235 thoughts on “Newt Tells Obama He Can Use a Teleprompter When They Debate.”
neocon1November 28, 2011 / 2:41 pm
ClusterNovember 28, 2011 / 3:39 pm
The MSM is pinning back their ears and ready to go full throttle on the attack on Newt. What they don’t know yet is that Newt is more than ready to counter attack, and I for one, am looking forward to the battle.
Newt 2012!!
bloodypenquinstumpNovember 28, 2011 / 4:08 pm
I am sure Obama is terrified of Newt. Please, Please don’t throw me in the briar patch Newt!! I would love to see Newt win the nomination, Newt cannot hide his personality and it isn’t likable. Political debates are about more than who has memorized their talking points, voter respond to personality and intangibles as well. The charismatic, tall, likable, family man against the grating, charmless, unlikeable, cheater who looks like what anyone thinks of when they picture a pedophile.
I would put the money on Obama.
neocon1November 28, 2011 / 4:34 pm
patriotdad1November 28, 2011 / 5:35 pm
Still banging on about Larry Sinclair, neocon? Really?
neocon1November 28, 2011 / 6:19 pm
neocon1November 29, 2011 / 10:24 am
so BPS can call newt a pedophile, but larry sinclair a writer who has a book on amazon is off limits?
am I missing something here???
Majordomo PainNovember 30, 2011 / 9:00 am
It is nice to see that you are not allowed to have a free pass anymore. We, Ourselves, of the Collective would call this an “affirmative action” on the part of the moderators.
Your baseless accusations toward President Obama had no place on a civil blog comment area. If you detest Obama so greatly do as We have done, start your own blog.
[q c p n!]
neocon1December 2, 2011 / 5:35 pm
majordumbo
get over your self troll, It was about my language,
not the truth about the marxist, muslim, usurper that got my posts deleted.
nice try there perv.
RightlaneNovember 30, 2011 / 2:17 am
Obama’s may be likeable, but he can’t run the country and that’s the job of the President. We’ve had four years of “likeable ” and most Americans have come to the conclusion it’s time for some comptence.
Canadian ObserverNovember 30, 2011 / 7:18 am
If, indeed, most Americans have concluded that it’s time for some competence, Rightlane, they sure in tarnation are not going to get it from this current crop of Republican candidates. The GOP scraped the bottom of the barrel with these sorry losers and that is a crying shame for the voter. Unless a miracle happens and a competent Republican candidate is found, it appears that Mr. Obama will be serving as your President and leader of the free world for another term.
bloodypenquinstumpNovember 28, 2011 / 4:43 pm
LOL, are you a spoof neocon1? There has to be at least one conspiracy theory you don’t believe right? Newt won’t win against Obama, Romney will get the nomination and he has all the likable charm of John Kerry or a small pile of driftwood. And he looks like a guy who transfers jobs overseas, in fact he is one of those guys so good luck winning anything with him.
neocon1November 28, 2011 / 4:45 pm
neocon1November 28, 2011 / 4:47 pm
The language here is why you are off the blog for a while. Clean it up or hit the bricks. //Moderator
neocon1November 28, 2011 / 4:55 pm
neocon1November 28, 2011 / 4:57 pm
neocon1November 29, 2011 / 10:26 am
what language?
my referral to a screen name?
or blog content?
at least give a clue to what you do not want.
Well, I would quote Allen West too. What a stellar human being he is. I will be very surprised if he gets a second term – he has stepped into it so many times during his first term as a representative. I am sure everyone goes to Allen West for his opinion on just about everything – especially Obama. What a joke. Maybe you could find a quote from the other Republican freshman who is the dead beat dad? I am sure everyone has tremendous respect for his opinions as well. This is the best that the Republican Party has to offer?
neocon1November 28, 2011 / 5:20 pm
neocon1November 28, 2011 / 5:23 pm
neocon1November 28, 2011 / 5:28 pm
Cap'n ObviousNovember 28, 2011 / 5:51 pm
And it’s the Holiday Time again; I love Christmas lights. They remind me of the people who voted for Obama. They all hang together; half of them don’t work, and the ones that do, aren’t that bright.
Since obAMATEUR can’t run on “four more years” and just offers a rehash of failed liberal policies and class warfare, velma’s post is an example of what we will see from the obAMATEUR campaign – personal attacks and demagougery.
Way to go velma, drone on with the usual talking points. We know you are a party without ideas and just the usual BS.
back at you tired. Do you know what “hypocritical” means? Go look it up in the dictionary. You photo will be next to the word.
I for one certainly do not want to go back to a replication of the Bush years, which you thought were so wonderful. You seem to miss that there has been 20 months of growth in this country since Obama took office. We still have a high unemployment problem, but it sure is better than what it was the day Obama took office. The stock market certainly is better than the day Bush left office. The economy was close to a depression – and Obama brought it back, albeit slowly. But, the economy didn’t take a nose dive in 8 or 9 months – it was brought on by years of Republican de-regulations and lowering taxes. When was the last time the US lowered taxes while engaged in one war, let alone two wars??? The Republicans have done its very best to make sure try to block everything Obama has tried to do, including things the Republicans thought were great ideas until Obama took office. In short, the Republicans put the party before their country. Shame on them. And we all know, since corporations are “people” too, it is the job of the Republican Party to look out for the interest of the corporations first.
Four more years of Obama? You bet, with what the Republicans are putting out there for potential presidential material. If that is the best the GOP has then it needs to fold up as a party.
Personal attacks and demagoguery? You are a great one to throw stones at someone else when it is your m.o. everyday.
velma continues with the usual mindless talking points….
“Bush years …which you thought were so wonderful.”
Uh, no. I, along with others here have been critical of Bush and the Republicans who spent like drunken sailors. However, obAMATEUR spent just as much in less than half the time. Next.
“You seem to miss that there has been 20 months of growth in this country since Obama took office.”
Growth which could have been more if it were not for obAMATEUR’s stagnant policies. Next.
“We still have a high unemployment problem, but it sure is better than what it was the day Obama took office.
Again, unemployment was lower when obAMATEUR took office. It was lower when his “stimulus” plan was first passed. Real unemployment is grotesquely higher now than before. Next.
” it was brought on by years of Republican de-regulations and lowering taxes.”
Uh, when you libs are asked for the legislation that did all what you claim, don’t provide any. The last major deregulation of any industry was the banking industry and that was in 1998. Next. Lowering taxes brought us out of the Clinton recession and increased revenues. The spending is what increased said deficits.
“When was the last time the US lowered taxes while engaged in one war, let alone two wars???”
So, obAMATEUR (and you drones) boasts of lowering taxes AND having done so with three wars.
“The Republicans have done its very best to make sure try to block everything Obama has tried to do, including things the Republicans thought were great ideas until Obama took office.”
Sure, obAMATEUR has been in the mode of ALL or NOTHING – pass all that he wants or he doesn’t want it at all – and he gets his wish with Harry Reid stopping everything that makes it past the House – not even allowing it on the floor.
“In short, the Republicans put the party before their country. ” Really? Let’s see, obAMATEUR stops the pipeline project, closes the GOM and is now slowly opening it but is tight-fisted on regulation to prevent new drilling, but has the “more oil exploration leases” talking point.
” it is the job of the Republican Party to look out for the interest of the corporations first.”
Really? Why can’t you face the fact that obAMATEUR has taken more money from corporations and Wall Street than the Republicans? The sweet deal that GE made with obAMATEUR has been revealed to have earned massive profits with little or no taxes paid – while moving operations offshore.
“Four more years of Obama? You bet…..”
Spoken like a true mindless drone. However, obAMATEUR does not even want to run on that pitiful record. This is the reason for the class warfare tactic as well as the tax increase rhetoric after pushing to keep the tax cuts.
“Personal attacks and demagoguery? You are a great one to throw stones at someone else when it is your m.o. everyday.”
Then again, I am not running for pResident and I can be critical of anyone I choose. You don’t like the heat? Get out of the kitchen.
If you look up the words “mindless” and “drone” your picture would be next to them after that regurgitated verbal diarrhea you just posted. All of that was just dumbed down talking points that we have heard time and again most of which has been debunked here for a while now.
You could have saved yourself lots of time by just regurgitating “It’s Bush’s fault and this pResident is not responsible for anything”.
Pathetic.
Count d'HaricotsNovember 28, 2011 / 9:16 pm
“Which Obama policies stunted growth?” According to the CBO; most likely ~ all of them; “The Congressional Budget Office on Tuesday downgraded its estimate of the benefits of President Obama’s 2009 stimulus package, saying it may have sustained as few as 700,000 jobs at its peak last year and that over the long run it will actually be a net drag on the economy.“
Obviously wally you have not been paying attention or you just don’t give a rat’s a$$. This has been discussed and shown to be true time and again, here. It is for certain that you lack the reading comprehension to understand anything above your elementary grade level.
You, as usual, just want to fling your mental excrement hoping something will stick.
Still haven’t fully recovered from your huge meltdown the other day?
But of course, you could care less, you will ignore it anyway, as you have done countless times before.
ClusterNovember 28, 2011 / 6:32 pm
The charismatic, tall, likable, family man against the grating, charmless, unlikeable, cheater who looks like what anyone thinks of when they picture a pedophile. – bloody
Great example of how deep liberal thinking is, and one good reason why we find ourselves in such a mess. Liberals are emotionally hyper sensitive, think only in personality, and lack the gray matter to objectively think substantively. I know that I am tired of the infantile approach to politics that liberals engage in, and I also think that the majority of rational minded voters are as well.
AmazonaNovember 29, 2011 / 9:36 am
stumpy merely illustrates the American Idol mentality of the Pseudo Left, unaware of the ideology they support and defend, indifferent to its reality or its history, swarming like the lemmings they are after whoever appeals to them on a wholly superficial level of appearance, personality and identity.
Not once have I seen these types discuss the best blueprint for governing the country. They are so shallow and clueless, they think politics is really just about scandal and personality, and a way to validate pathological needs to hurl vitriol and hate.
bloodypenquinstumpNovember 28, 2011 / 6:42 pm
“you guys put up an amateur AA NOBODY community agitator, with a racist AA wookie of a wife,who never even ran a lemonaid stand, a dimwit VP and a bunch of commie union thugs and you criticize us”
Yep and they kicked your ass. That is all.
neocon1November 28, 2011 / 6:45 pm
How many times do you have to be told? Perhaps you need a time out for a day or so to figure out how to post without being crude. //Moderator
neocon1November 28, 2011 / 6:45 pm
neocon1November 29, 2011 / 10:29 am
crude is in the eyes of the beholder, one persons comedy is another’s crude
thanks
You seem to think vulgarity and crudity are funny. They are not allowed here and not seen the way you seem to see them. Do not play games pretending you do not know why your posts are deleted. If you want to post smut there are places it will be welcome. //Moderator
neocon1November 28, 2011 / 6:47 pm
coryNovember 28, 2011 / 7:05 pm
Here’s another cool statistic to add to your list:
The top 400 earners in the country make more than the entire bottom 50% put together.
Let me play the world’s tiniest violin for them.
ClusterNovember 28, 2011 / 7:06 pm
So what Cory – just because someone else is rich, doesn’t mean that others have to be poor. Wealth is not a static concept.
neocon1November 28, 2011 / 7:17 pm
CoryNovember 28, 2011 / 8:04 pm
“So what Cory – just because someone else is rich, doesn’t mean that others have to be poor. Wealth is not a static concept.”
