ChrisWeigant.com

Friday Talking Points [247] -- When Universes Collide

[ Posted Friday, March 1st, 2013 – 18:11 PST ]

This is what happens when Hollywood causes metaphysical universes to collide. That's the way I see it, at any rate. The news that J. J. Abrams will now be directing movies in both the Star Wars and Star Trek franchises has, quite obviously, sent ripples across the multidimensional continuum which are only now beginning to be perceived.

Case in point: President Barack Obama today, admitting he is incapable of "Jedi mind-melds" with recalcitrant Republicans in Congress. As any science fiction fan worth his or her salt can tell you (at great length, and with appropriate quotations, accents, and gestures), it's either a Vulcan mind-meld, or a Jedi mind trick. Spock never said: "These are not the droids you're looking for," and Luke Skywalker never tried a mind-meld with Jabba the Hut, to put this another way.

Personally, I blame Abrams. No one man should have all that power, as Kanye might say.

If the Obama media team is smart, what they'd be doing even as I write this would be making two phone calls -- one to Mark Hamill, and one to Leonard Nimoy. Immediately -- as fast as air travel allows -- President Obama should cut a web video with Spock and Luke, and explain how he misspoke, what he meant to say, and offer profuse apologies to science-fiction fans everywhere (who are legion). You could have all kinds of fun writing the script for such a cameo-video, in fact. Any decent wordsmith should be able to come up with something hilarious without even breaking a sweat, in fact. The studios would love it, because it just builds fan anticipation for the next two movies in the franchises. Please, please, forward this idea to the White House, someone! The best damage control in the entire political universe! Heh.

The only other good that might possibly come of Obama's slipup might be seeing the inside-the-Beltway sorry excuse for a press corps be distracted from their current medical condition. This condition (sometimes terminal) is technically known as "cranio-rectal inversion blindness," or "the inability to see the world, through having your own head jammed so far up your own..." well, we'll just have to leave it to the foul mouth of John Boehner to complete that description, as we do strive to be a family column here. Ahem.

The big news in Washington "journalism" circles this week was not the side-issue of "did Obama personally come up with the sequester idea?" but the side-side-issue of "did Obama personally take Bob Woodward out to the woodshed and beat him mercilessly with a tire iron?" Or something like that, I must admit I'm not following this "story" as closely as some appear to be. I just sort of glance at the "Woodward admits 'it was more of a wet noodle'!" headlines, and then get on with my life, if you know what I mean. But then I don't live inside the Beltway, myself.

I found that the best commentary on the sequester this week was a seemingly-unrelated photograph of none other than Paris Hilton. Paris appears to be (life was too short for me to actually read the text explaining the photo, so this is all supposition) mugging for the cameras, while her boyfriend lies bleeding and in pain from some sort of ski accident. It's pretty easy to draw parallels to Congress and the bruised American economy, so maybe this is more of the metaphysical universe-collision fallout, who knows?

The Republican Party seems to be seriously fractured (as on so many other issues, these days) on whether to attack or retreat in their War On Women. State-level Republicans are apparently all trying to outdo each other for the "most Draconian and Hester-Prynne-ian restrictions on a woman's right to an abortion of all time" award, or else just continuing the tradition of Republicans saying monumentally stupid things about women. On the national level, however, John Boehner and about three dozen House Republicans decided to support the large number of Senate Republicans who voted for the Violence Against Women Act's renewal. Bet those three dozen are in districts which haven't been safely gerrymandered for the GOP, what do you think? But at least some Republicans are making some progress on the issue of women.

In other Republican news, the same guy who spearheaded the "freedom fries" renaming has now apparently slipped into some sort of alternate universe of his own, as he now says Dick Cheney is going to Hell for the Iraq War. How times change! The rest of us are left to wonder how sinful it is to glorify in all these Republican-on-Republican attacks (and we didn't even have to bring up Karl Rove...). What else? More proof that Republican economics just don't work, if you're into that sort of thing.

Virginia Republicans now have one more Republican on the voter rolls, as Scooter Libby had his right to vote restored personally by the state's governor. Gee, must be nice to get back your right to vote -- unlike so many felons in Virginia who are not as politically connected (to put it mildly).

The Supreme Court heard arguments in a case aiming to overturn the Voting Rights Act, because as we all know there simply is no racism in America anymore. Whoops -- except maybe over at Bloomberg Businessweek, I guess. Seriously, folks, what editor in his or her right mind would approve this cover artwork in the year 2013?

The Obama administration filed an amicus curiae brief in the Supreme Court case over California's Proposition 8 this week, speaking out for gay marriage. I still say everyone's paying attention to the wrong case, as I think any sweeping changes from the Supreme Court on gay marriage are going to come from the DOMA case and not the Prop 8 case, but we'll all have to wait and see, won't we? It was nice to see Obama following through so strongly on his new pro-gay-marriage position, though.

And finally, before we move along to the awards, we have to at least mention the news of the first pope in six centuries to resign. While the world watched, Pope Benedictus XVI exited the Vatican and the office of the Holy See. I don't know about the rest of the world, but my thoughts were deep and reflective upon such a momentous occasion. Specifically, I was thinking: "The pope's got a helicopter? How cool is that? Everyone knows about the Popemobile, but the Popecopter?!?"

OK, perhaps its just best we move right along. All this universe-colliding is making me lightheaded, obviously.

 

Most Impressive Democrat of the Week

Representative Keith Ellison deserves some sort of mention for an epic rant he went on this week, while being interviewed by Fox's Sean Hannity. It is breathtaking to watch. If you ever wanted to see someone fire up a buzz saw and just rip into Hannity, here is your chance. Ellison begins with: "You are the worst excuse for a journalist I've ever seen," and then just steamrolls right on down the hill from there.

Now, we have to admit we're actually a proponent of political ranting, if done right. We've even offered up rant suggestions here in these very pages, over the years, on numerous occasions. But we're not sure how effective we'd rate the Ellison rant. It seems to falter a bit in the middle, although some of that is likely due to the delay times between Hannity and Ellison (he was in the Capitol, not on the set). So we're tossing it out there for you to decide -- what sort of award is this worthy of, if any? The "Most Hair-Raising Rant Of The Week," maybe? See what you think, and share your thoughts in the comments, as always.

