BS: 2012 Presidential Election

Subject: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Wesley S
Date: 16 Mar 11 - 07:45 PM

I'm going to go out on a limb here and now and predict that Barack Obama will win the American presidential election in 2012. He'll keep moving his platform toward the center to appeal to as many people as possible. His opponents will go stark raving bonkers - and that will drive more moderates to his camp. And he's still the best speech giver and campaigner out there. And if the tea party tries to run their own candidate that will just cinch the election for Obama.

However - you may have a different opinion about all of this.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Mar 11 - 07:47 PM

The Republicans need a really heavy ticket
Christy Huckabee

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Justa Picker
Date: 16 Mar 11 - 07:55 PM

Unfortunately you're probably right, and god help your country.
You might have had a chance with Hillary.

I am going to go out on a limb and predict that before Obama is re-elected, your stock market is going to crash; your economy is going to collapse once the world moves away from the US Dollar as the world's reserve currency (which means you won't be able to continue to just print money while artificially keeping your crippled economy afloat and therefore won't be able to sustain or pay your trillions in debt, causing 25% unemployment in the U.S and a total depression world wide) and martial law as well as internment camps will be imposed in the U.S, in an effort to try and curtail the wide spread looting and rioting that will ensue across the entire country.

'Course I could be wrong, but I doubt it.
The writing is clearly on the wall for those who choose to see.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: artbrooks
Date: 16 Mar 11 - 08:59 PM

Gee, and is the sky falling, too? I think you pay too much attention to Fox, Justa.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Amergin
Date: 16 Mar 11 - 09:08 PM

Obama's idea of compromise is to bend over and take it like a prison bitch. Fuck him. I'm not voting for that man again.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Rapparee
Date: 16 Mar 11 - 09:48 PM

There are about 20 months between now and the 2012 election. That's better than 600 days. MUCH could happen between now and then. For example:

* Civil war in China
* A nuclear weapon is exploded in a US or European city
* Deaths or Recalls change the makeup of Congress
* The price of oil goes so high that it becomes economical to develop US oil reserves
* The Middle East re-stabilizes with democracies in Egypt and elsewhere
* North Korea and South Korea make up and become part of the emerging China-India economic powerhouse
* The US/Canada/Europe economies realize how much depends on education

It's way, way, way to early to play the game.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Mar 11 - 10:02 PM

Wow look at all these happy campers all on one forum!


I say we have a UN resolution to vote on an International Economic Reset.

Once we hit the reset button all money owed to Wall St. or individuals with over 1 billion in assets goes to zero.

Problem solved. If any billionaires go postal like a James Bond Villian, we send in James to take them out.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Rapparee
Date: 16 Mar 11 - 10:17 PM

Suppose Obama decides not to run again? That he says, "Screw this, I'm outa here. Y'all can go ta hell in your own way."

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Mar 11 - 10:19 PM

Anything is possible, and it's way too early to make predictions about 2012.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 16 Mar 11 - 10:35 PM

Oh no .... here we go again .... :-{

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Mar 11 - 10:41 PM

Makes no difference.... the world will end 6 weeks after the election...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...maybe ☺

My basic take is that the Republicans have NO serious candidate in sight. Lawrence O'Donnell keeps predicting that Tim Pawlenty is the ONLY one with few enough negatives to have a chance, and he keeps saying silly things. Several Republicans are just in the 'maybe' field to make $$$$$ off speeches and books and donations. Almost any of them are disliked by other Republicans.
   Unless there is a real dark horse out there, or something weird happens, I can't see who they can challenge a well-spoken guy like Obama with.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Mar 11 - 11:01 PM

By then Republican govenors may have alienated so many people with their Soviet style over reach that a dark horse libertarian Tea party person would look centrist in comparison.

Whoa did I just say that?

I wish they would just get Beck and Limbaugh to run already.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Amergin
Date: 16 Mar 11 - 11:56 PM

Everyone will forget to hate republicans by then....and believe some new spin...but then it doesn't matter. Both sides are ruled by the Oligarchy, anyway. It makes voting a moot point.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 12:08 AM

Like Amergin said...both sides are ruled by the Oligarchy.

Obama will be re-elected if things aren't looking quite grim for the economy in the last few months of his term...and if the Oligarchy wants him re-elected.

The Republicans will be elected if things are looking quite grim for the economy in the last few months of his term...and if the Oligarchy wants them elected.

If the Oligarchy doesn't really give a damn which one of them gets elected (which is quite possible), and if things are sort of cruddy but not totally hopeless, then it might go either way! ;-) In that case you can have an exciting and nailbiting finish and all go totally mad on election night...and whoever's side wins, they can go into total ecstasy for a short time afterward, and the ones who lost can mutter darkly about the hideous things that will surely happen under the new administration.

Sound familiar? ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,999
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 12:22 AM

'"You might have had a chance with Hillary."

I'm glad to know someone other than Charles Farquar--a good friend--thinks so. Thank you.'

I posted that without appending the 999 to the GUEST place to put one's handle--sounds more lascivious than it is. And my response after that has been tempered by the fact that I can't quite recall what I had intended to write. I think it was

Crap! Every time I have a great thought my mind goes blank. I'm quite sure too many of you understand.   :)

BM

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Rapparee
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 07:15 AM

About what? There was something I was going to say.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 08:55 AM

The deciding factor in the 2012 election will be how many of the people who voted for Obama in 2008 don't vote at all in 2012. Who the Republicans nominate is irrelevant. He'll receive about the same number of votes as John MCain did in 2008. But if Obama's 2008 supporters stay home in large enough droves, that'll be enough.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 01:00 PM

It will come as no surprise to some of you, but I am totally tired of the dismissive attempt to attribute all the power to "**The Oligarchy**".
Yeah... I know that business interests and various related abstract entities DO strive to influence elections and events to their advantage, but it is crap ..ummm... nonsense to just wave your arms and blithely state that 'they' control everything and we poor peons can do little or nothing about it!
   That is barely one step below suggesting that Jewish bankers run the world.
   It IS a lot of work for the mass of average citizens to read and think & listen and VOTE... but they CAN if they try!

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Amergin
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 01:47 PM

Ok...here in the states you have two parties....both have their hands are paid off to do the bidding of mega corporations....All any one does anymore is to vote for what they deem to be the lesser of two evils...and yet you blindly sit back and say voting brings change. It doesn't. Where is the change? Where are the jobs? The economy is in the toilet...Obama thought change meant bringing back the same crooks that were in the Clinton Administration, and to keep on many of the thugs from the Bush II regime. How is that change?

We hear about change in the two houses of Congress, how things will get better if we vote for the liar that's running, whether he be elephant or ass. Yet nothing ever truly is. Have you ever wondered why the democrats do not fight for the things they profess to believe in, beyond a token response? It is because they are paid off. The republicans fight for what they say they believe in....or at least what they are paid to by their masters.

Jack London was right.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 02:17 PM

I have noted your objection to the idea of the Oligarchy, Bill. ;-) I regard it as naive. I think you are engaging in wishful thinking regarding the USA's political system and its possibilities.

In other words, I agree with Amergin.

I do not suggest that you do nothing, however. I suggest that you live as good and productive and happy an individual life as you possibly can...the same suggestion I would have made to a citizen of Rome during its long imperial slide into corruption and decline.

I also suggest you support any politician who genuinely stands up against the great lobbying system in Washington...but such politicians are VERY rare. Obama isn't one of them. I think Dennis Kucinich is one, but he's in Ohio, and you're not, so it's kind of a moot point in your case to mention him. I think Ron Paul is another (though I totally disagree with his odd view of socialism)...but he does have some other good ideas. I don't have to agree with a man about everything to recognize that some of his ideas are well worth listening to.

I don't think there's a dog's chance in hell that the 2 big parties will ever elect a maverick like Kucinich or Paul to the presidency, but it's nice to see that a few such can at least get elected to Congress.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 03:25 PM

Yes LH... I understand that you agree with Amerigin and believe that way...and I even see some of the reasons. I just do NOT accept that is a gold-plated given that it IS totally that way, or that it always will be. Corruption and greed forever? Sure... remedies, if we bother to use them? Yes...   


"....both have their hands are paid off to do the bidding of mega corporations..."

And you KNOW this how? Don't just tell me "it's obvious".

One of the problems...and virtues... of a system like ours is that it is possible to sway events with votes.....good swaying or BAD swaying.
   Yes...votes can be 'bought'...in various ways and with different currencies.... this does NOT mean ALL votes in ALL circumstances. We are seeing that in Wisconsin as many voters realize they were lied to by the governor about what he intended to actually DO.....and some legislators, also. Now they are going thru the procedure of beginning recalls...and after a year, they can do it to the governor, too.
   I often wish we had, as many countries do, 'votes of no confidence' and special elections.

I know about Dennis Kucinich ... and I think he serves a valuable purpose where he is. I just think that the good he would do as president would be outweighed by his 'shoot from the hip' concept of dealing with issues. (Now... I would vote for Barney Frank in a minute! but he is *gasp* gay!...and there are several others who know and understand what is going on).

I am waiting to see what the Democrats run on next year.... there are SO many issues that are **important**, but not every one galvanizes voters. The Republicans DO know how to get disparate groups all under one bulgy, cluttered banner....but they mostly run AGAINST things. Now, the Democrats have some stuff THEY can run against.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 04:33 PM

Oligarchies win typically for a hundred or more years and then are simantled from within and without.

Taking out the current anti democratic State level oligarchs and govenors will be easy compared to Wall St.

Does anyone know about the Odessa file?
That points to the prize of the 4th Reich.
Guess who owns the NEw York Stock Exchange?

If you inderstand what I am saying you should write a novel about it.
I would but I still have young children to care for.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Wesley S
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 04:34 PM

Amerigin - If you're right then the solution is to just crawl under a rock and give up.

But I might add that just because you don't get the change that YOU want when you want it doesn't mean that nothing is happening. Ocean liners can't make 90 degree turns no matter how much we want them to.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,Ebor_Fiddler
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 04:54 PM

Do the rest of us really HAVE to suffer this outrageous nonsense again? To think that there are people in this country who would have us turn to a similar republican system whose constitution is still mired in the 18th century while the world elsewhere has moved on

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 04:58 PM

I hadn't even heard of Barney Frank before, Bill...don't particularly care whether he's gay or not, but if he is, then it would be a handicap of sorts in getting elected in the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Bettynh
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 05:19 PM

Presidential running is a cash crop here in NH. Here's part of the current crop.. Each of these visits produces a gaggle of staff who fill our hotel rooms. 8% of the room fees and restaurant tabs goes directly to the state of NH. Michele Bachmann was particularly entertaining when she congratulated NH on being the state where the battle at Lexington and Concord was fought (for those weak on US geography, the battle was in neighboring Massachusetts). No Sara Palin yet. George W. avoided us, too. Watching candidates is something to do while the snow melts.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 05:34 PM

I agree with what a lot of BillD says...

This idea that both side are guilty of this or that is the exact story that the right want people talking about... It's their only chance in the 2012...

Seems the Dems have stood up and defended the labor movement, health care reform, Wall street reform and would have voted to repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy had Obama not cut a deal... Might of fact, if the two parties were both the same then there wouldn't be so many votes down party lines...

As for 2012???

I'm looking for a Trump/Palin ticket from the Repubs... They will go for "big names" over substance... Normal...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 06:21 PM

Going for big names is generally a smart move. Politics is a giant marketing excercise. When you're marketing, you want a brand name that's easily recognizable. That's why Scharzenneger got elected in California....not because he could do the job well...because he was well known.

Trump/Palin could certainly be viewed as a strategic ticket by the Republicans for just that reason...and Trump would appear to have the professional expertise while Palin would provide the hometown "spunkiness" and glamour. You should call them up, Bobert, and suggest it.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 06:29 PM

LH
Barney Franks is the Danial Webster and Mark Twain of Congress.
Not only is he funny but he is exceedingly clear in his exposition of an issue or attitude.

His orientation has never been a factor in his electability.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 06:32 PM

He sounds like an interesting man. Which state is he from?

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Wesley S
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 07:31 PM

The Forth Congressional District of Massachusetts



Barney Frank's website

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Wesley S
Date: 03 May 11 - 04:17 PM

I don't know if the death of Osama Bil Laden makes Obama a shoo-in at the next election - but it won't hurt him either.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: gnu
Date: 03 May 11 - 04:47 PM

Depends on if NATO stops bombing Afghanistan... pulls out... etcetera. Of course, there's the bombing of Libya... etcetera... etcetera... WHOLE lotta shootin goin on.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: John P
Date: 03 May 11 - 06:06 PM

Yes, the mega-corporations have way too much influence on our elections. However, that doesn't change the fact that Republicans want to legislate our bedrooms, change our history in our text books, destroy the earth, establish a state religion, and give everything that isn't nailed down to folks who already have way too much. Democrats are a LOT less likely to do those things.

Those who think they are all the same need to look at the party platforms. Yes, Obama has wimped out on a lot of issues -- does that mean you'd rather have Bush or Trump or Palin? If you can't see the difference, please wake up.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 May 11 - 12:27 AM

Man Can Make Anything
                                           Buddy Tabor, Juneau Alaska
God made Man and Man made the rest
Man can make anything good to the best
He can turn the desert to the color of the flowers
He knows all the numbers, the days, years and hours
He walks into a dark room and turns on the light
He can walk back out, turn the day to night

He can transplant the heart from one man to another
But he can't sit down and make peace with his brother
His hands are bloody, it never will cease
Man can make anything. Anything but peace.

From Cain to Abel the killing never stops
From the Mafioso hitman to the trigger-happy cops
A river of blood runs through our history books
He's got death in his eyes, he's got a mortuary look

He can transplant the heart from one man to another
But he can't sit down and make peace with his brother
His hands are bloody, it never will cease
Man can make anything. Anything but peace.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: DougR
Date: 04 May 11 - 01:24 PM

The 2012 election will be a referendum on Obama. He had no record prior to 2008. He does now. If the majority of the folks like what he has done, he will be re-elected, if they don't he won't.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: John P
Date: 04 May 11 - 05:26 PM

I agree with Doug. It seems like that's usually the case when a president runs for reelection. More so this time, since President Obama is an unusually galvanizing force for both major parties.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 May 11 - 11:15 PM

Yeah, naturally, it will be a referendum on Obama. That's what always happens when an incumbent president runs for a 2nd term.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 May 11 - 02:53 AM

An aside here: I listened to Bill O'Reilly the other night (on his website) and he calls 2012 "Two Twelve". Is that what we're going to call it, do you suppose?

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Donuel
Date: 05 May 11 - 08:06 AM

It will be the dark horse against the half black horse.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 May 11 - 12:26 PM

Cute.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 05 May 11 - 12:56 PM

Obama has certainly increased his rating.
The Republicans have not yet shown any credible candidates, although there are some in the bushes. Trump, Palin and etc. are mere side shows as they are losing favor or never had it.

Wesley may be right, but there is a lot of time left before decision time. If Obama continues to be strong in the face of House opposition, he could well prevail.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Donuel
Date: 05 May 11 - 01:05 PM

Juneau, it was cute.

Sure Obama will win but first the gas price issue is looming along with people willing to ruuin America by playing with the debt ceiling.

The UN dynamic Republican candidates like Sanctorum and Polenty will shower the nation with Koch Bros ads.

Since people do not read it will be the battle of the best commercial.

Citizens United and Americans for Prosperity will make multi billion dollar ads. Will the cutest ad win the presidency?

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 May 11 - 01:28 PM

Chongo is already angling for the cutest ad, so Obama better watch out.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: saulgoldie
Date: 05 May 11 - 05:41 PM

Beg to differ, DougR. It will be a bit of a referendum on his first term. But Republicans have been very busy purging voter rolls, enacting new (and not-so-new) regulations to disenfranchise voters who would likely vote the "other party" and devising and implementing ways to hack voting machines.

The votes that actually happen and are not hacked will be the referendum. And poll after relatively reliable poll shows that the American public does not like what the Republicans are doing. But that is not the whole story. Bush was installed, not elected. And it will happen again.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 May 11 - 06:25 PM

I've long been disgusted by this claim that both parties are run by the oligarchy, with the implication being that there's no use in even trying to change things. That is DEFEATIST, and an invitation to just give up, lay down, and die.

Both parties are STRONGLY INFLUENCED by the oligarchy. But not totally. And not irrevocably.

Okay, set your stop-watches. See how long it takes for someone to haughtily and smugly tell me how naive I am.

Naive? Not bloody likely! I've been around awhile and I've SEEN how things CAN be changed when people get up off their butts. It ain't easy, but it's impossible with the attitude that some people are trying to peddle. If you just sigh and say "Let George do it," just remember--George DID it! How do you like it?

Do you know who started the old adage, "You can't fight City Hall?"

City Hall!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: DougR
Date: 05 May 11 - 06:36 PM

That's a pretty serious charge there, Saul. You can provide proof of your accusations I assume. If so, be my guest.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Fortunato
Date: 06 May 11 - 09:12 AM

If possible, I will likely be voting for President Obama again. There may be an opponent who is intelligent and capable, but in order to be heard by the Republican party, the platform of such a person must apparently include the shrewish, negative, and in some cases, air-headed, message that is now over arching.
    I still respond to progressive views of America. I still respond to social programs that feed the hungry, educate the disadvantaged, and train the underemployed. I still look to space exploration, medical and scientific research to advance human endeavor and enlightenment.
    I do not respond to the tired old criticisms of democracy and our capitalist system. I do not respond to the manure mouthed by talk radio and tv media whose only motive is self-aggrandizement and salary. I do not respond to 'leaders' who build their notoriety on the backs of those who strive for progress.
    President Obama, I believe, still carries hope of progress as a nation in his heart.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: DougR
Date: 06 May 11 - 01:33 PM

Yep, it sure seems to me, Fortunato, that you will be voting for Obama.
DougR

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 May 11 - 01:53 PM

Saul, you forgot to mention to Douggie-Boy that in addition to the dirty tricks, the Repub TeaBagger schills on hate radio and Faux News and theRepub TeaBagger Senators and Representatives in congress continue with the distortions and outright falsehoods that daily comprise The Republican River Of Bullshit.

Unfortunately, there are plenty of folks - like "Death-Panel Douggie"
who seem to actually BELIEVE these lies despite conclusive evidence to the contrary.

The election, in large part, will be a referendum on the intelligence of the U.S. voter, and if Douggie is a representative sample, God Help America.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: John P
Date: 06 May 11 - 07:45 PM

Why do people believe this stuff? Are they really that stupid, or are they so focused on winning that they are willing to set aside honor?

- Death panels in the health care plan.
- Obama is a socialist.
- The health care plan is socialism (but the military is not???)
- George Bush is owed thanks for the finding of bin Laden!!!???
- George Bush was elected.
- Birthers.
- Swift boat attacks.
- Tax cuts will fix the economy.
- Rich people aren't rich enough.
- Rich people will create jobs out of their personal income (as
   opposed to corporate earnings).
- Unions should just go away.
- Rape is only rape if the woman gets beat up.
- Men get to decide whether or not a woman should have a baby.
- The United States is a Christian country.
- Our government gets to decide who we sleep with.
- "Pro Life" doesn't extend to capital punishment or war.
and on and on and on.

How can they live with themselves?

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 May 11 - 08:01 AM

Apparently quite easily. Perhaps Doug can explain it to us.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: DougR
Date: 07 May 11 - 05:00 PM

Perhaps I could, Greg F., but the language would of necessity have to be so simple that even you could understand it, and I just haven't the time.

Still want to see some back-up to Saul's assertions though.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 May 11 - 06:56 PM

As I suspected Doug- despite your rather pitiful attempt at humor, you have no answer.

As per Saul's "back-up" where do you come off asking for his, when you won't provide any yourself, as usual??

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: John P
Date: 07 May 11 - 08:04 PM

Actually, Doug, I'm pretty good with big words. Do you have any evidence for any of the things commonly spoken by Republicans that I mentioned above?

Doug, whether or not the Republicans have been involved in vote tampering, there has been enough circumstantial evidence of it reported by the mainstream media that the question naturally comes up. The list of stuff I gave earlier in one of the reasons people might be willing to believe that Republicans are willing to do whatever it takes to win, win, win. Cut the crap, or don't be surprised if no one can tell what is crap and what isn't.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: DougR
Date: 08 May 11 - 01:15 AM

John P.: Read again what you wrote. It matters not whether you are, or not good with big words, what we should be concerned with is the truth. I am not familiar with the validity of circumstantial evidence being anything other than that ...circumstantial. The fact that it is reported by the "mainstream media" does not make it more valid. After all, isn't it the responsibility of the "mainstream press" to report, not opine? The majority of the "mainstream media", again IMO, are in the Democrats camp. And charges that the Republicans are wlling to do whatever it takes to win, win, win, can be said, also, of the Democrat party.

Now, since I addressed my request for back-up to Saul, who posted the charge, and not to you, why doesn't Saul back up his claims instead of relying on others to do it (not that you did)

Greg F. is just being Greg F., and his comments are of no significance at all ...again IMO.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 May 11 - 09:59 AM

Greg F. is just being Greg F.

Douggie is absolutely correct: I'm asking him for facts & documentation instead of rumor, lies & delusions.

and his comments are of no significance at all...

And Douggie thinks HIS puerile and fact-free comments ARE of significance?

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: John P
Date: 08 May 11 - 10:54 AM

I'm sorry Doug, but you don't seem to be understanding the point of what I'm saying. Here it is again:

Given that the Republicans are willing to tell massive, obvious lies to try to do anything possible to hurt their political opponents and to distract everyone from the real issues, why would we not believe they are willing to do other things to win at all costs? Unless you can justify the Republican lie machine with supporting evidence, anything anyone chooses to believe about the nefariousness of the GOP is unsurprising.

I don't really care about Saul's accusations. My feeling is that there is not enough evidence to prove it, but circumstantial evidence enough to give it serious thought, and plenty of evidence that you (as in you, personally, if you ever give any money to or vote for any of the liars) are responsible for any number of equally reprehensible actions. Once someone is over the line, it's impossible to tell how far over the line they are or are willing to go.

And death panels, socialism, birthers, swift boaters, corporate taxes and all the rest are lies, are over the line, and haven't been supported by any evidence whatsoever, circumstantial or otherwise.

Please stop trying to distract the conversation with Saul's accusations. Why do you believe the things I listed above? My question was: Are you really that stupid, or do you really have no honor? I suppose a third possibility is that all the lies are really true, but with no supporting evidence, it's hard to take that one seriously.

How can you live with yourself, supporting people who do this stuff?

Lastly, if you really believe the Democrats do anything like this as a matter of top-level policy, you need to supply some examples. Is there anything at all of the scope of the the birthers, the death panels, the socialism, or the 24-7 hate talk that you can point to?

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 May 11 - 11:56 AM

sheesh I don't mean this to be jumping on a DR day but I really am curious, Doug. Look at Fortunato's post, stripped of identifiers, and then your snarky response. Surely the positives he listed are things that you also want?

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Fortunato - PM
Date: 06 May 11 - 09:12 AM

If possible, I will likely be voting again. There may be an opponent who is intelligent and capable, but in order to be heard by the opposing party, the platform of such a person must apparently include the shrewish, negative, and in some cases, air-headed, message that is now over arching.
    I still respond to progressive views of America. I still respond to social programs that feed the hungry, educate the disadvantaged, and train the underemployed. I still look to space exploration, medical and scientific research to advance human endeavor and enlightenment.
    I do not respond to the tired old criticisms of democracy and our capitalist system. I do not respond to the manure mouthed by talk radio and tv media whose only motive is self-aggrandizement and salary. I do not respond to 'leaders' who build their notoriety on the backs of those who strive for progress.
    The one I vote for, I believe, still carries hope of progress as a nation in his heart.
*********************************************************************
and Doug says:
Yep, it sure seems to me, Fortunato, that you will be voting for Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Stringsinger
Date: 08 May 11 - 12:52 PM

Remember that Obama's alliance with Wall Street will tap into that billion dollars that he needs to get re-elected. Why else Geithner, Summers, Goldman Sachs, et. al.?

Robert Reich, Joeseph Stieglitz and Paul Krugman have been blowing the whistle on the misguided economic policies of both the White House and the Paul Ryan/Ayn Rand polemicists but who's listening?

Wall Street is pulling the strings on the government, now.

I saw a movie once about the "Werewolves of Wall Street". How 'bout one now called
"The Whores of Wall Street"? They're bi-partisan.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: DougR
Date: 08 May 11 - 01:53 PM

Ebbie: my remarks were not intended to be "snarky". I merely was agreeing with what Fortunato said.

John P: Our political philosophies are so far apart, there is little reason to continue our conversation. Nothing will be gained either way.

If you are of the opinion that Democrats do not lie, start with the many lies our current president has uttered since he took office. Yes, I know, you will reply (if at all), "Name them." They are too numerous to mention.

Saul, are you still with us?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Stringsinger
Date: 08 May 11 - 02:00 PM

DougR why do you think they call them "Po-lie-ticians?" It's a job description.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 08 May 11 - 02:08 PM

Don't know where Saul is, but you've got some reading to do Doug.
The evidence is in the links in this article. Please follow the links to see the primary sources. We will patiently await your reasoned assessment (after you've done the reading I am sure).

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Voter_suppression

follow the links to the primary sources

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 May 11 - 02:59 PM

Chickens LAY eggs.

Dogs LIE down.

Politicians just lie.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: John P
Date: 08 May 11 - 08:37 PM

John P: Our political philosophies are so far apart, there is little reason to continue our conversation.

Hmpf. That just sounds like a convenient way to not support the things you say. Maybe we could just start with one at a time. Let's try Death Panels, as promulgated by your party's VP candidate. True or false?

If you don't want to support your statements you have no business nosing into a discussion on the topic. Stand up or go away, please.

By the way, I never said that Democrats don't lie. I don't trust them much farther than Republicans. But the nature and all-pervasive bellowing of the lies is really different between the two.

Death Panels? Your candidate for the second highest office in the land? Seems like a simple question. Do you have an answer?

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 May 11 - 08:41 PM

Doug doesn't understand most things - he's a non-cerebral, nonthinking individual, taking his uncritical cue from Faux News and the Republican shock-jocks & tasking heads..

He seems to think there is some "philosophical" difference between lies & bullshit and facts & truth, rather than an absolute difference.

He will dodge & weave & claim that "Mommy, Johnny hit me first" - which might be expected of a two year old, but is inappropriate- to say the least- for an adult.

Another standard tactic of his is the many lies our current president...Yes, I know, you will reply (if at all), "Name them." They are too numerous to mention. which means, translated into English, he has no examples to provide.

No point tryig to reason with the brain dead - beat to ignore Douggie-boy completely..

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: John P
Date: 09 May 11 - 09:43 AM

Greg, we all know your opinion of Doug. Enough already. Can we please try to talk about the topics being discussed? Doug seems to be pretty good at digging his own holes, and his words will speak much louder than yours when it's time for folks to decide whether or not he's a rational human being.

Calling him on failing to respond to points made in discussions is one thing. Calling him names is another.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 May 11 - 10:06 AM

I'm not calling him names. Just trying to explain Doug's behavior.

Plus, I hardly think its my opinion alone.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: saulgoldie
Date: 09 May 11 - 10:22 AM

DougR,

I have been, um, ah, distracted a bit in the last several days. Not that defending my point is not important. But "she" is a bit more important. But here I am, now.

Now, before I post my link, let me assert that the source has reported factually. And the facts can be reliably fact-checked elsewhere on the 'Net. The same *cannot* be said for most of what one hears from the organization that calls itself "Fox News." Nor can it be said of ENTERTAINERS (and not reporters) Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh. I am not going to spend many posts proving this. It is common knowledge.

The fact of voter suppression is not mentioned often enough. It is really a huge problem for those of us who truly value the spirit of small "d" democracy. In a democracy, all players put forth their ideas and ideologies honestly, and in good faith, and the voters make "free market" decisions as to who best represents their values.

Those voters are anyone over the age of 18. They are women, men, people living in gated communities, and people living near the dumps. They are people of color, and people of more color. They are people of all religious faiths, and people who do not believe in dieties at all. They are folk musicians, and rap musicians. They are e-v-e-r-y-o-n-e.

Whenever someone or group of someones tries to limit who may vote based on their own narrow views, that is voter suppression. When they institutionalize it, that very effort makes society UNdemocratic. And that is exactly what is happening.

Any halfwit knows that a corporation is not a person, and that "money" is NOT "speech."

Here is one link of many I could have listed that describes just part of the voter suppression going on. There is more, lots more. It is fact, NOT fiction.

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/03/27/report-from-poll-taxes-to-voter-id-laws-a-short-history-of-conservative-voter-suppression/


Saul

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 May 11 - 11:58 AM

Any halfwit knows that a corporation is not a person, and that "money" is NOT "speech."

Hmmmmm...... does that mean that Doug is LESS than half-witted? And what does one call such a person?

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: saulgoldie
Date: 09 May 11 - 02:14 PM

Greg,
I did not mean Doug. I, oh shit! I wasn't going to call names! I just...I thought it was just *self-evident.*

Sorry in advance, Doug, if I stepped on your toes. Let me try that again.

I think it is plain to see that corporations, despite the current "legal definition" are not actually people. And I also think it is also plain that money and speech are equivalent, neither by definition nor by any conversational sense of the words.

Now, "plain to see" and "...nor by any conversational sense of the words" are both subjective. Oh, well. I tried, I really *tried.*

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: DougR
Date: 10 May 11 - 01:28 AM

That's what you offer as proof of your wild charges, Saul? That's laughable. To progressives, offering "proof" of points of view generally boils down to providing a "progressive website as proof."

That is as legitimate as my pointing out the Fox News (which you progressives obviously fear) or Rush Limbaugh as providing proof of the conservative pov, and my expecting you to accept it.

John P.: Ditto.

TIA: Ditto

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: saulgoldie
Date: 10 May 11 - 06:31 AM

Doug,
Um, "laughable?" I took time and energy and found a good site *out of the many I found* with a concise defense of my point. Did you take any time to do any fact-checking of their citations? Or is your best argument just the rhetorical that it is "...laughable?"

The article has many active links to actual articles about actual events. Did you look at any of the links to actual events or trends? Do you deny that the events took place or the trends are taking place?

So I'll put it back on you. Demonstrate that the facts I cited are wrong, and get your information from someone or somewhere that can be fact-checked and does not have a reputation for intentionally distorting the facts.

I am satisfied with my point and my factual defense of it. If all you are going to do is to say that my effort is "laughable" and not cite facts and use reason, then I will not waste my energy responding further.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 May 11 - 10:32 AM

See, Saul- I tried to tell you. Re-read my 08 May 11 - 08:41 PM Post.

John P- what say you now? Was my description accurate or not?

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: John P
Date: 10 May 11 - 04:02 PM

Yes, Greg, Doug has confirmed, once again, everyone's opinion of him as a waste of time and space in a discussion because of his inability and/or unwillingness to support what he says. I would say that he is demonstrating his lack of dependence on facts or logic when forming his opinions. I can say that he is wrong, and willfully so, in his interpretations of current events. As I said, he is pretty good at digging his own holes.

Calling him brain-dead just makes you sound like a Republican, especially in a discussion about how the Republicans are ruining our social discourse with insults, lies, and distortions. Sorry.

We can't claim to be on the higher moral ground if we don't stay there.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: DougR
Date: 10 May 11 - 04:50 PM

Right, John P., I think you're right.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: saulgoldie
Date: 10 May 11 - 05:49 PM

OK, without ad hominem attacks and name-calling, what am I supposed to do with people like Doug? No, I am *seriously* asking! I just plain do not know!

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 May 11 - 06:01 PM

OK John, I hereby abjure and withdraw "brain dead" and will not use it in regards to Douggie in future- after all he can type and apparently feed himself.

