American Politics during the Obama Presidency [Archive] - Page 9

Miamipro

09-24-10, 19:12

From Politco's Patric Gavin:

"Despite the fact that countless Washington reporters couldn't help but watch Stephen Colbert's Capitol Hill testimony Friday, not all were enthralled by the Comedy Central star's performance, as they expressed on Twitter.

"REALLY not sure this is funny, " wrote ABC News' Rick Klein.

"Colbert is making a mockery of this hearing, " said Mother Jones' David Corn.

"Colbert's testimony made a mockery of Congress, " said the Washington Post's Aaron Blake.

The Hill's Mike O'Brien said, "This might be the most amazing public stunt before Congress. "

National Review's Kathryn Lopez wrote that "a congressional chairman made a joke of her committee today. "

If ABC and Mother Jones are embarrassed.

I think it is ridiculous when congress invites completely unqualified people to testify on a subject. Colbert is without question devoid of qualifications to provide anything remotely close to expert opinion. What is really grotesque is the fact that he was requested to testify in character (imitating a conservative commentator) by Rep. Zoe Lofgren, the-Calif, the subcommittee chairwoman.

I don't care if they make fun of conservatives (they do it all the time) but when congress invites make-believe characters to testify it is too much.

The best thing about this charade today is that it is one more straw on the camel's back going into the elections. Perception on Main St. Is incredulity "I'm working my ass off (to find a job, keep my job, save my home, etc) and these a-holes are wasting taxpayer funds on make-believe testimony? "You obviously didn't watch the hearing. He did have his serious side too. Republicans have brought in their fair share of "Star Power" to congressional hearings also. Obviously people who commented didn't take it with a grain of salt. But people sometime forget that within the truth usually lies humor. Thats what makes their shows so great (Colbert and Stewart) Your own testimonies have been pretty hilarious too.

Wild Walleye

09-24-10, 19:17

You obviously didn't watch the hearing. He did have his serious side too. Republicans have brought in their fair share of "Star Power" to congressional hearings also. Obviously people who commented didn't take it with a grain of salt. But people sometime forget that within the truth usually lies humor. Thats what makes their shows so great (Colbert and Stewart) Your own testimonies have been pretty hilarious too.I did not opine on whether or not he is funny. I opined on the misuse of taxpayer funds to engage in charade and how it will play on Main St. I would complain about wasting congress' time but I'd rather have them running this circus than creating legislation.

I also specifically complained about congress (not democrats) engaging in celebrity worship at our expense.

There is absolutely no way that you or anyone else will convince me that this was an appropriate exercise by this subcommittee.

Stan Da Man

09-24-10, 19:48

I did not opine on whether or not he is funny. I opined on the misuse of taxpayer funds to engage in charade and how it will play on Main St. I would complain about wasting congress' time but I'd rather have them running this circus than creating legislation.

I also specifically complained about congress (not democrats) engaging in celebrity worship at our expense.

There is absolutely no way that you or anyone else will convince me that this was an appropriate exercise by this subcommittee. Believe it or not, NPR had a guy on from Mother Jones this afternoon, commenting on Colbert's appearance. If his politics are as far left as the magazine he writes for, he's as progressive as they come. Even he said it was a waste of time and taxpayer money, and he speculated that Colbert could have had much better effect by playing it straight. Essentially, he was saying that by putting on his left-wing political mask, Colbert lost any semblance of credibility. Again, this was coming from a Mother Jones writer.

Stan Da Man

09-24-10, 19:50

Sorry, missed your earlier post. I see that the Mother Jones guy also was quoted in the Politico article you posted. Same guy.

Wild Walleye

09-24-10, 19:55

Sorry, missed your earlier post. I see that the Mother Jones guy also was quoted in the Politico article you posted. Same guy.I think if you want left-of-mother-jones, you might need to seek out High Times Magazine.

Wild Walleye

09-24-10, 19:57

Believe it or not, NPR had a guy on from Mother Jones this afternoon, commenting on Colbert's appearance. If his politics are as far left as the magazine he writes for, he's as progressive as they come. Even he said it was a waste of time and taxpayer money, and he speculated that Colbert could have had much better effect by playing it straight. Essentially, he was saying that by putting on his left-wing political mask, Colbert lost any semblance of credibility. Again, this was coming from a Mother Jones writer.Lamenting a waste of taxpayer dollars, that doesn't include mention of a war started by GWB, you've got something you don't see every day.

Stan Da Man

09-24-10, 21:13

I think if you want left-of-mother-jones, you might need to seek out High Times Magazine. You mean to tell me those are two different magazines? I thought they just swapped covers every month.

I mean, I used to partake myself way back in the day, but I still couldn't manage to find the humor in either of those publications. They are supposed to be satirical, aren't they?

Perhaps they're the right wing version of Stephen Colbert. Game face on at all times. There's no plausible way any rational person could take them seriously, even when stoned.

Stan Da Man

09-24-10, 21:48

It's hilarious to watch Democrats trip all over themselves on tax cuts.

This morning, Pelosi announces that she won't call a vote on tax cuts before the November elections but that there will be a vote before the end of the year.

She figured folks were too stupid to figure out that obvious ploy: Don't force a vote, and then Democrats won't get tarred and feathered in the campaign as someone who voted for a tax increase on those over $250,000. Then, after Democrats get creamed in the election, she can call a lame duck session and those getting the bum rush will feel free to vote in favor, effectively giving voters the middle finger as they are shown the door.

It's the same thumb-in-the-eye-of-voters strategy that got them in trouble on health care. It's the same thing Obama is doing now with the un-confirmable Elizabeth Warren, who is a certifiable nut. Use whatever means necessary -- legitimate or not.

But, Pelosi got called on it this time, and she's already backpedaling. Now, the same day, she announces that Democrats may hold a vote -- or they may not -- they're reserving their rights to do either. Good to see she got called on it and was forced to retract, even if it's merely symbolic.

You know there's a tide coming when even a majority of California voters can't stand her. http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100923/el_yblog_upshot/half-of-california-voters-want-to-replace-pelosi-as-speaker

Rats from a sinking ship.

Esten

09-25-10, 00:00

My initial reaction when I heard about it: hmmm, not sure what to make of it.

My reaction when I watched the video: laughter.

My realization after watching the video: I would never have read about this hearing or given the matter any thought if Colbert hadn't done this.

It was amusing to watch the obvious or restrained smiles of others in the video. And meanwhile Colbert keeps a straight face all the time. One of the better lines I thought:

For one thing, when you're picking beans, you have to spend all day bending over.
It turns out, and I did not know this, most soil is at ground level.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we make the earth waist-high ?
Come on, where is the funding ?!

Esten

09-25-10, 01:08

In some videos you only see Colbert's prepared remarks, about 5 minutes. It's almost all humor. But it was followed by several minutes of Q&A. Washington Post has a video with some of it. The Q&A starts with more humor... there's a hilarious response about Iowan 'cornpackers'.

But Colbert finishes on a serious note in his responses to questions from Rep. Judy Chu. The final Q&A hits it home:

CONGRESSWOMAN JUDY CHU: Mr. Colbert, you could work on so many issues, why are you interested in this issue?

COLBERT: I like talking about people who don't have any power. And this seems like some of the least powerful people in the United States are migrant workers who come and do our work but don't have any rights as a result. And yet we still invite them to come here, and at the same time ask them to leave. And that's an interesting contradiction to me. And, you know, whatsoever you do for the least of my brothers, and these seem like the least of our brothers, right now. A lot of people are least brothers right now because the economy is so hard, and I don't want to take anyone's hardship away from them or diminish it or anything like that, but migrant workers suffer, and have no rights. "

Rev BS

09-25-10, 02:14

Black Shirt, from your response to Toyman I got the impression you were calling him a Redneck.

Got this from a frined and though I would pass it along in defese of all us Rednecks:

We have enjoyed the redneck jokes for years. It's time to

Take a reflective look at the core beliefs of a culture that

Values home, family, country and God. If I had to stand

Before a dozen terrorists who threaten my life, I'd

Choose a half dozen or so rednecks to back me up.

Tire irons, squirrel guns and grit. That's what rednecks are

Made of. I hope I am one of those.

Y'all know who ya are

You might be a redneck if: It never occurred to you to

Be offended by the phrase, 'One nation, under God. '

You might be a redneck if: You've never protested about seeing

The 10 Commandments posted in public places.

You might be a redneck if: You still say ' Christmas'

Instead of 'Winter Festival. '

You might be a redneck if: You stand and place your

Hand over your heart when they play the National Anthem.

You might be a redneck if: You treat our armed forces

Veterans with great respect, and always have.

You might be a redneck if: You've never burned an

American flag, nor intend to.

You might be a redneck if: You know what you believe

And you aren't afraid to say so, no matter who is listening.

You might be a redneck if: You'd give your last dollar to.

A friend. There's some "redneck" in all of us, I'm just concern about the shade of the red. I'm sure you know what I mean.

Rev BS

09-25-10, 02:26

Did you like my Confederate Flag tattoo? I can't tell what a pain in the ass it was to park my ford F150 in Recoleta.Even if I didn't see you, I am sure I could hear your voice from the house way before I get to the door. You don't sound like George Wallace by any chance?

Westy

09-25-10, 10:18

My initial reaction when I heard about it: hmmm, not sure what to make of it.

My reaction when I watched the video: laughter.

My realization after watching the video: I would never have read about this hearing or given the matter any thought if Colbert hadn't done this.

It was amusing to watch the obvious or restrained smiles of others in the video. And meanwhile Colbert keeps a straight face all the time. One of the better lines I thought:

For one thing, when you're picking beans, you have to spend all day bending over.

It turns out, and I did not know this, most soil is at ground level.

If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we make the earth waist-high?

Come on, where is the funding? Any day now, I expect to see CSPAN coverage of Barack Obama, wearing a Roman toga a la Caligula, leading a white horse into the Senate chambers.

Jackson

09-25-10, 12:50

If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we make the earth waist-high?
Come on, where is the funding? Please don't give the Democrats any more ideas on where to spend my money!

Stan Da Man

09-25-10, 12:54

Any day now, I expect to see CSPAN coverage of Barack Obama, wearing a Roman toga a la Caligula, leading a white horse into the Senate chambers.

Bingo! The horse is Elizabeth Warren -- the unconfirmed and unconfirmable non-head of the Consumer Protection Agency.

Wild Walleye

09-25-10, 16:18

Even if I didn't see you, I am sure I could hear your voice from the house way before I get to the door. You don't sound like George Wallace by any chance?I like to announce my presence whereas if I was a liberal I would be looking to mask my pretense

Stan Da Man

09-25-10, 21:14

Today, President Obama repeated his shop-worn lies about the economy, trying to blame Republicans for the mess Democrats created.

He repeatedly claims that Republican policies are what caused today's economic difficulties. Who does this guy think he's fooling at this point? Democrats have been in control of Congress since January of 2007 (just before the current malaise started. They had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate since January 2009, and are still just one vote shy of that status. Republicans share the blame to this extent: They had a President too weak-willed to say no with his veto stamp.

To the extent Republicans tried to say "no" to the irresponsible quasi-government entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Democrats threw a tantrum. Barney Frank and Maxine Waters personally saw to it that that these entities could not be reformed and, as it has now come to light, could continue to funnel money to Democrat campaigns. It is beyond dispute that these two entities led the housing collapse with their misguided quotas that required lenders to make loans to people who couldn't afford them. No further proof is necessary than this: We've spent $150 billion bailing them out, and there's no end in sight. They collectively lost $20 billion more last quarter, and Fed officials estimate that resolving them completely ultimately will cost more than all the other bailouts combined. http://www.qfinance.com/blogs/anthony-harrington/2010/09/21/freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae-the-mother-of-all-us-bailouts-still-to-come.

Democrats just close their eyes and hope Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will go away. Think happy thoughts and someday you can fly. They made financial reform a key agenda point this past year. Republicans asked them to include Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the reforms. Yet they refused? So, these entities, which started this mess, which Democrats refused and still refuse to reform, continue to lose billions each quarter. Just what are the failed policies of the past that Obama keeps throwing at Republicans' feet?

Obama apparently is doing his own Peter Pan impersonation. He closes his eyes and keeps repeating, "it's their fault; it's their fault. " That and some happy thoughts, and perhaps someday he will be able to fly. We can only hope he goes to Never Neverland for good.

Esten

09-26-10, 01:49

Bingo! The horse is Elizabeth Warren -- the unconfirmed and unconfirmable non-head of the Consumer Protection Agency.Warren will have plenty of influence in setting up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Just remember what they both stand for.

Esten

09-26-10, 04:23

It's fair to say the financial crisis had two components: (i) the housing bubble, and (ii) what the financial industry did around the bubble.

Both the private sector and public sector contributed to each component. Based on Jackson's insistance on the role that government intervention played, I've been doing some research on how the government influenced the bubble.

Today, President Obama repeated his shop-worn lies about the economy, trying to blame Republicans for the mess Democrats created.

He repeatedly claims that Republican policies are what caused today's economic difficulties. Who does this guy think he's fooling at this point? Democrats have been in control of Congress since January of 2007 (just before the current malaise started. Yes, and both chambers of Congress had a Republican majority from January 2003 to January 2007, the main period over which the bubble inflated.

Republicans share the blame to this extent: They had a President too weak-willed to say no with his veto stamp.Au contraire, Bush was an active player in housing. How you ask? Well, Bush issued a challenge in 2002 called 'America's Home Ownership Challenge'. Listen to what Bush said back then:

Now, we've got a problem here in America that we have to address. Too many American families, too many minorities do not own a home. There is a homeownership gap in America. The difference between Anglo America and African American and Hispanic homeownership is too big. And we've got to focus the attention on this Nation to address this. And it starts with setting a goal.

That's why I've challenged the industry leaders all across the country to get after it for this goal, to stay focused, to make sure that we achieve a more secure America by achieving the goal of 5 1/2 million new minority homeowners. I call it America's homeownership challenge.

And so here are some of the ways to address the issue. First, the single greatest barrier to first-time homeownership is a high downpayment. It is really hard for many, many low-income families to make the high downpayment. And so that's why I propose and urge Congress to fully fund the American Dream Downpayment Fund. This will use money, taxpayers' money, to help a qualified low-income buyer make a downpayment, and that's important.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=62687

So what happened? To address the challenge, the American Dream Downpayment Act was introduced in 2003 by USA Rep. Katherine Harris (R-Fla), with companion legislation introduced in the Senate by USA Sen. Wayne Allard (R-Colo). It was signed into law by Bush in 2003. All Republicans.

The timing is important. Case Shiller indices show the bubble started around 2001-2002, before this legislation was enacted, when interest rates were approaching historic lows. So at a time when housing prices were rising to new highs, Bush signed legislation that further increased demand by helping borrowers with their down payment and closing costs, up to $10,000. What might have been a mild to moderate bubble, was effectively turbo-charged into a massive bubble.

Of course Dems and especially private sector players share some blame as well. But Bush and Republicans in Congress were active players. And there are more examples as well.

I wonder if Stan has enough integrity to acknowledge this. Or if he will just stick to his lies that the only blame Repubs deserve is that Bush didn't use his veto power.

Wild Walleye

09-26-10, 12:03

It's fair to say the financial crisis had two components: (I) the housing bubble, and (ii) what the financial industry did around the bubble.

Both the private sector and public sector contributed to each component. Based on Jackson's insistance on the role that government intervention played, I've been doing some research on how the government influenced the bubble.

Yes, and both chambers of Congress had a Republican majority from January 2003 to January 2007, the main period over which the bubble inflated.

Au contraire, Bush was an active player in housing. How you ask? Well, Bush issued a challenge in 2002 called 'America's Home Ownership Challenge'. Listen to what Bush said back then:

Now, we've got a problem here in America that we have to address. Too many American families, too many minorities do not own a home. There is a homeownership gap in America. The difference between Anglo America and African American and Hispanic homeownership is too big. And we've got to focus the attention on this Nation to address this. And it starts with setting a goal.

That's why I've challenged the industry leaders all across the country to get after it for this goal, to stay focused, to make sure that we achieve a more secure America by achieving the goal of 5 1/2 million new minority homeowners. I call it America's homeownership challenge.

And so here are some of the ways to address the issue. First, the single greatest barrier to first-time homeownership is a high downpayment. It is really hard for many, many low-income families to make the high downpayment. And so that's why I propose and urge Congress to fully fund the American Dream Downpayment Fund. This will use money, taxpayers' money, to help a qualified low-income buyer make a downpayment, and that's important.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=62687

So what happened? To address the challenge, the American Dream Downpayment Act was introduced in 2003 by USA Rep. Katherine Harris (are-Fla, with companion legislation introduced in the Senate by USA Sen. Wayne Allard (are-Colo. It was signed into law by Bush in 2003. All Republicans.

The timing is important. Case Shiller indices show the bubble started around 2001-2002, before this legislation was enacted, when interest rates were approaching historic lows. So at a time when housing prices were rising to new highs, Bush signed legislation that further increased demand by helping borrowers with their down payment and closing costs, up to $10,000. What might have been a mild to moderate bubble, was effectively turbo-charged into a massive bubble.

Of course Dems and especially private sector players share some blame as well. But Bush and Republicans in Congress were active players. And there are more examples as well.

I wonder if Stan has enough integrity to acknowledge this. Or if he will just stick to his lies that the only blame Repubs deserve is that Bush didn't use his veto power. Bush was playing politics with this program and should be faulted for it. It wasn't a material component of the meltdown. If you think this was the beginning and that Republicans played other than a walk-on roll, you are hopeless.

Stan Da Man

09-27-10, 04:56

Ahh, Esten. If I couldn't count on you to attempt to mislead with lies and distortion, I would know something is wrong. You say you've been looking into this for some time now, eh? Well, then that's par for the course. Because if you've been paying attention at all, you couldn't possibly have missed this:

In September of 2003, George Bush and the Republicans were sounding the alarm bells about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. True, Republicans supported (as did all previous administrations) affordable housing. But there is a difference between supporting affordable housing and countenancing outright fraud. The latter is what Democrats supported. Let's review, shall we?

In 2001, Bush and the Republicans recognized that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were potentially problematic and began raising the issue. This from Bush’s 2001 budget submission: Fannie and Freddie are "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity." http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/5487

In 2003 the Bush Administration proposed legislation to create a new regulator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That bastion of liberalism, the New York Times, even reported on it. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

It’s important to remember who Fannie and Freddie were back then (as they are today). They were and are “government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.” What did they do? They “buy mortgages from lenders and repackage them as securities or hold them in their own portfolios.” Both quotes above are from this same NYT article written in 2003. So, Fannie and Freddie were the two largest players, and they repackaged what we ultimately came to call “toxic debt.” They were, by far, the most significant actors on this crime scene. Between 2001 and 2005, these monstrosities increased their holdings from 2.1 trillion to 4 trillion. That’s trillion. In five years, they increased their portfolio by nearly 100% over what it had taken the previous 30 years to accumulate.

So why was Bush proposing new regulation and oversight? “The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.” That’s the New York Times description – in 2003, years before everything began to unwind -- of why Republicans were urging new legislation to regulate the two largest players in what became the biggest financial meltdown we’ve seen in 80 years.

So, what became of the legislation? Republicans supported it. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac also supported it (see aforementioned NYT article). So who opposed such sensible measures? Democrats. This from the above-linked NYT article: “Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.”

What became of the legislation? Chris Dodd buried it by threatening a Democratic filibuster. If you’ve looked into this issue at all, you could not possibly have missed all of the coverage on these issues. Republicans were on one side; Democrats on the other. Here’s a sample summary:

When Republican Richard Shelby of Alabama, then chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, pushed for comprehensive GSE reform in 2005, Democrat Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut successfully threatened a filibuster. Later, after Fannie and Freddie collapsed, Mr. Dodd asked, "Why weren't we doing more?" He then voted for the Bush reforms that he once called "ill-advised."

But Mr. Dodd wasn't the only Democrat to heap abuse on the Bush reforms. Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts defended Fannie and Freddie as "fundamentally sound" and labeled the president's proposals as "inane." He later voted for the reforms. Sen. Charles Schumer of New York dismissed Mr. Bush's "safety and soundness concerns" as "a straw man." "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," was the helpful advice of both Sen. Thomas Carper of Delaware and Rep. Maxine Waters of California. Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York berated a Bush official at a hearing, saying, "I am just pissed off" at the administration for raising the issue.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123137220550562585.html That article is from 2009. So, when it says these blithering idiots later voted for reform, it means that they voted for reform after it was far too late (2008). By then, they had fiddled while Rome burned.

Still not convinced that it was Democrats that killed every effort to reform these two monstrosities? Watch the Youtube video and you can see all of their chicanery back in 2005. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

Featured prominently in that video are Maxine Waters, Chris Dodd and Franklin Raines – all Democrats. Franklin Raines, the then-head of Fannie Mae who helped that GSE commit accounting fraud so they could pay huge bonuses to top officials and continue to funnel campaign contributions to Democrats. Just who were the top recipients of Fannie and Freddie campaign contributions? Chris Dodd, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry – all Democrats. http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/07/top-senate-recipients-of-fanni.html Make no mistake, Fannie and Freddie gave to Republicans, too – until it became clear that Republicans wanted to reform them. Then, they turned the spigots on for their Democrat patrons.

What became of Franklin Raines? He resigned from Fannie Mae after what was described as an “Enron-like” accounting scandal. Was he sent to prison? No. He became an Obama campaign advisor. After all, Obama received far more contributions from Fannie and Freddie per year in Congress than anyone else, so why not reward such a resourceful guy? http://hennessysview.com/2008/09/15/franklin-raines-criminal-enterprise-and-barack-obama-his-accomplice/

What became of Maxine Waters? She’s been been charged with ethics violations by the House for failing to disclose her lobbying efforts on behalf of a failed bank where her husband was a board member.

How about Chris Dodd? He saw the writing on the wall and chose not to run for re-election. Too many of his constituents were aware of the role he played in the housing scandal. He later sponsored the most recent round of “financial reform,” yet who did he exempt from reform? You guessed it: Fannie and Freddie. He’s one of the rats getting off the sinking ship, which is why he could afford to exempt these donors from reform.

So, did Bush just drop his efforts to reform Fannie and Freddie after Dodd killed the 2003 effort? Nope. Every year, attempts were made, but they were headed off at the pass on each occasion by Democrats. The web is chock full of these accounts. A chronology can be found here, http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/5487 but there are hundreds more for anyone who cares to look.

Esten, I’ve no doubt that you’re aware of most of the above. If you’ve looked into the matter, as you claimed, you couldn’t possibly have missed it. But, predictably, you simply chose not to mention any of this. How convenient. You simply can’t be taken at face value, which is why I rarely respond to anything you post, except when you: (a) lie about what I’ve said; or (b) challenge my integrity.

Need further proof that Democrats are responsible for this mess? Watch that last two minutes of that YouTube video, linked above. Even former President Clinton says Democrats are responsible for resisting efforts to reform Fannie and Freddie. Ahh, but then, former President Clinton is a crackpot, just like Jimmy Carter, isn’t he Esten?