Our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week is Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, who joined together with David Vitter to cosponsor a bill to break up the big banks. Brown is pushing a simple idea, really: too big to fail is too big to exist. Or, as Brown put scarily put it in perspective:

The best example is that 18 years ago, the largest six banks' combined assets were 16 percent of GDP. Today they're 64-65 percent of GDP. So the large banks are getting bigger and bigger, partly because of the financial crisis, partly because of the advantages they have.

Ending the concept of "too big to fail" is an excellent idea, and it really should have been done about four or five years ago. For championing the issue, and for getting bipartisan support for his legislation, Sherrod Brown is our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week.

[Congratulate Senator Sherrod Brown on his Senate contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week

Sadly, this one is an easy call this week.

Mitch McConnell is apparently married to Elaine Chao. This is news to us, but then we don't get invited to tony Washington cocktail parties, so perhaps we can be excused for not knowing that the Senate Minority Leader is married to an ex-cabinet member from a Republican administration.

But while our reaction upon hearing the news is likely similar to just about everyone's ("Huh... who knew?... that's interesting..."), apparently we're supposed to be having a different reaction, according to a group called "Progress Kentucky." This supposedly-liberal super PAC has been tweeting about McConnell's family, using what can only be called "race-baiting." Don't believe me? Decide for yourself: "This woman has the ear of (Sen. McConnell) - she's his wife. May explain why your job moved to China!"

The story doesn't even end there:

The Tweet links to a blog post on site run by conspiracy theorist and radio host Jeff Rense, who has promoted conspiracy theories about the Sandy Hook school shooting and Holocaust denialism. Another tweet noted that, "not many know McConnell's wife is Chinese."

A spokesman for the group took an astonishingly blithe attitude toward the problem, responding: "It's not an official statement. It's a Tweet. And we will remove it if it's wrong. People make mistakes in Tweets. It happens."

Um, sorry, guys, but that is not good enough. It's not even near being good enough. It's not even in the same time zone as what you should have said, in fact. What's even worse is this comes from a group with "Progress" in its title.

You guys should really hang your heads in shame. And then profusely apologize. Want to know how to handle this sort of thing? Here is Ashley Judd's response (Judd may actually be contemplating a run against McConnell, and is therefore the candidate Progress Kentucky is supposed to be benefiting):

Whatever the intention, whatever the venue, whomever the person, attacks or comments on anyone's ethnicity are wrong & patently unacceptable

Exactly right. Couldn't have said it better. For both allowing these tweets to be published, and then for the pathetic response, Progress Kentucky wins the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award.

[Contact Progress Kentucky via their web pages, to let them know what you think of their actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 247 (3/1/13)

Before we get on with taking a look at Obama's press conference today, we've got two items that just didn't fit anywhere else. Two candidates, in fact, for upcoming elections, both of which will be very interesting to keep track of, we think.

The first is in Arkansas, where Bill Halter has thrown his hat in the ring for the governor's race. You may remember Halter as the guy who tried to "primary" Senator Blanche Lincoln. This was a big election, and a lot of outside money poured in to help Halter defeat Lincoln. This sort of thing later led Rahm Emanuel to an epic level of profanity and offensiveness, it should be noted, which we're not going to repeat here (being a family-style column, of course). Halter is now trying for the governor's office, and we certainly will be watching how the race unfolds.

But we're going to make a bold prediction here, and say that one of the most (if not the most) interesting Senate races next year is going to be between two current House members from Iowa. Hopefully, Republicans will nominate Steve King, who has a bit of a problem keeping his own mouth under control. And also hopefully (although in a different sense), Democrats will nominate Bruce Braley, who is an all-around good guy and helped create the Populist Caucus in Congress. Karl Rove has already suggested he's going to sink money into the Republican primary in the hopes of defeating King, so there's that to look forward to as well. But, as mentioned, we think this may be the Senate race to watch in 2014. And we wish both Braley and Halter good luck on the campaign trail!

OK, this is running long enough, so let's just move right along to examining Obama's press conference today. Barack Obama is starting off his second term the same way he started off his first. In his first term, this phase (sadly) ended much too soon, as Obama seemed to abandon the concept. Perhaps he's learned his lesson, and perhaps he's channeling his inner Ronald Reagan more strongly this time.

In case you're confused, what I'm talking about is the correct use of the "bully pulpit." Or, as Reagan was fond of saying to the press: "I'm going over your heads to the American people." This theme was on full display today, and you get the sense that Obama has learned that wielding this power can indeed get results in Congress, if done right.

Having said that, here are the most effective excerpts from the full transcript of Obama's press conference.

 

1
   None of this is necessary

In his opening remarks, after calling the sequester cuts "stupid" (a theme he would return to), Obama did not mince words about how he saw the past week unfold. Towards the end of this excerpt, Obama begins his overall theme of "talking directly to the American people."

And let's be clear. None of this is necessary. It's happening because of a choice that Republicans in Congress have made. They've allowed these cuts to happen because they refuse to budge on closing a single wasteful loophole to help reduce the deficit. As recently as yesterday, they decided to protect special interest tax breaks for the well-off and well-connected, and they think that that's apparently more important than protecting our military or middle-class families from the pain of these cuts.

I do believe that we can and must replace these cuts with a more balanced approach that asks something from everybody: Smart spending cuts; entitlement reform; tax reform that makes the tax code more fair for families and businesses without raising tax rates -- all so that we can responsibly lower the deficit without laying off workers, or forcing parents to scramble for childcare, or slashing financial aid for college students.

I don't think that's too much to ask. I don't think that is partisan. It's the kind of approach that I've proposed for two years. It's what I ran on last year. And the majority of the American people agree with me in this approach, including, by the way, a majority of Republicans. We just need Republicans in Congress to catch up with their own party and their country on this. And if they did so, we could make a lot of progress.

 

2
   I am prepared to do hard things

Obama sets himself up as the "adult in the room" to counter the Republican caricature of him "just wanting taxes." He puts the whole argument into some well-needed perspective, and once again ends with an appeal to the public.

Look, we've already cut $2.5 trillion in our deficit. Everybody says we need to cut $4 trillion, which means we have to come up with another trillion and a half. The vast majority of economists agree that the problem when it comes to deficits is not discretionary spending. It's not that we're spending too much money on education. It's not that we're spending too much money on job training, or that we're spending too much money rebuilding our roads and our bridges. We're not.

