This is What Change Means
Cambridge
This what change looks like. Take a look at the overview of Barack Obama’s first budget overview and what we see is a dramatic shift in our national priorities. This budget marks the definitive end of the Reagan Era.
Rolled into Obama’s plan to stem the economc freefall, he has thrown in major health care reform stretching over the next ten years. He proposes a tcctonic shift in our energy policies. While there’s an immediate bump in military spending, he projects a decade-long decline in Pentagon spending.
More importantly, Obama leverages this historic shift on a reversal of the Reagan-Bush-Bush scheme of redistribution of wealth. The trend toward directing tax policy in a way to move wealth upward will now be reversed. And not a minute too soon.
The Republicans, meanwhile, have officially become the Party of No. The new bogeyman is trillion dollar federal deficit spending. As if the Republicans weren’t the masters of this already. The difference this time is that the red ink will be spilled in favor of creating jobs, bulding infrastructure, bolstering health and education insead of financing useless wars and lining the bulging pockets of Wall Street magnates.
The Conservative Movement has now become an ongoing Clown Show, assuring that the so-called Republican base will steer its party into short and mid-term irrelevancy. That is, unless, you think that given the national mood that Mike Huckabee, Joe The Plumber, Newt Gingrich, and Rush Limbaugh are credible figures to lead the opposition to Obama.
February 26th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
The Conservative Movement has now become an ongoing Clown Show, assuring that the so-called Republican base will steer its party into short and mid-term irrelevancy.
From your lips to God’s ears.
February 26th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Of course, the real reason the deficit looks so much larger from Obama is because he’s being honest about counting all of the previously off-the-budget spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
February 26th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
First we’re stripped naked by a gang of capitalist, now we’re being raped by a gang of socialists.
From on f–king extreme to the other. Words flail.
February 26th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
The T-Shirt entrepreneurs are already on top of this. One reads: “Honk If You’re Paying My Mortgage”.
February 26th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
@Jim R:
I don’t see how modest increases in the marginal tax rates of people earning over 250K per year qualifies as a socialist extreme.
(Calling it “rape” qualifies as extreme.)
A lot of the steps, actually, like doing something comprehensive about health care, energy independence, and education, are just smart management.
February 26th, 2009 at 10:56 pm
How many of the 702 US foreign (and 6,000 domestic) military bases will Mr. Obama close down?
I can’t wait for that.
February 27th, 2009 at 2:14 am
It’s necessary to hold two contradictory thoughts in one’s head at the same time: Obama has been very good so far on domestic policy, and very bad on foreign policy. An oversimplification, but perhaps it will make it easier for Sergio to understand.
February 27th, 2009 at 5:21 am
I would argue that it’s more complex than that to both Sergio and Michael.
Obama hasn’t been in office all that long, and he’s spent most of his time on domestic issues, so this is another case of being a bit premature in making judgments.
And what we have seen has been mixed. The Guantanamo decision was good. The Bagram decision not so good (as far as I can tell). There is a move, now, to get out of Iraq. Probably not as fast as Sergio would like, but that’s where it’s going.
Obama has signaled that there will be leaner Pentagon budgets after this initial spike, which will have implications for foreign policy.
He has not caved to the Israeli hardliners after his overheated campaign rhetoric, and doesn’t seem to have let the satanic Rahm tell him what to eat for breakfast: http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/02/26/obama_rebuffs_neocons_appoints_freeman/
He sent George Mitchell to renew Mid-East talks in earnest, something the Bush crew hadn’t a second for. http://features.csmonitor.com/globalnews/2009/02/26/mitchell-lands-in-israel-rival-palestinian-factions-talk-in-cairo/
Along those same lines his UN ambassador called on Israel to investigate crimes in Gaza, a message that he would have had to approve.
All in all, it’s been a mixed bag with some very positive moves, and relative to recent US foreign policy it’s practically revolutionary.
And Sergio, I’m right in line with the foreign military bases. There are too many. They are too costly, and they’ve encouraged too much US intervention over the years. Chalmers Johnson wrote a good overview about this.
