I dare say that the 20 percent who are better off are the people attending those $10,000/plate Obama fundraisers.
235 thoughts on “Poll: 80 Percent Say They Are Worse Off Now Than Four Years Ago”
Comments are closed.
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Blogs For Victory 
Oh come on. The article is like half a page long. Here’s the text:
“The survey finds 20 percent say better today, 37 percent say worse today, and 43 percent say ‘about the same.'”
Please explain to me how that translates to “80 Percent Say They Are Worse Off Now Than Four Years Ago”.
Wacky, eh? Poll does not, in fact, state 80 percent are worse off. Poll states that 37 percent are worse off. Pretty clear on that point.
I’m surprised it’s that low. I’d expect 50-ish percent would say worse off, since all us homeowners are worse off if you believe personal wealth is a measure of one’s “financial situation.”
Obama must be doing something right for 63% of respondents to claim they are the same or better off than just before the economy tanked into the biggest recession of our lifetimes.
A Mere 80% Say They’re Not Better Off Than Four Years Ago
There the headline is fixed for you. Happy?
LOL!
Hussein sure is happy about those numbers!!!
Okay, now that we have a factually accurate statement to work with, let’s see what it actually says. It compares to 4 years ago. Who was president at the time? Can you think of any events that would have occurred between March 2008 and when Obama took office in 2009 that might influence this statistic?
This maybe?
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/shocking-photo-obama-administration-doesnt-want-you-see_633841.html
johnny notsoswift, the hype from the obAMATEUR campaign was that he will fix the economy, he will restore HOPE with his CHANGE.
He failed.
Of course, I see from your posts you are just like any other lefty mindless drone regurgitating the dumbed down talking points…. it’s Bush’s fault.
swifty,why are you pretending that the only time period in question is the one between, as you put it, “..between March 2008 and when Obama took office in 2009..” The survey covers four years, not eight months. And Obama has been president for three of those four years.
If you really want to revisit the housing bust, and I suggest that this would not be wise on your part, just remember that it did not start in March of 2008, and that a true discussion of it would require an examination of the events which laid the foundation for the artificially created boom and the subsequent bust.
We’ve gone through this all before, in great detail, and I am always surprised that you Leftist apologists are willing to stand up and announce, in so many words, one of these two statements about yourselves:
1) “I understand that it was federal intervention in the housing market, and federal legislation over a period of years, that first set up the artificial housing boom and then led to its collapse, but I am quite willing to argue that it was all due to the policies of George W. Bush because I like blaming him for everything and I don’t mind lying”
or
2.) “No matter how often it is explained to me that federal intervention in the housing market, and federal legislation over a period of years, first set up the artificial housing boom and then led to its collapse, I simply lack the intelligence to understand these facts”
That doesn’t even make sense. Whose talking points am I regurgitating? I haven’t even looked up anything from any other news source related to this article. Or is this one of those things where disagreeing with you must mean that I am beholden to my puppetmasters, because I couldn’t have possibly identified the problems with using these statistics as a metric for Obama’s performance all on my own?
I am also not claiming everything is Bush’s fault. But I do have a fairly good idea that March through December of 2008 were not because of how good or bad a job President Obama was doing, and they are included in this survey.
Repeatedly now people have cited statistics and figures in this blog that were either in error or unsound for other reasons, and every time I point it out, I’m treated like I shouldn’t be so worried about silly things like facts and truth because I’m not seeing the bigger picture. Is that really where you guys stand? Facts and figures are okay to cite when they prove your point, but we shouldn’t worry about them if they don’t?
Amazona,
I am not ignoring the rest of the time period, I am saying that the data included from the first months pollutes the dataset such that it is completely useless as a metric for Obama’s success or failure as President.
I also enjoy how much effort you go through to argue against points or ideas that are not mine, but I’ve said nothing that comes close to either of those two things.
It is very convenient to simply declare that what happened during 20% of a time period negates everything that happened in the other 80% It sure makes it easier for you when you can just make rules as you go along.
But there have been 39 months in which much of the damage we realized during the period you yourself cited, between March of 2008 and January of 2009, could have been mitigated through intelligent and reasonable economic strategies. Between January 2009 and March 2012, even more damage has been done to our economy, and not a single thing has been done to address the underlying causes of the problem in the first place.
Not only are the original causative laws still in place, trying to use the banking system to implement social justice causes, but the housing bust and its attendant banking problems have been used to pile crippling regulations upon an industry which was already reeling from the result of demands that it ignore sound banking procedure to indulge social engineering experiments.
So the economy, which took a hit due to the foolish and misguided (and unconstitutional) efforts of the Left to use the federal government to force its social engineering goals upon the nation, has been further crippled by over-regulation that has kept it from putting money into the economy in the form of small business loans and business start-up loans.
This has had the domino effect of stifling small business formation and expansion. And it cannot be blamed on Bush, or on conservative fiscal policies, no matter how hard you try, or how many cockamamie new rules you invent to distort the facts.
This doesn’t even address the efforts to cripple the oil and gas industry, the damage done by the Gulf permatorium, the staggering debt piled upon the nation based on the conviction that government redistribution of OPM is the answer to everything, and the complicated issue of the chilling effect of the ultra-low prime rate which is set by the Fed to keep the interest on the national debt from exploding into truly terrifying territory.
As for claiming you said what you did not say, you yourself tried to use the time between March of 2008 and January of 2009 to make some kind of point. I merely referred to it.
“…are you better off today ( 39%) worse off (16%), or about the same (45%). Roper, 1984 ~ Reagan wins reelection
“According to a CBS News poll taken in late January, 32% of Americans declared themselves worse off than in 1988, while just 24% felt better off. (The rest felt about the same.) True, if a decent recovery surfaces by summer — as FORTUNE and most economists expect — voters should be feeling a little cheerier when they go to the polls in November. Still, the picture right now is bleak.” CNNMoney February 1992. ~ Bush loses reelection.
“Would you say that you (and your family living there) are: 36% better off, 31% worse off financially than you were a year ago, 33% don’t know or no answer” Brown University June 1996. ~ Clinton wins reelection.
“The survey finds 20 percent say better today, 37 percent say worse today, and 43 percent say “about the same.” CBS News March 2012 ~Obama …
While Swifty is busy picking fly $hit out of the pepper the salient point is being ignored; regardless of the relative time period selected for the question, when a smaller portion feel they are better off than worse off it means the public perception has determined the situation has been mishandled.
Wrt which “four years” ~ as much as the start date is subjective to each person, the “as of” date is equally subjective; respondents may be better off this month, but overall worse off for the past year; that’s the mindset of the respondent, not hard dates March 14, 2008 to March 13, 2012 but a relative time period over the past 4 years. Fly$shit notwithstanding.
In spite of CNN’s rosy prediction about the economy (it did improve over the summer of 1992 and GDP grew by over 4%) the perception was that the Bush Administration wasn’t acting in a manner that lent itself to confidence.
In 2012, perception is reality.
“It is very convenient to simply declare that what happened during 20% of a time period negates everything that happened in the other 80% It sure makes it easier for you when you can just make rules as you go along.”
What I actually find convenient is what date you guys pick for comparison when you are comparing Obama to Bush. When it is about oil prices, it’s always about the day he took office, but when you want to compare other economic indicators, well you can’t very well bring up that the economy was in the middle of a collapse when he took office, so then the date magically moves back to Summer of 2008 or earlier, before the recession hit full swing.
The fact of the matter is that we’re not talking about some random 20% that is anywhere close to uniform with any portion of Obama’s term in office. It was the single biggest economic crisis we’ve had since the start of the Great Depression.
Let’s try an analogy. Let’s say I bought a car 3 years ago. The car was in a wreck several months before I bought it. When trying to determine how good a driver I’ve been, do you track the history of the car since I started driving it, or is it okay to go back 4 years into this history of the car to determine what my insurance rates should be? It’d be just fine because it is only a small portion of the time period in question, right?
And really, there are arguments to be made one way or the other about how good of a job has been done with the economy since then. Per your statements about not blaming the crash all on Bush, I assume you’ll be speaking in a general sense and not just about Obama, but other than that, analyze away. But this is what I mean about people trying to turn every time I call them on their ridiculous ignorance of facts into a lesson about how I should be looking at the big picture. There is absolutely nothing that you could say that would make it okay to hold Obama accountable for time he was not in office, no matter how salient any other point you could make would be.
Count,
The specific dates don’t matter, but if you ask somebody about how they have done in the last 4 years, you can bet financial crash in 2008 is still on their minds. There isn’t a blank before Obama took office where they don’t remember what happened before he got there. Unless, of course, you spend enough time convincing people that the recession is all Obama’s fault, in which case yes, perception is reality. But that doesn’t make it right.
I haven’t seen any Lefties bringing up the fact that Bush INHERITED a recession from Slick, or that the nation managed to recover from that plus the terrorist attacks and Katrina to have a decent economy till the inevitable crash of the housing/banking bubbles hit.
I haven’t seen any of them bringing up the fact that Bush warned us about this, or that he led the effort to control the resale of mortgages by pushing to have them overseen the same as securities, by the SEC.
I haven’t seen any of them commenting that the economy didn’t really start to tank till after the Dems took back both houses of Congress in 2006.
What they DO natter on about is the time between March 2008 and January 2009, as if nothing before and nothing after could be of any interest or import.
As stupid as swifty and the other PL trolls want Americans to be, a wish made more reasonable by the fact that so many voted for Obama in 2008, the simple fact is that most of them DO understand that there has been time to do things to affect the economic downturn of the end of the Bush administration, that things HAVE been done, and they have been the wrong things to do.
And that is what it is going to come down to: Did Obama do anything, and did it make things worse or better?
The obvious answer is, worse.
“What they DO natter on about is the time between March 2008 and January 2009, as if nothing before and nothing after could be of any interest or import.”
If you’ll kindly look up at the top of the page, you’ll see that Matt Margolis posted a story about a survey asking participants how they are doing versus 4 years ago, which happens to be March 2008. I didn’t bring the date up.
Oh, I didn’t realize that the question had to be seen as referring only to March 13, 2008 vs March 13, 2012.
I read it as an evaluation of the time period between March 2008 and March 2012, inclusive.
Gee, I wonder how many of the respondents went back to check their diaries to see exactly how they felt IN THAT MONTH, perhaps ON THAT DAY, four years ago.
Back to the comment on how you can control the dialogue if you can just make up the rules……
If it makes you feel better, don’t vote for Bush in 2012.
But for those whose choices do not include Bush, ..what it is going to come down to is: Did Obama do anything, and did it make things worse or better?
Bush inherited a SURPLUS from Slick. Cheney declared deficits don’t matter, and then they didn’t, until now they do.
Translation: deficits don’t matter when I’m running up the credit card.
I like Swifty’s crashed car analogy, but I think a more accurate one would be that Bush drove our national school bus over a cliff in 2008, and about halfway down into the ravine, handed the steering wheel over to Obama. Republicans blame Obama for a crash landing and subsequent devastation, while fondly remembering the delightful view the day before Big O’s inauguration.
As for : “Did Obama do anything, and did it make things worse or better?” the bikini graph says it all.
Go ahead. Argue with that.
“Oh, I didn’t realize that the question had to be seen as referring only to March 13, 2008 vs March 13, 2012.
I read it as an evaluation of the time period between March 2008 and March 2012, inclusive.”
When did I mention March 13th? March to March, or even Spring to Spring is close enough for the point I’m making.
“If it makes you feel better, don’t vote for Bush in 2012.”
That is completely unrelated to anything I’ve said.
“But for those whose choices do not include Bush, ..what it is going to come down to is: Did Obama do anything, and did it make things worse or better?”
If that’s the point that Matt wants to make, then he should just make it. A bogus empirical pretext detracts from the conversation, it doesn’t add to it.
No, there was no “surplus”. I am amazed that any of the RRL and PL lemmings are still trying to sell that silly story.
But then this is from someone still infatuated with the “driving the (vehicle) over the cliff” meme, (And no, it does not matter if you change the demagoguery from car to school bus.)
But if you want to play bumper cars, how about the fact that Bush took over a car that had been running without any maintenance, low on oil and failing badly, and on the way to the repair shop encountered a multi-car wreck killing, oh, I don’t know, say about 3000 people—and learned that the previous president had given the driver responsible for the wreck a pass and let him back out on the roads.
So the car got put back together as well as it could be, given that during the repair process the shop was taken over by the same crew that had run it without oil for so long, and naturally with them in charge it was pretty much impossible to rebuild it to the extent it needed rebuilding, as for some reason they thought a car would run better with broken tie rods, no oil, bald tires and a failing transmission, a car which pulled violently to the left.
Then when the uncontrollable car veered too far to the Left to control, the blame was cast not on the people who had made it such a wreck, but on those who had tried, so valiantly, to fix it and keep it on the road.
And when it was teetering on the guardrail, above the chasm, they dashed in to push it the rest of the way over, adding tons and tons of debt and deficit to completely unbalance it and make sure it could not be dragged back onto the roadway.
“But for those whose choices do not include Bush, ..what it is going to come down to is: Did Obama do anything, and did it make things worse or better?”
Since your new evasive tactic is to whine that, in your opinion, Matt did not make this point, let’s move on to the fact that I did.
Twice.
Three times, counting this post.
So how do you respond?
More to the point, can you tear yourself away from events to address the underlying political philosophy that led to the problem?
