Spintested: 01/19/11

The President's Panacea for Business Regs: The Cost-Benefit Ratio

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

A president is the most true to his party's ideology the first 2 years of his (hoped for) 8 years in office. Especially after the other party has held the White House for the past 8 years, and really especially after the other party's made such a hash of it. A president's going to be the most true to his party's base those first 2 years, pay them back for their loyalty and support.

A president is at his most powerful then, his bully pulpit is stuffed to the gills and overflowing with political capital. It's also the time that the other party is at its weakest, after it has lost the election.

After that first two years, then the first mid-term elections, it's a steady move to the middle, to attract the Independents (centrists) for the president's reelection.

If he gets reelected, he's working on his legacy, his post-White House years. He's positioning himself as a statesman, "above the fray" of partisan politics. He's looking for his place on the world stage.

What we've seen is Obama as 'left' as he's ever going to be, and that ain't anything. With his readiness to cut Social Security at this stage in his presidency, what he'll be doing after another win should be bone-chilling to Democratic voters. Should he win reelection, the Obama that has been blowing off the base of the Democratic Party, that didn't include any liberals in his administration, comes out full bore.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Rising Approval: Is Tucson Responsible?

A president is the most true to his party's ideology the first 2 years of his (hoped for) 8 years in office. Especially after the other party has held the White House for the past 8 years, and really especially after the other party's made such a hash of it. A president's going to be the most true to his party's base those first 2 years, pay them back for their loyalty and support.

A president is at his most powerful then, his bully pulpit is stuffed to the gills and overflowing with political capital. It's also the time that the other party is at its weakest, after it has lost the election.

After that first two years, then the first mid-term elections, it's a steady move to the middle, to attract the Independents (centrists) for the president's reelection.

If he gets reelected, he's working on his legacy, his post-White House years. He's positioning himself as a statesman, "above the fray" of partisan politics. He's looking for his place on the world stage.

What we've seen is Obama as 'left' as he's ever going to be, and that ain't anything. With his readiness to cut Social Security at this stage in his presidency, what he'll be doing after another win should be bone-chilling to Democratic voters. Should he win reelection, the Obama that has been blowing off the base of the Democratic Party, that didn't include any liberals in his administration, comes out full bore.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Social Security Talk Is Turning Voters Off, Pollsters Say

Not only is he saying it, but Democratic leadership in Congress is saying it.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Social Security Talk Is Turning Voters Off, Pollsters Say

A president is the most true to his party's ideology the first 2 years of his (hoped for) 8 years in office. Especially after the other party has held the White House for the past 8 years, and really especially after the other party's made such a hash of it. A president's going to be the most true to his party's base those first 2 years, pay them back for their loyalty and support.

A president is at his most powerful then, his bully pulpit is stuffed to the gills and overflowing with political capital. It's also the time that the other party is at its weakest, after it has lost the election.

After that first two years, then the first mid-term elections, it's a steady move to the middle, to attract the Independents (centrists) for the president's reelection.

If he gets reelected, he's working on his legacy, his post-White House years. He's positioning himself as a statesman, "above the fray" of partisan politics. He's looking for his place on the world stage.

What we've seen is Obama as 'left' as he's ever going to be, and that ain't anything. With his readiness to cut Social Security at this stage in his presidency, what he'll be doing after another win should be bone-chilling to Democratic voters. Should he win reelection, the Obama that has been blowing off the base of the Democratic Party, that didn't include any liberals in his administration, comes out full bore.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Gabrielle Giffords Stands On Own Two Feet

Has the left side of her skull, removed to allow damage from her brain swelling, been replaced?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

John McCain Urges Obama To Select Joe Lieberman As Next Defense Secretary

"You do not see anywhere in my post that I claimed Obama was Liberal/Progressive."

========================================

My original comment said, "At this point, there is nothing that Obama could do to make me (or any liberal or progressive that I know) vote for him,".

gemini68 replied (as I'd expected people here who considered themselves liberals/progressives and intend to vote for Obama in 2012 would) by saying:

"I am Liberal and Progressive. I am also well-educated about the realities of the political process in Washington - so yes, I will be voting for Obama again. With no problem doing so."

