Going “FORWARD”, What Positions Favor Progressives?

This post originated a couple threads back with Cluster offering the following challenge:

“Bring it on liberals. There is not one position in your favor and I look forward to bashing you about the head for the next four years.”

One of our resident Leftist Useful Idiots, thetruthshallsetyoufree, responded with:

Except for all those positions that favored liberals on election day, of course. Good point.

JR responded with:

Small-minded as you are, TruthSSYF, it’s clear you fail to see the irony in that. Absent mass forced reeducation camps, the only thing this election will result in is death and despair. And there are those of us who, if it’s the last thing we do, will see to it that you and those who share your views will be on the receiving end of that paradigm. I don’t think you have the slightest grasp of what lies ahead, but it ain’t gonna be pretty. It is gonna be fun to watch, though.

And I responded with:

Not really a good point, Truthie, as JR points out. Besides winning the presidential election and increasing the Donk majority in the Senate, what positions on November 6th favored Liberals? No President in the last 75 years has been re-elected with the unemployment rate as high as it is — and it’s going higher. No other President has been re-elected with economic growth as weak as it is since they began keeping such statistics in 1930, and Obama’s policies will ensure that it’s only going to get weaker. No other President has been re-elected with the right track/wrong track numbers so stacked against him. The number of GOP governors (30) is at a 12-year high. The GOP-controlled House still controls the purse strings. I haven’t spoken to a single Conservative since the election whose resolve has been anything but strengthened.

Other than free contraceptives and free abortions, what, pray tell, does a second Obama term offer anyone except those with their hands out? As JR alludes to, our side still has most of the guns, and the U.S. military will never, I repeat, NEVER side with Obama. And if you think that Obama’s cute little Kiddie Corps is going to be anything other than cannon fodder, you’re more delusional that I thought.

This exchange, probably close to the end of a dead thread got me to thinking; is there anything that really favors the Progressive agenda going “forward”?  Do Progressives now believe they can just do what they want the next 4 years without repercussions?  The House of Representatives does still hold the purse strings, but what if Obama continues to just bypass the House with executive orders?  Will the nearly 60 million people who voted against him just lay down and do nothing?  What, if any, policies will Obama pursue going “forward” that will result in more liberty and more prosperity?

Update: I’m not getting any takers on the final question of the post, and, admittedly, it asks for someone to have a crystal ball.  So let me rephrase it: what policies going “forward” would you like to see Obama pursue that you believe will have a positive effect on liberty and prosperity?

187 thoughts on “Going “FORWARD”, What Positions Favor Progressives?

    • Retired Spook November 17, 2012 / 2:24 pm

      JR,

      And the official explanation of the massive ammo purchases only raises more questions.

      I predict that, in the next year or two the guy who came up with this idea will become one of the richest people in America.

  1. dbschmidt November 17, 2012 / 2:25 pm

    JR,

    Arm those that Obama can count on to be loyal minions while trying to disarm the American population in a parallel move (see below). The one thing that is missing from Obama’s “smartest person to ever live” equation is how many at NOAA, etc. have what it takes to even shoot at, let alone kill, other Americans? Any real training in what it takes to take another human life? Just about every one I know fitting that description has also taken the oath “to protect and defend the Constitution.”

    As the Russians and Chinese know and have stated–it would be foolish to try to take America with ground troops because “We the People” are heavily armed and there is a potential enemy behind every blade of grass. So goes it for Obama’s minions whether they think they can out gun the general population or disarm it.

    The NRA has been saying all along that Barack Obama would unleash an assault on our Second Amendment freedoms if he won a second term. It sure didn’t take long for him to prove us right.

    Just hours after Obama won re-election last Tuesday, his administration endorsed a new effort by the global gun grabbers at the United Nations to draft a gun ban treaty early next year.

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/15/gun-owners-enter-the-fight-of-our-lives/

    • irisspirit November 19, 2012 / 12:05 pm

      Really stupid. Obama is NOT going to take your guns. Paranoid gun owners. This has been the best advertisement for the gun and ammo industry – play against one’s fears. Really stupid for anyone to believe this nonsense.

      • tiredoflibbs November 19, 2012 / 12:37 pm

        This rant from a woman who believed the dumbed down talking points about Romney’s so-called “war on women”. Who believed the fear of Romney weakening Roe v Wade? Preventing access to abortion, contraceptives and equal pay?????

        Classic Velma!

        Pathetic.

  2. thetruthshallsetyoufree2012 November 17, 2012 / 2:33 pm

    If your response to the conservative defeat on election day is blithering about “reeducation camps” (even Mark Noonan admitted that such talk is sheer lunacy) and vague, pitiful talk about armed uprising and how those things somehow prove that all positions are in your favor, then you’ve lost the argument before it even began.

    At any rate, the American people clearly sided with Obama’s fiscal policy (soundly rejecting the ridiculous fictions that Romney/Ryan forwarded as “plans”), and they’re on board with health care reform (please continue to call it Obamacare so as to remind everybody whose accomplishment is was–it’ll make it harder for you to try to claim credit for it down the road, as you are sure to do). Besides that, the American people are rejecting the conservative positions on gay marriage and immigration, and they’re rightly repulsed at the conservative attitude toward women and toward poor people, particularly poor minorities.

    Oh, and the Republican party is on a real losing trend with the popular vote, not to mention its growing problem with the demographics of America.

    But yeah, besides all that, the trend lines are really positive for the GOP.

    • Retired Spook November 17, 2012 / 2:38 pm

      But yeah, besides all that, the trend lines are really positive for the GOP.

      But you still can’t state how anything you mentioned is going to expand liberty or prosperity, can you, Truthie?

      Does this sound familiar?

      • thetruthshallsetyoufree2012 November 17, 2012 / 3:03 pm

        Cluster said, “There is not one position in your favor.” You backed him up on that assertion. I pointed out that there are lots of positions in favor of Democrats and quite the opposite for Republicans. The only rebuttal to that you’ve been able to come up with is paranoid talk about re-education camps and armed uprising. And I’ll grant you that: When it comes to paranoid talk about re-education camps and armed uprising, you guys are way ahead.

      • Retired Spook November 17, 2012 / 3:11 pm

        I pointed out that there are lots of positions in favor of Democrats and quite the opposite for Republicans.

        Still nothing on advancing liberty or increasing prosperity, eh, Truthie? Come on, man — surely you got something, anything.

    • dbschmidt November 17, 2012 / 3:54 pm

      Thetruthshallsetyoufree,

      The only thing “truthful” about your posts is your moniker.

      What’s Obama’s fiscal policy? The pamphlet he put out a week before the election? Life of Julia or is that his “Health Care” proposal? You do realize that ObamaCare is only an insurance reform (and a piss poor one at that) and not health care reform?

      Gay ‘marriage’ is simply trying to hijack a word and has nothing, or should have nothing, to do with government. What happened to the other fallacious argument about “Separation of Church and State”?

      BTW, I am sure you’re jumping the gun on trying to rewrite history once again because it has been Republicans all along that have done more to help women, minorities and the poor while fighting off Democratic attempts to force them to remain “second class citizens.” You know–on the voting plantation.

      The win by President Obama shows no such trend with “the Republican party is on a real losing trend with the popular vote, not to mention its growing problem with the demographics of America.” but that is another subject. Just look at the projected mix of the population in the future 20, 30, or 40 years you are talking about and then look at the population mix in Texas today–a red state.

      Finally, Obama, like you, demagogue everything that made this a once great nation and drove his entire campaign on small, petty issues just like you are doing here–never once bringing the one political issue that counts–ideology. Big, Centralized Federal Government with cradle to grave control over ever intrusive parts of your life or mobility in your station in life versus the Constitutional method of free-markets, capitalism, and most importantly freedom. Collectivism (Nanny State) versus Individualism. I vote for the latter because I can take care of myself and do not require a government to make decisions for me.

    • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) November 17, 2012 / 8:55 pm

      If your response to the conservative defeat on election day is blithering about “reeducation camps”

      TruthSSYF, I take exception to the term “blithering”, but I could have been more clear in the way I stated it. What I was trying to say is that your side’s vision for American will only result in death and despair, and the only way you’ll get our side to join you is with mass forced re-education camps. I didn’t mean to imply that anyone, even Obama has that in mind.

    • Retired Spook November 17, 2012 / 11:29 pm

      and they’re on board with health care reform

      That’s an interesting statement, Truthie. Prior to the election, polls showed that 60% of Americans wanted either all or parts of ObamaCare repealed. The number that still want it completely repealed is 33%, and exit polls showed that voters for whom ObamaCare was an important factor, voted for Romney over Obama 47% to 46%. And the truly ugly ramifications of ObamaCare haven’t even set in yet. What percentage of small companies with, say, 55 – 65 employees, are going to pare back to 49 to escape the 50 employee threshold? What percentage of small companies with less than 50 employees are going to hire more and exceed the 50 threshold? What percentage of companies that are well above the 50 threshold are going to cancel health insurance for their employees and just pay the fine? What percentage of individuals are going to pay the fine rather than buy health insurance? Why should anyone buy health insurance until they need it if preexisting conditions are going to be waived? And that doesn’t even address all the states that have decided not to form state exchanges, which opens up a whole new can of worms.

      And you STILL haven’t mentioned anything that Obama has done or is going to do that will expand liberty and increase prosperity.

  3. M. Noonan November 17, 2012 / 3:22 pm

    Well, we (meaning, especially, me) learned the lesson – don’t make too many predictions on what is going to happen. But, going FORWARD! there isn’t a lot for Democrats to be happy about.

    As I noted in the Obamunism! thread, the economic news has been just terrible – and, boys and girls, those links I provided are just a taste of what’s going on out there. To be sure, a lot of this is the result of Obama’s winning – meaning the fact that we’re getting the bad news is because the MSM no longer needs to particularly protect Obama, plus the fact that the DNC/MSM narrative is building up to blame the GOP for the coming recession (because we didn’t do what ‘Bams demanded, all his wonderful work in his first term was undone…yep, that’s it kiddies…with control of 1/2 of 1/3 of government, it is we GOPers who messed it all up!…we’ll see if they can successfully sell that to the American people). But the bottom line is that the economy – which never actually recovered from 2008 – is about to take another dive, even if in official statistics it doesn’t re-enter recession. Lousy economies do tend to drain away support for a President and his party…and while Obama was successful in implanting the idea that it was still largely Bush’s fault even as late as 2012, this will be harder to sustain in 2013 and beyond (it was a clever ploy and I only partially realized it – I’ve never seen polls which asked “whom do you blame, the current President or the previous President for the state of the economy?”…but somewhere in late 2009 or 2010, I guess, pollsters started asking the question and DNC/MSM talking points started to reference it…I guess they knew early on the stimulus was a flop and wanted to assign blame away from Obama).

    Looking FORWARD! in purely political terms, there are 7 Democrat Senators running for re-election in 2014 in States won by Romney; meanwhile, only one Republican Senator is seeking re-election in a State carried by Obama. This does not, of course, mean that all the Democrats are doomed but it does indicate that the level of political risk is much higher on the Democrat side than on the GOP side. The GOP managed to win 6 Senate seats in the 2010 mid-terms; a repeat of that effort (certainly not outside the realm of possibility) would get the GOP up to 51 Senators and a retirement of Reid as Senate Majority Leader while gravely complicating Obama’s last two years in office. Not just in legislative terms but in the fact that both House and Senate would be willing to exercise oversight on the Administration (Senator Kerry, angling for a cabinet post, isn’t even having his committee look in to the Benghazi affair, for instance). Moe Lane has put out an early handicapping list for vulnerable Democrats in 2014 – with the GOP having five excellent pick-up opportunities in Alaska, Louisiana, Minnesota, North Carolina and South Dakota as well as other less-good opportunities elsewhere; of course its way early and we’ll have to see how retirements go and what issues develope and whom the GOP eventually nominates (Moe’s advice: don’t nominate idiots). The bottom line for the Senate is that the GOP is likely to gain seats in 2014 – and if the economy tanks and the GOP gets some good nominees then things could go very well for the GOP in the Senate.

    In the House, I think we can safely assume that the Democrats harvested all the low-hanging fruit in 2012. They pretty much picked off all the Republicans they could and while opportunities will present themselves for Democrat gains in 2014, short of an anti-GOP wave, the House should be reasonably safe for the Republicans. Meanwhile, there is a sort of curse for the party which is running in a “2nd mid-term”; a party defending itself in Congressional races when its held the White House for six years doesn’t do too well – not all the time (Democrats held their own in 1998; didn’t regain the House but did better than most people expected), but often (2006, 1986, 1974, 1966, 1958, etc). Given the iron gerrymandering of modern politics I don’t expect any significant shifts unless the economy tanks and the blame is laid at the White House door. Maybe 10 seats shift either way – not enough to change control. But if the economy tanks and Obama gets the blame (increasingly likely as time goes on) then the GOP might gain more than 10 seats in the House.

    Obama has nothing but problems to deal with and no opportunities I can perceive for one of those Presidential moments which are the mark of greatness. Weak economy, crumbling global position, half the country in vigorous opposition…and that steady erosion of Presidential authority which goes with a second term and which rapidly accelerates after the mid-terms.

    I don’t like the fact that we lost on November 6th, but I don’t envy the Democrats their position…all they have is their willingness to lie and a highly skilled method of lying. We’ll see how far that carries them…

  4. Cluster November 17, 2012 / 4:35 pm

    Nothing exposes the results of policies like the realities of everyday life. While gas prices have come down slightly, they still average well over $3 a gallon which is nearly double what they were before Obama. Average family incomes are down, unemployment is up, work force participation is down, small business creation is down, insurance premiums are up, grocery prices are up, energy costs are up, the country is more divided than I can ever remember, and the middle east is literally on fire.

    So some liberal needs to explain to me how these results of policies are good for Americans.

    • Retired Spook November 17, 2012 / 7:57 pm

      So some liberal needs to explain to me how these results of policies are good for Americans.

      Cluster, I’d like to know how those “trends” are good for Democrats as Truthie asserts.

  5. Cluster November 17, 2012 / 4:49 pm

    LIDO BEACH, N.Y. (CBSNewYork) — Plagued by filth, health concerns are mounting on Long Island’s South Shore.

    This a good example of how messed up our country is. We have ignored infrastructure improvement for decades, and Obama recently wasted nearly a $1 trillion on “roads and bridges” but did anyone think of the northeast electrical grid, or sewage infrastructure? Nearly three weeks after a category 1 hurricane, power is still out in many areas, and we’re suppose to be a world power? It’s embarrassing. And yet, liberals are focused on the war on women, and most everyone else is focused on the Kardashians.

    We have huge problems people but unfortunately we have another four years of lies, attacks and visits to Letterman by the Ego in Chief to get through first.

    • neocon01 November 17, 2012 / 5:54 pm

      Im LOVIN that NYC is getting EXACTLY what they voted for…….

      • neocon01 November 17, 2012 / 6:02 pm

        count

        have you ever taken in ole bmitch’s band in berkley?

  6. dbschmidt November 17, 2012 / 8:50 pm

    “So some liberal needs to explain to me how these results of policies are good for Americans” is simply answered by the non-answer response on this and other threads. Facts are not on their side. Ideology is not on their side. Only thing on their side is running around, stomping their feet like spoiled little brats and this is after we lost an election for the most part.

    Some days I almost feel sorry for the little cockroaches but most days I do not. If your parents did not instill you with a spine, and God did not give enough of a brain-pan to argue your way out of a wet paper bag–so be it.

    And these are the folks who want to outgun the population and disarm us. 😀

    • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) November 17, 2012 / 8:58 pm

      And these are the folks who want to outgun the population and disarm us.

      DB, I don’t think most of them have thought that through completely.

      • Cluster November 17, 2012 / 9:27 pm

        What’s did Charlton Heston say? “From my cold dead hands”. It will truly be a cold day in hell before this regime or any regime gets our guns.

        The only glimmer of hope that may come from four more years of this bone deep stupid little man of a President, is that by the end of his second term, Americans will be so worn out from misery and racial division, and so financially broke, that they may just turn their back on Democrats for a long time to come.

      • Retired Spook November 17, 2012 / 9:32 pm

        Americans will be so worn out from misery and racial division, and so financially broke, that they may just turn their back on Democrats for a long time to come.

        One can hope.

      • Cluster November 17, 2012 / 9:37 pm

        And change.

  7. watsonthethird November 18, 2012 / 12:06 am

    Hello, Cluster. You said, “The only glimmer of hope that may come from four more years of this bone deep stupid little man of a President, is that by the end of his second term, Americans will be so worn out from misery and racial division, and so financially broke, that they may just turn their back on Democrats for a long time to come.”

    I don’t think you learned any lessons at all from President Obama’s re-election–not to mention the Democratic gains in the House and Senate. I think more Americans ascribe racial and class division to the Republicans, not the Democrats. That Republicans consider this a key part of their strategy was rendered obvious from Mitt Romney’s 47% remarks, not to mention his post-election “gifts” remarks. These weren’t accidental comments because it is exactly what we have heard here at B4V for months, if not years. He was merely speaking and representing you folks, and he blatantly divided Americans into takers and the-rest-of-us. And let’s also remember that part of the reason those 47% don’t pay federal income taxes is directly because of Republican policies promoted by presidents Bush and Reagan.

    Furthermore, more Americans blame the Republicans in Congress for gridlock than President Obama. Can you blame them? You have the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, declaring in 2010 that “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” This on the heels of the worst economic downturn this country experienced since the Great Depression. Rather making the recovery the most important thing, he chose partisan politics. I don’t think that helped the Republican cause, and Americans remembered it in 2012.