Out of curiosity, if it is all the big bad Democrats’ fault, who exactly was responsible for not fixing it during 2003-2006 when the Republicans had the Presidency, House, and Senate? In fact, except for 2001-2002 when the senate was basically divided, the Republicans had control of both houses from 1995-2006. What was that you were whining about with regard to blaming everything on the President in office?
Out of curiosity, are you going to answer my question?
“Did Obama do anything (to address the reasons for and/or the result of the housing/banking bust) and did it make things worse or better?
Nope, because you don’t get to change the subject every time I touch on something you don’t like and expect me to just blithely follow along.
But thanks for reviving the old RRL effort to shift responsibility for the housing/banking bust onto the people who did not set up the inevitable crash in the first place by trying to use the federal government to push social engineering experiments but on the people who just didn’t do enough to counteract the stupidity.
I’ve always love the comeback that ignores the origins of the problem and just whines “But you DIDN’T DO ENOUGH TO FIX WHAT WE SCREWED UP “.
Do you really think this is going to shift attention away from the misbegotten legislation that started the whole thing?
Who screwed it up? When? Was the crash really a result of legislation all the way back from the beginning of the 90s so that you can blame it on the Democrats, or was it somebody else?
Nope, because you don’t get to change the subject every time I touch on something you don’t like and expect me to just blithely follow along.
Thanks for at least admitting that you refuse to answer a question about what Obama did or didn’t do to address the problem, or whether or not it made things better or worse.
Nice try, pretending that you can’t or won’t do this because you are taking a principled stand against being expected to “…just blithely follow along…” but the reality is clear.
This is just another of the third rails in Leftist dialogue, one that must be avoided because it is deadly.
Your strategy is to constantly rail against Bush, even though he has been gone for more than 3 years now, and to try to throw enough chaff in the air to distract from the reality that every single thing done since Bush left office has only exacerbated the problems created by legislation that took place before he took office.
Your strategy is to focus on his term, and pretend that nothing that happened before or after it had any effect at all on what we are living with today.
Guess we’ll just have to see how that works out for you guys, won’t we? Too bad it depends on the American public being as stupid as you hope they are.
It’s nice of you to say that, but I have not blamed everything on Bush, and in fact in this very thread I’ve already explicitly said as much. I don’t know how to reasonably debate with somebody who seems utterly incapable of keeping track of what I have and have not said.
No, you have NOT “..blamed everything on Bush..” Carefully phrased, that.
Did you really have this multi-post hissy fit just because the time frame referenced used a total of four years, which happened to include a period before Obama took office, instead of a clunkier “three years and three months” that might have soothed your nit-pickery?
You evidently arbitrarily decided that anyone who read the question would then focus, laser-like, on the few months before Obama took office and then hold him responsible for THAT, when reasonable people would just look at a general time frame of four years, going backward from now, to think about whether they are better or worse off now.
I think it completely reasonable to start at the beginning of the recession and go forward to the present date, to ask if things are better or worse now. This hyper-sensitivity and strident overreaction to the inclusion of a time before Obama took office, based upon your evident conviction that this would be blaming Obama, or somehow be unfair to Obama, instead of just providing a specific time frame of economic distress, is just, well, hysterical overreaction.
I think your idea of how to “reasonably debate” is to pitch a fit over trivial details that you then try to elevate to major issues, while refusing to answer simple direct questions that are, no matter how you deny it, related to the topic at hand.
The thread topic is, are you better off now than you were four years ago?
My related question, once you started in on your shrill squealing about the time frame going back to before Obama took office, was whether you think Obama did anything productive to address the problem that existed four years ago. And you refuse to answer it.
But it is certainly relevant to the question of whether someone is better off or worse off than he or she was in March of 2012. And it seems to send you scurrying off into the weeds, with silly excuses for why you can’t/won’t respond.
“The thread topic is, are you better off now than you were four years ago?”
No, the thread topic, and I’ll copy and paste it for you here, was:
“Poll: 80 Percent Say They Are Worse Off Now Than Four Years Ago”
Which, as I have explained, has two major problems with regard to using it to judge Obama: first, the study said nothing of the sort, and second, the timeline of the study includes a catastrophic crash that happened in the months before he took office. Then you came in and tried to pretend that there was somehow something wrong with my character because I was worried about specifics.
You can twist and pull and torture this dialogue however you want, but that was the topic at hand, and any direction you’ve tried to go from there is an attempt to change the topic away from the fact that the writers of this blog are apparently so uninterested in having a factual basis for their beliefs that they can’t be bothered to figure out what articles they are linking actually say, or they are actively torturing them to say something that they did not.
I feel no particular need to entertain your slippery attempts to change the subject to something where you think you’ve “got” me every time the discussion isn’t going your way. Every time you’ve done it before and I’ve given an answer, you’ve disappeared and gone on your merry way to try to “get” me the next time a discussion starts up someplace else.
Who screwed it up? When? Was the crash really a result of legislation all the way back from the beginning of the 90s so that you can blame it on the Democrats, or was it somebody else?
No, the foundation of the subsequent crashes goes back to the 70’s, when, under President Carter, Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, which was the first step of the march toward chaos.
From this effort to use the federal government to implement social engineering experiments, as problems developed that showed the defects in the plan, instead of scrapping the whole mess, Congresses down the line just slapped legislative Band-Aids on the problems. Each effort to “fix” something created a whole new set of Unintended Consequences, and many increased the level of government intervention in private industry, as the lending industry was forced to abandon prudent lending guidelines under threat of various federal prosecutions, resulting in increased lending to people who very clearly could not repay the loans made to them under federal pressure.
Some of the Unintended Consequences included an artificial explosion of the home-building industry, as new unqualified buyers were buying up existing inventory instead of renting. They included the inflationary effect of this building boom, as home values were increased due to the new demand. The rapidly increasing home prices led to individuals seeing their homes as investments, and projecting price increases they then used to justify speculation. They included the nervousness of the lending industry as they evaluated the reality of the situation—that they had found a way to comply with federal pressures by creating and marketing ARMs, but that when these artificially low introductory rates rose, as they had to, the people who managed to get into homes at the lower rates would be bailing out in record numbers, leaving the banks holding the bag. They included the efforts of lenders to avoid being taken down by this inevitable result of the forced sales to unqualified borrowers by trying to offload the mortgages before they became uncollectable, and this led to all sorts of financial shenanigans, including expanded participation by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and increased subsidizing of the mess by taxpayer dollars, as well as the disappearance of millions into various programs that had no oversight.
Some of those damaged when the inevitable and foreseen foreclosure bomb exploded were those who went into loans knowing they would not be able to make the higher payments due in a short period of time, and those who speculated on the promise of unending increases in home values. But many did nothing to contribute to their problems, such as people who had to buy at high prices just because prices were at those levels, and then had to sell due to job changes and other reasons and had to try to sell houses for far less than their loans.
When the housing inventory expanded so rapidly, and so far, there was no need to build new houses, so the home building industry crashed.
And so on.
Not one of the contributing events was created between 2001-2009, aside from an effort to shift the sale of mortgages over under SEC supervision that had the opposite effect as it opened up trading of mortgages but did not follow through with oversight of those charged with oversight. There were some feeble efforts to rein in the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac corruption and hemmorage of taxpayer dollars. fought strenuously by Dodd and Frank, who were coincidentally profiting from the same corruption. So there is some merit to the complaint that the Bush administration did not do enough to fix the mess, while it ignores the fact that in two years of this administration there was a Democrat Congress—the year and a half before the beginning of the recession, to be accurate.
OK, I agree. The thread topic IS “Poll: 80 Percent Say They Are Worse Off Now Than Four Years Ago”.
And you then spun off into sheer hysteria because you decided that it should not be the topic, because, according to you, it should not have covered the time period of the recession but should have, for some strange reason, started eight months after the recession began.
You complain “Who was president at the time? Can you think of any events that would have occurred between March 2008 and when Obama took office in 2009 that might influence this statistic?”
But the question is a simple one, which could be rephrased, if this would not send you into fresh frenzies of opposition, “Are you better off now than you were when the recession began?” Or “……before the recession began?”
Yes, the thread title inaccurately restated the findings of the poll, and should have said something more like “Only 20% of respondents think they are better off now than when (or before) the recession began”. But your hissy fit seems to center on the fact that the time frame goes back to before Obama became president.
So all of this is really just about your hyper-emotional reaction to a phrase which is not inaccurate in any way but which just tripped your trigger, for whatever emotional reason.
Got it.
Well, one example would be the enactment of Gramm/Leach/Bliley, in 1999.
From the HuffPo:
“I welcome this day as a day of success and triumph,” said Sen. Christopher Dodd, (D-Conn.).
“The concerns that we will have a meltdown like 1929 are dramatically overblown,” said Sen. Bob Kerrey, (D-Neb.).
“If we don’t pass this bill, we could find London or Frankfurt or years down the road Shanghai becoming the financial capital of the world,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. “There are many reasons for this bill, but first and foremost is to ensure that U.S. financial firms remain competitive.”
Looking back, members of Congress have tried to downplay the significance of their support. One high-ranking Hill aide notes that his boss, who voted for the bill, did so because banks were already beginning to merge with investment houses. It should be noted, additionally, that Dodd and Schumer were able to hammer out, as part of the legislation, the Community Reinvestment Act, which required banks to extend lines of credit to predominantly minority areas.
Officials from the Clinton White House, meanwhile, shift between defensiveness and repentance. One former high-ranking official argued that while the legislation changed the balance between a bank’s commercial and non-commercial activities, the problem was not necessarily the blurring of those lines. “What really brought the economy to its knees was the incredibly over-leveraged and unregulated risks taken by these non commercial banks.” In short: there wasn’t enough oversight.
“A 2000 United States Department of the Treasury study of lending trends for 305 cities from 1993 to 1998 showed that $467 billion of mortgage lending was made by Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)-covered lenders into low and mid level income (LMI) borrowers and neighborhoods, representing 10% of all US mortgage lending during the period. The majority of these were prime loans. Sub-prime loans made by CRA-covered institutions constituted a 3% market share of LMI loans in 1998.[37] Nevertheless, only 25% of all sub-prime lending occurred at CRA-covered institutions, and a full 50% of sub-prime loans originated at institutions exempt from CRA”
In other words, just because they were loans to poor people doesn’t mean they were sub-prime. In this particular case, they weren’t, and most of the subprime lending happened in the mid 2000s, after the CRA had been in effect for a decade. A minor contributing factor and a mistake? Possibly. You’ll have to look a little harder for primary causes, though.
“A 2000 United States Department of the Treasury study of lending trends for 305 cities from 1993 to 1998 showed that $467 billion of mortgage lending was made by Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)-covered lenders into low and mid level income (LMI) borrowers and neighborhoods, representing 10% of all US mortgage lending during the period.
Swifty, what does the period 1993-1998 have to do with a crisis that largely manifested itself in 2005-2008? Gramm Leach Bliley and the expansion of the CRA didn’t even occur until 1999?
Here’s a good, short, reasonably balanced article about the sub-prime crisis.
swifty is ignoring the cumulative effect of years of federal intervention in the lending industry, of artificial inflation of home prices and the subsequent expansion of the home building industry, of those who did not get sub-prime loans but whose home values were affected first by the inflation of home values when they had to buy and then by the collapse of home values when they had to sell, of the various damages done to lending institutions by forcing them to engage in dangerous lending practices, to investors whose portfolios ended up including bad mortgages bundled and sold as investments, of those suddenly out of work when the home building industry collapsed (and their subsequent inability to pay THEIR mortgages) etc.
He focuses solely on the number of actual CRA-prompted loans made, and dismisses the corollary damage spinning out from this core of financial disaster.
It’s a convenient tactic and probably the only way Leftist apologists can even pretend to defend the policies that led to the economic collapse—though it is not a defense of the policies so much as a denial of their causative role in the collapse.
And it’s an example of the over-simplified and largely fantasy-based Leftist approach to economics. There is simply no acknowledgement of the intricate interrelationships of various policies and events, just a singling out of one policy or one event and then trying to either blame everything on it or “prove” it could not be the cause of the problem.
And it always seems to come back to the one-two punch of the Left:
Government is never the problem, but government is always the solution.
RetiredSpook,
Amazona’s commentary mixed and matched discussion of Gramm-Leach-Bliley and the CRA, which is what I referenced. I also find it interesting that you guys were apparently in favor of leaving regulations on the financial sector in place, as Gramm-Leach-Billey was a piece of deregulation legislation. Essentially, you guys are now complaining that the government didn’t intervene enough in the free market.
The CRA and the Clinton administration in general also leaned on the financial sector to provide more mortgages to middle and low income families, but like I said, the data doesn’t support that as being a causative factor, because those were mostly good loans, and the practice of subprime lending didn’t start in any noticeable sense until the mid 2000s era.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and other GSEs also contributed, but it is also worth noting that the loans they themselves backed weren’t the bulk of the subprime loans. On top of that, GSEs were at their weakest share of the market during the time when the largest quantity of bad loans were being given out. They got driven out of the market because they actually weren’t willing or able to take the risks that the private sector was willing to.
Paul Krugman posed an interesting question on the causes for all of this. If the above listed factors really were primary to the housing bubble, why is it that the commercial real estate sector also bubbled when none of these factors particularly apply to commercial properties? It’s not like Fannie Mae was handing out loans for strip malls or the CRA was helping low income families buy department stores. You can try to claim that they are related markets and it was just bleed over, but zoning restrictions largely keep that from being the case, except insofar as unsupported speculative purchases.