However I stand by the rest, for example "non-cerebral" (i.e. emotional rather than intellectual,) uncritical, unabkle to distinguish fact from fiction, etc. which I think is a pretty accurate description, don't you?

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 May 11 - 06:06 PM

DOUG: so you agree with John that you are:

... a waste of time and space in a discussion because of [your] inability and/or unwillingness to support what he says. I would say that he is demonstrating his lack of dependence on facts or logic when forming his opinions. I can say that he is wrong, and willfully so, in his interpretations of current events.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 10 May 11 - 08:15 PM

DougR;
You either do not understadn what I meant by *primary sources*, or you don't have any interest in real information. I suspect the former. Look it up.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 May 11 - 09:06 PM

I'd be willing to bet a great sum of money on the latter.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: saulgoldie
Date: 03 Jun 11 - 06:37 PM

Hurry up! Let's not let go of this! There are only...days, er, weeks, er months, er, *years* left until the election.

Many pundits and reporters (or at least, "so-called reporters") often tout Mitt Romney's "business acumen." Well, let's talk about that "acumen." Yeah, yeah, this is from a "union site" and, therefore "suspect." But before you start hammering me, find some reliable primary information that discredits the facts in the piece.

http://blog.aflcio.org/2007/05/31/romneys-business-experience-firing-workers-hiring-them-back-at-lower-wages/

If he, or any other candidate, for that matter, has some sort of business experience that he is pointing to as part of his CV, then it bears investigation. Hmmm. How about Herman Cain? How was Godfathers Pizza to its employees? What was the quality level of the product? Did the company have any particular concern for its environmental impact?

Yes, these questions are all relevant, if these guys are going to use their business experience as examples of their "success." Or do they want to run from them??

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,Paul Burke
Date: 03 Jun 11 - 06:50 PM

The bugger's a mormon. And mormons are living proof that humans will believe anything in the face of all the evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: saulgoldie
Date: 03 Jun 11 - 08:52 PM

But wait; there's more! You know, at least I am going to make sure to get my entertainment dollar out of the Republican field. Well, we have always known that Sarah Palin was no Einstein, but...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=oS4C7bvHv2w

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: olddude
Date: 03 Jun 11 - 09:18 PM

I heard on the news tonight Palin was in Boston and when she was asked about Paul Revere she said "and the bell were ringing and ringing and he was riding to tell the red coats not to come" LOL ... ahhh Ok Sarah
is this the revisionist version of history LOL

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Jun 11 - 09:26 PM

Chongo Chimp is not a Mormon. Vote Chongo in 2012.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Jun 11 - 09:51 PM

Chongo is also well informed. He knows that it was not Patrick Henry who defiantly said to the British, "Give me convenience or give me death!" That expression came later in American history, sometime during the 1950s, and it is now the defining motto and sworn credo of present day American "civilization". If you don't believe me, just note how the average American acts when delayed in traffic or when he finds out that the neighborhood donut shop is all out of his favorite variety of sugar-glazed, cream-filled jelly donuts with candy sprinkles on top!!!! (Heh!)

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Wesley S
Date: 04 Jun 11 - 07:29 AM

I don't think Sarah Palin will run - but here's why I hope she does:


Sarah on Paul Reveres Ride

Former Alaskan Gov. and Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin visited Paul Revere's house in Boston on Thursday, and afterwards she gave her take on his famous ride.

"He who warned the British that they weren't going to be taking away our arms by ringing those bells and making sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were gonna be secure, and we were going to be free, and we were going to be armed," Palin said.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jun 11 - 12:16 PM

Wow. ;-) An amazing summation by Ms Palin.

Everyone was armed in those days. You have to be armed when you're living on the frontier where Indian raids are a constant possibility. The British were not intent on disarming colonists, technically speaking, they were intent on preventing civil insurrection against the Crown. It wasn't a question of disarming an armed populace, it was a question of persuading them not to use those arms against colonial rule.

"we were gonna be secure" There is no way to make terminally insecure people feel secure! ;-)

As for the usual bullshit about being "free"...God, I get tired of that...ALL people wish to be free to do exactly what it is that THEY want to do, and in the way THEY are accustomed to doing it. This is true of Americans, British, Arabs, Dutch, Japanese, Russians, Mormons, Hippies, Hell's Angels, Lakota Indians....everyone! They all want to be free to do things their way. They all resent someone else interfering with their freedom to do things their way. The American colonists did not invent "freedom", and the USA is not the exclusive originator or guardian of freedom and never has been.

So, Sarah... "Take off, eh?" (Canadian humorous expression)

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Jun 11 - 12:36 PM

Hard to choose which is the worse moron: Palin or Trump.

Or, the people that beiieve them.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Wesley S
Date: 04 Jun 11 - 01:09 PM

Perhaps Palin and Trump were discussing running together when they had pizza for lunch the other day.

"Palin/Trump in 2012". It has a ring to it.

Maybe the Mayens knew what they were talking about....


Too funny for words:

Jon Stewart on the Pizza Summit

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: gnu
Date: 04 Jun 11 - 01:24 PM

Wesley... HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAA! THANKS!!!

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: saulgoldie
Date: 10 Jun 11 - 02:06 PM

And as if on cue...

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/06/10/137101464/sarahs-choice-email-dump-will-add-to-doubt-that-she-will-run?sc=nl&

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: saulgoldie
Date: 11 Jun 11 - 09:42 AM

You know, if I were a potential voter in the Republican primary, I would feel mighty offended at the virtual parade of so-called candidates who are only "in it" for their own self-aggrandizement. They seem to have utter disdain for "me" as an earnest and serious voter, and only have their own selfish interests at heart.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Jun 11 - 12:48 PM

That was the old-line Republican voter, Saul. The current crop are impervious to embarrasssment, however idiotic the candidate.

Welcome to the New World Order.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jun 11 - 12:52 PM

"They seem to have utter disdain for "me" as an earnest and serious voter, and only have their own selfish interests at heart."

WHAT???????????? How dare you even THINK something so utterly SHOCKING and UNEXPECTED about our beloved public servants!   ;-) Ha! Oh, I get it...you were being funny, right?

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 11 Jun 11 - 05:13 PM

Department of useless information, from CNN today.

Republicans polled, and of the prospects, 21% prefer Romney and 17% Pain er- Palin, others minute percentages.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jun 11 - 10:45 PM

Face it, the only real threat to the re-election of the incumbent, Mr Obama, is the ever-increasing popularity of Chongo Chimp and the APP. I suspect, though, that the corporate sector's deep suspicions about Chongo's probable lack of cooperation with their desired objectives will place major impediments in the way of his securing sufficient funding in 2012. How Chongo plans to combat this is hard to say...

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,999
Date: 11 Jun 11 - 11:16 PM

The province of Quebec (Canada) will bring in legislation that is as follows:

"Fines for illegal donations would skyrocket
Under the proposed changes, only individuals would be allowed to make a donation of $1,000 or less. All donations would have to be made by cheque and declared by the donor.

Donations by corporations and unions would be illegal.

Any individual caught giving more money or otherwise violating the law would face fines ranging from $5,000 to $20,000.

Corporations or unions caught giving an [sic} donation could be slapped would [sic] a fine of $50,000 to $200,000.

The government would also refuse to give public contracts to any company caught making an illegal donation for a minimum of three years.

The measures would apply to both municipal and provincial levels of government. School boards would also be included."

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Donuel
Date: 12 Jun 11 - 02:53 PM

Saul Goldie, Sure Palin makes things up as she goes along but that is a persoanlity and neurological problem stemming from vanity and dyslexia.

To be fair she did do a great deal of good in freeing Alaska from the economic death grip of oil companies. She actually got laws passed that forced oil companies to contribute to Alaska and have to bow to the authority of State Government for a change.
This is unrefeudiateable.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Donuel
Date: 12 Jun 11 - 03:04 PM

While Paul Revere most certainly did not yell "the Americans are COming", while Americans were still in bed, ringing a bell and shooting his rifle warning the British that they will not take away our 2nd ammendment rights regardind our guns...

He did warn others to spread the warning that the British Fleet were near the harbor.

The midnight ride of Paul Revere was made by Isreal Bissel who rode nearly 400 miles spreading the word the British warships had arrived.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Revere

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Stringsinger
Date: 12 Jun 11 - 03:31 PM

The way I see it, whether Obama gets in or not, the country is in trouble. Obama would have to do a one-hundred-eighty to get us out of the economic and political mess we're in. Obama has to have his billion to get re-elected and who is he going to get it from? (The initials are W-a-l-l S-t-r-e-e-t.)

The prognosis is that we will remain as a country into four wars, maybe more by the time the decade is over. This will bleed our economy further.

Unions will still be struggling for a voice.

Single-Payer insurance could have solved a lot of our health care problems but the insurance companies still remain in control.

Elizabeth Warren has been denied her central idea to help the consumer.

Jingoism and the fall-out of the Patriot Act will diminish our democratic freedoms.

Law enforcement has taken the side of Obama's dictatorial presidential powers.

In short, I don't think it really matters who is elected. It could change if Obama could become (not likely) an FDR president, acknowledge the new Depression, institute a WPA and a CCC, get another Ferdinand Pecora (Elizabeth Warren) to go after the corporations that do control the government today, put the kibosh on nuclear power, the Military Industrial Complex, the oxymoronic "Clean Coal",
gas "fracking" and support vigorous alternative energy sources and the idea that anyone's vote is going to help this along looks bleak.

When things get bad enough, we can hope that Americans and the rest of the world will rise up with people power, not corporate power.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Donuel
Date: 12 Jun 11 - 03:43 PM

A TrumPaline 2012 ticket sure would give a good bounce to the tea party.

boing boing

Anthoney Weiner aka Hand Solo, should throw his full support to Trump and Palin
or Romney, whoever clinches first.


Psychologists claim that the sphincter factor is a real and important psychological indicator of a person's reaction to the words ideas and appearence of political candidates. When sensors were place in the aformentioned region, a continuous readout of an audience member can be anal ized.

These sensors have been used mostly by Republican think tank researchers. So if you are wondering why republicans act as if they have a stick up their...

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: gnu
Date: 12 Jun 11 - 05:23 PM

999... there you Q-beckers go again... doin things right. I swear, I am movin in when it comes time. Save a seat for me under the apple tree eh?

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Donuel
Date: 12 Jun 11 - 06:52 PM

With a second term there is an opportunity to do those progressive policies that can sae the economy and infrastructure, even if by presidential order alone. Those things are the ones that the filthy rich have feared from the begining. Things like paying taxes, any taxes. Things like nationalizing banks that attack consumers and the United States with their cheats and scams. Things like corrupt election laws and funding. Things like ending two or even three wars.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jun 11 - 08:47 PM

You think Obama will do any of that? I sure don't. I hope to be agreeably surprised.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Jun 11 - 09:11 PM

The system all but requires that any 1st term president play "safe"... Obama has played as safe as he possibly can...

There is no guarantee that Obama wants to be remembered as one of the great presidents but he's smarter than anyone in "this room" (Mudpit) and a betting man would have to assume that he'd "kick out the jambs" is he is re-elected...

One thing is fir sure and that is there in no one out there who has shown any motivation but continue failed policies...

BTW, not politically advisable at this point in time for even God hisself would be to promote a "National Infrastructure Program" similar to what FDR did in the 30s but it would be a win-win if he could get it thru Congress... It would put the country on a sounder footing to compete in this century and cut the heck out of unemployment...

Would it add to the deficit??? Yeah, it would... You don't pay off yer credit cards when you are unemployed... That is the Republican plan... Not based on any economic theory known to real economists... Yes, the Repubs rounded up the same 100 flat earther economists that say that global warming has nothing to do with out burning everything burnable but reality is that stupid people say stupid things...

Time for the intelligent people to have a bigger voice and let flat earthers go back to what they do best and is most enjoyable to them and that is sit in stands of some dumb race track watching other people drive cars in circles... Big whoop...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Ebbie
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 12:00 AM

I'm currently reading a biography of Obama's mother. I had no idea there was such a wealth of information on her or that she achieved as much in Indonesia as she did. It appears that the acorn didn't fall far from the tree. Interesting book.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: MarkS
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 11:05 AM

Actually Paul Revere did warn the British after a fashon. He was captured by them and in conversations with their officer in charge he tried to let them know that if they came after the colonials they were biting off more than they might care to chew.
His predictions were born out after Concord and Lexington during the following days.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Wesley S
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 12:39 PM

A song to enjoy:


Sarah Palin's Magical History Tour

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 01:06 PM

Yesterday, Stringsinger said: "
In short, I don't think it really matters who is elected."

I am afraid I have to disagree. If ANY of the current crop of conservatives angling for the job were elected, you'd see wild attempts to run the country by vague slogans and appeals to fundamentalist "Christian values"...which means trampling of what rights we still have.

The presidency needs a human being who is educated, who 'thinks' and is versed in history and political theory... not just a Reaganite wannabe.

Much of the awkwardness this country finds itself in right now is directly traceable to the idiocy that went on under Bush... from stupid wars to the appointment of right-wing ideologues to the Supreme court to environmental disasters to deregulation of Wall Street and big business.....and more.

Much of Obama's 1st 2 years has been trying to UNdig some of the holes the previous administration got us into! And there is simply no way to do that easily, especially with no control of the House, and no 60% voting majority in the Senate.
The president does NOT just go out and 'create jobs', when big business is trying to boost profits by allowing more jobs to go overseas and laying off everyone it 'thinks' it can do without. Look at history...when FDR tried to end 'excessive spending' too early in 1937, prompting a sudden backsliding of the economy.

I simply don't see how the Republicans can keep selling "spending cuts" as a panacea when they blindly resist any plan to "increase income" by getting companies and the wealthy to **pay their fair share**.....I know WHY they do it: because their campaign contributions come FROM those sources.

Elect 'anyone' in 2012? Does the phrase "Cutting off your nose to spite your face" ring any bells?

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 04:39 PM

Historical note:

When FDR came into office in the midst of the Depression (Wall Street had gone berserk, people jumping out office windows, banks were failing right and left, and the unemployment rate was at 25%), he lassoed and hog-tied the miscreants who had brought the country to its knees by starting the Securities and Exchange Commission to oversee Wall Street, bringing a quick halt to the multitudes of ongoing Ponzi schemes, stepped on the necks of the bankers, not by giving them massive bail-outs, but by initiating the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation so that if the banks failed again through another attack of stupidity and greed, the depositors would not lose their money—and he instituted a number of agencies such as the Works Projects Administration and the Civilian Conservation Corps to put people directly back to work, on needed infrastructure such as roads, bridges, national park preservation and improvement, and big projects such as power dams (TVA). These so-called (by the Republicans) "make-work" jobs accomplished a great deal. As said, the infrastructure was much needed, and it gave paychecks to the very people (the previously unemployed) who HAD to turn around and spend it right away on such things as food and rent, thus returning it to the economy immediately.

Deficit spending? Yes, in a VERY big way. BUT—it ended the Depression, put the economy on an even keel, and started paying down the deficit.

Conservatives hated Roosevelt's guts because THEIR orgy was over, and they couldn't say enough bad about him. And they're still doing it, some even trying to claim that he ended the Depression by getting us into World War II. Not so! The Depression was over well before December 7, 1941.

Yes, Conservatives hated him. And STILL do. But the people loved him, because he wasn't just making a lot of promises, he was actually, tangibly helping them, AND the whole country. They voted him back into office for three more terms.

Which, after Roosevelt died in office during his fourth term, prompted the Republicans to enter a bill limiting presidential terms to no more than two. (Which, perhaps, was not a bad idea; consider the possibility of, say, George W. Bush for four terms!!)

Reagan managed to fulfill a longtime dream of the Republicans, Conservatives, Right-Wingers, and Ayn Randers by dismantling all the regulatory agencies that FDR instituted, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission and others that oversaw Wall Street's machinations and kept the economy pretty well on track until the last decade or so.

And look where it finally got us!

Mr. Roosevelt, we need you again.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: John P
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 06:57 PM

I've started to think that Palin and Trump are purposeful ruses by the Republican Party. After them, any other far right crazy will seem positively sane, even a Tea Party person.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: saulgoldie
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 09:08 PM

From Andy Borowitz, yet again...

* * * * * * * *
        
June 14, 2011
Viewer Poll on Republican Debate: 25% Undecided, 75% Unconscious
Worrisome News for GOP Field

NEW HAMPSHIRE (The Borowitz Report) – In what could spell trouble for the current field of GOP presidential candidates, a poll of likely voters who saw last night's Republican debate found that 25% of viewers were undecided while 75% were unconscious.

Additionally, over half of respondents agreed with the statement, "This field of candidates comes dangerously close to qualifying as a prank."

Despite this somewhat tepid response, the debate did have its moments of excitement, such as Rep. Michele Bachmann's official announcement of her candidacy: "I wanted to declare my candidacy here in New Hampshire, the home of the Boston Tea Party."

Rep. Bachmann received high marks in the poll from voters who said they found former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin "too cerebral."

While Gov. Palin is not yet an official candidate, she told reporters today, "If I do decide to run, I'm gonna come ridin' in like Paul Revere at the Alamo."

Another potential candidate, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, offered this statement: "At this time, I can't decide whether to run for President of the US or secede from the US and become President of Texas."

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney made the most headlines last night by offering voters this guarantee: "I will never get involved in a scandal like Weinergate because Mattel did not give me genitals."

Answering a question about the mass defection of his campaign staff, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said, "They all simultaneously realized I was a douche."

Finally, by a wide margin, the poll showed that the biggest winners of the GOP debate were the people who didn't watch.

* * * * * * * *

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: saulgoldie
Date: 20 Jun 11 - 08:35 AM

I am thinking about how some of the prominent Republicans like to tout their CEO experience, and how they "made money."

Nevermind that his health care plan was somewhat the blueprint for Obama's, does anyone know how Romney "made" his money? Well, his investment company bought companies, stripped them of tens or hundreds of employees, and then sold off the scraps.

And I wonder how Herman Cain treats his employees. I would not guess that he pays them above-average wages or gives them "liberal" employee benefits packages. Oh, and he thinks that the founding documents of this country are too long--he says legislation should not be more than three pages.

Not that Obama has any terrific record to run on. His biggest hope is that he can point to "the other side" and say, "Look at how bad it could be."

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Jun 11 - 03:35 PM

The election will not be a referendum on Obama alone. It will be a referendum on Ryan's budget. By moving to the Middle Obama has pushed the entire GOP caucus to the extreme right. How has he done it? By giving ground and forcing them either to agree to their own moderate plans or continuing to try to flush the economy down the toilet so that they can make Obama look bad to win in 2012.

I don't know if even staunch Foxwashed people like DougR can vote for a plan to make Medicare a voucher program with strict financial limits. I might have some respect for Doug if he does. But I suspect all of his backbone and principle is in his talk and that he won't back it with his vote if his own wallet is targeted by corporatist cuts. I saw an ad from AARP today, condemning GOP proposals. If the GOP loses any perceptible percentage of the over 60 vote, the tide could turn heavily back to the Democrats in 2012.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Jun 11 - 03:43 PM

John P.

You have a point. But I personally know a Palin Supporter or two. They are simply way more interested in attacking "Liberals" than in seeing the country well governed. In fact many want to see the government fail and be replaced with, well.... nothing.

>>>>>These same people complain about the weakness of the dollar and the relative strength of the Chinese. They don't seem to see a connection. These people are the "base" of the Republican Party. <<<<<<

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Jun 11 - 05:35 PM

I don't know if even staunch Foxwashed people like DougR can vote for a plan to make Medicare a voucher program...

Doug? Sure he can! and I'm sure he will.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Jun 11 - 11:21 PM

I guess we will see about that Greg, If Ryan's plan is not stopped by nervous RINOs

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 11:36 AM

I think "Foxwashed" is a brilliant addition to the national vocabulary, Jack, many thanks.

As for 2012, the Republican Party is scrambling and scraping thehustings looking for someone who can rub two sentences together without looking foolish. So far, not much luck although there are a couple of outliers who would possibly provide a few soundbites.

The only issue Oba,a really faces is all the bullshit that has been pumped into the blogosdphere about him and about his proposals. The bitter invective and counter-productive rhetoric which has been the sole commodity in trade of the righties is dismaying in its thick, odiferous, carcinogenic recklessness.


A

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 12:14 PM

The great party machine has probably already decided that Obama will win the next election, so the charade of finding a Republican challenger to face off against him is just a question of picking a sacrificial lamb to go through the motions at the polls and keep the Great Game going in its usual farcical (and very costly) fashion. It MUST be done, otherwise the American public might stop believing they have a choice! They might stop believing they live in a real democracy! And that could lead to widespread anger...perhaps even revolution.

So a chump must be found to lose for the Republicans in 2012. And one SHALL be found! Just like McCain was found in 2008, and Michael Dukakis was found back in....you remember? Well, awhile back it was...

There are times for a Republican sacrificial candidate and times for a Democratic sacrificial candidate, and I predict that it's the Republicans who are in line for the sacrifice this time.

There are other times when either party has a fair chance of winning the big charade. Those times are a bit more interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 12:21 PM

Such penetrating logic LH! When it is not close it it "fixed" when it isn't it is "interesting."

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 12:30 PM

Thanks, eh? ;-D I think there are times when the manipulators and financiers who run the big Election Show don't really give a damn which figurehead/puppet wins...or even times when they are split amongst themselves as to which figurehead/puppet would be preferable to advance their interests. That's when it gets "interesting".

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 01:01 PM

I wish you would cease from trying to disillusion us, the poor hypnotized adherents to a democratic republicanism gone awry. Your Olympian revelations bring no comfort, no genuine insight, no help of any kind for the sake of long-embattled humanity. Can't you do something more constructive?

A

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 01:04 PM

Yes, I can! And I shall. I am about to go outside and mow the lawn. ;-) And later today I shall visit a friend to take a look at a one-of-a-kind custom Martin guitar that he tracked down in Toronto. Following that, I shall jam with other musical friends at the Tuesday night gathering, and then I shall perhaps compose a new Shane adventure to titillate the masses.

It's a full life. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 01:05 PM

Whenever I encounter one of these "grand puppeteer" conspiracies that span many years and thousands of individuals, I think back to my own experience. How difficult it was for my own father to get me to do little things that he and conventional wisdom thought was good for me.

I think that all theories of government can be boiled down to two truisms, "Money Talks" and "most individuals are lazy." The corporations and rich people certainly have too much influence. But it is our fault. And your delusion that it is some grand conspiracy is not helping.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 01:19 PM

I don't call it a "conspiracy". That's just melodramatic. I call it a way of doing business. They are simply doing business in the usual way they are accustomed to, and that involves financing political parties, influencing elections and legislation, and seeing that the business and banking elite's interests are well served. It's not just an American phenomenon, it happens everywhere. It's not a conspiracy, it's a way of life that has built up over the last few hundreds of years. The richest people run the show. It's worse in some countries than it is in the USA. In Mexico, for example, there are probably about 20 or 30 very rich families that basically run the country and own most of it too. They ensure that every government serves their interests, and their interests are not those of the general public, needless to say.

If a president were to attempt to genuinely confront the business elite and radically reverse what has been happening for a very long time now, I wouldn't want to be his life insurance provider.

Anway, I'm gonna go cut the lawn now. I need the exercise. And it's a matter that is within my real circle of power, right? ;-) What we're talking about here is not.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 01:25 PM

Oh!!!!! You don't Call!!!!!! it a conspiracy!!!! Well that makes your description of a GRAND GLOBAL ALL ENCOMPASSING CONSPIRACY perfectly OK.

I think your lawn may be a conspiracy cooked up between Black and Decker and Miracle Grow. Certainly, in today's economy, growing grass makes the rich richer!

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: pdq
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 01:26 PM

There is a myth that studious, sincere Middle Class people study each candidate carefully and vote for the most qualified and capable ones.

That is pure bunk. People vote for their special interest groups and for the people who promise them what they want.

95% of Blacks voted for Obama because he is Black.

Many people believe that free health care is a birthright and they vote for Democrats.

Mexicans want amnesty for their people and unlimited immigration. They also vote for Democrats.

The unions give over 97% of their political contributions to Democrats and get the government they pay for. Democrats, essentially, sit down beside unions and fight against business. They also run most goverment entities and give unions boys whatever they can. The taxpayers are the losers here.

Republicans largely represent White folks, sincere Christians and the dwindling Middle Class.

Probably no way a Republican can ever live in the White House again unless there is a huge re-alignment such as happened in the election of 1932.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: olddude
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 02:26 PM

I dunno but I drove by and saw that Bobster had his Palin sign out for 2012 .. LOL

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 02:27 PM

From: pdq - PM
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 01:26 PM

There is a myth that studious, sincere Middle Class people study each candidate carefully and vote for the most qualified and capable ones.

That is pure bunk. People vote for their special interest groups and for the people who promise them what they want.

>>>The GOP in the last 6 national elections promised to cut the deficit while decreasing taxes, while not messing with Medicare. Certainly NO sincere Middle Class people studied them carefully before voting for them."<<<

95% of Blacks voted for Obama because he is Black.

>>> About the same percentage voted for Clinton. A high percentage voted for Carter and Kerry. They aren't black.<<<<

Many people believe that free health care is a birthright and they vote for Democrats.

>>> Its the Tea Party supporters that say "Take your grubby government hands off my Medicare! (certainly a lot of sincere Middle Class thought going into that sentiment.) I say that Single payer would be cheaper for everyone and equal of better Health Care for 90%. But I am an actual conservative. Not one of you CINO's.<<<

Mexicans want amnesty for their people and unlimited immigration. They also vote for Democrats.

>>> Everyone wants better immigration laws. Changes will be impossible as long as the corporations and Business people have such a big sway at the top of both parties. What the Mexican American and other Hispanics don't like it the hypocritical demonizing of their cousins by the GOP.<<<

The unions give over 97% of their political contributions to Democrats and get the government they pay for. Democrats, essentially, sit down beside unions and fight against business. They also run most goverment entities and give unions boys whatever they can. The taxpayers are the losers here.

>>>Tax payers also lose when Defense contractors, Corn companies and energy companies get no bid contracts and corporate welfare.<<<<

Republicans largely represent White folks, sincere Christians and the dwindling Middle Class.

>>>>Your bigotry really seems to shine through here. Republicans represent money, and con others into voting for them. Urban white folks are more represented by Democrats, and Black Southern Baptists and Hispanic Catholics are as sincere as any other Christians in this country and GOP "pro business" policies have done more than any other factor to erode the "Middle Class" the size of the middle class has always depended upon the number of people able to enter it from below.<<<


Probably no way a Republican can ever live in the White House again unless there is a huge re-alignment such as happened in the election of 1932.

>>>Here is the good news for you. Of course a Republican can get into the White House. All he or she has to do is con as many people as Bush did.<<<

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 02:36 PM

"People vote for their special interest groups and for the people who promise them what they want."

NO! You're kidding. ;-) Yeah, of course they do. The sad thing, though, is that election promises are very rarely fulfilled, so the people are voting for a bunch of false propaganda, hopes and dreams, and it ain't gonna happen after their new "messiah" gets elected.

By the way, pdq, free, universal, and equal health care for all IS
a birthright! In any decent society, that is. That's why we have it in Canada and all over western Europe too, and in Japan as well. By "free", I mean that everyone pays for it equally out of their taxes...they all share the expense...thus spending what they can all easily afford for health insurance...and no one gets caught in an impossible financial situation when illness or accident puts them in the hospital. That IS a national birthright. To not have it established that way in a society is insane.

****

Jack, we appear once again to disagree on some minor semantic point or another. I don't mind. It doesn't cause me to lose any sleep and I hope it won't cause you to lose any either.

The lawn is now looking great.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 02:47 PM

LH, You said that the 2012 US election has already been decided by some overriding "Great Party Machine." Semantics aside, that IS a conspiracy theory. A rather silly one at that. You now seem to be saying the election will be decided by voter laziness and ignorance. That, I believe, is a reality based point of view.

I am happy for your lawn.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 03:02 PM

for PDQ "White People" The GOP does not speak for.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 03:03 PM

But they "speak" with Tax dollars.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/photos/daily-threat-assessment-20110412/0525333

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 03:16 PM

Jack, it is disingenuous on your part to quote a mere fragment of an earlier statement of mine to prove that I supposedly believe in something you WANT me to believe in so that I can be "wrong"...when I subsquently said other things in much greater detail to clarify what I believe, and which indicate that I do NOT believe in what you want me to believe in (so that I can be "wrong").

No, I do not believe in a great overriding world conspiracy to control everything. Nor do I believe in an American conspiracy to control everything. I believe we have a system based on selfishness, fear, greed, aggression, criminality, hypocrisy, short-range profit for a few, and long range losses for many. It is a system that sows the seeds of its own demise. Yes, a lazy and ignorant public are part of the problem.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 03:17 PM

" (I)saw that Bobster had his Palin sign out for 2012" olddude

No, no, no, olddude. Had you slowed down, you would have seen that what the sign said was: "Sarah Palin, stop HERE for some Iron City!"

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 03:22 PM

No Little Hawk, you said this which is certainly a description of an overriding conspiracy.

>>The great party machine has probably already decided that Obama will win the next election, so the charade of finding a Republican challenger to face off against him is just a question of picking a sacrificial lamb to go through the motions at the polls and keep the Great Game going in its usual farcical (and very costly) fashion. It MUST be done, otherwise the American public might stop believing they have a choice! They might stop believing they live in a real democracy! And that could lead to widespread anger...perhaps even revolution.<<

What you said later contradicted it. It was not clarification.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: olddude
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 03:25 PM

Ebbie
LOL yup I missed the other stuff ... LOL

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 04:02 PM

Jack, thanks for posting that link. That's very heartening.

I knew such people existed, but it's really nice to know that there are more of them out there than I thought.

Of all the sleazy, greedy multimillionaires and billionaires out there, I knew of only a very few who were actually doing anything beyond indulging themselves lavishly and squirrelling away fortunes larger than the gross national product of many small countries, into Swiss banks or the Cayman Islands.

One lives across Lake Washington from me:   Bill Gates. No matter what people may think of Microsoft and its products, Melissa civilized Bill (at one time, listed as the richest man in the world), and the two of them are giving away billions to a number of truly worthy causes.

And Ted Turner, cable television mogul:   when his personal fortune reached three billion dollars (petty cash compared to some), he initially gave away one billion of it. He was severely criticized by other extremely wealthy persons, apparently not pleased with his setting a good example for them to follow. He responded by saying, "I still have two billion dollars. Who in the hell needs THAT much money?" and proceeded to give a whole lot more away.

Taxes are the dues one pays for living in a society that gives one the opportunity to be successful and prosper.

But some folks are cheating the system.

####

Little Hawk, if anyone were to take your assessment of the omnipotence of the corporatocracy (and, yes, sad to say, we do live in what is essentially a corporatocracy) seriously, they would conclude that there is no point in even stirring themselves enough to go out and vote. As in "Why bother if it's already decided?"

YOU ARE PREACHING DEFEATISM.

And no, don't bother to deny it (which, of course, you will) because every time the subject of American politics comes up, you jump in with the same comments. Sometimes I think you've had a rubber-stamp printed up!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Wesley S
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 07:51 PM

Gov Rick Perry of Texas is sounding more like George Bush every day. At the end of this video you can hear Perry say that you can find him on "Tweeter".



Rick Perry and "Tweeter".

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 09:57 PM

I wonder if he'll sound "retweet"

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 11:44 PM

Jack, are you telling me that you know better what I am thinking inside my own mind and you know better what I mean than I do? ;-)

I would make no such claims in regard to you.

I will attempt to clarify what I said (in that quote) further if you really want to know what I mean, but I don't think you do. I think you just want to score some points on me. So why should I bother?

