Two Different Worlds – Open Thread

Never before in my lifetime have I seen such a disconnect in this country between conservatives and liberals, and it’s important to point out that 95% of this current disconnect is driven by the media, ie; the liberal white media, and their purely agenda driven mission. There are some very important, and serious issues to have adult conversations on in this country, including but not limited to the recent embassy attacks in the ME, and the death of our Ambassador that coincided with September 11 and of which our President lied about. The ever growing and unsustainable debt, the soon to be bankrupt Medicare and Social Security programs, the $1 trillion dollar deficits that have established new unsustainable baseline government spending, the dramatically increasing food stamp rolls, the persistent high unemployment, the persistent high gas prices which financially hurt everyone, the reluctance by this administration to do anything serious about becoming energy independent, the labor force which is at an all time low, tax reforms, regulatory reforms, and the list goes on and on. But if you listen to much of the mainstream media, the top story of the day is the latest “game changing” gaffe by Mitt Romney of which the completely biased, and liberal pundits spend the next hour on,  coupled with more adoring coverage of what Obama did that day. The liberal media has abdicated all responsibility and I believe this fact needs to be seriously addressed at some other time, hopefully after the adults take over and start resolving the other more serious challenges to this country.

The first Presidential debate is just a few days away, and I for one am looking forward to it. Feel free to discuss whatever is on your mind and please keep it civil.

Advertisements

156 thoughts on “Two Different Worlds – Open Thread

  1. neocon1 September 30, 2012 / 10:06 am

    I dont feel this is about “adults” and children.
    This is about hard core atheistic marxism and freedom. The modern MSM are the Trojan horse and are inside our gates. There is no shortage of Useful Idiots willing to be their tools. The question is can the Republic stand or will we collapse?
    I am not convinced with four more years of the POS occupying the WH we may very well begin to hear of states talking succession.

  2. Retired Spook September 30, 2012 / 10:14 am

    I ran into my favorite Liberal at the Y last week, and, as usual, we got in a brief political discussion. He made the comment that, although we would probably never see eye to eye politically, we weren’t all that different, just as Liberals and Conservatives aren’t all that different except for ideologically, and, of course, he asked, “don’t you agree?” I told him I did not, and that there is another major difference between Liberals and Conservatives that is not ideological, and that is that Liberals rarely criticize their own and actually embrace and/or apologize for the kooks, sexual perverts and radical nut jobs in their midst, whereas Conservatives often criticize their own and reject the fringe among them. He stammered and stuttered for a moment, finally composing himself and said that he considered most Conservatives to be “fringe kooks”. That my friends is what I call an insurmountable divide.

    • neocon1 September 30, 2012 / 10:26 am

      We had about ten friends last night together at one of our local watering holes and the election came up. The conversation at times became heated but the whole left’s side was Booooooosh, they are stuck on stupid and have a seething hatred on one man who has not been in office for four years.
      Typical lefty tactics lies and evasion….when confronted with the truth they replied where did you hear that? when suggesting an internet search and some due diligence they merely scoffed OH yeah if it is on the internet it HAS to be true.
      They had NO facts, and NO interest to learn just some dumb illogical pathological adherence to a party that has left them 40 years ago…really sad.

      • Cluster September 30, 2012 / 10:32 am

        And that is what I mean by children neocon, although I don’t disagree with your earlier post. However, too many people don’t read past the headlines and simply regurgitate what the media and the administration feeds them. My daughter is a good example, we recently had a conversation and she parroted the “war on women” meme, after which I had to back off for the sake of familial relations, but it’s sad that so many Americans just don’t do their homework.

        Our educational system is also to blame.

      • neocon1 September 30, 2012 / 10:46 am

        Cluster

        the WAR on women………sadly spewed by a party that touts men like the kennedys, the rapist ce-gar weilding slick, gigolo JFnK, the racist POS, and morons like the “rev” je$$e and his bastad kid.
        I agree the school system has not taught our children to be independent thinkers, they are more into tech, video games, and diversity than real research and independent thought.

      • Retired Spook September 30, 2012 / 10:46 am

        when suggesting an internet search and some due diligence they merely scoffed OH yeah if it is on the internet it HAS to be true.

        Obviously not everything you read on the Internet is true, but I have learned more from the Internet in the last 20 years than I did in all my 16 years of formal education. One of the things I’ve learned is that sometimes you have to dig a little to discover the truth, especially as it applies to controversial issues. Another thing that is an absolute must, if you’re really looking for the truth and not just affirmation of your beliefs, is that you will be able to set aside preconceived notions. And there are lots of people on both sides of the political/ideological divide that simply aren’t able to do that.

        When I first got interested in blogging during the primaries in 2004, I found myself falling into the trap of looking specifically for articles and studies that supported my POV and/or refuted someone else’s assertion or point of view. Now I often find myself searching many pages into a Google search for different points of view. As a result, according to a number of political identity tests I’ve taken, I’ve shifted from being a fairly right-wing Conservative to being a Conservative Libertarian. And I know a number of other Conservative who have come to the same level of wanting to know the truth about any number of issues and topics who have also shifted toward the Libertarian side of the spectrum. I can’t say that I know ANY Progressives who have attained that level of inquisitiveness.

      • neocon1 September 30, 2012 / 10:51 am

        Catholic Bishop: Voting for Obama, Dems Could Place ‘Eternal Salvation of Your Own Soul in Serious Jeopardy’

        “Because a vote for a candidate who promotes actions or behaviors that are intrinsically evil and gravely sinful makes you morally complicit…”

        I 100% AGREE

      • neocon1 September 30, 2012 / 10:59 am

        Spook
        during our debate I asked one friend (Italian) and a “good” catholic how he supported a party that promotes abortion and the death of 55 million children and infanticide……..
        his answer was, you guys (GOP) killed thousands of of US soldiers by sending them to Iraq and Afghanistan………I suggested he watch U tube of the democrat statements when KKKlintoon was POS then the conservation turned to Bush….simply amazing the blindness.

      • Amazona September 30, 2012 / 12:46 pm

        “… a vote for a candidate who promotes actions or behaviors that are intrinsically evil and gravely sinful makes you morally complicit…”..”

        Exactly.

        And a vote for a candidate whose party promotes a federal government unrestricted as to size, scope and power makes you morally complicit in undermining the Constitution of the United States.

        The effort to conflate the condoned slaughter of helpless, defenseless, infants with the deaths of mature adults in war, who volunteered to serve their country, is so deeply and profoundly dishonest it is, really, quite disgusting. I can understand a difference of opinion on whether or not we should have gone to war in these countries. But to claim that the casualties of these wars somehow balances out or justifies the butchering of millions of innocent children is to descend to a level of foulness that is indefensible.

        Your friend might call himself a Catholic, but he might as well call himself a cupcake, as neither term meets the definition of the word. To be a Catholic means to accept Catholic teaching and doctrine and follow it, not to just go to Mass on Sunday and then actively support a political system which openly defies Catholic teachings and beliefs. By voting for Obama your friend IS complicit in these inexcusable deaths.

        If your friend has the integrity, morality and backbone to stand up and vote against the slaughter of innocents, I can respect his position on the rightness of the wars in the Middle East. The latter is open to honest disagreement—the former, not in the least, at least not within the Catholic Church.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] September 30, 2012 / 5:21 pm

        Neocon1 I am concerned at whether you consider “truth” to be the actual, factual, truth or just words that cement your belief in your worldview?

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] September 30, 2012 / 5:26 pm

        Amazona one can’t serve two masters. Politics, while its goal is to serve the commonweal, has to distance itself from the tenets of any form of religion. Morality and religion are mutually exclusive. Would you like to dance?

      • Cluster September 30, 2012 / 5:38 pm

        Morality and religion are mutually exclusive. Freddy

        Where in your opinion then do morals come from?

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] September 30, 2012 / 5:44 pm

        Morals come from establisghed societal norms. There are places with social norms that Americans would find repulsive and vice versa. If religion was the cure to all this wouldn’t we all live equally moral lives?

      • Cluster September 30, 2012 / 5:49 pm

        Where do “established societal norms” come from Freddy? I will give you a hint – Faith is older than most societies.

      • Amazona September 30, 2012 / 6:10 pm

        “Morals come from establisghed (sic) societal norms”

        As usual, Freddy has it back-asswards. No, Freddy, societal norms come from morals, which usually come from religion.

        Or are you really so dense that you think stoning women is an accepted societal norm in Muslim nations because the stoning came first and then the “morality” came after it?

        As for morality and religion being mutually exclusive, this is a tired old whine that we only hear from people trying to justify a lack of morality.

        And let’s face it, the biggest lack of morality we see here comes from the sad, pathetic, role-playing forkers.

      • dbschmidt September 30, 2012 / 6:57 pm

        Ama,

        Even though we both could endless quote the founders and/the signers of the Constitution / Declaration of Independence (figuratively)–it would prove fruitless to some on the blog. Nevertheless, here are a couple:

        [O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.–Benjamin Franklin

        [W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.–John Adams

        Their dismissal of the Creator and a decline of the moral base leads to the circumvention of the Constitution this country was founded on. Bill whittle made the argument clearly (from one of Neo’s posts) and this is what the Progressives have been driving at for some 100 years (Pres. Wilson) and will continue until the direction of this nation is turned 180% or lost forever.

      • bozo October 1, 2012 / 2:23 am

        “Catholic Bishop: Voting for Obama, Dems Could Place ‘Eternal Salvation of Your Own Soul in Serious Jeopardy’”

        No more tax breaks for him. But if he wants to dictate politics, then government gets to dictate religion. Gander sauce, as Mittens puts it.

    • Ricorun September 30, 2012 / 7:18 pm

      Spook: … I told him I did not, and that there is another major difference between Liberals and Conservatives that is not ideological, and that is that Liberals rarely criticize their own and actually embrace and/or apologize for the kooks, sexual perverts and radical nut jobs in their midst, whereas Conservatives often criticize their own and reject the fringe among them.

      That hasn’t been my experience. My experience is that both sides are far more understanding of the kooky, radical nut jobs in their midst than they are of the kooky, radical nut jobs in the other guy’s midst. In fact, my experience is similar to what you indicated about your friend’s opinion: that Liberals are more likely to consider more or less mainstream Conservatives as kooky, radical nut jobs than they are to consider the REAL kooky, radical nut jobs in their own midst as kooky, radical nut jobs — and vice versa. Perhaps I should offer myself as Exhibit A, lol!