If the wage for running our service industry (which we need and can’t be outsourced) is such that you are poor, then yes, someone has to be poor. If you’re for changing that, more power to you, but I think you’re voting for the wrong party.
“corky
and they PAY 70% of ALL taxes…..
next?
I have NEVER been employed by, worked for, paid by…a poor man.
However I have worked, employed, payed some.”
Oh man you are smart. Let’s just give all of our money to one person so he can employ us all, then! We’ll call him and king, and then his firstborn son can inherit all of his wealth when he dies.
neocon1November 28, 2011 / 8:31 pm
Cap'n ObviousNovember 28, 2011 / 9:04 pm
“If the wage (sic) for running our service industry (sic) is such that you are poor (again, sic) then yes, someone (sic) has to be (*sigh* sic) poor.”
Lord that was one awful sentence.
If you mean to say that wages being offered for persons in service industries are substandard, then they have a choice to not work for those offering the deficient wages; you know, get a better job.
No one is forced to accept sub-standard wages or working conditions; in spite of Obama’s Marxist dreams from his African Marxist father, we’re not a socialist country yet.
CoryNovember 29, 2011 / 12:14 am
“If you(sic) mean to say that wages being offered for persons in service(sic)(sic) industries are substandard, then they have a choice to not work for(sic)(sic) those offering the deficient wages; you know, get a better job.(sic)
No one is forced to accept sub(sic)-standard wages or working conditions; in spite of Obama’s Marxist dreams f(sic)rom his African Marxist father, we’re not a socialist (sic)(sic)(sic)country yet.”
Look, I can paste “(sic)” in random places in a grammatically correct statement, as well. Actually, I lied. You misused a semicolon, and “substandard” is not hyphenated.
To address your actual, non-pedantic point, the narrative of how all people getting paid poorly could fix everything just by getting better jobs is stupid. The world needs garbage men and people to stock the aisles in the grocery store. Our options are either to accept that we have to have poor people or do something to fix it. Bedtime stories about the little engine who could aren’t doing anything except helping you feel better about yourself.
AmazonaNovember 29, 2011 / 9:45 am
If the wage for running our service industry (which we need and can’t be outsourced) is such that you are poor, then yes, someone has to be poor.
Exactly. There are certain menial jobs which require very little in the way of skill or education, and these pay less than jobs with higher qualifications. The incentive is to develop more skills to be able to advance to higher paying work. Work is paid for according to its worth, just as everything else in the market is priced according to its value. Even in a higher paying industry, pay is determined by the value of the work the employee brings to the table.
Are you saying you think everyone should receive the same pay, no matter what the level of skill or quality of work the worker provides?
Are you saying that no worker has the responsibility to develop skills which will demand higher pay, but that it is the responsibility of the employer to pay more than the work is worth?
CoryNovember 29, 2011 / 9:50 am
Nope. I’m saying that you can flatten the wage curve such that the bottom end doesn’t have to be abject poverty without removing the incentive to try to get a better job. Or, if you don’t want to try to do that, you can’t pretend that the only reason people can be poor is if they just aren’t trying hard enough. If you have a race, no matter how fast everybody is, somebody still has to come in last.
RetiredSpookNovember 29, 2011 / 9:51 am
The world needs garbage men and people to stock the aisles in the grocery store. Our options are either to accept that we have to have poor people or do something to fix it.
I’m not sure exactly what you mean by “fix it”, Cory. We already have a minimum wage law. Are you suggesting raising it to, say, $10.00/hour, or maybe $15.00/hour? How about $20.00/hour, or better yet, how about just guaranteeing everyone a living wage, no matter their skill or education level. Then we could just do away with higher education completely, as there would be no reason to better one’s self. That would also solve the student loan problem. Just a thought.
coryNovember 29, 2011 / 1:08 pm
There are other things you can do to raise people out of poverty besides increasing minimum wage. Health care costs are a good place to start.
RetiredSpookNovember 29, 2011 / 1:18 pm
There are other things you can do to raise people out of poverty besides increasing minimum wage. Health care costs are a good place to start.
We don’t do so in a cost-effective way, but we already provide free healthcare for those who can’t afford it. What would you suggest, that we pay poor people to get sick?
CoryNovember 29, 2011 / 9:25 pm
What, by letting them skip out on emergency room bills? Does destroying their credit to help them in emergencies and leaving them out to dry if they need any sort of chronic care count as covering their health care? Or are you under the impression that Medicaid covers everyone most of us would consider lower class?
bloodypenquinstumpNovember 28, 2011 / 6:48 pm
Cap'n ObviousNovember 28, 2011 / 7:01 pm
I’m guessing you’re the expert on being banned from this blog Sasan. How long will you hide behind this screen name?
neocon1November 28, 2011 / 7:04 pm
neocon1November 28, 2011 / 7:14 pm
neocon1November 28, 2011 / 7:04 pm
I was ready to call it enough but the very next post was the same crudity. //Moderator
neocon1November 29, 2011 / 10:40 am
It was posted BEFORE you moderated it and mentioned anything.
So it was not posted in contempt.
🙂
bloodypenquinstumpNovember 28, 2011 / 7:07 pm
I assume you think I am Susan, I’ll just say I am not she, as I assume that she is a woman. Did she get banned for making fun of neocon?
neocon1November 28, 2011 / 7:31 pm
.
AmazonaNovember 29, 2011 / 9:49 am
Awwwww. you are just too too coy, aren’t you?
But as you so well know, it is SASAN, not Susan, and Sasan is a male, though not very manly.
And he got banned for, as far as I could tell, bringing nothing to the blog but bile and hatred, vitriol and nastiness, insults and personal attacks, and in general using the blog as a litter box for his mental excrement—all of which sound very much like you, stumpy.
Canadian ObserverNovember 29, 2011 / 12:01 pm
Amazona, it also sounds a great deal like your good friend, neocon. How can you continue to ignore his manure droppings and then at the same time voice your displeasure over someone else’s perceived sins? What’s up with that?
bardolfNovember 28, 2011 / 7:20 pm
Secret Fed Loans Helped Banks Net $13B
Bloomberg has won a lengthy Freedom of Information battle to get the details of a secretive, no-strings-attached multi-trillion-dollar payout from the Bush administration (continued by the Obama administration) to banks, the details of which were not available to Congress. The documents make it clear that the banks’ posture that they were only borrowing the money to help the government (JP Morgan said it borrowed “at the request of the Federal Reserve to help motivate others to use the system”) were purest refined BS. Morgan for example, had borrowed twice its cash holdings.
Add up guarantees and lending limits, and the Fed had committed $7.77 trillion as of March 2009 to rescuing the financial system, more than half the value of everything produced in the U.S. that year.
Neither Obama or Gingrich would change the above scenario. Though the banks made 13 billion from the low priced interest it could have been much worse. Eventually it will be and the Obama (or Clinton or Kerrey) supporters will be bickering with the Gingrich (or Bush or Romney) supporters about who is more to blame.
neocon1November 28, 2011 / 7:29 pm
neocon1November 28, 2011 / 7:33 pm
Count d'HaricotsNovember 28, 2011 / 8:30 pm
“Secret Loans”? TARP was a bad idea, Bailouts were a bad idea. The Fed is a bad idea.
Having said that, the $13.0B was realized after repayment and the cost to the taxpayer was a fraction of that (the actual difference between the interest received and the actual lending rates should the Fed have loaned the same amount at open rates; which according to the article, was highly unlikely.) It is possible that the Fed received more via interest than simply holding the funds would have realized. Also, the $7.77 T is a bogus assumption based on the myth of a full capital run which is, as always absurd. Reminds me of this scene from It’s a Wonderful Life.
George Bailey: No, but you…you… you’re thinking of this place all wrong.
As if I had the money back in a safe.
The, the money’s not here.
Charlie: Well, where is my money George?
George Bailey: Well, your money’s in Joe’s house…that’s right next to yours.
Charlie: JOE? You bastard, give back me my money before I beat the crap out of you!
Regardless, the Federal Reserve should be abolished. I think that’s the point I was going for.
dbschmidtNovember 28, 2011 / 10:18 pm
Unfortunately, the Fed was the one item that the founding fathers wished to address but never got the consensus for. For outlawing the possibility of that is–they did put the control in the hands of Congress but Congress ceded control in the original progressive assault (1910 ~ 1914) and we ended up with Jekyll Island and the Fed.
Progressives have been at work trying to dismantle the work of the founders since the founding but the people only fight back when they push too far. We need to start keeping watch on the Government and stay in the trenches forever and forever diligent.
bardolfNovember 29, 2011 / 2:11 pm
” … assumption based on the myth of a full capital run which is, as always absurd. ” – Count
Unlikely is not impossible. I don’t find a good parallel in U.S. history for when millions of people like Mark Noonan owed more on their houses than they are worth. I don’t find a good parallel in history when millions of students owed large amounts of money for educations without job prospects. Yet here we are.
What is absurd is believing the mythology of modern day economic theory, where e.g. Wall Street is needed to allocate capital efficiently. Where stock prices are normally distributed and arbitrage opportunities are rare. The mythology that people like Newt become rich through keen insights instead of using their government connections. Where companies like Boeing would weather the storm without government contracts. Where farmers in the US could compete with lowly paid Mexican equivalents without subsidies.
Regardless, the Federal Reserve should be abolished. I think that’s the point I was going for.
Count d'HaricotsNovember 29, 2011 / 6:20 pm
“Unlikely is not impossible”
You sir, have a keen grasp of the obvious. However, please bear in mind that should the “unlikely” come to pass the amount loaned would be the least of our worries.
I don’t understand your reference to Wall Street “allocating capital”. Do you believe the Fed is or should be in the business of allocations?
I’ll refer to Uncle Miltie here; “The role of the Fed is to preserve price stability. Period. And price stability in a broad aggregate—in a broad index. It should not be concerned with the asset markets as such, only as they affect indirectly—somehow—the price stability as a whole.”
As long as we’re on the subject; Uncle Miltie, and I believe in the free market, I assume your reference to “modern day economic theory” is actually in reference to early 20th Century Keynesian ideas you enumerated (although I don’t see what economic theory applies to Newt being paid as a consultant) like subsidies, bailouts and wage/price controls.
Parallels in history to home value disparity? How about 1978? (Check out the foreclosure rate and bankruptcy rates in the late 70s~That was easy). Parallels in history to millions of college educated adults not having a guarantee of a job? How about always? With large college loans? How about my entire lifetime? (I still have outstanding college loans from the time of the longest expansion of peacetime economy in our history. Those unfortunates that graduated college in the mid-1970s faced unemployment as high as today, with interest rates and inflation climbing to double digits.
“Where stock prices are normally distributed and arbitrage opportunities are rare.”
How are stock prices “normally distributed? I thought stock prices are set and bargained, but I’ve never purchased distributed stock so I may just be ignorant of that terminology. (I’ll just bet you thought I was going to challenge your use of arbitrage didn’t you?) OK, I give up, what economic theory believes that arbitrage opportunities are rare?
Farmers have to compete with subsidized Mexicans? Seriously, does that even make sense?
