#2016: the real Republican race
6019 Dead, 1162 since 1/20/09
2016: the real Republican race
The GOP field for a runner against Obama in 2012 is seriously
lacklustre. But that's because the real talent is sitting this one out
Paul Harris
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 10 May 2011 19.00 BST
Article history
Republican senator Marco Rubio celebrates at his victory party in
Coral Gables in Florida
Republican Senator Marco Rubio celebrates at his victory party in
Florida, November 2010. He is widely touted as a serious presidential
contender – for 2016. Photograph: Gary I Rothstein/EPA
Few people would say that the Republican nomination race is off to a
great start.
Last week's first debate in South Carolina only attracted one
candidate with a genuine chance of winning – in the shape of former
Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty. Two, if you count Texas maverick Ron
Paul. Yet neither Pawlenty or Paul shone. Instead, viewer reaction
overwhelmingly picked Herman Cain as the winner. Who? Well, yes,
precisely.
Cain is a Tea Party favourite who once ran Godfather's Pizza. He has a
nice line in anti-government soundbites and excellent comic timing. He
is also black, which is refreshing (and rare) in a Republican lineup.
But I can confidently predict that 2012 will not see the ushering in
of President "Pizza Guy".
Indeed, the South Carolina debate was most interesting for who was not
appearing. That included frontrunners like Mitt Romney and Mike
Huckabee, and outsider choices like Jon Huntsman, Newt Gingrich, Sarah
Palin and Michele Bachmann. Even Donald Trump, who is not shy of the
spotlight, failed to pitch up.
Which pretty much sums up the 2012 race so far: no one is setting
Republican pulses racing. That will not change when Gingrich –
hampered by his "colourful" personal life and lack of recent elected
office – officially jumps in to the fray on Wednesday. Of course,
eventually this will change. The nature of the two party system in the
US means the Republicans will choose someone, rally behind them and
elevate them onto a national pedestal. That person will then have a
genuine shot at becoming the next occupant of the Oval Office. But, it
is transparently clear, Republican bigwigs do not think it is going to
be easy.
So, with a wary understanding that this is massively jumping the gun,
it is interesting to look beyond 2012 and survey the potential
Republican field for 2016. Certainly, many Republican activists and
bloggers are doing just that, hedging a bet that the next Republican
president will not be someone who runs in 2012, but will instead
emerge from the party once Obama has stood down after two terms. It is
a fascinating exercise and, at first glance, Republican prospects for
2016 look far better than the current class of 2012. In a party that
now looks short on inspiration, there is a crop of young figures
coming through, who, by 2016, will have a track record to run on.
One might not agree with his ideas, but Wisconsin congressman Paul
Ryan is a rising star. He is under attack at the moment for his
Medicare plans, but Ryan is a young, attractive, aggressive politician
with a solid support base. His name will be up there in 2016.
Then, there is Florida Senator Marco Rubio. A star of the Tea Party
and a refreshing example of Hispanic presence in a party that is too
lily-white, Rubio is often painted as a "Hispanic Republican Obama".
Whatever the merits of that labelling, it is enough to make him
someone to watch and more interesting than the entire crop of 2012.
There is also Chris Christie, the rotund but combative and politically
impressive governor of New Jersey. Hardly a week goes by without
someone imploring Christie to run in 2012. He shows no sign of doing
so – and that says a lot about his political skills and the paucity of
the 2012 race. For him, like the others, 2016 could be the main
chance.
Then, there is Mitch Daniels, the Indiana governor. Currently,
Republican leaders like House speaker John Boehner are trying to nudge
him into 2012. If he is wise, he will take a leaf out of Christie's
book and duck this fight for the one four years down the road.
Finally, there is former Florida Governor Jeb Bush. Yes, his last name
still packs a mighty sting to many Americans; but on paper, he is
formidable. He is popular in a key battleground state, well-liked by
conservatives, yet not terrifying to centrists, and with his Hispanic
wife and fluency in Spanish, his personal story would take the
Republican party in the right demographic direction. Perhaps, by 2016,
he will figure he can at last take a shot at the presidency.
The return of the house of Bush? The 2016 race already looks much,
much more fun than 2012.
--
Not dead, in jail or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Read my essays at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/zepps_essays/
--
"So called payroll taxes aren't taxes at all" -- Steve Canyon, trying to explain
why millionaires don't actually pay less taxes than median income families.
Phlip
> much more fun than 2012.
Imagine if, by that time, we have no wars, cheap gas, secure health
care, lots of jobs, light rail, and all the other things the GOP keeps
filibustering.
Oh, yeah, and stronger education systems.
Richard Steel
And flying cars and jet packs.
The key operative word is "imagine"....because Obama and the Democrats
have produced an unending string of disasters.
6019 Dead, 1162 since 1/20/09
This from the clown who worships George W. Bush as a god.
6019 Dead, 1162 since 1/20/09
This from the clown who worships George W. Bush as a god.
Richard Steel
wrote:
Of course, I never did any such thing. It's the Left who worship
Obama as a Messiah - literally.
But then, anything to turn attention away from Obama's endless string
of disasters, eh?
Tag Heuer
Hm. It is highly likely: 1) the disclosure of President Obama's
long-form State of Hawaii birth certificate, could be one, 2) the
un-forseen sudden drop in the price of crude oil, or 3) the
un-expected numbers involving jobs, or even 4) the hideous and growing
number of GOP/Republican candidates for 2012, and or perhaps 5) the
ridding of Osama bin Laden, the arch-terrorist and leader of Al Qaeda
from the world was the most devastating, and un-mitigated "disaster"
to YOU.
Pls. don't 'turn' away ... Just which one is it?
Phlip
> On May 10, 12:20 pm, Phlip <phlip2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > The return of the house of Bush? The 2016 race already looks much,
> > > much more fun than 2012.
> > Imagine if, by that time, we have no wars, cheap gas, secure health
> > care, lots of jobs, light rail, and all the other things the GOP keeps
> > filibustering.
> > Oh, yeah, and stronger education systems.
>
> And flying cars and jet packs.
No, just the stuff Europeans take for granted.
Oh, sorry, I forgot - you imagine Europe is some kind of socialist
hell hole...
6019 Dead, 1162 since 1/20/09
Oh, please, you swooned and wet yourself at the sight of "Jet fighter
George".
Richard Steel
> On Tue, 10 May 2011 13:25:41 -0700 (PDT), Richard Steel
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <rsteel2...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On May 10, 1:16 pm, "6019 Dead, 1162 since 1/20/09" <d...@gone.com>
> >wrote:
> >> On Tue, 10 May 2011 12:27:04 -0700, Richard Steel wrote:
> >> > On May 10, 12:20 pm, Phlip <phlip2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > The return of the house of Bush? The 2016 race already looks much,
> >> >> > much more fun than 2012.
>
> >> >> Imagine if, by that time, we have no wars, cheap gas, secure health
> >> >> care, lots of jobs, light rail, and all the other things the GOP keeps
> >> >> filibustering.
>
> >> >> Oh, yeah, and stronger education systems.
>
> >> > And flying cars and jet packs.
>
> >> > The key operative word is "imagine"....because Obama and the Democrats
> >> > have produced an unending string of disasters.
>
> >> This from the clown who worships George W. Bush as a god.
> >Of course, I never did any such thing. It's the Left who worship
> >Obama as a Messiah - literally.
> >But then, anything to turn attention away from Obama's endless string
> >of disasters, eh?
>
> Hm. It is highly likely:
Keep telling yourself that.
> 1) the disclosure of President Obama's
> long-form State of Hawaii birth certificate, could be one,
Actually, what that accomplished was to take out Donald Trump, the
biggest threat the Republicans faced. It doesn't look like The Donald
is going to be this generation's Ross Periot. Damn.
20 years ago, Democrats saw Ross Periot for what he was - a gift.
They did everything they could to build up Ross - he was practically a
co-host on the Larry King Show. Virtually every sentence on the man
began with "I don't agree with much of what he say, but at last
there's a Republican we can respect...." blah blah blah.
Happily, this generation of Democrat just couldn't keep it in their
pants. They've destroy The Donald's poloitcal career before he had a
chance to run as a third party candidate, and win close states for
Obama. Thank you for being short sighted.
> 2) the
> un-forseen sudden drop in the price of crude oil, or
Oil rose 1.3% TODAY alone. Crude still tops 100 dollars a barrel
(currently at 103 and change), a disastrously high amount. The
"sudden drop" was an emotional reaction to Osama's new career as fish
food, and is currently approaching previous highs. Obama, of course,
still refuses to allow much of America drilling. Not to worry - we
have magic windmills to take up the slack. Annnnnnnnnnnnnnyyyyyyy day
now.
> 3) the
> un-expected numbers involving jobs,
You mean when it went from 8.8% to 9%? Sure, we've had a "flood" of
new jobs - 50,000 of them from McDonalds. The ONLY reason
unemployment is in single digits is because people who have given up
looking for work aren't counted. Now, Obama may use smoke and mirrors
to make part time temp work count as employed, but the ugly truth is
that America is in a de-facto depression. A fat 37% of Americans
believe Obama's doing an acceptable job with the economy, and this
comes from NBC (of MS/NBC fame) that skews heavily to the Left:
After “best week ever” only 37% approve of Obama on economy
By: Conn Carroll 05/10/11 10:02 AM
Yesterday, NBC’s First Read described Obama’s “last seven days” as
“his best week — politically — since his inauguration.” Later that
day, NBC released their latest poll and the the results can only be
interpreted as discouraging for the White House.
Yes, Obama’s overall approval rating was up to 52% from 49% a month
ago. But that is even lower than the 53% he scored after extending the
Bush tax last December. More troubling for the White House, only 37%
of adults approve of Obama’s handling of the economy. That is his
lowest rating ever in the NBC poll. Also of note, the percentage of
adults believing the economy will get worse is up 4 points to 25%. A
plurality, 43% believe the economy will stay about the same.
So, you're popping buttons over the thought that (at most) 37%
approval for the economy? During the best week of his presidency?
(snicker)
> or even 4) the hideous and growing
> number of GOP/Republican candidates for 2012,
With the exception of RINO Donald Trump, (whose political career has
been very nicely destroyed thank you very much) every single
Republican running is FAR more qualified to be President than when
Obama ran...or, indeed, today.
How seriously was OBAMA taken four years ago today? How about Bill
Clinton 20 years ago today?
5) the
> ridding of Osama bin Laden, the arch-terrorist and leader of Al Qaeda
> from the world was the most devastating, and un-mitigated "disaster"
> to YOU.
Yeah, about that - Obama's ONLY clear cut, grand slam homer came
from....extending and super-sizing the Bush Doctrine? Obama's going
to remind the American people that, damn it, water-boarding WORKS?
How will the far left react to Barry crowing over ordering Navy Seals
to murder an unarmed man in front of his family? Or the Right when
they consider the short shift Bush was given for putting everything in
place?
Yet another golden opportunity Obama's blown to Hell. All he had to
do was thank George Bush publicly for taking the blows and making this
day possible, and Barry would have instantly recaptured the center -
even some conservatives.
Instead, he hogs all the credit for himself, and wonders why President
Bush refused to be a prop at the Barry Spikes the Ball In The End Zone
Egomaniac celebration.
> Pls. don't 'turn' away ...
I didn't - I had a delightful time tearing each of your paper dragons
to shreds.
> Just which one is it?
Mind you, the above examples were Obama's STRONG POINTS. Want to talk
about the trillions of deficit spending? How he's losing the Hispanic
vote? Hell, he's down 11 points with the blacks. The fact that, this
time around, Obama's got a record to defend? ObamaCare?
Of course, 18 months is an eternity in politics, and anything can
happy - but I've seen nothing about Obama that makes in invulnerable.
Or even an effective candidate.
Richard Steel
> On May 10, 12:27 pm, Richard Steel <rsteel2...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 10, 12:20 pm, Phlip <phlip2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > The return of the house of Bush? The 2016 race already looks much,
> > > > much more fun than 2012.
> > > Imagine if, by that time, we have no wars, cheap gas, secure health
> > > care, lots of jobs, light rail, and all the other things the GOP keeps
> > > filibustering.
> > > Oh, yeah, and stronger education systems.
> > And flying cars and jet packs.
> No, just the stuff Europeans take for granted.
And are rejecting.
> Oh, sorry, I forgot - you imagine Europe is some kind of socialist
> hell hole...
How did the Canadian elections turn out last week? Europe is turning
to the right.
6019 Dead, 1162 since 1/20/09
gosh, I had no idea Canada was in Europe. Is Mexico in Asia?
Let's see: in that election, the Conservatives got a majority in
Parliament, mostly because moderates in Ontario voted C instead of
Liberal.
However, the rest of the country veered sharply left, with the result
that the new Opposition Party is the NDP.
The Conservatives wound up with 40% of the aggregate vote, and the NDP
31%. So even though the Conservatives have Parliament, antipathy
toward them is building among most Canadians.
Tag Heuer
<rstee...@aol.com> wrote:
>>On Tue, 10 May 2011 13:57:24 -0700, Tag Heuer <tagheu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 10 May 2011 13:25:41 -0700 (PDT), Richard Steel <rstee...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>But then, anything to turn attention away from Obama's endless string
>>>of disasters, eh?
>>Hm. It is highly likely: 1) the disclosure of President Obama's
>>long-form State of Hawaii birth certificate, could be one, 2) the
>>un-forseen sudden drop in the price of crude oil, or 3) the
>>un-expected numbers involving jobs, or even 4) the hideous and growing
>>number of GOP/Republican candidates for 2012, and or perhaps 5) the
>>ridding of Osama bin Laden, the arch-terrorist and leader of Al Qaeda
>>from the world was the most devastating, and un-mitigated "disaster"
>>to YOU.
>>Pls. don't 'turn' away ... Just which one is it?
>Keep telling yourself that. Actually, what that accomplished was to take out
>Donald Trump, the biggest threat the Republicans faced. It doesn't look like
>The Donald is going to be this generation's Ross Periot. Damn.
>20 years ago, Democrats saw Ross Periot for what he was - a gift.
>They did everything they could to build up Ross - he was practically a
>co-host on the Larry King Show. Virtually every sentence on the man
>began with "I don't agree with much of what he say, but at last
>there's a Republican we can respect...." blah blah blah. Happily, this generation
>of Democrat just couldn't keep it in their pants. They've destroy The Donald's
>poloitcal career before he had a chance to run as a third party candidate,
>and win close states for Obama. Thank you for being short sighted.
>Oil rose 1.3% TODAY alone. Crude still tops 100 dollars a barrel
>(currently at 103 and change), a disastrously high amount. The
>"sudden drop" was an emotional reaction to Osama's new career as fish
>food, and is currently approaching previous highs. Obama, of course,
>still refuses to allow much of America drilling. Not to worry - we
>have magic windmills to take up the slack. Annnnnnnnnnnnnnyyyyyyy day
>now. http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/05/
>after-best-week-ever-only-37-approve-obama-economy You mean when
>it went from 8.8% to 9%? Sure, we've had a "flood" of new jobs - 50,000
>of them from McDonalds. The ONLY reason unemployment is in single digits
>is because people who have given up looking for work aren't counted. Now,
>Obama may use smoke and mirrors to make part time temp work count as
>employed, but the ugly truth is that America is in a de-facto depression. A
>fat 37% of Americans believe Obama's doing an acceptable job with the
>economy, and this comes from NBC (of MS/NBC fame) that skews heavily
>to the Left: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011
>/05/after-best-week-ever-only-37-approve-obama-economy After “best week ever”
>only 37% approve of Obama on economy By: Conn Carroll 05/10/11 10:02 AM
>Yesterday, NBC’s First Read described Obama’s “last seven days” as
>“his best week — politically — since his inauguration.” Later that
>day, NBC released their latest poll and the the results can only be
>interpreted as discouraging for the White House. Yes, Obama’s overall approval
>rating was up to 52% from 49% a month ago. But that is even lower than the 53%
>he scored after extending the Bush tax last December. More troubling for the White
>House, only 37% of adults approve of Obama’s handling of the economy. That is his
>lowest rating ever in the NBC poll. Also of note, the percentage of adults believing
>the economy will get worse is up 4 points to 25%. A plurality, 43% believe the
>economy will stay about the same. So, you're popping buttons over the thought
>that (at most) 37% approval for the economy? During the best week of his
>presidency? (snicker) With the exception of RINO Donald Trump, (whose political
>career has been very nicely destroyed thank you very much) every single
>Republican running is FAR more qualified to be President than when Obama ran
>...or, indeed, today. How seriously was OBAMA taken four years ago today? How
>about Bill Clinton 20 years ago today? Yeah, about that - Obama's ONLY clear cut,
>grand slam homer came from....extending and super-sizing the Bush Doctrine?
>Obama's going to remind the American people that, damn it, water-boarding
>WORKS? How will the far left react to Barry crowing over ordering Navy Seals
>to murder an unarmed man in front of his family? Or the Right when
>they consider the short shift Bush was given for putting everything in
>place? Yet another golden opportunity Obama's blown to Hell. All he had to
>do was thank George Bush publicly for taking the blows and making this
>day possible, and Barry would have instantly recaptured the center -
>even some conservatives. Instead, he hogs all the credit for himself, and
>wonders why President Bush refused to be a prop at the Barry Spikes the Ball
>In The End Zone Egomaniac celebration. I didn't - I had a delightful time tearing
>each of your paper dragons to shreds. Mind you, the above examples were Obama's
>STRONG POINTS. Want to talk about the trillions of deficit spending? How he's
>losing the Hispanic vote? Hell, he's down 11 points with the blacks. The fact that,
>this time around, Obama's got a record to defend? ObamaCare? Of course, 18
>months is an eternity in politics, and anything can happy - but I've seen nothing
>about Obama that makes in invulnerable. Or even an effective candidate.
Damn, can't you answer a simple question? Which one and spare me Bill
Clinton, The Bush Doctrine and your vacillating hyperbole in polling
percentages, because it only comes across as nothing short of utter
and unmitigated and unsubstantiated subjective partisan turd - I'll
give you just one more chance ... name just one "disaster."
-
"So much love, and also so much information ..." - Greg Fokker, Meet
The Parents.
Richard Steel
> Damn, can't you answer a simple question?
I did. In fact, I tore your "arguments" into little, tiny pieces.
> Which one and spare me Bill
> Clinton, The Bush Doctrine and your vacillating hyperbole in polling
> percentages, because it only comes across as nothing short of utter
> and unmitigated and unsubstantiated subjective partisan turd - I'll
> give you just one more chance ... name just one "disaster."
Here you go - chock on it,. loser.
> 1) the disclosure of President Obama's
> long-form State of Hawaii birth certificate, could be one,
Actually, what that accomplished was to take out Donald Trump, the
biggest threat the Republicans faced. It doesn't look like The
Donald
is going to be this generation's Ross Periot. Damn.
20 years ago, Democrats saw Ross Periot for what he was - a gift.
They did everything they could to build up Ross - he was practically
a
co-host on the Larry King Show. Virtually every sentence on the man
began with "I don't agree with much of what he say, but at last
there's a Republican we can respect...." blah blah blah.
Happily, this generation of Democrat just couldn't keep it in their
pants. They've destroy The Donald's poloitcal career before he had a
chance to run as a third party candidate, and win close states for
Obama. Thank you for being short sighted.
> 2) the
> un-forseen sudden drop in the price of crude oil, or
Oil rose 1.3% TODAY alone. Crude still tops 100 dollars a barrel
(currently at 103 and change), a disastrously high amount. The
"sudden drop" was an emotional reaction to Osama's new career as fish
food, and is currently approaching previous highs. Obama, of course,
still refuses to allow much of America drilling. Not to worry - we
have magic windmills to take up the slack. Annnnnnnnnnnnnnyyyyyyy
day
now.
> 3) the
> un-expected numbers involving jobs,
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/05/afte...
You mean when it went from 8.8% to 9%? Sure, we've had a "flood" of
new jobs - 50,000 of them from McDonalds. The ONLY reason
unemployment is in single digits is because people who have given up
looking for work aren't counted. Now, Obama may use smoke and
mirrors
to make part time temp work count as employed, but the ugly truth is
that America is in a de-facto depression. A fat 37% of Americans
believe Obama's doing an acceptable job with the economy, and this
comes from NBC (of MS/NBC fame) that skews heavily to the Left:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/05/afte...
After “best week ever” only 37% approve of Obama on economy
By: Conn Carroll 05/10/11 10:02 AM
Yesterday, NBC’s First Read described Obama’s “last seven days” as
“his best week — politically — since his inauguration.” Later that
day, NBC released their latest poll and the the results can only be
interpreted as discouraging for the White House.
Yes, Obama’s overall approval rating was up to 52% from 49% a month
ago. But that is even lower than the 53% he scored after extending
the
Bush tax last December. More troubling for the White House, only 37%
of adults approve of Obama’s handling of the economy. That is his
lowest rating ever in the NBC poll. Also of note, the percentage of
adults believing the economy will get worse is up 4 points to 25%. A
plurality, 43% believe the economy will stay about the same.
So, you're popping buttons over the thought that (at most) 37%
approval for the economy? During the best week of his presidency?
(snicker)
> or even 4) the hideous and growing
> number of GOP/Republican candidates for 2012,
With the exception of RINO Donald Trump, (whose political career has
been very nicely destroyed thank you very much) every single
Republican running is FAR more qualified to be President than when
Obama ran...or, indeed, today.
How seriously was OBAMA taken four years ago today? How about Bill
Clinton 20 years ago today?
5) the
> ridding of Osama bin Laden, the arch-terrorist and leader of Al Qaeda
> from the world was the most devastating, and un-mitigated "disaster"
> to YOU.
Yeah, about that - Obama's ONLY clear cut, grand slam homer came
from....extending and super-sizing the Bush Doctrine? Obama's going
to remind the American people that, damn it, water-boarding WORKS?
How will the far left react to Barry crowing over ordering Navy Seals
to murder an unarmed man in front of his family? Or the Right when
they consider the short shift Bush was given for putting everything
in
place?
Yet another golden opportunity Obama's blown to Hell. All he had to
do was thank George Bush publicly for taking the blows and making
this
day possible, and Barry would have instantly recaptured the center -
even some conservatives.
Instead, he hogs all the credit for himself, and wonders why
President
Bush refused to be a prop at the Barry Spikes the Ball In The End
Zone
Egomaniac celebration.
> Pls. don't 'turn' away ...
I didn't - I had a delightful time tearing each of your paper dragons
to shreds.
> Just which one is it?
Mind you, the above examples were Obama's STRONG POINTS. Want to
Richard Steel
> >20 years ago, Democrats saw Ross Periot for what he was - a gift.
> "Joke" is not spelled "gift"
You're not a clever person.
Richard Steel
"I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the
world, he’s sort of God."
Evan Thomas
Newsweek Editor
"Why Barack Obama represents American Catholics better than the pope
does." (BTW, note that the word "Pope" was spelled with a small "P".)
Kathleen Kennedy Townsend
Newsweek Editor
"Many even see in Obama a messiah-like figure, a great soul, and some
affectionately call him Mahatma Obama."
Dinesh Sharma
"We just like to say his name. We are considering taking it as a
mantra."
Chicago Sun-Times
""It's going to be before Obama, 'B.B.,' and after Obama—'A.B.'"
Spike Lee
“I cried all night. I’m going to be crying for the next four years,”
he said. “What Barack Obama has accomplished is the single most
extraordinary event that has occurred in the 232 years of the nation’s
political history. ... The event itself is so extraordinary that
another chapter could be added to the Bible to chronicle its
significance.”
Jesse Jackson, Jr.
"Does it not feel as if some special hand is guiding Obama on his
journey, I mean, as he has said, the utter improbability of it all?"
Daily Kos
"He communicates God-like energy..."
teve Davis (Charleston, SC)
"Not just an ordinary human being but indeed an Advanced Soul"
Commentator Chicago Sun Times
"I'll do whatever he says to do. I'll collect paper cups off the
ground to make his pathway clear."
Halle Berry
"Obama was working for a group of churches that were concerned about
their parishioners,... It was, dare I say it, the Lord’s work–the sort
of mission Jesus preached'
Joe Klien
Time Magazine
Richard Steel
"I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the
Richard Steel
wrote:
> On Tue, 10 May 2011 16:35:54 -0700 (PDT), Richard Steel
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On May 10, 2:36 pm, Phlip <phlip2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On May 10, 12:27 pm, Richard Steel <rsteel2...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On May 10, 12:20 pm, Phlip <phlip2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > > The return of the house of Bush? The 2016 race already looks much,
> >> > > > much more fun than 2012.
> >> > > Imagine if, by that time, we have no wars, cheap gas, secure health
> >> > > care, lots of jobs, light rail, and all the other things the GOP keeps
> >> > > filibustering.
> >> > > Oh, yeah, and stronger education systems.
>
> >> > And flying cars and jet packs.
>
> >> No, just the stuff Europeans take for granted.
>
> >And are rejecting.
>
> >> Oh, sorry, I forgot - you imagine Europe is some kind of socialist
> >> hell hole...
>
> >How did the Canadian elections turn out last week? Europe is turning
> >to the right.
>
> gosh, I had no idea Canada was in Europe.
I never said it was. I simply asked a question.
> Let's see: in that election, the Conservatives got a majority in
> Parliament, mostly because moderates in Ontario voted C instead of
> Liberal.
>
> However, the rest of the country veered sharply left, with the result
> that the new Opposition Party is the NDP.
>
> The Conservatives wound up with 40% of the aggregate vote, and the NDP
> 31%. So even though the Conservatives have Parliament, antipathy
> toward them is building among most Canadians.
Canada and Europe are turning to the right. America is turning to the
right.
Deal with it.
6019 Dead, 1162 since 1/20/09
Gee, the only reason Conservatives got more seats was because the NDP
took so many votes from the Liberals. Converatives had the same number
of votes, but the rest of Canada--some 60% of voters--went left of the
Liberals.
Imagine that.
Bozo, you couldn't find Canada walking north from North Dakota. Don't
try to analyze Canadian elections.
Richard Steel
wrote:
It doesn't count that Canada has turned to the right, it doesn't count
that Europe turned to the right, it doesn't count that the Democrats
lost 70 Congressional Seats. It doesn't count that Ted Kennedy's old
seat went Republican. It doesn't count that Obama's numbers are in
the tank. It doesn't count that de facto unemployment is 20%. It
doesn't matter that Americans hate Obamacare. It doesn't matter that
the deficit has increased a tenfold since the Democrats won in 2006.
It doesn't matter that we're still in Iraq and Afghan, or that Gitmo
is still open, or that we're shipping terrorists to Poland to be
tortured, or that Obama's expanded the Patriot Act. It doesn't matter
that gas prices are heading towards $6.00 a gallon. It doesn't matter
that the Democrats are trying to shut down dissent.
Nothing matters but your fat, bloated ego - desperate to convince
itself that you are the smartest guy in the room.
Tag Heuer
<rstee...@aol.com> wrote:
>>On Tue, 10 May 2011 18:59:29 -0700, Tag Heuer <tagheu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 10 May 2011 16:33:43 -0700 (PDT), Richard Steel <rstee...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>On Tue, 10 May 2011 13:57:24 -0700, Tag Heuer <tagheu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>On Tue, 10 May 2011 13:25:41 -0700 (PDT), Richard Steel <rstee...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>But then, anything to turn attention away from Obama's endless string
>>>>>of disasters, eh?
>>>>Hm. It is highly likely: 1) the disclosure of President Obama's
>>>>long-form State of Hawaii birth certificate, could be one, 2) the
>>>>un-forseen sudden drop in the price of crude oil, or 3) the
>>>>un-expected numbers involving jobs, or even 4) the hideous and growing
>>>>number of GOP/Republican candidates for 2012, and or perhaps 5) the
>>>>ridding of Osama bin Laden, the arch-terrorist and leader of Al Qaeda
>>>>from the world was the most devastating, and un-mitigated "disaster"
>>>>to YOU.
>
>>>>Pls. don't 'turn' away ... Just which one is it?
>>>Keep telling yourself that. Actually, what that accomplished was to take out
>>>Donald Trump, the biggest threat the Republicans faced. It doesn't look like
>>>The Donald is going to be this generation's Ross Periot. Damn.
8< snip - refer to the regurgitation thereof below >8
>>Damn, can't you answer a simple question? Which one and spare me Bill
>>Clinton, The Bush Doctrine and your vacillating hyperbole in polling
>>percentages, because it only comes across as nothing short of utter
>>and unmitigated and unsubstantiated subjective partisan turd - I'll
>>give you just one more chance ... name just one "disaster."
>I did. In fact, I tore your "arguments" into little, tiny pieces. Here you go - chock
>on it,. loser. Actually, what that accomplished was to take out Donald Trump, the
>biggest threat the Republicans faced. It doesn't look like The Donald is going to be
>this generation's Ross Periot. Damn. 20 years ago, Democrats saw Ross Periot for
>what he was - a gift. They did everything they could to build up Ross - he was practically
>a co-host on the Larry King Show. Virtually every sentence on the man began with
>"I don't agree with much of what he say, but at last there's a Republican we can respect...."
>blah blah blah. Happily, this generation of Democrat just couldn't keep it in their
>pants. They've destroy The Donald's poloitcal career before he had a chance to run as
>a third party candidate, and win close states for Obama. Thank you for being short sighted.
>Oil rose 1.3% TODAY alone. Crude still tops 100 dollars a barrel (currently at 103 and
>change), a disastrously high amount. The "sudden drop" was an emotional reaction to
>Osama's new career as fish food, and is currently approaching previous highs. Obama,
>of course, still refuses to allow much of America drilling. Not to worry - we have magic
>windmills to take up the slack. Annnnnnnnnnnnnnyyyyyyy day now. http://washington
>examiner.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/05/afte... You mean when it went from
>8.8% to 9%? Sure, we've had a "flood" of new jobs - 50,000 of them from McDonalds.
>The ONLY reason unemployment is in single digits is because people who have given up
>looking for work aren't counted. Now, Obama may use smoke and mirrors to make part
>time temp work count as employed, but the ugly truth is that America is in a de-facto depression.
>A fat 37% of Americans believe Obama's doing an acceptable job with the economy, and this
>comes from NBC (of MS/NBC fame) that skews heavily to the Left: http://washingtonexa
>miner.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/05/afte... After “best week ever” only 37%
>approve of Obama on economy By: Conn Carroll 05/10/11 10:02 AM Yesterday, NBC’s First
>Read described Obama’s “last seven days” as “his best week — politically — since his
>inauguration.” Later that day, NBC released their latest poll and the the results can only be
>interpreted as discouraging for the White House. Yes, Obama’s overall approval rating
>was up to 52% from 49% a month ago. But that is even lower than the 53% he scored
>after extending the Bush tax last December. More troubling for the White House, only 37%
>of adults approve of Obama’s handling of the economy. That is his lowest rating ever in
>the NBC poll. Also of note, the percentage of adults believing the economy will get worse
>is up 4 points to 25%. A plurality, 43% believe the economy will stay about the same.
>So, you're popping buttons over the thought that (at most) 37% approval for the economy?
>During the best week of his presidency? (snicker) or even 4) the hideous and growing
>> number of GOP/Republican candidates for 2012, With the exception of RINO Donald Trump,
>(whose political career has been very nicely destroyed thank you very much) every single
>Republican running is FAR more qualified to be President than when Obama ran...or, indeed,
>today. How seriously was OBAMA taken four years ago today? How about Bill Clinton 20
>years ago today? Yeah, about that - Obama's ONLY clear cut, grand slam homer came
>from....extending and super-sizing the Bush Doctrine? Obama's going to remind the American
>people that, damn it, water-boarding WORKS? How will the far left react to Barry crowing over
>ordering Navy Seals to murder an unarmed man in front of his family? Or the Right when
>they consider the short shift Bush was given for putting everything in place? Yet another golden
>opportunity Obama's blown to Hell. All he had to do was thank George Bush publicly for taking
>the blows and making this day possible, and Barry would have instantly recaptured the center -
>even some conservatives. Instead, he hogs all the credit for himself, and wonders why President
>Bush refused to be a prop at the Barry Spikes the Ball In The End Zone Egomaniac celebration.
>I didn't - I had a delightful time tearing each of your paper dragons to shreds. Mind you, the
>above examples were Obama's STRONG POINTS. Want to talk about the trillions of deficit spending?
>How he's losing the Hispanic vote? Hell, he's down 11 points with the blacks. The fact that,
>this time around, Obama's got a record to defend? ObamaCare? Of course, 18 months is an
>eternity in politics, and anything can happy - but I've seen nothing about Obama that makes in
>invulnerable. Or even an effective candidate.
Are you daft? Or dense, or both? This rebut is so convoluted I don't
even know where to begin since I'm LMAO over your inablity to
coherently form and compose a rebut to a simple question. First of
all Perot was a "disaster" to the REPUBLICANS with regard to the 1992
election, and nowhere near what can be construed as a -disaster- by
the Obama administration - But where a Trumped-up-bankrupt-kook-like
candidacy may repeat this if "The Donald" splits the ticket and goes
Independent; see what the GOP elite does in the coming weeks or months
to insure this since the Republican party is in such disarray with
regard to who they want to send up there to duke it out with a
President who has proven that he possesses the ability, "to git 'er
dun."
Second of all the price of crude rose sharply during the Bush
administration and over the course of the war in Iraq. Moreover, look
at this graph - cit. http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1947.gif
Oil began it's steady rise under Bush's first term and throughout and
skyrocked in his 2nd until it spiked in the last Recession ... Look at
the years before Bush ... LOOK AT IT! - And even under Clinton's two
and Bush's father's term. And for you to call it a -disaster- by the
Obama administration is just idiotic. In fact, and like the economy
that he was trying to keep from going over the cliff, this matter over
the price of crude is a continuing battle he inherited.
Third, and in terms of subjective polling numbers is not an true
indicator of where the economy is, or where it is going - objective
analysis and study which is atmospheres above you are. The fact of
the matter in that the economy is recovering, but not as fast as
people like you would want it, only serves to underscore just how
close the Bush administration came to destroying it and into a 2nd
Depression. Furthermore, to call the current state of the economy a
-disaster- by the Obama administration is nothing but convenient
scapegoating by those whose ignorance in and of this 'disaster.' Just
like in the Wall Street crash of 1929 to the 'Great Depression,' which
was a bonafide -disaster-, and of which was attributed to a Republican
president and that administrations' psychotic fiscal and economic
policies, it took a Democrat (FDR) to fix it. Live with it, since
American history is repeating itself.
Fourth, to psychotically laud and accept and extol the torture of
prisoners, under the Geneva convention, and in a deranged effort to
credit George Bush in the killing of Osama bin Laden is not a
-disaster- that one can intelligently attribute to the Obama
administration. In fact, the cognitive dissonance of people like you,
and in the context of President Obama's actions and orders, and of
whom simply hate President Obama will go to such lengths in embracing
criminal acts and in a pathetic means by which to prove some point
that is nothing but moot.
Fifth, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 is
simply this:
-
* Guaranteed issue and community rating will be implemented nationally
so that insurers must offer the same premium to all applicants of the
same age, sex, and geographical location regardless of pre-existing
conditions.
* Medicaid eligibility is expanded to include all individuals and
families with incomes up to 133% of the poverty level.
* Health insurance exchanges will commence operation in each state,
offering a marketplace where individuals and small businesses can
compare policies and premiums, and buy insurance (with a government
subsidy if eligible).
* Firms employing 50 or more people but not offering health insurance
will pay a "shared responsibility payment" if the government has had
to subsidize an employee's health care
* Non exempt persons not securing minimum essential health insurance
coverage are also fined under the shared responsibility rules. This
requirement to maintain insurance or pay a fine is often referred to
as the individual mandate, though being insured is not actually
mandated by law. Not being insured will not be a crime and no criminal
penalty can attach to non payment of the fine. The fine serves to
encourage most people into an insurance pool and to deter healthy
individuals from buying insurance only when they become ill.
Improved benefits for Medicare prescription drug coverage are to be
implemented.
* Changes are enacted which allow a restructuring of Medicare
reimbursement from "fee-for-service" to "bundled payments".
* Establishment of a national voluntary insurance program for
purchasing community living assistance services and support.
* Low income persons and families above the Medicaid level and up to
400% of the poverty level will receive subsidies on a sliding scale if
they choose to purchase insurance via an exchange (persons at 150% of
the poverty level would be subsidized such that their premium cost
would be of 2% of income or $50 a month for a family of 4).
* Very small businesses will be able to get subsidies if they purchase
insurance through an exchange.
* Additional support is provided for medical research and the National
Institutes of Health.
* Enrollment into CHIP and Medicaid is simplified with improvements to
both programs.
* The law will introduce minimum standards for health insurance
policies and remove all annual and lifetime coverage caps.
* The law mandates that some health care insurance benefits will be
"essential" coverage for which there will be no co-pays.
* Policies issued before the law came into effect are "grandfathered"
and are mostly not affected by the new rules.
-
May 4, 2011
Fewer 18- to 26-Year-Olds in U.S. Uninsured in 2011
by Elizabeth Mendes
"WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Twenty-four percent of Americans aged 18 to 26
were uninsured in January through April of this year, down from 28% in
2010, and fewer than in 2009 and 2008. Americans in this age group
became eligible to remain on their parents' health insurance plans
under a provision of the new healthcare law that began in September
2010 ..." - gallup.com - http://tinyurl.com/3mrkago
-
And sixth, and since you are in this hideous, and perpetual
cranial-rectal inversion over some delusionally imagined "endless
string," your inability to cite one, and JUST one -disaster- by the
Obama administration substantiates the points I've raised and
underscoring the fact that you came into this exchange, and left with
nothing. Nada. Zippo.
Tom Fitzpatrick
>
> You mean when it went from 8.8% to 9%? Sure, we've had a "flood" of
> new jobs - 50,000 of them from McDonalds. The ONLY reason
> unemployment is in single digits is because people who have given up
> looking for work aren't counted. Now, Obama may use smoke and mirrors
> to make part time temp work count as employed, but the ugly truth is
> that America is in a de-facto depression. A fat 37% of Americans
> believe Obama's doing an acceptable job with the economy, and this
> comes from NBC (of MS/NBC fame) that skews heavily to the Left:
>
>
> After “best week ever” only 37% approve of Obama on economy
>
> By: Conn Carroll 05/10/11 10:02 AM
>
> Yesterday, NBC’s First Read described Obama’s “last seven days” as
> “his best week — politically — since his inauguration.” Later that
> day, NBC released their latest poll and the the results can only be
> interpreted as discouraging for the White House.
>
> Yes, Obama’s overall approval rating was up to 52% from 49% a month
> ago. But that is even lower than the 53% he scored after extending the
> Bush tax last December. More troubling for the White House, only 37%
> of adults approve of Obama’s handling of the economy. That is his
> lowest rating ever in the NBC poll. Also of note, the percentage of
> adults believing the economy will get worse is up 4 points to 25%. A
> plurality, 43% believe the economy will stay about the same.
>
> So, you're popping buttons over the thought that (at most) 37%
> approval for the economy? During the best week of his presidency?
> (snicker)
>
> > or even 4) the hideous and growing
> > number of GOP/Republican candidates for 2012,
>
> With the exception of RINO Donald Trump, (whose political career has
> been very nicely destroyed thank you very much) every single
> Republican running is FAR more qualified to be President than when
> Obama ran...or, indeed, today.
>
be President of the United States than the person who actually IS the
President of the United States. How are Republicans going to frame the
'Obama has no experience' meme this time around?
Tom Fitzpatrick
So who do you want to see as President in 2012?
Richard Steel
> Are you daft? Or dense, or both?
No, I'm intelligent, I write clearly, and I speak a simple truth.
This scares you to death.
> This rebut is so convoluted I don't
> even know where to begin since I'm LMAO over your inablity to
> coherently form and compose a rebut to a simple question.
There comes a point where LYAO become simply a hysterical shriek.
> First of all Perot was a "disaster" to the REPUBLICANS with regard to the 1992
> election,
And the 1996 election, also.
> and nowhere near what can be construed as a -disaster- by
> the Obama administration -
I never said it was.
> But where a Trumped-up-bankrupt-kook-like
> candidacy may repeat this if "The Donald" splits the ticket and goes
> Independent;
My (clearly stated) point was that the Clinton era Democrats were
bright enough to use Peroit. The current group of Democrats lack the
ability to delay gratification, and help Trump become a vote
destroying third party candidate.
> see what the GOP elite does in the coming weeks or months
> to insure this since the Republican party is in such disarray with
> regard to who they want to send up there to duke it out with a
> President who has proven that he possesses the ability, "to git 'er
> dun."
Trump, in a matter of weeks, has plummeted from first place to fifth
in regards to his popularity for the nomination. His time has past.
> Second of all the price of crude rose sharply during the Bush
> administration and over the course of the war in Iraq. Moreover, look
> at this graph - cit.http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1947.gif
> Oil began it's steady rise under Bush's first term and throughout and
> skyrocked in his 2nd until it spiked in the last Recession ... Look at
> the years before Bush ... LOOK AT IT! - And even under Clinton's two
> and Bush's father's term. And for you to call it a -disaster- by the
> Obama administration is just idiotic. In fact, and like the economy
> that he was trying to keep from going over the cliff, this matter over
> the price of crude is a continuing battle he inherited.
So, high oil prices were a disaster when they happened under Bush, but
now they're good when they happen under Obama?
> Third, and in terms of subjective polling numbers is not an true
> indicator of where the economy is, or where it is going - objective
> analysis and study which is atmospheres above you are. The fact of
> the matter in that the economy is recovering, but not as fast as
> people like you would want it, only serves to underscore just how
> close the Bush administration came to destroying it and into a 2nd
> Depression. Furthermore, to call the current state of the economy a
> -disaster- by the Obama administration is nothing but convenient
> scapegoating by those whose ignorance in and of this 'disaster.' Just
> like in the Wall Street crash of 1929 to the 'Great Depression,' which
> was a bonafide -disaster-, and of which was attributed to a Republican
> president and that administrations' psychotic fiscal and economic
> policies, it took a Democrat (FDR) to fix it. Live with it, since
> American history is repeating itself.
The fact that the Democrats approach to Obama wrecking of the US
economy is to pretend that everything is under control is offensive,
and will only serve to make the left all the more hated.
> Fourth, to psychotically laud and accept and extol the torture of
> prisoners, under the Geneva convention,
? When did I mention the Geneva Convention.
Richard Steel
> On Wed, 11 May 2011 08:41:10 -0700 (PDT), Richard Steel
>
> <rsteel2...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> Oh, please, you swooned and wet yourself at the sight of "Jet fighter
> >> George".
>
> >"I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the
> >world, he’s sort of God."
> > Evan Thomas
> > Newsweek Editor
>
Then when you worship Obama, only knell on one knee.
Richard Steel
wrote:
I'm going to listen to the debate then decide.
Tag Heuer
<rstee...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Are you daft? Or dense, or both? This rebut is so convoluted I don't
>>even know where to begin since I'm LMAO over your inablity to
>>coherently form and compose a rebut to a simple question. First of
>>all Perot was a "disaster" to the REPUBLICANS with regard to the 1992
>>election, and nowhere near what can be construed as a -disaster- by
>>the Obama administration - But where a Trumped-up-bankrupt-kook-like
>>candidacy may repeat this if "The Donald" splits the ticket and goes
>>Independent; see what the GOP elite does in the coming weeks or months
>>to insure this since the Republican party is in such disarray with
>>regard to who they want to send up there to duke it out with a
>>President who has proven that he possesses the ability, "to git 'er
>>dun."
>>Second of all the price of crude rose sharply during the Bush
>>administration and over the course of the war in Iraq. Moreover, look
>>at this graph - cit. http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1947.gif
>>Oil began it's steady rise under Bush's first term and throughout and
>>skyrocked in his 2nd until it spiked in the last Recession ... Look at
>>the years before Bush ... LOOK AT IT! - And even under Clinton's two
>>and Bush's father's term. And for you to call it a -disaster- by the
>>Obama administration is just idiotic. In fact, and like the economy
>>that he was trying to keep from going over the cliff, this matter over
>>the price of crude is a continuing battle he inherited.
>>Third, and in terms of subjective polling numbers is not an true
>>indicator of where the economy is, or where it is going - objective
>>analysis and study which is atmospheres above you are. The fact of
>>the matter in that the economy is recovering, but not as fast as
>>people like you would want it, only serves to underscore just how
>>close the Bush administration came to destroying it and into a 2nd
>>Depression. Furthermore, to call the current state of the economy a
>>-disaster- by the Obama administration is nothing but convenient
>>scapegoating by those whose ignorance in and of this 'disaster.' Just
>>like in the Wall Street crash of 1929 to the 'Great Depression,' which
>>was a bonafide -disaster-, and of which was attributed to a Republican
>>president and that administrations' psychotic fiscal and economic
>>policies, it took a Democrat (FDR) to fix it. Live with it, since
>>American history is repeating itself.
>>Fourth, to psychotically laud and accept and extol the torture of
>>prisoners, under the Geneva convention, and in a deranged effort to
>>credit George Bush in the killing of Osama bin Laden is not a
>>-disaster- that one can intelligently attribute to the Obama
>>administration. In fact, the cognitive dissonance of people like you,
>>and in the context of President Obama's actions and orders, and of
>>whom simply hate President Obama will go to such lengths in embracing
>>criminal acts and in a pathetic means by which to prove some point
>>that is nothing but moot.
>No, I'm intelligent, I write clearly, and I speak a simple truth.
>This scares you to death. There comes a point where LYAO
>become simply a hysterical shriek. And the 1996 election, also.
>I never said it was. My (clearly stated) point was that the Clinton
>era Democrats were bright enough to use Peroit. The current
>group of Democrats lack the ability to delay gratification, and help
>Trump become a vote destroying third party candidate. Trump, in
>a matter of weeks, has plummeted from first place to fifth in regards
>to his popularity for the nomination. His time has past. So, high oil
>prices were a disaster when they happened under Bush, but now
>they're good when they happen under Obama? The fact that the
>Democrats approach to Obama wrecking of the US economy is
>to pretend that everything is under control is offensive, and will only serve
>to make the left all the more hated. ? When did I mention the Geneva
>Convention.
>>Fifth, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 is
Richard Steel
> On Wed, 11 May 2011 14:17:35 -0700 (PDT), Richard Steel
>
> <rsteel2...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >My (clearly stated) point was that the Clinton era Democrats were
> >bright enough to use Peroit.
>
The same way Republicans used the nitwit Nader to win the 2000
election.
Richard Steel
> On Wed, 11 May 2011 14:18:47 -0700 (PDT), Richard Steel
>
> <rsteel2...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> Compared to Bush---Obama is short of a 'god", Steel-loon
>
> >Then when you worship Obama, only knell on one knee.
>
Yes. Make a loud sound worshiping your god obama while on one knee.
Tag Heuer
<rstee...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Are you daft? Or dense, or both? This rebut is so convoluted I don't
>>even know where to begin since I'm LMAO over your inablity to
>>coherently form and compose a rebut to a simple question. First of
>>all Perot was a "disaster" to the REPUBLICANS with regard to the 1992
>>election, and nowhere near what can be construed as a -disaster- by
>>the Obama administration - But where a Trumped-up-bankrupt-kook-like
>>candidacy may repeat this if "The Donald" splits the ticket and goes
>>Independent; see what the GOP elite does in the coming weeks or months
>>to insure this since the Republican party is in such disarray with
>>regard to who they want to send up there to duke it out with a
>>President who has proven that he possesses the ability, "to git 'er
>>dun."
>>Second of all the price of crude rose sharply during the Bush
>>administration and over the course of the war in Iraq. Moreover, look
>>at this graph - cit. http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1947.gif
>>Oil began it's steady rise under Bush's first term and throughout and
>>skyrocked in his 2nd until it spiked in the last Recession ... Look at
>>the years before Bush ... LOOK AT IT! - And even under Clinton's two
>>and Bush's father's term. And for you to call it a -disaster- by the
>>Obama administration is just idiotic. In fact, and like the economy
>>that he was trying to keep from going over the cliff, this matter over
>>the price of crude is a continuing battle he inherited.
>>Third, and in terms of subjective polling numbers is not an true
>>indicator of where the economy is, or where it is going - objective
>>analysis and study which is atmospheres above you are. The fact of
>>the matter in that the economy is recovering, but not as fast as
>>people like you would want it, only serves to underscore just how
>>close the Bush administration came to destroying it and into a 2nd
>>Depression. Furthermore, to call the current state of the economy a
>>-disaster- by the Obama administration is nothing but convenient
>>scapegoating by those whose ignorance in and of this 'disaster.' Just
>>like in the Wall Street crash of 1929 to the 'Great Depression,' which
>>was a bonafide -disaster-, and of which was attributed to a Republican
>>president and that administrations' psychotic fiscal and economic
>>policies, it took a Democrat (FDR) to fix it. Live with it, since
>>American history is repeating itself.
>>Fourth, to psychotically laud and accept and extol the torture of
>>prisoners, under the Geneva convention, and in a deranged effort to
>>credit George Bush in the killing of Osama bin Laden is not a
>>-disaster- that one can intelligently attribute to the Obama
>>administration. In fact, the cognitive dissonance of people like you,
>>and in the context of President Obama's actions and orders, and of
>>whom simply hate President Obama will go to such lengths in embracing
>>criminal acts and in a pathetic means by which to prove some point
>>that is nothing but moot.
>No, I'm intelligent, I write clearly, and I speak a simple truth.
>This scares you to death. There comes a point where LYAO
>become simply a hysterical shriek. And the 1996 election, also.
>I never said it was. My (clearly stated) point was that the Clinton
>era Democrats were bright enough to use Peroit. The current
>group of Democrats lack the ability to delay gratification, and help
>Trump become a vote destroying third party candidate. Trump, in
>a matter of weeks, has plummeted from first place to fifth in regards
>to his popularity for the nomination. His time has past. So, high oil
>prices were a disaster when they happened under Bush, but now
>they're good when they happen under Obama? The fact that the
>Democrats approach to Obama wrecking of the US economy is
>to pretend that everything is under control is offensive, and will only serve
>to make the left all the more hated. ? When did I mention the Geneva
>Convention.
-
Let's see and cite where you said, " ...Obama's ONLY clear cut, grand
slam homer came from....extending and super-sizing the Bush Doctrine?
Obama's going to remind the American people that, damn it,
water-boarding WORKS? ..."
What I worry, as opposed to fearing anything is the un-informed, or
even delusional American voter. Take for instance those who followed
the Palin/McCain ticket in 2008 - And think about it, even Palin
didn't know what the Bush Doctrine stood for:
GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?
PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?
GIBSON: Well, what do you interpret it to be?
PALIN: His world view?
GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated in September 2002, before
the Iraq war.
PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid
this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell-bent on
destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though.
There have been mistakes made, and with new leadership, and that’s the
beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new
leadership comes opportunity to do things better.
GIBSON The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the
right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a
preemptive strike against any other country we think is going to
attack us. Do you agree with that?
PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that
tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have
every right to defend our country.
-
The Democrats didn't "use" Perot. Perot in fact used Perot and killed
Geo. H. W. Bush's chance at a 2nd term. Furthermore, and in terms of
the economy, and this seething hatred for President Obama, since this
is all the Right has left in attacking him politically and personally
look for the tipping-points in terms Consumer Confidence. Once
Americans start spending will be the beginning of the end any
Republican's chance at winning the Whitehouse, and possibly the House.
Frightening isn't it? See Bush had the opportunity to hold the
House, the Senate and the Executive branch and look what he did to the
economy with that. With Obama holding the House and Senate
majorities, it can IMO get better.
6019 Dead, 1162 since 1/20/09
If you knell on one knee, it's gonna hurt, 'specially if you use those
big brass gongs like the church bells have.
Tag Heuer
"No, I'm intelligent, I write clearly, and I speak a simple truth.
This scares you to death ..." he recently said, and okay, okay this is
not a spelling-flame but goddamn, this is Usenet entertainment and
amusement in it's finest moment :)
Richard Steel
> On Wed, 11 May 2011 14:17:35 -0700 (PDT), Richard Steel
>
> >>On Wed, 11 May 2011 09:34:55 -0700, Tag Heuer <tagheuerb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>On Tue, 10 May 2011 23:58:42 -0700 (PDT), Richard Steel <rsteel2...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>>On Tue, 10 May 2011 18:59:29 -0700, Tag Heuer <tagheuerb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>On Tue, 10 May 2011 16:33:43 -0700 (PDT), Richard Steel <rsteel2...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>On Tue, 10 May 2011 13:57:24 -0700, Tag Heuer <tagheuerb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Let's see and cite where you said, " ...Obama's ONLY clear cut, grand
> slam homer came from....extending and super-sizing the Bush Doctrine?
> Obama's going to remind the American people that, damn it,
> water-boarding WORKS? ..."
I'm sorry, where are the words "Geneva Convention"
BTW, do you have any idea WHY the Geneva Convention" was written in
the first place?
It wasn't to protect the rights of terrorists - but to condemn them.
The document's authors made it very clear - a person who puts on a
uniform and risks their lives to defend their country are honorable,
and deserve respect and decent treatment. This is in sharp contrast
to a handful of grease-balls who dress as civilians, steal a plane and
fly into a building. The GC doesn't protect such people, because they
don't deserve respect.
> What I worry, as opposed to fearing anything is the un-informed, or
> even delusional American voter.
You must be VERY worried about the Obama supporters. Here, take a
look....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8&feature=player_embedded
> The Democrats didn't "use" Perot.
Really? Then why was he on Larry King so often? Why was he shown
such respect?
> Perot in fact used Perot and killed
> Geo. H. W. Bush's chance at a 2nd term.
Just as Ralph Nader destroyed Al Gore's chance.
> Furthermore, and in terms of
> the economy, and this seething hatred for President Obama,
As opposed to your seething hatred for Bush, Cheney, Palin, and pretty
much anyone who knew their fathers.
> since this
> is all the Right has left in attacking him politically and personally
> look for the tipping-points in terms Consumer Confidence.
That. And the Deficit. And Depression level unemployment. His
political tin ear. His bully tactics. Bringing back inflation.
Using the Presidency to bring the Olympics to his home town. Failing
at that task. The disastrous "Stimulus Bill". You want more?
> Once
> Americans start spending will be the beginning of the end any
> Republican's chance at winning the Whitehouse, and possibly the House.
Two years ago, you wrote about how the GOP wouldn't take back the
House for 40 years. How did THOSE predictions work out for you?
> Frightening isn't it?
Your fantasies? Nah, I got used to the Left's delusions years ago.
> See Bush had the opportunity to hold the
> House, the Senate and the Executive branch and look what he did to the
> economy with that.
The last time the Republicans held the House, the Senate, and the
Presidency, the deficit was 167 billion dollars. Six and a half years
later, it's TEN TIMES that number. Back in 2006, unemployment was
4.6%. Now it's 9%.
And the Democrats are going to RUN on this record?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWMTF5fLA6o
> With Obama holding the House and Senate
> majorities, it can IMO get better.
You're not happy increasing the deficit a ten fold? You want it up a
fifty fold?
Richard Steel
wrote:
> On Wed, 11 May 2011 14:18:47 -0700, Richard Steel wrote:
> > On May 11, 11:48 am, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> >> On Wed, 11 May 2011 08:41:10 -0700 (PDT), Richard Steel
>
> >> <rsteel2...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >> Oh, please, you swooned and wet yourself at the sight of "Jet
> >> >> fighter George".
>
> >> >"I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the
> >> >world, he’s sort of God."
> >> > Evan Thomas
> >> > Newsweek Editor
>
> >> Compared to Bush---Obama is short of a 'god", Steel-loon
>
> > Then when you worship Obama, only knell on one knee.
>
> If you knell on one knee, it's gonna hurt, 'specially if you use those
> big brass gongs like the church bells have.
Knelling can be making any loud noise. You know, like when you try to
sound clever.
Richard Steel
Simplex iucunditas pro simplex mens.
6019 Dead, 1162 since 1/20/09
You had to look it up, didn't you?
Richard Steel
You're really quite incapable of admiring being wrong, aren't you?
6019 Dead, 1162 since 1/20/09
I realize you have quite an ego, but I can't really imagine admiring you
for being wrong.
Richard Steel
Me? I happily admit to being wrong when it happens. For instance, I
actually believed the PR sent out three years ago that Obama was a
post racial moderate. When I discovered the truth, I urged all my
Democrat friends to vote for Hilliary - who I dislike, but she's not
actively insane. Only by admitting when one is wrong can one grow.
Look at the alternative - yourself, for instance. Because you refuse
to accept that all humans are flawed, you're forced to repeat the same
elaborate rationalizations over and over and over. You wind up
insisting that people who burn the American flag are the real patriots
while railing that burning the Koran is morally comparable to
premeditated murder. That placing a crucifix in urine is high art,
but any criticism of Obama is Hate Speech.
Stay stuck in the Bush era, my friend, if that is the best peace you
can find. Relive "victories" of Clinton in your head, like bin Laden
sitting in front of a crappy analog TV, watching tapes of his old
speeches and writing plans to recapture past "glories."
I prefer to move forward, make mistakes, and learn from them.
Tag Heuer
OTOH - Argumentum ad ignorantiam, and what lunatic fringe-Right,
conservatives, Birthers, Deathers, Republicans and Republicans
*pretending* to be Independent and garden variety conservative-wackos
of all stripes and levels of delusion routinely employ on the Usenet
when confronted with irrefutable facts.
--
http://tagheuerblog.blogspot.com
Tag Heuer
<rstee...@aol.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 11 May 2011 15:50:20 -0700, Tag Heuer <tagheu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 11 May 2011 14:17:35 -0700 (PDT), Richard Steel <rstee...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 11 May 2011 09:34:55 -0700, Tag Heuer <tagheu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>On Tue, 10 May 2011 23:58:42 -0700 (PDT), Richard Steel <rstee...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>On Tue, 10 May 2011 18:59:29 -0700, Tag Heuer <tagheu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>On Tue, 10 May 2011 16:33:43 -0700 (PDT), Richard Steel <rstee...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>On Tue, 10 May 2011 13:57:24 -0700, Tag Heuer <tagheu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>windmills to take up the slack. Annnnnnnnnnnnnnyyyyyyy day now. http://washington
>>>>at this graph - cit. http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1947.gif
>>What I worry, as opposed to fearing anything is the un-informed, or
>>even delusional American voter. Take for instance those who followed
>>the Palin/McCain ticket in 2008 - And think about it, even Palin
>>didn't know what the Bush Doctrine stood for:
>>GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?
>>PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?
>>GIBSON: Well, what do you interpret it to be?
>>PALIN: His world view?
>>GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated in September 2002, before
>>the Iraq war.
>>PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid
>>this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell-bent on
>>destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though.
>>There have been mistakes made, and with new leadership, and that’s the
>>beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new
>>leadership comes opportunity to do things better.
>>GIBSON The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the
>>right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a
>>preemptive strike against any other country we think is going to
>>attack us. Do you agree with that?
>>PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that
>>tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have
>>every right to defend our country.
>>The Democrats didn't "use" Perot. Perot in fact used Perot and killed
>>Geo. H. W. Bush's chance at a 2nd term. Furthermore, and in terms of
>>the economy, and this seething hatred for President Obama, since this
>>is all the Right has left in attacking him politically and personally
>>look for the tipping-points in terms Consumer Confidence. Once
>>Americans start spending will be the beginning of the end any
>>Republican's chance at winning the Whitehouse, and possibly the House.
>>Frightening isn't it? See Bush had the opportunity to hold the
>>House, the Senate and the Executive branch and look what he did to the
>>economy with that. With Obama holding the House and Senate
>>majorities, it can IMO get better.
>>>>Fifth, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 is
>>>>simply this:
8< snip - your capitulation duly noted>8
>>>>And sixth, and since you are in this hideous, and perpetual
>>>>cranial-rectal inversion over some delusionally imagined "endless
>>>>string," your inability to cite one, and JUST one -disaster- by the
>>>>Obama administration substantiates the points I've raised and
>>>>underscoring the fact that you came into this exchange, and left with
>>>>nothing. Nada. Zippo.
>I'm sorry, where are the words "Geneva Convention" BTW, do you have
>any idea WHY the Geneva Convention" was written in the first place?
>It wasn't to protect the rights of terrorists - but to condemn them.
>The document's authors made it very clear - a person who puts on a
>uniform and risks their lives to defend their country are honorable,
>and deserve respect and decent treatment. This is in sharp contrast
>to a handful of grease-balls who dress as civilians, steal a plane and
>fly into a building. The GC doesn't protect such people, because they
>don't deserve respect. You must be VERY worried about the Obama
>supporters. Here, take a look....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
>mm1KOBMg1Y8&feature=player_embedded Really? Then why was he
>on Larry King so often? Why was he shown such respect? Just as Ralph
>Nader destroyed Al Gore's chance. As opposed to your seething hatred
>for Bush, Cheney, Palin, and pretty much anyone who knew their fathers.
>That. And the Deficit. And Depression level unemployment. His political
>tin ear. His bully tactics. Bringing back inflation. Using the Presidency to
>bring the Olympics to his home town. Failing at that task. The disastrous
>"Stimulus Bill". You want more? Two years ago, you wrote about how the
>GOP wouldn't take back the House for 40 years. How did THOSE predictions
>work out for you? Your fantasies? Nah, I got used to the Left's delusions
>years ago. The last time the Republicans held the House, the Senate, and the
>Presidency, the deficit was 167 billion dollars. Six and a half years later, it's
>TEN TIMES that number. Back in 2006, unemployment was 4.6%. Now
>it's 9%. And the Democrats are going to RUN on this record? http://www.
>youtube.com/watch?v=nWMTF5fLA6oYou're not happy increasing the deficit
>a ten fold? You want it up a fifty fold?
Waterboarding is a form of torture and a violation under the Geneva
Convention. The slippery slope fallacy in argument that you posed in
the form of a question did not address nor enumerate an Obama
administration "disaster." In fact, you used this fallacy in an
attempt to credit George Bush for the capture of bin Laden and at the
same time diminish the credit to Obama for ordering the military
special forces action to get him.
"Bully Tactics?" Is that a disaster of an uncomprehensible magnitude?
"Ralph Nader, Larry King, Donald Duck?" WTF does this have to do with
this "endless string of disasters" which is a crumbling point that you
are maniacally trying to Crazy Glue™ together here? Now as far as
'handful of grease-balls who dress as civilians, steal a plane and fly
into a building,' that was a "diaster" under Bush's watch. And in
terms of how was failing to have the Olympics in Chicago disaster, how
many Americans needless died in this?
Do you have any idea what a "disaster" is in this context? Katrina?
The Bush Doctrine? Now these were/are disasters. As far as the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, how can this be a
"disaster" if some of the biggest provisions involves the creation of
jobs and in the retro-fit of this nation's infrastructures? How does
this discretionary spending which is designed to create jobs a
"disaster" Here is a graph of how the job-loss picture is looking
for the future: http://tinyurl.com/3ljk5yy and of course you oppose
the creation of jobs which this economy needs to rise above this
"diaster" that the Bush administration created.
'The last time the Republicans held the House, the Senate, and the
Presidency,' and 'when unemployment was 4.6%,' the housing bubble had
not burst yet, and inflation imminent and looming; Wall Street for
it's part (backed by the Bush administration laissez faire econ
policy) was at the peak of it's greed dishing out sub-prime loans and
engaged in dubious business practices that led to the collapse of the
market, and the U.S. economy in the last weeks and months of the Bush
administration. Does Goldman-Sachs ring a bell?
And what about this?
" ... Greenspan and Rubin maintained then, as now, that Born was on
the wrong track. Greenspan, who left the Fed job in 2006 after an
unprecedented three terms, also insists that regulating derivatives
would not have averted the present crisis ... The economic brain trust
not only won the argument, it cut off the larger debate ... In private
meetings and public speeches, Greenspan also argued a free-market
view. Self-regulation, he asserted, would work better than the heavy
hand of government: Investors had a natural desire to avoid
self-destruction, and that served as the logical and best limit to
excessive risk. Besides, derivatives had become a huge U.S. business,
and burdensome rules would drive the market overseas ..."
" ... 'We knew it was a big deal [to attempt regulation] but the
feeling was that something needed to be done,' said Michael
Greenberger, Born's director of trading and markets and a witness to
the April 1998 standoff at Treasury. 'The industry (Wall Street) had
been fighting regulation for years, and in the meantime, you saw them
accumulate a huge amount of stuff and it was already causing
dislocations in the economy. The government was being kept blind to it
...'"
" ... Derivatives did not trigger what has erupted into the biggest
economic crisis since the Great Depression. But their proliferation,
and the uncertainty about their real values, accelerated the recent
collapses of the nation's venerable investment houses and magnified
the panic that has since crippled the global financial system ..." -
Washington Post, 'What Went Wrong - http://tinyurl.com/3z5u923
Now that's a "disaster," of epic proportions, as your entire "endless
string" point is an exemplary 'disaster' in and of this exchange in
argument. But please do come back with something resembling
coherency.
Richard Steel
wrote:
Not what I wrote, is it? I pointed out that, when elected, Obama had
never run a business, a city, a state, or served a moment in the
military. His sole claim to fame is that Oprah named his autobiography
Book Of The Month. He had "served" literally months on the federal
level (an office he "won" by having the divorce records of Jeri Ryan
stolen and used to created a false sex scandal about his opponent)
before running for president.
In sharp contract, every serious candidate for the GOP nomination have
real, and impressive, qualifications for the office of POTUS.
>How are Republicans going to frame the
> 'Obama has no experience' meme this time around?
By saying "look what happens when someone with no real world executive
experience is put in charge of the most powerful nation in world
history"....then talk about Obama's disastrous record. Three years
ago, Obama was a cypher - a blank page that could be anything for
anybody. Now, he has history, and he must defend it.
Ray Fischer
>On May 11, 10:13 pm, "6019 Dead, 1162 since 1/20/09" <d...@gone.com>
>> > On May 11, 6:22 pm, "6019 Dead, 1162 since 1/20/09" <d...@gone.com>
>>
>> > You're really quite incapable of admiring being wrong, aren't you?
>>
>> I realize you have quite an ego, but I can't really imagine admiring you
>> for being wrong.
>
>Me? I happily admit to being wrong when it happens.
Not evident.
--
Ray Fischer | Mendocracy (n.) government by lying
rfis...@sonic.net | The new GOP ideal
Richard Steel
> Richard Steel <rsteel2...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On May 11, 10:13 pm, "6019 Dead, 1162 since 1/20/09" <d...@gone.com>
> >> On Wed, 11 May 2011 21:32:29 -0700, Richard Steel wrote:
> >> > On May 11, 6:22 pm, "6019 Dead, 1162 since 1/20/09" <d...@gone.com>
> >> >> You had to look it up, didn't you?
>
> >> > You're really quite incapable of admiring being wrong, aren't you?
>
> >> I realize you have quite an ego, but I can't really imagine admiring you
> >> for being wrong.
> >Me? I happily admit to being wrong when it happens.
> Not evident.
I was wrong ever to treat you like an adult.
Tag Heuer
<rstee...@aol.com> wrote:
>I was wrong ever to treat you like an adult.
I swear to God Almighty ... Your cognitive dissonance is getting the
better of you, Dick. Embrace the Borg ... Yes. Yes. You can do it
;-)
--
http://tagheuerblog.blogspot.com
Ray Fischer
You never treat anybody like an adult because you don't know what that
means. You're a 3-year-old brat who has temper tantrums whenever you
don't get your way, and you lie in order to justify your bad behavior.
You're the perfect rightard in other words: Selfish, greedy,
irresponsible, and a hypocrite.
Richard Steel
> I swear to God Almighty ... Your cognitive dissonance is getting the
> better of you, Dick. Embrace the Borg ... Yes. Yes. You can do it
> ;-)
Seriously, have Democrats driven off every single adult in the party?