But it is worth asking a few fundamental questions. 702 sounds like a big number. Something to get angry about. Well over the threshold of a scary imperial presence. But how many of those bases are actual large bases with troops in them? How many are just radar stations? How many are supply depots more or less? How many are politically and diplomatically important to the relationship with the country they are in? How many are like Chievres, and are simply support for NATO (to move command staff around)? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chievres_Air_Base
It’s fair to ask all of the opposite questions too, but a number without context is not terribly helpful: It’s just designed to sound outrageous. Same with the number of domestic bases.
February 27th, 2009 at 6:18 am
Marc: More importantly, Obama leverages this historic shift on a reversal of the Reagan-Bush-Bush scheme of redistribution of wealth.
Only a socialist considers letting people keep their own money a “redistribution of the wealth.” In my book, money that people have earned belongs to them and their families, while people like you thinks that all the money belongs to the government and that it kindly lets you keep some.
This wild spending will not help the economy, and when no money or borrowing power is left, then what?
February 27th, 2009 at 6:24 am
Balter, “foreign” policy includes your exiled/expatriate/slumming self. and 97% of the planet’s polulation, as well as those US residents who hav ties abroad.
Praising Obama for managing about 2% of the world? Sure.
But I won’t support the US empire. Not now , not ever.
February 27th, 2009 at 6:25 am
Woody ur a cpa. Could u help me het back MY tax dolars which were pissed away without my approval in Iraq? I will settle for a penny on the follar. Ur view of taxation is absurdly oversimpfied. When a teacher pays 25 percent of her salary in taxes and a Fotrune 500 company pays none, plse tell ke how that isn’t forced redistribution of wealth??????????????????
February 27th, 2009 at 6:35 am
I paid 25% Federal tax, yep. We did our taxes on Sunday.
and this is where 51% of my money given to the Federal government went in forced redistribution:
http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm
February 27th, 2009 at 7:13 am
My view of taxation is oversimplified? According to a journalist? What made you an expert?
Marc, this may surprise you, but corporations are not people. Explain why we should tax an entity that is non-human.
But, corporations are owned by people who pay taxes on the dividends and capital gains from that corporate stock and pay taxes on income pass-throughs, as in the case of Sub-S corporations. Corporations that do have taxable income, pay income taxes at a higher rate than do you–yes, even you!
Of course, you overlook the property taxes, business licenses, workers comp, government mandates, sales taxes, payroll taxes, taxes on this, and taxes on that, which businesses pay. Take away advalorem taxes on inventory, equipment, warehouses, office buildings, etc. and see how much is left for your local school budget and to pay that teacher who had twenty-five percent withheld. She would be unemployed.
However, in the end, corporations don’t really “pay” any taxes. They simply collect them. Corporations collect taxes from consumers in the form of higher prices and pass the money forward to the government, which knows that it suckered the stupid voters who put Obama in office and don’t understand the shell game.
So, in the end, it is people who end up paying, no matter how the money is shuffled. There is your re-distribution of the wealth.
On your money spent in Iraq, let’s do this. We’ll give you a tax credit for your share, and you don’t charge us or our offspring for Obama’s mulit-trillion dollar boondoggle. Fair enough?
I hope this information doesn’t tax the socialist brain.
February 27th, 2009 at 7:27 am
Candidates for Obama Appointments – Nineteen members of the state Legislature have failed to pay state and federal income taxes, some of them dating back to 2002, according to a Georgia Department of Revenue report given recently to legislative leaders.
February 27th, 2009 at 7:35 am
Worth reminding – The Socialist Brain of a Liberal Democrat
February 27th, 2009 at 7:44 am
Wealth Spread
February 27th, 2009 at 8:16 am
Dan O – The Freeman appointment looks like part of the general shift in a more independent, flexible direction on Middle East issues (low bar in context, of course) but I didn’t get from those links that Rahm was part of the opposition. I kind of wish that WERE part of the record because it would show strength on Obama’s part, but I just didn’t see it.