The problem that we have is a long-term problem in terms of our health care costs and programs like Medicare. And what I've said very specifically, very detailed is that I'm prepared to take on the problem where it exists -- on entitlements -- and do some things that my own party really doesn't like -- if it's part of a broader package of sensible deficit reduction. So the deal that I've put forward over the last two years, the deal that I put forward as recently as December is still on the table. I am prepared to do hard things and to push my Democratic friends to do hard things.

But what I can't do is ask middle-class families, ask seniors, ask students to bear the entire burden of deficit reduction when we know we've got a bunch of tax loopholes that are benefiting the well-off and the well-connected, aren't contributing to growth, aren't contributing to our economy. It's not fair. It's not right. The American people don't think it's fair and don't think it's right.

 

3
   Why don't we do that?

Obama starts with his overall theme here, and then pivots to an important point -- how could Boehner be for something a few months ago, and be against it now? It doesn't make sense.

So in terms of going forward, my hope is that after some reflection -- as members of Congress start hearing from constituents who are being negatively impacted, as we start seeing the impact that the sequester is having -- that they step back and say, all right, is there a way for us to move forward on a package of entitlement reforms, tax reform, not raising tax rates, identifying programs that don't work, coming up with a plan that's comprehensive and that makes sense. And it may take a couple of weeks. It may take a couple of months, but I'm just going to keep on pushing on it. And my view is that, ultimately, common sense prevails.

But what is true right now is that the Republicans have made a choice that maintaining an ironclad rule that we will not accept an extra dime's worth of revenue makes it very difficult for us to get any larger comprehensive deal. And that's a choice they're making. They're saying that it's more important to preserve these tax loopholes than it is to prevent these arbitrary cuts.

And what's interesting is Speaker Boehner, just a couple months ago, identified these tax loopholes and tax breaks and said we should close them and raise revenue. So it's not as if it's not possible to do. They themselves have suggested that it's possible to do. And if they believe that in fact these tax loopholes and these tax breaks for the well-off and the well-connected aren't contributing to growth, aren't good for our economy, aren't particularly fair and can raise revenue, well, why don't we get started? Why don't we do that?

 

4
   Everybody is going to have to do something

Obama, once again, stakes out a very reasonable position. Why can't everyone sacrifice a little bit?

And I just want to repeat, Julie, because I think it's very important to understand, it's not as if Democrats aren't being asked to do anything, either, to compromise. There are members of my party who violently disagree with the notion that we should do anything on Medicare. And I'm willing to say to them, I disagree with you, because I want to preserve Medicare for the long haul. And we're going to have some tough politics within my party to get this done.

This is not a situation where I'm only asking for concessions from Republicans and asking nothing from Democrats. I'm saying that everybody is going to have to do something. And the one key to this whole thing is trying to make sure we keep in mind who we're here for. We are not here for ourselves, we're not here for our parties, we're not here to advance our electoral prospects. We're here for American families who have been getting battered pretty good over the last four years, are just starting to see the economy improve; businesses are just starting to see some confidence coming back. And this is not a win for anybody, this is a loss for the American people.

 

5
   Eventually Congress catches up

When asked about his leadership skills, Obama pointed out he didn't really need to lead, as the American people were already in agreement. Properly labeled (as far as bumpersticker-slogans go), this is the "When the people lead, the leaders follow" theory. Obama knows the polling is overwhelmingly on his side in this argument. The difference now seems to be that Obama is unafraid to say so in a very pointed manner.

Look, the issue is not my persuasive power. The American people agree with my approach. They agree that we should have a balanced approach to deficit reduction.

The question is can the American people help persuade their members of Congress to do the right thing, and I have a lot of confidence that over time, if the American people express their displeasure about how something is working, that eventually Congress responds. Sometimes there is a little gap between what the American people think and what Congress thinks. But eventually Congress catches up.

 

6
   Mayor Bloomberg and others may not feel that impact

When asked about the mayor of New York City's brushing aside Obama's warnings of what will be cut, Obama did not hesitate to beautifully frame the issue. This could be the clearest example of "speaking to those outside the Beltway" in the entire presser.

The Department of Defense right now has to figure out how the children of military families are going to continue with their schooling over the next several months, because teachers at these Army bases are typically civilians. They are therefore subject to furlough, which means that they may not be able to teach one day a week.

Now, I expect that we'll be able to manage around it. But if I'm a man or woman in uniform in Afghanistan right now, the notion that my spouse back home is having to worry about whether or not our kids are getting the best education possible, the notion that my school for my children on an Army base might be disrupted because Congress didn't act, that's an impact. Now, Mayor Bloomberg and others may not feel that impact. I suspect they won't. But that family will.

The Border Patrol agents who are out there in the hot sun, doing what Congress said they're supposed to be doing, finding out suddenly that they're getting a 10-percent pay cut and having to go home and explain that to their families, I don't think they feel like this is an exaggerated impact. So I guess it depends on where you sit.

 

7
   Jedi mind-meld

Sure, this one's going to get all the jokes. But Obama is making a very good point -- he is answering the "centrist" nonsense that has been kicking around inside the Beltway for a couple of weeks. This centrist fantasy hinges around Obama using magic "leadership" skills (which are never explained) to change the minds of the Republicans in Congress, as easy as clicking your red slippers together. The list of pundits who have written tripe about this idiocy grows daily, it seems, so it was indeed refreshing to hear Obama slap it down. Here's the whole transcript of the exchange, to show how vacuous the question is, when you attempt to actually put this "alternate universe theory" into words:

Q: Mr. President, to your question, what could you do -- first of all, couldn't you just have them [Republican congressional leadership] down here and refuse to let them leave the room until you have a deal? (Laughter.)

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I mean, Jessica, I am not a dictator. I'm the President. So, ultimately, if Mitch McConnell or John Boehner say, we need to go to catch a plane, I can't have Secret Service block the doorway, right? So --

Q: But isn't that part of leadership? I'm sorry to interrupt, but isn't --

OBAMA: I understand. And I know that this has been some of the conventional wisdom that's been floating around Washington that somehow, even though most people agree that I'm being reasonable, that most people agree I'm presenting a fair deal, the fact that they don't take it means that I should somehow do a Jedi mind-meld with these folks and convince them to do what's right. Well, they're elected. We have a constitutional system of government. The Speaker of the House and the leader of the Senate and all those folks have responsibilities.

What I can do is I can make the best possible case for why we need to do the right thing. I can speak to the American people about the consequences of the decisions that Congress is making or the lack of decision-making by Congress. But, ultimately, it's a choice they make.