Which leads us to the actual causes of the housing bubble: financial institutions all competing against each other, without any meaningful influence from the government, to see who could come up with the most ridiculous new types of investments backed by hidden crappy mortgages. That’s right, I’m saying a deregulated market causes the sort of bubble we just saw. And it will continue happening in a cyclical way. It will be a while before we bubble up again, because people don’t trust the institutions right now. It might not even work out the exact same way, but that sort of bubble and collapse is just going to get bigger and bigger as we let the financial sector become a larger and larger sector of our economy, because market forces will always eventually push financial institutions into finding a way to compete, and if the only way to do that is to push sub-prime mortgages and hope the bubble doesn’t burst, they will do it.
Which brings me back to Clinton and Obama. They are both part of the problem, too, so don’t go thinking that I’m blaming this all on Republicans. For every Garn–St. Germain Depository Institutions Act, there is a Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act, but they are all guilty of it. And unregulated financial institutions will always eventually start playing shell games to provide investment opportunities that aren’t really there.
Amazona’s commentary mixed and matched discussion of Gramm-Leach-Bliley and the CRA, which is what I referenced. I also find it interesting that you guys were apparently in favor of leaving regulations on the financial sector in place, as Gramm-Leach-Billey was a piece of deregulation legislation. Essentially, you guys are now complaining that the government didn’t intervene enough in the free market.
Swifty, I doubt that many of us were tuned into obscure, lame-duck pieces of legislation passed in the waning days of the Clinton Admnisitration, but the Commodity Futures Modernization Act was such a bill. Much of the blame for the financial meltdown can be placed on that bill. It had bipartisan support in Congress and enthusiastic support from both Clinton and his Treasury Secretary, (Summers, IIRC). The blogosphere and the new media didn’t exist back then, and, in retrospect, I’d be willing to bet that no Conservative on this blog would have supported it, had we known the details and ramifications of it at the time. From what I’ve read, after the fact, the majority of Congressmen and Senators who voted for it didn’t know what was in it. (gee, where have I heard that before?)
As the previous piece I linked to noted, there were a lot of moving pieces to the financial meltdown.
Yes, that was yet another piece of the deregulation process, and as you said, it was bipartisan. The whole process seems to have been pretty bipartisan. All things considered, Obama has a comparatively good track record on these things compared to what we’ve been doing since the 70s, because he doesn’t seem to have made the system worse, and Dodd-Frank, while it is sort of a piece of junk, at least is an attempt to move things back in the other direction.
I won’t say that if Obama had gotten the Presidency before the financial meltdown, either, so don’t get me wrong. It’s easy to be the guy who wants to put some rules back in place after the last 6 guys systematically removed so many rules that caused the economy to melt down.
Hardly a stunning recommendation, I know, but the typical Republican mantra seems to be that there is no such thing as a good regulation, so you’ll have to forgive me if I don’t find it likely that any of the potential Republican candidates will do any better.
“I won’t say that if Obama had gotten the Presidency before the financial meltdown, either, so don’t get me wrong.”
Oops, I mangled that sentence. I meant to say that if Obama had gotten the Presidency before the meltdown, I don’t know that he would have been the one to put some of the regulations on the financial sector back in place.
I most assuredly did not “mix and match” discussion of the CRA and the repeal of Gramm/Leach/Bliley. What I did say was that an end result of the CRA and subsequent legislation to prop it up and patch it up led to crises in financial institutions which were “addressed” by G/L/B many years after the original CRA legislation.
If you looking for something to carp about, go back to the HuffPo, clearly stated as the source, in an article about the passage of G/L/B to complain about the statement that “It should be noted, additionally, that Dodd and Schumer were able to hammer out, as part of the legislation, the Community Reinvestment Act, which required banks to extend lines of credit to predominantly minority areas. ”
If you contend that this did not happen, contend away. If you contend that there was never any relationship between G/L/B and the CRA, go for it.
But don’t whine about me supposedly “mixing and matching” discussion of the two.
“….the typical Republican mantra seems to be that there is no such thing as a good regulation…”
Utter nonsense, based on blind bigotry toward a political system you don’t even understand.
Speaking of bigotry, extending lines of credit into minority areas doesn’t imply in any way they were bad loans. In fact, per my statistics above, they were mostly perfectly good loans. The systemic crisis had very little to do with the CRA.
If you want anybody to understand your “political system”, you should try explaining it in more detail than a single trite little sentence about loving the Constitution. Try, as a start, doing it without referencing people, places, things, or events.
Or you can keep talking about how nobody understands your super secret club where the only real rule seems to be you have to talk in superior tones about how other people don’t understand your super secret club. But if that’s what you keep doing, I’m going to just stop responding to you entirely, because watching you try to turn every single conversation you enter into a treatise on how people just don’t get it is incredibly uninteresting.
I meant to say that if Obama had gotten the Presidency before the meltdown, I don’t know that he would have been the one to put some of the regulations on the financial sector back.
That’s not something we could ever know. You seem to have an inordinate amount of faith in Obama, Jonathan. I don’t think the guy has a clue.
Speaking of bigotry, extending lines of credit into minority areas doesn’t imply in any way they were bad loans. In fact, per my statistics above, they were mostly perfectly good loans. The systemic crisis had very little to do with the CRA.
Well, except your statistics are meaningless. They’re from a period prior to 1999 when the Commodity Futures Modernization Act made it legal to package them and gamble on them.
If you want anybody to understand your “political system”, you should try explaining it in more detail than a single trite little sentence about loving the Constitution. Try, as a start, doing it without referencing people, places, things, or events.
She’s done that more times than I can count — from virtually every new idealistic Lefty to grace our presence over the last 8 years — dozens, maybe hundreds of times. But then, as someone whom I’m almost positive has posted here before under a different name/s, I’m sure you know that. I’ll grant that, if you haven’t posted here before, you’ve certainly learned to play the game in short order. Amazona has the patience of Job for people like you. I gave up a long time ago.
“That’s not something we could ever know. You seem to have an inordinate amount of faith in Obama, Jonathan. I don’t think the guy has a clue.”
Re-read what I’ve written. I just said I didn’t believe that Obama wouldn’t have just continued down the long path of deregulation if he didn’t get elected after a financial crisis.
“Well, except your statistics are meaningless. They’re from a period prior to 1999 when the Commodity Futures Modernization Act made it legal to package them and gamble on them.”
That sounds a whole lot like the CRA itself wasn’t a problem at all and the regulating legislation down the line was the real problem, doesn’t it?
“She’s done that more times than I can count — from virtually every new idealistic Lefty to grace our presence over the last 8 years — dozens, maybe hundreds of times.”
If all of her other explanations were as thorough as the one she gave me, she has never given a coherent explanation of a political philosophy.
That sounds a whole lot like the CRA itself wasn’t a problem at all and the regulating legislation down the line was the real problem, doesn’t it?
The original CRA enacted during the Carter Administration really wasn’t a problem throughout the 80’s and 90’s. It was only after it got put on steroids at the end of the Clinton years that it became a problem. You need to read a little history.
“That’s not something we could ever know. You seem to have an inordinate amount of faith in Obama, Jonathan. I don’t think the guy has a clue.”
Re-read what I’ve written. I just said I didn’t believe that Obama wouldn’t have just continued down the long path of deregulation if he didn’t get elected after a financial crisis.
Sorry, my two thoughts were unrelated and badly worded. I know what you said.
Then why do you think I have any particular amount of faith in Obama? It’s not like if I disagree with you I have to love the guy. If we want to keep bringing back the discussion to the November election, the question isn’t really whether Obama’s doing a great job. The question is whether any of the Republican candidates would do better.
The default position of anybody from either party in this country seems to be “the opposite of the other guy”, and given that Obama’s moved towards more regulation on the financial industry, even if it is in the form of a messy, ineffectual bill, my best guess in the absence of other evidence is that the most any of the candidates would do would be to leave things as they stand. But maybe I’m being unfair. Do you have any good sources on any time that any of them has meaningfully addressed the issue outside of attacking Dodd-Frank?
Then why do you think I have any particular amount of faith in Obama? It’s not like if I disagree with you I have to love the guy.
As I said, badly worded. The contrarian nature of many of your comments gives the perception that you’re an Obama apologist, or, at the very least, that you oppose anyone who opposes Obama. You do, as the Count pointed out, an excellent job of “picking the fly sh*t out of the pepper, but you never really quite say what or who you’re for — or why. I suspect that stems from the fact that you’re unwilling to stand and say, “OK, here’s what I believe”, so you come across as someone who isn’t really sure what he believes. That was me once upon a time, so I can relate, but I did something about it. I became a voracious reader of history, political and economic thought. Then, when I began to discover discrepancies and inconsistencies, I concentrated even harder on searching for the truth. The truth is really the only dynamic that has no agenda, nor does it need a majority to prevail. Now, whenever I read, hear or see something that doesn’t gel with what I know, I don’t say to myself, “I agree with that, or I disagree with that”. My first reaction is to find out whether or not it’s true.
Don’t worry, I’d come out swinging if people used misquoted and mangled statistics to attack Romney or Santorum, too. I just come off as an Obama apologist because there’s a whole lot less of that around here.
I also already went through the “you won’t post your political philosophy” discussion in the “So..When Can Christians Expect an Apology From The Muslim World For This?” thread. You’re welcome to go back and read it; I’ve already given my logical basis for governing. You’re welcome to go back and read it if you’d like.
“ow, whenever I read, hear or see something that doesn’t gel with what I know, I don’t say to myself, “I agree with that, or I disagree with that”. My first reaction is to find out whether or not it’s true.”
See, apparently when I do that, it’s “picking the fly sh*t out of the pepper”. Think about it. I read the blog post up top, and my first reaction was to read the story to see what the survey actually said, where I verified it was nothing like the headline here. The other portion of the truth-finding process is to make sure that what a statistic actually says and what the presenter intends for it to sound like it says are the same thing. The most insidious deception isn’t the outright lie, it is the subtle manipulation of the truth, which is what I see when a statistic is cited to attack Obama that just happens to include a substantial amount of time where he could not have been at fault in the way that the poster would like to imply.
I’m not sure how that is substantially different from the process you’ve just described. Maybe you think I’m too detail oriented, but my thought is that you can never find the larger truths unless you are meticulous on making sure all of your philosophical foundation is based on fact and not fiction.
I also already went through the “you won’t post your political philosophy” discussion in the “So..When Can Christians Expect an Apology From The Muslim World For This?” thread. You’re welcome to go back and read it; I’ve already given my logical basis for governing. You’re welcome to go back and read it if you’d like.
OK, I went back and read most of your comments in that thread. I was out of town during that thread, and, to be honest, had not read much of it. You lost me early on when you tried to liken your political philosophy to game theory. It would take me waaaaaay more time than I’ve got today to analyze and comment on what you wrote, but I thought this comment from Amazona pretty well summarized your long-winded attempt to describe what you believe.
I’m sorry that looking at political theory in the context of game theory “lost” you, but that doesn’t make it any less valid.
I’ll summarize my unanswered questions from that thread if you want to respond to them, as Amazona never did.
1) How can there possibly be only two political movements in this country? Are social conservatives who love pork barrel politics like Rick Santorum really practicing the same political system as libertarians like Ron Paul in any sense other than both being in the same party?
2) What the heck kind of political philosophy is “I think the Constitution is the best way to run the country”? It explains virtually nothing about how you think the world should work, as the Constitution is primarily a practical framework. I can’t even tell if you think murder should be outlawed if that’s the core of your belief system. It amounts to a childish grab at some sort of Constitutional authority, but it is not in the least bit descriptive. Do you love the Constitution as it currently stands, or as it was originally written, or only after the first 10 amendments? Will you still love it if somebody amends it to add a bunch more authority to the federal government?
3) Why exactly is a discussion of who is trying to grab control where necessary for a discussion of my political philosophy? If we were living in a highly successful dictatorship without a real resistance movement, would we be having a discussion about which of the one political philosophies vying for power would I prefer?
swifty, I am experiencing deja vu here, as I am sure you and I have had this conversation before, and you were just as bewildered then as you are now.
You ask 1) How can there possibly be only two political movements in this country?
Well, because there are
Are social conservatives who love pork barrel politics like Rick Santorum really practicing the same political system as libertarians like Ron Paul in any sense other than both being in the same party?
Getting past the snide comment that Rick Santorum “loves pork barrel politics” and the level of ignorance it shows, the rest of the statement is equally ignorant.
Try this on for size: Are the Cleveland Browns really playing the same football game as the New England Patriots in any sense other than both teams wearing tight pants?
An intelligent alien who didn’t understand the reference would research the rules of the game of football, learn how it is played, and then look at the two teams in question. And he would conclude that yes, they are playing the same game, but some are playing it better than others.
2) What the heck kind of political philosophy is “I think the Constitution is the best way to run the country”?
It’s actually a quite succinct summary of a more complex philosophy. Going back to that alien, if he had much of an intellect he would then read and study the Constitution to find out what it says about how to run a country. He’d also research the alternative to the Constitution, and make a decision based on the merits of each system and its history of success or failure when implemented.
You, not so much.
It explains virtually nothing about how you think the world should work, as the Constitution is primarily a practical framework.
Who gives a flying fig about how anyone thinks “the world should work”? I, at least, am talking about the United States of America.
And what the hell is a “practical framework”? Save yourself a lot of time and just admit you don’t know what it says. Beause it lays out a detailed plan for how to run the country. No, for how the country MUST BE RUN.
I can’t even tell if you think murder should be outlawed if that’s the core of your belief system.
