American Politics during the Obama Presidency

Black Shirt -

Draw your own conclusions as we all do, but I would caution to supplement anything you read from guys like WW and Stan with additional research from other sources. IMO, one of them has proven to be fact-challenged on far too many occasions to take anything he says seriously. The other has a better grasp of facts and what's going on, but most often presents a subset of available information and spins it to make his point, which is often a put-down.

If you haven't been following the posts and checking their statements this may not be apparent. But here is one giveaway: neither of them can barely make one post without including a jab, insult or rant against Obama, Dems or their values. This is easily verified. And this alone should tell you something about the prism through which they view things.

Personally, at one point (way back) I thought perhaps I could learn something from these guys because they evidently have different vantage points in business than I. I think we all learn when we bring different ideas and views to the table. Instead, what I have learned is that they are disgruntled ideologues who have an axe to grind with others who do not share their views, and this permeates much of what they write here. Combined with fact checking I have done, I have come to conclude that most of what they write simply cannot be taken at face value.

You would get more accurate information from Fox News. Better yet, a reputable news source like CNN, NY Times or Washington Post.

Speaking of media, did you check the link that Stan posted? A website called "hotair.com". I never heard of that site before, so I spent a minute checking out the front page. Guess what? It's another one of these anti-Obama anti-Democrat conservative "news" websites. There are quite a few of them around, a page out of the GOP handbook, dedicated to portraying their opponents unfavorably. How interesting that Stan directed you there.

About your friend's comment on the strength of the recovery, that reminded me I have seen reports supporting that view as well. But it all depends on what metric you look at. Obviously the unemployment rate itself does not indicate a strong recovery. But another metric on jobs is quite interesting; from the recent article below: "Sustained, positive job formation began earlier in this recovery than in the prior two recoveries". It took 6 months to reach that milestone in the current recovery, vs. 22 months following the 2001 recession under Bush.

[url]http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/02/news/economy/jobs_recovery/index.htm[/url]

The rate of job growth though positive is still anemic, though today's number of net 151,000 jobs added is a good sign, the best numbers since April. What's going on is big business squeezing more productivity out of fewer workers, sitting on healthy profits and transferring billions to shareholders. While politics dominates the media, in the background big business is effecting a massive transfer of wealth, mostly to the rich.

This is all rather depressing stuff, so I would concur with Stan on one thing, that you should go have some fun. I'll be in BA soon enough myself and am looking forward to it immensely.

Esten,

Thanks for your input. Yes, I have been following your sparring match for awhile. Looks like you have been doing the "fly like a butterfly, sting like a bee" dance.

Living overseas for quite about 4 years now, I am losing my grasp on the political scene in the US, so in a way, I get updated by you guys. And as I said earlier, it is very dysfunctional right now. Kind of losing faith in the system, you know. Obama seems to have really touch a deep nerve with some people and I have never seen that much intensity with any president since Nixon was villified by the adolescent left.

So yes, I will take the prevailing advice given at the moment by the distinguished debaters, I will do my "safari" tonight and see what I come up with. It is possible I could be eaten alive tonight, so pray for my well being.

[QUOTE=Esten;413795]Draw your own conclusions as we all do, but I would caution to supplement anything you read from guys like WW and Stan with additional research from other sources. IMO, one of them has proven to be fact-challenged on far too many occasions to take anything he says seriously. The other has a better grasp of facts and what's going on, but most often presents a subset of available information and spins it to make his point, which is often a put-down.[/quote]I wouldn't put you down, it isn't nice to make fun of the mentally challenged.

[quote=]If you haven't been following the posts and checking their statements this may not be apparent. But here is one giveaway: neither of them can barely make one post without including a jab, insult or rant against Obama, Dems or their values. This is easily verified. And this alone should tell you something about the prism through which they view things.[/quote]I wouldn't be like this if all the Dems weren't degenerates and Obama wasn't trying to foist his marxist agenda on the downtrodden people.

[quote=]Personally, at one point (way back) I thought perhaps I could learn something from these guys because they evidently have different vantage points in business than I. I think we all learn when we bring different ideas and views to the table. Instead, what I have learned is that they are disgruntled ideologues who have an axe to grind with others who do not share their views,[/quote]Alas, after Tuesday's results, I feel so lonely. Why must I be the only one who thinks like this? Why god? Why?

[quote=] and this permeates much of what they write here. Combined with fact checking I have done, I have come to conclude that most of what they write simply cannot be taken at face value.[/quote]You get what you pay for. Which is exactly why your fact checking in worthless.

[quote=]You would get more accurate information from Fox News. Better yet, a reputable news source like CNN, NY Times or Washington Post.[/quote]I think the bloom if off the rose. The American public no longer trusts the liberal established media. The glaring examples of liberal agendas have dissolved any facade of objectivity. Overt actions of many of these entities, resulting in potential harm to US security haven't helped their reputations.

[quote=]Speaking of media, did you check the link that Stan posted? A website called "hotair.com". I never heard of that site before, so I spent a minute checking out the front page. Guess what? It's another one of these anti-Obama anti-Democrat conservative "news" websites. There are quite a few of them around,[/quote]If you would pay attention to what I am telling you, you wouldn't still be trying to figure out why there are so many anti-Obama opinions out there (hint: it is directly correlated to the majority of Americans that want him to be a one-termer) and why it is so hard to find anyone who still supports him, other than you of course.

[quote=]About your friend's comment on the strength of the recovery, that reminded me I have seen reports supporting that view as well.[/quote]You probably shouldn't rely on Olbermann or Stewart for economic analysis.

[quote=]But it all depends on what metric you look at. Obviously the unemployment rate itself does not indicate a strong recovery. But another metric on jobs is quite interesting; from the recent article below: "Sustained, positive job formation began earlier in this recovery than in the prior two recoveries". It took 6 months to reach that milestone in the current recovery, vs. 22 months following the 2001 recession under Bush.[/quote]You can whip up some statistics in almost any situation that will support your case. Coming out of Obama's recession, there were 22% more sunny days reflecting the possibility that he might actually be god and while not able to deal with the financial crisis (because he is the least experienced person in Washington) he was doing his best to brighten the situation."Four more years! Four more years!"

[quote=]The rate of job growth though positive is still anemic, though today's number of net 151,000 jobs added is a good sign, the best numbers since April[/quote]Anemic? The unemployment rate has been 9.4% or higher since May 2009 (it's November 2010, by the way) while the true number of those involuntarily out of work has hovered around 16-17.

I had to laugh at the 151K number, it was brought down by the loss of something like 8,000 govt jobs. I believe those were part-time census workers, who never should have been counted in the first place.

[quote=] What's going on is big business squeezing more productivity out of fewer workers, sitting on healthy profits and transferring billions to shareholders.[/quote]You were listening. Damn companies, passing profits on to their rightful owners!

[quote=] While politics dominates the media, in the background big business is effecting a massive transfer of wealth, mostly to the rich.[/quote]Of course they are. The government should step in and seize the fruits of their labor and prevent the owners of these businesses from keeping any of their profits. We should then change the name of the country to Obama-uela, name Obama president-for-life and design some sort of pseudo-military outfit for him to wear along with some big-ass aviator shades.

[quote=]This is all rather depressing stuff,[/quote]I would venture to guess that you say and have said this a lot, throughout your life.