And this idea that somehow there's a secret formula or secret sauce to get Speaker Boehner or Mitch McConnell to say, you know what, Mr. President, you're right, we should close some tax loopholes for the well-off and well-connected in exchange for some serious entitlement reform and spending cuts of programs we don't need. I think if there was a secret way to do that, I would have tried it. I would have done it.

-- Chris Weigant

 

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

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Cross-posted at: Democrats For Progress
Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

67 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [247] -- When Universes Collide”

  1. [1] 
    Hawk Owl wrote:

    Just a [trivia] aside. The point to the reference to Paris Hilton is enhanced if you remember that as Paris' last name suggests, even without any media, show-business earnings, she would be an automatic member of the top 2% club as an heiress to the Hilton [hotels] family fortune . . .

    Us old-timers serve a purpose at times.

    Hawkowl

  2. [2] 
    michty6 wrote:

    The best example is that 18 years ago, the largest six banks' combined assets were 16 percent of GDP. Today they're 64-65 percent of GDP. So the large banks are getting bigger and bigger, partly because of the financial crisis, partly because of the advantages they have.

    Fantastic stat. I love stuff like this.

    Also a column that references BOTH Star Wars and Star Trek repeatedly and no comment from Michale??? I am SHOCKED!

  3. [3] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Also Obama:

    "A majority of Americans -- and Republicans -- support my approach for deficit reduction."

    This is absolutely true - http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/mar/01/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-majority-american-people-agree-m/

    Once again the whim of the moronic right retarded Republicans is bringing down the reasonable, sensible ones...

  4. [4] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale -

    Convenient how you moved those goalposts, isn't it?

    Here are figures for the first year in office. Since, you know, you haven't quoted one single tiny itsy bitsy shred of evidence to back up your laughable nonsense, it'll have to do for now.

    Obama -- 26 days on vacation
    Clinton -- 21 days

    Oh no! Obama spends more time on vacation than Clinton! Maybe Michale's right!

    Hardly...

    GHWBush -- >40 days (that's just to Kennebunkport)
    Reagan -- 42 days

    But then, there's the all-time winner, of course:

    GWBush -- 77 days.

    So Bush took THREE TIMES the vacation Obama did, but you still have a problem with it. Because he went to blue states (MA and HI) rather than a red state (TX)?

    Horse puckey, my friend.

    See, this is the larger point about Republicans not being able to deal with scientific fact or logic. Don't like the facts? Well then, make up some reason why they can't be true!

    Nobody even came CLOSE to the vacation time Dubya took, and likely in all the rest of Amrican history nobody ever will, because (hopefully) we'll never elect a fratboy slacker as president again. But don't let the facts get in the way of your ODS...

    As for the Bush girls, who do you THINK paid for not just their vacations (the BA jaunt was in 2006, long after 9/11) but the whole Secret Service protection detail while they were there? The US taxpayers, that's who. Face it, you made a stupid assertion, and it is not backed up by the facts.

    And I noticed you were too chicken to answer my question about what you'd say about Michelle if she ever "ignored requests to cut her vacation short for SECURITY REASONS," probably because you know FULL WELL that the Right would have a FREAKIN' CONNIPTION FIT over it, while the Left (obviously) did not have such a conniption fit. Couldn't quite answer that question honestly, could you?

    No president -- not even champion vacationer Dubya -- costs anywhere NEAR $40 billion a year to the taxpayers. Unless you provide some facts and/or figures, I'm going to assume you're just in your usual "makin' stuff up, because it sounds good, and Obama MUST be the worst of all time, because the Rightwing media tells me so" mode, and ignore it from now on.

    -CW

  5. [5] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Whoops! Looks like I posted that Michale rant to the wrong column... sorry.

    -CW

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    OK, ya dragged me in here! :D

    Don't say I didn't offer...

    The problem here is that you are comparing a George Bush vacation at the family homestead, clearing brush and listen to whiners like Cindy Sheehan to a Barack Obama vacation hobnobbing with the likes of TIGER WOODS (I noticed that YOU didn't address that!! :D) **AFTER** telling all Americans that they are going to have to tighten their belts and "sacrifice"...

    No matter HOW you try and spin it, THAT is simply a failure in leadership..

    PERIOD...

    As for the Bush girls, who do you THINK paid for not just their vacations (the BA jaunt was in 2006, long after 9/11) but the whole Secret Service protection detail while they were there? The US taxpayers, that's who. Face it, you made a stupid assertion, and it is not backed up by the facts.

    Of course taxpayers paid the Secret Service protection.

    But the Bushes paid for their daughters to go there, on commercial flights (if I recall correctly)..

    When the Obamas go on vacation, the taxpayers pay for the Secret Service AND for the flights etc etc etc.. AND the friends that accompany the Obamas and a crap load more..

    Face it.. Michelle Obama is Marie Antoinette on steroids, except not as attractive..

    And I noticed you were too chicken to answer my question about what you'd say about Michelle if she ever "ignored requests to cut her vacation short for SECURITY REASONS," probably because you know FULL WELL that the Right would have a FREAKIN' CONNIPTION FIT over it, while the Left (obviously) did not have such a conniption fit. Couldn't quite answer that question honestly, could you?

    Not at all I just didn't understand the point you were trying to make...

    No president -- not even champion vacationer Dubya -- costs anywhere NEAR $40 billion a year to the taxpayers.

    I am not saying "a year"...

    And I was speaking euphemistically regarding the costs, not literally..

    What I *AM* saying and what NO ONE here can deny is that it is a complete and utter failure of leadership to CAMPAIGN to Americans day in and day out how THEY must "sacrifice" and "tighten their belts" and then turn around and take jet-setting vacations all over the country and the world and hobnob with Beyonce and Tiger Woods while Americans are facing (at least according to Obama) a catastrophic economic Armageddon of BIBLICAL proportions!

    Now if you want to bring up Bush 1 and Bush 2 and Reagan and Moe, Curly and Larry The Cable Guy... by all means, have at it..

    But I am not sure what the relevance they would have to OBAMA's complete and utter failure to be a good leader, failure to lead by example...

    And I'll say it again..

    TIGER WOODS!???

    REALLY!!????

    :D

    MIchty,

    Also a column that references BOTH Star Wars and Star Trek repeatedly and no comment from Michale??? I am SHOCKED!

    Yea, I was gonna give ya'all a break and let ya'all have an FTP commentary to yourselves for a few days... :D

    Michale

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:
  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here's the problem as I see it.