At least Democrats will always have you to rebut their former Presidents when these ex-leaders finally suffer a brief moment of candor. Perhaps you’d like to weigh in on how misguided Castro is, now that even he’s declared that socialism doesn’t work.? The Cubans are lucky they have you on their side – they haven’t got much else. But, of course, that’s Republicans’ fault, as well, isn’t it.

Wild Walleye

09-27-10, 11:54

Congress (Democrats) blocked every attempt to reign in Fannie and Freddie because they (Fannie and Freddie) represented huge govt slush funds for the Dems. End of story.

The current political scenario we are witnessing is what I call "electoral paristalsis" It is an automatic and important function. What will be expelled is human detritus.

El Alamo

09-27-10, 12:19

Esten's plan sounds great provided we want to experience another housing bubble and financial meltdown.

The timing needs to be correct. Wait until 2013, implement Esten's plan, and then blame the next Depression on the Republican we elected in 2012.

This plan has worked before. We were able to blame the last housing bubble and financial meltdown on George Bush when it was obvious to anyone with at least 2 functioning neurons that Barney Franks, Chris Dodd and their friends Freddie and Fannie were the real real culprits behind the housing bubble and ensuing financial meltdown.

Miamipro

09-27-10, 13:07

This plan has worked before. We were able to blame the last housing bubble and financial meltdown on George Bush when it was obvious to anyone with at least 2 functioning neurons that Barney Franks, Chris Dodd and their friends Freddie and Fannie were the real real culprits behind the housing bubble and ensuing financial meltdown.So what you are saying is, during GWB tenure as President, he wasn't bright enough to figure out what was going on with the housing bubble? (the rest of the country did) I mean he was the President and could have said, "Hey this isn't looking good, we need to change the qualifications on home loans by not making it so easy for people who can't afford homes from buying them". When you talk about 2 functioning neurons it would be safe to say GWB and Cheney couldn't come up with that many between the 2 of them.

Member #4112

09-27-10, 13:30

If you read Stan's post above you would have noticed several times when GWB and the Republicans attempted to address the problem but Dodd, Franks et al kept stonewalling those attempts. Perhaps they could have been more forcefull but how?

By the way, did you notice Dodd never made his financing arrangements with Country Wide available as promised? Wonder why. Franks did a lot of crawfishing after the bubble burst and Fannie and Freddie started bleeding to death.

While increasing home ownership is nobel the way the Dem's went about it was criminal.

Miamipro

09-27-10, 14:10

While increasing home ownership is nobel the way the Dem's went about it was criminal.Again. To blame one party. Either one for that matter is a mistake. I'm sure there is a fair amount of blame to go around the table. But my point is GWB had the ability to make some changes. And didn't. You say he tried. But not hard enough to do the responsible thing IMHO.

Wild Walleye

09-27-10, 15:22

Again. To blame one party. Either one for that matter is a mistake. I'm sure there is a fair amount of blame to go around the table. But my point is GWB had the ability to make some changes. And didn't. You say he tried. But not hard enough to do the responsible thing IMHO.Well gee, that is like saying that rank and members of rouge regimes deserve the same blame as the depots that run (ran) them.

Miamipro

09-27-10, 16:15

Well gee, that is like saying that rank and members of rouge regimes deserve the same blame as the depots that run (ran) them.WW.

I love the way you distort comparisons. But its nice to see you finally admit that the GWB admin is a rouge regime. First step to solving a problem is admitting you have one.

Wild Walleye

09-27-10, 17:25

WW.

I love the way you distort comparisons. But its nice to see you finally admit that the GWB admin is a rouge regime. First step to solving a problem is admitting you have one. I am no fan of GWB. Although I was and remain in support of all three wars (Iraq, Afghan and "on terror") and believe he did a fantastic job protecting us from terrorists.

Your guy is almost at 52% disapproval. In case you don't know, that isn't good.

Miamipro

09-27-10, 18:19

I am no fan of GWB. Although I was and remain in support of all three wars (Iraq, Afghan and "on terror") and believe he did a fantastic job protecting us from terrorists.

Your guy is almost at 52% disapproval. In case you don't know, that isn't good. In case you didn't know. Obama is not my guy. Hasn't been since showing his lack of balls with policies I wanted passed. While you may not be a fan of GWB. His disapproval ratings were the lowest in Presidential history, when he was leaving office. Bush's final approval rating was 22 percent. Only war I support is the one against Al-Qaeda and nailing Osama. And as much as I support our troops. I don't support going in to Iraq. No reason to. Unless you can give me viable one. But don't try to play the terrorist card on that one. It was played out along time ago. To no avail. Our efforts and resources would have been better spent focusing on the 2 I previously mentioned.

BTW.... Bush did a fantastic job protecting us on 9/11... I am pretty sure he was President that day

Wild Walleye

09-27-10, 18:41

BTW.... Bush did a fantastic job protecting us on 9/11... I am pretty sure he was President that dayIf you can wash the fecal matter from your eyes (due to having your head up your ass) you can do some homework. There are many, many independent sources you can consult that will provide you with a decent time-line for 911 and where the blame belongs. Of course, you seem to chose the Al Jazera version (which is standard issue for American liberals and democrats in general.

Miamipro

09-27-10, 21:35

If you can wash the fecal matter from your eyes (due to having your head up your ass) you can do some homework. There are many, many independent sources you can consult that will provide you with a decent time-line for 911 and where the blame belongs. Of course, you seem to chose the Al Jazera version (which is standard issue for American liberals and democrats in general.HaHaHa. Its ok WW, your insults, I'm sure, are based upon your own personal experiences of having ones head up an ass. However I am aware of the events of the time line that led up to 9/11. Just letting you know there were warning signs under his watch that went ignored. I included a link so maybe you could educate yourself starting in 1968 up through 2010. There are only 6,393 references so it might take you a while. But below I outlined those that were important to me pertaining to GWB. Take note especially of the December 2000 note I put in there.

http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp? Timeline=complete_911_timeline&startpos=0&theme=exactday.

March 2000: Clinton Attempt to Fight Terrorism Financing Defeated by Republican.

The Clinton administration begins a push to fight terrorism financing by introducing a tough anti-money laundering bill. The bill faces tough opposition, mostly from Republicans and lobbyists who enjoy the anonymity of offshore banking, which would be affected by the legislation. Despite passing the House Banking Committee by a vote of 31 to 1 in July 2000, Senator Phil Gramm (are) refuses to let the bill come up for a vote in his Senate Banking Committee. [TIME, 10/15/2001] Other efforts begun at this time to fight terrorism financing are later stymied by the new Bush administration in February 2001.

October 12,2000: Attack Warning Arrives Several Hours Too Late for USS Cole.

October 12,2000: Candidate Bush Responds to Terrorism Question with Missile Shield Proposal

'Bush's proposal of an antiballistic missile system suggests that he failed to understand that al-Qaeda's terrorism was fundamentally different from conventional warfare. ' [UNGER, 2004, PP.107,479] Bush will make similar comments on other occasions, causing the 9/11 Commission to later note, 'Public references by candidate and then President Bush about terrorism before 9/11 tended to reflect [his] priorities, focusing on state-sponsored terrorism and [weapons of mass destruction] as a reason to mount a missile defense. ' [9/11 COMMISSION, 7/24/2004, PP.509]

December 19,2000: Clinton Tells Bush His Top Priority Should Be Bin Laden; Bush Says It's Saddam Hussein Instead.

Resident Clinton and President-Elect Bush meet for their "exit interview, " in a two-hour meeting. [CNN, 12/19/2000] Clinton gives Bush his list of his top five priorities. At the top of the list is dealing with Osama bin Laden. Clinton also discusses the tensions between Pakistan and India, who are threatening each other with nuclear strikes; the crisis in the Middle East between Israel and Palestine; he discusses North Korea; and he discusses Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Bush shakes Clinton's hand after Clinton wraps up his presentation, and says, "Thanks for your advice, Mr. President, but I think you've got your priorities wrong. I'm putting Saddam at the top of the list. " [MOORE, 3/15/2004, PP.16-17] Just one day before, CIA Director George Tenet had warned Clinton that al-Qaeda could attack US interests in the next several weeks (see December 18,2000. In 2003, Clinton will speak about the interview, saying that he recognized Bush felt the biggest security issues facing the US was Iraq and a national missile defense: "I told him that in my opinion, the biggest security problem was Osama bin Laden. " [REUTERS, 10/16/2003]

Early 2001: Bush Staffers Less Concerned with Terrorism.

May-July 2001: NSA Picks Up Word of 'Imminent Terrorist Attacks'

May 8,2001: Cheney to Oversee National Effort for Responding to Domestic Attacks, but No Action Is Taken before 9/11.

May 10,2001: Attorney General Ashcroft Omits Counterterrorism from List of Goals.

May 16-17,2001: US Warned Bin Laden Supporters Are Inside US and Planning an Attack.

May 25-26,2001: Bush Told Bin Laden May Be Hinting about New Attack

August 2001: Russia Warns US of Suicide Pilots.

Early August 2001: CIA's Concern over Planned Bin Laden Strikes Inside US Are Heightened.

Early August 2001: Britain Warns US Again; Specifies Multiple Airplane Hijackings.

Between August 6 and September 10,2001: 'Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US' Memo Is Not Acted Upon.

August 15,2001: CIA Counterterrorism Head: We Are Going to Be Struck Soon

September 10,2001: NSA Intercepts: 'The Match Begins Tomorrow' and 'Tomorrow Is Zero Hour'

(Between 8:46 am And 8:55 a. M) September 11,2001: Bush's Motorcade Quickly Hears of Flight 11 Crash, but Bush Reportedly Still Unaware.

(8:47 a. M-9:20 a. M) September 11,2001: Mayor Giuliani Learns of First WTC Crash, Yet Doesn't Go to Special Emergency Command Center.

(8:55 a. M) September 11,2001: President Bush Chats with Greeting Committee Instead of Taking Urgent Call from Rice.

(8:55 a. M) September 11,2001: President Bush Arrives at Elementary School for Photo-Op.

(9:03 a. M-9:06 a. M) September 11,2001: President Bush Enters Classroom Photo-Op, Still Claims to Think WTC Crash Is Accidental.

(9:06 a. M) September 11,2001: President Bush Told WTC Hit Again and US Is Under Attack; He Continues Photo-Op.

(9:06 a. M-9:16 a. M) September 11,2001: President Bush Reads Pet Goat Story for Nearly Ten Minutes; Warned Not to Talk.

(9:16 a. M) September 11,2001: President Bush Takes His Time Leaving Classroom Photo-Op.

(9:16 a. M-9:29 a. M) September 11,2001: President Bush Works on Speech with Staff; Makes No Decisions

Esten

09-28-10, 02:23

Wild Walleye

09-28-10, 03:17

Miamipro

09-28-10, 03:57

Stop wasting our collective time and cyerspace. Read my prior post on our treatment of terrorism as law enforcement issues. Feel free to comment. Otherwise STFU.Why do you always change the subject when I point out facts. We were debating the competency of GWB and how you think he did a fantastic job protecting us from terror. When he in fact dropped the biggest ball along with other people in the admin at the time. And no I won't STFU. Hate to burst your bubble but this time and this cyberspace belongs to me as much as it does you and I can express my opinions and state fact as much as I damn well please. And if it bothers you that much, only makes it that much more enjoyable for me.

The funny thing about political talk / debate is no matter what you say or what I say, probably isn't going to convince the other one of any thought change. So you believe what you will and I will do the same. Time will judge all and maybe one day you can say I told you so or vice versa.

Cheers!

Miamipro

09-28-10, 04:18

I went to see WallStreet 2 tonight and it wasn't to bad. Better than I thought it would be. Typical Hollywood ending though. You know they want everyone to feel all happy and warm inside. I post this comment here because the movie has a lot to do with the financial collapse.

Check it out.

Toymann

09-28-10, 05:28

Stop wasting our collective time and cyerspace. Read my prior post on our treatment of terrorism as law enforcement issues. Feel free to comment. [Deleted by Admin]

EDITOR'S NOTE: This report was edited in accordance with the Forum's Zero Tolerance policy regarding reports containing any personal attacks or derogatory comments directed towards another Forum Member or the Forum Membership in general.

Welcome to the El Jeffe's editing zone brother. Apears that El Jeffe is showing his liberal side these days. Patience brother this too will pass. Happy Mongering All. Toymann

Miamipro

09-28-10, 06:21

Apears that El Jeffe is showing his liberal side these days.So if "El Jeffe" up holds the rules of the board, its considered liberal? HaHa OK. Thats funny. But honestly I wasn't offended by the STFU comment.

Avatar2005

09-28-10, 06:57

I was in NYC a couple of weeks ago when an old friend told me whats about to happen to his family due to the new Obamacare plan. The family run publishing company he works for (30 employees) held a meeting for all employees to discuss the ramifications of the new health plan. The Company had been paying 1/2 of their people's health bills for the last 25 years, but due to the new regulations, it would cost the Company $1.5 million a year come January, and if he does that he would have to cease operations! So he called the meeting to tell everyone that he will not be paying any of their health insurance costs anymore because it is cheaper for him to pay the yearly fine of $5,000 per employee (150,000 / yr) than pay the $1.5 million that would put him out of business! So my friend has to now figure out how to come up with $14k / yr to provide health insurance for his family! That's some health care program, huh?

Wild Walleye

09-28-10, 11:51

So my friend has to now figure out how to come up with $14k / yr to provide health insurance for his family! That's some health care program, huh?Fire someone. That's the 'new normal'

Toymann

09-28-10, 12:04

So if "El Jeffe" up holds the rules of the board, its considered liberal? HaHa OK. Thats funny. But honestly I wasn't offended by the STFU comment.For a serial antagonist you have a sense of humor! Go figure? Must be a red dog as most bleeding heart liberals certainly lack any sense of humor and are easily offended. LOL. Monger on dude. Toymann

Miamipro

09-28-10, 22:11

This thread got real quiet.

Come-On WW... I still love you

Wild Walleye

09-28-10, 22:45

Welcome to the El Jeffe's editing zone brother. Apears that El Jeffe is showing his liberal side these days. Patience brother this too will pass. Happy Mongering All. Toymann

I have no problem with El Jeffe's censoring of that particular comment. While it was neither derogatory nor a personal attack (the stock language from the admin post), the gist of my comment was, in fact, antithetical to the fundamental function of the forum (i.e. encouraging someone not to participate).

As for MP, I am trying to make sure that I am in Bs As in early November so we can watch the election returns together.

Miamipro

09-28-10, 22:49

I have no problem with El Jeffe's censoring of that particular comment. While it was neither derogatory nor a personal attack (the stock language from the admin post, the gist of my comment was, in fact, antithetical to the fundamental function of the forum (I. E. Encouraging someone not to participate.

As for MP, I am trying to make sure that I am in Bs As in early November so we can watch the election returns together. I am leaving tomorrow night back home. However I will be with you in spirit.

Esten

09-29-10, 00:47

It's probably just a bunch of Wall Street guys complaining how Fannie and Freddie caused all their problems.

Wild Walleye

09-29-10, 10:28

It's probably just a bunch of Wall Street guys complaining how Fannie and Freddie caused all their problems.It is an absolute travesty of justice that GG was ever incarcerated!

"Greed, for lack of a better term, is good" I had my Motorola Brick-phone bronzed and keep it on the mantle.

Footnote: I know that GG is a fictional character but it seems liberals live in an alternate reality where fictional characters are as real as you and me, therefore, I don't want to upset our Cool-Aid drinking friends by pointing out that their realities are make believe.

Rev BS

09-29-10, 12:35

For me, the mid term election results is not a referendum of whether the Republicans or Democrats are the better ruling party. Both have failed us especially for the long term. Obama's inexperience has led to the Democrats reliquishing the momentum that they came in with, which the Republicans can now capitalize on.

So the main issue is the economy, jobs and unemployment. And Obama / Democrats will pay for it as the well qualified and distinguished Bush senior did in 2002 when the upstart Clinton walk into the White House. This after one of the hightest ratings for Bush senior after the first Iraq campaign. My point, is for all the verbal propoganda that is going on now of who is right or wrong in political philosophy, it is all about your stomach and your paycheck. An example, if the economy gets roaring again, all the hard talk about illegal immigration will tone down to a whisper.

The business of America is business, after all.

Wild Walleye

09-29-10, 12:54

How do you know when a godless ideologue is behind in the polls?

He starts to tell you how pious he is:

"WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama is getting more public about his Christianity.

First he raised his Christian faith at a White House news conference this month. Then he went church for the first time in five months. And on Tuesday he responded to a question with an expansive talk about how he chose Christianity, how Jesus Christ influences his life and how he prays every day. " From McClatchy Press.

Does anyone really believe that BHO believes in a higher power (I. E. Higher than himself) This religious charade is more cynical than the Soviets. The USSR formally existed for 69 years, during which time the Soviets actively persecuted Christians (right up until the fall of the Communist regime. Oddly, the crosses that adorned the towers of the four Cathedrals within the Kremlin were never removed. The justification for this was "just in case. " While they held out the possibility that God might exist they didn't pretend to be pro-christian while executing their agenda.

Wild Walleye

09-29-10, 13:24

For me, the mid term election results is not a referendum of whether the Republicans or Democrats are the better ruling party.

Agreed

Both have failed us especially for the long term.

The individuals and groups of individuals bearing these political monikers have screwed us as well as past and future generations. However, history has shown us repeatedly (because we are slow learners and keep putting our hands back into the fire) that freedom, self-determination and capitalism work while controlled economies, limited personal freedoms and socialism do not. End of story.

A free society enabled to pursue personal self interests (including happiness) - within the constraints of social folkways and morays, codified into law by a democratically-elected, representative government - is as good as it is ever going to get. It will never be perfect, it will never completely eliminate poverty, hunger, drug addiction, body odor or obsessive masturbation.

Obama's inexperience has led to the Democrats reliquishing the momentum that they came in with, which the Republicans can now capitalize on.

It is Obama zealotry and impatience to force it on the country that has betrayed him.

So the main issue is the economy, jobs and unemployment.

Yes.

The negative socioeconomic impact of the global financial meltdown (regardless of who caused it), as manifested in poor economic data and high unemployment, has been grossly exacerbated by BHO and his adhesion to his neo-marxist agenda. Increased regulation, increased national indebtedness, increased money supply, increased regulatory risk, increased cost of doing business, increased unforeseen business risk are the hallmarks of Obama's attempts to recast our country into his Utopian society - all of which have helped to delay or eliminate any real recovery.

And Obama / Democrats will pay for it as the well qualified and distinguished Bush senior did in 2002 when the upstart Clinton walk into the White House. This after one of the hightest ratings for Bush senior after the first Iraq campaign.

92% approval rating for GHWB, cleared out the Democrat field of candidates. Clinton didn't care. He was going to run and lose just to get his name recognition up. No one, especially Clinton, expected things to unfold the way that they did. A week is a long time in a political campaign, a year is an eternity.

My point, is for all the verbal propoganda that is going on now of who is right or wrong in political philosophy, it is all about your stomach and your paycheck. An example, if the economy gets roaring again, all the hard talk about illegal immigration will tone down to a whisper.

Who was it that said "It's the economy, stupid"

America votes with its wallets. That is because that is how the public interprets the prevailing macro and micro economic conditions and the way that it is connected to the economic policies of its leader. The majority of the public do not usually delve deeper into the subject nor do they necessarily grasp the connection of the above-mentioned freedom to their personal, financial well being.

I think that since the silent majority seems to have found its voice, tough issues such as immigration are going to face tougher debate both within the congress and the public forum -- based upon the merits of the issue (and relying less on the various political agendas).

It is not anti-immigrant or racist to oppose the wholesale elimination of federal law, as they relate to immigration, for the purpose of adding 20 million people to the democrat voter rolls.

I do support eliminating immigration constraints on attractive, single females (who are not pregnant) from all countries of origin.

That said, it is more difficult to get the public to focus on such issues when things are going well and the abundance of "riches" provides them with more distractions.

El Alamo

09-29-10, 16:13

Wild Walleye

09-29-10, 16:50

My favorite topic.

In the 1940's Cuba was the worlds top exporter of coffee.

In the early 1960's Cuba produced more than 60,000 tons of coffee.

This year Cuba produced about 5,000 tons of coffee and has to import the vast majority of coffee it consumes.

And people wonder why those people proposing a larger governmental role are like fingernails on a blackboard to us. Didn't you forget to point out that those marginalized by the 83% reduction of the industry, get FREE healthcare? Besides, if Cuba's coffee industry was still strong, Starbucks would just exploit the crap out of those poor starving people by paying them a decent wage to perform jobs. How cruel are you?

The shrinking effect that the left has on industries, is not dissimilar from the effects of a dip in freezing water on the size of your willie (or I guess on your Guillermo, in Bs As)

Wild Walleye

09-29-10, 17:00

Obama: Well I hate going. Why can't I worship the Lord in my own way, by pretending that I pray to my Blackberry every day and by praying like hell on my death bed

Rham Emanuel: Mr. President, they can hear you inside!

Obama: Relax! Those pious morons are too busy talking to their phoney-baloney God!

[the Obama family enter the church to total silence and angry looks. They make their way to their pew]

Obama: How ya doin'? Peace be with you. Praise Jebus.

Wild Walleye

09-30-10, 13:37

If I worked in an aspirin factory, I'd be pretty nervous going to work for the next five weeks.

When all else fails, time to wag the dog.

Stan Da Man

09-30-10, 21:17

Stan you need to slow down a little and read more carefully.

The point of my last post was that Bush and Republicans played more than a minor role. When you say the only blame Repubs deserve is that Bush didn't use his veto, you bet I am going to challenge you on it. I did point out that Dems and the private sector also shared blame. But I did not get into how much blame each deserved, aside from an implication that most rests with the private sector. Your red herring essay on the GSEs doesn't change the fact that Bush made an aggressive push on housing at a time when the bubble was just beginning.

You said I conveniently omitted things. Let's take a look at that. If I had been making the case that Repubs were responsible for the entire economic mess, you would be correct. But I wasn't. Read slower. I was making the case that Repubs played more of a role than you claimed. OTOH, aside from the comment about Bush not using his veto, you have pinned the economic mess on Dems a number of times now. No mention of Bush's housing push, no mention of the private sector. All Dems re: Fannie and Freddie. I am sure in your research you have seen that most accounts cite multiple factors for the financial crisis. But you have chosen to focus on only one. Convenient omissions? Pot - Kettle?

Remember when Bush said "Wall Street Got Drunk"? Well there's a good case that Bush helped foster that environment to some extent. I recommend you take some time to read this article. There was a little more involved than Bush not using his veto.

White House Philosophy Stoked Mortgage Bonfire
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21admin.html? _r=1&pagewanted=all

As far as Fannie and Freddie that's a separate debate. Tell me this: Fannie and Freddie existed for decades without anything near the kind of housing bubble we just had. So how did we get a massive housing bubble during 2001-2007 when Bush was in office?

