Time for a new BigAss Political Thread: Part VI: A New Hope

[KevinNYC]

OK. The Conventions are over.

On to the Debates.

If want to comment on the conventions aftermath feel free to use the other thread. (Or if you just want to argue about gas prices, jump right in!)

Also I wanted to start a new thread because a comment I missed (while arguing about gas prices) deserves a thread all its own.

The honor goes to dude77.


funny how this clown biden keeps using that 'osama is dead' phrase as a re-election tool .. as if that has any meaning to u.s.a citizens .. people didn't even remember 'osama' in may 2011 .. didn't give a fk about him .. and he surely has no effect on our country or our current daily lives .. worthless phrase to use

Wow.

[KevinNYC]

http://img.timeinc.net/time/photoessays/2011/obl_celebration_dc/obl_dc_09.jpg

[KevinNYC]

http://img.timeinc.net/time/photoessays/2011/obl_celebration_dc/obl_dc_07.jpg

[KevinNYC]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kI8EUqbWdM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FmHti8iBQM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAU6S6ke36o&feature=relmfu

[ImmortalD24]

:rolleyes:

[KevinNYC]

http://img.timeinc.net/time/photoessays/2011/obl_celebration_dc/bin_laden_death_51.jpg

[KevinNYC]

http://i45.tinypic.com/2mov15f.jpg

[KevinNYC]

http://img.timeinc.net/time/photoessays/2011/obl_celebration_dc/obl_death_bk_02.jpg

[dude77]

OK. The Conventions are over.

On to the Debates.

If want to comment on the conventions aftermath feel free to use the other thread. (Or if you just want to argue about gas prices, jump right in!)

Also I wanted to start a new thread because a comment I missed (while arguing about gas prices) deserves a thread all its own.

The honor goes to dude77.



Wow.


wow what ? .. all you're showing are a bunch of brainless zombies going along with the pack .. 'what's popular at the moment' ..

did you even remember 'osama bin laden' before may 2011 ? .. tell me what tangible effect did his 'death' have on your life as an american citizen ? .. what effect did his 'death' have on your daily life ? ..

no american was losing sleep over 'osama bin laden' by may 2011 nor was he in their thoughts .. give me a fkn break .. if this is the rally cry for barry and his re-election pitch then he is fked

[KevinNYC]

Read the last three letters of my username, you idiot.

[AlonzoGOAT]

First picture is a bad example looks like a bunch retards just going with the flow without knowing anything osama has done in the past or anything about him.

[Rasheed1]

:facepalm @ this thread... A new Hope? :oldlol:

at least KevinNYC is enthusiastic about these campaigns

[KevinNYC]

:facepalm @ this thread... A new Hope? :oldlol:

at least KevinNYC is enthusiastic about these campaigns

Would you prefer Revenge of the Sith?

[TheSilentKiller]

People hadn't forgotten about Osama Bin Laden. He was more on the back burner than he was after 9/11, but terrorism and Al Qaeda were very pressing issues in America. The death of Osama Bin Laden made the US the most unified I have ever seen (only 19, don't remember too much of the reactions and politics surrounding 9/11). Obama and his team have every right to push this claim however much they want.

[Rasheed1]

Dude77 just stop...

Killing Osama bin Laden means something to a great deal of Americans because our whole environment has been consumed by this guy since 2001. Him being dead supposedly puts an end to this chapter...

that's the narrative

I personally couldnt care less about Osama Bin Laden because his death didnt end these wars... and that is supposed to be the true goal of killing all these folks.. to end these awful wars


but Obama needs to pound his chest here because he played the game and he succeeded.. If he had failed? he would be toast right now (as far as having a chance at re-election)

so in that sense he earned the right to boast. He also said he do it before he even became president, so this is one of the few times he went did specifically what he said he would.. he even went head up against McCain on the issue in a debate...

[Rasheed1]

Would you prefer Revenge of the Sith?

on 2nd thought? A new hope is fine ....

[KevinNYC]

People hadn't forgotten about Osama Bin Laden.

Perhaps it's because I live in NY, but these are pretty popular (https://www.google.com/search?q=9/11+tattoos&hl=en&safe=off&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=gxFKUI7jD_GX0gG63ICIDA&ved=0CDEQsAQ&biw=1024&bih=653)around here. I don't see those folks forgetting.

[KevinNYC]

People hadn't forgotten about Osama Bin Laden. ...The death of Osama Bin Laden made the US the most unified I have ever seen

Looking at these photos again was visceral for me, it wasn't political. Yes, I posted this on a political thread and I'm obviously a political geek, but I hope I don't let politics overwhelm my humanity and I think that is what dude77 has done. It's an example of what has been called Bush and then Obama Derangement Syndrome. The idea that Americans wouldn't care or wouldn't be moved by Osama Bin Laden being brought to justice is so plainly ****ing ludicrous that it must be motivated by something else. In this case it's the idea that Osama Bin Laden being killed might reflect well on the President.

I think you need to guard against politics infecting your sense of honesty and humanity and this is an example of what happens when you do.

[General]

Like I posted on the other thread: Only 90k jobs added in August, below expectation. Unemployment drops to 8.1% only because more people left the labor force. Obama's economy is in shambles, he is in trouble.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-57507909/august-jobs-report-disappoints/]

[rufuspaul]

People are forgetting the other part of Biden's slogan: GM is alilve. Well I'm glad all those people didn't lose their jobs but do they have to keep making such shitty cars?

[LBJMVP]

obama had literally nothing to do with the killing of osama bin laden...
nothing at all.

the military come up with the whole plan to get to him, all barack had to do was sign off.


he is acting like he went in there and killed osama.

any president in the history of our nation would have done what he did... which is sign off on the plan

[TheSilentKiller]

obama had literally nothing to do with the killing of osama bin laden...
nothing at all.

the military come up with the whole plan to get to him, all barack had to do was sign off.


he is acting like he went in there and killed osama.

any president in the history of our nation would have done what he did... which is sign off on the plan
There isn't a single president nowadays that physically does stuff himself. Although any President would have done what he did, it was HIM who actually did it. For that he can take some of the credit.

[Rasheed1]

obama had literally nothing to do with the killing of osama bin laden...
nothing at all.

the military come up with the whole plan to get to him, all barack had to do was sign off.


he is acting like he went in there and killed osama.

any president in the history of our nation would have done what he did... which is sign off on the plan


That isnt how it works...


It doesnt matter what any president WOULD HAVE done.. It only matters what they did..

Obama got it done, therefore he has earned the right to talk about it...

He wouldnt be able to hide from it if he would have failed..

Bush didnt get it done... Obama did...

[dude77]

That isnt how it works...


It doesnt matter what any president WOULD HAVE done.. It only matters what they did..

Obama got it done, therefore he has earned the right to talk about it...

He wouldnt be able to hide from it if he would have failed..

Bush didnt get it done ... Obama did...

:facepalm obama didn't do anything extraordinary .. he had nothing to do with finding the guy(if the story is true) .. the cia found him through extensive investigating through a period of years that began during the bush years .. they asked for the go ahead to capture/kill .. obama didn't lift a finger .. he just said 'yeah sure do your thing', as any president would

[kentatm]

wow what ? .. all you're showing are a bunch of brainless zombies going along with the pack .. 'what's popular at the moment' ..

did you even remember 'osama bin laden' before may 2011 ? .. tell me what tangible effect did his 'death' have on your life as an american citizen ? .. what effect did his 'death' have on your daily life ? ..

no american was losing sleep over 'osama bin laden' by may 2011 nor was he in their thoughts .. give me a fkn break .. if this is the rally cry for barry and his re-election pitch then he is fked

:no:

[Rasheed1]

:facepalm obama didn't do anything extraordinary .. the cia found him through extensive investigating through a period of years .. they asked for the go ahead to capture/kill .. obama didn't lift a finger .. he just said 'yeah sure do your thing', as any president would


you don't seem to get it...

No president has ever done what you are talking about :oldlol: was he supposed to kill Osama himself?

If it was soo easy, and anybody could have done it? Bush would have done it.. McCain would have acknowledged that he would do it... :confusedshrug: But instead McCain mocked Obama and now he looks like an ass because Obama did what he said he would do and it flips the notion that he doesnt understand foreign policy on its head..

this politics... you need to understand that...

Republicans would have never let him live it down had it turned out to be a diaster (like president Carter's debacle)

Thats the rules of the game pal...

its sounds b*tch made to hear republicans trying to diminish the accomplishment while at the same time trying to some how take credit themselves..

[dude77]

you don't seem to get it...

No president has ever done what you are talking about :oldlol: was he supposed to kill Osama himself?

If it was soo easy, and anybody could have done it? Bush would have done it.. McCain would have acknowledged that he would do it... :confusedshrug: But instead McCain mocked Obama and now he looks like an ass because Obama did what he said he would do and it flips the notion that he doesnt understand foreign policy on its head..

this politics... you need to understand that...

Republicans would have never let him live it down had it turned out to be a diaster (like president Carter's debacle)

Thats the rules of the game pal...

its sounds b*tch made to hear republicans trying to diminish the accomplishment while at the same time trying to some how take credit themselves..

ok I see what you're saying .. you're speaking from a political stance .. but the fact is .. he had nothing to do with the actual capture/kill .. neither would any other president

[LBJMVP]

That isnt how it works...


It doesnt matter what any president WOULD HAVE done.. It only matters what they did..

Obama got it done, therefore he has earned the right to talk about it...

He wouldnt be able to hide from it if he would have failed..

Bush didnt get it done... Obama did...


what are you talking about?

obama has been bragging about taking out osama so much that the people who actually came up with the idea, the assault plan, and carried it out are pissed at him.

obama didnt didnt do anything except happen to be in office when our intelligience agency found a good oppurtunity. obama had nothing to do with it.

[LBJMVP]

you don't seem to get it...

No president has ever done what you are talking about :oldlol: was he supposed to kill Osama himself?

If it was soo easy, and anybody could have done it? Bush would have done it.. McCain would have acknowledged that he would do it... :confusedshrug: But instead McCain mocked Obama and now he looks like an ass because Obama did what he said he would do and it flips the notion that he doesnt understand foreign policy on its head..

this politics... you need to understand that...

Republicans would have never let him live it down had it turned out to be a diaster (like president Carter's debacle)

Thats the rules of the game pal...

its sounds b*tch made to hear republicans trying to diminish the accomplishment while at the same time trying to some how take credit themselves..

obama never said he would take out osama, he said he would bring all our troops back though. that never happened.

[Rasheed1]

what are you talking about?

obama has been bragging about taking out osama so much that the people who actually came up with the idea, the assault plan, and carried it out are pissed at him.

obama didnt didnt do anything except happen to be in office when our intelligience agency found a good oppurtunity. obama had nothing to do with it.

^this continues to be the dumbest argument going..

Since when is it a problem that the sitting president should be admonished for boasting about an accomplishment he oversaw???

Why should I give a sh*t that some of his SUBORDINATES are mad because he takes credit for getting it done? :oldlol:

he is the commander in chief... he is the boss...


like I said multiple times already... He would get the blame if it would have failed...


And whoever these people are would be dead or silent about their failure... He would have no where to hide on this issue.


Its only right for him to take credit...

[Rasheed1]

obama never said he would take out osama, he said he would bring all our troops back though. that never happened.

Yes he did... even mentioned that he would go into Pakistan to get him

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ze_pG6Q62HA


before he ever became president....

Made McCain look like ass in the process also

[dude77]

^this continues to be the dumbest argument going..

Since when is it a problem that the sitting president should be admonished for boasting about an accomplishment he oversaw???

Why should I give a sh*t that some of his SUBORDINATES are mad because he takes credit for getting it done? :oldlol:

he is the commander in chief... he is the boss...


like I said multiple times already... He would get the blame if it would have failed...


And whoever these people are would be dead or silent about their failure... He would have no where to hide on this issue.


Its only right for him to take credit...

:applause: you're trolling now .. I like how you try to knock them down a knotch further by enphasizing subordinates .. that's low .. his 'subordinates' are the ones who put in all the hard work to find him and are the ones who 'got the job done' .. no need to shit on them like that

[Scoooter]

I've never been comfortable with the idea of celebrating death. All the revelry at Osama's demise was somewhat off-putting to me. I'd rather he was in prison, frankly.

[dude77]

I've never been comfortable with the idea of celebrating death. All the revelry at Osama's demise was somewhat off-putting to me. I'd rather he was in prison, frankly.

that's true .. that would've been the preferred outcome .. this was the easy out for him

[LBJMVP]

Yes he did... even mentioned that he would go into Pakistan to get him

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ze_pG6Q62HA


before he ever became president....

Made McCain look like ass in the process also

damn, he did...

i still maintain he had absolutely nothing to do with the operation except signing off on the plan.

[dude77]

damn, he did...

i still maintain he had absolutely nothing to do with the operation except signing off on the plan.

he didn't .. but of course the dems will hang on to this for dear life because they don't have much else to 'boast' about to try to get this bum re-elected

[Rasheed1]

:applause: you're trolling now .. I like how you try to knock them down a knotch further by enphasizing subordinates .. that's low .. his 'subordinates' are the ones who 'got the job done' .. way to shit on all the people who actually did the job


Im actually not trolling....


I just think its funny that some people are trying to make a brand new distinction here..

Now, we should differentiate between the president, and the people who actually went in and got it done...

Like I keep saying (to bring home the point) If the mission would have been a failure? you wouldnt be hearing from all these people whining about Obama taking credit....

they would be silent and the GOP would be pounding him for his failure...

Soldiers and intelligence agents are supposed to do their jobs :confusedshrug: thats why they serve.... They don't usually go around complaining after a successful mission because their boss is taking credit :oldlol:


The whole situation is totally absurd...

There is no real reason NOT to give Obama full credit...

That is why I asked why I should care that his subordinates are whining...

[Rasheed1]

he didn't .. but of course the dems will hang on to this for dear life because they don't have much else to 'boast' about to try to get this bum re-elected


Honestly, this is just payback for many decades of Republicans doing the same thing to Democrats... Kinda like Karma

Republicans are used to being known as the party that is tough, and has the upper hand when it comes to foreign policy..

I personally do not like or agree with Obama's foreign policy, mostly because it is an extension of Bush's policy... He takes too much authority and kills people with drones waay too freely... I dont personally like it...

But I can see through the political lens that the Democrats are actively taking the upper hand when it comes to foreign policy..

Obama did what alot of Americans wanted.... He killed Osama Bin Laden...


He would be an idiot not to take that accomplishment and put it in the face of the GOP..

Like I already said earlier... Its simply a part of the game they play... Democrats took the butt whuppings when they were seen as weak on Foregin policy... Now that they are looking strong? they are smart to ask the GOP

"how U like us now?"

[LBJMVP]

The Daily Mail released a report yesterday with former members of the US Navy SEALS stating they are upset with Obama for spiking the football on the killing of Osama Bin Laden when they knew Obama actually hesitated to give order and also had prior opportunities to get Bin Laden and declined. Monday marks the one-year anniversary of the killing of Osama bin Laden.

“The decision was a no brainer. I applaud him for making it but I would not over pat myself on the back for making the right call. I think every president would have done the same. He is justified in saying it was his decision, but the preparation, the sacrifice – it was a broader team effort,” said former US Navy Commander Ryan Zinke. He added that he thought the Obama campaign was “positioning him as a war president using the SEALs as ammunition,” calling the move “predictable.”


the navy seals no whats up.

http://www.dividedstates.com/navy-seals-angry-at-obama-for-taking-credit-for-osama-bin-laden-killing-say-obama-hesitated-to-give-order-to-kill-bin-laden-on-prior-occassions/

[dude77]

Obama actually hesitated to give order and also had prior opportunities to get Bin Laden and declined


:sits and awaits the spin on this one: :oldlol:

[Scoooter]

I never understood that. He gave full credit to the military for the strike. His very first comment on the matter was how the military carried out a strike, etc...

George W. Bush used to call himself "The Decider", didn't he? What were these SEALS saying then?

[Scoooter]

:sits and awaits the spin on this one: :oldlol:
What's the context? Maybe the intelligence wasn't as good, and he wanted to be sure.

The spin is saying this somehow isn't a big deal after Obama's predecessor spent 8 years and hundreds of billions of dollars ostensibly because of this guy. Even Clinton was hunting Osama. Now we finally get him, but, because it happened on Obama's watch, his political opposition is trying to convince people that it's some kind of fluke/disaster/offense to the military. It's absurd.

[UConnCeltics]

Should be Return of the Jedi, not A New Hope. /nerd

[LBJMVP]

What's the context? Maybe the intelligence wasn't as good, and he wanted to be sure.

The spin is saying this somehow isn't a big deal after Obama's predecessor spent 8 years and hundreds of billions of dollars ostensibly because of this guy. Even Clinton was hunting Osama. Now we finally get him, but, because it happened on Obama's watch, his political opposition is trying to convince people that it's some kind of fluke/disaster/offense to the military. It's absurd.


it could be argued that bush deserves just as much credit as obama.