[quote=] so I would concur with Stan on one thing, that you should go have some fun.[/quote]How can anyone have fun in such depressing times?

[quote=] I'll be in BA soon enough myself and am looking forward to it immensely.[/QUOTE]Enjoy, if you can overcome the depressing nature of the world and the deleterious effects that freedom has had on it.

After Democrats having just been "tea bagged" Nancy Pelosi has announced she's running for Minority Leader in the 112th Congress. I think keeping her in the spotlight as a reminder to the American people of the failed Obama agenda is a wonderful idea. Go Nan Go!

[url]http://www.hindustantimes.com/Irritants-apart-Indo-US-ties-will-endure/H1-Article1-622844.aspx[/url]

Interesting to know your comments on this article.

KABUL (AFP) – The United States is bolstering its presence in Afghanistan with a 500 million dollar expansion of its Kabul embassy and the construction of two consulates, it announced Wednesday.

Washington's Kabul embassy is already its biggest in the world, with about 1,100 employees, projected to rise to 1,200 by the end of the year, officials said.

Hundreds have arrived over the course of this year as part of a "civilian surge" bringing development experts into the country to compliment the military effort already in its 10th year.

Good deal to finally get something done in this country.

Great article.

Doppel- You are correct there are ways in which repeal can happen. I meant it cannot (will not) happen under the current power sharing in Washington. We'll see if/how that changes in 2012.

For anyone who thinks Walleye has even an ounce of credibility, continue reading.

Awhile back, Walleye posted supposed racist statements made by Obama and his wife. When challenged however, he could not provide proof that either of them ever said what he quoted.

More recently, he posted about the cost of Obama's trip to Asia. And then in his last past described my fact checking as 'worthless'. Let's have a look.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 413658]Just heard that the daily expense of his junket to India will be around US$200 million. Per f-cking day!

All in this escapism will likely cost the US taxpayers $1.0B.

Just for a little perspective, that $1.0B could pay a US$50,000 salary to 20,000 currently unemployed workers for the next 12 months.

Tone deaf? [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Just more proof that BHO is in this for someone other than the American public. Further, when you can waste, and there is no denying that this is 100% wasteful spending, $1.0B of Americans' hard-earned money just to hide from your own responsibility you show yourself for the POS that you are.[/QUOTE]Well it turns out this also is false. See the video link below from CNN. Watch how Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann dodges questions on other topics to go off on how Obama's trip is costing taxpayers $200 million a day. Conservative talk show pundits also repeat it, including claims of including 34 warships (Walleye also referenced the warships in another post). But none of these guys apparently checked their sources. Both the White House and the Pentagon claim the costs are wildly exagerrated. This quote in particular from the Pentagon Press Secretary is notable:

[i]"I will take the liberty this time of dismissing as absolutely absurd this notion that somehow we were deploying 10% of the navy, some 34 ships and an aircraft carrier in support of the president's trip to Asia. That's just comical, nothing close to that is being done."[/i]

Debunking the myth: The cost of Obama's trip to Asia
[url]http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/11/05/obama.asia.cost/[/url]

This is just the latest example of countless false statements and stories Walleye has posted, interspersed between his jokes and insults. You would think surely with such an astronomical number for a trip, he would do some fact checking or at least qualify his statements. But nope, he just blindly posts it here as fact, and uses it to slam the President as a "POS".

Readers can judge for themselves the character of such a man, and the credibility of anything he writes.

Back on ignore mode he goes.

[QUOTE=Esten;413830]This is just the latest example of countless false statements and stories Walleye has posted.[/QUOTE]Presented by Esten, the king of liberal spinmesters.

By my count, the score is now...

Wild Walleye: 468 points

Esten: 1 point

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Jackson; 413831]Presented by Esten, the king of liberal spinmesters.

By my count, the score is now.

Wild Walleye: 468 points.

Esten: 1 point.

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]Come on, that's ridiculous! That's really home-court scorekeeping!

Esten,

While I think it possible the current House & Senate could repeal ObamaCare, I agree it is unlikely as Obama will veto it and the required majority at the present time to override the veto is probably not there. That said, the House & Senate only need to withhold the necessary funding to stall it until the 2012 election cycle. I also believe the GOP will force enough bills through both houses which Obama will veto to make him unelectable in 2012 setting the stage for Hillary to run against him splitting the Democrats and setting up a GOP win.

If you did not believe in the 'ruling class' before, surely you must now after the election and Obama's response to the outcome, which was basically 'it not me or my policies, it's the public is too stupid to understand what is good for them'.

Hey Stan, if you are going to Brazil get ready for sticker shock. I spent 3 weeks in Brazil on a job in October and the exchange rate is US$1 to are$1.69 and inflation has been alive and well so things a much more expensive than last year when I was down for three weeks on a job. Still a great country with great people, enjoy.

[QUOTE=Esten; 413830]For anyone who thinks Walleye has even an ounce of credibility, continue reading.

Awhile back, Walleye posted supposed racist statements made by Obama and his wife. When challenged however, he could not provide proof that either of them ever said what he quoted. [/quote]I cited examples. The fact that you are never satisfied with compelling evidence is indicative of your predisposition to your political beliefs over fact.

[quote=]More recently, he posted about the cost of Obama's trip to Asia. And then in his last past described my fact checking as 'worthless'. Let's have a look.[/quote]Thank you for at least quoting me accurately. I was referring to an article that I read on the subject which originated in India with New Delhi TV (which has a bigger audience than the three US majors, combined) which based its estimate upon the president's itinerary, provided by the WH. I no longer am part of the Obama advance team, therefore, I do not have direct access to the payables and receiveables related to the trip.

[quote=]Well it turns out this also is false. See the video link below from CNN.[/quote]I see no reason to place greater value on opinion pieces airing on CNN over other sources of information.

[quote=]Watch how Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann dodges questions on other topics to go off on how Obama's trip is costing taxpayers $200 million a day. Conservative talk show pundits also repeat it, including claims of including 34 warships (Walleye also referenced the warships in another post. But none of these guys apparently checked their sources. Both the White House and the Pentagon claim the costs are wildly exagerrated. This quote in particular from the Pentagon Press Secretary is notable:

"I will take the liberty this time of dismissing as absolutely absurd this notion that somehow we were deploying 10% of the navy, some 34 ships and an aircraft carrier in support of the president's trip to Asia. That's just comical, nothing close to that is being done."[/quote]We are now back to the Clinton Era of parsing, I would be willing to bet that "Wildly exaggerated" is a much smaller margin than one would generally think. Obviously, they didn't "deploy" an carrier group specifically to support this BHO ridiculously, over-the-top spendo-rama. Carrier Strike Group (CSG) deployments are planned years in advance and constantly tweaked to support national defense, based upon available information regarding threats to the US and her interests and are typically for a duration of approximately six months. It would be ludicrous to create a "Deployment" to support a 10-day white-elephant. However, the Pentagon spokesman would be lying if he said that naval assets, including not one, but two carrier strike groups (CSG numbers 9 and 10: USS Abe Lincoln and the Harry S. Truman, already on an existing deployments) have not been redirected to provide close support of the president's trip and are currently off the coast of Mumbai, in the Arabian Sea. While no two carrier strike groups are identical (they are specifically designed to meet the mission) they typically consist of approximately ten ships, including two subs. The Nimitz-class aircraft carriers cost approximately $4.5B to build and the ships complement (that means the number of guys on board) is approximately 5,680. That is just the lead ship of the group, how much do you think it costs to operate such a group? How much do you think it costs to divert two such groups for a week to ten days?