I don't need to slow down. You need to be candid rather than pushing an agenda in obvious disregard of the facts.

There are many reasons the housing bubble occurred. The primary one, however, related directly to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac:

1. The low income housing quota for these entities stood at 40% in 1996. This means that the stated goal was that 40% of the mortgages Fannie and Freddie purchased would be loans to low-income borrowers who likely would not otherwise qualify for a mortgage. These were subprime loans (because borrowers had bad credit) and later became known as "toxic debt."

2. That quota was raised to 50% in the year 2000, and 56% in the year 2004. That's a 40% increase in the quota over an 8-year period.

3. While all that was going on, Fannie and Freddie greatly expanded their presence in the marketplace. In the year 2000, they bought $35 billion in mortgages each year. By 2004, it was $170 billion. That's a 500% increase in four years, and it continued thereafter until things started to unravel -- when Democrats finally agreed that someone else should regulate Fannie and Freddie.

4. Between 2000 and 2004, Fannie and Freddie essentially went from being large players in the subprime mortgage market, to being the players in the mortgage market. In the year 2004 alone, Fannie and Freddie purchased 44% of all subprime mortgages. That's astronomical.

5. Add all of the above together, and you have a recipe for disaster: a 40% increase in the toxic loan purchase requirement and 500% more money being thrown at these bad loans, and two GSEs that essentially own this market -- ostensibly for "the public good." One of the reasons for this is that various Democrat-sponsored pressure groups -- primarily ACORN -- began to pressure HUD, Fannie and Freddie to enforce the low-income loan quotas and to expand these programs. Before 2000, Fannie and Freddie frequently didn't hit their 40% quota. After 2000, they exceeded their quotas. So, while Democrats were able to reward their pet activist groups and constituents with free money, the day of reckoning crept closer.

6. HUD is the group that sets the low income housing quota, and an arm of HUD is responsible for auditing Fannie and Freddie. Both were obvious failures at the time Bush proposed firing HUD as the regulator. In 2003, when the legislation was proposed, a HUD audit revealed that Fannie and Freddie had been cooking the books for years in order to pay huge bonuses to Franklin Raines and his subordinates. It had been going on for some time, but HUD's auditing arm never got around to looking. This, and the fact that HUD had no practical enforcement mechanism for requiring Fannie and Freddie to ensure that the loans they purchased were to "quality" borrowers (even if low income), is why we saw all the "liar" loans that started the housing bubble. Basically, Fannie and Freddie would purchase anything -- they had to -- and all the lenders and mortgage brokers knew it.

Bush made it a part of his agenda to stop this for years and years. Every year Fannie and Freddie came up, and every year Democrats shot it down. They protected their buddies who were funneling them campaign contributions and ensuring that constituents could get free money. You can say a lot about George Bush, but you simply can't say that he did nothing to try to stop the eventual housing debacle. He clearly put his finger on the problem, highlighted the issue, and was thwarted by Democrats at every turn.

That YouTube video is just one of many showing Democrats in lock-step against anything being done to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Had you been paying any attention at all, you couldn't have missed it.

Wild Walleye

10-01-10, 11:40

Stan Da Man

10-01-10, 13:50

Stan:

We all know that interest in the facts wanes when they (the facts) don't support one's point of view. While I don't want to cast aspersions, I can think of a couple posters who have little interest in facts, largely because there are few if any that support their agendas.

You are correct about the facts, I believe that there is little debate amongst knowledgeable folks regarding the origins and unraveling of the mortgage bubble. Those who insist that it was Bush's fault are just Liberal-caused-housing-bubble-leading to-global-economic-meltdown deniers. I couldn't agree more. It's one of the reasons that I rarely respond to Esten. I labor under no impression that I could convince him of anything. He's too far gone for that. There are others who read the board, and occasionally he posts something that is outright false and worthy of correction. But, I agree: If the goal is to convince him or the latest interloper, MiamiPro, it's not worth the candle, as they say.

Stan Da Man

10-01-10, 23:16

Another rat fled the sinking ship today. Rahm Emanuel turned tail and ran. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101001/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_chief_of_staff

So, that leaves Geithner as the only top advisor left in less than two years. Frankly, Obama probably would have been better off had all the others stayed and Geithner left.

But, the departure of Rahm Emanuel will leave Obama better off if his replacement, Pete Rouse, is as low key as the press makes him out to be. Emanuel was a bit too much like James Carville. Carville's antics could work during a campaign, but someone like that wears thin pretty quickly as part of an administration.

Now, if Obama fires David Axelrod next, then perhaps he'll start to back away from the dogmatic, socialist, true-believer agenda he's been peddling. I'm not betting on it, though. True believers generally don't change their spots, even when the ship is sinking.

Esten

10-02-10, 01:52

It is well documented in this thread how many times right wing talking points have been recycled, in a one-sided manner in disregard to opposing facts. This recent claim that Fannie and Freddie were the primary cause of the housing bubble / economic mess is just the latest and greatest example.

To the extent that there is "little debate" on this topic, it's that knowledgeable folks acknowledge there were several contributing factors, and that Fannie/Freddie were not the primary factor. Only those who limit their news sources to far-right media could possibly be unaware of this.

The point has been made many times that Bush sought stronger oversight of the GSEs and Democrats resisted. This is true. But somehow we are supposed to believe, by a magical leap of faith, that if Dems had supported Bush, reforms would have been implemented, and in time, to significantly reduce the magnitude of the bubble and financial crisis. That's a mighty big leap of faith, which hasn't been and likely cannot be proven. But it's the conservative line, because it helps them shift blame to Dems and bring up their allegations of cronyism, which are really a deflection from the discussion as to how big a role the GSEs played in the crisis.

More to come. The conservative myth of the predominant role of Fannie/Freddie has been widely discredited, I will consolidate into a few main points.

Rev BS

10-02-10, 10:34

Human nature being what it is, you put 2 people in a room, and all hell break loose. This thread is heading that way.

Argentina Private politically leans to the right and is sometimes intolerant to the left, even to moderate liberals. For the thread to be healthy, we need to tone down some of the personal insults and namecalling. And if you have to be hard, do it with some humor.

Wild Walleye

10-02-10, 12:40

The conservative myth of the predominant role of Fannie/Freddie has been widely discreditedWe all know that the earth is turning into a gigantic ball of fire and that we will all perish due to effects of anthropogenic global warming.

Now, because you say this explanation of the origins of the housing crisis has been invalidated (with saying by whom or up what evidence this is based upon) we are supposed to accept it?

Oh, ok.

Wild Walleye

10-02-10, 12:53

Human nature being what it is, you put 2 people in a room, and all hell break loose.

I have seen this happen first hand, several times. Most recently, it was at 1631 dpto 3D.

Argentina Private politically leans to the right

Depends on your perspective

and is sometimes intolerant to the left, even to moderate liberals.

I suffer fools gladly

For the thread to be healthy, we need to tone down some of the personal insults and namecalling.

"Well Mr. Helper. You remember that thing we had about 30 years ago called the Korean conflict? And how we failed to achieve victory? How come we didn't cross the 38th parallel and push those rice-eaters back to the Great Wall of China?

And if you have to be hard, do it with some humor.

I've tried that. I think the language barrier impacts the comic delivery of a squirt in the eye. "Fue un accidente..."

Toymann

10-02-10, 13:33

We all know that the earth is turning into a gigantic ball of fire and that we will all perish due to effects of anthropogenic global warming.

Now, because you say this explanation of the origins of the housing crisis has been invalidated (with saying by whom or up what evidence this is based upon) we are supposed to accept it?

Oh, ok. Especially most of Esten and Miamipros posts. Unlike most flaming liberals us republicans usually have a great sense of humor. Tick. Tick. Tick. Less than 30 days now. I still haven't conceeded that Madahos evening with Esten as I may still get my wish of more GOP than Dems in the senate in spite of tea party. Time will tell. Looks like the house is a lock!

Happy Mongering All,

Toymann

Miamipro

10-04-10, 01:20

Especially most of Esten and Miamipros posts.Whats really funny about my posts is the fact that your the punchline.

Jackson

10-04-10, 01:39

Argentina Private politically leans to the right....Actualy, AP provides an equal voice to all political perspectives, which of course appears to be biased to liberals are used to dominating online political conversations.

Thanks,

Jackson

Rev BS

10-04-10, 04:06

Actualy, AP provides an equal voice to all political perspectives, which of course appears to be biased to liberals are used to dominating online political conversations.

Thanks,

JacksonYes, it is true that Argentina Pirvate provides equal posting rights to all "faiths". I also agree that liberals do dominate mass media. But going ballistic on Argentina Private seem to be a right wing phenomenon.

Wild Walleye

10-04-10, 14:33

Especially most of Esten and Miamipros posts. Unlike most flaming liberals us republicans usually have a great sense of humor. Tick. Tick. Tick. Less than 30 days now. I still haven't conceeded that Madahos evening with Esten as I may still get my wish of more GOP than Dems in the senate in spite of tea party. Time will tell. Looks like the house is a lock!

Happy Mongering All,

ToymannI thought my comment about health care in Cuba was pretty funny.

Jackson

10-04-10, 18:59

Yes, it is true that Argentina Private provides equal posting rights to all "faiths". I also agree that liberals do dominate mass media. But going ballistic on Argentina Private seem to be a right wing phenomenon.Hi,

It appears to me that the liberals here have done a pretty good job of enunciating their positions and otherwise "standing up" to the independents, libertarians and conservatives.

Of course, my own perspective may be biased.

Thanks,

Jackson

Rev BS

10-04-10, 23:48

Hi,

It appears to me that the liberals here have done a pretty good job of enunciating their positions and otherwise "standing up" to the independents, libertarians and conservatives.

Of course, my own perspective may be biased.

Thanks,

JacksonYes it is, but so is everyone's.

Esten

10-05-10, 01:24

CNBC Special - Wed Oct.6 at 9pm

It's probably just a bunch of investment bankers complaining how Fannie and Freddie forced them to sell risky mortgage-backed products.

Miamipro

10-05-10, 12:49

I haven't been contributing as much because I am back home in Miami. But will try and get my 2 cents in from time to time. I know if I don't WW will be depressed.

Wild Walleye

10-05-10, 18:55

I haven't been contributing as much because I am back home in Miami... but will try and get my 2 cents in from time to time.. I know if i dont WW will be depressed

Obama is depressing the hell out of me (and the economy and the nation as a whole). Don't worry, the electorate is about to deliver some electoral prozac.

Esten

10-06-10, 01:43

Stan posted a research-based case why he believes Fannie and Freddie were the primary cause of the housing bubble and economic mess. I respect the research effort, and it is true that many people who have looked into this topic agree Fannie / Freddie share some blame. Some even believe Fannie / Freddie were a significant factor, among several. But very few people / analyses have concluded Fannie / Freddie were "the" primary factor. Consider the following.

1. Fannie and Freddie expanded their presence in the mortgage market for decades, while house prices steadily increased without a giant housing bubble developing. As the housing bubble formed last decade, the GSE share of the mortgage market declined from 42% in 2000, to 34% in 2006.

2. Subprime was a small component of the mortgage market between 1997-2003, comprising between 5-8% of all mortgage originations each year. Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent.

3. These charts show the pattern clearly. Over the period 2003-06, Fannie and Freddie saw a sharp drop in their share of residental mortgage securitization. Over the same period, non-agency MBS issuance surged, a majority of which was subprime and Alt-A issuance which increased from approx. $270 Billion to $800 Billion.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/03/things-everyone-in-chicago-knows/

4. For another look at the numbers see this report, Figure 1.2: Enterprises' Market Share.

Per the report, private-label issuers played a large role in securitizing higher-risk mortgages from early 2004 to mid-2007 while the GSEs continued to guarantee primarily traditional mortgages. Consequently, the GSEs lost market share of MBS issuance. After private-label issuers exited the secondary mortgage market in 2007, the GSEs market share increased.

http://www.fhfa.gov/webfiles/16592/ConservatorsRpt82610.pdf
http://modeledbehavior.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/image7.png (figure only)

5. In addition, commercial real estate also experienced a giant bubble over the same period, but CRE is outside the scope of the GSEs. This provides evidence of a broad-based bubble fueled by other market forces, such as speculation.

http://mit.edu/cre/research/credl/rca.html

Of course this all took place against a backdrop of low interest rates, and a giant global pool of money (represented by $70 trillion in worldwide fixed income investments) seeking higher yields than those offered by USA Treasury bonds. This pool of money had roughly doubled in size from 2000 to 2007, yet the supply of relatively safe, income generating investments had not grown as fast. Wall Street answered this demand with MBS and CDO securities, which were assigned safe ratings by credit rating agencies. And this was all facilitated by deregulation such as the 1999 passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, and lax regulatory oversight over the bubble years. Bush's housing push was also part of the backdrop. Speculation and real estate "flipping" also played a large role. In 2005-2006, a record level of nearly 40% of home purchases were not intended as primary residences.

There is a good argument that private sector factors, as well as government policy / regulation, all played significant roles. Fannie and Freddie also clearly played a role. But the argument that Fannie and Freddie were "the" primary factor, is simply weak, which is why it is seen as little more than a conservative talking point among most people who have studied the topic.

Jackson

10-06-10, 04:15

Fannie and Freddie also clearly played a role. But the argument that Fannie and Freddie were "the" primary factor, is simply weak...So your best counter-argument, intended to negate everyone else's contention that "Fannie and Freddie were 'the primary factor'" in the mortgage meltdown, appears at best to move only slightly off that point to merely that "Fannie and Freddie also clearly played a role"?

Man, that's thin.

Jackson

10-06-10, 04:22

Linda McMahon barbecued Dick Blumenthal in her answer to the debate question 'How do you create a job? '.

Blumenthal rambled on for a minute and 20 seconds about government's role in creating jobs, and then McMahon responded with this:

Government does not create jobs. It’s very simple how you create jobs. An entrepreneur takes [a] risk. He or she believes that they [can] create or good or service that is sold for more than it costs to produce it. If an entrepreneur thinks he can do that, he creates a job.Here's the 2 minute video clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uilFn6mgm4

Wild Walleye

10-06-10, 12:00

Linda McMahon barbecued Dick Blumenthal in her answer to the debate question 'How do you create a job? '.

Blumenthal rambled on for a minute and 20 seconds about government's role in creating jobs, and then McMahon responted.

Here's the 2 minute video clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uilFn6mgm4I am not sure how involved she was at WWE but that company went from laughing stock to NYSE big board stock (EV over US$1.0B. They employ nearly 600 people. Blumie is a liar and elitist snob (lives near friends of mine) and doesn't know how to create a job because he has never done it.

Jackson

10-06-10, 15:40

I am not sure how involved she was at WWE...She was actually the president for the entire life of the company. Her husband Vince McMahon was and is the big-beefy ex-wrestler who is the MC at many of their events.

Stan Da Man

10-06-10, 16:29

So your best counter-argument, intended to negate everyone else's contention that "Fannie and Freddie were 'the primary factor'" in the mortgage meltdown, appears at best to move only slightly off that point to merely that "Fannie and Freddie also clearly played a role"?

Man, that's thin.

You beat me to the punch. Thanks for saving me the trouble. His response -- on an issue that he claims to have been investigating for quite some time -- is the best example of how weak the counter-argument is. But then, that's what I've come to expect. I'm back to not responding. If I knew where the !@#$!# Ignore button was, I'd probably use it.

Wild Walleye

10-06-10, 18:36

She was actually the president for the entire life of the company. Her husband Vince McMahon was and is the big-beefy ex-wrestler who is the MC at many of their events.But did not realize that she ran the company. Wow. That is pretty impressive. No, actually it is very impressive.

Stan Da Man

10-06-10, 21:30

But did not realize that she ran the company. Wow. That is pretty impressive. No, actually it is very impressive.

I've been following the company (not the show) for ages, long before the World Wildlife Fund made them change their name. She may have the title, but I'm not sure she actually ran the show there. Then again, I'm not sure she didn't. If that Youtube clip is any guide, she's pretty sharp. Why she would want to get into government, I'll never know. But, Vince McMahon is the one who grew up as the promoter's son and really brought the company to prominence.

They made a ton of dough on licensing and PPV, both before and after they went public. You may recall that Monday Night Football moved back it's start time for a while so as not to have to compete with WWF for Monday ratings.

I used to invest in the companies that had the licenses for their video games and action figures, THQ and Jakk's Pacific. Both were extremely lucrative when WWF was hot. Then, WWF discovered that they were being cheated on license fees and took everything back, and I think they made even more money when they re-licensed to others. If she was responsible for that move, it was shrewd. Their brand has cooled off a bunch since then, though.

Seeing the contrast between her and Blumenthal, it's hard to believe anyone could vote for Blumenthal. Then again, it is Connecticut. If you sound like Mr. Howell on Gilligan's Island, you're bound to garner a good portion of the vote.

Esten

10-07-10, 00:44

So your best counter-argument, intended to negate everyone else's contention that "Fannie and Freddie were 'the primary factor'" in the mortgage meltdown, appears at best to move only slightly off that point to merely that "Fannie and Freddie also clearly played a role"?

Man, that's thin. If you are looking for some quantitation, I would say F&F played somewhere between a "small" and "medium" size role. This general conclusion has been reached by many people who have studied the topic, is supported by the facts in my post, and is more than "slightly" different from the bogus claim that F&F were the primary factor. Don't take my word for it though, do your own research and you'll see.

What I would say is "thin", is posting a few numbers on F&F while ignoring the private sector numbers and other factors, and claiming that as proof that F&F were the primary factor.

Wouldn't you agree?

Esten

10-07-10, 01:25

I watched the CNBC special "Goldman Sachs: Power And Peril" this evening.

I can't believe they made no mention of the huge role Fannie and Freddie played in forcing Goldman to sell risky mortgage-backed products. Unbelievable!

El Alamo

10-07-10, 08:17

Wild Walleye

10-07-10, 12:05

You mean CNBC doesn't find Fannie and Freddie responsible for the housing bubble.

Wow! Now, if you could only get Barnie Franks or the ex-CEO's of Fannie and Freddie to step up to the plate and admit that Freddy and Fanny were not responsible for the housing bubble this controversy would be over. If America would just accept the fact that it was all those greedy republicans on Wall Street's fault (who oddly donate disproportionately to democrat candidates) and keep the dems in control of all three branches of the govt, it will be like it never happened.

Stan Da Man

10-07-10, 14:06

You mean CNBC doesn't find Fannie and Freddie responsible for the housing bubble.

Wow!! Now, if you could only get Barnie Franks or the ex-CEO's of Fannie and Freddie to step up to the plate and admit that Freddy and Fanny were not responsible for the housing bubble this controversy would be over.

Have no fear. Barack Obama is going to clarify that later today.

When he talks about not "returning to the failed policies of the last decade," he's going to clarify that he doesn't mean the policy of democrats propping up Fannie and Freddie, blocking reform, siphoning off campaign contributions from these GSEs and from criminal Democratic pressure groups like ACORN, appointing Fannie's ex-CEO crooks as one of his campaign advisors, blocking inquiry into the sweetheart loans Democrats received from failed banks, and refusing to include Fannie and Freddie in their financial reform.

It's the other failed policies that he's referring to.

Stan Da Man

10-07-10, 20:32

Now, this is just ridiculous. First, Barack Obama gets the Nobel Peace Prize for . . . absolutely nothing.

Now, Forbes ranks Michelle Obama as the "Most Powerful Woman in the World." http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101006/lf_nm_life/us_power_women

Why? Cause you can see her guns when she wears those sleeveless tops? Nope. "Forbes said Obama topped the list this year because 'she has made the office of first lady her own' while remaining popular."

Angela Merkel? Hillary Clinton? Heck, Cristina Fernandez? Nope, none are as powerful as Michelle Obama, according to Forbes.

Who says the Dems don't have the mainstream media in their back pocket? For anyone complaining about Fox News, there are dozens and dozens of examples of media bias in favor of Democrats in general, and liberals in particular. This may be a mild one, but it's pathetic nonetheless. Not as bad as awarding the Nobel Peace Prize for hopes and aspirations, but it's just one more stroke in the left-tinged media mosaic.

Wild Walleye

10-07-10, 21:40

Now, this is just ridiculous. First, Barack Obama gets the Nobel Peace Prize for. . . Absolutely nothing.

Now, Forbes ranks Michelle Obama as the "Most Powerful Woman in the World. " http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101006/lf_nm_life/us_power_women

Why? Cause you can see her guns when she wears those sleeveless tops? Nope. "Forbes said Obama topped the list this year because 'she has made the office of first lady her own' while remaining popular. "

Angela Merkel? Hillary Clinton? Heck, Cristina Fernandez? Nope, none are as powerful as Michelle Obama, according to Forbes.

Who says the Dems don't have the mainstream media in their back pocket? For anyone complaining about Fox News, there are dozens and dozens of examples of media bias in favor of Democrats in general, and liberals in particular. This may be a mild one, but it's pathetic nonetheless. Not as bad as awarding the Nobel Peace Prize for hopes and aspirations, but it's just one more stroke in the left-tinged media mosaic. There are dozens of women that are more powerful than Mouchelle Obama, but kissing their asses may not payoff like kissing MO's.

This woman is a detestable, American-hating, elitist, racist (yes, I said it) snob. Maybe now that she has one this honor, she can be proud of AmeriKa for the second time.

Esten

10-07-10, 23:19

Toymann

10-08-10, 02:29

Whats really funny about my posts is the fact that your the punchline.You were the last to bang Layla? Too Funny. Suggest you stick to serial antagonism and stay away from the chicas dude. You need to search the Layla thread to really get the whole picture here newbie. As I have already reported my wingman saw this chica late last week. As a liberal, as usual, you never let the facts get in your way. LOL. And I'm you're punchline? Too funny. Tick. Tick. Tick. Soon all will be revealed.

Happy Mongering All,

Toymann

El Alamo

10-08-10, 10:55

I think we are in for some rough road before the unemployment numbers improve. Most previous Administrations understood that the private sector will add jobs only if adding jobs makes economic sense i.e. the tax burden of adding an employee does not break the back of the company.

Not this Administration. This Administration has the ingenious idea of increasing taxes on those who are working and using this tax money to create make believe government jobs. Wow, and these geniuses actually have college degrees.

But what do you expect from an Administration filled with life long government hacks who couldn't change the tires on their car much less operate a lemonade stand.

Wild Walleye

10-08-10, 11:32

Steve Forbes is a long-time Republican, so suggestions that Dems have his magazine in their back pocket seem dubious at best.

But I agree her ranking as "Most Powerful Woman in the World" is odd. It seems she has been supporting some worthwhile causes, but I wouldn't rank her above Merkel or Clinton. I usually change the channel when a story about her comes on, she is too wholesome for me.

Harsh words Walleye, though not surprising from you. Are these the racist comments you are referring to:?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=EX3ZdYbixiw

May be a republican and Forbes magazine has long been a very well respected periodical however, I don't think that the magazine could be considered to be a conservative or right-wing mouth organ.

