ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [220] -- Going For The Gold

[ Posted Friday, July 27th, 2012 – 16:27 PDT ]

In a surprise announcement today, the International Olympic Committee has filed a lawsuit against Mitt Romney and his entire family. Not, as some might have expected, for his recent comments about the London Olympics, but rather because Mitt has been using the term "Romney Olympics" to describe a summer festival held at his palatial vacation home, up to and including this year. The I.O.C. is famously protective of the term "Olympics" and who is allowed to use it, and according to their press release, they are merely protecting their brand. No word on what financial penalty the I.O.C. will be seeking, as an I.O.C. spokesperson told us, "We're going to have to subpoena Mitt's tax returns before we can answer that." He also added, "Mitt's dancing horse will be disqualified from the dressage event, as well."

Well, not really. That whole previous paragraph was not in any way true. But one can dream, right?

I should warn everyone, if you're already sick of Olympic-themed nonsense, then you might want to skip this week's column, because that pretty much sums the whole thing up. That's right, we're going for the gold this week!

But before we get to the rest of this nonsense, we've got our own actual awards to hand out.

 

Most Impressive Democrat of the Week

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid actually got something done this week. In doing so, he may have even faked out Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, which (if true) would be an even more impressive feat than just getting a bill passed.

Democrats in the Senate put together a bill which will extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone. The news media, who are infamously bad at math, missed this fact. But under the Democrats' plan, every taxpayer will pay less in taxes than if the Bush tax cuts were allowed to expire -- even those making over $250,000. Because everyone's income up to that point will be taxed less -- whether you make more than the threshold or not. People who do make more than the threshold will not get a bonus tax cut on the money they make over $250,000, but they will enjoy the same tax break everyone else gets for the money they make up to that point. Meaning everyone will get a tax cut (no matter what the mainstream media says about it).

Republicans, of course, are holding everyone else's tax cut hostage, until the wealthiest get their bonus tax cut for money they make above $250,000. So they had a bill of their own, too.

Neither bill would have gotten an actual vote, due to filibuster rules, until Harry Reid offered McConnell a deal -- neither side would filibuster the other's bill, and both bills would get an up-or-down vote. McConnell reportedly thought that Reid didn't even have the votes to pass the Democratic bill, so he agreed to the plan. Vice President Joe Biden showed up for the vote, just in case he needed to cast a tie-breaking vote.

In the end, though, it was not necessary. Reid was better at counting Democratic votes than McConnell, and the Democratic bill passed while the Republican bill failed.

Now, you can say this is all "just politics," since the House is not likely to pass the Democratic bill that made it through the Senate, and likely won't do anything until after the election is over. But it's good politics for Reid, and good politics for Democrats. This is how you pressure Republicans on an issue -- by putting your own plan out there, getting it through the Senate, and then talking about the "obstructionist Republican House" every chance you get. You also might want to throw in "Republicans just voted against a middle-class tax cut!" just for good measure. Oh, and don't forget: "This is a tax cut for everyone!"

For making it happen, Harry Reid is our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week. Way to go, Harry! Well done.

[Congratulate Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on his Senate contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week

You know, it'll be a sad day around Friday Talking Points headquarters when we won't have Joe Lieberman to kick around in the MDDOTW segment anymore. Well, no, actually, it'll be a happy happy joyous day when we see Lieberman slinking out of the Capitol for the last time, to be quite honest.

Before we get to Lieberman, though, we've got to at least hand out a (Dis-)Honorable Mention to Senator Dianne Feinstein, for stating she knew that the White House leaked classified information to the press. She appeared shocked that Republicans then turned around and started using this politically against the president. Even if Feinstein was right, how did she get this information? Sitting on a Senate committee listening to classified briefings? This would mean that DiFi was doing exactly the same thing she was accusing the White House of doing by leaking this information to the press. Any way you look at it, it would have been better if DiFi had just kept her mouth shut.

This week we have two Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week awards to hand out, to Senator Joe Lieberman and to Senator Jim Webb, both of whom voted against the Democratic bill. Both men knew that this bill isn't going to become law without significant tinkering, and both men knew that passing the bill this week will give Democrats across the country an issue to campaign hard on from now until November. Knowing that, they both voted against it anyway.

We've come to expect such behavior from Lieberman, but from Jim Webb? Sigh. For almost sinking the Democrats' bill, both men fully deserve their Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week awards this week.

[Contact Senator Joe Lieberman on his Senate contact page and Senator Jim Webb on his Senate contact page, to let them know what you think of their actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 220 (7/27/12)

OK, with our awards out of the way, let's get on to our Olympics talking points!

What's that? A phone call? From the I.O.C.? Hang on a minute....

Well, we've just been informed that we're being sued for using the word "Olympics" in today's column. Our crack legal team informs us, however, that since we are holding no sporting competition ourselves and are merely exercising our First Amendment rights in creating satire, that we are under no obligation to obey this cease-and-desist order.

Heh. Well, no, not really. This whole column is getting sillier and sillier, so we're just going to let it all hang out in today's talking points. I really tried to write cutting remarks for the first few of these, but then about halfway through I just got a fit of the giggles and launched off into a sheer flight of fantasy. So don't say I didn't warn you.

 

1
   Can't even handle Britain

"Mitt Romney stumbled badly on his first attempt at foreign policy. How hard is it to restrain yourself from badmouthing a foreign country while currently in that country? Romney couldn't have even waited until after he left? And he wants to represent America on the world stage? What's going to happen when Romney says something stupid and insulting while in a country that doesn't have a "special relationship" with America? I mean, seriously, Romney can't even handle Britain, so how is he going to handle other countries abroad? Romney certainly has won the gold in the foot-in-mouth race, winning by a mile, before the Olympics even began."

 

2
   Middle of nowhere

Mitt Romney made things worse today, in responding to the gibe that the Olympics he held were "in the middle of nowhere." When I called Mitt up just now (ahem) to ask him about the insult, he responded:

"The middle of nowhere? Really? I would like to remind everyone that Salt Lake City was the world capital of bribery and graft for the 2002 Olympics. The city showed no shame in buying votes from the I.O.C. in order to win their Olympic bid. Middle of nowhere? Salt Lake City was the gold medalist of corruption back then!"

 

3
   Gold medal bailout

Sick of the "gold medal" metaphor yet? We aren't even halfway done!

"Mitt Romney says he 'saved' the 2002 Olympics. What he never talks about is exactly how he saved those Olympics. Romney lobbied Washington hard, for every pork barrel dollar he could pry from the American taxpayers to avoid a fiasco in Salt Lake City. Mitt did so well as a lobbyist, he got over a billion dollars from the federal government for the Olympics. Yeah, it's pretty easy to 'save' the Olympics when you get the gold medal for lobbying, isn't it? For all Mitt's talk about the 'private sector' you know what saved his bacon? A big fat federal government bailout. I guess bailouts are good when they help your friends out, right Mitt?"

 

4
   Made in Burma

"One more thing about the Salt Lake City Olympics. You know, there was a news story about the U.S. team's uniforms being made in China this year. But back in 2002, Mitt Romney was in charge of getting uniforms for the torch bearers, and he didn't go to China to get them made. You know why? Because he got them from Burma. That's right -- Mitt went shopping in one of the worst countries in the world on human rights, so that proud Americans carrying the Olympic torch would be wearing outfits made by a brutal military dictatorship. So I really don't want to hear Mitt say a word about the Chinese-made uniforms this year, because even that is better than wearing clothes tagged 'Made in Burma'."

 

5
   Romney Olympics

"This just in! Mitt Romney has settled the lawsuit the International Olympic Committee slapped him with earlier today, after ignoring a judge's order to produce his tax forms. Under the terms of this agreement, instead of being barred from using the term 'Romney Olympics' for his family's summertime fun, Mitt Romney will in fact be purchasing the Olympic Games from the I.O.C. That's right -- the international sporting event will be known from this point on as the 'Romney Olympics' no matter where on Earth they are staged. Per the settlement, the alternative phrase 'Romneylympics' will also be permitted. Mitt Romney, upon announcing this news, stated that from now on he'll have to call his family fun the 'Mitt Olympics' to avoid confusion."

 

6
   Gold?

"Coming to you live, from the 2012 Romney Olympics here in London, we have some strange news to report -- athletes who have won their events are reporting that the 'gold' medals they received are not, in fact, made of gold. One world champion showed us that the medals are nothing more than cheap tin, spray-painted a gold-ish color. As he scratches off the gold paint, you can clearly see the dark metal underneath, and if you scratch enough of it off, the words 'Made in Syria' can easily be seen. Mitt Romney was unavailable for comment, as he was last seen boarding a plane to Switzerland with rather large and heavy suitcases. When asked why he was flying to an unscheduled stop in Switzerland, Romney smiled and said he was 'just going to visit my money while I'm in Europe, it's no big deal.' "

 

7
   You people

"We're here at the Romneylympics for the presentation of the gold medal in dressage, which -- after a financial scandal involving the judges -- has been awarded to the horse owned by Mitt Romney's wife. Ann Romney, when asked about the scandal after a visit to the Queen, said 'You people have seen all the financial information you are going to see. The Queen and I feel quite the same way about this situation. We are not amused.' "

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground

 

137 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [220] -- Going For The Gold”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hey, the American Olympic team looked rather sharp this evening at the opening ceremony ... sharp and ... je ne sais quois ... oh, yeah, French! Heh.

    Sorry, I couldn't resist.

    Harry Reid is a very strange bird. I mean he is very hard to, well, read. I always harken back to the fall of 2007 when it looked like he wasn't going to let the Biden amendment Re. US policy in Iraq in support of federalism come up for a vote. And, on top of that he seemed very disinterested. At the time, I thought Biden would benefit greatly in his presidential run by having this vote and having it pass. So, I was more than a little perturbed by Reid's behavior.

    As it turns out, Reid did call a vote and the Biden amendment passed the Senate by an overwhelming majority of 75 - 23! (Of course, the Bush administration looked a gift horse in the mouth and ignored the sage policy prescription and we have what we have today in Iraq, number one ... and, number two, the Bush legacy with respect to Iraq was left unredeemed.)

    Senator Reid seems now to me to be a pretty wily pol, all things considered, and quite deserving of the MIDOTW award this week. And, these tax cut votes are a nice stepping off point for what will come after the election and before the end of this year.

  2. [2] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    CW: I mean, seriously, Romney can't even handle Britain, so how is he going to handle other countries abroad? Romney certainly has won the gold in the foot-in-mouth race, winning by a mile, before the Olympics even began."

    I think this about covers it all:
    Selective Outrage: How The U.K. Press Reacted To Obama’s Numerous Anti-British Gaffes
    http://www.mediaite.com/online/selective-outrage-how-the-u-k-press-reacted-to-obamas-numerous-anti-british-gaffes/

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris1962,

    Romney's real problem here has nothing to do with his views on British preparedness for the Olympic Games which, I suppose, is why you are focusing on it and not on his shallow thinking on matters pertaining to US foreign policy.

  4. [4] 
    michty6 wrote:

    So proud of my country, what an amazing opening ceremony. Not totally over the top and brought a real UK cultural feel to the occasion. The Mr Bean + Chariots Of Fire might be the best thing I've seen ever (many because I love both those things!).

    CW: As for your article, I'm caught in two minds on the budget issue. It seems completely pointless to me to pass legislation that you know has no chance of getting enacted. Passing legislation out of 'principle' seems like a complete waste of time to me. Yes they didn't pass it 33 times but it's really dropping down to that kind of level.

    "Selective Outrage: How The U.K. Press Reacted To Obama’s Numerous Anti-British Gaffes
    http://www.mediaite.com/online/selective-outrage-how-the-u-k-press-reacted-to-obamas-numerous-anti-british-gaffes/"

    Almost every Obama 'gaffe' is related to some dumb (mainly Royal) protocol - Royal Protocol is always a grey area, nothing is set in stone. I'd say half of these are complete inventions of the US media. The Maldives was the only real gaffe. I would say this commentator absolutely selectively picks his media too, Obama got a lot of crap about this in the UK press (I know, I was there). If you really want to read about UK Royal protocol you can Google for 5 minutes and find out how these 'gaffes' he refers to are not even gaffes. Good luck with that.