      Anyway, with respect to polls, there’s been a lot of talk about polls… which ones to believe, which ones are “stacked”, etc. My feeling is that you can’t rely on any of them exclusively, and certainly not with any fervor. I don’t think any of them seek to “oversample”, or otherwise intentionally mislead. After all, they’re all in the business of predicting outcomes, and it’s bad for business if you get it wrong all the time. Granted, there are polling outfits who are more routinely hired by (or associated with) Liberal groups on the one hand or Conservative groups on the other, who probably have a vested interest in intentionally slanting the numbers a bit in the preferred direction. And I suppose if you believe in the ever-expanding Vast Left Wing Conspiracy, the pollsters with a vested interest in intentionally slanting the numbers in the Liberal direction would now include ALL OF THEM with the possible exception of Rasmussen. Of course if you do, then maybe you qualify as a kooky, radical nut job. Lol!

      I’m kidding, of course. Pretty much.

      Anyway, polling is a difficult thing to do, and there is no “best way” to do it that remains static in time. I mean think about it… For example, if you rely exclusively on land-line telephone polling, you have to account for the fact that there’s an increasingly large sector of the population you’ll miss (mostly younger folks). Similarly, if you rely exclusively on randomly sampling people on the street, you have to account for an increasingly large sectors of the population that don’t walk the street as much as they used to (e.g., the elderly, who generally don’t get out as much as they used to). And no matter what strategy you employ, you have to account for the fact that a large percentage of the people you approach will not talk to you. And the ones who do might not be truthful about their party affiliation, their likelihood of voting, etc. All of the polling outfits use different strategies for estimating the effects of all of those variables. And the effects vary over time, so the estimates have to be constantly updated, which some polling outfits do more frequently than others.

      I said all that to say this: in this particular election I think the Rasmussen polls will turn out to fare pretty well. They use published land-line phone numbers as their primary data base, which biases their numbers to older individuals — probably over 30. And they use a longer time-line to track changes in party affiliation data (basically, they use modified exit polls from the previous election — in this case, 2010 — to determine affiliation). Both of those things, I think, match well with the apparent dynamics of this election. For example, I don’t believe the youth vote is going to be very strong. I also think Romney supporters are less likely to talk to a pollster on the phone — they don’t trust them. And I also think that Conservatives are far more fired up about this election than Obama supporters, whoever they may be.

      I may be wrong, and I certainly wouldn’t trust Rasmussen polls exclusively, but I’m inclined to weight the average more in favor of Rasmussen, at least in this point in the process. I also think the debates are critical, and particularly the first one. That’s the one people are going to watch and/or hear about most. If Romney doesn’t get a noticeable bump after the first debate, his chances of getting elected will diminish considerably.

      And that would be a shame, because although Romney hasn’t been a very good candidate, I think he has the chops to make a very good president. More importantly, I believe that if he DOES get elected he will have to govern from the middle, as a pragmatic problem-solver — an ability he has already demonstrated as Governor of MA and other roles (his stint at Bain excluded). And if he does THAT, then maybe he will actually lead the way to less animosity between the aisles. And if he does THAT, then he will sap the power of both parties’ radical fringes — something Obama promised to do but didn’t. The big problem I see is that Romney shows no inclination to establish the proper tension between government and industry. Then again, Obama hasn’t shown much of an inclination in that respect, either. So perhaps that’s a fight for another day.

      • dbschmidt September 30, 2012 / 8:13 pm

        Kudos, even though I disagree with some of the later parts of the post (including Bain Capital)–you managed to explain all of the “moving parts” of polling better than I could.

    • M. Noonan September 30, 2012 / 9:39 pm

      Spook,

      It is getting rather insurmountable – the man who was Best Man at my wedding was a fanatic Bush hater (I almost bought him the “Buck Fush” t shirt I saw once upon a time) and yet we remain friends…but that is becoming rarer and rarer, friendships across the ideological divide. I was in a debate the other day with one of my few remaining liberal internet friends and we were joined by one of his internet friends who immediately launched in to personal insults against me. After a few rounds of trying to get her to lay off the insults (I did not respond in kind but just kept politely pressing my views), I decided to “block” her (it was on a Facebook account) and have done with it. What had I ever done to her? Didn’t know her at all. Never saw her before on line. Never said “boo” to her in my life. And her she comes with nasty, angry, hate-filled insults out of the blue for no other reason than I suggested that Romney could win Ohio.

      It isn’t a matter of just disagreeing any longer – it is a matter for an increasing number of people that if you disagree politically then it must be hatred, anger and a desire to lash out. Some on the right are very much guilty of this, as well (and I’ve had to block some conservatives on Facebook who just go too far).

      This country is divided about as bad as it was just prior to the Civil War. In the main I do blame the left for this – they’ve always been like that ever since their master of old, Lenin, taught them that vituperation is an effective tactic (I know, I know – not all liberals are Leninists…but the line of intellectual descent is easily drawn and even if a particular liberal picked up the habit 10th hand, the first hand was Lenin’s). In the United States it has been a leftist tactic for nigh on a century – though it didn’t really start to infect the general public debate until the left managed to take control of most of the foundations and the institutions of higher education.

      How it will all end up, I don’t know. I’m still convinced that Romney will win but even if he does, unless he tackles the taxpayer subsidies for the left (which is what keeps them in power) then the endless factory of hate will go on and continue to divide the nation. What is really distressing is that our leftists are utter fools – they don’t seem to realize where this all leads. If you seriously want to get angry at a person because he doesn’t want same sex marriage, doesn’t want abortion and doesn’t want a welfare State then all you’re doing is putting his back up.

      I guess they don’t understand how real fights start – or end.

      • dbschmidt September 30, 2012 / 11:19 pm

        Might be a good time to review the Whittle post about claims of ‘racism’ only works on those that are not racists, hate and insults only work on those that are neither. I think Neo posted it downstream but clearly explains the motives of those that claim such falsehoods nonstop.

        The “Sword and the Shield.” Time to adapt, overcome…

      • Ricorun October 1, 2012 / 6:29 pm

        Mark: After a few rounds of trying to get her to lay off the insults (I did not respond in kind but just kept politely pressing my views), I decided to “block” her (it was on a Facebook account) and have done with it. What had I ever done to her? Didn’t know her at all. Never saw her before on line. Never said “boo” to her in my life. And her she comes with nasty, angry, hate-filled insults out of the blue for no other reason than I suggested that Romney could win Ohio.

        I know how you feel. I don’t know if you’ve noticed (and amazed if you haven’t), but this kind of stuff happens all the time right here on this blog — a blog that you were instrumental in starting and perpetuating. A while ago I challenged one of the regular commenters here to find five deprecating insults I made to her in the many years I’ve been posting here that matched in vitriol the five she hurled at me in one post. She didn’t do it, of course, because she couldn’t.

        Anyway, this is how I see it: if someone feels the need to resort to “nasty, angry, hate-filled insults” because they don’t like the ideas you espouse, you’re winning the argument. Well, to the extent that you don’t resort to the same tactics, that is.

        I’m sure you’re aware (and amazed if you aren’t) that you and I don’t see eye-to-eye on many issues. But I respect the fact that you don’t often get personal — at least with commenters.

      • M. Noonan October 1, 2012 / 9:01 pm

        Ricorun,

        I understand where you’re coming from – though, to be sure, as you’ve been coming here for years its not like we’re strangers…old passions and arguments do, at times, boil up in the comments section.

        But with all that, the Powers That Be here at Blogs for Victory are engaged in a debate on how to lessen the hurt here – working on ways and means to keep the debate on fire and strong but without causing hurt feelings or bitterness. It would be a tricky thing to do, but I pray it can be done.

  3. Cluster September 30, 2012 / 10:52 am

    Has anyone seen the headlines this morning over on the Drudge Report? The ME is on fire. Uprisings, bombings, deaths everywhere, and our death toll in Afghanistan continues to climb, some of it at the hands of the Afghani’s who are supposedly on our side.

    We are in a very precarious situation folks, internationally and domestically, and the Obama regime has proven beyond any doubt that they are not up for the task. They have taken a bad situation and made it much, much worse on all fronts.

    • neocon1 September 30, 2012 / 11:01 am

      Yuuuup

      Tom Tancredo on ‘Wilkow!’:
      This President Should Have Been Impeached a Long Time Ago

      Psalm 109:8

      • neocon1 September 30, 2012 / 11:06 am

        Apparent Obama Supporter Says Assassinated Ambassador ‘Probably Had it Coming’ blaze…..

        yeah he deserved to be raped also (sarcasm)

    • neocon1 September 30, 2012 / 11:37 am

      I pray this man is correct…….

      Las Vegas Oddsmaker Predicts Obama Will Have a Landslide Loss

      Lubbock Avalanche Journal ^ | Sunday, September 30, 2012 | Blogs / Mr. Conservative

      Las Vegas Oddsmaker Wayne Allyn Root predicted that Barack Obama will suffer a massive loss in the General Election even though the current polls do not show Obama necessarily losing. Root stated,

      Forget the polls. My gut instincts as a Vegas oddsmaker and common sense small businessman tell me this will be a historic landslide and a world-class repudiation of Obama’s radical and risky socialist agenda. It’s Reagan-Carter all over again.

      Root laid out the rationale for his prediction. He does have a history of successful political predictions.

      Most political predictions are made by biased pollsters, pundits, or prognosticators who are either rooting for Republicans or Democrats. I am neither. I am a former Libertarian Vice Presidential nominee, and a well-known Vegas oddsmaker with one of the most accurate records of predicting political races.

      But as an oddsmaker with a pretty remarkable track record of picking political races, I play no favorites. I simply use common sense to call them as I see them. Back in late December I released my New Years Predictions. I predicted back then- before a single GOP primary had been held, with Romney trailing for months to almost every GOP competitor from Rick Perry to Herman Cain to Newt- that Romney would easily rout his competition to win the GOP nomination by a landslide. I also predicted that the Presidential race between Obama and Romney would be very close until election day. But that on election day Romney would win by a landslide similar to Reagan-Carter in 1980.

      Understanding history, today I am even more convinced of a resounding Romney victory.

      • Cluster September 30, 2012 / 12:00 pm

        Prayers that he is right on my end as well.

      • neocon1 September 30, 2012 / 12:13 pm

        this needs to get out more…….