Clinton is much more powerful than Moochelle, so much so that she has a good a chance of getting the Dem 2012 nomination as BHO and kicking the Mooch back to the Windy City (although the chances of a Dem occupying 1600 Penn after 1/20/2013, looks slim now - but two years is an eternity in politics). By the way, go back and search my past posts (Nov/Dec 2008?) about Clinton gaming for 2012 and BHO overstepping his bounds (early-mid 2009) and the backlash that was coming. Then try to show me one post were you have been on target with your wild ass shots in the dark.

They are not harsh words, they are accurate. I hear that they are making a movie about the Obama's move to destroy America, the working title is "Get Whitey." And all this time I thought he was going to be the first post-racial president (soooo historic and all). Read about the poll on how race relations have worsened in the US over the past two years. They were better under the first black president (Clinton).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1318727/Race-relations-worse-America--despite-Obamas-presidency-new-poll-reveals.html

Rev BS

10-08-10, 12:41

There are dozens of women that are more powerful than Mouchelle Obama, but kissing their asses may not payoff like kissing MO's.

This woman is a detestable, American-hating, elitist, racist (yes, I said it) snob. Maybe now that she has one this honor, she can be proud of AmeriKa for the second time. Wow, I am really disappointed in you. Having a Black couple residing in the White House is really eating you up!

But just to harmonize, I will still buy you lunch in BA or Bangkok when I see you.

Wild Walleye

10-08-10, 16:37

Wow, I am really disappointed in you. Having a Black couple residing in the White House is really eating you up!

But just to harmonize, I will still buy you lunch in BA or Bangkok when I see you. I don't care what color or sex the president is, so long as we share the same fundamental philosophies.

There is not a racist bone in my body, never have, never will and I won't spend any time defending myself from aspersions contrary to that.

I have, and have had throughout my life, many friends (Esten will find that hard to believe) paramours, business partners and acquaintances from around the globe (including Africa, MENA and other places where most people don't look like me. I have never once thought of any of them as being defined by the color of their skin, the god to which they pray or their caste. I'm not going to start now.

What I object to with the Obamas (both of them) is not that they are black, it is that they both have made racist, anti-white comments. I do not believe that only white people can be racist.

I am looking forward to lunch and harmony, thanks.

Punter 127

10-10-10, 09:45

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Draft Chris Christie for President in 2012.

Westy

10-10-10, 11:36

Wow, I am really disappointed in you. Having a Black couple residing in the White House is really eating you up!

But just to harmonize, I will still buy you lunch in BA or Bangkok when I see you. My problem isn't the color of Barack Obama. It's his eagerness to throw away all that makes America great, in pursuit of a Socialist Utopian vision he learned at the feet of such mentors as Saul Alinsky and a scorn he learned from such mentors as Reverend Wright.

George McCarthy used to call his type 'pinkos'. This was at a time when "Red" (Communist) Russia was a clear and present danger to the USA. Now that color, an inflammatory color on any map, is being used to label states that polled a Republican majority in 2000, and since.

I wanted, and dearly hoped, that our first Black President would be Colin Powell on a Constitutionalist platform, a "Black Eisenhower". Not this Teleprompted figurehead for the Socialist takeover of a country that was once the beacon of Freedom and Opportunity to the "huddled masses" (quote off the Statue of Liberty's plinth) of the world.

El Alamo

10-10-10, 12:06

I think Obama will do better than expected in the upcoming elections if he can get back on message. The message seems to be the elimination of private sector jobs through draconian tax increases while creating millions and millions of make believe government jobs.

This is a vision voters will reward in November provided the voters are restricted to convicted felons, the mentally challenged and third generation welfare recipients.

Wild Walleye

10-10-10, 12:09

And now this from the AP:

"No Social Security COLA expected for 2011"

When did the govt get put in charge of intimate "ports of entry?"

Wild Walleye

10-10-10, 13:52

Westy:

I was going to work in my objection to Reds but, I figured I would get labeled as anti-injun.

Esten

10-10-10, 14:50

What I object to with the Obamas (both of them) is not that they are black, it is that they both have made racist, anti-white comments. I do not believe that only white people can be racist.I think you are in a fringe minority once again Walleye. The only recent racism story I recall is the Shirley Sherrod episode where a conservative blogger presented something she said out of context, making it appear she racially discriminated against a white farmer. If anything, you can say the (hasty) rush to judgement on this story showed Obama's low tolerance for anti-white racism.

So really, what evidence do you have for your racist allegations of either Obama or his wife. Can you post even one link to a credible news source that provides some proof?

Esten

10-10-10, 15:21

Pretty much tells it like it is, and if the left doesn't believe it, they're 'whistling past the graveyard'. LMAO! Don't know where you got that little essay, but it's mere conservative fantasy.

Member #4112

10-10-10, 16:05

Esten, you wanted some examples of racism by the Obama's:

As I recall Obama appointed Van Jones as a Czar, then was forced to take his resignation after many racist comments were reported (hard to argue with video – if you had that many on video how many more were there, the Department of Justice is under fire due to having instituted an 'informal policy' of not enforcing the Voting Rights Act if the complainants were white (this attested to by both current and former black and white DOJ attorneys – one currently serving black attorney whose testimony was blocked by the DOJ until it was forced by the commission, least I forget Rev. Wright (who Obama happily threw under the bus when he become inconvenient. These are just a few off the top of my head and before you say 'but that was not Obama' they are 'his people' so he is responsible. You will have to go a long way to convince me the people he associates with do not share his beliefs. Sort of like saying I don't believe in Communism but I attend all the meetings.

As WW I really don't give a fig about a president's color, what I do care about is their policies regarding financial issues, social issues, the scope of the federal government and defense of the nation. I also care about their deportment in office, as how they conduct themselves both at home and abroad reflect directly on the nation as a whole. I believe a case can be made the Obama's have cheapened the office of the presidency (how many presidents have appeared on talk shows at all much less after entering office? In addition to having a tin ear regarding the nation as a whole, as examples I would point to taking their 'date night' out on the town to New York, publicized vacations and Michelle's debacle in Spain while the nation suffers with 9.6% unemployment and a severely depressed economy. I have to say the Obama's must have missed the class on tact and decorum.

I do believe after Nov 2, unlike Clinton who moved to the center after his party lost both houses to the Republicans in 94, Obama will move even further to the left and will veto as much legislation as he can unless overridden by the house. A good example is his current veto of the mortgage / foreclosure bill which would standardize foreclosure forms and practices. Obama cited it would lead to an increase in foreclosures (which if you check have been frozen by most major lenders as well as foreclosure sales, in reality the bill follows his party's policy of standardization.

I do believe the Left is whistling past the graveyard as Nov approaches – cloistering together to reinforce their beliefs the masses are both racist and stupid but will not prevail.

(Now where did I put my pitchfork, tar, feathers and torch?

Wild Walleye

10-10-10, 17:41

So really, what evidence do you have for your racist allegations of either Obama or his wife. Can you post even one link to a credible news source that provides some proof?

Off the top of my head:

-his own words: "The typical white person is a racist"; "this is just how white folks will do you";

-bitter clingers

-His racist painting of his grandmother

-Reverend Wright (take your pick, must be a million examples) LA Post reported (March 16, 2008) that a Newsmax.com correspondent witnessed Sen. Barack Obama attending one of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's anti-white sermons on July 22 and nodding his head in agreement with the black congregation.

-Reverend Lowery at Obama's inauguration (please don't try to tell me that Obama didn't have final say on every word uttered into a microphone that day)

-Van Jones

-Michelle's interview with 60 mins

-The Cambridge police event

-The Obama Justice department dropping a slam dunk case on the New Black Panthers

-The Obama Justice department's handling of the Somali pirate cases

-Michelle's involcation of the term "Whitey" at the Trinity Church in Chicago

-The nomination of Sotomayer to the supremes

-His own words in his books speak volumes about his anti-while beliefs and lists to whom he subscribes: "never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn’t speak to my own. It was into my father’s image, the black man, son of Africa, that I’d packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.” and at college “It remained necessary to prove which side you were on,to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names”

The list goes on. Look, if a republican made any equivalent remarks, he would be drummed out of office.

That fact that you won't even consider the possibility won't make Obama like you, he just groups people like you into the Andy Griffith category (good crackers).

Esten

10-10-10, 17:43

I enjoyed watching the "How Do You Create a Job? " debate question backfire on McMahon last week. She thought she had Blumenthal all set up with her simple question. His answer focused largely on government policies, and she came back with a short and concise answer about an entrepreneur taking risk and selling a good or service for more than it costs to make it. She didn't get much reaction aside from some murmuring in the audience. Then Blumenthal responds:

I don't differ. I'm not going to be an entrepreneur as a Senator. I will do my best to assist entrepreneurs in exactly the way I have just described.Upon which, the audience starts applauding for Blumenthal. Applauding!

Here's the full clip, not the version that is cut off after McMahon's answer. Republicans only want people to see the shorter version.

http://radioviceonline.com/blumenthal-on-how-jobs-are-created-I'm-not-going-to-dc-to-be-an-entrepreneur/

Apparently, Linda McMahon either forgets she is running for Senate, or really doesn't think government has any influence on job creation. Which as we know runs counter to the Republican position of blaming government for the lack of job creation. No wonder she is down 10 points.

Christine O'Donnell released her "I'm Not a Witch" TV ad. She's me??!!! SNL has been spoofing O'Donnell for two weeks now. This woman will go down in history. Here's the original ad (hard to find among all the spoofs) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxJyPsmEask

But my favorite video last week was RNC Chairman Michael Steele being interviewed about whether the minimum wage is unconstitutional. He dodged questions on whether it's a good idea to reduce the minimum wage. And then he got stumped when asked what the minimum wage was. I mean come on. I'm sure a lot of people don't know what the minimum wage is. But a high profile Republican like Steele being interviewed about the minimum wage and he doesn't know? That's just "out of touch".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qcoo_QKRZuw

Wild Walleye

10-10-10, 20:47

Scene: running down the hall, my index fingers placed securely in each ear

Me (imitating esten) at the top of my lungs: "LA, LA, LA, I'M NOT LISTENING!!!!!"

Has anyone here ever met Esten in person? I ask because I think he is either Ricardo or Ricardo's evil twin.

Look, I am a conservative, I make no bones about it. I am an oath taker and a 3%'er. But I am not a propagandist. I believe in what I say which is evidenced in my willingness to fight for Esten's right to post his 'thoughts' here and to espouse his marxist ideology here and elsewhere. I believe that in a free and fair forum, my ideas and ideals are superior to Esten's. Let the reader make up his own mind.

I am also a realist and a pragmatist. I am also a pretty damn good prognosticator and since I like to keep score, I'd say I am in the top few on AP (that is in being correct as opposed to Right). Esten is in the bottom 10%. I engage in political discourse not to prove that I am right (which I almost always am) but to confront professional propagandists here in a new frontier in the war against America and that for which it stands and freedom in general. Therefore, I feel that Marxists attacks call for responses. I am sure Esten didn't look up the prior 'calls' that I have correctly made because facts are irrelevant to propagandists. This is evidenced by the fact that rather than interpret and respond to any valid post or argument, Esten usually responds with a non sequitur.

As for Linda McMahon, I would be willing to bet that I am a little closer to the facts than Esten. I happen to have first-hand info on McMahon, her statement during the debate and how it is playing in her district as opposed to the dazed and confused brain of a leftist propagandist. My Blumie supporter friends (e.g. the type of folks having fund raisers for him in their homes), are getting some severe pucker factor. He has been derided by lefties and righties all over the airwaves for botching that question. Further, Linda took the gloves off and called him out for his lies, including but not limited to lying multiple times about serving in Vietnam and other issues.

You can spin and re-spin whatever you like. I suspect that you will disappear come November 3rd along with all the other individuals that we are paying (via tarp and other slush funds) to espouse Obama's die-hard, leftist agenda online. You will reappear sometime before the 2012 elections when your benefactor will be unceremoniously tossed from office along with his mooch of a wife. When Marie Antoinette said let them eat cake, the French electorate did not have the power or wherewithal to shove that cake up her cola. Here, it is different.

Jackson

10-10-10, 21:10

Has anyone here ever met Esten in person? I ask because I think he is either Ricardo or Ricardo's evil twin.I met Esten one night when he came over to the house for a Thursday night AMA meeting.

I thought he was a personable, decent sort of guy.

I would suspect that Ricardo (aka Canitas Guy) probably is an "okay" guy in that respect also.

Jackson

Toymann

10-10-10, 22:18

Scene: running down the hall, my index fingers placed securely in each ear.

Me (imitating esten) at the top of my lungs: "LA, LA, LA, I'm NOT LISTENING! "

Now that's funny. IALOTFLMAO! Tick! Tick! Tick! November is just around the corner! Happy Mongering All. Toymann

Wild Walleye

10-10-10, 22:45

I met Esten one night when he came over to the house for a Thursday night AMA meeting.

I thought he was a personable, decent sort of guy.

I would suspect that Ricardo (aka Canitas Guy) probably is an "okay" guy in that respect also.

JacksonJax,

Thank you for clarifying that Esten is a real person.

Esten,

My apologies for suggesting that you are solely an online entity supporting the marxist overthrow of the US.

You apparently are a real human being that supports the marxist overthrow of the US.

As I have said many times before, some of my closest friends are leftists and I have also gone on record saying that I respect leftists more than rinos (I. E. People that believe in what they say vs. People that do what is politically expedient. So you have that going for you.

I look forward to meeting one of these nights (hopefully at Newport about 5 mins before I depart with my intended amiga).

WW

Westy

10-10-10, 23:44

And now this from the AP:

"No Social Security COLA expected for 2011"

When did the govt get put in charge of intimate "ports of entry?"

I'm on Civil Service Retirement and I don't expect any Cost Of Living Adjustment either.

As for the sort of 'cola' WW is referencing, I prefer my chicas sunny-side-up rather than over-easy.

Exon123

10-11-10, 02:03

Here's the link that I think says something.

Be sure to play the video

Exon

[u]EDITOR'S NOTE: This report was edited to remove what appeared to be an unannotated link to another website. Please do not post links to other websites without some explanation as to what may be found at the linked webpage. In other words, if you want to post a link to another website, please include some commentary describing what the link is to.

Wild Walleye

10-11-10, 15:44

I'm on Civil Service Retirement and I don't expect any Cost Of Living Adjustment either.

As for the sort of 'cola' WW is referencing, I prefer my chicas sunny-side-up rather than over-easy. No COLA for two years in a row. We know costs have gone up over the past two years so why no COLA? Because those monies are going to others that are more deserving (from Obama's perspective.)

Rev BS

10-12-10, 02:54

I met Esten one night when he came over to the house for a Thursday night AMA meeting.

I thought he was a personable, decent sort of guy.

I would suspect that Ricardo (aka Canitas Guy) probably is an "okay" guy in that respect also.

JacksonSo, reinstate Ricardo, and see if Field Marshall WW will put up the white flag, with Press Attache Toyman trailing.

Toymann

10-12-10, 03:07

So, reinstate Ricardo, and see if Field Marshall WW will put up the white flag, with Press Attache Toyman trailing.The only thing that could send WW into retreat is the five star chica referral I sent him tonight. This would be understandable considering the quality of this chica and her ability to bring even the strongest to their knees (while she is on hers of course!). Never leave your wingman, so we fight together haste en finale. LOL. Happy Mongering All. Toymann

Wild Walleye

10-12-10, 11:12

The only thing that could send WW into retreat is the five star chica referral I sent him tonight. This would be understandable considering the quality of this chica and her ability to bring even the strongest to their knees (while she is on hers of course!). Never leave your wingman, so we fight together haste en finale. LOL. Happy Mongering All. Toymann

must keep posts short. preserve essence. remain focused.

Rev BS

10-12-10, 12:04

The only thing that could send WW into retreat is the five star chica referral I sent him tonight. This would be understandable considering the quality of this chica and her ability to bring even the strongest to their knees (while she is on hers of course!). Never leave your wingman, so we fight together haste en finale. LOL. Happy Mongering All. ToymannTrue. Your exploits have been well documented. I hope you would be kind enough to let me sample your stable when I make it to BA next year.

Toymann

10-12-10, 12:11

True. Your exploits have been well documented. I hope you would be kind enough to let me sample your stable when I make it to BA next year.I will be back in BA the last week of March, first two weeks of April for my usual trip. I never share chicas with wild-ass liberal [Deleted by Admin].

They always try to stiff the girls over 50 pesos just like that [Deleted by Admin] canadian attorney that tried to hagle with Jackson over the monger dinner cost (after the fact) a couple weeks ago because he was a vegan! Talk about a serial antagonist, if I hadn't stepped in at the last moment my buddy was about to show him some love, Montana style. LOL. This normally might have involved an incident that would have been a first for the monger dinner. Somewhat of a messy affair. In Montana the guy who throws the first punch wins 95% of these type encounters. My buddy was raised there and lives by this mantra. The [Deleted by Admin] continually antagonized my chum for the better part of two hours at the dinner table. His first volley started with the desireability of the vegan diet. His best line to my buddy was when he tried to explain that lettuce has protein. When that didn't work he continued on to the superior aspects of the Canadian health care system. Not many that I know would try to explain to a physician that doctors know nothing about healthcare. IALOTFLMAO. I jumped in just before my buddy, steaming mad, was about to apply the Montana Love. What a stupid dope. Couldn't even enjoy a great evening with fellow mongers without offending the guy sitting right beside him. Kinda of sorry I stepped in, after the fact. LOL.

I think something can be arranged Black Shirt.

Happy Mongering,

Toymann

Jackson

10-12-10, 14:39

I jumped in just before my buddy, steaming mad, was about to apply the Montana Love. Montana Love?

Doesn't that involve sheep?

ROTFLMAO!

Jackson

Wild Walleye

10-12-10, 14:57

my buddy was about to show him some love, Montana style...In Montana the guy who throws the first punch wins 95% of these type encounters.There is a reason why you stay on the river when fishing in Montana (I. E. Not wandering around the countryside on what might be some Montanan's property. Shoot first, ask questions later.

Montana is the home of some big balls and the host of an annual "Testicle Festival"

Toymann

10-12-10, 16:13

I will be back in BA the last week of March, first two weeks of April for my usual trip. I never share chicas with wild-ass liberal [Deleted by Admin].

They always try to stiff the girls over 50 pesos just like that [Deleted by Admin] canadian attorney that tried to hagle with Jackson over the monger dinner cost (after the fact) a couple weeks ago because he was a vegan! Talk about a serial antagonist, if I hadn't stepped in at the last moment my buddy was about to show him some love, Montana style. LOL. This normally might have involved an incident that would have been a first for the monger dinner. Somewhat of a messy affair. In Montana the guy who throws the first punch wins 95% of these type encounters. My buddy was raised there and lives by this mantra. The [Deleted by Admin] continually antagonized my chum for the better part of two hours at the dinner table. His first volley started with the desireability of the vegan diet. His best line to my buddy was when he tried to explain that lettuce has protein. When that didn't work he continued on to the superior aspects of the Canadian health care system. Not many that I know would try to explain to a physician that doctors know nothing about healthcare. IALOTFLMAO. I jumped in just before my buddy, steaming mad, was about to apply the Montana Love. What a stupid dope. Couldn't even enjoy a great evening with fellow mongers without offending the guy sitting right beside him. Kinda of sorry I stepped in, after the fact. LOL.

I think something can be arranged Black Shirt.

Happy Mongering,

ToymannI thought last year Exon and myself convinced El Jeffe that "cocksucker" was both an accepted noun and adjective in the forum. It appears that El Jeffe has a short memory!

Happy Mongering All,

Toymann

Jackson

10-12-10, 19:15

I thought last year Exon and myself convinced El Jeffe that "cocksucker" was both an accepted noun and adjective in the forum. It appears that El Jeffe has a short memory!

Happy Mongering All,

ToymannGreetings Toymann,

Actually, all forum members (including Exon) have been and continue to be enjoined from using the term "cocksucker" in reference to other forum members.

Thanks,

Jackson

Stan Da Man

10-12-10, 23:10

Greetings Toymann,

Actually, all forum members (including Exon) have been and continue to be enjoined from using the term "cocksucker" in reference to other forum members.

Thanks,

Jackson

Well, hold on there. What if the other forum member is a chica? E.g., "Jasmine is a tremendous cocksucker."

I thought that this was the sort of free exchange of information this board was intended to foster.

Esten

10-13-10, 00:29

Jackson was kind enough to leave out "rather boring". I am not usually the life of the party, but I enjoy hanging out with fellow mongers. I have met Jackson a few times over the years, and he has always been friendly to me. I have met several others, including even Toymann, though he may not remember. Sidney introduced us while having drinks outside of Newport last year. Toymann shared some private numbers with me (he didn't know I was a liberal though), and I agreed to take a friend of his over to Madahos.

But Walleye is almost always right (he said so himself), so I must admit he is on to something. Having questioned my motives it is just a matter of time before the jig is up! It's better I just come clean now.

Back in 2004 I became greatly concerned about the direction the country was heading under Bush. I felt I had to do something, but what? Become a politician? Write a book? After much deliberation, I decided the best fit for my time and resources would be to influence the political discussion amongst conservatives on the internet, to help them appreciate the merits of liberalism. To begin, I needed to find an internet discussion forum where tens of thousands of conservatives visited to discuss and read politics. After an extensive search, I located a highly influential conservative discussion board masquerading as a mongering website, Argentina Private. I also felt that in order to gain credibility, I needed to participate in the BA mongering scene so that I wasn't automatically dismissed as a propagandist.

Beginning in 2004, I began annual trips to BA to monger and meet AP members, all for the purpose of gaining credibility among the membership. I even fucked some of the chicas, so I could post authentic reviews to improve my credibility and so my cover wouldn't be blown in case they spoke with other AP mongers. This was the toughest part, but I persevered knowing I was doing it for my country.

By 2008 I was ready to begin posting my political propaganda, but as it turned out my efforts weren't needed to help Democrats in 2008. So I continued posting reviews and waited until 2009 to begin posting on politics, all with the intent to influence the 2010 midterm elections.

So there you have it. This would never have come out, but Walleye's keen perception has forced the matter. Say what you will, but I am confident I have influenced tens of thousands of readers of this political thread, enough to have an impact on the 2010 elections. I didn't do all this for nothing you know.

Toymann

10-13-10, 00:58

I even fucked some of the chicas, so I could post authentic reviews to improve my credibility and so my cover wouldn't be blown in case they spoke with other AP mongers. This was the toughest part, but I persevered knowing I was doing it for my country.I remember you now. You weren't such a bad guy. Obviously just confused at the current moment but not a bad guy at all. Tick! Tick! Tick! I may still get my Madahos night on you yet. I am guessing that the senate my end up 49 GOP, 48 Democrat and 3 tea party. That's a clean win and we're on like donkey kong for my night at Madahos. Happy Mongering All. Toymann

Rev BS

10-13-10, 03:12

So there you have it. This would never have come out, but Walleye's keen perception has forced the matter. Say what you will, but I am confident I have influenced tens of thousands of readers of this political thread, enough to have an impact on the 2010 elections. I didn't do all this for nothing you know.A sleeper agent that goes astray. What's will Control's next move be? I might have to come down to BA to take him in from the cold!

