McCain Defends Clinton Aide, Tells Bachmann And Others To Back Off

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/07/18/156987869/john-mccain-tells-m...

My take: McCain's an honorable man. We can debate the left-right politics, but on that ground alone I think he would have made a good president.

Rollin's piece: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/07/18/bachmann-former-campaign-chief-shame-o...

I would not vote for him on the basis of one act, but I agree he is an ethical man, and rightly told Bachmann where she could put it.

Y'know, when he gave his concession speech in 2008, I thought, "If he'd been this guy during the campaign, he might have won."

If he had been that man during the campaign he never would have gotten the Republican nomination.

It's one of those meaningless style vs substance ploys. It's OK to bomb the crap out of those dirty moozlems so long as we all speak in soft dulcet tones.

On the (apparently) equivalency assertion - can anyone name someone - anyone - who is an elected or appointed member of the democratic party who is (or has said things) anywhere nearly as lunatic in nature as Michele Bachmann has - in recent memory?

This is a serious question. NAME ONE - if you can.

If not, then I rest my anti-equivalency case.

Yes, Allen Keyes said there were communists (gasp) in the House of Representatives! I believe he even gave the exact number. (Apparently he did not get the word that communists have been replaced by Muslims.

> 7

Allen Keyes isn't "an elected or appointed member of the democratic party". Indeed, he ran as a Republican against Barack Obama for the Illinois Senate seat, losing in a real squeaker (70%-27% - 3rd party and write-ins got the rest).

Allen Keys is a particularly offensive person and is NOT a credit to his race.

And by "race" I mean the HUMAN race.

E.g. -

1. Dick Cheney has accepted his gay daughter as OK and is even for gay marriage to be legal.

2. Allen Keyes had denounced his gay daughter and says he will shun her until she admits she's a sinner and gets right with god.

3. Ergo, Allen Keyes makes Dick Cheney look reasonable and sane in comparison.

Allen Keyes makes just about anyone look reasonable and sane.

I missed the word "democratic"

my bad

> 11

Don't worry about that. After the republican conspiracy to suppress minority and youth vote is fully implemented the word "democratic" in it's full sense will be a thing of the past - like hoop skirts and sanity. 2013 could be a very unlucky year for the Constitution.

- BTW, I wasn't a conspiracy theorist until I looked under my bed one day and saw Michele Bachmann under there. (Well, it was either Michele Bachmann or a hydrophobic rat that was her verisimilitude - you know, crazy grin, wild eyes.)

“Until this moment, Senator, I think I had never gauged your cruelty or your recklessness. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?”

Attorney Joseph Welch

Not so strangely enough, about another Republican who made reckless and unfounded charges against Administration officials, a long time ago...

#6: On the (apparently) equivalency assertion - can anyone name..."

Equivalency assertion? I don't think that was in either of the articles.

> 13

I've seen several news sites now making the same point - the M. Bachmann - Joe McCarthy equivalency.

Speaking of equivalency, more than a few apologists for the modern day republican party were arguing on these forums not that long ago that republican - democrat, six of one, half dozen of the other, they both had their crazies, not much difference, two peas in a pod, yadda, yadda, blah, blah, blah.

Where have those people gone?

My challenge still stands - name one democrat politician elected or appointed in the last two decades that is a lunatic to a degree anywhere near the whackjob that is Michele Bachmann.

I don't think they can do it.

''Now, they're saying I groped a male staffer. Yes, I did. Not only did I grope him, I tickled him until he couldn't breathe and four guys jumped on top of me. It was my 50th birthday.''
—Ex-Congressman Eric Massa (D-NY), talking to Glenn Beck after resigning amid allegations that he sexually harassed his aides

''My fear is that the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize.''
—Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) expressing concern during a congressional hearing that the presence of a large number of American soldiers might upend the island of Guam

''I'm just not giving it up for f***in' nothing. I'm not gonna do it. And, and I can always use it. I can parachute me there.'' ... ''Give this motherf****r Obama his senator? F**k him. For nothing. F**k him.'''
—Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, recorded in a federal wiretap trying to sell Barack Obama's Senate seat. The day before his arrest, he invited authorities to tape his conversations, saying there is ''nothing but sunshine hanging over me.''

''I'm blacker than Barack Obama. I shined shoes. I grew up in a five-room apartment. My father had a little laundromat in a black community not far from where we lived. I saw it all growing up.''
—Ex-Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, in an interview with 'Esquire' magazine

''What right does Congress have to go around making laws just because they deem it necessary?''
—Marion Barry, former mayor of Washington, D.C.

''Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country.''
—Marion Barry, former mayor of Washington, D.C.

> 16

I didn't say criminal examples. I didn’t say sex perverts. I didn't say examples of stupid. I didn't say examples of filthy liars. I didn't say hypocrites. I didn't say coke heads. I didn't say giant-ass major league jerks. Obviously both parties have examples of those too numerous to list.

I'm talking bone-deep paranoid foaming-at-the-mouth crazy. An obvious lunatic who should be in treatment rather than in high public office.

(Though you could have a point there with Blago. He apparently lived in his own world before they put bars on it.)

Ahhh, so that is how your world works. Any Republican tripe will do, but if it is a Democrat, it should not include perversion, stupidity, lying, hypocrisy, drugs, or being a jerk.

Dude, you are embarrassing our side. Many of your posts are an example of the behavior you are trying to condemn here.

> 18

You are to me as rMoney is to Obama.

As in "Obama says people didn't build their own businesses".

I can't take you seriously anymore, Arc.
I.e., when you start acting just like W.M. rMoney I begin to question your core values. Do you have any? What are they? How is completely distorting and misrepresenting other people's words a core value with which you can possibly be content?

Both sides have their fair share of lunitics and idiots but I would argue that the Republican mindset is different than the Democratic is some profound ways and that personality wise, Republicans can fight dirtier and don't see the far reaching effects of the things they spew as easily.... it is not in the general make up of the individual who tends to lean to the Right. They are more focused on the "self" and the here and now.

