Sesame, I think you might be missing the point of the article relative to Tracy's post.

The REASON that China -- as well as Russia and other now-vocal countries like Brazil among others -- are calling for an all-new "global currency" (as Tracy pointed out) is BECAUSE they are "holding more U.S. dollars and dollar securities than they do assets dominated in any other individual foreign currency" (to re-quote the article). They want to GET RID of all those dollar-based securities they're currently holding in their own banks. They want to DUMP them and no longer be tied to U.S. economics or market fluctuations. The problem is they can't do it now because of the crisis and the fact that so much of the world economy...including their own...is centered ON the dollar. Hence, they want to break FROM the dollar as soon as possible and create an all-new currency that they CAN control on their own terms.

The result being that Tracy's post is completely accurate in terms of the point she was trying to make. Things ARE going to get A LOT rougher in the days and years ahead as these countries do whatever they can to start dumping their dollars and dollar-based securities. And things will get A LOT rougher for America as these same countries likewise refuse to buy up our outstanding debt loads -- which again, is the cornerstone of our own system and it's what Obama desperately needs and is literally PRAYING will happen (ie. countries buying OUR debt) in order to keep our own economy afloat.

Democrats should have picked Hilary as their candidate. Right now, I would love to have her as president. And she's not even on my top 500 list.

Doubt
 

Ok, Creativemind, lets assume for a moment that America's economy is shaking right now;and lets also assume that this group of other countries including China buys US debt!! And then in one strategic sweep they cause a controlled meltdown of US economy, just like what happened to USSR! Is that possible? China is very ambitious now and its not a friend of America. If US falls as a superpower, guess who will be the next Big Boss? Do I sound like a conspiracy theorist? :p Ridiculous, or should I say, Riddiqulous? :D

Are the American politicians playing nine pins with the fate of their own country? Have the Democrats gone mad overnight with Obama on the lead? And are the "sharp witted & patriotic" Republicans watching everything sucking thumbs? Is Obama hell bent on a meltdown of the US? Or Is he keen on fixing the already tattered economy presented to him by Bush? Is the media trying to frame him by making the public misunderstand his plan with distorted facts and figures?

to answer your questions..........
 

the answers are within.

The Big Ballroom Drama
 

Ok, lets watch the NY house race and see who can draw the ball in his court!

Democrat Scott Murphy strongly supports Obama and the stimulus plan that would funnel $24.6 billion into New York to fund construction projects and help fill gaps in state education costs, among other things.

Recent Siena College poll found the Democratic president had a 65 percent approval rating in the traditionally Republican district. It was even higher ie, 72 % in Warren, Washington and Essex counties, which are strongly Republican. ;)

Risk factors:

The district has more than 196,000 registered Republicans compared to about 125,000 registered Democrats. There are more than 118,000 voters who aren't affiliated with either party.

Also, Republican Jim Tedisco, says the stimulus plan has a serious flaw _ the protection of bonuses to executives of bailed out companies like American International Group. That means sticking taxpayers with $165 million in lavish bonuses for failed executives at AIG! :eek: Well, thats what Jim Tedisco is bickering about.

China and other countries who hold our debt would certainly rather they did not have to abandon the dollar because they have so much of their wealth tied into the dollar. The fact remains though, the US will never be able to pay down its debt. Politicians have convinced the American people that they are entitled to so much from the government that we won't be able to decrease the amount we spend. Obama's administration now tells us we are entitled to succeed. Otherwise we'll get a bailout.

So while China and other countries would dearly love for us to pay back our debt, they will come to the realization that we will not. Maybe they have already come to this realization. It will certainly be painful for them to switch currencies, but more and more their economy, and the world's economy is based on trading US IOUs that they will realize is worthless. That cannot continue forever. Because of our recession and decreased demand for products from China, they are laying off millions. Meanwhile, the international community is wanting them to put environmental regulations in place while they produce for us. They have said they want us to foot that bill since we're the ones benefiting from it. So in the future, whether or not they decouple their economy from the dollar, they will agree to take on less and less of our debt.


If we add to the world economy, why is our debt increasing? If we can't produce tangible products, we're not going to lower our debt. We used to have a huge manufacturing base. Bit by bit companies have called on international companies to produce those products for tax reasons, fewer regulations, cheaper labor, etc. Just about everything you own has "Made in China" or somewhere stamped on it.

Alright, enough of this BS. The cause of the financial meltdown has been explain enough in this thread for whoever will read it. YOU prove that Bush caused the financial mess.

US Merchandise
 

I know something that the US is expert in producing in huge quantities; but I am sure they would'nt like to share this kind of technology with other rivals. Can you guess? ;)

Weapons of mass destruction, nuclear technology (I dont know where the raw materials come from) and stealth aircrafts. :D Yeah, the Nighthawks! Not many countries have such hi-tech toys. Frisbees, Wobblin Goblins, otherwise known as F117A! They have retired this model last year. :no:

The idea made for a pretty good Oliver Stone movie but I am sorry there was no conspiracy. Oswald was a loner with a twisted need to belong to something or anything to feel important. Unfortunately trained as a marine to be an expert with a rifle.

Sesame?? Are you there?

Yup! Todays' Reps are NOT our friends :-) They are a bunch of dinosaurs who feel so deeply hateful to a democratic world with an IQ above 5... to the neocon Reps this is all about two sides: either we're a bunch of socialist, marxist, muslim, gay, transsexual, anti-american terrorists or a good group of "God"-fearing, corrupt, totally-"patriotic", double-standard, laissez-faire capitalist fascists who weep like sheep when we hear a national anthem, put our devious hands over our devious hearts and pour our blood...... nothing in between... :-)

But good for the world that they had their kicks... and now are out of here... bloody undemocratic, hateful nazis...

Well, Reagan was different, but that's another talk. He was the last truly democratic Republican. He fucked up American economy, but he did end the cold war. That's his claim to fame - and a good one!

H

Obama Rulez

With BO's international tour and recent international events, we've found out something else he sucks at. Foreign policy. Why threaten to shoot down North Korea's missile if he's not prepared to actually do it? He looks like a fool now. Not that I really wanted him to shoot down North Korea's missile, but don't make the threat unless you can back it up.

Now he's discovering how useless the UN is.

Doesn't he have anyone who has a clue about international protocols that can advise him? When British Prime Minister Gordon Brown came to visit BO, he brought:
- a first edition of Sir Martin Gilbert's authorized biography of Churchill, all seven volumes of it.

- a framed commissioning paper for HMS Resolute, rescued by an American whaler in 1856 (part of HMS Resolute was later made into the desk presented by Queen Victoria to President Rutherford B. Hayes in 1880, and used by American presidents to this day).

- a pen holder fashioned from the timber of HMS Gannet, a sister ship of the Resolute that also served for a time on anti-slavery missions off Africa (if it weren't for this ship, Obama's ancestors from Kenya would likely have been made to be slaves in Arabia).

Obama's gifts to Brown?
- a special collector's box of DVDs containing 25 American movies
- toy helicopters modeled after Marine One from the Whitehouse giftshop for the PM's sons.

Michelle Obama then made the horrific mistake of touching the Queen. I don't see the big deal, but if that's against protocol, she should have been briefed (or perhaps she was).

Then after meeting the King of Saudi Arabia, the President of the United States prostrates himself and kisses the ring upon his hand.

Headlines from abroad:
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung:
Obama presented himself as a 'new kid on the block'... as a newbie who still had a lot to learn.

Suddeutsche Zeitung:
Obama's words have a certain degree of humility to them and sometimes even a slight meekness. Obama is not trying to make himself look like an important global leader, but instead is taking pains to speek in a clear and direct manner so as to avoid problems.

London Telegraph:
Isn't it time for him to go home yet?... His long stay means that we are hearing rather a lot from him, way too much in fact... I'll wager that within a year or so he'll be marked down as a wind-bag.

Frankly, I hope he makes his international tour permanent.

Giftshop Flops
 

Ah, gifts and presents from the US diplomats... Hmmm, it brings up the memory of the recent Clinton stupidity. When Secretary of State Hillary Clinton greeted Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in Geneva, she presented him with a big red & yellow ugly looking Reset button. On that button was engraved "peregruzka" in Russian.