February 27th, 2009 at 9:14 am
I was just riffing on all of the people who were frantic over what it meant that Rahm was appointed by Obama–about what a sell-out move it supposedly was.
February 27th, 2009 at 9:29 am
Bible story for Woody:
“…A saying from the Bible’s story of Cain and Abel. After Cain had murdered his brother Abel, God asked him where his brother was. Cain answered, “I know not; am I my brother’s keeper?”
# Cain’s words have come to symbolize people’s unwillingness to accept responsibility for the welfare of their fellows — their “brothers” in the extended sense of the term. The tradition of Judaism and Christianity is that people do have this responsibility. (See Good Samaritan, Love thy neighbor as thyself, and Love your enemies.)”
Socialism, in what has become the European form, and used NOT in the pejorative by the mass of American nit wits who thump bibles, is, in actuality, Woody, a practical application of Christianity. You know, those values you keep harping on but don’t have a clue about what they are.
February 27th, 2009 at 9:32 am
And here is the other side of the “entitlement” issue. Hilarious:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoGYx35ypus
February 27th, 2009 at 9:39 am
Anna, doesn’t accepting responsibiility for the welfare of mankind include accepting responsibility for your ownf? Liberals are demanding handouts rather than seeking help. And, what have liberals done with their own money rather than that of other people?
Oh, what a joke to think that socialism is based upon scripture.
Change: All you have left after Obama’s spending spree.
- – -
I was just listening to Obama’s speech regarding the Iraq withdrawal. I’m pretty sure that he was saying “Mission Accomplished.”
February 27th, 2009 at 9:56 am
Woody, it isn’t liberals looking for a hand out, you cretin, it’s people with a conscience wanting the world not to stay at your level.
February 27th, 2009 at 10:00 am
Woody, you are still a cave man (cave eunuch, rather) . Psychologically. Wielding a club, xenophobic, and always worried someone is going to take your stuff.
February 27th, 2009 at 10:10 am
Dan O, my main concern is Afghanistan (Israel-Palestine, I am still ready to be surprised.)
So far Obama and his advisors show little understanding of why the Afghan war has been a failure, just as it was a failure for the Russians and everyone who came before them. Their main solution: A surge. Remember LBJ, domestic triumphs and foreign disasters?
February 27th, 2009 at 10:38 am
Michael – I’m concerned about Afghanistan, but I’m also fairly certain that the entire mission is being reassessed and that the notion of imposing some political blueprint on Afghanistan is off the table. What that means in terms of potential for the success of some alternate mission, I have no idea.
I have to give Petraeus some room to surprise us here, because he’s the guy who came up with the singular successful strategy in Iraq – once the shit was ridiculously deep thanks to BushCo’s peculiar madness – which was paying off the bad guys to off the really, really bad guys (which was kind of a no-brainer if one could step back from the bullshit rhetoric that had poured out of the Beltway Brainiacs who concocted the war in the first place.)
According to Tom Ricks, Petraeus DIDN’T TELL BUSH what he was doing – presumably because he knew Bush was a hopeless, uncomprehending idiot. So I don’t think a “surge” in Afghanistan necessarily means that the folks planning it are crazed – against all odds the Iraq “surge” took place in the context of much smarter strategy that actually improved political prospects for the Iraqis.
Of course, Ricks – who appears to be the best informed journalist on how things happened over the last 18 months – also dismisses any triumphalism about the surge being a “success” as ridiculously premature and blindered, acknowledging that Iran will almost inevitably be the biggest beneficiary of the blood and treasure the US expended in Iraq.
But because Petraeus is a pretty smart strategist, the al Qaeda offensive that we unleashed in Iraq with our invasion – which leveraged the Sunni/Shiite split to ignite maximum chaos – was pushed back and defeated and politics appears to at least be possible if not guaranteed. Given the criminal enormity of the BushCo fuck-up in the first place and the millions of Iraqis killed, maimed and displaced as the war spun out of control, that’s a big deal.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:14 am
Cause for optimism: “At CPAC, Gingrich says Obama’s address to Congress was ‘the boldest effort to create a European Socialist model we have seen.’”
