American Politics during the Obama Presidency [Archive]

LordBlackAdder

08-04-09, 17:05

From the canadian Press, a national news gathering outfit similar in some ways to AP. An editirial from just over a month ago on the POTUS. Remember Canada in general is far more liberal than the US, so much so that they have two left of center parties, one akin to what the American democrats were 40-50 years ago and the other a party that is convinced businesses are formed simply so the owners can give people jobs and pay lots of taxes..

In the sixth month of his presidency, Obama has turned an economic downturn into an economic disaster, taking over and trashing entire companies, and driving the nation deep into deficit spending expected to pass 10 trillion dollars.

Abroad, Obama seems to have no other mode except to continue on with his endless campaign, confusing speechmaking with diplomacy. It is natural enough that Obama, who built his entire campaign on high profile public speeches reported on by an adoring press, understands how to do nothing else but that.

Ego driven photo-op appearances and clueless treatment of foreign dignitaries

While the press is still chewing over Obama’s Cairo speech, this celebrity style coverage ignores the fact that Obama’s endless world tour is not actually accomplishing anything. Instead his combination of ego driven photo-op appearances and clueless treatment of foreign dignitaries have alienated many of America ’s traditional allies. Those who aren’t being quietly angry at Obama, like Brown, Merkel or Netanyahu, instead think of him as an absurdly lightweight, as Sarkozy, King Abdullah or Putin do.

While his officials carry out their dirty economic deeds, Obama responds to any and every crisis as if it were a Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland musical, with a cry of, “Let’s put on a show.” Thus far Obama has put on “shows” across America , Europe and the Middle East . And what the adoring media coverage neglects to cover, is that Obama’s shows have solved absolutely nothing. They have served only as high profile entertainment.

Neither alienating America ’s traditional allies, through a combination of arrogant bullying and ignorance, nor appeasing America ’s enemies, has yielded any actual results. Nor does it seem likely to. Islamic terrorism is not going anywhere, neither are the nuclear threats from North Korea and Iran . While Obama keeps smiling, the global situation keeps growing more grim.

At home, if Obama was elected as depression era entertainment, the charm of his smiles and his constant appearances on magazine covers appear to be wearing thin on the American public. Despite the shrill attacks on Rush Limbaugh or the Republican Enemy of the Weak-- the Democratic party of 2009, is polling a lot like the Republican party of 2008. The Democrats have suddenly become the incumbents, and the only accomplishment they can point to is lavish deficit spending, often on behalf of the very same corporations and causes they once postured against.

The European Union Parliament’s swing to the right cannot be credited to Obama, though doubtlessly some European voters seeing socialist economic crisis management on display in the world’s richest country decided they wanted none of it, but it is part of a general turning against federalism. And Obama’s entire program is dependent on heavily entrenching federalism at the expense of individual and state’s rights. Yet that is precisely his Achilles heel with independent voters who are polling against more taxes and expanded government. And no amount of speeches by Obama can wish away his 18 czars or the national debt he has foisted on generation after generation of the American people.

That leaves Obama with a choice between socialism and the independent voter. And thus far he has chosen socialism.

Obama’s tactic of hijacking Bush Administration era policies on the economy and the War on Terror, and exploiting them as Trojan horses to promote his own agenda, have left him coping with a backlash from his own party, as well as general Republican opposition.

His Czars are meant to function as the bones in an executive infrastructure accountable to no one, but a lack of accountability isn’t just another word for tyranny, but for incompetence. A functional chain of command is accountable at multiple levels if it is to function effectively. Obama’s White House by contrast is in a state of over-organized chaos, the sort of organized disorganization that undisciplined egotistical leftists naturally create for themselves, complete with multiple overlapping levels of authority and no one in charge but the man at the top, who’s too busy doing other things to actually be in charge.

Dennis Blair as National Intelligence, who collaborated with the Muslim genocide of Christians in East Timor , trying to muscle out the CIA to create his own intelligence network, is typical of the kind of chaos being spawned by every chief in an expanding government bureaucracy working to make sure that all the Indians answer to him. Similarly the National Security Council wrestling with the State Department, highlighted by Samantha Power getting her own specially created NSC position to butt heads with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, illustrates the state of conflict and chaos in American foreign affairs. A state of chaos so pervasive that incompetence has now become commonplace, and no one can even be found to double check the spelling of a Russian word that is meant to be the theme of American’s diplomatic reconstruction with Russia , or to pick out a gift for the visiting British Prime Minister.

The death of Chrysler at the hands of Fiat and the UAW

Meanwhile on the economy, Obama exploited the ongoing bailouts, transforming them from bailouts into takeovers meant to shift the balance of power in what had been a democracy and socially engineer not only corporations, but the lives of ordinary Americans. But the public’s patience with corporate bailouts is at an end, most Americans were never happy with them to begin with, and want them to end. The death of Chrysler at the hands of Fiat and the UAW might look like a victory in the union ranks, but it doesn’t play too well outside Detroit . And tacking on CAFE standards that will kill the pickup truck and the SUV will badly erode Obama in the swing states, if exploited properly in 2010 and 2012. Despite the constant media barrage, orchestrated out of the White House, the public is growing disenchanted with the performance of Obama and the Democrats.

With unemployment booming and the economy dropping, the jobs aren’t there and the spending is out of control. Republicans today are polling better on ethics and the economy, than the Democrats are. That shows a trend which is likely to register in the mid-term elections in 2010, in the same way that the EU parliamentary elections served as a shock to the system.

In the opposition, Republicans are free to embrace the rhetoric of change, to champion reform and push libertarian ideas about the size and scope of government. In turn all Obama has is his celebrity fueled media spectacle world tour. A charade now serving as a parallel to the depression era entertainment that functioned as escapism in a dour time. But before long, it may be Obama that the American public will want to escape from.

A shallow, manipulative and egotistical amateur who is in over his head

Obama has tried to play Lincoln, Reagan, JFK and FDR-- but in the end he can only play himself, a shallow, manipulative and egotistical amateur who is in over his head, and trying to drag the country down with him. Obama’s White House is falling down and while the flashbulbs are still glittering and the parties are going on in D.C. and around the world, Obama and the Democratic Congress may be headed for a recession of their own.

PusshyHunter

08-04-09, 21:20

I rarely get involved in political discussions but if you want to talk facts -

In 6 months, President Obama has:
* rammed thru an ineffectual "stimulus" package to rescue the economy;
* drove jobless numbers to nearly 10% (despite assertions his "stimulus" would do otherwise);
* executed a takeover of 2/3 of the US auto industry;
* negated decades of bankruptcy law;
* rammed thru an ill-adivsed 'environmental' bill in the House with fellow Dems who didn't read the bill;
* attempted an overhaul of the US healthcare system that will introduce Canadian-style rationing and British-type bureaucrats making decisions for patients;
* failed to prosecute Black Panthers caught on film intimidating voters in Philly (Remember those claims against Gov. Jeb Bush in 2000? They were proven false. These BP claims are caught on camera and no prosecution.)
* ignited a racial firestorm because he publicly labeled police "stupid"

Independents, who gave him the White House, are now question his policies and the direction of the country. He still has the kool-aid drinkers, though.
Why is it kool-aid drinkers never appreciate sentence structure and punctuation marks?Starfleet BITEME. The fact is people want to blame Obama for what the Republicans have caused? No one can deny that Bush, Cheney and the Republicans started this whole mess. I would prefer Government Health Care. I work with a guy who has a heart problem and he can't get health care because of the condition he has. So he should suffer while other people get health care. No I don't think so. Fact is Fact people in the country know Obama will get thing's done you just can't say 6 months into his term that he is the one making the problem's.

Roamin Roman

08-04-09, 23:04

Obama has tried to play Lincoln, Reagan, JFK and FDR-- but in the end he can only play himself, a shallow, manipulative and egotistical amateur who is in over his head.Don't forget, the "de facto" President of the United States has also portrayed himself as Moses, Jane Fonda, and Bugsy Moran. Of these, he probably is most convincing as Fonda in her role as Hanoi Jane, giving aid and comfort to our enemies.

R::R

Roamin Roman

08-04-09, 23:24

Starfleet BITEME. The fact is people want to blame Obama for what the Republicans have caused? No one can deny that Bush, Cheney and the Republicans started this whole mess. I would prefer Government Health Care. I work with a guy who has a heart problem and he can't get health care because of the condition he has. So he should suffer while other people get health care. No I don't think so. Fact is Fact people in the country know Obama will get thing's done you just can't say 6 months into his term that he is the one making the problem's.Wow, that sure stands out as high-level intellectual debate and retort.

You're right, IMO, in implying that Bush (though not necessarily Cheney) and many Republicans.-- but not, I repeat, NOT conservatives.-- were guilty of starting some of this mess. But Obama, Biden, and his crew of Marxists, Leftists, and Socialists, have made a bad situation far, far worse. Bush spent a lot, and he even said that he had to go outside of Free Market rules in order to save the Free Market, which is pure hogwash. But Obumma & His Crew has tried to convince the USA Citizenry that the way we cure overspending is to spend far more. That's pure economic illiteracy.

As for the fellow, with whom you allegedly work, who has the heart problem: One reason he might not be able to obtain health insurance is because of the multiplicity of regulations that the government already places on the insurance industry. (You do know, don't you, that the insurance industry is one of the most heavily-regulated industries in the country? Oh, you mean to tell us that you didn't know that little fact? Ignorance is bliss, I guess.)

Anyway, with regard to your co-worker, by what moral code does his problem or existence impose a burden on me or anyone else? We have Canadians and Britons coming to the U.S.A. in order to receive treatment for their maladies. Surely, if your co-worker cannot find treatment in this country, he should seek treatment in some Socialist Mecca that already has "universal health care." But, what you don't do, in order to solve his problem, is burder the rest of the country with a system that's failed wherever it's been tried. (That's like taking away books from the literate, in order to help an illiterate man to read. It's pure madness and stupidity. yet Liberals, Leftists, Socialists, Marxists, and Democrats.-- but, I repeat myself.-- seem to have a monopoly on that trait.)

Truth is, health insurance is available for your co-worker. It might not be at a price that he likes, but it is available. As for your appreciation (or lack thereof) of sentence structure and punctuation, StarFleet appears to be correct. Let me guess: You attended publik skools, rite?

Roamin Roman

08-04-09, 23:28

With compliments to A John (from the Jokes & Humorous Stories forum), here's the kind of mammograms that will be available under "universal health care" under Obama. (I suspect that B.J. Clinton would be serving as medical consultant.)

PusshyHunter

08-05-09, 02:30

Wow, that sure stands out as high-level intellectual debate and retort.

You're right, IMO, in implying that Bush (though not necessarily Cheney) and many Republicans.-- but not, I repeat, NOT conservatives.-- were guilty of starting some of this mess. But Obama, Biden, and his crew of Marxists, Leftists, and Socialists, have made a bad situation far, far worse. Bush spent a lot, and he even said that he had to go outside of Free Market rules in order to save the Free Market, which is pure hogwash. But Obumma & His Crew has tried to convince the USA Citizenry that the way we cure overspending is to spend far more. That's pure economic illiteracy.

As for the fellow, with whom you allegedly work, who has the heart problem: One reason he might not be able to obtain health insurance is because of the multiplicity of regulations that the government already places on the insurance industry. (You do know, don't you, that the insurance industry is one of the most heavily-regulated industries in the country? Oh, you mean to tell us that you didn't know that little fact? Ignorance is bliss, I guess.)

Anyway, with regard to your co-worker, by what moral code does his problem or existence impose a burden on me or anyone else? We have Canadians and Britons coming to the USA A. In order to receive treatment for their maladies. Surely, if your co-worker cannot find treatment in this country, he should seek treatment in some Socialist Mecca that already has "universal health care." But, what you don't do, in order to solve his problem, is burder the rest of the country with a system that's failed wherever it's been tried. (That's like taking away books from the literate, in order to help an illiterate man to read. It's pure madness and stupidity. But Liberals, Leftists, Socialists, Marxists, and Democrats.-- but, I repeat myself.-- seem to have a monopoly on that trait.)

Truth is, health insurance is available for your co-worker. It might not be at a price that he likes, but it is available. As for your appreciation (or lack thereof) of sentence structure and punctuation, StarFleet appears to be correct. Let me guess: You attended publik skools, rite?You ever hear of writing to fast? I guess you are just a stupid as the other one aren't you. The problem is he is a black man and he is president and you just can't stand that. Face it the Republican party is a freaking joke get used to it. I guess we the tax payer's should pay out for the war that Bush started? I never saw any weapons of mass destruction did you? NO because they didn't exist. Face it the Republicans caused this NOT OBAMA OR BIDEN OR THE DEMOCRATS! But the REPUBLICANS! You have a narrow mind if you think Obama and the rest of them are not Marxists, Leftists, and Socialists as you want to call them. If you want to say they are Marxists, Leftists, and Socialists then you really need a wake up call.

NevadaJones

08-05-09, 14:31

Losing battle dude. Give him facts and he plays the race card. Face it more and more folks want a free ride and nothing you say will convince them otherwise.

Maybe we should put aside the politics and look for common ground:

The bright side to the recession is a better class of ladies may need to earn a little rent money in a way we can all enjoy.

Wow, that sure stands out as high-level intellectual debate and retort.

JforJones

08-05-09, 15:46

Why is this thread even on this site?

Roamin Roman

08-05-09, 18:25

You ever hear of writing to fast?No, but I've heard of abstaining from eating in order to fast. (Oh, wait. You meant too fast. You ever hear of checking your typing?)

I guess you are just a stupid as the other one aren't you.I am "a stupid"? That's a new one.

The problem is he is a black manHe's black?!!! Really? And you view that as a problem?
and he is presidentWow. Who woulda thunk it possible?!! BTW, only a few short years ago, Republicans were toying with the idea of selecting Gen. Colin Powell to head their national ticket.
and you just can't stand that.I can "stand" the fact that Barack Hussein Obama is half black and half white. (You forgot about that, didn't you?) What I can't stand is the fact that he is an incompetent, incoherent, lying liberal who is apparently intent on taking this country, from what the Founding Fathers gave us, and in turn altering it into a Marxist Utopia. His 15 or so "czars" are a clue, dude. Ever hear of the term "Politburo"?

Oh, and by the way, ever since Republicans chose Clarence Thomas as a Justice for the U.S. Supreme Court, liberals have become completely unhinged. That's something you can't stand, and you've never gotten over it.
Face it the Republican party is a freaking joke get used to it.Well, you got me there. Of course, I'm not a member of the Republican Party. I'm simply a conservative. But, if I had to choose a party to join, I'd join the Republicans. At least they have some common sense left in their ranks. They've also got patriots. The Democrats have none. That party is worse than a joke.
I guess we the tax payer'sThere we go with the punctuation again.
should pay out for the war that Bush started?I think it was a bunch of rag-heads that started the war. Just a point of historical accuracy that they probably neglected to teach you in the publik skule.
I never saw any weapons of mass destruction did you? NO because they didn't exist.Actually, WMDs did exist, as well as the necessary precursors to create them. Of the ones found, the stage of development was less than what all intelligence sources, from many countries, had estimated. And don't forget: We've not yet gotten a final determination of that LONG convoy of trucks that left Baghdad and went to Damascus 48 hours before Bush 43 began the bombing of Iraq.
Face it the Republicans caused this NOT OBAMA OR BIDEN OR THE DEMOCRATS! But the REPUBLICANS!Actually, if you want to place blame properly (which you obviously are incapable of doing, it would seem), you should blame B.J. Clinton for starving the military and the Intel Community of adequate funding during the 1990s. Also, he never gave anything other than a limp-dicked response to all the terrorist attacks in the '90s. But, Clinton did bomb an aspirin factory in response to one of those attacks. He also destroyed some nomad tents and killed a few camels in Afghanistan, using a few million-dollar cruise missles. Yeah, that was deft.
You have a narrow mind if you think Obama and the rest of them are not Marxists, Leftists, and Socialists as you want to call them.I have a narrow mind if think they are not Marxists, etc.? Well, yeah. That's why I said they were Marxists, etc.
If you want to say they are Marxists, Leftists, and Socialists then you really need a wake up call.No, actually folks who vote for Marxists, Leftists, Socialists, etc. need a wake-up call. Me? I'm like ol' Abe Lincoln. I'm a "Wide-Awake."

Your turn, oh unsuccessful Hunter.

Roamin Roman

08-05-09, 18:29

Why is this thread even on this site?This thread is on this site in order to keep doofuses, who claim to hunt pussy, from actually going out and hunting pussy. Cuts down on the competition, not that they'd really be able to offer any. It's just that they'd screw up the hunting grounds by either scaring away all the good pussy or draw the attention of Leo by their bumbling tactics.

Roamin Roman

08-05-09, 18:35

Losing battle dude. Give him facts and he plays the race card. Face it more and more folks want a free ride and nothing you say will convince them otherwise.Oh, I know that. But, all the same, certain types of people offer a measure of comic relief. It's like going to the zoo: You just have to visit the Monkey House for the entertainment value. (BTW, ever notice how some monkeys have ears that stick way out, in a vague sort of resemblence to various politicians? Lefties thought the ones comparing G.W. Bush to a monkey were hilarious. Let's try it again, from a different perspective. You judge which one is funnier.)

PusshyHunter

08-05-09, 22:42

All I have to say is this your a limp dick Repulbican who has nothing better to do than blame Obama get used to it. People could see that McCain/Palin were a joke. 8 years of Republicans fucking up the country and you blame the Democrats. You really need a life.

PusshyHunter

08-06-09, 00:51

Why is this thread even on this site?It is here because limp dick Republicans have nothing better to tdo than bash Obama and be racist.

Streetwize

08-06-09, 13:58

Why is it the only thing liberals can say is "that's racist"?

A John

08-06-09, 18:51

Date: Wednesday, August 5, 2009, 6:50 PM

As the CEO of this organization, I have resigned
myself to the fact that Barrack Obama is our President and that our taxes and
government fees will increase in a BIG way. To compensate for these
increases, our prices need to increase by about 10%, but since we cannot
increase our prices, right now, due to the dismal state of the economy, we'll
have to lay off 60 employees. This has really been bothering me, since I
believe we are family here and I didn't know how to choose who would have to
go.

So, this is what I did. I walked through our parking lots and found 60
'Obama' bumper stickers on employees' cars and I decided these are the
folks to let go. I can't think of a more fair way to approach this
problem - they voted for change so I gave it to them.

I will see the rest of you at the annual company picnic.

PusshyHunter

08-06-09, 19:21

Why is it the only thing liberals can say is "that's racist"?Because Republicans are Racist.

LordBlackAdder

08-06-09, 19:49

Has anyone else noticed that the same people who went through 3 months worth of money in 1 week on the Cash for Clunkers Programme have also figured out exactly how much it will cost to provide everyone health care?

(10) Your annual breast exam is done at Hooters.

(9) Directions to your doctor's office include: "Take a left when you enter the trailer park."

(8) The tongue depressors taste faintly of Fudgesicles.

(7) The only proctologist in the plan is "Gus" from Roto-Rooter.

(6) The only item listed under Preventative Care Coverage is: "An apple a day."

(5) Your primary care physician is wearing the pants you gave to Goodwill last month.

(4) "The patient is responsible for 200% of out-of-network charges." is not a typographical error.

(3) The only expense covered 100% is "embalming."

(2) Your Prozac comes in different colors with little 'M's on them.

AND THE NUMBER ONE SIGN YOU'VE JOINED OBAMA'S HEALTH CARE PLAN:

(1) You ask for Viagra, and they give you a Popsicle stick and duct tape.

LordBlackAdder

08-06-09, 19:54

In this official White House picture, Sergeant Crowley, the alleged racist police officer who acted stupidly according to President Obama, helps the handicapped Professor Gates down the stairs, while the self-absorbed Obama, oblivious of the infirmities of his friend and fellow victim of racial profiling, swaggers ahead on his own.

Sometimes a picture captures the moral essence of a person by showing how one treats others who are less powerful.

Cakpm

08-06-09, 20:12

Jesus. Put a picture of Obama next to a monkey and see the fallout. Complete double standards.

Clinton Bush

08-06-09, 21:25

Propilot

08-06-09, 23:56

Thank you.

Propilot-over and out.

Beereal

08-07-09, 09:17

Another Christian Republican on his way down.

Roamin Roman

08-07-09, 22:26

Another Christian Republican on his way down.That's, uh, real cogent and insghtful. Looks like you've run out of intellectual material there, dude, assuming you ever had any in the first place.

Beereal

08-08-09, 11:44

That's, uh, real cogent and insghtful. Looks like you've run out of intellectual material there, dude, assuming you ever had any in the first place.

Oh ok....Thanks for helping me grow as a person.

Shouldn't you be out on the street corner screaming about Obama's Birth certificate?

Evansville Man

08-08-09, 16:39

Thank you to the other folks in this chat area who are actually using sense, logic, and facts to support their opinions and conclusions - on both sides of the aisle.

Hunter, on the other hand, is ranting and parroting what the drive-by-media wants him to say and has YET to provide anything substantive to this discussion.

Hunter also seems not to know that the DEMOCRATS were in favor of the Iraq War as well and were scared of "Weapons of Mass Destruction"... even Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy... take a look at these quotes folks:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Hunter, please get some facts to back up your opinions if you're going to have a civilized discussion on this board??

Thanks, and have a great day,

Evansville Man

Evansville Man

08-08-09, 16:48

Because Republicans are Racist.

And apparently, by what we've seen so far, Hunter is a Democratic bigot.

Since when did the "Opinions" area become a Joke/Humorous Story list??? Let's face facts folks, the truth is there's only ONE RACE on this planet, the HUMAN race. (Lots of different cultures, I'll give you that... but only ONE HUMAN RACE.)

Play safe,

Evansville Man

Beereal

08-10-09, 21:09

Very interesting..if you've ever wondered what type of government you're living under,,this is an excellent tutorial and should make you see the current administration's take over of industries and social welfare programs as the evils they are.

Click on this site:
http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/

Wow...fancy chart and all.
Interesting how all the bad stuff is pushed over to the "left"
Especially since the video opens up talking about how ridiculous the left/ right comparison is.

I'm sorry Agent 61. But as much as we would like it. Things are never as simple as we would like them to be. We're a democratic republic. A representative democracy. In which the majority votes in our leaders/representatives. The problem is that lately, the representatives (left and right) are more concerned with lining their pockets and nepotisim than representing the people.

Good video though.

I don't always agree with your politics, but I love your work on this board.

Smiling Fox

08-11-09, 08:45

This is an interesting primer of governments.

Not completely accurate, but it gives a good primer in types of government. Actually the republic falls to the right of a democracy. I believe the theory of government is based on diffusion of power and to who's benefit and is circular rather than linear.

He does fail to mention that it is the bill of rights that gives us the freedom from the "republic", or our government.

So anytime any of those rights are threatened then our freedom is threatened.

I am sure there are lots of opinions here. I would not accept any that are bassed on our current bipolar situation here ie, democrat vs republican. But rather based on political science, well the study of governments.

Bigrig28

08-11-09, 21:23

The concept of a republic seems lost on every administration since at least FDR.

Under the terms of the Constitution, the USA Government is supposed to be limited to enumerated powers. Those powers not delegated to the federal government are supposed to be reserved to the states.

It is most assuredly not the job of the Federal government to provide for the common welfare, education, health care, housing, etc. The Supreme Court, under FDR made the "commerce clause", of the USA Constitution a license for the Federal Government to regulate, tax, and otherwise control any sale, shipment, transportation or transaction involving any person, good, or service that might have any effect on commerce within any state.

Look for the Supreme Court to revisit the issue of the broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause as various states start to object to unfunded Federal Mandates.

In any event, please consider joining the Libertarian Party. As long as we tolerate the current two party see saw, we'll never see any limit to the damage the federal government can do to your liberty.

A John

08-11-09, 22:31

Baltimonger

08-11-09, 22:38

Whether you are an Obama fan, or not, EVERYONE IN THE U. S. needs to
know.....

Something happened... H.R. 1388 was passed yesterday, behind our
backs. You may want to read abou t it.. It wasn ' t mentioned on the
news... just went by on the ticker tape at the bottom of the CNN
screen.

Obama funds $20M in tax payer dollars to immigrate Hamas Refugees to
the USA . This is the news that didn ' t make the headlines...

By executive order, President Barack Obama has ordered the expenditure
of $20.3 million in "migration assistance" to the Palestinian refugees
and "conflict victims" in Gaza .

The "presidential determination", which allows hundreds of thousands
of Palestinians with ties to Hamas to resettle in the United States ,
was signed on January 27 and appeared in the Federal Register on
February 4.

Few on Capitol Hill, or in the media, took note that the order
provides a free ticket replete with housing and food allowances to
individuals who have displayed their overwhelming support to the
Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) in the parliamentary election of
January 2006.

Let ' s review....itemized list of some of Barack Obama ' s most recent
actions since his inauguration:

20 His first call to any head of state, as president, was to Mahmoud
Abbas, leader of Fatah party in the Palestinian territory.

His first one-on-one television interview with any news organization
was with Al Arabia television.

His first executive order was to fund/facilitate abortion(s) not just
here within the U. S. , but within the world, using U. S. tax payer
funds.

He ordered Guanta namo Bay closed and all military trials of detainees
halted.

He ordered overseas CIA interrogation centers closed.

He withdrew all charges against the masterminds behind the USS Cole
and the "terror attack" on 9/11.

Now we learn that he is allowing hundreds of thousands of Palestinian
refuges to move to, and live in, the US at American taxpayer expense.

These important, and insightful, issues are being "lost" in the
blinding bail-outs and "stimulation" packages.

Doubtful? To verify this for yourself:

www.thefederalregister.com/d.p/2009-02-04-E9-2488

WE are losing this country at a rapid pace.

Sorry, try again. This same story was debunked months ago.

Dead giveaways: The story claims that it was part of H.B. 1388, then says it was an executive order.

This is the real H.B. 1388:

The Serve America Act of 2009 (H.R. 1388) aims to expand the number of volunteer service opportunities for Americans, with a federal goal of 250,000 positions for AmeriCorps volunteers, seniors, students and veterans. The legislation creates a framework for an expanded service program, and would cost $5.7 billion over a six-year period. The legislation was signed by President Barack Obama on April 21, 2009. He has requested $1.1 billion in the Fiscal Year 2010 Budget to fund the first year.

The 20.3 million dollars in aid for Palestinian refugees is not to move them to the U.S. It is money for international aid to provide basic necessities to those displaced by violence along the Gaza strip. It's dollar diplomacy. We've been doing it for over 100 years.

www.federalregister.gov is the real website not www.thefederalregister.com That site has no connection with the federal government.

LordBlackAdder

08-12-09, 23:57

If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush said he visited all 57 States would you have slammed him for being stupid?

If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given the Queen an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?

If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?

If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current on their income taxes, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the fourth of May (Cuatro de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?

If George W. Bush had mis-spelled the word advice would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as "proof" of what a dunce he is?

If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on "Earth Day", would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?

If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually "get" what happened on 9-11?

If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans , would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?

If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of General Motors stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in New York City, would you have approved?

Does anyone know what Obama has ever done (other than make some good speeches) that makes him so brilliant and impressive? If you can't think of anything? He has done all of the things listed above and I am sure than in the next 3 and a half years this list will surely grow.

Beereal

08-14-09, 18:48

You might recall that John Hinckley was a seriously deranged young man who shot President Reagan in the early 1980's.

Hinckley was absolutely obsessed with movie star Jodie Foster, extremely jealous, and in his twisted mind, loved Jodie Foster to the point that to make himself well known to her, he attempted to assassinate President Reagan.

There is speculation Hinckley may soon be released as having been rehabilitated. Consequently, you may appreciate the following letter from Nancy Reagan to John Hinckley:

*
*
To: John Hinckley
From: Mrs. Nancy Reagan

My family and I wanted to drop you a short note to tell you how pleased we are with the great strides you are making in your recovery.

In our fine country's spirit of understanding and forgiveness, we want you to know there is a nonpartisan consensus of compassion and forgiveness throughout.

The Reagan family and I want you to know that no grudge is borne against you for shooting President Reagan.

We, above all, are aware of how the mental stress and pain could have driven you to such an act of desperation.

We are confident that you will soon make a complete recovery and return to your family to join the world again as a healthy and productive young man.

Best wishes,
Nancy Reagan & Family

P.S. While you have been incarcerated, Barack Obama has been banging Jodie Foster like a screen door in a tornado.

You might want to look into that.

ok.......Even I have to give it up and laugh at that one. lmao.

Beereal

08-14-09, 18:54

Sorry, try again. This same story was debunked months ago.

Dead giveaways: The story claims that it was part of H.B. 1388, then says it was an executive order.

This is the real H.B. 1388:

The Serve America Act of 2009 (H.R. 1388) aims to expand the number of volunteer service opportunities for Americans, with a federal goal of 250,000 positions for AmeriCorps volunteers, seniors, students and veterans. The legislation creates a framework for an expanded service program, and would cost $5.7 billion over a six-year period. The legislation was signed by President Barack Obama on April 21, 2009. He has requested $1.1 billion in the Fiscal Year 2010 Budget to fund the first year.

The 20.3 million dollars in aid for Palestinian refugees is not to move them to the U.S. It is money for international aid to provide basic necessities to those displaced by violence along the Gaza strip. It's dollar diplomacy. We've been doing it for over 100 years.

www.federalregister.gov is the real website not www.thefederalregister.com That site has no connection with the federal government.

Good work Baltimonger.

But you'll notice that when you debunk one of these crazy claims, you'll never hear a retraction. They just ignore it and run on to the next crazy accusation.

The Birth certificate hooplah is a perfect example. I dont care if you buy plane tickets for all the "birthers", fly them to Hawaii, and show them the original birth certificate and introduce them to the dr who signed it, they will still continue to doubt that Obama is a citizen. NOTHING will change their mind.

You get similar reactions from the 9/11 conspiracy crowd.

The "truthers" worship Alex Jones and the "Birthers" worship Sarah Palin.

Well, actually, I myself kind of worship Sarah Palin, but for a completely different reason. :)

John Black

08-15-09, 17:25

If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?.

GWB couldn't even qualify for the Special Olympics

If George W. Bush said he visited all 57 States would you have slammed him for being stupid??.GWB can't even name 20 states, let alone find them on a map.

If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?As if GWB would ever consider giving any kind of gift to a left wing liberal socialist like Gordon Brown (leader of the UK Labor Party)!

If George W. Bush had given the Queen an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky??GWB wouldn't even know what an Ipod is. Probably the most useful gift the Queen got in years.

If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved?I'd say one bow is better than having GWB kissing Saudi ass continuesly for the last 8 years. Actually bowing to a King or Queen is normal protocol. Not doing so is considered an insult to not only the monarch but the entire country! Would it be wise to insult the country that supplies most of your oil?

If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip??GWB would have greeted the Austrian President by saying 'Goodday Mate'. Most Austrians speak their own strong local dialect of German. Even germans have a hard time understanding it. Austrian take pride in this.

If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current on their income taxes, would you have approved???Everbody in GWB's cabinet was too rich to have to pay taxes! Actually everybody in Obama's cabinet had to proof they were current on their taxes or they would not get the job. No president vetted his potential cabinet appointments more stongly than Obama. How did GWB do this? If he liked you or you paid him enough you got the job! Didn't matter if you were qualified or not.

If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the fourth of May (Cuatro de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment????Who would be more likely to be able to speak some spanish, a lawyer from Chicago or a wanna-be cowboy from Crawford, TX? In any case GWB can't speak spanish to save his life (or any other language).

If George W. Bush had mis-spelled the word advice would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as "proof" of what a dunce he is?????

What else did Dan Quayle accomplish in his life? ...... Anyone? ..... Anyone?

If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on "Earth Day", would you have concluded he's a hypocrite??????

How many gallons of Jet Fuel were unnecessarily burned by starting a war in IRAQ?

If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually "get" what happened on 9-11

Obviously GBW was more interested in finding out the ending to 'My Pet Goat' than getting up to find out what was happing on 9-11. Nobody in the Pentagon even bothered to ask for permission from the Obama administration for the planned fly-overs. After all they never had to ask for permission when GWB was president. Most of the 'widespread panic' was caused in the TV newsrooms. Very few people even noticed these planes among the thousands that fly low over NYC everyday.

If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

As if GWB would have even been able to properly read of a Teleprompter! How many unscripted open to the public town hall meetings did GWB do? None.

If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence??

The Midwest actually got more relief aid in week than New Orleans got in a year. Helps if the director of FEMA is not just some guy who was a friend of the president and used to run horse shows.

If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved???

As if GWB would ever consider firing anybody for being totally incompent and running his company into the ground. After all, that is what he did himself. The CEO in question wasn't fired, he quit.

If George W. Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?

As if the cost of the war in IRAQ has nothing to do with this. That could have paid for hearth care reform for the next 1000 years.

If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved??

Did you know that Ronald Reagan actually increased the national debt more than any other president in history? The last president who balanced the budget and decreased the national debt was Bill Clinton. Also taxes were lower under Bill than any other republican president before or after him.

If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of General Motors stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?

The only viable alternative would have been to liquidate the company so all shareholders would have lost everything.

If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in New York City, would you have approved?

That's still a lot cheaper than taking hundreds of trips to Crawford, TX paid for by the tax payer. Obama would have driven himself, but the Secret Service wouldn't let him. He did pay for the theatre tickets himself.

Does anyone know what Obama has ever done (other than make some good speeches) that makes him so brilliant and impressive? If you can't think of anything? He has done all of the things listed above and I am sure than in the next 3 and a half years this list will surely grow.

In 8 years GWB couldn't even make a single good speech. What else did he accomplish? No peace, no balanced budget, no heath care reform, no educational reform, no tax reform, no immigration reform, no energy plan, no nothing. One thing he did do was totally destroy the good name of the USA in the world by becoming the most hated US president in world history.

Baltimonger

08-16-09, 10:51

The ultimate goal of Socialized Medicine.....
http://www.aclu.org/pizza/images/screen.swf

How is this the ultimate goal of socialized medicine?

Socialized medicine is an Americanized term of single-payer national health care systems. Opponents created the term to ally the proponents to socialists. No other country uses the term "socialized medicine".

The Veterans Administration health system is by their definition "socialized medicine".

Social Security by their definition would be a Socialist program. So would medicare/medicaid. We should instead give that money to the private sector, and trust them to protect our investment, and hope it doesn't end up as part of another "Golden Parachute".