Mrs Clinton said, "We want to reset our relationship and so we will do it together. We worked hard to get the right Russian word. Do you think we got it correct?" she asked Lavrov.

"You got it wrong," Lavrov said." Both diplomats laughed. "It should be "perezagruzka" (the Russian word for reset,) Lavrov said. "This says 'peregruzka,' which means 'overcharged.'":p

Something more on Bushbaby
 

Cowboy capitalism
always depended on subsidies to businesses
such as corporate farming, suburban development,
pharmaceuticals, energy and aerospace. George W. Bush
and the Republican majorities of the early 2000s simply
drove this essential hypocrisy to a disastrous extreme
by increasing deficits and allowing deregulated
financial markets to run wild. In the process,
they ruined the world economy
and pushed it off the edge.

Sesame, you're already skating on thin ice since you've made claims about Bush somehow being the sole cause of the financial crisis without backing any of it up with facts. Now what are you ranting about?

I looked up the first thing you wrote:
The facts don't seem to be on your side...
So who is practicing "Cowboy capitalism"? The democrats in congress? I won't waste my time with the rest of your rant since you'll probably want to rethink it, assuming you've thought about it at least once.

But let's get back to this:

A Sea Change
 

I voted for Obama and have no regrets. He is, excuse the cliche', the man for the times. He is one of the few - though certainly not the first - US President who could be described as such. American politics are dialectical and the history of the country is largely the history of the tensions and counter-tensions that comprise this process. While the majority of presidents have been centrists (Bill Clinton is a good example) there have been a small number who have pushed the country and the body politic too far from center. This has also happened as the result of the collective policies of a series of presidents (Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan, for example). But whether one or several, the necessary corrective is always the same: A presidential successor who creates a counter-tension that begins re-establishing the center (although not QUITE the same center as before but, ideally, a more democratic one).

The above could be described in Hegelian terms as Thesis, Antithesis and Synthesis. A historical example may help to illustrate this. John Adams (thesis) served the last four years of the Federal period, a time of centralized power in the Executive Branch. The exceedingly close election of 1800 (recall that it was decided in the House of Representatives and by a single vote) went to Republican (aka Anti-Federalist) Thomas Jefferson (antithesis). His election ushered in a period of States' Rights and a decidedly weaker national government. This in turn resulted in many years of centrist presidents and relatively calm politics (synthesis). Another such president was Andrew Jackson who successfully defeated Nicholas Biddle and vetoed the charter of the Second Bank of the United States, a bank that, had it gone on unchecked, could have conceivably owned the country. Other examples include Abraham Lincoln following the feckless presidencies of Fillmore, Pierce and Buchanan; The rigorously honest Rutherford B. Hayes following the corruption and cronyism of Ulysses S. Grant; Theodore Roosevelt fighting the entrenched second generation robber barons; And, in the memory of many people alive today, FDR following the ideologically bound Herbert Hoover. Thus each of these presidents served when policies or conditions had shifted so far from center as to make them untenable. The times called for a president who was sufficiently courageous and visionary to take the country in a decidedly different direction, toward real progress that can only come from synthesis.

Finally, it is my contention that Barak Obama is, or certainly has the potential to be, such a president. Following the economic excesses of deregulation and the cowboy xenophobia of George W. Bush, he is certainly off to a good start.

I don't know if I'd say he was off to THAT good a start. In the time he's been in office, Wall Street has actually gotten WORSE than it was under Bush, and so far -- despite committing the United States to a possible $3 TRILLION deficit for the coming fiscal year AND committing us to deficits of up to $1 Trillion per year for the next 10 years as well (all of which FAR EXCEEDS any spending excess that Bush was responsible for) -- the economy STILL hasn't stabilized. In short, for all that money spent, to date you got boopkiss. Nada. The big donut hole.

Look, Obama's our President so on a purely American level, I will root for the guy and hope he does a good job -- for ALL our sakes. I think that's a natural inclination most people have, to HOPE that their latest President won't turn out to be a total schlub. But so far his economic plans stink... some of his cabinet appointees are dubious at best, if not outright appalling... his foreign policy views are 180 degrees opposite from mine, so he's not gonna gain any points there... and now we have this whole brouhaha over the "torture memos", which is actually threatening to divide the country again and only polarize us even MORE.

But I have to hand it to the Left-leaning press yet again. I laughably love how they tilt every headline or byline to lean Obama's way to help the guy out...well, that is until you ACTUALLY read a news story with a discerning eye and take into account the ACTUAL facts.

Latest laughable example: yesterday the AP wire issued an article with the headline: Americans High On Obama; Direction of the US. The first two paragraphs of the article then stated: For the first time in years, more Americans than not say the country is headed in the right direction, a sign that Barack Obama has used the first 100 days of his presidency to lift the public's mood and inspire hopes for a brighter future. Intensely worried about their personal finances and medical expenses, Americans nonetheless appear realistic about the time Obama might need to turn things around, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll. It shows most Americans consider their new president to be a strong, ethical and empathetic leader who is working to change Washington.

The only problem is, that was an INCREDIBLE parsing of words. If you ACTUALLY read the REST of the article, buried down in paragraph NINE it then stated: And yet, the percentage of Americans saying the country is headed in the right direction rose to 48 percent, up from 40 percent in February. Forty-four percent say the nation is on the wrong track. Not since January 2004, shortly after the capture of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, has an AP survey found more "right direction" than "wrong direction" respondents. The burst of optimism didn't last long in 2004.

Huh? Excuse me? Let me get this straight. The HEADLINE states "Americans High on Obama and Direction of the US" and yet THEN you're telling me...almost as if purposefully trying to bury it in the article...that only 48% of the people actually feel that way. Which means that LESS THAN HALF of the country actually feels that Obama is doing okay. I mean, last I recall my high school math, 48 was still less than 50.

Not to mention, you're talking about a 48 to 44 split -- with 44% of the American people definitely feeling he's NOT doing a good job and the country is NOT headed in the right direction. That's nearly a tie right there. So why doesn't the headline more ACCURATELY say "100 days into Obama, Americans still evenly divided on direction of country." Oh, that's right -- because if you said THAT and actually told the TRUTH, then people wouldn't instantly be able to see a pro-Obama headline, which is what you want MOST in journalism to create a subliminal impression upon those who only skim headlines or the first two paragraphs of a news article.

And even MORE laughable is the fact that, as with any poll, the final line of the AP article also states -- again as if mumbling under their breath so you don't pay attention -- The AP-GfK Poll was conducted April 16-20 by GfK Roper Public Affairs and Media. It involved telephone interviews on landline and cell phones with 1,000 adults nationwide. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3.1 percentage points. Excuse me? A 3% margin of error? Gee, that means the split could actually be 45-44, meaning Obama still has LESS THAN HALF of the country supporting him and in fact its only a ONE POINT DIFFERENCE between the two opposing sides.

But hey, why quibble about the truth when it makes SUCH a better banner headline and reveals SUCH a more obvious bias to declare "Americans high on Obama; Direction of US" as opposed to being RESPONSIBLE journalists and more ACCURATELY saying (for example): "Confidence in US up; But still less than half revealing a bitter divide" or some such headline like that? Which would be the truth and would be FAR more reflective of the actual facts that the article itself put forth.

Either way, we're only 100 days in with over 1,000 left to go. And in that time, as I noted, the economy stinks... unemployment continues to worsen... news reports today indicate a new wave of credit card defaults are heading our way like a tsunami which could result in yet another massive bailout... home mortgage defaults and foreclosures are also up again... oh, yeah, and for all the smiling that Obama did overseas while saying "America was wrong in the past and I apologize for everything we've ever done", Europe STILL gave him the finger about helping to fight terrorism, and Iran is still that much closer to having an atomic bomb, which will surely destabilize the Middle East.

But hey, on the positive side, at least soon people will be able to PayPal money to someone they know in Cuba or maybe buy some cigars.

So, added together, I'm not ready to proclaim Obama the savior of our country quite yet OR even say how good (or bad) a President history will ultimately judge him to be. On the other hand, given the way he's going with his policies, I might need to make a sign soon, so I can get out there and participate in the big Fourth of July Tea Parties that will be coming up next. Simply because I'm just waiting for the other shoe to drop on the Obama tax and spend strategy -- ie. "Hey, guess what? Your taxes ARE gonna go up! BIG TIME! But hey, I smile nice and make you feel good, so I'm sure you won't mind me and Congress pilfering your wallets and bank accounts some more!"

