Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Bubba’s Revenge

September 11, 2012 by  

Bubba’s Revenge
UPI
Former President Bill Clinton gave the keynote address on the second night of the Democratic National Convention.

First, the Republicans put on their show. As much as many of us might wish that the GOP convention delivered the sort of thrills normally reserved for Chris Matthews’ lower extremities, it was a fairly standard affair. Indeed, the lone truly exciting moment was Clint Eastwood’s delivery of a speech directed partially at an empty chair that was far more interesting than the man in whose stead it stood.

Then last week, the Democrats hit the stage in Charlotte, N.C., with a much smaller, weirder and somewhat less predictable party. My favorite part of their freak show has to be former Michigan Governor and current media minor league commentator Jennifer Granholm shrieking at an audience about one-fourth of its expected size about — well — something. I must admit, beyond pretending Barack Obama’s fiscally disastrous handover of General Motors Co. to the union thugs isn’t an 11-figure (and counting) disaster, I’m not sure what put wrinkles in Granholm’s pantsuit. But give her credit: She sports some pair of lungs.

Later on, Obama closed the program with a number that should have been a showstopper but fell flatter than a high-school production of a Broadway musical. Following former President and eternal national disgrace Bill Clinton’s predictable-but-personable attack on the Republicans, Obama gave what might have been the most boring recitation of left-wing talking points since the invention of the teleprompter. I almost felt bad for Obama. He’s never been the most electrifying orator, but following Bubba was miles beyond his meager talent. And the blogosphere — from Facebook to Twitter and all points in between — responded with liberal lamentations over the fact that Clinton can’t run for President again.

As I pondered the Democrats’ miscalculation in allowing Clinton to take center stage in the midst of a convention that spiraled out of control before it even began, it suddenly hit me: Former President Clinton wasn’t warming up the crowd for Obama; he was warming up the crowd for future President Clinton. Most of the Democrats have yet to realize it, but Clinton’s lone bright spot during a gathering marred by rhetoric, hate and outright lies (which might as well have been recorded earlier in front of a live Moveon.org audience) was no warm-up for the re-coronation of Obama. It was the opening salvo for Hillary 2016.

Think about it. The other noteworthy moments at DNC 2012 included: bad speeches, poor attendance, a monotonous focus on liberal hatred of Republicans in general and even a charming moment in which the majority of the national leadership of the Democratic Party actually booed the Almighty. And in the middle of it all, the Secretary of State stayed 10,000 miles away from the maelstrom while her husband reminded everyone that, stripped of his unearned personality cult, Obama is almost as inspiring as 1988 Presidential loser Michael Dukakis. Dukakis gets the edge because he looks better in a helmet.

Following the Democratic convention, Obama picked up in the polls somewhere between an abysmal 1 and meager 4 points on challenger Mitt Romney. And that includes the polls that are currently being targeted by David Axelrod and Attorney General Eric Holder’s storm troopers for daring to suggest Obama is headed “Forward.” off a cliff. What’s worse, Obama’s post-convention bump — likely his best moment until November — didn’t make it back to the magic 50 percent mark. And his personal approval is headed south toward the dreaded 40th percentile. Meanwhile, he’s saddled with a running mate who makes Al Gore look like John Adams. And Bill Clinton — whose personal approval ratings among the Democrat faithful hover somewhere between love and outright idolatry — stole his thunder and handed it to the Lady Macbeth of Little Rock, Ark.-Chicago-Chappaqua, N.Y.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich noted Bubba’s speech to the faithful was “eerily anti-Obama.” He elaborated: “You have a real president and then you have this guy who’s a pretender.” While I might take issue with Gingrich’s implicit endorsement of Clinton, I can’t argue with his characterization of Obama. The problem is: neither can the Democrats.

–Ben Crystal

Ben Crystal

is a 1993 graduate of Davidson College and has burned the better part of the last two decades getting over the damage done by modern-day higher education. He now lives in Savannah, Ga., where he has hosted an award-winning radio talk show and been featured as a political analyst for television. Currently a principal at Saltymoss Productions—a media company specializing in concept television and campaign production, speechwriting and media strategy—Ben has written numerous articles on the subjects of municipal authoritarianism, the economic fallacy of sin taxes and analyses of congressional abuses of power.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Bubba’s Revenge”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • KG

    Ben, you are a really funny guy – sometimes. I know you look at other human beings with utter contempt. Considering your superior intellect, wit, and charm. Sorta like a Used Car salesman. You know – the one who can’t believe he is a used car salesman even thought he’s a secret genius.

    Well I guess being selfish and self-centered helps when you are a “young Republican” like yourself.

    I remember Dukakis in the tank. Funny thing is he actually DID serve in the Army. And he didn’t go AWOL to do coke with his buddies like Shrub did. Was that famous atheist Karl Rove behind that back then?

    We are going to need a strong Democrat to run after Obama’s next four years. I just hope the Supreme court doesn’t forget that Voters are people too.

    • Robert Smith

      Ben says: “fell flatter than a high-school production of a Broadway musical. ”

      At my high-school “Bye Bye Birdie” was excellent. It certainly wasn’t “flat.”

      Why do you think so little of high-school kids, Ben?

      Rob

    • eddie47d

      The Republicans always expose their hypocricy especially when it comes to the military. Dukakis served,Kerry served and Gore served yet they tarred and feathered each one of them and even used their military service Against them. Cheney actively avoided military service and they fawned all over him like he was Marshall Patton. Which of coarse was the farthest from the truth. I would say don’t serve because it won’t make a darn bit of different according to Republican strategists and right wing blowhards.

      • http://yahoo Larry

        I think the republicans figured that out after the draft dodger Clinton was elected.

      • Major O

        eddie47d—If you are going to comment at least get the names right. It is George Patton, not Marshall. Also you idiots vote for Obutthole again and when all your freedom is gone, then you all can make these dumb remarks maybe, if there is an internet to use.

      • s c

        Comrade hypocrite, for your enlightenment, neither Gore nor Kerry served complete tours in Vietnam. Supposedly, that was IMPOSSIBLE. As for hypocrisy, at least conservatives can SPELL the word correctly (as opposed to your childish rants). What ‘Republican’s do with proper spelling is not my concern.
        I would appreciate it if you think Bubba Klinton made an appearance to “help” Bubba Obummer. Klinton was there to stump for Billary (wifey). Frankly, you tend to be behind the learning curve so often that it’s obvious that being able to separate truth from political fiction has NEVER been one of your concerns. It’s no coincidence that once someone has submitted to political brainwashing, it is almost impossible to remedy the damage [as you prove so well so OFTEN, comrade]. Like corrupt icon, like camp-following schtupper.

      • Old Henry

        It is not eddei’s mis-spelling. It is his keebord.

        Let’s see, didn’t Kerry serve in Cambodia in 1968 under NIXON?

      • eddie47d

        Major O, George Patton was indeed a Field MARSHALL thus the use of Marshall.

      • eddie47d

        Old Henry are you being funny or off the wall ignorant? It’s so hard to tell coming from the mouths of Conservatives. You and SC are the ones who better bone up on the spelling. Double LOL

        • Jeff

          In the world of chicken hawks, Cheney was the undisputed heavyweight champion. In fact, I thought he had retired the trophy. He had a few contenders – Limbaugh, O’Reilly, but they’re just gas bags. They never actually started an idiotic war. No, Dick was the real deal.

          Now, we’ve got Romney. He seems to be a “wannabe” chicken hawk. He had some of the credentials. He protested “for” the war at Stanford in the late 60s. How many people can say that? He had deferments, maybe as many as Dick, but he had both student and religious deferments (available only to Mormons, apparently). While on rough duty in France, he lectured the French who knew nothing about the Viet Nam conflict but who opposed it just because they’re French. He came home, went to business school, and the rest is history.

          But now he tells us he kind of wishes he had gone to Viet Nam. This is a reverse never attempted even by Cheney. In future generations, it will be known simply as “The Romney Reverse.” Dick said he had “other priorities.” He never came up with such fake longing for an alternate past. Sheer genius.

          I’d say the debate goes on like Ruth v. Gehrig or Mantle v. Mays.

          • George E

            Jeff,

            I guess you hold Clinton and Obama up as superb war leaders since they both served so honorably in the US military?

          • Jeff

            No, the point of the “chicken hawk” comment is that the people named are big-time hawks. Clinton committed no troops anywhere in 8 years. He intervened in Kosovo, but sent no troops. Bush and Cheney came into office all set to invade Iraq. They needed an excuse and 9-11 came along. I refer to it as ‘the burning of the Reichstag” not because I think they caused 9-11 but because of the way they took advantage of it to do what they wanted to do.

            All the people I named have supported every military action, regardless how stupid. It’s not about whether you served in the military; it’s about judgment. John McCain is a big-time hawk but the chicken hawk appellation doesn’t fit. Obama was never in the Army, but he never avoided the draft like Romney while being so in favor of war that he demonstrated for it while in college.

            I assume you’re about my age or older (late 50s), so you can appreciate my feeling about guys who demonstrated for the Viet Nam War. Who did that in the 60s? And he’s learned nothing since apparently. Unbelievable.

          • George E

            Jeff,

            I’m 65 and served in the US Marine Corps during the latter part of the Vietnam War. I understand the internal conflicts people went through at the time. I experienced this myself. I supported stopping the Communist expansion, supported LBJ’s and Nixon’s efforts in Vietnam, served my time honorably, but at the same time didn’t want to get my ass shot off over there if I could avoid it. At the time, I thought we were doing God’s work, and I’m still not sure we weren’t. However, I didn’t, and don’t, like much of the way the war was handled, especially by our politicians. I think if we’d handled it differently, South Vietnam could be the equivalent of South Korea today. On the other hand, had the Soviet Union not been so blatantly aggressive in expanding their influence around the globe at that time, we probably wouldn’t have jumped into that particular war, and in hindsight, that might have been the best outcome. At any rate, I don’t fault people who took the best legal option available to them at that time. However, I don’t approve of those who went to foreign countries to demonstrate against the US during the war or provided support to our enemies.