    Ya'all go on and on and on about my bias.. Funny thing is, I have *NEVER* denied that I am biased against Obama. NEVER.. Not ONCE..

    What is even MORE hilarious is that ya'all are JUST as biased as I am, in FAVOR of Obama..

    I mean, my gods, people!

    Obama is ASSASSINATING American citizens w/o ANY due process whatsoever and ya'all collectively yawn.. It is NEVER commented on unless I drag it out into the light of day and it has only ONCE (to the best of my recollection) been Commentary'ed..

    So, by all means. Go on and on and on about my bias against Obama. It's probably one of the few things we can actually agree on. :D

    But what ya'all simply CANNOT deny is that ya'all are JUST as biased as I am in FAVOR of Obama.

    Only TWO Weigantians have EVER seriously taken Obama to the mat. Michty (of ALL people!! :D) took Obama to task (once) and labeled him "incompetent" in his handling of the economy. And a damn accurate label to boot..

    And Joshua has constantly ripped into Obama (deservedly) for his utter incompetence in handling Education.

    That's it.

    IN FOUR+ YEARS, Obama has NEVER been seriously dinged (MDDOTWs notwithstanding) by any Weigantian..

    So, tell me.. WHO is biased and who isn't??

    All I am saying is that, when ya'all complain about my bias, for some reason, the words "stones" and "glass houses" come to mind.. :D

    Michale

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, just for the record, ya'alls bias for Obama is based solely and completely on political ideology..

    My bias against Obama is personal...

    In other words, ya'all love and swoon over Obama because he is a Democrat..

    I despise Obama because he is a hypocrite, a liar and an altogether shitty leader..

    A not so subtle difference which makes ALL the difference..

    Michale

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Convenient how you moved those goalposts, isn't it?

    What you call "moving the goalposts" I simply call an acknowledgement of your logical and well-reasoned argument. :D

    Would that such could be reciprocated from RnF Weigantians, eh? :/

    I'm just sayin' :D

    Michale

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, on another note, Obama's poll numbers are going down again..

    Just as I predicted.. :D

    Michale

  12. [12] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Are you going to get all personal on us when the next Democrat president is elected in 2016, too?

    It's getting beyond tiresome, you know.

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Are you going to get all personal on us when the next Democrat president is elected in 2016, too?

    I am no more personal than anyone else here.. :D

    As far as a Dem in '16.... I guess that will depend on if people put political ideology before principles with the next Dem POTUS...

    Assuming there IS another DEM POTUS within our lifetime.. :D

    It's getting beyond tiresome, you know.

    As it was for me during the Bush years...

    But I hung in there.. Ya'all can too.. :D

    Michale

  14. [14] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    I guess Fact Checking is for Republicans only..

    FINALLY!!!

    Finally, you are beginning to understand what is happening here.

    I knew it was just a matter of time - granted, a very, very, VERY long time - before we got you on public record admitting that the (congressional) Republicans are the one group, en masse (there may be one or two notable exceptions, I'm perfectly willing to stipulate) who have an aversion to the facts and who need to be "fact-checked" pretty much whenever you see their lips moving.

    Thanks, Michale, for this long overdue acknowledgement.

    Now, can we please move on and have some intelligent discussion around here for a change about some issues - that's ISSUES - that really matter without getting so personal about who or who is not currently occupying the White House?

    It would be refreshing and ... we'd be eternally ... grateful ...

  15. [15] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michiale,

    Just to be clear, when I wrote, "I guess Fact Checking is for Republicans only..", I was directly quoting you, my friend. :)

  16. [16] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    When do you suppose we'll get an 'Edit' function around here? :)

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    I knew it was just a matter of time - granted, a very, very, VERY long time - before we got you on public record admitting that the (congressional) Republicans are the one group, en masse (there may be one or two notable exceptions, I'm perfectly willing to stipulate) who have an aversion to the facts and who need to be "fact-checked" pretty much whenever you see their lips moving.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/02/obama-his-team-struggling-with-accuracy-when-explaining-impact-sequester-cuts/

    Yet, as we see, it's not only Republicans that have a problem with facts.. :D

    Obama's entire campaign on his Sequester Armageddon is proof positive of that.. :D

    I was directly quoting you, my friend. :)

    Oh I know... :D

    Michale

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    If ya'all ever get a chance, catch the STAR TREK:TOS episode LET THAT BE YOUR LAST BATTLEFIELD..

    It epitomizes the GOPvsDEM conflict perfectly...

    Michale

  19. [19] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    What congressional Republicans have a problem with is being part of a balanced, prudent and responsible approach to dealing with America's long-term deficit and debt problems in an effort to improve the US economy and the well-being of the American people.

    Why that is so is fodder for a whole other conversation.

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    What congressional Republicans have a problem with is being part of a balanced, prudent and responsible approach to dealing with America's long-term deficit and debt problems in an effort to improve the US economy and the well-being of the American people.

    By concentrating on Republicans, you are over-loooking 50% of the problem.. :D

    In other words, I am MORE than willing to concede the GOP's responsibility for this mess we're in..

    I simply maintain (and have the facts to back it up) that the GOP is not SOLELY responsible..

    Michale

  21. [21] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    That sums up precisely where you are going wrong and being led astray.

    In other words, "the truth is not half-way between right and wrong".

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    That sums up precisely where you are going wrong and being led astray.

    Let's approach this from a different angle..

    You DO realize that the Sequester, the Sequester that Obama calls stupid, was OBAMA's idea...

    You DO realize that, right??

    Michale

  23. [23] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Do you understand what prompted the sequester?

    I don't know about you, but I remember the summer of 2011 like it was yesterday. I have never in my life seen a group of politicians (congressional Republicans, in this case) behave in such an obtuse manner and put a nation, already in a very soft economic recovery, on an even more fragile road back from the Republican-inspired economic abyss.

    Yes, the sequester was one of many ideas coming out of the White House to deal with this Republican insanity. The idea, that everyone seems to be forgetting, was to find a way out of the insanity of defaulting on the US debt. It was, in its very essence, a way of forcing Democrats and Republicans to find smart ways to deal with the long-term deficit and debt in a balanced and prudent manner involving both increased revenues and decreased spending.

    Listening to the Republican leadership on today's Sunday chatfest, it was clear enough that they believe the sequester is a good idea. Yeah, they like the sequester that doesn't cut the kind of spending that will actually have any affect on decreasing the debt and deficit. Now, there is some classic Republican logic for you.

