American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Miamipro; 412575]WW. You have a real problem reading into me. I clearly said that while I did vote for Obama, thinking I was going to get something different. Meaning a more pro progressive agenda. I have been disappointed by lack of desire to see the issues I really wanted fall to the way side. Which became abundantly clear after Rahm Manual made the comments he did regarding the progressive voters. At this point I am not prepared to vote for Barack again in 2012. Of course I will have to see what my options are at that time.

So when you make a comment like that, It clearly shows you have your head stuck in a dark place between your legs. [/QUOTE]I did not mean to offend you by painting you with a socialist, neo-marxist brush by equating your support of Obama's most radical agenda as actual support for the President. It is amusing to see what offends you.

I understand that you think you are to the left of the President. I am quite happy to know that you are part of a very small minority.

If you're not going to vote BHO in 2012, maybe you'd consider Palin.

BTW, you can check some of my 2008-2009 post-election musings about how Hillary will seek the dem nomination in 2012 (a view I still hold. You probably think she is a right winger.

Just to let you know, I have much more respect for liberals who believe what they say (Esten, MiamiPro, MiamiBob, etc) than RINOs.

I like true believers, I just happen to prefer oath-takers and 3%ers to marxists

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 412583]I did not mean to offend you by painting you with a socialist, neo-marxist brush by equating your support of Obama's most radical agenda as actual support for the President. It is amusing to see what offends you.

I understand that you think you are to the left of the President. I am quite happy to know that you are part of a very small minority.

If you're not going to vote BHO in 2012, maybe you'd consider Palin.

BTW, you can check some of my 2008-2009 post-election musings about how Hillary will seek the dem nomination in 2012 (a view I still hold. You probably think she is a right winger. [/QUOTE]Oh I am not offended. I actually find it amusing how you try to paint your own picture of politics. Its to bad those paintings look more like abstracts.

Sarah Palin? Sure I will vote for her. If we are talking about which women has become the biggest punchline in political history. Even if she was to toss her hat in the Presidential Elections. Which I hope she does. She will loose and loose big.

We all seem to be involved in a circular argument regarding the Recession.

In our (independent / conservatives) opinion the house of cards was built by the Democrat’s desire to see more home ownership, a laudable endeavor to be sure, but they decided to achieve that end via lowering lending standards at Freddie and Fannie (just a sidebar but why is the Government in the home lending market in the first place?) and it went on down the line with other private lenders. The housing market boomed and the economy along with it. Everyone was happy but ignored the fact many home buyers were marginal at best. Next the financial markets sensing money to be made bundled mortgages in to financial instruments and sold them. Everyone was making money, but the now marginal home buyers were slipping down the slippery slope of debt over load and the bubble collapsed from within initiating the Recession. (Short simple version here)

From the liberal point of view it is even simpler – the evil villain George W. Bush did it. (Long complex version here)

Now regardless what you want to say even if in analytical terms the Recession ended in June 2009 as you look around at 9.6% unemployment (and that figure does not include the folks no longer receiving unemployment – they are just invisible now, anemic growth since they have revised it down to at or under 2% annual growth, and the real possibility the economy will stall completely or worse fall into stag-flation (remember Jimmy Carter) how can anyone crow about what the government has done. The best they can say now is “it would have been worse without government intervention” which is as meaningless as the “jobs SAVED or created” which nobody really buys anymore.

I really enjoyed Esten’s statement that in 4 months TARP and Stimulus stopped the Recession. Hell, the government had not spent the bulk of the TARP money much less the Stimulus in 4 months! Please Esten tell me you were just jerking me off with that one.

The most telling indicator of Obama’s slippage and the Democrat’s demise was when in a carefully screened audience for Obama’s last “town hall meeting” a black woman stood up and challenged him, saying she voted for him, defended him and his policies but was totally exhausted and wanted to know when he was going to deliver on his promises as the economy remains in tatters directly effecting her family. Obama is so disconnected from reality he laughed first them answered with students could get loans for school, healthcare and a few other meaningless things to this woman.

Esten, Maimipro; WW is correct about economists, you can shop and fine one that will say whatever you want to hear.