    The Romney situation is completely different. Firstly, it's his first visit (as a Presidential candidate) so the standards are very high. If he had said this as President I don't think there would be any outrage. Like in America, as a candidate he is still being vetted and anything he does is going to be criticised a lot more.

    Secondly, he basically said it almost 'behind the back' of the UK to the US media. In light of what he was saying to the UK media it comes across as very two-faced.

    Thirdly, there is no protocol issue or anything with Romney - it was very clear cut - he directly criticised and attacked the UK readiness for the Olympics. Fwiw I completely agree with his criticisms, they are perfectly valid and reasonable. But no country wants some arrogant rich American, who has run an Olympics before, coming in telling them how bad they're doing things. Cameron's retort was exactly in response to this picture.

    Finally, I can tell you first impressions are HUGE with the UK media. Once they are on your side they will give you some leeway (I'm sure this probably happens with Obama since he charmed them nicely) and once they are against you they will continue to keep knifing you. Romney has experienced the full whack of this the past couple of days as now every little thing he says or does is being used to attack him. Not what he wanted and does not bode well if he is made President.

  5. [5] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Almost every Obama 'gaffe' is related to some dumb (mainly Royal) protocol

    Oh, right! I keep forgetting that nothing is ever O's fault; it's always the fault of someone or something else. My bad.

  6. [6] 
    michty6 wrote:

    I know you don't like to read full sentences and quote things out of context but you're not going to get away with it here. Try this quote in [5] again:

    "Almost every Obama 'gaffe' is related to some dumb (mainly Royal) protocol - Royal Protocol is always a grey area, nothing is set in stone."

    Like I said if you want to Google Royal protocol and figure it out yourself off you go.

    The point is that no Obama 'gaffes' in that article were intentionally insulting and half of them are simply made up by the US Press. Romney's comment was very intentional, definitely insulting and certainly not open to interpretation. It isn't even comparable to anything in that stupid article.

  7. [7] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    The point is that no Obama 'gaffes' in that article were intentionally insulting

    Neither was Romney's. Oh, but Romney is a Republican; plus, nothing is ever O's fault. It's always the fault of someone or something else. Like royal protocol, for instance. It's not O's fault that he didn't learn the protocol. No, it's the protocol's fault.

  8. [8] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    LizM -

    Hey, it was Olympics-themed stuff only this week, what can I say?

    michty6 -

    Being on the West Coast, I'm still watching the opening ceremonies. You're right, the Mr. Bean stuff was HILARIOUS, but as for music, I liked the Mike Oldfield section the best (so far). The countries are all still coming in, so I took a minute off. Ireland looked pretty sharp, and got a big round of applause, I noticed.

    Passing the bill was proof that the Democratic tax plan has more support in the Senate than the Republican plan. It'll give Reid a stronger hand in December, when the real bill is fought over. It's positioning for later legislative battles, as well as making political hay. So it does have some value.

    What surprised me is that even the conservative British press had to slag Romney. You are absolutely right about the "American coming in and telling how things are going wrong" aspect. But then, maybe that's because I have just sat through HOURS of American announcers displaying their idiocy and parochialism before the world. Sigh. Bob Costas is truly annoying.

    Chris1962 -

    Romney blew it. Admit it, and move on. His "boost his foreign exposure" trip has been a disaster so far. Granted, he could do a better job in Israel and Poland, but so far it's been a laughable performance. Especially the bit where he forgot the name of the guy he was talking to.

    -CW

  9. [9] 
    michty6 wrote:

    @[7]"Neither was Romney's. Oh, but Romney is a Republican; plus, nothing is ever O's fault. It's always the fault of someone or something else. Like royal protocol, for instance. It's not O's fault that he didn't learn the protocol. No, it's the protocol's fault."

    I said pretty clearly twice now how Royal Protocol works. You can take it from me, who was born and grew up in the country, google it or trust that well known source in international journalism 'mediate.com'

    It's pretty hypocritical to claim that Obama is always moaning when Republicans in America are the biggest cry babies ever. Everyday I hear this crap about 'oh there's so much liberal media bias waaaa waaaa'. Then when Romney goes to the UK apparently there is liberal media bias - against only Republicans - there too! How very odd! Here is the headline from the most Conservative paper in the UK on Romney: 'Who invited him?'. I guess that even Conservative papers have liberal media bias in your 'everything is a conspiracy world'...

    Have you ever stopped to consider that maybe the criticism of Romney's comments is justified? Naaaaa just chalk any negative comments up to media bias as usual (even when it's another countries Conservative media lol).

  10. [10] 
    toffereriksen wrote:

    Hello,

    I've been reading your column for some time now, always a nice read wherein I sometimes learn something new and occasionally chuckle at the snark. Unfortunately I found myself forced to register just so I can issue a complaint: I do *not* enjoy snorting beer out my nose, could you please refrain from issuing commentary that will cause me to do so going forward, thank you.

    In slightly more related news, since when does Utah constitute "nowhere?" I think I flew over them once, pretty sure it was there... and had some lights on.

    Toffer "it's festival season and my brain is fried, thanks for the humor" Eriksen.

    P.S. Apparently there's something I'm missing about the comment system here, can't get it to properly paragraph and such, help?

  11. [11] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    I said pretty clearly twice now how Royal Protocol works.

    Yes, and it was all the protocol's fault, not O's for neglecting to learn it. Say it a third time, and I'll remind you of the laughable hypocrisy once again.

    Have you ever stopped to consider that maybe the criticism of Romney's comments is justified?

    Just totally expected — compared to swooning over Obama, which was just as predictable.

  12. [12] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris1962

    Careful there, your desperation is showing. And, I must warn you, it's not very becoming. In fact, it reflects very poorly on you.

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    You know, it'll be a sad day around Friday Talking Points headquarters when we won't have Joe Lieberman to kick around in the MDDOTW segment anymore. Well, no, actually, it'll be a happy happy joyous day when we see Lieberman slinking out of the Capitol for the last time, to be quite honest.

    It always amazes me how fickle Democrats are...

    In 2004, Lieberman was the cat's meow amongst Democrats...

    Today, he is evil incarnate... :D

    Wanna talk about John Edwards?? :D

    This would mean that DiFi was doing exactly the same thing she was accusing the White House of doing by leaking this information to the press.

    Not really. DiFi's leak only put Obama's re-election in danger.. Obama's White House leaks risked lives and burned UC assets that didn't even BELONG to the US...

    Apples and Eskimos....

    Once again, CB calls it..

    Obama can do no wrong.. Romney can do no right...

    Once.. Just ONCE, I would like to see Weigantians sincerely condemn Obama for SOMETHING other than not sticking it to the GOP better...

    Come'on!! Where are the red lines, people!?? Unprecedented surveillance.. President-directed Assassinations. Rendition..

    And NONE of you can find any red lines with Obama???

    SERIOUSLY!???

    For the record, I *HAVE* condemned Romney for his boorish gaffe..

    But that doesn't change the fact that Obama's cuts into our greatest ally go much MUCH deeper..

    Mitchy,

    Please explain to me how giving a visiting head of state a totally moronic gift is "Royal Protocol??"

    Michale.....

  14. [14] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    For the record, I *HAVE* condemned Romney for his boorish gaffe..

    What do you want, Michale ... a medal, or a chest to pin in on?

    I mean seriously, you should be condemning Romney for his economic prescriptions for the country, or for his chickenhawk foreign policy pronouncements, or his flat out lies to the American people as he tries to gain their support

  15. [15] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Once.. Just ONCE, I would like to see Weigantians sincerely condemn Obama for SOMETHING other than not sticking it to the GOP better...

    Once, just ONCE, I would like to see Obama publically thank his treasury secretary for all of his tireless efforts to save the American economy thus averting a second Great Depression which, by the way, would have been a damn sight worse than the first, and to keep it on track for a full recovery.

    It's too bad that Geithner has become so radioactive and misunderstood. I actually put most of the blame for that sad situation on President Obama, as well.

    President Obama probably still hasn't paid his debt to Geithner and treated him to a thick, juicy steak dinner with ALL the trimmings in a small effort to make up for the first big gaffe of his presidency when he announced implicitly to the world in the early days of his new administration that the treasury secretary would be announcing precisely in great detail how the financial crisis would be solved.

    The next day, Geithner did his job during his first press availability and laid out for everyone the balanced and prudent course that the administration was going to take to stabilize the financial system. He was roundly criticized for not providing the details the president promised he would and his prescriptions were roundly panned.

    Geithner evenually proved all of his critics wrong and I chalked up the whole incident to a simple, though severely consequential, case of presidential inexperience.

  16. [16] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    Secretary Geithner would have approved of your selection of Harry Reid for MIDOTW award this week because, he always gives thanks and credit where thanks and credit are due.

    Testifying this week before the Senate banking committee, he praised the Senate for the vote it took to extend the Bush/Cheney era tax cuts for the middle class and allow the high end cuts to expire ... on schedule ... again. Ahem.

    Of course, the secretary has ALWAYS been the most eloquent and persistent promoter of extending the middle class tax cuts while allowing those tax cuts for the top 2 percent of Americans to expire. And, not surprisingly, no one ever gives him credit for those efforts, either.

    By the way, did you see any of Geithner's congressional testimony this week? It seems that many representatives and senators were concerned with the LIBOR scandal and looking for ways to blame the treasury secretary for something, anything.

    Instead, Secretary Geithner gave them all a lesson on how to take action to solve a problem. They all learned a lot!

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    What do you want, Michale ... a medal, or a chest to pin in on?

    No..

    But it sure would be nice to see ya'all as critical on Obama et al as I am on the Right...

    A pipe dream, I guess...

    Michale.....

  18. [18] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    I am more critical of Obama et al. than you will ever be of the right in your wildest dreams.

  19. [19] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller: Careful there, your desperation is showing. And, I must warn you, it's not very becoming. In fact, it reflects very poorly on you.

    Back to personal insults so soon, Liz? I thought I had assured you in our last exchange that I don't put up with that. Next one I see, I contact Chris W. Just saying.

  20. [20] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    CW: Romney blew it. Admit it, and move on. His "boost his foreign exposure" trip has been a disaster so far.

    I'm not seeing anywhere near the gaffes that Obama made; neither in quantity nor scope. All I'm seeing is the press bending over backwards to create a disaster, as usual. And, as I had mentioned earlier, if it had been a Dem candidate, there would have been mention of the gaffe, followed by a host of excuses and explanations as to why it was no big deal. Same old, same old biased reporting.

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes, Romney scrooed the pooch. Yes he was boorish. Yes, he was rude and uncooth...

    And YES... It was NOTHING compared to all the bonehead moves Obama has done over the last three years...

    At least Romney didn't bow and act subservient :D

    Michale.....

  22. [22] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    toffererikson -

    First, welcome to the site! Or to the comments, I should say...

    Your first comment was held for moderation, but from now on you'll be allowed to post comments instantly, as long as you don't post multiple links per comment (which are held for moderation to cut down on comment spam).

    The "preview" function doesn't really work right due to my lack of expertise in programming, sorry about that. There didn't even used to be a preview, and I added it, but never could get it to work right. So it's kind of half-broken and half-useful. Again, my apologies.

    As for the rest of your comment:

    Maybe I should issue warnings. "Don't drink beer right before the snarky bits, it may be violently expelled out of your nose!"

    Heh.

    Last time I checked, Utah was still right there -- in the middle of nowhere. Heh.

    You can drive on the "loneliest road in America" to get there (US 50 across Nevada).

    The southern parts of the state are spectacular, though, and well worth a visit.

    :-)

    -CW

  23. [23] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale -

    Actually, I've handed out quite a few MDDOTW awards to Obama, for various reasons.

    But it is an election year...

    -CW

  24. [24] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris1962,

    How did you, of all people, get to be so obsessed with calling everything a personal insult or attack? And, how long have you been so thin-skinned, anyway?

    You can sure dish it out though, can't ya!?