[quote=]This is just the latest example of countless false statements and stories Walleye has posted, interspersed between his jokes and insults. You would think surely with such an astronomical number for a trip, he would do some fact checking or at least qualify his statements. But nope, he just blindly posts it here as fact, and uses it to slam the President as a "POS".

Readers can judge for themselves the character of such a man, and the credibility of anything he writes.

Back on ignore mode he goes.[/QUOTE]That's it, put your head in the sand. Anything you disagree with will disappear. Good luck with that.

By the way, the above cited facts constitute more facts than you have put in all your posts combined.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;413839]Hey Stan, if you are going to Brazil get ready for sticker shock. I spent 3 weeks in Brazil on a job in October and the exchange rate is US$1 to are$1.69 and inflation has been alive and well so things a much more expensive than last year when I was down for three weeks on a job. Still a great country with great people, enjoy.[/QUOTE]OT: Thanks. I still think Brazil is cheaper for me in most ways than Argentina, but it depends on how you do it. In Argentina, I don't like the privados. Never have. I prefer to go to the boliches, mostly Madaho's. That gets expensive because they mark up their drinks to such a great extent. It would be easy to try to cut that cost down, but I'm never down there long and I'd prefer to spend my free time doing what I like, so it's part of doing business.

In Brazil, the drink prices in the termas are next to nothing. The chica fees in the termas are about the same compared to Madaho's chicas. I realize I'm comparing apples to oranges, but my comparison is between what I like to do in both places. As a result, Brazil ends up being cheaper even though things, in general, tend to cost more. They just have a better set-up, in my opinion.

If I was to compare apples to apples, say, a comparison between Madaho's and Cafe Foto, then Argentina would win hands down. But, the chicas at Cafe Foto are an order of magnitude better than anything that exists in any boliche in B A, in my opinion, so that must be included in the mix, as well.

In truth, I'm looking forward to the sticker shock. Well, at least I'm looking forward to the idea of going to a place with stickers on display, unlike here where all the stickers are hidden.

In fairness to my esteemed colleague, Esten, I thought it only appropriate to calibrate my unfounded, reckless postulations (which oddly have almost all been accurate) to his laser-like focus on the issues by revisiting some of his keenest insights. I hope that he will feel free to use his super-fact-checker powers on my posts. To illustrate how 'on point' he tends to be, let's examine the following:

[QUOTE=Esten; 408390]Although it appears the Senate bill will be signed into law, the fix-it package still has to clear the Senate, and the bill must survive the state challenges being planned.

That aside, I must say the events leading up to and including the vote last night have made me very pleased, proud and impressed of Pelosi, Obama and the Democratic party. Since Brown's win in January, they came back and played this thing almost perfectly, with the televised meetings, setting the facts straight and shining the light on Republican lies and fear-mongering, putting together a reconciliation package that addressed budget-related House concerns and stripped out special deals, revised CBO estimates with favorable numbers, Obama's great speech to Dems on Saturday (". We don't just look out for ourselves. We look out for one another.") and the Executive order to address anti-abortion Dem concerns. Brilliant. Like I said before, these are very smart people. It could not have been accomplished otherwise. [/quote]How's that working out for the new minority now?

[quote=]Stan, without going into a point-by-point let me just say I disagree with pretty much everything you said. Your sweeping statement "where everyone is entitled to get something for nothing" sounds like another gross Republican mischaracterization (ie. lie). The vast majority of people will be paying for their insurance, not getting something for free. Especially the rich, which is as it should be. Those who cannot afford health insurance will be helped. Who knows, someday this could be you or one of your children who lost their job, and won't be faced with personal bankruptcy due to medical bills. You'll be glad of this reform then, I'm sure. And your claim that Dems do not have a sincere desire to help the uninsured is utterly obscene, but consistent with right wing cynicism. You have been drinking the Republican kool-aid. [/quote]Right on!

[quote=]Dems ran on a clear platform to reform health care and expand coverage. They were elected. And now they delivered on their campaign promise. [/quote]And now they are in the minority and BHO is on track to be a one-termer with the Senate to fall in 2012, too.

[quote=]20 years from now, this will be seen as a major step forward in US history.[/QUOTE]It is possible. However, if it is repealed, we'll never know.

Please keep illuminating us.

[QUOTE=Esten; 408390]...and stripped out special deals...[/quote]So the Louisiana Purchase, the Cornhusker Kickback and the union exemptions were all removed from the final bill?

This is the first I've heard about that.

[QUOTE=Esten; 408390]...revised CBO estimates with favorable numbers...[/quote]So how are the latest CBO numbers looking now?

[QUOTE=Jackson;413859]So the Louisiana Purchase, the Cornhusker Kickback and the union exemptions were all removed from the final bill? [/quote]Maybe he meant that the nation would come to its senses, kick the left out and repeal the whole f-ing thing, thereby eliminating all of the above.

[quote]=So how are the latest CBO numbers looking now?[/QUOTE]While we're at it, maybe you could sum up all the rate hikes (AARP the latest to do so) and explain how paying more for health care actually means we are paying less for health care.

It is really too bad for the newly departed Dems in congress that they didn't actually read the legislation. Had they, they would have seen the following on the very last page: "If you are dumb enough or corrupt enough to vote for this, the voters will throw you out of office"

Republicans have a rare opportunity given to them by, of all people, Barack Obama. The deficit reduction commission has issued its initial draft. [url]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703805004575606643067587042.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read[/url]

Democrats hate it. Republicans aren't fond of it. The best quote comes from Senator Dick Durbin (D IL)_ In saying he wouldn't vote for it, he added: "there are things in there that I hate like the devil hates holy water." Well put. He's comparing himself to the devil and the plan to holy water. A rare spot of candor from a Democrat. Couldn't have put it better myself.

There are conservative critics as well, but they are the partisan special interests that must be ignored. Business tax breaks get eliminated and, in return, the corporate tax rate and individual tax rates get reduced, and the mortgage interest deduction goes by the wayside. These are all things that the Republican party should be able to live with.

The deficit reduction committee will never vote to approve this draft or anything like it, and they are unlikely to get 14 votes to approve any plan before they adjourn. I guarantee you that there are Obama operatives right now working behind the scenes to ensure that they have at least five of the 18 members who will not approve. There's no reason for Republicans to wait. They need to start getting this ready for the next Congress now. Take this draft and start fleshing out the details within the confines of the draft. Get it up for a vote. Make Democrats reject the plan from the commission that their own party leader established. There's a possibility that the Senate wouldn't be able to muster enough votes to kill it, assuming it gets past filibuster. But, ANY result there would be favorable: It either passes or it puts the lie to Democrats' claims that they are interested in anything other than spending to increase dependency and buy votes. If they filibuster it to death or refuse to even put it up, the American public will crucify them next election. There are at least 23 Democratic Senators who are well aware of that, and who are up for re-election in two years.

If it passes the Senate, it goes to Obama. He would be hard pressed to refuse to sign it, although I suspect he could not bring himself to actually sign his name to legislation that takes 10% from the federal Democrat union workforce. He will squirm; he will hold his nose; he will choke; he will go visit other countries. But, he either signs it or the emperor has no clothes next election. Either way, it's a win.