    I don't know how many examples in history - even extremely recent history - the Republicans need to understand how the kind of short-term austerity that this sequester will force on the US economy at this time will impact the recovery. But, then I have to remind myself that the well-being of the nation is the last thing on the mind of congressional Republicans.

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do you understand what prompted the sequester?

    Yes I do..

    The orgasmic spending of Obama and the Democrats that pushed our debt higher than any president in history COMBINED..

    Anything else is moot...

    Michale

  25. [25] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    I though we agreed to be factual in this conversation.

    You need to revisit the summer of 2011. In reality, you need to go back a bit further than that.

    Have fun!

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    I though we agreed to be factual in this conversation.

    We did..

    And you simply CANNOT examine the facts and leave out the fact that Obama and the Democrats pushed the debt to unheard of, nay UNIMAGINABLE levels..

    Even amongst Weigantians, I don't think you would find ANYONE who would say that Obama and the Democrats are blameless..

    But I could be wrong about that. It's been known to happen.. :D

    Michale

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    What I want to know is where is all the biblical catastrophes that Obama and the Democrats promised!?

    Com'on!!!

    I was looking FORWARD to the end of the world!!!

    Where is all the mayhem, death and destruction that Obama foretold!!!???

    "Com'on! Make up your minds! We're stayin'... We're goin'... We're stayin'!! I had a great spot picked out!"
    -Rockhound, ARMAGEDDON

    :D

    Michale....

  28. [28] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    The orgasmic spending of Obama and the Democrats that pushed our debt higher than any president in history COMBINED..

    And you simply CANNOT examine the facts and leave out the fact that Obama and the Democrats pushed the debt to unheard of, nay UNIMAGINABLE levels..

    But ... but, Michale, you always leave out the most destructive global financial crisis since the Great Depression which began in earnest in 2007, the impacts of which continue to this day.

    But, fine ... I'll take that bait ... tell me, precisely how - as in what was spent on what - did Obama and the Democrats go on such an "unimaginable" and "orgasmic" spending spree as you describe?

    Give me all the details, my friend!

    Okay, I'll take that bait

  29. [29] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    I know there is an 'Edit' function around here ... I just can't seem to find it ... where is that little button!? ...

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    But ... but, Michale, you always leave out the most destructive global financial crisis since the Great Depression which began in earnest in 2007, the impacts of which continue to this day.

    So, in other words, it's all Bush's fault..

    Which excuses all the screw-ups and mistakes that Obama and the Democrats have made??

    Today's economy is owned completely and unequivocally by Obama and the Democrats.

    We are where we are at now, with the high gas prices and high utility prices and high unemployment solely and completely because of the incompetence (Michty's word, not mine) of Obama and the Democrats..

    As far as what the orgasm of spending for??

    A lot of the money went to Dem cronies and donors who promptly blew all the money and then their companies went bankrupt.

    A lot more of the money went to Union paybacks and Corporate Executive bonuses, leaving taxpayers on the hook for BILLIONs...

    In other words, not only are Obama and the Democrats guilty of out of control orgasmic spending, they are guilty of spending the money foolishly and paying cronies and donors with absolutely NO regard for the competency and viability of the businesses.

    There is NO doubt that the American people and this country are WORSE off today than they were before Obama took office.

    These conclusions are supported by a myriad of documented facts...

    Michale....

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    It seems that the cat has gotten most everyone's tongue around here?

    Where is all the gloom and doom and catastrophe and meltdown that Obama and the Democrats promised over Obama's sequester?? :D

    As I called it, it was all a bunch of Chicken Little fear-mongering...

    I have to say it feels kinda nice to hit one out of the park now and again. :D

    Michale

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    I know there is an 'Edit' function around here ... I just can't seem to find it ... where is that little button!? ...

    It's not so much an EDIT button as it is a PREVIEW button..

    It's right below the COMMENT window..

    Click on it w/o typing anything in the comment section. It's a hoot.. :D

    Michale

  33. [33] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    A lot more of the money went to Union paybacks and Corporate Executive bonuses, leaving taxpayers on the hook for BILLIONs...

    FALSE. You really have to keep up, Michale.

  34. [34] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    In other words, not only are Obama and the Democrats guilty of out of control orgasmic spending, they are guilty of spending the money foolishly and paying cronies and donors with absolutely NO regard for the competency and viability of the businesses.

    If you're going to make stuff up, Michale, it could be a bit more amusing. Geesh.

  35. [35] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Click on it w/o typing anything in the comment section. It's a hoot.. :D

    I've done that. But, it still doesn't solve my particular problem. :)

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you're going to make stuff up, Michale, it could be a bit more amusing. Geesh.

    As I said, the facts in this are well-established..

    http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list/losses

    Michale

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    A lot more of the money went to Union paybacks and Corporate Executive bonuses, leaving taxpayers on the hook for BILLIONs...

    FALSE. You really have to keep up, Michale.

    Really???

    http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/10/17/Obamas-Auto-Bailout-Was-Really-a-Hefty-Union-Payoff.aspx#page1

    As I said, the facts completely and unequivocally support my conclusions..

    Michale

  38. [38] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    So, in other words, it's all Bush's fault..

    Michale, I've noticed that you are the only one around here who ever says that. I'm beginning to think you really believe it.

    In any event, this conversation has become far too tedious to continue.

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale, I've noticed that you are the only one around here who ever says that. I'm beginning to think you really believe it.

    No, I am just the only one who comes out and says it w/o beating around the .... er... bush... :D

    In other words.....

    "But ... but, Michale, you always leave out the most destructive global financial crisis since the Great Depression which began in earnest in 2007, the impacts of which continue to this day."

    and

    "It's all Bush's fault"

    .... is basically saying the same thing.

    "Mr President! Mr President!? In the dictionary under 'redundant' is says, 'see redundant'..."
    -Robin Williams, LIVE AT THE MET

    :D

    Michale

  40. [40] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I don't know about you, but I remember the summer of 2011 like it was yesterday. I have never in my life seen a group of politicians (congressional Republicans, in this case) behave in such an obtuse manner...

    frankly, i'm amazed that this passed with nary a reference to the shawshank redemption.

