President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[RedWingFan]

What is your problem with regards to the days news? If I paraphrase it I'm part of the perpetuality, If I'd have C&P'd it you'd lambaste me for that. What the hell! This thread is about the Term of The Won and I'm sticking to subject while sticking this coming November up a few libs here's asses. You're trying to kill the messenger (me), when that news came from (I believe} CBS Radio, any frothing for them or just for me for bringing it here? It weren't my news dude, I just shared it.

And BTW, it is an Us v Them mentality, I didn't start it but I'll damn sure pick my side and defend it no matter what anyone says or thinks. Do you feel like a BMOC when you pick sides for the NFL games and are right? Politics is the one thing I like better than football for my recreation and I follow it closly.

No remorse from me for sharing a news article, if the libs had one you know damn good and well their welcome to post it and I'd never lambaste them for posting it, never have. I'll debate it or shut up, or worst case question the source. I've never understood this net mentality of attacking someone just because they may have shared bad news you didn't like. I fucking read news every damned day that I don't like but I don't spend one ounce of energy writing to the AP or USA Today telling them they are part of the problem. This may be some people heres only chance to have heard that news since I know that most people don't follow like some of us do. I think that can be a good thing.

The problem is that you have no thoughts that you express that are your own. They are all copy/paste from somebody else. You contribute NOTHING but what others says...

Go find yourself some other issue to rant about...because this one makes you look like a complete idiot.

And your "rebuttal" is that you want FF to personally calculate the cost of bullets, military personal, fuel and all other expenses? You're the fool that continues to defend this presidents failed policies and the only argument you have is crying because FF is either using sources or stating facts as he knows them. The fact is president Obama has and your democrats have spent to make Bush and the republicans look like pikers. At least Bush proponents will be able to point to the fact that their piddly (in comparison) spending has resulted in a Hussein-less Iraq. If we keep our Hussein much longer Iraq may soon have a stronger economy than we do.

[The_Noble_Cause]

And your "rebuttal" is that you want FF to personally calculate the cost of bullets, military personal, fuel and all other expenses? You're the fool that continues to defend this presidents failed policies and the only argument you have is crying because FF is either using sources or stating facts as he knows them. The fact is president Obama has and your democrats have spent to make Bush and the republicans look like pikers. At least Bush proponents will be able to point to the fact that their piddly (in comparison) spending has resulted in a Hussein-less Iraq. If we keep our Hussein much longer Iraq may soon have a stronger economy than we do.

Posts like this, and GOP talking points just like it, show a real contempt for the American public. You talk about O's spending as if the economic meltdown didn't happen. Don't talk to me about debt without first addressing shrunken tax receipts, emergency-spending measures, and automatic stabilizers. I pray and hope daily that the GOP wins both houses of congress in November. If you think there's a magic supply-side bullet for turning this economy around, you got another thing coming. With GOP policies discredited once more on the altar of bad ideas, "don't-blame-Bush" hypocrites like yourself will be the first to turn around and blame Obama. The GOP has fearmongered and demagogued the non-issue of debt to almost mushroom-cloud WMD-type proportions. Their proposed cost-cutting policy prescriptions are an economic death sentence. Y'know, Nigeria and Kazakhstan both feature historically low debt-to-GDP ratios. They are also both third world shitholes.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

Y'know, Nigeria and Kazakhstan both feature historically low debt-to-GDP ratios. They are also both third world shitholes.

In countries like the US its not the high debt to GDP ration itself which is the problem per se - What is the problem is what that hight debt to GDP level crowds out. The Govt spends it needs to finance its spending on the capital markets. That makes less capital less available to those private actors in the economy (those who incidentally possess the knowledge of how and where to best invest for return) and inhibits growth. Furhermore in addition to having to finance it on the capital markets, it needs to be paid for with taxation - which again takes capacity from private economic agents. So in a complex economy debt to GDP ratio does matter, and those who are making an issue of it are right on.

In Nigeria and Kazahstan, there is little private investment or capital investment for Govt spending to or lack of govt spending to crowd out. Thats why they are shitholes - not because of a lack of government spending.

[The_Noble_Cause]

So what about a Country like say.....Canada? They seem to be doing alright without all this debt.

Canada has the lowest ratio of net debt to gross domestic product among the Group of Seven industrialized countries and will keep that distinction until at least 2014, the country’s finance department said in March. Canada’s ratio, 24 percent in 2007, will rise to about 30 percent by 2014. The U.S. ratio, now above 40 percent, will top 80 percent in four years, the department said, citing IMF data.

Their banks were more tightly regulated, and (smartly) did not get involved in the subprime game and resulting insolvency. What would their debt ratio be if they had to prop up their financial sector?