You bewilderment about this says a lot about how easily you are bumfuddled.
It amounts to a childish grab at some sort of Constitutional authority, but it is not in the least bit descriptive. Do you love the Constitution as it currently stands, or as it was originally written, or only after the first 10 amendments? Will you still love it if somebody amends it to add a bunch more authority to the federal government
Wow, so much emotion. So much “loving” and so little “respecting”.
My belief that the Constitution of the United States of America is the best system for the governance of the United States is based on a careful evaluation of its performance over the past two and half centuries, give or take a few years. I looked at the condition of the nation immediately after the Constitution was ratified, and the chaos of a bunch of fiercely independent communities forced to suddenly act as a cohesive nation under one rule of law, and I evaluated the startling success of this rough, raw, new nation. I looked at how quickly it leapfrogged over the rest of the world, over civilizations far older and more developed, civilizations which had been sneering at the new country and which suddenly were trying to catch up to it as it set new standards for economic prosperity, scientific discovery, and personal liberty.
What, I wondered, could explain how and why this new nation could accomplish so much in so short a period of time, and the only anwer I could come up with was that it was governed by a rule of law which guaranteed personal liberty and offered equality of opportunity, under an umbrella of protections of inherent human rights.
I also looked at other governments that developed after monarchies started to fall by the wayside, and particularly at the Leftist model as developed by Marx and Engels. I looked at the success of this system, or rather looked FOR the sucess of this system, and all I could find was an increasing level of oppression, economic misery, loss of personal freedom, and even of mass murder, as the level of application of this system increased
I saw what this system did to established civilizations, to nations with established governments, and the only conclusion I could reach was that this system is so inherently flawed that it simply cannot work.
I looked at its history and realized that its very structure, of placing great if not absolute power in the hands of a few ruling elite, without the protection of process as developed in our own Constitution, guaranteed abuse of power, and eventual failure.
My journey to allegiance to the political system outlined in the Constitution of the United States was anything BUT “a childish grab” at anything. It was a long, detailed, and serious study and evaluation of the political choices available to me in this country. (This is why I didnot examine monarchies, for example.)
I believe that the Constitution, as it stands, is the best way to run the United States of America. The Constitution, as it stands, consists of the original document and all of the subsequent amendments. The comment “Or only after the first 10 amendments” is just plain goofy. There are some amendments I don’t agree with, such as the 14th, but as long as they continue to be part of the whole I support them because no rule of law an stand if it can be cherry-picked at will. My support is not emotion-based on what makes me FEEL good. It is an objective evaluation of the proven history of success and failure of each system.
3) Why exactly is a discussion of who is trying to grab control where necessary for a discussion of my political philosophy?
Oh, you have this quite thoroughly screwed up. I did not say that a discussion of who is trying to grab control of what would be necessary for a discussion of your political philosophy. As a matter of fact, I said nothing even remotely similar to this bizarre distortion of what WAS said—which was that there are only two political systems vying for control in the U.S.
And then, just to throw in some irrelevant verbiage: If we were living in a highly successful dictatorship without a real resistance movement, would we be having a discussion about which of the one political philosophies vying for power would I prefer? It doesn’t even make sense.
BTW, a “belief system” is based on faith, not on empirical evidence.
Religions are belief systems.
My political philosophy is based upon examination of the performance of the system over a period of more than 200 years.
“Getting past the snide comment that Rick Santorum “loves pork barrel politics” and the level of ignorance it shows, the rest of the statement is equally ignorant.”
What? He’s actually come out and endorsed the system before. The rest of your explanation here seems to be, stupid football analogy aside, “because I said so”.
Actually, I’m going to skip most of your answer to my second question, because you’ve managed to not say anything the least bit meaningful in your whole emotional explosion, and you failed to answer the most important piece of my question. Would you still love it if I, along with a great many other people, used the amendment process to change it to support, let’s say, providing clothes to help individuals find jobs? What if it were amended to give a mandate for universal healthcare?
Because here’s the interesting thing in the analysis of what you are saying: the fact that you are for the Constitution as it stands now as opposed to when it was written indicates that you recognize that for all their foresight and wisdom, the single greatest achievement of the Founding Fathers was to recognize that they were incapable of writing a perfect document that would remain applicable, without alteration, through the ages.
If that’s the case, then any time I argue that I think the Federal Government should do something, responding by pointing out that it doesn’t have the Constitutional authority is irrelevant except as a practical point. If I can convince enough people I am right, we can amend it, and I’ll be working every bit within the Constitution as you are. At which point the whole rest of your explanation collapses. If I’m working within the framework of the Constitution, and you’re working within the framework of the Constitution, how can your explanation of your political philosophy mean anything at all?
Answer: It doesn’t. As I’ve said repeatedly, it is an empty grab at some sort of Constitutional superiority over me. Sorry, but that’s not how it works.
“which was that there are only two political systems vying for control in the U.S.”
Word it however you want. Why does this matter at all when I am discussing my personal philosophy?
Clearly a lot of people have figured out that the high gas prices are designed to get more people on food stamps.
Yeah, A walking disaster area occupied the White House. Except for his copius vacation time and golf outings that is.
Fore!! Care to join the potus on the links there Mr.Boehner?
Yep, according to the Democrat looters and this pathetic excuse of an executive branch, unemployment payments and food stamps are the best stimulus for the economy.
So…. using their stupid logic, more people need to be unemployed and on food stamps. Mission accomplished – we have seen the increase in unemployment, the increase in food stamp claims and the DECREASE in employment participation due to the pathetic policies of this administration!!
47% pay NO federal income tax and THEY are un happy also?
say it aint so food stamps and OPM arent working any more?
TEA and drill.
tired
dont forget
missile defense, canceled
F22 Raptor, canceled
nuclear force and upgrade, canceled
coal production, canceled
oil production, canceled
nuclear power, canceled
tax cuts, canceled
VACATION on OPM….implemented
marxism, implemented
TRILLIONS of useless debt, implemented
cloward/pivens, implemented
racial hatred, implemented
strife-division, implemented
class warfare, implemented
riots from leftist loons, implemented
union thuggery on the rise, implemented
destruction of free market, implemented
Psalm 109:8
speaking of OPM
CBO NEARLY DOUBLES OBAMACARE ESTIMATE…
$1.76 TRILLION OVER 10 YEARS!
FLASHBACK: Obama pledges legislation will cost ‘around $900 billion over 10 years’…
Welll some good news from afghanistan
AFGHANS BURN OBAMA EFFIGY…
gee I finally AGREE with the muzzie loons.
Don’t forget the presidential decree handing over unlimited power and authority to the EPA, to unilaterally declare anything it wants as a “pollutant” and then state what it wants to do about it.
Don’t forget the presidential agreement to sign on with Europe to never use space for military purposes—something that sounds an awful lot like a “treaty” but which Barry doesn’t seem to think needs Congressional approval.
Don’t forget the pressure on the Fed to promise to keep interest rates low to keep the debt service on his trillions of dollars of new debt skyrocketing so high, so fast, that even a lot Dems would be alarmed.
LOL
“free” as in OPM ?
if you say so.
IMAGINE if a White coach had……….
Chicago Bears Head Coach Tells African Americans to ‘Have Obama’s Back’ in 2012
personally I like the afghannis version better
Santorum: ‘Conservatives’ should pull together…
OMG………
do these Fn MORONs EVER quit??
New theory: CO2 makes you fat…
James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas has released a new video exposing just how easy it is to commit voter fraud in Vermont.
The video, a sequel to O’Keefe’s “Primary of the Living Dead” in New Hampshire, shows a Veritas agent entering various voting places around the state of Vermont, giving a different name each time. Each time, he is given a ballot without showing an ID, to his disbelief.
just in time for Uboma Ochimpy to be RE cheated in.
So it seems James O’Keefe has gone to Vermont and made a stupid video. It’s stupid because it does what James O’Keefe always tries to do — exaggerates a problem in order to shame public officials into accepting his point of view. Only the only one who should be shamed is O’Keefe.
Just as he did in New Hampshire, he sent in “undercover” people with video cameras to ask for ballots in the name of voters, living and dead. In each case on the video, O’Keefe’s minions ask whether they need to show ID, and in each case, poll workers tell them they don’t.
One of the more interesting anomalies on the video are the dates. The first subject, “Mohamud” is dated March 9, 2009. The “John Adams” video is dated February 27, 2012, as is “Adam Berger.” “Travis Houle” is dated March 8, 2009. “Evan Bean” is March 8, 2009. The date of the Vermont primary was March 7, 2012. None of these videos have that date. The 2009-2010 Vermont elections calendar does not have any elections scheduled for March 8-9, 2009, nor was anything scheduled for February 27, 2012. There was a very close mayoral election in Burlington, VT on March 3, 2009, which went to an instant runoff where a progressive was elected over the Republican candidate, knocking the Democrat out of the race altogether. But why would video referring to a city race be dated March 9th when the election was March 3rd? The ballots cast on March 3rd were used in the instant runoff voting, so there wasn’t a new vote on the 8th or 9th.
Vermont does, however, permit voter registration until five days before the election. In the case of “John Adams” and “Adam Berger”, it’s possible they were requesting voter registration forms, which they would not need ID to request, but would need ID to submit.
In Vermont, a valid photo ID is required when one registers to vote. Applicants are also required to take the “Voter’s Oath”, which must be certified by an appropriate official before the registration is valid. Once those requirements are met, the voter’s name is entered on the rolls.
All of this begs the question: Where were these videos filmed and for what elections? It would appear they weren’t even filmed in Vermont! And if they were filmed in Vermont on those days and actual ballots were requested, then O’Keefe forgot about this:
While one can indeed register to vote (in most places) without showing an ID via third party, what O’Keefe fails to mention in his video, is that the federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002 already requires those who do not register in person to provide ID when voting for the first time at the polling place. In other words, if “Thomas Brady” registers to vote via the registration forms received via O’Keefe’s video, he would be required, by federal law, to show an ID the first time he votes in person at the polling place.
He also evidently ignored this as he continues to push Voter ID laws with his highly suspect videos:
The only type of voter fraud which could possibly be deterred by such measures would be in-person, polling place impersonation, which is so rare that even George W. Bush’s own Dept. of Justice was unable to find even a single instance of it, out of hundreds of millions of votes cast across the nation during the years from 2002 to 2005, when they placed unprecedented resources into ferreting out such instances of voter fraud.
The bulk of this video is O’Keefe trying to make false equivalences between showing ID to drink, get a hotel room, and complete a civil union, while completely ignoring the fact that yes, ID is required to vote, at the time of registration to vote rather than on Election Day. He also ignores the fact that voting is a Constitutional right rather than an optional act such as drinking, renting a hotel room, or entering into a contractual civil union with another person. What’s truly laughable is that this particular line of thinking is one that’s already been pushed on by conservatives, including J. Christian Adams. Via Media Matters:
Finally, don’t fall into the silly and constitutional incorrect argument that you have to show ID to cash a check and get on a plane. Flimsy arguments like that are what the left wants from you. The 15th Amendment is in play when it comes to voting. It prohibits racial discrimination in voting, and Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is passed to enforce that part of the Constitution. Cashing a check isn’t found in the Constitution, and people who love the Constitution shouldn’t equate a plane trip with the right to vote free from racial discrimination.
Still, that didn’t stop Mr. Christian from appearing on Fox News this morning while they made that argument about the DOJ’s recent decision to object to the Texas voter ID law.
As has been argued in many other posts here, elsewhere and in the courts, Voter ID laws are intended to do one thing, and one thing only: suppress votes of Latino, black, poor and elderly voters. Whether James O’Keefe likes it or not, the Department of Justice will continue to challenge laws which can be shown to do that.
If you google the term “Vermont voter fraud” right now, you will turn up page after page of the right-wing echo chamber sending their usual bat signals out to the right-wing Internet denizens who will righteously exclaim that they now have “proof positive” that voter ID is a necessary and good thing. After all, O’Keefe showed us, right?
Except he didn’t. He can’t prove the videos were even shot in Vermont and certainly can’t prove ballots were cast in the names of dead voters or identity thieves acting on O’Keefe’s orders. Who wants to bet on how long it takes Fox News to start shouting about all the fraudsters in Vermont? I’m sure they’ll get to it right after they finish whining about Texas:
Fascinating reply, “mitch”. Nice to see you have decided to post something other than attacks and insults.
I think this detailed response pretty much outs you as something other than just a guy interested in politics. How much of it did you write and how much was fed to you?
Amazona, Crooks & Liars website.
Well, at least the blog is accurately self-described.
count
Crooks & Liars = DNC
All the more reason to ensure the security of our voting process and by verifying the voter’s identity, there mitchie.
Finally, don’t fall into the silly and constitutional incorrect argument that you have to show ID to cash a check and get on a plane. Flimsy arguments like that are what the left wants from you.
Mitch, unions require photo id in their elections to ensure integrity. So the question is why wouldn’t we require the same voter integrity while electing the leader of the free world.?
Bmitch
I had to show my DL yesterday at Home Depot to verify the CC was mine.
You have to show ID at sams club
I had to show picture ID at the movie theatre to VERIFY my DOB for a discount.
but to vote? nah just the three cigs you were paid and the empty bottle of boones farm, or was that ripple?
From NBC2 in Florida.
Two elections supervisors are taking action after an NBC2 investigation uncovers flawed record keeping and human error allowing people who are not citizens of the United States to vote.