100 Days
 

The first 100 days is always a significant milestone in a president's term. Obama's 100th day in office comes with him breaking a record.

Drum roll please....
The earliest recorded 'Debt Day'! Four days before BO's 100th day the bank will run dry. Let the borrowing begin. Nice one.

Obama is terrible, easily the worst president in my lifetime. The way that he has embarrassed and shamed the USA on the world stage is nothing short of disgusting.

The State sees all...
 

http://thehill.com/dick-morris/obama...009-04-21.html

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...9124802970.htm

The government couldn't find their ass with both hands behind their back. Hope you'll like the government run economy:frown:

State run newspapers aren't so bad, right?
Right?

Riiiiiiiight?

I find it amazing. Before the election and the inauguration, I couldn't go anywhere without running into an Obama supporter. Now everyone I talk to says "I didn't vote for him." Where did all of Obama's loyal masses go?

President Zero and the economy
 

A graphic representation.
http://i671.photobucket.com/albums/v...-handiwork.jpg

Yes! CHANGE you can believe in!

NOT.

Obama Budget Chief on Hill: Dems Plan to Scrap Middle Class Tax Cut
ABC News.com
March 25, 2009 4:45 PM

President Obama's budget chief hinted that the president's signature campaign issue - a middle class tax cut - will not likely survive a budget battle with Democrats on Capitol Hill.

On a conference call with reporters in advance of the President's trip to the hill to speak before the Senate Democratic caucus, OMB Director Peter Orszag indicated that while 98% of the budget mark-ups in the House and Senate are on par with the administration's budget blueprint, some campaign trail promises, like middle class tax cuts, may get left on the cutting room floor...

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...budget-ch.html

GEE sounds like everybody misses W, If so you can all suport the female verson of W named Sarah or you can all back another Bush named Jeb granted he's a little smarter then W but rest assured he is just as sneaky and as dishonest as his brother and just as quick to point his finger at someone else and say not my fault :no: Jennifer

Now for a little shot of reality, To start with he inherated a big mess that was not his doing, Where he ran into trouble started with him promising everyone the sun and the moon and had no idea how to keep them promises and worst of all he inherated a house and senate that will never put party aside to help the country the GOP refuse to accept any blame and keep yelling trickle down will fix everything and the dems just want to tax the rich which equals nothing but a big mess

Here is an insightful look into the economic collapse and our part in it.
http://arthurshall.com/x_2009_economy.shtml

Just for the record, Jen, as I stated in a post above, I think most Americans DO want to root on their new President...as I said before, most Americans DON'T want their newest President to turn out to be a total schlub...so I have no problem giving Obama a chance. As you noted in your other post here, there's no question that Obama certain inherited a lot of problems.

That said, the same is true of ALL Presidents inheriting things from their predecessor. We're talking about the most powerful nation in the world, the economic engine that likewise drives the world economy. So saying Obama inherited a lot of problems was certainly true of Bush, TOO. Lest we all forget out history, GW inherited a recession from Clinton that we likewise had to pull ourselves out of. Not to mention the Clinton years were the time when Al Qaeda first tried to topple the World Trade Center using a van bomb, after which they regrouped, they acquired their funding, they entered the country illegally, they took their flight school training (all of which happened under the radar screen of Clinton) and then once Bush was in office only 8 or so months...when he was the new guy on the job...he was faced with the consequences of the 9/11 attacks.

So, I can appreciate the magnitude of what Obama is facing AS President of the United States. The weight on his shoulders is more incredible than most could ever bear, and there's a definite reason every President -- even if they only serve one term -- goes in looking vigorous and full of life, and then comes out looking haggard with stress lines all over their face, their hair now completely gray.

For the record, my personal gripe with Obama is that I just felt the Left...and certainly the Left-leaning media...did SUCH a pile-on whenever it came to Bush, which started from the day he did win Florida and he did legitimately beat Gore (and yes, for those on the Left, regardless of the Supreme Court hearings, they ultimately DID go back and recount ALL of the Florida ballots, which only served to prove that Bush DID win the state. In fact, once the full recount was done, Bush's margin of victory actually TRIPLED over Gore. Don't believe me? Feel free to Google it.) So, to my mind, that's where much of this animosity began. It began in an election where the Left was SO angry that Gore lost, and they only became even MORE embittered when Bush beat Kerry -- and let the record show that Bush won BOTH the electoral college AND the popular vote there, so there was NO disputing that he had fairly won.

My problem with Obama goes to a phrase that I believe Michelle Malkin, a conservative blogger, gets credit for creating. Namely, the Obama years are now about a "Savior based economy", where somehow Obama is going to "save us" from ourselves -- which frankly, is a presumptuous and arrogant attitude that I wouldn't tolerate from ANY politician or ANY party. There's nothing I hate more than any politician who feels they know what's better for you than you do, or that they know how to spend your money better than you do. Which is why you see so many of us groaning about Obama because these attitudes were the CORE of his campaign while running, which many bought into. Hell, they obviously bought into the sales pitch -- that's how he got the votes and won. And frankly THAT'S what actually TERRIFIES me about Obama. An elected politician is just that -- he's an elected person. He'll run the clock and then be out of office. But the bottom line is that he's just a MAN, not a sainted "savior". And the fact that Obama labeled himself "The One" makes me raise an eyebrow about an ego run amuck.

And here's another reason you'll see many of us bitching. As it's been often noted in this thread, currently HALF of the country does NOT pay taxes AT ALL. Seriously, stop and think about that -- for all the griping that people always do about their taxes and whatnot, you literally have a 50-50 shot -- the next time someone bitches to you about their taxes -- of turning to them and saying, "Wait a minute. Did you actually PAY anything?" and havign them turn to you and answer, "Uh...no, actually I didn't have to pay anything at all."

So what we're REALLY seeing at work here...what's FINALLY being played out on a national level and ripping us (as a country) even further apart...is a true class warfare battle. Those on the Left like to label it a war of "The haves versus the have-nots" to make it sound more humanistic. Meanwhile, those on the Right like to label it "Those who work hard versus those who are expecting a free hand out."

So, its not that people necessarily wish that W was back in power. For crying out loud, he DID piss off many of us on the Right for how much he DID spend himself. And THAT'S why you're seeing so many of us bitching even LOUDER now. Because it's all about the money we're spending and where it's going. When it comes down to that, I almost do wish Bush was back in office simply because W creating a $900 Billion deficit isn't even in the same league as Obama creating a $3 TRILLION deficit for this year alone -- not to mention he and the Democrats in Congress have ALSO committed us to deficits projected to be $1-1.5 TRILLION for each of the next 10 years TOO. And let me repeat that: that's what they project them to be, which given the way our government usually fouls things up and the way they can never add up a column of numbers doing basic math, that means the deficits will likely be MUCH HIGHER.

So again, it's not that I want Bush back, but for crying out loud given the choice between a guy who had a cowboy way of walking and talking and who served up $900 Billion in debt VERSUS a slick talking Harvard lawyer who now is trying to mandate how everyone will have to live their lives, who in comparison is serving up a $13 TRILLION debt (or more) all to accomplish his personal visions about social engineering -- gee, this one really isn't TOO hard for me to pick between.

This is an argument neither of us can win so i'm won't even try. But to clear a little about myself first i'm not a dem or rep i'm a independent and have been since i was old enough to vote, What party a canadate belongs to makes no nevermind to me i vote on what the person will do and what they stand for, I never liked W mainly because in 2000 he struck me as an idiot and in 08 i didn't care for Obama because i found him lacking he gave great speeches but he always lacked what he would do and how he gave promises but no clear answer to how he would do it .But as he has only be in office for under a 100 days i'm still ready to wait and see. Regaurdless on which side you are on it took awhile to get into this mess and it will take awhile to get out

I see you got it wrong too.
That's "CHAINS you can believe in."

[quote=franalexes;79451]No he's right. President Zero said he'd bring change; he just never specified if it was change for better or for worse.