February 27th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Awesome: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/02/jindal_admits_katrina_story_was_false.php?ref=fp1
February 27th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Dan O I watched the speech off of msnbc and Olbermann and Maddow nailed that within minutes of its airing.
Usually a good bet to track that sort of stuff through msnbc as they usually knock back that sort of thing pretty quick.
February 27th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Some of you might like this. For different reasons I suspect: http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2009/02/christopher-hit.php
February 27th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Dan O — Saw that same Totten link via Terry Galvin.
One should be proud to have earned such enemies.
February 27th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
meant “Glavin”
February 27th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
DanO, thanks for that link. Let me preface my comments by saying that I actually have come to like Hitchens over the past couple of years, despite his bizarrely stubborn refusal to admit being way off the mark in many (most?) of his assessments and predictions regarding the (second) Iraq invasion and occupation.
That said, I think the Totten story scores insanely high on the Unintentional Comedy scale. It’s slightly reminiscent of the cheesy creative writing samples I recall as an undergrad. Some choice sequences:
“Christopher wanted to pull down their marker, but couldn’t.” (The mental image of nattily dressed Hitchens sweating and tugging at an unbudging sign is priceless.)
“‘Let go of him!’” I said, and shoved him without result. He clamped onto Christopher like a steel trap.” (suggested edit: like a steel trap clenching its unforgiving jaws around the bear’s burly leg!)
“Christopher wouldn’t strike his assailant, so I sized the man up from a distance of six or so feet. I could punch him hard in the face, and he couldn’t stop me. I could break his knee with a solid kick to his leg, and he couldn’t stop me. He needed all his strength just to hold onto Christopher while I had total freedom of movement and was hopped up on adrenaline.”
“Christopher, Jonathan, and I easily could have joined forces and left him bleeding and harmless in the street… [but] escalating seemed like the worst possible thing I could do. The time to attack the young man was right at the start, and that moment had passed.” (I woulda knocked him silly had I wanted to, I woulda!)
“‘You’re bleeding,’” Jonathan said and lightly touched Christopher’s elbow.” (cue piano con affetto)
And the best exchange for last:
“Christopher seemed unfazed by the sight of blood on his shirt…. ‘I’m sorry I didn’t warn you properly. This is partly my fault.’
“‘I appreciate that,” Christopher said. ‘But I would have done it anyway. One must take a stand. One simply must.’” (trumphant crescendo…)
fin
February 27th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
You didn’t include Hitchens’ colorful description of the group who assaulted him – “a Greek Orthodox repressed homosexual wankers organization, I think.”
February 28th, 2009 at 9:13 am
Anna, when I help people, and I do, I want to do it my way–not yours and not the government’s.
- I want all of the money to go to the needy rather than half of it eaten up in a government bureaucracy.
- I want it to actually do some good rather than be wasted on worthless feel-good or vote-buying projects.
- I want the money to go to people who really need it rather than those who don’t and see a way to take it.
- I want the money to go to people whom I choose rather than whom the government chooses.
- And, I can stop or change my giving at any time and for purposes of my own choosing rather than it becoming a permanent entitlement to be funded forever by me and my kids.
If that’s the feelings of a cave men, then we need more cave men.
If you were a productive member of society, you would understand.
February 28th, 2009 at 9:23 am
Obama used his first military base visit as President to tell the troops, “Nice going. Now we’re going to cut-and-run, and, oh, here’s the exact date for you terrorists out there.”
March 1st, 2009 at 9:55 am
What’s the Matter With Kansas? Thomas Rich.
Adorable.
Idiot’s Guide to Common Sense.
March 1st, 2009 at 10:41 am
Every time I saw crazy Nancy jumped up to clap her hands around America’s wallets, I saw a desperate wild-eyed unstable crook who has never let anyone put a clamp on her personal finances, and the jetting perk porking lifestyle she demands for herself, and the other pigs she wallows with in Washington.
