Home > Uncategorized > Et Tu, Jon Stewart?

Et Tu, Jon Stewart?

Sorry for the light posting last week. Had a good time in Los Angeles this weekend, checking out the Eddie Izzard concert at the Nokia Theatre — that place is incredible. Seats 7100 people. Go, if you ever get the chance.

Meanwhile, our friends at the Washington Post muse about the sudden shift by Jon Stewart into making fun of President Obama.

Stewart has been lampooning Obama over the use of a teleprompter in a classroom. Obama’s defenders are trying to play down the image and excuse it away, but we should reflect a bit on Presidential images over the years: LBJ holding up a beagle by his ears, Jimmy Carter wearing a sweater during a Presidential address, George H.W. Bush going to a grocery store and not understanding about scanners. Images speak volumes and the Obama photo )which we even had fun with) underscores a weakness to Obama — he can’t think on his feet. He has a dependency.

But the Washington POst has a field day with Stewart — as far left as you can get — making Obama the butt of his jokes. It is an interesting cultural moment when even the most friendly of comedians turns on you. Check out the article.

Advertisements
  1. February 1, 2010 at 5:50 am

    Forgot to ask…..how come no one is critical of Obama for no open press conferences? Remember how CRITICAL you were of the more experienced Sarah Palin that she did not have press conferences? Double Standard??Now, people are starting to cite Obama's terrible first year as a result of him being so inexperienced. What?! I thought he was so experienced in bringing people of different stripes together? How did locking the republicans out of the health care meetings help? The democrats were not interested in compromise, they had a take it or leave it mentality and were only demanding conservatives to bend to their will.

  2. February 1, 2010 at 6:02 am

    Dave Wrote:'Images speak volumes and the Obama photo )which we even had fun with) underscores a weakness to Obama — he can't think on his feet. He has a dependency.'Really? I guess you haven't been paying attention. Did you not see the 1 hour plus unscripted Q&A the president had with Republicans last friday?here's the linkObama and GOP

  3. geo
    February 1, 2010 at 6:33 am

    John Stewart is not partisan, just smart as a whip, just ask Tucker Carlson why he stopped wearing bow ties or why CNN dropped Crossfire.

  4. February 1, 2010 at 7:14 am

    Sure, President Obama uses a TelePrompter, like most recent Presidents have, but he did not use one to school Republicans who invited him to speak to their gathering. If you are not aware of what happened, read the article; it will be a long time before Republicans make the mistake of taking on President Obama one to one on camera. If you want to actually watch the Republicans get spanked, link here to a MSNBC t.v. report of the "meeting". There was no TelePrompter involved, at all. How many times has any Republican President ever spoken to a gathering of just Democrats? Ever? Nope, didn't think so. Nice job, Mr. President.

  5. February 1, 2010 at 7:20 am

    here is an article from Charles Krauthammer on Obama's plummet from Savior to so-so president. I defer to Mr. Krauthammer because just by quoting him, he becomes the most brilliant blogger here.What went wrong? A year ago, he was king of the world. Now President Obama's approval rating, according to CBS, has dropped to 46 percent — and his disapproval rating is the highest ever recorded by Gallup at the beginning of an (elected) president's second year. A year ago, he was leader of a liberal ascendancy that would last 40 years (James Carville). A year ago, conservatism was dead (Sam Tanenhaus). Now the race to fill Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in bluest of blue Massachusetts is surprisingly close, with a virtually unknown state senator bursting on the scene by turning the election into a mini-referendum on Obama and his agenda, most particularly health care reform. year ago, Obama was the most charismatic politician on earth. Today the thrill is gone, the doubts growing — even among erstwhile believers. Liberals try to attribute Obama's political decline to matters of style. He's too cool, detached, uninvolved. He's not tough, angry or aggressive enough with opponents. He's contracted out too much of his agenda to Congress. These stylistic and tactical complaints may be true, but they miss the major point: The reason for today's vast discontent, presaged by spontaneous national Tea Party opposition, is not that Obama is too cool or compliant but that he's too left. It's not about style; it's about substance. About which Obama has been admirably candid. This out-of-nowhere, least-known of presidents dropped the veil most dramatically in the single most important political event of 2009, his Feb. 24 first address to Congress. With remarkable political honesty and courage, Obama unveiled the most radical (in American terms) ideological agenda since the New Deal: the fundamental restructuring of three pillars of American society — health care, education and energy. Then began the descent — when, more amazingly still, Obama devoted himself to turning these statist visions into legislative reality. First energy, with cap-and-trade, an unprecedented federal intrusion into American industry and commerce. It got through the House, with its Democratic majority and Supreme Soviet-style rules. But it will never get out of the Senate. Then, the keystone: a health care revolution in which the federal government will regulate in crushing detail one-sixth of the U.S. economy. By essentially abolishing medical underwriting (actuarially based risk assessment) and replacing it with government fiat, Obamacare turns the health insurance companies into utilities, their every significant move dictated by government regulators. The public option was a sideshow. As many on the right have long been arguing, and as the more astute on the left (such as The New Yorker's James Surowiecki) understand, Obamacare is government health care by proxy, single-payer through a facade of nominally "private" insurers. At first, health care reform was sustained politically by Obama's own popularity. But then gravity took hold, and Obamacare's profound unpopularity dragged him down with it. After 29 speeches and a fortune in squandered political capital, it still will not sell.

  6. February 1, 2010 at 8:24 am

    The health care drive is the most important reason Obama has sunk to 46 percent. But this reflects something larger. In the end, what matters is not the persona but the agenda. In a country where politics is fought between the 40-yard lines, Obama has insisted on pushing hard for the 30. And the American people — disorganized and unled but nonetheless agitated and mobilized — have put up a stout defense somewhere just left of midfield. Ideas matter. Legislative proposals matter. Slick campaigns and dazzling speeches can work for a while, but the magic always wears off. It's inherently risky for any charismatic politician to legislate. To act is to choose and to choose is to disappoint the expectations of many who had poured their hopes into the empty vessel — of which candidate Obama was the greatest representative in recent American political history. Obama did not just act, however. He acted ideologically. To his credit, Obama didn't just come to Washington to be someone. Like Reagan, he came to Washington to do something — to introduce a powerful social democratic stream into America's deeply and historically individualist polity. Perhaps Obama thought he'd been sent to the White House to do just that. If so, he vastly over-read his mandate. His own electoral success — twinned with handy victories and large majorities in both houses of Congress — was a referendum on his predecessor's governance and the post-Lehman financial collapse. It was not an endorsement of European-style social democracy. Hence the resistance. Hence the fall. The system may not always work, but it does take its revenge.

  7. February 1, 2010 at 3:37 pm

    Friday in Florida: This is Obama off TOTUS (Teleprompter of the United States)a pro-Obama/anti-Zionist student asks him an unscripted question: "My question is, last night in your State of the Union address you spoke of America’s support for human rights. Then why have we not condemned Israel and Egypt’s human rights violations against the occupied Palestinian people and yet we continue to support financially with billions of dollars coming from our tax dollars?" AUDIENCE: Booo! THE PRESIDENT: Okay, now, everybody has got to be courteous, everybody is answering the question. Let me just talk about the Middle East generally. Look — all right, everybody, come on, come on, hold on. Hold on one second, I’ve got to answer my question first, sir. Okay. I know you got — what, you got some beads on — are those New Orleans beads? Okay. Look, look, look, And it’s an issue that elicits a lot of passions, as you heard..What did he say? "the Middle East is obviously an issue that has plagued the region for centuries." WTF? The Middle East is plaguing itself, and has for centuries?When the far right media and liberal TV comics turn on you it's over. America knows Obama was a huge mistake. His next 3 years will be filled with both sides of the isle mocking his gross incompetence and inexperience, and there is nothing you can do to stop it.(pssst! Hillary will quit this year and start running against Obama in 2012…you heard it here)

  8. February 1, 2010 at 3:45 pm

    For the record:Obama's 85 minute debate with the GOP scores this way:1) errrs, ahhhs and ummmmms were stuttered 1897 times (one every 1.8-2.6 seconds)2) He used "i" or "me" 237 times.3) He used "we" 12 times.4) His answers were prepared and printed on note cards.5) Eight direct questions were never answered.Obama has a very hard time when TOTUS takes a day off.

  9. February 1, 2010 at 6:46 pm

    I'm not sure what the problem is with the cons here.So far Obama has been a Republicans dream to the right of Clinton and Bush. They should be counting their lucky stars.Reagan made greed a good thing. Every president since has just expanded what that fool started. They may be bad for Americans but those at the top sure love them.

  10. February 2, 2010 at 1:30 am

    Winston, you are as delusional as ever. Obama is NOT right of Bush or Clinton. He is most certainly LEFT of everyone short of FDR in his statist desires to manage, regulate and control every facet of the American economy. He has been a dream for the Republican Senatoridal Campaign Committee and the Republican National Committee. Obama has led to a surge in donations. Obama has been a dream for the Tea Party movement and conservatism in general. More people identify themselves as either conservative than any other group. Obama almost got the first Tea party candidate elected in NY state and Obama backed Corzine and Coakley which led directly to their downfall and defeat. It is Obama, NOT Limbaugh, Hannity, Palin or any other conservative, that is the kiss of death for candidates. The Democrats have lost two governorships and Ted Kennedy's old senate seat under his watch. Even his own caucus in Congress doesn't respect him. Harry Reid said such racist things about him that if a Republican has said it as Majority leader they would (and did) get forced to resign.Obama has never been articulate off prompter. Obama has never been quick witted off prompter. He uh always um uh has been uh a good um reader uh on the TelePrompter.Also, Winston, your choice of the protagonist from "1984" is misplaced since it is your man Obama that has led to the Age of Orwell coming into full. Bush may have started us down the road, but Obama picked up the pace to a sprint towards total governmental domination of our lives. Food for thought for those that think.

  11. February 2, 2010 at 2:02 am

    Obama said "my" or "mine" 18 times and "I" 88 times during his State of the Union speech.One thing that Obama has NOT learned over the last year is that running the government is NOT about him but about the the People.Obama still doesn't get that… even after one year.

  12. February 2, 2010 at 2:59 pm

    big dent wrote:"Obama has never been articulate off prompter. Obama has never been quick witted off prompter. He uh always um uh has been uh a good um reader uh on the TelePrompter."really? – watch this Its funny, I don't see any teleprompters, hear very few 'uh's', just someone looking very intelligent and Presidential

  13. February 2, 2010 at 4:08 pm

    Obama's new budget will cause havoc in his own party. All we have to do is sit around and watch them self implode.* The largest increase in government spending in US history…* 1.56 trillion deficit! One trillion more the Bush.* 53% of Americans pay no federal income tax* 1% of the tax payers now pay more than 44% of the taxes.* The education budget was put together by a drunken sailorObama is self destructing his own party. He is such an ideologue he doesn't care about anything or anyone but his own far left statist agenda. He is a wrecking ball for jobs and the economy and he is bankrupting American on purpose!Watch as his own party may disown him as he continues to hurt America and our national defense and foreign policy.

  14. February 2, 2010 at 4:56 pm

    Rob, with all due respect in the link you posted of Obama, he said "UH" 14 times in the first 13 seconds.Go back and re-watch it. Count for yourself.Are there any…uh… other…uh…examples..uh…of..uh…Obama…uh talking off..uh teleprompter..uh…without…uh…a lot…of uh…uhs? Come on man! You just made Tents point perfectly and yet you don't even see it for yourself. Now that is either sad or funny. As for me I choose to laugh.

  15. February 2, 2010 at 6:10 pm

    "misplaced since it is your man Obama" BTRTry your shtick on someone else, like back in grade school.Obama stopped being my man once he was elected. Most of us were aware of how he would act, no big surprises. Sad that he was the lessor of two evils, that in itself is sad enough.Obama has been a bankster and corporatists dream, this exaggerated push back is becoming boring.

  16. February 2, 2010 at 10:33 pm

    Tent: "Obama said "my" or "mine" 18 times and "I" 88 times during his State of the Union speech." He is the President, it is "his" administration, and "he" will be blamed for all of the ills that happen, but most likely will not get much credit for the good things that happen, even if those good things are directly related to actions taken by his administration. You are rather boring on this issue. Budget watchdog: Are you aware of how much of the budget is just paying the interest on the borrowing that President Bush did? Are you aware that the two massive tax cuts that Bush did, the two wars Bush started, and huge bailouts that Bush started were not "on budget" during Bush's terms? Of course President Obama's budget is going to be bigger, it has to be to try and fix the mess Bush left.Toastmaster: President Obama uses "uh" and "um" in his speech; I personally find that much less offensive than having a President who makes up words, mixes metaphors and quotes incorrectly, any day. Curious that you don't acknowledge the slap down the President put on the Republican House members at their retreat; did you actually watch the whole thing? I understand that Fox News cut away early before the President was finished speaking since he was spanking them so badly. Any criticisms of the House members at the retreat who had their facts wrong?Winston: As a fellow progressive, you and I understand that Barack Obama did not run as a progressive or even a liberal; we knew that he had a "centrist" approach in his politics, and we probably both understood that very well when he selected Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff. As you are most likely aware, the Chief of Staff determines much of the President's agenda, controls who he speaks with and to, and pretty much "runs" the White House; to assert that President Obama is a "leftist", a "progressive", a "statist", or any other of the supposed invectives the right spews out would be laughable if the actual story could get out about how is in power and what they are trying to do. As you also know though, the media tightly controls the message and they only allow that message to support their viewpoint to get out.

  17. February 3, 2010 at 4:07 am

    Well said Bob.It doesn't get much funnier than hearing people call President Obama a "socialist" or whatnot. I have more problems with the system than I do with Obama. Obama found himself immersed in a self perpetuating miasma of greed, corruption and bile.Having the DLC convince him to take on Rahm, Giethner, Summers, et al, and not being strong enough to resist is where I have strong disagreements.That and continuing with torture, wiretapping, war, rendition, etc. etc.