There's that common claim that is very rarely backed up. That W is dishonest. He may not be the brightest bulb of the bunch, but I haven't seen evidence of dishonesty. No, I wouldn't want Palin. Too green (not as green as Obama though), and way too religious. Forget all that. I want someone who is experienced, who is a fiscal conservative, who is pro-science, has a strong foreign policy, has a diverse energy policy and is not a bible thumper. Someone who is not likely to require me to pay someone elses mortgage. Someone who does not spend us into oblivion and threaten the stability of the dollar. No, this does not describe a republican (unfortunately), but they are the closest to what I'm looking for.

This whole spending your way out of debt thing is insane. NO ONE would try this themselves. If you had all your credit cards maxed out, can you seriously tell me that you would spend more to solve your problem? Of course not. Yes Obama inherited a recession. My problem with him is that what he's doing will turn it into a depression, and worse, might even cause the dollar to collapse.

Obama and the democrats are on a mission to change what this country is. They have twice already threatened to retroactively punish people for laws they are just now pulling out of their ass, which is a violation of the constitution, and they are also violating the 10th amendment by making demands on state legislatures. They also want to move control of the census to the Whitehouse under the control of their campain strategist, and enlist ACORN (already being charged for voter fraud) to work with the census. Why would they do this? Because this is one step below a hostile government take over. The hostile take over may come later with the voluntary mantetory corps that Obama wants to start. See story here. This is VERY scary stuff.

I'm already having trouble recognizing this government anymore. Who are being financially punished? Corporations who are driving this economy. Who is on their terror watch list? US veterans, our country's finest, coming back from putting their lives on the line for this country. Who does Obama extend a hand to, or kiss the hand of? Saudi Royalty, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez. And of course Bill Ayers & Reverend Wright.

True, he inherited the financial problems. He inherited it from Carter, who started the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), and from Clinton who strengthened it at the strong urging of ACORN - the group who comes from the same Chicago cesspool that Obama, Bill Ayers & Rev. Wright came from. ACORN used the CRA to force banks to]make loans to people who could not afford them. Clinton required banks to do this. And yes, Alan Greenspan is also to blame for artificially inflating the housing bubble. Democrats have been telling us all along how secure Freddie Mac and Fannie May are while Republicans have been warning us of the problems (and calling for regulations). Don't believe me? See this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hN31-nKndg8

There's a word for that: Dishonest.

The house and senate are firmly democrat. Perhaps the GOP refuse to accept the blame because it was Carter & Clinton who created the problem. Perhaps the GOP favors the trickle down strategy because it worked under Reagan, after Carter nearly financially ruined the country using policies that were less ambitious than what Obama wants to do.

The latest Barack blunders....
The swine flue pandemic is here and BO still does not have anyone confirmed to head the Health & Human Services or the Center for Disease Control. But then again, that might be a good thing considering who he put in charge of Homeland Security.

Then he pulls another stunt in New York City. They had Airforce One flanked by two fighter jets buzzing the location where the World Trade Center stood. The FAA knew about it, but were told not to tell anyone. People were frightened and evacuated buildings by the thousands. Dumbass!

Well the nomminee is on hold do to a few GOP who don't like her stand on abortion and the plane stunt was not his doing someone thought they needed new photo's of airforce 1 and yes it was stupid but not his doing

I will say that the GOP are obsessed with abortion. It could be the head of Nasa they're confirming and they'll ask what his stance on abortion is.

Arlen
 

Finally a wised up Republican, Arlen Specter:yes:

from Yahoo News
Deep red. But keeping the government in deficit is exactly what Reagan did. Despite his years of lip service to balancing the budget, total discretionary spending had climbed almost 16 percent by the time he left office, dwarfing the Carter budgets he had once criticized. Revenues, limited by Reagan's tax cuts, were never able to keep pace. The result was a spiraling national debt that nearly tripled during his two terms, hitting $2.7 trillion.

Some of Reagan's aides, including William Niskanen, the former chairman of Reagan's council of economic advisers, believe there is a simple explanation for these growing deficits: Reagan's tax cuts simply did not do what supply-side economists said they would do. Because the cuts didn't substantively increase tax revenues, they didn't allow Reagan to shrink the deficit. They also didn't decrease the size of government by choking off spending. "The 'starving the beast' hypothesis is understandably popular among politicians--that you can have tax cuts without a deficit increase--but it's just empirically wrong," says Niskanen, now chairman emeritus of the Cato Institute. "That idea has destroyed for several decades the traditional Republican commitment to fiscal responsibility."

This, many historians believe, may be Reagan's real legacy. "The combination of military spending, tax cuts, and ultimately a failure to control most domestic spending led to a fiscal straitjacket by the end of the decade," says Zelizer. In 1991, Reagan's successor, George H. W. Bush, was forced to increase taxes to close huge gaps in the budget, but government debt still climbed past $4 trillion on his watch. When George W. Bush adopted a Reaganesque economic policy, with Dick Cheney, early in his first term, famously saying that "Reagan proved deficits don't matter," more tax cuts and more spending led to even more debt. By the time Obama took office, the federal government was more than $11 trillion in the red.

The lesson of Reaganomics, in other words, may be a simple one. In times of economic crisis, all roads seem to lead to the same place: deficits. The real test of a president and his economic policy, historians say, is what happens to those deficits when the economy recovers. For all of his many successes--and for all the support his ideas still enjoy on Capitol Hill--that is a test Reagan seems to have failed.

The Elephant is Becoming Extinct.
 

The Republican Party is fast marginalizing itself into oblivion. Unless they begin to broaden their base -and fast- they will go the way of the Federalists and the Whigs. And, despite the fact that my personal politics are left of center, I do NOT wish for this. American politics are dialectical and work best when the opposing parties are competitive. If I was a Republican I would want Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber to take a house by the sea together. Rush Limbaugh I would encourage to take an early retirement and a vow of silence. Then I would encourage the moderates (and there actually are some) to begin finding their voice, a voice that acknowledges both Science and the fact that Ronald Reagan does NOT belong on Mt. Rushmore. They are in the desert now largely because for eight years they blindly followed the bidding of a near idiot. But they don't have to stay there.

Gop
 

I agree, a viable two party system is essential for our democratic system. The Republicans from Regan on have tried to destroy the two party system (aka Carl Rove). Compromise and reconciliation kept this country going since its inception. If the GOP can't free itself from Limbaugh (et all) then another party needs to be created to replace it. The Grand Old Party has become a white elephant. How about the LBR party (lets be reasonable). ;)

Well, to be a bit fair to the GOP, a big backbone to their support are pro-life religious groups and the GOP has definitely staked out the ground as being the anti-abortion party. That said, the so-called nominee on hold -- Kathleen Sebelius, who as of yesterday has been approved -- was someone who has repeatedly stated she's pro-life, a devout Catholic and personally against abortion...and yet her record as Governor of Kansas shows the direct opposite and that she's pretty much every pro-life person's worst nightmare legislatively speaking. Not to mention, she has likewise taken campaign contributions from a rather repugnant abortion doctor well-known and well-documented for performing exceedingly late term abortions, even if they skirted the law -- and she lied about the size of the contributions.

Then again, she ALSO didn't pay her taxes properly.
But hey, that's almost a REQUIREMENT now to be on Team Obama...

The GOP being the pro life party is the biggest sham ever pulled second only to they don't want tax money. Just think if the GOP ever really baned it then they'll lose there biggest get the troops to the poles and they would loose the biggest non issue to talk about you had the sawed off runt W you had the senate and the house and you have the unsupreme court 5/4 and yet W didn't ban it for Rev Farrwell that alone tells me the GOP is playing the pro lifers as chumps

Blame game
 

From Washington Monthly

STEELE TAKES GOP TALKING POINTS OFF THE TABLE.... One of the more common concerns voiced by conservatives, especially at the recent "Tea Parties," relates to bailouts. Republicans on the Hill have tried to pick up on this, and distance the party from the practice.

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele decided to step on his party's message quite a bit this morning.

Michael Steele says the GOP would be "disingenuous" if it blamed Democrats for poor economic performance, since Republicans started the bailout process in the first place.

"Look, we can't go back out and start pointing fingers at Democrats and saying, 'Look how bad they're performing, look at what they're doing with the economy,' when we jumpstarted this thing," Steele said on MSNBC's Morning Joe. "We were the ones that put the $700 billion on the table and said, 'All right, let's start nationalizing the banking system.'"