But, back to the subject; the “right” is looking to plain-speaking Newt to be the New Reagan; I believe Newt is actually the New Nixon.
bloodypenquinstumpNovember 28, 2011 / 7:56 pm
Vile, disgusting post deleted//Moderator
neocon1November 28, 2011 / 8:00 pm
neocon1November 28, 2011 / 8:06 pm
Even more vile and disgusting. //Moderator
neocon1November 28, 2011 / 8:36 pm
Count d'HaricotsNovember 28, 2011 / 8:40 pm
An orphanage? Seriously?
What a vile piece of human excrement this person is!
I guess well see how long it take him to be banned this time.
Disgusting!
neocon1November 29, 2011 / 9:41 am
so the possibility of the massad blowing up a uranium enrichment site in Iran and wrecking their nuclear war making capabilities is now disgusting?
interesting
bloodypenquinstumpNovember 28, 2011 / 9:03 pm
Lol, no that was a joke about neocon celebrating an explosion somewhere in Iran, not advocacy of orphanages being destroyed.
Count d'HaricotsNovember 28, 2011 / 9:08 pm
Joke? About blowing up an orphanage?
No, a joke is when you make someone laugh. Not a disgusting celebration over the killing of innocents. You’re revolting.
bloodypenquinstumpNovember 28, 2011 / 9:17 pm
“Not a disgusting celebration over the killing of innocents.” Exactly, I am glad we agree, which is why I was making fun of neocon for celebrating an explosion. LOL!
neocon1November 28, 2011 / 10:27 pm
neocon1November 29, 2011 / 10:36 am
BPS
NO…NONE, ZIP, NADA mention of casualities…and NO celebration there of.
just a celebration of the Massads capabilities.
Brannan also added that ISIS had recently learned from “knowledgeable officials” that the blast occurred just as Iran had achieved a “milestone” in the development of a new missile, and may have been performing a “volatile procedure involving a missile engine at the site.”
Suspicions that covert actions may be responsible for this and other explosions continue to mount despite official denials by the Iranian regime.
Interestingly, on Monday The Blaze reported that a major blast also rocked the Iranian city of Isfahan, a town that is said to be “home to nuclear experimental reactors, and also a uranium enrichment facility for producing nuclear fuel.”
ClusterNovember 29, 2011 / 10:36 am
I posted this yesterday on another thread, and have not received one response, so I will try again:
I would like to ask one of our resident liberals what Obama’s agenda will be for his possible second term. What great new ideas does he have to ignite this economy? What ideas does he have to reform entitlements, and how will he shape our immigration policy. I look forward to your response.
neocon1November 29, 2011 / 10:43 am
cluster
hard to answer this……
Chris Christie Tears Into Obama: ‘What the Hell Are We Paying You For?’
“a bystander in the Oval Office”
or
Cramer: We‘re ’Two Stages From a Financial Collapse So Huge It‘s Hard to Get Your Mind Around’
“we are in a dangerous moment right now”
neocon1November 29, 2011 / 11:01 am
more Obamaisms….
Cornel West: Ultimate Push for Entitlements Will Be ‘Fought in the Streets’ by Occupy Movement
“Poor children need…a war against poverty.”
ClusterNovember 29, 2011 / 12:51 pm
I love Christie
RetiredSpookNovember 29, 2011 / 11:36 am
Cluster,
You’re not surprised that you haven’t gotten a response to these questions, are you? None of the issues you’ve mentioned hold even the slightest interest to Liberals in general, and the low-level Leftist foot soldiers who frequent this blog in particular. Few, if any, have ever attempted to discuss problems and solutions from a political viewpoint, which, as Amazona has repeatedly pointed out, leads one to the inescapable conclusion that they are incapable of discussing the pros and cons of the two primary means of governing this country, preferring instead to hurl insults and invective. Cory makes a feeble attempt on occasion, like suggesting we “flatten the wage curve”, but he doesn’t offer any specifics as to how that would be accomplished within our Constitutional framework.
If this were a discussion about providing for those who, because of physical or mental deficiencies, cannot provide for themselves vs. not doing so, I could understand the impasse, but that’s not the case.
ClusterNovember 29, 2011 / 12:39 pm
Agreed Spook, and that was the point of my post. Obama does not have any serious plans to address these issues, nor do his followers even care. To them it’s just a sport – bashing the cartoonish perception they have of conservatism, without a single thought towards actual policies. I have grown very tired of it.
coryNovember 29, 2011 / 2:41 pm
See, this is why I was hesitant to try to provide a sweeping generalization of my political philosophy in the first place. I provided a more in-depth explanation than you yourself did, answered the couple of questions you asked me afterwards, and then you wandered away like the topic was no longer of any interest to you only to post weeks later in a different thread about my “feeble” attempts to explain myself.
It becomes rapidly apparent when talking to you guys that every time the subject magically changes to a discussion of broad, sweeping political philosophies, it has little to do with any interest in talking about my grand plan for the universe and everything to do with avoiding the particular topic being discussed at the time. I fell for it one time and wasted some portion of my life humoring you, but I am now firmly convinced that you are one of many here who complain incessantly about the lack of people willing to honestly debate with you while simultaneously scrambling desperately away when somebody tries to have an honest debate with you. We keep ending up back at the whole “two political philosophies” crap because a bunch of you have canned responses for a specific platform and are confounded when somebody comes here and doesn’t conform to the Democratic Party line. I mean, the post you just replied to was Cluster demanding that we defend Obama!
I keep getting called a drone, but you guys are so invested in a competitive us versus them mentality that you can’t grasp that people like you on both sides are wrecking this country. I mean, can somebody explain to me why huge portions of this country share (one way or the other) the exact same, incredibly strong opinion on issues ranging from free trade agreements to environmental regulations to gun control to abortion to capital punishment to gay marriage to foreign policy to immigration? How can anybody try to relate all of those issues to one central concept? Somebody is going to try to come in and mumble something about the Constitution and Liberty, but the Constitution doesn’t have a thing to say about a bunch of those issues (unless you want to tell me how it says that we should execute people, how it protects fetuses when citizenship is awarded at birth, how we shouldn’t have tariffs with countries with cheap manufacturing, etc.).
Our politicians are a bunch of useless children who are incapable of doing anything useful because that’s what the public keeps voting for.
ClusterNovember 29, 2011 / 3:13 pm
….it has little to do with any interest in talking about my grand plan for the universe and everything to do with avoiding the particular topic being discussed at the time. – Cory
I am not interested in your “grand philosophy” Cory, I simply want to hear from some Obama supporter, who can articulate what Obama’s second term position will be on three very important issues. Mainly because I don’t know what they are, and don’t believe that Obama has clarified it. I could be wrong.
Our politicians are a bunch of useless children who are incapable of doing anything useful because that’s what the public keeps voting for. – Cory
That I agree with.
RetiredSpookNovember 29, 2011 / 3:21 pm
See, this is why I was hesitant to try to provide a sweeping generalization of my political philosophy in the first place. I provided a more in-depth explanation than you yourself did
Cory, I’m not sure who this is directed at, me or Cluster. Regardless, I went back and re-read your previous comments, and I don’t see where you engaged in an “in-debth explanation of anything. Perhaps I missed it.
In this thread you have suggested that we flatten the wage curve, and that healthcare costs would be a good place to start raising people out of poverty. That is and always has been your MO: make generalized statements that could possibly be interesting ideas to discuss, but you never seem to be able to get from here to there, preferring instead to complain because we always call you on your unfinished ideas.
I personally don’t care if you’re a Democrat, a Republican, an Independent, a Socialist, Marxist or some other political persuasion, but it seems to me that you are simply reluctant to discuss what you believe because of some fear that you’ll be asked to explain why you believe it. The situation we find ourselves faced with is not a Republican or Democrat issue. It’s a can-we-continue-on-our-present-track-and survive issue. You list lots of separate issues on which people of even like political philosophy can differ, but you don’t ever seem to be able to take a stand on the very basic principles which govern the general direction of the country. Maybe you simply confuse issues with principles. I don’t care what your position is on gun control, abortion, gay marriage, etc.; if you believe that we can continue to live beyond our means and spend 40% more than we take in, then you’re simply someone who has to be defeated. I have a feeling, though, that our core beliefs are not all that far apart. You’re just afraid to express and explain yours.
Green Mountain BoyNovember 29, 2011 / 4:09 pm
You are not here to debate. You are here to make pronouncements and dictates. Next?
Green Mountain BoyNovember 29, 2011 / 11:54 am
The current congressional term. The House controlled by republicans, the Senate the republicans have more than enough to sustain a filibuster. Yet they gave in on everthing. Name one accoplishment this Congress has. Other than a continuation of the Bush tax cuts. Anything?
A whole of talk and no action.
Sure Newt can talk. He is a very good talker. Lets say his talk is good enough to get him into the Oval Office. What does anyone expect to change? What part of the progressive agenda do you think Newt will start rolling back?
ClusterNovember 29, 2011 / 12:43 pm
I think Newt will get very serious about entitlement reform, immigration reform, and regulatory reform, in addition to putting a fear into Iran, Pakistan, etc. As he has said before, if you want to manage the economy, Romney is a good choice, but if you want to reform it, vote for Newt.
I heard O’Reilly interview Newt last night, and I agree with every position he takes on nearly every issue. I also like the fact that he does talk about climate change, because conservatives need to inject ourselves in that debate and expose the liberals for their blatant dishonesty.
RetiredSpookNovember 29, 2011 / 1:08 pm
Speaking of climate change, have you noticed how ClimateGate 2 is getting NO mention in the MSM?
ClusterNovember 29, 2011 / 1:14 pm
This issue (climate change) is unraveling on them, but back to Obama’s second term. Does anyone have any idea what his plans are? Has he made any substantive speech on what his priorities will be? If Obama plans on the same old, same old for his second term – Newt will tear him up.
Green Mountain BoyNovember 29, 2011 / 1:20 pm
Spook, how do you defend the indefensible? I’m sure Thomas and Wallace will give it the old “I’m better educuted than you try” though. 😛
Chrissy AnnNovember 29, 2011 / 1:16 pm
Getting back to the original thread. Newt is brilliant..he doesn’t need a teleprompter. Obama does. I hope they do debate. But I think Obama knows he is outgunned.
Green Mountain BoyNovember 29, 2011 / 1:33 pm
I have a feeling bams will be “sick” on debate days. LOL. 🙂
patriotdad1November 29, 2011 / 4:45 pm
There are no teleprompters at the debates. Get a clue Chrissy,
Chrissy AnnNovember 30, 2011 / 8:46 am
Awww…is someone grumpy?
bloodypenquinstumpNovember 29, 2011 / 2:07 pm
“Newt is brilliant..he doesn’t need a teleprompter.” You do realize that there aren’t any teleprompters at the debates, and Obama handled the last debates just fine, if I recall correctly he seems to have won last time. Please don’t nominate Newt, his brain is too powerful, lol. It will be pretty hard for any republican to win, most people remember why we are in this situation in the first place and it didn’t happen on Obama’s watch.
J. R. BabcockNovember 29, 2011 / 2:14 pm
and Obama handled the last debates just fine, if I recall correctly he seems to have won last time.
Given that McCain was an awful debater, that’s not really saying much.
