The end is near, the liberal press is gasping for air, fear is closing in, the fear of the rise of the Republican party. In the next two weeks the lies will grow the hate will dominate every story and in the end all they will be left with is more hate.
Welcome to the end of Democratic rule and the return to real democracy.
Anyone who threatens the life of anyone, and especially a Presidential candidate is a fool.
ReplyDeleteRomney has received thousands of threats. But you don't hear that on the MSM. Why not? It was a big issue for the MSM when Obama was running for President and those instances were just a fraction of what Mitt is receiving now and not a peep from the MSM.
Police say Black Woman Lied About KKK Setting Her On Fire - DUH
ReplyDeleteWhen I first heard about it my initial reaction was here was a woman willing to do anything to get B.O. re-elected. The Klan is virtually non-existent these days and totally irrelevant.
Crime against blacks is largely committed by other blacks or Latinos if drugs are involved.
Authorities also reported the delivery of 35 wash ‘n wear burlap sacks, purportedly so she could maintain her business.
DeleteWe'll see if the end becomes reality on or after 11/6/2012, yes? Unless (shudder) it goes into overtime because of a tie, or because of recounts.
ReplyDeleteJean
Democrats always win recounts when they are in control of the process.
DeleteMaybe it would be best if the Mayan calendar is correct. Looking at the absolute terror posts here and elsewhere, the world maybe does need a reset and cleansing of hyperterrorified people who believe that safety only comes when everyone fears you greater then you fear them. I started working when Reagan was POTUS, and no POTUS since then has improved or destroyed my life. If more conservatives took responsibility for their happiness and well being and stopped bitching endlessly about how their lives are being ruined by some evil libtard, the world would be a much better place.
ReplyDeleteAyn Rand had a name for such people; Second Handers.
"They have no concern for facts, ideas, work. They’re concerned only with people. They don’t ask: “Is this true?” They ask: “Is this what others think is true?” Not to judge, but to repeat. Not to do, but to give the impression of doing. Not creation, but show. Not ability, but friendship. Not merit, but pull. What would happen to the world without those who do, think, work, produce? Those are the egoists. You don’t think through another’s brain and you don’t work through another’s hands. When you suspend your faculty of independent judgment, you suspend consciousness. To stop consciousness is to stop life. Second-handers have no sense of reality. Their reality is not within them, but somewhere in that space which divides one human body from another. Not an entity, but a relation—anchored to nothing. That’s the emptiness I couldn’t understand in people. That’s what stopped me whenever I faced a committee. Men without an ego. Opinion without a rational process. Motion without brakes or motor. Power without responsibility. The second-hander acts, but the source of his actions is scattered in every other living person. It’s everywhere and nowhere and you can’t reason with him. He’s not open to reason."
I, too started working when Reagan was in office, albeit part time in the summer mowing grass at the golf course close to my parents house. Throughout the following presidents of George HW Bush, Clinton, and GWB, I was never without work and always chose to leave an employer for a better oportunity. But today the rhetoric coming out of the Obama admin. has never been so extreme and it is adored by the communist/progressive/marxist wing of the democratic party.
DeleteWhen Clinton argued for higher taxes to help with the debt, he conceded on welfare reform and lower government spending. Obama will not negotiate even after the "shellacking" he took in the 2010 midterms. He has increased regulations literally killing some industries (the coal mining union will not endorse him) and his focus has been on social engineering instead of the economy during his entire term. We need a new direction and Obama only knows one way, the European socialist model which is falling apart as we speak.
John Yoo puuurty much sums up:
Delete“… Obama has pursued a dangerous change in the powers of his office that disregards the Constitution’s careful separation of power between the branches of the federal government. The Constitution imposes on the president two clear duties – to protect the national security and to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Obama is the first chief executive since Richard Nixon to ignore a duly-enacted law simply because he disagrees with it, in clear defiance of his constitutional duty.”