Why do people here care so damn much about what other people here think about some political matter anyway? Why???? Because you want to "win", that's why. You want to be "right" and you want the other guy to be "wrong". Well, it's a vain pursuit. There is nothing to win here. And it doesn't matter anyway. It's just a bunch of people idly talking in order to strengthen their sense of their own identity, and it doesn't mean squat, frankly. I just talk here because I enjoy it. Period. I do say what I mean as best I can, but I don't expect others to agree with it, and I don't care particularly if they don't agree with it. So what? How could it matter?

I am under no illusions that anything I say will convert anyone else here, persuade them of anything, or make a damn bit of difference to the political situation either. I wish the rest of you had the humility to realize the same thing about yourselves and not keep hectoring people you disagree with endlessly....just because they don't see it your way. It won't change them. It won't change you. It's just a bunch of hot air, it's ephemeral competitive bla-bla, and the only excuse for indulging in it is...it satisfies some momentary need you have to express yourself. And that's perfectly okay. We all have the need to express ourselves.

Don - I am not suggesting that you be defeatist. If you believe in the existing political order and want to work within it, that's fine with me. I don't believe in it. I think it's a sad joke, and I expect little or nothing to come from it (except more of the same). I have powerful hopes and dreams in life, Don, but they have almost nothing at all to do with the political systems we live under. They lie in other areas of life entirely. I talk about politics merely because I find it interesting, not because I have any faith in it. (And I am not talking exclusively about the American political system...I feel much the same way about politics in Canada or for that matter, in the UK.)

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 12:09 AM

I make no claims as a mind reader, but give me some credit as a reader of what you have written, Please.

Contradict is when you go on to say the opposite or completely different thing from what you first said. Clarify is when you say something that explains it. Saying that you are "clarifying" would be much more credible if you hadn't been espousing some version of the same conspiracy for several years now. You even espouse it in the paragraph addressed to Don in the post that I am now answering.

If you are simply talking about other countries' politics for your own amusement, not for your or anyone else's information or enlightenment. If you insist on talking pot shots at other people's beliefs for your own amusement. I suggest your develop a thicker skin when someone who does care, and is discussing their beliefs, calls "bullshit" on what you are saying.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: John P
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 12:16 AM

Little Hawk, you are getting better every day.

Jack, are you telling me that you know better what I am thinking inside my own mind

And then, in the very next paragraph:

Why do people here care so damn much about what other people here think about some political matter anyway? Why???? Because you want to "win", that's why.

Such irony! Just to clear up the situation in my own case, I don't engage in political debates because I want to win. The fact that that's the only reason you can think of says more about you than about anyone else.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 12:04 PM

"I wish the rest of you had the humility to realize the same thing about yourselves and not keep hectoring people you disagree with endlessly....just because they don't see it your way." LH

Little Hawk, what you refer to as "hectoring" from other people comes almighty close to what I call yours.

Only if I totally accept your reasoning can I understand your stance. Your stance - and I realize you are not alone- is one of unquestioningly internalizing the fact that there is an over-arching cabal planning, engineering, manipulating whatever a country and its government (the world?) do or whatever they try to do for their own ends.

This, despite education, altruism and philanthropy, death in their ranks and rebellion of their young. If that sounds logical to you, embrace it.

(Question: When FDR made his bold moves, did this cabal allow it because they just didn't care at that point?)

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 12:49 PM

But, Jack! I just can't take hearing strong words like "bullshit". I have to go for counseling when I hear stuff like that... ;-)

I just think it's "business as usual" that causes the system to be what it is, and it always has been. Politics is a matter of pragmatism, and pragmatism is usually a matter of money. Those who have the most money in play tend to determine the policy, don't they? And the policy is directed in order that they should make more money.

To even use the word "conspiracy" anymore these days is to cease to have any kind of reasonable discussion at all, because the term "conspiracy theory" is used now as a standard attack phrase simply to discredit and pooh-pooh someone else's statement about something. It's kind of like the "little green men" phrase in regards to any discussion about UFO sightings. It reduces the discussion to a meaningless exercise in ridicule and dismissal.

"Conspiracy" is now a word that has pretty much been rendered useless, in my opinion, by several decades of constant debunking and ridicule by people who merely don't like something someone else is saying.

I say it's a "way of life" and a "way of doing business", not a conspiracy. If all the people involved in that way of life and that way of doing business had EXACTLY the same objectives in mind....then I guess you could call it a conspiracy. But they don't. They have a variety of different objectives in mind, because they are all seeking an objective that will cause just them to profit...not cause everybody to profit.

This is also true of the general public. They usually want politicians to:

1. lower their taxes
2. increase their benefits
3. and improve social services
4. and provide "defense" (security)

Understandable! ;-) But is it also possible to do all that simultaneously? Hmmm....

Now, the problem is that the general public doesn't have as much financial clout as the major corporations and major banks do. Correct?

So who will the politicians listen to more? He who has more financial clout in Washington, that's who. But who will the politicians act like they are listening to? Why, the general public, of course, because if they don't, the general public won't vote for them.

And that's how it goes in the USA, in Canada, in the UK, in Germany, everywhere. Election campaigning is mostly exaggerated and specious appeals to the hopes and dreams of the general public, followed by pragmatic bargaining with the major financial powers that be after the election is over.

Is that a conspiracy? No. It's just a way of pragmatically working with real power when you are in the halls of power. And it's been happening more or less forever.

Occasionally a national crisis arises that is so grave that sweeping revolutionary changes must be made. In FDR's case, that crisis was the Great Depression and the onset of WWII. It was a crisis that affected the whole world. To his credit, he acted quite decisively and he brought in some very progressive social legislation. He had enormous public support to do that, and he did it.

Obama could have done something similar to FDR with the enormous wave of public support he had right after his election in 2008. He didn't. He has acted very timidly, in my opinion, and I'm disappointed in his performance. I'm also disappointed in his foreign war policies which are costing an incredible amount of money and producing nothing.

I do think, though, that McCain would have been even a lot worse! But it's a moot point. McCain never even had a chance of being elected in 2008...after 8 years of George W. Bush and an economic meltdown? Not a chance.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 01:46 PM

I pretty much agree with your last post. But below, you mention "The great party machine" which has already "decided" the 2012 election without input from the voters. You may not like the word "conspiracy" but what you say here certainly fits the definition of one. I am not trying to "win" but I'd be happy never to see another mention of this conspiracy from you.

>>The great party machine has probably already decided that Obama will win the next election, so the charade of finding a Republican challenger to face off against him is just a question of picking a sacrificial lamb to go through the motions at the polls and keep the Great Game going in its usual farcical (and very costly) fashion. It MUST be done, otherwise the American public might stop believing they have a choice! They might stop believing they live in a real democracy! And that could lead to widespread anger...perhaps even revolution.<<

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 02:07 PM

I drive a lot through the Southern US. Having grown up on the CBC, I like to listen to people talk on the radio so I listen to NPR. Some places have no NPR. In other places NPR prefers to pollute the airwaves with classical music rather than play "The World", or "All Things Considered."

In one of those places, at one of those times. I heard an ad on "AFR" (American Family Radio) which presents itself to the Public and a Christian Broadcaster and as far as I know, presents itself to the Government a Church for tax purposes.

The radio ad went something like this. "Our critics say 'Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.' But we say how can we NOT speak out when so much is wrong."

They call themselves Christian, but pointedly deny in a radio ad, the most basic of his teachings. They are very successful and have a huge listener base. A large listener base whose anger blinds them to their own beliefs.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 03:30 PM

Little Hawk:   "Why do people here care so damn much about what other people here think about some political matter anyway? Why???? Because you want to 'win', that's why. You want to be 'right' and you want the other guy to be 'wrong' . . . It's just a bunch of people idly talking in order to strengthen their sense of their own identity, and it doesn't mean squat, frankly."

Well spoken from way up there on your lofty mountaintop, O Grand High Lama of The Mudcat.

There are a number of people here—on this thread and others—who are very disturbed about the way this country is going and feel impelled AS concerned citizens (concerned both for the country as a whole and for their own safety and well-being in particular, e.g., like many my age and in my physical condition, if my Social Security and Medicare get cut, I am SCA-ROOD! ) to try to DO something about it. And doing something, among other things, involves trying to convince others to be concerned as well. And to point out the areas that need particular attention.

Your reading of what these discussions are all about (while, granted, in there are a few trolls here who just like to bait people, to be ignored if at all possible) sounds like the musings of someone who had freshman year Psychology, then spent a lot of time reading bad translations of the Bhagavad Gita.

If you can't add something worthwhile to the discussion—like a SERIOUS THOUGHT about what people might be able to do—rather than repeatedly saying things like "May as well give up, folks, the Philistines are in charge and there's nothing you can do about it!" than please don't try the patience of those who are trying to have a serious discussion.

ADDENDUM:   By the way, Little Hawk, your last post is much more like it. It begins to get down to the nitty-gritty, and there is a lot there can I agree with.

(But even if I didn't agree with it, it had some substance.)

Don Firth

P. S. To Jack:   "In other places NPR prefers to pollute the airwaves with classical music rather than play "The World", or "All Things Considered."

That isn't NPR's preference, that's local option. For example, I have three NPR affiliates in my listening area, meaning that each station airs some programs such as Morning Edition, All Things Considered, and The World, and then moves on to local programming. KUOW broadcasts the three programs mentioned, plus a few others, including some from American Public radio (different public network), then spends the rest of the day with really good interviewers (notably Steve Sher, Marcie Sillman, and Ross Reynolds) conversing (with listener call-in options) with local people of note, such as the Mayor, State Attorney General, City Council members and State Legislators and others, along with various visiting or local dignitaries. KPLU does Morning Edition then spends the rest of the day playing jazz. KBTC also does Morning Edition and All Things Considered, then plays "Folk Music" (new definition of the term, mostly singer-songwriter stuff, with an occasional traditional song or bit of Bluegrass) for the rest of the day.

All networks, ABC, NBC, CBS, and NPR offer many more programs than most of their local affiliates actually air (I was News Director for an ABC affiliate back in the early 1970s). As long as the local station plays some of the network's programs, they can declare themselves an affiliate, but which ones they chose is the local station's option.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 04:17 PM

By the way, one should perhaps mention that not all public radio stations are National Public Radio. KING-FM here in Seattle plays all classical music, including such things as the live Metropolitan Opera broadcasts on Saturday afternoons, concerts by the Seattle Symphony, Seattle Opera, the Early Music Guild, and other groups, plus selections from their vast record library.

From the beginning, they operated as a regular commercial radio station, supporting themselves as usual by airing commercials between musical selections. But sometimes this was a really bad mix. You're all mellow after listening to a nice Mozart Symphony, and are then jarred by some bull-horn voice huckster trying to sell you a used car. Or aluminum siding complete with non-clog eave gutters. You get the picture.

After years of listener complaints, KING-FM has become a public radio station. No more commercials. The station is now supported by the listeners (periodic contributions, sort of like voluntary subscriptions) along with institutional support (occasional announcements such as "The past hour of music has been brought to you by the support of Nordstrom's Department Store." (End of announcement—polite, non-jarring).

The late afternoon to evening announcer, Sean MacLean, is a classic guitarist himself, so he tends to play a fair amount of classic guitar. Thanks, Sean.

Don Firth

Now, back to our regular broadcast. . . .

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 05:42 PM

In other places NPR prefers to pollute the airwaves with classical music rather than play "The World", or "All Things Considered.

I stand corrected. I meant "Public Radio" instead of "NPR."

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Jun 11 - 03:34 PM

Ebbie -- "Question: When FDR made his bold moves, did this cabal allow it because they just didn't care at that point?"

I was just a tad (barely more than a rug-rat) at the time, but I remember listening to FDR's "Fireside Chats" on the radio, and that these straightforward talks with the American people became something of an institution and almost everybody made a point to listen in.   Although a brilliant orator when the occasion called for it, in the Fireside Chats Roosevelt spoke in simple, straightforward language, explaining what he was doing (or trying to do) and why he was doing it. People understood him. And when some of his measures were passed and people started seeing the immediate results, the vast majority of the people were behind him all the way. Re-elected three times, he died in office in his fourth term.

The Right Wing spent about a decade and a half being positively livid. They tried all kinds of things, even going so far (and so low!) as to claim that "'Roosevelt' isn't his real name. It's 'Rosenfelt!' He's a Jew!" pandering to lowest of people's prejudices, much like the current flood of lies about Barack Obama

The Roosevelt administration put the 25% unemployed back to work directly with such agencies as the Works Projects Administration (WPA) and the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC). Not promises. Deeds. That worked right away. Yes, it played hell with the national deficit, but suddenly there were a whole bunch of people working who had been unemployed before—and they were paying taxes!! Which, in turn, started bring down the deficit.

There wasn't much the Republican opposition could do about it. Nothing succeeds like success. But the Republicans worked very hard at chipping away at the regulatory agencies, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that reigned it the Wall Street speculators and Ponzi schemers, and the whole alphabet soup of Roosevelt's regulatory agencies that prevented "the usual suspects" from indulging their greed and bringing about another Depression.

Until Ronald Reagan. He was a popular enough President (not so much because of his programs or ideas, but primarily because of his personality) that he got away with either dismantling or gutting the regulatory agencies by putting corporate wonks in charge of the agencies that were supposed to regulate the very corporations the wonks were from—putting the fox in charge of the chicken house.

That's why we're where we are today.

Obama needs to stiffen his spine, stop trying to compromise with people who are hell-bent on trying to see to it that he fails, and study up a lot on what Roosevelt did and how he did it.

Probably one of the most vicious slanders you'll hear about Roosevelt these days is that "He got us out of the Depression by starting World War II!" Lie! The Depression was well over when the war started.

The claim is that Roosevelt goaded the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor. The fact is that the U. S. had been selling scrap iron to Japan, who then used it to make weapons to use on the Chinese (have you heard of the "rape of Nanking?"). Roosevelt leaned on Japan because of the brutality of the war they were waging in China, and cut off the supply of scrap iron. The Japanese sent a diplomatic mission to Washington, D. C., and while they were talking peace, the Pearl Harbor sneak attack occurred. The Japanese military intended the attack to be a sucker punch.

They're stated mission at the time was to "turn the Pacific Ocean into a Japanese pond."

And we were in the way. No. Roosevelt didn't start World War II.

Texts of the Fireside Chats.

Don Firth

P. S.   Sorry about the length of this screed. But hearing some of the revisionist history that the Right Wing spouts about Roosevelt and others really burns my butt! I was young at the time (an ordained Geezer now), but I was there and I remember.

P. P. S.   By the way, Ebbie, the cabal DID care very much. But with the war going on in Europe, Roosevelt and others were fully aware of how dangerous Hitler and his friends were, but tried to stay out of it. There were such things as the "Lend-Lease" program to Britain, during which a number of American ships were attacked by German U-Boats. The USS Reuben James (immortalized in song by Woody Guthrie) was a destroyer, escorting supply ships to Great Britain which was attacked and sunk by a German submarine. So I'd say the U. S. was sure as hell provoked into World War II. Roosevelt didn't START it, for cryin' out loud!!

If you have the stomach for it, this article gives a very good run-down on what sort of things some members of the cabal were involved in in the 1930s. Fasten your seat belt and keep an airsick bag handy.

The German-American Bund.

The position of the cabal at the time was summed up succinctly in a song that Walt Robertson used to sing, Little Man on a Fence:

Now, over on the Right, in their great big cars
Sat a bunch of fat men a-smokin' big cigars.
They were all shoutin' with great broad grins
About what to do with Stalin when Hitler wins!

I wish I could remember the rest of the song.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: gnu
Date: 23 Jun 11 - 03:49 PM

999... Charlie Farquharson would make an excellent candidate but he's from Tronna eh?

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Jun 11 - 04:30 PM

Rick Mercer would be better.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Jun 11 - 04:37 PM

Yeah, I'd vote for Charlie Farquharson if he's the one I met at Possum Lodge some time back (even if he wasn't necessarily born in the U.S.   Canada, right?   Close enough!).

He seems to have things pretty well worked out.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Jun 11 - 05:56 PM

Oh boy o boy

Its just 15 months away


With Citizens United in full force, no more Acorn, many new laws making it impossible to register new voters or new poll laws requiring multiple ID's, and dozens of new re districted areas,

The Republicans won't need Diebold to change results again.

Should the Republicans succeed in self destructing America with failure to raise the debt limit or allow new jobs to be created,
they could win. But what will they win after they have done their best to hurt Americans just to make it look like Obama did it?

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: pdq
Date: 23 Jun 11 - 06:00 PM

In the next four year presidential cycle, two events will occur.

China's economy will pass that of the US and they will never look back. Their place as world leader will include their calling the shots everywhere in the world in economics and politics.

Social Security will go broke. Last year it paid out 47 billion more than it took in, he first defecit spending by SS ever. Problem is, we have fewer than four workers paying into the system now, but FDR had over 40 people to tap for each recipient.

Too bad the rabid FDR fans have absolutely no objectivity concerning their hero. He was flawed like everyone and many of his attempts to fix problems actually made the problems worse.

About starting WWII, the US was building 2-story barracks all over the US by 1938. Perhaps 1937. I have been in them at Ft. Lewis, Camp Roberts, Ft. Knox and Ft. Sam Houston. All are made to the exact same plans and, nationwide, they provided enough human storage space to get us through the inevitable war.

Conscription started in ernest in early 1940, long before Pearl Harbor. The 12 million people drafted from 1940-1945 sure lowered FDR's unemployment figures.

FDR had unemployment between 15% and 25% from his first day in office until the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. His attempt to fix the problem through extreme government spending may made thing a little better, but not like the boom times of 2003-2007 unemployment dropped near 4% at times.

No doubt about it, FDR was a public relations genius. No other president has come close.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Jun 11 - 06:40 PM

Typical Republican anti-FDR screed. I've heard it all before.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Jun 11 - 07:00 PM

>>Mr. Roosevelt, we need you again.<<

I don't think so. I don't think Roosevelt would stand up to today's misinformation machine any better than any of our present progressive leaders. They would have a field day with the Polio, the mistresses and with Elanor, look what they did to Hillary with a lot less material.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Jun 11 - 07:17 PM

Jack, there were a number of right-wing radio commentators and newspaper columnists at the time who made their careers out of trying to dig up dirt on the Roosevelts. Old stuff, actually. He was the target of the same kind of trash that Obama is now.

From the article I linked to above:

To awaken his country from its isolationist slumber, Roosevelt began a long, urgent, eloquent campaign of popular education, warning that unchecked aggression abroad would ultimately endanger the U.S. itself. "Let no one imagine that America will escape, that America may expect mercy," he said. The debate in 1940-41 between isolationists and interventionists was the most passionate political argument of my lifetime. It came to an abrupt end when Japanese bombs fell on Pearl Harbor.

Roosevelt had the foresight to prepare for war even when he hoped (vainly, he knew) that it wouldn't come. Roosevelt haters like to point to those preparations and claim that they are evidence that he fully intended to START a war.

The war was already going. We got into it pretty late, actually, and some of our British cousins are still resentful that we didn't jump in with both feet much ealier.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Jun 11 - 07:31 PM

By the way, note how political trash-talk works. George Lakoff calls this "framing."

Notice how there is no direct answer to the points I made in my above post about FDR in answer to Ebbie's question, other than simple contradiction of known facts, without offering any support. pdq characterizes me as a "rabid FDR fan" with "absolutely no objectivity," thereby trying to establish that there is no truth or merit to anything I say about Roosevelt.

Look for it. It reveals a lot about the trash-talker.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Ebbie
Date: 23 Jun 11 - 10:41 PM

Don Firth, I appreciated your synopsis of the FDR/early war years but you misunderstood my question. I meant it to be a pointed query aimed at Little Hawk suggesting. given his firmly promulgated belief that a cabal governs everything political in this country/world, that it was surprising that the cabal 'permitted' FDR's moves.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Jun 11 - 02:14 AM

Ah, so, Ebbie! Okay.

Jack, just curious.

Regarding Franklin and Eleanor's somewhat odd marriage arrangements:

It seems that Eleanor was a brilliant woman, although not especially attractive. Her intelligence is probably what attracted FDR in the first place. Even though they had six children, Eleanor always regarded sex as a ordeal, while, Franklin was a fairly vigorous and passionate man. After the birth of their sixth child, Eleanor drew the line:   no more sex. So Franklin DID have a mistress or two. Eleanor didn't especially mind (it relieved her of the "burden") and she simply looked the other way. She and Franklin stayed fairly close intellectually, though. Both very intelligent people.

I'm quite sure the Right Wing nuts would whoop and squeal over that, but I really think the two of them could have handled it.

I'm curious to know what kind of hay the Right Wing nuts would try to make out of Roosevelt's having been a victim of polio. The whole country knew, and it certainly didn't slow him down any. I can't imagine anyone trying to make any political points with it without their being thoroughly ripped apart for indulging in REALLY cheap shots. I'm curious to know what form this might take.
 
Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 Jun 11 - 11:51 AM

"Even though they had six children, Eleanor always regarded sex as a ordeal, while, Franklin was a fairly vigorous and passionate man. After the birth of their sixth child, Eleanor drew the line:   no more sex. So Franklin DID have a mistress or two. Eleanor didn't especially mind (it relieved her of the "burden") and she simply looked the other way."

I thought that was Rose and Joe Kennedy?

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Jun 11 - 11:57 AM

I wasn't there but I have read since that the press was careful NOT to show him in the wheelchair. I an barely imagine what the swift boaters would have done.


But that is beside the point. Technology does make good men better. But it sure give more opportunity for the evil ones to attack.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: katlaughing
Date: 24 Jun 11 - 02:32 PM

I know this doesn't follow the most recent postings, but felt this was probably the most appropriate thread to add the following as it does have to do with the right wing's plans to work the election ala Koch Brothers. From "ProgressNow Colorado":

Billionaire brothers to host conservative seminar in Vail Valley
Virginia governor among those on Koch brothers' guest list this weekend

http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20110623/NEWS/110629925/1078&ParentProfile=1062

In a September 2010 letter to supporters, Charles Koch describes the annual meetings as a way to review strategies "for combating the multitude of public policies that threaten to destroy America as we know it."

"Our goal for these meetings must be to advance ideas that strengthen that freedom, beat back the unrelenting attacks and hold elected leaders accountable," Charles Koch wrote.

The meetings, "Understanding and Addressing Threats to American Free Enterprise and Prosperity," are invitation-only. While members of the media are not among those invited, millionaire, right-wing donors are.

[Colorado Common Cause Director Jenny] Flanagan said the seminars are so important because it's when the brothers and their donors decide how to spend their money.

"We're talking about millions of dollars that are used to influence public policy," Flanagan said. "This is the meeting where they come together and figure out where they're going to spend this money."

And more today from the Colorado Independent:
Koch Brothers Beaver Creek retreat to be met by protesters

http://coloradoindependent.com/92045/koch-brothers-beaver-creek-retreat-to-be-met-by-protesters

Word that a retreat hosted by conservative mega-donors Charles and David Koch is coming to Colorado has spurred activists across the state into action. Colorado Common Cause, ProgressNow, Moveon.org, and others plan to meet and protest in Beaver Creek, Sunday morning.

The news first broke Wednesday that the brothers would be hosting their twice-yearly event in the Vail area after Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell released his schedule, which noted he would be attending the Koch seminar Sunday.

Upon hearing the news, progressive groups, environmental organizations and numerous other groups immediately began an effort to both mobilize their membership and determine the location of the secretive gathering...

I regret I am unable to be there for the protests. I consider the Koch Bros. and their ilk to be the worst enemies of our country.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Jun 11 - 04:01 PM

One last note on Roosevelt's polio:

Actually, I'm not sure it was the press. Roosevelt himself didn't want to project an image of weakness, and he thought that some folks might take his physical disability that way. He wore heavy leg-braces, and when he walked, he used a cane (rather dapper in some circles) and had someone right beside him whose arm he could lean on for support.

His personal appearances were carefully "choreographed" to show as little of him having to walk as possible. Especially such things as getting out of or into an automobile or limo. This is one of the very few published pictures showing FDR in a wheelchair (note the leg-brace on the little girl's right leg).   HERE.

Everybody knew about it, of course. But the message he managed to project was "It's a matter of no importance."

Roosevelt never accepted the idea that his paralysis was permanent, and spent whatever spare time he could find at a spa in Warm Springs, Georgia, undergoing hydrotherapy and physical therapy. He wound up buying the place (on his own dime, by the way; the Roosevelt family was independently wealthy—"old money") and turned it into a rehabilitation center for polio victims. This was in 1927, incidentally, before he was elected President. He also started the "March of Dimes," which went a great way toward funding research for a polio vaccine.

As I said, his disability didn't slow him down one bit, and to try to use it for propaganda points against him might just backlash on whoever tried it.

Adage:   There is an essential difference between a career politician and someone who dedicates his life to public service.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Jun 11 - 04:48 PM

Actually I have seen members from the press on TV, I guess it was PBS, saying that his Polio and Love life were known but considered off limits. AND I CANNOT IMAGINE THAT BEING SAID IN 60 years, with a straight face, by any member of the press today.   But if we can have him today without today's press, I think you are right we can use him.


On the other hand, if we could all just stick to the issues and show some decency like most people did then, we could make do with the men we have.

Or if pigs could fly, we would all have smokers and would sit on our porches with shotguns waiting for breakfast to arrive.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Jun 11 - 05:40 PM

True indeed. Times have changed, and in that respect, not for the better. Much of today's press, especially so-called "news services" like Fox, are a bunch of bottom-feeders.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: pdq
Date: 24 Jun 11 - 08:45 PM

Now we have a gossip column discussion about Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt's sex lives (or lack thereof) followed to one about Joseph P. and Rose Kennedy's sex lives.

Priceless!!!

Perhaps Propaganda Minister Firth can explain how the Hell this has anything to do with the serious job of choosing next year presidential candidate?

We are spending $1.00 for every 57¢ we take into the Federal government and the current occupant of the White House says that isn't problem, and the Congressional Democrats say " the only answer is to raise you taxes".

If these out-of-touch brats aren't voted out it will be the end of this country as we knew it.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Jun 11 - 09:13 PM

"Propaganda Minister" eh, pdq? When someone gets sarcastic and abusive, that generally means I got up their their nose about something.

A little comparison with past presidents and policies is a good touchstone for picking new ones. It's called "learning from history." Maybe if YOU knew more about past presidents, both good and bad, you could make better choices than merely picking who Bill O'Reilly tells you to pick.

Yes! If we raised taxes on the multi-billionaires who are taking vast sums out of the economy and currently paying very little or no taxes at all, the country would be a whole lot better off. Thanks a million, George!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Jun 11 - 09:18 PM

pdq, if you had read the conversation between Jack and me, you might have a clue as to what it was all about.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 09:35 AM

'We are spending $1.00 for every 57¢ we take into the Federal government and the current occupant of the White House says that isn't problem, and the Congressional Democrats say " the only answer is to raise you taxes".'

The USA was doing the same under Bush--why didn't you say anything about it then?

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,999 sorry, no cookie
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 09:37 AM

'We are spending $1.00 for every 57¢ we take into the Federal government and the current occupant of the White House says that isn't problem, and the Congressional Democrats say " the only answer is to raise you taxes".'

The USA was doing the same under Bush (spending too much)--why didn't you say anything about it then?

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 10:09 AM

Actually, under Bush - and Reagan - the U.S. was spending more like $3 for every 57¢ taken in. Didn't seem to bother the Neo-Conservatives then. AND that's what caused the current mess.

But they do have VERY short attention spans and even shorter memories.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Stringsinger
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 04:26 PM

A referendum (with an accent on dum(b), I like to call the Paul Ryan Budget,
The Ayn Rand Budget.

That's the reason it has so much resonance with some in the GOP.

Think of the Governor's takeover as an Ayn Rand proposition....

Including Rand Paul (Guess from where he got his first name?_

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 04:53 PM

Yeah, I kind of wondered about that!

I was a real Ayn Rand True Believer some decades ago. Then I saw some of the real world and grew up a lot.

The woman was a demagogue of the worst kind, and the fact that much of the GOP and the "Tea Party" are embracing her is appalling.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: pdq
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 05:57 PM

Ayn Rand made it quite clear that she was an Anthiest, not merely an agnostic.

She was also "pro choice". In fact, she wanted government to stay out of people's personal lives and stop legislating on social issues.

She made people on the Left, Right and in the Center angry at times. She now looks like a pioneer libertarian.

Ayn Rand also made the Hollywood Left mad because she told the truth about the Bolshevik Revolution and pointed out the Stalin was as bad (or worse) than Hitler. Only Jack Warner of the Hollywood moguls was in her corner at the time. He had his studio do the movie version of The Fountainhead which probably had a great deal to do with making her financially secure.

She deserves to be read like any of the other important thinkers of history. She was a favorite of Alan Greenspann and many other interesting people.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 09:32 PM

Currently the Republic party has a pretty weak collection of candidates. They have 3 pencil neck white guys who are conpletely interchangable, one fat bloviator, one all American Mormon Dudly Do Right, and the black guy from Ghostbusters. Other tahn being the year of the Mormons, who believe in keeping a full years worth of food in storage in case of a catastrophe, which is appropo for the year 2012.

They have no one who will admit to being a moderate.

Obama, to the dissappoinment of liberals is to the right of Eisenhower.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 09:45 PM

What drew me to Ayn Rand in the first place was a friend recommending The Fountainhead. That caught me at a time in my life when there were people who kept trying to tell me what I should be doing with my life careerwise—and how I should do it. The message I got from The Fountainhead was to follow my own muse, and that I did not owe it to others to do it their way rather than my own. I needed that at the time. The basic message I took from the book was to have confidence in my own ideas and, as someone once put it, "Instead of letting other people tell you how to run your life, have the courage to be the star of your own movie."

Then some years later, she came out with Atlas Shrugged. The writing style was the same (very muscular), but it was a whole different thing. There are people around with the same kind of artistic and personal integrity as Howard Rourk, protagonist of The Fountainhead. But you're going to be damned hard pressed to come up with a real-life counterpart for characters like Hank Reardon, Dagny Taggart, Francisco d'Anconia—or John Galt. Or, for that matter, Rand's modern day pirate (attacking, looting, and sinking relief ships whose cargos have been bought with his rich friends' tax money, which he returns to them in gold bars), Ragnar Danneskjöld, who is sufficiently clever and elusive to evade all the world's navies. And he's one of Ayn Rand's good guys.

The whole thousand-plus page novel is a build-up to John Galt's fifty-two page speech, in which he (Ayn Rand, actually) outlines the basic principles of the philosophy and ethics of "Objectivism."

I soaked all of this up and even went so far as to take a twenty lecture course in "The Basic Principles of Objectivism" along with a bunch of other people, all sitting around of a Saturday night listening to lectures by Nathaniel Brandon on LP records. A lot of this sounded pretty good, but a lot of it bothered the hell out of me.

Any misgivings I dared to voice were quickly shamed out of me by the others—although I was not the only one there bothered by the idea that anyone who, through no fault of their own (illness, any kind of reverse or mishap) couldn't cope and needed a bit of a hand should simply be left to manage as best they could. The elderly? If they didn't have the foresight, or, for that matter, enough money left over at the end of the month, to save up for their retirement, they should be left to cope for themselves. They should have got a better job.

A very "survival of the fittest—and ONLY the fittest" view.

Like I said. What cured me of Ayn Rand was taking a look at the real world. And what REALLY cured me was that, having also read books like Rachel Carson's The Silent Spring and others who were issuing early warnings about the way we were using the atmosphere and the oceans to dump our trash in with the apparent assumption that their capacity was infinite and what this could eventually lead to, Ayn Rand came out with an essay on the burgeoning environmental movement, and concluded it by saying that these environmental "alarmists" ought to seek out the dirtiest, filthiest, belchingest smoke stack they could find and get down on their knees and give thanks for all the goods, services, and benefits it was endowing them with!

THAT CORKED IT!!