        Obama inherited the mess NOT from Bush but himself and his party
        email | Sept 2012 | unknown

        This article explains why Obama and democrats blaming president GW Bush for the inherited economic mess is a blatant lie.

        TOPICS: Business/Economy; Miscellaneous; Politics/Elections
        KEYWORDS: 110th; bush; chat; inheritedmess; obama; vanity
        January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress.

        At the time: The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77 The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5% The Unemployment rate was 4.6% George Bush’s Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB GROWTH

        January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee. The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy? BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!

        Unemployment… to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!

        Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie – starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy.

        And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? OBAMA And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie? OBAMA and the Democrat Congress.

        So when someone tries to blame Bush. REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007…. THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!”

        Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat Party.

        If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself. In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.

      • neocon1 September 30, 2012 / 12:19 pm

        this is great……

      • Retired Spook September 30, 2012 / 2:47 pm

        Neo,

        I’ve seen a number of Bill Whittle’s videos. This is one of his best. A really brilliant presentation.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] September 30, 2012 / 5:31 pm

        Wayne Allan Root is a right wing apologist. I’ll stick with InTrade.

      • Ricorun October 1, 2012 / 6:46 pm

        neocon: Las Vegas Oddsmaker Wayne Allyn Root predicted that Barack Obama will suffer a massive loss in the General Election even though the current polls do not show Obama necessarily losing.”

        Forget “not necessarily losing”, most odds-makers have Obama somewhere around a 4:1 favorite to win straight up. You add percentage points (or electoral college numbers) and the odds get much better to the extent that you really think Romney will win by a landslide. Now’s your chance to CASH IN, dude! I mean come on, getting rich is all about taking chances. GO FOR IT!

    • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] September 30, 2012 / 5:30 pm

      Maybe now the United Staes has finally come to the realization that it is best at nation destroying rather than nation building? If the Red Army couldn’t hold Afghanistan what the heck made the Pentagon think that they could?

      • GMB September 30, 2012 / 5:57 pm

        Shitholeistan is easily holdable. It depends on how much money and how many lives you wish to spend. Soldiers like me volunteered so I hold no coin in that matter.

        What cannot be measured is the will power of our political masters. How many muslims are they willing to kill? They are certainly willing to kill every non muslim out here in their aim of establishing the caliphate. How would they react facing an enemy that plays by their rules?

        The second a imam, mullah, ayatollah starts preaching “kill the infidel” he himself gets a quick bullet to the head.

        Maybe we just might run out of muslim “holy men”.

        Nice dream isn’t it.

    • M. Noonan September 30, 2012 / 9:43 pm

      Cluster,

      And just where are our body count liberals? They gleefully shouted at every milestone of dead Americans in Iraq. Now we’ve just hit 2,000 American dead in Afghanistan (and as per usual of late, it is Afghans we trained who did the deed) and not a peep out of the left.

      I guess our dead only matter when they can be used as a club against Republicans.

      • bozo October 1, 2012 / 2:28 am

        PEEP!!! Already. We love this anti-war sentiment from the right. This bipartisan timetable nonsense is wearing on us all.

      • tiredoflibbs October 1, 2012 / 6:41 am

        Notice, Mark, that the proggies dodge the question every time it is brought up! They like the pResident either have no clue (Biden misstates the war deaths) or don’t care. After all, 70% (1400) of the casualties happened after obAMATEUR’s “surge”. His rules of engagement are practically non-existent. His plan for “winning the peace” and exit strategy are not being questioned. We could not turn on the TV without hearing those words coming from some Democrat’s mouth.

        But rest assured that once Romney takes office, the deaths will be the headline. The homeless will once again be a problem. Every negative measure on the economy will once again be of concern.

        These drones are too enamored with the American Idol pResident to remember four years ago when these measures “mattered”.

        Pathetic.

      • GMB October 1, 2012 / 7:00 am

        That is where you get it wrong. There is no anti war sentiment out there. We are just wondering why the deaths of so many American Service Men and Women seem to only mean anything to you liberals when a repub is in power.

        Care to explain that or do you want to keep up this silly game of “gotcha”!!! forever?

      • M. Noonan October 1, 2012 / 9:08 pm

        Bozo,

        It isn’t anti-war sentiment – to be anti-war is akin to being “anti-common cold”: of course everyone in their right mind is against war. And this does explain liberal anti-war sentiment – liberals are not in their right mind.

        But we are anti-fighting-for-no-victory. We are very much anti-spending-blood-and-treasure-to-no-purpose. We’re not only anti-Americans-dying-for-a-lost-cause but we’re also anti-killing-Afghans-if-we’re-not-even-fighting-for-victory. Fight for victory and you’ll find us willing to do whatever proves necessary – fight a battle in which we apologize to Afghans for burning Korans defaced by Afghans while Afghans never seem to want to apologize for Afghans armed and trained by us murdering our troops and you’ll find us a lot less enthusiastic about the effort.

        What is really amazing is that even with the foolish strategy adopted by Team Obama our military very nearly pulled it off – but in the end it could not be done because Obama provided the enemy with the end-date of our commitment…and so the enemy knew he only had to endure until such and such a day…

      • M. Noonan October 1, 2012 / 9:10 pm

        Tired,

        Don’t you know it, brother. Come January 20th if its Romney being sworn in and not only will military deaths and homelessness top the charts but so will inflation, the collapse of middle class wealth, the financial squeeze Fed policies are putting on retirees and, of course, the way all our fiscal policies since 2009 have been geared towards ensuring that the very richest suffer no loss in wealth (and, yes, it was done deliberately by Obama’s Administration – I doubt with Obama’s knowledge because he likely can’t make heads nor tails out of it…but little Timmy at Treasury and Uncle Ben at the Fed have made sure that liberal billionaires remain liberal billionaires).

  4. dbschmidt September 30, 2012 / 2:45 pm

    Maybe it is just me but has anyone else noticed that every “Obama approved” television buy now comes complete with a “text xxx to nnnn” to donate $10 to the Obama reelection campaign. At least they do here in NC which is not swinging Obama’s way.

    BTW, great video Neo — now just to get it out. It appears this is the 4th great awaking in this center-right country.

  5. David D September 30, 2012 / 2:50 pm

    Neocon1
    -You have it exactly right…While Bush did have some domestic spending issues…the whole root of the problem was the take-over by the dems in 2007. But this has been the liberal game plan forever: Cause the problem with ridiculus legislation, wait a while, then blame the other party/president…With a completely compliant media (the trojan horse mentioned in a response above) you have a built in air-tight support system. What frustrates me the most is that those in charge of campaigns for conservatives most of the time will not bring this up…The Tea Party was the biggest boost we have had in a while…How many times have I said (even when Bush was president) “Why don’t they just use the libs record and statements against them and give a logical explanation of why they do what they do”…”2016” and the tea party seem to be examples of what and how to explain but those running campaigns are too worried about gaffes…understandably because the MSM. I pray Romney wins this and give us hope for our country. But, I am preparing for the opposite result seeing that our country has probably reached the dreaded “tipping point” and is lost forever…I pray I am wrong. But I think the dem turnout will be large, dead people will vote, and the MSM will do whatever it must for an Obama win. A Romney win, will be a welcome sign that America has not been lost.

    • watsonredux September 30, 2012 / 5:08 pm

      David said, “While Bush did have some domestic spending issues…the whole root of the problem was the take-over by the dems in 2007.”

      The facts just don’t back up your assertions. Let’s remember that when George W. Bush took office, the Congressional Budget Office projected a $3.5 trillion surplus through 2008. But Bush claimed that budget surpluses were evil–Congress would just spend the money–and used this justification to enact the first Bush tax cuts in 2001. Then, when the economy slowed, he used that justification to enact more tax cuts. Furthermore, Bush and the Republican Congress did not cut spending while reducing revenue. In fact, just the opposite happened.

      Those tax cuts and additional spending resulted in then record deficits. And contrary to the justification used to enact them, the Bush tax cuts did not create strong economic growth. Instead, the economy continued to perform sluggishly throughout the Bush administration. Ironically, the surplus generated during the boom times of the Clinton administration came on the heels of a tax increase in 1993 that every Republican voted against.

      Then there were the wars the Bush led the country into. The Afghanistan war had some justification since it was intended to combat Al Qaeda, but the Iraq war had no legitimate justification. Even if you believe that it did, there is absolutely no justification for the fact that the Bush administration had no plan for what to do with Iraq after our military toppled the government. That cost us dearly in treasury and lives.

      These things happened before the Democrats took over Congress in 2007. When they took office, the fiscal year had already started the previous October when the Republicans still controlled Congress, and the economy entered recession at the end of that fiscal year, or the fall of 2007. To claim that that was solely the fault of the Democrats who took control of Congress just months earlier is just partisan dishonesty.

      As for “two different worlds,” the comments here are illuminating. neocon1 claims “This is about hard core atheistic marxism and freedom.” RetiredSpook claims only conservatives reject their fringe, but judging from this web site, that is hardly the case. David worries about dead people voting for Obama when the week’s news has been dominated by Republican voter fraud. David believes the country will be “lost forever” if Obama is re-elected. This shows just how paranoid, how far out of touch you folks truly are. One could argue that the two different worlds are the real world most of us inhabit, and the delusional world in which Marxism is just around the corner, Republicans are fiscal conservatives, and Democrats only win elections with fake voters.

      • Cluster September 30, 2012 / 5:23 pm

        Watson,

        Just a couple of inconveneint reminders for you. Do you recall what happened on September 11, 2001? You don’t mention it, but it did have a fairly large negative impact on the economy.

        Following that “rather large negative impact”, the country did realize 52 consecutive months of GDP and job growth, an average of less than 6% unemployment, and that even takes into account another rather significant blow to the economy when Katrina rolled through New Orleans. Do you remember that? Despite all of that, the economy performed much better back then, than Obama could even dream of.

        And the surplus’s you speak of were “projected” – can you tell us what the meaning of that word is?

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] September 30, 2012 / 5:35 pm

        Cluster you realize those 52 weeks of job growth were due largely to the housing bubble which artificially created jobs not only in the construction sector, but in the financial and manufacturing sector as well.