According to Forbes, the US has the most billionaires, while Singapore has the most millionaires (how did that happen).

According to my own statistics, if you were to check everybodys' pockets / wallets / handbags / underwear (population. 12 million, you would find that everybody in Zimbawe is at least a millionaire, billionaire or even trillionaire.

So much misinformation everywhere! Can't believe all the BS we have to deal with, O'Reilly, Olberman, everyone with an agenda. Good news, with the promise that we are printing even more money, you and I could soon be enjoying new monetary status. Imagine paying $10, 000 for a hamburger, I guarantee it, it will taste better. You still don't believe me! I drove a Lamborghini (I hope I spell that correctly) once, and my dick grew an extra five inches. Of course, adding that to the original 3 inches still make my dick smaller than some of you guys. By the way, I have retain those inches despite not owning a car anymore!

Suffering in Bangkok, and wishing I was in BA

[QUOTE=Stan Da Man;413899]The deficit reduction commission has issued its initial draft.[/quote]Stan, don't be fooled by this flaming piece of shit, it doesn't reduce anything. In fact it raises both spending and taxes to historical high percentages of GDP. This thind is a red herring. It is no coincidence that it was delivered early, which just so happens to coincide with Obama being on the other side of the planet, bowing to yet another leader. When was the last time something being created in Washington was delivered ahead of schedule?

This is not by any stretch of the imagination a plan for deficit reduction rather it is the codification of the nanny state.

[quote=]The deficit reduction committee will never vote to approve this draft or anything like it, and they are unlikely to get 14 votes to approve any plan before they adjourn. I guarantee you that there are Obama operatives right now working behind the scenes to ensure that they have at least five of the 18 members who will not approve. There's no reason for Republicans to wait. They need to start getting this ready for the next Congress now. Take this draft and start fleshing out the details within the confines of the draft. Get it up for a vote.[/quote]It is Obama that will seek to harvest from this POS things such as means testing social security, raising taxes and eliminating the mortgage interest deduction (you think we have a soft real estate market now? Just wait) and other gems.

Do not be fooled, this group and its findings are phony and do not do anything to reduce anything, especially government.

[quote=] Make Democrats reject the plan from the commission that their own party leader established. There's a possibility that the Senate wouldn't be able to muster enough votes to kill it, assuming it gets past filibuster. But, ANY result there would be favorable: It either passes or it puts the lie to Democrats' claims that they are interested in anything other than spending to increase dependency and buy votes. If they filibuster it to death or refuse to even put it up, the American public will crucify them next election. There are at least 23 Democratic Senators who are well aware of that, and who are up for re-election in two years.[/quote]Right strategy, wrong bone to fight over. The new congress should take a machete to the Fed government and reduce real expenditures by 15% over the next 10 years and riff at least 200K federal employees.

[quote=]If it passes the Senate, it goes to Obama. He would be hard pressed to refuse to sign it, although I suspect he could not bring himself to actually sign his name to legislation that takes 10% from the federal Democrat union workforce. He will squirm; he will hold his nose; he will choke; he will go visit other countries. But, he either signs it or the emperor has no clothes next election. Either way, it's a win.[/QUOTE]It doesn't do any such thing (take 10% from federal unions, this is a 'head fake' and all I can say is don't buy it. We need to justify every last program and cut everything that isn't critical.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;413902]Stan, don't be fooled by this flaming piece of shit, it doesn't reduce anything. In fact it raises both spending and taxes to historical high percentages of GDP. This thind is a red herring. It is no coincidence that it was delivered early, which just so happens to coincide with Obama being on the other side of the planet, bowing to yet another leader. When was the last time something being created in Washington was delivered ahead of schedule? [/QUOTE]I think you need to take a closer look:

The plan hasn't been delivered ahead of schedule. The commission hasn't even voted. This [i]draft[/i] Wasn't scheduled to be released. It is just a draft. As I made clear in my post, there's no reason to await the final plan. It either won't get approved or it will be so watered down as to be useless.

The draft plan calls for bringing spending to 21% of GDP, which is in line with historical norms, not a historical high percentage:

[i]Specifically, the plan calls for limiting growth in total federal health spending (Medicare, Medicaid, the health care law) to a rate of GDP-growth plus one percent. It also calls for bringing all spending down to 21 percent of GDP and capping revenue at that same level. Meanwhile Medicare costs are soaring and the government is about to add many billions in revenue and spending to its ledger when the health care law's main provisions take effect. That would mean, according to economists, that the law would either have to change significantly, or it would have to go. [/i]

[url]http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/deficit-reduction-plan-would-imperil-health-care-reform.php[/url]

As the last sentence in the above quote illustrates, the draft doesn't directly address ObamaCare. No one could rightly expect that it would. But, it indirectly affects it by capping spending, essentially gutting the measure. What better vehicle for ridding the country of ObamaCare than the draft plan proposed by Obama's own blue ribbon commission? It is a perfect vehicle for starters, and that's the point. Use this as the initial vehicle.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 413902]This is not by any stretch of the imagination a plan for deficit reduction rather it is the codification of the nanny state.

It is Obama that will seek to harvest from this POS things such as means testing social security, raising taxes and eliminating the mortgage interest deduction (you think we have a soft real estate market now? Just wait) and other gems.

Do not be fooled, this group and its findings are phony and do not do anything to reduce anything, especially government.

Right strategy, wrong bone to fight over. The new congress should take a machete to the Fed government and reduce real expenditures by 15% over the next 10 years and riff at least 200K federal employees.

It doesn't do any such thing (take 10% from federal unions, this is a 'head fake' and all I can say is don't buy it. We need to justify every last program and cut everything that isn't critical. [/QUOTE]Whether you like it or not, means testing for social security is coming. Anyone with enough money to get disqualified due to means testing should already have figured that out. It's the same thought process anyone should go through when thinking about contributing to a 401k. All the experts will tell you it's a good idea because you can defer your tax obligation. What they don't tell you is what the tax rate will be when you start to draw on those funds. Of course, they can't know that. But, commonsense tells you that effective tax rates have not gone down historically. There are up and down blips, but the trend is unmistakeable since the income tax was introduced. For that reason, a Roth makes sense. But, introducing that concept into retirement planning is an obvious prelude to means testing social security. Be prepared for it. It's coming.

As far as eliminating the mortgage interest deduction, I can live with that. I don't know if the draft includes particulars, but I highly doubt that the proposal is to eliminate the mortgage interest deduction entirely on day 1. More likely it would be phased in, which means it would only gradually affect the property market. The time to do that is now, not when we have another bubble. The point is to reduce the overall rate and strip out the special exemptions. I've got no problem with that. I guarantee you I pay more than most in interest and, thus, stand to lose more. In fact, I'm above the cap on a fictional $1 million mortgage, so I end up deducting the absolute maximum allowed. I have no problem giving that up if they roll back the highest rates and make more people participate in the tax system at [i]all[/i] Levels. That's the key. Right now, an average family of four making $50, 000 pays no taxes and actually gets more in fed tax dollars back. That has to stop. Once folks are forced to pay into the system, at any level, they will start to focus on what the government is doing with [i]their[/i] Money. As matters stand right now, a near majority are simply part of the dependency state. They pay nothing.