[Rasheed1]

:sits and awaits the spin on this one: :oldlol:


:oldlol: for real.. There is no spin needed.. Ultimately? Obama got him, so there is really nothing the republicans or anybody else can say to take that away from him

[KevinNYC]

the navy seals no whats up.

I think that means so much more than you intended it too.

[LBJMVP]

I think that means so much more than you intended it too.

i can't find the double meaning :lol

[Scoooter]

it could be argued that bush deserves just as much credit as obama.
I could be argued. Too bad Bush was such a tool (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PGmnz5Ow-o), rendering the argument much more difficult to make.

"I don't know where he is [and] I just don't spend much time it."

At the end of the day, Bush didn't get him, and Obama did (of course, the military actually the work, just like has been the case with every other president in history).

[Rasheed1]

it could be argued that bush deserves just as much credit as obama.


not if you consider that some of Bush's rhetoric on Osama

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PGmnz5Ow-o

[KevinNYC]

i can't find the double meaning :lol

That's because you would have to know when to use know and when to use no.

Also the Swiftboat Seals story has already fallen apart.

[dude77]

What's the context? Maybe the intelligence wasn't as good, and he wanted to be sure.

The spin is saying this somehow isn't a big deal after Obama's predecessor spent 8 years and hundreds of billions of dollars ostensibly because of this guy. Even Clinton was hunting Osama. Now we finally get him, but, because it happened on Obama's watch, his political opposition is trying to convince people that it's some kind of fluke/disaster/offense to the military. It's absurd.

it's not that it's a fluke .. its that it's oversimplificating it by saying 'obama got him' .. that's absurd and retarded .. cia's been working on this for years .. since 2002 .. in fact, the foundation for finding him was laid on bush's clock

[Rasheed1]

it's not that it's a fluke .. its that it's oversimplificating it by saying 'obama got him' .. that's absurd and retarded .. cia's been working on this for years .. since 2002 .. in fact, the foundation for finding him was laid on bush's clock


:oldlol: you sound silly trying to argue this point out...

Its obvious that you simply dont want Obama to get the credit he deserves for this one...

you are moving the goal post... Now, it seems to be a problem if a president takes credit for something the military has done under his order.

bush acted like he couldnt care less about Osama in '07... he also had multiple shots to get Osama and didnt get it done..

[LBJMVP]

I could be argued. Too bad Bush was such a tool (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PGmnz5Ow-o), rendering the argument much more difficult to make.

"I don't know where he is [and] I just don't spend much time it."

At the end of the day, Bush didn't get him, and Obama did (of course, the military actually the work, just like has been the case with every other president in history).


bush also said that network/host government had been destroyed...

bush took out everything around osama.... and simply stated that at that point in time the more important thing was the troops.

if it wasn't for the counter terrorist policies put in place by bush... then we never would have found osama.

[LBJMVP]

That's because you would have to know when to use know and when to use no.

Also the Swiftboat Seals story has already fallen apart.


i do know when to use know, and no.... still get the double meaning though.

[Rasheed1]

bush also said that network/host government had been destroyed...

bush took out everything around osama.... and simply stated that at that point in time the more important thing was the troops.

if it wasn't for the counter terrorist policies put in place by bush... then we never would have found osama.


:facepalm just give Obama the credit he deserves for Osama and let's move on...

Its totally absurd to argue that Bush deserves credit when you were just arguing that Obama (who actually gave the order to kill the guy) should get none...

[LBJMVP]

:facepalm just give Obama the credit he deserves for Osama and let's move on...

Its totally absurd to argue that Bush deserves credit when you were just arguing that Obama (who actually gave the order to kill the guy) should get none...


the only credit both guys deserve are being deciders... they decided if the military could carry out whatever plan they had...

im just saying that bush happened to be the one the put the counterterrorist policies in place the led getting information leading to where osama is at.

[Rasheed1]

the only credit both guys deserve are being deciders... they decided if the military could carry out whatever plan they had...

Obama deserves credit AS THE PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES.. That is all he ever said :hammerhead: I dont understand what all the whining is about (not U specifically)..






im just saying that bush happened to be the one the put the counterterrorist policies in place the led getting information leading to where osama is at.

Bush also happened to be the one who ignored all the warning prior to 911 :confusedshrug:

[Scoooter]

it's not that it's a fluke .. its that it's oversimplificating it by saying 'obama got him' .. that's absurd and retarded .. cia's been working on this for years .. since 2002 .. in fact, the foundation for finding him was laid on bush's clock
It's also an ridiculous to say that Obama has been unduly taking credit, but for some reason you're trumpeting that idiocy.

Obama is the Commander in Chief, and when it came time to give the order to take out Bin Laden, it was Obama giving it, and no one else. If the mission was a failure or a disaster or something had gone wrong, the blame would be on him. "The buck stops here," remember?

[Real Men Wear Green]

The bullet that took OBL's life took the misguided notion that Republicans are stronger on defense with it. For decades Republicans pretended like they were somehow the tough guys while Dems like the President were just a bunch of effete liberals that were going to let us be conquered by Commies/Arabs/Canadians. But now that we have two clear facts:

1. 9/11 happened during a Republican administration.

2. The mastermind of that attack was killed during a Democratic administration.

There is no longer any validity to that theory. Now we are just left with the irony of Republican whining over Obama chest-puffing over the armed forces doing something after years of them puffing their own chests while they accomplished nothing.

In the end, politicians don't fight. Bush Sr was the last President to actually serve in a war, and his tough-talking predecessor never saw any action either. These guys don't deserve to be regarded as war heroes. But Republicans, if you can dish it you better be ready to take it. Let's see if Romney remembers Afghanistan the next time he's giving a big speech. He better.

[DonDadda59]

During the campaign a lot of people questioned Obama's ability to defend the country and go after the terrorists, and this was even coming from fellow Dems. Remember those 'late night call' ads that Hilary ran? Barack gave the order to cancel Bin Laden and there have been more Al Qaeda leaders killed under Obama's watch than there were under Bush, the organization's head has been effectively cut off.

[Scoooter]

Fantastic article on The Five Reasons Why Romney/Ryan Must Be Defeated In 2012 – And Why Conservatives Should Hope They Are (http://kurteichenwald.com/2012/09/the-five-reasons-why-romneyryan-must-be-defeated-in-2012-and-why-conservatives-should-hope-they-are/).

This should be required reading for anyone interested in the future of the United States.

[Scoooter]

During the campaign a lot of people questioned Obama's ability to defend the country and go after the terrorists, and this was even coming from fellow Dems. Remember those 'late night call' ads that Hilary ran? Barack gave the order to cancel Bin Laden and there have been more Al Qaeda leaders killed under Obama's watch than there were under Bush, the organization's head has been effectively cut off.
:lol

There's an Arnold one-liner (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDxn0Xfqkgw) waiting for it's day in the sun somewhere.

[TheMan]

OK. The Conventions are over.

On to the Debates.

If want to comment on the conventions aftermath feel free to use the other thread. (Or if you just want to argue about gas prices, jump right in!)

Also I wanted to start a new thread because a comment I missed (while arguing about gas prices) deserves a thread all its own.

The honor goes to dude77.



Wow.
Dude77 FTL

[Balla_Status]

[QUOTE=Scoooter]Fantastic article on [url=http://kurteichenwald.com/2012/09/the-five-reasons-why-romneyryan-must-be-defeated-in-2012-and-why-conservatives-should-hope-they-are/]The Five Reasons Why Romney/Ryan Must Be Defeated In 2012

[DonDadda59]

:lol

There's an Arnold one-liner (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDxn0Xfqkgw) waiting for it's day in the sun somewhere.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dV6xgXXd51E

[Scoooter]

Now everyone knows I'm a white guy.

[Balla_Status]

People are forgetting the other part of Biden's slogan: GM is alilve. Well I'm glad all those people didn't lose their jobs but do they have to keep making such shitty cars?

http://www.carnationcanada.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009_ford_fiesta_image011.jpg

I drove around this POS as a rental car in Austin back in May. Same color too. Worst car I've ever driven...you'd literally hit your head on the seat when the car would shift gears accelerating on the highway.

New version too. The government buys the majority of the cars GM sells anyways. Go figure.

[Balla_Status]

^this continues to be the dumbest argument going..

Since when is it a problem that the sitting president should be admonished for boasting about an accomplishment he oversaw???

Why should I give a sh*t that some of his SUBORDINATES are mad because he takes credit for getting it done? :oldlol:

he is the commander in chief... he is the boss...


like I said multiple times already... He would get the blame if it would have failed...


And whoever these people are would be dead or silent about their failure... He would have no where to hide on this issue.


Its only right for him to take credit...

Let's see how well Obama does in a Navy SEAL mission. If those are his subordinates, he should have no problem doing it better.

In a political arena, I understand what you're saying but it doesn't make it right.

[KevinNYC]

Obviously, Obama wasn't on the ground in Pakistan. Nor did he ever claim he was.

Obviously he was not in charge of the minute to minute tactical oversight of the mission, nor would it be proper for him to micromanaging like that.

In fact, once he made the call and the mission was set in motion, he and the Secretary of Defense and head of CIA and National Security Council were sitting back and waiting.

However, does this mean he did not take a risk or did not contribute the mission. Absolutely not. Admiral McRaven who is the Commander of US Special Forces and has commanded at every level of special operations called Obama a "fantastic" Commander-in-Chief and said Obama's national security team was "magnificent"

So what exactly did Obama do and what can he take credit for. Let's see if we can enumerate that.

Even before he was President, candidate Obama said he would focus on getting Obama who everyone thought was somewhere in Pakistan, not in a city like Abbottabad, but perhaps somewhere it frontier region which is not even controlled by Pakistan's government. Obama said specifically that he would go into Pakistan and violate their sovereignty to go after Bin Laden. He was attacked for this, by both Hilary Clinton in the primary who called him unwise and then McCain. McCain called him, naive and inexperienced for threatening an ally of the United States (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/05/flashback-2008-mccain-clinton-slam-obama-for-saying-hed-go-get-bin-laden-in-pakistan-video.php).

[QUOTE]McCain spoke at a victory party for his win in the Wisconsin primary, and wondered:

[Balla_Status]

The bullet that took OBL's life took the misguided notion that Republicans are stronger on defense with it. For decades Republicans pretended like they were somehow the tough guys while Dems like the President were just a bunch of effete liberals that were going to let us be conquered by Commies/Arabs/Canadians. But now that we have two clear facts:

1. 9/11 happened during a Republican administration.

2. The mastermind of that attack was killed during a Democratic administration.

There is no longer any validity to that theory. Now we are just left with the irony of Republican whining over Obama chest-puffing over the armed forces doing something after years of them puffing their own chests while they accomplished nothing.

In the end, politicians don't fight. Bush Sr was the last President to actually serve in a war, and his tough-talking predecessor never saw any action either. These guys don't deserve to be regarded as war heroes. But Republicans, if you can dish it you better be ready to take it. Let's see if Romney remembers Afghanistan the next time he's giving a big speech. He better.

Bush never had the proper supporting cast.

[KevinNYC]

More evidence (http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/29/opinion/bergen-obama-osama-books/index.html) to support what I say above.


Rather than being indecisive about the raid, Obama ordered the operation against the advice of his defense secretary, who had started working for Nixon's National Security Council when Obama was only 13, and against the advice of Vice President Joe Biden, who was elected to the Senate when Obama was 11. Also advocating a course of action other than the raid was Gen. James "Hoss" Cartwright, Obama's then-No. 2 military adviser.
And rather than scaling back the scope of the bin Laden raid, in fact, it was Obama who ordered more choppers to go on the operation, according to Adm. Mike Mullen, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of the Staff, who told me, "Obama is the one that put in the Chinook-47s. He is the one that said, 'There is not enough backup.' "
Instead of dithering, Obama was deeply involved in a decision that, after all, had the potential to destroy his presidency if the operation had turned into a fiasco similar to the Iran hostage rescue debacle of 1980. The possibility of a similar debacle was a serious concern of Gates. And Obama was solely responsible for the decision to give the "go" for the operation despite the fact that there was no proof that bin Laden was living in Abbottabad, only a circumstantial case that he was.


further evidence here (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/10/world/asia/10intel.html?_r=1&hp)

[KevinNYC]

http://www.carnationcanada.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009_ford_fiesta_image011.jpg

I drove around this POS as a rental car in Austin back in May. Same color too. Worst car I've ever driven...you'd literally hit your head on the seat when the car would shift gears accelerating on the highway.

New version too. The government buys the majority of the cars GM sells anyways. Go figure.

You know that's not a GM car right?

[Real Men Wear Green]

Bush never had the proper supporting cast.
What does that even mean? He's not T-Mac, he picked his own supporting cast so if they weren't up to the job then that's his fault.

[KevinNYC]

Let's see how well Obama does in a Navy SEAL mission. If those are his subordinates, he should have no problem doing it better.

You're not this dumb, right? Should FDR have built the Atom bomb himself?

[TheMan]

:facepalm obama didn't do anything extraordinary .. he had nothing to do with finding the guy(if the story is true) .. the cia found him through extensive investigating through a period of years that began during the bush years .. they asked for the go ahead to capture/kill .. obama didn't lift a finger .. he just said 'yeah sure do your thing', as any president would
I recall W saying he didn't really think of Bin Laden when he was asked about it in a press confrence.

You righties hate Obama so much you won't give him any credit for anything. Obama called the strike on Bin Laden and imagine if he wasn't there and Navy Seals were killed or captured (like what happened to Carter) and civilians were killed, the GOP would jump all over the President. Don't pretend it didn't have any political risk for Obama to give the go ahead. Shit, Republicans were trying to blame Clinton for 9/11 because he supposedly refused to ok a bomb strike back in the 90s that could've killed Osama along with a lot of civilian casualties when Al Queda had a training camp in some African country (can't recall which one).

Haters gonna hate...

[Balla_Status]

You know that's not a GM car right?

You're right. It isn't. Still an american car and still had to take out a huge government loan around the time of the GM bailout.

And still a shitty car regardless. American car companies have come under scrutiny since the bailout to produce better vehicles. Ford has failed with that garbage. They sell the best trucks out there though.

[Balla_Status]

What does that even mean? He's not T-Mac, he picked his own supporting cast so if they weren't up to the job then that's his fault.

It was a bad joke. Your post really oversimplified things though. Blaming 9/11 on the admin. in power is amateurish. America being the world police can be blamed for that.

[Balla_Status]

You're not this dumb, right? Should FDR have built the Atom bomb himself?

Atom Bomb is comparable to killing Osama? You're not that dumb right?

You completely missed my point. Calling navy seals subordinates to Obama is insulting and makes it seem like Obama climbed the military ladder, gained experience and became president as a result which isn't true at all.

I would say my boss could call me and the rest of the engineers his subordinates. Why? Because he's done the work we have done and has the experience. Obama has no military experience. See what I'm saying?

[Real Men Wear Green]

It was a bad joke. Your post really oversimplified things though. Blaming 9/11 on the admin. in power is amateurish. America being the world police can be blamed for that.
Where did I blame Bush for it? That's a stupid thing to say. I pointed out that it happened during his watch, and that's different. Republicans liked to talk about how Dems wouldn't keep America safe. If they want to make that charge then their record must be examined. Pointing out hypocrisy is prt of political debate, whether you realize it or not.

And on a side note, we're all "amateurs." You need to start making sense.

[Balla_Status]

Where did I blame Bush for it? That's a stupid thing to say. I pointed out that it happened during his watch, and that's different. Republicans liked to talk about how Dems wouldn't keep America safe. If they want to make that charge then their record must be examined. Pointing out hypocrisy is prt of political debate, whether you realize it or not.

And on a side note, we're all "amateurs." You need to start making sense.

I don't like to play politics/sides.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Atom Bomb is comparable to killing Osama? You're not that dumb right?

You completely missed my point. Calling navy seals subordinates to Obama is insulting and makes it seem like Obama climbed the military ladder, gained experience and became president as a result which isn't true at all.

I would say my boss could call me and the rest of the engineers his subordinates. Why? Because he's done the work we have done and has the experience. Obama has no military experience. See what I'm saying?
You're whining over terminology. He's the "Comander in Chief." You are a subordinate of whoever you work for regardless of your or their level of education. Obama is not more knowledgeable than his generals but that's almost always the case with most Presidents being civilians over the lat few decades. Doesn't change his level of authority.

[Scoooter]

Atom Bomb is comparable to killing Osama? You're not that dumb right?

You completely missed my point. Calling navy seals subordinates to Obama is insulting and makes it seem like Obama climbed the military ladder, gained experience and became president as a result which isn't true at all.