      • Amazona September 30, 2012 / 5:38 pm

        Cluster, we also have to address the fact that this is the era in which the adjusted-rate mortgage rates went up. Remember all those banks that were threatened, bullied and blackmailed into lending money to people they knew could not afford their houses? The only way to appease the radical Left (ACORN) was to come up with some way to get these bad credit risks into loans, and that meant starting them off with low interest rates, and these adjustable-rate mortgages started to hit the next, higher, interest rate levels in the late 2000s.

        When mortgage payments went up, foreclosures went up. When banks got stuck with bad loans (which they predicted would happen when they tried to apply reasonable lending criteria to loan applicants) the housing market started its crash, as inventory skyrocketed and prices plummeted. That led to the crashes of the banking and construction industries, all predicted but ignored by the social engineering fanatics of the RRL, and completely unrelated to any Bush policy.

      • Cluster September 30, 2012 / 5:41 pm

        A fair part of it was yes, considering that approximately 1 in 7 jobs are related to the housing industry. But had Congress, republicans and democrats alike, heeded the warnings from Bush to regulate Fannie and Freddie more, we could have avoided the problem. Instead we had people like Maxine Waters obstructing regulation.

      • Amazona September 30, 2012 / 5:43 pm

        Freddy, I was typing my post as you posted yours, and we show the different perspectives of the Left and Right of the same phenomenon.

        The reason there was an artificial housing boom was because the housing market was flooded with new buyers. They were new buyers because they had never been able to get mortgages before, but when ACORN and similar “community agitators” started to threaten, bully and blackmail lenders with bogus filings of discrimination suits, the number of loans started to rise dramatically.

        This was the reason for the artificial boom in housing. And when this bubble burst, when the initial low interest rates rose and foreclosures started to pile up, the artificially stimulated inventory of housing meant plunging prices.

        And BTW, all the social engineering laws that led to this roller coaster of boom and bust are still on the books. Not a thing has been done in the Obama administration to correct the core of the problem.

      • Amazona September 30, 2012 / 5:45 pm

        And had the Bush administration followed up after moving the sale of mortgages under SEC supervision, to make sure the SEC actually did oversee these transactions, a lot of grief would have been avoided. The idea, of putting these sales under the SEC, was a good one, but no one oversaw the overseers—which is, by the way, what we always come back to when the Left bleats about needing more “oversight”. Who oversees the overseers?

      • Cluster September 30, 2012 / 5:46 pm

        That is absolutely correct Amazona. In fact the government still sponsors a USDA loan available for rural areas that is a 100% LTV loan – no down payment required. And income guidelines apply.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] September 30, 2012 / 5:48 pm

        Amazona This is why the average American doesn’t take this most recent flavor of conservatism seriously. Honestly, the Manhattan Institute’s broken winged canard on the CRA causing the housing bubble has been reduced to a laughingstock by far more learned pundits than myself. The last take down said there would have to be 157 million persons of color who all got subprime loans for this to be a fact. and ther are only 95 million persons of color in the USA. The problem with people who have strong belief bases is that generally they will believe anything that makes them feel comfortable.

      • Amazona September 30, 2012 / 5:52 pm

        the wattle does a stellar job of illustrating the insanity of the RRL, and its willingness/eagerness to lie, no matter how stupid their lies make them look.

        “But Bush claimed that budget surpluses were evil…”

        Sure would like to see a clip of that statement. Was he wearing a tinfoil hat when he said this, or were you wearing one, wattle, when you channeled this from your Mother Ship?

        “…the week’s news has been dominated by Republican voter fraud. ..” —if by “voter fraud” you mean people who have not voted. In fact, a minor non-story has been blown up by frantic RRL lemmings to try to make it seem to be what it is not.

        What it IS is that the GOP provided oversight of the company it hired, it found the company cheating, and it fired the company.

        This is a stark contrast to the Dems, who not only kept their crooked voter registration folks, they defended them and still use them and refused to allow names like Mickey Mouse to be removed from voter registration rolls.

      • Cluster September 30, 2012 / 5:54 pm

        Freddy,

        So it was only the black people who defaulted on their mortgage that the “learned pundits” are concerned with? Here’s an inconveneint truth for you son, there were a lot of people of all colors that defaulted on their loans, including a lot of middle class white people who bought more home than they could afford.

        But your rush to racism is noted. You are stunningly stupid Freddy.

      • Amazona September 30, 2012 / 5:57 pm

        Freddy, you are quite loony. No one said all sub prime loans were made to people of color. Why do you try to support an indefensible argument with such a silly invention?

        The most obvious fallacy in your silly comment is that all foreclosures came about because of rising interest rates. However, many people who had qualified for their mortgages got caught in the cascade of falling home prices, and found themselves upside down, with mortgages far higher than the current market values of their homes.

        You can claim that an assertion has been made that all foreclosures were by people of color who were given forced loans against the good judgment of the lenders, but this would be a lie.

        Not that you are smart enough to know it is a lie, but it is a lie, and your minders who feed you this crap know it is a lie even if you can’t see through it.

      • Amazona September 30, 2012 / 6:03 pm

        A significant number of foreclosures were due to gambling on housing prices continuing to rise. People who qualified for loans borrowed to buy more house than they needed, counting on being able to refi when their adjustable rate mortgages went up, on the assumed increased value of the house.

        This had worked when the housing market continued to be artificially pumped up by the entry of so many unqualified buyers into the market, which of course ran prices up as there was competition for inventory.

        When prices leveled off and then dropped, these people were caught in the crunch.

        Then there were the people who had not gambled, who had bought houses at current market value and then had to sell because of job loss or transfer, who found themselves stuck with houses now worth far less than what was owed, and unable to sell when they had to.

      • J. R. Babcock September 30, 2012 / 6:21 pm

        Cluster you realize those 52 weeks of job growth were due largely to the housing bubble which artificially created jobs not only in the construction sector, but in the financial and manufacturing sector as well.

        Fred, you do realize that the booming economy during Clinton’s second term was largely because of the Dot.Com bubble which artificially created jobs, many of which just evaporated into thin air in 2000? Just sayin’.

      • watsonredux September 30, 2012 / 6:22 pm

        Cluster said, “Do you recall what happened on September 11, 2001?” Of course. And I said that the Afghanistan war had some justification as a response to our attackers. And I acknowledge that the aftermath had a detrimental effect on the economy. But this is where the people who inhabit the real world differ from people like you. We also understand that President Obama inherited a severe economic crisis that demanded a response from the government. You grant President Obama no such concession because you are consumed with proving the other side wrong.

        Little Amy said, “the wattle does a stellar job of illustrating the insanity of the RRL.” Congratulations, Little Amy. In a thread in which Cluster asked for civility, you were the first to resort to name calling. I gotta give you credit for consistency. But only four responses to my post? I’m a little disappointed.

      • Amazona September 30, 2012 / 6:31 pm

        J.R., Freddy evidently is unaware that you can’t have a housing boom without a rise in manufacturing. Duh.

        To build a house, you need pneumatic nailers and air compressors, hammers, nails, screws, Tyvek, shingles, carpet padding, carpets, windows, refrigerators, stoves, furnaces, garage doors, garage door openers, bathtubs, etc. OF COURSE manufacturing rose during the housing boom.

        And OF COURSE employment went up in the financial sectors. They had to hire people to handle the loans and they had to hire people to sell the bad paper they knew they were going to get saddled with. Another big DUH for the big duh.

      • Amazona September 30, 2012 / 6:32 pm

        Awwww, poor wattle, whingeing about lack of civility from me. Evidently he does not find lying to be uncivil.

      • Amazona September 30, 2012 / 6:34 pm

        “We also understand that President Obama inherited a severe economic crisis that demanded a response from the government. ”

        No, you BELIEVE the crisis demanded a response from the government. This is the core belief of the Left—that any problem demands a response from the government.

        And, just as in the 30s, the "response from the government" made the problem worse instead of better.

      • watsonredux September 30, 2012 / 6:35 pm

        Cluster said, “Following that “rather large negative impact”, the country did realize 52 consecutive months of GDP and job growth, an average of less than 6% unemployment, and that even takes into account another rather significant blow to the economy when Katrina rolled through New Orleans. Do you remember that?”

        I remember that the country had a low rate of growth over the Bush administration–lower even than President Carter–although over the eight years it did grow. Just not by much.

        But I was responding to David’s claim that ““While Bush did have some domestic spending issues…the whole root of the problem was the take-over by the dems in 2007.” You must disagree with him as well, since you gave me a bunch of excuses for why things performed so poorly, none of which had anything to do with the newly elected Congress that took office in 2007.

      • watsonredux September 30, 2012 / 6:39 pm

        Little Amy said, “No, you BELIEVE the crisis demanded a response from the government. This is the core belief of the Left—that any problem demands a response from the government.”

        Me and just about everyone else, including President Bush, if you recall. That is why you are on the fringe.

        As for your name-calling, I’m not whining about it, just point out that you consistently prove you are a child who uses big words.

      • Amazona September 30, 2012 / 6:53 pm

        And President Bush was soundly criticized for failing to live up to conservative standards, by mainstream conservatives. But that’s right—people like you, having nothing else to fall back on, simply dismiss Constitutional believers as “fringe”. So convenient, you know—if you can’t argue on the merits of a position, all you can do is redefine the opposition with sneering dismissive rhetoric.

        Which you then think of as “civil”.

        We simply disagree on whether it is less civil to tell the truth which includes some less than flattering descriptions. or to lie to try to further a point. Interestingly, you both lie AND call names—“fringe” and “child” in your latest little rant.

      • tiredoflibbs September 30, 2012 / 6:55 pm

        watty: “Let’s remember that when George W. Bush took office, the Congressional Budget Office projected a $3.5 trillion surplus through 2008.”

        Uh, watty, the keyword in your mindless talking point regurgitation is PROJECTED. PROJECTED. Do you even know what it means? Of course, that was before the Clinton recession, 9/11, etc. etc.

        Also, if Clinton had not counted the Social Security “income” as revenues, then their would not have been a “surplus”. That is the accounting gimmick used by Clinton to get that feather in his cap. He counted Social Security as part of the general revenue.

        But that is besides the point, there was never a real surplus anyway. It was a projected, just like if spending by obAMATEUR is PROJECTED to top the debt of at $25 trillion before the decade is out. Or, obAMACARE is projected to raise the deficit over $1 trillion (so much for obAMATEUR’s promise that is would not).

        It seems you drones have no use for the word PROJECTED. When Bush was spending money like you proggies, your pResident, then Senator obAMATEUR called it irresponsible and unpatriotic. You mindless drones were only to willing to regurgitate that theme.