  25. [25] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller: How did you, of all people, get to be so obsessed with calling everything a personal insult or attack? And, how long have you been so thin-skinned, anyway?

    That's two, Liz. I'll ask Chris W. to take it from here.

  26. [26] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris1962,

    You are SUCH a hoot!

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Actually, I've handed out quite a few MDDOTW awards to Obama, for various reasons.

    I was referring to run 'o the mill Weigantians..

    Not our lord and master.. :D

    Seriously, I have never had a problem with your commentaries. You do dish it out to Obama when he screws up.. Granted not as often as I think you should, but that's what being lord and master is all about. :D

    Ya gotta admit... With the Presidential Decreed assassinations, the uber-DroneSureveillance that Obama has initiated, the More Bush Than Bush.......

    If it was a GOP president doing those EXACT same things, the rank and file here would be screaming to high heavens...

    But with Obama, I can BARELY get anyone to acknowledge that it even BOTHERs them!!!

    It's gonna be fun around here under a Romney Administration. :D

    Michale.....

  28. [28] 
    Kevin wrote:

    Actually Michale, after four years following this site, the only "screaming" I've encountered is you making the same dreary accusation. The "rank and file" here that I'm familiar with make lucid and temperate points, and I enjoy reading their thoughts. Who, specifically, are the screamers?

    Re. a Romney Administration, any early bets on which country the free world will look to for leadership if the U.S. officially confirms it has lost it's collective mind?

  29. [29] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Kevin,

    Re. a Romney Administration, any early bets on which country the free world will look to for leadership if the U.S. officially confirms it has lost it's collective mind?

    Heh. Good question.

  30. [30] 
    Kevin wrote:

    Thanks, Elizabeth. My personal choice would be Sweden, but then as a proud member of Michale's "Hysterical Left" (but mellower, we're Canadian after all); I've never looked to the U.S. for leadership in any category other than deranged elected officials :)
    That said, they've produced so many of my heroes: Garry Trudeau, Randy Newman, Mike Royko, HST, Katherine Hepburn, Molly Ivins...the list is almost endless.

  31. [31] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Kevin,

    I think the answer to your question is that there is no answer ... no country, that is, that could take the place of the US as global leader.

    I'll remain a diehard fan of the US and believer in the promise of America.

    I don't believe there will be a Romney administration. Not in 2013. Not ever.

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kevin,

    Actually Michale, after four years following this site, the only "screaming" I've encountered is you making the same dreary accusation. The "rank and file" here that I'm familiar with make lucid and temperate points, and I enjoy reading their thoughts. Who, specifically, are the screamers?

    Peruse the archives from the Bush years, if you have any doubts.. :D

    Re. a Romney Administration, any early bets on which country the free world will look to for leadership if the U.S. officially confirms it has lost it's collective mind?

    In YOUR opinion. :D

    It's always comical to read when people praise something/someone when they do/say things they agree with and turn around and castigate the same something/someone when they do/say things they don't agree with.. :D

    Liz,

    I don't believe there will be a Romney administration. Not in 2013. Not ever.

    Can I quote you on that on 7 Nov 2012?? :D

    Just remember, most people here thought that ObamaCare would not pass SCOTUS muster. Not now, not ever..

    Reality has a funny way of coming up behind you and goosing you when you least expect it..

    Antlers In The Tree Tops by Hoogoost The Moose

    :D

    Michale.....

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kevin,

    Let me put it this way..

    Do you think, if I perused the archives from the Bush years, I could find comments that condemned (without prompting) Bush's domestic surveillance programs??

    I am sure you would agree that they would be plentiful and colorful.

    Now, do you think, if I perused the comments from the last 3+ years that I could find comments that condemned (without prompting) Obama's vast expansion of Bush's domestic surveillance programs??

    They would be non-existent...

    So it would be with Presidential-Designated Assassinations of American Citizens, Rendition, Torture and all the other things that ya'all condemned Bush for...

    Don't get me wrong. I am ecstatic that Obama has seen the wisdom of Bush's programs..

    I just never thought, in a MILLION years, that everyone here would be on my same page, in these issues.

    NEVER... MILLION YEARS... :D

    Michale.....

  34. [34] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Can I quote you on that on 7 Nov 2012?? :D

    Absolutely, positively, unequivocally! Shall we place a bet, as well!? :)

    Just remember, most people here thought that ObamaCare would not pass SCOTUS muster. Not now, not ever..

    Yes, well ... you'll recall that I wasn't one of those people. On the contrary, I fully expected and publically predicted otherwise. You can imagine my horror when watching the first couple of minutes of media coverage when I vowed out loud to never have anything to do with US politics again, ever! But, I soon recovered ...

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Yes, credit where credit is due..

    You called it.. :D

    Michale...

  36. [36] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The point here, Michale, is that you should always trust my judgement. :)

  37. [37] 
    Kevin wrote:

    Michale,

    Nice try. When I discovered CW back during the 2008 election, I went back and read every article Chris had ever posted on this site. The comments too. I mentioned that fact in one of my earliest comments. And nope, the only "screaming" was you droning on about your so-called "hysterical left". Even then it was tiresome. So name me a "screamer", along with the date of the post so I can check for myself. You have too long a track record of putting words in other people's mouths (myself included), and claimed so many outrageous "facts" that frankly your credibility has been shot for a long time.
    Still, you will always have credit with me for your technical advice and "help me Obama-wan" quip :)

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nice try.

    So, you're saying that NO ONE here on CW.COM commented negatively about Bush during the Bush years??

    You must have just arrived from a parallel dimension..

    How was the weather in your world?? :D

    Michale....

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    The point here, Michale, is that you should always trust my judgement. :)

    I'll try and keep that in mind... :D

    Michale

  40. [40] 
    Kevin wrote:

    Michale,

    "So, you're saying that NO ONE here on CW.COM commented negatively about Bush during the Bush years??"

    No, as per usual I never said that. If criticizing Bush meets your definition of "screaming", then I'll concede the point in your world. Given all the "joy" the Bush regime brought to the U.S. and the rest of the world; to not criticize would be to live in a world where everything a sane person believes was turned up-side down. Ignoring intelligence warnings about 9/11? Check. Lying about Iraq? Check. Turning Clinton's surpluses into deficits? Check. Allowing New Orleans to be bludgeoned by incompetence? Check. Letting the financial sector run wild to the point of nearly reprising 1929? Check. In my world, people thought the Republicans should be held accountable; in yours apparently not so much, you seem strangely eager to return to the world-view that led to all those greatest hits.
    As best I can figure, when Obama didn't turn out to be Tom Clancy's fictitious Jack Ryan, you took it personally. I enjoy Clancy's books, but even through pleasure reading I could see where the extremely wealthy Clancy had embraced the most congratulatory myths of Republican dogma. It's FICTION, Michale, like most of the quotes you use to smugly "prove" your points.
    I have NO IDEA the type of world you want to live in, where everyone should be armed, health care is a privilege and not a right, torture is OK, shooting unarmed people can be rationalized, and Republican politicians holding the U.S. and world economies hostage is anything other than treasonous. Most people don't want to live in that world. And to think I felt sorry for you, living in a state with one of the worst examples of bad govern-ship in the country.
    Whew...think I'll take a break for a cigarette :)

  41. [41] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You smoke, Kevin?

    Seriously, very nice rant!

  42. [42] 
    Kevin wrote:

    Wow. Just wow.

    This video should be required viewing for all American voters:

    http://welcomebacktopottersville.blogspot.ca/

    Some other examples of the fictitious U.S. world I'd like to live in: "The American President", "Dave", and the "West Wing". I know I'm a sucker for Sorkin, but I'd like to think I share his world view :)

    Yes, sadly, Elizabeth, I smoke. I KNOW I have to quit; but I'm living in a hyper-stressful situation which makes it easier said than done :(

    Anyhow, thanks, and hope you're not broiling too badly in Ontario; although I get the impression from your travels that you don't mind heat :)

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kevin,

    Congrats.. You just had a "hysterical" Anti-Bush rant.. :D

    Michale.....

  44. [44] 
    Kevin wrote:

    P.S.: The accompanying commentary about the video is pretty good too.

    Michale: Coming from you, I'm proud to take that as a compliment :) Yet strangely, I still feel calm. Ball's in your court...tell us your vision of an ideal America.

  45. [45] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Letting the financial sector run wild to the point of nearly reprising 1929? Check. In my world, people thought the Republicans should be held accountable

    Clinton's economic team was responsible for the near-meltdown. Make that both near-meltdowns. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/view/?utm_campaign=viewpage&utm_medium=grid&utm_source=grid

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale: Coming from you, I'm proud to take that as a compliment :)

    Feel free... I was just struck how, if you changed "BUSH" to "OBAMA" it would sound EXACTLY like me talking in the here and now...

    I am just finishing up my work day, then gots to go to JAX to pick up the wife... I'll pen my "ideal" America probably tomorrow morning...

    :D

    Michale

  47. [47] 
    Kevin wrote:

    Yes of course, sounding the same and meaning the same are synonyms in the World According to Michale. If they "sound" the same to you, then they are "homonyms", and to paraphrase other idols of mine, Monty Python, could mean something completely different :)

  48. [48] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Kevin,

    Anyhow, thanks, and hope you're not broiling too badly in Ontario; although I get the impression from your travels that you don't mind heat :)

    Naw ... I've been lounging poolside all day. :)

    It couldn't possibly get too hot for me ... as long as there is water nearby...

  49. [49] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris1962,

    Care to summarize what that link says and tell us, in your own words, how Clinton's economic team caused the most destructive global financial crisis since the Great Depression.

    Be sure and point out what the situation was in January 2001 as compared to January 2009, 'kay?

    You should know, I hate clicking on links ... :)

  50. [50] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Romney lobbied Washington hard, for every pork barrel dollar he could pry from the American taxpayers to avoid a fiasco in Salt Lake City.

    Smart move. The Olympics is a national event. I see no problem putting federal dollars behind it — especially if the event is in trouble.

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes of course, sounding the same and meaning the same are synonyms in the World According to Michale. If they "sound" the same to you, then they are "homonyms", and to paraphrase other idols of mine, Monty Python, could mean something completely different :)

    No, it's simply that what YOU call "hysterical" is just a factual representation of Obama's actions..

    On the other hand, it IS a documented fact that Bush did not lie... But when Obama claimed that people WOULD be able to keep their own Health Insurance, he DID lie...

    When Obama said that illegals wouldn't get access to health care, he DID lie...

    And so on and so on and so on...

    If you want to consider that "hysterical" be my guest...

    Again, my point of all this was to show my simple amazement that we are all on the same page as to Obama's domestic surveillance actions, his assassinating Americans w/o due process, rendition, torture, etc etc etc...

    It's nice that, at least with this, all of Weigantia is in agreement.. :D

    Michale.....

  52. [52] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    How would go about assassinating American terrorists abroad WITH due process?

    Heh.

  53. [53] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    How would you suggest we do that?

  54. [54] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Can we get an edit function around here?

  55. [55] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    looks like i missed the party.

  56. [56] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Kevin/CB/Liz,

    yes, bush2 was largely responsible for the conditions under obama, just as clinton was largely responsible for the conditions under bush, and so on, and so on. ultimately, each president will be looked at in terms of what they contributed, both to themselves and to those who came after them. in my opinion, the last time a president and a congress enacted a truly sensible economic policy was 1990, and as thanks they were both summarily removed from power by the voters.

    ~joshua

  57. [57] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Joshua,

    looks like i missed the party.

    Indeed.

  58. [58] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Joshua,

    ...the last time a president and a congress enacted a truly sensible economic policy was 1990...

    ... and there won't be a sound economic policy enacted by Congress next year, either, unless Democrats win an EFFECTIVE majority in both houses of Congress (winning the White House shouldn't be a problem) and thus relegate the Republican cult of economic failure to a position where they can no longer do any harm to the well-being of the nation.

