I like First Read as a rule. The sniping is annoying and there's too much dogma food slung about, but what really irritates is the reliance on labels.

Left-winger, right-winger - these are terms that are fairly descriptive. They are simply at opposing ends of the political spectrum. They're not perfect terms, but a left-winger seems to have a more favorable view of government than a right-winger. By the same token, a right-winger seems to trust private enterprise, while the lefty is on the skeptical side.

It used to be that Democrats were possessed of a leftist bent, and Republicans were generally tilted to the right. That has changed in a dramatic way. While Republicans - not all - claim to dislike government, they want government in women's reproductive organs. They want government involved in the very private decisions we make about whom we love and wish to marry. Many seem to prefer a theocracy to our secular government.

Many Democrats seem quite enamored of the defense industry; they just can't get enough of those weapons of war, and foreign entanglements look pretty good. A lot of them seem to have a very cozy relationship with Wall Street-types. It's not very easy to separate Democrats from Republicans these days.

When it comes to separating conservatives from liberals, even that's getting pretty tough. A number of folks, who call themselves conservatives, sent our troops into two very long-lasting invasions, created a huge drug program, and handed out enormous tax cuts; all with borrowed money. The biggest spending cuts have been proposed by a Democratic President, one Barack Obama - who many call a socialist, a Marxist, a fascist. He's also called a liberal.

It gets really confusing when someone throws in the "independent" label. I kind of like that one myself, because these days I'm pretty fed up with Democrats and Republicans. I'm fed up with "conservatives" and "liberals". I can't stomach right-wingers and left-wingers challenge my gag reflex. However, I so despise the Republican Party - Motto: There's nothing so insignificant we can't either fear it or hate it - that it would be a stretch to say I'm a genuine "independent".

Lastly, there is some sort of creature known as a "typical liberal". I have asked any number of people who sling this term around what that is. I have never received an answer. I have noticed this label is used by people who come here with one-line posts. Oddly, the people who are labeled as "typical liberals" write posts that have considerable depth, a great amount of data, and links to sites that have evidence supporting their positions.

These "typical liberals" seem to support balanced budgets and paying our bills. They aren't particularly fond of taxes, but they know those bills have to be paid. They want an end to waste, and they exhibit compassion for citizens who have met with misfortune. They seem to view the world as a very complex place with problems that don't have a one-size-fits-all solution. If I'm right about that, then it seems we would be served well by people who are typical liberals.

Ix-Nay on the bloated ig-pay attcks. We WANT him to be the opposition in 2012!

"Unlike you who seems to hang around to make personal attacks against people you disagree with."

Uh- you SURE you want to go there, Smiff? YOU??

I have to LOL at the current leftuous indignation from Senate Dems about the Republican's use of the filibuster, because it is a trick they learned from the minority Dems use of the fillibuster in the mid 80's. The Senate Dems really should be looking at themselves in the mirror when they whine "What goes around, comes around". Then they should look up the history of the "Gang of 14" which was formed in response to the Dems "obstructionism" during the mid 80's.

What a crew of Dumbocrat morons.

From Politico:

Dems: McConnell to regret filibusters
By: Manu Raju
December 7, 2011 11:26 PM EST

The White House and Senate Democrats are issuing a blunt warning to Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and his fellow Republicans: You live by the filibuster, you'll die by the filibuster.

Furious at Republicans for blocking votes on an appeals court nominee and the head of a new consumer watchdog agency, Democratic saber-rattling is intensifying, with fresh warnings that McConnell — or any new Republican administration — will face major repercussions if they come into power in 2013.

"The standard in the Senate is now being lowered so much so that opposition parties in the future will thwart the will of any administration," said Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.).

"There's an old saying, 'What goes around, comes around,'" said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.).

White House Counsel Kathy Ruemmler said the filibuster blocking a vote on D.C. Circuit Court nominee Caitlin Halligan amounted to a "new era of obstructionism."

_____________________________________________

The history behind the gang of 14:

The Gang of 14 was a term coined to describe the bipartisan group of Senators in the 109th United States Congress who successfully negotiated a compromise in the spring of 2005 to avoid the deployment of the so-called nuclear option over an organized use of the filibuster by Senate Democrats.

The Democrats had been using the filibuster to prevent the confirmation of conservative appellate court candidates nominated by President George W. Bush. In the Republican-controlled 108th Congress, ten Bush judicial nominees had been filibustered by the minority Democrats. The ten Bush appellate nominees who were filibustered were Miguel Estrada, Priscilla Owen, Charles W. Pickering, Carolyn Kuhl, David W. McKeague, Henry Saad, Richard Allen Griffin, William H. Pryor, William Gerry Myers III and Janice Rogers Brown

In this context, the president is out on the hustings honing his divisive class warfare message with a cry for fairness and social equity

Heaven forbid anyone call for fairness and social equity. By the way, the only thing "fairness and social equity" is code words for is fairness and social equity.

Why don't you just come out and say what you really want? You want a permanent American caste system where the super wealthy families stay super wealthy forever and poor people learn their place and don't get uppity.

PS - You want to know what class warfare is? Class warfare is Republican economic policies.

Bill, Fairfax:

The very first line of your post reads: "In order to survive, the welfare state requires favorable economics and demographics: robust economic growth to pay for social benefits and young populations large enough to support the old."

The welfare state? Every single economy, whether capitalist, socialist, communist - none of which exist in a pure form anywhere on the planet - requires identical conditions for success.

Were you trying to make some sort of point?

Geez, Bill Fairfax, couldn't you be more original than repeating Newt Gingrich's spin about President Obama being the "food stamp President"? Think, Bill, the need for food stamps is up because of the economic collapse and high unemployment, the need for food stamps is up because the number of people living at or near poverty level has increased over the last decade. If President Bush was still in the White House, would you call him the "food stamp President"?

I'll take the opportunity to blame Bush 43 at this time--it was his administration's laisse faire attitude and supply-side economics that only trickled up that we have so many people needing food stamps to survive. Quite a legacy Bush and the GOP left behind. The fact that Bill in Fairfax, Newt Gingrich and their friends mock the need for "food stamps" is a sad commentary on the state of this country and an even sadder commentary on those "compassionate conservatives" who think starving people is a good thing because "it's my money. I won't give a dime and I don't give a damn". Be proud of yourselves Republicans--there but for the grace of God go I.

Bill, Joe, no joe,

Obama wants to be the food stamp president, presiding over the redistribution of a static economic pie

What none of you seem to get is that I'm taking issue with the word "wants". Do any of you seriously believe that what Bill describes in that sentence is what the President "wants"? Really? Really? If you do believe it, then you are stupider than I thought. But I hope it's just a question of carelessness, that you don't pay close attention to what you're saying, or don't really examine your rationales. Which is almost as bad.

Heard a Newt ad yesterday, saying basicall:

"The liberals think the USA is no longer at the top of the heap (not the exact words, but same gist), but if I'M elected, I have a plan to rebuild this once great nation."

SO- if the country IS still at the top of the heap, and not where the 'liberals say it is', what's there to 'rebuild'??

See- when you listen carefully to these ads, they are just a lot of words, calculated to stir certain emotions instead of deliver any facts at all.

And yes- 'But THEY did it too'! Doesn't help anything though, does it?

one of the leftiest of the left, Bernie Sanders (Com, Moscow), has voted against a Dem bill to extend the SS tax cut. (see below)

____________

Bernie Sanders is right. The social security tax holiday will weaken Social security. It doesn't help the economy enough to warrant it. $105 billion was lost to the trust fund last year alone. Obama seems willing to expand it this year. Sanders is someone who doesn't carry the water for every single Obama policy. Tax cuts do not create jobs. Obama relies too much on conservative tax cut policy.

On another note, although I tend to agree with the HHS Sebilius' requirement for teenage children to require prescriptions for plan B, I wonder what the Obama apologists will think? I noticed the earlier thread about the Plan B ruling against the FDA got no responses.

I have no problem with women or girls using the plan B pill as long as it is safe, however it seems reasonable for children to require a prescription or doctor's visit prior to getting it over the counter. Could the over the counter ease for young girls receiving plan B without a prescription or doctor's visit reward their careless actions?

Heaven forbid anyone call for fairness and social equity. By the way, the only thing "fairness and social equity" is code words for is fairness and social equity.

And what policies do you favor to achieve fairness and social equity? BTW what exactly is social equity and who decides what is fair?

Anything going on regarding Rod Blagojevich (Dead Meat - IL) or Jon Corzine (I have no idea where the money went - NJ)?

Of course, they're not running for President (apparently that's the main qualifier to appear here), so they'll never appear on these pages

drive by

I zeroed in on the words, "...once great nation..." - doesn't THAT phrase indicate that Newt ALSO doesn't believe we are as EXCEPTIONAL as we once were.

PS. Love how the Me Firster shot holes in the theory of Feisty being an inside operative,...At least a broken clock is right twice a day. Assuming it isn't digital. Can the same be said about this one? nah, I don't think so.

Obama is returning to the only thing he knows; being a community organizer, pitting one group against another.

Is that what you think a community organizer does? Really? That is a faulty premise.

And I hope you aren’t suggesting Obama is the only one pitting one group against another. All politicians do that, it is part of drawing contrasts. Just yesterday Rick Perry was out with an ad saying Obama is waging a war on Religion and attacking gays. Last week Gingrich said poor children don’t know people who work, even though many poor children have single mothers who work three jobs. Gingrich’s underlying assumption being all poor people are poor because they don’t want to work. If you have a problem with politicians pitting one group against another then the Republican Party is NOT your party.

Bill, like many of the delusional and ignorant wingers, lives entirely in a political reality based on spoon fed projections, many of which were left over from the 2008 campaign, and never let go.

Those projections were reinforced over the last three years with other projections....leading to the ideological house of cards that is the right wing political reality.

Dumb, dee, dee, dumb, dumb, dumb....

Obama creates victims?

Tell me just who was it exactly that created the mess we are in? Would it surprise you to find out that republicans still in congress voted with great stupidity and the first time in our history to cut taxes more than once during war time. That stupid decision created the deficit we have now. Even Ron Paul a presidential candidate voted for the creation of the deficit.

Now the republicans would have you believe it is President Obama's fault. So are you trying to tell us that Senator Obama went around the congress while bush was president and forced the republicans to vote against their own country and create a deficit by lowering taxes to benefit the 1% during war time.

Only a republican would degrade a sitting president for caring about the people of his country.

For the love of America Obama/Biden 2012

Smitty - If you are going to use inflammatory language at least get the spelling correct.

This "man" Blingrich is a disgrace on so many counts. Even if you dingbat Teapublicans get this train wreck through the nomination, there's no way in hell he's winning against O, a decent and honorable man...

BTW what exactly is social equity and who decides what is fair?

Am I the only one with Google?

There are multiple definitions of social equity as it is a new term; each industry has seemed to take on a different connotation. The following provides for examples of each connotation.

Sustainable Development

Social Equity is the orphaned element of Sustainable Development. In 1996 the President's Council on Sustainable Development defined Social Equity as "equal opportunity, in a safe and healthy environment." Social Equity is the least defined and least understood element of the triad that is Sustainable Development yet is integral in creating sustainability - balancing economic, environmental and social equity.

Conservation Economy

In terms of conservation, "Social Equity implies fair access to livelihood, education, and resources; full participation in the political and cultural life of the Community; and self-determination in meeting Fundamental Needs. As Martin Luther King observed, "where there is injustice for one, there is injustice for all." Social Equity is the cornerstone of Social Capital, which cannot be maintained for a few at the expense of the many. Increased equity results in decreased spending on prisons, security enforcement, welfare, and social services. It also creates new potential markets."

Public administration

The National Academy of Public Administration defines the term as “The fair, just and equitable management of all institutions serving the public directly or by contract; the fair, just and equitable distribution of public services and implementation of public policy; and the commitment to promote fairness, justice, and equity in the formation of public policy.”

In 1968, H. George Frederickson came up with "a theory of social equity and put it forward as the 'third pillar' of public administration." Frederickson was concerned that those in public administration were making the mistake of assuming that citizen A is the same as citizen B; ignoring social and economic conditions. His goal: for social equity to take on the same "status as economy and efficiency as values or principles to which public administration should adhere."

Bill, Fairfax --

In order to survive, the welfare state requires favorable economics and demographics: robust economic growth to pay for social benefits and young populations large enough to support the old.

This assumes, of course, that someone wants to perpetuate the "welfare state." You assume that President Obama does, and Jack and David, and probably others, have already taken you to task for that.

But you see, your REAL problem, Bill, is the failure to recognize who CREATED the welfare class, and who adds to it every single day. If the welfare state is indeed growing, then if you want to assign blame, just look in the mirror. Because, that blame would fall squarely on the "ruling class" -- you know, conservatives like you, who want to control all of the money and not share it with workers in the form of higher wages and benefits. Conservatives who want to squeeze every last drop out of people, then accuse them of being lazy, so they can justify enslaving them, as Newt Gingrich would like to do with poor children.

I spent a day yesterday visiting with ordinary folks in what some might call the boondocks, or even the backwoods, a place that one might normally expect to be conservative, at least as compared to my pretty how town. Times are tough there, just like they are everywhere else.

Frankly, as a -- relatively speaking -- city-slicker AND liberal walking into the middle of this world, I was a just a wee bit wary.

But it didn't take me very long to see that these small businesspeople and ordinary working folk knew exactly who to blame and how it happened.

And it wasn't the "welfare state."

These ordinary people may just surprise you, Bill, in November, 2012.

You see, it seems you CAN'T fool all the people all of the time.

Bill, Fairfax

Obama wants to be the food stamp president, presiding over the redistribution of a static economic pie.

Ah, the lies and the lying liars who tell them. Newtie came up with that lie, and Bill cluelessly regurgitates it all over his shoes. Obam never said anything of the sort. But it is probably true that Obama has presided over the redistribution of the economic pie: from the middle class to the super rich, a redistribution that got started in Ronnie Raygun's administration and it's continued ever since.

Could you possibly make a more idiotic statement?

I suppose I could, all I need to do is copy and paste excerpts from your posts.

I've had enough of his class warfare rhetoric. When he says "we have a choice: corporate jets OR educating our children"......I wanna buy him a one-way ticket to Cuba. Stupid jug-eared lefty POS.

You think the corporate jets vs educating our children quote is bad, check out this socialist Obama quote:

"We're going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. In theory, some of those loopholes were understandable, but in practice they sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying ten percent of his salary, and that's crazy. <...> Do you think the millionaire ought to pay more in taxes than the bus driver or less?"

What a commie. What? That quote is from Ronald Reagan? Never mind.

Every single economy, whether capitalist, socialist, communist - none of which exist in a pure form anywhere on the planet - requires identical conditions for success.

Umm, the nuance that eludes you is the degree to which these conditions are required, i.e. the bloated welfare states require ever increasing uinfusions of cash to pay for the generous benefits the masses are "entitled" to. But when economic growth and demographics fall short of generating the coin required to sustain the unsustainable, then we get Europe...and eventually, the U.S.

no jo,

Im going to try to explain it, Jack.

No, you still don't get it.

