published Thursday, January 5th, 2012

The Winner

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

157
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
blackwater48 said...

ABM

In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king.

The experts keep saying that Romney is the inevitable republican nominee, but I think Peggy Lee said it best:

Is that all there is?

Among millions of registered republicans, that's all you got? The guy who said, 'Corporations are people my friend.'

Yeah? When was the last time a corporation served on a jury? Or stepped into a voting booth and cast a ballot?

Until republicans stop chanting, 'Anyone But Mitt,' and unite behind someone's nomination, this will remain one of the more entertaining primary seasons in recent memory.

Party on Mitt. Party on Newt.

January 5, 2012 at 12:30 a.m.
John_Proctor said...

You hit the nail on the head Clay! The least crazy among the flock is the one rejected by the flock's followers.

BW48, I'll believe that corporations are people when Texas executes one of them.

January 5, 2012 at 12:39 a.m.
ArnoldZiffel said...

Dang you libs are blind. Nobody, NOBODY, is more of an embarrassment than the BO. BO ain't foolin' anyone this time around. That's how he won.

January 5, 2012 at 1:28 a.m.
alprova said...

Francis wrote: "Dang you libs are blind. Nobody, NOBODY, is more of an embarrassment than the BO. BO ain't foolin' anyone this time around. That's how he won."

...yawn...

January 5, 2012 at 1:29 a.m.
fairmon said...

ArnoldZiffel said... Dang you libs are blind. Nobody, NOBODY, is more of an embarrassment than the BO. BO ain't foolin' anyone this time around. That's how he won.

Yes he can and yes he will. Look at his voter blocs and supporters. Too many people are unwilling to face the unpleasant truth. Too many people like his promises of more "free stuff". Too many are willing to accept increasing deficits and debt to the detriment of future generations that will never be able to pay the debt passed on to them. Too many people are receptive to a bloated, growing, inefficient dysfunctional federal government that will evolve to a European style government in his next four years. Taxes and inflation will decimate the already dwindling middle class. The states will become no more than pawns to the federal government. Too few, including republicans and media, are willing to listen to Ron Paul's warning and logical approach to address the issues and economic dilemma.

January 5, 2012 at 2:48 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

The Bible has at least something to do with ancient Jewish history, but the Book of Mormon has nothing at all to do with ancient American history. Isn't it embarrassing that the RINO's favorite gray flannel suit puts at least some stock in the BoM? And can't enlarge his GOP base any better than Ron Paul can enlarge his? And (according to Newt) thinks bearing false witness is OK?

January 5, 2012 at 6:04 a.m.
dude_abides said...

Good points, BW48... wait, you have a piece of toilet paper stuck to your shoe. Oh, nevermind, it's just tu_quoque.

January 5, 2012 at 7:43 a.m.
ITguy said...

tu_quoque, do you believe that it is OK for corporations like VW, BP, or maybe The National Shipping Company of Saudia Arabia to contribute to American Political campaigns? If yes, please explain why foreign corporations should be allowed to influence our elections?
http://positivereform.com/10712/

January 5, 2012 at 7:51 a.m.
Livn4life said...

If Drawboy is doing this, we better not vote for the Mitt....

January 5, 2012 at 8:08 a.m.

ITguy said..please explain why foreign corporations should be allowed to influence our elections

While I may completely agree with you and feel no corporations should be allowed to influence elections. The main reason this was allowed was because the of the continuance of corrupted unions being allowed to donate large amounts of money to candidates.

January 5, 2012 at 8:10 a.m.
alprova said...

Andrew Lohr wrote: "The Bible has at least something to do with ancient Jewish history, but the Book of Mormon has nothing at all to do with ancient American history."

Obviously, you have never read it. It contains stories of three different groups who sailed to the Americas, with a timeline extending as far back as 586 B.C., and is just as verifiable as the Bible is in terms of truth and accuracy. All religions are faith based.

Mormons, in case you didn't know, also utilize the King James Version of the Bible in their teachings and they firmly believe in Jesus Christ.

They believe the Bible to be the word of God if it is translated correctly. They believe the Bible has gone through repeated editing that has changed the meaning of the original text. Thus, they are skeptical of any translation of the Bible. However, they view the King James Version as the least corrupt of the versions available today.

Mormons have very high ethical standards that members in good standing agree to follow, and the church takes care of their own very well, unlike others that operate their churches for profit potential.

"Isn't it embarrassing that the RINO's favorite gray flannel suit puts at least some stock in the BoM?"

I find nothing at all, in terms of his chosen religious platform, that he should be embarrassed about.

"And can't enlarge his GOP base any better than Ron Paul can enlarge his? And (according to Newt) thinks bearing false witness is OK?"

Newt Gingrich has all but invented the concept of bearing false witness for the sake of keeping and/or gaining a political career.

What is more relevant is your propensity to routinely bear false witness for or against others for no viable reason at all.

January 5, 2012 at 8:11 a.m.
alprova said...

tu_quoque wrote: "Check the court records in any state you choose and you will find the details of the executions many corporations."

Oh please humor us and dig up a link to just one corporate entity that was put on trial and ultimately put to a permanent death for committing a felonious crime.

Personally, I have no problem with individuals who work for any corporation pooling their money and contributing to parties or candidates, so long as it can be demonstrated that each person does so voluntarily, and that such contributions do indeed come from the pockets or personal accounts of each individual listed as having made a contribution.

I doubt very highly, as do most people who are suspicious of corporate donations, that this is the case.

Mitt Romney's statement that "corporations are people" has some validity on the surface and in a perfect world, but as we all know, there is no such thing as a perfect world.

Because corporate donations are likely routinely abused, a system that allows for the pooling of donations should be outlawed altogether. This would include any and all PAC's as well.

But, as we all also know, the people with the power to change the laws, benefit greatly by keeping such a system in place, so I don't hold my breath that true election reform will ever come to pass.

The one thing that I like most about Barack Obama is that he, unlike any other politician that comes to mind, refuses to accept money from any PAC, and instead solicits and has received individual donations from the little people across the country to make up for it.

The Obama campaign released a statement back in October, that of about 766,000 donations the campaign received during the third quarter of 2011, about 98 percent came in increments of $250 or less.

Mitt Romney can only boast of a figure around 6% in donations consisting of less than $250. 94% of his campaign chest has come from corporations and PAC's.

Which man is most likely to work on behalf of the middle class of this nation, which is the class of people that most of us involved in discussion fall into?

The conservative crowd criticized the Obama's for emailing people, soliciting donations of as little as $3.00 while on vacation. It has worked wonders for him, and the numbers show that if nothing else, and it frees him from obligating himself to special interests.

It's a shame there are not more politicians that attempt to do the same as a means to endear themselves to the average Joe as the President has done.

January 5, 2012 at 9 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

SUPREME IGNORANCE

TQ, seriously? Holding up the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of justice in a world gone mad? I'm sure you are the only tea bagger who sees Roe v. Wade as the final word on abortion rights.

The Citizens United case enables corporations to funnel billions of dollars into political campaigns without a trace. Do you really need someone to tell you the difference between right and wrong?

It may be legal, but it isn't right.

January 5, 2012 at 9:06 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Blackwater48 said: “Among millions of registered republicans, that's all you got? The guy who said, 'Corporations are people my friend."

Believe Iowa shows us why Romney is peddling his “corporations are people” rhetoric, Blackwater48. Indeed, there should be a warning label on candidate Romney’s trophy that reads: DANGER - SUPER PAC WINNER. According to NBC’s Michael Isikoff:

“Final ad figures from Iowa show that a pro-Mitt Romney "super PAC" outspent Romney's own presidential campaign by a nearly 2-to-1 margin, with almost all the money dedicated to harsh attack ads against Newt Gingrich that succeeded in causing the former Speaker's poll numbers to drop precipitously.
 


Restore Our Future, the super PAC founded by three former Romney political aides, spent $2.8 million on ads in Iowa, nearly twice as much as the $1.5 million spent by Romney's own campaign, according to figures compiled for NBC News by Smart Media Group Delta, a media ad tracking firm.

‘The super PACs are not accountable to anybody so they can say what they want to say and it's not going to blow back on the campaign," said Scott Reed, a top GOP campaign consultant who is not affiliated with any of the current campaigns. "The super PAC can really do the dirty work on the advertising, and the direct mail and the robocalls.’

Technically, super PACs are supposed to be independent of the presidential campaigns and not "coordinate" their activities. But critics say that those rules are hard to define given the multiple connections between the super PACs and the candidates and their campaigns. Not only is Restore Our Future run by former Romney political advisers, Romney himself spoke at one of the group's fundraising events last summer.”

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/03/9926906-romney-super-pac-outpaces-romney-campaign-in-iowa-ad-spending

January 5, 2012 at 9:19 a.m.
rdecredico said...

in the land of the blind a one eyed man gets to see lots of people having sex...

January 5, 2012 at 9:20 a.m.
limric said...

Dear Republicans,

Barack Obama will be re-elected – No, not as a vindication of his policies (of which there are few to cheer about) but because the Republicans are incapable of providing a reasonable challenge to his poor performance. On the central issue of our time—reining in the greed of the multinational corporations, led by the financial sector and the MIC—a Republican presidential victor, with the possible exception of Ron Paul, would do nothing to challenge the kleptocracy of our corporate-controlled government.

As compared to Mittens (he WILL be the nominee), who wants to derail even Obama’s lukewarm efforts (dog and pony show) at regulating Wall Street, and who seeks even more wasteful increases in military spending, president Obama appears pretty enlightened, but that is no comfort at all.

Not only has Obama been a savior of the banks and Wall Street that so generously financed his campaign, but he also has proved to be equally as solicitous of the military-industrial complex. I think can say without fear of contradiction that he just signed the $662 billion NDAA bill that strips away some of our most fundamental liberties and keeps military spending at levels of fighting wars in 1983. Within this horrible bill is a $60 billion arms deal with the thoroughly detestable Saudi Arabians. These creeps, it should be remembered, were one of only three nations, along with the UAE and Pakistan, to recognize the Taliban government that harbored bin Laden before 9/11.

But I digress.

The real reason for this deal is that it is the only sort of jobs program that Democrats are capable of pushing through an obstructive (destructive) Congress. This arms package is supposed to create 50,000 jobs in 44 states. Kind of vindicates the warning from Dwight Eisenhower about the power of a military-industrial complex doesn’t it.

Government-generated profits and jobs are a large part of the Democrats strategy to defeat the Republicans, which they will use to great effect when they portray Romney’s venture capital work as a job destroyer. And that Mittens made millions buying companies - and laying off workers. This in turn will bring campaign contributions from the more rational among the wealthy. It’s a win-win for the Democrats who know that ordinary people, despite being seriously hurt in this economy, have nowhere else to turn.

January 5, 2012 at 9:25 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Including Obama?

The real "Least Embarrassing Candidate" is Ron Paul. Shake off your status quo propaganda and that will be clear for you to see.

January 5, 2012 at 9:58 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

And the award for most predictable, boring cartoonist goes to...