I know a Canadian citizen who got a new kidney donated by his brother just weeks after he was diagnosed with kidney failure, at no cost to him. Try that in the U.S. under the current system. Something needs to change with the current system. Too many hospital have been forced into bankruptcy, and have had to cut staff to dangerously low levels in order to survive. This is because we have so many uninsured people in this country. Imagine: A health care system where providers actually get paid for each and every patient they serve.

Beereal

08-16-09, 18:23

GWB couldn't even qualify for the Special Olympics

GWB can't even name 20 states, let alone find them on a map.

etc etc etc ..............

I nominate this for the post of the year.

Good Job John !

Beereal

08-16-09, 20:31

How is this the ultimate goal of socialized medicine?

Socialized medicine is an Americanized term of single-payer national health care systems. Opponents created the term to ally the proponents to socialists. No other country uses the term "socialized medicine".

The Veterans Administration health system is by their definition "socialized medicine".

Social Security by their definition would be a Socialist program. So would medicare/medicaid. We should instead give that money to the private sector, and trust them to protect our investment, and hope it doesn't end up as part of another "Golden Parachute".

I know a Canadian citizen who got a new kidney donated by his brother just weeks after he was diagnosed with kidney failure, at no cost to him. Try that in the U.S. under the current system. Something needs to change with the current system. Too many hospital have been forced into bankruptcy, and have had to cut staff to dangerously low levels in order to survive. This is because we have so many uninsured people in this country. Imagine: A health care system where providers actually get paid for each and every patient they serve.

The CEO of United Healthcare is worth almost a billion dollars in salary and stock options.

And people wonder why their insurance premiums are so high.

LordBlackAdder

08-17-09, 23:09

I note that most, but not all of your rebutals to the points made are simply calling GWB names or poking fun at him. The ones that are not seem to be lacking in facts. Won't bother to refute them all.

[QUOTE=John Black

As if GWB would ever consider giving any kind of gift to a left wing liberal socialist like Gordon Brown (leader of the UK Labor Party)![/QUOTE]

GWB gave Gordon Brown a leather WWII bombadier jacket with his name embossed on it. Gordon Brown gave the gift to the government since according to British law any MP has to either pay the government the value of a gift given to him or turn the gift over to the government. He would have to either pay for the DVDs Obama gave him or turn them in. Also Gordon Brown is the (never elected) Prime Minister of the UK and also leader of the Labour Party (not Labor).

Member #4581

08-19-09, 17:20

So before you condem, did the anti socialist do the following things:

Pay into Social Security and his employers contributions as well?
Pay into unemployment insurance via payroll deductions?
Pay for the Interstate System via gasoline taxes?
Pay for Medicade gap insurance?

I'll end in a famous quote, " And so on and so on and so on.

People who talk the biggest shit do not have to do what they talk shit about.

God loves hypocrites don't we know.

Roamin Roman

08-19-09, 19:31

Hey Private,

You're missing one very important thing: Those items you mention are not voluntary. We pay into Social Security by law, employers are forced to contribute to the unemployment compensation. We are taxed already for the highways. So, we have a right to demand recompense for those things.

Back to Boot Camp for you.

An anti socialist who will grow up and demand his social security payments. Who will demand unemployment compensation when he loses his job. Uses the interstate highway system on a daily basis and complain the loudest when they fall into disrepair. Will expect and demand medical care, if that's the right word, to be paid by the government when he is not able to pay. And so on and so on and so on.

People who talk the biggest shit do not have to do what they talk shit about.

God loves hypocrites don't we know.

Beereal

08-19-09, 20:39

So before you condem, did the anti socialist do the following things:

Pay into Social Security and his employers contributions as well?
Pay into unemployment insurance via payroll deductions?
Pay for the Interstate System via gasoline taxes?
Pay for Medicade gap insurance?

yes, and because of that, he is participating in socialist programs.

because I can guarantee you that all the taxes 61 has paid combined over his lifetime would probably not even pay for one single mile of interstate.

Some Fool

08-19-09, 22:10

Fools, rubes and dupes:

When you get an std or hiv by messing with a streetwalker/escort, you may wish you had a public health insurance option which won't jack up your rates or exclude your condition from coverage. Not to mention this fact: which party is more likely to allow, or leave alone, your dumb ass so that you can partake of your hobby without imposing their morals on you and sticking the police on your ass? Any idea? Of course, it's the liberals who don't give a shit what you do with your own body or who you do it with. Disagree? You think the christian dominated republican conservatives will allow you to enjoy your hobby? Think again. The "conservatives" in this country are all for getting the government out of the redistribution of wealth from the top to the bottom or from protecting those in need of protecting, but these very same conservatives are always on the side of moralizing and imposing their personal morals on the rest of us: abortion limitations, drug laws, prostitution bans, etc. Ask your stupid selves: which party is more likely to legalize or decriminalize prostitution? Can't figure it out? It's the liberals.

StarFleet

08-19-09, 22:48

The CEO of United Healthcare is worth almost a billion dollars in salary and stock options. And people wonder why their insurance premiums are so high.

In this country, people are usually paid what they're worth. How many multi-billion dollar corporations do you lead?

Smiling Fox

08-20-09, 00:16

You know, there is plenty wrong with the right, and plenty wrong with the left. There is enough wrong and right with our govt not to resort to extremist rhetoric. We have far to much govt, and its ineffective, bureaucratic. But we need some of it, And we need it to be effective.

Hate mongering, is dangerous. If we start to fall apart, we will all be in big trouble. So remember what principals this country was founded on. Pragmatism and compromise. Let me say that again. PRAGMATISM AND COMPROMISE.

If any of our founding fathers had had their way without those principals then this country would have been far different. It is because they were willing to compromise, and be pragmatic, that we got the country, and government that we got. It was designed to be contentious, so that only those who were willing to COMPOMISE AND BE PRAGMATIC would lead us to be successful.

Smiling Fox

Phoprh

08-20-09, 00:55

Here's the source of the problem:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaZVkU9JxX8

Hot Toddy

08-20-09, 04:59

I thought I had logged onto a monger site, and found all this political bullshit. Save it fellas.

Seva Lurker

08-20-09, 06:49

... I didn't see the ABC CBS NBC CNN MSNBC covering this. Did you? Wonder why...
Probably because FAIR and UNBIASED reporting of the news is something that we no longer see. They have to earn that almighty dollar.

The press are the ones who told us we needed the 'change' Obama promised.

And finally, they are afraid of being called racist if they report negatively on our chief executive.

LordBlackAdder

08-20-09, 10:50

This makes as much sense as what is coming out of Washington DC

Giani

08-20-09, 12:06

Here's my rant:

What is the story with far-right Republican rants against liberal politics on this board? What do they think liberal means? For God's sake, the word root in liberal MEANS Freedom. To be liberal means to strive for freedom of thought and actions for oneself and for others. Libertarians will tell you. Face it. The extreme right is dominated by the repressive, dogmatic religious fundamentalists, and cow-tows to them in large part, wanting to limit our freedoms. (Not unlike the way that religious fundamentalist Muslims have control of politics in Iran).

The religious right (both Christian and Muslim) demands prohibition of ANY sexual activity except for the purpose of procreation within the bounds of marriage. Yet among prominent members of the religious right, we have seen repeated examples of hypocrites who, as they publicly rail against a variaty of "moral deprivations", are in reality fu*king their brains out with what ever warm-wet-hole is available. In my book, the WORST hypocrites are the self-righteous right wing demagogues who seduce votes from the ignorant puritans of the extreme right while in secret, engaging in these acts. I am astonished that participants on this board willingly lie in bed with these puritanical witch hunters. Is it in the name of "freedom" when far-right Republican prosecutors push for MORE police, MORE jails, and for jailing ALL Johns and providers, especially just before an election. What IS the story?

This same far-right cabal promotes their cause by fanning the flames of fear, hatred, jealousy and suspicion in the population. It is another irony that the ultra wealthy, with their pockets full and their hands on the reins of the republican party, dupe the ill-educated common man (wanna-be well-to-do?) into parroting their platitudes which in fact, erode the rights and welfare of the common man.

The roots of this religious far-right are deeply embedded in the politics of segregationist south. (Remember that the arch segregationists, in the face of integration in the 1960s, defected en-mass to the Republican party, bringing their poisonous racist politics with them?) They are not ashamed to display this heritage in their hatred of our black president. And then... (this is rich), call him racist and fascist!!! History reminds us that fascists ARE the party of fear, hatred, military suppression, racial superiority and segregation. They *hardly* promoted hope or faith in the goodness of mankind...

I agree with Hot Toddy. Let's leave our racist, prejudiced, right-wing politics in the fundamentalist religious mega-churches where they belong. I propose that the Obama-haters establish their own board where they can share their bile with like-minded posters.

Down with fundamentalist repression of our sexual behavior, and let's get back to the pleasures of mongering.

Giani

I thought I had logged onto a monger site, and found all this political bullshit. Save it fellas.

Phoprh

08-20-09, 13:53

Excellent points all, I would add that I've always found it amusing that the party that claims Jesus as a mascot throws a fit every time an effort is made to help the poor, fights for a gun in every pot and supports the death penalty. The explanation I think is very simple, the people the exploit fear are deathly afraid of loosing what they have or not getting what they want and that's the terror that has pushed us over the edge of this current crisis. It wasn't Al Queda, it was the people of faith who have no faith. There running away from the Republican party and fighting tooth and nail against any effort of this administration to fix the crimes of the last. They lie and allow themselves to be lied to, anything to justify indignation, rage and a false sense of superiority and patriotism. The obvious progression is escalating violence that they will no doubt blame on the Democrats.

I agree that leaving this at the door is reasonable but were dealing with people that have no interest in being reasonable. Those that abandon reason will not be swayed by it.

I'm not a huge fan of the Dems but I would appreciate it if those that do nothing but complain and show up to events armed and pissing themselves would try for something a little more constructive. It may be that we are past the point of no return but a little old fashion one american hand out to another would be traditional, helpful and reassuring.

Beereal

08-20-09, 15:04

I am astonished that participants on this board willingly lie in bed with these puritanical witch hunters. Is it in the name of "freedom" when far-right Republican prosecutors push for MORE police, MORE jails, and for jailing ALL Johns and providers, especially just before an election. What IS the story?

Giani

Beautiful.....simply Beautiful.

Beereal

08-20-09, 15:08

In this country, people are usually paid what they're worth. How many multi-billion dollar corporations do you lead?

Yeah....sure they are.

$47,000 an hour?

See if YOU feel that way when one of these companies weasel their way into denying one of YOUR claims and put YOU into bankruptcy. Or they deny coverage to a family member and they die.

These people are making a fortune off the misfortune and misery of others. And only a complete retard would defend a system like that.

Beereal

08-20-09, 15:10

Probably so, considering the way the federal government pisses away our money.

Makes perfectly good sense to let them manage the health care of 300 million Americans, right?

You're dodging.

But, nevertheless, I share your concerns with govt waste.

Mister Luva

08-20-09, 23:44

I am really enjoying all of this President Obama bashing...ha ha ha. Your Boy, W, did a number on America for 8 years and all of you were silent. Where were all the jokes then while people were starting to lose their homes...jobs...investments...life savings. Where were the jokes when Wall Street was raping and pillaging???? I guess that wasn't really as funny as a President trying to clean it up. We were embroiled in that wonderful war against weapons of mass distruction...oops, no there weren't any. That's right it was for Iraqi freedom. Since when do you care about the freedom of brown people? Never in my lifetime have I seen that. I saw an article that states that 7 of the top 10 wealthiest CEOs run oil companies...must be a coincident. But, I guess you applaud their wealth while you scrounge for money to pay for gas and soon your heating bills. Maybe some of your Republican CEO buddies will help you out....hold your breath on that one.

This country has some serious issues and it needs serious people addressing them. The Republicans are anti-Americans. They seem to "Love" America but really hate Americans.

I can't wait til the Republicans are back in power and bring us to that GLORIOUS DEPRESSION, where Republicans were jumping out of the windows...ahh, the good ole days. Can't you see it, itsn't it FUNNY?

Now is the time to laugh...this is just another JOKE...lmao.

Roamin Roman

08-21-09, 01:25

The CEO of United Healthcare is worth almost a billion dollars in salary and stock options.

And people wonder why their insurance premiums are so high.It's mainly the stock options, not the salary, that constitute most of this guy's net worth. But even if it didn't, his salary has little substantively affect on insurance premiums.

Sounds more like a resentment syndrome on your part, Bee. But I can understand your resentment. The CEO brings in a lot of business (translate: money) to United Healthcare. On the other hand, you probably don't bring in much business to your company. After all, how much money does "Do you want fries with that?" bring in?

Beereal

08-21-09, 09:27

It's mainly the stock options, not the salary, that constitute most of this guy's net worth. But even if it didn't, his salary has little substantively affect on insurance premiums.

Sounds more like a resentment syndrome on your part, Bee. But I can understand your resentment. The CEO brings in a lot of business (translate: money) to United Healthcare. On the other hand, you probably don't bring in much business to your company. After all, how much money does "Do you want fries with that?" bring in?

No, it's not resentment.

Have you ever tried purchasing a family coverage plan from one of these companies?

I have a friend who is married with 1 child and a family plan would cost them $1,500 a month.

And the first thing these companies do when you file a claim is immediately start looking for a way to deny the claim.

Also, if they find out you visited the Dr. 20 years ago, it can be twisted into a pre-existing condition and you're on your own.

People are crying about the government telling your Dr. how to do his job. Well, that's exactly what the insurance companies do every day. They won't pay for certain meds or procedures. All in the name of boosting their profits.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to sing the praises of the govt. And I'm not convinced that the govt can do it any better, But in their present state, these companies are immoral and corrupt and they're taking advantage of common people in the most vulnerable time of their lives. All in the name of the allmighty dollar.

And for you to defend that....shows just what a retard you really are.

Beereal

08-21-09, 09:29

A John

08-21-09, 11:25

Some of the reasons
WHY WE ARE BANKRUPT?
You think the war in Iraq is costing us too much?
Read this:
Boy, was I confused. I have been hammered with the propaganda that it is the Iraq war and the war on terror that is bankrupting us. I now find that to be RIDICULOUS.

1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year by state governments.

Verify at: http://*******.com/zob77

2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.

Verify at: http://www..cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.HTML

3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.

Verify at: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.HTML

4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and seco ndary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!

Verify at: http://transcripts.CNN.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.0.HTML

5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.

Verify at http://transcripts.CNN.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML

6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.

Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/%20TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML

7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.

Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML

8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare & social services by the American taxpayers.

Verify at: http://premium.CNN.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.HTML

9. $200 Billion dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.

Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSC%20RI%20PTS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML

10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US

Verify at: http://transcripts.CNN.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt.01.HTML

11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border also as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and marijuana, crossed into the U. S from the Southern border.

Verify at: Homeland Security Report: h ttp://*******.com/t9sht < A title=http://*******.com/t9sht%3E href="" target=_blank alt="">12. The National policy Institute, estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.'

http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/PDF/deportation.PDF

13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances to their countries of origin.

Verify at: http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm >

14. 'The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One million sex crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States .'

Verify at: http: // www.drdsk.com/articleshtml

The total cost is a whopping $ 338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR AND IF YOU'RE LIKE ME HAVING TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING THIS AMOUNT OF MONEY; IT IS $338,300,000,000.00 WHICH WOULD BE ENOUGH TO STIMULATE THE ECONOMY FOR THE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY.

Are we THAT stupid? YES, FOR LETTING THOSE IN THE U.S. CONGRESS GET AWAY WITH LETTING THIS HAPPEN YEAR AFTER YEAR!!!!!

Phoprh

08-21-09, 13:28

If we paid a decent wage for the work illegals do then we wouldn't have to hire them in the first place. It would constitute a small percentage increase in goods and services and when those jobs are being done by Americans Jose will go home. In addition to that those better paid workers would spend more on our economy, just like they did in the 50's 60's and 70's, before Reagan. That's how capitalism really works, ask Henry Ford.

Pay your workers enough to buy things and all boats are lifted, instead of two thirds of all the wealth generated during the Bush administration going to the top one percent. Personally I can't hold a grudge or fear anyone who will go through the dangers and hardship most of these folks do to come here so they can feed their families.

If you want a no nonsense low cost solution to the immigrant problem how about this, mandatory jail time for anyone who hires them and a modest increase in the agencies charged with monitoring them? I'm sure all the Congressman will vote to put themselves and their friends in jail in order to effectively combat this scourge they're all ringing their hands over.

Within a year of seriously enforcing this law all the illegals will have gone home or applied for legal status.

Illegal aliens, gun control, socialism the fear mongering never stops. Isn't ***** mongering more fun? It wouldn't be so hard to swallow if it all wasn't such transparent effort to get Americans to vote against their own interests. I suppose the pit in my stomach comes from having the gullibility of the American people so definitively proved.

Giani

08-21-09, 14:23

I won't argue the +/- of the nickel and dime outrages you list (Can't believe we argue over "only" one or two billion... sheesh... where DOES this lead?). Doubtless there are expentitures in your litany that I would also argue with.

But... The elephant in the room which you ignore is the cost of Bush's wars. (I do remember that he always hid these costs in "extra" budgetary costs...)

ESPECIALLY ironic is Iraq, in which we engaged on the premise of a lie... And Afghanistan (which unfortunately Obama has accepted from W and raised him...)

The cost up to this point of these pointless wars is pushing a TRILLION dollars! If we had spent this money on taking care of American health, we would have hundreds of billions of dollars left over. (Sorry, I can't even keep track.)

I gotta ask. Why are the right wingers happy to spend a trillion dollars on wars, but bi*ch and whine about a much smaller amount to give our citizens adequate health care, and promote economic welfare of our nation???

Giani

Some of the reasons
WHY WE ARE BANKRUPT? ... You think the war in Iraq is costing us too much? ... Are we THAT stupid? YES,...

Roamin Roman

08-21-09, 18:10

No, it's not resentment.Of course it's resentment. You don't like the fact that some CEO makes what you consider to be "too much" money, meaning: more money than you make. Otherwise, you wouldn't have mentioned it, as it has no other bearing on the argument you're trying (but failing) to articulate.

Have you ever tried purchasing a family coverage plan from one of these companies?Yes. Many if not most people purchase family plans from "one of these companies" every day. Mine costs me $119.53 per pay period.

I have a friend who is married with 1 child and a family plan would cost them $1,500 a month.Here's a suggestion for "your friend" (and you): Look at plans from other companies. Join a group plan. One reason insurance does cost as much as it does for individuals trying to purchase a plan on their own, versus through a group, is that the government mandates certain coverages in all plans. but I'll bet "your friend" isn't going to take advantage of the breast reduction or the sickle cell anemia coverage portions, most likely. If insurers were able to offer tailored plans (which the government prohibits them from doing), then insurance would be a lot cheaper. The fault isn't with "greedy" insurance companies; it's with the stupid government.

And the first thing these companies do when you file a claim is immediately start looking for a way to deny the claim.

Also, if they find out you visited the Dr. 20 years ago, it can be twisted into a pre-existing condition and you're on your own.So this country should do what? Fuck up the best health care system in the whole world?!! I don't think so, but if you think so then you're the retard you claim me to be.

People are crying about the government telling your Dr. how to do his job. Well, that's exactly what the insurance companies do every day. They won't pay for certain meds or procedures. All in the name of boosting their profits.Right now, though, you have the option of going with another insurance company or appealing in court. With the government running the show, you lose that. Try explaining yourself to a panel of government bureaucrats, who've just denied your claim (even if your doctor says you need a certain procedure to live). Who ya gonna see then, bro'?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to sing the praises of the govt.Sure you are. Or, at least, you're singing the praises of the State, which makes you a statist. You'd probably love it in Cuba. Jimbo Carter says they have a wonderful healthcare system there, which covers 96% of its people.

And I'm not convinced that the govt can do it any better, But in their present state, these companies are immoral and corrupt and they're taking advantage of common people in the most vulnerable time of their lives. All in the name of the allmighty dollar.Bullshit. And, while we're at it, on what are you basing your determination of a company being "immoral"? Your superior wisdom? The teachings of Buddah? Something you smoked that gave you a "vision"? Grow up, junior. A company is in business to make money, not to be a charity.

And for you to defend that....shows just what a retard you really are.No, I think we just determined that you fit that role to a tea. Have a nice life.

Roamin Roman

08-21-09, 18:27

Bravo.....WELL said.Actually, well cherry-picked.

These guys had no problem with the governent when they were using their tax money to drop bombs on School kids in Iraq. That was A-OK ! And if you dared to stand up and be critical of the govt then, you were branded a traitor.No, they weren't targeting school kids in Iraq. If you believe that, then you seriously need to find a better left-wing website to get your "facts."

I voted for him, but I don't necessarily agree with some Obama's solutions. But I prefer to deal with those issues directly and intelligently rather than posting monkey pictures and dumbass cartoons.Really? I suppose name-calling constitutes your "intelligent" debating tactics. That's about par for the course with Leftists.

But, since you raised the matter of the election, here's a question: Since the Dems control the White House, plus both houses of Congress (with filibuster-proof majorities), and have the lapdog Media wholly in the tank for them, what's their problem? Why can't The Annointed One get his universal healthcare idea passed into law? They don't need a single Republican vote to do it, and the Republicans couldn't stop the Dems. The Republicans lack the necessary votes. Could it be that the Dems are afraid to own their idea? And, by the way, the Dems (Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, etc.) in Congress, as well as the de facto President of the United States (i.e., The Annointed One), won't get the same inferior care that they want to foist onto the rest of us with this universal healthcare crap. No, they'll get a much better package.

(Hey, I wonder if ol' Teddy Kennedy is getting special care, the sort his plan would deny to the average American. Think he and his clan would tolerate some panel of government bureaucrats telling him what cancer drugs he could and couldn't have? Think again.)

Beereal

08-21-09, 20:08

Actually, well cherry-picked.

No, they weren't targeting school kids in Iraq. If you believe that, then you seriously need to find a better left-wing website to get your "facts."

Doesn't matter if we were intentionally tagetting school kids. A parent grieves just as much if it was an accident or "collateral damage" iraq was nothing more than the US getting "revenge" for 9/11. 3,000 Americans died, so we killed almost a million "towel heads"

Really? I suppose name-calling constitutes your "intelligent" debating tactics. That's about par for the course with Leftists.

Yeah, right wingers never call names.... LMFAO

Beereal

08-22-09, 01:24

Bullshit. And, while we're at it, on what are you basing your determination of a company being "immoral"? Your superior wisdom? The teachings of Buddah? Something you smoked that gave you a "vision"? Grow up, junior. A company is in business to make money, not to be a charity.

Lots of people are making money. Pimps, drug dealers, and loan sharks are all in it for the purpose of making money. But that doesn't make it right.

Yeah Yeah Yeah, I know all those things are crimes and being the CEO of an insurance company is not against the law. But I'm sure we all know that the biggest criminals of them all often go unpunished and the guy at the bottom gets the shaft.

Hank Paulson was the CEO of Goldman Sachs before Bush appointed him as Treasury Secretary. And because he was taking a govt job, he was allowed to sell his stock shares without paying income tax on them.

You can call me Jr all you want, but for you to stick up for these criminals shows just what a gullible putz you really are.

Smiling Fox

08-22-09, 11:44

Beereal

08-23-09, 17:48

If you want to arrest all of them for real crimes, Help yourself. Illegal is still illega.

Having said all of that.

Bernake, Paulson, Somers, and maybe Gietner, are true heros. They saved the entire world economy, from crashing to the floor. I know,they are crooks and you can say what ever you please, not sure i would or wouldnt disagree.

But when push comes to shove. You all have a job, and a mortgage to buy your house, and car payments, and a government, and all of that civilizational kinda things. Our world is reasonably safe and secure.

I truely believe we could have lost all of that last fall/winter.

I know you may disagree, and thats fine. Just rember that you can because we still have a country, and if you have ever studies history, well its exactly the kind of thing that we faces in the winter that destroys our peace.

Now if you want to correct and reform, what ever, have fun. We can still doit.

SF

Calling them heroes is a bit of a stretch. You can say they saved the economy, but I think they just postponed the inevitable a while.

People like Paulson are part of the problem.

American capitalism is consuming itself for a number of reasons. One of the reasons is that much of the wealth in the stock market is imaginary. In the form of dividends and hedge bets.
back when gas was $4 a gallon, a barrel of oil was traded 27 times by speculators before it ever went to the consumer. How can anyone defend THAT?

Another is because most of the wealth is being horded by very powerful people at the top who never spend it. The money never makes it's way back into circulation.

I always liked this quote by Marriner Eccles, the fed chairman from 34-48.

"…[A]s in a poker game where the chips were concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, the other fellows could stay in the game only by borrowing. When their credit ran out, the game stopped."

I'll say it again, American capitalism is consuming itself.

Baltimonger

08-23-09, 21:51

Here is an interesting 40 year old film on the so-called "Capitalist Conspiracy" of rich capitalists efforts to control the world's governments:

http://www.archive.org/details/the_capitalist_conspiracy1969

LordBlackAdder

08-25-09, 12:41

Interesting pic here.

Adamant Obama supporters appear to have a propensity for getting arrested. I do not know their names nor the crimes they have been accused of. You can tell they support the guy because of their attire. It is my belief that you must really like a politician in order to get a T-shirt with him (or her) on it. Although I guess Obama really wants his cult to show they believe in him.

I am NOT saying that everyone who supports Obama is a criminal or that people that don't support him have never been arrested. I just wonder if as a proportion of the vote each got that there have been as many people arrested wearing a MacCain T-Shirt? Or going back to previous elections with T-shirts with George W. Bush, Bob Dole, George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford or Richard Nixon? Or even other Democrat candidates like Viet Nam war hero John Kerry, self proclaimed head of the Global Warming religion Al Gore or Bill Clinton?

LordBlackAdder

08-25-09, 12:43

This was forwarded to me:

Hello All,

By now you have probably heard that President Obama came to Montana last Friday. (This is an old messsage so it was a couple weeks ago) However, there are many things that the major news has not covered. I feel that since Joe and I live here and we were at the airport on Friday I should share some facts with you. Whatever you decide to do with the information is up to you. If you chose to share this email with others I do ask that you DELETE my email address before you forward this on.

On Wednesday, August 5th it was announced locally that the President would be coming here. There are many groups here that are against his healthcare and huge spending so those groups began talking and deciding on what they were going to do. The White House would not release ANY details other than the date.

On about Tuesday Joe found out that they would be holding the "Town Hall" at the airport. (This is only because Joe knows EVERYONE at the airport) Our airport is actually located outside of Belgrade (tiny town) in a very remote location. Nothing is around there. They chose to use a hangar that is the most remotely located hangar. You could not pick a more remote location, and you can not get to it easily. It is totally secluded from the public. FYI: We have many areas in Belgrade and Bozeman which could have held a large amount of folks with sufficient parking. (gymnasiums/auditoriums). All of which have chairs and tables, and would not have to be SHIPPED IN!! $$$$$

During the week, cargo by the TONS was being shipped in constantly. Airport employees could not believe how it just kept coming. Though it was our President coming several expressed how excessive it was, especially during a recession. $$$$$

Late Tuesday/early Wednesday the 12th, they said that tickets would be handed out on Thursday 9am at two locations and the president would be arriving around 12:30 Friday.

Thursday morning about 600 tickets were passed out. However, 1500 were printed at a Local printing shop per White House request. Hmmmm......900 tickets just DISAPPEARED.

This same morning someone called into the radio from the local UPS branch and said that THOUSANDS of Dollars of Lobster were shipped in for Obama. Montana has some of the best beef in the nation!!! And it would have been really wonderful to help out the local economy. Anyone heard of the Recession?? Just think...with all of the traveling the White House is doing. $$$$$ One can only imagine what else we are paying for.

On Friday Joe and I got out to the airport about 10:45am. The groups that wanted to protest Obama's spending and healthcare had gotten a permit to protest and that area was roped off. But that was not to be. A large bus carrying SEIU (Service Employees International Union) members drove up onto the area (illegal)and unloaded right there. It was quite a commotion and there were specifically 2 SEIU men trying to make trouble and start a fight. Police did get involved and arrested the one man but they said they did not have the manpower to remove the SEIU crowd. The SEIU crowd was very organized and young. About 99% were under the age of 30 and they were not locals! They had bullhorns and PROFESSIONALLY made signs. Some even wore preprinted T-shirts. Oh, and Planned Parenthood folks were with them..... professing abortion rights with their T-shirts and preprinted signs. (BTW, all these folks did have a permit to protest in ANOTHER area)

Those against healthcare/spending moved away from the SEIU crowd to avoid confrontation. They were orderly and respectful. Even though SEIU kept coming over and walking through, continuing to be very intimidating and aggressive at the direction of the one SEIU man.

So we had Montana folks from ALL OVER the state with their homemade signs and their DOGS with homemade signs. We had cowboys, nurses, doctors you name it. There was even a guy from Texas who had been driving through. He found out about the occasion, went to the store, made a sign, and came to protest.

If you are wondering about the press.....Well, all of the major networks were over by that remote hangar I mentioned. They were conveniently parked on the other side of the buildings FAR away. None of these crowds were even visible to them. I have my doubts that they knew anything about the crowds. We did have some local news media around us from this state and Idaho. Speaking of the local media...they were invited. However, all questions were to be turned into the White House in advance of the event. Wouldn't want anyone to have to think off the top of their head.

It was very obvious that it was meant to be totally controlled by the White House. Everything was orchestrated down to the last detail to make it appear that Montana is just crazy for Obama and government healthcare. Even those people that talked about their insurance woes........the White House called our local HRDC (Human Resource and Development Committee) and asked for names. Then the White House asked
those folks to come. Smoke and mirrors...EVERYTHING was staged!!!!!!!!!!!

I am very dismayed about what I learned about our current White House. The amount of control and manipulation was unbelievable. I felt I was not living in the United States of America, more like the USSR!! I was physically nauseous. Joe and I have been around when Presidents or Heads of State visit. It has NEVER been like this. I am truly very frightened for our country. America needs your prayers and your voices. If you care about our country please get involved. Know the issues. And let Congress hear your voices again and again!! If they are willing to put forth so much effort to BULLY a small town one can only imagine what is going on in Washington DC. Scary!!

Sue
Bozeman, Montana

Baltimonger

08-25-09, 13:39

LBA: The other candidates have had plenty of their supporters arrested. They just wore suits and ties, got sent to country club prisons, then were pardoned.

The Obama-ites have even desecrated my beloved Grateful Dead:

Rat in a drain ditch
Caught on a limb
You know better but
I know him
Like I told you
What I said
Steal your face
right off your head

Baltimonger

08-25-09, 14:26

Although I don't like the Ann Coulter one either:

Beereal

08-25-09, 21:40

Catcher6

08-26-09, 10:50

People are showing up to Obama rallies with guns and not arrested.

People were arrested for wearing the wrong T-shirt when GWB was president.

BTW, I stopped being skeptical of forwarded emails 8 years ago.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/barackobama/a/obama_in_montana.htmSo what, if the law says a person can carry a gun, then why would they be arrested?

There is a big difference between a responsible citizen and your typical Baltimore street scum.

Beereal

08-26-09, 18:08

So what, if the law says a person can carry a gun, then why would they be arrested?

There is a big difference between a responsible citizen and your typical Baltimore street scum.

So what?

If people had been showing up to Bush Rallies carrying guns, the right wing would have shit themselves.

Plus, I don't think these people were anywhere near the president. I'm pretty sure the Secret Service would never allow that.

It's funny though how right wingers are so scared Obama will take away their guns, but he recently signed legislation that allows you to carry a gun in a national park.

Parker Ave

08-26-09, 23:33

They made a ton of Obama shirts in '08 and there are places like swap meets and flea markets you can get them for 5 for $10 bucks. Poor jail trash always has cheap flea market t-shirts.

Interesting pic here.

Adamant Obama supporters appear to have a propensity for getting arrested. I do not know their names nor the crimes they have been accused of. You can tell they support the guy because of their attire. It is my belief that you must really like a politician in order to get a T-shirt with him (or her) on it. Although I guess Obama really wants his cult to show they believe in him.

I am NOT saying that everyone who supports Obama is a criminal or that people that don't support him have never been arrested. I just wonder if as a proportion of the vote each got that there have been as many people arrested wearing a MacCain T-Shirt? Or going back to previous elections with T-shirts with George W. Bush, Bob Dole, George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford or Richard Nixon? Or even other Democrat candidates like Viet Nam war hero John Kerry, self proclaimed head of the Global Warming religion Al Gore or Bill Clinton?

John Black

08-27-09, 04:59

You can still buy McCain T-Shirts:

http://www.zazzle.com/mccain_palin_tshirt-235395518078538937

Or for Palin: http://www.zazzle.com/palin+gifts

Interesting pic here.

Adamant Obama supporters appear to have a propensity for getting arrested. I do not know their names nor the crimes they have been accused of. You can tell they support the guy because of their attire. It is my belief that you must really like a politician in order to get a T-shirt with him (or her) on it. Although I guess Obama really wants his cult to show they believe in him.

I am NOT saying that everyone who supports Obama is a criminal or that people that don't support him have never been arrested. I just wonder if as a proportion of the vote each got that there have been as many people arrested wearing a MacCain T-Shirt? Or going back to previous elections with T-shirts with George W. Bush, Bob Dole, George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford or Richard Nixon? Or even other Democrat candidates like Viet Nam war hero John Kerry, self proclaimed head of the Global Warming religion Al Gore or Bill Clinton?

John Black

08-27-09, 05:09

Why do the Obama opponents always find it necessary to resort to spreading lies and falsehoods?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/montana. Asp

He wasn't born in the USA, he's a muslim, he's a socialist, he's a facist, he associates with terrorists, he wants to kill poor old people. Wonder what they will come up with next.

How can we trust anything else these people say?