You replied under gemini68's comment, "x2".

Implicit in my comment was that it was to and about liberals/progressives.

I'd expected that liberals/progressives who are intending to vote for Obama in 2012 would reply to my comment, and try to disabuse readers of my comment that it wasn't universal of all liberals/progressives.

So when you "x2"-ed gemini68's comment stating that he was a liberal/progressive who intends to vote for Obama, I assumed you were echoing the entire statement, not just parts of it.

I've responded about this already, and it's been past the mah-der-8-ers, but what isn't past the mah-der-8-ters is your reply to that response. I see it in my 'Social News Box', and you've got the remarks and their order confused. Your comment caused me to go back and read this remark by you, to see that you're arguing that Obama's not a liberal/progressive. Are you a liberal/progressive? I presumed you're not, for if you are, why would you vote for Obama?

The original comment was like saying, "Ok, this comment is just for liberals/progressives -- All others, it has nothing to do with you. You can obviously read it, but unless you state otherwise, if you reply the assumption is that you're a liberal/progressive."

So to straighten out this tangle of a thread-within-a-thread, what are you?
About John McCain
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

John McCain Urges Obama To Select Joe Lieberman As Next Defense Secretary

"If the election were tomorrow, whom would you think worthy of your vote?"

============================================

Many people.

But as none of them have announced as candidates, it's premature, irrelevant and counter-productive.
About John McCain
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

John McCain Urges Obama To Select Joe Lieberman As Next Defense Secretary

Are you a liberal/progressive?

My point isn't that Obama is liberal/progressive; it's that I as a liberal am not voting for Obama in 2012, nor is any liberal/progressive that I know.
About John McCain
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama: Jon Huntsman Would Be Great 'Asset' In Any GOP Primary

^ - More spin and more insults from you.

You haven't upset me. That seems to be a common habit/practice of people who post here, those who communicate as you do; presuming feelings for others, attributing motives to them. I suspect it's projection on your part to try to disarm others, given your predilection for lol-ing. What else could that be about, "lol"-ing every other thought, if not to try to project that you're above it all? And that being above it all is a better state that becoming upset.

I have no problem with being upset, and if and when I am upset I'll tell you that I'm upset. I own my feelings and my reactions and my behavior. I have no difficulty doing it. You don't and won't have to guess what my feelings are. I will say, "I'm angry/happy/sad/confused/upset/etc."

If you presumed/imagined you were having an adult conversation (and not trying to bully or jockey for some perceived advantage over your opponent in this argument) what kind of an adult insults people, perfect strangers yet, that they're talking politics with? How do you imagine that turns out well in any setting? Particularly after last week's event in Toosahn?

And that is what I was referring to when I mentioned Obama's call for civility, toning down the rhetoric -- How can you claim to be a supporter when you so dismiss the central core strategy for achieving his agenda?
About Elections 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

John McCain Urges Obama To Select Joe Lieberman As Next Defense Secretary

Obviously the fix is in at Aytch-P, and ma-der-8-ers don't want anything challenging your view of Obama's 'accomplishments' (now there's a euphemism for you) to see the light of day.

I'd expect this kind of screening in China, but not on a website like this is the US.
About John McCain
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

John McCain Urges Obama To Select Joe Lieberman As Next Defense Secretary

My response refuting your claims:

http://spintested.blogspot.com/2011/01/john-mccain-urges-obama-to-select-joe_9651.html
About John McCain
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

John McCain Urges Obama To Select Joe Lieberman As Next Defense Secretary

I guess you have your candidates to choose from.

Me, I don't vote for Republicans, no matter what the initial is after their name on the ballot.
About John McCain
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

John McCain Urges Obama To Select Joe Lieberman As Next Defense Secretary

What's amazing is that it's become impossible to have a non-abusive discussion (with links to facts from established mainstream news and government sources) on issues here.
About John McCain
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

John McCain Urges Obama To Select Joe Lieberman As Next Defense Secretary

My response(s) refuting your claims have been ma-der-8-ed. Several tries.

