Oh my Shap your going to get the obamamites stirred up.

Three that openly admit they are obamamites.

One says they still haven't decided - right! :-)

I'm just wondering how common is going to spin this one.

This was the West Virginia primary. The candidate merely happens to be occupying a governmetal facility in Texas.

Texas does seem to have succeeded largely, despite not having seceded.

I doubt that he'll campaign in many states that depend heavily on the oil and coal industries his EPA has tried to crucify...

Have no fear! Obama is a shoe-in based on his comments in the same ABC interview. Besides "coming out" for gay marriage - which he was for in 2004 and against 2008 and now for in 2012 - he also said this - today!:

"those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf"

He now has the military fighting on "his" behalf so he should win re-election. Great, short article on this narcissistic statement:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/my-b...

Unbelievable. Our troops are getting shot in the back of the head weekly by the very afghan army we are training - not the Taliban! And this clown thinks they are fighting for him.

Remeber libs - this is your man.

What happened to the guy that said if he wins he will end the the wars and close Gitmo?

"This Would Appear To Be A Sign That Mr. Obama's Re-Election Is In Doubt"

Back to the original topic...Anytime there is an election, "re-election" is in doubt....duh!

(See election 1948) I would suggest you vote for your candidate and hope for the best.

Whoever you decide to support, make an informed decision and stay out of Old John's peanut jelly!

YES! Those nasty, mean Mormons. They keep their daughters home from school, beat their wives, throw acid on women who try to learn, force women to cover their faces, burn them in pits if their dowry is small, and kill them if they are raped by a cousin. Then they attack other people with children/women laden with bombs. They threaten to bomb Israel, kill Christians and 3000 Americans on 9/11.

And then Obama invites them (the "Mormon Brotherhood") to the white house to talk about all this. Are these the same Mormons that have killed 1000's of our troops since Obama came in office? Over 100 this year that have come home in coffins?

I agree - no parades for the Mormons! They're so politically incorrect. Glad we have a Muslim as President.

"Back to the original topic...Anytime there is an election, "re-election" is in doubt....duh!"

You apparently have missed some of Common and Spanniard/aka Ike's posts. They claim along with others, that Obama's second coronation is a slam dunk.

Mowrangler,

I think he's been banned. His posts and topics have been removed from the board.

"Sure Obama has failed many people--------I dont see anyone overjoyed with Romney!!"

I'm sure there are a handful 'overjoyed' with Mr. Romney, but I'm seldom 'overjoyed' with any politician.

It appears there will be little joy in Mudville this election. But, ultimately, Mr. Romney appears to be a much better choice than retaining Mr. Obama.

Most Republicans, I think, would like to have seen a better candidate. That's why Mr. Romney has had such an uphill slog against what should have been a group of also-rans. But, I am reminded of the 1992 election year, when the Democrats were left with a sorry slate of unknowns, unwanteds, and has-beens. Mr. Romney, it appears, will be this year's Bill Clinton.

So, is that the new Obama campaign theme: "well, nobody's overjoyed about Romney"?

Sounds like a good way to test the waters and see how many votes will have to be bought or resurrected. Wonder who convinced these folks to run against Obama.

"Which Obama 2008 blue states will Romney turn red?"

I try to avoid political predictions, but I'm going to guess Virginia, North Carolina, and Nevada. Possibly Florida, too.

There are six months until the election. It will be Mr. Romney's duty to make us more comfortable with him, or at least less uncomfortable with him than we are uncomfortable with Mr. Obama.

That ain't a hard sell.

"Is he going to critize the millionaires for not paying their share or party with them and accept their millions for his campaign ? Wouldn't this $16 million been great for tax revenue instead of going into Obama's pockets ?"

Rick,

Maybe he is promising to give his contributors waivers from paying the Buffet Rule Tax he proposes. You saw the way it worked with Obamacare, if you supported him you could get a waiver.

So good to see you all dancing in the street for Romney.

Dex

So your still in the gutter with Obama?

Howdy,

One thing about B. Hussein Obama... he never changes his position, for example same sex marriage. When do you think the first one will take place at St. Vincents in Cape?

Ever try reading the Income Tax Laws as written and enacted by Congress and signed by the President.

The damned thing is shot through with "waivers." Makes the Buffet Rule look silly.

I'm not gonna say who will win. I am not a Obama hater as much as you want me to be. That is now the liberal code for racist. I just want to help him get off that post. The Dems are the haters as they always have been.

So far I still haven't seen where Obama's economic ideas are better than Romney's. Romney's public sector economic accomplishments far outweighs Obama. The Democrats only have playground talk instead of anything substantial.

Obama's children dont know....

http://www.mrctv.org/videos/occupier-tha...

Er, in the spirit of frivolity, and otherwise warped and baseless humor - the Dems are hated and thus are discriminated against. As a protected class relating to their political beliefs, they are due significant government compensation to be taken from the haters in order to offset their suffering and otherwise irreparable damages.

Sometimes, I get so silly, even I can't stand it. :-)~

"What utter pathetic stupidity. Desperate people resort to desperate things. Theorist, go ahead and vote for B. Hussein Obama.... that is what you have intended on doing since Nov of 2008 anyway. He fits your political makeup, far leftwing liberal.

-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, May 12, 2012, at 2:45 PM

According to Theorist; this is Wheel's 'hate-filled post'. I don't see it. Do you?

"President Obama released his tax returns. It turns out he made $900,000 less in 2011 then he did in 2010. You know what that means? Even Obama is doing worse under President Obama." --Jay Leno

"You speak of hate and then spew it on any of Obama's opposition, all the while claiming to be an independant... see anything phoney here?"-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, May 12, 2012, at 9:05 PM

**No, Wheels. I have only posted facts. It is you who resorts to name calling and personal attacks.

**Robert, You don't think calling someone pathetic and stupid is hateful? Well, welcome to the in-crowd. Oh wait, you were already a member by another name :)

Have a good day now...

**No, Wheels. I have only posted facts. It is you who resorts to name calling and personal attacks.

**Robert, You don't think calling someone pathetic and stupid is hateful? Well welcome to the in-crowd. Oh wait, you were already a member by another name :) Have a good day now...

-- Posted by Theorist on Sun, May 13, 2012, at 7:45 AM

Theorist

1.) I never called anyone pathetic and stupid. What I did say is as follows :

"What utter pathetic stupidity. "

And I was talking about the whole Democratic smear campaign most recently run up the flagpole. And you fell dutifully right in line.

A campaign can be both "pathetic and stupid". It is you who chose to put on the Mantra and wear it.

2.) That came from another thread. Why do you choose to use partial posts from other theads? Is it to confuse and willfully mislead others? Why don't you handle it like another poster we know and have the post removed when you want to restrict other poster's thoughts?

"To be one, to be united is a great thing. But to respect the right to be different is maybe even greater."

― Bono

Wik'to, Bono is now an authority of logic and reason to Theorist. I have no problem with that but what, Theorist, has that quote have to do with the discussion at hand? :)

Yes wik'to...from the band U2.

Old John, it was in response to Robert's quote...(note that it was paraphrased).

It is what is so apparently absent on these speak-out threads...respect for those who are different, whether of opinion, background or mannerisms.

Sure Wheels...You said talking about Romney's bullying tactics was "damned stupid" and utterly pathetic. I consider that hateful. Especially since it is pertinent to the election of the President of the United States! Now do you think what he did was "damned stupid", or "us" discussing what he did "damned stupid"

Are you going to say you didn't say that??

Theorist,

It is what is so apparently absent on these speak-out threads...respect for those who are different, whether of opinion, background or mannerisms.

-- Posted by Theorist on Mon, May 14, 2012, at 5:32 AM

I have disagreed with you; does that make me disrespectful of you or your opinions?

I do not agree with changing the legal definition of marriage. I can not find any posting made by me in which I have disrespectfully referred to anyone because they disagreed with me, had a different background, or because of their mannerisms.

I do think that mudslinging and character assassination are stupid and pathetic political tactics. Did not refer to any particular political party but used this thread to express my opinion of anyone who uses these tactics. Does this make me disrespectful also?

I am sure that it is a co-incidence that this 'hazing' incident is brought up at the same time that President Obama announced his 'evolving' opinion of gay marriage. No one would actually consider the possibility that this is another attempt to change the subject of political debate from his record over the past 3+years!

"You don't think calling someone pathetic and stupid is hateful?"

Who did I call "Pathetic and Stupid" Theporist?

I spoke of the whole effort of character assassination being carried out as pathetic and stupid. The Democratic Party has used this tactic on any candidate the Republicans put up against B. Hussein Obama, if they showed any promise of being the final candidate to challenge him in November.

But you said I called 'SOMEONE' "Pathetic and Stupid". I did not... so since you refuse to address that and admit you were wrong, I am calling it what it was Theorist. It was a lie, a deliberate attempt by you to discredit me.

We need to stick to the truth on these threads and quit twisting other poster's words.

Because it is abusive, and it should be reported. It is really interesting to watch how Romeny has handled the revelation. Instead of sorrow or embarrassment, he simply "forgets". I think this says a lot about his character.

Wheels, you called the discussion pathetic and stupid...you cannot discuss without people.

-- Posted by Theorist on Mon, May 14, 2012, at 12:00 PM

No, you cannot discuss without people, but that doesn't change the fact that I never called those people "Pathetic and Stupid" (Name Calling). I called their topic of discussion "Pathetic and Stupid"... and I stand on that statemnent.

I called no person "Pathetic and Stupid" as you stated that I did. I may have bought into your being confused, had you explained yourself... but that is obviously not the case. No... you are Theorist and you do not admit to being wrong, no matter the evidence presented to you. You lied... plain and simple and do not have the courage to admit it. Lying about others is another form of bullying. You are hopeless in my view.

Let's talk about abuse.

B. Hussein Obama stated that he ate dogs. Aren't dogs man's best friend? Where is all of the outrage that there was when Romney was reported to have hauled his in a cage on top of his car.

Has nobody ever seen a dog with his head out the window. Well you aren't going to see those B. Hussein Obama spoke of, they killed them and ate them.

Is it better to take your dog on vacation or kill him and eat him before you go? And you can freeze the leftovers. MG how can you even think about electing a man for President who has abused a dog. Man's best friend no less!!

Is this "Pathetic and Stupid"? Yes and I purposely intended it to be. As insane as trying to condemn an adult for something he did as a child. If Theorist has actually taught school, she should realize that children can be very cruel to one another... I am sure each of us could think of some dumb things we did as children that we would just as soon not discuss as adults

I can remember a case from my high school days where several boys had another boy thinking they were going to hang him. Cruel, I hope to tell you, but not a one of those boys including the hangee did not turn out to be decent law abiding families. It was stupid kid stuff. Thank God, I don't have that one on my resume, but there are other things I did as a kid that were dumb, dumb, dumb!

There was 5 gay men that are hard core Democrats that have 5 different stories. We saw this with Reagan also.

This country is an a heck of a financial mess and the big topic is Romney cut a guys hair in high school which like Cain's slanderers is probably a lie.

My lifetime. The gays hated Reagan also and tried the same BS.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drenne...

Let's get back to the POTUS performance , or lack of , the past 4 years .

-- Posted by Sioux. on Mon, May 14, 2012, at 10:57 PM

"He approved the raid to kill Osama bin Laden in Pakistan on May 1, and was behind the decision and policies that led to the drone-missile killing of Al-Qaida figure Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen. He backed allied intervention that ultimately led to the downfall of Libya's longtime dictator Moammar Gadhafi's." -Youthvoices.net

.."in conjunction with NATO, the U.S. carried out attacks that targeted Gadhafi forces. In the end, the total cost to the U.S. government is expected to be under $1 billion with no loss of American lives, compared to the more than $800 billion in costs and more than 4,000 U.S. fatalities in the Iraq War launched by the Bush administration" (http://abcnews)

He has been successful in restoring America's image abroad and positive opinions of the US have risen greatly.

"...performance , or lack of , the past 4 years..."

Accomplishments in the past 3 ½ years? Presumably you are not referring to all of the conservative whining and complaining about the sky falling and the world ending.

In addition to the foreign policy achievements mentioned above, our food exports have grown to record levels.

Health insurance controls have been put improve basic care and financial support to individuals.

Financial regulations have increased protections to consumers and credit card users.

The stock market continues to thrive. The Fortune 500 companies posted record profits.

Unemployment is decreasing.

The depression that was forecast at the close of the President Bush administration did not happen.

Women's rights in the workplace and in health care have improved.

The automobile manufacturing and parts industries were saved from bankruptcy and possible ruin.

Added tax credits and reforms to encourage business to hire returning and disabled veterans.

Ended Medicare "doughnut hole" and is expanding coverage to all citizens .

Bringing an end to US military active involvement in Afghanistan.

Kept Iran under control and increasing world wide pressure on their oil production.

"The depression that was forecast at the close of the President Bush administration did not happen."

And you give Mr. Obama credit for something that didn't happen.

If the end of the world predicted by the Mayans to occur on Dec. 21, 2012 does not occur, will you also give him credit for that?

You can rest assured, that, if the world does end on Dec. 21, 2012, Mr. Obama will blame it on the Republicans...

"Unemployment is decreasing."

It's still higher than it was when he took office.

"Kept Iran under control and increasing world wide pressure on their oil production."

Iran is under control? When did this happen?

"The stock market continues to thrive. The Fortune 500 companies posted record profits."

The Dow Jones Industrial Average remains about 1,000 points below its pre-Pelosi peak.

"The Dow Jones Industrial Average..."

almost doubled from the start of President Obama's term to now climbing from under 7000 to about 13,000.

"The Dow Jones Industrial Average..."

almost doubled from the start of President Obama's term to now climbing from under 7000 to about 13,000.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, May 15, 2012, at 10:07 AM

Should have referenced this in my 10:32 post... didn't know there was going to be a post explosion on here.

Sioux

Enough to make you throw up.

"A part of the 2010 financial overhaul legislation known as the Volcker rule would restrict banks from some trading for their own profit."

Given that they lost $2 billion, I would say they upheld that rule...

Sioux,

I would hope so. I am going to say a quiet prayer that he gets what is behind door number 3. Three has always been one of my favorite numbers... right behind thirteen.

Ahhh, my weather radio just went off, telling me this is the weekly test and it is still working.

Don't take Common too seriously, Sioux. He is merely passing on Democrat talking points.

The Democrats wont even support him.

Now the Dems say it wasn't BO's plan. Huh?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/insi...

"This Would Appear To Be A Sign That (President) Obama's Re-Election Is In Doubt."

As this is the case, it is curious as to why all of the conservatives continue to denigrate the President. It would appear that he has no chance of winning re-election, and that Governor Romney winning is a sure thing.

It would seem that the President could be left alone. The slow recovery appears not to be moving quickly enough. The decrease in unemployment is not creditable enough. Governor Romney's popularity has grown among independents.

Since President Obama is almost certain to lose the November election, it should be time to start celebrating and plan on how the country will prosper and the economy will flourish under a Romney presidency. So this must mean that we can stop bad-mouthing the current President and start heaping praise on the next one.

Sorry

Anyone who works

So this must mean that we can stop bad-mouthing the current President and start heaping praise on the next one.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, May 16, 2012, at 9:50 PM

If disagreeing with the President's policies and pointing out the ultimate consequence of those policies is considered bad-mouthing the President, then I suppose I am guilty as charged. I will continue to argue the case for limited government and the free market system. We must end our experiments with socialism before they bring our economy to its knees. I owe that to my children and grandchildren.

In my estimation that is conservative.

-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, May 16, 2012, at 11:10 PM

I didn't want to be called an extremist.

"...experiments with socialism..."

As asked previously, what experiments?

Here ya go Rick

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qKgBIMv1...

A moving video, Regrets.

Government has attempted to take away the culture and the identity of a people. It has replaced individual responsibility and the responsibility of men for their families and their tribe and replaced it with 'trust' in the government. On every turn government has violated that 'trust'. A very good example of a failed government experiment!

The only socialized medicine practised in the US is by the military in the DOD. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, May 18, 2012, at 9:01 AM

Another boldface "untruth" - is that proper Theo?

So if a postal worker gets medical insurance paid, it's not socialism. If an FBI officer gets medical care paid, it's not socialism. If a 22 year old Army private gets his legs blown off and gets medical care paid, it's socialism? Tells me all I need to know about your beliefs and values common.

If I PAY into social security and get benefits back I would say that's not socialism except that many do not pay into SS but do get benefits. Or as Obama would say "Spread the Wealth".

Obamacare IS socialism. Pure and simple. Many will not have to pay for the coverage but will get the benefit. MANY. Once Obama controls all the health care then he'll change the contribution rates and coverages with unconsitutional presidential edicts. He's doing that now. The Government Accounting Office said 2 weeks ago there is $8 BILLION that the Obama administration is hoarding illegally and should be returned. Obama is using it to hide the effects of Obamacare on seniors until after the election and his administration refuses to give the money back. And you want to give this man-child more control over our lives? Please stay home in November.

"Having a part of your compensation being paid by your employer is not socialism."

If the compensation is for your labor, I would think the compensation most times does come from your employer. It's the confiscation that comes from the government.

More for common to explain re: GM.

Two big dem donors got millions from GM after the government bailout. Payback I'm sure. The article:

http://freebeacon.com/gms-bailout-bucks/

Not to mention the special tax breaks given to GM which we are just now learning about.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/05/1...

While President Obama campaigns on "tax fairness" -- eliminating loopholes for the wealthiest one percent, the oil companies and other big corporations -- his favorite corporate giant is enjoying an unprecedented, under-the-table multi-billion dollar tax break.

In addition to the more than $50 billion given to General Motors in the bailout, the Obama administration quietly snuck in a special tax break for GM, which allows the company to write off approximately $45 billion in post-bankruptcy losses against post-bankruptcy profits.

The result? In 2011, GM paid nothing in federal income taxes despite claiming record profits of $7.6 billion, the "highest profits in the 100 year history of that company" according to President Obama.

In fact, that's not quite right. GM paid a tax rate of negative 1.5% on its record profits -- less than nothing.

That's right, while you were paying your income taxes last month, the IRS was sending General Motors a check for $110 million. And GM's tax break is a gift that will keep on giving every year at tax time.

It's good for twenty years.

As with the original $50-plus billion bailout of General Motors -- and the $7,500 Chevy Volt tax credit that goes to people with an average income of $170,000 a year -- this multi-billion dollar tax gift comes at the expense of ordinary taxpayers who lack GM's close connections to the White House.

How did this blatant example of crony capitalism come about?

GM's tax break arises from the Obama administration's distortion of legitimate tax provisions which allow companies to use prior-year losses -- of which the Old GM had plenty -- and certain other costs to reduce their current-year federal income taxes. In Section 382 of the tax code, Congress limited these "net operating loss" (NOL) carry-forwards to discourage the buying and selling of tax deductions.

GM's sweetheart tax deal has largely slipped under the radar screen, allowing Obama to both rail against tax loopholes and claim the auto bailout cost taxpayers far less than it actually has.

-

As a result, New GM could not have written off the Old GM losses that were discharged in the bankruptcy. However, as Harvard Law School Professor J. Mark Ramseyer and Indiana University's Dalton Professor of Business Eric Rasmusen explain, the Obama Treasury Department "'solved' this problem by issuing a series of 'Notices' in which it announced that [Sec. 382] did not apply [here]."

Because companies like GM that file for fast-track bankruptcy without affording due process protections to creditors don't normally get to preserve NOLs, Treasury's unprecedented Notices allowed GM "to retain the cake while eating it," notes Duke Law Professor Jeffrey Coyne.

Though the Treasury Department "had no legal or economic justification for these Notices," according to Professors Ramseyer and Rasmusen, a GM spokesman tried to justify the company's negative income tax rate by noting that GM pays "other taxes," including "taxes around the world."

Are we supposed to be reassured by knowing that GM only stiffs American taxpayers?

The truth is General Motors and the Obama administration didn't need a justification, because they counted on this unprecedented tax break being too arcane for reporters to understand or write about.

So far, they've been right.

GM's sweetheart tax deal has largely slipped under the radar screen, allowing Obama to both rail against tax loopholes and claim the auto bailout cost taxpayers far less than it actually has.-- If GM's tax gift were counted, the official cost of the bailout would double from $22 billion to $40 billion.

Polling indicates that public perception of the auto bailout "grows a lot more negative when the actual price tag is attached." Add to that the public's revulsion at crony capitalism and it's no surprise that General Motors, the Obama administration, and their cheerleaders in the news media don't want you to know the real cost to taxpayers of the auto bailout.

Curt Levey is an attorney and the Executive Director of the Committee for Justice in Washington, DC. He can be reached at @Curt_Levey on Twitter.

RELATED STORIES

WSJ: GM Claims Immunity For Its Old Cars

GM Says It Will Build New Astra At Its UK Plant

GM Continues Its European Revamp

RECOMMENDED STORIES

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/05/1...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vDYkE3eD...

Obama awarded the "Presidential Medal of Freedom" awards today. The president chooses the winners. Just listen to his words as he gave out the awards:

"So many of these people are my heroes individually," Obama said during the ceremony, recalling how he read Morrison's novel "Song of Solomon" as a young man when he was "not just trying to figure out how to write, but also how to be and how to think. And I remember in college listening to Bob Dylan and my world opening up because he captured something about this country that was so vital," he said. "Everybody on this stage has marked my life in profound ways."

Is the reward really about people who have influenced the president? Or the country? It gets back to the narcissism thing. He has serious issues. Read his words a second time. With him it is ALL about him - everything.

I'm still trying to figure out where he got the money the first time around.

In '79 he entered Occidental College as Barry with room mates Muhammad Chandos and Wahid Hamid from Pakistan. Where'd he get the money?

In '81 he went around the world and visited his mom in Indonesia and his dad in Africa. Where'd he get the money?

He came back and started college at Columbia University as Barrack; tuition there ain't cheap. Where'd he get the money?

Then he came to Chicago to work as community organizer for $12,000 per year after meeting Syrian born millionaire Tony Rezko.

After that he went to Harvard, came back to Chicago and bought a $1.65 million house and worked for Rezar. [Rezco owned] Where'd he get the money?

The london Times reported that three weeks before Iraqi born millionaire Nadhmi Auchi loaned Rezko $3.5 million.

So you see based on what I have gleened from an old Dave Reid's photo/post I recently read, Where'd he get the money?

His folks were poor and I thought I heard the president say people wanting to go to college need our government's help with low interest student loans?

Another Free Republic reader? Before copying someone's questions, did you try and find the answers? -- Posted by Theorist on Wed, May 30, 2012, at 4:54 AM

Do you know the answers?

"Yes...

Hard work, scholarships, parent/grandparents, loans, writing books..."

Common,

It's good to see that someone has such intimate financial insight into his President's business. Why don't you give the rest of us some actual numbers, cause the above sounds like another one of your "Probably's".

"e.i." means for example"

Actually it does not, but i.e. (id est) does.

I looked it up, and Commonsense is correct. President Obama paid off most of his loans with the proceeds from his two books.

Now, shall we discuss (since this is politics and it appears he will be running for President) how Romney paid for his education? I know, do you?

Oh no... am I going to have to wait until tomorrow to find out.

How am I to sleep.

Theorist, sounds like you are on the mailing list for the Democratic talking points of the month. Is this a late May edition or is it the new June talking points.

Oh and the link to the information you learned on Obama's paying off his school loans... you appear to have forgotten to post it.

Well Rick, I agree about the smear campaign (which in my opinion you continue with your previous post.) Fact is, we have to know who we are voting for...

For instance, since Romney was not a senator, we cannot scrutinize his voting record. So that leaves only his record as governor of Massachusetts.

One important indication can be found in Cato Institute's "Fiscal Policy Report Card on America's Governors" for 2006, his last year in office. Cato awarded Romney a grade of "C" for his performance that year.

So "C" is average...perhaps...

oops....a double post (hanging head in shame)

What I would give to hear the sermons that Romney has sat through his whole life. You know that crazy junk influences his decision making. Magic underwear. Garden of Eden in Independence MO. Getting your own planet after you die. Multiple gods on multiple planets.

So "C" is average...perhaps... -- Posted by Theorist on Thu, May 31, 2012, at 8:04 AM

Beats an "F" as president Obama. The country is in much worse shape since he has taken over. And please don't start posting your presidents "successes" without mentioning the $5 TRILLION he has spent. As I said the other day, my nephew could have done what Obama has done with $5 TRILLION in borrowed money with no plan to pay it back.

Ike,

Got any problems with Harry Reid's religion?

Do you have a link that's says it's not true ? -- Posted by Sioux. on Thu, May 31, 2012, at 10:29 AM

Don't hold your breath. The technique here is to make you spend time looking things up. I'm still awaiting a response on "links" from Spaniard. Drive-by posting.

Wonder what the President really is?

I always thought Bill Clinton would rather climb a tree to tell a lie than stand on the ground and tell the truth.

This President has raised the anti on that statement to a record high.

No.

I still don't like Obamacare and is one of the reasons I would have rather seen another candidate than Romney. But the political machines character assassinated the rest of the condidates running against him. So now we have the choice of an "Average" candidate or a "Failure" as a candidate. Look for "Average" performance to "God Awful" perfomance over the next four years. Take your choice.

As far as Congress goes, every Congressman or Congresswoman who voted yes on Obamacare should be given a test on what they really know about it. Since they passed Obamacare with a lot of arm twisting and bribing... by Nancy Pelosi's own words, they should by now, know what they voted for. If they cannot pass the test, they are unworthy of being a Senator or Representative.

-- Posted by Sioux. on Thu, May 31, 2012, at 12:47 PM

I think you missed common's point. It only matters to common if he's a muslim - he denies it despite the evidence. I don't care what faith a president is.

Kennedy nearly lost his election to Nixon because democrats feared Kennedy's Catholic faith. Looks like common, theo and spaniard fear Romney's faith and deny Obama has any faith. Interesting.

More deflection from the left.

Looks like common, theo and spaniard fear Romney's faith and deny Obama has any faith. Interesting.

More deflection from the left.

-- Posted by Dug on Thu, May 31, 2012, at 12:50 PM

You are just flat out WRONG!

If you look at my post, I am trying to discuss Willard's political record...you don't want to seem to go there. YOU try to turn the discussion by going in to attack mode against something that just isn't there. You look sheepish...

NO Dug, I was pointing out the hypocrisy...or as you understand, the pot calling the kettle black. Posters on here have insinuated bad connections with the Muslim Faith, but you didn't call them out. What is good for the goose is good for the gander, no?

I am evening the playing field, but you don't want to play fairly.

Willard is Mitt Romney's first name. Wheels and others like to focus on the President's middle name, so I thought I would focus on the Governor's first name.

There is nothing wrong with the name Willard...it is a combination of desire (Will) and strong or hard (heard). There was a horror movie in the 70s about a man obsessed by rats named Willard, is that what bothers you?

A republican president as well as a republican congress is far from a solution to America's problems but a more conservative approach without an obvious desire to bring down the American economy would be a better way to go IMO. -- Posted by Old John on Thu, May 31, 2012, at 4:20 PM

Couldn't have said it better.

prejudice - an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics.

You decide...

And yet, I have posted multiple times, positive things that President Obama has accomplished in office.

No one on here wants to discuss these points. Why is that?

Theorist, Those positive things have been discussed over and over again. Without checking I'm thinking at least one or more threads have been created for that purpose. Continuos back and forth and so on with the result of debunking all those great points.

Sad that you see accomplishment in failure.

Oh, and where do you come up with all these definitions you keep gracing us with? Do teachers have some kind of new dictionary written by dummies now days? Irrational nor hostility is behind no definition of prejustice in any of my dictionaries. :)

And hey, isn't this the thread that Theorist suggested she new how Mit Romney paid off his student loans? When do we find out how Theorist, or were you bluffing?

He wasn't a male stripper or anything was he? I'll bet that was it... he was a member of the Chippendales and Theorist recognized him. He went by the name of Windell, or Wilbur... or something like that.

Obama even had to put some political blame on Bush at his portrait unveiling today which MSNBC was sure to report. Obama is probably drawing a mustache on it now. He never misses an opportunity to get a plug in.

WHEW!!!!!!!

I meant a valid concern, Rick.

How has Obama done on jobs?

3,745,000 gained since "trough" of recession.

How Has Obama done on private-sector jobs?

4,248,000 gained since the "trough" of the recession.

26 months of private-sector job growth.

19 months of over all job growth.

Theorist,

You want to know why no one wants to discuss what you present as Obama's positive accomplishment. Besides the fact that we have discussed this to no end on this and other threads, consider this:

Obamacare, or as you prefer to call it, the Affordable Care Act

As it stands, this may or may not have positive results. My opposition is not because of my opinion of the results. It is this; a paternalistic President and administration have attempted to expand the powers of the federal government beyond Constitutional boundaries. They have used intimidation and what I consider bribery with public money to purchase the votes necessary to pass their pet legislation. You may accept this as the norm in politics. I do not. Therefore, I cannot accept this as a positive accomplishment. Details of the Constitution argument in opposition to Obamacare can be found in this paper published by the Cato Institute, if you are interested;

http://www.cato.org/publications/white-p...

Stimulus programs and the national debt:

I oppose stimulus programs first of all because my personal study of economic theories indicates to me that stimulus is a flawed theory and does not work. Even Keynesian economists teach that a nation's budget should be balanced in good times and that deficits should then be run during recessions in order to 'stimulate' the economy.

1. We have run deficits nearly every year for the past 40+ years reducing the ability of our taxpayers to carry the burden of more debt piled on their backs by 'stimulus programs'.

2. No one ever discusses how we are going to realistically pay down the national debt. Efforts to even discuss reducing the deficit are met with a firestorm of protest from the left. Interest service on the national debt is now the third largest expense in the budget. With more trillion dollar debts to come and the possibility of higher interest rates on the public debt, this burden can only increase and is in danger of spiraling out of control. This reduces our ability to meet the basic needs of the nation.

And I have not even addressed the evidence that stimulus programs seem always to go to groups and companies in which political cronies of the President seem to have control and are in position to unduly profit from the stimulus. Crony capitalism at its worst. These loan guarantees and programs seem to fail in the end leaving the taxpayer on the hook. Even as the administration supports 'green energy' programs with our stimulus programs it seems obviously to be at war with the fossil fuel industry which at this point fuels our economy. The costs of failed bail outs and stimulus along with increased energy costs threaten the survival of this jobless recovery.

Your contention that we do not discuss these 'positive accomplishments' is a specious argument. We have talked them to death and apparently agree to disagree. I only hope that these threads have served to stir interest among readers and they have chosen to do their own research into these issues.

Most of the 'positive accomplishments' of the Obama administration have come at the cost of our personal liberties. I am philosophically opposed.

Robert, you appear afraid or opposed to the Keynesian approach. That is your opinion, and I respect your reservations. However, when trying to discuss this with you earlier, you clammed up.

We do not discuss positives, I post them and everyone ignores them. Such as the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act. What do you think about that?

As far as affordable health care act, I never discuss this! Why? Because as originally drafted, it never became law. I suspect you realize this, but continue to play on the "fear of the unknown".

Small, but good, no? -- Posted by Theorist on Fri, Jun 1, 2012, at 9:41 AM

At a cost of $5 trillion in debt. I could be president and accomplish that.

Small, but no good?

Theorist,

Even as you post, the official unemployment number rises to 8.2%. Reports out today report that only 69,000 jobs were created in May, continuing a trend in which only 77,000 jobs were created in April. At present, the Dow average has lost all its gains for this year and is moving into negative territory. You can check this out on:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-01...

As the federal government expands its power and influence on the economy it becomes more and more difficult for the private economy to pull the weight of government.

How has Obama done on jobs? -- Posted by Theorist on Fri, Jun 1, 2012, at 8:45 AM

Two interesting stories out today.

1) There are 766,000 FEWER women employed today than when Obama took office.

2) Obama left DC today for six campaign fund raising events.

Rome is burning, Obama is fiddling.

Jobs LOST 2008: -3,603,000

Total jobs at end of 2008: 134,379,000

Jobs ADDED 2011: +1,840,000

Total jobs at end of 2011: 132,186,000

Jobs ADDED 2012 to date: +823,000

Total current jobs: 133,009,000

We are on a positive track...

We have no perfect people running for office in this country. All have flaws. Some are hopelessly flawed.

It is our job to pick those that are the least flawed! We owe it to our Grandchildren.

That would be my opinion.

Theorist,

Perhaps President Obama should check back on the last successful recovery from a major recession and follow President Reagan's example. His strategy worked. 823,000 jobs added in 5 months is not enough to keep up with the demands of our expanding population. The only 'strong' numbers were January through March. Since then we have been creating less than 100,000 jobs per month. Those numbers do not indicate a growing economy.

'What's important is the broader trend. Since President Obama took office, America has lost a net 740,000 jobs. But during the first 30 months of President Ronald Reagan's economic recovery, which started in December 1982, total U.S. employment increased by 8.9 million jobs.'

And the rest can be read at:

http://www.foxbusiness.com/investing/201...

The title of the article is: Lies, Damned Lies, and Government Jobs Data.

OJ, this article will answer your last question concerning the revision of monthly jobs reporting.

Statistics are useful but can be spun to 'prove' almost anything. Sometimes you have to look at the base numbers. Under Obama the civilian labor force is shrinking as many who want/need jobs are giving up and going on public assistance or working for cash on the black market.

Under Reagan we had 'morning in America'. Under Obama we cannot see the sun rise for the clouds on the horizon.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/766000-m...

766,000 More Women Unemployed Today Than When Obama Took Office

By Terence P. Jeffrey

June 1, 2012

(CNSNews.com) - The number of American women who are unemployed was 766,000 individuals greater in May 2012 than in January 2009, when President Barack Obama took office, according to data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

In January 2009, there were approximately 5,005,000 unemployed women in the United States, according to BLS. In May 2012, there were 5,771,000.

The BLS derives its employment statistics from an overall number it calls the civilian non-institutional population. This includes all Americans 16 or over who are not on active duty in the military and who are not in an institution such as a prison, mental hospital or nursing home. From this civilian non-institutional population, BLS determines a subset it calls the civilian labor force, which includes all members of the civilian non-institutional population who are either employed or have made specific efforts to find work in the past four weeks. People who are not employed and who have not sought work in the past four weeks are considered by the BLS to have dropped out of the labor force.

Unemployed people are those who are in the labor force but do not have a job--despite having looked for one in the past four weeks. The unemployment rate is the percentage of the overall civilian labor force that does not have a job--that is, who have sought a job in the past four weeks and not found one.

In January 2009, according to BLS, the unemployment rate for American women was 7.0 percent. In May 2012, it was 7.9 percent.

When Obama took office in January 2009, the female civilian non-institutional population was 121,166,000. In May 2012, it hit 125,788,000--an increase of 4,622,000 since January 2012.

However, at the same time the female civilian non-institutional population was increasing, the percentage participating in the labor force was declining--following a long-term trend. In January 2009, 59.4 percent of women participated in the labor force, while in May 2012 it was 57.8.

May's 57.8 percent female participation rate in the labor force was up from April's rate of 57.6 percent--but that level (57.6 percent) was the lowest it had been since March 1993.Female participation in the labor force peaked at 60.3 percent in April 2000. The last time it was above 60 percent was March 2001, when it hit 60.2 percent.

Despite the increase in the female non-institutional population over the past three years, the actual number of women employed in the United States in May 2012 was about 83,000 lower than it was in January 2009. In January 2009, there were 66,969,000 women employed in the United States and in May 2012 there were 66,886,000.

The number of women employed in the United States peaked at 68,102,000 in April 2008, according to BLS. The number of women employed in the United States today is 1,216,000 less than that.

BLS posts historical data on female employment going back to 1948. Since then, the female unemployment rate hit its lowest level--2.7 percent--in May 1953. At that time, however, only 34.0 percent of non-institutionalized American civilian women 16 or older participated in the labor force.

Shapley, If you would have waited a day or so to return you would have heard the native's comments about the president's words honoring the D-Day forces or lack of?

Old John,

It's not uncommon to overlook anniversaries that are not divisible by five, so his lack of words does not startle me. I was not in the Normandy region, so I suspect that the coverage and discussion of the June 6th anniversary would have been minimal.

The D-Day invasion marked the launch of an offensive, but not the end of the war, or even the conquest of the region. I do not find it surprising that a president born well after the war and raised beyond both the American and European borders would not keep the observance of the invasion uppermost in his mind. I noted earlier that the era of the warrior-president has drawn to a close. The election of the draft-dodging Mr. Clinton over former fighter-pilot Mr. Bush (and re-election over the purple-heart veteran Mr. Dole) signaled the shift of the electorate, in my humble opinion.

___________

We did sail past the Gallipoli memorial, and the Captain was kind enough to alert us to our passing of it, which occurred in the middle of the night. The memorial is well-lighted, and stands like a beacon near the tip of the penninsula.

"Romney and GOP raise more than Obama and Democrats"

http://home.myhughesnet.com/news/read.ph...

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- Mitt Romney outraised President Barack Obama in May, the first time the Republican presidential challenger has jumped ahead of Obama and his prodigious fundraising apparatus. The numbers illustrate how Romney and the Republican Party have jelled as a force after a protracted GOP primary.

"Romney and his party raised more than $76 million last month, the campaign said Thursday. Obama's campaign reported that it and the Democratic Party raised $60 million for the month.

"Obama, forced onto the defensive by lackluster employment numbers, also launched a new television ad Thursday in nine key election-year states targeting Congress and blaming lawmakers for not acting on his jobs proposals. The approach represents an expanded ad focus for Obama, who had been going after Romney."

Hence my new avatar... if it's not Bush, then it's Romney. If it's not Romney, then it's congress. If that doesn't stick with voters who's next?

Hype and Blame 2012.

-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Jun 7, 2012, at 3:21 PM

Seriously? Who are you constantly blaming...constantly...???

Seriously everyone. IF TODAY

-unemployment was at 4.5%

-gas was at $1.74 / gallon

-deficits were at least neutral

-obamacare was never passed

-the economy (housing, growth, etc.) was better than Bush

-the administration wasn't gun running in Mexico

-fiscal responsibility ruled instead of BILLIONS in failed loans

-we were respected as a nation around the world

Obama would get re-elected in a LANDSLIDE. Unfortunately for all of us - and our children - he has led this country nowhere but worse. He has failed. THAT is Obama's problem. Not Romney. Not Bush. Not Republicans or his white grandmother. HE is the problem.

Seriously? Who are you constantly blaming...constantly...???

-- Posted by Theorist on Thu, Jun 7, 2012, at 3:36 PM

Theorist,

I not going to speak for Dug... but I'm blaming the man with his hands on the controls, since January whatever 2009.

Many of the folks in the St.Louis and Sullivan area tell me the POTUS "sold them out" , whatever that means .

-- Posted by Sioux. on Thu, Jun 7, 2012, at 4:56 PM

Sioux,

If I'm not mistaken, you are tramping around in the neighborhood of the old Crown Candy Kitchen area. You ever had a sandwich and a malt there? If so have you ever managed to get a free malt by entering their little contest.?

By Neal Boortz

For those of you who may or may not be attending the Democrat convention in August, I thought you may want to take a sneak peek at the schedule.

4:00 PM Opening Flag Burning Ceremony

4:05 PM Singing of "God **** America" led by Rev. Jeremiah Wright

4:10 PM Pledge of Allegiance to Obama

4:15 PM Ceremonial 'I Hate America ' led by Michelle Obama

4:30 PM Tips on Dodging Sniper Fire, Hillary Clinton

5:00 PM UFO Abduction Survival, Joe Biden

5:30 PM Eliot Spitzer Speaks on "Family Values" via Satellite

5:45 PM Tribute to All 57 States

6:00 PM Joe Biden Delivers 100,000-Word Speech Featuring 23-Minute Question and 2-Hour Answer

8:30 PM Airing of Grievances by the Clintons

9:00 PM Bill Clinton Delivers Rousing Endorsement of Obama Girl

9:15 PM Tribute Film to Freedom Fighters at Gitmo , Michael Moore

9:45 PM Personal Finance Seminar - Charlie Rangel

10:00 PM Denunciation of Bitter Gun Owners, Rosie O'Donnell

10:30 PM Ceremonial Waving of White Flag for Iraq & Afghanistan

11:00 PM Obama Energy Plan Symposium/Tire Gauge Demonstration

11:15 PM Free Gov. Blagojevich rally

11:30 PM Obama Accepts Tony and Latin Grammy awards

11:45 PM Feeding of the Delegates with 5 Loaves and 2 Fish , Obama Presiding

12:00 AM Official Nomination of Obama by Bill Maher

12:01 AM Obama Accepts Nomination as Lord and Savior

12:05 AM Celestial Choirs Sing

3:00 AM Biden Delivers Acceptance Speech

I have an opinion...... I think the Missourian should dis-allow "copy and paste".... I know they cant but perhaps you posters could set a rule against it..

Realist, wouldn't that make directing an answer to a particular remark rather hard for the reader to figure out

The ad isn't supposed to show in Missouri. He realizes that he has a snow balls chance in **** to win Missouri. All the more reason to focus on Claire McCaskill. The rich, tax-avoiding, 100% Obama supporting liberal. She has completely ignored her constituents on Obamacare, bailouts and stimulus. She has voted lock, stock and barrel with Obama and against us. SHE is part of the reason we have another $5 TRILLION in debt since 2009.

She exercised very poor judgement when she threw Hillary Clinton under the bus early in the democrat primary and glommed on to Obama. Then Obama doesn't even win Missouri. Terrible judge of character and constituents. She's a multi-millionaire that will do just fine if she's sent home in November.

I have nothing against rich millionaires per se. Just the ones that criticize other rich millionaires, pass bills to make them pay more taxes and then don't even pay their own taxes. She supported Obama who heavily criticized "jet owners" and then McCaskill doesn't even pay her personal private plane taxes.

Good bye Claire!

"...targeting Congress and blaming lawmakers for not acting on his jobs proposals..."

There is no reason whatsoever why Congress should do anything or take any manner of action about job creation. If it fails, they get part of the blame, and if it succeeds they have to share the credit. To them, it's a lose, lose proposition. It should not be a surprise to anyone that they do not want jobs created.

Teen summer jobless rate at the lowest since WWII:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/...

This might also be "a sign" for Obama. Numerous reports that the young vote is disenchanted with him. I think he'll still win this Fall - too many on the government dole. But this news might tighten things up a bit.

It ain't Mr. Obama's fault, but he doesn't seem interested in pushing for a change.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jun 12, 2012, at 2:41 PM

Why surely you aren't asking for another law, or worse yet, government intervention in local issues???

Clarification - it's the Illinois EPA that is causing the problem. Just like the Obama administration's EPA coal rules that are killing West Virginia jobs. On the one hand you kill jobs with the Keystone pipeline and coal mining then you "pick" Solyndra and it eats up $578 million in taxpayer money and lays off 1000 employees.

No wonder he's not running on his record. And now he's going to make a speech on Thursday to clarify what he meant by "the private sector is doing fine". I hope his speech doesn't cut into sesame street or something more valuable.

The way they try to cunfuse on job growth is kind of like saying you and I are each squeezing juice from equal sized oranges. After two years I have 50% of the juice squeezed from my orange and you have 95% out of yours. In the third year you reach 98% with an additional teaspoon and I reach 60% with three more teaspoons. Thus I am ahead by two teaspoons.

Striving for full employment is like squeezing juice, the last 5% or so is the hardest.

If by some unexpected factor employment begins to rise significantly before the election, just remember the first juice is easily squeezed.

The real talent of Obama has been putting the juice back in the orange! ;)

Unfortunately, the government is making it harder for children to learn responsibility for themselves, and they seem to do it with our blessing. After work as well as summer jobs are among the best ways to teach young minds the value of personal effort.

From the Weekly Standard:

Are Americans better off than we were four years ago?

Issue:_______________________Nov 2008________Now

Unemployment Rate:____________6.8% _________ 8.2%

Labour Participation Rate:___65.8% ________ 63.8%

Total Nonfarm Employment: __135 M _________ 133 M

Federal Debt: ___________ $10.57 MM _____$15.69 MM

Federal Debt As % GDP: _____69.7 __________ 104.8

Median Household Income: __ $50.2K _______ $49.4K

Poverty Rate: _____________ 13.2% ________ 15.1%

Food Stamp Recipients: ____ 30.9 M _______ 44.7 M

Gasoline Price/Gal: _______ $2.40 _________ $3.60

Home Ownership Rate: ______ 67.8% _________ 65.4%

Americans Without Health Ins: 16% _________ 17.7%

SAT Scores: _____________502/515 _________ 497/514

New Pages In Fed. Reg: 80,700 __________ 82,419

Federal Civ. Employees: 2.67 M ___________ 2.75 M

If, as he claims, Mr. Obama 'inherited' a bad situation, the numbers seem to point to him handling it poorly. Even the things he was focused on: home ownership and health insurance, have gotten worse. Where's that list of accomplishments, again?

Obama said if he is reelected he will work with the Republicans. Or is that just another lie.

Rick, i say you stay independent and stay home come november. Then you can set back and feel sorry for yourself because Oama is president again. You are good at feeling sorry for yourself.

Obama will be re-elected again, the question will be by how much will he win. Romney is not the key or answer to any economic problem.

I Have relatives in the state of Massachusetts, Tey know for a fact that rommney drove that state into the gound financially as governor and they nor anyone else i know of would ever vote for him to do anything again to or for the United States. Romney won't even carry massachuestts at election time.

We keep who we got and work with Obama. November elections just mean we stand behind Obama just like we stood behind him before.

We keep who we got and work with Obama. November elections just mean we stand behind Obama just like we stood behind him before.

-- Posted by kcknown on Wed, Jun 27, 2012, at 2:02 PM

Sounds like Big Dawg/Caddy has resurected.

PS: Obama is not going to win in Missouri.

Dug,

If it is truly him... the bigotry will soon shine through.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Wed, Jun 27, 2012, at 6:51 PM

Maybe Posters like Common, Theorist, Ike and a few more out there could send in the "Egg Money" to kind of help out.

Beginning to sound like the Democratic Party might wind up with a big debt after November, which will be extra onerous if they do not win. Kind of hard to fund raise when you are in no position to hand out favors to contributors.

The party ban on direct contributions from corporations hurt them but now they want unions to make up the difference. A union is about the same as a corporation

Years ago I came to the conclusion that a union IS a business entity, just as a company is. The company may provide a business or a service to a voluntary customer. The union provides a service (labor) to an involuntary customer for a fee.

The union is providing basically the same service as a company such as Manpower.

rick, put down that crackpipe!

My car is 18 years old. One reason I have not bought a new car is that I have never bought a new car, never needed one. Buying used has worked out well so far but I'm beginning to wonder.

I bought a 71, 70,000 miles for $700, drove it to 168,000 and sold it for a $1,000. Then for a $1,000 I bought a 77 with 90,000 and drove it 200,000. The $3,500 91 had 50,000 and went 225,000. The 94 has 120,000 and just recently has has some failures but 30+ MPG full sized [in old terms] makes me figure I'll spend some money on it.

I may be a bit strange in that a new car has never been a path to a warm feeling up my leg. Now a new lawn mower or tractor; yeah I can get plum warm an fuzzy. :)

Wheels, Make the kids clean out that back room and put the old car in there for a while. I'm figuring it'l beat .05% in the bank.

A wise person told me once never to lose your temper, lose sleep or worry about something designed for and headed for the junk yard. He added there are a few rare execptions to the headed for the junk yard idea. :)

Rick,

He is what he is!

Speaking of ObamaCare and taxes.........How about this? The IRS gets new powers and a lot more agents to enforce Obamacare.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/government/20...

Shapley - have you seen the latest projection on the Romney VP pick? A lot of talk about Condoleeza Rice.

kcknown - gonna for for a candidate that's 100% African American? A *true* African American? Raised by African Americans?

Liberals - a new study released says we will have to work 7 months to pay for the taxes and debt Obama has run up this year. 7 months - economic slavery.

Will Obama pull the race card on Condoleeza???

"Shapley - have you seen the latest projection on the Romney VP pick? A lot of talk about Condoleeza Rice."

I've received several e-mails regarding it. I recieved a questionaire from the Romney Campaign wanting to know my preference. Not that I think they care what Shapley Hunter says, they merely expect I'll send a donation with the questionaire.

I'll give you two guesses which one goes in the trash if I do... :)

-- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Fri, Jul 13, 2012, at 8:23 AM

Swamp - not sure what you mean. If that's Romney's pick then Romney will be dividing the country even worse?

The VP pick is tough even though a VP has little to no role in an administration. Thank God for that when you look at Biden.

Condoleeza Rice is hugely qualified, experienced, professional and smarter than Obama and Biden combined by two. I saw a documentary on a crisis with Russia and the US over their invasion of Georgia. In the documentary the Russian secretary of state was furious that Rice stood up to him and basically kicked him in the shins over the crisis. She was strong.

Compare that to Obama today. The world is in one of it's most dangerous periods for one reason and one only - weak leadership from the US. Even our allies don't know where we stand. Definite memories of Jimmy Carter.

.... we stand behind Obama just like we stood behind him before.

-- Posted by kcknown on Wed, Jun 27, 2012, at 2:02 PM

Sounds like a man with a lot of mice in his pockets, all this "we". ... and they nor anyone else i know of would ever vote for him..

I take it you've never met Jack. :)

I heard 'they' are so desperate, 'they' are registering dead dogs to vote. We, mice, dead dogs, etc. 'bama needs all the help he can get.

Btw, now that I think about it, "behind" him might be the best position to be in with him. Especially considering his "coming out" in favor of same sex "marriage", so called. (wink, wink).

The Obama campaign is preparing a pre-emptive strike against Mr. Romney's VP choice, regardless of who it may be.

http://home.myhughesnet.com/news/read.ph...

"The president's campaign started swinging at the potential Republican running mates this week while urging home-state Democrats to chime in about the shortcomings that -- as emails to donors and supporters put it -- "Americans need to know." The pre-emptive strikes are an effort to define a possible No. 2 in a negative light and reflect a sense that time is precious to sway opinion in a stubbornly close presidential race dashing quickly toward November.

"Tim Pawlenty? The former Minnesota governor is a fee-raiser whose record "is painful for the middle-class families who lived under his leadership," the Obama campaign argues.

"Rob Portman? The Ohio senator is "one of the architects of the top-down Bush budget" that the Obama team blames for "crashing our economy."

"Marco Rubio? The rookie Florida senator has "led the way on almost every extreme position Mitt Romney has embraced," according to the missive that seeks examples of "the good, the bad and ugly" of Rubio.

"Chris Christie? There's "no lack of material to work with" about the pugnacious New Jersey governor.

"Bobby Jindal? The Louisiana governor and former congressman tried to harm Social Security and Medicare and "had the same issues with secrecy and lack of transparency as Mitt Romney"."

_____________

Of course, it takes only two words to counter any such attack: "Joe Biden"...

I'm sure they've analyzed her, too. But I think she has said she doesn't want the job.

That alone makes her smarter than the average 'Joe'...

Somebody's probably used it before, but it was original on my part, in that I've not seen it used before. :)

" Of course , this "official" announcement will be more fodder for distractions .

-- Posted by Easy Moneys on Thu, Aug 9, 2012, at 2:39 PM"

Of course by 'distractions', you mean, meaningful discussions?(heavy sarcasm)

There's a greater likelihood for me to be struck by lightning right out of my avatar than there is will get a descent POTUS.

Wheels likens the situation to a child's puzzle. There's wisdom in that statement.

The sooner Romney makes an announcement regarding his VP , the sooner his opponents will be a pack of attacking wolves , digging mud everywhere to throw .

-- Posted by Easy Moneys on Thu, Aug 9, 2012, at 5:16 PM

Rick,

If it follows the path of the Republican Primary, that is exactly what will happen. In the primary, just as soon as a candidate got a couple of percentage points above the back the Dems were on top of it like a pack of wolves on red meat. And the Schoolmarm was right in there with the rest of the dogs.

Truth hurts doesn't Wheels...and you just can't bring yourself to believe it! I know, I was there with President Clinton. I was so mad at him, morally, but he ran the country correctly.

Not in spite of....I didn't find out about Monica until after he was elected to his second term. Would I have voted for him if I knew? I doubt it...

From a new book with INSIDERS in the Obama team contributing. The latest view inside the mind of Obama - a classless, unprofessional president. The passage from the book coming out soon:

"Obama's trash-talking competitiveness, a trait that has defined him since his days on the court as a basketball-obsessed teenager in Hawaii, was on display one night last February, when the president spotted a woman he knew was close to Sen. Marco Rubio in a Florida hotel lobby. "Is your boy going to go for [vice president]?" the president asked her. Maybe, she replied.

"Well," he said, chuckling, according to a person who witnessed the encounter. "Tell your boy to watch it. He might get his *** kicked."

Mr. "we need to be more civil".

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/081...

-- Posted by dchannes on Mon, Aug 20, 2012, at 1:48 PM

"Well" - I would definitely make sure you didn't get struck by lightning. For everything to go out like that it sounds like it. And then there's that homeowner's insurance you've been paying for! :-)

http://panafricannews.blogspot.com/2012/...

"Few predict that Barack Obama will generate the Black turnout that propelled him to victory in 2008. "A small but growing number" of Black former Obama enthusiasts "have grown weary of the charade and know they have been played for fools." Race pride motivated them the first time around, but that is harder to muster for "a man who never saw them as anything more than saps who would vote for him no matter what he said or did."

"Black Americans' devotion to Barack Obama during his 2008 run for the presidency was unparalleled in American political history. From the moment he won the Iowa caucus and proved that white people would vote for him, any and all questions or concerns raised about Obama were promptly forgotten. The opportunity to see a black president created a level of enthusiasm previously unseen, and unfortunately a blind devotion too. A group of reliably progressive people changed their political religion and coalesced nearly unanimously around the only kind of person the system will allow to compete, a corporatist and imperialist with no inclination to put black people anywhere on the agenda of the day.

"On Election Day in November 2008, the black turnout for Obama was so huge that he won states like Indiana, North Carolina and Virginia, states which had not voted for Democratic presidential candidates in decades. That level of turnout meant that thousands of black voters who had either never voted before or hadn't voted in many years came out to the polls with the goal of putting Obama in office.

"The downside of that phenomenon is that those people who were previously disengaged from the system still have no reason to be engaged four years later. Their motive was race pride, albeit for a man who has only a passing, academic connection to their life experiences and who never saw them as anything more than saps who would vote for him no matter what he said or did.

"Now that Obama has been president for nearly four years, the bloom is off the rose, as well as the inclination to excuse his dismissal of the black community. These days any defense of the Obama administration consists of little more than protecting him from the likes of Donald Trump and Rush Limbaugh, and not because he has done anything for the millions of people who were so devoted to him.

"The fantasies of black life created by centuries of oppression were made real when Barack Obama become president. Many powerful longings were met at the sight of Obama on Air Force One wearing his POTUS jacket or knowing that the black first lady's fashion sense was admired by white people. The Obamas have presided over state dinners and met the queen of England and the Pope in Rome. These images meant a great deal to people whose very right to exist and live in this country has been precarious at the very least.

"But now the thrill has diminished considerably. The novelty of seeing the Obamas in places previously reserved for white people has worn off, and while the numbers of black people willing to publicly criticize Obama may still be small, the level of disappointment has grown. In November 2012 it is almost certain that black turnout will be lower. The depth of Obama love was bereft of political ideology to begin with, and the flimsy rationales are visibly threadbare.

"The self-delusion has come to a head. In 2008 Obama critics were advised to "hold his feet to the fire" after he got into office. The more honest Obama lovers admitted that they wanted to see a black man in office, and had no intention of holding his feet to fire or anything else. Now a small but growing number have grown weary of the charade and know they have been played for fools. While the Obama win at any cost mantra was the directive, a desire remains for black people to have the same political expectations that other groups do.

"The LGBT community has seen an end to the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy and an expression of support for marriage equality. The Jewish community has seen no change in the pro-Israeli policies advocated by every president since the state of Israel was founded. When black people dare to ask for any acknowledgement of their political aspirations the president tells them, publicly and pointedly, to stop complaining.

"If seeing a black man sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office was the goal, it has been reached. The apathetic can now go happily back to being apathetic. If Barack Obama wins a second term it won't be because of high turnout in Gary, Cleveland, Richmond, or Charlotte. It will be because the Republicans have shot themselves in both feet with white women voters who will not put up with openly sexist appeals for votes from right wingers.

"It is possible for Barack Obama to win a second term, but even in victory his mandate will be diminished. The people who were inspired to go to the polls 2008 will not show up in the same numbers. The discontent will be largely unspoken, but the results won't lie. Even Barack Obama can't fool all the people all the time."

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php...

"In 2008, the Obama campaign represented "Hope and Change" and inspired millions of voters to pull the lever for the unknown man from Illinois. At his campaign rallies, it was commonplace to see supporters fainting, overcome with raw emotion. Obama's 2008 campaign was fueled by an amazing combination of energy and optimism rarely seen in American politics.

"In the 2008 election, it was our nation's chance to elect our first African American as President. It was a strike against the sins of slavery and racism in America's past and a way to launch our country toward a bright future of racial harmony and progress.

"What a difference four years makes! Gone are the lofty goals and the inspired rhetoric. Instead we have the stark reality of a failed presidency. Regarding race relations, the President has not united Americans; he has set them against each other. He ushered in more racial division than any president in recent history. For example, Obama has needlessly inserted himself in controversies such as the Trayvon Martin case and the arrest of Professor Gates in Cambridge, Massachusetts. His Justice Department refused to prosecute club wielding Black Panthers captured on video intimidating voters in Pennsylvania, while his Attorney General had the audacity to lecture the nation about supposed institutionalized racism.

"On the important issue of the economy, his stewardship has been horrific. The President has presided over an increase of $5 trillion in our national debt. Throughout his term, there has been a depression in the housing industry, a weak jobs picture and a sky high trade deficit.

"This will be the first President ever to be responsible for an overall decline in total employment with an increase in the unemployment rate. While the unemployment rate showed a slight decrease to 8.1% last month, it meant almost nothing since the overall picture is so grim. The last jobs report showed more Americans are leaving the workforce altogether. The labor force participation rate is the lowest rate since December 1981. Almost one million Americans are so discouraged they have stopped looking for work.

"On the energy issue, the President speaks constantly of the need for alternative sources of energy. He wants to limit production of fossil fuels and raise taxes on the oil and gas industry. Post BP oil spill, the President limited production in the Gulf of Mexico with his misguided moratorium and a slow, arduous permitting process remains in place even today.

"The results are not surprising. While gasoline prices are down a little in the last few weeks, it still costs more than double today at the pump than it did on the day the President was inaugurated.

"With these troubles, it is no wonder than the latest Real Clear Politics poll average shows that 60% of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track. Americans have seen the direction the President has taken our country in the past 40 months and it is not something millions of Americans want to experience for another four years.

"In Tuesday's primary election in West Virginia, 41% of Democrats expressed their displeasure with Obama by voting for Keith Judd, otherwise known as a convicted felon, federal inmate number 11593-051. Even though he is in a federal prison in Texarkana, Texas, Judd paid a filing fee and his name appeared on the ballot. This was not the only embarrassing result for Obama; approximately 20% of Democratic voters in other Southern states such as Oklahoma and Alabama have voted against Obama in favor of unknown opponents.

"Presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney is not an ideal candidate to take advantage of this discontent and oppose Obama, but he does represent at least some sort of improvement over warmed over socialism. It is no surprise that he is leading President Obama in the latest Rasmussen poll by a margin of 49-44%.

"Four years ago, Barack Obama was considered a "rock star" by millions of smitten Americans. Today, many of those same people view him as just another politician. Four years ago, he filled a stadium in Ohio with 36,000 screaming fans during a campaign stop. On Saturday, his re-election campaign was launched in front of an Ohio crowd of only 10,000 that barely filled half the seats in the arena.

"The President likes to sing Al Green songs in public, anything to capture attention. In this election, many Americans will have the immortal words of the B.B. King classic on their minds when they go to the polls, "The thrill is gone away.....I'm free from your spell, I'm free, free now"."

" I would not buy one of their products if Sarah Palin was advertising them in her birthday suit."

Wheels, are you saying you wouldn't, at least, give the Palin commercial a cursory glance? :)

The actor that does the GM commercial is Dennis Haysbert, of the T.V. show "The Unit", and he looks nothing like Obama. Aside from the fact that they are both dark complected, Haysbert is much darker than is Obama. He's bigger and their facial features completely different, also.

Check it out:

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

"GM is going downhill again"

Rick,

I don't think that is going to surprise anyone. We are going to lose our investment in them. Maybe Obama can give that worthless stock to the Chinese at full value aa a partial payment on what we owe them. Then they can move all of their crap over there.

Rick... did you get the e-mail I sent?

These compositions that you posted are singularly unimpressive due to the lack of any kind of discussion of cause and effect. They appear to be a litany of complaints and whimpering about how things did not miraculously change the instant President Obama was inaugurated. All I read on these lengthy SH posts is the same right wing talking points that appear continuously from Speak Out regulars. It would be extraordinarily unexpected for some of these individuals to actually consider why things have developed the way they have.

For example, the first post from the panafrican news goes into great detail in all the things that the President has supposedly not done for African-Americans. Did anyone (except possibly the blog author) actually expect that the President would spent his entire term finding ways to "do things" for blacks at the expense of everyone else. And of course they can out and voted for him in record numbers, why would they have come out in record numbers and voted for Senator McCain.

President Obama's accomplishments in extending unemployment, supporting education, temporarily rolling back payroll tax rates, increasing Medicaid eligibility and various other social programs have all helped black Americans, but not only black Americans, he did it for all Americans. If the panafrican news is expecting and waiting for a "blacks only" initiative, they probably won't find one.

The second rant from Canada is even more solidly right wing/conservative marketing sprinkled with a substantial amount of disinformation. The most striking repetitive accusation is that of the President's administration being a "failed presidency." This begs the question of what did you expect? Was the failure one of not balancing the budget the first year? Was it not adding back the 8 million or so jobs lost earlier? Was it not allowing the financial and auto industries to go down dragging the rest of the country along? Was it not pursuing bin Laden? Was it the stock market plunging to all time lows? Was it staying in Iraq? Was it allowing the health insurance industry to continue to charge more for less service?

The only failures I have seen is that the economy and jobs have not grown as fast as expected and the cooperation and compromise within Congress never materialized to the extent that President Obama had desired. These failures were foreseen by the President at the start of his administration when he admitted that not "fixing problems" could result in his being a one-term president. Clearly the slow growth of the economy and lack of jobs are still serious issues. And it may well be that President Obama may not win re-election because of them. But if you actually examine why the economy is slow, you might find that a serious and debilitating absence of Congress and the administration working together is the leading cause.

A favorite complaint of republicans is that the President refused to compromise. What they continuously and constantly ignore is that denial of cooperation was their primary goal from the start.

"All I read on these lengthy SH posts is the same right wing talking points that appear continuously from Speak Out regulars."

But the sources of the post are not right-wing regulars. These are not Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, or Breitbart making the claim.

All of the posts, in case you overlooked it, is that 'the thrill is gone'. The recurring thread in those links is the same - large numbers of people voted for Mr. Obama because the 'thrill' of accomplishment was anticipated:

The first black president would make major strides in repairing race relations - but the opposite has happened. The nation is more polarized along racial lines than ever. Mr. Obama is only 'black' when it comes to denouncing opposition to his policies - such opposition can be denounced as being racist thus avoiding any discussion of the merits or demerits of the policy.

Having a Democrat president with a Democrat Congress would mean the passage of meaningful legislation for the betterment of people's lives - but life has not gotten better, it has gotten worse.

The Democrats denounced the excess spending of Mr. Bush, yet Mr. Obama's deficit spending has exceeded his every year he has been in office. Nor has he provided a plan to restore fiscal sanity.

The Democrats attacked Mr. Bush for proposing to weaken Social Security and Medicare, yet Mr. Obama has cut the payroll taxes that fund it and raided Medicare to pay for Obamacare.

The fact is, the thrill is gone for many of Mr. Obama's supporters. The 'hope and change' he promised has been more of the same - continuing military incursions into other nations, continued (or rather accelerated) deficit spending, more cronyism, more corruption, more dishonesty and obfuscation, and more partisanship.

The young people who flocked to the polls in hopes of change are now singing the old Who lyrics: "Hey, look at the new boss. Same as the old Boss". Will they get fooled again? Some, but the articles I posted suggest not in the numbers by which they were fooled the first time.

The Canada Free Press article by Jeff Crouere, who I assume is American since he referred to "our President," contains more misinformation than information, and is distinctive only by its lack of factual and causal particulars. Perhaps Mr. Crouere, if he writes in Canada, can be excused for being out of touch.

For example, Mr. Crouere apparently has little knowledge of how Congress works. When he expresses an opinion, "Instead we have the stark reality of a failed presidency," he neglects the fact that "failures" are attributable as much or more to Congress. He seems oblivious to the reality of Congressional procedures, where even a minority in the Senate can effectively block progress and valid compromise. Plus he ignores the numerous successes of the administration in financial and industrial rescues, military action and improvements in health care insurance.

When Mr. Crouere falsely asserts that the President has "...ushered in more racial division than any president in recent history..." he has nothing to back up his claim other than lame mentions of President Obama's involvement in minor racially based incidents. He clearly would have the opposite complaints if the President had ignored the same incidents.

His points on energy are equally unsound. The supposed "limit on production of fossil fuels" does not recognize the fact that production is higher now than it has been in the past 10 years. Furthermore while in some locations the price of gas may be "...double today at the pump than it did on the day the President was inaugurated," he is clearly not aware the highest price (over $4 per gallon) locally was in 2008. Gas prices fluctuate, a fact that Mr. Crouere is not cognizant of.

Finally when he states "...that 60% of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track," he does not make any attempt to analyze that poll result. While the economy is growing and job creation has been positive for months, the "right direction" would clearly be faster growth in both jobs and the economy. Credit for "wrong track" polling should very obviously be shared by Congress and the administration. Congress can shirk their responsibility to get things done for Americans, but they cannot shrug off taking credit for that. The country is forging ahead slowly, and certainly not going backward.

"...he neglects the fact that "failures" are attributable as much or more to Congress."

In other words, in typical Obamaspeak, "It's somebody else's fault". Buck passing has been the hallmark of Mr Obama's presidency, and is a sign of it's failure.

I would point out that the Democrats did, and continue to, repeatedly speak of the 'failed Bush presidency'. Are you saying the government worked differently four years ago?

"He clearly would have the opposite complaints if the President had ignored the same incidents."

How do you derive that knowledge? What in his posts supports your contention that he would 'clearly' act any particular way if the situation were different?

"The supposed "limit on production of fossil fuels" does not recognize the fact that production is higher now than it has been in the past 10 years."

Production on federal lands is at a nine-year low, however.

"http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2012/03/15/fossil-fuel-production-on-federal-lands-at-9-year-low/"

"he is clearly not aware the highest price (over $4 per gallon) locally was in 2008."

How do you know of what he is aware? How does the fact that the price has been higher alter the truth of the statement that the price of fuel was double on that day at the pump what it was on the day the President was inaugurated"?

"Gas prices fluctuate, a fact that Mr. Crouere is not cognizant of."

Again, you assume to know of what the author is cognizant. How do you know what he knows?

I should point out that the high price of fuel was used as a rallying point against Mr. Bush. Remember the bumper stickers regarding the price of gas when Mr. Bush took office? Is that which is sauce for the goose not also sauce for the gander?

"Finally when he states...that 60% of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track," he does not make any attempt to analyze that poll result."

How does he incur an obligation to do that? The statistic, like most statistics, is what it is, as they say. He has no more right to guess what Americans mean when they say the country is on the wrong track than you have to say you know of what he is cognizant.

"Credit for "wrong track" polling should very obviously be shared by Congress and the administration."

They guy at the top takes the blame. That's what we were told about Mr. Bush, and the same holds true of Mr. Obama. As a famous Democrat once said, "The buck stops here". He used to have a sign to that effect on the very desk from which Mr. Obama now seeks to pass the buck...

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/12/...

While the Obama administration is trying to take credit for the increase in oil and gas production, and the decline in imports of those products, industry analysts disagree:

"But independent analysts attribute much of the fall in oil imports to slack U.S. demand in a still-anemic economy. And to a certain degree, they say, the boost in domestic oil and gas production is the result of decisions energy companies made during the George W. Bush administration to develop key reservoirs."

Fracing, which has been facing much opposition by environmentalists, has contributed much to the increase in production both of oil and of natural gas.

I'm not aware that we have stock-piles of natural gas. We have proved reserves, which are being tapped to meet current demand.

http://ir.eia.gov/ngs/ngs.html

Current inventory stands at about 3.2 trillion cubic feet. Our annual consumption is about 24 trillion cubic feet, which means we have an on-hand supply of about 1 1/2 months. That ain't a lot.

Proved reserves mean only natural gas that we know are in the ground and recoverable. Proved reserves have to be tapped and they have to be processed and transported. The number of those reserves is increasing, which is good. They are increasing because increasing demand and costs have increased the value of those reserves to the point it is now profitable to extract them. If inventories were accumulating and doing nothing, the price would be dropping, not rising.

I can assure you natural gas companies would not be spending millions for drilling, millions for land leases, and millions for processing natural gas that will only 'sit and do nothing'.

"Was it not adding back the 8 million or so jobs lost earlier?"

A bit more revisionism on your part. While it is true that non-farm payroll fell from a pre-Pelosi high of about 137 million in 2007 to about 233 million, or 4 million employees, by January of 2009, the bulk of the job losses occurred after Mr. Obama took office, reaching a low of around 129 million in January-February of 2010. While they recovered slightly until May of 2010, they began falling again, prompting fears of a 'double-dip recession', until near the end of the Pelosi era, recovering rather steadily from August 2010 until now, standing now just about where they stood in January of 2009.

This is reported to be the slowest recovery in U.S. history.

common: I would be willing to bet that if Romney wins the election, the reupub congress will pass Obama's jobs bill that has been laying in the house since Sept 2011, during the lame duck session. What do you think.

Oh Dug, Obammy is a great leader! (If you don't mind being lead off of a cliff).

"That seems to imply that the "right direction" would be slower or negative growth in the economy and jobs. I do not see it as a stretch in any way to view faster growth as the right direction."

No. That wasn't the question. The question was simply do they see the country moving in the right direction, and you presumed to know that the answer to that question lied in economic numbers. The economy is not the top issue to every person, particularly when asked about the direction of the country. They may be pleased with the economic recovery and yet still think the country is headed in the wrong direction because of such things as moral decline, war, growth of government, loss of freedom, or the number of dogs and cats roaming the streets.

I don't presume to know why people think the country is headed in the direction they think it headed, but you seem to do so.

Wheels: We don't need a gift for knowing what you think. You spell it out. Not always right, not always wrong.

Out yesterday - an analysis of incomes/inflation/unemployment since 2009. Things have gotten much worse since Obama has been in office. Income contraction and record unemployment. Read it here (a good concise read) - most is government statistics:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-23...