  59. [59] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    nypoet: yes, bush2 was largely responsible for the conditions under obama

    O came into office with huge majorities in the House and Senate. Did he fix the Wall Street problem that caused the near-meltdown? No. (Crozine's MF Global debacle is evidence of that: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/mf-global-six-billion-dollar-bet/) Did he stop the Iraq war even so much as one day sooner than the exit date set by Bush and the Iraqi government in the SOFA agreement? No. Did he even try to negotiate an earlier withdrawal? No. Is the Afghanistan war still going strong? Uh-huh.

    At some point, O simply has to own up to his own failures.

  60. [60] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris1962,

    Huge majorities in the House and Senate? Are you sure about that?

    The Dodd-Frank Act is the most expansive fin reg regime passed in generations. It has not even been completely implemented yet as many of the rules are still being written ... rules, you must know, that Republicans and their Wall Street lobbyist friends are working extremely hard to weaken.

    President Obama withdrew all combat forces from Iraq well ahead of the Bush-Maliki SOFA. How do you not know this?

    As for Afghanistan ... President Obama would have been better served if he had followed the advice of President Biden ---oops, I mean Vice President Biden; glad I caught this one in my self-edit...must have been some sort of Freudian slip, or something--- and steered clear away from McCrystal (and his fantastical report) and the other "commanders on the ground". At least Obama has set a deadline of 2014 to end the madness. We can only hope that he sticks to it because this mess isn't going to be solved by US/NATO troops on the ground. Not now, not ever ... primarily because the last administration messed up the entire response to 9/11 so badly that not even a super hero of Herculean strength could clean up the monumental mess they left behind in Afghanistan.

    You really must restrain yourself and stop posting nonsense and other misinformation on this otherwise enlightened site.

    You should be able to make your points and even post your misguided opinions here without making assertions that have no factual basis.

    You do know the difference, don't you, between fact and opinion? :)

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Huge majorities in the House and Senate? Are you sure about that?

    I am..

    Com'on Liz... Let's be factual here...

    Obama had an UNPRECEDENTED lock on all aspects of government when he assumed the presidency..

    He could have really made some changes that would have helped this country.

    But he threw it all away to pursue ObamaCare that the majority of Americans didn't want and hasn't helped ANYTHING worth a damn...

    I understand your devotion to Obama, but the reality is, Obama blew it..

    Anyone who looks at things objectively would say the same thing..

    Michale.....

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    But he threw it all away to pursue ObamaCare that the majority of Americans didn't want and hasn't helped ANYTHING worth a damn...

    Doctor Shortage Likely to Worsen With Health Law
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/29/health/policy/too-few-doctors-in-many-us-communities.html?_r=2&partner=MYWAY&ei=5065

    What ya'all don't get about ObamaCare is that it only increased the COVERAGE for Americans... Which, of course, makes the Insurance Corporations very VERY happy..

    The QUALITY of health CARE itself is going to go down. WAY down...

    And the AVAILABILITY of health CARE is going to plummet...

    So yea.. ObamaCare means more Americans will be paying more money to health insurance companies..

    But less Americans are actually going to be able to find treatment, are going to have to wait longer for that hard to find treatment and the treatment that is hard to find and requires longer waits will simply be crappy...

    But hay.. At least Obama is helping out the corporations.

    That's a good thing.. Right??

    Michale....

  63. [63] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale

    I think I know now why you defend her ... she is quite obviously not capable of defending herself. While that is somewhat valiant of you, I just hope she doesn't bring you down with her. Because down she is going if she persists in spreading her nonsense around here. Let that be a lesson to you, my friend. I mean that sincerely - I'm not trying to be facetious here.

    As I know you are aware, Obama had an effective majority in Congress for a little more than a month, if that long. Republicans used the filibuster to prevent all manner of effective action proposed by the Obama/Biden administration, from day one until the present. This is not open for debate.

    And, you mentioned that Obama is helping corporations. Ah, that would be ass-backwards. The Republican cult of economic failure is doing everything in its power - as we write - to assist in the cause of corporations to the detriment of small businesses, families, and the ever-shrinking middle-class, in general.

  64. [64] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    In discussing healthcare reform, why is it that you always leave out the part about what insurance companies are forced to do in return for insuring more Americans?

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think I know now why you defend her ... she is quite obviously not capable of defending herself. While that is somewhat valiant of you, I just hope she doesn't bring you down with her. Because down she is going if she persists in spreading her nonsense around here. Let that be a lesson to you, my friend. I mean that sincerely - I'm not trying to be facetious here.

    I am not defending CB. She has amply shown she is quite capable in that regard.. :D

    I am, however, defending her opinion, because it happens to be dead on ballz accurate...

    Obama DID have a lock on all aspects of government.

    For a time, he DID have a Super Majority in the Senate and a HUGE majority in the House.

    He could have accomplished some great things.

    No matter how you slice it, ObamaCare/Tax wasn't one of those great things..

    As I know you are aware, Obama had an effective majority in Congress for a little more than a month, if that long. Republicans used the filibuster to prevent all manner of effective action proposed by the Obama/Biden administration, from day one until the present. This is not open for debate.

    If you replace "effective" with "super", I would agree with you...

    As far as Republicans using filibuster, that's the way it goes. Democrats tried to use the filibuster too when they were the minority. They are just lousy'er at it..

    And, you mentioned that Obama is helping corporations. Ah, that would be ass-backwards. The Republican cult of economic failure is doing everything in its power - as we write - to assist in the cause of corporations to the detriment of small businesses, families, and the ever-shrinking middle-class, in general.

    If I agree with everything bad you say about Republicans, THEN could we discuss how badly Obama screwed up???

    Michale....

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    And in other news, Romney holds a fund-raiser in Israel...

    Personally, I think it should be illegal for Presidential Candidates to solicit money outside of the US...

    It's an American election and candidates should only seek money within America...

    Michale.....

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    In discussing healthcare reform, why is it that you always leave out the part about what insurance companies are forced to do in return for insuring more Americans?

    And what would that be, exactly??

    Provide care???

    How can the insurance corporations provide care with a huge shortage of doctors??

    83% of Doctors already practicing have considered leaving the field because of ObamaCare..

    New doctors being trained fall way WAY short of what is needed...

    Sure, Insurance Corporations will be HAPPY to take Americans' money. The corporations will be HAPPY to slap a COVERED stamp on more and more Americans..

    But THAT won't mean diddley squat if there are no doctors to actually provide the *CARE* in Health Care...

    So yea.. Ostensibly, Americans will be covered...

    But will they actually receive the *CARE* that their coverage entitles them to??

    THAT is the relevant question here..

    Michale.....

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    ObamaCare is a big PAYDAY to Insurance Corporations and Drug Manufacturers..

    That's it..

    The actual quality of care is going to plummet, be tons more expensive and a LOT harder to get.

    Michale.....

  69. [69] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Michale: Obama DID have a lock on all aspects of government.

    For a time, he DID have a Super Majority in the Senate and a HUGE majority in the House.

    He could have accomplished some great things.

    No matter how you slice it, ObamaCare/Tax wasn't one of those great things..

    And he got CrapCare through DESPITE the election of Scott Brown (Senator 41). So the Left's standard "filibuster" excuse doesn't wash. If O was capable of getting CrapCare passed — against the will of the American people, no less — he was just as capable of getting anything else passed.

  70. [70] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    If I agree with everything bad you say about Republicans, THEN could we discuss how badly Obama screwed up???

    Absolutely! In fact, I would love to have that discussion with you.

    As you know, I was an early supporter of Biden for President; Obama redeemed himself in my book only when he chose wisely for vice president. :)

  71. [71] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Just for fun, you should check back to the posts I made here around the time Obama won the nomination but before his chose his vice presidential running mate; that was the time I was most critical of then Senator Obama. :)

  72. [72] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Catching up after the weekend:

    Elizabeth "Careful there, your desperation is showing."

    Agree. Trying to defend Romney for something indefensible. I mean even Michale conceded it was a stupid thing to say. But Chris won't give up... here again:

    Chris62 "I'm not seeing anywhere near the gaffes that Obama made; neither in quantity nor scope."

    Insulting the host country preparations for the Olympics is not a gaffe. Bringing up quantity is laughable (1 trip compared to many) but here are more 'gaffes':
    - Calling the Labour party leader 'Mr Leader' is a gaffe.
    - Telling DC how good the view out the 'backside' of 10 Downing St is is a 'gaffe'.
    - Publicly stating he met with M16 - gaffe.
    - 'Anglo-Saxan' lines - gaffes (didn't come from Romney himself)

    Nobody cares about those things. I certainly don't. Those things did not make front page headlines in the UK and result in being rebuked by the UK PM and London Major - insulting the preparations is what did.

    Michale "But that doesn't change the fact that Obama's cuts into our greatest ally go much MUCH deeper.." "And YES... It was NOTHING compared to all the bonehead moves Obama has done over the last three years..."

    As someone from the UK I'd love to hear about these bonehead insulting moves Obama has made. I can tell you right now Obama's approval rating in the UK is considerably higher than Bush and higher than his approval rating in America for sure... This is a losing argument that you guys keep bringing up. At no point was Candidate or President Obama ever directly rebuked by the UK PM or London Major publicly in the way Romney was.

    Michale"Obama's domestic surveillance actions, his assassinating Americans w/o due process, rendition, torture, etc "
    Chris62 "O came into office with huge majorities in the House and Senate. Did he fix the Wall Street problem that caused the near-meltdown? No"

    Wow finally you criticise Obama and actually name policies! Amazing! Finally, at last, we can have a good discussion not around your rhetoric and false claims (I have chosen to ignore the rest of the nonsense in your posts, Elizabeth has dealt with these).

    I fully agree with all these criticisms. However, I think I disagree with them for completely different reasons than you guys do...

    For one, I don't think Dodd-Frank went far enough. Of course this is completely laughable in light of the fact Romney wants to repeal it. But if you're criticising Obama for not doing enough to regulate Wall Street you should consider the fact that your Republican candidate wants to have them be even less regulated than under Bush. But good luck with that, if Romney is elected my investments are being sold. You can suffer the next crash but not with my money. I'll take a page out of Romney's book and stash my money elsewhere. He and I will be ok.

    All the surveillance, drone attacks and torture actually have mass majority support across America. But I think Obama should be a man of his word and do things by the book. I think if he actually LED on these (like he has other issues) people would change their minds and follow. Again your Republican candidate wants to take all these things one step further. So criticising Obama in light of what the other guy (you support) wants to do is laughable.

    Michale "For a time, he DID have a Super Majority in the Senate"

    Nope. You know a super-majority is 60 right?

    Michale "He could have really made some changes that would have helped this country.

    But he threw it all away to pursue ObamaCare that the majority of Americans didn't want and hasn't helped ANYTHING worth a damn..."

    I agree with this. Obama had a choice to make: pursue healthcare with a majority in Congress, eating up a lot of political capital in doing so; or make a lot of other changes.

    I have criticised Obama for not leading and taking the easy route in this very post just above. But for once leading is what he did here and Americans for generations to come are going to thank him for finally getting them some form of Universal Healthcare.

    Through his leadership, the public opinion on Obamacare is now starting to turn in favour of it - and that's BEFORE it has even been enacted in full and WITH people being fed all the other nonsense unsubstantiated rhetoric that makes up the rest of your posts in this thread from 65-68...

  73. [73] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    If you replace "effective" with "super", I would agree with you...

    Go ahead. That's a difference without distinction. A super majority would allow for effective control of the Senate.

    By the way, what you and Chris1962 fail to recognize or admit to here is that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was passed into law only as a result of a reconciliation process since Obama did NOT have a super majority in the Senate at that time, either.

  74. [74] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    I can tell you right now Obama's approval rating in the UK is considerably higher than Bush

    Bush isn't running for office, michty.

    At no point was Candidate or President Obama ever directly rebuked by the UK PM or London Major publicly in the way Romney was.

    Gosh, what a surprise.

    Finally, at last, we can have a good discussion not around your rhetoric and false claims

    I don't make false claims.

    For one, I don't think Dodd-Frank went far enough.

    That's what I said. So where's the false claim?

    But if you're criticising Obama for not doing enough to regulate Wall Street

    Clearly, the problem wasn't solved, evidenced by the MF Global event: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/mf-global-six-billion-dollar-bet/

    But I think Obama should be a man of his word and do things by the book. I think if he actually LED on these (like he has other issues) people would change their minds and follow.