No one knows how widespread this problem is, because county election supervisors have no way to track non-citizens who live here.
So NBC2 did something election officials never thought to do, and found them on our own.
“I vote every year,” Hinako Dennett told NBC2.
The Cape Coral resident is not a US citizen, yet she’s registered to vote.
NBC2 found Dennett after reviewing her jury excusal form. She told the Clerk of Court she couldn’t serve as a juror because she wasn’t a U.S. citizen.
We found her name, and nearly a hundred others like her, in the database of Florida registered voters.
Naples resident Yvonne Wigglesworth is also a not a citizen, but is registered to vote. She claims she doesn’t know how she got registered.
“I have no idea. I mean, how am I supposed to know.”
Records show Wigglesworth voted six times in elections dating back eleven years.
In 2000, major TV networks wrongly projected Al Gore as the winner in Florida before the polls even closed in the state’s heavily Republican Panhandle. Many prospective voters stepped out of line and went home. Later studies estimated that the error had reduced President Bush’s margin by 8,000 to 11,500 votes.
In his book Stealing Elections, writer John Fund suggests that another 15,000+ Bush votes were destroyed in Democrat-controlled Palm Beach County. Palm Beach reported 19,120 “over votes” — ballots marked for more than one candidate — representing nearly ten times the error rate for the rest of the state. Former law enforcement officials told Fund that stacks of paper ballots had been altered by pushing a thin prod through the Gore column, invalidating votes for Bush while leaving those for Gore intact. National Democrats hired a telemarketing firm to make thousands of calls to Palm Beach County on Election Day, urging residents to say they were “confused” by the ballot.
Statistician John Lott and others asked for the suspect Palm Beach ballots to be examined when media teams conducted their own Florida recount the following year. The request was ignored.
Motor Voter: opening the door to fraud
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/05/democrats_and_vote_fraud_on_th.html
DONK…….”See, you people in Minnesota are never going to get anywhere if you keep focusing on small potatoes like individual bags of votes. Out here in the Empire States, we do things in a big way. We find entire voting machines weeks after the polls have closed.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_Oz-PF5wM3A
WTF ??????????
US TROOPS DISARMED FOR PANETTA
I do believe it was a six month old, half empty, open, pint of maddog that he got paid with. Acorn would never waste the good stuff on him.
LOL
mad dog a big hit in da hood.
you can take a………
The New York Times bestselling author of the explosive new book, Hollywood Hypocrites: The Devastating Truth About Obama’s Biggest Backers, Jason Mattera, had his crew’s camera snatched and hurled by comedian Chris Rock when he asked the star why he has called the Tea Party racist.
GOP leadership drops the ball on Fast and Furious
M Catharine Evans
When it comes to gun walking and mass murder, top House Republicans act as if their party lost the midterm elections.
Tea party patriots are justifiably frustrated over House Speaker John Boehner’s and young guns Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy’s weak-kneed response to Operation Fast and Furious.
While the Left whips up scandals over a Georgetown law student’s inability to locate the nearest Target to purchase a $9 month’s supply of birth control pills, Boehner and company prefer the less vocal approach when it comes to slain agents Brian Terry and Jaime Zapata.
Judson Phillips, founder of Tea Party Nation, appearing on Fox News yesterday called out the GOP leaders for their tepid response to the Fast and Furious scandal.
The Republican leadership were just kind of sitting there, and that’s really a pretty accurate story.
Well, here’s my question: if you’re not going to pick a fight with the president, especially when you’ve got an issue like this Fast & Furious operation… if you’re not going to pick a fight with the president when it’s something that’s really really important, *****what are you doing there?”******
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/03/gop_leadership_drops_the_ball_on_fast_and_furious.html#ixzz1p85PEohP
TEA Party patriots are frustrated with me? Why just because I said I would ignore them and work with the democrats to get a budget passed?
Sorry thats just the Washington works.
You are going to vote for me and my kind anyway so quit your complainig.
This post is left in place as an object lesson of what the left has to stoop to, and in case an investigation is called for. It is against the law to impersonate a law enforcement officer. We will find out if it is against the law to impersonate a member of Congress. // Moderator
Just glad I got a screen shot of this to send to the Speaker’s office, stay right there in Illinois and they’ll be in touch, mmmm-kay?
Don’t try to be like me….mmmm-kay?
I love the smell of stalkers in the evening.
GMB,
Can you be any more transparent?
and ALL along I thought it was one of the forkers……. 🙂
DISTRUST: MARINES DISARMED FOR PANETTA AT CAMP LEATHERNECK
Off the RAILS….and Rush is bad?
First a ‘Cultist’ and an ‘Outsourced’ Indian IT Tech, Now Chris Matthews Likens Romney to African ‘Colonizer’
And this, just after Glenn Beck slam
NBA <strike< Legend LOUD MOUTH LOW IQ Charles Barkley Mocks NCAA Co-Host for Being ‘Republican’ and Blaming ‘Everything on the President’
“You can’t be making up stuff.”
no you cant, and you cant fix stupid no matter how many 3 piece suits they own.
ROTFLMAO…….
‘Suicide Attack?’: Afghan Truck Explodes On Runway as Defense Sec. Plane Lands
The Sun: “Sources at the scene claim it was a suicide attack”
Daily Mail: Driver was Afghan employed on the base
WaPo: Stole vehicle from NATO soldier
BUTTTTTTTT the US Marines were DISARMED!!!!!!!!!! LOL LOL LOL
Gawd I love the smell of toasted liberals in the AM
Another liberal displays his true colors:
“They’ve got three RCs, or two RCs- two Roman Catholics- running and a Mormon, so three cultists running, and they gotta pick one of the three cultists, as they see them.” – Chris Matthews MSNBC
I just don’t remember Obama’s deep faith in Christianity being attacked like this.
That’s actually kind of funny if you ask me. The man is staunchly conservative, can’t take that away from him.
The moderator asked if you want your comments deleted before the Black Suburbans pull up at your place; I think you should tae them up on their kind offer.
Oh, and Sasshole, no one asked you so STFU.
Personal attack on Moderator deleted
Is that a threat?
sasan….gone sosoon LOL
bmitch
besides the voter fraud of dimpled and hanging chads proved to created by ten or more cards being punched at a time, there were **reports** of….OMG…….barking dogs, and POLICE in close proximity to a polling place…..
can you believe that POLICE? WOW
OR
maybe it was those TWO THOUSAND FELONS who illegally voted eh?
Interesting. RCP has Newt leading in both Mississippi and Alabama. A Newt comeback?
OOH BOY
the fig or the mitt, choices choices.
Yeah but if Newt starts going off half baked all ya got to do is have a pretty, young, shaply, set of female legs walk by him and he will forget all about nuking the darkside of the moon.
Kind of a shame though. The Newt chaos factor does have a certain appeal.
You really are petty aren’t you GMB.
What was petty about that? I’ve seen worse comments about Newts sexual proclivities come from other regulars here.
Why was it petty?
I do believe I have said I would even vote for Newt despite his history of adaultry and quitting.
Come on now. Why am I petty?
It was just a cheap shot GMB, born of your smug self righteousness. Hence – petty
If only everyone was able to live up to GMB’s lofty principles. Unfortunately, most of us are human.
no cluster it’s not my principles. It’s the the principles you have stated. Hiow many times have I fired first with the name calling and personal attacks.
Hint. Zero.
From now on I am playing by the rules that you and those like you set.
You say you want open and hones debate? LOL Please! you are killing me here. Anyone says anything that you and your kind disagree with that makes them a target.
I am going to give when I am given to.
Get used to it.
GMB,
You missed the point. It was a cheap shot on Newt. I am more than ok with you taking shots on me, I actually kind of like it, but taking personal cheap shots at conservatives is what liberals do.
But feel free to fire away at me.
GMB,
I have become tired of you because all I hear from you is whining. You have said before that you have stated what, and who you are for, but refuse to do it again, which is how liberals dodge that questions. I can tell you in about five sentences what I am for, and who I am for and why. I am not saying you haven’t done it, but I sure don;t remember ever hearing from you who you are for, how you would like to see this country governed, what if any social programs you agree with, etc. You never say anything like that, you just vent and it gets tiresome.
A politician should be able to handle any cheap shot thrown his way should he/she not. You think I am hard on repubs? Wait until that creature and his barkybots get thier hands on them?
You think thaey are going to play nice in this campaign? You think they are going to bring out the kid gloves on Newt? On Rick? On Mitt?
They are going to do thier best to destroy the repub nominee. Better get used to it.
Can’t handle critisism from a “over principled,radical,fringe, neanderthal socon” like me, what are you going to do when the pressure rolls around?
REtreat?
You call it whining. I call it critisism. I have become just as tired with you and count for having to endlessly repeat what I am for or against.
Are your fingers broke? I am done with playing nice with people like you. The archives are there. Go search them. You will find who I support and who I give money too.
You have fired on me many times without response. No more and I don’t give a rats ass if you are tired of it not.
GMB,
Back in college, I was a bouncer in bar so I am not really one to back away, even though a couple of times I should have.
Newt is a decent human being and a fellow conservative, and he is not a womanizer in my opinion. So again it kind of was a cheap shot. But I agree, the general campaign will be ugly and I am sure that either Newt or Mitt can handle it – I am not sure Santorum can.
I don’t know why that question gets under your skin so much. Sorry I ruffled your feathers. Carry on.
The first 12 years of my adualt life were spent on active duty with the United States Army. 3 combat duty assingments. After 9/11 I had the opportunity to reenlist after getting riffed out under klintoon.
Two tours of duty as a Military Policeman in Iraq. Before the surge. Using ROE’s that were so restrictive they were mostly ignored unless there was a television camera around.
I have never, never shied away from a fight in life. I have also never started one.
But I will be damned if you are going to keep firing personal attacks my way anymore without getting them back in return.
You can critisize my politics all you want. You can call me radical,fringe, over principled, or whatever you want. You make snide remarks or personel attacks, it’s open season.
I’ll play by your rules.
Thats all I have to say on the subject
Sorry Newt. If I offended you in any way.I apologize to you because I do believe you would make a descent POTUS. You do have some core principles that will not compromise on. That is trait not shown much by todays republican party.
Now, can we get you to drop out to let the only “not romney” with a chance to get the nomination take over.
Oh, waaaaa waaaaa waaaa. For someone with your alleged military history you sure are a whiner.
You snipe at people and then pitch a hissy fit when you get called on it, waaaaaa waaaaa waaaaa.
You don’t like Mitt, don’t vote for him. But this pompous insistence that your opinion makes you better/smarter/MORE PRINCIPLED than anyone else is tiresome and proof of nothing but your overinflated ego.
BTW, no one has ever called you “over principled”.
No one. No one but you, that is, while you were throwing your shoulder out of joint patting yourself on the back.
opinion makes you better/smarter/MORE PRINCIPLED than anyone else is tiresome and proof of nothing but your overinflated ego.
Overinflated ego? ok whatever. You better go look in the mirror on that Ama. You ego is size of Texas and not in good way.
Your opinion counts more than anyone elses doesnt it. All you have to do look through you snooty assed attitude in the archives to see this.
Wonder why people quit responding to you? You really should not.
You just are not worth responding to that much. Maybe if someone is bored or does not have anything more important to do, then just maybe.
Enjoy it schatzi.
Waaaaa waaaaaa waaaaa
And do try to learn to understand what people mean by the words they use.
I said “But this pompous insistence that your opinion makes you better/smarter/MORE PRINCIPLED than anyone else is tiresome and proof of nothing but your overinflated ego.
I was referring to your own insistence that your opinion makes you … better/smarter/MORE PRINCIPLED than anyone else.. and then you turn around and try to claim I really said that your opinion DOES make you “… better/smarter/MORE PRINCIPLED …” Your spin is the opposite of what I said, but you sure didn’t let that little fact keep you from ranting on.
Waaaaa waaaaaa waaaaaa
You weren’t even man enough to admit that you tried a cheap shot at Newt with your silly, petty, nasty comment about how easily he would be distracted by a pretty girl. No, you spent post after post denying it was a cheap shot and attacking anyone who thought it was.
Waaaaa waaaaaa waaaaaa
I have to think Fast & Furious wont set well with the voting public once they learn of the depth of that scandal, of which the MSM has completely ignored. And speaking of the media, I can’t tell you how many people are so fed up with the blatant bias in the media, and their transparent fervent to reelect Obama, which also hurts him in my opinion. And now, this contrived “war on women” issue is starting to bite the democrats on the ass because everyone is realizing that it is a completely manufactured issue.
It’s not just one thing that’s hurting Obama, it is an accumulation of bad policies, moronic thinking, crony capitalism, and sheer incompetence.
And now, this contrived “war on women” issue is starting to bite the democrats on the ass because everyone is realizing that it is a completely manufactured issue.
And now Energy Secretary Chu is backtracking on his infamous 2008 statement that we need to get our gas prices on a par with Europe. The poor donkeys just can’t catch a break.
But he did such a clumsy, inept job of “backtracking”. Does anyone who saw him really think that he has changed his position?
The impression I came away with was that Chu is probably a man of integrity, though profoundly wrong in his politics, to whom lying simply does not come easily, and he choked on the effort. Give him credit, he did try. But he was a mess, and probably did more harm than good. I think maybe the White House should just have let it lie and not tried to set up a retraction, not with a man who would have a hard time saying what he did not mean.
Santorum wins both Missippi and Alabama. A good night for the socons! The moneycons? Not so good 🙂
OT but I thought it was funny—I, and some others, have commented on odd spellings on this blog over the years, and the reaction of the spellers has been along the lines of “So what, who cares, what does it matter,” and so on.
