• Mike seems to have a little problem with counter views that don't agree with his position. Even when they are backed up with sources.

     I guess only his sources are the correct ones.

     Altho Mike does take the high road now and then.

     You can point out flaws in his posts twice, and his reply is that you are obsessed with what you are pointing out.

     I guess what is good for the goose is not good for the gander sometimes.

    March 20, 2009 at 6:55 p.m.

  • Mike wrote:

    "Are you sober?..That was the most ignorant post I have ever received..
    No basis, no direction, no facts just babble.
    You can't stand someone that disagrees with you...That is obvious.....You stalked one female liberal blogger and you are obsessed on trying to discredit BigJ...grow up or sober up."

    The rules for commenting here seem straightforward enough. But in the above quoted rant, one citizen misused this blog space provided by VicAd to suggest that another citizen is perhaps intoxicated, ignorant, immature, and dangerously obsessive.
    In what universe does this meet the stated requirement to "keep it civil"? If ad hominem arguments as these pass muster with VicAd, will the editors kindly explain to its readership what they consider a "personal attack" to be?
    Interestingly, the author of these libels in this same thread actually wrote the following:

    "My disposition, my reaction to a crisis is not the issue or of any importance…I want president that is a lot better and smarter than I am, or we are in big trouble….This is what cause Bush’s downfall 1. The fiasco in Iraq caused America to take another look at him in 2000...."

    And this is the same blogger who on Feb 11 condescended to another with this boast:

    Please that's poetic but so superficial....Now I would put my knowledge of Iraq any time any day..Before,during, and present day...against yours

    Wow. The Iraq fiasco in 2000? What caused a self-described political junkie and modest Iraq expert to commit an error so glaring? Rather than irresponsibly speculating on what he might have had to drink (or smoke) I will stick to the facts...and the posting rules.

    Dubya did not take office until January 2001, and did not "lie us into Iraq" until March 2003.
    More to the point, he did not lie us into Iraq.

    Regime change was official US policy, approved by resolution in Congress, during the Clinton administration. As a matter of public record, WMD arguments employed by Bush in 2002-2003 were identical to those uttered over the preceding 24 months by such Democrats as Bill Clinton, Sec. of State Madeleine Albright, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Sens. Harry Reid, Joe Biden, John Kerry, John Edwards, Howard Dean, etc etc.
    Don’t take my word for it. Watch them for yourself. Here are the Democrats in their own words:

    Certain people figure if they keep repeating the line that Bush lied us into a war, this falsehood will eventually be believed by the masses. It's as if the Move-On crowd found a 1936 speech by Nazi propaganda meister Joseph Goebbels and adopted it as their political handbook.

    After beating around the bush and dropping some GOP names for misdirection, our well-read political junkie blogger swallows hard and tackles the burning issue of the day--the millions just paid in AIG bonuses:
    Christopher Dodd is Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee or maybe Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner...........Follow the money.

    OK, let's follow the money.
    According to the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington-based research group, AIG donated a total of $854,905 to political campaigns in 2008. AIG employees as a group represent Dodd’s fourth-biggest donor during his career, the group’s research shows. The company’s political action committee, employees and immediate family members have given Dodd more than $280,000.
    ( )

    Uh oh.

    But guess whose presidential campaign received $112,170 from AIG execs. Obama.

    Bigger uh oh.
    The great myth of the 2008 Obama campaign is that it was financed mainly by many small donations from Average Joe and LaKeisha Sixpack. The truth is that out of the two and a half million donors to the campaign, almost 60% of his money came from 180,000 top dogs representing special interests including Wall Street. A mere 552 donors account for almost a full third of his campaign cash.
    Democrats want us to believe that the GOP is the party of rich doctors, Big Business and billionaires. It isn’t, and actually has not been since 1992. Lawyers donate Democratic at 4-to-1 rates. With doctors, it’s 2-to-1. Tech executives, 5-to-1. Investment bankers, 2-to-1. And all those greedy yuppies Hollyweird and Jon Stewart routinely bash? They contributed to Obama overwhelmingly. Democrats not only have more billionaires, the fat cats like George Soros shell out more dough than their Republican counterparts ever did.
    Let’s continue to follow the money. Here is a list of financial entities and the amounts they donated to Obama’s campaign. Note the correlation between big donors and big bailout money:
    Goldman Sachs: $955,473
    Citigroup: $653,468
    JP Morgan Chase & Co.: $646,058
    Morgan Stanley: $485,823
    Bank of America: $274,493
    Wachovia: $214,151
    AIG: $112,170
    Lehman Brothers: $276,088
    Lehman failed before Obama took office, so it didn’t get to join the list of banks leaching off American taxpayers.
    ( )

    Remember all those promises about how Obama was going change the way business is done in Washington?

    In February, pro-Obama bloggers slammed Republicans for voting against a dicey stimulus package loaded with almost 9,000 earmarks. They scoffed at GOP complaints about Congress not being allowed to read what the conference committee changed in that monster before it was voted on.

    Now we see that ramming unread bills through Congress can have real consequences; the biggest consequence may be the damage it’s doing to Obama's credibility.

    Voters applauded candidate Obama for criticizing exactly this tawdry Congressional technique of rushing bills through blind. They also cheered when he promised to end the practice of larding up appropriation bills with earmarks. But once in office, Obama could not resist the temptation to exploit our financial crisis by stooping to the same dirty trick of railroading a bill through, a bill riddled with earmarks.

    Now Obama gets to pay the political price for his hypocrisy.
    Two more questions were raised in this thread:

    Could the stimulus package passed weeks ago already be turning the economy around?

    That idea is laughable. So little of it has been spent. Most won't be spent for years. That's it's fatal flaw. It doesn't stimulate the economy now.

    Should Obama take any blame for the state of the stock market?

    His every public utterance from Fall 2007 until 12 days ago could hardly have been worse for the market. He has habitually, reflexively bad-mouthed the economy. (So much for HOPE.) Plus he botched his most important appointment -- the expert who supposedly will guide the nation out of this financial nightmare. It came late. It was the wrong guy. And the key deputy positions needed at Treasury remain vacant.

    Former Fed Chairman, Paul Volcker, called the present situation at Treasury is a "disgrace". Hey folks, Volcker is head of Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board!

    Not to worry, Obama has the perfect scapegoat for all this -- his tax-dodging Treasury Secretary. Yesterday the President said he has complete confidence in Tim Geitner. Which translated from Washington-ese means Timothy will be under the same bus as Rev. Jeremiah Wright within ten days.
    Too bad he can’t throw Chris Dodd and Rep. Barney Franks under the bus too.

    It's been a bumpy start for the Obamanistas, but the well-read political junkie remains upbeat by imagining how much worse things would be had the Republicans won, and by wondering if those who dare gainsay his wisdom in VicAd blogs have stopped beating their wives.

    March 20, 2009 at 5:51 a.m.

  • Ah yes, Mike. Only you could take the view that Obama's stimulus bill is already working, but a similiar bill from 7 months ago failed. I'll do you the respect of using the descriptive terms I'm thinking.
    Your points illustrate your indepth research of liberal sources, since you confess not to understand conservative thinking. Thanks for putting words in our own mouths.
    Or was that your personal experience that you so loudly proclaim to avoid in your blogs.
    There is that descriptive noun again....Sorry. It almost slipped out.
    Face it. You always hated Bush. Always will. And will find a means to prove your opinion regardless of facts.
    The only fine action that Bush took was his economic stimulus of 2001. Itsrealy was testament to your detested "supply side" economics that we didn't take a bigger dump then. And not enter a total collapse in 2002. Was Cheney pushing his buttons then? It worked, so who cares. Ok...make it two. I like sending in bombers to kick Osama's buddies ass right after 9/11. Make it two.
    Who is pushing your man's buttons? From the looks of the crew.......oh crap...there is that word again. Can it be an adjective as well as a noun?
    And sorry. 1 weeks worth of stock market gains is not a mandate on the economy just yet. Bottom feeding is what it is. And I expect more corrections in the next few months.
    Where are your coins hiding? Krugerands? MM? CD? T-Bills. Hey brother! Pony up and buy some stocks and get this baby moving again. Get the Dow up around 10,000 and I'll be ready to sell you some more! How are you voting with your money?
    Did you send Obama a couple more bucks with your tax return this year. After all, us rich folks should pay more and sacrifice for the greater good. Your tax burden was only a minimum, Mike. You can (should) send in more. America needs you (your money).
    Damn! There is that word again! Verb? Noun? Adjective?
    Any guesses? Anyone?