This was forwarded to me:

Hello All,

By now you have probably heard that President Obama came to Montana last Friday. (This is an old messsage so it was a couple weeks ago) However, there are many things that the major news has not covered. I feel that since Joe and I live here and we were at the airport on Friday I should share some facts with you. Whatever you decide to do with the information is up to you. If you chose to share this email with others I do ask that you DELETE my email address before you forward this on. On Wednesday, August 5th it was announced locally that the President would be coming here. There are many groups here that are against his healthcare and huge spending so those groups began talking and deciding on what they were going to do. The White House would not release ANY details other than the date. On about Tuesday Joe found out that they would be holding the "Town Hall" at the airport. (This is only because Joe knows EVERYONE at the airport) Our airport is actually located outside of Belgrade (tiny town) in a very remote location. Nothing is around there. They chose to use a hangar that is the most remotely located hangar. You could not pick a more remote location, and you can not get to it easily. It is totally secluded from the public. FYI: We have many areas in Belgrade and Bozeman which could have held a large amount of folks with sufficient parking. (gymnasiums/auditoriums). All of which have chairs and tables, and would not have to be SHIPPED IN! $$$$$

During the week, cargo by the TONS was being shipped in constantly. Airport employees could not believe how it just kept coming. Though it was our President coming several expressed how excessive it was, especially during a recession. $$$$$ Late Tuesday/early Wednesday the 12th, they said that tickets would be handed out on Thursday 9am at two locations and the president would be arriving around 12:30 Friday. Thursday morning about 600 tickets were passed out. However, 1500 were printed at a Local printing shop per White House request. Hmmmm.900 tickets just DISAPPEARED.

This same morning someone called into the radio from the local UPS branch and said that THOUSANDS of Dollars of Lobster were shipped in for Obama. Montana has some of the best beef in the nation! And it would have been really wonderful to help out the local economy. Anyone heard of the Recession? Just think. With all of the traveling the White House is doing. $$$$$ One can only imagine what else we are paying for. On Friday Joe and I got out to the airport about 10: 45am. The groups that wanted to protest Obama's spending and healthcare had gotten a permit to protest and that area was roped off. But that was not to be. A large bus carrying SEIU (Service Employees International Union) members drove up onto the area (illegal)and unloaded right there. It was quite a commotion and there were specifically 2 SEIU men trying to make trouble and start a fight. Police did get involved and arrested the one man but they said they did not have the manpower to remove the SEIU crowd. The SEIU crowd was very organized and young. About 99% were under the age of 30 and they were not locals! They had bullhorns and PROFESSIONALLY made signs. Some even wore preprinted T-shirts. Oh, and Planned Parenthood folks were with them. Professing abortion rights with their T-shirts and preprinted signs. (BTW, all these folks did have a permit to protest in ANOTHER area)

Those against healthcare/spending moved away from the SEIU crowd to avoid confrontation. They were orderly and respectful. Even though SEIU kept coming over and walking through, continuing to be very intimidating and aggressive at the direction of the one SEIU man. So we had Montana folks from ALL OVER the state with their homemade signs and their DOGS with homemade signs. We had cowboys, nurses, doctors you name it. There was even a guy from Texas who had been driving through. He found out about the occasion, went to the store, made a sign, and came to protest.

If you are wondering about the press. Well, all of the major networks were over by that remote hangar I mentioned. They were conveniently parked on the other side of the buildings FAR away. None of these crowds were even visible to them. I have my doubts that they knew anything about the crowds. We did have some local news media around us from this state and Idaho. Speaking of the local media. They were invited. However, all questions were to be turned into the White House in advance of the event. Wouldn't want anyone to have to think off the top of their head.

It was very obvious that it was meant to be totally controlled by the White House. Everything was orchestrated down to the last detail to make it appear that Montana is just crazy for Obama and government healthcare. Even those people that talked about their insurance woes. The White House called our local HRDC (Human Resource and Development Committee) and asked for names. Then the White House asked those folks to come. Smoke and mirrors. EVERYTHING was staged!

I am very dismayed about what I learned about our current White House. The amount of control and manipulation was unbelievable. I felt I was not living in the United States of America, more like the USSR! I was physically nauseous. Joe and I have been around when Presidents or Heads of State visit. It has NEVER been like this. I am truly very frightened for our country. America needs your prayers and your voices. If you care about our country please get involved. Know the issues. And let Congress hear your voices again and again! If they are willing to put forth so much effort to BULLY a small town one can only imagine what is going on in Washington DC. Scary! Sue,

Bozeman, Montana

Giani

08-27-09, 07:02

So what, if the law says a person can carry a gun, then why would they be arrested?

There is a big difference between a responsible citizen and your typical Baltimore street scum.
Sooo... carrying an assault rifle (etc) to a political rally is fine with you? It is a problem only if the gun-toter actually SHOOTS someone? Like... it is OK to drive drunk, unless you actually run over a pedestrian or kill the other driver (and her "unborn baby"...)?

In this singular case, I think Junior Bush had it right. NO WAY would his secret police let someone carrying a gun anywhere NEAR a rally (and an AK-47? LOL). Not that someone packing could ever get close to the rally since his secret police paranoically screened the audience, not only for weapons, but to keep out any HINT of dissent at his carefully stage-managed rallies.

Try telling his secret service that everyone would have been safer at "W"s rallies if EVERYONE was carrying a gun. LOL again...

Giani

LordBlackAdder

08-27-09, 08:06

They made a ton of Obama shirts in '08 and there are places like swap meets and flea markets you can get them for 5 for $10 bucks. Poor jail trash always has cheap flea market t-shirts.

But if you did not like the guy would you buy and wear his T-shirt? Did they sell this crowd lots of George W T-shirts?

Humpty Dumpty

08-28-09, 04:32

Hey! Anyone who speaks out against our Lord and Savior President Barack Hussein Obama must be racist! Do not question or blaspheme our Lord.

John Black

08-28-09, 14:28

Of couse it might help you if you actually read the links you post.

From the Snopes page:

"As was the 2007 version of Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act, the current version has been referred to the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, and the fact that the bill does not have even a single co-sponsor makes it unlikely that it will ever be brought to a vote before Congress, much less passed.

ESPN Outdoors correspondent Wade Bourne summed up the bill's chances of passage thusly: So, how likely is the Blair Holt bill's chance for passage? Pro-gun activists are vigilant but don't seem overly worried about it. They point out that the bill's failure to attract co-sponsors is an indication of a lack of enthusiasm for it among other congressmen. They feel it is too far-reaching and repressive of gun owners' rights to merit serious consideration by a majority of Congress.

Lawrence Keane of the NSSF [National Shooting Sports Foundation] states, "If this bill passes, Democrats would likely lose (control of) their chamber in upcoming mid-term elections (2010). The leadership in the House knows that." Keane says some 80 million-plus USA Citizens own firearms, representing nearly half the households in the nation. He believes that House Democrats will allow the Blair Holt bill to die in subcommittee rather than risk the ire of so many pro-gun voters."

Hundreds of bills die a slow death every year. This will be just another one. Democrats like guns too.

Don't worry, Obama and Pelosi will let you keep your gun. Obama even just signed a bill into law that allows you take your gun into a national park.

Every nutcase that wants to, won't have any problem getting plenty of guns and ammo before he walks into a public building or school and starts shooting everything in sight. But, of course, that is just one more reason to buy a gun yourself right?

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the gang of Leftist are sitting on a bill that would let the Federal Government seize your guns.

They are just waiting their opportunity to ram it through the House and Senate and on to Obama's desk,,,where he would certainly sign it.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/blairholt.asp

TRUE

Concerning the Blair-Holt proposed legislation.

Senate Bill SB-2099 will require us to put on our 2009 1040 federal tax form all guns that you have or own. It may require fingerprints and a tax of $50 per gun.

This bill was introduced on Feb. 24. This bill will become public knowledge 30 days after it is voted into law. This is an amendment to the Internal Revenue Act of 1986. This means that the Finance Committee can pass this without the Senate voting on it at all.

The full text of the proposed amendment is on the U.S. Senate homepage, http://www.senate.gov/ You can find the bill by doing a search by the bill number, SB-2099.

You know who to call; I strongly suggest you do.

<http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45/text

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d111:1:./temp/~bdbzvw:@@@J%7C/bss/111search.html |

Congress is now starting on the firearms confiscation bill. If it passes, gun owners will become criminals if you don't fully comply.

H.R.45 : To provide for the implementation of a system of licensing for purchasers of certain firearms and for a record of sale system for those firearms, and for other purposes.

Sponsor: Rep Rush, Bobby L. [IL-1] (introduced 1/6/2009) Cosponsors (None)
Committees: House Judiciary
Latest Major Action: 2/9/2009 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.

It has started.

Very Important for you to be aware of a new bill HR 45 introduced into the House. This is the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sale Act of 2009.

Even gun shop owners didn't know about this because the government is trying to fly it under the radar.

To find out about this - go to any government website and type in HR 45 or Google HR 45 Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sales Act of 2009. You will get all the information.

Basically this would make it illegal to own a firearm - any rifle with a clip or ANY pistol unless:

-It is registered -You are fingerprinted -You supply a current Driver's License -You supply your Social Security # -You will submit to a physical & mental evaluation at any time of their choosing -Each update - change or ownership through private or public sale must be reported and costs $25 - Failure to do so you automatically lose the right to own a firearm and are subject up to a year in jail. -There is a child provision clause on page 16 section 305 stating a child-access provision. Gun must be locked and inaccessible to any child under 18. -They would have the right to come in and inspect that you are storing your gun safely away from accessibility to children and fine is punishable for up to 5 yrs. in prison.

If you think this is a joke - go to the website and take your pick of any options to read this. It is long and lengthy. But, more and more people are becoming aware of this. Pass the word along. Any hunters in your family pass this along..

This is just a "termite" approach to complete confiscation of guns and disarming of our society to the point we have no defense - chip away a little here and there until the goal is accomplished before anyone realizes it.

This is one to act on whether you own a gun or not.

If you take my gun, only the criminal will have one to use against me. HR 45 only makes me/us less safe.

<http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.45:

<http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45/show

<http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-45

Monger Forever

08-28-09, 21:49

I am not racist I have blasted loads in many minorities !!! My guns are on a need to know basis and I wouldn't want to be on the needing to know list !

It is secret they are all legal and all legally owned !!!

And my bullets are all color blind they hit what I aim at !

Now let's get back on the hoe topics.

Hey! Anyone who speaks out against our Lord and Savior President Barack Hussein Obama must be racist! Do not question or blaspheme our Lord.

Beereal

08-29-09, 08:14

LOL, I see your sarcastic wit at work here HD.

But unfortunately, there's more than a grain of truth to what you say.

I meet many Black folks who are so in love with the idea of having a Black President that they are paying no attention to what he is actually doing to the country.

It's sad to see so many simple minded, uninformed dummies that view a White person's approval or disapproval of what Obama is doing as a litmus test for racism.

And I know many of my fellow white people who are shitting themselves at the idea of a black president.

And speaking of simple minded dummies......anyone who posts a picture of himself with a black prostitute as proof he isn't a racist, well he needs this:

Beereal

08-29-09, 08:15

I am not racist I have blasted loads in many minorities !!! My guns are on a need to know basis and I wouldn't want to be on the needing to know list !

It is secret they are all legal and all legally owned !!!

And my bullets are all color blind they hit what I aim at !

Now let's get back on the hoe topics.

Isn't there a rule about teenagers being allowed to post on this board?

Seva Lurker

08-29-09, 08:52

LOL, I see your sarcastic wit at work here HD.

But unfortunately, there's more than a grain of truth to what you say.

I meet many Black folks who are so in love with the idea of having a Black President that they are paying no attention to what he is actually doing to the country.

It's sad to see so many simple minded, uninformed dummies that view a White person's approval or disapproval of what Obama is doing as a litmus test for racism.

And of course Lord Obama wasn't a bit 'racist' when he called the police 'stupid' when they arrested a prominent Black man. Had Prof Howard been white, El Presidente wouldn't even have taken the time to acknowledge the story.

Racism is a two way street that way too many see as one way only.

LordBlackAdder

08-29-09, 12:10

And of course Lord Obama wasn't a bit 'racist' when he called the police 'stupid' when they arrested a prominent Black man. Had Prof Howard been white, El Presidente wouldn't even have taken the time to acknowledge the story.

Racism is a two way street that way too many see as one way only.

Had the Professor identified himself and explained what he was doing early on, chances are he would not have gotten himself arrested and if there was an actual criminal tyring to break into his house and the police assumed "Oh that guy has just locked himself out and is trying to get back in" and done nothing I bet he would have been upset.

LordBlackAdder

08-29-09, 12:12

By SVETLANA KUNIN (Retired software developer. In the Soviet Union, she was a civil engineer)

In the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, I was taught to believe individual pursuits are selfish and sacrificing for the collective good is noble.

In kindergarten we sang songs about Lenin, the leader of the Socialist Revolution. In school we learned about the beautiful socialist system, where everybody is equal and everything is fair; about ugly capitalism, where people are exploited and treat each other like wolves in the wilderness.

Life in the USSR modeled the socialist ideal. God-based religion was suppressed and replaced with cultlike adoration for political figures.

The government-assigned salary of the proletariat (blue-collar worker) was 30%-50% higher then any professional. Without incentive to improve their life, professionals drank themselves to oblivion. They engineers, lawyers, doctors, teachers earned a government-determined salary that barely covered the necessities, mainly food.

Raising children was a hardship. It took four to six adults (parents and grandparents) to support a child. The usual size of the postwar family was one or two children. Every woman had the right to have an abortion and most of them did, often without anesthesia.

There is a comparative historical reality that plays out the consequences of two competing ideologies: life in the USSR and in America. When the march to the worker's paradise the Socialist Revolution began in 1917, many people emigrated from Russia to the U.S.

In the USSR, economic equality was achieved by redistributing wealth, ensuring that everyone remained poor, with the exception of those doing the redistributing. Only the ruling class of communist leaders had access to special stores, medicine and accommodations that could compare to those in the West.

The rest of the citizenry had to deal with permanent shortages of food and other necessities, and had access to free but inferior, unsanitary and low-tech medical care. The egalitarian utopia of equality, achieved by the sacrifice of individual self-interest for the collective good, led to corruption, black markets, anger and envy.

Government-controlled health care destroyed human dignity.

Chairman Nikita Khrushchev released facts about Stalin and his purges. People learned of the horrific purge of more than 20 million citizens, murdered as enemies of the state.

Those who left Russia found a different set of values in America: freedom of religion, speech, individual pursuits, the right to private property and free enterprise. The majority of those immigrants achieved a better life for themselves and their children in this capitalist land.

These opportunities let the average immigrant live a better life than many elites in the Soviet Communist Party. The freedom to pursue personal self-interest led to prosperity. Prosperity generated charity, benefiting the collective good.

The descendants of those immigrants are now supporting policies that move America away from the values that gave so many immigrants the chance of a better life. Policies such as nationalized medicine, high tax rates and government intrusion into free enterprise are being sold to us under the socialistic motto of collective salvation.

Socialism has bankrupted and failed every society, while capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system.

There is no perfect society. There are no perfect people. Critics say that greed is the driving force of capitalism. My answer is that envy is the driving force of socialism. Change to socialism is not an improvement on the imperfections of the current system.

The slogans of "fairness and equality" sound better than the slogans of capitalism. But unlike at the beginning of the 20th century, when these slogans and ideas were yet to be tested, we have accumulated history and reality.

Today we can define the better system not by slogans, but by looking at the accumulated facts. We can compare which ideology leads to the most oppression and which brings the most opportunity.

When I came to America in 1980 and experienced life in this country, I thought it was fortunate that those living in the USSR did not know how unfortunate they were.

Now in 2009, I realize how unfortunate it is that many Americans do not understand how fortunate they are. They vote to give government more and more power without understanding the consequences.

Svetlana Kunin, Stamford, Conn.

Roamin Roman

08-29-09, 17:48

And I know many of my fellow white people who are shitting themselves at the idea of a black president.Wow, you must travel in a small group and live in an insular part of society. My "fellow white people" couldn't give a rats ass about a person's skin color, so it would seem that your personal observations speak more about the people you run with. (Psssst! It's okay to admit you look at things in life through the prism of race, B-Phoney. They'll understand that you're either a self-loathing racist or someone suffering from a misguided sense of White Guilt.)

And speaking of simple minded dummies......anyone who posts a picture of himself with a black prostitute as proof he isn't a racist, well he needs this:What?!! A mirror is going to tell Agent61 something new? He already knows what his skin color is, and he obviously doesn't have any hang-ups about it.

Beereal

08-30-09, 01:37

I'm sure there are lots of White people that just won't accept a Black guy for President, but I'm not one of them.

I would openly show my admiration for a Black President who was more like Ronald Reagan than Jimmy Carter.

Ronald Reagan. What a piece of shit that retarded fraud was. He had Alzheimers disease 7 years of his term.

People like Reagan would love to see everyone on this board locked in prison for life for soliciting prostitutes.
As much as you'd like to Believe you're part of the conservative club 61, people like Ronnie Reagan and his stepford wife Nancy wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire. Especailly if they saw some of those skinny ass crack heads you hook up with.

Although, from what I've seen of conservatives lately, they seem to have WAY more skeletons in their closets than you're average liberal.

Lets all sit and wait for the day when YOUR mugshot gets posted and see how quick you discover that you're no better than the rest of us poor white (and black) trash

At least Jimmy Carter is a decent human being.

Reagan disowned his own son. What a piece of shit.

Deepcover

08-30-09, 16:23

And of course Lord Obama wasn't a bit 'racist' when he called the police 'stupid' when they arrested a prominent Black man. Had Prof Howard been white, El Presidente wouldn't even have taken the time to acknowledge the story.

I am not the most liberal guy even I know that a White Proffessor would likely never have faced a cop arresting him in his own home after it was confirmed that it was his house.

Racism is a two way street that way too many see as one way only.That would only be true if Jim Crow lynchings and Slavery were imposed on whites by Blacks.

Roamin Roman

08-31-09, 01:35

At least Jimmy Carter is a decent human being.Oh, yeah, right. That's why Jimbo went down and coddled Fidel Castro, Paragon of the Caribbean. Castro, who has tossed more people in jail illegally than any other person in the Western Hemishpere. Castro, who has jailed journalists for daring to speak out against the regime. Castro, who executes citizens who try to escape his "island paradise" on life rafts, boats, etc. Castro, who goes to Spain for medical work, while people on his own island suffer. Yeah, that's the guy "our" Jimbo went down to visit recently, proclaiming (among other things) that President Castro has a fine health care for his people. (Leftists always speak the same way, whether they have a Cuban accent or a Georgian accent.)

Reagan disowned his own son. What a piece of shit.Uh, no, Ronaldus Magnus never disowned his son.

Roamin Roman

08-31-09, 01:40

Racism is a two way street that way too many see as one way only.That would only be true if Jim Crow lynchings and Slavery were imposed on whites by Blacks.Only a dim-witted leftie, educated in the publik skuulz, would argue with logic like that. Racism is indeed a two-way street, Mr. Zero Post. You might want to have your mommie explain it to you, before you're allowed to use the family computer again after dinner.

Roamin Roman

08-31-09, 01:44

Ronald Reagan. What a piece of shit that retarded fraud was. He had Alzheimers disease 7 years of his term.Really? So what's Jimbo Carter's excuse? He was incompetent for the entire time he was in office. And he lost to a guy whom you say had Alzheimer's. (Remember the "There you go again!" episode from debates in 1980? No, you probably don't, you poor soul.)

Beereal

08-31-09, 11:02

Well, all I can say is that you are firmly in the portion of the population who does not realize the pit falls of Socialism.

And you are firmly in the portion of the population who has not yet realized that modern American laissez faire capitalism is consuming itself.

I'm no Marxist and I could give two shits about Joseph Stalin.

But this selfish "Every Man for Himself" philosophy is destroying America from the inside out.

Reagan was nothing but a hollywood mobster who dropped dime on his friends to save his own sorry skin.

Conservatives just have a major man crush because of that stupid cowboy hat and those ridiculous speeches filled with hyperbole.

"It's morning in America......ummmmm Nancy, where am I again?"
"Ronnie, where's the vodka?...I need to make a bowl of cornflakes"
"Ron Jr Called to wish you happy fathers day"
"ummmmm who? well.......ummmmm what's my job again Nancy?"

He drove this country so far in debt we'll never recover. And no matter how much people want to give him credit for the fall of the USSR. It just is NOT true.

The Soviet Union collapsed because they ignored their country's infrastructure and the needs of it's people and focused all it's energy on military might.

There's a great documentary callled "The Crumbling of America" on the history channel and it shows how we're slowly heading down the exact same path.

I shook Reagans hand in 1981. He looked like an animatronic character from the house of wax.

Piss on him.

LordBlackAdder

08-31-09, 17:43

You mean on a spoiled little Black college professor with tenor at Cambridge University who is use to making White people kiss his ass.

White people who have been programed with political correctness to excuse a Black person's racial animosity.

Statistics show that while Black people supposedly comprise 13.5% of the nation's population, the greatest threat of violent crime to a Black person is from another Black person.

Whites and every other ethnic group in America is likewise effected.

Those living near or among a Black population, while having to safe guard against other non-Black criminals, still face the greatest threat from Black criminals and must adapt accordingly.

Good, decent Black people are not worried about being lynched by Whites any more. They are mianly fearful of their own young men and the life style of other Blacks around them.

While there is a threat from White, Latin and other criminals, seems lynching and slavery have been replaced with mugging, rape, robbery, violent assault and random murders, and it's Blacks who are too often the largest offenders.

All this while Blacks have been given more State and Federal gifts than any other racial group in America. Even more than the American Indian.

A few years ago I saw a billboard on the news that was getting notice in a black neighbourhod and wound up being taken down. It had a picture of young black gang member and another of several figures dressed in white hooded robes (KKK) and the caption at the top of the sign was (I am paraphrasing) "Which group has killed more black people in (whatever the city was)?" There were two check boxes under the pictures and the one under the black gang was checked off.

He Jova

08-31-09, 18:37

Oh, yeah, right. That's why Jimbo went down and coddled Fidel Castro, Paragon of the Caribbean. Castro, who has tossed more people in jail illegally than any other person in the Western Hemishpere. Castro, who has jailed journalists for daring to speak out against the regime. Castro, who executes citizens who try to escape his "island paradise" on life rafts, boats, etc. Castro, who goes to Spain for medical work, while people on his own island suffer. Yeah, that's the guy "our" Jimbo went down to visit recently, proclaiming (among other things) that President Castro has a fine health care for his people.Sorry, but Castro did not go to Spain for health care. During his recent illness (before he stepped down as President), he was operated on in Cuba.

Also, Castro did not execute any citizens just for leaving Cuba on a boat. Lots of people do and get caught, none of them get shot, however. What you are talking about here is a completely different incident: There were a few people who *hijacked* a boat (with passengers) a few years ago, and tried to take the hijacked boat towards Miami. The Cuban Coast Guard gave chase and caught the hijackers. The hijackers were tried in Court according to Cuban law, were convicted, and received the death penalty. In most countries hijacking does carry a severe penalty, as it should. (I am against the death penalty myself, though, but that's a different thing.)

Roamin Roman

08-31-09, 19:53

I'm no Marxist and I could give two shits about Joseph Stalin.

But this selfish "Every Man for Himself" philosophy is destroying America from the inside out.A Liberal is someone who believes he is responsible for every person on the planet. Except himself.

No, Bephoney, you are a Marxist.

Now, just so you don't build your post count any higher than it already (undeservedly) is, this'll be my last reply to your nonsense. Rant and rave on as much as you wish. Call people names, employ childish and false descriptions for true American heroes, and generally continue being an obnoxious bore. You'll merely be providing a little comic relief for the adults. But only a little.

Beereal

09-01-09, 07:52

A Liberal is someone who believes he is responsible for every person on the planet. Except himself.

No, Bephoney, you are a Marxist..

Call people names, .

Do I even need to say anything here? Nah, probably a waste of time

employ childish and false descriptions for true American heroes, and generally continue being an obnoxious bore. You'll merely be providing a little comic relief for the adults. But only a little.

I have a question, do you use the same screen name over at Stormfront.org?

LordBlackAdder

09-01-09, 14:44

Not somehting I wrote but has some intersting points.

By Geoffrey P. Hunt
Barack Obama is on track to have the most spectacularly failed presidency since Woodrow Wilson.

In the modern era, we've seen several failed presidencies--led by Jimmy Carter and LBJ. Failed presidents have one strong common trait-- they are repudiated, in the vernacular, spat out. Of course, LBJ wisely took the exit ramp early, avoiding a shove into oncoming traffic by his own party. Richard Nixon indeed resigned in disgrace, yet his reputation as a statesman has been partially restored by his triumphant overture to China.

George Bush Jr didn't fail so much as he was perceived to have been too much of a patrician while being uncomfortable with his more conservative allies. Yet George Bush Sr is still perceived as a man of uncommon decency, loyal to the enduring American character of rugged self-determination, free markets, and generosity. George W will eventually be treated more kindly by historians as one whose potential was squashed by his own compromise of conservative principles, in some ways repeating the mistakes of his father, while ignoring many lessons in executive leadership he should have learned at Harvard Business School. Of course George W could never quite overcome being dogged from the outset by half of the nation convinced he was electorally illegitimate -- thus aiding the resurgence of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.

But, Barack Obama is failing. Failing big. Failing fast. And failing everywhere: foreign policy, domestic initiatives, and most importantly, in forging connections with the American people. The incomparable Dorothy Rabinowitz in the Wall Street Journal put her finger on it: He is failing because he has no understanding of the American people, and may indeed loathe them. Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard says he is failing because he has lost control of his message, and is overexposed. Clarice Feldman of American Thinker produced a dispositive commentary showing that Obama is failing because fundamentally he is neither smart nor articulate; his intellectual dishonesty is conspicuous by its audacity and lack of shame.

But, there is something more seriously wrong: How could a new president riding in on a wave of unprecedented promise and goodwill have forfeited his tenure and become a lame duck in six months? His poll ratings are in free fall. In generic balloting, the Republicans have now seized a five point advantage. This truly is unbelievable. What's going on?

No narrative. Obama doesn't have a narrative. No, not a narrative about himself. He has a self-narrative, much of it fabricated, cleverly disguised or written by someone else. But this self-narrative is isolated and doesn't connect with us. He doesn't have an American narrative that draws upon the rest of us. All successful presidents have a narrative about the American character that intersects with their own where they display a command of history and reveal an authenticity at the core of their personality that resonates in a positive endearing way with the majority of Americans. We admire those presidents whose narratives not only touch our own, but who seem stronger, wiser, and smarter than we are. Presidents we admire are aspirational peers, even those whose politics don't align exactly with our own: Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Harry Truman, Ike, Reagan.

But not this president. It's not so much that he's a phony, knows nothing about economics, is historically illiterate, and woefully small minded for the size of the task-- all contributory of course. It's that he's not one of us. And whatever he is, his profile is fuzzy and devoid of content, like a cardboard cutout made from delaminated corrugated paper. Moreover, he doesn't command our respect and is unable to appeal to our own common sense. His notions of right and wrong are repugnant and how things work just don't add up. They are not existential. His descriptions of the world we live in don't make sense and don't correspond with our experience.

In the meantime, while we've been struggling to take a measurement of this man, he's dissed just about every one of us--financiers, energy producers, banks, insurance executives, police officers, doctors, nurses, hospital administrators, post office workers, and anybody else who has a non-green job. Expect Obama to lament at his last press conference in 2012: "For those of you I offended, I apologize. For those of you who were not offended, you just didn't give me enough time; if only I'd had a second term, I could have offended you too."

Mercifully, the Founders at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 devised a useful remedy for such a desperate state--staggered terms for both houses of the legislature and the executive. An equally abominable Congress can get voted out next year. With a new Congress, there's always hope of legislative gridlock until we vote for president again two short years after that.

Yes, small presidents do fail, Barack Obama among them. The coyotes howl but the wagon train keeps rolling along.

Beereal

09-01-09, 19:04

Beereal, you are just one of many in America who have been horribly mis-educated.

All the feel good talk about fairness and equality you like to embrace from the Left is what is going to wreck the system.

The Soviet Union did not fall apart because their roads and bridges were substandard, it collapsed because of the collective mentality of the people.

.

I disagree and agree at the same time.

It did collapse because it had an immense military budget and spent almost nothing on infrastructure. But you're right about it's collective mentality. They were largely uneducated and ignored. Something which a lot of right wingers would like to see happen in this country.

They would like nothing better than shut down public schools, pocket their property tax money so they can buy some new golf clubs and let society rot and people fend for themselves.

like it or not, a society can not survive without some tinges of socialism.

Look at the Scandanavian countries and much of Europe. As the dollar and American economy goes down the toilet, the Euro and the Pound are kicking our ass.

Roamin Roman

09-02-09, 00:47

Like it or not, a society can not survive without some tinges of socialism. Look at the Scandanavian countries and much of Europe. As the dollar and American economy goes down the toilet, the Euro and the Pound are kicking our ass.Like it or not, the Euro and the Pound are "kicking ass" (not that much, but a little bit) because the Europeans are moving away from some of their Socialist practices. Some, not all.

Socialism (or, in better context, Statism) is morally repugnant, in that it seeks to empower a centralized government to take the fruits of one man's labor and redistribute those fruits to another man who did not work to earn them. By what right do you, Be-phoney, advocate taking what one person earns and, via government as your agent, choosing a "winner" to whom you will give that man's earnings?

Beereal

09-02-09, 23:18

Like it or not, the Euro and the Pound are "kicking ass" (not that much, but a little bit) because the Europeans are moving away from some of their Socialist practices. Some, not all.

Socialism (or, in better context, Statism) is morally repugnant, in that it seeks to empower a centralized government to take the fruits of one man's labor and redistribute those fruits to another man who did not work to earn them. By what right do you, Be-phoney, advocate taking what one person earns and, via government as your agent, choosing a "winner" to whom you will give that man's earnings?

What do you think is happening right now?
Money is taken from your paycheck before you ever even see it and redistributed in a number of ways.

Even people who don't have children help to pay for public schools with their property taxes. An educated populace is good for our country, do you not agree?

51 cents of every dollar goes to the military industrial complex to further our empire. Just like the USSR. But that's all good. People on the right have total faith in the government when it comes to bombing the shit out of some other country....... they ask no questions when it comes to that.

Which is why I'll never understand why people on the right have no problems with their tax money being "re-distributed" to companies like Halliburton and Blackwater, but shit a brick when we try and fund public schools and try to make our own country better.

I'm not in favor of the government taking MORE of our money, I'd just like to see us get our money's worth for a change.

Zeuss

09-03-09, 11:04

51 cents of every dollar goes to the military industrial complex to further our empire. Just like the USSR. But that's all good. People on the right have total faith in the government when it comes to bombing the shit out of some other country....... they ask no questions when it comes to that.

Which is why I'll never understand why people on the right have no problems with their tax money being "re-distributed" to companies like Halliburton and Blackwater, but shit a brick when we try and fund public schools and try to make our own country better.

I'm not in favor of the government taking MORE of our money, I'd just like to see us get our money's worth for a change.Beereal, where are you getting your figures?

The 2008 budget was $2.983 trillion, with defense taking $612 billion - 20.5%.

The 2009 budget is $3.998 trillion, with defense getting $726 billion - 18.2%.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2010/assets/summary.pdf

Isn't defense the only big ticket item that the federal government is responsible for?

Schools are a separate problem; but that is a state and local issue - NOT a federal one.

As far as money being redistributed BOTH sides have their favorites who they help out - just look at the so called stimulus bill. I really think that the signs that point out the "American recovery and Reinvestment Act" that are displayed at highway projects are a great use of our tax dollars.

The solution? Who knows, but a good start would be to vote ALL of the bastards out and start with a clean slate.

Gdlint

09-03-09, 20:38

We're going to pass a Health Care Plan written by a committee whose head says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it, signed by a president that also hasn't read it, and who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's nearly broke.

Nothing could go wrong here,right?

Beereal

09-03-09, 22:57

The solution? Who knows, but a good start would be to vote ALL of the bastards out and start with a clean slate.

It's a beautiful thing when right and left can agree on something. :)

Cheers mate.

Roamin Roman

09-04-09, 00:37

What do you think is happening right now? Money is taken from your paycheck before you ever even see it and redistributed in a number of ways.Yeah, and it's still socialistic and still wrong for the government to take what one man earns and redistribute it to another man who has not earned it. The Founders, even Alexander Hamilton, never endorsed this sort of expansion of government. In fact, this kind of practice was largely unknown in our country until the advent of FDR and then LBJ. Now, it's become "commonplace."

Even people who don't have children help to pay for public schools with their property taxes. An educated populace is good for our country, do you not agree? Your argument is non sequitur and logically flawed. Property taxes do not immediately or necessarily follow from the premise of an educated populace being good for the country. In fact, the federal government's role in education is dubious, at least in the Constitution's view. That document enumerated few, and limited, government functions.

Now, with respect to education, the Northwest Ordinances (which scholars deem as one of this nation's four organic documents - the other three being the Declaration, the Constitution & Bill of Rights, and the Articles of Confederation) actually do enumerate education and the means for furthering it. But that was a state mandate, not a federal one. You need to brush up on your U.S. history, sonny. And go back a little further than Carter.

51 cents of every dollar goes to the military industrial complex to further our empire. Just like the USSR. But that's all good. People on the right have total faith in the government when it comes to bombing the shit out of some other country. They ask no questions when it comes to that.Ooooooooh. Well, I guess we know how Beereal feels about our country. FYI, the largest line item in the U.S. budget isn't defense, it's entitlements like Social Security and Medicaid. But, even if 51 cents of every tax dollar did go to the "military-industrial complex, " at least that comports with the Constitutional mandate to provide for the common defense. As far as this country "bombing the shit out of some other country, " I didn't hear you libs jumping up & down and shouting when Bill Clinton launched cruise missles into an aspirin factory in the Sudan or some camel jockey tents in Afghanistan.

And, while I'm at it, I'll turn your argumant about education back on you: "A ready defense is good for our country, do you not agree? "

Which is why I'll never understand why people on the right have no problems with their tax money being "re-distributed" to companies like Halliburton and Blackwater, but shit a brick when we try and fund public schools and try to make our own country better.Um, let's see the evidence that our tax dollars were redistributed to Haliburton (one of the Left's "bogeyman" companies) and Blackwater (another scary company to Lefties). If tax dollars went to these companies, it was in the form of legal contracts, not welfare. Again, another poor argument on your part. (You must be the guy in your high school's Debate Club that everyone wants as an opponent.)

I'm not in favor of the government taking MORE of our money, I'd just like to see us get our money's worth for a change.Well, you sure as shit ain't getting your "money's worth for a change" with Obama's administration. But you are getting some change, and that's about all you'll have: spare change. How's your guy Barry Sotero working out for you? How about all those tax cheats he put into his administration? Yeah, you're a real smart one, pal.