Clay Bennett! The Wart on the top of the TFP on-line Opinion Page!

January 5, 2012 at 9:59 a.m.
sage1 said...

limric said... "Within this horrible bill is a $60 billion arms deal with the thoroughly detestable Saudi Arabians."

Amazing ain't it? We are selling $30 billion dollars worth of F-15's to the Saudi's Muslum Brotherhood ran government and we are pressing forward with an $11 billion dollar arms deal for advanced military aircraft and tanks with IRAQ.

The Middle East is sure getting armed to the teeth

January 5, 2012 at 10:09 a.m.
GMills said...

And the award for the most predictable, boring commenter goes to... (wait for it....wait for it...) Big Ridge Patriot! The wart on the top of the ridge!

January 5, 2012 at 10:21 a.m.
carlB said...

It appears that the Republicans have a judgment malfunction in the way they try to "dumb down" the voters while they are in office and then do the same while they are out of control?
It is also apparent that while the Republicans are in control, the one basic objective of their political agendas and ideologies is to destroy this Republic's balance in favor of the "Capitalist corporations." Now they are trying their best to convince the voters that it is wrong when President Obama uses the US Government's power to help prevent another great depression and help create production jobs while the Capitalist Corporations have closed their plants in the US and having their goods made outside of this country. This "global economy" is forcing the they high unemployment, the loss of our middle class, and the increase of people into poverty.
Yes, the Republican voters have a judgment problem after they voted Cheney/Bush in for a second term. Then when Obama was nominated to run for the Democratic President, then again they thought the voters were still "dumbed down" enough that they could run anybody against Obama and win.

January 5, 2012 at 10:33 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Good one GMills. You get the award for original thought!

January 5, 2012 at 10:37 a.m.
adolphochs said...

Popular vote: Romney 51% / Obama 49% (Hope and Change doesn't haven't a second act)

Electoral vote: Romney 280 / Obama 258 (the way the numbers work)

Winner Romney

Chicago gets its community organizer back.

January 5, 2012 at 11:08 a.m.
ITguy said...

adolphoch, can you predict the score of the Alabama vs LSU game? I might make some money on that one.

If not, then what makes you think you can predict the outcome of an election that won't be held until November?

January 5, 2012 at 11:16 a.m.

Obviously he's already fixed the election, but Football, football is too sacred to taint with such measures.

It'll be 28-21.

I'm not sure what team though.

January 5, 2012 at 11:22 a.m.
GMills said...

Well, Bigridge, I am as original as you. You sing the same song every single day, and I am just pointing it out to you. Somebody hit the juke box as Bigridge is stuck.

January 5, 2012 at 11:28 a.m.
whatsnottaken said...

Least embarrassing in Iowa maybe. But did you see images of King Kenyan trying to play beach football in Hawaii? Brutal.

January 5, 2012 at 11:42 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Blackwater48 said: “The Citizens United case enables corporations to funnel billions of dollars into political campaigns without a trace. Do you really need someone to tell you the difference between right and wrong? It may be legal, but it isn't right.”

I fully agree, Blackwater48. It isn’t right. I note in “Republicans Divided-Citizens United” by Amy Goodman that some States and cities are beginning to take steps to fight back against the “flood of secret money” infecting our elections in the U.S.:

“People are fighting back against this flood of secret money infecting U.S. elections. State legislators in California are calling for a constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United. The New York City Council is voting on a similar measure, following Los Angeles, Oakland, Calif., Albany, N.Y., and Boulder, Colo. Last week, Montana’s Supreme Court restored a 100-year-old ban on corporate spending directed at political campaigns or candidates.

Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig is calling for a constitutional convention. As defined in the U.S. Constitution, 34 state legislatures would need to call for a convention, which could allow an amendment banning corporate money from elections. Lessig, a favorite of progressives, is recruiting the right-wing tea party to help. He told me, “People can call for a convention for any purpose … the only option we have for intervening to fix this corrupted system is the only option the framers gave us, which is outsiders organizing to fix the problem in Washington.”

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/republicans_divided_citizens_united_20120104/

January 5, 2012 at 11:45 a.m.

I find it very funny the way Democrats on here accuse BigRidge of being a broken record. You all sound exactly the same to me. This Clay Bennett thread is like a broken record.

It's also funny how Democrats on here attack the Republican candidates for going after each other and competing. What's wrong with that? Should they all just unify behind someone who utters meaningless phrases like, "hope", "change" and the dumbest one of all, "yes we can"? It's really embarrassing, speaking of embarrassment, how people got all excited over Obama.

It's one thing to have been fooled one time, but to keep up the fraud three years later is really, really embarrassing.

Nothing is more embarrassing at this point than to have a President who is as ignorant and out of it as Obama.

You all have really, really elaborate reasons why Obama will win, but the fact is his record is hideous, and that's being kind. For some reason you insist that he'll win anyway. Why? You portray the Republican candidates as incompetent, yet every single one of them has a better resume than Obama did.

I don't know one person, friends, family or colleagues at work, who will vote for Obama again. Not one.

January 5, 2012 at 12:01 p.m.

What's wrong with attacking your opponents rather than offering a better idea?

Gee, I don't know, maybe people would rather have a solution to their problems over just "That other guy sucks!" and that's compounded with the whole Super-Pac problem of anonymously funded political messages. Which also increases the hypocrisy involved when a candidate says "Oh, I'm not involved with these attacks, but they're all true!" and just makes for a worse situation.

No thank you. It's not even valid criticism. It's just insults and vitriol. Negative campaigning has been flawed since John Quincy Adams tried it against Andrew Jackson. And that's just in this country, I'm sure there's examples as old as Caesar.

Similar objections go to your campaign against Obama. Instead of saying what you think should be done, you focus entirely on attacking him. If you only realized how off-putting it was.

But you think it's the best thing you can do. That's what is embarrassing.

I recall the Primary debates, they had a lot of posturing and claiming of accomplishments, followed by attacks on President Obama. But they don't realize how it only convinced me of one thing.

I don't want any of them anywhere near authority. But I suppose that goes to the old saw, the only person worth having in the position is the one who doesn't want it.

January 5, 2012 at 12:13 p.m.
MickeyRat said...

I agree with your depressing analysis Limric. Unfortunately, it looks like this country will have to collapse before anything may have a small chance of changing. As it stands now we have the corporate raider against the man with no past – A Romney/Obummer bikini waxing contest. That ought to be good for a few laughs…or a good cry.

Your claim that Romney will be the Republicrat nominee is, I think, dead on. Think about it, why would the corporate interests who control the US govt want any serious challenge to their puppet in the white house? They wouldn’t. We are in the eye of the perfect storm, a govt completely and perfectly controlled by the 1%, and Obama has served as the perfect foil to hide the horror of it all.

But then again, Maybe Obama will chicken out (like he always does) - decide not to run at the last minute and hand everything over to the Repuplicrats. He certainly appears to be less than enthusiastic about being president. Indeed, he seems to be scared out of his wits. Wouldn’t that be interesting?

January 5, 2012 at 12:24 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

GMills said... "Well, Bigridge, I am as original as you. You sing the same song every single day, and I am just pointing it out to you. Somebody hit the juke box as Bigridge is stuck."

Golly GMills, Maybe the cartoonist is stuck. Do you ever find yourself impressed by the constant string of cartoons poking fun at whatever was in the news about the Republican candidates over the last day or so? Do you ever wonder why the Wart is so ideologically narrow minded that all of his satire is directed at one side of the political spectrum?

January 5, 2012 at 12:47 p.m.
jesse said...

HEY B.R.P. !

just git a grip on the fact that "the wart" thinks obama WALKS ON WATER"!periot!

you ain't gonna change his take anymore than he is gonna change yours!

clay is a paid hack to create POSTS on here and he is gittin the job done!

he comes to work EVERY morning thinkin"gonna gitum goin w/this one"!!

January 5, 2012 at 12:58 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Alprova said: “Mitt Romney's statement that "corporations are people" has some validity on the surface . . . “

How so, Alprova? As a wise judge in the State of Montana recently reminded us - corporations are artificial creatures of the law:

“"Corporations are artificial creatures of law. As such, they should enjoy only those powers—not constitutional rights, but legislatively-conferred powers—that are concomitant with their legitimate function, that being limited-liability investment vehicles for business. Corporations are not persons. Human beings are persons, and it is an affront to the inviolable dignity of our species that courts have created a legal fiction which forces people—human beings—to share fundamental, natural rights with soulless creations of government. Worse still, while corporations and human beings share many of the same rights under the law, they clearly are not bound equally to the same codes of good conduct, decency, and morality, and they are not held equally accountable for their sins. Indeed, it is truly ironic that the death penalty and hell are reserved only to natural persons."

http://blog.pfaw.org/content/montana-chip-the-armor-citizens-united

January 5, 2012 at 1:02 p.m.

MickeyRat: Scared out of his wits about being President? That makes him the sanest person to be in office since Calvin Coolidge.

But not run? That's some wacky speculation.

Jesse: Artists who don't get people talking are not long employed.

January 5, 2012 at 1:09 p.m.
jesse said...

HEY BULBS!!

he is doin his job!periot!

that's what he gits paid for!!(what the funk did you think i was sayin???)

DEEP down in his HEART clay is prob. a goldwater republican!BUT that won't pay the bills!!rotflmao!!

he's doin GOOD at it too!!(gits brp postin in here w/every new toon!lol)

January 5, 2012 at 1:22 p.m.
ibshame said...

blondebutnotdumb wrote: "Nothing is more embarrassing at this point than to have a President who is as ignorant and out of it as Obama.

You portray the Republican candidates as incompetent, yet every single one of them has a better resume than Obama did."

So you are embarrassed by President Obama? Then you must have gone into hiding during the eight long years of George W. Bush. You want to talk about hideous records? With Bush we had two unfunded wars, record deficits as a result of those wars, Wall Street run amok with pensions, mortgages, things called "DERIATIVES" which they used to bet against and make millions, and last but certainly not least a policy of torture that his VP touted as if it was the next best thing to apple pie.

Now let's look at the current crop of top contenders from the GOP. Mitt Romney: The candidate who has a ceiling of 25% approval from inside his party because he's perceived as being TOO MODERATE. Ron Paul a candidate who does not have a snowball's chance in h*ll of winning the nomination and that was before his newsletters resurfaced, his views on Israel were once again brought to the forefront and his whacked out view of people who suffer from AIDS. Now we have Rick Santorum, this guy lost his last race for the US Senate by the largest margin in PA. History!! He wants to tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies. He was one of the largest PORK spenders in Congress when he did serve and last but certainly not least he wants to talk about FAMILY VALUES, by slamming gay marriage, telling women who have been raped they must bear the rapist's child and last but certainly not least regulating what people do in the privacy of their homes between consenting adults. Just how weird is that??? I won't even bother to look at Newt Gingrich. Romney did a job on him in Iowa that took him out with just a few million dollars in ads.