  18. February 3, 2010 at 6:50 am

    Anyone who says that Obama is a 'centrist' is delusional.To say someone is in "the center" is to say that there is common ground between both the right and the left.Where is the common ground with Republicans? And don't try that "the Republicans are too far right" nonsense. Obama and his cohorts in Congress have proposed legislation that is more liberal than anything that has been proposed since FDR and his unconstitutional alphabet agencies. Where is the middle ground on the mandate to buy insurance? Where is the middle ground on the 27 agencies that would be created to control medical costs? And Obama has been a ardent and very vocal champion of EVERYTHING that has come out of both the House and Senate on healthcare. He has not ONCE told the far left of his party that they have gone to far. Quite the contrary, he has told them at times that they haven't gone far enough.Cap and Trade, closing Gitmo, holding the 9/11 trials in NY, the slow responses to Detroit and Fort Hood, the $787 billion pork barrel political payoff called oxymoronically "stimulus" on and on and on. There is nothing "centrist" about Obama. He is so far to the left that he has almost come all the way around the backside to be a Libertarian. It is foolish, ridiculous and certifiably insane to say that Obama is anything but a hardcore, life-long, died in the wool, staunch leftist.

  19. February 3, 2010 at 7:37 am

    Byron York has a very well reasoned piece that talks about how Obama may voluntarily opt to be a one-term president. York cites Obama's history of frustrations of being in one place too long. I'll let you read it if you will, but the long story short is that Obama, after one year, is already plagued with the same frustrations and doubts that have plagued him in every job he has ever held. When Liberals like Stewart, who should be like preaching to the choir for Obama, start dissing Obama you know things are bad and may only hasten his desire to go back to being just Barack Hussein Obama.

  20. February 3, 2010 at 7:43 am

    Tent: Again, you don't disappoint. You just don't understand how far to the right the media has moved the line that defines the middle. Do you remember that we had "free speech zones" during the Bush years? In the last year, there have been many events that people were able to speak freely, protest to their hearts content and even carry firearms in public; did that ever happen while George Bush was President? If President Obama were truly a "leftist" or had a real "far left" agenda, you would have seen a full throated approach including a single payer healthcare system, an immediate pullout from Iraq and Afghanistan, a simple Presidential directive eliminating "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", a removal of not only the Bush tax cuts, but the Reagan tax cuts as well, a push for regulation of the financial markets that would include funding for the oversight of that regulation with some real teeth to bite into the outright theft that has been taking place there, and there would have been a wholesale cleaning out of the Justice Department of all of the Bush appointees that would lead up to a full scale investigation of the crimes of the Bush Administration. Now, have you seen any of those things even proposed? I know that President Obama mentioned single payer in a throw away line, but there was never any real consideration given, just some lip service to us liberals. The fact is President Obama is more to the center than he is to the left and I can see that because I am on the left. As I have stated before, most of you on the right seem to believe that anyone who is not in lockstep with all of your right wing views must be on the left, because you cannot see how far to the right you are. There is middle ground between you and me, and that is where President Obama is.

  21. February 3, 2010 at 2:06 pm

    I really don't care if President Obama used a teleprompter in a school setting. The problems with this presidency are far greater than a teleprompter. Winston, since when does getting justly compensated for hard work equal greed? A few incompetent individuals, crooks and bad legislation does not change the fact that Reagonomics worked. I do not believe President Obama is a socialist, but more of a Statist. But, he is far, far, left of center. With his upbringing, it would be hard not to be. I think it is about time we stop discussing how great he talks or what he even says. He has been in office over a year now and let's start discussing what he does, which vastly different than his talking points.

  22. February 3, 2010 at 2:34 pm

    This is truly the naked Obama.The last year has revealed much that an empty vetting process did not for the lame stream media.Today all Obama has is his teleprompter.*There are no professors to make is C into an A*There is no one to write his law revue articles (none of which have we seen)*There is no rich Islamic leader to buy his way through his problems.Obama is on his own now, out in the wind, and he isn't doing very well at all. He is NOT the great communicator, he is NOT the great uniter. He is the most divisive politician this nation has seen in 60 years. His party is in a state of confusion. Stay with Obama and lose your office in 2010 or go against him and stop getting special treatments and pork projects.The evidence of this is almost totally ignored by most on the left except those that are elected.New Jersey, Virginia, Massachusetts, soon Illinois and dozens of dems refusing to run for reelection, Tax cheat Giehtner, Terrorist sympathizer Eric Holder, Rhom "dead fish" Emmanuel, Greasy haired Alexrod…the entire cloud of thugs and thieves. All 100% Obama's problems, and he is dragging down his party because of his statist ideology. He won't deal with these problems because he doesn't know how.Be honest here. Do you think Senator Scott Brown will be ready to be President on 143 days? Well there you have the problem folks…neither was Obama.PS: Bob, yopu may like the errs, ahhhs, and ummms but in Toastmasters International we train all speakers to NOT use any of those in any speech as it detracts from not on the speaker but the message. At every meeting we have a person that is designated as the "Ahh Counter" to keep track and make the speaker aware of his problem. Obama needs an "Ahhh Counter".

  23. February 3, 2010 at 8:09 pm

    Ok, you nit-pickers. Our president uses a teleprompter because 1) he can read and 2)wants to deliver his message accurately.However, to really appreciate his ability to think on his feet, take a look at President Obama's Q&A with the Republican Caucus and today's match with the Democratic Caucus.No teleprompters!Instead, an hour's worth of solid analysis and answers, an hour's worth of calling out the nonsense.Many serious professionals are looking at how he presents our arguments. They admire his leadership. Just sayin.'

  24. February 3, 2010 at 9:50 pm

    Bob, you really need to read Ailinsky's book.

  25. February 3, 2010 at 9:52 pm

    Bob, you really need to read Ailinsky's book and Barack's book."Furthermore, I am a prisoner of my own biography: I can't help but view the American experience through the lens of a black man of mixed heritage, forever mindful of how generations of people who looked like me were subjugated and stigmatized, and the subtle and not so subtle ways that race and class continue to shape our lives."

  26. February 3, 2010 at 11:24 pm

    "…does not change the fact that Reagonomics worked." Hoosier I would respond that those who thought they had free market capitalism by the horns and could ride that bull all the way to the moon while ruling the earth are feeling the effects of their hubris binge. I think we can humbly learn from their errors so we don't keep repeating them. Pay attention to what works in the real world instead of projecting the movie in your mind out on the real world as if it fit.Yes it worked, for those in the one percentile. For the rest of Americans, not so much.

  27. February 3, 2010 at 11:45 pm

    OBAMA SAID THIS JAN. 29TH…"The last thing I will say, though — let me say this about health care and the health care debate, because I think it also bears on a whole lot of other issues. If you look at the package that we've presented — and there's some stray cats and dogs that got in there that we were eliminating, we were in the process of eliminating. For example, we said from the start that it was going to be important for us to be consistent in saying to people if you can have your — if you want to keep the health insurance you got, you can keep it, that you're not going to have anybody getting in between you and your doctor in your decision making. And I think that some of the provisions that got snuck in might have violated that pledge."Finally, the admission that he lied from the very beginning. Unless you far left zealots actually think he didn't know what was in that bill. Go ahead Bob, rationalize this.PS: It's best to watch him saying this on Youtube…he stammers and stutters and errs and ahhs like a 6th grader.

  28. February 4, 2010 at 2:16 am

    Again, Bob, you are proving how delusional you are.You said: "Do you remember that we had "free speech zones" during the Bush years?"You have obviously forgotten that this occurred at the Democratic National Convention. The DNC segregated folks because the DNC didn't want Obama embarassed. But typical of liberal pinheadism, you think that anything that happened between January 2001 and January 2010 is Bush's fault. And yes, I can tell time, but you liberals can't since you still blame Bush for EVERYTHING that happened in 2009.You said, "In the last year, there have been many events that people were able to speak freely, protest to their hearts content and even carry firearms in public; did that ever happen while George Bush was President?" Well, actually no because Bush was PRO-gun ownership, not anti-gun ownership like Obama is. When the SCOTUS came out and struck down the DC gun control laws, Obama came out and said how wrong they were. Gun owners across America lawfully carried their unconcealed firearms as a form of free speech AGAINST Obama and his gun-control mentality. ALL of you liberals questioned the man's right to bear arms in the presence of His Holiness Obama and even went so far as to suppose that this was a prelude to the assassination of Obama. No, that sort of thing didn't happen during the Bush years. You said, "If President Obama were truly a "leftist" or had a real "far left" agenda, you would have seen a full throated approach…" blah, blah blah. It is all about incrementalism, distraction and deception. Barney Frank is on the record as saying that the public option that EVERY Democrat privately wants is the best way to lead to a single-payer system. Do Democrats come out and say that they are for a single-payer, national healthcare service like what the Brits and Canandians have? Of course not because they know that they would be eviscerated in the press and by correct conservative talk-show hosts and TV personalities with story after story of the failures of the British NHS and Canadian health systems. So they go covert, backdoor, behind closed doors, sneaky and deceptively, incrementally towards the single-payer system they ALL want. And this is EXACTLY leftist Obama's plan as he describes it here in this YouTube video to the AFL-CIO. He explicitly states that he wants single-payer, he knows that it will be a process and that the first steps to single-payer are to take back the White House, the House, and Senate. So yes, he is a leftist by your definition. The fact that he is using the standard operating procedure of choosing the deceptive incremental approach instead of the honest, upfront approach of leveling and speaking honestly with the American people in a "full throated" way doesn't make him less a leftist, just a manipulative and sneaky one.As for everything else you listed, he is doing all of that. He is slow rolling Afghanistan, he is lifting the ban on gays in the military openly serving (because there are and have always been gays in the military; they just can dress up like Dorthy from the Wizard of Oz on their off-time…), he is withdrawing us from Iraq (using the timetable Bush set in the SOFA agreement signed before he left office), he is letting many of Bush's tax cuts expire in his recent budget causing huge tax increases on EVERY American. So yes, I have seen all of these actions proposed and many inacted. Crawl out from under your rock, Bob, and read a newspaper from time to time and even you would see this.You say there is middle ground between you and me? Bullshit. You are far, far left… right where Obama is, lives, and has his summer home where he vacations when he is not in Washington DC.

  29. February 4, 2010 at 8:41 am

    Tent: Wow, that was, like, um, exactly what I expected from you, except that maybe you would put forth who you believe to be "in the middle"; do you have someone in mind that you truly believe is a "centrist"? I am curious if there is anyone, or a group that you think is not as far right as you are, or conversely, if there are people to the left of you that are not "far left" like I am, that you might consider to be in the center. Well?

  30. February 4, 2010 at 9:53 am

    Fact remains that these Wall Street CEOs, our Captains of Industry, are no better than welfare mom's that have more kids to get more welfare money.Goldman Sachs is buried like a tick into the taxpayer largess. Four times in the past 15 years, Goldman Sachs has been bailed out, by Democrats, specifically Bill Clinton and his ex-Goldman Sachs CEO/Secretary of the Treasury, Robert Rubin. When in 1995 Goldman Sachs speculated on risky and ultimately worthless Mexican bonds, Clinton and Rubin rode to GS's rescue by extending Mexico a line of credit (that they never paid back) to make their debt payments and not default on the bonds that Goldman Sachs held. Clinton and Rubin bailed out Goldman Sachs again in 1997 when the Asian Market crisis nearly toppled the economies of Thailand, South Korea, Japan and Indonesia and nearly caused them to default on more speculative bonds from Goldman Sachs. Paid out by the IMF, headquarted in Washington DC, Clinton and Rubin insured Goldman Sachs against any losses while letting them rake in money over fist in the good times. Hell, Obama even gave Goldman Sachs WaMu for pennies on the dollar after they got swindled by their Democrat contributing malefactors.It rings hollow for Obama to talk tough against Wall Street when it is his party and his cronies in Congress and his administration that continue to allow Wall Street to make stupid loans to people that can't pay them back (as was done with all the illegal aliens that got home loands from Freddie, Fannie, Citibank, Chris Dodd's Nationwide benefactors and a whole host of others). So when Obama talks about "holding banks to account" and starts badmouthing Wall Street know that these are Democrat friends he is talking tough about, but his party just winks, nods and waits to bail them out again.

  31. February 4, 2010 at 1:52 pm

    Winston, there have been studies that show that it works. I will agree one should see what works, what doesn't, learn from failures, and see what needs to be changed to prevent future catastrophe's. Did it work for the top 1%? Yes, as well as the bottom 99%.http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1120&full=1The above URL is a study done with stats of the Reagan years. It also shows the fallacy of the rich got richer and the poor got poorer mantra of the "progressives".

  32. February 4, 2010 at 6:41 pm

    Peruse Alexander Hamilton's 1791 report to Congress on manufactures. Hamilton laid out this six step plan to build an industrial economy in the United States and we followed it. Congress actually put this into place in 1792 and it stood until Ronald Reagan came along and started deconstructing it, followed by Bush, Clinton, Bush and now Obama and the legislatures, mostly pushed by the Republicans taking it apart. You could argue some of this started with Taft-Hartley. But basically the founders laid this thing out. We built the biggest industrial infrastructure and industrial economy in the world.When Reagan came into office we were the largest exporter of manufactured goods and the largest importer of raw materials on the planet. And the largest creditor. More people owed us money than anybody else in the world. Now just thirty years later we're the largest importer of finished goods, manufactured goods, exporter of raw materials which is kind of the definition of a third world nation and we're the most in debt of any country in the world. This is the absolute consequence of Reaganomics.CEO pay was 30-40 times average worker pay. Now it is 300-750 times while real worker pay has decreased.Pre Reagan there were 3000 lobbyists in DC, now 33,000.Reaganomics, great for the one percenters.

  33. February 4, 2010 at 6:42 pm

    Speaking Thursday morning at the National Prayer Breakfast, a conciliatory President Barack Obama urged attendees to bypass grievances in their efforts to push forward morally and socially responsible policy.But at the same time, he made it clear that there are some positions that lie outside that realm of civil discourse, such as birther conspiracies and the targeting of gays and lesbians."Civility also requires relearning how to disagree without being disagreeable," Obama declared before a standing-room-only crowd. "[C]ivility is not a sign of weakness. Now I am the first to confess I am not always right. Michelle will testify to that. But surely, you can question my policies without questioning my faith. Or for that matter, my citizenship."

  34. February 4, 2010 at 7:45 pm

    Hey Obama 2010?Do you think Obama was including Rhom Emmanuel? Who recently said that politicians that don't agree with Obama are "F&#@ing retarded"?Let Obama clean his own house first before he starts to try manage the world at large.Elitist hypocrite!

  35. February 4, 2010 at 7:51 pm

    Winston, if you are going to copy-n-patse the bulk of your posts…please give credit where credit is due. Your material is copyrighted.