John Black

09-06-09, 01:58

For those interested in the development of US public debt, this might be an interesting read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

I found these paragraphs interesting:

>> Before the September 11, 2001 attacks, the George W. Bush administration projected in the 2002 U.S. budget that there would be a $1.288 trillion surplus from 2001 through 2004.[64] In the 2005 Mid-Session Review, however, this had changed to a projected deficit of $850 billion, a swing of $2.138 trillion.[65] The latter document states that 49 percent of this swing was due to "economic and technical re-estimates", 29 percent was due to "tax relief", (mainly the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts), and the remaining 22 percent was due to "war, homeland, and other enacted legislation" (mainly expenditures for the War on Terror, Iraq War, and homeland security). <<

Also:

>>Approximately 70% of federal spending is in four categories: Defense, Medicare, Social Security, and interest on the debt. As of June 2009, Obama's policies enacted into law were only a minor influence on debt and deficit projections. However, Obama himself has been criticized for not having a realistic plan for addressing the increasing debt.<<

This is also interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

The last the column with the ratio of 'Increase debt to GDP' shows that the only presidents in the last 30 some years who lowered this ratio were Carter and Clinton.

In regular dollars the debt has gone up under EVERY president since 1945.

This data clearly shows that the argument that democratic presidents are always much bigger spenders than republicans is simply not true. Both have spend way more than they took in.

How Obama will do? Way too early tell right now. He certain did inherit a US Federal budget with a huge hole in it. A lot will depend on the effect of new legislation and the rate of growth of the economy.

Obama has only been in office for 6 months, even by GW Bush standards that is way to early to judge. GWB said that 'only history can judge me'.

To close the deficit, two things can be done: Spend less money and/or raise taxes. Both options can hurt economic growth in the short term.

Economic growth alone won't close the deficit.

Lowering taxes might increase economic growth somewhat in the long term, but also increases the deficit immediately. In the long run tax decreases have a long lasting negative effect on the deficit.

Spending your way out of a recession might shorten the downturn cycle, but it has a long lasting negative effect on the deficit which in return might shorten any economic up cycle.

Lowering both taxes and spending can only work if the rate of spending decrease is much bigger than the tax decrease. A huge reduction of goverment spending de-stimulates the economy resulting in lower tax revenue.

Anybody still see a way out?

Bell Bottom

09-06-09, 10:31

What's really sad about the whole thing is that, in the debate over health care, etc., the Republicans are not even trying to participate in the debate. Other than Olympia Snowe, no other Republican is even working with the Democrats to come up with a truly bi-partisan bill to benefit ALL Americans. They are mostly just spreading misinformation about what is actually in the bills in an effort to make the Democrats look bad. Are they working for the good of the average American or are they just mad they screwed up so bad, they lost control of their position within government and as the party of "fiscal responsibility"? It seems to me they are not interested in the good of the people but the good of a party which has contributed quite significantly to the current national dept (over 2/3rds of the 9+ trillion currently projected by most non-partisan estimates).

Neither Democrats nor Republicans are completely innocent of playing partisan politics but at present, the Republicans are acting almost criminal in their lack of working for the good of America.

For those interested in the development of US public debt, this might be an interesting read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

I found these paragraphs interesting:

>> Before the September 11, 2001 attacks, the George W. Bush administration projected in the 2002 U.S. budget that there would be a $1.288 trillion surplus from 2001 through 2004.[64] In the 2005 Mid-Session Review, however, this had changed to a projected deficit of $850 billion, a swing of $2.138 trillion.[65] The latter document states that 49 percent of this swing was due to "economic and technical re-estimates", 29 percent was due to "tax relief", (mainly the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts), and the remaining 22 percent was due to "war, homeland, and other enacted legislation" (mainly expenditures for the War on Terror, Iraq War, and homeland security). <<

Also:

>>Approximately 70% of federal spending is in four categories: Defense, Medicare, Social Security, and interest on the debt. As of June 2009, Obama's policies enacted into law were only a minor influence on debt and deficit projections. However, Obama himself has been criticized for not having a realistic plan for addressing the increasing debt.<<

This is also interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

The last the column with the ratio of 'Increase debt to GDP' shows that the only presidents in the last 30 some years who lowered this ratio were Carter and Clinton.

In regular dollars the debt has gone up under EVERY president since 1945.

This data clearly shows that the argument that democratic presidents are always much bigger spenders than republicans is simply not true. Both have spend way more than they took in.

How Obama will do? Way too early tell right now. He certain did inherit a US Federal budget with a huge hole in it. A lot will depend on the effect of new legislation and the rate of growth of the economy.

Obama has only been in office for 6 months, even by GW Bush standards that is way to early to judge. GWB said that 'only history can judge me'.

To close the deficit, two things can be done: Spend less money and/or raise taxes. Both options can hurt economic growth in the short term.

Economic growth alone won't close the deficit.

Lowering taxes might increase economic growth somewhat in the long term, but also increases the deficit immediately. In the long run tax decreases have a long lasting negative effect on the deficit.

Spending your way out of a recession might shorten the downturn cycle, but it has a long lasting negative effect on the deficit which in return might shorten any economic up cycle.

Lowering both taxes and spending can only work if the rate of spending decrease is much bigger than the tax decrease. A huge reduction of goverment spending de-stimulates the economy resulting in lower tax revenue.

Anybody still see a way out?

Roamin Roman

09-06-09, 23:41

The last the column with the ratio of 'Increase debt to GDP' shows that the only presidents in the last 30 some years who lowered this ratio were Carter and Clinton.Yes, and in the last 30 years, they were the only ones to cut spending on (a) the military and (b) the intelligence community. And we all know what happened after each of those episodes. After Carter's cuts, we got a radicalized Iran and an aggressively expansionist Soviet Union. After Clinton's cuts, we got a Noth Korea with nukes and terrorist attacks all through the 1990s (the '93 World Trade Center bombing, the Kobar Towers attack, the bombing of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, and culminating in the 9/11 attack that G.W. Bush inherited from Clinton's cuts).

This data clearly shows that the argument that democratic presidents are always much bigger spenders than republicans is simply not true. Both have spent way more than they took in.First off, it's Democrat, not democratic. Second, the reason why Republican presidents over the last 30 years have had to spend a lot is because of the cuts in vital defense (i.e., the armed forces and the intelligence community) that Democrat presidents have made. Third, spending tends to go hand-in-hand with the expansion of government. Fourth, the better way to look at the matter is not through the lens of Democrat vs. Republican but rather through the lens of Liberal vs. Conservative. Over the past 45 years, we've really had only one truly conservative president: Ronald Reagan. The rest have been either moderate or liberal. This includes Richard Nixon, a liberal Republican in many, many respects. After all, it was he that expanded the size of government with the addition of the EPA and other government departments and agencies.

How Obama will do? Way too early tell right now. He certain did inherit a US Federal budget with a huge hole in it.yes, and he dug that hole three times bigger. And, BTW, GW Bush inherited a military and an intelligence community with a huge hole in it.

Lowering taxes might increase economic growth somewhat in the long term, but also increases the deficit immediately. In the long run tax decreases have a long lasting negative effect on the deficit.Oh, really? No, that's totally incorrect, at least according to economist Art Laffer. Lowering taxes has been repeatedly shown to increase revenue. It only increases the deficit immediately if spending is not put in check. Furthermore, tax decreases have a long-lasting positive effect on the economy and the debt. And, by the way, let's not confuse (as you appear to have done) the deficit with the debt. They are two distinctly different animals.

Spending your way out of a recession might shorten the downturn cycle...It didn't shorten the downturn for Henry Morgenthau, treasury Secretary under FDR. Even after 8 years of spending, Morgenthau admitted that all that spending hadn't done shit.

Lowering both taxes and spending can only work if the rate of spending decrease is much bigger than the tax decrease. A huge reduction of goverment spending de-stimulates the economy resulting in lower tax revenue.Again, an unsupported assertion. Okay, but the fact is that a reduction in government spending is ultimately stimulative, not de-stimulative. The less the government takes from the Private Sector (i.e., taxpayers and businesses), the more money will be available for growing the economy. The government does not grow the economy. Only the private sector can do that.

So, unless your economic credentials are better than the aforementioned Arthur Laffer (as well as the esteemed economists Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, and Walter Williams), what you wrote is just about 180 degrees out of touch with reality.

No wonder you don't see any way out!

R::R

P.S. - A suggestion for you: You might want to try getting more of your material from sources other than Wikipedia. Egalitarian though it might be, it's no substitute for sound economic theory.

KingDd

09-07-09, 02:21

It could be worse, our president could be named Cheney (again).

Streetwize

09-07-09, 09:29

All this talk of the national debt really boils down to one thing. We need to print our own money. Kill the Federal Reserve. It is not a government agency. It is a private bank. Every dollar they loan to the government is attached with debt. It's a never ending spiral. Our income tax goes straight into these bankers pockets. The Federal Reserve was created in 1913. The income tax was created in 1913 too. Kill the Fed. Lose the debt.

Bell Bottom

09-07-09, 09:37

As Bush was in power for only a short time, he couldn't have affected the intelligence community by the time 9/11 happened. Yet, there was fully credible intelligence that the plot was happening and the FBI failed to take action. As for increasing spending on these Intelligence and the military, what did it get us? A falsely drummed up set of intelligence used to force us into one of the most idiotic wars ever. Iraq. And a military healthcare system that turly failed those serving. Carter cut the military. Clinton didn't. He created a budget surplus. As for North Korea, like Bush did any good there with his speaches and actions. They still got nukes, still sold technology and weapons to other countries (including Myanmar), . By the way, why did Iran radicalize? The US certainly didn't do much to keep the Shah under control and even propped him up. In doing so, we were asking for something bad to happen. Who has caused more harm around the world and put into power those who have turned around and bitten us in the butt? Who put Saddam in power, armed him? Who funded, taught and fully supported Osama? The list is quite long and is the responsibility of American foreign policy. Fact. Our actions around the world haven't been exactly for the best interests of all. Mostly, it was to either fend off Russia during the cold war or for Oil (Bush's favorite).

By the way, Art Laffer is a Reagononimist to the extreme. Please give an example of someone not directly up the butt of either a "Democrat" or a "Republic" and I will consider how valid the assessment is. Check with the OMB (they are government but are non-partisan) and you will have your answer as to the current deficit and who is responsible for what.

During the Great Depression, the country wallowed for a number of years until one thing happened, we pumped money into the system. In the current resession, it was certainly made far worse when Bush and his team didn't bolster Lehman. That one action set off the credit default swap tsunami that required money to be injected into the system. If we hadn't done that, AIG would have only been the first to tumble. The swaps would have just followed down the chain, taking each company with it and we would have had a situation that would have been far worse than it is now.

I suppose if the rich have that much more money, they can spend it on things. Such as BMWs, Mercedes', etc. Those certainly bolster the American economy. By adding a little more tax to the rich, we would only be returning to a tax code previously in force.

I certainly didn't check all facts before and am not an economist but your facts need some checking and it would be helpful to look at non-partisan sources for a more balanced and honest assessment. We can certainly continue to argue if that is what you desire. I'm done. I'm willing to listen to both sides but both sides need to be more honest in their telling of the facts.

Neither "Democrat" nor "Republic" is fully responsible for the current ressession. Both have let policy falter. Both are responsible for our behaviour around the world in bolstering regimes that have turned and bitten us. I'm willing to try and be less partisan. It's the one thing that would truly benefit this country is if we all try harder to listen to the other side and have open and honest dialog.

Yes, and in the last 30 years, they were the only ones to cut spending on (a) the military and (b) the intelligence community. And we all know what happened after each of those episodes. After Carter's cuts, we got a radicalized Iran and an aggressively expansionist Soviet Union. After Clinton's cuts, we got a Noth Korea with nukes and terrorist attacks all through the 1990s (the '93 World Trade Center bombing, the Kobar Towers attack, the bombing of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, and culminating in the 9/11 attack that G.W. Bush inherited from Clinton's cuts).

First off, it's Democrat, not democratic. Second, the reason why Republican presidents over the last 30 years have had to spend a lot is because of the cuts in vital defense (i.e., the armed forces and the intelligence community) that Democrat presidents have made. Third, spending tends to go hand-in-hand with the expansion of government. Fourth, the better way to look at the matter is not through the lens of Democrat vs. Republican but rather through the lens of Liberal vs. Conservative. Over the past 45 years, we've really had only one truly conservative president: Ronald Reagan. The rest have been either moderate or liberal. This includes Richard Nixon, a liberal Republican in many, many respects. After all, it was he that expanded the size of government with the addition of the EPA and other government departments and agencies.

yes, and he dug that hole three times bigger. And, BTW, GW Bush inherited a military and an intelligence community with a huge hole in it.

Oh, really? No, that's totally incorrect, at least according to economist Art Laffer. Lowering taxes has been repeatedly shown to increase revenue. It only increases the deficit immediately if spending is not put in check. Furthermore, tax decreases have a long-lasting positive effect on the economy and the debt. And, by the way, let's not confuse (as you appear to have done) the deficit with the debt. They are two distinctly different animals.

It didn't shorten the downturn for Henry Morgenthau, treasury Secretary under FDR. Even after 8 years of spending, Morgenthau admitted that all that spending hadn't done shit.

Again, an unsupported assertion. Okay, but the fact is that a reduction in government spending is ultimately stimulative, not de-stimulative. The less the government takes from the Private Sector (i.e., taxpayers and businesses), the more money will be available for growing the economy. The government does not grow the economy. Only the private sector can do that.

So, unless your economic credentials are better than the aforementioned Arthur Laffer (as well as the esteemed economists Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, and Walter Williams), what you wrote is just about 180 degrees out of touch with reality.

No wonder you don't see any way out!

R::R

P.S. - A suggestion for you: You might want to try getting more of your material from sources other than Wikipedia. Egalitarian though it might be, it's no substitute for sound economic theory.

Streetwize

09-07-09, 09:55

Other than Olympia Snowe, no other Republican is even working with the Democrats to come up with a truly bi-partisan bill to benefit ALL Americans.

Snowe is as much a Republican as Arlen Spector.

Streetwize

09-07-09, 10:23

It could be worse, our president could be named Cheney (again).

You think it would be worse if Cheney (Bush) were our President again? I have news for you. Obama works for the same people Cheney (Bush) did. They are all Globalists pushing for a One World Government. This government works for the elite international banking cartels. The Rothschilds, Rockefellers, etc... Look who is leading the way for internet restrictions. It is a Rockefeller. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ct9xzXUQLuY
He doesn't like info he can't control. The major media is all controlled. Even FOX. All the heads of the media are members of the Council on Foreign Relations. You've all heard the saying "The debtor is slave to the lender". The debtor is the USA and the lender is the Federal Reserve. Fractional reserve banking must also be done away with. This allows the banks to load out 90% more than they have in reserve. This call for "cap & trade" is all a lie. They attach a sentiment like the environment to make it sell. But it's nothing more than wealth redistribution. Same with health care. They sell it as a humanitarian project. That is not the case. It's government control of the people from cradle to grave. The elite of this world want us gone. They wrote in stone. Look at the Georgia Guidestones. The first commandment or rule calls on everyone to "Maintain humanity under 500,000 in perpetual balance with nature." They will use methods like the swine flu to achieve their goals. Companies like Monsanto who genetically modify the food we consume. All the food. Look up "codex alimentarius" sometime. Look at the so called "Science Czar" in the White House now. He is a eugenicist. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F29t52MQBrQ
It's not about Republican vs. Democrat. With a few exceptions, they are all bought & paid for by outside interests. They all work together. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSuWAQr8qwo
The first thing to do is cut the head off the snake. Kill the Fed.

Zeuss

09-07-09, 10:26

What is being forgotten in this discussion of spiraling deficits is the role that the House and Senate play. While the President submits a budget the Congress controls the purse strings through the Appropriation committees and the Ways and Means committee. Blame must be spread around; this is where politics really come into play. The problem is that the whole thing has taken on a life of its own and nobody in either party has made a serious attempt to restrict increases in spending. Also only about 35% of the budget is "discretionary, " the largest portion of that being defense; the remainder is the mandatory "non discretionary" entitlement programs that have taken over. At the very least they need to freeze spending or at least keep the growth to a nominal 2-3%.

It's not a sustainable trend since they keep adding programs which widen the deficits.

This is our money not theirs.

Roamin Roman

09-08-09, 02:02

Nice target-rich post you made there. But, since I'll be out of town for a while, I'll just hit the highlights.

As Bush was in power for only a short time, he couldn't have affected the intelligence community by the time 9/11 happened. Yet, there was fully credible intelligence that the plot was happening and the FBI failed to take action.There was no "fully credible intelligence" about a specific attack, whether regarding the method or the timing. Also, with respect to the FBI, what action are you suggesting they could have taken? Remember, there was an information-sharing "wall" that had been erected, during the Clinton Administration, between the FBI and the CIA. The administration offical responsible for that "wall" was Jamie Gorelick. Do some research before you shoot your mouth off and display such stupidity.

As for increasing spending on these Intelligence and the military, what did it get us? A falsely drummed up set of intelligence used to force us into one of the most idiotic wars ever. Iraq.Once again, you've either neglected information or you're uninformed. I'll grant the latter. Remember, at the time we went into Iraq to address the matter of WMDs, the intelligence agencies of Russia, Germany, France, Israel, and many others, as well as the IAEA, were in accord that Saddam Hussein was developing WMDs. And the CIA's chief, George Tenet (a Clinton appointee whom GW Bush retained) said that the information was credible and a slam-dunk.

Carter cut the military. Clinton didn't.Clinton did cut military funding.

He created a budget surplus.Clinton gained that budget surplus through (a)cuts to the military, (b)cuts to the intelligence community, and (c) a tax hike, instead of a tax cut, on the middle class and businesses. There was also the little matter of the Republican Congress imposing the Balanced Budget Amendment, which Clinton finally signed after projecting, at the start of his administration, "deficits as far as the eyes can see."

As for North Korea, like Bush did any good there with his speaches and actions.At least Bush's Secretary of State didn't do the Macarena in front of Kim Jong Il and his army generals. Madeline Halfbright, Clinton's Secretary of State, did.[/QUOTE]
By the way, why did Iran radicalize? The US certainly didn't do much to keep the Shah under control and even propped him up. In doing so, we were asking for something bad to happen. Who has caused more harm around the world and put into power those who have turned around and bitten us in the butt? Who put Saddam in power, armed him? Who funded, taught and fully supported Osama? The list is quite long and is the responsibility of American foreign policy.The Shah was the best choice in a bad neighborhood during the Cold War. The other choice would have put strategically important Iran into the Soviet sphere. We did not put Saddam in power, nor did we arm him. As for Osama, we supported some of his mujahaddin activities in Afghanistan, be we did not "teach" nor "fully support" him. Your understanding of history and geopolitics is naive and immature.

Fact. Our actions around the world haven't been exactly for the best interests of all. Mostly, it was to either fend off Russia during the cold war or for Oil (Bush's favorite).Ah, yes. I was wondering when the Bush/Oil charge was going to come out. I'm surprised you waited so long.

By the way, Art Laffer is a Reagononimist to the extreme. Please give an example of someone not directly up the butt of either a "Democrat" or a "Republic" and I will consider how valid the assessment is.An ad hominem attack is a poor substitute for sound argumentation and debate. As for Mr. Laffer, he was not a Reagan devotee, but rather it was Ronald Reagan who saw the wisdom of Mr. Laffer's understanding of economics. As for other economists of note, I listed four more. You obviously have as good a grasp of basic economics as you do of history and geopolitics.

Check with the OMB (they are government but are non-partisan) and you will have your answer as to the current deficit and who is responsible for what.Oh, they've assigned blame? Do tell? How about you citing the relevant statistics, if you can cull them and understand them.

During the Great Depression, the country wallowed for a number of years until one thing happened, we pumped money into the system.No, as I said before, FDR's Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau, admitted that eight years of "pumping money into the system" did not have much of any effect. Unemployment still ranged very high.

In the current resession, it was certainly made far worse when Bush and his team didn't bolster Lehman. That one action set off the credit default swap tsunami that required money to be injected into the system. If we hadn't done that, AIG would have only been the first to tumble. The swaps would have just followed down the chain, taking each company with it and we would have had a situation that would have been far worse than it is now.Now that you've used the "credit default swap" argument, try going back and seeing what caused that issue in the first place. You're arguing from a symptom, not a cause.

I suppose if the rich have that much more money, they can spend it on things. Such as BMWs, Mercedes', etc. Those certainly bolster the American economy.Oh, what a terrible thing, when the rich have money. When was the last time you were employed by someone poorer than yourself?

By adding a little more tax to the rich, we would only be returning to a tax code previously in force.That "tax code previously in force" was rather unfair. As it stands right now, the top 10% of income earners in this country pay more than 60% (actually, it's far higher) of all income taxes. The bottom half of all income earners pay about 4% of all income taxes. I guess that sounds "fair" to you. (BTW, I'm not among "the rich," but I am among the fair and honest.

I certainly didn't check all facts before and am not an economist but your facts need some checking and it would be helpful to look at non-partisan sources for a more balanced and honest assessment. We can certainly continue to argue if that is what you desire. I'm done. I'm willing to listen to both sides but both sides need to be more honest in their telling of the facts.I looked, and cited from, non-partisan sources. You simply assumed that I used partisan sources. You're right on one thing: You're done. In fact, you never really even presented an argument. You simply railed from what seems to be a hard-core liberal perspective. If that's your thrill, go for it.

Neither "Democrat" nor "Republican" is fully responsible for the current ressession. Both have let policy falter. Both are responsible for our behaviour around the world in bolstering regimes that have turned and bitten us. I'm willing to try and be less partisan. It's the one thing that would truly benefit this country is if we all try harder to listen to the other side and have open and honest dialog.It's not a matter of "listening to the other side." Imagine if Abraham Lincoln had done that with the slavery advocates. Or, imagine if FDR had done that with Hitler. (I can just see, or hear, FDR giving one of his "Fireside Chats" over the radio, telling the American people that we need to try harder to listen to Herr Hitler and have an open and honest dialog with him. Meanwhile, the Hun Army would keep rolling along.)

Sometimes, one side is just plain wrong (as the liberals, a.k.a., Democrats have been on most things these days). I'm willing to discuss things further with you, but you won't learn anything if you refuse to be introspective. No, it's probably better if you remain in your own little world of comfortable assumptions.

Bell Bottom

09-08-09, 19:03

I don't put you or your personal opinions down. Get a life. You spend most of your time demeaning me and purport to offer a balanced and just view on the "facts". I'm done with this argument and with you. If you think I'm super liberal, and that the republican party is the answer to everything good and right in this country, you are just another example of what is truly wrong with this country. This country isn't about "if you're not with us, you're against us". The republican party is s truly the owner of that attitude (think K Street).

Find some other board to rant your drivel on.

Nice target-rich post you made there. But, since I'll be out of town for a while, I'll just hit the highlights.

There was no "fully credible intelligence" about a specific attack, whether regarding the method or the timing. Also, with respect to the FBI, what action are you suggesting they could have taken? Remember, there was an information-sharing "wall" that had been erected, during the Clinton Administration, between the FBI and the CIA. The administration offical responsible for that "wall" was Jamie Gorelick. Do some research before you shoot your mouth off and display such stupidity.

Once again, you've either neglected information or you're uninformed. I'll grant the latter. Remember, at the time we went into Iraq to address the matter of WMDs, the intelligence agencies of Russia, Germany, France, Israel, and many others, as well as the IAEA, were in accord that Saddam Hussein was developing WMDs. And the CIA's chief, George Tenet (a Clinton appointee whom GW Bush retained) said that the information was credible and a slam-dunk.

Clinton did cut military funding.

Clinton gained that budget surplus through (a)cuts to the military, (b)cuts to the intelligence community, and (c) a tax hike, instead of a tax cut, on the middle class and businesses. There was also the little matter of the Republican Congress imposing the Balanced Budget Amendment, which Clinton finally signed after projecting, at the start of his administration, "deficits as far as the eyes can see."

At least Bush's Secretary of State didn't do the Macarena in front of Kim Jong Il and his army generals. Madeline Halfbright, Clinton's Secretary of State, did.The Shah was the best choice in a bad neighborhood during the Cold War. The other choice would have put strategically important Iran into the Soviet sphere. We did not put Saddam in power, nor did we arm him. As for Osama, we supported some of his mujahaddin activities in Afghanistan, be we did not "teach" nor "fully support" him. Your understanding of history and geopolitics is naive and immature.
Ah, yes. I was wondering when the Bush/Oil charge was going to come out. I'm surprised you waited so long.

An ad hominem attack is a poor substitute for sound argumentation and debate. As for Mr. Laffer, he was not a Reagan devotee, but rather it was Ronald Reagan who saw the wisdom of Mr. Laffer's understanding of economics. As for other economists of note, I listed four more. You obviously have as good a grasp of basic economics as you do of history and geopolitics.

Oh, they've assigned blame? Do tell? How about you citing the relevant statistics, if you can cull them and understand them.

No, as I said before, FDR's Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau, admitted that eight years of "pumping money into the system" did not have much of any effect. Unemployment still ranged very high.

Now that you've used the "credit default swap" argument, try going back and seeing what caused that issue in the first place. You're arguing from a symptom, not a cause.

Oh, what a terrible thing, when the rich have money. When was the last time you were employed by someone poorer than yourself?
That "tax code previously in force" was rather unfair. As it stands right now, the top 10% of income earners in this country pay more than 60% (actually, it's far higher) of all income taxes. The bottom half of all income earners pay about 4% of all income taxes. I guess that sounds "fair" to you. (BTW, I'm not among "the rich," but I am among the fair and honest.

I looked, and cited from, non-partisan sources. You simply assumed that I used partisan sources. You're right on one thing: You're done. In fact, you never really even presented an argument. You simply railed from what seems to be a hard-core liberal perspective. If that's your thrill, go for it.

It's not a matter of "listening to the other side." Imagine if Abraham Lincoln had done that with the slavery advocates. Or, imagine if FDR had done that with Hitler. (I can just see, or hear, FDR giving one of his "Fireside Chats" over the radio, telling the American people that we need to try harder to listen to Herr Hitler and have an open and honest dialog with him. Meanwhile, the Hun Army would keep rolling along.)

Sometimes, one side is just plain wrong (as the liberals, a.k.a., Democrats have been on most things these days). I'm willing to discuss things further with you, but you won't learn anything if you refuse to be introspective. No, it's probably better if you remain in your own little world of comfortable assumptions.[/QUOTE]

Baltimonger

09-09-09, 00:15

This is what's politics is really all about, bitches!:

http://www.redstateupdate.com/video/ted-kennedy-the-health-care

Larks Tongue

09-09-09, 13:35

I have a very bad feeling that this situation is going to come to a very violent end.

Stay healthy, stay out of debt and arm yourself. (famous quote by Agent61)

Waxman has always scared me. He doesn't look right.

Bell Bottom

09-10-09, 11:23

I'm more afraid of an armed Dick Cheney.

Waxman has always scared me. He doesn't look right.

Bell Bottom

09-14-09, 13:55

As per DOE FAQ - http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ask/gasoline_faqs.asp

Each barrel of oil yields between 19 and 20 gallons of gas.

The June 2009 cost refiners paid for a barrel was $67.

224 Mil Gal / YR divided by 20 Gal / Barrel = 11.2 Mil Barrels / YR

11.2 Mil Barrels / YR x $67 / Barrel = $750.4 Mil in first year.

After 4 years the costs are $3.0016 Billion

In addition, there is a reduction in emissions of particulates (implicated in asthma and other breathing disorders), CO2 and other greenhouse gases. If you also consider the cost savings in refining, heat emissions, transportation, etc., the math suggests that maybe it's not such a bad investment.

As regards Health Care reform, here's an article that appeared today on MSNBC.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32836554/ns/health-the_new_york_times/

It suggests that there are certainly areas for improving the system and cutting out waste, as well as improving quality of life for all. I can also attest to fraud in the system. My parents received some statements for charges against Medicare which were incorrect and way overstated. They took the issue up with the provider and it ended up that the provider was double-billing Medicare. If we can cut out the fraud and setup a system which makes intelligent decisions, we could easily save huge amounts of money which could be used to offset additional spending.

Did anyone in our current government pass 4th grade math?

I guess I must be on the wrong page.

A vehicle at 15 mpg and 12, 000 miles per year uses 800 gallons a year of gasoline.

A vehicle at 25 mpg and 12, 000 miles per year uses 480 gallons a year.

So, the average clunker transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year.

They claim 700, 000 vehicles – so that's 224 million gallons / year.

That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil.

5 million barrels of oil is about ¼ of one day's US consumption.

And, 5 million barrels of oil costs about $350 million dollars at $75/bbl.

So, we all contributed to spending $3 billion to save $350 million.

How good a deal was that?

They'll probably do a great job with health care though!

LordBlackAdder

09-22-09, 17:01

City, State, % of People Below the Poverty Level
1. Detroit, MI 32.5%
2. Buffalo, NY 29.9%
3. Cincinnati, OH 27.8%
4. Cleveland, OH 27.0%
5. Miami, FL 26.9%
5. St. Louis, MO 26.8%
7. El Paso, TX 26.4%
8. Milwaukee, WI 26.2%
9. Philadelphia, PA 25.1%
10. Newark, NJ 24.2%

U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 American Community Survey, August 2007 What do the top ten cities (over 250,000) with the highest poverty rate all have in common?

Detroit, MI (1st on the poverty rate list) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1961;

Buffalo, NY (2nd) hasn't elected one since 1954;

Cincinnati, OH (3rd)...since 1984;

Cleveland, OH (4th)...since 1989;

Miami, FL (5th) has never had a Republican mayor;

St. Louis, MO (6th)....since 1949;

El Paso , TX (7th) has never had a Republican mayor;

Milwaukee , WI (8th)...since 1908;

Philadelphia , PA (9th)...since 1952;

Newark , NJ (10th)...since 1907.

Einstein once said, 'The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.'

It is the poor who habitually elect Democrats---yet they are still POOR

"You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence. You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Baltimonger

09-22-09, 19:04

Did anyone in our current government pass 4th grade math?

I guess I must be on the wrong page.

A vehicle at 15 mpg and 12, 000 miles per year uses 800 gallons a year of gasoline.

A vehicle at 25 mpg and 12, 000 miles per year uses 480 gallons a year.

So, the average clunker transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year.

They claim 700, 000 vehicles – so that's 224 million gallons / year.

That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil.

5 million barrels of oil is about ¼ of one day's US consumption.

And, 5 million barrels of oil costs about $350 million dollars at $75/bbl.

So, we all contributed to spending $3 billion to save $350 million.

How good a deal was that?

They'll probably do a great job with health care though!

It was about selling cars hidden behind the P.R. of energy efficiency and the environment. Nothing wrong with that though. Selling cars saves jobs. Somebody has to build those 700,000 vehicles.

Raadon

09-28-09, 11:07

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0&eurl=

Having Fun Too

09-28-09, 16:38

Having Fun Too

09-28-09, 16:55

And still trying to clean up the mess your Bush left this country in!
Is it amazing how after 30 days in office a genius like you started blaming Obama for the crap your boys put this country in. Genius this country could not get in this mess in 9 month but little mind people would think so. Question How long does it take a city(Country) to get over the effect of a earthquake(Bush)?

PS Did we not have a surplus and our econmy was growing when Clinton left office? Who screw that up? Oh let me guess OBama

Bell Bottom

09-28-09, 18:03

Nine months into the Obama administration and the filthy, Socialist Democrats have managed to sack the treasury in a way that makes the corrupt, incompetent Republicans look like rank armatures.

Iran has finally become a nuclear threat, Iraq is falling apart, Afghanistan will likely fall to the Taliban.It's amazing what expectations some people have and how little memory they have of the recent past. Bush got us into Iraq and after a "mission accomplished speech", let it all go further to hell. Iran was certainly less hard line about the West before Bush as was North Korea. Bush's little "Axis of Evil" speech really didn't do much to make them want to cooperate. As for Afghanistan, in 8 months it's unlikely we could make any significant inroads to a failed Bush era policy. Many of the Nato countries have pulled out or significantly reduced forces. They didn't do that during Obama's tenure.

It takes more than 8 months to clean up after all the mess the Republicans left.

Socialized medicine is breathing down our necks, new taxes that have never been considered before will drain our economy and significantly lower the standard of living for all Americans.Thank God Medicare, Medicaid and the prescription drug benefit (joke that it is) aren't socialized medicine. They certainly must have lowered the standard of living for all citizens. And lets not forget that most socialist of institutions. Social Security. We certainly don't want those in need to have some kind of alternative to eating cat food and living in cardboard boxes.

Thirty million illegal aliens are poised to be granted amnesty and ruin the country forever.Maybe we should kick out ALL aliens, starting with the Spanish who came and plundered the Mayans and onward to the puritans, etc. Unless you are a Native American, you are an immigrant.

Anyway, why would we want to make legal a population that doesn't pay taxes, drives up the costs of Healthcare when they have no alternative but to visit emergency rooms (at 10x the cost of traditional doctor visits) and who currently mostly do the low end jobs that we won't do? Or maybe it would be a good thing to welcome in 30 million tax payers who could then leverage more preventive care options and so lower all our Healthcare costs. Naw. It would never work (according to the Republicans).

The Automobile industry, banking, home mortgage, and insurance industries are under firm Federal control or ownership.Due to lack of regulation. The financial industry lobbied hard to avoid regulation or credit default swaps, the main reason we are in this mess. The interest rates were kept too low for too long and helped inflate the bubble. The banks dove head first into sub-prime mortgages and further extended the bubble and the likelihood of massive failure of the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and necessitated the bailout. Some started in the late '90s but much of this fire was fanned during the Bush era.

As for the automobile industry, they and their lobbyists certainly had their way with the Republicans. K Street turned from a 50/50 split of Democrats and Republicans into a 100% Republican club during Bush. You think the automotive industry was the only group to bend the American people over and drive it home?

And the National debt is over three trillion dollars and rising faster than ever before.2/3rd of the current debt has been attributed to Bush and his policies, especially when you factor in the the tax credit for the rich. My $300 really did a lot of good. 2 visits to an AMP. Now, if I were rich, that would have been so much more and I could have used the same money for top shelf escorts, BMWs, and McMansions that waste more heat in one month than I use all year.

Dave Idaho

09-28-09, 19:10

All people like Agent61 knows about politics is what their Messiah (i.e. Rush Limbaugh) tells them. They don't even have opinions - they simply parrot everything Hillbilly Jesus says.