Reminds me of the joke about three CPA’s interviewing for the same job. The prospective employer gave all three the same root information and asked them to come up with the correct answer. CPA 1 came up with one answer, CPA 2 came up with a different answer, CPA 3 did nothing and when asked by the prospective employer for his answer CPA 3 asked “What do you want it to be? ” Guess who got hired? I hope I have not belabored the point but this should answer your questions regarding economists, statisticians, and the CBO.

First they bail, now they're eating their own.

Jimmy Carter has been making the rounds the past week, trying to rehab his image as the worst President in modern history. He should be waiting two years and the problem would take care of itself.

Among other things, he emphatically stated that the country is on the wrong track. That's nothing surprising, but I'm sure Obama appreciates the support.

He also asserts that he would have had health care coverage for all, but Ted Kennedy killed the CarterCare bill out of spite and ego. According to Carter, but for Ted Kennedy we'd all already have CarterCare.

Finally, this: "I feel that my role as a former president is probably superior to that of other presidents', " Carter said. "Primarily because of the activism and the. And the injection of working at the Carter Center and in international affairs, and to some degree, domestic affairs, on energy conservation, on. On environment, and things of that kind. We're right in the midst of the. Of the constant daily debate. ""

[url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100921/pl_yblog_upshot/jimmy-carter-hasnt-been-mincing-many-words-of-late[/url].

Hey, if folks won't give you the credit you think you deserve, then you just take it. It's part of that whole entitlement mentality that Democrats are so fond of. So there you have it: The Most-Superior-Ex-President award goes to Jimmy Carter.

Al Gore's got a press conference called tomorrow to claim the award for Most-Superior-Ex-Vice-President before anyone else grabs the mantle. Biden's crying foul because he can't get his resignation paperwork processed in time to get in the game.

[QUOTE=Stan Da Man;412594]Biden's crying foul because he can't get his resignation paperwork processed in time to get in the game.[/QUOTE]I just pissed myself laughing! Happy Mongering All. Toymann.

Ps. Tick Tick Tick. Never underestimate America you Liberal Bitchs. Tick Tick Tick!

Now that I've spoiled things for Walleye, I do hope he spends more time reviewing chicas and less time cluttering this thread with crackpot commentary.

[QUOTE=Stan Da Man;412594]Jimmy Carter has been making the rounds the past week, trying to rehab his image as the worst President in modern history. He should be waiting two years and the problem would take care of itself.[/QUOTE]Jabs at Carter?? LOL. Must be a slow news day. Carter does his own thing, he is not on someone's ship.

And I see Doppel brought up Bush again today. As I said before, the conservatives in this thread bring him up far more than other posters. And when I sometimes respond about Bush, Doppel complains, oh Esten, you always love to blame everything on Bush. LMAO!

For the record, I liked Bush. I agreed with the wars and with his bold support of TARP to address the financial crisis. I've said that before. Obviously I also disagree with much of the right wing philosophy and policies he and his party represented. But I certainly do not hate him or blame everything on him.

Stan commented that Carter is viewed as the worst president in modern history. Let's see how that assertion holds up with the Siena College Research Institute's recent survey of 238 presidential scholars:

[url]http://politics.usnews.com/news/articles/2010/07/02/survey-ranks-obama-15th-best-president-bush-among-worst.html[/url]

1. Franklin D. Roosevelt.
13. William Clinton.
15. Barack Obama.
18. Ronald Reagan.
32. James Carter.
39. George W. Bush.
43. Andrew Johnson.

Clinton and Obama ahead of Reagan. Carter ahead of GW Bush. Poor Bush in the bottom five.

Now interesting is FDR at #1. As we know, FDR was a Democrat who implemented Keynesian approaches to lift the country out of the Great Depression. Not unlike Obama and the Great Recession he inherited. I'm sure you have read the comparisons. Just remember where FDR ended up on this presidential survey.

[QUOTE=Esten;412605]Now that I've spoiled things for Walleye, I do hope he spends more time reviewing chicas and less time cluttering this thread with crackpot commentary.[/quote]Crackpot?

[quote=]Jabs at Carter?? LOL. Must be a slow news day. Carter does his own thing, he is not on someone's ship.[/quote]That's right, he is an independent (wishful thinking) The funny part is liberal columnists are the ones drawing the Obama = Carter analogy.

I believe that Carter popping up right now is part of the Democrat strategy. Hold up Carter and hope that people's instinctive reaction is "well it could be worse. "

[quote=] I've said that before. Obviously I also disagree with much of the right wing philosophy and policies he and his party represented. [/quote]Please illuminate us on the subject of GWB's right wing philosophies. GWB was not conservative.