You say you "don't buy it" about reducing the federal workforce by 10% and, instead, that Congress should "riff" 200, 000 federal jobs immediately. Including the post office, the federal workforce is about 2. 6 million. A 10% cut, as proposed, is 260, 000 federal employees.

Finally, you say that this is a "head fake". It will be if they wait for the final plan from this commission. That either will never exist or will be meaningless. My point, as I indicated earlier, is that Republicans should take this jointly-prepared draft, work up their own plan within the confines of this draft, and then bring it forward. It won't be a "head fake" at that point. And, as long as they stay within the confines of the draft, the pedigree always can be traced to the commission Obama created by executive order. It's an utterly defensible position. This plan is based on [i]your[/i] Commission's draft. Sign it or explain why you won't to the American people.

I would suggest that you look at this plan more closely. There is pain for both sides of the aisle. Without that, it wouldn't be credible. But, all the weeping and gnashing of teeth going on over the particulars is coming from the left. The best proof that this is no head fake comes from the biggest economist idiot on the planet, Paul Krugman of the New York Times. He hates it. [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/opinion/12krugman.html[/url] Therefore, it has to be pretty good.

If Republicans are smart, they will take this draft and run with it. No way Obama can support it. The items you mention are [i]mere parts[/i] Of their recommendations (not including means testing) but that doesn't mean anything. He won't be able to use support for tax increases and deduction limitations as a fig leaf. He either gets behind the [i]whole package[/i], which Republicans have the opportunity to craft, or he is made to look the fool that he is. Either way, Republicans win.

[QUOTE=Stan the Man; 413906]I think you need to take a closer look:

The plan hasn't been delivered ahead of schedule. The commission hasn't even voted. This [i]draft[/i] Wasn't scheduled to be released. It is just a draft. [/quote]Stan, this is Obama's panel. They held a public airing of their findings, while the president was in Indonesia. They wouldn't take a crap without the say so of BHO. This was a deliberate, advance publication of their findings timed to go public while the president was away so that he can try to claim that they are independent and not beholden to him.

[quote=] As I made clear in my post, there's no reason to await the final plan. [/quote]Agreed, there never will be one.

[quote=]It either won't get approved or it will be so watered down as to be useless.[/quote]The purpose is and always has been to create a boogie man, third party that says "we have to raise taxes, we have to secure entitlements, we have to reduce defense spending, and on and on" whereby Obama and Pelosi and Reid can ram it through congress on force it on the people. Wait a minute, with the election results, Pelosi is no longer a player. Hopefully, that makes this thing DOA.

[quote=]The draft plan calls for bringing spending to 21% of GDP, which is in line with historical norms, not a historical high percentage:[/quote]False. Federal spending as a percentage of GDP did not move permanently above 20% until the effects of Nixon's misguided social programs kicked in circa 1975.

[quote=][i]Specifically, the plan calls for limiting growth in total federal health spending (Medicare, Medicaid, the health care law) to a rate of GDP-growth plus one percent.[/quote]Therefore, growth in spending on these programs will always exceed the rate of growth in national production. If GDP grows 25% over 10 years, then federal spending on these programs grows 35. Isn't this the kind of math that got us into this problem in the first place?

[quote=] It also calls for bringing all spending down to 21 percent of GDP and capping revenue at that same level.[/quote]This and the prior citation regarding ever-expanding entitlements would mutually exclusive events. The only way you could delay the inevitable would be to eviscerate defense in order to fund social programs. Since that is the whole idea of this panel and the left in general, we shouldn't be surprised.

[quote=]Meanwhile Medicare costs are soaring and the government is about to add many billions in revenue and spending to its ledger when the health care law's main provisions take effect. That would mean, according to economists, that the law would either have to change significantly, or it would have to go. [/i][/quote]Me thinks Big Ears ain't going to sign the legislation that repeals his signature assault on the US.

[quote=][url]http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/deficit-reduction-plan-would-imperil-health-care-reform.php[/url]

As the last sentence in the above quote illustrates, the draft doesn't directly address ObamaCare. No one could rightly expect that it would. [/quote]That's ok. The voters addressed health care for the second time on election day. You remember the first time? When the population said "don't do it" to Pelosi and friends. Seems like the voters wanted to get their message across.

[quote=]But, it indirectly affects it by capping spending, essentially gutting the measure. What better vehicle for ridding the country of ObamaCare than the draft plan proposed by Obama's own blue ribbon commission? It is a perfect vehicle for starters, and that's the point. Use this as the initial vehicle.[/quote]I like the way you think on this one, give him a metaphorical Haitian necktie with his own tire.

[quote=]Whether you like it or not, means testing for social security is coming. Anyone with enough money to get disqualified due to means testing should already have figured that out. It's the same thought process anyone should go through when thinking about contributing to a 401k. All the experts will tell you it's a good idea because you can defer your tax obligation. What they don't tell you is what the tax rate will be when you start to draw on those funds. Of course, they can't know that. But, commonsense tells you that effective tax rates have not gone down historically. There are up and down blips, but the trend is unmistakeable since the income tax was introduced. For that reason, a Roth makes sense. But, introducing that concept into retirement planning is an obvious prelude to means testing social security. Be prepared for it. It's coming.[/quote]How about making qualified retirement distributions tax free?

[quote=]As far as eliminating the mortgage interest deduction, I can live with that. I don't know if the draft includes particulars, but I highly doubt that the proposal is to eliminate the mortgage interest deduction entirely on day 1. More likely it would be phased in, which means it would only gradually affect the property market.[/quote]I believe that the initial effort would be to disallow interest on more than $500K, which would further destroy the real estate market. The goal of the left of course would be to eliminate it completely.

Of course the only way to really make taxes 'fair' would be to eliminate all deductions and make it a flat tax for everyone.

[quote=]The time to do that is now, not when we have another bubble.[/quote]I'd have to disagree. Further raising taxes in the midst of one of the nations longest recessions and with the largest potential tax hike in history looming in the not-too-distant-future seems to be a poor idea, in my opinion.

[quote=]The point is to reduce the overall rate and strip out the special exemptions. I've got no problem with that. I guarantee you I pay more than most in interest and, thus, stand to lose more. In fact, I'm above the cap on a fictional $1 million mortgage, so I end up deducting the absolute maximum allowed. I have no problem giving that up if they roll back the highest rates and make more people participate in the tax system at [i]all[/i] Levels.[/quote]That'll be the day.

[quote=] That's the key. Right now, an average family of four making $50, 000 pays no taxes and actually gets more in fed tax dollars back. That has to stop. Once folks are forced to pay into the system, at any level, they will start to focus on what the government is doing with [i]their[/i] Money. As matters stand right now, a near majority are simply part of the dependency state. They pay nothing.[/quote]And how does the panel's report address that?

[quote=]You say you "don't buy it" about reducing the federal workforce by 10% and, instead, that Congress should "riff" 200, 000 federal jobs immediately. Including the post office, the federal workforce is about 2. 6 million. A 10% cut, as proposed, is 260, 000 federal employees.[/quote]I mean, do it tomorrow. A Washington plan to reduce Govt headcount by 260k means to reduce potential new hires by 260k, after inflating planned new hires by 260k.