Where is your sacrifice Nancy? When are we going to you and your gang walk the talk. When are going to see you oinkers give up one jet ride, one luxury retreat, one salary increase, one f–king giveaway of our hardearned cash for your favorite voting district in your favorite state.
How’s that million dollar mouse coming along for your district? Well I hope, because we’re gonna need them to be breeding, as if they’ve every needed any help in the past, since you and your selfish self-interested porkers are driving us toward a mouse in every pot, and glad to get it.
Give me the selfish and self-interested capitalist pigs, if I have to choose between the sloppers, which it looks like I have to. At least they earn a some of the cash they stole from us.
March 1st, 2009 at 10:45 am
Oh, and when are we going to see you and your gang put in one full week of work, one month without a vacation, one year without a world tour? Creeps!
March 1st, 2009 at 11:25 am
Jim R,
And I bet all that is said without irony.
You right-wing statists have had 8 years to bathe in the pig’s trough, and you have the nerve….you are without any moral character.
March 1st, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Jim R – your rant on Nancy Pelosi is pretty much completely nuts. Hate-filled invective, awash in bullshit that’s been totally debunked. Not pretty. You’re off in the terrain you deride leftists for inhabiting. Hyperbole doused in self-righteousness, with a large dose of self-pity for political impotence. The crazies who accused prudent liberals pointing to serial disasters of “Bush Derangement Syndrome” need to look in the mirror. If Pelosi is the Wicket Witch, who the hell in Congress would you point to as a responsible legislative leader in these perilous times ? Boehner ? Eric Cantor ? Gingrich Reruns ? LOL !!! With Rush Limbaugh leading the Hate America Right in prayers for the Obama agenda to fail – which can only mean that America crashes and burns into a long, painful Depression – “Conservatism” reveals itself in its totality as about as respectable as its much-ridiculed resident ranter in these threads. Just as ugly and stupid. I’d expect you to be wary of falling off that cliff.
March 1st, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Jim R – evidence you’re the one who is disconnected from reality, not Pelosi. Bush’s Press Secretary, Tony Snow, acknowledged as much, so why keep stirring this pot full of crap ?
http://www.snopes.com/politics/pelosi/jet.asp
March 1st, 2009 at 1:36 pm
This country survived George Bush. The odds for Obama are much less.
March 1st, 2009 at 1:38 pm
so why keep stirring this pot full of crap ?
It’s all they’ve got.
March 1st, 2009 at 4:40 pm
In fact, don’t we all recall that the mere mention of combat deaths in Iraq was derided as the work of leftists taking glee in the possibility of Bush’s failure?
Now we have Limbaugh openly and actively doing much worse. He’s not being unfairly painted that way, as was the case before–he’s actually proud of himself. The modern conservative’s hypocrisy is unbounded. Luckily for saner people the country agreed and threw them out.
March 1st, 2009 at 6:55 pm
You guys don’t get it.
Limbaugh doesn’t want Obama to fail in helping our nation. He just wants Obama to fail in what he’s actually doing to it.
Hey, Obama finally admitted that the surge worked. Talk about hypocrisy.
March 1st, 2009 at 7:05 pm
In the end, who gives a fug what a clown like Limbaugh wants or not?
Woody, my friend, this is NOT a serious discussion and you know it. You defend Republicans, period. Makes no different what is actually said.
I have no idea if Obama will “fail” or not. What I do know is that thanks to the last eight years of Republican administration, America is already in deep, deep failure. If the Dems had been in power over the last eight years you’d be yelling for impeachment.
Instead ur gonna write back now and say that the current deplorable state we find ourselves in is due to Democratic control of congress since 2006.
Save ur time and mine. If you really believe that then you would by the same logic have to take all the credit u give to Reagan and give it to the Dems– they, not the GOP, dominated congress during the entire Reagan era.