I realize some people live in an alternate universe but for the majority of people reality is just that REALITY. President Obama hasn't even geared up for the real run but when he does he will have more than enough material to use that was supplied by the clown show of the GOP. You are right about one thing though, those other candidates may have a resume that was better (when it came to political experience) than President Obama's when he ran in 2008 however, President Obama DID NOT HAVE THE PERSONAL AND POLITICAL BAGGAGE the current GOP crop has now. He didn't have it then and he certainly does not have it now. He had to try and clean up EIGHT YEARS of the trash George W. Bush left behind. The only person who could have cleaned up all of that trash in three years was a miracle worker who lived over 2000 years ago but then he was crucified for working miracles. In the end, the Republicans don't have any one to offer who is as good as or better than Barack Obama. He will be re-elected to a second term.

January 5, 2012 at 1:31 p.m.
alprova said...

tu_quoque wrote: "“Eighty-three percent of Mr. Romney’s contributions came in checks of $250 or less”..."

I retract my previous statement in regard to Mitt Romney currently receiving only 6% of his donations from individuals who contributed $250 or less at a time.

After re-reading the article, it was a reference to fundraising for the 2008 election, and not regarding funds raised during 2011 for the 2012 election.

"It wouldn’t have been so bad if Mooshell had not been sitting around in her $2000 sun dress while she was on another multi-million dollar vacation as she sent the solicitations out to her buds that depend on Obozo for their daily sustenance (you know snacks and beer)."

I see. It's okay for a Republican President to spend whatever he wants to ferry him and his family here and there, but when President Obama spends a dime, it's suddenly under a microscope.

Bush Spent 5 Times More On Flights To Texas Than Obama‘s Christmas Vacation Cost. He used Air Force One 77 times to go to his ranch in Crawford, TX. Using a low end cost estimate of $56,800 an hour, Media Matters calculated that each trip to Crawford cost taxpayers $259,687 each time, and $20 million total for Bush’s vacations.

<p>FactCheck.org addressed the anonymous chain emails about Obama’s travel costs and noted that the stories about Obama’s travel expenses are "part of continuing pattern of false and misleading claims about the travels of the president and the first lady."

The conservative false outrage machine is in overdrive due to one Obama Christmas vacation.

I am on their mailing list, receiving one of those emails too, and I assure you that I neither depend on the Government for a thing, nor do I sustain myself on beer and snacks.

I did sit down and write a nice little check to them before the end of the year. Maybe I'll be lucky enough to win a dinner date with the Obamas.

January 5, 2012 at 1:32 p.m.
jesse said...

i think the WASHINGTON POST ought to hire alprova for their "left wing propaganda page!"

you got ALL these FACTS you post on here and they don't mean shucks!!

you can find a fact to prove why "brown cows make yellow butter"!

you ever think about taking up golf or fishing?(like get a life!!)

or maybe take a good look at how the real world works!!

January 5, 2012 at 1:43 p.m.
alprova said...

In response to my prior statement of: "Mitt Romney's statement that "corporations are people" has some validity on the surface . . ."

mountainlaurel asked: "How so, Alprova?"

The reason I state that Romney's statement has validity on the surface is due to the fact that when it comes to political donations, corporations are allowed to bundle multiple donations that are supposed to come from individual people who are associated with the named corporation.

Thus, the more correct phrase that he should have used, would have been to say that "corporations are made up of people."

I'm under no illusion that corporate donations always come from named individuals. I have no doubt that there are people working for corporations who have "contributed" to political candidates without their knowledge and/or consent.

January 5, 2012 at 1:50 p.m.
adolphochs said...

I'm looking forward to Obama's new bumper sticker - "It Could have been worse". But it just doesn't have the mass appeal of "Hope and Change".

January 5, 2012 at 2:11 p.m.
alprova said...

jesse wrote: "i think the WASHINGTON POST ought to hire alprova for their "left wing propaganda page!"

No thanks. I've got a business to run.

"you got ALL these FACTS you post on here and they don't mean shucks!!"

I'm sure that to people like yourself, that is absolutely true. Even after being faced with the facts, some of you are determined to continue to post sheer ignorance, misrepresentations, and outright lies.

"you can find a fact to prove why "brown cows make yellow butter"!"

If someone can't figure that one out without a fact-finding tour, then they are kinda dense, don't you think?

"you ever think about taking up golf or fishing?(like get a life!!)"

Let's see. You spend time in this forum just like I do, and you're attempting to lecture me about getting a life?

"maybe take a good look at how the real world works!!"

I absolutely live in the real world.

January 5, 2012 at 2:33 p.m.
terrybham said...

Great cartoon as usual Clay. Keep up the good work.

January 5, 2012 at 2:40 p.m.
jesse said...

hey al!! i spend SOME time on here BUT i ain't spendin the rest of my time LOOKIN up all these FACTS to back up my drivel!i figure between what time you spend posting and what time you spend lookin for FACTS to back up what you post you get maybe 45 min.of sleep at night!!i'd rather spend my time thinkin up ways to poke holes in your EGO!!

January 5, 2012 at 3:03 p.m.

Just because I don't have the solutions, doesn't mean Obama does not deserve to be attacked.

Give me one good reason to vote for Obama over Romney, if Romney is the candidate. None of you geniuses on here are capable of convincing me that Obama is competent and deserves 4 more years.

January 5, 2012 at 3:10 p.m.

The point I was making is that attacking Obama is less desirable than offering a constructive solution to a problem. I don't really expect you to have solutions, unless you're running for public office somewhere.

The same cannot be applied to any of the people in the Republican Primary. The more time they spend on attacking Obama, or each other, the less desire I have to vote for any of them.

As for why you should vote for Obama over Romney, I would first offer the suggestion that you consider that you can choose an option besides those two.

Jesse: I'm amused that you think attacking somebody for checking facts is an effective insult.

January 5, 2012 at 3:17 p.m.

That's no kind of an answer. That's the best you can do. Nobody else will matter, and you know it. Why should I vote for Obama over Romney?

He deserves to be attacked, as would anyone with his record.

The notion that Obama and his wife are wasteful with, and play loose with taxpayer money is not going away before election day. There's nothing you can say on here to change it. It's rooted in fact.

January 5, 2012 at 3:39 p.m.

The more you insist on justifying the attacks, the more you show you don't get the point.

It's not about what one person deserves or doesn't. The presidency is about serving the country, not about finding negative things to say about somebody else.

And that's why I want somebody offering something besides attacks, some kind of solution to our problems. Attacks only show you can say something negative about your opponent, not that you have anything better.

They actually show you don't, really.

Which is also why I don't care to try to persuade you to vote for anybody, I just wanted to remind you that you could vote for somebody else. If you want, vote for Basil Marceaux for all I care.

January 5, 2012 at 3:59 p.m.
jesse said...

not really bulb! what i'm saying is if you hunt long enough you can find "FACTS" to back up all most anything you can come up with!

i'm not saying al is wrong ,i just saying he FINDS FACTS to back up his OPINIONS! and the BOTTOM LINE is they are OPINIONS not facts! i don't think there is any such thing as A FACT any more! at least not in politics!!

January 5, 2012 at 4:02 p.m.
alprova said...

blondebutnotdumb wrote: "The notion that Obama and his wife are wasteful with, and play loose with taxpayer money is not going away before election day. There's nothing you can say on here to change it. It's rooted in fact."

They are no more wasteful, if you must choose that word, than any other First Family has been when it comes to spending taxpayer funds. Now that is a fact.

"He deserves to be attacked, as would anyone with his record."

What record are you referring to? Maybe you can answer that question that all the other Obama bashers cannot or refuses to answer.

The man has accomplished more than you know since he has been President. I posted a list of accomplishments last week.

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2011/dec/25/saint-nix/#c137557

January 5, 2012 at 4:03 p.m.
Johnnie5000 said...

All the butthurt in the comments is astounding. Blame Obama, Blame Newt, Blame Romney, blah blah blah. I blame the butthurt of the good people here pissing and moaning about everyone else. Red vs Blue, Libtard vs Conartistatard, Demoncrat vs Republithug. This bull$hit is THE problem. Quite blaming every one else and do something about it.

January 5, 2012 at 4:10 p.m.

Jesse, while there are certainly interpretations of facts that can be twisted to say what narrative you want, that is a bit more nuanced a complaint than what you have offered, which is pretty much a personalized attack towards alprova.

Don't try to twist your own words into a high-minded concern for accuracy and genuine representation, they aren't.

If you wish to take that course, I suggest altering your approach, and avoid the comments about a person's life, or how much they sleep.

Johnnie5000: Your comment is very interesting. What do you suggest we do?

January 5, 2012 at 4:11 p.m.
alprova said...

jesse wrote: "i'm not saying al is wrong ,i just saying he FINDS FACTS to back up his OPINIONS!"

No I don't. When I present a fact, it is a fact. When I offer an opinion, it is declared as such.

"and the BOTTOM LINE is they are OPINIONS not facts!"

I'm sorry, but that is categorically incorrect. I don't correct opinions. People are free to hold any opinion under the sun. I correct and present proof to that which is presented as a truth or presented fact that is anything but.

"i don't think there is any such thing as A FACT any more! at least not in politics!!"

When someone claims that Obama is a horrible President, that is an opinion and I leave it alone.

When someone claims that Obama was not born in the United States, that is something that can be refuted with factual evidence that disproves the claim, and that claim has been disproven repeatedly, yet there are people out there who still believe that the man was born in Kenya.

Are you one of them?

January 5, 2012 at 4:14 p.m.

I'll ask again, give me one good reason to give Obama four more years? Why should I vote for him based on his record? Well?

What overwhelming need do we have to keep him employed for four more years?

Just answer the question instead of asking another question, which is what many of you on here do instead of answering a question.

I can't think of one reason to vote for him.

January 5, 2012 at 4:24 p.m.
ITguy said...

Blondbutnotdumb said "Give me one good reason to vote for Obama over Romney, if Romney is the candidate."

Here is the reason. A vote for Romney or any of the Republican candidates is a vote to return to the same policies that George Bush used to drive our economy into the ditch.

Give me one good reason why anyone would want to put the Republicans back in charge?

January 5, 2012 at 4:29 p.m.
fairmon said...

It sounds like many fear voters will be swayed by PAC ads and contributions. Those not having their own beliefs and principles as they evaluate candidates to decide how to vote are scary. Many vote for one over another due to concern about "losing my vote". If a majority let the printed and broadcast media think for them and vote accordingly deserve what they get. Obama knows how to use the me to mob effect to get votes. The democrats have implanted the thought that have some thinking they are enlightened and forward thinking if they endorse the Democrat ideology. The real arses are those that think they are "cool" and care about the less fortunate by advocating taking from those that have more than they do and distributing it to those that have less than they have.

January 5, 2012 at 5:03 p.m.
jesse said...

the only FACT i see is HE WAS BORN!

where ever you think that event took place is an opinion!

a fact is his job performance for the last 3 yrs!

my opinion is that he is in WAY OVER his head and is leading ? the country down a one way ave,

btw: tue-que?

it's apparent you are on here to play "who's the smartest" games! no doubt you could argue either side w/equal dexterity w/out giving away what you really think, just more head games!

January 5, 2012 at 5:12 p.m.

jesse said... my opinion is that he is in WAY OVER his head

I have to agree with you completely. Today is a prime example. With the United States facing a serious threat from a opponent that is close to having nuclear weapons and has been proven to fund terrorist, he decides now is the time to make cuts in military personnel. This a day after he puts a man in a job he created and is not needed and not confirmed which by the way he is not allowed to do. Before anyone wants to debate that fact. The president is only allowed to make an appointment without confirmation if it is replacing a position critical to our national security. NOT when it is one that he has created.

January 5, 2012 at 6:12 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Alprova said “The more correct phrase that he [Romney] should have used, would have been to say that "corporations are made up of people."

What I found interesting about Romney’s “corporations are people” declaration was the context in which the statement was made. As you may recall, Romney came up with it during the Iowa State Fair event when one of attendees asked him why he was emphasizing entitlement reforms as a means of deficit deduction instead of asking bankers, Wall Streeters, and corporations etc. to share the burden. Romney’s gut response “corporations are people” was quite revealing from my perspective. Indeed, I think Huntsman has it right:

“In an exclusive interview with The Huffington Post, the former Utah governor challenged Romney to prove his independence from the financial sector's biggest players.

"It is not necessarily about the history of his involvement on Wall Street," Huntsman said, shortly after addressing a room full of doctors and other medical employees at Dartmouth Medical Center in Lebanon, N.H. "It is the fact that he has raised so much money from the large banks, the banks that need to be right-sized. If you are the largest recipient of funds from Wall Street, and in particular the large banks, you are not going to be inclined to want to change that model. Because those who run those banks want no change, they profit off the status quo and clearly they are not going to be inclined to want to bring about any change."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/03/jon-huntsman-mitt-romney-wall-street-banks_n_1182005.html?ref=politics

January 5, 2012 at 6:25 p.m.
alprova said...

tu_quoque wrote: "You mean like the fact you had to withdraw only a few hours ago."

I never claimed to be perfect. I at least will fess up to making a mistake immediately when faced with it.

January 5, 2012 at 6:32 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

ANSWER THE QUESTION, TQ

The question was, Give me one good reason why anyone would want to put the Republicans back in charge?”

That should be a simple one to answer for a fellow of your vast resources and deep reasoning. You offered to answer it earlier but you veered off again, as you so often do, down another dead end street. Something about the OWS movement, sort of. Not sure where you wound up, but let's get back on point.

And please, don't answer the question with another question. BBND said that here earlier and she was right to do so.

Let me tee it up for you again: Give me one good reason why anyone would want to put the Republicans back in charge?”

January 5, 2012 at 6:37 p.m.
alprova said...

jesse wrote: "the only FACT i see is HE WAS BORN!"

Uh huh...

"where ever you think that event took place is an opinion!"

No, it is a fact that he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961. The birth certificate has been produced.

"a fact is his job performance for the last 3 yrs!"

Huh?

"my opinion is that he is in WAY OVER his head and is leading ? the country down a one way ave,"

You're right. That is your opinion and nothing more.

January 5, 2012 at 6:48 p.m.

lovetheusaorleave: The president is deciding to more appropriately design our military to serve our national security needs. You may disagree with the details, but I am pretty sure that I can dig up more than a few people who would complain about pouring money on a problem if it were anything else, but when it's national defense? They gladly throw away billions.

And your analysis of the recess appointment is not correct. The Constitution says:

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

All Vacancies. Not just vacancies of a particular character, but all of them. So your fact...does not exist.

But hey, you want to make the Senate hold an ACTUAL confirmation vote, go right ahead. This whole filibuster nonsense is nothing more than a political game. At least make them do a speech.

January 5, 2012 at 6:51 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

CALM DOWN LOVE IT

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was passed by both the House and Senate and signed in to law. Obama did not create it on his own. Part of that law provides for a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The president nominated a guy to head the agency and the Senate refused to allow an up or down vote on his confirmation. Obama then used a recess appointment to fill the position. Here's what the law says about that:

Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. "The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session."

Okay, rant away.

January 5, 2012 at 6:53 p.m.
alprova said...

tu_quoque wrote: "I believe that congratulations are in order on your personal preparation of that extensive and well researched list. I have visited extensively around the internet and I must say that I have never seen anything like that. Did you recall these from memory or did you collect them one by one in a labor intensive search of the internet?"

The list was compiled from a number of sources.

"I’m sure that these are not only your opinions but are confirmable facts on your part. That being the case I’m sure you have the backup sources to prove each of them and that you personally stand behind each one’s truthiness."

Decorum and the space necessary to post proof for each and every one, prevents me from posting in this forum, but I absolutely stand behind each and every one of the accomplishments posted. Many, if not most of them should be common knowledge, if you have been paying attention to the news, and there are credible media releases out there to back them up.

If, for some reason, you have a challenge to any specific points made, by all means post them, and I will be happy to post the appropriate links to credible sources of proof.

"You are always a stand up guy in that way. Aren’t you?"

You betcha.

January 5, 2012 at 7:01 p.m.

happywithnewbulbs said... The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies

Thank you for making my argument, this position did not become vacant until he created it.

January 5, 2012 at 7:11 p.m.

Only if by creating it, you mean he signed the law. I suppose you might stretch it as far as proposing the law, but that doesn't matter. Both are within his constitutional authority. Seems strange to get upset about that.

But so what about that detail? Your claim about it being only for national security is still utterly wrong. Not slightly, not a matter for argument, but a complete lie. Nor for whether or not he creates the office, it cannot be found within the constitution either.

January 5, 2012 at 7:40 p.m.

There can not be a replacement when there was no previous position. Is that so hard to understand?

January 5, 2012 at 7:42 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Tu_quoque said: "BTW ... As I have asked before why do none of these discussions also mention stopping contributions from all associations including unions and Libtard NGO's?"

I believe a large majority of “human” persons would eagerly support legislatlon that would prohibit corporations and all associations from influencing and shuffling billions of dollars into our U.S. elections. The only "human" persons that seem to be standing in the way of such legislation are some of our politicians, especially the Republicans. I’m placing special emphasis on the Rebubicans because it’s clear that don’t even want a law requiring disclosure as to who is shuffling money into our elections:

“The DISCLOSE Act (S. 3628) was proposed in July 2010. The bill would have amended the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit foreign influence in federal elections, prohibit government contractors from making expenditures with respect to such elections, and it established additional disclosure requirements with respect to spending in such elections.

The bill would impose new donor and contribution disclosure requirements on nearly all organizations that air political ads independently of candidates or the political parties. The legislation would require the sponsor of the ad to appear in it and take responsibility for it.

President Obama argued that the bill would reduce foreign influence over American elections. Democrats needed at least one Republican to support the measure in order to get the 60 votes to overcome GOP procedural delays, but were unsuccessful.”

Quote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign...

January 5, 2012 at 7:42 p.m.
carlB said...

blondebutnotdumb said... I'll ask again, give me one good reason to give Obama four more years? Why should I vote for him based on his record? Well? What overwhelming need do we have to keep him employed for four more years? Just answer the question instead of asking another question, which is what many of you on here do instead of answering a question. I can't think of one reason to vote for him. January 5, 2012 at 4:24 p.m.


Reply:blondebutnotdumb,Yes, the Republicans have a proven judgment problem after they voted Cheney/Bush in for a second term. Then when Obama was nominated to run for the Democratic President, again they thought the voters were still "dumbed down" enough in 2008 that they could run anybody against Obama and win. Since the opponents of Obama are opposing his efforts to stabilize the economy by getting the people back to work, it appears to me that they want this Republic to fall into another great depression, putting their ideologies before the good of the country, while trying to cause Obama's failure. We know what the objectives of the opponents of President Obama are, their actions and their voices have told us. What really makes me concerned are the voters' attitudes of sticking to and accepting the anti Obama rhetoric as if it is the truth and they do not dare hear the truth or change their opinions.

When the Question of; Are you better off today than you were four years ago? It is nothing but a "farce" in itself and insinuates that the effects of the 2007 deep recession would have instantly gone away without the spending of money is ridiculous. In other words, would the 2007 deep recession really have caused another great depression if Bush W. had not borrowed the $700 billion dollars, TARP money in September 2008? Now the Republicans want the people to think that the conditions/situations which put this Republic on the verge of another great depression before November 2008, prior to President Obama being elected and were not corrected before Obama took office in January 2009, would not continue to have an effect on the unemployment continuing to increase. This is why President Obama said the continuing effects of the 2007 recession could not be stopped instantly. Which is not a surprise to anybody who has any knowledge or admission of what happened during the last administration and how bad the conditions were. blondebutnotdumb, this reply was not an attempt to your answer question. Like I said there is a judgment problem which you will have to solve.

January 5, 2012 at 7:43 p.m.
BobMKE said...

In 2008 I had to hold my nose when I voted for McCain. In my humble opinion I think that McCain just gave the kiss of death to Rommy today. McCain, the "RINO," is very popular in NH and Rommy will win the primary there. I believe Rick Santorum will do very well there, and then they have to go south for the primarys. Rick S. will start winning and be on his way to the nomination. If I'm wrong then the fall back is Rommy and I'll have to hold my nose again if I have to vote for him. I do like Rommy's message. Do you want an opportunistic economy or an entitlement Country? (Words to the effect)

January 5, 2012 at 7:43 p.m.
dude_abides said...

jesse said..." btw: tue-que?

it's apparent you are on here to play "who's the smartest" games! no doubt you could argue either side w/equal dexterity w/out giving away what you really think, just more head games!"

While he's playing the games, he ought to learn the difference between dissidence and dissonance.

wipe your nose off, jesse.

January 5, 2012 at 7:51 p.m.
alprova said...

lovetheusaorleave wrote: "Thank you for making my argument, this position did not become vacant until he created it."

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was created in September, 2010 as part of the banking reforms Congress, not the President, passed that year. On December 15, 2010, Elizabeth Warren announced that she had tapped Richard Cordray to lead the CFPB.

His nomination was immediately in jeopardy because 44 Senate Republicans had previously vowed to derail any nominee that the Obama administration proposed. This was one of many instances in a pattern of conflicts between Republicans in the Senate and the Obama administration that had led to record numbers of blocked and failed nominations.

In other words, the Republicans purposely held up the man's nomination for more than a year for no good reason whatsoever.

And now the President took the bull by the horns, bypassed the Senate and the Republicans are howling to high Heaven.

Good for him. He made it clear months ago that if they keep stonewalling him, that he will do whatever it takes to get what needs doing, done.

This is strictly my opinion, but the Republicans are only cutting off their nose to spite their faces. The President is going to come out on top, no matter what the Republicans try to do to derail his Presidency.

Overall, Congress has a 12.7% approval rating. That is about as bad as it gets.