[quote=]Stan commented that Carter is viewed as the worst president in modern history.[/quote]That's only because BHO is currently in the office and not yet history.285 months from now, Carter will need to hand over the crown.

[quote=]Let's see how that assertion holds up with the Siena College Research Institute's recent survey of 238 presidential scholars:[/quote]Boy, I wonder what the average political persuasion of those "scholars" happens to be.

This is like saying the Michael Jordan-era Bulls were the best team in history. Any such poll is just a subjective, opinion survey.

I don't need a poll to tell me what I know.

[quote=]Clinton and Obama ahead of Reagan.[/quote]Save your breath.

[quote=]Now interesting is FDR at #1. As we know, FDR was a Democrat who implemented Keynesian approaches to lift the country out of the Great Depression. Not unlike Obama and the Great Recession he inherited. I'm sure you have read the comparisons. Just remember where FDR ended up on this presidential survey.[/QUOTE]Like I said, I don't need a poll to tell me what I know. FDR is one of the main reasons why were are in the mess that we are in. He trampled all over the Constitution and the Framers' intent and burdened this country (even worse for the individuals with in it) with a permanent underclass, dependent upon the govt for everything. Wow, what a great president.

Esten, in my post I only alluded to the liberals using George W. Bush as their primary fall guy. You are now trying to tell me that Obama, the Democrats and liberals in general have not been hammering the electorate over the head with “It’s Bush’s Fault” since before the 2008 presidential elections, as well as using him as the fall guy and general boogieman for every failure of their economic plans to improve the economy since Obama took office are you?

Regarding your “ranking” citation of former presidents, perhaps you read my little joke about the 3 CPA’s and the comparison with the CBO, economists and statisticians, it’s all in who you select and what their bias and political bend is. Check the link below, in general none of your boys make it into the top ten nor is George Bush in the bottom ten as you posted. In viewing the website you can easily see a person could pick and choose only those outcomes they have a vested interest in and ignore the rest.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States[/url]

Esten, both you and Maimipro seem to fail to grasp the electorate is mad at everyone in Washington (Democrat and Republican) for pushing programs they neither asked for nor wanted on them and for the sorry state of the economy. Conservatives and independents are “mad as hell and they’re not going to take it anymore” and they are going to the polls to vote. The Democratic base is disillusioned and demoralized at this point which explains the nearly 2 to 1 advantage the Republicans have in primary voters who have turned out. While the dissatisfaction is taking a toll on both parties it is the Democrats who will by far suffer the worst.

In Delaware the major news media and Democrats have been castigating O’Donnell with personal attacks, not even getting near the issues of the election – probably because they know they will lose. I would not count her out – she hasn’t even cast her first spell yet! Dennis Miller had a great idea for her bumper sticker “Bewitched or Bewildered” referring to her vs her Democratic opponent.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;412613]Esten, both you and Maimipro seem to fail to grasp the electorate is mad at everyone in Washington (Democrat and Republican) for pushing programs they neither asked for nor wanted on them and for the sorry state of the economy.[/QUOTE]I am pretty sure you don't need to bring up my name in your quote. You have no idea what I grasp. I actually agree with you when you say everyone is mad at Washington. But I am mad at things like why can't both Parties come to agreements on whats best for the people instead of whats best for Party. I am mad at the Dems for not pushing hard enough on polices they said they were going to push all the way on and then cave in for self serving reasons.

Since we appear to be on opposite sides regarding what should be done, it was my understanding from your posts you did not understand the depth of discontent.

Not sure why you get so upset. Miamipro is just your avatar and not your name anyway.

You believe the Democrats did not go far enough using their majorities in both houses as well as the White House to push their agenda. I believe they went too far. I see the Tea Party as purging the Republican party of “RINO”s (Republican in Name Only) and bringing the party back to its conservative roots of lower taxes and smaller government. I am sure you are diametrically opposed to this but that is why we have a two party system presently.

The political pendulum has swung very far “Left”, in my opinion) and it has reached its zenith. It is about to return to the “Right”, I can only hope it does not swing as far “Right” as it did “Left” as that will serve no one in the long term.

