BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 09:21 PM

53% Favor Repeal of Health Care Law, 46% Say Repeal Likely
Monday, October 25, 2010

A majority of voters continue to favor repeal of the new national health care law, and the number who sees this outcome as likely has reached a new high.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 53% of Likely U.S. voters favor repeal of the health care law, including 43% who Strongly Favor repeal. Forty-two percent (42%) oppose repeal of the bill, with 32% who are Strongly Opposed. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Since Democrats in Congress passed the law in late March, support for repeal has ranged from a low of 53% to a high of 63%.

But now 46% of voters say it is at least somewhat likely the law will be repealed, up six points from earlier this month and the highest level measured since tracking of the question began in April. Still, that includes just 13% who say it's Very Likely the law will be repealed.

Forty-five percent (45%) say it is not very likely the law will repealed, showing no change from earlier this month.

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on October 22-23, 2010 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

Forty-three percent (43%) of voters say repeal of the bill would be good for the economy, showing little change over the past two months. Thirty-four percent (34%) say repeal of the law would be bad for the economy, while another 16% say it would have no impact.

Just 26% think repeal of the law will lead to the creation of more jobs, down four points from early October and the lowest level measured since April. Thirty-nine percent (39%) disagree and say repeal of the bill will not lead to increased job creation. However, 36% are not sure.

Sixty-five percent (65%) of Republicans expect the health care law to be repealed, as do 47% of voters not affiliated with either major political party. Only 30% of Democrats believe the law is likely to be repealed.

Overall, 37% say the health care plan passed by Congress in March will be good for the country, the lowest level of confidence found this month. Fifty-three percent (53%) say the law will be bad for the country.

Recent polling shows that only 43% of all Likely Voters say someone who voted for the health care law deserves to be reelected. Fifty percent (50%) oppose their reelection.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 08:53 PM

I do not believe that the majority of the US, were they consulted on the actual policies, would want the bill repealed.

Say, Doug, what specifically do you think should be repealed?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: DougR
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 06:21 PM

Bobert:How can you possibly believe that passing the "monstrous" health care bill ...oops ...the health care bill wasn't, in your opinion, "monstrous", the passing of it was. Well, in view of the fact that an extra large majority of the population wants to see the bill repealed, you again, appear to be in the minority.

Passing the bill wasn't a big deal. Heck if you've got the majority vote in the house the senate, own the White House, and if you don't mind pissing off a sizable majority of the population, it's a cakewalk!

I suspect, come this Tuesday, there will be a lot of Democrats who will be muttering to themselves, "hmm, was it really worth it?" If major polls can be believed, an awful lot of Democrat congresspersons and senate persons are going find out what being unemployed really means.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 02:56 PM

Sorry last post took the link wrong......

Bobert: "The average American has been so deluged with propaganda that only 68% is questionable...
A recent ABC poll asked people if their taxes had gone up or down under Obama and a whopping 61% said they hasd gone up???"


http://scaredmonkeys.com/2010/10/31/msm-liberal-bias-cbs-affiliate-ktva-caught-on-voice-mail-conspiring-against-alaska-republica

Must be that ol' pesky Fox news, huh, Bobert...you know, those right wing propagandists!!! The left is so squeaky clean!

Maybe you're the one who has been propagandized!

GfS

P.S...as you read the article, Fox was NOT implicated, neither was CNN

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 02:45 PM

Bobert: "The average American has been so deluged with propaganda that only 68% is questionable...
A recent ABC poll asked people if their taxes had gone up or down under Obama and a whopping 61% said they hasd gone up???"



http://biggovernment.com/publius/2010/10/30/anchorage-cbs-affiliate-caught-on-voicemail-conspiring-against-alaskas-gop-senate-candidate/The average American has been so deluged with propaganda that only 68% is questionable...

Must be that ol' pesky Fox news, huh, Bobert...you know, those right wing propagandists!!! The left is so squeaky clean!

Maybe you're the one who has been propagandized!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 01:58 PM

"even Dems were scared to push for single payer" Seen that Bill Moyers segment yet Bobert?

"A recent ABC poll asked people if their taxes had gone up or down under Obama and a whopping 61% said they hasd gone up???"

So every body that says their taxes have gone up are too stupid to know?

"tax cut for 95% of tax payers" So how many of that 95% paid any taxes to begin with? Just because they were tax payers doesn't mean they ended up owing or paying any taxes.

What percentage of the population are tax payers?