  36. February 5, 2010 at 1:59 am

    "Centrists" is just a feel-good way of describing those damn RINOs in the Republican Party that give away the store to make nice with Democrats. When has a Democrat EVER compromised to Republicans? The label of "Centrist" is a worthless label, especially when the compromises one has to make in order to claim to "walk across the aisle" and work with Democrats usually makes the nation worse off. Look at John McCain. I guess you could say he is a centrist but so what? He damaged America by getting McCain-Feingold passed ensuring that the free speech rights of individuals is subordinated to the money and leverage that unions and special interests can bring. He proposed amnesty and citizenship for 12 million illegal aliens, many of whom are on welfare (about 33%), many of their daughters have out of wedlock children (about 30%) and about half of the males between 15 and 40 are behind bars or have been behind bars. Plus, McCain's "centrist" nature would have put millions of native born black and hispanic workers out of work as these new citizens would work for peanuts under the table while still claiming all of the government largess afforded to potentially productive members of society. Oh, let's not forget that McCain was the founding member of the Gang of 14 that codified the precedent that it is okay, necessary and proper to filibuster nominees to the federal court by preventing Bill Frist from using the so-called 'nuclear option' to ban the practice. The nuclear option would have protected Democrat administrations as well as Republican administrations from abuses of the minority. But no, John McCain wants to be a centrist and be a "maverick" by "walking across the aisle" to give away the principles that made America great.Centrists can go to hell.

  37. February 5, 2010 at 4:14 am

    Reaganomics/Clintonomics was the precursor to the bubble craze.If you get rich on bubbles you owe the country a debt. If you really made or did something that has lasting value and is not just profitable because of the structural inequities of fascism, enjoy the fruits of your honest labor.If you like the predators and admire their conduct, you have a problem. It is not about hating the rich, but it is about knowing that the great divide between the rich and the rest is not only toxic to democracy, it is the product of class war instituted from above. As they almost always are. I hate class wars, so I want to wipe out their evil effects. I don't hate those poor victims of ideology even if I hate the politics they have swallowed. But I feel only the ashes of compassion for the banksters who keep on doing it even after the curtain has been pulled up and all can see what they have been doing.Speaking of John Stewart, he sure took Billo to the cleaners.

  38. February 5, 2010 at 7:59 am

    Tent: Keep it coming; you're proving my points the more you keep going down the path you are on. John McCain is a centrist? WTF? John McCain is another Republican ideologue, with the exception that he has actually tried to work across the aisle. I honestly thought you were going to say Joe Liberman is a centrist, but apparently even he is too far to the left for your tastes. Wow. Part of the problem with defining who is and who isn't more in the middle, the center, is that the Republican Party is in the process of purging anyone who does not tow the line of the extremists of the right, so there are very few left in the party that are anywhere near the center. Center Democrats on the other hand, are apparently quite in vogue. Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, just to name a few very conservative Democrats that are very near the center. Blue dog Democrats are the most conservative members that are not actual Republicans, and they hold most of the same views. I also would have thought you might have mentioned Senators Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins as potential "centrists", but if you think John McCain is too far left, you must think that these two women Senators are "RINOS". You asked: "When has a Democrat EVER compromised to Republicans? " Um, do you remember the time period between 2000 and 2006? The Republicans had control of the House, the White House, and in 2002, gained control of the Senate as well. No compromise? I will admit that the Democrats mostly just got run over, but there was compromise, like the Democrats cowering away from filibustering the nominees during that time period? Of course, part of your problem lies in the manner in which you even asked the question: When has a Democrat EVER compromised to Republicans? The normal way a compromise is supposed to work is that you compromise with, not TO, and that is the root of the problem with the Republican mindset- compromise to a Republican means to do the thing that the Republican wants to do. Prove me wrong.

  39. February 5, 2010 at 8:21 am

    The one question you holier-than-thou people who make stark claims like Winston made is this:IF THEY EARNED IT LEGALLY, WHO IN THE HELL ARE YOU! TO TELL ME MY WEALTH IS OR IS NOT HONEST?Come on! This is the grand fallacy that the left puts out: if you have wealth, you got it off the backs of the poor through "the structural components of fascism" (whatever the hell that means). This subjective statement is made by those that wish to set themselves up as the arbitors of what is "honest" wealth. If I am an AIG broker, and I, while breaking no laws, made my clients money by getting them into investments when prices were low and rising and get my clients out of that investment while the value was still high but before the value decrease… and I broke no law… I deserve a reward… a profit, if you will… for that service. Honestly, if you can't point to a law I broke, I wouldn't give a crap what you thought of my profits. To say that I can't turn a profit in my chosen legal profession is to say that NO ONE should be allowed to turn a profit because you will invent a standard of conduct I can't meet so you can confiscate my wealth. This is the road to tyranny.This is all just a pretense to steal the legal wealth of those you envy because you are too weak too stupid too whatever to earn the money that I am making. And the government didn't do anything to deserve a greater share of my taxable dollars than the person next to me. If you say it was all these wonderful civil services therefore I owe more. My response is that I should owe LESS since I use our civil services less. If you say it is security, then everyone should pay the SAME rate as me since the military protects all Americans equally. Since I am PROVIDER of greater and greater tax dollars, where is my return on taxation? You drive on the roads my tax dollars provide. The poor in America eat because my taxdollars pay for their food stamps. The old joke is that a Democrat and a Republican walk down the street. The Republican sees a bum on the street and feels compassion for him. The Republican takes the bum to a food kitchen, show him where all of the government programs are and how to apply for them, and hooks the bum up with a local charity for new clothes. The next day, the Democrat and the Republican are out walking again. they see a different bum and the democrat feels compassion for him. So the Democrat reaches into the pocket of the Republican, steals all of the money out of his wallet, gives it to the bum and then demands a thank you from the bum for all the Democrat did for him.A coward steals the money of others. It takes bravery to risk your time, talents, and assets in the pursuit of improving ones quality of life.

  40. February 5, 2010 at 2:18 pm

    Jon Stewart (aka John Liebowitz) is a comedian on a comedy channel that does daily spoofs on national news. Because all the couch potatoes loadies think he is a legitimate news person doesn't make him one.O'reilly had him on his show to show the nation how empty and baseless he is when it comes to stepping away from drinking the obamamania Kool-Aid.Leibowitz rarely answered directly any of O'rielly's questions because he really had no idea what to say as his staff of 26 writers wasn't there to help him.Watch his body language. The entire interview Leibowitz was looking down with his shoulders rolled forward. He was out of his element and it showed. O'reilly used him to make a point. Those that take him seriously need to step away from the bong for a while and clear their drug numbed minds.PS: Your "tell" that you are a far left kook is your name for Bill O'reilly…"Billo". A name coined by Keith Overbite of “Countdown to No Ratings” on MSLSD. His ratings are down by 57% to date, as he serves on the lunatic fringes of the far left ideologues.

  41. February 5, 2010 at 3:36 pm

    Apparently I saw a different version of the O'Reilly/Stewart interview. I thought it was an extremely good exchange with both parties getting their points across. Those on the "progressive" side will agree with Stewart and think he won. Fox was the winner!. As the Liberal Mainstream Media continues there one sided view or opinion of what they see as news, Fox has continually invited "progressives" to their shows. Even Hannity always has a "progressive" on his panels. The slide of the LMM will continue as Fox garners more and more viewers and as the latest poll shows….trust. The gig is up. Viewers can not trust the other cable network shows.Well, I perused the Hamilton report on manufacturing and it was very interesting. Seeing how Congress never adopted his ideas, I fail to see how it "worked" all the way to Reagan. Tariffs? Subsidies to manufacturing? I realize he wanted the tariffs to grow manufacturing in the States and that this Tariff money would be used to pay the subsidies, but 1) it would result in tariffs right back at us and 2) the South thought it was a ploy to make the North stronger and were extremely against this.Nice try though. When President Obama came into office, the United States was the largest exporter of manufactured goods. We are no longer number one. I believe we are still the largest importer of raw material though, Blaming Reagonomics on the slide of manufacturing is naive. When you have powerful unions that demand higher wages, more benefits and better retirement pensions (which I can not blame them), the corporations were left with two options. Move there operations overseas or shut down because they could not compete with foreign markets. In as much as you do not like the shifting of the jobs overseas, I assume you would rather have seen the companies fold. If there is other via options, please let me know what they are.Reagonomics created 21 million jobs during his tenure. Keynesian politics has seen our unemployment go from under 5% to over 10% (closer to 17%). As far as lobbyist, who do you think they are trying to influence? Not the President, but the people with the purse strings. And democrats have been in control of that for 80% of the time since 1980 when Reagan took office.

  42. February 6, 2010 at 12:36 am

    "Therefore he gets short circuited at every turn frustrating him and causing many fair weather liberals to jump from his ship." WiseguyActually my friend, he's helping the nation dig a hole deeper and deeper by sharing /promoting the same economic ideology as the Repugnants.Those not sharing the same economic ideology as the Republicans are noticeably absent from Obama's list of economic advisors. Even the head of the Fed is a carry-over from the Bush Admin.Obama shares in the myth of the "Free Market Fetish".QUOTE: The efficient markets theory is that unregulated markets are efficient and rational. According to this theory in which Greenspan placed his trust, unregulated markets produce the best possible result. Any regulatory interference worsens the outcome. The entire debate over regulation is misconstruedGreenspan blamed his own bad judgment on a theory. The theory, or Greenspan’s understanding of it, nevertheless still holds sway as Congress has proved impotent to re-regulate the gambling casino that is Wall Street. Clearly, the theory serves powerful interests.But what is the truth?The truth is that markets are a social institution. Their efficiency depends on the rules that govern the behavior of people in markets. When free market economists talk about markets deciding this or that, they are deifying a social institution and ascribing to it decision-making power. But, of course, markets do not act or make decisions. People act and make decisions, and markets reflect the decisions and actions of people.It is not the market, an efficient social institution, which is regulated. What is regulated is the behavior of people in markets. If you want good results from markets, good regulation of human behavior is a requirement.The market is like a computer. Garbage in, garbage out.If people who use markets are not regulated, they issue fraudulent financial instruments. They leverage assets with absurd amounts of debt. They market their instruments with fraudulent investment grade ratings. They deal themselves aces.Washington has not only permitted but also encouraged the unemployment of its citizens by enabling greed-driven corporations to send American jobs abroad in order to maximize profits for CEOs’ bonuses, shareholders, and Wall Street.As Ralph Gomory has made clear, economic theory has been shattered because there is no longer any connection between the profits of American companies and the welfare of Americans. This dispossession of American labor has been heralded by offshoring’s pimps in the major universities as "the New Economy."The "New Economy" is a hoax like most everything else the bought-and-paid-for-media feeds to Americans. There is no new economy. There is an unemployed economyIf jobs offshoring is a benefit to America, as the hired pimps of the transnational corporations claim, why is more than one-fifth of the U.S. work force unemployed? Why does the U.S. have the largest trade deficits in world history? – Paul Craig Roberts, former Asst. Secy of the Treasury, Reagan Admin.http://www.counterpunch.com/I don't see Obama addressing any of that…and his economic team won't ever suggest it. Tweedle Dee carries on the policies of Tweedle Dum. Substantial differences are diversionary side shows…who can marry who.What the cons criticize about Obama is tin hat stuff, the truth is worse.

  43. February 6, 2010 at 1:28 am

    I find it funny that the only centrist democrats you listed were Mary "Louisiana Purchase" Landreu that took a $300 million bribe in Medicare payments to vote for ObamaCare and Ben Nelson who took a bribe in the form a an indemnity against any future Medicare rate hikes in perpetuity. So that is your standard for centrism? If you are willing to sell your vote for some bennies, you are a centrist. Joe Lieberman is a hard left liberal on all issues EXCEPT national defense, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and anything dealing with Isreal. Doesn't qualify him as a "centrist" besides I can't think of any carve-outs or bribes in largess he got for Connecticutt, so I'm surprised that you thought of him as centrist.How in the name of God can you claim that John McCain is an ideologue? You must be derranged. He breaks out the "Reagan Republican" banner any time he needs to remind Republicans that McCain is, in fact, a Republican. Otherwise, he is running around talking to any reporter that will put a microphone in his face that he is a "maverick". Yeah, that mantle of centrism, bucking ones party in the name of compromise, really worked out well for him two years ago, didn't it? Fact is that there is little that John McCain honestly believes in. He believes in giving illegal aliens amnesty and citizenship ahead of legal aliens and he believes in the war in Iraq. That's it! Everything except Iraq is on the table for discussion with any and every liberal democrat in the Democrat caucus. Russ Feingold on campaign finance; Ted Kennedy on illegal alien amnesty; Robert KKK Byrd on the Gang of 14, which, as you have obviously forgotten, was the DEMOCRATS filibuster of Bush's judicial nominees. You have a very short memory; must be early on-set of Alzheimer's. I, on the other hand, distinctly remember Harry Reid on the floor of the senate dictating to the Republican MAJORITY, who was acceptable candidates and who were unacceptable for the federal bench. Yeah, that is the Democrat minority rolling over to Bush. Wrong again. You must like being wrong because you are so often its ridiculous.

  44. February 6, 2010 at 1:44 am

    "Apparently I saw a different version of the O'Reilly/Stewart interview. I thought it was an extremely good exchange with both parties getting their points across." HoosierDid you watch the "edited" version or the Internet one?

  45. February 6, 2010 at 1:46 am

    For your reading pleasure…Here is the article in USAToday from 2005 talking about those demands of Harry Reid. It also demonstrates to pervasive racism that permiates Reid's thoughts as he filibustered Miguel Estrada and his sexism for filibustering Priscilla Owen, a more competent judge than Sonya Sotomayor. Kind of blows a big, wide gaping hole in the notion that the Democrats "rolled over" on judicial nominees, don't it?

  46. February 6, 2010 at 5:01 pm

    With so many legitimate grievances that could be made regarding Harry Reid, those are weak indeed.Still, Reid needs to go for a laundry list of ineptness, corruption, and gross malfeasances.Considering the debacle of SCOTUS in the 2000 election (fraud) and rampant outright conflicts of interest in same, Republican critiques of anything involving SCOTUS falls on deaf ears.I mean really, corporate lackeys Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, and Alito, give me a break.Sotomayor may redeem herself and has already surpassed my expectations as she has already weighed in on more cases than Thomas has during her short tenure.America needs some truly progressive SCOTUS justices to protect us from the ravages of the corporations and those at the top, which I reckon is why we have who we have.