    March 19, 2009 at 7:57 p.m.

  • Bighorn
    I am glad we agree on a few points. I guess you don’t think I am a complete idiot…Thank God for small victories.
    Here is where we still disagree:
    Conservatives do not think liberals can get elected..They try to make a popular president like John Kennedy a conservative…..I refer you to Obama’s acceptance speech in Minnapolis,Decocratic Convention speech in Denver, and his inaugural address. He has not waivered, the other day he lectured the teachers union, and favored some school vouchers and right now he is not for a single plan health insurance, getting the troops out of Iraq, and is starting to negotiate with Iran…Only the conservatives that voted for him, the media, and those that don’t think a liberal can win, thought he moved to the center during the campaign….IMO
    My disposition, my reaction to a crisis is not the issue or of any importance…I want a president that is a lot better and smarter than I am, or we are in big trouble….This is what cause Bush’s downfall
    1. The fiasco in Iraq caused America to take another look at him in 2000.
    2. They didn’t like what they heard when he wanted to privatize Social Security
    3. The Katrina response started the poll numbers going down
    4. His SC nominees (Harriet Meirs,Alberto Gonzales) angered the conservative base
    5. His stance on illegal immigration angered the (28%) social conservative base
    6. He got some capital back with the Alito and Roberts
    7. He completely lost the fiscal conservatives with the prescription drug bill
    8. He was not asked to campaign for any serious GOP candidate and the fact that he was not at the GOP convention was a big relief for the GOP
    9. Don’t blame the democrats for him getting elected twice..SC first time because Al Gore won popular vote by 600,000 votes.
    10. Second time fear mongering worked

    You obviously don’t agree with stimulus economics but I am tired of explaining it..How ironic, you blamed Obama for the fall of the stock market (bad economic barometer) but he does not get any credit for gains, or the fact that job losses have temporarily stopped.

    BTW Bush was bashed at the CPAC convention and no president can attain the low approval numbers he had without a large number coming from his own party…He has been ranked pretty low all-time by historians.

    March 19, 2009 at 9:04 a.m.

  • I wager you will be surprised that I agree with much of what you have to write here, Mike. Greed and corruption on a political and economic fronts should be a now surprise, though. It is merely a reflection of US as a society and culture. Selfless action and acts are so rare in our world today that they are news worthy instead of common place. Pretty sad state of affairs.
    For one, I have no problem with Obama being Obama. He had a liberal background, and is now pursuing a liberal agenda. Despite his campaign rhetoric towards the center, he is what he is. Not that I agree with his politics, at least he is consistant.
    As opposed to the turn coat Bush who pretended to be one thing, while all the way acting in another. "Limited government works" and then expanded the federal government at a record pace. I was pleasantly surprised at his performance during the 9/11 emergency (be honest, Mike. What the hell would you do in that place?), and then disapointed repeatedly after about six months. He chose a mandate of "protecting America" because he had no clear marching orders and no experience (weakest governor in the US, pplluuueeeezzzze). His popularity fell because he ignored his base, spent every dollar he could get his hands on, and started yet another "police action" that has yet to be thoroughly explained. How the Democrats let him get elected a 2nd time is beyond me.
    Bailout anyone? How was Bush's last action regarding the economy any different than Obama's current spending spee?
    Obama has got his hands full. And filling them even further with social engineering at a time when even his allies are questioning the timing of such. I admire his delivery of message, his ambition, although not his direction. And surrounding himself with tax cheaters &  liars ain't helping his case either.
    Are we destined for another 4 years of an ineffective misguided President? Watch the drama live on CNN!

    March 19, 2009 at 4:51 a.m.