I would say my boss could call me and the rest of the engineers his subordinates. Why? Because he's done the work we have done and has the experience. Obama has no military experience. See what I'm saying?
My boss is an asshole who only got the job because his father owns the company. He couldn't do my job if I was holding his hand.

I'm still his subordinate.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Over the years, I've come to love Sarah Palin. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/06/sarah-palin-john-kerry-dnc_n_1863251.html)
“I think he diminished himself by even mentioning my name," Palin said in an interview on Fox Business Network. "How does he even know my name? I mean aren’t these guys supposed to be these big wig elites who don’t waste their time on the little people like me -- me representing the average American who, yeah I did say in Alaska you can see Russia from our land base and I was making the point that we are strategically located on the globe and when it comes to transportation corridors and resources that are shared and fought over [in] Alaska and I as the governor had known what I was doing in dealing with some international issues that had to do with our resources that could help secure the nation."Who else gives us quotes of this quality? Aside from dude77 and starface.

[sunsfan1357]

How relevant is Palin still? Just looking at that rambling quote I see not much has changed, but my following of politics has dwindled over the past couple years so I'm not sure how much pull she has in getting media coverage anymore.

[Real Men Wear Green]

How relevant is Palin still? Just looking at that rambling quote I see not much has changed, but my following of politics has dwindled over the past couple years so I'm not sure how much pull she has in getting media coverage anymore.
She only matters to FOX diehards but this genius quote gave a lot of people a laugh.

[gigantes]

late reply... not really sure what the best thread is for my comments, but:

these days i have very little expectations of politics because i have very little expectations of the people who do the voting... but i did manage to catch bill clinton's speech on reply.

wow.

after hearing so many other politicians speak over the past decade, listening to clinton was like being plugged in to a pure source. what an absolute master politician on so many levels. he makes the listener feel personally respected, smarter, more enlightened, more hopeful, empowered. but aside from his amazing memory and command of information, he does something that is quite rare IMO-- he can go full out on the most scathing of attacks... without any real hyperbole, exaggeration or deceit... and still come across as completely charming, even-tempered and good-natured at the same time. i was truly in awe by the end of the 50 minutes, even though i've heard him many times in the past. if anything i'd say he's improved with age.


listening to clinton... for the first time in a long while i got this sense that politics does have the small possibility of supreme accomplishment inherent in it... the marriage of communication, scholarship, leadership & authority, empathy... all conducted at extremely high levels. it truly can be the most important job in the world for the gifted few.


also, i thought clinton did make everyone feel like a pupil in the classroom, but not in a bad way. he would be one of those rare teachers whose classes are filled up within ten minutes of registration. obama could learn a lot of things from him IMO... for example, how to lighten up, smooth out his delivery and avoid those overly pontifical moments.


clinton certainly has truckloads of southern charm, and that helps with a lot, but i wonder if he specifically studied reagan? as a gifted student in his own right, i would not be surprised. some of that wouldn't hurt obama, i'm thinking...

[Real Men Wear Green]

Why Romney didn't mention the troops. (http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/romney-defends-not-mentioning-war-troops-in-convention)
Here is what he actually said:
"When you give a speech you don’t go through a laundry list, you talk about the things that you think are important and I described in my speech, my commitment to a strong military unlike the president’s decision to cut our military," Romney told Fox News' Bret Bair. "And I didn't use the word troops. I used the word military. I think they refer to the same thing. And of course going to the American Legion the day before during the middle of our convention made it much bigger statement to our military and our troops than the president who did not go to meet with the American Legion."Here is what will be quoted after, "I'm President Obama, and I approved this message":
When you give a speech you don’t go through a laundry list, you talk about the things that you think are important

[sunsfan1357]

Why Romney didn't mention the troops. (http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/romney-defends-not-mentioning-war-troops-in-convention)
Here is what he actually said: Here is what will be quoted after, "I'm President Obama, and I approved this message":
That's precisely where I stopped reading and thought, "Man he just done ****ed up."

[DonDadda59]

Atom Bomb is comparable to killing Osama? You're not that dumb right?

You completely missed my point. Calling navy seals subordinates to Obama is insulting and makes it seem like Obama climbed the military ladder, gained experience and became president as a result which isn't true at all.

I would say my boss could call me and the rest of the engineers his subordinates. Why? Because he's done the work we have done and has the experience. Obama has no military experience. See what I'm saying?

Or it makes it seem he is the President of the United States. Part of the job description is being the Commander In Chief. So everyone in the military is a subordinate of Obama.

[Scoooter]

[QUOTE=Scoooter]Fantastic article on [url=http://kurteichenwald.com/2012/09/the-five-reasons-why-romneyryan-must-be-defeated-in-2012-and-why-conservatives-should-hope-they-are/]The Five Reasons Why Romney/Ryan Must Be Defeated In 2012

[brantonli]

I've stated this opinion on other forums but I don't think I've done it here:

Honestly, if Mitt Romney was running the Democratic nominee, I would vote for him. That man is very intelligent, former governor, and knows the inside out of business.

The problem is the party he belongs to. That link that Scooter posted basically laid out all the problems of the Republican party, and the more extreme the party gets, the worse gridlock you get in politics.

The republican party needs a good smack around the face (i.e., losing this election) and get back to its centre-right roots.

btw, an interesting tidbit, a BoAML chief economist told me that he reckons if Romney wins, the stock market will rally, but if the Tea partiers and Romney start clashing, sell.

[General]

Obama has failed, the economy is in shambles. Read this opinion article and see how bad the economy really is.

This involuntary army of what's called "underutilized labor" has been hovering for months at about 15% of the workforce. Include the eight million who have simply given up looking, and the real unemployment rate is closer to 19%.

We are experiencing, in effect, a modern-day depression. Consider two indicators: First, food stamps: More than 45 million Americans are in the program! An almost incredible record. It's 15% of the population compared with the 7.9% participation from 1970-2000. Food-stamp enrollment has been rising at a rate of 400,000 per month over the past four years.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444273704577635681206305056.html

[no pun intended]

Obama has failed, the economy is in shambles. Read this opinion article and see how bad the economy really is.
The government itself has failed. Congress is more gridlocked than it ever used to be. Obama's largest failure is not ending partisanship as he promised in '08. However, that was a bold yet implausible promise, because in reality, it takes more than a man to persuade a hivemind of obstinate cretins who place politics before patriotism.

Plus, although the real unemployment rate is much higher, the trends are still the same as the "official" unemployment rate since January 2009. Thus, the rate still declined, though scantly.

[KevinNYC]

Pollsters says that the conventions have helped Obama (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/simon-jackman/biggest-lead-over-romney_b_1868893.html?utm_hp_ref=@pollster)


Obama's Biggest Lead Over Romney Since March

We're now 60 hours or so past the Democratic convention. It is now clear that the Democrats got the better of the convention bounces. Indeed, recent national polls suggest that the Democrats' bounce not only erased some tenuous gains by Romney, but is propelling Obama into a commanding lead. In fact, Obama is now polling stronger than at any time in the last six months.

Consider the following. Today's release of Rasmussen's tracking poll showed Obama leading Romney by four points, 49 percent to 45 percent (interviews spanning Sept. 6 to Sept. 8). What makes this result especially noteworthy is that Rasmussen's results tends to skew in a pro-Republican direction, by as much as a percentage point or more; thus, their Obama +4 result is likely an underestimate of Obama's lead over Romney at the moment. Ipsos/Reuters and Gallup are also reporting Obama +4 results over essentially the same field periods.


Obama Convention Bounce Confirmed In Latest Tracking Polls (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/10/obama-convention-bounce_n_1870087.html?utm_hp_ref=@pollster)

Daily tracking polls published over the weekend show President Barack Obama enjoying a modest boost in support following the Democratic party convention, though how long that polling "bounce" will last remains uncertain.

The latest results from two daily telephone tracking surveys conducted by Gallup and Rasmussen Reports show a very similar pattern. Both had found a roughly even race on interviews conducted in the month of August before the conventions, and both now show Obama leading Republican nominee Mitt Romney by similar margins (5 and 4 percentage points, respectively)

538 agrees. (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/)


the polling movement that we have seen over the past three days represents the most substantial shift that we’ve seen in the race all year, with the polls moving toward Mr. Obama since his convention.

How far will Mr. Obama’s numbers rise, and how long will his bounce last? We don’t know that, of course. But the range of possible outcomes reads pretty favorably for him.

As I wrote on Saturday night, Mr. Obama’s polls could easily cool off quickly. If we return to the equilibrium where Mr. Obama is about two points ahead in the polls — about where they were for months on end heading into the conventions — then Mitt Romney’s position won’t be too badly damaged. Still, Mr. Romney will be the underdog, and he’ll have had two or three weeks of time run off the clock.

Or, if Mr. Obama’s bounce is more prolonged and more pronounced, Mr. Romney could be in pretty bad shape.

[KevinNYC]

A pollster decided to have some fun in their latest poll (just in time for 9/11). PPP asked the following question in (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_OH_9912.pdf) their latest poll of Ohio voters.


Q15: Who do you think deserved more credit for the killing of Osama bin Laden: Barack Obama or Mitt Romney?

Check the link for the results.

[kentatm]

You're right. It isn't. Still an american car and still had to take out a huge government loan around the time of the GM bailout.

And still a shitty car regardless. American car companies have come under scrutiny since the bailout to produce better vehicles. Ford has failed with that garbage. They sell the best trucks out there though.


Ford didnt take bailout money.

get your facts straight.



\
I would say my boss could call me and the rest of the engineers his subordinates. Why? Because he's done the work we have done and has the experience. Obama has no military experience. See what I'm saying?

:facepalm

that isnt how it works. You seem to not understand what the term actually means. The SEALS are his subordinates just like the military has been the subordinate to EVERY SINGLE President.

[Sarcastic]

Obama has failed, the economy is in shambles. Read this opinion article and see how bad the economy really is.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444273704577635681206305056.html


The President proposed the American Jobs Act (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/09/08/fact-sheet-american-jobs-act), which the Republican Congress didn't vote for. Then they say his policies don't work. :facepalm

[magictricked]

Ford didnt take bailout money.

get your facts straight.




:facepalm

that isnt how it works. You seem to not understand what the term actually means. The SEALS are his subordinates just like the military has been the subordinate to EVERY SINGLE President.

Yes and no. They didn't take the money but they supported the bailout. they also took out a 5 billion dollar federal loan at the same time for retooling. Technically you are correct but they had their hand in the federal cookie jar all the same. They just didn't take or need as many cookies

[sunsfan1357]

A pollster decided to have some fun in their latest poll (just in time for 9/11). PPP asked the following question in (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_OH_9912.pdf) their latest poll of Ohio voters.



Check the link for the results.
We are the 6%

[General]

The President proposed the American Jobs Act (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/09/08/fact-sheet-american-jobs-act), which the Republican Congress didn't vote for. Then they say his policies don't work. :facepalm
Yeah, let's throw even more money at the problem... Obama got his 800 billion dollar stimulus package passed and unemployment is the same as when he took office(8.1%). You're really telling me throwing another 400 billion would solve everything? His policies have failed, it's time to ship him out.

[Sarcastic]

Yeah, let's throw even more money at the problem... Obama got his 800 billion dollar stimulus package passed and unemployment is the same as when he took office(8.1%). You're really telling me throwing another 400 billion would solve everything? His policies have failed, it's time to ship him out.

The stimulus was cut smaller than was needed. The $800 billion did help, as just about every economist will tell you. The only problem was it was too small.

[KevinNYC]

Yeah, let's throw even more money at the problem... Obama got his 800 billion dollar stimulus package passed and unemployment is the same as when he took office(8.1%). You're really telling me throwing another 400 billion would solve everything? His policies have failed, it's time to ship him out.

The end of 2008 was the worst economic situation we have seen in decades. (http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2011/04/art1full.pdf)
The month Obama took office, we lost 779,000 jobs. That was the worst month of the 2007-2009 recession. The snowball started rolling down the hill in 2007. In September 2008 Lehman Brothers collapsed and by Jan 2009 we had full-fledged avalanche on our hands.
[QUOTE]Monthly job losses averaged 712,000 from October
2008 through March 2009

[KevinNYC]

Unemployment is the same as when he took office(8.1%).

Essentially, this might be a legitimate criticism if the 2007-2009 recession was a standard recession. And it's simply not. Keeping the unemployment rate the same might even been viewed as an achievement.


And it's government jobs that really we really have been shedding.

Krugman has this graph up today, which shows total government jobs as a share of the population are way down recently. This is federal, state and municipal jobs. If population goes up, you would expect this number to go up (more students mean more teachers usually.) The spike in 2010 is once a decade census jobs.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/09/09/opinion/090912krugman1/090912krugman1-blog480.jpg

[Heilige]

late reply... not really sure what the best thread is for my comments, but:

these days i have very little expectations of politics because i have very little expectations of the people who do the voting... but i did manage to catch bill clinton's speech on reply.

wow.

after hearing so many other politicians speak over the past decade, listening to clinton was like being plugged in to a pure source. what an absolute master politician on so many levels. he makes the listener feel personally respected, smarter, more enlightened, more hopeful, empowered. but aside from his amazing memory and command of information, he does something that is quite rare IMO-- he can go full out on the most scathing of attacks... without any real hyperbole, exaggeration or deceit... and still come across as completely charming, even-tempered and good-natured at the same time. i was truly in awe by the end of the 50 minutes, even though i've heard him many times in the past. if anything i'd say he's improved with age.


listening to clinton... for the first time in a long while i got this sense that politics does have the small possibility of supreme accomplishment inherent in it... the marriage of communication, scholarship, leadership & authority, empathy... all conducted at extremely high levels. it truly can be the most important job in the world for the gifted few.


also, i thought clinton did make everyone feel like a pupil in the classroom, but not in a bad way. he would be one of those rare teachers whose classes are filled up within ten minutes of registration. obama could learn a lot of things from him IMO... for example, how to lighten up, smooth out his delivery and avoid those overly pontifical moments.


clinton certainly has truckloads of southern charm, and that helps with a lot, but i wonder if he specifically studied reagan? as a gifted student in his own right, i would not be surprised. some of that wouldn't hurt obama, i'm thinking...


good post :applause:


Who do you think is a better public speaker and politician between Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan?

[General]

However, job growth started to recover and losses changed to gains under Obama. The problem is those gains have not been as steep as the losses
You call those gains? They would be negatives if you took into consideration the declining labor force we are facing under Obama's economy. The labor participation is at 63.3%, the lowest since 1981. People are so discouraged that they give up and are no longer looking for jobs knowing there wont be any.
http://i47.tinypic.com/j58j5v.png

Obama's administration guaranteed that his stimulus would prevent unemployment to go above 8 percent, yet it's been above 8% for 42 straight months.
[QUOTE]

[KevinNYC]

You call those gains? They would be negatives if you took into consideration the declining labor force we are facing under Obama's economy. The labor participation is at 63.3%, the lowest since 1981. People are so discouraged that they give up and are no longer looking for jobs knowing there wont be any.
http://i47.tinypic.com/j58j5v.png

Obama's administration guaranteed that his stimulus would prevent unemployment to go above 8 percent, yet it's been above 8% for 42 straight months.

http://www.aei-ideas.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/RomerBernsteinAugust-600x352.jpg

Check this link out and maybe you'll grasp how bad a state this economy is in.
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/09/the-awful-awful-august-jobs-report/

A Couple of Points:

A. I think you confusing predicting with guaranteeing....but I could be wrong...I would like to see a link where something guaranteed something.

B. Every since they brought us the Iraq War, I'm highly skeptical of anything on the American Enterprise Institute.

C. In an apples to apples comparison, they are gains. They roughly parallel when the economy stopped contracting and started growing too.

D. Note that chart you post is the Romer-Bernstein chart from January 2009. (http://otrans.3cdn.net/45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1te.pdf)

This last date turns out to be significant. As you may know, economic statistics like GDP growth and unemployment are revised over time as more data comes in. For example, the first statistics for January 2009 unemployment were just under 600,000 jobs lost that month. (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_02062009.pdf) That number was of by nearly 25% and was eventually revised to 779,000.

The same thing happened with the estimate of GDP (http://www.economist.com/node/21525440)


The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) revised its numbers back through the recession, revealing a downturn more serious than previously understood. The BEA's first estimate of output in the fourth quarter of 2008, published in January of 2009, showed a contraction of 3.8%, later revised to a 6.8% drop. The new numbers change the figure yet again, to a shocking 8.9% fall in GDP. For 2009 as a whole, the American economy shrank by 3.5% rather than the previously reported 2.6%.

At the time Romer and Bernstein were estimated how much help was needed they were modeling based on a contraction of 4% of GDP when the contraction was really 9%. It wasn't until the Department of Commerce completed its Retail Survey did people understand how much consumers had stopped spending during those scary months. (We just had a big discussion about why gas prices plunged to $1.90 in January 2009. The plunge in gas prices reflected the same cause, consumers had stopped spending.)