  47. February 6, 2010 at 6:00 pm

    Today, February 6th, would have been Ronald Reagan's 99th birthday. Thank you for making America great again…We will get back there…soon!

  48. February 6, 2010 at 10:27 pm

    Dear Gipper.Truth be told, the only thing that kept Reagan from being the worst, most destructive president of all time was Bush/Cheney.

  49. February 6, 2010 at 11:38 pm

    All this Reagan talk is enough to spoil my lunch, but here goes some more.Plagued by deficits, communities everywhere must now decide between tax reform and public spending cuts — between economic life and death. And thanks to two Western bellwether states, we know what each choice means.Choosing death means mimicking Colorado Springs — a Republican red tattoo on Colorado's purple heart.As a venue for political experiments, the sprawly GOP enclave is as pristine a conservative laboratory as you'll find in America. If the city has garnered contemporary notoriety at all, it has achieved infamy for domiciling right-wing groups like Focus on the Family and infecting the world with viruses like Douglas Bruce — the father of draconian initiatives that seek to prohibit governments from raising levies.When the Tea Party movementís anti-tax activists refer to the abstract concept of conservative purity, we can turn to a microcosm like The Springs (as we Coloradoans call it) for a good example of what such purity looks like in practice — and the view isn't pretty.Thanks to the city's rejection of tax increases — and, thus, depleted municipal revenues — The Denver Post reports that "more than a third of the streetlights in Colorado Springs will go dark; the city is dumping firefighting jobs, a vice team, burglary investigators, beat cops; water cutbacks mean most parks will be dead … recreation centers, indoor and outdoor pools (and) museums will close for good; Buses no longer run on evenings and weekends; (and) the city won't pay for any street paving."Meanwhile, even with the Colorado Springs Gazette uncovering tent ghettos of newly homeless residents, the city's social services are being reduced — all as fat cats aim to punish what remains of a middle class. As just one example, rather than initiating a tax discussion, the CEO of The Springs' most lavish luxury hotel is pushing city leaders to cut public employee salaries to the $24,000-a-year level he pays his own workforce — a level approaching Colorado's official poverty line for a family of four.This is what Reaganites have always meant when they've talked of a "shining city on a hill." They envision a dystopia whose anti-tax fires incinerate social fabric faster than James Dobson can say "family values" — a place like Colorado Springs that is starting to reek of economic death.http://www.truthout.org/david-sirota-the-case-choosing-life56683

  50. February 7, 2010 at 9:56 am

    Tent: I have accused you before of being either plain stupid or willfully ignorant; it is painfully obvious to me that you simply waver between the two, depending on the time of day you choose to to visit here. Once again, your apparent lack of reading comprehension is somehow clouded when reading what I write, to wit: "Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, just to name a few very conservative Democrats that are very near the center." Yes, they are the only two I mentioned by name, BUT, I also inferred that there were many more. I guess an "inference" must be a little too deep for you to pick up on; my bad, I will try to keep it a little more simple from now on. I also wrote: "Blue dog Democrats are the most conservative members that are not actual Republicans, and they hold most of the same views. "; which I should have, for your apparent lack of comprehension skills defined better as saying: " … that are not actual Republicans, and they hold most of the same views as Republicans"You just don't get it; a centrist is someone who may have an extreme viewpoint on an issue or two, but NEVER allows him or herself to act on those views as they run the risk of offending someone, somewhere, so they try every trick in the book to stay in the middle of the road. And it isn't always about pork, many times it is the mere possibility that one of their constituents will be offended, or, more likely, one of their donors will be upset. Geez, I can't believe that you don't understand what a centrist actually is; I don't like them, I do not respect them, and I don't vote for anyone who I feel is a centrist (like Diane Feinstien). And you really believe that Joe Liberman is a liberal? Holy crap! Don't you even remember that Holy Joe was out stumping for McCain? A Liberal? Dude, put down that fourth martini, you are not thinking clearly. I understand why you do not like John McCain; he is not far enough right for your taste, period.As for Harry (no balls) Reid dictating to the Republican majority who was acceptable or not as a judicial candidate during 2005, Senator Reid was one of the "gang of fourteen" that negotiated the settlement that avoided the Republicans utilizing the "nuclear option" and ended the filibustering of the remaining judicial nominees (which was in effect, rolling over and letting the Republicans have their way). Yeah, the Democratic Senators were "obstructionists" because they filibustered some 10 judicial nominees; how many appointees have been filibustered since President Obama took office? During last year (2009), the Republicans filibustered more than all of the filibusters of the 1950s and 1960s COMBINED! The only thing more wrong than your perverted view of history is the lack of a will by the Democrats to take on the obstructionists Republicans and either force them to do an actual filibuster (the real kind, where they have to talk nonstop) or eliminate the filibuster completely. And you did not address my point about how compromise is something you do with someone, not "to" someone. Again, your comprehension just not working, didn't see it, didn't understand, or simply choosing to ignore?

  51. February 8, 2010 at 4:05 am

    Hey, Bob, don't get mad and all indignant at me because YOU, not me, named Mary Landreau and ben Nelson as centrist Dmeocrats. If there are more, you STILL haven't named any. You throw out group identifications and then expect me to hunt them down for you? How lazy are you? You claim there are more, then name them. You claim Diane Feinstein is a centrist?!? On what? She votes every time with the Dmeocrat caucus. She and Barbara Boxer have a near perfect liberal voting record. And I guess you stopped reading my post right before I said that Joe Libermann only supports people that are pro-isreal and anti-muslim. That is why he stumped for McCain; McCain was pro-Iraq war and pro-isreal. Come on! Are we that far apart on these issues to come up with two utterly and completely views of the smae issues? Reid only allowed three of Bush's appointees through. But this is you all reaping the whirlwind you have sown. You all, that is you liberals, play dirty hard ball politics when a Republican is in office, calling them and their policies everything but white and then you expect comity and civility when you get into office. What hypocracy!!!! The filibustering of Obama's candidates is a direct result of all of the filibustering of Bush's candidates. Mind you the "gang of 14" was born out of Bush's SECOND TERM candidates getting block, many of which were holdovers from his FIRST term. Yet, when Obama gets elected, Republicans are supposed to roll over like you claim Democrats rolled over (when they didn't) in the name of civility? I don't think so. This is all the fault of liberal democrats and obama himself. He can't even keep his own caucus together. You know things are bad when Salon.com columnists are thinking that the Bush/Cheney years were the good ol' days when the nation was secure and the bad guys were on the run. You want civility and comity and fair play and bipartisanship, and I do mean genuine bipartsanship? Then YOU DEMOCRATS need to change your playbook, end the politics of slander and smear and inuendo and COMPLETE LIES that you and your candidates always say about your opponents. Tell your man Obama to stop slandering Rush and Fox news and stop calling anyone who disagrees with them racists or retards or worse. Stop with trying to appoint 9/11 Truthers and Maoists to ficticious "czarships". Your side actually needs to stop freezing out Republicans from the negotiations process towards real healthcare reform and actually keep your campaign promises to hold those hearings in broad daylight on C-SPAN like Obama campaigned. Stop accusing Republicans of being shills for insurance and pharmaceuticals when Obama has more lobbyists on his payroll, attended more lobbyist fundraisers and has more union fatcats propping him up than any other president in history. In other words, stop the hypocacy and govern as he campaigned. Then, once the bait-and-switch, scorched earth politics ends then maybe you Democrats will stop losing elections every time an election is held and REAL change we ALL can believe in can be passed. Until then, obama will fail and continue to fail as president. He will be just another one term liberal democrat president and will go down in history as a mockery, just like Jimmy Carter.

  52. February 10, 2010 at 8:15 pm

    That's right, one of every three people living in the Colorado Springs area "depends directly or indirectly upon the military" – ie. upon Huge Government. Add in city, county and state workers, and you are probably approaching half of the entire Colorado Springs economy relying on the government. In that sense, Colorado Springs is an American version of almost pure Marxism (David Sirota). This is the Author/radioman you copied)With 1/4 of the high school students dropping out of school in a high tec or military town, your bound to find unemployment a problem. Voters decided on the no tax. If problems arise and they want to corrent them, voters can pass a tax. Colorado Springs is not unique. We don't want you to ruin you lunch, we want to ruin you decade.

  53. February 10, 2010 at 11:03 pm

    Hey BTR – Which forward-thinking, responsible, compassionate Republican ex-president has helped build affordable housing anywhere since 1984?Surely you're better than most with a hammer. You could use one constructively, instead of smearing Jimmy Carter–one of the best USA ex-presidents ever. Check this out:The next Jimmy & Rosalynn Carter Work Project will be held in the United States from October 3-8, 2010, to coincide with World Habitat Day. Volunteer recruitment begins this Spring.

  54. February 11, 2010 at 5:47 am

    "We don't want you to ruin you lunch, we want to ruin you decade." HoosierYou've already ruined the last 3 decades, why stop now?

  55. February 11, 2010 at 10:02 am

    I know that you just love ol' Jimmah and his Habitat for Humanity, but below are the painful truths:Habitat for Humanity builds their "homes" on abandoned landfills in some states. These "homes" are ruined after two years from the settling of the rubbish under the foundation and from all of the toxic chemicals seeping into the "homes". In other cities, Habitat homes become delapidated because people never takes as good of care with things given to them as they do those things they get for themselves.All you libs talk about is "affordable housing" and all the efforts you libs have taken have ruined the chances for people to get real affordable housing. It was Democrats and their Community Reinvestment Act of 1979 under JIMMY CARTER that forced banks to make bad loans to low-income minority people who could not afford them in order to prove that the banks weren't racist. Then Clinton forced Fannie and Freddie to cover those bad loans so that the banks could make more bad loans. When challenged about the liquidity of Freddie and Fannie, Big Libs, like Barney Frank, accused the auditor of racism because Franklin Raines, then head of Fannie, is black. Couple the Big Lib efforts for "affordable housing" with Alan Greenspan's cheap money and this was the recipe for the popping of the housing bubble that has sent thousands and thousands of low-income Americans into foreclosure and bankruptcy. The efforts of Big Libs to get "affordable housing" have ALWAYS failed. Chicago, Boston, New York City used to be full of the Projects which were government built slums. That experiment in affordable housing FAILED like Fannie and Freddie FAILED like Habitat for Humanity fails to provide "affordable housing". Like most things, when Big Libs get their hands on something in the name of providing "affordable" this that or the other thing, they always make things worse. With efforts like this, it would be better if they did nothing. Which is why I am against Big Lib's take over of the medical industry; they will just screw that up too.

  56. February 11, 2010 at 10:10 am

    Oh sorry, forgot my citation…Habitat homes fall downI think the people in this article would have preferred sleeping in their cars instead of the skin lesions they have to deal with now. Thanks Big Lib and your efforts to provide "affordable" housing.

  57. February 11, 2010 at 10:50 pm

    More strident selfishness from BTR.If I'm not mistaken, BTR, your life is pretty blessed, you have everything you need, food, roof over your head, access to healthcare. And yet, when there are attempts to help others obtain the basics, you viciously criticize them and you OFFER NOTHING PRODUCTIVE in the way of helping others less fortunate than yourself. It's like you are forever afraid of losing the blessings you have and live in constant fear that you really don't deserve what you have and are dreading that the world will find out. So you attack. Hey, BTR, if you're so smart, how come you're not happy?..

  58. February 12, 2010 at 3:03 pm

    Newstand, since when does the meaning of forward-thinking, responsible and compassionate equate to building affordable housing? The Republican Ex Presidents are or were involved in many philanthropic activities since 1984. And Jimmy Carter is still the worst President we have ever had. Until 2012. Hey BTR, remember how upset liberals were when the funding for the Iraqi war was never put into the federal budget, but got slipped in through the back door with "supplemental appropriations." Well, Fanny and Freddie are being backdoor financed to a tune of 400 billion so far and have $5 trillion more in Fannie/Freddie mortgage-backed debt they could also pick up. Thanks Carter. While were at it, thanks Clinton. In 1994, the administration pushed through some fundamental changes to the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. The goal of these changes was to make sure that banks were “serving low and moderate income geographies” and making sure that these banks “economically empowered persons of low and moderate income”. Regulators were then given more power to punish banks that did not comply with the new rules These changes led directly to the explosion of subprime mortgages and contributed heavily to our current financial debacle. Again, while we are at it, remember this 236 billion dollar surplus Clinton supposedly handed off to Bush? This figure was obtained 16 months prior to the end of his term. Four months after this figure, the dot.coms crashed. Nasdaq lost 2.5 trillion dollars in the next year. Do you remember Bush ever saying it was Clinton's fault? No, he rolled up his sleeves and did what was necessary to make the economy recover. Tax cuts. It took a year or so, but from 2003 to 2007 saw a good economic recovery. Then….then, the next democratic caused disaster hit. Sup prime loan defaults. The only difference now is, we elected a liberal democratic that is doing nothing to turn things around but is actually exacerbating it. Spending our way to recovery does not work. Even the jobs bill is laughable. Can you imagine a bill that wants small business's to borrow money so they can hire more people? What crazy business owner would borrow money to hire people? The Obama style of borrowing and squandering money to spend yourself out of a financial crisis, by piling more debt on top of an existing mountain of debt that caused the problem in the first place is ludicrous. Hillary was correct. He did not have enough experience to be President. And the left didn't think Palin did. At least she knows what can turn around the economy and it is not government spending.Just keep your eyes on the PIGS in Europe (Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain) These socialist countries have common themes that President Obama is pushing for here and they are all going bankrupt.