This of course runs a gauntlet of immigration, deportation, Philadelphia NBP intimidation and the latest “it ain’t gonna happen” sequestration which HE HIMSELF pushed and SIGNED INTO LAW.
Now he’s gonna back outta that and blame it on others? Not hardly, Buckwheat!.
Gotta and Live Strongest.
ReplyDeleteOpinions worthy of presenting perhaps, but what good is a critical approach without an alternative for the perceived deficiencies.? Can I respectfully suggest that after eight years of Republican rule your great nation decided enough was enough? Wars paid for on the Visa card, a crime rate bolstered by poverty and industry crippled by Wall mart and the like buying American designed goods made in China. Jobs lost to overseas manufacture and a corresponding increase in homeland poverty. The housing fiasco from which your country has not yet recovered and the Wall Street debacle. All of these events occurred or were conceived during that period when Republicans had the White House.
Now, I have been scathing in my summation of the previous administration but have things become better during the past four years? The fiscal position has certainly become worse and I regret to say that without a collapse of the currency and a complete revaluation I can see little chance for improvement in the medium term, whichever party gains control of the purse strings,( or more likely, the printing presses).
There does appear to be a reluctance of both parties to acknowledge the gradual demise of the US as the supreme global power. Perhaps they acknowledge the fact privately but never for public consumption. This leads me into the final point affecting the thinking behind this election. I can see little difference in many policy statements from both. I have not yet seen convincing evidence that the Republicans can create the millions of jobs Romney promises. I also fail to see much forward thinking by the Democrats apart from more of the same; and this is perhaps what the people will settle for.
Wherever we look in politics, we see statements made by men with foot in mouth disease. Romney and his 46 percent and two candidates in recent times with anti women remarks with their faith based comments on abortion. Surely it is time to acknowledge once and for all that a womans body is no business of the government and that abortion is the province of the woman, her conscience and her physician.
Thank you for allowing me to comment and thank you America for accepting me as a friend.
Cheers from Aussie
Wow. Your comment Kingston, is devastatingly accurate.
DeleteKingston,
DeleteA couple of comments:
In the last administration, Congress was under democratic control the last two years. That's important, as Congress has the final control on the federal purse string.
Second, the matter of abortion isn't quite as simple as you might think it should be. It depends on what constitutes a 'life', and when it begins. Not the moral aspect, but the legal one, yes? Our Declaration of Independence includes certain inalienable rights, one of which is 'life'. More specifically, 'all men (and women :-) ) are created equal.... among these are life, liberty,..."
Depending on what constitutes the beginning point of a man or woman, those cells in the uterus might have that right, without being able to voice it. Personally, I think it's silly, in a sad way, and arbitrary, to consider that collection of cells as not being a human being, just because it's on one side of the birth canal instead of the other. Those cells don't transform into a human being in a matter of minutes or as they travel, at most, a couple of feet.
I'm not a legal scholar, but I don't think that specific issue was addressed by the Supremes in Roe v. Wade.
Sorry, I was off-point, I think.
Jean
Jean and Max below. my thanks
DeleteYou are quite correct re the Congress being under Democrat control, perhaps a bit ironic to think that the last two years of the present administration has also been under hostile pressure. The end result seems to me that Congress engages in a talk fest and the American people get screwed from both sides. Perhaps old Ben Franklin could return with the same wise council he exercised during the Philadelphia congress. I wonder if the modern Solomon was Tip O’Neil. but even he is gone and what remains certainly does not fill me with optimism.
Concerning the Abortion debate; I concede there are legal ramifications here and Rowe Vs Wade is not set in stone. Of course your country with its people having a propensity to file suit at every opportunity cannot long retain many of the formal structures unchanged. I totally agree with your summation concerning the definition of a "life". I wish the same consideration could be given to the prospective mother who is persecuted by legal, moral and religious zealots.
Finally, to illustrate my point, consider the social fabric under which we live, both in your country and mine there is the double standard of morality. Men can screw around but woman is pilloried when an unintended pregnancy occurs/
My Avatar is a hairy nosed wombat and this critter is notorious for his lifestyle in which "he eats roots and leaves" the adjective "roots" has a totally different meaning in my country that it does in yours!