            Keep this in mind. While Republicans have a tendency to support military action against our enemies, and that probably should be tempered, Democrats have a tendency to cut military spending every chance they get which sometimes weakens our ability to take effective military action. When Republicans err it costs the lives of our enemies. When Democrats err it costs the lives of Americans.

          • Jeff

            Since WWII, we’ve been attacked once – by guys armed with box cutters. How many billions of dollars does it take to repel such an attack? You cannot show one instance where our “weakness” has cost American lives. We spend more on the military than the rest of the world combined. How do we know when it’s enough? There is no cut in military spending that will make us vulnerable to attack by anyone. A cyber attack is far more likely than an invasion.

            Republicans want to spend absolutely insane amounts of money on the military. They want weapons systems the military doesn’t even want. Meanwhile, we’re providing the defense for all our economic competitors except China. Every time a Democrat proposes the slightest decrease, or decrease of an increase (peace dividend), it’s portrayed by the right as unilateral disarmament.

            While this is going on, our infrastructure and social welfare institutions are short-changed so we have entire portions of the population without access to decent food, housing, or medical care. Excuse me but I’d rather spend a little of the money we throw at the military every year building up our own society. I know that probably qualifies me as a Communist on this blog, but I’ll just have to learn to live with the disappointment.

          • George E

            Jeff,

            I have no doubt we spend too much money for defense, just like we do for all aspects of government. We do need to find a happy medium in all of the programs our government gets into and cut waste and excess wherever we can. We’ve got far more debt than we can afford, so in my opinion, we need to do some heavy across the board trimming to get it in line. Having said that, I think we should note that 1) most of the poor people in this country are rich by world standards, and 2) national defense is one of the government’s Constitutional obligations while providing for the poor is not. Also, we decided a long time ago to develop and provide the highest tech weapons to our troops so that we could reduce the number of American wounded and dead on the battlefield. That’s one of the primary reasons why we spend so much money on our defense systems. If you recall, prior to Ronald Reagan, it was not uncommon for us to lose thousands of our warriors in a single battle. Now, if we lose a few thousand over an entire war, people go crazy. If we lose our technological edge and go back to a time when we lose thousands in a battle, I don’t know how we can maintain our resolve to win. I’m sure that’s not what any of us want. I think most of us would rather lose some expensive military hardware in battle than more warriors.

      • JeffH

        Well isn’t this cute? Three little pigs-losi’s fawning over the military service of past and present wannabee presidents.

        My how quickly they’ll change the conversation…must be liberals all…and ignorant ones at that.

        FYI, Kerry lied, O’man never served and Clinton was a straight up draft dogger himself…although the progressive “dumbocrats” refuse to acknowledge it…and, yes, GWB did serve in the Texas Air National Guard…and FYI, he was honorably discharged. Did someone in power pull some strings for Bush? Most likely, but the facts are the facts, they’ve all had connections and most probably been the recipients of political favors. Romney seems to fit in there somewhere too. In July 1966, he left for a thirty-month stay in France as a Mormon missionary, a traditional rite of passage for which his father and many other relatives had volunteered. I suppose only God and Romney know whether he was a “draft dodger” or not.

        The bigger question is…who pulled and is still pulling the strings in Obama’s life, from his earliest communist mentoring through his radical anti-American college years, Alinsky Marxist training in Chicago and his rapid rise in the Chicago branch of the American Commuist Democratic Party to a seat in the White House? It sure as he!! ain’t Michelle.

        Oh, back to Ben’s column…nice commentary as usual.

      • KG

        After Bin Laden and Quodaffy, I kept hearing in the background behind the President ( UNSTOPABLE!! GODLIKE!! KILLING SPREE!!)

      • eddie47d

        Jeff H you are killing me “Dumocrats refuse to admit it” . Since when? That is well known and admitted. Cheney’s actions are also well known. The difference is Cheney didn’t stand on any principle . He said “he had better things to do”but supported the Vietnam War all the while in getting those 5 deferments. What a callous and cold hearted attitude or was he just plain selfish? Then you go on your typical Alinsky,commie rant so you can puff up your chest! Get over yourself big boy with the same excuses Cheney uses.

      • swampfox

        Patton was not a marshal,that’s a German designation of command.
        boy,quit trying to sound intelligent,you are failing miserably.

      • jim

        now eddie just what army was george s patton jr in that he was a field marshall? the united states has not used field marshall. yes there is the rank of general of the army wihich is a 5 star rank. patton was a 4 star at that time there were no 5 star rankings, until douglas macarthur. so please inform us ignorant conservatives what army was patton in that he was a field marshall.

      • BUTCH

        BUT EDDIE BOY ALL THREE OF THEM WERE DUMBASSES.

      • nnicko

        So what armed services was obozo in ? Oh, forgot…….community organizer for chicago gang-bangers….what was his rank?

      • Old Henry

        eddie:

        I figure if guns kill people then keebords mis-spell words…

    • Flashy

      I think Crystal was trying to be funny by stating just the opposite of what reality was. Either that, or the marching orders are to in no way tell reality about the two conventions.

      The RNC was filled with stale speakers, (except that of Ryan which was notable for the number of out and out lies…not even thinly veiled). Governor after governor bragging how well their state is doing under the current administration. And the highlight act of Romney’s acceptance speech being set up by …an empty chair. . negativity and tell us what was wrong with the nation…almost all lies and blatant twisting of facts. The delegates needing to be jolted from their seats with cattle prods and giving half hearted applause.

      The DNC was people standing up for our President. Moving forward. Tackling the issues and fixing what the Conservatives broke. Of returning America to Americans. Clinton hit the ball out of the park, and President Obama closed the deal. Obama didn’t need, nor did he try, to lift up the delegates or America. Clinton did that. Obama made the case and closed the deal matter of factly and as a leader should.

      As for what America thought? Obama up by six points in national pols and pulling away, Romney and Ryan flailing away in desperation as they see the home team pulling away piling up the score. And the GOP Congressional candidates across the country now worried that they are in a race for the election in real danger of losing the House and almost no hope left for the Senate. .

      Listen to the interviews. Meet the Press, Face the Nation, individual interviews. Almost to a man (white men only). None can make the case for Romney’s plans. None. Romney can’t give out details on how he will continue to massive transfer of wealth from the Middle Class to the wealthy 1% except to say, in essence ‘we have a secret plan”. uh huh. And no GOP power can make it either. Issue by issue…Romney is a blank slate offering up nothing but the past…and even then he won’t/can’t give details. GOP candidate after candidate is the same. The Past. Nothing but the same which brought us to the state of affairs we have to fix today.

      Romney … to save the GOP tickets this year, has to have a solid definitive win during the first debate. If he can’t pull that off (I’d say the odds are better playing the lottery)…we have the makings of a clean sweep for the good guys. Those who will move America forward.

      Ain’t it great !!!!

      • Opal the Gem

        Once again Flushy spreads more $hit in one comment than my neighbors prize bull does in a week.

      • George E

        Forward? Right into the jaws of hell, economic disaster, declining standard of living. They want to run this country like so many of our largest cities have been run in the ground by liberals. That’s why people moved out to the suburbs where cities were run more conservatively and life was/is better for citizens. There’s a pretty good contrast between liberal and conservative governments at work.

      • eddie47d

        Romney keeps saying he has a plan but whenever interviewed he dances all around it and comes up empty. Are you all saying you want to replace an empty suit with another empty suit? Then there is Opal who is – empty!!!

        • George E

          Eddie,

          Do you mean replace an empty suit (Obama) who has “no business experience, doesn’t understand capital economics, hasn’t demonstrated an ability to help the economy create jobs, and has no desire to help American regain its preeminence in the world” with another empty suit (Romney) who does have “business experience, obviously does understand capitalist economics, has run businesses and created jobs, and does want the USA to continue as the top economy and place to live in the world?”

          • Jeff

            Nothing like an unbiased question. Get off of it. Even Fox News on its worst day wouldn’t ask such an idiotic question.

          • George E

            Jeff,

            Really? I thought it was spot on………..and I’d bet a bunch of others think so as well. If you were hiring a CEO for your company, would you hire Obama or Romney? The answer is pretty clear to me, unless I was determined to sink the company.

          • Jeff

            A country is not a company. Romney is an expert at identifying companies in trouble, loading them with debt, looting the workers’ pensions and walking away with millions. Try doing that with your own company and you’ll end up in prison.

            What does that experience have to do with running a country where much more than the bottom line is involved? Romney ran a state. He raised fees, left the state in debt, and created few jobs. The only reason unemployment went down is many young people left the state.

          • George E

            Jeff,

            OK. You’re entitled to your opinion regarding Romney’s accomplishments or lack thereof. How can you justify keeping Obama in his position based on his record? I’m sure you’ll be as tough in your assessment of Obama as you’ve been with Romney.

          • Jeff

            I already responded to your questions about the economy, the deficit, and the future under Obama. I sent you links and everything.

      • JeffH

        eddie, why don’t you tell us the specifics of the plans Obama’s put on the table or do we have to wait until he’s re-elected.
        How’s Obama’s “hope & change” hyperbole working out for America.

        The good news for the Obama campaign is that, in spite of other promises that went by the wayside, a vast majority of Americans believe the president has delivered on his pledge to bring fundamental “change” to the country. The bad news is that the majority believe the “change” he ushered in took the United States in the wrong direction:

        Two-thirds of likely voters say President Obama has kept his 2008 campaign promise to change America — but it’s changed for the worse, according to a sizable majority.

        A new poll for The Hill found 56 percent of likely voters believe Obama’s first term has transformed the nation in a negative way, compared to 35 percent who believe the country has changed for the better under his leadership.

        The feeling that Obama has changed the country for the worse is strongest among Republicans, at 91 percent, compared to 71 percent of Democrats who support Obama’s brand of change.

        1-in-5 Democrats say they feel Obama has changed the United States for the worse.
        - Doug Powers
        http://michellemalkin.com/2012/07/09/poll-obama-change/
        Obama is the original repeating parrot…POLLY WANT A CRACKER? baaarrraaaccckkk!