Anyway, it’s hard to imagine a failure a greater than the one bequeathed by the incompetent fools we finally voted out of office. GW Bush will go down in history as the worst president of the century. Roll over, Herbert Hoover.
Also let me mention in pasisng, the gross hypocrisy of your position and that of Limbaugh;s. You want America to succeed but the President to fail. I see. Arent u the same folks who said that those of who criticized Bush was effectively betraying American values and the troops? Man, what a crock.
March 1st, 2009 at 7:48 pm
The pedant in me must point out that Hoover was from the 20th century. I’m all for proclaiming Dubya the worst president of the last two centuries.
March 1st, 2009 at 8:03 pm
Marc: GW Bush will go down in history as the worst president of the century.
So far, only because Jimmy Carter was in the last century and because we’ve only had eight years in this century with a lot to go.
But, Obama is the star of the new show “Welcome Back, Carter” and has done more lasting damage to this nation in one month than Bush did in eight years.
Obama effectively will bankrupt the U.S. with social waste and debt, as has been done in California, and his gutting of the military and SDI will expose us to new homeland attacks. As I said before, we did survive Bush. We can never repay the trillions that Obama is throwing away to repay political debts and buy votes, and the world will lose freedoms that the U.S. military has historically protected.
On hypocrisy, nothing matches that of the Democrats. However, Limbaugh doesn’t speak for me, despite the Democrats and media claiming that he does, and I never said that I want the President to fail. Oh, and, Reagan succeeded in spite of the Democrats–not because of them.
Obama has an incredible lack of understanding of economics and national security. If his goal is to screw up our nation, I don’t support him in that. If he is trying to make our nation better, I will support him–but, I have to see it first and, so far, I haven’t. In any event, I remain a patriot unlike the Left, which still scoffs at flag pins.
Obama, bad enough being like Carter, will be to our nation like Coleman Young was to Detroit. What is it that so many black politicians have a hard time governing. Do you think that it’s because they are elected based upon race rather than qualifications? Oh, yes, I forgot…Obama is not expected to govern, but to rule.
- – -
Woody from earlier: Marc, this may surprise you, but corporations are not people. Explain why we should tax an entity that is non-human.
Here’s a just published scholarly discusson against the corporate income tax.
The Non-Sense Tax: A Reply to New Corporate Income Tax Advocacy
March 1st, 2009 at 8:20 pm
BTW, we had a heavy snowfall today accompanied by thunderstorms. It’ll be iced up tomorrow with some school closings. I had to go downtown this morning and drove up the highway seeing grocery stores loaded with people buying bread and milk, but then a black guy crossed the street in front of me with what looked like a week’s supply of fried chicken from Church’s. I know that someone will interpret that as being racist, even though it’s true.
March 1st, 2009 at 8:41 pm
I don’t think ur story is racist. I thibk it is pointless and foolish. Where do u think tis negro gentleman was hiding his watermelons? Also u should be happy that this guy was out buying chicken. One less back man who otherwiswe could be sctewing up as an elected official. I think history has shown Aryans to be far more respoonsible politicians.
March 2nd, 2009 at 8:02 am
Marc, did you mean that the Negro gentleman with the chicken would “be screwing up as an elected official” as a metaphor that he would be stealing chickens? If so, I see the parallel that you draw.
Aryans? No, Marc, white U.S. politicians aren’t the product of Nazi Germany. Most came from families who came to America for freedom and opportunity and from families who fought and gave their lives to end Nazi oppression and Jewish persecution–despite your weak attempt to link them. There should be a little appreciation rather than hate and disparagement–especially from someone who is a Jew.
The old crop of politicians have governed better and wiser, especially percentage wise, than Stalinists of any color, of which the most powerful one in the world is currently black.
Liberals attack blacks, like Clarence Thomas, who “act white” or “don’t think black,” as if being a certain race requires you to think a certain way. Is no inviduality allowed, and everyone has to be part of a group?