Westy

10-13-10, 08:16

A sleeper agent that goes astray. What's will Control's next move be? I might have to come down to BA to take him in from the cold!You really ought to have closed this message with a Smiley, George.

Wild Walleye

10-13-10, 11:07

Esten,

I bet you feel better now. The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem. You'll get the hang of it, with a little practice:

Esten: "Hello, my name is Esten"

Everybody: "Hello Esten!"

Esten: "and I'm a ... liberal"

Many people have difficulty with the "public confessional" approach but after awhile you'll be sharing "War Stories" with some of your recovering brethren:

"The worst thing I did on Liberalism was ..."
"How addicted to neo-marxism I was."
"How much redistribution I wanted to use today."
"How terrible I felt seeing the growing dependency of the masses on government handouts. I felt we had to do more even though my actions were at the root of the problem"
"Let me tell you about my years serving time as a community organizer..."

We are all here to support you. You are among friends. Step back form the keyboard, take a few deep breaths and think what productive activity could you do instead of participating in such destructive behavior. Maybe chewing gum will help, lots of coffee (lay off the diet coke or you'll end up like Beck), auto-asphyxiation and/or ritualistic masturbation will help. Who knows? Everyone is different.

The important thing is that I think we've had a major breakthrough and I think that you are on the road to getting better.

Rev BS

10-13-10, 14:03

You really ought to have closed this message with a Smiley, George.Touche! Karloff

Wild Walleye

10-13-10, 17:43

A sleeper agent that goes astray. What's will Control's next move be? I might have to come down to BA to take him in from the cold!Who would've thunk it?

Mel Brooks is a genius

Member #4112

10-13-10, 17:57

Some one hand me a shovel. It's getting deep guys!

Moveon

10-14-10, 18:04

El Alamo

10-14-10, 18:37

I'll take 1000 years of an Obama administration vs 8 years of George W. Bush anytime. I could be dead wrong but I would bet the ranch that 1000 years of the Obama Administration would give us 1000 years of unemployment near or above 10% and a national debt approaching 1000X GNP.

It is becoming obvious Obama never read "Economics for Dummies". Furthermore, Obama should demand a refund for that economics class he took in college.

But I should know better. I will be told by some on this board that raising taxes, spending money like drunken sailors and discouraging private sector job creation is the new road to a 1000 years of prosperity.

I guess I'm pretty hopeless at understanding this new math concept.

Toymann

10-14-10, 19:30

After being a lifelong Republican I finally did it. I am now a registered Democrat.

For those of you ex-pats living in Argentina and insulated by the absurdity of the Tea Party, Sarah Palin (mother grizzley, Christine O'Donnell's (witchcraft) of the world, you probably won't get it.

I'll take 1000 years of an Obama administration vs 8 years of George W. Bush anytime.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvsMFN9P8AUYep Moveon. Back in March you bitches were feeling pretty tough forcing your socialist agenda down everyone's throats. Wonder if it will feel so good in a couple of weeks. Unlike many socialst countries like Argentina, Canada, France, just to name a few; Americans should never be underestimated. Appears that your sense of humor is already starting to fray as Novemeber approachs. I am guessing your boy Maher will be somewhat quiet in the near future. Although your clip is very funny, sadly it does clearly demonstrate how wild-ass liberals always seem to just disregard anyone who doesn't think their way as somehow uninformed, uneducated or just not a "free thinker". Guess what buddy, you had your 5 minutes (or 18 months) and your time is up. Hope you enjoyed it while it lasted. What a wasted opportunity, but then again, I will be thanking Obomanation most likely for the rest of my life for reminding America why you can NEVER let the Democrats drive the bus. Always ends up going off the road!

Happy Mongering All,

Toymann

Ps. How is your hunt for that georgeous non-pro going. Guesse you recieved many PM's from members on this board with photos, names and contact information. Dumb cocksucker!

Schmoj

10-14-10, 20:03

Ps. How is your hunt for that georgeous non-pro going. Guesse you recieved many PM's from members on this board with photos, names and contact information. Dumb cocksucker! Is Toyman trying to be the new Dickhead?

Moveon

10-14-10, 20:53

I guess I'm pretty hopeless at understanding this new math concept.

It's called JOB CREATION.

Spending money by doing this will increase the income tax receipts and spur further GDP growth. Then pay down the debt. It's a necessary "evil" but Republicans just don't get it. The Bush regime put this country in the worst economic crisis this nation has ever faced since the great depression. Yet, they continue to blame the Democrats who are trying to do something that works.

The only economic plan that the right-wing Tea Bagger's have is the notion of slashing government spending to ZERO will actually create jobs.

Oh, I forgot all about extending the Bush tax cuts to the super wealthy. Or, by demanding more corporate tax cuts. Yeah, that's a Republican sure-win formula for success.

Member #4112

10-14-10, 23:04

No, I don't thank Toyman is being a Dickhead, just giving Moveon a hard time for being lazy and not doing his own research and expecting others who have to pony put the information upon request. But isn't that the way liberals are. I want it now and I want someone else to do the work.

Moveon, you would probably have better luck staying in the States and trying to meet your "dream girl" since in Argentina "good girls" who go to university would not give you the time of day unless you are properly introduced and good luck with that. Trust me walking up to one and telling her she's hot and you want to do her will probably get your butt kicked by her male relatives if they catch you.

And just yesterday I thought this thread was getting a little to mushy with WW and Esten were doing the Rodney King and "just getting along" - well so much for that.

Moveon

10-14-10, 23:47

For all those right-wing fascist's, here she is!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxJyPsmEask

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mUn2c_PKho

Esten

10-15-10, 00:01

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvsMFN9P8AUROTFLMAO!! Great video. Bill Maher is brilliant.

Esten

10-15-10, 00:19

Wild Walleye: Another day, another alternate reality.

-his own words: "The typical white person is a racist";

-Michelle's involcation of the term "Whitey" at the Trinity Church in ChicagoWalleye, don't think I've forgotten about your claims of racism. I asked you to post a link to a credible news source but you failed to deliver. Let's try it again.

You posted above two supposed quotes from Obama and his wife. Please provide credible evidence of them saying those words in quotes (i.e. link to audio/video). I will await your proof.

Esten

10-15-10, 00:52

Yep Moveon. Back in March you bitches were feeling pretty tough forcing your socialist agenda down everyone's throats. Wonder if it will feel so good in a couple of weeks. Unlike many socialst countries like Argentina, canada, france, just to name a few; americans should never be underestimated. Appears that your sense of humor is already starting to fray as novemeber approachs. I am guessing your boy Maher will be somewhat quiet in the near future. Although your clip is very funny, sadly it does clearly demonstrate how wild-ass liberals always seem to just disregard anyone who doesn't think their way as somehow uninformed, uneducated or just not a "free thinker". Guesse what buddy, you had your 5 minutes (or 18 months) and your time is up. Hope you enjoyed it while it lasted. What a wasted opportunity, but then again, I will be thanking Obomanation most likely for the rest of my life for reminding America why you can NEVER let the democrats drive the bus. Always ends up going off the road! Happy Mongering All. ToymannToymann you keep forgetting, there was an election in 2008. Dems WON and Republicans LOST. Far from a wasted opportunity, Dems delivered landmark health care reform and financial reform as well. That's not shoving their agenda down everyone's throats, that's delivering on campaign promises they were elected on.

I may still get my Madahos night on you yet. I am guessing that the senate my end up 49 GOP, 48 Democrat and 3 tea party. That's a clean win and we're on like donkey kong for my night at Madahos. Polls right now are predicting a Republican House and Democrat Senate. So neither of us would win, unless the polls change/prove wrong (which could happen).

I got another wager for you. If you're game, it's up to you whether you want to replace the old bet with the new or add it on as a second bet. Same prize.

Here it is: I will bet you that the Tea Party does not win a single seat. As in 0 (zero). If your Tea Party wins even a single seat, you win.

How about it.

Miamipro

10-15-10, 00:56

Dude you watch entirely to much of the FOX News network. Really. The wording you use to describe either policy or ideas echo those of the network. Which we all know is a BS "News" station.

Miamipro

10-15-10, 00:58

I could be dead wrongYup looks like your wrong on that comparison.

Miamipro

10-15-10, 01:00

After being a lifelong Republican I finally did it. I am now a registered Democrat.Not that Dems are perfect. But welcome of to side of sanity.

Jackson

10-15-10, 04:40

Dude you watch entirely to much of the FOX News network. Really. The wording you use to describe either policy or ideas echo those of the network. Which we all know is a BS "News" station.Here we go again.

98% of the media is slanted left, and yet these guys just can't accept the existence of even one "conservative" media outlet.

Guys, what are you afraid of? I mean, if liberal policies are so good, then they couldn't possible be derailed by one little news channel, right?

Jackson

Toymann

10-15-10, 04:41

Toymann you keep forgetting, there was an election in 2008. Dems WON and Republicans LOST. Far from a wasted opportunity, Dems delivered landmark health care reform and financial reform as well. That's not shoving their agenda down everyone's throats, that's delivering on campaign promises they were elected on.

Polls right now are predicting a Republican House and Democrat Senate. So neither of us would win, unless the polls change / prove wrong (which could happen.

I got another wager for you. If you're game, it's up to you whether you want to replace the old bet with the new or add it on as a second bet. Same prize.

Here it is: I will bet you that the Tea Party does not win a single seat. As in 0 (zero. If your Tea Party wins even a single seat, you win.

How about it. My dear friend Esten. I was born at night but NOT last night. The whole Tea Party deal is nothing more than a protest vote against both GOP and Democrat. That said, if any get in don't think for a second they will end up in the democrat camp. PLease! Don't forget I grew up in socialist Canada with a three party system. The NDP federal party in Canada has always been a protest vote similar to the new Tea Party. I decline the new bet as I am not so sure that in a couple of weeks, once things heat up, that the dems don't have a few surprises coming. Obomanation will do his best to swing the senate to the republicans. You can be sure of that my friend. Happy Mongering All. Toymann.

Ps. Keep in mind that it wasn't all that long ago that the extremely liberal northeast voted in a republican. Tick! Tick! Tick! My night at Madahos isn't dead yet dude. LOL

Toymann

10-15-10, 04:52

Dude you watch entirely to much of the FOX News network. Really. The wording you use to describe either policy or ideas echo those of the network. Which we all know is a BS "News" station.I get most of my news off of the web dude. My political views are solely my own. I would be somewhat curious as to your explanation why a fella like myself, who grew up in an extremely liberal socialist environment, now has become a republican. IT MUST BE 20 YEARS OF WATCHING FOX NEWS! That's got to be it. IALOTFLMAO!

I do understand that wild-ass liberals have this strange notion that FOX is somehow brainwashing america. Once you get past 30 you will see the light or remain ignorant for a lifetime. As Winston Churchill quite aptly put "if you are not a liberal in your 20's then you have no heart, if you are still a liberal in your 30's you have no brain". IALOTFLMAO! Call me in a few years dude once you gain some life experiences. Most eventually grow up. You will to. MAYBE! LOL. Monger on dude. Toymann

Jackson

10-15-10, 06:12

Dems delivered landmark health care reform and financial reform as well. That's not shoving their agenda down everyone's throats, that's delivering on campaign promises they were elected on.Hey Esten,

If "landmark health care reform and financial reform" are both so fucking good, then perhaps you can explain why not one single Democrat congressional candidate is campaigning on either of these Democratic "accomplishments"?

Thanks,

Jackson

Miamipro

10-15-10, 10:13

Here we go again.

98% of the media is slanted left, and yet these guys just can't accept the existence of even one "conservative" media outlet.

Guys, what are you afraid of? I mean, if liberal policies are so good, then they couldn't possible be derailed by one little news channel, right?

JacksonJackson. Actually I can accept 1 conservative media outlet, even more than 1. I just can't support, not even 1 media outlet that is calling themselves a "fair and balanced" news station, all the while spewing off opinionated BS. Thats not "Conservative" that's Extremist.

Miamipro

10-15-10, 10:18

I get most of my news off of the web dude. My political views are solely my own. I would be somewhat curious as to your explanation why a fella like myself, who grew up in an extremely liberal socialist environment, now has become a republican. IT MUST BE 20 YEARS OF WATCHING FOX NEWS! That's got to be it. IALOTFLMAO!

I do understand that wild-ass liberals have this strange notion that FOX is somehow brainwashing america. Once you get past 30 you will see the light or remain ignorant for a lifetime. As Winston Churchill quite aptly put "if you are not a liberal in your 20's then you have no heart, if you are still a liberal in your 30's you have no brain". IALOTFLMAO! Call me in a few years dude once you gain some life experiences. Most eventually grow up. You will to. MAYBE! LOL. Monger on dude. ToymannMight I suggest different websites. And "Bumper sticker Politics" isn't to bright either. Grow up? HA. Thats funny. Ill get right on that as soon as you remove your head from a dark place

Moveon

10-15-10, 12:18

Walleye, You posted above two supposed quotes from Obama and his wife. Please provide credible evidence of them saying those words in quotes (i.e. link to audio/video). I will await your proof.The problem with all these neo-cons on this forum is their utter belief in talking-heads such as Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity of the Fox News.Glenn Beck has said that Obama is a racist (I can easily post this video if you like for those non-believers.)

Don't make me laugh, GB. I am still waiting for those FEMA concentration camps that you announced were around in the US. Oh, my, I forgot all about Iran and what other Tea Bagger's propose to do. Yes, let's start another war! That way your Tea Bag Republican Party can blame the Democrats for a larger budget deficit.

Bottom line: all these Bush cocksuckers and Fox News are still in denial that for 8 sorrowful years, we had a retarded President.

Toymann

10-15-10, 12:35

Toymann

10-15-10, 13:33

Might I suggest different websites. And "Bumper sticker Politics" isn't to bright either. Grow up? HA. Thats funny. Ill get right on that as soon as you remove your head from a dark placeI am guessing that your understanding of a socialist society must exceed my 30 years in canada. Of course, they do get FOX up in the great white north as well. Most liberals are speechless when I educate them on the pros and cons of socialism, especially when it comes to healthcare. Spent more time up north than in the US dude. Most liberals fascination with Canada is simply "the grass must be greener ideology". Never based on actual first hand knowledge. In fact, this isn't soley related to just healthcare issues. LOL. Happy Mongering All. Toymann

Moveon

10-15-10, 14:17

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=if88PgI-vfU

Another great Fox News favorite and Sean Hannity favorite, just for all those RNC deviates reading this forum.

Wild Walleye

10-15-10, 14:40

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qxf6BOzNNY

Another great Fox News favorite and Sean Hannity favorite, just for all those RNC deviates reading this forum. ""You do not like them so you say.

Try them, try them and you may! "

Toymann

10-15-10, 15:11

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qxf6BOzNNY

Another great Fox News favorite and Sean Hannity favorite, just for all those RNC deviates reading this forum. And whats wrong with that! LOL. Happy Mongering All. Toymann

Jackson

10-15-10, 15:11

The problem with all these neo-cons on this forum is their utter belief in talking-heads such as Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity of the Fox News. Glenn Beck has said that Obama is a racist (I can easily post this video if you like for those non-believers)

Don't make me laugh, GB. I am still waiting for those FEMA concentration camps that you announced were around in the US. Oh, my, I forgot all about Iran and what other Tea Bagger's propose to do. Yes, let's start another war! That way your Tea Bag Republican Party can blame the Democrats for a larger budget deficit.

Bottom line: all these Bush cocksuckers and Fox News are still in denial that for 8 sorrowful years, we had a retarded President. Moveon,

I believe that you are a professional political operative and I'm calling you out.

---------------------------------------------

1. Your handle "Moveon" is suspiciously similar to the notoriously liberal website of the same name.

2. Your "arguments" here have rapidly descended into nothing more than repetitive far left wing liberal drivel, replete with all the standard code words.

3. You rarely, if ever, respond to questions and comments, but instead simply continue to spout more of the childish "skull full of mush" talking points we can get from any Argentine college student.

4. Outside of this political thread, you've never posted anything more than questions and bland, generalized, generic comments about Buenos Aires.

5. You've never posted an actual review of your encounter with a chica.

---------------------------------------------

In short, you are using my forum to spout off brainless liberal drivel that we can get just by visiting your moveon dot com or thehuffingtonpost dot com.

Therefor, having made this finding, I am invoking the "Ricardo rule": Your next five posts must be detailed descriptions of your encounters with working girls here in Buenos Aires.

Thanks,

Jackson

Toymann

10-15-10, 15:14

Moveon,

I believe that you are a professional political operative and I'm calling you out.

1. Your handle "Moveon" is suspiciously similar to the notoriously liberal website of the same name.

2. Your "arguments" here have rapidly descended into nothing more than repetitive far left wing liberal drivel, replete with all the standard code words.

3. You rarely, if ever, respond to questions and comments, but instead simply continue to spout more of the childish "skull full of mush" talking points we can get from any Argentine college student.

4. Outside of this political thread, you've never posted anything more than questions and bland, generalized, generic comments about Buenos Aires.

5. You've never posted an actual review of your encounter with a chica.

In short, you are using my forum to spout off brainless liberal drivel that we can get just by visiting your moveon dot com or thehuffingtonpost dot com.

Therefor, having made this finding, I am invoking the "Ricardo rule": Your next five posts must be detailed descriptions of your encounters with working girls here in Buenos Aires.

Thanks,

Jackson

I may have been edited twice in the last month but have never had to suffer the indignity of the dreaded Ricardo Rule. Funny how there has never been a GOP antagonist on the board. Wild-ass liberal cocksuckers!

Walks like a duck, swims like a duck, sounds like a duck, MUST BE A DUCK! Bye. Bye. Moveon. Happy Mongering All. Toymann

Member #4112

10-15-10, 15:33

Esten, WW gave you what you asked for – better than I did off the top of my head – with quotes from Obama's own book and statements made by Michelle. I would submit you will never accept anything short of a sworn affidavit from Obama acknowledging he is a Racist so anything else is a waste of research time.

Yes in 2008 the Democrats WON and the Republicans LOST, but as the mid-terms demonstrate the Democrats grossly misread their 'mandate' of the 2008 election. Jackson and others are correct in pointing out the Democratic candidates are not running on their 'mandate' issues which they passed of ObamaCare and Stimulus, point of fact they are running away from these 'accomplishments' and doing the only thing they have left – going negative.

When November 3rd arrives and the Republicans WIN and the Democrats LOSE I hope the liberals don't start crying about how it is 'not fair' they lost due to the Tea Party and the Neanderthals not understanding the grand plan. Regarding the Tea Party movement – not bad for an astro-turf outfit as per Ms Polisi.

As far as the Main Stream News Media. MSNM – they have always claimed they are delivering the 'news' fairly, but nearly all of it is spun for the left. Why would you have any problems with the 'fair and balanced' slogan Fox uses considering how the MSNM as presented its product as unbiased for years when it was anything but? There must be a reason Fox has higher ratings than all its cable competitors combined and a trust rating higher than ABC, NBC or CBS.

Hey, Jackson, good call on Moveon! Now lets see what he comes up with.

Wild Walleye

10-15-10, 16:13

Yes in 2008 the Democrats WON and the Republicans LOST,You will recall that our glorious leader, in his typically classless style, told republic congressional leaders (in their first meeting, at the WH on Jan 23,2009) : "I won. You lost" as he intimated that they could stick there ideas where the sun doesn't shine.

When November 3rd arrives and the Republicans WIN and the Democrats LOSEI hope the Boehner returns the favor by pointing out, to the POTUS in person, that we, the American People, won and that he lost.

As far as the Main Stream News Media. MSNM – they have always claimed they are delivering the 'news' fairly, but nearly all of it is spun for the left. Why would you have any problems with the 'fair and balanced' slogan Fox uses considering how the MSNM as presented its product as unbiased for years when it was anything but? There must be a reason Fox has higher ratings than all its cable competitors combined and a trust rating higher than ABC, NBC or CBS.Don't waste your breath. Liberals will never admit that the MSNM is anything but objective, to a fault. They think Walter Cronkite was nonpartisan. They think that Colbert, Stewart and Oberman are real news people.

Stan Da Man

10-15-10, 16:37

When November 3rd arrives and the Republicans WIN and the Democrats LOSE I hope the liberals don't start crying about how it is 'not fair' they lost due to the Tea Party and the Neanderthals not understanding the grand plan. Regarding the Tea Party movement – not bad for an astro-turf outfit as per Ms Polisi.I guarantee you they will cry foul for this and a variety of other reasons. They already are trying to set this up.

Examples include what Obama and his attack dog organizations are trying to do regarding political advertising. They allege that Crossroads and a bunch of conservative organizations are taking in foreign funds. Even the New York Times pointed out that they have absolutely no evidence to back up these fabricated claims.

So, their new strategy is: Prove you don't take foreign funds (Biden. Tell us everyone who has contributed to your group so we can satisfy ourselves that none of the contributions came from foreign sources.)

Meanwhile, they're trying to get the IRS to intimidate these groups and corporate donors by investigating where the funding came from. In other words, tell us who your donors are so we can punish them.

Funny how they never raised these issues in 2008 when all the money was being spent on Democrat advertising. Funny how they exempt unions from these inquiries, since 93% of union advertising is pro-Democrat, even though over 50% of the constituent unions for some groups are outside the USA.

The real truth is that they are sore losers. They already know they're going to get whipped, so they're unleashing these illegal intimidation tactics ahead of the elections. But, they're losing the support of even some of their staunchest supporters, such as the New York Times.

There will be much more weeping and gnashing of teeth after the election. They will never admit that they were beaten in a fair fight, nor will they admit the obvious: It's your ideas, stupid.

Wild Walleye

10-15-10, 16:55

Funny how they never raised these issues in 2008 when all the money was being spent on Democrat advertising. Funny how they exempt unions from these inquiries, since 93% of union advertising is pro-Democrat, even though over 50% of the constituent unions for some groups are outside the USA.Obama raised tons of money from foreign sources for his presidential campaign. His campaign people even admitted to intentionally defeating the location software that is designed to ensure that contributors are US individuals. Boy, there doesn't seem to be too much interest in dealing with actual, documented instances of election law violations. However, making up charges against the Chamber of Commerce, alleging potential foreign contributions, is something that they think should get attention. Hmmmm.

On another subject, I suspect that Harry Reid, given his performance in the debate, has put the last nail in the coffin for his Senate tenure.

Just wish the American people weren't so stupid so that they could understand how brilliant marxism really is.

Moveon

10-15-10, 16:56

Moveon, I believe that you are a professional political operative and I'm calling you out.

Jackson,

I am disappointed but not that surprised that you have decided to censor me.

However, I can see how you felt that my handle was associated with the political organization you are referring to, MoveOn.org. If you check your log, I signed up for ARG PRIVATE in 2008 as Moveon and NEVER before decided to speak my mind about politics until this month. (oh,my, does that make me some covert sleeper agent?) I was a lifelong Republican until I decided to switch sides, this month.