        Fast forward to his administration, who has managed to outspend Bush in THREE YEARS, there is nothing but silence from him (who “could not remember” the debt on Letterman – yeah right) and you mindless drones. Typical, yet predictable.

        “That cost us dearly in treasury and lives.”

        And yet, the casualties in Afghanistan have topped 2,000 since 2003, 70% (1400 for you slow witted drones) of those came under obAMATEUR. And again, we are greeted with SILENCE from the left and the media. The cost in lives and the treasury of no concern, especially in an election year. There is no plan. obAMATEUR has announced a pull out date – for what? What has he accomplished? The Taliban is on the rise and Al Qeida is on the move elsewhere….. what is his plan watty? To simply, cut and run? What? There is no concern from the left… other than to try and use the military, politically.

        obAMATEUR’s Rules of Engagement are a joke. They are costing lives and you drones are silent. Typical and pathetically predictable. It your opinion, we are in the right country, however, we are not fighting to win. The White House’s micromanagement of the war on terrorism (er…. man caused disasters or overseas contingency effort) as well as the economy are complete failures and you want four more years of this crap.

        Well, you are a mindless drone after all. That explains everything.

      • Amazona September 30, 2012 / 7:02 pm

        In an effort to accommodate wattle’s fluttery hypersensitivity, I will paraphrase a well known quote, substituting a word that might be less upsetting to him.

        The definition of cabbage is doing the same thing and expecting a different result .

        There—–feelings unruffled?

        Now, to my comment on how a "government response" made things worse during the 30s, I refer to the esteemed architect of the New Deal, Henry Morganthau, and his own words.

        “[U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, Jr.]: No, gentlemen, we have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong, as far as I am concerned, somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises…

        But why not let’s come to grips? And as I say, all I am interested in is to really see this country prosperous and this form of Government continue, because after eight years if we can’t make a success somebody else is going to claim the right to make it and he’s got the right to make the trial. I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started.

        Mr. Doughton: And an enormous debt to boot!

        HMJr.: And an enormous debt to boot! We are just sitting here and fiddling and I am just wearing myself out and getting sick. Because why? I can’t see any daylight. I want it for my people, for my children, and your children. I want to see some daylight and I don’t see it…

        —Transcript of private meeting at the Treasury Department, May 9, 1939, F.D. Roosevelt Presidential Library”

        Mr. Morganthau wanted “this form of government to continue” but he still had to admit it had failed.

        Then of course we had a “government response” to poverty, and many trillions of dollars over promised budget we still have the same number of poor, proving that handing out OPM does not cure poverty.

        There are plenty of examples. All prove that a “government response” to an economic problem is not the best way to approach the problem.

        Yet the RRL chooses to be cabbages.

      • tiredoflibbs September 30, 2012 / 7:05 pm

        freddy the forker: “The last take down said there would have to be 157 million persons of color who all got subprime loans for this to be a fact. and ther are only 95 million persons of color in the USA.” Pundits?

        Uh, no freddy. the affects of the CRA were not solely due to the “persons of color” not paying their mortgages. The CRA, also modified under Clinton, allowed subprime mortgages to ANYONE – to qualify? All you needed was a pulse. The severely relaxed mortgage lending, with a “guarantee” from the government institutions like Fannie and Freddy, exacerbated the problem. Fannie and Freddy bought those mortgages and sold them as credit securities, which spread them out all over including Wall Street.

        Social engineering at its finest. When BUSH tried to regulate and reign in Fannie’s and Freddy’s activities, he was met with crippling opposition from the Democrats – Barney Frank and Chis Dodd. These two were the reasons the regulation failed along with the mortgage and housing markets.

        Try again, drone. Your dumbed down talking points need some “polish”.

      • watsonredux September 30, 2012 / 9:20 pm

        tired said, “Uh, watty, the keyword in your mindless talking point regurgitation is PROJECTED. PROJECTED. Do you even know what it means? Of course, that was before the Clinton recession, 9/11, etc. etc.”

        Yes, projected, tired. Then Bush enacted his policies and the results were poor. That is the record.

        But in your mind, the recession that started in September 2001–nine months after Clinton left office–is the Clinton recession, while the recession that started in 2007–over a year before Obama took office–is the Obama recession. Got it. More delusion.

      • tiredoflibbs October 1, 2012 / 6:35 am

        watty the mindless drone: “Yes, projected, tired. Then Bush enacted his policies and the results were poor. That is the record.”

        Uh, watty. You IGNORE the Clinton recession, which was already having an affect on the economy and the erroneous “surplus”.

        Those are the facts.

        and speaking of delusion: “But in your mind, the recession that started in September 2001–nine months after Clinton left office–is the Clinton recession, while the recession that started in 2007–over a year before Obama took office–is the Obama recession.”

        Wow. You really have been guzzling the kool-aid. Wipe your chin of the excess. This comment is so deluded that rational thought escapes you.

        Now for more facts. Signs of the Clinton recession started during the campaign. Bush pointed out those signs and the Democrat mindless talking point response was “are you trying to scare the American people and Wall Street into an actual recession?”. Bush’s first budget policies did not happen “9 months after Clinton left office”. Try again drone.

        It was not the obAMATEUR recession a year before he took office. Where did you get that idea? More of your lies by putting words in our mouths.

        It is the obAMATEUR RECOVERY, which prolonged the recession OR is it, at one time obAMATEUR and the Democrats claimed the recession was over and that his recovery was working. Don’t take my word for it. Listen to the “one you have been waiting for”.
        http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/20/AR2010092005999.html

        So, if we are back into a recession, since recovering from Bush’s – thanks to our great “leader” and he said so, is it not obAMATEUR’s recession? In your mind, no – it’s Bush’s fault. You and your pResident cannot have it both ways. Both of you are lying.

        You again have delusions, watty. We have FACTS. FACTS that will be revealed to you once you get back on your meds. Schizophrenia is like that. You cannot tell delusional episodes from reality.

    • J. R. Babcock September 30, 2012 / 6:12 pm

      Neocon1 – You have it exactly right…While Bush did have some domestic spending issues…the whole root of the problem was the take-over by the dems in 2007.

      How quickly we forget that the last annual budget that had strictly GOP fingerprints on it (FY2007) was a little over $160 billion. Obama has averaged that about every 6 weeks.

  6. Cluster September 30, 2012 / 5:14 pm

    Just when you thought the media couldn’t get any worse, along comes Toure, proving that there is a bottomless pit of depravity and racism that they can, and will, draw from. According to Toure, America can prove that it is not a racist country by reelection Obama. I know I am comforted by that, how about everyone else?

    To accept a black leader who is extraordinary yet so human that he cannot be magical is an entirely different prospect than electing a black superhero. Anyone would vote for a superhero who lived up to my mom’s standard of having to be twice as good. But for it to embrace a nonmagical black person who cannot promise anything but hope, intelligence, sweat and experience, now that comes closer to equality. Equality is freedom from having to be twice as good to get ahead. – Toure, MSNBC

    • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] September 30, 2012 / 5:36 pm

      In that context, Toure is dead right.

      • Cluster September 30, 2012 / 5:42 pm

        LMAO. Why does that not surprise me?

      • Amazona September 30, 2012 / 6:38 pm

        Equality is freedom from having to be twice as good to get ahead.

        It is evidently the freedom from having to be half as competent to get elected, as well.

        This goofball is saying that hope, intelligence, sweat (?) and experience are all it should take to get hired as President.

        But hope is a foolish substitute for a plan, intelligence can exist in some areas and be totally lacking in others and academic intelligence has often been found to be inferior to practical intelligence, sweat is meaningless unless we are supposed to hand out votes just for trying, and experience is of no value if it is experience in making mistakes and not learning from them.

      • dbschmidt September 30, 2012 / 7:39 pm

        Since we are now free to redefine terms to mean something else entirely — I am going to change “sweat” in Ama’s response to “Obama Phones.”

        Neat how this works, or doesn’t–depending on perspective.

    • Amazona September 30, 2012 / 5:47 pm

      Well, Cluster, let’s face it—-the Left is completely dependent on redefining terms, so it is no surprise that they are now defining incompetence as racial equality..

      • Cluster September 30, 2012 / 5:51 pm

        You mean black people have every right to be incompetent, idiotic Presidents, and unless we reelect one, we are racist?

    • M. Noonan September 30, 2012 / 9:44 pm

      Cluster,

      Toure would be right but if Obama were to promise us “intelligence” then he’d be lying.

  7. Amazona September 30, 2012 / 7:12 pm

    It is amazing that the RRL cabbages still insist on going back to BOOOSH!!! when the economy is mentioned. Amazing considering the facts of a comparison between Bush and Barry.

    From: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/in-bush-v-obama-bush-wins-in-a-rout/

    Just a couple of quotes from a very good analysis.

    “In the wake of a recession that began roughly seven weeks after President Bush took office, America experienced six years of uninterrupted economic growth and a record 52 straight months of job creation that produced more than 8 million new jobs. During the Bush presidency, the unemployment rate averaged 5.3 percent. We saw labor-productivity gains that averaged 2.5 percent annually — a rate that exceeds the averages of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Real after-tax income per capita increased by more than 11 percent. And from 2000 to 2007, real GDP grew by more than 17 percent, a gain of nearly $2.1 trillion.

    As for Obama’s claim that Bush “turned a budget surplus into a deficit”: by January 2001, when Bush was inaugurated, the budget surpluses were already evaporating as the economy was skidding toward recession (it officially began in March 2001). Combined with the devastating economic effects of 9/11, when we lost around 1 million jobs over 90 days, the surplus went into deficit.”

    *****************************************************

    “Consider this as well: according to the Obama administration’s own projections, in the first term we’ll see an average unemployment rate of 9.0 percent, real GDP growth of 1.1 percent, federal spending as a percentage of GDP at 24 percent, budget deficits as a percentage of GDP at 7.8 percent, and the deficits as a percentage of GDP at 6.2 percent (see here). ”

    • watsonredux September 30, 2012 / 9:25 pm

      Little Amy, the “very good analysis” you cited is just another self-serving, partisan argument written by a Bush appointee who “served in the Bush White House as director of the office of strategic initiatives.” Of course he’s going to claim that President Bush was wonderful. You’re on a roll tonight.