Bell Bottom

09-28-09, 23:51

By the way, I don't claim that Democrats are perfect. Both parties have good people and bad people. Those who thump their bibles and righteousness too much are far to suspect to be trusted. The main issue I have is that during the Bush fiasco, Republicans drifted so far to the right and lost their core beliefs. Much of the party was put in the position of either being for Bush or a Democrat. Just like much of the posts recently in this forum. Fact is that what's being done in Washington for the economy, healthcare, etc. Is needed. If the Republicans stop trying to make the Democrats look bad and actually try to do good for their constituents, this country could end up with some amazing legislation. Unfortunately, most of the party doesn't seem interesting in doing good for the country.

And for the record, I'm an independent.

It's amazing what expectations some people have and how little memory they have of the recent past. Bush got us into Iraq and after a "mission accomplished speech", let it all go further to hell. Iran was certainly less hard line about the West before Bush as was North Korea. Bush's little "Axis of Evil" speech really didn't do much to make them want to cooperate. As for Afghanistan, in 8 months it's unlikely we could make any significant inroads to a failed Bush era policy. Many of the Nato countries have pulled out or significantly reduced forces. They didn't do that during Obama's tenure.

It takes more than 8 months to clean up after all the mess the Republicans left.

Thank God Medicare, Medicaid and the prescription drug benefit (joke that it is) aren't socialized medicine. They certainly must have lowered the standard of living for all citizens. And lets not forget that most socialist of institutions. Social Security. We certainly don't want those in need to have some kind of alternative to eating cat food and living in cardboard boxes.

Maybe we should kick out ALL aliens, starting with the Spanish who came and plundered the Mayans and onward to the puritans, etc. Unless you are a Native American, you are an immigrant.

Anyway, why would we want to make legal a population that doesn't pay taxes, drives up the costs of Healthcare when they have no alternative but to visit emergency rooms (at 10x the cost of traditional doctor visits) and who currently mostly do the low end jobs that we won't do? Or maybe it would be a good thing to welcome in 30 million tax payers who could then leverage more preventive care options and so lower all our Healthcare costs. Naw. It would never work (according to the Republicans).

Due to lack of regulation. The financial industry lobbied hard to avoid regulation or credit default swaps, the main reason we are in this mess. The interest rates were kept too low for too long and helped inflate the bubble. The banks dove head first into sub-prime mortgages and further extended the bubble and the likelihood of massive failure of the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and necessitated the bailout. Some started in the late '90s but much of this fire was fanned during the Bush era.

As for the automobile industry, they and their lobbyists certainly had their way with the Republicans. K Street turned from a 50/50 split of Democrats and Republicans into a 100% Republican club during Bush. You think the automotive industry was the only group to bend the American people over and drive it home?

2/3rd of the current debt has been attributed to Bush and his policies, especially when you factor in the the tax credit for the rich. My $300 really did a lot of good. 2 visits to an AMP. Now, if I were rich, that would have been so much more and I could have used the same money for top shelf escorts, BMWs, and McMansions that waste more heat in one month than I use all year.

Roamin Roman

09-29-09, 01:38

And for the record, I'm an independent.In other words, he doesn't even have the guts to admit he's a fuckin' lib or a socialist (but I repeat myself).

Bell Bottom

09-29-09, 13:17

But I do have the guts to admit that neither party is correct. Based on your extremist point of view, you don't seem to have that capacity. So get a life and stop being a typical Republican (rude, disruptive, and unable to do anything but rubber stamp what Bush wants to shove down your throat).

In other words, he doesn't even have the guts to admit he's a fuckin' lib or a socialist (but I repeat myself).

Beereal

09-29-09, 16:00

Nine months into the Obama administration and the filthy, Socialist Democrats have managed to sack the treasury in a way that makes the corrupt, incompetent Republicans look like rank armatures..
Socialist? I only wish....we have the same capitalist criminals in charge that we've always had.

Iran has finally become a nuclear threat, Iraq is falling apart, Afghanistan will likely fall to the Taliban. It was that way under GWB

.

Socialized medicine is breathing down our necks, new taxes that have never been considered before will drain our economy and significantly lower the standard of living for all Americans Socialized medicine.....nope, what we have is another giveaway to big business. More money in the pocket of these criminal insurance companies.

.
Thirty million illegal aliens are poised to be granted amnesty and ruin the country forever Yawn.....in the meantime, the criminals on wall street are figuring out new and innovative ways to create imaginary wealth and scrape their share off the top before it all goes under. I'm more concerned with factories closing and jobs going overseas than I am about Mexicans coming here. But then again, I'm not afraid of brown folks.

.
The Automobile industry, banking, home mortgage, and insurance industries are under firm Federal control or ownership Yes, because thanks to Reaganomics and other policies which have allowed these companies to run themselves into the ground because of short term profit greed.

.
And the National debt is over three trillion dollars and rising faster than ever before Reagan and Bush pushed us over that cliff a long time ago, just because our decline is accelerating doesn't mean much.

I'm no fan of the Dems right now either. I think they're a bunch of lilly livered pussies who are afraid of their own shadow and that's why they can't get any real reform passed. I'm the first to admit that I miss GWB's arrogance. I wish Barack Obama had a little bit of that and would push some REAL reforms through. And that includes Medicare for all, and ending the pointless war on drugs. As well as the Wars in the middle east.

But to act like this mess we are in is all the fault of Barack Obama is just plain silly.

Beereal

09-29-09, 16:04

In other words, he doesn't even have the guts to admit he's a fuckin' lib or a socialist (but I repeat myself).

I do. I'm very leftist and I think we need MORE socialism in this country.

People just use the word socialism as a scare tactic. In their mind, it's 1982 and the cold war is still going on and we're still battling the "commies"

European countries who have become more socialist are kicking our ass right now in many areas. The economy, innovation, education, infrastructure....take your pick.

In the meantime, America continues to collapse under it's own weight. So sad. But at least we still have our guns and jesus. lol

Having Fun Too

09-29-09, 19:12

All people like Agent61 knows about politics is what their Messiah (i.e. Rush Limbaugh) tells them. They don't even have opinions - they simply parrot everything Hillbilly Jesus says.
They repeat everything these right wing radio bozos say without thinking. Do this make any sense? I bet you they just love little Annie C. And when all else fell let use some scare tatics. That is there only M.O. Like weapons of mass destruction or taxes, but it is all right to give money to big oil or any of there billionaire buddies. Oh I am sorry that is TRICKLE DOWN ECONMICS. Did you get your part of that?

Roamin Roman

09-30-09, 00:43

But I do have the guts to admit that neither party is correct.Wow, what guts! That must be real tough to admit, about as difficult as saying that the sun is yellow.
Based on your extremist point of view, you don't seem to have that capacity. So get a life and stop being a typical Republican (rude, disruptive, and unable to do anything but rubber stamp what Bush wants to shove down your throat).Hmmm. I've never stated whether my political affiliations are Democrat or Republican, so you sound like the rude extremist whose trying to shove his views down other peoples' throats.

Roamin Roman

09-30-09, 00:49

I do. I'm very leftist and I think we need MORE socialism in this country.

People just use the word socialism as a scare tactic. In their mind, it's 1982 and the cold war is still going on and we're still battling the "commies"

European countries who have become more socialist are kicking our ass right now in many areas. The economy, innovation, education, infrastructure. Take your pick.

In the meantime, America continues to collapse under it's own weight. So sad. But at least we still have our guns and jesus. LOLFrankly, I think you're some college kid who's trolling this site as part of his Political Studies coursework. I won't bother refuting your unformed thinking and uninformed views. Your ignorance speaks for itself. But, if you like socialism so much, why don't you move to one of those socialist utopias you admire so much and claim are "kicking our ass" in so many areas? Seems they could use and would welcome your wisdom.

Bell Bottom

09-30-09, 17:24

Am I "debating" with Rush Limbaugh? Only someone of his like would call a centrist an extremist and offer up some witty caustic sarcasm to cement matters in his own mind.

So Rush Roamin, you can comment all you want but your views are certainly far right of centrist. Maybe you aren't a Republican. There are certainly groups further right that that.

Wow, what guts! That must be real tough to admit, about as difficult as saying that the sun is yellow.Hmmm. I've never stated whether my political affiliations are Democrat or Republican, so you sound like the rude extremist whose trying to shove his views down other peoples' throats.

Beereal

09-30-09, 20:48

Frankly, I think you're some college kid who's trolling this site as part of his Political Studies coursework. I won't bother refuting your unformed thinking and uninformed views. Your ignorance speaks for itself. . Wow, you sure got me figured out. let me take a guess....while you're not cruising the strip, you're a professor at the Milton Friedman school of economics. Or maybe perhaps you're really Ben Bernanke. Or maybe even a State Senator....these days, that would not surprise me one bit.

But, if you like socialism so much, why don't you move to one of those socialist utopias you admire so much and claim are "kicking our ass" in so many areas? Seems they could use and would welcome your wisdom Ahhhhh Love it or leave it....how retro....lol

Bell Bottom

10-01-09, 15:23

From the source for this data:

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/010583.html

Interesting points:
- Maryland, New Hampshire and Connecticut had some of the lowest poverty rates in 2006. Mississippi and the District of Columbia had some of the highest.
- Among counties with 250,000 or more people in 2006, Hidalgo and Cameron counties in Texas had the highest proportions of people with income below the poverty level. On the other hand, Douglas County, Colo., and Loudoun County, Va., had among the lowest.

Lots of other facts presented. Short story is that, to equate poverty to any political party is absurd and simplistic. If we were to take this reading of facts to it's conclusion, then states such as Texas and Mississippi should have some of the lowest poverty levels and states such as Maryland, New Hampshire and Connecticut should have some of the highest. Poverty, crime and all sorts of other social ills have far more complex causes and cures than any party affiliation.

City, State, % of People Below the Poverty Level
1. Detroit, MI 32.5%
2. Buffalo, NY 29.9%
3. Cincinnati, OH 27.8%
4. Cleveland, OH 27.0%
5. Miami, FL 26.9%
5. St. Louis, MO 26.8%
7. El Paso, TX 26.4%
8. Milwaukee, WI 26.2%
9. Philadelphia, PA 25.1%
10. Newark, NJ 24.2%

U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 American Community Survey, August 2007 What do the top ten cities (over 250,000) with the highest poverty rate all have in common?

Detroit, MI (1st on the poverty rate list) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1961;

Buffalo, NY (2nd) hasn't elected one since 1954;

Cincinnati, OH (3rd)...since 1984;

Cleveland, OH (4th)...since 1989;

Miami, FL (5th) has never had a Republican mayor;

St. Louis, MO (6th)....since 1949;

El Paso , TX (7th) has never had a Republican mayor;

Milwaukee , WI (8th)...since 1908;

Philadelphia , PA (9th)...since 1952;

Newark , NJ (10th)...since 1907.

Einstein once said, 'The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.'

It is the poor who habitually elect Democrats---yet they are still POOR

"You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence. You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves."
Abraham Lincoln

A John

10-01-09, 15:41

Beereal

10-01-09, 17:36

11 years old and she DOESN'T have to use a teleprompter.

In fact I'm not sure she even has a script. Enjoy the speech. Now if only we could get our supposed leaders to Step-Up and take responsibility for their actions, Maybe, just Maybe, this young lady's speech can and will have some affect. Her name is...SARAH. And she is only 11 years old.

Your gonna love this young lady........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHieqM1hKsg

I was done with that video as soon as I heard her say "several months ago I heard Sarah Palin deliver an inspiring speech"

Sarah Palin....inspiring speech.....LMAO
Incoherent rambling is more like it.

Bell Bottom

10-01-09, 22:30

I can't help but wonder what her speech might have been if she were exposed to unbiased and fair reporting. Much of the right is closely linked with religion. Christianity. In the bible, Jesus never taught the close-mindedness that seems so prevalent in this kind of rhetoric. To coopt the bible to defend such narrowmindedness, hate and I'll will is antithetical to everything the bible teaches. For the general Republican party to pander so much to this element only speaks to their loss of core values and direction. They've latched onto something which seems to speak for their values but when the covers are pulled back, reveals the same fanatisism that resulted in the KKK, Jim Jones and countless others.

I do hope Republicans can regain their core values or we might end up like Iran and other religious extremist countries.

11 years old and she DOESN'T have to use a teleprompter.

In fact I'm not sure she even has a script. Enjoy the speech. Now if only we could get our supposed leaders to Step-Up and take responsibility for their actions, Maybe, just Maybe, this young lady's speech can and will have some affect. Her name is...SARAH. And she is only 11 years old.

Your gonna love this young lady........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHieqM1hKsg

Roamin Roman

10-01-09, 23:25

I was done with that video as soon as I heard her say "several months ago I heard Sarah Palin deliver an inspiring speech".I could hear the sound of the "slam" as your mind closed. What an "independent" guy you are.

Roamin Roman

10-01-09, 23:27

Am I "debating" with Rush Limbaugh? Only someone of his like would call a centrist an extremist and offer up some witty caustic sarcasm to cement matters in his own mind.

So Rush Roamin, you can comment all you want but your views are certainly far right of centrist. Maybe you aren't a Republican. There are certainly groups further right that that.Ah, shucks, you figured me out.

I disagree with you, ergo, I'm the extremist.

Glad we got that straightened out.

Bell Bottom

10-02-09, 07:25

Round and round and round we go. Well, call me whatever you want, believe whatever you want but you certainly aren't a Centrist. Your postings speak volumes.

So, anyway, I'm done with this because we'll just keep going posting drivel.

Here's a little clip which offers up my views on your attitude and my opinion of the far right. Funny but this clip would probably be band by the far right if they had their way (and yet they speak of their desire to protect the freedoms in the Constitution).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4QLyytswrA&feature=related

Ah, shucks, you figured me out.

I disagree with you, ergo, I'm the extremist.

Glad we got that straightened out.

LordBlackAdder

10-02-09, 10:42

Anyone notice that how in this hurricane season they global warming fanatics have not been claiming that man made global warming has made the hurricanes more frequent and severe this year?

Interpreting climate data can be hard enough. What if some key data have been fiddled?

By Patrick J. Michaels

Imagine if there were no reliable records of global surface temperature. Raucous policy debates such as cap-and-trade would have no scientific basis, Al Gore would at this point be little more than a historical footnote, and President Obama would not be spending this U.N. session talking up a (likely unattainable) international climate deal in Copenhagen in December.

Steel yourself for the new reality, because the data needed to verify the gloom-and-doom warming forecasts have disappeared.

Or so it seems. Apparently, they were either lost or purged from some discarded computer. Only a very few people know what really happened, and they arent talking much. And what little they are saying makes no sense.

In the early 1980s, with funding from the U.S. Department of Energy, scientists at the United Kingdoms University of East Anglia established the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) to produce the worlds first comprehensive history of surface temperature. Its known in the trade as the Jones and Wigley record for its authors, Phil Jones and Tom Wigley, and it served as the primary reference standard for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) until 2007. It was this record that prompted the IPCC to claim a discernible human influence on global climate.

Putting together such a record isnt at all easy. Weather stations werent really designed to monitor global climate. Long-standing ones were usually established at points of commerce, which tend to grow into cities that induce spurious warming trends in their records. Trees grow up around thermometers and lower the afternoon temperature. Further, as documented by the University of Colorados Roger Pielke Sr., many of the stations themselves are placed in locations, such as in parking lots or near heat vents, where artificially high temperatures are bound to be recorded.

So the weather data that go into the historical climate records that are required to verify models of global warming arent the original records at all. Jones and Wigley, however, werent specific about what was done to which station in order to produce their record, which, according to the IPCC, showed a warming of 0.6 +/- 0.2C in the 20th century.

Now begins the fun. Warwick Hughes, an Australian scientist, wondered where that +/- came from, so he politely wrote Phil Jones in early 2005, asking for the original data. Joness response to a fellow scientist attempting to replicate his work was, We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?

Reread that statement, for it is breathtaking in its anti-scientific thrust. In fact, the entire purpose of replication is to try and find something wrong. The ultimate objective of science is to do things so well that, indeed, nothing is wrong.

Then the story changed. In June 2009, Georgia Techs Peter Webster told Canadian researcher Stephen McIntyre that he had requested raw data, and Jones freely gave it to him. So McIntyre promptly filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the same data. Despite having been invited by the National Academy of Sciences to present his analyses of millennial temperatures, McIntyre was told that he couldnt have the data because he wasnt an academic. So his colleague Ross McKitrick, an economist at the University of Guelph, asked for the data. He was turned down, too.

Faced with a growing number of such requests, Jones refused them all, saying that there were confidentiality agreements regarding the data between CRU and nations that supplied the data. McIntyres blog readers then requested those agreements, country by country, but only a handful turned out to exist, mainly from Third World countries and written in very vague language.

Its worth noting that McKitrick and I had published papers demonstrating that the quality of land-based records is so poor that the warming trend estimated since 1979 (the first year for which we could compare those records to independent data from satellites) may have been overestimated by 50 percent. Webster, who received the CRU data, published studies linking changes in hurricane patterns to warming (while others have found otherwise).

Enter the dog that ate global warming.

Roger Pielke Jr., an esteemed professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, then requested the raw data from Jones. Jones responded:

Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e., quality controlled and homogenized) data.

The statement about data storage is balderdash. They got the records from somewhere. The files went onto a computer. All of the original data could easily fit on the 9-inch tape drives common in the mid-1980s. I had all of the worlds surface barometric pressure data on one such tape in 1979.

If we are to believe Joness note to the younger Pielke, CRU adjusted the original data and then lost or destroyed them over twenty years ago. The letter to Warwick Hughes may have been an outright lie. After all, Peter Webster received some of the data this year. So the question remains: What was destroyed or lost, when was it destroyed or lost, and why?

All of this is much more than an academic spat. It now appears likely that the U.S. Senate will drop cap-and-trade climate legislation from its docket this fall whereupon the Obama Environmental Protection Agency is going to step in and issue regulations on carbon-dioxide emissions. Unlike a law, which cant be challenged on a scientific basis, a regulation can. If there are no data, theres no science. U.S. taxpayers deserve to know the answer to the question posed above.

Patrick J. Michaels is a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and author of Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Dont Want You to Know.

Beereal

10-02-09, 11:53

I could hear the sound of the "slam" as your mind closed. What an "independent" guy you are.

I have never claimed to be independent. I am a leftist. Plain and simple.

And Sarah Palin is a moonbat. Plain and simple.

Bell Bottom

10-02-09, 21:50

Not so sure your source for discrediting climate change is quite up to scrutiny.
Especially interesting is the "Critics" section quoted below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Michaels (and while Wikipedia is certainly not the most authoritative of sources, I put forth that it is more accurate than Patrick Michaels)

The Pacific Institute has noted that several prominent scientists have criticized Michaels' research conclusions:

John Holdren, now Science Advisor to President Barack Obama, told the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee, "Michaels is another of the handful of U.S. climate-change contrarians... He has published little if anything of distinction in the professional literature, being noted rather for his shrill op-ed pieces and indiscriminate denunciations of virtually every finding of mainstream climate science."

Climate scientist Tom Wigley, a lead author of parts of the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is quoted in Ross Gelbspan's book The Heat is On: "Michaels' statements on [the subject of computer models] are a catalog of misrepresentation and misinterpretation… Many of the supposedly factual statements made in Michaels' testimony are either inaccurate or are seriously misleading."

Peter Gleick, a conservation analyst and president of the Oakland-based Pacific Institute, said: "Pat Michaels is not one of the nation's leading researchers on climate change. On the contrary, he is one of a very small minority of nay-sayers who continue to dispute the facts and science about climate change in the face of compelling, overwhelming, and growing evidence."

Anyone notice that how in this hurricane season they global warming fanatics have not been claiming that man made global warming has made the hurricanes more frequent and severe this year?

Interpreting climate data can be hard enough. What if some key data have been fiddled?

By Patrick J. Michaels

Imagine if there were no reliable records of global surface temperature. Raucous policy debates such as cap-and-trade would have no scientific basis, Al Gore would at this point be little more than a historical footnote, and President Obama would not be spending this U.N. session talking up a (likely unattainable) international climate deal in Copenhagen in December.

A John

10-03-09, 10:42

http://www.yourfilehost.com/media.php?cat=video&file=Schooling_Obama.wmv

LordBlackAdder

10-06-09, 11:27

Even if his credentials are in dispute by some, the fact that the data being used to predict dire consequnces is not being made available to anyone who has a legitimate use for it. I have also seen reports that the stations where data has been collected has had some questionable positioning. One collection station that had been in the wild when it was built had civilization move up to it and there was a picture of a big AC unit that had been built next to it blowing hot air on it and mysteriously the year after the AC unit went in the temperature in that area went up dramatically in the summer.

Not so sure your source for discrediting climate change is quite up to scrutiny.
Especially interesting is the "Critics" section quoted below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Michaels (and while Wikipedia is certainly not the most authoritative of sources, I put forth that it is more accurate than Patrick Michaels)

The Pacific Institute has noted that several prominent scientists have criticized Michaels' research conclusions:

John Holdren, now Science Advisor to President Barack Obama, told the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee, "Michaels is another of the handful of U.S. climate-change contrarians... He has published little if anything of distinction in the professional literature, being noted rather for his shrill op-ed pieces and indiscriminate denunciations of virtually every finding of mainstream climate science."

Climate scientist Tom Wigley, a lead author of parts of the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is quoted in Ross Gelbspan's book The Heat is On: "Michaels' statements on [the subject of computer models] are a catalog of misrepresentation and misinterpretation… Many of the supposedly factual statements made in Michaels' testimony are either inaccurate or are seriously misleading."

Peter Gleick, a conservation analyst and president of the Oakland-based Pacific Institute, said: "Pat Michaels is not one of the nation's leading researchers on climate change. On the contrary, he is one of a very small minority of nay-sayers who continue to dispute the facts and science about climate change in the face of compelling, overwhelming, and growing evidence."

LordBlackAdder

10-06-09, 11:31

Not everyone overseas thinks Obama is the greatest thing since cheese dip. Here is an editorial from the Telegraph (UK Daily newspaper):

Barak Obama and the CIA: Why does President Pantywaist hate America so badly?

If al-Qaeda, the Taliban and the rest of the Looney Tunes brigade want to kick America to death, they had better move in quickly and grab a piece of the action before Barack Obama finishes the job himself. Never in the history of the United States has a president worked so actively against the interests of his own people - not even Jimmy Carter.

Obama's problem is that he does not know who the enemy is. To him, the enemy does not squat in caves in Waziristan, clutching automatic weapons and reciting the more militant verses from the Koran: instead, it sits around at tea parties in Kentucky quoting from the US Constitution. Obama is not at war with terrorists, but with his Republican fellow citizens. He has never abandoned the campaign trail.

That is why he opened Pandora's Box by publishing the Justice Department's legal opinions on waterboarding and other hardline interrogation techniques. He cynically subordinated the national interest to his partisan desire to embarrass the Republicans. Then he had to rush to Langley , Virginia to try to reassure a demoralized CIA that had just discovered the President of the United States was an even more formidable foe than al-Qaeda.

"Don't be discouraged by what's happened the last few weeks," he told intelligence officers. Is he kidding? Thanks to him, al-Qaeda knows the private interrogation techniques available to the US intelligence agencies and can train its operatives to withstand them - or would do so, if they had not already been outlawed.

So, next time a senior al-Qaeda hood is captured, all the CIA can do is ask him nicely if he would care to reveal when a major population centre is due to be hit by a terror spectacular, or which American city is about to be irradiated by a dirty bomb.

Your view of this situation will be dictated by one simple criterion: whether or not you watched the people jumping from the twin towers.

President Pantywaist's recent world tour, cozying up to all the bad guys, excited the ambitions of America's enemies. Here, they realized, is a sucker they can really take to the cleaners.

His only enemies are fellow Americans.

Which prompts the question: Why does President Pantywaist hate America so badly?

Gerald Warner

A John

10-06-09, 21:40

Bell Bottom

10-06-09, 22:35

It's called Diplomacy. As China is our primary debt holder, our primary trading partner and pretty much has us by the balls, it certainly doesn't help to do something which will guarantee a negative response. If you have an alternative that would not insult China and also allow the Dalai Lama to visit, please elaborate. Maybe we should call them the 4th member of the Axis of Evil.

I certainly do not consider China or Russia to be bastions of freedom. Quite the contrary, both countries seem to have institutionalized cyber-crime and are the 2 primary sources of all malware, hacking and cyber-espionage. Keep an open dialog but trust them as much as I trust Dick Cheney with a gun.

wondering what all of my free Tibet Liberal friends think about President Obama not allowing the Dalhai Lama to visit the White House all the while criticizing the bush administration for participating in the Bejing Olympics.

Roamin Roman

10-07-09, 00:47

wondering what all of my free Tibet Liberal friends think about President Obama not allowing the Dalhai Lama to visit the White House all the while criticizing the bush administration for participating in the Bejing Olympics. It's likely all of a piece with this kid's other actions regarding our traditional friends and allies. Recall that The Annointed One went out of his way to dis' the Brits, when he sent back the statue/bust of Winston Churchill that they'd given us following 9/11. Instead of merely sending it over to the Smithsonian, BHO called the British ambassador to come retrieve it. Also recall that B. Hussein's first interview with the foreign media was the one he gave to Al "Jizz"-eera. And recall that, after the Poles and Czechs had agreed to host missle defense systems that George W. Bush had promised them, the Community Organizer in Chief pulled the rug out from under these two valuable allies by cancelling the missle defense systems (after that system had demonstrably proven its effectiveness, too).

Leftists (as opposed to Democrats, though there's often not much difference between the two animals these days) have always hated the America as the Founding Fathers constituted it. It's really not too surprising, though, if one looks at the history of the Party of the Ass (Mule). Democrats were the ones that supported slavery and eventually broke from the rest of the country back in 1860. They were the ones who gave this country its first Fascist president (Woodrow Wilson). They were the ones who gave us "separate but equal" in schools. They're the ones who implemented America's first socialist programs (Social Security, Medicaire, Medicaid) and instituted massive growth in the size of the federal government under FDR and LBJ. They were the ones who fought against the Civil Rights Amendment. They are the ones who gave away the Panama Canal. They are the ones who gave us (first) Global Cooling and (later) Global Warming and want to wreck the USA Economy. They are the ones who always call for unilateral disarmament, under the naive expectation that other nations (especially those who are our sworn enemies) will simply follow suit. And they're the ones who always want to apologize to our enemies for America's alleged "criminal behavior" (or some such nonsense).

Is it any wonder that the last three Democrat presidents this country has been "blessed" with have been Jimbo Carter, Slick Willie Clinton, and B. Hussein Obama? If that's the best that a once-great national political party can offer, then we are truly in trouble. Nothing short of a massive political enema for the Democrat Party will solve its problems.

Roamin Roman

10-07-09, 01:11

Your view of this situation will be dictated by one simple criterion: whether or not you watched the people jumping from the twin towers.Yes, those images are burned into my memory and are still vivid today: our fellow citizens, choosing to jump to their deaths instead of burning to death in a dying building.

But, Michelle and Barack Hussein Obama. Mmm mmm mmm. Want you to know how much they "sacrificed" by travelling to Copenhagen this past week. Oh, yes, they really suffered. It makes one wonder about the next time they're going to "suffer." Probably when Michelle has a desire to go shopping in Paris again. (Meanwhile, the bodies of those who jumped out of the World Trade Center towers seem, at best, a mere afterthought to these two. FYI, about 200 people jumped to their deaths that day. I wonder if either of our First Couple give much thought to that while they're busy planning to take away our healthcare, our earnings, our guns, and our liberties.)

Bell Bottom

10-07-09, 07:52

To equate one with the other is beyond idiotic. As for taking "away our healthcare, our earnings, our guns and our liberties", these are all accusations which have absolutely no basis in reality.

Keep drinking the electric kool-aide, compliments of Jim Jones.

Yes, those images are burned into my memory and are still vivid today: our fellow citizens, choosing to jump to their deaths instead of burning to death in a dying building.

But, Michelle and Barack Hussein Obama. Mmm mmm mmm. Want you to know how much they "sacrificed" by travelling to Copenhagen this past week. Oh, yes, they really suffered. It makes one wonder about the next time they're going to "suffer." Probably when Michelle has a desire to go shopping in Paris again. (Meanwhile, the bodies of those who jumped out of the World Trade Center towers seem, at best, a mere afterthought to these two. FYI, about 200 people jumped to their deaths that day. I wonder if either of our First Couple give much thought to that while they're busy planning to take away our healthcare, our earnings, our guns, and our liberties.)

Bell Bottom

10-07-09, 12:12

It's likely all of a piece with this kid's other actions regarding our traditional friends and allies. Recall that The Annointed One went out of his way to dis' the Brits, when he sent back the statue/bust of Winston Churchill that they'd given us following 9/11. Instead of merely sending it over to the Smithsonian, BHO called the British ambassador to come retrieve it.The bust was a loaner from Tony Blair. He isn't in power anymore and as all President's redecorate, it was not needed. Should he have kept it and shoved it in the closet? We don't own it. Did I mention it was on loan? What did he replace it with? A bust of Abraham Lincoln. Another commie pinko.

Also recall that B. Hussein's first interview with the foreign media was the one he gave to Al "Jizz"-eera.So, we shouldn't try to open dialog with the moderate Muslim world? Isn't that from the GWB book of diplomacy? "The Idiot's Guide to Diplomacy or How to Piss Everyone Off and Dis your Allies"

And recall that, after the Poles and Czechs had agreed to host missle defense systems that George W. Bush had promised them, the Community Organizer in Chief pulled the rug out from under these two valuable allies by cancelling the missle defense systems (after that system had demonstrably proven its effectiveness, too).

Lots of fun missile defense facts. Especially interesting is the section on "Technical criticism"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_missile_defense

The "system is operational with limited capability".

"A limited number of interceptor missiles (about 10) are operational as of 2006. These would possibly be later augmented by mid-course SM-4 interceptors fired from Navy ships and by boost-phase interception by the Boeing YAL-1."

The only successful test, in 2006 "was described by Missile Defense Agency director Lieutenant General Trey Obering as "about as close as we can come to an end-to-end test of our long-range missile defense system." The target missile carried no decoys or other countermeasures."

"in April 2007 57% of Poles opposed the plan".

"67% Czechs disagree and only about 15% support it"

GWB placing them in Eastern Europe certainly provoked the Russians and at present, their country isn't exactly business friendly (my company can attest to that). So, again it's called diplomacy. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

Leftists (as opposed to Democrats, though there's often not much difference between the two animals these days)And Republicans are all right wing extremist gun nuts. Please stop painting pictures that are so black and white. It is so inaccurate and is truly pathetic.

have always hated the America as the Founding Fathers constituted it. It's really not too surprising, though, if one looks at the history of the Party of the Ass (Mule). Democrats were the ones that supported slavery and eventually broke from the rest of the country back in 1860. They were the ones who gave this country its first Fascist president (Woodrow Wilson). They were the ones who gave us "separate but equal" in schools. They're the ones who implemented America's first socialist programs (Social Security, Medicaire, Medicaid) and instituted massive growth in the size of the federal government under FDR and LBJ. They were the ones who fought against the Civil Rights Amendment. They are the ones who gave away the Panama Canal. They are the ones who gave us (first) Global Cooling and (later) Global Warming and want to wreck the USA Economy. They are the ones who always call for unilateral disarmament, under the naive expectation that other nations (especially those who are our sworn enemies) will simply follow suit. And they're the ones who always want to apologize to our enemies for America's alleged "criminal behavior" (or some such nonsense). Is it any wonder that the last three Democrat presidents this country has been "blessed" with have been Jimbo Carter, Slick Willie Clinton, and B. Hussein Obama? If that's the best that a once-great national political party can offer, then we are truly in trouble. Nothing short of a massive political enema for the Democrat Party will solve its problems.Are you serious? That's psychotic. Even GWB asked Clinton to be a Special Envoy along with his own father. GWB himself has the diplomacy skills of a child with a slingshot. Clinton got peace in Ireland and nearly had peace in Israel and Palestine but GWB truly screwed that pooch. Carter has done more to promote peace and understanding in his lifetime than GWB could achieve in 10 lifetimes (100 for Cheney).

As for the rest or that, pure drivel. To say any party is like it's fore-bearers, especially from centuries ago, is idiotic. In that vein, I offer the following as proof that the Republicans are all all serial killers, pedophiles, and deviants:

http://republicanfreeamerica.********.com/2006/10/republican-pedophiles-deviants-and.html - change *** to blog spot

http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/laura.asp

http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/laura.asp

http://guntotingliberal.com/?p=1777

http://groups.google.com*******alt.politics/browse_thread/thread/0954b304d5c89201 - change *** to /group

PusshyHunter

10-07-09, 15:31

What do you expect Roamin Roman is a nut!

Take away our healthcare come on.

Roamin Roman

10-07-09, 19:12

Do you get the feeling we've struck a nerve with that unwiped Bottom? I do say, something appears to have pricked his bubble, the poor boy. Of course, while he's typing his rants and trying oh-so-hard to refute hard facts with his websites, it means he's off the streets where he'd otherwise likely be bothering interesting women. Not that he'd offer much competition, at any rate, I suspect.

Beereal

10-07-09, 21:01

The bust was a loaner from Tony Blair. He isn't in power anymore and as all President's redecorate, it was not needed. Should he have kept it and shoved it in the closet? We don't own it. Did I mention it was on loan? What did he replace it with? A bust of Abraham Lincoln. Another commie pinko.

So, we shouldn't try to open dialog with the moderate Muslim world? Isn't that from the GWB book of diplomacy? The Idiot's Guide to Diplomacy. Or How to Piss Everyone Off and Dis your Allies"

Lots of fun missile defense facts. Especially interesting is the section on "Technical criticism"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_missile_defense

The "system is operational with limited capability".

"A limited number of interceptor missiles (about 10) are operational as of 2006. These would possibly be later augmented by mid-course SM-4 interceptors fired from Navy ships and by boost-phase interception by the Boeing YAL-1."

The only successful test, in 2006 "was described by Missile Defense Agency director Lieutenant General Trey Obering as "about as close as we can come to an end-to-end test of our long-range missile defense system." The target missile carried no decoys or other countermeasures."

"in April 2007 57% of Poles opposed the plan".

"67% Czechs disagree and only about 15% support it"

GWB placing them in Eastern Europe certainly provoked the Russians and at present, their country isn't exactly business friendly (my company can attest to that). So, again it's called diplomacy. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

And Republicans are all right wing extremist gun nuts. Please stop painting pictures that are so black and white. It is so inaccurate and is truly pathetic.