The answer to Rodney King’s lament “Can’t we all just get along” will probably only be reached when, as with the President, Congress is subject to the same 2 term limit. The founders never envisioned “career politicians”, perhaps by not giving them such power for life and also forcing them to live under the same rules we do (their healthcare is Medicare and retirement is Social Security) the two parties could just get along and do what is best for the country.

But there we go again about what is best for the country always goes back to the two parties.

The mistake most Democrats are making is that they are misconstruing what the coming referendum is all about. You see media reports and comments from Democratic leaders that they believe it's about spending, jobs and housing, and our dimwitted President is out there finally accepting some blame, but only if he can pat himself on the back in the process. He takes blame for failing to "sell" ObamaCare to voters. Implicit in his statement is that ObamaCare is still a great idea, but they haven't done enough to promote it, despite spending millions on advertising and hiring Mayberry RFD as their spokesperson. They don't get it, and the President is incapable of getting it.

The Tea Party means different things to different people, but this is not just about the Tea Party. Voters who don't identify themselves with the Tea Party are breaking right in a big way, including 50% of the Independents who voted for Obama this last election. Many of them bought what Obama sold about "change" and a new way of governing, about being the most transparent administration ever (for example, televising the debate on ObamaCare on CSpan) and about going through the budget line by line and eliminating waste, about reducing the deficit, etc, etc. At this point, it's abundantly apparent to them and many others that this was all a Big Lie told to get elected.

Those are issues that turn voters off to the current administration. They especially dampen the liberal base. But, the coming referendum is much bigger than that. The real issue, encapsulated, is: What should the role of government be, particularly the federal government? The tide consists predominantly of folks who believe the federal government's role should be limited, both in historical terms, and particularly in relation to this administration's actions and its espoused vision for the future. It is not just the Tea Party folks and the Independents. There are at least two other components:

(1) the conservative base is alarmed at the path the current administration is on. They were complacent in the last Presidential election. My own view is that they did not have a particularly good candidate to vote for, which is why I didn't vote. But, they aren't complacent any more. They will turn out in droves.

(2) liberals and those who lean left are dispirited. Many of them will sit this election out, just as many conservatives sat out the last election. They haven't been given good choices by their party. Many of them are alarmed at the spending and the inept way it has been handled, as well. No doubt, the unions and Acorn-like groups will spend millions on get-out-the-vote drives. But, there's an element of "fool me once, fool me twice" at play. That worked two years ago. Many of these folks won't fall for it again. (That notwithstanding, you can see that the Democrats' strategy is based on "fool them twice" as their campaign so far is not about what supposedly good ideas they have; instead, they're still running against George Bush and the idea that Republicans want to bring back the policies that failed. They aren't running on their own ideas, stimulus, ObamaCare, federal immigration control, or even tax breaks for all but those making over $250,000. That's because their ideas don't sell. Indeed, to the extent you see any Democrats raising these ideas, they are running [i]against[/i] them. )

The size and role of the federal government definitely touches on spending. Every new bloated federal program, every new cabinet, brings with it more spending, and a public skeptical that the federal government can manage anything properly. But, it goes beyond that. You see it in the reaction on immigration issues, where the Feds are suing a state over the state's desire to secure its borders. You see it in the reaction to ObamaCare, where folks mistrust projections on cost, but they especially resent the notion that the federal government is going to force them to purchase insurance. You see it in the reaction to the misguided stimulus spending, where the feds decided who got bailed out, and then sent billions to their union buddies in state and local government and teachers unions (and labeled this waste as "stimulus") . You see it in the national reaction to the greed of public officials in tiny Bell, California, who got away with as much as they could while no one was looking. And, you especially see it in the reaction to the arrogance of the current administration, who pronounce what should be done (because they know better) with little regard for the will of voters who are saying stop or slow down.

There is little doubt that the next election will see large gains by Republicans. The only real open issue at this point is whether the Republicans take the Senate. That's doubtful, and it's also why you see virtually all the national Democratic effort (with their media allies) directing their attention at Christine O'Donnell. They want to defend that one seat and, in so doing, increase their chances of going 50-50 or better in the Senate. It's a smart tactic.