Re: Moveon.
The handle "Moveon" was chosen 2 years ago since I wanted a handle that was short and sweet (easy to type in) and I thought it would also be fitting since I really get bored doing the same chica more than once (with some exceptions, of course) and like to "Move on". Get it? (Move from one chica to another)

And, as you are aware (ck our recent PM exchanges between ourselves, I won't be back in BA until December so it's impossible to report on any chica until then. You had invited me to your dinner event, but I thanked you for the invite and explained the bad timing.

So, in effect by asking that my next 5 posts must be related to actual chica reviews has the same effect of shutting me down and eliminating a view that is not necessarily pro-Republican / right wing. So much for all the talk about patriotism and freedom of speech coming from Republican side of the fence. Therefore, the Political Forum section of this site will continue to be the bastion of the right with dissenting voices diminished.

Would you like me to report on the chicas from the previous year? I can only think of 2 that I met in Cafe Orleans that really stood out in my mind. So that leaves me with 3 left. Oops, I almost forgot that I made it to Gysells' apartment one afternoon, but truth be told, it was so-so/no names remembered. Decent price, though.

If you still have some doubt, you can read some of the posts from the way beginning - since 2008- when I first joined AP. Of course, all of this will be ignored since I'm apparently hitting some hot buttons and apparently rocking this Political Forum - or should I say, "Tea Bagger" boat.

Moveon

PS I have had 2 individuals on my IGNORE LIST if that is what you are referring to about "not-responding?"
(I can't read their posts)27625

Member #4112

10-15-10, 17:50

Stan and WW, just wanted to throw this out there:

When it came to the Democrats and use of foreign money in campaigns. Can anyone say George Soros?

You are both correct about the unions, their membership, and funds which are not segregated by source – one man's foreign contributions being used to influence US elections is another man's UNION DUES!

Funny how this only comes up when it's Republicans? Don't I recall Al Gore getting the big bucks from a bunch of Buddhist monks who didn't have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of but contributed tens of thousands of dollars or was it over a hundred thousand dollars to Gore. Ahhh how soon we forget.

El Alamo

10-15-10, 18:48

Don't let anyone tell you Obama is not one smart cookie. He may never have passed Economics 101 at that Junior College he attended but obviously that junior college had great courses on how to become a community organizer.

Now Obama's next brainstorm. You heard it here first. The meeting he has planned with Condeleezza Rice is just a trial baloon to test the public reaction to his dumping Michele and making Condeleezza First Lady.

This should fit in nicely with his conviction that raising taxes, spending money like a drunken sailor and eliminating job creation in the private sector will get us out of this recession / depression.

Toymann

10-15-10, 19:02

Jackson,

PS I have had 2 individuals on my IGNORE LIST so maybe that is what you are referring to about "not-responding? "

(I can't read their posts) 27622WTF! It appears that Moveon and EasyGo have become homosexual lovers and jointly ignored the Toymann. Have I now become public enemy number 1 with these dudes. I don't buy his BS as anyone serious about banging Argentina pussy would never put ol'Toymann on the ignore list. Would they? I feel so violated all! IALOTFLMAO!

Guesse he should have made a few chica posts. Might not help, but certainly never hurts!

Happy Mongering All. Offended Toymann

OMG. Maybe I have become the next Dickhead! IALOTFLMAO!

Rev BS

10-15-10, 22:48

Esten

10-16-10, 00:54

My dear friend Esten. I was born at night but NOT last night. The whole Tea Party deal is nothing more than a protest vote against both GOP and Democrat. That said, if any get in don't think for a second they will end up in the democrat camp. PLease! Don't forget I grew up in socialist Canada with a three party system. The NDP federal party in Canada has always been a protest vote similar to the new Tea Party. I decline the new bet as I am not so sure that in a couple of weeks, once things heat up, that the dems don't have a few surprises coming. Obomanation will do his best to swing the senate to the republicans. You can be sure of that my friend. Happy Mongering All. Toymann.You wisely declined the new bet.

Not only will the Tea Party not win any seats, but when all the votes are tallied from all the races, I am certain the Tea Party will not get even 1000 votes across all the races in the country combined.

BadMan

10-16-10, 01:08

Cut his mic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTkFU4MtubU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OzjMayGiu4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuRCS_qshV0

Moveon,

I believe that you are a professional political operative and I'm calling you out.

-

1. Your handle "Moveon" is suspiciously similar to the notoriously liberal website of the same name.

2. Your "arguments" here have rapidly descended into nothing more than repetitive far left wing liberal drivel, replete with all the standard code words.

3. You rarely, if ever, respond to questions and comments, but instead simply continue to spout more of the childish "skull full of mush" talking points we can get from any Argentine college student.

4. Outside of this political thread, you've never posted anything more than questions and bland, generalized, generic comments about Buenos Aires.

5. You've never posted an actual review of your encounter with a chica.

-

In short, you are using my forum to spout off brainless liberal drivel that we can get just by visiting your moveon dot com or thehuffingtonpost dot com.

Therefor, having made this finding, I am invoking the "Ricardo rule": Your next five posts must be detailed descriptions of your encounters with working girls here in Buenos Aires.

Thanks,

Jackson

Esten

10-16-10, 02:18

Ricardo Rule?! LOL

Moveon registered back in 2008 and posted a couple of short reviews. So I think this 'Ricardo Rule' on him is a bit heavy handed. I know liberal, professional political operatives have AP on their radar because of its tremendous influence in conservative politics, but would one really be so obvious as to pick the name 'Moveon'? ;)

If "landmark health care reform and financial reform" are both so fucking good, then perhaps you can explain why not one single Democrat congressional candidate is campaigning on either of these Democratic "accomplishments"? Categorically false. I really hoped better from you.

Here are just five Democrats who have TV ads that reference health care:

Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D- ND)
Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY)
Rep. Scott Murphy (D-NY)
Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI)

Here's one : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMh0b3_S3EQ

Yes overall, healthcare reform is not a major campaign focus for Dems. Mostly because there are a lot more things in play that need attention to move voters. While the individual mandate is unpopular, many of the provisions in the Affordable Care Act are very popular. Republicans, right wing media and special interests have thrown a lot of mud at the issue to get folks riled up, at this juncture many Dems (but not all) have simply decided it is more important to focus on other things. Like what they stand for and what their opponents stand for. You know all this, it is standard election cycle fare.

Jackson

10-16-10, 03:13

Moveon,

No one can conclude that you're a professional political operative when you write as you did in your last post.

However, you emulate the profile of a professional political operative when you use phrases like "FEMA concentration camps", "Tea Bagger's", "Bush cocksuckers", and "retarded President".

Get it?

Thanks,

Jackson

Toymann

10-16-10, 03:24

You wisely declined the new bet.

Not only will the Tea Party not win any seats, but when all the votes are tallied from all the races, I am certain the Tea Party will not get even 1000 votes across all the races in the country combined. Thats what always happens at crunch time. The protest vote burns brightly until the folks really think they me get some people in power. Almost all Tea supports in theory will vote GOP in a couple weeks. Folks are really pissed off these days.

Happy Mongering All,

Toymann

Jackson

10-16-10, 03:24

Five!

Five out of 311 Democrats running for House and Senate seats?

That's only 1.6% of all the Democrats running for House and Senate seats who are willing at best to "reference" health care in their campaigns?

Man, that's thin!

Thanks,

Jackson.

Ricardo Rule? LOL.

Moveon registered back in 2008 and posted a couple of short reviews. So I think this 'Ricardo Rule' on him is a bit heavy handed. I know liberal, professional political operatives have AP on their radar because of its tremendous influence in conservative politics, but would one really be so obvious as to pick the name 'Moveon'? .

Categorically false. I really hoped better from you.

Here are just five Democrats who have TV ads that reference health care:

Rep. Earl Pomeroy (the- ND)

Rep. Steve Israel (the-NY)

Rep. Scott Murphy (the-NY)

Sen. Harry Reid (the-NV)

Sen. Russ Feingold (the-WI)

Here's one : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMh0b3_S3EQ

Yes overall, healthcare reform is not a major campaign focus for Dems. Mostly because there are a lot more things in play that need attention to move voters. While the individual mandate is unpopular, many of the provisions in the Affordable Care Act are very popular. Republicans, right wing media and special interests have thrown a lot of mud at the issue to get folks riled up, at this juncture many Dems (but not all) have simply decided it is more important to focus on other things. Like what they stand for and what their opponents stand for. You know all this, it is standard election cycle fare.

Schmoj

10-16-10, 05:56

Five!

Five out of 311 Democrats running for House and Senate seats?

That's only 1.6% of all the Democrats running for House and Senate seats who are willing at best to "reference" health care in their campaigns?

Man, that's thin!

Thanks,

Jackson. Not everyone has the luxury of running on the "I'm not a witch / warlock" or the "Masturbation is bad" platform. That is reserved for the Teabag candidates.

Member #4112

10-16-10, 10:02

Obama et. Al. Have been touting the Stimulus (which saved the world as we know it) and ObamaCare since they shoved it through Congress amid outrage from voters. Now most of the Democrats are considering these 'achievements' to be Toxic and will not go near them on the campaign trail.

Now tell me again about how wonderful ObamaCare is? Remember how they sold the program based on how it will reduce costs and cover everyone? Now Obama is craw-fishing saying he never promised the program would reduce costs. As parts of ObamaCare come into force the insurance companies are not writing new policies since the 2,000 page bill does not specifically lay out the rules under which they must operate – no, that comes later from HHS and other government entities. That's why you see all the back peddling regarding new policies, guidelines and costs from the government.

After all the ballyhoo on ObamaCare, everyone is realizing there is no 'free lunch' someone is going to have to pick up the tab. People are recognizing that 'Government Money' is the money they stole from their pay checks in the first place!

Now Obama is considering raising the Federal gas tax to pay for roads, runways, and other infrastructure. Hey didn't we take care of that with the Stimulus, sure thought I saw a lot of signs telling us that what they spent it on, so why are we needing to raise the gas tax? Yet another promise broken by Obama – not raising taxes on the middle class. ROTFLMAO.

While I'm on a roll here how about the Marriage Penalty, Obama wants individuals up to $200K and married couples up to $250K not to pay additional taxes, so two unmarried folks living together (in sin) can make a combined income of $400K (200K each) while a married couple can only drag in $250K so we now have Penalty for being married of $150K – what a wonderful guy to discriminate against folks who do the 'right thing'.

Esten, you're a bright guy, don't tell me you actually believe the Tea Party is an actual political party and not a conservative movement more in tune to the GOP of 20 year ago. So your statement of the Tea Party getting votes on Nov 2nd is inane. Now if you want to talk about candidates they helped elect in the GOP primaries you have a real looser on your hands so break out the plastic for the Toyman's night at Madahos.

El Alamo

10-16-10, 11:45

Reasons why Tea Baggers irritate the Obama Administration.

Tea Baggers have real jobs in the private sector.

Tea Baggers show up to work on time.

Tea Baggers pay income taxes.

Tea Baggers are not convicted felons.

Tea Baggers are not 3rd generation welfare recipients.

Tea Baggers have not been diagnosed as being mentally challenged.

Tea Baggers are not illegal aliens.

Tea Baggers are not sympathetic towards Muslim terrorists.

Tea Baggers prefer that only US citizens vote in US elections.

Tea Baggers do not physically threaten citizens excercizing their right to vote.

And most importantly.

Tea Baggers have doubts that someone born in Kenya / Indonesia should be eligible to be President of the United States

Wild Walleye

10-16-10, 12:26

Toymann

10-16-10, 14:20

Now if you want to talk about candidates they helped elect in the GOP primaries you have a real looser on your hands so break out the plastic for the Toyman's night at Madahos.It appears even Esten is starting to feel the wam breeze of change on the way. LOL. Tick! Tick! Tick! Happy Mongering All. Toymann

p. Maybe he hasn't been so influencial as he might have thought, or maybe even MORE! LOL

Wild Walleye

10-16-10, 16:44

It appears even Esten is starting to feel the wam breeze of change on the way. LOL. Tick! Tick! Tick! Happy Mongering All. Toymann.

P. Maybe he hasn't been so influencial as he might have thought, or maybe even MORE! LOLI volunteer!

I stand by my prediction of 52 Republican seats in the Senate (provided there isn't another Al Franken episode. Which BTW should piss off everyone despite political affiliation).

Toymann

10-16-10, 16:52

I volunteer!

I stand by my prediction of 52 republican seats in the senate (provided there isn't another Al Franken episode. Which BTW should piss off everyone despite political affiliation. Once I select my chica, we will tie Esten up, take him back to my apartment and make him watch! A perfect night with a wild-ass liberal IMHO! I may even untie him afterwards. LOL. Happy Mongering All. Toymann

p. I knew when he wanted to substitute a different bet he was feeling the inevitable was on the way!

Jackson

10-17-10, 01:15

Not everyone has the luxury of running on the "I'm not a witch / warlock" or the "Masturbation is bad" platform. That is reserved for the Teabag candidates.That's it? That's all you got?

Your answer to the fact that 98.4% of Democratic candidates are hiding from their party's signature achievement is to bemoan one Republican candidate's response to a Democratic attack ad?

Man, this is just so weak.

Thanks,

Jackson

Schmoj

10-17-10, 07:31

That's it? That's all you got?

Your answer to the fact that 98.4% of Democratic candidates are hiding from their party's signature achievement is to bemoan one Republican candidate's response to a Democratic attack ad?

Man, this is just so weak.

Thanks,

JacksonActually, you ASSume (emphasis on the ASS) that I am a democrat. I could give a flying fuck about either of the two major parties. For someone who claims to be a libertarian, you sure seem to spew the typical Republican, er I mean teaBAGGER mantras.

Is that all YOU'VE got?

Rev BS

10-17-10, 10:39

Esten

10-17-10, 13:46

Jackson - It's very simple how politicians go about determining their election year messages. They do something called polling on what moves voters. And what is typically the case is that voters are moved by how their vote will influence the direction of the country going forward.

Dems ran on heath care reform back in 2008 because it was popular yet unrealized. Now it's passed. It is no longer a forward-looking event, so there are plenty of other things on the direction of the country that Dems are focusing on. Make no mistake though, the health care reform is indeed landmark legislation that represents a major step forward for the country. Of those who do not like it, some say it did not go far enough, while others are willing to give it a chance to work. It is a minority who favor repeal and replace. I'm looking forward to watching Repubs attempt repeal when Americans will want them focused on jobs and the economy.

BTW - Why are so few Republicans trying to sell voters on Republican leadership by how great the country did in the Bush years? I'm sure that number is less than 5. Talk about thin!

And why is Clinton out campaigning for Dems, but Bush isn't out for Repubs?

Jackson

10-17-10, 14:39

Actually, you ASSume (emphasis on the ASS) that I am a democrat. I could give a flying fuck about either of the two major parties. For someone who claims to be a libertarian, you sure seem to spew the typical Republican, er I mean teaBAGGER mantras.

Is that all YOU'VE got? Scmmoj,

Actually, my post merely responded to your previous statement. I didn't say anything about you being a Democrat or me being a Libertarian, but I understand that no liberal, and I'm calling you a liberal now, would ever let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

Now, do you see how I made my point without calling you an asshole or referring to anyone's political party by using a sexual pejorative?

Thanks,

Jackson

Jackson

10-17-10, 14:41

BTW - Why are so few Republicans trying to sell voters on Republican leadership by how great the country did in the Bush years? I'm sure that number is less than 5. Talk about thin! ?News flash: George Bush isn't the President anymore.

Thanks,

Jackson

Esten

10-17-10, 14:46

News flash: George Bush isn't the President anymore.

Thanks,

JacksonI think Republicans are hiding from their record under Bush. How a party has performed in the past is absolutely relevant.

Esten

10-17-10, 15:13

Esten, you're a bright guy, don't tell me you actually believe the Tea Party is an actual political party and not a conservative movement more in tune to the GOP of 20 year ago. So your statement of the Tea Party getting votes on Nov 2nd is inane.You should ask Teamann that question!

Once I select my chica, we will tie Esten up, take him back to my apartment and make him watch! A perfect night with a wild-ass liberal IMHO! I may even untie him afterwards. LOL. Happy Mongering All. Toymann.

P. I knew when he wanted to substitute a different bet he was feeling the inevitable was on the way! With every passing day, I am beginning to realize what a mistake I made and how I underestimated the American people. Bwahahahhahhahha!

Actually the new bet had nothing to do with my confidence level on the original standing bet. In fact I offered to let it be an additional bet if you wanted. What prompted me to even think of a second bet was when you posted that the Tea Party might get 3 seats in the Senate.

If you win and make me watch, you better hope she is a good one. I will sit there laughing my ass off if she is on the rag, gives a 1-minute CBJ and wants you to hurry up and finish!

PS. I won't call you Teamann if you don't like it. You must admit it's a good fit though.

Toymann

10-17-10, 15:56

If you win and make me watch, you better hope she is a good one. I will sit there laughing my ass off if she is on the rag, gives a 1-minute CBJ and wants you to hurry up and finish!

PS. I won't call you Teamann if you don't like it. You must admit it's a good fit though. You forget I live in Montana. Not much religion and plenty of masterbastion! Call me whatever you want. As a Republican I have a great sense of humor. As far as the Madahos chica goes, it will be a good one. COUNT ON IT! Expect a great show! Tick! Tick! Tick!

Happy Mongering All. Toymann

Jackson

10-18-10, 02:29

How a party has performed in the past is absolutely relevant.Yes, and how the Democrats performed in the immediate past will be the most relevant issue on Nov 2nd.

Wild Walleye

10-18-10, 12:32

Jackson. It's very simple how politicians go about determining their election year messages. They do something called polling on what moves voters.That is because they are by and large unprincipled wh*s (and not the good kind) . Men and women of character run on what is right not what is politically expedient. The fact that the legislature has become a road to riches (paved over the Constitution) is at the root of the problem (Harry Reid, anyone. Most in the legislature are there to serve themselves and act according to what will further entrench them in the power and money they so badly desire. The framers didn't envision a professional ruling class, quite the contrary, they intended for the legislature to be a part-time, public service provided by individuals who made their livings doing something else, when not politicking.

And what is typically the case is that voters are moved by how their vote will influence the direction of the country going forward.Most voters, vote their gut (most often that gut is in their back pocket or purse. Wallet for those liberal who couldn't follow the nuances) . That gut could be party ticket come hell or high water (both parties have these voters, they are called the bases) or it could be more issue-oriented.

Unprincipled politicians play to constituents' selfish interests (what is going to help or hurt me personally? ) rather than altruistic interests (what is better / worse for the country) and personal self interests (which are decidedly different from selfish interests.

Dems ran on heath care reform back in 2008 because it was popular yet unrealized. Now it's passed. It is no longer a forward-looking event, so there are plenty of other things on the direction of the country that Dems are focusing on.So they are so consumed with the good of the nation, they are not going to run on their successes? Who are you? Bob Shrum?

Dems may have run on health care during the campaign but they ran headstrong against the wishes of a plurality of the American public when they ramrodded the legislation through, without a care for the Constitution or the good of the people.

Make no mistake though, the health care reform is indeed landmark legislation that represents a major step forward for the country. If you actually believe this, you are part of a very small minority, one that will soon be swept from office.

Of those who do not like it, some say it did not go far enough, while others are willing to give it a chance to work. It is a minority who favor repeal and replace.As the Dems may have run on health care in 2008, the coming legislative, mid-term elections are a national referendum on repealing Obamacare. This is a unique moment when it is the American people running against the Democrats who screwed them on Obamacare, the bailouts and who have prolonged this recession for party and ideological purposes, non of which help to put food on the table or pay the mortgage.

It is odd that while we were promised decreased health care costs, all of the articles that I am seeing are that Obamagare is accelerating the increase of health care costs. This helps to bring real-world-light to the lie that Obamacare is. Maybe that is why so few Democrats are running on this historic legislation. Obamacare, after its repeal, will be seen as a "landmark" in the same way that Pearl Harbor and Iwo Jima are landmarks in US history, they represent tragedies symbolic of great personal suffering and loss from which America emerged stronger and more determined.

We'll see where the majority resides in two weeks.

I'm looking forward to watching Repubs attempt repeal when Americans will want them focused on jobs and the economy.We will see if they will stand by their principles by how they act and vote. If they do not act as they are now saying that they will, they too should be removed from office.

BTW - Why are so few Republicans trying to sell voters on Republican leadership by how great the country did in the Bush years?Because during the Bush years there is scant little evidence of Republican's acting and voting as conservatives. Fiscal, legislative and judicial conservatism (as in less govt, more personal responsibility) is what the country desires. The masses are finally seeing that the scare tactics of the left about social conservatism is a canard (less govt intrusion in your private life means more personal freedom, not less. Let's hope it is what they get.

And why is Clinton out campaigning for Dems, but Bush isn't out for Repubs?You may be too young to remember but there was a time when former presidents retired into obscurity out of respect for the office, the country and their successors. Ford, Reagan, GHW Bush and GW Bush (like them or not) are class individuals who continued and continue this practice, despite what I am sure is a very strong urge to occasionally set the record straight.

Stan Da Man

10-18-10, 14:13

This is all you really need to know to understand Esten or, for that matter, any liberal:

Dems ran on heath care reform back in 2008 because it was popular yet unrealized. Now it's passed. It is no longer a forward-looking event, so there are plenty of other things on the direction of the country that Dems are focusing on.

I think Republicans are hiding from their record under Bush. How a party has performed in the past is absolutely relevant.In other words, Democrats' past transgressions are not relevant; only Republicans' are. My party can say or do anything it wants and should not be held accountable going forward. But, what the other party did "in the past is absolutely relevant" now.

Unfortunately for Dems and liberals, the voters won't be so easily fooled by this sort of double-speak this time around. Democrats have been trying to come up with a cogent message for months now without success.

Here's the message they need to hear: It's about you, stupid.

Two weeks from now, they'll get the message. Unfortunately, there's little doubt they'll misinterpret it.

El Alamo

10-18-10, 16:29

"Nobody tell Obama what number comes after a trillion"

Pretty funny. Probably something Johnny Carson would have said if he were still with us.

I am sort of beginning to like this guy Obama. Gracias a Obama we may experience a free fall in the value of the dollar which would rival a roller coaster ride - for free.

Wild Walleye

10-18-10, 17:48

Esten

10-19-10, 01:26

In other words, Democrats' past transgressions are not relevant; only Republicans' are. My party can say or do anything it wants and should not be held accountable going forward. But, what the other party did "in the past is absolutely relevant" now.Stan it is clear to everyone you have a huge chip on your shoulder about Democrats.

Your statement above is your own creation and nothing more. And it isn't even logical.

Jackson asked why health care reform wasn't a midterm campaign focus for Dems. I provided an answer. Nowhere in what I wrote did I say or imply Repubs weren't entitled to campaign against the Dems health care reform. You are just indulging in willful distortion.

Both parties have the equal right to campaign on their past record, their opponent's past record, their future vision and their opponent's future vision.