Are you serious? That's psychotic. Even GWB asked Clinton to be a Special Envoy along with his own father. GWB himself has the diplomacy skills of a child with a slingshot. Clinton got peace in Ireland and nearly had peace in Israel and Palestine but GWB truly screwed that pooch. Carter has done more to promote peace and understanding in his lifetime than GWB could achieve in 10 lifetimes (100 for Cheney).

As for the rest or that, pure drivel. To say any party is like it's fore-bearers, especially from centuries ago, is idiotic. In that vein, I offer the following as proof that the Republicans are all all serial killers, pedophiles, and deviants:

http://republicanfreeamerica.********.com/2006/10/republican-pedophiles-deviants-and.html

http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/laura.asp

http://pushybottom.********.com/2005/12/republican-killer-korner-ted-bundy.html

http://guntotingliberal.com/?p=1777

You'll never get anywhere with people like Black Adder and Roman.

Their hatred of "Hussein" Obama runs so deep that they cannot see anything else. GWB did more to crush their liberties than any president in recent history, but they choose to ignore that.

The Daily show had a great bit monday night that was showing some conference on "American Values" in which the participants actually cheered when they heard that Chicago(America) had lost the olympic bid.

Jon Stewart put it best, "Conservatives" hate Obama more than they love America.

Bell Bottom

10-07-09, 21:55

You'll never get anywhere with people like Black Adder and Roman.

Their hatred of "Hussein" Obama runs so deep that they cannot see anything else. GWB did more to crush their liberties than any president in recent history, but they choose to ignore that.

The Daily show had a great bit monday night that was showing some conference on "American Values" in which the participants actually cheered when they heard that Chicago(America) had lost the olympic bid.

Jon Stewart put it best, "Conservatives" hate Obama more than they love America.Sad but true. Some people will never see the light.

Roamin Roman

10-08-09, 00:12

You dimwitted blockheads who see Barack Obama as a benevolent leader are sadly misinformed.

Our president wants to federalize the internet and regulate everything you see and read there.

If it walks like a Marxist, talks like a Marxist, hangs out with known Marxist and promotes Marxist policies,,then it's a fukin Marxist! And I don't mean Groucho and Harpo.You did say it right with the "dimwitted blockheads" part, but your last sentence should have read something like this:
"If it demagogues like a Marxist, misappropriates property like a Marxist, grabs guns like a Marxist, and praises murderers and dictators like a Marxist, then it's a fuggin' Marxist."

Folks like BeePhoney and Unwiped Bottom are part of what Josef Stalin referred to as Useful Idiots. They're bad enough when their "heroes" are out of power, but when their guys are in power: Watch out! They like to sling accusations about as to how cruel and heartless conservatives and Republicans are. But at least our guys weren't the ones who were carrying Mao's Little Red Book, cheering for our soldiers to lose in Vietnam, spitting on returning vets, praising Fidel Castro (like Jimmy Carter still does), working for the murderous Black Panthers (like Hilary Rodham did), bombing the Pentagon and the Capitol (like Barak's friends, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, did), or co-founding separatist groups like the Black Panthers (as Obama's friend, Bobby Rush, now a liberal DEMOCRAT member of Congress).

They have enough blood on their hands to drown in. Their ignorance speaks for itself, and they parade it around for all to see. So, let them continue to rant and rave. In that sense, they still serve as examples, of a sort, for others to see and learn.

Bell Bottom

10-08-09, 07:08

And there's more of that objective, honest assessment of reality, mixed in with complimnets and praise for those of differing ideas.

I can thank GOD that your attitude doesn't represent the core of the Republican party. In my dealings in politics, it's dreck like this that exposes the worst extremist elements of the right (wrong).

Have a Happy Thursday, mister Serial Killer, Pedophile, murdering Mo-man Roman

By the way, wasn't one of the reasons the Roman empire fell due to a decline of family values and a significant increase in homosexuality?

You did say it right with the "dimwitted blockheads" part, but your last sentence should have read something like this:
"If it demagogues like a Marxist, misappropriates property like a Marxist, grabs guns like a Marxist, and praises murderers and dictators like a Marxist, then it's a fuggin' Marxist."

Folks like BeePhoney and Unwiped Bottom are part of what Josef Stalin referred to as Useful Idiots. They're bad enough when their "heroes" are out of power, but when their guys are in power: Watch out! They like to sling accusations about as to how cruel and heartless conservatives and Republicans are. But at least our guys weren't the ones who were carrying Mao's Little Red Book, cheering for our soldiers to lose in Vietnam, spitting on returning vets, praising Fidel Castro (like Jimmy Carter still does), working for the murderous Black Panthers (like Hilary Rodham did), bombing the Pentagon and the Capitol (like Barak's friends, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, did), or co-founding separatist groups like the Black Panthers (as Obama's friend, Bobby Rush, now a liberal DEMOCRAT member of Congress).

They have enough blood on their hands to drown in. Their ignorance speaks for itself, and they parade it around for all to see. So, let them continue to rant and rave. In that sense, they still serve as examples, of a sort, for others to see and learn.

Beereal

10-08-09, 09:07

Notice how they keep citing Karl Marx and Joseph Stalin.

They're still living in the past and fighting the commies.

The cold war will never end with these guys, they'll continue to peek under their American Flag covers lookin for the Ruskies before they tuck themselves in and listen to Ronald Reagan bedtime stories.

It's also telling how they keep calling me bephony and refering to you as unwiped bottom. They have no real argument so they have to resort to childish taunts to make their point.

It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

Bell Bottom

10-08-09, 17:54

Dear Bored Gack Bladder and Moanin' Mo-man,

We are all thankful that you do not represent anything remotely resembling Republicans. Please keep the twisted lies, misrepresentations and delusions coming. It certainly proves how demented a right-wing extremist can be. I will find it most amusing when, in the future, you find yourself in need of some socialist medicine, you will ONLY be able to thank the Democrats for persevering.

What's amusing is that you both are continually on the attack. We respond with the facts and you, in turn, insult. Please feel free to do whatever you feel is appropriate and thank a Democrat that we don't try and take away your civil liberties, don't authorize warrant-less wiretaps on the entire country, etc. Will you ever own up to facts such as these?

You know, it's just not worth the effort with you nippleheads. You're like a crocodile with a bad tooth. If we try to help, you bite us.

Do you get the feeling we've struck a nerve with that unwiped Bottom? I do say, something appears to have pricked his bubble, the poor boy. Of course, while he's typing his rants and trying oh-so-hard to refute hard facts with his websites, it means he's off the streets where he'd otherwise likely be bothering interesting women. Not that he'd offer much competition, at any rate, I suspect.

Bell Bottom

10-08-09, 18:17

Quoting anything from Fox News is like quoting from the right-wing bible. As for the CNET story, do you have any idea what you're talking about? I do. I deal with network security for a living and know a great deal more about what's happening out there than you see in any news. The article has nothing to do with censorship, monitoring the public or regulating anything we see. It's about protecting the USA in the event of cyber warfare. Look at what happened to Georgia during the conflict with Russia. You think we can stand up to a full frontal or any kind of cyber-assault? No. Between China and Russia, we are wide open to corporate and governmental espionage. If you have better ideas about how to start building our defenses up, you should join up. Otherwise, best to stop talking out your dick.

As for the rest of your comments, pure crap. It was the republicans, via the FCC, who were trying to take away Net Neutrality. It was GWB who authorized illegal warrant-less wiretaps that monitored almost all calls to and from the USA. It was GWB and Dick-head Cheney who exercised the most secrecy of any presidency. I doubt they could have stood up to any form of transparency. It was Dick-head Cheney who outed an undercover CIA agent in an attempt to discredit one person with quite accurate information disproving some claims by the Bush administration as grounds to go to war.

Your accusations are best directed back and your heros.

You dimwitted blockheads who see Barack Obama as a benevolent leader are sadly misinformed.

Our president wants to federalize the internet and regulate everything you see and read there.

If it walks like a Marxist, talks like a Marxist, hangs out with known Marxist and promotes Marxist policies,,then it's a fukin Marxist! And I don't mean Groucho and Harpo.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/10/05/phil-kerpen-obama-internet-czar-acorn/

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html

Beereal

10-08-09, 19:44

They are saying it will pass. It does not have any chance of not passing. I would check the white house website for information on it. They have a few of his speeches on health care and other issues.

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid great also. The other people they have on TV are mouthpieces for Obama.

Democrats are far ahead in 2010 at this time.

I have to admit, I'm seriously disapointed in Obama and the Dems regarding the status of healthcare reform.

I'm in favor of medicare for all, plain and simple. Fuck the insurance companies. They deserve to go under just like those criminal investment firms on Wall Street. They can go back to insuring cars and homes.

This bill that REQUIRES Americans to have insurance is a load of shit.

And for Obama to make the comparison to also being required to have car insurance is an insult to my intelligence.

Obama to me is no leftist. He's a typical modern capitalist. I'm all in favor of capitalism the way we used to have it. When we actually built things in this country. But this modern Wall Street version of capitalism that is all about credit default swaps, derrivatives, and moving jobs overseas, is poison. These things add absolutely no value to our GDP and in the end only serves to drive prices up for the rest of us.

Yes, if you're lucky enough to be an investor, I'm sure credit default swaps are the bees knees. And some people make a kings ransom, but it's still a scheme that is has helped to destroy the economy.

Bell Bottom

10-08-09, 22:20

Beereal

10-09-09, 11:32

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy

The term "McCarthyism," coined in 1950 in reference to McCarthy's practices ... is used [more] generally to describe demagogic, reckless, and unsubstantiated accusations, as well as public attacks on the character or patriotism of political opponents.

Who on this board does this best describe?

LordBlackAdder?
Roamin Roman?
A John?
Agent61?

They were using the same tactic when GWB was the prez.

If you dared to question his war policy, you were giving aid and comfort to the enemy. If you questioned his "anything goes" economic policy, you were branded a socialist marxist communist.

I also find it funny when these people cite 9/11 and act all outraged about it. Yet, they are very quick to dismiss people living in places like NYC as elitist liberals who are out of touch with "Real Americans"

Fact is, as bad as 9/11 was, it's minute compared to the strife that other countries in the world have seen throughout recent history and even to this day.

Beereal

10-09-09, 13:54

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009104108/anything-goes-capitalism-destroys-companies-and-workers-lives

Bell Bottom

10-09-09, 14:10

The world is starting to turn around and see a United States that's respectable and honorable. In 9 months, Obama has achieved something that only 3 sitting presidents (4 total) have ever achieved - being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

The criteria for the award: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Peace_Prize

According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize should be awarded "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

A rather auspicious crowd he's now in:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_Peace_Prize_laureates

It's interesting that the committee awarded Jimmy Carter in 2002 and Al Gore in 2007. They seem to be sending a message to GWB and Dick-head Cheney.

And now, we can all look forward to all the right-wing extremists' commentary. I'm sure it will be "good".

Bell Bottom

10-09-09, 14:33

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009104108/anything-goes-capitalism-destroys-companies-and-workers-livesIt's funny how Republican's argue for "small" government and less regulation. It goes back to the concept of the "Captains of Industry" and the idea that they (the Captains) will work to the best interests of industry, ensuring the perpetuation of that industry and so benefiting the workforce. Certainly they haven't to date demonstrated this with their exploding salaries (while laying people off and sending jobs overseas).

It's clear that "small" government doesn't work. I suggest it's not small government that matters but EFFECTIVE government. Effective implies that those in government actually work for the people. Helping industry will also help people but the focus absolutely has to be on government of the people, by the people, for the people. Partisan politics is not effective government and is the worst example of government [not] at work.

Regulation of industry needs to be effective so as to ensure corporate viability and reasonable profitability but also ensure that they don't bend the public over and gang rape them.

Let's hope that Republicans can move beyond their current road blocking efforts and try to work with Democrats to actually accomplish good healthcare, regulation of industry, etc.

Bell Bottom

10-09-09, 21:35

I'm guessing that the typical response to my posts today from our extremist friends will be something along the lines of:

PusshyHunter

10-10-09, 10:20

Roamin Roman

10-11-09, 04:48

President Barack Hussein Obama was awarded the Nobel peace prize for being a PUSSY...!

And the Socialist that are the Nobel Prize committee are sending a signal to Obama and the world that they like having a little Socialist pansy pacifist pussy for an American President..... :DPresident Pantywaist sure is a big hit with the Euroweenies. As for the Nobel Prize, well, consider that past recipients include Carter ("as punishment to President Bush"), Arafat (for hating the Jews so the Euroweenies wouldn't have to), Gore ("for contributing so much hot air to 'global warming'), and a host of other "worthies."

The prize has become a joke, as this year's award amply demonstrates.

LordBlackAdder

10-11-09, 14:10

No one has really said what exactly it is that Obama has done to get the award. He even alluded to this fact himsef in his acceptance speech.

Both T. Roosevelt and Wilson were in their second terms when they were awarded the peace prize. It was given to Roosevelt since he helped end a war and was given to Wilson for forming the Leaqgue of Nations (which wound up failing). Even Al Gore could point to his movie about his new religion (man made global warming) and point to it as something he had done. Even if you don't agree with the film, he made it and it is an accomplishment.

As far as Obama goes he did nothing that I am aware of to promote world peace in his time as a community organizer, as an Illinois Senator, as a US Senator and was only on the job as US President for 11 days when the nominations for the prize were due on 1 Feb. Highlights of that time from Obama's presidency:

January 20: Sworn in as president. Went to a parade. Partied.

January 21: Asked bureaucrats to re-write guidelines for information
requests. Held an open house party at the White House.

January 22: Signed Executive Orders: Executive Branch workers to take
ethics pledge; re-affirmed Army Field Manual techniques for
interrogations; expressed desire to close Gitmo (how's that worked out)

January 23: Ordered the release of federal funding to pay for abortions
in foreign countries. Lunch with Joe Biden; met with Tim Geithner.

January 24: Budget meeting with economic team.

January 25: Skipped church.

January 26: Gave speech about jobs and energy. Met with Hillary Clinton.
Attended Geithner's swearing in ceremony.

January 27: Met with Republicans. Spoke at a clock tower in Ohio.

January 28: Economic meetings in the morning, met with Defense secretary
in the afternoon.

January 29: Signed Ledbetter Bill overturning Supreme Court decision on
lawsuits over wages. Party in the State Room. Met with Biden.

January 30: Met economic advisers. Gave speech on Middle Class Working
Families Task Force. Met with senior enlisted military officials.

January 31: Took the day off.

February 1: Skipped church. Threw a Super Bowl party.

So there you have it. The short path to the Nobel Peace Prize: Party, go
to meetings, skip church, release federal funding to pay for abortions
in foreign countries, party some more.

One of the reasons that some people overseas are so enamoured by Obama is that the United States has for some time been the world's largest economy and has the world's largest and most advanced military. There is a certain amount of jealously in other nations about this. In much the same way that baseball fans outside of New York like to see the Yankees loose or Mac users like it when bugs in Windows are made public, people in other parts of the world like it when they see the United States is taken down a rung or two and know that Obama is the man to do that.

He wants to get rid of nuclear weapons. This on the surface appears to be an admireable goal. But if you think it through theyhave actually been responsible for keeping wide spread wars from breaking out. Nuclear weapons have only been used once, by the US to end a war. Someting many claim saved many lives on both sides of the war by putting an immediate end to it. We also git to see first hand how bad they were.

Since then there have been no nuclear weapons used in hostilities (testing has also stopped in the countires that have them as far as I know). There has also never been a war fought between two countries that have nuclear weapons. Since Pakistan and India obtained them troubles between the two nations have always cooled down before actaul armed conflict started up. Because each fears the other's nuclear weapons could be used on them.

Of course this logic may not work on Iran if they ever get one since they have vowed to destory Isreal and many Muslims seem to like the idea of suicide, as exemplified by the events of Sep 11 2001.

I have also heard unconfirmed reports that after receiving the prize Obama celebrated by decalring war on the moon and bombing it. Be also hopes to pick up a few more Nobel prizes. The one for literature for his auobiographies (those have been out for awhile so why has not he won before now), the one in medicine for his healthcare plan and the one in economics for turning a downturn in the market around with his stimulous bailout programme. Although inside sources say this one may be the hardest to get since they expect it to be a close one between Obama and Bernie Madoff.

The world is starting to turn around and see a United States that's respectable and honorable. In 9 months, Obama has achieved something that only 3 sitting presidents (4 total) have ever achieved - being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

The criteria for the award: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Peace_Prize

According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize should be awarded "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

A rather auspicious crowd he's now in:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_Peace_Prize_laureates

It's interesting that the committee awarded Jimmy Carter in 2002 and Al Gore in 2007. They seem to be sending a message to GWB and Dick-head Cheney.

And now, we can all look forward to all the right-wing extremists' commentary. I'm sure it will be "good".

Bell Bottom

10-11-09, 22:34

Bored Gack Bladder has a point (up to a point). Moanin Mo-man isn't even worth addressing as it's nothing but bitter bile.

I also do not consider it completely appropriate for Obama to get the prize this year. He still has much to do. He has, however, gotten more dialog out of the rest of the world in the first 9 months than we've had in the past 8 years. Not since 9/11, has the world been more in tune with the USA. George took that political capital and invaded the wrong country.

One of the reasons that some people overseas are so enamoured by Obama is that the United States has for some time been the world's largest economy and has the world; s largest and most advanced military. There is a certain ammount of jealously in other nations about this. In much the same way that baseball fans outside of New york like to see the Yankees fail or Mac users like it when bugs in Windows are made public, people in other parts of the world like it when they see the United States is taken down a rung or two and know that Obama is the man to do that.You don't know much about sentiment for the USA in other countries, do you? I work in a rather large, mutil-national company. I talk daily with people in the Americas, EMEA and ASPAC and do have some idea of what they thought about the USA over the past 8 years. Merely electing a person, not only of color but one who has expressed such passionate desires to see a better world (and not just get back at the bad man who tried to hurt his daddy), has elevated the USA in the eyes of all those I know in other countries.

As per CNN: The Nobel committee recognized Obama's efforts at dialogue to solve complex global problems, including working toward a world free of nuclear weapons.

"Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future, " the committee said.

You can continue to look at the Nobel prize simply in context of the USA but if you look at the change that took place with the election and the changes slowly taking place throughout the world, that IS attributable to Obama and a USA that saw fit to send a message of hope to the rest of the world.

Yes, he does have MUCH to do but to simplify his accomplishments to date like you have ignores much. George certainly didn't achieve this much in his first term but he certainly took some nice long vacations.

He wants to get rid of nuclear weapons. This on the surface appears to be an admireable goal. But if you think it through theyhave actually been responsible for keeping wide spread wars from breaking out. Nuclear weapons have only been used once, by the US to end a war. Someting many claim saved many lives on both sides of the war by putting an immediate end to it. We also git to see first hand how bad they were.There was a time and place for nuclear weapons and they served their purpose well. It is long gone. To not do all in humanity's power to eliminate nuclear, chemical and biological weapons is to put our very existence at risk. Nuclear materials still are not effectively controlled in some former soviet countries. The USA continues to pay to help secure these materials in various of these countries.

(testing has also stopped in the countires that have them as far as I know). There has also never been a war fought between two countries that have nuclear weapons. Since Pakistan and India obtained them troubles between the two nations have always cooled down before actaul armed conflict started up. Because each fears the other's nuclear weapons could be used on them.North Korea has them and has certainly tested them. The also have some pretty nifty rockets. Only recently have they become more amenable to talks. I suppose that isn't the Obama factor. Also, remember, it is Pakistan and it's main nuclear scientist that are responsible for helping relay knowledge and technologies to other countries trying to develop their own nuclear capabilities. That has to stop.

As for healthcare and financial reform. Not too happy with anyone at present. The lobbyists are gutting the things most likely to help control or reduce costs and negate much of the real reform the financial industry needs. Shakespeare said in Henry VI, Part 2, "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." Were he alive today, I suspect the follow on to this sentense would be to gut all the lobbyists. All's well that ends well.

Bell Bottom

10-12-09, 13:36

Vitriol and invective stain American political history, but falsehoods, half-truths and innuendo now spread with the speed of light across partisan airwaves and the Internet — the din drowning out the country's moderate political center.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33277393/ns/politics-more_politics/

To OrdLackBadder and the whole crew of rabid-right miscreants, please keep up the good work. It certainly is doing the country good.

Bell Bottom

10-12-09, 13:43

Two Americans win the Nobel for Economics (note, they certainly are not tinkle-down economists).

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33275953/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/

"The academy did not specifically cite the global financial crisis, but many of the problems at the heart of the current upheaval — bonuses, executive compensation, risky and poorly understood securities — involve a perceived lack of regulatory oversight by government officials or by corporate boards. The Nobel awards on Monday were clearly a nod to the role of rules, institutions and regulations in making markets work."

Roamin Roman

10-12-09, 16:18

January 25: Skipped church.

February 1: Skipped church. Threw a Super Bowl party.
You claim that B.O. skipped church on Jan 25 and Feb 01. That's absolutely NOT true.

Anyone who's studied B. Hussein knows that he is his own church. Why go somewhere else, when he can stand in front of a White House mirror and worship himself, then go crack open a beer and look at the MSM whorship (mis-spelling intended) him?

In his own mind, Barack is always at church, because his church is wherever he is.

Otherwisea nice, accurate post there, amigo.

LordBlackAdder

10-12-09, 18:09

Also Bell Bottom you need to get a bit better at the spelling ritual. You are even worse than I am. also many of my frinds are back in the UK and I am in contact with them on a regular basis. Many wondered what kind of drugs they put in our drinking water here to even put a back bencher like Obama on the ballot in the first palce.

Other headlines:
Obama Mobilizes White House Speech Writers in Preparation for a Final Assault in Rhetoric Against Iran

The Loan story:

Some see a contradiction in an executive-branch agency facilitating abroad the very kind of energy exploration President Obama opposes domestically.

President Obama has opposed any expanded oil drilling off American shores largely on environmental grounds, turning a deaf ear to conservative cries of "Drill, Baby, Drill."

But now Obama may start hearing cries of "foul" after the U.S. Export-Import Bank promised Petrobras, Brazil's state-owned oil company, $2 billion in loan guarantees to help finance lucrative drilling off the shores of Rio De Janeiro.

Some see a contradiction in an executive branch agency, independent but with board members appointed by the president, facilitating abroad the very kind of energy exploration Obama opposes domestically.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Thursday he wasn't prepared to address the issue.

"I have not seen the story," he said. "I'd have to take a look."

But former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, a vocal proponent of offshore drilling, had plenty to say.

"So why is it that during these tough times, when we have great needs at home, the Obama White House is prepared to send more than $2 billion of your hard-earned tax dollars to Brazil so that the nation's state-owned oil company, Petrobas, can drill off shore and create jobs developing its own resources?" she asked on her Facebook page.

In fact, the Export-Import bank receives no appropriations from Congress and thus does not rely on American taxpayer dollars and is also not "sending" $2 billion to the Brazilian company but offering lines of credit to U.S. firms so they can compete to land contracts as part of Petrobras' drilling operations.

The $2 billion "preliminary commitment" by the Export-Import Bank to Petrobras is expected to grow, as the U.S. competes on behalf of American exporters of goods and services against those from China. Beijing has extended a commitment of $10 billion -- but the Brazilians are said to prefer U.S. management and technology.

Then there is the George Soros angle.

The New York-based hedge fund firm controlled by the billionaire philanthropist and backer of Democratic causes and campaigns bought and sold millions of shares in Petrobras -- the largest of the firm's holdings -- prior to public disclosure of the Export-Import bank's offer of new credit guarantees to the Brazilian energy giant.

No one has accused Soros of wrongdoing, but some say the transactions do not pass the "smell test."

Bell Bottom

10-12-09, 18:37

What's the source for all these articles of great knowledge?

Also Bell Bottom you need to get a bit better at the spelling ritual. You are even worse than I am. also many of my frinds are back in the UK and I am in contact with them on a regular basis. Many wondered what kind of drugs they put in our drinking water here to even put a back bencher like Obama on the ballot in the first palce.Not so sure the UK is a good source for views on the USA. They certainly jumped on George's pencil dick and rode off to war in Iraq.

Other headlines:

Obama Mobilizes White House Speech Writers in Preparation for a Final Assault in Rhetoric Against IranNewsBiscuit? Where "Everything on these pages has been submitted by readers of the site and appears here unedited." Not so sure I would quote from there, except in an attempt at humor.

http://beta.newsbiscuit.com/board/73/46/6//Commander-in-Chief-Obama-mobilizes-White.html

The Loan story:

Some see a contradiction in an executive-branch agency facilitating abroad the very kind of energy exploration President Obama opposes domestically....Like Fox News is an authority in anything but rabid right-wing, muck racking.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/20/loan-brazilian-oil-company-riles-conservatives-favor-offshore-drilling/

LordBlackAdder

10-12-09, 19:40

In a decision as shocking as Friday's surprise peace prize win, President Obama failed to win the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences Monday.

While few observers think Obama has done anything for world peace in the nearly nine months he's been in office, the same clearly can't be said for economics.

The president has worked tirelessly since even before his inauguration to wrest control of the U.S. economy from failed free markets, and the evil CEOs who profit from them, and to turn it over to wise, fair and benevolent bureaucrats.

From his $787 billion stimulus package, to the cap and tax bill, to the seizures of General Motors and Chrysler, to the un-dead healthcare "reform" act, Obama has dominated the U.S., and therefore the global, economy as few figures have in recent years.

Yet the Nobel panel chose instead to award the prize to two obscure academics, -- Elinor Ostrom and Oliver Williamson -- one noted for her work on managing collective resources, and the other for his work on transaction costs.

Other surprise losers include celebrity non-economist filmmaker Michael Moore, U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, Larry Summers, head of the U.S. national economic council as well as Investor Bernie Madoff.

It is unclear whether the president will now refuse his peace prize in protest against the obvious slight to his real achievements this year.

Beereal

10-12-09, 22:27

But former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, a vocal proponent of offshore drilling, had plenty to say.
."

Sarah Palin talks a lot, but I've never heard her say anything of value.

She's full of god,country and flag metaphors. But she's about as dim as a 2 watt light bulb

Roamin Roman

10-13-09, 02:17

Sarah Palin talks a lot, but I've never heard her say anything of value.

She's full of god, country and flag metaphors. But she's about as dim as a 2 watt light bulbOne thing's for sure, LBA: Beereal is great with classic ad hominem attacks, mostly because it's easier to "shoot the messenger" than it is to actually debate the issue. But in the spirit of bi-partisanship, let's alter Beereal's language and see how it sounds:

Joe Biden talks a lot, but I've never heard him say anything of value. He's full of populist, anti-corporate and racist metaphors. But he's about as dim (no, on second thought, he IS as dim) as a 2-watt light bulb.

Barack Obama talks a lot, but I've never heard himr say anything of value.

He's full of anti-American, anti-wealth (except his) and racially-divisive metaphors. But he's about as trustworthy as a 2-watt teleprompter.

Hey, whaddaya know? It sounds pretty good. And it's accurate, to boot!

Roamin Roman

10-13-09, 02:20

It is unclear whether the president will now refuse his peace prize in protest against the obvious slight to his real achievements this year.Oh, no, he'll accept it ("on behalf of the American," of course), but he might opt to hang the award in some side niche in the Church of Obama.

Beereal

10-15-09, 00:16

One thing's for sure, LBA: Beereal is great with classic ad hominem attacks, mostly because it's easier to "shoot the messenger"

If the "messenger" is a moron and makes her living lying her ass off, then she should be exposed as such. Funny how it's ok to make "ad hominem" attacks against Obama, but when someone points out what a lunatic Sarah Palin is, well that's just over the line...LMAO

And for some tool on a prostitution message board to stick up for the likes her is just hillarious.

Sarah Palin would like nothing better than to see people like you behind bars or on a chain gang and your face on a bulletin board to shame you and your family.

Bell Bottom

10-18-09, 10:41

But if the extremist side of the Republican's had their way, this woman would have her child taken away. The extremist side of Republican's and worse are more likely to take away freedoms, censure books, tout idiotic pseudo-science, accuse anyone who doesn't think exactly like them of being a socialist, a fascist, Hitler, etc.

If you and your fanatics ran things, we'd be back in the dark ages.

http://www.theync.com/media.php?name=6475-nutty-mom-teachers-her-2-year-old-kid-to-say-fu*k-obama!

Beereal

10-18-09, 18:53

http://www.theync.com/media.php?name=6475-nutty-mom-teachers-her-2-year-old-kid-to-say-fu*k-obama!

So it's OK to teach your 2 year old to curse Obama, but if some liberal parent teaches their child to say Fuck George Bush, then conservatives want to get social services involved,sterilize the woman,send her away to commie re-education camp and put her kid in a foster home.

Seriously, isn't the "commie" insult just a little bit outdated?

Larks Tongue

10-18-09, 23:28

So it's OK to teach your 2 year old to curse Obama, but if some liberal parent teaches their child to say Fuck George Bush, then conservatives want to get social services involved,sterilize the woman,send her away to commie re-education camp and put her kid in a foster home.

Seriously, isn't the "commie" insult just a little bit outdated?

Or they have all the talking heads on FauxNews go on the air telling how the schools are trying to brainwash children.

Beereal

10-19-09, 09:05

Or they have all the talking heads on FauxNews go on the air telling how the schools are trying to brainwash children.

If you ever get a chance, check out the documentary "Jesus Camp"
In the movie, there are a bunch of children rallying around a cardboard cutout of GWB and singing some song in his praise.

Now, I'm the first to admit, I found the recent Demi and Ashton video in which they,and others pledged to "serve Obama" to be over the line, and a bit creepy, but take a look at Jeus Camp if you want to see some real brainwashing.

LordBlackAdder

10-20-09, 09:58

But if the extremist side of the Republican's had their way, this woman would have her child taken away. The extremist side of Republican's and worse are more likely to take away freedoms, censure books, tout idiotic pseudo-science, accuse anyone who doesn't think exactly like them of being a socialist, a fascist, Hitler, etc.

If you and your fanatics ran things, we'd be back in the dark ages.

So is man made global warming idiotic pseudo science, or just plain normal vanilla pseudo-science?

LordBlackAdder

10-20-09, 10:13

IQ tests should be used to stop the death penalty, but not to determine admission to AP classes.

The Ten Commandments in schools will hurt the children, but “Heather Has Two Mommies” won’t.

College students must protest the President Bush, but never challenge anything the professor says.

Math tests are racist, but there is nothing racist about blacks being admitted over more qualified white applicants.

Education is about “feeling”, not knowing. Logic is the product of white male supremacy in our culture.

Meat is bad for you. So is milk. But marijuana gets you ready for your finals.

AIDS is caused by poverty. So is crime. And membership in the Republican party.

You want to outlaw cigarettes and legalize marijuana.

Global Cooling for 10 years proves that there is global warming.

You think that using less toilet paper will be good for the air.

The best way to care about a disease is to wear a ribbon.

People should be allowed to euthanize themselves, but not to eat in McDonald’s.

Career welfare recipients are fat because they can’t afford food. (For those of you who do not know it, there was a point in time when being fat was considered a sign of wealth)

You see racist code-words in all media except in hip-hop singles such as “Kill The White People”.

You wonder out loud, “Why can’t we all just get along?”

You oppose all racial prejudice, but think all whites are racist, consciously or not.

Illegal Mexicans are real Americans. Descendants of our Founding Fathers aren’t.

Racial profiling is wrong, but all serial killers are white and all Mexicans are hard-working family men.

Prostitution empowers women, but having a man open the door for you is degrading.

Your dog is smaller than your cat.

Men are bigger, stronger and faster than women because our society is sexist.

Western women suffer at the hands of men, but Islamic women are greatly respected.

The only time you’ve ever used the word “choice” was in reference to abortion. School choice or the choice to shop at Wal-Mart should be prevented at all costs.

Men who are aroused by breasts are sexist freaks, but homosexuality is biologically normal.

Constitutional rights that are actually written in the Constitution are outdated and should be ignored.

The First Amendment’s Freedom of Speech must take a back seat to sensitivity.

Affirmative action is the way to solve racial problems in America.

Quietly reading “The Bell Curve” on the bus is harassment, but keying someone’s car for disagreeing with you is activism.

When rape and murder statistics go up, you blame poverty.

Society should take responsibility for crime, but the criminals need more understanding.

America and Israel are the only problems in the Middle East.

Truth matters less than feelings.

You are more proud of Obama’s race than of John McCain’s refusal to leave his buddies behind in Vietnamese prison.

You laugh at Dan Quayle, but you still can’t figure out the difference between “your” and “you’re”.

All election recounts must continue until the Democrat takes the lead, and not a second longer.

Capitalism is the cause of poverty.

People aren’t successful, they are privileged.

You are steeped in compassion, but never gave money to charity or donated blood.

Fox News is biased, but Al Jazeerah isn’t. In fact, Fox News invented media bias.

Rush Limbaugh and Michael Reagan are mean-spirited racists and promote hate crime, but Maxine Waters, John Conyers and Louis Farrakhan aren’t and don’t.

Assaulting the President by throwing shoes at him is free speech, but political cartoons about Muhammad aren’t.

Freedom of speech means the right to scream when a conservative tries to speak in order to prevent anyone from hearing his views.

Freedom of speech applies to terrorists, not conservative radio talk show hosts.

Everyone who disagrees with you must be reported for racism to your employer, university dean and the police

Bell Bottom

10-20-09, 10:14

LordBlackAdder

10-20-09, 10:16

Speech on cap and tax from last summer and how much it will cost you. Remember sompanies do NOT takes the taxes the governemnt imposes on them out if thier profits, they just pass it along to their customers. Cap and tax is like a giant boulder rolling down a mountain, this crushing event is about to happen to you and the American economy. You need to know about it. The bill even acknowledges that millions of jobs will be lost (even after taking into account the green jobs gained) and costs for energy will "skyrocket" (to quote Barack Obama).

My name is Ben Lieberman, and I am the Senior Policy Analyst for Energy and Environment in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. The views I express in this testimony are my own, and should not be construed as representing any official position of The Heritage Foundation.

I would like to thank the Senate Republican Conference for extending me the privilege of participating in today's hearing. I'll be discussing the costs of the cap-and-trade approach to addressing global warming and The Heritage Foundation's economic analysis of H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (Waxman-Markey). As you know, the House is currently considering this bill, which is similar to but has more stringent targets and timetables than the Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade bill that was rejected by the Senate last June.