Cheers from Aussie
Philosophically speaking Kingston, whose soul has more value? The unborn child at conception, or the mother of that same unborn child? Or for that matter the father.
DeleteA fetus cannot speak for itself. A mother or father can. Others think long and hard to form their opinions on this quandary often with much anguish.
You label many of them blithely as legal, moral, and religious zealots.
Step back. Examine.
William Thank you.
DeletePhilosophically speaking??. Philosophy has always seemed to me to be the science of words turned into whatever the philosopher wants them to mean. The "Soul" to many in the world is a precious and sacred thing, without which there is no meaning to life. For many others who follow no "faith" or even decry faith as meaningless mumbo jumbo it means nothing. What then of the "deists" Did Jefferson concern himself with his own soul? His writing certainly leaves us open to believing either way!
So I fear we must agree to disagree, I reiterate that no Lawmaker, Priest or Prelate has the right to moral outrage when a women, properly informed makes a decision for herself. As to the definition as to when life begins guess that depends to a large extent as to your definition of a soul. One thing I am sure of, no one has yet had the chance to examine a "soul" other than various groups containing the worst of the zealots. Close to home for Americans, I cite the Salem Witch trials.
Cheers friend from Aussie
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"I reiterate that no Lawmaker, Priest or Prelate has the right to moral outrage when a women, properly informed makes a decision for herself."
DeleteYou've brought an amazing amount of common sense to this board today Kingston.
Kingston,
DeleteI generally agree with you about a woman making a decision for herself. The issue of a soul is one of personal beliefs. I think it reasonable to table that issue when it comes to the definition of life, and more especially, when that life starts. That, I think, gets religion out of the legal discussion of the inalienable right. Until I hear or read something that makes sense on the matter of such a life magically transforming into a human being, that isn't arbitrary, especially conveniently so, my view is that once the cells start dividing, it's a human being. It just doesn't look like one yet.
I enjoy your posts. :-)
Jean
The disingenuous talk of who controlled congress has finally reached a level of absurdity and is well on its way to becoming surreal. Republicans LOVE to keep saying that for two years, in the middle of a true financial meltdown, the Democrats didn't cut spending or lower our debt. It's one thing to make a political point, but it's another to be stupid enough to believe this is actually a meaningful point.
ReplyDeleteIf you say to a Republican that any Republican president would have done exactly what Obama did, I bet the majority will smile and say, "That may be true, but it didn't happen so lets stay focused on Obama".
Max,
DeleteIf your post is in response to me, I'm not so disingenuous. I just have this thing about pointing out matters like that when people discuss what happened during a particular administration. On a more general note, I would be quite happy if ALL 535, less those who were voted in in 2010, were able to be voted out on 11/6/12, even if they were replaced by someone from their individual party.
Jean
You are no more and no less disingenuous then everyone else who plays this "They held congress for two years" game. As you can see right now with Boehner, congress is not controlling the purse strings or running the show. They have voted multiple times to repeal Obama care, yet it stands. They agreed to the across the board cuts in spending that Republican candidates are now claiming will cripple the military. Republicans in general have a "thing" about pointing out what politically suits them void of any sort of context.
DeleteThe Republicans held all three houses from the start of 2003 through 2006. What did they do to fix deficit spending or pay down our debt? Nothing. It's nice to generically say, "Vote them all out", but I say it's still a cop out for us who vote who sent them there to begin with. Some folks here post with what they would like see, others simply post against Obama and generically against anything deemed liberal. To pretend that either party can somehow halt a speeding train and send it halfway back to from whence it came in two years time is at best immature.
An unpleasant reality and flaw in our system is that the house of representatives is seemingly always up for reelection. Right now, we need serious negotiation on spending cuts and taxes. We aren't getting anything like that. What good does generically throwing them all out do? Who is going to take a serious stand when their vote can be smeared against them? The disingenuousness of posts about this two years crap is that it deflects attention away from what is truly ruining our democracy.
Max,
DeleteI agree with you:
"Pretending either party can halt a speeding train and send it halfway back from whence it came in two years time is at best immature."
I didn't make any such statement. However, the two years of democratic control of all three houses did not improve anything. I happen to think PPACA as crafted is not a good long term law. The debt, and deficit spending should not need commenting.
Paralysis in DC has two colors, Blue AND Red. I'm sure the colors in the two houses at The Hill won't change. I think we should take the opportunity to change it at PA Ave. Not much to lose with that, and perhaps gain a bit, yes? Or no?
Jean
Max said,
DeleteAn unpleasant reality and flaw in our system is that the house of representatives is seemingly always up for reelection. Right now, we need serious negotiation on spending cuts and taxes. We aren't getting anything like that. What good does generically throwing them all out do? Who is going to take a serious stand when their vote can be smeared against them? The disingenuousness of posts about this two years crap is that it deflects attention away from what is truly ruining our democracy.
---------------------
I disagree. Why did Harry Reid refuse to bring any of the newly elected House legislation to the floor of the Senate for debate or reconciliation? I suggest that if Harry still has control of the Senate after the next election, that he respectfully removes Obama's pecker from his mouth and do his job.
Furthermore, why was the only agenda of the House and Senate to fuck around with political payouts (the stimulus) and healthcare reform while the economy was in freefall while they had both chambers? Jobs and deficit reduction should have been their first priority, but more failed socialism was in their grasp, damn the people hurting.
DeleteI am done with liberals, perhaps forever at this point, and if the Republicans make a sweep this election and fail to deliver on their promises, I will sign on to the Libertarian party come hell or high water.
"I suggest that if Harry still has control of the Senate after the next election, that he respectfully removes Obama's pecker from his mouth and do his job."
DeleteWow.
Jean,
DeleteYour response to me makes no sense. First you tell me you agree with my statement, then you tell me you never suggested the opposite, and in literally the next sentence you mention that the Democrats controlled all three houses for two years and should be held accountable for getting nothing done. If two years of failure is bad, the THREE years of Republican failure under the same circumstances is worse, no?
As to your final para, I don't think simply throwing the people out will make it better, not when people express themselves like gotta above. When we elect people from a position of childish rage, we get what we have in Washington now.
Max,
DeleteOK, how about this.
I agree with you that expecting a complete reversal of the situation, by the end of 2010, that started well before 2008, is unreasonable or, if you wish, immature. However, I never said that the administration, and Congress, should have been able to do that between 1/2009 and 1/2011. That said, after two years of three blue houses, the situation was not improved. The deficit did not get halved (and won't, under Obama), the debt blew up, unemployment and food stanp usage wnet up and so, by some sources, have the welfare rolls. What has gone down? Yes, by somewhere between $4,300 and $5,000 per houshold. And PPACA became law. And gee, Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell, which according to history was 'the' accomplishment of the Clinton administration in his first two years, was repealed. Woo-hoo. The jury is out on PPACA, but if the other two great social programs are any indication, we've been forced to buy a third bottle of snake oil.
I miss whatever point you are trying to make with the three years of republican failure under Bush. I didn't think the 8-year administration was great. But then, he had a Clinton bubble to deal with, Enron, and 911. I was not able to fathom some of the legislation he championed, either. The financial mess that blew up in 2008 started years before.
As for gottaloveit's post, his choice of words and metaphor leave something to be desired (don't you dare!), the meaning is not off the mark. The Senate's actions, in the last two years, is at least as much the reason for a lack of improvement, if not more, than the blame ascrined to the republican-controlled House. Economics is not my forte, but I'm not sure that deficit reduction efforts would have been the correct strategy early in the administration. I'm also not sure that their version of a stimulus was the optimum one. We're now in year four of a recession (two years after Joe's summer of recovery) that, at best has flattened, and what I read is more of the same for a while yet. My spouse's small business income is about half what it was last year. Yes, the one we "didn't build."
Obama has been dismal as a leader when he lost the ring in Comgress's nose two years ago. And now he promises he'll 'get things done'? Such as a squestration deal? Really? (I refuse to all-cap that word and append a string of !s, since I don't want to seem like I'm in a raging hissy) He starts losing ground in the last month of this abominable campaign, and that is his motivation? What would make you (if you believe that) or anyone else think that he wouldn't turn around and start to my-way-or-the-highway Congress, i.e., the House, on or about 11/7/2012? And he has a plan for 'creating jobs'? He would get his second term. I see that as his true goal. Getting anything good done the country is second, and possibly distant at that.
Romney seems to be much more organized, focused and methodical in his approach. I see little motivation for him to run for office that is rooted in personal gain, a consequence, I think, of having more money than one will ever need. Obama is an arrogant, self-centered narcissist (I know, that's rather redundant) who is not trustworthy, and because of those characteristics, lacks the backbone to be a true leader.
I see nothing to lose with a Romney presidency. I see nothing beneficial with another four years of our (pick any of several derogatory nouns)-in-Chief.
And, Max, we also get what we have in Washington when we elect people from a position of naivete. That's the nicer word.
I won't even delve into the handling of the Benghazi tragedy, the allegations and mounting evidence that continues to surface regarding a coverup or, at worst, a colossal failure at communication.
OK, I'm done with my rant. I haven't bothered with sspell-or grammar-check.
Carpe weekendem anyway.
Jean
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteJean, I removed my first comment because I got to the end of it and had a feeling of, "What's the point?" I will make some hay with this comment though.
Delete"However, I never said that the administration, and Congress, should have been able to do that between 1/2009 and 1/2011. That said, after two years of three blue houses, the situation was not improved."
So your not saying they should have been to fix it, but you would like us to be cognizant of the fact they didn't. That is circular at best. Non Sequitor, no?
Naivete is a nicer word, but it's like saying excrement smells less odious when you call it dung. You don't like Obama and many here feel the same way. If people would just say that, there would be a lot more honesty in the world. What is offered up as a case against Obama is to me, disingenuous. To say Obama is a failure for not fixing the debt in the midst of a true economic collapse is childish, especially when we have little doubt a Republican would have done anything differently.
I don't like Romney. I met countless people just like him when I worked in the brokerage business. Objectively, I believe that if he has any spine, he will be pragmatic and go against what the hard core base of the Republican party wants. His record as governor is not stellar, and the positions that he took being openly supportive of a woman's right to choose and of being pragmatic on gay rights issues are squarely in opposition to the main platform of the Republican party. Why anyone right of center would say he's one of them is baffling. But, because they don't like Obama, they embrace a fantasy vision of Romney and Obama that does not exist. THAT is more damaging to this country than probably any philosophy.
Max,
DeleteA late response.
I don't think I said Obama is a failure for not fixing the debt. I say he's a failure for several reasons, one of which is failing to make any improvements to the debt situation. I did not care for Obama's ideology. I do not like Obama for his behavior as president, which has included, in my opinion, blaming others for his failings or that of his party; arrogant, non-presedential treatment of the republican party; apologizing for the United States when apologizing has not been necessary; inflexibility; failure to lead and truly reaching across the aisle; flagrant pandering; and lately, the issue of the Libya affair. The abominable decision to personally pass the hat in Las Vegas was astounding.
You can not like Romney all you want. I happen to think that with so many Americans out of work, Obama and his ilk had their turn to get things moving the right way, and what has ensued is, at best, trickle down unemployment. At best.
For what it's worth, I can't imagine McCain would have faired well. My pick in '08 was Romney. He comes across as methodical, organized, and focused. Unless you think this version of health care reform is great, Obama has been an abject failure, and an embarassment. Exactly what do you think this expletive-deleted will do differently if the House and Senate majorities don't change?