Exon123

10-19-10, 02:21

http://www.buenosairesherald.com/BreakingNews/View/48517

Hopefully We're getting close to the MotherFucker.

Exon

PS --- You might have to copy and paste the above

My CockSucker Friend like's post's identified before the link is validated, its link to the B. A. Herald

Exon123

10-19-10, 02:30

http://www.buenosairesherald.com/BreakingNews/View/48517

Hopefully We're getting close to the MotherFucker.

Exon.

PS. You might have to copy and paste the above.

My CockSucker Friend like's post's identified before the link is validated, its link to the B. A. HeraldJackson,

This new program is amazing, its self editing

Member #4112

10-19-10, 17:52

Stan Da Man

10-19-10, 19:33

Jackson asked why health care reform wasn't a midterm campaign focus for Dems. I provided an answer. Nowhere in what I wrote did I say or imply Repubs weren't entitled to campaign against the Dems health care reform. You are just indulging in willful distortion.No willful distortion here. You need to look in the mirror to find that. I'm just pointing out your hypocrisy, and using your own words to do it.

Jackson posted that, if ObamaCare was such a monumental achievement, Democrats wouldn't be running away from the issue. You claimed, lamely, that it wasn't relevant because it was in the past, and Democrats were only focusing on forward-looking events. They aren't running away from their sponsorship of ObamaCare, you claimed, but were only focusing on going-forward issues. Then, about two posts later, you claimed that what a Republican President has done in the past was "absolutely relevant" to this campaign, and Republicans were hiding from this.

Your hypocrisy is plain for all to see. I just linked it together. You can't wish it away, just like your Democratic brethren can't wish away their support of ObamaCare.

And, your point about Republicans running from Bush's record is absolutely false. They're running right at it. That's much of what the tea party is about. Taking back the party from free spending Republicans. That's one big difference between Republicans and Democrats this term. Most Democrats are trying to sweep the past under the rug by ignoring their support of ObamaCare. Don't talk about it and maybe the voters won't notice. The Republicans, by contrast, had what is akin to a civil war within the party. They absolutely faced up to the fact that they were complicit with the misguided spending while Bush was President, even though Democrats controlled Congress (the purse strings) for Bush's second term. But, despite media hopes and predictions that it would split the party, they are emerging stronger for it.

I make no predictions whether a Republican controlled House. Which is inevitable at this point. Will be able to significantly cut spending. But, it is quite obvious that a Republic-controlled House will not waste the trillions that Democrats have wasted while they were in control, will not spend anywhere near what a Democrat-controlled House would have, and will not permit to pass the sort of misguided legislation that Nancy Pelosi allowed, and that her colleagues are now running from. That's "Change" enough for me. Rome wasn't built in a day.

As far as having a chip on my shoulder about Democrats, I do. The current crop in the House and Senate are largely a bunch of liars. Populists who will say and do nearly anything to get votes. I have the same contempt for many Republicans currently in office, including John Boehner who will be Speaker next term. These Republicans are still politicians. And so, not to be trusted with your wallet. They're just not as hypocritical as Democrats.

Member #4112

10-19-10, 20:34

Stan I have to differ with your regarding the Tea Party and Bush era Republicans. I believe they identify more with the Reagan "Big Tent" Republicans of yesteryear

Esten

10-20-10, 01:19

No willful distortion here. You need to look in the mirror to find that. I'm just pointing out your hypocrisy, and using your own words to do it.Nah... you continue to spin.

I explained that Dems were focused on forward-looking events because their polling has likely shown that is what will move voters the most. The popularity of health care reform is split no doubt, but even if it were broadly popular that would still not make it a winning campaign message right now. Voters are most concerned about jobs, the economy and the direction of the country.

How a party has done in the past is always relevant, and worthy of being used in campaigns. As is a party's future vision. But what ends up being used in a campaign is determined by polling.

If the polls say that this election most folks are concerned about jobs and the economy, why would Dems focus on health care?

However, if someone wants to frame it that Dems are hiding from something, I can do the same for Repubs.

BTW, in contrast to Republican dismay of the Bush years, Dems who voted for the PPACA are proud of it. Then why don't they run on it? Because voters are more concerned about other things right now, see above. Feel free to look that up if you like. And this is the same reason Americans will have little patience with House Republicans wasting time on repeal.

Your comment on populists is also interesting. I think most agree that health care reform was a tough slog for Dems. They persisted not because of their arrogance, but because they believed it was important and that they were elected to do it. Not unlike Tea Partiers who stand up for their beliefs, which I respect. Though present, there is more than just populism in politics.

Esten

10-20-10, 01:37

I was just scaning the polls and Rasmussin has O'Donnel at only 11 points behind in DE. Considering she was nearly 20 points down last week, she seems to be gaining ground. With Halloween comming up just before the election, who knows DE may be int he Pot for the Republicians after all!Rasmussin, bwahahahahaha!

But to your point, I agree. O'Donnell's demonstration of her deep understanding of the Constitution could close the gap.

Wild Walleye

10-20-10, 02:27

Rasmussin, bwahahahahaha!

But to your point, I agree. O'Donnell's demonstration of her deep understanding of the Constitution could close the gap. You were about to expose your ignorance of the Constitution. By all means, please elaborate.

Jackson

10-20-10, 03:17

Jackson,

This new program is amazing, its self editingExon,

It only edits your posts.

Everybody else already knows how to write.

Thanks,

Jackson

Jackson

10-20-10, 03:30

Voters are most concerned about jobs, the economy and the direction of the country.Esten,

The voters were worried about "jobs, the economy and the direction of the country" two years ago, and in the interim the Democrats failed miserably to deliver on these concerns because they were single-mindedly focused on accomplishing their long-held philosophical goal of taking over and destroying the world's most advanced private health care system.

Now do you see how it's all connected?

Thanks,

Jackson

Rock Harders

10-20-10, 04:00

Rev BS

10-20-10, 11:17

Esten, Mongers, et al-

I am generally anti-Republican but the Rush Limbaugh Fox News Robots who drivel all over this thread are right about one thing: the health care bill, "ObamaCare" as you will, is an absolute disgrace. Trillions of soon to be as worthless as toilet paper dollars will be spent trying to implement an ineffective bill so long winded and convoluted that the congressmen who voted for it did not even bother to read it in its entirety. The only thing of any worth in the bill is the banning of exclusion of insurance customers on the basis of pre-existing conditions. That fix should have been made into law on its own without the filth that came along with it. The US needs a taxpayer funded public option of minimum quality healthcare available to all that operates parallel to the existing private system for those who choose to utilize it (like NHS v. Private practice in the UK, Public Hospitals v. Swiss Medical, etc in AR, Public Hospitals v. Albert Einstein, etc in Brasil. The doctors working in this public system would earn a public sector salary and would receive a free medical schooling at a public university in exchange for working in the public system on a public sector wage for a determined number of years. Almost like military academies for doctors.

Suerte,

Rock HardersWas back in in LA for a month recently, alot of closed storefronts and restaurents were real slow. The Korean spa that I frequent reduced it's rates. Could not wait to get out of town even it was nice to see family, friends and colleagues. Pretty depressing, and the word that pop into my mind to describe America today is dysfunctional. The Health Care Bill was a result of both parents fighting and spending a fortune for custody, and in the process, both the victor and vanquished came out of the process, bankrupt and bitter. As for the child, you can only guess, he was the sideshow

So no use pointing fingers, and pretending your way is only the way to save America. Bickering partinsanship is going to drag us down to our knees. Neither party can bring us back to the days when we could hitchike across the country without fear of disappearing from the face of the earth. And once upon a time, there was something called civility, a striving for the common good. Most on the Board, sadly, does not know what that means.

Jackson

10-20-10, 13:50

And once upon a time, there was something called civility, a striving for the common good. Most on the Board, sadly, does not know what that means.Black Shirt,

I take exception to your statement. All things considered, I think the political discussions here are relatively civilized.

Of course, from some liberal's perspective, any venue that permits conservatives and libertarians to have an equal voice is de facto "uncivil".

Thanks,

Jackson

Rev BS

10-20-10, 17:01

Black Shirt,

I take exception to your statement. All things considered, I think the political discussions here are relatively civilized.

Of course, from some liberal's perspective, any venue that permits conservatives and libertarians to have an equal voice is de facto "uncivil".

Thanks,

JacksonMy fault, what I was trying to infer was that the Board is a reflection of where American culture is at the moment, and more specifically, where the political culture is right now. From past postings by you and others, it seems that we are in agreement that our representatives in Washington are a degraded lot, yet the Board is just as jingonistic, parroting pretty much the propoganda emitting from the landfill. And I am not going the route of "I am not liberal" or "I am not a republican" bullshit.

Stan Da Man

10-20-10, 18:01

My fault, what I was trying to infer was that the Board is a reflection of where American culture is at the moment, and more specifically, where the political culture is right now. From past postings by you and others, it seems that we are in agreement that our representatives in Washington are a degraded lot, yet the Board is just as jingonistic, parroting pretty much the propoganda emitting from the landfill. And I am not going the route of "I am not liberal" or "I am not a republican" bullshit.With all due respect, that's a cop out. Anyone can characterize any opinion as "propaganda, " but that doesn't make it so. The country does have a problem with spending. Some here thought the stimulus was necessary; others thought it was unnecessary and wasteful. That doesn't make either position propaganda.

Some here thought health care reform was necessary; others thought it unnecessary or, to the extent necessary, that the plan enacted went too far. That doesn't make either position propaganda.

Some favored Cash for Clunkers; others opposed. Some like Obama and what he stands for; others disagree. Some think Democrats and the left are wrong for the country and articulate why; others think Republicans and the right are a mistake and have articulated their position why. Some think Republicans were responsible for the housing mess; others think Democrats were responsible. Both sides have aired their reasons. None of this is propoganda. Heck, I've even asked anyone to articulate why government unions are necessary, when compared with the traditional justifications for unions (to equalize the bargaining power with capital) and no one's ever bothered to respond.

Again, you can label anything you want as propaganda, including the facts that go into the debate, and there have been plenty of facts provided here. You can disagree with opinions voiced here and not care to read them or respond. If that's true, then why read this thread? If facts and opinions are all propaganda, then this thread isn't for you. There's nothing wrong with that. I just don't understand the need to complain about it and label it as such.

Rev BS

10-20-10, 18:33

With all due respect, that's a cop out. Anyone can characterize any opinion as "propaganda, " but that doesn't make it so. The country does have a problem with spending. Some here thought the stimulus was necessary; others thought it was unnecessary and wasteful. That doesn't make either position propaganda.

Some here thought health care reform was necessary; others thought it unnecessary or, to the extent necessary, that the plan enacted went too far. That doesn't make either position propaganda.

Some favored Cash for Clunkers; others opposed. Some like Obama and what he stands for; others disagree. Some think Democrats and the left are wrong for the country and articulate why; others think Republicans and the right are a mistake and have articulated their position why. Some think Republicans were responsible for the housing mess; others think Democrats were responsible. Both sides have aired their reasons. None of this is propoganda. Heck, I've even asked anyone to articulate why government unions are necessary, when compared with the traditional justifications for unions (to equalize the bargaining power with capital) and no one's ever bothered to respond.

Again, you can label anything you want as propaganda, including the facts that go into the debate, and there have been plenty of facts provided here. You can disagree with opinions voiced here and not care to read them or respond. If that's true, then why read this thread? If facts and opinions are all propaganda, then this thread isn't for you. There's nothing wrong with that. I just don't understand the need to complain about it and label it as such. Again referring to the mess in Washington, if anything is going to get done for you and me, there has to be compromise. We need people who at the end of a hard and vigororous campaign or debate jettisan their partisanship and get on with what's best for the country. We are so f-up.

People post on this thread with different motivations and agendas. Just IMHO, we don't need to play politics here, too. Not complaining, just an observation.

Stan Da Man

10-20-10, 19:28

Again referring to the mess in Washington, if anything is going to get done for you and me, there has to be compromise. We need people who at the end of a hard and vigororous campaign or debate jettisan their partisanship and get on with what's best for the country.Fair enough, but "compromise" doesn't get you very far. Again, I don't mean any disrespect whatsoever, but that's the propaganda. Just saying "compromise" is meaningless.

I dealt with that word on a daily basis in my past life as a lawyer. If one side's asking for $1.5 million and the other is offering $50,000, they need to "compromise" to reach a deal. But that doesn't really say anything. It's certainly not "meet in the middle, " because any sap can figure out that you ought to start higher next time, or lower, depending on which side you're on. So, the "compromise where" is the issue, and where non-monetary items are at stake, it's "compromise on what. "

And, even that's not saying much. If one side just tosses an issue out there and says that 'this issue is important to my constituents or my party' does that mean the other side should or must compromise? Certainly not. It's the same dynamic as above: If that's the game, then just throw all your issues out there and make incremental progress toward your position each time you do so. But that clearly can't work.

I'm not trying to be patronizing. I know you know this. But, the idea that folks in Congress need to compromise is a bit facile. Compromise on what, and compromise where, is what all the hollering is about. And, of course, that certainly doesn't mean the two sides will reach an agreement. Sometimes, no deal is the best deal, at least from my perspective.

Rather than seeing compromise, I would prefer to see both sides make an effort at stripping everything down from the federal budget, then adding back what's essential, and finally adding back what we can afford. The latter is where the fight would be, but that would be a fight worth having. I know: Much easier said than done, and a pipe dream at that. But, if they expect me to pay higher taxes, then I'd like them to first justify why they need them.

I'll give you one real world example of why the whole process is messed up from my perspective. I have a former friend who hasn't filed a tax return in 25 years. This person has made over six figures a year, and sometimes well in excess of six figures, for a majority of that time. Usually, about six or seven years after the fact, a federal or state agency will notice that he hasn't filed taxes, and they'll start filing liens and doing levies at the companies from which he draws income. Right now, the state entity is finally catching up to 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002 tax years. He owes over $300,000 for those years, and this is just to the state taxing authority. I know because I've seen the levies. The feds still aren't even in the picture, even though he's never filed a return there, either. Frankly, it's appalling. The guy's not a tax protester. He just never bothers to file. He's gone through the compromise process with the IRS and state taxing authorities two times over the past 20 years, where he essentially cuts a check to compromise the penalties and back taxes for the preceding 7-8 years. This will be the third time when he eventually gets around to it, if they Eventually get around to it.

Wouldn't you think either the state agency or feds would track the guy after the first time he went 6-7 years without paying taxes? How about after the second time? Or, maybe you'd think that they would check on subsequent years when they realized that he never paid taxes for 1999, 2000, 2001 or 2002? Or, maybe you'd think that the state and federal agencies might coordinate their efforts? Nope on all of the above.

And, he's never served a day in jail for tax evasion. Know why? Because signing and knowingly filing a false tax return is a felony; but failing to file a return is a misdemeanor. If you don't file, you never sign anything where you swear, under penalty of perjury, that your numbers are correct. So, what's the lesson here?

That's a small example. It's anecdotal, I know, but I've got dozens more I could relate. My point is: Before they come trying to pick my pockets further, they need to get their own house in order. Government has become the problem.

Member #4112

10-20-10, 21:13

I have to agree with Stan on the compromise issue. The true definition of compromise is both parties leave the table dissatisfied (rather to a more or less equal extent is debatable)

IMHO spending must stop, period. What we as a country want and what we can afford have become so divergent if we continue on this course we will end up like Greece with debt greater than our GDP. The economy is not recovering (remember according to the eggheads the recession ended over a year ago) and simply can not sustain the level of social programs the dumbasses in Washington continue to attempt to purchase votes with. A good example is the $250 rebate to seniors since there has been no COLA for two years, politics at its lowest and both parties participate but it seems to be the Democrats who have been purchasing votes with social programs longer than the Republicans.

Look at England, Germany and France, semi-socialist countries, even they understand that spending has to be cut and are taking the very unpopular steps to reduce spending. When was the last time Europe was ahead of the US in economic policy? I don't remember a case where this has happened until now. We spent our way into this mess and there is no way we are going to spend our way out.

Maybe we should strip the budget to its base elements (borders, national defense, ect) but what I would suggest is to keep the 'social programs' which have been funded via payroll taxes for years which are Medicaid and Social Security. Point of fact had the Democrats not moved Social Security funds into the general budget in the 50's, these programs would be solvent today and for years to come. Medicaid and other unfunded social programs need to be returned to the states to administer as each state sees fit and not the federal government.

While government by its very nature is inefficient at least the closer to the people governed it is the more efficient is appears to be. An excellent example was presented by Stan regarding delinquent taxes – who was at the door first and continues to be there for payment – the state and not the IRS.

Rev BS

10-20-10, 22:04

Stan, Dopey,

I do agree big government is a problem, and that they will never be as efficient and cost-effective as private enterprise. For me, compromise is just not being rigid or in many cases, stubborn. You don't have to sacrifice your core beliefs. It just means you might now win everytime or havie everything go your way. Ultimately, great leadership can be one answer, sadly, we are lacking on both sides of the parties. Obama had potential, but inexperience in dealing within his own party cost him a chance to make history.

Perhaps, we can look in the mirror, and see how our culture has evolve to it's Jerry Springer stage. If you read the headlines everyday, and hear the baying on both sides, you know what I mean.

The irony is for most of us, life is still quite comfortable. No fear about the USA being the Titanic and so, we continue to indulge in impasse politics. I guess we haven't reach rock bottom yet.

Esten

10-21-10, 01:24

The voters were worried about "jobs, the economy and the direction of the country" two years ago, and in the interim the Democrats failed miserably to deliver on these concerns because they were single-mindedly focused on accomplishing their long-held philosophical goal of taking over and destroying the world's most advanced private health care system.

Now do you see how it's all connected? More smears and misinformation! You guys take the cake.

In early 2009, Dems first order of business before they did ANYTHING else was to pass an aggressive stimulus package, the Recovery Act, to work along with other federal programs to stabilize the financial system and stimulate the economy. In fact Obama got moving on this even before he got in office. The stimulus package was widely supported by economists and even the conservative-leaning US Chamber of Commerce.

The Stimulus and other programs are credited with stabilizing the financial system and economy, ending the Great Recession, and creating or saving millions of jobs. We've now had nine straight months of private sector job growth. Which is getting increasingly offset by government job losses, which conservatives should be happy about.

We still have an employment and deficit problem because we lost 7 MILLION jobs over 2008-2009 and the associated tax revenues, the deficit being further increased by the temporary Stimulus spending and tax cuts. While the Stimulus is the big one, Dems have also taken other steps to address jobs, all of which you conveniently omitted.

Those who look at the facts seriously, consider that the federal programs have been successful in helping turn the economy around. Though all agree we still have a long way to go. Where Dems did poorly, as I have said before, is in managing expectations about unemployment.

OTOH, those with a right wing agenda will ignore these facts, and make wild assertions such as Jackson has just posted.

Esten

10-21-10, 02:00

Rock -

Nobody is convincing anybody of much in this thread, and I am sure I won't change your opinion much either. But I'll say it anyways.

I think it is premature to state the PPACA is going to be either a big failure or a big success. I think there are more benefits than the one you cited. And there will be trade-offs. In the end it will come down to whether one believes the advantages outweigh any disadvantages.

From what I have read I believe it has the framework to be successful, as long as it is implemented responsibly and issues addressed and fixed as needed. There is some question mark on this with Republican vows to do whatever they can to dismantle / defund PPACA (they won't be able to repeal). Unclear how that will play out. But the country has just begun the process of implementation and IMO far too early to declare it a huge success or disaster.

One more thing (for all):
If you are doing research on the health care reform, you should use words like ACA, PPACA, Affordable Care Act or Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. If you only use the right-wing slang "ObamaCare" in your search field, your info is going to be slanted to it's detractors.

Member #4112

10-21-10, 12:42

Black Shirt. I'm with you on the Jerry Springer Mode. I have to laugh to keep from crying at the total BS coming out of the news media.

Term limits for Congress would be a good start, if the President is limited to two terms why not Congress. If you go back and look at the members of Congress for the first 50 years after independence they were in session as little as possible, they had to go home and MAKE A LIVING since there were no 'professional politicians' per say, or at least very few. I know the opposition to term limits say we have a mechanism now to change called elections, but in today's environment incumbency its an extremely powerful weapon against all comers.

The way I see it with term limits the special interests (both conservative and liberal) simply could no longer afford to buy access to power every few years. As it stands now they make the investment once then maintain it for decades with minimum cost. Simply moving the price point out of reach would go along way to solving the problem IMHO.

Member #4112

10-21-10, 12:49

Wake up and get a grip Esten, everyone is using the moniker "ObamaCare" to describe this abomination of healthcare legislation. Democrats, Republicans, Liberal and Conservative media talking heads.

The next thing you will be telling me is Obama doesn't shit. He 'candies' and he doesn't fart. He 'perfumes'. No matter what you call it – it stinks.

Stan Da Man

10-21-10, 16:10

Man, this guy takes the cake. Even a Democrat Is calling it "Obamacare" and signed the petition to repeal it. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130652430 But he claims we're being slanted when we use the same term and should instead use Obama's preferred alphabet soup. Sure. Same point he made before: It's okay for Democrats but not for Republicans.

This is the guy who also claims to have been privy to Democrats' polling data, which he contends told them that Obamacare was no longer a big issue for their constituents, so they could safely ignore it. Since he claims everything he disagrees with here is "spinning, " it's better to use his own words to hang him:

It's very simple how politicians go about determining their election year messages. They do something called polling On what moves voters. And what is typically the case is that voters are moved by how their vote will influence the direction of the country going forward.

Dems ran on heath care reform back in 2008 because it was popular yet unrealized. Now it's passed. It is no longer a forward-looking event, so there are plenty of other things on the direction of the country that Dems are focusing on. Right. Unless Dems were using the Daily KOS pollsters, there's no way that's a viable argument. Any credible poll indicates that voters are still keenly interested in Obamacare, and most are mad about it. Even left-leaning outfits like Kaiser show this. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/more-bad-news-obamacare_509181.html That's the real reason Dems are running away from it, or touting their opposition where possible. They screwed up if they voted for it, so they ignore it, and they can score points if they voted against it, or support repeal, so they tout those issues.

Stan Da Man

10-21-10, 17:32

More hypocrisy in action. Left-leaning NPR always claims that it provides balanced news coverage. This is just a fig leaf owing to the fact that NPR and its member stations still take between 10%.70% of their revenue from the public teet. It wouldn't look to good if they admitted they were liberal and unbalanced yet still lined up at the public trough asking for taxpayer money, so they go in drag and masquerade as non-partisan.

Two weeks ago, NPR circulated a memo telling employees that they could not attend the left-leaning John Stewart / Stephen Colbert rally in DC, unless it was in an official capacity. It might create the appearance of bias if staffers were in attendance. When asked why they didn't circulate a similar memo for the rightwing nutjob on Fox, Glenn Beck, they lamely claimed that Beck's rally was obviously political whereas Stewart's was not. The real reason, of course, is that none of the left-leaning staffers at NPR would ever want to attend a Glenn Beck rally, while they all probably had to cancel picnic plans for the Stewart / Colbert rally once the memo came out. In other words, it's important for NPR to avoid the appearance of bias, but actual bias is fine.