It is clear that cap-and-trade is very expensive and amounts to nothing more than an energy tax in disguise. After all, when you sweep aside all the complexities of how cap and trade operates--and make no mistake, this is the most convoluted attempt at economic central planning this nation has ever attempted--the bottom line is that cap and trade works by raising the cost of energy high enough so that individuals and businesses are forced to use less of it. Inflicting economic pain is what this is all about. That is how the ever-tightening emissions targets will be met.

The only entities directly regulated by Waxman-Markey would be the electric utilities, oil refiners, natural gas producers, and some manufacturers that produce energy on site. So, the good news for the rest of us--homeowners, car owners, small-business owners, farmers--is that we won't be directly regulated under this bill. The bad news is that nearly all the costs will get passed on to us anyway.

What are those costs? According to the analysis we conducted at The Heritage Foundation, which is attached to my written statement, the higher energy costs kick in as soon as the bill's provisions take effect in 2012. For a household of four, energy costs go up $436 that year, and they eventually reach $1,241 in 2035 and average $829 annually over that span. Electricity costs go up 90 percent by 2035, gasoline by 58 percent, and natural gas by 55 percent by 2035. The cumulative higher energy costs for a family of four by then will be nearly $20,000.

But direct energy costs are only part of the consumer impact. Nearly everything goes up, since higher energy costs raise production costs. If you look at the total cost of Waxman-Markey, it works out to an average of $2,979 annually from 2012-2035 for a household of four. By 2035 alone, the total cost is over $4,600.

Beyond the cost impact on individuals and households, Waxman-Markey also affects employment, and especially employment in the manufacturing sector. We estimate job losses averaging 1,145,000 at any given time from 2012-2035. And note that those are net job losses, after the much-hyped green jobs are taken into account. Some of the lost jobs will be destroyed entirely, while others will be outsourced to nations like China and India that have repeatedly stated that they'll never hamper their own economic growth with energy-cost boosting global warming measures like Waxman-Markey.

Since farming is energy intensive, that sector will be particularly hard-hit. Higher gasoline and diesel fuel costs, higher electricity costs, and higher natural gas-derived fertilizer costs all erode farm profits, which are expected to drop by 28 percent in 2012 and average 57 percent lower through 2035. As with American manufacturers, Waxman-Markey also puts American farmers at a global disadvantage, as other food-exporting nations would have no comparable energy-price raising measures in place.

Overall, Waxman-Markey reduces gross domestic product by an average of $393 billion annually between 2012 and 2035, and cumulatively by $9.4 trillion. In other words, the nation will be $9.4 trillion poorer with Waxman-Markey than without it.

It should also be noted that the costs are not distributed evenly. Low-income households spend a disproportionate share of their incomes on energy, and thus would be hit harder than average by Waxman-Markey. Of course, the bill has provisions to give back some revenues to low-income households, but it is likely that these rebates will amount only to some portion of each dollar that was taken away from them in the first place in the form of higher energy costs and higher costs for other goods and services. Waxman-Markey also disproportionately burdens those states, especially in the Midwest and South, that still have a substantial number of manufacturing jobs to lose, as well as those that rely more heavily than others on coal for electric generation. In addition, because the bill raises energy costs, it hurts rural America much more than urban America. Rural Americans, farmers and non-farmers, spend an average of 58 percent more on energy as a percentage of income than their urban counterparts, and those costs would go up.

In conclusion, it's not surprising that support for Waxman-Markey is heaviest in those parts of the country, the urban centers in the West Coast and Northeast, that are least harmed by it. Even there, the economic damage would be bad enough, but the citizens in the rest of the country and their representatives should really be asking many tough questions about the economic impact of cap and trade. Thank you.

Beereal

10-21-09, 08:58

It's factual science, although Republicans and extremists seem unable to step outside their narrow realm of "reality". Bush tried to gut the EPA and stifle any dissenting views other than more coal, more oil and damn the environment.

Pseudo-science is crap like creationism and "intelligent" design. If you feel inclined to believe in these "concepts", please feel free to continue in ignorance. It certainly fits with your other views.

I'm not totally sold on what Global Warming is and the effect it's having.

I was a little suspicious and skeptical when people tried to tell me that Katrina was caused by global warming.

But what I DO believe is that we can't continue to dump our tailpipes and smokestacks into the air we breathe at the rate we're going and expect humans to still be able to live on this planet in 50 years. Our ecosystem and ecology is based on BALANCE. and when that balance becomes tilted, we're in for some serious shiznit.

Now I know that Sarah Palin believes that the rapture will occur any day now and Jesus is going to save us all like some robed superhero. But on the off chance that she's wrong, I think it might be a good idea to clean up our act a little bit.

God forbid though that some people have to pay a little more in taxes or that we might have to sacrifice a little convenience and self indulgence for humanity's long term survival.

LordBlackAdder

10-22-09, 16:42

Global warming is like a religion, but with the absense of God, designed by those who do not beleive in God to get other people to do what they want. Like many religious leaders have been using God to get their people to do their bidding for forever and a day.

Like many religions you have to take on faith that something that cant be proved (the existnce of God vs. that man is causing the Earth to become wamer) you are also told that if you make sacrifices (live like people did in the middle ages, pay the people in chaarge higher taexes) then things will be better for your kids and grandchildren, long after you have died (and thus are no longer around to refute them. Much like terrorists are told they will go to heaven and get 70 virgins if they blow thmeselves up and kill westerners in the process.

Man made global warming has NOT been proven. If it had their would not be many learned scientists who did not beleive in it. In fact lately worldwide temperatures have gone down. So 1) they have not proven the world is getting warmer 2) they have not proven man is responsible for the temperature change 3) they have not proven that if it does get wamer it is a bad thing. It may be bad for some people but what is the net effect- if it is warmer growing seasons are longer and crop production goes up if it is warmer you have to burn less fuel to heat your house. It was writen last year.

The follwoing article is by Phil Chapman, a geophysicist and astronautical engineer who lives in San Francisco. He was the first Australian to become a NASA astronaut.

THE scariest photo I have seen on the internet is www.spaceweather.com, where you will find a real-time image of the sun from the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, located in deep space at the equilibrium point between solar and terrestrial gravity.

What is scary about the picture is that there is only one tiny sunspot.

Disconcerting as it may be to true believers in global warming, the average temperature on Earth has remained steady or slowly declined during the past decade, despite the continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, and now the global temperature is falling precipitously.

All four agencies that track Earth's temperature (the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California) report that it cooled by about 0.7C in 2007. This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930. If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over.

There is also plenty of anecdotal evidence that 2007 was exceptionally cold. It snowed in Baghdad for the first time in centuries, the winter in China was simply terrible and the extent of Antarctic sea ice in the austral winter was the greatest on record since James Cook discovered the place in 1770.

It is generally not possible to draw conclusions about climatic trends from events in a single year, so I would normally dismiss this cold snap as transient, pending what happens in the next few years.

This is where SOHO comes in. The sunspot number follows a cycle of somewhat variable length, averaging 11 years. The most recent minimum was in March last year. The new cycle, No.24, was supposed to start soon after that, with a gradual build-up in sunspot numbers.

It didn't happen. The first sunspot appeared in January this year and lasted only two days. A tiny spot appeared last Monday but vanished within 24 hours. Another little spot appeared this Monday. Pray that there will be many more, and soon.

The reason this matters is that there is a close correlation between variations in the sunspot cycle and Earth's climate. The previous time a cycle was delayed like this was in the Dalton Minimum, an especially cold period that lasted several decades from 1790.

Northern winters became ferocious: in particular, the rout of Napoleon's Grand Army during the retreat from Moscow in 1812 was at least partly due to the lack of sunspots.

That the rapid temperature decline in 2007 coincided with the failure of cycle No.24 to begin on schedule is not proof of a causal connection but it is cause for concern.

It is time to put aside the global warming dogma, at least to begin contingency planning about what to do if we are moving into another little ice age, similar to the one that lasted from 1100 to 1850.

There is no doubt that the next little ice age would be much worse than the previous one and much more harmful than anything warming may do. There are many more people now and we have become dependent on a few temperate agricultural areas, especially in the US and Canada. Global warming would increase agricultural output, but global cooling will decrease it.

Millions will starve if we do nothing to prepare for it (such as planning changes in agriculture to compensate), and millions more will die from cold-related diseases.

There is also another possibility, remote but much more serious. The Greenland and Antarctic ice cores and other evidence show that for the past several million years, severe glaciation has almost always afflicted our planet.

The bleak truth is that, under normal conditions, most of North America and Europe are buried under about 1.5km of ice. This bitterly frigid climate is interrupted occasionally by brief warm interglacials, typically lasting less than 10,000 years.

The interglacial we have enjoyed throughout recorded human history, called the Holocene, began 11,000 years ago, so the ice is overdue. We also know that glaciation can occur quickly: the required decline in global temperature is about 12C and it can happen in 20 years.

The next descent into an ice age is inevitable but may not happen for another 1000 years. On the other hand, it must be noted that the cooling in 2007 was even faster than in typical glacial transitions. If it continued for 20 years, the temperature would be 14C cooler in 2027.

By then, most of the advanced nations would have ceased to exist, vanishing under the ice, and the rest of the world would be faced with a catastrophe beyond imagining.

Australia may escape total annihilation but would surely be overrun by millions of refugees. Once the glaciation starts, it will last 1000 centuries, an incomprehensible stretch of time.

If the ice age is coming, there is a small chance that we could prevent or at least delay the transition, if we are prepared to take action soon enough and on a large enough scale.

For example: We could gather all the bulldozers in the world and use them to dirty the snow in Canada and Siberia in the hope of reducing the reflectance so as to absorb more warmth from the sun.

We also may be able to release enormous floods of methane (a potent greenhouse gas) from the hydrates under the Arctic permafrost and on the continental shelves, perhaps using nuclear weapons to destabilise the deposits.

We cannot really know, but my guess is that the odds are at least 50-50 that we will see significant cooling rather than warming in coming decades.

The probability that we are witnessing the onset of a real ice age is much less, perhaps one in 500, but not totally negligible.

All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead.

It will be difficult for people to face the truth when their reputations, careers, government grants or hopes for social change depend on global warming, but the fate of civilisation may be at stake.

In the famous words of Oliver Cromwell, "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."

I'm not totally sold on what Global Warming is and the effect it's having.

I was a little suspicious and skeptical when people tried to tell me that Katrina was caused by global warming.

But what I DO believe is that we can't continue to dump our tailpipes and smokestacks into the air we breathe at the rate we're going and expect humans to still be able to live on this planet in 50 years. Our ecosystem and ecology is based on BALANCE. and when that balance becomes tilted, we're in for some serious shiznit.

Now I know that Sarah Palin believes that the rapture will occur any day now and Jesus is going to save us all like some robed superhero. But on the off chance that she's wrong, I think it might be a good idea to clean up our act a little bit.

God forbid though that some people have to pay a little more in taxes or that we might have to sacrifice a little convenience and self indulgence for humanity's long term survival.

Bell Bottom

10-22-09, 18:00

Global warming is like a religion, but with the absense of God, designed by those who do not beleive in God to get other people to do what they want. Like many religious leaders have been using God to get their people to do their bidding for forever and a day.And freon is good for the atmosphere, burning coal doesn't harm the environment, blah blah blah. Might as well say the earth is flat and the sun circles around it.

The oceans are increasing in temperature to the point where corrals are dying off. The ozone is still being eaten away by freon since other countries still use it. We pump more heat into the atmosphere now than at any point in recorded history. Along with that heat are particulates which change cloud reflectivity and precipitation. We create artificial heat sinks (pavement, cities, etc.) which absorb heat and alter local climates. We pump various greenhouse gases into the atmosphere which normally wouldn't exist in nature. These are but a few of the many ways we alter the environment and further global warming.

Funny how the article asserts that the earth cooled in 2007 but "the hottest month on record was January 2007 at +1.61°C"

http://www.aussmc.org/Is_the_Earth_Cooling.php

And more from this article. "Based on the NASA GISS global meteorological station data, January 2008 was 'cool', at only +0.31°C above the 1950-1980 average. But March 2008 was back to +0.81°C. By comparison, January 1998 was +0.57°C and March 1998 was +0.70°C. In the northern hemisphere, March 2008 was the 2nd warmest month on record (relative to the average), with a +1.40°C anomaly (for reference, the hottest month on record was January 2007 at +1.61°C)."

The article doesn't seem to want to answer how areas where there have been glaciers for much longer than a few ice ages (even millions of years) have started to melt and will disappear within 50 (or much less) years. The implication is that these glaciers should be growing or at least static.

Please feel free to read (or not) the article I reference. It includes a number of perspectives (both for and against) and is far more balanced than one person's perspective.

Beereal

10-23-09, 00:09

Global warming is like a religion, but with the absense of God,."

This is all I have to say about global warming/climate change....whatever you want to call it.

Go look out over any major city from a tall building and look at the smog. There's no way that can be healthy for humans, animals and plants. And if you ask people to try and conserve just a little, they get all indignant and start quoting the constitution or the bible.

long term, I believe our ingenuity and arrogance associated with it, will be our eventual downfall.

Bell Bottom

10-23-09, 23:55

Dick-head Cheney at it again:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/22/cheney.obama/index.html
http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-345443

Funny thing is that other NATO members who had previously pulled back in Afghanistan are now committing to additional troops/support. Who here thinks they would have done that under Bush? Who here thinks we might have been FAR better off in Afghanistan if we hadn't gone into IRAQ? Georgie also took many months to commit to additional troops. Who here thinks he put as much thought into it as Obama is putting into it?

LordBlackAdder

10-26-09, 15:07

I heard someone talking about this about two weeks ago but thought it was a joke until I saw an advert for it on TV today. They have come out with a Obama Chia Head. I suspect there will be plenty of slow of mind Obama supporters who will buy one of these. I do not recall them making any of these for President Bush most likely because his supporters are too smart to go out and buy this type of thing.

So if you have some wealth you need to spread around (about 20USD) you can, Hail to the Ch- Ch- Ch- Chief

In honoring our 44th US President, the Chia Pet company presents this Special Edition Chia Obama.

On the side of the Chia Obama planter are his famous words: '"YES WE CAN."

Can you grow one? YES YOU CAN.

Easy to do..... Fun to Grow - in a week or two your Chia Obama will have a nice green afro!

For your $20 you will get:
Chia Obama handmade planter
Chia Seed packet for 3 plantings
Convenient Drip Tray
Planting and care instruction sheet

The Chia Obama comes in two styles so Yes You Can Spend $40, and get both the determined Obama and the Happy Obama! You can also get other high profile people like Chia Bart Simpson to keep your Chia Obama comapny and engage him in intelectually stimulating conversation!

It is available online and at several drug store chains!

anyone who buys one feel free to report your experiences with it on here!

Bell Bottom

10-26-09, 23:17

This nation of ours is amazing. One region/state can differ so dramatically from another. Take Virginia for instance. I was there in the 90s as a tech with a theater/dance company. We were (laughably) bringing culture to those who lack it. While visiting the various towns and setting up shows, we had assistance from local school kids. I was quite taken aback by the admission of one of these kids and his proud statement that he and his buddies were part of a group who kept their "black" population under control.

I'm sure this isn't true of all parts of this country but certainly in Virginia, it must still be the land of the KKK.

Mr. Bladder, would you care to comment? You certainly seem to fit the description of a narrow-minded racist member of the KKK.

Only extremist, racist, backwoods rednecks would come up with a chica-obama. They certainly are losing arguments right and left as the Obama agenda starts bearing fruit. What else can they do?

I heard someone talking about this about two weeks ago but thought it was a joke until I saw an advert for it on TV today. They have come out with a Obama Chia Head. I suspect there will be plenty of slow of mind Obama supporters who will buy one of these. I do not recall them making any of these for President Bush most likely because his supporters are too smart to go out and buy this type of thing.

So if you have some wealth you need to spread around (about 20USD) you can, Hail to the Ch- Ch- Ch- Chief

In honoring our 44th US President, the Chia Pet company presents this Special Edition Chia Obama.

On the side of the Chia Obama planter are his famous words: '"YES WE CAN."

Can you grow one? YES YOU CAN.

Easy to do..... Fun to Grow - in a week or two your Chia Obama will have a nice green afro!

For your $20 you will get:
Chia Obama handmade planter
Chia Seed packet for 3 plantings
Convenient Drip Tray
Planting and care instruction sheet

The Chia Obama comes in two styles so Yes You Can Spend $40, and get both the determined Obama and the Happy Obama! You can also get other high profile people like Chia Bart Simpson to keep your Chia Obama comapny and engage him in intelectually stimulating conversation!

It is available online and at several drug store chains!

anyone who buys one feel free to report your experiences with it on here!

PusshyHunter

10-26-09, 23:25

Bush supporter's smart!

I laugh!

Bush ran the country into the ground!

DUH

Gdlint

10-28-09, 17:45

This is not a Obama thing but it IS political.

This is unbelievable. Click on the link below for the very short 2:16 video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywgUCdefSW8

Bell Bottom

10-29-09, 18:29

I would be very suspect about anything like this which has been seriously edited to reflect only one perspective. I would need to see the entire footage before drawing any conclusions. If you feel this is an honestly presented, I'm thinking of starting a cult and could use some blind followers.

This is not a Obama thing but it IS political.

This is unbelievable. Click on the link below for the very short 2:16 video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywgUCdefSW8

Beereal

10-31-09, 22:40

Have fun on Holloween, while you still can.

Wow...that's really clever.

You should have used a russian flag as the background to really enhance the effect.

Bell Bottom

11-01-09, 09:32

Exactly. If the Republicans get back into power, they'll bend the country over and screw it up the butt again and again and again.

Have fun on Holloween, while you still can.

John Black

11-03-09, 03:12

Have fun on Holloween, while you still can.Look, Glen Beck was wearing an Obama mask!

Lurker 2009

11-05-09, 03:45

This is not a Obama thing but it IS political.

This is unbelievable. Click on the link below for the very short 2:16 video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywgUCdefSW8

Its unbelievable that anyone would believe this edited footage.
Really shows the inteligence, and the gulliability, of the wing-nuts. This was obviously edited. There is no sound when the ayes approve the bill, so it leads the viewer to think that a bill was passed when no-one voted for it. I am shocked that so many people would view this and not realize that they have been hoodwinked. But this is all the republican backers can muster nowadays.

We have representatives elected by the people. That is what the constitution provides. Those nuts sitting around trying to undermine the government with bs theories and nonsense like this are the threat to our constitution. If you were in the minority, and your choices for representatives weren't elected, don't try to violate the constitution by conspiring with nonsense, Rush-influenced dribble.

The majority of the people voted for Obama. Get it. Thats democracy. Thats whats outlined in the Constitution. Don't like it? Wait three more years and use your vote.

i don't think everyone needs to agree. But if you are going to object, have some logic behind you. Don't be creating bs conspiracy theories, don't be creating bs youtube videos that lie. Twenty years ago, the republican party seemed to be more intellectual, now its a herd of sheep being led by a drug addicted shepard who is alamingly dishonest with his false, illogical arguments.

By the way, Bush was a very incompetant leader. We should never have entered into a war with Iraq. We needed Iraq. Saddam was anti al queda. But more importantly, for many years we had Iran and Iraq fighting against each other. What are we going to do when Iran invades Iraq? Go defend them? I'll wager that in ten years Iran will have annexed 40% of Iraq. Bush should have never invaded Iraq. Should have directed all those forces towards Afghanistan. We might have finished there and got the people responsible for 911. Instead we are mired down, ruining our economy, with no end in sight.
And to win support for his mistake in Iraq, Bush lied to congress and the American people. Our president out and out lied to us. Bush should have been impeached for a violation of his oath of office.

LordBlackAdder

11-05-09, 12:48

Mr. Bladder, would you care to comment? You certainly seem to fit the description of a narrow-minded racist member of the KKK.

Only extremist, racist, backwoods rednecks would come up with a chica-obama. They certainly are losing arguments right and left as the Obama agenda starts bearing fruit. What else can they do?

I suppose you have to be right, anyone who would go out and buy a Chia Obama is most certainly one of the white people who did not vote for Obama simply because he is black. Until you corrected me I though this would be marketed at one of his many supporters. I would be willing to bet there was a much larger percentage of black people who voted for Obama because he was black than there were white people who voted for Mccain because he was the white guy.

I was always under the impression that it was the Democrats who were racist and thought of blacks as second class citizens (at best) most needing to be discouraged from achieving so that they can be supported by the goverment. The Republican Party as history has recorded was formed in part because there were people who did not feel that blacks shuld be slaves and that slavery was wrong.

Blacks "are inferior to the whites in the endowments of both of body and mind."
--Thomas Jefferson, 1787
Co-founder of the Democratic Party (along with Andrew Jackson)
President, 1801-09

"I hold that the present state of civilization, where two races of different origin, and distinguished by color, and other physical differences, as well as intellectual, are brought together, the relation now existing in the slaveholding states between the two, is, instead of an evil, a good--a positive good."
--Sen. John C. Calhoun (D., S.C.), 1837
Vice President, 1825-32
His statue stands in the U.S. Capitol.

If blacks were given the right to vote, that would "place every splay-footed, bandy-shanked, hump-backed, thick-lipped, flat-nosed, woolly-headed, ebon-colored Negro in the country upon an equality with the poor white man."
--Rep. Andrew Johnson, (D., Tenn.), 1844
President, 1865-69

"Resolved, That the Democratic Party will resist all attempts at renewing, in Congress or out of it, the agitation of the slavery question, under whatever shape or color the attempt may be made."
--Platform of the Democratic Party, 1852

Blacks are "a subordinate and inferior class of beings who had been subjugated by the dominant race."
--Chief Justice Roger Taney, Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1856
Appointed Attorney General by Andrew Jackson in 1831
Appointed Secretary of the Treasury by Andrew Jackson in 1833
Appointed to the Supreme Court by Andrew Jackson in 1836

"Resolved, That claiming fellowship with, and desiring the co-operation of all who regard the preservation of the Union under the Constitution as the paramount issue--and repudiating all sectional parties and platforms concerning domestic slavery, which seek to embroil the States and incite to treason and armed resistance to law in the Territories; and whose avowed purposes, if consummated, must end in civil war and disunion, the American Democracy recognize and adopt the principles contained in the organic laws establishing the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska as embodying the only sound and safe solution of the 'slavery question' upon which the great national idea of the people of this whole country can repose in its determined conservatism of the Union--NON-INTERFERENCE BY CONGRESS WITH SLAVERY IN STATE AND TERRITORY, OR IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA" (emphasis in original).
--Platform of the Democratic Party, 1856

"I hold that a Negro is not and never ought to be a citizen of the United States. I hold that this government was made on the white basis; made by the white men, for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever, and should be administered by white men and none others."
--Sen. Stephen A. Douglas (D., Ill.), 1858
Presidential nominee of the Democratic Party, 1860

"Resolved, That the enactments of the State Legislatures to defeat the faithful execution of the Fugitive Slave Law, are hostile in character, subversive of the Constitution, and revolutionary in their effect."
--Platform of the Democratic Party, 1860

"The Almighty has fixed the distinction of the races; the Almighty has made the black man inferior, and, sir, by no legislation, by no military power, can you wipe out this distinction."
--Rep. Fernando Wood (D., N.Y.), 1865
Mayor of New York City, 1855-58, 1860-62

"My fellow citizens, I have said that the contest before us was one for the restoration of our government; it is also one for the restoration of our race. It is to prevent the people of our race from being exiled from their homes--exiled from the government which they formed and created for themselves and for their children, and to prevent them from being driven out of the country or trodden under foot by an inferior and barbarous race."
--Francis P. Blair Jr., accepting the Democratic nomination for Vice President, 1868
Democratic Senator from Missouri, 1869-72
His statue stands in the U.S. Capitol.

"Instead of restoring the Union, it [the Republican Party] has, so far as in its power, dissolved it, and subjected ten states, in time of profound peace, to military despotism and Negro supremacy."
--Platform of the Democratic Party, 1868

"While the tendency of the white race is upward, the tendency of the colored race is downward."
--Sen. Thomas Hendricks (D., Ind.), 1869
Democratic nominee for Vice President, 1876
Vice President, 1885

"We, the delegates of the Democratic party of the United States . . . demand such modification of the treaty with the Chinese Empire, or such legislation within constitutional limitations, as shall prevent further importation or immigration of the Mongolian race."
--Platform of the Democratic Party, 1876

"No more Chinese immigration, except for travel, education, and foreign commerce, and that even carefully guarded."
--Platform of the Democratic Party, 1880

"American civilization demands that against the immigration or importation of Mongolians to these shores our gates be closed."
--Platform of the Democratic Party, 1884

"We favor the continuance and strict enforcement of the Chinese exclusion law, and its application to the same classes of all Asiatic races."
--Platform of the Democratic Party, 1900

"The repeal of the fifteenth amendment, one of the greatest blunders and therefore one of the greatest crimes in political history, is a consummation to be devoutly wished for."
--Rep. John Sharpe Williams (D., Miss.), 1903
House Minority Leader, 1903-08

"Republicanism means Negro equality, while the Democratic Party means that the white man is supreme. That is why we Southerners are all Democrats."
--Sen. Ben Tillman (D., S.C.), 1906
Chairman, Committee on Naval Affairs, 1913-19

"We are opposed to the admission of Asiatic immigrants who can not be amalgamated with our population, or whose presence among us would raise a race issue and involve us in diplomatic controversies with Oriental powers."
--Platform of the Democratic Party, 1908

"I am opposed to the practice of having colored policemen in the District [of Columbia]. It is a source of danger by constantly engendering racial friction, and is offensive to thousands of Southern white people who make their homes here."
--Sen. Hoke Smith (D., Ga.), 1912
Appointed Secretary of the Interior by Grover Cleveland in 1893

"The South is serious with regard to its attitude to the Negro in politics. The South understands this subject, and its policy is unalterable and uncompromising. We desire no concessions. We seek no sops. We grasp no shadows on this subject. We take no risks. We abhor a Northern policy of catering to the Negro in politics just as we abhor a Northern policy of social equality."
--Josephus Daniels, editor, Raleigh News & Observer, 1912
Appointed Secretary of the Navy by Woodrow Wilson in 1913
Appointed Ambassador to Mexico by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933
USS Josephus Daniels named for him by the Johnson Administration in 1965

"The Negro as a race, in all the ages of the world, has never shown sustained power of self-development. He is not endowed with the creative faculty. . . . He has never created for himself any civilization. . . . He has never had any civilization except that which has been inculcated by a superior race. And it is a lamentable fact that his civilization lasts only so long as he is in the hands of the white man who inculcates it. When left to himself he has universally gone back to the barbarism of the jungle."
--Sen. James Vardaman (D., Miss.), 1914
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, 1913-19

"This is a white man's country, and will always remain a white man's country."
--Rep. James F. Byrnes (D., S.C.), 1919
Appointed to the Supreme Court by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1941
Appointed Secretary of State by Harry S. Truman in 1945

"Slavery among the whites was an improvement over independence in Africa. The very progress that the blacks have made, when--and only when--brought into contact with the whites, ought to be a sufficient argument in support of white supremacy--it ought to be sufficient to convince even the blacks themselves."
--William Jennings Bryan, 1923
Presidential nominee of the Democratic Party, 1896, 1900 and 1908
Appointed Secretary of State by Woodrow Wilson in 1913
His statue stands in the U.S. Capitol.

"Anyone who has traveled to the Far East knows that the mingling of Asiatic blood with European or American blood produces, in nine cases out of ten, the most unfortunate results. . . . The argument works both ways. I know a great many cultivated, highly educated and delightful Japanese. They have all told me that they would feel the same repugnance and objection to have thousands of Americans settle in Japan and intermarry with the Japanese as I would feel in having large numbers of Japanese coming over here and intermarry with the American population. In this question, then, of Japanese exclusion from the United States it is necessary only to advance the true reason--the undesirability of mixing the blood of the two peoples. . . . The Japanese people and the American people are both opposed to intermarriage of the two races--there can be no quarrel there."
--Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1925
President, 1933-45

"This passport which you have given me is a symbol to me of the passport which you have given me before. I do not feel that it would be out of place to state to you here on this occasion that I know that without the support of the members of this organization I would not have been called, even by my enemies, the 'Junior Senator from Alabama.' "
--Hugo Black, accepting a life membership in the Ku Klux Klan upon his election to the U.S. Senate as a Democrat from Alabama, 1926
Appointed to the Supreme Court by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1937

"Mr. President, the crime of lynching . . . is not of sufficient importance to justify this legislation."
--Sen. Claude Pepper (D., Fla.), 1938
Spoken while engaged in a six-hour speech against the antilynching bill

"I am a former Kleagle [recruiter] of the Ku Klux Klan in Raleigh County. . . . The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia. It is necessary that the order be promoted immediately and in every state in the union."
--Robert C. Byrd, 1946
Democratic Senator from West Virginia, 1959-present
Senate Majority Leader, 1977-80 and 1987-88
Senate President Pro Tempore, 1989-95, 2001-03, 2007-present
His portrait stands in the U.S. Capitol.
How many sitting Republican Senators are or have been members of the KKK?

President Truman's civil rights program "is a farce and a sham--an effort to set up a police state in the guise of liberty. I am opposed to that program. I have voted against the so-called poll tax repeal bill. . .. I have voted against the so-called anti-lynching bill."
--Rep. Lyndon B. Johnson (D., Texas), 1948
U.S. Senator, 1949-61
Senate Majority Leader, 1955-61
President, 1963-69

"There is no warrant for the curious notion that Christianity favors the involuntary commingling of the races in social institutions. Although He knew both Jews and Samaritans and the relations existing between them, Christ did not advocate that courts or legislative bodies should compel them to mix socially against their will."
--Sen. Sam Ervin (D., N.C.), 1955
Chairman, Committee on Government Operations, 1971-75

"The decline and fall of the Roman empire came after years of intermarriage with other races. Spain was toppled as a world power as a result of the amalgamation of the races. . . . Certainly history shows that nations composed of a mongrel race lose their strength and become weak, lazy and indifferent."
--Herman E. Talmadge, 1955
Democratic Senator from Georgia, 1957-81
Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, 1971-81

"These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again."
--Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson (D., Texas), 1957

"I have never seen very many white people who felt they were being imposed upon or being subjected to any second-class citizenship if they were directed to a waiting room or to any other public facility to wait or to eat with other white people. Only the Negroes, of all the races which are in this land, publicly proclaim they are being mistreated, imposed upon, and declared second-class citizens because they must go to public facilities with members of their own race."
--Sen. Richard B. Russell Jr. (D., Ga.), 1961
The Russell Senate Office Building is named for him.

"I did not lie awake at night worrying about the problems of Negroes."
--Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, 1961
Kennedy later authorized wiretapping the phones and bugging the hotel rooms of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

"I'm not going to use the federal government's authority deliberately to circumvent the natural inclination of people to live in ethnically homogeneous neighborhoods. . . . I have nothing against a community that's made up of people who are Polish or Czechoslovakian or French-Canadian or blacks who are trying to maintain the ethnic purity of their neighborhoods."
--Jimmy Carter, 1976
President, 1977-81
Winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, 2002

"The Confederate Memorial has had a special place in my life for many years. . . . There were many, many times that I found myself drawn to this deeply inspiring memorial, to contemplate the sacrifices of others, several of whom were my ancestors, whose enormous suffering and collective gallantry are to this day still misunderstood by most Americans."
--James Webb, 1990
Now a Democratic Senator from Virginia

"Everybody likes to go to Geneva. I used to do it for the Law of the Sea conferences and you'd find these potentates from down in Africa, you know, rather than eating each other, they'd just come up and get a good square meal in Geneva."
--Sen. Ernest F. Hollings (D., S.C.) 1993
Chairman, Commerce Committee, 1987-95 and 2001-03
Candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, 1984

"I do not think it is an exaggeration at all to say to my friend from West Virginia [Sen. Robert C. Byrd, a former Ku Klux Klan recruiter] that he would have been a great senator at any moment. . . . He would have been right during the great conflict of civil war in this nation."
--Sen. Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.), 2004
Chairman, Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs
Candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, 2008

"You cannot go into a Dunkin' Donuts or a 7-Eleven unless you have a slight Indian accent."

"My state was a slave state. My state is a border state. My state has the eighth largest black population in the country. My state is anything [but] a Northeastern liberal state."

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African American [Barack Obama] who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice looking guy."

"There's less than 1% of the population of Iowa that is African American. There is probably less than 4% or 5% that is, are minorities. What is it in Washington? So look, it goes back to what you start off with, what you're dealing with."
Sen. Joseph Biden Jr., (D., Del.), 2006-07
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, 1987-95
Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations
Vice President (D.) 2009-

"It has of late become the custom of the men of the South to speak with entire candor of the settled and deliberate policy of suppressing the negro vote. They have been forced to choose between a policy of manifest injustice toward the blacks and the horrors of negro rule. They chose to disfranchise the negroes. That was manifestly the lesser of two evils. . . . The Republican Party committed a great public crime when it gave the right of suffrage to the blacks. . . . So long as the Fifteenth Amendment stands, the menace of the rule of the blacks will impend, and the safeguards against it must be maintained."
--Editorial, "The Political Future of the South," New York Times, May 10, 1900)

Dave Idaho

11-05-09, 21:09

Agent61,

You really ARE [Deleted by Admin], aren't you? I am assuming you are an adult. Why don't you [Deleted by Admin]?

EDITOR'S NOTE: This report was edited to redact sections of the report that were largely argumentative. Please read the Forum FAQ and the Forum's Posting Guidelines for more information. Thank You!

Bell Bottom

11-06-09, 00:39

And the South, which used to be solidly Democrat, changed to solidly Republican. You seem to suggest that Democrats are the source of all evil. Given how the South changed from Democrat to Republican, mostly in response to the Democratic party embracing social reform, your quotes mostly reflect on what is now the core of the Republican party.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=when+did+the+south+became+republican&aq=0s&oq=when+did+the+south+be&aqi=g-s1

http://www.counterpunch.org/gray12112004.html
"Along comes Strom Thurmond, and he and others bolted from the Democratic Party when Truman was nominated and tried to form the "Dixiecrat Party" to pull all the southern white segregationists together in a party that would be for all time against any equality for Blacks."

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/09/26/050926ta_talk_lemann
"the Democrats embraced civil rights, and the South became Republican"

I really enjoy these unbiased observations of our nation's history. You certainly seem to live mostly in the past. I'm sure you have some serious, well thought out and truly unbiased views on this subject. It's interesting how you cherry pick ONLY the bits about Democrats, as if there is nothing in history from the Republican side.