[The_Noble_Cause]

In countries like the US its not the high debt to GDP ration itself which is the problem per se - What is the problem is what that hight debt to GDP level crowds out. The Govt spends it needs to finance its spending on the capital markets. That makes less capital less available to thoe private actors in the economy (those who incidentally possess the knowlege of how and where to best invest for return) and inhibits growth. Furhermore in addition to having to finance it on the capital markets, it needs to be paid for with taxation - which again takes capacity from private economic agents. So in a complex economy debt to GDP ratio does matter, and those who are making an issue of it are right on.

Private investment is only deterred if public spending leads to a rise in interest rates. That is clearly not happening. Maybe in a full employment economy, like, say, the late 90s, this would be a concern.

[conversationpc]

Beltway establishment types also blew a gasket when Colbert hosted the White House press corps dinner. His take-no-prisoners style was condemned as "direspectful" and being "beneath the dignity of the nation's capitol" blah..blah..blah. The more types like him who skewer Congress through humor, the better. And NO, Glenn Beck is not remotely comparable. Colbert is actually funny and not a radio dj/revissionist history teacher/televengelist/aspiring end-of-times cult leader.

I have no problem with Colbert hosting the White House press corps dinner. That's an appropriate venue for him, in my opinion.

And by the way, Colbert USED to be funny. I enjoyed him for a while but his schtick has gotten old lately. As for Beck being a revisionist history teacher, I guess that depends on if you want to forget, like a lot of lefties, a lot of the history that hasn't been taught in this country for decades now.

[conversationpc]

Posts like this, and GOP talking points just like it, show a real contempt for the American public. You talk about O's spending as if the economic meltdown didn't happen. Don't talk to me about debt without first addressing shrunken tax receipts, emergency-spending measures, and automatic stabilizers. I pray and hope daily that the GOP wins both houses of congress in November. If you think there's a magic supply-side bullet for turning this economy around, you got another thing coming. With GOP policies discredited once more on the altar of bad ideas, "don't-blame-Bush" hypocrites like yourself will be the first to turn around and blame Obama. The GOP has fearmongered and demagogued the non-issue of debt to almost mushroom-cloud WMD-type proportions. Their proposed cost-cutting policy prescriptions are an economic death sentence. Y'know, Nigeria and Kazakhstan both feature historically low debt-to-GDP ratios. They are also both third world shitholes.

Neither the GOP or the Democratic party have ANY ideas that are going to turn the economy around. We need drastic spending cuts and drastic cuts to the size of government to even come remotely close to turning the economy around. Even that probably isn't going to be enough to keep us from far more serious problems than anything we've experienced in the last two years. Obama and the Dems don't have it in them. Neither do the Republicans, who merely want to regain power so they can merely continue spending like they did during the Bush years.

[The_Noble_Cause]

And by the way, Colbert USED to be funny. I enjoyed him for a while but his schtick has gotten old lately. As for Beck being a revisionist history teacher, I guess that depends on if you want to forget, like a lot of lefties, a lot of the history that hasn't been taught in this country for decades now.

Get real. Beck, by his own admission, wasn't even following world events until 9-11. Now he is a self-educated expert on everything from the founding fathers to global warming. The holes in his cocaine-addled brain are many and obvious. One of his primary sources is Cleon Skousen, a known fundamentalist mormon crank and right wing conspiracy theorist who was pro-slavery. Not suprisingly, Beck has now gone on to talk about the bat creek stone on his TV program - also a fixture in Mormon doctrine. Imo he has crossed the line from political infotainment to religious broadcaster. I saw this coming years ago when Beck first starting asking whether Obama was Satan. You said it was all in good fun. Considering that Beck now routinely conflates Obama with Marxism and Marxism with Satan, its pretty obvious he is one sick pup and suffering from schizo-delusions of messianic grandeur. Ailes and Murdoch truly have no shame.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Neither the GOP or the Democratic party have ANY ideas that are going to turn the economy around. We need drastic spending cuts and drastic cuts to the size of government to even come remotely close to turning the economy around. Even that probably isn't going to be enough to keep us from far more serious problems than anything we've experienced in the last two years. Obama and the Dems don't have it in them. Neither do the Republicans, who merely want to regain power so they can merely continue spending like they did during the Bush years.

I don't think cuts would do much for the economy (all the good jobs have been offshored!), but I agree with much of what you're saying.

[conversationpc]

The holes in his cocaine-addled brain are many and obvious. One of his primary sources is Cleon Skousen, a known fundamentalist mormon crank and right wing conspiracy theorist who was pro-slavery. Not suprisingly, Beck has now gone on to talk about the bat creek stone on his TV program - also a fixture in Mormon doctrine. Imo he has crossed the line from political infotainment to religious broadcaster. I saw this coming years ago when Beck first starting asking whether Obama was Satan. You said it was all in good fun. Considering that Beck now routinely conflates Obama with Marxism and Marxism with Satan, its pretty obvious he is one sick pup and suffering from schizo-delusions of messianic grandeur. Ailes and Murdoch truly have no shame.