Even this comment informing you and with an alternative site location to read it, ma-der-8-ed.

I'm just now experimenting, retrying this comment in different ways, to see what word is the problem.
About John McCain
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

John McCain Urges Obama To Select Joe Lieberman As Next Defense Secretary

My reply refuting every claim you made has been mawderated.

You can read it at my mirror site.
About John McCain
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

John McCain Urges Obama To Select Joe Lieberman As Next Defense Secretary

My reply refuting every claim you made has been mawderated (eliminated).

It's shameful that in order to have free-flow communication, it seems we're all going to have to create alternative websites to display what Aytch-P won't allow here.

You can read it at my mirror site.
About John McCain
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

John McCain Urges Obama To Select Joe Lieberman As Next Defense Secretary

You do not see anywhere in my post that I claimed Obama was Liberal/Progressive.

=========================================

I clearly have too much time on my hands today, but here goes:

When you reply "x2" to the comment, "I am Liberal and Progressive. I am also well-educated about the realities of the political process in Washington - so yes, I will be voting for Obama again. With no problem doing so", how would anybody know you're not rubber-stamping every word as true for you, too, when you reply, "x2"?

For example, if you think I should not presume that you're everything that gemini68 said in his comment, what would I think you're "x2"ing? Why should I presume your "x2"ing means that it's only that you would vote for Obama?

Answer some questions for me, please?

How old are you?

What's your highest level of education?

Where (state/states) did you get your primary (k-12) education?

Please note, I'm not insulting you.
About John McCain
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama: Jon Huntsman Would Be Great 'Asset' In Any GOP Primary

"As I said you are a fake liberal and /or progressive"
==========================================

::SARCASM ALERT::

As a Nixon admirer, you're certainly the first person I'd consult for facts and accuracy.
About Elections 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama: Jon Huntsman Would Be Great 'Asset' In Any GOP Primary

patrickmcdougal 11 minutes ago (5:44 PM)

you miss quoted it.... since Richard Nixon,, not other than
and Nixon would be called a bleeding heart liberal into todays extreme right GOP
=====================================

No, that's not what Wayward meant, given his response to my reply.

Too bad you didn't wait before trying to rush to his aid. Or too bad that he didn't wait to see you try to rescue him and embrace your defense.

I'm not offering this as advice, but as an observation: It's generally better, healthier, to let people speak for themselves and you speak for yourself.
About Elections 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama: Jon Huntsman Would Be Great 'Asset' In Any GOP Primary

^ - More insults.

I'm beginning to think that you really don't know how to discuss and debate issues, ideas. Declaring them "ridiculous", calling people names, isn't discussing the issues. You're trying to bully people, and it's precisely what Obama claims caused the violins in Toosahn (not likely with a perpetrator who appears to be a skitsofrenic, but if you're buying Obama's show, you should be buying it in total).

How is it that Obama denounced SPalin and RUshLimbaugh for it, but not you and the rest of the 'most ardent admirers'?
About Elections 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama: Jon Huntsman Would Be Great 'Asset' In Any GOP Primary

^ - Here you go again.

How is this following your hero and role model Obama's call for 'civility'?
About Elections 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama: Jon Huntsman Would Be Great 'Asset' In Any GOP Primary

^ - And your friend christopherflynn, too.

You're a bad influence around here, Amondale.
About Elections 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama: Jon Huntsman Would Be Great 'Asset' In Any GOP Primary

^ - Here you are again, abusive, not discussing the issue, but insulting the commenter.
About Elections 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama: Jon Huntsman Would Be Great 'Asset' In Any GOP Primary

"At length" abusively, not discussing issues, but insults, name-calling, and lol-ing as if your oxygen mask is piped into a nitrous oxide tank.