But, the larger question becomes: What will Republicans do with their gains. If they focus just on spending, jobs and housing, they will have wasted the effort. The real effort should be focused on what limited role government should have, defining where that line is and why some issues are on one side of the line while others are not, and then rolling back the excess. That's certainly no easy task, and there will be much disagreement. But, from there, the focus can then be directed to getting the federal government out of people's daily lives to the fullest extent possible. Ultimately, that issue, or some variation thereof, will be the touchstone issue of this election, in my opinion. It will be interesting to see when, or whether, Democrats ever figure this out.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 412616]Since we appear to be on opposite sides regarding what should be done, it was my understanding from your posts you did not understand the depth of discontent.[/QUOTE]I understand it but also understand that the discontent are for different reasons.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 412616]Not sure why you get so upset. Miamipro is just your avatar and not your name anyway.[/QUOTE]I'm not upset. Just don't assume you know how I feel about something or what I get or don't get.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 412616]You believe the Democrats did not go far enough using their majorities in both houses as well as the White House to push their agenda. I believe they went too far. I see the Tea Party as purging the Republican party of “RINO”s (Republican in Name Only) and bringing the party back to its conservative roots of lower taxes and smaller government. I am sure you are diametrically opposed to this but that is why we have a two party system presently.[/QUOTE] Lower taxes, yes it all sounds great to have lower taxes across the board. But the problem is shit has to be paid for. Now you can argue, well just have smaller government. And maybe you can have smaller government in some areas. But there might be other areas where you might need more government. It would depend on what specific targets we were talking about.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 412616]The political pendulum has swung very far “Left”, in my opinion) and it has reached its zenith. It is about to return to the “Right”, I can only hope it does not swing as far “Right” as it did “Left” as that will serve no one in the long term. [/QUOTE]It probably has swung more to the left than you would like. Thats just a matter of likes and dislike. For me in the first 8 years of this decade it was to far to the right. For me. GWB will get credit from me for this one thing. "Need something passed"? Fuck you pass it. And it was passed. DEMS need something passed? Lets talk about and try to talk to the other side and waste a bunch of time. Fucking No balls in my opinion. This is where I am discontent with the Dems. Maybe I am to progressive for them. Which yes puts me in even a smaller minority. But thats no matter to me.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 412616]The answer to Rodney King’s lament “Can’t we all just get along” will probably only be reached when, as with the President, Congress is subject to the same 2 term limit. The founders never envisioned “career politicians”, perhaps by not giving them such power for life and also forcing them to live under the same rules we do (their healthcare is Medicare and retirement is Social Security) the two parties could just get along and do what is best for the country.

But there we go again about what is best for the country always goes back to the two parties. [/QUOTE]That I totally Agree with

Members of Congress have been part of Social Security (including Medicare) since 1984. If somebody doesn't know something this basic, why would anybody pay any attention to any other opinion they hold about Congress and the federal government?

[url]http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/congresspay.htm[/url]

Members of Congress have a separate healthcare plan and a separate retirement plan for which they qualify after serving one term. They will not be on ObamaCare as they exempted themselves from it as well as OSHA and Title 7 actions. Better look again my friend

[QUOTE=Easy Go; 412624]Members of Congress have been part of Social Security (including Medicare) since 1984. If somebody doesn't know something this basic, why would anybody pay any attention to any other opinion they hold about Congress and the federal government?

[url]http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/congresspay.htm[/url][/QUOTE]Don't try to understand comments from an [blue][Deleted by Admin][/blue] like EasyGo. Typical Seattle hypercrit liberal [blue][Deleted by Admin][/blue]. These types never let the facts get in the way. Medicare applies to all americans after age 65. The independent health plan that covers all these politicians becomes secondary to medicare after 65. Whereas the rest of us unclean unwashed masses have to buy a secondary to medicare (ie. AARP) if we want full coverage (20% medicare co-pay. The politicians just get a free ride PLUS never have to experience OBAMACARE as their own privately funded plan represents the BEST of private idemnity insurance. Sadly, EasyGo will never get to read this post as BT (Bad Toymann) is on his ignore list. This [blue][Deleted by Admin][/blue] informed me of this face to face at Jackson's play house this past April as apparently the ol' Toymann is, in his words, "just too hardcore". In [blue][Deleted by Admin][/blue] In the liberal city this type of exchange should lead to more verbal debate. Toymann regrets he didn't [blue][Deleted by Admin][/blue]. Shame on me for behaving in such a civilized manner. Regrets. Regrets. Regrets. Happy Mongering All. Toymann.