Watching a Denver TV station just now, there was a story about a 15-year-old girl who escaped a man holding her hostage and ran to a neighbor’s house. The neighbor’s verbal commentary was accompanied by a printed version of the commentary. The neighbor said the girl was “bawling her eyes out” but the printed version on screen said she was “balling her eyes out”.
Try telling this young girl and her family that not knowing homonyms and how to spell doesn’t really matter.
We should all be speaking and typing like this then?
Yea, there thou makest me sad and makest me sin
In envy that my Lord Northumberland 80
Should be the father to so blest a son,
A son who is the theme of honour’s tongue;
Amongst a grove, the very straightest plant;
Who is sweet Fortune’s minion and her pride:
Whilst I, by looking on the praise of him, 85
See riot and dishonour stain the brow
Of my young Harry. O that it could be proved
That some night-tripping fairy had exchanged
In cradle-clothes our children where they lay,
And call’d mine Percy, his Plantagenet! 90
Then would I have his Harry, and he mine.
But let him from my thoughts. What think you, coz,
Of this young Percy’s pride? the prisoners,
Which he in this adventure hath surprised,
To his own use he keeps; and sends me word, 95
I shall have none but Mordake Earl of Fife.
Nice to see that you have abandoned any effort to even appear relevant, and simply gone off the rails into total goofiness.
No I don’t believe so. If one little misspelling of a word got you so worked up that you had to make a post about it, this issue must bug you a lot.
Now the question I would ask is, Why do misspellings bug you? If you understood what idea was being conveyed to you, why does it matter on how it was spelled?
Above is an example of how english was spoken about 400 years ago. You will notice contractions and spellings that are not used anymore.
Why did the english language that we use today evolve away from this?
Or is this just another attempt at “open honest debate”
GMB, do you even understand the difference in the meaning of the two words?
And why do you, the resident “conservative” hysteric, insist on trying to impute some hyper-emotional content to a simple recital of fact?
A normal person would see the humor in what I wrote, as well as the problem of people who are nearly illiterate trying to communicate in a poorly understood language.
You? You project your own strident chip-on-shoulder “wanna fight??” attitude, which is just plain stupid.
You? You project your own strident chip-on-shoulder “wanna fight??” attitude, which is just plain stupid.
It’s people like you that made that way love. How many times do I have I have to state that english is my second language. I do not think in english. Translation error and context errors are quite common amoung bi lingual people.
This is something I have stated many times but it appears your memory is bad too.
Oh well get used to me. I am not going anywhere.
Could you please come up with some new insults? All the old ones are getting a little worn out.
P.s I am surprised you haven’t got a copy of my dd214 already.
“If you understood what idea was being conveyed to you, why does it matter on how it was spelled?”
Because when the wrong word is used, what is “being conveyed” is not related to what actually happened. When the wrong words are used, it involves guesswork to try to figure out “what idea was being conveyed” and the purpose of communication is to COMMUNICATE, not leave vague and confusing clues that may or may not relate to what is meant.
And people who dismiss the importance of precision and accuracy in communication are just too lazy to be bothered to learn how to do it correctly.
Evidently you, personally, would have no problem in having your wife or daughter publicly identified, on an interstate television station, as screwing her eyes out instead of crying her eyes out. But that’s just you.
Some of us think that is a pretty crappy thing to say about a young girl already traumatized by being held hostage, but maybe you don’t care how your womenfolk are publicly described.
“How many times do I have I have to state that english is my second language. I do not think in english. Translation error and context errors are quite common amoung bi lingual people.”
Then man up and say so instead of snapping to your default position of just being snotty and on attack all the time.
The fact is, you didn’t understand what I said, because you don’t know the difference between “bawling” and “balling”. No big deal. I have made many mistakes in speaking a second language. It happens. I remember dropping the verbal equivalent of a stun grenade in a group of genteel folk when I thought that all Spanish words ending in “a” were feminine and said “la dia”—not realizing that not only is “dia” masculine, but that “ladilla” is a very crude word for pubic lice.
It happens.
But I didn’t turn on the people there and accuse them of being in the wrong because they knew the difference between two words or phrases that sounded alike.
You are just snotty and hostile and looking for a fight, so defensive that you are offensive. And quite hypersensitive as you seem to think that my post was directed at you instead of pointing out an embarrassing mistake made by someone else, in another city, in another state, in a situation that had nothing to do with you.
Get over yourself.
Well thanks for the correction there. Believe it not I have never heard that word used in that context before you decided to post it here.
I had no Idea that it was a slang term for sex.
Tanzveranstaltung is how it translate into my normal language which means to attend a formal Ball. A formal dance.
So maybe do you see how problems with what I trying to say might come accross as different to you as you are to me?
You are just snotty and hostile and looking for a fight, so defensive that you are offensive. And quite hypersensitive as you seem to think that my post was directed at you instead of pointing out an embarrassing mistake made by someone else, in another city, in another state, in a situation that had nothing to do with you.
Get over yourself.
And the exact same thing can be said about you.
All I did was ask a question and you assumed something that was not true.
Whatever. Oder soll ich sage “egal”?
In other words, you read a post you didn’t understand, which was a comment on what can happen when English is used imprecisely, you snarled about it because it evidently touched a nerve even though it was not directed at you and you didn’t know what it meant, and then you proceeded to do your best to escalate it into a big fight, calling names and hurling insults, when it never had anything to do with you at all and was simply an observation.
The only reason I did not walk away in disgust at your temper tantrum is because I found it so consistent with your other temper tantrums regarding your oddly belligerent attitude to politicians who also trip your trigger, and I thought it would be interesting to see how far you would go in your irrational ranting about something that never had anything to do with you anyway.
Now it is excuses for your not knowing what I said. Waaaaa waaaaaa waaaaaa
I think what you are saying with your odd post, GMB, is that you have no idea of what my post means.
Now, there’s a big surprise!
And its no big surprise that you start hurling insults either. You are such a nice sweet, understanding, tolerant, person Amazona.
You want to play too?
Waaaaa waaaaaa waaaaaa
matt neo
i was looking for you in the thread and you finally showed up
cool
how come you’re not spouting off now about how well you’re doing and kicking butt?
as you normally do?
yknow….your usual blustery buying, selling, spending rap?
or are you not better off than 4 yrs ago?
uhoh…this could be a loaded trick question
please think before you type
if that’s possible?
::))
nanu nanu dork
too busy bidding jobs, doing take off’s, and UGH taxes.
That leaves precious little time for my beer (joke) let alone blogging 😦
any way am I better off that when Ubomba took over?
HELL NO
$800.00+ gasoline bills a month up from @$250.00
Freon UP 400% since Ubomas ILLEGALLY appointed EPA chief took over.
Equipment cost UP
TAXES (business) through the roof……..
my 401K is now a .4K,
pensions are on the verge of insolvency as well as SS
and what do we have?
Riots in the streets
racial hatred and strife
class division
housing collapse
inflation
TRILLIONS and TRILLIONS and TRILLIONS of NEW debt and NOTHING to show for it
The entire ME lost to radical islam and on fire.
Need I go on?
matt neo
got it
so all that monetary puffery in previous posts is just that
glad freon is up though
you’ll use less….
::))
baggy, is there an idea in there anywhere?
A political comment? A political observation? Or just more of your blog version of Tourette’s?
(Or, as one particularly funny PL troll once called it, “turret syndrome”)
matt zona
the point was neo is alway shooting his freon off saying how rich, well, affluent and big pocketed he is
so within the theme of this thread i asked if he was better off than 4 yrs ago
he answered as i suspected….that it’s all bad now for him
which is the bizarro world of most of his self professing posts about money
that’s all
so sorry i don’t meet your expectations
actually…sorry your filter is so tight that you can’t even read a post even half objectively
btw…..i’m much better off than 4 yrs ago
considering that dumpster i was living in
::))
Are Americans better off? Is America better off?
Let’s see…..
obAMATEUR will likely finish his first term without experiencing a single quarter of 4% GDP growth.
Six MILLION fewer Americans are earning paychecks today than prior to 2008. Remember, these SIX MILLION are not counted as unemployed. By this administration, to be unemployed is to be out of work while LOOKING for a job. If once stops looking but is still out of work, he is not counted as the “unemployed”. People have been out of work so long that obAMATEUR’s administration had to redefine what it meant to be long-term unemployed.
Inflation is raising the cost of basic goods.
We know what’s been happening with gas prices.
The housing market is stalling near the bottom.
Add to that the ballooning student loan debt and the inability for young people to get started in careers, buy houses or start families.
Rich Americans who invest in small businesses are being threatened with higher taxes and have been subjects to an all-out class warfare battle.
Meanwhile, older Americans are giving up and pulling out of the labor force, drawing on government benefits that will consume our entire federal budget by 2020.
We now have less tax payers than we do tax consumers.
Our government (thanks to obAMATEUR and his fellow looting Democrats) will hit $1 trillion of deficits for a record FOURTH YEAR under obAMATEUR’s rule. And all of this without a budget from our Congress. The GOP has presented budget after budget to be held up in the Senate. Reid has allowed three budgets to be voted on (all Democrat issued) all three failed (two of them unanimously voted down – so much for the “obstruction” dumbed down talking point).
Oh and the little, minor, teensy issue of a nuclear Iran also doesn’t help matters.
Now I ask you … do you believe Americans are better off than they were four years ago?
I didn’t think so.
obAMATEUR himself said in February 2009, “If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.” By “this” I assume he means the recovery, correct? I would hardly consider Obama’s “recovery” a success.
By the way, Harry Reid says that this CBS News poll is “meaningless.” That’s how liberals argue (and we have seen it here) – they simply discredit something as false, with nothing to back them up, and then refuse to debate the point.
Our government (thanks to obAMATEUR and his fellow looting Democrats) will hit $1 trillion of deficits for a record FOURTH YEAR under obAMATEUR’s rule.
Actually, Tired, if February becomes a trend, they could tack on another $trillion in 4 months.
You’d think the Speaker of the House would know this was just announced? Wouln’t cha?
And, just as an aside, isn’t public commenting under an assumed identity of a real person a felony? Using the Speaker’s name and likeness is a clear attempt at attempted fraud.
I’ll be sending this link to the Speaker’s office, I’m sure they’ll want to follow up with the site administrator for the IP address if the comments are still up.
Thanks for supporting the law.
We’ve recovered about half of the jobs lost, and this is supposed to represent a “recovery”.
And the jobs have been created in spite of the efforts of the White House, in spite of having loans to new and expanding businesses cut off by always-increasing “regulations”, by the pressures on the oil and gas and mining industries, and by the chilling effect of uncertainty about future tax rates (and the overt threat from the White House that they WILL go up).
This can’t be good:
A new report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office states that by 2016, Obamacare will result in 4 million people fewer people getting health insurance coverage from their employers.
Click to access 03-13-Coverage%20Estimates.pdf
Cluster,
And on top of that, the CBO report also estimates that the cost has almost doubled, and, as more data becomes available, is almost certain to go even higher. Gee, who would have seen that coming?
Coward!
David Axelrod will not be appearing as a guest on “Real Time with Bill Maher,” despite reports last week that he was scheduled to do the show in the next few weeks.
Gee, s’pose that means Bill Maher really is a problem for the dimocrats?
The only people who claim that voter fraud is a problem is Republicans. Nationally, there is a .0003% conviction rate of over 3 million votes cast. This is an overt attempt to disenfranchise people who tend to vote for Democrats. If Republican’s were so confident that people prefer their policies then they would make it easier to vote, not more difficult.
To give some one like James O’Keefe credibility is pathetic. He was arrested and convicted of trespassing in Mary Landriue office. He attempted to trick a female CNN reporter in a sexually charged set-up. Although he was successful with ACORN, it was later revealed that he selectively edited tapes as did his mentor the now dead Breitbart.
The very fact that you all look to him as some sort of paragon of fairness and truth just underscores how manifestly blind you are to reality and how zealously you cling to an authoritarian ideology. Voter fraud is a myth and come November the “Republicans” will get exactly what they deserve. Shame and repudiation. How’s that Limbaugh thing going for ‘ya?
How’s that Limbaugh thing going for ‘ya?
Actually, pretty well, Mitch.
That’s not what I expected from you Spook. You link to Limbaugh as a counter-point?? As if he is credible! So far he has lost over 120 advertisers. The company that distributes his ads have pulled all of them for 2 weeks. He has broadcast dead air and these advertisers are waking up to hate radio in general. The median age of Limbaugh listeners is over 65, they are predominately white and male. Furthermore, the number of listeners that he claims is subject to skepticism.
Why don’t you ask your wife, or your daughter or your neighbors wife what they think of his comments. Defending him is not a winning argument. And please, spare me the comparisons to Bill Maher. Maher is a social satirist and comedian. His comments were intended to make fun of a very public, very divisive figure who uses her sexuality as a bludgeon. Ms. Fluke is a private citizen. The obsession that conservatives have with sex and women’s health issues is just one more reason they are turning off people en-mass and just another reason that Obama will win a 2nd term.
And BTW, he killed Bin Laden.
Mitch is as bad a spokesman for the democrat party as their National Leader Bill Maher.