Now this. NPR has fired Juan Williams for saying, on Fox News, "when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."

Are you kidding me? Open-minded liberals like NPR object to this? Who doesn't Feel this way? As they say, 90% of men masturbate, and 10% lie. Only that same 10% can claim they never get nervous in that situation.

The real reason they fired this guy is because he frequently appears on Fox News as the liberal counterpoint to a conservative view. They made Fox remove the NPR icon when Williams was on in the past. Since Juan didn't get that subtle hint, his "nervous" remarks are the latest fig leaf they're using.

Balanced and open minded, that's the left wing media, except when you disagree with them.

Member #4112

10-21-10, 17:57

We have now seen NPR's version of Political Correctness in action. Now they are eating their own. How dare Juan Williams have the audacity to actually express a personal opinion? These are the same liberals who demand due process for terrorists captured on the battlefield but denied Williams even the courtesy of a face to face meeting.

If we could get NPR to shift at least 2 sigma's to the right, that might put them back to the middle of the spectrum.

BadMan

10-21-10, 20:11

I guess CNN was wrong for firing Rick Sanchez.

Makes sense.

Stan Da Man

10-21-10, 20:50

On a daily basis, we see how Team Obama is taking a page from the Kirchners' playbook on how to manipulate and distort statistics to their advantage. The most recent:

Team Obama was claiming credit for having created 50,000 jobs with wind farm Stimulus money. They recently got called on it with data showing that many of these wind farms were completed either before Obama took office, or before any Stimulus funds were awarded. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39759042/ns/business-going_green/

So now, they're changing the nomenclature. Since jobs "created" made them look bad, they changed it to "created or saved. " Since that still loses 50,000 jobs from their wind farm tally, they're now changing it to jobs "created, saved or supported. " Whew! And Esten accuses folks on this board of spin!

But, at least they're consistent: They blame Bush for all the jobs lost, and then take jobs created by Bush and put them in their own column, under the new title "jobs created, saved or supported. "

Good thing we've got these renewable energy projects creating jobs, too. Except it turns out that the majority of the Stimulus money for that is going to foreign owned firms. http://investigativereportingworkshop.org/investigations/wind-energy-funds-going-overseas/story/renewable-energy-money-still-going-abroad/

Again, at least Democrats are consistent. They criticize Republicans and corporations for shipping jobs overseas. The Democrats would never do that. Instead, they become the middle man, tax us and give the money directly to foreign companies. See Cash for Clunkers for the precursor of this brilliant idea, where all the Clunkers were American and 6 out of 10 cars purchased with Clunker money were foreign made. Brilliant. And these guys are supposed to be on our team?

Rev BS

10-21-10, 21:42

Member #4112

10-21-10, 21:52

Stan Da Man

10-21-10, 22:24

Stan, Dopey,

Posting with a frenzy trying to put a slant on most issues, it seems like you guys have allow Esten to get to you. Now, I know how Custer must have felt with the arrrows coming his way.

But I know you guys are having fun. I usually ignore Esten but every once in a while a poke is in order. He's an easy target; leads with his chin. But, I usually don't do it much. There's not much sport in it.

I did see Juan Williams' response to his firing. He's going right after NPR, and well he should. This is unlike the Rick Sanchez firing. He was fired by CNN (another left-leaning media outlet) but under much different circumstances, and he almost immediately admitted that he bore the responsibility. He did. Williams doesn't.

But, now NPR has responded to Williams. Listen to this lame response: "NPR CEO Vivian Schiller told the network's David Folkenflik earlier today, though, that "our reporters, our hosts and our news analysts should not be injecting their own views about a controversial issue as part of their story. They should be reporting the story. "

Really? Has she ever listened to NPR? Has Daniel Schorr or ever done a single piece that was anything other than left-wing drivel? How about Nina Totenberg, who masks as an even-handed Supreme Court reporter? Or Cokie Roberts while she was there? For that matter, have they ever listened to Juan Williams while on NPR? These folks give nothing but opinion masquerading as fact. I've got no problem with it when they label it as "opinion, " but NPR never does so with the above cast.

They've known that Juan Williams was being paid by Fox to give his left-leaning opinion for a long, long time. Only now do they get around to firing him? Ms. Schiller's only digging the grave deeper. She should follow the Dems' strategy on ObamaCare: Whistle past the graveyard and you can distract yourself from all the bad that's about the happen.

Rev BS

10-21-10, 23:24

Hey Black Shirt or should I shorten that to BS, seems you are unable to type doppelganger or have now included me in the 7 dwarves, if so can you direct me to that hot dark haired babe Snow White?

BTW. Check out Juan Williams response to his termination. WTF. Guess Juan is plugging to slant it it too? Doppelganger,

Unintentional, not even thinking about the 7 dwarves. In my younger days, I was often refer as to Shit Head due to my initials then. I know you have already done Snow White, how about Wonder Women!

Have watch Juan for a long time, he always seem beseiged at Fox, but at least, they let him off the hook most of the time. Still, a tough way to make a living.

Esten

10-22-10, 00:40

Yes some on the left are using the name ObamaCare, but everyone on the right is using it. If you use ObamaCare in your search field, you won't see the articles which are discussing the ACA / PPACA by using its correct name. Which tend to be the most reasoned and accurate, including articles from healthcare professionals. Leaving out these articles slants your information to the other side, which is predominated by detractors.

Get it?

Esten

10-22-10, 01:43

This is the guy who also claims to have been privy to Democrats' polling data, which he contends told them that Obamacare was no longer a big issue for their constituents, so they could safely ignore it. Since he claims everything he disagrees with here is "spinning, " it's better to use his own words to hang him:I can barely make this post because I am laughing too much! But I'll try. The poking is far too easy with you Stan.

I never claimed I was privy to Dem's polling data. I also never claimed everything I disagree with here is spin. Pardon me a moment while I LMAOROTFL! Readers here can judge for themselves whether your statements are lies or spin.

You really hung me with my own words! I am dead serious, I have to stop typing as I write this, it is too laughable.

Right. Unless Dems were using the Daily KOS pollsters, there's no way that's a viable argument. Any credible poll indicates that voters are still keenly interested in Obamacare, and most are mad about it. Even left-leaning outfits like Kaiser show this. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/more-bad-news-obamacare_509181.html That's the real reason Dems are running away from it, or touting their opposition where possible. They screwed up if they voted for it, so they ignore it, and they can score points if they voted against it, or support repeal, so they tout those issues.Your weeklystandard link is all about what people think of the ACA, and doesn't quantify how it ranks vs. other issues. Here's some help below. Case closed my friend, your research is pathetic. Thanks for the laughs.

http://www.pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm

Most important issue / problem facing the country:

Bloomberg National Poll conducted by Selzer & Co. Oct.7-10,2010. N=721 likely voters nationwide.
Unemployment, jobs 49%
Federal deficit, spending 27%
Health care 10%
War in Afghanistan 7%
Immigration 5%
Other (vol) 1%
Unsure 1%

CBS News Poll. Oct.1-5,2010. N=1,129 adults nationwide.
Economy / Jobs 54%
Health care 7%
Budget deficit / National debt 3%
Immigration 3%
Education 2%
Moral values / Family values 2%
The President / Barack Obama 2%
Other 22%
Unsure 5%

CNN / Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Sept.21-23,2010. N=1,010 adults nationwide.
The economy 49%
The federal budget deficit 11%
Education 10%
Health care 9%
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan 9%
Illegal immigration 6%
Terrorism 3%
Energy and environmental policies 1%
Other (vol) 1%
Unsure 1%

Member #4112

10-22-10, 07:00

Hey Black Shirt, no problem. I don't even want to go there as far as what I've been called. That was really true in 71' when I got back to the States.

Keep posting brother and monger on dude!

Wild Walleye

10-22-10, 12:57

...is all about what people think of the ACA, and doesn't quantify how it ranks vs. other issues. Here's some help below. Case closed my friend, your research is pathetic. Thanks for the laughs.That settles it then, just like anthropogenic global warming will kill us all.

Esten, you posted links to polling data, which is interesting. However, actual research and analysis of your polling data backs up what Blackshirt. Since polls are created to generate specific results, you have to do a little interpretation to figure out what they mean. These polls treat the issues as stand-alone items, to be ranked in personal priority. They don't come close to giving one an insight into how close behind one concern may be to another.

I think we can all agree that the number one issue to Americans, is unemployment.

Obamacare (you can call it whatever you like) is a job-killing, $10T albatros slung around America's neck by Democrats in the ruling class. Add to that the other forms of risk this congress and president have heaped on the economy and you can see why jobs are still disappearing. The severity and length of this recession have been exacerbated by the policies of the left, the largest of which, so far, has been Obamacare. There is a very tight correlation between the two issues.

I am pretty sure that I am not the only one who has figured this out. I suspect that some of the other folks that have figured it out have something important to do a week from next Tuesday.

Hugs and Kisses,

WW.

http://www.pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm

Most important issue / problem facing the country:

Bloomberg National Poll conducted by Selzer & Co. Oct.7-10,2010. And=721 likely voters nationwide.

Unemployment, jobs 49%
Federal deficit, spending 27%
Health care 10%
War in Afghanistan 7%
Immigration 5%
Other (vol) 1%
Unsure 1%

CBS News Poll. Oct.1-5,2010. And=1,129 adults nationwide.

Economy / Jobs 54%
Health care 7%
Budget deficit / National debt 3%
Immigration 3%
Education 2%
Moral values / Family values 2%
The President / Barack Obama 2%
Other 22%
Unsure 5%

CNN / Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Sept.21-23,2010. And=1,010 adults nationwide.

The economy 49%
The federal budget deficit 11%
Education 10%
Health care 9%
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan 9%
Illegal immigration 6%
Terrorism 3%
Energy and environmental policies 1%
Other (vol) 1%
Unsure 1%

Stan Da Man

10-22-10, 14:08

He's just a serial liar. Essentially, all he's said is that there are other issues folks are more concerned about, but his data does not show that health care is a minor issue. It's not hard to find evidence that he's wrong. Here's a sample from today's polling results. The boldfacing is mine:

Overall, Americans remain divided about the changes. Among likely voters, 52 percent oppose the legislation, compared with 41 percent who said they support it. Strong opponents outnumber strong supporters by 2-to-1.

Healthcare remained among the top issues for Americans in the poll, ahead of concerns about terrorism. But Democrats are losing their edge when it comes to whom the public trusts as stewards of the healthcare system. Among likely voters, there was essentially no difference, with 46 percent saying they trust Obama and the Democrats, and 47 percent saying they trust Republicans.http://www.moneynews.com/Economy/US-AP-Poll-Health/2010/10/22/id/374568

This poll was just released this morning. Why are they wasting time on this issue if, as Esten says, it's insignificant? The answer is obvious. The pollsters are now lying, too. Get it?

Stan Da Man

10-22-10, 14:49

More evidence today that the media's reading AP to get their ideas on what to cover.

Esten says that ObamaCare is not important to voters. Bingo! AP goes out and does a poll to instantly prove him wrong. (Linked in previous post.)

Now this: I said yesterday that NPR should be looking in the mirror at its staff, like Nina Totenberg, if it claims they aren't entitled to express their opinions. Bingo! Someone at the Weekly Standard is blogging about it today. Snip below:

On Thursday, however, Schiller revised her position on Williams's termination. According to the Associated Press, Schiller told the Atlanta Press Club that it wasn't the O'Reilly interview that led to his dismissal but the fact that he expressed his 'controversial' opinions at all. Doing so, she said, is prohibited by longstanding NPR standards. The AP reports:

Schiller said Williams' firing is not a reflection of his comments (on Fox News Channel) that he gets nervous when he sees people in Muslim garb on an airplane. She said she has no problem with people taking controversial positions, but that such opinions should not come from NPR reporters or news analysts. If that's true, NPR legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg might want to start looking for a new job. Over the past month, in her regular appearances on 'Inside Washington, ' she has: criticized a ruling of the Roberts Court as scandalous; claimed that Michelle Obama gives people 'warm and fuzzy' feelings; called Bill Clinton 'the most gifted politician I've ever seen; ' and lamented that the Democratic Party is diverse enough to include moderates that want to extend all Bush tax cuts. "

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/nina-totenberg-next_511512.html

Obviously, the "media" and the pollsters are getting their ideas directly from this thread.

This disclaimer is for Esten: That last sentence is written in jest, a form of humor. Note the winkie thing in the subject line. But you can go ahead and characterize it as "spin" if you want to.

Stan Da Man

10-25-10, 16:41

Doppleganger:

Here's a map showing likely outcome. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/2010_elections_senate_map_no_toss_ups.html

The House is a given at this point. The Senate's always been a long shot. The map shows 51-49 Dems. You need to pick off two of the races currently slated for Dems right now, and not lose any of those showing Republican.

The most likely candidates for GOP pick-up are CA, WA and WV. Frankly, I'd be surprised if Fiorina wins California given the politics in this state and the trend for the governor's race. WV is a real wild card as there is virtually no reliable polling data. It's Sen. Byrd's former seat. For decades, this seat was never in question. Now, it's anyone's guess.

You also would need to not lose NV and IL, both of which are really close right now. The map shows them in the GOP column, but NV in particular easily could go either way. There are a couple of others that are pretty tight, as well, such as PA, CO and KY, all of which are in the tentative GOP column. But, most legitimate polls put those states in the GOP camp. Democrat and newspaper polls (essentially the same thing) have them closer, but partisan polls generally can be discarded.

We should start to see the last-minute sneak attacks by both sides this week, probably starting Wednesday or Thursday. I was surprised that Gerry Brown played his card so early, but with Gloria Alred involved, it's likely she just couldn't help herself. The fact that Gerry Brown is in the lead in California speaks volumes about that state's inability to solve its problems. Unions are completely entrenched, and they'll drive the state over the cliff soon.

My prediction: 52 (_D_) vs.48 (_R_) in the Senate. That still would be a huge swing. And, at the end of the day, gridlock beats the alternative we've experienced over the past 2 years.

Wild Walleye

10-25-10, 20:04

Stan Da Man

10-25-10, 21:45

I believe that the polls are not counting certain portions of the folks that will be going to the polls. This under counting could be 2-5.

I stand by GOP wins of both house (70-100 seats) and senate (52:48 GOP controlled)

The key of course will be turn out. Hopefully all of those energized would-be-voters will actually get off their asses and vote. I hope you're right. I've been wrong before, and I hope to be this time, but 51 would be pretty tough.52 would be a message beyond what optimistic Republicans hope for at this point.

Again, I hope I'm wrong. There's still plenty of time for the October surprises that are bound to start soon. Conventional wisdom has it that this material gets released late in the week to prevent your opponent from having time to respond until after the week's news cycle is complete. But, absentee voting changes that dynamic a bit, and October surprises are more commonly a Democrat tactic. We'll see in a week.

Here's a sample of why I personally believe Democrat politicians are liars. This from Obama on the campaign trail today:

He said Republicans had driven the economy into a ditch and then stood by and criticized while Democrats pulled it out. Now that progress has been made, he said, "we can't have special interests sitting shotgun. We got to have middle class families up in front. We don't mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they got to sit in back. "

The facts are so diametrically opposed to this, especially on his claims that Republicans represent special interests. I hadn't realized that we were out of the ditch, but if Democrats think that 9.6% unemployment and anemic growth is a progress, then I guess that explains why they're doing so well this season.

And, on special interest funding, this is the guy that pledged not to take special interest money in the presidential campaign, and even signed documentation to that effect, then promptly violated that pledge during the campaign. He's the guy that refused to disclose the source of his campaign funds during the campaign, and re-jiggered his website to evade reporting on money he took in from foreign sources. Now, even Tina Brown's publication, which is still in Obama's hip pocket, is calling him on his lies. It is the Democrats who are beholden to special interests, namely, government unions who take their member contributions by force and give them to Democrats so that we can have. . . . More money for government unions. http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-10-24/unions-the-real-big-money-culprits-this-election-season/

Fortunately, at this point, Obama just sounds like a bleating sheep. His rhetoric is tired, worn and old, yet he keeps droning on just the same.

Esten

10-26-10, 00:56

Toymann

10-26-10, 02:26

Make sure Mitch McConnell's quote today gets covered far and wide in the media tomorrow, and all week.

And memo to DNC: Get a commercial with this quote on the air ASAP!

I was predicting 51 Democrat Senate seats, but with McConnell's quote today we may see 52. If my GOP boys get to 50 I'm in the money at madahos! Fear not Esten, I am actually predicting 51-49 for my team. Boxer looks like she is history after Obomanation was done in California. Happy Mongering All. Toymann

Wild Walleye

10-26-10, 12:55

Reid's name already checked on ballots in Nevada.

http://www.fox5vegas.com/news/25511115/detail.html

Esten

10-27-10, 01:06

If my GOP boys get to 50 I'm in the money at madahos! Fear not Esten, I am actually predicting 51-49 for my team. Boxer looks like she is history after Obomanation was done in California. Happy Mongering All. ToymannBzzzzzzzz! With Biden a 50:50 Senate is in effect a Democratic Senate.

Esten

10-27-10, 01:35

Mitch McConnell's comment on Obama was widely covered today, on CNN, Yahoo and others. What does Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell believe the most important thing is? Is it jobs? The economy? The deficit? Healthcare? Immigration?

Nope. In an interview with National Journal, he said:
"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president. "

Every time I hear this guy open his mouth he sounds cranky, bitter and inflexible. Now he comes out with this. Unbelievable! This quote will not soon be forgotten.

WH bristles over top Republicans' remarks.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/26/wh-bristles-over-top-republicans-remarks/?npt=NP1

Even his home state Kentucky:
Mitch McConnell under fire for saying top priority is making Obama one-term president.
http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20101026/NEWS01/310260081/1008/rss01

Toymann

10-27-10, 04:08

Bzzzzzzzz! With Biden a 50:50 Senate is in effect a Democratic Senate.You are starting to stress my brother. Happy Mongering All. Toymann

Wild Walleye

10-27-10, 13:59

That way you won't always be so far off the mark.

Mitch McConnell's comment on Obama was widely covered today, on CNN, Yahoo and others. What does Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell believe the most important thing is? Is it jobs? The economy? The deficit? Healthcare? Immigration?

Nope. In an interview with National Journal, he said:

"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president. " Judging by the overwhelming asskicking that the Dems are likely to take next Tuesday, I'd say a plurality of the country is with him on that.

So, let me get this straight. He is an idiot for making a statement that you find objectionable, however more than 50% of the US voting public agrees with the statement. Me thinks you don't know so much about politics.

Every time I hear this guy open his mouth he sounds cranky, bitter and inflexible. Now he comes out with this.Sounds like the cacophony of birds singing at daybreak as Spring unveils itself. When hope springs eternal and change is afoot.

Unbelievable! This quote will not soon be forgotten.I sure as shit hope not. They need to shut down the money printing presses and send Obama back to Chicago or Cuba or wherever he chooses to retire.

If he set up residency in Bs As, he could run here.

WH bristles over top Republicans' remarks.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/26/wh-bristles-over-top-republicans-remarks/?npt=NP1

What a shock. The WH bristles when the opposition states that they want to defeat them. Well, here you have it. First time in politics the opposition has clearly stated its opposition to the entrenched powers.

Even his home state Kentucky:

Mitch McConnell under fire for saying top priority is making Obama one-term president.

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20101026/NEWS01/310260081/1008/rss01

OK, do you really think that if there is an article taking issue with a statement (could be anyone's statement) that the statement is therefore invalidated? If so, every phony thing Obama has ever uttered has been invalidated because I can come up with at least one article opposing every thing he has said.

Come on Esten, you're arguments are getting weaker by the day.

Stan Da Man

10-27-10, 14:52

Come on Esten, you're arguments are getting weaker by the day.You go with what you've got. Esten can be thanked for consistently leading with his chin. My only objection to this is that it implies that the arguments were less weak before, but I agree with you: Just when you thought they couldn't get any weaker, he posts links to articles saying that the White House bristles at these comments, and Democrats take issue with the notion that their boy will be a one-term president. Now there's news.

Unfortunately, we haven't seen his quote splashed all over the headlines. I wish we did. The majority of the American public want Obama and the Democrats stopped in their tracks. Knowing that Republicans support that agenda may be obvious to most, but getting that headline out there might get a bunch more Independents, who may not have been paying attention, to the voting booths where they can show that they concur.

The notion that Obama should be stopped, and that his agenda should fail, is hardly controversial. Likewise, the idea that this is Priority #1 is no surprise: Stop Obama, Dems and their agenda and you can get the economy back on track; fail, and we're in for more of the same. Likely voters have been expressing this in polls for the better part of a year, and they'll express it in voting booths in six days. It's akin to Juan Williams' statement that Muslim-clad passengers make him worry when he's on a plane. Most people think the same. But the PC Left bristles when someone puts voice to their own private thoughts. According to the Left, you can think it; you just can't say it. Same with the comments on Obama, but in six days, they'll find out that the majority of the voting public doesn't agree with them.

Wild Walleye

10-27-10, 19:41

Unfortunately, we haven't seen his quote splashed all over the headlines. I wish we did.I believe that the selective coverage of that statement is due to the fact that if it were widely disseminated (Esten, that means spread all around to all the people) it might very well set a fire that the media (always on the look out to protect BHO) doesn't not want to risk touching off. That is, "if America is so sick of BHO's agenda that it will through democrats out of legislative office as if they were used banana peels, are they ready to cast off BHO? "

You never ask a question to which you don't already know the answer. If you already know the answer and you don't like the answer, you sure as shit aren't going to ask the question.

The majority of the American public want Obama and the Democrats stopped in their tracks. Knowing that Republicans support that agenda may be obvious to most, but getting that headline out there might get a bunch more Independents, who may not have been paying attention, to the voting booths where they can show that they concur.Agreed. America wants BHO and the Dems stopped. They (majority of Americans) also know that their opportunity to term limit BHO to one term is in two years, not next week.

The notion that Obama should be stopped, and that his agenda should fail, is hardly controversial.Agreed. Quite the contrary issues like socialized medicine, cap and tax and immigration reform (I. E. Mint 20 million new democrat voters) are very controversial, which is plain to see in how they played out. Steadfast Republican opposition to Obama is not controversial at all, it is expected. If the voters don't get it (I. E. Strong opposition to Obama, the freshly minted republicans will get shown the door too.

Likewise, the idea that this is Priority #1 is no surprise: Stop Obama, Dems and their agenda and you can get the economy back on track; fail, and we're in for more of the same. Likely voters have been expressing this in polls for the better part of a year, and they'll express it in voting booths in six days. It's akin to Juan Williams' statement that Muslim-clad passengers make him worry when he's on a plane. Most people think the same. But the PC Left bristles when someone puts voice to their own private thoughts. According to the Left, you can think it; you just can't say it. Same with the comments on Obama, but in six days, they'll find out that the majority of the voting public doesn't agree with them.Amen