      • Flashy

        JeffH … why don’t you give us pearls of wisdom on what you think should have been done to reverse the great Recession?

        Then tell us what’s bad with Pres. Obama’s policies. Specific now…

        Mind…The country was shedding between 700,000 and 800,000 jobs a month in the winter of 2008 and 2009. By early spring and summer of 2009 — shortly after the stimulus passed — that number was reduced to the 300,000 to 400,000 range; by the summer, it was in the 100,000 to 200,000 range; by the fall it was in the 0 to 100,000 range; and shortly after, the country started producing a net gain of jobs on a monthly basis.

        So…what is it that you think should have been done differently that would have been better performing?

        Oh…I forgot…you support policies which would drive this Nation back into the Stone Age and Third World status… sorry ’bout that.

        • Jeff

          JeffH would have advocated what his hero did. Build up the military, thereby stimulating the economy, then invade and occupy Mexico and South America, installing a master race.

      • eddie47d

        Michelle Malkin is not a reliable resource Jeff H. Never has been and her biased opinion is never truthful. She is just another angry Republican trying to enfluence the trolls.

        • George E

          Eddie,

          I’m aware than Michelle Malkin is a committed conservative, so I’m sure you don’t generally agree with her assumptions, interpretations, or conclusions. However, can you take issue with her facts?

      • JeffH

        Falsy, let eddie answer the question or is that too much to ask.
        I merely pointed out that Obama is non-specific too!

        You should try playing with someone that doesn’t recognize you for what you are.

      • DaveH

        Flashman says — “Romney can’t give out details on how he will continue to massive transfer of wealth from the Middle Class to the wealthy 1%”.
        For once Flashman said something that is true. Romney will “continue” the massive transfer of wealth to the wealthy 1%. But I think the “continue” part was just a mistake by Flashman, correct as it is:
        http://padminiarhant.com/?p=2024

      • nnicko

        Hey flashy…I think you got turned around in the womb and you came out backwards….you learned a new word, FORWARD, WATCH OUT FOR TRAFFIC WHEN YOU PLAY IN THE POLITICAL STREET.

      • carrobin

        Definitely going for Obama again–the Romney/Ryan thing is looking worse every day. As for 2016, I would love, love, love! to vote for Hillary.

    • Karolyn

      KG – Lve your analysis of Crystal!

    • nnicko

      The only strong democ-rat that they think slick willy is pushing is sweet Hillary and you can then say she will be the first switch hitter in the whitehouse, but she will have to wait 8 years……your muslim in the WH now will be drafted into the brotherhood and move to egypt.

    • Pete Curtis

      At one time it actually amazed me that Dimocraps are so totally unable to discuss issues, but always defer to slander. I was really bothered by that. Now, I have been told why: The first item on the agenda when a person chooses to join the Dimocrapic Party is their very own, personal, frontal lobe removal.

  • RevNowWhileWeCan

    War criminal Hillary Clinton has no place in the political paradigm shift. Neither do the Republicans. The current two party system is a complete FAIL and will be irrelevant in 2016. The people WILL demand it.

    • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

      “RevNowWhileWeCan,”

      IT HAS BEEN TWO WEEKS SINCE WE TALKED. HAVE ANY “IN-ROADS” BEEN MADE TO GET Gary Johnson A DEBATE SPOT? WHAT ARE THE BLOGS SAYING ABOUT HOW PEOPLE PLAN TO VOTE? – Johnson OR Romney?

      I THINK I HAVE MADE-UP MY MIND TO VOTE FOR Johnson.

      • RevNowWhileWeCan

        Bloggers are saying about 4% for Johnson and is being fought by the oligarchs to keep him off of some states ballots. “They” won’t let him in any debates and will remain unknown by most Americans.

        • George E

          I salute your devotion to Libertarian Party ideals, but I think it’s too late to get a Libertarian elected President this time. All you can possibly accomplish now by voting for Johnson is to help get Obama re-elected. If you think Romney is as bad as Obama, then go for it. However, if you think Obama is doing a lot more damage to our country than Romney is likely to do, then you might want to reconsider voting for Romney instead. If Obama gets re-elected you may not have the privilege of voting for a Libertarian candidate in the future. If my only two realistic options are bad and worse, I’ll take bad even though I’d prefer better.

          • Jeff

            “If Obama gets re-elected you may not have the privilege of voting for a Libertarian candidate in the future.”

            What kind of garbage is this? Does this one fall in the “Obama is Hitler” or the “Obama is Stalin” category? What exactly is your relation to ChuckB?

          • George E

            Jeff,

            That garbage is just my opinion, not all that different from everyone else who posts here. I have no relation to ChuckB. I don’t know that I would put Obama in the same category with Hitler or Stalin. I think he’s more like a 3rd world dictator, possibly like Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro in his political style. He’s definitely anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-capitalist among his many virtues.

          • Jeff

            I guess that’s why he saved GM and Chrysler and why the stock market has doubled during his administration. Also why Sheldon Adelson has made virtually all of his fortune during this administration. Yes, Obama is a dictator out to steal the hard-won profits of billionaires. Much better to be like Romney and let the auto industry die in the name of ideological purity. Fascism is the marriage of big business and government. Exactly what you’ll see if enough morons vote for Romney. More Scalitos on the court, more decisions like Citizens United, and more power in the hands of billionaires. All in the name of personal liberty. You must be on drugs.

          • George E

            Jeff,

            I haven’t had my drugs today. Maybe that’s why I don’t see things like you.

            The stock market has gone up primarily because the Federal Reserve continues to print money thereby debasing the value of our currency to pay for our government’s debt. You should know that Obama can’t “steal” from billionaires. They will either buy him or they will leave this country. They don’t have to put up with that sort of tyranny like the rest of us do. In the end, we’re the ones that’s going to pay the bill, not the billionaires. If it makes you feel good, and a bit nobel, thinking you’re going to stick it to the billiionaires, go ahead, but you’re just living in a fantasy.

          • Jeff

            Billionaires have power because the Government leaves them alone. Certainly, in terms of raw power, it does not have to be that way. Look at Putin’s Russia. As expected, you responded to very little of my post. Nothing about the marriage of business and government, Citizens United, or the saving of the auto industry. Just keep believing the Republicans give a damn about you. Their agenda is tax cuts for the wealthy and non-regulation of business. That’s who they work for and it’s what they do.

          • Frank

            Jeffie, what “saving of the auto industry” are you talking about?

            I am ready to discuss that point if you want to do it in a rational and intelligent manner.

            Obama did not save the auto industry, and no one with any knowledge or intelligence would ever attempt to make such a wide sweeping claim.

            Lets narrow it down to what HE CLAIMS he did. It involved General Motors I believe. FORD refused to take any assistance and is doing great. Do you want a list of other major manufacturing companies in the auto industry that were not saved?

          • Jeff

            Both GM and Chrysler were in big trouble. In addition, the entire supply chain for the auto industry would have gone under. That’s why Ford, while solvent, was in favor of the loans because if GM and Chrysler went under, taking their suppliers with them, Ford’s continued existence was threatened as well.

            The Republican mantra now is that private money should have been used. Had private money been available, there would have been no issue. There was no private money available – not from Bain Capital, Goldman Sachs, nobody. It was the Government or liquidation. Obama made the right call; Romney did not.

          • George E

            Jeff,

            Really? I’d have more confidence that was true if I had heard it from a bankrupsy judge, not a politician with an agenda.

          • Jeff

            I don’t know where you heard otherwise. What I’ve stated is pretty mainstream stuff.

            http://prospect.org/article/unpopular-successful-auto-bailout

          • George E

            Thanks, Jeff. The article was interesting. Here’s the conservative version of this deal: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/316379/democrats-gm-fiction-editors# .

            Enjoy.

          • Frank

            That would still only save the U.S. auto industry not the whole auto industry.

            I have not yet seen proof that the loss of GM and Chrystler would have resulted in the destruction of the entire supply chain for the industry. Is there quantitative proof or is this speculation? Did Obama bail out the suppliers also?

          • Jeff

            Well, if you supply a certain part to GM and it suddenly liquidates, your business will certainly suffer. You’ll either go under or at least lay off most of your work force. So, yes, in effect, they were “bailed out” indirectly.

          • Frank

            Sorry you are reaching for straws there. It is highly unlikely that losing the revenue from a single part sold to a single company would destroy a company. I understand your premise though. However, any supply company that hinges its entire existance on the purchases of a limited customer base is poorly ran and not very viable in todays economy.

            I also wonder how these supply companies picked up the slack in sales when 70% of GM production went to China. Furthermore, most Fords are not built in the U.S. either. What is the percentage of parts used in building a car that are actually manufactured here? Did you know that Mazda pickups use the exact same parts as Ford?

            If the parts being supplied to GM are still being purchased from american companies then, are they being shipped overseas for assembly?

            If the parts used to build all major automobiles are being produced overseas (or in the U.S.) then there is still a very large customer base even if you lose GM and Chrystler. By the way Chrystler is owend in part by Dymler Bentz, not really a fully U.S. car company.

          • George E

            Jeff,

            Sorry my response was a disappointment to you.

            I am skeptical when businesses, especially big businesses, suck up to Washington. That’s a formula for chrony capitalism that often leads to no good for the rest of us. Likewise, I don’t like politicians using the heavy hand of government to entice big businesses to suck up to them either. I don’t like government putting unnecessary regulations on our businesses because all that does it slow down economic growth and development which hurts everyone. I think the government spends far too much money, and taxing us (anyone, including billionaires) more isn’t going to help slow down that spending or balance the budget. By the way, when did taxing anyone more help the rest of us? It generally doesn’t. It’s punitive and just serves to make polilticians more wealthy and some of their supporters feel better at the expensive of economic investment and growth. I’m not opposed to taxes or government. I just think government ought to be small, efficient, and serve the people, not the other way around. If raising taxes would actually go to paying down the federal debt, I’d bet nearly everyone, especially conservatives and Republicans, would sign up for more, but it won’t, so why should we just continue to feed the monster that wants to devour us?