If you follow my link to Romer-Bernstein chart, you see they predict 3.3 million-4 million jobs created by the end of the fourth quarter 2010. When Moody's investigated the results of the sitmulus in July 2010, they estimated it had saved 2.7 million jobs already (http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/End-of-Great-Recession.pdf) and said

[QUOTE]Nonetheless, the effects of the fiscal stimulus alone appear very substantial, raising 2010 real GDP by about 3.4%, holding the unemployment rate about 1

[KevinNYC]

You call those gains? They would be negatives if you took into consideration the declining labor force we are facing under Obama's economy. The labor participation is at 63.3%, the lowest since 1981. People are so discouraged that they give up and are no longer looking for jobs knowing there wont be any.
http://i47.tinypic.com/j58j5v.png



My current favorite gauge of the jobs picture is the employment-population ratio for prime-age adults (25-54). (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/07/the-employment-situation/) EP ratio instead of unemployment rate, because U may be distorted by workers dropping out. Prime-age not because the old and young don’t matter, but to take demographic change out of the picture.

And here’s what it looks like:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/09/07/opinion/090712krugman1/090712krugman1-blog480.jpg

A plunge and a stabilization at a depressed level, which has now gone on for almost three years. Everything else is just noise.


A wee bit of that might be demographics too. If you were an 18 year old Baby Boomer in 1968, the year that had more 18-year-olds than any other, you just became eligible for Social Security. So there might be some folks retiring early than they wished to, prompted by bad propspects, but someone who is retired is not part of the labor force.

My Dad got downsized in the 90's and took early retirement. I've been pretty aware of how bad this economy and recovery has been, it's why Republican critiques of Obama have rung so hollow to me. I haven't heard a single Republican plan that would actually put people back to work and given how many of them opposed the stimulus, it seems they would have been fine with economy contracting for another quarter or two.

[KevinNYC]

As far I know, Republicans were basically arguing to severely cut government spending and in the face of this sever economic downturn, adopt austerity measures similar to what the UK and parts of Europe have done. Austerity measures that have caused their economy to crawl back EVEN SLOWER than ours has

http://touchstoneblog.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/UK-and-US-GDP-500x356.jpg

[JaggerCommaMick]

wow what ? .. all you're showing are a bunch of brainless zombies going along with the pack .. 'what's popular at the moment' ..


Those are his peers, mate. He likely took those pictures personally.

There's no hope for this guy. Democrat vs. Republican is simply sport to him, he doesn't understand the importance of issues as they DON'T relate to party politics, nor does he care to.

He's a one-sided cheerleader and nothing more. Seems rather appropriate when you consider he likely wears a skirt each day anyhow.

[JaggerCommaMick]

As far I know, Republicans were basically arguing to severely cut government spending and in the face of this sever economic downturn, adopt austerity measures similar to what the UK and parts of Europe have done. Austerity measures that have caused their economy to crawl back EVEN SLOWER than ours has

http://touchstoneblog.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/UK-and-US-GDP-500x356.jpg


Mate, the point of austerity is that it hurts NOW to spare worse pain later.

America, by taking money from corporations that are still innovating and producing things that can be sold globally, and using it to prop up more wasteful, unionized, unnecessary domestic programs just to say (hey look, a few more jobs!) is cutting off its nose to spite its face. All they are doing is attempting to win votes in the short term from idiots like you, and disregarding the problems the current modus operandi will produce in the future. That's all it is, mate, America cannot sustain this, yet they are trying to futility only so that people like you, too stupid to think any further than a day ahead will say "A ha! This works! Hooray Democrats!" Meanwhile by the time the thing collapses these bloody politicians will already be out of office and leaving the problems to you and your children.

Europe can see the waterfall ahead and changed course. You're too scared to change course, and you'd rather keep strollin along, mate, right toward that bloody waterfall because you're too stupid to see it anyway.

You're a dumb, typical, AVERAGE democrat, mate. That's why you are so worried about the govenrment finding work for you. Because nothin about you is anything but plain, ordinary, and average, and you can't do it on your own. America is digging its grave with people like you. You belong in a union, mate. You belong in a government job. You belong under a politicians wing. You're too stupid and bloody average to take up for yourself like a man.

What a pathetic shit head you are, mate.

[General]

A wee bit of that might be demographics too. If you were an 18 year old Baby Boomer in 1968, the year that had more 18-year-olds than any other, you just became eligible for Social Security. So there might be some folks retiring early than they wished to, prompted by bad propspects, but someone who is retired is not part of the labor force.
I would think that baby boomers would be more inclined to put off retirement in tough economic times. If they are forced into retirement because of lack of jobs then isn't it just another casualty of the poor economy? I've heard that theory regurgitated many times in liberal blogs but I'm not buying it. More likely it's shrinking because of people running out of unemployment benefits.

Here's Krugman in 2011 with his simple analysis of why the stimulus was too small.
How big did he want it to be exactly? It's hard for me to take Paul Krugman seriously when he says things like this:

The headline number came in a bit below expectations, but that’s probably just the noisiness in the data. The best hypothesis about the US economy this past year and more is that it has been steadily adding jobs at a pace roughly fast enough to keep up with but not get ahead of population growth. Today’s report was consistent with a continuation of that story. Nothing to see here.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/07/no-news-on-jobs/
Yeah Paul, only 96k jobs added and three times as many people dropping out of the labor force after not being able to find jobs.:rolleyes:

[JaggerCommaMick]

My Dad got downsized in the 90's and took early retirement. I've been pretty aware of how bad this economy and recovery has been, it's why Republican critiques of Obama have rung so hollow to me. I haven't heard a single Republican plan that would actually put people back to work and given how many of them opposed the stimulus, it seems they would have been fine with economy contracting for another quarter or two.


Mate, I called your father a lazy worthless bum in another post but it was deleted. However I think it's worth repeating.

Who takes early retirement in this day and age? It's not like you can't find work that aint physically grueling. Your father must have had no other skills, talents, or abilities to offer to the world, and therefore opted to become a dependent earlier than everyone else get to. How pathetic.

However, it does make for the ideal Democrat. And it offers tremendous insight into why you are the way you are. You come from a family of talentless, feeble, needy, dependent losers. You are desperate for the government to give you jobs. You need the government to create artificial worth for you. Cause mate, you aint got none yourself. And neither does your lame ass father.

[KevinNYC]

http://www.2bexposed.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/elepahnt-tightrope-walker-thumb44820101.jpg

[KevinNYC]

I would think that baby boomers would be more inclined to put off retirement in tough economic times. If they are forced into retirement because of lack of jobs then isn't it just another casualty of the poor economy? I've heard that theory regurgitated many times in liberal blogs but I'm not buying it. More likely it's shrinking because of people running out of unemployment benefits.

How big did he want it to be exactly? It's hard for me to take Paul Krugman seriously when he says things like this:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/07/no-news-on-jobs/
Yeah Paul, only 96k jobs added and three times as many people dropping out of the labor force after not being able to find jobs.:rolleyes:

The CBO says the 90,000 jobs per month is keeping up with the population.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics does keep an alternate employment rate that includes marginally employed and discouraged workers. This U6 unemployment rate looks like this

http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/LNU03327709_10290_1347332578317.gif

The graph looks like other unemployment stats. A steep increase from 2008 to 2010 and a much less steep drop since then.

This rate was 15.4% when Obama took office. It peaked at 18% in January 2010 and is now 14.6%.

I'm not saying the economy is great shape, but the U6 rate tells the same story as the regular unemployment stats. We were in incredibly bad shape in 2008 and in 2009, and around 2010 we turned it around slowly.

[JaggerCommaMick]

http://www.2bexposed.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/elepahnt-tightrope-walker-thumb44820101.jpg


Mate, you want so desperately to be Rachel Maddow. You're probably jealous because you started your bloody gender reassignment therapy well before it did, and it's the one that has a show!

Everything you post about and argue about is just fluff, mate, and it aint here nor there with regards to reality and importance. A candidates strategy, the semantics of what a bar graph shows, talking points, talking points, and more talking points. You're a little wannabe political pundit bugger. And it's all as worthless as a lame Jon Stewart joke, mate.

You were asked to name a single position on which you differ from the President, and you couldn't manage. You're asked to discuss factors like birth rates, incarceration rates, unskilled labor, negligent parenting, welfare fraud, and other factors that contribute to the squalor of some communities, and you predictable respond with "rich need to pay more!"

You are a coward. You are unable to assign blame fairly. You are ignorant. You refuse to take positions that aint in line with the political union you are submissive to. You are ugly, needy, whiny, and feminine. This much is just bloody obvious from being a Democrat. You are a pathetic, hypersensitive pussee. You aint got no debate skills, you don't stand firmly on logic and principle, ya cant score a vag in real life, the only thing that consoles your self loathing over your lack of manliness and fortitude is the idear of being accepted by a group of other pansies like yourself who wanna 'rebel against the man' (i.e. all the smart good looking independent successful people out there that make you feel like whiny losers). THAT is why you are a Democrat, chap!

[JaggerCommaMick]

The CBO says the 90,000 jobs per month is keeping up with the population.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics does keep an alternate employment rate that includes marginally employed and discouraged workers. This U6 unemployment rate looks like this

http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/LNU03327709_10290_1347332578317.gif

The graph looks like other unemployment stats. A steep increase from 2008 to 2010 and a much less steep drop since then.

This rate was 15.4% when Obama took office. It peaked at 18% in January 2010 and is now 14.6%.

I'm not saying the economy is great shape, but the U6 rate tells the same story as the regular unemployment stats. We were in incredibly bad shape in 2008 and in 2009, and around 2010 we turned it around slowly.


Mate, the government could hand every bloke a shovel and pay him to dig a ditch, thus employin him, and bring them unemployment stats down to 0%. That don't mean the economy is in great shape. Obama wants to add public sector jobs by the boatload. Loaded with bloated benefits and inefficient pay relative to production, and no affect on GDP. That don't help the economy in REALITY, chap. That only helps "employment statistics" that losers like you desperately try to use as propaganda to help the politicians you are submissive to stay in office.

You are a bitch. You are their bitch.

[KevinNYC]

http://cdn.indulgy.com/GK/qq/QZ/252131279108047068ljhAs7tKc.jpg

[Sarcastic]

Mate, the government could hand every bloke a shovel and pay him to dig a ditch, thus employin him, and bring them unemployment stats down to 0%. That don't mean the economy is in great shape. Obama wants to add public sector jobs by the boatload. Loaded with bloated benefits and inefficient pay relative to production, and no affect on GDP. That don't help the economy in REALITY, chap. That only helps "employment statistics" that losers like you desperately try to use as propaganda to help the politicians you are submissive to stay in office.

You are a bitch. You are their bitch.


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/09/09/opinion/090912krugman1/090912krugman1-blog480.jpg

What part of this graph did you not understand? Government jobs have gone down since Obama took office. In fact, the loss of government jobs is one of the main reasons that unemployment is still so shitty. The private sector is adding jobs every month, but the economy is having a hard time recovering because of the loss of production from the public sector.

Why do you continuously parrot the same talking points that the right keeps spewing, even though they are proven completely wrong? At what point do you decide to look at the cold hard facts, and make an assessment for yourself?

[JaggerCommaMick]

At what point do you decide to look at the cold hard facts, and make an assessment for yourself?

At what point, mate, do you decide to actually read what was written and debate what a person actually said, rather than contrive their argument for them that you already feel capable of countering.

I did not say that government jobs have ballooned in recent years. Look up at me text, mate, and read carefully. I said "Obama wants to add government jobs by the boatload." He has spoke of this openly. That's what he meant when he so boldly proclaimed "The private sector is fine."

Why do you think government jobs have shrunk? It's because they aren't affordable at the rate you were providing them! Notice how your society is still functioning, mate? Notice how things haven't collapsed? Most of those jobs are unnecessary handout jobs given in exchange for votes. That's the Democrat game. They play Robin Hood, taking from the private sector, and dispersing freely amongst those they wish to appease to maintain their position in office. But guess what Robin Hood was, mate? He was a thief. Just like all the democratic politicians you are submissive to. They'll add jobs when they aren't necessary, because government workers vote Democrat. So even though they're literally stealing the money of those who earned it and may have otherwise given to legitimate charities, invested in new technologies, or simply put it efficiently back into the market by spending it, they get away with it because people like you are happy 4 handouts. You feel entitled to others peoples things, because you live in a pretend world where the many, many, many people who are BETTER THAN YOU ARE dont deserve to actually get more than you. Politicians take from the AMERICAN economy to improve their approval ratings with the dumb gits like yourself. You don't know jack about markets or economy, mate. You live some fantasy karl marx dream.

Obama wants your vote, therefore he would like to create more pointless government jobs. Thus improving the 'employment rate' and adding more union and government workers to his constituency. This is the problem when dummies like you become submissive to politicians, rather than think for yourself. You will justify anything he does. You're ok with the war, now that a democrat is in charge of it. You were silent about the Bush tax cuts when Obama quietly extended them, now that he's flipping his position because its political season, suddenly you're right there with him waving your fist.

You, mate, are too dumb to analyze things for yourself. I've seen it over and over with you, chap. You are a sock puppet of the Democratic party. Their politicians only do what's in their own interest to gain favor with you, and you are too stupid to realize it. Republicans tactics are to lie and scare and deceive people in order to stay in office, or to pass difficult and unpopular but necessary legislation. Democratics strategy is to steal from the economy or borrow from the future in order to appease people today with unsustainable promises and entitlements. It's all about how do I gain a vote today? Even as they are raping the future of YOU and YOUR children, mates. They don't care. You're too stupid to understand. It's a game for them, and it's a mindless war for you. You've signed your mind over to them, they control it. You are too stupid, Sarcastic. You don't have a clue. You rub your bloody jibs about parties and politicians, completely blind to the nature of actual policy. You can't comprehend policy, mate. You're caught up in the misdirection that is partisan rivalry. You love it. You're a frontline soldier. You're the dumb fan at the game ball game ready to fight anyone on the other team, yet you don't even understand the game. You're a bloody dope.

[JaggerCommaMick]

http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/1342/screenshot20120910at953.png
http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/2991/screenshot20120910at958.png


Seems to be a lot of jobs posted in Chicago, just today. In fact, you can find job listings like this every day, in every city.

But why insist people go back to work when you can coddle them with unemployment benefits? That's what Democrats love. Only Republicans should work, everyone else gets entitlements! Hurray!

Literally anyone could find a job right now. But what's the hurry, when you can cash unemployment checks for literally 3-4 years? Mates, you think there's a reason Republicans have a reputation for being racist and religious? You think there's a foundation behind that stereotype? Well guess what, there's a reason Democrats are seen as weak on the economy. But I'm sure you think the Republican stereotype is fair, but the Democrat one isn't. Because that's you. Picking a side and defending it like some stupid chihuahua is all you blokes are capable of.

[KevinNYC]

I would think that baby boomers would be more inclined to put off retirement in tough economic times. If they are forced into retirement because of lack of jobs then isn't it just another casualty of the poor economy?
I agree with you on this.

[KevinNYC]

Interesting Poll out today by ABC/Washington Post (http://news.yahoo.com/obama-gains-convention-boost-not-among-likely-voters-040236784--abc-news-politics.html)


Among likely voters it's only a 1 point lead, among registered voters it's a six point lead. This means if the Democrats can get out the vote, it will not be a close election. However that's probably a pretty big if. I would guess overall voter participation would be done from 2008 and Democrats were extra motivated that year.

This confirms that Obama did get a bounce after his convention as other polls have confirmed. However the real interesting thing is this part


Additionally, there's been a shift in preferences in the eight tossup states identified by the ABC News Political Unit: Registered voters in these states now favor Obama over Romney by 54-40 percent, vs. 42-48 percent in these same states before the party conventions. And in the states with mid-levels of unemployment, it's 51-43 percent, vs. 40-53 percent pre-convention, further suggesting some progress for Obama in his economic arguments.
This could just be an outlier, but if this is representative of what is happening in the swing states since the convention, this election is over. Going from a 6 point deficit to a 14 point lead in a few weeks is gigantic.* Obama already had an advantage in the electoral vote to the point where Romney would have had to win most every swing state to get to 270 electoral votes. If other polls support this big swing since the conventions, romney doesn't have very many outs left in the deck.

*Again this could be an outlier, a 20 point swing in a few weeks is unusual. We'll have to see if other polls start seeing this.

[longhornfan1234]

Cut military spending in half, decriminalize drugs, close the loopholes, cut medicare and social security. :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

[rufuspaul]

Interesting Poll out today by ABC/Washington Post (http://news.yahoo.com/obama-gains-convention-boost-not-among-likely-voters-040236784--abc-news-politics.html)


this election is over.


Yeah it's been over for awhile. The only thing that could change at this point would be if Romney just blew the pres away in the debates. I'm thinking that ain't gonna happen.