    Second, if President Obama is so stupid, how is that he ran a much better campaign than Mitt Romney? If we are to judge both candidate’s skills at managing large enterprises based on their campaigns, then President Obama won hands down. And if President Obama is so stupid, how is it that he mostly avoided saying stupid things during the campaign while we heard stupid things from Mitt Romney and the Republicans on what seemed to be a daily basis? Saying that President Obama is a “bone deep stupid little man” simply reveals your prejudices against him, regardless of what he does.

    Cluster said President Obama “wasted nearly a $1 trillion on’“roads and bridges.'” Can you provide the data for that? After the economic collapse of 2007 (on George W. Bush’s watch, and one might say, the culmination of Bush’ policies), there was a $158 billion bipartisan package passed in 2008, signed by President Bush. A $787 billion stimulus package was signed by President Obama in 2009. It included over $300 billion in tax credits–something I would think you would favor. The Bush tax cuts were extended in 2010 and 2012–something I would think you also favor.

    No one is taking your guns. Please cite the provisions of the UN treaty that state that it overrides the constitution of sovereign states. You probably know that the treaty would require two-thirds of the Senate to pass. Do you think that is likely if it truly overrides the second amendment?

    In another comment you listed off a bunch of conditions confronting average Americans, but failed to identify any specific policies of President Obama that lead directly to these conditions. Instead, you merely asserted that because gas is more expensive than four years ago, for example, that it obviously must be the fault of President Obama.

    Finally, it was only eight years ago that Karl Rove was crowing about a Republican majority that would last a generation. My how times have changed. They’ll change again, and it will start with Republicans choosing a better candidate next time around.

    • Retired Spook November 18, 2012 / 12:27 am

      Watson, surprisingly, I actually agree with several things that you said, but I’ll ask you the same question I asked Truthie: What do you envision Obama doing in his second term that will expand liberty and increase prosperity? It’s a pretty simple question, really.

      • watsonthethird November 18, 2012 / 12:54 am

        Hi Spook. What do I envision President Obama doing in his second term?

        I think he will attempt a balanced approach to deficit reduction, including higher taxes for some and spending cuts in other areas. If the Republicans remain intransigent as they were in his first term, then I think President Obama will be much more strident in his public condemnation of those tactics. At least I hope so, because I don’t find it useful that half the government is opposed to, you know, governing. I personally think he tried to compromise with a Republican congress that simply refused. Kudos to Mitch McConnell for keeping his senators in line, I suppose. God knows the Dems are never that united. But if it continues, it will cost the Republicans more than the Democrats. Assuming a deal gets struck, whether or not it materially affects the economy and increases prosperity is unclear to me. I can’t predict the future.

        I think President Obama will continue to support gay rights. He will not take away your guns. He will probably have the opportunity to appoint more liberal Supreme Court judges than Mitt Romney would have, which I personally think is a good thing. He will push again for something like the Dream Act, which I support. On a related note, I hope that he pushes for more immigration of the world’s smartest people. I’d rather have them here, working and building American companies, than getting their education here then returning to India or wherever they came from and building those economies at our expense.

        That’s a start. What do you think?

      • Retired Spook November 18, 2012 / 1:20 am

        That’s a start. What do you think?

        I disagree that Democrats are never united. They passed the stimulus and ObamaCare without a single Republican vote. Other than that, I think much of what you said is probably true except the spending cuts. At the very most we might see statistically insignificant cuts in the rate of growth — not much more than a rounding error. I see Obama continuing to transform our Representative Republic into a European style social democracy. Having taken a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC, I will fight with every fiber of my being to see that he doesn’t succeed.

        To me the top three priorities of any President should be (1) protect the American people, (2) advance the cause of freedom both at home and around the world, and (3) formulate policies that create an environment for a prosperous economy that benefits everyone. I don’t believe President Obama and I are on the same page on any of those, and, as long as his emphasis is on expanding the entitlement class and punishing the wealth producing class, this country is only going to continue to go downhill.

      • watsonthethird November 18, 2012 / 1:44 am

        Well, it’s a given that you and I would see things differently. 🙂 Although I suspect that if we were able to have a good long chat over a beer or two, we would probably find more common ground than you think. But this forum isn’t conducive to that type of chat, as tired’s retort below attests.

        Regarding your claim that the Dems are the united ones, while it is true that all house Republicans voted against ObamaCare, 34 Democrats also voted against it. How is that united on the Democratic side? It is truly impressive how united the Republicans have been, even when opposing policies they supported in the past. But in my view, being united is about the only thing they’ve been good at for the last four years.

        As for your priorities for an American president, I certainly agree with number one. I don’t see how you can credibly argue that President Obama has failed in this regard.

        I don’t know about number two. Is it really the president’s second most important job to advance the cause of freedom around the world? I don’t think so.

        As for number three, you and I differ on those policies. I personally think the president has much less control over the economy than you do, I guess. But if you believe that it is the third most important priority of a president, and you measure it by the performance of the economy during his administration, then President Bush was an unequivocal, utter failure. There is no other way to spin the collapse of the economy on his watch, given your stated presidential priorities. And you can’t argue that President Obama’s policies have equally failed (yet) because although the economy hasn’t shown great growth, it has grown. So why would anyone want to return to the policies of president Bush, given your presidential priorities?

        We could go another round on entitlements, etc., but we’ve done that before. Suffice it to say that I believe that you yourself partake of entitlements, as does pretty much every B4Ver. Or at least they will once they’re old enough. Cluster even recently admitted that he will take every penny of taxpayer money he can get his hands on, and Neo has gloated about much the same thing in the past. You folks just think that entitlements and tax policies that benefit you are good, while entitlements and tax policies that don’t benefit you are bad.

      • Retired Spook November 18, 2012 / 10:12 am

        Regarding your claim that the Dems are the united ones, while it is true that all house Republicans voted against ObamaCare, 34 Democrats also voted against it. How is that united on the Democratic side?

        I don’t see how you CAN’T call it united when you can pass a major piece of legislation WITHOUT A SINGLE OPPOSITION VOTE. And since January, 2007, the Democrats in the Senate have been so united, they’ve failed to pass a budget or bring virtually any House Republican legislation to the floor in 3-1/2 years.

        As for your priorities for an American president, I certainly agree with number one. I don’t see how you can credibly argue that President Obama has failed in this regard.

        Let’s start with the Fort Hood shootings. Now I realize the political correctness run a muck in the U.S. military didn’t just start on Obama’s watch, but he has certainly embraced it with zeal — to the point of referring to the shootings as “workplace violence.” His administration has been reluctant to even use the word “terrorism”. And he has certainly put the soldiers in Afghanistan in a predicament with ridiculous rules of engagement that have unnecessarily cost the lives of hundreds of our guys. In embracing the Arab Spring, he’s helped set the stage for untold violence against, not just us, but much of the world. His views regarding freedom are going to get lots of people killed, IMO.

        I don’t know about number two. Is it really the president’s second most important job to advance the cause of freedom around the world? I don’t think so.

        Free people are prosperous people, and prosperous people trade with each other. I look at advancing the cause of freedom as building world infrastructure. To not look at it that way is very short-sighted. One of the reasons our economy was so successful after WW2 was because of the Marshall Plan. Can you imagine where the world would be if, in 1946, we had chosen to occupy and subjugate the Japanese and the Germans instead of helping them rebuild? Besides, to paraphrase an old quote: if not us, who? I not now, when? As near as I can tell, your biggest problem is your failure to see the big picture, and I can only speculate that it’s ideology or lack thereof that’s blocking your vision.

        As for number three, you and I differ on those policies. I personally think the president has much less control over the economy than you do, I guess. But if you believe that it is the third most important priority of a president, and you measure it by the performance of the economy during his administration, then President Bush was an unequivocal, utter failure.

        There’s no question that Bush’s second term ended in economic failure. All you have to do is look at the charts Although I’m not sure just how much of the blame for what happened in 2006 – 2008 can reasonably be laid at Bush’s feet, I’ll grant you that the economic collapse was a joint Republican/Democrat endeavor. History shows, however, that it was Bush and a few Republican Senators who saw where we were headed and tried to sound warning bells. There were NO Democrats who joined them, and I think there’s credible evidence to suggest that that was by design.

        Now, on the flip side, the charts for Obama’s first term look pretty anemic, and, unless you dig into the fundamentals, you don’t even realize that, without massive, and I mean MASSIVE government intervention ($400+ billion omnibus spending bill and $800+ billion stimulus in early 2009, plus QE1, QE2 and now QE infinity totaling over $2 trillion so far in monetized debt) Obama would have virtually NO economic growth. And without quantitative easing, the stock market would still be at 6,500. So, if you’re happy with where we’re at economically as a country, and if supporting the kind of policies that got us here is where you and I differ, don’t bother to jump in the foxhole with me when things go to hell.

        We could go another round on entitlements, etc., but we’ve done that before. Suffice it to say that I believe that you yourself partake of entitlements

        We have done that before, and quite frankly, it’s getting old to keep explaining it. I’ve never taken a dime of government money in the form of food stamps, unemployment, or disability. I get social security, which I paid into for 51 years, Medicare, which I paid into for 47 years and a modest navy pension which I EARNED by serving my country for 24 years. In constantly making this charge against older Conservatives here that we’re all accepting entitlements, you act like that’s something you’re never going to do. So, unless you’re willing to say that you’re going to voluntarily forgo social security and Medicare when you reach the eligible age, I’d appreciate it if you quit bringing it up. It just makes you look petty and small.

      • Cluster November 18, 2012 / 12:57 pm

        Petty and small is what Watson and liberals excel at. To ask them to refrain, is to ask them to stop breathing.

        I am also tired of liberals defining social security and Medicare as entitlements. They are not. Those are programs that beneficiaries pay into for most of their life, and many of whom pay into against their will.

      • watsonthethird November 18, 2012 / 1:11 pm

        Spook said, “I don’t see how you CAN’T call it united when you can pass a major piece of legislation WITHOUT A SINGLE OPPOSITION VOTE.” Whether or not the Dems were or are united needs to be framed in how they behaved, not the opposition.

        “Let’s start with the Fort Hood shootings.”

        I don’t think any American president can completely stop terrorism from occurring in the United States. Unfortunately, we live in a world that has a lot of extremists who can easily obtain the means to carry out a lot of mayhem. The Fort Hood killings were a tragedy, but if you look at the totality of the past four years, you really can’t argue that President Obama hasn’t kept Americans safe.

        “Free people are prosperous people, and prosperous people trade with each other.”

        Okay. But is it the president’s second priority–out of all of them–to “advance the cause of freedom around the world”? I still don’t think so. I do think it is a priority for the president to advance the interests of the United States, so there could be some overlap there in what you are saying.

        “History shows, however, that it was Bush and a few Republican Senators who saw where we were headed and tried to sound warning bells.”

        But history also shows that at the same time President Bush was advancing policies that exacerbated the situation, e.g. the “ownership society.” Look, I don’t put the blame squarely on President Bush for the collapse that occurred in 2007-2008. But if you (i.e., Cluster) are going to argue that President Obama is directly responsible for things like higher gas prices, then you must also argue that President Bush was directly responsible for far more damage to the economy than President Obama.

        “The charts for Obama’s first term look pretty anemic, and, unless you dig into the fundamentals, you don’t even realize that, without massive, and I mean MASSIVE government intervention ($400+ billion omnibus spending bill and $800+ billion stimulus in early 2009, plus QE1, QE2 and now QE infinity totaling over $2 trillion so far in monetized debt) Obama would have virtually NO economic growth.”

        In that regard you would agree with most economists who said that some sort of stimulus in the wake of the economic collapse was the necessary and correct response of the government. In fact, I think more economists felt it was too little, not too much. Most economists said that tax breaks was the least effective form of stimulus. I think the recession wasn’t your typical recession. The world has been de-leveraging ever since and it’s going to take a while. I don’t see how John McCain would have made the last four years materially better.

        “In constantly making this charge against older Conservatives here that we’re all accepting entitlements, you act like that’s something you’re never going to do.”

        No, that’s not the point. I expect to draw social security when the time comes, and I expect my fellow taxpayers to help take care of my health care when I’m old–unless the Republicans get their way and turn it into a voucher before I get there. But I also recognize that retirement and health care expenses for our elderly are the number one driver of federal government expenditures. It’s not food stamps or unemployment or disability. And I’m willing to pay for it with my taxes. I don’t whine that my taxes are too high while fulling expecting to partake of the benefits when I need them. To me, that’s just hypocritical. That’s why I bring it up. Maybe you personally aren’t hypocritical in this regard, but many conservatives are. Complaining about food stamps, etc., makes you look small, especially when you ignore where the bulk of federal expenditures go.

        “I’ve never taken a dime of government money in the form of food stamps, unemployment, or disability.”

        So if you’re hit by a drunk driver one night and rendered disabled and no longer able to work, what is the obligation of society, if any? Do you think it benefits us all to have what amounts to an insurance program–e.g., Social Security or other taxpayer-funded program–to help those in this situation, or are they simply on their own?

      • Cluster November 18, 2012 / 1:31 pm

        “Let’s start with the Fort Hood shootings.”

        I don’t think any American president can completely stop terrorism from occurring in the United States. Unfortunately, we live in a world that has a lot of extremists who can easily obtain the means to carry out a lot of mayhem. The Fort Hood killings were a tragedy, but if you look at the totality of the past four years, you really can’t argue that President Obama hasn’t kept Americans safe. – Watson

        Watson, your answer isn’t even close to what Spook was getting at. Spook was saying that Obama won’t even be truthful about what the Fort Hood shootings were, which was terrorism. Obama paints it as “work place violence”, when everyone with an ounce of intelligence knows differently.

        If you won’t be truthful about your reality, how can you govern?

      • Retired Spook November 18, 2012 / 1:50 pm

        Complaining about food stamps, etc., makes you look small,

        I’m not “complaining” about food stamps; I merely stated that I have never relied on them, or any other form of welfare. But if I have a complaint about food stamps, it’s the fact that the government recruits people to be dependent on them — 47.1 million people at last count. What a sad commentary on the greatest country on the planet, and nearly 4 years into what you seem to think is a recovery.

        And while we’re talking about “recovery”, this is the worst recovery from a recession since WW2, and there’s absolutely nothing to suggest that Obama has any ideas on how to make it better. And the only dynamic of this recession that was worse than the one Reagan inherited is the housing collapse. Reagan inherited worse unemployment, worse inflation by a factor of 5, and worse interest rates by a factor of 5. And yet GDP growth was roaring along at 5% plus by the middle of Reagan’s first term.

        In that regard you would agree with most economists who said that some sort of stimulus in the wake of the economic collapse was the necessary and correct response of the government.

        I would agree that some economists, not sure if it was “most”, said a stimulus was required. I DID NOT agree with them. Keynesian economics has never worked since Keynes first suggested it. It extended the Great Depression by years to the point where even FDR’s Treasury Secretary said it was a massive failure. All it’s accomplished every time it’s been tried is massively more debt that’s weighing on the economy like an anchor. Some kooks like Paul Krugman did suggest that we didn’t spend nearly enough — that it should have been $2 or 3 trillion, and the Fed responded by pumping $2 trillion more of liquidity into the economy with zero results other than making a lot of Wall Street investment bankers richer by providing them with free money to finance flash trades.

        Bottom line, the proof will be in the pudding, and from where I sit, the pudding appears to be made with sour milk.

      • watsonthethird November 18, 2012 / 1:51 pm

        Cluster, Spook’s comment about Fort Hood was in the context of the president’s first priority being, as Spook put it, “protect the American people.” Even granting that Fort Hood was a tragedy and a terrorist act, the record of the last four years in “protecting the American people” is very good. Not perfect, nor will it ever be. That’s all I’m saying.

      • Amazona November 18, 2012 / 2:02 pm

        I remember Bush approving of and praising an ownership society. I don’t remember him pushing the federal government into any social engineering experiments to FURTHER an ownership society.

        You evidently do, so will you please share your information on Bush policies that actually tried to IMPLEMENT an ownership society?

      • Amazona November 18, 2012 / 2:15 pm

        watson, you are evidently trying for a gotcha here: “So if you’re hit by a drunk driver one night and rendered disabled and no longer able to work, what is the obligation of society, if any? Do you think it benefits us all to have what amounts to an insurance program–e.g., Social Security or other taxpayer-funded program–to help those in this situation, or are they simply on their own?”

        It’s a composite of straw men, hints of things that are not true, etc. But let’s look at it.

        First, rather than get into the weeds of arguing about “the obligation of society”, which would of course demand a definition of “society” which would get us back to government vs the people, etc., let’s just look at the big picture, which is——-

        ——where in the Constitution is the FEDERAL government given or even allowed the freedom, ability, authority, what have you, to step in and provide any form of charity?

        You see, the core of most of our arguments is not what SHOULD be done, but who should do it. Most of the success of the Left has been in its ability to create a false paradigm, in which the dissent is not how and where should programs exist, but whether they should exist at all. Once the gullible are led to believe that the question is not who should run the safety nets but whether there should even BE safety nets, it is easy to move on to preying on emotions to generate the false impressions of one side being about compassion and fairness and so on, and the evil Other just being big selfish greedy meanies.

      • ricorun November 19, 2012 / 5:19 pm

        Cluster: I am also tired of liberals defining social security and Medicare as entitlements. They are not. Those are programs that beneficiaries pay into for most of their life, and many of whom pay into against their will.