Sounds pretty broad and perhaps overreaching but think of the mess in their own Party because they can not seem to get over themselves. The fact that they lost in 2008, the fact that they can not come up with any "workable" plans because each faction of the party is "my way or the highway" thinking and the total ability to about face and say the opposite of what they said not but a couple months ago. Takes a certain kind of person to do that. Certainly not someone who has circular thinking.....who would be more apt to see how what they do or say is going to affect them in the future. Think more Democrats fall into the second group.

> 20

Good points. There is also the "fear factor" and the subsequent hate factor.

Ever watch fox "news" or rush limbaugh, just to see what hell would be like if it actually did exist? I do. They appeal to nothing more sophisticated than the fear that their (mainly) old white literalist christian rural audience has - fear of The Other, fear that this Other is taking over THEIR country. Obama is the epitome of this Other. He couldn't be more other if he were an Invader from Mars with an extra eye in the back of his head.

And fear generates hate. And that is why we see this reaction from those who think that if they don't get THEIR country back soon then blue-eyed Jesus will come back, in glory from the clouds, and destroy America for letting the Other take over.

I see you are immune to criticism. Must be your superpower.

>21 JGL53:
I do not believe that two wrongs make a right. If we stoop to the level of that which we are fighting, we haven't accomplished a thing.
You are correct though. Fear is the primary factor in what they try to put out there.
http://www.theblaze.com/

Horrible "news" source. Most stories are blatantly playing on fear. Many lies, miss quotes, twisted information and cherry picked incidents. The Blaze is very popular.

>22 Arctic-Stranger:

Makes one's head hurt ! Different side....same coin !

> 22

I am allergic to having my words completely distorted on purpose, Mr. Romney.

Have you no shame, Sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?

(Anyone not groking my point, read my post # 17 and then the first paragraph of post #18. So then I now know exactly how Pres. Obama feels about Willard.)

I'm going to come to JGL53's partial defense. While the left lead in kookiness for most of the 20th century, the right is in the lead now.

As I see it, the defining characteristic here isn't ideology—where you want the world to go—but where you think the world actually is. That is, there's a difference between wanting America to be a socialist state and thinking that the CIA started AIDS, between wanting the US to be a truly Christian nation and believing that the Democratic party is full of Islamic fundamentalists. They are statistically related, especially in an age of echo-chamber media, when people get their facts from the same place they get their opinions, but intellectually quite distinct.

The right has their Bachmanns and the left has the weirder elements of the Occupy movement, but the right's is currently weirder and more consequent. But we'll have to see whether a Romney victory might send the left over the edge too.

6> "On the (apparently) equivalency assertion - can anyone name someone - anyone - who is an elected or appointed member of the democratic party who is (or has said things) anywhere nearly as lunatic in nature as Michele Bachmann has - in recent memory?"

How about Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi? Whatever the merits of the Affordable Health Care Act, it was pretty insane for one of them (both of them?) to say, essentially, "Let's pass the thing, then figure out what's in it."

>27 CharlesBoyd:
"How about Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi? Whatever the merits of the Affordable Health Care Act, it was pretty insane for one of them (both of them?) to say, essentially, "Let's pass the thing, then figure out what's in it."

Are you seriously comparing THIS to Bachmann's claim against Ms Clinton? Really ? Suppose that explains a lot. What a hoot ! Terrorism and our Affordable Health Care Plan ? The Affordable Healthcare Plan may not be perfect and parts of it may not even be good but it is NOT going to take out tall buildings or highjack any airplanes.

Must be a little Limbaugh Logic in this somewhere ?

> 28

Or fox noise logic.

I don't listen to Limbaugh or watch Fox news.

I merely responded to JCL53's request for an example of an elected Democrat acting like an idiot. My example qualifies. It's typical of some of the liberals in Pro and Con that they attack someone when they are unable to dispute what that person wrote or when that person dares to imply or say that some of their annointed liberals are less than perfect.

LAME

anointed

#15: My challenge still stands - name one democrat politician...

Again, style vs substance. Does it matter what either team says when their rap sheets are both dripping with blood?

31> Wow. Such a stinging rebutal to my post #30. I misspelled a word.

>33 CharlesBoyd:
Looks like stinging rebutal's are in order !

Christ on a crutch.

Saying Reed or Pelosi have acted like idiots is a colloquialism. Obviously they both possess more than average intelligence.

Most everyone acts like an idiot now and then. And certainly all members of congress now and then, if not regularly, vote on important legislation without reading it, or reading all of it, or understanding what it is - including leaders of both parties. In a perfect world such idiocy would not happen. Duh.

When I refer to M. Bachmann as crazy I mean that I think it obvious to a disinterested person that she seems to be in need of care from a mental health facility.

The list of insane utterances from her, on public record, constitute the evidence. Does anyone need a list provided or is everyone here familiar with Google ™?

Also, I am not saying that there aren't other republicans who can match her, or almost match her, in numbers of profoundly irrational and anti-factual public pronouncements that give the term “non sequitur“ a bad name.

But does someone still wish to propose a democrat, elected or appointed to high office, in recent memory that can match or even come close to the ankle-biter M. Bachmann? That is still the challenge on offer that no one has addressed.

If no one can come up with a name then just say so. Trying to obfuscate, trying to broaden the subject to the point of meaningless and all the other tricks of the trade are not fooling anyone here.

> 35

Although she is now a member of the Green Party, Cynthia McKinney was a Democrat, and boy is she far out there. A 9/11 "truther", she also believes that the CIA was involved in the assassination of Dr. King and the murder of Tupac Shakur. She thinks the government murdered 5,000 people during Hurricane Katrina and dumped their bodies in a swamp: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vVIhyWsa10

So, yeah, she's the leftie equivalent of Bachmann.

Saying Reed or Pelosi have acted like idiots is a colloquialism. Obviously they both possess more than average intelligence.

Right, but I think you're swimming against the evidence if you think Bachmann is actually stupid. She has a BA, a JD and a masters. She's run a series of successful campaigns.