    Nothing stops. Nothing... or you will do the hardest time there is. No more protection from the guards. I'll pull you out of that one-bunk Hilton and cast you down with the Sodomites. You'll think you've been ****ed by a train! And the library? Gone... sealed off, brick-by-brick. We'll have us a little book barbecue in the yard. They'll see the flames for miles. We'll dance around it like wild Injuns! You understand me? Catching my drift?... Or am I being obtuse?
    -warden norton, the shawshank redemption

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    frankly, i'm amazed that this passed with nary a reference to the shawshank redemption.

    To be honest, I never saw the movie..

    Yea, I know, I know.. I am culturally depraved....

    err... I mean, deprived... :D

    Michale

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Obama Administration just CAN'T stop the fear-mongering...

    Gov't: Budget cuts already causing airport delays
    hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_BUDGET_BATTLE_AIR_TRAVEL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-03-04-08-39-18

    Yet, the facts are, there are minimal (if ANY) delays..

    http://www.fly.faa.gov/flyfaa/usmap.jsp

    So much for "fact-based" rhetoric, eh??

    Michale

  43. [43] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Lololol amazing. You seriously think that $85b of cuts over the course of 1 year would be felt the day after the cuts came into affect????

    Hahahahahahaha amazing!

  44. [44] 
    akadjian wrote:

    CW-

    Thanks for the shout out for Sherrod Brown!

    He's been pushing this banking bill for a long time and is one of the few in Washington who seems to remember the financial collapse and "too big to fail".

    The banking situation in our country truly has become a monopoly situation.

    -David

  45. [45] 
    akadjian wrote:

    To be honest, I never saw the movie.

    You never saw Shawshank Redemption, Michale?

    Now that surprises me. I think you'd enjoy it. Good flick.

    -David

  46. [46] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    To be honest, I never saw the movie.

    You never saw Shawshank Redemption, Michale?

    Now that surprises me. I think you'd enjoy it. Good flick.

    yes, to be honest i also found it kind-of surprising that a self-avowed movie buff hasn't seen that film. it may not quite deserve its spot at the VERY top of imdb's top 250 (admittedly a very "guy-centric" list), but i think it definitely deserves to be somewhere in the top 250.

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michty,

    Lololol amazing. You seriously think that $85b of cuts over the course of 1 year would be felt the day after the cuts came into affect????

    That's EXACTLY what Obama and the Democrats lead the American people to believe...

    But, as usual, they never let FACTS stand in the way of their fear-mongering...

    Face the facts. Obama and the Democrats have lost a LOT of credibility over their dire warnings of Biblical Apocalypses and Armageddon scenarios...

    David,

    Thanks for the shout out for Sherrod Brown!

    And David Vitter... Don't forget David Vitter! :D

    Joshua,

    yes, to be honest i also found it kind-of surprising that a self-avowed movie buff hasn't seen that film.

    Yea, I miss a few good ones now and again...

    I never saw FIGHT CLUB either, but I hear it's likely a movie I would like..

    I haven't even saw the new DREDD yet.. Probably because I just can't see how it can compare to Stallone's awesome rendition of DREDD.... :D

    (Michale runs and hides from CW!!) :D

    Michale

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michty,

    I am also constrained to point out that it was OBAMA himself who said Capital Hill janitors would lose their jobs right aways due to the Obama Sequester.

    That turned out to be bullshit..

    It was DHS Secretary Napalitano who said that Obama's Sequester was already causing Airport delays..

    That ALSO turned out to be bullshit...

    The facts are, Obama and the Democrats played fast and loose with "FACTS" in an effort to scare the American people..

    PERIOD...

    Michale

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    You're on record as being completely and unequivocally against big money in politics..

    http://www.politico.com/politico44/2013/02/obama-should-shut-down-ofa-liberal-watchdog-says-157891.html

    Your thoughts???

    Michale

  50. [50] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    In other words.....

    "But ... but, Michale, you always leave out the most destructive global financial crisis since the Great Depression which began in earnest in 2007, the impacts of which continue to this day." and
    "It's all Bush's fault".... is basically saying the same thing.

    Only in your own alternate universe, Michale.

    But, this does point up why conversing with you can be so infinitely frustrating. You are so caught up in your alternate universe, suffering terminably from Obama Derangement Syndrome or some such malady (I do wish I could recommend a remedy for that ... I really, really do) that you can twist anything I say into "It's all Bush's fault".

    Actually, I don't believe any of that for a second - you're just trying to get under our skin is all. You really shouldn't admit to having so much fun doing that, though. Ahem.

    What you quoted above was just me trying to explain to you that the Obama/Biden/Geithner administration had to spend billions in order to save the US economy and financial system from total collapse. That could hardly be described as an "unimaginable" or "orgasmic" spending spree.

  51. [51] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Liz

    Yeh but you forgot the part where Obama went back in his time machine, turned a surplus into the largest debt the US has ever seen whilst creating a massive 'orgasmic 'infrastructure of spending. That is unforgivable imo.

  52. [52] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Face the facts. Obama and the Democrats have lost a LOT of credibility over their dire warnings of Biblical Apocalypses and Armageddon scenarios...

    If you don't think the sequester will hit the economy in 2013 you are moron.

    Estimates are the sequester will knock as much as 1.5% off GDP and 700k of job losses. To put this in contrast your economy only grew by 2.2% and added 1.8m jobs last year. So you've basically just passed a bill that is like wiping out half a year of your economy...

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    But, this does point up why conversing with you can be so infinitely frustrating. You are so caught up in your alternate universe, suffering terminably from Obama Derangement Syndrome or some such malady (I do wish I could recommend a remedy for that ... I really, really do) that you can twist anything I say into "It's all Bush's fault".

    "Just the facts, ma'am. Just the facts"
    -Sgt Joe Friday, DRAGNET

    :D

    What you quoted above was just me trying to explain to you that the Obama/Biden/Geithner administration had to spend billions in order to save the US economy and financial system from total collapse. That could hardly be described as an "unimaginable" or "orgasmic" spending spree.

    Really??

    ObamaCare was required to save the economy??

    Giving (and LOSING) billion and billions of taxpayer dollars to cronies and donors and Union thugs was required to save the economy??

    Moose poop!

    After all the orgasmic spending by the Democrats, the economy is STILL in the toilet...

    "This is a great rescue! When you came in here, didn't you have a plan for getting out!?
    -Princess Leia, STAR WARS Episode IV

    Michty,

    Estimates are the sequester will knock as much as 1.5% off GDP and 700k of job losses. To put this in contrast your economy only grew by 2.2% and added 1.8m jobs last year. So you've basically just passed a bill that is like wiping out half a year of your economy...