[KevinNYC]

Yeah it's been over for awhile. The only thing that could change at this point would be if Romney just blew the pres away in the debates. I'm thinking that ain't gonna happen.

That depends on

A. is this poll accurate or just some anomaly.
B. Are the Democrats going to get their voters to the polls.

[rufuspaul]

Are the Democrats going to get their voters to the polls.


Oh they're good at that. They even manage to get voters who have been dead for years to the polls, multiple times. :D

[TheMan]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/09/09/opinion/090912krugman1/090912krugman1-blog480.jpg

What part of this graph did you not understand? Government jobs have gone down since Obama took office. In fact, the loss of government jobs is one of the main reasons that unemployment is still so shitty. The private sector is adding jobs every month, but the economy is having a hard time recovering because of the loss of production from the public sector.

Why do you continuously parrot the same talking points that the right keeps spewing, even though they are proven completely wrong? At what point do you decide to look at the cold hard facts, and make an assessment for yourself?
At what point do we just ignore that terrible troll. His UK gimmick is lame and he's obviously a rightwing Dittohead hack.

Don't feed the troll

[DonDadda59]

Yeah it's been over for awhile. The only thing that could change at this point would be if Romney just blew the pres away in the debates. I'm thinking that ain't gonna happen.

IMO the problem with Romney and the Republicans is that they haven't clearly presented their vision for the future. It's basically been 'I'm going to repeal the same basic healthcare bill I enacted as Governor... err, mostly' and 'Obama hasn't fixed the catastrophic near economic collapse fast enough, I'll put people back to work'. The economy is the big issue in this election and it doesn't seem like Mitt has anything to offer beyond tax breaks for the rich and foolishly deregulating wall street.

Is he waiting for the debates to unveil some specifics for his plan of action? :confusedshrug:

[TheMan]

Yeah it's been over for awhile. The only thing that could change at this point would be if Romney just blew the pres away in the debates. I'm thinking that ain't gonna happen.
That or some major event like a Wall Street crash, something along the lines of Sept 2008. If nothing like that happens, Obama wins big.

Still, Democrats shouldn't get too comfy, need to get out and vote and crush this far right looney GOP. Force them back to the center.

[kentatm]

I think with all the voter restrictions the Republicans have been trying to enact if the Dems don't get a huge turnout they could still lose.

It will still come down to Florida and Ohio.

[Real Men Wear Green]

IMO the problem with Romney and the Republicans is that they haven't clearly presented their vision for the future. It's basically been 'I'm going to repeal the same basic healthcare bill I enacted as Governor... err, mostly' and 'Obama hasn't fixed the catastrophic near economic collapse fast enough, I'll put people back to work'. The economy is the big issue in this election and it doesn't seem like Mitt has anything to offer beyond tax breaks for the rich and foolishly deregulating wall street.

Is he waiting for the debates to unveil some specifics for his plan of action? :confusedshrug:
And now he's telling the Right he's going to kill it after he tried to soften up on Meet the Press.

[Real Men Wear Green]

I think with all the voter restrictions the Republicans have been trying to enact if the Dems don't get a huge turnout they could still lose.

It will still come down to Florida and Ohio.
I hate the dirty tricks being pulled with voter registration but I do wonder what the hell all these people are doing without proper ID. It'd be a pain in the ass to me not have a bank account, let alone the right to legally drive. What are these people doing, seriously.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Final thing everyone must know: Nicki-Nicki's rap about Romney and lazy people was NOT an endorsement after all. Everyone may now rest easy.

[KevinNYC]

I hate the dirty tricks being pulled with voter registration but I do wonder what the hell all these people are doing without proper ID. It'd be a pain in the ass to me not have a bank account, let alone the right to legally drive. What are these people doing, seriously.

Roughly 10% of the population doesn't have government photo ID. Most of the them are very poor or very old.

Also, when you it's not just having an ID. It's having the ID allowed by the voter law, then this percentage goes up and you add college students into the bunch.

However, voting is a right, so why are the laws being written to exclude such a high percentage of the population?

The way some of these laws are written, a Military photo ID or a US Passport would not be enough to allow you to vote. Or if you got your driver's license in Texas, but now are a full time student and registered to vote in Indiana, you may not be able to vote. Since the intent of the law is not to prevent fraud, but to suppress voters including students, your school photo ID would not be accepted. What if you moved since the last time you updated your driver's license, if your license doesn't have current address, you may be out of luck as well.

Also if your driver's license is John Andrew Smith and you are listed on the polls as John Smith, you could be prevented from voting.

Or if there was John Smith who committed a felony and lost his voting rights, you may have been removed from the voting rolls.

My grandmother is 98 years old. I have no idea how long ago she last had a driver's license. I bet her passport is out of date. How to get her birth certificate to get new and updated ID, I don't know.

The first time I voted I didn't have a driver's license. I didn't have access to a car, so I didn't get my license until later.

Let's say you live in Terlingua, TX which is way the hell out in the middle of nowhere and you work 9-5. You find out you need to update your ID. You now need to take off work and find the closest DMV which might be more than 100 miles away. Are you going to make this effort? What if you're flat broke? Are you going to give up a day's pay and pay whatever DMV fees are required?

As for not having a bank account, have you heard of check-cashing services? There's something like 17 million Americans without a bank account. Check cashing places often require some ID, but it may be different that what's required to vote.

[KevinNYC]

When determining who they wanted to be able to vote. Texas was not very subtle about their ID law, which just got overturned in court. If you were a college student attending University of Texas, your state college issued ID would not be a valid piece of ID, how if you had a Texas gun permit, that was OK.

[General]

This rate was 15.4% when Obama took office. It peaked at 18% in January 2010 and is now 14.6%.

I'm not saying the economy is great shape, but the U6 rate tells the same story as the regular unemployment stats. We were in incredibly bad shape in 2008 and in 2009, and around 2010 we turned it around slowly.
Which proves that Obama's stimulus didn't do enough to create jobs. His administrations projections may have been made on incorrect numbers but the unemployment number(8.1%) is the exact same as when he took office and that's only because of the declining labor force. CREATE jobs was the first thing listed on the statement of purpose on his Stimulus plan.

Will you admit that maybe the reason the stimulus failed to create enough jobs is because it was not designed correctly. That maybe there weren't enough tax cuts for middle class Americans, small businesses, or investments on infrastructure? Maybe too much was distributed to education, healthcare, and green energy research(:oldlol: )?

As far I know, Republicans were basically arguing to severely cut government spending and in the face of this sever economic downturn,
You know that is not true. The Republicans were focused on creating jobs and had their own stimulus plan in place that focused more on tax cuts and investment in infrastructure. Republicans were not against a stimulus as most liberals would like you to believe. Here is a draft of what a Republican stimulus would have looked like. http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/02/02/stimulus.gop.pdf
[QUOTE]So this is surely the time for economic stimulus. That being said, a stimulus plan is needed without further delay, and there are some things that Republicans should insist on.

The first is that tax cuts are part of the solution. Harvard professor and economist Greg Mankiw points out that recent research confirms that tax cuts have a greater multiplier effect than new spending

[kentatm]

When determining who they wanted to be able to vote. Texas was not very subtle about their ID law, which just got overturned in court. If you were a college student attending University of Texas, your state college issued ID would not be a valid piece of ID, how if you had a Texas gun permit, that was OK.


I was extremely pissed about that.

It was so f-ing ridiculous that it even passed here.

[KevinNYC]

Jim Cramer of Mad Money, just today tweeted

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/voter-id-problem-solved-for-jim-cramers-dad


I have a problem. My dad, a vet, won't be allowed to vote in Pa. because he does not drive, he is elderly, and can't prove his citizenship.

Since he's a bigwig his tweet got noticed by the PA department of transportation and action was taken.


PennDot read my Tweet and came directly to the rescue of Pop and did so in a terrific way so he can vote.. Thank you Penndot!

Now consider what happens to those who don't have access to power or don't follow the news closely and don't even know the rules changed last year.

More in PA, here's a story about people who have voted in every election for the past 50 (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/pennsylvania_voter_id_law_disenfranchises_hall_of_ fame_voters.php) years who now have to take action to be considered eligible.


Helen Taylor, an 81-year-old from Doylestown who wants to vote for Romney, wasn’t aware the voter ID law would prevent her from voting until she was contacted by TPM. She no longer drives, and her licence expired a few years ago after she got into an accident.

Taylor first voted for Dwight Eisenhower after seeing him speak in Philadelphia as a young woman. She’s heard some people talking about the law but didn’t think it would affect her. Taylor doesn’t think the law is necessary.

“I mean, here I am, I’m 80-years-old, I live in a retirement community,” Taylor said. “I definitely want to vote. My whole family always likes politics. ”

[KevinNYC]

Oh they're good at that. They even manage to get voters who have been dead for years to the polls, multiple times. :D

Says the guy who believes himself immune to spin.

[KevinNYC]

Which proves that Obama's stimulus didn't do enough to create jobs. His administrations projections may have been made on incorrect numbers but the unemployment number(8.1%) is the exact same as when he took office and that's only because of the declining labor force. CREATE jobs was the first thing listed on the statement of purpose on his Stimulus plan.

Will you admit that maybe the reason the stimulus failed to create enough jobs is because it was not designed correctly. That maybe there weren't enough tax cuts for middle class Americans, small businesses, or investments on infrastructure? Maybe too much was distributed to education, healthcare, and green energy research(:oldlol: )?

I think my issues with the stimulus was they knew at the time that even 800 Billion was not going to be enough to make up the damage the the 2007-2009 recession was causing. When you run the macroeconomic numbers, it needed to be way over a trillion dollars, but for political reasons this was deemed a non starter. By not asking for the higher amount they were essentially hiding the true size of the problem from both the American public and themselves. Given the size of the problem 800 Billion dollars was actually optimistic (There seemed to be this idea that if the economy was in worse shape, they would be able to go back for a second round of stimulus. This totally misunderstood the politics of the issue.) They also were violating a principle of negotiation of having your opponents set the terms.

Let's talk about the size of the Problem first to get an idea of why the stimulus needed to be so big. At the beginning of January 2009 (Before we learned January 2009 would be the worst month for job losses and years before we understood how fast the economy was contracting over the previous quarter), the CBO estimated the output gap (http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9958/01-08-outlook_testimony.pdf) in the economy would 6.8% of GDP for the next two years. That's about 1.9 trillion dollars, so essentially we were trying to fill a 1.9 trillion dollar whole

They bungled the marketing and the roll out of the stimulus. As you have pointed out, the initial document mentioned keeping unemployment under 8%. By the time the stimulus was actually passed, we were already beyond 8%. Of course, I have the benefit of hindsight. I think things were happening so fast back there, thinking things through, like marketing and strategy were luxuries. (Also the head of OMB was thought to be anti-stimulus and leaking to the NY Times.) If you read any of the accounts of the 2008 crisis, you constantly hear stories of the Treasury Secretary and the Fed and other Banking CEO's trying to stay awake for an entire weekend to do things like find a buyer for Bear Stearns or decided when to force Lehman Brothers into bankruptcy. They were rolling from one crisis to the next

[KevinNYC]

You know that is not true. The Republicans were focused on creating jobs and had their own stimulus plan in place that focused more on tax cuts and investment in infrastructure. Republicans were not against a stimulus as most liberals would like you to believe. Here is a draft of what a Republican stimulus would have looked like. http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/02/02/stimulus.gop.pdf

Mitt Romney in 2008
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/226567/republican-stimulus-plan/mitt-romney

Actually, I forgot all that. I remembered that in the final vote 0 House Republicans voted for stimulus and three Republican Senators voted for it, the two women from Maine and Arlen Specter and he lost his job over it.

I think when I mentioned austerity, I was thinking of how after the rise of the Tea Party, the Republicans successfully moved argument. That unemployment and the recession were no longer our top priority, but the debt was. But you're right that came later

[General]

I think my issues with the stimulus was they knew at the time that even 800 Billion was not going to be enough to make up the damage the the 2007-2009 recession was causing. When you run the macroeconomic numbers, it needed to be way over a trillion dollars, but for political reasons this was deemed a non starter. By not asking for the higher amount they were essentially hiding the true size of the problem from both the American public and themselves. Given the size of the problem 800 Billion dollars was actually optimistic (There seemed to be this idea that if the economy was in worse shape, they would be able to go back for a second round of stimulus. This totally misunderstood the politics of the issue.) They also were violating a principle of negotiation of having your opponents set the terms.
We can debate forever wether more stimulus would have created more jobs, but the fact is 800 billion is what he signed into law. He campaigned on fixing the economy, specifically lowering unemployment, he hasn't. He's been the president for four years and I just want him to claim this economy as his and stop blaming his predecessor.

I truly believe if this election was solely a referendum on Obama he would lose in a landslide, but it isn't. He is the luckiest man alive because the Republicans chose an empty suit to be their nominee. A guy who no one likes, someone who only relates with people who have yachts. People just aren't excited for this guy, if Republicans aren't enthusiastic about their nominee it will cost them some votes on election day.

Just look at this poll, half of the people voting for Romney are voting for him because it is a vote against Barack Obama, not necessarily because they like Romney. I really felt like this was Mike Huckabee's year. He's a smart southern politician with a lot of charisma and wit who could have appealed to more voters, the complete opposite of plastic Romney.
http://i50.tinypic.com/11b3h21.jpg
Oh well, Romney will still win if enough people hate Obama on Nov 6:facepalm

[KevinNYC]

You really think Huckabee has a shot at the general nomination? I think there's ceiling in Republican Party for a someone so associated with the religious right. See Bachman, Santorum and Perry for examples. I don't see the money boys putting a bet down on Huckabee.

He is a much better politician than Romney though.

[DirtySanchez]

Wish there was a third party. Can't stand the GOP and Romney though.

Obama needs to grow some balls during his 2nd term and get shi.t done.

[InspiredLebowski]

This is a non-sequitur but I learned tonight that disabled vets get drug tested to receive their benefits. People on government assistance, food stamps and the like, don't get tested. That's been a (teeny tiny) wedge issue for a bit.

I honestly don't know where I stand on should/shouldn't they be tested, but that application is just incredibly hypocritical.

[KevinNYC]

Apropos of our debate on which unemployment measure to use (U3 or U6) Fox News makes this Apples to Oranges comparison and compares U3 from 2009 to the U6 from today.


http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/fnc-ff-20120811-ingraham-unemploymentrate.jpg


Fox contributor Laura Ingraham’s question was priceless: “Other than Fox News, where are you really seeing those statistics?”

[ImmortalD24]

http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Chuck-Schumer.jpg
Chuck Schumer on CNN: http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1209/11/pmt.01.html

BLITZER: "Thrown allies like Israel under the bus." So what do you say to Romney on the heels of what happened with the Jerusalem platform dispute, now this inability to come together for Netanyahu and the president to meet what Mitt Romney is saying, go ahead. As a strong supporter of Israel, what do you say?

SCHUMER: Well, here's what I'd say. The two biggest threats to Israel, the two most existential threats, if you will, are, one, a nuclear Iran, and two, rockets raining in from Lebanon launched by Hezbollah. And I would say on those two issues this president has been better than any other. He has launched sanctions against Iran that are tough and having an effect. He has made it clear that he will not support a nuclear Iran. He has made clear that the policy of containment is not a good policy. And I'll tell you this on Iran, and I've said this to a couple of Romney supporters who agree, that if the sanctions fail, and military action is warranted, a re-elected President Obama is far more likely to launch that kind of military action, probably in concert with Israel than would Mitt Romney. Because Mitt Romney will be new, he'll have a whole domestic agenda.
Hate to say it, but I agree with this zionist shill. I really can't see Romney lasting more than a term if he gets elected. And it will perhaps signal the end of the 2 term era.

Also..
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01917/giuliani_1917067c.jpg

BLITZER: I don't think any of us appreciated what was going on. But the responsibility that you had was so enormous. You've described 9/11 as both the worst day and the best day. Explain why you said that.

GIULIANI: The worst day because it was the worst attack, domestic attack in the history of my country, or at least you'd have to go back to the Revolution and the War of 1812 and the Civil War to look for similar kinds of things. Certainly in the history of New York City. And at the same time, it was a day of more heroism, more patriotic fervor, more assistance, more charitable action and activity than I ever saw -- ever in my life.
Disgusting sack..

[kentatm]

U.S. AMBASSADOR KILLED IN LIBYA

TRIPOLI, Libya -- The U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans were killed in an attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi by protesters angry over a film that ridiculed Islam's Prophet Muhammad.

Ambassador Chris Stevens, 52, died as he and a group of embassy employees went to the consulate to try to evacuate staff as the building came under attack by a mob firing machine-guns and rocket-propelled grenades. He was the first U.S. ambassador to be killed in the line of duty since 1979.

President Barack Obama ordered increased security to protect U.S. diplomatic personnel around world.

