RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

Republican Obama Derangement Syndrome

Hopefully you can remember the crazy days of Bush Derangement Syndrome. Outrage over the polices and actions of Bush was so deep and so widespread that Democrats and Independents wanted anything but Bush. The biggest concern was the debacle in Iraq. Taking this country to war without cause and lying in the process alienated significant sectors of the American electorate.

That alienation created an opening for the likes of Barack Obama. Americans desperate for “change” and looking for “hope” embraced an unknown Senator with an undistinguished legislative and life record as the answer. Barack look good on TV and gave good teleprompter, but really had no clue how to work in Washington or how the economy operates.

I will concede that many on the right are convinced that Barack is a commie plant and is intent on destroying the US economy, but I think that is silly. Barack is not that smart. Please. If he was that devious and clever he would never have embraced a universal contraception policy that would enrage the Catholic Church and the religious right. But I digress.

My point is simple–Democrats desperate to get rid of Bush made a really dumb decision by embracing Barack Obama and refusing to fully investigate his past.

(Cue PPAA and Marvin Marks) Obama has not released any of his school records. He has stonewalled on his adoption records. He has covered up his trip to Pakistan as a young man. You know the drill. Oh yes, and he was really good at voting present as a legislator rather than actually stand for anything.

So now we have growing numbers of Americans enraged at the reality of Barack Obama. Let’s set aside for the moment the conservative right that did not like Obama from the outset. Obama’s support among Jews, liberal Catholics and economic libertarians has eroded dramatically because of Barry Soetoro Obama’s policies in office (I use Obama’s real first name and the name of his adopted father just to piss off the Obama-bot true believers).

The anger about Obama has coalesced and the desire to get rid of him is intense. This is the equivalent of a political erection. Why? With an erection, blood that would otherwise carry oxygen to the brain is diverted to the penis. The oxygen deficit in the brain of a male with an erection is the big reason why guys with a hard-on do incredibly stupid things. A hard dick is not a brain.

The political erection theory explains for me why incredibly flawed candidates like Gingrich, Cain, and Santorum are being treated as serious prospects. In the real world, none of those three would have any chance whatsoever of prevailing in a national election. It does not matter how enthusiastic the conservatives are. Any candidate must also be able to attract independents.

While I believe that Romney is the best of the worst and offers the best chance of garnering the support of independents (he did it well in Massachusetts), he has his flaws as well. I am very troubled by his blind embrace of the notion that the Federal Government can hold indefinitely anyone accused of terrorism without access to a lawyer or a court. But that just puts him on the same page as Obama.

He also has shown a willingness to surrender individual choice to the greater good. Hence the insurance mandate in Massachusetts. I concede that the majority of the folks in Massachusetts support Romney care. But that does not placate conservatives.

What I like about Romney is that he is not a blind ideologue. He does not have a vision to remake America or the world. He does not have a passion to remake the world. The last thing we need as President is a deluded visionary (e.g., Gingrich) who wants to proselytize their political religion and impose their utopia on the masses.

I also admit that I am most comfortable with Ron Paul’s commitment to the Constitution and its limits. I can easily live with Ron Paul as President. I have had the privilege of sitting in Ron’s office and briefing on issues of terrorism (this was in the fall of 2007). He is a gentleman and genuinely believes what he says on the stump. But his message does not resonate with the middle.

It will be an interesting period over the next three weeks. If Santorum beats Romney in Michigan and Ohio, Romney is damaged goods and won’t be an effective national candidate. At that point the Republicans are in trouble. Why? Because Rick Santorum is a social conservative nut. His views on contraception and homosexuality alienate a majority of Americans.

This is a classic symptom of Obama Derangement Syndrome–embracing a flawed candidate just because you hate the opponent more. Does this stir the pot enought for a Friday?

  • http://twitter.com/IamBrianBeach 305 Million Minus Me

    Kookspiracies are part of the culture war. Lunacy.

  • http://twitter.com/Juliezzz Juliezzz

    Maine Caucus finishes voting today.  So heads up.  This one could be declared for Paul when it’s all over

    ———–Voter fraud in Maine?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqsyzTrWS0g&feature=channel

    ———-Will the makeup caucus in Maine matter today?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRlHPExFFRM&feature=channel

    ———-Explaining delegates and Ron Paul’s delegate strat.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_Iji3xF0e4&feature=related

    • Anonymous

       No more caucuses.  They don’t represent the wishes of most people, just the people who get themselves to the caucuses, or in Obama’s case in 2008, just the people he can manage to bus in from another state.

  • Lemuel Vargas

    How about if there is no clear majority of delegates that would have voted for either Gingrich or Romney?
    Then we will have a brokered convention in which the delegates will be released and thus will be able to vote for a candidate other than Gingrich or Romney. If Sarah Palins’ name is on the ballot for voting, then maybe there is a small chance of her winning the Repub convention thus maintaining her pledge of not going thru the nomination process of the Repub presidential nominee race.
    Or we could respect her decision and concentrate on the House and the Senate for a veto-proof majority Tea Party members. Then if Obama still wins the Election, he would be forced to work with the Tea Party or he could be overridden by the House and the Senate.
    If the Republican Nominee wins the Election, he/she would still be forced to work with the Tea Party or be overriden, too..
    Or we could combine the 2 if indeed Sarah Palin is nominated thru a brokered convention..

    Just my 2 cents worth of opinion..

    • Anonymous

       There would not be enough time after the convention for Palin to undo the image problem remembered from the last national election.

      • Anonymous

        You think the moderates and Independents would support her.  She is damaged goods.  I don’t think she can undo the negatives.  Personally, I don’t think she has enough experience to lead this country.  I wouldn’t support her.

        • Anonymous

           At this point I wouldn’t support her either. She had the opportunity to get in and mix it up with everyone else and declined. And her support for Gingrich turned me off to anything else she might have said.

  • Anonymous

    Another Santorum jewel:

    “I’m not about equality of result when it comes to income inequality. There is income inequality in America. There always has been and, hopefully, and I do say that, there always will be.”

    Does anyone actually believe this will appeal to Independents?

    • Anonymous

      It should it is the reality of the capitalist free market. By the way you ought to the full statement this is only a snip of the full statement.
      He goes on to say, that there equality in opportunity but u can not seek an equality in results meaning to better a person achieves the greater the accolades and the poorer the performance the worse the their evaluation . That is what he was saying if you looking to be honest. I’ll post the link to it.

      If independents have an issue w/ that we got have bigger problems than an election.

      Full speech is here

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3iw3YQFnIc&feature=youtube_gdata_player

      Sent from my iPhone

      • Anonymous

         I understand what he is saying but I also understand how this will be clipped and spinned by the Dems and their OWS allies.

        When you add this to his comments about Protestants, women in the military, gays and birth control I’d say he is going to come across as a radical regardless of how many sweater vests the Republicans try to cover him with.

        • Anonymous

          Well yes but that will be a problem for any of the candidates at this point Romney has his own soundbites that are gonna give him grief
          To hold this up is silly b/c it isn’t nearly as troubling as the Protestant
          Speech – which not only slams them but also paste Santorum as the crazy ass theocrat of the race. The only good thing for Santorum is that it is a long rambling speech directed at certain audience – there is only so many Holy Fathers and Religious references the main stream will broadcast for fear of infection.

  • Anonymous

    then it is up to congress to override his executive orders by passing legislation that directly counters the order OR by defunding the appartus of his EO

  • Anonymous

    The republicans are going to implode. The bigger question will be the damage assessment. Will it impact the House and Senate races? If Saint Rick gets the nod the election could go nuclear for the republicans…  Tons of coat-tail collateral damage.

    • Anonymous

      Well, right now the Dems are ahead in the polls as far as the House goes.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dolly-Cain/100002303813490 Dolly Cain

    The Obamabots are as bad as the Bushbots. I despise both groups.

  • http://twitter.com/Juliezzz Juliezzz

    Wow!  Paul gives a speech in Vancouver Washington and so many people show up that they can’t all fit in the hall people had to stand in the streets and look through windows or even sneak peaks on the medias monitors in their trucks. 

    I defy you to show any other republican that drums up this kind of excitement without trying

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2Xp-sYMbLE&feature=player_embedded#!

    • Anonymous

      Not to burst your bubble but each candidate has experienced such a situation
      If u want to feel good about it Dr Paul has generated this enthusiasm w/out a WIN. That is dedication by the supporters unseen by any other GOP contestant

      • http://twitter.com/Juliezzz Juliezzz

        Paul is a winner because he’s on the right side of the constitution. 

        Any way we’ll see what he wins.  This contest is far from over.  Main hasn’t been fully counted yet.  The rest of their Caucus is today.  

        To your first point, Paul is the only candidate to experience a steady rise rather than a fast rise and fast plummet they hall have seen.  Romney has diminished if anything and Paul continues to get more supporters.

        The thing about Paul is…..no supporter ever changes their mind about him.  Ever heard of an ex-Paul supporter?  Neither has anyone else

  • Anonymous

    off topic but I think interesting to those who came here because of what happened during the primary season in 2008. This showed up in a comment on Ulsterman today.
    http://wewillnotbesilenced2008.com/video/index.htm

    It is an interesting watch.

    • Anonymous

      cookiegramma,  Thanks for providing the link.  One thing I know for sure is that our resident obamabot PPAA will not take time to view it.  I watached it all the way through again. 

      Part 3 toward the end always REALLY infuriates me because of the intimidation of older AAs by young AA punks from the O campaign.

      I was a Hillary caucus delegate clear through the state assembly and convention.  There were no camera in my state, but I personally could give similar stories of indimidatation.  And there were others giving their stories here on NQ back then.

      It still makes me furious that the supposedly democratic party that I had supported all those years turned out in the last election to be nothing but a group of thugs willing to intimidate and threaten people and to cheat and steal. 

      I DARE YOU PPAA TO WATCH THE VIDEOS!!!

      • Anonymous

         I was not as active in politics as you at the time, but what I saw drove me running from the party and into political activism. Thank you for your hard work and I hope someday that your story will be told as well.

  • Anonymous

    This will likely help Santorum going forward. NOT!

    And so what we saw this domino effect, once the colleges fell and those
    who were being education in our institutions, the next was the church.
    Now you’d say, ‘wait, the Catholic Church’? No. We all know that this
    country was founded on a Judeo-Christian ethic but the Judeo-Christian
    ethic was a Protestant Judeo-Christian ethic, sure the Catholics had
    some influence, but this was a Protestant country and the Protestant
    ethic, mainstream, mainline Protestantism, and of course we look at the
    shape of mainline Protestantism in this country and it is in shambles,
    it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it.

     

    • Anonymous

      Where did you find this?  Wow! 

      • Anonymous

         Follow the link. I think that elsewhere he may have referred to Protestants as the spawn of satan or something to that effect.

        • Anonymous

          Thank you!  And here I was defending his right to have a religious stance on birth control and abortion because he said he would not bring religious views into the way he governs. 
           
          Don’t these candidates ever worry that their words will come back to them?  I was raised a “mainline Protestant.”  I hold many of the same views as he seems to hold about the sexual revolution that came from the hippies and that time period.  Because of my religious beliefs, I never felt it was a good thing.  I just don’t believe in the idea that people who break these spiritual guidelines withh be  sent to “damnation” that some Catholics and some fundamentalist churches seem to have.

          • Anonymous

             The “sexual revolution” was necessary. That said, some of the wilder aspects of it are just plain self-destructive and meaningless.

    • Anonymous

      Yup that sure is a fire and brimstone speech. That will need some damage control

      • Anonymous

         If a SuperPAC gets hold of it the guy is toast.

  • http://www.theindependentview.com Matthew J. Weaver

    Great analysis. I too support Romney as our best choice. He’s at risk because of an extremist group in the party that’s rather destroy the party and lose the election rather than pragmatically focus on the greater evil, Obama. Worse, the media profits from encouraging this destructive behavior.

    • Anonymous

       Ain’t it the sad truth?

    • Anonymous

      “the greater evil, Obama”

      How exactly did Obama get to be “evil”? You are so far out there with your language. Obama is at best right-of-center and has more or less followed Republican-lite policy prescriptions (healthcare = Romneycare/Dole/Heritage; foreign policy = Bush Lite, cut taxes, etc.). If you think Obama is ”evil”, I would hate to think what you think a truly liberal President we be or what your idea of a truly Republican President would be. Romney is acually not that far away than Obama, but you have no problem supporting him and I do not think you call him “evil”. 

      • Anonymous

        Obama evil?  YES.  Because of his support of NATO’s illegal invasion of Libya, Obama is complicit in the deaths of a reported 50,000 civilian Libyans.  Included in that number is reportedly 30,000 Black Libyans.  Obama is responsible for the deaths of more Africans than any American president in the last century.

        • Anonymous

           Would you mind backing up your statements with some credible sourcing? I can’t stand O but I try to be careful not to attribute things which I cannot verify to him.

          • Anonymous

            Goggle “Libyan Ethnic Cleansing” mainly internationals reporting which just reminds all how much the MSM purposefully directs the narrative of this Administration.

            • Anonymous

               I don’t “google” anything any more. Google has made it clear that they have no respect for privacy.

              • Anonymous

                Well then read the thread I am pretty sure someone has posted WSJ report
                There is indeed ethnic cleansing occurring in several provinces

                Peace out

          • Anonymous

            http://blackagendareport.com/print/content/butchering-gaddafi-america%E2%80%99s-crime

            The

            Butchering of Gaddafi Is America’s Crime

            by BAR executive editor Glen
            Ford
            Last week the whole world saw, and every
            decent soul recoiled, at the true face of NATO’s
            answer to the Arab Spring. An elderly, helpless
            prisoner struggled to maintain his dignity in a
            screaming swirl of savages, one of whom thrusts a
            knife [4] up his rectum. These are
            Europe and America’s jihadis in the flesh. In a few
            minutes of joyously recorded bestiality, the rabid
            pack undid every carefully packaged image of NATO’s
            “humanitarian” project in North Africa – a horror and
            revelation indelibly imprinted on the global
            consciousness by the brutes’ own cell phones.

            Nearly eight
            months of incessant bombing by the air forces of nations
            that account for 70 percent of the world’s weapons
            spending, all culminating in the gang-bang slaughter of
            Moammar Gaddafi, his son Mutassim and his
            military chief of staff, outside Sirte. The NATO-armed
            bands then displayed the battered corpses for days in
            Misurata – the city that had earlier made good on its
            vow to “purge Black skin” through the massacre and
            dispersal of 30,000 darker residents of nearby Tawurgha
            – before disposing of the bodies in an unknown location.

             

            • Anonymous

               Thanks for the link. This is quite troubling.

        • Anonymous

          you get a tinfoil hat..

          • Anonymous

            SO…like most Americans..Republicans and Democrats..you feel it’s quite fine to murder 30,000 Black Libyan civilians.  After all..they are Africans..so it doesn’t matter how many are murdered. It must be OK…since their murders were condoned by an African-American president..and it “only” cost the US taxpayers $1.6 BILLION $$ so far.

            ####

            Killing of Blacks in Libya By NATO-backed Rebels
            Continues

            by Milton Allimadi

            September 13, 2011

             

            The Wall Street Journal reports today that
            Black people have been emptied from the City of Tawergha in Libya,
            their homes razed, and that the words “slaves” and “negroes” are
            scribbled on their abandoned buildings in the now ghost town  by
            the NATO-backed rebels.  Meanwhile, the so-called “prime minister”
            of the “rebels” Mahmoud Jibril, is quoted in the Journal,
            with respect to the fate of the Black citizens of Tawergha,
            saying: “Regarding Tawergha my own viewpoint is that nobody has
            the right to interfere in this matter except the people of
            Misurata,” who are actually the ones doing the cleansing. Surely
            Jibril knows that he’s inciting to further ethnic cleansing.

            http://www.blackstarnews.com/news/135/ARTICLE/7623/2011-09-13.html 
            (New York)

            http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26643

             

            • Anonymous

              You get another tinfoil hat for trying to say that the U.S. was repsonsible for killing 30,000 black civilians in Libya. Not true either directly or indirectly.

      • Anonymous

        No other POTUS ever signed a bill that authorized the indefinite detainment of US citizens on mere suspicion. And making a signing statement that HE will not do it is absolutely worthless as well

        When shit like this happens and u r defending him it is hard to weigh who is more EVIL- U or Him.

        • Anonymous

           Especially when he is the one that specifically requested that he be granted that power.

        • Anonymous

          I agree he has been too Republican in some of the internal security policy. However, if there was another terrorist attack you guys would be climbing all over his back.

          I agree with Greenwald on NDAA.

          He has a good piece here:

          http://www.salon.com/2011/12/15/obama_to_sign_indefinite_detention_bill_into_law/singleton/

          By the way most of the powers in that bill already existed.

          However, I would hardly say that qualifies Obama as “evil”.

          • Anonymous

            U are reaching past ridiculous to a new metric . . . Extraordinarily Stupefied how can. You possibly see that it is not Evil to usurp the constitutional protection of US Citizens rights? Do you still consider yourself a liberal ?
            Do you want to address the evil of the Libyan military action POTUS engaged in – that has led to the ethnic cleansing of ten of thousand of Black Libyans and other African Nationals? Do you not see how premature this decision was? And how truly horrific the consequences are turning out to be? Was it not bad enough to have President Bush do so in Iraq and then have President Obama follow suit in Libya?
            Do you wish to confer your thoughts on the moratorium placed on the Gulf coast platform oil drilling subjecting thousands of people in the energy sector to poverty and thousands more to suffer along with them from reduced demand on their services and products? Is it not evil to steal the livelihood of people and essentially relegate them to the mercy of the state welfare services?
            PA u r too intelligent to b this naive. I am not offering you any heroes to worship, for there none to be found in the modrenity of mankind. I am simply pointing you to the light – to look outside the right Vs left dialectic u are fighting in.

            Sent from my iPad

            • Anonymous

              You need to understand the NDAA and the issues around it a little better. Not as black and white as you say. Hey if it usurps the constitution then someone will sue and take it to the SCOTUS. 

              You also did not read my response, nor the article I reference.

              I would hardly equate Libya with Iraq.

              The Gulf coast moratorium, although I am not sure what that has to do with this conversation, was justified. The industry needed a time out so the government could do the required safety checks. There was a minimal disruption of jobs and the economy, as many on the right had promised.

              You make a lot of outlandish statements but provide no factual proof backing up anything.

              You also have a pretty low threshold of what you call “evil”. There must be a lot of evil in the world according to your standard.

              • Anonymous

                Take it the SCOTUS – how long will that take ? Do you want to be the guy rounded up on a suspicion of being in collusion w/ associates of terrorist somewhere in engaged with members of the coalition? ( yes – I purposely phrased that vaguely)
                I have read all of Greenwalds pieces regarding the matter thank you.

                I am certain you do not have any objection to the moratorium gulf drilling b/c it is not you suffering under it’s yolk. 35,000 workers are out of work over 200,000 business and service contractors are out are operating at a loss due to the federal governments actions. And guess what everyone in the states are now subsidizing these job loses under their entitlement programs.
                I am quite certain if you can not recognize the pain your fellow country men are experiencing in those situations asking u to consider the ethnic cleansing in Libya is far out of your ability and capacity. but the fact still stands yet again . . . When a genocide of Africans occurs the US prefers to watch from the sidelines. And I assure you that quite insidious and evil.
                Sent from my iPad

    • Anonymous

      “the greater evil, Obama”

      How exactly did Obama get to be “evil”? You are so far out there with your language. Obama is at best right-of-center and has more or less followed Republican-lite policy prescriptions (healthcare = Romneycare/Dole/Heritage; foreign policy = Bush Lite, cut taxes, etc.). If you think Obama is ”evil”, I would hate to think what you think a truly liberal President we be or what your idea of a truly Republican President would be. Romney is acually not that far away than Obama, but you have no problem supporting him and I do not think you call him “evil”. 

  • Anonymous

    stirs the pot just fine .Larry.spot on.

  • Anonymous

    It’s more of an infestation.

    • Anonymous

       bug spray might help.   LOL

      • Anonymous

         Do they make Obot-Off? If so, we could use a few dozen cases.

        • Anonymous

           here ya go

          • Anonymous

             Thanks! Now if you could kindly distribute these to everyone we might be safe.

          • Anonymous

            Thanks Harp, copied for future use.

            Maybe instead of the way I used to do ”yawn, flag, swat” I should have done a “yawn, flag, spray”. It might have been more effective against the critters.

  • Anonymous

    “With an erection, blood that would otherwise carry oxygen to the brain is diverted to the penis.”

    That does explain the psyche behind the expression ”Big Dick”.

  • Anonymous

    Just a quick link for those that think voting for someone other than their top choice is a smart move
    http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/02/truly-frightening-truly/

    Consider this your ultimate warning …

  • Anonymous

    Just a quick link for those that think voting for someone other than their top choice is a smart move
    http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/02/truly-frightening-truly/

    Consider this your ultimate warning …

    • Anonymous

      Duly noted.  I hope others follow your link.  What he would do with SCOTUS appts is too much for me to think about at this moment.

  • Anonymous

    Just a quick link for those that think voting for someone other than their top choice is a smart move
    http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/02/truly-frightening-truly/

    Consider this your ultimate warning …

  • http://twitter.com/Juliezzz Juliezzz

    If I thought I could trust Romney….if I thought he would repeal these unconstitutional laws like NDAA and refuse to sign SOPA or the like….then I could hold my nose and vote for him.  Problem is, he gives me no indication that I can trust him on the issues he has flip flopped on (like global warming and cap and trade and healthcare and Bailouts more and more that boil down to more government control).  And on the stuff that he hasn’t wavered on like NDAA, war with Iran and the Federal Reserve……that’s….. well that’s a deal breaker.  He would be the President of the Bankers (Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase)  and not a President of the United States.  He would grow government and not shrink it.  He would sign us up for more tyranny rather than less.

    I would LOVE to trust Romeny so that I could relax in this primary but I can’t.  

    I have to support Ron Paul because Romney gives me no alternative.  If that makes me an Ideologue….then I guess I am.  But don’t we have to be to turn this country around?  I mean where would we be if the Founding Fathers excepted the status quo and didn’t have big lofty ideals? 

    But honestly, all I care about is preventing us from turning into Russia, China, Germany, or some yet on paralleled monster of a government.  What if the worst time in History hasn’t yet happened and we are headed straight for it if we are not careful.  Over dramatic?  Maybe.  But all terrible despotic governments start somewhere and it shocks me how quickly we have quietly advanced in that direction over the last 12 years.  Over the last 100 really cuz that’s when we received the first fatal wound.

    Ron Paul is only one man.  But with the power of the veto he could put the breaks on a lot of this.  And he can reverse a lot of executive orders from past presidents.  And, he can cause an audit of the Fed.  That may be enough to pull us back from the brink.

    • Anonymous

      Ron Paul fits the stereotype that men mellow with age. But consider the long road he had to travel to get to his present mellow non-intervention personality and views. Paul has a well documented history through his adult and public life as an honest to goodness angry raging racist.

      And that history was well before Obama made it fashionable for every white person to be called a racist. Try getting him elected in the general with that baggage.

      • http://twitter.com/Juliezzz Juliezzz

         Ron Paul is the farthest thing from a racist as you will ever find. 

        trying to pin something on him that was written by someone else is weak and pathetic.  What else ya got? 

        Nuthin!

        Keep grasping at straws though.  It will keep you busy

        • Anonymous

          Look my friend I like Dr Paul I really do I ain’t to hot for his foreign policy but I can get past that but u got to know this…

          If Dr Paul wins the nomination (by a miracle b/c he has not achieved anything remotely considerable to date) The POTUS ( the historic first black president) will introduce Dr.Paul to The uninformed
          electorate for the first time and with it the newsletters
          bearing his name and every single syllable too that is racist and anti semantic. Whether he wrote it or not will
          not matter a blessed bit

          It is very disheartening considering his long held positions are not in fact, racist- but this is the narrative that the major media sources will run with.

          If you think the right wing and the middle have been cruel wait to see what the Left is gonna pull out against Dr. Paul. It will destroy the
          man.

          • http://twitter.com/Juliezzz Juliezzz

             the newsletters don’t hold water and so Obama can whine about them all he wants but it won’t work and it will only make him look weak.

            Paul has accomplished something great and substantial in this election.  Maybe you haven’t seen the  news casts that I posted abouve and that explains why you are in the dark about his chances.

        • Anonymous

           I do disagree with Paul concerning his Civil Rights Act opposition as a matter of property rights. Blacks were segregated and discriminated against in the South. In many ways some of the folks there still believe that blacks are still their property that the federal government stole. I lived in the deep south for a while and it opened my eyes to a lot of things I wish I never had to understand. Perhaps most ironic of all is that it was the Democrats that instituted these discriminatory policies. When they changed their mind the Republicans swept in so that they could represent. Hypocrisy on steroids.

        • Anonymous

           I do disagree with Paul concerning his Civil Rights Act opposition as a matter of property rights. Blacks were segregated and discriminated against in the South. In many ways some of the folks there still believe that blacks are still their property that the federal government stole. I lived in the deep south for a while and it opened my eyes to a lot of things I wish I never had to understand. Perhaps most ironic of all is that it was the Democrats that instituted these discriminatory policies. When they changed their mind the Republicans swept in so that they could represent. Hypocrisy on steroids.

    • Anonymous

      I like a lot of what Paul says and more importantly, what he has stood for unwaveringly for so many years. The problem is that he isn’t making any headway in the nomination process. Yes, he is getting the word out and attracting a more diverse selection of the electorate but neo-cons hate him for his foreign policy views and he ain’t gonna win.

      If the GOP has any sense they will try to find a way to bring him and his supporters into the fold. Not just as an “accommodation” but actually modifying their positions so that the two more closely align. I don’t see that happening but it would be a good thing should it occur.

      • http://twitter.com/Juliezzz Juliezzz

        We are dismissed and called “Paultards” and pushed aside as unnecessary and ignored by the media.  Told we are in too small of a number to matter.  They are starting to realize they their mistake, because they are realizing that they can’t win without the Paul supporters.  Paul pulls in so many new voters and the Republicans can’t win without them either.  It’s just a fact.  Now the Paul supporters have found themselves in a meeting of the minds…. a  consensus if you will.  What will the party do about this development?  Because I was a PUMA in the last election.  I understand the meaning of “Party Unity My ASS” 

        A couple of words  for the Republicans out there in the world

        1.  You reap what you sow
        2.  You may just need the people you dismiss so don’t burn your bridges

        and my personal fav

        3.  “Beware The Lollipop Of Mediocrity; Lick It Once And You’ll Suck Forever.”

        http://nonebutpaul.com/images/logos/LogoBlue.jpg

        NO ONE BUT PAUL MONEY BOMB CURRENTLY HAS RAISED    $1,371,569.44

        https://secure.ronpaul2012.com/?dp=1

    • Anonymous

      “[Romney] would be the President of the Bankers (Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase)”

      Obama’s already got the job.  That $25B bank fraud settlement that made the headlines last week is actually going to be paid for entirely by American taxpayers, according to a February 16 Financial Times article.

      http://www.zerohedge.com/news/housing-settlement-be-taxpayer-funded-confirming-big-five-banks-are-beyond-law

      • http://twitter.com/Juliezzz Juliezzz

        Agreed!  Obama already has that job and Romney is the bankers next choice.  This is a huge reason why I don’t want romney.

  • Anonymous

    Dude – really?  Are you sure about that? (ROFL)

    (in response to PPAA’s inane claim above that “Ok.. which President was “investigated” more than Obama before he was elected?”)

    Disqus is getting sloppy…..

  • Anonymous

    Having never voted Republican until the ’08 general
    election in my long life since first being old enough to vote, I am now a bit
    confused about the Republican Party in general. 
    I always used to think it was the party of cigar-smoking backroom deals
    by rich old white guys.  But there was
    also always the sense that they were ORGANIZED. 
    I no longer know what to think. 

    During the last presidential election, they put
    forward a senator known to cross the aisle occasionally, but who was for
    limiting pork deals.  Now they’re
    considering a guy known for his pork deals, with conservative statements that
    are as neo-con as they can get.

    But here I am now, not so upset with Santorum’s
    statements about birth control and abortion as you might think a woman who grew
    to adulthood during the days of rage of the Vietnam controversy and the sexual
    revolution would be.  I don’t fit the
    stereotype.  I fought for women’s right
    to choose—but to me that meant to choose her profession.  Choosing to take birth control and to undergo
    an abortion are also rights I believe a woman should have, but they are her
    right to choose, not something she MUST choose. 
    Now I feel that this whole issue seems to have come down to a general
    concession that ALL women want lots of birth control and abortions and should
    get them freely.

    One of the most popular novels during my day was
    Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World.  Nowadays most young people know only his
    small book Doors of Perception and
    think of him only as the inspiration of Jim Morrison and the benefits of taking
    mind-altering drugs.  But in Brave New World he satirizes a society
    that looks down on people who enter into a committed sexual relationship with
    someone from the opposite sex.  He
    depicts a society of test-tube babies genetically manufactured for certain
    positions in life and one that also demands that women not do not give birth
    and that they should have many casual sexual partners.  I think of that novel every time I read the
    words of radical feminists insisting on their RIGHTS for birth control and
    abortion.  Is that a slippery slope they
    really want to slide down?  I have always
    hoped instead feminism would mean that women have a right NOT to have sex if
    they don’t want to and to be able to choose when and with whom they would give
    something as valuable as themselves.

    So what is my point about Santorum?  There are two. 

    Because I’ve heard his statements about not
    governing according to his religious beliefs, I have accepted his view on these
    neo-con beliefs—though in a sense they are centuries old in the Catholic Church
    to which he belongs and are not neo-con in that sense at all.  But I do know how they will be played out as
    just that in a general election and that they therefore lose lots of
    independent votes.  He is not therefore a
    candidate who will win against a still strong anti-Bush sentiment.

    For me, however, it is really his governing record
    that turns me off.  I liked the little
    idea McCain had of limiting pork deals. 
    It wasn’t the grandiose change that Obama was promising (but never
    intending to follow up on), but it was a start. 
    I liked McCain’s efforts in ’05 to fix Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.  I liked his true patriotism—the idea of
    having a true war hero in office.  So I
    voted FOR him and not against Obama.  (This is not to say that I liked his almost
    always militarism.)

    I am just so very disappointed that the Republicans
    weren’t the highly organized party I used to think they were.  It’s clear to me now that even the meme that
    it’s the party establishment backing Romney is not true.  This primary has not at all mimicked the
    DNC-gamed primary of 2008.

     I know there will never be a person running for
    president who wouldn’t disappoint me in some way or, on the other hand, who
    would perfectly reflect all my opinions.  
    So, in the long run, Larry, I have come to the same decisions as you
    have in regard to Romney and Paul.  I
    could vote FOR either and not just vote against Obama.  I am an now a proud ex-Dem independent.

    • Anonymous

      A Romney Paul ticket would be exciting. But Rubio is the favorite for VP at this point.

      Yes, we are adults and have the right to make decisions. And folks who criticize them aren’t important. They aren’t their decisions and they don’t have to live with the consequences.

      I too grew up and became an adult during the Vietnam years. Life was crazy in some respects and enjoyable as hell in others. Of course there were many extremes that now, as a seasoned adult I recognize as being unhelpful and down right dangerous and foolish. But that is what happens when society becomes repressed, it goes toward the other extreme out of sheer frustration. And that is what is most disheartening about our political process.

      • Anonymous

        Rubio the savior of the Republican party…. blah, blah, blah..  

        That guy cannot even get it straight about when his parents came to the U.S. He lied about it back in October. He lied about his own bio.

        http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/27/democratic-leaning-pac-targets-rubio-in-exile-controversy/

        The Tea Party Rubio shine is wearing off pretty fast. The Tea Party has gone so far as call Rubio a “trator”.

        Nationwide, he has no particularly popularity among hispanics.

        “The poll also suggests that Rubio’s pull is limited to Florida Latinos at this stage of the campaign, meaning that he would have little impact in crucial southwest swing states that are home to majorities of Mexican-American voters, such as Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada. Latino voters nationwide are largely unfamiliar with the freshman senator; 60 percent say they either have no opinion of him or have never heard of him. Only 25 percent of Latino voters nationwide say Rubio’s presence on the ticket would encourage them to vote Republican in 2012, with 47 percent responding that it would have no effect on which party’s candidate they will support. There are also indications that Rubio’s appeal to Mexican-American voters is limited. Only 22 percent of those voters say Rubio would encourage them to vote GOP and 47 percent say it would make no difference.”

        http://univisionnews.tumblr.com/post/16465398193/univision-abc-poll-rubio-as-vp-could-help-gop-win

        • Anonymous

          Obama
          went on to tell his audience that the Kennedys, Jack and Bobby, decided
          to do an airlift. They would bring some young Africans over so that
          they could be educated and learn all about America. His grandfather
          heard that call and sent his son, Barrack Obama, Sr., to America.

          The problem with that scenario is that, having been born in August 1961,
          the future senator was not conceived until sometime in November 1960.
          So, if his African grandfather heard words that “sent a shout across
          oceans,” inspiring him to send his goat-herder son to America, it was
          not Democrat Jack Kennedy he heard, or his brother Bobby, it was
          Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

          What a liar he is

          • Anonymous

            But the crowd went wild. Facts matter little to Democrats. If it sounds good that’s good enough for them.

            • Anonymous

              Facts matter little to bots of either party.  Really.  Dogma makes the mind freeze up.  Reboot needed.

              • Anonymous

                No, KataKimbe, party “facts” are like the “facts” in the Soviet Union’s school textbooks–open to revision at all times and then used to indoctrinate.  You’re just using an outdated definition of the word “fact.”

                (Snark–of course)

            • Anonymous

              Maybe those made-up “facts” are just for us silly females who the PTB in the Democratic Party say are “feelers” not “thinkers”.

              Cuz they, unlike them wimmen-hatin Republicans don’t wanna bother our pretty little heads with the truth.

          • Anonymous

            zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

        • Anonymous

          I neither praised or condemned Rubio. I mentioned a fact. You took it upon yourself to rattle on and on about what a loser he is in your opinion.

          Don’t you have an OWS rally to attend tonight?

          • Anonymous

            I never said anything about what you said. Since you mention Rubio, I am merely commenting on Rubio. Relax. Don’t be so defensive on stuff you think you read.

            The message of OWS is a good one and one that everyone should support.

            • Anonymous

               Their message of destroying private and public property and throwing bricks and bibles at police is what I suppose you are referring to.

              OWS is a cover for a socialist anarchist movement that is worldwide. They don’t believe in our system of government and wish to destroy it. And that is a fact I know from personal experience.

              • Anonymous

                You should actually get out and see what OWS is all about. A few anarchists in Oakland does not represent this large and diverse nationwide movement.

                OWS and the Tea Party basically share the same complaints, but the policy prescripitions are different.

                The main point is the system is not working for average Americans and has been taken over by a few with the money and influence. Kind of like your man Romney. 

                • Anonymous

                   I don’t see things through rose-colored glasses. I’ve actually met some of the folks BEHIND this movement. OWS is a cover for their agenda. And it is not in our country’s self interest to support them.

                  • Anonymous

                    What is their agenda then?

                • Anonymous

                  In Denver, they started a fire, though I do admit that Denver’s local idiots are nothing compared to Oakland’s.

                  I had a student miss class a few times when Occupy Denver started because she wanted to be part of the action, see what it was all about, etc.  She came back and said she just couldn’t figure out what their point was, that it seemed mindless.

                  • Anonymous

                    Do you remember the riot police during the Denver convention? Damn that was scary.

        • Anonymous

          Do you really think Obama and his supporters should play that card? 

          • Anonymous

             They ARE playing it. Reid said that Rubio wasn’t properly representing the Hispanic community.

      • Anonymous

        I’d love Rubio for VP. 

    • Anonymous

      “Choosing to take birth control and to undergo an abortion are also rights I believe a woman should have, but they are herright to choose, not something she MUST choose. 
      Now I feel that this whole issue seems to have come down to a general concession that ALL women want lots of birth control and abortions and should get them freely.”

      A bit of a strange comment. What does “MUST”choose mean? And what does “ALL women want lots of birth control and abortions and should get them freely.” mean?

      You are either for or against abortion. Yes, I would say the majority of women want lots of birth control and they want to be free to have abortions. Women generally want control over their own body not just in America, but around the world.

      “ I think of that novel every time I read thewords of radical feminists insisting on their RIGHTS for birth control and abortion.”

      So you think it is “radical feminists” that want the right to have birth control and ability to have an abortion. A bit strange, given that about 99% of women in America use birth control and the majority of them support the right to choose. Their must be a lot of “radical feminists” in America and on the rest of the planet where birth contorl and abortions are readily available.

      The first half of your post is some strange rant about feminism and birth control and abortion. You then finish with some weird logic about Santorum and why you want to vote for Romney.

      Why do you want to vote for Romney? Why do you want to vote for a Republican Party that wants to restrict abortion and now even birth control? Why would you want to vote for a Repubican Party that drove this country into a ditch and Obama has had to spend three years trying to clean up their mess? Why exactly has the Democratic party so wronged you?

      • Anonymous

        You are either for or against abortion.

        For a liberal you are sure close minded.

        I am against abortion unless it is to save the mother’s life or if she was raped. Yet I also support a woman’s right to chose what to do with her own body. I’m sure my viewpoint infuriates conservatives and other fools that believe they have the right to dictate what others do with their own bodies and lives. But it’s my position and I stand by it.

        • Anonymous

          I know I am pro-choice for the first trimester.  But for me I find it despicable to allow abortions after the 22nd week when the nervecenters of the brain has formed and the ‘baby’ can feel the pain… UNLESS the life of the mother is at stake.  Then it is kind of like self defense.  But that is just me.  Other western countries only allow late term abortions after the matter goes through a Board.  Cut off is week 18.  Seems reasonable to me.

      • Anonymous

        As I mentioned before, whenever I see your idon, all I can hear in my mind is “Blah, blah, blah, blah!”

        You don’t get it, do you?  I am not for abortion, just that I do think it’s woman’s right to choose to have one.  I personally feel that every woman in her right mind should do all in her power NOT to have to make a choice like that.  The same goes for contraception.  It’s not something that should cost much for women who are not in committed relationships as far as I am concerned, and in that case, the male should be just as responsible for the cost of contraception.  It will not break their piggy banks.  I do not like the idea of so many young women devaluing themselves by having so much “recreational” sex with partners they “hook” up with “spontaneously.”  That would be the only other reason that contraception expenses would necessarily be fairly high–the worry that at any moment they were going to just drop their drawers, so to speak.

        I like Romney because he is a business man, and a successful one.  He comes from a solid family background.  He is religiously and morally grounded.  He has been trying for the prsidency for some time now and wasn’t given bills to pretend were his own to pass in the Illinois congress, wasn’t helped to right lying FALSE memoirs by a radical from my time who planned to kill police officers, didn’t get his “religion” as a school boy learning muslim calls to worship and then hearing radical “god-damn-America” black liberation theology.  We KNOW Romney’s college records.  We see his charitable contributions, we know the successful projects he’s administered.  He did not succeed in losing LOTS of money in a failed Chicago Annenberg Challenge education grant.  He did not enter into a most likely illegal real estate deal with a now imprisoned Chicago political / financial figure.  His “father” figure was not Frank Marshall Davis.

        O.K.  NOW I kow you are saying “Blah, Blah, Blah” in response to my response because your mind is closed.

        • Anonymous

          “I am not for abortion, just that I do think it’s woman’s right to choose to have one.  I personally feel that every woman in her right mind should do all in her power NOT to have to make a choice like that.”

          I think everyone agrees with you. No one is for abortions and everyone thinks everybody should do everything in their power to not have one.

          Not sure what you point is?

          “I do not like the idea of so many young women devaluing themselves by having so much “recreational” sex with partners they “hook” up with “spontaneously.”  ”

          Great. You have an oldschool attitude toward sex, but not sure what that has to do with anything regarding politics and Santorum.

          “I like Romney because he is a business man, and a successful one.”

          He was very successful at making a lot of money for himself and his investors. No doubt. And that is a good thing. However, it is a stretch to say he was a “job creator” as he states. He was also very successful at paying very little relative taxes versus the rest of us.

          You lose me with the rest your post. Falls into tinfoil hat territory. BS about Ayers and what Rev. Wright said. Is that all you care about is that BS? Come on.

          You can say I want to vote for Romney because I prefer is policy prescriptions over Obamas. That is fine, but this recycle BS about Ayers and Wright. Silly season.

          Romney did not release his college records. That is BS.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1429578258 Cerry H Klaver

            I’m in the NOBAMA camp as a disenfranchised liberal democrat, personally.  But just so you get more of your facts straight –

            Obama’s first Executive Order as POTUS was to ensure that any and all FOIA requests for any information pertaining to his school records and anything else in his past is subject to review by the Obama White House itself.  

            And the transparency of him releasing his records in the first place on the campaign trail,  didn’t happen.

            So much for transparency from the most transparent and liberal president evah!

            • Anonymous

              There is obviously a reason to that Executive Order.  Those who have nothing to hide… hide nothing.

          • Anonymous

            You want to talk about BS, then tell me that you have EVER checked the BS you receive from the progressive machine and the Obama campaign. 

            Go to the sources of the stream of information that you call BS.  Check with some of the reporters from Chicago.  Just because you don’t want to believe you’ve been hoodwinked by the BSer in Chief doesn’t mean you haven’t been.

            In my opinion character IS policy.  So I talk about Romney’s much better character than O’s lack of character.  Character leads and creates policy that governs well for the good of the country.  Lack of character creates policy for the sake of “popularity” or for the sake of fulfilling some sort of political power agenda.

            If your weak mind can’t see that having the choice of taking birth control and of having an abortion is not just a protective measure for women who find themselves in untenable situations because of circumstances they had little control over rather than for the sake of women who have put themselves in those situations because they don’t want to think about the consequences of their behavior and have no respect for themselves and the sanctity of their bodies–the temple of their souls–that is your problem. 

            The birth control and abortion issue may in your mind be a women’s health issue in regard to their physical health.  In my mind it is an issue that does–as the religious organizations understand–have more to do with the moral, spiritual, and mental health of our women, children, fathers, mothers–and families in this country. 

            This whole issue, however, doesn’t really have anything to do with health, since it is clear that birth control and abortion is widely available, easy to obtain, and not so expensive as you want to think.  There is no real crisis that triggered this argument.  It is a manufactured issue made for public consumption by the campaigner in chief because he knows his idiot followers will deem him brilliant for his grasp of “policy.”

            • Anonymous

              You have yet to prove your case that Romney has much better character than Obama.

              Romney certainly does not have a solid backbone of principal. He has flip-flopped on every issue. You name it. That says a lot about his character. I also has not had a problem unleasing millions on crazy scorched earth attacks on his opponents. Good character there? He has worked in the private equity sector, which is not particularly know for its character.

              Yes Romney is a good family man and may be nice enough, but so is Obama.

              “ rather than for the sake of women who have put themselves in those situations because they don’t want to think about the consequences of their behavior and have no respect for themselves and the sanctity of their bodies–the temple of their souls–that is your problem. ”

              That sweeping generalization is brutal. So you think that women that have abortions or use birth control have no respect for themselves and for their bodies? You certainly have a very strict view on life and certainly not a modern one.

              “The birth control and abortion issue may in your mind be a women’s health issue in regard to their physical health.  In my mind it is an issue that does–as the religious organizations understand–have more to do with the moral, spiritual, and mental health of our women, children, fathers, mothers–and families in this country.”

              Another brutal statement.  What are you saying about the 99% of women in this country who have used birth control?

              You are beginning to sound like Santorum who thinks birth control is dangerous and is pretty much against “sex”. You are entitled to your beliefs. That is true, but you are out of the mainstream and your candidate will not get elected with those beliefs.

              What does the video below say about Romney’s “character”?

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WdkEc4mZF0

              • Anonymous

                Romney started the assault on Gingrich after Gingrich attacked him ferociously and made insane claims about his integrity.

                It always amazes me when people think they have the right to complain about a counter-attack when they started the fight to begin with.

                • Anonymous

                  You have a poor read of recent history and the timeline of events. Are you really paying attention? Romney started the vicious attacks on Gingrich in Iowa. Gingrich did almost no negative advertising on Romney in Iowa. Gingrish only did it after Iowa in reaction to Romney’s attacks. Do yourself a favor and go back and read some analysis of how the GOP primaries has evolved. If you think otherwise then prove it.

                  http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-12-29/gingrich-challenges-romney-to-debate-over-attack-ads-in-iowa.html

                  • Anonymous

                     The most viscous counter-attacks came after Gingrich suggested Romney had done something illegal to gain his wealth during a debate.

              • Anonymous

                 

                What does the video below say about Romney’s “character”?

                It demonstrates that he has matured.

                I used to be a ferocious Dem. I still hold to many of the same principles I thought the party stood for but I no longer support the party. I was one of those stupid Dembots who voted for any Dem they threw my way. In 2008 I opened my eyes and freed my mind. So I changed my political views and support. If you want to call that flip-flopping then go for it. I call it growing up, learning from past mistakes and maturing as an individual. I’m not some fundamentalist that blindly follows what I am told is right.

                • Anonymous

                  “It demonstrates that he has matured.”

                  That is a good one. Really very funny.

                  So completely changing your position on just about everything is a sign that he has matured? I guess that is one way to look at it. He has done a awful lot of maturing.

                  This coming from a person with the name “flip flopper”.

                  • Anonymous

                     It’s Flop Flipper. Try to keep up.

              • Anonymous

                And so I open my newspaper today to read a big story with this headline: “Births soar among singles.”

                Don’t tell me that this is happening because these young girls/women can’t get birth control  The story is about the rise in births among caucasian women–many of whom have attended some college.

                I don’t know of any community college, college, or university that doesn’t have lots of information and doesn’t point the way for getting birth control help.  For that matter, I worked in public high schools and know the information can easily be obtained from counselors and nurses.

                These a choices women are making based on our country’s new–since my time–attitudes about relaxed recreational sex and because of the fact that our government will give them a safety net in place of a father for their babies.

                I reiterate, the birth control/abortion controversy at this point is a manufactured one because the O team KNOWS how it will play with his knee-jerk obots to make the Republicans appear to endanger their party lifestyles.

                • Anonymous

                   Many single women have children out of wedlock because they can’t qualify for benefits if they are married. This isn’t a slam on women. I know quite a few young women that are doing it exactly for that reason.

                  • Anonymous

                    Do you have any proof to back that up? Lots of women having babies to get benefits? BS.

                • Anonymous

                  Not sure what you point is? Great lots of single women have babies. Good for them. Many are not waiting around to find a man as their clock is ticking so they decide to have a baby.

                  “…appear to endanger their party lifestyles. ”

                  You have a very low opinion of women. You are basically saying that women who want access to birth control or abortion have a “party lifestyle”. What is that code for? You demean women with your attitude.

                  • Anonymous

                    I teach women this age–I have a very high opinion of them from working with many of them.  Howev er, there ARE those women who use abortion in place of birth control.  Many of my students dislike them and call them names.  I’ve personally known two such women among the students in my older son’s small town high school class.  I do have a low opinion of women with that attitude. 

                    I didn’t say what you are saying I said—not all women who want birth control without a committed relationship and who go in for abortions have a party lifestyle—but believe me there are many who do, even if you don’t want to know about it.

                    You cannot relate to what I am saying because you obviously didn’t grow up in the times I did.  It is MY generation that fought for birth control and legal abortion.  I am more than disappointed that our work to get rid of the dangerous back alley abortions and to rid the terrible, terrible stigma of unwed pregnancy from the “towns without pity” (a reference you will not get) has turned into this type of ridiculous use of sexuality as a game almost.  Yes, some women do want to raise babies and don’t want to wait for the marriage–but the news article I read also link it to more use of government “safety nets.”  And every time I turn around I have to read of a “boyfriend” abusing some young woman’s child or children whose father left the woman and who is no where in the child’s life or children’s lives–and often if there are more than one child, each has a different father.

                    This entire discussion is still in your mind based on your belief that the Republicans will work to rid the country of the legal right to birth control or abortion.  Have you heard of stare decisis?  Whether you agree or not with this concept in our legal system, it’s highly unlikely that the Supreme Court would ever overturn Roe vs. Wade.

                    Your Obama handlers have made sure you had another reason with this whole “free birth control and abortion as a women’s health issue” controversy to get your uneducated, inexpreienced knickers in an uproar against the people who are more conservative and against religious institutions that stand in their way of working toward a more socialistic country.  And it’s an issue that came about because of the stupid problems obamacare opened up.

                    There is no crisis.  Birth control and abortions are already cheaper than they’ve ever been before and more widely available.  Obama is just doing his Saul Alinsky routine—again. 

                  • Anonymous

                    I teach women this age–I have a very high opinion of them from working with many of them.  Howev er, there ARE those women who use abortion in place of birth control.  Many of my students dislike them and call them names.  I’ve personally known two such women among the students in my older son’s small town high school class.  I do have a low opinion of women with that attitude. 

                    I didn’t say what you are saying I said—not all women who want birth control without a committed relationship and who go in for abortions have a party lifestyle—but believe me there are many who do, even if you don’t want to know about it.

                    You cannot relate to what I am saying because you obviously didn’t grow up in the times I did.  It is MY generation that fought for birth control and legal abortion.  I am more than disappointed that our work to get rid of the dangerous back alley abortions and to rid the terrible, terrible stigma of unwed pregnancy from the “towns without pity” (a reference you will not get) has turned into this type of ridiculous use of sexuality as a game almost.  Yes, some women do want to raise babies and don’t want to wait for the marriage–but the news article I read also link it to more use of government “safety nets.”  And every time I turn around I have to read of a “boyfriend” abusing some young woman’s child or children whose father left the woman and who is no where in the child’s life or children’s lives–and often if there are more than one child, each has a different father.

                    This entire discussion is still in your mind based on your belief that the Republicans will work to rid the country of the legal right to birth control or abortion.  Have you heard of stare decisis?  Whether you agree or not with this concept in our legal system, it’s highly unlikely that the Supreme Court would ever overturn Roe vs. Wade.

                    Your Obama handlers have made sure you had another reason with this whole “free birth control and abortion as a women’s health issue” controversy to get your uneducated, inexpreienced knickers in an uproar against the people who are more conservative and against religious institutions that stand in their way of working toward a more socialistic country.  And it’s an issue that came about because of the stupid problems obamacare opened up.

                    There is no crisis.  Birth control and abortions are already cheaper than they’ve ever been before and more widely available.  Obama is just doing his Saul Alinsky routine—again. 

          • Anonymous

             ”You lose me with the rest your post. Falls into tinfoil hat territory.
            BS about Ayers and what Rev. Wright said. Is that all you care about is
            that
             BS? Come on. ”

            And you complain on other threads that everybody on NQ attacks you personally? Then you personally attack DianaLC like this?
            She is one of the nicest people on this blog and does not deserve your ridicule.You are just behaving like a JERK. You owe Diana an apology.

            • Anonymous

              Where exactly is the personal attack? explain.

            • Anonymous

              I can take Obot idiocy.  I just don’t like to be hounded by people whose intent always seemed to be to make comments against my friends or to give the impression that I was on his side about everything.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dolly-Cain/100002303813490 Dolly Cain

          It’s funny how Mr.  god=damn America is now living in a mansion. A mansion he would probably would not have if he didn’t live in g-d America.

          • Anonymous

            Question for you: Have you actually listened to the speech known as the “God Dame America” sermon given by Rev. Wright?

            Do you actually have any idea about what you are talking about?

            Here is a good objective description of the speech. Why don’t you do yourself a favor a read it.

            http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/21/the-full-story-behind-wright%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Cgod-damn-america%E2%80%9D-sermon/

            It was not really an anti-American speech. It was more of anti-government speech and almost could have been given by someone on the far-right.

            • Anonymous

              I did listen to the speech.  As a Christian, I have studied liberation theology, that which came out of Central America and the black liberation theology of the U.S. 

              Since some like to call the Mormon denomination a “cult,” I believe they consider black liberation theology even more of a cult–but a hateful one.

              And give me a break–you provided a link to CNN.

              Even O’s BFF Oprah realized quickly what a hateful place it was and didn’t stay in it very long.

            • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dolly-Cain/100002303813490 Dolly Cain

              Yes I listened to the whole thing.  But he’s living large in a country he claims to despise.

      • Anonymous

        Hey PA where is the stat 99% of all US women are using/ used birth control coming from?

        Is this stat verifiable? Meaning the reason why females utilized certain forms of Birth control – medical reasons, personal preferences, married or single? Just interested in what Information was gathered in the polling. Also what degree of accruracy it is weighted for.

        • Anonymous

          Um – there are a lot of ladies “of a certain age” who don’t NEED birth control. Doesn’t that skew your 99% figure?

          • Anonymous

             I think it more likely that they mean 99% of Obama supporters use birth control.

            Perhaps Republicans should submit a bill requiring Democrats to take birth control. Sounds like a great idea. We sure don’t need them propagating their socialist agenda.

            • Anonymous

               they do that by teaching it in our schools now.

        • Anonymous

           Obots don’t need no stinkin facts.

      • Anonymous

        As
        a tyrant becomes increasingly and unceasingly abusive of our rights, at
        what point should the people abolish the government anew? 

        The
        Declaration of Independence answers this question with exquisite
        eloquence.

        Prudence,
        indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be
        changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience
        hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are
        sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which
        they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpation,
        pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them
        under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw
        off such government, and to provide new guards for their future
        security. 

        The
        United States now suffers the fever of despotism, in great part,
        because Congress has relentlessly abrogated its sworn Constitutional
        duty. Article One, Section One of the Constitution informs us:

        All
        legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the
        United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of
        Representatives.

        • Anonymous

           Beautiful words. They always fill my heart with valor.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1429578258 Cerry H Klaver

        “You are either for or against abortion.”  What part of Women’s Studies 101 did you not get?  NO feminist says that she is for or against abortion.  It is about giving women their “right to choose.” The same goes with birth control and your introductory logic class reasoning.  

        • Anonymous

          Let me re-phrase. Right-to-chose.

          • Anonymous

            If you are still wondering what my comment had to do with Santorum, I might ask you to go back and read it.  (I find obots especially bad at reading between the lines, understanding tone, or comprehending what they read.  Maybe it comes from ingesting too much Democratic pablum.)

            However, I will try to make it clear:  I said that because of my religious background, I accept his beliefs about the issues of birth control and abortion.  I also thought I made it clear that I felt he had explained enough that he would not try to force his religious views onto the country.

            I am not naive enough to believe that any of these Republican candidates would try as hard as the Bush/.Cheney did and now the Obama/Axelrod/Jarrett/Holder administration has to go against Constitutional princiiple.

            But I also made clear that, because of idiots like you and because of Santorum’s insistence on bringing up these neo-con sounding issues, I did not approve of his candidacy as these issues are divisive and unnecessary.

            So what does your Messiah do but make sure they become divisive.

            Please find cookiegramma’s link on this thread.  I’ve dared you to watch ALL of it to try to understand why we, who love the principles on which this country was founded and do not believe that they are outdated despise your candidate, who is in the political arena only for himself.

          • Anonymous

            If you are still wondering what my comment had to do with Santorum, I might ask you to go back and read it.  (I find obots especially bad at reading between the lines, understanding tone, or comprehending what they read.  Maybe it comes from ingesting too much Democratic pablum.)

            However, I will try to make it clear:  I said that because of my religious background, I accept his beliefs about the issues of birth control and abortion.  I also thought I made it clear that I felt he had explained enough that he would not try to force his religious views onto the country.

            I am not naive enough to believe that any of these Republican candidates would try as hard as the Bush/.Cheney did and now the Obama/Axelrod/Jarrett/Holder administration has to go against Constitutional princiiple.

            But I also made clear that, because of idiots like you and because of Santorum’s insistence on bringing up these neo-con sounding issues, I did not approve of his candidacy as these issues are divisive and unnecessary.

            So what does your Messiah do but make sure they become divisive.

            Please find cookiegramma’s link on this thread.  I’ve dared you to watch ALL of it to try to understand why we, who love the principles on which this country was founded and do not believe that they are outdated despise your candidate, who is in the political arena only for himself.

      • Anonymous

         You asked me in another post to show you where your arguments consistently repeat the Democrat talking points here an example :

        “… Why would you want to vote for a Repubican Party that drove
        this country into a ditch and Obama has had to spend three years trying
        to clean up their mess?… ”

        I think I’ve heard that line “Repubican Party that drove
        this country into a ditch” oh where did I hear it?
        Oh yes I’ve heard that line from BO himself and every Democratic hack who wants to shift blame from the POTUS to Republicans. There are many reasons why we landed in this mess going back many years.Yes  Bush and the Republicans share in that blame but not all the blame as you would suggest. What is clear is that Obama didn’t have enough knowledge about the economy to dig our wagon out of the ditch.

        • Anonymous

          Back when Bush was in the White House and his administration tried to blame any problems on the Clinton Administration the left was outraged at such a tactic. A tactic they now embrace wholeheartedly.
           
          That is just one of the reasons I am an Independent and loathe both parties. I just loathe  the Dems more at this point in time. 
           
           I always shall loathe Obama, the Obamamedia, and the Obamabots for their despicable behavior during the 2008 primary.
           
          Hypocrisy = politicians
          Politicians = hypocrites

          • Anonymous

             Hypocrites is much to kind a word.

        • Anonymous

          That is not a Democratic talking point that is the truth and a pretty common expression. How about that Bush drove us off a cliff. Does that help? 

          “What is clear is that Obama didn’t have enough knowledge about the economy to dig our wagon out of the ditch.”

          He has done a very good job at getting this country out of the ditch we were in or in stopping the freefall. He has turned around economic and job growth. He stablized financial markets and saved the auto industry. We are very far away from the deep ditch or freefall we were in in January 2009. He kept the country out of depression. His polices are working. We would probably be much further along in our recovery if it was not for the GOP blocking and doing everything they could to stop the economic recovery. Just holding up the debt ceiling vote in 2011 clearly shaved some economic and job growth off the economy in 2011.

          It is funny and typical of GOP supporters, that you in one sentence want to minimize the blame for Bush for the mess, but in the next sentence are unwilling to give Obama any credit for the economic recovery or even want to somehow blame him for the economy. So which is it? Do Presidents bare any responsibility for the economy on their watch?

           

          • Anonymous

             It’s amusing that the Dems who were in control of both houses of Congress during the second Bush term are not held to account for their part in driving the economy in the ditch. Isn’t it the responsibility of Congress to control the purse strings and to provide oversight? At least that is what my version of the Constitution says.

            • Anonymous

              The Dems took control of the House in January 2007. The problems regarding the housing market and deregulation of Wall Street and the building of the derivatives market happened between 2002 and 2007. The Dems were not in control of anything when the housing bubble built and excess of Wall Street occured. They also had no control when the policies were put in place that resulted in the increasing deficit and debt. Go back and read the history and the reasons for why and when the housing market bubble and excess of Wall Street occured. The GOP controlled everything when that was happening and would not work with the Dems on anything.

              • Anonymous

                the one thing you forget is that the people in congress responsible for the housing (Fannie Mae) and Banking were named Barney Franks and Christopher Dodd, both as I all too well know were and remain Democrats. Barney Franks defended and even claimed that there were no problems with Fannie Mae, while Chris Dodd filled his pockets from Banking interests.

                • Anonymous

                  So you are going to blame the second biggest recession in U.S. history on Barney Frank and Chris Dodd? Come on you are really not smarter than that.

                  You are so far away from having any understanding of what has happened over the last ten years that it is hardly worth debating with you.

                  Grannie, I suggest you get yourself a couple of good books that were written about the economic collapse of 2007-2009 and read them.

                  • Anonymous

                     the sad fact is that I do know better than you. You need to get out and see more than what the party tells you is true. You might also want to learn to not be so rude.

          • Anonymous

            “It is funny and typical of GOP supporters, that you in one sentence want
            to minimize the blame for Bush for the mess, but in the
            next sentence
            are unwilling to give Obama any credit for the economic recovery…”

            What economic recovery I don’t see one. And yes I do blame Obama policies for slowing down the recovery process. There that is two sentences does that make you happy?

            • Anonymous

              “What economic recovery I don’t see one.”

              Can’t help you if you are living in a bubble.

              The main thing that has really been holding back the recovery is State budget austerity, primarily driven by Republican Governors.

              • Anonymous

                 so please explain why one of the worst affected areas of the country is the State of Ct. That state has had democrat leadership of both the house and senate for as long as I can remember and is now the home of the rust belt of New England. Ever since the newly elected democrat governor took office companies have lined up to leave the state and I include one very large Pfizer. This morning I learned that in the small rural town I live in has 150 families with homes in pre-forclosure. This governor has cut back on aid to towns and cities and on school financing only to pursue his dream of high speed rail and a designated busway that would serve only a few towns. Taxes went way up and were placed on items that have never been taxed before.

                • Anonymous

                  CT is hardly “one of the worst affected areas of th country”.

                  Again, you need to get out more. You need to read about the economy more.

                  CT’s unemployment rate is 8.2%, which is below the national average of 8.3% and puts it in the middle of the pack.

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_unemployment_rate

                  CT state GDP growth has been 3.1% through this recovery versus the national average of 2.5% to 2.6% or above average.

                  http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/gdp_state/gsp_newsrelease.htm

                  I would say your new Governor has been doing a very good job. 

                  I believe he was able to work with the State unions to get a deal done to move toward balancing the budget (like Cuomo in NY). Your Governor has been much more constructive than say the Gov. Walker in WI who will soon be tossed out or Scott in FL who saw is poll numbers plumet and who will likely also get tossed out. 

                  If you are going to make outlandish statements then at least back it up with some facts.

      • Anonymous

        I’m just curious, how do you feel about a person’s right not have to pay for another’s choice to have an abortion?  Do you feel that it is the public’s responsibility to pay for an abortion for any woman who choses to have one, do you feel that it is the woman’s responsibility, or do you have a position that is somewhere in between, say, the public pays for abortions that a woman cannot afford, but women of means who can afford to pay for their abortion themselves must do so?

        • Anonymous

          Like the rest of the planet I think abortions should be considered as part of healthcare and should be covered by both public and private healthcare.

          However, I am not aware of anyone paying for anyone elses abortions in this country.

          • Anonymous

            Other people pay for abortions of women that they don’t know all of the time in this country through charities that offer abortion services.  Perhaps you meant to say that you were not aware of anyone involuntarily paying for anyone else’s abortion in this country.

            As for both public and private healthcare, speaking for myself, I am glad that I am back in the U.S. and no longer have to rely on public healthcare.  My experiences with it were distinctly negative, which is interesting, because the country had had public healthcare for 50 years and one would’ve thought that they could’ve gotten the system to work in that amount of time.  Of course, what the government considered a working public healthcare system to consist of, as opposed to the patient, seemed to differ considerably, so I guess that my experience may not be so surprising after all.

          • Anonymous

            Other people pay for abortions of women that they don’t know all of the time in this country through charities that offer abortion services.  Perhaps you meant to say that you were not aware of anyone involuntarily paying for anyone else’s abortion in this country.

            As for both public and private healthcare, speaking for myself, I am glad that I am back in the U.S. and no longer have to rely on public healthcare.  My experiences with it were distinctly negative, which is interesting, because the country had had public healthcare for 50 years and one would’ve thought that they could’ve gotten the system to work in that amount of time.  Of course, what the government considered a working public healthcare system to consist of, as opposed to the patient, seemed to differ considerably, so I guess that my experience may not be so surprising after all.

  • Anonymous

    if this is what we are doing for our kids,  there has to be changes made
    next generation will have lower standard of living

    http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ryan-obama-national-debt/2012/02/17/id/429800

  • Anonymous

    today’s cartoon

    http://terrellaftermath.com/

  • Anonymous

    somehow , I just can not sing Happy Birthday

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7aQGfhXVejc

  • Anonymous

    IOWA HAWK

    n the last 10 days of saturation media coverage about the price of rubbers, the federal government went another $40B in debt.

    this kind of sums up the situation with the press today

  • Anonymous

    Overrun? Does 3 or 4 commentators that disagree with the standard NQ line versus a couple of hundred NQbots count as being overrun? That seems like stretching the definition of “overrun”. Many other sites at times have almost an even number of those for and against Obama, so I would hardly say that NQ is overrun.

    • Anonymous

      They do when they crap all over the threads like you do.

      C’mon Larry, help a brother out here! Get rid of this creep.

    • Anonymous

       It wouldn’t matter if there was only 3 or four or four million. You would all repeat the same BS. Perhaps instead of calling you bots we should be respectful and call you by your proper name: Legion.

    • Anonymous

       It wouldn’t matter if there was only 3 or four or four million. You would all repeat the same BS. Perhaps instead of calling you bots we should be respectful and call you by your proper name: Legion.

  • Anonymous

    LJ,

    “If he was that devious and clever he would never have embraced a universal contraception policy that would enrage the Catholic Church and the religious right.”
     
    More like extreme Catholic Bishops than the Catholic Church as a whole, as most Catholics support the ruling and Obama’s response. Check the polls. Who cares about pissing off extreme Catholic Bishops and the religious right. He was never going to get those votes anyways. Obama has clearly won this insurance battle and there is absolute rage right now among women with the GOP pushing restrictions on contraception itself and restrictions on insurance coverage on contraception. The GOP by making this a bigger issue than it should have been has just further alienated +50% of the electorate. Again the GOP is on the wrong side of the issue. The GOP war on women continues. They will lose even more of the woman’s vote this time around.
     
    “My point is simple–Democrats desperate to get rid of Bush made a really dumb decision by embracing Barack Obama and refusing to fully investigate his past.”
     
    Well that might be your view, but right now more than 50% of the U.S. population thinks Obama is doing a good job, which is about even to his 53% popular vote. Obama has been a very good President and his policies are working. We will see who is right in November 2012 about who made a bad decision.
     
    By the way, no previous President was “investigated” more than Obama was in the lead up to the 2008 election. We could not even get a clear view of Bush’s military records.
     
    School records – is that all you got? It never stops. Birth certificates and now school records. Who cares what Obama’s school records said. Irrelevant. Shall we ask Romney for his school records? How exactly did he get into Stanford? Did his rich privileged pedigree have anything to do with him getting into Stanford? How about who is father was? Did that have anything to do with Romney getting into Stanford? Romney’s own Wiki says he “did not excel at academics”.  Romney could not even give us more than two years of his tax records, as more of them would have likely to shown offshore accounts to hid taxable income and relatively limited taxes paid. What is he hiding? That alone should disqualify him for President. If it was a Democrat the right would be screaming.
     
    “You know the drill.”
     
    We know the drill from you LJ. I remember you writing a post saying that Obama visiting his sick grandmother back during the 2008 campaign was all a political stunt. And then like a week later his grandmother died and no apology from you and your sick post. It is all about trashing the President no matter what. Who is the one with Obama Derangement Syndrome? You created an entire website dedicated to it.
     
     “So now we have growing numbers of Americans enraged at the reality of Barack Obama.”
     
    That is not true. Recent polling has shown a growing number of Americans are supporting the President. He has also held up his ratings pretty good over the last three years. Bush’s approval got as low as 20%, a record low for any President. Obama’s approval has never gotten lower than the 40s. Also, Obama’s ratings have pretty much matched both Reagan and Clinton during their first terms as President and they did not have to deal with as deep a recession. Do yourself a favor and actually read a few polls instead of just making stuff up.
     
    “Obama’s support among Jews, liberal Catholics and economic libertarians has eroded dramatically because of Barry Soetoro Obama’s policies in office (I use Obama’s real first name and the name of his adopted father just to piss off the Obama-bot true believers).”
     
    Again, that is also not true either. As of the most recent polling Obama has been able to put back together pretty much the exact level of support that he had at the time of the 2008 election. In all the demographic and religious segments he pretty much has exactly the same support today as when he was elected with a 53% popular vote. You do not believe me then check the numbers here:
     
    “Obama Is Reassembling the Coalition That Swept Him to Victory”
     
    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/02/obama-is-reassembling-the-coalition-that-swept-him-to-victory/253088/?&utm_content=Google+Reader
     
    “I concede that the majority of the folks in Massachusetts support Romney care. But that does not placate conservatives.”
     
    Well Romneycare “placates” many conservatives in MA, thank you very much.
     
    “What I like about Romney is that he is not a blind ideologue. He does not have a vision to remake America or the world. He does not have a vision to remake America or the world.”
     
    You got that right. He has zero vision. Can anyone tell me what Romney’s vision is on anything? He has been on every side of every issue? Is it “corporations are people too” or that we should just let the mortgage market freefall or not support our auto industry?
     
    “But his (Ron Paul) message does not resonate with the middle.”
     
    You also got that right. Very few in America want our government dismantled the way that Ron Paul wants. Not for a second will all the older Republicans be willing to stand for anyone touching their Medicare or Social Security. No one is also going to be very happy when pollution runs amok when Ron Paul gets rid of the EPA. Etc. etc. etc.
     
    LJ how about just admit that your party has just moved much further to the right and they want a more conservative candidate than Romney? All the polling data says this. You can blame ODS, but the reality is no one likes Romney and your party wants a more conservative candidate.
     
    Let’s face it. The GOP has nothing new to offer. They have no new ideas, no leadership and lack talent. That is just being reflected in this clown show of a GOP primary.
       
    LJ you have done a pretty good job yourself at promoting Obama Derangement Syndrome with NQ. You have a pretty good dose of it yourself.

    • Anonymous

      “By the way, no previous President was “investigated” more than Obama was in the lead up to the 2008 election. We could not even get a clear view of Bush’s military records”

      That is complete horseshit and you ought to know it ( though it is highly likely u do not b/c the 4th estate did such a horrendous job of vetting his past) From his corrupt election wins in Ill. to his voting rec

      • Anonymous

        Ok.. which President was “investigated” more than Obama before he was elected?

        Obama went through two years of scrutiny by Clinton and every conservative hack out there.

        We even had Obama write two biographies where he admitted to cocaine use. American knew just about everything about Obama before he was elected.

        • Anonymous

          You’re kidding, right?

        • Anonymous

          Bush Sr., Clinton, Reagan, Ford, Nixon,LbJ, Kennedy, Ike, Truman, FDR, Hoover, ETC ETC ETC

          The only Presidents I think that may equal OBama lack of vetting are Garfield and Wilson ( off the top of my head)

          • Anonymous

            PTAB01,

            Really… Do you have any proof that Obama was vetted any less than any of those Presidents?

            In the age of the Internet everyone gets vetted more.

            I have never heard of a President writing two biographies before they ran to become President, as most write them after they were President.

            Opposition research is much much more intense today then it was even during Bush’s time, nevermind all those historic Presidents you mention.

            • Anonymous

              Two biographies which he admitted were largely fiction. Ozero spent huge amounts of money keeping his past as shady as possible (pun intended).

              • Anonymous

                “Two biographies which he admitted were largely fiction.”

                Care to back that up with any actual proof or a link that shows that Obama said his own biographies were largely fiction. First time I have ever heard that. 

                Care to actually provide any proof whatsoever that Obama “spent huge amounts of money keeping his past as shady as possible.”?

                Please adjust your tinfoil hat.

            • Anonymous

              Sorry PA I do not concur writing biographies does nothing but conviennantly edit material from the forefront. And need I remind you the general electorate did not know anything of Obama before the general election ( the nature of an uninformed populace more fixed on prime time television then boring politicians and idealogical mudslinging)

              IE: Ever read the actual transcript of Obama’s arguments against Born Alive legislation? I have and I have PLUS the half dozen
              excuses he has offered since then to explain away his opinion and
              vote.

              • Anonymous

                If you read the biographies you would know more about Obama before he was elected than you would have before any other President before they were elected.

                The general electorate had two years of campaigning to get to know Obama.

                No different than with Romney or Santorum. The general population knows very little about those two.

                It is not a pre-requisite for everyone to know everything about every politician before they run for elections.

                Again, Obama was scrutinized like no other Presidential candidate before.

                McCain was the candidate who was given a free pass. No one scrutinized his life record. No one scrutinized his military record. The nepotism he received because of who his father and grandfather were. His time parting and carousing as the commanding officer at Naval Air Station Cecil Field. His extramarital affairs during his first marriage. His time at the Senate Liaison Office mixing with lobbyists on overseas escapades. etc. 

                • Anonymous

                  You do realize ALL of what you just refferenced regarding McCain was in fact detailed in various news accounts and books. That is thing about having experience in your field . . . You develop a track record filled w/ the good and bad decisions .

                  Btw you may be startled to learn this … Senator McCain also had his autobiographies out prior to running for the Presidency.

                  Maybe one day PA you should attempt to scrutinize some of the faith you have placed in the POTUS.

                • Anonymous

                  On a different comment I urged you to find cookiegramma’s link and actually read it.  The DNC was complicit in NOT allowing the vetting of Obama. 

                  Clinton, because she knew the “racist” tactic would be used against her, held back–she hardly vetted him at all.

            • Anonymous

              “I have never heard of a President writing two biographies before they
              ran to become President, as most write them after they were President. ”

              True – most write autobiographies AFTER they do something, not before.

              • Anonymous

                Good one Ellen.  The Audacity-if he had left it at that, the title would have been perfect.

              • Anonymous

                And most folks win a Nobel after they do something not before.

            • Anonymous

               If you define vetting as looking the other way and being conveniently deaf, dumb and blind on the part of the MSM then yes, I totally agree with you.

            • Anonymous

               The so called fact that Obama wrote two autobiographies only demonstrates how large of an ego he has.

              He has since distanced himself from some of the more controversial statements in both books.

              A shame he never recanted the BS about once living on food stamps in a state that didn’t even have them. Makes for good drama though.

          • Anonymous

            PTAB01,

            Really… Do you have any proof that Obama was vetted any less than any of those Presidents?

            In the age of the Internet everyone gets vetted more.

            I have never heard of a President writing two biographies before they ran to become President, as most write them after they were President.

            Opposition research is much much more intense today then it was even during Bush’s time, nevermind all those historic Presidents you mention.

          • Anonymous

            PTAB01,

            Really… Do you have any proof that Obama was vetted any less than any of those Presidents?

            In the age of the Internet everyone gets vetted more.

            I have never heard of a President writing two biographies before they ran to become President, as most write them after they were President.

            Opposition research is much much more intense today then it was even during Bush’s time, nevermind all those historic Presidents you mention.

        • Anonymous

          We even had Obama write two biographies where he admitted to cocaine use.

          And just WHO is WE?

          Is this Billy Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn?

    • Anonymous

       C’mon Larry…are you going to continue letting this POS crap all over the threads?

      • Anonymous

        I’ve skipped past his comments every time on this thread.  All I see is “Blah, Blah, Blah.”

        • Anonymous

          I guess I shouldn’t have said this because then my comments came under the same indoctrination attempts by PPAA.  I’m glad for it, as others responded also to his/her/its inance comments.

      • Anonymous

         POS like PAPA do provide a glimpse of what the Obama fall campaign will be. So from that perspective I am cool reading it. But only that perspective.

    • Anonymous

       Great. Now can you tell me under what passport did he enter Pakistan in 1981?

      Of course you can`t.

  • Anonymous

    How nuts is this?

    Ohio Attorney General to switch support from Romney to Santorum

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/cnn-ohio-attorney-general-switch-support-romney-santorum-173826890.html

    • Anonymous

      So you can do that and still be taken seriously.
      Your right its NUTS.

    • Anonymous

      DeWine and Santorum have been friends for years. It wouldn’t surprise me if he supported him.

    • Anonymous

      DeWine and Santorum have been friends for years. It wouldn’t surprise me if he supported him.

    • Anonymous

      Loser.

  • Anonymous

    JOBS JOBS JOBS WHERE HAVE THEY GONE AND WHY???

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/02/who-killed-the-jobs.php

     

  • Anonymous

    Is there anyone running that can change this around??
    since 2008 the school children that live in homeless shelters has risen by 48% in NC. This is happening all over the country.
    I do not give a damn if you believe in birth control or not, what do you plan to do to help the kids already born

    http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/nc-homeless-school-age-children-rise-48-percent-since-2008-guilford-county-truth-team-data-unemployed-not-counted-cannot-afford-housing/

    • Anonymous

      MO is getting Snickers to shrink their candy bars.
      Can’t you see she’s doing her part – NOT.
      ———–
      I always enjoy your articles HELENK2.

      • Anonymous

        And still charging the same price?

    • Anonymous

       They ARE helping them by telling them their packed lunches aren’t up to nutritional guidelines. Since when is a turkey and cheese sandwich more nutritious than chicken nuggets?

  • Anonymous

    I also believe Mitt is a satisfactory choice and would do well.
    Rick is smart and a true conservative but I question 
    whether Rick can do battle with the Obama Machine?
    The excessive dragging out of the GOP race  
    doesn’t help either. 
    —————-
    “This is a classic symptom of Obama Derangement Syndrome–embracing a flawed candidate just because you hate the opponent more. Does this stir the pot enought for a Friday?”
    —————-
    Yes some may see It that way my problem is that ,
    I keep asking myself this –  ”  Is this the best we can do? “ 
    I will take any GOP contender, we need to unseat Obama.
    But the longer the GOP keeps fighting one another the harder
    It will be to see a clear message that brings the party together.
    They are exhausting and are creating a wrestling match of words

    I like the term “Obama Derangement Syndrome”
    it describes so much in just a few words.
    Maybe someday in a medical journal somewhere 
    there will be a notation made with the definition- 
    “Created by Obama and carried out by the Obama voter”

  • http://noquarterusa.net Larry Johnson

     There has been an uptick in troll activity over the past month.  I take that as a backhanded complement.  Why waste energy on an irrelevant blog?

    • Anonymous

      I agree on this guy–I see his icon and “just walk on by.”  I don’t wait at the corner either.

  • Anonymous

    What I don’t get is how in the world the conservatives can actually justify supporting Santorum when any casual polling would reveal that Independents and other free thinkers won’t support him and women would run away in droves.

    If conservatives are getting an erection over Santorum that kinda destroys their supposed hatred of gay lifestyles.

    • Anonymous

      I would like to see those polls… B/c right now a majority of the electorate can barely name The Canidates for GOP nomination

      Also if one actually read the real context of what Santorums has said they would actually understand he is not seeking to change anything regarding contraceptives ( and he has not mentioned over turning Roe vs Wade – which is gonna require a SCOTUS
      nullification)

      Regarding gay/LesbIan issue – he doesn’t support marriage just like a majority of the political class and the electorate. He has not called for anything but insuring the definition of Marriage is not changed. As I have explained in the past once you do cross that threshold there will be a constant challenge to what legally constitutes a marriage

      • Anonymous

        I am absolutely certain that the American people are tired of being lectured to. We already have a president that thinks he is better than us and knows best what is right for us. I am an adult. My sexual practices are none of the government’s or religious institution’s business.

        Personally I think the GOP is making a mistake by being so opposed to gay marriage. It’s really a non-issue. If gays want to get married that’s their own damned business. I don’t recall anything in our constitution that defines what marriage should or shouldn’t be.

        If a state wants to legalize gay marriage or not do so that none of my business, none of any religious institution’s business and none the business of the federal government. As long as people keep their personal business to themselves and not try to convince me to accept or participate in their practices I am fine with it. I don’t “support” gay marriage but I’m ok with it.

        Isn’t it about time that the American people stood up and said: “Hey, we are adults. Leave us the hell alone.”

        I’m not sure where I heard this before but it goes a little something like this: Life, LIBERTY and the pursuit of happiness.

        • Anonymous

          I am with you on this one.  Having fought a seven-year battle to get out of a horrid heterosexual marriage, however, I just shake my head and wonder if they know what kind of legal hell they may be getting into.

          I surely did NOT get into my marriage thinking I would ever want a divorce, and I know that gay couples who want to marry aren’t thinking that way either.  But given my cynicism about the legal system in regard to marriage, I always say:  Beware of what you ask for. 

          As far as I am concerned, if they really want this, they should have it.

          • Anonymous

            Right there with you Diana. It took me three years to get out of one. Not sure why folks are so interested in having relationships governed by the state.

            • Anonymous

              Gay and Lesbian couples do have a legit gripe . . . without an official license and title they have problems w/ insurance coverages, spousal  medical decisions, parenting/ adoption issues.

               So there is a real reason they seek this “official” stamp of approval.

              • Anonymous

                I do understand this–and I do support them on it.  I am, as I said, totally cynical about the family courts in this country.

        • Anonymous

          I was only pointing out that once you start fooling around with laws it is very hard to keep it in a box.

          I myself thought the answer to it altogether is that state and federal should not be in the marriage business at all. Everything should be deemed a civil union under State and Federal laws .

          Problem solved.

          If people wish to be married go find a chapel and a preacher man.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t see Obama as some great evil genius either. I don’t see him as a genius of any kind. I see him as a lying mediocre politician who has bought into too much of his own publicity. On a level playing field, without the JournOlist corrupt media acting as his press agents he would still be in the Senate not doing a damn thing. As he has for most of his second-rate career.

    I support Romney as the best of our choices. I’m not thrilled but I much prefer a moderate to an ideologue of either party. A social conservative has no chance.

    I won’t vote for either Gingrich or Santorum. If either is the nominee I’ll vote 3rd party. It won’t make much difference because neither one has a snowball’s chance in a general.

    • Anonymous

      Another great cartoon! Thanks!

      • Anonymous

        You are most welcome EllenD818. Always nice to “meet” another cartoon aficionado.

  • Anonymous

    I can appreciate your position Mr. J. I do not concur but I understand your position.

    I too would feel comfortable w/ Dr. Paul but I fear greatly his newsletters of 20 odd yrs will be released the second he gets the nod & we are doomed.

    I would feel cOmfortable Gov. Romney I think he can manage creating an atmosphere of certainty that will aid the reboot of the economy . My worry w/ Gov Romney @ the helm is the echo of the 1940 election of FDR over Willkie the similarities r way to easy to draw. Nothing about Romney leads me to believe he will focus on disengaging the federal encroachment we have watched erode our civil liberties over the past several decades.

    I like Santorum not do to the derangement syndrome but b/c I believe a strong conservative message is what wins. McCain, Dole, Bush Sr were nice guys but they weren’t presenting too much difference from their Democratic opponents they were more in the center then on the right while their opposition had already locked into it.

    One last thing Obama is not some Manchurian Canidate is a moften day Wilsonian seeking to grow the government to offset to evils of inequality and mankinds greed. His play ( foreshadowed by Stephanopolus in the GA debate ) was political genius. He created a new metric while stomping on the real issues of the election. He will gain his catholic block again b/c the Church has a short memory

    • Anonymous

      I would argue that the far left and the far right are the fringes of political belief. Most of us are squarely in the center but feel forced to choose extremist sides because no one represents our needs.

      • Anonymous

        Moderates/centrist
        The only problem w/ this is it too easy to concede your position in the name of bi partisanship. Some things need to be NON Negotiable
        Like bombing US Citizens
        Like detaining US Citizens w/out charge on mere suspicion
        Like making a business enter a contract it does not wish to
        Or making an individual enter a contract they do not wish to

        All these things shred our Constitutionally guaranteed rights asunder and further grant providence to State control over more facets of the citizens lives.

        • Anonymous

          I COMPLETELY agree with your non-negotiables. Unfortunately Paul is the only candidate that agrees with the first two and he has no chance of getting the nomination.

  • Anonymous

    now this is a scary thouht
    backtrack

    reelect me because I have unfinished business

    http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre81g0an-us-usa-obama-fundraising/

    • Anonymous

      It is scary… because a second term will allow him so much more, especially if he has House and Senate.

      • Anonymous

        But even far more frightening:  more of a Holder AG and another chance perhaps for a Supreme Court appointment.

        • Anonymous

          Now I am really getting under the covers and hide for the next 5 years.  That is a horror movie.

          • Anonymous

             I see it more as a really trashy B movie where the plot is revealed in the first scene and the rest of the show becomes an exercise in futility to keep your interest.

          • Anonymous

             I see it more as a really trashy B movie where the plot is revealed in the first scene and the rest of the show becomes an exercise in futility to keep your interest.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_MCA6QIPPR3EXRQRYL3MVYJSKLQ Joe

    “”This is a classic symptom of Obama Derangement Syndrome–embracing a flawed candidate just because you hate the opponent more. Does this stir the pot enought for a Friday?”"
    +++++++++
    Sorry Larry, but I think your are letting your own hard-on for percieved candidate weaknesses make you seem a victim of Magical Unicorn Syndrome.

    Its fine that you have settled on Romney, but the flavor-of-the-month nature of the republican contest has not been about ABO; it has FROM THE BEGINNING been more of an ABMittRomney.  How can you say that Rick Tortoise-not-Hare Santorum is surging due to anybody but Obama????  I don’t get that one.

    Romney has yet to acheive a plurality of the voters’ support, or get more than about a third of voters support, depsite his being christened the presumptive nominee.  He HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO CLOSE THE DEAL!  He has not been able to capture the hearts and minds of an electorate that is not His or Your fathers’ electorate.  Why is that?

    I just got a call from my accountant last night.  Despite the repeal of the 1099 requirement in Obamacare, it turns out that there are still many new onerous rules and overreach coming in this year’s tax filing .  I am now needing to file 1099′s that I have never needed before.  Oh ya, and they are all costing me more as well.

    My accountant is very disheartened with what is going on, and I am generally pissed about the intrusions that grow more senseless every day.  The point is this:

    IT IS NOT ABOUT OBAMA ANY MORE. (And not only that, his level of incompetence does justify pulling the lever for ABO.  Sometimes your better off without a horse at all when it is your life at stake midstream.)

    People are just getting frightened with what they see happening with the overreach of this run-away government.  So if hiznibz thinks people were clinging too much to religion and guns before… he ain’t seen nothin’ yet!

    • http://noquarterusa.net Larry Johnson

       Joe,
      You sound like a clear business head.  Therefore, explain to me how a guy like Santorum wins a national election.  I am genuinely interested in your thinking on this.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_MCA6QIPPR3EXRQRYL3MVYJSKLQ Joe

        I suppose there may be a certain amount of ABAE – Anybody But Everybody Else.  I think the fact that this guy started at the very bottom and hung in there, has shone himself to be a winner by not committing a lethal or repulsive personal blunder of ego.  Survival of the fittest is an evolutionary principle.  (When I said I preferred to watch the Deerhunter instead of the debate because at least Christopher Walken had some empty chambers in the gun he put to his head, I meant it!)
         
        I was born and raised Catholic in southwest PA, and I found myself cringing early in the race whenever Rick would discuss some of the social issues.  He expressed his conviction from the beginning that the social fabric of our society and our economy are not mutually exclusive.  It seemed a bit out of place then, but now thanks to hiznibz it has become relevant. 
         
        Whether you agree with him or not, he has been honest and forthright about where he stands and what he believes.  THAT is what is different, unique, and I think becoming something refreshing to voters.  He is strongly opinionated but not necessarily intolerant of those who believe otherwise, IMO.  He seems to want certain values respected without them being imposed or trampled.  Isn’t that what most people really want?  Of course therein lies the rub… that is what we have been trying to get right for most of the past 200 or so years.
         
        Another issue is not so tangible, but I know how much I hurt in my head and in my heart some nights as I lie in bed.  At this point in my 50 some years and as a student of history and the Bolshevik revolution, I am deeply troubled.  I’m generally a positive person, not prone to worry, but it is obvious that the type of life I have known is disappearing.
         
        I think there is an unease permeating deep within most Americans who are as a whole center-right.  This unease neuters the conventional wisdom.  The people who were the most willing to believe in a young, clean, well-spoken black man, that represented what is supposed to be good about America, are realizing that the “Hollywood” version of the leader of the free world is a fiction.  The charmer who is likable, promises everybody everything, and says everything you want to hear can’t be trusted. (I think that is Mitt’s problem; he is too clean and agreeable and makes him too much like hiznibz.)
         
        So maybe, just maybe, voting for a guy who seems less desperate and a bit more honest, even though he’s not perfect and you may disagree with on points, a guy who doesn’t think he is perfect or always right, can bring a more human, and perhaps a more traditional American approach to going out on the limb of being our President.
         
        OK, now all the Santorum haters can have at me.

        • Anonymous

          “He is strongly opinionated but not necessarily intolerant of those who believe otherwise”

          His opinions on gays and womens rights are formed from his narrow minded religious beliefs. He is grossly intolerent by his own definition.

          DADT is dead – Santorum did not get the memo.

          And the BOMBSHELL has yet to be raised in the MSM, but it will in the General. Santorum was the Republican Senate general for the K Street Project. Pay to Play Baby!

          He may come rapped in goody two shoes Alter Boy/Choir Boy persona, but on the inside he is a true slimeball.

          • Anonymous

            I agree with you here.  My own (what you call) narrow minded religious beliefs are more in tune with his about family issues–though I am not Catholic and do allow for birth control and abortion.

            I do believe those issues would be the death of him in a general election and so don’t want him running.

            The other issues you bring up are the ones that bother me most about him.  Now Romney will be between a rock and a hard place and have to address those issues.  Then he again will be forced into running a negative campaign. 

            As I said before, I just wish the primary were over and there would be a candidate that we could all rally behind.

        • Anonymous

          Great well-stated commenu!  I do get some of your points about Santorum.

          I too have heartaches over the horrible state of the “social fabric and economy” of our country, so I am not so frightened about his social ideals, either.  I am just frightened that he would not be elected and, therefore, could not turn the situation around in any way.

          I live in a middle-class suburb, teaching middle-class and some poorer community college students.  I have not so far found one of my students I didn’t think was a NICE American kid (because even the older ones are kids to me).  We do in the middle (well often the middle and lower middle) tend to raise good kids.  So I still have faith in Americans.  I just have no faith in the Americans from the elite universities that have been taken over by marxist, socialist philosophies and that raise up the elites who end up in our government.

          I look at Mitt and see a Mormon family man, and since I live here next to Utah, the Mormon part does not frighten me–it encourages me a little.  I do believe that he would be thinking of the middle.  He spent his undergrad years in Utah.

        • Anonymous

           Santorum is rising because Gingrich and his ego with no bounds openly asked him to get out of the race.

        • Anonymous

           I will admit that I don’t care for Santorum on social issues. And his waffling on unions and support for earmarks troubles me. That said, he did take the time to visit every county in Iowa and I find that commendable. He also refused to back down to Gingrich which just made my day. The dude is a radical though and I will not vote for him regardless.

      • Anonymous

        How about you Republicans put up a candidate that most clearly represents your view of government and social issues? Do not cloud the chose with a moderate like Romney. Then we can have a clear choice election about two distinctly different views on government, taxes, social issues, etc. We can finally have an election to settle these issues. If Republicans have such strong conviction of their philosphies then what are they afraid of? Santorum should be your man to give voters that clear choice.

        • Anonymous

           I’m sure that is what you Dems are hoping for.

    • Anonymous

      I am one of those scared and I don’t understand who you think could win against Obama.  Please do tell.  I don’t see Santorum get the female Independents and disenfranchised for many reasons.  Are you thinking of a brokered convention?

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_MCA6QIPPR3EXRQRYL3MVYJSKLQ Joe

        A brokered convention… good question.  I hope not; I don’t think voters need any more reason to feel they are not part of the process.

        As for the female vote… stop thinking like the msm wants you to think.  You are not a voting block – YOU ARE YOU!

        Focus on what YOU believe.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_MCA6QIPPR3EXRQRYL3MVYJSKLQ Joe

        A brokered convention… good question.  I hope not; I don’t think voters need any more reason to feel they are not part of the process.

        As for the female vote… stop thinking like the msm wants you to think.  You are not a voting block – YOU ARE YOU!

        Focus on what YOU believe.

        • Anonymous

          I have never let anybody else influence my votes in life and won’t start now.  MSM for me is just noise.  I do know however, that females care about certain rights that may not be as important to men.  This is why I don’t think Santorum could ever win.  I know no woman personally that would vote for him…  including me.

          • Anonymous

             Isn’t it interesting when people tell you that your viewpoint is something that the MSM has persuaded you to have? Sorry folks, only Obots fall for that nonsense.

            • Anonymous

              Sure is… but why do I care what somebody who doesn’t know me think about me.  As I said… walked against the stream from age 2.  Never followed trends and don’t take anything serious without asking why or how first.

              • Anonymous

                 But the political parties and the media think we are stupid enough to believe what they tell us on face value.

                I was brought up in a very strict and violent household. I was told from an early age what I had to believe, literally had it beaten into me. Once I opened my eyes and started thinking for myself I rebelled and haven’t looked back since.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_MCA6QIPPR3EXRQRYL3MVYJSKLQ Joe

            Then perhaps you need to ask yourself what is going to be so much better in your life if hiznibz is re-elected… what?

            What would Santorum do that will make your life so much worse?

            Contrary to the FlipFlopper – EVERYONE is getting their opinions influenced by the media.

            • Anonymous

              Contrary to what you think… I don’t give a damn what other people tell me about things… I make my mind up.  If a thing is trendy… I go the other way.  Never had an Apple product for that reason.  Can’t stand the hype. 

              As for the vote… mine wouldn’t matter in blue CA anyway.  Obama will be reelected or lose without my input.

            • Anonymous

               The opposite is the truth. The media is attempting to influence everyone.

              I, for one, do not get my news from a few sources. And I rarely watch television news. I research things, visit sources of various viewpoints and then reach my own conclusions.

            • Anonymous

               The opposite is the truth. The media is attempting to influence everyone.

              I, for one, do not get my news from a few sources. And I rarely watch television news. I research things, visit sources of various viewpoints and then reach my own conclusions.

            • Anonymous

               The opposite is the truth. The media is attempting to influence everyone.

              I, for one, do not get my news from a few sources. And I rarely watch television news. I research things, visit sources of various viewpoints and then reach my own conclusions.

        • Anonymous
          • Anonymous

            Pretty new here and will probly be known as a crazy ron paul supporter because that is what i am. But i really think he is the only one that has a chance to defeat obama, not saying he will but i dont think anyone else really has a chance. the whole “no one but Paul” mentality is pretty serious among supporters and most of them will just write him in if he is not chosen or many of his ideas are not adopted at a brokered convention. this will essentially be the same as him running as a third party and hand the election to obama. Plus he is the only one who will draw from the left middle and right, and once people really start to take a look at him i think it could snowball. But if the gop just brushes him away as a nuisance they are screwed…just my opinion

            • Anonymous

              That is OK… I am fairly new here too.  I like Paul, but don’t think he could win against Obama.  He has been shafted by pretty much everybody.  I like his Libertarian views… but find him to be a bit off when it comes to international politics.  One thing is clear however, he does have loyal supporters. 

              The GOP may be screwed anyway… the way this has played out.

        • Anonymous

           Santorum may likely attract the mangina vote.

    • Anonymous

       Yet Romney received more votes in Nevada than the other candidates combined and in Florida he had more than Gingrich and Santorum combined.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_MCA6QIPPR3EXRQRYL3MVYJSKLQ Joe

        Yes in the smallest sample of all.  It was about a 1/10 the size of the Iowa caucuses.

        • Anonymous

           But Florida was 10x what Iowa was and Romney stomped Gingrich and Santorum combined.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_MCA6QIPPR3EXRQRYL3MVYJSKLQ Joe

        Yes in the smallest sample of all.  It was about a 1/10 the size of the Iowa caucuses.

  • Anonymous

     Being a Romney supporter myself I agree with almost everything that is in your article. However it fails to mention that a many social conservatives are loath to support Romney because he is Mormon. During the 2008 election I saw a poll, which asked people what religion they would not vote for a candidate if he belonged to that religion. 54% said Islam but 34% said they would not vote for a candidate if he or she was a Mormon.

    I remember when JFK was running many people felt the same way about Catholicism. Now Santorum, who is Catholic, is the darling of the social conservatives. Prejudice is not limited to race or sexual preference and sometimes it just takes time and good example to change peoples attitudes.

    Certainly Romney also carries the burden of being seen as being not conservative enough but few praise him for being able to work both sides of the aisle so well. If our country is going to get off this treadmill of despair we are going to need someone to reunite our party, our government and our people. Not by continuing the current stalemate in Congress. Nor by running the country with the use of dictatorial Executive Orders, non elected Czars and the appointed Secretaries of the various Agencies.  

    • Anonymous

      I’ve considered that as well, but after thinking about it, the last time Social Conservatives had their pick, we had 8 fucking long years of Dubbya.

      I don’t think the religious right has the same clout they once did, but they sure are making a lot of noise.

      • Anonymous

        They have cause to make noise considering the overreach mandates by the O team. And while I don’t agree with many of their religious principles I support their right to express them as protected by our constitution.

        • Anonymous

          Not saying they don’t have the right to make their case.  We all do.

          What I am saying is that they lost their clout.  

          They represent approx 30% of the electorate (slightly more than Obots).  They managed to convince the majority of moderates in their party (as well as some Independents and AIPAC voters) to bend to their will with Dubbya.

          After 8 years of that fiasco, I daresay their influence is much weaker this time around.  They (and OBOTS as well) might be more than just a little surprised when they see that their substantial power has been reduced to that of a gnat; serving only to irritate the shit out of the mainstream voter

          • Anonymous

             I hope you are right.

        • Anonymous

          Not saying they don’t have the right to make their case.  We all do.

          What I am saying is that they lost their clout.  

          They represent approx 30% of the electorate (slightly more than Obots).  They managed to convince the majority of moderates in their party (as well as some Independents and AIPAC voters) to bend to their will with Dubbya.

          After 8 years of that fiasco, I daresay their influence is much weaker this time around.  They (and OBOTS as well) might be more than just a little surprised when they see that their substantial power has been reduced to that of a gnat; serving only to irritate the shit out of the mainstream voter

    • Anonymous

      I agree but then again, there have been many exit polls that have shown that many Christians would vote for him against Obama.  It’s those true conservatives whatever that means, who are not as likely because they think Romney os Obama light.  I guess they can get the real deal then.  Good for them. ;-)

    • Anonymous

      Working with people of the other party is a mortal sin for partisans of every political stripe. Coming together for the sake of our country has become anathema. These extremists are the ones we need to vote out of office.

    • Anonymous

      You are absolutely right about the social conservatives not supporting a Mormon. They consider the religion heresy. But don’t expect anyone to fess up because they know it would rip their party apart and hand O an easy victory.

    • Anonymous

      Romney’s mormanism has little to do with his inability to reach conservatives… It is his lack of apparent conservative principles when he was in the GOV.

      Trust me if Romney is the Nominee the conservatives will back him completely – We recognize what is indeed at stake here if Obama is re elected.

      • Anonymous

         Yes I think you are right about the general election but I was speaking mostly about the primary elections. 

        • Anonymous

          in the primaries it has been about of his carpet bombing ad campaigns – not his faith.

        • Anonymous

          In speaking to the primaries well Conservatives r gonna back their guy til he drops out or wins
          If Santorum wins the Primary the bigger question is will moderate and independents recognize they need to do like wise.

      • Anonymous

         Yes I think you are right about the general election but I was speaking mostly about the primary elections. 

    • Anonymous

       I agree that that is the problem.  The social conservatives are prejudiced when it comes to religion.    Unbelievable that they with select someone who has lesser qualifications simply because of his faith.  I used to have some Mormon friends when I was younger, and they were the kindest, well behaved, fun loving, and honest people I have ever met.  I wish the heck somebody would call them out on it.  I think it needs to be said.

      • Anonymous

         Seems like every few months Mormons come to my residence to preach the word. Much like with the Jehovah’s Witnesses that do the same I politely decline to discuss religion with them. I will say one thing for their religion: They aren’t going around calling people that don’t adhere to their views immoral, unlike some of the more radical elements of the Christian religion.

  • Anonymous

    the choices this year are bad. In one of the most important elections in the history of this country.

    Obama  – no way in hell

    Romney – obama lite

    Santorum  – reminds me of every religious nut I had to deal with as a child

    Newt – smartest man in the room, but unpredictable

    Paul – some good ideas , but more that are not.

    There is not going to be someone who will come out on a white horse and save us. We have to pick the best of a bad lot and do a lot of praying, wishing and hoping that they can do the job and undo a lot of  bad policy.

    • Anonymous

       Santorum wouldn`t go far in the general since he believes life begins at erection.

      • Anonymous

        “Life begins at erection”  I’ve got to steal that line.
         
        And yep Larry got that right, the good Lord didn’t design men to have enough blood to supply both heads at the same time.  When the brain is fully functioning the penis shrivels up and so conversely when the penis is engorged the brain has to shut down.

        • Anonymous

           I can see Rick`s campaign slogan………”Erections Have Consequences”

          • Anonymous

             Damn, I wish I had come up with that.  Very funny.  Well played.

            • Anonymous

              Perhaps Anthony could use his amazing Photoshop skills to create a campaign poster.

              • Anonymous

                Will do.  Give me a couple of days (unless I get a break today)

                • Anonymous

                  Thank you! I  am sure it will be worth the wait.

          • Anonymous

            Fantastic!

          • Anonymous

             LOL

    • Anonymous

      Don’t forget Palin who is hoping to come out of a brokered convention with her name on the ticket.

      • Anonymous

         I could vote for the  lady with no problem. I really wish that would happen. But the PTB are scared to  death of a woman with a brain and common sense and would never allow it to happen.
        The dems knifed Hillary and the Reps would do the same to Sarah

        • Anonymous

          If she had gotten into the fight and taken her lumps like all the other candidates I would have supported her wholeheartedly. But to hang back and then walk away with the prize at a brokered convention? I can’t support that.

          • Anonymous

             I would have waited to hear what she said and how she did in the debates before even considering supporting her.

          • Anonymous

             I hate to say this Marge, but I don’t think Sarah has a chance.  The Democrats and Independents would come out in force against her.  I felt she got a bad rap when she ran with McCain, but the more I have listened to her, the less I like her.  Then her support of Gingrich really turned me off.

            • Anonymous

              I agree Nan. I don’t think she has a chance either. All she would do at this point is cause the absolute end of any chance for the GOP. And as I said, I couldn’t respect or support any candidate that hasn’t gone through the campaign fire and won some states on their own.

               I thought she got a bad rap back in 2008 too, and much of the attacks on her since have been nasty and untrue. That doesn’t even cover the repulsive attacks on her family.

              The stupidity of those still claiming she said “she could see Russia from her front porch” when it was dimwitted comedienne Tina Fey who said it only proves where the stupidity lies.

              But her sneaky non-endorsement/endorsement really pi$$ed me off. She’s supposed to be the truth-teller extraordinaire. That’s not truth-telling, that’s political weaselling IMO.

    • http://noquarterusa.net Larry Johnson

       Helen
      How is Romney, “Obama lite?”  Romney believes in capitalism, Obama doesn’t.  How about an explanation?

      • Anonymous

          the obamacare was based Romney’s medical plan in MA. I want it repealed as it has so many hidden costs and loss of rights in it. I do not think Romney will be able to repeal it as it was modeled after his plan and then they added to it. He was used and that weakened him

        • Anonymous

          The difference between Obama and Romney is the way they govern.

          I get a little impatient whenever I hear the Romneycare v Obamacare meme.

          Romney governed in a way that suited the will of the people of Massachusetts – not according to his personal p.o.v.  The people of Massachusetts overwhelmingly voted in favor of (almost) universal healthcare.  Romney had to do his job and make choices based on his voters choices.

          Obama governs to the whim of Valerie Jarrett and the Progressive reps in Congress – more for his own legacy than the wishes of the people of the nation he governs.  

          In his mind, it is most important to have something in (future) history books that designates him as the “First” something or other more than it is important for him to govern to the will of the people.  

          So, in the end, History will remember him as the first black(ish) POTUS who passed universal healthcare in America; which will ultimately be a significant part of its demise.

          • Anonymous

            Yay Anthony!

          • Anonymous

             And when he becomes a one term president the history books will probably state that it is because we are racists.

            • Anonymous

              The thing that bothers me most about the current WH inhabitant is that he got there because of the DNC’s manipulation.

              Recent news articles have been about the enormous rise in inter-racial marriages.  We had some obot types gushing about O’s name and how international it was, etc. 

              I just don’t see how they couldn’t understand that the country is NOT racist and that the people who oppose O did so not because of his race but because of his lack of a record that could make him a good president, his lack of character, his horrible choice in friends, his obvious dislike of our country’s founding principles.

              I was always so appalled at the way AA supporters of Hillary were treated—called Uncle Toms.  Wouldn’t it have been better for our country if the first POTUS with AA heritage had grown up in our now multi-racial country, a direct result of our founding principles (though O didn’t really have that either, since his father was NOT AA and was only African)?

              I am still furious that we had a chance for a first female president, and he and the DNC stole that from us.

        • Anonymous

           He has said he will repeal it and that is good enough for me.

        • Anonymous

           States have borders for a reason. Repealing a national mandate based upon a state mandate is fairly simple. Besides, the Supreme Court may do it for us anyway.

      • Anonymous

        “How is Romney, “Obama lite?”  Romney believes in capitalism, Obama doesn’t.”

        Boy, if America is Obama not believing in capitalism then we need more of this with a stock market that has gained back all its value and corporate profits at all time highs.

        You arguments have just become silly.

        Romney was 47th out of 50 Governors in job creation performance when he was the Governor of MA. His form of “capitalism” really did a lot for job creation in MA. His form of “capitalism” is only about making money off of financial engineering and stripping companies of assets, in shipping jobs overseas and in driving 30% of the companies he invested in into bankruptcy as a private equity Investor.

        • Anonymous

          Boy PA –
          It is soo hard to get a fix on u. Your logical and reasoning and obviously intelligent and yet so bafflingly ridiculous.
          Romney in the private sector has created national chains and supply depots His job creation is not solely limited to the business Bain created that is, not just the Staples and Michaels arts and Crafts but the merchandise producers and the data collection / computers and the communications and service of those systems and the then rental property and the maintaince services .
          That is the glory of the capitalist system money does just get spend it gets spread out through many ways to many hands. Far more impressive than merely make work projects of the government style.

          • Anonymous

             Very well put.

            • Anonymous

               Romney needs to say this in the next debate.

            • Anonymous

              Why thank u FF

              I do try to be honest in my debates w/ opposing posters

    • Anonymous

      I’d vote for the horse.

  • Anonymous

    If you want to know why I`ll vote ABO.

     
    $5K For Photo with Michelle Obama

    Question: What would you pay to have your photo taken with first lady Michelle Obama, she of the ripped arms and healthy diet?

     

    If you said 5 grand, well, you’re in the ballpark, because the
    First Spouse is headed to Boston next month to do a parade of
    grip-and-grins with local Demmies, Obama-ophiles, fitness freaks, Dougie
    aficionados and anyone else who can pony up the dough.

    I don`t remember Laura Bush doing this.

    Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/michelle-obama/2012/02/17/5k-photo-michelle-obama#ixzz1meqBZZPy

  • Anonymous

    This election is becoming so hostile and I feel many are losing hope that Obama will be reelected.  Would the Independents sit it out rather than voting for a Santorum or Obama?  I know I would.  :-(

    • Anonymous

      Depends on your voting strategy. I’ve always been registered as an Independent, and have consistently voted for a Democrat until 2008.  Until then, the Democratic party seemed to be most attuned to my beliefs.

      Now, its a different story.  I would have no problem voting for Santorum only because of where I live, and I’ve been encouraging a lot of people to take their location into account before staying home in November.

      Example:  I live in NYC in a neighborhood that is considered to be bluest of the blue.  If Santorum is the nominee (which I wholeheartedly doubt), I would feel no shame or remorse in voting for him.  There is no way that New York isn’t going to support Obama.  Voting for Santorum would only make Obama’s margin of victory in New York smaller, which would be like crack for the pollsters.

      If I lived in a “purple” state, I would vote down ticket only.

      If I lived in a “red” state, I would most likely be dead by now (Fiscal conservative, liberal on most social issues).  In that case, my vote would most likely be cast for Obama once ACORN or OFA got a hold of death records and awarded me a new voter’s registration status.

      • Anonymous

        I see your reasoning and living in CA I feel similarly, but my take is that my vote would not matter anyway… it’s a very blue state so me sitting it out makes no difference.  But as you say, maybe it is worth while making a point against Obama.

      • Anonymous

        I wouldn’t vote for Santorum or Gingrich if my life depended on it.

        • Anonymous

          I’d vote for somebody else…

      • Anonymous

        Ditto I am a Long Islander last conservative to Win here was Reagan in 1984.
        The good thing- Obama is worse than Carter
        The Bad thing- The Mass Media is fully on board the Obama re elect team
        The Ugly thing- The republican candidates r I significantly weak across the board

        Best bet? Make sure the senate and house go GOP if you refuse to vote for President. But u will have no right to bitch in November if Obama is re elected

        • Anonymous

           he already rules by EO,so that won’t stop him.

      • Anonymous

        I live in Wisconsin and I suspect that it will be a very close election here. Damn I wish I didn’t know that.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Hank-DeCat/100001190387982 Hank DeCat

      I would too. I’m not voting for Obama or Santorum. I’m more than willing to vote for someone I’m not 100% in agreement with who I believe is competent (Romney) , but I’m not voting for a neanderthal like Santorum who is no more competent than Obama. I’ll vote 3rd party just to mess with Obama’s margin of victory.

    • Anonymous

      I won’t sit out the election. I’ll vote for a third party candidate before I do nothing. I figure our founders fought a war of independence to secure my right to vote. It’s the very least I can do to repay their courage and wisdom.

      • Anonymous

        I feel the same way. I figure if you don’t vote you haven’t earned the right to complain. I always vote. And I always complain. And usually I complain about the POS I had to vote for because I couldn’t vote for the other candidate who was a worse POS.

        Thus I end up saying well at least I didn’t vote for the worst POS. Not something I like to think of as my civic duty. But it’s all I’ve got in most erections elections.

        • Anonymous

           I hold them accountable even when I vote for them. They are supposed to be public servants after all.

          • Anonymous

            I hold them all accountable. But I wonder how many think of themselves as “public servants” and not as our lord and masters. Damn few I suspect.

            • Anonymous

              There are very few public servants any more.

  • Anonymous

     The rate of unemployment in the United States has exceeded 8 percent since February 2009, making the past three years the longest stretch of high unemployment in this country since the Great Depression. Moreover, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that the unemployment rate will remain above 8 percent until 2014.
    The official unemployment rate excludes those individuals who would
    like to work but have not searched for a job in the past four weeks as
    well as those who are working part-time but would prefer full-time work;
    if those people were counted among the unemployed, the unemployment rate in January 2012 would have been about 15 percent. Compounding the problem of high unemployment, the
    share of unemployed people looking for work for more than six
    months—referred to as the long-term unemployed—topped 40 percent in
    December 2009 for the first time since 1948, when such data began to be collected; it has remained above that level ever since.

    • Anonymous

      Just would like to point something out, as I am a Ron Paul supporter and get the sense from others that the “no one but paul mentality” is actually pretty serious and that if he isnt chosen by the gop or many of his policies aren’t taken in at the convention in exchange for delegates (if it is brokered) then it will basically be the same as him running as a third party. People are just going to write him in, in turn handing it to obama. The sooner this is realized the better, and i truly believe he is the only one who will draw from both sides and strongly differentiate himself from obama. Not saying he would beat obama but i really don’t think anyone else even has a chance to beat him.

      • Anonymous

         I think that Paul brings in people that wouldn’t otherwise even consider the GOP, many of them younger voters. A Romney Paul ticket would be a good fit in my opinion. They are friends to begin with.

  • Anonymous

    If  Santorum wins, we might as well concentrate on the Senate.

    • Anonymous

      What do you mean if he wins… unless you mean just the next coming primaries?  We need to focus on the House and the Senate before the election is held… if we wait until then we are in trouble.  Imagine Obama with both houses again and a second term with no fear of being reelected.  Yikes.

      • Anonymous

         True dat.

      • Anonymous

         that big sucking sound is us going down the drain.