Well, it's not a secret that Beck is a fan of Skousen's book "The 5000 Year Leap" and I've heard him mention it a number of times. I've never read it but have heard good things about it.

As for the bat creek stone, I could really not care less. I don't agree with some of Beck's religious views and don't pretend to know a lot about them anyway.

Anyway, regardless of how I feel about his religious views, it's funny that you slam him for those but I don't recall you having much of a problem with Obama's, which are far more insidious, in my opinion.

As for shame, that certainly isn't anything you ought to be commenting on considering the numerous shameful comments you've made here over the years.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Well, it's not a secret that Beck is a fan of Skousen's book "The 5000 Year Leap" and I've heard him mention it a number of times. I've never read it but have heard good things about it.
As for the bat creek stone, I could really not care less. I don't agree with some of Beck's religious views and don't pretend to know a lot about them anyway.

Why is a cable news channel in the business of religious advocacy? Why does Rupert Murdoch employ a man who tells his followers that the lord speaks through him and that they should get down and pray? The line between entertainment and news had all but been erased before Beck. Now it's truly buried with Cronkite. Luckily a few level-headed conservatives like David Frum are not above calling this fat faced sociopath out.

Anyway, regardless of how I feel about his religious views, it's funny that you slam him for those but I don't recall you having much of a problem with Obama's, which are far more insidious, in my opinion.

Obama has never ordered America to get down and pray or preached liberation theology during a rose garden press conference. What are you talking about? His religion is his business. And aside from the occasional "god bless america", he keeps it that way - as it should be.

As for shame, that certainly isn't anything you ought to be commenting on considering the numerous shameful comments you've made here over the years.

I'm on the top rated news channel now am I? If Andrew doesn't like what I say he can certainly ban me (and has done so). If only Ailes and Murdoch showed a similar regard for basic truth and decency.

[S2M]

Why would this possibly worry the Dems?

House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) warned Republicans will investigate President Obama's birthplace if they take over Congress.

Clyburn, the third-ranking Democrat in the House, said Republicans will grind the government to a halt by issuing subpoenas against the Obama administration over a number of issues if they take power. He predicted that "gridlock" in Congress would "define" Obama's first term if Republicans win the House, but expressed confidence his party would prevail.

Clyburn noted that Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the ranking Republican on the House Oversight panel, has said will will issue "subpoenas everywhere" if Republicans win the majority.

"The White House will be full-time responding to subpoenas about where the president may or may not have been born, whether his mother and father were ever married, and whether his wife's family is from Georgetown or Sampit," Clyburn said in an interview published Monday on TheGrio.com, an African-American news website. "That will define the next two years of the president's administration.

Issa has promised to ramp up his probes into the Obama administration, but it's unclear whether he's aggressively pursue the "birther" controversy.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... against-ob

Hmmm...let's see....if the country was doing well...economy was great. And there were basically none of this Obama-hating....I'm sure nobody would care where Obama was born....

[SteveForever]

Anyone notice Obama has been smiling more in the press lately? he was so glum for months....

[Monker]

And your "rebuttal" is that you want FF to personally calculate the cost of bullets, military personal, fuel and all other expenses?

No. He posts the facts and figures amid articles that he simply cuts/pastes to this forum. There is a difference between doing that and adding your own opinions and words to a conversation. It's like walking around some party with a bunch of sound bytes on his iPod that he can play so he doesn't have to have any real conversation with people.

You're the fool that continues to defend this presidents failed policies and the only argument you have is crying because FF is either using sources or stating facts as he knows them.

I defend what I think should be defended. I'm saying FF is nothing but a copy/paster with no brain of his own...but not in defense of ANYTHING. It's an explanation of why people get so frustrated with his inane posts.

The fact is president Obama has and your democrats

I'm not a Democrat, and never will be.

have spent to make Bush and the republicans look like pikers.

And, if they didn't, I believe the Bush recession would have been a depression. The mess Bush left Obama was horrific. Even Bush knew we had to bail out the financial sector...and he left everything else for Obama to fix. We had to do TARP, we had to bail out the auto industry. If the government had not taken on that debt, I believe we would have seen a "Greater Depression".

At least Bush proponents will be able to point to the fact that their piddly (in comparison) spending has resulted in a Hussein-less Iraq.