  59. February 12, 2010 at 3:03 pm

    Newstand, since when does the meaning of forward-thinking, responsible and compassionate equate to building affordable housing? The Republican Ex Presidents are or were involved in many philanthropic activities since 1984. And Jimmy Carter is still the worst President we have ever had. Until 2012. Hey BTR, remember how upset liberals were when the funding for the Iraqi war was never put into the federal budget, but got slipped in through the back door with "supplemental appropriations." Well, Fanny and Freddie are being backdoor financed to a tune of 400 billion so far and have $5 trillion more in Fannie/Freddie mortgage-backed debt they could also pick up. Thanks Carter. While were at it, thanks Clinton. In 1994, the administration pushed through some fundamental changes to the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. The goal of these changes was to make sure that banks were “serving low and moderate income geographies” and making sure that these banks “economically empowered persons of low and moderate income”. Regulators were then given more power to punish banks that did not comply with the new rules These changes led directly to the explosion of subprime mortgages and contributed heavily to our current financial debacle. Again, while we are at it, remember this 236 billion dollar surplus Clinton supposedly handed off to Bush? This figure was obtained 16 months prior to the end of his term. Four months after this figure, the dot.coms crashed. Nasdaq lost 2.5 trillion dollars in the next year. Do you remember Bush ever saying it was Clinton's fault? No, he rolled up his sleeves and did what was necessary to make the economy recover. Tax cuts. It took a year or so, but from 2003 to 2007 saw a good economic recovery. Then….then, the next democratic caused disaster hit. Sup prime loan defaults. The only difference now is, we elected a liberal democratic that is doing nothing to turn things around but is actually exacerbating it. Spending our way to recovery does not work. Even the jobs bill is laughable. Can you imagine a bill that wants small business's to borrow money so they can hire more people? What crazy business owner would borrow money to hire people? The Obama style of borrowing and squandering money to spend yourself out of a financial crisis, by piling more debt on top of an existing mountain of debt that caused the problem in the first place is ludicrous. Hillary was correct. He did not have enough experience to be President. And the left didn't think Palin did. At least she knows what can turn around the economy and it is not government spending.Just keep your eyes on the PIGS in Europe (Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain) These socialist countries have common themes that President Obama is pushing for here and they are all going bankrupt.

  60. February 12, 2010 at 5:20 pm

    "These socialist countries have common themes that President Obama is pushing for here and they are all going bankrupt." HoosierHuh?Ever wonder why people do not take you guys seriously?Probably the entire country should follow Colo. Springs' example. Lower taxes and cut government services. Shut down fire stations, sell police helicopters, turn off the street lights and stop collecting trash.Not taxing the rich works for Colo. Springs.

  61. No
    February 12, 2010 at 6:06 pm

    New Republican Governor Chris Christy of New Jersey announces he is freezing ALL state spending effect immediately and he will work to reduce all tax supported wages and pensions before the state has to file bankruptcy.Democrats around the nation are at pucker factor 9.9…California is taking notes, as all their options have run out.Great ideas! Freeze all state spending indefinitely…Reduce all tax supported salaries and fire all non essential positions…scrap state pensions and revert to the old fashioned 401K option…This is the new Conservative model for fixing America. Dems will never hold the White House or a majority of either house. Obama has killed theor party.

  62. February 12, 2010 at 8:18 pm

    So Winston, just what is your great idea for Colorado Springs? Since there are very few options, I assume you would want them to approve the tax increases. Look at the great job that has done for California, New York and New Jersey. Have you been keeping track of the wealth leaving those states for greener pastures? You critizice well, now come up with competent ideas.And, apparently you have not been keeping up on the PIGS in Europe and the reasons why they are going bankrupt. As I laid out, government spending. You have these idealist values with absolutely no idea of the economic impact. Our Social Security will be bankrupt this year. Medicare is not long after that. Do we just keep raising taxes? In the not too distant future, we could tax the rich at 100% and still have a deficit. Obama's cap and trade and health care reform will just explode our deficit. Come off your idealist ideas and deal with reality. Think of the future a little bit. Not the childish I want it now. Speaking of taking people seriously, you have no ideas to even consider.Good to hear President Clinton was released from the hospital today.

  63. February 13, 2010 at 12:05 am

    Socialist Greece is facing expulsion from the EU and defaulting on billions of dollars worth of loans.Socialist Spain and Partugal are in similar boats.Hoosier=right; Winston=wrongWhat a happy happy day!

  64. February 13, 2010 at 2:17 am

    Again, the only thing that saved Reagan from being the worst president of all time, other than his abhorrent deification and Norquisting, was Bush.If you look at economic statistics, the highest rates of economic growth in the U.S. were when we had a more progressive tax system.The worst financial messes came about when the top had so much money floating around they inflated financial markets with bubbles. Bubbles pop. One just did.There are only so many stocks/bonds to absorb excess capital….so financial paper based on nothing gets created. The focus of Chinese think tanks is how to best manage the rapid decline of the U.S. for their own benefit. "What Do the Chinese Think" – Mark Leonard, Exec. Director, European Council On Foreign Relations. If you haven't read his book, you probably should. Get past your ideological blinders and you may learn something.

  65. No
    February 13, 2010 at 4:20 am

    The estimate to date is that 17 billion dollars has moved out of California so far.More wealth and businesses are moving out since there is no cure in sight and fear a total breakdown and bankruptcy and don't want to be there for that.Until California cuts taxes and cuts all s ate spending by 24% we have no hope. We are NOT to big to fail! And as goes California so goes the nation…and all the while Obama is wasting his time on health care and the KSM trial. We need a President right now!

  66. February 13, 2010 at 3:17 pm

    Hoosier, referring to group of four European nations as "PIGS" is extremely offensive and xenophobic. Is this your idea of "conservative" diplomacy? What good does this type of ugly rhetoric do?What is it about "conservatives" that they continually want to denigrate the citizens of other nations? I think it is sick..

  67. February 13, 2010 at 10:42 pm

    Considering that the European Socialist Democratic model surpasses us in just about every category, the "PIGS" acronym seems perversely misplaced.CEO's voted in by workers, shudder the thought.That so many actively push for the acceleration of their own extinction vis a vis the Republican quest for a dictatorship, which benefits their true billionaire leaders, and which they will niether be invited to participate in or be welcomed on the sidelines is amusing to observe.Sad, but amusing.We already have a corporatocracy,Soon will come the dictatorship which Reagan and his ilk actively encouraged and look forward too.Democracy just gets in the way of accumulating ever increasing stores of wealth and booty.The cons and their foot soldiers, the wild eyed libertarians are marching towards their own decline

  68. February 14, 2010 at 12:54 am

    Winston said, "Considering that the European Socialist Democratic model surpasses us in just about every category, the "PIGS" acronym seems perversely misplaced."In which catagories are Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain leading America, Winston?Quantify that for us would you?It certainly isn't in productivity as America still number 1, despite the Obama Administration's effort to counter that fact.America still has one of the best life expectancies for a nation of its size and the best healthcare delivery system in the world.Remember that countries like Italy and Germany had facsism as their chosen system of government a scant 60 years ago. America is still going strong with its constitutional republic, again despite the Obama Administration's attempts to the contrary, for the past 220 years.So the only thing that is perverse is the liberal American and their love of failed and failing systems of government.

  69. February 14, 2010 at 7:05 am

    I do have to wonder sometimes what the far right thinks they are advocating for, as a type of government system; on the one hand, most on the right claim to be a real supporter for our republic democracy, but most of the time the far right seems to long for the farthest right type of government which is usually called fascism, but should be called corporatism. Mussolini is the one who said that fascism should be called corporatism, and he should have known, since he ran a government of that type. Link to Mussolini's own words as he defines fascism, including the his assertion that fascism is the opposite of socialism. It is an interesting read, especially the part about retaining just enough liberty, but not too much. Wikipedia has a very detailed definition as well, but I know that Tent and Hoosier are going to go all "but that's what liberals want …", but really, what I would like is more like what Norway has, a social democracy, which does have a root in socialism, but retains democracy for the actual people, just not the corporations. Go ahead Tent and Hoosier, so us of your "love" for the corporations, show us how utterly wrong you think that Wise Guy, Winston Smith and I are to want to put the interests of the people ahead of profit and greed.

  70. February 14, 2010 at 3:53 pm

    Judging nations:It's important to consider quality of life and happiness of the people..The most important and valuable thing is a people's connection to spirit and compassion for their fellow man. Everything good stems from that.The next great nation will excel in those areas..And which one of you commenters has lived in a village in the hills or coast of Portugal, where three and four generations of family live on the same block, and none have ever eaten at a McDonalds, Burger King, Jack in The Box, KFC, Taco Bell, IHOP, Round Table, Dominos, Carl's Jr. or shopped at a Wal-Mart, K-Kart, Sam's Club, Target, Mervin's, or sipped coffee at Starbucks, Dennny's or IHOP?And yet some of those same people DO have iMacs and Iphones. And ypu couldn't pay them to move to the United States. .

  71. February 15, 2010 at 1:45 am

    What lunacy are you talking about now? corportism? Really, this is your new slant for your anti-American screeds.Look at the Money Global 500 for 2009. You will see that only 7 of the top 25 global corporations are IN THE U.S. For that matter, really one 6 of them listed are private corporations since Obama bought out GM. So all of your rantings about the right being corporatists, in your thinly veiled attempt to find a new code word for facsist since you deemed it necessary to link Mussolini to the right in America. The truth is that the world has gone corporatist and therefore the WHOLE world is no better than Mussolini. And there is no part of the world that is immune from the neo-facism of Bob and Wise Guy's corporatism. I just came from a three week mission to Thailand. let me tell you, the biggest seller of trucks in Thailand is Toyota, even though there is a 400% tax on all toyota imports. The Thai are buying Toyotas in droves, even with the accelerator issues. So either you need to find a new thing to rant about since the whole world seems to have already succumbed to your evil neo-facsist corporatism. Even the Chinese, those dirty rotten RED Chinese, have embraced corporate facsism since they have two of the top 25 corporations on the list.It must suck being you two, alone in a world full of facsists.

  72. No
    February 15, 2010 at 5:06 pm

    Evan Bayh (D) is just another in a long list of Obama water carrying libs that knew they could not get re-elected! He announced he will NOT run as he does not want to lose.The rats are jumping off the Obama ship as fast as we can count. Unprecedented…Tell me know you are all happy with Barry. C'mon…tell us.The great communicator isn't. He does read well though. The great uniter isn't…in fact quite the opposite.Has anyone ever done more damage to the democratic party than Obama? and he's got 3 years left to finish the job.It's a great day to be a conservative.Cup of tea anyone?

  73. February 16, 2010 at 12:17 am

    "It must suck being you two, alone in a world full of facsists." BTR"Tell me know you are all happy with Barry. C'mon…tell us." NoWhat are you guys, three years old?Unfortunately nothing much has changed, this site is in dire need of a mature and intelligent spokes person to represent the conservative POV.When someone on the far right actually engages in a discussion rather than derails it, it's a terrific opportunity to show the fallacies in their thinking. They often self-destruct their own position.Derailings or comments having nothing to do with a post are more common than discussion.To continue to label Pres. Obama and the majority of Democratic politicians as "liberal" is to reinforce a self fullfilling sterotype which has no basis in fact.There's quite a few human characteristics that are less pronounced in people who score highly as right-wing authoritarian followers. They are more likely to make decisions based on their existing beliefs instead of rational consideration, even if the result arrived at by rational consideration is better for them. This turns out to be the result of how they process logical arguments – most people start with some assertions and then decide if the conclusion is valid based on that. But they first look at the conclusion, and if it agrees with what they already believe, they assume the conclusion is correct, even if the assertions don't back it up. How best to communicate effectively with such people has been a quest of mine for many years.

  74. February 16, 2010 at 5:08 am

    What is on display for all willing to see it is the utter shame, farce and LIE that liberalism and those adherents to the new pseudo-religion of liberalism is. For example, I found this interesting when I saw it, but… they want to track your movements with your cell phone, the debacle of marandizing the Christmas Bomber before actionable intelligence could legally (let alone illegally) be extracted from him and it all amounts to an adminsitration that is 180 degrees out of alignment with what the Founding Fathers intended and what the American people want for this country. Winston, Bob, Wise Guy, you are all completely delusional or deceptively desiring to be despotic. Your choice. Either you are so blinded by your dogma that you can not see the forest through the trees,… or this is all part and parcel of the left's master plan to just make everyone completely dependant on Big Daddy government. I say you all should just stop the charade, stop pretending to be anything but the sychophants to a wannabe dictator and jsut come clean. The truth will set you free and you might actually feel good about yourselves for a change.

  75. February 16, 2010 at 9:31 am

    Tent: Get some help dude. The treatment of the underwear bomber was exactly what the Bush Administration did to the shoe bomber, except that the Obama Administration had the FBI interrogators bring in the family of the accused and the suspect has given more actionable intelligence since he was given his "Miranda" rights. You know, Winston was right when he said he had not found anyone from the right on this blog that could carry on a true back and forth with some intelligence. Tent, your "obsession" about dictators and "Daddy government" seem to indicate that you have some real issues to deal with. Did you read my link in my last comment, the one to Mussolini's own words? Too close to home for you? And by the way, your link was broken.

  76. No
    February 16, 2010 at 2:03 pm

    I wish to make a correction to my earlier post. I spoke too soon.Even though Evan Bayh (D)dropped out of the race as he knew he could not win, his second, and maybe more mprtant motivation, is that he is starting up a committee to run against Obama in 2012. Look for Hillary to do the same soon.The far far left liberal site DailyKos said on it's website this weekend "Obama had better focus on getting something done or Americans will see him as a complete failure"…PS: The hoax on global warming has been exposed and that farce has come to a screeching stop. So as for now Cap-n-tax is dead as is healthcare. Obama just wasted a year of our time and 4 trillion of our dollars!

  77. February 16, 2010 at 2:32 pm

    Notice a common theme here BTR? Explain to a liberal a fact (European Nations going bankrupt because of government spending) and their response is they find the word PIG extremely offensive and xenophobic. No answers. Just like our present government spending. They want health care, cap and trade, education overhaul and we can't afford the programs we have in place today. They do not have any answers. I have posted URL's that show the economy before and after Reagan, yet they ignore the facts and continue with the liberal slant and demeaning of Reaganomics. We have posted President Obama's mentors many times in the past and the influence they had on him (and with his own admissions like take from the rich to give to the poor), yet they say he is a centrist. I believe it all stems from liberal condescension. More on this later. I also find it funny that they try to label us (unhappy, moron, lemming, neocon, etc.) but refuse to state what they believe in. They will state what they are not, but not what they are and what they believe in. I am a conservative. Winston would argue all day long on the definition.