        Uhhh… what would you call them if not that? Didn’t you just provide the very definition of why they are called “entitlements”? And certainly Spook feels entitled: “I get social security, which I paid into for 51 years, Medicare, which I paid into for 47 years and a modest navy pension which I EARNED by serving my country for 24 years.”

        I’m not arguing he shouldn’t feel “entitled”, I’m just saying that the term fits both the definition and the understanding. I do, however, wonder what the difference is between military pensions and any other pension. For example, wouldn’t it be just as correct for a teacher, or a fireman, or a policeman to say, “I get a modest pension which I EARNED by serving my community for 24 years”?

      • Retired Spook November 19, 2012 / 8:27 pm

        For example, wouldn’t it be just as correct for a teacher, or a fireman, or a policeman to say, “I get a modest pension which I EARNED by serving my community for 24 years”?

        Not exactly the same thing. I didn’t have a union negotiating benefits for me, and, since my retirement was from the reserves and not active duty, I retired at age 44 but didn’t start drawing a pension until age 60.

      • ricorun November 20, 2012 / 12:33 am

        Spook: Not exactly the same thing. I didn’t have a union negotiating benefits for me, and, since my retirement was from the reserves and not active duty, I retired at age 44 but didn’t start drawing a pension until age 60.

        Well thanks for answering my minor point. But the major one remains unanswered: “what would you call them if not [entitlements]? Didn’t you just provide the very definition of why they are called “entitlements”? And certainly Spook feels entitled”

        Well, don’t you feel entitled? And if not, what word would you use?

      • Retired Spook November 20, 2012 / 12:57 am

        Well, don’t you feel entitled? And if not, what word would you use?

        I don’t know. I’ve never felt entitled to anything. I was privileged to serve my country, and loved what I did. I never really thought about the pension until 16 years after I retired and started getting it. On social security and medicare, I would rather have had the money and invested it myself instead of the government taking it. And anyone who thinks medicare is free is in for a rude shock when they reach 65. The last year my dad was alive, he and my mom each had $100/month deducted from their SS plus they paid close to $5,000 in medicare supplement premiums, plus they paid a deductible and co-pays.

        There ought to be a way to distinguish between someone who has earned something through service or by paying into it their whole life, and someone who feels entitled to being taken care of by the government because their too lazy take care of themselves. Do you not see a difference?

      • Retired Spook November 20, 2012 / 2:19 pm

        Well, don’t you feel entitled? And if not, what word would you use?

        I was thinking about this overnight. Let’s look at it a different way. Let’s say, instead of paying it to the government, you could set aside 12.4% of your income during your entire working life into a savings account dedicated to retirement and an additional 2.9% into a health savings account to cover your healthcare in retirement. And not just on income up to a certain cap, but ALL income. Would you feel entitled to start drawing on those accounts when you reach retirement?

      • ricorun November 20, 2012 / 3:49 pm

        Spook: Let’s say, instead of paying it to the government, you could set aside 12.4% of your income during your entire working life into a savings account dedicated to retirement and an additional 2.9% into a health savings account to cover your healthcare in retirement. And not just on income up to a certain cap, but ALL income. Would you feel entitled to start drawing on those accounts when you reach retirement?

        Heck yes! And actually, that’s kinda what I’ve been doing for the last couple of decades anyway. I’ve been skeptical about Social Security and Medicare for a while. If they’re still around when I retire, great. If not, well, I’ll be okay.

        Similarly, I’ve been thinking about this comment of yours There ought to be a way to distinguish between someone who has earned something through service or by paying into it their whole life, and someone who feels entitled to being taken care of by the government because their too lazy take care of themselves. Do you not see a difference?

        I see a difference alright. And it’s unfortunate to describe both categories as “entitlements”. It seems to me that the word most aptly fits the first one — people who have earned something through service or by paying into it their whole life. The other is more of a discretionary outlay masquerading as an entitlement. But of course there are also folks who have tried to do the right thing, be responsible, and what-not, but who ultimately find themselves in a bind because of circumstances that were beyond their ability to forsee or means to control. Those are the people I feel especially sorry for. The hard question is how to distinguish those folks from ones who are just plain lazy?

      • watsonthethird November 20, 2012 / 7:12 pm

        Spook said, “There ought to be a way to distinguish between someone who has earned something through service or by paying into it their whole life, and someone who feels entitled to being taken care of by the government because their too lazy take care of themselves. Do you not see a difference?”

        Yes, I see the difference. However, you seem to assume that anyone taking “food stamps, unemployment, or disability” is, in your words, too lazy to take care of themselves. A couple of points:

        Despite what you and Cluster claimed above, Medicare is not a fund you paid into in order to exercise benefits later. It is a tax. The current taxpayers pay for the current Medicare recipients.

        Second, employed individuals pay for unemployment insurance, the idea being that if they become unemployed, they can exercise a benefit they themselves paid for. How is this materially different from someone exercising their Social Security benefits?

        Third, Social Security has a disability benefit. Employed people pay into their fund, which covers not only retirement but also disability. Again, why is this different from retired people partaking of their Social Security benefits?

    • tiredoflibbs November 18, 2012 / 1:16 am

      Watty the mindless drone: “You have the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, declaring in 2010 that “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.””.

      We won the majority in the Senate?

      That is the only way Mitch McConnell could be Majority Leader.

      Uh, Watty, obstruction is coming from the Democrat controlled Senate. Harry Reid has not let a single GOP budget or amendment on the floor for even debate. The Senate has not passed a budget, including obAMATEUR’s in over three years.

      But do keep regurgitating the dumbed down talking points designed for the ignorant masses. You guzzle the koolaid without question.

      Pathetic.

      • watsonthethird November 18, 2012 / 1:19 am

        Yes, tired, he is the minority leader; I misspoke. Thank you for your civil reply. Maybe Spook can do better.

      • tiredoflibbs November 18, 2012 / 9:42 am

        Oh Watty, don’t play the “holier than thou” part. You have jumped on errors such as that by conservatives with the same attitude or worse. We don’t whine about it. We have “grown a spine” against such attacks. Why can’t you, instead of have this delicate thin skin you keep portraying.

        However, I notice you have nothing to say about the FACTS of the true obstructionists and there childish tactics, even shirking their duties required by the Constitution!

        You’d rather whine than address the true problems in the Senate, where Democrats haven’t proposed a single budget since they don’t want to be tied to these huge deficits.

        ObAMATEUR has failed and like him, you’d rather play the blaming game for his incompetence and Democrat refusal to do their job!

        As I said, just keep regurgitating the mindless, disproven crap you always do. Just like the pResident keeps proposing the same failed crap over and over.

      • watsonthethird November 18, 2012 / 12:39 pm

        tired, you have yet to add anything useful to this thread. All you have done is insulted other commenters.

      • tiredoflibbs November 18, 2012 / 2:54 pm

        No Watty, me pointing out you are posting the same debunked crap and dumbed down talking points as before is “useful”.

        As usual, Ama and Spook have run circles around you.

        Again, all you can do is whine about it.

    • Amazona November 18, 2012 / 12:08 pm

      watson is correct in saying “…more Americans ascribe racial and class division to the Republicans, not the Democrats.”

      This is due to the success of the far more skillful propaganda machine of the Left, which first worked overtime to create these divisions, and then used ONE comment by Romney to insert him into their scenario.

      watson completely ignores the entire “1%” movement, the constant drumbeat of implying that “the rich” were “not paying their fair share” and the thousands if not tens of thousands of repetitions of this theme. It is all we heard for four years and was the cornerstone of the Obama campaign. Most recently, Obama, and historically, the Left in general, have always depended on a “divide and conquer” approach, and class warfare has always been a key element in that strategy.

      We hear a lot about the “three legged stool” of politics. The 3-legged stool of the Left has been class warfare, racial divisiveness, and free stuff. And all three have been in play, out in the open, unabashedly, for four years, and ramped up for the election, in a campaign watson finds quite admirable.

      He goes on to claim: “That Republicans consider this a key part of their strategy was rendered obvious from Mitt Romney’s 47% remarks, not to mention his post-election “gifts” remarks.”

      Yet the Romney comment, wrong as it was, had absolutely nothing to do with race in any way, shape or form, and nothing to do with acting AGAINST people who were described, only partially accurately, in the “47%” comment. When asked by campaign contributors about how he would run his campaign, he said, essentially, that there is a group which will vote for Obama no matter what, and that he would not waste money trying to change their minds. Yes, he lumped all 47% of Americans who do not pay taxes into one category, that of being the Dependent Class, when many who do not pay taxes are not dependent on the government. Yes, that was a mistake. Yes, he was wrong.

      THIS is “class warfare”? To decide not to spend a lot of money and energy trying to win over a group of people?

      Your concept of war is remarkably naive. He not only did not target this 47% for any action, he said only that one thing about them, and that was that he would not build a campaign strategy around trying to win their votes. He did not, figuratively speaking, even point a finger at them and say “Bang!” Some war.

      “part of the reason those 47% don’t pay federal income taxes is directly because of Republican policies promoted by presidents Bush and Reagan.”

      Again, which policies. Specifically, which policies.

      I happen to think that a Bush policy DID contribute to the economic meltdown, but you on the Rabidly Radical Left refuse to address it. That is, the policy to leave in place the Community Reinvestment Act and the entire harmful, destructive, and economy-killing mishmash of subsequent bandaids slapped onto it as feeble efforts to address its many Unintended Consequences when they reared their ugly heads. Instead, he slapped on one of his own, which had the good intention of adding regulation to the sale, by banks, of mortgages as investments by putting this under the supervision of the SEC. The problems with that were:

      1. The Bush administration should have gone back to Square One, and debrided the entire suppurating pile of various laws, rules and addenda tacked onto the CRA to try to make it work, down to healthy tissue, and dismantled the whole mess. Bush lacked the political courage to wade into this mess, and deal with the hysteria, the seething mass of raw emotion, the opportunity for gross demagoguery, this would have required. So he just did what his predecessors did, and slapped on another bandaid.

      2. He did not follow up to make sure that the SEC was doing what the SEC was supposed to be doing.

      “You probably know that the treaty would require two-thirds of the Senate to pass.”

      From this may we assume that you will demand full compliance with the Constitutional requirements for ratification of a treaty?

      “In another comment you listed off a bunch of conditions confronting average Americans, but failed to identify any specific policies of President Obama that lead directly to these conditions. ”

      We have covered these many times over the first four years. The problem is, there is so much emotion-based commitment to the concepts of so many of the Obama policies that the actual outcomes of these policies are denied or dismissed. And no single policy is responsible for the entire economic picture in the United States.

      Business is risky, and depends on gambling on your accuracy in predicting the market down the line, when your business plan is finally established. It depends on a complex interaction of various elements of circumstances and policies, and maintaining a balance, sometimes rather precarious, among those various elements.

      Take the recession INHERITED by Obama. His Big-Government-Is-Always-The-Answer approach was to step in and throw government (that is, TAXPAYER) money at it, regarding the elements associated with the housing/banking problems. A restrained government intervention would have been a waiver of all tax on all profit ever made on any property, residential or commercial, bought to keep the property from foreclosure, or which had already been in foreclosure. This simple act would have required no immediate outlay of taxpayer money, would have kept a huge proportion of endangered properties out of foreclosure, and eliminated much of the damage done to banks and therefore the subsequent bandaids slapped onto THOSE damages.

      It would have put the market in charge, and halted the avalanche of disasters. A small investor could pick up a house at a good price, rent it back to the people who were upside down on the mortgage for what they had been paying on the first stage of their adjustable-rate mortgage before the rates went up, sit on it till the housing market stabilized, and have a tax free profit if the market went up.

      Obama’s approach was to use the crisis to expand government control, with vastly increased regulation on lenders that has had the effect of basically halting loans to start-ups and small businesses, and more power and money allotted to Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, while letting the economic mess develop until banks were overwhelmed, people were thrown out of their houses, homes were gutted by angry displaced homeowners making it impossible to sell them, millions thrown out of work, etc.

      On top of this economic turmoil and misery, the Obama administration imposed this so-called “health care” bill, which established massive tax hikes which loom on the horizon, while further expanding government control and inhibiting personal liberty. Business looked at the various impacts of this mess on their futures, and pulled back. Spook discussed the decisions facing small businesses. Bigger business has also been trying to deal with the economic impact on their own bottom lines, as shown by the actions of businesses like Applebee’s and Papa John’s. The whole Act has had a very restricting effect on business and it hasn’t even gone into effect yet.

      Then there is the tax situation. The Employer Class has been targeted for tax hikes, a foolish decision but one that is an integral part of a political system which is hostile to capitalism. This has already had a chilling effect on small business, and combined with the choke hold on lending to small or expanding business or start-up businesses, this entire segment of our economy is shrinking.

      One Obama policy has been its back-door attack on the petroleum industry. Rather than assaulting it head-on, the administration has engaged in what I call “hyena warfare”. Hyenas and other wild dogs attack not from the front, but from the back, darting in to savage the support structure of the prey, till it collapses. That is, many small attacks are made on the legs, shredding tissue and tendons and ligaments and causing blood loss, till the prey collapses. This has been the Obama strategy regarding the petroleum industry.

      First he put Ken Salazar, a total political whore and flunky, in charge of the EPA, and then by presidential edict assigned nearly unlimited power to this agency, allowing it to make unilateral decisions on what IT considers “pollutants” and then what to do about these alleged pollutants. This has been done without Congressional oversight and is set up to operate without Congressional oversight.

      So far we have seen the completely unnecessary ‘permatorium’ on drilling in the Gulf, stripping of federal oil and gas leases on public land (without allowing them to be bought by other companies), shutting down of all offshore drilling from the tip of Florida to Delaware along the Atlantic Coast, the closing off of ANWR, and the war on fracking—–all of which are designed to stifle the oil and gas industry.

      We have seen no new oil refineries built in this country for decades, while old refineries are shutting down because of age and restrictions on what can be done to refit them.

      This, plus Obama’s admitted war on coal, combined with his dumping of billions and billions of taxpayer dollars (newly printed by the Fed) into his pet “green energy” projects, has disrupted the economy, put hundreds of thousands of people out of work, created a miasma of uncertainty about the future of our entire established energy infrastructure, and contributed to the overall shakiness of our economy.

      As for your defense of the international arms treaty, why should we even consider any such thing? Why should we even THINK of giving the slightest hint of control over anything within this country to any international governing body?

    • thetruthshallsetyoufree2012 November 18, 2012 / 4:48 pm

      “I don’t think you learned any lessons at all from President Obama’s re-election”

      Definitely not–they’re reheating their 2008 rhetoric because that worked out so well for them, right?

      “Furthermore, more Americans blame the Republicans in Congress for gridlock than President Obama….. Rather making the recovery the most important thing, he [McConnell] chose partisan politics. I don’t think that helped the Republican cause, and Americans remembered it in 2012.”

      Indeed, and Americans will continue to remember it. See, inside the bubble, these conservatives think that placing party before country is a great idea, but out here in the real world, people don’t care for it very much.

      “No one is taking your guns.”

      According to Wayne LaPierre, the fact that Obama hasn’t tried to take away anybody’s guns is iron-clad proof that Obama is going to take away everybody’s guns. The NRA has become Grandpa’s Mail.

      “My how times have changed. They’ll change again, and it will start with Republicans choosing a better candidate next time around.”

      I agree, except the Republican turnaround won’t be premised on choosing a better candidate, it will have to be premised on Republicans leaving the bubble and making an actual effort to address issues, no matter how much the folks on this blog would like to avoid that.

  8. Jeremiah November 18, 2012 / 3:25 am

    The only thing that favors “progressives” going forward is welfare, and those who vote for their own state of living poor.

    And also those women who choose to abort their children for convenience rather than keeping the child and being responsible.

    I believe if there weren’t so many handouts that the people abusing the system would find a way to support themselves, and be responsible.

  9. GMB November 18, 2012 / 8:25 am

    “The GOP-controlled House still controls the purse strings.” Yes they do, and have for the last two years. They also have approved two years of trillion dollar plus deficits for the last two years.

    You are looking for hope from those jokers? Better find yourself a good recipe for black powder and learn to smith a good flintlock. Remember folks, corn powder for the cannons and meal powder for the muskets, or is it the other way round?

    FORE!!!ward

    • ricorun November 18, 2012 / 2:50 pm

      Did you actually read the article you indicated, GMB? Even a superficial read should have alerted you that something fishy was going on. And if you read it more thoroughly, you might have appreciated the fact that it was steeped in irony. One piece of irony is that both problems were caused by illegal product dumping by the Chinese. IMO, that should have been your initial tip-off that there was more to the story than was being said. Another piece of irony is that the two companies were affected in opposite ways. SolarWorld produces the PV cells for their panels in the US, so they (along with all other companies producing PV cells in the US) were getting hammered by Chinese illegal trade practices. Some, like Solyndra, Evergreen, Abound, etc. have already gone belly-up. [And the fact that SolarWorld, though finding it necessary to contract somewhat, has managed to weather the storm might suggest to a savvy individual that there may be an investment opportunity there — but I digress…]

      SunTech, on the other hand, was a primary player in the product dumping. After all, they are a Chinese company, they are the largest solar cell manufacturer in the world, and they build them all in China. However, to blunt criticism, they opened an assembly plant in the US. That assembly plant indirectly received about $2M in stimulus funds. I say “indirectly” because the state of Arizona had the final say as to how they would spend the money they received from the feds. I don’t fault AZ for their decision — it takes a lot of additional technology (and labor) to go from a PV cell to a solar panel, and then more to install it — so a $2M investment to potentially stimulate $500M, or much more, in economic growth is worth it.