Green Mountain BoyNovember 29, 2011 / 2:14 pm
You are right. He only made it much worse. Giving an opportunity for even a squish like Romney Mitt to be president. The repubs could not have done this as incompetant as they are. They needed someone even more incompetant than they.
Face it, bams is toast in 2012. Maybe you guys will get your revolution when he looses. It’s your only hope 😉
ClusterNovember 29, 2011 / 2:36 pm
So bloody, do you care to answer my question? What is Obama’s second term agenda in regards to entitlement reforms, immigration policy and the economy?
bardolfNovember 29, 2011 / 2:21 pm
I know it’s hard to fathom, but Obama and supreme court justice John Roberts both went to the same law school. They were both trained to debate very complex issues even when the facts are against them.
The only reason to think Newt would handily defeat Obama in any debate is to believe that Obama got through Harvard as an affirmative action handout. If Newt does get the nomination (he probably won’t since the GOP elite have already decided Romney) the debates will once again show how pointless debates are for accomplishing anything.
Green Mountain BoyNovember 29, 2011 / 2:32 pm
Bardolf, while I was in the service, I had the honour of escoting a friend of mine to West Point. I stepped insinde the main doors and spent approximately one hour inside.
Does that qualify me as have gone to West Point? LOLzer 😛 🙂 ;P
bardolfNovember 30, 2011 / 12:28 pm
If you put you went to West Point are your resume would you be lying?
J. R. BabcockNovember 29, 2011 / 2:32 pm
The only reason to think Newt would handily defeat Obama in any debate is to believe that Obama got through Harvard as an affirmative action handout.
Is there any reason to believe he didn’t?
ClusterNovember 29, 2011 / 2:34 pm
Let’s recall that Obama actually had a message that resonated with many people in 2008, and his blatant incompetence was not yet known. Obama will not be able to defend his record, nor does he have any new ideas. Newt will tear him up on every issue, not too mention that Newt actually has some very interesting and refreshing ideas to offer. Any debate with Obama and Newt will be very much one sided – in favor of Newt
ClusterNovember 29, 2011 / 4:51 pm
Here’s one new idea – How about if build the fence, secure the border, than address the illegal immigrants here in a humane manner. Those that have obeyed the law and have been here for some time, will be handled differently than those that have violated laws. Not exactly new, but at least it’s a common sense approach.
Or how about this – let’s stop picking winners and losers and let the bankruptcy laws, and the justice department manage the private sector. Now that would be refreshing.
Or how about treating terrorism as an act of war, rather than a criminal offense, and using enhanced interrogation techniques. I will give Obama props for letting the military continue their pursuit of valuable targets. He has been more hawkish than I thought, and certainly more so than what he campaigned on.
neocon1November 29, 2011 / 5:43 pm
walleye
ALL ILLEGALS have VIOLATED the LAW
bloodypenquinstumpNovember 29, 2011 / 3:34 pm
“Newt actually has some very interesting and refreshing ideas to offer.” LOL
Neither side has interesting or refreshing ideas, the ideas will be the same as they have been for the last 20 years. The liberals will vote Obama and the conservatives will vote against Obama, the swing voters will decide who gets elected. Which will be Obama, unless someone comes out of the blue that has actual charisma, ability, and electability, I don’t see that happening.
ClusterNovember 29, 2011 / 4:54 pm
Neither side has interesting or refreshing ideas, – bloody
What a difference four years makes – wow. It use to be that Obama was “The One We Have All Been Waiting For” – Now, he is just another politician who will win because no one else is any better.
Lowered expectations indeed.
bloodypenquinstumpNovember 29, 2011 / 3:41 pm
“The only reason to think Newt would handily defeat Obama in any debate is to believe that Obama got through Harvard as an affirmative action handout.
Is there any reason to believe he didn’t?”
I love this conspiracy theory, Obama only got where he is because he is black, thank goodness he is the only black guy in America. LOL So which is it, is he an evil genius secret muslim who stole power in America from its rightful christian masters or a dumb guy who was handed the most powerful position in the world because he is black.
Or maybe, just maybe, he is a good politician. It is almost inconcievable to conservatives that he may just be a guy who is good at politics who disagrees with them.
neocon1November 29, 2011 / 3:48 pm
BPS
still ranting about conspiracy “theories” ?
sounds like you are stuck on stupid.
neocon1November 29, 2011 / 3:51 pm
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX //Moderator
“The only reason to think Newt would handily defeat Obama in any debate is to believe that Obama got through Harvard as an affirmative action handout.
57 states, uh uh ummmm, teleprompters in 6th grade classes never employed in private business, community agitator, wright……
sounde logical to be.
Newt would give an ironing to the empty suit.
J. R. BabcockNovember 29, 2011 / 3:55 pm
Stumpy, I think the photo of the group in the White House War Room during the Bin Laden assassination represents how most of us view Obama. He’s sitting there in his golf jacket, having just been dragged off the golf course because someone on his staff thought he probably ought to be in the photo. It’s gotten hard to decide whether he’s the most dangerous President ever or the most inconsequential.
neocon1November 29, 2011 / 3:57 pm
jr
both at the same time.
dbschmidtNovember 29, 2011 / 4:07 pm
“Or maybe, just maybe, he is a good politician.”
On this one statement I have to agree as long as you include his entire team from his days in Chicago all the way to the most powerful office in the world–it was a team of great political maneuvering riding on the back of feeble message, personal destruction of opponents (not issues or ideas), and general dislike of the previous occupant of the Oval Office.
But what now? What does he have this go-round except the politics of personal destruction? Of split & pit groups of people against each other?
Green Mountain BoyNovember 29, 2011 / 4:55 pm
You forgot about bams knocking a lot of his opponets off the ballots completely. He was known for that.
It’s the chicago way dude!
JamesNovember 29, 2011 / 5:06 pm
Yes! everything is a conspiracy and its impossible that the Democrats just had a better candidate in 2008, and will have one again in 2012.
You’re really grasping at the straws here GMB. Good luck with your sitting out the election campaign.
dbschmidtNovember 29, 2011 / 8:08 pm
“The day after New Year’s 1996, operatives for Barack Obama filed into a barren hearing room of the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners.
There they began the tedious process of challenging hundreds of signatures on the nominating petitions of state Sen. Alice Palmer, the longtime progressive activist from the city’s South Side. And they kept challenging petitions until every one of Obama’s four Democratic primary rivals was forced off the ballot.
…Asked whether the district’s primary voters were well-served by having only one candidate, Obama smiled and said: ‘I think they ended up with a very good state senator.’ ”
And the same can be said about every race he could get away with this type of behavior including wonderful underhand tactics like getting California Judge Robert Schnider to open sealed divorce records (via proxy) to get his Republican competitor to drop out.
But then again~it must be a conspiacy and there is nothing to see here. BTW, all of this is still available from the Chicago Trib. archives and I have worked for them–they are no right wing biased source–far from it.
AmazonaDecember 3, 2011 / 7:34 pm
GMB, Barry knocked ALL of his opponents off the ballot to be elected to the Illinois Senate—the only way he could win was to run unopposed, in the state that knows him best—-and then got rid of Jack Ryan to win the national seat.
bloodypenquinstumpNovember 29, 2011 / 3:57 pm
So neocon is it even possible in your mind that he may just be a guy who is good at politics who disagrees with you?
Green Mountain BoyNovember 29, 2011 / 4:02 pm
Politics? LOL Heck no. Taking vacations and playing golf? Heck Yes.
FORE!!!!!
neocon1November 29, 2011 / 4:10 pm
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX //Moderator
No, a marxist, muslim, usurper……a Manchurian pResident. an enemy of freedom and the constitution.
a racist, divider, a class pimp divider.
good riddance to him in 2012.
neocon1November 29, 2011 / 4:14 pm
Ann Coulter Gets Bleeped Out on ‘Morning Joe’ for Calling John McCain a ‘( self moderated) Bag’
🙂
neocon1November 29, 2011 / 4:15 pm
compliments of the NEW and IMPROVED Neocon1
neocon1November 29, 2011 / 4:16 pm
PS
I agree with Ann
Green Mountain BoyNovember 29, 2011 / 4:42 pm
wind bag?
gas bag?
(self moderated) bag?
lol.
bloodypenquinstumpNovember 29, 2011 / 4:21 pm
“Politics? LOL Heck no. Taking vacations and playing golf? Heck Yes.
FORE!!!!!”
So should I just go back a couple of years and copy and paste your defense of Bush and all of his vacations, it would save me time.
“feeble message, personal destruction of opponents (not issues or ideas), and general dislike of the previous occupant of the Oval Office.”
So unlike anything that conservative on this blog do. LOL I haven’t seen a single personal attack against Obama on this blog in several seconds. LOL
Green Mountain BoyNovember 29, 2011 / 4:40 pm
Sure Thomas be my guest. If you can find any. Good Luck. Besides the media did a bang up job on Bush for taking very infrequent vacations and I do believe Bush stopped golfing altogether because of media critisism.
Ahh but facts rarely have any place in the leftist world.
Time to plan that next vacation!!
All hail king putt!!!!!
neocon1November 29, 2011 / 5:00 pm
GMB
more O FRAUD……he calls EVERY trip some sort of govt work so he can CLAIM he was “working” while taking the whole Posse with him to swim and golf.
W on the other hand was not in some exotic place or Europe spending BILLIONS.
He was actually working at his ranch or camp David.
JamesNovember 29, 2011 / 5:02 pm
GMB,
I want to know why you call people by different names?
Green Mountain BoyNovember 29, 2011 / 5:06 pm
Why is that Thomas?
neocon1November 29, 2011 / 5:06 pm
ya usually gotta pay for this kind of comedy
As some call for bold strokes, Obama sticks with vacation plans
August 10, 2011|By Peter Nicholas
When it comes to curbing unemployment, President Obama “will not rest” until everyone looking for a job can find one, White House spokesman Jay Carney said Wednesday.
A couple of hours later, the White House put out an announcement that the president will soon begin a nine-day vacation in Martha’s Vineyard.
JamesNovember 29, 2011 / 5:07 pm
So you call me “Thomas”….
surely, you must have some sort of evidence for this right? Is it possible that you can provide this evidence?
Green Mountain BoyNovember 29, 2011 / 5:12 pm
Rule 406
Habit, routine, practice.
Educate yourself. LOL 😉
Green Mountain BoyNovember 29, 2011 / 5:05 pm
Well, you have to understand here. The rules for libbies are vastly different than the rules for conservatives. If Bush spent a week at Crawford talking with foriegn leaders thats still a vacation.
If barky o’bambams takes a 3 day campaign trip and works in one Mr.Trumka for a ten minute interview then its a work trip.
See how easy that is?
JamesNovember 29, 2011 / 5:08 pm
Oh stop with the BS lies about Bush at Crawford talking to foreign leaders….blah blah blah…
do you even believe half the bs you post? or do you wake up deciding to lie all day everyday?
you’re truly a sad human being.