Get a life!

Please keep the lies coming. They are most entertaining.

I suppose you have to be right, anyone who would go out and buy a Chia Obama is most certainly one of the white people who did not vote for Obama simply because he is black. Until you corrected me I though this would be marketed at one of his many supporters. I would be willing to bet there was a much larger percentage of black people who voted for Obama because he was black than there were white people who voted for Mccain because he was the white guy.

I was always under the impression that it was the Democrats who were racist and thought of blacks as second class citizens (at best) most needing to be discouraged from achieving so that they can be supported by the goverment. The Republican Party as history has recorded was formed in part because there were people who did not feel that blacks shuld be slaves and that slavery was wrong.

Bell Bottom

11-06-09, 00:49

Truly a crime fighting visionary. You must impress the trolls on the street with your political convictions.

What's funny is that the Republican party is being taken over by seriously conservative forces. You might end up not liking what you keep touting as your political nirvana.

Ever since the election placing the Socialist dirt bag and his Communist minions in the White House I hate to see the bumper stickers on the cars of those who support him.

So to past the time while driving I take notice of these morons in there cars with their Obama bumper stickers proudly displayed while I'm driving around, chewing my favorite Dentine Spearmint gum.

Then I like to position my truck to where I can fling the wad of sticky gum onto their car, hopefully on a painted surface. It's just good fun to patrol the streets and see how many Obama shit bags I can send a message to with a wad of sticky chewing gum on their cars, gives me a sense of personal satisfaction knowing their going to see it and say W. T. F.? . LOL, check out the pics.

Atl Guy

11-06-09, 15:35

TexasMonger

11-06-09, 16:44

Gents

Today, I was watching the news and I saw this staggering figure. almost 16 million unemployed in the US. that is more than the population of Chicago and N.Y put together ...wow.

If Obama would legalize prostitution, at least 10 million prostitutes will become employed and will have to pay taxes. Wow what a concept with lots of benefits

1/ Unemployment cut by over 50%
2/ Each state and federal tax base increase
3/ Reduction of arrests for prostitution related issues - frees the LE force, courts, and jails - less cost to taxpayers
4/ Safer streets
5/ Lower cost of Law Enforcement
and the list goes on and on

Wake up Obama and smell that street pussy

Cheers

TM

Bell Bottom

11-06-09, 18:35

Blah, blah, blah, blah. You envision a world that is only black/white (in oh so many ways). You call me and all those who aren't as far to the right as Glen Beck, they are "Socialist-Left".

Look at all the "leftist" countries in Europe (aka Bush's Old Europe). Those countries are still very good functioning economies (other than France) and their quality of life is much better than anything in America. They are all likely to emerge at the same pace as the USA from the recession and they certainly didn't cause the problem since they actually have financial controls that work.

Keep up the good work. We need more polarizing elements like you. It does the country good.

Don't forget, Republican's and right-wing nut jobs are more likely to be pedophiles and serial killers. Are you a serial killer mister Agent61 with your "famous quote"?

That's the problem with you Leftist, you believe in a Utopia where the nanny state government tends to all your issues. The Socialist Democrats with their fake Republican allies will cause this nation to fall under foreign control and eventually occupation.

At the end of this road, when the human garbage that is the Socialist-Left destroys the funtionalbility of America, there will be a violent backlash.

Stay healthy, stay out of debt and arm yourself. (famous quote by Agent61)

Beereal

11-07-09, 12:39

Bell Bottom

11-10-09, 23:24

Anyone watch the CBS 60 minute piece on "Sabotaging the System"?

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5578986n

Didn't we have a "discussion" about the Internet and security?

http://usasexguide.info/forum/showpost.php?p=878175&postcount=229

I really enjoyed the part of the story where they stated that in 2007, a hacker (read foreign government) took the equivalent of the Library of Congress (10TB) in data from one of the most secure governmental networks. The Republicans claim they are the leaders in trying to ensure the national defense of our country. They are all for the wild west of guns for all. Seems to me they can't even envision the present (let alone have any vision of the future) when it comes to securing our nation. Bush had 7 years and nearly 6 with the formation of the DHS and they STILL couldn't protect us against something like this.

Obama, at least, had the vision to recognize a need to have sufficient powers to shutdown parts of the Internet when our country's intellectual property and most critical secrets are at risk. Guns, missles and other WMDs are on the decline in a world where a single person or government can take down a power grid, cause a chemical plant to explode, etc.

How come this wasn't something Bush and his most "brilliant" people weren't working on from day 1? My company has been constantly evolving our security stance and infrastructure since 2000. Maybe the Republicans and the right=wrong-wing extremists are relying on prayer, creationism/intelligent design and a completely polarized country to see us through.

Simple fact is we have a LONG way to go before we are anywhere close to secure.

Bell Bottom

11-12-09, 18:47

Funny how right-wing-nuts can take ANYTHING out of context. As per a quote by the artist:

"I think it represents more his popularity... I think my piece represents more the fact that Obama's on fire,"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/12/burning-man-obama-video-c_n_355418.html

A sculpture by Chinese artist Liu Bolin titled "Burning Man Obama" is tested at a workshop in Beijing November 11, 2009. The sculpture represents U.S. President Barack Obama's impact on the world.

Just Cl

11-19-09, 23:42

Ever since the election placing the Socialist dirt bag and his Communist minions in the White House I hate to see the bumper stickers on the cars of those who support him.

So to past the time while driving I take notice of these morons in there cars with their Obama bumper stickers proudly displayed while I'm driving around, chewing my favorite Dentine Spearmint gum.

Then I like to position my truck to where I can fling the wad of sticky gum onto their car, hopefully on a painted surface. It's just good fun to patrol the streets and see how many Obama shit bags I can send a message to with a wad of sticky chewing gum on their cars, gives me a sense of personal satisfaction knowing their going to see it and say W. T. F.? . LOL, check out the pics.Dude. Really? REALLY? Look, I may or may not agree with another person's political choices, but that doesn't give me the right to spit on their car. That can be charged as vandalism, littering or a handful of other things; including battery if the gum so much as hit an occupant. (Go spit gum on a cop and see what all he drums up for you). By your mentioning that you hopefully hit paint, you admit that you understand that saliva can cause minor paint damage if left on the surface, hence going above and beyond "spitting" to "criminal damage to property".

You Sir, are NOT doing your political party (Notice that I didn't assume you're a Republican) any favors by acting like a 7 year old and "spitting" on people's cars. Grow up.

Considering that you most likely assume all Obama supports are crack-smoking minorities and tree huggers, how would you like it if they blew the resin out of their crack pipes/bongs on your truck? Or maybe if they just keyed the sh*t out of it and got directly to the point of what you're attempting to do with saliva-laden gum.?

I look at you as an ignorant fool. Not because of your political beliefs, as everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I look down on you because you're pathetic enough to infringe on another human being willingly because they don't hold the same beliefs as you. Hold a sign. Keep posting here. I encourage you to exercise your right as an American to express your opinions without causing due harm to people and property. That's what makes America beautiful. We have that right. But you DO NOT have the right to attempt to harrass and damage people's property with bodily fluid-soaked wads of your gum.

What did you expect me to think here? "Oh, wow! This guy is a modern day Paul Revere! He's signaling the invasion! " LMAO really. You are NOT a genius, buddy. Try to do something INTELLECTUAL to make a difference.

You are a vandal. And although I find myself to be more conservative politically, I hope one of these people that you "spit on" catches you, calls the cops and presses charges for one of the above listed crimes. Or they just carve a nice rising sun in your hood.

LordBlackAdder

11-21-09, 00:44

by Monty Pelerin

For the past couple of months I have worried about the risks of a failed presidency. No one should want this, regardless of party affiliation. It is harmful and dangerous to our economy and country. However, it appears obvious to me that the royal regime known as Obama has ended.

Seth Leibsohn writing in the National Review summarized it this way:

"This is reminiscent of the Jimmy Carter years - the last time the U.S. was seen as weak - unable to move and coax other countries, unable to reassure dependent allies, unable to have the respect of the world and, of course, unable to move the mullocracy of Iran."

Even the liberal media are beginning to question the effectiveness of the President. The media, in full Camelot mode, are slow to react and often lag what the populace started to recognize months ago. Quotes like these, however, suggest they are not far behind.

The NYT reports: "China held firm against most American demands. With China's micro-management of Mr. Obama's appearances in the country, the trip did more to showcase China's ability to push back against outside pressure than it did to advance the main issues on Mr. Obama's agenda, analysts said."

The Washington Post: "If there was any significant change during this trip, in fact, it was in the United States' newly conciliatory and sometimes laudatory tone. . . . Obama's trip stood in stark contrast to visits by his predecessors."

The Times stated that Obama was given "less respect than was given presidents Bush or Clinton."

All of the above quotes can be found in this highly recommended post by Seth Leibsohn. He concluded his piece:

"Not a very good first year for America, or the world, under a new leadership that promised a new respect, a new start, and a new way of doing business. It's new alright - it just isn't any good."

We have a failed presidency that cannot be retrieved. The dream cannot be rebuilt because there was never a foundation to begin with. It was all show and no substance. Yes, it created much excitement and (false) hope. But so did Elmer Gantry and James Jones. However, the image was akin to an old Hollywood set, all facade and no depth. Now the winds of reality are slowly and inexorably tearing the facade away.

The politicians in Congress see these same signs and read the polls. At this point they are trying to decide what is least dangerous for their individual careers. For the Republicans that probably means pouring gasoline on Obama's burning ship of state. For the Democrats, it is a more difficult problem. Ultimately, I believe they will abandon ship. Politicians of both parties are like rats; they are survivors. All politicians will take that course which they believe gives them the best chance for individual survival. Loyalty be damned.

Hang on, this will be a rough period ahead.

LordBlackAdder

11-21-09, 00:46

OR Rookies Make Game Decideing Mistakes.
By: Mitt Romney

During the presidential campaign, many Americans thought that Barack Obama’s lack of leadership experience would not prevent him from being an effective president. His eloquence, his insistence that, yes, he could solve any problem and his image, so artfully crafted by his advertising team, led by David Axelrod, convinced many that hope could trump demonstrated ability. It has not. Nowhere is the evidence more apparent than in his mismanagement of the conflict in Afghanistan.

In March, not long after taking office, President Obama explained his convictions regarding the conflict. He charged that “the terrorists who planned and supported the Sept. 11 attacks are in Pakistan and Afghanistan.” Further, “if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban, that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can.” And he concluded: “To succeed, we and our friends and allies must reverse the Taliban’s gains and promote a more capable and accountable Afghan government.” What followed this bold and definitive goal was the classic failing of people without real leadership experience: the inability to do what is necessary to achieve one’s objective.

The president refused to focus on what was most important. He took on so many tasks that he underinvested in the most critical ones. The restructuring of the entire health care system and his cap-and-trade proposal eclipsed the economy and the war. Investor Warren Buffett, the “sage of Omaha,” counseled him against such a foolhardy agenda, but Buffett’s wisdom was no match for the heady prospect of all-encompassing change.

So it was that in the first 100 days after his appointment in June of Gen. Stanley McChrystal as commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, Obama met with the general only once. After the press took note of it, the president squeezed in a mere 25 minutes for McChrystal when he was in Copenhagen to pitch Chicago’s Olympics bid. In the annals of American history, it is certain that no wartime president has ever spent less time with his generals than Obama has.

A full year after being elected, Obama still does not have a strategy for Afghanistan. His apologists explain that rather than rush a decision, it is better to get it right. But at some point, deliberation, if it goes on too long, becomes indecision. It is fair to ask, What has he been doing for the past 12 months that took precedence over his responsibility for our soldiers?

The answer is that he made 30 or more campaign trips for the Democratic Party and its candidates, including five events for defeated New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine alone. He repeatedly traveled around the country to keynote campaign-style town hall meetings that were carefully choreographed by his communications advisers. He appears to want to do what he knows best: campaign, rather than engage in what he was elected to do — lead and govern.

While he was busy campaigning in the U.S., the president ignored the election in Afghanistan and took wholly inadequate measures to ensure a valid outcome, even as he must have known that a legitimate government was essential to our success. Because Obama left so critical a matter to chance, we are left with a fraudulently elected regime, which is accused of rampant corruption. Thus, the prospects for our success have been greatly diminished.

With the McChrystal report in his hands since August, the president has finally been spending more time in the situation room. Surely his deliberations have not been speeded by the presence of Axelrod, the president’s campaign adman. Polls, politics and perspectives on what the TV networks may think have no place at the national security table. Communications staff should be informed of security decisions after they are made, not invited to be a party to them.

During my career in business and government, and in running the Olympics, I made many instructive mistakes and learned the lessons that come with experience. Obama is making those mistakes in his first real leadership position, and because that position is president of the United States, the consequences of his mistakes are sobering. The lives of our soldiers, the war against violent jihadism and the future of millions of Afghans are in the balance.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was a 2008 Republican presidential candidate.

LordBlackAdder

11-21-09, 00:50

LordBlackAdder

11-21-09, 00:57

Besides being the first black president of the USA, Obama is also the first president to have nude pictures of his mother surface on the internet. Albeit ones that have been tastefully done in an artitic style. These surfaced awhile ago and were possibly taken by Obama's communist mentor Frank Marshall Davis, at Davis' home. Some speculate that Davis may have been Obama's real father (which would lay to rest claims that he is really a Kenyan). As far as I can determine no one who would be knowledgeable has come out and said they are fakes. Although a few people claim they were all photoshoped, but why go through the time and effort required to produce three fake pictures when one would suffice?

I do suspect the first pic of Obama may have been altered.

John Black

11-21-09, 01:18

U.S. Deports Lou Dobbs

CNN Host Had Been Living Illegally In Country Since 1961

November 12, 2009

WANTAGE, NJ—Acting on anonymous tips from within the Hispanic-American community, U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials on Wednesday deported Luis Miguel Salvador Aguila Dominguez, who for the last 48 years had been living illegally in the United States under the name Lou Dobbs.

According to the Department of Homeland Security, federal agents stormed the undocumented immigrant's home in an evening raid just hours after the 64-year-old newscaster suddenly announced that he was resigning from CNN, and immediately placed him on an Aeromexico flight departing from Newark Liberty Airport.

"Mr. Dominguez did not come quietly, but in the end he came," said Sam Whitlock of the U.S. Border Patrol, who was injured during the arrest. "He pulled a knife on me, like they will, and swore a bunch in Spanish and spit on us when we finally managed to grab him by the serape and throw him against a wall. But the important thing is that he's now back where he belongs."

Evidence collected by investigators indicates that Dominguez/Dobbs, who has long claimed Texas heritage, was actually born in the Mexican state of Puebla to parents of Colombian descent, neither of whom were U.S. citizens. In the summer of his 16th year, he and 14 of his brothers and sisters paid smugglers to let them ride atop packages of cocaine in the cargo hold of a fishing boat bound for Texas under cover of night.

In addition to holding multiple jobs without ever obtaining a guest-worker permit or H-1B visa, "Dobbs" is reported to have collected welfare every month for nearly five decades. He appeared in good health when apprehended, having used Medicaid to obtain numerous health care services over the years, but immigration officials fear he still may have exposed the American population to the many infectious diseases illegal immigrants tend to carry, including both malaria and leprosy.

CNN, as per its policy initiated by Dominguez, is complying freely with the ongoing DHS investigation into the multitude of illegal activities in which its former employee was entrenched.

"No one here knew anything about Mr. Dobbs' past, and to be honest, we never asked," said a source within CNN, who asked not to be identified. "All we knew was that he was willing to take the job most American newscasters didn't want—namely, speaking out hysterically against immigration at every turn to help us gain ratings points against Fox News."

After arriving in Texas in 1961, "Dobbs" is believed to have wandered around the American southeast making a meager living as a car thief, low-level drug dealer, and migrant farm laborer. At age 18, he reportedly delivered an ounce of marijuana to attendees at an Atlanta media conference, where his harsh, booming voice and fiery temper caught the attention of none other than Ted Turner. At the tycoon's urging, the young man shaved his long, drooping mustachios, applied for federal tuition waivers, and took advantage of affirmative-action policies to gain admittance to Harvard University. In 1980, Turner gave him a job at CNN that had previously been held by an American-born reporter.

When searching the former newscaster's house in Wantage, NJ, Border Patrol agents found several boxes of horded food stamps, a fully-equipped stolen-car chop shop, a 350-deck DVD pirating warehouse, and a garment facility where up to 100 illegal workers put in 85-hour weeks producing knockoff purses, shoes, and other counterfeit clothing.

Many younger members of the Border Patrol team that participated in Wednesday's raid said it was "an honor and a privilege" to help deport Dominguez, as years of listening to tirades against illegal immigrants on Lou Dobbs Tonight had been a major factor in their choice of career.

"This is a battle for the soul of our country," Agent Jared Burns, 23, said as he helped the 17 Dominguez children board the bus that would take them to a detention facility where their legal status will eventually be determined. "Today is a proud day for any true American."

Immediately before press time, "Dobbs" arrived in Mexico City, and was surrounded by members of the international press.

"¡Esos hijos de puta sufrirán por esto!" a handcuffed Dominguez shouted at reporters from the tarmac. "Sin mi vigilancia, mis hermanos y yo nos apresuraríamos a la frontera a robar sus carros y a violar sus mujeres. ¡Arriba!"

Roamin Roman

11-21-09, 02:41

Last but not least...

From Audacity of Hope : 'I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.'Yes, that book of Zero's should have been titled The Mendacity of Trope instead of The Audacity of Hope.

It would have been far more fitting.

Roamin Roman

11-21-09, 03:20

That was a hoot, 61, but you forgot a couple:

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
You have two bulls.
Both have odd smiles on their faces.
They're never far from each other.
You pass a law legally recognizing one of them as a cow.
You declare your city 'diverse' but never get any milk.
Both cows (or bulls, or whatevers) eventually die of a bizarre disease.

CHICAGO
You have two cows.
Cow #1 tips over a lantern, starting a fire that burns down half the city.
Cow #1 blames the Cow #2, so the farmer sends Cow #2 to the rendering plant.
Cow #1 goes to Washington and proceeds to tip over more lanterns.
This time, until the heat dies down, Cow #1 goes overseas to apologize for Cow #2.

MEXICO
You have two cows.
You send both North of the border to eat the Gringos' grass.
Both cows stay in Gringo-land and tell other cows and bulls to come for the free grass.
Idiot farmers set aside grasslands exclusively for the 'underprivileged' cows.
Eventually, Gringo-land is denuded of grass.
Then, Mexican cows leave for greener pastures.

AL GORE UTOPIA
You have two cows. Al Gore has none.
Because your cows produce methane (a greenhouse gas), Al Gore confiscates them.
He puts them in his own pasture and pays a 'carbon offset' (to his own corporation).
You're fukk'd, but what else is new under this kind of politician?

OBAMA UTOPIA
You have two cows. Two of your neighbors have none.
Obama appropriates your cows and gives one to each of your 'deprived' neighbors.
The government declares that everyone must have a cow.
Because you have no cows, you're assessed a fine and thrown in jail.
Again, you're fukk'd. But what did you expect when you elected this guy?

Jr Monger

11-21-09, 09:24

Politics explained for the masses.
LOL

DEMOCRAT

You have two cows.
Your neighbor has none.
You feel guilty for being successful.
You push for higher taxes so the government can provide cows for everyone.

REPUBLICAN

You have two cows.
Your neighbor has none.
So?

SOCIALIST

You have two cows.
The government takes one and gives it to your neighbor.
You form a cooperative to tell him how to manage his cow.

COMMUNIST

You have two cows.
The government seizes both and provides you with milk.
You wait in line for hours to get it.
It is expensive and sour.

CAPITALISM, AMERICAN STYLE

You have two cows.
You sell one, buy a bull, and build a herd of cows.

BUREAUCRACY, AMERICAN STYLE

You have two cows.
Under the new farm program the government pays you to shoot one, milk the other, and then pours the milk down the drain.

AMERICAN CORPORATION

You have two cows.
You sell one, lease it back to yourself and do an IPO on the 2nd one.
You force the two cows to produce the milk of four cows.
You are surprised when one cow drops dead.
You spin an announcement to the analysts stating you have downsized and are reducing expenses.
Your stock goes up.

FRENCH CORPORATION

You have two cows.
You go on strike because you want three cows.
You go to lunch and drink wine.
Life is good.

JAPANESE CORPORATION

You have two cows.
You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk.
They learn to travel on unbelievably crowded trains.
Most are at the top of their class at cow school.

GERMAN CORPORATION

You have two cows.
You engineer them so they are all blond, drink lots of beer, give excellent quality milk, and run a hundred miles an hour.
Unfortunately they also demand 13 weeks of vacation per year.

ITALIAN CORPORATION

You have two cows but you don't know where they are.
You break for lunch.
Life is good.

RUSSIAN CORPORATION

You have two cows.
You have some vodka.
You count them and learn you have five cows.
You have some more vodka.
You count them again and learn you have 42 cows.
The Mafia shows up and takes over however many cows you really have.

TALIBAN CORPORATION

You have all the cows in Afghanistan , which are two.
You don't milk them because you cannot touch any creature's private parts.
You get a $40 million grant from the US government to find alternatives to milk production but use the money to buy weapons.

IRAQI CORPORATION

You have two cows.
They go into hiding.
They send radio tapes of their mooing.

POLISH CORPORATION

You have two bulls
Employees are regularly maimed and killed attempting to milk them.

BELGIAN CORPORATION

You have one cow.
The cow is schizophrenic.
Sometimes the cow thinks he's French, other times he's Flemish.
The Flemish cow won't share with the French cow.
The French cow wants control of the Flemish cow's milk.
The cow asks permission to be cut in half.
The cow dies happy.

FLORIDA CORPORATION

You have a black cow and a brown cow.
Everyone votes for the best looking one.
Some of th e people who actually like the brown one best accidentally vote for the black one.
Some people vote for both.
Some people vote for neither.
Some people can't figure out how to vote at all.
Finally, a bunch of guys from out-of-state tell you which one you think is the best looking cow.

CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

You have millions of cows.
They make real California cheese.
Only five speak English.
Most are illegal.
Arnold likes the ones with the big udders .

John Black

11-22-09, 23:14

wonder how many of the pople who voted for Obama read either of his books (his chief claim to fame before getting elected). If they had they would have known his thoughts..

From Dreams of My Father: 'I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.'

From Dreams of My Father : 'I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race.'

From Dreams of My Father: 'There was something about her that made me wary, a little too sure of herself, maybe and white.'

From Dreams of My Father: 'It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.'

From Dreams of My Father: 'I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa, that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself: the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.'

Last but not least.

From Audacity of Hope : 'I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.'Of course all of this is taken totally out of context, edited or even made up.

http://www.Snopes. Com/politics/obama/ownwords. Asp

At least Obama wrote his own books. Like Reagan, Sarah Palin had to use a 'ghost writer'.

It doesn't seem to matter to the right wing that they get the facts right. As long as they get their 'message' across. And they call Obama 'facist'.

They will believe and spread any story that says anything bad about Obama, if they can't find any, they will make some up.

Anybody ever read this story: http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzzlog/93122? Fp=1

From Snopes:

Obama never wrote 'I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction'.

This statement is a rewording of a passage from page 261 of 'The Audacity of Hope', in which Barack Obama spoke of the importance of not allowing inflamed public opinion to result in innocent members of immigrant groups being stripped of their rights, denied their due as American citizens, or placed into confinement, as was done with Japanese-Americans during World War II.

The original contains no specific mention of "Muslims":

"In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific reassurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction. "

Roamin Roman

11-26-09, 01:56

Sit through the commercial first and then laugh your ass off.

http://www.fancast.com/tv/Saturday-Night-Live/10009/1338994284/China-Cold-Open/videosIt puts "President Pantywaist" in the proper perspective. The next 3 years (and beyond, once we kick the Man-Child out of office in 2012) are going to be attrocious, I suspect. But, at least SNL should have a lot of material to work with. (Maybe that's why all those Lefties supported this de facto President.)

Bell Bottom

11-26-09, 10:16

You're very good at copy/pasting from right-wing-nut smear boards. Have you actually read either book? Doubtful. You seem to have lifted these in toto from:

http://www.Zackvision.com/weblog/2009/02/dreams-from-my-father/

Or from any of a number of blogs where they perpetuating falsehoods and misstatements, bolstering their own misconceptions.

Like your post, accusing democrats of being racist where you must have copied/pasted from quite a number of sources. I didn't hear any comments back on the real true where those racist democrats fled to the republican party in the 50s and 60s because they didn't like how the democrats had embraced social change/justice/equality.

You post full articles by others but don't offer your own opinion. Try being creative and offering your own thoughts (such as they are) and offer links to bolster those opinions for others to vet. Maybe read Obama's books with an open mind (as if anyone in the extreme right would open their mind long enough to let in the light).

wonder how many of the pople who voted for Obama read either of his books (his chief claim to fame before getting elected). If they had they would have known his thoughts..

From Dreams of My Father: 'I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.'

From Dreams of My Father : 'I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race.'

From Dreams of My Father: 'There was something about her that made me wary, a little too sure of herself, maybe and white.'

From Dreams of My Father: 'It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.'

From Dreams of My Father: 'I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa, that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself: the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.'

Last but not least...

From Audacity of Hope : 'I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.'

Bell Bottom

11-26-09, 10:29

Maybe we can get back to another Bush-like president! That would do wonders for the country. We can have more:

-warrantless wiretaps
-a government-built database of ALL American citizens calls/calling patterns
-lies and super-secrecy from the whitehouse
-what countries haven't we invaded yet?
-further fragmentation and polarization of our society
-special interests and K Street lobbyists rule behind the scenes
-denial of due process of numerous American citizen
-torture... LOTS OF TORTURE
-presidential eloquence similar to that of a brain damaged 4 year old
-politically motivated justice department firings (guided by the whitehouse)

Oh for more of the good old times

It puts "President Pantywaist" in the proper perspective. The next 3 years (and beyond, once we kick the Man-Child out of office in 2012) are going to be attrocious, I suspect. But, at least SNL should have a lot of material to work with. (Maybe that's why all those Lefties supported this de facto President.)

LordBlackAdder

11-27-09, 01:16

Interesting reading.

8:00 Woke up. Took a bong hit. Went back to sleep

9:00 Woke up. Took a bong hit. Went back to sleep again.

10:00 Woke up. Took a bong hit. Jerked off to pictures of naked Sarah Palin on the computer.

10:10 Browsed liberal political sites. Attacked Sarah Palin. Felt smug. Attacked George Bush, felt even smugger. Blamed Republicans for my failed life, felt even smugger.

10:30 Went to online chatrooms. Called people racists, attacked Sarah Palin, and supported illegal aliens. Didn't search for a job why should I I'll soon be getting my stimulus check from Obama.

10: 45 I lit a candle at my Obama altar. I kow towed to his picture for 10 minutes. Meditated on His Holiness for another 5. Felt smug.

11:00 am. Put on my Che Guevara t-sirt and some dirty sweats. Went to my check my mail. My stimulus check from Obama still hasn't come. Cursed the Republican mail man under my breath.

11:30 am. Felt hungry. No food in my mom's house. Damned her to hell.

11:45 am. Didn't take a shower, didn't shave, didn't brush my teeth. I admired my tattoos in the mirror. I am so cool. Sprayed some petchouli oil on. Bathing is so bourgoisie.

12:00 Went to the garage and got my fixed gear bike. I want a Prius but waiting for my stimulus from Obama. Obama will give me free money like he promised.

12:10 Rode my bike to the welfare office. Some fucker in a Prius cut me off. Must be a Republican.

12:30 Got to the welfare office. It is closed for lunch. 100 Mexicans families are waiting in front of me. 300lb Mexican women with 5 kids a piece. They are so cute. I chatted with a Baby Momma in Spanish. We exchanged compliments over tattoos. She admired my tattoos of Caesar Chazez and Commandante Zapata on each arm. I admired her tattooed eyebrows and gang tattoos on her neck. I think I could have got some, but she is only 12. I cursed America for being so uptight about sex. I wish I were gay, so I could go to Iowa and get married.

1:00 pm. Welfare office opens. There was a riot at the door. 100 Mexican families rushing the door is not a pretty sight. 10 people got shot. I smiled. I celebrated diversity.

3:00 pm. Fat Mexican lady bureaucrat calls my number after waiting 2 hours. I tell her I am poor and a Democrat and need some money. She doesn't understand English. She only speaks Spanish. In Spanish, she tells me since I am a white male and an American citizen with no children, I get no welfare--only Mexicans or women with many children can live off the state. I told her that I voted for Obama. She laughed and pointed at all the Mexican families and said, "They did too and they are not even citizens." I look at her, she looks at me, and we both say at the same time, "ACORN." We had a moment I will never forget. The entire welfare office erupts in shouts of "Viva Acorn, Viva Obama." Tears came to my eyes. I am going to spend at least an hour worshiping Obama at my altar tonight after I jerk off again to naked picture of Sarah Palin.

3:30 pm I go to my drug dealer. I have run out of dope. I ask him if I could buy some pot on credit until my stimulus check from Obama comes in. He says, "Yo, you dumb mother fucker, you canz gets no weez on credit." "But, but I am waiting for my stimulus checks from Obama, he promised us free money." "Nigga please, he promised me free money, not your sorry ass. Now get your dumb cracker ass out of my crib before I put a cap in your ass. Credit, shit, this ain't no Bank of America, mutha fucka." I shat my pants. I gave him the Black Power salute and ran to get my fixed gear bike. Somebody stole it.

3:45 Walking home. I saw some Mexican kids riding my bike. I didn't call the police. The police don't arrest Mexicans for committing crimes. They have sanctuary. Besides, they are Brown and oppressed and I am White and privileged. They deserve my bike more than me.

4:00 I walk to the food bin. There are 100 Mexican families in front of me waiting for food. When it is my turn, I get a package of top ramen and a rotten cabbage.

4:30 I get home. I make my Top Ramen mixed with some rotten cabbage. I turn on Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow. They give me some good talking points to confront idiot Republicans. They tell me nothing is ever my fault. The Republicans are evil. They blame the corporations, blame George Bush, blame Sarah Palin for everything wrong in America. I feel smug once again.

7:00 pm I go to my room and turn on my computer. I go to the liberal blogs and blame all problems on Republicans. I defend Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama for not sending me my stimulus checks. I also call people racists. Let them know what they already know and that Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh supporters have caused unemployment to reach 12%. The Democrats are great since they are working hard to give us free money and medical care. I feel smug.

9:00 pm I smoke the resin that was left in my bong. I visit the Sarah Palin website and toss myself off to her. I shot a big load when she winked at me and said, "You Betcha." Get depressed when I read the fine print saying the pictures are of a Sarah Palin look-a-like. Maybe there is a website with naked pictures of Ann Coulter.

9:30 I lit a candle at my Obama altar and kow towed to His Holiness for an hour. I prayed real hard for my stimulus check and for real naked pictures of Sarah Palin.

LordBlackAdder

11-27-09, 01:31

General Pershing Had an Idea That Appears to have Worked

LordBlackAdder

11-27-09, 01:34

This is from a venerable and much honored WW II vet who is well known in Hawaii for his seventy-plus years of service to patriotic organizations and causes all over the country. A humble man without a political bone in his body, He has never spoken out before about a government official, until now.

He dictated this letter to a friend, signed it and mailed it to the president.

Dear President Obama,

My name is Harold Estes, approaching 95 on December 13 of this year. People meeting me for the first time don't believe my age because I remain wrinkle free and pretty much mentally alert.

I enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1934 and served proudly before, during and after WW II retiring as a Master Chief Bos'n Mate. Now I live in a "rest home" located on the western end of Pearl Harbor, allowing me to keep alive the memories of 23 years of service to my country.

One of the benefits of my age, perhaps the only one, is to speak my mind, blunt and direct even to the head man.

So here goes.

I am amazed, angry and determined not to see my country die before I do, but you seem hell bent not to grant me that wish.

I can't figure out what country you are the president of.

You fly around the world telling our friends and enemies despicable lies like:

" We're no longer a Christian nation"

" America is arrogant" -
(Your wife even Announced to the world,"America is mean- Spirited. " Please tell her to try preaching That nonsense to 23 generations of our War dead buried all over the globe who Died for no other reason than to free a Whole lot of strangers from tyranny and Hopelessness.)

I'd say shame on the both of you, but I don't think you like America, nor do I see an ounce of gratefulness in anything you do, for the obvious gifts this country has given you. To be without shame or gratefulness is a dangerous thing for a man sitting in the White House.

After 9/11 you said," America hasn't lived up to her ideals."

Which ones did you mean? Was it the notion of personal liberty that 11,000 farmers and shopkeepers died for to win independence from the British? Or maybe the ideal that no man should be a slave to another man, that 500,000 men died for in the Civil War? I hope you didn't mean the ideal 470,000 fathers, brothers, husbands, and a lot of fellas I knew personally died for in WWII, because we felt real strongly about not letting any nation push us around, because we stand for freedom.

I don't think you mean the ideal that says equality is better than discrimination. You know the one that a whole lot of white people understood when they helped to get you elected.

Take a little advice from a very old geezer, young man.

Shape up and start acting like an American. If you don't, I'll do what I can to see you get shipped out of that fancy rental on Pennsylvania Avenue. You were elected to lead not to bow, apologize and kiss the hands of murderers and corrupt leaders who still treat their people like slaves.

And just who do you think you are telling the American people not to jump to conclusions and condemn that Muslim major who killed 13 of his fellow soldiers and wounded dozens more. You mean you don't want us to do what you did when that white cop used force to subdue that black college professor in Massachusetts, who was putting up a fight? You don't mind offending the police calling them stupid but you don't want us to offend Muslim fanatics by calling them what they are, terrorists.

One more thing. I realize you never served in the military and never had to defend your country with your life, but you're the Commander-in-Chief now, son. Do your job. When your battle-hardened field General asks you for 40,000 more troops to complete the mission, give them to him. But if you're not in this fight to win, then get out. The life of one American soldier is not worth the best political strategy you're thinking of.

You could be our greatest president because you face the greatest challenge ever presented to any president.

You're not going to restore American greatness by bringing back our bloated economy. That's not our greatest threat. Losing the heart and soul of who we are as Americans is our big fight now.

And I sure as hell don't want to think my president is the enemy in this final battle.

Sincerely,

Harold B. Estes