PS: EasyGo would prefer to put anyone with a differing opinion to himself on the ignore list. We'll just wait another 30 days or so to see if america handles their business in the same shamefull manner. Tick. Tick. Tick. LOL! .

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

[b][u]EDITOR'S NOTE[/u]: [/b] [blue]This report was edited to remove what appeared to be a [u]threat made towards other Forum members[/u]. Threatening other members in any way, either veiled or directly, is strictly prohibited and will result the the perpetrator being banned from the forum. Please read the Forum's Posting Guidelines for further information. [/blue]

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;412613]Esten, in my post I only alluded to the liberals using George W. Bush as their primary fall guy. You are now trying to tell me that Obama, the Democrats and liberals in general have not been hammering the electorate over the head with “It’s Bush’s Fault” since before the 2008 presidential elections, as well as using him as the fall guy and general boogieman for every failure of their economic plans to improve the economy since Obama took office are you? [/QUOTE]Huh?? I said nothing on what others are saying. If you ask me, the left talking points are mostly about the "failed policies" of the Bush era, not the man himself. BTW, Gallup's latest poll last week still shows 71% of Americans blame Bush for US economic problems.

[QUOTE]Regarding your “ranking” citation of former presidents, perhaps you read my little joke about the 3 CPA’s and the comparison with the CBO, economists and statisticians, it’s all in who you select and what their bias and political bend is. Check the link below, in general none of your boys make it into the top ten nor is George Bush in the bottom ten as you posted. In viewing the website you can easily see a person could pick and choose only those outcomes they have a vested interest in and ignore the rest.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States[/url][/QUOTE]Good link, thanks. Most of those polls have Clinton in the second quartile and ahead of Bush. Reagen also does well. Only the Siena poll is recent enough to include Obama. I care little about Carter. The most interesting thing to me is how consistently high FDR is ranked, even among conservatives.

[QUOTE]Esten, both you and Maimipro seem to fail to grasp the electorate is mad at everyone in Washington (Democrat and Republican) for pushing programs they neither asked for nor wanted on them and for the sorry state of the economy. Conservatives and independents are “mad as hell and they’re not going to take it anymore” and they are going to the polls to vote. The Democratic base is disillusioned and demoralized at this point which explains the nearly 2 to 1 advantage the Republicans have in primary voters who have turned out. While the dissatisfaction is taking a toll on both parties it is the Democrats who will by far suffer the worst.[/QUOTE]The 'anger' is real but also exaggerated. A vocal minority is getting a lot of attention. That's why you see Stewart and Colbert announced their planned events on October 30 "Rally To Restore Sanity" and "March to Keep Fear Alive" (I'm looking forward to both of them BTW). A lot of people are tired with the extremist rhetoric.

Obama has been delivering on much of the platform he ran on in 2008, so it's disingenuous to claim people are getting things they didn't want. Maybe Republicans feel this way, but [i]they lost the election. [/i] That's how it works.

Dems are better than you think, though I do hope to see a stronger, coordinated message and effort in October. They could absolutely lose the House, I agree. However, by most accounts Congress is looking to be roughly evenly split after the midterms. A slight Dem majority in the Senate and slight Repub majority in the House. So this 'giant conservative wave' still only gets them to about 50:50?? LOL. With high unemployment and a constant right wing media attack on Obama and Dems, this is the best that Republicans can achieve? That tells you something. Personally, I see the advantages that a Republican House will bring and am not too adverse to that result. You better hope Repubs do in fact win the House though, or the fallout will be spectacular to watch.

The latest Gallup generic ballot shows a 46% Democratic and 45% Republican split in registered voters' preferences for the midterm congressional elections. So the elections may be closer than some people think. A strong coordinated push by Dems in October will make the House result close.

[QUOTE]In Delaware the major news media and Democrats have been castigating O’Donnell with personal attacks, not even getting near the issues of the election – probably because they know they will lose. I would not count her out – she hasn’t even cast her first spell yet! Dennis Miller had a great idea for her bumper sticker “Bewitched or Bewildered” referring to her vs her Democratic opponent.[/QUOTE]Good to see a sense of humor! That's a clever bumper sticker but it would probably do more harm than good for O'Donnell. Don't think she has a chance though, not in Delaware. She is toast.