      • Amazona October 1, 2012 / 11:03 am

        Are you going to dispute the facts or are you just going to pretend that the source of the facts makes them unbelievable?

        I’m guess Door # 2 as you clearly can’t dispute the facts, you just don’t like them.

    • dbschmidt September 30, 2012 / 7:49 pm

      Well, being an IT professional with the ability to run on request ad hoc queries for my previous bosses–it takes about 2 to 10 minutes to get the report completed ~ so my best guess is the 23 or 24 months for them to redact any actual information before release. There is no other explanation.

    • tiredoflibbs September 30, 2012 / 7:58 pm

      Well, so much for the “Most Transparent Administration”…..

      Of course, we knew he was “transparent” but not the way he meant it. Nixon takes a back seat the obAMATEUR. Carter is doing cartwheels. He is no longer the worst pResident that this country has seen since LBJ and his big government antics.

    • Retired Spook September 30, 2012 / 7:59 pm

      Amazona, you beat me to it. So much for the most open, transparent administration in history.

      • Amazona September 30, 2012 / 8:28 pm

        Yeah, but you see, now “open” means like a brick wall, and “transparent” means, well, like a brick wall.

    • Amazona September 30, 2012 / 8:34 pm

      But it’s only because Obama is just too busy to practice. He would, like, really WIN if he didn’t have anything to do but run a campaign and practice.

      But when he has to spend so much time fund raising and hanging out with Beyonce and JZ, and, uh, fund raising, and, uh, explaining about that nasty video and making a video of his own about it, and, uh, fund raising, well he just can’t take the time to practice.

      Though as president he ought to pretty much know all this stuff already, doncha think? After all, won’t it be mostly about the vision for fixing what is wrong with the nation, and that IS what he has been doing for four years, isn’t it?

      Isn’t it?

      Oh, and don’t forget—-it’s really just “sound bites” and Barry is so much deeper and more complex than that.

      And….well, we’ll see the rest of the excuses over the next couple of weeks.

      • tiredoflibbs September 30, 2012 / 9:00 pm

        Ama, they already have the talking points lined up for either result of the debates.

        If obAMATEUR manages to do well without the teleprompter in the first debate against Romney, the ObamaMedia will have chills up their legs that he was able to pull out such a stellar performance, on top of his duties as Commander-in-Chief.

        If obAMATEUR stumbles in his first debate against Romney, the ObamaMedia will be doing what they can to defend his lackluster performance by reminding the audience that obAMATEUR didn’t have adequate time to prepare, considering the tremendous duties associated with being the Commander-in-Chief.

        The narrative is written. The ObamaMedia, the Democrats and the mindless drones (denny, cappy, watty, velma, etc. etc.) will regurgitate it without fail or question.

        http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/obama-to-crash-debate-prep-in-nevada-as-campaigns-lower-expectations/#.UGMtHcRCkl8.twitter

      • Amazona September 30, 2012 / 9:09 pm

        Well, Obama has known for four years he would be debating this month, and Romney has only known for a few weeks.

      • casper September 30, 2012 / 9:22 pm

        Amazona September 30, 2012 at 9:09 pm #

        “Well, Obama has known for four years he would be debating this month, and Romney has only known for a few weeks.”

        You’re right. Obama should have spent the last four years preparing for this debate instead of running the country.

      • J. R. Babcock September 30, 2012 / 11:41 pm

        You’re right. Obama should have spent the last four years preparing for this debate instead of running the country.

        He might as well have — he certainly did everything else except run the country: golf, vacation, campaign, speech after speech to convince everyone that ObamaCare was a great thing, more speeches declaring that he hadn’t been thorough enough in his explanations, more golf, more campaigning.

      • dbschmidt October 1, 2012 / 12:06 am

        But please inform all you of the eminent “Liberal Light of Unending Truth and Bullshit” — What happened to “the One”? Fall down the RRL rabbit hole?

      • Amazona October 1, 2012 / 12:10 am

        J.R., this is just casper trying to be cute. His level of discourse and humor is quite infantile,but he does love to toss out a coy little smirk and then snicker about it into his chins, tee hee tee hee.

    • Casper September 30, 2012 / 8:46 pm

      dbschmidt,

      Of course they are setting the bar low, while both campaigns are setting the bar pretty high for Romney. If Romney doesn’t “knock it out of the ball park”. He comes out looking like the loser. It’s all about perception.

      I predict that no matter what happens during the debate, that you and the other conservatives will declare Romney the winner, while complaining that he isn’t being treated well by the press.

      • watsonredux September 30, 2012 / 9:30 pm

        Earlier I said, “But Bush claimed that budget surpluses were evil…”

        Little Amy asked, “Sure would like to see a clip of that statement. Was he wearing a tinfoil hat when he said this, or were you wearing one, wattle, when you channeled this from your Mother Ship?”

        I don’t know whether President Bush wore tinfoil hats or not–do you know for a fact that he didn’t?–but he did say that turning the surplus he inherited into a deficit was “incredibly positive news,” implying that a surplus was incredibly negative.

      • dbschmidt September 30, 2012 / 11:38 pm

        I never claimed any margin (later post) and I agree you need to lower (how far can you dig?) just to make the nearly worst President in American history (you would know a thing or to if you ever actually studied it) look like more than a winner weenie for the really dumb folks you are targeting. You know the “Obama watch” folks of Ohio.

        I do not have a dog in this fight except the one I want excluded from the playground–their can spend every day following 20 Jan exposing on their balcony amid the gunfire and corruption “How great the ‘good ole days’ were.”

      • dbschmidt September 30, 2012 / 11:40 pm

        Watson is just flopping around on the deck and frothing at the keypad like he normally does…nothing to read here.

      • dbschmidt September 30, 2012 / 11:41 pm

        My bad–fat fingers.

        Thing or two
        Obama Phones

        Ah, crap–Watson is still a flopping–got 1 of 3 😉

      • Amazona October 1, 2012 / 12:14 am

        watson, you put quotes around what you claim Bush said. This means you are claiming it is precisely what he said.

        Given your penchant for lying and distorting what other people say, you will need to provide an actual quote, in context, to back up your claim. Nothing you say has the slightest credibility on its own.

    • casper September 30, 2012 / 9:40 pm

      Actually, if Romney is truly winning by as big of a margin you think he is, the debates shouldn’t make that much of a difference. On the other hand, if the polls are correct and Obama is winning, Romney has to have a decisive win in the debates to turn things around.

      • dbschmidt September 30, 2012 / 11:56 pm

        Not really Casper. If Romney holds his own which will show Obama as the idiot that he is–then all Romney has to do is hold his own. Romney holds his own–he wins. Romney knocks it out of the park–he wins. Obama needs a miracle to look at least average (depending on how much of his wonderful record is brought to light and a lot on MSM cover-up) to even look acceptable.

        We, you and I, will watch and hear the same debates but I doubt we will ever see or hear the same outcomes.

        Actually, that could be interesting (moderators) to use as a post. Just list a series of sayings with their obvious outcomes and let the readers of the post decide who said what. Now I have a very good knowledge of the Constitution and other founding documents but maybe some more obscure sayings could convince one of our hit & run posters that like Gov. Martinez “I’ll be damned, we’re Republicans.”

      • bozo October 1, 2012 / 2:35 am

        Obama has already beat the guy who beat Romney in the 2008 debates. But ya never know…

      • Amazona October 1, 2012 / 11:05 am

        The Denver Broncos have already beat the winner of the Super Bowl in 1981, so you never know……..

      • Amazona October 1, 2012 / 11:07 am

        Great analysis, casper—if Romney is ahead he will win and if Obama is ahead Romney will have to do better to win.

        Absolutely brilliant.

  8. js02 September 30, 2012 / 10:17 pm

    If we really study the core ideology of liberalism, you would find a history filled with a moral basis which has its core in the same thing conservatives got thier moral basis from…religion.

    What we call liberal today isnt liberal at all. Its an ideology that cleaves to immoral behavior and some imagined right to behave immorally. We see the tenants of communism in its theology, which is not libaralism, because its repressive and antisocial.

    The results we are looking at is the communist thrust into the media and a major political party in this nation. Wake up and smell the coffee. This happened in france, and before them, the USSR. When we let down the guard that defends our freedom, we sentence our children to relearn the lessons of our forefathers, either that or they submit to tyrants like Obama and end up like the USSR did.

    • watsonredux September 30, 2012 / 11:25 pm

      So you’re seriously claiming that Communism in the United States is just around the corner, if not already a fait accompli? And President Obama is a tyrant with the powers and ruthlessness of the worst USSR dictators? Again, there are two worlds, the real one and the delusional one.

      You bring up redistribution. It’s a popular buzzword among conservatives these days. Mitt Romney complains that 47% of Americans do not pay income tax! Well, guess what? A lot of them have jobs and contribute to society, but get tax relief from the Earn Income Tax Credit, which was championed and expanded by President Reagan, among others. Or they get relief from the Child Tax Credit, which I’m sure you’ll recall was expanded by President Bush when the Republicans controlled Congress.

      These were once policies that both parties backed. Once upon a time Republicans thought it was good policy to encourage lower income people to work instead of seek welfare by give them a tax break (much like we encourage the middle class to own homes by giving them a mortgage deduction tax break). Once upon a time Republicans thought reducing child poverty was actually a good thing. But now it’s nothing but redistribution, one step short of Communism. Get a grip.

      • dbschmidt September 30, 2012 / 11:59 pm

        Let me guess Watson–you “history classes” go way, way back to –what? the 1950’s, 60’s ?

        Shit, you have a lot to learn little peep.

      • Amazona October 1, 2012 / 12:07 am

        db, the new effort of the Left is to sanitize the word “redistribution”. Now that Barry is on record supporting it, they can no longer pretend it is not a goal of his, so all this left is to redefine it.

        Once they think they have succeeded in ‘proving’ that paying a man a dollar for something he has made is no different from giving a bum a dollar, they will try to to convince us that asking for a dollar for something a man has made is no different from begging for a dollar.

      • Retired Spook October 1, 2012 / 12:31 am

        db, the new effort of the Left is to sanitize the word “redistribution”. Now that Barry is on record supporting it, they can no longer pretend it is not a goal of his, so all this left is to redefine it.