"I strongly condemn the outrageous attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi," Obama said, adding the four Americans "exemplified America's commitment to freedom, justice, and partnership with nations and people around the globe."

The attack in Libya came hours after Egyptian protesters climbed the walls of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, pulling down the American flag and temporarily replacing it with a black Islamic banner.

The brazen assaults - the first on U.S. diplomatic facilities in either country - underscored the lawlessness that has taken hold in both Egypt and Libya after revolutions ousted their autocratic secular regimes and upended the tightly controlled police state in both countries. Islamists - long repressed under the previous regimes - have emerged as a powerful force but new governments in both nations are struggling to achieve stability.

Egypt's police, a onetime hated force blamed for massive human rights abuses, have yet to fully take back the streets after Hosni Mubarak's ouster in February 2011. On Tuesday, riot police stood by the embassy's walls but continued to allow protesters to climb them for several hours.

The uproar over the film also poses a new test for Egypt's new Islamist president, Mohammed Morsi, who has yet to condemn the riot outside the U.S. Embassy in Cairo or say anything about the offending film. The protest was by mostly ultraconservative Islamists.

The film was produced by a California filmmaker who identifies himself as both American and Israeli. The film was being promoted by an extreme anti-Muslim Egyptian Christian campaigner in the United States. Excerpts from the film dubbed into Arabic were posted on YouTube.

Ultraconservative Islamists also were suspected of being behind the Benghazi attack. Advocating a strict interpretation of Islam, they have bulldozed Sufi shrines and mosques that house tombs in the Libyan capital, Tripoli, and other cities, including ancient sites dating back to 5,000 years ago.

Heavily armed, ultraconservative groups like Ansar al-Shariah, or Supporters of Shariah, have claimed responsibility for the attacks on the shrines, declaring Sufi practices as "heretical."

Libya has been also hit by a series of recent attacks that served as evidence of the deep and persistent security vacuum in the country after the fall of Moammar Gadhafi's regime, which was ousted by rebels backed by a NATO air campaign. Many Libyans believe that unrest in their country is in part the work of Gadhafi's loyalists who want to undermine efforts to rebuild the country after last year's ruinous civil war.

Stevens was a career diplomat who spoke Arabic and French and had already served two tours in Libya, including running the office in Benghazi during the revolt against Gadhafi. He was confirmed as ambassador to Libya by the Senate earlier this year.

Before Tuesday, five U.S. ambassadors had been killed in the line of duty, the last being Adolph Dubs in Afghanistan in 1979, according to the State Department historian's office.

Muslims find it offensive to depict Muhammad in any fashion, much less in an insulting way. The 2005 publication of 12 caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad in a Danish newspaper triggered riots in many Muslim countries.

A 14-minute trailer of the movie that sparked the protests, posted on the website YouTube in an original English version and another dubbed into Egyptian Arabic, depicts Muhammad as a fraud, a womanizer and a madman in an overtly ridiculing way, showing him having sex and calling for massacres.

The website's guidelines call for removing videos that include a threat of violence, but not those that only express opinions. YouTube's practice is not to comment on specific videos.

Sam Bacile, a 56-year-old California real estate developer who identifies himself as an Israeli Jew and who said he produced, directed and wrote the two-hour film, "Innocence of Muslims," said he had not anticipated such a furious reaction.

Speaking by phone from an undisclosed location, Bacile, who went into hiding Tuesday, remained defiant, saying Islam is a cancer and that he intended his film to be a provocative political statement condemning the religion.

Bacile said he believes the movie will help his native land by exposing Islam's flaws to the world. "Islam is a cancer, period," he repeatedly said in a solemn, accented tone.

Israel, however, sought to distance itself from Bacile.

"It's obvious we'll have to be vigilant. Anything he did or said has nothing to do whatsoever with Israel. He may claim what he wants. This was not done with or for or through Israel." Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor said on Wednesday.

__

Michael reported from Cairo. Associated Press writers Matthew Lee in Washington and Joseph Federman in Jerusalem contributed to this report.

The three Libyan officials who confirmed the deaths were deputy interior minister for eastern Libya Wanis al-Sharaf; Benghazi security chief Abdel-Basit Haroun; and Benghazi city council and security official Ahmed Bousinia.


link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/12/j-christopher-stevens-ambassador-to-libya-killed_n_1876544.html)

[kentatm]

[QUOTE]Mitt Romney Criticizes Obama Administration Over Response To Libya, Egypt Attacks

The campaign of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney called the Obama administration's handling of a violent and contentious day at two American facilities in the Middle East "disgraceful" in a statement released late Tuesday night.

The campaign had initially planned to hold the statement until after midnight -- and the end of the eleventh anniversary of September 11th -- but lifted the embargo an hour and a half early as the controversy flared over a series of attacks against the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and the American Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

"I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi," Romney said in the statement. "It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks."

The two diplomatic outposts had been the site of violent protests on Tuesday evening, as fundamentalist mobs swarmed in rage over rumors about an unreleased American film (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444017504577645681057498266.html?m od=WSJ__MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsTop) -- promoted in part by the Koran-burning preacher Terry Jones -- that supposedly projected the Prophet Muhammad in a harshly critical light.

Protesters breached the wall of the embassy in Cairo (http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_289563/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=xHk1I4pl) and burned an American flag on its grounds before replacing it with an Islamic banner. In Benghazi, a mob driven by the Islamist militant group Ansar al Sharia rampaged through the American consulate, firing at least one rocket-propelled grenade, according to the Wall Street Journal. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444017504577645681057498266.html) At least one American staffer was killed in the violence.

The violence took a domestic political turn, in part thanks to a statement released early Tuesday by the staff of the Cairo embassy, which condemned the film and the "continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims

[Sarcastic]

This is a non-sequitur but I learned tonight that disabled vets get drug tested to receive their benefits. People on government assistance, food stamps and the like, don't get tested. That's been a (teeny tiny) wedge issue for a bit.

I honestly don't know where I stand on should/shouldn't they be tested, but that application is just incredibly hypocritical.


Read this

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us/no-savings-found-in-florida-welfare-drug-tests.html


MIAMI — Ushered in amid promises that it would save taxpayers money and deter drug users, a Florida law requiring drug tests for people who seek welfare benefits resulted in no direct savings, snared few drug users and had no effect on the number of applications, according to recently released state data.

“Many states are considering following Florida’s example, and the new data from the state shows they shouldn’t,” said Derek Newton, communications director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, which sued the state last year to stop the testing and recently obtained the documents. “Not only is it unconstitutional and an invasion of privacy, but it doesn’t save money, as was proposed.”

This week, Georgia instituted a nearly identical law, with supporters saying it would foster greater personal responsibility and save money. As in Florida, the law is expected to draw a legal challenge. The Southern Center for Human Rights, based in Atlanta, said it expected to file a lawsuit once the law takes effect in the next several months. A number of other states are considering similar bills.

The Florida civil liberties group sued the state last year, arguing that the law constituted an “unreasonable search” by the government, a violation of the Fourth Amendment. In issuing a temporary injunction in October, Judge Mary S. Scriven of Federal District Court scolded lawmakers and said the law “appears likely to be deemed a constitutional infringement.”

From July through October in Florida — the four months when testing took place before Judge Scriven’s order — 2.6 percent of the state’s cash assistance applicants failed the drug test, or 108 of 4,086, according to the figures from the state obtained by the group. The most common reason was marijuana use. An additional 40 people canceled the tests without taking them.

Because the Florida law requires that applicants who pass the test be reimbursed for the cost, an average of $30, the cost to the state was $118,140. This is more than would have been paid out in benefits to the people who failed the test, Mr. Newton said.

As a result, the testing cost the government an extra $45,780, he said.

And the testing did not have the effect some predicted. An internal document about Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, caseloads stated that the drug testing policy, at least from July through September, did not lead to fewer cases.

“We saw no dampening effect on the caseload,” the document said.

But supporters of the law said four months of numbers did little to discredit an effort they said was based on common sense. Drug users, no matter their numbers, should not be allowed to use taxpayer money, they said.

“We had to stop allowing tax dollars for anybody to buy drugs with,” said State Representative Jimmie T. Smith, a Republican who sponsored the bill last year. Taxpayer savings also come in deterring those drug users who would otherwise apply for cash assistance but now think twice because of the law, some argued.

Chris Cinquemani, the vice president of the Foundation for Government Accountability, a Florida-based public policy group that advocates drug testing and recently made a presentation in Georgia, said more than saving money was at stake.

“The drug testing law was really meant to make sure that kids were protected,” he said, “that our money wasn’t going to addicts, that taxpayer generosity was being used on diapers and Wheaties and food and clothing.”

Florida’s governor, Rick Scott, who supported the measure last year, agreed.

“Governor Scott maintains his position that TANF dollars must be spent on TANF’s purposes — protecting children and getting people back to work,” said Jackie Schutz, the governor’s deputy press secretary.

Last month, Mr. Scott signed into law another drug testing measure, this one permitting state agencies to randomly test up to 10 percent of their employees. The tests can be conducted every 90 days and agencies can fire or discipline employees if they test positive for drugs.

The law, which the civil liberties group said it believes is unconstitutional, takes effect in July. The courts have largely upheld drug testing for workers with public safety jobs.

[KevinNYC]

When I went to bed last night, they thought a guard had just been killed.


The film was produced by a California filmmaker who identifies himself as both American and Israeli. The film was being promoted by an extreme anti-Muslim Egyptian Christian campaigner in the United States. Excerpts from the film dubbed into Arabic were posted on YouTube.

It also seemed to be unclear if there was a US connection to the film.

[Real Men Wear Green]

When I went to bed last night, they thought a guard had just been killed.



It also seemed to be unclear if there was a US connection to the film.
Religious extremists offending one another.

[Rasheed1]

I hate the dirty tricks being pulled with voter registration but I do wonder what the hell all these people are doing without proper ID. It'd be a pain in the ass to me not have a bank account, let alone the right to legally drive. What are these people doing, seriously.


Poor and elderly people get by without IDs because they will more likely use a check cashing at the local pawn shop than have a bank account.

In a city like philadelphia, many of the elderly are Italian, or Asian, or Puerto Rican... Alot dont speak english. They need their children to speak for them in many instances... This causes problems at school for children when they have to accompany their parent everywhere (whether it be a doctor's appointment or a trip to the market, or in case to get a voter ID.

[Real Men Wear Green]

As for not having a bank account, have you heard of check-cashing services? There's something like 17 million Americans without a bank account. Check cashing places often require some ID, but it may be different that what's required to vote.

Poor and elderly people get by without IDs because they will more likely use a check cashing at the local pawn shop than have a bank account.

In a city like philadelphia, many of the elderly are Italian, or Asian, or Puerto Rican... Alot dont speak english. They need their children to speak for them in many instances... This causes problems at school for children when they have to accompany their parent everywhere (whether it be a doctor's appointment or a trip to the market, or in case to get a voter ID.
Just to clarify, in case anyone got the wrong idea: I'm against the voter ID laws. A college or military ID should be good enough. But these check-cashing places snagging 3% (or whatever) of your check's value are a bad idea, and anyone going around without a valid ID is putting themself at a disadvantage unnecessarily.

[Rasheed1]

Just to clarify, in case anyone got the wrong idea: I'm against the voter ID laws. A college or military ID should be good enough. But these check-cashing places snagging 3% (or whatever) of your check's value are a bad idea, and anyone going around without a valid ID is putting themself at a disadvantage unnecessarily.


I understand where you are coming from...

Poor people live a certain and yes, check cashing takes some of their money.

I dont have a problem with introducing an ID requirement, but the way the republicans are trying to push it through during a presidential election year is obviously trying to suppress the vote for something that can wait until a an off year.

It just makes it more obvious that republicans are liars and they have no integrity whatsoever...

Mitt's response to the attacks in Libya is also another example of republicans being morally bankrupt.

[KevinNYC]

Larry David on Obama's Presidency: It could have been worse.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-september-6-2012/hope-and-change-2---barack-obama--it-could-have-been-worse

[General]

You really think Huckabee has a shot at the general nomination? I think there's ceiling in Republican Party for a someone so associated with the religious right. See Bachman, Santorum and Perry for examples. I don't see the money boys putting a bet down on Huckabee.

He is a much better politician than Romney though.
Have you forgotten about George Bush? He was heavy on religion during his campaign in 2000/2004. It just takes a certain type of candidate to pull it off. Bachman and Perry just aren't very bright. Huckabee would come off as compassionate, someone who understands your pain, and is just a likable guy. Notice these are the exact things Romney has trouble with.

[Real Men Wear Green]

I understand where you are coming from...

Poor people live a certain and yes, check cashing takes some of their money.

I dont have a problem with introducing an ID requirement, but the way the republicans are trying to push it through during a presidential election year is obviously trying to suppress the vote for something that can wait until a an off year.

It just makes it more obvious that republicans are liars and they have no integrity whatsoever...

Mitt's response to the attacks in Libya is also another example of republicans being morally bankrupt.
There's no doubt tthe ID laws are about voter suppression. There's almost no documented cases of this, something like 2000 cases of it since 2000 in the whole country, for which they are trying to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands.

[KevinNYC]

Have you forgotten about George Bush? He was heavy on religion during his campaign in 2000/2004. It just takes a certain type of candidate to pull it off. Bachman and Perry just aren't very bright. Huckabee would come off as compassionate, someone who understands your pain, and is just a likable guy. Notice these are the exact things Romney has trouble with.

I think Bush was the perfect bridge candidate. His background and family connections place him firmly in Eastern Establishment Wall Street/country club wing of the party. Then by embracing religion was also able to represent the Evangelical religious wing of the party..

I don't see anyone else in the party able to be that firmly in both camps. How many candidates will be born in Connecticutt and then raised in Texas and have deep, deep connections in both places.

Also I said earlier Karl Rove is a political genius. With Rove's ambitions and Bush's family connections, I don't think W winds up a national figure.

By the way, do you have any opinions of the sincerity of Bush's religiousity?

[JaggerCommaMick]

There's no doubt tthe ID laws are about voter suppression. There's almost no documented cases of this, something like 2000 cases of it since 2000 in the whole country, for which they are trying to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands.


Mate, I bet when ACORN was stuffing the ballots for B. Hussein and other Femocrats, you weren't makin a big fuss about voter integrity, hm?

[KevinNYC]

http://uploads.gamedev.net/blogs/monthly_08_2012/blogentry-187838-0-99400200-1345395220_thumb.jpg

[ImmortalD24]

:rolleyes:

[KevinNYC]

On the same day the Fed announces a third round of quantitative easing, (http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-09-13/ben-bernanke-really-wants-you-to-buy-a-house) the Senate Majority Leader has just hired Ron Paul's campaign manager.


Ben Bernanke Really Wants You to Buy a House
The Federal Reserve is doing everything in its power to get you to buy a house. On Thursday the Fed’s rate-setting committee said it will start buying $40 billion of mortgage-backed bonds every month from now until—well, it didn’t say when. Buying those bonds should translate into lower mortgage interest rates, speeding up the tentative recovery of the housing market. The Fed is betting that a stronger housing market will help lift the overall economy, which remains stuck in low gear more than three years past the end of the 2007-09 recession



The Ron Paul campaign team is being swallowed up by the mainstream Republican Party, (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/mitch-mcconnell-hires-ron-pauls-campaign-manager/) one staffer at a time.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has hired Paul’s campaign manager, Jesse Bentonm, to run his 2014 re-election campaign, the senator announced Thursday.
This follows the Republican National Committee’s hiring of Paul’s former spokesman, Gary Howard, in late June.
“We’re committed to running a presidential-level campaign in Kentucky and that starts with a presidential campaign manager,” McConnell said in a prepared statement. “Jesse is literally the best in the business at building and organizing conservative grassroots movements and I’m thrilled he’s chosen to return to Kentucky to lead my campaign.”
“It is a real honor to join Senator McConnell’s team. I look forward to playing my part in re- electing a great leader who can truly unite a broad coalition of Americans and get out country back on track,” Benton said in in a statement, provided by McConnell’s staff.

Ron Paul is slowly winning over the Republican Party.

[joe]

I have a better idea than voter ID. Let's make it so that anybody who receives government money isn't allowed to vote. If you work for the government, state or federal, collect welfare, social security, are part of the military, etc. You can't vote. That way, the politicians have nothing to gain by promising to steal money from some to give to others.

And then, any politician who leads us into war against a country who hasn't attacked us, should be charged with murder for every person who is killed in the land they invade by American troops. 20,000 life sentences, anyone?

[joe]

Taking away soldiers right to vote probably won't go over very well:oldlol:

i dont think anything in my post would go over well, im surprised thats the thing you picked out lol.

[KevinNYC]

Does "a better idea" mean something different to you than most folks?

[KevinNYC]

Also what's your take on Ron Paul's campaign manager going to work for the GOP establishment?