    But he didn't lead, which was my point. So where's the false claim? There are none. Nor is there any refutation from the Left. Just the usual false claims about making false claims, and an accusation of "rhetoric," followed by the Left's own rhetoric.

  75. [75] 
    michty6 wrote:

    "I can tell you right now Obama's approval rating in the UK is considerably higher than Bush

    Bush isn't running for office, michty."

    When Obama is trying to repair all the damage Bush did with International relations, his record is very much in the question. I have pointed this out to you several times before, Internationally the record of the guy before you is very important.

    "At no point was Candidate or President Obama ever directly rebuked by the UK PM or London Major publicly in the way Romney was.

    Gosh, what a surprise."

    Yes Obama hasn't insulted the UK publicly and for that reason hasn't had his insulted rebuked. HUGE surprise lol. Must be the liberal media right? All bad coverage = liberal media; all good coverage = fair media right??

    "I don't make false claims."

    I actually said "Finally, at last, we can have a good discussion not around your rhetoric and false claims" and I stand by this. You absolutely do make false claims based on rhetoric, not facts, throughout this forum. For example even in this thread:

    "So the Left's standard "filibuster" excuse doesn't wash. If O was capable of getting CrapCare passed — against the will of the American people, no less — he was just as capable of getting anything else passed."

    As Elizabeth pointed out in [73] Obamacare wasn't passed through a filibuster. So saying that since he was capable of getting this through the filibuster he should've been capable of getting other things through the filibuster is a false claim.

    "For one, I don't think Dodd-Frank went far enough.
    That's what I said.

    Clearly, the problem wasn't solved, evidenced by the MF Global event...
    "

    Awesome! And I never said you didn't say this, again read my post.

    I'm happy though, finally we have found a MASSIVE, MAJOR, HUGE, ENORMOUS reason for you to NOT vote for Romney. If you think the problem with Dodd-Frank was it was too weak then voting for a guy who openly wants to repeal it and destroy regulations (i.e. what caused the Great Recession of 2008-2009) would seem like a pretty illogical move? FYI illogical wouldn't be my choice word I'd go with: disastrous, calamitous, crazy, stupid, idiotic - one of those...

    "But he didn't lead, which was my point. So where's the false claim? There are none."

    I didn't say you made false claims on this, here let me find what I did say oh yes "I agree with this" lol. I said Michale made some 'nonsense unsubstantiated rhetoric' in [65-68] about Obamacare and I stand by this.

  76. [76] 
    michty6 wrote:

    @[42] Kevin "Wow. Just wow.

    This video should be required viewing for all American voters:"

    You mean this video right:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=16K6m3Ua2nw

    Agreed - awesome!

  77. [77] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    When Obama is trying to repair all the damage Bush did with International relations, his record is very much in the question. I have pointed this out to you several times before, Internationally the record of the guy before you is very important.

    Not three-and-half-years into his presidency. O's own record is what's important in the here and now. And his own numbers have gone DOWN, likely owed to his having adopted many of the policies and practices that he had slammed Bush for, on the 2008 campaign trail. Only this isn't 2008 anymore; this is O's war(s) and drone strikes, and O's dealings with Israel and Iran, and O's handling of defense shields, etc. This is O's presidency, not Bush's, and O's reelection bid, not Bush's.

    Yes Obama hasn't insulted the UK publicly and for that reason hasn't had his insulted rebuked. HUGE surprise lol.

    Mmm, no, the press merely practices a double standard and selective outrage, is all. I can only imagine the reaction if a Republican president were to have given those cheesy Region-1 DVDs as a gift, or handled the removal of the Churchill bust from the Oval Office in that manner. Instead, it was nothing but downplaying, and excuses, and the usual swooning.

    Obamacare wasn't passed through a filibuster.

    I didn't say it was, so don't ascribe statements to me that I didn't make. Not intersted in those tactics. I made a general statement about how the Left constantly evokes the "filibuster" as the standard excuse for why O could never get anything accomplished. But that's a bogus assertion, since O was able to get CrapCare through DESPITE Sen. Brown's 41-st vote. The Dems employed all sorts of tactics to push CrapCare through.

    Awesome! And I never said you didn't say this, again read my post.

    You asserted that I make false statements, only to proceed to agree with my statements. Hence, my comment.

    I'm happy though, finally we have found a MASSIVE, MAJOR, HUGE, ENORMOUS reason for you to NOT vote for Romney.

    In whose opinion?

    If you think the problem with Dodd-Frank was it was too weak

    IMO, it was a huge mess, just like CrapCare.

    then voting for a guy who openly wants to repeal it and destroy regulations (i.e. what caused the Great Recession of 2008-2009) would seem like a pretty illogical move?

    Totally not interested in your personal perceptions and characterizations. Romney (and Republicans) want to repeal Dodd-Frank and start over. And Republicans do not want to return to zero regulations, which led to the 2008 near-meltdown. Republicans were the ones who wanted to regulated OTC derivatives in the first place, back in 1998, following the FIRST near-meltdown. Only Clinton's economic team flat-out lied to congress, and congress followed their recommendations. Learn the facts: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/view/?utm_campaign=viewpage&utm_medium=grid&utm_source=grid

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    mitchy,

    As someone from the UK I'd love to hear about these bonehead insulting moves Obama has made.

    What would be the point?? You have such a quasi-religious/supreme being view of Obama, he could take a dump in the queen's lap and you would think it was the bestest gift in the whole universe...

    All the surveillance, drone attacks and torture actually have mass majority support across America.

    Under Obama, yes they do... The Democrats LOVE the surveillance, torture, rendition etc etc when it's THEIR guy in charge..

    Which simply proves Democrats were playing politics, NOT principles when they opposed the same measures under Bush... Bush had to fight Democrats more than Al Qaeda because the Democrats kept siding with Al Qaeda...

    And, when President Romney is sworn in, in Jan 2013, Democrats will flip back and start opposing all the measures they swooned over when Obama was Prez...

    Michale.....

  79. [79] 
    michty6 wrote:

    "Not three-and-half-years into his presidency. O's own record is what's important in the here and now. And his own numbers have gone DOWN, likely owed to his having adopted many of the policies and practices that he had slammed Bush for, on the 2008 campaign trail. Only this isn't 2008 anymore; this is O's war(s) and drone strikes, and O's dealings with Israel and Iran, and O's handling of defense shields, etc. This is O's presidency, not Bush's, and O's reelection bid, not Bush's."

    I agree with most of this, good points and actually just about accurate. Few points:

    - You can't call them 'Obama's wars'. He did not invade any countries. The person invading or declaring war is generally considered to be the 'owner' of the war. These are still inherited and I think he has done a good job since inheriting them.
    - You know the drone strikes have overwhelming popularity in America (even from Democrats)? This is the major reason for his international standing falling (a little) but Americans love them. I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on these - for or against?
    - I believe Obama has handled Israel and Iran very well. His foreign diplomacy has been good, definitely a strength. Iran is now facing the toughest sanctions ever seen. Ever. He got almost the entire international community on board. Compared to how Bush handled such events Obama is out the ballpark.

    "Mmm, no, the press merely practices a double standard and selective outrage, is all. I can only imagine the reaction if a Republican president were to have given those cheesy Region-1 DVDs as a gift, or handled the removal of the Churchill bust from the Oval Office in that manner. Instead, it was nothing but downplaying, and excuses, and the usual swooning."

    You were doing well but here comes the drivel and nonsense once more.

    (1)'I can only imagine the reaction if a Republican president' I mean this is the UK MEDIA. Your argument makes no sense - all the UK media are biased in an election they can't vote in?? So basically there is a WORLDWIDE media conspiracy against Republican Presidents even in Conservative UK media? It's absolute nonsense, drivel, rubbish.

    (2)How on earth do you think giving a DVD gift is in the slightest way comparable to insulting the country? How on earth do you think 'Obama Brings Strange DVD Gift' is deserved of HEADLINE news? I mean this is really clutching at straws, complete and utter nonsense. You don't even know the context of the gifts, how do you know the last time he visited the UK these DVDs hadn't come up in discussion so he brought them as a joke gift to the PM? Pure and utter nonsense, drivel, speculation - grasping at far away straws.

    (3) As for the point about the Churchill bust I mean you could at least Google this story and quickly find out it is absolutely, fully, 100%, complete and utter drivel (lies, nonsense) - these are the sort of false claims I'm talking about. A complete non-story. It's like there are straws 60000 miles away and you are trying to clutch at them.

    "I made a general statement about how the Left constantly evokes the "filibuster" as the standard excuse for why O could never get anything accomplished.

    Yes you stated pretty clearly that the filibuster wasn't an excuse because Obamacare got passed. As Elizabeth (and I) pointed out this argument isn't valid.

    Fact: The filibuster has been used more times ever in the HISTORY of the United States during Obama's first 2 years as President. Deny or confirm this fact?

    Assuming you agree, you agree this indicates Republicans have been the most obstructive minority in the Senate in the HISTORY of the US? Which then kind of kills your 'well he should've got stuff done' argument when you're facing the most obstructive minority ever in the HISTORY of America...

    "I'm happy though, finally we have found a MASSIVE, MAJOR, HUGE, ENORMOUS reason for you to NOT vote for Romney.

    In whose opinion?"

    Well I was applying the logic:
    You like strong regulation + Romney likes very weak regulation = Massive reason not to vote for him. I would've thought you voted for the person/party that agrees most with your own major views?

    "Totally not interested in your personal perceptions and characterizations. Romney (and Republicans) want to repeal Dodd-Frank and start over. And Republicans do not want to return to zero regulations, which led to the 2008 near-meltdown.

    Sure my 'zero regulations' is hyperbole, but it's not far from the truth and certainly not based on personal opinion - I actually read Mitt Romney's website and policies. Perhaps you could consider doing the same? If you think Republicans are the party of strong regulations, think again. They are in favour of extremely and severely limited regulations because they see them as 'unnecessary cost'. Here are some gems from the Romney website itself:

    "Regulations function as a hidden tax on Americans"

    "A Romney administration will act swiftly to tear down the vast edifice of regulations the Obama administration has imposed on the economy"

    "Obama-era laws and regulations must be rolled back, and pre-existing ones must be carefully scrutinized"

    "Mitt Romney will eliminate the regulations promulgated in pursuit of the Obama administration’s costly and ineffective anti-carbon agenda."

    http://www.mittromney.com/issues/regulation

  80. [80] 
    michty6 wrote:

    " Bush had to fight Democrats more than Al Qaeda because the Democrats kept siding with Al Qaeda..."

    If you're going to spout this utter drivel, nonsense crap then we might as well stop. Go to the forums on RushLimbaugh.com or something instead - they'd eat that up over there.

  81. [81] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Just because it makes me laugh ...

    http://www.thereckoner.com/wp-content/uploads/mitt_olympic_savior.png

    Not totally over the top and brought a real UK cultural feel to the occasion.

    I thought the opening ceremonies was great, michty6. Especially the part w/ Daniel Craig and the Queen parachutist (who gave an absolutely hysterical interview about playing the role of the Queen btw).

    But ... not totally over the top?

    At one point there was a giant creepy baby in the center of the stadium.

    And what about Kenneth Branagh romping around with a giant cigar?

    I also don't believe they could have crammed anymore British culture in with a stadium-sized shoehorn. At one point, I yelled, where's McCartney? And, as if on cue, he appeared.

    The only thing missing was Def Leppard. (Thankfully, Elton John too ...)

    That said ... I thought it was great ... heheheh.

    -David

  82. [82] 
    michty6 wrote:

    @[81]

    David,

    Haha I guess I meant if you watch other Olympic ceremonies the fireworks and lighting and everything is over the top - this was actually pretty low key ;)

    But yes rammed with British culture! What did you think of McCartney? He is getting absolutely slated in the British press my family told me...

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you're going to spout this utter drivel, nonsense crap then we might as well stop. Go to the forums on RushLimbaugh.com or something instead - they'd eat that up over there.