January 5, 2012 at 8 p.m.

Lovetheusaorleave, the word replacemen t is not in that clause either.

BobMKE, I find Romney's message to be more concerned with how the other guy sucks than about opportunity.

January 5, 2012 at 8:01 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

BobMKE said: "I do like Rommy's message. Do you want an opportunistic economy or an entitlement Country? (Words to the effect)"

Since the income distribution in U.S. is currently similar to a banana republic, I believe a more appropriate question the American people should be asking is do we really want to be the United States of inequality?

“According to the Central Intelligence Agency (whose patriotism I hesitate to question), income distribution in the United States is more unequal than in Guyana, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, and roughly on par with Uruguay, Argentina, and Ecuador. Income inequality is actually declining in Latin America even as it continues to increase in the United States.

Economically speaking, the richest nation on earth is starting to resemble a banana republic. The main difference is that the United States is big enough to maintain geographic distance between the villa-dweller and the beggar. As Ralston Thorpe tells his St. Paul's classmate, the investment banker Sherman McCoy, in Tom Wolfe's 1987 novel The Bonfire of the Vanities: "You've got to insulate, insulate, insulate."

But income inequality is a topic of huge importance to American society and therefore a subject of large and growing interest to a host of economists, political scientists, and other wonky types. Except for a few Libertarian outliers (whose views we'll examine later), these experts agree that the country's growing income inequality is deeply worrying. Even Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve Board chairman and onetime Ayn Rand acolyte, has registered concern. "This is not the type of thing which a democratic society—a capitalist democratic society—can really accept without addressing," Greenspan said in 2005.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_great_divergence/features/2010/the_united_states_of_inequality/introducing_the_great_divergence.html

January 5, 2012 at 8:01 p.m.
News_Junkie said...

blondebutnotdumb said... I don't know one person, friends, family or colleagues at work, who will vote for Obama again. Not one.

Seriously? Then you really need to upgrade the quality of your friends.

January 5, 2012 at 8:04 p.m.
News_Junkie said...

adolphochs said... Popular vote: Romney 51% / Obama 49% (Hope and Change doesn't haven't a second act) Electoral vote: Romney 280 / Obama 258 (the way the numbers work) Winner Romney

In your dreams.

80% of the Republicans don't even like Romney, and he'll do even worse with the independents.

Remember that Romney came in third in race for the nomination in 2008 and the winner (McCain) still lost to Obama. Romney hasn't done anything to bolster his resume since 2008. How can you realistically expect a (third place) loser to beat Obama?

Obama will win, although probably not by as big of a margin as in 2008.

January 5, 2012 at 8:11 p.m.
rick1 said...

ALPO said: "if you have been paying attention to the news, and there are credible media releases out there to back them up."

And Media Matters is credible! Yeah, they are not bias are they Al.

ALPO, this link will list more of Obama's accomplishments that you failed to mention. This will also answer the question why we should vote repbulican.

http://news.investors.com/editorialcartoons/Cartoon.aspx?id=595721&Ntt=Cartoons

January 5, 2012 at 8:19 p.m.
News_Junkie said...

They saw that you can judge a man by his enemies. The best reason I can think of to vote for Obama is to look at the people who attack him. The attacks on Obama in these comments are devoid of any substance. To quote Shakespeare, they are the rantings of a "idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have enough votes to win the presidential election. Thus, it will be decided by the independents. The mindless vitriol spewed by so many of the conservatives will not turn the independents against Obama, it will turn them against the mindless purveyors of hatred. Thus, the more that the hard right wingers make brutal and baseless attacks on Obama, the more that will help to get him re-elected.

Keep up your vicious attacks on Obama that are devoid of substance; that is the most self-defeating behavior I can think of.

January 5, 2012 at 8:33 p.m.

Happy you are correct the word replacement was wrong in usage. There must be a person in place before a vacancy to arise. It states the President may fill a vacancy that happens during the recess of the senate. This post was clearly open before the senate went into recess. According to former A.G. Edwin Meese, the appointment is illegal and will be overturned in the court system.

January 5, 2012 at 9:15 p.m.
fairmon said...

News_Junkie said... They saw that you can judge a man by his enemies. The best reason I can think of to vote for Obama is to look at the people who attack him. The attacks on Obama in these comments are devoid of any substance. To quote Shakespeare, they are the rantings of a "idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Ron Paul would win by a large margin if people did that. The fear of those posting here of being influenced by a PAC or business contribution makes one wonder if they do more than depend on news media and politicians to reach a conclusion.

January 5, 2012 at 10:02 p.m.

You keep trying to reach for an argument, but you've already discredited yourself with multiple false rationales. Appealing to the authority of Edwin Meese won't make it any better. You've still trashed yourself quite thoroughly.

But there's no need for there to have been a person in place. The office existed, by an entirely legal process, and the President duly made an appointment to it. The Senate (or more precisely the minority party) refused to hold a vote and confirm him. Not because of any actual valid criticisms, but simply as a political ploy. That left the office vacant, since it wasn't filled. This lead to a recess appointment, and not just of Cordray, but of several others.

They could have avoided having something to complain about, if they'd just held the vote they should have. But they didn't.

Why not?

Why not hold a confirmation vote?

January 5, 2012 at 10:09 p.m.

Well I dint really see how clarifying something is discrediting it. But by all means please argue with the proof all you want facts are facts even if you do not want to admit it. Here are Mr. Hamilton's direct wording from the Executive Office. I am sure you will find it wrong as well. http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa67.htm

January 5, 2012 at 10:15 p.m.

There's a difference between clarification when you're unclear and this case, where you stated outright false claims.

If you wish to correct from the latter, try starting off with a direct admission of personal error. And be specific about it. That will at least show you have the decency to own up to your outright mistakes. Then you can pontificate further, if you wish, but then, I direct you to my question:

Why not hold a confirmation vote?

Bring them all back, make them straight up vote.

Do it for all of them.

Or make the Senators actually perform a filibuster. We can put it on C-Span 2.

Also, you might try finding a specific line in your reference. It really doesn't concern much with this circumstance.

January 5, 2012 at 10:23 p.m.
alprova said...

rick1, let's examine that list for accuracy, shall we?

"46 million living in poverty. The most on record since the census began tracking poverty in 1959."

Nothing the current President has done has caused this. This is a residual effect of the raping of the middle class by both sides of the aisle. Globalism is the root cause. The U.S. economy has merged with economies that allow slave labor wages.

"Federal spending, the budget deficit, and our national debt are all at the highest level as a percentage of GDP since WWII."

Again, shouldering the current President with all of this is rather silly. Four other Presidents, three of them Republicans, shared in the spending of $10.2 trillion dollars of that debt. Another $1.8 trillion was passed and in place to be spent before Obama walked in the back door of the White House. $3.6 trillion has been spent in the last three years.

"Chronic unemployment worse than the Great Depression."

Long-term unemployment data does not even exist for the early years of the Great Depression, so no valid comparison can be made.

"34th consecutive month the unemployment rate has been above 8%."

Does anyone really think that any President can wave a magic wand and that unemployment will fall to zero? President Obama has not raised income or business taxes on a soul. In fact, he has reduced payroll taxes, instituted tax credits and incentives for employers that hire employees, with little end result. It's the same thing that the Republicans claim that works and that any Republican President would have tried.

"America's credit rating downgraded for the first time in American history."

Standard & Poor, one agency of many, downgraded the U.S.’s AAA credit rating, while slamming the nation’s political process and criticizing lawmakers for failing to cut spending or raise revenue enough to reduce record budget deficits. This is not even close to being the fault of President Obama.

"Lowest consumer confidence in 30 years."

Perception by consumers of the economy is the weakest of all measures made of the state of the economy. A report released just last week detailed the fact that far too many American households are still paying off high consumer debt extending back several years in the making. Again...not the fault of the President.

"Highest black unemployment in 28 years."

How is this the fault of anyone, including the President, who has no control whatsoever over the hiring practices of employees by the private sector? It fosters great negative statistical bantering, but the root cause of the problem rests on the shoulders of employers that still practice discrimination when making hiring decisions.

(To be cont.)

January 5, 2012 at 10:33 p.m.
alprova said...

(cont.)

"Worst jobs record of any modern President."

It took many years for the jobs to disappear and to arrive at our current state of unemployment, and it will take many years to recover from it.

No modern day President has brought recessive high unemployment numbers down in any period of time under eight years from its highest to lowest percentages.

Obama's greatest mistake was in vocalizing that he could do what had never been done before, which was to claim that he would keep unemployment under 8% with the advent of his first stimulus plan. He learned from that mistake too, and he's hardly the only President in history to have ever goofed when addressing the nation.

"Worst housing crisis since the great depression."

In 1999, three Republicans, Gramm-Leach-Blilely, introduced a bill that was passed with a two-thirds Republican dominated Congress majority, that Bill Clinton was forced to sign into law. That single piece of legislation overturned the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which ptohibited banks, investment houses, and insurance companies to merge. This change allowed a repeat of exactly what led to the stock market crash of 1929. Mortgages with time-bombs written into them went off after being placed as legitimate investment opportunities on Wall Street and the rest is history.

No one can saddle Obama with that one either. He wasn't even a political figure back then.

"Misery index at 28 year high."

An unofficial measurement of the total of unemployment and inflation. Doesn't deserve a response.

"Under Obama, U.S. poverty rate swells to 1 in 6."

Another way to describe 46 percent and I've already addressed it.

"Record number of Americans now rely upon food stamps."

A by-product of high unemployment rates. Already addressed.

"Rate of economic growth under Obama only slightly higher than the 1930's, the decade of the Great Depression."

Sounds like a compliment to me.

"Been to almost all 57 states."

Aw geez, not this one again. I'll defer to Snopes.com for a response to it.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp

January 5, 2012 at 10:34 p.m.

Wow even with the proof you still argue and show ignorance. But I am sure that admitting you were and still are wrong is beneath you.

January 5, 2012 at 10:38 p.m.

So I guess you're not going to answer my question, or provide a specific line in your reference, just going to rely on your appeal to authority.

Is this the case, or am I mistaken in my belief?

January 5, 2012 at 10:45 p.m.

Still no reason.

Actually, Junkie, my friends are quality individuals. The fact is there is no reason to have Obama back for another four years, at best he's detached, at worst he seems determined to reduce our freedoms and trash our Constitution.

He's no problem solver.

There is simply no reason to have him back. He's not even the favorite in his own party, Hillary is. He's had his fun. It's time to go.

January 5, 2012 at 11 p.m.

Well since you obviously could not find it yourself even after trying to dispute it here it is. "The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session." http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa67.htm

Please if you wish to continue this, do so while looking into the mirror because this was not the main topic of the point I was trying to make with my post. It centered around the security of this nation. But I don't guess you could deny that since you have chosen to launch a tirade on this topic. Drink his cool aid if you want but I like to think for myself.

January 5, 2012 at 11 p.m.

Prediction: Obama AND Romney will win.

Romney's "Least Embarrassing Award" will prompt a call next summer from the president asking him to replace Biden (who has never won this particular award) on the Democrat ticket. He gladly accepts and the media coronates them without ceremony. Mark my word.

January 5, 2012 at 11:01 p.m.

ltuoli: That's from the Constitution. You need a specific line from the reference that supports your argument, not something that was quoted in the reference.

As for your point about the security of the nation, that's not found in the clause, it actually says all, not the "critical to our national security" you erroneously claimed it was restricted to.

If you want to move on, though, try answering my question.

Why not hold a confirmation hearing?

Or talk about the GOP primary if you wish. Or anything else you feel is on topic.

wwwtw: Or he could just choose the White House Weathervane.

January 5, 2012 at 11:06 p.m.
News_Junkie said...

blondebutnotdumb:

Your response made me realize that my comment was extremely poorly worded. If I offended you by giving you the impression that I thought that all of your friends were of low quality, I apologize for that slight. I don't believe that people who vote against Obama are necessarily of low quality.

The point that I was trying to make, in an admittedly inarticulate fashion, is that I believe that people should have friends across the political spectrum. I have friends that are ultra-liberals and some that are equally as far to the right.

I don't exclude people from my circle of friends simply because I don't agree with their political views. I look at the totality of qualities that a person possesses, both good and bad, in determining whether I should consider them to be my friend.

Similarly, I don't befriend individuals simply because they adhere to the same political theories as mine.

The point I was trying to make is that I think that you need to broaden the class of people that you include as your friends (to include some who may have differing political views). Circumscribing that group to those who subscribe to the same political views as yourself unnecessarily excludes some quality people.

January 6, 2012 at 12:26 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

WAIT... WHAT?

TQ, another rambling, bumbling, incoherent post so let me see what I can extract.

First, why do you think you somehow slammed me on the 'whole corporation/person deal.'

You cited the Supreme Court ruling on Citizens United. I'm still waiting for you to agree that, likewise, that the Roe v. Wade Decision is the final word on abortion rights.

I would have given you style points if you had said something like, 'corporations are like people because they commit rape, sodomy, and other unnatural acts. They also steal, lie, and cheat.'

See? That would have been both funny and true.

Then you said With the Repubs. in power, people with your peculiar sort of ideas will be marginalized.

More than just marginalized, though, right? States controlled by republicans are doing more than that but it has nothing to do with getting the nations (sic) culture and economics on a more rational footing.

You think our economy would be on a more rational footing if we totally privatized and deregulated every business and industry? Do you really think that American culture is irrational?

Silly boy, don't stop tossing those spit balls. Your hysteria is hysterical. I don't know what's funnier, sport. Your vacuous assertions or your smug attitude.

But I am amused! Please, never stop posting. Seriously.

January 6, 2012 at 12:41 a.m.

News_junkie,

Why do you apologize to blondanddumb? I think your comment was excellently worded. Apparently her friends are all born-again idiots who know nothing such that they need to believe anything coming out of Bible-twisters or FOX news. In one word a bunch of intellectual monkeys...

January 6, 2012 at 2:33 a.m.
alprova said...

tu_wuoque inquired: "Al: You haven’t resorted to you old habit of copying other peoples work and passing it off as your own."

"Have you??"

Sorry. No. I've never seen that particular page, but it is similar to one of the pages that I used in compiling part of my list.

"Do you have anything to tell us??"

Not this time.

January 6, 2012 at 5:07 a.m.
dude_abides said...

tu_rquoise... lemme see, cogitative decadence... incognito diffidence... cognitive resonance... nope, spell check has nothing to do with terms or phrases, just spelling. I don't think there's anything on the market that will correct phraseology. Actually, alprova probably wouldn't have said anything about it. He's too busy slapping you around with those darn facts.

January 6, 2012 at 7:31 a.m.
potcat said...

austrian_in_alabama, please don't insult the monkeys!

January 6, 2012 at 9:01 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

THE QUESTION REMAINS UNANSWERED

TQ, the question you still can't answer is, Give me one good reason why anyone would want to put the Republicans back in charge?

For decades, the GOP screamed that the American economy needed more deregulation and more tax cuts for the rich. Take off the regulatory shackles, give more money to the ‘job creators,’ and everyone would grow rich, the federal budget would be balanced, and unemployment would shrink.

Some call it supply side economics, some trickle down economics, it's the same thing. You could call it macaroni but it still wouldn't work. Never has.

That economic plan resulted in the greatest financial collapse since the great depression. Does anyone still believe that the banking collapse and Wall Street implosion was caused by too much government oversight? Anyone?

But instead of moderating their position, instead of backing off their laissez faire business model, republicans doubled down. In the 2010-midterm elections, the GOP kicked out the non-extreme candidates and ran tea baggers instead. How did that work out for you?

Not only did Harry Reid keep his seat in the Senate, which he surely would have lost if he had to run against any candidate except Sharon Angle, democrats actually managed to keep a slim majority because enough of them were running against other tea bag opponents. Well done!

The current crop of republican candidates running for president are, once again, clamoring for more deregulation and more tax cuts for the rich. They act like 2008 never happened. They pretend that everything is Obama’s fault and are counting on the American electorate to have a short memory.

Mainstream republicans want Romney on the ballot because they think he is the least extreme and more likely to attract independent voters. Mitt is also campaigning for more deregulation and tax cuts for the rich, but he comes across as being not as nutty as the other candidates.

So the question remains, the question you cannot answer, is Give me one good reason why anyone would want to put the Republicans back in charge?”

What do you say, sport?

January 6, 2012 at 9:01 a.m.

Because this time, they promise to do something different!

And surely they mean it!

January 6, 2012 at 11:10 a.m.
ITguy said...

Happywiththenewbulbs said, "Because this time, they promise to do something different!

And surely they mean it!"

Actually they are promising that they will do exactly the same things that Blackwater48 listed. They have no new ideas and have had no new ideas since they came up with 'trickle down'. George Bush Sr. called it 'Voodoo Economics' and he was correct.

January 6, 2012 at 11:33 a.m.
chet123 said...

Republicans have expressed that they will take America back!....Excuse me!...did they say take America back?????? OK! OK!....I agree....they will take America back....back to trickle down economy....back to George W. old policies that ran the deficit up....take America back to deregulations and allowing the banks and wall street to run wild without accountability...back to sending our manufacturing jobs over-seas......back to detroying the middle-class...back to protecting the rich and greedy....i agree republicans will take America back ha ha ha ha!

January 6, 2012 at 11:49 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

REWRITING HISTORY

You seem mired in politics, TQ.

I asked you an economic question which deftly avoided yet again.

Because you still can't answer it.

Maybe you are dead correct with the political analysis. An irrelevant point, but you could be right. With republican popularity at the state level dropping quicker than George Bush's stock market, however, you may want to rein in your enthusiasm.

I admire your tap dancing, sport, but the question remains: Give me one good reason why anyone would want to put the Republicans back in charge?”

January 6, 2012 at 12:14 p.m.
potcat said...

Crushed, did you say crushed tu-lulu, thats just not true and you damn well know it. You state things as if they are facts,you know the pubes have crushed nothing.The Democrats are very much in the game and we all now know, you are a LIAR.

January 6, 2012 at 12:15 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Tu_quoque said: “you linked to the “Campaign finance reform in the United States” page at Wiki. What didn’t you link to the “DISCLOSE” page which provides details you may not want us to see? Such as the exemptions in the law for large labor unions and Libtard NGO’s. Yeah! You guys are all for having the law cover everybody. . . I threw that last bit in for you Libtards to see that some of your own knew this proposed law was B.S.”

Believe you need to read more carefully, Tu_quoque. The WIKI quote that I posted was a brief summary of the 2010 Disclose Act, which, indeed, is found on the “Campaign Finance Reform in the U.S.” page at WIKI. The purpose of posting the quote was not an effort to trick you, but simply to demonstrate the hurdles we face in regard campaign finance reform in the U.S. from our own politicians, particulary resistance from current Republican politicians.

As for the rest of your comments, I believe you are sending mixed messages, Tu_quoque. In your initial post to me, your complaint was: “why do none of these discussions also mention stopping contributions from all associations including unions and Libtard NGO's?" In your next post, you essentially have moved away from this alleged concern about associations shuffling billions of dollars in U.S. elections and you are quoting WIKI info about the American Civil Liberties Union’s position on the 2010 Disclose Act and donor anonymity

As such, perhaps, you can clarify what kind of solutions you have in mind in regard to the heavy involvment and billions of dollars that corporations and associations are shuffling into U.S. elections. Since it was you who initially complained about the involvement of associations, I’m assuming you have some kind of legislation in mind, but I’m curious to know more of the specifics and how it will help to eliminate the problem that you identified in your post?

January 6, 2012 at 12:41 p.m.
potcat said...

I did not "get" one thing you wrote. Your sarcasm is not up to par and you are a eyesore.

I suggest everyone ignore tu-lulu and he will go away. I will not read another thing this Troll writes and when you engage such people in debate, you give them validation, there's nothing VALID about tu-lu.

January 6, 2012 at 12:47 p.m.
jesse said...

the BEST defense when someone is kicking your rear end!(verbally that is!)

I'M JUST GONNA IGNORE YOU!!!AIN'T GONNA READ NO MORE OF YOUR REMARKS!!period!

January 6, 2012 at 1:04 p.m.

Still not one person on here is capable of selling me on the idea that Obama deserves another four years. There isn't a salesman alive that could sell me on Obama for four more years.

January 6, 2012 at 1:12 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

I'LL MAKE SIMPLE FOR YOU

TQ, I was hoping you could explain how republicans will improve anything. Maybe I phrased it incorrectly. Maybe it's my fault.

So I'll dumb down the question for you, sport.

Please show how trickle down economics has ever (as promised) balanced the federal budget, lowered unemployment, and improved everyone's economic well being. Feel free to cite historical examples.

January 6, 2012 at 1:13 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

ITGuy said: "They have no new ideas and have had no new ideas since they came up with 'trickle down'. George Bush Sr. called it 'Voodoo Economics' and he was correct."

I agree, ITGuy. George Bush Sr. was correct. It is voodoo economics. . . and Romney's proposed plan appears to be a prime example. In Atlantic’s, “Romney's Plan: $100 Tax Hike for the Poor, $100,000 Tax Cut For the Rich,” Derek Thompson points out the bottom line:

The simplest way to conceive of Mitt Romney's tax proposal is the Bush Tax Cuts on steroids. . . For a family making less than $10,000 a year, the average tax bill would go up by $112. For a family making more than $1,000,000 a year, the average tax bill would go down by about $145,000.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/01/romneys-plan-100-tax-hike-for-the-poor-100-000-tax-cut-for-the-rich/250947/

January 6, 2012 at 1:27 p.m.
potcat said...

Jesse, you are delusional.

January 6, 2012 at 1:28 p.m.
jesse said...

i don't know if the republicans can improve things BUT how could they make then worse!

we cannot survive 4 more years of OBAMA!!we are on a slippery slope and we need SOME BODY to snatch the country up by the stacking swivel and get us on the right track!

MAYBE there is nobody in this lashup that can gitter done BUT one thing is for sure "barak" ain't UP to the job!!

you might be right,potcat!BUT i ain't gittin REAL upset w/what goes on on here!!i'm JUST havin a good time,I DON'T expect to change the world w/what i put on here!

you need to knock it off w /them negative waves man!!(you take yourself WAY to serious!!)

January 6, 2012 at 1:38 p.m.
alprova said...

blondebutnotdumb wrote: "Still not one person on here is capable of selling me on the idea that Obama deserves another four years."

He's going to get it whether you want him to or not.

"There isn't a salesman alive that could sell me on Obama for four more years."

That's obvious and the very reason why no one is trying any longer to sell you a thing. It's a complete waste of time.

January 6, 2012 at 1:48 p.m.
alprova said...

Blackwater48 asked of tu_quoque: "Please show how trickle down economics has ever (as promised) balanced the federal budget, lowered unemployment, and improved everyone's economic well being. Feel free to cite historical examples."

Haven't you figured out yet that this tu_quoque is not interested in rising up to challenges made his/her way?

He/she does a two-step around every issue raised.

January 6, 2012 at 1:53 p.m.
jesse said...

he MAY be doin the TWO STEP BUT he is makin you look bad!!

limric is the man BUT i don't agree w/ALL of his line so i gotta go w/tu_quoque!lol!

January 6, 2012 at 2:09 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

I SUPPORT THE ARTS

Yes, Al, I figured it out a while ago, but don't you enjoy the way he dances?

Actually, the question is still on the table for all tea baggers who want us to return to the glorious economic times of George W. Bush:

Please show how trickle down economics has ever (as promised) balanced the federal budget, lowered unemployment, and improved everyone's economic well being. Feel free to cite historical examples.

January 6, 2012 at 2:12 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Blackwater48’s question to Tu_quoque: “Please show how trickle down economics has ever (as promised) balanced the federal budget, lowered unemployment, and improved everyone's economic well being. Feel free to cite historical examples.”

Indeed, Blackwater48. How did Bush Jr.'s little trickle-down nursery rhyme go?

Trickle, trickle, little dollar,

How I wonder where you are.

Up above the world so high,

Like a big apple pie in the sky.

Trickle, trickle, little dollar,

How I wonder where you are!

(Sigh)

January 6, 2012 at 2:31 p.m.

In Swiss or Caribbean Banks.

So to them, say thanks!

jesse, never underestimate the ingenuity of a willful person. There is a reason nothing is fool proof. Somebody keeps inventing a better fool.

ItGuy: No, no, it's different this time, not at all the same as it was.

Blondebutnotdumb: There are none so blind, as those who choose not to see. Your mind is made up, you are not persuadable, you cannot be convinced. It shows in your reaction to my suggestion that you don't have to choose between Obama and Romney. So...nobody's actually trying. The effort is better spent on those who are open to persuasion.

But hey, you know what? Here's one reason not to vote for Romney.

He's taken government bailouts.

January 6, 2012 at 2:33 p.m.
alprova said...

jesse wrote: "he MAY be doin the TWO STEP BUT he is makin you look bad!!"

I'm not worried a bit about your opinion on that.

January 6, 2012 at 2:34 p.m.
alprova said...

blackwater48 wrote: "Yes, Al, I figured it out a while ago, but don't you enjoy the way he dances?"

He may not know very much but he certainly is entertaining.

January 6, 2012 at 2:37 p.m.

You want something entertaining, there's a goat that yells like a human being!

Now that's funny stuff.

January 6, 2012 at 2:47 p.m.
tipper said...

I bet some of you posters who feel the need to insult people with your rhetoric would haul off put your hands in your pockets if you had to post your real names and e-mail addresses. It's coming people because the discussions(?) go so far off subject and deteriate into nonsense. They start from nowhere and end up in the same place. Why don't you use your ire and powers of persuasion on the people who control your lives and country? They're missing out. Most of you are simply preaching to different sections of the choir. Go do some real work. Have fun.

January 6, 2012 at 2:50 p.m.

Actually, I think there would be just as many insults, and more than a few threats of physical harm. It would not be an improvement.

However, if you want to know why discussions go so far off subject and deteriorate, it's because there's no significant moderation or control here.

It could be dealt with, through a more effective discussion system, but that's not going to happen.

Oh well, I don't get to go to work till the Weekend, holiday shutdown to conduct maintenance.

January 6, 2012 at 2:53 p.m.
jesse said...

hey al!! you got bulbs and blk.water tellin you you good you doin?

DON'T believe it!

BUT that's JUST my opinion!!

next nov.we will all know who shucks and who jives!!lol!

January 6, 2012 at 3:37 p.m.

No, you won't know how bad Romney or any other Republican candidate would be till he got a chance to mess things up himself.

I'm just hoping there's an interesting choice on the VP side.

January 6, 2012 at 3:44 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

tipper said... “ the discussions go so far off subject and deteriorate into nonsense.”

This whole forum is nonsense; the tone and direction is set by The Wart.

January 6, 2012 at 4:28 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

alprova said... "(Obama's) going to get (another four years) whether you want him to or not."

If raging idiots like you manage to reelect Obama this country is doomed. Only someone with aspirations to be Buzz Lightyear could be dumb enough to vote for that Marxist again.

January 6, 2012 at 4:33 p.m.
kinch7 said...

I like this cartoon, Mr. Bennett. In a way, when you think about it, along with Cal Thomas' editorial about the decline of intelligence, this cartoon may not be so funny. It is not good for our country that one political party denigrates intelligence while extolling below average, vapid ingenuity. Mr. Romney is like the guy in the movie Idiocracy. When he tries to speak reasonably and logically he sounds "faggy" to the radical conservatives. He does not blare with blustering,macho extremisms and rants riddled with outlandish errors like the other candidates do from time to time. John Huntsman sounds presidential too. Look where that has gotten him. Sometimes I think Mr. Obama comports himself the way he does for a reason. He truly respects the Excutive Branch. He thereby seeks to reclaim for the world a presidential manner that reminds the world that the president of the United States will always sound and be more intelligent than the next guy. We had the next guy for eight years before Mr. Obama. We should be proud if heads of state in other countries call our president for advice. That means they are looking to us for leadership. So I would prefer an opposition that is as bright as the person I will vote for so that I do not have to fret our president will make foolish mistakes.

January 6, 2012 at 5:05 p.m.

Piss poor Republicans have brought this nation to it's knees. If another Republican finds his way, my apologies, Has his corporate pals buy his way into the White House any time soon we can kiss the american way goodbye. The nation has the smallest attention span to current events. Republicans raped every aspect they could for as long as they could. Turned their back on the average american and bailed out every crooked bank that exists even when more americans than ever stated openly that they did not want to bail out the culprits. Republicans did it anyway. The republicans have no legs to stand on when it comes to a candidate. Instead of voting in another crooked republican can we just vote for the corporations to take over the government and save us all a lot of heartache. Because thats what it will come to if one ends up in office.

January 6, 2012 at 5:21 p.m.
rick1 said...

IllusionofDemocracy said (Republicans) "Turned their back on the average american and bailed out every crooked bank that exists even when more americans than ever stated openly that they did not want to bail out the culprits. Republicans did it anyway."

Both Republicans and Democracts including Obama voted for TARP.

January 6, 2012 at 6:43 p.m.
dude_abides said...

tu_quoque floats like a butterfly, but he also stings like a butterfly. He also telegraphs his game plan by accusing others. I think he wants our country to be the best on the planet and seeks to make it so by criticizing and belittling anyone who disagrees with him. He doesn't have a bully pulpit, so he's created a Hannibal Lectern. EVERYBODY has got to find that funny. Come on now, gimme some ku_dos. [crickets chirping, tumbleweed blows by]

January 6, 2012 at 6:52 p.m.
alprova said...

dude_abides wrote: "tu_quoque floats like a butterfly, but he also stings like a butterfly."

That's not what he says...

"He also telegraphs his game plan by accusing others."

He's more than admitted that he is trolling this forum.

"I think he wants our country to be the best on the planet and seeks to make it so by criticizing and belittling anyone who disagrees with him."

Especially if they are a "Libtard."

"He doesn't have a bully pulpit, so he's created a Hannibal Lectern. EVERYBODY has got to find that funny. Come on now, gimme some ku_dos. [crickets chirping, tumbleweed blows by]"

It sure made me laugh.

January 6, 2012 at 7:11 p.m.
carlB said...

blondebutnotdumb said... Still not one person on here is capable of selling me on the idea that Obama deserves another four years. There isn't a salesman alive that could sell me on Obama for four more years. January 6, 2012 at 1:12 p.m.


blondebutnotdumb, Like I said this is your judgment problem which you will have to solve and live with what you get if the Republicans get back in control.

January 6, 2012 at 7:19 p.m.
hambone said...

Hunting.

Fishing,

Gardening.

Woodworking,

Bird watching.

Hiking.

Camping.

These are all nice hobbies.

Posting on Clay Bennett's cartoon doesn't even make normal people's list.

GET A LIFE!!!

January 6, 2012 at 7:32 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

SPIT TAKE

Dude, I was sipping coffee when I read your Hannibal joke. Nearly produced a double barrel shotgun blast across the screen.

Little 'heads up' next time, k?

Kudos, indeed, and a tip of the cap!

January 6, 2012 at 7:44 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

KEEP TROLLING

Glad to see you're still shoveling crap, TQ.

Also glad you wasted so much of your time doing so. I'm not wasting any more of mine. Got better things to do tonight.

But I do enjoy the way you dance, fancy boy, dance!

January 6, 2012 at 7:50 p.m.
carlB said...

Under the conditions that are presently in, my opinion is, it going be left up to the "informed" voters to decide which direction they want this Republic taken after this 2012 election process, especially in the State and National elections. By this, I suggest that the voters will have to turn out in high percentages at the voting booths, voting for the party whom they think will get rid of this "stalemate" between the Parties and continue to keep this Republic stronger and functioning in a more balanced condition for all of the people and not just for the few at the top of the chain. The Voters will also have to "truthfully" decide against the political agendas and Ideologies that are destroying this Republic and dividing the people without regard to what is the best in the long-term for all of us. There will have to be a continuation of the changes for maintaining the stability from the effects of the 2007 deep recession and the decreasing of the unemployment numbers that cannot be changed quickly because it took many years for the global economy effects to get us near the point of "no return."


Even with the new District lines drawn by the party in control, the voters should take on the responsibility of not sticking to the party's political policies and Ideologies that takes this Republic and government's purpose back to the mind set that it was prior to the pre FDR's New Deal policies, wanting to cause President Obama's failure even if they cause another "great depression."
The voters will have to take things "in their own hands," voting for whom is best for them and this Republic in the long-term. We have already have had a dose of the elected Congress looking out for themselves and the Capitalist instead of our citizen workers. We, the US consumers, also need to help reduce our trade deficit with the global corporations, forcing them to reinvest in more manufacturing plants here, creating jobs making the goods that are now imported. The KEY to recovery is the creation of middle class manufacturing jobs and the decrease in the cost of living expenses while decreasing the "wage gap," with sacrifices made by everybody, not the depressing the middle class people and not forcing an increase in the number of people living in Poverty.