[quote=]Finally, you say that this is a "head fake". It will be if they wait for the final plan from this commission. That either will never exist or will be meaningless.[/quote]"They" the new House of Reps has got its marching orders directly from the people. They should not in any way allow BHO or his minions to interpret that message for them.

[quote=]My point, as I indicated earlier, is that Republicans should take this jointly-prepared draft, work up their own plan within the confines of this draft, and then bring it forward. It won't be a "head fake" at that point. And, as long as they stay within the confines of the draft, the pedigree always can be traced to the commission Obama created by executive order. It's an utterly defensible position. This plan is based on [i]your[/i] Commission's draft. Sign it or explain why you won't to the American people.[/quote]I don't disagree with your logic. However, when you are entering into a contract with another party over something that is extremely valuable, do you let the other guy's attorney draw up the first draft? I don't. I never will.

[quote=]I would suggest that you look at this plan more closely. There is pain for both sides of the aisle. Without that, it wouldn't be credible. But, all the weeping and gnashing of teeth going on over the particulars is coming from the left.[/quote]The new House should not compromise on its principles. If you are willing to compromise your principles, what have you got left?

[quote=] The best proof that this is no head fake comes from the biggest economist idiot on the planet, Paul Krugman of the New York Times. He hates it. [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/opinion/12krugman.html[/url] Therefore, it has to be pretty good.[/quote]Again, I like how you think. However, when presented with two ponies, one nice clean pony and the other buried somewhere under a gigantic pile of shit, I chose the clean pony.

[quote=]If Republicans are smart, they will take this draft and run with it. No way Obama can support it. The items you mention are [i]mere parts[/i] Of their recommendations (not including means testing) but that doesn't mean anything. He won't be able to use support for tax increases and deduction limitations as a fig leaf. He either gets behind the [i]whole package[/i], which Republicans have the opportunity to craft, or he is made to look the fool that he is. Either way, Republicans win.[/QUOTE]They should cherry pick it to support their own reforms and throw it in his face at every opportunity. However, they should not engage on the draft or it progeny. They should start fresh and lay waste to...err... Waste.

[QUOTE=Jackson; 413831]Presented by Esten, the king of liberal spinmesters.

By my count, the score is now.

Wild Walleye: 468 points.

Esten: 1 point[/QUOTE]Dear Jackson,

No doubt wearing your moderator hat you felt my claim of "countless false statements" from Walleye was exaggerated.

In a [i]literal[/i] sense, as in the number of stars in the sky or grains of sand on the beach, the word countless here is incorrect.

However, in the sense of [i]so many times that one loses count[/i], it is accurate. And I can easily give you an idea of the scale involved.

Please see my post from Oct. 14 for two specific racist statements Walleye "quoted" of Obama and his wife. Those are false statements #1 and #2. Let's take the one for Obama: Walleye claimed that in his own words Obama said "The typical white person is a racist". I challenged him on Oct. 14 to provide credible evidence of that quoted statement but he ignored it. When I referenced it again on Nov. 7, he responded that he cited examples. That is false statement #3, what he cited were various examples of what he thought made Obama racist, but [i]were not examples/evidence of the quotes[/i] I challenged him on. Regarding the $200M / day cost for Obama's Asia Trip (false statement #4), Walleye calls the CNN story I posted an opinion piece, which is false statement #5. The CNN link has videotape of Pentagon and White House officials clearly refuting the claimed details and costs of Obama's Asia trip. It is therefore an expose, not an opinion piece. BTW, notice how despite the Pentagon saying the claims are comical, Walleye goes off speculating on the military details in defense of his position. Watch the CNN video and judge for yourself.

So what we have is Walleye defending original false statements by more false statements, denial and deflection. With just the above examples alone, one can see how his false statements multiply quickly. And how over the course of months one could easily lose count.

Let's go back to that quote again.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;413036]-his own words: "The typical white person is a racist"[/QUOTE]I'll be in town soon, and would gladly treat Jackson to an evening at Black including drinks and the chica of his choice. For this to happen though, the above quote must be proven as fact. It doesn't matter who provides the proof, all takers welcome. The only requirement is to provide a link with audio evidence of the above quote from Obama as stated, which is not some manufactured or out-of-context contrivance. Walleye has stood firmly by his statements, so surely the proof is out there for the finding.

Fifty years of public service are on the line. I truly believe I'm not being treated fairly," Rangel said."I am entitled to a lawyer during this hearing."

This is pathetic. Rangel has been in public service because he is completely incompetent to operate in the private sector.

He has done nothing while in 'public service' except pad his own pockets.

When are these politicians going to get it into their birdbrain minds that we despise them for being corrupt, incompetent and having the brains of a mushroom.

[QUOTE=El Alamo; 413943]Rangel said."I am entitled to a lawyer during this hearing."[/QUOTE]He is a complete simpleton and a criminal. He knows damn well that he is entitle to a lawyer and he has known that for two and a half years (at least) since this case began.

It was Rangel himself, and only himself, that decided to show up today without an attorney. I'd like to see the receipts for the $2 million he reportedly paid the attorney that left him.

But he should want this to go fast when you get this kind of reception from the prosecutor:

Chisam said "I see no evidence of corruption" by Rangel, but rather, that the congressman was "overzealous" and "sloppy in his personal finances."

If he doesn't get this resolved before the end of the lame duck session, he'll be a dead duck.

[QUOTE=Esten; 413910]Dear Jackson,

No doubt wearing your moderator hat you felt my claim of "countless false statements" from Walleye was exaggerated.

In a [i]literal[/i] Sense, as in the number of stars in the sky or grains of sand on the beach, the word countless here is incorrect.

However, in the sense of [i]so many times that one loses count[/i], it is accurate. And I can easily give you an idea of the scale involved.

Please see my post from Oct. 14 for two specific racist statements Walleye "quoted" of Obama and his wife. Those are false statements #1 and #2. Let's take the one for Obama: Walleye claimed that in his own words Obama said "The typical white person is a racist". I challenged him on Oct. 14 to provide credible evidence of that quoted statement but he ignored it. When I referenced it again on Nov. 7, he responded that he cited examples. That is false statement #3, what he cited were various examples of what he thought made Obama racist, but [i]were not examples / evidence of the quotes[/i] I challenged him on. [/quote]Up until you and your fellow Marxists complete your destruction of the Constitution and impose totalitarian rule, I am entitled to my opinions and the right to voice those opinions. Again, until you and your Peoples' Army succeed in oppressing me, I can have and express those opinions and I do not have to support why I have them. Ain't America great?

But in the interest of proving you wrong, for the # time (I lost count there have been so many, I shall continue. I clearly stated that I believe Obama and his wife are racists. I further supported those opinions by citing quotes from Obama's books and a paraphrase of his "typical white person" on radio interview (610am WIP. In addition to those, there is a myriad of statements made by Obama that I believe support my position including those he made about the "stupid" white cops who arrested Prof. Skippy Gates in Cambridge. Further, they attended Wright's church for how many years? Baptized both of their daughters? A church founded on vilification and hatred of whites and they never heard any of it? Wow. I don't believe them (again, still my right until you take over.

From Dreams of my Father, by Barrack Hussein Obama:

'I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites'

'There were enough of us on campus to constitute a tribe, and when it came to hanging out many of us chose to function like a tribe, staying close together, traveling in packs, ' he wrote. 'It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names'

Commenting about one of his bosses:

'There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white. '

Upon learning that some of his grandfather's people worked for whites:

'ugly words flashed across my mind, uncle tom, collaborator, House and—-'

'I found solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race'

As for Michelle, my opinion is based upon seeing many interviews of her and reading numerous articles.