Perhaps you don't know any better how to discuss and debate issues.
About Elections 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama: Jon Huntsman Would Be Great 'Asset' In Any GOP Primary

^ - Name-calling. Abusive.
About Elections 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

John McCain Urges Obama To Select Joe Lieberman As Next Defense Secretary

The Ledb#tter Act again? Ledb#tter was a done deal before Obama put his hand on the bible that Lincoln was sworn into office with in 1861. You should be mortified that Obama still has you holding LiIIy Ledb#tter up as the cornerstone of his achievements after 2 years in office, with Democrats controlling both Houses of Congress, and after blowing a filibuster-proof Senate.

There are no jobs, and the Obama administration admits there won't be for at least another decade, but if and when that happens, women will get equal pensions with men. This is why Obama has YOU talking about 'his accomplishments' instead of him and Democratic politicians -- They'd be sh0t down in 2 seconds flat.

Obama's healthcare & finance bills are only 'reform' in that both are massive giveaways to big business. The healthcare bill is part 2 of Bush's Medicare Reform Act, & doesn't do what voters put Obama & Democrats into power to achieve. Forcing the American taxpayer to pick up the tab for a few million more insurance policies (leaving millions without insurance still) is not getting affordable quality medical treatment for everyone. Having insurance does not mean you can afford medical care. Neither bill, healthcare or finance reform, move us in the right direction.

And Obama "took on BP"????????? Obama's MMS failed to regulate BP or any other of the oil companies drilling in the Gulf of Mexico or any US waters -- It can happen again in any moment, and there's no plan or equipment in place to save future waters when a blowout occurs. BP is going full speed ahead in sensitive waters off the shores of Alaska, the second biggest source of seafood for America.

Obama's leaving 50,000 PLUS combat-trained troops in Iraq. That's NOT leaving. When they're gone, then you can talk about it.

He didn't get unemployment for the 99ers. That was NOT in the tax cuts for the rich deal. That's no longer 'Bush's tax cuts for the rich', but Obama's tax cuts for the rich.

And DADT is not an Obama achievement -- He didn't do CHIT. The left pressuring Democrats has brought us to this point, where it's still not on the "ash heap of history".

And DOMA? ::crickets::
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

John McCain Urges Obama To Select Joe Lieberman As Next Defense Secretary

The Lilly Ledbetter Act again? Ledbetter was a done deal before Obama put his hand on the bible that Lincoln was sworn into office with in 1861. You should be mortified that Obama still has you holding Lilly Ledbetter up as the cornerstone of his achievements after 2 years in office, with Democrats controlling both Houses of Congress, and after blowing a filibuster-proof Senate.

There are no jobs, and the Obama administration admits there won't be for at least another decade, but if and when that happens, women will get equal pensions with men. This is why Obama has YOU talking about 'his accomplishments' instead of him and Democratic politicians -- They'd be sh0t down in 2 seconds flat.

Obama's healthcare & finance bills are only 'reform' in that both are massive giveaways to big business. The healthcare bill is part 2 of Bush's Medicare Reform Act, & doesn't do what voters put Obama & Democrats into power to achieve. Forcing the American taxpayer to pick up the tab for a few million more insurance policies (leaving millions without insurance still) is not getting affordable quality medical treatment for everyone. Having insurance does not mean you can afford medical care. Neither bill, healthcare or finance reform, move us in the right direction.

And Obama "took on BP"????????? Obama's MMS failed to regulate BP or any other of the oil companies drilling in the Gulf of Mexico or any US waters -- It can happen again in any moment, and there's no plan or equipment in place to save future waters when a blowout occurs. BP is going full speed ahead in sensitive waters off the shores of Alaska, the second biggest source of seafood for America.

Obama's leaving 50,000 PLUS combat-trained troops in Iraq. That's NOT leaving. When they're gone, then you can talk about it.

He didn't get unemployment for the 99ers. That was NOT in the tax cuts for the rich deal. That's no longer 'Bush's tax cuts for the rich', but Obama's tax cuts for the rich.