When I refer to M. Bachmann as crazy I mean that I think it obvious to a disinterested person that she seems to be in need of care from a mental health facility.

Here again, I disagree. I don't think there's any evidence that she is personally unhinged. She has extreme politics, joined, as I said, with right-wing-culture-war tendency to let politics determine the facts she believes. One could even say her politics are unhinged. But you lose credibility, and lose the ability to understand the world, when you convert things you disagree with into pathologies. She's a dangerous extremist, captive to a paranoid political philosopher. But she's neither stupid nor crazy.

So, yeah, she's the leftie equivalent of Bachmann.

Thanks. I was trying to remember her name, and couldn't. She qualifies for JGL's list of Democrats as politically unhinged as Bachmann. But the general point still stands because McKinney-ism doesn't have the political weight of her right-wing opposites.

> 36

Thank you. That is one. And a really nasty one. So I admit I stand corrected. I only ask for one and you provided it. YOU get a gold star.

I remember McKinney now. I wondered what happened to her. I am glad she was defeated back in 2002 and is no longer a member of the Democrat party.

From her Wiki page it looks like she was nuttier than I remember.

I doubt we will see a paranoid of her statue elected again as a democrat even though there are many far-leftists like her around. I know that. I was just looking for elected democrat nutcases. I think those are fairly rare.

But in the case of republicans of the last few cycles being a paranoid conspiracy theory freak - or an antediluvian troglodyte - is many times an advantage in being elected.

E.g., how many democrat truthers do we have in congress or elected to any high public office compare to the number of republican birthers or true believers in communist, arab or muslim conspiracies?

There's the difference between being elected as a democrat or as a republican. To be a nut-bar is no bar to a person running as a republican - it is an advantage in some areas, so just join the mob, uh, I mean crowd. To run as a democrat AND as a nut is a hard row to hoe. E.g., whereas many if not most of those making up the republican base are hot for conspiracies like birtherism, the vast majority of the democrat base laugh at crap like trutherism.

Think about it. If a democrat elected official is interviewed on TV and starts spouting insanity like they've been trepanned or something, most people would go "Huh? What the heck is happening there?" OTOH, if a republican official does the something similar most folks nowadays just say "How cliché - same old same old - just another day in paradise."

The present republican party is eaten up with paranoid create- your-own-reality teaparty-itis. The democrats have no comparable infection. For the most part they seem rather healthy in comparison.

One more obvious difference: the republican base is against not the real Obama or anything he has actually done. They are against the imaginary Obama that lives in their heads. They HATE that Obama. But they just KNOW that is the real Obama. It’s an on-going tribute to the paranoid schizophrenic lifestyle.

As to rMoney the truth serves quite well, thank you very much. No way to improve upon it. Many people are now terrified of a possible rMoney presidency and rightfully so - rMoney is intensely disliked for the horrifying threat his proposed policies actually pose - to America in general, and especially the middle-class and the poor, for damned sure.

JGL53. Come on; get real. George W. Bush put this country on the road to bankruptcy and Obama is following many of the same policies, only more so and some of his own failed ideas such as "green companies" that have failed and lost money big time.

The USA is in serious trouble financially--can you dispute that?--and Obama has no plan to try to solve it. None. Nada. Zilch. You issued a challenge for anyone to name a Demo as nutty as M.B. I chalenge anyone to show even the smallest shred of evidence of any plan of Obama to solve the nation's financial crisis. The closest he has come is a plan to slow down the slide, still increasing the deficit and increasing the debt by trillions. What kind of Kool-ade are you drinking?

And, no, I don't think Romney is a savior, but the villiage idiot couldn't do much worse than Obama. And please don't give me that tired "the Republicans in congress won't let him do what he'd like." He got the Affordable Health Care Act past them.

> 39

Sorry dude but I don't buy the village idiot argument.

Give us some facts that would indicate that the devil we don't know is better than the devil we do and you can sign me up for the "rMoney is a piece of crap but he's better than Obama" brigade.

And if anyone has told you I am an Obamaniac then slap their face for lying. I could write a Obama-assburning essay that would please the most demanding libertarian idealist ideologue but what would be the point?

The people still yammering about smelly old Ron Paul are the effing Kool-Aid drinkers. (That wouldn't be you, would it?)

>39 CharlesBoyd:

Sounds like you want a "Savior" rather than a President. After several decades of failed policy, you are expecting one man to come in and fix it in less than four years ? Ever talk to any one who went bankrupt....takes a long time to climb out of the hole. It also takes a long time for the fall out to stop.

I would ask you AGAIN to look at Congress's record on filibusters during Obama's administration. Would also ask that you check on the bills that were not allowed to go through and then tell me that there is no obstructionism going on. Yes he did get the Affordable Care Act through but the Republicans have been yammering nonstop about it ever since. It is the FIRST thing they are going to deal with should they win the election. Sorry.....don't want a "start over" on that issue. We have far too many other issues and personally, I don't think anyone really knows what to do. Come up with a plan...write to your Representative.

And please please please do not use that Kool Aide anology. Must have been Limbaugh or Beck.....my guess Limbaugh but it has been repeated adnauseum !

#41: Sounds like you want a "Savior" rather than a President.

Where did that come from? Since when has preferring the village idiot mean he'd be a "savior"?

I would ask you AGAIN to look at Congress's record on filibusters during Obama's administration.

There have been no filibusters during the Obama administration. What happens is that a congressmember says they object to a bill and then everybody pretends there's a filibuster requiring a cloture vote with a threshhold of 60%. Nobody actually stands up and talks for hours, but the Dems don't call them out on it because the thing they hate most is having to hold anyone accountable. That's the one good thing about having Republicans in congress. They'll never bend over like wankers and say stupid shit like "impeachment is off the table."

Luckily for the Democrats JGL53 Is not a Politician or we could point to him as an example of crazy.

36> Sounds promising did she leave the democrats volountarily or was she encouraged to go?