If Bill had said, "Obama's plan has the effect of [fill in the blank]", then he would have stated a opinion with which others might agree or disagree. But to say that "Obama wants to be the Food Stamp president" insinuates that he knows what is going on in the President's head--that he knows what the President's intent is.

There is a world of difference between those two statements, and if you still don't see it, then it's not worth my continuing to try to explain it.

Jody:

Quite a legacy Bush and the GOP left behind. The fact that Bill in Fairfax, Newt Gingrich and their friends mock the need for "food stamps" is a sad commentary on the state of this country and an even sadder commentary on those "compassionate conservatives" who think starving people is a good thing because "it's my money. I won't give a dime and I don't give a damn".

Present-day conservatives also resent the fact that poor people aren't taxed. Back when there really were such critters as compassionate, or at least rational, conservatives, they came up with the idea of the earned tax credit, a kind of negative tax, for poor workers who weren't getting paid enough to make ends meet. The reasoning was that it was better to reward work than to tax people out of the workforce and onto the welfare rolls. Also less expensive. That wasn't a liberal idea, it was a conservative idea. A very good conservative idea. But now it's considered a liberal handout by people who delude themselves into believing they'd be in the upper 1% if it wasn't for the government giving handouts to undeserving minorities.

Geez, Bill Fairfax, couldn't you be more original than repeating Newt Gingrich's spin about President Obama being the "food stamp President"?

No apologies whatsoever, Newt had a great line and I chose to use it as well.

Think, Bill, the need for food stamps is up because of the economic collapse and high unemployment

Think, Jody ( I know that might be hard for you) the need for foodstamps is up because Obama is the architect of economic policies that have demonstrably failed to put the the economy on the path of robust growth.

Bill, Fairfax:

Nuance? Every single economy requires identical conditions for success. They all require economic growth, they all require an expanding consumption base, they all require population growth. The unspoken truth in every one of them is that ALL economies require a virtually infinite resource base. All economies are eventually doomed to failure.

Really, Bill. Get serious. The wealth in this country - by every single measure - continues to accumulate at the top. Tell us how that describes a welfare state, unless of course what you really mean is that the true welfare recipients are the wealthy, because Bill, that is precisely the case.

good post anna.ive run across the same when talking to people all over the country.the ruling elite and their propaganda fool only the simple minded.

@nisl

Seems to me every one of your definitions are open to subjective interpretation, so I would love here your policy proposals to achieve fairness and social equity.

JoAnna:

Anything going on regarding Rod Blagojevich (Dead Meat - IL) or Jon Corzine (I have no idea where the money went - NJ)?

Just goes to show what happens to Democrats who begin acting like greedy Republicans.

Just like Congress, come to think of it.

AM: Just goes to show you what happens to Democrats who begin acting like greedy Republicans.

That's good humor Annie.

In Annies limited world: Democrats gone bad = Republicans

And glad to see you're reading me again. Enjoy.

Jack, the differece between want is the meaning of the word is. Obama IS the food stamp president.

nisl - Reagan also said "There are some people in this country who cannot see a fat man and a thin man standing side by side , without thinking that the fat man got that way at the expense of the thin man." He never tried to make people believe in FALSE choices like "if there are corporate jets, our children won't be educated."

Just goes to show what happens to Democrats who begin acting like greedy Republicans.

Just like Congress, come to think of it.

Only one answer to that "Nancy Pelosi".

What I would like to see is a graph of the net-worth of all members of congress from the time they took office. I would love to see if ANY actually had a decline in net worth. I'll be shocked even if they include the decline in property values.

I've found a site that has it by year but not the historical trend. I might try and produce a table.

Damage123 --

He never tried to make people believe in FALSE choices like "if there are corporate jets, our children won't be educated."

That's because, in those days, it really WAS a false choice.

But your side has finally managed to make that fairy tale come true.

Happily ever after ... for you.

Thanks Romney - for putting it on the table for us the clown show continues at the expense of the TPGOP - it's time they pay for all the negativity and obstruction they have created over the last few years.

@geo - care to explain that - uh huh sure Obama emplimented all entitlements................give the BS a rest.

He never tried to make people believe in FALSE choices like "if there are corporate jets, our children won't be educated."

Neither has Obama you idiot. Show me a quote where Obama says the choice is either corporate jets or education. You can't because that only happened in your delusional wingnut reality.

Bill,

Apparently you missed the Bloomberg article yesterday that showed payroll tax income is up for 2011. The article points out that payroll taxes are not something people fudge and correct at a later date.

The article pointed out that the increase in payroll taxes is an indication either people are earning more than many are reporting or there has been larger job growth than businesses are reporting.

It must make a Republican cringe that a Republican President left office when we were losing 750,000 jobs a month. Resulting in employment climbing to 10.1%. Now, a Democrat in the White House and we have already cut unemployment to 8.6% and thanks to businesses like the auto industry (saved by the Democratic President) many are announcing even more hiring in the near future.

Small and medium sized businesses are screaming at the Republicans for refusing to get on board with the Democrats proposal to give businesses an additional 3.1% tax break for each employees pay.

David Walker:

I can appreciate your post 1:4 regarding the extreme labels. As a sincere Christian woman of mixed (minority and majority) heritage with strong conservative, moderate and liberal positions & views depending on the social and fiscal arena, as well as opinions on how they should be applied from a federal standpoint, along with strong cultural pride, support and awareness, I DON'T FIT INTO ANYONE'S BOX OR LABEL!

I have voted Rep and Dem in the past. I have been most turned off by this "new" GOP/TP these last few years. I do support Mr. Obama in this presidency and will vote for him in 2012.

I pray God bless and protect our Potus, Country and Military.

Smitty: JoAnnaSmith1 Your a lier and will always be a lier.

A "lier"? One who lies down and rests?

Umm, okay, I guess . . . .

Bill, Fairfax VA

Geez, Bill Fairfax, couldn't you be more original than repeating Newt Gingrich's spin about President Obama being the "food stamp President"?

No apologies whatsoever, Newt had a great line and I chose to use it as well.

You obviously have as much contempt for the truth as Newt and Mitt have.

Think, Jody ( I know that might be hard for you) the need for foodstamps is up because Obama is the architect of economic policies that have demonstrably failed to put the the economy on the path of robust growth.

Thin, Bill. Obama is the architect of policies that prevented the Bush Recession from turning into the Bush Great Depression. The main reason for the bad estimate Obama's economic advisers made of the stimulus' effect on unemployment (that conservatives lie about being a "promise") was that the estimate was based on economic data later found to be way off-base. It was at first believed that the economy was contracting at a rate of about 3% per quarter. But the contraction was later found to be occurring at a rate of between 6 and 9% in 2008 -- rates that rivaled the Great Depression that Franklin Roosevelt inherited from Herbert Hoover.

Did my research on the 25 wealthiest in congress. I would investigate these two.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/CIDsummary.php?CID=N00026460&year=2010

http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/CIDsummary.php?CID=N00007360&year=2010

It must make a Republican cringe that a Republican President left office when we were losing 750,000 jobs a month. Resulting in employment climbing to 10.1%. Now, a Democrat in the White House and we have already cut unemployment to 8.6% and thanks to businesses like the auto industry (saved by the Democratic President) many are announcing even more hiring in the near future.

I'm starting to think Republicans want poor people to be unemployed. Given the actions of the Republicans it sure looks like they really HATE poor people. I'm used to the idea that they hate poor non-white people, that's old news. But ALL poor people? I think they resent poor people because their very existence points to the falsity of trickle down economics.

Bill of Fairfax VA,

"The values that made America strong in the first place -- individual excellence, exceptional achievement, a creative entrepreneurial spirit – would be in our rear view mirror. "

Looking into the rear view mirror here in the heartland of America, I see generations of immigrants that provided the country and the world with food, iron ore for the steel mills,public and private institutions of education for their descendants. It is these descendants that started and found an educated workforce for 3M, Honeywell, Cargill, Mayo Clinic, United Health Care, Target Corp, General Mills.

Maybe it is because I live in a harsher climate and coming from a long line of family farmers, achievement of any individual is rooted in the a community that values all members and the common good.

Fast forward to today.

President Obama gave a shout out to a MN company the other day in his speech in Kansas. Marvin Windows, is a fourth generation window manufacturing company located in Warroad MN, near the Canadian border, or the great frozen North. Rather than lay off some of their workers during the recession, management and workers both came together and both contributed to a new compensation package for the good of the whole company.

But all is not rosy in MN, Crystal Sugar owned by the sugar beets farmer still have a lockout with their union workers going into the the fifth month. They are using scab workers through a contract with Strom Engineering, a Mpls entrepreneurial company, that specializes in helping companies remove unions from their workforce to increase their profits.

Yes, the 2012 election will be about what kind of country do we want going forward...

I will work for Obama's reelection, urge my friends to buy Marvin windows, and continue to boycott Crystal Sugar products for my holiday baking.

Me: Obama wants to be the food stamp president, presiding over the redistribution of a static economic pie

Jack: What none of you seem to get is that I'm taking issue with the word "wants". Do any of you seriously believe that what Bill describes in that sentence is what the President "wants"?

For those of us who see the world with clarity, the answer is a resounding YES. This president gives lip service to the need for job creation, but then attacks and demonizes the very folks in the economy who are in a position to create jobs. Even more, he imposes increasingly burdensome regulations on the business these folks have or would start and is constantly threatening to raise their taxes. I can only conclude this president has little serious interest in growing an economic pie that would create jobs and thereby establish a broader base of prosperity for all. Instead, I must conclude he has a preference for nurturing a dependency class over which he will preside with benevolent grace – and a class that will gratefully give him their votes. Yes indeed, this man is a saint.

Gee, Dan, if you are correct, how do you explain this

http://decoded.nationaljournal.com/2011/12/battlegroundstate-voters-leavi.php

Geo,

Jack, the differece between want is the meaning of the word is. Obama IS the food stamp president.

That is an opinion that others may agree with or disagree with. Congratulations. One of you (finally) got it right.

Sadly, Bill, your 'clarity' is covered in excrement,...

To the collapse cowards,...KNOCK it off. I don't agree with a word that Bill says; but damnit,...let that freak flag fly high and proud!

Bill,

For those of us who see the world with clarity, the answer is a resounding YES.

I feel sorry for you. I really do.

Bill, Fairfax VA

For those of us who see the world with clarity, the answer is a resounding YES.

I don't think anyone who repeats lies because they're a "good line" sees anything with clarity.

This president gives lip service to the need for job creation, but then attacks and demonizes the very folks in the economy who are in a position to create jobs.

Another ridiculous whopper. President Obama actually is trying to help small businesses with the payroll tax cut for employers, which puts the lie yet again to your own attempt to demonize the President of the United States. As for Obama demonizing "job creators", he called the Wall Street bankers "fat cats." Oh, how terrible to call the people such names just because they wrecked the economy, destroyed jobs rather than creating them, and got richer in the process. But it's pretty tame criticism compared to what REPUBLICAN Teddy Roosevelt called the fat cats of his day: "malefactors of great wealth." Bill would be wailing and gnashing his teeth if Obama used TR's critique of the modern day equivalents of those malefactors.

Great posts Bill.

Comrade Obama isn't going to appreciate his real agenda being unmasked. This is what the upcoming campaign against Obama will be all about.

He has given the Republican Party so much ammunition to use in unseating him. The horrible state of the Obama economy, and it's effect on families across the country, will be the final determining factor in ousting this fool. He has tried to blame Bush. Then, when that wore thin, he tried to blame Congress. (The Republican side of course), then, when that backfired, he begins to blame the rich and the large (evil) corporations. Next, it's the (evil) banks.

Blame, blame, blame. That's all we hear from this clown. Never a viable solution.

Obama. Trying to spend his way to re-election.

Bill.

Umm, the nuance that eludes you is the degree to which these conditions are required, i.e. the bloated welfare states require ever increasing uinfusions of cash to pay for the generous benefits the masses are "entitled" to. But when economic growth and demographics fall short of generating the coin required to sustain the unsustainable, then we get Europe...and eventually, the U.S.

What aludes you, Bill, is the fact that you, likely because of what you were fed on cable news, are trying to make the case that the problem in this country is that we have an entitlement society, and Obama is making it worse.

The reality is over the last thirty years, the opposite has happened.

Because of steady deregulation and lower taxes on the wealthy, we have seen 15% of the wealth in this country redistributed to the top, and the economy returning to the boom and bust days of the early 1900's.

For those of us who see the world with clarity, the answer is a resounding YES.

LOL!!! Now that is irony...

Especially considering it was followed by a spoon fed, cable news projection with little basis in reality.

Wow, just wow.

Study up, jr.

Clara,

I totally agree with you . Stop the collapsing!!!

Great posts Bill.

Yea Bill. The deluded always love to see their delusions reinforced with other delusional projections.

Dumb, dee, dee, dumb, dumb, dumb....

I feel sorry for you. I really do.

I'm touched, truly I am. The reproach of sanctimonious liberals always helps to get me through the day.

JoAnnaSmith1 Silly girl you know what I mean, so does everyone else. This explains it better, your a bulls#!tter!

I expect to come here and see Feisty's posts collapsed. I don't expect to see those on the other side of the political spectrum receive the same treatment. Bill, Fairfax is dead wrong. His post is based on a ridiculous premise. Knock it down. Argue with him. Show the fallacy of his post, but don't collapse it. That's grade school stuff.

Bill.

I'm touched, truly I am. The reproach of sanctimonious liberals always helps to get me through the day.

Study up, jr.

Then the "sanctimonious liberals" won't have so much to mock you with.

Seriously. These right wing, cable news drones who think they can defend the drivel they were fed are a riot.

They have put a lot of time into rationalizing their delusions.

I actually had a young woman tell me the other day...... that she has been told by people here in Florida have been telling people the following statments. "The rep/teaparty want to build "concentration camps" and put poor people in the camps and force them to work for $5 an hour! I asked her to repeat it just to make sure I heard it right. And she did....... and I think she actually believed it. Off topic people down here are wearing coats today.....lol. Did you know 70 Degs is cold.

"Hiya kids, Hiya, Hiya." Froggy

I don't just love Romney's attack on Gingrich I LOOOOOVE it. Not only it is effective (or should be with the "family-values-holier-than-thou-anybody-but-Mitt" but it points out the hypocrisy of the party at the same time.

Gingrich, a three time loser at the marriage game. A man with a career-criminal recidivism rate in the marriage department and he's LEADING the race for the value-voter party! A man charged with 85 ethics violations, who resigned his powerful Congressional position and cut a deal to plead out to ONE violation and pay a $300,000 fine is the CANDIDATE OF CHOICE.

Is this the same party who passed the DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE act just a couple of years ago?

Wow, I mean, simply wow.

Then you have Perry and his Bible-thumping ads designed to enhance Romney's stealth negative (Mormon) without saying it. Sort of a stealth attack ad. And he takes on the President for UPHOLDING the Constitutional separation of church and state. HEY! Isn't this the party that holds the BIBLE and the US CONSTITUTION in almost equal reverence??? Then how can they support Perry and his call to VIOLATE the Constitution in favor of their HOLIEST of HOLY books?