            Regarding the auto bail-out, we’re not absolutely opposed to it, but we are opposed to the way it was done. We don’t like it, and would much rather businesses didn’t need it or ask for it, but it seems in a few cases the country will get behind some of these bail-outs when they impact our economy in a big way. We basically oppose the government stiffing the bond holders and giving control of the company to the union the way they did. These companies should have gone through the bankruptsy (due) process to sort out who should get what on a fair basis rather than the government jumping in and making (political expedient) decisions like it did. In the end, GMC and Chrysler would have gotten help from the government if private capital hadn’t been available to buy them out and rebuild those companies. I’m pretty sure most Republicans, including Romney, agree with this.

            Republicans don’t care about me anymore than they do the rest of the country. I’m not important, but what they stand for and do is. I agree with most of their policies, and disagree with so many of those of the Democratic Party, especially now that that party is being taken over and run by socialist progressives. I fear they are taking their flock right down the path of social justice bondage, and I don’t want to be a part of that movement at all. I’m looking for leaders who understand the limited role of government in a free society and want to take us there.

            By the way, why do you think Democrats give a damn about you? I believe they are the masters of propaganda and deception and would run you over in a minute if you got in their way of achieving their political ambitions and power.

      • Old Henry

        Since Soetoro is a communist, I guess he would equate more closely to Stalin, or as FDR lovingly referred to him – “Uncle Joe”.

      • eddie47d

        Obama is a communist Obama is a communist Obama is a communist. Now repeat after me and it will become a fact. You will not be released from your cell until you admit Obama is a communist. Not admitting that Obama is a communist will forever keep you from enjoying another cinnamon roll ,okay commrade.

        • George E

          Eddie,

          If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…………..

      • JeffH

        eddie, I disagree. (imagine that)

        It’s my opinion that Obama is a “hybrid” communist… Communist, Marxist, Socialist, Maoist, Progressive, Islamic, Ineligible Imposter.

        • Jeff

          Sieg heil! I see you’re back to share your wisdom with us. Had a rough day of book and cross burning?

          BTW: when I reference chicken hawks, it has less to do with whether they served in the military than with their attitudes toward any and all military adventures. Clinton avoided the draft, like Cheney, but he didn’t start any idiotic wars. Similarly, the one military conflict Obama has gotten involved in, Libya, involved no invading troops – hardly in the same league as the invasions you so enjoyed (Iraq, Poland, Czechoslovakia, France, et. al.)

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “RevNowWhileWeCan,”

        I DO NOT UNDERSTAND. IF ONLY 4% OF LIBERTARIANS ARE DEVOTED TO Gary Johnson, HOW CAN THE PARTY EXPECT TO GROW? SO, THE OTHER 96% WILL VOTE REPUBLICAN?

        DO YOU KNOW IF Johnson WILL BE ON TENNESSEE’S BALLOT?

      • JeffH

        Jeff, nice to know your mom gave you permission to use her internet connection…is it wireless so you can access it in her basement?

        BY the way, get out a get some sun…you’re still sounding pale and your words are very hollow.

        Es passt Sie gut zu Fuß in Gleichschritt mit Obama!

        • Jeff

          Well, I correctly identified your native tongue. And I think we know what the “H” is for.

      • Flashy

        “Regarding the auto bail-out, we’re not absolutely opposed to it, but we are opposed to the way it was done.” George E

        Just out of curiousity…. back then , with no credit lines available to survive any bankruptcy filing, and liquidation the only available route without credit availability….just how would any BK filing resulted in anything but liquidation? What would the bondholders have received under any other process? (answer..they’d have been wiped out in any scenario). And for ceding the monies in the retirement and pension accounts…you believe the unions should have gotten…just what exactly?

        That’s the problem with any criticism of this administration….any proposed ‘solution” wasn’t possible or, there is no alternate solution because there was none … so the wacked just spout criticism

        • Jeff

          Watch this short clip of FDR in 1936, talking about exactly this phenomenon of Republicans, after opposing a policy, claiming they would have done the same thing only better and cheaper. I just wish Obama could communicate like this.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3RHnKYNvx8

        • George E

          Flashy,

          The bankrupsy process would protect the auto companies from their creditors while a court sorted out how the company should be reorganized to go forward. I don’t know if the unions should have been given control of the company or not, but that would be very unusual. Therefore, I’m inclined to think the government jumped in the way they did because they wanted the outcome to be like they wanted regardless what a bankrupsy court would have said. It troubles me that politics probably played a principle role in what the government did, and that’s not the way we should settle this sort of problem. I can only imagine how liberals would be hollering if a Republican President had done something similar. Remember the Halliburton contracts?

          Wacked………..

          • Jeff

            I don’t know, George. When you continually misspell “bankruptcy,” I doubt your expertise. Suffice it to say, companies can accomplish great things (sometimes too great in terms of voiding executory contracts, pension plans, etc) in bankruptcy if they have the money. There was only one source of money – the government. I believe the companies did go through a managed bankruptcy, but it was possible only because the government extended the necessary loans. Without the money, any bankruptcy would have resulted in liquidation.

          • George E

            Jeff,

            Dang spell checker isn’t working properly. Thanks for pointing out my error. I’ll be happy to return the favor.

      • JeffH

        Jeff goes on to say…”Clinton avoided the draft, like Cheney, but he didn’t start any idiotic wars”…yeah, he really protected the US didn’t he.

        The Clinton administration sent a signal to Al Qaeda that terrorism would succeed in pushing the United States out of the Middle East when, in response to the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, the U.S. pulled back its diplomatic presence in the region. Clinton answered with an ineffectual cruise missile attack on Afghanistan and Sudan; Al Qaeda followed up with its deadly attack on the U.S.S. Cole in October 2000.

        The 9/11 commission identified several Clinton failures, including four missed chances to kill Osama bin Laden, and a failure to adopt “a more aggressive counterterrorism posture” after Al Qaeda’s initial attacks.

        Yeah, Clinton was a star…the Lewinsky scandal, and the subsequent impeachment…and don’t forget that just weeks ago, Clinton was opposing Obama’s taxes and praising Romney’s “sterling” business career.

        And suddenly, with his wife’s 2016 ambitions in mind, Slick Willy has changed his tune.

        • Jeff

          When did Clinton ever indicate he supported Romney over Obama? I know – in your dreams.

      • JeffH

        Jeff, LMAO at you!

        Here, I’ll make it easier for you to read…

        أنه يناسب لك المشي جيدا في الخطوة مع أوباما

      • JeffH

        FDR was the great Progressive of the 20th century.

        In FDR’s day, the term “dictator” did not carry the negative connotations with which it is currently freighted; rather, it signified the idea that a political “general” or “commander” was needed to take charge of the battle against the economic depression in a manner similar to how Woodrow Wilson and the progressives had fought World War I.

        FDR chose to attack the depression with his so-called New Deal, a series of economic programs passed during his first term in office. These programs greatly expanded the size, scope, and power of the federal government, giving the President and his Brain Trust near-dictatorial status. “I want to assure you,” Roosevelt’s aide Harry Hopkins told an audience of New Deal activists in New York, “that we are not afraid of exploring anything within the law, and we have a lawyer who will declare anything you want to do legal.”

        “The New Deal,” writes Jonah Goldberg, “was conceived at the climax of a worldwide fascist moment, a moment when socialists in many countries were increasingly becoming nationalists and nationalists could embrace nothing other than socialism.”

        Many of Roosevelt’s ideas and policies were entirely indistinguishable from the fascism of Mussolini. In fact, writes Goldberg, there were “many common features among New Deal liberalism, Italian Fascism, and German National Socialism, all of which shared many of the same historical and intellectual forebears.” Like American progressives, many Italian Fascist and German Nazi intellectuals championed a “middle” or “Third Way” between capitalism and socialism.
        The German and American New Deals — i.e., fascism and progressivism — also shared the bedrock belief that the state should be permitted to do whatever it wished, so long as it was for “good reasons.” Chief among those “good reasons” was the idea that government’s purpose was to protect the interests of “the forgotten man,” on whose behalf both FDR and Hitler were proficient at projecting deep concern.

        Does this sound familiar?

        Conversely, FDR, Hitler, and Mussolini alike made many populist appeals designed to spark resentment against so-caled “fat cats,” “international bankers,” and “economic royalists.” Such appeals were, and remain, the tools of the trade for demagogues. (As recently as December 2009, for instance, President Barack Obama said: “I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street.”)

        Roosevelt used the FBI and other government agencies to spy on domestic critics. He also authorized the use of the American Legion to assist the FBI in monitoring American citizens.
        http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1228

        • Jeff

          You cite Jonah Goldberg like he’s an objective historian. He’s anything but and despite the obviously Jewish name, he’s a rabid right winger (and Momma;s Boy to boot) eager to take the side of the anti-FDR side in any debate. He would be the last person I’d trust concerning the presidency or legacy of FDR.

          • George E

            Jeff,

            Rather than attacking Jonah Goldberg because of his political leaning, is there anything he said that you disagree with?

            By the way, can you explain to me why Jewish voters have been steadfastly solid behind Democratic Party candidates for years? From my point of view, they seem to have more in common with Republican policies.

      • JeffH

        Ignorant Jeff. Where, praytell, did anyone say Clinton “supported” Romney? Liberal translation I would guess.

        praise: the act of expressing approval or admiration; commendation; laudation.

        support, sup·port·ed, sup·port·ing, sup·ports
        1. To bear the weight of, especially from below.
        2. To hold in position so as to keep from falling, sinking, or slipping.
        3. To be capable of bearing; withstand: “His flaw’d heart . . . too weak the conflict to support” (Shakespeare).
        4. To keep from weakening or failing; strengthen: The letter supported him in his grief.
        5. To provide for or maintain, by supplying with money or necessities.
        6. To furnish corroborating evidence for: New facts supported her story.

        *** To aid the cause, policy, or interests of: supported her in her election campaign.

        • Jeff

          Oh, so precious. Did you win the “most precocious child” award in Nazi Preschool?