Do liberals want black politicians to take away everything from producers because “it’s their turn?” Is that “acting black?” Is Obama “acting black” and giving away the spoils? It sure looks like it, and I’m sure that’s what you and others want “It’s your turn.” Right?
If one calls out the left on that, then “the race card” is played, which, essentially, you did. No wonder our Atty. General said that we are a “nation of cowards” concerning race discussions. Nothing can be discussed when the left is filled with hate and wants to shut up those with other views and to shout them down.
Now, if there are no suburbs to which one can flee from a high tax, big spend, welfare-state, irresponsible government, I guess there will be a backlash against those who put in Obama and a re-taking of America for our long-lasting values of freedom and freedom to succeed if one chooses–not Marxism. I’m a conservative, not a Republican, but there will be a backlash, and the Republicans will return stronger than ever.
But, you would rather keep blacks down on the Democratic Plantation by “taking care of them,” wouldn’t you? That’s not change. In exchange for their votes, the Democrats have been doing that for decades–and, not out of principle.
Maybe the early drug use of yours and Obama’s are having long-term effects of distorted perceptions.
March 2nd, 2009 at 8:33 am
Now, the DOW is below 7,000 for the first time since 1997. Every time Obama opens his mouth about “stimulating the economy,” businessmen who understand economics react appropriately. Let’s party!
March 2nd, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Oh, NOW I see where you got your slur.
CNN Host D. L. Hughley: Republicans ‘Literally Look Like Nazi Germany’.
You guys must read the same propaganda.
Does it upset the Left that RNC Chairman Michael Steele doesn’t “act black”?
Wait! There’s more! Just another example
MSNBC Brings on Nation Writer to Bash Rush, Tout Limbaugh Error
“So, Ari, Rush thought he was quoting the Constitution. It was the Declaration of Independence. How embarrassing is that for him, especially the way he slammed the President?”
Of course, you didn’t hear anything about Clinton when he confused The Gettysburg Address witht The Constitution.
Who’s hypocritical?
Next….
HALL: So, does (Limbaugh) represent the mainstream Republican Party? Does he? Beyond that room in there? He’s a very powerful man.
MELBER: He seems to be very popular and it doesn’t seem that there are any members of Congress who will stand up to him.
You guys get your Obama talking points every morning and follow them like robots…or, is Obots?
March 2nd, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Lastly, then I’ll give it a rest…yet another Obama appointee has tax issues – U.S. Trade Representative-designate Ron Kirk, who has to pay back taxes covering 2005 – 2007.
This, from an issues site covering Kirk’s campaign, may explain it: Ron Kirk on Tax Reform – No stance on record.
Obviously, Obama’s friends don’t know much about taxes–especially paying them.
March 2nd, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Woody et al, please give it a rest. The readers are bored to death by this low level of discourse. Once more I will threaten and this time perhaps fulfill my yearning to shut down comments if this sort of trolliness continues.
March 2nd, 2009 at 6:40 pm
If you see my last comment, Marc, I already had given it a rest. What’s of little comment value are the same old left-wing, screeching talking points on this site when they go unopposed. Signing off.
March 3rd, 2009 at 3:01 am
Rather than ban Woody, who intentionally trolls your blog, picking fights, insulting commenters, lying, mispresenting, and injecting racism and sleaze, you would ban everyone. Who the heck is “et. al.”, when the last seven comments from someone other than yourself were all Woody? Why would you blame “et. al.” for behavior that is Woody’s, and Woody’s alone? It’s very odd … and hypocritical, when you belittle others for not just scrolling past Woody, but can’t manage to do so yourself (which is understandable — just as it is understandable of those whom you have mocked for engaging him). But the number one reason, I believe, that you won’t ban Woody is that it would amount to admitting to a mistake.
March 3rd, 2009 at 8:20 am
proposed increase in the defense dept = gutting of the military??
Are you seriously this stupid or do you just play a moron on blogs?
BTW, SDI doesn’t and never will work. You like to waste billions of tax payers money on it because St. Ronnie proposed it. Ronnie just got the idea watching a bad sci fi movie after he went nuts.