    So, you are saying that Democrats were as completely on board with Bush's CT policies as they are with Obama's continuation of Bush's CT policies???

    Is THAT what you are REALLY saying??

    What color is the sky on your planet???

    Michale.....

  84. [84] 
    akadjian wrote:

    What did you think of McCartney? He is getting absolutely slated in the British press my family told me...

    Really? That surprises me. His performance didn't strike me as particularly horrible. And I've always been more of a Lennon fan. He may have deserved it for Heather Mills, but not for the opening ceremonies. My thoughts, anyways.

    I was a little disappointed though that they didn't let Johnny Lyden make an appearance. And where was Rik Mayall? :)

    -David

  85. [85] 
    michty6 wrote:

    "So, you are saying that Democrats were as completely on board with Bush's CT policies as they are with Obama's continuation of Bush's CT policies???

    Is THAT what you are REALLY saying??"

    Democrats are all card-carrying members of Al Qaeda.
    They love Al Qaeda more than America.
    They side with Al Qaeda over America everyday, in fact they are constantly involved in terrorist attacks on America.

    Is THAT what you are REALLY saying??
    What color is the sky on YOUR planet???

  86. [86] 
    michty6 wrote:

    @[84]
    David,

    I thought he was ok, not amazing. Apparently at the Queen Jubilee he was pretty awful and the media have been on his back since this...

    "I was a little disappointed though that they didn't let Johnny Lyden make an appearance. And where was Rik Mayall? :)

    Hahahaha well I guess you can't fit the entire UK comedy history into the ceremony ;) Mr Bean was good enough imo!

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mitchy,

    Democrats are all card-carrying members of Al Qaeda.
    They love Al Qaeda more than America.
    They side with Al Qaeda over America everyday, in fact they are constantly involved in terrorist attacks on America.

    You can be facetiously sarcastic all you want..

    If it helps you avoid addressing the facts, feel free.

    But the facts are this. Democrats opposed nearly every CT policy that the Bush administration put forth...

    But when President Obama entered the picture, Democrats couldn't fall over themselves fast enough to embrace the expansion of those same policies.

    The fact that those policies have been wildly successful proves beyond ANY doubt that Democrats were WRONG to oppose Bush's CT policies...

    It proves beyond ANY doubt that Democrats put THEIR partisan agenda above the SAFETY and SECURITY of this country...

    Ironically enough, Democrats were doing back then the EXACT same thing ya'all accuse Republicans of doing now.

    These are the facts that no amount of your sarcastic wit will erase...

    Michale.....

  88. [88] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    - You can't call them 'Obama's wars'.

    I most certainly can and do. He's the Commander in Chief. He could have stopped both those wars on Day One, if he so desired.

    This is the major reason for his international standing falling (a little) but Americans love them. I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on these - for or against?

    From where I'm sitting, O can't politically afford to take prisoners and interrogate them at Gitmo, lest he wishes the Left to go insane. Hence, the prosecution of war with drones. Do I think it's a good strategy? In terms of O's own political campaign, yes. In terms of the U.S. and allies gathering intel, no. But then again, O seems to always put his own political interests before anything else. So on with the drone strikes we go.

    I believe Obama has handled Israel and Iran very well.

    I don't. I think Romney — who has no problem stating the name of the captial of Israel — presents a much more no-nonsense/no-excuses stance as Israel's solid ally, and with all options on the table [read: support for a strike on Iran's nuke facilities; no ifs, ands, buts, or squishy language about it].

    You were doing well but here comes the drivel and nonsense once more.

    Just because you disagree, or refuse to accept the press's double standards, doesn't make it drivel or nonsense, michty. I can just as easily dismiss every word you have to say, using that same tactic. Try dropping the tactics. They got old quite some time ago.

    Well I was applying the logic: You like strong regulation + Romney likes very weak regulation

    Your personal characterizationa are not one and the same with fact. I didn't use the words "strong regulation," and Romney never said he likes weak regulation. Those are your personal characterizations, conveniently stated in the form of fact. I like sensible, well-balanced regulation; not an OVERLOAD of regulations, which can compromise businesses and jobs. And I don't like creating new government agencies when standard oversight is all that's needed. Those are MY thoughts, and MY words, so don't misrepresent them.

    I actually read Mitt Romney's website and policies. Perhaps you could consider doing the same?

    Newsflash: I am a political junkie. I read six newspapers a day, bare minimum; plus, the HuffPo blog; plus a variety of Left and Right blogs; plus, dozens of articles I find of Twitter; plus, polls; plus, newsletters; plus, news videos; plus, news documentaries; and, yes, by golly, candidates' sites. So enough with your self-serving suggestions that I do some more reading, otherwise known as yet another of your very tired tactics.

    "A Romney administration will act swiftly to tear down the vast edifice of regulations the Obama administration has imposed on the economy"

    Yeah, he's referring to the OVERLOAD of regulations that are having a negative impact upon businesses with respect to their ability to grow and HIRE. A lousy economy, with slow-as-hell growth and +8% unemployment, is not the time to be heaping regulations on businesses. That is Romney's stance, and one with which I 100% wholeheartedly agree.

  89. [89] 
    Kevin wrote:

    Michty-

    Arguing with Michale and his echo chamber is like trying to eat jello with chopsticks...I presume it can be done, but I'd rather pop a beer and deal with the world as it is. Our hero and leader, CW, posted the only realistic suggestion a short while back. I suggest you follow it. For what little it is worth, from this Weigantian's scorecard, it is you: Umpteen to infinity; the forces of Denseness, zero.
    Glad to have you as a new regular :) Glad you liked that video, did you read the author's commentary on the link I posted?

  90. [90] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Arguing with Michale and his echo chamber

    Back at it again so soon, Kev?

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    Our hero and leader, CW, posted the only realistic suggestion a short while back.

    That's usually the advice the peanut gallery follows when the facts become too much too handle...

    I believe Obama has handled Israel and Iran very well.

    Based on what??

    Your religious-esque devotion to Obama???

    What ya'all just CAN'T address is the simple fact that Democrats embraced, under Obama, the VERY CT tactics they fought against tooth and nail, under Bush...

    Therefore, the only, repeat *ONLY*, logical conclusion is that Democrats fought against the safety and security of this country, PURELY to serve a partisan political agenda..

    If there is another explanation that fits the facts, let's hear it...

    Or you could just go with more childish insults. :D

    Michale.....

  92. [92] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Michale

    "But the facts are this. Democrats opposed nearly every CT policy that the Bush administration put forth..."

    This isn't a fact. Give me some facts. Name some Bush CT policies that Democrats did not support. Show me the facts!

    "But when President Obama entered the picture, Democrats couldn't fall over themselves fast enough to embrace the expansion of those same policies."

    I agree with this. It is a valid criticism of Obama and the Democrats. Very hypocritical of them and Obama.

    "The fact that those policies have been wildly successful proves beyond ANY doubt that Democrats were WRONG to oppose Bush's CT policies...
    "

    I mean again you're been liberal with your use of the word 'fact' to justify rhetoric. Show me some actual facts that prove these were successful. I'm not even disagreeing with you but I'm not agreeing with pure rhetoric.

    See Michale it isn't that hard to debate issues without resorting to extreme nut-job comments like 'Democrats love Al Qaeda'...

    Chris
    "I most certainly can and do. He's the Commander in Chief. He could have stopped both those wars on Day One, if he so desired."

    Come on. You're smarter than this. You seriously think that this is how wars in the 21st century are ended?? Let me put it this way: it is literally impossible that Obama could've gotten all troops out of all war zones on day 1. Impossible.

    " Do I think it's a good strategy? In terms of O's own political campaign, yes. In terms of the U.S. and allies gathering intel, no. But then again, O seems to always put his own political interests before anything else. So on with the drone strikes we go."

    I am interested in debating this with you but if you're going to be childish and petty by suggesting all Obama military decisions are basically taken based on his political interests. If this is your view then there is no point even trying to discuss rationally with you...

    "and with all options on the table [read: support for a strike on Iran's nuke facilities; no ifs, ands, buts, or squishy language about it]."

    Lolol this is exactly the same language Obama used. Seriously man you need to take your glasses off and look at the world.

    "I think Romney — who has no problem stating the name of the captial of Israel — presents a much more no-nonsense/no-excuses stance as Israel's solid ally"

    We can certainly discuss this. If you think the solution to the problem is to completely back one side and the Internationally favoured 2-State solution, which Obama and every other major country backs, is wrong then go ahead and argue your case... I think siding aggressively with one side (as both Romney and Obama have done) isn't going to lead to peace.

    "Just because you disagree, or refuse to accept the press's double standards, doesn't make it drivel or nonsense, michty"

    No the point is the 'double standards' are an invention by you and the Republicans in response to negative media coverage when your candidate does something stupid.

    Unlike you, I can and will criticise Obama (see this very comment).

    You consistently project any negative media as 'double standard' even when it clearly isn't and is EVEN ANOTHER COUNTRIES MEDIA! I will continue to point out that any mention of media 'double standards', unless backed by relevant facts and evidence, are your nonsensical and drivel attempts to divert the attention away from the flaws of Mr Romney.

    "I like sensible, well-balanced regulation; not an OVERLOAD of regulations, which can compromise businesses and jobs. And I don't like creating new government agencies when standard oversight is all that's needed. Those are MY thoughts, and MY words, so don't misrepresent them."

    I mean seriously you are fighting a really silly battle here.

    You specifically stated (fact) that Dodd-Frank did not go far enough for you.

    I responded by saying that you must not support Romney then, before you went off on this crazy defense, seemingly arguing that Romney is the better candidate for someone who doesn't think Dodd-Frank went far enough - when there is no argument really.

    As I have mentioned if you actually do feel the position you stated about Dodd-Frank, this is a MAJOR difference to Romney. I will try explaining one more time:

    Romney wants to repeal Dodd-Frank because he feels it went too far - that is, the exact OPPOSITE view of you, as stated above. From his website:

    "A number of his major initiatives like Dodd-Frank and Obamacare represent a quantum increase in the scale of the regulatory burden on the American economy."

    "Repeal Dodd-Frank and replace with streamlined, modern regulatory framework"
    (bold added for emphasis)

    Romney thinks Dodd-Frank was a 'quantum increase' that needs to be 'streamlined'. Can you not see that this is the OPPOSITE view of someone who doesn't "think Dodd-Frank went far enough"???

    You and I read a similar number of blogs and journals. The reason I have to quote his website and had to refer to you not having read it because I literally cannot believe how you are incapable of seeing how far you and Romney differ on this issue...

  93. [93] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Kevin

    Haha yeh I just can't see nonsense and resist not commenting to it - I am trying!

    I read the author's commentary and I thought it was as excellent, if not more so, than the video itself.

    This was the best point:
    "We're falling further and further behind European and Third World countries in education, health and life expectancy because we've allowed ourselves and this rotting carcass of a country to be taken over by right wingers and corporations"

  94. [94] 
    Kevin wrote:

    Sigh.

    The Rabid Right is so boorishly predictable. Yawn.

  95. [95] 
    michty6 wrote:

    "I believe Obama has handled Israel and Iran very well.

    Based on what??

    Your religious-esque devotion to Obama???"

    Well with Iran military intervention based on flimsy evidence is not really on the cards (I know right-wingers like selective memory and hate bringing up the past, but remember this didn't quite go so well last time...).

    So the next best option is to pursue an aggressive ground-game and economic games. Which, since Iran is now returning to the negotiating table and has even let in UN inspectors, is starting to work.

    With Israel I personally have no idea why America has to continue to support them so closely. I guess not growing up in America I am devoid of this irrational love of the country (and am not influenced by the enormous money of the Jewish lobby too, which is probably the biggest reason).

    I believe some sort of compromise is needed and that the 2-Party State is the most obvious (and has the most international support). This is the compromise Obama has pursued. The problem is it never worked previously because America just gave into Israel - the nature of compromise is you have to be willing to give and previously America/Israel wasn't. So Obama has pressured them to try to compromise whilst supporting them (eg. on Iran) when necessary.