Is he selling out or going to subvert the system from the inside?

[joe]

Also what's your take on Ron Paul's campaign manager going to work for the GOP establishment?

Is he selling out or going to subvert the system from the inside?

Jesse Benton? The word is that he was a snake all along. And apparently many people were trying to tell Ron Paul that he was, and he wouldn't listen. As far as I know Jesse Benton is pretty ambitious about making it in politics.. which isn't considered a good thing for me. So I don't really care for him.

A lot of people think Ron Paul sold out too, but I mean, even if he did, I respect him anyway. He spent like 30 years in congress as a lone voice, talking about the federal reserve and austrian economics, etc. I feel lonely and intimidated talking about crap like that on this forum for 10 minutes, let alone doing it like he did. The guy is a boss, what else can be said?

And I personally don't think he sold out. But something strange happened for sure. He could have went much harder at Romney, and he could have went after the GOP for the (allegedly) crooked primaries. He could have fired Jesse Benton, he could have been more assertive at the debates. Idk what happened, whether he was threatened or if he wanted to protect Rand's future. Some say Romney was threatening to wreck him over the racist newsletter stuff if he got too assertive. Idk. It's weird.

[joe]

Does "a better idea" mean something different to you than most folks?

when it comes to politics in almost all cases the answer is yes ;)

what, you don't like my idea that anyone working for or collecting money from the government should lose their right to vote? I thought that one was right up your alley Kevin..

[KevinNYC]

when it comes to politics in almost all cases the answer is yes ;)

what, you don't like my idea that anyone working for or collecting money from the government should lose their right to vote? I thought that one was right up your alley Kevin..

What about anyone who does business with the government? Seems like you left out a lot of folks what about folks who attended any college that got money from the government? Or drives on any roads that not private.



Anyhow, I just spent an hour I should have been sleeping, checking out home prices. Smiling Ben's got my back.

http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/images/0114-bernanke/9345328-1-eng-US/0114-bernanke_full_600.jpg

[joe]

What about anyone who does business with the government? Seems like you left out a lot of folks what about folks who attended any college that got money from the government? Or drives on any roads that not private.



Anyhow, I just spent an hour I should have been sleeping, checking out home prices. Smiling Ben's got my back.

http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/images/0114-bernanke/9345328-1-eng-US/0114-bernanke_full_600.jpg

Nah, because those people are more or less pushed into those roles. You can't afford college without a government loan (thanks to the government). Government has a monopoly over roads so, you can't help but drive on them. And if a company doesn't do business with the government, their competitors will, putting them at a disadvantage (the government shouldn't be doing business with anyone to begin with).

Let me give you a little sociology/political science lesson. This is how big governments entrench themselves. Politicians promise money/programs for some people, at no cost to them, so of course those people are going to vote for those politician. As time passes people become dependent on the program, and so any politician who wants to (rightly) cut those programs, loses the entitlement voters. As more and more people are getting government money, the bigger the vote-cost is for trying to cut. Until you reach a situation like ours, where so many people are getting government money, saying you'll end or even make minor cuts to entitlements is political suicide. So now we're stuck with this big government forever or until the government defaults on its promises, in which case millions of people will be left without the federal cash they've come to depend on. And to get back to small government, we need to convince millions of people that it's wrong to accept what basically amounts to free money as far as they're concerned. Sheesh.

What's that awesome quote again?

Democracy stops working when people realize they can vote themselves other peoples money

Something like that. Pretty bombastic quote if you ask me.

[joe]

What about anyone who does business with the government? Seems like you left out a lot of folks what about folks who attended any college that got money from the government? Or drives on any roads that not private.



Anyhow, I just spent an hour I should have been sleeping, checking out home prices. Smiling Ben's got my back.

http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/images/0114-bernanke/9345328-1-eng-US/0114-bernanke_full_600.jpg


And oh, the horror, please don't post that evil face anymore! Ya, helicoptor ben has your back alright! Until interest rates rise and your home price drops back down again. Ouch. Better get a fixed rate, and I hope you don't plan on selling that thing in the future ;)

[Jailblazers7]

I have a better idea than voter ID. Let's make it so that anybody who receives government money isn't allowed to vote. If you work for the government, state or federal, collect welfare, social security, are part of the military, etc. You can't vote. That way, the politicians have nothing to gain by promising to steal money from some to give to others.

And then, any politician who leads us into war against a country who hasn't attacked us, should be charged with murder for every person who is killed in the land they invade by American troops. 20,000 life sentences, anyone?


Does that mean every home owner who takes advantage of the mortgage tax credit wouldn't get to vote?

[KevinNYC]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_aND9kEGQZZo/TU-fqdl0caI/AAAAAAAACFc/en9w3mXIAcw/s1600/ben_bernanke%2Bsmiling.jpg

You don't like smiling Ben? What's not to like?


What's that awesome quote again?

Democracy stops working when people realize they can vote themselves other peoples money

Something like that. Pretty bombastic quote if you ask me.

This time I'm sure you don't mean bombastic.

Also I just googled this:


Democracy stops working when people realize they can vote themselves other peoples money

One of the first results in Google is this page. :banana:

[Sarcastic]

Romney thinks middle class is $200k - $250k.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/14/romney-middle-income_n_1883819.html?ncid=txtlnkushpmg00000029


This guy doesn't have a clue in the world.

[shlver]

Gaffe or an accurate assessment?
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-unsure-state-department-says-egypt-ally

[QUOTE]

[miller-time]

Gaffe or an accurate assessment?
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-unsure-state-department-says-egypt-ally

probably a bit of both. they seem like a weak ally of the US. i'd say it was an undiplomatic assessment?

[JaggerCommaMick]

Let me give you a little sociology/political science lesson. This is how big governments entrench themselves. Politicians promise money/programs for some people, at no cost to them, so of course those people are going to vote for those politician. As time passes people become dependent on the program, and so any politician who wants to (rightly) cut those programs, loses the entitlement voters. As more and more people are getting government money, the bigger the vote-cost is for trying to cut. Until you reach a situation like ours, where so many people are getting government money, saying you'll end or even make minor cuts to entitlements is political suicide. So now we're stuck with this big government forever or until the government defaults on its promises, in which case millions of people will be left without the federal cash they've come to depend on. And to get back to small government, we need to convince millions of people that it's wrong to accept what basically amounts to free money as far as they're concerned. Sheesh.

What's that awesome quote again?

Democracy stops working when people realize they can vote themselves other peoples money

Something like that. Pretty bombastic quote if you ask me.


Mates, this was a dead on assessment given cordially to KevinNYC in a discussion. As you can see, Kevinyc proceeded to ignore the facts and the substance of the post in his response, but instead replied with a joke about a google search.

Ive made the exact same points to him and his excuse for avoidance is that im trollin. Well was joe trollin here? Why no response to the actual discussion, kevinyc? Mates its because like all Democrats he runs and hides when pressed to hold his ideology up to the revealing luminescence of logic. If he stays and debates, he will be exposed as utterly flawed. Joe just presented him a civil substantive viewpoint relative to their discussion, and he dodged it like White Goodmen.

joe, why dont u press him a bit harder for a legit response, mate? See what excuse he comes up with for ignoring you as well.


For the record, joes no government absolutism is a tad too far into the realm of ideology for my taste, tho id prefer it to kevinycs omnigovernment absolutism.

Cheers, mates. :cheers:

[joe]

Mates, this was a dead on assessment given cordially to KevinNYC in a discussion. As you can see, Kevinyc proceeded to ignore the facts and the substance of the post in his response, but instead replied with a joke about a google search.

Ive made the exact same points to him and his excuse for avoidance is that im trollin. Well was joe trollin here? Why no response to the actual discussion, kevinyc? Mates its because like all Democrats he runs and hides when pressed to hold his ideology up to the revealing luminescence of logic. If he stays and debates, he will be exposed as utterly flawed. Joe just presented him a civil substantive viewpoint relative to their discussion, and he dodged it like White Goodmen.

joe, why dont u press him a bit harder for a legit response, mate? See what excuse he comes up with for ignoring you as well.


For the record, joes no government absolutism is a tad too far into the realm of ideology for my taste, tho id prefer it to kevinycs omnigovernment absolutism.

Cheers, mates. :cheers:

thx for the cheers 8) , but I highly doubt Kevin doesn't have a good counter to what I said. Probably not something I'd agree with, but definitely something that makes sense within his own view of things. Mate. ha

and when are you going to jump on the no government absolutism bandwagon dude? we have cookies :D

[joe]

Does that mean every home owner who takes advantage of the mortgage tax credit wouldn't get to vote?

Idk what the mortgage tax credit is exactly but if it is what I think it is.. then no, because having your taxes lowered or getting back some of your tax money back isn't "extra." That's just getting some of your own money back. That's why I laugh when people are like, "George Bush gave the rich people a gift by lowering their taxes." How is it a gift, to not steal as much of someones money as you were planning to? It's like if I steal your car, and say I'm giving you a gift by not killing your dog. lol. Makes me giggle inside. But ya, my idea wasn't fleshed out enough to withstand all of these questions. You guys can't expect me to actually have thought these things out before writing them on Ish. Sheesh.

[knickballer]

Idk what the mortgage tax credit is exactly but if it is what I think it is.. then no, because having your taxes lowered or getting back some of your tax money back isn't "extra." That's just getting some of your own money back. That's why I laugh when people are like, "George Bush gave the rich people a gift by lowering their taxes." How is it a gift, to not steal as much of someones money as you were planning to? It's like if I steal your car, and say I'm giving you a gift by not killing your dog. lol. Makes me giggle inside. But ya, my idea wasn't fleshed out enough to withstand all of these questions. You guys can't expect me to actually have thought these things out before writing them on Ish. Sheesh.

Don't listen to the sheeple who'll blindly believe everything the government says.. You're one of the smartest posters on this site and we need more enlightened people like you :cheers:

[Jailblazers7]

Idk what the mortgage tax credit is exactly but if it is what I think it is.. then no, because having your taxes lowered or getting back some of your tax money back isn't "extra." That's just getting some of your own money back. That's why I laugh when people are like, "George Bush gave the rich people a gift by lowering their taxes." How is it a gift, to not steal as much of someones money as you were planning to? It's like if I steal your car, and say I'm giving you a gift by not killing your dog. lol. Makes me giggle inside. But ya, my idea wasn't fleshed out enough to withstand all of these questions. You guys can't expect me to actually have thought these things out before writing them on Ish. Sheesh.

Just curious, not trying to bust your balls or anything. It essentially operates the same way politically regardless if you are fine with it or not compared to something like a welfare program. The mortgage tax credit is something that benefits some (a sig portion of the population) and not others. It is something that has become entrenched in the tax code and it would be political suicide to end it.

Most economists agree that we would be better off if the mortgage tax credit because it screws with the real estate market.

[Sarcastic]

Do you realize how many businesses are subsidized by the government, and how many people work for companies that are subsidized? You'd probably eliminate ~100 million people from voting for working for businesses that COULD NOT be in business without government help.

[miller-time]

Idk what the mortgage tax credit is exactly but if it is what I think it is.. then no, because having your taxes lowered or getting back some of your tax money back isn't "extra." That's just getting some of your own money back. That's why I laugh when people are like, "George Bush gave the rich people a gift by lowering their taxes." How is it a gift, to not steal as much of someones money as you were planning to? It's like if I steal your car, and say I'm giving you a gift by not killing your dog. lol. Makes me giggle inside. But ya, my idea wasn't fleshed out enough to withstand all of these questions. You guys can't expect me to actually have thought these things out before writing them on Ish. Sheesh.

taxes aren't stealing though. if you owed me something would i be stealing if i took it? no you owe it to me. would i be not giving you something if i allowed you to keep it? i'd be giving you the right to not pay your obligation.

[joe]

taxes aren't stealing though. if you owed me something would i be stealing if i took it? no you owe it to me. would i be not giving you something if i allowed you to keep it? i'd be giving you the right to not pay your obligation.

Welllll, that can of worms has been opened a bunch of times already on here so, I sent you a PM. I tried to be concise but there was just a lot to say. Or maybe I'm bad at being concise. Hm. Anyway, it's pretty long so I don't blame you if you can't get through it. I had fun writing it at least, writing helps me organize my thoughts ;)

[joe]

Just curious, not trying to bust your balls or anything. It essentially operates the same way politically regardless if you are fine with it or not compared to something like a welfare program. The mortgage tax credit is something that benefits some (a sig portion of the population) and not others. It is something that has become entrenched in the tax code and it would be political suicide to end it.

Most economists agree that we would be better off if the mortgage tax credit because it screws with the real estate market.

lol No I know. I was being silly with that last line. But wait, I think you missed a word. Most economists think it'd be good to get rid of the tax credit? Or if we have it. Ya if you have an interesting article on it or something send it over mayn.

[Jailblazers7]

lol No I know. I was being silly with that last line. But wait, I think you missed a word. Most economists think it'd be good to get rid of the tax credit? Or if we have it. Ya if you have an interesting article on it or something send it over mayn.

Sorry meant to say better off without it. I dont have an article on hand but essentially it interfers with the market and raises rents and home prices.

[KevinNYC]

Sorry meant to say better off without it. I dont have an article on hand but essentially it interfers with the market and raises rents and home prices.

It's not a tax credit, per se, mortgage interest is an itemized deduction.

It allows you to reduce your tax bill. It lowers your taxable income.

A tax credit however, I believe works like a payment, which can be applies to your actual taxes (not just the taxable income, the tax is based on) and thus can also be refunded to you.

It is usually the first or second largest number on your itemized deductions with the deduction for state or local income taxes.


The result of it allows home ownership to more affordable to more americans.

[Heilige]

KevinNYC, I remember you said Karl Rove was a political genius; why do you feel he is? Would you recommend his book he wrote to learn more about his mind? I really don't know much about him.


Also, how does Ronald Reagan and John F. Kennedy compare to Bill Clinton in terms of being a public speaker and politician?

[KevinNYC]

thx for the cheers 8) , but I highly doubt Kevin doesn't have a good counter to what I said. Probably not something I'd agree with, but definitely something that makes sense within his own view of things. Mate. ha

See, I trust Joe to get my jokes. The main joke being we are never going to convince each other on here.

No, it's not going to happen for Joe on this message board. Years from now, he's going to bolt upright in bed from a deep sleep and exclaim:

BY GOD, HE'S RIGHT!

[Balla_Status]

US credit rating was downgraded again today.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/egan-jones-downgrades-us-rating-on-qe3-move-2012-09-14

[Balla_Status]

During the campaign a lot of people questioned Obama's ability to defend the country and go after the terrorists, and this was even coming from fellow Dems. Remember those 'late night call' ads that Hilary ran? Barack gave the order to cancel Bin Laden and there have been more Al Qaeda leaders killed under Obama's watch than there were under Bush, the organization's head has been effectively cut off.

Womp Womp

[KevinNYC]

KevinNYC, I remember you said Karl Rove was a political genius; why do you feel he is? Would you recommend his book he wrote to learn more about his mind? I really don't know much about him.


Also, how does Ronald Reagan and John F. Kennedy compare to Bill Clinton in terms of being a public speaker and politician?

I think he's a political genius because he got George W. Bush elected first as governor and then twice as President. That is an utterly staggering achievement. If you look at George W. Bush's early life there is nothing really to base a presidential run on outside of who's son he is. And even there you wouldn't have picked George W. to be the one who became President. Jeb Bush was seen by almost everyone who knew them to the logical choice. He was known as more serious and more capable and he, unlike W, had a successful business career. W. was not known as serious man, he was known as a partier and admitted that until age 40 he was an alcoholic. He was not a successful businessman, he had Karl Rove and Jeb didn't.

Rove basically created George W. Bush's public image. Rove has an incredibly fine-tuned atennae for what Republican voters respond to and that's what he molded Bush into. Why was W more successful than Jeb? Because Rove molded Bush's image after Ronald Reagan and not his own father. W. for psychological reasons was very happy to go along with this, because of his own issues with his Dad (His father very much preferred Jeb and was outspoken about his disappointment with W. There's a famous story about how one night W. drove home drunk with a trash can under his car while visiting his parents. He also had his 16 year old brother Marvin with him, who was also drunk. When his father woke up and confronted him, Bush challenged his father to a fistfight: "Let's go mano a mano.")

W. himself acknowledged that when he was thinking of running for governor, his biggest liability would be the question: "What's he ever done for himself?" To rectify this, Bush and Rove found a solution. George W. Bush became the owner and more importantly the public face of the Texas Rangers. How did Bush get enough money to do that? Answer: he didn't. He borrowed enough money to buy 1.8% of the Rangers and the agreement with the other partners was they would let him be the public face of the team as the managing general partner. That's not something that someone who owns 2% of a baseballteam is usually allowed to do. (I think Bush also put together the group that became the real majority owners.) The majority partners were actually happy to be in the background because having W as a partner would be extremely helpful politically and for their business. They were also probably happy to help a Republican with his political career. So for several years Bush sat in the stands with the fans and looked like just a regular guy. For the business partners, this visibility pays off, when the city of Arlington agrees to subsidize a new stadium to the tune of $135 million dollars which greatly increase the value of the team.