      • eddie47d

        New Jeff don’t believe everything Old Jeff H has to say unless you like half truths served on a silver platter. Clinton did indeed send rockets against against Bin Laden and missed him within seconds. He asked for more strikes and the Republicans in Congress refused by saying We won’t waste any more time or money” shooting missles against someone living in a tent”. I guess they preferred him living in a cave directing his missions.

        • George E

          Eddie,

          I guess I missed the story of how Republicans in Congress kept President Clinton from attacking Bin Laden. I have to admit, that’s pretty hard for me to understand when the President can order an attack on anyone using the resources available to him if he believes they pose a threat to the USA. However, most Presidents, the current one excepted, generally opt to go to Congress and ask for support especially when conducting war against another country. Please enlighten me. Thanks.

      • JeffH

        Ignorant Jeff, have you ever heard of FDR’s “Second Bill of Rights”? I’ll help you out.

        FDR’s Second Bill of Rights and the Progressive Mission
        http://realignmentproject.wordpress.com/2009/07/04/fdrs-second-bill-of-rights-and-the-progressive-mission/

      • JeffH

        eddie, the proven liar, has the gall to talk about half truths and then tells us a complete lie about Clinton launching “missles” at Bin Laden.

        eddie, it never happened under Clinton’s watch.

        By Barton Gellman
        Washington Post Staff Writer
        Wednesday, December 19, 2001

        • The Clinton administration ordered the Navy to maintain two Los Angeles-class attack submarines on permanent station in the nearest available waters, enabling the U.S. military to place Tomahawk cruise missiles on any target in Afghanistan within about six hours of receiving the order.

        • Three times after Aug. 20, 1998, when Clinton ordered the only missile strike of his presidency against bin Laden’s organization, the CIA came close enough to pinpointing bin Laden that Clinton authorized final preparations to launch. In each case, doubts about the intelligence aborted the mission.
        http://makethemaccountable.com/myth/ClintonAndTerrorism.htm

      • eddie47d

        There were 4 separate missile strikes launched against Bin Laden within Afghanistan. A total of 75 missles were fired. None very successful at the time. You get creepier each and every time you open your mouth Jeff H.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      Sorry to disappoint you Rev, but we are stuck with this two party system since it is the end result of machinations. It is actually a very good system if only the Leftists and Democrats stopped encroaching on the other side of the fence by lying and pretending that they were Republicans to get elected.

    • DaveH

      George E says — “I salute your devotion to Libertarian Party ideals, but I think it’s too late to get a Libertarian elected President this time. All you can possibly accomplish now by voting for Johnson is to help get Obama re-elected”.
      To the contrary George. According to Public Policy Polling, Gary Johnson takes more votes from Obama than from Romney in Colorado and New Mexico, the only 2 states I could find such info for.
      But forget that. Why would anybody in their right mind vote for any politician who isn’t going to shrink Big Government? You are just throwing away your votes if you vote for Romney or Obama, unless you are in the Political Class and benefiting at the expense of the rest of us, or you just enjoy serfdom.

    • Pete Curtis

      You may be correct. We may have only one party by the end of the next four years – if Obumination is reelected. That is, after all, the established way of doing business in places where Socialist (Progressive) and Communist forms of government have achieved control. Chairman Mao, Herr Hitler, Comrades Stalin, Castro, and Chavez, along with Idi Amin and hundreds of others have paved the way for the ascent of dictators of every shade – even our wanna-be.

      • Jeff

        After reading your idiotic, slanderous posts, I can see why no one will play with you and discuss issues seriously. You are a loon who engages in ad hominem attacks galore. When you start with the Hitler/Stalin routine, people will either want to shoot you or simply laugh at you as the buffoon you are. I choose the latter.

  • GALT

    Preparing for the coming reality I suppose we can expect that the republicans will vow
    in January to focus their efforts on making sure that Obama is only a two term president?

    Of course, between now and then, I believe the world is scheduled to end at least twice, plus the economic collapse that was coming, is still coming……and then there’s the
    military takeover by Obama in Nov………

    Now what would be real breaking news is if one of the myriad ads offered in this bastion
    of LIBERTY which offers urgent information which you MUST READ……”before they shut it down”……….was, in fact actually SHUT DOWN!!!!!! and if this were to happen…..the likely
    reason for it would be for the fraudulent claims……which rely on the fear of those predisposed to such nonsense…….one would think that by this time the potential customer base would have been totally exhausted……?

    • KG

      That’s why Godless capitalism is as bad OR WORSE than “godless communism.”
      The first thing we did to counteract the former Soviet Union desire for world domination was for America to dominate the world. Wow, some kinda “moral equivalency” don’t you think? I *thought* we were the “good” guys.

      We could have bombed them with “love.” But we said “F that sissy stuff!” “We are going to convert those heathen basturds or we will kill them!”

      What did Christ say? “Love your enemies, pray for those who harm you.”
      What did the Pope say? “Kill them all and let God sort them out!”

      Which one would have been better?
      However, “…a weapon never used is a useless weapon.” and “war is a racket.”
      “Come on Wall street, there’s money to be made,
      supplin’ the tools of the trade
      Be the first one on your block,
      To send your son home in a box!”

      • Warrior

        Red Menace, Y2K, Fiscal Cliff’s, War’s on Women, Teacher Strikes! All very scary stuff! Must keep the sheeple pre-occupied.

        Funny thing is, one never hears a “progressive” speak of Freedom, does one? Only Free Stuff.

      • eddie47d

        The thing with Republicans is that Freedom always equals war and how tough we must be even when there is no danger. False Flag dangers aren’t always real but by golly they will make them real. They create crises and keep the war drums beating on automatic pilot.

      • Jeff

        I think the Country Joe and the Fish lyric was:

        Come on Wall Street
        Don’t hesitate
        There’s plenty of money to be made
        Supplyin’ the Army With the tools of the trade. . .
        Be the first one on your block
        To have your boy come home in a box.

      • George E

        Eddie,

        Just to be fair in our analysis of which party is a warmonger, let’s not forget the following Democrat Presidents since 1900 who conducted wars on behalf of this country. They were/are: Wilson, FDR, Johnson, Clinton, and now Obama.

      • Old Henry

        Jeff:

        Watch this 50 minute video. You will learn why we have continual war and who it benefits.

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

      • eddie47d

        Yes indeed do both parties get us into wars. If its a Republican war Democrats will hate it and if it is a Democrat war the the Republicans will hate it. More importantly why bother to have any.

      • KG

        You mean the last war we actually won? WW2? Yea, the one the Democrats ran?

      • boyscout

        Jeff, Whoa; reaching waaaaay back to the sixties of which I have only the foggiest of memory – but even that suggests that your reference is to Arlo Guthrie and not Country Joe. When I have time I’ll investigate.

      • cawmun cents

        What did godless communists say before they murdered untold millions in the 20th century?
        Kill them all because there is no god to sort them out,or call us to responsibility for our crimes against humanity.
        We’ll see how that goes for them.
        I wont condemn them…for God will repay them for their transgressions.
        That is also what it says in the Bible.
        “Vengance is mine,saith the Lord.”
        -CC.

      • Pete Curtis

        I am not, and have never been, a Roman Catholic. Therefore, I am not up to date on the rdicts of the Popes. Will you please let me, and others like me, know which Pope said that, when and where he said it, and where the record may be found? (After all, every public statement made by the Pope is recorded in minute detail.) I’m still amazed! How is it that even after the removal of their frontal lobe the Dimocraps remain unable to discuss issues, instead always sinking to personal slander and character assassination. Perhaps it is in their genes? Or maybe. . . .

    • Robert Smith

      Hey GALT, you said: “and then there’s the
      military takeover by Obama in Nov………”

      Didn’t we hear the same thing about Bush? There were indications with all those carefully timed “allerts.”

      Oh well… Guess we’ll actually SEE what happens.

      Mr. Livingston: Might there be room somewhere on this forum for the forcasts that are made, who made them, and later on we can look at how they turned out? Maybe we can ask a psychic to predict some stuff so we can compare!

      Rob

      • Robert Smith

        BTW, here is another interview with David Sarti: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2tTJiFuWj8

      • GALT

        The economic prognosticator’s and I imagine it is not limited to them, have an amazing
        20/20 hindsight adjustment tool………….they always managed to have predicted EVERYTHING……….and if you had only listened…….even if the missed the “actual” trend
        by a few years or so…….

        In the main, most of this nonsense should end with the line…..

        “And we really, REALLY MEAN IT, THIS TIME!”*

        * the number of previous times is being withheld as it is proprietary information
        and a business secret which if revealed may effect the future of doing potential business!

        Now about those TULIPS?

    • Karolyn

      You forgot about the Russian and Chinese troop that are here to assist in the meltdown.

      • Flashy

        Karolyn…that right ! Forgot about that. They’re to assist the UN troops directing the dissenters to the ‘secret’ FEMA camps ! have you read any update on how the secret negotiations with the space aliens are progressing and if they’re to pitch in and help with the round up?

      • Nadzieja Batki

        Typical Flashy, when you have nothing to say you still keep on talking even if it is to ridicule. You are not even doing that too well.

      • eddie47d

        He is only mocking what the Conservatives continually say. So Nadzieja why do they always say Russian/Chinese troops are within our country working for our government? Will you answer or continually play d….!

      • cawmun cents

        Perhaps then they’ll just get the middle eastern folk that the Mexicans keep arresting(before they get across our border)to do it.
        But what do I know?
        Apparently very little……
        Cheers!
        -CC.

    • Frank

      I dont understand why they would shut down this blog site just because we allow a few dissidents like you to post fraudulent claims. Or maybe that is a good reason, by upholding the first amendment we are a possible terrorist threat.