  • Trying to marginalize me with misinformation won't work......Do some research because you are just talking about Indian Tribes not the other defense contracts,drug industry,tobacco companies that Tom Delay would not allow Ksteet to deal with democrats.
    The K Street Project is an effort by the Republican Party (GOP) to pressure Washington lobbying firms to hire Republicans in top positions, and to reward loyal GOP lobbyists with access to influential officials. It was launched in 1995 by Republican strategist Grover Norquist and then-House majority whip Tom DeLay. It has been criticized as being part of a "coziness" between the GOP and large corporations which has allegedly allowed business to rewrite government regulations affecting their own industries in some cases (see Dick Cheney energy task force).
    Shortly after the 1994 elections which gave a majority of seats to Republican candidates, DeLay called prominent Washington lobbyists into his office. He had pulled the public records of political contributions that they made to Democrats and Republicans. According to Texans for Public Justice, "he reminded them that Republicans were in charge and their political giving had better reflect that—or else. The "or else" was a threat to cut off access to the Republican House leadership."[1]
    I was making a different my post ,I said that lobbyist money is not necessarily an indictmente.....Read the whole post before you try to discredit it.

    March 18, 2009 at 8:10 p.m.

  • Bipartisan Spread
    Many of the top beneficiaries of the campaign contributions that Jack Abramoff and his team of lobbyists directed from Indian tribes were Democratic legislators. Abramoff is under investigation for charging enormous fees to the tribes.

    "In the previous year’s Jack Abramoff would not let the lobbyist contribute to the Democrats."

    March 18, 2009 at 7:04 p.m.

  • Rollingstone
    I really didn’t have much to say about anyone..I was waiting for the evidence or the mea culpa but contrary to your charges, I did mention Mr. Dodd and the Treasury Secretary. When I found the CNN report I immediate posted it because I did not want to deceive anyone.
    I don’t think this is over, by any stretch of the imagination but as for contributions, the lobbyist will funnel money to those on powerful committees. That is not necessarily an indictment...Obama got the most from Fanny and Freddie and AIG and Wall Street. In the previous year’s Jack Abramoff would not let the lobbyist contribute to the Democrats.
    I found out that Chris Dodd was the likely suspect because others like Charlie Rangel and Max Baucus did not have access to the stimulus package but that is only for the last $30 million and nothing to do with the actual bonuses that were sanctioned by the SEC on November of 2008..
    WE will have at more important things than $165 million in bonuses and I am confident this administration will do just fine....After all we just came off 8 years of disaster.

    March 18, 2009 at 6:06 p.m.

  • Mike, I was surprised you didn't have much to say about Chris Dodd, well not really surprised I guess. Chris was caught red handed lying to the public about the infamous amendment to the Stimulus Bill that allowed AIG to give the bonuses. Whoops! Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!
    It turns out that three of the managers that got the top bonuses were also top contributors to Dodd's campaign. Hmmmm, probably a coincidence don't yah think?
    I had to laugh at the disorganized fire drill of finger pointing about who was responsible for the infamous amendment. At first everyone claimed they didn't know how it got in the Stimulus Bill. But then they had second thoughts because, that looked kind of stupid and incompetent.
    Finally they trotted out Senator Dodd to explain this farce on CNN. He said he knew about it all along, but he was forced by the administration to add the change to the Stimulus Bill - that should win him some friends. These are unfortunately, the people running our country.

    March 18, 2009 at 5:44 p.m.

  • Hello Beakus
    Thanks for help and kind words..Darn spell check.
    No I never intend to run for public office..Too old for that.
    I have been posting on this forum for about four years…Back when I first started, the forum police ,Joe Patrick Bean and his associates, would scan the posts for cut & paste and unsubstantiated material…This made me a researcher because it was embarrassing to be called out or deleted.
    I started out just correcting the myths, but that became time consuming …J…Now, I stick to blogs for the most part.
    I just hope some unsuspecting independent viewer will consider another point of view…I am under no illusions that anyone will accept my point of view. I am aware that Victoria County is a conservative republican district, and posters like you keep me from veering too far to the left sometime..
    Thanks again.

    March 18, 2009 at 4:15 p.m.

  • Mike.  Have you ever considered putting this massive amount of wisdom and knowledge to use.  Like run for some type of government office or serve the people of this great nation in some form or another.  It is obvious you have a great interest in politics.  By the way, you may want to correctly spell politics, in reference to your heading, Politcs Plus.  You could always say, "I didn't even know how to spell politics, now I are one."

    March 18, 2009 at 3:53 p.m.