        Amazona, I think the emphasis is being placed on the wrong part of that 1998 speech. In the same speech Obama also said that he wanted the working poor and welfare recipients to be a majority coalition for the purpose of expanding government. Wanting the working poor and welfare recipients to be a majority in the United States of America is…………..well, I can’t even think of words bad enough to describe it. If I were Romney, given that the first debate is going to be on economic and domestic policy, I would tie that statement into the fact that Obama’s policies are well on their way to achieving what he hoped for in 1998: poverty at a 30 year high, food stamps at an all-time high, unemployment above 8% for his entire first term, economic growth in the toilet. The kinds of people who would be offended by that connection aren’t going to vote for Romney anyway, and if they do become a majority we’re all screwed.

      • dbschmidt October 1, 2012 / 12:38 am

        Oh, and BTW, Watson all of the programs Republicans offered were to be a “hand up” rather than a “hand out.” Just like NCLB, a good idea with unforeseen consequences that need to be fully revoked or put back on there proper path.

      • tiredoflibbs October 1, 2012 / 6:52 am

        watty the talking point regurgitator: “but get tax relief from the Earn Income Tax Credit, which was championed and expanded by President Reagan.”

        The EITC was implemented in 1975. Reagan was President in ’75? You also ignore the FACT that Reagan’s expansion of the credit was OFFSET by REDUCTIONS in TAX DEDUCTIONS! So those who do not qualify for the tax credit lost deductions which would raise their taxes (but thankfully Reagan also lowered marginal rates).

        However, disregarding the FACT that the EITC is a DIRECT form of redistribution (others are taxed to pay these monies to the recipients). These are DIRECT payments to individuals over and above their taxes. Any excess above what taxes owed are theirs to keep. It does not take their tax bill to zero, only. If an individual owed $500 (without the credit) in taxes and the EITC is $3500. They get a redistribution payment of $3000, TAX FREE!

        Again, watty. You can’t have it both ways. EITC is a instrument of REDISTRIBUTION. It is ironic that you brought it up without realizing you proved yourself WRONG! Marxism is alive and well in the USA. ObAMATEUR said that he is a believer in redistribution and that he wanted to “spread the wealth” around. Freudian slips revealing his true nature.

        Try again drone.

      • watsonredux October 1, 2012 / 9:25 am

        tired said, “The EITC was implemented in 1975. Reagan was President in ’75? You also ignore the FACT that Reagan’s expansion of the credit was OFFSET by REDUCTIONS in TAX DEDUCTIONS! So those who do not qualify for the tax credit lost deductions which would raise their taxes (but thankfully Reagan also lowered marginal rates).”

        That’s great, tired. But you just reinforce my point that President Reagan expanded EITC, causing more people to have no federal income tax liability. So did President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress. The reduction in deductions you speak of raised taxes on other people. My point was that the 47% Mitt discards as “victims” includes poor people who pay no taxes because of policies promulgated by conservatives.

      • watsonredux October 1, 2012 / 9:28 am

        db said, “Let me guess Watson–you “history classes” go way, way back to –what? the 1950′s, 60′s ? Shit, you have a lot to learn little peep.”

        Hey, I thought you were no longer going to respond to my comments. Oh well… so did this path to eminent Communism start with Woodrow Wilson? Just wondering.

      • Amazona October 1, 2012 / 10:44 am

        “My point was that the 47%……….. pay no taxes because of policies promulgated by conservatives.”

        So? Of course this is not true, as only those who work and make money but also qualify for tax breaks that move them into a zero tax bracket can be said to benefit by those tax policies, not those who pay no taxes because they do not work and not those who pay no taxes because their SS income is too low.

        But then the wattle never lets truth interfere with one of his fantasies—what we call “lies”.

        And, again….so? What difference does it make? It is what it is and it is foolish and desperate to try to shift attention back to who did what. We need to address what is happening here, in this place, in this time.

        But then that is all the RRL can do—–deflect, distract, dissemble, deny.

      • Amazona October 1, 2012 / 10:46 am

        “..so did this path to eminent (sic) Communism start with Woodrow Wilson? ”

        Yes.

        “Just wondering.”

        Because you don’t know, because you are politically illiterate.

        Speaking of illiterate, you snivel that I use big words, and then you try to do the same. The thing is, I use them correctly.

      • Amazona October 1, 2012 / 10:52 am

        Spook, I agree completely. But the RRL can’t very well pounce upon that whole comment and try to reframe it, redefine it, sanitize it, so they are focusing on the reference to “redistribution” because they think they can convince people to believe it is just another word for any transaction.

        As I heard the other day, a Lefty explained quite earnestly that redistribution merely allows more people “to participate in the economic process”.

        We do need to focus on your observation that the President of the United States has declared that his goal is to have the dependent class be a majority.

        This is completely consistent with D’Souza’s theory that he wants to downsize the United States, and with overall Leftist strategy which is based on having a dependent class to enable central government to expand and then assume more and more power.

      • watsonredux October 1, 2012 / 12:12 pm

        Only three replies, Little Amy? I must be losing my touch.

        You said, “Of course this is not true, as only those who work and make money but also qualify for tax breaks that move them into a zero tax bracket can be said to benefit by those tax policies, not those who pay no taxes because they do not work and not those who pay no taxes because their SS income is too low.”

        Yes, Amy, a family of four making nearly $50,000 pays no federal income taxes thanks to policies that have been supported for years by Republicans. That is the point.

      • Amazona October 1, 2012 / 12:44 pm

        No, there IS no point–unless you are deeply invested in the RRL Blame Game, which is focused not on actual issues but on finger-pointing.

        You’re just spinning out of control, aren’t you? Snarling at Romney for supporting a progressive income tax—-which, just to help you out with that tough question you ignored about the meaning of “progressive” as related to the income tax or to the political system, in this case means GRADUATED and not politically to the Left—-when the Left loves the graduated income tax, and now trying to make a big deal out of Republicans giving tax breaks to middle income Americans.

        But you just stick with your silly effort to detoxify communism by trying to make it sound frivolous and harmless, and to sanitize “redistribution” by doing the same thing.

        All you are doing is calling attention to the fear of the Left that more people will start to understand the true, Marxist, redistributionist, anti-capitalist, agenda of The One We Have all Been Waiting For. It it didn’t scare the daylights out of you, you wouldn’t find it necessary to engage in such a blatant act of desperation.

      • tiredoflibbs October 1, 2012 / 12:45 pm

        Watty: “But you just reinforce my point that President Reagan expanded EITC, causing more people to have no federal income tax liability.”

        No Watty you still don’t get it. The EITC not only reduces their tax liability to zero. It GIVES them tax free cash!! – redistribution, spreading the wealth, etc., etc.

        Plus, Reagan SIGNED the bill into law. Did he put that provision in their or was it a result of COMPROMISE with Democrats? You put it on Reagan and not Democrats in Congress, but when Clinton signs a law eliminating regulations in banking, you still want to blame Republicans in Congress. You drones love to throw compromise around like it the greatest thing in the world, but use it only as a means to bash Republicans and not place blame for the same situation against Democrats.

        Again, Watty, you can’t have it both ways. You are nothing but a simple minded hack.

    • dbschmidt September 30, 2012 / 11:30 pm

      JS02,
      You are correct in your statements but you can take this model back well pass even the Romans who were also defeated from within once the ‘ruling class’ knew they had outspent their abilities. Let the beast of immoral behave run rampant until the end of their civilization. Same thing today.

      The Russians have a saying “the fish rots from the head” which is exactly what we are trying to stop in America–even if it means cutting off the head of the fish.

    • Amazona October 1, 2012 / 12:08 am

      Again, there are two worlds, the real one and the one of lies and distortions of what others have said—the second being yours, wattle, which you evidently claim is quite civil.

      • watsonredux October 1, 2012 / 9:26 am

        Oh, Little Amy, thank you for contributing this worthless insight in this thread.

      • Amazona October 1, 2012 / 10:38 am

        In other words, there ARE two worlds—the real one and the one you invent, while preening over your imagined “civility”.

  9. js02 September 30, 2012 / 10:21 pm

    “The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property”
    Karl Marx

    as in…redistribution….

    • bozo October 1, 2012 / 2:34 am

      Must be ticked about Romney wanting to keep our “progressive” tax system, then.

      • Amazona October 1, 2012 / 10:37 am

        Has Romney actually come out and said he prefers the progressive tax system to the Fair Tax or the Flat Tax? Or are you inventing things again?

        And do you, bozo, believe the term “progressive” when applied to the tax system has the same meaning as it does when it is applied to your political system?

    • js02 October 1, 2012 / 2:01 pm

      one of my fears is that Romney will get elected and ignore the deepest problems and leave the financial institutions responsible off the hook and let them conduct business as usual…

      its not that its worse than Obama…because i am confident romney will kill a lot of the overreaching tyrany that Obama has enacted…but more on the tune of being just as bad off today as before with the same players in charge that caused the huge financial crunch we are going through in the markets…

      flipping the coil doesnt work…because obama represents deep marxist/communist ideals that we should fight…but getting romney shoved down our throats will not resolve the hunger for justice that real americans feel

      • Amazona October 1, 2012 / 2:15 pm

        While Romney might not be the Conservatives’ Conservative, I really don’t think he will backtrack to the extent you seem to worry about.

        I’d like to start with a massive repeal movement, going back to the CRA and most of the new regulations and of course Obamacare, and take a year or so to see how that shakes out.

        I am not as pessimistic as you about the activities of the financial institutions, as I see much of the abuse we abhor being the direct result of trying to deal with the various things forced upon them by the Left. So I would like to see what happens when lending is handled according to rational and pragmatic lending standards, when money is loaned to people who are likely to be able to pay it back, when the market is allowed to function without the shackles of social engineering schemes, and then address the problems that still exist after that has happened.

        And remember, there is no way to legislate in a way that can completely head off purposeful law breaking. All we can do is have reasonable standards to avoid mistakes and bad judgment and then prosecute, with great vigor, actions which break the law.

  10. dbschmidt October 1, 2012 / 12:13 am

    VA: Military absentee ballots going AWOL in 2012

    Compiling data from Virginia, Florida, North Carolina, Illinois, Ohio, Alaska, Colorado and Nevada, Eversole’s organization found that military families have requested 55,510 absentee ballots so far this year. That’s a sharp decline from the 166,252 sought in those states in 2008.