According to Radio Active Media” the media advertising consulting company;
“The most important thing to consider with Rush Limbaugh advertising is the audience that will be reached. A recent profile of Rush Limbaugh supporters was completed at the Washington Post. This profile concludes that the majority of Limbaugh’s listeners are males between the ages of 30 to 49. This is an important consideration for advertising purposes. The profile also suggests that among the population of female listeners, 40% are over the age of 60. These numbers suggest a very conservative following, which makes sense because Rush Limbaugh is famous for his conservative point of view.
Rush Limbaugh listeners also tend to be well educated and more in tune with current events. They also express a mistrust of general news media, preferring to listen to the radio show because they agree with Limbaugh’s opinions. Consider the controversy and conservativeness attached to the show before committing to Rush Limbaugh advertising. This show has received a lot of publicity, both negative and positive. While the controversy draws a wider audience, people who disagree with Rush’s views often tune in to his show just to hear what he will say.”
That’s not what I expected from you Spook. You link to Limbaugh as a counter-point?? As if he is credible!
Sorry, I forgot to mention the various media links at the end of his transcript — all of which concur.
So far he has lost over 120 advertisers.
That’s a lie, but about what I WOULD expect from you, Mitch.
Why don’t you ask your wife, or your daughter or your neighbors wife what they think of his comments.
Actually, I did just that. My wife heard the comments first hand, and my daughters heard about them after the fact. All three were horrified until they spent a little time checking out who Sandra Fluke is and who she’s connected to. Now all three think “slut” and “prostitute” are probably understatements. That said, Limbaugh apologized profusely – multiple times.
And please, spare me the comparisons to Bill Maher. Maher is a social satirist and comedian.
While others here have made those comparisons, I have not. I think a fair comparison would be one of Limbaugh’s liberal contemporaries, Ed Schultz. And, to the best of my knowledge, he DIDN’T apologize.
The obsession that conservatives have with sex and women’s health issues is just one more reason they are turning off people en-mass and just another reason that Obama will win a 2nd term.
The issue wasn’t even on most Conservatives radar until George Stephanopoulos brought it up in a debate in January. It’s a completely manufactured issue, and, as more women are discovering that, they’re abandoning Obama in droves.
And BTW, he killed Bin Laden.
Another lie, Mitch — geez, you’re on a roll. Look forward to this ad during the campaign:
Killing bin Laden wasn’t the hard part for Obama; carrying the two Navy Seals, one under each arm to safety while dragging the downed helicopter with his teeth to a spot where he could use the flame-thrower (with his feet) to destroy the evidence. He barely made it to safety because he had to stop to drop the flame-thrower canister in the recycle bin before bounding over the wall with the seals.
The real tragedy was all the advisors and Vice President pleading with Obama to not go through with it as it was entirely too risky to his political career, but, ever the selfless altruist, Obama insisted he must “go it alone.” “One thing boys, just don’t tell the public about my sacrifice, I wouldn’t want to steal the spotlight from those brave kids who carried my clubs and found the ball in the rough. “
What a guy!
The only people committing voter fraud are Democrats. There I fixed it.
• In Florida, where the Madison County Supervisor of Elections, a school board member and six others were arrested in connection with allegations of voter fraud.
• In New York, where a grand jury indicted a Democrat city council member and election commissioner who face 116 charges.
• In Indiana, Mike Marshall, running a Get Out the Vote campaign to re-elect the Democrat mayor, was indicted on 65 counts of ballot fraud.
• In Minnesota, where a review of the state’s database of registered voters revealed 2,812 dead people voted in the election that gave Al Franken a seat in the US Senate.
• In Wisconsin where a conservative watchdog group raised questions about voters listed at a state senator’s properties; some votes were allegedly fraudulent.
• In Texas, where of 25,000 registrations submitted by Houston Votes, only 1,793 were allegedly legal. The same week the voter fraud allegations surfaced, a fire occurred at the Harris County Elections Center.
If it’s such a teeny tiny problem, why are all these democrats going to jail for it?
Here’s some more talk radio hate speech from your side of the aisle, Mitch.
but none of those guys are leadeers within the democratic party like Obama’s “Million dollar Man” Bill Maher is.
Our resident proggy drones have proved my point:
They simply dismiss something as false, with nothing to back their claims up, and then refuse to debate the point.
Predictable, aren’t they?
Rick S. won big. It’s time for Newt and Ron Paul to stand aside and let the voters decided if they want Mitt or Rick.
Rick Santorum won in two states that will vote for whatever Republican runs in November; hardly battleground states.
Rick’s a good man, I wish him much success, just not the best candidate at this time.
Maybe Mitt and Rick should step aside and let the voters decide if they want Mary Ann or Ginger.
Ginger
Say what you will about George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld. Call them murdurers, war mongers, or criminals.
No American soldier ever had to be disarmed in thier presence.
boehner ……you rock, FORE!!….watch out barry tee hee
You’d think the speaker of the House would know “I before E except after C”
Woun’t cha”?
The speaker of the house does not answer to demons from hell unless you have a campaign contribution. A large one. Come to my office with at least 100k dollars and then we will answer your question about letters.
Small unmarked bills are preferrable. Gold bars are acceptable too.
Would you like me to delete your felonious comments, before the Feds find you?//Moderator
This is Golden!
You may want to call the Speaker and tell him it’s all a joke before they call you, his number is (202) 225-0600
Fraud = Felony,
Tommorrow is a very sad day for the State of Illinois. One of our former Govenors will have to report to a federal prison.
Blago, would you please say hello to Georgie for us when you arrive?
The moderator asked if you want your comments deleted before the Black Suburbans pull up at your place; I think you should tae them up on their kind offer.
Whatever, Mitch. I’ve listened to Rush for 20 years, and this is the first time I heard him make comments such as these. And the comment about the porn film was just Rush illustrating absurdity by being absurd. It was crude, and he admitted he stepped over the line and apologized several times. The hate speech, from the Left, just from the last couple years, could fill Rush’s entire 3-hour show without any gaps.
Interesting coincidence — Kirsten Powers, a left-leaning journalist, was on Hannity this afternoon. She’s one of the few Lefties who has criticized the hate speech coming from her side of the aisle. She said the majority of the outrage from Liberals is directed against her criticism, not against the despicable and toxic language coming from man of their icons. Kinda says it all.
Not to add to this firestorm but I heard not only the original broadcast but the follow-up and what Rush did in reality was ask what we should call someone that wants money for sex. Just as the Libs love to point out items of Constitutional nature versus optional like ID for drinking, or other things (requiring a photo ID) — sex is optional as well. Over eight solutions to “her friend’s” medical requirements would have cost $0 to $9 a month within walking distance and this from someone who just had both hips replaced.
Ask what you call someone who managed to supposedly get through three years of law school but could not find an answer except OPM to her friends requirements or her sexual desires. The film request was an option presented as an ROI on the taxpayer’s dime. What others on the left have said and done bear no resemblance because just like so many of the trolls posting here–as soon as they lose the argument of ideas they resort to insulting attacks. It is all they know.
Now the story is that it was never about sex, but about “women’s health”.
Rush screwed up. He went off on the sexual aspect, when this flake/fluke handed him a week’s worth of material just by whimpering about how a law student was reduced to bewildered HELPLESSNESS when she was told that she would have to pay for something she wanted to buy.
Not that she could not buy it, you understand, but that no one else would pay for it.
This was so ludicrous, it alone would have been plenty to use to illustrate the insanity of the performance. And performance it was, starting with the fact that it was not a hearing at all but a staged event of theater, and going on to her simpering and preening when her buddies would applaud her statements.
Her lies continue, as in her statement to CNN, in which she continues her falsehoods about contraception not being available. BS. It is available, there is not any effort or desire to make it unavailable.
As for her name, it reminds me of a BBC character whose last name is spelled BUCKET but who insists that it be pronounced BOO-KAY.
What is so funny about all this is that she speaks for the movement that pretends to be all about women’s rights and so on, yet every word out of her mouth sets women’s causes back by decades, portraying women as weak, silly, and even downright stupid.
Oh, you mean someone else is not going to pay for my contraception?
Oh, you thought I, a law student, might actually be able to read the insurance contract so I would know what is and what is not covered?
Oh, this is a Jesuit school?
Oh, Jesuits are Catholic?
Oh, Catholics do not support birth control?
Oh, do you mean I should be able to look up Planned Parenthood, or ask the doctor I managed to figure out how to visit, how to obtain contraceptives if they are not covered by my insurance?
Oh, do you mean when I wanted a new cellphone I should have opted for a cheaper model so I would have enough money to buy something vitally important to me, such as contraception?
Oh me oh my, I am such a fluttery puddle of HELPLESSNESS, baffled and bewildered by the world, unable to function without a big paternal insurance company to hold my hand and take care of me!!
Give me a break. Every strong, capable woman in America ought to scorn this lying hypocrite who has worked so hard to portray women as useless and incompetent.
Ama
BINGO……but dont forget she is talking to 50% of the women voters, PATHETIC!!
LOL
As for her name, it reminds me of a BBC character whose last name is spelled BUCKET but who insists that it be pronounced BOO-KAY.
reminds me of something 2 days ago….hmmm just cant place it.
Every strong, capable woman in America ought to scorn this lying hypocrite who has worked so hard to portray women as useless and incompetent.
A lot of them are — hence Obama’s plunging poll numbers.
db
I thought I was hearing my self on the rush show that day……I wondered ..Has he been visiting B4V ? and stealing my material??
🙂 🙂
From the “not everything is as it seems file”, abandoning Rush’s show didn’t work out so well for at least one advertiser
In honesty, Rush lost two (2) voice advertisers of which one is begging to return and the other has been replaced. Once again the left has smoked too many unicorn farts to determine what is reality.
You are clinically delusional. He lost 2 advertisers. In the first day. It’s now up to over 120. Look it up and not on Limbaugh’s site. Even his 4th wife is threatening him with divorce. But hey, keep defending this guy. His pov is sure to help the Republicans win over women and minorities.
On the day that Blago goes to prison, and more calls for Holders resignation over Fast & Furious, and Obama refusing to give back $1 million dollars to his misogynist supporter Maher, I hardly think Limbaugh is even a factor.
But keep the faith alive Mitch.
It’s more than just “faith” with Mitch.
Well, who could know more about ‘clinical delusion’ than mitch?
Too bad he doesn’t know anything about radio advertising.
Here is an explanation from Rush, from last week.
Two of the sponsors who have canceled have asked to return. We are being very careful about that. Not gonna give you any names here. One of them is practically begging to come back. Everything is fine on the business side. Everything’s cool. There is not a thing to worry about. What you’re seeing on television about this program and sponsors and advertisers is just incorrect. And let me try to explain how this works.
Let’s take the claim that we’ve lost 28 sponsors. Sponsors on this program are both local and national. We deal with the national sponsors on this program. We have 600-plus stations. They sell their own commercials. We don’t have anything to do with those sponsors. We don’t get paid by those sponsors. We have no idea who those sponsors are.
Let’s make up a company, ABC Widget Company. And let’s say that ABC Widget Company says, “We are no longer going to appear on the Rush Limbaugh Show.” Well, ABC Widget Company isn’t on the Rush Limbaugh Show. What happens is, advertising agencies order advertising buys on a series of local stations from market to market to market. A controversy like this erupts. They put out a notice to the stations, “By the way, for the time being we don’t want our commercials run when Limbaugh is on.” But they are not canceling their advertising on the station. They’re just saying they don’t want it running on my program during the local affiliate’s commercial time, not ours.
So this 28 or 32 — and I don’t even know if that number’s accurate, numbers are coming from Media Matters. There’s no way anybody could know this, but I’m gonna put it in further perspective in just a second. What it means is there have been — let’s use the number 28 — 28 advertisers who none of us are aware are even advertising on our local stations who had sent out orders that their commercials are not to run on my program. But that is not revenue to us. They are not our sponsors. They are not even canceling their advertising on the local station. They’re just saying for the time being they don’t want it run from noon to three. And let me tell you, this happens every day. It’s been happening for 23-plus years. And it’s not just to me. There are clients, advertisers, that tell stations, “I don’t want this to run in Beck’s show. I don’t want it to run in Hannity’s. I don’t want it to run in Howard Stern’s.” It’s all part of the business.
But because there’s a focal point on this in trying to dispirit you and trying to present a picture of this program that doesn’t exist and that’s untrue, they’re trying to make it sound like this is unprecedented — that it’s never happened before, it’s at an all-time high — and it simply isn’t the case. We have not lost 28 national sponsors. There are not 28 advertisers who were paying us who aren’t anymore. They are local commercial buys. Many of them may not even be running in my show to begin with. The advertisers are just saying, “If they are, pull ’em. We don’t want ’em in there for now,” but they’re staying on the local stations. These advertisers are not abandoning EIB affiliates.
Nobody is losing money here, including us, in all this. And that is key for you to understand. They are not canceling the business on our stations. They’re just saying they don’t want their spots to appear in my show. We don’t get any revenue from ’em anyway. The whole effort is to dispirit you. It’s to make you think the left is being successful in its campaign when it isn’t.
Give us facts which prove this wrong.
(Not that it matters. Rush is a talk show host, not a representative much less “leader” of the Republican Party or the 21st Century American conservative movement.)
As for the silly claim that Kathryn Limbaugh is “threatening him with divorce”, well, we know how the vultures on the Left, even the Pseudo Left which has no clue as to what the Left really stands for, will gleefully swoop in if they think there is something to feast on, so this invented gossip is no surprise.
Pray tell Ama, what does “the left” stand for?
The First Amendment was specifically designed for citizens to insult politicians. Libel laws were written to protect law students speaking out on political issues from getting called whores by Oxycontin addicts.