      The U.S. International Trade Commission finally acted to prevent the dumping. That ruling was (immediately) bad for SunTech because they are buying their cells from their own China branch, but (eventually) good for SolarWorld (which doesn’t). And the ruling took time, which contributes another bit of irony: though it’s been obvious to everyone involved for a few years that something illegal/unfair was going on, it wasn’t until the last few months that it looked like the ITC was actually going to pull the trigger. Prior to that time prices were dropping like stones, so to the extent that they could afford to do so, many of the companies who just assembled panels rather than also produced the PV cells to go into them, started stockpiling cells. As a consequence, that has produced a situation where inventory has outstripped sales. Metaphorically speaking, think of it as a mini-housing bubble, where the products of “foreclosure” out-strips new investment in the near term. It will probably take a while for things to shake out in the solar cell manufacturing sector. The solar cell assembly and installation sectors are a different story. At least in the near term.

      ls, resulting in a glut of materials inventory.

  10. Cluster November 18, 2012 / 9:49 am

    Watson,

    I think this is the first time I have seen you respond so civilly, so congrats on that. You have failed to answer Spook’s question on the impact Obamacare will have on so many employers, which will be in my opinion a very dramatic, and most likely negative impact on the economy, so please let us know how you see that playing out.

    Secondly, you declaratively stated:

    And let’s also remember that part of the reason those 47% don’t pay federal income taxes is directly because of Republican policies promoted by presidents Bush and Reagan

    So please expand on that and let us know which policies those were.

    You also lay the blame of the racial divide clearly at the feet of the GOP but I will remind you that it is Obama who told Hispanics to punish their enemies. It was Obama’s justice department that stated black on white crimes were a low priority. It was Obama who pandered to the black community and received 98+% of the vote, which begs the questions, was that black vote all centered on policy?

    Lastly, I call Obama bone deep stupid and you rebut by claiming that he ran a better campaign, which now then reminds me that those who voted for him are even more bone deep stupid. Anyone who thinks Obama ran a better campaign clearly doesn’t have much gray matter. Obama may have run a better campaign for those with a 5th grade mentality, which includes nearly everyone in the media, but to suggest that he ran a high minded, intelligent campaign just defies reality. His emphasis on women having the right to kill their unborn children is not only offensive, but panders to the most banal aspect of our society.

    • watsonthethird November 18, 2012 / 1:36 pm

      Cluster said, “I think this is the first time I have seen you respond so civilly, so congrats on that.” Actually, there have been a number of them; you just don’t remember. And you can see from tired’s response how my comments are typically received here. I pretty much feel you get what you give. Tired’s responses in this thread deserve nothing but ridicule in return, but I don’t feel like bothering with him this morning.

      Both you and Amazona asked for more specifics regarding my statement, “And let’s also remember that part of the reason those 47% don’t pay federal income taxes is directly because of Republican policies promoted by presidents Bush and Reagan.”

      You may recall that President Bush doubled the Child Tax Credit and and expanded eligibility for the Earned Income Tax Credit. Plus, his tax cuts lowered income taxes across the board, including for poor people, which then made it easier for exemptions and tax credits to offset their tax liability. It is self evident that President Bush’s policies resulted in more people having no tax burden.

      As for Reagan, the 1986 tax reform doubled the personal exemption and expanded the earned-income credit, thereby eliminating the tax burden for more poor people. At the time, Reagan said, ““The Earned Income Tax Credit is the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress.”

      Cluster said, “Lastly, I call Obama bone deep stupid and you rebut by claiming that he ran a better campaign, which now then reminds me that those who voted for him are even more bone deep stupid. Anyone who thinks Obama ran a better campaign clearly doesn’t have much gray matter.”

      It is obvious that President Obama ran a better campaign. I didn’t say it was a “high minded, intelligent campaign.” You’re just putting words in my mouth. But it was better in pretty much every way. The technology was better. The ground game was better. The get-out-the-vote effort was better. President Obama didn’t fall victim to gaffes like his opponent. Plus, the proof is in the pudding: Obama won, Romney lost. Not only that, Obama won nearly every so-called battleground state. I don’t see how you can credibly argue that the Romney campaign was better.

      Cluster, you refer to a “mind boggling dishonest media that actively campaigns and covers for this President and the only reason I think that is is because of the color of his skin.” Wow. You really have a problem with this racial thing, don’t you?

      • Cluster November 18, 2012 / 2:13 pm

        Doubling the child tax credit from $500 to $1000 is hardly enough of an exemption to move anyone out of their tax obligation. Lowering tax rates across the board also didn’t move anyone out of their tax responsibility. You also dishonestly claim that Reagan expanded the earned income tax exemtption when that was voted in and passed by the Democratic house and senate during his term. So nice try, but again, you fail.

        I am also saddened to see that you claim that a dumbed down campaign that panders to low intelligence is a “better campaign”‘, but it doesn’t surprise me. I have never really seen you stand up for raising the level of standards or intellect in our society as evidence by your racial comment directed towards me. To you, a racially polarized, TMZ, moronic society where women have the right to kill their unborn children and the men have no responsibility whatsoever, and where people existing on government handouts, paying high a cost of living and eking out a mediocre existence is the “right direction for the country”. It’s pretty sad to think that so many of you exist.

      • watsonthethird November 18, 2012 / 3:09 pm

        Again, you’re just projecting and putting words into my mouth. But let me just remind you that it is you that referred to a “mind boggling dishonest media that actively campaigns and covers for this President and the only reason I think that is is because of the color of his skin.” If that is your version of “raising the level of standards or intellect in our society,” well, okay.

      • thetruthshallsetyoufree2012 November 18, 2012 / 4:54 pm

        “Cluster, you refer to a “mind boggling dishonest media that actively campaigns and covers for this President and the only reason I think that is is because of the color of his skin.” Wow. You really have a problem with this racial thing, don’t you?”

        It’s amazing that they say stuff like that, then in the next breath claim that Democrats are racist. It’s like them saying that they aren’t going to do s single thing to help Obama, then claim that he’s “divisive.”

      • Cluster November 18, 2012 / 6:06 pm

        Both you Watson and truthie just proved my point. Rather than address the failures of this president, and the overwhelming liberal medias reluctance to confront the issues and ask the tough questions, both of you feign offense at merely suggesting that race is a component.

        Both of you have (expletive deleted) for brains.

  11. Cluster November 18, 2012 / 9:58 am

    Watson,

    One other thing. You mentioned that 34 democrats voted against Obamacare in an effort to paint them as not in lockstep. But if you followed that at all, you would remember that most of them, if not all of them, we’re “allowed” to vote agains the measure because the Democrats already had enough voted, and those representatives were from red states which would have hurt their reelection chances. So nice try, but unfortunately most of us pay attention.

    As I said previously, liberals don’t have any issue that is going, or will go in their favor. The only reason Obama won is because there are too many entitlement minded, bone deep stupid, selfish people combined with a mind boggling dishonest media that actively campaigns and covers for this President and the only reason I think that is is because of the color of his skin. Which is embarrassingly racist.

    Welcome to your new normal, of racial division and economic misery. It ought to be a fun four years.

  12. Cluster November 18, 2012 / 10:03 am

    Well this just in – going FORWARD we can expect the Democrats to continue to play the race card:

    Rep. Marcia Fudge, a Democrat from Cleveland – accused Sen. John McCain of “sexism and racism” for criticizing UN Ambassador Susan Rice for going on five Sunday talk shows and claiming the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was a spontaneous reaction to a video posted on YouTube. “There is a clear, a clear in my opinion, sexism and racism that goes with these comments that are being made by, unfortunately, Senator McCain and others,” Fudge said Friday at a Capitol Hill press conference. On Thursday, the Black Caucus voted unanimously to make Fudge their chair even though she was first elected to the House in November 2008.

    No word yet from the Congressional White Caucus.

    So Watson, is the GOP still the party to blame for the racial divide?

    • watsonthethird November 18, 2012 / 1:42 pm

      Cluster, I said, “I think more Americans ascribe racial and class division to the Republicans, not the Democrats.” That doesn’t mean that only one side is responsible for creating division, just that Americans in general think the Republicans are more guilty of this than Democrats.

      I think it is absolutely true that Republicans (and conservatives in general) depend on creating division to advance their cause. Unfortunately for them, the changing demographics in the United States are making that strategy less viable going forward and so Republicans are going to have to change. And I believe that they will, with or without you.

      As for McCain hitting the Sunday talk shows, what else is new? Four years ago you all complained about the “celebrity candidate” Obama–and you still do–but I’m pretty sure John McCain has by far more television appearances than any other politician alive.

      • neocon01 November 18, 2012 / 1:49 pm

        waspstooge

        All you have done is insulted other commenters.

        No he hasn’t he has challenged TROLLs like you.
        wipe your chin your Obamba is showing.

      • neocon01 November 18, 2012 / 1:51 pm

        OMG

        What a delusional freeking nutjob…….
        Cluster, I said, “I think more Americans ascribe racial and class division to the Republicans, not the Democrats.” That doesn’t mean that only one side is responsible for creating division, just that Americans in general think the Republicans are more guilty of this than Democrats.

    • watsonthethird November 18, 2012 / 1:55 pm

      By the way, Cluster, gas prices in my area having decreased by over a buck a gallon over the last few months. Which specific policies of President Obama do you believe have been directly responsible for this decrease?

      • Retired Spook November 18, 2012 / 1:59 pm

        Which specific policies of President Obama do you believe have been directly responsible for this decrease?

        To paraphrase, someone, (I believe it was you), the same policies that are driving us back into recession, just like in the fall of 2008.

      • watsonthethird November 18, 2012 / 2:02 pm

        That’s not being very specific, Spook. But I’m more interested in Cluster’s reply since he seems to think that President Obama is directly responsible for higher gas prices.

      • Cluster November 18, 2012 / 2:20 pm

        Obama’s abysmally weak foreign policy efforts and war against big oil are largely responsible for gas prices doubling since 2009. This current “adjustment” is a result of speculation and over supply. There are literally tankers of oil stationary out at sea waiting to be unloaded, and that has nothing to do with the idiot in the white house.

      • Retired Spook November 18, 2012 / 2:35 pm

        That’s not being very specific, Spook.

        Watson, perhaps it was not you who said recently that it was not Bush’s lifting of the off-shore moratorium in July, 2008 that caused gas prices to plummet over the following 5 months, but the crashing economy that reduced the demand for gas. I’m just saying, if that’s true, then the same thing is happening again, not as a result of anything Obama has specifically done so much as his economic policies that are driving us back into recession.

      • tiredoflibbs November 18, 2012 / 2:58 pm

        No Watty the question is for you to point out what specific policies of the obAMATEUR are responsible.

        Hint: there are none. The adjustment is seasonal from the more expensive summertime blends.

        Gasoline is still well above the price it was when he came into office. His policies have kept them higher than normal.

        Nice dodge,

      • Retired Spook November 18, 2012 / 8:06 pm

        By the way, Cluster, gas prices in my area having decreased by over a buck a gallon over the last few months.

        Watson, you must have peaked a lot higher than we did. Gas in northern Indiana hit $3.99 during the summer, dropped to $3.29 right before the election, and went back up to over $3.50 after the election. What was your peak, and what is it currently, and what part of the country are you in?

      • watsonthethird November 18, 2012 / 9:45 pm

        Spook, where I live regular unleaded peaked at nearly five bucks a gallon. It’s down over a dollar sense then.

      • ricorun November 19, 2012 / 2:40 pm

        Watson must live in CA. If so, the “buck a gallon” decrease followed a “buck a gallon” spike which was caused when two large CA refineries shut down simultaneously, causing a temporary shortage in supply. The incidents, of course, had nothing to do with Obama’s policies, nor did the aftermath.

    • ricorun November 18, 2012 / 5:07 pm

      Spook: Watson, perhaps it was not you who said recently that it was not Bush’s lifting of the off-shore moratorium in July, 2008 that caused gas prices to plummet over the following 5 months, but the crashing economy that reduced the demand for gas. I’m just saying, if that’s true, then the same thing is happening again, not as a result of anything Obama has specifically done so much as his economic policies that are driving us back into recession.

      I wasn’t a party to either statement, but allow me to add another wrinkle: the ONLY way we can dissociate gasoline prices from economic growth is to destroy domestic demand relative to global supply. Merely adding to global supply, no matter how aggressively, will never work. That is the bottom line fact. But it is ESPECIALLY true if it requires ADDING subsidies for the fossil fuel industries at the expense of renewable fuels. That would be a terrible mistake for all sorts of reasons.

      But here’s the good news: several biofuel companies, by virtue of government assistance, are getting ever closer to producing, at commercial scale and at “competitive prices”, “drop-in transportation fuels” which do not require arable land currently dedicated to growing food stocks to be converted to growing energy feed-stocks.

      Above I put two terms in quotes: “competitive prices”, and “drop-in transportation fuels”. By the second (drop-in transportation fuels) I mean mid to long-chain hydrocarbons which can be separated through traditional and well-established refining techniques, with little or no modification, into diesel fuel, jet fuel, gasoline, isobutanol, various surfactants, aromatics, etc.

      By the first I mean they can produce them somewhere around the price each of the various classes of compounds presently command. At present, surfactants, aromatics, and various plastic additives are hardest and most costly to produce from traditional fossil fuel refining methods, but much easier and relatively more cost-effective to produce via bioengineering, so those markets are the ones that many so-called “biofuel” companies are going after first and foremost.

      But the surfactants/aromatics/plastic additives market is worth only multiple billions of dollars per year, or about 2% of the entire purified hydrocarbon market. Transportation fuels represent the lion’s share of the other 98%. Most simply, that means that the global transportation fuel market is worth in the neighborhood of a trillion dollars per year, year in and year out. It’s a freakin’ HUGE market, and growing.

      And allow me to point out once again that the US is better positioned than any other country in the world (and essentially ALL of them are supporting their intellectual and technological infrastructure) to cash in on not only the intellectual capital that brought the world to this cusp, but also the technological and engineering know-how — much of it funded by way of FEDERAL MONEY, both directly and indirectly. To cut the rug out would be the epitome of stupidity and irresponsibility.

  13. Cluster November 18, 2012 / 2:22 pm

    Keep it coming Watson, I am enjoying watching everyone point out how woefully wrong you are on every issue.

    • ricorun November 19, 2012 / 5:28 pm

      Cluster: Keep it coming Watson, I am enjoying watching everyone point out how woefully wrong you are on every issue.

      I agree that I’d like to see Watson keep it coming. I disagree that he’s “woefully wrong” on “every issue”. I think he’s holding his own, and it’s been very informative.

  14. Cluster November 18, 2012 / 2:24 pm

    Oh and two other things. You have yet to answer Spook’s question on Obamacare, and my point that the democrats were allowed to vote against Obamacare. So when you’re ready, please respond.. Thanks again

    • watsonthethird November 18, 2012 / 2:29 pm

      Amazona said:

      I remember Bush approving of and praising an ownership society. I don’t remember him pushing the federal government into any social engineering experiments to FURTHER an ownership society.

      You evidently do, so will you please share your information on Bush policies that actually tried to IMPLEMENT an ownership society?

      Amazona, you can start with the American Dream Downpayment Assistance Act and the Expanding American Homeownership Act. Here are some quotes from President Bush on the subject, from the George W. Bush White House archives.

      2002 speech to HUD employees:

      The goal is, everybody who wants to own a home has got a shot at doing so. The problem is we have what we call a homeownership gap in America. Three-quarters of Anglos own their homes, and yet less than 50 percent of African Americans and Hispanics own homes. That ownership gap signals that something might be wrong in the land of plenty. And we need to do something about it.

      We are here in Washington, D.C. to address problems. So I’ve set this goal for the country. We want 5.5 million more homeowners by 2010 — million more minority homeowners by 2010. (Applause.) Five-and-a-half million families by 2010 will own a home. That is our goal. It is a realistic goal. But it’s going to mean we’re going to have to work hard to achieve the goal, all of us. And by all of us, I mean not only the federal government, but the private sector, as well.

      And so I want to, one, encourage you to do everything you can to work in a realistic, smart way to get this done. I repeat, we’re here for a reason. And part of the reason is to make this dream extend everywhere.

      I’m going to do my part by setting the goal, by reminding people of the goal, by heralding the goal, and by calling people into action, both the federal level, state level, local level, and in the private sector. (Applause.)

      2004: “For millions of our citizens, the American Dream starts with owning a home. (Applause.) Home ownership gives people a sense of pride and independence and confidence for the future. When you work hard, like you’ve done, and there are good policies coming out of our nation’s capital we’re creating a home — an ownership society in this country, where more Americans than ever will be able to open up their door where they live and say, welcome to my house, welcome to my piece of property. (Applause.)”

      2004: “Last December, I signed the American Dream Down Payment Act, which will help thousands of low-income families afford the down payment and closing costs on their first home. We want people in every corner of America owning a home. (Applause.)”

      July 2006: “I am pleased the House passed the Expanding American Homeownership Act of 2006. The Federal Housing Administration has helped millions of Americans become homeowners in communities throughout our country. I appreciate the House’s efforts to modernize this important program to ensure that it reflects the demands of today’s marketplace and addresses the current needs of potential homebuyers. By providing the FHA with increased flexibility for mortgage downpayment requirements and the authority to tailor financing to suit a family’s unique situation, this bill will improve FHA’s ability to help lower and moderate-income families achieve the American Dream. I encourage the Senate to join the House and pass this critical legislation.”