Added Steele, "So now, for us to stand back and go, 'Oh, that's a bad thing to do' is disingenuous."

I suppose this is intended to be candor. To hear Steele tell it, Republicans are owning up to the moments where its actions were inconsistent with its principles. Perhaps there's some value in that.

But the Republican goal of late is to connect the majority to the unpopular bailouts, and blame Democrats for poor management of the economy. The RNC chairman just went on national television to say those criticisms against Democrats just aren't fair and aren't even accurate.

Maybe Steele is a DNC plant? :lol:

Well, keep in mind that the pro-lifers have nowhere else to go. I mean, they CERTAINLY can't go to the Democratic party -- after all, part of the Democratic platform that gets ratified at each and every convention is a formal legal statement that the party will absolutely, positively stand behind pro-choice stances, including even expanding abortion rights.

So, the pro-choicers are sort of between a rock and a hard place. To them, abortion is an issue nearest and dearest to their heart, but unfortunately they're swimming against a strong tide. The problem they have is that while every poll shows that most Americans are actually AGAINST abortion -- that is, the larger number of Americans would obviously like to see the number of abortions that get performed each year drastically reduced -- all the same, most people ALSO tend to think it should still be a personal decision that gets left up to a person/couple.

I mean, it's just one of those classic political quandaries. Do you like Obama? Right now, the polls show that a majority of people DO. Do you like Obama's policies and the direction of the country? The same polls show that people DON'T. At which point you're left scratching your head and saying, "Huh? How can you have both?" Abortion is the same -- ask people if they are against abortion, the majority say "Yes." Ask them if you think it should therefore be outlawed to support that viewpoint, then they suddenly say "No."

I always find it funny that the GOP claims they are the party of freedom and they believe that goverment should have no say in peoples lives yet they want to ban same sex marrige and ban abortion isn't that goverment saying how to live your life? Where's the freedom to marry who you love? And where's the womans choice to have or not have a baby? FYI i'm not in favor of abortion and i not in favor of an out right ban mainly because every case is differnt and sadly at times it's the best for those involved talking about medical reasons Jennifer

Not all republicans were for the bailout. They could have changed the accounting system to one that makes more sense, and that would have instantly erased a lot of the money problems.

There was also pork in those bills but not like the obama stimulus packages. That supported every pet democrat project ever thought up plus gave a reward to everyone who supported BO.

I agree with you there. If the GOP favors small government, then they shouldn't be trying to dictate social issues like that and religion. I don't think they have a consistent philosophy driving all their policies.

Trillionize
 

From Greg Laden
According to a Washington Post/ABC poll, only 21% of Americans identify themselves as Republicans. That is getting dangerously close to the percentage of Americans who believe they have seen UFOs or alien craft or have been abducted by aliens. I think they may be the same individuals.

Gee, could Fox news and Rush losing their devotees?
Or, is just plain reality setting in.

My grand parents were republicans, my parents were republicans and I voted for Eisenhower. Since then the grand old party has lost its true conservatism. Then conservatism meant fiscal and social responsibility. Now it means cut taxes and spend more money (irresponsible Reaganomics), pander to right wing extremists and sell out to corporate interests. Obama extended a hand to the republicans and they refused it now they are marginalized. The democrats are free to trillionize the budget. Oops, did I say budget? There ain't no budget! All we can do is hang on to the handle bars because the brakes are gone and there are blind curves ahead. We might as well enjoy the ride because we cant turn around and we cant get off. Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! :eek:

Look for things to really get ugly, The first of the unserprem court has handed in his letter now the fur will be flying i can hear RUSH'S ditto heads screaming there goes our country :eek: Jennifer

You don't think that those 79% that don't identify themselves as republican think like you do, or like BO does do you? I would be one of the 79% who does not consider myself a republican.

Well, it's sort of interesting that you would call it "irresponsible Reaganomics" given that the Reagan years DID account for some of the most robust economic growth in all of American history, not to mention Reaganomics DID pull us out of the utter financial catastrophe that was named Jimmy Carter.

And I wouldn't be so worried about that 21% identification number. In politics, it all changes on the stop of a dime. In fact, here's a historical footnote to consider: that's the SAME percentage that existed back when Nixon left office due to Watergate, which ironically set the stage for Carter's election. And yet it only took 4 simple years of Carter being the total fuck-up that he was for him to turn the country against him, at which point Reagan rode into office on a vote that now saw the country completely flip-flopping once again and becoming anti-Democrat. And of course, four years after that Reagan won reelection in a 49 state landslide that saw a return of sky Republican "voter identification" percentages.

Oh, and one more thing for the record. While the news media (in particular the New York Times) is so "enchanted" with Obama's first 100 days in office, right now he actually has LESS of an approval rating than Jimmy Carter did at his 100 day mark. And again, we all know how well things worked out there!

Oh here we go agian let slam Carter and maybe they'll let up on slaming Bush, I got news for you the lousy 70 ecomy started in the early 70s under Nixon and Ford so Carter inherted the problems and trurt be told Jimmy Carter on his worst day was a 1000 times better then George W Bush, And you want to know why the NY Times is overjoyed with Obama's first 100 days? It easy to see after 8 years of disater named George W Bush the most hated and worst US president of all time who should have been impeached. :yes: Jennifer

Well at least you're hot.

Impressive. 50 years ago they made a cartoon about Obama's term.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WB6p5QPVhPI

Did that poll mention how many Americans consider themselves as members of a third party or as independents? Because I myself have become fed up with the two mainstream parties in recent years, and I'd assume a number of others have feld the same way.

XonDemand
 

he is doing his job...

can not get any worse

ism
 

Apparently you are equating Obama's program to communism. Pouring billions of dollars into weak and failing capitalist companies in order to bail out our capitalist system hardly seems communistic. :frown:

Was just watching Lou Dobbs on CNN and it sounds like things are slowly picking up but sadly the job market is still lagging but then with all the out sourcing that's not surpising, So looks like Obama's plan is working :D Jennifer

Well, actually that's EXACTLY the definition of why his programs ARE communistic (or socialistic since others like to slap that label on things as well).

Pure and simple: if capitalism was allowed to work -- and given a chance to properly re-balance itself exactly as a capitalistic system SHOULD -- then Obama should NOT be pouring billions of dollars into these "weak and failing companies" you're talking about. Instead, by the pure definition of capitalism, these companies SHOULD be allowed to fail or go under completely -- or at the very least as we're now seeing with Chrysler, be forced into filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in order to TRY and survive, but do it through actual across the board reorganization efforts.

For example, and again using Chrysler, instead of wasting billions and billions of taxpayer dollars on them which simply got flushed away for nothing (which is what we've done to date), they should have received NO bailout...they should have been forced into Chapter 11 much sooner...at which point a Bankruptcy Judge would have had the court appointed power to say to all concerned: "Okay, Management, this is what YOU now have to do to save this company, the sacrifices I'm ordering you to make...okay, dealerships, this is what YOU have to do and the sacrifices you have to make...oh, ye! And you Union people, I'm also ordering YOU to renegotiate and restructure your contracts for the same reason. You want to save your jobs, these are the concessions you'll have to make TOO."

Would it have been painful for Chrysler to do a Chapter 11 sooner?
Yes, but look where we are -- we've wasted billions and now we ARE at that same place.

Would it have put people out of work?
Yes, but that is now going to happen ANYWAY.
So again, we've now wasted BILLIONS of dollars simply delaying the inevitable.

Is this the proper way to do things?
Yes, because you're now letting the actual market decide. That's capitalism at work. Well, unless you're like Obama and you believe in propping up companies that continue to manufacture products that nobody wants to buy, so now the government sticks its nose in and says "Ah, fuck it. We'll keep it afloat just for the hell of it. Here, take some free money on us."

And if that's what Obama supporters believe in, please PM me and tell me where I can get or download the filing forms to apply for some of these bailout funds. Because if I knew that I could get free money from the government that would just be given to me to continually produce a product that no one has any interesting in actually buying or owning, I would have gotten in on this gravy train a long time ago!