Thus after a couple of short years of not really owning a business, George W. Bush becomes a business success. Here's ne'er do well youth is washed away. He's on his way to become governor of Texas and then President of the United States. This is just one of the reasons, I think Karl Rove is a genius at politics given what he had to work with.

However, Rove is also an amazing liar, so I wouldn't recommend his book, though they may be some useful things in there. I would recommend Bush's Brain and The Architect which is a later book by the same author. I read Bush's Brain, but not The Architect.

Don't have time for more right now, but if you're interested I could make some other points.

[Heilige]

I think he's a political genius because he got George W. Bush elected first as governor and then twice as President. That is an utterly staggering achievement. If you look at George W. Bush's early life there is nothing really to base a presidential run on outside of who's son he is. And even there you wouldn't have picked George W. to be the one who became President. Jeb Bush was seen by almost everyone who knew them to the logical choice. He was known as more serious and more capable and he, unlike W, had a successful business career. W. was not known as serious man, he was known as a partier and admitted that until age 40 he was an alcoholic. He was not a successful businessman, he had Karl Rove and Jeb didn't.

Rove basically created George W. Bush's public image. Rove has an incredibly fine-tuned atennae for what Republican voters respond to and that's what he molded Bush into. Why was W more successful than Jeb? Because Rove molded Bush's image after Ronald Reagan and not his own father. W. for psychological reasons was very happy to go along with this, because of his own issues with his Dad (His father very much preferred Jeb and was outspoken about his disappointment with W. There's a famous story about how one night W. drove home drunk with a trash can under his car while visiting his parents. He also had his 16 year old brother Marvin with him, who was also drunk. When his father woke up and confronted him, Bush challenged his father to a fistfight: "Let's go mano a mano.")

W. himself acknowledged that when he was thinking of running for governor, his biggest liability would be the question: "What's he ever done for himself?" To rectify this, Bush and Rove found a solution. George W. Bush became the owner and more importantly the public face of the Texas Rangers. How did Bush get enough money to do that? Answer: he didn't. He borrowed enough money to buy 1.8% of the Rangers and the agreement with the other partners was they would let him be the public face of the team as the managing general partner. That's not something that someone who owns 2% of a baseballteam is usually allowed to do. (I think Bush also put together the group that became the real majority owners.) The majority partners were actually happy to be in the background because having W as a partner would be extremely helpful politically and for their business. They were also probably happy to help a Republican with his political career. So for several years Bush sat in the stands with the fans and looked like just a regular guy. For the business partners, this visibility pays off, when the city of Arlington agrees to subsidize a new stadium to the tune of $135 million dollars which greatly increase the value of the team.

Thus after a couple of short years of not really owning a business, George W. Bush becomes a business success. Here's ne'er do well youth is washed away. He's on his way to become governor of Texas and then President of the United States. This is just one of the reasons, I think Karl Rove is a genius at politics given what he had to work with.

However, Rove is also an amazing liar, so I wouldn't recommend his book, though they may be some useful things in there. I would recommend Bush's Brain and The Architect which is a later book by the same author. I read Bush's Brain, but not The Architect.

Don't have time for more right now, but if you're interested I could make some other points.



Thanks man, yeah I am going to check those book out.

Yes, I am interested in you making other points. later if you have time can you answer this part:

Also, how does Ronald Reagan and John F. Kennedy compare to Bill Clinton in terms of being a public speaker and politician?

[JaggerCommaMick]

I think he's a political genius because he got George W. Bush elected first as governor and then twice as President. That is an utterly staggering achievement. If you look at George W. Bush's early life there is nothing really to base a presidential run on outside of who's son he is. And even there you wouldn't have picked George W. to be the one who became President. Jeb Bush was seen by almost everyone who knew them to the logical choice. He was known as more serious and more capable and he, unlike W, had a successful business career. W. was not known as serious man, he was known as a partier and admitted that until age 40 he was an alcoholic. He was not a successful businessman, he had Karl Rove and Jeb didn't.

Rove basically created George W. Bush's public image. Rove has an incredibly fine-tuned atennae for what Republican voters respond to and that's what he molded Bush into. Why was W more successful than Jeb? Because Rove molded Bush's image after Ronald Reagan and not his own father. W. for psychological reasons was very happy to go along with this, because of his own issues with his Dad (His father very much preferred Jeb and was outspoken about his disappointment with W. There's a famous story about how one night W. drove home drunk with a trash can under his car while visiting his parents. He also had his 16 year old brother Marvin with him, who was also drunk. When his father woke up and confronted him, Bush challenged his father to a fistfight: "Let's go mano a mano.")

W. himself acknowledged that when he was thinking of running for governor, his biggest liability would be the question: "What's he ever done for himself?" To rectify this, Bush and Rove found a solution. George W. Bush became the owner and more importantly the public face of the Texas Rangers. How did Bush get enough money to do that? Answer: he didn't. He borrowed enough money to buy 1.8% of the Rangers and the agreement with the other partners was they would let him be the public face of the team as the managing general partner. That's not something that someone who owns 2% of a baseballteam is usually allowed to do. (I think Bush also put together the group that became the real majority owners.) The majority partners were actually happy to be in the background because having W as a partner would be extremely helpful politically and for their business. They were also probably happy to help a Republican with his political career. So for several years Bush sat in the stands with the fans and looked like just a regular guy. For the business partners, this visibility pays off, when the city of Arlington agrees to subsidize a new stadium to the tune of $135 million dollars which greatly increase the value of the team.

Thus after a couple of short years of not really owning a business, George W. Bush becomes a business success. Here's ne'er do well youth is washed away. He's on his way to become governor of Texas and then President of the United States. This is just one of the reasons, I think Karl Rove is a genius at politics given what he had to work with.

However, Rove is also an amazing liar, so I wouldn't recommend his book, though they may be some useful things in there. I would recommend Bush's Brain and The Architect which is a later book by the same author. I read Bush's Brain, but not The Architect.

Don't have time for more right now, but if you're interested I could make some other points.

While everything you said makes for good trivia, mate, you have yet again made ample time for frivolous discussion, yet continue to avoid questions from posters like myself and joe about the sustainability of entitlement spending, or the misuse of power by politicians who create financial incentive for certain groups to vote for them by using other peoples money.

When it comes to policy, mate, ya aint got a single contribution to make. When it comes to talkin about election strategies, poll data, quotes from so-and-so, and anything else you'd see discussed on a mindless cable news show designed for dummies, well you're just chalk full of it, huh mate?

Maybe that's why you're a bloody Femocrat, mate, because you spend 24 hours a day watching MSNBC and regurgitatin it, rather than takin a look at reality for yourself and develop some real principles and idears. That, plus you inhereted mediocrity and futility from your pathetic family of government dependent quitters and beggars.

[Sarcastic]

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/488208_468455526510486_1814305467_n.jpg


Notice how Reagan increased taxes in 1982, and the economy took off.

[joe]

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/488208_468455526510486_1814305467_n.jpg


Notice how Reagan increased taxes in 1982, and the economy took off.

Correlation does not equal causation. I could just as easily say that if Reagan didn't increase taxes, the economy would've been even better. You need a theory to back up the statistics. Why do you feel raising taxes can be good for the economy?

[joe]

See, I trust Joe to get my jokes. The main joke being we are never going to convince each other on here.

No, it's not going to happen for Joe on this message board. Years from now, he's going to bolt upright in bed from a deep sleep and exclaim:

BY GOD, HE'S RIGHT!

No no no no no, that will be you having an epiphany about free markets. Hey, I thought a single-payer option was a GREAT idea in 2008. I trust you'll be saying the same thing one day ;)

[Scoooter]

Correlation does not equal causation. I could just as easily say that if Reagan didn't increase taxes, the economy would've been even better. You need a theory to back up the statistics. Why do you feel raising taxes can be good for the economy?
Reagan cut taxes in 1981 (which to many seemed like a good idea at the time), and it was a failure - the economy completely stalled out (it even got worse by many metrics) before he raised them, substantially, in 1982.

Raising and lowering taxes aren't - or shouldn't be - ideological foundation stones, which is a huge problem with the modern GOP. They can be powerful economic tools - both the right move and the wrong move - depending on the situation in which they're implemented. The economy isn't some steady, static thing save only for the perturbations of government policy.

If the Republicans really thought the deficit was as big a problem as they're bloviations would suggest, they'd be willing to attack it from multiple angles, working angles - spending cuts (which they love so long as no actually useful cuts are made) and increased revenues. But as we saw with the debt ceiling fiasco, the right - specifically the lunatic Tea Party fringe that has hijacked moderate conservatives, seems more than willing to to torpedo the American economy for the sake of cheap political gamesmanship. How patriotic.

The economy isn't as bad as partisan gridlock might leave you to believe. The are real fixes available, but it's probably going to require some sacrifice. Less sacrifice than previous generations have had little problem making.

[JaggerCommaMick]

Reagan cut taxes in 1981 (which to many seemed like a good idea at the time), and it was a failure - the economy completely stalled out (it even got worse by many metrics) before he raised them, substantially, in 1982.

Raising and lowering taxes aren't - or shouldn't be - ideological foundation stones, which is a huge problem with the modern GOP. They can be powerful economic tools - both the right move and the wrong move - depending on the situation in which they're implemented. The economy isn't some steady, static thing save only for the perturbations of government policy.

If the Republicans really thought the deficit was as big a problem as they're bloviations would suggest, they'd be willing to attack it from multiple angles, working angles - spending cuts (which they love so long as no actually useful cuts are made) and increased revenues. But as we saw with the debt ceiling fiasco, the right - specifically the lunatic Tea Party fringe that has hijacked moderate conservatives, seems more than willing to to torpedo the American economy for the sake of cheap political gamesmanship. How patriotic.

The economy isn't as bad as partisan gridlock might leave you to believe. The are real fixes available, but it's probably going to require some sacrifice. Less sacrifice than previous generations have had little problem making.


Mate, there is a simple defined principle these people have that they want applied to people and government: Keep what you earn. Dont spend more than you make.

Is that no sensible?

"Attacking from miltiple angles" means either takin more of peoples earned money, or spendin more than you have. That violates the principle. The principle is intended to prevent disasters like Greece. Thats why its called conservative, mate. Greece, Spain, Italy, they are liberal with their entitlement spending, and look what happens? Same thing that happens to a regular bloke if he dont manage his money.

Femocrats just cant live with the idea that if you ask people to take care of themselves, many people just aint gonna put their mind to it and will live futily. Fems wanna create a sweeping babysitter mechanism so that nobody can **** themself up too badly. But to hold people up atthe bottom, you have to take from those above them. And that aint your place. Big business and the Catholc church are the largest donors to charity in America. Not loser liberals in flip flops with an accoustic guitar slung on their shoulder complaining about how people need to give more. Those clowns dont give squat. Big business and the church gives huge sums to charity without government mandate. Lower taxes and let entitlement programs be left to the reality of whether people are willing to support them. Thatll cut out tons of the fraud, mate. Right now the government forcibly takes your taxes and gives it to programs. You think these programs concern themselves with bein efficient with YOUR money? No. They flick it aroud in the air back in the breakroom and laugh. Then come back out with a serious face and play the class war game and talk about how many people need entitlements. Clown stuff, mates.

[KevinNYC]

Reagan cut taxes in 1981 (which to many seemed like a good idea at the time), and it was a failure - the economy completely stalled out (it even got worse by many metrics) before he raised them, substantially, in 1982.

Basically, the 1981 tax cut was the largest ever. The problem, however was not the economy, but the hole they blew in the federal budget. The deficit exploded so much that the next year Reagan had to sign the biggest tax increase ever. And even after this large tax increase in 1982 deficts remained high for the rest of the decade. The theory behind the large tax cut was that they would be able to pay for themselves. That is, they would raise enough revenue through increased economic activity, that by cutting taxes tax revenue would go up. The theory failed upon meeting reality. Same thing happened with Bush tax cuts too, they never generated enough activity to pay for themselves and the government went from a yearly surplus to a yearly deficit.

However, the tax cuts did not lead the recession. It's was Fed Chairman Paul Volcker's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Volcker#Chairman_of_the_Federal_Reserve) contractionary money policy. Basically, he wanted to wage war on the high inflation and even stagflation of the 1970's and it worked. The annual inflation rate in 1980 was 13.52% and by 1983 it was 3.22% However, to do this he had to really hit the brakes hard. Interest Rates hit 20%. However, once he stopped pumping the brakes, you could borrow money pretty cheaply again. Around about this same time the worldwide oil shock was being replaced by an oil glut where countries all over the world started producing more oil chasing profits from the high gas prices of the 1979 and 1980. The rebounding of the economy under Reagan was buoyed by these two things: with Cheap Oil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980s_oil_glut) and low inflation.

[KevinNYC]

New book on Rove just came out this month. (http://www.amazon.com/Boss-Rove-Inside-Secret-Kingdom/dp/1451694938/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1347735245&sr=1-2&keywords=karl+rove+books)

The epic 2012 presidential contest between President Barack Obama and Republican candidate Mitt Romney represents the stunning comeback of GOP boss Karl Rove, the brilliant political operator whose scorched-earth partisanship infamously earned him the moniker “Bush’s Brain” and provoked some observers to label him as dangerous to American democracy. How, after leaving the Bush administration in disgrace, did Rove rise again, and what does it mean that he is back in power? This timely, meticulous account by New York Times bestselling investigative reporter Craig Unger provides the surprising and disturbing answers.
KARL ROVE, the man who masterminded the rise of George W. Bush from governor of Texas to the presidency, who advised Bush during two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, who some claim helped seize the 2004 election for Bush, and who was at the center of the Bush administration’s two biggest scandals—the Valerie Plame Wilson affair and the U.S. attorneys scandal—is back.

Since exiting the Bush administration, Rove has quietly become the greatest Republican power broker in the country. His pulpit is much vaster than his role as a commentator on Fox News and his regular columns for the Wall Street Journal suggest. His real strength is his ability to mobilize immense sums through the SuperPAC American Crossroads and similar organizations, and channel that money on behalf of Republican candidates.

Knowing that Rove remains connected and powerful, Unger investigates Rove’s politically controversial activities of times past, shedding important new light on them, and shows their relevance to his activities today. He scrutinizes Rove’s roles in the Valerie Plame Wilson affair, the U.S. attorneys scandal, the strange events in Ohio on the night of the 2004 presidential election, and much more.

But now that Rove is back in control of GOP political strategy and funding, there are pressing new questions: How did Rove do an end around on the Republican National Committee and build his own more powerful organization? In what ways did he subtly and not so subtly influence the 2012 Republican primary process? What did he say (and do) regarding candidates Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum? How did he placate the Tea Party, which he privately despises, even as he cleverly marginalized its importance? How did he and Mitt Romney draw closer as the GOP convention neared? How will he further benefit from a Romney victory? And if Romney loses, why will Rove remain powerful? Unger has the answers.

As demonstrated in his previous books, Unger is adept at combining incisive reporting with the journalistic record to create a master narrative that sheds new light on a political subject. Detailed, fascinating, and entertaining, Boss Rove will interest not only readers who want to know more about the 2012 election but also those keen to understand the forces endangering American democracy. This up-to-the-minute journalistic report sheds crucial light on Rove’s vital behind-the-scenes role in this fall’s presidential election and in the future of American politics.

[KevinNYC]

Quote:
“I don’t think that we would consider them an ally, but we don’t consider them an enemy,” Obama said in the interview Wednesday.

probably a bit of both. they seem like a weak ally of the US. i'd say it was an undiplomatic assessment?

They are considered by law, an ally.

I saw someone say that this was essentially a veiled threat to the new government of Egypt. And after Obama said this, they were better about pushing the protesters back.

The threat was if you still want the foreign aid we supply, you better start performing.

[Jailblazers7]

It's not a tax credit, per se, mortgage interest is an itemized deduction.

It allows you to reduce your tax bill. It lowers your taxable income.

A tax credit however, I believe works like a payment, which can be applies to your actual taxes (not just the taxable income, the tax is based on) and thus can also be refunded to you.

It is usually the first or second largest number on your itemized deductions with the deduction for state or local income taxes.


The result of it allows home ownership to more affordable to more americans.

Yeah, thats I meant. My point was that economist think its a bad idea.

[LamarOdom]

Here we go again, Japan bought a Island that China feels belong to them and well some shit is about to go down, Japanese people living in China has been urged to stay home since they have been attacked.

Panasonic also closed down their production there after a mob attacked.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/china/Island-spat-Japanese-firms-targeted-in-China/articleshow/16443007.cms