  • KG

    I can’t believe you, Mr. GALT. Do you have any children? You must get your jollies off by crushing their dreams of their future. Are you a “prepper?” I realized after watching a few of them on that cable show that their real desire is to KILL SOMEONE. People aren’t stockpiling food and weapons to ‘survive’. Their real goal, what they really want to do, is to KILL A STARVING AMERICAN. However, I realized a while ago that the Republicans want to do that LEGALLY. I don’t know where this desire comes from, but, on the surface, it would appear “evil.” (put pinky to corner of mouth and make an evil laugh).

    • Old Henry

      KG:

      The Democrat Party is the Party of death. Think baby killing. Chopping live babies into little pieces. Poking a hole in their skull and sucking out their brain while alive. Democrats screamingly support, cheer and demand that “right”.

      The Democrat Party supports the killing of the old, and infirm through the fascist ObamaCare and its Death Panels. Could that be why they exempted themselves from it?

      • KG

        Don’t try to pull me down to the level most religious people like to do. Abortion, for me, has become a non-issue. Because the so called “Pro-lifers” don’t care one whit about the babies that are born to poor minorities.

        And the Republican Party only uses that issue to ‘…divide and conquer.’ Since it works so well for them, the LAST thing they want to do is to end the one issue that helps them so much. For me, to allow something that you find ‘”evil” just to have an issue is as “evil” as the issue itself.

        Besides, abortion has more to do with economics than morality. There are two stories in the Bible that talk about infanticide, and God never said to stop either one of them. Because God is going to have His way anyway. That’s how he got to be God.

      • Jeff

        Yes, I believe you are scheduled to be 1st in line. January 21, 2013 at 8:00 A.M. Send us a postcard from the other side.

      • Karolyn

        I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again – “What is wrong with death???”

        • Frank

          Karolyn, death is a natural end of the progression of life. Death is not the issue here it is murder, the killing of humans.

          Maybe, just maybe you can argue that a baby is not a human being until it has lived in its mothers womb for 23 weeks. Maybe you would have a hard time explaining that to thousands of people who were born at 21 weeks. Tell them they are not really humans because they didnt stay inside their mom long enough. Or maybe we should just shoot them to relieve them of the burden of living as a non-human?

          I personally think that people who are stupid by personal choice are not really trully human. Should we kill them too? Hitler said that Jews were not of the human race and tried to kill them all. White supremecists think all Blacks are sub-human and should be killed.

          I believe that killing unborn humans is a crime against God. I believe killing stupid people is a crime against God. I believe killing Jews is a crime against God. I believe killing Blacks is a crime against God. I cant list every race, religion or ethnic group here but the point is that killing people is wrong.

          If you think that a small group of people (government) have the right to decide who does not deserve to live then you open the possibility of being a member of a group that they (government) decide does not deserve to live.

          It is not about death, or even the killing of babies in abortions, it is about letting the government decide who you can kill legally.

      • Karolyn

        The government doesn’t decide who has an abortion; the mother does.

  • GiveMeLiberty

    Ben, I’m with you….Slick Willy is setting-up Billary. Unfortnately it’s also sickening! Most folks don’t realize this but we (AMERICANS), have had a BUSH or CLINTON at the very top of power in this country for 32 years! So let’s contemplate that for a moment…if she won in 2016, that would mean 40 years of those TWO families directly running our country. That spans almost three generations and helps me understand why we’ve fallen from grace. Yeah, and we’re taught to believe this is a republic.

    • eddie47d

      The Republicans said the same thing about the Kennedy clan and we know how they were stopped from having a series of Presidencies.

      • s c

        Komrade, how long has it been since someone referred to you as a human? You sound like a North Korean who’s waiting for Amerika to attack that deluded country (they claim that the ‘Korean War’ never ended, by the way). Kindly consider moving there. THEY need your “talent.” Learn the lingo. Enjoy.

      • Flashy

        SC…FYI, the Korean War hasn’t ended. We have an Arimistice in place. An armistice is a situation in a war where the warring parties agree to stop fighting. it does not mean the war has ended, only the fighting.

        On another point…I find it ironic and humorous when the TPers and American Taliban complain that their freedom and liberties are being impeded because they are prevented from imposing their values on everyone else and stifling everyone from choosing any other values.

        Just how does that work btw?

      • eddie47d

        SC is amazingly shallow uninformed and just plain ignorant. Very good for the chuckle box though!

      • JeffH

        “eddie” is amazingly shallow uninformed and just plain ignorant…and that’s not meant to be funny…that’s a fact!

      • eddie47d

        Jeff H is not funny or factual and still trolling his whacked out replies.

      • JeffH

        Still LMAO at “Polly” the repeating eddie.

    • Old Henry

      GiveMeLiberty:

      Watch the video I posted above for Jeff and you will learn who is really running things, and has been for generations. The Bush & Clinton “families” are simply their minions.

  • Tom MacDonald

    My compliments to Ben for a humorous and sadly true commentary on the DNC.

  • EVELYN SATTERFIELD

    YOU KNOW, YOU CAN KILL A PERSON WITH A GUN OR A KNIFE AND YOU CAN
    ALSO KILL A PERSON WITH YOUR “SHARP TONGUE” I DO HOPE YOU WILL
    PRAY AND ASK “YOUR GOD” TO FORGIVE YOU BECAUSE APPARENTLY WE
    DO NOT HAVE THE SAME “GOD”…….I FEEL SOOOOOO VERY SAD FOR YOU
    THAT YOU HAVE TO WRITE YOUR UGLY ARTICLES AT ALL AND THAT PEOPLE
    WILL EVEN READ THEM. YOU ARE A DISGRACE TO THE HUMAN RACE!!!!

    • Nadzieja Batki

      So all you are doing is flapping your own tongue with pious BS. Are we supposed to be impressed with the Caps Lock for emphasis? We can read that you want Ben C. to stop writing and go away (die). Surprise, surprise but there are loads of us who think Ben C. has a sharp sense of humor and we want him to keep writing.

      • eddie47d

        Do mean spirited people hang out at the same bar Nadzieja? Drink up all the kool aid you can while it is plentiful.

  • http://norman@cates-family.com Norman F.

    While you people are taking pot shots at each other, Bill Clinton is attempting to set Hillery up to win the Presidency in 2016. Like most politicians, he doesn’t care what damage Obama does to the country in the meantime. Think about it; in 2016 she will run against an empty Presidential office if Obama wins this year, but if Romney wins she will have to run against an incumbent. Ordinarily that would be much more difficult. So look for Bill (and possibly Hillery) to campaign hard for Obama.

    And while they continue the destruction of our country, you try to destroy each other by snide remarks. GET OVER IT! Think about what is important to your family’s, and the United States’ future. It doesn’t involve Obama in a second term, nor Hillery in a first term.

    While Romnry may not be your, or my, first choice, he has to be better than our current president.

    • eddie47d

      First of all Romney has enough financial baggage to sink the Titanic. He may be a slick smooth talker but that is not the way to run an honorable business. He’s done enough flip floppin’ to make the Merry Go Round keep spinning for years to come. It’s also odd that Obama’s 1-4% boost was mentioned as so terrible yet Mitt’s 1% wasn’t even mentioned. These articles are all a set up and you’ve been had.

      • Flashy

        Eddie….though there have been significant “bounce’ post convention, the average is 4%. There have been no successful challengers who came out behind the incumbent after their own convention.

        Obama took the Presidency in ’08 with 52% of the popular vote and winning 347 electoral votes. I have forecast Obama winning with 51.5% of the popular vote and 319 electoral votes this time around. Dems will hold the Senate and have a shot at retaking the House.

        Vegas has Obama at -215, meaning bet $215 to win $100. Romney is at +150…bet $100 to win $150. Interesting that when i check the odds, i noted that back in June a Vegas oddsmaker had Romney winning in a landslide. That oddsmaker? Wayne Allen Root.

        I found it interesting in two respects. One..Root was way out of the pack by a mile even back then in touting odds. Two, i couldn’t find anyplace to take those odds. And three…I cannot recall if his bio on PL states he is a Vegas Oddsmaker.

      • Old Henry

        eddie:

        I read last week that Romney got a 6% bump in the polls after the “convention” dog and pony show.

      • eddie47d

        The R’s can’t even produce better results with the ultimate gambler and captain in charge of Romney’s donations Mr Sheldon Adelson. I thought he was the ultimate odds maker in Vegas.

    • Old Henry

      Flashy:

      Do you have any recollection of the odds with Carter / Reagan?

      I remember the polls had Carter up substantially shortly before the election.

      • Flashy

        Henry…if i recollect, Carter was leading …then Reagan knocked it out of the park with his convention speech and people bought into it. Also, Carter was stuck because Reagan had cut the deal with the Iranians to hold the hostages until after the election. Even with everything going for him, Reagan won a squeaker.

        And we’ve been paying for that disaster of an administration ever since.

        • Jeff

          It’s true. Reagan should have been prosecuted as an accessory to kidnapping for extending the imprisonment of the hostages.

      • Flashy

        Jeff..Reagan should have been tossed into the hoosegow for a lot more. Recall, when the birthday cake to iran and Contragate where they blatantly conspired to violate the law to arm the butchers aka Contras, Cap Wienberger and bush I both requested their depositions be held over until after the elections. The Justice Dept and the Senate Committee both agreed so it didn’t have any appearance of being a political witch hunt,

        Bush I won the election. Surprise! We’re still waiting for those depositions.

        Like an idiot he was, Reagan allowed the Marines to be put in a confined and exposed site in Lebanon, and forbid any active defense measures. The barracks were targeted, the suicide car bomber went in. And 241 marine were killed…representing the deadliest single-day death toll for the United States Marine Corps since the Battle of Iwo Jima of World War II.

        Reagan played Wag the Dog for real with his invasion of Grenada and deflecting from his treasonous actions dealing with Iran

        Reagan gave us the huge deficit build up, huge negative spending, the massive transfer of wealth from the Middle Class to the wealthy, where a two family income was no longer an option…it became a necessity.

        And there are folks who think he was any good? Reagan wouldn’t have made a decent dog catcher. Other than taking credit for the entire history battling the USSR…what good did Reagan do for America? He did nothing but ruination for this country. The worst up to Bush II. Will be looked at in history as the 2nd most disastrous presidency to be inflicted upon this nation, exceeded only by Bush II/Cheney

      • phideaux

        “Also, Carter was stuck because Reagan had cut the deal with the Iranians to hold the hostages until after the election.”