> 43

Let's not start a "who can violate the TOS the most" war, shall we?

Thanks, and have a nice day.

lost this post trying again No doubt I expressed it better the first time.

27> Ms Pelosi said "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy"
She was referring to the rumoured amendments and distortions of the bill on the floor they bore little or no resemblance to the what was proposed and less to what was likely to be passed. Until any bill is passed no one can know what it will finally contain.

I do not see anything insane about pointing out that it is to better wait for the facts rather than accepting wild speculation about some imaginary new amendment you heard about on Radio Scuttlebutt.
I am curious as to why you think it insane.

I don't listen to Limbaugh or those of his ilk. I got the Kool-Aid thing from Tom Wolfe (Wolf?) back in the 60's.

I'm not asking for a savior, just someone who wants to help the USA get out of it's financial mess. I don't see any indication that Obama wants to do than, nor do I see any indication that he has any clue on how to do it if he did want to.

I did not bring up the AHCA in my last post to redebate it, just to point out that Obama got it passed, thus showing that for him to get a financial bill passed would not be impossible despite the Republicans in congress. In fact, they'd be far more likely to be for a decent financial bill than they were for the AHCA.

As for who who I'd like to be POTUS, I'm in the "none of the above" camp, at least as far as those who've ran, are running this time. I'd be for C. Rice if she'd run. Would consider C. Powell if he ran. Was interested in Bill Bradley when he was a possibility some years back. Or maybe Tim Spalding. :-)

>47 CharlesBoyd:
"I did not bring up the AHCA in my last post to redebate it, just to point out that Obama got it passed, thus showing that for him to get a financial bill passed would not be impossible despite the Republicans in congress. In fact, they'd be far more likely to be for a decent financial bill than they were for the AHCA."

What you do not seem to understand is that the Republican's do not want Obama to "fix" the economy and I do not believe he can pass anything, especially since the last election. This financial mess is going to take a long time, not going to happen quickly. and I do not believe that we will ever be the same. We are spoiled in what we think we have coming. Don't think that people should go hungry or do without the necessities but we will have to stop living on credit and start earning what we own.

Looks like your choices are limited to Obama or Romney.....

>48 faceinbook:: What about the other names that appear on the ballot? Am I not allowed to vote for them? (I'm currently leaning towards the Libertarian candidate, former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson.)

> 44

A bit of both. She was defeated in the 2002 Democratic primary, tried again in 2006 and was again defeated. She left the party in 2007.

> 50

Because the majority of democrats realized she was a nut? Was that why she was defeated? I can only imagine so.

- As for all this talk about dream candidates or nobody running meets your criteria of perfection or the thought of voting none of the above or the right to vote third party and so on and so forth yadda yadda - as individuals we all can do whatever we want regarding voting and come election day EITHER Obama OR the republican nominee, presumably rMoney, WILL get the majority of the electoral votes. Anyone who wants to argue THAT I am putting down as under suspicion of being slightly bonkers, at a minimum.

If I am wrong then you can prove me wrong on election day - just like if I am wrong about the world NOT ending this December then you may very well have the last laugh on that one too. But I'm not holding my breath on either. LOL.

48> You say the Repubs don't want Obama to fix our nation's fiscal crisis. That's pretty cynical, but I concede the possibility that you're right. Still, it doesn't matter because, as I've previously stated, he doesn't seem to want to fix it or know how to fix it. I'd be glad to be wrong. Can you show me that I am? By the way, contrary to what many of you seem to think, I don't hate Obama, I just hate the fact that he's a lousy president for the most part. Were he to suddenly become a great president, no one would be happier than I.

I agree that "We are spoiled in what we think we have coming."

And I agree that fixing our country's money woes will take a long time; I'd just like to see some serious effort to do that.

i cant imagine any president sans budget fixing a financial crisis, and I don't blame Obama for not getting one passed. It would be nice if he could knock the congressmens heads together and get them to pass one, but he is not a schoolteacher faced with an unruly class nor yet a monarch , the president does not command congress.

The disconnect here is that you seem to think that the sole thing wrong with the economy is the deficit. If we'd just cut the gov't down to what it was in the 1920's that that would fix everything. I'll concede that we have a long-term deficit problem with Social Security that needs to be fixed (but let's not use that as an excuse to cram national 401k's down our throats), but if we drastically cut the size of gov't right now most economists seem to agree from what I've been reading that the likely result would be to send the country into another recession.

I think what we need to do at this point in time is to stimulate the economy. Everyone's always complaining about crumbling infrastructure, so why not do something about it. The time to worry about the deficit is when the economy is humming again.

So it's not true that Obama isn't doing anything to fix the economy. He's doing all he can, but it isn't much because the Republicans will never pass another stimulus bill.

>52 CharlesBoyd:
Big problems require big fixes. Anything that could be "governed" to try to make a difference in today's economical enviroment will look like Socialism to the current Republican party and it will not pass. A budget that does not make the cuts the Republican's want to make will not pass. A budget that adds any income by way of taxes will not pass (even if those taxes are on amounts over and above $250,000.00 per year) What do you suggest Obama do ? Any ideas ? To me it appears as if the "serious effort" you are wanting is indeed being put out there but it isn't aimed at fixing the economy. You can call it cynical if you want but as long as you continue to deny it is happening nothing is going to change. People have to demand more from their lawmakers....you seem to be demanding from someone who has their hands tied. You are judging one man's inability to do something when circumstances are such that is impossible to do much of anything. It is both unfair and nonproductive to continue to judge our economy based on President Obama's actions or lack there of. I feel he has done all he can. The people need to vote in those who will work with him rather than against him. OR we can do things the Republican way....which is not what this country is all about.

>54 jjwilson61:
"Everyone's always complaining about crumbling infrastructure, so why not do something about it. The time to worry about the deficit is when the economy is humming again"

Too socialistic for today's Republican party. Why should their money fix anybody else's roads or bridges ? Need to gather the neighbors for something like that. Really ! I think they are that far gone.

