Former George W. Bush adviser Karl Rove on Sarah Palin:
"It is a sign of enormous thin skin that if we speculate about her, she gets upset. And I suspect if we didn't speculate about her, she'd be upset and try and find a way to get us to speculate about her ... I'm mystified."
No mystery here, Karl. Palin possesses the emotional and intellectual development of a high school junior prom queen.
Run, Sarah, run.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
112 comments:
So if agree with Rove's assessment of Palin, will you agree with his assessment of President Obama?
possesses the emotional and intellectual development of a high school junior prom queen.
The perfect way to market your reality TV life? Yes.
This isn't about politics, it's about RATINGS.
DNC talking point must have just come out, as their attack machine (Dave Duyba's Freedom Rant) gears up for a possible Palin announcement of her running for President.
Interesting, you go back and forth between The Rant by Tom Degan and here and you can tell who in the GOP is leading or might throw their hat into the ring.
You see, when you cant run on your own candidate's record (Obama's), you have to tear down anyone who might run against him. So far the polls do not indicate this tactic is working.
You got that right, MYSTERY SOLVED! (
The Hill) — Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Ky.) slammed President Obama’s promise that the stimulus package would deliver lower unemployment rates as “the stupidest thing that basically any administration probably ever said” in an interview Wednesday with WFPL News.
“I think if you asked them now they will say that was the stupidest thing that basically any administration probably ever said because that’s not something they can necessarily control,” Yarmuth said.
Yarmuth said that while the stimulus plan has worked, the president has been unable to market that success.
“It didn’t fail, it actually did what it was supposed to do,” Yarmuth said. “Without it there’d be, most economists agree, about 3 percentage points more in unemployment rate, but he needs to believe in his plan and he needs to get out and sell it forcefully. [...] He needs to contrast it with the proposals that are coming from the other side politically — basically cut taxes and get out of the way — and that hasn’t worked.”
Yarmuth joins a chorus of Democratic lawmakers who have been highly critical of Obama’s messaging on unemployment and the stimulus package.
Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) called the president’s assurances “dumb” and complained last August that Democrats and Obama had been saddled with a “false prediction.”
“President Obama, whom I greatly admire . . . when the economic recovery bill — we’re supposed to call it the ‘recovery bill,’ not the ‘stimulus’ bill; that’s what the focus groups tell us — he predicted or his aides predicted at the time that if it passed, unemployment would get under 8 percent,” Frank said. “That was a dumb thing to do.”
@Free,
This isn't about politics, it's about RATINGS.
I think his ratings are very high. I visit the site several times a day, as I believe you do also.
What keeps me coming back is the political discussion. hmm.
Just The FOX(R),
If Rove’s assessment of Obama was as correct as his one of Palin, I would agree with him. And I was responding to Rove, not the DNC. How did you fabricate such a connection? Palin will not run, she’s too busy seeking attention and cash from chumps who fall for her BS.
Free,
You’re right; it’s not really politics at the core for Palin. For her, it is all about getting cash, and attention to feed her ego.
Anon,
Yes, because the stimulus was gutted by the tax cuts demanded by Republicans it was less successful than it would have been. It is no mystery that Republicans would let the country suffer for their own political advantage. Greed first, country second is how they operate.
'Yes, because the stimulus was gutted by the tax cuts demanded by Republicans it was less successful than it would have been."
Support please, your statement.
Explain please why if govt spending and govt employment is the answer, why do we need private business?
JT FOX(R),
If you bother to read the cut and paste, you'd see my statement is supported in the article.
Otherwise it is supported by this thing called reality.
I know I get a tingle every time Obama reads a speech. I was worried it was the precursor to a stroke though.
God knows he seems to have that effect on the economy and the stock market!
God disagrees with you Mr. Paine. God knows what the Tea Party did, and if He existed, He would exact his revenge on all their children.
His! Forgive me. Not his, His.
Yeah, TP. Everything is now all Obama's fault.
Sorry, his damage has not, repeat not, exceeded your Decider's damage. The tax cuts, Medicare giveaway to Pharma, bailouts, and trumped up war is way more than Obama has spent.
His largest spending was intended to alleviate the Bush damage, and it partially succeeded. At least my road was paved and people were paid to do it.
That recovery effort provided far more jobs than the non-existent tax-cuts-for-the-rich "jobs" they lied about.
And still they keep repeating the lie expecting dumb frightened Americans to fall for the treachery again and again.
The lies of the Right have never produced jobs. Zero jobs were created stimulated, or even proposed by Republicans in the House, except for maybe a few cronies.
The Republicans are doing their best to prevent job growth. They only want profit growth. Their “values” go no further. They prove it repeatedly.
Yup, every thing IS now Obama's fault, along with the liberals in charge and those fools who voted for him.
Obama said it himself if he didn't get the unemployment under 8% he didn't deserve to be reelected. Wonder how that's gonna happen, oh I know, a new govt dept, the Dept of Jobs. LOL!!
Don't give me that crap that it's the Tea Party's fault, this debt issue could have been addressed by the DEMS who had SUPER majority's in the House and Senate before 1/1/2011. But they lacked the balls to raise taxes until after they passed this wonderful Obamacare we got coming at us faster than the increase in our debt on a daily basis. Wonder who's gonna pay for that wonderful piece of rancid afterbirth? Bet it wont be the people who aren't paying any Federal Income Taxes now. So who will that leave? Just more of sharing the pain, huh?
Nope, you got no one to blame but Obama and his super majority House and Senate for their FAILURE to do the things then when they could have. After all, if raising taxes on the rich now is such a great idea, why didn't Obama and his legions of liberals do it when they had unchecked power?
Sheeeee-it! The COnservatives and Teapublicans still trot out Jimmy Carter and blame him, listing him as the worst American in history.
The entire Deficit is sitting in Iraq and Afghanistan, the jobs ballon traces back to Reagan and Pro-Business Clinton and the off-shoring off jobs and in-sourcing of workers to undercut the American worker.
But, for conservatives it's just easier to blame the black guy in the White House now, because otherwise it would require facing the edifice of delusions they've built up inside their minds.
A spectre is haunting Europe and the USA — the spectre of communism and the New World Order. All the powers of old Europe and the USA have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Pope and Tsar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals, German police-spies, Rick Perry and the Koch Brother's Astro Turf Tea Party.
Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as communistic by its opponents in power? Where is the opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of communism, against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries?
Two things result from this fact:
I. Communism is already acknowledged by all European powers and Obama and his czars to be itself a power.
II. It is high time that Communists including Jefferson's Guardian, Ellis D., Tom Degan, and Dave W. should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the Spectre of Communism with a manifesto of the party itself.
To this end, Communists of various nationalities have assembled in London and www.blogger.com and have sketched the following manifesto, to be published in the English, French, German, Italian, Flemish and Danish languages.
Grung_e_Gene
ERROR #1 Jimmy Carter, no one is blaming Carter for today's mess, what is happening is his administration is being compared to Obama's mess. The similarities are striking.
ERROR #2 "The entire Deficit is sitting in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Wrong, it's that"endless War on Poverty" that is causing the deficit.
ERROR #3 "For conservatives it's just easier to blame the black guy in the White House now."
Ok, I'll blame Jimmy Carter, he's not a black guy, if you want to make this an issue of race, I guess I have no choice but to blame Carter.
BREAKING NEWS: President Obama has just confirmed that the DC earthquake occurred on a rare and obscure fault-line, apparently known as "Bush's Fault". Obama also announced that the Secret Service and Maxine Waters continue an investigation of the quake's suspicious ties to the Tea Party. Conservatives however have proven that it was caused by the founding fathers rolling over in their graves.
Just the Facts! Yes your political side does in fact bring up Jimmy Carter and lay many of the nation's ills on him. I included a link from last year in which Carter, Obama and FDR are labeled as the 3 worst Americans in history.
Second, Marco Rubio blamed Social Security for weakening us as a Nation/People. 70 years later. Ever wonder what branch of the military Rubio served in?
Third, The amount of money spent in the last decade for the Phony GWOT and on the Department of "Defense" exceeds 10 Trillion dollars. The entire deficit is the fault of the last 10 years of which Bush was in charge for 8.
As always, conservatives lie.
Totally not Racist conservatives:
Not Racist
Not Racist, wife
grunge e gene
how much money has been spent on the "War on Poverty" with results causing more people to be dependent on the government along with more bureaucrats to run the system and feed at the trough at taxpayer expense?
What has the Dept of Energy and Dept of Education produced besides more dependency of foreign energy and lower test scores of the children?
I'm hoping the Seinfeld Soup Nazi has lost power from Irene so he can't delete my opposing viewpoint lol!
Publius thank you for illustrating my point for me. The Right has no figures for how much has been spent on the war on poverty so, big lying Republican gasbags say 'WE'VE SPENT TOO MUCH ON THESE WELFARE QUEENS!!!' and allow conservatives to fill in a number in their head.
There are actual figures which show President Bush inherited a surplus and left office with a staggering deficit, He spent wildly, did not budget for the wars and ended up sticking his successor with the bills.
It's a standard move by Republicans, spend wildly when in office (on theft and graft) and when a Democrat takes the office stick him with the budget austerity bills.
Grung_e_Gene
"I included a link from last year in which Carter, Obama and FDR are labeled as the 3 worst Americans in history."
And your point is?
Second point, what the heck does that have do with anything you posted earlier, focus man, focus! Unless you're using the Obama reelection machine tactic to attack any member of the GOP that makes the headlines in an attempt to avoid having to run on Obama's record. If so, I'm pretty sure you got your talking points from watching the Ed Schultz show.
And the "endless" War on Poverty, how much has it and is it costing us?
I left this one Anonymous comment here as an object lesson in how fascist the radical Right is in our country. They are dangerous to our safety, democracy and freedom.
The Anonymous hate filled, paranoid gibberish is a classic example of Amerikan Fascism. As I’ve always said, and they’ve always proven me correct, they need to call pro-democracy liberals communists. So did their mentors in 1930’s Germany. There is no “communist new world order” except in the delusional minds of fanatics. There is an expanding global corporatist influence on most of the world’s governments, but they cannot see or acknowledge that.
As I’ve amply illustrated, democracy itself is their enemy. They hate liberals because we advocate democracy. This is exactly what fascism sounds like.
Just The FOX(R),
You’re right. Obama and the Democrats’ majority largely failed to do what was needed. They were set to fail because of their corporatist nature and the Republican efforts to ensure that failure, even to the detriment of our country. (Greed and power first, country second is how they operate.)
This is why the mess Bush left us is still here.
If raising taxes on the rich now is such a great idea, why didn't Obama and his legions of liberals do it when they had unchecked power?
This question illuminates your radical Rightist bias, ignorance, and false perspective as much as any comment you’ve made. You are so far to the extreme Right that moderate and corporatist politicians look like liberals to you. I will put this as simply as I can for you. Liberals have not been in charge with a sufficient majority to make any progressive changes in over forty years. Bush has sunk our nation further than anybody.
Since you missed it, I’ll say it again:
Your Decider's economic damage by tax cuts, Medicare giveaway to Pharma, bailouts, and trumped up war is way more than Obama has spent. That is a simple fact, pal.
His largest spending was intended to alleviate the Bush damage, and it partially succeeded. At least my road was paved and people were paid to do it.
That recovery effort provided far more jobs than the non-existent tax-cuts-for-the-rich "jobs" they lied about. Ignorance is bliss for you so will ignore this.
Also, remember when I told you extremist Righties love to emulate fascists and call me a commie? See the Anonymous troll above. Or was that you? Happens all the time. I was right, wasn’t I?
Now it’s your turn. I have one question for you, FOX(R). Where are the jobs that resulted from the Bush tax cuts?
HR gave us a muddle of stats that only showed Bush had higher unemployment levels in every year in office than what was left by Clinton in 2000.
I answered your question. Your turn. Tell us how those tax cuts made everything better and didn’t add to the debt. Since you know it all, it’s now your turn to prove it.
Gene,
So far the only Righties with the guts and honesty to admit Bush is even a tiny bit at all to blame for our problems are TP and Free. But their hatred for Obama overshadows their mild disappointment in Bush. They remain true believers.
Did you know not one conservative Right Winger is racist? How do I know that? That’s what they tell me. They would never be dishonest. Racists never lie, right?
Just the Facts! has already lost. Can't wait to see the vitriol you exude when Obama wins in 2012.
Hey Dave Dubya
"I left this one Anonymous comment here as an object lesson in how fascist the radical Right is in our country. They are dangerous to our safety, democracy and freedom."
Don't you know that the Anonymous post @ August 27, 2011 9:59 AM is a parody on the Preamble of Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto? Maybe you just need to loosen up a little! Senator McCarthy won't be issuing a subpoena for you to stand trial for your progressive beliefs.
http://www.wavygravy.net/
"Liberals have not been in charge with a sufficient majority to make any progressive changes in over forty years."
Bull shit,then how did Obama care get passed?
Not Wavy Gravy,
I'll lighten up when you guys get honest.
I'm beginning to think only radical Rightists read Marx, and Alinsky for that matter, these days in order to conflate their prejudiced views of liberals with communists. Isn't that why you say it is "parody"?
I never even heard of Alinsky until I was told I was one of his "followers". Of course, only the cult followers of RepubliCON CONservatism ever make such absurd statements.
It happens all the time.
Just The FOX(R),
No BS. But you are clueless.
Here's a hint. The health care law is NOT liberal legislation. It is corporatist legislation written by corporatist politicians and other representatives of corporate interests. Insurance companies were "at the table" in its creation and their stock rose when it passed. These are the facts, Bub.
Medicare for all would be liberal.
You are ignoring my question.
Where are the jobs those tax cuts created? Show us how the cuts did not add to the debt.
Come on, tough guy. Here's your chance to shine.
Hey Dave Dubya,
"I'm beginning to think only radical Rightists read Marx, and Alinsky for that matter, these days in order to conflate their prejudiced views of liberals with communists. Isn't that why you say it is "parody"?
I never even heard of Alinsky until I was told I was one of his "followers". Of course, only the cult followers of RepubliCON CONservatism ever make such absurd statements."
Let me then enlighten you about Alinsky. Hillary Rodham Clinton wrote her senior thesis ‘There Is Only the Fight...’: An Analysis of the Alinsky Model." at Wellesley College. Slick Willie made sure it was sealed during his run for President.
Community Organizers, including Obama, are familiar with Alinsky tactics to try to promote social change. Alinsky was from Chicago.
You need to learn your roots Dave like your fellow progressive kindred spirits Hillary and Obama have.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/24/AR2007032401152.html
Not WG,
Like I said, you Righties need Marx and Alinsky as your Orwellian "Goldsteins". They have nothing to do with Obama or Clinton. Since when does a term paper for school mean anything?
Clinton and Obama have proven themselves as moderate corporatists. Even Goldman Sachs and Murdoch of FOX(R) have supported them, for Pete's sake. They do not support socialists, now do they??
Of course to you guys, anyone to the left of Dick Cheney is a "socialist".
Hey Dave Dubya,
"Clinton and Obama have proven themselves as moderate corporatists."
lol, both of them wanted to centrally plan close to 1/5 of the economy, i.e. Healthcare. Adding a massive bureaucracy will drive down health care costs? LOL
I am just glad the supreme court will shoot down the idea that the government can force someone to buy a good or service.
Dick Cheney believes in socialized medicine. But, only for him. In fact, Dick Cheney would not be alive if it wasn't for the free no strings attached healthcare he was entitled to as a result of being a member of the Federal Government and then VP.
With his pre-existing heart condition he would have been uninsurable. And do know why Cheney and W did not give ANY living member of the Armed forces the MoH? Because a living Medal of Honor winner is entitled to front of the line healthcare coverage over everyone other than the President.
hey Grung e Gene
" And do know why Cheney and W did not give ANY living member of the Armed forces the MoH? Because a living Medal of Honor winner is entitled to front of the line healthcare coverage over everyone other than the President."
lol on that one Grung!
All members of Congress, including retired members, get gold plated healthcare that I am sure covers ALL health conditions. Their numbers are far greater than the number of Medal of Honor winners. The Medal of Honor award is not given out like today's Little League, where everyone gets a trophy, even if the team finishes last.
Grung, would you mind sending me some of whatever drugs you are taking?
Not WG,
Cheney and all the other hypocritical republican beneficiaries of socialized health care are fine examples of the "Me first, country second" Party.
I am just glad the supreme court will shoot down the idea that the government can force someone to buy a good or service.
Yes, that original Republican idea is atrocious, and it is exactly what makes it a corporatist law. Medicare for all would not create a new agency, and would be a locally applied service.
And most of all it would cut costs and make Americans healthier. No more vast sums of wealth transferred to the corporate, coverage-denying parasites that offer no health care service whatsoever.
Wow. I am sorry to have missed all of the fun here lately.
“The amount of money spent in the last decade for the Phony GWOT and on the Department of "Defense" exceeds 10 Trillion dollars. The entire deficit is the fault of the last 10 years of which Bush was in charge for 8.”
I will stipulate that Bush has a huge degree of responsibility for our current fiscal mess. His Medicare prescription drug benefit did not help that cause and I also agree with my liberal friends that Bush’s not putting the war on the budget was grossly irresponsible. The fact that you think Obama is not just as responsible is laughable Mr. Grunge.
By the way, Mr. Grunge, your naivety is showing if you think the GWOT is phony. We have been targeted and Americans have been killed for decades now. From the Lockerbie Pan Am flight to the Marine Barracks in Lebanon in the 1980’s, to our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, to the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole and so forth, we have been under terrorist attack. 9/11 is just the most stark attack we have suffered as it was on our mainland soil and all that died were civilians. If we were to pull out all of our troops from around the world and bring them home and sing We Are the World to let the terrorists know that we mean them no harm, do you really think they would leave us alone? Tell me you aren’t really that silly, sir? Perhaps you should google the video of the civilian reporter, Daniel Pearl, being decapitated by these human debris.
“There are actual figures which show President Bush inherited a surplus and left office with a staggering deficit, He spent wildly, did not budget for the wars and ended up sticking his successor with the bills.”
First, Bush did NOT inherit a surplus. There was still massive national debt. Clinton simply had a surplus that he used to decrease that debt and for a brief moment not have a budget deficit. That said, there was this little thing that happened nearly 10 years ago that had the potential to devastate the economy after the terrorist attacks. The economy was already slowing down when Bush took office. Remember the whiny little girl Al Gore complaining that Bush was “talking down the economy” by pointing out that fact during their presidential campaigns? I would submit to you that Bush’s tax cuts for EVERYONE that paid taxes was what kept the economy from tanking completely. There are a lot of very good and reputable economists that acknowledge and agree with that assessment. Notably the idiot-extraordinaire Paul Krugman is not amongst them.
“That recovery effort provided far more jobs than the non-existent tax-cuts-for-the-rich "jobs" they lied about.”
Dubya, again you are citing DNC talking points, my friend. As CNN Money reported, about 15% of the money “spent” in the Bush tax cuts went to the rich. (Those making over $250K) The remainder went to us middle class folks. I remember getting an increase in my deduction for my dependent daughter for starters, and I am far from being one of the rich. I think letting people keep more of THEIR own money (it is not the damned government’s money!) probably kept people spending on necessities etc and thus kept more of the jobs we had from the beginning.
“Where are the jobs that resulted from the Bush tax cuts?”
Heathen already gave you a very detailed and precise accounting of this, even though you refuse to accept that factual data as it is contrary to your preconceived progressive notions, my friend.
“With his pre-existing heart condition he would have been uninsurable. And do know why Cheney and W did not give ANY living member of the Armed forces the MoH? Because a living Medal of Honor winner is entitled to front of the line healthcare coverage over everyone other than the President.” Mr. Grunge, you are killing me! As was already pointed out, one or two Medal of Honor winners in front of the V.P. and congress will hardly hamper any of them getting medical care, even if your assertion about them moving to the front of the line is true, sir. Further, it is congress that has to do the legwork in awarding the medal, hence its name. The president may actually hand it to the recipient, but the commendation is generated via congress.
Perhaps is Paul Krugman had studied more engineering he would understand the economy better.
TP,
Welcome back to the rodeo.
The fact is Obama is not just as responsible as Bush in nudging us over the cliff. Add up the wars and the Medicare costs and the loss of revenue and debt increase by the tax cuts and it shows Obama hasn’t done as much fiscal damage. In fact we don’t know where the limit is when it comes to just Iraq. The numbers are already over a trillion, and costs for veterans’ care resulting from the war will continue to rise. And still we occupy Iraq. The quagmire has not yet ended and can explode again.
The devastation by 9-11 was a factor. Gore may have even prevented that by listening to Richard Clarke, instead of dismissing him as Bush did. Regardless, the direct cost in lives and damages from 9-11 pales in comparison to the lives and treasure thrown away in Iraq. Bush’s response to 9-11 was more devastating to human lives, peace, prosperity, and stability than that one single day of terror here that led to additional terror around the world. How many more trillions will be lost in the proliferation of an overlapping overzealous, unwarranted surveillance state? It’s only beginning its permanent drain on our resources, wealth and our Constitution.
‘
. “That recovery effort provided far more jobs than the non-existent tax-cuts-for-the-rich "jobs" they lied about.”
You know by now I have an abiding contempt for the Democratic Party. This is not a DNC talking point. This is correct according all studies my friend. Even a conservative has revived his assessment of the success of the Stimulus.
You submit “Bush’s tax cuts for EVERYONE that paid taxes was what kept the economy from tanking completely”. This is mere assertion devoid of any evidence. It is a more specious cover than HR’s pathetic spin of numbers to bolster a failed president’s job losses. In his eight years he couldn’t get unemployment down to Clinton levels. That is your bottom line reality, no matter what you guys fabricate.
If you really agree Bush has a huge degree of responsibility for our current fiscal mess, then where is it? Can’t you understand the wars and Medicare giveaway to Big Pharma and tax cuts have cost us more than Obama’s spending has? And those costs have not finished adding up.
You spend so much energy glorifying his record on war and fiscal policy that you cannot see the obvious contradiction in what you say.
Obama has yet to outspend Bush, and his only real increase in spending was an attempt to repair Bush failures. I can show you a paved road from that spending. You cannot show me a job, or a better economy, those tax cuts produced. They are as real as Saddam’s connections to al-Qaeda, “nukular aluminum tubes, and those “biological labs” he lied about when he said, “We FOUND the weapons of mass destruction”.
Have a look.
“Conservative Economist’s Own Methodology Demonstrates the Success of Stimulus:”
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/08/holtz_eakin.html
...independent analysts including the Congressional Budget Office, Moodys.com chief economist Mark Zandi, and Princeton economist Alan Blinder all find that the Recovery Act was successful at simulating growth and creating jobs. Now we can add (conservative) Douglas Holtz-Eakin to that list, since his own method shows exactly the opposite of what he thought it did.
John Myste, you brilliantly observed...
"Perhaps is [sic] Paul Krugman had studied more engineering he would understand the economy better."
And perhaps if he were in the navy...
T. Paine,
Oh please, stealing that name affords you no extra authority.
The GWOT is a sham, a fraud, a warmonger's delight. And to invoke the Marine barracks as justification means you have to admit Ronnie Reagan AND George HW Bush were cowardly terrorist appeasers who failed to protect America by not firebombing Lebanon and Syria into the ground as Bush/Cheney did with Iraq after 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers came from Iraq... Oh wait!
But, by your site I see you only blame Obama for W's failures.
As a Navy Vet perhaps you can explain the threat posed by Iraq's Navy prior to 2003?
Do you give any credit to Obama for being in charge when Bin Laden was killed? Any fault for Bush for allowing OBL to escape as was detailed by Dalton Fury in Kill Bill Laden?
As for Bush's Tax Cuts those were nothing but the first shameless act of Wealth Theft during his Presidency. Here's what the Heritage Foundation said would happen after Bush's Tax Cuts passed:
) Effectively pay off the federal debt;
2) Reduce the federal surplus by $1.4 trillion;
3) Substantially increase family income;
4) Save the entire Social Security surplus;
5) Increase personal savings;
6) Create more job opportunities.
Everyone of those claims did not happen and in fact the exact opposite occurred. But, what did happen was a massive transfer of wealth to the Ultra-Wealthy, which were the true goals of the Bush Tax Cuts. Please recall that as W left office 52,000 billionaires secreted untold BILLIONS into UBS in Switzerland.
Of course, you won't read this far to see how wrong you are. Your thought process has been co-opted by conservative baloney.
“Bush’s response to 9-11 was more devastating to human lives, peace, prosperity, and stability than that one single day of terror here that led to additional terror around the world.” So what would President Dubya have done? Would you take this as a criminal matter instead of the act of war it was? Would you lob a few missiles at an aspirin factory and call it good like President Clinton did? If you notice, as I pointed out, the terrorists have been at war with us for decades even though we didn’t prosecute a war against them until 9/11. It is interesting to note that we have not been attacked on mainland soil since 9/11 because of our war against these vile scum.
“In his eight years he couldn’t get unemployment down to Clinton levels. That is your bottom line reality, no matter what you guys fabricate.” After the 9/11 attacks and the two wars going on, it would have likely been impossible to get unemployment down to the Clinton levels which occurred in a relatively tranquil time with the economy booming. So how the heck does that jibe with Obama receiving an economy from Bush with unemployment 40% better than what it is now? Obama’s asinine numbers made him promise that his stimulus would keep us from going over 8%. Instead we have been north of 10% for awhile and over 9% for nearly his whole single term he will serve in office.
“You spend so much energy glorifying his record on war and fiscal policy that you cannot see the obvious contradiction in what you say.” Dubya, while I agree with Bush that there was an absolute necessity for the war in Afghanistan and can even understand the TRUTH based on multiple sources of international intelligence that the war in Iraq was also prudent, I have not glorified Bush’s fiscal policy. Indeed the wars were necessary expenditures, but they should have been budgeted for sure. Most of the rest of Bush’s fiscal policy I have been as strong of a critic as you have been. Not sure where you got that otherwise, sir.
“But, by your site I see you only blame Obama for W's failures.” Mr. Gene, I am not a Republican partisan. I have no problem assigning blame to Bush where warranted. Too bad that most Democrats wont’ do the same for Obama. ‘It’s not poor little Barry’s fault. He is trying really hard in between vacations and golf outings to fix the horrible mess that Bush left him.’ Nothing is ever Obama’s fault in Democrat eyes, it would seem. Even his failure to stimulate “shovel-ready jobs” which he acknowledged after the fact of his trillion dollar giveaway that they didn’t exist from the very beginning.
(Continued)
“Do you give any credit to Obama for being in charge when Bin Laden was killed? Any fault for Bush for allowing OBL to escape as was detailed by Dalton Fury in Kill Bill Laden?” asks Grunge. Yep, I give Obama credit for that and it is probably the singular accomplishment for his entire presidency thus far. As for Bush, he was too trusting to think that our Afghani allies would hold bin Laden when he was cordoned off in Tora Bora. Definitely Bush’s mistake there.
“Here's what the Heritage Foundation said would happen after Bush's Tax Cuts passed:
) Effectively pay off the federal debt;
2) Reduce the federal surplus by $1.4 trillion;
3) Substantially increase family income;
4) Save the entire Social Security surplus;
5) Increase personal savings;
6) Create more job opportunities.”
Oh, Mr. Grunge, I would really like to see the link to your source on this, because I strongly suspect it came from Daily Kos, Huffington Post, or some other equally “reliable” source. As a member of the Heritage Foundation, I have a hard time believing that their brilliant economists would ever say that the Bush tax cuts would pay off the national debt. As for the increasing of the family income, that is absolutely true. As a member of the middle class, I got to keep significantly more of my own money. Some of that money went into my personal savings. Lastly, when one allows businesses to keep more of their money, it makes sense that if they have more capital on hand they can invest that in R&D, upgrades, or new employees, all of which create new jobs. Nice try though, sir.
"Medicare for all would be liberal."
And how would that be paid for?
Grung_e_Gene
Explain why Clinton turned down the offer of having OBL given to him way b4 9-11?
Should Clinton be held accountable?
T. Paine, you said...
"Lastly, when one allows businesses to keep more of their money, it makes sense that if they have more capital on hand they can invest that in R&D, upgrades, or new employees, all of which create new jobs."
{{citation needed}}
Please provide proof to this effect.
Considering that the Bush tax cuts have been in place since 2001, and were extended late last year, please tell me: Where are the jobs?
Oh, I know, they're overseas...
T. Paine that is from the Heritage Foundations 2001 Report. The Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank which is funded by Exxon Mobil and Koch Industries, which routinely pays off Republican bureaucrats to undercut and weaken any and all regulations which are required to keep businesses from not abiding by regulations.
As for the belief they create jobs because they have the money on hand, it just isn't happening. It's a nice theory sir, but these last ten years have disproven it. Companies have off-shored more jobs and have paid out more and more golden parachutes to Upper level management instead of reinvesting in their companies, infrastructure and R&D.
The Bush tax cuts just haven't worked and I blame Obama for not standing up and ending them.
AS for the 9-11 bullshit, Just The Facts! is repeating an out and out Conservative Lie akin to FDR knew the Japanese planned to attack Pearl Harbor. It is a lie and is a shameful as anyone who claims Bush knew about 9-11!
"Lastly, when one allows businesses to keep more of their money, it makes sense that if they have more capital on hand they can invest that in R&D, upgrades, or new employees, all of which create new jobs."
{{citation needed}}
“Please provide proof to this effect. Considering that the Bush tax cuts have been in place since 2001, and were extended late last year, please tell me: Where are the jobs? Oh, I know, they're overseas...”
Jeff’s Guard, I am gathering that you might be unfamiliar with general business practices. The goal of any business is to make a PROFIT. Now I understand that is a dirty word to many progressives, but it seems to provide for more jobs for the rest of us in the long run. If a wise business owner makes a large enough profit, he will look to see how to further increase his business and thus grow that profit margin even more. That is done by R&D, manufacturing upgrades, and hiring new employees. I don’t care to go searching for some citation for you to discredit. This is basic common sense and capitalism 101. If I said the sky was blue, I suspect you would want to know my sources for that too.
So why aren’t we seeing jobs being created right now with some companies making record profits? Well, if you are a business owner and you see the federal government mandating that you will have to pay for the health care for each employee, you will have carbon taxes declared on you by EPA fiat (instead of law), and you have no idea what the government’s intentions are with regarding the raising of your business taxes, well then you hold on to your money until a period of certainty is reached. It is hard to budget business expenses when the federal government declares that there will be lots more of them possibly coming down the pike, but doesn’t give any clear signals of when or how much. Only the government is uncaring about what its expenses are. Businesses cannot long survive without knowing and budgeting accordingly.
The fact is that the outrageously high corporate tax rate (except for GE and their ilk) and all of the business climate uncertainty that has been created by the progressives and Obama is what is causing large companies to look for other ways to reduce their expenses. Labor is always one of the top expenses for any business. If the climate is such that labor is too expensive with all of the additional taxation and government regulation on the horizon, then those companies will indeed off-shore those jobs to remain in business and thus making a profit.
When we get rid of the un-necessary government regulations and reduce the world’s highest corporate tax rate (and close the loopholes that allow GE to pay NO taxes) and make those changes permanent, you will see that this stability will bring jobs back to the country. Until then, keep supporting the expensive and greedy union bosses that make labor so expensive that companies immediately look elsewhere in the world for placing their business manufacturing.
T. Paine, you rebutted with...
"Jeff’s Guard, I am gathering that you might be unfamiliar with general business practices."
You gathered incorrectly. I know, and am very familiar with, how business is supposed to work. I've worked in the business world all my career, so please, stop the patronizing.
"Now I understand that [profits] is a dirty word to many progressives..."
{{citation needed}}
No, progressives don't believe profits are inherently wrong or "evil". There has never been a liberal, on this blog, who has made that claim. What we do object to is excessively obscene profits, while at the same time moving jobs overseas to take advantage of what amounts to slave labor (which is why we'll never see jobs return here) and the undue influence by corporate profiteers in our democratic processes. Just little things like that.
"If I said the sky was blue, I suspect you would want to know my sources for that too."
As I mentioned to The Heathen Republican when he once made the same statement, that's only assuming you're talking about the sky on this planet. It's little significant facts like these, because you guys are unaccustomed to thinking outside the box, that make your claims suspect and, many times, invalid. You always think in black and white; never the myriad of colors, or possibilities, between.
Then you asked a rhetorical question...
"So why aren’t we seeing jobs being created right now with some companies making record profits?"
Okay, fair enough. I'll accept your answer (which followed your question). But that applies to the last, let's say, three years only. But what happened to all the job creation from 2001 through 2008? Certainly the "trickle-down" effect of the Bush tax cuts would have created a significant boom in job growth during those years, don't you think? Or, was, as I already mentioned, all the job creation overseas? Let me help you. The answer is yes.
"When we get rid of the un-necessary government regulations...and make those changes permanent, you will see that this stability will bring jobs back to the country."
What, like allowable emissions of pollutants into our waterways, air and soil, or the disclosure of what goes into the foods we eat, the liquids we drink, of any of the multitude of products we use each day, either directly or indirectly, that could be carcinogenic or otherwise dangerous to our health? Do you mean those kind of regulations? Gee I'm looking forward to the "stability".
"Until then, keep supporting the expensive and greedy union bosses that make labor so expensive that companies immediately look elsewhere in the world for placing their business manufacturing."
Exactly! So, the trade-off is what? Accept slave wages or else jobs will disappear overseas (hence, my comment above), and accept a poisoned environment or jobs will locate abroad.
Nice choices. Thanks...but no thanks.
Jeff,
Define what a "obscene profits" is.
Genie,
AS for the 9-11 bullshit, Just The Facts! is repeating an out and out Conservative Lie akin to FDR knew the Japanese planned to attack Pearl Harbor. It is a lie and is a shameful as anyone who claims Bush knew about 9-11!
Not claiming Clinton or any one else knew about 9-11. My question how should Clinton be treated if Bush allowed OBL to escape as was detailed by Dalton Fury in Kill Bill Laden?
As stated by Lisa Meyers on 3/17/2004 on NBC's Nightly News.
Still haven't found answer to this question , how would we pay for Medicare for all?
Genie,
Here is what Lisa Myers reported:
"As the 9/11 commission investigates what Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush might have done to prevent the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, one piece of evidence the commission will examine is a videotape secretly recorded by a CIA plane high above Afghanistan. The tape shows a man believed to Osama bin Laden walking at a known al-Qaida camp.
The question for the 9/11 commission: If the CIA was able to get that close to bin Laden before 9/11, why wasn’t he captured or killed? The videotape has remained secret until now.
Over the next three nights, NBC News will present this incredible spy footage and reveal some of the difficult questions it has raised for the 9/11 commission.
In 1993, the first World Trade Center bombing killed six people.
In 1998, the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa killed 224.
Both were the work of al-Qaida and bin Laden, who in 1998 declared holy war on America, making him arguably the most wanted man in the world.
In 1998, President Clinton announced, “We will use all the means at our disposal to bring those responsible to justice, no matter what or how long it takes.”
Advertise | AdChoices
Advertise | AdChoices
Advertise | AdChoices
NBC News has obtained, exclusively, extraordinary secret video, shot by the U.S. government. It illustrates an enormous opportunity the Clinton administration had to kill or capture bin Laden. Critics call it a missed opportunity.
In the fall of 2000, in Afghanistan, unmanned, unarmed spy planes called Predators flew over known al-Qaida training camps. The pictures that were transmitted live to CIA headquarters show al-Qaida terrorists firing at targets, conducting military drills and then scattering on cue through the desert.
Also, that fall, the Predator captured even more extraordinary pictures — a tall figure in flowing white robes. Many intelligence analysts believed then and now it is bin Laden.
Why does U.S. intelligence believe it was bin Laden? NBC showed the video to William Arkin, a former intelligence officer and now military analyst for NBC. “You see a tall man…. You see him surrounded by or at least protected by a group of guards.”
Bin Laden is 6 foot 5. The man in the video clearly towers over those around him and seems to be treated with great deference.
Another clue: The video was shot at Tarnak Farm, the walled compound where bin Laden is known to live. The layout of the buildings in the Predator video perfectly matches secret U.S. intelligence photos and diagrams of Tarnak Farm obtained by NBC.
“It’s dynamite. It’s putting together all of the pieces, and that doesn’t happen every day.… I guess you could say we’ve done it once, and this is it,” Arkin added.
The tape proves the Clinton administration was aggressively tracking al-Qaida a year before 9/11. But that also raises one enormous question: If the U.S. government had bin Laden and the camps in its sights in real time, why was no action taken against them?
“We were not prepared to take the military action necessary,” said retired Gen. Wayne Downing, who ran counter-terror efforts for the current Bush administration and is now an NBC analyst.
Global dragnet“We should have had strike forces prepared to go in and react to this intelligence, certainly cruise missiles — either air- or sea-launched — very, very accurate, could have gone in and hit those targets,” Downing added.
Gary Schroen, a former CIA station chief in Pakistan, says the White House required the CIA to attempt to capture bin Laden alive, rather than kill him.
More to follow showing how Clinton could have gotten OBL before 9-11
What impact did the wording of the orders have on the CIA’s ability to get bin Laden? “It reduced the odds from, say, a 50 percent chance down to, say, 25 percent chance that we were going to be able to get him,” said Schroen.
A Democratic member of the 9/11 commission says there was a larger issue: The Clinton administration treated bin Laden as a law enforcement problem.
Bob Kerry, a former senator and current 9/11 commission member, said, “The most important thing the Clinton administration could have done would have been for the president, either himself or by going to Congress, asking for a congressional declaration to declare war on al-Qaida, a military-political organization that had declared war on us.”
More to follow Genie
Genie, here's just the rest of one article on the failure of Clint to prevent 9-11. Would you like some more, please?
In reality, getting bin Laden would have been extraordinarily difficult. He was a moving target deep inside Afghanistan. Most military operations would have been high-risk. What’s more, Clinton was weakened by scandal, and there was no political consensus for bold action, especially with an election weeks away.
NBC News contacted the three top Clinton national security officials. None would do an on-camera interview. However, they vigorously defend their record and say they disrupted terrorist cells and made al-Qaida a top national security priority.
“We used military force, we used covert operations, we used all of the tools available to us because we realized what a serious threat this was,” said President Clinton’s former national security adviser James Steinberg.
One Clinton Cabinet official said, looking back, the military should have been more involved, “We did a lot, but we did not see the gathering storm that was out there.”
Genie, here's some more FACTS to support my "Conservative Lie". What should Clinton be tried for?
By MANSOOR IJAZ LA TIMES 12/5/2001
President Clinton and his national security team ignored several opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates, including one as late as last year.
I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities.
From 1996 to 1998, I opened unofficial channels between Sudan and the Clinton administration. I met with officials in both countries, including Clinton, U.S. National Security Advisor Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger and Sudan's president and intelligence chief. President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of Bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt's Islamic Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas.
Among those in the networks were the two hijackers who piloted commercial airliners into the World Trade Center.
The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening"
.
Bet your gonna claim now that the LA Times and NBC Nightly News are conservative shills, LOL!
Genie, just n case you want to discredit the author of the LA Times article as a shill of the GOP, let me quote him further'
"As an American Muslim and a political supporter of Clinton, I feel now, as I argued with Clinton and Berger then, that their counter-terrorism policies fueled the rise of Bin Laden from an ordinary man to a Hydra-like monster."
MANSOOR IJAZ
Genie,
This is a link to Clinton admitting he turned down an offer to have OBL turned over to him.
http://archive.newsmax.com/audio/BILLVH.mp3
Of course we all know that Clinton was a shill of corporations, big business, the GOP and the right wing Tea Party, wait they weren't.
around in 2002.
Here's the transcript to the link above:
"During a February 2002 speech, Clinton explained that he turned down an offer from Sudan for bin Laden's extradition to the U.S., saying, "At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him."
But that wasn't exactly true. By 1996, OBL had already been named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing by prosecutors in New York.
Genie,you still there?
Just The FOX(R),
Clinton was president back when we were somewhat a nation of laws. At least we didn't assassinate people who we didn't like quite that obviously.
The perpetrators of the first trade center attack were caught by criminal justice methods. This was back before we invaded countries on false intelligence.
Put this in context. When Clinton did bomb suspected terror targets the Right accused him of wagging the dog to distract from the Rights fanatical crusade over a stained dress.
Enter Bush. The August 2001 Memo warning of an al-Qaeda attack was dismissed with, "You're ass is covered". Zero interest in al-Qaeda. Look it up.
You are going nowhere with this little campaign of comparing Bush and Clinton. Your side losses every time.
If we put our money into Medicare instead of insurance companies’ pockets we could better afford health care for all.
You still have not shown us one single solitary job from Bush tax cuts. Is this failure on your part the reason you are obsessed with Clinton?
JT FOX(R),
Dumping a bunch of articles without links is rude and it is spamming. If you copy and paste, you owe us the source, if by some slight notion you want credibility. And you are hogging space.
Keep it up and I will dump your crap.
You're idiotic 'facts" are spew from another FOX(R) propagandist.
From Wiki:
Several sources dispute Ijaz's claim, including the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States (the 9-11 Commission) which concluded in part “Sudan's minister of defense, Fatih Erwa, has claimed that Sudan offered to hand Bin Ladin over to the United States. The Commission has found no credible evidence that this was so. Ambassador Carney had instructions only to push the Sudanese to expel Bin Ladin. Ambassador Carney had no legal basis to ask for more from the Sudanese since, at the time, there was no indictment out-standing.
Dave, I gave the source on every one of my posts! And date published!
And every one of my posts were in response to Genies statement that Clinton could have gotten OBL BEFORE 9-11 was a conservative lie. My posts provide facts to disprove Genie's statement about lies.
Clinton could have had OBL after the first Twin Tower bombing! Which was well before 9-11 and he had that info from 1996 until h left office in January 2001 (5 years).
Bush is sworn into office 1/20/2001, 9 MONTHS before 9/11/01 Clinton was sure on top of this wasn't he!
As far a nation of laws, explain the Branch Davidians ?
No obsession with Clinton, just refuse to allow lies like Genie posted to stand unchallenged .
Ijaz's statement you dispute using that source of all liberal idiotic sources, WIKI, was from the LA TIMES, not some FOX news outlet. Read my frigging posts Dave you might wake you to the truth.
NewsMax is BS, total BS! PRovide a link corroborated by us.gov or fbi.gov or unesco or something not a a cut-and-paste job on a hit piece from Newsmax! It's sick how twisted you conservatives are! I'm sure you also believe 9-11 was Clinton's fault!
People like you who believe Clinton turned down OBL from Sudan or whomever are as bad as those who believe FDR knew about PEarl Harbor and that Bush knew about 9-11.
Go Cheney yourself...
NewsMax is BS
Stop poisoning the wells! Someone is poisoning the wells!
Wait, let me see who said that.
Grung. OK, I think I'm on his side, I guess.
NesMax is total BS! Total BS, damn it.
Dave,
Here are my sources for my posts, they were included in the posts themselves.
Lisa Meyers on 3/17/2004 on NBC's Nightly News.
MANSOOR IJAZ LA TIMES 12/5/2001
http://archive.newsmax.com/audio/BILLVH.mp3
John,
Did you go to the link? You can hear in his own words President Clinton speak. Is Wiki a better source than this tape of Clinton?
As for Genie, he's just tired all the time of the truth found in the cut and paste from NBC's Nightly NEWs, the LA Times. The cut and pastes which I told the reader up front that they were and what the source was.
But Genei can make claims about Conservatives hating workers but can not provide sources he wants me to use to support my posts IE:s.gov or fbi.gov or unesco.
Double standards I'd say.
@Dave "So far the only Righties with the guts and honesty to admit Bush is even a tiny bit at all to blame for our problems are TP and Free."
I'll admit it, too. Bush was an over-spender and should not have let the Republicans in the House and Senate spend so much. His overspending pales in comparison to Obama/Pelosi/Reid. As long as we're being honest, Dave, perhaps you could acknowledge the difference in scale between Democrate spending and Republican spending?
"Did you know not one conservative Right Winger is racist? How do I know that? That’s what they tell me. They would never be dishonest. Racists never lie, right?"
Too clever by half, Dave. A Republican who isn't racist claims s/he is not a racist, but since racists lie, we can all agree that s/he is a racist. Perfect example of a non-disprovable hypothesis. Nice to know you're able to treat Republicans fairly and honestly around here.
Heathen,
Thank you for introducing me to the term "non-disprovable hypothesis".
The key word being "hypothesis".
Thank you Sir.
"If we put our money into Medicare instead of insurance companies’ pockets we could better afford health care for all."
Correct me if I'm wrong but are you saying the money spent on health insurance would give us more affordable health care? Back that up with some proof!
So Dave, explain to me how many employed workers from the health insurance industry would their be under your plan and what would the cost to retrain then and provided them unemployment benefits until they found new jobs?
Dave, with your statement you have started to answer my question, "if private industry is so bad, who doesn't the Federal Govt do away with it?"
Way to go!
HR,
Why can’t you acknowledge the only real spending Obama initiated is the Recovery Act stimulus as an effort to mitigate the Bush damage? Not only did that save multiple thousands more jobs than the zero jobs created by the tax cuts, it pales in comparison to the Bush tax cuts, wars, massive expansion of overlapping security state agencies, and Medicare giveaway to Big Pharma. Sorry, Bush ruined things more than Obama. Bottom line. But don’t fret. The Big Money boys at the top are doing just fine. Thanks to guys like you.
The rest of us will soon see “austerity” as punishment for the deeds done by the ruling elites and their hired political henchmen.
Too clever back at you. You glorify my point as a hypothesis.
Did you know not one conservative Right Winger is racist?
You could easily disprove this “hypothesis” with one Right Winger admitting he is a racist.
JT FOX(R,)
Your sources are biased crap.
FOX(R) and newsmax mean nothing but propaganda.
The term "credible evidence" means nothing to you, but it ends your silly charges. You are wasting my time and our space. You are trolling.
Your crusade against Clinton is still masking your failure to show me a job from the Bush tax cuts.
If you do can't come down from trolling your ridiculous "blame Clinton for Bush's failure frenzy" and respond to my question, I have no reason to continue to read anything else you have to say.
You started by spewing this troll crap. "My question how should Clinton be treated if Bush allowed OBL to escape as was detailed by Dalton Fury in Kill Bill Laden?"
This injection of your distracting question does not entitle you to flood this thread with your copy and paste propaganda.
I answered your Medicare question without slathering in a bunch of articles and you still refused to regard my question.
I'm tired or your disrespectful attitude and ignorance of civility.
You cannot have a one-sided spree while ignoring my question.
Frankly, your rudeness is becoming very annoying... again.
Still lack the guts to answer my question about Bush tax cuts creating jobs?
You owe me an answer. We all know why you evade the above question. You have no truth on your side.
So here’s one you can answer. And I’m serious. Go learn what a few agreed upon definitions of trolling are and tell me if you were ever trolling.
Or... show me the jobs. Or maybe that whole Rightie bit about how great the tax cuts would be is a "non-disprovable hypothesis"?
JT FOX(R),
First you said: “Not claiming Clinton or any one else knew about 9-11. My question how should Clinton be treated if Bush allowed OBL to escape as was detailed by Dalton Fury in Kill Bill Laden?”
After that you then falsely said. “And every one of my posts were in response to Genies statement that Clinton could have gotten OBL BEFORE 9-11 was a conservative lie.”
YOU first brought up Clinton, not Gene.
And you wonder why we grow weary with your foolish and dishonest rudeness.
Be nice, or I'll tell everyone how much a jerk you were with the man with MS.
Dave Dubya, in reply to Just the Facts!, you stated...
"Be nice, or I'll tell everyone how much a jerk you were with the man with MS."
Yeah, he was pretty much a dickhead, wasn't he?
More so to the republican party though.
HR,
You did understand the context of my little poke, right? It was clearly in response to the links Gene provided.
You act like what I said was an accusation out of the blue.
Did you see what I was even responding to?
If a liberal posted fascist or racist material like that I would completely understand a crack made like mine.
I don't think you even saw what I was responding to.
Dudley,
The republicans get mad when we suggest there's a greater tendency for racism in the Republican/Right Wing/Confederate States side of the picture.
Never mind the evidence. I have never accused one of my commentors of racism here, but we know how lock-step the Rightists become when you criticize one on their side.
Then they can turn around and Parrot Rush and say liberals are more racist, just like good little lock-step Dittoheads.
The difference is I can admit to knowing a racist who has voted democrat because of his economic interests. They cannot admit anything like that. It must be in their book of Party Rules under "Lies".
It is said that "Lies" is the largest section of the book.;-)
Dave, I read the full comment string but did not make the connection between Gene's comment and yours. I will yield since you are willing to back off of your statements.
I do wish you would stop repeating the garbage about Republicans, Confederacy, etc. You are aware that Republicans led the way on civil rights, aren't you? That the Southern strategy by Republicans was designed to win in the traditionally Democratic (e.g. racist) South?
TP,
I hate to break this to you. If there ever was one, your Heritage Foundation is nothing but a Mammonite Temple. “In greed we trust” may as well be their motto and “Wealth is power” their creed. Their only purpose is to consolidate wealth to the elite by throwing wrenches into the machinery of public policy.
From: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2001/04/the-economic-impact-of-president-bushs-tax-relief-plan
This dynamic analysis shows that President Bush's tax plan will boost economic activity, create over 1.6 million new jobs, and strengthen the incomes of taxpayers. The plan would reduce excess tax revenue and effectively pay off the publicly held federal debt by FY 2010.
They are wrong as wrong can be,
”The goal of any business is to make a PROFIT. Now I understand that is a dirty word to many progressives, but it seems to provide for more jobs for the rest of us in the long run.”
Profit is not a dirty word. Profiteering at the expense of American jobs is the dirty part. Those jobs that are created are not provided “for the rest of us” at all. They are off-shored. This is profiteering at the expense of Americans’ jobs and our economy. Capitalism 101 may say one thing in theory, but the reality of human avarice says another. Those at the top are doing swell with their record profits. The rest of us, not so swell. All the “trickle up” money has been hoarded by the rich and removed from the circulation required by a healthy economy.
“The fact is that the outrageously high corporate tax rate (except for GE and their ilk) and all of the business climate uncertainty that has been created by the progressives and Obama”
Your exceptions you give are the rule. Those tax rates are rarely applied to the full extent and you probably know that. In your frenzy to blame Obama and unions you ignore the fact that these businesses acted the same under Bush, proving the “uncertainty” excuse is fabricated specially for Obama. Why don’t you show us evidence of “business climate uncertainty that has been created by the progressives”? It would help us from thinking you are making crap up to blame progressives who have not been in power.
That “business climate uncertainty” was created by Bush tax cuts, recession, wars, debt, and off-shoring jobs that would have pumped money into our economy. There’s your bottom line, along with the fact Obama has still not created as much debt and federal bureaucracy as Bush did. For the profits for a few, the nation suffers. Just the way the Heritage Foundation wanted.
Bush is still the primary reason for our situation. And the Republicans obstruct any efforts to repair the damage in order to keep the wealth flowing to the top 1%. That’s all they ever cared about.
You're being intentionally dense, Dave. Nowhere in my statement did you see pride in the Southern strategy, but you guys like to point to it as some sort of evidence of racism on the right.
The Southern strategy wouldn't be necessary if the right already held the south, but it was necessary because Democrats held the south and Republicans wanted to win elections.
Earlier you mentioned Bull Connor, a Democrat. Robert Byrd, a Democrat. KKK founded by Democrats. Civil Rights Act was filibustered by... that's right, Democrats.
Note that I don't use any of this evidence to say that present-day Democrats are racist or that they pander to racists. Why then do you insist on trying to find evidence for Republican racism? You're being so intransigent.
HR,
You and I both know the Dixiecrats and the Lincoln’s party of “government of, by and for the people” are history. Now the former anti-slavery party is of Big Money, by Big Money, and for Big Money and it wants to eliminate minimum wages.
Yes, the "Southern Strategy" was clearly and expressly accomplished by "mobilization of resentments" of the angry white Southern male.
By "traditionally Democratic" you mean White Dixiecrats who turned Republican.
Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks were not Republicans.
They had to win over the Southern whites, who were traditionally democratic voters. The tumultuous civil rights movement had triggered racially based fear and anger in many Southern whites. When they saw that the black voters were going to support Democrats, it was time for the Republicans to capitalize on the situation.
Republicans mobilized the resentments of angry white voters during the civil rights struggle. Republicans are employing the same strategy today with angry white voters. Resentment is being cultivated for an African American president and his entire party. Resentment is fueled by frightening terms like fascism, communism, and death panels. Resentment is mobilized toward the removal, and destruction, of all political opposition to the radical right.
Look at those links for proof of this racial resentment.
Dave,
So as I thought you would, you dissed the sources I provided you, IE: NBC Nightly NEWS, the LA Times, and a recording of Clinton admitting what I said he had done with OBL.
And you want me to answer your questions, why? As Heathen said you are just hard headed and will pitch out the door any numbers I use to answer you.
As for my being nice, or you'll tell, does that same requirement apply to you and Jeff who do not know what crippling disease I live with?
"Be nice, or I'll tell everyone how much a jerk you were with the man with MS."
"Yeah, he was pretty much a dickhead, wasn't he?"
Let's see libtard is bad but jerk and dickhead are ok!
Jefferson's Guardian and you, Dave, live in the wonderful world of double standards that LIBTARDS have created for them selves where the solution to all the ills of the world is centralized economic control and taxing the rich (what rich is).
No, progressives don't believe profits are inherently wrong or ‘evil’. There has never been a liberal, on this blog, who has made that claim. What we do object to is excessively obscene profits” says Jeff’s Guard. I would be curious what your definition of “obscene profits” is. Also is that on a sliding scale too so that those businesses where the owner is a progressive can make far more in profits before reaching that “obscene” threshold than can his conservative counterpart? (I am sure that would be fair to the average progressive since the liberal will always use his profits for “good” while the conservative will just hoard his out of greed, right?) Just look at George Soros as an example!
“You always think in black and white; never the myriad of colors, or possibilities, between.” While I acknowledge that there are indeed shades of gray also, there are far more black and white choices that SHOULD be obvious to everyone that is not living in a morally relativistic world, like many of my friends on the left seem to do.
“If there ever was one, your Heritage Foundation is nothing but a Mammonite Temple. ‘In greed we trust’ may as well be their motto and ‘Wealth is power’ their creed. Their only purpose is to consolidate wealth to the elite by throwing wrenches into the machinery of public policy. This dynamic analysis shows that President Bush's tax plan will boost economic activity, create over 1.6 million new jobs, and strengthen the incomes of taxpayers. The plan would reduce excess tax revenue and effectively pay off the publicly held federal debt by FY 2010.” Dubya, then you are truly blinded to what the Heritage Foundation stands for, my friend. That said, I am shocked at their egregiously wrong statement regarding the national debt being paid off and admit to their foolish error in this case. That hardly undermines all of the other great CONSTITUTIONAL works they have done in trying to protect our national HERITAGE of freedom, liberty, and capitalism for ALL Americans.
“Your exceptions you give are the rule. Those tax rates are rarely applied to the full extent and you probably know that.” Dubya, I would tend to agree with you that those exceptions are indeed often the rule… for LARGE corporations. The small and medium size businesses are typically saddled with the outrageous corporate tax rates that the big corporations circumvent through myriads of loopholes. Closing those loopholes would drastically eliminate this issue.
“Why don’t you show us evidence of ‘business climate uncertainty that has been created by the progressives’? It would help us from thinking you are making crap up to blame progressives who have not been in power,” says Dubya. Actually, the Democrats have been in power as they took over congress in 2006. The list of government rules and regulations have expanded significantly under their reign of error.
A recent Heritage Foundation report notes that the 2011 Unified Agenda (also known as the Semiannual Regulatory Agenda) lists 2,785 rules (proposed and final) in the pipeline. Of those, 144 were classified as “economically significant.” With each of the 144 pending major rules expected to cost at least $100 million annually, they represent at least $14 billion in new burdens each year. The average number of regulations costing over $100 million or more was at an average of 72 from 2001 until 2006. After the Democrats got into power that number jumped from 72 to an average of 100 between 2006 until today.
Another negative impact of increased regulations is that it swells the growth of government. Regulatory staff at federal agencies (full-time equivalents) increased about 3% between 2009 and 2010, from 262,241 to 271,235, and is estimated to rise another 4%—to 281,832—in 2011. Federal outlays for developing and enforcing regulations are also expected to grow by 4% this year, from $46.9 billion in 2010 (in constant 2005 dollars) to $48.9 billion. Reducing the regulatory burden would be one way Congress and the administration in Washington could relieve some of the uncertainty facing companies in the private sector. Additionally, reducing the growth of regulations would stem the growth of government.
Source: Red Tape Rising: A 2011 Mid-Year Report
The Heritage Foundation
By: James Gattuso and Diane Katz
July 25, 2011
The bottom line is that when you add more burdensome and costly regulations, as well as the added expenses of businesses having to abide by the upcoming expensive mandates of Obamacare, they are going to be damned hesitant to add more jobs in the United States accordingly. I guess the left wing union-crats are fine with exporting our jobs overseas due to their liberty and capitalism-killing policies though.
http://www.nfib.com/Portals/0/PDF/sbet/sbet201108.pdf Also see the “Small Business Optimism Index”. Let me summarize. They aren’t optimistic under Obama’s administration.
“Resentment is being cultivated for an African American president and his entire party.” Dubya, this really grows tiresome. Yes resentment is absolutely growing towards President Obama, even among independents and some Democrats. An insignificantly small percentage of that resentment is due to the fact that he is an African American.
Lastly, Heathen gave you facts and figures of the jobs created under the Bush administration. You simply choose to ignore those facts. What good is it to provide you valid sources if you choose to dismiss the facts because they don’t jibe with your preconceived notions, sir?
There half as many OSHA inspectors now as when Reagan was president. A little tit for tat here TP; why don't you want safe workplaces?
Mr. T.Paine,
RE: your last two posts:
And all God's childeren
say amen!
The last I heard, Karl Rove now wants Sarah Palin to run, just to steal thunder from Rick Perry, whom Rove hates. (This might have already been mentioned in the preceding comments. I've been away for a few days.)
If nothing else, this battle between Rove and Perry should be interesting.
Tom,
It's a sick little circus, but entertaining.
TP,
Yes, small businesses are still tentative in this post Bush-devastated economy. Investment capital for them is still constricted by the big banks, not Obama, who’s bent over backwards for them.
You can go on believing in an organization that is opposed to democracy and operates in the interests of the elites. Believing in them does not invalidate my point. In fact a founder of the Heritage Foundation admitted their disdain for democracy.
"I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of the people. They never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.”– Heritage Foundation co-founder Paul Weyrich
You’ve ignored this every time I post it.
Corporatism is suffocating our middle class and crushing opportunities for our people. The Heritage Foundation is at the very heart of antidemocratic corporatism. If you want to support an organization truly dedicated to protecting our freedom and Constitution, join the ACLU. Even our buddy Mr. Free acknowledges their mission.
TP,
So if the democrats were "in power" in 2006, then the republicans are now in power.
Where are the jobs?
You accuse me, ” Heathen gave you facts and figures of the jobs created under the Bush administration. You simply choose to ignore those facts.”
You are wrong. I didn’t ignore him. My response was:
As for your reply on the non-existent Bush tax cut jobs, thank you. Well done! That's um, quite a stretch, indeed. It was no stimulus.
Bush inherited Clinton’s 4.0% unemployment rate and then it jumped to 6%. It went down to 4.6 before taking its huge leap back up to 5.8 in 2008. The spike continued and the effects haunt us now.
Bush never got the rate down to what Clinton left him.
Yes, I remember HR’s brave response to the tax cut job myth. He didn’t add to his credibility when he said,I think Republicans are the only ones fighting for the rights of union workers today.
Then he honestly said, “First, my heart isn't really in this one because I don't argue that tax cuts by themselves create jobs,...”
Remember that?
HR’s numbers were unemployment rates that were never increased back to what Clinton left Bush. He showed NO JOBS resulting from the tax cuts. None. And I didn’t ignore him. I showed real evidence of Bush’s massive failure in job growth. His recession sent unemployment numbers skyrocketing. During 2008 the unemployment rate began its upward zoom. There was nothing Obama could, or can do, after the Recovery Act to stimulate jobs, now that the Right has shut him down.
For a snapshot of the Bush job legacy the January 10, 2009 New York Times reported:
“Unemployment Hits 7.2%, 16-Year High”
With the recession in full swing, the nation’s employers shed 524,000 jobs in December, the government reported Friday, and a rapidly deteriorating economy promised more significant losses in the months ahead. December’s job losses brought the total for 2008 to 2.6 million, spanning a recession that started 12 months ago.
The unemployment rate jumped to 7.2 percent in December from 6.8 percent in November and 5 percent last April, when the recession was four months old and just beginning to bite.
Obama was dealt the worst Republican mess since the Great Depression. We needed an FDR and got an appeasing corporatist.
Historical context From Politifact.com:
We might add that over the course of Bush's presidency -- a total of 96 months -- the economy created 1.08 million jobs. That may sound like a lot, but compared to every other post-World War II president prior to Obama, it's the lowest average annual percentage increase in jobs created.
Here are the average annual percentage increases in jobs for each postwar president:
Harry S. Truman (Democrat): increase of 2.95 percent a year
Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican): increase of 0.50 percent a year
John F. Kennedy (Democrat): increase of 2.03 percent a year
Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat): increase of 3.88 percent a year
Richard M. Nixon (Republican): increase of 2.16 percent a year
Gerald R. Ford (Republican): increase of 0.86 percent a year
Jimmy Carter (Democrat): increase of 3.45 percent a year
Ronald Reagan (Republican): increase of 2.46 percent a year
George H.W. Bush (Republican): increase of 0.40 percent a year
Bill Clinton (Democrat): increase of 2.86 percent a year
George W. Bush (Republican): increase of 0.01 percent a year
"Bush Tax Cuts: A Decade Of Failure"
http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/201106070002
Dave Dubya, you said...
"Here are the average annual percentage increases in jobs for each postwar president..."
Looks like Georgie-boy brings up the rear, doesn't it? As a matter of fact, most of the republicans trail at the tail end.
Gee, now remind me, what exactly was the rationale behind these massive cuts to the wealthy?
FYI those "massive" tax cuts were not just for the wealthy, every body including the middle class will have to pay more n federal taxes if and when they expire.
Of course if you don't pay federal income taxes like a vast % of our population tax increase are a concern.
Which is kind of interesting when those who do not pay federal income taxes are allowed to vote for elected officials who support increasing taxes on any one but them. Makes you wonder why anyone would want to earn enough to pay federal income taxes.
Dave, you really do make me laugh. I enjoyed the listing you provided from Politifact that shows average annual percentage increases in job growth. I'm sure it was just an oversight that you left Barack Obama off the list.
Let me help (Link)
Harry S. Truman (Democrat): increase of 2.95 percent a year
Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican): increase of 0.50 percent a year
John F. Kennedy (Democrat): increase of 2.03 percent a year
Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat): increase of 3.88 percent a year
Richard M. Nixon (Republican): increase of 2.16 percent a year
Gerald R. Ford (Republican): increase of 0.86 percent a year
Jimmy Carter (Democrat): increase of 3.45 percent a year
Ronald Reagan (Republican): increase of 2.46 percent a year
George H.W. Bush (Republican): increase of 0.40 percent a year
Bill Clinton (Democrat): increase of 2.86 percent a year
George W. Bush (Republican): increase of 0.01 percent a year
Barack Obama (Democrat): decrease of 3.0 percent a year
You just took a big step backwards in terms of credibility.
As long as we're on this topic, I'd encourage you to address the facts and stop cherry picking your data. In response to T.Paine, you also said:
"Bush inherited Clinton’s 4.0% unemployment rate and then it jumped to 6%. It went down to 4.6 before taking its huge leap back up to 5.8 in 2008."
If that's how we're measuring things, then it's also fair to say that Obama inherited Bush's 7.8% unemployment rate and then it jumped to 10.1% and stayed over 9% for more than a year.
If Obama inherited Bush's recession, and therefore gets a pass on high unemployment, then shouldn't Bush get a pass since he inherited the internet bubble burst and we were attacked on 9/11?
You need to play fair. There are legitimate points of attack if you really hate Republicans, but picking individual data that hurts Republicans, and then ignoring the same data when it hurts Democrats is just... sad.
Way to go H.R.!
Dave just did take a big step backwards in terms of credibility.
Your point along with his allowing conservatives/republicans to be called anything by liberals, while he claims he is taking the high ground are great examples of the double standards found on this blog
Heathen Republican, I think you're being disingenuous in your critique. As noted in the linked article, right above the presidential listing, the following caveat is very clear:
"Because President Barack Obama has served just one year in office -- a length of time that some would consider statistically problematic -- we ran the Democratic numbers both with and without Obama, so that readers could choose their preferred statistic."
It's pretty petty on your part to compare each president's post-war job creation record, based upon either four or eight years in office, against an incumbent president who inherited an economy that was, just months before, described as being on the brink of collapse.
That's an unfair comparison. Perhaps in January 2013 you'll be able to make your claim. Until then, your case rings very hollow.
HR,
Thank you for looking it up. I did intentionally leave Obama off the list because he was not the subject of discussion and his record is incomplete. Obama’s record is irrelevant to the discussion at that point.
Speaking of cherry pickling, weak excuses like the internet bubble burst and 9/11 were long gone by the time Bush finished demolishing our economy and left us a broken system that even a good president couldn’t repair. Unfortunately we do not have a good president. Our fate is sealed with only corporatists and appeasers in power.
The fact you choose to ignore is the Republican’s downward spiral was kicking in full speed by January 2009, as reflected by the jobs lost under Obama. And who knows how much worse things would be had it not been for Obama’s severely diluted single effort at recovery to stem the Republican/corpo-Dem catastrophe?
On the contrary, I am making legitimate points, but you obviously need to say I’m being unfair when I make them. That undermines your position, not mine. Republicans do tend to whine when the vast mountain of evidence shows how bad their policies are for all Americans but the elites that own the Republican Party.
”Picking individual data that hurts Republicans, and then ignoring the same data when it hurts Democrats is just...” ...not what I am doing at all here, as any neutral observer can plainly see.
Just The FOX(R),
Your mere presence in this conversation is proof of my taking the high road of tolerance by allowing you to troll here. I’ve given you more opportunities for fair discussion than most reasonable people would. You continually ignore my questions, demand answers to yours, and dump crap on us that is not under discussion. And then you have the sheer gall to question my credibility. Yeah, there are double standards here all right, thanks to you.
Nice try Jefferson. I'm not criticizing the article; I'm criticizing Dave's conscious decision to copy and paste every president from the article except for Obama.
He had the same option that the article's author had: to include Obama and add a disclaimer that the reader could weigh in context. Dave didn't include Obama because it didn't make his point. That's cherry picking.
Gosh Dave, Bush demolished our economy in the eight months between January 2001 (inauguration) and September 2001 (attacks)? And yet you claim that Obama's record is incomplete 2 1/2 years in?
We get to measure Bush's record from the day he started (the unemployment rate Clinton left him) yet we don't have to measure Obama until we recover from Bush's downward spiral (apparently at some future time)?
I don't worry about undermining my position by pointing out your rhetorical tricks. I'm confident my words will hold up in front of any objective observer.
Dave,
HR answered your questions, how about dealing with this one.
How dare liberals demand we all share the pain in dealing with out debt due in large part to the endless spending for the "endless" War on Poverty,
while our President does not share the pain to take care of his own family? Uncle Omar and Aunt Zeituni.
How dare liberals demand we share the pain in dealing with our debt brought about in large part due to the spending for our "endless" War on Poverty when close to 50% of Americans pay not federal income tax!
How dare liberals and the near 50% of Americans who do not pay income tax demand any thing from the rest of us who are carrying the full load NOW!
Yes Dave, how dare you leave current President off your post, how dare you allow fellow liberals call conservatives foul names, while you restrict your blog due to the use of the term "libtards".
How dare you call the over 50% of us who pay ALL of the Federal taxes Nazis, or haters of the poor, or profit hungry. How much more do you liberals want from us before you will have enough for your failed liberal policy's?
HR,
There really was no need for the Obama number in my point. Looking back, I’m glad I didn’t use it because it gave you a convenient little distraction from my valid point on Bush’s job record. You really needed it to run your distraction. That’s kind of funny, really.
And there you go again with your projection of cherry picking at me when that is exactly what you are doing. First thing is this. “Cherry picking” means including only what makes your point, and excluding everything that contradicts your point. Obama’s record doesn’t contradict my point, no matter whether he found a job for every American or none at all. It was what we call in reality, “beside the point”.
Look at the deliberate mischaracterization you included to make your point. Bush demolished our economy in the eight months between January 2001 (inauguration) and September 2001 (attacks)?
Now I never said that. I never implied it. I didn’t even suggest it. But you cherry picked a little fib to make your point. Now I’m the one laughing.
The “internet bubble burst and 9/11” are favorite and handy cherry picked excuses for all of Bush’s failures. Those excuses are trumpeted along with what we “America-hating liberals” have done while abusing our enormous amount of power over Wall Street and multinational corporations.
Now its my turn to laugh again. You “pointing out rhetorical tricks” is hilarious. This is why the Right needs their own language, because when we use meaningful words to honestly show how they are wrong, they need to invent scary words like Death tax and Death panels to incite negative emotions and draw meaningful words away from discussion.
Along with their projection and distraction, redefining words and meanings is a consistent and favorite tactic...I mean “rhetorical trick”.
Heathen Republican, you said...
"He had the same option that the article's author had: to include Obama and add a disclaimer that the reader could weigh in context. Dave didn't include Obama because it didn't make his point. That's cherry picking."
You have the audacity to point out a minor sin of omission, while you openly, and without reservation, lie about appearing on a television show, Hardball, in your own blog. Nowhere do I find a disclaimer indicating you, in fact, weren't on the TV show. The only possible defense you could have is that you are, actually, Michael Steele. Are you?
Must have been a slow night at the Guardian's resident. Up until 3:58 a.m. searching HR's blog to find one error.
Great investigative work Guardian, if only you had spent half a much effort vetting our President maybe we wouldn't be in the liberal caused mess we are in.
Dave, you're sinking further into a hole of your own creation. First rule of holes: stop digging.
"There really was no need for the Obama number in my point. Looking back, I'm glad I didn't use it because it gave you a convenient little distraction from my valid point on Bush's job record."
Had you simply pulled Bush's job creation number from the list, I could buy your argument. So here's your chance to earn back 100% of your credibility: Kindly explain how Harry Truman's job creation ties into your argument about Bush's job record. Or Lyndon Johnson's. Or Gerald Ford's.
You see, if your justification is that you eliminated Obama because his job record was irrelevant to your point, then surely every other president you listed is relevant to your point.
Since none of the other presidents were used in your earlier point about Bush's job record, I think we can all safely assume you intentionally left off Obama's number.
"Look at the deliberate mischaracterization you included to make your point. [Quoting] Bush demolished our economy in the eight months between January 2001 (inauguration) and September 2001 (attacks)? [End quote] Now I never said that. I never implied it. I didn't even suggest it."
You're right. I misread "Speaking of cherry picking, weak excuses like the internet bubble burst and 9/11 were long gone by the time Bush finished demolishing our economy and left us a broken system that even a good president couldn’t repair."
I thought you were saying that Bush demolished the economy before 9/11 even happened. I see now that you were saying they were way in the past.
(BTW, consider that a short tutorial on admitting when you're wrong.)
"Along with their projection and distraction, redefining words and meanings is a consistent and favorite tactic."
You mean like redefining "cherry picking" to make it sound like you didn't, Dave?
Look, you could've shown a little integrity, and we could've avoided this sideline discussion, had you simply admitted to leaving Obama out entirely, admitted some culpability, and moved on. A simple "Ooops, you caught me." would've been sufficient, but you're still defending your actions saying you've done nothing wrong.
Jefferson, is that the best you can do? Regular readers of The Heathen Republican know that I regularly insert myself into media interviews in order to demonstrate better ways to present conservative issues.
Yes, I replaced Michael Steele that night because his best defense of Rick Perry was that he was targeting his message to his audience. Note that I included the date of my "appearance" so that anyone who was interested could see that I wasn't really on the show.
Of course, no one would really believe that that was a real transcript. My real name wasn't used, and do you really think Chris Matthews would allow a blogger that goes by a pseudonym to appear on his show?
Clearly you're a very critical thinker. Our public school system should be proud of you. But thanks for the plug.
Heathen Republican, I've never been accused of not being a critical thinker -- until now. Have you ever been accused of having no sense of humor?
Until now? ;-)
HR,
Had I “simply pulled Bush's job creation number from the list,” on its own, my point about Bush’s failure would not have been as clear. Whatever you say about the incomplete data on Obama is completely “beside the point”. This is the reality and logic you cannot tolerate.
Your fallacious reasoning would also say if Iraq explodes into more civil war, it is Obama’s fault, not Bush’s, even though his crimes created the instability for such bloodshed. You seek to charge Obama by a sort of Ex Post Facto accusation. His was not the crime and it was committed before his election. You want to blame Obama for Bush’s failure. We get that. Isn’t blaming Clinton good enough? You must blame liberals and the president for everything that your elites have done. Your “logic” allows that. (Here is where you would take issue with my word “crimes” and run a brand new distraction. I will take a pre-emptive measure and substitute the word “deeds” for “crimes”.)
but you're still defending your actions saying you've done nothing wrong.
I did nothing wrong relevant to my point of discussion. It is merely your opinion that I “did something wrong”. You continue to distract from my still valid point as I illustrated.
I showed real evidence of Bush’s massive failure in job growth. His recession sent unemployment numbers skyrocketing. During 2008 the unemployment rate began its upward zoom. Obama was dealt the worst Republican mess since the Great Depression. We needed an FDR and got an appeasing corporatist.
Yup. This is still true no matter what Obama has done and no matter how much you distract, project, or redefine. And you obsess with the “sideline discussion” for the distraction it provides.
Here is the inevitable logical conclusion: You still do not have facts to disprove my statement. This is why you pull the classic Right Wing distraction. You have nowhere to go on this point but off track.
Deal with it, or deny it. It is true.
Just The Troll,
I’m going to respond to your questions...for that last time. I no longer have time to waste reading what you have to write, let alone responding to your rude attention seeking behavior. I’m sure most readers would agree with me.
Your questions are inane, illogical, presumptive, repetitive and full of false assumption and accusation.
Short answer to all of them: I dare however I care to dare.
You’ve ignored my warnings and questions. You are a troll. How’s that for an answer to one of your questions?
I told you I was serious when I asked you to learn what trolls do. That was the end of your “probation”.
You failed.
Failed what Dave, not asking nice easy questions?
Just the Troll is no longer welcome here due to his utterly disrespectful rudeness and trolling behavior. I fairly warned him and cut him a lot of slack. I also warned him I would show his contemptible behavior towards a person with MS.
http://tomdegan.blogspot.com/2011/08/tax-poor.html
Over at Tom Degan’s Rant Yaz responded to JTF’s troll-style dumping of an article that was completely unrelated to the original post. It was a Wall Street Journal piece on the feds confiscating suspected illegally harvested and imported wood at the Gibson guitar factory.
Yaz said...
Guitars now, Just the Facts? Seriously? You're worried about freaking guitars? Tom's rant was about the poor.
You see I have Multiple Sclerosis. It hit me around 40 and took me down hard. Medical bills wiped out the last of my savings even though I once had free-market insurance. I live off Social Security Disability, Medicare and SNAP now. Without them, I would be just like the man in Tom's picture. I might even be dead.
I want to know why my food stamps have been cut. I want to know why my medication costs have just suddenly doubled. Why are food prices so high? Why is it so hard for me to eat healthy? Why is my landlord looking at possible foreclosure? No subprime here. Why? What is going on?
Trust my limited future to you free market freaks? No! I'm not that stupid. I know you hate me. I'm disabled and I'm poor and you just want me to die and get off your back.
Just the Facts! responded:
Gee Yaz maybe the poor wouldn't be poor if they could get a job at one of the coal mines our GOVT has closed or at Gibson? Did ya ever think about that?
Then he followed up with:
Just the Facts! said...
One simple question, why does government need/allow private business if private for profit business is so rotten?
(Then true to his pattern, this follows immediately.)
Just the Facts! said...
Yaz,
RE: bad book keeping.
Can you find for me, the books showing where our stimulus dollars have been spent?
Can I have a copy of the White House guest book?
Can I please have an audit performed on Fannie Mae/Freddy Mack's books?
Is there any way I can review the book keeping for Senator Dodd and Representative Frank's income sources and investments?
Where can I find the books that would explain the purchase arrangements behind Obama's home in Chicago?
Show me who was watching the books before the GOP took control of the House under Clinton and the check cashing/House post office scam was uncovered?
And finally, you make a lot assumptions that because I hate big govt that I hate the poor and sick and those who CAN not work, and you assume that I am healthy, wealthy and got it all.
Surprise, I don't have wealth, I don't have health, and I don't got it all! So stop with the guilt trip.
Life is taking what you got and making the best of it with out thinking of your self as a victim. Better to be remembered as one who crawled to the top of the heap as opposed as someone who thought the heap was against them and gave up trying. Hope your life turns itself around, due to your own actions, not by the actions of others.
How’s that for Just The Troll’s “conservative compassion”?
"You seek to charge Obama by a sort of Ex Post Facto accusation."
Dave, if you look back through my comments, I have not attemped to blame Obama for anything. The closest I came was to use your logic and applied it to Obama, but as you've shown, your logic only applies to Bush. Yet you claim you're not a Democrat.
"You continue to distract from my still valid point as I illustrated. I showed real evidence of Bush’s massive failure in job growth."
I don't disagree with your point about Bush. Never have and have no need to distract from it. I only jumped in to defend against your silly charge of racism.
Other than that, I stayed out of the conversation until you drew me in -- by name -- to the discussion of job growth (in your response to T.Paine). That's where you partially copied a list from Politifact, which I had to point out because it undermines your credibility, whether you see it or not.
My question to you is, if your point was to point out Bush's poor job growth, why not also point out Obama's even worse job growth? You claim you're not a Democrat, so you have no loyalty to Obama.
If you dislike Obama so much, and claim he's just a corporatist like Republicans, and liberals haven't been in power for 40 years, then shouldn't you attack Obama as much as you attack Bush? But you don't. Sounds like a Democrat to me.
HR,
My question to you is, if your point was to point out Bush's poor job growth, why not also point out Obama's even worse job growth?
Thank you for doing it for me.
Don't worry, I have plenty of criticism for Obama. Much of it is in plain sight in this blog. You just can't see it for some reason.
Dave, you responded to The Heathen Republican with this...
"...I have plenty of criticism for Obama. Much of it is in plain sight in this blog. You just can't see it for some reason."
Isn't it amazing? As much as you and I harp about the corporatism infused within this administration, and the corporate-state that rules every facet of our lives, they still view us as die-hard Democrats for some reason. Yet, they will unceasingly defend Bush for each and every economic snafu, his bankrupting militaristic adventures, and will always make it seem like Bush handed Obama a blank slate.
For some reason they're okay with the corporate-state; corporatism isn't a threat to them. They still think in the old Democrat vs. Republican; liberal vs. conservative, paradigm. The corporate-state has engulfed them and they still haven't figured it out. They haven't realized, as much as you've emphasized this, and, indeed, made it the whole theme of this blog, that the two-party system died, and the ruling mechanism is a faithful conglomeration of the two.
As Chris Hedges morosely said this week:
"...The trolls dominate or have neutralized every major institution in the country on behalf of their corporate paymasters. The press, education, Wall Street, labor and our political parties are managed by trolls or have been destroyed by them. Sometimes these trolls speak like liberals. Sometimes they speak like conservatives. Sometimes they are secular. Sometimes they are Christians. But the language they use is a cover for the relentless march toward a totalitarian capitalism and a kingdom where the trolls, if not the rest of us, live happily ever after. Rick Perry and John Boehner overtly make war on Social Security. Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi say they would like to save Social Security but are sadly powerless before the decisions of a congressional super committee they helped form. The result, of course, is the same. We get to choose the rhetoric and manner in which we are deceived and disempowered. Nothing more." ...truthdig, 8/29/2011
JG,
Sad, but true.
And every time we try to make our case, we are met with the "You hate corporations" and "You hate the rich" crap.
And we patiently remind them we oppose anti-democratic and corrupt corporatocracy within government. We do not hate the wealthy or corporations.
They then wrap themselves in their own hatred of the very government they, or their masters, have bought control.
No wonder there's no reasoning between the ideologies. The common interests of all Americans and public services are crushed underneath the tragi-comic theatrics of appeasement.
And that is just the outcome that is desired by the "no compromise" side.
{Dave,
I could not possibly agree with you more! WELL PUT!
WOW! more than 100 comments? I'm impressed. The comments for my blog usually stay well below 20. Even though reading "Sleeping with The Devil" (my blog) "Leads To Great Bliss & Complete Knowledge". Also, some people find it "very funny".
Plus "Dave Duyba's Freedom Rants" functions as the DNC's attack machine? That being the case, this blog must be also be very profitable. Attack machines aren't cheap (or so I'd guess).
Sarah Palin is only "maybe running for president" to make money. She won't actually run.
Dave's posts usually get over a 100 comments because no one is willing to let anyone else have a the last word.
This post is a continuation of the last in part. The post does not really have over 100 comments if you look at it in context. It has hundereds of thousands of comments.
So far as know, only egomaniacs post here, which is but one of the things that makes me love the site.
Dervish, you definitely should join in. You are a very fine fit, sir.
And I missed something because moderation is turned back on. I will have to read later and figure out why, as if I didn't know already, Just!
Jack,
Thanks.
WD,
Apparently not only am I the DNC attack machine, but I have been weilding all my power crushing Wall Street and multi-national corporations, along with dictating spending policies at the federal level. How? Why, all under the dominance of my socialist jackboot, of course.
Big Money is powerless against me. This is why brave and heroic souls defend their interests here.
Post a Comment