And, IMO, that is a BAD thing. Now, we have Iran without a rival in the mid-east to keep them in check. We have a government in Iraq which WE will have to sustain and support so it does not go all fundamentalist Islamic, like Iran. Our manipulation in that region was WRONG. It was unnecessary, badly planned, badly executed, and has cost this country far more then we will ever gain by having a "Hussien-less Iraq". It was the dumbest decision any President of this nation has ever made.

If we keep our Hussein much longer Iraq may soon have a stronger economy than we do.

If we didn't have to prop up their government, rebuild their nation, rebuild their infrastructure, rebuild their economy...we would have more resources for the US and it wouldn't be an issue.

[slucero]

Going into Iraq ( A-Stan) was never about Hussein or terrorism.... it was about controlling resources the Middle East... and about establishing a real (military) base of operations there to do just that.

The government didn't build a 103 acre, $1 Billion dollar embassy with the intent of eventually "leaving"......

[The_Noble_Cause]

If we didn't have to prop up their government, rebuild their nation, rebuild their infrastructure, rebuild their economy...we would have more resources for the US and it wouldn't be an issue.

Don't forget their universal healthcare. Seems we exported socialism at the barrel of gun too.

[The_Noble_Cause]

You believe everything that's on HuffPost don't you?

Iraq has had a universal healthcare law since 1981...the 2005 Iraq Constitution was simply a continuation of existing law. In his last 10 years Saddam let that system, once the envy of the Middle East, go to shit. Espicially in the south Shia areas. Bush exported nothing, that Constitution was voted on and ratified by Iraqis not Americans. As they say in baseball, you can look it up.

I really don't care if you think Iraq was some secular progressive utopian wonderland before shock and awe (it wasn't). The healthcare system that had existed in Iraq was completely ravaged following the Gulf War, UN sanctions, and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Last I checked, the 2003 military campaign was to free Saddam's subjects from a reign of government despotism, NOT to rubberstamp the status quo. And certainly NOT to model their new democratic government after the centrally-planned failed models of Stalin and Mao! So yes, we helped export socialism, or at the very least, were complicit in its expansion across Southwestern Asia. And Republican knuckle-draggers like you supported it every step of the way. Nice going!

[The_Noble_Cause]

That the Iraqis wanted to keep their 1981 law in the new constitution was of their doing in 2005. You know damned well that if we had written that document for them it never would have flown with the Muslims. Lots of folks here were disappointed by the way that Constitution was written.

I love it. With each passing reply, you keep making the case against invading Iraq and by extension, GOP/NeoCon foreign policy. You're 100% correct. It IS a fool's errand to try to impose one country's way of life onto another. Sure, took you long enough. Wake me when you figure out that supply-side economics is a scam and that Rush Limbaugh is a big bag of shit.

[Monker]

Clip from Politically Incorrect 7/9/99:

ODonnell: I was dabbling into every other kind of religion before I became a Christian.

Maher: You were a witch.

ODonnell: I was. I was

Maher: You were

ODonnell: I was dabbling in witchcraft. I dabbled in Buddhism. I would have become a Hare Krishna but I didnt want to become a vegetarian, and that is honestly the reason why, because Im Italian and I love meatballs

Maher: Boy are you spiritual.

[slucero]

Really lame to vilify someone for what they did in high school... using your logic Hillary should have been burned at the stake...

O'Donnell also said this in this when asked to clear it up (good on her telling the truth.. )

“I hung around people who were doing these things. I’m not making this stuff up. I know what they told me they do,” O’Donnell told Maher in 1999. ”One of my first dates with a witch was on a satanic altar, and I didn’t know it. I mean, there’s little blood there and stuff like that,” she said. “We went to a movie and then had a little midnight picnic on a satanic altar.”

This kinda sums it up IMHO...

The media obsession with O’Donnell’s unfortunate choice of high school dates is just a politically driven effort to discredit the tea party in general and Ms O’Donnell specifically. If they were truly concerned about politicians involved in paranormal activities, they would have had their “X-Files” bureau going after former N.Y. Senator and present Secretary of State Hilary Clinton.

When Ms Clinton was the First Lady of the United States, she used to have conversations with Eleanor Roosevelt. Not that those conversations were necessarily a bad thing, except for fact that Mrs. Roosevelt died in 1962, thirty years before Ms Clinton became first lady. Bob Woodward in his 1996 book,
The Choice, brought the “conversations” to the attention of the general public.

In his book (page 132) Bob Woodward wrote that one day, after finishing up a discussion with Eleanor, “[Jean] Houston asked Hillary to carry on a conversation with Mahatma Gandhi, the Hindu leader, a powerful symbol of stoic denial. Talk to him, Houston said. What would you say and what would you ask?” And Hillary did. “It was a strong personal outpouring,” Woodward reported. The Post reporter didn’t say what Gandhi’s response was.

Another book released in 2007 backed up Woodward’s claim.

“A new biography on Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton reveals that during her time as First Lady, Clinton participated in strange moments of imaginary conversation with a deceased Eleanor Roosevelt from the solarium atop the White House. Grove City College professor Paul Kengor’s “God and Hillary Clinton” also notes the religious devotion with which Senator Clinton advocates abortion."

An overview of the book by Kengor’s Grove City colleague, Dr. Warren Throckmorton, notes that the book – with information from friends, colleagues and acquaintances – paints an accurate picture of Clinton’s version of faith. “

The woman who arranged the séance-type sessions atop the White House, Jean Houston, became very close to the senator. Houston who was known for delving into altered consciousness, the spirit world, and psychic experiences, according to a source quoted in the book, compared Clinton to Joan of Arc and believed her to be the most pivotal woman in all of human history.

[Monker]

Really lame to vilify someone for what they did in high school... using your logic Hillary should have been burned at the stake...

O'Donnell also said this in this when asked to clear it up (good on her telling the truth.. )

“I hung around people who were doing these things. I’m not making this stuff up. I know what they told me they do,” O’Donnell told Maher in 1999. ”One of my first dates with a witch was on a satanic altar, and I didn’t know it. I mean, there’s little blood there and stuff like that,” she said. “We went to a movie and then had a little midnight picnic on a satanic altar.”

That was a different show...which is why Maher knew she was a witch in the quote I just made. And, she wasn't being asked to 'clear it up'. The show you quoted was a bit of conversation about Harry Potter and the loony right who believe reading those books were causing young people to turn to witchcraft....it had nothing to do with 'clearing it up'.

The lady is loony...she chose to be a Christian over being a Buddhist or a Hare Krishna because she likes meatballs. Too funny.

And, if you watch PI as often as I did, you would know how far out there this lady really is. Maher has dozen of clips like this, I'm sure.

The media obsession with O’Donnell’s unfortunate choice of high school dates is just a politically driven effort to discredit the tea party in general and Ms O’Donnell specifically. If they were truly concerned about politicians involved in paranormal activities, they would have had their “X-Files” bureau going after former N.Y. Senator and present Secretary of State Hilary Clinton.

The problem is that every time O'Donnel opened her mouth on PI, she sounded like a lunatic. At least Clinton can usually speak without sounding like her beliefs are circa 1400, and not modern. I mean, come on, mice with human brains, chose to be a Christian because she likes meatballs, 'dabbled' in witchcraft on a Satanic alter (which are two unconnected things, BTW...witches don't believe in Satan, or God). The lady has a screw loose.

As for the Tea Party...hey, they propped her up and should be embarrassed by it. Even FF cheered her nomination as the 'people' speaking.

[slucero]

Really lame to vilify someone for what they did in high school... using your logic Hillary should have been burned at the stake...

O'Donnell also said this in this when asked to clear it up (good on her telling the truth.. )

“I hung around people who were doing these things. I’m not making this stuff up. I know what they told me they do,” O’Donnell told Maher in 1999. ”One of my first dates with a witch was on a satanic altar, and I didn’t know it. I mean, there’s little blood there and stuff like that,” she said. “We went to a movie and then had a little midnight picnic on a satanic altar.”

That was a different show...which is why Maher knew she was a witch in the quote I just made. And, she wasn't being asked to 'clear it up'. The show you quoted was a bit of conversation about Harry Potter and the loony right who believe reading those books were causing young people to turn to witchcraft....it had nothing to do with 'clearing it up'.

The lady is loony...she chose to be a Christian over being a Buddhist or a Hare Krishna because she likes meatballs. Too funny.

And, if you watch PI as often as I did, you would know how far out there this lady really is. Maher has dozen of clips like this, I'm sure.

The media obsession with O’Donnell’s unfortunate choice of high school dates is just a politically driven effort to discredit the tea party in general and Ms O’Donnell specifically. If they were truly concerned about politicians involved in paranormal activities, they would have had their “X-Files” bureau going after former N.Y. Senator and present Secretary of State Hilary Clinton.

The problem is that every time O'Donnel opened her mouth on PI, she sounded like a lunatic. At least Clinton can usually speak without sounding like her beliefs are circa 1400, and not modern. I mean, come on, mice with human brains, chose to be a Christian because she likes meatballs, 'dabbled' in witchcraft on a Satanic alter (which are two unconnected things, BTW...witches don't believe in Satan, or God). The lady has a screw loose.

As for the Tea Party...hey, they propped her up and should be embarrassed by it. Even FF cheered her nomination as the 'people' speaking.

At this point.. anyone is looking at least as good or better than an incumbent who is just plain corrupt...

