I have for you is "Do YOU understand the difference between a Deficit and the Debt?"

bayllie "ROY WILSON-336103 here is something you can chew on: (A) red states are predominantly Republican...(B) red states recieve more of federal benefits (aka taxpayer subsidies)...Conclusion: red states are moochers while blue states support them"

Unfortunately for you, that 'premise' is false. Here are the FACTS, according to official government figures by State;

Number of welfare recipients in States that voted for Obama in 2008 = 22,234,725 (73.4%).

Number of welfare recipients in States that voted for McCain in 2008 = 8,077,384 (26.6%).

'sorry to be picking on you but you make it SOOOOOO easy!' lol

bayllie "your little theory here is as entertaining as Fox News Glenn Beck's claim that he could not debunk the claim that President Obama was building FEMA concentration camps...."

Is that like Joe Biden's claim to Blacks that the Republicans are ‘Going to Put Y’all Back in Chains’'.

Beck is an obvious right wing extremist who holds no public office - What's Biden's excuse?

ROY WILSON-336103

Freshieee

Thanks for the 'excuses' you give for blaming the Republicans and absolving the Democrats for the Debt crisis.

You're welcome.

And I find it humorous that the $1.692 Trillion increase in the Debt under Reagan was 'horrible', but virtually the same $1.627 Trillion increase under Clinton was 'commendable'.

I don't commend the debt increase under Clinton, but you have to realize that Reagan increased the debt by a larger amount after taking inflation and economic growth into account; quite simply, don't rely on the nominal amount of the debt ($16 trillion), but instead rely on the ratio of debt to GDP (~73%). Reagan increased the debt-to-GDP ratio substantially, and Clinton brought it down.

As for 'allocating' much of the 2009 Debt increase to Bush, it overlooks some basic FACTS, such as the Democratic Congress refusing to give Bush a 2009 Budget to sign/veto, so Bush only authorized spending at the same level as in 2008 (See links for proof). Virtually ALL of the huge $535 Billion (18%) increase in Spending for fiscal 2009 was approved by Obama about 8 weeks after taking office, after passing his huge $860 Billion 'Stimulus' bill.

That may matter when comparing congressional responsibility for our fiscal problem, but not for the president. Presidents always are held accountable for debt increases (that's why you blame Obama for our fiscal mess).