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    mitchy,

    This isn't a fact. Give me some facts. Name some Bush CT policies that Democrats did not support. Show me the facts!

    Ohmygods, SERIOUSLY!!??

    I honestly don't know how to address such complete and utter denial...

    It's clear we can't have an intelligent debate about this, if you are of the opinion that Democrats supported Bush's CT policies as much as they support Obama's continuation and expansion of those same policies..

    I guess Obama is your god and we'll leave the "debate" at that...

    Michale.....

  97. [97] 
    michty6 wrote:

    "It's clear we can't have an intelligent debate about this, if you are of the opinion that Democrats supported Bush's CT policies as much as they support Obama's continuation and expansion of those same policies..

    I guess Obama is your god and we'll leave the "debate" at that..."

    Well since I stated the exact opposite of this and you clearly didn't even read what I wrote then yes let's leave the debate there, since usually in a debate you have to actually read what the other person is writing.

  98. [98] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Come on. You're smarter than this. You seriously think that this is how wars in the 21st century are ended??

    I didn't say they were. I said that the Commander in Chief could have done so, if he wished.

    Let me put it this way: it is literally impossible that Obama could've gotten all troops out of all war zones on day 1. Impossible.

    I didn't say he could have. Stick with my written words, not your personal interpretations and inferences thereof.

    I am interested in debating this with you but if you're going to be childish and petty by suggesting all Obama military decisions are basically taken based on his political interests.

    Again, I'm not interested in your tactics of reducing and dismissing my opinons as "childish/petty" just because you don't agree with them. And, again, I can employ those very same tactics on you, if that's the way you want to play it.

  99. [99] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Chris

    I was going to post another comment but decided to hold it off. If I am not allowed to infer or interpret anything you say there is no point in even having discussions.

    And if you really do believe Obama could've stopped both wars on day 1, then good on you. Keep believing that. I'm not going to waste my time discussing any comments like this any-more.

  100. [100] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Rabid Right is so boorishly predictable. Yawn.

    I am sure I'll be saying something similar in approx 100 days..

    Of course, the difference is that I'll be accurate.. :D

    Michale.....

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well since I stated the exact opposite of this and you clearly didn't even read what I wrote then yes let's leave the debate there, since usually in a debate you have to actually read what the other person is writing.

    I did read what you wrote..

    It's just that what you wrote (Democrats didn't oppose Bush's CT policies) is so blindingly and painfully inaccurate, I felt it would be dishonorable to slam down someone who is so far removed from reality..

    It would be like kicking a baby bird after it fell out of it's nest...

    Michale....

  102. [102] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Michale

    If it's so inaccurate this should be incredibly easy for you to prove right? :)

  103. [103] 
    Kevin wrote:

    Michty,

    PLEASE stop deliberately stepping in the cow-pies :) Almost all of the CW site is safe to walk bare-foot through.

  104. [104] 
    Kevin wrote:

    Of course they won't read this, but what the heck:

    http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/07/what-happened-to-the-obamacons.html

    That should do it, I'm out of here with this foolishness. Cue the BS in 3...2...1

  105. [105] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    I was going to post another comment but decided to hold it off. If I am not allowed to infer or interpret anything you say

    Just don't credit it as having come out of my mouth. Make the distinction between what I've actually said and how you personally choose see things. Is that asking too much? If so, by all means, chat with somebody else, because I'm tired of having to correct the record. When I say something like "He could have stopped both those wars on Day One, if he so desired," it doesn't mean he could have pulled the troops out in one day. It means what it says: He could have stopped both those wars on Day One, if he so desired. That is a fact, having nothing to do with the logistics of removing troops.

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mitchy,

    If it's so inaccurate this should be incredibly easy for you to prove right? :)

    The fact that you even have to HAVE proof is proof enough that you wouldn't accept any proof..

    Much like with Obama's faux paus with the Brits...

    For you, Obama and Democrats can do no wrong..

    Since your's is, for all intents and purposes, a religious-like devotion, it's better not to get ensnared in religious debates....

    I hope you do stick around til 7 Nov..

    It will be a hoot to discuss things with you then.. :D

    Michale....

  107. [107] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Chris

    You have a different definition of 'stop' than I do clearly. Like I said the idea that a 21st Century war could be 'stopped' in any way shape or form in one day by the President alone doesn't fly for me no matter how much you 'infer' or define the word stop.

    Michale

    "For you, Obama and Democrats can do no wrong.."

    I've said it before and I'll say it again: perhaps you should actually read my posts. I've criticised Obama and the Democrats no fewer than 6 times on 6 different issues just in this thread alone (tax, CT, Dodd-Frank, CT leadership, CT foreign policy, hypocrisy).

    The difference is that I will criticise Obama where I think it is deserved and praise him where I think he deserves it. You mistake my general hatred of Romney (which I will absolutely admit to, since there is barely a policy of his I agree with and I think he is an unprincipled, manipulative power seeker) as love of Obama and Democrats. The Republicans are so far right just now it is hard for me to find anything I like about them - where I do criticise Obama their policies are usually way worse on the issue!

    Finally you and Chris live in this weird bubble where everything Obama does is (miraculously) wrong in your eyes and the entire world is conspiring against Republicans. Even in the face of facts. And even when I point out things (read a few posts back) like that Obama's position on Dodd-Frank is miles closer to Chris's position he went on a rant about how I'd bent his words and all this, then changed the topic and never came back to it after post [92]...

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    Say what you want about Romney, but Ann is pretty damn hot.. :D

    Michale

  109. [109] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    ike that Obama's position on Dodd-Frank is miles closer to Chris's position

    Obama's positions change with the political wind, michty. He's been known to say one thing and do another, which has driven many a liberal to distraction over the past few years. So regardless of what he SAYS his position is on Dodd-Frank, he still signed that faulty piece of legislation into law, and yet another financial instituion has since melted down. The risk of systemic failure is still alive and well. Here's the link once again: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/mf-global-six-billion-dollar-bet/ Take the time to actually watch it and learn the facts.

    he went on a rant about how I'd bent his words and all this, then changed the topic and never came back to it after post [92]

    I'm a she, not a he. And when I see a pattern of misrepresenting my statements, employed as a tactic to support one's own positions, I'm prone to citing it and ending that particular discussion. If I wanted that level of discourse, I'd be over at the HuffPo.

  110. [110] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Say what you want about Romney, but Ann is pretty damn hot.. :D

    Romney ain't too bad-looking, himself.

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    If I wanted that level of discourse, I'd be over at the HuffPo.

    Now THAT was funny... :D

    Romney ain't too bad-looking, himself.

    Hadn't noticed.. :D

    I am guessing that is where a LOT of the animosity from the Left comes from..

    Beyond the run-o-the-mill "Kill the Right!!! Kill the Right!!!" hysteria, people are usually jealous of good-looking greatly-successful people...

    Michale.....

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    Iran is now facing the toughest sanctions ever seen. Ever.

    And yet, they are doing absolutely NO GOOD..

    The US's and Israel's cyber attacks have been a LOT more effective in slowing down Iran's nuclear program.

    But now that Team Obama has spilled the beans on THAT operation (no wonder the Israelis are pissed!) that will cut the effectiveness by a factor of 10...

    If Iran is not stopped militarily from obtaining nukes, Iran will not be stopped from obtaining nukes.

    These are the facts. And anyone who knows ANYTHING about the military or the region would tell you the same thing.

    Michale....

  113. [113] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Chris

    You are in denial but I am going to keep hammering home:

    "The risk of systemic failure is still alive and well. Here's the link once again: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/mf-global-six-billion-dollar-bet/ Take the time to actually watch it and learn the facts."

    I agree. I work in finance. I know the factors that led to the crash. This is why a vote for Romney would be disastrous as he believes the crappy regulation that does exist goes too far and Dodd-Frank was a 'quantum increase' in regulation.

    You and I both disagree with him on this. We both have stated that Dodd-Frank did not go far enough and you have even just stated that 'the risk of systemic failure is still alive and well'. To make such a statement and then vote for the guy who wants to destroy and streamline existing regulation is not rational or logical.

    I suggest that you reconsider your vote for Romney if you truly believe this.

    "I'm a she, not a he."

    Sorry! Please accept my apologies.

    Michael "And yet, they are doing absolutely NO GOOD.."

    Nope. I'd suggest Iran returning to the negotiating table and letting in Nuclear weapons inspectors means that they have done some good. Whether it is enough remains to be seen, but to state they have done 'absolutely no good' is blatant rhetoric and lies.

  114. [114] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'd suggest Iran returning to the negotiating table and letting in Nuclear weapons inspectors means that they have done some good.

    Yes you would. Because you are ignorant of the dynamic that drives the Iranian government and the regional idiosyncrasies....

    No offense intended.

    "There is no dishonor in not knowing everything."
    -SubCommander T'al. STAR TREK The Enterprise Incident

    I can assure you that, much like Saddam and his playing footsies with the UN and North Korea playing footsies with the West, Iran is simply putting up a show of co-operation because they know that "useful idiots" (Lenin's term, not mine) will buy into that garbage and give Iran all they time they need..

    Whether it is enough remains to be seen, but to state they have done 'absolutely no good' is blatant rhetoric and lies.

    Nope, it's the facts based on experience...

    You see, THAT is where experience plays the dominant role.. As opposed to pie-in-the-sky koom-bye-yaa wishful thinking.

    It's the difference between seeing the world the way that it is rather than seeing the world as we would wish it to be.

    Granted, my experience is somewhat dated. But I see nothing that would lead me to conclude that things are much different than they were when I was active.

    I am constrained to point out that even SecDef Panetta has stated that sanctions haven't slowed down Iran much...

    Michale.....

  115. [115] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Once again you have a different definition of 'fact' than me. Your 'facts' being based on experience and opinion.

  116. [116] 
    Michale wrote:

    My facts are based partially on experience, this is true..

    But there is also this FACT:

    U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta acknowledged Monday that increasingly stiff international sanctions have yet to compel Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions.
    http://apnews.myway.com/article/20120730/DA0BBV6G0.html

    Sanctions are NOT working.. Yea, I know. Obama is saying that they WILL work..

    Obama also said he would close Gitmo, that ObamaCare would actually bring down health care costs, that people would be able to keep their health care plan and a whole bunch of other crap that turned out to be BS..

    Nothing short of military action will prevent Iran from going ahead.

    This is what the FACTS (personal experience and evidence from across the globe) say....

    Don't worry. I'll be around to tell you, "Told ya so"... :D

    Michale.....

  117. [117] 
    michty6 wrote:

    "Don't worry. I'll be around to tell you, "Told ya so"."

    Lol I remember hearing this and all the other stuff you mentioned before. It was to do with another country beginning with Ira...

    "U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta acknowledged Monday that increasingly stiff international sanctions have yet to compel Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions.
    http://apnews.myway.com/article/20120730/DA0BBV6G0.html"

    Lol this is a pretty obvious statement. Did you even read the full report you linked to??

    I love as well how you completely took this quote out of context. Here is the full sentence with bold added for emphasis on the part you missed:

    U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta acknowledged Monday that increasingly stiff international sanctions have yet to compel Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions. But he argued that more pressure eventually would lead Iran to "do what's right."

    More quotes from the same article:
    ""And while the results of that may not be obvious at the moment, the fact is that they have expressed a willingness to negotiate (with the U.S., Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China) and they continue to seem interested in trying to find a diplomatic solution," he said."

    ""What we all need to do is to continue the pressure on Iran, economically and diplomatically ... to negotiate and to ultimately do what's right in joining the international family," he added."

    Nice try though. At least you tried to find facts to substantiate your claim, even if they ended up doing the opposite...

  118. [118] 
    Michale wrote:

    Apparently, you didn't read MY post...

    Sanctions are NOT working.. Yea, I know. Obama is saying that they WILL work..

    Obama also said he would close Gitmo, that ObamaCare would actually bring down health care costs, that people would be able to keep their health care plan and a whole bunch of other crap that turned out to be BS..

    I acknowledge that Team Obama is saying they WILL work..

    YOU must acknowledge that Obama has said a LOT of things, many of which never come to fruition..