[Monker]

Really lame to vilify someone for what they did in high school... using your logic Hillary should have been burned at the stake...

O'Donnell also said this in this when asked to clear it up (good on her telling the truth.. )

“I hung around people who were doing these things. I’m not making this stuff up. I know what they told me they do,” O’Donnell told Maher in 1999. ”One of my first dates with a witch was on a satanic altar, and I didn’t know it. I mean, there’s little blood there and stuff like that,” she said. “We went to a movie and then had a little midnight picnic on a satanic altar.”

That was a different show...which is why Maher knew she was a witch in the quote I just made. And, she wasn't being asked to 'clear it up'. The show you quoted was a bit of conversation about Harry Potter and the loony right who believe reading those books were causing young people to turn to witchcraft....it had nothing to do with 'clearing it up'.

The lady is loony...she chose to be a Christian over being a Buddhist or a Hare Krishna because she likes meatballs. Too funny.

And, if you watch PI as often as I did, you would know how far out there this lady really is. Maher has dozen of clips like this, I'm sure.

The media obsession with O’Donnell’s unfortunate choice of high school dates is just a politically driven effort to discredit the tea party in general and Ms O’Donnell specifically. If they were truly concerned about politicians involved in paranormal activities, they would have had their “X-Files” bureau going after former N.Y. Senator and present Secretary of State Hilary Clinton.

The problem is that every time O'Donnel opened her mouth on PI, she sounded like a lunatic. At least Clinton can usually speak without sounding like her beliefs are circa 1400, and not modern. I mean, come on, mice with human brains, chose to be a Christian because she likes meatballs, 'dabbled' in witchcraft on a Satanic alter (which are two unconnected things, BTW...witches don't believe in Satan, or God). The lady has a screw loose.

As for the Tea Party...hey, they propped her up and should be embarrassed by it. Even FF cheered her nomination as the 'people' speaking.

At this point.. anyone is looking at least as good or better than an incumbent who is just plain corrupt...

LOL...a satanic witch who believe scientists are trying to give mice human brains. She's unelectable and will lose. If the more moderate Republican would have been nominated - he would have won.

I love what Maher said to O'Reilly when asked, "You used to be more conservative. What happened? Why did you change?" He said he didn't change. The Democrats moved more to the center and the Republicans moved into the nuthouse. See above for the evidence of that!

[donnaplease]

I got this in an email today...

I am truly perplexed that so many of my friends are against a mosque being built near Ground Zero. I think it should be the goal of every American to be tolerant. The mosque should be allowed, in an effort to promote tolerance.

That is why I also propose that two nightclubs be opened next door to the mosque thereby promoting tolerance within the mosque. We could call one of the clubs (which would be gay) "The Turban Cowboy" and the other being a topless bar "You Mecca Me Hot".

Next door should be a butcher shop that specializes in pork and adjacent to that have an open barbeque pork rib restaurant, called something like “Iraq o’ Ribs”?

Across the street there could be a very daring lingerie store called Victoria Keeps Nothing Secret with sexy mannequins in the window modeling the goods. Next door to the lingerie shop, there would be room for an Adult Toy Shop (Koranal Knowledge), its name in flashing neon lights, and on the other side a liquor store, maybe call it "Morehammered"?

Then the Muslims could be allowed to show their tolerance. Problem solved. If you agree in promoting tolerance and you think this is a good plan, pass
it on.

[gr8dane]

I got this in an email today...

I am truly perplexed that so many of my friends are against a mosque being built near Ground Zero. I think it should be the goal of every American to be tolerant. The mosque should be allowed, in an effort to promote tolerance.

That is why I also propose that two nightclubs be opened next door to the mosque thereby promoting tolerance within the mosque. We could call one of the clubs (which would be gay) "The Turban Cowboy" and the other being a topless bar "You Mecca Me Hot".

Next door should be a butcher shop that specializes in pork and adjacent to that have an open barbeque pork rib restaurant, called something like “Iraq o’ Ribs”?

Across the street there could be a very daring lingerie store called Victoria Keeps Nothing Secret with sexy mannequins in the window modeling the goods. Next door to the lingerie shop, there would be room for an Adult Toy Shop (Koranal Knowledge), its name in flashing neon lights, and on the other side a liquor store, maybe call it "Morehammered"?

Then the Muslims could be allowed to show their tolerance. Problem solved. If you agree in promoting tolerance and you think this is a good plan, pass
it on.

I'm in.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Gonna have to agree with the toe sucker on this article..

HOOVER + MCGOVERN = OBAMA
Obama’s presidency will discredit the Democratic party into the future

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
September 29, 2010

Comparisons of Barack Obama’s presidency to Jimmy Carter’s miss the point. Carter’s presidency did little to change the basic party construct of the nation or to influence its ideology. Reagan’s presidency accomplished both.