Green Mountain BoyNovember 29, 2011 / 5:17 pm
Thomas
Visitors to the Bush Crawford, TX ranch have included:
•Russian President Vladimir Putin, November 2001
•British Prime Minister Tony Blair, April 2002
•Saudi King Abdullah, April 2002, April 2005
•Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, August 2002
•Chinese President Jiāng Zémín, October 2002
•Spanish Prime Minister José María Aznar, February 2003
•Australian Prime Minister John Howard, May 2003
•Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi Jun’ichirō, May 2003
•Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, July 2003
•Mexican President Vicente Fox, March 2004, March 2005
•Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, April 2004
•Spanish King Juan Carlos and Queen Sofía, November 2004
•Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin, March 2005
•Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, April 2005
•Colombian President Álvaro Uribe, August 2005
•German Chancellor Angela Merkel, November 2007[12]
•Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, February 2008[13]
your own damn link states that President Bush took a total of 879 vacation days while in office for years…..that’s 2.5 years!!!
seriously, i could care less how many vacation days any president spends, they deserve every day of it.
Only conservative kooks like you care and make an issue out of it. Then you wonder why you lose elections and why your own GOP considers you fringe.
Good luck with your sitting out the election campaign.
Green Mountain BoyNovember 29, 2011 / 5:32 pm
“you’re truly a sad human being.”
Thats the best you have Thomas? LOLzer You are loosing your edge.
Face it, barky is toast in 2012. Your only consolation is you will probably get Romney Mitt for potus. Some change huh?
Enjoy.
Green Mountain BoyNovember 29, 2011 / 6:08 pm
You accused me of lying. I provided you with proof and the link to that proof. What is your problem Thomas?
AmazonaDecember 3, 2011 / 7:42 pm
James squeals: so what are you trying to prove?
Well, it was not TRYING to prove, but actually PROVING, that you are an ignorant liar who doesn’t care enough about the truth to even find out what you are saying if you can say something ugly.
What did you say? Oh stop with the BS lies about Bush at Crawford talking to foreign leaders….blah blah blah…
do you even believe half the bs you post? or do you wake up deciding to lie all day everyday?
And when it is pointed out to you that Bush DID host many many foreign dignitaries and leaders, you whine that these were still “vacation days”. Yeah, playing host to a foreign leader is just like playing golf with your buddies—-no stress, no work, no hassle, right?
And then you say a president deserves all the vacation days he may choose to take.
You’re just a mess, aren’t you “James”?
neocon1November 29, 2011 / 5:11 pm
GMB
in one Mr.Trumka for a ten minute interview then its a work trip.
or a two minute phone call authorizing the OWS and a 500 Mil ck.to the unions.
JamesNovember 29, 2011 / 5:33 pm
hey doofus, maybe you should call me by my name.
I don’t call you neocon1 do I?
and Romney has NO chance in hell to beat this incumbent. Obama will get a second term, and you’ll be the one enjoying 4 more years of Progressives…
I love it!
Green Mountain BoyNovember 29, 2011 / 5:39 pm
LOLzer whatever you say Thomas. I would recomend getting a new screen name already. This one is going stale fast. 🙂
J. R. BabcockNovember 29, 2011 / 6:50 pm
and you’ll be the one enjoying 4 more years of Progressives…
I love it!
And what specifically will you love about it, Jame, besides rubbing Conservatives noses in it, that is? Surely you must have some idea what you’d like to see Obama accomplish if given another 4 years.
GMB, let’s not forget the libbies blasted Bush for playing golf while our brave soldiers were dying in Afghanistan and Iraq. Bush stopped playing golf.
Now, these same mindless drones are silent when it comes the Rock Star, the Once We’ve Been Waiting For, the Sort of a god, the One, The Chosen One, etc. etc.
You are right. The rules for the libs are different. Look at Cain and Clinton. Clinton’s affairs were “his private life” and now it is open season on Cain.
They are a bunch of hypocrites and the useful idiot drones give them a pass every time.
Bush quit playing golf and took up riding the bicycle. He rode almost daily and had to be taken to Maryland for his riding time. Do you have a problem with that? I don’t.
But we are talking about liberal reaction to Bush and then different treatment for their own…..
… I did not expect you to get it.
Evidently, Bush playing golf miffed a bunch of libs or were they just looking to play politics and their world of political gotcha?
But again, these libs are silent as their chosen one plays round after round. Why can’t you recognize your party’s hypocrisy when it is so blatant? Or are you just willing to look the other way?
Blogs For Victory 
The MSM is pinning back their ears and ready to go full throttle on the attack on Newt. What they don’t know yet is that Newt is more than ready to counter attack, and I for one, am looking forward to the battle.
Newt 2012!!
I am sure Obama is terrified of Newt. Please, Please don’t throw me in the briar patch Newt!! I would love to see Newt win the nomination, Newt cannot hide his personality and it isn’t likable. Political debates are about more than who has memorized their talking points, voter respond to personality and intangibles as well. The charismatic, tall, likable, family man against the grating, charmless, unlikeable, cheater who looks like what anyone thinks of when they picture a pedophile.
I would put the money on Obama.
Still banging on about Larry Sinclair, neocon? Really?
so BPS can call newt a pedophile, but larry sinclair a writer who has a book on amazon is off limits?
am I missing something here???
It is nice to see that you are not allowed to have a free pass anymore. We, Ourselves, of the Collective would call this an “affirmative action” on the part of the moderators.
Your baseless accusations toward President Obama had no place on a civil blog comment area. If you detest Obama so greatly do as We have done, start your own blog.
[q c p n!]
majordumbo
get over your self troll, It was about my language,
not the truth about the marxist, muslim, usurper that got my posts deleted.
nice try there perv.
Obama’s may be likeable, but he can’t run the country and that’s the job of the President. We’ve had four years of “likeable ” and most Americans have come to the conclusion it’s time for some comptence.
If, indeed, most Americans have concluded that it’s time for some competence, Rightlane, they sure in tarnation are not going to get it from this current crop of Republican candidates. The GOP scraped the bottom of the barrel with these sorry losers and that is a crying shame for the voter. Unless a miracle happens and a competent Republican candidate is found, it appears that Mr. Obama will be serving as your President and leader of the free world for another term.
LOL, are you a spoof neocon1? There has to be at least one conspiracy theory you don’t believe right? Newt won’t win against Obama, Romney will get the nomination and he has all the likable charm of John Kerry or a small pile of driftwood. And he looks like a guy who transfers jobs overseas, in fact he is one of those guys so good luck winning anything with him.
The language here is why you are off the blog for a while. Clean it up or hit the bricks. //Moderator
what language?
my referral to a screen name?
or blog content?
at least give a clue to what you do not want.
Well, I would quote Allen West too. What a stellar human being he is. I will be very surprised if he gets a second term – he has stepped into it so many times during his first term as a representative. I am sure everyone goes to Allen West for his opinion on just about everything – especially Obama. What a joke. Maybe you could find a quote from the other Republican freshman who is the dead beat dad? I am sure everyone has tremendous respect for his opinions as well. This is the best that the Republican Party has to offer?
And it’s the Holiday Time again; I love Christmas lights. They remind me of the people who voted for Obama. They all hang together; half of them don’t work, and the ones that do, aren’t that bright.
Since obAMATEUR can’t run on “four more years” and just offers a rehash of failed liberal policies and class warfare, velma’s post is an example of what we will see from the obAMATEUR campaign – personal attacks and demagougery.
Way to go velma, drone on with the usual talking points. We know you are a party without ideas and just the usual BS.
back at you tired. Do you know what “hypocritical” means? Go look it up in the dictionary. You photo will be next to the word.
I for one certainly do not want to go back to a replication of the Bush years, which you thought were so wonderful. You seem to miss that there has been 20 months of growth in this country since Obama took office. We still have a high unemployment problem, but it sure is better than what it was the day Obama took office. The stock market certainly is better than the day Bush left office. The economy was close to a depression – and Obama brought it back, albeit slowly. But, the economy didn’t take a nose dive in 8 or 9 months – it was brought on by years of Republican de-regulations and lowering taxes. When was the last time the US lowered taxes while engaged in one war, let alone two wars??? The Republicans have done its very best to make sure try to block everything Obama has tried to do, including things the Republicans thought were great ideas until Obama took office. In short, the Republicans put the party before their country. Shame on them. And we all know, since corporations are “people” too, it is the job of the Republican Party to look out for the interest of the corporations first.
Four more years of Obama? You bet, with what the Republicans are putting out there for potential presidential material. If that is the best the GOP has then it needs to fold up as a party.
Personal attacks and demagoguery? You are a great one to throw stones at someone else when it is your m.o. everyday.
velma continues with the usual mindless talking points….
“Bush years …which you thought were so wonderful.”
Uh, no. I, along with others here have been critical of Bush and the Republicans who spent like drunken sailors. However, obAMATEUR spent just as much in less than half the time. Next.
“You seem to miss that there has been 20 months of growth in this country since Obama took office.”
Growth which could have been more if it were not for obAMATEUR’s stagnant policies. Next.
“We still have a high unemployment problem, but it sure is better than what it was the day Obama took office.
Again, unemployment was lower when obAMATEUR took office. It was lower when his “stimulus” plan was first passed. Real unemployment is grotesquely higher now than before. Next.
” it was brought on by years of Republican de-regulations and lowering taxes.”
Uh, when you libs are asked for the legislation that did all what you claim, don’t provide any. The last major deregulation of any industry was the banking industry and that was in 1998. Next. Lowering taxes brought us out of the Clinton recession and increased revenues. The spending is what increased said deficits.
“When was the last time the US lowered taxes while engaged in one war, let alone two wars???”
So, obAMATEUR (and you drones) boasts of lowering taxes AND having done so with three wars.
“The Republicans have done its very best to make sure try to block everything Obama has tried to do, including things the Republicans thought were great ideas until Obama took office.”
Sure, obAMATEUR has been in the mode of ALL or NOTHING – pass all that he wants or he doesn’t want it at all – and he gets his wish with Harry Reid stopping everything that makes it past the House – not even allowing it on the floor.
“In short, the Republicans put the party before their country. ” Really? Let’s see, obAMATEUR stops the pipeline project, closes the GOM and is now slowly opening it but is tight-fisted on regulation to prevent new drilling, but has the “more oil exploration leases” talking point.
” it is the job of the Republican Party to look out for the interest of the corporations first.”
Really? Why can’t you face the fact that obAMATEUR has taken more money from corporations and Wall Street than the Republicans? The sweet deal that GE made with obAMATEUR has been revealed to have earned massive profits with little or no taxes paid – while moving operations offshore.
“Four more years of Obama? You bet…..”
Spoken like a true mindless drone. However, obAMATEUR does not even want to run on that pitiful record. This is the reason for the class warfare tactic as well as the tax increase rhetoric after pushing to keep the tax cuts.
“Personal attacks and demagoguery? You are a great one to throw stones at someone else when it is your m.o. everyday.”
Then again, I am not running for pResident and I can be critical of anyone I choose. You don’t like the heat? Get out of the kitchen.
If you look up the words “mindless” and “drone” your picture would be next to them after that regurgitated verbal diarrhea you just posted. All of that was just dumbed down talking points that we have heard time and again most of which has been debunked here for a while now.
You could have saved yourself lots of time by just regurgitating “It’s Bush’s fault and this pResident is not responsible for anything”.
Pathetic.
“Which Obama policies stunted growth?” According to the CBO; most likely ~ all of them; “The Congressional Budget Office on Tuesday downgraded its estimate of the benefits of President Obama’s 2009 stimulus package, saying it may have sustained as few as 700,000 jobs at its peak last year and that over the long run it will actually be a net drag on the economy.“
Obviously wally you have not been paying attention or you just don’t give a rat’s a$$. This has been discussed and shown to be true time and again, here. It is for certain that you lack the reading comprehension to understand anything above your elementary grade level.
