Forgot your password?
Type your email address below and click the sign up button to create an account.
You should be real happy this Sunday. President Obama is going to be on 5 political talk shows, though not all live, most have already been taped.
President Obama is truly the media President, 88 speeches (not including ones for foreign dignitary s, ect.)
7 press conferences, 16 town hall meetings and two speeches to the joint session of congress. All in so short of a time he has been in office.
That is a change, President Obama has already had more airtime than Presidents GW Bush or Clinton received in each of their two terms in office.
Mike and JR74...I have to agree with Johnny and Beakus about the signs. I did a google search and found lots of signs all right. There were several that were in poor taste, but I didn't see any that I thought were racist. I did see some I didn't understand at all -- I have no clue what was meant by Mack Daddy -- but unless you're referring to people carrying Confederate battle flags as being signs of racism, I didn't see it. Now, I'll admit that perhaps I'm not as sensitive as some might be. I'd appreciate your posting what you describe as signs at the 9-12 demonstration that were racist.
JR..."But RS remember Obama wants to shut GITMO down. So now where are they going to go?"
Put'em into a leaky boat and point'em toward Mecca.
JR74President Bush & Defense Sec. Robert Gates have always wanted to shut down Gitmo,along with General Petraeus and the Joint Chiefs od Staff.
But RS remember Obama wants to shut GITMO down. So now where are they going to go?
Whew, Mikey what a temper!
Now you bring up borrowing money from Asia. The deficit in the Obama budget will average about $800 billion per year. Where is he going to get that kind of money - I know, borrowing from Asia, printing money and oh yeah, by increasing taxes.
It is a well known fact that cutting the capital gains tax increases government revenue. I got a good chuckle when Charlie Gibson asked Obama if he was going to increase the capital gains tax. Obama said he would and then Gibson reminded him that would decrease revenue - there was a "uh...er, yes but, uh well OK, what was the question" moment.
Responsible spending are you kidding? Mandatory spending is 74% of tax receipts in 2009 and rising to 83% in 2019. Defense spending goes from 17% to 13% in the same amount of time. Let see that means that this combined spending rises from 91% to 96% of receipts in this 10 year period. There's not much left over and we haven't even gotten around to paying for pork, paying for all the personnel in the rapidly expanding number of agencies, paying for czars and their staffs, annual bailouts of AMTRAK, the Post Office, Fannie and Freddie, GM and oh yeah, let's not forget the subsidies for green energy, ethanol and a lot of other crap that we did not ask for or need. So any "infrastructure improvements and HCR will have to be done on borrowed or printed money - we are heading at flank speed towards an abyss.
As for as the collapse of "affordable housing" Obama won't admit the government was at fault - that would mean a large personal hit, given his socialist involvement in pushing sub-prime lending. And yes, bankers were greedy and complicit in this - they readily took the opportunity to grab more profits. BUT...they were enabled by the opportunities created by government interference in housing by Fannie, Freddie, and the Community Reinvestment Act.
The Iraq War, I had to chuckle when you mentioned Hillary. She was for the war before she was against it and now she wants us to forget that she was ever for the war and just remember she is against it - did I miss anything?
You say, a hand full of senators had intel that disputed the administration's information - what information? Did they keep it secret? Was Hillary in that hand full? Congress is as responsible for the war as Bush. They are the only ones that have the legal authority to commit our nation to war - they need to be accountable.
Yeah, I see your point about terrorist in our prison population. It makes a lot of sense to add more terrorist to that population. You know instead of sending more terrorist here why don't we send the ones we have here there to Guantanamo - they will have state of the art accommodations.
As we later learned, the corporate scandals that burst into public view in late 2001 also began in the 1990s. Set aside who and what caused them, this timing meant that the Bush Administration had to clean up after the scandals, and the regulatory costs associated with that cleanup (Sarbanes-Oxley, etc.) caused a further delay in the recovery of business confidence and spending.
All of this is relevant today because the Kerry Democrats want Americans to remember the 1990s as a Periclean-Clinton Age, while blaming the Bush Administration for the costs of cleaning up after the bubble and fighting the war on terror. If only we'll return to the Clinton mix of tax hikes to finance more spending on health care and education, they now say, the boom will return. As you can see, that wasn't--and wouldn't be--the half of it.
I am glad that you admit that the Clinton Administration wasn't so high and mighty.
Mr. Clinton did pass a tax increase in the summer of 1993, but only after Senate Democrats stripped out his new BTU tax and Senate Republicans killed his spending "stimulus." The expansion stumbled in early 1993, no doubt partly on tax-hike uncertainty, then revived late in the year. In 1994 stock markets were flat but interest rates actually rose throughout the year, peaking on the very day in 1994 that Republicans took Congress. That turned out to be the real start of the 1990s boom.
The economic prosperity was just a bubble. It's not always the spending because responsible spending like repairing the infrastructure, alternative energy, and healthcare reform would benefit the taxpayer's future needs and improve our trade and budget deficit.
A kind of virtuous Beltway gridlock took hold, with Washington doing little to get in the way of the private-sector's natural animal spirits. As the telecom and tech bubbles expanded, taxes from rising capital gains and stock-option payouts boosted federal revenues to a post-World War II high as a share of GDP (20.9%). And with budget surpluses rolling in, both parties began to spend like liberals once again after 1998.
Then the bubble burst--not in 2001, but starting in 2000. The tech-heavy Nasdaq peaked in March of Bill Clinton's final year in office. The National Bureau of Economic Research now says the economy shrank by 0.5% in the third quarter of 2000--albeit too late for voters to feel it that November. After a fourth quarter blip in growth, the economy slipped into recession by the formal definition (at least two consecutive quarters of declining GDP) in the first half of 2001.
In other words, the "Bush recession" began for all practical purposes on Mr. Clinton's watch. The spectacular popping of the dot-com bubble also meant that at least some of the wealth created in the late 1990s had been an illusion. While productivity gains and much of the growth were real, the over-investment in telecom and other areas was so great that it has taken years to recover.
Rollingstone's response is typical of many local far right conservative posters. They never admit that they were wrong but if 72% disagree with their views they will say something like "well I didn't expect much or the others - went along.”
Borrowing money from Asia to give tax cuts to the wealthy, just to impose trickle-down economics on the rest of us, did not work. The economic prosperity was just a bubble. It's not always the spending because responsible spending like repairing the infrastructure, alternative energy, and healthcare reform would benefit the taxpayer's future needs and improve our trade and budget deficit. Those that do not like to pay their taxes like to blame government for all our ills. Blaming government and the poor people for the economic disaster without even mentioning Wall Street and their shenanigans is just their way of being unwilling to admit greed or they just don't have a basic understanding of economics. It reads like favorable spin for conservative capitalism that went amok, greed.
It is easy to say the Iraq war was a mistake but to dismiss it without mentioning the neocons that persuaded a willing President and the flawed leadership for the fiasco reminds me of the words Hillary Clinton, when she said for me to believe that nonsense would require "a willing suspension of disbelief.” According to the Senate Intelligence Committee (Phase 1 and II) much of what Colin Powell told the UN was information taken from a tortured detainee, which turned out to be a lie. The fact is, that just a handful of senators looked at the Intel that contradicted what the White House was pushing. The fact that a 26 Democratic senators (most or all have apologized) and a handful of Democrats in the house went along with the resolution to go to war had very little to do with White House intentions. Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and Richard Clarke said the Bush administration had Iraq in their sights from day one.and I did not go into detail about the propaganda the Defense department Funneled through Fox news, the New York Times, Washington Post and Judith Miller.
The killers (not yet proven) will mingle with the prison population? How misinformed are you? We have over 30 convicted terrorists that reside in isolation in our super max prisons, one assassinated a potential president and two others were convicted of the first attack of the Trade Center. Poke Bush in the eye..lol
Politicizing of the Justice Department does not mean replacing the federal attorneys which is a common practice. Several members of the Bush Justice Department (lost count) were asked to resign in disgrace because of politicization. Karl Rowe is still under indictment and Alberto Gonzales resigned for the same charge.
On-Slow, yes I voted for Bush as I've said many times I voted for him because I thought he would do the least harm - well I was not too disappointed because I didn't expect much.
When Bush took over, the government did have a surplus, but it was rapidly eroding because Congress was licking their chops over this pile of cash. I supported the tax cuts because at least it would get the money out of the treasury and away from the politicians.
The cuts encouraged investment and they increased the percentage of income tax paid by the top brackets by about 4 or 5%. Bush's idea was to not only stimulate the economy but also to create real jobs, not government subsidized, dead end jobs. Contrary to what some people say the cuts had very little effect on the distribution of income. The top income groups actually increased their share of income during the Clinton years.
But unfortunately Bush did nothing to control spending, in fact he encouraged it. But for a while the economy grew fast enough to shrink the deficits until the crisis brought on by the collapse of "affordable housing." The ugly truth about the deficits is they didn't care about them because they knew they could get China and other suckers to finance the deficits at low interest rates - those days are over.
Bush also supported "affordable housing" but not like the leadership of the Democratic party that rejected any efforts to rein in Fannie and Freddie. In fact the government is still making risky subprime loans.
As for as Health Care Reform, why is that 80% of the people with health insurance are satisfied with their current coverage? In addition the reason that health insurance premiums are rising so fast is because Medicare and Medicaid are not paying their share of the costs to providers. The providers recover this lost revenue by saddling private insurers with higher bills. Now we are going to get more, much more of the same - they are going to make healthcare more "affordable" - sorry after "affordable housing" I don't believe in the "tooth fairy" anymore.
The Iraq war was a mistake, but it was authorized by Republicans and Democrats in Congress not just Bush alone. In Afghanistan we don't have much of a strategic interest. As long as the Taliban and Al Qaeda have a safe sanctuary in Pakistan we will be in a hopeless quagmire.
Guantanamo? I'm against closing it and bringing those killers on shore where they can mingle with and influence our prison populations. We spent $200 million making it a state of the art prison, now we are going to close it just to poke Bush in the eye?
The politicization of the justice department? That occurred under Clinton and pretty much every president, the Attorney General after all is a cabinet position.
I've googled, yahooed, etc for racist signs at 9/12. Saw none that were racist. Some some that were tasteless, but not racist. Obama with devil horns or hilter-stach or with turbin or with Che beret, etc are not racist. The closest I saw to a "racist" sign was something to the tune of "the zoo has an African Lion, the Whitehouse has a Ly'n African". Not racist, he is afterall factually half African. I did see pics of a few people with Confederate flags or with such on shirts, but that in and of itself is not exactly racist either (although I understand the sensative undertones).
Again, what racist signs were shown at the 9/12 protest?
Read carefully ,Williet,I said early in his administration,not November...To explain the current 54% means President Carter was wrong about the majority of his detractors were racist.
Awhile ago,Robert Gibbs said President Obama disagrees with Carter's assessment.
Let me see now, last November Obama's approval rating was what.. 70 something percent? Did 50% of the country just wake up this week and say "holy crap that guy I voted for is black?" I don’t think so.
And I agree with that 100%, but you know it's never going to happen. You are always going to have those few ingnant, yes ignant not ignorant,people in the crowd that's going to stir things up, and for what? Their own amusement, trying to get people on their side, disorder?
JR74You know race is not important when it comes to the military, sports, movie or music stars; now if we could just take that model into the political arena and apply it to politics.
When we want to be entertained, we judge people on their merits, let's apply that across-the-board.
I agree Mike, I did see several signs in extremely bad taste and several that were racist, but like I said, every race has them, and there's no getting rid of them. Everytime one goes away 5 more pop up. There are just certian people on here that want to make EVERYTHING about race. Like I said before, to those people, get a credit card, a library card or even a birthday card because the race card is getting old. Now I'm not saying that there isn't racist things being said and done but not every disagreement is an issue of race.
JR74I agree that racism flows both ways. I said that networks might have shown the racist signs that would garner attention but in that crowd I saw several racist signs or some in very bad taste. In a perfect world, we could dismiss it as childish crank but this president already has 400 times more threats on his life than President George W. Bush had in eight years. That information is coming from the Secret Service. Because of other budgetary items, the president's protection has been scaled back but they cannot publicize this, according to Ron Kessler author of “In the President’s Secret Service: Behind the Scenes with Agents in the Line of Fire and the Presidents They Protect”
I really thought we made a giant step when the president had a 71% approval early in his administration; it is now in the 54% range, meaning that President Carter’s statement was wrong when he said that a majority of the divisiveness is due to blatantly racism. I hope this is just a learning curve because the president did not help his case when he injected himself into the Gates matter. I think the uneasiness comes from the economic conditions we are in, without definitive solutions and a few are using race or anything else to achieve their agenda.
It's time for the leaders of both parties to show leadership, stand up to the crazies, and not just walk away from it just because it might be a future vote. John McCain showed that kind of leadership in the primaries and again at a recent town hall meeting.
BTW I think every president will be painted with that small mustache,sooner or later..:-)
And as far as the Obama signs portraying him as Hitler.....there sure wasn't a problem when the shoe was on the other foot and it was pictures of Bush 2.0 portrayed as Hitler.
Im not sure why this is hard some, but when I google 'racist signs at 9/12 protest' I get plenty of links showing the signs. Some more tame than others, but some were in very BAD taste.
I have seen the signs. Most of them aren't racists...a black man holding a sign that says "blacks against Obama", kids holding signs that read "don't touch my piggy bank", "I'm not old enough to work but I already owe $34,000 in taxes" and so on. Granted, yes there are a few, you are going to have these people in every race that are going to push the race card. White, black, brown, green, purple...whatever color you want to imagine, your going to have somebody that's going to do something racist.
RS, regarding your list of concerns:
Guantanemo: Are you for it or against it?
Huge out of sight deficits: Where were your concerns when President Bush was creating these huge deficits in the first place? (Clinton handed Bush a surplus and Bush ran it into the largest deficit in U.S. History).
No justification for HCR? Really? Maybe not at your house but how about the country in general.
Quagmire in Afghanistan: But not the clusterf**k in Iraq?
Apparantly (since they are not on your list) you are not interested in;
1. Osama Bin Laden
2. Al Queda
3. The politicization of the Justice Department
4. The fact that we pre-emptively attacked another country for the first time in U.S. history and were wrong about the reasons for doing so.
I am not saying that because Bush did it then Obama can also do it. I am pointing out that when you are only outraged and concerned when the other party does it, yet remain silent and supportive when your guy does it, then your concern seems politically motivated and a little disingenuous.
Well Johnny, I guess we will never know what those racist signs said. Mikey picked up his toys and went inside and don't want to play no more.
Ok, (Johnny & RS)that's enough to get the blood circulating but unless you have something substantive to say, I am going to lunch and ignoring your post for the rest of the day…. This blog was not intended to be a substitute for the Sean Hannity show were shouting is the norm and facts are a byproduct.
I stated that President Jimmy Carter’s remarks will be taking seriously and are newsworthy. That's not injecting race into a topic, I am merely acknowledging that this is a multi-cultural country and views and opinions will vary. I will not bury my head in the sand and pretend everything is okay. Saturday, the president made a speech before 17,000 at the Target Center in Minneapolis, where local police and the Secret Service talked to a man who brought two loaded guns to the event. Of course nothing happened and the man was not arrested but I have to wonder why guns are being allowed at presidential events. I fear the hate being spewed on the talk shows , will motivate some nut case to carry out yet another senseless assassination. It will be too late to say "I had no idea.”… That just my opinion without any verifiable data to back it up but several threats on the president’s life have already been averted.
This comment was removed by the user.
You posted a blog stating: "...racist signs on display this past weekend at the 9/12 Protest rally."
Well, where? That is a pretty big accusation to make without substantiation. The fact you refuse and deflect a request for validation stongly suggests one of two things: 1) you made a misrepresentation of fact, or 2) are just some lackey wanna-be obliviously regurgitating party line lies.
This is your opportunity to establish your credibility.
Or, you could just admit that you do not know of any racist signs, you just believe there are because you heard it somewhere; and save us all this embarrassment.
BTW, I have never, repeat, never, listened (or watched) Sean Hannity or any other Fox talk show hosts. Never. I have, many many years ago, listened in on Rush. Couldn't stand him after 5 minutes, turned the channel, and have NEVER been back.
I know this cause a problem for you, because it puts you in a position of explaining yourself to someone who independently comes to his own conclusions.
BTW, I left limited opinion, which was clearly designated as such (ie: "seems to be"). But more importantly, I asked a question, well and an attempt to bait you into answering as you refused to acknowledge a civil request for proof.
However, I did leave a quote from a respected black man, which is in fact a quote.
My post this morning, I was just mocking you...LOL
Your opinion,your research Johnny..Not a fact(s)
That's just your opinion not a fact..BTW You need to install a mirror on your monitor...Your first post this morning and on several other occasions does not make you a likely candidate for the "holier than thou" of the year...You are as bias as they come but will not admit it.
I didn't even read the Sean Hannity laundry list,it is typical as what substitutes for fact and you are lecturing?
I've searched the internet over and found no pics of racist signs. I see liberals blogging about racist signs, but none say what these are. This, like Carter's recent pander to fringe elements, seems to be misplaced frustration derived from self-denial.
In the words of Michael Steele, in response to Carter's latest outrage:"President Carter is flat-out wrong," Steele said in a statement. "This isn't about race. It is about policy."
Again, what racist signs?
I am suspecting you haven't seen any either, yet just gulp down the Kool-Aid of misinformation without a second thought.
If a person promotes a lie told by someone else, that makes him a liar also.
You are the one that tosses labels around, racists, fringe right, wing nuts, etc. I asked a simple question what in my list appeared to be racists. You are implying like President Carter that opposition to the administration and where they are leading us is racism - it's a lame excuse.
It demeans the real concerns that people have for our country - it is false, misleading and meant to deflect everyone from the real debate. You of course excel at doing that.
If you are old enough and capable of logging in, then you should be able to do your own research to prove or disprove my remarks….. I do not research for the lazy or uninformed…Nor am I obligated to give my sources under a threat of being called a liar,again.
You are certainly entitled to call anyone a liar, and since your side has made it fashionable, I'm sure you would continue to do so but unless you prove one to be a liar, it becomes empty rhetoric.
Now you are the spokesman for the world.Right below the title of the blog,lists who I am speaking for.
Who are you speaking for ??? The world wonders!
There goes the use of that word “ALL conservatives” as to imply that they're the spokesman for the conservative movement… You might be for the social conservative movement, who like to emphasize their buzzwords, like Socialism, Marxism, and every other word that come as s on Fox News and hate radio. I have a lot of conservative friends that would like the Republican Party to get rid of the fringe right, so they get back to being the party of fiscal responsibility and not the antics of the base…..
I do not have a problem of calling Michael Steele a complete idiot because it is based on the words he has said. I don't have any fear of being called a racist because I have made over a thousand posts and my comment history does not reflect that. I don't have to substitute a bogeyman term when I am describing the words of Michael Steele.
What racist signs?
Seriously, I must of missed that.
Or is that yet another lie?
Fox News talking points.The blog did not emphasize race..A guilty conscience might the reason for push back.
Conservatives are concerned about the following, if there is anything racist in this list...please point it out to me.
1. Van Jones.
2. Jeff Jones.
3. Bill Ayers.
4. Mark Lloyd.
5. Cass Sunstein.
8. Apollo Alliance.
9. Cap and Trade.
10. Health Care "Reform."
11. No justification for HCR.
12. Wall Street take over.
13. No reform of Fan, Fred or Ginnie.
14. No reform of "affordable housing"
15. Huge out of sight deficits.
16. 50 plus trillion dollar Federal liabilities.
17. Exploding entitlement spending.
18. Exploding size of government.
19. Exploding federal debt.
20. Run away socialism.
21. Stimulus money used as patronage.
22. Recruitment of communists and left wing socialists.
24. Quagmire in Afghanistan.
What does sound racist is this comment dripping with sarcasm and contempt. The two men named are respected economists and they are both black. The reader should note that no white conservative was mention.
"Why don't you quote Walter Williams & Thomas Sowell while you are at it...They are right-wing ideologues that like to tickle ears."
My facts come from a Democratic primary exit poll and the national election exit polls.
That's just your bias opinion and certainly not a fact.Usual for those that always on attack...Never a substantive word to say.
I think 30% of liberals are really socialists or even communists, that might be about right.