      August 2007: “Secretary Paulson and Secretary Jackson gave me an update on the strong fundamentals of our nation’s economy. Economic growth is healthy, and just yesterday we learned that our economy grew at a strong rate of 4 percent in the second quarter of this year. Wages are rising, unemployment is low, exports are up, and steady job creation continues. We also had a good discussion about the situation in America’s financial markets. The markets are in a period of transition, as participants reassess and re-price risk. This process has been unfolding for some time, and it’s going to take more time to fully play out. As it does, America’s overall economy will remain strong enough to weather any turbulence.”

      August 2007: “The recent disturbances in the sub-prime mortgage industry are modest — they’re modest in relation to the size of our economy. But if you’re a family — if your family is one of those having trouble making the monthly payments, this problem doesn’t seem modest at all. I understand these concerns, and therefore, I’ve made this a top priority to help our homeowners navigate these financial challenges, so that many families as possible can stay in their homes. That’s what we’ve been working on, a plan to help homeowners.”

      • Amazona November 18, 2012 / 2:34 pm

        Thank you.

        Though the quote from August 2007 is not about a Bush administration program to aid expansion of an ownership society.

        And I stand by my position that the wise thing to do would to have stopped slapping on Bandaids and just dismantle the whole failed experiment.

    • watsonthethird November 18, 2012 / 2:32 pm

      Cluster, you’ve barely responded to any of the points I raised to you in my initial comment in this thread, except to say, “Petty and small is what Watson and liberals excel at.” And yet you demand that I respond to each and every question you or Spook raise.

      • Amazona November 18, 2012 / 2:37 pm

        Well, you still have not listed the “Bush policies” that created the economic meltdown, specifically in the housing and banking industries, which were the ones that triggered everything else.

        You’ve actually been discussing political events, if not actual politics, on this thread, instead of just attacking and insulting. It would be a shame to see you lose your momentum.

      • Cluster November 18, 2012 / 2:38 pm

        Please cite the point is failed to respond to.

        And I just thought of one other thing. Included in that 47% who pay no federal income tax, are millionaires. Millionaires who game the system and take advantage of the numerous loop holes and exemption put in place by pandering politicians of all stripes. Those are also loop holes and expeditions that evidently you and Obama support considering that he has no plan to do anything about it.

        Care to respond?

      • watsonthethird November 18, 2012 / 3:01 pm

        Amazona said, “Well, you still have not listed the “Bush policies” that created the economic meltdown, specifically in the housing and banking industries, which were the ones that triggered everything else.”

        I specifically named two pieces of legislation championed by President Bush (and signed by him) that made it more possible for people to buy homes without actually having the means to do so. I also quoted from speeches in which President Bush made it clear that he would use all levels of government to accomplish his goal of increasing home ownership, which led to riskier and riskier mortgages. If you want more, you can do your own research.

        A fair-minded person can neither absolve President Bush from responsibility for the crisis that occurred in 2007-8, nor blame him entirely for it. But when some folks here put the blame squarely on President Obama for a recovery that isn’t as strong as they would like, then those same folks must also put the blame squarely on President Bush for creating the crisis in the first place.

      • watsonthethird November 18, 2012 / 3:04 pm

        Cluster said, “And I just thought of one other thing. Included in that 47% who pay no federal income tax, are millionaires. Millionaires who game the system and take advantage of the numerous loop holes and exemption put in place by pandering politicians of all stripes. Those are also loop holes and expeditions that evidently you and Obama support considering that he has no plan to do anything about it.”

        You mean “millionaires who game the system and take advantage of the numerous loop hole” like Mitt Romney?

        No, I don’t support them. I think it is absurd that someone like Mitt Romney pays a smaller percentage of his income in taxes than I do. Again, you’re putting words in my mouth and ascribing to me positions that I never put forth to you.

      • Amazona November 18, 2012 / 3:11 pm

        BTW, when I said that we have been discussing political events, if not actual politics, I was (and am) hoping that we can segue into actual political discussion. I approached it by opening up the topic of the shift from if we should have a policy to who actually has the constitutional authority to implement it.

        We can spin our wheels indefinitely in endless quibbling about this policy or that one, if it was good or not, who did what, who did not do what, and all we will be doing is making noise.

        Without a clear understanding of and commitment to state sovereignty and the strict restrictions of the size, scope and authority of the federal government, we are going to be sentenced to this endless loop of dissent and quibbling, demagoguery and divisiveness.

      • Amazona November 18, 2012 / 3:13 pm

        “I think it is absurd that someone like Mitt Romney pays a smaller percentage of his income in taxes than I do. ”

        watson, do you understand why Mitt Romney pays a smaller percentage of his income in taxes than you do?

      • Amazona November 18, 2012 / 3:21 pm

        “But when some folks here put the blame squarely on President Obama for a recovery that isn’t as strong as they would like, then those same folks must also put the blame squarely on President Bush for creating the crisis in the first place.”

        Well, we can and do point to specific actions and policies of Obama, implemented by him and his administration, after his inauguration, that we think have impeded economic recovery.

        Will you please point to the specific actions and policies of Bush, implemented by him and his administration, after his inauguration, that you believe “created” the economic meltdown at the end of his term?

      • Amazona November 18, 2012 / 3:22 pm

        watson, I don’t know about those alleged loopholes used by those “millionaires” to avoid paying taxes, but you yourself named Mitt Romney as one you claim did use “loopholes” to avoid paying taxes.

        Which “loopholes” did Mitt Romney use, and how did they allow him to avoid paying taxes he owed?

      • Amazona November 18, 2012 / 3:27 pm

        watson—-just curious—-are you using a Mac?

        Because I am in the process of switching from a PC to a Mac, and one thing that is a mixed blessing is the little guy in the processor who “corrects” words for me, too often just guessing that I really meant “gyroscope” when I started to type “gypsy”.

        I just noticed that in one of your posts you quoted Cluster accurately using the word “exemptions” and then when you tried to refer back to it it came out as “expeditions”.

        This is not a criticism, just curiosity. I turned this “feature” off on my Droid phone, because it drove me crazy, and I not only don’t know if I can on my Mac I don’t know if I would. I just keep finding random words in my texts that I know were efforts of the processor to ‘help’ me.

      • watsonthethird November 18, 2012 / 3:41 pm

        Amazona said, “Which ‘loopholes’ did Mitt Romney use, and how did they allow him to avoid paying taxes he owed?”

        Is this a serious question, Amazona? You can just google “romney tax avoidance” and decide for yourself.

        I think a fair place to start would be Mitt Romney’s use of a charitable remainder unitrust to avoid paying taxes. To quote an article favorable to Romney’s use of this tactic, “In the 1990s, the rules governing these kinds of trusts were loose enough that they allowed taxpayers to contribute funds, take a deduction and basically ‘zero out’ the trust, leaving very little to charity. That was especially appealing to taxpayers when capital gains rates were 28% – nearly double what they are today – and when the economy was growing quickly. Congress put an end to the practice in 1997 by tweaking the rules to ensure that more money got moved to charity.”

        Romney formed his CRUT in 1996 and it was grandfathered into the “loose” rules. All legal, but Cluster himself stated that among those who pay no taxes are “millionaires who game the system and take advantage of the numerous loop holes and exemption put in place by pandering politicians of all stripes” and insinuated that the “loopholes and expeditions” (his words) that enabled millionaires to “game the system” are supported by me.

        If you want to get pedantic about it, Amazona, then I think you need to start with Cluster defining the specific “loopholes and expeditions” that he was referring to, which according to him allow millionaires to “game the system,” and which he believes would be supported by me.

      • watsonthethird November 18, 2012 / 3:44 pm

        Amazona said, “I just noticed that in one of your posts you quoted Cluster accurately using the word ‘exemptions’ and then when you tried to refer back to it it came out as “expeditions”.”

        Ha ha. I do use a Mac, but please read Cluster’s post of November 18, 2012 at 2:38 pm. In it he used the word “expeditions.” I thought it was an odd choice, but that’s what he said. Maybe he uses a Mac, too!

      • Amazona November 18, 2012 / 4:20 pm

        watson, I will let Cluster tell me what he meant. I asked you specifically about loopholes you claim ROMNEY used.

        So he established a CRUT, an instrument which supposedly COULD be used to shelter money, 16 years ago. Well, we don’t seem to know if he did “zero out” this trust, and given his record of donating millions to charity it would be a stretch to claim he used a CRUT to avoid donating, without actual proof that he did, and how much he allegedly sheltered.

        But what seems to be the focus right now on the Romney income is what he pays, now, on what he gets.

        So I repeat—do you understand why his tax rate is lower than yours?

      • Amazona November 18, 2012 / 4:25 pm

        “…If you want to get pedantic about it, Amazona, then I think you need to start with Cluster defining the specific “loopholes and expeditions” that he was referring to, which according to him allow millionaires to “game the system,”

        Thank you for the suggestion, but I don’t want to “get pedantic about it” and furthermore I suspect that even Cluster may be buying into some of the claims of all these supposed loopholes, and even expeditions that allow millionaires to avoid paying taxes.

        As far as I am concerned, if it is legal then go for it. And if is legal then there is no excuse for carping about it. And if we don’t like it, we should do what I said about the CRA, and instead of slapping bandaids onto a failed system we should scrap it and start over.

        But let’s not get distracted by tax loopholes. My question is about Romney’s current tax RATE. Do you know why he pays this rate?

      • watsonthethird November 18, 2012 / 4:54 pm

        Cluster is the one that brought up tax loopholes to benefit “Millionaires who game the system and take advantage of the numerous loop holes and exemption put in place by pandering politicians of all stripes.” Those were his words, not mine. I suppose it’s possible he meant all millionaires except Mitt Romney. He then claimed, with no basis, that those are the “loop holes” that I support.

        As far as Romney’s tax rates, they are low because the tax code gives preference to investment income over labor income. But why are you playing this game of asking the same question over and over? If you want to make a point about Romney’s tax rates, just make it.

        But if you want to play games, then what did you learn from googling “romney tax avoidance”? Please be thorough.

      • Cluster November 18, 2012 / 5:23 pm

        Watson,

        You are really an insufferable idiot. God this help this country if people like you populate too much. Investment income has already been taxed at labor rates. Is that really a concept too hard for you to wrap your bigoted little mind around?

      • Cluster November 18, 2012 / 5:25 pm

        It is a FACT that some millionaires pay zero in income taxes because of all the loop holes and exemptions. My point to both of you is that the tax code NEEDS to be reformed, because although it is currently legal, it is not right. And the idiot that Watson supports has no plan, no desire, nor the brains to do anything about it.

      • Cluster November 18, 2012 / 5:31 pm

        Watson,

        You confirm my opinion that you are an insufferable little twit. Romney gives more to charity than you and your asswipe President do combined, in addition, Romney pays more in taxes In one year than you will in your entire pathetic life, so for some little pissant like you to slander a man that has done more for this country than your entire inbred family ever will is beyond offensive. Romney using a charitable exemption is not at all what I refer to when I state a fact that some millionaires avoid taxes altogether.

        You really are a piece of scum.

      • Amazona November 18, 2012 / 7:32 pm

        I did not google “Romney tax avoidance” because of the inherent implication that Romney avoided legitimate taxes. As I said, if it’s legal, it’s not my concern.

        The reason I asked if you understand why his tax rates are lower than yours is to get an answer to that question. Predictably, you tried to put a spin on your answer, but you did finally answer it.

        The next logical question is—-Do you understand the reasoning behind having a lower tax rate for income from investment of already-taxed income, vs the original earned income?

        And do you agree that this is a good idea?

      • Retired Spook November 18, 2012 / 7:51 pm

        Do you understand the reasoning behind having a lower tax rate for income from investment of already-taxed income, vs the original earned income?

        And do you agree that this is a good idea?

        One only has to look at the GDP chart I posted earlier to see the effect that lowering and raising the capital gains rate has on economic growth. By 1983 Reagan had lowered the CG rate from 28% to 20%, but compromised in the Tax Reform Act of 1986 to raise it back to 28% (the top marginal rate). Much of the economic growth as well as a surge of revenue to the federal treasury during Clinton’s tenure happened after he signed a GOP sponsored bill to lower the CG rate back to 20% in 1996.

      • Amazona November 18, 2012 / 8:00 pm

        “If you want to make a point about Romney’s tax rates, just make it.”

        OK.

        1. Investment instruments are usually acquired with either after-tax income or in lieu of income, which means a reduction in earned income and receiving stock instead. Therefore, revenue from investments has already been taxed, or income has been reduced by substituting investment instruments, which is like a form of tax in that the amount of remuneration has been reduced.

        2. Revenue from investments is often the retirement income of average Americans, who prudently set aside some of their own (taxed) income during their working years to provide their own pension/retirement plans, and increasing the tax burden on this kind of revenue will hurt the middle class retiree more than it will hurt the hated “rich”.

        3. Increasing taxation on investment revenue will have a chilling effect on investment, which means less money being funneled into companies for their use to expand, modernize, etc. The end result is less investment in our business infrastructure, which leads to less economic vitality.

        So my points are: Fairness, or not double-taxing income at equal rates for the first and second rounds of taxation; Not penalizing the responsible effort of so many to choose deferred gratification, spending less in their working years to help support them in retirement: Encouragement of participation in the businesses of America, being an “ownership society” not only of homes but of the very engines of our economy, and providing the capital necessary for business growth.

      • Amazona November 18, 2012 / 8:02 pm

        And what Spook said…….

  15. Cluster November 18, 2012 / 5:21 pm

    Watson,

    I use an iPad so word recognition gets the better of me some times. Before I read all of your usually mindless posts to rebut your usually inane positions, let me just say that Mitt Romney pays cap gains taxes, not income taxes, so try and stay focused ok? Secondly, you do indirectly support millionaires paying zero income taxes by indirectly supporting the idiot in the white house who has zero plan to change it.

    Now I will read the rest of your posts and try and keep my lunch down.

  16. Cluster November 18, 2012 / 5:36 pm

    And now let’s address you assertion on Bush. Encouraging home ownership, and capitalizing programs like the FHA for loan down payment loans, is a far cry from endorsing irresponsible lending of which happened in 2005 and 2006, specifically no doc load and stated income loans – do you know what those are asswipe? Bush is also on record warning the morons at Freddie and Fannie about this very problem and the need for MORE regulation. Did you miss that?

    You are wrong on every single issue. Just like your moron President.

  17. Cluster November 18, 2012 / 5:49 pm

    You know, come to think of it, this county will never make any substantial progress as long as people like Watson continue to breed. Watson would prefer to play shell games with issues and policies rather than do what’s best for the country. Watson would prefer to support a President that doubles down on stupid, has no real experience for what he is doing, and panders to the basest elements of our society rather than deal with reality.

    It’s a sad commentary on our current society.

    • mitchethekid November 18, 2012 / 6:08 pm

      No experience? He’s been President for 4 yrs, going on 8.

      • Cluster November 18, 2012 / 6:11 pm

        And still an idiot. Besides, he’s appeared on letterman more than he has met with his jobs council, and has set father record for playing golf. Yep, still no experience

      • Amazona November 18, 2012 / 7:38 pm

        You evidently find four years of failure to qualify as four years of experience.

      • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) November 18, 2012 / 8:11 pm

        You evidently find four years of failure to qualify as four years of experience.

        Failure to your average Progressive is not a disqualifier as long as they “tried”. Results? We don’ need no steeeeekin’ results.

  18. mitchethekid November 18, 2012 / 6:06 pm

    People like Watson already do populate the country and many of them are governing it. It’s folks like Cluster whose thinking has achieved minority status. An what acts of selflessness has Romney performed for you to claim that “he has done more this country than your entire inbred family”? That’s a real intellectual response there! Funny how Mr. Moderator Man hasn’t slapped you on the wrist, like he (or she) so selectively does to others for using mild profanity. Talk about slander, you just slandered Watson and his entire family by implying incestuous behavior. And folks like you can’t figure out why your ideas are rejected.

    • Cluster November 18, 2012 / 6:17 pm

      Romney donated more than $4 million to charity just last year. That contribution alone has helped more families than you and your inbred family will ever help in your entire pathetic life. So you should give respect where respect is due. But knowing that you support a moron of a President that has failed all the way to the top, I don’t think that that will be forthcoming.

    • Cluster November 18, 2012 / 6:36 pm

      You know bitch, or Mitch, excuse me, it’s kind of funny that the inbred insult ruffled your feathers, after years of you claiming that we are homophobes, sexist, racist, etc. Don’t ya think? just a little humorous.