You, as usual, just want to fling your mental excrement hoping something will stick.
asked and answered wally. Hint: count
Still haven’t fully recovered from your huge meltdown the other day?
But of course, you could care less, you will ignore it anyway, as you have done countless times before.
The charismatic, tall, likable, family man against the grating, charmless, unlikeable, cheater who looks like what anyone thinks of when they picture a pedophile. – bloody
Great example of how deep liberal thinking is, and one good reason why we find ourselves in such a mess. Liberals are emotionally hyper sensitive, think only in personality, and lack the gray matter to objectively think substantively. I know that I am tired of the infantile approach to politics that liberals engage in, and I also think that the majority of rational minded voters are as well.
stumpy merely illustrates the American Idol mentality of the Pseudo Left, unaware of the ideology they support and defend, indifferent to its reality or its history, swarming like the lemmings they are after whoever appeals to them on a wholly superficial level of appearance, personality and identity.
Not once have I seen these types discuss the best blueprint for governing the country. They are so shallow and clueless, they think politics is really just about scandal and personality, and a way to validate pathological needs to hurl vitriol and hate.
“you guys put up an amateur AA NOBODY community agitator, with a racist AA wookie of a wife,who never even ran a lemonaid stand, a dimwit VP and a bunch of commie union thugs and you criticize us”
Yep and they kicked your ass. That is all.
How many times do you have to be told? Perhaps you need a time out for a day or so to figure out how to post without being crude. //Moderator
crude is in the eyes of the beholder, one persons comedy is another’s crude
thanks
You seem to think vulgarity and crudity are funny. They are not allowed here and not seen the way you seem to see them. Do not play games pretending you do not know why your posts are deleted. If you want to post smut there are places it will be welcome. //Moderator
Here’s another cool statistic to add to your list:
The top 400 earners in the country make more than the entire bottom 50% put together.
Let me play the world’s tiniest violin for them.
So what Cory – just because someone else is rich, doesn’t mean that others have to be poor. Wealth is not a static concept.
“So what Cory – just because someone else is rich, doesn’t mean that others have to be poor. Wealth is not a static concept.”
If the wage for running our service industry (which we need and can’t be outsourced) is such that you are poor, then yes, someone has to be poor. If you’re for changing that, more power to you, but I think you’re voting for the wrong party.
“corky
and they PAY 70% of ALL taxes…..
next?
I have NEVER been employed by, worked for, paid by…a poor man.
However I have worked, employed, payed some.”
Oh man you are smart. Let’s just give all of our money to one person so he can employ us all, then! We’ll call him and king, and then his firstborn son can inherit all of his wealth when he dies.
“If the wage (sic) for running our service industry (sic) is such that you are poor (again, sic) then yes, someone (sic) has to be (*sigh* sic) poor.”
Lord that was one awful sentence.
If you mean to say that wages being offered for persons in service industries are substandard, then they have a choice to not work for those offering the deficient wages; you know, get a better job.
No one is forced to accept sub-standard wages or working conditions; in spite of Obama’s Marxist dreams from his African Marxist father, we’re not a socialist country yet.
“If you(sic) mean to say that wages being offered for persons in service(sic)(sic) industries are substandard, then they have a choice to not work for(sic)(sic) those offering the deficient wages; you know, get a better job.(sic)
No one is forced to accept sub(sic)-standard wages or working conditions; in spite of Obama’s Marxist dreams f(sic)rom his African Marxist father, we’re not a socialist (sic)(sic)(sic)country yet.”
Look, I can paste “(sic)” in random places in a grammatically correct statement, as well. Actually, I lied. You misused a semicolon, and “substandard” is not hyphenated.
To address your actual, non-pedantic point, the narrative of how all people getting paid poorly could fix everything just by getting better jobs is stupid. The world needs garbage men and people to stock the aisles in the grocery store. Our options are either to accept that we have to have poor people or do something to fix it. Bedtime stories about the little engine who could aren’t doing anything except helping you feel better about yourself.
If the wage for running our service industry (which we need and can’t be outsourced) is such that you are poor, then yes, someone has to be poor.
Exactly. There are certain menial jobs which require very little in the way of skill or education, and these pay less than jobs with higher qualifications. The incentive is to develop more skills to be able to advance to higher paying work. Work is paid for according to its worth, just as everything else in the market is priced according to its value. Even in a higher paying industry, pay is determined by the value of the work the employee brings to the table.
Are you saying you think everyone should receive the same pay, no matter what the level of skill or quality of work the worker provides?
Are you saying that no worker has the responsibility to develop skills which will demand higher pay, but that it is the responsibility of the employer to pay more than the work is worth?
Nope. I’m saying that you can flatten the wage curve such that the bottom end doesn’t have to be abject poverty without removing the incentive to try to get a better job. Or, if you don’t want to try to do that, you can’t pretend that the only reason people can be poor is if they just aren’t trying hard enough. If you have a race, no matter how fast everybody is, somebody still has to come in last.
The world needs garbage men and people to stock the aisles in the grocery store. Our options are either to accept that we have to have poor people or do something to fix it.
I’m not sure exactly what you mean by “fix it”, Cory. We already have a minimum wage law. Are you suggesting raising it to, say, $10.00/hour, or maybe $15.00/hour? How about $20.00/hour, or better yet, how about just guaranteeing everyone a living wage, no matter their skill or education level. Then we could just do away with higher education completely, as there would be no reason to better one’s self. That would also solve the student loan problem. Just a thought.
There are other things you can do to raise people out of poverty besides increasing minimum wage. Health care costs are a good place to start.
There are other things you can do to raise people out of poverty besides increasing minimum wage. Health care costs are a good place to start.
We don’t do so in a cost-effective way, but we already provide free healthcare for those who can’t afford it. What would you suggest, that we pay poor people to get sick?
What, by letting them skip out on emergency room bills? Does destroying their credit to help them in emergencies and leaving them out to dry if they need any sort of chronic care count as covering their health care? Or are you under the impression that Medicaid covers everyone most of us would consider lower class?
I’m guessing you’re the expert on being banned from this blog Sasan. How long will you hide behind this screen name?
I was ready to call it enough but the very next post was the same crudity. //Moderator
It was posted BEFORE you moderated it and mentioned anything.
So it was not posted in contempt.
🙂
I assume you think I am Susan, I’ll just say I am not she, as I assume that she is a woman. Did she get banned for making fun of neocon?
.
Awwwww. you are just too too coy, aren’t you?
But as you so well know, it is SASAN, not Susan, and Sasan is a male, though not very manly.
And he got banned for, as far as I could tell, bringing nothing to the blog but bile and hatred, vitriol and nastiness, insults and personal attacks, and in general using the blog as a litter box for his mental excrement—all of which sound very much like you, stumpy.
Amazona, it also sounds a great deal like your good friend, neocon. How can you continue to ignore his manure droppings and then at the same time voice your displeasure over someone else’s perceived sins? What’s up with that?
Secret Fed Loans Helped Banks Net $13B
Bloomberg has won a lengthy Freedom of Information battle to get the details of a secretive, no-strings-attached multi-trillion-dollar payout from the Bush administration (continued by the Obama administration) to banks, the details of which were not available to Congress. The documents make it clear that the banks’ posture that they were only borrowing the money to help the government (JP Morgan said it borrowed “at the request of the Federal Reserve to help motivate others to use the system”) were purest refined BS. Morgan for example, had borrowed twice its cash holdings.
Add up guarantees and lending limits, and the Fed had committed $7.77 trillion as of March 2009 to rescuing the financial system, more than half the value of everything produced in the U.S. that year.
Neither Obama or Gingrich would change the above scenario. Though the banks made 13 billion from the low priced interest it could have been much worse. Eventually it will be and the Obama (or Clinton or Kerrey) supporters will be bickering with the Gingrich (or Bush or Romney) supporters about who is more to blame.
“Secret Loans”? TARP was a bad idea, Bailouts were a bad idea. The Fed is a bad idea.
Having said that, the $13.0B was realized after repayment and the cost to the taxpayer was a fraction of that (the actual difference between the interest received and the actual lending rates should the Fed have loaned the same amount at open rates; which according to the article, was highly unlikely.) It is possible that the Fed received more via interest than simply holding the funds would have realized. Also, the $7.77 T is a bogus assumption based on the myth of a full capital run which is, as always absurd. Reminds me of this scene from It’s a Wonderful Life.
George Bailey: No, but you…you… you’re thinking of this place all wrong.
As if I had the money back in a safe.
The, the money’s not here.
Charlie: Well, where is my money George?
George Bailey: Well, your money’s in Joe’s house…that’s right next to yours.
Charlie: JOE? You bastard, give back me my money before I beat the crap out of you!
Regardless, the Federal Reserve should be abolished. I think that’s the point I was going for.
Unfortunately, the Fed was the one item that the founding fathers wished to address but never got the consensus for. For outlawing the possibility of that is–they did put the control in the hands of Congress but Congress ceded control in the original progressive assault (1910 ~ 1914) and we ended up with Jekyll Island and the Fed.
Progressives have been at work trying to dismantle the work of the founders since the founding but the people only fight back when they push too far. We need to start keeping watch on the Government and stay in the trenches forever and forever diligent.
” … assumption based on the myth of a full capital run which is, as always absurd. ” – Count
Unlikely is not impossible. I don’t find a good parallel in U.S. history for when millions of people like Mark Noonan owed more on their houses than they are worth. I don’t find a good parallel in history when millions of students owed large amounts of money for educations without job prospects. Yet here we are.
What is absurd is believing the mythology of modern day economic theory, where e.g. Wall Street is needed to allocate capital efficiently. Where stock prices are normally distributed and arbitrage opportunities are rare. The mythology that people like Newt become rich through keen insights instead of using their government connections. Where companies like Boeing would weather the storm without government contracts. Where farmers in the US could compete with lowly paid Mexican equivalents without subsidies.
Regardless, the Federal Reserve should be abolished. I think that’s the point I was going for.
“Unlikely is not impossible”
You sir, have a keen grasp of the obvious. However, please bear in mind that should the “unlikely” come to pass the amount loaned would be the least of our worries.
I don’t understand your reference to Wall Street “allocating capital”. Do you believe the Fed is or should be in the business of allocations?
I’ll refer to Uncle Miltie here; “The role of the Fed is to preserve price stability. Period. And price stability in a broad aggregate—in a broad index. It should not be concerned with the asset markets as such, only as they affect indirectly—somehow—the price stability as a whole.”
As long as we’re on the subject; Uncle Miltie, and I believe in the free market, I assume your reference to “modern day economic theory” is actually in reference to early 20th Century Keynesian ideas you enumerated (although I don’t see what economic theory applies to Newt being paid as a consultant) like subsidies, bailouts and wage/price controls.
Parallels in history to home value disparity? How about 1978? (Check out the foreclosure rate and bankruptcy rates in the late 70s~That was easy). Parallels in history to millions of college educated adults not having a guarantee of a job? How about always? With large college loans? How about my entire lifetime? (I still have outstanding college loans from the time of the longest expansion of peacetime economy in our history. Those unfortunates that graduated college in the mid-1970s faced unemployment as high as today, with interest rates and inflation climbing to double digits.