Quite a number of Obama appologists in this group. Again, I'm not saying he can do it alone, or solve things right away. My point is that THERE IS NO INDICATION HE'S EVEN TRYING. I asked for specifics and all I get is generalities. I think there are people in this group who would rather die than admit they're wrong about anything, especially wrong about Obama.

>57 CharlesBoyd:
Oh for crying out loud ! No Obama is doing nothing on a daily basis. Don't know about the other's in this group but speaking for myself, it is very tiring talking to someone who only wants to hear what they want to hear. You want Obama slammed for not doing anything......can't do that....sorry....cause I think he is trying. You won't hear what you want from me. So we differ. I am not appologizing for Obama either as I do not think he has anything to apologize for. Republican's on the other hand are in deep do do and they have a lot to answer for....as are those who are willing to give them a pass on their job because "Obama isn't trying hard enough" Which to most all of them concerned means...."Obama isn't doing it my way"

Oh by the way....I am wrong A LOT ! Get called on it sometimes....learn something new once in a while. But, about Obama...don't believe I am wrong...nope!

If you are strolling through the woods with a companion and suddenly a huge male grizzly bear attacks.

It is not a necessity for saving your life that you outrun the bear or be the fastest runner in the world.

It is only necessary for you to be able to outrun your companion.

Obama can outrun rMoney - effing easily.

Case closed.

Let's move on.

Quite a number of Obama appologists in this group.

Is that Rush-speak? You keep claiming to not follow Rush or Fox News but you know all the codewords. No, we're not apologists because we aren't apologizing for anything.

My point is that THERE IS NO INDICATION HE'S EVEN TRYING

Says who? You don't sit in on his staff meetings so I don't think you have any clue as to what Obama is or isn't trying to do.

>60 jjwilson61:
"Is that Rush-speak? You keep claiming to not follow Rush or Fox News but you know all the codewords."

Yep they all know the words and tend to get REALLY ticked off when you point it out. Like the Kool-Aide thing....that one really ticks me off...not sure why but it is used almost as much as the word "infrastructure" in recent months.

Has to be Rush or Beck....

I'm thinking that if you want other's to get the idea that you are thinking for yourself, it would be best not to use someone else's words, unless of course you state that you are doing so.

Thanks for the specifics on what Obama's done or trying to do to solve the nation's financial crisis.

Are we speaking/writing the same language? I do not listen to Limbaugh or watch Fox news. As previously stated, the Kool-Aid thing was from Tom Wolfe, his book from the 1960's if I remember correctly. If I'm using "codewords" it's unintentional as I don't know them.

How about "apologist"? You asked a question about what Obama's been doing and people answer you honestly and suddenly they're "apologists."

I thought "drinking the Kool-Aid" was a sick reference to the Jim Jones debacle in Guyana.

ETA: I was right. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_the_Kool-Aid

> 62

I'm going to guess that in your world saving the auto industry was either 1. not a good thing or 2. Obama didn't do it.

Right?

So tell me again why I am not ignoring you?

read the alternate meaning on that Wiki page jj.

As for apologist it comes from the root word Apologia, and is perfectly appropriate in my opinion.

Charles why was Ms Pelogi insane to say what she did? you never did tell us.

Simon: She said the bill should be passed and then we could find out what was in it. It seems generally accepted she meant herself and the congress as well as the rest of the country. It would be insane to do that, i.e. pass a law that they didn't know what it was. If she and the congress knew what was in it and she meant the rest of the country would find out later, then that would not be insane.

JGL53: The bailout added tremendously to the national debt. Ford survived without it. Respected economists said it would be best to let those companies go into bankruptcy. And, I assume most of you know, bankruptcy does not mean a company will certainly go out of business.

Didn't all that money get paid back with interest? It wasn't really a bailout, it was more the gov't stepping in to perform a function that the private capital market was too screwed up at that time to be able to do. Did we really have to sacrifice other parts of the economy because banks couldn't do what banks do in a moment of crisis?

If you believe GM paid back the loan by itself, read this from the New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/02/business/02gret.html

>68 CharlesBoyd:
Whether you agree with the "bail out" of GM or not.....was it not an effort on Obama's part to save jobs. Lots of jobs are tied to the auto industry. If you are looking for specifics...there you go....a specific ! Obama MAKING AN EFFORT !

>69 faceinbook:

The other question is what would have happened if they'd gone bankrupt? Bankruptcy doesn't necessarily mean jobs are lost. In GM's case, all its creditors would have been wiped out, and, largely, its owners. (The company I used to work for, Houghton Mifflin, is now on its third bankruptcy. Since major parts of the core business are money-making, it keeps ticking, as successive, stupid investors get wiped out. It's lost employees, but not most.) Critically, bankruptcy breaks union contracts. Obama didn't want that.

69> I'm talking about Obama making an effort to reduce the deficit and the debt. Something specific there please.

70> Thanks Tim. Well said. You wanna run for prez?

>70 timspalding:

I'm unelectable, alas.

71> He and his economists are probably of the opinion that to drastically reduce the deficit at this point in time would be bad for the economy, so why should he do that?

73> Perhaps, but no attempt at all? Not even an attempt to keep it and the debt from skyrocketing. Besides, sometimes the medicine is bitter, but no medicine at all means death.

Charles both the words and the context you attribute to Ms Pelosi were made up, You say your sources do no include Fox News, could tell us who they are so we can scoff at them? or do you wish to take all the credit for being wrong yourself?

I boggle a bit when I hear about companies going bankrupt, Bankruptcy is reserved for humans in the UK. we don't have any of that corporations are people too crap.

Charles both the words and the context you attribute to Ms Pelosi were made up, You say your sources do no include Fox News, could tell us who they are so we can scoff at them? or do you wish to take all the credit for being wrong yourself?

I boggle a bit when I hear about companies going bankrupt, Bankruptcy is reserved for humans in the UK. we don't have any of that corporations are people too crap.

#76: You say your sources do no include Fox News, could tell us who they are so we can scoff at them?