But Barack Obama is destroying the Democratic party. It may not recover for a long time. In this, he most closely resembles a synthesis of the failed candidacy of George McGovern and the catastrophic presidency of Herbert Hoover. The damage he is doing to his party’s image and prospects closely resembles the harm Hoover did to the Republican party, from which it did not recover for 20 years after he left office. And the extent to which Obama is discrediting the Left parallels the damage George McGovern did to his ideological confreres in 1972, when he went down to flaming defeat.

In a sense, America met its first conservative in 1981 and fell in love. We met our first liberal in 2009 and are running away screaming. FDR was too long ago to count, Lyndon Johnson too distracted by Vietnam to make an impact. So Obama is the first full-throated liberal to be president in our lifetimes. And we won’t soon forget him and the lessons his failure is teaching us.

Strangely, the Democrats don’t yet get it. They whistle a happy tune as they march off the cliff. There is no voice of dissent against Obama’s policies, no mumbled animosity, no suppressed discontent. The party is solid as a phalanx behind its leader even as he sends it to political death. It is the Charge of the Light Brigade, and none of them know that “someone has blundered.”

For decades, the liberal alternative glittered attractively on the sidelines. As income inequality increased and Wall Street bonuses excited class animosity, the possibility of an economic-populist response had become more interesting to voters by the time Obama came along. The hyperactive Bush foreign and military policy made the yearning for peace and isolation stronger. And as conservatives increased our national wealth, the glaring omission of the health-care system loomed larger. Finally, when the depression hit, voters called in the liberals from stage left and asked them to take a shot at turning the country around.

And did they ever! They kept their promises and then some. They tripled the deficit and sent the debt soaring. From the moment George Washington took the oath of office until Obama did, America had borrowed $9 trillion. Under Obama, it has borrowed $3.2 trillion more, in less than two years. Our health-care system was deformed, manufacturing was terrified by the prospect of cap-and-tax, GM was absorbed by the government and conquered by the unions, and federalism was buried in an avalanche of subsidies that turned state governments into branch offices of Washington.

Americans have learned their lesson, just as they learned from Hoover the evils of Republican laissez-faire economics. His legacy cast a shadow over politics until Eisenhower vanquished it with his personal popularity in 1952. But it was not until Nixon and Reagan that anti-Hooverism stopped structuring national elections.

In George McGovern, we all saw the incompetence of liberalism, its disorganization, its extremism, and its ultimate impotence. The best testament to his failure as a candidate is his own discovery of the virtues of private-sector capitalism in his old age. This gentleman — who was never anything less than that — clearly paved the way for Ronald Reagan and the conservative ascendancy.

This is likely not the legacy Obama had in mind when, with his massive ego, limited competence, and paltry experience, he took over the White House. Americans, in a fit of national delusion, made what they now realize was one of their biggest mistakes.

The magnitude of our error — or at least of our understanding of it — will become apparent on November 2, when the GOP will win both houses of Congress, the House by a considerable margin. The 2010 landslide will likely set the record for the largest transfer of House seats in an off- year election. The prior mark of 74 seats in 1922 (a Democratic gain in the wake of Harding’s scandals and the Teapot Dome investigation) will probably be eclipsed. But the true measure ofthe damage Obama has done to his ideology and his party will not be evident for some time.

Riiiiight. And just over two years ago it was the GOP’s obituary being written, with career talking heads and pundits each declaring the party dead after eight years of Bush. You and Morris’s historical amnesia/ignorance would be funny, if it wasn’t so pathetic. Politics is cyclical. American voters have learned NOTHING. In a two party system, neither party is vanquished for long. When the GOP wins back Congress and their economic policies do nothing to prevent America’s slide into martial law and rationing, just whose grave will you dance on then? Fool.

[slucero]

Gonna have to agree with the toe sucker on this article..

HOOVER + MCGOVERN = OBAMA
Obama’s presidency will discredit the Democratic party into the future

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
September 29, 2010

Comparisons of Barack Obama’s presidency to Jimmy Carter’s miss the point. Carter’s presidency did little to change the basic party construct of the nation or to influence its ideology. Reagan’s presidency accomplished both.

But Barack Obama is destroying the Democratic party. It may not recover for a long time. In this, he most closely resembles a synthesis of the failed candidacy of George McGovern and the catastrophic presidency of Herbert Hoover. The damage he is doing to his party’s image and prospects closely resembles the harm Hoover did to the Republican party, from which it did not recover for 20 years after he left office. And the extent to which Obama is discrediting the Left parallels the damage George McGovern did to his ideological confreres in 1972, when he went down to flaming defeat.