[quote=] Regarding the $200M / day cost for Obama's Asia Trip (false statement #4), Walleye calls the CNN story I posted an opinion piece, which is false statement #5. The CNN link has videotape of Pentagon and White House officials clearly refuting the claimed details and costs of Obama's Asia trip. It is therefore an expose, not an opinion piece. BTW, notice how despite the Pentagon saying the claims are comical, Walleye goes off speculating on the military details in defense of his position. Watch the CNN video and judge for yourself.[/quote]I posted the original link to the source story. The fact that the Pentagon flak described the number as "comical" doesn't mean anything. They called the Vietnam War a 'Police Action. ' Wait a minute, why is Esten putting his full faith and trust in the US military. That seems odd.

[quote=]So what we have is Walleye defending original false statements by more false statements, denial and deflection. With just the above examples alone, one can see how his false statements multiply quickly. And how over the course of months one could easily lose count.[/quote]I can see why you'd lose count around three.

[quote=]I'll be in town soon, and would gladly treat Jackson to an evening at Black including drinks and the chica of his choice. For this to happen though, the above quote must be proven as fact. It doesn't matter who provides the proof, all takers welcome. The only requirement is to provide a link with audio evidence of the above quote from Obama as stated, which is not some manufactured or out-of-context contrivance. Walleye has stood firmly by his statements, so surely the proof is out there for the finding.[/QUOTE]Click here. Jax, I hope you enjoy it.

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abPQ9kZe3ZA[/url]

Racism is like a latent virus awaiting for conditions when they will instinctly appear, often, hidden under confusing symptoms.

Yes, it is true that in a politically correct world, you will hear statements like,"I don't have a racist bone in my body" or "I have many black / white friends', in challenging economic times like right now, the racism virus is very active, albeit, sometimes without even the individual being aware of it. A clear example is in Europe, where there has been racist chants against black soccer players in many countries. The Inter star, Eto'o recently had to endured it in Italy. I have to believe that it is because of the heavy influx of black players in the European leagues rather than the 1 or 2 stars that participated in the past.

In the US, we have made great headway in regard to equality, the reaction has created even some overcompensation.

Somebody (not me) said, When Obama became president, the trouble began. Well, you must look through your own prism. For sure, I know I have some prejudices and biases. When we are rich and prosperous, and can afford to be generous, we are often magnanimous. A perfect example would be the illegal immigration issue, a non issue until the manufacturing jobs went overseas. I have often wonder why did the American factories went to China rather than Mexico. We could have kill quite a few birds with 1 stone.

I hesistate to write this, but feel that some self examination is in order in this challenging climate.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt; 413956]A perfect example would be the illegal immigration issue, a non issue until the manufacturing jobs went overseas. I have often wonder why did the American factories went to China rather than Mexico. We could have kill quite a few birds with 1 stone.

I hesistate to write this, but feel that some self examination is in order in this challenging climate. [/QUOTE]Talk to the garment manufacturers who began shipping their work to Mexico 20 years ago. There are many companies who have moved manufacturing to Mexico. When you start to understand the problems they have had, then you will understand why other manufacturing went to China.

There are many who want to see racism in every nook and cranny. Even when it's not there, they claim it exists and that people don't even know they are being racist. In my opinion, it is this sentiment that is the most destructive. It breeds far more mistrust than actual racism. The notion that manufacturing went somewhere for any reason other than pure economics is a great example of this. The only color large corporations see is green when thinking about making a big investment such as where to manufacture.

I know it when I see it.

To be clear, Esten was not calling me a racist, he was chiding me to support my opinion that the Obamas are racists. I don't think that blackshirt was either, I believe he was commenting on the politics of race. A subject I find intriguing and revolting at the same time.

In my opinion, the Obamas are the pots calling the kettles black, if you will. While they and their supporters use the race card every time someone disagrees with them, I do not believe that race and / or racism plays much of a role in the average day of most Americans. That isn't to say that there is no racism in America but, there is a lot less than the Left would have you believe. In fact, if the Left didn't fan the flames in every election cycle, I believe that race would be a non-factor in the day-to-day lives of most all Americans. The liberal left is obsessed with race for many reasons including their own 'white guilt' and other intangible aspects of the liberal mind set. Because the 'black vote' has been a mainstay of their base for nearly 80 years they can't afford to lose the black vote or they will never hold national office. Keep in mind that the voting rights act of '65 and all most all other significant race-based human rights advances in the US came from Republicans in Congress and the White House.

You wouldn't be surprised if I told you the blacks tended to vote for republicans, following the Civil War. Hard to see why a black voter would go Democrat during that period, especially since it was made very clear that blacks were not welcome in the democrat party. In fact, it wasn't until 1924 that blacks could even attend a Democrat convention. Soon thereafter, FDR collected around 70% of the black vote in '32 and again in '36. However, when Truman garnered 77% of the black vote in 1948, the shift became permanent (at least up to present time)

Black voter participation, as a percentage of all voters tends to be approximately proportionate to the percentage of Americans who are black. 11. 6% and 13. 28, respectively for 2000. In 2000, that means that almost 13 million black Americans voted. Without the bounds of race and one would expect that the ideological (liberal, conservative, moderate) breakdown of that subset of voters would be consistent with the breakdown of all voters. For 2000, voters identified themselves as 19% liberal. 38% conservative and 40% moderate. Therefore, if there was no race, one could surmise that the 13 million 'black vote' would translate into a net gain of roughly 2. 7 million republican votes (assuming that the moderates split 50/50) . If you will, consider presidential elections from Clinton v. Bush to BHO v. McLame and the contemporaneous Congressional battles. Now look at those races assuming that there was no racial difference among American voters (everybody is pink polka dotted) and what do you think that the resulting composition of the national political body would be?

Would we have had an internet boom and bust? Probably. Would we have had the Fannie / Freddie / Bernie / Chrissie (Dodd) induced real estate bubble and the global economic meltdown that it instigated? Probably not. That is not to say that there may not have been an asset bubble (real estate bubble in the late 80's, for example) but, there would not have been a subprime crisis. Neither the race of the populace nor the race of any member of the populace is to blame; it is to say that the politics of race as practiced by American politicians (primarily from the Left) is responsible. Race is front and center on the American stage because Race, based on the politics of race, is a multi-billion dollar industry that feeds the parasitic, human-remoras that dine on the flesh tossed aside by their politico benefactors and is the source of approximately 8. 2 million democrat votes in every presidential cycle, regardless of the candidate.

I'm just calling a spade a spade.

Footnote: before you get your panties in a wad, the phrase was coined in 178BC and first translated into English around 1542 and refers to a type of shovel.

[QUOTE=Stan the Man; 413965]Talk to the garment manufacturers who began shipping their work to Mexico 20 years ago. There are many companies who have moved manufacturing to Mexico. When you start to understand the problems they have had, then you will understand why other manufacturing went to China.