January 6, 2012 at 8:15 p.m.
alprova said...

tu_quoque wrote: "I’m going to start by claiming that no economic policy has actually balanced the federal budget since 1951."

Well, your claim is woefully incorrect. Budgets were balanced in 1956, 1957, 1969, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001. During those years, the Government took in more money than was spent. That is the definition of a balanced budget. No money was borrowed during those years to pay out the expenditures of the Government.

You're still stuck on this idea, like so many other misinformed people, that because no surpluses were applied to pay down the national debt, that balanced budgets never existed.

You would therefore be correct if you were to state that at no time since 1951 were any surplus funds that were a result of balanced budgets ever used to pay down the national debt.

January 6, 2012 at 8:24 p.m.
dude_abides said...

tuquoque... boxing idioms, really? How gauche.

January 6, 2012 at 8:31 p.m.
BobMKE said...

Shortly Oblamea will ask Congress to rise the Debt Ceiling again. Remember when he ripped Bush for doing the same thing? Do you Oblamea fans honestly think it should be raised again and then it will be over 16 Trillion?

January 6, 2012 at 9:07 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

DO TROLLS DREAM IN COLOR?

(Lucky for me the wife recorded 'Revenge' the other night and decided to watch it now. Otherwise I would have missed you're riotous post!)

Wow, TQ, you try to come across as some sage policy wonk, someone who understands the big picture, the large social and economic issues of our time. Someone who is confident not only in the superiority of his own rational thought but in the irrational inferiority of everyone else. And yet, as wise you smugly assume yourself to be, you are suddenly baffled by basic republican economics 101.

Apparently you expect anyone to believe that you... know of no formal economic concept such as “trickle down economics” so you will need to be more specific about what your requested subject is.

And even if you weren't lying you could have easily Goggled it. Here's one very simple and easy to read definition available on the internets machine:

Trickle down economics is ...The idea that tax breaks or other economic benefits provided by government to businesses and the wealthy will benefit poorer members of society by improving the economy as a whole.

Do you honestly expect anyone to believe you never heard of the guiding principle of tea bagger tax policy, the one thing each and every republitard (see? anyone can do it) candidate agrees to?

You remind me of Captain Renault in Casablanca: I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here.

You're just a troll. You're just shoveling crap, but if that makes you think you won something, well goody for you. You're not changing my mind. I'm not changing yours. Why do you think this is some sort of fight?

That's why I dismissed your post as nothing more than an amusing pile of troll poop.

But Charley, why, dear god, do you think you're WINNING?

January 6, 2012 at 9:09 p.m.
hambone said...

TOO QUTE, suffers from Insomnia.

Or, he's hooked on Meth!!

January 6, 2012 at 10:21 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Tu_quoque said: “I quickly saw that your claim of wanting the campaign finance laws to cover your buds, the unions and the Libtard NGO’s, was just more fleabaggery B.S.. You purposefully directed everyone to a link that did not spell out the exemptions in the law for your buds. . . You also claimed that I have a complaint about the involvement of associations in elections. I have no such concern but only pointing out that your side wants to limit the involvement of your opponents but not your allies.”

I believe there is a quote from Shakespere that applies to your post or should I say your rant, Tu_quoque. . . The Lady Doth Protest too Much.

Indeed, if you weren’t opposed to the heavy influence and billions of dollars being shuffled into U.S. elections by corporations and associations, why did you make the comment about the involvment of associations in the first place? It certainly sounded to me like you were complaining about their involvement – particularly in your initial post.

For the record, there is big difference between free speech and shuffling money toward politicians and our elections, Tu_quoque. The average American voter doesn’t benefit in any way when corporations like Exxon Mobil, Koch Industries, AT&T, Peabody Industries and PhRMA shufflle billions of dollars toward our politicians and elections.

In fact, we lose. We gain nothing by the kind of scenario where corporate lobbyist write laws for our legislators to boost their corporate power, to boost their corporate profits, to undermine American workers’ rights, to undermine U.S. safety laws, and to limit corporate accountability for deadly pollution and products that harm consumers.

January 6, 2012 at 11:22 p.m.
News_Junkie said...

blondebutnotdumb said... Still not one person on here is capable of selling me on the idea that Obama deserves another four years. There isn't a salesman alive that could sell me on Obama for four more years.

That doesn't prove that Obama doesn't deserve to be re-elected. That just proves that you won't listen to reason. Just because you are obstinate doesn't make you right.

There are people that still believe the earth is flat. According to your reasoning, then the earth must be flat.

If everybody thought the way that you do, we'd still be in Medieval tiomes.

January 6, 2012 at 11:24 p.m.
News_Junkie said...

austrian_in_alabama:

You raised a very good point.

What I was trying to convey that I do know a few (admittedly, very few) conservatives who are rational individuals. I disagree with their perspective, but once you accept that is their belief system, then you can see that those individuals are logical in their conclusions that they reach. Those individuals are not the right-wingers who are posting the hate-filled rants here, which are generally devoid of logical reasoning.

January 6, 2012 at 11:37 p.m.
fairmon said...

ML said... For the record, there is big difference between free speech and shuffling money toward politicians and our elections, Tu_quoque. The average American voter doesn’t benefit in any way when corporations like Exxon Mobil, Koch Industries, AT&T, Peabody Industries and PhRMA shufflle billions of dollars toward our politicians and elections.

Do people benefit when unions and special interest groups contribute and get more involved with more money than any of those you list? Have you bothered to look at who contributes how much and to which party? Local and state governments and individuals with a cause spend a lot more time lobbying congress for favorable treatment than any business. Among the most active lobbyist are big banks, insurance companies, health care companies, Fannie and Freddie. Do you realize many in congress and the administration commit what essentially amounts to black mail soliciting contributions?

I would like to see a contribution limit of $100 in a form other than cash from any source with names and amount posted in alpha order under each federal position, including those not elected to their position.

January 6, 2012 at 11:57 p.m.
alprova said...

News_Junkie wrote: "There are people that still believe the earth is flat. According to your reasoning, then the earth must be flat."

On November 18, 1978, Reverend James Warren "Jim" Jones convinced 909 people to drink Koolaid that was poisonous, causing them to die horrible, agonizing deaths.

There are indeed people who will allow their beliefs to override all sense of reason.

January 7, 2012 at 2:52 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

There are indeed people who will allow their beliefs to override all sense of reason.

Agreed. Although most religious beliefs are understandable, when religious beliefs override reality based on physical evidence, it becomes either denial or insanity.

January 7, 2012 at 8:49 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

I never claimed that insanity was the exclusive domain of the religious; quite the contrary-there are many in history that you could argue were insane, and non-believers are among them. It's odd, though, that denial of reality gets a free pass if done in the name of religion (all religions, not just Christianity). And if you think it is not happening, just learn what fundamentalists are trying to do to public school science education. Somehow we are expected to give their notion of the age of the earth, geology, and how animals and plants came to be the same weight as sound science because it's their "belief".

Incidentally, all the GOP candidates have expressed this same "doubt" in sound science except for Huntsman. Pandering for the fundy's votes? Perhaps. Though Romney has been pretty clear on his acceptance of evolution.

January 7, 2012 at 10:27 a.m.
alprova said...

tu_quoque wrote: **"I think that it is time that we corrected these false perceptions of who Jim Jones really was. You lefties always want to identify him with your ideological opponents instead of what he really represented. He was a drug addicted, insane, atheistic communist cult leader..."

I didn't identify him as an opponent or classify him into any category, nor did I attempt to make any reference to him being aligned with any political party.

You are content to quote Wikipedia and are thrilled that the written material contains reference to him and his followers being Communists and such.

That's hardly a point worth debating. There point is that there are plenty of Republicans/Conservatives/Evangelical Christians running around this country who are just as screwed in their heads as those who inhabited the Temple.

Without naming names, they decide to post in this forum every now and again.

My only reason for bringing him up was to show that there are people on this planet that will believe practically anything, no matter how illogical or dis-proven it may be, and some of those same people will lose their freaking minds and will follow self-appointed leaders that they worship up to and including the very end of their own existence.

January 8, 2012 at 5:28 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Harp3339 said: “Local and state governments and individuals with a cause spend a lot more time lobbying congress for favorable treatment than any business.”

But local and state governments aren't shoveling billions of dollars into congressional campaigns, Harp3339. As to the lobbying efforts of individuals, they have a right to lobby government officials, but if they do opt to donate money to someone’s campaign, they must play by the rules and the amount they donate toward the campaign is disclosed.

Harp3339 said: “Do people benefit when unions and special interest groups contribute and get more involved with more money than any of those you list?

Believe you’re missing the main point, Harp3339. The focus of my initial post was “corporate personhood” and the serious problems that it brings about when politicians like Romney peddle this kind of thinking. Do you think corporations are persons, Harp3339? I don’t think so and I feel the same way about any other “artificial creatures of law.” Like the judge in Wyoming says:

Corporations are artificial creatures of law. As such, they should enjoy only those powers—not constitutional rights, but legislatively-conferred powers—that are concomitant with their legitimate function, that being limited-liability investment vehicles for business. Corporations are not persons. Human beings are persons, and it is an affront to the inviolable dignity of our species that courts have created a legal fiction which forces people—human beings—to share fundamental, natural rights with soulless creations of government. Worse still, while corporations and human beings share many of the same rights under the law, they clearly are not bound equally to the same codes of good conduct, decency, and morality, and they are not held equally accountable for their sins. Indeed, it is truly ironic that the death penalty and hell are reserved only to natural persons. http://blog.pfaw.org/content/montana-chip-the-armor-citizens-united

Harp3339 said: "Have you bothered to look at who contributes how much and to which party? . . Among the most active lobbyist are big banks, insurance companies, health care companies, Fannie and Freddie."

Yes, but please feel free to add to my short list anytime, Harp3339. I specifically mentioned Exxon Mobil, Koch Industries, AT&T, Peabody Industries and PhRMA because of their involment in the right wing’s The American Legislative Exchange Council, which seems to specialze in writing laws for our legislators – especially laws that enable corporations to weasel out of their accountability to the public.

http://www.pfaw.org/rww-in-focus/alec-the-voice-of-corporate-special-interests-state-legislatures

January 8, 2012 at 9:20 a.m.
Rufus_T_Firefly said...

too funny!

January 8, 2012 at 3:43 p.m.
ibshame said...

Yep, Mittens may have been the least embarrassing until he made the following comment: “I like being able to fire people who provide services to me”

Of course for the 1% this only shores up their support for him as being the right guy for them, but for the 99% it presents a different view of him : He is not a job creator but rather a job destroyer.

January 10, 2012 at 11:29 a.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.