    Team Obama, like you, are involved in WishCasting, not reality...

    And, to be perfectly immodest, my prognostication abilities for the region have, to date, been spot on..

    I predicted that Egypt and Libya would go to an Islamist/Religious government ala' Iran whilst everyone else was saying it's going to be a democracy...

    Nice try though. At least you tried to find facts to substantiate your claim, even if they ended up doing the opposite...

    The ONLY fact I pointed to was Panetta claiming that the sanctions haven't worked. THAT was in response to YOUR claim that the sanctions are working..

    So, it's obvious that you were wrong and I was right..

    As to forecasting the future??

    My track record is a LOT better than Team Obama's... :D

    Michale.....

  119. [119] 
    michty6 wrote:

    "THAT was in response to YOUR claim that the sanctions are working..
    So, it's obvious that you were wrong and I was right.."

    Nope my (and Pancetta's) statement 'sanctions are working' is correct based on the facts and evidence available. Your statement 'sanctions have done absolutely no good' is completely false based on the facts and evidence available. It is over the top rhetoric.

    There is a pretty big difference between 'working' and 'worked' in this conversation that you are missing.

    Will sanctions alone be enough? As I said 'Whether it is enough remains to be seen'. But you, on the other hand, have already concluded (with no evidence, based on your own opinion and 'experience') that they haven't worked and won't be enough... This is nonsense.

  120. [120] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nope my (and Pancetta's) statement 'sanctions are working' is correct based on the facts and evidence available.

    It's simply impossible to debate with you because you refuse to accept the facts when they show that you are wrong..

    "U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta acknowledged Monday that increasingly stiff international sanctions have yet to compel Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions.

    IE.. Sanctions are NOT WORKING...

    But you, on the other hand, have already concluded (with no evidence, based on your own opinion and 'experience') that they haven't worked

    Jesus H Frak'in Christ!!!!

    SANCTIONS HAVEN'T WORKED!!!

    If they had worked we wouldn't even be having this conversation, now would we!??? Get a frakin' clue, dood....

    and won't be enough... This is nonsense.

    No, actually it's YOUR position that sanctions WILL work is "nonsense"..

    How do I know this??

    Because you base the nonsense on absolutely NO knowledge of the area, the regional difficulties or the inherent danger represented..

    Yes, it's MY OPINION that sanctions will not work. But I base that opinion on FACTS and my experiences in the region..

    The ONLY thing you base YOUR opinion on is your love of The Great BARACK The First, He Who Can Do No Wrong.

    Sanctions HAVEN'T WORKED..

    This is fact..

    If you dispute that, then obviously we are on two different planets (I'm the guy that's on Earth) and no agreement is possible...

    Michale...

  121. [121] 
    michty6 wrote:

    I'm just beating my head against the wall here. I'm just going to quote myself since I don't really need to say any more on this.

    "IE.. Sanctions are NOT WORKING..."

    Me: There is a pretty big difference between 'working' and 'worked' in this conversation that you are missing.

    Pancetta said very clearly that sanctions have not yet WORKED, he did not say that they are NOT WORKING. He clearly stated they were working and he believes they should continue down this path. Understand?

    "SANCTIONS HAVEN'T WORKED!!!"

    Again. Refer to the above. You don't know what the difference between working and worked. I'll quote myself again.

    Me: Will sanctions alone be enough? As I said 'Whether it is enough remains to be seen'. But you, on the other hand, have already concluded (with no evidence, based on your own opinion and 'experience') that they haven't worked and won't be enough... This is nonsense.

    "Yes, it's MY OPINION that sanctions will not work. But I base that opinion on FACTS and my experiences in the region.."

    This is absolutely fine. If you are arguing sanctions will not work this is a perfectly fine argument, which you can use evidence to support. It is a completely separate argument than 'sanctions are not working' which I will not agree with since the evidence contradicts this.

    If you'd said this from the get-go we could've discussed it. I respect your opinion and I don't even disagree with it, like I said my view is sanctions are working but whether or not they will be enough remains to be seen...

  122. [122] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mitchy,

    Did sanctions work against Iraq??

    Did sanctions work against North Korea??

    The answer is NO to both cases..

    We'll be able to add Iran to that when we see a mushroom cloud over the Iranian desert..

    Like I said.. I'll be around to say, "Told ya so"... :D

    Michale.....

  123. [123] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Sure I mean like I said whether sanctions alone work remains to be seen. And yes prior examples where they have not worked is good evidence. However, they are working in the sense that Iran has started to concede - like you said they could just be playing along, we will see.

    The funny thing is that considering both you and Chris believe that Obama's entire foreign policy is dictated by political gain alone (you stated such in this forum) then why hasn't he joined Israel in attacking Iran's nuclear facilities? Joining with Israel + a good old war is very good for the political ratings in America as history has shown...

  124. [124] 
    Michale wrote:

    The funny thing is that considering both you and Chris believe that Obama's entire foreign policy is dictated by political gain alone (you stated such in this forum) then why hasn't he joined Israel in attacking Iran's nuclear facilities? Joining with Israel + a good old war is very good for the political ratings in America as history has shown.

    Well, my belief if that Obama doesn't do it because his base will crucify him.. I think he is putting too much stock in his base..

    His base let's him get away with assassinating Americans without a trial, so I doubt they would raise much of a fuss if he attacked Iran...

    My theory is that Obama WILL attack Iran in the next 60 days or so, in an effort to win over Independents and NPAs...

    Everything Obama has done recently has been to cater to his base. Amnesty for Illegals, Gay Marriage, etc etc. All of that has the Left base singing his praises.

    My GUESS is that Obama will pivot and start acting to the RIGHT of Romney in an effort to win over Independents and NPAs...

    Dunno if he will be successful, though. We're still bruising from being conned over "Hope and Change"...

    I doubt "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran" will sway many.... :D

    Michale......

  125. [125] 
    michty6 wrote:

    "My GUESS is that Obama will pivot and start acting to the RIGHT of Romney in an effort to win over Independents and NPAs..."

    I don't think it's possible to move to the right of Romney ;) Unless he goes ahead and just jumps off the cliff on the far right which Romney is teetering over :)

  126. [126] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    My GUESS is that Obama will pivot and start acting to the RIGHT of Romney in an effort to win over Independents and NPAs...

    O's bringing in Bill Clinton to help him out again. I think the plan is to somehow link O to Clinton's economic record, since he can't run on his own. If that's the case, it's a risky strategy, IMO. Putting aside that Clinton can be a bit of loose cannon, his centrist policies, and his ability to work with Republicans, and his healthy economy could easily serve to spotlight O's own failings, by comparison. I wonder if anyone over at Team-O has thought about that.

  127. [127] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    This is why a vote for Romney would be disastrous as he believes the crappy regulation that does exist goes too far

    You're misrepresenting his stance, which is yet another tactic you constantly employ. (Either that, or you clearly don't know what you're talking about.) Romney is against regulations that place an unnecessary burden on businesses in general, and he's against regulations that don't work, such as that Dodd-Frank mess has since proven. And I agree with him 100%. So peddle your misleading nonsense elsewhere.

  128. [128] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Chris
    "his healthy economy could easily serve to spotlight O's own failings, by comparison. I wonder if anyone over at Team-O has thought about that."

    The guy who trashed the health economy left by Clinton is the guy that I'm sure they will be comparing to more than Clinton...

    "You're misrepresenting his stance, which is yet another tactic you constantly employ. (Either that, or you clearly don't know what you're talking about.) Romney is against regulations that place an unnecessary burden on businesses in general, and he's against regulations that don't work, such as that Dodd-Frank mess has since proven. And I agree with him 100%. So peddle your misleading nonsense elsewhere."

    I am not misrepresenting anything - this is your tactic when you don't want to address my point. You're trying to back off your previous position on Dodd-Frank by turning this into a discussion on regulation in general and claiming I am twisting Romney's position.

    But his position on DODD-FRANK - WHICH IS WHAT WE ARE DISCUSSING - is clear. He states that Dodd-Frank went too far - calling it a 'quantum increase in the scale of the regulatory burden' to use his own words and wants it repealed and 'streamlined'. This is 100% fact what he states on his website. There is literally no other mention of Dodd-Frank than this so explain how I am misleading his position on this?

    You have stated in this thread you don't believe Dodd-Frank went far enough and there are financial dangers because of this. Fact. No misleading. You can't back away.

    So I'd like to hear your actually address this inconsistency and explain how you think Romney calling it a 'quantum increase' and stating it needed 'streamlined' is consistent with your statement that you agree it did not go far enough and there are financial dangers as a result - and no backing off and changing topic.

    You can keep dancing around this and claiming I am 'misleading' on his position on Dodd-Frank or you can address what I am talking about.

  129. [129] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    You have stated in this thread you don't believe Dodd-Frank went far enough and there are financial dangers because of this. Fact. No misleading. You can't back away.

    I have stated that I think Dodd-Frank is a big mess, just like CrapCare. It failed its mission, which was to institute regulations so that systemic melt-downs could not occur again. Corzine's Global proves that failure.

    I am ALSO against regulations — both in the financial sector, and in general — that compromise businesses' ability to expand and hire in this God-awful economy.

    I believe in sensible regulation, not an OVERLOAD thereof, as it takes a delicate balance to protect consumers without hindering business owners.

    Those are my feelings about regulations. Do not cherry-pick one thing I say and present it as though it's the ONLY thing I've said, or my ONLY stance on the subject. IOW, do not distor MY words or the INTENT behind them.

  130. [130] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    The guy who trashed the health economy left by Clinton is the guy that I'm sure they will be comparing to more than Clinton...

    IOW, you have no clue that Clinton's lying economic team is responsible for not only their own 1998 near-meltdown but the 2008 one, as well: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/view/?utm_campaign=viewpage&utm_medium=grid&utm_source=grid

    You're trying to back off your previous position on Dodd-Frank by turning this into a discussion on regulation in general

    I've made MANY comments about my position on Dodd-Frank, and you don't get to isolate one single statement and present it as my ONLY position. For the third time: Dodd-Frank not only fell short of its goal but went OVERBOARD on on enacting regulations that compromised small bussinesses' ability to secure loans and credit extentions from their community banks. That is one big mess of a piece of legislation, IMO, and neither Romney nor I want it repealed ONLY because it didn't "go far enough," i.e., it didn't fulfill its goal to stop future stystemic meltdowns. It fell short of meeting it primary goal AND it went too far with regulations and hurt business owners. Got that now? Or may I look forward to your misrepresenting my statements and distoring my views yet another time?

  131. [131] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Didn't read your posts after this outrageous tactic that you clearly employed 'I have stated that I think Dodd-Frank is a big mess, just like CrapCare.' where you continually deny what you have said...

    Done with this discussion, all the best.

  132. [132] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    I have no idea what you're babbling about, but whatever...

  133. [133] 
    Michale wrote:

    Remember how before I have always said that boycotts are ridiculous and do nothing but hurt the very people they are designed to "protect"???

    Here's a PERFECT example...


    Boycott about so much more than a chicken sandwich

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/07/31/boycott-about-so-much-more-than-chicken-sandwich/

    Michale.....

  134. [134] 
    Michale wrote:

    I just LOVE it when Team Obama has to eat crow.. :D

    White House issues embarrassing apology to Charles Krauthammer over Churchill bust gaffe
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100173449/white-house-issues-humiliating-apology-to-charles-krauthammer-over-churchill-bust/

    But, credit where credit is due.

    It's nice to see Team Obama man up and do the right thing.. They SHOULD have done it with their crass and boorish "felony" accusation against Romney...

    So, they only get a half-kewpie for doing the right thing with the Churchill gaffe...

    Michale.....

  135. [135] 
    Michale wrote:
  136. [136] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    They SHOULD have done it with their crass and boorish "felony" accusation against Romney...

    Apologize for it? Heck, O and his surrogates are continuing to pursue it. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-campaign-brings-felons-latest-ad_649152.html

  137. [137] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oooooooooo

    http://global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/U.S./ray%20gaster.JPG

    I just GOT to get one of those for my business!!!! :D

    Michale.....

Comments for this article are closed.