"the public has been sufficiently propagandized to the point where even the truth can't get into their little pea sized thinkewrators"

That is you Bobert. One only has to look at your Bobert "facts" to figure that out.

You are a firm believer in the "Clinton Surplus" Myth. You cannot explain why the National debt went up every year of the claimed surpluses except to call the Treasury Dept, headed by Tim Geithner a right wing mythology site.

To his credit, Obama has recently changed the shady accounting rules that allowed people to claim a surplus where there was a deficit.

Unlike you Bobert, I am going to back up my words with something other than personal attacks:

The Obama Administration also made four significant accounting changes, to more accurately report the total spending by the Federal government. These changes would make the debt over ten years look $2.7 trillion larger, but that debt was always there. It was just hidden.

Understanding on-budget and off-budget deficits

Social Security payroll taxes and benefit payments, along with the net balance of the U.S. Postal Service are considered "off-budget." Administrative costs of the Social Security Administration (SSA), however, are classified as "on-budget." The total federal deficit is the sum of the on-budget deficit (or surplus) and the off-budget deficit (or surplus). Since FY1960, the federal government has run on-budget deficits except for FY1999 and FY2000, and total federal deficits except in FY1969 and FY1998-FY2001. In large part because of Social Security surpluses, the total federal budget deficit is smaller than the on-budget deficit.

The surplus of Social Security payroll taxes over benefit payments is invested in special Treasury securities held by the Social Security Trust Fund. Social Security and other federal trust funds are part of the "intergovernmental debt." The total federal debt is divided into "intergovernmental debt" and "debt held by the public."

For example, in FY2008 an off-budget surplus of $183 billion reduced the on-budget deficit of $642 billion, resulting in a total federal deficit of $459 billion. Media often report the latter figure. The national debt increased by $1,017 billion between the end of FY2007 and the end of FY2008.

These on-budget and off-budget items essentially amount to accounting gimmicks and schemes. In reality, what really matters is how much money comes in and how much money goes out. The federal government publishes the total debt owed (public and intragovernmental holdings) at the end of each fiscal year and since FY1957, the amount of debt held by the federal government has increased every single year.

According to the CBO, the U.S. last had a surplus during fiscal year (FY) 2001. From FY2001 to FY2009, spending increased by 6.5% of GDP (from 18.2% of GDP to 24.7%) while taxes declined by 4.7% of GDP (from 19.5% of GDP to 14.8%). The drivers of the expense increases (expressed as % of GDP) are Medicare & Medicaid (1.7%), Defense (1.6%), Income Security such as unemployment benefits and food stamps (1.4%), Social Security (0.6%) and all other categories (1.2%). The drivers of tax reductions are individual income taxes (-3.3%), payroll taxes (-0.5%), corporate income taxes (-0.5%) and other (-0.4%). The 2009 spending level is the highest relative to GDP in 40 years, while the tax receipts are the lowest relative to GDP in 40 years. The next highest spending year was 1985 (22.8%) while the next lowest tax year was 2004 (16.1%)

The U.S. budget situation has deteriorated significantly since 2001, when the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) forecast average annual surpluses of approximately $850 billion from 2009-2012. The average deficit forecast in each of those years as of June 2009 was approximately $1,215 billion. The New York Times analyzed this roughly $2 trillion "swing," separating the causes into four major categories along with their share:

    * Recessions or the business cycle (37%);
    * Policies enacted by President Bush (33%);
    * Policies enacted by President Bush and supported or extended by President Obama (20%); and
    * New policies from President Obama (10%).

CBO data is based only on current law, so policy proposals that have yet to be made law are not included in their analysis. The article concluded that President Obama's decisions accounted for only a "sliver" of the deterioration, but that he "...does not have a realistic plan for reducing the deficit..." Presidents have no Constitutional authority to levy taxes or spend money, as this responsibility resides with the Congress, although a President's priorities influence Congressional action.

The CBO reported in October 2009 reasons for the difference between the 2008 and 2009 deficits, which were approximately $460 billion and $1,410 billion, respectively. Key categories of changes included: tax receipt declines of $320 billion due to the effects of the recession and another $100 billion due to tax cuts in the stimulus bill (the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act or ARRA); $245 billion for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and other bailout efforts; $100 billion in additional spending for ARRA; and another $185 billion due to increases in primary budget categories such as Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, Social Security, and Defense - including the war effort in Afghanistan and Iraq. This was the highest budget deficit relative to GDP (9.9%) since 1945. The national debt increased by $1.9 trillion during FY2009, versus the $1.0 trillion increase during 2008.