    Wondering how much this has to do with DNC efforts across the country?

    http://mvpproject.org/in-the-news/va-military-absentee-ballots-going-awol-in-2012/

  11. dbschmidt October 1, 2012 / 12:24 am

    Read it an weep, or not, depending on your position

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

    Now, like I have stated previously, I do not believe in polling to any great extent–it shouldn’t worry no of you ‘peeps’ at all mon. Never’tess, if you are really interested in the internals there are several ways of getting them as posted at the site–I, myself, am covered by being a member and have “no worries, pop me another Red Stripe Mon.”.

    • dbschmidt October 1, 2012 / 12:42 am

      Just in case any of you wonder–Red Stripe and Popcorn go quite well together. I might even try another attempt at BBQ popcorn as the results will take hours. I might be a foot deep in snow (doubt it) but that has never stopped a grillin’ at my house.

      • neocon1 October 1, 2012 / 9:11 am

        Ahh you never had beer until you drank Vietnamese beer we affectionately referred to as Panther Pi$$

      • Amazona October 1, 2012 / 2:09 pm

        “…the results will take hours….”

        Just how long do you grill that popcorn, db?

    • Casper October 1, 2012 / 8:29 am

      “dbschmidt
      October 1, 2012 at 12:24 am #
      Read it an weep, or not, depending on your position”

      The poll you linked to shows Obama ahead by two points and you think that is good?

      • neocon1 October 1, 2012 / 9:12 am

        catspuke

        do YOU?

      • neocon1 October 1, 2012 / 9:14 am

        catspuke

        reminds me of YOU and dennistooge

        Catholic Bishop: Voting for Obama, Dems Could Place ‘Eternal Salvation of Your Own Soul in Serious Jeopardy’

        “Because a vote for a candidate who promotes actions or behaviors that are intrinsically evil and gravely sinful makes you morally complicit…”

        I 100% AGREE

        do you still have a picture of killer tiller in your “church”?

      • watsonredux October 1, 2012 / 9:30 am

        Casper said, “The poll you linked to shows Obama ahead by two points and you think that is good?”

        Which translated into the right’s talking points, means Romney is actually up by eight.

      • neocon1 October 1, 2012 / 9:45 am

        ONLY by 8???
        I read it as 18

      • neocon1 October 1, 2012 / 9:50 am

        one of al Ubama’s GOOD BUDDYS……….

        Among his more bizarre proclamations, Farrakhan said that the Monica Lewinsky scandal was a Zionist conspiracy,

        he called for a separation of blacks and whites (as a “final solution”) and he said that U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens would be alive today if Gaddafi was still in power.

        One point of discussion that has gone under the radar, though, was Farrakhan’s long-winded defense of the integration of Scientology — particularly the use of dianetics — into Nation of Islam theology

      • neocon1 October 1, 2012 / 10:22 am

        WTF????

        we need to DUMP the POS and all of his rotten evil minions……..

        Report: Did Eric Holder Participate in ‘Armed’ Occupation of Columbia ROTC Office?

        Daily Caller: Eric Holder Participated in Armed Takeover of Columbia ROTC Office as a Student

        Future U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is seen in the 1973 yearbook of Columbia University in New York City. (Photo: University Archives, Columbia University in the City of New York via the Daily Caller)

        The Daily Caller is reporting that the nation’s highest-ranking law enforcement official, Attorney General Eric Holder, participated in what has been described by some as an “armed” takeover of Columbia University’s Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) office in 1970.

        Apparently Holder was one of the leaders of the Student Afro-American Society (SAAS) that demanded the abandoned ROTC center be transformed into the “Malcom X Lounge.”

      • Amazona October 1, 2012 / 11:16 am

        casper, please tell us that you are IN a remedial reading class, and not teaching it.

        “Read it an weep, or not, depending on your position””

        DB did not say the poll was good. He did not say it was bad. He did not say he liked it. He did not say he disliked it. He quite clearly said that one might “read it and weep” OR NOT , depending on his position.

        I weep for the poor children in Casper Wyoming who have to deal with you as a teacher.

      • Amazona October 1, 2012 / 11:19 am

        “Which translated into the right’s talking points, means Romney is actually up by eight.”

        No, what it means translated into reality is that casper can’t read and neither can you.

      • J. R. Babcock October 1, 2012 / 12:42 pm

        The poll you linked to shows Obama ahead by two points and you think that is good?

        Casper, it’s within the margin of error, and Obama is polling at 48% a month before the election. And that was before the Univision report on Fast & Furious broadcast last night that will have hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Hispanics rethinking their position. I think that’s beyond good.

      • Amazona October 1, 2012 / 2:06 pm

        J.R., my comment on casper’s silly little titter was that he didn’t even read it right, as db did not say the poll was good, bad or indifferent, and went on to say that one would read it and weep, OR NOT, depending on one’s position.

        The Univision reportage is quite graphic, but even it makes a mistake, as the article refers to a “…a gun tracing operation..” whent there was no effort to trace the weapons. The gun tracing operation was under Bush, when buyers were followed and when weapons had tracking devices attached, and when this proved to be unsuccessful the operation was halted.

        It did, however, come to the correct conclusion—that the Obama administration made the cold and callous calculation that it was OK for lives to be lost, as long as they were Mexican lives. That is, Latino lives.

      • dbschmidt October 1, 2012 / 3:37 pm

        Casper, make up your own mind about what the poll reveals but it is clear I did not focus on the +2% (within the MoE) Obama when I made the post. The underlying results are not looking good for Obama which is also repeated in several of the swing state polls even though at this point Obama is polling well.

        If the trends continue, and we will see after the debates, it is really not looking very good for Obama but as I stated earlier–you can read whatever you want into it. I will wait for the big one on Nov 6th.

    • neocon1 October 1, 2012 / 11:13 am

      Allen West’s Powerful Gun Rights Speech: ‘An Armed Man Is a Citizen. A Disarmed Man is a Subject’

      “The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed…”

      West on Fox: Person responsible for Libya “cover-up” will be fired on Nov. 6

      • Amazona October 1, 2012 / 11:17 am

        Yeah, but he won’t have to clean out his desk till January, and in the meantime he still has the checkbook.

      • watsonredux October 1, 2012 / 12:07 pm

        Little Amy asks, “Has Romney actually come out and said he prefers the progressive tax system to the Fair Tax or the Flat Tax? Or are you inventing things again?”

        Yes, Amy, he has.

        “I want to make sure that we maintain the progressivity in the code, and I want to help people who I think have been most hurt by the Obama economy, and that’s middle income Americans. I’m not looking to change the deal that we have right now with regards to people looking at their share of the tax burden.”

        http://cnsnews.com/news/article/romney-taxes-i-want-make-sure-we-maintain-progressivity-code

        He’s obviously a redistributionist, one step away from a Communist. On the other hand, consistency has never been one of Mitt’s strong points. His stance depends on who he is talking to and what time of day it is.

      • Amazona October 1, 2012 / 12:32 pm

        Thank you for the quote.

        For the silly effort at cute, not so much.

        Yes, I understand the desperate need of you Lefties to sanitize the word “redistribution” now that your guy is so linked to it, but it’s not working.

        And you’re not helping the cause by constantly spotlighting your political ignorance. You might think it darling and pweshuss to try reduction ad absurdum and make bizarre exaggerations of fact to try to ridicule a position, but all it does is make YOU look ridiculous.

        However, if your grand strategy is to link income tax to communism, go for it.

        What is so funny about your constant sniping at Romney is that now you are attacking him for supporting something the Left cherishes, which is a graduated income tax. And you snivel that ROMNEY is inconsistent!

      • Amazona October 1, 2012 / 12:36 pm

        BTW, wattle, you managed to duck my question. As you took it upon yourself to address a question directed to the freaky clown, why not address the other one in the same post? What’s the matter—-too close to actual political ideology for you? You know, that scary territory that involves actually knowing what you are talking about before sounding off?

        And do you, bozo, believe the term “progressive” when applied to the tax system has the same meaning as it does when it is applied to your political system?

      • neocon1 October 1, 2012 / 2:43 pm

        LOL
        al Ubamabas “debate” prep.

      • neocon1 October 1, 2012 / 2:48 pm

        AAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamen BROTHER!!!!!

      • neocon1 October 1, 2012 / 3:16 pm

        This is serious business !!!!

        SOCIAL SECURITY NOW CALLED …..
        “FEDERAL BENEFIT PAYMENT” / ENTITLEMENT !

        Have you noticed, your Social Security check is now referred to as a “Federal Benefit Payment”?

        I’ll be part of the one percent to forward this. I am forwarding it because it touches a nerve in me, and I hope it will in you.

        The government is now referring to our Social Security checks as a ( hold on ) a “Federal Benefit Payment.” This isn’t a benefit – its earned income! Not only did we all contribute to Social Security but our employers did also.

        It totaled 15% of our income before taxes. If you averaged $30K per year over your working life, that’s close to $180,000 invested in Social Security. If you calculate the future value of your monthly investment in social security ($375/month, including both
        your and your employer’s contributions) at a meager 1% interest rate compounded monthly, after 40 years of working you’d have more than $1.3+ million dollars saved!
        This is your personal investment.

        Upon retirement, if you took out only 3% per year, you’d receive $39,318 per year, or $3,277 per month. That’s almost three times more than today’s average Social Security benefit of $1,230 per month, according to the Social Security Administration (Google it – it’s a fact).

        And your retirement fund would last more than 33 years (until you’re 98 if you retire at age 65)! I can only imagine how much better most average-income people could live in retirement if our government had just invested our money in low-risk interest-earning accounts.

        Instead, the folks in Washington pulled off a bigger Ponzi scheme than Bernie Madoff ever did. They took our money and used it elsewhere. They “forgot” that it was OUR money they were taking. They didn’t have a referendum to ask us if we wanted to lend the money to them.

        And they didn’t pay interest on the debt they assumed. And recently, they’ve told us that the money won’t support us for very much longer. But is it our fault they misused our investments?

        And now, to add insult to injury, they’re calling it a “benefit,” as if we never worked to earn every penny of it. Just because they “borrowed” the money, doesn’t mean that our investments were a charity ! Let’s take a stand.

        We have earned our right to Social Security and Medicare. Demand that our legislators bring some sense into our government – Find a way to keep Social Security and Medicare going, for the sake of that 92% of our population who need it.

        Then call it what it is: Our Earned Retirement Income.

      • neocon1 October 1, 2012 / 3:22 pm

        BINGO!!!!!!

Comments are closed.