You really expect him to rmember where he first heard Peolsi's remarks? Anyone connected to the outside world could have heard about those remarks from anyone else. Only those with a particular incentive to determine the context would have discovered anything otherwise.

Bankruptcy is reserved for humans in the UK.

Sounds good to me. But here in the US the government-worshippers can't stand to live in a world in which the government doesn't "help," even if it means sheilding business owners from the risks they take with their businesses.

>71 CharlesBoyd:: The President has repeatedly proposed ending the Bush-era tax cuts on incomes over $250K, which tax receipts would be used to reduce the deficit.

I think we all know why those tax cuts continue to be extended, despite the recommendations of the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles Commission that increasing taxes would be required to solve the deficit -- that is, I think we all know that it's the Republicans who have blocked every one of the President's proposals to raise taxes on the highest income bracket.

>74 CharlesBoyd:
Those who are proposing the "no medicine at all" are the Republican lawmakers. Do you think that Obama is a King ? Seriously, do you feel that Obama has the power to "fix" our problems without the help of Congress ? Or are you aware that the lawmakers have to work with the President ? it is pointed out to you repeatedly how the lawmakers on the Right are unwilling to work with this President are you suggesting that Obama do what they want so as to appear to be doing something ? If you are, I suggest you do some research into what constitutes a Democracy.

Right now the Republican party can not even agree with itself. Would be interesting to see how they would operate should they win the election (lord help us if that were to happen) It is doubtful they could do much either and it wouldn't be the Democrats they would have to deal with...it would be the fruit cakes, talking heads and Tea Party activists who would DEMAND that things be done their way or nothing would be done.

Bankruptcy is reserved for humans in the UK. we don't have any of that corporations are people too crap.

That's incorrect. In fact, corporate personhood was established under English common law long before it was introduced into U.S. law via the 14th Amendment. Among countries that use English common law as their basis for law, the U.S. was a late adopter of the corporate personhood concept.

Simon: As Lunar suggests, I don't know an exact source for my knowledge of Pelosi's remark. Mostly from columnists printed in our local newspaper, The Arizona Republic, said columnists being both "in house" and "syndicated" and both conservative and liberal. Also, I occasionally watch broadcast news, which I tend to place less credence in because they often seem to have been hired for a pretty face or voice or to fill a need for a certain race. They come across, IMO, as even dumber than I, when their remarks are ad libed.

No, I'm not against people of different races: I'm assuming that many of you will jump to that conclusion; I admire C. Rice, Walter Williams, Tomas Sowell (African Americans), Mario Rubio, (Latino), Sherman Alexie (Native American writer, novelist) and people in other countries fighting to overthrow oppression.

faceinbook: I've said several times that I don't expect Obama to fix the deficit/debt by himself, just that I don't see him even trying. nathanielcampbell points out that "The President has repeatedly proposed ending the Bush-era tax cuts on incomes over $250K, which tax receipts would be used to reduce the deficit," which is the sort of specific I'm asking for. My questions there are 1) How much help would that be? 2) Has Obama merely suggested it or has he had a Democratic member of congress introduce it as a bill?) By the way, while I consider myself a fiscal conservative, I fully agree that tax raises are needed as much as spending cuts.

>81 CharlesBoyd:: I don't know specific answers to either of your questions, but I can hazard a guess based on what I do know, to wit:

1) It would be a start; but where the real tax reform would need to come would be in closing loopholes, raising capital gains, and in the so-called "carried income" (taxed at 15%), which forms the bulk of, for example, Mitt Romney's income. Somehow, the Republicans have decided that they can dupe the country by declaring the rich to be "job creators" -- and thus anything that doesn't "benefit" the rich is actually an attack on the "job creators". Never mind the fact that the country's best economic boom times (the 1950's and the 1990's) occurred under higher tax rates both for capital gains and for the highest earners. Indeed, under the Eisenhower (Republican) administration, taxes in the highest income bracket approached 70%, about double what they are now. And the extreme income of the Mitt Romney's isn't being used to "create jobs" -- it's being squirreled away in foreign tax havens or spent on luxury goods. Sure, you can argue that luxury consumer spending is an economic stimulus, but again, under the higher tax rates of the mid-20th century, that money was used instead for infrastructure (Eisenhower Interstate system, anyone?) and helping poor people (Johnson's Great Society). Frankly, I think society benefits far more from infrastructure and social security than it does luxury yacht manufacturers.

2) What I know from each time the Bush cuts have come up for renewal or expiration, Republican lawmakers (who control the House and thus also the committees that would introduce such legislation) essentially threaten to shut down the government if anybody dares to suggest expiration rather than renewal. Remember the "Super Committee" last year? It came away with nada because the Republican members went into it with orders from their TeaParty base not to raise any taxes whatsoever -- nevermind that tax increases were necessary in order to avoid the "Sequestration".

So, the Super Committee failed largely because Republicans wouldn't budge a single inch on an issue where budging is necessary (though to be fair, the Democratic members weren't ready yet to give up their pet social spending, either); and in the past few months, as the budgeters have prepared for the "fiscal cliff" come January, the Republicans have slowly moved more and more of the spending cuts away from defense and into social programs. Because you know, we need to spend more money on fighter jets than on starving children.

(I know, that last was a rhetorical swipe...)

73> Now you're just quibbling. Most of what he's done since he's been in office is try to fix the economy, but it doesn't count if he doesn't do it in the way that you like.

As for the debt, is it a problem? Sure. It's a problem we've been talking about since I started reading newspapers some 30+ years ago so forgive me about if I'm blase about the claim that it must be fixed this year or horrible things will happen.

>82 nathanielcampbell:
"the Republicans have slowly moved more and more of the spending cuts away from defense and into social programs. "

Isn't it ironic that the same Party who demands that we spend a disproportionate amount of our budget arming our military and building all kinds of "super weapons" are the same people who evoke the 2nd Amendment when dealing with gun violence and claim they need to carry gun's to protect themselves from that very same government ?