“Pray tell, Mitch, what do YOU call a woman who wants her desire for safe, pregnancy-free recreational sex subsidized by her employer?
She is a student, not an employee and there is nothing about her that she deserved to be called a whore by a public figure.Repeatedly. For 3 days. Her testimony, which was denied by a panel of male “experts” all in their 70’s, wearing dresses and mostly virgins, centered around her friend who an an ovarian cyst that could have been cured by the chemical found in birth control pills. According to your criteria ED medicine should not be covered as well even though ED is defined as a clinical pathology.
The long and short of this inane argument is that Limbaugh is; amoungst other things, a misogynist. He has a decades long history of saying things that are demeaning to women. Calling a private citizen a slut and a whore is one thing, (bad enough as it is) but when he said he wanted to watch her getting fckd so he could “get his moneys worth” that was it not only for me but for millions of others. Ironically Ms. Flukes point was not who was going to pay for womens health care issues, but rather the coverage.
But people such as those who post here don’t care. You would defend (in this case) Limbaugh if he committed murder and ate a live baby on TV in real time. And all this crap about him not losing advertisers or listeners is just that. A bunch of crap. The market that he worships has spoken and they aren’t that into him anymore. Do you honestly think that this medevil attitude towards sex and women is a wining issue in the upcoming election? Birth control was settled in 1962. Maybe you are repressed. Maybe you have issues with a woman being comfortable in her sexuality. Maybe you think that planning for children is a bad idea. Maybe you think prayer will cure disease. I don’t know and I don’t care because your way of thinking is ignorant, unpopular, in the minority and will never be legislated again. Just like blue laws or abortion. If you hold those opinions fine. But don’t impose your morality on anyone else and don’t verbally assault those who disagree other wise you’ll find yourself bitch-slapped like Limbaugh is experiencing now. And the “conservative Republican teapeople” will in the fall.
Now go and explain to any women in your life why it’s OK to watch a porn flick starring someone who has health insurance.
Can I force a Muslim owned and operated Deli to make me a bacon sandwich? No? Question answered.
Rush was wrong. Rush was stupid. Rush was crude and, worse, his strident comments were irrelevant to the testimony he was supposedly reacting to.
Rush is one man. He is an entertainer, whose chosen field of entertainment is political commentary from his own, personal, unique perspective. He does not “lead” the Republican Party, not the conservative movement, and he is certainly not a spokesman for either one. His personal political allegiance is to conservative political precepts, which have nothing whatsoever to do with what he looks like, how he thinks about non-political issues and topics, what his personal failings and defects may be, or anything else conservative-haters want to tack onto his shortcomings to try to link them to a political philosophy.
This is only done by people who cannot separate personality from politics, by people who don’t even understand that politics is about systems of government and not about scandals or personalities.
Your odd, meandering, unorganized litany of complaints, lies and misconceptions is a perfect example of a person who is caught up in negative emotional reactions to people but who is utterly clueless about actual politics. Your emotion-based distortion of fact is so blatant, it permeates everything you write, but the more you write the more clearly your chaotic thought processes are illustrated.
The issue is, when stripped of hyperbole and hysteria, that a radical Leftist activist with antagonism toward Catholicism if not religion in general set up a situation specifically to attract attention and, hopefully, smear the Catholic Church. She chose a Catholic university, and then tried to use its policies to condemn it. She lied in an effort to be able to testify in front of Congress, claiming that she wanted to talk about “women’s HEALTH issues”, and when she didn’t get away with this she went along with a media circus in which a press conference was presented as if it was a hearing.
Her testimony was nothing more than political theater, so full of lies and distortions that only a very few equally radical, equally strident, equally fact-dismissing fellow travelers could see it as anything but a farce.
A few hysterics have managed to not only swallow her lies but develop them into an elaborate scenario in which many things are accepted as fact which simply do not exist. Your shrill posts prove this.
But a young woman knew for quite some time that she had, not a disease but a condition, and furthermore a condition which was made more tolerable by administration of hormones which happen to be in birth control pills. It would not be “cured” but the hormones would help contain it. Millions and millions of women have had ovarian cysts. I have had them. Friends and relatives have had them. It’s not a huge medical emergency, but yes, certain hormones do help deal with them.
If a young woman has this condition, which can be uncomfortable, she does have the option of acquiring those hormones in the hope they will help. No argument there.
In this case, the young woman in question happened to be attending a Catholic university. That is, an institution founded and run by a church which does not believe in birth control and so does not provide coverage for birth control in any of the insurance programs available through the university. This is not a secret. Anyone who has insurance through the university has a copy of the insurance policy and can read for herself what it does and does not cover.
The university does not prohibit the use of contraceptives by its students. It merely says it will not pay for them. Not only could the woman use contraceptives while a student there, she would not even have to keep this use a secret. The only difference between going to this school and another is the extent of what is and is not covered by the insurance policy.
She made the decision to go there. She made the decision to go there in spite of the restrictions upon its insurance coverage. She undoubtedly made other decisions about how to allocate her financial resources which, according to Ms.Fluke, meant that she did not plan ahead well enough to have enough money for the ten dollars or so she knew, or should have known, she would need to buy the hormones she wanted to take to make herself more comfortable.
She made the decision to not look for other sources for these hormones. As a third year law student in a prestigious law school, she should be considered mentally competent enough to use a phone book, yet her position seems to be that she believed her only source of the hormones she wanted to take was through her university, and if the school would not pay for them then she was, to quote the lying Ms. Fluke, “denied access”. A 16-year-old high school girl who wants to lose her virginity at the prom can figure out how to get to a clinic of some sort to get birth control pills, but we are supposed to feel sorry for a third year law student at a prestigious and demanding law school because she is less competent?
In short, not one word of this entire charade was really about birth control. It was about political theater, and an effort to smear a church and, as a bonus, get some mouthbreathers so wound up they would go off into spasms of hysteria about their fantasies of “…a panel of male “experts” all in their 70′s, wearing dresses and mostly virgins,..”
But Ms. Fluke and her handlers know their base, and knew they could count on at least some who would take the bait and run with it, flip out, have hissy fits, and elaborate on the original lies, adding their own pathologies to the narrative.
blah blah blah. another wasteful rant by amy the amazona.
do you like to read your own work? because ill tell you, its completely worthless drivel.
your emotional hatred of any woman who isn’t purely on your side is sickening.
good day.
Ahhhh, Jimmy, too many words?
Or too many facts?
Or too many ideas?
Your own post, however, is precisely what we expect from you—not a hint of an idea, just spite and malice and impotent efforts to insult.
AMA, your comment was too cerebral and detailed for tommy-boy to follow.
Tommy-boy needs bumper-sticker slogans to understand. Anything more than a paragraph and tommy-boy eyes glaze over and he enters a state of boredom.
As his response shows, he has no clue as to how to respond intelligently much less with anything of substance.
Yeah, I noticed that he didn’t even try to address a single point I made, and also that he invented “hatred” of some woman (Fluke, the whimpering puddle of bewildered helplessness, … ?) to further illustrate his dependence on negative emotion to drive and explain everything.
How many times has “James” had posts deleted because they were nothing but insults? Not enough, I think.
jimmah sasoon
seems you and ole bmitch missed this………….
Ya GOTTA Love the blindness and stupidity of the commie, atheistic left.
——————————————————————————————
Bill Maher Defends Calling Palin a Cu** & Calls Comparisons to Limbaugh ‘Ridiculous’
“The bit I did about Palin using the word c—, one of the biggest laughs in my act…”
yeah bill a real scream……
RusH??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vVpmW45XwFk
More Rush?
Oops……..pot calling kettle…alinsky 101
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=2QWDkUVEFDA
And to a mental midget like Maher, a laugh is the end-all and be-all of his existence, no matter how low he has to stoop to get it and how carefully his audience has to be pre-selected for equal lack of intelligence or integrity.
Yet Rush’s audience those days was in the millions. According to Maher’s “logic” if more people laughed at what Rush said than at his own gratuitous crudity, then Rush’s comments would be more defensible than his own.
blah blah blah. another wasteful rant by amy the amazona.
Brilliant, well-thought-out response, James — you da man!
BINGO Ama……..
In short, not one word of this entire charade was really about birth control. It was about political theater, and an effort to smear a church and, as a bonus, get some mouthbreathers so wound up they would go off into spasms of hysteria about their fantasies of “…a panel of male “experts” all in their 70′s, wearing dresses and mostly virgins,..”
funny they always FAIL to mention the ho is a POLITICAL ACTIVIST, who was REFUSED TESTIMONY before a congressional hearing.
So piglowsey put on the PLAY in front of the cameras and the leftist stooges ate the shiite sandwich believing it was ham.
You would defend (in this case) Limbaugh if he committed murder and ate a live baby on TV in real time. – mitch
This statement Mitch exposes you as a pure ideologue who is emotionally opposed to another ideology that you don’t even understand. It’s irrational and juvenile.
Hey Matt – can we get a new thread??????
Well, clearly Limbaugh would not be committing live murder of the baby, as he would be eating it “live”, and in real time, no less.
The funniest thing about mitch’s painful efforts to be funny, or relevant, or whatever his goal may be, is that he has to work so hard to come up with something so utterly stupid.
Racist comments = deletion. // Moderator
This blog is a backwater of insane conspiracy theories and white supremacist ideology that is totally ignored.
And yet you appear to be drawn here like a moth to a flame, Mitch. Why is that? Does going into irrational, spittle-flying rants give you an adrenalin rush?
I get bored easily and you guys are an easy target.
Small minds are easily entertained.
LOL
You have been repeatedly removed from this blog when your posts degenerate into nothing more than insults and personal attacks. This will continue. // Moderator
bmitch
sounds like ole Ama has you pegged kid.Wassa matta cant handle the truth that you are a dumbed down useful idiot and she is a strong enough woman to point that out?
what a PATHETIC little “man” larry sinclair is dat you?
“The Left” is a political system. It is based upon the precept of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” and rejects capitalism and private property ownership in favor of a collectivist model in which wealth is redistributed and, in its purest form, there is no private property.
It is a system which governs from the top down, with government extremely if not completely powerful, and one in which everything from the economic system to providing health care to providing housing and other needs are dependent upon the central government.
But I don’t think this is what you are asking. I think you are asking what agendas and events are considered favorable by people who believe in, or at least support, the Leftist political model.
And this is the problem—-too many people conflate the acts of a political system with its ideology, and become fixated on details of this act or that event without the slightest idea of how it may relate to the ideology.
So it is necessary to understand the underlying philosophy of the Left, to understand its concept of ideal government, to understand its ideas of how best to implement this ideal, and only then can you really understand how specific acts and events tie into the ideology.
This is why I suggest that each person needs to examine the core ideology of the Left and the Right, and develop a true understanding of what each system believes to be the best blueprint for governance, and then make an educated choice of which system he or she finds better. Not an emotional reaction to an act or event or personality, but an actual objective intellect-based allegiance to a system based upon a true understanding of what it really represents.
Then, upon this foundation, one can begin to see how specific acts, statements and events are intended to further or strengthen the system and the degree of control and power it may wield.
I see Mitch is still in the class warfare camp because as he posts “…help the Republicans win over women and minorities” because everyone who is educated knows ALL women and ALL minorities vote as a block–there is no free thought or will present in either “class.” I am sure when you a ready to give up the blow up dolly and get a wife (or husband) — you just go to the appropriate store and select one off the shelf because after all ~ they are all the same.
When I hire people I hire to fit the position and not to fulfill some prescribed belief of liberals. If I need someone do “x” – it makes no difference to me what color, race or gender the person is–I need the best qualified person I can find.
Sad you are so stuck on being a neanderthal on such matters–in particular when it comes to something as important as voting.
bmitch
His pov is sure to help the Republicans win over women and minorities.
like the rapist, willy who said Uboma should be serving him coffee did?
maybe Rush is taking lessons from the best.But I guess he has a LONG way to go to RAPE, and (ded kennedydrunk) MURDER eh?
Bad timing, spook—-I just signed up for three years of Carbonite, and wouldn’t have if I had known this..
Yeah, I’m a Carbonite subscriber too (subscribed to it after hearing about it on Rush). Now that I know there are several alternatives, I may change when my subscription is up this summer.
I also went with Carbonite after hearing about on Rush – and may change my mind even before the end of my subscription period. Especially after learning that the CEO is a democrat donor.
funny that your business decisions are so emotionally driven.
I usually look at the product, and the quality of product when compared to alternatives. I could care less who the CEO is and where he spends his money.
tsk tsk tsk….emotional conservatives are a ruse i tell ya!
It was Carbonite that made the emotional decision and now facing the backlash.
It’s weird how James and liberals always get things wrong.
cluster
that is because they are wrong about everything from religion to sex, including entrances and exits.
Weird but totally predictable.
Bmitch
SIX HUNDRED AFFILIATES FORTY advertisers per affiliate……do the math stooge, a fart in a cat 5
What black suburbans? Don’t fear caveat emptor….he is all bark and no bite…
Finally, and this is nit-picking but, if I was to decide I was no better off than four years (the same) in any economy–that would indicate that I was sitting stagnate and therefore would, in reality, be considered to be worse off. Lead, follow, or get out of the way. 😉
Me thinks Mitchie ran off the rails. Stupid is as stupid does as Mitch demonstrates.Is there a literary device he missed? Straw man, deflection, anything?
DB,
Someone has to occupy the lower portion of the bell curve.