    Yea, and "estimates" were that we would be living in a scorching desert and/or see cataclysmic storms and floods and hurricanes and famines and fleas and ticks and bugs because of Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling).

    :^/

    Yaaaawwwwwnnnnn Yaaaaaaawwwwwwnnnnnnn

    More Democrat Apocalyptic fear mongering. Nothing more..

    Obama and the Democrats forced the American people to make do with an even larger pay cut then Obama's sequester.

    And we seem to be doing OK...

    So, apparently, the American people are smarter than Obama and the Democrats.

    Granted, that doesn't say very much. A garden slug is smarter than Obama and the Democrats, so.....

    Michale

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    .. I really, really do) that you can twist anything I say into "It's all Bush's fault".

    I am also constrained to point out that:

    A> It was Obama and the Democrats who established the concept of "code words" vis a vis anything that someone says that's against Obama is racist via "code words"...

    And

    2> It was Obama and the Democrats who inexorably linked phrases like "the most destructive global financial crisis since the Great Depression" to Bush in the years since Obama took office.

    So, yes.. Anytime any Leftys bring up the financial crisis that pre-dated Obama, they are blaming Bush...

    Don't blame me because I play by the rules established by The Professional Left... :D

    Michale.....

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    Apropos of absolutely nothing, except another example of the anti-gun hysteria fostered by the Left...

    Now this is the story all about how
    My life got flipped, turned upside down
    And I'd like to take a minute just sit right there
    I'll tell you how I became the prince of a town called Bel-air

    In west Philadelphia born and raised
    On the playground where I spent most of my days
    Chilling out, maxing, relaxing all cool
    And all shooting some b-ball outside of the school
    When a couple of guys, they were up to no good
    Started making trouble in my neighbourhood
    I got in one little fight and my mom got scared
    And said "You're moving with your auntie and uncle in Bel-air"

    As ya'all may (or may not) know, those are the lyrics to a TV Show Theme sung by Will Smith..

    A kid in Philadelphia had that song as his voicemail announcement.. A receptionist at an office called the kid to leave a message about an appointment..

    When this receptionist heard the line....

    "Chilling out, maxing, relaxing all cool
    And all shooting some b-ball outside of the school"

    .... she thought it said "shooting some PEOPLE outside of the school"...

    This receptionist promptly called the police (men with guns.. Who knew!!??) and the school was locked down, TNT was dispatched. The kid was found in the counselor's office and was promptly jacked up, cuffed, stuffed and hauled off to jail....

    I really can't find fault with the receptionist as she did the right thing..

    What I DO find fault with, however, is this atmosphere of hysterical fear that is being pushed on by our political (so-called) leaders...

    It seems hysteria and fear-mongering is replacing common sense and logical thought more and more...

    And, frankly, I am getting tired of it..

    But I guess that's just me...

    Michale

  56. [56] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Your thoughts?

    The way to get money out of politics I believe has to come from one or a combination of the following:

    1) A bi-partisan compromise such as McCain-Feingold to limit the influence of money in elections
    2) A change in the voting culture where money is no longer the deciding factor

    I work every day at #2 and fully support #1.

    What do you support?

    -David

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    What do you support?

    I support you.. :D

    But I *DON'T* support any Party that continues to take money from lobbyists..

    Michale

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    And the Thot Plickens..

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/eric-holder-drone-strikes-against-americans-on-u.s.-soil-are-legal/article/2523319

    Obama's Attorney General postulates that it IS legal for a POTUS to order a drone strike on an American ON American soil...

    So...

    Any red lines yet???

    None at all?!?

    *REALLY*!!???

    WOW.....

    Michale

  59. [59] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Obama's Attorney General postulates that it IS legal for a POTUS to order a drone strike on an American ON American soil...

    Have you flip flopped on a good portion of your Bush era anti terrorist rants? If you read the article linked, I know, I know I'm not supposed to do that..., the conditions where Holder could foresee a drone strike on an American citizen, on American soil is in a 9/11 type scenario...

    You used to support that kind of situation. What changed?

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    You used to support that kind of situation. What changed?

    What changed??

    Ya'all (apparently) support that situation when, during the "Bush era", ya'all were hysterically AGAINST "that kind of situation".

    THAT's,/B> what changed..

    I don't have a problem with such activities..

    I have *NEVER* had a problem such such activities..

    In that, I have been unequivocally consistent..

    But, ya'all DID have a problem with such activities...

    At least ya'all did until it was your guy DOING those activities..

    That's my entire point... The inconsistency and the power of the all-important "-D"...

    Michale

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    Awww carp!

    Michale

  62. [62] 
    akadjian wrote:

    But I *DON'T* support any Party that continues to take money from lobbyists.

    I guess you support no one then.

    Except you supported Bush without any questions.

    The inconsistency and the power of the all-important "-R" :)

    So we can sit here all day and point out how inconsistent we are (and the obvious reasons why), or we can move on and discuss other issues.

    -David

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    I guess you support no one then.

    Of course.. It's what I have been saying for years! :D

    Except you supported Bush without any questions.

    BBBBBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ Wrong..

    I support some of Bush's actions w/o question..

    Just as I support some of Obama's actions w/o question...

    No matter how many times ya'all try to dispute it, the simple fact is, I have absolutely NO politically ideological loyalty...

    I support actions, not Partys.

    or we can move on and discuss other issues.

    For example?? :D

    Michale

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    or we can move on and discuss other issues.

    We can discuss the fact that we had across the board spending cuts and the world didn't end... :D

    Michale

  65. [65] 
    akadjian wrote:

    For example?

    How about making investments as a way to boost employment?

    Just read a great article about Google and their culture of investment.

    http://hbr.org/product/aiming-for-an-evolutionary-advantage-google-manage/an/2515BC-PDF-ENG

    The public sector typically does better at this type of thing because most businesses are too scared to attempt it.

    -David

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/03/05/arrogant-co-dem-scolds-rape-survivor-at-gun-ban-hearing-statistics-werent-on-your-side/

    Or we could discuss what's in the water in Colorado that makes Democrats say the most moronic and asinine things regarding guns, women and rape...

    Michale

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    How about making investments as a way to boost employment?

    ACK!!!! Now I have a homework assignment!! :D

    Well, it won't be as much fun as slamming and ridiculing politicians, but it might be a nice change of pace... :D

    Michale

Comments for this article are closed.
[Powered by WordPress]