“Where stock prices are normally distributed and arbitrage opportunities are rare.”
How are stock prices “normally distributed? I thought stock prices are set and bargained, but I’ve never purchased distributed stock so I may just be ignorant of that terminology. (I’ll just bet you thought I was going to challenge your use of arbitrage didn’t you?) OK, I give up, what economic theory believes that arbitrage opportunities are rare?
Farmers have to compete with subsidized Mexicans? Seriously, does that even make sense?
But, back to the subject; the “right” is looking to plain-speaking Newt to be the New Reagan; I believe Newt is actually the New Nixon.
Vile, disgusting post deleted//Moderator
Even more vile and disgusting. //Moderator
An orphanage? Seriously?
What a vile piece of human excrement this person is!
I guess well see how long it take him to be banned this time.
Disgusting!
so the possibility of the massad blowing up a uranium enrichment site in Iran and wrecking their nuclear war making capabilities is now disgusting?
interesting
Lol, no that was a joke about neocon celebrating an explosion somewhere in Iran, not advocacy of orphanages being destroyed.
Joke? About blowing up an orphanage?
No, a joke is when you make someone laugh. Not a disgusting celebration over the killing of innocents. You’re revolting.
“Not a disgusting celebration over the killing of innocents.” Exactly, I am glad we agree, which is why I was making fun of neocon for celebrating an explosion. LOL!
BPS
NO…NONE, ZIP, NADA mention of casualities…and NO celebration there of.
just a celebration of the Massads capabilities.
Brannan also added that ISIS had recently learned from “knowledgeable officials” that the blast occurred just as Iran had achieved a “milestone” in the development of a new missile, and may have been performing a “volatile procedure involving a missile engine at the site.”
Suspicions that covert actions may be responsible for this and other explosions continue to mount despite official denials by the Iranian regime.
Interestingly, on Monday The Blaze reported that a major blast also rocked the Iranian city of Isfahan, a town that is said to be “home to nuclear experimental reactors, and also a uranium enrichment facility for producing nuclear fuel.”
I posted this yesterday on another thread, and have not received one response, so I will try again:
I would like to ask one of our resident liberals what Obama’s agenda will be for his possible second term. What great new ideas does he have to ignite this economy? What ideas does he have to reform entitlements, and how will he shape our immigration policy. I look forward to your response.
cluster
hard to answer this……
Chris Christie Tears Into Obama: ‘What the Hell Are We Paying You For?’
“a bystander in the Oval Office”
or
Cramer: We‘re ’Two Stages From a Financial Collapse So Huge It‘s Hard to Get Your Mind Around’
“we are in a dangerous moment right now”
more Obamaisms….
Cornel West: Ultimate Push for Entitlements Will Be ‘Fought in the Streets’ by Occupy Movement
“Poor children need…a war against poverty.”
I love Christie
Cluster,
You’re not surprised that you haven’t gotten a response to these questions, are you? None of the issues you’ve mentioned hold even the slightest interest to Liberals in general, and the low-level Leftist foot soldiers who frequent this blog in particular. Few, if any, have ever attempted to discuss problems and solutions from a political viewpoint, which, as Amazona has repeatedly pointed out, leads one to the inescapable conclusion that they are incapable of discussing the pros and cons of the two primary means of governing this country, preferring instead to hurl insults and invective. Cory makes a feeble attempt on occasion, like suggesting we “flatten the wage curve”, but he doesn’t offer any specifics as to how that would be accomplished within our Constitutional framework.
If this were a discussion about providing for those who, because of physical or mental deficiencies, cannot provide for themselves vs. not doing so, I could understand the impasse, but that’s not the case.
Agreed Spook, and that was the point of my post. Obama does not have any serious plans to address these issues, nor do his followers even care. To them it’s just a sport – bashing the cartoonish perception they have of conservatism, without a single thought towards actual policies. I have grown very tired of it.
See, this is why I was hesitant to try to provide a sweeping generalization of my political philosophy in the first place. I provided a more in-depth explanation than you yourself did, answered the couple of questions you asked me afterwards, and then you wandered away like the topic was no longer of any interest to you only to post weeks later in a different thread about my “feeble” attempts to explain myself.
It becomes rapidly apparent when talking to you guys that every time the subject magically changes to a discussion of broad, sweeping political philosophies, it has little to do with any interest in talking about my grand plan for the universe and everything to do with avoiding the particular topic being discussed at the time. I fell for it one time and wasted some portion of my life humoring you, but I am now firmly convinced that you are one of many here who complain incessantly about the lack of people willing to honestly debate with you while simultaneously scrambling desperately away when somebody tries to have an honest debate with you. We keep ending up back at the whole “two political philosophies” crap because a bunch of you have canned responses for a specific platform and are confounded when somebody comes here and doesn’t conform to the Democratic Party line. I mean, the post you just replied to was Cluster demanding that we defend Obama!
I keep getting called a drone, but you guys are so invested in a competitive us versus them mentality that you can’t grasp that people like you on both sides are wrecking this country. I mean, can somebody explain to me why huge portions of this country share (one way or the other) the exact same, incredibly strong opinion on issues ranging from free trade agreements to environmental regulations to gun control to abortion to capital punishment to gay marriage to foreign policy to immigration? How can anybody try to relate all of those issues to one central concept? Somebody is going to try to come in and mumble something about the Constitution and Liberty, but the Constitution doesn’t have a thing to say about a bunch of those issues (unless you want to tell me how it says that we should execute people, how it protects fetuses when citizenship is awarded at birth, how we shouldn’t have tariffs with countries with cheap manufacturing, etc.).
Our politicians are a bunch of useless children who are incapable of doing anything useful because that’s what the public keeps voting for.
….it has little to do with any interest in talking about my grand plan for the universe and everything to do with avoiding the particular topic being discussed at the time. – Cory
I am not interested in your “grand philosophy” Cory, I simply want to hear from some Obama supporter, who can articulate what Obama’s second term position will be on three very important issues. Mainly because I don’t know what they are, and don’t believe that Obama has clarified it. I could be wrong.
Our politicians are a bunch of useless children who are incapable of doing anything useful because that’s what the public keeps voting for. – Cory
That I agree with.
See, this is why I was hesitant to try to provide a sweeping generalization of my political philosophy in the first place. I provided a more in-depth explanation than you yourself did
Cory, I’m not sure who this is directed at, me or Cluster. Regardless, I went back and re-read your previous comments, and I don’t see where you engaged in an “in-debth explanation of anything. Perhaps I missed it.
In this thread you have suggested that we flatten the wage curve, and that healthcare costs would be a good place to start raising people out of poverty. That is and always has been your MO: make generalized statements that could possibly be interesting ideas to discuss, but you never seem to be able to get from here to there, preferring instead to complain because we always call you on your unfinished ideas.
I personally don’t care if you’re a Democrat, a Republican, an Independent, a Socialist, Marxist or some other political persuasion, but it seems to me that you are simply reluctant to discuss what you believe because of some fear that you’ll be asked to explain why you believe it. The situation we find ourselves faced with is not a Republican or Democrat issue. It’s a can-we-continue-on-our-present-track-and survive issue. You list lots of separate issues on which people of even like political philosophy can differ, but you don’t ever seem to be able to take a stand on the very basic principles which govern the general direction of the country. Maybe you simply confuse issues with principles. I don’t care what your position is on gun control, abortion, gay marriage, etc.; if you believe that we can continue to live beyond our means and spend 40% more than we take in, then you’re simply someone who has to be defeated. I have a feeling, though, that our core beliefs are not all that far apart. You’re just afraid to express and explain yours.
You are not here to debate. You are here to make pronouncements and dictates. Next?
The current congressional term. The House controlled by republicans, the Senate the republicans have more than enough to sustain a filibuster. Yet they gave in on everthing. Name one accoplishment this Congress has. Other than a continuation of the Bush tax cuts. Anything?
A whole of talk and no action.
Sure Newt can talk. He is a very good talker. Lets say his talk is good enough to get him into the Oval Office. What does anyone expect to change? What part of the progressive agenda do you think Newt will start rolling back?
I think Newt will get very serious about entitlement reform, immigration reform, and regulatory reform, in addition to putting a fear into Iran, Pakistan, etc. As he has said before, if you want to manage the economy, Romney is a good choice, but if you want to reform it, vote for Newt.
I heard O’Reilly interview Newt last night, and I agree with every position he takes on nearly every issue. I also like the fact that he does talk about climate change, because conservatives need to inject ourselves in that debate and expose the liberals for their blatant dishonesty.
Speaking of climate change, have you noticed how ClimateGate 2 is getting NO mention in the MSM?
This issue (climate change) is unraveling on them, but back to Obama’s second term. Does anyone have any idea what his plans are? Has he made any substantive speech on what his priorities will be? If Obama plans on the same old, same old for his second term – Newt will tear him up.
Spook, how do you defend the indefensible? I’m sure Thomas and Wallace will give it the old “I’m better educuted than you try” though. 😛
Getting back to the original thread. Newt is brilliant..he doesn’t need a teleprompter. Obama does. I hope they do debate. But I think Obama knows he is outgunned.
I have a feeling bams will be “sick” on debate days. LOL. 🙂
There are no teleprompters at the debates. Get a clue Chrissy,
Awww…is someone grumpy?
“Newt is brilliant..he doesn’t need a teleprompter.” You do realize that there aren’t any teleprompters at the debates, and Obama handled the last debates just fine, if I recall correctly he seems to have won last time. Please don’t nominate Newt, his brain is too powerful, lol. It will be pretty hard for any republican to win, most people remember why we are in this situation in the first place and it didn’t happen on Obama’s watch.
and Obama handled the last debates just fine, if I recall correctly he seems to have won last time.
Given that McCain was an awful debater, that’s not really saying much.
You are right. He only made it much worse. Giving an opportunity for even a squish like Romney Mitt to be president. The repubs could not have done this as incompetant as they are. They needed someone even more incompetant than they.
Face it, bams is toast in 2012. Maybe you guys will get your revolution when he looses. It’s your only hope 😉
So bloody, do you care to answer my question? What is Obama’s second term agenda in regards to entitlement reforms, immigration policy and the economy?
I know it’s hard to fathom, but Obama and supreme court justice John Roberts both went to the same law school. They were both trained to debate very complex issues even when the facts are against them.
The only reason to think Newt would handily defeat Obama in any debate is to believe that Obama got through Harvard as an affirmative action handout. If Newt does get the nomination (he probably won’t since the GOP elite have already decided Romney) the debates will once again show how pointless debates are for accomplishing anything.
Bardolf, while I was in the service, I had the honour of escoting a friend of mine to West Point. I stepped insinde the main doors and spent approximately one hour inside.
Does that qualify me as have gone to West Point? LOLzer 😛 🙂 ;P
If you put you went to West Point are your resume would you be lying?
The only reason to think Newt would handily defeat Obama in any debate is to believe that Obama got through Harvard as an affirmative action handout.
Is there any reason to believe he didn’t?