82>You make some good points. Thanks for the specifics.

84> I don't find it ironic or strange that people believe our country needs to be strong to protect us from other nations who hate us and, at the same time, believe that it isn't impossible that citizens may, possibly, have to protect themselves from their own government. There's no guarantee that our government will always allow us to be a free country, no guarantee that the USA could never become a dictatorship.

The bigger the government, the smaller the citizens.

Nods seems reasonable after all a government that is feared by it own people is gong to be hated by other nations.

is that the reason you believe other nations hate you?

>86 CharlesBoyd:
Here we go.......do you WANT to live in a society where we feel the need to protect ourselves from our government ? If you don't....you have a funny way of looking at things. You have blamed Obama continuously for our inability to get things done when a small fraction of the government is insisting on no compromise. Once there is no compromise there is no freedom. The radical Right is trying to dictate what should be done. Signing contracts to never ever raise taxes.....all kinds of stuff to insure that there is no compromise on how they want things done. The same Party who has given our government the biggest stock pile of weapons in the world.

You missed the entire point.

Don't think the citizen's of this country would win a war against our government. Not all that happy right now to be in a country where this is even a topic of conversation.

88> I did not miss "the entire point." And, no I don't "want to live in a society where we feel the need to protect ourselves from our government" But if you think that could never happen, then I envy your naivete.

You and others continue to see the mote in the other person's eye, but not your own.

In this case the "you" I mean is liberals and the "other person" I mean is conservatives. Sure Repubs do much of what you say in your post. But so do Demos. Obama and his buddies rammed through the AHCA with the "it's my way or the highway" attitude.

Same goes for attack ads. Both sides show low morals, a win at any cost attitude, and a lack of respect for the citizens of this country. Both sides. Can you deny that?

None of this country's problems will be solved until EACH side can acknowledge it's faults as well as the other side's faults. It seems you are unable to do this based on what you've posted in this thread and others I've read, nor can most liberals I've ever known or communicated with. The same goes for many conservatives I know and conservatives in general as far as I can see.

face-in-book, you are just as indoctrinated as any radical right zealot. And you seem--I won't presume to say I know for sure--you seem as full of hate for conservatives, at least some conservatives, as the haters on the right feel for liberals. Think about it.

As a country, we will never solve our problems until we're willing to see the good and bad on each side.

>89 CharlesBoyd:
First of all I don't "hate" anyone. I do have an intense dislike for hypocrisy and denial. As I see it the Republican Party has been in disarray since losing the election in 2008. They have been held hostage by a faction of their own party and big also by big business which is investing large amounts of money to put a Republican back into office. This has caused many Republicans to appear to be extremely hypocritical, especially the one running for President. They are also in denial. We can not fix our economic issues unless we back track and figure out when things started to go down hill. They will to a man, deny that the problem was caused in part, by instituting tax cuts with out paying for them first. The fact that they now want to pay for the big hole we've found ourselves in off the backs of school teachers, students, the elderly and the poor, disgusts me but I don't HATE any one. (maybe Cheney...just a little bit...makes the hair stand up on the back of my neck)

If you were to check posts I've made in the past, I have repeatedly said that the best for this country is to have two strong Parties working together. Still believe that. But the Party that calls themselves Republican today has gone off the rails. Tons of hypocrisy and denial going on....until they fix their own party they will not work with anyone and as I said before, I don't think they can work with themselves. Explain Ms Bachmann ? In my mind she should not still be in office. She actually was the cause of death threats to an American citizen. Her position as a lawmaker gives her a responsibility to be "better" than that. AND she is on the Intellegence Commity.....Really ? Who ever gave her that assignment can not be considered credible either. The Republican's have some serious problems, until they fix them I am having a hard time seeing the "good" in how they are conducting themselves.

Not hate at all....disrespect for how they are operating for sure.

90> I've yet to see you criticize any Demo or liberal, at least not in any strong way. They're not perfect you know. Remember Adam Clayton Powell? Bill Clinton, not a bad president, but the morals of an alley cat--personal life, yes, but the prez needs to lead by example--Kennedy, the Bay of Pigs stupidity, LBJ the Vietman war--kinda puts him up near the top of the list for worst prez ever--, Jesse Jackson, the "Hymie town" comment, foot-in-the-mouth Biden, Jimmy Carter--whom I actually like over all--the hostage crisis foul up, president Bartlett :-)

I can also say much that's good about specific Demos and liberals, but I fear you've never known a Repub or conservative you can do any more than tolerate.

Getting back to the Op the teabaggers have targeted McCain for defeat now:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/24/wes-harris-arizona-tea-party_n_1697793....

Here's the present day difference between repubs and demos - these teabaggers are mainstream - they are the base of the republican party. Most old-line repubs who are trying to hang on are scared crapless of these nuts. These nuts have the modern day republican party by the nuts.

As opposed to this, the far-lefties who are into Trutherism and anarchism and actual European style state socialism are NOT in the mainstream of the democratic party. Such nuts are marginal and fringe - by definition - everyone who isn't a republican hack pretty much acknowledges this.

There is no equivalency here. Talking about LBJ or Clinton or Weiner or Adam Clayton Powell proves nothing and has no more to do with the facts of the matter as I've related above than does Nixon or Agnew - or Abraham Lincoln for that matter.

89> Obama and his buddies rammed through the AHCA with the "it's my way or the highway" attitude.

The Congressional Budget Office,which is by its nature non partisan, have consistently said that the ACHA will reduce the deficit and in contrast has said that the republican efforts to amend or repeal it will increase the budget.
If "Obama and his buddies" did indeed "ram through" this bill how can you claim that Obama is doing nothing about the deficit. And why indeed do you not applaud him for "ramming" through the measure.