Mama mia.

It is becoming harder and harder to be a true Republican these days and I feel sorry for those Goldwater-Nixon-Reagan Republicans because they have got to be wondering "Wha' happened?"

Remember back in the good old days or the Nixon and Reagan administrations when people got to this level of national politics they were smart, literate, professional. Yeah sure, they were ideologues but that's true of both parties.

Look at today's GOP short list. It's embarrassing. Only Romney and Huntsmen are worthy to carry the banner of the Grand Old Party and they are both Mormons and therefore DOA at the polls.

DISCLAIMER: Now look, no hate mail please. I'm an atheist. I don't care what religion you follow. Whatever gets you through the night. What I'm saying is that 70% of Americans, according to recent polls, think the LDS church is a cult like Scientology. I have PERSONALLY spoken with hard-core Republican faithful who have told me they cannot vote for Romney because he is a Mormon. That's what I base my comment on. It is not an expression of my personal opinion, OK?

All I'm saying is Romney's ad campaign reinforces the hypocricy of the current GOP/TP party and that's why I like it. It's brilliant, in an unintended way.

Happy Holidays everybody.

Obama/Biden 2012

Apparently the conservatives are falling back on the tired old idea of 'exceptionalism'.

: the condition of being different from the norm; also: a theory expounding the exceptionalism especially of a nation or region

However, the message has changed. America is no longer 'exceptional' - after all we are becoming more like Europe, so the conservatives claim. No, conservative 'exceptionalism' is only due to a small class of 'right minded' individuals. To that 'exceptional' class of individuals go the rewards of their 'exceptionalism'. Unfortunately for the rest of us, that 'exceptional' class of individuals define what it means to be 'exceptional'. They are 'exceptional' simply because they say so ...

The shared pie of prosperity is threatening to the 'exceptional' class because it threatens their self-defined success. If these self defined successful were truly 'exceptional' then the pie of prosperity would indeed be growing larger ...

Conservative 'exceptionalism' relies on the politics of defeat. One of the largest (and unfair) entitlements in our society is allowing the 'exceptional' to author the dictionary ...

I simply love the reference MSNBC'S "Daily Rundown" ... it sounds so much like the Democratic strategy of attacking anyone and everyone who would dare to run against Obama. I fully expect Obama to spend most of his $1 billion war chest in that direction, since his approval rating as President is on life support. He cannot run a successful campaign on his record and has no other avenue to success other than denigrating his opponent.

Based on the comments from quoted in this article, I find it to be somewhat of a "stretch" to imply that positive comments toward Mr. Romney somehow magically equate to personal attacks on Gingrich. Certainly, the left does not want to face the debate skills of Gingrich or to run a race based on issues and achievements. Gingrich would blow so many holes in Obama's stewardship that Barack would resemble Swiss cheese.

Expect the VENOM from the left to be frequent and nasty !

I agree with David about not collapsing posts based on ideological likes and dislikes.

On the other hand, on rare occasions there are some truly offensive racist or anti-gay posts that shouldn't see the light of day. Even those I don't vote to collapse--you can skim 'em and forget 'em. I don't necessarily have a problem with others collapsing them, but after a while it becomes arbitrary. So, best to let them all stand.

"Food stamp president"? So the conservatives on this board, specifically Bill and his friends, actually believe that a Republican president would completely abolish food stamps and welfare?

They actually think that a good, "moral" and "religious" Republican president would remove these social programs and let people starve? Really?

The economy crashes, millions lose their jobs, millions are added to the food stamp / welfare line . . . and these people actually believe a Republican president would completely turn his back to them?

Come on, people. Everyone knows that it does not matter who is president, the food stamp and welfare costs would be this high regardless. That is what happens when the economy crashes. Furthermore, McCain or Bush or whoever would not let millions of people starve to death . . . use your brain, for once, and stop spreading these stupid lies.

Jack in Portsmouth

Could you possibly make a more idiotic statement?

YES! there could be!

If it were mere hyperbole, that would be one thing. But apparently you really believe it. Which is why no one on this site takes you seriously.

and there it is...

You people crack me up with this BS about whose party is for the poor. Both parties are full of rich people who are getting richer laughing at how gullible you people are. Don't you think if they gave a crap they would be doing some serious negotiating, here comes the blame game you partisan hacks are going to spew. Look to yourselves for the answers and quit relying on others you get what you give.

IndieParty-

I don't think it's that Obama WANTS to be the Food Stamp king- he has just created the environment to have it- and now he seems to embrace it.

Yesterday's speech was an embarrassment! To say the system that has guided our nation for over 200 years is wrong and has failed was the most irresponsible thing he's done to date! He may as well have come out and called himself a Marxist!! The only alternative to Capitalism is Socialism- and MOST Americans won't go there. He WILL be ousted after Nov. 2012- Thank Goodness

wlee- couldn't agree more!

Bill, Fairfax VA

Think, Jody ( I know that might be hard for you) the need for foodstamps is up because Obama is the architect of economic policies that have demonstrably failed to put the the economy on the path of robust growth

How can you blame Obama for the economic policies when his policies have never been enacted? Every policy has been bastardized or watered down.

Perhaps it is the fact that they were not enacted exactly or fully that caused them not to perform as intended. And that is the fault of the republicans!!

IndieParty, Your reading skills are obviously lacking. No one supports cutting off food stamps. What we are saying is this president has no clue on how to create jobs! What the hell was that crap yesterday, something about being fair but of course no substance just Blah Blah Blah!!!!

Did any of you read the article? Morons talking about Obama and food stamps? Get any more racist there Teabagging right-wing fringe?

Gingrich is toast, he's not a viable candidate. That will leave you right-wing haters with Mr. Magic Underpants himself... Newt Romney! LOL, good luck beating the historical president sitting in the White House. Get used to him, he'll be there for four more years.

Lloyd.

I don't think it's that Obama WANTS to be the Food Stamp king- he has just created the environment to have it- and now he seems to embrace it.

Your delusion is strong, kid.

Obama did not create the environment, jr, he walked into it. When he took office, the economy was shedding over 700,000 per month. Seriously, did you really just start paying attention?

By the end of the first summer of his adminisrtation, the job loss numbers had turned into private sector job gains, and his policies can be credited with helping.

Just ask economists:

John Makin of the conservative think tank, the American Enterprise Institute:

The real economy also responded to the massive stimulus but remained heavily dependent on it. In the United States, growth during the second half of 2009 probably averaged about 3 percent. Absent temporary fiscal stimulus and inventory rebuilding, which taken together added about 4 percentage points to U.S. growth, the economy would have contracted at about a 1 percent annual rate during the second half of 2009.

http://www.aei.org/outlook/100928

Or Mark Zandi, advisor to the McCain campaign:

The Great Recession has finally come to an end, in large part because of unprecedented policy efforts by the Federal Reserve and fiscal policymakers. The cost to taxpayers has been substantial but would have been even greater if aggressive action was not taken and the financial crisis and recession had been allowed to continue unchecked.

http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/JEC-Fiscal-Stimulus-102909.pdf

Or the CBO about the third quarter of 2009:

On that basis, CBO estimates that in the third quarter of calendar year 2009, an additional 600,000 to 1.6 million people were employed in the United States, and real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) was 1.2 percent to 3.2 percent higher, than would have been the case in the absence of ARRA (see Table 1). Those ranges are intended to reflect the uncertainty of such estimates and to encompass most economists’ views on the effects of fiscal stimulus.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10682/Frontmatter.2.2.shtml

Or what the CBO said about the forth quarter of 2009:

In sum, CBO estimates that in the fourth quarter of calendar year 2009, ARRA’s policies:
-- Raised real GDP by between 1.5 percent and 3.5 percent,
-- Lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.5 percentage points and 1.1 percentage points,
-- Increased the number of people employed by between 1.0 million and 2.1 million, and
-- Increased the number of full-time-equivalent jobs by 1.4 million to 3.0 million compared with what those amounts would have been otherwise (see Table 1).

The effects of ARRA on output and employment are expected to increase further in calendar year 2010 but then diminish in 2011 and fade away by the end of 2012 (see Table 3).

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=11044

On that basis, CBO estimates that in the first quarter of calendar year 2010, ARRA’s policies:
--Raised the level of real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) by between 1.7 percent and 4.2 percent,
--Lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage points and 1.5 percentage points,
--Increased the number of people employed by between 1.2 million and 2.8 million, and
--Increased the number of full-time-equivalent jobs by 1.8 million to 4.1 million compared with what those amounts would have been otherwise (see Table 1). (Increases in FTE jobs include shifts from part-time to full-time work or overtime and are thus generally larger than increases in the number of employed workers.)

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/115xx/doc11525/05-25-ARRA.pdf

----------------

Study up, jr.

geo.

IndieParty, Your reading skills are obviously lacking. No one supports cutting off food stamps. What we are saying is this president has no clue on how to create jobs! What the hell was that crap yesterday, something about being fair but of course no substance just Blah Blah Blah!!!!

LOL!!!! Irony? I think so.....

As far as jobs go, see above, jr.

As far as substance, get some and stop parroting the delusional drivel the conservative game of telephone is constantly feeding you.

Study up.

Wow all that for 5 TRILLION !!! jr? How did you know?

Overlord what does food stamps have to do with being racist, i suggest you do a little research on people who are on food stamps BTW I believe it was OWS that wanted to deport all Jews now that's racist.

geo.

Wow all that for 5 TRILLION !!!

$5 Trillion? LOL!! Oh. You are REALLY ignorant.

The ARRA did not cost $5T, jr. In addition, while that is about the amount of debt that has been added since 2009, it is not the amount that was added as a result of this President's policies.

You, like many other simply minded drones, do not look at the actual policies, for they (1) do not tell you what you want to hear, and (2) you just don't know any better, so you look at the dates.

(Dumb, dee, dee, dumb, dumb, dumb....)

If you had bothered to do your own research and learn a little about the issue, jr, you would have seen that the actual policies of this administration have added far less then half of the $5T you attribute to them.

The reason oh ignorant one?

The reason is because the vast majority of our debt is from lost federal revenue and increased manditory outlays due tot he recession, and leftover policies from the last administration (such as Med D, the wars, and the 2001 & 2003 tax cuts.)

Study up, jr.

jr? How did you know?

Your ignorance and political naivete gave it away.

You, like many other simply minded drones, do not look at the actual policies, for they (1) do not tell you what you want to hear, and (2) you just don't know any better, so you look at the dates.

Heed your own advice there. Go look at the most recent CBO report. 525k full time "equivalent" jobs supported by an increase in debt of $825 billion, which has already been 85% expended so the support for these jobs will soon dry up.

I doubt these jobs have paid out 1.3 million each in wages since 2009 so there is major inefficiency involved. This money could of been better spent, might as well just hand it out like welfare, it would have a better return than the numbers the CBO is showing.

Republicants, Ignorant? In your 2nd sentence you admit to 5 Trillion DUMBASS! And still no budget!

geo.

Republicants, Ignorant? In your 2nd sentence you admit to 5 Trillion DUMBASS! And still no budget!

Yes geo, you are ignorant. You showed how ignorant you are with your post, jr.

While the debt has risen about $5 Trillion since 2009, only simple minded cable news drones do not look beyond the dates.

Those with a brain look at the policies that led to the debt.

And, the policies of this adminstration have not led to $5 Trillion in debt.

But if you disagree, please post the policies and thier costs that add up to $5 Trillion.

Good luck....Dumbarse.

LOL!!!!

Dumb, dee, dee, dumb, dumb, dumb....

Wow

benny.

Heed your own advice there

Oh really? How's that?

Are you saying that my post was inaccurate, and that looking at the dates is a good way to determine who is responsible for the debt?

Can you post the policies from this administration, along with their costs, that add up to the $5 trillion?

Or are you do an ignorant drone?

(Judging from the fact you went on an inaccurate tangent, I would say you are an ignorant drone.)

benny.

Go look at the most recent CBO report. 525k full time "equivalent" jobs supported by an increase in debt of $825 billion, which has already been 85% expended so the support for these jobs will soon dry up.

Here is what the CBO said, kid (and notice how I qouted with context, and provided a link):

Under current law, federal fiscal policy has provided decreasing support for economic activity this year and will significantly restrain economic growth in 2012 and 2013.6 One reason for that pattern is that the stimulative impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, P.L. 111-5) is winding down. CBO estimates that relative to what would have happened without that law, ARRA raised real GDP by between 0.7 percent and 4.1 percent in 2010 but is raising GDP by a smaller amount in 2011 and will do so by even less in 2012.7 ARRA’s boost to employment is also diminishing. CBO estimates that the law raised employment (relative to what it would have been otherwise) by between 0.7 million and 3.3 million jobs in 2010, but the law’s impact on employment will be progressively smaller in 2011 and 2012.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/124xx/doc12437/11-15-Outlook_Stimulus_Testimony.pdf

------------------------------------

I doubt these jobs have paid out 1.3 million each in wages since 2009 so there is major inefficiency involved. This money could of been better spent, might as well just hand it out like welfare, it would have a better return than the numbers the CBO is showing.

You have a very simple minded view of the ARRA. Just dividing the amount by the (inaccurate) jobs estimated just tells you what you have been told you should think about the law. It is a way to look at it, fed to you by partisans, that makes it seem like a waste.

However, it also requires you to ignore the fact that the independent analysis shows the ARRA worked in not just creating jobs, but saving them, and raising the GDP.

You of course, ignored the analysis (or never looked) that doesn't tell you what you want to hear.

Good partisan.

Study up, jr.

Uh, Bill? That cute little theory of yours was debunked, like, twenty years ago. You literally lost that argument twenty years before you posted it.

Republicants, Obama in office in 09 debt 5 TRILLION no budget by democrats which can or can't add or subtract debt. Democrats in majority from 06 to 10, and whose fault is it? Chet!

geo.

Wow. Just wow.

Any idiot can look at the dates and ignorantly assign blame for the debt.

Anyone with a brain would look at the actual policies to see where the debt came from.

You make it obvious which camp you are in.

------------------------------------

The lack of budget is a seperate issue, but I agree, all congress' should have one...every year. It has nothing to do with the policies that are responsible for the debt, however.

Study up.

The attack on Newt begins

Is governor Chris Christie trying to eat Newt. If so, it sounds like one pig devouring another pig.

"Chris Christie trying to eat Newt"

Great but shocking imagery!!

And I'd take educating my children and your children over some fat ass corporate jerk's extra plane any day. Any decent human being would... Of course people like Damage123 likely favor home-schooling in the trailer anyhow so it don't much matter when socialism is a threatnin'...... lol

"Great but shocking imagery!!"

Eminently plausible, though, I must say.

Republicants

Nice posts. They're like gnats buzzing around your face trying to argue with you. It's amusing. I like how you used quotes from Republican economists and the non-partisan CBO to show how the stimulus worked.

That little interchange between you and the trolls above just shows facts trump delusional regurgitated talking points every time.

It's kind of sad now to see the trolls keep repeating their engineered myths about Obama over and over like some kind of schizophrenic mantra. They think if they keep repeating to themselves that Obama is going to lose in a landslide that somehow it will magically happen.