Let’s recall that Obama actually had a message that resonated with many people in 2008, and his blatant incompetence was not yet known. Obama will not be able to defend his record, nor does he have any new ideas. Newt will tear him up on every issue, not too mention that Newt actually has some very interesting and refreshing ideas to offer. Any debate with Obama and Newt will be very much one sided – in favor of Newt
Here’s one new idea – How about if build the fence, secure the border, than address the illegal immigrants here in a humane manner. Those that have obeyed the law and have been here for some time, will be handled differently than those that have violated laws. Not exactly new, but at least it’s a common sense approach.
Or how about this – let’s stop picking winners and losers and let the bankruptcy laws, and the justice department manage the private sector. Now that would be refreshing.
Or how about treating terrorism as an act of war, rather than a criminal offense, and using enhanced interrogation techniques. I will give Obama props for letting the military continue their pursuit of valuable targets. He has been more hawkish than I thought, and certainly more so than what he campaigned on.
walleye
ALL ILLEGALS have VIOLATED the LAW
“Newt actually has some very interesting and refreshing ideas to offer.” LOL
Neither side has interesting or refreshing ideas, the ideas will be the same as they have been for the last 20 years. The liberals will vote Obama and the conservatives will vote against Obama, the swing voters will decide who gets elected. Which will be Obama, unless someone comes out of the blue that has actual charisma, ability, and electability, I don’t see that happening.
Neither side has interesting or refreshing ideas, – bloody
What a difference four years makes – wow. It use to be that Obama was “The One We Have All Been Waiting For” – Now, he is just another politician who will win because no one else is any better.
Lowered expectations indeed.
“The only reason to think Newt would handily defeat Obama in any debate is to believe that Obama got through Harvard as an affirmative action handout.
Is there any reason to believe he didn’t?”
I love this conspiracy theory, Obama only got where he is because he is black, thank goodness he is the only black guy in America. LOL So which is it, is he an evil genius secret muslim who stole power in America from its rightful christian masters or a dumb guy who was handed the most powerful position in the world because he is black.
Or maybe, just maybe, he is a good politician. It is almost inconcievable to conservatives that he may just be a guy who is good at politics who disagrees with them.
BPS
still ranting about conspiracy “theories” ?
sounds like you are stuck on stupid.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX //Moderator
“The only reason to think Newt would handily defeat Obama in any debate is to believe that Obama got through Harvard as an affirmative action handout.
57 states, uh uh ummmm, teleprompters in 6th grade classes never employed in private business, community agitator, wright……
sounde logical to be.
Newt would give an ironing to the empty suit.
Stumpy, I think the photo of the group in the White House War Room during the Bin Laden assassination represents how most of us view Obama. He’s sitting there in his golf jacket, having just been dragged off the golf course because someone on his staff thought he probably ought to be in the photo. It’s gotten hard to decide whether he’s the most dangerous President ever or the most inconsequential.
jr
both at the same time.
“Or maybe, just maybe, he is a good politician.”
On this one statement I have to agree as long as you include his entire team from his days in Chicago all the way to the most powerful office in the world–it was a team of great political maneuvering riding on the back of feeble message, personal destruction of opponents (not issues or ideas), and general dislike of the previous occupant of the Oval Office.
But what now? What does he have this go-round except the politics of personal destruction? Of split & pit groups of people against each other?
You forgot about bams knocking a lot of his opponets off the ballots completely. He was known for that.
It’s the chicago way dude!
Yes! everything is a conspiracy and its impossible that the Democrats just had a better candidate in 2008, and will have one again in 2012.
You’re really grasping at the straws here GMB. Good luck with your sitting out the election campaign.
“The day after New Year’s 1996, operatives for Barack Obama filed into a barren hearing room of the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners.
There they began the tedious process of challenging hundreds of signatures on the nominating petitions of state Sen. Alice Palmer, the longtime progressive activist from the city’s South Side. And they kept challenging petitions until every one of Obama’s four Democratic primary rivals was forced off the ballot.
…Asked whether the district’s primary voters were well-served by having only one candidate, Obama smiled and said: ‘I think they ended up with a very good state senator.’ ”
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-070403obama-ballot-archive,0,5693903.story
And the same can be said about every race he could get away with this type of behavior including wonderful underhand tactics like getting California Judge Robert Schnider to open sealed divorce records (via proxy) to get his Republican competitor to drop out.
But then again~it must be a conspiacy and there is nothing to see here. BTW, all of this is still available from the Chicago Trib. archives and I have worked for them–they are no right wing biased source–far from it.
GMB, Barry knocked ALL of his opponents off the ballot to be elected to the Illinois Senate—the only way he could win was to run unopposed, in the state that knows him best—-and then got rid of Jack Ryan to win the national seat.
So neocon is it even possible in your mind that he may just be a guy who is good at politics who disagrees with you?
Politics? LOL Heck no. Taking vacations and playing golf? Heck Yes.
FORE!!!!!
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX //Moderator
No, a marxist, muslim, usurper……a Manchurian pResident. an enemy of freedom and the constitution.
a racist, divider, a class pimp divider.
good riddance to him in 2012.
Ann Coulter Gets Bleeped Out on ‘Morning Joe’ for Calling John McCain a ‘( self moderated) Bag’
🙂
compliments of the NEW and IMPROVED Neocon1
PS
I agree with Ann
wind bag?
gas bag?
(self moderated) bag?
lol.
“Politics? LOL Heck no. Taking vacations and playing golf? Heck Yes.
FORE!!!!!”
So should I just go back a couple of years and copy and paste your defense of Bush and all of his vacations, it would save me time.
“feeble message, personal destruction of opponents (not issues or ideas), and general dislike of the previous occupant of the Oval Office.”
So unlike anything that conservative on this blog do. LOL I haven’t seen a single personal attack against Obama on this blog in several seconds. LOL
Sure Thomas be my guest. If you can find any. Good Luck. Besides the media did a bang up job on Bush for taking very infrequent vacations and I do believe Bush stopped golfing altogether because of media critisism.
Ahh but facts rarely have any place in the leftist world.
Time to plan that next vacation!!
All hail king putt!!!!!
GMB
more O FRAUD……he calls EVERY trip some sort of govt work so he can CLAIM he was “working” while taking the whole Posse with him to swim and golf.
W on the other hand was not in some exotic place or Europe spending BILLIONS.
He was actually working at his ranch or camp David.
GMB,
I want to know why you call people by different names?
Why is that Thomas?
ya usually gotta pay for this kind of comedy
As some call for bold strokes, Obama sticks with vacation plans
August 10, 2011|By Peter Nicholas
When it comes to curbing unemployment, President Obama “will not rest” until everyone looking for a job can find one, White House spokesman Jay Carney said Wednesday.
A couple of hours later, the White House put out an announcement that the president will soon begin a nine-day vacation in Martha’s Vineyard.
So you call me “Thomas”….
surely, you must have some sort of evidence for this right? Is it possible that you can provide this evidence?
Rule 406
Habit, routine, practice.
Educate yourself. LOL 😉
Well, you have to understand here. The rules for libbies are vastly different than the rules for conservatives. If Bush spent a week at Crawford talking with foriegn leaders thats still a vacation.
If barky o’bambams takes a 3 day campaign trip and works in one Mr.Trumka for a ten minute interview then its a work trip.
See how easy that is?
Oh stop with the BS lies about Bush at Crawford talking to foreign leaders….blah blah blah…
do you even believe half the bs you post? or do you wake up deciding to lie all day everyday?
you’re truly a sad human being.
Thomas
Visitors to the Bush Crawford, TX ranch have included:
•Russian President Vladimir Putin, November 2001
•British Prime Minister Tony Blair, April 2002
•Saudi King Abdullah, April 2002, April 2005
•Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, August 2002
•Chinese President Jiāng Zémín, October 2002
•Spanish Prime Minister José María Aznar, February 2003
•Australian Prime Minister John Howard, May 2003
•Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi Jun’ichirō, May 2003
•Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, July 2003
•Mexican President Vicente Fox, March 2004, March 2005
•Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, April 2004
•Spanish King Juan Carlos and Queen Sofía, November 2004
•Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin, March 2005
•Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, April 2005
•Colombian President Álvaro Uribe, August 2005
•German Chancellor Angela Merkel, November 2007[12]
•Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, February 2008[13]
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_days_has_Obama_taken_vacation#ixzz1f8DF1xy0
so what are you trying to prove?
your own damn link states that President Bush took a total of 879 vacation days while in office for years…..that’s 2.5 years!!!
seriously, i could care less how many vacation days any president spends, they deserve every day of it.
Only conservative kooks like you care and make an issue out of it. Then you wonder why you lose elections and why your own GOP considers you fringe.
Good luck with your sitting out the election campaign.
“you’re truly a sad human being.”
Thats the best you have Thomas? LOLzer You are loosing your edge.
Face it, barky is toast in 2012. Your only consolation is you will probably get Romney Mitt for potus. Some change huh?
Enjoy.
You accused me of lying. I provided you with proof and the link to that proof. What is your problem Thomas?
James squeals: so what are you trying to prove?
Well, it was not TRYING to prove, but actually PROVING, that you are an ignorant liar who doesn’t care enough about the truth to even find out what you are saying if you can say something ugly.
What did you say? Oh stop with the BS lies about Bush at Crawford talking to foreign leaders….blah blah blah…
do you even believe half the bs you post? or do you wake up deciding to lie all day everyday?
And when it is pointed out to you that Bush DID host many many foreign dignitaries and leaders, you whine that these were still “vacation days”. Yeah, playing host to a foreign leader is just like playing golf with your buddies—-no stress, no work, no hassle, right?
And then you say a president deserves all the vacation days he may choose to take.
You’re just a mess, aren’t you “James”?
GMB
in one Mr.Trumka for a ten minute interview then its a work trip.
or a two minute phone call authorizing the OWS and a 500 Mil ck.to the unions.
hey doofus, maybe you should call me by my name.
I don’t call you neocon1 do I?
and Romney has NO chance in hell to beat this incumbent. Obama will get a second term, and you’ll be the one enjoying 4 more years of Progressives…
I love it!
LOLzer whatever you say Thomas. I would recomend getting a new screen name already. This one is going stale fast. 🙂
and you’ll be the one enjoying 4 more years of Progressives…
I love it!
And what specifically will you love about it, Jame, besides rubbing Conservatives noses in it, that is? Surely you must have some idea what you’d like to see Obama accomplish if given another 4 years.
GMB, let’s not forget the libbies blasted Bush for playing golf while our brave soldiers were dying in Afghanistan and Iraq. Bush stopped playing golf.
Now, these same mindless drones are silent when it comes the Rock Star, the Once We’ve Been Waiting For, the Sort of a god, the One, The Chosen One, etc. etc.
You are right. The rules for the libs are different. Look at Cain and Clinton. Clinton’s affairs were “his private life” and now it is open season on Cain.
They are a bunch of hypocrites and the useful idiot drones give them a pass every time.
Bush quit playing golf and took up riding the bicycle. He rode almost daily and had to be taken to Maryland for his riding time. Do you have a problem with that? I don’t.
But we are talking about liberal reaction to Bush and then different treatment for their own…..
… I did not expect you to get it.
Evidently, Bush playing golf miffed a bunch of libs or were they just looking to play politics and their world of political gotcha?
But again, these libs are silent as their chosen one plays round after round. Why can’t you recognize your party’s hypocrisy when it is so blatant? Or are you just willing to look the other way?