      • mitchethekid November 18, 2012 / 8:06 pm

        No feathers ruffled. Just pointing out the obvious. But if your idea of humor is more like Don Rickles than say, Robin Williams or Lewis Black, I guess you would find incest funny. Until it comes to abortion. So here you are accusing both me and Watson as the product of inbreeding and yet you are adamantly pro-life. I guess we had to be born so you could make fun of us. As far as Romney’s charitable contributions let me point out that (1) it reduced his tax liability, (2) in 2011 he didn’t claim as much of a deduction as he was allowed because he couldn’t reconcile his previous statements about being disqualified from running and (3) as a requirement of his church, the vast majority of his “contributions” went to Salt Lake City.
        But none of this back and forth matters; other than perhaps in a purely academic fashion. Barack Obama is the President, he is serving a second term, he won by 3 % of the popular vote and by 126 electoral college votes. The extreme right in this country has been rejected, shamed and humiliated and yet they still do not understand why. Mr. Romney doesn’t understand either, hence his comments of the other day as to why he lost which only goes to reinforce the opinion of those who didn’t vote for him. There is no way that people who think like this will ever even consider the possibility of self-reflection, reevaluation and introspection. Your absolutism defines you and to change, to become more receptive to the concept of being open minded and flexible would undermine the entirety of your being. It is very difficult to govern when one despises over 1/2 of the country and the result was the denial to govern any of it. If conservatives are to succeed in the future, they need to rethink what conservatism means in a time as far removed from Reagan’s as Reagan was from WWII. And it doesn’t include mocking women’s health issues, Hispanics, Blacks, younger people, gay marriage, defending tax cuts for the wealthy at the expense of everyone else and a myriad of other issues that have just dragged the Republicans down.
        Unfortunately, so many on the right think that all Hispanics care about is amnesty, all women want is abortions (and lots of them) and all teenagers want is to sit on a couch and smoke tons of weed legally. That tells you everything you need to know about the hopeless, anachronistic cluelessness of the modern Republican party and movement conservatives. Ironically, a lot of these people would respond positively to the traditional conservative message of self-reliance and fiscal responsibility. But, as I said, modern Republicans will never be able to spread that message effectively because they have so much of their own collective identity wrapped up in the belief that they’re surrounded by free-loading, job adverse parasites who not only want to smoke pot and have recreational abortions all day long, but want hard working (fill in the blank) like them pay for it. That is the belief system. And that’s why it doesn’t square with reality and that’s why Obama is president and that’s also why, until this disassociation from reality is purged the right will continue the spiral into laughing irrelevance.
        But I’m sure underneath all of your posturing and your convictions you are a good and decent person. I also want to make mention of Mark’s change of perspective. I have respect for that. And now you can go ahead and make fun of me again. I know it’s what you live for. hahaha….

      • Amazona November 18, 2012 / 8:38 pm

        Gee, mitche, one might think you would try to tone down your insanity, after being called on it so often.

        Guess not.

        Not only does no one find incest funny, incest is not the same as inbreeding. Once again, do try to find out what you are talking about before emoting. As for incest/abortion, abortion destroys the evidence of incest, therefore protecting the abuser. I guess you find THAT “funny”.

        You don’t get to define what is and what is not a legitimate charitable contribution, and the LDS church is one of the largest sources of many kinds of charitable help in the nation, along with the equally despised and attacked Catholic Church. As for your silly whine that Romney did not declare enough of his contributions, well, maybe your tinfoil hat is a little too tight, or your crystal ball too cloudy. It’s just you being nuts and looking frantically for something ugly because that is all that resonates with you.

        Obama won by 3 big percentage points, four less than last year, and then only because millions of evangelical bigots refused to vote for a Mormon. You call this being “rejected, shamed and humiliated” yet you find no shame or humiliation in pulling off a win only by lying, and smearing the opponent with vicious and bizarre personal attacks with no basis in fact. You seem rather proud of winning by demeaning the average American woman, reducing her to nothing but a gynocentric lemming, and by scaring the bejeezus out of people of color with rabidly crazed fear mongering.

        It WOULD be “…very difficult to govern when one despises over 1/2 of the country ..” which is why the Lying Left (sorry for the redundancy) worked so hard to spin an innocuous comment into this vicious lie. Yet Romney never counseled an entire race to label other Americans as “enemies” and then “punish” them, or to vote against anyone for “revenge”, or labeled an entire political movement as “domestic terrorists”. His comment did not advise or suggest any action against anyone, but merely said that there is a group which will never vote for him so he was not going to spend a lot of money trying to win them over. And he was right. There was no hint of hatred or despising or denigrating or demeaning or insulting, just awareness that a Dependent Class will vote for whoever hands out the goodies. His only mistake was in lumping all who pay no taxes into a Dependent Class, which is when the howling mobs of Lefty demagogues went into one of your feeding frenzies and worked overtime to spin this into something it was not.

        Basically, your whole post is just a crazed rant, which of course was a given once the name mitche led it off.

        I see that you, the son of the god Zeus, now believe that ANYONE “lives for” you or what you think. Those delusions of grandeur are getting out of control, there, mitche.

        Though I imagine they are more rewarding than your previous delusions of adequacy.

      • tiredoflibbs November 19, 2012 / 9:18 am

        Mitchie the clueless: “Unfortunately, so many on the right think that all Hispanics care about is amnesty, all women want is abortions (and lots of them)…”

        Uh, obAMATEUR ‘s campaign ran on those themes. ObAMATEUR made the campaign on those specific issues.

        I know all you do is regurgitate the most current dumbed down talking points regardless if it contradicts the ones of the day before, but you really need to keep up.

    • Amazona November 18, 2012 / 7:45 pm

      Well, let’s see. Thanks to Romney and his business skills, the United States was able to host a great and successful Winter Olympics—I think that already puts him well ahead of watson.

      For all we know, watson and his family have spent hundreds if not thousands of hours with the sick and the poor, and their families, taking care of their children when they were overwhelmed by family illness, shopping and cooking for them and delivering holiday meals. I suppose it is possible that watson once shut down his entire business, keeping everyone on the clock, to put them all out helping find a missing child. So we can give them a “maybe” on that.

      I doubt that watson has donated tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars over the past 20 years or so, to various charities.

      I think it clear that Romney is way ahead on points.

      And by the way, it is possible for a family to become inbred without any actual incestuous behavior. I believe your understanding of genetics is as shaky as your understanding of politics.

  19. Retired Spook November 18, 2012 / 7:26 pm

    I’ve got to take exception with several of the other posters here. I think Watson has made an honest effort to have a rational, civil discussion. If we could get a half dozen Liberals on here who would make half the effort Watson has made, I think we could have some interesting discussions. I still would like, however, for him to spell out what policies he’d like to see Obama pursue in his second term the he (Watson) believes would have a positive effect on liberty and prosperity. I’d also like for him to expand a bit on why he thinks a 5/4 liberal tilt to the Supreme Court would be a good thing.

    • Cluster November 18, 2012 / 7:52 pm

      I take exception with the fact that Watson slanders a very decent man in Mitt Romney, by inferring that he evades taxes and is an example of what’s wrong with America. I will call out anyone who does that.

      In addition to that, while Watson may have remained civil, he dodged nearly every difficult question posed, which is typical.

      • Retired Spook November 18, 2012 / 8:29 pm

        Cluster, most of the questions Watson has evaded are ones that would short-circuit his brain if he answered truthfully, resulting in an annoying buzzer and flashing light spelling out “DOES NOT COMPUTE, DOES NOT COMPUTE. And maybe he simply doesn’t know or want to know the truth. As Jack Nicholson once noted: some people can’t handle the truth. I think if we all made it our life’s goal to seek the truth, the world would be a lot better place.

      • Cluster November 18, 2012 / 8:46 pm

        Exactly Spook, and that’s why a dialogue with “progressives” can be so mind numbingly annoying. Mitch’s recent post is another good example. Here he perpettuates so many falsehoods of conservatism that it just is pointless to have a conversation with him. Is the far right dwindling? Is their a need in conservative circles to reconsider how we articulate our message? Yes in both accounts, and that has been discussed here quite a bit, but just like Watson, hard truths are ignored.

        Rather than mock the GOP message, I would suggest that people like Mitch pay closer to attention to the policies he supports, and the harm they are inflicting on the people, and the country he professes to care so much about. But again, hard truths are difficult to confront.

    • dbschmidt November 18, 2012 / 8:46 pm

      But Spook,

      In this wonderful utopian paradise we already have found out the CA Education Tax Hike (Prop 30) will go to Wall Street cronies. The very same one where “Moonbeam” Brown stated on election night. “Here we are…We have a vote of the people, I think the only state in the country that says let’s raise our taxes, for our kids, for our schools, and for our California dream.”

      Its for the childrens don’t you know.

      In America with one of the highest corporate rates worldwide and a progressive tax system that exceeds the rest of the industrialized world in confiscation of private sector income–we have Nancy Pelosi chiming in with “Just to close loopholes is far too little money…If it’s going to bring in revenue, the president has been very clear that the higher-income people have to pay their fair share.” Well Nancy–What is the “fair share” you speak of? How about we look into your dealings in Congress with an emphasis of “your husband’s businesses”? I think we could find a fair share of equity there.

      You see-it is all about other people–them rich ones–paying their fair share–other rich people not Nancy and her husband.

      BTW, Liberals and others who complain about Employers raking in such large salaries on the backs of their employees, who like you & government, risked nothing to start-up the company. Why not take a look at the salary of a union boss compared the the forced minions under their control. A look at the unions involved in the Hostess shutdown has union leaders making 534% to over 5000% more per year than some of the workers. That must be fair–right? After all they are only concerned with the middle class.

      I could go on and on with the examples or issues but this has nothing to do with tei argument unless it is about how politicians have an adversity to the truth and this President has an adversity to the troops and it can be argued white people in general. No, this is about how to best govern this nation. If this nation were even close to a Constitutional model–I would be paying all of my taxes to my State and the State would allocate money to fund the Federal government. That is how it is designed until the first of many Progressives undermined the very structure.

      Big, Centralized Federal Government with cradle to grave control over ever intrusive parts of your life and no mobility in the station in life you were born into versus the Constitutional method of free-markets, capitalism, and most importantly freedom. Collectivism (Nanny State) versus Individualism.

      Major fork in the road and there is no middle ground. You choose the left (Statism) or Right (Constitutionalism) fork and follow that path. I choose the right path and I can defend it–if you choose the left (Big Government) then defend it. Tell me why I am wrong. I know I can tell you where you are wrong but alas, one can only lead a horse to water…

      • watsonthethird November 18, 2012 / 10:09 pm

        I’m gone for the afternoon and when I return, I see that Cluster has called me “an insufferable idiot,” referred to my “bigoted little mind,” described me as “insufferable little twit, “a little pissant,” and a “piece of scum” (all in one comment!), described President Obama as an “asswipe,” complained that “this county will never make any substantial progress as long as people like Watson continue to breed,” and said that my entire family is inbred.

        And this is your idea of a civil discussion? You pick, Cluster. I can fling it just as well as you can. Ironically, whenever I do you complain that I’m throwing out insults. Perhaps you should consider your own behavior.

        Regarding Mitt Romney and and taxes, I didn’t claim that he evaded taxes. The first time that word came up in this thread was when you brought it up. I do think that Romney has taken advantage of every legal technique at his disposal to avoid taxes. Avoiding isn’t the same as evading. Tax avoidance is the legitimate, legal minimization of taxes. Tax evasion is the illegal practice of not paying taxes, failing to properly report income, committing fraud, etc. Avoiding is legal, evading is not. I did not claim the Romney was a criminal, and I resent your insinuation that I did.

        YOU brought up the fact that millionaires “game the system and take advantage of the numerous loop holes and exemption put in place by pandering politicians of all stripes” and then jumped to the conclusion that I support those loop holes. Just what did you mean by that statement, Cluster?

        As far as failing to respond to my initial post in this thread, you have still failed to cite the provisions of the UN treaty that would override the constitution of sovereign states. You have still failed to document how President Obama “wasted nearly a $1 trillion on ‘roads and bridges.’” You failed to describe how the Romney campaign was superior to the Obama campaign in any material way. Instead, you dismiss “anyone who thinks Obama ran a better campaign clearly doesn’t have much gray matter.” You refer to his campaign as employing a fifth grade mentality, and yet you are unable to cite any specific examples. You failed to cite a single specific policy of President Obama’s that led to higher gas prices, except to blame it on “Obama’s abysmally weak foreign policy efforts and war against big oil.”

      • Cluster November 18, 2012 / 11:04 pm

        I was pretty proud of accurately defining you as an inbred pissant, thank you for acknowledging it. What I mean by you indirectly supporting millionaires paying no income taxes is the fact that you support a President that has no intention of changing it. I have previously said that but knowning that pissant inbreds probably have a reading comprehension problem, I am happy to restate it.

        Re: your last paragraph of drivel, I never claimed there was a UN mandate that overrode state sovereignty. Obama did waste nearly $1 trillion dollars meant for roads and bridges, and all you need to do is look around you to observe that fact. In fact there’s a sign on a Phoenix area highway that says the highway was being improved by funds from the 2009 stimulus. The problem is, nothing has been done. I refer to the Obama’s campaign as one designed for a 5th grade mentality because of the fact that it panders to the basest elements of our society; ie people obsessed with killing unborn children, it lied about the recovery, it lied about its opponent, it lied about taxes, lied about terrorists, told supporters to punish their enemies, and asked people to vote for revenge. And now on second thought, that’s actually a 3rd grade mentality, so my mistake. And finally asswipe, if you can not connect the dots on foreign policy and demonizing big oil with higher energy prices, than you are more inbred than a thought.

        Have a horrible evening.

      • watsonthethird November 18, 2012 / 11:15 pm

        Ah, another courteous post from Cluster. I wonder if it ever occurred to you that if President Obama truly ran a fifth grade campaign, it should have been child’s play for Mitt Romney to defeat it. Oh well. Your posts today were truly enlightening.

      • tiredoflibbs November 19, 2012 / 9:41 am

        Watty, why did obAMATEUR run a successful 5th grade campaign and why Romney could not overcome it?

        This study should explain it:
        http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/2012/11/stanford-university-researcher-says.html

        After reading your usual talking point filled posts, I can see why obAMATEUR had to appeal to the lowest common denominator. ObAMATEUR appealed to emotion and selfishness. Appearances on Letterman, the View and such forums targeted the “American Idol” audiences – people who are more sound bite oriented, like you.

        If individuals had to think long term, as Romney’s campaign required, they were simply not interested. ObAMATEUR focused on short term fulfillment.

        Your logic, Watty, is absent as always.

      • Amazona November 19, 2012 / 10:18 am

        Cluster, you have to remember that watson has appointed himself the arbiter of nice, kind of a Mrs. Kravitz of the blog. watson is a delicate blossom of sensitivity, alert to any violation of Watson Rules of “civility”.

        I notice that now he has added a fluttery near-swoon of “resentment” at being called on his effort to smear Romney as a tax cheat. Oh, he managed to do his homework and come up with a CRUT from 16 years ago, but was not able to actually give any FACTS about whether or not Romney did zero this trust out or used it for charitable deductions—the fact that its structure allowed it to be misused was all he needed to “prove” tax avoidance, which he now scurries to assure us is just fine anyway, so STOP PICKING ON HIM !!!!!!!!!

        Yet watson admires the Obama campaign, the most vile, dishonest, vitriolic, nasty, vicious, smear campaign ever mounted, based on blatant lies and the Politics of Personal Destruction and firmly established in the gutter from Day One.

        Funny little critters, these Lefties, ain’t they?

        I notice that watson found time to catalog the things he found offensive but not to address actual facts. For example, watson expressed resentment at the fact that Romney’s tax rate is lower than his. When I tried to engage in a sequence of questions and answers about this, he tried to shift the discourse to Romney’s alleged use of “loopholes” to get out of paying taxes, and when asked to be specific came up with one kind of trust, which Romney established in 1996, which COULD POSSIBLY be used to avoid paying taxes. No proof or even indication that this trust was used in this way, but the foundation of this trust was presented as a proof of Romney using “loopholes” to avoid paying taxes.

        When I pointed out that there is no indication that the trust was used in this way, suddenly the focus shifted to him never saying there was anything wrong with legally avoiding taxes anyway, waaa waaaa waaaa.

        And of course there is no addressing of the reasons for the lower tax rate paid by Romney on revenue from investments. I was ordered by our self-appointed little Blog Police to, if I had a point to make about Romney’s tax rate, to just MAKE IT. I did.

        Silence. Does watson understand why this rate is what it is? Silence. Does watson think it makes sense to have a lower tax rate for investment income? Silence. Does watson think raising this tax rate would have a negative effect on the economy as a whole? Silence.

        I’m sure the next whine will be that I didn’t actually ASK those exact questions, in that exact specific way, using those exact specific words, but this is the gist of the discussion I was trying to establish after he complained that it was wrong, just plain WRONG, to have a different tax rate for investment income.

        Evidently this is less worthy of discussion than whining about the big meanies and the mean things they said, waaa waaa.

        (Just curious—-does anyone think he will chide mitche for the vile comments he spews on this blog? Nah, I didn’t think so, either.)

      • thetruthshallsetyoufree2012 November 19, 2012 / 11:37 am

        “Perhaps you should consider your own behavior.”

        More to the point, perhaps he should put himself back in timeout, as he clearly is still very emotionally raw from the election results and is lashing out like…well…like a fifth grader. He’s not exactly alone in that–Amazona, among others, is right there with him, but if he had been a man of his word and given up blogging, it probably would’ve been better for his mental health. Sadly, he seems addicted to hate.

        Good job disassembling his talking points and illustrating his hypocrisy, though. All that certainly deserves to be exposed.

      • Amazona November 20, 2012 / 11:19 am

        Oh, Bubble Boy, do try to find another way to post, other than merely hurling snot-nuggets.

        I for one have not been “lashing out” because of being “emotionally raw” due to the election results. It clearly meets your personal emotional needs to redefine my observations of deception and stupidity as “lashing out” and to assign this to something aside from your deception and stupidity, but you fool no one.