So bailing out the US automakers is socialism but W bailing out wallstreet wasn't? All that was need was more GOP leadership and Regannogmics after all look what 8 years of deregalation and trickle down did for us Regan's trickle down only lead to a sea of red ink in the 80s and W was even worse but it appears that the GOP is fine with a sea of red ink as long as there is tax cuts for billonairs but the moment a dem gets in power all of a sudden they are worried about the debit

Except that it's not the same thing, Jen. The core reason for bailing out Wall Street is that it served a UNIVERSAL purpose across the board -- in short, we ALL have money invested in Wall Street (whether you like it or not, things like your pensions and college saving funds and whatnot are back-boned BY Wall Street and as stocks and bonds). Not to mention, we obviously ALL keep our money in banks. So again, you can't let the financial system melt down because of the ripple effect it could have across the ENTIRE economy -- not to mention the fact that MILLIONS and MILLIONS of people would be losing their savings and pensions and whatnot. So propping up the banking system only makes sense. Though I would agree that paying out extravagant bonuses should be cut off. After all, you don't deserve a bonus for "a job well done" if your company is taking billion dollar losses.

ON THE OTHER HAND...if you let companies like Chrysler go under -- or as I noted above simply let them slip into a Chapter 11 for financial protection from creditors while they reorganize themselves -- that serves three purposes.

First, the market is self-correcting itself, which is always the healthiest way to fix an economy.

Second, you're not taking public taxpayer money and using it to prop up a private company. Which is always bad because then you've entered the slippery slope of "Why should my tax dollars go to saving Chrysler? Hey, my local florist shop down the block is going under. So if we're just gonna give out money to businesses that can't sustain themselves...that can't drum up the business they need to stay afloat...then why doesn't he get a few hundred grand from the government to stay in business TOO? Why give Chrysler money, but not the next guy in line?

Answer: Because if you DO give it to the next guy in line, just how long of a line are you intending to create? What is the cut-off point? And, in turn, just how much of the public's taxpayer dollars are you planning to continually spend?

And third, unlike propping up the banks, no one is hurt by Chrysler going under -- well, aside from the actual workers, but that's the price ANY company pays for going under. My point being, there is MORE THAN ENOUGH competition out there, which means that even if Chrysler goes under nobody's buying choices are impeded upon. You will still have PLENTY of choices from whom to buy a car. So the consumer isn't affected either. Hell, look at it this way: the consumer is obviously NOT affected by Chrysler going under since by pure logic the very reason that they are folding is BECAUSE they were building something that no one wanted.

Reagan inherited one SERIOUSLY fucked-up mess from Jimmy Carter, and yet still turned things around and oversaw one of the largest expansions of economic growth in all of American history. People were HAPPY with the Reagan years, which would explain WHY he won over Carter and only 4 years later won reelection in a 49 state crushing landslide. And keep in mind that to this day, in all polls of the American people, Reagan STILL comes out as one of the top 5 FAVORITE Presidents in all of American history.

Now, did Reagan leave a deficit? Sure he did. But he also had to fix so many of the things that Carter screwed up that he had to spend even as we were growing. But even the amount Reagan left was able to be reigned back in by Clinton and the Newt Gingrich-led GOP Congress, which only goes to show that Reagan deficit was actually something that was manageable. In other words, Reagan spend "about" the right amount. So to compare the Reagan deficit to W. Bush's isn't accurate -- they weren't even in the same league.

Furthermore, if you've followed this thread, you'd see that those of us that are more Conservatively minded WERE mad at W. (and still are) for the spending that he did. Hey, we're playing fair. That's why he pissed us off, too. In the end, Bush spent too much and created a $1 TRILLION dollar deficit all his own.

Of course, right now I'd be ECSTATIC if we only had Bush's deficit to deal with. Because now we've got Obama who is just one year alone...hell, in just the first 4 months of his administration...will now TRIPLE that number to between $2.5 and a full $3 Trillion.

And even more jaw-dropping and truly insane, Obama's economic plan calls for trillion dollar deficits every year for the next 10 years. So if we're gonna do a side-by-side comparison, Bush's ONE trillion deficit compared to Obama's THIRTEEN trillion looks amazingly great right now to a helluva lot of people and economists, most of whom are now actively using the phrase "an unsustainable deficit" because they feel this is all going to come back and SERIOUSLY bite us in the ass over the next decade, as the bills come due on Obama's programs.

So, I'm glad you think CNN told you things are getting better -- but they're not. The only reason Wall Street was up about 200 points today is because the housing market numbers weren't nearly as bad as people expected...the only problem being, the only reason they WERE good is because some of the TARP money was reaching banks (and in turn lenders) to close on pre-existing and outstanding home sale mortgages. The problem with that being that many of the people now getting these bank loans -- in other words, who had their paperwork held up -- are just like the people who got us into the mess to begin with. Namely, they shouldn't be buying homes anyway. So in some regards this is like a dog chasing his own tail and running in circles. Once again, we're only setting ourselves up for another fall down the road.

And the other reason Wall Street was up today was because people were scrambling to scoop up stocks before the Treasury Department officially releases the banking industry "Stress Test" results -- which the Obama crew purposefully held back because it's already been leaked that the banks they tested did NOT do as well as it had been hoped, and thus even MORE tax payer money will probably have to be given to them.

Jimmy Carter recieved the fucked up mess from Ford/ Nixon which you smean to overlook and Regan left a hugh sea of red ink but you say that's fine BUT when Obama recieved his hugh fucked up mess from W and his crew you cry foul because he's spending to much well BS you're pissed off that Obama won and you were the sameway when Clinton won and wecked your dreams of a hundred year reign of straight GOP ruling the whitehouse. Now if trickle down is so wonderful why the mess from W after 8 years of trickle down? Because you can have two wars and only give hugh tax cuts to the super rice and jam it up everyone elses rear end , So fine you hate Obama because he's going to undo every fucked up mess created by W but you have W to thank because he destroyed your party and he's why Obama won hopeful they bring warcrimes up on him :yes: Jennifer

Wait till the tax payers get the bill.

W shouldn't have had to bail out wall street. This isn't really a capitalistic system though is it? Not after the government has already stepped in and required banks to make loans to minorities who were not able to repay the loans. After that happened, it wasn't purely capitalism anymore.

Jen, we've already gone over regulation, yet you keep holding on to that myth. Republicans were asking for regulation. Dems didn't want it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hN31-nKndg8

As for the rest, Obama's red ink is 2.5 times greater than the red ink from all of Bush's 8 years - including Bush's wall street bailout. Please explain how this debt is no worse than W's debt?

Obama spending
 

Hey Jen,
Very well put!
I love you. :inlove::hug::kiss:

*** replace the above hypocritical quote with the quotes below and I think you've got it Randolf ***

Yes Jennifer, but...

You people provide such great entertainment :respect:

The idea that this debt can be paid off by the end of his first term is to silly to comment on and even with a best case serino he'll only mange to pay down half the debt but in realty i think 1/3 is possiable if both parties trim the pork and tell the special intrests groups to shove off, I feel one hugh savings can be made if we stop all perks to illegal aliens we have enought problems helping US citizens, And another way is only giving tax cuts and credits to companies that has they whole work force here in the US keep the jobs here and then you'll collect more tax rev

quotes
 

Well, I guess that's what we are here for. :lol:

Anyway, I read where the current massive spending is a smaller percentage of GNP than what Roosevelt spent in the 1930s. In the 1980s I thought the Reagen debt was the end of the world but Clinton helped clear that up. Supposedly, the recovery from the 1930s depression took so long was that Roosevelt didn't spend enough!

By the way, its fun to chat with intelligent conservatives, they are so rare nowadays.:respect:

Reagan worship
 

From Washington Monthly

BEYOND THE ICONS.... In light of the silly Republican in-fighting this week over whether or not to obsess over Ronald Reagan, MSNBC's "First Read" said, "The issue of Reagan reminds us of the Kennedy-obsession Democrats had for decades. One could argue it took the Democrats nearly 30 years to kick the Kennedy habit (maybe longer). So, this Reagan issue may take the Republicans another 10 years to get over."

That's probably a misread on how Dems perceive JFK. Jonathan Chait explained:

The Democratic obsession with the Kennedys is/was primarily stylistic. It recurs whenever a young, stylish presidential candidate makes people feel inspired. It is not, and really never has been, common for Democrats to argue that a certain course of action is wise simply because a Kennedy once advocated it. But Republicans have been doing so with regard to Reagan for twenty years now.