Here's one for you.... Obama said recently, when you drive you have to put the car in "D" to go forward, and in "R" to go in reverse. hehe

[QUOTE=Toymann;412627]This idiot informed me of this face to face at Jackson's play house this past April as apparently the ol' Toymann is, in his words, "just too hardcore". [blue][Deleted by Admin][/blue] In the liberal city this type of exchange should lead to more verbal debate. Toymann regrets he didn't [blue][Deleted by Admin][/blue].[/QUOTE]What part of the world would that be for you? "Tuff Guy USA"? At least he had the balls to tell you to your face. You don't have to like the guy or agree with what he says but no need for insinuating some form of physical assertion. Maybe you should take a lesson from the liberal city and learn how to debate verbally instead of making physical innuendo's.

[QUOTE=Miamipro;412629]What part of the world would that be for you? "Tuff Guy USA"? At least he had the balls to tell you to your face. You don't have to like the guy or agree with what he says but no need for insinuating some form of physical assertion. Maybe you should take a lesson from the liberal city and learn how to debate verbally instead of making physical innuendo's.[/QUOTE]In case you didn't notice I already (along with one other) pointed out the total foolishness of EasyGo's statement. The arrogant insinuation that ended EasyGo's statement just reminded me of regretting not giving him the bum's rush to the door at Jackson's party house. Not all parts of the US suffer fools gladly. LOL.

Hope I didn't offend the newest serial antagonist. LOL. Monger on Dude. Toymann

[QUOTE=Toymann; 412627]Don't try to understand comments from an [blue][Deleted by Admin][/blue] like EasyGo. Typical Seattle hypercrit liberal [blue][Deleted by Admin][/blue]. These types never let the facts get in the way. Medicare applies to all americans after age 65. The independent health plan that covers all these politicians becomes secondary to medicare after 65. Whereas the rest of us unclean unwashed masses have to buy a secondary to medicare (ie. AARP) if we want full coverage (20% medicare co-pay. The politicians just get a free ride PLUS never have to experience OBAMACARE as their own privately funded plan represents the BEST of private idemnity insurance. Sadly, EasyGo will never get to read this post as BT (Bad Toymann) is on his ignore list. This [blue][Deleted by Admin][/blue] informed me of this face to face at Jackson's play house this past April as apparently the ol' Toymann is, in his words, "just too hardcore". In [blue][Deleted by Admin][/blue] In the liberal city this type of exchange should lead to more verbal debate. Toymann regrets he didn't [blue][Deleted by Admin][/blue]. Shame on me for behaving in such a civilized manner. Regrets. Regrets. Regrets. Happy Mongering All. Toymann.
[/QUOTE]So, if I had been there, I certainly would have easily recognize you. Were you the guy with the dirty unwashed jeans, cut off t-shirt, bandana and chains? And speaking very loud.

I like Obama's metaphor of the Republicans driving the car in the ditch, but if you take to its logical conclusion Obama kept right on going up the other side of the ditch, through the fence and is now stuck in the middle of the field with no idea where the road is.

As far as the Democrats articulating a wining message in October, I doubt that will happen since they are not talking about Stimulus, ObamaCare or any other of their 'hallmark' legislative accomplishments – some are not even identifying themselves as 'Democrat' in their campaign ads. They have to this point pretty much run a full bore negative campaign against the Tea Party. Even the talking heads are now going to the extreme of calling the Tea Party folks 'crazy', something I think only energizes them all the more.

Well I guess we will just have to wait and see on Nov 3rd as to how great the anger is and how well the Democrats do in the House and the Senate. We will just have to agree to disagree until then.

While I agree O'Donnell is going to have a hard time winning Delaware I don't think I would count her out. Is it true Elizabeth Montgomery is coming down to campaign for her? (Joke there)

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;412636]While I agree O'Donnell is going to have a hard time winning Delaware I don't think I would count her out. Is it true Elizabeth Montgomery is coming down to campaign for her? (Joke there)[/QUOTE]Count her Out.

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.

I guesse I was overdue. After 265 posts I have now finally been censored (somewhere in BA Exon is smiling). For whatever it's worth, I didn't know regetting something I didn't do could constitute a threat. The worst part is that that worthless cocksucker won't even get to read it because I am on his ignore list. That's certainly adding insult to injury. LOL. Me thinks El Jeffe is inviting too many democrats to his thursday suppers. This will be nicely remedied next thursday by the attendance of not 1, but 2 rednecks from Montana. Suggest you send out disclaimers El Jeffe prior to the party. LOL.