        My observation of the conservative reaction to the election has been that we have, as a group, been (A) Stunned by the gullibility of so many Americans and their inability to see through gross demagoguery (B) Awareness that the Obama campaign never got out of the gutter, relying exclusively on lies, bigger lies, and the Politics of Personal Destruction and (C) Understanding that we as a movement and the GOP, as a party, failed to communicate the true choices represented by this election.

        Don’t think that you can discourage observations of the tactics of the Left by making a preemptive strike and claiming that any such observations are merely temper tantrums at losing an election. No, the tactics of the election are there, for all to see, and they are here, writ small, on this blog, open for comment.

      • thetruthshallsetyoufree2012 November 20, 2012 / 11:41 am

        Yes, snarling that the only reason you lost the election is because the American people are stupid and gullible is both an emotionally stable thing to do and a terrific appeal to make to the American people next election. Good luck with that.

      • Amazona November 20, 2012 / 11:54 am

        So sorry, Bubbles. I should have realized that you could not handle more than two ideas.

        Here, let me separate my third comment on why we lost the election, so it won’t be buried in all those—–ideas.

        C) Understanding that we as a movement and the GOP, as a party, failed to communicate the true choices represented by this election.

        See how that works? A is the first idea, B is the second, and then along comes C, which is the third.

      • thetruthshallsetyoufree2012 November 20, 2012 / 11:05 pm

        This has gone on long enough. It has been asked and answered many times and is now just part of a pattern of harassment and insult. Move on. //Moderator

  20. Retired Spook November 18, 2012 / 10:42 pm

    I’m finding it almost incomprehendable that we’re at 110 comments over more than 36 hours in this thread, and we have yet to have a Liberal suggest anything that Obama might do, or that they would like Obama to do in a second term that would have a positive effect on liberty and prosperity. Are freedom and prosperity just not important to Liberals? If not, what IS important; free contraceptives? Free cell phones? Punishing people who have more than you do? I’d really like to know. 63 million people voted to give this guy a second chance. A second chance to do what?

    • watsonthethird November 18, 2012 / 11:20 pm

      That’s not entirely true, Spook. Just to remind you, I said earlier in this thread:

      I think President Obama will continue to support gay rights. He will not take away your guns. He will probably have the opportunity to appoint more liberal Supreme Court judges than Mitt Romney would have, which I personally think is a good thing. He will push again for something like the Dream Act, which I support. On a related note, I hope that he pushes for more immigration of the world’s smartest people. I’d rather have them here, working and building American companies, than getting their education here then returning to India or wherever they came from and building those economies at our expense.

      And to add to that, he will preside over the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, which I much prefer over Mitt Romney’s vow to repeal it on “day one.” I think he will emphasize investment in education, which I believe is critical to the future of the United States. I think he will continue to invest in alternative energies instead of ceding those technologies to other nations, even if some of those investments result in failure. He will push for higher taxes on the wealthy and a more balanced approach to deficit reduction than Mitt Romney would have.

      • Retired Spook November 19, 2012 / 12:24 am

        And to add to that, he will preside over the implementation of the Affordable Care Act

        I fail to see how an act that punishes companies who don’t provide a fringe benefit and punishes individuals who don’t purchase a product in any way expands liberty. On the contrary, it diminishes liberty. And I fail to see how ObamaCare will do anything but retard prosperity, since it has resulted in rapidly escalating health insurance premiums, and it’s going to cost the taxpayers at least double what it was advertised to. So that’s an epic fail on two counts.

        I think he will continue to invest in alternative energies instead of ceding those technologies to other nations

        Doubling down on something that’s been a miserable failure, not to mention a scandal of epic proportions? I hope you’re not serious.

        He will push for higher taxes on the wealthy and a more balanced approach to deficit reduction than Mitt Romney would have.

        I have no doubt that he will, but, again, I fail to see how punishing the wealth and job creators advances either freedom or prosperity. Winston Churchill probably said it best:

        We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle

        I think President Obama will continue to support gay rights.

        Again, not really seeing how that will have a positive effect on prosperity. Freedom for gays to marry each other, maybe. OK, half a point for that one.

        He will not take away your guns.

        I can guarantee you he WILL NOT disarm America, but, assuming you’re right and he doesn’t even try, that’s just maintaining the status quo, not expanding freedom. And again, nothing related to prosperity.

        I hope that he pushes for more immigration of the world’s smartest people. I’d rather have them here, working and building American companies, than getting their education here then returning to India or wherever they came from and building those economies at our expense.

        Although it doesn’t relate to freedom and only in the remotest way to prosperity, you get a full point for this one because it’s just a good idea. Although I have seen no indication that such a policy is even on Obama’s radar. Still, I hope you’re right.

        He will probably have the opportunity to appoint more liberal Supreme Court judges than Mitt Romney would have, which I personally think is a good thing.

        What would you hope that a more liberal SC would do that could possibly relate in a positive way to either liberty or prosperity?

      • watsonthethird November 19, 2012 / 1:54 pm

        Spook, I’ve got a busy day away from the computer, so not much time.

        However, I do want to add one more thing to the wish list. I hope President Obama steps in and saves Hostess like he did the auto industry. A world without Twinkies and Ding Dongs would be a sadder place.

        P.S. Since you like to initiate threads with open-ended questions, how about starting one asking, What do the Republicans need to do to re-capture the White House in 2016?

      • Retired Spook November 19, 2012 / 2:29 pm

        P.S. Since you like to initiate threads with open-ended questions, how about starting one asking, What do the Republicans need to do to re-capture the White House in 2016?

        Mark already did that a few days ago, Watson. But I’ve got to ask why you would want another open-ended question when you’ve failed to answer the two very simple ones in this thread. Wait — I KNOW — you’re just dying to tell us how, if Republicans would be more like Democrats, we’d win more elections. You’re nothing if not transparent, Watson.

      • tiredoflibbs November 19, 2012 / 4:22 pm

        Watty: “. A world without Twinkies and Ding Dongs would be a sadder place.”

        Not to worry, there are plenty of twinkies and ding dongs!! How else did obAMATEUR get re-elected!! Who do you think voted for him?

      • watsonthethird November 19, 2012 / 5:18 pm

        Spook said, “But I’ve got to ask why you would want another open-ended question when you’ve failed to answer the two very simple ones in this thread.”

        Actually, I’ve attempted to answer it twice. I’m sorry if you don’t like my answers.

        I don’t believe the Affordable Care Act will do nothing but “retard prosperity.” Sorry, I just don’t agree. Since neither you nor I can prove whether it will “retard prosperity”–it takes a crystal ball–we’ll just have to disagree. Of course, you completely ignore all of the positive points of the ACA as though they don’t exist.

        I think we must invest in alternative energy. Your attitude is akin to saying we shouldn’t do cancer research because some of those lines of research and experimentation will fail. It’s called research, Spook. If the answers were already known, we wouldn’t need to do research.

        I don’t see now raising the highest marginal tax on the richest Americans is “punishing” them. We had tremendous growth during the Clinton years. They weren’t punished then.

        Gay rights may not have a direct correlation to prosperity, but it certainly has a direction correlation to what you call liberty. It’s morally and ethical wrong for us as a nation to treat a segment of our fellow Americans as second class citizens. I realize this may have no direct affect on you–I assume you aren’t gay–but it is simply wrong and needs to be corrected.

        Despite your attempt to diminish it, a better immigration policy is absolutely related to prosperity. I already gave you at least one good reason why.

        We could go around and around, Spook. You didn’t like my answer the first time and complained that no one was willing to answer your question. You didn’t like my answers the second time because you either don’t agree with them or feel that they failed to adequately address “liberty” and “prosperity.” So I bow to your superiority.

      • tiredoflibbs November 19, 2012 / 7:13 pm

        Watty refuses to consider previous FACTS: “I don’t believe the Affordable Care Act will do nothing but “retard prosperity.” Sorry, I just don’t agree. Since neither you nor I can prove whether it will “retard prosperity”–it takes a crystal ball–…”

        We don’t need a crystal ball. Previous presented facts have been shown that businesses are scaling back hours and employees to make them inelligible under obamaCare. Papa Johns and Applebee’s just to name two. Others are raising prices as well.

        So cutting people’s hours, salaries and raising prices will not retard prosperity and growth? You can’t see this happening?

        It has been proved. In typical fashion you chose to ignore facts that don’t support the narrative defined by this administration. Health care was to become less expensive -WRONG! obamaCare was to lower the deficit – WRONG! obamaCare was to lower premiums – WRONG!

        You have been proven wrong time and again. You fail to consider FACTS already presented and then try to state that no one can predict the future of “prosperity” when the signs are already there.

        Pathetic.

      • Retired Spook November 19, 2012 / 8:42 pm

        Despite your attempt to diminish it, a better immigration policy is absolutely related to prosperity. I already gave you at least one good reason why.

        Watson, what part of this answer wasn’t clear to you:

        Although it doesn’t relate to freedom and only in the remotest way to prosperity, you get a full point for this one because it’s just a good idea. Although I have seen no indication that such a policy is even on Obama’s radar. Still, I hope you’re right.

    • mitchethekid November 18, 2012 / 11:35 pm

      To put you and your anger and your hate out of business. A positive effect on liberty and prosperity? Are you serious? How about the effect the Patriot Act had on liberty. How about deregulation of the financial markets brought about during a Republican administration. How about 2 unfunded wars. You people are hopeless. On one hand I’d like to think that if we actually met in person we just might find some things in common and could laugh and joke with one another. On the other, since you are such asswipes (and I dare Mr. Moderator for banning me for using that word since it’s been bandied about so much today) I think we might get into a fist fight. But since I won’t become physical with folks older than me, I’d refrain. I will give you the benefit of the doubt about free stuff since you seem to be channeling Mr. Romney as he whined and complained and tried to rationalize his horrendous loss by insulting those he claimed to wanted to govern and represent. You’re beyond redemption. Free cell phones? Do you actually think about what you are thinking before you type? Or is this a feeble attempt at sarcasm? Since you hate Americans why don’t you just move away. Form a little coterie of like minded anti-Americans on an island somewhere. Say in Mississippi or Georgia or in the Keys. No wait. The keys are full of rich liberals. As is the rest of the country. Face it Retired Spook. The past is past and the future is now and no amount of your pontificating about how right you are and how stupid everyone else is going to change that reality. But keep on railing against it. It sure seems to be paying off for you.On this teeny tiny blog. Just like something else is probably teeny tiny. And unused.

      • Cluster November 19, 2012 / 9:27 am

        My dear Mitch,

        Re: your response to me – Romney was unable to overcome the 5th grade campaign of Obama’s simply because there are more 5th graders occupying this country than rational adults. A realization that shocked many of us conservatives, and you are living proof of that. Spook has asked you to detail how Obama’s policies expand liberties and prosperity and you responded in a 5th grade manner, by citing, for the most part, restrictions of liberty and prosperity, as Spook so deftly pointed out to you. So it is painfully obvious that your worldview is one of restricted personal liberties in favor of government securities, and prosperity that comes with a price. Again, a stunted intellectual worldview.

        Have a nice day.

      • tiredoflibbs November 19, 2012 / 9:29 am

        Wow, bitchie, you threw whole the gambit of dumbed down talking points to Spook.

        You never answered his question. You just dodged it by trying to turn it against Bush and Romney. You have learned well good student of the obAMATEUR. I understand the you cannot answer since it is far above your ability to comprehend. Your flounder is truly amusing and sad all at the same time.

        I can see why YOU need the cradle to grave care by the nanny state.

        Pathetic.

      • Amazona November 19, 2012 / 9:43 am

        I see mitche is still off his meds, which really doesn’t matter because even if they took the edge off his insanity he would still be a vile and nasty little piece of work.

        All this vitriol and spite, and not a word about anything but his immense store of irrational hatred for an imagined Other. Classic mitche.

        Evidently today his sense of vast superiority comes from his pride in having been on the planet less time than some others. Yeah, he considers this an accomplishment! I guess as a source of overweening smugness it is no crazier than thinking he is a son of Zeus.

        But the theme here is “crazy”. Oh, there is a huge element of downright nastiness mixed in, a pathological level of seething hatred that he seems driven to exhibit, but that is just part of the overall mental illness profile.

      • Cluster November 19, 2012 / 9:45 am

        How about deregulation of the financial markets brought about during a Republican administration. – Mitch

        Oh this is a great little unintelligent nugget. Mitch, Bush did not enact one piece of deregulation of the financial markets. NOT ONE!!! The last deregulation of the financial industry was in 1999, signed by Bill Clinton.

        Now maybe you know why I have such contempt for you and liberals like you. You’re ill informed on most every issue, and worse yet, don’t have the gray matter to critically think through these issues, preferring instead to regurgitate the bile your fed.

      • Retired Spook November 19, 2012 / 11:03 am

        A positive effect on liberty and prosperity? Are you serious? How about the effect the Patriot Act had on liberty. How about deregulation of the financial markets brought about during a Republican administration. How about 2 unfunded wars. You people are hopeless.

        Whoa, Mitch! Dial back the caffeine, man. In 2001, the Patriot Act passed the House 357 – 66 and the Senate 98 – 1. I had hoped, when I asked the question, that one of you Lefties would cite the Patriot Act as something Obama should strive to repeal largely because of it infringements on liberty, but Obama viewed it as so inconsequential that he signed a 4 year extension of it in 2011 while in France using an auto pen.

        As Cluster previously pointed out, the last financial market deregulation legislation were two bills passed toward the end of the Clinton administration, not during a Republican administration. Good people can argue about the rationale for the “2 unfunded wars”, as well as the effectiveness with which they were prosecuted, but they were supported by a bipartisan majority of Congress as necessary to the interests of the U.S.

        So, rather than throw a bunch of straw man crap at the wall, how about just answering the question? Surely there’s something you’d like to see Obama do during a second term that will get our economy roaring back to life and enhance your individual liberty. I never imagined it was that tough a question, but it appears liberty and prosperity are simply not part of Progressives’ lexicon. Sucks to be you.

      • neocon01 November 19, 2012 / 11:05 am

        watstooge = WAH WAH WAHstooge

        I’m gone for the afternoon and when I return, I see that Cluster has called me “an insufferable idiot,” referred to my “bigoted little mind,” described me as “insufferable little twit, “a little pissant,” and a “piece of scum” (all in one comment!), described President **Obama as an “asswipe,**” complained that “this county will never make any substantial progress as long as people like Watson continue to breed,” and said that my entire family is inbred.

        Amazing the insight Cluster has………..refute it if it is not true, sounds pretty spot on to me, except for what he said about the POS muslim.

      • neocon01 November 19, 2012 / 11:08 am

        you do have to remember ole bmitch is from the land of fruits n nuts.

      • neocon01 November 19, 2012 / 11:11 am

        an interesting article

        Post Mortem by Laura Hollis
        11/8/2012

        I am already reading so many pundits and other talking heads analyzing the disaster that was this year’s elections. I am adding my own ten cents. Here goes:
        1. We are outnumbered
        We accurately foresaw the enthusiasm, the passion, the commitment, the determination, and the turnout. Married women, men, independents, Catholics, evangelicals – they all went for Romney in percentages as high or higher than the groups which voted for McCain in 2008. It wasn’t enough. What we saw in the election on Tuesday was a tipping point: we are now at a place where there are legitimately fewer Americans who desire a free republic with a free people than there are those who think the government should give them stuff. There are fewer of us who believe in the value of free exchange and free enterprise. There are fewer of us who do not wish to demonize successful people in order to justify taking from them. We are outnumbered. For the moment. It’s just that simple.
        2. It wasn’t the candidate(s)
        Some are already saying, “ Romney was the wrong guy”; “He should have picked Marco Rubio to get Florida/Rob Portman to get Ohio/Chris Christie to get [someplace else].” With all due respect, these assessments are incorrect. Romney ran a strategic and well-organized campaign. Yes, he could have hit harder on Benghazi . But for those who would have loved that, there are those who would have found it distasteful. No matter what tactic you could point to that Romney could have done better, it would have been spun in a way that was detrimental to his chances. Romney would have been an excellent president, and Ryan was an inspired choice. No matter who we ran this year, they would have lost. See #1, above.
        3. It’s the culture, stupid.
        We have been trying to fight this battle every four years at the voting booth. It is long past time we admit that that is not where the battle really is. We abdicated control of the culture – starting back in the 1960s. And now our largest primary social institutions – education, the media, Hollywood (entertainment) have become really nothing more than an assembly line for cranking out reliable little Leftists. Furthermore, we have allowed the government to undermine the institutions that instill good character – marriage, the family, communities, schools, our churches. So, here we are, at least two full generations later – we are reaping what we have sown. It took nearly fifty years to get here; it will take another fifty years to get back. But it starts with the determination to reclaim education, the media, and the entertainment business. If we fail to do that, we can kiss every election goodbye from here on out. And much more.
        4. America has become a nation of adolescents
        The real loser in this election was adulthood: Maturity. Responsibility. The understanding that liberty must be accompanied by self-restraint. Obama is a spoiled child, and the behavior and language of his followers and their advertisements throughout the campaign makes it clear how many of them are, as well. Romney is a grown-up. Romney should have won. Those of us who expected him to win assumed that voters would act like grownups. Because if we were a nation of grownups, he would have won.
        But what did win? Sex. Drugs. Bad language. Bad manners. Vulgarity. Lies. Cheating. Name-calling. Finger-pointing. Blaming. And irresponsible spending.
        This does not bode well. People grow up one of two ways: either they choose to, or circumstances force them to. The warnings are all there, whether it is the looming economic disaster, or the inability of the government to respond to crises like Hurricane Sandy, or the growing strength and brazenness of our enemies. American voters stick their fingers in their ears and say, “Lalalalalala, I can’t hear you.”
        It is unpleasant to think about the circumstances it will take to force Americans to grow up. It is even more unpleasant to think about Obama at the helm when those circumstances arrive.
        5. Yes, there is apparently a Vagina Vote
        It’s the subject matter of another column in its entirety to point out, one by one, all of the inconsistencies and hypocrisies of the Democrats this year. Suffice it to say that the only “war on women” was the one waged by the Obama campaign, which sexualized and objectified women, featuring them dressed up like vulvas at the Democrat National Convention, appealing to their “lady parts,” comparing voting to losing your virginity with Obama, trumpeting the thrills of destroying our children in the womb (and using our daughters in commercials to do so), and making Catholics pay for their birth control. For a significant number of women, this was appealing. It might call into question the wisdom of the Nineteenth Amendment, but for the fact that large numbers of women (largely married) used their “lady smarts” instead. Either way, Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton are rolling over in their graves.
        6. It’s not about giving up on “social issues”
        No Republican candidate should participate in a debate or go out on the stump without thorough debate prep and a complete set of talking points that they stick to. This should start with a good grounding in biology and a reluctance to purport to know the will of God. (Thank you, Todd and Richard .)