I think that's exactly right. There have been various discussions in Democratic circles over the last couple of decades about the future direction of the party, what policy priorities should be emphasized, how to grow the party, etc. It's exceedingly unusual for party leaders to reference John F. Kennedy as some kind of policy signpost. That's not to say his memory isn't widely revered; it is. But when considering domestic, economic, or foreign affairs, when was the last time a leading Democrat said, "Let's just do what JFK would do if he were here"?

In contrast, for many Republicans, the answer to almost every significant policy and/or political question is, "Follow Reagan." More than two decades after the 40th president left office, the obsession in some corners is kind of creepy, and bears no resemblance to the Democratic affinity for JFK. Kennedy is looked to more as a symbol of inspiration; Reagan is considered some kind of timeless, all-knowing sage. In GOP circles, to reference his name or ideology is to be self-evidently correct.

To borrow "First Read's" word, Democrats have never had this "habit" with regards to Kennedy.

Ramesh Ponnuru suggested this points to a certain vacuity on the left, since conservatives' "reverence for Reagan" is rooted in "philosophical content."

But this misses the point. The left's "philosophical content" is rooted outside the memory of JFK. Some on the left don't even care for Kennedy's approach to policy (see Yglesias, Matt). As Chait added, liberalism's "philosophical content does not consist of latching onto an old president, glossing over the reality of his record, and trying to recreate all of his actions whether or not they have any bearing upon the circumstances of the present day.... The 'philosophical content' of Reagan-worship is a cult-like process for circumscribing original thought."

It's painful to think it "may take the Republicans another 10 years to get over" this, but given what we've seen of late, it may take even longer than that.:(

This post pretty much sums it up. Democrats want a president who makes them feel good. They don't really give a hoot about (or in many cases even comprehend) policy.

And then in contrast, republicans want a president who can get the job done. What is creepy is that the democrats think that is creepy. The presidency is not a popularity contest. The person in office is required to run the largest super power the world has ever known (and btw, there used to be two superpowers before Reagan came along. Think about that.). That is done through policies and leadership. Reagan demonstrated both very well and history shows he is one who got it right.

Yes definitely much longer. Why do you think they elected Obama... a young stylish presidential candidate? And the vast majority of democrats who elected him could not tell you what is policies were. LOL! Now THAT is creepy.

Gee wasn't everybody saying that W was the man everyone wanted to drink a beer with back in 04 ?

I give up, what does that have to do with anything being discussed here?

Tracy! It is obvious that you have not seen the glory of our lord and savior Barack Obama!

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/lo...wn-Speech.html

Until you accept President Zero into your heart, you will not see the candy dreams and promises for a better future through socialism. Silly conservative! Your hard-earned paycheck is for social dregs and degenerates! Obama is your savior! Why else would Jesus not be allowed to bask in his glory?:rolleyes::no:

I find it odd and refreshing that on a porn site, which one would expect to be liberal, we find little or no support for the annointed one.
I do think the best reason to vote conservative, is now in the WhiteHouse.
As I said, " odd".

Ah yes lets start the great old BS myth the that US is always better off with an good old conservertive in the white house after all look at the wonderful job W did with his 8 yrs a true president zero :yes: Jennifer

Obama
 

Not long ago Republicans were saying that we would elect a black President when pigs fly.

Guess what? Swine flu! :lol:

Conservatives
 

Yes, it is interesting that conservatives are attracted to transsexual porn. Perhaps that is why many Republicans still like Bush, they love getting screwed.
:coupling::lol:

I for one don't like Bush at all. He was a horrible Commander in Chief for me and his policies were at best, crappy. With that said, I have no more love for President Zero than I do for Bush. What pisses me off is all this Obama worship that people engage in; it's absolutely disgusting! He is just a man for fucks sake! Nothing more! It seems that alot of people are blinded by this whole "Ooooh! He's a black guy! His blackness will change the world!" bullshit. The elections are not a damn popularity contest! The elections should be about policy, not who is more photogenic or makes you feel good or whatever. Obama has clearly stated his policies and all his policies stink of expanded government powers and loss of private ownership. His bailouts and "universal healthcare" plans are going to drive this economy down even further and yet everyone is so ready to accept this in the name of change. Good grief! :frown: Snap out of it. And this crap about if I'm a conservative, I must love Bush and I must be racist and yadda yadda yadda? Where's the proof? Instead of thinking it in terms of black and white, try thinking of it in terms of the lesser of two evils. If Obama supporters actually took time to look at his proposals, you'd see that he is a wolf in sheeps clothing.

Meh! Whatever floats your boat...:confused:

But keep something in mind, Jen. As I've noted in passing before, if you read through this thread you'll see that many of us here who lean to the Right have ALSO criticized Bush for NOT being a true Conservative. So when you mockingly say "we were better off when it was a Conservative in the White House", many of us will reply "You're right. Too bad we haven't actually had one in the White House in ages!"

Bush's problem was that he tried to placate things too much towards the middle. And more often than not, he didn't even go to the middle, but instead crossed over to the Left by allowing the Democratically controlled Congress to do whatever it wanted the last few years he was in office. Case in point: he allowed them to spend money like no tomorrow and he never stood up like a TRUE conservative and vetoed a single penny of it. He just let all that money go out the door and never once opposed the Democrats the way many of us -- the true conservatives -- wanted him to do.

And THAT'S why so many people became disillusioned by the Republicans in the last election. In the end, they had no real choice. Both the Right AND the Left have seemingly decided that they're both in favor of big government no matter what...they're willing to spend all of our tax dollars no matter what (and then some!)...and THAT'S what has left people feeling angry and left out, which is why you're seeing a slow burning anger beginning to build, not to mention the shifts in the polls.

Plus, that's why so many people have switched their party affiliations to become Independents instead. In fact, both the Republicans and, yes, even the Democrats even though they're in power right now should be worrying BIG TIME that people changing their party affiliations to become registered Independents instead is the fastest growing movement of all. And keep in mind that far more Republicans have switched than Democrats, which means the far greater number of those Independents DO actually lean to the Right -- they're just not happy with the way things are going.

Which is why Obama has so far been smart enough to realize that he's going to have to piss off the Left a bit and do certain things that they object to, because he knows this ever-growing Independent base is what he's going to desperately need to get reelected. The truth is the Independents are going to be the true deciding factor in all national elections for quite some time to come.

This isn't about Republicans. The truth is pretty soon EVERYONE is going to discover a newfound love for transsexual porn. Because once America gets the tab for the $13 TRILLION deficit that the Obama budgets are now setting into place across the next 10 years...and once America has to finally pay those bills all on its own because no one will lend us any more money...everyone is REALLY going to know what taking it up the ass truly feels like!

Which means things will never seem brighter for stars like Areeya or Amy or Kimber James or whoever is your favorite.
After all, they'll be the new cult figures to represent our economy! :eek:

Back it up Chatlie Bush in his last two years was always saying if such and such goes thru he'll VETO IT the only things he signed was items he wanted, I know you and Rush are trying to shift all the blame and you all want another idiot in the white house aka Sarah or Jed but try as you may it won't work if the GOP ever wants a true chance the need to leave the far right and tread more to the middle and talk about true plans to balance the budget secure the boarders and Sarah and Jeb are not the voices to do it nor or your Regancrats , you have such a voice running in 08 but none of your party would listen or vote for him his name is Ron Paul. S.I.G Jennifer

mr barack could be working for the illuminati. his actions will speak louder than words

Strawman argument. Bush isn't a true conservative. Neither are many of the GOP unfortunately. That's why there's the discontent with the GOP right now.

Conservatism represents moderation, practicality, prudence, and cautious consideration of action based on known facts.

Current day politicians who call themselves "conservative" typically act based on immediate feelings rather than temperance and reasoning from good evidence to action. The Bush administration allowed the market to run free yet undermined freedom of privacy, and religion. The Bush administration has restricted the 4th Amendment right against warrantless searches, opened medical records, fostered the funding of religions in the name of "faith based initiatives," and ordered intrusive background checks on government employees in non-sensitive positions.