This and many other things she wrote in books like Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal, The Virtue of Selfishness, and her monthly magazine, "The Objectivist" managed to convince me that the woman was either completely out of touch with reality or a real monster.

During the last few decades of her life, she managed to "repudiate" and alienate all her friends and her "inner circle" of people like Nathaniel Branden and Alan Greenspan. She wound up living in her thirtieth floor New York condominium and never went out into the real world.

And despite her vitriolic loathing of "government handouts," when her monthly Social Security check was deposited to her bank account, she bloody well spent it. And Medicare payments when she, a chain smoker all her life, contracted lung cancer.

(Tell me again that bit about personal integrity?)

I have quite a library of books by and on Ayn Rand. All of the books she wrote, and many books written about her by former members of her "inner circle" such as Nathaniel Brandon and Barbara Brandon (separately). And I have read them all.

There's not a helluva lot about Ayn Rand anyone can tell me that I don't already know.

ATLAS SHRUGGED:    The basic plot MacGuffin is that all the creative people of the world (or at least the ones John Galt can round up) who feel that they are not being properly credited or paid for the largess their creativity has lavished on an unappreciative and thankless world go On Strike, disappear, and hide out in a hidden valley in the Colorado Mountains (which they call "Atlantis," but it sounds a bit more like "Shangri-La" from the book and movie "Lost Horizon"). With all the world's entrepreneurs on strike, civilization collapses. In the climax, the protagonists decide it is now time to come forth from their refuge and rebuild the world in their own image.

Pure    Unregulated    Capitalism

Now you know what the Tea Party is all about.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: katlaughing
Date: 29 Jun 11 - 02:51 PM

Don, thank you for that. From what you have shared, I am glad I was just young enough to have missed her "heyday," I guess, as I never really heard much about her until coming to Mudcat. Sounds as though she was quite wicked in her own way.

Besides the Koch Bros. gathering tens of millions this past weekend to buy their way through the election, this tidbit seems somehow fitting, one robber-murder to another:

The tintype photograph of outlaw and killer Billy the Kid sold for $2.3 million to a millionaire who plans to enjoy owning it and lending it to a few museums for display. The picture is the only one known to be an authentic photo of Billy the Kid. It was probably taken in New Mexico. Billy the Kid is said to have murdered at least 21 people and was sentenced to hang for the 1878 murder of a sheriff. He escaped and was killed by Sheriff Pat Garrett on July 14, 1881. Tintypes made a mirror image, so the auctioned photo shows what seems to be a left-handed man (he wasn't). The picture was reportedly given to Dan Dedrick by Billy and has been in Dedrick's family ever since. The new owner, William Koch, is a member of a well-known family of billionaires who made money from oil and gas.

It also seems a bit offensive, to me, that such ilk now owns such a piece of history and, of course, will spread his largesse around to certain museums. They are an insidious lot and pure tea party backers.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,999
Date: 29 Jun 11 - 02:53 PM

Billy the Kid was a snot-nosed punk.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Jun 11 - 03:11 PM

Billy the Kid was a thief. In the not too distant future some man similar to Koch will sponsor a Bernie Madoff exhibit.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Wesley S
Date: 29 Jun 11 - 03:38 PM

They just had an auction of stuff that used to belong to the Unibomber. It was quite successful from what I heard.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Jun 11 - 03:47 PM

John Galt was the same character as Mad Max, After the Thunderdome and the kind of society portrayed in the movie would resemble we would have with Paul "Ayn Rand" Ryan's view of how things should be...

I think it is a disgusting and anti-human view of world...

I mean, we're all in this thing together and allowing the Koch brothers to pollute our air and poison our water because they own a piece of our government is bad policy no matter how it gets into the law...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Jun 11 - 08:25 PM

It also seems a bit offensive, to me, that such ilk now owns such a piece of history...

Well, I dunno, Kat- it seems to me quite appropriate that one murderous piece of shit should own a photo of another.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: saulgoldie
Date: 30 Jun 11 - 08:36 AM

Again, from Andy Borowitz:

June 28, 2011
In Major Gaffe, Bachmann Confuses Ass, Hole in Ground
Misspeaks about Grand Canyon

ARIZONA (The Borowitz Report) – In a fledgling campaign that has already produced more than its share of gaffes, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn) today confused her ass with a hole in the ground during a campaign swing through Arizona.

Speaking to a group of supporters in Phoenix, Rep. Bachmann raised eyebrows when she said, "It's great to be here in Arizona, the home of my ass."

After her comment was greeted with confused murmurs from the crowd, Rep. Bachmann quickly added, "Oh wait, did I say my ass? I meant the Grand Canyon."

Being unable to tell her ass from a hole in the ground, especially a prominent one such as the Grand Canyon, is only one of many challenges facing Rep. Bachmann in her quest for the Presidency, according to political science professor Davis Logsdon of the University of Minnesota.

"Michele Bachmann is a staunch believer in the theory of Intelligent Design," he said. "However, Intelligent Design cannot explain Michele Bachmann."

But Dr. Logsdon added that Rep. Bachmann remains an attractive candidate, especially for those Republican voters who find former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin "too cerebral."

"When Sarah Palin looks at Michele Bachmann, she must feel the way the Jonas Brothers feel about Justin Bieber," he said.

In other political news, GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich said today that "marriage must be defined as the union between a man, a woman, and the man's staff member at the time."

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Sawzaw
Date: 30 Jun 11 - 12:06 PM

Four signs the White House is worried about 2012 Wed, Jun 29, 2011 Josh Kraushaar National Journal

It's been a rough June for the White House. Instead of being able to run a campaign taking credit for economic improvement, President Obama will, according to the latest forecasts, be trying to win four more years amid a grim economy next year. The president's reelection team, once hoping to run on a "Morning in America" theme now doesn't have that luxury. No wonder, the president's advisers over the past month have been making moves that suggest they're awfully concerned about his prospects:

1. Searching for an economic message. Veteran Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg recently offered perceptive advice to the president's team by criticizing its "getting the car out of the ditch" metaphor meant to suggest the economy is slowly improving. As Greenberg wrote: "People thought they still were in the ditch."

This is a time when the president needs to find his inner Bill Clinton, and feel Americans' pain. If he wants to be one of the few presidents to win reelection in a stagnant economy, he'll have to devote less time to defending past policies, like the auto bailout, and more to offering specific solutions to help people get back to work. Think a 21st century version of FDR's fireside chats. But there are few signs that the president's economic messaging has changed. Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz [the person that said Republicans actually want to make illegal immigration illegal] recently said Democrats own the economy, but they don't seem to be adapting their message to the bad economy likely to face them in November 2012.

2. Doubling down on manufacturing. The latest White House effort to wring good news out of a bad economy focuses on successes in the manufacturing sector: the auto bailout that put GM and Chrysler on sounder footing, as well as green initiatives.

Politically, it's a puzzling message. While there has been a small uptick in manufacturing jobs, it's hardly enough to be felt by the blue-collar electorate, who have been bearing the brunt of the recession and never viewed Obama too favorably in the first place. The latest Gallup weekly tracking poll shows Obama's approval with college graduates at 51 percent, with a 40 percent approval among nongraduates. The president's emphasis on green jobs doesn't help. It's tough for many steelworkers to see themselves producing solar panels. Clean-energy jobs may be the future, but they're not seen by displaced workers as a panacea.

Are 'The (2012) Undecideds' In or Out? Instead, Obama's key to winning reelection is solidifying his support with college-educated whites, a swing demographic that has been more receptive to his message, along with high turnout among minorities. His key to victory is rallying white-collar professionals in swing-state suburbs, like Fairfax/Loudoun County, Va.; Wake County, N.C.; Franklin County, Ohio; Bucks County, Pa.; Clark County, Nev.Known hotbeds of manufacturing.

3. Fresh fundraising concerns. With a strong connection to the grassroots and expertise with social networking, President Obama's reelection team mastered the art of hitting up small donors in the 2008 campaign. But there are telltale signs that the grassroots army that propelled him is in a much less giving mood. It's not a huge surprise; the bad economy has hit Obama's small donors too. When you're having trouble paying the bills, you're not exactly pining to pitch in hard-earned money to help a powerful president. A sign Team Obama is looking elsewhere: A Los Angeles Times report that Obama's reelection team is already asking wealthy donors to commit the maximum $75,800 to the president's campaign funds.

How Foreign Policy Became the Issue Dividing the GOP Field. If Obama's re-election starts looking more difficult next year, donors may well be inclined to give to the Democratic Senate and House campaign arms, seeing them as the better investment. But if they're locked in with early maximum donations to the president's re-election, that won't be doable.

4. Raising the stakes in the upper South. Obama's strategists are raising the stakes in the two battleground upper South states, North Carolina and Virginia. They've never been critical cogs in a presidential strategy. If Team Obama sees them as such in 2012, it suggests the campaign is struggling in states that were comfortably on its side in 2008, particularly those in the Rust Belt. When I interviewed leading Democratic and Republican strategists about the states toughest for Obama to hold, most were pessimistic about his prospects in North Carolina, a state that he won by just 14,000 votes. Publicly, his strategists are arguing that the Tar Heel State's growing numbers of college-educated suburbanites and minorities plays to Obama's advantage. It's no coincidence the Democrats are holding next year's convention in Charlotte. But if North Carolina looks like a challenge, Virginia looks within Obama's grasp. Unemployment in the Old Dominion is far lower than most battleground states, and the growth of government jobs in the Washington, D.C., suburbs and a diversifying population play to the Democrats' favor. Not everyone on the Democratic side is as optimistic, however. One senior Democratic operative involved with key Virginia races believes Obama would need an African-American turnout close to his historic 2008 levels to win a tough task in a down economy. "When folks start to depend on recreating a specific snapshot in time, it is most always a disappointment," the strategist said.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Justa Picker
Date: 30 Jun 11 - 06:29 PM

(My humble opinion only, and as an outsider looking in - being a Canadian) ... Obama needs to do the right and honourable thing for the good of the country and the economy...that being, to make a formal announcement that he will NOT seek re-election of a second term (citing family, and whatever other reasons his spin doctors can come up with). This will pave the way to right a very serious wrong, and a course correction ... that being that Hilary Clinton can be persuaded to accept the nomination, and then subsequently be elected President, as she should have been back in 2008.

If this does not happen, then your country is screwed because the GOP will not work with Obama and his administration, nor are any GOP candidates electable (as the GOP is largely responsible for the entire fiscal mess [sic] depression that is ravaging the entire economy and the country.)

Further ... Obama doesn't even have the support of his own party.
It is an utter and complete mess and the entire government structure is in serious need of a complete overhaul as is the constitution itself. Hilary is the only hope for the American people in the next election, otherwise expect 4 more years of decline, potentially leading to a total default on the debt, a final collapse of the economy and a stock market collapse, the loss of the U.S. dollar as the reserve currency, hyperinflation, skyrocketing interest rates, a grossly devalued dollar, and a further decline in real estate values.

In the meantime the American government continues to lie to their population (to avoid mass rioting, civil unrest and then having to impose martial law) pretending it's all business as ususal, and loathing to admit the country is in a depression (and never recovered from the so-called "great recession") with statistics that are proportionately and comparatively far worse than what was happening during the early 1930's. I would so love to be wrong about all of this...but I'm not. The mainstream media is finally starting to report more on all of this and the writing IS on the wall if one chooses to see.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 30 Jun 11 - 06:56 PM

What on Earth makes you think that the GOP will work with Hillary?

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Wesley S
Date: 30 Jun 11 - 07:30 PM

"the GOP will not work with Obama "

But for some reason you think the conservatives WILL work with Hillary?? I'd LOVE to hear your logic behind that one.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Stringsinger
Date: 30 Jun 11 - 07:40 PM

It'll be Obama because no one wants Palin or Bachmann except to see them mud wrestle.

Romney has too many wives, (information brought to you by Tea Party Birthers)
and Palenty is too afraid.

Godfather Pizza tastes like cardboard.

Ron Paul is the only maverick that could surface in the crazy lineup.
He could win on pulling out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen and Pakistan.
But he's too crazy for the Republicans.

Who is Huntsman? Did he get lost in the desert on his motor bike?

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: pdq
Date: 30 Jun 11 - 08:11 PM

"...the GOP is largely responsible for the entire fiscal mess [sic] depression that is ravaging the entire economy and the country." ~ Justa Picker

Sorry, to tell you this, but the current Depression was caused entirely by the collapse in value of residential real estate.

In my county, single-family homes are worth 30¢ on the dollar when compared to prices in June of 2006. Yes, a $250,000 house back then can be bought today for $75,000.

People were taking out second mortgages and buying cars and boats and basically living the good life. Now, millions realize that they may never have a good job again. Many have given up and thrown themselves on the social services net and don't plan to try again. Next phase for them is Social Security.

We have peeked as a nation. Within about three years our economy will fall to second place behind China.

When the people realize that it is as good now as it will ever be, Obama will win because he will offer more social services to more people and claim that the GOP will take them away. The plan is old but it works.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Jun 11 - 08:13 PM

Just a little side note for the amusement and amazement of all and sundry:

The advent of the internet was a boon for the high school kid who had been assigned a term paper and who simply didn't want to bother with it, and besides, it was due the following morning, so he looks something up on the internet, prints it off, and turns it in.

This didn't last all that long, however. High school teachers and college professors soon learned that if they smelled a rat (the student simply didn't have the kind of writing skills to produce a paper like that, for example), they could cut-and-paste a sample sentence from the paper, paste it into the Google search box, and hey, presto! It would take them right to the web site where the student cribbed it.

The same little bit of high-tech detective work often produces fascinating results with certain posts right here on Mudcat.

For example, did you know that Sawzaw's post just above is pure cut-and-paste from the Tea Party's web site?

Here. Check it for yourself.    http://teaparty.org/article.php?id=967

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Wesley S
Date: 30 Jun 11 - 08:26 PM

Don - He did supply a credit for it:

"Wed, Jun 29, 2011 Josh Kraushaar National Journal"

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Justa Picker
Date: 30 Jun 11 - 08:39 PM

What on Earth makes you think that the GOP will work with Hillary

Quite simply over and above everything else .. because she's white.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 30 Jun 11 - 09:10 PM

Post-American World

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 30 Jun 11 - 09:12 PM

Justa, That just is not true in any sense.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Jul 11 - 11:59 AM

200?

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Jul 11 - 04:05 PM

True, Wesley. But he DID get it from the Tea Party's web page. That, I think, should tell you something, both about the article and about Sawzaw.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Sawzaw
Date: 01 Jul 11 - 07:58 PM

I am not an Obama fan but I believe he is destined for a second term.

I would like Mitt but he would never win.

Bloomberg would be a good prez I think but I haven't heard anything about him running.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: DougR
Date: 02 Jul 11 - 04:23 PM

Sawzaw: cheer up, my friend, I don't think things look nearly as tragic as you appear to think. My prediction is Obama will be beat bad, just like the Demos were in the House of Representatives last election.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Jul 11 - 04:33 PM

DougR, You were predicting McCain/Palin 3 years ago weren't you?

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Stringsinger
Date: 02 Jul 11 - 07:47 PM

Times have changed since the Republicans took over the House. The American voter is more aware of the damage that the Republicans are doing to the country in their effort to defeat Obama. Washington is indeed out of touch on this issue.

Obama will probably be re-elected because in times of instability, there is a tendency to adhere to a status quo. The Republicans have gotten too radical in their agenda and they are given to temper tantrums exemplified by Cantor's walk out of talks.
The only proposal the Republicans make is that anything that defeats Obama is their goal. The needs of the country are not being considered.

Tax exemption for Wall Street is a form of hypocrisy.

Wouldn't it seem reasonable the Palin, Bachmann and the other extremist GOP'ers would scare the hell out of corporate CEO's? This might be another reason that Obama would be re-elected. Wall Street would finance his campaign because they secretly know that Obama is one of them.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Jul 11 - 08:37 PM

Yes, the "housing crisis" was part, but only part, of the collapse... But it wasn't the major factor... The lenders were... They put together junk product which were going to blow up and blow up they did... And guess who was out there as the #1 salesman for the "ownership society"??? That's right... George W. Bush was... He and his Wall Street croonies played the biggest ballgame on America that has ever been seen...

But why did they do it??? To cover the fact that they had irresponsibly cut taxes yet again... Alan Greenspan's initial reaction to the tax cuts were "No way, bad policy" and then Bush and the Boys called him into the White House and roughed him up and he reluctantly went along with them but...

...Greenspan knew what was going to follow... He had seen it before in the 80s and the housing crisis and of '89-'90...

So Bush and his Wll Stret boyz concocted this "ownersh8ip society" and pushed and pushed people to buy homes... Where was the $$$ coming from??? Well, China... So the entire economic growth of the Bush administration wasn't really growth at all... It was a ballgame and artificial growth... Not real growth where you go out and compete with the world... All we did was build houses for *US* without any concern about sound economic principles...

This was the country that Obama inherited... A near collapse from a decade of a very bad Bush?Wall St. ballgame...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: saulgoldie
Date: 09 Jul 11 - 07:32 PM

Nothing this week? Michele Bachmann has been busy. Every time she opens her mouth, it is an whole new revelation of something we thought we knew, but it turns out we were wrong.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Jul 11 - 08:37 PM

Problem with Michelle is that she is clueless as to who she really is, clueless as to what she truly believes and clueless in general to the realities of the real world...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Stringsinger
Date: 10 Jul 11 - 10:49 AM

Now i'm thinking that Obama may not be re-elected. It might be a Republican president with a Democratic congress. More gridlock which Americans seem to love.

If he caves on Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid and doesn't go after the rich folks taxes he will be toast. Of course this is the main goal of the Republicans. His only hope is to
go on the offensive and he will never represent the country as a whole if he keeps giving in to Republican demands.

Democrats are not united. There are defectors who will damage the Party.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: saulgoldie
Date: 10 Jul 11 - 11:34 AM

Poll after reliable poll indicate that Americans in large numbers wanted a single-payer health plan and a return to the progressive tax structure of at least the 90s, and even the 50s, where the mega-rich paid much more. They also want business regulated for the protection of citizens against environmental and economic mischief.

However, the Republicans are aggressively pursuing voter suppression and purging the voter roles of likely non-Repub voters, and even machine-hacking. Actual voting fraud be "the left" is miniscule and waaay over-stated; voter suppression by "the right" is huge and actual. Therefore, what voters say they want will likely not happen. And even if Obama is somehow reelected and Congress is Dem, what have they done along these lines, anyway?

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Jul 11 - 11:35 AM

JtS's link to 'Post-America World' presents a fundamentally different view than I see. It is not original with me, of course, but I think that a world in which other countries wake up to their potential, creating their own niche in industry and social services and enriching their people, in a development that ensures the relative decrease of America's power and wealth and influence is a healthy one.

The position of Big Hog at the trough with a few subservient cronies while baby hogs are jostling each other for a place at the banquet is an unhealthy situation for everyone.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Jul 11 - 11:45 AM

Ebbie,

I am glad enough to see other countries thrive. But part of Fareed's thesis is that other countries are better of relative to the US due to a decline in the investment in education and infrastructure in this country.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Wesley S
Date: 13 Aug 11 - 03:37 PM

Now that Gov Rick Perry of Texas has entered the race I can easily see him winning the Republican nomination. He's pretty, clueless and not a Mormon. The conservatives will love him.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Aug 11 - 03:52 PM

Absolutely.    But not just clueless conservatives.    If the economy does not drastically improve, and soon, Obama could have real trouble beating Perry.   Unless Perry somehow self-destructs.

Perry's only problem I can see with the GOP primary voters is that he may not be considered strong enough by the anti-immigrant groups.   After all, he has advocated in-state schooling for the children of illegal immigrants, and called the US-Mexico wall "idiotic."


We'll see if he is forced to recant these heresies.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Aug 11 - 05:09 PM

Obama could have real trouble beating Perry

Yup, the Boobocracy will vot4e for Perry, even tho he's a champion of the veriy policies that dropped them, and the country, in the shit.

Oh, ye nation of morons.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Aug 11 - 05:21 PM

[Perry has] called the US-Mexico wall "idiotic."

Well, it absolutely is idiotic, so there, at least, he's right on the money.

However, the Tea Potty, Perry included, enthisiastically embraces much greater idiocies than this.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,999
Date: 13 Aug 11 - 05:25 PM

Even if the wall had been built, the ghost of Ronnie would have gone to it and said, "Tear down this wall."

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 Aug 11 - 05:48 PM

The TV news here in the UK about the Republican candidates really does make it look as if those who the Gods would destroy, they first make mad.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Aug 11 - 05:59 PM

Yer right there, Bruce- Ronnie wouldn't have been able to tell the difference between Texas and Germany.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Aug 11 - 06:00 PM

Richard, I would accept the latter with equanimity if only I could be sure of the former eventuality.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Aug 11 - 08:04 PM

I never thought I would miss Ronald Reagan, but these clowns have gone so far beyond anything he did or suggested, I am nostalgic for his wasteful ways.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Aug 11 - 08:13 PM

Ah, but the current crop of lunatics are only following the path that The Great Senile Communicator laid out. Ronnie spawned 'em.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 13 Aug 11 - 08:22 PM

How do you know that Rupert Murdoch is visiting his sick mind on the USA and its people - because he's still backing mad right wing bastards.

Sarah Palin revealed today to Sky journalists that she's worried about media pressure on her hard working productive family, should she run. Poor Sarah!

Poor USA! As John Travolta sang - she's the one that he wants -ooh ohh ooh. Yes indeed.

So you're in trouble.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Stringsinger
Date: 14 Aug 11 - 11:23 AM

I don't miss Reagan. AS Greg says, he paved the way for the Tea Party and Perry.

Perry is very dangerous for the country. His abominable dominionist religious convictions with the fanatic Apostolic Reformers portends disaster for the US from everything to immigration to foreign policies.

Remember he executed an innocent man in Texas.

My only hope is that we can have the gridlock if a Repub president gets in with a Democratic Congress and Senate. At least we can have a buffer against political disaster for our country.

In the meantime, members of SCOTUS should be impeached, (not likely today).

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Stringsinger
Date: 14 Aug 11 - 11:46 AM

Why I Think Rick Perry is the Most Dangerous Man Alive
Posted by James M. Martin on August 14, 2011 at 8:33am in Politics
Send Message   View Discussions
Rick Perry (with an "e") is an evangelical Christian who prays at public events, bowing his head and all. The American Family Association of Donald Wildmon (he sure is!) cosponsored Perry's recent Houston fundamentalist cluster cluck, and if that organization had its way, women would be saving their coat hangers and gays would be wearing pink triangles on their sleeves. Non-church goers would be put in stocks and publicly humiliated. All this nonsense about climate change would be banned by executive order, and all governmental monitoring and censure of food, petroleum drilling, and the machinations of laissez-faire "small business owners" like the Koch Brothers would be stopped. But the full impact of this believer in talking snakes and angelic miracle pregnancies taking over the reins of the nation must also be examined from the neo-conservative point of view.

The anything goes business philosophy is dictated by the Prosperity Gospel which euhemerized (turned into a god) the fictional character of Gordon Gekko into a deity, such that clueless Christians fail to realize the Jesus Christ they now worship not only bears no resemblance to the actual (and probably fictional) prophet, it isn't even the same deity. But the foreign policy and military options are right out of the Dominionist playbook. That's right: Perry will be working to bring about the Rupture Rapture. Oh, did I forget to mention much of the military-industrial complex is in Texas? Coincidence? Hardly, LBJ took care of that. Guided missile systems and such. The Dominionists believe that the day will come when Jesus Christ will have dominion over the earth, and then the dead shall rise to eternal life with the Rapture, all of us atheist types going straight to Hell, there to have lunch with Voltaire and dinner with John Huston. Perry will be candidate of choice for First Strike neocons, chicken hawks all.

I don't want Perry in the White House because, like Woody Allen, I don't mind dying, I just don't want to be around when it happens.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Ron Davies
Date: 14 Aug 11 - 11:59 AM

As I said on the Palin thread, any idiot who thinks that Obama is a religious bigot needs to read a bit about Governor Goodhair. There's a man who shows some real field marks of the species.   Obama shows none.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Aug 11 - 12:33 PM

Obama is a pragmatist. That is what this country needs to get back on its feet. But I don't think CNN, NPR and the others will let that happen.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: pdq
Date: 14 Aug 11 - 01:03 PM

After coming in third in Iowa, former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty has dropped out of the presidential race.

I heard a bit of the debate and he was attacking the other candidates and sounding like a spoiled brat.

Actually, he sounded like Joe Biden.

Perhaps he expects to be chosen as the VP candidate next year.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Aug 11 - 03:17 PM

Tim Pawlenty has dropped out of the presidential race.

One asshole down, many more to go.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: saulgoldie
Date: 17 Aug 11 - 08:07 PM

This is what the Dems need to do.

http://blog.videosift.com/video/Colbert-SuperPAC-Hires-Frank-Luntz

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: saulgoldie
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 09:35 AM

From Andy, again...


Rick Perry Needs to 'Tone Down' His Rhetoric, Says Kim Jong-Il
'He Scares Me,' North Korean Dictator Says

PYONGYANG (The Borowitz Report) – Gov. Rick Perry's performance in this week's Republican debate, in which he called Social Security a Ponzi scheme and took pride in executing an innocent man, "made him seem like a totally unhinged lunatic," said North Korean President Kim Jong-Il today.

The reclusive Kim, who rarely speaks out on U.S. politics, said he was breaking his silence in this case because "quite frankly, he scares me."

The North Korean dictator said that Gov. Perry would have to "tone down" his rhetoric considerably if he were to become a head of state.

"When you're President of a country, you can't go around spouting the first crazy thing that comes into your head," Mr. Kim said. "That man I saw onstage gave me the willies, and I don't think I'm alone on this."

While the North Korean dictator said there was still a chance that Mr. Perry might "dial it back a little," watching the Texas Governor at Wednesday night's debate left him "shaken."

"I'll tell you this," Kim said, "I would not want a person like that to have access to nuclear weapons."

Elsewhere, some Republican lawmakers said they were unable to hear President Obama's jobs speech due to fingers stuck in their ears.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 09:55 AM

REPUBLICAN CULT

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 06:29 PM

Somehow I have the horrible feeling that we're going to have to get one helluva lot sicker before we have much of a chance of getting well.

Sort of like the joke about the two prize mules.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 08:04 PM

Greg F. ....that piece you link to is one of the best written and most telling analyses of current Republican behavior I have ever seen... the more so because it is BY a Republican!

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,999
Date: 10 Sep 11 - 11:05 AM

100% with Bill on that. Clear language that gives credence to some of the conspiracy theories that have circulated in the past few years concerning the machinations of both parties and the state of the union. .

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: catspaw49
Date: 10 Sep 11 - 11:38 AM

I generally skim through many links and decide what to re-read or to just bypass it. Greg's link I have now read twice and completely. Frightening, sad, and totally believable.......I seem to want to commit parts of it to memory for future use.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: saulgoldie
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 09:00 PM

In the race to the bottom...Michelle Bachman:

(From the Huffington Post)

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) warned an audience of supporters in Cedar Rapids, Iowa Monday that Hezbollah could build "missile sites" in Cuba. "Why would you normalize trade with a country that sponsors terror?" said Bachmann, in response to a supporter's question asking her to explain her position on trading with Cuba.

"There are reports that have come out that Cuba has been working with another terrorist organization called Hezbollah. And Hezbollah is looking at wanting to be part of missile sites in Iran and, of course, when you are 90 miles offshore from Florida, you don't want to entertain the prospect of hosting bases or sites where Hezbollah could have training camps or perhaps have missile sites or weapons sites in Cuba. This would be foolish."


And exactly who honestly wants with her finger on the button???

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: saulgoldie
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 09:12 PM

Should have been:
"And exactly who honestly wants HER with her finger on the button???"

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Sep 11 - 11:29 AM

Still doesn't sound cosher!

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: saulgoldie
Date: 06 Oct 11 - 06:07 AM

Once again, Andy Borowitz:

* * * *
Palin Decides Not to Run: 'I Want to Go Straight to the Quitting Part'
Decision Leaves Moron Vote Up for Grabs

ANCHORAGE (The Borowitz Report) – Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin told reporters today that she would not run for President because "I want to go straight to the quitting part."

"If I launched a campaign, let's face it, a couple of months from now I'd up and quit," she said. "This is a real step-saver for all concerned."

She said that prior to her decision she had seriously considered running, "but only for the free clothes."

When asked about her future plans, she said, "Although I'm not running for President, I have no intention of spending more time with my family."

The former Alaska Governor, who had originally scheduled a thirty-minute press conference to announce her decision, abruptly cut it short after fifteen minutes with no explanation.

The Tea Party favorite's announcement leaves the remaining Republican candidates scrambling for the moron vote, a key constituency in the 2012 GOP race.

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney was said to be considering new strategies to dispel the nagging impression that he is mentally competent, an attribute that has alienated millions of Tea Party voters.

Mr. Romney was rumored to be weighing a number of options, such as barking like a dog or wearing a bunch of bananas on his head at the next televised debate.

Meanwhile, still reeling from charges of racism, Texas Governor Rick Perry was reportedly huddling with advisors at his country home, Jewtrap.

* * * *

We are a)relieved; b)surprised; c)dismayed; d)fill in your own emotion.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,999
Date: 07 Oct 11 - 03:56 AM

Satire. What makes it work so well is that it's easy to believe.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Oct 11 - 01:57 AM

I see abusive, exaggerated satirical crap like that in the Toronto Sun frequently...only it's not about Sarah Palin or anyone on the Right...it's about liberals, Democrats, socialists...basically anyone who is positioned to the left of the most rightwing members of the Republican Party faithful or the Conservative Party of Canada, which worships at the same alter the Republicans do.

Yes, the Sun enjoys depicting anyone on the left as either a criminal, a dupe, or a complete moron. If Andy Borowitz was only willing to switch sides and persecute people on the Left the way he just did Sarah Palin, I'm sure they'd love his writing style, based as it is on character assassination, hyperbole, insults, denigration, demonization of entire groups of people, and gross innuendo.

They'd hire him at once! He could attack people like Obama and Al Gore in the same mean-spirited and silly fashion. You guys wouldn't like it one bit, but the Sun would lick its chops with delight. You mind when they do it. You applaud when your allies do it.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Oct 11 - 07:27 AM

Sorry......"Kosher".....now thats satire! :0)

Once again LH hits the nail, you are a "one of" G.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Oct 11 - 08:48 AM

"The moron vote"? Exaggerated? I don't think so.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Oct 11 - 09:43 AM

I find it very interesting that with the slate of potential Republican contenders that the right winged corporate BIG MEDIA is still all over trying to get Obama out with their commentators saying he's toast and bogus polls released every other day showing him losing to one or another of wackos...

I mean, they are all very beatable... And please, no more no president has ever won re-election with these kinds of unemployment numbers BS... FDR did exactly that in '36 by telling the truth in blaming Hoover for handing over such a sick economy and '36 wasn't even close... FDR walked thru it without working up a sweat...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: pdq
Date: 08 Oct 11 - 10:00 AM

Thanks for you last post, Little Hawk.

We get "... character assassination, hyperbole, insults, denigration, demonization of entire groups of people, and gross innuendo..." all the time from supposed comedians and opinion writer when we should be getting help uniting the county and solving its considerable problems.

This type of destructive and divisive crap is killing the country. The Middle Class is deing and these a-hole fiddle with their pens.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,999
Date: 08 Oct 11 - 10:11 AM

Just out of curriositee/courioustiy/curiousity inquisitiveness, has Obama said anything about the Wall Street protests?

I have been assuming he's still president. Is he?

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: pdq
Date: 08 Oct 11 - 10:37 AM

Obama gave an enthusiastic endorsement to the Wall Street protestors.

That is because he is and "activist" and not an executive at all.

The protestors are carfully organized and supplied with food, warm clothing, bull horns, and direction where they are supposed to "protest".

Machael Moore, Susan Saran Rap and the usual Hollywood suspects are showing up and giving pep talks. The bills will all be paid by George Soros out of the $12 billion he has accumulated by short-selling America's business comunity, the people that employ the million who are now unemployed. What a stupid game.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Jeri
Date: 08 Oct 11 - 11:00 AM

President Obama addressed it in his Oct 6 news conference.

He doesn't sound all that enthusiastic to me. More like (paraphrasing) "Yeah, they're upset about a whole bunch of of things related to the economy and government. Now, MY tax plan... My jobs plan... MY etc., ...and we need a strong business sector."

The protesters are focused on economy in a very broad-based way, Obama's focused on what HE can do about it (presumably, without pissing off too many rich people).

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,999
Date: 08 Oct 11 - 05:15 PM

"That is because he is and "activist" and not an executive at all."


'In nominal dollars the net public debt rose and then fell between 1992 and 2000 from $3 trillion in 1992 to $3.4 trillion in 2000, in part due to the Dot-com bubble.[11] During the 1990s, debt held by the public rose to 50% and then was reduced to 39% by the end of the decade.

During the presidency of George W. Bush, the gross public debt increased from $5.7 trillion in January 2001 to $10.7 trillion by December 2008.[12] Under President Barack Obama, the debt increased from $10.7 trillion in 2008 to $14.2 trillion by February 2011.[13] Debt relative to GDP rose due to recessions and policy decisions in the early 21st century. From 2000 to 2008 debt held by the public rose from 35% to 40%, and to 62% by the end of fiscal year 2010.[14]'


The above is from an excellent article in Wikipedia. Looks like lots of Tweedledee and Tweedledum to this old boy. People will no doubt get sidetracked with arguments that Bush was worst than Obama, or vice versa. Just Lather, That's All. Fact is, the damned money is gone. And there don't seem to be too much difference between the two parties--or the two leaders for that matter. Bush was illiterate and unintelligible; Obama literate and well-spoken. But the bottom lines, those in the lower right-hand corners, tell a sorry and disgusting tale.

IMO. Y'either see it or you don't. Ain't really too much else to say.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Oct 11 - 06:24 PM

The bills will all be paid by George Soros out of the $12 billion he has accumulated by short-selling America's business comunity...

And which crystal ball did you get this from, PeeDee- or did you just pull it out of your arse, as usual?

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Oct 11 - 10:54 AM

It's laughable to call Obama an "activist". He is no activist. What he is, is a fairly typical and obedient executive, doing what they all do once in office: rendering required service to their wealthy bosses who provided the funds that got them into office, meaning they are serving the interests of the rich elite. They are themselves members (or associates) of the club of the rich elite in the first place, and that's why they were nominated and elected.

He's just another executive, albeit a rather weak one who is at the same time a brilliant speaker.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Wesley S
Date: 09 Oct 11 - 11:17 AM

I'll call Obama an activist. He's actually done stuff. Was it ALL the stuff you wanted him to do? Of course not. But he's accomplished more more than 99.99 percent of the folks who post on Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Oct 11 - 11:36 AM

You could say that of any American president. Do you expect your neighbour across the street to accomplish what the president does? If so....how? You can't accomplish what the president does unless you are placed in his official position with his authority.

We are just talking here, okay? Free speech is a constitutional right, and that's all we are doing. I don't feel the least bit guilty because I have not accomplished what Mr Obama has....but I do feel pleased that I didn't bail out the criminal bankers who caused the recession...and that I didn't send more people to die in Afghanistan.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Wesley S
Date: 09 Oct 11 - 11:55 AM

I didn't send anyone to Afganistan either so I guess we're both better men than the President.

I don't know - it just makes me laugh to watch someone on an internet forum sitting in their home pointing their finger and saying " Hey - see that guy over there - he isn't doing enough. He isn't living up to my expectations of him."

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Oct 11 - 04:48 PM

I get your point, Wesley.

But I don't think I'm a better man than Obama. I just don't agree with a good deal of what he's done...or not done...since he became president. That doesn't make me a better man than him, and I wouldn't even begin to make any assumptions about any one of us (meaning me, you or Obama) being "better" than the other. I think it's dangerous and illusory to make such assumptions.

That doesn't stop a lot of people from doing it, of course. ;-D They do it a great deal. But I don't. I don't think I'm "better" than anyone....matter of fact, I am my OWN number 1 critic in the entire world, and it would probably be a good idea if I stopped judging myself so stringently. (But that's another topic.)

I fully understand why you laugh at the vanity of people's ravings about politics on the Internet. I do that too. And then I rave about politics myself at some point. ;-) In other words, I too suffer from the almost universal human weakness of blathering on about stuff that I haven't personally done anything about. It helps ease my tension. It gives my mind something to chew on and my fingers something to type.

I suspect that birds and monkeys do something fairly similar when they gather in the trees for the afternoon "yak-fest". C'est la vie.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,999
Date: 09 Oct 11 - 11:48 PM

"I didn't send anyone to Afganistan either so I guess we're both better men than the President."

In fact, you did send men and women to Afghanistan, just as you sent troops to Iraq and Libya. When the persons you voted for (or didn't vote for) do things, good or bad, they do so in your name. THAT is what the Wall Street Occupiers have seen. And that is why they are angry. Remarks like 'he's done more than 99.99% of the people who post to this site' is childish. Yes, Obama has--and he's also done more evil and harm than 99.99% of the people who post to this site. And that's why people are pissed off. The days of


'WE DIDN'T KNOW
(Tom Paxton)

"We didn't know", said the bourgomeister, "about the camps on the edge of town
It was Hitler and his crew that tore the German nation down.
We saw the cattle cars, it's true, and maybe they carried a Jew or two"
They woke us up as they rattled through, but what did you expect me to do?"

CHORUS
We didn't know at all, we didn't see a thing.
You can't hold us to blame, what could we do?
It was a terrible shame, but we can't bear the blame.
Oh, No, not us! We didn't know.

"We didn't know," said the congregation, singing a hymn in their church of white
"The Press was full of lies about us, Preacher told us we were right.
The outside agitators came, they burned some churches and put the blame
On decent southern people's names to set our colored people aflame
And maybe some of our boys got hot and a couple of niggers and reds got shot
They should have stayed where they belong
And Preacher would've told us if we'd done wrong."

"We didn't know," said the puzzled voter, watching the President on TV.
"I guess we've got to drop those bombs if we're gonna keep South Asia free.
The President's such a peaceful man, I guess he's got some kind of plan.
They say we're torturing prisoners of war, but I don't believe that stuff no more
Torturing prisoners is a Communist game, and you can bet they're doing the same!
I wish this war was over and through, but what do you expect me to do?"

Words and music by Tom Paxton
Copyright 1965, United Artists Music Co/EMI'

are over.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Oct 11 - 03:00 AM

Well put, Bruce.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Wesley S
Date: 10 Oct 11 - 09:24 AM

Let me see if I have this right. 999, Peace and Bruce are all the same person? And I'm discussing American presidential politics with either 2, 3 or 4 Canadians?? And everything in Canada has been fixed and is all hunky dory? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Oct 11 - 10:17 AM

You're wrong. And in more ways than you apparently realize.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,999
Date: 10 Oct 11 - 10:52 AM

Nice try, Wesley, but you miss the boat again. It's not about Canadians or Americans or Mexicans or Libyans or Israelis or Palestinians or, or, or. It's about the plunder and rape of the entire planet and that planet's people. It's about a system that enacted laws that allow corporations to be persons. It's about 3,000,000 home foreclosures in your country--illegal home foreclosures.

Are you not concerned that 49,000,000 citizens of the US live below the poverty line?

Are you not concerned that about 50% of your representatives in Congress are millionaires?

Your remark reminds me of the following:

'"You know you never defeated us on the battlefield", said the American colonel.

His adversary pondered this remark a moment. "That may be so," he replied, "but it is also irrelevant."

That conversation occurred on 25 April 1975 in Hanoi between Colonel Harry G. Summers, Jr., then Chief, Negotiations Division, U.S. Delegation, Four Party Joint Military Team and Colonel Tu, Chief of the North Vietnamese Delegation.'

Yes, I am Canadian. Yes, you are American. When someone moves in to the house or apartment beside you and that someone makes explosives, I suppose you would then remember what you said in this context and say nothing about it to the authorities, correct? I mean, they aren't doing that in your house, right, and so it's not your business?

The OWS have printed a manifesto. It goes beyond the borders of the USA. It goes beyond the borders of North America. It pertains to human conscience and human rights, not political ideologies as generated by governments that are no longer responsive to the needs of average people. When the US dollar goes up or down, it affects the entire world. Telling me it isn't my business (or LH's business) is not only disingenuous, it's also puerile. That's what you seem not to grasp.

You are right. I am Canadian. It is also irrelevant.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Wesley S
Date: 10 Oct 11 - 11:47 AM

It's just that I find the opinions of Canadians concerning American presidential politics to be interesting - and to use your word - irrelevant.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,999
Date: 10 Oct 11 - 11:55 AM

AT LAST we have common ground. Keep well, Wesley.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Oct 11 - 12:02 PM

Actually, brucie has a better handle on American politics than probably 90% of Americans... LH??? Not quite 90% but on the plus side of 70%...

It'd good that folks realize just how much stuff the US can screw up for the entire world... And conversely, how much good the US can do when it's got it's act together which it hasn't had a long time...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Oct 11 - 12:52 PM

The entire world, by necessity, IS very concerned about USA presidential (and other) politics, because the USA affects the entire world in a very serious way.

This is not true of most nations, but it is true of the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Wesley S
Date: 14 Oct 11 - 03:02 PM

An excellect documentary about how presidential campains are run. It's showing currently on the Sundance channel.


The Return of The War Room.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Wesley S
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 05:31 PM

I'm sure everyone will be happy to see that the Rev Terry Jones has decided to throw his hat into the ring:

Terry Jones, the Florida pastor known for publicly burning the Quran, is running for president as an Independent, on a platform of spending cutbacks, deportation of illegal immigrants and tax cuts for businesses.
   

In an interview with IBTimes, Jones said on Thursday that he was motivated to run because of the country's harsh economic reality, which he felt was not being articulated by the current presidential candidates. Jones also concerned by the country's direction, particularly the growth of national debt and government spending.

"I'm really concerned that the politicians that are running right now, most of them are not telling the American people the truth," said Jones.

However, he praised Republican candidate Hermain Cain, calling him "straightforward," "honest," and a "successful businessman." Jones said that if his own campaign was unsuccessful, he would endorse Cain.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 06:02 PM

Studies challenge wisdom of GOP candidates' plans
By CHARLES BABINGTON - Associated Press, 30 Oct 2011


WASHINGTON (AP) — Key proposals from the Republican presidential candidates might make for good campaign fodder. But independent analyses raise serious questions about those plans and their ability to cure the nation's ills in two vital areas, the economy and housing.

Consider proposed cuts in taxes and regulation, which nearly every GOP candidate is pushing in the name of creating jobs. The initiatives seem to ignore surveys in which employers cite far bigger impediments to increased hiring, chiefly slack consumer demand.

"Republicans favor tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, but these had no stimulative effect during the George W. Bush administration, and there is no reason to believe that more of them will have any today," writes Bruce Bartlett. He's an economist who worked for Republican congressmen and in the administrations of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

As for the idea that cutting regulations will lead to significant job growth, Bartlett said in an interview, "It's just nonsense. It's just made up."
Government and industry studies support his view.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics, which tracks companies' reasons for large layoffs, found that 1,119 layoffs were attributed to government regulations in the first half of this year, while 144,746 were attributed to poor "business demand."

Mainstream economic theory says governments can spur demand, at least somewhat, through stimulus spending. The Republican candidates, however, have labeled President Barack Obama's 2009 stimulus efforts a failure. Instead, most are calling for tax cuts that would primarily benefit high-income people, who are seen as the likeliest job creators.

"I don't care about that," Texas Gov. Rick Perry told The New York Times and CNBC, referring to tax breaks for the rich. "What I care about is them having the dollars to invest in their companies."

Many existing businesses, however, have plenty of unspent cash. The 500 companies that comprise the S&P index have about $800 billion in cash and cash equivalents, the most ever, according to the research firm Birinyi Associates.

The rating firm Moody's says the roughly 1,600 companies it monitors had $1.2 trillion in cash at the end of 2010. That's 11 percent more than a year earlier.

Such findings notwithstanding, further cuts in taxes and regulations remain popular with GOP voters. A recent Associated Press-GfK poll found that most Democrats and about half of independents think "reducing environmental and other regulations on business" would do little or nothing to create jobs. But only one-third of Republicans felt that way.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 09:52 PM

Personally, I suspect that the Republicans' strategy this election is to overwhelm the entire process and news media with so many stories that people get tired of listening!

There is such a plethora of attacks on laws, unions, and institutions, coupled with strange candidates ("send in the clowns") and wild Tea Party events that there are dozens of things that need investigating, but only a few that actually get serious media attention.
   There is an old expression: "Nibbled to death by ducks"... that expresses how hard it is to even list all the flurry of Republican shenanigans we need to combat. Another is: "When you are up to your ass in alligators, it's hard to remember why you wanted to drain the swamp."

The conservatives are throwing Jesus, anti-abortion laws, anti-tax legislation, anti-gun regulation, anti-environmental attempts, anti-union activities, etc. at us in a continuous barrage, and making ALL of it into an anti-Obama crusade! It is said that Conservatives define themselves mostly by what they are against!

I think it's like buckshot... fire enough of it, and people can't dodge everything....or if they do, they have to get so far out of range they can't know what's happening.

Silly? Giving them too much credit for planning? Maybe...but sheesh! I have been voting for 50 years, I have NEVER seen such a campaign. A dozen Republican 'candidates' and even before any primary votes are cast, all except Romney seems to have shot themselves in the foot...and they don't seem to like Romney.

What a mess......

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 09:59 PM

The Republican strategy is disenfranchisement...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: SINSULL
Date: 02 Nov 11 - 09:16 AM

Bachmann says that god is telling her to run for president.
Cain is trying to remember if he sexually harassed anybody or was accused of it, if they then settled or agreed to anything, if he may have signed something, if it was three months or one year's salary as a payoff... Memories of Clinton not having sex with that woman.
Perry is appearing high on something.
I suspect Romney is looking better and better to Republicans.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Nov 11 - 09:51 AM

I don't doubt that Bachmann hears voices but I doubt seriously if it's God talking to her... I think the poor girl is suffering from schizophrenia...

Herman "I can't recall" Cain must suffer from dementia...

Rick "Cowboy" Perry seems to like his liquor evidenced by his speech the other night...

Romney??? When Republicans have to hold their nose at nomination time that does not bode well for their chances of beating Obama next Novemeber...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Amos
Date: 02 Nov 11 - 12:57 PM

That is not a strategy, it's a dysfunction syndrome.

Besides, if th ey have to hold their noses it is because they have been so insistent on irrationality as a commodity in trade, a very bad thing for a nation. They are currently the far more toxic of the two major parties.


A

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Nov 11 - 03:43 PM

The only two Republicans who don't scare me to death are Jon Huntsman and Buddy Roemer, and they are off the radar. (I don't necessarily agree with them, but they seem to be basically sane and honest.)
I guess if a candidate refuses to join the circular firing squad, the extreme conservatives are not interested. ☺

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Nov 11 - 09:40 AM

Meanwhile, conservative author and paid provocateur Ann Coulter made the cable talk show rounds defending Cain against the allegations. On Monday, she appeared on Fox News, telling Sean Hannity that black conservatives are better than black liberals. "Our blacks are so much better than their blacks. The only racism you hear is against conservative blacks--and it is vicious" Coulter said.

I betcha some of her best frends are Black Folks, too.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Nov 11 - 02:10 PM

Michele Bachmann claiming that God speaks to her (even through her husband) reminds me of the popular singer of some years back who was conducting an anti-gay campaign in Florida. Among other things, she was in the habit of changing the lyrics of well-known pop songs to give them a fundamentalist "Christian" slant.

In regard to her anti-gay campaign, she said that "God has His hand on me."

On hearing that, a friend of mine commented, "I know that's not true. If God had His hand on her, it would be over her big, fat mouth!"

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Nov 11 - 02:30 PM

Greetings Don.

Although Rick Perry said he was going to bow out of debates from now on, there is one BIG event that he will join.

The TRUMP GALA PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE COMPETITION - "President America 2012"
Its based on 13 seperate competition events which include the talking portion and the action portion of the competition.

Talking Competitions:
2 debates on the value of of religion in government.
3 debates on the moral values of marriage and family.
3 debates on conservative goals vs godless intellectualism.

ACTION COMPETITIONS:
The singing competition
Beach wear competition (with wife)
The evening wear competition
The sharp shooting competition
The 1 mile marathon.

winners of any debate gets 1 point
winners of any Action Competition gets 10 points.


Perry is setting his sights on the shooting, running and beach wear events.

Perhaps the oddest thing about the Trump Presidential Debate Competition is that all the Judges are female and have appeared on FOX News. Other than that they have not yet been announced by the Donald.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Nov 11 - 02:34 PM

Oh... It turns out that the Evening Wear competition is also the dance segment of the show.

Set your DVR

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Nov 11 - 02:43 PM

Herman Cain has been invited to China to attend the Shon-chat-zu, roughly translated as Re-education camp 4. There he will learn about China being a nuclear power for 45 years and attend a space launch which highlights the fact that USA has no such space program today.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: gnu
Date: 11 Nov 11 - 05:00 PM

I heard audio clips on the CBC yesterday from a debate with Rick Perry... they played them in real time so we could "Judge for ourselves". Is this fuckin guy for real? He came off as a complete idiot. Is ther something desperately wrong with the water in Texas?

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,Wesley S
Date: 11 Nov 11 - 05:29 PM

"He came off as a complete idiot."

There's a simple explanation for that. Perry IS a complete idiot.


"Is there something desperately wrong with the water in Texas?"

It's not the water. Although if someone offered Rick Perry money to dump radioactive sludge in the Trinity River he'd be right there with his hand out. Corporations are people after all and Rick Perry loves any of the little people willing to grease his palm.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Nov 11 - 05:36 PM

Theme song for the 'campaigns'...It's SHOWTIME!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: saulgoldie
Date: 15 Nov 11 - 03:40 PM

From Andy Borowitz, again. Because I simply HAVE to!


Startled Deer Becomes New Republican Frontrunner
Inability to Speak Considered a Plus

CONCORD, NH (The Borowitz Report) – The race for the Republican presidential nomination took an unexpected turn today as a new poll showed that a startled deer was the new GOP frontrunner.

Bucky, the red deer who is the first choice of likely Republican voters is believed to be the first woodland creature ever to lead a major party's presidential field.

"Voters like what they see in Bucky," said veteran political strategist Ed Rollins, who has signed on to helm the red deer's primary campaign. "The fact that he is unable to speak is a major asset."

In his first appearance in Concord, New Hampshire, however, the antlered candidate garnered mixed reviews for what some observers said was an unsteady performance.

Appearing frightened by the TV lights, Bucky kicked over the podium and then pranced down the hall before being subdued by a tranquilizer dart.

"Clearly he's a little rough around the edges," said Mr. Rollins. "But he still did better than Herman Cain."

It was another rough day for Mr. Cain, who offered this response to a reporter's question: "For the last time, I did not touch her down there. Oh wait, did you say 'Libya?'"

Gov. Rick Perry also stumbled badly in a campaign appearance in Iowa, telling supporters, "If I am elected, I will find out where Iran's nuclear weapons are. Also, where Iran is."

Meanwhile, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich predicted that his recent rise in the polls is not a fluke: "The American people want an adult, and no one has a stronger record of adultery than I do."

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: saulgoldie
Date: 06 Dec 11 - 06:28 AM

No comments regarding the latest in Cain/Gingrich? Well, there is the Cain thread, I guess. And the request for the Justice Dept to investigate widespread systematic vote suppression.

And speaking of vote suppression, how about our ex-gov, Robert Ehrlich and the robo-calls telling voters that "O'Malley had already won" and they didn't need to vote. Priceless!

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Dec 11 - 07:09 PM

Seems that the Repubs are going thru one round of "buyer's remorse" after another... And they hate it... Reality is setting in that they don't have a candidate who can beat Obama...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Dec 11 - 07:14 PM

I bet all of this doesn't worry the Wall Street banksters one bit.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Dec 11 - 07:27 PM

I STILL say we need to be careful, because the Republicans could arrive at their convention with no candidate selected... and as I understand it, they could then nominate almost anyone, from Christie to Jeb Bush to ...ummm... Boehner..... or Trump, who just said he might run (again) if there seems no good choice.

"Who..me?. Well, for the good of the party, I suppose so. Why no, I haven't spent any money so far...but you can send me some."

Too far out? Maybe... but they are tired of ALL the clowns so far, and there has been NO caucus or primary yet. In 6 months, they may be frantic.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Dec 11 - 07:37 PM

Ahhhhh, yes, Bill...

That is very much a possibility but I don't think it's going to happen... And even if it does, unless Jesus comes back, I doubt if a convention ticket can win...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Dec 11 - 02:35 PM

Oh, *I* doubt it, too.... but people like Rove must see what a disaster this is turning out to be. They will try 'almost' anything to ensure gaining & keeping power... even to engineering a sneak play at the last minute.

(Can't you see promising some of these 'clowns' a post somewhere if they will play dead at the right moment?)

I would LOVE to be wrong about this, but it worries me a bit.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: saulgoldie
Date: 25 Jan 12 - 11:22 AM

Once again, from Andy Borowitz. Offered for your edification...

        
January 25, 2012
Obama Risks Alienating Republicans By Using Facts
Radical Tactic Sparks Outrage

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report) – In what some critics are calling the most radial tactic ever employed in a State of the Union Address, President Barack Obama risked alienating congressional Republicans last night by repeatedly using facts.

Mr. Obama stirred controversy throughout the speech with his relentless references to facts, data, and things that have actually happened, all long considered the third rail of American politics.

As the President made reference to tax rates and unemployment numbers, as well as sixteen separate mentions of Osama bin Laden, congressional Republicans' blood began to boil.

After the speech, a furious Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told reporters, "It's been a longstanding tradition in our politics not to use facts in a State of the Union Address, a tradition the President chose to ignore in an outrageous way tonight. I won't stand for it and the American people won't stand for it."

"We want to work with the President for the good of the American people," added House Speaker John Boehner. "But he's going to have to take facts off the table. That's a deal-breaker for us."

The President did not mention any of his GOP presidential rivals by name in his speech, but at one point said that government should be "leaner," a blatant jab at former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.


Saul

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,Wesley S
Date: 25 Jan 12 - 07:41 PM

Thanks Saul. I need that one. I'll be sending it to a bunch of my relatives right away.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: gnu
Date: 26 Jan 12 - 07:38 PM

"... Jeb Bush..."

Nah, he won't run against Obama. He's gonna be Pres after Obama's next term.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Jan 12 - 07:55 PM

More "abusive, exaggerated satirical crap" from the rabbi?

Well, at least its not funny.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: saulgoldie
Date: 08 Feb 12 - 11:59 AM

OMG! I just can't help but share these nuggets from Andy--

        
February 8, 2012
Fact That No One Likes Him May Be Hurting Romney
Could Foil Bid to Become First Openly Assholic President

DENVER (The Borowitz Report) – Exit polls from last night's Republican contests reveal that former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney's key obstacle to gaining the GOP nomination is the fact that voters cannot stand him.

According to Davis Logsdon, who conducted the polls for the University of Minnesota's Opinion Research Institute, "Despite his superb organization, funding, and ground game, Mitt Romney is having trouble overcoming the perception among voters that he is a ginormous dick."

Mr. Logsdon said that these obstacles "could prove fatal to his historic bid to become the nation's first openly assholic President."

Exit polls taken last night bear out that theory, with a majority of voters agreeing with the statement, "I think Mitt Romney is so odious, I would rather vote for a random doofus I've never heard of who goes around in sweater vests."

The beneficiary of that sentiment last night was former Sen. Rick Santorum, who told supporters at a victory rally in Missouri, "I support the rights of the unborn child until it's born and wants a gay marriage."

Speaking to supporters in Denver, Mr. Romney uttered what some political experts are calling a possible gaffe: "I don't care about all the people who didn't vote for me. They just envy my massive wealth. And poor people? They can curl up die, and I won't lose a wink of sleep. I bet you a million crisp dollars from my vault in Geneva."

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Feb 12 - 01:11 PM

Sounds like Social Darwinism. The way to make everybody rich is to let all the poor people die off as soon as possible.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Wesley S
Date: 08 Feb 12 - 01:22 PM

Mr. Logsdon said that these obstacles "could prove fatal to his historic bid to become the nation's first openly assholic President."

And here I thought that honor belonged to George Bush Jr.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,999
Date: 09 Feb 12 - 09:56 AM

I don't think there will BE elections.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/articles/a-hidden-world-growing-beyond-control/

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Feb 12 - 10:14 AM

..............oh my.... and the thought of a Republican administration getting 'any' sort of control over all that.

the basic article

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: saulgoldie
Date: 14 Mar 12 - 09:07 AM

What? We've lost interest? Is it too, um, boring?

Given the way the numbers are coming in, methinks it looks more and more like a brokered convention. Ohboy!

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: saulgoldie
Date: 14 Mar 12 - 10:32 AM

Oooh, oooh! 300!

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: saulgoldie
Date: 22 Mar 12 - 09:10 PM

Hey, d'ja see the Etch-a-Sketch for sale on eBay? It is, get this, autographed by (wait for it)...





Mitt Romney! Wahooah!

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: saulgoldie
Date: 04 Apr 12 - 06:08 AM

Y'know the whole crop of Repub candidates keeps repeating the nostrum that lower taxes on the -getting-richer-all-the-time class will "allow" them to "trickle it down" to the rest of us.

Bush, the elder, called Ronald Reagan out on that calling it "voodoo economics." He was right. And it is no less true today than it was back then. But the current crop repeat it as a mantra, as if repeating a lie enough makes it true.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Apr 12 - 09:13 AM

Seems to be "true" to an awful lot of brain-dead people who support the TeaPublicans tho, don't it?

No facts need apply.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Apr 12 - 02:59 PM

If you suddenly become aware that "trickle down" actually seems to be working, it's because somebody up there is peeing on you.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Amos
Date: 04 Apr 12 - 03:01 PM

It has been tried over and over, and it has not shown itselfg to be true.

Knocking ten points of the middle class rate and tacking it onto the >1M cats would probably do more for the economy, by far.


A

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Apr 12 - 04:07 AM

It has been a most strange year. When this thread started the GOP was fielding the strangest crop I've ever seen or listened to. Now, practically a year later, most have been winnowed out (What happened to their belief that God urged them to run? Did he ever promise them they would win?

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Wesley S
Date: 05 Apr 12 - 09:42 AM

"What happened to their belief that God urged them to run?"

Maybe that's God's little plan to make us grateful that none of them DID win.......

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Stringsinger
Date: 05 Apr 12 - 10:29 AM

The GOPlers are running a circus.

The myth of moderation in politics is a media creation.

Obama will continue his wars.

Robocorp Romney will continue to be stiff until his wife unzips him.

That will require two automobile elevators in his La Jolla home.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: olddude
Date: 05 Apr 12 - 10:38 AM

I am thinking now of a write in, Chongo, or any catters want to toss their hat in the ring, ya will get my vote.

Strange election year! I keep looking for Rod Serling to come back from the dead and make a new twilight zone show about it

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Apr 12 - 12:42 PM

"Remember, Luke! The Farce is with you." ;-)

Yup, looks like one of the cruddiest elections ever is on its way to its next excruciating chapter. I remember thinking way back at the very beggining of the Republican race..."It's obviously going to be Romney that runs against Obama. He's the perfect marshmallow candidate (willing to fit into any aperture...utterly devoid of actual character or honest identity)."

The others were just there to provide the usual nonsensical drama. It's like a big soap opera. Just a media show to make people think they have a functioning democracy.

When Romney runs against Obama, that'll be the final installment in this giant, pathetic soap opera, and no matter which one of them wins, the insanity that is the neocon/neoliberal fascist Amerika in the 21st century will reel drunkenly on, killing Third World people, putting people out of work, provoking needless wars, and oppressing its own citizens.

What a cheerful prospect...

I bet it felt a lot like this living in the last couple of hundred years of the Roman Empire, but things moved much more slowly then.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Amos
Date: 05 Apr 12 - 12:46 PM

Hey, Ray Bradbury could do wonders with it, and he's still alive!


A

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Apr 12 - 12:52 PM

Beat down unions... check

Destroy sane campaign finance laws... check

Pack the Supreme Court with partisan clowns... check

Buy up the media... check

Run on "jobs, jobs, jobs" and then attack women instead... check

Push fear... check

Sell millions of guns to fearful people... check

Use media to demonize anyone who is even moderate... check

Pass laws that allow white people to kill black people... check

Shred the New Deal... next

Vote out the fascists pigs...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: olddude
Date: 05 Apr 12 - 01:37 PM

well when you declare big corporation now are "people" and can contribute any amount of election money they want, "tax free I may add"
You will get as candidates, those hand picked few who are inside the deep pockets of such "people/corps".

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Apr 12 - 04:26 PM

Yup. So how does one "vote out the fascist pigs" when it is corporate funding that gets them elected...by way of corporate-owned media coverage...and quite regardless of their party affiliation?

How?

Dennis Kucinich was not one of theirs, and he's no longer going to run due to gerrymandering which carved up his traditional voting district in such a way that he couldn't win. Nice maneuvering there by those in charge of perpetuating the fascist pig system. Yes, they control the GOP. The problem is...they control the Democratic Party too. And they keep you all mezmerized into separate warring camps by the 2-party divide which they CONTROL at both ends. So watcha gonna do?

Are the Republicans worse than the Democrats? Yeah. But it shouldn't just be a question of choosing "the lesser of 2 evils" between 2 sets of imperialist fascist corporate-funded dupes when voting in a government. That's not good enough for any place that dares to call itself "the land of the free", if you ask me.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: saulgoldie
Date: 17 Apr 12 - 08:33 AM

Ya know, the Dems have a golden opportunity to show the true face of today's Repubs. Iif they do ad overlays of the current crop against quotes and actions of, like Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and even RxR, who they love to revere, the current crop would look very stupid and radical.


Ronald Reagan says...

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,999
Date: 17 Apr 12 - 01:30 PM

Excellent piece here that dovetails with Saul's post.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: saulgoldie
Date: 25 Apr 12 - 01:31 PM

Andy is just too much fun to not share. Here is another one...

        
April 25, 2012
POLL: Majority of Republicans Guess They Have to Support Fucking Romney
Lack of Other Option Cited

NEW YORK (The Borowitz Report) – In what Romney campaign insiders are hailing as a sign that the party faithful are rallying around the former Massachusetts governor, a new poll released today shows that a majority of Republican voters agree with the statement, "I guess I have to support fucking Romney."

When asked why they were now ready to cast their vote for Mr. Romney, a majority of those Republicans polled "strongly agreed" with the statement, "Why do you think? No one else is fucking running anymore. Stop asking such stupid fucking questions. I don't need this shit."

Underscoring the sense that he is now the presumptive nominee, the Romney campaign unveiled a new slogan this morning, "You Have No Other Options Anymore. Start Dealing With It, Losers."

After sweeping five primary states Tuesday night, Mr. Romney was exultant, telling supporters in Manchester, N.H., "I love American democracy. I'm good friends with the owners of it."

The wins by Mr. Romney forced former House Speaker Newt Gingrich to suspend his campaign, telling reporters that he was leaving the race "to spend more time with my families."

As for former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, he offered Mr. Romney this endorsement during an appearance on CNN: "Yeah, I guess I support him, because, well duh, I have absolutely no other choice. Right? I mean, really, Piers, what kind of moronic question is that? I guess this goes to show that you can be a total douchebag and still win the nomination if you have the most dough. I mean come on -- this whole situation makes me want to throw up. My only consolation is that on Judgment Day I'm going to Heaven, and we'll have to see what happens to Mr. Magic Underpants. Haha. Yeah. Sweet." Get a free subscription to the Borowitz Report here.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: saulgoldie
Date: 30 May 12 - 05:41 AM

And yet, one more...

        
May 29, 2012
Trump Could Help Romney Win Elusive Billionaire Asshole Vote
Bid to Woo Top .00001%

NEW YORK (The Borowitz Report) – Businessman Donald Trump's endorsement of former Governor Mitt Romney could help the presumptive GOP nominee win over the support of a constituency that has been cool to him thus far: billionaire assholes.

Reportedly, the top .00001% wealthiest Americans have regarded Mr. Romney with suspicion to date, wondering, in the words of one billionaire, "if he's really one of us."

"It's a bit of a reach for us billionaires to vote for someone like Romney, who just has a couple of hundred million in the bank," said Grayson Rance, a billionaire who has so far viewed the former Massachusetts governor warily. "But if a bona fide billionaire asshat like Trump is for him, that makes you give the guy a second chance."

Mr. Rance said that it was hard to believe that Mr. Romney, "who only owns five or six homes, could relate to people like us and understand our problems," but that Mr. Trump's thumbs-up "counts for a lot."

Speaking on CNN's "Situation Room," Mr. Trump told host Wolf Blitzer his reason for endorsing Mr. Romney: "After four years of a President who was born overseas, its time for a President who was born here and sends his money overseas."

As for Mr. Romney, he experienced a rare emotional moment on Memorial Day, placing a wreath on the Tomb of the Unknown Banker.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,saulgoldie
Date: 30 May 12 - 01:16 PM

Even with most of the Repub circus out of the ring, there is still plenty of entertainment value in the remnants.


A new conspiracy theory: Is Romney a unicorn?

By Dana Milbank, Published: May 29

The time has come for Mitt Romney to prove it once and for all: Is he or is he not a unicorn?
Let me stipulate that I have no proof that Romney is a unicorn, and indeed I want to believe that he is not. But I have not seen proof of this because he has not released the original copy of his long-form birth certificate.
There are many others who feel as I do — 18,000 people to be precise. I first began to consider the possibility that Romney might be a unicorn when I heard that LeftAction, an online petition operation created by Democratic PR guy John Hlinko, was campaigning to get the Arizona secretary of state to certify that the presumptive Republican nominee is not a mythical beast before allowing his name to be on the presidential ballot.
"There has never been a conclusive DNA test proving that Mitt Romney is not a unicorn," the group wrote last week. "And if Mitt Romney is or may be a unicorn, he is not Constitutionally qualified to be president."
The mittromneyisaunicorn¬.com campaign came about because Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett, citing allegations that the birth certificate President Obama released is a fraud, threatened to take the incumbent off the ballot.
Obviously, the likelihood that Romney is a fanciful equine is no more plausible than the claim that Obama was born in Africa. So why is the unicorn fair game? Because Romney has made it so.
Romney is scheduled to hold a fundraiser Tuesday night in Las Vegas with Donald Trump, the nation's most prominent "birther." The real-estate tycoon, in interviews last week with the Daily Beast and Tuesday with the Las Vegas Review Journal, revived his charge that Obama was born in Kenya.
Romney on Monday declined to repudiate Trump, telling reporters aboard his plane: "I don't agree with all the people who support me. . . . But I need to get 50.1 percent or more. And I'm appreciative to have the help of a lot of good people."
It's not the first time Romney, who once distanced himself from the birthers, has failed to stand up to sinister elements on the right. But this is a particularly unsavory crowd.
Some members have already turned against Romney. In a lawsuit filed in March, a group of birthers sued to require California to verify the eligibility of all presidential candidates. Obama is "arguably ineligible," the plaintiffs wrote, and "a similar situation may exist concerning the Republican Party candidacy of Mitt Romney." A lawyer for the birthers said the claim is related to George Romney's time in Mexico as a child.
Give these birthers some credit: They may be crazy, but they're nonpartisan. In fact, if Trump and his ilk want to be fair about it, a white presidential candidate with a foreign-born father deserves to be badgered into releasing his birth certificate just as much as a black presidential candidate with a foreign-born father.
There actually is a minor controversy surrounding Romney's birth certificate. Boston Globe columnist Joan Vennochi, pursuing a theory that the candidate's middle name is "Milton" rather than "Mitt," asked Romney's campaign five years ago for a copy of the birth certificate. The campaign declined.
I would prefer it if presidential candidates didn't need to produce vital records to prove eligibility. But if Romney is going to pal around with birthers — especially a newly reborn birther such as Trump — he shouldn't be surprised that people want him to play by the same rules.
That was the thinking behind the unicorn campaign. When Arizona's Bennett said he was investigating Obama's eligibility because he received 1,200 e-mailed requests, Hlinko's group wanted to see what Bennett would do if presented with even more requests to investigate an equally implausible claim against the Republican. LeftAction claims 18,000 have petitioned Bennett so far.
The secretary of state has retracted his threat to keep Obama off the ballot after Hawaii yet again verified the president's birth. But the request for a unicorn probe, Bennett said, is "ridiculous."
The "corners," as we unicorn movement followers call ourselves, agree that ours is "a cockamamie conspiracy theory with no basis in reality," as Hlinko put it. And yet, he told me, "it's arguably more plausible" than the Obama-Kenya claim, because nobody has seen whether Romney has a unicorn's horn beneath that ample mane.
"If he would just shave his head, the whole thing would be disproved," Hlinko offered.
I'd settle for a long-form birth certificate.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 May 12 - 01:29 PM

Choosing between Obama and Romney is like choosing between a rubber chicken and a wooden nickel. It would be kind of funny if it didn't matter.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: akenaton
Date: 30 May 12 - 02:48 PM

Yes Little Hawk it would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.
Do you think there is any hope for this generation of spoilt children with their weakness for heaping ridicule on one another?
Remember the fun they had with Mrs Palin?

I've just been reading a wonderful book about the enclosure of the common land in England and how it signalled the end of self- sufficiency and the peasant culture.
All the old peasant crafts were lost and people were forced to buy the necessities of life, which meant economic enslavement.....the sale of their lives, freedom, and strength, to buy back what was actually theirs of right.
The same is happening today, while we support our "favourites", and ridicule our "enemies".

Sometimes I feel depressed by our foolishness, how do you keep so eternally optimistic?

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 May 12 - 03:03 PM

I'm not all that optimistic, actually. I expect that things will continue to get worse for most people (in a political and economic sense), and I don't think there's anything I can do about it in terms of affecting the larger picture. I prefer to avoid fighting with other individuals here about it, however, and I try to confine my criticism to social systems, political leaders, and political systems rather than aiming it at specific individuals on this forum. Does that give an impression of optimism? It beats me why people here have to stoop to insulting each other over their various disagreements on politics.

Mind you, I see even worse stuff on Youtube. The world seems to be filled with people in a constant state of rage, and looking for someone they don't even know to vent it on. It's quite discouraging, to put it mildly. Makes me wonder why I even bother opening the page.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,saulgoldie
Date: 30 May 12 - 03:16 PM

Hope and the lack of optimism are not mutually exclusive. You can be pessimistic and realistic, and yet still hope for better than you think might be. And just because we may be going down the tubes doesn't mean that we can't enjoy the moment, the song, the food, the laughs, the company, the drink, the kiss, the...whatever. It really is a "mighty short trip from the cradle to the crypt" as Steve Goodman says. And once gone, we are dead for a very long time. Give yourself a break, Hawk, and try to lighten up a bit.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 May 12 - 03:26 PM

Yeah, okay. ;-)

I don't think that those who are gone are necessarily "gone" in the ultimate sense. They're just not "here" anymore, that's all. I might be right, I might be wrong, we'll find out in due course of time. Or we won't. As the case may be. What I mean is...if there's no afterlife, then we won't find out, cause we won't be conscious following death. And if there is an afterlife, then we will find out. Hopefully.

I tend to look considerably beyond the possibilities of this immediate existence here....but I agree with you that there is still much to enjoy in the moment, just in the many small things that we can enjoy in our daily lives.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 May 12 - 04:29 PM

Defeatists!!

The adage "You can't fight City Hall!" was started by City Hall.

And there are people here who are buying that!

Pathetic!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Amos
Date: 30 May 12 - 05:54 PM

IF you hire up a president who will maker things worse, then they'll get worse. Not that the president is the sole determinant, but he has more influence than any other individual on the tone that comes out of Washington and the national esprit de corps.

The lassitude and apathetic gloom being offered by some is in contradiction to the many things that are improving despite huge efforts to the contrary.

A

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Bobert
Date: 30 May 12 - 07:44 PM

As per usual, I whole-heartedly disagree with LH's cynical pessimism...

There is a way out but not with a Romney win... He will do as much harm domestically as Bush did in foreign policy with his wars of choice...

The current batch of Republicans think they can take out the New Deal... If that happens then we will have armed revolution... I don't want that...

There are two very different choices!!!

B~

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Bill D
Date: 30 May 12 - 11:16 PM

If you are hungry and are offered two pieces of cheese, and you really don't LIKE any cheese much, but you see that one piece is really spoiled and rancid.... what do you do until you can get the tofu you usually prefer?

Yeah...it's a silly metaphor. Make up a better one.

But right now, there is one obviously bad choice in US politics.... they support Citizens United, voter suppression, denying civil rights to GLBT groups, allowing unlimited gun purchases, allowing businesses to keep shipping jobs overseas, removing most regulations on banks and Wall Street, removing the last divisions between church & state, .... and advocating several constitutional amendments.
The new 'leader' of this group wants to demand that any presidential candidate have 'business' experience...like HE does.

You don't think there's any clear difference or choice? You might be startled to discover how $&*$@!#$ tired I am of hearing that idea.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 May 12 - 11:55 PM

Amen, Bill!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: akenaton
Date: 31 May 12 - 02:10 AM

Bill, these "bad" choices are only your bad choices....I thought you believed in "democracy"?

Additionally, your list is presented in the most simplistic and biased style......like a really poor politician....or the tool of a really poor politician.

The serious issues you mention, like export of jobs and deregulation of the banks are at the behest of the economic system which controls our lives, not any political party and as such are "red herrings" in this debate.

This system is now working against our interests, in fact, it was constructed against our intests....and by that I mean not just US/UK, but the whole of humanity.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 May 12 - 02:57 AM

BS: 2012 Presidential Election

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 May 12 - 03:08 AM

..or even a clearer analogy....


GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Bill D
Date: 31 May 12 - 09:39 AM

"...these "bad" choices are only your bad choices."

They wish to preserve democracy in name only.

They are the 'choices' of those who have co-opted one party and are trying to see to it that in the future there will be de facto ONLY only one relevant party. They are proceeding by misleading and outright lying .....and scare tactics. They are misusing arcane rules in the Senate to block any progressive legislation, and then declaring that their opponents have 'failed' to get anything done.

"..your list is presented in the most simplistic and biased style."

Since when does clear and unambiguous become "simplistic and biased"? One party is attempting to find ways to CONTROL exporting of jobs and to find ways to ensure regulation of banks......

And you don't consider those other points "serious"?????

You, Ake, make my point about generalization! You want 'simplistic'? Waving you arms and just declaring 'The system is broken and "working against our interests".' is simplistic! In practice, it is similar to just declaring "God made it this way, and we can't change it."

I don't live in the UK, and can't pretend to follow the ins & outs of culture, politics and sentiment there, but 'some' people who live outside the US sure are attempting to describe, define and explain all OUR issues.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Jun 12 - 04:36 AM

Bill D, In light of your last post, read the last four posts on the 'Obama battles for Uncommitted' thread. I believe Akenaton, and myself are pretty clear, and consistent in certain things you are expressing.

Respectfully,

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Stringsinger
Date: 01 Jun 12 - 03:17 PM

John Stewart is hoping that Donald Trump will throw his hat into the ring again.
The other two "numb nuts" are not funny or interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Jun 12 - 03:53 PM

So Romney gets on CBS this morning and is asked to give a grade to Obama for various policies and gives Obama an "F" on everything...

I find that amusing considering the few policies that Romney says he is for are all the same policies that brought the economy to near collapse 3 1/2 years ago...

How do you spell amnesia???

BTW, Solyndra is only half on Obama and the other half on Bush... The original loan guarentee request was made in 2006 and Bush's folks worked on it for a couple years and then passed it on to Obama's folks...

BTW, I hate to be the bearer of bad new on for the lying Republicans but Solyndra used that money to build a plant... The 1000 employees of Solyndra didn't build the plant... Contractors, subs, architects, engineers, truck dfrivers, labors, etc, etc did... That created tens of thousands of jobs... But wiat, there is more... Did this high tech plant just poof??? No, it didn't and when the economy humms again it will get bought or rented from US...

My, doesn't reality suck, righties???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Jun 12 - 06:14 PM

Bobert: "BTW, Solyndra is only half on Obama and the other half on Bush... The original loan guarentee request was made in 2006 and Bush's folks worked on it for a couple years and then passed it on to Obama's folks..."

This guy gets his news from Romper Room. Bush decided against it, and Obama was advised, not to do it, by his own staff.....but a deal is a deal...so he had to pay off his crooked cronies.

Jeez!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Jun 12 - 07:20 PM

Documentation, please, Goofus?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Jun 12 - 07:24 PM

Oh, that's right, Goofus! You don't do documentation, you just flap your lips. Well, okay, let me provide it for you.

To set the record straight, Climate Progress is publishing this timeline — verified by Department of Energy officials — that shows how the loan guarantee came together under both administrations. In fact, rather than rushing the loan for Solyndra through, the Obama Administration restructured the original Bush-era deal to further protect the taxpayers' investment:

May 2005: Just as a global silicon shortage begins driving up prices of solar photovoltaics [PV], Solyndra is founded to provide a cost-competitive alternative to silicon-based panels.

July 2005: The Bush Administration signs the Energy Policy Act of 2005 into law, creating the 1703 loan guarantee program.

February 2006 – October 2006: In February, Solyndra raises its first round of venture financing worth $10.6 million from CMEA Capital, Redpoint Ventures, and U.S. Venture Partners. In October, Argonaut Venture Capital, an investment arm of George Kaiser, invests $17 million into Solyndra. Madrone Capital Partners, an investment arm of the Walton family, invests $7 million. Those investments are part of a $78.2 million fund.

December 2006: Solyndra Applies for a Loan Guarantee under the 1703 program.

Late 2007: Loan guarantee program is funded. Solyndra was one of 16 clean-tech companies deemed ready to move forward in the due diligence process. The Bush Administration DOE moves forward to develop a conditional commitment.

October 2008: Then Solyndra CEO Chris Gronet touted reasons for building in Silicon Valley and noted that the "company's second factory also will be built in Fremont, since a Department of Energy loan guarantee mandates a U.S. location."

November 2008: Silicon prices remain very high on the spot market, making non-silicon based thin film technologies like Solyndra's very attractive to investors. Solyndra also benefits from having very low installation costs. The company raises $144 million from ten different venture investors, including the Walton-family run Madrone Capital Partners. This brings total private investment to more than $450 million to date.

January 2009: In an effort to show it has done something to support renewable energy, the Bush Administration tries to take Solyndra before a DOE credit review committee before President Obama is inaugurated. The committee, consisting of career civil servants with financial expertise, remands the loan back to DOE "without prejudice" because it wasn't ready for conditional commitment.

March 2009: The same credit committee approves the strengthened loan application. The deal passes on to DOE's credit review board. Career staff (not political appointees) within the DOE issue a conditional commitment setting out terms for a guarantee.

June 2009: As more silicon production facilities come online while demand for PV wavers due to the economic slowdown, silicon prices start to drop. Meanwhile, the Chinese begin rapidly scaling domestic manufacturing and set a path toward dramatic, unforeseen cost reductions in PV. Between June of 2009 and August of 2011, PV prices drop more than 50%.

September 2009: Solyndra raises an additional $219 million. Shortly after, the DOE closes a $535 million loan guarantee after six months of due diligence. This is the first loan guarantee issued under the 1703 program. From application to closing, the process took three years – not the 41 days that is sometimes reported. OMB did raise some concerns in August not about the loan itself but how the loan should be "scored." OMB testified Wednesday that they were comfortable with the final scoring.

January – June 2010: As the price of conventional silicon-based PV continues to fall due to low silicon prices and a glut of solar modules, investors and analysts start questioning Solyndra's ability to compete in the marketplace. Despite pulling its IPO (as dozens of companies did in 2010), Solyndra raises an additional $175 million from investors.

November 2010: Solyndra closes an older manufacturing facility and concentrates operations at Fab 2, the plant funded by the $535 million loan guarantee. The Fab 2 plant is completed that same month — on time and on budget — employing around 3,000 construction workers during the build-out, just as the DOE projected.

February 2011: Due to a liquidity crisis, investors provide $75 million to help restructure the loan guarantee. The DOE rightly assumed it was better to give Solyndra a fighting chance rather than liquidate the company – which was a going concern – for market value, which would have guaranteed significant losses.

March 2011: Republican Representatives complain that DOE funds are not being spent quickly enough.

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI): "despite the Administration's urgency and haste to pass the bill [the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act] … billions of dollars have yet to be spent."

And House Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Cliff Stearns (R-FL): "The whole point of the Democrat's stimulus bill was to spend billions of dollars … most of the money still hasn't been spent."

June 2011: Average selling prices for solar modules drop to $1.50 a watt and continue on a pathway to $1 a watt. Solyndra says it has cut costs by 50%, but analysts worry how the company will compete with the dramatic changes in conventional PV.

August 2011: DOE refuses to restructure the loan a second time.

September 2011: Solyndra closes its manufacturing facility, lays off 1,100 workers and files for bankruptcy.

The news is touted as a failure of the Obama Administration and the loan guarantee office. However, as of September 12, the DOE loan programs office closed or issued conditional commitments of $37.8 billion to projects around the country. The $535 million loan is only 1.3% of DOE's loan portfolio. To date, Solyndra is the only loan that's known to be troubled.

Meanwhile, after complaining about stimulus funds moving too slowly, Congressmen Fred Upton and Cliff Stearns are now claiming that the Administration was pushing funds out the door too quickly: "In the rush to get stimulus cash out the door, despite repeated claims by the Administration to the contrary, some bets were bad from the beginning."

What critics fail to mention is that the Solyndra deal is more than three years old, started under the Bush Administration, which tried to conditionally approve the loan right before Obama took office. Rather than "pushing funds out the door too quickly," the Obama Administration restructured the original loan when it came into office to further protect the taxpayers' investment.

Source:Stephen Lacey is a reporter/blogger with Climate Progress and Richard Caperton is a senior policy analyst with the energy team at the Center for American Progress.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Jun 12 - 09:42 PM

You don't do documentation, you just flap your lips.

Well, okay, let me provide it for you.


Got it?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Jun 12 - 09:57 PM

BTW, Solyndra first applied for the loan guarantees in 2006... The mid-level Bush people were workin' on them and passed them off to the mid-level Obama people... Big fucking whup!!! Happens every changing of the guard...

Bottom line???

Solyndra built a plant... It created tens of thousands of jobs... We still own it and it will get used in time...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Jun 12 - 10:38 PM

Well then Bobsie, it looks like a bit of corruption on BOTH sides, huh?
..or just a bunch of incompetents! Take your pick!!!
As for Don....open mouth insert...well whatever you like!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Jun 12 - 11:00 PM

...and foir the rest of the story........

...and here's some more of the story!

One good thing for you two, is that, being as you just fell off the turnip truck yesterday, at least we can work on your personalities from scratch!

Waving,

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Jun 12 - 11:02 PM

No, insane one, it doesn't...

Bush was the one who courted Solyndra... Or vice versa... Doesn't much matter...

Bottom line is that it got passed along to Obama's middle-managers from Bush's... Obama, contrary to the Republican lies, probably never heard of it until the deal was done...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Jun 12 - 11:44 PM

Good grief!!! Bobert!!! How dumb are you willing to portray yourself??

Even John P, whom I've exchanged quibbles with, has recently posted some intelligent posts..and I give him that...but YOU!!..Didn't you read the link??...It was tied to Obama's campaign contribution pay backs.
Are you drunk again??

Maybe you should get P-Vine to pour you back into bed!

This is common knowledge. I don't think even Don would be so stupid as to refute this......(he may prove me wrong though...there's always a first time!)

Holy smokes!!!

GfS

---Guest From Sanity, keep up the name-calling and this thread will be closed. --mudelf

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Jun 12 - 12:33 AM

The amusing thing about Goofus is that when he's been totally whup-assed in a discussion, he crows like he's WON something.

Were it not for the amusement he provides, this would be a complete waste of time. Well....no, it IS a waste of time! More productive if I do my politicking in the real world rather than arguing with an alien from the seventh planet out.

Ta-ta.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Jun 12 - 12:46 AM

Now if you wanna bitch about Bush.....
Your tax dollars at work.....

************************************************************************

I think it's rather ironic, that Solyndra goes under $539 Million, in part, due to solar technology being manufactured cheaper in China, and Obama gives Jeff Immelt $500 Billion to start jobs there....
.....and the Democrats want to raise taxes......makes you wanna go, "Hmmm"....while the first part of this post was under Bush's Administration.

But, of course, it's not BOTH parties...........is it now? ..

..and if you read the article, it all came from the Federal Reserve...
and we're stuck with paying it back..WITH INTEREST.....and moron imbeciles are talking which party is doing it...as if it was only one.

Get a fucking clue!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Jun 12 - 12:48 AM

Don Froth: "The amusing thing about Goofus is that when he's been totally whup-assed in a discussion, he crows like he's WON something.

Were it not for the amusement he provides, this would be a complete waste of time. Well....no, it IS a waste of time! More productive if I do my politicking in the real world rather than arguing with an alien from the seventh planet out.

Ta-ta."


GOOD!!!...Run along!!...Don't go away mad....just go away!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Jun 12 - 03:32 PM

I don't really need to "get a fucking clue," Goofus. I've been quite adept at that activity since I was quite young, thank you.

But "thank you" reminds me. I really wish to express my gratitude to you for inspiring me to come up with a good idea as to how I, as an individual, may participate quite effectively in getting President Barack Obama re-elected.

I, like most people who have expressed an active interest in the world of politics, receive in my e-mail every morning a number of solicitations for donations to political causes, including, for example, opportunities to contribute to the campaign to recall Scott Walker, or donate to the campaigns of people I've never heard of. In some cases, I would make a donation, save for the fact that my wife and I are living (quite comfortably, in fact) on a somewhat limited income.

But there are other ways of contributing. For example, I receive requests for funds to finance the production and airing of various political messages. But—

It occurred to me that I can contribute in other ways than money. My services.

Not being part of a phone bank or any of the usual political campaign grunt work. I've done that, and I'm not really sure that it helps more than it hinders, what with potential voters resenting being interrupted by a political phone call.

But I have spent some years as a radio announcer, the news director at an ABC affiliate station (by the way, as a news director, I quickly learned to distinguish between a reliable source and someone who is trying to shit me), and I have done a lot of commercial production:   writing copy, and recording that copy, often complete with background music and sound effects. A LOT of it. It seems I have "The Voice," to the extent that some clients would ask for me specifically.

I haven't done much of this sort of thing for about thirty years. But I still know how it's done, and I still have the "voice."

When doing this, I was working for one radio station or another and was on salary. But there are people who make a career of this sort of thing free-lance—voicing commercials, doing "voice-overs" and narration for documentaries and such—and make WADS of money doing it.

Inspired by your abysmal ignorance, general tendency to be rude and vulgar, and your hatred of Obama and anything liberal or progressive, and the awareness that your "bully pulpit" is a bit limited—the three or four people here on Mudcat who actually read your screeds—I can more than counteract this sort of thing, and Right-Wing propaganda in general, by talking to, potentially, thousands, even millions of people all at once.

Political campaigns hire a lot of "voices" and voice-over talent to do their political announcements and commercial messages. And this talent charges a bundle for these services, which are paid for out of campaign funds donated or solicited from people such as me—usually $3.00 here and $10.00 there.

I could make a substantial dent in this kind of outlay of campaign funds, allowing the funds to be used for other purposes—if I were to donate my professional services as a "Voice—free of charge.

I have actually done a few things recently. A local church was trying to raise funds to build new, low cost or no cost housing for the homeless, and they did a promotional DVD to send around, and I was asked to do the voice-over, which I did. They sent me the script, I studied it, then they sent a fellow with portable recording gear to my home and we spent an afternoon recording it.

Not only could I donate my services, I could actually do it at home. I have the recording equipment (computer with capabilities, interface, a couple of very good studio quality microphones). Heck, someone could e-mail me a script, then I could record it, put it in WAV, mp3, or whatever format they want, and e-mail it back to them. No sweat!!

One of my local state legislators is a neighbor, and we both attend the same church. He's young, he's idealistic, and he's honest. And he's a Democrat. I will tell him what I have in mind and I'm sure he can tell me who to see and how to go about it.

Thank you, Goofus! My general disgust at your ranting, your ignorance, and your feeble attempts to be insulting has inspired me to do something to actively work to counteract the kind of Tea Potty negativism that you represent.

Don Firth

P. S.   Heck, when the election is over and Obama is safely in office for another term, hopefully with a more intelligent and cooperative congress, I may look up an agent and market my skills for some real money. There are a couple of good agents in town who have national contacts, and I'm already a member of AFTRA (American Federation of Television and Radio Artists), but if I'm going to do it commercially, I'll have to re-activate my membership.

Gee whiz! Maybe a whole new, highly lucrative career! Bloody brilliant!!

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Jun 12 - 03:50 PM

See, people like you, and your ilk are part of the problem....not anything near the solution.....and that is an utter shame, because you have so much to offer, in the right capacity....but you opt out for supporting known liars..and have become a bit one of yourself, the way you distort posts that you respond to.

Your usefulness, you are overlooking, and squelching..and because of that, we all lose.

Respectfully Meant and Said,

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Jun 12 - 04:07 PM

If you actually read what I said above, Goofus, you will have run across my statement "by the way, as a news director, I quickly learned to distinguish between a reliable source and someone who is trying to shit me."

You're a Tea Party Right-Winger. You won't admit to it, but what you ARE speaks far louder than what you say.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Jun 12 - 04:27 PM

Nonsense(again)..how come you DIDN'T or accurately relate the ABC News article I posted. Why did you spin it?
..oh, and BTW, I have absolutely nothing to do with, or have NO ties to the Tea Party!
You just can't make stuff up, and call it 'news'...or be very convincing that you were a non-biased 'news director'....wasn't 'accuracy' part of your job description?
..and BTW, you have misquoted SO MANY, of not only my posts, but other people's as well..then interject your response to what is convenient to you....without ever addressing the real subject matter!...and I ain't the only one who has pointed that out to you!

I would think that a news director would take some care to relay WITHOUT bias the actual events being reported.

But, like I said before, you are wasting and squelching your greatest talent and asset...and settling.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Jun 12 - 05:20 PM

You don't know what you're talking about, Goofus. If an established and easily verifiable FACT disagrees with your prejudices, as far as you are concerned, someone is "spinning" it.

I'm not going to waste any more time with you. I've got things to do this afternoon, such as check to see if the state legislator I mentioned is home and talk to him about my plan. By the way, I knew him before he ran for office, and we're on a first name basis.

Go take a valium.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,999
Date: 02 Jun 12 - 05:22 PM

Sometimes ya gotta settle for less until you have the power to settle for more. That's the way many people are seeing it. Whether or not the time is right is a moot point because much will depend on the next president's ability to control US security forces.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Jun 12 - 06:42 PM

Good on you, Don... I get a letter to the editor printed about once a month in the "Charlotte Observer" but have offered to do a column??? We'll see...

Gotta do what you can...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Jun 12 - 07:17 PM

Exactly so, 999 (may I be so informal as to call you "9"?).

I had high hopes for Obama, but he hasn't delivered quite as I hoped he would. But to give him all due credit, much of that was not his fault. An obstructionist Congress hell-bent on blocking everything he tried to do to help the country.

Nevertheless, he is the best hope out of all of the viable candidates and aspiring candidates. At least he will slow down the tendency of the Right Wingers to hurl the country off the cliff.

Many times I have asked Goofus which of the viable candidates he prefers, but he apparently hasn't even thought about the matter.

Either that, or he doesn't want to commit himself.

Although it's obvious to most folks that he should be committed.

Don Firth

P. S.   By the way, Goofus, even though I worked for an ABC affiliate (owned by Disney Studios, incidentally), I was not working FOR ABC. I was working for the local station, and it was my obligation to use my own judgment. Bigger people than you have been satisfied that my judgment could be trusted. So your petty jibes blow away like wisps of fog before the fresh breeze of intelligent discourse.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Jun 12 - 10:10 PM

Don Froth: "I was working for the local station, and it was my obligation to use my own judgment...."


Good God!!.....What you meant to say is you were the op/ed. your 'own judgement' is hardly accurate, nor 'news'....and once again, you either did NOT read the entire article from ABC, or intentionally omitted the part about Obama's decision, though he was advised, by his staff otherwise.
Why are you doing that???
The story is the story...why alter it? Must we think what YOU think, or do you assume nobody can...or will?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Jun 12 - 12:27 AM

Don Firth - "Many times I have asked Goofus which of the viable candidates he prefers"

Don, at the presidential level the viable candidates now are only Obama and Romney. Period. It's down to those two. GfS clearly would prefer to have neither of them as his president...nor the parties that have selected them. Does that make him "wrong"?

It only makes him wrong if he still believed in the old traditional 2-party system in your country, and he obviously doesn't. As long as enough of your people still believe in the old, divisive 2-party system (the equivalent of believing in the Great Oz or the tooth fairy to solve their problems) then the sorry farce will go on...you'll have more wars, more devastation of the public sector and the unions, more ludicrous obstruction in
Congress, more money given to bankers and corporate CEOs, and less for the rest of you.

And I expect it will go on... I have not a shred of hope that either Obama or Romney will stop it from going on. I think they're working for the same corporate and banking sponsors...though for opposing parties who in truth wish each other nothing but failure.

And that's why I'm deeply cynical about the whole situation down there in the USA, and would not choose to live there...or frankly...even to visit there. Not any more.

Now, if GfS could stomach backing either Obama or Romney...either the Democrats or the Republicans...then he'd be obliged to pick one of them as his preference, wouldn't he? But he can't stomach either one of them...so why the hell should he be obliged to back one of them just because you want him to?

If he doesn't believe in either of them, he can't back either of them without being, essentially, a hypocrite.

I was very happy about Obama winning in 2008, because I had hopes he might turn out to be a real progressive...and I had no hopes that McCain would be anything but dreadful. Well, Obama has not turned out to be a progressive, I'm deeply disappointed in him (while still glad McCain wasn't elected)...but I cannot in good conscience put my faith in Obama any longer. Nor in Romney, needless to say. I regard them both as meaningless cyphers...faces pasted on top of a shadowy ruling system of bankers and businessmen that gets what it wants, regardless.

If I were an American, that would leave me no one to vote for...on the presidential level. That doesn't mean it would leave me no one to vote for on the more local or state level...that's a different matter. You sometimes get some pretty good candidates a bit farther down the chain of command. I'd vote for whoever I believed in at those lower levels...regardless of their party affiliation. It's the parties themselves that I don't believe in. They are what has finally destroyed truly representative government in the USA, because they've become mere creatures of a small, wealthy elite and they are NOT serving your general public! This is proven again and again, no matter which party you elect, they betray you. Don't you get that? How can you continue having any faith in either one of those 2 parties after what they've done to you in the last 60 or so years?

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Jun 12 - 12:39 AM

Goofus, using my own judgment didn't mean altering the facts, it was a matter of determining whether or not the source is reliable.

And Little Hawk, "Don, at the presidential level the viable candidates now are only Obama and Romney. Period."

Not necessarily so. Neither party has held its convention yet, and although, at this point, they appear to be foregone conclusions, I've seen enough conventions in which a dark horse suddenly appeared and changed everything. And it's apparent that GfS has no idea of who any of these possible dark horses might be.

He doesn't learn and think with his brain, he just responds to what appears to be obvious with a great flood of bile.

And don't try to lecture me on American politics.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Rapparee
Date: 03 Jun 12 - 10:52 AM

The 2012 US Presidential Election to too, too far away.

Unfortunately.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Jun 12 - 12:39 PM

Well, I have two hopes...

First, that Citizens United doesn't buy the White House for Romney...

Second, that there will be some pleasant surprises for liberals in a 2nd Obama term...

Liberals are due to be thrown a bone... We're kinda in a 40 year drought...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Jun 12 - 01:02 PM

Thank you, Little Hawk, for translating simple English and logic to Don, who though he seems to understand the language, (and that is up for debate), has yet to make a sensible sentence worth reading!

Don: "I've seen enough conventions in which a dark horse suddenly appeared and changed everything. And it's apparent that GfS has no idea of who any of these possible dark horses might be."

But of course, you do!...and stop trying to tell me what ideas you think I might have, or don't have...contrary to your self inflated opinion, your mind isn't that capable!..Bobert, on the other hand, is a legend in his own wine!

Don: "He doesn't learn and think with his brain, he just responds to what appears to be obvious with a great flood of bile."...

...coming out of YOU TWO!(Bobert and you)

Don: "And don't try to lecture me on American politics."....

....Or anything....like talking to a self absorbed brick on wheels!

...and BTW, as far as 'thinking'....oh, never mind, you wouldn't 'get it'...you seldom ever do!..(except in musical history)...why don't you apply those same talents, when it comes to comprehending other FACTS???


GfS

P.S. You don't have to answer the last question..we're tired of reading how wonderful you think you are....AGAIN!!

...and AGAIN




...and AGAIN!!

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Jun 12 - 01:48 PM

If I were anesthetized, Goofus, I could out-logic you and Little Hawk combined and bury you both with my knowledge of history and politics. No sweat.

But you—and Little Hawk—are not FOR anything, you just sit around going "Ain't it AWFUL?" and trying to claim that you've actually said something intelligent.

Well, you just keep right on doing that. In the meantime, it will be people like Bobert, John P., and me who will be working to change things.

Piss and moan and hurl childish insults all you want. You are ineffective and impotent. A non-entity.

Don Firth (actually doing something in the real world.)

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Jun 12 - 03:39 PM

THIS is a guy who used to hang out in the back booth of the legendary Blue Moon Tavern in Seattle back in the Sixties. He was a Communist when I first ran into him. Then he became a Trotskyite. Then he became an Anarchist.

He identified himself with The Working Man. He always wore work clothes and a hard hat, and he carried a lunch pail. He did work. Four hours a day, four days a week, in a small bookstore. I presume he wore the hard hat because he had a phobia about the possibility of a heavy book falling off a high shelf and beaning him. And he carried paperback books and political tracts in the lunchpail.

Every night you could find him in the back booth of the Blue Moon, holding forth on Comes the Revolution. He had a number of disciples. One of them took this fellow's beer-sodden non-stop political rants a bit too seriously and decided to get the Revolution under way. He opted to blow up a government building.

He managed to fashion a crude bomb. He could have tried to bomb the Federal Courthouse or somewhere like that, but that would have involved taking a bus downtown, which was far too much trouble. So he decided to blow up the University District Post Office (government building, ain't it?).

So one sunny afternoon he ran up the front steps of the University Branch Post Office, set the bomb down, and ran up the street like a deer.

Even though at that time of the afternoon, there were usually a lot of people going to and fro in that area, when the bomb went off, there was no one very close. There were several people doing business in the post office when the bomb went off, and it scared the hell out of them!

But—the post office entrance consisted of double swinging doors into a small antechamber, and another pair of swinging doors into the lobby area. The explosion shattered the glass in one of the outer swinging doors and left a scorch mark on the concrete in front of the door.

The Mad Bomber had managed to get about a quarter of a block up University Way N. E. when the bomb went off, and about three seconds later, he collided with—Ben Johansen, the local beat cop. Ben Johansen was about six foot two and build like a refrigerator. Ben grasped the situation in a split second, and also grasped the Mad Bomber by the scruff of the neck, lifted him off the sidewalk, and carried him off to the hoosegow.

So much for the Revolution!

You see, Goofus, I've met guys like you and Akenaton before.

And guys like Little Hawk. I believe that Little Hawk is, at least, sincere, but he likens the United States to Nazi Germany. I don't think we're there yet, and there are some folks here who are doing our damnedest to make sure we DON'T go there. It does no good to just sit around being Above it All, kibbitzing, going "Tsk tsk" a lot, and criticizing those of us who are striving to DO something!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Jun 12 - 04:49 PM

Well, Don, when one doesn't really understand and/or accept facts then pissin' and moanin' is about all they can do...

The entire Tea Party is a gang of ignorant pissers and moaners...

I guess that explains GfinS...

As for LH??? This is just his sandbox... He brings his little shovel an' pail in here and moves sand piles from here to there spilling sand on everyone and everything... He knows better deep down inside but he made some kinda deal with the Devil to do what he does so he does it... His "Both Sides Shuffle", however, has gotten tiresome... He know better songs but plays it over and over to appease his bud, insanity...

And the beat goes on...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Jun 12 - 05:52 PM

Little Hawk is a fairly intelligent guy, but he does have this "above it all" quirk and a tendency to lecture people about what they already know. He IS polite and generally civil in his discourse, and I've often wondered why, if he and Goofus are such good buddies, why he doesn't take him in hand, wash out his mouth with soap, and try to teach him civilized behavior.

The barbarians are at the gates, and those two are constantly bitching at US. No help at all.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,999
Date: 03 Jun 12 - 07:17 PM

I've seen fewer sides on a Canadian Loonie, and I don't mean Harper!

Gentlemen, while I agree with Ake, LH and GfS concerning the Fed, the Tweedledee-Tweedledum aspect of American politics, and the present push by ultraconservatives (read greedy bastards who care nothing for any 'ism' except capital), I happen also to agree with Don and Bobert. In the coming election there is NO choice but Obama. To vote otherwise is to support totalitarianism. The laws are in place waiting to be enacted and America will be shutdown tighter than a frog's arse, and that's water tight.

But I gotta say one thing: if the American congress and president do things the way you guys do, we have the hope of turkeys on Thanksgiving. And apple pie.

Something to keep in mind: there's no point owning everything without securing a labor force to keep what ya own operating, a seminal statement to guide studies in 101: I Now Own a Company, What's Next?.

If y'all stopped getting hung up on who is and who isn't what--and occasionally whom--ya might be able to figure out what needs fixing, and soon. You need lots of law repealed. imo

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Jun 12 - 08:25 PM

Ya' can't (or shouldn't) condemn the Fed because of it's chairman, brucie... Yeah, not my choice either... Here's the reality... We live in a very competitive world where other countries don't play fair in terms of their currencies and their values... The Fed is all we have to keep us in that game... No Fed then no compete...

Mitt Romney says he's just going to tell China to play nice??? Good luck, Mitt... Very ignorant on his part...

Just think about it, brucie...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Jun 12 - 10:58 PM

While I tend to think Obama may very well 'win' re-election..I do not believe
I couldn't vote for him, in good conscience. My standards, unlike those of the 'Dynamic Duo', are a little higher, and not so double, as theirs.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 04 Jun 12 - 12:09 AM

Idealism dictates that I am pissed off at Obama.
Realism dictates that I cannot stay at home on election day, nor can I vote for Romney.
Does that make it a Dynamic Trio?
I am betting yes.

What is the *realistic* alternative from LH and GfS? Please tell us.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Jun 12 - 01:46 AM

Welcome aboard, TIA. My sediments exactly.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 04 Jun 12 - 04:09 AM

I came looking for information on the pending election. I found a Fugitive from Sanity.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Jun 12 - 11:18 AM

TIA: "What is the *realistic* alternative from LH and GfS? Please tell us."

I guess we'll have to wait till after the conventions, or see if another party emerges, won't we?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Jun 12 - 12:09 PM

Guest,999: "Gentlemen, while I agree with Ake, LH and GfS concerning the Fed..."

Bruce, I consider it an honor and privilege to be numbered in with those who you mentioned. We have done our best to bring light into the room, which has been too lopsided with deceptive ideologues.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Jun 12 - 12:18 PM

We need to do several things. We need to make sure Romney and, by default Citizens United, are NOT elected this Nov. This means Obama, no matter what you think he hasn't done! (It is clear that he had only 2 years to GET anything done.)

The other things we need to do are 1) Look beyond 2016 and groom some intelligent, decent people to compete with the hoards of semi-intelligent Republican wannabes who are lining up for the job if Romney DOESN'T win..(and maybe if he does win and does the lousy job I'd expect!)

and 2) We need NOW to begin reforming our entire electoral process to change how we choose candidates and how we fund elections. This means repeal of Citizens United as soon as possible, and transparency and accountability in contributions of ALL kinds.

and 3) We need to shorten the process that now has the elbowing for position beginning the morning after the election! Other countries with more parties manage to do 'most' of the process in weeks or months....not the 3-4 years we now endure. Many people are simply tuning out and/or becoming cynical... and then deciding at the last minute, based on shallow, stupid sound bytes.

I am terribly afraid of the whole process becoming totally a sham with voter suppression, a stacked Supreme Court and corporate $$$$ running a far-from-level playing field...(no..it is NOT quite yet)

*IF* Obama is reelected, I expect to attempts at my agenda made.... we shall see.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Jun 12 - 01:07 PM

Agreed, Bill. And we must not forget about possible appointments to the Supreme Court.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Jun 12 - 01:16 PM

Here, this one for us

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Jun 12 - 01:26 PM

Above link, an article by Maureen Dowd, columnist, trashing Obama.

Said of her, "Maureen Dowd can be funny when writing about movies or fashion, but she should stay out of politics. The politest thing I can say about her is that she's a lightweight."

This from a fellow columnist at the same paper who did not want to be identified.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Jun 12 - 01:30 PM

The Maureen Dowd op-ed shows just how much damage can be inflicted on a president by a wealth minority that owns the media...

Bill Clinton refers to it as "microphone time"... Face it, what we have seen over the last 3 1/2 years is about a 6-1 advantage in microphone time for the Republicans...

Here's the deal: Obama gives a speech and gets 30 seconds of the news cycle... Of course, the media is going to follow up by giving a Repub 30 seconds - BTW, it doesn't work the other way around - ten over the course of the evening rich people carpet bomb Obama with issue ads so by the end of any given evening it's Obama, 30 seconds, Repubs 3 to 4 minutes...

This is reality... If we can't get the BIG $$$ out of politics then this little 230 year or so old experiment is going to fail badly...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Jun 12 - 02:01 PM

Look out for low flying pigs!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: saulgoldie
Date: 05 Jun 12 - 01:06 PM

Again, from Andy Borowitz. Not exactly the presidential election, but the election, nonetheless:

                 
June 5, 2012
Canada Bracing for Massive Influx of Wisconsin Boat People
Coast Guard on Alert

OTTAWA (The Borowitz Report) – The Canadian coast guard was on alert today, preparing for what it fears could be a massive invasion of boat people from Wisconsin.

Conor McGlindon, commander of the Royal Canadian Mounted Coast Guard (RCMCG), said that satellite photos had revealed a "substantial flotilla" in the making, as Wisconsinites prepared to flee their state for their neighbor to the North.

"Word has gotten around that we have policemen, firemen, and basic school lunches up here," Mr. McGlindon said. "You can't blame these boat people for seeking a better life. But we are under orders to intercept them."

In Canada, officials fear that refugees from Wisconsin will brave the treacherous journey across Lake Superior in the hopes of giving birth to so-called "anchor babies" on Canadian soil.

Mr. McGlindon offered reporters a look at satellite photos showing the boat people larding their vessels with wheels of premium cheddar cheese, possibly in the hopes of bribing Canadian officials on Superior's northern shore.

"We are telling all of our men that under no circumstances should they accept offerings of cheese," he said. "These boat people are desperate and they will try anything."

Reports of the looming refugee crisis coincided with the release of a new poll showing that Gov. Scott Walker is now the most hated man in Wisconsin, narrowly edging Brett Favre.

Speaking at the state capitol, Gov. Walker seemed philosophical about his legacy: "I'm not worried how history will remember me, because if I have my way there won't be any history teachers."

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Jun 12 - 10:18 PM

Wisconsin seems to be showing what outspending opponents 14 to 1 can do.

"I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one!"

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Jun 12 - 10:32 PM

...or when some of those corrupt bankster crooks actually get prosecuted for bribing government officials or screwing with the books...or conspiring to fuck the America AND global community!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Jun 12 - 06:40 PM

It wasn't 14 times, Bill D, ..it was 7 times...just for the record.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Jun 12 - 07:02 PM

It was 12-14 for awhile...I didn't keep track.

7 is enough....

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Jun 12 - 07:22 PM

Yup, it was 7-1...

90% of all elections are won by the candidate who spends the most money... 7 to 1 is like shooting fish in a barrel... That wasn't an election... That was an auction..

B~

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Jun 12 - 01:58 AM

Bobert: "Yup, it was 7-1...
90% of all elections are won by the candidate who spends the most money... 7 to 1 is like shooting fish in a barrel... That wasn't an election... That was an auction.."

As I just posted on another thread.....just ask our present President..or did you forget???

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.....even if you are still absorbed in your double standards!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Jun 12 - 09:17 AM

7 to 1 and 1.1 to 1 aren't in the same league...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Jun 12 - 09:42 AM

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/map/ad.spending/


Obama $310 million
McCain $135 million

Not 1.1 to 1 by any means- more like 2.3 to 1...

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,999
Date: 07 Jun 12 - 10:02 AM

Hey, dudes, the presidency don't go cheap. I think you need a system wherein every person over 18 in the USA is provided a dollar by the US government. That dollar is taken back and given 50/50 to the candidates. NO private or corporate donations allowed. The penalty for donating is death to the offending board members.

I'd also point out to my friend, Bobert, that 94.97% of the people who use statistics in arguments make 'em up as the go along.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Jun 12 - 10:20 AM

That approach was tried, Bruce - and all the campaign finance laws were stillborn, killed in infancy, or vetoed by the current crop of judicial idiots infesting the Supreme Court.

Yisiree, the U.S. has the best elections money can buy.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Jun 12 - 07:28 PM

Yo, BB... Check out the 527s... You throw them in and its more like 1.1 to 1...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Jun 12 - 07:50 PM

Then, if that's the case..why all the hoop-ti-do?
Methinks it's just another whiners, 'in the moment' emotional rant!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Jun 12 - 10:49 PM

Now that the ideologues have made this an issue, in light of the hearings, in Washington...and they have 'spun-tied' the hearings to politically based intentions, for the elections.....Let's talk about the present hearings on 'Fast and Furious'!..on the hidden agendas to funnel arms to the drug cartels in Mexico!...and then 'spin' it, to pretend they were doing a 'noble thing'!....and Holder being considered for being charged with contempt of Congress.

Wanna' deal with it?......or pretend that it's not happening, and is just some sort of Tea Party shenanigans?

You get all fired up about the massacres in Syria, and look the other way when it comes to Mexico...and the death toll is far greater, in Mexico than Syria....and this administration, is covertly funneling guns to the murderers!...under the pretext of finding out where they are going...AND to have an excuse to fraudulently attack another one of our guaranteed rights, under the Constitution, mainly the 2nd amendment!

Can't wait to hear the SPIN on this crap!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Jun 12 - 11:04 PM

Bill Clinton needs to put a little Slick Willie in Obama... Obama is too smart for this American electorate and shoots over their little heads... Gotta bring it way the heck down to "dull normal", Barack... That is the electorate, at best...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 07 Jun 12 - 11:33 PM

on the hidden agendas to funnel arms to the drug cartels in Mexico!

Gust, you're fucking nuts. You're all fired up just to yank people's chains.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jun 12 - 12:04 AM

Gust is certifiable. Do not engage.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Jun 12 - 12:11 AM

Ok, Silly..what was he doing funneling the arms to Mexico, then..to trace them?/. You believe that????

Here...read something about it, yourself!

Try telling your silly political rationalizations to Brian Terry's family!! (Do you even know who he is??)

Bobert: Bill Clinton needs to put a little Slick Willie in Obama..."


.....or even a slightly used cigar!

'Slick Willie' happens to be sabotaging Obama's campaign..or are you aware of that?....matter of fact, quite a few Democrats are making statements discrediting the abilities of the President...are you aware of that?....but, after all, they're Democrats...they can't be wrong now, could they???

Like rats on the Titanic!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 08 Jun 12 - 12:31 AM

Yes!
Read read the link.
And if you trust Issa (R-California) you will be convinced.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Jun 12 - 01:20 AM

Well, if you believe Holder..................
or Obama....."And if you trust
Obama you will be convinced!

I dug him for what he was, from the beginning..
Just like in music.."Speed is a bi-product of accuracy!"

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Jun 12 - 12:27 PM

Sorry Bobert.

The facts do not back you up.

IF (note conditional) ALL the outside spending had been for McCain ( which even you cannot claim without choking on the lie) the ratio would have been 1.25 Obama to 1.0 McCain.
(325 mill vs 191 + 71 million)
And by how what percentage did Obama win by ( in popular votes?) Per vote, Obama spent a lot more- want me to get THAT number for you?

Obama got MORE in large corporate donations than McCain did- check the FACTS.

It looks like you only complain about someone buying the election when you are NOT supporting them.


http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/map/ad.spending/

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Jun 12 - 12:37 PM

OK, Obama got 1.16 votes for each 1 that McCain got.

ANd spent more PER VOTE.



"This is reality... If we can't get the BIG $$$ out of politics then this little 230 year or so old experiment is going to fail badly..."

I AGREE with this- just make sure you apply it to BOTH sides, and not just those you disagree with.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Jun 12 - 11:15 AM

BEFORE THERE WAS EVEN A TEA PARTY, there was THIS:
Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 09:58 PM

I must have missed something..Who is 'Chongo'? As for O-Blabbo's skills, they are only at yapping...still, tell me ONE, JUST ONE accomplishment, other than talking a good talk. Talk is cheap...(his campaign wasn't)

AND THIS:

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 10:18 AM

Well, thanks for your opinion, but it's just an opinion, and obviously from a Clinton supporter. As I've stated before, between Clinton, Obama and McCain, we have no real choice. Their pasts speak for themselves...not the wishful thinking, that they were something, or stood for something that they are not. As stated before, we need another candidate, out of the box, that represent the values that a lot of the country seems to want to compromise with,..just to elect the personality of their choice..but one who has the America that made us strong..and none of these put before us, are it.

and now we get THIS:Stereo Politicians speaking out of both sides of their mouths!


...and I'm supposed to believe YOUR NONSENSE??????????????

Save it....with the rest of the world!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Jun 12 - 11:37 AM

Obama's NDAA........Took YOU off-guard, didn't it???

..and this..but YOU thought they were talkin' 'bout somebody else!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Jun 12 - 12:27 PM

Better hurry, these are disappearing FAST!!!

ENJOY!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Jun 12 - 01:13 PM

Sounds from North Carolina and Washington State, after my last posts!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Jun 12 - 03:57 PM

Well, GoofuS, I see that you have a lot of time to sit in front of your computer and search for stuff to slam Obama with. No missives from here because while you're doing that, Bobert and I are out working in the real world to save the country from the barbarians.

Sure, Obama put his foot in it. But at the same time, he tried to push through a public works funding bill to create jobs, and the response of John Boehner and the House Republicans was a resounding "When hell freezes over!!" Once again, a Republican dominated Congress works against the whole country just to keep Obama from doing anything.

What we need to do is keep Obama in, and replace a lot of Right-Wing Congress persons with Democrats. THEN we'll get the country back on track.

Certain parts of the "private sector" ARE doing quite well. It's just that they're not hiring. They're sending all the jobs to China.

GoofuS, in your campaign to get Obama to lose the election this November, who--of the viable candidates so far, including possible other candidates who may be nominated during the conventions yet to come—do you prefer?

Give me a name. You never know. You might convert me.

But give me a name.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Jun 12 - 10:31 PM

Seven and a half hours later and still no answer.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Jun 12 - 10:56 PM

Oh...well I just now got back on..but just for a moment. He an incredible session in the studio...it was inspiring!!

Oh, hmm..name....well, I'm waiting to see if there is going to be another candidate, or a third party. Problem is, unless the candidate is a well known, person, who's got their head on straight, he might just help Obama to get re-elected..if he pulls votes from the Republicans....but until a name comes up, it would be fruitless to give you one....(but I have an idea).....but I'm eagerly waiting, myself.

Now, as I was opening this, to get on, I saw a news story, about 'bounties'....well, I wouldn't be at all surprised, if a new and viable candidate were to emerge, that those, whom the article refers to as the 'perps' behind it, would be blamed for taking out, the viable candidate, to keep the 'message' from seeing the light of day....Just a thought..though god forbid anything like that would happen.

If you noticed, even the 'administration friendly' media is turning away from the love affair that they had with Obama, the first time around....even top Democrats...I would watch who those top Dems are, just so you might have an idea, as to who in the party, is really in cahoots, with the bankster/elites, who, I think, are turning against Obama.
I think they got him in....but something went awry...and by all indications, they want to 'dump him'.
Actually, ( < there's that word again), it's NOT just a guess...nor, is he doing a 'better' program....just detoured the original one, for another one, which also, does NOT have the best interest of the country at heart)...I'd LOVE to be more specific, but that could really get 'involved'..and we ain't there, yet.
Gosh, you'd think i was doing a sympathetic turn around, but I'm not...it's just that things are NOT what they appear to be!(as far as I know, and all bullshit aside, I've been pretty accurate...but when I see it in a way I can lay it down, Mudcat WILL be on top of it!!!!
.....and then someone will probably pick an argument...unnecessarily!

Take it easy,

GfS

P.S. if you hear anything, related, post it...I'll take it into consideration, and give you feedback, if I got any.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Jun 12 - 10:27 AM

Obama got MORE in large corporate donations than McCain did- check the FACTS.

True, but not so fast, Bruce. That was then - BEFORE Citizens United - and this is now.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Jun 12 - 11:51 AM

Greg F: "That was then - BEFORE Citizens United - and this is now."

...and so Obama gets more union money..through lumped donations....

SOO, let's help to stop it all!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Jun 12 - 01:33 PM

Signed it. Thanks for posting that.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Jun 12 - 02:02 PM

Cool!.....Yourd Velcome.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Jun 12 - 05:28 PM

Hmmm....sounds like Obama is under a LOT of heat, theses days....I guess some 'genius' will figure out, "Hey, maybe we should bet Hillary to run"....and then you think, "Hmmm, good idea..good ol' Hillary should have run last time...at least she's like Obama, but not as careless..she might have a shot at it, at least she's got a better chance at Romney!"
...and then some old wise fart tells you. "A vote for Hillary, would in essence, be like voting for George Bush again!!".....and of course, the old fart would be right....but what a lot of the 'so-called liberals' never flashed, was so was voting for Obama!....What's changed?
Both had the house of Congress and the Senate, and BOTH did the EXACT same thing...down to the outrageous spending spree, the wars, taxes, printing more money, bailouts...more Federal crackdowns..you tell me!!..I'm all ears...but while your typing, see if things said about Bush aren't the EXACT same things said about Obama....Hey!..I thought they were supposed to be different parties....weren't they???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Jun 12 - 05:58 PM

One whole helluva lot of stuff is SAID in a political campaign.

What is essential is to ferret out the TRUTH. and ignore all those cow pies covering the meadow. There are ways of doing this. And listening to Fox News or reading Bob Livingston's "Liberty Alerts" are not among the ways of ferreting out the truth.

Nor, for that matter, is truth to be found among those who avoid the obligation to think by self-righteously saying, "A pox on both their houses!" then head out for a beer.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Jun 12 - 06:03 PM

ALRIGHT!!!...I'm all for ferreting out the truth!!!...
Now the tricky part is, that you don't try to fit it into earlier preconceptions...and just them fall where they may....AND THEN, formulate an opinion!!...not the other way around.

Regards!
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Jun 12 - 07:13 PM

Yup, Greg...

I watched the local and then national news on NBC this evening... Citizens United ads from secret donors against Obama 7... One Obama ad paid for from his election committee (traceable money)

B~

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Jun 12 - 09:29 PM

Well, if Obama's numbers go down any more...and they keep going down....and come election time he only gets ONE vote.....we'll know whose it was!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Jun 12 - 10:34 PM

Michelle's?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Jun 12 - 03:07 PM

If Romney gets in, welcome to Corporate USA. If Obama gets in, business as usual.
if Romney gets in, he'll tie another Seamus to the roof of his car.
If Obama gets in, ....................it won't matter.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Jun 12 - 03:37 PM

I was thinkin' more like Bobert's!..Michelle's might just be for her personal assistants!

GfS

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Jun 12 - 12:32 AM

From here to Here!!!
Think it will work?????????????

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Jun 12 - 02:18 AM

Bobert: "I watched the local and then national news on NBC this evening.."


You mean this NBC????

Maybe you should get your news from another source(s)!!!..after all, this guy just got $500,000,000,000 from Obama to start jobs in China!!
..and then you criticize 'Fox' for being biased???????????????
(even thought it is)...come to think of it, do you think they BOTH might be???

Here Don, Bobert needs translation for this..(he requested your services). This is just out.

..another spoof on you!

Happy Campaigning!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Jun 12 - 04:11 AM

Hey Don, in the last link that I just posted, read that last paragraph real careful..take it ALL in....it's a real eye-opener...and verifies what not only myself, but a few others have been saying all along...and BEFORE there was a 'Tea Party'!!

Cheers!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Jun 12 - 12:49 AM

So Don...without any contentious motives, at this end, what did you think..of the last links I posted??....Just curious. I showed a couple of them to a guy who follows that stuff here..and would really be interested in your feedback.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 15 Jun 12 - 01:38 AM

The in-depth analyses never appear do they?
Lots of blah-blah-blah
Then excuse-excuse-excuse
Oh well, at least Cecil and lansing have disappeared.
I only stop in once every few weeks to torture the torturer(s).
My real life is way more interesting now that Mudcat has become this semi-cesspool.
And my kids' musical accomplishments have made national news (proud proud proud) so I don't need any validation.
Best wishes to all of you fact-based, compassionate and sane people who I respect.
I only stop in to see how you are faring in fighting the good fight.
Keep it up! I will support every once in a while (maybe).
TIA

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 15 Jun 12 - 01:10 PM

This has become another tired ninnyhammer thread.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Jun 12 - 03:45 PM

I just posted this on another thread, but it is equally germaine here, in the light of GfS' question to me as to what I thought of his link:

Lately I've been discounting what people quote from the Huffington Post. Recently it's been using some of the same writers who write for the WND newsletter (World Net Daily), which is an internet rag somewhat to the right of Genghis Khan.

WND publishes vast quantities of anti-Obama propaganda, most of which they make up themselves. They still maintain that Obama was born in Kenya—or Indonesia (they can't seem to make up their minds)—that he is a secret member of the Socialist Party, and that he is gay.

And that Obama is the Anti-Christ. And, yes, it has a fundamentalist Christian orientation.

The Huffington Post must have recently taken a giant step to the Right—or Arianna is not minding the store.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Jun 12 - 04:54 PM

Frothus: "Lately I've been discounting what people quote from the Huffington Post. Recently it's been using some of the same writers who write for the WND newsletter (World Net Daily), which is an internet rag somewhat to the right of Genghis Khan............
The Huffington Post must have recently taken a giant step to the Right—or Arianna is not minding the store."




The Huff-Post was always thought to be 'left'...but if they run an article that is reporting on stuff that is going on, behind the scenes, which exposes certain elements of what is going on...WHAT??..Now they're on the 'right'???...or are they seen as blaspheming the 'messiah'!..I commend them on reporting relevant stories that others are not! Do you recommend the 'unbiased drivel' on NBC???..or MSNBC??..Fox??.....NPR??....or whoever spins the direction that makes you deliriously dizzy??

Why not just report the 'news' the way it is, and the hell with 'Does this 'news source' lean to the right or the left....just tell me the fucking truth!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Jun 12 - 05:26 PM

That would be nice, GfS, and in a perfect world that's the way it would be.

But when Rupert Murdock owns a string of newspapars, you're going to read what Rubert Mudock and his cronies WANT you to read. Disney Studios owns the ABC network. You're not going to hear much of anything negative about Disney or its output on the ABC nightly news.

Sure, a strongly bias source CAN sometimes report something which is absolutely, verifiably true. But--

Adage worth heeding:   before reading article, make sure brain is engaged.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Jun 12 - 06:25 PM

Agreed, Don....so many people 'watch' the 'news' like an entertainment type show, therefore 'engaging' with a 'passive mind'....(not good).
Myself, I use several different sources, and have my own, as well. I do not take ANY of it at face value...as not to obey the 'command/suggestion', of limiting one's dialogue to what they are programming you to talk about!...Most of it is distraction/diversion anyway!

Regards!..and may you have a great day!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Jun 12 - 06:57 PM

Curious.

"I use several different sources, and have my own, as well. . . ."

I hesitate to ask, but how do you differentiate your own, as well from "several different sources?" Could you explain that a bit further?

Ouija board? Voices? Secret commuiques from the Galactic Empire?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Jun 12 - 08:08 PM

I watch the news with a cynical eye... It's not that it's lies... It's slants... I wnat to know what "they" want people to know... Two (at least) ways to tell any story...

It was good to see Obama step up with Dream-Lite today... It will keep Romney's people occupied for a couple days...

Other than that, as I have said... Unless Obama can figure out how to stop a dozen right winged billionaires I don't think he can win... He is being carpet bombed here in NC... It is pathetic...

E.J. Dionne has called on billionaires to level the playing field so that they won't feel as if they have to be into buying elections... Good luck, E.J....

Democracy is one the ropes and taking bid punche$...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Jun 12 - 10:37 PM

Bobbins: "It was good to see Obama step up with Dream-Lite today...."

Yeah!! It solved the unemployment problem, didn't it??...discriminated against age, and was outside his Constitutional powers.....so he passed it over to Homeland Security, as their gig!....WAY TO GO!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 15 Jun 12 - 11:23 PM

Are we still remotely near the topic here? I hate to see GFS flogging a post for days and days. It bodes ill for the subject.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Jun 12 - 12:50 AM

Maybe if you got the ones that you got taken off, we could have intelligently looked into them.....but, from what you've exhibited, if intelligence isn't removed, then you've got nothing to say!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Jun 12 - 01:18 AM

...and Silly, I'm only on THREE threads!..and posted a joke on the 'Mother' (TIA is awaiting my post on another one, but that one, I'll need to focus primarily on).........THREE Threads!! .................Get over yourself!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Jun 12 - 02:04 AM

GoofuS, I posed a question to you a few posts up.

This is yet another that you're going to duck, isn't it!?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Stringsinger
Date: 16 Jun 12 - 11:07 AM

Whoever wins, the election will be a farce. The system is broken. The votes will probably be rigged as in Bush v. Gore.

"Citizens United" has ruined our democracy.

The "lesser of two evils" view predominates political thinking in the US today as it has in the past.

Solution:
1. Boycott products made by corporations that infuse money into candidates.
2. Don't listen to Mainstream Media and expect to have valid information. Seek alternate    sources.
3. Be careful of religious jingoism such as "anti-Christ" or anti-gay talk.
4. Work locally in your community to change the system.
5. Speak out against oppression.
6. When voting, don't expect too much. Do it because it's the American thing to do.
6. Woody used to say, "This machine licks fascists". More songs!

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Jun 12 - 03:08 PM

And arm yourself against being hoodwinked without being aware of it. Read the following book:

Don't Thing of an Elephant!, by George Lakoff.

New York Times Best Seller!

Don't Think of an Elephant! is the definitive handbook for understanding what happened in the 2004 election and communicating effectively about key issues facing America today. Author George Lakoff has become a key advisor to the Democratic party, helping them develop their message and frame the political debate.

In this book Lakoff explains how conservatives think, and how to counter their arguments. He outlines in detail the traditional American values that progressives hold, but are often unable to articulate. Lakoff also breaks down the ways in which conservatives have framed the issues, and provides examples of how progressives can reframe the debate.

Lakoff's years of research and work with environmental and political leaders have been distilled into this essential guide, which shows progressives how to think in terms of values instead of programs, and why people vote their values and identities, often against their best interests.

Don't Think of An Elephant! is the antidote to the last forty years of conservative strategizing and the right wing's stranglehold on political dialogue in the United States.

Read it, take action—and help take America back.

An example of the sort of thing—framing—that Lakoff delineates is the oft-used expression "tax burden." Taxes are the dues one pays for living in a civilized (one hopes!) society, and having such conveniences as building and maintaining public roads and bridges, fire and police departments to come to one's rescue in times of emergencies, and maintaining armed forces to protect the country from external threats. These necessities, along with providing free or low cost education to (hopefully) maintain an educated and informed electorate, and if the health care issue can get through an anti-citizen Congress, provide health care to those who either cannot afford it or must spend large amounts of their income for private health insurance, thereby helping the United States to join the other civilized countries of the world.

Those who benefit the most—the wealthiest Americans—should at least pay their fair share of those dues.

But framing the paying of those taxes—dues—as a "burden" turns a positive into a negative, and implies that the wealthy need relief from this burden.

This "tax relief" slogan was a major part of convincing people to accept Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, along with the "trickle down" canard, which simply does not happen (such savings, rather than being used to create new jobs, tend to flow to banks in Switzerland or the Cayman Islands) and are a major aspect of the "voodoo economics" of Ronald Reagan.

"Tax relief" is only one of the framing scams that Lakoff warns about.

Figuring out how to frame arguments this way is one of the things that all these well-funded conservative think-tanks do.

Read the book. MOST enlightening, and you'll listen to political speeches, and the news, with new ears!

Synopsis and reviews HERE.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Jun 12 - 07:14 PM

Strings,

We don't know the folks who are buying the 2012 election... The Supreme Clowns don't think we deserve to know that...

Can't boycott Casper the Ghost...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Sawzaw
Date: 18 Jun 12 - 10:28 AM

Obama's former professor says he 'must not' win in 2012

Harvard Law School professor Roberto Unger, who taught President Barack Obama classes such as Jurisprudence and Reinventing Democracy, said last month that his former student has betrayed liberals and should lose the presidency in November.

"President Obama must be defeated in the coming election," Unger said in a sit-down video posted to his YouTube account in May, which also attacked the Republican party.

"If [The Republicans] had their way, inequality would be even greater than it is now," Unger said, before acknowledging that a Romney win would lead to some undesirable "judicial and administrative appointments."

But those costs, to Unger, pale in comparison to the risks of an Obama second term.

"The Democratic Party has no new direction. … [Obama] has failed to advance the progressive cause," Unger said. "He has spent trillions of dollars to rescue the moneyed interests and left workers and homeowners to their own devices."...

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Jun 12 - 02:28 PM

So who does UNGER recommend?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Wesley S
Date: 18 Jun 12 - 05:13 PM

Probably Unger

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Jun 12 - 08:01 PM

"President Obama must be defeated in the coming election," Unger said.."

Does the phrase "cutting off your nose to spite your face" have a certain ring to it? Or even, if you MUST think that way..."Lesser of two evils"?

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 Jun 12 - 09:20 PM

Well, maybe if you took the ring out of the nose, before you cut it off......

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Jun 12 - 11:52 AM

Remember when I posted several times about Jeff Immelt being Obama's 'jobs czar'....and, of course we are DEFINITELY having unemployment problems in our country, aren't we?...So check this one out"


...shovel ready jobs?????????????????????????????

OK, Bobert, Don and JtS....hop on your merry-go-round and turn up the speed, to spin as fast as it'll go!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 19 Jun 12 - 12:11 PM

Dunno what guest finds in that report that bears on the election.

Canada also has a program that gives foreign enterpreneurs/investors and those with exceptional or useful skills a fast track to possible citizenship in the country.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Jun 12 - 01:57 PM

GoofuS, this is relevant how?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Sawzaw
Date: 19 Jun 12 - 07:50 PM

West Virginia Democrats steer clear of their party's national convention

As he geared up for a contentious election in November 2011, Democrat Joe Manchin demonstrated his independence from his party by shooting a hole through a printed copy of the cap-and-trade bill in a Senate race ad. This year, Sen. Manchin, along with several other West Virginia Democrats running for re-election, are engaging in another free-spirited move: They will skip the Democratic Convention entirely.

On Monday, the West Virginia Democratic Party announced when it released its delegation plans that Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin, Manchin and Rep. Nick Rahall all plan to bow out of this summer's convention in Charlotte, N.C., Sept. 3-6. That means none of the three Democrats will help formally nominate the president.

"I intend to spend this fall focused on the people of West Virginia, whether that's representing them in my official duties or here at home, where I can hear about their concerns and ideas to solve the problems of this great nation," Manchin said in a statement. "I will remain focused on bringing people together for the next generation, not the next election."

State party Chairman Larry Puccio downplayed the lawmakers' decisions on Tuesday during an interview with West Virginia's MetroNews Talkline. "In the past, if you look at Republican conventions or Democrat conventions, you see some of the folks that are able to attend, some that are not. That's up to them as individuals and candidates," Puccio said.

But Republicans and others view the lawmakers' decisions as clear efforts to distance themselves from a president who remains unpopular in their state.

Federal prisoner Keith Judd made national headlines last month when he earned a surprising 4 out of 10 votes against President Barack Obama in West Virginia's Democratic presidential primary.

"We all know the only reason they're refusing to attend the DNC Convention is they're afraid to tell the people of West Virginia who they support for President, and any attempt to suggest otherwise is political spin aimed at purposefully misleading the voters," Conrad Lucas, chairman of the West Virginia Republican Party said in a statement.

"We have a governor who is so afraid of his party bosses that he refuses to answer the simple question of whether or not another 4-year term for Barack Obama is good for our state," Republican gubernatorial nominee Bill Maloney said of Tomblin in a statement.

Similar criticisms were voiced in and outside the state.

All three Democrats who are skipping the convention are up for re-election this fall. Manchin has drawn repeated questions for choosing to remain mum on whether he will actually support the president's re-election campaign.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Jun 12 - 01:12 AM

Q: "Dunno what guest finds in that report that bears on the election."


When unemployment for our own citizens is how it is, it's rather revealing to actually SEE the policies that are implemented, in contrast to the promises, that got him elected. Import workers???..Maybe someone could find that missing and unaccounted for trillion dollars, to put our own citizens back to work...after all, it was OUR federal tax money that paid for it, to be used for our benefit...not the coddling and placating of other countries, for their economies......isn't that fair to say?
Now this is a pretty good general rule...: "The guy who wins elections is the one with better and the more convincing lies."

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,saulgoldie
Date: 20 Jun 12 - 12:43 PM

I would like to quell a vicious rumor circulating that Romney is a unicorn. It is just a rumor, pure and simple. At least, that is what I heard. Of course, we are not totally sure without...the l-o-n-g pictures of his shaved head to be sure that he didn't have his mono-horn (or pair of horns, either, for that matter!) removed in a secret medical facility in France when he was there "selling" Mormonism.

Naturally, of course, if he DID have that done--and I am not saying he did--it would have been covered by their health care, which covers far more than "Romneycare" or its unloved child "Obamacare." But I digress...

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 20 Jun 12 - 01:27 PM

Maria Sharapova, the 'Russian' tennis star, has lived in Florida since age 7, and is one of those who could be fast tracked to citizenship. She averages $27 million a year in income.
What does the U.S. gain from her skills?
Her skills are not mirrored by any out-of-work U.S. citizen and her fortune and marketing skills (with Nike) add to the economy. Entrepreneurs admitted under the program create jobs and add to U.S. tax income.
These people do not displace unemployed Americans.

guest GooFuS continues to display his ignorance.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Jun 12 - 01:05 AM

Q: "guest GooFuS continues to display his ignorance."

...and you, your Jones to take a stupid shot. Jeez...one rich, producing tennis star, is a little different that 800,000 poor immigrants...as far as taking jobs away from 'average' American citizens...That's not to say she's better or worse, or more entitled or not....not like 15 MILLION wandering job seekers....and you know the really ironic thing?.....Did the EPA ever get an environmental impact study, in regards to, say Los Angeles, for 4 million people just moving in??..Shit, you can't even dig holes some places, or plan a building without those weenies having to have an environmental study...and not that long ago, while in L.A...in the valley, I turned off a main drag, that had a lot of stores on it, and had to circle the block, to get to where I was going...and just ONE block off the main drag, there were all these apartment buildings, with tricket stands in the front yard, with barely clothed dirty kids, running around a lot of seedy looking beer drinking, guys laying around drunk, on the porches and what used to be lawns...and a bazillion of them. the place was looking somewhat a cross between, Tijuana and a ghetto....and LOTS of people just milling about..in filth....I'm sorry that I can't adequately describe the conditions of the apartments and filth, here(I'm not going to spend the time)...anyway, nobody is bugging them about the environment, and the disease, and living conditions there. Maybe those things should be taken into consideration, before we just open our borders up, with no adequate 'accommodations'......versus one tennis player, who has the means to support herself, and not suck off the system, nor screw up the place??...by being here ILLEGALLY, as well?????
have another hit!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Jun 12 - 01:20 AM

I wasn't going to even 'go on' about that last post....the whole comment I was responding to, was just so dumb, that I wasn't going to even address it....but.....

When I originally came on, I was going to direct the post to little Hawk and Don Firth....because, when I originally commented on perhaps another third candidate emerging....in light of what is going on with the scandal-s, there might just be a slot open to do just that. Obama is crash and burning, in the polls....Romney is still not enjoying enthusiastic support...more like a "Well, at least he isn't Obama" type support....I'm going to just sit tight, and wait, and see if another pops up.
Hillary is a farce,BTW..you might as well vote George W. back in, because they are close buds, politically...or should I say financially? ..or both....yeah, that's far more accurate.....So, let's see.
I think Don and I yakked about it no more than two weeks ago, and LH & I more like a few moths ago.
we just have to see who they pick, to liquidate assets of the country(Romney)...or maybe even a sincere person, for a change, who would HAVE to run on a third party.
You just never know........for sure, anyway.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: pdq
Date: 21 Jun 12 - 11:40 AM

Maria Sharapova, the 'Russian' tennis star, has lived in Florida since age 7, and is one of those who could be fast tracked to citizenship. ~ Q

Oh, bunk.

Maria Sharpova's father applied and was granted visas for himself and Maria.

They came here legally in 1994. Her mother arrived in 1996.

Obama's executive order applies to illegal aliens.

California alone has 12 million illegal aliens, mostly from Mexico. Texas has another 8 million.

Since the Legislative Branch has exclusive power to write laws, the Executive Order is blatantly unconstitutional.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Jun 12 - 11:53 AM

Thank you, pdq, for the updated figures. The ones I had were more dated....when it was already too far out of hand! I just haven't followed it all, because after a certain amount of disregard for our laws, by the government, you just figure nobody gives a shit, and they're not going to do squat about it....thanks to Rockefeller/Clinton's NAFTA crap...Now Obama is doing the same stuff, with the Asian Pacific very secret deals..that BTW Romney supports to.
....and they try to convince us that there is actually a difference??????????...Only the blind fools believe that charade!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: pdq
Date: 21 Jun 12 - 12:57 PM

People who lived in Los Angeles 50 years ago had to put up with smog, but it was a thriving area and a great place to live.

Now it's "Hell A". A noisy, violent, dirty, crime infested place. Mexican street gangs are so dominant that Blacks are running away by the tens of thousands, often back to friendlier cities like Huston and Atlanta.

Not everone in the US understands how bad things are.

Alaska has no more than 5,000 illegals from Mexico and Maine has about 1,000.

They do various labor jobs and are beneficial overall, in those states.

On the other hand, the Lower Rio Grande Valley has been destroyed from and ecological standpoint and southern California has been destroyed from a cultural one.

What is he current Executive Branch's plan to address the problem? Ship 4,600 military arms to Mexican drug cartels!!!

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 21 Jun 12 - 03:11 PM

Deparment of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics.
California- 2,600,000 illegal in 2009, 6.8% of California population.
Los Angeles County, estimated 704,000 using the 6.8% figure.

Across the United States, est 6.7 million illegal immigrants from Mexico.
http://www.laalmanac.com/immigration/im04a.htm

California unemployment 11% of labor force, U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, June 15, 2012. In 2001, 4.7% of labor force unemployed, which is probably the minimum, and probably represents mostly those too unskilled to hold any job (unfortunately, too many Americans are too poorly educated or unmotivated, and will never hold permanent or useful employment)
History hows almost none of non-farm labor will accept farm labor.

California labor force 18.5 million in 2012; 14.2 million non-farm. (U.S. Bureau of labor Statistics- http://www.bis.gov/eag/eag.ca.htm).
11% of 18.5 million approx. 2 million; 11% of 14.2 million approx. 1.6 million.

The problem is estimating how many of the illegal 2.6 million are taking those 2 million jobs. Remember, about 4.5% of this job number are essentially unemployable.

Many of the illegals are "taking in each other' washing;" food services, stores catering to latinos only, etc.; many are in the farming category in jobs that non-farm labor won't take; others are students, children of the illegals and legally minors who cannot work, wives of working illegals, etc.
The number of illegals available and/or capable of taking jobs away from California citizens arguably is small.

The 6.7 million Mexican illegals is less than 2% of the American population. Many return to Mexico when they make enough money to live comfortably in their homeland.

Granting citizenship to those who have made a home in the U.S. would have little effect on employment figures.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: pdq
Date: 21 Jun 12 - 06:25 PM

For political purposes, the Executive Branch doctors data such as unemployment and illegal alien population numbers.

The Feds say unemployment is 8.1% but is really about 17%.

They say illegals from Mexico are 12 million from one branch of government and a ridiculous 6.8 million from another branch.

Here is a site with a more honest opinion...

                                                                      http://www.immigrationcounters.com/

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Jun 12 - 06:49 AM

When I first saw the figures on 'Q's post, I thought "What a crock of shit!"....then I saw pdq's, and thought "Is it THAT much now....?"
..Because I remember, back in '05, it was pretty mush known that it was between 14-16 million.
Pdq, have you been to L.A. recently?..Phoenix?...Tucson??
I have....it's unbelievable, that our government would be so permissive about the living conditions, not to mention, how OUR citizens are intimidated, because there is two sets of rules...and they feel so unsafe. Southern California is lost, compared to what it used to be...and if anybody wants to argue that, obviously, and without a doubt, they do not know what they're talking about!
Not biased against Mexicans, however, when you've seen, first hand, the difference, from before and after, you would not have even be having this discussion! ...neither would we be having it, if the government wasn't so disloyal to humans...first to the citizens, that they are supposed to protect and represent, and second, to be so absolutely negligent, in providing a more efficient way of handling the ones coming in, as far as documentation, (work permits, green cards,collection of taxes etc etc). The double standard for illegals vs our own citizens is, at best, shameful and telling.
This is not saying it's Obama's fault...Bush was the same way..then send guns to them, while using the issue, of the government giving guns to Mexican drug cartels, while wanting to restrict guns to it's own citizen????
Who the hell they think they're kidding??? Illegals, getting better college tuition rates, than the citizens, who actually pay the taxes, that support the school???
No way, the bleeding hearts are going to make ANY salient case about this. This is a national disgrace!..Arizona passing laws that is already on the books....but just not enforced??
So let's ALL get to pick one law we can ignore!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 22 Jun 12 - 01:03 PM

Illegal immigration has become a hot political whipping boy because it arouses the inherent paranoid-somebody is taking my job feelings in those who are hard hit by the downturn in the economy of the U. S. and other countries caused by the out-of-control banking system and people buying whst they couldn't afford.

The economy is the real problem that must be tackled, immigration is a sideshow, but there is no consensus on how to reverse the downturn. Tighten government belts by cutting services? Put start-up funds into business and temporarily increase the debt? Rebuild infrastructure by increasing incentives to business? Asia has taken advantage of the failures in the U.S. (and other) system, and the west is losing its dominance.

California is suffering from its over-expansion using borrowed money and banking on what the English once called the never-never policy of hoping the future will be better and that money grows on trees.

Perhaps the Latino takeover of southern California will increase growth of the economy there, much as Cuban energy has improved southern Florida.

I am a former New Mexican, and follow developments there; fearing that the paranoidal divisions and bigotry in Arizona will spread.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Stringsinger
Date: 22 Jun 12 - 03:51 PM

Does anyone see a connection between Romney and Mussolini?

Both were corporatists who saw corporations as dominating government.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Jun 12 - 05:16 PM

You bet, PeeDee - the figures from that lunatic anti-immigration site MUST be the correct ones. After all "Government is the Problem", right Ronnie?,

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 22 Jun 12 - 05:35 PM

Watch out!! Your neighbor is descended from an immigrant.

Romney has relatives in a Mormon settlement in Mexico.
Rumor has it that Romney is secretly planning to wipe out the Mexican-U. S. border.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Jun 12 - 10:08 PM

'Q': "Illegal immigration has become a hot political whipping boy because it arouses the inherent paranoid-......"

Well, because Obama just overstepped his Presidential powers to do what he did, to gain vote. The 'Separation of Powers' prohibits the president from doing what he did, and not running it through Congress. The whole rap about people re-acting accusing each other of 'bigotry' is just the emotionalizing of something that was done illegally, by one guy, rather than through the 'Representatives'.
You're right though, the issue is employment..he SHOULD be doing something about it, right?..OK, explain how opening all that up, for UN-documented workers, here illegally, helps American citizens, who pay his salary?....and they don't get a say in it??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,saulgoldie
Date: 01 Aug 12 - 02:14 PM

Been over a month since we "talked" about this. So...

A Brit, A Jew, and a Polish guy walk into a bar and say, "Holy crap, Romney is a DOUCHE!"


Saul

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,saulgoldie
Date: 06 Sep 12 - 08:19 AM

Mitt Rmoney visited his money in the Cayman Islands and didn't even bring me back a lousy T-shirt (nevermind rum)!

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Wesley S
Date: 06 Sep 12 - 08:26 AM

By the way - I thought Clinton nailed it last night. And yes - I'm talking about his speech at the convention.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 06 Sep 12 - 03:55 PM

A co-worker pointed out an early speech by G W regarding the federal surplus and how they could give back $ to taxpayers and still pay off the deficit. Of course this was before he started 2 wars and let Congress remove many of the checks on monopolies ...

you don't have to pass a law, just take away the funding for the watchdogs.... and put in your toadie to head the Agency.

but speaking as aomeone old enough to remember what the Republican party was like 50 years ago... this ain't the party of Lincoln or even Rockerfeller. They sold themselves to the Conservatives for their votes... and I do not want to be in a land run by Christian fanatics who will deprive women of basic rights while protecting child molesting priest ( yeah, Catholic Bishops, if the shoe fits take it out of your mouthes)or rave about the sanctity of life but once that kid is born leave them and the family to make do as best they can. Right to Lifers want to impose their way on everyone else.

Someone call up the spirit of George Orwell... let him know he was right.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Sep 12 - 04:18 PM

Rumor has it that Romney is secretly planning to wipe out the Mexican-U. S. border.

Not only that, he's going to havd over the U.S. Gummint not to the U.N., but to the Mormon Church. Or was it to the Mexican Gummint?

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Wesley S
Date: 06 Sep 12 - 04:30 PM

It's the Mormontologists we have to worry about. Romney plans to make Tom Cruise the Sect. of Defense and John Travolta the Sect. of State.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Sep 12 - 04:54 PM

There has been muck talk about Romney's refusal to release more than 2 years of tax returns, with 'speculation' that it would show him not paying much...or not at all.

I just had a thought....not even a direct speculation, but just a whimsical idea- what if 'paying a low tax rate' is the least of Romney's concerns? What if his total income were ..ummm... a lot more than his church thinks? (after all, a lot of his profits for many years is 'unavailable' for scrutiny) A Mormon is required to tithe (10%). I have this little scene running thru my head of the church saying.."Uhh... Mitt... your 'tithes', except for the last 2 years, figure out to more like 3%." Seems to me that would be WAY more awkward than simple 'legal' tax avoidance.

Now... don't anyone say I actually believe this... it is just an amusing scenario....

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Sep 12 - 04:59 PM

And I've heard Romney is planning to appoint Larry, Curly, and Moe to the Securities and Exchange Commission. They'll be so busy dope-slapping each other they'll never get around to regulating anything!

Don Firth

P. S. I do think, however, that introducing the dope-slap into American politics is a step in the right direction.......

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Wesley S
Date: 14 Sep 12 - 03:56 PM

Here's an interesting article from The Fiscal Times entitled:

"Why Barack Obama Will Win The Election Easily".

I hope he's right.

Article Here

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Sep 12 - 05:41 PM

Obama will get 52-53% of the popular vote but in the all important electoral college he'll get 65% of the votes...

Romney, in case anyone isn't noticing, is slipping with every stupid statement he makes... The on-the-fencer voters who have waiting to make up their minds are going to go overwhelmingly for Obama...

Plus, The Dems will hold the Senate and cut into the Republican House majority by between 15 and 17 seats...

This will send a most definite message to the Republicans that they need to behave more moderately and abandon the hostage taking strategy they have employed... In other words, govern and quit the with all the theatrics...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: gnu
Date: 14 Sep 12 - 06:20 PM

Q... "The economy is the real problem that must be tackled, immigration is a sideshow,..."

Yes. No.

Immigration, "illegal" or legal brings the very poor and the very rich to our country(s). Those rich take away jobs (businesses that people have struggled to build because they didn't have money in abundance)) and the poor get minimum wage.

The existing rich of this country(s) cringe at paying a higher minimum wage even when there is poverty... EVEN WHEN THERE IS POVERTY.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: gnu
Date: 14 Sep 12 - 06:33 PM

Dunno what happened there... wasn't finished my post... soooo...

(The existing rich of this country(s) cringe at paying a higher minimum wage even when there is poverty... EVEN WHEN THERE IS POVERTY. )

So, why would anyone bring in more poor? The illegal we can all understand. It's all done, both ways, for money. The legal? It's also money. Big dollars exchange hands in legal immigration. And the existing rich love it. They get richer and their government employee lackies do as well. It's win-win for the rich here and the rich they bring in. Not so much for the poor they bring in. And, CERTAINLY not for the existing poor and working poor here... they and their children along with the poor immigrants will be starved into going to war.

Sound like crazy talk? Turn on the evening news.

Bottom line... immigrants are used at present by the rich to keep the poor poor and keep the rich rich. Too bad it costs lives... lives of the poor.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: pdq
Date: 14 Sep 12 - 07:01 PM

"...Obama will get 52-53% of the popular vote but in the all important electoral college he'll get 65% of the votes..." ~ B-pert

No, the Nov. 6 election night results will be very close to the 2000 results, perhaps three or four states will be different.

Romney needs to take Ohio, Iowa, Virginia and at least one other, maybe Colorado.

Obama can count on New Mexico and probably Nevada.

The "kicker" is Wisconsin which the GOP was hoping to put "in play" by picking Paul Ryan.

I thought they would choose Marco Rubio, but Florida is safer for them than some think.

Prediction: Romney by the smallest Electoral College margin possible.

Senate: GOP pick up one for sure, maybe two, but "Dirty Hairy" Reid will still run the show for a few more years.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: gnu
Date: 14 Sep 12 - 07:06 PM

Another sorry ass excuse no mind rich boy lackey for President?

Yee fellers had better wise up or we Canucks are gonna haffta come down there and ask youse if we can kick your ass.

Don't say shit like that. That's some scarey shit, man.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Sawzaw
Date: 17 Sep 12 - 08:10 AM

African-American Christians waver over vote

AP - Some black clergy see no good presidential choice between a Mormon candidate and one who supports gay marriage, so they are telling their flocks to stay home on Election Day. That's a worrisome message for the nation's first African-American president, who can't afford to lose any voters from his base in a tight race.

The pastors say their congregants are asking how a true Christian could back same-sex marriage, as President Barack Obama did in May. As for Republican Mitt Romney, the first Mormon nominee from a major party, congregants are questioning the theology of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its former ban on men of African descent in the priesthood.

In 2008, Obama won 95 percent of black voters and is likely to get an overwhelming majority again. But any loss of votes would sting.

"When President Obama made the public statement on gay marriage, I think it put a question in our minds as to what direction he's taking the nation," said the Rev. A.R. Bernard, founder of the predominantly African-American Christian Cultural Center in New York. Bernard, whose endorsement is much sought-after in New York and beyond, voted for Obama in 2008. He said he's unsure how he'll vote this year.

It's unclear just how widespread the sentiment is that African-American Christians would be better off not voting at all. Many pastors have said that despite their misgivings about the candidates, blacks have fought too hard for the vote to ever stay away from the polls.

Black church leaders have begun get-out-the-vote efforts on a wide range of issues, including the proliferation of state voter identification laws, which critics say discriminate against minorities. Last Easter Sunday, a month before Obama's gay marriage announcement, the Rev. Jamal-Harrison Bryant of Baltimore formed the Empowerment Network, a national coalition of about 30 denominations working to register congregants and provide them with background on health care, the economy, education and other policy issues.

Yet, Bryant last month told The Washington Informer, an African-American newsweekly, "This is the first time in black church history that I'm aware of that black pastors have encouraged their parishioners not to vote." Bryant, who opposes gay marriage, said the president's position on marriage is "at the heart" of the problem.

Bryant was traveling and could not be reached for additional comment, his spokeswoman said.

The circumstances of the 2012 campaign have led to complex conversations about faith, politics and voting.

The Rev. George Nelson Jr., senior pastor of Grace Fellowship Baptist Church in Brenham, Texas, participated in a conference call with other African-American pastors the day after Obama's announcement during which the ministers resolved to oppose gay marriage. Nelson said Obama's statement had caused a "storm" in the African-American community.

Still, he said "I would never vote for a man like Romney," because Nelson has been taught in the Southern Baptist Convention that Mormonism is a cult.

As recently as the 2008 GOP primaries, the SBC's Baptist Press ran articles calling the LDS church a cult. This year, however, prominent Southern Baptists have discouraged use of the term when addressing theological differences with Mormonism. Many Southern Baptist leaders have emphasized there are no religious obstacles to voting for a Mormon.

Nelson planned to vote and has told others to do the same. He declined to say which candidate he would support.

"Because of those that made sacrifices in days gone by and some greater than others with their lives. It would be totally foolish for me to mention staying away from the polls," he said in an email exchange.

Romney has pledged to uphold conservative positions on social issues, including opposing abortion and gay marriage. But many black pastors worry about his Mormon beliefs. Christians generally do not see Mormonism as part of historic Christianity, although Mormons do.

African-Americans generally still view the church as racist. When LDS leaders lifted the ban on blacks in the priesthood in 1978, church authorities never said why. The Mormon community has grown more diverse, and the church has repeatedly condemned racism. However, while most Christian denominations have publicly repented for past discrimination, Latter-day Saints never formally apologized.

Bernard is among the traditional Christians who voted for Obama in 2008 and are now undecided because of the president's support for gay marriage. But Bernard is also troubled by Romney's faith.

"To say you have a value for human life and exclude African-American human life, that's problematic," Bernard said, about the priesthood ban. "How can I judge the degree to which candidate Romney is going to allow his Mormonism to influence his policies? I don't know. I can't."

Romney said in a 2007 speech that LDS authorities would have no influence on his policies as president. He also said he wept when he learned that the priesthood ban had been abolished because he was anxious for it to be lifted. But that has done little to change perceptions among African-Americans and others.

"Obama was supposed to answer for the things that Rev. Wright said," said the Rev. Floyd James of the Greater Rock Missionary Baptist Church in Chicago, at a recent meeting of the historically black National Baptist Convention. "Yet here's a guy (Romney) who was a leader in his own church that has that kind of history, and he isn't held to some kind of account? I have a problem with that."

Obama broke in 2008 with his longtime Chicago pastor, Jeremiah Wright, after videos of his incendiary sermons were broadcast.

Many Democrats and Republicans have argued that Romney's faith should be off limits. The Rev. Derrick Harkins, faith outreach director for the Democratic National Committee, travels around the country speaking to African-American pastors and other clergy. He said concerns over gay marriage have receded as other issues take precedence, and no pastors have raised Mormonism in their conversations with him about the two candidates.

"There's just no space in this campaign for casting aspersions on anyone's faith," Harkins said in a phone interview. "It's not morally upright. It's not ethically appropriate."

The Rev. Howard-John Wesley, who leads the Alfred Street Baptist Church in Alexandria, Va., said he is telling his congregants, "Let's not make the election a decision about someone's salvation." Last spring, when it became clear that Romney would be the GOP nominee, congregants starting asking about Mormonism, so Wesley organized a class on the faith. He said congregants ultimately decided that "we could not put Mormons under the boundaries of orthodox Christianity."

But Wesley said, "I don't want Gov. Romney to have to defend the Mormon church, the way President Obama had to defend Jeremiah Wright." Wesley, whose congregation has more than 5,000 members, said he will be voting for Obama.

The Rev. Lin Hill, an associate pastor of Bethany Baptist Church in Chesapeake, Va., said in a phone interview that he plans to travel with other local pastors to about 50 congregations over two weeks to hold discussions and distribute voter guides that will include a contrast between historic Christianity and Mormonism, and educate congregants about the former priesthood ban.

Hill is active in his local Democratic Party but said he's acting independently of the campaign. He said Mormon theology becomes relevant when congregants argue that they can't vote for Obama because, as a Christian, he should have opposed gay marriage.

"If you're going to take a tenet of a religion and let that dissuade you from voting, then we have to," discuss Mormon doctrine, Hill said. "We want folks to have a balanced view of both parties, but we can't do that without the facts."

The Rev. Dwight McKissic, a prominent Southern Baptist and black preacher, describes himself as a political independent who didn't support Obama in 2008 because of his position on social issues. McKissic said Obama's support for same-gender marriage "betrayed the Bible and the black church." Around the same time, McKissic was researching Mormonism for a sermon and decided to propose a resolution to the annual Southern Baptist Convention that would have condemned Mormon "racist teachings."

McKissic's Mormon resolution failed.

On Election Day, McKissic said, "I plan to go fishing."

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Sep 12 - 09:15 AM

Black folks aren't happy with Obama's stand on gay marriage, however, Obama will perform as well with the that block of voters as he did last time... The exceptions will be seen in states that have passed voter suppression laws...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Sawzaw
Date: 17 Sep 12 - 09:27 AM

I wonder if anybody in the Mormon church ever said "God bless America? Naw, naw, naw -- God DAMN America!"?

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Sep 12 - 09:39 AM

See, now if I wanted to play your ballgames, Saws, I could store part of your last post and, take it out of context and 3 years from now quote you as having written "God DAMN America"...

I mean, you have no problems doing that to me...

Get it, yet???

But here's the difference... For me to do that I'd have to become dishonest person and I ain't into doing that...

You, however, have not a single honest bone in your body so you'd do it as easily as breathing...

B~