I now stand corrected. I head for BA soon and will make sure all my jeans, bandanas and cutoff T's are freshly washed and folded. I didn't know I was a redneck but after reading the last post I perfectly fit the persona and so does my buddy who's coming next week as well.

Happy Mongering All. Toymann

[QUOTE=Black Shirt;412631]So, if I had been there, I certainly would have easily recognize you. Were you the guy with the dirty unwashed jeans, cut off t-shirt, bandana and chains? And speaking very loud.[/QUOTE]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.

[QUOTE=Toymann;412646]I now stand corrected. I head for BA soon and will make sure all my jeans, bandanas and cutoff T's are freshly washed and folded.[/QUOTE]Dude, it's getting warm in Bs As, leave the cutoff T's at home (unless you want to get dressed up) I'm only packing my cleanest wife-beaters.

This says it all[ATTACH=CONFIG]27604[/ATTACH]

[url]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_LHrmJYNLTIU/SrZ68R_1dlI/AAAAAAAAAEs/VuefAvCuotQ/s1600-h[/url]/KeefeJul2009. Jpg

and

[url]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_LHrmJYNLTIU/SrZ7Jv119jI/AAAAAAAAAE0/c0IA6Rw2_A4/s1600-h/KeefeSep20-2009.jpg[/url]

A subject with which, I have some familiarity.

You know you're redneck when:

You think the last words to.

The Star Spangled Banner are.

"Gentlemen, start your engines. "

You think a stock tip is.

Advice on worming' your hogs.

You've been married three times.

And still have the same in-laws.

You think TACO BELL is.

The Mexican Phone Company.

Your state's got a new law that says.

When a couple get divorced,

They are still legally brother and sister.

Your house still has the.

"WIDE LOAD"

Sign on the back.

You got stopped by a state trooper.

He asked you if you had an I. The.

And you said, 'about What? '

Non.

Athletic.

Sport.

Created.

Around.

Rednecks

You think Possum is.

"The Other White Meat"

You think Genitalia is an Italian airline.

I enjoyed watching Stephen today.

"America's farms are presently far too dependent on immigrant labor to pick our fruits and vegetables, " he told the subcommittee, keeping in character with the arch-conservative he plays on television.

"Now, the obvious answer is for all of us to stop eating fruits and vegetables. And if you look at the recent obesity statistics, many Americans have already started. "

Colbert told the panel that "we all know there is a long tradition of great nations importing foreign workers to do their farm work. "

"After all, " he said, "it was the ancient Israelites who built the first food pyramids. But this is America. I don't want a tomato picked by a Mexican. I want it picked by an American, then sliced by a Guatemalan, and served by a Venezuelan in a spa where a Chilean gives me a Brazilian. "

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, D-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?"

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 412660]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? "[/QUOTE]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.

[QUOTE=Miamipro;412661]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.[/QUOTE]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.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 412662]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. [/QUOTE]Believe it or not, NPR had a guy on from [i]Mother Jones[/i] 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 [i]he[/i] 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 [i]Mother Jones[/i] writer.

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

[QUOTE=Stan Da Man;412667]Sorry, missed your earlier post. I see that the Mother Jones guy also was quoted in the Politico article you posted. Same guy.[/QUOTE]I think if you want left-of-[I]mother-jones[/I], you might need to seek out [I]High Times Magazine. [/I]

[QUOTE=Stan Da Man;412666]Believe it or not, NPR had a guy on from [i]Mother Jones[/i] 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 [i]he[/i] 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 [i]Mother Jones[/i] writer.[/QUOTE]Lamenting a waste of taxpayer dollars, that doesn't include mention of a war [I]started [/I]by GWB, you've got something you don't see every day.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;412668]I think if you want left-of-[I]mother-jones[/I], you might need to seek out [I]High Times Magazine. [/I][/QUOTE]You mean to tell me those are two [b][i]different[/i][/b] 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.

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 [i]may[/i] 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. [url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100923/el_yblog_upshot/half-of-california-voters-want-to-replace-pelosi-as-speaker[/url]

Rats from a sinking ship.

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:

[i]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 ?! [/i]