        Another spurious comment by Flushy (thanks Opal) presented without one shred of evidence. Jeff backs him but also offers NO evidence to back up his support.

  • boyscout

    Ben, Please save the best of your comedy for the Great Eight, its proper venue. Often, in your serious postings, it diminishes your credibility and overemphasizes your bias detracting from points that need emphasis. Just a suggestion – please consider.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      So what you mean is that Ben C. should shut up because you say so.

      • boyscout

        Not at all Nadzieja Batki. Try to read the lines and not between them. Buffoonish slurs are par in comedy and are usually good for a chuckle. However, they tend to detract from serious debate, a notion that many here seem to completely miss. The usual response to such here is to rebut the slur and not the talking point. The easy solution is separate the genres.

        • Jeff

          The level of “debate” here is often so low that satire is the only reasonable response. When the “serious” discussions involve Obama’s birthplace or whether he’s a Communist, a Nazi, or both, how can one respond other than as an anthropologist visiting a strange land?

          • George E

            Jeff,

            Apparently, you don’t think those issues are important. OK. Let’s talk about how much Obama has reduced the federal debt and improved the economy, and how he’s going to continue improving our country in the future. We think those are also important.

          • Jeff

            George:

            Since you haven’t taken your drugs today, here’s the source of the deficit. As you can see, very little of it is due to the policies that are regularly described here as socialist, etc. The largest driver of the debt? The Bush Tax Cuts. I’m sorry. I’m not allowed to blame Bush. The tax cuts enacted in 2001-2002.

            http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/76375/who-or-what-caused-the-giant-deficit

            http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/05/obama-romney-deficit-debt-chart.php

            As for the economy, Obama has turned it around. Is it booming like we would all prefer? No, but look at the rest of the world. Whose economy is doing well? The 2008 crash, being centered in the financial sector, makes it different from a normal recession. My understanding is that employment always lags in a recovery from recession, particularly where it’s a financial sector recession.

            In any event, when Obama took office, the economy was in free fall. We were losing at least 750,000 jobs per month, the auto industry was on the verge of collapse, and a 30s-style Depression looked imminent. Are we better off than we were in January 2009? You betcha. Just look at how the job situation turned around after Obama took office.

            http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/Unemployment%2520Chart.JPG&imgrefurl=http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_04/023170.php&h=340&w=480&sz=28&tbnid=Ywv3Kx9p5RhvUM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=127&zoom=1&usg=__B43jc1lw11u7ysHClwDM9gZGOSE=&docid=GNOOZThW6pdFdM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2

            Now, Romney is claiming he’ll create 12 million jobs in 4 years. Most independent economists are projecting that many jobs any way. Romney is a take-over artist. He knows how to use debt financing to make big bucks from failing companies and how to avoid paying taxes. When he was governor, his job creation numbers were terrible. The only reason unemployment went down is young people left the state. That solution is not available on a national level.

          • George E

            Jeff,

            I know that the economy was in pretty bad shape when Obama took office. Most people will agree to that, but that’s about where agreement ends. Democrats harp on GWB for destroying the economy when we all know that the economy under Bush was in pretty good shape until the last two years of his second term when Democrats had strong majorities in both houses of Congress and Bush was a lame-duck President. During those two years, Congress passed massive spending bills and legislation that may have contributed to the economic problems, like the infamous Dodd-Frank bill. So, from where I sit, both political parties played strong roles in hurting the US economy, not just GWB as Democrats would have folks believe. Further, Democrats want us to believe all of the drop in economic growth was the fault of Republicans, so they should only be judged by the improvement since the bottom of the recession, which occurred early in Obama’s administration. If that’s OK, then it should be OK for Republicans to claim Democrats are responsible for all the economic drop from the time they took both houses of Congress, 2 years before Bush left office. I think a rational conclusion is that they are both at fault and we expect both to work together to solve the problem.

            We’d probably cut Obama some slack on the state of the economy if he wasn’t so all fired bent on trying to fix it with his big government, socialist solutions. Also, it wouldn’t hurt either if he was more like Bill Clinton and tried to work out compromises with the Republicans in Congress to get things done. Clinton’s best years in office were the years after Republicans won the House and Senate. They all worked together and several good pieces of legislation were passed and the economy did pretty well. That hasn’t happened under Obama. He’s a “do it my way or the take the highway” kind of guy. Republicans don’t have to submit to his demands now, so little is getting done, except blaming each other for nothing getting done. It’s up to the President to be a leader and bring the parties together and express and demonstrate a willingness to reach mutually agreeable solutions. He hasn’t done that.

            I don’t know all there is to know about Romney’s or Obama’s past. Neither do you or anyone else because much of the information we need is being held back. However, given what I do know and have observed, I trust Romney more than I trust Obama to act as a competent chief executive officer of our country, just on the basis that Romney has significant business management experience while Obama really has none. I’m convinced Obama doesn’t understand capitalist economics and doesn’t know how to pull the right levers to get it moving. No matter how long he stays in office, he’s not going to get enough on-the-job training to overcome this deficit.

          • Jeff

            So, the democrats in Congress are responsible for everything bad that happened in 2007 and 2008, but Congressional Republicans are not to blame for any of today’s weak jobs picture. In fact, the Republicans in Congress are deliberately tanking the economy to make Obama look bad. They won’t consider measures to stimulate the economy, even measures they normally like. If Obama’s for it, they’re against it. I think most voters see that and democrats will gain seats in the House. They may not retake the majority, but they’ll likely come close.

            In February 2002, Paul Ryan praised the stimulus bill then being considered. He wanted the economy to do well so the Republican President got credit for it. In 2009, his position was exactly the opposite though virtually every competent economist (even the conservative ones) said stimulus was necessary.

            http://www.businessinsider.com/paul-ryan-support-of-stimulus-2012-8

          • George E

            Jeff,

            No. I’m saying that both parties are responsible for screwing up the economy. I’m only saying that if it’s fair for Democrats to blame all of the economic ills on Bush, then using similar logic it should be equally fair for Republicans to blame them all on Obama and the Democrats because they had control of Congress during the last two years of Bush’s administration and Obama has been President for four years since then, and he did have strong majorities in both houses of Congress for his first two years. It’s true Republicans and Democrats aren’t working together very well right now, but as I said in another post, I think Obama should bring both sides together and show some leadership in trying to find common ground like Bill Clinton did during his last two years as President. From what I’ve seen, Obama hasn’t done that because he doesn’t know how or doesn’t want to. Bill Clinton was successful in his second term precisely because he was willing to move to the center and compromise with Republicans in Congress. Obama just hasn’t done that. He has, however, spent a lot of time going around the country laying blame on Republicans every chance he gets for the lack of progress. It’s no wonder Republicans don’t want to work with him. If Obama would use a little of that negative energy trying to work with Republicans I believe things would be a lot better.

            I can’t say for sure that Republicans haven’t intentionally stonewalled some of Obama’s legislation because they find it very difficult to work with Democrats right now. On the other hand, I can’t say they have done that either. I am pretty sure that just about everything Obama wants to do is so far left from main stream Republican philosophy that it would be very difficult for Republicans to simply agree to most of the things Obama wants to do without serious compromise, which Obama simply doesn’t seem inclined to do.

            Regarding additional stimulus, what kind of stimulus do you think ought to be passed? It’s pretty obvious to me that the first stimulus hasn’t done anything but add an additional $800B to our federal debt. I see no logical reason to do that again. However, if the government had infrastructure program(s) that we really need, then that might make some sense, but subsidizing more wind and solar companies and/or paying union workers to stay on the job isn’t going to help in my opinion. Actually, what we need to be doing is trying to find ways of stimulating the private sector to invest the trillions of dollars they have sitting in the bank right now. The fossil fuels industry is a good example of where we could generate thousands of jobs very quickly, but Obama seems more inclined to put them out of business than stimulate additional development there. This may require the government to back off of some of the regulations they’ve put in place and lowering some tax rates or reforming the tax code altogether. That would put more stimulus in the economy than anything the government can do, and would help to pay off our federal debt rather than adding to it.

          • Jeff

            Have you read lots of economic analysis to come to this conclusion or are you just parroting Paul Ryan (Ayn Rand)? What do you think of Ryan’s opinion of Keynesian stimulus in 2002 vs. 2009?

          • George E

            Jeff,

            I’ve got an MBA with many years of business experience and done some independent reading and analysis to guide my assessment of things like this. What are your credentials?

            I haven’t heard Paul Ryan speak on this subject or read much relating to it yet, but I can see that the liberal press is working 7/24 digging up dirt and spinning it their way trying to put Romney/Ryan on the defensive, so I’m sure I’ll get more on this in days to come. However, I do seem to recall that I didn’t think too much of the idea of sending out checks back then. I think we can chalk this one up as one of GWB’s mistakes. At the time, I thought it was done more for political purposes than to stimulate the economy. This was a program the Democrats were pushing and Bush was trying to work with them at that time. I’m pretty sure he signed this bill over the objections of main stream conservative voices. Regardless, we are fortunate that the total amount of that mistake wasn’t large, especially compared to the size of the mistakes we’re dealing with now. Point is, we should be learning from our mistakes instead of magnifying them. You may note that this is one of the problems with Republicans according to our Libertarian friends. Republicans will often go along with programs like this, sometimes to compromise with liberals, sometimes because they actually believe Keynesian economics actually work better than they do, sometimes to gain political points. Regardless, Libertarians say they wouldn’t compromise like this under any circumstance. Economically speaking, I think they are absolutely correct. Politically speaking, however, compromise is sometimes necessary.

      • boyscout

        ps. Bias is not a dirty word. It was used to refer to the slant taken by Ben’s opinion. In fact, all opinions by definition involve a bias. For more on English language usage refer to Merriam Websters handy volumes in lieu of the first WIKI reference,

      • Nadzieja Batki

        But, boyscout, your own opinions are biased and we already know that. It doesn’t take long to figure someone’s ideological bent. Even with posters who dissemble with long posts and attempt to make themselves reasonable it is easy to figure out their ideology.