And DADT is not an Obama achievement -- He didn't do CHIT. The left pressuring Democrats has brought us to this point, where it's still not on the "ash heap of history".

And DOMA? ::crickets::
About John McCain
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama: Jon Huntsman Would Be Great 'Asset' In Any GOP Primary

Just about every comment you make is that old adage from law school:

"When the law is against you, argue the facts. When the facts are against you, argue the law. And when both are against you, attack the plaintiff."

And attacking commenters here is against Aytch-P policy.
About Elections 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama: Jon Huntsman Would Be Great 'Asset' In Any GOP Primary

"Obama has done more for progressives and liberals than any other President since Richard Nixon."

===========================================

Nixon was a Republican.
About Elections 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

John McCain Urges Obama To Select Joe Lieberman As Next Defense Secretary

List liberal/progressive positions Obama has taken.
About John McCain
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

John McCain Urges Obama To Select Joe Lieberman As Next Defense Secretary

As I don't know either of you and TopoGigo below you, I can easily doubt your liberal-/progressiveness.

You certainly can't have much, if any, commitment to liberal or progressive perspectives if you can vote for Obama. Not on ANY issue important to liberals or progressives.

If you claim otherwise, all it means is that you're ill-informed, ig-no-rant of the legislation that Obama and the DLC-controlled Democrats have passed.
About John McCain
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama: Jon Huntsman Would Be Great 'Asset' In Any GOP Primary

I'm so glad to see Obama's 'most ardent admirers' finally admitting that he's a moderate Republican and continuing the DLC's moving the Democratic Party to the right of the right-of-center, in order to attract moderate Republican politicians and their supporters (who can't gain any traction in the extreme-rightwing controlled Republican Party) into the Democratic Party. So that the DLC-controlled Democratic Party can "govern from the center, for a 100 years".

Welcome to the new Democratic Party...Just like the old (1950s) Republican Party.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama: Jon Huntsman Would Be Great 'Asset' In Any GOP Primary

The only non-Republican thing that Obama does is attack SPalin and RushLimbaugh, two people with no position in the Republican Party nor in elected office.

Obama continues just about all of the Bush-Cheney policies (and goes them even better), and new Republican-like legislation that he puts Frank Luntzian-revisionist spin to, selling it as Democratic or progressive when it's actually old Republican policies.

If I wanted Republican policies and legislation, I'd have voted for Republicans.

At this point, there is nothing that Obama could do to make me (or any liberal or progressive that I know) vote for him, so he might as well put Lieberman in his cabinet, and continue with the DLC plan to turn the Democratic Party into the old Republican Party of the 1950s.
About Elections 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

John McCain Urges Obama To Select Joe Lieberman As Next Defense Secretary

The only non-Republican thing that Obama does is attack SPalin and RushLimbaugh, two people with no position in the Republican Party nor in elected office.

Obama continues just about all of the Bush-Cheney policies (and goes them even better), and new Republican-like legislation that he puts Frank Luntzian-revisionist spin to, selling it as Democratic or progressive when it's actually old Republican policies.

If I wanted Republican policies and legislation, I'd have voted for Republicans.

At this point, there is nothing that Obama could do to make me (or any liberal or progressive that I know) vote for him, so he might as well put Lieberman in his cabinet, and continue with the DLC plan to turn the Democratic Party into the old Republican Party of the 1950s.
About John McCain
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Jennifer Lopez Threatened To Kill Ricky Gervais At Golden Globes

They also proztitooted their kids out to Gucci's new kids' line of clothing, and then tried to turn it into good press for themselves because Gucci is doing a tie-in with UNICEF.

Lopez and Marc Anthony are getting tax breaks out of it, they don't pay what they actually owe in taxes, and they've got the nerve to try to sell their trading on their children (and all of the children) as humanitarian, when in fact they're nothing but tax cheats. Their 'fair share' falls on the rest of us to pay, while they go off and live the high life.
About Golden Globes
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

If Obama Moves Right He Loses Everybody -- and Everybody Loses

The economy right after WWII was a different economy, with a different president. The Depression was over, the world had been destroyed, and the US was the only nation capable of financing the rebuilding. So, in effect, the post-WWII economy was FDR's economic plan on a worldwide scale. The US, under Democratic president Harry Truman, put the world to work.