There are many who want to see racism in every nook and cranny. Even when it's not there, they claim it exists and that people don't even know they are being racist. In my opinion, it is this sentiment that is the most destructive. It breeds far more mistrust than actual racism. The notion that manufacturing went somewhere for any reason other than pure economics is a great example of this. The only color large corporations see is green when thinking about making a big investment such as where to manufacture. [/QUOTE]Yes, racism has been and continiues to be used as a tool to further agendas, and most Americans have been scarred by the blatant use of the racism card in the politcal arena.

Yes, I was being a little misleading about the factories in Mexico / China. My point is that in harsh economic times, racism will rear its ugly head. A good example will be the riosts in Indonesia following the financial crisis and subsequent devaluation in 1997 when mobs took to the streets looking to kill / maim / rape the ethnic Chinese minority (often referred to as the Jews of Asia.

You will never find a soul who will admit to being a racist. Here, I am talking more about sutle rather than blatant racism. Sometimes, it can be just prejudice. That is why so many people get caught making some off-hand remarks without even realizing what they said. And they don't necessary have to be bad people. Just ask Jimmy the Greek. We can always claim to be color blind until your / mine daughter decides she is going to marry? Then, all hell break loose.

Just ask any Survivor. The economic repercussions of the great depression were innumerable and in many ways undefinable for the average person. Hitler seized on this by focusing discontent on a specific enemy, the Jew.

As far as manufacturing goes, in free markets, it is largely a function of marginal productivity.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt; 413969]Yes, racism has been and continiues to be used as a tool to further agendas, and most Americans have been scarred by the blatant use of the racism card in the politcal arena.

Yes, I was being a little misleading about the factories in Mexico / China. My point is that in harsh economic times, racism will rear its ugly head. A good example will be the riosts in Indonesia following the financial crisis and subsequent devaluation in 1997 when mobs took to the streets looking to kill / maim / rape the ethnic Chinese minority (often referred to as the Jews of Asia.

You will never find a soul who will admit to being a racist. Here, I am talking more about sutle rather than blatant racism. Sometimes, it can be just prejudice. That is why so many people get caught making some off-hand remarks without even realizing what they said. And they don't necessary have to be bad people. Just ask Jimmy the Greek. We can always claim to be color blind until your / mine daughter decides she is going to marry? Then, all hell break loose. [/QUOTE]

The whole Rangel hearing was a coordinated theatrical production. If you ask me, Lofgren and the rest of the Dems were all in on it. The fix was in from the start. The worst thing for the Dems would be having Charlie trying to defend himself and seeing his gaffes over and over on cable news. Therefore, I believe that they came up with the "I don't got no lawyer" scenario whereby they all get what they want. If Charlie doesn't testify, the committee promises to only consider censure or reprimand. Charlie can keep whining to the press that it was a travesty of justice and that he was denied due process (I think two and a half years is probably adequate notice to line up an attorney. Lofgren and the Dems on the committee can preen about throwing the book at Charlie (convicted on 11 out of 13 counts) and the Dems as a whole are spared the spectacle of Charlie lying some more on video. The fact that he will only get reprimand or censure is offensive. If joe-q-public did what he did, there would be jail time in the sentence.

Next up, Maxi-pad. She should do the same no-show. Great job draining the swamp Nancy. Looks like the voters will have to keep on doing it for you. 2012 might make 2010 look like a good year for the Dems. Two years is a lifetime in politics so it's too early to say, but if the Dems keep going the way that they are, bye bye Senate, bye bye WH.

Jay Rockerfeller wants to shut down MSNBC and Fox news. What a great idea. We get rid of the one news outlet that has a conservative point of view (Fox News) and we get rid of one of the of hundreds of news outlets that are hard core lefties / loonies (MSNBC). What would we be left with? Hundreds of news outlets that are hardcore lefties / loonies.

I think we have found Nestor Kirshner's twin in Jay Rockerfeller.

House Dems Reject GOP Proposal to Defund NPR.

House Democrats on Thursday rejected a GOP proposal to cut federal funding to National Public Radio, which has been under fire ever since it sacked Juan Williams last month.

NPR praised the outcome, saying "good judgment prevailed as Congress rejected a move to assert government control over the content of news."

"I think this can be resolved", says Nancy Pelosi. "since NPR is about as non political as Rush Limbaugh we should give equal public funding to Rush."

Looks like Jackson's all-paid evening at Black is not to be. Though I don't think anyone is surprised.

Walleye posted the link to the radio interview with Obama, which I previously knew as the source of the quote in question. As one can listen for themselves, the actual quote is not to be found in the interview.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;413951]I further supported those opinions by citing quotes from Obama's books and a paraphrase of his "typical white person" on radio interview (610am WIP. [/QUOTE]Now it's a paraphrase. As in, not something Obama actually said. It's really IMO more of a distortion than a paraphrase.

But remember, Walleye had presented this as an actual quote of Obama in his own words.

Now it's proven to be untrue.

[QUOTE=El Alamo; 414007]Jay Rockerfeller wants to shut down MSNBC and Fox news. What a great idea. We get rid of the one news outlet that has a conservative point of view (Fox News) and we get rid of one of the of hundreds of news outlets that are hard core lefties / loonies (MSNBC. What would we be left with? Hundreds of news outlets that are hardcore lefties / loonies.

I think we have found Nestor Kirshner's twin in Jay Rockerfeller. [/QUOTE]Is about as dumb as a bag of rocks. This dipshit has never done anything on his own, he has merely traded on his family name for his entire life. What is even sadder is that this parasite has been living off of the American tax payer for 25+ years when he can afford to pay for his own gluttony and flatulence.

This is a typical bargaining ploy that almost never works. But, as Wayne Gretzky's dad used to say "100% of the shots you don't take, don't go in" You try to show how objective you are by offering to do that which you ask of your opponent. Get rid of Fox and we'll match you with a similar, liberal broadcast network."Oops, there aren't any similar liberal broadcast networks so, let us select a substitute. How about this flaming piece of shit over here in exchange for your bag of diamonds?"

Obama is finally admitting that recovery from this recession / depression will be slow and that this recession / depression will be with us for an extended period of time.

I think my dog Rocky could have told Obama that 2 years ago. Wasting trillions (what number come after a trillion) of dollars on make believe, beaurcratic, mumble jumble jobs which do not have the ability to add even a paper clip to the economy is the height of stupidity.

Maybe Obama can export his economic miracle to Zimbabwe. It goes like this. Hire tens of millions of people to sit at desks, doing nothing except collecting paychecks that make their currency everyday more worthless. Then periodically state that, thanks to his uncanny understanding of economics, the recovery is just around the corner.

Keep this up for several decades because that is how long this recession will last if we don't put a leash on Obama.

And as far as Zimbabwe goes. Even they had more sense than to listen to Obama.

[url]http://www.politico.com/click/stories/1011/lady_gaga_tells_senators_end_dadt.html[/url]

I hope it gets repealed.

I and many many people who served in the US military and are serving now do not want the policy to be repealed. It will have a significant effect on troop morale and thus impact readiness in a negative way. BTW, who cares what Lady Gaga thinks?

Stinger

[QUOTE=Stinger; 414231]BTW, who cares what Lady Gaga thinks?

Stinger[/QUOTE]I second that. It is beyond me why any celebrity is arrogant enough to believe that their opinion on politics matters more than any other average Joe's opinion. If they want to campaign on an issue, let them run for office. Yet, they are this arrogant. And, sadly, stupid people pay attention to them.