I really feel sorry for them sometimes. Maybe we can get them all to social services and get them some help from a therapist. Come on Bill in Fairfax, geo, wlee, I'm sure all you guys qualify for Medicare let's get you signed up and in front of a shrink.

Tennessee family home burns while firefighters watch

A Tennessee couple helplessly watched their home burn to the ground, along with all of their possessions, because they did not pay a $75 annual fee to the local fire department

Vicky Bell told the NBC affiliate WPSD-TV that she called 911 when her mobile home in Obion County caught fire. Firefighters arrived on the scene but as the fire raged, they simply stood by and did nothing. "In an emergency, the first thing you think of, 'Call 9-1-1," homeowner Bell said. However, Bell and her husband were forced to walk into the burning home in an attempt to retrieve their own belongings. "You could look out my mom's trailer and see the trucks sitting at a distance," Bell said. "We just wished we could've gotten more out."

The South Fulton policy produced precisely the same nightmare scenario last year, when homeowner Gene Cranick--who had likewise failed to pay the $75 annual fee for rural Obion County residents--saw his house engulfed by flames as South Fulton firefighter watched close by. That incident sparked a debate among conservative pundits over the limits of fee-for-service approaches to government

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/tennessee-family-home-burns-while-firefighters-watch-191241763.html

___________________________________________________________

Well I can see that things don’t change much down in rural South Fulton. Still letting things burn for lack of 75 dollars.

Question is what’s going to happen when it ain’t Trailer Trash but that stately Mansion up on the Hill.

Bet you they have a change of heart and see fit to bail them out when circumstances change don’t you?

When I first saw that story, IR, I thought it was some internet glitch repeating the same story from last summer. Can't believe it happened twice and there was no change in that idiotic policy.

IR, that last line made me smile. Reminded me of one of the VP's at my California employer who used to say "the monkeys change, but the tree remains the same."

Thats the republican/teabag way to do things. Tough luck you didn't pay. Thats how they want it. They want to take away services that should help people so you have to buy it. If there's no profit in it, what,s good is it. Why is it that profit matters so much to be a republican/tea bagger? In Arkansas, in that situation the the fire department will charge by the hour to put the fire out. Thats fair, if you don't pay your dues. But to watch a home burn down is nuts.

same clowns, different clown car

There is a larger issue here. The owners of the mobile home decided to gamble that their home wouldn't catch fire. They lost. Most of us buy insurance - or in this case, fire protection - based on the assumption that indeed our home WILL catch fire, we WILL crash our car, we WILL get sick, we WILL die.

So why did these guys make such a foolish choice? That's the real issue. I can't say with certainty, but I have to wonder if it isn't the same reason that low-income seniors cut their prescription tablets in half to extend their supply. That's hardly logical if one assumes the prescribing doctor gave them a dosage for their needs. However, it may seem logical to the patient who is desperately trying to stay alive and stay alive within the constraints of an income that is insufficient to meet all their needs.

No, I don't know the specifics of the couple in that mobile home. However, I know of many cases like the seniors who can't afford meds, who can't afford to heat their homes, who are "living" on the ragged edge.

I don't know how to define "fair" in a fashion that's going to suit everyone, but I have to wonder about the moral foundation of people who can say it's fair for the rich to get richer even as the poor are dying under their noses, as they lose their homes, and as they lose hope.

Is that really what America is about?

Disclaimer: The idea of a Gingrich nominee, presidency appalls me.

Watch what you wish for if Gingrich wins the Republican nomination. He is close in the current polls in 3 swing states. I can already see a repeat of the famous SNL skit of Bush/Dukakis

Obama: "I'm losing to this guy?"

David Walker To the republican/tea bagger party. Yes thats what America is all about. They just don't care. A republican/tea bag response would be "Pick your self up by the bootstraps,and get over it". Cause thats what the republican/teabaggers are all about.

******************** "This Country is going to have a Newt attack" *************************

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "We must never forget what Grinch did ????????????????

Now Mitt Romney is now saying he has a better wife? The guy has been campaigning for President since I can remember. He has no core, no principles. He's a weathervane, and blows whichever way the wind blows. And he loses his temper when questioned.

Yeah that's pretty weak, having to campaign on how long he's been married????

I find it easier to support a man who has demonstrated longevity and faithfulness in his marriage. I find it hard to think of having a woman for first lady, who engaged in a clandestine affair with a man she knew to be married. Someone has to stand up and be honorable.

Romney 2012 !!! A Role Model. Strong Core Values. People.. Please show me a core value you think is weak or that does not exist. Please ...

Definition of Core Values:

** can be defined as those things that are important to or valued by someone.**

SNL should bring Jim Carey onto the show to do a Romney bit. He would be hilarious.

Damage123

Smitty - Every study I've ever seen shows that Republicans give more to charity every year than anybody else...and I'm not including welfare and entitlements. Whatever your negative view of "what America's all about" is bulls**t. Take your sorry azz off to another country. It's stupid, OccuPunk-minded people like you that have been dragging this country down for decades. Do us a favor and get the hell out.

I find the prospect of you putting any critical thought into any study highly unlikely. It is -- in fact -- the people like you that have made this country bottom out socially and economically.

But, unlike you, I recognize your choices are your God granted freedoms. By all means, stay in my country and continue to exercise those freedoms ... even if you sound like a complete "azz"hole.

These attacks on Gingrich are beneficial in the long run. By confronting the attacks now, Gingrich will either put those issues behind him, which will take the sting out of them when Obama tries to use them in the future, or he will fall behind as a result of them, and clear the way for Romney's nomination in the future.

Romney just needs to make sure he doesn't come across as 'mean spirited'.

I think we need to make Insurance companies insure everyones home for free. You do realize that in Detroit every year on Angels night 40 to 60 homes are set to blaze every year. Thats down from 7 years ago from 150 to 200 homes. Imagine how quick we could drive these evil corps out of business.

Why does the Republican Party consistently put forth totally flawed "leaders" when there are perfectly acceptable persons who CAN lead the party without needing a windsock or a locked codpiece at the Whitehouse.

Paul/Huntsman 2012

The studies may 'show' that, damage; but I believe it is because Republicans beat their chests and BRAG about good deeds, rather than quietly or anonymously letting the action speak for itself.

But that's just my take on it. Of course when their states are receiving more in FEDERAL aid, they may very well have more to give. Just a theory I'm working on.

Romney cannot win the Presidency. I seriously doubt He can overcome Newt to win the nomination. Whether He talked himself into believing He could be elected President or some other misguided fool did the convincing, it was, and remains bulls&%^. Much of the country ( maybe a majority ) is in a state of protracted political masochism, looking for the appropriate political sadist for gratification. This is amply available in the person of "Newt Gingrich".

Every study I've ever seen shows that Republicans give more to charity every year than anybody else...and I'm not including welfare and entitlements.

Damage, take away the tax write-off for charitable donations and see what happens. The majority of my friends are Republicans, and they all admit that the ONLY reason they donate is for the tax write-off . . . I do the same.

At least we are honest about it, instead of trying to cover-up our intentions with some bullsh-- "hollier-than-though" excuse. Everyone is charitable as long as it benefits them in their tax return.

TINY MITT SHRINKS IN STATURE

It is one thing to love your wife and be proud of her. It is quite another to "use your wife" as a political ad. Newt could fire back "yeah, and you wear funny underwear". But he won't.

No, Newt will rise above this pettiness. In so doing, he will appear to be the great stateman on the stage and Romney will shrink to the size of a midget. A desperate, pitiful, has been, who is now grasping at straws and throwing mud.

P.S. You know the POLITICAL MUD RULE: He who 1st slings the mud is the weaker candidate. True.

Is he running for 3rd Grader in chief?

David Walker, you are a sheep. You are an intellectual follower. You, and weak minded individuals like Smitty have been herded by Democratic leftist sheep dogs for decades. It is their job to create a public opinion for those who aren’t smart enough to formulate an opinion of their own. Clearly, you don’t have the critical thinking skills necessary to realize that defining “fair” is irrelevant. You don’t need to define fair, you need to understand fair.

To begin with, the concept of “fair” is in no way linked to wealth or poverty. Within the social contract that governs free people in a democratic society, fair must coexist with the individuals right to life, liberty and their pursuit of their own ideas of happiness; the laws and circumstances permitting.

Fair means to be judged without bias in a court of law, i.e., to receive justice. Fair means that something is neither excellent nor poor, but moderate. Fair means to have favorable conditions for the pursuit of one’s endeavors. The concept of fair is not controlled by the economy, and the economy doesn’t control the concept of what is fair.

A man named Tom has a good idea. Tom goes to his relatives and to his local bank and borrows money to turn his good idea into a profitable business. After many years of back breaking work, and long hours, Tom’s business becomes successful. He buys a home and raises a family. His neighbor Bill is a carpenter. Bill is also married, owns his own home, and has a family. Bill works for a contractor. When times are good, Bill has plenty of work and lives a good life. When times are bad, Bill’s life sucks.

You wrote: “I have to wonder about the moral foundation of people who can say it's fair for the rich to get richer even as the poor are dying under their noses, as they lose their homes, and as they lose hope. Is that really what America is about?”

I have to wonder what socialist planet you live on Walker. Please explain the moral failure of a person who finds himself or herself in one set of circumstances, as opposed to a person who finds himself or herself in a different set of circumstances. Then explain how one set of circumstances is fair, while the other set of circumstances is unfair. NOTICE, I am not indicating which is which. This means that my questions are completely unbiased, that is, they are fair.

I have suggested to the Newsvine moderators that they change the system for rating the comments to three choices: "Like", "Dislike", "Ignore". We could add a fourth choice "FLAG" which would send a notice to the moderators they need to take a look at the post, but I don't think that's really necessary.

If you like the comment, check "Like", if you disagree check "Dislike" and if you're like me and don't want to waste your time on certain people check "Ignore". That way others can read the comment and make their own decisions and evaluations.

In my opinion only the moderators should have the power to collapse or delete a comment. Violations of the code can still be punished by suspensions and banning.

This will eliminate the ridiculous collapsing of comments simply because we disagree with the content of the post.

How 'bout it kids?

Obama/Biden 2012

If we were picking a spouse, I'd probably go with Romney. However, I believe this is all about who would be the best PRESIDENT, and in that regard I think I would prefer Mr Gingrich over Mr Mitt.

Our government. Dems & Repubs. 1 bird, 2 wings, same poop. Vote RON PAUL. The PEOPLES President!

Hes back, Dan Quayle learned how to spell potatoes, or has he?

Indy Party, I suggest you find some new friends they sound as shallow as you, I'm sure there are plenty of people Republican and Democrat who donate to actually help people.

Arkius:

Go click on my moniker and read what I have said about "fair". If you had taken the time to actually absorb what goes on here instead of rattling off like a reactionary, you would have known - or should have known - that I was responding to njnb's nonsensical rant about "fairness".

The concept of "fair" differs from individual to individual. That's reality. Yet, you some up with a vacuous screed about how one must "understand fair"? That doesn't even rise to the level of BS sophistry. Is there something magic about this understanding crap? We'll all be on the same page if we understand it? We will all have a perfect Arkius understanding of fair, is that it?

Fairness cannot be legislated. It cannot be imposed. Indeed, I have challenged your right-wing reactionary brethren time and time again to define this "fairness" crap they talk about. They can't do it.

I don't live on a socialist planet. I live in a country that has markedly socialist policies and if you'd take off your right-wing blinders you'd understand that to be the fact.

It is good that you are able to define when your questions are unbiased and fair. How very god-like of you. It would be even better if you were able to understand that the very fact that you can ask a question admits to a bias in and of itself.

Go try out your two-bit pseudo-philosophy on someone else.

It's about time candidates started leaning on Gingrich! He has manipulated people and washed over the facts of his record and his life. Gingrich actually said the other day that the only reason he was found guilty of ethics violations and fined $300,000 for using his non-profit organizations for personal and political gain is because he signed letter his attorney wrote without reading it!!! We don't need to put up with a dishonest scoundrel like him! No integrity, can't trust a word he says...he talks like Bill Clinton! His sneaky wife supports his dishonesty...She, and all who vote for him just enable him, encouraging his conniving ways, his distractions, his unfocused undisciplined ideas that he spouts several times a day to distract the GOP voters. It's a manipulation of the press and the people by him, because he learned how to play the game in Washington, and it's out of control with him. Send him home for good and send a message that he can lie to everyone his whole life...but were not going to put up with someone who lies to us in Washington anymore! He's done, he burned his own bridges, he shamed himself, and HE ALONE can deal with his problems! Washington is a power drug to Gingrich and we don't need to send him there to settle old scores!

I heard the ad and in no way did I get the impression that the accusation implied by MSNBC is correct. No, not at all.

I think it is wishful thinking on the part of main stream media that such things that are "insinuated" are true, but no, they're not..

But it give s the public an insight to how low MSNBC will go.

Lets see they've picked on Newt because he hasn't been married to the same girl forever. Wonder how many other Americans have been? The've picked on Newt because he has changed denomination twice. Notice I didn't say he changed religion. Regardless of what many people think, luthern, baptist and catholic are all christian with the same core beliefs. Well my kid did the same journey in the opposite direction from catholic, to episcopalian, to presbyterian still a christian no matter what you say. Newt is closer to what most american lives are in this time. At least Newt seems to know something about foreign policy and can probably find the troubled countries on a map.

David Walker, I clicked on your moniker and I’m not impressed. To me, you’re just another limp wristed leftwing nut job, parroting the party line, and apparently, you’re easily confused. You were responding to njib, and I was responding to you. What is about that simple concept that perplexes you?

You wrote: “The concept of "fair" differs from individual to individual. That's reality.”

Oh really? Walker, what color is the sun in your world? It must be very different than the sun here in the adult world of facing sincerity head on. Let me point something out to you sonny, if words had different meanings “from individual to individual”, then the world would be in chaos (Does the Tower of Babel ring a bell, moron?). Is that how it is on Walker world? Where the sun is purple and everyone has a “vacuous screed” up their ass? It sounds like Little David learned some new words today?

Here on Planet Earth, words having the same meaning for everyone. That’s how we can communicate with one another. Are you with me so far Little David? That’s why we have big books called dictionaries, so that if someone like you doesn’t know the meaning of a word, like FAIR, for instance, they can go look it up.

You also ranted: “Is there something magic about this understanding crap? We'll all be on the same page if we understand it? We will all have a perfect Arkius understanding of fair, is that it?”

Poor Little David Walker, he hasn’t got a clue. I hate to tell you this Walker, but everyone save you is on the same page, and it’s not a perfect “Arkius” understanding of FAIR, it’s just a normal, everyday understanding of a word that anyone can look up in a dictionary. Give it a try as soon as you come in for a landing.

You also got your panties in a bunch over: “Fairness cannot be legislated. It cannot be imposed. Indeed, I have challenged your right-wing reactionary brethren time and time again to define this "fairness" crap they talk about. They can't do it.”

Walker, you are truly a leftwing nut job loser of immense proportions. I answer your challenge by giving you the text-book definition of FAIR that you, by the way, were unable to figure out for yourself, and you fly off the handle and wet yourself like some 12 year old girl who just sneezed to hard, and right away I’m a right wing reactionary.