Reagan RAISED taxes -- Shocking that Reagan's 'most ardent supporters' still don't know that, and were snookered by his spin doctors' simplistic revisionist rhetoric, "revenue enhancement". That's Frank Luntzian for "TAX INCREASE".

Gingrich had nothing to do with balancing the budget. Nor did any Republican. Not ONE of them, not one Republican, voted for Clinton's budget.

You're not an honest guy, rchham. Either that or if *d u m b* were dirt, you'd cover about an acre.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

If Obama Moves Right He Loses Everybody -- and Everybody Loses

The "Kennedy Tax Cuts" are the darlings of revisionist Republicans and pundits because they like to mislead people into thinking they were Republican-style Supply-Side/Trickle Down tax cuts that led to the economic expansion of the 1960s.

But they were not Supply-Side/Trickle Down tax cuts. They were Demand-Side tax cuts. The tax rate for the bottom bracket was cut by a greater percentage than the rate cut for the top bracket. That would be the antithesis of "Supply-Side" tax cuts.

By contrast, Reagan cut the top bracket by a much greater percentage than the bottom bracket and then, later, he raised the rate on the bottom bracket in order to make up for the dramatic shortfall in tax revenues due to his top marginal bracket rate cut. Those were Supply-Side tax cuts.

Although Kennedy did reduce the top marginal rate by to 71% from 91% and the lowest (non zero) rate from 20% to 14%, he didn't really reduce income taxes.

Because he also closed a lot of loopholes that allowed some taxpayers - mostly the very wealthy (the poor never get much use out of loopholes) the average effective tax rates on the very wealthy actually increased.

Kennedy's "cut" made the income tax more progressive - which means those at the bottom of the income totem pole got a greater benefit - precisely those most likely to spend their extra money in a way that stimulated the economy most efficiently. Kennedy's cut may look like supply side voodoo economics, but it was actually a classic Keynesian stimulus. Want proof?: Most Republicans voted against it.

What Republicans are actually up to with that revisionist history is they're trying to suggest no Democratic president other than Kennedy EVER cut taxes. Hogwash. All presidents cut taxes somewhere at some time. All of them. And all of them raise taxes somewhere at some time.

In fact, the current and previous two Democratic presidents, Obama, Clinton and Carter, cut taxes deeper and more effectively for the purposes of economic expansion and for more Americans than all the phoney-baloney marginal tax cuts demogogued and enacted by all the Republican presidents who ever walked into the White House.

Kennedy's tax cuts were extremely effective because the rates when he entered office were so high. The lowest marginal income tax rate was 20%, the highest was 91%. These remain the highest rates of tax ever in American history with the exception of the last two years of World War II.

The '63 tax cuts had a strong stimulative effect. Bush's cuts, by contrast didn't, because they started from such a low base. The theory of diminishing returns applies, apparently.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Rising Approval: Is Tucson Responsible?

I could only be described as "far left" to someone who is to the right of the right-of-center, i.e., a DLC Democrat and those to the right of the DLC.

I'm actually in the middle of the spectrum of political thought in this country. I'm in the 70% of Democratic voters, which includes the Democratic Party's base.

There are no "far left" in the Democratic Party -- They left the party a long time ago, and if they vote at all anymore, it's as Independents.

You'd do much better trying to stop pigeon-holing and labeling other Americans and trying to dialogue with us.

We on the left don't bite (unless bitten), and the nation ran a whole lot better when liberals were running the government. Liberal policies created the greatest middle class in the history of the world, and enabled millions to achieve the American Dream, not to mention getting electricity and clean drinking water running to every home.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Jennifer Lopez Threatened To Kill Ricky Gervais At Golden Globes

Jennifer Lopez and Marc Anthony, PAY YOUR TAX BILL!
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Rising Approval: Is Tucson Responsible?