The Obama Administration also made four significant accounting changes, to more accurately report the total spending by the Federal government. The four changes were:

1) account for the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ("overseas military contingencies") in the budget rather than through the use of "emergency" supplemental spending bills;

2) assume the Alternative Minimum Tax will be indexed for inflation;

3) account for the full costs of Medicare reimbursements; and

4) anticipate the inevitable expenditures for natural disaster relief. These changes would make the debt over ten years look $2.7 trillion larger, but that debt was always there. It was just hidden.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 12:04 PM

For you, Bobert:

From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 04:25 AM

Hey, I got a great idea..Why don't we give our entire paychecks to the government, and they can give it all away, and maybe even give you an allowance!....

Oh, you mean the far left already thought of that??

Shucks!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 09:09 AM

The average American has been so deluged with propaganda that only 68% is questionable...

A recent ABC poll asked people if their taxes had gone up or down under Obama and a whopping 61% said they hasd gone up???

Well, fact is that $300B of the stimulis bill went for tax cut for 95% of tax payers??? Ya' see, GfinS what happens when the liars get ahold of the microphone and won't share it with the truth tellers???

This is exactly what alot of us have been saying over and over and over... The corporate media flat out doesn't want the truth getting out... It would have been nice for ABC to, at the very least, mentioned the tax cuts that 95% of the working pulic recieved under the stimulis bill somewhere along the way... Little late now to give the voters that infomartion that an "informed electorate" needs to make "informed choices" on election day... No, the public has been sufficeintly propagandized to the point where even the truth can't get into their little pea sized thinkewrators...

I mean, just about every issue out there is the same... One one hand there is the truth and on the other cpomplete fabrications that Boss Hog has stuffed in everyone's heads with his constant barrage of lies and propaganda..

This is what happened during the health care reform debates... Reality is that if we had modeled our reform closer to our competitors we would be able to reduce costs but, no... Those "costs" are a large part of the profits that the health care/industrial complex wants and now will get until the US has the balls to fix it... Is this bill better than nothing??? Yeah, it is but it won't bring down cost significantly... Might get US in the 15-16% of GNP range when a single payer system would have gotten US into the 9% range...

But the lies came fast and furious and stuck so even Dems were scared to push for single payer... Thus, the country was not served... The health care insudtry was served but not the country...

And in the words of the late Walter Cronkite, "And that's the way it is..."

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 04:30 AM

Bobsie: "The health care reform bill was a monster bill and will one day be looked upon as significant as Medicare itself... "

That's why, in the most recent poll, 68% of all Americans want it repealed or amended!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 02:21 PM

the countless millions of dollars that the health crae industy threw at lobbysts who wrote the bill the way they wanted it.

A monster achievement for the medical and insurance companies.

It's right there on PBS if you care to look.

SEN. MAX BAUCUS: Our plan does not include a public option.

BILL MOYERS: Take a close look at that woman sitting behind Montana Senator Max Baucus. He's the Democrat who's the Chairman of the Finance Committee. Liz Fowler is her name. And now get this. She used to work for WellPoint, the largest health insurer in the country. She was Vice President of Public Policy. And now she's working for the very committee with the most power to give her old company and the entire industry exactly what they want: higher profits, and no competition from alternative non-profit coverage that could lower costs and premiums.

I'm not making this up. Here's another little eye-opener. The woman who was Baucus' top health advisor before he hired Liz Fowler? Her name is Michelle Easton. Why did she leave the Committee? To go to work -- where else? -- at a firm representing the same company Liz Fowler worked for WellPoint. As a lobbyist.

It's the old Washington shell game. Lobbyist out, lobbyist in. And it's why they always win.

They've been plowing this ground for years, but with the broad legislative agenda of the Obama White House, it's more fertile than ever. The health insurance industry alone has six lobbyists for every member of Congress, and more than 500 of them are former congressional staff members.

Just to be certain Congress sticks with the program, they've been showering megabucks all over Capitol Hill. From the beginning, they wanted to make sure that the bill that comes out of the Finance Committee next week puts for-profit health insurance companies first, by forcing the uninsured to buy medical policies from them. Money not only talks, it writes the prescriptions.

In just the last few months, the health care industry has spent 380 million dollars on lobbying, advertising and campaign contributions. And a million and a half of it went to -- don't hold your breath -- Finance Committee Chairman Baucus, who said he saw "a lot to like" in two proposed public options but voted "no."

SEN. MAX BAUCUS: My job is to put together a bill that gets 60 votes. Now I can count and no one has been able to show me how we can count up to 60 votes with a public option in the bill.

BILL MOYERS: Of course not. They can't get 60 votes. Not when the people who want a public alternative can't possibly scrape up the millions of dollars Baucus has received from the health sector during his political career.

Over the last two decades, the current members of the Senate Finance Committee - you're looking at them -- have collected nearly 50 million dollars from the health sector. A long-term investment that's now paying off like a busted slot machine.

Not that we should be surprised. A century ago, muckraking journalists reported that large corporations and other wealthy interests virtually owned the Senate, using bribery, fraud, and sometimes blackmail to get their way. Jokes were made about the Senator from Union Pacific or the Senator from Standard Oil.

This fellow in particular was out to break their grip. His name was David Graham Phillips, and one day in 1906, readers of COSMOPOLITAN MAGAZINE opened its March issue to discover the first of nine articles by Phillips titled "The Treason of the Senate."

He wrote: "Treason is a strong word, but not too strong, rather too weak, to characterize the situation in which the Senate is the eager, resourceful, indefatigable agent of interests as hostile to the American people as any invading army could be..."

The public outrage provoked by Phillips and other muckrakers contributed to the passage of the Constitutional amendment providing for the direct election of Senators, who until then were elected by easily bought-off state legislators.

Of course, like water seeking its own level, big money finds its way around every obstacle, and was soon up to its old tricks, filling the pockets of friendly politicians. Today none dare call it treason. So how about calling it what it is: a friendly takeover of government. A leveraged buyout of democracy.

Outrageous? You bet. But don't just get mad. Get busy.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 02:14 PM

"Intense, even perfervid opposition from haters and stoppers"

More rhetoric.

In logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is incorrect reasoning in argumentation resulting in a misconception. By accident or design, fallacies may exploit emotional triggers in the listener or interlocutor. An appeal to emotion for example.

Let's take the word haters in Amos's statement.

Does it imply that anybody that opposed anything in the bill and wanted changes is hateful?

Yes it does and it attempts to turn people against anyone who opposed the bill by describing them as hateful, via rhetoric.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 12:06 PM

Sawz:

Rhetoric, shmetoric. His administration has made headway in spite of intense, even perfervid opposition from haters and stoppers. Fact.

Health care, economic reform, etc.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 10:08 AM

Before Sawz jumps on my wording, let me correct something... The health care reform bill itself was not a "monster bill"... The passing of it was a monster achievement... As in large... As in difficult... As in historical...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 08:41 AM

The health care reform bill was a monster bill and will one day be looked upon as significant as Medicare itself... That was no easy task given the broken legislative system that favors the minority and the countless millions of dollars that the health crae industy threw at negative ads for the entire year it took to get it thru...

Obama will get a lot of credit for that when historians look back on his administration...

Finacial reform??? Okay, not as big but still very significant...

Restoration of the original purpose of the Department of EPA will also be viewed as bold and couragous... Yeah, the Repubs will try to undo a lot of the regs that have been put in place to protect our natural resources but for the first time in a long time my friend who work there are pround of what they are now doing...

So to poo-poo Obama's accomplishments is just sour-grapes... Nuthin' more and nuthin' less...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 02:01 AM

Amos, your rhetoric is just that.

I would rather have results than excuses.

Jon Stewart was a big supporter of Obama.

Now he takes cheap shots at him like he was Erkel.

How quickly things change. Shepard Fairey, creator of the iconic Barack Obama 'Hope' poster, is no longer feeling quite so smitten with the prez, the New York Post reports. Washington is too intertwined with corporate America, Fairey said at a recent show opening. I had a lot of hope for Obama, but it's not panning out. He's not pushing hard enough.


Lady Gaga Beats President Obama to 10 Million Facebook Fans

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 12:15 AM

You're putting a lot of words in his mouth--things he didn't say. What he said was, considering the pile of shit he was handed, he's gotten a lot done. That's true. He's made major steps on his agenda despite every counter-effort Bush, Cheney and Rover could throw. So, good on him. It isn't enough by far, but compared t the slack-jawed glazed frat-boy who sent the economy into the shitter, he's done a lot of good. Give him some time and he'll do more.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 11:04 PM

"Obama is cool and 100 times smarter than any of the folks here who routinely try to put him in their box"

So how does that make him a good leader?

I wouldn't mind having him as a lawyer or a salesman or a PR man but that does not qualify someone as a leader.

If whining that people just don't understand which implies they are not smart enough and they talk about me like I'm a dog which implies he is perfect and any criticism is unjust makes one a leader, then why aren't people following?

Clinton was a better leader than Obama. He knew how to work with people instead of declaring he is smarter than them so he has the final say.

Most people say he is a nice well intentioned guy but they are loosing faith in him as a leader.

Has he even made a dent in the Jewish Palestinian peace process?

Has he contained Iran? North Korea? Venezuela?

Personally I think he is a nice guy but when he starts his last eight years crap, not so much.

Now he needs to talk about the last two years.

We would be better off with a Repub congress and a Dem Pres like it was under Bubba. A lot got done then and things were not to bad until the last year when the Cole got bombed, the internet bubble burst and gas started climbing.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 09:54 PM

I'll tell ya this much. If I have two evaluations of the same person and one of them is rancorous and spiteful, bitter and demeaning, and the other assesses the individual's ability in positive terms, I am much more inclined to believe the latter as being closer to the truth. Why? Because the emotional bands around hatred are distortive and tend to make for false perception.

Looking at something or someone with benevolence will give you much deeper perception into what you are looking at. To hate and demean someone as basically decent as Obama, you have to arm yourself with a lot of hateful and bilious notions first.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 09:04 PM

People gonna see what they want to see, Amos...

I mean, people made fun of Columbus... And Einstein...

Just jealous...

Obama is cool and 100 times smarter than any of the folks here who routinely try to put him in their box...

Like my dad used to say, "Consider the source"...

I mean, arguing with retards is, at times, purdy retarded in itself...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 02:54 PM

Wow. You guys must have been watching the O'Reilly show. Or, projecting your predispositions with an awful lot of bitter, hate-filled energy. The guy is ten times as smart and well-spoken as your dingbat Texan friend was, and he's done a lot more good.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 11:44 AM

I watched Barack Obama go up against Jon Stewart. It was a disaster for Obama. Nothing but excuses and alusions to things they have done that we don't know about. What happened to the transparency he promised?

A piss poor leader with nothing but excuses who blames others for his unfulfilled promises.

He says the American people just don't understand.

He just does not understand the American people.

Yer doin' a heckuva job Larry. unemployment only went to 9.6%

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 01:23 AM

Amos Lightfoot: "I watched Barack Obama go up against Jon Stewart (available on Comedy Central's website).
He was collected, humorous, competent and smart. He was also articulate and civil.   It was good to see him speak for himself without the gross distortions of others in between, and I found him to be impressive and competent. I think he deserves support in continuing what he has begun to accomplish. He's doing good things, one step at a time."

Are you referring to Barack or Jon???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: DougR
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 01:08 AM

Amos: You appear to be the only person who thinks Obama did well on the Stewart show. I thought it was pathetic. That's supposed to be a comedy show. He used it to try to defend his agenda and, instead, looked like a weak "Dude." (Stewart's descriptive word, not mine.)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 10:19 PM

I watched Barack Obama go up against Jon Stewart (available on Comedy Central's website).

He was collected, humorous, competent and smart. He was also articulate and civil.   It was good to see him speak for himself without the gross distortions of others in between, and I found him to be impressive and competent. I think he deserves support in continuing what he has begun to accomplish. He's doing good things, one step at a time.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 09:59 PM

Does Bobert want to "lynch" Justice Thomas?

I mean he knows he Thomas is guilty of every accusation. No trial, No report to file.

Ignore Bubba, Jesse Jackson and Edwards, They are only hapless Democrats with normal animal instincts.

Just focus on the Republicans that disagree with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 09:12 PM

...but, at least in this case, this is more about the prison/industrial complexz in Arizona using SB1070 as a way to extract as many federal tax dollars (yours and mine, GfinS...) to get folks locked up in their facilities...

Hmmmmmmmmm????

Seems that the Arizona priosn/industrail folks have been funneling money to Jan Brewer going back quite a ways... And when folks put that kinda money into a candidate then they want a return on their investment...

Fact: The border crossing are down by less than half of the crossings some 10 years ago and down considerably since last year and the year before...

So, kinda makes sense that if ya' built bigass new detention facilities (possibly thinking that other states would send their prisoners to you - for a profit on yer side - but with state budget shortfalls states are instead cutting priosn times *thta* you might consider trying to buy the governor...

Me thinks that Jan Brewer is bought and paid for by Arizona's "prison/industrial complex"...

All this shit about how "America" is being assaulted by Hispanics comin' over the border in hords is, ahhhhh, propaganda... Ain't happenin'...

So, it's down to "papers"... I mean, this was the exact same thing that happened in Germany in 1933 to the Jews and we now stand back and say, "That was some messedf up stuff" but we allow ourselves to be brought to deny facts about the immigration situation/issue in order to promote the inaceration industry???

Beam me up, Scotty... The ordinary folks have been re-programmed by the crooks...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 08:14 PM

The problem right now with the feds, Gfins, is that states liike Arizona are hell bent on trying to put Obma in a box and are picking and choosing which federal laws they want to enforce... This is creating some ver bad local policies all over the country tyhat neerss to get straightened out but probably won't for years to come as the Repub/Tea Partiers will delight in using Pick-'n-chose which federal laws they like to poke Obama and Dems until they get a Repub in the White House anf then they will follow suit... Purdy stupid game that the right is playing with "federalism: here... Obey like lap dog any Repub in the White House and then become assholes when the Dem is in...

But that is the strategy and Obama is the appeaser and they know they can get away with it...

If I were Obma, I'd order the National Guard in to enforce the Civil Rights Act and make states run fair elections... But I ain't Obama...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 07:52 PM

Bobs: "What I think is occuring at voter precincts is that Arizona may be requiring too much ID stuff in order to vote..."

In all fairness, you probably are not aware of how BAD the problem is there, in Arizona. Its bad...real fucking bad!
If you are NOT aware of how bad, then I could see your point, but it is mega-bad! Something needs to be done!!..and I can't see the Feds doing shit!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 07:41 PM

Well, how do they register to vote, GfinS... Don't go telling me that Arizona doesn't have basic standards for being able to register to vote 'cause that dog won't hunt... Every state has 'um...

What I think is occuring at voter precincts is that Arizona may be requiring too much ID stuff in order to vote... Here in Va. you are on the voter rolls and you gotta show either a "voters card" or a driver's license in order to vote... That seems logical, inspite of the fact that this is Virginia...

But now if Virginia, for instance, wnated proof of birth to at the precinct to vote then I'd dare say that that requirement wouyld be extreme and intended, at some level, to be an overt attempt to stop certain folks from voting...

I mean, if you had to have these documents in order to get on the eligible voters rolls then that oughtta be it...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 12:02 PM

Bobs: "Yo, GfinS,
Illegals don't get to vote... Period... Bogus argument,,,

..and how do you know if they are ILLEGAL??????? ask them nicely not to vote???...or are they citizens???...Arizona can't even do that now!..and its bullshit!...I mean a guy crawls over the fence, or hires a coyote, to break our laws, illegally takes a job(away from an American citizen), feels entitled to be here,(with an attitude), illegally pays no taxes, and you expect him to tell you the truth??!!??!!??!

Dinner is awaiting.....but over the sink, again!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 08:36 AM

Yo, Dougie...

The reason that the Repubs will do well is because after you throw in 24/7 anti-Dem programing and the massive amounts of undisclosed "Citizens United" cash from overseas and Boss Hog's corporation that this election has allready been decided... 90% of candidates who spend the most win... It is a wonder that any Dems will survice this unprecidented Clarence "Love them tit's" Thomas's America where elections are bought...

Yo, GfinS,

Illegals don't get to vote... Period... Bogus argument,,,

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: DougR
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 01:18 AM

The really sick thing about liberal posts on this thread is that they really don't see why the Republicans are going to overwhelmingly win the election Tuesday. It's because the policies of the Obama Administration are popular with ONLY 20% of the population (liberals).

It's sick because they REALLY don't understand what their problem is. Their problem is they support a liberal agenda and that simply is not going to prevail in the United States. No way.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 12:20 AM

Bobert: "Well, yes it is if those laws are so restrictive as to be just hidden ways to supress certain voting populations..."

Yes, the law was to keep illegal aliens from voting in OUR elections.

OK, you can go back now, and finish your dinner, over the sink!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 11:40 PM

Hey Bobert. How did a mental midget work his way up to the position of being nominated?


And as for false statements, where is the documentation on the "Bad Gas" you were going to supply for $2.95?

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 06:35 PM

Well, yes it is if those laws are so restrictive as to be just hidden ways to supress certain voting populations...

Virgina, where you can buy an assualt weapon with no background check, where you can drive away from having been convicted of ____ (fill in any number) of DUIs on a motor scooter without a license, without a helmit and without any insurance put people thru the hoops to get a Virginia drivers license... They make you send $35 to an outfit that "certifies" your birth certificate??? Like you can have a real birth certificate but until this private company says its real then it's no license... How do they know if it's real???

I mean, there is so much bogus stuff going down right now about IDs that it is beyond comprehenion... It's just $$$ to campaign donors who run the bogus certifying company... Not even any competition... This company gets $35 outta everyone that comes into the state to get a license, even if they have allready had a license here in the past... Grrrrrr!!!

Well, I refused to give $35 to a private company... I wrote then Governor Mark Warner and said it was a scam and he musta have agreed with me 'cause he had one of his people call the DMV and arrange for me to get my license with a bonified original birth certicate...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 05:51 PM

200...BTW (the circuit court of appeals just went against Arizona's law to provide proof of citizenship, to vote!.....This is America???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 05:37 PM

Or all three... Thomas is a mental midget who has an obsession with women's breasts...

I mean, even the righties know deep down inside that Clarence "Can I touch 'um" Thomas ain't got a lot on the ball in terms of intellectual curiosity... He always just follows the righties in his votes... I don't belive he has ever broken... I mean, not once... That has to be a record fir a justice pushin' 20 years on the bench... In other words, he is a reliable "yes" man for the Republican Party...

I mean, I think that the Supreme Court should have folks who can think for themselves...

As for false statements, bb... Your proclamations that I have made false statements are just that: "your proclamations" and nuthin' else that has any sembelence to reality... I wonder sometimes if you even bother reading all of the news or just pick and choose who and what you want to read... You seem to have lots of, ahhhhhh, gaps in yer knowledge base...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 05:09 PM

Possibly because Uncle Thomas is the least qualified individual ever to hold a seat on the Supreme Court?

Or because he's a sexual predator?

Or because he's an idiot?

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 04:18 PM

Why does Bobert "hate" Clarence Thomas?

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 02:11 PM

Greg F.

"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Bobert - PM
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 09:11 AM

What, Dougie, are we going to be celebrating??? The predicted outcome of the Thomas/Alito/Robert's activist court ruling in "Citizen United"???? 90% of politican who spend the most $$$$ win... Duhhhhhhh....

$$$$ in = garbage out...

B~
"


Sorry if I am trying to respond to Boabert's false statements with the facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 02:11 PM

Once again, bruce... I did read your blog/op ed... Who cares??? It is bogus in that no one knows how much $$$ the "Citizen's United" folks have poured into the races... Not you, not yer buddy Clarence Thomas and maybe God ain't even keepin' track... That is reality here... Proclamations from you, Swaz or the entire right winged blabosphere doesn't change the reality that these people can spend as much as they like without diosclosure...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 02:09 PM

BeardedBruce: "TRY to read the post before making your comments, Bobert."

You mean he either can't read or spell and write correctly????
So what is he supposed to do??...be a social worker?????

(Wink to Bobert),

GfS

P.S....or is that just a co-incidence?

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 02:03 PM

Democrats getting outspent? Not so fast

So how many dozen different threads do you inted to post the same lies and bullshit to, Brucie?

Mud Elves take Note

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 01:01 PM

Another bogus stat by our renouned bogas stats guy: "The West Bank has the highest density of any place in the Middle East"


Democrats Retain Edge in Campaign Spending

New York Times October 26, 2010

Even with a recent surge in fund-raising for Republican candidates, Democratic candidates have outraised their opponents over all by more than 30 percent in the 109 House races The New York Times has identified as in play. And Democratic candidates have significantly outspent their Republican counterparts over the last few months in those contests, $119 million to $79 million.

Republican-leaning third-party groups, however, many of them financed by large, unrestricted donations that are not publicly disclosed, have swarmed into the breach, pouring more than $60 million into competitive races since July, about 80 percent more than the Democratic-leaning groups have reported spending.

As a result, the battle for control of the House has been increasingly shaping up as a test of whether a Democratic fund-raising edge, powered by the advantages of incumbency but accumulated in the smaller increments allowed by campaign finance law, can withstand the continuing deluge of spending by groups able to operate outside those limits, according to an analysis of political spending by The Times.

It is difficult to provide an accurate, up-to-the-moment comparison that includes all three streams of campaign money — money spent by candidates, money spent by party committees and money spent by outside groups — because candidates have had to file financial reports that cover only up until mid-October. Moreover, certain types of so-called issue advertisements, which do not explicitly urge voters to cast their ballots one way or another but still attack or praise candidates ahead of the general election, had to be filed with the Federal Election Commission only beginning in September, or 60 days before voters go to the polls.

While activities like television and radio advertisements and mass mailings are reported to the commission soon after they are purchased, other kinds of spending, like get-out-the-vote efforts, are not.

In mid-October, however, based upon the campaign finance data available, Democrats actually had the spending advantage in about 60 percent of the 109 competitive House races and had invested, collectively, about 10 percent more money into the contests than Republican candidates and their aligned groups had over the previous few months.

Those outside groups have proven crucial, though. Expenditures by Republican-oriented independent groups in carefully selected races have been financial difference-makers in dozens of cases, more than enough to help put the Republicans within striking distance of recapturing the majority, especially considering the political headwinds faced by Democrats.

With the Democratic and Republican Congressional campaign committees essentially battling each other to a draw, Republican-leaning groups have used their financial heft to broaden the political map. Since July, they have put $100,000 or more into more than 80 percent of the races in play, many more than Democratic-leaning groups, who have invested $100,000 or more in about half of the competitive races.

Only in the last two weeks or so have Democratic-oriented groups finally begun to come close to matching the spending of their counterparts on the right. But in many cases they appear to be playing defense, rushing to bolster Democratic candidates in races in which Republican outside groups had been swamping them....

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 12:48 PM

"And even when outside spending on television advertising and direct mail is added to the mix, Republicans still haven't closed the gap.

The money race totals come to $856 million for the Democratic committees and their aligned outside groups, compared to $677 for their Republican adversaries, based on figures compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.

Included in that total: conservative groups have spent $169 million on ads attacking Democratic House and Senate candidates, compared to $80 million by liberal-leaning groups, based on figures as of Tuesday morning.
"


TRY to read the post before making your comments, Bobert.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 12:39 PM

Another bogus stat by one of our renouned bogas stats folks...

How much "Citizens United" $$$, bruce??? I mean, there is perhaps more of that $$$ being spent on attack ads agaisnt Dems than the entire amount of $$$ being spent combined by the parties... That means one boat load of cash but guess what???

Ya' give up???

Clarence "nice tits" Thomas and Co. think that is peachy because almost all that cash is going to their boys... And it doesn't have to be reported... No one knows how much or where it is coming from and Repubs are eating up this new brand of democracy, which of course, is no more democratic than what we in the US think about when describing corrupt 3rd World dictatorships...

Yeah, unlimited cash... Undisclosed cash... A drunkard's dream if I ever did see one...

Maybe this is the kind of government you envison, bruce - you know, with foriegn countries being able to buy up seats in Congress - but it ain't what the Founding Fathers had in mind...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 11:51 AM

Democrats getting outspent? Not so fast

By JEANNE CUMMINGS | 10/26/10 7:27 PM EDT Updated: 10/27/10 9:05 AM EDT

To hear top Democrats tell it, the party is being wildly outgunned this year in the fight for campaign cash as Republicans rely on outside groups to funnel money to GOP contenders.

But the numbers tell a different story.

It's true that conservative third-party groups are outspending their Democratic rivals. But the Democrats still have a sizable cash advantage in their party committees – making this year's elections a lot more of a fair fight than Vice President Joe Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi let on.

So far, the latest figures show that the Democratic Party machinery has outraised its Republican counterpart in this campaign cycle by almost $270 million.

And even when outside spending on television advertising and direct mail is added to the mix, Republicans still haven't closed the gap.

The money race totals come to $856 million for the Democratic committees and their aligned outside groups, compared to $677 for their Republican adversaries, based on figures compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.

Included in that total: conservative groups have spent $169 million on ads attacking Democratic House and Senate candidates, compared to $80 million by liberal-leaning groups, based on figures as of Tuesday morning.

Of course, plenty more will be spent in this final week of the campaign.

The GOP-leaning outside groups have vowed to invest about $325 million this cycle, a sum that could be difficult to achieve with just seven days to go to Election Day. Liberal groups and unions also have pledged tens of millions of dollars more in spending.

But the David-and-Goliath tone of some Democratic messaging hardly reflects the party's own financial strength and ability to defend itself, at least tactically.

"When you look at the national party committees coupled with the state party committees, the Democrats are whopping the Republicans," said Dave Levinthal, a spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics.




Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/44216.html#ixzz13ZhZcvnW

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 11:05 AM

"$$$$ in = garbage out..."

YES!!

Just look at the 2008 election!

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 09:11 AM

What, Dougie, are we going to be celebrating??? The predicted outcome of the Thomas/Alito/Robert's activist court ruling in "Citizen United"???? 90% of politican who spend the most $$$$ win... Duhhhhhhh....

$$$$ in = garbage out...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 09:04 AM

Good ol' Douggie- inane, puerile & irrelevant, as always.