You wrote: “It is good that you are able to define when your questions are unbiased and fair. How very god-like of you. It would be even better if you were able to understand that the very fact that you can ask a question admits to a bias in and of itself.”

Ok, now you’re just making a fool of yourself in front of the adults. No one over sixteen would be stupid enough to post this idiotic nonsense on the Internet under their real name. Aren’t you afraid one of your neighbors will recognize you and tell your parents?

Here’s the bottom line sonny. I answered your challenge in good faith; with well thought out arguments, and I proposed a challenge of my own in return. You answered with fear and anger, and chose to ignore my challenge. Therefore, I challenge you one last time. You can either accept the challenge or be branded a blowhard pinko loser.

I gave you a scenario: A man named Tom has a good idea. Tom goes to his relatives and to his local bank and borrows money to turn his good idea into a profitable business. After many years of back breaking work, and long hours, Tom’s business becomes successful. He buys a home and raises a family. His neighbor Bill is a carpenter. Bill is also married, owns his own home, and has a family. Bill works for a contractor. When times are good, Bill has plenty of work and lives a good life. When times are bad, Bill’s life sucks.

I took your question: “I have to wonder about the moral foundation of people who can say it's fair for the rich to get richer even as the poor are dying under their noses, as they lose their homes, and as they lose hope. Is that really what America is about?”

And then based on your question, I asked you two questions of my own:

1)…Please explain the moral failure of a person who finds himself or herself in one set of circumstances, as opposed to a person who finds himself or herself in a different set of circumstances.

2)…Explain how one set of circumstances is fair, while the other set of circumstances is unfair.

Let’s see if you have the nads and the intellectual wherewithal to pick up the gauntlet, or if you’re just a two-bit leftwing sissy boy.

Arkius:

There is nothing that will penetrate the skull of someone who says, "Here on Planet Earth, words having [sic] the same meaning for everyone." That is absolutely, unequivocally untrue.

If, as you say, everyone were on the same page, there would be no disagreements, would there? What you have done is take Solipsism to the extreme.

Slinging one childish insult after another is hardly the mark of an adult. It is not possible to have a rational debate with someone such as you. Your arguments are not well thought out. They are little more than the rants of a spoiled child.

As to your challenge, such as it is: "1)…Please explain the moral failure of a person who finds himself or herself in one set of circumstances, as opposed to a person who finds himself or herself in a different set of circumstances." I see no moral failure.

2) "…Explain how one set of circumstances is fair, while the other set of circumstances is unfair." I see neither set of circumstances as being fair or unfair.

The world continues to exist, even though you may close your eyes.

David Walker, now you’re just being obtuse. Look in multiple, different dictionaries, and you’ll find the same meaning for the same word every time. What is untrue about that? It is for this reason, i.e., your inability to grasp a simple concept, that I sarcastically put your residence on a different planet. And you’re such a sissy about it: “Slinging one childish insult after another is hardly the mark of an adult. It is not possible to have a rational debate with someone such as you.” What a conceited, self righteous twit you are; oh boo hoo hoo, poor Little David can’t take a little sarcastic ribbing, because he’s better than everyone else. That’s right dude, you’re special, I’m not supposed to treat you like a common man, because you’re David Walker, know-it-all non-pareil.

And for all your hypothetical intellect, you have once more failed to understand even the simplest of ideas. I wrote: “Poor Little David Walker, he hasn’t got a clue. I hate to tell you this Walker, but everyone save you is on the same page, and it’s not a perfect “Arkius” understanding of FAIR, it’s just a normal, everyday understanding of a word that anyone can look up in a dictionary.”

Walker, the focal point of this paragraph is the word FAIR. I claim it is an everyday word that everyone except you understands, i.e., everyone BUT you are on the same page. Why is that so hard for you to understand? I think you’re being deliberately dense here.

Solipsism? Really? Walker, using big words doesn’t make you appear intelligent; it makes you look like the smug, obnoxious fool you really are. You need to get over yourself.

Regarding my challenge----

Your original argument was: “I have to wonder about the moral foundation of people who can say it's fair for the rich to get richer even as the poor are dying under their noses, as they lose their homes, and as they lose hope. Is that really what America is about?”

Remember, my two questions were based on your above argument.

1) Please explain the moral failure of a person who finds himself or herself in one set of circumstances, as opposed to a person who finds himself or herself in a different set of circumstances.

You answered….. I see no moral failure.

2) Explain how one set of circumstances is fair, while the other set of circumstances is unfair.

You answered…..I see neither set of circumstances as being fair or unfair.

Your original argument questions the moral character of people who say it is FAIR for the wealthy to continue to prosper, while the poor die, lose their homes and lose hope.

I argue that the wealthy find themselves in one set of circumstances, and the poor find themselves in another set of circumstances NEITHER SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES ARE FAIR OR UNFAIR. I argue that the circumstances the wealthy and the poor find themselves in are neither FAIR or UNFAIR.

Your answers to my challenge validate all my arguments, and completely dismiss every word you’ve written after your original argument.

Again, your original argument:

“I have to wonder about the moral foundation of people who can say it's fair for the rich to get richer…….ACCORDING TO YOU…there is no moral failure…..neither set of circumstances are fair or unfair…… even as the poor are dying under their noses, as they lose their homes, and as they lose hope. Is that really what America is about?”

David Walker, typical self righteous, know-it-all, left wing nut job, who doesn’t have a clue.

Bullsh!t in….bullsh!t out.

The world continues to exist, even though your head is up your ass.

dirp101 "Why does the Republican Party consistently put forth totally flawed "leaders" "
Unlike the Democrats with Obama?

Thanks, I needed a good laugh before going to bed.

Steeler Fan, could it be that the old Grinch is suffering from the "pants on fire" problems regarding his ethics missteps? :)

phine---Newt wants to spin the whole thing as no big deal----if that is the case, why not release all the records and let us see for ourselves? After all, he blames his marital issues on the hard work he did because of his love of country. If he is going to work hard as President---presumably never take vacation or days off, since the Republicans hate it when President Obama goes golfing or on vacation---should we be afraid of more marital issues?

If I were Callista, I would make the White House an all men's zone. We know what happens to Newt when he gets all patriotic! (Maybe Callista will neuter the Newt)

Steeler Fan, good point.

It's like Romney spending $100,000 in Massachusetts taxpayer money so his staff could take their hard drives and records with them--what do these two GOP front runners have to hide? One would think republicans would want to know the truth and start demanding answers.

Oh it's more, much more. how bout the "Books for Poor Kids" scam where all the money went into Blingrich's personal account. Like I've said before, anybody voting for this train wreck is ignorant and/or shallow...

Jody, my friend, truth to the GOP is a much different kettle of fish compared to what truth is to most sane people. Remember, this is the group of folks who will rewrite history books to make history fit what THEY want to believe!

he is a ballsy mf, fer shore. yesterday he said they brought 84 ethics violations against him but had to drop 83 of them for lack of merit. Then he went on to say that the one that stuck was because of an error by his lawyer.

Most politicians talk out of both sides of their mouths,...Newt goes ahead and talks out of his @ss, too. That's just how GOOD he is.

If this re-tread gets the nomination,...I hope to hell someone teaches him a HISTORY lesson. Rewriting it only works in Texas.

ahh, phinephancy, I see we're on the same page. Good times, indeed.

Clara, we are going to need a lot of *popcorn* !!!!

phinephancy, I know, truth to the right is what they're told by their masters.

++++++++++++++++++++++ 'Newt made his own house ungovernable' ? +++++++++++++++++

how long did obama hide his birth certificate? Were you concerned about that? You bunch of blood sucking libs tick me off. It's aways want can we get that someone else has worked for and how long can we get it. In the 30 and 40's, they would have simply called you bums

Steeler Fan, it's open under the freedom of information act so you can stop with your BS. Oh and the Democrats are all truthful please don't make me laugh. John Corzine, money Bill Clinton sex, Kerry boat repairs the list is as long as the Republicans,but please carry on with your partisan drivel.

Pardon me for not taking any advice on reality from a birther....but thank you, unreal, for typifying the true mental balance of the average tea-bagger (do you find yourself twitching when you type??)

Phinephancy - Let us not forget that Callista was Newt's concubine. Do you really think she could be trusted in a White House of all men???

I find it funny that people think Newt is anything more or less than PBO lite. The things the left attack him for all the things most on the left do or have done. The things the right defend him for the things the left does or has done.

Bush/PBO/Newt all the same basic person with a two of them having a different letter next to their name.

All three are BIG Government Politicians that will or have grown the size of government beyond the bounds of what powers were given to them by the constitution.

All three are for sending our soldiers overseas to fight expensive wars, all three are for continuing the bankrupt policies of SS and Medicare, all three are for kicking the proverbial budget can down the street, all three are for saying we need to close the budget deficit and all three don't have gonads to actually do it (the difference here is PBO wants to pretend raising the taxes on the rich will actually do this). Finally all three are NOT for cutting any government programs like Homeland security, DOE, Depart of urban development and on and on and on and on.

So go an pretend that "Your Guy" is somehow better or different than the other guy, I mean its not like everybody hasn't been doing that for a 100 plus years and 15 trillion and counting in debt later.

Unreal Obama's birth certificate was never hidden it was in the same place it was since he was born. Good luck getting a copy of my birth certificate even if I tell you what courthouse to go to. The clerk will take one look at your request say your not a blood relative bye. By policy some birth records aren't open to the public.

Steeler fan and Phinephancy, you two should get a room, you seem awfully close.

Steeler fan, you wrote: “I've been wondering why the Gingrich campaign is so determined to keep the information from his House ethics investigation hidden.”

In case you haven’t heard, and apparently you haven’t, members of the House of Representatives are required by rules to keep non-public hearing information confidential, which is why Socialist Nancy Pelosi, who was a member of the Gingrich ethics committee, had to withdraw her threat to reveal the details of the investigation.

Speaking of inside information….isn’t it strange that as soon as Pink Nancy is threatened with an investigation for making money in the stock market with inside information, she hurriedly threatens to retaliate with some half baked scheme of her own? I guess she forgot she is prohibited by rule/law from opening the left side of her mouth.

Pelosi's comments regarding Gingrich's previous crimes were centered around information that is not protected by House rules. Gingrich was just making empty threats to deflect attention away from a topic that would be damaging to his rather shaky campaign. Here is what a Pulitzer Prize winning site has to say about some of Gingrich's highly questionable remarks regarding his old troubles in the House:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/dec/07/newt-gingrich/newt-gingrich-blasts-1990s-ethics-investigation-hi/

Pelosi is selling snowballs to Eskimos. How many did you buy Nanook?

Threatening to reintroduce information that is already in the public domain is very lame, and you latched on to this for all that its worth. So, I guess you’re easily impressed with Pink Nancy’s empty threats, and not so impressed with Gingrich’s empty threats. And to characterize Gingrich’s campaign as “shaky”, does not speak well for your observational skills.

Sailcat read the papers for Christ’s sake, he’s either leading every poll, or is a close second in every poll. Now, does that sound like a “shaky” campaign to you? If it does, then you’re not an objective observer.

The article claims: “Gingrich said that Pelosi's suggestion that she would reveal information from that investigation underscored that the ethics charges were politically motivated.”

“The ethics charges were politically motivated” No amount of Pulitzer Prizes can erase the FACT that 84 charges were brought against Gingrich, and all save one were dismissed-“the ethics charges were politically motivated”. The article mentions that Gingrich was instrumental in bringing down House Speaker Jim Wright in 1989. Sailcat, ask yourself:

1)…Do I honestly think that the Democrats on the committee weren’t gunning for

Gingrich’s ass because of the part he played in Speaker Wrights downfall?

2)…Do I honestly think that the Democrats on the committee didn’t try to bring as many

charges as they possibly could to make Gingrich look bad? To “taint” his image.

Now, you can lie to me if you want to, and also you can lie to the readers of this post if you want to, but you can’t’ lie to yourself; so I’m going to challenge you to reason with and answer these arguments:

If you answered yes to either or both of the above questions, then doesn’t Gingrich’s argument that the PROCESS the House ethics committee engaged in was tainted, ring true? Therefore, if you agree that the PROCESS is corrupted, then you must also agree that the result is corrupted.

The article claimed: “The ethics panel is the only House committee with an even number of Republicans and Democrats. By longstanding tradition, the committee does not proceed with a formal investigation unless it has majority support. This means that every ethics case that moves forward -- including Gingrich’s -- required the vote of at least least one member from the same party as the lawmaker facing allegations.

If I recall correctly, this investigation had been going on for about two years (or so). In that time Gingrich had beaten all but one charge. The article states: “A further problem for Gingrich was that during the investigation, he submitted letters from his lawyers for which "the subcommittee was unable to find any factual basis." Gingrich "should have known" that the information in the letters "was inaccurate, incomplete, and unreliable.”

And this is what all the haters are crowing about? That “Gingrich "should have known the information in the “letters from his lawyers” […] "was inaccurate, incomplete, and unreliable.”

So, let me see get this straight; in an investigation that took two years (there abouts), all this unbiased, politically evenly balanced committee could come up with is that “inaccurate, incomplete, and unreliable” information was found in some letters, which were given over to the committee in good faith from a professional law firm retained by Gingrich. And this knowledge is supposed to do what? Convince open minded, critical thinking people that after successfully destroying the Democrats campaign to disgrace him, and bring him down with bogus, politically motivated claptrap, that Gingrich would purposely set out to sabotage his own defense? You’re an intelligent man; does that behavior make sense to you?

Do you honestly believe that Newt Gingrich, the History professor, with no formal training in law and no formal knowledge of legalese, is somehow going to personally reexamine the thousands of pages of documents his prestigious Washington D.C. law prepared for presentation to a Congressional committee? If we continue the committee’s train of logic, then Gingrich should have retained a second prestigious Washington D.C. law firm to check up on the work of the first? Where does it end?

In the end, I think it is reasonable to believe, that after Gingrich and his crack legal team realized that somebody screwed the pooch, they decided to cut their losses and call it a day. I mean, it’s been two years (or so), and they fought the good fight; it’s time to pick up the pieces and get on with your lives. Therefore, Gingrich must have instructed “three Republicans -- Chairwoman Nancy Johnson of Connecticut, Steve Schiff of New Mexico and Porter Goss of Florida”, to vote with the Democrats, i.e. walk the walk, and talk the talk. Case closed.

The article also claimed: “In essence, Gingrich is alleging that the investigation of his actions was biased by partisanship and, by extension, that the penalty he agreed to was tainted.”

I sum, it’s not a far stretch of the imagination to infer that the investigation into his actions were driven by partisanship, and that “the penalty he agreed to was tainted”; tainted by the massive screw-up by a supposedly topflight D.C law firm.

Regardless of your rambling, defense lawyer tome, Gingrich was fined $300k and kicked out. He then went about doing all the very lucrative things an insider does, including for Fannie Mae, which he now rails against.