In a sense, America met its first conservative in 1981 and fell in love. We met our first liberal in 2009 and are running away screaming. FDR was too long ago to count, Lyndon Johnson too distracted by Vietnam to make an impact. So Obama is the first full-throated liberal to be president in our lifetimes. And we won’t soon forget him and the lessons his failure is teaching us.

Strangely, the Democrats don’t yet get it. They whistle a happy tune as they march off the cliff. There is no voice of dissent against Obama’s policies, no mumbled animosity, no suppressed discontent. The party is solid as a phalanx behind its leader even as he sends it to political death. It is the Charge of the Light Brigade, and none of them know that “someone has blundered.”

For decades, the liberal alternative glittered attractively on the sidelines. As income inequality increased and Wall Street bonuses excited class animosity, the possibility of an economic-populist response had become more interesting to voters by the time Obama came along. The hyperactive Bush foreign and military policy made the yearning for peace and isolation stronger. And as conservatives increased our national wealth, the glaring omission of the health-care system loomed larger. Finally, when the depression hit, voters called in the liberals from stage left and asked them to take a shot at turning the country around.

And did they ever! They kept their promises and then some. They tripled the deficit and sent the debt soaring. From the moment George Washington took the oath of office until Obama did, America had borrowed $9 trillion. Under Obama, it has borrowed $3.2 trillion more, in less than two years. Our health-care system was deformed, manufacturing was terrified by the prospect of cap-and-tax, GM was absorbed by the government and conquered by the unions, and federalism was buried in an avalanche of subsidies that turned state governments into branch offices of Washington.

Americans have learned their lesson, just as they learned from Hoover the evils of Republican laissez-faire economics. His legacy cast a shadow over politics until Eisenhower vanquished it with his personal popularity in 1952. But it was not until Nixon and Reagan that anti-Hooverism stopped structuring national elections.

In George McGovern, we all saw the incompetence of liberalism, its disorganization, its extremism, and its ultimate impotence. The best testament to his failure as a candidate is his own discovery of the virtues of private-sector capitalism in his old age. This gentleman — who was never anything less than that — clearly paved the way for Ronald Reagan and the conservative ascendancy.

This is likely not the legacy Obama had in mind when, with his massive ego, limited competence, and paltry experience, he took over the White House. Americans, in a fit of national delusion, made what they now realize was one of their biggest mistakes.

The magnitude of our error — or at least of our understanding of it — will become apparent on November 2, when the GOP will win both houses of Congress, the House by a considerable margin. The 2010 landslide will likely set the record for the largest transfer of House seats in an off- year election. The prior mark of 74 seats in 1922 (a Democratic gain in the wake of Harding’s scandals and the Teapot Dome investigation) will probably be eclipsed. But the true measure ofthe damage Obama has done to his ideology and his party will not be evident for some time.

Riiiiight. And just over two years ago it was the GOP’s obituary being written, with career talking heads and pundits each declaring the party dead after eight years of Bush. You and Morris’s historical amnesia/ignorance would be funny, if it wasn’t so pathetic. Politics is cyclical. American voters have learned NOTHING. In a two party system, neither party is vanquished for long. When the GOP wins back Congress and their economic policies do nothing to prevent America’s slide into martial law and rationing, just whose grave will you dance on then? Fool.

Gonna have to agree with the highlighted part.. at this point its just a ping-pong match... being played over and over and over and over...

[Monker]

The Noble Cause wrote:

When the GOP wins back Congress and their economic policies do nothing to prevent America’s slide into martial law and rationing, just whose grave will you dance on then? Fool.

Good grief, and you accuse Beck of being hysterical and fear mongering. Jeez dude, get a grip, you sound like a leftist version of the fools at Free Republic. Are we pubbies gonna build camps for the citizens too?

It wouldn't surprise me if it is suggested by one of the Republican loonies to have 'camps' for Muslim Americans.

[Don]

You've gotta tell them! Soylent Green is people!

[RedWingFan]

Oh the irony!

Presidential seal falls off podium as Obama speaks


http://apnews.myway.com/article/20101006/D9ILSJE80.html

video! http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm ... cafad.html

WASHINGTON (AP) - The presidential seal has fallen off President Barack Obama's podium and clattered to the stage as Obama delivered a speech to a women's conference.

The president was joking with the audience and getting some laughs when he realized what happened. "All of you know who I am," he quipped.

Obama told the audience that somebody in the back was really nervous, referring to the staffer who hung the seal on the front of the lectern so precariously.

The seal fell about halfway through the president's remarks to Fortune magazine's "Most Powerful Women Summit" Tuesday at Carnegie Mellon Auditorium in Washington.