I'm an old liberal Democrat. I'm not interested in Fox, nor in posting there. They are who they are.

As Aytch-P is what it is -- No better.

Both sites are promoting a perspective and doing what it can to prevent criticism to that perspective from being expressed. Aytch-P has decided to help advance the false idea that the event in Toosahn was the result of a charged atmosphere by SPalin and the Teeparty. To do that, to not allow readers to post how Obama's and Democrats' refusal to use the facts we know about Jared Lee and the bully pulpit to expand mend tal health services in this country and curtail the sale of wep ponds to the mend tally iII makes Aytch-P culpable, IMHO, for all future Toosahns.

This alternative spelling to avoid mawderashun is giving me a haddock.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Rising Approval: Is Tucson Responsible?

"Privately, Obama describes himself as a Blue Dog Democrat"

Blue Dog = (might as well be registered as a) Republican

There's nothing 'left' about Obama or his policies. He's continuing just about all of the Bush-Cheney policies. Republicans are lauding him! Cheney even! The line from Cheney this week, "I think he's learned that what we did was far more appropriate than he ever gave us credit for while he was a candidate. So I think he's learned from experience", is just amazing.

What could possibly have been kept secret for so long that could alter Obama's views? How could anyone be stupid as to believe that there is such a thing? If there were, then surely the best way to settle what little debate there now is would be to just tell the public. We have gone from a republican administration that payed little attention to terrorism until nein-heleven, using it as an excuse for everything, to a democratic administration that has its excuses already provided.

It is just pathetic that anyone would believe this non-sense.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Rising Approval: Is Tucson Responsible?

This government is run by corporations.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Rising Approval: Is Tucson Responsible?

If that was true, then perfectly non-abusive yet critical comments wouldn't be removed.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Rising Approval: Is Tucson Responsible?

That it reflects a fact and an opinion that differs from yours?
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Rising Approval: Is Tucson Responsible?

Those, too, are being removed. With nothing abusive about them. All complying with Aytch-P's posted comment policies.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Rising Approval: Is Tucson Responsible?

No.

Posts with absolutely no abusive talk are being removed.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Rising Approval: Is Tucson Responsible?

"I had no idea my posts on HP were so powerul....my my how easy it must be to manipulate a neocon"

===============================================

Yours aren't.

And I'm not talking about "manipulating" neocons. I'm talking about influencing Independents, the "mushy middle" that Obama is counting on to support his conservative, his Republican-like, his DINO (or more accurately, his neoliberal) policies.

Republican policies are what got us into the mess we're in, and Obama and the Democratic Party are controlled by the DLC (the Republican-wing of the Democratic Party).

Aytch-P is the most visited website of its type (political, news, commentary).

So yes, it is very influential among the group targeted by those trying to control the political instruments of this country.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Rising Approval: Is Tucson Responsible?

Do you have a link for that?
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Rising Approval: Is Tucson Responsible?

Obama's Rising Approval: Is Tucson Responsible?

Huvington Post helped by its mawderators sensuring thousands of posts since the trajity that helped Obama control the message and his image.

To think that if you want to get a comment published here you're going to have to spell like the pioneering Americans writing of their trek across the country to settle the west is the real story here.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Bomb Found On MLK Day Parade Route, Says FBI

Has anybody seen Michael Ledeen lately?

How about Roger Stone?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Dick Cheney: Obama Will Likely Be A One Term President

Of course the public acquiesced.

In 2006, when Nancy Pelosi took impeachmen t off the table, what did the public do?

In 2008, when Obama refused to investigat e and prosecute BushCo, what did the public do?

We're still there. Gitmo is still open. Obama is still renditioni ng and t0rturing. What's the public doing?

You don't put back into power the people who refuse to live up to their campaign promises, who don't use the power of the bully pulpit, who come up with one lame excuse after another to NOT do what the people wanted. But we do, so what's the message to Obama, Democrats and the military industrial complex? "The People will complain, but that's all".

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

© Blogger templates Newspaper by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP