Discussion: The REPUBLICAN Party

[Kelly]

Well, in the past year he has had a come to Jesus meeting so to speak.....and has joined the Catholic Church. Not to say that it makes his past sins any less of sins, and I think this has more to do with his political ideology rather than his past sins.

And as far as I'm concerned, if that is his opinion, well then that's his opinion. My past sins doesn't make my opinion any less. If that's how he feels, we can disagree, but he has a right to it.

[The Major]

Well, in the past year he has had a come to Jesus meeting so to speak.....and has joined the Catholic Church. Not to say that it makes his past sins any less of sins, and I think this has more to do with his political ideology rather than his past sins.

And as far as I'm concerned, if that is his opinion, well then that's his opinion. My past sins doesn't make my opinion any less. If that's how he feels, we can disagree, but he has a right to it.
Would you do that for Edwards when he voices his opinion about something?

[hippie_hunter]

Would you do that for Edwards when he voices his opinion about something?

Gingrich is a hypocrite but damn, what John Edwards did was like...super mega-ultra douchebaggery only surpassed by Elliot Spitzer for having his wife stand up there while he admitted to sleeping with hookers.

[The Major]

Gingrich is a hypocrite but damn, what John Edwards did was like...super mega-ultra douchebaggery only surpassed by Elliot Spitzer for having his wife stand up there while he admitted to sleeping with hookers.
True. Originally I was going to use Spitzer as my example, only his was worse since it was technically a crime. I am severely disappointed in Edwards for doing that. Democrats dodged a bullet with him in the primaries.

[hippie_hunter]

True. Originally I was going to use Spitzer as my example, only his was worse since it was technically a crime.
Forget the crime. The mere fact that he had his wife stand by him in front of the nation looking completely heartbroken while he admitted that he was a jackass was way worse IMO.

I am severely disappointed in Edwards for doing that. Democrats dodged a bullet with him in the primaries.
Yeah they did. I mean adultery is wrong and all, but things like that happen and we just gotta let it slide. But doing it on your cancer ridden wife...damn that's really low.

[DACrowe]

Yeah, I used to like Edwards. I still think he had some good ideas. Too bad he turned out to be a hypocritical sleezebag. Sad, really. Thank goodness the Dems. chose not to nominate him, thusly.

[SsM]

I think all of us... are hypocritical sleeze bags at one point or another...

[hippie_hunter]

I think all of us... are hypocritical sleeze bags at one point or another...
Yeah...but that was just low. Really, really low. I personally think that it's downright horrid that someone would cheat on their dying wife.

[The Major]

Yeah, I used to like Edwards. I still think he had some good ideas. Too bad he turned out to be a hypocritical sleezebag. Sad, really. Thank goodness the Dems. chose not to nominate him, thusly.
We got really lucky with Obama last year.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Obama anti-religious?

So...he hates religion?

hahaha.

And yes.

We would have been mega ****ed if Edwards had gone farther before that news broke.

[Marx]

SO how 'bout that future of the REPUBLICAN PARTY guys? :cwink:

[StorminNorman]

What if the future of the Republican Party depends on how anti-religious Obama is?

[Marx]

What if the future of the Republican Party depends on how anti-religious Obama is?

Gingrich needs to admit that he opposes Knox because he's a gay activist, not because he's some 'anti-religious, left wing zealot'.

As for your actual question, anything farther to the left than the religious right will never be good enough to satisfy those nuts!

[VampElvis]

I would love it if Gingrich was removed from the public arena. The real problem there is if he did go away, who would step up to take his place?

[SuBe]

I :heart: Gringrich. He is one of the most brilliant people in Politics today.

[DACrowe]

Brilliant? Perhaps. Corrupt and evil? More than likely. The guy is a tool, unfortunately.

[VampElvis]

Yeah, he shouldn't be in the spotlight but seems to egomaniacal to step aside to fade into the background. Maybe he's got some good ideas - but I don't want to hear them from him. I want to hear them from a candidate with a viable political future, after being parsed and Interpreted to that person's own view.

[Marx]

I :heart: Gringrich. He is one of the most brilliant people in Politics today.

Ohhh SuBe...turn back from the light! Turn back man!

[The Major]

Ohhh SuBe...turn back from the light! Turn back man!
:hehe:

[Kelly]

Newt is an intelligent man.....I may not agree with his policies all the time.......but MANY liberal political professors have him come in to speak to their classes because he knows his stuff, and they are solid educators that bring in both philosophies. Carville even had him in his classroom not long ago.....

I'll debate his choices in policy, but them man knows politics...

[StorminNorman]

He needs to give up any thoughts of running for President, however. He is unelectable. He would be much better working with someone like Haley Barbour, who is one of the smartest governors in the country.

[souvlaki]

GOP govs get dose of stimulus reality

The list of governors threatening to decline federal stimulus money last month read like a list of Republicans considering running for president in 2012: Govs. Mark Sanford, Bobby Jindal and Sarah Palin led the anti-stimulus charge.

But what began with a bang is ending with something closer to a whimper. All three of those governors have been forced to scale back their expectations, to varying degrees, as the push of conservative philosophy gave way to the pull of political reality.

All three found that praise from the conservative movement in Washington meant nothing to furious state legislators of both parties. And in the end, along with other conservative Republican governors, the three submitted letters in recent days asking to be eligible for federal funds, a spokesman for the White House Office of Management and Budget confirmed.

“We’ve tried to compromise in a variety of different ways and now we’ve gotten to … a position well past the halfway mark,” Sanford told POLITICO in an interview, conceding that, “I got beaten up pretty bad on it.”

Sanford is still working to persuade his state Legislature to find cuts to cancel out the new federal spending. Still, he has been attacked on his state’s top editorial pages by activists occupying a tent city outside his mansion and by the Republican chairman of the state Senate finance committee, who released a “chaos budget” designed to show the downside of Sanford’s plans. He responded to critics with a television ad Thursday, arguing that he was sparing his state's children from future debt.

Jindal, meanwhile, toned down his firm opposition and turned his focus to a much narrower rejection of two pots of money; Palin, too, has narrowed her objections and promised to work with legislators who want the money.

“At this point, it looks like everybody’s on board with the program,” said Tom Gavin, an OMB spokesman.

The governors’ shifts from a national ideological offensive against Obama to a defensive damage control approach at home reveals the degree to which Republicans are still struggling to find a coherent path of opposition to the president, and the extent to which governors’ mansions — often seen as ideal steppingstones to the White House — can derail political careers in tough economic times.

And Democrats have relished the intra-party GOP warfare.

"What we saw was Gov. Sanford playing chicken, and he got run over,” said Hari Sevugan, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee. “And we've seen, to varying degrees, others reaping blowback from local communities, as well. But that's a natural result of taking a position based on politics instead of doing what's right.”

Republican governors faced with the popular federal spending legislation, formally known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, staked positions on a political continuum, with national conservative support at one end and local approval at the other.

Some, like Govs. Charlie Crist of Florida and Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, kept their approach local. They campaigned for the legislation with the president and accepted the money enthusiastically. Schwarzenegger’s Austrian birth bars him, in any case, from national office.

And Crist was less concerned about angering the conservative movement than about his standing in Florida, where he’s considering a Senate bid.

Other governors sought a middle ground. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota opposed the stimulus but accepted the funding on the grounds that “Minnesota is a net donor to the federal government,” making the payments only fair.

Gov. Rick Perry of Texas also noted in his certification letter that his state is a net contributor to Washington.

Perry — along with Palin, Sanford, Jindal and Govs. Haley Barbour of Mississippi and Bob Riley of Alabama — said he’d reject one portion of the stimulus: unemployment insurance funding that would have covered laid-off part-time workers. In states whose unemployment programs don’t currently cover those workers, the shift would have required changes to state law, and governors say they worried that when stimulus funds run out, the expanded unemployment insurance responsibilities will constitute a new tax on state businesses.

But the prospect of even partial rejection of the federal funds has sparked several statehouse uprisings. Lawmakers, including Republicans in Alaska, Alabama, South Carolina, Mississippi and Texas, moved to make end runs around their governors and accept the money.

Jindal — who became the party’s most prominent voice against the stimulus in his rebuttal to Obama’s State of the Union address last month — appears to be rejecting just one other pot of federal cash on top of the $98 million in unemployment insurance: $9.5 million in health spending.

The local press noted, meanwhile, that he plans to request federal funds for a New Orleans-to-Baton Rouge passenger rail service from the same pot of railroad money he denounced as a vehicle for “wasteful spending.”

A Jindal spokeswoman didn’t respond to a request for details about his stance, but he wrote in his certification letter that he would spend the money “in a way that does not add an undue burden to the current financial situation in our state.”

Palin’s reversal was even more abrupt. She opened the battle March 19 by saying her state would “not request” some 31 percent of federal funds. Facing an uproar from legislators, her lieutenant governor, Sean Parnell, assured the media the next day that Palin wasn’t “rejecting” the money, just seeking a public debate on spending. And Palin herself then weighed in, saying the money was still “on the table.”

Palin has since pledged to work out differences with her Legislature, and her spokeswoman would only forward a copy of her March 31 certification letter.

“It is possible that there will be areas where the state will choose not to apply for funds,” she said, noting that legislators were hearing public testimony and adding that she would apply for it on a “case by case” basis.

The concessions in Louisiana and Alabama leave South Carolina’s Sanford as the only governor resisting large elements of the stimulus beyond unemployment insurance. Sanford plans to refuse $700 million from the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, on the grounds, he said, that it would expand government and impede reform.

“Once you’ve got the money, there’s no need to make the reforms,” he said of changes he’s seeking to the state education system.

The state’s attorney general has said legislators can’t accept the money without the governor’s cooperation, leading to a charged standoff in Columbia that’s left Sanford bloodied but, he says, undeterred.

“Over time we’ll be vindicated, but it’s been tough,” he said.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21086.html

[Kelly]

That's not news, these governors said a while back that they would look at the money specifically and see what parts could be used. They've been talking with their legislators for weeks on this.

[metr0man]

That's not news, these governors said a while back that they would look at the money specifically and see what parts could be used. They've been talking with their legislators for weeks on this.

More like, once their constituents and local legislators got pissed at them, they revised their initial stances into saying they would look at the money specifically and see what parts could be used.

[Marx]

More like, once their constituents and local legislators got pissed at them, they revised their initial stances into saying they would look at the money specifically and see what parts could be used.

I agree Metro. These governors were only doing it for political points. Political points won't work if you start messing with peoples money.

[Kelly]

More like, once their constituents and local legislators got pissed at them, they revised their initial stances into saying they would look at the money specifically and see what parts could be used.


I didn't say why they started talking to the legislators......I just said when...lol

BUT, all of them from day 1, said they were worried about the portion set for unemployment compensation, and the fact that, once THAT MONEY ran out, the state would have to pay, and the feel that it would be a huge problem when that moment came. For most of the governors, that was the main problem.

[The Major]

I didn't say why they started talking to the legislators......I just said when...lol

BUT, all of them from day 1, said they were worried about the portion set for unemployment compensation, and the fact that, once THAT MONEY ran out, the state would have to pay, and the feel that it would be a huge problem when that moment came. For most of the governors, that was the main problem.
They'd rather let those people go without money rather then deal with it later on? :wow:

I agree the long term the stuff is diffiuclt, it's just I think it's a necessary evil in this economy.

[StorminNorman]

I think it should be the duty of every responsible governor to look through the stimulus money and be responsible with it. The state government should have the ability to reject any funding they do not believe is warranted.

[The Major]

I think it should be the duty of every responsible governor to look through the stimulus money and be responsible with it. The state government should have the ability to reject any funding they do not believe is warranted.
Palin rejected funding for education and unemployed benefits IIRC. I don't believe Alaska is financially well off to fulfill those functions properly.

[StorminNorman]

Palin rejected funding for education and unemployed benefits IIRC. I don't believe Alaska is financially well off to fulfill those functions properly.

Her prerogative.

[The Major]

Her prerogative.
Which is why the Federal government doesn't trust her judgment. The stimulus is meant to help everybody, not just who Palin wants.

[hippie_hunter]

Even though the federal government is above the state government, the states have rights as well and the federal government just can't trample over them by forcing them to take money they either don't want or need.

[The Major]

Even though the federal government is above the state government, the states have rights as well

To cripple themselves in education and hurt the unemployed? Aren't governors supposed to protect their constituents?

and the federal government just can't trample over them by forcing them to take money they either don't want or need.
This is not the time to do that. Something is seriously wrong when the Federal government needs to over-rule the state's to help the needy. You really believe Alaska can do those things themselves financially?

[Carcharodon]

Even though the federal government is above the state government, the states have rights as well and the federal government just can't trample over them by forcing them to take money they either don't want or need.Fine, well they should send some of it OUR way. More funding for education is always welcome here, and funding for scientific research couldn't hurt, either. :up:

[Kelly]

I'm all for funding......IF that funding is used effectively and efficiently. But, I'm sorry, I do not believe our government has the ability to do that.

[Carcharodon]

I'm all for funding......IF that funding is used effectively and efficiently. But, I'm sorry, I do not believe our government has the ability to do that.Perhaps not, but I was alluding to the fact that rejecting money for education in virtually any context is ridiculous. Judging by the news coverage of Alaska during the election, for example, it seems as though education should be the number one priority (if you catch my drift)...

[Kelly]

Perhaps not, but I was alluding to the fact that rejecting money for education in virtually any context is ridiculous. Judging by the news coverage of Alaska during the election, for example, it seems as though education should be the number one priority (if you catch my drift)...


I get'cha.....Alaska is a very different state as far as Education. You have an enormous amount of native americans there that you have to work with differently. Conventional governing does not work.....I researched this quite a bit back when I was looking for teaching jobs. I was offered a teaching position on an island off the coast near Juneau.....they are VERY SUSPICIOUS of government and the strings that come along with it. I can't say that Palin understands this or not, but I can say that she probably understands it more than we do....I think that if the government would cut some of the strings attached, and allow the state to do its thing, simply because it knows its people better than Washington D.C. I think there would be, at least, more open and positive conversation between some of these states and D.C.

[StorminNorman]

You really believe Alaska can do those things themselves financially?

I am saying Alaska gets to make that decision. Not the Federal government.

[The Major]

I am saying Alaska gets to make that decision. Not the Federal government.
Actually, it doesn't. There are paragraphs in the bill that says the Fed can over-ride governors if they refuse to take it IIRC.

[StorminNorman]

Actually, it doesn't. There are paragraphs in the bill that says the Fed can over-ride governors if they refuse to take it IIRC.

Which is SCARY. Which is WRONG. It's, frankly, unAmerican. The arrogance, the delusion, the pure incompetence of anyone that signed that bill is amazing.

[Zar25]

Even though the federal government is above the state government, the states have rights as well and the federal government just can't trample over them by forcing them to take money they either don't want or need.

I understand the right to refuse and if they have a reasonable argument against it, fair enough man.It just seems rather nothing but politically motivated which strikes me as petty and needless but that's just me.

[The Major]

Which is SCARY. Which is WRONG. It's, frankly, unAmerican.

It's scary, wrong and unAmerican for the Federal government to aid a state's constituents when the state won't? How so?

The arrogance, the delusion, the pure incompetence of anyone that signed that bill is amazing.
I disagree. Without the stimulus America would be in much worse shape financially.

[DACrowe]

The funniest thing is Palin, Jindal and Sanford all publicly reject some or all of the money (a stupid decision for states struggling with the budget during recession), because they want political points for 2012...and then when it backfires they all either quietly request all of the money or send their Lt. Gov. out to double talk. Hilariously backpedaling on the issue. It only works for political points if you can stand by it. I think they are making the mistake of thinking that this is the best time to defy something that is actually beneficial to them. Wait a year, if the economy is in the tank that is when you can be the "brave Constitutionalist" standing up to "socialist" Obama. :rolleyes:

[The Major]

Wait a year, if the economy is in the tank that is when you can be the "brave Constitutionalist" standing up to "socialist" Obama. :rolleyes:
That's not a good debate for Republicans, either. The other states still would have been able to use the stimulus to help their people when they needed it most, yet these Republicans wouldn't. It makes them look either incompetent or uncaring in a crisis.

[DACrowe]

No, I'm saying they should take the money because it will help their state and if the economy doesn't turn around by the end of 2010, they can then attack it as a failure and blame it all on Obama and have a free ride to the 2012 election (if the economy still hasn't turned around by then or has gotten worse). However, not accepting much needed federal aide in a time of financial crisis based supposedly on ideological principle against an immensely popular president is incredibly moronic and that is why they are all eating crow right now.

[Kelly]

No, I'm saying they should take the money because it will help their state and if the economy doesn't turn around by the end of 2010, they can then attack it as a failure and blame it all on Obama and have a free ride to the 2012 election (if the economy still hasn't turned around by then or has gotten worse). However, not accepting much needed federal aide in a time of financial crisis based supposedly on ideological principle against an immensely popular president is incredibly moronic and that is why they are all eating crow right now.


Yeah.....

[DavidTyler]

are you guys serious about meghan mccain? what qualifies her as a potential politician, let alone party leader? just because of her last name? she doesn't strike me as a capable politician in the slightest. bleached-out trophy-wife? sure.


You're getting confused....

Meghan is his daughter.

John's wife is not the one we're discussing.

[StorminNorman]

It's scary, wrong and unAmerican for the Federal government to aid a state's constituents when the state won't? How so?

It's scary, wrong and unAmerican for the Federal Government to force the State Government to take the money. The Federal Government is out of line.

[The Major]

It's scary, wrong and unAmerican for the Federal Government to force the State Government to take the money.

You said that before. I was asking specifically why. She wasn't elected just to help certain people she likes in Alaska, she's meant to help everyone. Restricting the money for vital services like education and unemployment does not help everyone in her state.

The Federal Government is out of line.
I disagree. The governors who are refusing it are.

[hippie_hunter]

Actually, it doesn't. There are paragraphs in the bill that says the Fed can over-ride governors if they refuse to take it IIRC.

Then the paragraphs in the bill that says that the federal government can override the will of the states that don't want the money is illegal. The federal government is barred from having that kind of power.

[StorminNorman]

You said that before. I was asking specifically why. She wasn't elected just to help certain people she likes in Alaska, she's meant to help everyone. Restricting the money for vital services like education and unemployment does not help everyone in her state.

Because the Federal Government shouldn't have the ability to override the State Government on issues like size on government, funding, etc. It's the classic State Rights issue. You know...the one they had a little fight about in the 1800's.

I disagree. The governors who are refusing it are.

Ok.:whatever:

[hippie_hunter]

You said that before. I was asking specifically why. She wasn't elected just to help certain people she likes in Alaska, she's meant to help everyone. Restricting the money for vital services like education and unemployment does not help everyone in her state.


I disagree. The governors who are refusing it are.

How is it out of line for governors for asserting their rights? I mean I guess it was out of line for various civil rights groups to assert their rights.

[The Major]

How is it out of line for governors for asserting their rights?

Because they're not using their rights properly.

I mean I guess it was out of line for various civil rights groups to assert their rights.
Civil rights groups aren't going out of their way to take resources from people who need it. The governors are.

[StorminNorman]

Because they're not using their rights properly.

Civil rights groups aren't going out of their way to take resources from people who need it. The governors are.

No comment. :lmao:

[The Major]

No comment. :lmao:
:facepalm

[Kelly]

My thoughts exactly.....*shakes head*

[hippie_hunter]

Because they're not using their rights properly.
And I'm pretty sure that the Westboro Baptist Church aren't using their rights properly.

So what you're saying is that it's okay to trample on certain rights? And that there is some kind of special measure to determine how we use them properly?

Civil rights groups aren't going out of their way to take resources from people who need it. The governors are.I think that people like you and I are not in positions to properly make such statements. For all that you and I know, states like South Carolina and Alaska don't need the money and because they have governors that are opposed to the stimulus are turning it down out of principle and the fact that they don't need it. Maybe they're just being stubborn and are actually going out of their way to take resources from people who need it.

Regardless of the situation, whether it be oppression or the issue of sovereignty, what we are seeing here is the federal government trampling on fundamental rights granted by the Constitution. The federal government does not have the right to force states to take money that the state governments do not want.

[SsM]

My thoughts exactly.....*shakes head*


Were you responding to the facepalm or the laughingman?

[Kelly]

Were you responding to the facepalm or the laughingman?

Facepalm.....:yay: The laughing man has become one rude guy....:csad:

[StorminNorman]

Were you responding to the facepalm or the laughingman?

I would bet Kel (if only secretively) can acknowledge how ridiculous Major's comment was, but at the same time disagrees with my condescending, dickish tone.

[Kelly]

I would bet Kel (if only secretively) can acknowledge how ridiculous Major's comment was, but at the same time disagrees with my condescending, dickish tone.


Oooooooooooooooooooooooooh that is not fair.....lmao....


I will acknowledge that I don't agree with his comment.....and I agree with the last part of your comment....sort of, maybe not the "dickish" part...that's kind of harsh. :yay:

[DavidTyler]

Which is why the Federal government doesn't trust her judgment. The stimulus is meant to help everybody, not just who Palin wants.

Anyone who doesn't think Palin is just grandstanding for her run in 2012 is kidding themselves.

Anyone remember the Bridge to Nowhere that she backed until it became a political liability and then claimed she never backed it at all?

I'm an independent (not enrolled in a party) but I have friends who are Republican's that are extremely embarrassed by this woman.

BTW, the funds in the stimulous package ear-marked for education? One of it's targets is Special Education.

[SuBe]

These Governors are not accepting parts of the Stimulus Package that allows the Federal Government to dig their Fingers deeper into their State Sovereignty, what ever programs they fund.

[DavidTyler]

These Governors are not accepting parts of the Stimulus Package that allows the Federal Government to dig their Fingers deeper into their State Sovereignty, what ever programs they fund.

Well, I'm guessing the people in need of that money in those states are just thrilled ... to know that their governor has such a tenuous hold on their authority that they would turn away money that would help.

I wonder what the people having trouble putting food on their tables think?

[Marx]

Well, I'm guessing the people in need of that money in those states are just thrilled ... to know that their governor has such a tenuous hold on their authority that they would turn away money that would help.

I wonder what the people having trouble putting food on their tables think?

Maybe I don't fully understand the specifics of the situation, but I was shocked to see that governor's could turn down a stimulus that included unemployment benefits.

[VampElvis]

I'd agree completely if it were no strings attached money. The concern is, I believe, that if you accept the money you alter a program, such as unemployment, which in the short term might be a good thing. However the fear is that by accepting the money you incur a federal mandate to continue the expanded definition of the program long after the federal money runs out. See, it isn't just here's another $59million for unemployment. It's more like here's another $59million for unemployment, after accepting this money the following people will be eligible for benefits even f they never have been before in your state. So it's a kind of two-pronged concern. (1) the state should have the right to do with the money as it sees fit to best suite its people and (2) when the money runs out the states are left with no way to fund the mandate so they either raise taxes or beg for more of those federal dollars the former of which is quite unpopular and the latter of which just perpuates the cycle.
Or so it has been explained to me - like most I haven't read the bill.

[VampElvis]

I'd agree completely if it were no strings attached money. The concern is, I believe, that if you accept the money you alter a program, such as unemployment, which in the short term might be a good thing. However the fear is that by accepting the money you incur a federal mandate to continue the expanded definition of the program long after the federal money runs out. See, it isn't just here's another $59million for unemployment. It's more like here's another $59million for unemployment, after accepting this money the following people will be eligible for benefits even f they never have been before in your state. So it's a kind of two-pronged concern. (1) the state should have the right to do with the money as it sees fit to best suite its people and (2) when the money runs out the states are left with no way to fund the mandate so they either raise taxes or beg for more of those federal dollars the former of which is quite unpopular and the latter of which just perpuates the cycle.
Or so it has been explained to me - like most I haven't read the bill.

[Marx]

HOMELAND SECURITY REPORT WARNS OF RISING RIGHT-WING EXTREMISM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/14/homeland-security-report_n_186834.html


*This is entirely too long of a story to post, but I would encourage you all to read it.*

[SuBe]

I knew it.

[The Major]

I knew it.
Knew what?

[SuBe]

I knew all them Rightwingers were nott'n but trouble!

[The Major]

I knew all them Rightwingers were nott'n but trouble!
:hehe:

[metr0man]

what the report fails to mention is the way the frenzy is being whipped up by right wing lunatics. The smaller a party gets the more crazy its remaining members. It's a constant law. I saw more than enough ugliness at the rallies during the campaign, video after video, most of which the media wouldn't even report on. Then the constant 'he's a Red socialist', the viciousness at which people spouted anti-muslim stuff, and just the fact that 'he's a muslim' was actually used as a negative says the kind of built in obliviousness to their ugliness. There's just tons of that stuff over at the Hannity board, which I actually read regularly but never post on - it's the easiest form of lol-at-them entertainment there is, except when it's not, which is way more often.

On the flip side, its funny that suddenly the right wing will see what exactly was so 'uncomfortable' about the Department of Homeland Security to begin with.

"BUT..BUTTT YOU'RE ONLY SUPPOSED TO CARE ABOUT DANGEROUS MUSLIMSSSS!!!! NOW EXCUSE ME WHILE I STOCKPILE A CACHE OF WEAPONS BECAUSE THAT MOSLEM SOCIALIST ANTI-AMERICAN TERRORIST OBAMA IS GONNA TAKE MY GUNS!"

[DACrowe]

I knew all them Rightwingers were nott'n but trouble!

Glad you see that. Far more worrisome than those lefty latte-mocha-drinking socialists out there. :p

[SuBe]

Capital A-Greed.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Bachman. Known, as the gift that keeps on giving...




Bachmann: The Six Muslim Leaders Detained In MN In 2006 Were On Their Way To Ellison’s Victory Party

(http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/16/bachmann-ellison-imams/)Last week, KSFO 560 AM San Francisco conducted a little-noticed radio interview with Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) in which the host, Lee Rogers, took issue with the fact that the voters of Minnesota were the first to elect “[COLOR=#0066cc]an openly, avowed Muslim to Congress (http://dumpbachmann.blogspot.com/2009/04/transcript-of-michele-bachmann-on-ksgo.html),” Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN). Rogers asked for Bachmann’s reaction to the fact that Ellison helped President Obama find qualified American Muslims (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_12006596?source=email) to serve in his administration.
Finding Ellison’s efforts to promote diversity in the administration problematic, Bachmann blamed the “very liberal new media” in Minnesota for suppressing news of Ellison’s efforts. Later, Rogers asked Bachmann about a 2006 incident in which “[s]ix Muslim religious leaders were taken off a US Airways flight (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/22/us/22muslim.html?_r=2&bl&ex=1164517200&en=24531ca1fa7314e1&ei=5087%0A) in Minneapolis…and detained for several hours after some passengers and crew members complained of behavior they deemed suspicious.” As the blog DumpBachmann first noted (http://dumpbachmann.blogspot.com/2009/04/michele-bahcmann-lies-about-imams-being.html), Bachmann falsely claimed that the religious leaders were in Minneapolis to attend “Congressman Keith Ellison’s victory celebration, when he won as a member of Congress”:
BACHMANN: [Minnesota was] also were the site of the six flying imams. … The imams, the imams were actually attending, ah, Congressman Keith Ellison’s victory celebration, when he won as a member of Congress. […]
[T]hey were shouting phrases anti-Bush, anti-America…and were making these statements and when they got aboard the airplane, they switched seats, they didn’t go to their proper seats, and they went in the pattern of the nine-one-one terrorists.
Listen here:


In fact, the six were not attending Ellison’s victory celebration. As the New York Times reported (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/22/us/22muslim.html?_r=2&bl&ex=1164517200&en=24531ca1fa7314e1&ei=5087%0A) after the incident were on their way back from a “Minneapolis conference of the North American Imams Federation.”
Despite Bachmann’s claims, there is no evidence in any of the news reports about the incident that the six religious leaders fit the “pattern” of the 9/11 hijackers or that they were “shouting” anti-Bush or anti-American phrases. The group was detained because other passengers on their flight viewed as suspicious (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15824096/) the fact that the group was speaking in Arabic to one another and that they had prayed in the terminal prior to boarding. After five hours of detention and interviews, federal agents released the group finding them not to be a threat (http://minnesotaindependent.com/808/muslim-imams-fly-back-to-arizona-call-for-us-airways-boycott).

[Addendum]

I bet her parents feel bad when they dropped her as an infant

[gap5ewl]

BACHMANN: OBAMA WANTS 'RE-EDUCATION CAMPS FOR YOUNG PEOPLE'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/06/bachmann-obama-wants-re-e_n_183552.html



:facepalm

:pal::lmao::dry::facepalm

[hippie_hunter]

I bet her parents feel bad when they dropped her as an infant

I doubt it :o

[ChrisBaleBatman]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/15/michele-bachmann-falsely-_n_187537.html

"...Flying Imams..."

[Malice]

I heard a clip from the hitman emanuell....that all kids would have to go for "training" in camps for 3 months....

That scares me a little

[SuBe]

That is that Forced Volunteerism, we have a thread on that. It's disgusting.

[SuBe]

Dp.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

lol...yeah, we're transforming kids into slaves now.

[BlackLantern]

lol...yeah, we're transforming kids into slaves now.

The fact that this seems to be coming from both parties is disturbing....they are working together for all the wrong reasons it seems

[Kelly]

Can someone please lock this heifa up in someone's basement already??? :rolleyes: My god, she is so inept it actually numbs my brain muscles. :o

Stupid policies and rhetoric, we can agree with......as a woman, not really liking the "heifa" comment....kind of demeaning.

[Franklin Richards]

to a cow.


:D



:doom: :doom: :doom:

[hippie_hunter]

McCain's VP vetter reveals that McCain was indeed leaning heavily towards Lieberman as his running mate, but legal issues prevented him from getting the spot

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0409/Why_McCainLieberman_wasnt_an_option_legally_speaki ng.html

[StorminNorman]

If McCain/Lieberman ticket wouldn't of worked. Romney/Lieberman would have.

[StorminNorman]

McCain's VP vetter reveals that McCain was indeed leaning heavily towards Lieberman as his running mate, but legal issues prevented him from getting the spot

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0409/Why_McCainLieberman_wasnt_an_option_legally_speaki ng.html

Also, good luck for this guy getting a significant job again. You don't spill campaign secrets.

[SuBe]

He might think there is more money to be made in writing a book about a failed campaign.

[StorminNorman]

How could McCain lose with that sort of brainpower?

[The Major]

He might think there is more money to be made in writing a book about a failed campaign.
Agreed.

[SuBe]

More like, "How did he survive that long?"

I think he was "made" to be nominee.

[Lightning Strykez!]

Stupid policies and rhetoric, we can agree with......as a woman, not really liking the "heifa" comment....kind of demeaning.

The things she says are demeaning. In my opinion, the term is befitting. :dry:

[Kelly]

Not really needed to make the point IMO.

[Lightning Strykez!]

Well, at least we have our opinions. And I will always cherish yours. :heart:

However, I am not editting my post. :o

[Kelly]

Well, at least we have our opinions. And I will always cherish yours.

:heart:

However, I am not editting my post. :o

Then I will take as cherishing my opinion, but not caring that I find it demeaning as a woman...so you respect my opinion, but not my gendre....

Just my opinion...

Don't edit it, point made....

[Lightning Strykez!]

It's...really not that deep. I've heard women use the term in reference to other women. LOL It's just a term. It's not like I called her a Beetch.

[Addendum]

It has nothing do with opinion or gender. He doesn't respect Bachmann.

And Bachmann has done nothing to merit any

[Kelly]

It's...really not that deep. I've heard women use the term in reference to other women. LOL It's just a term. It's not like I called her a Beetch.


Then I guess it goes back to what you've said...

It's ok for gays to call each other ****, and its ok for blacks to call each other ******.


Look, I simply made my thoughts known.....I didn't ask you to edit it, or do anything with it. Simply made my thoughts known. Point made....

[Kelly]

It has nothing do with opinion or gender. He doesn't respect Bachmann.

And Bachmann has done nothing to merit any

So be it, simply making a point of my own.....as I said, I didn't ask him to do a thing with the post. I simply made a point of my own.

No biggie...

[Marx]

So how 'bout that Michele Bachmann guys?

[Marx]

Also, good luck for this guy getting a significant job again. You don't spill campaign secrets.

Agreed. That is a very big no no.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

My understanding is that Keith Ellison happens to be muslim.

So, most people are taking her comments as racist...because, as we all know...all muslims are evil and know eachother.

Apparently.

The racism against muslims in this country is still quite staggering. And it's accepted too. Incredible.

[StorminNorman]

McCain Strategist Warns GOP Risks Becoming 'Religious Party'


John McCain's top adviser from the presidential campaign urged fellow Republicans on Friday to warm up to gay rights and warned that the GOP risks becoming the "religious party" with its opposition to same-sex marriage.
Steve Schmidt, in his first political appearance since the election, spoke at the Washington, D.C., convention for the Log Cabin Republicans -- a grassroots group for gay and lesbian Republicans.
He urged Republicans, in the near-term, to endorse civil unions and stop using the Bible as rationale for gay-marriage opposition.
"If you put public policy issues to a religious test, you risk becoming a religious party," he said. "And in a free country a political party cannot be viable in the long-term if it is seen as a sectarian party."
Schmidt, whose sister is a lesbian and who supports same-sex marriage, said he understands the Republican Party probably won't reverse its resistance to same-sex marriage anytime soon.
But he suggested that the party will be increasingly marginalized if it sustains that opposition long-term.
"If the party is seen as anti-gay, then that is injurious to its candidates" in Democrat-leaning and competitive states, he said.
President Obama also stops short of supporting gay marriage -- he supports civil unions -- but states across the country are moving toward extending such rights to gay couples.
Schmidt predicted gay marriage will create a bigger and bigger divide between the GOP and the electorate in the years ahead. He said that as young voters age, they may adopt conservative views on the economy and national security -- but they will not abandon liberal, social beliefs.
This would put the Republican Party at odds with a swath of voters, Schmidt said.
"I believe Republicans should re-examine the extent that we are being defined by positions on issues that I don't believe are among our core values," he said, while still calling social conservatives an "indispensable part of the conservative coalition."
Schmidt's position is not new. Schmidt recently asserted his support for same-sex marriage rights in March during an interview with the Washington Blade, a newspaper that covers gay and lesbian issues.
But Schmidt's advice to his party took a different tone than the social platform trumpeted Thursday by McCain running mate Sarah Palin -- the Alaska governor gave an out-of-state political speech for the first time in months Thursday, to an anti-abortion group in Indiana.
There she chastised Obama for supporting abortion rights and defended her abortion opposition.
Schmidt also said Friday that Republicans need to reach out, not only to gay voters, but young voters and Hispanics.
"The rapid growth of the Hispanic-American population for instance could soon cost Republicans the entire southwest if we don't recover our previous share of the vote," he said.
FOX News' Mosheh Oinounou contributed to this report.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/17/mccain-strategist-warns-gop-risks-religious-party/

[Kelly]

Becoming the religious party?


He just now figured that out.....??????? Little slow on the draw there....

[Marx]

My sentiments exactly, Kel.

[StorminNorman]

Well this guy was a significant player on one of the worst run campaigns ever ran.

[Excel]

If your talking about campaigns run last year, hes 2nd after Hilldog. "Of all time"...no. No way.

McCain Strategist Warns GOP Risks Becoming 'Religious Party'

Hes just a tad late.

[Marx]

MEGAN MCCAIN: 'KARL ROVE IS A TWITTER CREEP'
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/20/meghan-mccain-karl-roves-a-twitter-creep/

Meghan McCain loves Twitter — except for the "creepy people." Like Karl Rove.

In a blog post for the Daily Beast published Monday, McCain says the social networking site has been a "liberating" experience for her — if only her dispatches weren't being read by the former Bush advisor.

"Karl Rove follows me on Twitter. That's creepy," she said. "I joined Twitter a few months ago; so far, it has been a liberating way to transition from political to personal blogging. It's allowed me to share the less serious aspects and humorously uncensored moments of my life. But there's also been a downside: I am now being followed by Karl Rove, and my local sheriff, and God knows how many other political pundits. We need to take Twitter back from the creepy people."

Later, she wrote: "I can't shake the fact that Karl Rove is following me-it can be creepy. So watch out."

The daughter of former Republican presidential candidate John McCain also said she finds Rove's Tweets "boring," and speculated that he had a "ghost Twitterer" or an assistant posting his thoughts.


"On the surface, Karl Rove's Twitter feed intrigues me," she said. Here's a guy who for years has been perceived as some kind of inaccessible man-behind-the-curtain figure. And now he Tweets numerous times a day. I've never met him in person, which only makes our Twitter relationship even weirder. And to be honest, I find Rove's Tweets boring. Sometimes he takes questions; other times he talks about his appearances on cable news and other shows. But he doesn't say anything substantive."

She said that Rove's Tweets "seem to reveal a softer side to him" — but drew her skepticism.

"Call it savvy marketing, but I find it disingenuous," she said. "And it's a bit weird to think his people-not even Rove himself-are following me."

[VampElvis]

I guess its just disconcerting to her to actually have contact with a conservative. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Rove Raver, but I think I'd rather hear what he had to say.

[Marx]

STEELE: 'THERE'S ONE REPUBLICAN PARTY'
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/20/steele-theres-one-republican-party/

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele rejected the suggestion Monday that the Republican Party is fractured into different ideological or personality-driven factions.

"There's one Republican Party," the GOP head said on Fox News.
"There's not a Newt Gingrich side. There's not a Sarah [Palin] side. There's no Mitt [Romney] side."

Steele also said that the GOP had "bottomed and we hope that's the case." Citing upcoming gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey, he suggested that the GOP would soon know how its efforts to regroup were being received by voters.

"But," Steele cautioned, "whether or not you've bottomed or not, you better have something to say to the American people." "I think the party has now positioned itself to talk about creating wealth versus wealth distribution."

The GOP chair also appeared to try to clean up recent statements by other prominent Republicans who have called President Obama a socialist.

"We don't see this president so much as a socialist as we see him as a collectivist." "When you strip away this idea that the individual matters, for this concept of the collective - all of us pulling together and working towards some governmental goal - that's what I'm more concerned about," Steele added.

As the GOP seeks to reclaim its mantle of small government and fiscal conservatism, Steele also took a shot at the president over government spending. Monday Obama challenged members of his Cabinet to wring a total of $100 million in cuts out of their agency budgets. "We can cut a whole lot more from the federal government than $100 million," Steele said. "They're making it like it's a trillion dollars and it's not."

Weighing in on one of his party's hottest stars, Steele rejected the suggestion that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is a controversial figure.
Steele likewise rejected the assumption that Palin was the automatic front-runner for the 2012 GOP nomination. "Has anyone heard Sarah Palin say what her plans are for 2012?," asked Steele. "Maybe it's not 2012. It could be later." Steele added that Palin was "an effective voice" and a "player like Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney and all the others."

:facepalm

The first step in fixing the problem, is admitting you have a problem.

[Excel]

Such a joke.

[voyzovrezon]

Chuck is in good company for wanting to secede from the union. His buddy Glenn Beck says Does the state have rights anymore...the constitution is not a suicide pact...people have a right to not commit economic suicide...Texas says Go to Hell, Washington...Washington, we're not commit suicide with you.

http://mediamatters.org/countyfair/200904140032

Me thinks Beck wants another civil war. Bush was OK with him, but not Barack Husein Obama. Maybe that's what it's all about.

[nathaniel]

Of course it is. for some crazy Xenophobic americans a black man (yes i said it) with a Muslim name just isnt something they want in the whitehouse, they dont see him as american as they are, if he was driving thier Taxis or delivering thier meals it would be fine but President? no way.

They REALLY hated Clinton and Hilary when they where at their peak but i dont think the right wing ever went as far as all this breaking from the union stuff.

[The Major]

Isn't seceding treason? If it is how far does a person have to go to secede in order to be tried for treason?

[nathaniel]

If McCain/Lieberman ticket wouldn't of worked. Romney/Lieberman would have.

Romney was the best pick in 08 but some of the REP base (i think 20%according to polls) didnt want a Mormon in the whitehouse.

[SuBe]

Is living up to a Treaty reason enough for Treason?

[SuBe]

Chuck is in good company for wanting to secede from the union. His buddy Glenn Beck says Does the state have rights anymore...the constitution is not a suicide pact...people have a right to not commit economic suicide...Texas says Go to Hell, Washington...Washington, we're not commit suicide with you.

http://mediamatters.org/countyfair/200904140032

Me thinks Beck wants another civil war. Bush was OK with him, but not Barack Husein Obama. Maybe that's what it's all about.

Why would it be Civil War? What do you think would lead to that?

Just because there is *gasp* another country on our continent, you think it leads to war?

[The Major]

Is living up to a Treaty reason enough for Treason?
1. Treaties mean something to Republicans now? :whatever:

2. It's debatable that the treaty means what you think it means.

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/region/legislature/stories/04/17/0417gop.html


Sanford Levinson, a professor at the School of Law at the University of Texas at Austin, said that between the Texas Constitution, the U.S. Constitution and the 1845 Joint Resolution Annexing Texas to the United States, there is no explicit right for the state to return to its days as a republic.
"We actually fought a war over this issue, and there is no possibility whatsoever that the United States or any court would recognize a 'right' to secede," Levinson said in an e-mail.
Levinson noted that the 1845 resolution allows for Texas to break itself into five states but doesn't specify whether that would require congressional approval — and forming new states still wouldn't constitute secession.

[The Major]

Why would it be Civil War? What do you think would lead to that?

One state wants to become a separate country from a host country. Host country wants the status quo. Both sides fight to get what they want, the winner decides the new status quo. It's happened before. China and Taiwan have been fighting over this exact subject for decades. That's how it leads to war.

Just because there is *gasp* another country on our continent, you think it leads to war?
Texas is a state, not a country. IIRC originally Mexico owned it until America snatched it up. If Texas secedes I wonder if Mexico will try to get it back?

[Schlosser85]

1. If Democrats were blatantly talking about secession and a second American Revolution, I can only imagine how loudly the Republicans would be calling them traitors, but apparently for Republicans to say it is ok.

2. Were these people like Chuck Norris acting like Obama is destroying America and leading us into economic oblivion in comas during the last eight years?

[Schlosser85]

Michael Steele lost any credibility when he bowed down to a blowhard like Rush Limbaugh, exactly the kind of joke the Republican Party needs to distance itself from to regain any credibility.

[voyzovrezon]

Why would it be Civil War? What do you think would lead to that?

Just because there is *gasp* another country on our continent, you think it leads to war?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America

If Texas does secede, can or should we (the other 49 states) invade them for their oil?:woot:

[Johann Krauss]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America

If Texas does secede, can or should we (the other 49 states) invade them for their oil?:woot:


:hehe:

[SuBe]

One state wants to become a separate country from a host country. Host country wants the status quo. Both sides fight to get what they want, the winner decides the new status quo. It's happened before. China and Taiwan have been fighting over this exact subject for decades. That's how it leads to war.


Texas is a state, not a country. IIRC originally Mexico owned it until America snatched it up. If Texas secedes I wonder if Mexico will try to get it back?You "IIRC" Incorrectly. Texas was it's own country "before America snatched it up" or "joined the Union" as it actually happened.

And, by your other point, If "Host Country" wants to be aggressive and not allow a group of people to choose Liberty, then that, to me, warrants a call for Independence. unless you forget your Forth Right according to the Declaration of Independence.

[Schlosser85]

If "Host Country" wants to be aggressive and not allow a group of people to choose Liberty, then that, to me, warrants a call for Independence. unless you forget your Forth Right according to the Declaration of Independence


So does that mean Lincoln violated the Declaration of Independence?

[SuBe]

Yes. And certain aspects of the Constitution, but Matthew is better at arguing the point.

I know what the counter argument is, if Lincoln didn't fight the "Civil War", then he wouldn't have freed the slaves. The Argument against that is, the slaves would have been freed anyways, due to economic and political pressure. The "Civil War" was a war for unjust powers over the State.

My point is, in the Declaration of Independence, you have 4 freedoms outlined. The Right to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness AND the Right to abolish or alter your form of Government.

[Addendum]

But if you make a fourth right, you're just going in a circle

[VampElvis]

HAHAhahHAHAHAhahHAHAha

[Marx]

CHENEY SLAMS OBAMA AGAIN, CALLS OVERSEAS TRIP 'DISTURBING'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/20/cheney-slams-obama-again_n_189268.html

Former Vice President Dick Cheney slammed President Obama again on Monday night during an interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity at Cheney's home in McLean, Virginia.

Cheney pointedly questioned the president's leadership, criticized Obama's overseas trips as "disturbing," said his handshake with Venezuela's Hugo Chavez was "not helpful," and strongly disagreed with the release of the torture memos.

"I've been concerned at the way we've been presented overseas... What I find disturbing is the extent to which he's gone to Europe and seemed to apologize profusely, been to Mexico and seemed to apologize there," said Cheney. "The world out there, both our friends and foes, will be quick to take advantage of that... I don't think we have much to apologize for."


C7bkK8y2T44

[The Major]

You "IIRC" Incorrectly. Texas was it's own country "before America snatched it up" or "joined the Union" as it actually happened.
Mexico never ratified the Treaties of Velasco since it was signed under duress. The only reason Mexico stopped the war with acquiring Texas was because the United States, who had just accepted Texas into itself, defeated Mexico enough that they stopped trying to keep it. This at the very least could allow Mexico to legally challenge the Texas authorities over sovereignty IMO.

Texas would face another hostile faction, as well. The drug cartels would love to use it for more territory.

And, by your other point, If "Host Country" wants to be aggressive and not allow a group of people to choose Liberty, then that, to me, warrants a call for Independence. unless you forget your Forth Right according to the Declaration of Independence.

Texas gaining that "liberty" would impact the other state's liberties. It isn't operating in a vacuum.

Though I'm not sure why leaving America would be a good thing for Texas' liberty. Isn't Texas one of the state's that rely on massive government funding to survive?

[DACrowe]

Nothing like two men who endorse torture, still talking about how Europe should thank us for stopping fascism in WWII. :rolleyes: I also love how the right always takes out of context Obama's quotes and leaves out the part where he chastizes Europe for petulance and dangerous self-interest. And yes, Nixon and Reagan never shook hands with our enemies either.

[Kelly]

Cheney needs to shuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUP.

[Marx]

Cheney needs to shuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUP.

I'm just trying to figure out what he hopes to accomplish by bashing Obama every chance he gets? He acts like he's planning a run for President.

*shudder*

[The Major]

I'm just trying to figure out what he hopes to accomplish by bashing Obama every chance he gets? He acts like he's planning a run for President.
It's not just him. It's many people from the previous administration. They've been on a PR revising history tour the last few weeks.

[Kelly]

Mexico never ratified the Treaties of Velasco since it was signed under duress. The only reason Mexico stopped the war with acquiring Texas was because the United States, who had just accepted Texas into itself, defeated Mexico enough that they stopped trying to keep it. This at the very least could allow Mexico to legally challenge the Texas authorities over sovereignty IMO.

Texas would face another hostile faction, as well. The drug cartels would love to use it for more territory.



Texas gaining that "liberty" would impact the other state's liberties. It isn't operating in a vacuum.

Though I'm not sure why leaving America would be a good thing for Texas' liberty. Isn't Texas one of the state's that rely on massive government funding to survive?


I don't believe so....I think one of the reasons why our economy is still as strong as it is, is because we have very little coming from the US government, except in the area (right now) of Ike....which is a seperate issue from other government funding.

I honestly don't have any immediate sources to this, but I would be interested to see how we receive anymore funding than other states....

[Marx]

It's not just him. It's many people from the previous administration. They've been on a PR revising history tour the last few weeks.

The American public isn't as dumb as they would like to think.

[Kelly]

I'm just trying to figure out what he hopes to accomplish by bashing Obama every chance he gets? He acts like he's planning a run for President.

*shudder*


And Bush can't do a damn thing about it, because they are not on the best of terms. I just wish Cheney would follow Bush's example.....and respect the "office of the President", and shut up. You don't have to respect the President, but you can respect the office.

[Marx]

And Bush can't do a damn thing about it, because they are not on the best of terms. I just wish Cheney would follow Bush's example.....and respect the "office of the President", and shut up. You don't have to respect the President, but you can respect the office.

Exactly.

[The Major]

The American public isn't as dumb as they would like to think.
Exactly.

[Schlosser85]

I've been concerned at the way we've been presented overseas

Since when is the Bush-Cheney administration worried about how we present ourselves overseas? :whatever:


I don't think we have much to apologize for.


And Dick Cheney clearly doesn't think he has ANYTHING to apologize for.

[I]Cheney needs to shuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUP.

Amen to this, he's one of the most disliked Vice Presidents in history, from at present and likely in history a very unpopular administration, and after the fiasco in Iraq, the annihilation of our international image, and the economic disaster zone we've been left with, give me one reason why ANYONE should care what Dick Cheney of all people has to say about anything?

[Marx]

Since when is the Bush-Cheney administration worried about how we present ourselves overseas? :whatever:

I was wondering the same thing Schloss.

[gap5ewl]

I'm just trying to figure out what he hopes to accomplish by bashing Obama every chance he gets? He acts like he's planning a run for President.

*shudder*

I think a kitten died after you typed that. :csad:

[Lightning Strykez!]

The only reason Cheney is running his mouth is because he's trying to maintain relevance in society.

:rolleyes:

[Kelly]

Well, actually he keeps running his mouth because people keep asking what he thinks of the foreign policy choices so far.

He's had only 3 actual interviews where he has said anything...and he has said the same thing in all 3..it just keeps getting repeated.

Don't get me wrong....he needs to shut up....but the media needs to shut him up by not repeating or interviewing him.

[Marx]

Well, actually he keeps running his mouth because people keep asking what he thinks of the foreign policy choices so far.

He's had only 3 actual interviews where he has said anything...and he has said the same thing in all 3..it just keeps getting repeated.

Don't get me wrong....he needs to shut up....but the media needs to shut him up by not repeating or interviewing him.

What are all of the networks that he has appeared on for interviews since leaving office?

[The Major]

Don't get me wrong....he needs to shut up....but the media needs to shut him up by not repeating or interviewing him.
Why would they do that? Every time he speaks it's interesting. I'm sure Cheney brings good ratings with his controversial image.

[Kelly]

What are all of the networks that he has appeared on for interviews since leaving office?

I know of one on Hannity....there was another on another cable channel, but I couldn't tell you which one, I just know that the footage was used on Fox, but it wasn't a Fox interview. There is a 3rd, but couldn't tell you who, it actually could be a print interview.

[gap5ewl]

I'm pretty sure he did a CNN interview as well..

[Marx]

It seems to me like he may have done a sunday morning news show...like Meet the Press or something.

[gap5ewl]

It seems to me like he may have done a sunday morning news show...like Meet the Press or something.

He might have. He did an interview with the map guy from CNN who has is own show now on Sunday's.

[redfirebird2008]

Why would they do that? Every time he speaks it's interesting. I'm sure Cheney brings good ratings with his controversial image.

I doubt it. There are people who draw ratings by being the "person we love to hate," but there's also people that we (the public) would rather see slink off into a cave somewhere never to appear in public again. Cheney fits into the latter category IMHO.

[Marx]

He might have. He did an interview with the map guy from CNN who has is own show now on Sunday's.

That would be 'State of the Union' with John King.

[gap5ewl]

That would be 'State of the Union' with John King.

Yeap that's the guy:up:

[VampElvis]

I think you're missing a key element of strategy here.
"Everyone" already hates Dick Cheney
"Everyone" loves Barack Obama
"Everyone" who isn't a Democrat and who does criticize BO runs the risk of being painted as an ultra-right wing, racist lunatic who hangs out teabagging with domestic terrorist on Reagan's grave and punches babies and puppies and kitties for fun. (OK, maybe I exaggerated a bit but you get the point).

ANYWAY, nobody wants that kind of stink on them, especially if they're running for re-election. So what to do?

Why trot out Darth Cheney of course! Since he's apparently made some kind of pack with Satan and exists on this Earth only as a re-animated corpse, he's pretty much immune to these kinds of attacks which allows him to plant the seed (of discontent or truth depending upon your point of view) by eviscerating the current administrations policies.

Once you've heard it you can't unhear it. And as the policies fail or become strained, that seed begins to germinate, though probably can
t remember who planted it, and as it becomes more acceptable to speak out against BO and more people do so, the seed may blossom and, to quote another reviled figure, Mission Accomplished.

So in effect....:bh:

[SuBe]

Texas gaining that "liberty" would impact the other state's liberties. It isn't operating in a vacuum.

Please Explain. How does one State being Free affect the liberties of other states? Do you know what sovereignty is?

[ChrisBaleBatman]

It's treason.

Hey, if they want to commit treason...fine. If they believe they have the right cause, then fine.

I just don't want them crying and *****ing when they need to deal with the consequences.

True story, btw...they're patriotism isn't being called into question because they're in Texas, home of the Super Patritots...which is better than that normal sissy patriotism.

[SuBe]

Is Treason an Individual Offense? Or, can a State be indicted for Treason?

And, if a State wants to live by the Spirit of the Constitution, and the Federal Government does not, who is in the right?

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Individual.

Simply because not every Texan is an idiot.

But the only reason it's being tagged on as Texas overall is because the governor...a state representative, is well...calling for it.

And the Confederacy tried it. It was wrong then, it'd be wrong now.

[Marx]

Individual.

Simply because not every Texan is an idiot.

But the only reason it's being tagged on as Texas overall is because the governor...a state representative, is well...calling for it.

And the Confederacy tried it. It was wrong then, it'd be wrong now.

To be fair, I don't think the governor directly called for it. I thought it was someone yelling from the crowd and he acknowledged their comment? Either way, it's things like that that cause the 'tea parties' to lose some credibility.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I think he hinted enough at it.

If he had directly called for it, he might be in legal trouble.

But things like attending a tea party rally that had protesters calling for secession with sings of it too...I mean, if any other politician had been at some other rally with some other thing, ie: x Politician at a protest rally, with anti-semitic yells and signs...he'd have to deal with that heat.

[Marx]

I think you're missing a key element of strategy here.
"Everyone" already hates Dick Cheney
"Everyone" loves Barack Obama
"Everyone" who isn't a Democrat and who does criticize BO runs the risk of being painted as an ultra-right wing, racist lunatic who hangs out teabagging with domestic terrorist on Reagan's grave and punches babies and puppies and kitties for fun. (OK, maybe I exaggerated a bit but you get the point).

ANYWAY, nobody wants that kind of stink on them, especially if they're running for re-election. So what to do?

Why trot out Darth Cheney of course! Since he's apparently made some kind of pack with Satan and exists on this Earth only as a re-animated corpse, he's pretty much immune to these kinds of attacks which allows him to plant the seed (of discontent or truth depending upon your point of view) by eviscerating the current administrations policies.

Once you've heard it you can't unhear it. And as the policies fail or become strained, that seed begins to germinate, though probably can
t remember who planted it, and as it becomes more acceptable to speak out against BO and more people do so, the seed may blossom and, to quote another reviled figure, Mission Accomplished.

So in effect....:bh:
...but the problem is that people like Cheney are now being seen for what they truly are. And when these people come out like this, it only hurts the Republican Party more. A party that desperately needs to break from the hate-filled scare-tactics of the past. Despite what Chairman Steele would like everyone to believe, the Republican Party is very much a fractured party.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Yeah.

The best description of the Republican parties problem I've heard, seems to make sense, is that the biggest voices in the party...are not the actual politicans, but talking heads.

Hannity, Beck, Gingrich, Limbaugh...these are the biggest dudes of the party, and they're nothing but talking heads. They're not in the trenches, which I think matters.

[Marx]

ROMNEY: OBAMA HAS FAILED HIS EARLY FOREIGN POLICY TESTS
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/21/romney-obama-has-failed-his-early-foreign-policy-tests/

Mitt Romney went on the offensive Tuesday, slamming President Obama's foreign policy initiatives and calling the president a "timid advocate of freedom."

In an op-ed in the National Review, the former Massachusetts governor accused Obama of going easy on dictators and passing blame for the actions and policies of former administrations.

"As American soldiers sacrificed blood in Afghanistan and Iraq to defend liberty, President Obama shrank from defending liberty here in the Americas," Romney wrote. "Vice President Biden was right that the new president would be tested early in his administration. What the world learned was not good news for freedom and democracy. The leader of the free world has been a timid advocate of freedom at best. And bold action to blunt the advances of tyrants has been wholly lacking."

The former candidate for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination said Obama may have failed in his early foreign-policy tests, but that he hopes the president will offer more than "silence, smiles, and a handshake" when dealing with foreign nations and leaders in the future.

"We are still very early in the Obama years - the president will have ample opportunity to defend America and freedom, and to deter nuclear brinkmanship. I am hoping for change," he wrote.

Spoken like a true 2012 Presidential candidate... :whatever:

[VampElvis]

...but the problem is that people like Cheney are now being seen for what they truly are. And when these people come out like this, it only hurts the Republican Party more. A party that desperately needs to break from the hate-filled scare-tactics of the past. Despite what Chairman Steele would like everyone to believe, the Republican Party is very much a fractured party.

Yeah.

The best description of the Republican parties problem I've heard, seems to make sense, is that the biggest voices in the party...are not the actual politicans, but talking heads.

Hannity, Beck, Gingrich, Limbaugh...these are the biggest dudes of the party, and they're nothing but talking heads. They're not in the trenches, which I think matters.

I think there's a lot of validity to both your statements. But I think, perhaps, there's a decision made to cede the next couple of years and let the old guy take the lumps then turn to your rising stars in 18-24 months and they maybe don't have as much partisan stank on 'em.

The weak point of my supposition is that there is any organization inside the Republican party. Either it's really in total disarray or they are setting the stage for their white knight (no racial overtone implied) to appear.

More than probable the former, but at least possible the latter.

[StorminNorman]

ROMNEY: OBAMA HAS FAILED HIS EARLY FOREIGN POLICY TESTS
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/21/romney-obama-has-failed-his-early-foreign-policy-tests/



Spoken like a true 2012 Presidential candidate... :whatever:

I see eye to eye with Mitt's statement.

I am not sure Mitt can win in 2012, though.

[Marx]

MCCAIN GETS CONSERVATIVE PRIMARY CHALLENGER
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/21/mccain-gets-conservative-primary-challenger/

Arizona Sen. John McCain — whose support of illegal immigration reform nearly derailed his presidential bid two years ago — will face a Senate primary challenge next year from Minuteman founder Chris Simcox.

Simcox, who has resigned from the volunteer organization with the mission of preventing illegal crossings of the U.S. border, will formally announce his Senate bid on Wednesday.

"John McCain has failed miserably in his duty to secure this nation's borders and protect the people of Arizona from the escalating violence and lawlessness," Simcox said in a statement. "He has fought real efforts over the years at every turn, opting to hold our nation's border security hostage to his amnesty schemes."

"Coupled with his votes for reckless bailout spending and big government solutions to our nation's problems, John McCain is out of touch with everyday Arizonans. Enough is enough," he added.

McCain's presidential hopes were nearly dashed after teaming up with Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy on the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007, a measure that provided a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States.

McCain later backtracked from calling for a path to citizenship and, at a CNN debate in January 2008, said he would not have voted for the legislation if it reached the Senate floor.

"No, I would not, because we know what the situation is today," he said of voting for the bill he sponsored. "The people want the borders secured first."

A week before Monday's Homeland Security field hearing on border security in Phoenix, Arizona, McCain criticized the Obama administration's plan for immigration reform.

He said he could not support the plan, which he said "does not adequately address either securing the border or a legal temporary worker program."

"We need to act on the pressing issue of border security now, and then seek comprehensive immigration legislation that includes a temporary worker program," McCain said in a statement April 14. "Any legislation that does not address these two key components is not real reform."

McCain did not face a primary challenger in 2004 and won reelection with over 75 percent of the vote.

[SuBe]

Good.

[Kelly]

Exactly....I hope his butt gets beat. I'm so tired of his wishy washy crapola.....move on McCain, let someone else take over.

[Marx]

Exactly....I hope his butt gets beat. I'm so tired of his wishy washy crapola.....move on McCain, let someone else take over.

If he has enough 'friends' to carry him through the election, you'll just have to deal with him. :cwink:

[souvlaki]

I'm going to laugh my ass off if McCain loses the primary, because there is no way in hell Simcox will win the election.

[Raiden]

I'm going to laugh my ass off if McCain loses the primary, because there is no way in hell Simcox will win the election.

This will turn out to be like what happened to Lieberman if McCain loses the primary. Who knows, maybe McCain will declare himself Independent and run the general election anyway. :word:

[Kelly]

This will turn out to be like what happened to Lieberman if McCain loses the primary. Who knows, maybe McCain will declare himself Independent and run the general election anyway. :word:


Fine, then 3 strikes and he's OUT.

Presidential Race X
Republican Senate Race X
Senate Race X


OUT....

[voyzovrezon]

Honestly, how many Texans are for the idea of leaving the U.S. and becoming their own---what? Country? Would they ask for help from U.S. government for patrolling their border and money for their infrastructure?

And how many really would want Chuck Norris as their president--or whatever title he gives himself?

[The Major]

Please Explain. How does one State being Free affect the liberties of other states?

It weakens America's resources and divides the country politically for nothing. This is very bad especially when the nation is in bad shape economically.

Do you know what sovereignty is?
Country's have sovereignty. Texas isn't a country, it's a state. The nation is called the United States not Everyone Else and Texas.

[Johnny Drama]

**** Chuck Norris.

[The Major]

I doubt it. There are people who draw ratings by being the "person we love to hate," but there's also people that we (the public) would rather see slink off into a cave somewhere never to appear in public again. Cheney fits into the latter category IMHO.
So does Palin. Yet she's rating dynamite IIRC. I see no reason this can't be attributed to Cheney.

[Schlosser85]

^ Well-said. Hypocritical buffoon.

He didn't say anything for eight years of Bush, but 100 days of Obama and he's talking secession. Bull. This has less to do with Obama and more to do with Norris not being able to stand Obama being the President.

[Johnny Drama]

I wonder if it has to do with Obama being the black sheep.

[Ocramed]

No, they weren't. They supported the interventionist waste of American tax dollars that is the Iraq War. And they carried water for Bush enough to get him re-elected. If they were actually critical of him before 2004, he wouldn't have been re-elected. But they supported him up until 2006 when he became a lame duck with the Congressional win by the Democrats. At that point pretty much everyone threw Bush overboard except the infamous 20 percenters. I predict that by the time Obama leaves office he will have a similar approval rating with a similar number of worshipers still supporting him (the 20 percenters).

Uh, no. Yes, they did support the war in Iraq, but they also were against the increase in discretionary spending (i.e. cut spending, lower taxes). In 2006, many Conservatives stayed home in protest over this. Contrary to popular belief around here, members within the Republican Party are agreement on everything (see: Megan McCain).

O.

[Matt]

Even if McCain loses the primary, he'll still win his seat back.

[StorminNorman]

So does Palin. Yet she's rating dynamite IIRC. I see no reason this can't be attributed to Cheney.

Palin doesn't fit in that category at all. She drew higher ratings than Obama.

[The Major]

Palin doesn't fit in that category at all. She drew higher ratings than Obama.
She's detested by Republicans and Democrats alike. She may have some power but overall she's a dead weight in national politics. IIRC she isn't doing much better in Alaska these days. Drawing higher ratings doesn't always mean they're taken seriously by everybody. Paris Hilton used to have good ratings. You want her in the White House?

[Kelly]

Paris Hilton has been on Gallup Political Polls?

[The Major]

Paris Hilton has been on Gallup Political Polls?
I mean ratings generally.

edit: Palin did go against Obama before. We all know how that turned out.

[Kelly]

That's kind of comparing apples and oranges.

The people that are rating Paris are not rating for President possibility, they are rating her for....who knows what they are rating her for...

[souvlaki]

Even if McCain loses the primary, he'll still win his seat back.

Not necessarily. What is the law on switching parties when running for public office in Arizona? You can't pull a Lieberman in every state due to the state laws. I know Pennsylvania is one of them, which is why Specter is screwed if he loses his primary as well.

[The Major]

That's kind of comparing apples and oranges.

True.

The people that are rating Paris are not rating for President possibility, they are rating her for....who knows what they are rating her for...
It's the train wreck factor. Palin has her own baggage. That's why the media likes her. Viewers know they'll get an entertaining story from it. She has not successfully stopped that disadvantage.

[kane9321]

wow chuck

[ChrisBaleBatman]

President of Texas.

I wonder if he really knows what that means. What it would mean to have another civil war.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Palin's biggest problem is her private life is always the first word. Then, her politics seem to follow.

I have no idea how the hell they can flip that switch...but if people don't see her as a straight up politician...and just as some wacky celeb...which she's not, but she's getting there...I dunno if she can win.

She's popular. No question. She'll get far. No question. Her only problem is figuring out a way to get over the hump. That final hurdle, so to speak...whereas others are just trying to get into the door.

[Marx]

CHENEY HITS OBAMA AGAIN ON 'DEVASTATING' ECONOMIC POLICIES
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/22/cheney-hits-obama-again-devastating-economic-policies/

President Barack Obama's expansion of the federal government into the financial sector is likely to have "devastating" effects in the long term, former Vice President Dick Cheney said in his latest salvo directed at the new White House administration.

In an interview on Fox News — portions of which aired Tuesday night — the former vice president said he is "very concerned" about where the Obama administration is taking the country economically.

"I worry very much that we're in a situation now where there doesn't appear to be any limitation whatsoever in terms of the spending commitments that this administration wants to make," he said. "Vast expansion in terms of the deficit, but it also says a lot about what they intend for the role of government in this society."

White House officials have predicted the country's deficit will soar to $1.75 trillion this year, after the administration's efforts to bail out troubled financial companies and stabilize the nation's flailing economy. Obama has also pledged to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term, a promise critics doubt is possible to keep.

But beyond rising deficits, Cheney said he is concerned the administration is fundamentally "redefining that relationship between government, on the one hand, and the private sector on the other."

"I'm one of those people who believes that part of the greatness of the United States is our private sector. "It's what we do as private citizens for ourselves and our companies," he said, later adding, "I think we have to be very, very cautious. I think we've gone beyond what reasonably we could expect by way of intrusion into the private sector."

Cheney's comments are only the latest in a string criticisms he has publicly aired in recent weeks about the administration that succeeded his, though they appear to be his harshest words to date about the new president's economic policies.

In past interviews the former vice president has sharply questioned Obama's national security policies, telling CNN he thinks the country is less safe than it was under the Bush administration.

Cheney's comments have led to criticisms from Obama aides that he is confounding his role as an elder statesman, but, in the interview with Fox News, Cheney said people should not be surprised he is speaking out.

:facepalm

[StorminNorman]

Is this thread called the "Past of the Republican Party"? :huh:

:cwink::oldrazz:

[Marx]

Is this thread called the "Past of the Republican Party"? :huh:

:cwink::oldrazz:

When Cheney comes out acting like he's planning a run for president, it's more than valid. :cwink:

[StorminNorman]

Cheney '12?

Hmmm....I like that.

[Marx]

Cheney '12?

Hmmm....I like that.

Here I am praising how you are the kind of Republican that is the future of the GOP, and you make a comment like that!?!?!

I'm losing all hope for you man... :csad:

[Matt]

http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m47/ellroon/DarthCheney.jpg

If only you knew the power of the dark side.

[Marx]

:lmao:

[StorminNorman]

Here I am praising how you are the kind of Republican that is the future of the GOP, and you make a comment like that!?!?!

I'm losing all hope for you man... :csad:

I was obviously referring to Mary Cheney. :cwink:

[StorminNorman]

Mary Cheney/Megan McCain '12 :lmao:

[Marx]

I was obviously referring to Mary Cheney. :cwink:

Oh...yeah. Obviously. :whatever:

:oldrazz:

[ChrisBaleBatman]

...Cheney might as well enter all his rally speeches with the Imperial March anthem if he ever runs for anything ever.

President of McDonalds...whatever.

I mean, atleast...that'd make it easier to watch.

Oh, and have his bodyguards dressed like storm troopers.

[Schlosser85]

the former vice president said he is "very concerned" about where the Obama administration is taking the country economically


Kettle, you're black.

Seriously, what kind of credibility does Cheney really think he has to chide Obama about the economy of all things?

[Schlosser85]

Mary Cheney/Megan McCain '12



They'd get my vote over Dick.

Is Mary Cheney a Republican?

[VampElvis]

Kettle, you're black.

Seriously, what kind of credibility does Cheney really think he has to chide Obama about the economy of all things?

Oh, I don't know, 5 years as chairman and CEO of a fortune 500 company?

[The Major]

Oh, I don't know, 5 years as chairman and CEO of a fortune 500 company?
Who had 9/11 happen on his watch. :whatever:

[VampElvis]

Are you impersonating Juliani?

[The Major]

Are you impersonating Juliani?
No, I'm telling you Cheney's record on national security. 9/11 was a massive failure by Cheney, not something to boast about.

[VampElvis]

So then you are conceding the point that Cheney has the credibility necessary to criticize BO on the economy and moving the discussion to another point?

[The Major]

So then you are conceding the point that Cheney has the credibility necessary to criticize BO on the economy and moving the discussion to another point?
Quite the opposite. 9/11 proves he has no credibility on national security and he isn't much better on economics. Wall St imploded on his watch.

[hippie_hunter]

9/11 and the economic meltdown would have happened no matter who was in charge. Both of those events took years of build up even before Bush took office.

[VampElvis]

So am man who is a proven success in the private financial sector, and who served for eight years helping to prevent a number of terror attacks is not credentialed such that he can criticize the economic policies of a novice president and former junior senator that has no extensive public or private, economic, security, or general executive leadership whatsoever?

I don't suppose I can see the logic in that. Help me this way, please. Could you list for me a couple of examples of who you think is credentialed enough to criticize BO's economic policies?

[The Major]

9/11 and the economic meltdown would have happened no matter who was in charge. Both of those events took years of build up even before Bush took office.
9/11 would have been tried, but it's debatable it would have been successful with Gore as president.

The Wall St debacle could definitely have been stopped or slowed down given enough pressure from the government. Instead Bush not only allowed the self destructive policies from Wall St to move forward, he allowed it to get strong enough it sped up the implosion and allowed the corporations become to big to fail so when it fail it became a worldwide event.

[The Major]

So am man who is a proven success in the private financial sector, and who served for eight years helping to prevent a number of terror attacks is not credentialed such that he can criticize the economic policies of a novice president and former junior senator that has no extensive public or private, economic, security, or general executive leadership whatsoever?

How many times do I have to bring up 9/11? He couldn't prevent the biggest attack on America soil since Pearl Harbor. No amount of attacks stopped before that can erase that horrendeous mistake from his resume.

I don't suppose I can see the logic in that. Help me this way, please. Could you list for me a couple of examples of who you think is credentialed enough to criticize BO's economic policies?

No-one who served in Bush's government would be a good start. Paul Krugman. The people who recognized where it was headed years ago like Byron Morgan.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/4/8/717702/-VIDEO-from-1999:-Byron-Dorgan

[hippie_hunter]

9/11 would have been tried, but it's debatable it would have been successful with Gore as president.
It would have happened even if Gore was President. The fact is that no one really took the threat of Islamic based terrorism seriously until the 9/11 attacks happened.

The Wall St debacle could definitely have been stopped or slowed down given enough pressure from the government. Instead Bush not only allowed the self destructive policies from Wall St to move forward, he allowed it to get strong enough it sped up the implosion and allowed the corporations become to big to fail so when it fail it became a worldwide event.

Oh please. The fall of Wall Street, the collapse of our financial institutions, and all of our other economic problems are the result of the massive stupidity of everyone. Not just George W. Bush and the Republicans. The Bill Clinton and the Democrats and their equally incompetent ways deserve just as much blame. The corporations and their careless tactics deserve just as much blame. The American consumer and their spending habits deserve just as much blame.

You can't just go off blaming one side that deserves blame. You can't ignore the blame on the American consumer and the Democrats just because you're part of them. Blaming just one side is ignorant and blind sided. The President, Congress, the corporations, Republicans, Democrats, us. The blame falls on everyone.

[Marx]

9/11 and the economic meltdown would have happened no matter who was in charge. Both of those events took years of build up even before Bush took office.

There's no doubt that it would have happened regardless of who was in charge. IMO, I believe the aftermath and how it would have been handled would be very different.

[The Major]

It would have happened even if Gore was President.

Happened, yes. Succeeded, debatable.

The fact is that no one really took the threat of Islamic based terrorism seriously until the 9/11 attacks happened.

Clinton did. Why wouldn't Gore follow the warnings Bill gave or from Germany?

Oh please. The fall of Wall Street, the collapse of our financial institutions, and all of our other economic problems are the result of the massive stupidity of everyone. Not just George W. Bush and the Republicans. The Bill Clinton and the Democrats and their equally incompetent ways deserve just as much blame. The corporations and their careless tactics deserve just as much blame. The American consumer and their spending habits deserve just as much blame.

You can't just go off blaming one side that deserves blame. You can't ignore the blame on the American consumer and the Democrats just because you're part of them. Blaming just one side is ignorant and blind sided. The President, Congress, the corporations, Republicans, Democrats, us. The blame falls on everyone.Bush isn't entirely to blame, but he had the most power in those 8 years and he did nothing with it to properly regulate Wall St. That's why it's primarily his fault. The economy didn't get bad enough to implode until Bush was in office. The Democrats are not innocent, but they weren't in power and only had some pull from 06.

[hippie_hunter]

Clinton did. Why wouldn't Gore follow the warnings Bill gave or from Germany?
Not even Clinton took it seriously enough. The fact is that we only care about things like hurricanes, Islamic terrorism, etc. after the fact that something really bad happens. It's a damn shame.

Bush isn't entirely to blame, but he had the most power in those 8 years and he did nothing with it to properly regulate Wall St. That's why it's primarily his fault. The economy didn't get bad enough to implode until Bush was in office. The Democrats are not innocent, but they weren't in power and only had some pull from 06.Our economic meltdown has its roots all the way back during the Clinton administration when Clinton and the Republican Congress agreed to banking deregulation. It was also the Democrats that blocked reforms of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that people like John McCain and the Bush Administration pushed for.

They get just as much blame because they had just as much power as the Republicans by holding the White House in the 1990's and holding sizable minorities in Congress during the Bush Administration.

But this goes beyond just politics. Blame also goes to the corporations for having reckless policies that have put them into this position. Labor for increasing costs and in some instances like in GM hindering the companies. And the American consumer as well for being the opposite of yours truly in not saving a dime and spending far outside their means by buying that house that they clearly cannot afford and charging their credit cards far too much.

[Bathead]

Well, I think the point is, not that Cheney and Bush are solely to blame for the economic meltdown, but they do share the blame, therefore Cheney has no room to criticize Obama.

[metr0man]

lol, Dick Cheney. The guy was even more unpopular than Bush the entire two terms. Nobody, aside from the rightest of the right-wing cares one whit what he has to say.

[SuBe]

I like Dick Cheney. I'm not the "rightest of the right-wing".

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I like Cheney too.

The same way I like the Joker. Or Darth Vader.

In that supervillian-kinda way.

[Dr. Evil]

Texas is only a few months away from the start of the Gubernatorial Race and Rick Perry may not even win his own party's primary. He's likely to go up against Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson in the Republican Primary. All this is a mute point if Perry is defeated in the primary.

[Excel]

President of Texas.

I wonder if he really knows what that means. What it would mean to have another civil war.

What, the u.s. vs. Texas? Thered be no civil war; there arent that many loons in Texas.

[Dr. Evil]

What, the u.s. vs. Texas? Thered be no civil war; there arent that many loons in Texas.

Only two: the former President of the United States and the current governor of the State of Texas.

Okay five: those two, plus sports owners Mark Cuban, Jerry Jones and Tom Hicks.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I'm just saying...I'm sure whoever is willing to leave the union, probably has guns and a phone.

Which means they can probably hook up with others, and be ready to fight.

[Marx]

MEGAN MCCAIN SLAMS CHENEY
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/23/meghan-mccain-slams-chene_n_190641.html

Meghan McCain, serving as a co-host of "The View" today, wasted little time before getting in a shot at former Vice President Dick Cheney and Karl Rove. McCain, who had previously written about how she found Karl Rove following her on Twitter 'creepy', complained that Cheney and Rove are still trying to be seen as the face of the Republican Party. Last week McCain observed that the GOP leadership is 'scared ****less' of the changing political landscape.

McCain mentioned disapprovingly Cheney's repeated public criticisms of Obama--which he voiced again on Fox News this week--and referred to the DNC ad released this week portraying Cheney, Rove and Gingrich as the 'new face of the GOP.' She pointed out that it's "very unprecedented for someone like Karl Rove or Dick Cheney to be criticizing the President." Her advice to them: "Go away."

Her actual quote was...

'You had your eight years, now go away!'

:applaud

[VampElvis]

I guess people assume because of her name she speaks for the conservative movement but from what little but I know about the woman that is hardly the case. Has she done anything on her own merit to warrant me paying attention to her? I really know nothing about her so please fill me in or direct me to a resource (that isn't an archive of her blogs - I don't have that kind of time)

[VampElvis]

Only two: the former President of the United States and the current governor of the State of Texas.

Okay five: those two, plus sports owners Mark Cuban, Jerry Jones and Tom Hicks.

...... and Ross Perot, Ron Paul, Matthew McConaughey, Gary Busey, .......:wow:

[Marx]

I guess people assume because of her name she speaks for the conservative movement but from what little but I know about the woman that is hardly the case. Has she done anything on her own merit to warrant me paying attention to her? I really know nothing about her so please fill me in or direct me to a resource (that isn't an archive of her blogs - I don't have that kind of time)

Megan McCain is not speaking for the conservative movement...she is speaking out on the need for the GOP to become a more diverse, umbrella-like party.

[Marx]

SENIOR MCCAIN AIDE: THE GOP IS A 'SHRINKING ENTITY'
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/23/senior-mccain-aide-the-gop-is-a-shrinking-entity/

John McCain’s general election campaign began as “the strategic equivalent of throwing a football through a tire at 50 yards” – and was doomed weeks before Election Day, his former chief strategist said Thursday.

“We were running a campaign under extra difficult circumstances — the state of the Republican Party, the president’s unpopularity, the economy — a lot of issues that were not John McCain’s fault, but were John McCain’s problem in this race,” Schmidt told an audience at the University of Delaware, according to Politico. “When Lehman Brothers collapsed in the fall I knew pretty much right away that … from an electoral strategy perspective, the campaign was finished.”

Schmidt and Obama campaign manager David Plouffe — who both attended, but did not graduate from Delaware — shared the stage and looked back at the 2008 campaign.

Schmidt praised Obama's political skills. “This was, in my view, the unfinished Bobby Kennedy campaign — the idealism, the passion, the inspiration he gave to people, it was organic and it was real and it wasn’t manufactured at a tactical level in the campaign,” he said.

The Republican strategist said Sen. John McCain passed over his first choice for vice president — Democrat-turned-Independent Joe Lieberman — in favor of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to avoid an all-out GOP civil war.

“It was communicated back to us very clearly from within the party that not only was Senator Lieberman not acceptable, but any pro-choice nominee was not acceptable, [and] it would lead to a floor fight at the convention with an alternate nominee for vice president put into play.

“Blowing up the party wasn’t one of the menu items of things that were going to improve our situation,” he said.

Schmidt also criticized his party’s political performance in the early days of the Obama presidency.

“As a matter of reality, in the first 100 days, [the Republican Party] has not done anything to improve its political position with regards to the fact that it has been a shrinking entity,” he said.

[The Major]

I'm just saying...I'm sure whoever is willing to leave the union, probably has guns and a phone.

Which means they can probably hook up with others, and be ready to fight.
So what? America has the CIA, NSA, FBI, HLS, police, military and nuclear weapons.

[hippie_hunter]

Well, I think the point is, not that Cheney and Bush are solely to blame for the economic meltdown, but they do share the blame, therefore Cheney has no room to criticize Obama.

I'd agree with you there.

[The Major]

Megan McCain is not speaking for the conservative movement...she is speaking out on the need for the GOP to become a more diverse, umbrella-like party.
She's speaking for the Progressive Republican movement.

http://politicususa.com/en/McCain-GOP-Scared-****less

McCain laid out her definition of a progressive Republican, “What I am talking about tonight is what it means to be a new, progressive Republican. Now some will say I can't do that. If you aren't this and that, then you're clearly a "Republican in Name Only," also affectionately known as a RINO, suggesting the notion that one can be faithful to the original core values of the GOP while open to the realities of our changing world has really hit a chord with people. And it seems to be the next, natural stage of the journey I've been traveling.

[VampElvis]

Thank you for the link, I had a moment to read it and all I can say is wow I think she's nuts and I could not disagree with her more. She sound like a rambling debutante that's out of touch with the millions of conservatives in this country. maybe I didn't give her a fair shake as she wrankled my constitution by the use of "'progressive". I know the context in which it is used, and she used it correctly, I just personally have a problem with the hijacking of my language in a ........ agghhhh, that's a post for another day.

When you become the big tent, umbrella party you become the party that stands for nothing but its own power and success - you have no core values. Should core values morph over time? Sure, a slow drift will occur; that's natural. But when I read this one column by her I have visions of Jack Johnson and John Jackson going head to head in the Tastycrats Fingerlicans debate on Futurama "I believe my opponents 3% titanium tax goes to far" retorted with "and I believe my opponents 3% titanium tax doesn't go to far enough".

[Marx]

Thank you for the link, I had a moment to read it and all I can say is wow I think she's nuts and I could not disagree with her more. She sound like a rambling debutante that's out of touch with the millions of conservatives in this country. maybe I didn't give her a fair shake as she wrankled my constitution by the use of "'progressive". I know the context in which it is used, and she used it correctly, I just personally have a problem with the hijacking of my language in a ........ agghhhh, that's a post for another day.

When you become the big tent, umbrella party you become the party that stands for nothing but its own power and success - you have no core values. Should core values morph over time? Sure, a slow drift will occur; that's natural. But when I read this one column by her I have visions of Jack Johnson and John Jackson going head to head in the Tastycrats Fingerlicans debate on Futurama "I believe my opponents 3% titanium tax goes to far" retorted with "and I believe my opponents 3% titanium tax doesn't go to far enough".

Do you believe that the Republican Party needs to become more diverse? Should the party break from the stranglehold of the Religious Right? Or should it stay exactly as it is?

[Raiden]

SENIOR MCCAIN AIDE: THE GOP IS A 'SHRINKING ENTITY'
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/23/senior-mccain-aide-the-gop-is-a-shrinking-entity/

This aide spoke frankly and truefully about many things in the campaign, like McCain having to pick Palin instead of Lieberman, whom he wanted as VP, and the association with Bush and the downed economy doomed the campaign (although McCain's decidedly un-maverick performance didn't help).

[Marx]

LIZ CHENEY: OBAMA DOESN'T 'STAND UP' AND DEFEND AMERICA
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/24/liz-cheney-obama-doesnt-stand-up-and-defend-america/

Liz Cheney, former State Department official and daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, defended her father's string of tough comments aimed at President Obama, telling an interviewer that the former VP believes the new president is taking the nation down a "dangerous" path and that he has an "obligation to stand up."

"I think he is concerned that some of the things that we have seen President Obama do, particularly on his overseas trip in terms of not taking the opportunity to stand up and defend America when Daniel Ortega delivers a 50-minute screed against the United States [during the Summit of the Americas]," she told MSNBC in an interview that aired Thursday.

"I think that there's a real concern. I mean, the message that we saw coming out of the last few foreign trips — I mean, forget Republican and Democrat, as an American it concerns me when I have a president that doesn't stand up and say, 'Wait a minute, you know, I'm going to defend the United States of America because we are a beacon of hope for people all around the world,'" she said.

:whatever:

[VampElvis]

Do you believe that the Republican Party needs to become more diverse? Should the party break from the stranglehold of the Religious Right? Or should it stay exactly as it is?

No, not particularly. I think the efforts that have been used to attract new members conflict with the values of the party and that degrades the integrity of the party. Why have core values if you are going to abandon them for a membership drive?

I think the bigger problem is this has been done and has resulted in a certain wishy-washiness and the election of politicians unwilling to stand firmly in their beliefs. Of course that seems symptomatic of the greater "tow the party line" that prevails in Congress these days, but leads to a dissatifaction among the electorate.

Say who you are and what you believe and after you talk the talk walk the walk. Don't kowtow to Limabaugh or Dobson or anyone other than your convictions or those of your electorate.

I for one would be attracted to a party that shares my core convictions and has the strength to stand up for them. I think others would be as well.

Now, if I could find a ride to the fantasy utopia where this actually exists......

[Matt]

LIZ CHENEY: OBAMA DOESN'T 'STAND UP' AND DEFEND AMERICA
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/24/liz-cheney-obama-doesnt-stand-up-and-defend-america/



:whatever:

Marx, old friend, I notice this is your response any time a Republican criticizes Obama. Can they have a valid critique of him in your opinion. I mean, you may not agree with Ms. Cheney, but surely you cannot say it is invalid for someone to not want our president to just sit there as a South American radical goes on a 50 minute tirade against our country.

[DACrowe]

Her statements are somewhat ridiculous as she is inferring that Obama is presenting a negative image of America to the world and isn't standing up for this country and its values--which presumably infers her father and his administration did. That is the irony as they made the US look much worse in the eyes of the world and I think closing Guantanamo Bay and publicly ending the decidedly unAmerican use of torture that flourished under her father (who was actually one of the biggest proponents for it) makes a far stronger stance for a better America than anything her father did. I am more concerned with Iran than shaking hands with Chavez or the like.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I watched her interview on MSNBC.

It was like watching a train wreck in slow motion. Her arguments were bad.

[Marx]

Marx, old friend, I notice this is your response any time a Republican criticizes Obama. Can they have a valid critique of him in your opinion. I mean, you may not agree with Ms. Cheney, but surely you cannot say it is invalid for someone to not want our president to just sit there as a South American radical goes on a 50 minute tirade against our country.

When the person just comes off as a bitter troll, I roll my eyes. People are more than capable of criticizing Obama, I have done it myself. And while there are valid criticisms, people like Rove, Cheney, and Limbaugh are not among the list of credibility.

Her statements are somewhat ridiculous as she is inferring that Obama is presenting a negative image of America to the world and isn't standing up for this country and its values--which presumably infers her father and his administration did. That is the irony as they made the US look much worse in the eyes of the world and I think closing Guantanamo Bay and publicly ending the decidedly unAmerican use of torture that flourished under her father (who was actually one of the biggest proponents for it) makes a far stronger stance for a better America than anything her father did. I am more concerned with Iran than shaking hands with Chavez or the like.

Thank you Crowe, I'm glad someone gets why I :whatever: my eyes. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Yeah...you're right.

Which probably means alot of Texans would get killed.

Which, I'm actually not too happy to see happen, sorry.

[Matt]

Her statements are somewhat ridiculous as she is inferring that Obama is presenting a negative image of America to the world and isn't standing up for this country and its values--which presumably infers her father and his administration did. That is the irony as they made the US look much worse in the eyes of the world and I think closing Guantanamo Bay and publicly ending the decidedly unAmerican use of torture that flourished under her father (who was actually one of the biggest proponents for it) makes a far stronger stance for a better America than anything her father did. I am more concerned with Iran than shaking hands with Chavez or the like.

But she isn't complaining about him shaking his hand. She is complaining about Obama sitting on stage as Chavez and Ortega trashed America for nearly 50 minutes. For our president to sit there and give silent consent to that is unacceptable. NOTHING is gained by him sitting there as these radicals insult our country and our citizens. Absolutely nothing other than sending an image of weakness.

[Matt]

When the person just comes off as a bitter troll, I roll my eyes. People are more than capable of criticizing Obama, I have done it myself. And while there are valid criticisms, people like Rove, Cheney, and Limbaugh are not among the list of credibility.[/IMG]

They are perfectly entitled to give their opinions and their opinions can have just as much credibility as yours or mine.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I dunno about that.

If Marx had the history most of those guys do...I doubt any of us would give him as much cred as your willing to give those guys.

[Marx]

They are perfectly entitled to give their opinions and their opinions can have just as much credibility as yours or mine.

When have I ever said that someone isn't entitled to their own opinion?