His biggest problem is his propensity to say the most unbelievably stupid things and promulgate the most unbelievably antisocial, retrograde public policy. Politically, he is prone to spontaneous combustion at any moment. Personally, he is a slime ball. Women voters, the moderates he MUST have to be elected, are very unlikely to forgive and forget his past. That Evangelicals will support him is nothing but abject desperation. He is little more than an educated Herman Cain.

Dear Stupid-in WV, just by saying “Regardless of your rambling, defense lawyer tome”, doesn’t make the logic go away. Either you address the arguments in my post, or I, and the people who read your response will think you a bleepin’ moron for sidesteping them.What are you afraid of?

At this point in time, you are, without question, a bleepin’ moron, because I explained the fine, inter alia in my arguments, but that point seems to have escaped your attention. No surprise there.

Whether or not Gingrich is an insider, or says “the most unbelievably stupid things”, “promulgate(s) the most unbelievably antisocial, retrograde public policy”, etc, etc, is irrelevant to me, because I don’t argue any of those issues. Try to focus on the text, you know, the words in my post.

Now, as soon as you get your head out of your ass, and feel that you’d like to discuss the arguments I put forth in my post of Fri Dec 9, 2011 7:00 PM EST, then get back to me with your best shot; that is, if you’re not intellectually intimidated, or too busy brushing your tooth.

Arkius

You don't make arguments. You just spew unfounded rhetoric with no citations or sources to back up your right wing fallacies.

You also don't use logic. Unless you meant using the insulated logic of your closed irrational fantasy world. But of course, that doesn't work outside the realm of fake talking points. And we don't use the term 'logic' in regards to circular thinking like yours.

Oh and by the way. Your constant ad hominem attacks make you look like a child. You're not interested in discourse. You're interested in spewing your rationalizations of your hatred for Democrats. Then you're interested in lashing out with name calling on anyone who dares throw a few facts out to show you lost your thinking is.

Arkius--

I am not going to get banned by responding in kind.

The FACT is that your "logic" (very poor description) is rife with speculation, and asks us to draw totally unproven conclusions. You then employ a stacking strategy to suggest that the dropped charges were unprovable, when in fact, backroom deals (the type used by prosecutors all the time) actually resulted in one very firm admission, expulsion and the completely unprecedented fine on his way out the door. Even the disgraced Jim Wright did not have it so rough.

While you are obviously nothing but a lackey and a narcissist, your effort at composing such a LENGTHY example of logical fallacies is notable. As for your ad hominem attack efforts; Go to Hell.

The GOP better start looking at itself clearly. It is starting to shattering into these splinter groups (tea party, religious right) that will make it close to impossible in the future to be one cohesive group.

"If it was nothing serious and more like technical violations, why not open the files for our review?"

Ask Fairfax Me First Bill- evidently, folks take him serriously on these boards?

phinephancy

Having spent my Thanksgiving in the heart of a Libertarian household, I can tell you, the Republican Party is split over Israel, as well. Don't believe the pundits who cast Republicans as all pro-Israel. There are plenty of Republicans who will flat out tell you they are "anti-Zionist." (Trust me.)

Democrats have a big tent and are used to working out issues they disagree on, but Republicans are much more black and white; these schisms in their Party are violent and deep.

I had to go back and open up old Bill. Have him on ignore - he bores me. And he is proof positive that he is a poster boy for the RWNJ's.

Bill is a paid troll, he gets his material from Frank Luntz.

@Amy

The GOP may just prove the old adage, A house divided cannot not stand.

I had to go back and look as well phine...me first bill just just re-enforced why I have him on ignore.

@Chris

Yes, he is worth ignoring.

@Amy

What is so funny about today's GOP is I remember way back when, when they bragged about being a party that was a big tent that included all! Well, times do change.

Hey, Chris! Great to see you out and about!

mattpfl, well said!

Heard this morning that Tea Partiers like what Newt says and represents--apparently, they haven't heard about his Fannie & Freddie connection, his divorces, his ethics scandals, his lobbying for the individual mandate in the ACA to name a few. The TP claims to hate those things so it is hard to understand how they think his views match theirs.

Trust me folks. Conservatives will rally behind whomever gets the nomination. Why do you think the Repubs have won the majority of elections in the past 40 years? Don't give us this "house divided" crap. The Dems have a loose collection of grievance groups they've cobbled together over the years by playing on people's resentments, hatreds and jealousies. They're constantly trying to please one while not pissing off the other. It's funny to watch.

Having spent my Thanksgiving in the heart of a Libertarian household, I can tell you, the Republican Party is split over Israel, as well. Don't believe the pundits who cast Republicans as all pro-Israel.

______

Amy - By the same token, judging by the comments, (not from you), from yesterday in the Romney and Perry "Israel" related threads, some of the usual liberal posters showed their anti-Israeli bias. I always wonder why that is?

True the GOP is beginning to feel party divisions, between moderates, conservatives, ultra right religious, tea party, etc. They have begun to stop marching in lock step. However, the Democratic coalition has always been more diverse and sometimes divisive. Case in point OWS and their actions can be divisive to moderates when they break from peaceful protests.

Jody you need to read beyond the headlines.. .

And Obama a liar just like all the rest, the only difference is actually believes them.. .

OK dose no one else find it a little wired at all that Ron Paul is pretty much in second place for the running and the media like msn will not ever dare to mention his name? Im not fooled at all it just proves how much the news is controlled by a higher force. They are so scared of Ron Paul because he is the only one that's not completely currupt and full of BS. Wake up people they only talk about the people they want to win.

Easy way to tell if a republican candidate will be pro Israel check his religious denomination. Southern conservative christian= pro Israel. Comes with their Sunday school training.

Jodie, have you ever read David Walker. No? You’re not missing anything. Here are a few arguments off the top of my head, based solely on what you’ve written.

You wrote: “Heard this morning that Tea Partiers like what Newt says and represents--apparently, they haven't heard about his Fannie & Freddie connection, his divorces, his ethics scandals, his lobbying for the individual mandate in the ACA to name a few. The TP claims to hate those things so it is hard to understand how they think his views match theirs.”

The Tea Party press release is a political document. It speaks to Gingrich’s political positions. You, on the other hand, are criticizing him for his business dealings, his past tribulations and personal faux pas. What you’re doing, in essence, is chastising peaches for having fuzz, and applauding apples for being smooth.

If the Tea Party release commended Gingrich’s political views, I assume (going out on a limb here) it simply means that they’re on the same page (politically speaking).

Jews, as a group, make up about 2% of the US population. They tend to vote at a higher rate than average. They have tended to vote Democrat far more than Republican in the past, at least in places where their community is substantial.

The wild card as per Israel is not the Jewish Americans, but the Evangelical Christians. To them, there is a mandate from God to support and defend Israel, and no second coming is possible without total victory of the Jewish State. While many hardcore Christians will denigrate Jews for betraying Christ, therefore causing his execution, most agree that Israel is the highest priority, regardless of their views on Israel's actions in the geopolitical sense.

Talk about selfish, ulterior motives... The real joke is, most Jewish people know about this duplicity. Unlike their Christian cousins, they are not spiteful and vindictive about it. They are, most logically, happy to have allies in tough times. Just watch their vote in the future; it will be instructive, either way.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc? Poor form, Mark.

Mark, do you really believe that crap you just wrote? Want to compare the time off that Bush took vs. this president?

And, why oh why do you RWNJ's not realize that the White House, with all its technology goes to wherever the sitting president is?

During President Bush’s 2922 days in office he spent 490 days at his Texas ranch, another 470 days at Camp David plus trips to MA to vacation with his parents. So over his 8 years he spent nearly 35% of his time as President on vacation.

That would be 2.75 years on vacation.

Mark

Be honest now - even you laughed at yourself when you wrote this post....

@Dennis

And I would say his mind, while even at the White House, spent as much if not more time on vacation!

Bush's days at Camp David and his ranch were working vacations... he met foreign diplomats, worked out trade agreements, invited charities to bring kids, etc. Obama's vacations involve none of that... he meets beer cart girls on the golf course and beach bunnies at Martha's Vineyard! I too thank those who question Obama's dedication

Post hoc ergo propter hoc?

is that Klingon speak, danoid?

Bush's days at Camp David and his ranch were working vacations...

Like that hard work he and the administration did in August 2001, yes?

Post hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "after this, therefore because of this," is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) that states, "Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one."

Who says you can't learn anything in the comment section of an Internet blog!

Bush's days at Camp David and his ranch were working vacations

Yeah, he cleared brush and posed all pretty like for photo ops. Not only did Bush take more vacation than any other President (next in line being Reagan, least days being Clinton) Bush also refused to work long days and went to bed early.

As of August 17, 2011: So far, President Obama has taken 61 vacation days after 31 months in office. At this point in their presidencies, George W. Bush had spent 180 days at his ranch where his staff often joined him for meetings. And Ronald Reagan had taken 112 vacation days at his ranch.

Among recent presidents, Bill Clinton took the least time off — 28 days.

How true phinephancy !!

He spent 15 hours a week, on average, riding his mountain bike. He bragged about reading 180 books during his last 3 years – that is one every 6 days. Laura called him Mr. Excitement because he was in bed before 9 most nights.

Dennis---do comic books count in that total?

I find the right's criticism of President Obama and his time off/vacations amusing. He doesn't do anything they approve of but they want him to spend more time doing it. They begrudge him any time with his family and any time to recharge his batteries but defend George Bush's spending even more time on vacation.

@Dennis

How many times did he read about the little train that could? LOL

Thank you Amy!!

You're welcome Bill.

Dennis, one minor error - two letter abbreviation for Maine is ME (as in ME first!)

Steeler Fan - you are SO right! President Obama has young children and if he didn't spend any time with them, then we'd hear non stop about what a bad father he is. The haters HATE. It is what Faux Noise has programmed them to do.

The idea that he needs to be sitting in the oval office so the @ssholes on Capitol hill will show up and actually work for their pay is ridiculous. The Office of President is a mobile unit. The hard wired non thinkers just can't wrap their brains around things that aren't concrete. It's caused this country enough damage; but they'd still like to cause more damage, no doubt.

I suspect Obama isn't taking a vacation so that he can make some recess appointments and issue some executive orders. That's the only way things get done any more. Don't think anything Newter said had anything to do with it.

For those of you wondering why Bush took so many vacation days; Bush didn't run the Presidency. Karl Rove and his daddy did. Can you imagine that Bush had the intelligence to make the decisions that were made? Not that they were all intelligent decisions.

Bush got in office, because daddy wanted him there. Once there, Bush Sr. got his vengence, we got our wars, and Rove got a fat paycheck, combined with undying gratitude from Bush Sr. for babysitting his kid.

I see the old liberal strategy is at work. Story Line = 'Obama's poor effort as president but energetic vacationer' but being unable to defend Obama's position the libbies turn it into another cheap attack on Bush! How can you continue to blame Bush for Obama's less than stellar performance as Chief Executive?

Can no liberal defend Obama? If you can't do it, who will?

CJ: You forgot Cheney; I think he had more to do with running the govt. than Daddy! After all, he was daddy's favorite when he was in the WH. Cheney & Rove: a pair that will live in infamy.

Mark - Help me out with this. I don't claim to be extremely intelligent, so I need you to explain something to me that no one has been able to up until now.

As someone who criticizes everything our President tries to do, why in the world do you want him to be on the job, instead of being on vacation? After all, if he can't do anything right, wouldn't you WANT him to be on vacation, doing nothing, rather than doing everything wrong, day in and day out?

So than we can blame it on some kind of bush! More than likely not the burning kind.

So, Newty-toot calls the President out on vacationing over Christmas. At least Obama's going to Hawaii (an actual state, and the one he grew up in) instead of cruising the Mediterranean. How funny to watch these hypocrites jump and spin... I'm going to need more popcorn.

Ped, you mean Hawaii one of our 57 states you still dining naked at McDonald's eating your happy meal.

wlee, cling to that while Obama walks away with the 2012 election, okay? We know you don't have anything of substance to whine about. ;)

When the right wing lunatic fringe is reduced to nothing more substantive than 57 states and birth certificates, you know the election is over.

Obama by default in '12!

Gilboagirl,

I did not forget Cheney. Cheney is just one of the 'good old boys' that G H W wanted along for the ride. He served as Chief of Staff to Ford, and Sec. of Defense to Sr. He was just part of the team and a good person to have in Bush Sr.'s back pocket. They rewarded him with Halliburton.

As for setting policy, daddy and Rove did that. Read up on how the Carlysle Group and Bush are tied to the Saudis. I don't doubt for a moment that these people laugh all the way to the bank over the gullibility and ignorance of the American public. But hey... we deserve it.

Truth hurts huh boys you want substance look at the state of the country sorry but I'm not right wing but feel free to continue calling people names that's how irrelevant you are. You think he's different then Bush, they've both jacked up the economy, they both ratcheted up the war, rendition is still here, Gitmo, Patriot Act, Military Tribunals. Bush tax cuts still in place oh yeah he's so much different. Who ever wins this country has a long way to go to right the ship

When you finally get to the truth, wlee, give us a jingle because you seem to avoid the subject like the plague in your posts.

CJ, the mother ship is waiting for you and Gilboagirl behind the moon. Don't be late.

Gilboagirl-

More right than you know.

Bush1 was a lifelong intelligence guy. He RAN the CIA.

Cheney was a psychopathic hawk and Nixon-era foreign policy meddler.

The two had a perfect synergy, bolstered by a couple of hundred Neocon think tank bots in the Executive Office of the President.

Shrub was a total front and an empty shirt.

I'm rooting hard for Newt but would like to see some polls showing what a head to head matchup of Newt vs Obama will look like.

Try this for now...it's the best answer I've got for your question...

www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html

I, too, am strongly rooting for Newt.

Oh, sure, Damage,

Because being acquainted with a former terrorist, now a college professor, and having a flamboyent minister are on par with being kicked out of the Speaker of the House position for ethics violations and making millions lobbying for Fannie Mae. But , please! don't me discourage you from nominating Gingrich! If nothing else, it tells the country what the Republican Party really stands for.

I think we all ought to take some time and reflect back on Newt in the past several years. I'm not sure he is President material even though he has good things to say. He's actually just about as arrogant as the current occupier of the White House and we see how well he does his job.

Oh the disturbing info about Newt is about to be unleashed Damage. Just hang on to your hat it's going to get ugly. Newt WON"T get the nomination and you'd better hope Romney learns how to talk.

Ah, floridamom, bet you think old 5th amendment Ricky Scott is doing a bang up job too. No wonder this state is in the bottom ten of the country. Keep drinking your tea.

@Damage

Best part of the information to be thrown at Newt'rs - it will be from his fellow candidates! Somebody get the *popcorn*

Yep, in 2000 Tricky Ricky pled the 5th 75 times and got away with only a 1.7 BILLION dollar fine.

What would have happened if he had answered?

fuzzy, he would have looked so cute in prison orange. Bet all the other inmates would have loved him, too!

I just hope that no disturbing info about Newt comes out in the next few months.

What could possibly be more disturbing than what we already know? That's the thing about Newt, isn't it - even his supporters fear that he's a ticking time bomb.

@damage123 - living up to your name - let's further damage our country by putting one of those TPGOP clowns in the white house..............no thanks - as far as this independent is concerned the Republican Party has lost ALL their integrity....................

What happened to the Grand Old Party - it is now the Grand ODD Party.

Want to turn the rest of the world against us? Elect mr. Blingrich!!!

"Oh No...the world's gonna turn against us!!!" Blah blah blah. Get back in your coop, chicken little. You all are the same clowns that said that during the Bush years. "The world hates us". Boo hoo hoo. Then Obama was elected and what? The world now magically LOVES us? Please. All that means is that the "world" (whoever the f**k that is), is shallow and stupid. Just change to a Dem in office and all is right among the world? Whatever.

You are also the same people that cried that Reagan was going to get us all killed in a nuclear war simply because he believed in standing up to your beloved Soviet communists. You were wrong. Big surprise. You lily-livered liberals have been wrong so many times about this stuff that nobody believes you. Just the same way you cry "racism" so much that it doesn't even have any meaning anymore.

Just yesterday, one of the regular clowns on here said Gingrich would start WW III. Like I said, you keep screaming the same whiny crap for decades...nobody believes you. Farmer Damage just threw some good feed out for you Chicken Litles. Go peck away ya little peckers.

Im still waiting to see how the left goes after Gov Scott for wanting to increase money for education here in Florida. Ive heard of no spin as of yet. I just took a walk in my tee shirt and shorts.....Saw several people with winter hats and coats on.....pretty funny. Even my 3 yorkies looked at them funny.

Please Dear God let Newt win the Republican primary..........signed : a Democrat

Damage123

"Oh No...the world's gonna turn against us!!!" Blah blah blah.

You might find this worth noting, but even "Conservative" leaders recognize the value of stable foreign diplomatic relations.

Get back in your coop, chicken little. You all are the same clowns that said that during the Bush years. "The world hates us". Boo hoo hoo.

Considering the implications of having no friends in a "free market" global economy ... not to mention the ever-present boogyman of terr'sm ... One would have to wonder what your perspective really is on this.

Then Obama was elected and what? The world now magically LOVES us?

Actually, yes. Our popularity globally has improved somewhat under Obama.

Please. All that means is that the "world" (whoever the f**k that is), is shallow and stupid. Just change to a Dem in office and all is right among the world? Whatever.

Golly, you're pretty bad at this trolling thing, aren't you?

You are also the same people that cried that Reagan was going to get us all killed in a nuclear war simply because he believed in standing up to your beloved Soviet communists. You were wrong. Big surprise.

Actually, I loathed that prick for the enormous deficit spending, the ridiculous Star Wars program, the gutting of workers rights and the incessant pandering to big business.

You lily-livered liberals have been wrong so many times about this stuff that nobody believes you.

And by "nobody,", you actually mean you.

Just the same way you cry "racism" so much that it doesn't even have any meaning anymore.

The only way the concept of racism would have no meaning to you is if you were incapable of identifying racism when it occurs. That -- typically - is indicative of bigotry, one could argue.

Just yesterday, one of the regular clowns on here said Gingrich would start WW III.

Can you give a link to that?

Like I said, you keep screaming the same whiny crap for decades...nobody believes you. Farmer Damage just threw some good feed out for you Chicken Litles. Go peck away ya little peckers.

Your crop is in danger of failing "farmer" -- too much fertilizer, methinks. You troll like a 13 year old. Why don't you backtrack to some of your statements, hm? I'm curious if you're capable of dialogue, or if you're "one of those" trolls that just stampedes ahead, thinking you're getting the goats of "libs."

Silliest comment I've seen equating electing Newt to the world hating us. The world has hated us for a long time. They spew hate in their streets and their parliments towards our country while these same people are holding the other hand out for every giveaway our government does. They expect us to come running everytime mother nature causes problems in their area floods, drought caused famine, earthquakes there we are not only with money but with manpower to help. We had more than a billion dollars in weather caused damages in this country this year. See any help coming our way? Didn't think so.

Youjustsaidwhat, if you don't believe there are terrorist out there that want to see us dead you are truly delusional

wlee-950886

Youjustsaidwhat, if you don't believe there are terrorist out there that want to see us dead you are truly delusional

I didn't say that, did I? Hell, I didn't even imply it.

Oh we know they are out there welee, we just don't halt our lives and tremble in fear over shadows like you do. We aren't so gripped with imagined fear that we are convinced terrorists are hiding under our beds and in our closets like you terrified of your own shadow teatards do. Now quick, I think you have a terrorist in your kitchen pantry. Run hide and let the rational people deal with worldly affairs.

Do you have a notebook where you record everything everybody says so you can bring it up later and call it a fliop flop? I wonder how many on the right and left make statements that later on could be considered a flip flop. Picky Picky Picky.

floridamom1

Do you have a notebook where you record everything everybody says so you can bring it up later and call it a fliop flop?

Huh? John Kerry changed ONE vote on the Iraq war, and in 2004 the Repubs were waving around flip-flop sandals at their convention to ridicule him. but there are hardly any issues that Romney has NOT flip-flopped on, and Newt is close behind in flip-floppery. But of course, wingnuts have different rules for themselves than they do for Democrats. Hypocrisy seems to be one of those family values they cherish. Probably the most important one.

Houston!

More insulting to me from that convention were the faux 'patriots' with their purple heart bandaids. Personally, since the award was presented BY the military, I found that little pettiness to be a slap to ALL who earned that medal.

But these aren't deep thinkers who consider their actions and use restraint when ridiculing a former soldier. By any means necessary they will diminish whomever stands in their way of their RIGHTful place of power. And they do it because their ideology is threatened by their own team. The ginned up fear and hate are tangible things and they honestly believe that their way of life is being attacked.

It's a warped and twisted way to go through life. See post #1 if you have any doubts.

So, NOW I understand the liberal mindset.

You back a policy to cure some societal ill- say, poverty. You throw hundreds of billions of dollars into that policy. The result?

More poverty.

So, the liberal has a choice- admit that the policy has not worked- has, in fact, exacerbated the problem- or continue to throw even more hundreds of billions into the very policy that exacerbated the problem it was intended to solve.

For the liberal, this is a no-brainer. To evaluate the evidence and change course would be to "flip flop"- so, it is necessary to double down on failure.

It's ludicrous, but it passes for thought in the liberal world.

I'm not a liberal but grouping everyone under YOUR huge umbrella makes you look like a fool as well as others that do the same thing. In YOUR bubble you forget that "most" people have minds of their own. The Republican party is the most biased single minded group there is.............that's a fact.

Quit trying to figure out someone's mindset when you can't even step outside of yours. All of your post are basically the same.

How have liberals spent hundreds of billions on eradicating poverty?

By that logic, because we've spent hundreds of trillions on defense, and the world is still a dangerous place, we should eradicate the Pentagon!

Where are Fiesty Readhead, US Navy Veteran, and the rest to silence the uneducated?

You sound like a little boy crying for his mommy when confronted by a bully!

30% of Americans are card carrying Republicans and 30% are card carrying Democrats. These people vote the party line no matter what. The election actually begins after each chooses their candidate and the 40% start to decide who will actually be president. The only thing important now is not to anger that group before the real party starts.

h8thehype, nothing like the pot calling the kettle black, you can't even see the hypocrisy in your own comment, you are indeed worthy of a hardy HA HA HA

floridamom1

Do you have a notebook where you record everything everybody says so you can bring it up later and call it a fliop flop? I wonder how many on the right and left make statements that later on could be considered a flip flop. Picky Picky Picky.

Now I understand the problem, apparently floridamom and the republican party aren't aware of video, audio and print! Explains a lot.

If I were Newt'rs, I would worry a little more about getting on the ballot on all the primary states and attacks from my fellow candidates than what the folks at FR are writing about.

You left out that the tea people GOP republicans are attacking Newt also Dan.

"Attack on Newt Begins? NBC/MSNBC (DNC Network) started the attacks two weeks ago."

No Dan --- the attacks on Newt started more than 12 years ago -- when his fellow Republicans tossed him out of the House because he was too corrupt even for them.

Just whish I could get the real story for once

You could stick to Faux news.

Good. Romney is a liberal.

If a rich guy has a million to invest and a middle class guy had 10000 to invest and they both got the same rate of return the rich guy is going to make alot more money. resulting in the rich guys money growing faster than the middle class guy and there is nothing wrong with that. people who cry that the rich are getting richer are just plain jelous.

Christie: Romney will ...never .. embarrass America

If that's all the guy has going for him, then he's hollow. Washington, JFK, Roosevelt all had their "embarrassing" moments but made this country great.

Are you referring to Clinton?

Sorry dude...Clintons not running...newt with three wives and no morals is running for president...get back to class and learn something

Only a pub could back a serial philanderer while making light of another's indiscretions.

Rick you mean like a guy who befriended a man who bombed Police stations and a Paster who GD'd America . Yash isn't that what you did when you backed Clinton and are now bashing Gingrich

I never backed Clinton. But at least he wasn't accused until after he was voted in, and is still married to the same woman.

really?? I see alot of this coming from the present admin

John wake up it goes both ways. Politicians are taken care of for there whole lives do you really think they give a crap about you?

I'll join you, Nash----we would have a blast!!! And we wouldn't need Secret Service protection, either---think of the tax dollars we would save!

I wanna come too! It's cold in NE Fla today. And I have a sore throat. Could use some warm tropical breezes about now! (And a mai tai wouldn't hurt either)

Steeler Fan and phinephancy . . . I'll meet you there! lol

First rounds on me!

Nashville, "NO" I'm buying, see you guys at the pub ? How does a sour apple martini sound ??

Sounds divine Patriotic American . . . see you there! :oP

Sounds like you all are dreaming just like those who think their party is going to get us out of the situation we are in. The Democrats need to quit spending and the Republicans need to spend a little more time helping those of us making less then $ 250,000 and return the Rich to their previous tax rate. The reality is Bush's tax cuts created fewer jobs then when Clinton was President. Of course we can continue on with a President that wants to divide the country instead of working on a way to get the poor and rich to work together to make us a stronger country. Sorry Mr. President I don't believe in your change.

From what I see the GOP is the party of divisiveness, obstruction, and no-compromise politicking. Obama may or may not be the ideal candidate in everyone's opinion, but he is the only horse in this race with a full set of marbles and a desire for America to succeed in stark contrast to the Republican Party's single minded lust for power for its own purposes.

Obama in 2012. We have no other choice.

Sailcat, you might just be one of the problems with this country. When someone says my way is the only way they are doomed to fail.

Being correct is always a problem for people of your ilk for whom the truth is a mere inconvenience, wlee. Fortunately for our country, however, the polls, the pundits, the GOP's own feeble-minded wannabe candidates, and the American people will ensure your ravings are put to sleep next November. You and your failed political ideology will be marginalized until it is a shrill, tiny voice coming from the right wing lunatic fringe.

Feel better? No? Well, you'll get used to it.

Sailcat, and here I gave you credit for having at least half a brain, and now you go and show us that you’re nothing more than a half-wit socialist punk.

You don’t give a damn for the fortunes of our country, because you’ve spent most of your life trying to turn it over to the communists in the 60’s, and then the socialists in the 90’s. And what would you know of the will of the American people, eh comrade?

Your personal political ideology puts you next to Stalin. Your boy Obama will try to divide the American people in what ever way he can, and you will support him, because at your core, you’re lazy and you’re a thief.

You’re envious of the success of others; you want what they have worked for, and you want it for nothing. You are willing to support Obama’s class against class campaign, because it benefits you, you get something for nothing.

Being recognized for what you are has always been a problem for socialist bottom feeders like you. You may have been born here, but this is not your country. Your ideology came from some Eastern European shtetl were the poor hated the rich, and each other with equal fervor, and that suited the local commissar just fine, because it kept the riff-raff busy fighting amongst themselves.

Well, Obama’s going down in 2012, because he couldn’t keep his promises to his masters and turn the US into a socialist country. I guess you’ll just have to get used to it.

That's odd, Arkius. I've never given you credit for having half a brain and you've never disappointed me. Your irrational desire to cling to the notion that anyone who does not cling to your dark, bleak political ideology is a communist, a socialist, or a Stalinist makes it obvious that you lack the intellectual horsepower to understand the concepts. Your ravings here on the vine makes me wonder how you are able to marshal your limited mental facilities to make a productive living, but the fast food industry doesn't require a strong mental skill set so I suppose you are safe.

Still, you serve a valuable purpose as the public face of a failed political movement by illustrating how low your kind can sink and I am confident quite a few people will read your benighted posts and turn away ashamed and disgusted. You are a missionary for the Democratic Party through your slobbering rants and bitter invective.

Thanks for proving my point, though, Arkius. You are nothing more than a shrill, whiny voice with no relevance to the real world. I hope you enjoy the coming election because I know I will!

Sailcat, you amuse me. I lashed you with the same whip that you’ve used on others here, and the best you can say is “that anyone who does not cling to your dark, bleak political ideology is a” blah, blah, blah, blah and you accuse me of lacking “intellectual horsepower ”? Is that your academic equivalent of raising your arm in self defense? Pardon me comrade, but you fight like a little girl; a clueless, uncoordinated little girl.

Tell us, Spastic Nancy, what exactly is my political ideology? Grace us with your insight. Come…pontificate for the masses; you bloated egotistical slug. Share with us your ability to divine the absolute truth from the pain of your wounded self-esteem.

You have no more ability to determine my political ideology, or anyone else’s for that matter, than the man in the moon. You’re just another sanctimonious leftwing nut job, like David Walker. You think you have all the answers; when in fact, you don’t even know the questions.

You specialize in empty put-downs, because you don’t have the intellectual capacity to command an academic argument. The best you can do is brow-beat the likes of wlee.

You have been spanked with your own paddle, you whiny little bitch, and you’ve been exposed for the political dilettante that you are. Now go away Spastic Nancy and leave the intellectual heavy lifting to the big boys.

Let's be clear on this point, Arkius. My intention is not to change your political or moral viewpoint because people like you hold your dark, nasty fantasies so dearly that no fact or rational argument will change anything for you. My goal, in fact, is to expose your bitter worldview for the rest of the public to see, so that interested individuals can read your slobbering invective and decide for themselves if your benighted political idelogy has any merit. I am betting that most normal people will read your sarcastic nonsense and turn away disgusted and ashamed of you.

And what exactly is your political philosophy? Let's let your own words speak for you, shall we?

"...you two should get a room, you seem awfully close."

"__, the mother ship is waiting for you and Gilboagirl behind the moon. Don't be late."

"...you're just another limp wristed leftwing nut job..."

"_______, typical self righteous, know-it-all, left wing nut job, who doesn't have a clue."

"At this point in time, you are, without question, a bleepin' moron..."

"Now, as soon as you get your head out of your ass..."

"...even though your head is up your ass."

"...everyone has a "vacuous screed" up their ass..."

Not very convincing arguments for anything except to confirm you have no arguments. Ultimately, your core ideology is that of a common troll who has a bizarre fixation on other people's asses. Nothing more.

Fail, Arkius, but thanks for playing.

So far, Spastic Nancy, the only thing that you’ve succeeded in exposing………is your fraudulence. Let’s see if you’re willing to man-up and admit to your pretense.

I’ll “let your own words speak for you”:

“Being correct is always a problem for people of your ILK (my emphasis) for whom the truth is a mere inconvenience”

“You and your failed political ideology will be marginalized until it is a shrill, tiny voice coming from the right wing lunatic fringe.”

“I've never given you credit for having half a brain and you've never disappointed me.”

“you lack the intellectual horsepower to understand the concepts”

“Your ravings here on the vine makes me wonder how you are able to marshal your limited mental facilities to make a productive living”

“the fast food industry doesn't require a strong mental skill set so I suppose you are safe.”

“You are a missionary for the Democratic Party through your slobbering rants and bitter invective.”

“You are nothing more than a shrill, whiny voice with no relevance to the real world.”

“interested individuals can read your slobbering invective and decide for themselves if your benighted political idelogy has any merit.”

Well, aren’t you just the conceited little hypocrite. Out of one side of your mouth you bellyache that I am “nothing more than a shrill, whiny voice ”, and that my arguments are nothing more than “sarcastic nonsense”; and out of the other side of your mouth, you describe me with every vile term you could possibly think of. Now honestly comrade, isn’t that just a case of the pot calling the kettle black? The difference between you and me is, I’m something of a Republican, and you’re a racist, socialist, pig. LMAO Furthermore, you’re such a pompous jerk, you can’t tell when you’re being teased, baited or insulted (you were just insulted, you moron).

You’re also just a bit mentally disturbed. You seem to think that you’re some kind of pious political holy man, and that the readership’s sole purpose here is to study your cockamamie gibberish, and then fall to their knees and worship your self-invented intellect. Personally, I think you’re a common word whore, wearing a mini and a push up bra, and you’re mission is to expose, fondle and slobber over individual normal people like a plodding St. Bernard. You also like to use the words “benighted and invective” an awful lot.

And for all your bluster and Bullsh!t, you’re still afraid to argue an issue. Not because you don’t want to change my “political or moral viewpoint” (you’re such a sissy), but because you don’t know how.

You didn’t even attempt to define my political ideology, or determine if it has merit; leaving it to unnamed “interested individuals” to decide. You have got to be kidding. Eight sentences that express nothing more then my sarcastic wit? Is that all you got, punk. Is that your grand attempt at “exposing […] my bitter worldview for the rest of the public to see”? Well, they’ve seen alright.

Nancy, everyone here can plainly see that you don’t have what it takes to make an intelligent argument. You’ve just made a colossal fool of yourself in front of the people you sought to impress. And you have the nerve to claim that I have “limited mental facilities”, and to infer that I have weak analytic skills. What are you going to do now Spastic Nancy; run away and hide like your socialist brother; David Walker did after he made a fool of himself? I think even wlee is embarrassed for you.

In sum, you’re just a socialist bag of hot air, and I’ll bet your parents were ashamed of you.

There are two interesting things regarding the nature of the quotes you injected into your shrill diatribe: first, every one of them would aptly apply to you...they seem tailor made, in fact; and second, none of them mention anyone's ass as yours tend to do.

It's been nice playing with you but the game's over and you lose.

Poor Arkius.

Spastic Nancy, you proved me correct, you’re nothing but a socialist bag of hot air. But I have some bad news for you Nancy, you can run, but you can’t hide; I WILL see you again (count on it), and I will remind the readers that you’re a hypocrite.

The game has just begun, and you lost before the first word was printed, sissy boy.

Booby, the President isn't really campaigning right now. All of this is GOP primetime. I would suggest you wait until you have a nominee and the President has a face to campaign against to look at the polls at that time.

Prune juice, icy cold, just for you.

It says the tea people GOP republicans are the only ones paying attention right now. That's why the polls are so lopsided for the tea people GOP republican candidates. But it gives you tea people GOP republicans something to crow about for now. Even though the polls are lopsided for the tea people GOP republicans, their still behind President Obama. I think when the Democrats start paying attention in the next six months you won't hear anything more about polls from the tea people GOP republicans.

But phine---as soon as the President does go into campaign mode, the righties will label him the "campaigner-in-chief" and start criticize him for trying to get re-elected. Akin to the vacation nonsense they use----they don't like the job he does but want him to spend more time doing it. So time spent campaigning for it is not acceptable to them. The only positive for them is they might have a chance to bring up the dreaded "bus".

Steeler Fan, if I try to keep up with the RWNJ's demands I end up having to take dramamine. They make me dizzy and nauseous.

FYI Puljos just signed with the Angels!

pp: Booby, the President isn't really campaigning right now.

Laugh of the day.

That's all Obama is doing is campaigning. And fundraising. He took in a cool $700,000 last night. $35,800 a plate dinner with the 1%-ers. Maybe you were there pp?

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_FUNDRAISER?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-12-07-21-11-49

What Joanna, no mention of Newt's fundraiser? I guess you didn't want to point out that Newt the lobbyist was fundraising in a whole room of lobbyist.

AF: What Joanna, no mention of Newt's fundraiser

At issue was if Obama was in campaign mode. pp seemed to think not. I disagreed. Obama is certainly in full campaign and fund raising mode.

Learn to follow the thread, okay?

You can't look at ANY polls Obama against one of the clowns YET - they have to pick on first.

TEAM OBAMA

The President doesn't have to campaign now. All he has to do is get on with the business of the country and leave the rest to his advisors. By the way, they must be rolling on the floor after watching the so-called "debates". The Republicans are giving them lots of ammunition, as well as a few chuckles, so they'll know exactly how to structure the President's campaign. If the Republicans are this ridiculous now, I can only imagine what they're going to be like next summer. Who's going to be the last one standing? Maybe it's just me but I have a feeling the election is pretty much over.

Peace.

Since when is Obama focused on the business of the country ? When he campaigned, he talked about his "laser-like vision on jobs". He didn't do it. He focused on Obamacare, Amnesty for Illegals and Cap and Tax..... three programs all designed to "GROW GOVERNMENT" ..... meanwhile accelerating the national debt problem to the point we are no over $15 trillion in debt ..... and it's still rising !

Missy, Barack Obama HAS NEVER STOPPED CAMPAIGNING ! It is all about him and the maintenance and expansion of his power. He does not want to be limited, in any way, by the separation of powers that was built into the three branches of government.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, his attorney general Eric Holder has proven his incompetence while DOJ members apparently lied to Congress under oath !!!! Where's the story MSDNC ?????????

It is interesting that Obama is fundraising so early. Yes, yes every sitting president does it. Understandably the GOP contenders are campaigning because they have to get support, for commericals, staff and debates. They have to put together their attack ads full of half truths, outrageous claims and fear mongering. I'm sure the GOP also offer sickening price tags to eat a steak and pose for a photo flashing a crooked grin with the common folk.

However, why does Obama need to campaign in December 2011? $35,000 a plate is an outrage. Just because others do it is not a reason for it to be ok for Obama to do it. Who is stupid enough to pay $35,000 for a dinner out? That is as much as some people make in a year. Money would have been better served sent to a myriad of worthwhile charities. The excess in our political process makes me ill.

Proud to say I've never given a red cent to any candidate not named Feingold or Kucinich. Our system is broken when you need to raise and spend hundreds of millions of dollars to elect someone. Those who choose to financially support candidates it is your choice but are you happy with what you got? Gridlock in the Senate, nothing being done in the House. No headway on porblems that everyone knows that need to be done. The fundamental parties espouse themselves as loving Blue or Red principles but they are all just love the Green.

Yellowdog, President Obama is campaigning and having fund raisers because he knows he is in trouble. Obama has never quit campaigning. As far as fund raising remember Obama claims he will need at least one billion dollars to compete (a sum unheard of), it means he will try and buy his reelection again. Remember he stated he would take government campaign funding then at the last minute decided it wasn't enough, and backed out.

Missy, Great! If its over then why not just back off and let the other side make more fools out of them selves.

Who is stupid enough to pay $35,000 for a dinner out?

do you really think it's just about dinner out? It's about contributing to the campaign of the candidate you support.

As an independent voter I want the best candidate from each party on the ballot and Newt does not fit that category. The man is out for one thing and one thing only, Newt. This can be seen in his character, twice he vowed to Love, Honor until death do us part. And twice he broke those vows. He is now on his 3rd mistress/wife and she is not letting him out of her sight. She knows that when a man marries his mistress it leaves a position open. I do not want Newt's mistress as first lady what would we call her First Mistress/Lady. She dated a married man, she broke up his marriage - she is a slut.

Siestasis, You don't even know Newt's wife and you are only spouting the left wing talking points. Since when does a divorce make a person unfit to be President? John Kennedy and Bill Clinton both were bigger skirt chasers than Newt. Jackie and Hillary did not file for divorce because of their own personal wants and needs.

I do not believe you are an independent voter but a liberal democrat. Anyone who votes based on a persons married status or marriages should not even be voting. Get a life and learn something.

It is not his married status, have you been living in a cave, if so let me bring you up to date: Newt divorced his first wife and mother of his children ( who was undergoing treatment for cancer) to marry a women he had been having an affair with;, then he divorced that woman to marry his current mistress/wife whom he was having an affair with while still married to his 2nd wife. Do you think that says he is of good or even fair character. I don't I think a man's character reflects how he acts in the rest of his life. Skirt chasers, yes most politicians are but few have had as many mistresses and divorced wives as Gingrich. The man is a serial adulterer. And any woman that sleeps with a married man is a slut. Maybe you have low standards, or no standards at all but I expect more of the people I vote for. As for independent, I would vote for Huntsman, he is conservative, smart and has an excellent character. I don't want a mistress/wife inthe white house. You evidenlty have no respect for this country or the presidency that you would want this country to be respresented by these low charachter individuals.

Siestasis, It is you that have been living in a cave. This is the 21st century. When you said post politicians are skirt chasers but few have had as many as Gingrich, can you back that up with some sound statistics and not just sound bites. Adultery is no longer a crime in most, if not all, states. I believe I saw somewhere that 46% of women have committed adultery and 64% of men have committed adultery, so I guess, in your opinion, there are a lot of sluts in the United States, maybe even you. Everything you said is only your opinion, and opinions are like a$$ holes, everybody has one. BTW, I bet you voted for Bill Clinton for President both times. You are just a hypocrite and a left leaning one.

Now if you want to discuss why you think he is unfit based on his political career, political knowledge, or other reasons other than his personal life let me know.

I still think character is important and I don't care what stats you throw at it, part of character is how you conduct yourself when it comes to the 10 commandments. Read them again. Don't you find it a little hypocritical that the part of "family values" is supporting a serial adulterer. Maybe you are comfortable breaking wedding vows, cheating on a spouse and breaking up marriages - I find it dispicable and just because the morals of citizens are declining does not make it right. Sorry, cheating is cheating and women who have sex with married men who are not thier husbands are SLUTS and the men are TRASH, I don't care of they are janitors or Presidental hopefuls.

Best part, fuzzy? It will make the President's ads so easy to write. Just play the ones they (GOP field) run against each other!

Right on! The Republicans will win the election for the President.

:))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

If you liberals think it is such a slam dunk then why is Obama claiming he needs to raise one billion dollars to fund his campaign? When do you think he is getting that kind of money from, could it be the same people you lefties claim are the 1%ers?

he's not claiming that, you are. but we (his supporters) will oblige!

Newt will do fine as long as he can get in front of a camera and spew his lies without being challenged, but when he's in a debate with President Obama and has to back up his lies he'll be toast.

Charlie instead of repeating party line why don't you do your own research Newt never worked for Fannie May nor did he lobby for Freddie Mac

Suuure he didn't. He got paid $1.6 million by Freddie Mac for history lessons... lmao.

Ped, he consulted for Freddie Mac, he didn't lobby look up the definition if you don't know it,and he didn't do anything for Fannie Mae, how's that happy meal?

"he consulted for Freddie Mac, he didn't lobby look up the definition if you don't know it,"

Total BS and spin. Call it what you want --- NEWT PROMOTED Freddie Mac and Fannie May. Hes's a poster child for hypocrisy.

He "consulted" with GOP for Freddie Mack right before the meltdown and bail out. Spin it all you want, W - that's called lobbying in DC. Now, how's THAT, Happy Meal?

Annie, actually there is nothing wrong with Corday. They want NO consumer protection agency.

Yeah, that's what they thought about Dubyah, too. How'd that work out for everyone?

You left out Newt also advised God on how to create the earth. You see anything good that has happened since the beginning of time is because of Newt.

Don't forget he was the one who changed the water into wine!

Just boatloads of money for him from Fannie and Freddie, right?

We're not scared PEW we're amused.

The article is about other REPUBLICANS attacking Newt.

And yes PEW the other repubs are scared of Newt. Didn't they give him the boot out of congress a few years ago?

That which is really amusing is to watch this blog day after day and watch the same loser liberal/progressive/socialists attack every time there is a new leader in the polls. The fact is that you liberal/progressive/socialists are in the minority. Your leader will be unemployed in a bit over a year.

Dave, You don't have your eyes open. You are throwing out comments from your hip. You really need to come to the reality that the GOP themselves are doing attacking of themselves the most. Liberals are sitting in their easy chairs with a bag of popcorn watching the circus. In a few years you GOP will have a new mascot upgrade. It will be the cloned Wooly Mammoth. It will prove that the Neanderthal man never did become extinct as republicans take up spears and chase the poor thing down.

Funny thing is I cant seem to find anyone who thinks Obama is a good president other than my mother in law. She credits him for the free a/c and refridgerator she got through a gov grant. Alot of people say they voted for Obama but say there sorry and won't do it again.

In Downtown Detroit they support Mr Obama! They see him as the only hope Detroit will survive and that they will be given more assistance. The last time around Mr Obama gave Detroit residents $1800 for waiting in line and filling out a form. The local News people interviewed some of the people waiting in line (wdiv NBC4) The 4 women they talked to were aaked where they thought the money was from.....they all said "it was from Obama" and that he gave them the money because they voted for him. The reporter (african american) rephased the question not believing what they had said. She asked them again.....making reference to people who pay taxes. They answered her the exact same way....that the money was Mr. Obama's and that he gave it to them because they voted for him.

http://freedomeden.blogspot.com/2009/10/detroit-woman-obama-money.html

Annie, Fannie May didn't give Newt anything ,try doing your own research instead of using Liberal talking points

LOL Pew. Scared of Newt huh/ let's see here, First we were scared to death of Sarah Palin,(that wroked out well huh) then we were scared of Donald Trump then we were scared of Michelle Bachman, then it was Rick Perry, then we were scared of Herman Cain, now we are scared of newt gingrich. You people are like a rabid herd running in a different direction on a weekly basis. Gee, who will we be "scared" of next? let us all know when yo figure it out. You guys have run through Palin, Trump, Christie, Bachman, Perry, Cain and now Newt in less than 4 months. LMAO

Scared? I guess everyone running for office is scared of everyone else running for office then 'cuz they are all attacking each other :)

Can you explain how what a man does in his bedroom will change what a man does when paying the bills?

Will Newt not reduce the deficit because he tried to help Fannie and Freddie get it's act together?

Will Newt not keep our country safe because he's been married more than once?