>91 CharlesBoyd:
Why are you presuming to know what I think ? Never said anyone was perfect...none of them. What I said is that at this point in time the Republican Party is in disarray and I don't have much respect for how they are conducting themselves. It would seem that NONE of them have the guts to stand up and actually do the job they were elected to do...which would be represent the people who put you in office. Even if it means compromise so that something gets accomplished.
As I see it, one of the problems in this country today is the "all or nothing" attitude....if you don't like how someone is behaving...well then you must HATE them. One is either FOR them or AGAINST them. Based on the comments you have posted, you fall neatly into that catagory.

As far as the Affordable Healthcare Bill. If you want to look on the positive side you could admit that Obama is the first President in sixty years to have the gonads to actually DO SOMETHING about the healthcare crisis and not just kick the can down the road. Ought to be proud of him.

JGL53: The teabaggers are not the mainstream of the Republican party. They do advocate some of the good values of conservatives, smaller government, fiscal responsibility, etc, but the weirder stuff is not representitive. Your liberal media, columnists and such, base some of their criticism of the Repubs on the idea that the teabaggers are the tail that wags the dog. Yes, the Repubs are messed up. So are the Demos.

You completely missed the point I was making by bringing up a list of liberals and Demos that were really evil or just imcompetent. Basically, I was pointing out to faceinbook that she's never--at least in any thread that I've read--found fault with any liberal or Demo. My post gave her a chance to admit they have and have had their losers and bad people just as the Repubs have. She didn't do that.

Simon11: You seem like a person who will look at both sides of an issue. Re your post 93> Just because the Congressional Budget Office is non-partisan doesn't mean it is always right in every situation. The AHCA will not reduce the deficit. If it would, I'd be singing Obama's praises. The federal government has all the major entitlement programs in a financial shambles. Social Security has no money right now. The government says it's funded until 2030 (I believe that's the year they say) but it's not. All that's there are IOU's; government promises to pay the money back.

faceinbook: So you're saying Obama should be praised for doing something about the health care crisis even though it won't work financially, it will increase the debt, will further put the USA down the road toward second-rate status in the world.

In my post 89 I wrote "--I won't presume I know for sure--" when I stated that it seemed to me that you seemed to hate some conseratives. Also, in my post 91 I wrote
"I can also say much that's good about specific Demos and liberals, but I fear you've never known a Repub or conservative you can do any more than tolerate." The "but I fear..." clearly states this is a conclusion that I've drawn and not something I put forward as a fact.

And, no I don't hate anyone. I can honestly state that there is no one on this planet that I hate, nor any group that I hate. What I do hate is the USA decending as a country. And our government isn't doing much to stop it. I also hate that so many people in Pro and Con blame it all on Repubs and conservatives, just as many on the right blame everything on Demos and liberals. BOTH SIDES ARE TO BLAME. And both sides, on rare occasions, do something good.

"The essence of government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse."
James Madison (1751 - 1836), Speech in the Virginia constitutional convention, Richmond, Virginia, December 2, 1829

95 >

"...The teabaggers are not the mainstream of the Republican party..."

You are WRONG. The teabagger mentality is indeed the mainstream of the present day republican party. All a disinterested person had to do was watch the repub primary debates this past year to understand this fact - that and read the polls showing an actual majority of repubs believing or theorizing Obama to be born in a foreign country, and believing he is a socialist conspiring to destroy our American way of life or some such shit.

Most republicans are nuts now. The republican party used to be as sane as the democrats. That was then. This is now.

The rest of your post is the same old same old: repubs = demos. Yeah, right. And I'm the King of France. And Obama is the King of Kenya, I suppose.

You bore me with your nonsense. And you are not even funny. So what is your purpose here? If I want to be subjected to daily cognitive dissonance I’ll just listen to rMoney speeches and/or watch his ads. No one needs you to pile on.

Obama and his buddies rammed through the AHCA with the "it's my way or the highway" attitude.

Except they didn't. The House bill was a more partisan bill to be sure, but the Senate version, which is what eventually became law, included a variety of compromises including stripping out the public option, the deletion of a new federal agency that the House bill would have created, and a switch from a national insurance exchange to state-based insurance exchanges. The Republicans, many of whom had supported such measures in the past, recanted.

You may not like the end result, but to claim that the bill was rammed through on a "my way or the highway" basis is simply closing one's eyes to the two-year debate on the issue.

>95 CharlesBoyd:
Charles, you seem to have the answers to your own posts in your head. The only answers that you want to hear and when you don't get them, you claim that other posters are some how "wrong" or deflecting from what you are looking for.

You wanted someone to point out something Obama made an attempt at.....so it was pointed out The Affordable Healthcare Act. YOU don't like The Affordable Healthcare Act so now those who pointed it out are "PRAISING" the President for something you don't think is going to work. Not so ! He made an attempt to do something about the immediate crisis of having 40 million Americans with out healthcare insurance.

This is a tactic used by the so called Right wing talking heads now to make everything nonsensical and stop anything from getting done.

Obama will do nothing right. Not one single thing will the man do correctly. You can choose to believe that or you can join those in society who still have the ability to do some critical thinking and realize that he has done some things and he could accomplish a lot more with a working government.

I am sorry but your comments, whether they are inspired by Beck, Limbaugh or Fox or not, are these guys basis for a wet dream ! Total failure to recognize anything that you don't want to whether it is real or not.

I don't have a list of "liberals" or "conservatives" who have been "bad". Some stand out of course but I do not keep a tally sheet in my head because I have voted both ways. I will not "hold my nose" and vote.

Just because the Congressional Budget Office is non-partisan doesn't mean it is always right in every situation. The AHCA will not reduce the deficit.

The CBO bases its estimates on years of scoring budgets and a team of experts in economics, law, and accounting. What do you base your contrary opinion on?

I'll take a break from this group for awhile. So many of you are amazingly closed minded, can't see any other side and distort what other people write.

Later. Much later.

So many of you are amazingly closed minded,

This is the most amazingly self-unaware statement I have seen this week. Possibly this month.

Unaware. But still true.

Charles,Why do you think the Congressional Budget Office office is wrong about Obamacare?

lol, Artic.

Was it something I said?

LOL.