  78. February 16, 2010 at 3:31 pm

    Big Tent REPUBLICAN wrote:"…this is all part and parcel of the left's master plan to just make everyone completely dependant on Big Daddy government."Most people can see right off how ridiculous a statement this is; something concocted by the right wing propagandists in order to herd "conservatives" like sheep as they cower in fear of the left's "MASTER PLAN" for the destruction of the American way of life. This is simply another version of the propaganda script delivered by Joe McCarthy as he tried to demonize his political opponents for being part of a "communist conspiracy." This type of divisive, control-freak propaganda has its roots in deep seated, neurotic fear and paranoia. The fact that "conservatives" make absurd statements like this is further evidence that Winston Smith is correct when he tells us about the tendencies of "far right authoritarian followers" and how it is near impossible to have an intelligent discussion with one.I lived through the Nixon, Reagan and Bush years. Those administrations epitomized "Big (mean) Daddy Government" and were truly governments to be wary of. Modern Democratic administrations have not been much better, but it is clearly the recent Republican administrations that have been the most dangerous and destructive to the well-being of the United States and the world in general.Any political movement that would anoint Sarah Palin as a potential President of the United States is, by definition, a threat to the well-being of the United States and the world..

  79. No
    February 16, 2010 at 5:07 pm

    Well Bob here it is…proof the global warming hoax is over. Care to depute any of these many facts? or will you just finally admit it was a hoax and it was busted wide open before real damage could be done?http://www.ocregister.com/articles/-234092–.htmlPS: We can now look for a successful challenge to the Supreme Courts C02 ruling! PPS: Does anyone know where algore is?

  80. February 16, 2010 at 8:24 pm

    The Reagan Administration was successful at enriching one segment of the population, at a tremendous cost to the majority, creating financial problems and military and defense problems that we all pay for today, and will pay for well into the future. The well-being of a nation should not be judged soley on the enrichment of corporations and stock holders. So many of those people who became enriched "on paper" during the Reagan Administration, lost it all in the financial debacles that were the result of that sham and all that went along with it, including things like the Enron rip off. Ronald Reagan epitomized "Big Daddy Government" and still does. He is a Big Government Icon and there is an entire propaganda industry built on turning the false-memory of Ronald Reagan into a "Big Daddy" for the mindless mass of "conservatives" who are as deluded as the followers of Adolph Hitler..

  81. February 16, 2010 at 10:36 pm

    Well, at least you tried the link. Says something I guess.Here it is againWhy is it that I need help? You're the ones that are drinking the Obama Kool-aid, despite all of the evidence that his plans will lead to the ruin of this nation. Where is your evidence Bob that more actionable intelligence was gleaned because of Mirandizing of the Underwear Bomber. Furthermore, I love how the leftists in America want to draw parallels between Richard Reid and the Underwear Bomber. Well, guess what? Reid's attempt was on the heels of 9/11; the underwear bomber tried it 9 years later. Things change; send him to Gitmo and try him like the rest of his terrorist brothers in military tribunals.Bottom line is that Hoosier is spot on: the Left are the ones that offer no refute to our points, serve up distractions and non-sequiters to very rational and reasonable arguments made by the us on the right and then, when all else fails, resort to slanders to avoid the issue and change the topic. With tactics like bringing up Mussolini or straw man Joe Mccarthy (he was right; there were communists working in the federal government, many for the USSR) as some way of linking Hoosier, myself and others to them. By the way, it was Wise Guy who said that Hitler would draw a 49% share of a vote in America. That's the kind of scumbag he REALLY is.

  82. February 18, 2010 at 5:52 am

    You are a sick, sick man, Wise Guy.

  83. February 18, 2010 at 6:02 am

    Reaganomics has been a terrible disaster for America and also for the world. Republican behavior has been as irresponsible fiscally as imaginable, and people still worry about the Democratic types and deficits following the media crapola.I think it's time implement the Parliamentary system. We could get rid of the Curia too, or limit its role so it can no longer determine who is President and derail campaign financing. There is little to defend in the present system, but the principle of self-government and bottom-up popular sovereignty needs to be retained. I put it all in the Pledge of Allegiance frame where Republic and Liberty and Justice for ALL are the essentials. Kill the empire because it is always authoritarian. Be committed to social policies that serve all of us instead of being divided by class war or wars of conscience and religion.The world cannot afford our big adolescent melt-down. If we don't take care of our ills, we will all go down a long and ugly road. The reason our government is not working is basically that Commerce has bought and sold it. But it is far from the best model of democratic decision-making around today. I think the Founders would look upon us as idiots for not junking what has failed and adopting up to date ideas about democracy. They were pretty up to date guys in their day. I don't think they expected to be worshipped as the last word on government. They wanted us to engage as they did in a very practical and in-process experiment in democratic self-government.

  84. February 18, 2010 at 7:30 am

    No: Oh yeah, you have a newspaper columnist for a very right leaning Orange County newspaper laying out for all the world to see that "global warming" is all just a big hoax; the sad thing here is you are so desperate to prove your viewpoint that you are willing to grasp at whatever you think will make your point for you. The writer makes some good points, but he also dismisses out of hand a few key points that actual, real scientists have put forth with a lot of support with research. If you really want to give your view, your assertions, cite some real science, not an opinion writer, no matter how persuasive or compelling he might be. Proof? Did not convince me.

  85. February 18, 2010 at 1:51 pm

    Now that Iran admits to being a nuclear power, how much longer before Iran unleashes that nuclear power all over Isreal? Didn't Obama tell Aquavelvanejad that he's to behave himself while Obama is in office?Or better yet, maybe Rahm Emmanuel bribed Aquavelvanejad with $300 million if he would declare his country a nuclear power so Obama would have justification to bomb him and make himself look tough to the rest of the Muslim world? Well, that doesn't make any sense because Obama has spent his first year in office kissing Muslim ass (eww! that's a nasty thought, have you seen what those guys use as toilet paper?) every where he goes. Even here in the US, he has let Gitmo detainees go back to the Jihad, promised to close the place, moved KSM to NYC so he can go on the Rachel Maddow Show via courtroom cameras, mirandized the Underwear Bomber, minimized the Fort Hood Jihadist with his shoutouts and accepted the Nobel peace prize on behalf of Muslims everywhere? So exactly where does our Fearless Leader come down on the whole Iran-with-nukes-hates-Isreal question? Probably no where since Obama is still obsessing over trying to nationalize our healthcare industry.How funny will Jewish John Stewart find a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv I wonder? Maybe a jew or two (other than Joe Liberman) will finally decide to vote Republican to keep Democrats from allowing such things to happen again (again – FDR was a Democrat president that last time there was a jewish holocaust)

  86. February 18, 2010 at 3:11 pm

    Wise Guy is being funny again. Yes, Reagan's policy did help one segment of the population. Those who were willing to work. We are fortunate that the majority of Americans are still willing. Did corporations prosper. Yes, and they also hired citizens which helped all Americans. Blaming the dot.com crash on Reagan? I believe that was a Clinton mess that he handed over to Bush. So, it is time to deal with the condescending attitude of liberals. We all know what it is. Why are all conservatives so anti intellectual? To began with, the average liberal exhibits four types of condescension. First, there is a notion that conservative's win elections and debates not because of ideas, but because they deploy brilliant and sinister campaign tactics. They honestly believe this! Secondly, they believe the conservative leaders are crass manipulators so the average liberal believes the followers therefore must be manipulated or stupid. Thirdly, they believe conservatives are racist and they believe Republicans tap into white prejudice against blacks and immigrants. Finally, liberals believe that conservatives are driven purely by emotion and anxiety, including fear of change whereas liberals actually think they have the harder task of appealing to evidence and logic. The average American can see right through this liberal hogwash. It is the whine of the fortunate son who is running the family business into the ground. The competition has to be cheating or the customers are stupid. The liberal snobbery also helps hide from their shame. If they are so devoted to evidence and logic, then how come social security and Medicare are broke. How can they are so shocked by racism and condone Reverends Jackson and Sharpton, how come they are so appalled at sinister campaign tactics yet excuse ACORN and write inexcusable bills in secret giving corrupt bargains with special interest lobbies? Your problem liberals is an unjust and oppressive administrative state which has one purpose, to increase the power of the center and force people to look to the state for all of their needs. We, the average American, do not want this. We are rejecting your ideas of big government spending.

  87. February 18, 2010 at 4:49 pm

    As long as I am on my soapbox, let me continue on my assessment of the movement going on today. We are on the verge of something unprecedented in history: the peaceful, constitutional replacement of our country's entire political establishment. New Jersey, Virgina, Kennedy's seat, Republicans and Democrats deciding not to run for re election, how the tea party can exert so much pressure withoug even having a chosen leader. The common American in the past just wanted to elect officials and go about there lives, watching football, nascar, baseball, spending time with their families and relied on these officials to do their job that they were elected for. But, 911 and the 2008 crash has changed all of that. It has exposed the house of cards our economy was built on and put on display our unsustainible debt. Republicans blame Democrats, and Democrats blame Republicans. To ordinary, non-political Americans — who grasp intuitively, and correctly, that both parties share responsibility for these two catastrophes — these politicians seem like children who've turned a party into a food fight. Americans don't like getting tangled in the details of politics. We prefer to stand back and see the big picture. (This, by the way, helps explain the extraordinary appeal of Ronald Reagan and Sarah Palin. That's what they do, too.) What the big picture is showing now is that our entire political establishment has failed. These were the men and women, both Republicans and Democrats, we relied upon to focus on the details, and by doing so, to keep us safe from terrorists and to keep the world's most powerful economy from imploding. And they blew it. So we'll replace them with a wholly new establishment — some of whom will be Republicans, others Democrats, and a few Independents here and there — and hope our next political establishment will get it right. In this coming battle, common sense will prevail over personna.Stand back a little from the politics and you will see the big picture in other arenas. The general distrust of the Mainstream Liberal Media. Newspaper circulation and viewerships to cable networks are dropping while Fox and conservative websites are flourishing. It will not be easy and will not be without mistakes. No other country in history has ever attempted to replace its establishments so smoothly and so peacefully — and so cheerfully — as we are doing right now. The souls of 234 years of Americans are arising and speaking out. We will pervail. It is a wonderful time in America to be an American. Common sense. Not rhetoric.

  88. February 18, 2010 at 7:25 pm

    "It is a wonderful time in America to be an American." HoosierPerhaps if you're one of the 1%.For the 99%, not so much.The greatest disparity of wealth of any industrialized nation, trillions being transferred to the economic elite at the top while the working class continues to grow poorer.It has been ongoing for many years, but it took a Reagan to kick it into overdrive and the rest to be complicit in its making.Something to be proud of alright.

  89. February 18, 2010 at 7:49 pm

    Nice try Hoosier, but the bottom line is that Ronald Reagan and Reaganomics were disastrous for the United States, and your summary of what "liberals" supposedly believe is nothing more than ridiculous over-reaching, self-serving stereotyping that has little to do with reality. I won't say you make this stuff up Hoosier, my friend, because it is the same ol' right wing propaganda mindlessly repeated in many places. You simply spread the virus.Hoosier's continual effort to try to pigeon-hole and stereo-type those who disagree with him, using gross generalizations, labeling everyone as either "liberal" or "conservative" and then trying to tell us what "they" think is a perfect example of the self-deluding, narrow-minded reductionist thought process of people who label themselves as "conservatives". They can't handle ambiguity and thus try to turn everything into fear-based, simplistic, black or white, two-sided arguments. Reality is more complex than that..

  90. No
    February 18, 2010 at 8:29 pm

    Bob said: "If you really want to give your view, your assertions, cite some real science"Please clarify…By "real science" do you mean the made up and twisted science the far left uses to try to control liberty, personal freedoms and the private enterprise system? Or do you mean real irrefutable facts? The facts that prove global warming or climate change or whatever you are calling it this week is the biggest societal/global hoax perpetrated on mankind by crocked statist ideologues intent on installing a world wide communist government?Just so we are on the same page Bob…I'm just sayin

  91. No
    February 18, 2010 at 8:36 pm

    Hoosier…brilliant my man! Brilliant and well said yet it falls on the ears of the ideologues and wasted. But a great historical look back for them when their fantasy ends and they see that not does the emperor have no clothes…they are naked as well. Thank you for those posts…keep it up!

  92. February 19, 2010 at 6:39 am

    Dear "No", answer me this, please: Had you EVER used the word "ideologue" prior to hearing it on a right wing radio or tv show?And WHERE did you pick up this line about a conspiracy to install a "world wide communist government"? And do you imagine I'm employed in that conspiracy? And where do you imagine we have our conspiracy meetings? And will you be encouraging others to attack IRS offices to fight the "conspiracy"?..

  93. February 19, 2010 at 7:07 am

    Winston: No, the Founding fathers would have just looked at YOU and those that think like YOU as idiots. They created this system of government and got it enacted way back in 1789. Since then we have changed it only 26 times. That speaks to the wisdom of those men. YOU are not in their league, even 225 years later, to be questioning whether or not this form of government should continue. Only a self-righteous, pompous ass would claim to be as wise as those me… and yes, you are that self-righteous, pompous ass I am referring to.Bob: You must be one of the believers of the Church Of Global Warming if you need more proof that global warming is a hoax foisted on humanity. The very man responsible for generating the IPCC report admitted that there has been no warming since 1995. the East Anglican emails also prove it. The scientist that was taken out of context on the rate of Himilayan glacier melt and that ends up in the IPCC report should also have been proof for you. But alas, such is Bob, always willing to believe the liberal lie over the truth until he is boxed in a corner and FORCED to admit he is wring.Hoosier: Right on all counts! Well done, my friend, well done.

  94. February 19, 2010 at 7:20 am

    Dave, after reading Mr. Slack's Diatribe on the Smokinggun.com, I found it to be more liberal than conservative. After all, he had the communist creed compared to the capitalist "greed" at the end, he thinks the health care system is a joke, and thinks corporations are the root of all evil. Perhaps he is a fan of Keith Oberman?

  95. February 19, 2010 at 5:32 pm

    It is indeed something to be proud of. Reaganomics works. A proven point that I have shared the economic details with you in previous points. Hard statistics that can not be refuted or by your voice trying to change history. Why do you begrudge the rich? They hire Americans which fuels our economy. I would say Winston has a lot of Marxist in him. Sorry life has not treated you well. And, as far as being the party of NO, well, that is something else to be extremely proud of. Our conservatives representatives should not only say no, but should feel it is their job and responsibility to say no. No to excessive spending leading to the detriment of the United States. Wise Guy and Winston can offer zero proof that Reaganomics did not work. I have provided proof that it did. And Wise Guy, generalizations are like a bell curve, it may fit 80% of the liberals, which, in my book, constitutes a majority. You may not fall into the bell curve, but it sure explains why you on the left feel sooooo superior and yet are so unhappy. Step back, look around and help us get rid of politicians and elect officials who are willing to get the job done, including health care revision…THE RIGHT WAY. I do not want to pigeon whole individuals, just generalizing for the majority. This is not according to me, but Psychologist.

  96. February 19, 2010 at 6:54 pm

    Actually I have plenty of land and plenty of money, doesn't change the fact that the system is skewed towards those at the top and against those at the bottom. Reagan and Reaganomics was and continues to be a disaster for the working class of this country and serves to concentrate wealth in as few hands as possible. The Dem vs Repug thing is a useful distraction to keep the low informed angst ridden while the transfer of wealth from the bottom to the top continues unabated.Probably the entire country should follow Colo. Springs' example. Lower taxes and cut government services. Shut down fire stations, sell police helicopters, turn off the street lights and stop collecting trash.Not taxing the rich works for Colo. Springs.Think economically as a system instead of as personal existential economic life. Money needs to circulate like the blood in the body. If it all goes to the head or the butt, the body dies. If the hands and feet don't get good circulation they wither. When the money in an economy gets stuck in the bloat of mega-wealth, it does not get spent with any marketplace efficiencies. It either goes to luxury goods or to international investments that do not come back into the American economy. They will not be hiring or making stuff if people can't buy it. So putting money into the pockets of people who will spend it on basics is how you recharge the system when it goes monopoly. The game is correct about capital flow and what happens when ownership of properties is not dispersed among the players.There is ample evidence showing that general prosperity and a high marginal tax rate go together. People still go to work if they enjoy their work when they are making top dollar even if they get to the old Ike 90%. And if they decide to go fishing others can have the jobs they leave. We do not need to motivate those at the top to make more money. We need to bring them back to earth instead of having them float into the ether with the nation's treasury.Sad to see BTR hasn't changed.

  97. February 19, 2010 at 7:09 pm

    Hoosier, you have not provided "proof" of anything. Just more posturing and chest pounding, along with your typical stereo-typing and gross generalizations that have little connection to reality. You promote fear and anger and division. You treat politics as if it were a football game, cheering for your team, pretending as if this were all a game, wanting to beat the competition, concerned more about winning and proving yourself "right" rather than unifying our nation and promoting peace and love. Ronald Reagan and the Bushes and Nixon were all disasters for our nation; all of them criminals, all of them orchestrators of death and destruction; all of them whores for men and women who earn millions of dollars a year, while those they employ cannot afford decent healthcare. Hoosier, you and your ilk, are responsible for massive suffering and the decay of the United States, and the decay of morality and compassion for your fellow man. Your narrow-minded, brain-washed, selfishness and self-righteousness seems to have no bounds. You make it easier for Osama Bin Ladin to recruit new followers. When you call yourself a "conservative" it is just a polite way of saying you are intolerant, selfish, fearful and lack faith and have not yet figured out that what you promote is regressive and dangerous and causes unnecessary suffering and injustice. Of course, I realize that you mean well, but are a victim of years of brain-washing and propaganda.And seriously, the very fact that you would consider Sarah Palin a worthwhile candidate for President of the United States is plenty of evidence that your judgement is suspect.

  98. February 19, 2010 at 7:15 pm

    Thanks largely to Reagan and every president since, the richest 400 Americans, who now own more than the bottom 150 million Americans, increased their net worth by $700 billion during the eight years of the Bush Administration. 400 families.Before Reagan exec. pay was 25-30:1After Reagan exec. pay is 300-750:1As the top 1% earnings have increased, worker pay has decreased.This isn't Dim vs Repug so much as economic elite conservative vs progressive and We The People.Obama is working with the same Business Round Table types to consolidate the wealth amoung the few at the expense of the rest of us.That so many work to enrich so few, against their own interests is incredible. "The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, and more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes… As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money powers of the country will endeavor to prolong it’s reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.” Abe LincolnThis could have been written yesterday

  99. February 19, 2010 at 7:38 pm

    I love it when a plan comes together. Pidgeon holed and denial? I can show on these threads where you all have exibited all 4 condescending steps. Deny all you want about be characterized, but your rhetoric betrays you. Does lemmings come into mind? How about voter fraud? How about the racism card? Sorry, if the glove fits, wear it.

  100. No
    February 19, 2010 at 8:18 pm

    Bob, where oh where is algore when we need him the most to explain and rationalize all these disparaging facts that his precious climate change or global warming or whatever you are calling it these days?algore? Olly Olly Oxen Free! Come out come out wherever you are…we need your Nobel prize brilliance to explain why all the facts you used in your film are wrong…algore? psssst? algore?

  101. No
    February 19, 2010 at 8:23 pm

    Given the enormous amount of those in the public light that have NOT paid their taxes it leads one to conclude that Mr. Slack was in Obama's cabinet…or a Czar…or something like that.He is definitely not Republican or a conservative because all of them are filthy stinking rich off all the lower class serfs. If he was a Republican he could have just paid a really good tax attorney to get him a "Timmy Geihtner deal". I hear they are cheep.

  102. February 19, 2010 at 11:14 pm

    Winston Smith summed it up pretty well.I don't imagine that Hoosier or Big Tent, or Rich or that creep from Arizona are multi-millionaires, so Smith's following line seems especially poignant and relevant to most of the self-described "conservatives" who post here:"That so many work to enrich so few, against their own interests is incredible."These are the exact kind of "conservatives" who Rush Limbaugh laughs at, the ditto-head lemming fans who Limbaugh has no respect for because he knows, more than anyone, that all they do is support guys like Limbaugh at their own expense. You can hear it everyday in his condescending voice he addresses his "fans" with.He can feed them the foulest turds of supposed "wisdom" plucked fresh from his personal dung heap and they eat it up. Of course, with no real nutrient value, they remain starved and, ironically but not surprisingly, ask to be fed more of the crap. And they wonder why they are never satisfied, always hungry and either pissed off or tired—while Limbaugh and Hannity and Beck laugh all the way to the bank. (Actually I think Beck is too insane to even grasp what he is doing, and he doesn't care anyway, but he DOES like crapping on people,that's for sure.)Who in their right minds would think that folks like Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney and Bill O'Reilly and Ronald Reagan, and Michael Savage and George Bush spend their days altruistically, working hard to help those less fortunate than themselves, all to help the good ol' plain folk of the United States? And yet the "conservatives" treat these men as if they were saints or heroes, as if they spend their days sacrificing to feed and house the poor. You want a gross generalization? Here:Self-described "conservatives" are, most often,angry, selfish crap devourers who work hard to promote the people who crap on them. Truth is most Democrats end up doing the same thing, but with less fervor and passion, as they seem more aware of the sham, and simply support the lesser of two evils. (When they see the "conservatives" so eagerly chowing down on the turds some are bound to be swayed, if only temporarily, that there must be something of value there. And how wrong they are, and when some find that out, that's when they decide that it is better to be radical if they still have the strength. But some people never get tired of eating crap if they are told by "Big Daddy" often enough that it is good for them. And that is why there is right wing talk radio, and Fox network, and B grade actors like Ronald Reagan who read lines that they don't even understand, and eat the same crap, but get bigger pay checks. The perversity and irony is astounding but all too real..

  103. February 19, 2010 at 11:59 pm

    Too bad Obama sent the Dalai Lama out the back trash entrance of the White House as to not piss off the Chinese. Sad. Reportedly, Obama, the smartest person to be President since George W. Bush, has given the spiritual leader of Tibet a set of Presidential Cufflinks? Priceless. Even if it is not true, funny as heck because it conceivably COULD be true after all the other blunders by Obama.

  104. February 20, 2010 at 1:47 am

    The US was an agrarian nation when the Constitution was written, the unequal wealth and power to control by corporate fiat was yet to be discovered. We so often forget or need to learn anew, that change comes from below. That progress comes only with struggle. That we cannot rely on elected officials or leaders. That we have to rely on our collective self-activity, social movements, protest.Why does the government not reflect the will of the people automatically? Why must we struggle? Why don't our elected officials vote in the public policies which match the public opinions of the people?The movement-only theory of change is true looking backward because we've been operating under a flawed national Constitution. Many other nations with modern, not ancient, constitutions have governments that decide public policies which match public opinion (not corporate interests); that have powerful legislatures which form a microcosm and reflection of the will of the people (not rich minorities and powerful institutions); that have one person one vote (not one dollar one vote). Sweden, Norway, Ireland, Scotland, Germany, New Zealand and more have updated their governments towards achieving these ends. So have many US states, which have had 233 state constitutional conventions in the period where our two national constitutions have had only one convention since 1781.Our flawed second Constitution has always been vulnerable to enabling the nation's government to be taken over by rich minorities and powerful institutions, thus betraying the will of the people. WE NEED TO FIX IT.Movements are required for change towards the will of the people only because particular constitutions make such a state of affairs impossible or at least very difficult.The progressive platform recognizes this with electoral reforms that ban private money from elections; require public financing of elections; implement proportional representation in legislatures; establish the right of petition and referendum by the vote of the people to establish laws, amend or replace constitutions and recall officials; create a true multi-party democracy that enables the people to learn from their votes and to correct mistakes as the people, through their government.Our current and second Constitution has a brilliant Preamble that states that a more perfect union for our nation is measured by its ability to do these things: establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, provide for the common defense, and secure the blessings of liberty.Our Declaration of Independence conveys the right of self-determination and self-rule this way: "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."We have reached the point that whatever movements we create to bring about the will of the people, we need to fix the very document that has made movements so needed for over two centuries. That way future generations of Americans, if there are any in the coming centuries, can enjoy a modern constitution that makes the will of the people the law of the land, *by design*.We can honor the founders by using activism to make activism itself less necessary, by making a new or amended constitution whereby the will of the people becomes the law of the land, automatically, without corruption. However I expect this to be wasted on people who perpetuate such obvious tropisms as "the liberal media."

  105. No
    February 20, 2010 at 2:52 pm

    Wow…A lot of attacking the conservatives going on here…why? You have the White House and both houses of Congress, and until recently had an unstoppable super majority in both.Could it be the Moderate Democrats are unhappy with Obama and the rest of his radical far left far left for hijacking a once great party?You see really…your problem isn't with the 30-40 successful conservative talk radio shows in America today, nor with the Republican party itself, nor the massive grass roots Tea Party uprising of average middle Americans from all parties that rose up to fight against Obama's out of control spending with zero results.Your problems are from within your own party. Do you see it yet can't quite deal with it? Have you ignored the huge upset elections in Virginia, New Jersey and even your own blessed Teddy's seat now being warmed by a conservative Republican? Is it the unprecedentedly large number of Democrats dropping out of the 2010 race because they know they will lose? Is it that Harry Reid is out in November? Is it that Barbara Boxer is gone in November?Are you concerned that a conservative )a real one) will be your next governor? Are you frustrated that Obama was totally incapable of producing any of his campaign promises? Are you angry that Obama has kicked the homosexual community to the curb or that he doesn't have the votes to repeal don't ask don't tell?I just don't get it. Why are you far left radicals so angry all the time? Why spend your time attacking a political party that you decimated a year ago? Why waste you time talking about dead Presidents?Or…could it possibly be that you (as all of us are) totally repulsed by how Obama blew this huge opportunity? How he has done nothing. How is rating have plummeted faster and further than any other first term president? Seems you libs need to clean your own house first before attacking huge successful Presidents like Reagan and Bush. You need to focus on the 3 domestic terrorist attacks on US soil since your candidate took office and how to fix it. Seems you need succumb to impeccable logic and cut taxes to save the economy. Start there why don't you…I'll have more for you later.

  106. No
    February 20, 2010 at 2:55 pm

    Good morning Bob…I thought you might this article.http://blog.heritage.org/2010/0/19/hype-of-global-warmingfar-scarier-than-science-shows/Have a great dayPS: Have you seen or heard from algore?

  107. February 20, 2010 at 7:45 pm

    "Could it be the Moderate Democrats are unhappy with Obama and the rest of his radical far left far left for hijacking a once great party?" noWhat "far left far left agenda?"What "far left" agenda?What "left" agenda?Spouting nonsensical trope tends to discredit anything relevant you may actually have to say. Along the lines of the "liberal media".I will continue to wait in earnest for a well spoken intelligent conservative with a heart with which to engage in dialog.Continuing to respond to such silly statements is neither fruitful nor rewarding.With all due respect, engaging in such discussions with the naive, ignorant, or obtuse is never beneficial to either party. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience.With so many legitimate issues to engage Re: Pres. Obama, to waste time on absurdities is just sad.Speaking for myself, I am not a Democratic party member, although I do believe that progressives must take over the party and make it represent We The People rather than being Republican lite and representing We The Corporatocracy.

  108. February 21, 2010 at 1:17 am

    Algore is trapped under 3 feet of snow at his Tennessee Church of Global Warming compound. next thing you'll know, ATF agents will have to bust down the gates of that place to rescue children forced to use composting toilets and other "green" technologies as the lunatic "green" left get more and more insane in their denials of the truth that there has been zero climate change (i.e. warming) since 1995. Algore and the Global Warming acolytes may go down like David Koresh.Winston has a very myopic view of history. To engage in debate with him is to have to argue against things that never happened as a part of arguing his flawed and historically inconsistent premises. Better to safe your time and effort and just go watch the USA team bring home another gold at the olympics.USA! USA! USA!

  109. February 21, 2010 at 5:31 pm

    No: Just like most of your arguments, your link is broken. As if I would trust anything the Heritage Foundation says anyway ….

  110. February 21, 2010 at 7:36 pm

    I'm very impressed with the wisdom, scholarship, common sense and decorum that Winston Smith has brought to this forum. It's refreshing. I'm not a Democratic Party member either. But like many of us, I want to see the United States political system to embrace a more progressive agenda, and that is more likely to happen with the Democrats than with the Republicans. There is something infecting the Republican Party that is just plain evil and murderous and especially insane in a very literal sense. It has gotten so inherently sick and corrupt but acceptable that Republicans themselves even joke about the evilness of Dick Cheney, but still tolerate him as a spokesman. Everything I know about him suggests he is a bloody-handed monster every bit as evil as men on Death Row. And he remains a leader in the Republican Party.Nixon, Ollie North, Karl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld, Ronald Reagan, the Bushes, Dick Cheney, etc., etc. —the pattern of moral decay is so obvious! When will the "good" Republicans stand up and root out this ideological bacteria that has been such a blot on our nation for way too long?

  111. No
    February 21, 2010 at 8:35 pm

    winston said: "With all due respect, engaging in such discussions with the naive, ignorant, or obtuse is never beneficial to either party."??? with the naive, ignorant, or obtuse what? I am still waiting for a cogent post with correct grammar from the lafty loons…otherwise…"They drag you down to their level "Come on Winston wise up and slow down. It makes it look like you went to a liberal far left college that didn't focus on accomplishments but rather everybody got a trophy.Now I ask again…with the naive, ignorant, or obtuse WHAT?

  112. No
    February 21, 2010 at 8:38 pm

    Bob? Did you read the article? Are you depressed now? It's OK buckaroo…come on out and we'll still play with you. You were just brain washed…We forgive you. Welcome home to the world of facts and figures that are correct.Sincerely,Your blog family

  113. February 22, 2010 at 7:26 am

    P.S. to my previous post..

  114. February 22, 2010 at 11:55 pm

    No: Okay, let me explain this is simple terms, with small words: Your link that you attempted to embed in one of your comments DOES NOT WORK! If you want me to read the article, you need to furnish a working link, either with a tiny url, a working embedded link, or simply post the entire url here so we can read what it is you want us to read. Is that clear enough for you? Try again, your LINK IS NOT WORKING.

  115. February 24, 2010 at 3:20 pm

    With America consisting of just a tiny minority of progressives (20%), why should it follow a path put forth by a progressive? We don't want to go there. We do not want redistribution of wealth (although I do not think that is President Obama's aim. With his upbringing, I believe it is more like reparations for him).The more you progressives post, the more naive I believe you are. I can understand your wants. I just can't understand how you figure you are going to pay for the existing underfunded programs, let alone new ones. Or, are you not naive and you want America to go bankrupt? One more time. How are we going to pay the trillions in underfunded in social security and Medicare? Bob? Winston? WiseGuy?

  116. February 24, 2010 at 5:53 pm

    "…why should it follow a path put forth by a progressive?" HoosierWhich progressive would that be?"With his upbringing, I believe it is more like reparations for him)." HoosierYou really need to lay off the Limbaugh. Even though you go by "Hoosier" you could make an effort to stay away from the overt racism.Is there an original thought between the right here?We are all being played by those in power vis a vis the propaganda dispensed daily from their corporate media. Reducing the problem as Dem vs Repug, left vs right, serves their interests while they continue with the transfer of wealth from the working class and the poor to those at the top, leading to the greatest disparity of wealth and inequality,….ever.Those at the top 1% don't even know that you exist, but by all means keep doing their dirty work for them.

  117. February 24, 2010 at 6:02 pm

    Hoosier: "How are we going to pay the trillions in underfunded in social security and Medicare?" That, is really pretty simple; for Social Security, you remove the cap for payroll deductions, period. Currently if you make $95,000 a year, you pay the maximum amount of deductions. If you make more than that amount (or it might have been raised to $125,000, not sure) you do not pay a dime more. It doesn't make a difference if you make $350,000 or $3.5 million a year, you don't pay another dime past the $95k. Remove that cap and presto! Social Security is paid for in perpetuity. Medicare is a little more involved; one approach is to turn Medicare into a plan that every American can choose to use if they want, with the amount they pay based on their age. You make it most affordable for those who can least afford it, the seniors who currently use it. By opening up Medicare to all ages, you bring in a larger, healthier group to pay into the system, large groups that will not need to use the system as much as the seniors do, so there is more revenue brought in and a smaller percentage paid out in claims. I know that you will not agree that these two suggestions could work since they somehow smack of "socialism"; but the truth is my suggestions would work, given the opportunity. How would you make Social Security and Medicare solvent?

  118. February 24, 2010 at 9:48 pm

    I really can't remember the last time I listened to Limbaugh. Don't have radio here. So, If I have listened to him, it would have been a snippet played by someone else on television. Sorry if I am not a Limbaugh lemming or is a racist now. There are quite a few original thoughts here. I have been waiting for yours. Still waiting. How are you going to handle the debt? Still waiting. Who cares if the top 1% knows if I exists. I don't care if they exists. I go about my merry life anyway. Obama's Ides-Of-March is coming. Bob, at least you tried. Yes, your method would help, but not fully fund it. It would be a transfer of wealth, but it may be necessary. And, we are talking trillions, not billions. Here's the thing Bob, this is why it will be President Obama's Ides of March. It really is Bernacki's but Obama will go down with it. China is selling our bonds. No one wants to buy our bonds. We have a 1.5 trillion dollar budget deficit. Where do we get 1.5 trillion dollars. Well, we can try to sell bonds or QE (quantiative Easing). That's taking from Peter to pay Pay or in other words, having the central bank print interest free money. In addition, 40% of the existing debt matures next year and 2.8 trillion will have to be re financed. I believe Bernacke will have no choice but to print money. What can go wrong with print this much. Hyper inflation.

  119. February 25, 2010 at 12:27 am

    The way Winston talks about "the 1%" that are the source of so much evil, pain and suffering in this country sounds an awful lot like the way Hitler spoke about the jews of the world being the source of so much evil, pain and suffering in the interwar period for germany. Winston even proposes some "final solutions" to the issue of "the 1%" and the way they don't pay their fair share of the freight.Well, here are some facts about "the 1%" that Winston hates, fears, and loathes so much:they represent 3 million AMERICANS.. Winston tries to make them sound like an itty bitty tiny segment of the American population, but they are a large number of AMERICANS (I can't emphasize this enough) that earned their money through legitimate means… by and large."the 1%" pay 60% of all taxes and all of the freight for the 50% of ALL AMERICANS that don't pay ANY federal income taxes… The 6% local tax is fractions of pennys on the dollar what "the 1%" pay in taxes at ALL levels of government"the 1%" provide HALF of all investment dollars in America"the 1%" contributed MORE to Democratic candidates than Republican candidates in the last election cycleI am not trying to defend the actions and practices of "the 1%" but I do defend their rights as law-abiding AMERICAN citizens. When they, or anyone, cross the line of legality, then they should be punished like all Americans. Until that day, stop scapegoating them the exact same way Hitler scapegoated the jews of Germany prior to the start of WWII.

  120. February 25, 2010 at 5:48 am

    Below is a complete description of exactly why Obama's "stimulus" was such a failure from the get-go:3.5 MILLION: Jobs Obama Promised Stimulus Would Create By End Of 2010. (President Barack Obama, Remarks At The Signing Of The American Recovery And Reinvestment Act, Press Release, Denver, CO, 2/17/09) 2.8 MILLION: Jobs Lost Since Obama Made That Promise. (U.S. Bureau Of Labor Statistics, http://www.bls.gov, Accessed 2/16/10) 6.3 MILLION: Jobs Obama Must Now Create To Keep Promise By End Of 2010.(President Barack Obama, Remarks At The Signing Of The American Recovery And Reinvestment Act, Press Release, Denver, CO, 2/17/09; U.S. Bureau Of Labor Statistics, http://www.bls.gov, Accessed 2/16/10) 1.1 MILLION: Jobs Obama's Economists Project Will Be Created By End Of 2010.(David Jackson, "Obama Economic Report: Stagnant Job Growth This Year," USA Today, 2/11/10) 5.2 MILLION: Jobs By Which Obama's Economists' Projection Leaves Him Short In Keeping Promise. (U.S. Bureau Of Labor Statistics, http://www.bls.gov, Accessed 2/16/10; David Jackson, "Obama Economic Report: Stagnant Job Growth This Year," USA Today, 2/11/10) 6 PERCENT: Not Surprisingly, Number Of Americans That Say Obama's Stimulus Created Jobs. (Stephanie Condon, "Poll: Economy Brings Down Obama's Job Approval Rating,"CBS News' "Political Hotsheet" Blog, 2/11/10) 7.7 PERCENT: Unemployment Rate When Obama Was Selling Stimulus In January 2009.(U.S. Bureau Of Labor Statistics, http://www.bls.gov, Accessed 2/16/10) 8 PERCENT: Unemployment Rate Obama Pledged Stimulus Would Prevent Us From Reaching. (Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein, "The Job Impact Of The American Recovery And Reinvestment Plan," 1/9/09) 9.7 PERCENT: Current Unemployment Rate. (U.S. Bureau Of Labor Statistics, http://www.bls.gov, Accessed 2/16/10) 16.5 PERCENT: Current Unemployment Rate When Underemployed And Discouraged Workers Are Included.(Sara Murray, "Signs Of Hope As Jobless Rate Dips," The Wall Street Journal, 2/6/10) 334,000: Americans That Have Given Up Looking For A Job Since Stimulus Was Signed.(U.S. Bureau Of Labor Statistics, http://www.bls.gov, Accessed 2/16/10) 47: States That Have Lost Jobs Since Stimulus Was Signed. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://www.bls.gov, Accessed 2/16/10) 10: States That Moved From Single-Digit To Double-Digit Unemployment Rate Since Stimulus Was Signed. (U.S. Bureau Of Labor Statistics, http://www.bls.gov, Accessed 2/16/10) $862 BILLION: Updated Cost Of Stimulus, $75 Billion Increase From Last Year's Cost Estimate.("The Budget And Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2010 To 2010," Congressional Budget Office, 1/26/10; Douglas Elmendor, Director, Congressional Budget Office, Letter To Speaker Nancy Pelosi, 2/13/09) 440: Number Of Nonexistent Congressional Districts That Received Stimulus Funds. (Richard S. Dunham, "Site Lists Jobs In Imaginary Texas Districts," Houston Chronicle, 11/18/09) $6.4 BILLION: Amount Of Stimulus Funds That Went To Nonexistent Congressional Districts.(Richard S. Dunham, "Site Lists Jobs In Imaginary Texas Districts," Houston Chronicle, 11/18/09) $18 MILLION: Cost Of Stimulus Website, Recovery.gov.(Rick Klein, "$18M Being Spent To Redesign Recovery.gov Web Site," ABC News' "The Note" Blog, 7/8/09)I know that all of you Obama Sychophants/apologists will blame Bush as you have done for the last 10 years, but at some point in time, Obama will have to man-up and accept responsibility for the failures that are his and his alone. The first failure of Obama: the failure of his stimulus plan to improve the economy for 99% of Americans that are not in "the 1%" that Winston hates so much. Winston's 1% have done real well in the post-election Obama Command Economy that Obama has created here in America.

  121. February 26, 2010 at 3:17 pm

    In 2001, Obama said it's a "tragedy" the Constitution wasn't radically interpreted to force redistribution of wealth for blacks, and it's still an issue of concern for him today. And he suggested he wants to effect "major redistributive change" through legislation.He complained that during the civil-rights era, "the Supreme Court never ventured into issues of redistribution of wealth" for blacks, and that the Warren Court was not "radical" enough.Rush Limbaugh didn't say this. Mr Obama did. He went on to say he was against reparations because that did not go far enough, only legislation that went on for ever would do the trick. Hmm, I wonder how Rush and I connected the dots.

  122. February 26, 2010 at 7:50 pm

    BTR, they don't even try to hide their corruption. The vast majority of the stimulus money wnet ot democrat districts. Some in the form of paybacks. And now, the Obama administration is seeking to exclude from federal oversight its new $30 billion dollar small-business lending program. Obama's rhetoric about transparency during the campaign was as phony as his vow to end the era of lobbying (last year was that industry's best year ever in Washington). That is the goal: to have a vast slush fund and honey pot to reward supporters with taxpayer dollars. loans become bribes or payoffs. The default rates on these "loans" are high. Obama and his team of Chicago Boys are once again bringing the worst of Chicago tactics to the federal government: backroom deals, pressure, payoffs, and bribes. It is really amazing that people still support this guy.

  123. February 26, 2010 at 7:56 pm

    Pres. Obama is continuing with the same economic decisions with the same people that enabled Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush to increase the transfer of wealth to the top while disenfranchising the middle/working class. I've never stated different.The dishonesty by those on the right and the false framing of statements is tiring.400 American families have more accumulated wealth than 150 million Americans.I don't hate, loathe, or fear anyone. The system has been hijacked, marginalized and co opted to benefit the obscenely wealthy at the expense of the rest of us. That's a fact.Pre Reagan executives made 25-30:1Now it is up to 750:1. FactDuring this same time span worker wages have decreased. Fact.The US has become the most inequitable industrialized nation with the greatest disparity of wealth in the world. Fact.Those at the top have been very successful at using their media propaganda machines to divide and conquer the rest of us.Creating the illusion of democracy and keeping the two parties at each others throats serves them well, while they continue raking in the dough and laughing all the way to the bank.By all means keep this about Obama or about some fictionalized Repug vs Dim paradigm. They love suckers.

  124. February 26, 2010 at 8:18 pm

    Historically, whenever wealth disparities in a nation become too great, the majority fall into destitution. Just the way it is. Mexico is one example of that. 38 families own over half the nation's wealth. In the U.S., it's shared by 400 families. Bigger country/population.Maybe if more had remembered it sooner, we'd have reversed Reagan's go-ahead to destroy unions. We wouldn't be in a financial meltdown and have a government dominated by corporations and a financial oligarchy. We'd still have one responsive to the needs of the people…the nation…a democratic republic.QUOTE: "The crash has laid bare many unpleasant truths about the United States. One of the most alarming, says a former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, is that the finance industry has effectively captured our government—a state of affairs that more typically describes emerging markets, and is at the center of many emerging-market crises. If the IMF’s staff could speak freely about the U.S., it would tell us what it tells all countries in this situation: recovery will fail unless we break the financial oligarchy that is blocking essential reform. And if we are to prevent a true depression, we’re running out of time.by Simon Johnson – former Chief Economist, IMFhttp://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200905/imf-adviceThe spokespersons for that oligarchy were Bush's, and now Obama's economic advisers.Friedman noted, "the money supply at any moment in time is determined by the Fed and the banking system to a lesser extent. For one to have more of that supply, another has to have less…though that isn't obvious." "Money Mischief" – Friedman.We are all being screwed by the same people. That some continue to work and speak out on behalf of the people doing the screwing is fascinating.

  125. March 4, 2010 at 2:26 pm

    Winston, I gave you President Obama's direct quotes. If not reparations, what would you call it?

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: