Listening to one of the 'rising stars' *snark* of the Republican party Mike Pence this morning on my ride in… has left me pondering what parallel universe these clowns live in!

Besides denial & delusion…

For starters he's ranting & raving that the disbursement(s) used in the oil spill are completely safe…really? I'd prefer my shrimp not glow in the dark… Thank You!

Surprisingly, Morning Joke & Mika Mouse called him out on it and stated for the record that MANY scientists would vehemently disagree with that assessment.

If that wasn't enough he then pivots back to his 'buzz' phrase for the day which is 'Obama is KILLING jobs' because of the temporary moratorium on DEEP oil drilling!

Question for Mr. Pence… how many jobs have already been KILLED thanks to greed and reckless behavior?

It's perfectly acceptable to the right to continue on down the path of total descimation of a entire region all in the name of 'Country First'!

This is NOT a game!

Hi Feisty: Mike Pence is from south-central Indiana, a bastion of conservatives who do not believe in science, who love Sarah Palin, and are low informed voters. Unfortunately Pence will be around for a while.

Hey Ron - You have my sympathies... Pence is 100% whack job!

Wonder if Sarah's had a 'peek' at Pence's 'cajones'?

Almost fell of my chair when I heard that clip yesterday! This coming from a woman who is too dense to remember a simple figure and has to write it on her hand (again)!

Lipstick on a PIG... yes... indeed! Presidential material...NOT A CHANCE!

Ps: Anyone else hear the engagement if off... Poor Levi hasn't learned to 'wrap' it up yet! lol

Feisty: You are already on a roll. Trolls beware.

"Shouldn’t someone tell conservatives that the Constitution is the foundation on which our laws are based and no one person, party, or ideology can pick and chose what they like and don’t like? The bottom line is you accept it as the law of the land…or you leave the land."

Ron, only a complete MORON would make a statement like that one. For someone from a political leaning that's always preaching the virtues of "tolerance", you seem pretty intolerant of anyone not in agreement with you.

Are you "conveniently" ignoring that fact that the founders included Article V so that things people didn't like in the Constitution could be changed? And they established a Supreme Court that decides what the Constitution means when its provisions are in dispute?

Ron have you ever looked at the 14th amendment contextually? Actually looked at and asked WHY did congress pass it in the first place? The 14th amendment was passed so that recently freed slaves of the southern states could become citizens if their children were born here in the United States.

This was a way to allow those who had no rights or anything the same opportunity that their former "masters" had.

The 14th amendment is an antiquated part of the Constitution that has run its course and needs to be removed.

While I am a STRICT Constitutionalist I also believe that if parts of the Constitution are no longer (not for political gain but for national growth and safety) are no longer prevalent they need to be removed.

The 14th amendment falls squarely into this category. It has long ago run its course and is now a tool used by those who cant or dont want to enter this country LEGALLY to gain citizenship without having to go through the process of legal naturalization.

The law, as I stated earlier, was created to allow for a group that were taken advantage of, but here legally(ish) and given an opportunity to become legal citizens. This does NOT applie to illegal aliens.

If a person wants to become an American citizen they need to do it legally.

Remember these are babies you are talking about born in the United States, how crude are you a$$es.

Larry: Yes, I have looked at the 14th amendment contextually and I understand your point. And yes, there are procedures for amending the Constitution, as there should be.

I just wonder, if the immigration issue could be dealt with in a calm, reasonable, rational manner, would we still want to strike down the 14th Amendment. I doubt it.

Great post. Not only do the republicans pick and choose, they like to play fast and lose with what it actually says as in the 1st Amendment which clearly defines that this new country would be free of religious constraints, that it would have no established religion and that the Government would not engage in religion. They confuse the Founding Father's moral values with religious ones. One can exist without the other or can co-exist.

Your post reminds me of the CBS interview of all the repub and dem presidential candidates. When asked what book they found insight into governing and politics (something like that). Nearly every GOPer chose the Constitution.

Yes, "activist judges" have been "misapplying" the 14th Amendment since 1898. Since the court of 1898 CLEARLY had no clue as to proper 19th Century context of something that was adopted 30 years earlier it's important that we correct this misapplication a mere 112 years later, before it becomes hardened into the realm of Stare Decisis. We've already survived multiple mass immigrations with this crazy interpretation of the Constitution, what are the odds the Republic will survive this one?

Any person wanting to bet on a sure thing could pick this and make a bundle: Every two years, the GOP trots out its anti-illegal talking points in primary elections. Suddenly illegals are hazardous to America, they're evil criminals and drug lords, they are taking away American jobs, they are a drain on the economy. It's good politics to win their base. In the general election, their anti-illegal talking points are avoided whenever possible. If they win, those previously boistrous anti-illegal nominess return to their desks and do nothing to solve the problems they complained about, until the next campaign season.

Feisty. Enjoyed your comment and agree. I do think that the massive oil leak caused many to put aside caution about chemicals in the effort to stop it, to try anything that might help.

Ron - great post. You are right on the money with your assessment of this current 'issue'. I submit that John Kyl is just pandering to his rabid right-wing fringe (and if you are not a part of the right-wing fringe, then this comment does not pertain to you). John Kyl, Gov. Jan Brewer - both are playing a very DANGEROUS game. I can only see them playing this game for their own political gain.

Now - for Joe in Albany and Larry, Minot, ND - if you want to change the 14th Amendment, then understand the ramifications - and unintended consequences - of that action. First of all, if you are wanting to change or repeal the 14th Amendment, what makes you so sure that amending or repealing the 2nd amendment will be difficult? You would have already laid the foundation(s) for making changes as you see fit.

So, here is the analogy - the 2nd Amendment needs to be changed because we have the right to bear arms, but not AUTOMATIC weapons. Don't you think that the 2nd Amendment is broken? We need to amend it because the founding fathers did NOT want us to have AUTOMATIC weapons in our household.

As you can see, the above argument is ridiculous, and it is as ridiculous as the clamour to change the 14th Amendment.

Joe and Larry - if you go down this road to change the 14th Amendment, then BOTH OF YOU will be at risk of being DEPORTED - even though you are natural born citizens.

Think that could not happen?

Go ahead and repeal the 14th Amendment. I will GUARANTEE you that SOMEONE will be in power that will USE that precedence to get EVERYTHING they want. They may even be someone of a 'darker' pigment, that will use it to rid America of all of the 'white' people that have RUINED his/her America.

What recourse will you have?

This is a slippery slope that you are going down.

Are you SURE you REALLY want to start taking away people's citizenship?

If you do, you risk your OWN.

Pietro:

Thanks for the shout-out. When you talk, Ron listens. Have a good day.

... or you change the Constitution, which is how we got the 14th Amendment, in the first place, which was deemed necessary after slavery was abolished. The Bill of Rights exists to protect the minority against the tyranny of the majority, but it doesn't mean minority rule. Eventually, the mainstream, if it really IS main, will take itself back.

And good morning to Ron and all.

I'm really wondering what the big deal is..?! We have laws and rules for aliens to become citizens. Why don't we enforce those?

We hear every day how good laws passed years ago to solve a legitimate problem are now used unscrupulously as 'loop holes' to get away with bad ethics or even circumnavigate other just laws. We deplore that type of activity and shake our fists at the perpetrators. Yet, here we are with a group of people who are using a just law for it's day as a loop hole today to circumnavigate a just system of citizenry.

What is the big f'n beef? If they are in the country illegally then ship them out. Anyone walking across the borders of this country does not automatically get citizenship. It's just that simple! Why is that so difficult?! It's not fanatical. It's not xenophobia. It's common sense!

Are illegal aliens being mistreated? Why are they in the country to begin with? Did the US citizens drive over the border and bring 10's of 1000's of illegals into the country? No. If the illegals weren't here to begin with then we would not be having this conversation!

Why are the illegals coming here? Because their own country is a f'n cesspool of drug lords, hit squads and corrupt government officials. The people need to rise up and the US should help them overcome these problems. We are oh so happy to send troops to the other side of the world and have their legs blown off for WMD's but helping the neighbor with their major problems that are bleeding over directly onto our soil is not worth sending in the troops??

I am at a complete loss here and have been for the entire ridiculous argument. We have laws against illegal aliens cruzing happily about our country and we have them for a reason. Lets follow the rules. Like any other criminal be they white collar, blue collar or illegal; if an old law is being used as a loophole to commit a crime and get away with it then that law needs to be changed or removed. It just doesn't get any simpler than that...

Good Morning to you Anna Molly: Yep, there is a way to change the Constitution, but I like it the way it is. This morning you should have the last word.

Hopefully my home computer will be debugged this evening and I'll swing on the vine.

The last word? Well, I just meant that th most of us like the Constitution the way it is, and ultimately that's the message that will be sent by the majority to the minority. The playground bully will not prevail.

I know what you mean. I've had computer issues for several days. Hopefully, the finish line is in sight. I look forward to seeing you swing on that vine.

"Joe and Larry - if you go down this road to change the 14th Amendment, then BOTH OF YOU will be at risk of being DEPORTED - even though you are natural born citizens."

Not if it is amended to specify that the children of U.S. citizens (both parents) are the ONLY ones that get AUTOMATIC citizenship.

Joe - you are ASSUMING that you will still have some sort of CONTROL in your amendment. I think that you would have opened the door for others to interpret the 'change' you made in ways that you could not imagine.

That is the BEAUTY of the Constitution. That is the GENIUS of the founding fathers. The language that they chose in drafing this document was CAREFULLY chosen. There is NO (apparent) ambiguity in the language.

Also, what makes you think that down the road that someone else may 'amend or repeal' what you are proposing, replacing your language with other language that MAY be a detriment to you? The funny thing is that YOU MADE IT EASIER FOR THEM to draft legislation that will AFFECT YOU and YOUR CITIZENSHIP (you have set the precedent). You have cut off your nose to spite your face.

And you will have NO recourse.

NONE.

Again, do we REALLY want to go down this road?

The Republicans bring up illegal immigration as an issue to play to the fears & prejudices of their base while ignoring the easiest way to control it by failing to enact measures to punish employers for hiring illegals. So they keep the issue & fan the flames without hurting their big money corporate donors who are happy with the status quo. And the Democrats fall for it every time.

Steeler Fan: Your last line...And the Democrats fall for it every time. Earns my vote. How can it be that you and I have figured it out, but the politicians in Washington never learn?

"That is the BEAUTY of the Constitution. That is the GENIUS of the founding fathers. The language that they chose in drafing this document was CAREFULLY chosen. There is NO (apparent) ambiguity in the language."

Gee, I guess THAT's why it has been amended (a very difficult, and time consuming process) 27 times. And the Supreme Court has a busy schedule every year interpreting its meaning and usually ends up with half of the people paying attention totally disagreeing with their answers.

Joe, how will you prove that both of your parents were citizens when you were born. Because they were born here? How will they prove that all 4 of THEIR parents were citizens when your parents were born? By the logic that you're using ANY of your ancestors who can't be documented makes ALL THEIR DECENDENTS illegal. If you've ever played in genealogy you'll realize that it's a world where things get muddy really fast.

So I see Joe, your idea is to change the constitution so it effects everyone you don't like but doesn't bother you or the people you don't want hurt by the change. Typical tebagging republican stay out of my life till I need something from you, and change the constitution so it benefits the teabagger republicans. Idiots.

Pietro wrote: "That is the BEAUTY of the Constitution. That is the GENIUS of the founding fathers. The language that they chose in drafing this document was CAREFULLY chosen. There is NO (apparent) ambiguity in the language."

Joe in Albany wrote: Gee, I guess THAT's why it has been amended (a very difficult, and time consuming process) 27 times. And the Supreme Court has a busy schedule every year interpreting its meaning and usually ends up with half of the people paying attention totally disagreeing with their answers.

Joe, I am going to assume that you have a typical New York spin on this post, so I'll just say this as clearly as I can:

Yes, Joe, it WILL have amendments. Most LIVING documents do.

What is most disturbing about YOUR proposed amendments is that they are not thought out at all, and the unintended consequences will be YOUR - and our, if we go along with it - undoing as a nation.

Just like they like to pick and choose their bible quotes, trimmed out of context, patched together out of order and trotted out to make whatever point they are trying to make at the time...why should the wing-nuts treat the constitution any differently?

Constitutional dispensationalism anyone ?

Cincinnati Slim:

I never thought of it that way. I like your way of thinking. You should post more often.

I'll have some of that dispensationalism, please. Sounds delicious. Make mine rightwing tea over cracked ice. Something to sip while sitting on my big white vinyl sophistry watching The View and eating the tasty pablum served up by FAUX News.

I am surprised you Democrats even know what the Constitution is since your party ignores it most of the time.

You mean like that warrantless wiretapping thing? That suspension of Habeas Corpus thing? That Unitary Executive thing? That thing that said the President gets to decide which laws he's required to enforce? Yeah, Republicans have been real paragons of virtue in that regard. Legends in their own minds.

President Obama has attempted or succeeded the following violations.

1. Article 1, Section 6 of the U.S. Constitution:

No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time..."

Obama attempted to vote a pay raise for Hillary Clinton, who was still a member of Congress, and before her term is over, to be named as Secretary of State.

2. Section 9 of the Constitution says - Obama is in complete violation of this clause.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Obama takes Chairmanship of UN Security Council as the rotating chairmanship of the council goes to the U.S. this time around. The normal course of business would have U.S. Ambassador to UN Susan Rice take the gavel.

3. Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.

13 USC 4 directs-The Secretary of Commerce shall perform the functions and duties imposed upon him by this title, may issue such rules and regulations as he deems necessary to carry out such functions and duties, and may delegate the performance of such functions and duties and the authority to issue such rules and regulations to such officers and employees of the Department of Commerce as he may designate.

President Obama attempted to give the census job to his Chief of Staff, political-hack enforcer, Rahm Emanuel which would put the census right in the hands of President Obama's enforcers which opens the door for illegal acts.

4. Obama's appointment of all of these "czars" to oversee issues that is supposed to be handled by the legislative branch of the government.

Obama has appointed more "Czars" than the old Soviet Union ever had and furthermore, has ignored Congress who handles such appointments.

5. Violation of the 1^st Amendment, freedom of speech, by attacking Fox News and attempts at censorship.

6. The creation of an email address to report citizens - blatant attempts to silence and use old Socialist and Soviet style intimidation.
This is a clear and present danger with these blatant attempts to silence citizens as such tactics were used by Adolf Hitler and the old Soviet-style intimidation - need I say more?

7. Attempts at violating the 1^st Amendment again by trying to silence EPA Employees, Laurie Williams and husband Alan Zabel for Criticizing Cap and Trade.

Our Founding Fathers specifically included an impeachment clause for high officers who violate the principles of the Constitution as stated in Article II Section 4. That Constitutional clause states - "The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

Clearly, President Obama has repeatedly violated the very Oath of Office that every President takes and the interesting aspect of all of this? Not a single Congressmen or Senator has raised this issue within the Chambers of Congress.

As one of our Founders, John Adams in 1776 stated, "Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it."

On another note, Jesus was banned from the White House Christmas celebration and has been replaced with Ramadan complete with the appearance of Allah, the Moon God and our Founding Fathers thought America's Constitution and heritage will stay in place.
Until President Obama is impeached and removed from office, the future of America will be in doubt.

Currently we have Healtcare, trying to 'shut off' the internet (from an independant senator btw) and taking a state to court (they have their own Constitutions in case you didn't know) for enforcing the federal law, which the feds won't enforce due to an incompitent president who knows the only whay he will get into office for a 2nd term is by using the illegals and pandering to them.

Yea, this kind of ignorance of the Consititution.

How do you like your Hope and Change now democrats? NVM, you would like it, but real Americans are not amused. Move over, November is coming quickly.

For starters your understanding of the Constitution is not correct in regards to immigration. The Federal government is responsible for maintaining a secure border. If the Federal government does not, the Constitution clears the way for States and/or the People to do so. As for the Patriot Act, Obama and the Democrats have strengthed it to include the allowance of the administration to disable the internet in this country when "necessary."

TO ARMS??? I thought the red coats were coming. Sheesh, scared the bajeezus out of me.

TO ARMS??? That is a call for armed resistance to an invading force. Are you really suggesting that you and your fellow "patriots" will commit violence if this woman's appointment to the Supreme Court is approved?

HAVE YOU LOST YOUR MIND?

You sound hysterical. You need to take a deep breath, take a valium, stay away from the caffiene and get a grip.

I really think a more appropriate moniker for you would have been Chicken Little, "the sky is falling, the sky is falling." Puh-leeeeze.

Patrick, is there a special on tinfoil hats down at the local WalMart? I don't have time to dismantle your argument in its entirety this morning but really, Chair of the UN Security council is a "title of nobility?????"

Wow. I mean WOW.

Here's what I'm curious about:

Was there an amendment to HR 847 that was considered anathema to Republicans? I'm concerned that there may be something else missing in the re-telling of the story of HR 847. (Since it's a familiar tactic to attach amendments unrelated to the original text of the bill.)

Good Morning All and to you I.R. another great post...voted. I have a new hero, Congressman Anthony Weiner. Never have I seen such passion as he showed on this topic last week, clearly it is special to him and has great merit.

I, for one, wish we could see passion like this in more of our elected officials. I am so tired that every piece of legislation worthy of helping our citizens is up for hostage by the party of no and they get support for it. When will the majority of our elected officials do what is right, why must everything be a fight to the death. I am slowly removing myself from any faith I have ever had in believing in the goodness of man....the dark side is winning.

Good IR and Ron

We are so the same page this morning. Thank you for excellent, analytical posts.

Don't Repeal Health care the 14thAmendendent Finaciacial Reform, or Anything Else the Right Thinks about taking away: Repeal Republicans at the Ballot Box

The $110 million in California, including $91 million of Meg Whitman's own money is ludicrous while, the other 11 million is coming from the chamber of commerce. That would be the health care industry, the banksters, BP etc. Obama care is not bad; the chamber of commer push to exclude people in the insurance indudtry is bad; in fact it'll kill you

It's not a secert that diversions, hate, and straightout lies are diverted everywhere for our attention just to focus elsewhere by the GOP terrorist duels to shape up our thought procesess. The Republicans stagger the number of crimes in Arizona to scare people into supporting their SB1020 on the immigragtion crisis. Folks crime is down in the border states, including AZ. The facts can be verified.

The strict Constititounalist want to repeal the 14th amendent because they're haters and hypocritics. They would rather restrict a birth rate than give a humam being and its family the opportunity to help make America productive. More importantly, they ignore puting restictions on employers who exploit the labor of illgal immigrants.

On the expansion of wars ( or lack there of") there is a difference between Bush and Obama on this issue. That'd be President Obama is making an attempt to end the 2 wars and won the Nobel Peace Prize; Bush didn't and never will . I like Rachel Maddow choice to believe our President should be given the chance to prove he is sincere about ending the wars.

　

　

　

　

Sean In answer to your question from my perspective the only two major objections that I could find were the two I mentioned above. That is why I put it out there this morning in the hopes that some of our fellow posters could enlighten us further on how and what the position here derived from. Perhaps we can both be enlightened.

My thanks to you, GBM and Beverly and a Good Morning to all of you.

Another good one, I.R.

As for the GOP attachment regarding illegals, how biased and political. If illegals were killed in the 9/11 attacks, it means some employer hired them to work in the twin towers. If they were injured during rescue and clean up efforts, it means some employer hired them. They or their families deserve compensation as do legal citizens. Someone hired them.

If you look back at other legislation since Pres Obama took office, republicans have attached or attempted to attach the "illegal" phrasing on many including HCR.

Gingerbread Mama. I agree completely. Most of us have watched many speak and too often it is faux outrage or contrived. Rep Weiner was excellent, he was not pretending, it was heartfelt, he was passionate and meant every word he said. I enjoyed his two minutes! My Mom commented that every republican sitting in their chair was probably slithering to the floor to hide.

Sean my apologies I really thought that somebody would take advantage to help us out a little and shine a little light on this deal. I guess it’s another one of those inconvenient Truths that I seem to bring up from time to time. Judging by what I see from several here I’m going to have to take a little more care in the choice of my topics and get them lined up with whatever talking points they have been issued that day so you and I can be edified in a little more efficient manner.

GBM I do believe that as long as there are Gingerbread Mama’s, Beverly’s, Jody’s, Sean’s, Redneck’s and the host of other folks that we see here every day and our hosts continue to give us a little place to stand that the Dark Side can not, will not, and shall not win.

Jody, your Mom's comment made me laugh, I was wishing they would show their faces before they slithered to the floor.

This was, as you say, heartfelt and passionate outrage at the contrivances of the party of no. They have no compassion, no heart and no soul, yet, they are 'good' Christians or so they would have us believe. Actions speak louder than words

Okay, really? We're accepting punditry from Ted Nugent of all people? Really?

Yes. And Al Franken is a senator...really?

You and Joanna Smith are definitely stuck on stupid. Like her I hope you aren't breeding.

If you don't think my comments are fair maybe you shouldn't post such utter nonsense and call it a point of view. F#$%ing idiot.

CU Farley:

Boy, you have it bad this morning. The thing is CU, for every column you post like the one above others can find columns written by great Amercians praising this administration and the voters who put Obama in office. I suppose each man and each woman will determine who they think are great Americans and which of their columns to believe.

Is that all you got? Can't refute anything the man said? Name calling? Wow. Good thing your mom treated me better than this last night. Otherwise I would be mad at you and wouldn't have such a spring in my step. See? I can play that too. ;-)

From Ted Nugent....Really? Be serious.

I thought it was clear...refuting nonsense is pointless. That's like arguing with a 6 year old. they just don't understand logic and that the monster under their bed isn't real.

That wasn't my mother but the family dog. You'll be hearing from my lawyer. Lay off the stupid CU.

If it was Sean Penn you would love it. Admit it.

CU:

Name calling? You are accusing others of name-calling? What a hoot. Go back and look at all your posts CU. If anyone depends on name-calling to try and get a point across is you. I don't know whose mother you were speaking of above but it sure was not mine. She passed years ago. But if she were alive and you saw her last night she would have spanked your behind and sent you to bed.

Why the misery CU. Why are you such a negative miserbale person? I'm not name-calling but would just like to know. Are you for anything? It seems you are in your comfort zone when you can complain and be against something. Do you ever say anything postive?

CA, his name says it all, doesn't it? I wonder if his Momma would approve?

No, FU Carley, we are not ingnorant people that voted Obama in. Look how you ignorant people voted in Bush - TWICE. rotflmao

God bless Ted Nugent!

He puts it perfectly.... Political correctness has gotten us to this point where people are afraid of telling the truth.

The good news is Americans are waking up and realizing (as the Nug says so eloquantly) were on the path to becoming France....only worse.

Americans dont want gov't run Obama care, Americans dont want Big Brother running the economy, wall street or shoving unions down our throats.

What do Americans want? For the gov't to be like a good referee in a football game: invisible. We want the government to take care of the military, the roads and the emergency services. We dont want gov't being the one that we depend on....that is God's job alone. He is our Rock and our salvation. We are a Christian nation with almost all our laws based on the Ten Commandments that God gave Moses.

Were not a bunch of people who think that gov't has to take care of us. Were not that lady on the clip who is standing in line for her "Obama money"..... were not people who are in bed with the unions. Were not people who want Obama care to tell grandma that shes up a creek with out a paddle coz she is too old. Were not a people who are ok with gov't funded abortions nor are we a people that are ok with the gov't coming into a new parents house to make sure they are being a "good parent" according to Barack Hussein Obama MmmmmMMMMMmmmmm..... Were also not a country that is ok with our children being forced to sing the praises of our "glorious" "savior"......

We are a people who understand that with the chance were allowed as Americans that with the right to a better life that there is a chance that we as people will fail and that it is our own personal responsibility to take care of ourselves. We are a people that realize and understand that it is no ones responsibility to give me a nice retirement but my own. Its not yours or anyone elses....its my own. Along those lines we also believe that its not my responsibilty to provide for your retirement or healthcare. That is a personal responsibility.

We are NOT a liberal country. We never have been and God help us we never will be.

Weve taken God out of the gov't because we think we can "do it better" what an epic failure that is. Weve taken Him out of everything and we wonder why He isnt helping us now? Maybe if we, as a COUNTRY RESTORE HIM to His RIGHTFUL PLACE as God of our country we will one day return to our RIGHTFUL place as greatest country in the world.

Come November WE THE PEOPLE Will speak with a loud and distinct voice and we will let D.C. know that liberal progressive policies are not what WE THE PEOPLE want.

CU, I don't mind you citing people who are obviously both stupid and insane, but couldn't you just link to it? Even people who aren't smart enough to see through the aptly named "Motor City Madman" can manage to click a hyperlink.

CU Farley - Thank you for that post. I actually LIKE IT that you have posted that.

Now, on my impression(s) of the post - Ted Nugent was trying to tell you right-wing clowns that you have NO ONE TO BLAME BUT YOURSELVES FOR THE CURRENT PREDICAMENT THAT YOU FIND YOURSELVES IN.

You know what - Ted is ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

Ted Nugent is calling the right-wing IDIOTS for being fat, dumb and happy. He is calling the right-wing MORONS for not standing up for what you believe. He is calling the right-wing IMBECILES for trying to be politically correct.

You CANNOT make this stuff up.

The kicker is that it was a Right-winger, Ted Nugent, that stated all of this. Not a liberal. Not a Progressive. it was a CONSERVATIVE.

Now that I am finished laughing my arse off at the stupid looks on your faces (hey, it wasn't me who said all of this), here is the lesson - those of you who are NOT vigilant will LOSE what you have.

I think that Ted Nugent is wise to point that out.

As Americans, we need to be VIGILANT of our rights and our Constitution. We CANNOT let idiots - from either side of the aisle - put us in a position where we are GIVING UP our rights. We have the RESPONSIBILITY to protect what has been given to us.

Or else we'll end up like the right-wing fringe does now - looking STUPID when those rights are gone, and looking at each other wondering what happened.

Ted was right, and thanks Chuck U. Farley for sharing.

Good morning everyone, nice to hear from you today. I wish you had been around yesterday to help repel the boarders when the mob was after the First Lady. But I dealt with them, no problem.

Let's put Ted to Bed. I think he's been sniffing the Mousse again.

Mac, good to know there is someone rational in Oklahoma besides me. Keep up the good work.

Red, you go girl.

I am becoming increasingly alarmed at the tone and mob reaction from the misnamed "right".

The response to the Michelle Obama story yesterday was truly uncalled for and very frightening. If one of her children had read any of those hate-filled responses they would have been terrified.

Can't we just get along? Can't we have a civil discussion without all the rhetoric and nastiness?

C'mon, give a try folks.

PEACE

Ted Nugent should have substituted the name George Walker Bush and been accurate.

CU Farley
Yes. And Al Franken is a senator...really?

Yes. And Ronald Reagan was a president....really?

We can only pray that your kind fades away. There are many more people who believe in this country and understand what needs to be done to fix it. The haters, liars, propaganda spreaders, will loose in the end because the people who are the true Americans will see through the lies. We may be unusually quiet but, in the end, we will be the strong voices of reason and prevail.

My goodness CU - you need to get out more often, don't you know that teddy is a washed up ex hippie wanna be (never could quite cut it), who has absolutely no talent what so ever? Sorry, he is not someone I respect, never liked his music and if he does not like our country perhaps he should take care that any of our fine highway and interstate systems don't roll up and hit him where the good Lord split him on the way out. I would not miss him for one minute, he is the laughing stock of Nashville because we all know he has no real talent - a big loud mouth does not make one talented, and since he makes no sense when he talks or writes that makes him about as stupid as georgie w. You can love him if you want, but anytime I see anything with his name attached to it I just want to laugh because he is nothing but a joke. And by the way, what university did he graduate from? What was his degree in?

So why won’t the Republicans publish a list of their Town Hall Meetings ?

Sounds like they are afraid to face controversy … don’t you think ?

Any American voter that casts a ballot for a REPUBLICAN that refuses to tell that voter what they intend to do or not, in the 59 days after Election day is a fool or moron, and is putting it in writing with their ballot.

Seems to me that the above statement was true in 2008 and for 20 months the GOPers have done NOTHING to help this country.

So, Joe, does that mean you are calling yourself a MORON or an IDIOT because you cast a ballot for a REPUBLICAN (or REPUBLICANS) that refuse to tell - or do anything for THIS country?

Irony is SO sweet...

The republicans only invoke "the will of the American people" when it suits them.

The majority is in charge and lame-duck session or not, I expect the legislators whose salaries I pay to not sit on their hands from Nov until January.

Sorry, Pietro, my original comment only specified the 59 day period when a lame-duck session could occur. And I won't be voting for any candidate, of any party, that won't tell me their plans for that period.

It's ironic when a reading comprehension disablity makes someone see something that's not there and they make foolish statements as a result.

Why do the Reps refuse to voice their solutions to the current mess? They say they need to have a Rep Congress before they can do anything. I take this as holding America hostage and threatening to destroy this country for their own personal agenda's. They have no concern for the people of this country. They are a disgrace to all.

Joe - it seems to me that you didn't read my post at all. I was actually making a play on your statement that was turned around. It was meant to show that your statement was pretty silly in the first place when you turn it aruond.

That's OK, Joe, that you think my statement was foolish.

And I am glad that we cleared up the issue about you voting for candidates that won't tell you their plans for that period.

I acutally thought you were a moron. I guess I should give you credit where credit is due.

Joe, you are crazy, actually if anyone votes for a repugnant for any office (won't do it myself, not even in a local non party race - I find out who they are and if they are repugnants I don't vote for them and if they own a business I don't spend my money with them) they are pitiful, brainwashed, and just nuts. I won't call anyone a fool because in my Bible that is a sin, perhaps you need a visit from some of your Christian conservative friends to explain that one to you?

Good to see your not going to vote for anyone this election Joe. Cause I doubt anyone teabagging republican or Democrat will tell you what their going to do in that infamous 59 days of yours. It's funny your so worried about your infamous 59 days but not to concerned about the other 645 days you teabagging republicans didn't do anything. Idiot.

Mo, I'm going to go out on a limb here especially for you: My bet is that almost EVERY incumbent Republican that's running for re-election will stake out a position on what they'll do if the Dems try to stuff a bunch of crappola legislation down American's throats in a lame-duck session.

Time will tell.

Speaking of time, 59 days plus 645 days = 704 days.

What's the significance of 704 days? Is that the length of a two year term in Congress on Planet Liberal? Idiot.

Joe,

I am having trouble understanding your point, or did you have one?

The thing that struck me about what you posted was the stagnant personal incomes . . . when are these record corporate profits gonna trickle down to the folks actually doing the work?

Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

@Joe:

I'll agree with you on this one. From what I understand, businesses won't hire because they don't know what's going to happen, not because they want to undo Obama. (My source: a random post on MSN Money - guilty.)

It makes sense - why hire if you won't know how much your marginal costs will be after you take them on.

Question for SeanDoonan:

When has business ever known what was going to happen?

How is it possible to know definitively what is going to happen?

People have to go on with their lives daily not knowing what is going to happen every day.

I mean, didn't the entire economy just implode . . . you think business "knew" that was going to happen?

How can requiring the impossible before you proceed, absolute certainty about the future, be considered a rational business model?

I mean, if an individual was planning their life this way, they would be referred to a psychologist.

Companies hire based mostly based on their ability to keep up with the demand for their product or service.

When people start buying companies will hire.

@Nashville:

A fair question. I guess I don't know enough about the topic to have any sort of good opinion on the idea. But what I think I meant was stuff like taxes, where you know about it before it goes into effect. And since the tax debate has no clear resolution (for now), that's where the uncertainty is.

Some uncertainty is expected (this is the real world, not a computer simulation, after all), but my point was that there's too much uncertainty.

And no, nobody knew the economic implosion was coming, I'll give you that.

Nash, once you start your business maybe you will not have time to worry about my FR post's "point".

You can concentrate on hiring new employees and giving them weekly pay raises.

BTW, anyone of these "folks actually doing the work" that has a 401 (k) with stock mutual funds benefits every time an evil corp. reports "record profits" and the stock price goes up.

Nashville_fan

Question for SeanDoonan:

When has business ever known what was going to happen?

How is it possible to know definitively what is going to happen?

Typical liberal. Everything is black and white to them. Businesses abhor uncertainty. The more things they know about the environment they are functioning in, the better they can plan, and the more profit they can make. One thing businesses have to deal with is the government. Taxes, regulations, restrictions, rules, the EPA, paperwork, insurance regulations, on and on it goes. With the current government in place, businesses know they are a target, they are the enemy, they are the "evil rich people that must be taxed". Businesses know the government is at their door-step and they are not there to help. Businesses have no idea what the government is going to lay at their feet, and they are showing that by not growing their businesses, even with record low interest rates. Businesses know this government isn't here to work with them, but it is here to work against them, and we see the results, ie., no growth, no hiring, no risk taking.

Obama and his administration are now reaping what they sowed.

Joe, technically speaking, I don't have time to worry about your posts point now! :)

P.S. Is there something non-conservative about paying folks a living wage? Why should I have to wait until a stock price goes up . . . I mean, I show up to work daily . . . why can't I be paid better as profits increase, instead of having virtual profits added to my virtual 401K that could all be lost tomorrow?

P.S.S. The cost of health insurance skyrockets every year, but I have never heard a business say that they couldn't hire because they were "uncertain" about what was going to happen with health insurance . . . the sweet little businesses are very selective about which areas the evils of "uncertainty" have control over.

Predictably, whenever businesses are being called on their bullsh!t, JoAnna Smith appears to defend them from the "burden" of having to follow the law and pay their taxes like the rest of us "little people".

God forbid that a corporation have to pay more than zero in taxes, that would just be unacceptable.

The mean old "guvment" is out to punish the sweet and hard working corporations.

Just ignore the oil in the Gulf, and the money that was stolen from the value of your house and your stocks and bonds, and all the folks who have died in explosions in unregulated oil rigs and coal mines.

That is all irrelevant.

Your primary concern should be making corporations feel "certain" so then they "may" feel comfortable enough to give you a "job".

Or maybe they will just pay the top management a year end bonus equal to more than you make your entire life.

Or maybe they will pillage the company until it goes out of business, and then leave with a golden parachute, and leave you unemployed and bitter.

But hey, that's not THEIR fault . . . its the GUVMENTS fault for trying to regulate them.

Sweet, mistreated corporations.

Nash,

Your point on the cost of Insurance is a great example.

Companies hire based on product demand. They adjust their price based on their cost which includes regulations, taxes, other related employee costs and their competition.

Well NF, you answered your own question. Businesses know that the hardcore leftist base of the country, the ones currently in charge like Obama, Pelosi, Reid, will do everything they can to burden businesses with more and more taxes, regulations, and rules. And with that uncertainty, businesses do not like to hire or expand their businesses. Why would a business hire 30 people not knowing what the business was on the hook for with respect to salary (ie, a "living wage", what ever that is), or with insurance (head tax for Obama care). Businesses don't like to hire without knowing that they can keep those employees for the long term, and we see the results today, they aren't hiring.

So you go ahead and have your political representitives continue to make businesses feel uncertain about what they should do. Let us know how that works out.

Notice how JoAnna completely ignores all of the recent problems we have recently had based on unregulated corporations in this country.

Her only concern is that corporations be free to do whatever they want, no matter the cost in human lives.

'Nuff said.

P.S. If corporations don't hire, then we won't have the money to buy all the junk they sell us that we don't need in the first place.

So if they want to pay a game of chicken with the U.S. economy, then that is just fine with me. All the more proof that we should not leave our future in their hands in the first place, because the only thing they care about is profit . . . even if they have to destroy this country in the process.

Wonder if all these cheap laborers in China and India can afford an Ipad or stainless steel appliances on what they are making . . . can't wait to find out.

"P.S.S. The cost of health insurance skyrockets every year, but I have never heard a business say that they couldn't hire because they were "uncertain" about what was going to happen with health insurance"

Nash: That may be true on your home planet, Planet Liberal (You never hear the people that live there complaining about the cost of a "free lunch", either. LOL!!!). But, where I live, on Earth, the uncertainty of the costs businesses will incur under Barry's ClunkerCare HCR are a MAJOR ONGOING reason that businesses, in particular, small businesses, are not hiring. On Earth, it's in the news practically every day.

Dennis, Columbus, Ohio

Nash,

Your point on the cost of Insurance is a great example.

Companies hire based on product demand. They adjust their price based on their cost which includes regulations, taxes, other related employee costs and their competition.

Businesses hire to expand their profit margins. For many products, there is a long lead time to develop the product, and if companies waited for the demand for the product to pick up, they would be out of luck when the demand went up, and they had not finished developing that product. This is the risk aspect that liberals do not seem to understand. To ramp up research and development on product takes time and money and are not without a lot of risk. Businesses do not want to ramp up development because they fear the government will come in and load them down with additional burdens before they have completed work on their product. That just increases the risk even more for the businesses, and many of them forgo development of new products for just that reason.

Gee Joanna you are right! Liberals, lefties, and anyone else who disagrees with you obviously want to destroy the U.S. economy. Do you think these comments through before you post.

I'll use a quote from Bill to make my point when it comes to business and the 'rules' we lefties feel are fair.

"Because along with the freedom to do what you choose in America, comes the implied obligation to exercise that freedom responsibly."

Profits by any means necessary is unacceptable and irresponsible. Any point of view to the contrary is ignorance. So if their uncertainty is caused by government making these companies/corporations responsible than I'll use the capitalistic rule by saying good bye and good riddance.

What should we do about all the folks killed by corporate irresponsibility?

The folks who blow up in coal mines that have already incurred hundereds of violations?

The folks who blow up on oil rigs?

The folks who die because of unsafe drugs and tainted food?

The babies who die in unsafe cribs and strollers?

The old folks who face poverty because of getting their life savings stolen in stock market and mortgage scams?

All of the dead wildlife in the polluted waterways of this country?

If government regulation is not the answer, what is the rememdy?

Are all these deaths just acceptable "collateral damage"?

Is this the cost of having "jobs" in America?

_fan

Notice how JoAnna completely ignores all of the recent problems we have recently had based on unregulated corporations in this country.

Her only concern is that corporations be free to do whatever they want, no matter the cost in human lives

NF, please stop with the nonsense. Name one unregulated corporation in the United States. One! That would include one that is not subject to taxes, has no OSHA regulations, no affirmative action requirements, no EPA rules that it follows, no zoning ordinances it must follow, nothing.

Name one.

Joe,

You can play dumb if you want, but even before President Obama announced he was running for President, the cost of healthcare in this country has been increasing at rates that far out pace the increase in wages (as your original post pointed out - wages in this country are stagnant and have been for YEARS).

So to try and pretend like all of a sudden, because the government is trying to do something about CORPORATE ABUSES in the health insurance industry like no coverage of "pre-existing conditions" (isn't being human a pre-existing condition - who had NO MEDICAL PROBLEMS?), and the practice of DROPPING FOLKS' INSURANCE just because they did not want to PAY.

Once again I ask, WHAT IS THE REMEDY for CORPORATE ABUSE? If I am sick, I don't have the time or energy to FIGHT with the insurance company, which sadly is what they are literally BANKING ON!

I call BULLSH!T and I will NOT feel SORRY for CORPORATE ABUSERS over those who are BEING ABUSED!

And you CANNOT DENY that this abuse is HAPPENING, and until you provide a viable alternative to government regulation, then I say you can PUT A SOCK in the POOR UNCERTAIN CORPORATIONS act.

That. dog. won't. hunt.

JoAnna,

If you look at many of the top companies portfolios for the past 2 years you will see they have cut their R&D by a smaller percentage than most other expresses.

I don't respond to questions from JoAnna Smith because she doesn't respond to questions from me.

She has been dismissed.

Joanna

Major League Baseball

PEACE

JoAnna, I guess companies just outsourced ALL the jobs for no visible reason but to:

Increase their profit margins (thats a biggie)

Avoid taxes

Avoid regulations

Name one that didn't........(crickets)

Outsourcing worked for the corporations just fine!

Dan Austin, Tx

Profits by any means necessary is unacceptable and irresponsible. Any point of view to the contrary is ignorance. So if their uncertainty is caused by government making these companies/corporations responsible than I'll use the capitalistic rule by saying good bye and good riddance.

Then when the company you work for can't compete on the world stage, you'll completely understand when your job goes to China, correct? And that will make you happy, because, good gosh, you got your way, correct?

You know Joe, your HAHAHAHHA!!!!!!! makes me think you're 13 years old. Anything you might say that makes sense is lost in childish things.

Dear sweet little corporation moving to China to avoid following American law:

Don't let the door hit ya on the way out.

Hey, I just remembered, I don't need a glow in the dark, stainless steel, painted with lead paint ice tray after all.

Who knew.

chilled

Outsourcing worked for the corporations just fine!

Sure did. And now the liberals want to tax and regulate those corporations even more. Do you think that will bring the jobs back?

JoAnnaSmith

You really need to see the documentary "Food INC", about how large corporations have come to control small farmers, putting them in debt and controlling how our food is manufactured. It will make you want to shop at farmer's markets and avoid all packaged foods from now on!

I think its so funny how the Republicans make Government out to be Big Brother, when it's really the large corporations that exploit individuals and run independent entrepreneurs into the ground.

Nashville_fan

I don't respond to questions from JoAnna Smith because she doesn't respond to questions from me.

She has been dismissed.

____________________

As much as I look forward to the daily spanking's you hand to JoAnna... now you're learning GF!

Joanna Smith aka selfish redhead's primary function here is to instigate and provoke.

Am I the only one who's noticed she's only around from 9-5 and NEVER works weekends! I'd call that a pretty 'cushy' gig ! lol

Looks like Nancy Pelosi's doing her part to stimulate consumer spending. Today's WSJ reports that higher Botox sales drove a 34% increase in maker Allergan's quarterly profits.

LOL!!!

"Then when the company you work for can't compete on the world stage, you'll completely understand when your job goes to China, correct? And that will make you happy, because, good gosh, you got your way, correct?"

Joanna if competing in the world economy means using slave labor to be competitive than I believe the United States should take the morally responsible stance and not deal with countries whose corporations outsource cheap labor to make a larger profit margin for the already wealthy. If you were smart in any way shape or form you would understand that by outsourcing cheap/slave labor you actually hurt local small businesses and make the world worse not better.

If you disagree than you are morally f@#$ed and are economically retarded because it may help profits in the short term but the long term effects are disastrous. Look around and you can already see the effects. Sure we can produce cheap garbage but who has the money to buy it?

Use your brain once in a while. It's that lump 3 feet above your azz.

Joe,

Did you find that Botox story while looking for the conservative solution to corporate malfeasance?

Or are you gonna just ignore everything that doesn't fit in neatly with your talking ponts like you usually do?

P.S. You do know what "LOL" stands for right . . . cause most of the stuff you type it under isn't all that funny. . . kind of like how you ignoring corporate abuse is not funny.

"You know Joe, your HAHAHAHHA!!!!!!! makes me think you're 13 years old. Anything you might say that makes sense is lost in childish things."

"You do know what "LOL" stands for right . . . cause most of the stuff you type it under isn't all that funny. . . kind of like how you ignoring corporate abuse is not funny."

Jody and Nash: You are both taking FR waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to seriously.

This is a cable TV political blog open to anyone with an email address, not, some really important forum that affects the real world, like say the Congress or the U.N. (LOL!!! Sorry, Nash, I just couldn't resist.) For the most part it's a lefty liberal echo chamber/mutual-admiration club that isn't very tolerant of viewpoints that don't match their own.

It's entertainment!!

If you really want to make a difference, back away from your keyboard, turn off the computer and go out and actually do something.

Joe,

Thanks for the advice.

Guess I'm never gonna get your opinion on corporate abuse . . . I guess you are just too "uncertain" to give your own opinion without the safety net of pre digested talking points to regurgitate.

Thanks for letting me know that you are just here for sh!ts ang giggles and you don't take the stuff you post that seriously.

You are dismissed.

This craziness about businesses not hiring because they don't know what is going to happen is a major cop out. No one knows from one day to the next what is going to happen. What I do know is any company who has to protect billions of dollars in profits really doesn't need to be concerned about hiring someone for $8 an hour.

Greed make this world go round.

How can requiring the impossible before you proceed, absolute certainty about the future, be considered a rational business model?

It's called calculated risk. You take the factors that you know and you make your best guess off of them. When so many factors are unknown (what is the true effect of Obama care? Will Cap & Trade pass? Will the credit market free up?) its difficult to make the leap of faith that you're asking businesses to take. Businesses don't operate to employee people, they operate to make a profit. If there's no profit, where is the incentive to produce? If there is no demand to purchase their product, why would the hire more people to produce that which is not selling? The American consumer is as guilty of driving jobs overseas as any corporation is of seeking higher profits. We want to buy the biggest toys for the least amount of money- in a global market American manufacturers are finding it harder and harder to compete because of our demands both as employees and consumers.

"You are dismissed."

Nash, thanks to you for confirming FR is: "a lefty liberal echo chamber/mutual-admiration club that isn't very tolerant of viewpoints that don't match their own."

BTW, hire any new employees or give the existing ones a raise today?

No?

Are you hoping this President fails and the progressive movement is destroyed?

Just to be clear to any SINCERE person reading out there, which clearly does not include Joe:

It is not the viewpoints that I have a problem with, it is the inability to support that viewpoint with anything resembling reality or verifiable facts.

OUCH Nash...

That one had to hurt!

But... didn't you hear? According to the right wing nuts - NO ONE reads this board! lmao ;0)))

Joe was lucky enough to be the first troll I tested out my 'ignore author' option on!

"NF, please stop with the nonsense. Name one unregulated corporation in the United States. One! That would include one that is not subject to taxes, has no OSHA regulations, no affirmative action requirements, no EPA rules that it follows, no zoning ordinances it must follow, nothing."

And THAT isn't nonsense? You'll never be lonely because you have your strawman.

You know VERY WELL we're talking about the Enrons who took advantage of decreased oversight to try to bankrupt the California energy user, the financial institutions who wanted Glass-Steagall gone so they could crash the world economy, the oil companies who bought the regulations they wanted so they could dump poison into the Gulf and say "oops", the mining companies who told us "now isn't the time to look at safety" so they could kill more workers. And on. And on. And on.

Your consistent refusal to positions based on fact is both tiresome and revealing.

@JoAnnaSmith

Point specifically made. Since you have no idea what a "living wage" is, your objections, platitudes and examples, name-callings and supposed 'knowledge' of anything going on out there is a moot point.

"Just to be clear to any SINCERE person reading out there, which clearly does not include Joe:"

Nash, you're killin' me. I was definitely hoping I would have the most sincere pumpkin patch on FR, so the Great Pumpkin would visit it this Halloween!!!!

Feisty, ;0))) There's those three chins again. Oh, that's right, I'm on double-secret probation with you, so, you won't see this.

LOL!!!

"Nash, you're killin' me. I was definitely hoping I would have the most sincere pumpkin patch on FR, so the Great Pumpkin would visit it this Halloween!!!!"

lol

That was funny Joe . . . maybe you do know what lol means . . . you are qualified to tell jokes . . . but apparently that is as far as it goes! ;o)

I want to jump in on the 'name one company that isn't regulated' topic. The entire Insurance Industry (not just ONE company - but the entire kit and kaboodle) is NOT regulated by the government. Look at how well THAT has worked out for the average American.

That's right folks,...The National Association of Insurance Commissioners are the regulating authority for the Insurance Industry. Talk about a joke? Each State has a commissioner and they in turn regulate their own companies. I kind of envision Immigration going the way of the wonderful and kind Insurance industry if the Federal Government is decommissioned in the whole border security thing. Some states will think it is LESS important than other states,...you know the whole canard about Corporate Rights first, citizens be damned.

Hey Chuckey Doll - guess you've missed all the other reports over the years that the Taliban has been targetting Afghans who help us huh? Too bad you'll never graduate from kindergarden. No I saw the report and it's just more propaganda from the corrupt conservative Reichwing liars who want perpetual crusades against the Muslims, you know deadbeats like you.

Hey Chuckey Doll why don't you regale us with your personal war stories? Oh you don't have any because you were too cowardly and self serving to serve your country. Yeah what I thought another cowardly Reichwing chickenhawk who never practices what he preaches.

hEY eRIC...

i SERVED.... 10 YEARS TO BE EXACT IN iRAQ AND aFGHANistan.... care to deal with me then?

Wikileak should be sued and taken out of business. They are just as much a threat to american safety and security as the Extremist Muslims are.

Hey Larry, we haven't been in Iraq or Afghanistan for 10 years, kinda blows your lie up doesn't it. BTW tours of duty aren't for 10 years there for up to 14 months. You teabagger republicans will learn to get the facts before you start to comment. But facts are something that scares you to death.

I served six months at Kirkuk Regional Air Base (Iraq) in 2003 and 6 months at Bagram Air Base in 2007-8 (Afghanistan. I bviously didnt mean 10 years total

Please try posting again Eric. And make some sense this time. Then I give you my permission to go back outside and play on your Slip n Slide.

Eric, you are a blithering idiot Don't you choke on all the BS spilling out of your mouth? Try kaopectate. Might help you get through the rest of the day.

Hmm

you must have struck a nerve, Eric.

"When there are that many candidates for one party's nomination, it is easier for a Tea Partier to win--their supporters are highly charged."

This is happening in Maine this year, where the Tea Party conservative, Paul LePage, won the Republican nomination and is now embarrassing the Party all over the place. He's already been quoted accusing the Democratic Party leader of prejudice against Franco-American Catholics over remarks about teaching creationism in schools. He still has strong "base" support, and I worry the Democratic candidate, Libby Mitchell, and the Independent, Cutler, may split the support of the "reasonable" middle and we will end up with the least experienced, most extreme governor ever elected. Speaking of which, I saw a clip of Sarah Palin on Chris Wallace's show, working that "writing on the palm" business. One would think old fashioned Republicans, if they still exist, would be deeply embarrassed by her.

This post can be summed up thusly:

"People who I don't feel comfortable with should alter their lives and forego their freedoms to make me more comfortable."

How ridiculous.

"There is no maxim, in my opinion, which is more liable to be misapplied, and which, therefore, more needs elucidation, than the current one, that the interest of the majority is the political standard of right and wrong. "
-James Madison

"In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place. "
-Mohandas Gandhi

@Nashville:

It's a balancing act between the right to freely worship anywhere and the right to the pursuit of happiness (by not reopening a collective wound on the American psyche). The only question is, at what point do you have to give over to someone else's rights?

The simple truth is we either believe all Muslims are terrorists or we don't.

I for one, do not believe that being a Muslim makes you any more likely than any other religion to be a terrorist.

I think that their are heinous acts that happen daily by people from all religious backgrounds.

And I think that if the legacy of 9-11 is that we curtail one of the tenets that this country was founded on, religious freedom, then in fact the terrorists have won after all.

Strange how when there's a disagreement between Conservatives and...anyone else the "natural compromise" is to do what Conservatives want. How very reasonable.

"Because along with the freedom to do what you choose in America, comes the implied obligation to exercise that freedom responsibly."

Can we apply this to corporations or Christianity? or does this only work whenever it suits your purpose?

To say that the people who flew those planes are the same people who want to build a mosque is ridiculous. Are you saying we should judge all religious people by their fanatical followers?

One final point:

I think everytime that we Americans blink in the face of Islam, we appear weak.

I mean, the decision not to have the 9-11 terror trials in New York, what's up with that?

The inability to close Guantanamo because folks are "scared" of Muslim prisoners moving to other . . . prisons?

I mean, either we are the United States of America and we fear no man, or we are afraid of Muslims and would rather they stay far away so they can't hurt us anymore.

I just don't think this constant hand wringing everytime we have to deal with Muslims is a good look.

And it must be awesome for terrorist recruiting as well. . . "See, what did we tell you? They don't even want to be on the same block with you . . . they don't even think you are human."

Bill, Fairfax:

I don't know Bill. Seems like it would be a heck of a powerful thing to show the world just how great the U.S. is if folks would say they had no problem with the Islamic Cultural Center being built a few blocks from ground zero. Seems to me the mesaage would be that while we will not tolerate and will defend ourselves aganist any and all types of terrorism we are such a great people that we also will allow people to participate in and build structures no matter the location as it may in celebration of their own religious beliefs. What better snub to extremists of any faith if people were to support the building of this Center near ground zero.

On the other hand I understand the feelings of some and perhaps the conversation should go like this. Non-Muslims would state we are such a great people and the most tolerant nation on earth that that we are not opposed to your Cultrual Center location. The Muslim community would reply, we wish to thank you for your sentiments and appreciate your tolerance but because we know the proximity of the Center to ground zero would cause some pain we will find another location. The non-Muslim people would reply, no, that is ok. Your location is fine. The Muslim people would then reply, again we appraciate it but in the interest and concern for those who would be upset due to this castastrophic incident we'll find another location.

Trouble is Bill. People don't behave towards one another as that above do they.

Actually, Bill, Ground Zero should be set aside as a teaching tool for future generations that atrocities do happen BUT people can bridge their differences and live in peace.

I think that the real estate that is Ground Zero should have SOMETHING from EVERYONE affected by this tragedy. Muslims, Christians, Firefighters, First Responders, families of victims - All should have a monument or something inthis small area that people can tour.

It would be a LOT like the D-Day veterans monument in France.

I think that this issue of building a Mosque is a canard, and it was designed to inflame the situation. Cooler heads should prevail and hopefully that real estate will be used to show that one's inhumanity CANNOT be tolerated and we should strive to be more conciliatory in our dealings with one another.

I don't disagree with your remark about getting bogged down on this issue.

I support the 1st Amendment about religious freedom--it should not be religious freedom except Islam. I understand that passions run high in NYC; it is up to New Yorkers and not the rest of us. Personally, I do not see why it should matter whether it is a mosque or a synagogue--it is blocks from ground zero and not in it.

Speaking of the Ground Zero "mosque" (quotes because it's only given that title due to an association with an Islamic group), MSNBC just annouced that the building that will eventually house the "mosque" will not be given "landmark" status.

A very interesting commentary on this link.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704271804575405330350430368.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

For those of you who want an extract, it basically goes like this.

Carmelite nuns moved into an abandoned building at Auschwitz, which offended Jews, as that was one of the more nefarious death camps in Nazi Germany. The nuns sole intent was to pray for the souls of those who lost their lives at that site. As this was extremely offensive to the Jews, the pope stepped in, and asked the Carmelites to move to another convent that would be, or was, built for them in the same city. The nuns agreed to move, although they were within their rights to reside in the abandoned building at Auschwitz.

The gist is, that although the Islamic Cultural Center has every right to build/have a presence at that site, it may very well be that they would gain far more goodwill by moving offsite, than by insisting that they be onsite. The author says it much better than I, take a look at the link for more info.

I think CA has it right--it would send a message of tolerance to accept the mosque and to say that we respect the right of Muslims to worship and that all Muslims are not terrorists.

Were I in command (which, clearly, I am not, nor do I have practical experience in warfare), I would've kept the current strategy with one change: keep the government free of corruption.

Clearly an idealistic approach to the matter, but I seem to remember reading something somewhere that we knew Karzai would be corrupt, but we helped installing him anyway. Not exactly the best way to go about it.

Good point. I caught Chris Matthew's remarks and he is so right.

The GOP is focused on the evils of being brown now instead of black and are happily pushing the fearISM of it.

My AZ friends commented that a big portion of the AZ population relocated for retirement or health reasons from middle and northern states where most people looked like them; they have a hard time when they see so many brown-skinned people around them, and it scares them. Makes sense to me.

Beverly,

She rants against the President and I have to wonder a couple things:

Does she even understand the issue and the fact that this President has done more for border security than any other president?

What would she do? She offers no solutions.

Hey Beverly in Chicago - Feisty's question about Sinner Sarah peeking at Pinhead Pence's cajones is funny but we all know that Pinhead Pence's cajones shriveled up long ago after he stopped being a real man and became a tea bagging prancing pansy. Obviously Simpleton Sarah thinks with her lower anatomy because everytime she talks all we hear are vagina farts! Her monologues should be called the Vagina Chronicles.

Morning Bev!

There's nothing Pence and the rest of the old WHITE horn dogs wouldn't LOVE MORE than a little tea bagging time with Grama Grizzly!

She's a freak alright... in more ways than one! lol

Eric

Pence, Tea baggers and other racist deserve each other; not America. Too bad we can't deport them to a banal island where they could all be one big f*&^ing happy family prancing around peering at each other.

That's all they do anyhow.

C'mon guys, tone it down a bit. This is starting to sound like the mob ravings from the right yesterday about the first lady.

You know where I stand. That's me in the picture, standing to the left of Lenin (ahahahahahaah) if you believe everything the right says about me.

But c'mon, let's not get as crude as they do. We've got the morale high ground here and we should not abandon it to get down in the gutter with them.

I'm just sayin'...we're better than this.

PEACE

Sarah is a puppet--she repeats what she hears and cannot give a comprehensive answer on any subject. My first impression of her remains intact--all flash, no substance.

Yup, the Lipsticker castrated the "First Dude" a long time ago. I noticed that with her Sunday Morning hand jive, her wedding band was missing!

M. Fisher:

No, the poll numbers on Afhanistan are not astounding. They reflect the mindset of the American people. We will defend ourselves no matter what it takes but we will not tolerate getting bogged down and losing young military personnel in policing actions across the globe where victory cannot be defined nor achieved, where our troops cannot distinguish friend from foe half the time and where the enemy can hit you and then blend in with the local population.

Give the American people (and the military) an objective to meet that will provide them with a solid defintion and sense of victory and no one can stop them. Give them a muddled purpose and unidentifiable solid objective and after a time they will say, screw this.

Besides, anyone with some sense should know that figiting global terrorism is a job for international law enforcement and intelligence, and small-stealth and deadly (in-and-out) units. Not large troop deployments.

I think the MSM does a disservice to the American people by failing to give a daily report on Iraq and Afghanistan unless something bad happens. We rarely hear of good things. My guess is that IF we were not in an economic Great Recession, the American people would pay little attention to these long wars.

Retired Colonel Andrew Bachevich was on Rachel's show last night. He made some valid points particularly on the length and the willingness to accept Bush's reasons for the Iraq War. What sacrifices have the majority of the American people made? None. We were not even asked to PAY for the wars--it all was added to the deficit and the debt.

The only people who have sacrificed to fight these two protracted wars have been the small percentage of Americans who are in the military. They and their families have given much and we have refused to even consider tax increases to pay for it.

Jody i usually enjoy your posts and this one is no exception but for one statement.

"The only people who have sacrificed to fight these two protracted wars have been the small percentage of Americans who are in the military"

Everyone in the United States and possibly around the world has sacrificed because of these wars. The lack of focus on so many other issues world wide and here at home. Had these wars not been waged what could we have focused on that would have been more beneficial?

I feel like progress has been stifled for the last 10 years. We can never get that time back and that to me is the ultimate sacrifice. We must remember and honor those who were put directly in harms way but we also must not forget those that were silenced or forgotten because we were distracted.

I do agree with your tax increase comment.

Much respect to you Jody!

Joe:

If in your mind, your opinion is equivalent to the Consititution of the United States, then clearly we have nothing to discuss.

Nash, I'll take that as a "No, I agree with Ron politically and, therefore, NOTHING he ever says is ridiculous."

Ever notice how NF runs away as soon as the going gets a little rough, like when someone asks NF to explain something? NF can't, won't, and refuses to pull his/her head out of her backside. I'd feel sorry for the likes of you NF, but I can't because it's your type that is killing the country, because of your greed, because you think you're a victim, because you think someone owes you something. And don't think I'm picking on you NF, others here have the same sense of entitlement, Dan, B.Honest, the list is endless.

And then you have the truly clueless, the Feisty's, and the drive-thru's. Feisty has to figure out what someone said to her today so she may have some idiot response she can come up with by tomorrow. At least NF has an idea what is going on, Feisty and her ilk don't even have a clue.

Joanna,

YOU are what is killing this country because you choose to be ignorant and ignore facts in favor of a fantasy world that doesn't exist. I hardly think you are the right person to try and point out anyone refusing to answer questions. You have yet to make a valid point on any subject. As i have stated before you are morally f@#$ed and economically retarded. If the game is a dog eat dog world change the game. I refuse to accept cruelty and indifference from corporations as business as usual.

I do appreciate the free press though! See you around.

Being dismissed is hard on smear artists . . . unable to gin up enough sympathy for poor, mistreated corporations, JoAnna resorts to moving to a different thread to gin up sympathy for herself.

Poor baby.

If you cannot make your point telling the truth, then you don't have a point to make. . . and that is why you have been dismissed.

P.S. I am not the one running to a different thread because I cannot answer simple quesions like what should we do about corporate abuse? I mean that is not a trick question.

P.S.S. Nashville_fan is a 39 year old, grown a$$ black woman for future reference.

Well then gee Dan, I guess you are just SOL. Because the world owes you no favors, nor will it ever give you any. The hard working producers will just have to carry your sorry butt as part of their penance for working so hard. It's a price that has to be paid for the lazy I guess. Your "refuse to accept", but you will accept it, either that or live off others. And if you live off others, then you play by their rules. Wimps like you are a dime a dozen Dan. They make a lot of noise, but and the end of the day, you're just another loser.

NF, you're obviously too emotional to discuss these subjects in a reasonable fashion. Good luck in your quest to destroy our corporations.

You're dismissed.

Faced with reality, and unable to accept it, JoAnna lashes out wildly calling all that do not accept her talking points "losers", and clinging to her belief that corporations are "hard working producers", when it is the workers they employ, often at non-living wages, that do the majority of the work.

Completely ignoring the incredible pain that has come to the country as a result of corporate malfeasance, she clings desperately to all she has left, the belief that she is better than everyone else and corporations can do no wrong.

The truth will set you free . . . unless you refuse to go.

Joanna -----> LOL!

I like that you assume so much in your statement. It just so happens that I run a very profitable business that I work very hard at maintaining. <-----Guess what that means go f#$@ yourself. (:^D

Oh just kidding Joanna. I'm sure you're a real doll in person. You really shouldn't assume so much. Just because you cannot articulate a logical and intelligent response doesn't mean you should just make stuff up....oh wait I forgot what part of political spectrum you came from.

Later alligator.. :^)

Danny-boy: It just so happens that I run a very profitable business that I work very hard at maintaining.

Well that is certainly a great thing for you Danny. How is the paper route business now in days?

Nashy: The truth will set you free . . . unless you refuse to go.

You wouldn't know the truth if it jumped up and slapped you on your 39 year old grown a$$.

Good job Nash, you got JoAnnSmiths brain all scrambled up, but that's not hard to do with all the mush she has up there.

Exactly right.

Yes Ralph, you are correct but it's really more insidious than that.

About four years ago one of our local wing nuts told me that the "gay issue" was getting stale. Afterall they can vote, they have supporters, it's a touchy subject. He said the GOP had been doing some polling looking for another "wedge" issue and discovered the perfect victim. Illegal immigrants.

They can't vote, their support is scant and lots of centrist and just left of center middle of the road types could support a crack down on illegals. Heck, we could even blame them for the drug trade.

So, voila! The perfect wedge issue to chip away at independents and soft dems. So here we are and guess what the big issue of the day is: Illegal Aliens. What a surprise.

Now they want to eliminate the 14th admendment to the constitution to get rid of the "anchor baby" clause. Now why do you think they want to do that? Oh, riiiiiight, latinos lean towards the democartic party and away from the GOP. They want to nip that growing voter block in the bud.

Pretty cagey, eh?

It's not right to victimize the weak and powerless for political gain. Just look at Shirley Sherrod if you need additional proof. These people have no voice. For the most part they are hard-working, god-fearing family folks looking for a better life.

The irony is sweet though. The states complaining the loudest about illegal aliens from Mexico are the states we took away from Mexico in 1848. Pretty funny huh?

PEACE

Ralph and Skip - you are both ABSOLUTELY right in your assessments. This NON-troversy in AZ and now about the 14th Amendment is all about the GOPers whipping (I'm sorry, the word should be exciting) up their base so they can further their political goals.

This is a DANGEROUS game they are playing, though.

Once the people figure out that all of this 'Patriotism' is just political posturing, they are going to be PLENTY pissed.

Absolutely Pietro and thanks for the shout out. The pay back may be a long time coming, but it will come and when it does the GOP won't know what hit them.

PEACE

But at the same time, it puts ICE on political pins-and-needles. After all, who wants to be responsible for the deportation of a small child's mother? It may not grant them citizenship, but it makes it harder for the mother to be deported, should she come back.

Wow, thanks Houston for clarifying the current law regarding the immigration status of parents of children born in the U.S.

So many contoversys are resolved when the facts are known, but nowadays the last thing reported - if ever- are simple facts about the issue in question. I think we all need to work harder at gathering facts before forming our opinions.

I've never heard that anyone at ICE failed to deport an illegal alien because they had a child who was an American citizen. Quite to the contrary, ICE has no qualms about deporting kids who grew up as law-abiding Americans but, through no fault of their own, are illegal aliens because they were brought here by their parents when they were children. Some of the "illegals" are excelling in college education when they are yanked out of college and deported.

Obama administration officials are actually considering an executive order to delay these cruel deportations, and Republicans are screaming that this is "amnesty" and implying that it's a blanket amnesty for 12 million illegals in this country when it's only a very small subgroup.

People should be more concerned about what Republicans are doing to this country rather than obsessing on illegal immigration, which has actually DECREASED under Obama policies. The problems caused by illegal aliens pale in comparison to the damage to the nation being done by the current crop of liars, demagogues, and con artists in the Republican party.

Amy B:

Wow, thanks Houston for clarifying the current law regarding the immigration status of parents of children born in the U.S.

Amy, don't thank me. Thank the researchers and legal experts in organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center who've repeatedly debunked this hateful myth about "anchor babies". Who doesn't deserve any thanks at all are the corporate media talking heads who have yet to mention the fact that there is no "anchor baby" problem because of the 21+ years it takes for a parent to become a legal resident if their child is born in the US. It's amazing how successful "responsible" news outlets like CNN have been at keeping the public from knowing this critical fact as they help the Republicans enflame anti-immigrant hysteria.

I did not see Gov Richardson but he usually is pretty good at giving facts. I do know that sometimes Matthews keeps flings a question, then interrupts to rework it and that sometimes impacts remarks. I like Chris but when he doesn't let the person finish a thought or interrupts to provide his own, it gets annoying. I did see his ending comment which was quite good; lately, he has given some very good assessments of what is happening.

Wish I had seen Ed Rendell's; he usually does a good job. These days the hosts too often take the narrative they want and expect the guest to adhere to it or bite and provide a juicy bit of controversy. Ed Schultz did that last night. He was interviewing a black democratic lady (name escapes) who just would not play along with his narrative about Rangel and Waters. She refused to participate and said that her view did not matter, that both were innocent until proven otherwise by the ethics trial. Schultz tried but I'm glad he failed because she was right. She was also right when she commented that Rangel and Waters voters would decide their fait.

I have often heard the pundits and the talking heads claim that GOP ethics problems caused their demise in 2006. I am of the opinion that in a few districts where those lawmakers served, that may have been true but nationwide, it had minimal impact. Voters threw republicans to the wind because of the Iraq war and Bush's failures but Iraq and the GOP full-throated support of it was the deciding factor.

Houston!

"It's amazing how successful "responsible" news outlets like CNN have been at keeping the public from knowing this critical fact as they help the Republicans enflame anti-immigrant hysteria."

I believe it! Sometimes I learn more from comments in the forums than from watching the massive amount of news coverage I consume every day. It's infuriating to realize the media doesn't do its job of at least, reporting the facts on controversial issues.

Up in Maine we recently had a situation with a lovely couple from Ireland who got kicked out of the country because immigration decided their successful restaurant business was "marginal" since they had used their profits to pay off mortgages and debt, and consequently had less money in the bank. They couldn't even get immigration to give them a definition of "marginal." Despite support from the community, these people had to leave the country. This was the first time I personally understood how screwed up our immigration laws truly are.

All of you are twisting this issue.

THE ISSUE is about children, not the PARENT. Yes parents have to wait until the child is 21 but the child is a citizen as soon as it is dropped.

I was at home in Houston last night and they did a special on this issue. THEY called them anchor babies too in lieu of the fact pregnant illegals are coming on vacation to the Houston area just to have a baby here. If that is not gaming the system, I don't know what is.

This is an issue that is affecting everyone but I see the Democrats as usual or trying to paint the Republicans as Mexican haters. No frikken Democrat want to deal with this issue either.

The U.S. should just militarize the border and a lot of issues wil be solved. You can't go into Europe without a passport. I couldn't fly into the Mexico without a passport. Why should this country be any different?

Most people who are demonizing Republicans don't even live in a border state. There is no way you understand what is going on in border states if you live in Iowa, etc.

Let a bunch of illegals infiltrate some of these majority white states that consider themselves elitest and see how the tune changes.

What did I just tell you! (see above) The states screaming the loudest are the states that used to comprise nearly 50% of Mexico. We snatched them away from Mexico in 1848. Now the Mexicans have come to take them BACK! Sue-weet!

Did anyone else have difficulty with the terms "illegals" and "on vacation" in the same sentence?

I didn't realize all those migrant workers were on vacation, did you?

I guess the hispanic guys out there on the road crews and roofing those houses are all on vacation too? Wow, well, I guess it takes all kinds huh?

If I were you folks in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah and California (and I'm looking at YOU governator!) I'd start learning to speak spanich PDQ!

InTheMiddel:

All of you are twisting this issue. [of "anchor babies"]

THE ISSUE is about children, not the PARENT. Yes parents have to wait until the child is 21 but the child is a citizen as soon as it is dropped.

InTheMiddle is the one who's twisting the issue. The Republicans like Lindsey Graham are claiming that illegal immigrants are "dropping" their offspring like animals in the United States so that they, not their babies, can get quick and easy legal status. Why do you think the conservatives are calling the children "anchor babies"? It's because the children supposedly give the parents an "anchor" in the US to claim legal status (21 years after the child is born).

Or, according to AZ Republican state Sentator Russell Pearce, who is trying to get a state law passed to make an end-run around the US Constitution to ban citizenship for "achor babies":

Pearce says, the 14th Amendment has been "hijacked" by illegal immigrants. "They use it as a wedge," he says. "This is an orchestrated effort by them to come here and have children to gain access to the great welfare state we've created."

While having a child in the US does give the parent access to some welfare benefits, that's a totally separate issue having nothing to do with whether or not the child is a citizen of the United States.

As fpr InTheMuddle's attempt to whip up some hysteria about vacationing Mexicans (who by definition are LEGALLY in the US) here's an article that debunks that silly claim:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/06/25/anchor_babies_and_reality_106100.html

The abrogationists [of the 14th Amendment] confuse the historical ecosystem on the U.S.-Mexican border with illegal immigrants in general. Pregnant Mexican women from border towns do commonly cross just to have a baby in the U.S. But their extended families have often straddled the border for a century or more. The women tend to be middle class, pre-pay the hospitals in cash and go home, though their children can someday return.

A handful of tourists do the same, but the total of all these is minuscule. Significant are the 4 million children in 2008 with one or more unauthorized immigrant parents spread throughout the country, according to the Pew Hispanic Center. Repeated studies, however, show that their parents came for jobs or to join family. The children were normal byproducts of life, and not an immigration strategy. The parents are not eligible for welfare or for citizenship until after the child turns 21.

Look azzhole Houston,

I SAID CHANNEL 11 did a story about "ANCHOR BABIES". Hell I never heard the term until then.

You need to call channel 11 and DEBUNK them since you have all of the facts about everything and no one else knows sh!t.

Se hable Espanol, Amigo? Better start learning, Mexico is on the 20 year plan. 20 years from now they will have reclaimed Texas (and New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, and California). You'll all be citizens of Mexico again! Viva Mexico! REMEMBER 1848!

I don't think the Hispanic majority is going to take too kindly to you jeepers there is Tey-Has. You might want to think about that a little bit.

Now THAT's funny!

Beverly in Chicago

Wow! So race, race, race is the issue. Well if that is the case, I can say that anything a black person objects to, that is said or believed by any white person is racist. So tell me Beverly when the 2nd amendment is attacked and some would like to have a constitutional amendment making the 2nd amendment unconstitutional may I consider them Marxist's. As far as educated black people being daunting, I think you better look at yourself first and see who you really are daunting to.

Cheers to you, Beverly!

Bev, 11:00 AM EDT is a little early in the morning to be fully liquored up already.

But, maybe you are doing things 'the Chicago way".

afloatinasea,

Well maybe if the unfunded programs that added over $2 trillion to our debt, between 2001 and 2006 had been paid for we wouldn’t be in such a deep recession.

Perhaps if the tax cuts of 2001 & 2003 created any jobs the recession would have been more like the one in 1990.

We need to add 150,000 jobs every month (on Avg.) just to keep up with new people entering the job market. Over 8 years that is 14 million jobs. From 2001 to 2009 there were less than 3 million jobs created. To me that is a net loss of 11 million jobs.

There has been a policy regarding wire-tapping for years, a legal process. Pres Obama uses the existing law rather than by-passing the law as Bush did.

Pres Bush and his GOP lock-step followers cut taxes without paying for them, started two wars without paying for them, unfunded Rx medicare plan, and many other increased unfunded spending. They added 89% to the debt. Please tell us why the doubling of the national debt by Bush is Obama and the democrats fault.

Jody:

If Bush doubled the debt; Obama is quadrupling it.

Tax CUTS unfunded? When you cut something, you don't put funds in to cover a CUT. This is a myth and talking point that Conservatives let get out of control. This point should have been squashed immediately.

Obama is the POTUS not Bush. All of this is his whether you and others want to acknowledge it or not. When 2012 comes around if he is still yelling "It's Bush's fault", it will doom him.

ITM,

That statement is both uneducated and un-researched.

1. By law any bill that is passed under reconciliation (which the tax cuts were) and adds to the deficit must expire in 10 years.

2. The OMB’s under both Administrations have shown this as a deficit.

3. Example: If your pay is cut (income / tax receipts) you will not be able to live as well as you did prior to the pay cut unless you can eliminate another bill or expenditure to offset the loss of income.

Much of what is being added to the debt under the Obama Administration is the results of unpaid programs created between 2001 and 2006.

Dennis,

First of all this is not high school nor are we trying out for the debate team. This IS A BLOG WITH OPINIONS.

and apparently a$$holes,...

nothing quite like watching an idiot texan scoff at the idea of education. what's the word? priceless.

Frankly, I don't think you understand true communism. I don't think you could pick it out from a bag of donuts. It's all just more conservative, tea bagging parroting with no regard for the facts. It is destroying what's left of the real america.

Huey - You libs are the ones that are being lead down the socialist path and you are to stupid to realize your freedoms are at stake. I bet I know more about governments and different systems than you have ever thought about but then again no body ever thought libs were intelligent.

Huey.... .Communism is fairly simple to figure out.... just look at the military..... everyone gets paid relatively the same no matter their skill set. It is a system set up so that there are no social classes. Just one.....

Huh..... a lot like what Barack Hussein Obama Mmmmm MMmmmm Mmmmm is trying to turn us into.....

You know.... he of the "there comes a point where a person has too much profit"?

But hey at least the little kids are forced to sing his praises so were all good right?

lol!

Stupidity is still stupidity no matter how the conservative/republican/tea baggers try to repackage themselves.

You obviously don't even know what communism is Bob. You are a broken record stuck on stupid.

Larry, Minot, N.D.

I strongly recommend you watch the movie "Food INC" about how a handful of corporations have come to control our food supply. When you read about the tactics the big companies imploy to keep small farmers in debt, you will start to realize it's not the government that you should fear - it's the gigantic corporations that crush independent entrepenuers and exploit consumers. I hope you watch this documentary, I really do.

Dan, Austin

You obviously don't even know what communism is Bob. You are a broken record stuck on stupid.

Why don't you give them a little hint?

President Obama does things like trying to get private enterprise to take over the development of spacecraft launch vehicles, a job that Big Government NASA has done for 40 years, including every Republican president since Eisenhower. Karl Marx would certainly not approve of that policy. Neither did Kay Bailey Hutchinson and other "conservative" Republicans. Hmm. Since the Republicans are on the same side as Marx on issues like this, maybe they're really secret Commies. Their opposition to loans to small business could be another indication of their communist leanings. Where's Joe McCarthy when we really need him to root out these secret commies?

Houston,

I don't have the time to teach these people to think. If you want to try I support you but I know that they just skim my comments and move onto their next regurgitated talking point.

They are a broken record stuck on stupid.

Bob, you're back and your Klan robe is still sticking out from under your choir robe. Dude, maybe you ought to see a tailor, know what I mean?