        That said, we do not hold the values we do because they garner votes. We hold the values we do because we believe that they are time-tested principles without which a civilized, free and prosperous society is not possible. We defend the unborn because we understand that a society which views some lives as expendable is capable of viewing all lives as expendable. We defend family – mothers, fathers, marriage, children – because history makes it quite clear that societies without intact families quickly descend into anarchy and barbarism, and we have plenty of proof of that in our inner cities where marriage is infrequent and unwed motherhood approaches 80%. When Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, many thought that the abortion cause was lost. 40 years later, ultrasound technology has demonstrated the inevitable connection between science and morality. More Americans than ever define themselves as “pro-life.” What is tragic is that tens of millions of children have lost their lives while Americans figure out what should have been obvious before.
        There is no “giving up” on social issues. There is only the realization that we have to fight the battle on other fronts. The truth will come out in the end.
        7. Obama does not have a mandate. And he does not need one.
        I have to laugh – bitterly – when I read conservative pundits trying to assure us that Obama “has to know” that he does not have a mandate, and so he will have to govern from the middle. I don’t know what they’re smoking. Obama does not care that he does not have a mandate. He does not view himself as being elected (much less re-elected) to represent individuals. He views himself as having been re-elected to complete the “fundamental transformation” of America , the basic structure of which he despises. Expect much more of the same – largely the complete disregard of the will of half the American public, his willingness to rule by executive order, and the utter inability of another divided Congress to rein him in. Stanley Kurtz has it all laid out here.
        8. The Corrupt Media is the enemy
        Too strong? I don’t think so. I have been watching the media try to throw elections since at least the early 1990s. In 2008 and again this year, we saw the media cravenly cover up for the incompetence and deceit of this President, while demonizing a good, honorable and decent man with lies and smears. This is on top of the daily barrage of insults that conservatives (and by that I mean the electorate, not the politicians) must endure at the hands of this arrogant bunch of elitist snobs. Bias is one thing. What we observed with Benghazi was professional malpractice and fraud. They need to go. Republicans, Libertarians and other conservatives need to be prepared to play hardball with the Pravda press from here on out. And while we are at it, to defend those journalists of whatever political stripe (Jake Tapper, Sharyl Atkisson, Eli Lake) who actually do their jobs. As well as FoxNews and talk radio. Because you can fully expect a re-elected Obama to try to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine in term 2.
        9. Small business and entrepreneurs will be hurt the worst
        For all the blather about “Wall Street versus Main Street,” Obama’s statist agenda will unquestionably benefit the biggest corporations which – as with the public sector unions – are in the best position to make campaign donations, hire lobbyists, and get special exemptions carved out from Obama’s health care laws, his environmental regulations, his labor laws. It will be the small business, the entrepreneur, and the first-time innovators who will be crushed by their inability to compete on a level playing field.
        10. America is more polarized than ever; and this time it’s personal
        I’ve been following politics for a long time, and it feels different this time. Not just for me. I’ve received messages from other conservatives who are saying the same thing: there is little to no tolerance left out there for those who are bringing this country to its knees – even when they have been our friends. It isn’t just about “my guy” versus “your guy.” It is my view of America versus your view of America – a crippled, hemorrhaging, debt-laden, weakened and dependent America that I want no part of and resent being foisted on me. I no longer have any patience for stupidity, blindness, or vulgarity, so with each dumb “tweet” or FB post by one of my happily lefty comrades, another one bites the dust, for me. Delete.
        What does this portend for a divided Congress? I expect that Republicans will be demoralized and chastened for a short time. But I see them in a bad position. Americans in general want Congress to work together. But many do not want Obama’s policies, and so Republicans who support them will be toast. Good luck, guys.
        11. It’s possible that America just has to hit rock bottom
        I truly believe that most Americans who voted for Obama have no idea what they are in for. Most simply believe him when he says that all he really wants is for the rich to pay “a little bit more.” So reasonable! Who could argue with that except a greedy racist?
        America is on a horrific bender. Has been for some time now. The warning signs of our fiscal profligacy and culture of lack of personal responsibility are everywhere – too many to mention. We need only look at other countries which have gone the route we are walking now to see what is in store.
        For the past four years – but certainly within the past campaign season – we have tried to warn Americans. Too many refuse to listen, even when all of the events that have transpired during Obama’s presidency – unemployment, economic stagnation, skyrocketing prices, the depression of the dollar, the collapse of foreign policy, Benghazi, hopelessly inept responses to natural disasters – can be tied directly to Obama’s statist philosophies, and his decisions.
        What that means, I fear, is that they will not see what is coming until the whole thing collapses. That is what makes me so sad today. I see the country I love headed toward its own “rock bottom,” and I cannot seem to reach those who are taking it there.
        Laura Hollis
        Laura Hollis teaches entrepreneurship and business law. She resides in Indiana with her husband and two children.

        http://townhall.com/columnists/laurahollis/2012/11/08/postmortem

      • dbschmidt November 19, 2012 / 10:34 pm

        I realize that when Bush invoked the Patriot act is was a vile, evil intrusion on the American public and even I disagreed with parts as there are no safeguards with government of any stripe but your semi-question “How about the effect the Patriot Act had on liberty.” has me even more confused because Obama not only carried over all of the previous but enhanced it in particular to spying on other Americans. Is that “freedom” or “prosperity”?

    • ricorun November 19, 2012 / 4:40 pm

      Spook (quoting Watson): I think he will continue to invest in alternative energies instead of ceding those technologies to other nations

      Doubling down on something that’s been a miserable failure, not to mention a scandal of epic proportions? I hope you’re not serious.

      Well, even if Watson isn’t serious, I am. There is simply no way to characterize investments in alternative energies as “miserable failures”, nor is there evidence of scandals “of epic proportions”. Have some companies that have received stimulus funds gone belly up? Yes. A number of them were, at least partially, victims of Chinese product dumping, a situation which wasn’t righted quickly enough (although it now has been). Will the US government be left holding the bag for its entire investment? The short answer is no. The gov’t will take a hit, but it will only be a percentage of the investment, not the entire amount. I mean come on, it’s not like all the assets of a failed company simply vanish into thin air. You know better than that.

      Moreover, it’s not like all the investments made came with some kind of guarantee of success. To expect them all to succeed is ludicrous. In fact, the expectation going in was that many would eventually fail. There’s nothing miserable or scandalous about that thinking. Is it possible that scandals will surface? Of course. Is Solyndra a scandal? In some ways, yes. Granted, they were certainly hurt by China’s unfair trade practices, but they were hurt even more by the drop in purified silicon prices which pre-dated the product dumping issue. And there was nothing untoward about that (although the magnitude of the turn-around surprised even me — and I thought I was paying close attention). Solyndra used CGIS technology, which doesn’t employ silicon. CGIS is a geeky cool technology, but when silicon prices dropped (and their materials didn’t) they were already at a distinct disadvantage as a mainstream alternative. And while they had already received a considerable amount of loan guarantees prior to that (which is to say, during the Bush administration), the most recent one awarded to them was the largest and, given the conditions that had developed, very hard to justify. If it were up to me, I wouldn’t have given them the money, that’s for sure.

      But that said, the DOE’s loan guarantee program has distributed about $38B to companies since it was initially set up in 2005. Most of the loans are designed to be low risk (e.g., companies were awarded the guarantee only after they had lined up reliable purchasers ahead of time). A small portion was allocated for high risk investments. Solyndra was one of those, and as ill-fated as it turned out to be, it represents only 1.3% of the total portfolio. So even if it turns out to be scandalous, I would hardly call it epic. And certainly it is no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

      • watsonthethird November 19, 2012 / 5:21 pm

        Ricorun, I’m not sure Spook understands the nature of research, and the fact that some lines of research will fail. If the answers were already known, then it wouldn’t be research. Spook probably doesn’t think we should do cancer research, either.

      • neocon01 November 19, 2012 / 5:23 pm

        reek-0

        I would hardly call it epic. And certainly it is no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

        that is YOUR opinion and you know what opinions are like…….A holes, every one has one and they all stink.

      • ricorun November 19, 2012 / 5:40 pm

        Neocon: reek-0

        I would hardly call it epic. And certainly it is no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

        that is YOUR opinion and you know what opinions are like…….A holes, every one has one and they all stink.

        I thank you for your inciteful [sic] contribution, dude. You are a true paragon of… um… well, let’s just leave it at that. Lol!

      • Retired Spook November 19, 2012 / 8:17 pm

        Spook probably doesn’t think we should do cancer research, either.

        My mother died of cancer 5 months ago, you (expletive deleted) creep. GO TO HELL!

      • dbschmidt November 19, 2012 / 9:27 pm

        Everyone here understands the nature of research but that is not the issue. Two points on the “Green” failure can be made and not refuted. Many of the companies, like Solyndra, had two things in common: 1) Several recommendations against investing in a failing model from within the Energy department (among many others), and 2) big Obama bundlers. I am sure you can figure it out–after all, I am sure you think GM has been saved and is the #1 car company in the world (do not mention Delphi or many others) these days.

        The other point is where in the Constitution (or is it just some old document as Obama commonly treats it) does it give the Federal government to interfere and/or offer OPM (the have none of their own) to any business or venture?

      • ricorun November 20, 2012 / 12:05 am

        Watson: Ricorun, I’m not sure Spook understands the nature of research, and the fact that some lines of research will fail.

        More to the point, I’m not sure Spook understands the nature of venture capital. But that’s not fair either. More specifically, I don’t think Spook understands the nature of federal government involvement in venture capital enterprises. And really, I can’t blame him for that either. It very much has to do with one’s perceptions of accepable time horizons for the various parties involved. And to be honest, even as a general principle, that’s hard to explain. Worse, the principle is rightfully applied only to specific circumstances.

        With those caveats in mind, as I see it, one important role of government is to extend the time horizons sufficiently as to make them palatable for other kinds of investments — and to do so ONLY in situations of significant national interest. In the case of energy, I very much think those qualifications pertain.

        Despite what has been claimed by various people on this site, I’m an inveterate capitalist. I am not against free market principles. In a very real sense, I depend on them. Thus, I want to ensure that “creative destruction” remains a viable force in the economy. It thus stands to reason that I am AGAINST the assumption that the free market can always deal with the externalities it generates in any sort of efficient fashion. It cannot. It thus further follows that government HAS to get involved. It’s not a question of ideological purity or impurity, it’s a pragmatic necessity, pure and simple.

      • ricorun November 20, 2012 / 12:21 am

        Spook: My mother died of cancer 5 months ago

        My sincerest condolences for your loss.

      • 02casper November 20, 2012 / 12:26 am

        “Spook: My mother died of cancer 5 months ago”

        I would also like to express my sincerest condolences for your loss. My wife is currently fighting cancer and I know how it affects caregivers.

      • ricorun November 20, 2012 / 12:43 am

        Oh casper, I am so terribly sorry to hear that. I wish you and yours well.

      • M. Noonan November 20, 2012 / 12:52 am

        Casper,

        I’m sorry to hear that – God bless you and yours during this time.

      • Retired Spook November 20, 2012 / 1:03 am

        Casper,

        We ride you pretty hard here, but cancer is a nasty equalizer, and my heart goes out to anyone who is touched by it, either personally or through a loved one.

      • watsonthethird November 20, 2012 / 2:51 am

        Spook said, “My mother died of cancer 5 months ago, you (expletive deleted) creep. GO TO HELL!”

        My condolences, Spook. I have also lost a family member to cancer and have two survivors in my family. And my best to you, Casper.

      • thetruthshallsetyoufree2012 November 20, 2012 / 11:44 am

        “My condolences, Spook. I have also lost a family member to cancer and have two survivors in my family. And my best to you, Casper.”

        Ditto. Having a loved one waste away due to cancer is a brutal, horrible thing. My heart goes out to anybody who has suffered through it.

  21. J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) November 19, 2012 / 1:54 pm

    Since none of the liberals who have commented on this thread seem to have a clue as to what Obama might do in a second term that would have a positive effect on either freedom or prosperity, I’d like to help them out. I predict that Obama will offer an ever-increasing number of people freedom from work.

    • neocon01 November 19, 2012 / 1:58 pm

      WoW Bmitch

      “Just like something else is probably teeny tiny. And unused”.

      I thought you were from bezerkley……now I know it has to be San Francisco………

      • neocon01 November 19, 2012 / 2:02 pm

        Losing the Battle to Spin the War
        By Boyd Richard Boyd

        Shifting demographics. Low turnout. ORCA croaking. Moderate Mitt. Sandy/Christie/Obama celebrity three-way. Voter fraud. Many thoughtful minds have offered analysis as to why, after suffering through four years of Obama’s militant collectivism and prolific statism (AKA class warfare and social justice), a “center-right” nation would vote for the radical leftist again. But let’s face it, Republicans lost the “center” because the Republicans didn’t really have the center. The media-entertainment-education-Democrat axis control the mainstream narrative, which means the 30-40% who are in the center (between conservative and liberal identification) generally will believe whatever Bill Maher, CNN or Politico says

        Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/11/losing_the_battle_to_spin_the_war.html#ixzz2Ch17uD00

  22. GMB November 19, 2012 / 2:00 pm

    “What that means, I fear, is that they will not see what is coming until the whole thing collapses. That is what makes me so sad today. I see the country I love headed toward its own “rock bottom,”

    It is the nature of governments, and especially governments that have the unchecked ability to tax it’s own citizens, to perpetuate themselves. The government will graft and bribe portions of the citizenry to ensure it’s own survival. The individual must either adhere to the state or be labeled an enemy of the state.

    I see very little will to stop the growth of government except on meaningless blog posts.

    • neocon01 November 19, 2012 / 3:24 pm

      Based on current advertising, below is a list of companies that avoid, ban, or use the term “Christmas” in their advertising. We will continually update the list, so check back often.

      Criteria – AFA reviewed up to four areas to determine if a company was “Christmas-friendly” in their advertising: print media (newspaper inserts), broadcast media (radio/television), website and/or personal visits to the store. If a company’s ad has references to items associated with Christmas (trees, wreaths, lights, etc.), it was considered as an attempt to reach “Christmas” shoppers.

      http://action.afa.net/item.aspx?id=2147486887

    • watsonthethird November 19, 2012 / 5:39 pm

      Amazona said, “Cluster, you have to remember that watson has appointed himself the arbiter of nice, kind of a Mrs. Kravitz of the blog. watson is a delicate blossom of sensitivity, alert to any violation of Watson Rules of ‘civility’.”

      No, that’s not the case. You, Amazona–more than any other poster here–have complained at length and for years that so-called liberals cannot hold a discussion without resorting to name-calling, ad hominem attacks, and other childish and classless behavior you claim to despise. That’s fine. But stop castigating me when I point out when your conservative buddies do the very thing you whine about ad nauseum. I would be nice to have some consistency from you, but apparently that won’t be the case.

      This entire thread speaks for itself. Anyone with an objective mind can see who resorted to name calling and childish and classless behavior. It wasn’t me. Why don’t you call out the poor behavior of your pals–which you claim to despise from others–instead of trying to tell other commenters that they aren’t welcome here, or complaining that others don’t answer your questions in a manner that suits you? (It’s a rhetorical question; we already know the answer.)

      • 02casper November 19, 2012 / 7:49 pm

        Watson,
        Nice thread.

      • dbschmidt November 19, 2012 / 10:36 pm

        Ah, Casper. About time. I see the last of the mutton’s have shown up.

      • ricorun November 20, 2012 / 1:16 am

        Just so you know, Ama, I stand ready to help you with whatever vocabulary challenges you perceive in Watson’s post. I even know basic Latin!

        Seriously though, Watson is right: “This entire thread speaks for itself. Anyone with an objective mind can see who resorted to name calling and childish and classless behavior.” And that, I think, is kind of important: If you want to be taken seriously by anyone other than those in the standard echo chamber, let your ideas, rather than your vitriole, reign supreme.

        But that is, of course, a big IF.

      • ricorun November 20, 2012 / 1:20 am

        dbschmidt: Ah, Casper. About time. I see the last of the mutton’s have shown up.

        Very classy.

Comments are closed.