He also had no problem in changing the constitution, and has called it just a piece of paper. He was a failure at securing the borders.

Then there's the wall street bailout. That is not something conservatives do, although you could say that the financial situation needed to be rescued because of liberal tampering (i.e. the Community Reinvestment Act).

Illuminati? I always think 'Crackpot' when I hear that word.

tranny porn
 

Well, OK! I'll take Vanity anytime over Cheney. :yes::coupling:

Humm, I need to figure out how to get multiple quotes on a post. :confused:

Hey Tracy,
I voted for Eisenhower and I would have voted for Colin Powell if he had run.
They are true Republicans.:respect:

Hallelujah
 

My Dad used to sing this song during the Depression. :)

The version published in 1908 goes:

Why don't you work like other folks do?
How the hell can I work when there's no work to do?

Refrain
Hallelujah, I'm a bum,
Hallelujah, bum again,
Hallelujah, give us a handout
To revive us again.

Oh, why don't you save all the money you earn?
If I didn't eat, I'd have money to burn.

Whenever I get all the money I earn,
The boss will be broke, and to work he must turn.

Oh, I like my boss, he's a good friend of mine,
That's why I am starving out on the bread line.

When springtime it comes, oh, won't we have fun;
We'll throw off our jobs, and go on the bum.

It's black magic.

Eisenhower was before my time, but Powell did look good for a while until he threw his hat in the ring with Obama. I wonder what true republican attributes Powell saw in Obama? Any idea?

I'll be singing these songs in the depression Obama creates...

Political poetry
 

OK since we are into poetry today, here is one of my favorites.

Bob Dylan
Masters of War

Come you masters of war
You that build all the guns
You that build the death planes
You that build all the bombs
You that hide behind walls
You that hide behind desks
I just want you to know
I can see through your masks.

You that never done nothin'
But build to destroy
You play with my world
Like it's your little toy
You put a gun in my hand
And you hide from my eyes
And you turn and run farther
When the fast bullets fly.

Like Judas of old
You lie and deceive
A world war can be won
You want me to believe
But I see through your eyes
And I see through your brain
Like I see through the water
That runs down my drain.

You fasten all the triggers
For the others to fire
Then you set back and watch
When the death count gets higher
You hide in your mansion'
As young people's blood
Flows out of their bodies
And is buried in the mud.

You've thrown the worst fear
That can ever be hurled
Fear to bring children
Into the world
For threatening my baby
Unborn and unnamed
You ain't worth the blood
That runs in your veins.

How much do I know
To talk out of turn
You might say that I'm young
You might say I'm unlearned
But there's one thing I know
Though I'm younger than you
That even Jesus would never
Forgive what you do.

Let me ask you one question
Is your money that good
Will it buy you forgiveness
Do you think that it could
I think you will find
When your death takes its toll
All the money you made
Will never buy back your soul.

And I hope that you die
And your death'll come soon
I will follow your casket
In the pale afternoon
And I'll watch while you're lowered
Down to your deathbed
And I'll stand over your grave
'Til I'm sure that you're dead.

Ohhh! Well, if we're doing poetry, I've got one to share, too!
>cough cough< (clearing throat)

There once was a man from Nantucket...

Oh, wait. Wrong one.
Let me check my notes again... :p

I never can understand why everybody is so obsessed with politics. We're only on this world for a short period of time and no matter what we do, good or bad, the world keeps spinning and the human race survives. For me the only way I would ever get seriously involved in politics is if there was a real need for revolution.

That being said I still enjoy reading everyone's opinions and often hope that I could feel so strongly about politics as you do. So thanks and keep up the good work.:respect:

Oh and I voted for Obama and I'm from one of the most "racist" states in the US, Indiana, so if he does end up destroying this country, as most of the conservatives i know seem to think he's going to do, then you can blame me for it if you want to. And one final thing, I absolutely hate it when people already start to judge Obama and his policies before they even go into affect. They aren't changing anything and to me it seems like they just want to be able to say, "I told you so" just incase his plans dont work as well as he thought they would.

But everyone is entitled to their own opinion, so don't let mine or anyone else's by themselves change yours. First get all of the facts and then decide for yourself.

Nantucket
 

OK I'll bite (cough)
There once was a man from Nantucket
who found a golden bucket
Madoff by name he gained lots of fame
when people filled his bucket
he managed to tucket
where nobody knew his game
he was their pappy
keeping everyone happy
until the market turned crappy
the bucket went dry
and people began to cry
Oh pappy oh pappy where did you tucket

(I hope Fran doesn't read this!)

These same people were yelling the same thing when Clinton beat the first Bush back in 92, Just replace there fears of Clinton with Obama and it the same claims differnt name that's all :eek: Jennifer

No, actually I was neutral on that one.

alternative GOP
 

Creative Mind got me thinking about the GOP,s standing.
Some people say its so bad that it has become a "cult". I am concerned, we need a strong counter to the Democrats proclivity to spend, spend,spend. I am a populist but it needs to be regulated just like the capitalists need to be regulated. So what can be done to rehabilitate the GOP? They need a candidate that can defuse the big social issues (i.e. gay marriage, abortion). They need a candidate that would appeal to the independent crowd.
A gay candidate is unlikely to go very far. A lesbian is also unlikely to gain much support. So how about a transsexual? A strong intelligent transsexual would appeal to the secret desires of many men, women, conservatives and liberals alike. So who would be a likely candidate? She should be intelligent, witty, willing to kick ass and of course, good looking. Humm, I am thinking of a feisty redhead that doesn't hesitant to flame when necessary. Not only that, she likes guns and trucks! Of course, our darling Fran would fit the bill nicely. Sarah Palin you are toast. ;)

I second that nomination!:yes:

I think you're right. No matter what side you're on, it's good to have at least two parties to keep each other in check. The repubs are little yapping chihuahuas now and the dems are clearly taking advantage of the one party government they're in now.

After Bush was elected in 2000, the dems were devastated and it seemed like they would never find their way, but they did. Perhaps the same will happen to the repubs. Either that or the conservatives will have to recreate what they had without the republicans, which I hope they can pull off.

Although I do not normally base my vote on which minority hasn't held the office yet (that's why we're in the mess we're in now) Fran would certainly have my vote! :respect: I get dibs on being her intern though :turnon:

Barack is great, rocky road to travel though.

Ah, you must be talking about his basketball skills.

Gmc
 

The Govt. is debating whether to give the fired CEO of GM a severance pay of twenty million dollars! So what did we vote for anyway? All the guys that screwed up the economy (except Madoff) are being rewarded! I am beginning to think Obama is a closet Republican.:frown::censored::coupling:

Obama makes the very irresponsible statement:
Why not? There are many conventions there where businesses go to stay up to date with the latest in their field, make partnerships, and find customers. This was seen by many as a message to companies across the nation to stay away from Las Vegas for corporate meetings and conventions.

The Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority reports over 400 conventions and business meetings scheduled to take place in Las Vegas recently have canceled, translating into 111,800 guests and 250,000 "room-nights". The canceled events cost the Las Vegas economy over $100 million, not including gaming revenue.

BTW... Obama is having a political fundraiser later this month. Where would that be? Las Vegas. What an ass.


In other news, looks like the senate isn't going along with Obama's Ready Fire Aim approach to closing Gitmo. They have denied the closing of Gitmo with a vote of 94-3 LMAO!!! This whole thing has been a complete joke. Early in his presidency, BO says he's going to close the facility. Then they're scratching their heads trying to figure out exactly how this will be done, and where will they put the inmates.

And FYI, we're no longer fighting a Global War on Terror. It's a uhhhh... "overseas contingency operation".
And terrorist attacks are now to be referred to as "man-caused disasters". Is this what they're wasting their time with?

To all the Obama haters out there you now know how much of America felt from 01 to 08 when we had to put up with KING GEORGE, Obama was not my pick for the job but he's better then the last Bozo king George who flushed the US down the craper, He has a hugh mess to fix plus two wars to fight, All i hear is name calling stampping feet and bitchin about higher taxes, No one likes higher taxes but whats your answer? Keep cutting taxes on the rich? Well King George did that and started two wars of which only one was called for , You can't fight two wars and cut taxes wake up and smell the coffee and face facts the party is over and now it's time to pay the piper :eek: Jennifer