      • boyscout

        Nadzieja Batki, Of course my opinions are biased. My life experiences have slanted them so, but by listening to the opinions of others I get to temper them with change or confirmation. That is precisely the opportunity in the area of politics that I find on this very site and why I continue to visit.
        As I am still on the fence for many issues and still tend to detail orient for solutions, I would continue to pin my own ideology as that of a seeker and not easily defined. For example, although I even though I define myself as a Christian, I best understand morality in terms of philosophy (specifically: Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative).
        Many here are more easily defined. Many are not. Personally, I enjoy the diversity. :)

      • Karolyn

        boyscout – I am much like you. It seems, though, that conservatives see only what suits their agenda – nothing else has any value, no matter what it is. Everything to them is black and white, while there most definately are shades of grey.

      • Kate8

        You’re right, Karolyn. Liberals love to sidestep and obfuscate, distract and deflect.

        With conservatives, there is no compromise on freedom. We will never give in on the right to be left alone and to live as we choose.

  • Chester

    Apparently NOBODY from the right believes Hilary when she says she is DONE WITH POLITICS. A lot of you forget the FACT that she already has more time in politics that a lot of you have on this earth, and any sport can get tiring after a while, especially when the rules keep changing.

    • Old Henry

      Chester:

      I think she will do whatever her masters, the banksters, tell her to do through the “Impeached One”.

    • Buster the Anatolian

      Hillary dillary dock has not been in poloitics all that long. She has however been around polotics for many years.

  • Norm

    Ben
    Your little essay is the worst, most biased, vial, nonsense you’ve ever posted.
    I think the boost in Obama’s poll numbers, although modest, shows a view quite different from yours. Also if you look at the poll numbers at the state levels, where it really counts, it seems virtually impossible, without a major change, for Romney to win.
    Oddly the REAL Romney, whose now hedging on Obamacare repeal, and tax reform probably isn’t very different than Obama. He even got an endorsement from Jimmy Carter during the Republican debates.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      All it shows, Norm, is the desperation of the Leftists by constantly relying on polls.

      • Norm

        Nadzieja Batki
        You seem to be big in the Jewish faith, yet your responses are very biased and intolerant. Perhaps you should reread some of your religion’s literature and open your mind a bit.
        Shabbath Shalom ‘ שבת-שלום

    • Karolyn

      The more they can slant the news their way, the better they feel. The more hatred and fear they can spread, the better they feel.

  • Bill

    Ben,
    You really got the progressives knickers in a twist over this article. Keep up the good work

    • Norm

      Why let details, like the facts, get in your way?

      • Flashy

        The GOP has already stated they aren’t going to let fact checkers run the campaign …

      • Nadzieja Batki

        Should Ben C. celebrate the Leftist’s facts or the real ones grounded in reality? I like the facts grounded in reality and reading Ben C.’s articles he appears to relish the facts of reality as well.

  • Penelope

    people (sheeple) are idiots. They should voted for Ron Paul in masses! The only
    honest politician who would fight for our freedom. Unbelievable! Disaster is
    coming!

    • Mikey

      You’re right Penelope. The unfortunate thing is that when the crap hits the fan, we’ll only be able to say “I told you so”, it will be too late. It will be interesting to see how the liberals who have shown so much support for the corrupt government will survive without their big brother.

      • Karolyn

        Uh, it will be the other way around, and you all will have egg on your faces!

  • Karolyn

    Well, as of this morning Obama is five points ahead with Gallup headed for 50.

    • Old Henry

      Let’s see Karolyn, Gallup, isn’t that the agency that was reportedly threatened by the WH for putting out polls unfavorable to dear leader?

    • Old Henry

      Well Flashy, as Artie Johnson would say from behind the bush – Veddy intalesting…

      I have not watched FOX, or any of the rest of the cable liars, for some time now. The report I heard was on the radio – no not Limbaugh. Just about the only TV I watch is HC and WC.

  • Karolyn

    If only Hillary was elected in the first place…….

    • Nadzieja Batki

      If the “woman” Hillary could not control her own husband and her home, how is it that you think she would be able to control the going ons of this country and the world?
      So did Bill Clinton have his affairs to get even with Hillary? Sounds likely. He could not unload her because she had too much dirt on him and this was his passive aggressive way of telling her he loathed her. Another thing when Bill Clinton was President he wasn’t really because it seems that Hillary was the one in charge.

      • Karolyn

        Why on earth would a woman want to “control” her man? Prior to the 2008 primaries, I read her autobio and believe that they do love each other. That is why they have stayed together. He always came home to her. I believe the ultimate love is one in which you can forgive the other for transgressions. Just because people don’t live by YOUR standards does not make them wrong.

      • Norm

        Again the self righteousness….

    • Old Henry

      A communist is a communist Karolyn, so what’s the difference?

    • eddie47d

      Besides Nadzieja being full of it although a good attempt. Monica was just a convenient distraction for Bill. If Bill can keep his health up I believe Hillary could run for President in 2016 and Bill could be Vice-President or other office holder. Few Americans liked the trash and false accusations that were thrown at the Clinton’s. The Republicans monthly death toll of political rivals blamed on the Clinton’s was way overboard. Now they are doing the same with Obama with false accusations and anti-Obama book deals. The R’s mix fact with fiction so much (crying wolf) that eventually no one will believe a thing they say.

      • Buster the Anatolian

        “Few Americans liked the trash and false accusations that were thrown at the Clinton’s.”

        And just what false accusations is that eddie. Most of the things I heard were true especialy the ones about Billy boy.

      • eddie47d

        …and you believe all that Republican National Inquirer reporting on things. Buster.

  • jopa

    Ben must have had the folks from Ryans campaign write this article.Not much to believe here.Why is he (Ben) so interested in what’s in Chris Mathews pants?What’s the joke?

    • Opal the Gem

      “What’s the joke?”

      It comes from a remark little Crissie made about something giving him a tingle in his pants.

      • Old Henry

        I still think chrissie wants to take Monica’s place under the desk.

      • Norm

        Maybe Ben gets that same feeling oner Romney.

    • George E
    • eddie47d

      Opal and Henry are reasons why no one takes this blather seriously. It’s the same old dirty laundry played over and over.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        Apparently you do because you are still on this site and reading Opal’s and Old Henry’s comments.

      • JeffH

        Nadzieja, :) …and eddie is a prime example of “you can’t fix stupid”.

      • phideaux

        ” It’s the same old dirty laundry played over and over.”

        Something you should know all about eddie because your laundry certainly is dirty. In fact I doubt it will ever come clean.

      • Kate8

        JeffH – I didn’t get a chance to wish you a happy b’day on Sunday. Hope it was a good one.

        Just a wish from one Virgo to another. May we have many, many more!

        • Jeff

          I believe he celebrates on April 20.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mike.slaney.39 Mike Slaney

    I kinda feel like Evelyn, not sure who her GOD is, but she does have a very good point. It is true that the DNC has left its roots many years ago and has become vile and despicable and to the point Demonic. BUT, the RNC is become tasteless too. If Jesus, was here today, the thought would go…YOU whited walled sepulchers full of dead mans bones…you honor Me with your tongue, but your heart is far from Me. Snakes and vipers you are…who shall not escape the judgement of GOD! Repent , come out from among these…says the LORD and be separate. Sorry, I am not a preacher but that surely sounds like what He would say. My opinion, is the 2 party system has served its purpose. We need to go back to where we lost our moorings as a people…THE CONSTITUTION and good old common sense. I’ am not talking about the NWO, Socialism, Marxism, but “peoplism”- The Republic of the United States of America.
    The people need to unite under the common cause, the survival of the Republic. The removal of greedy lawyers, Judges who pervert judgement, politicians who corrupt leadership, and corporations that destroy the Earth(I’m not a greenie) deceive, steal, rob its workers and the people of the world all for the bottom line GREED. Yes It is time for a REAL CHANGE, YOUR vote, your say is important and not for the ABOVE. If you approve this message pass it on to a fellow American Patriot. If you want more info: to see what you can do, go to: http://www.constitutionparty.com/

  • TerriG

    This is, once again, utter nonsense. Do you have any facts to back up your conclusions?

  • RevNowWhileWeCan

    I can’t believe so many of you are still fighting like it makes a difference of who is in office!! You guys stayed fooled by this left/right crap while it doesn’t matter because the status quo continues unimpeded. I don’t know if it’s the platforms doing a good job of fooling you on their minor differences or if it’s cognitive dissonance of if you guys just like to fight??
    Where’s DaveH when you need him?

    • George E

      Rev,

      Maybe it doesn’t make a difference which political party is in power or not. However, I would ask you to compare and contrast the economies and living standards in cities and states where liberals are in power and those where conservatives are in power. I know you can find exceptions in both cases, but in general, I think you’ll find that conservatives generally govern more responsibly in this regard than liberals.

      • Karolyn

        Yeah, take a look at South Carolina! The good ole boys are still in power and, and this state is still stuck in the mud! The only places that do well are their hubs.

        • George E

          Karolyn,

          I said there were exceptions. The problem is not that they are good ole boys, conservatives, or Republicans. The problem probably has more to do with the policies they are implementing. What I can tell you is that South Carolina’s financial problems probably wouldn’t get any better by hiring more government workers and giving them all raises or raising taxes on the rich which is typical of liberal governments. They’ve got to do things that make South Carolina a friendly place for people and businesses to locate and thrive if they want that economy to grow.

      • Norm

        George E

        Ten poorest states in us – ALL RED
        North Carolina
        Alabama
        Kentucky
        South Carolina
        Montana
        Louisiana
        West Virginia
        Tennessee
        Arkansas
        Mississippi
        Median income: $36,850 – $43,275

        Ten richest states in US – All BLUE but Alaska
        Minnesota
        Virginia
        California
        Alaska
        New Hampshire
        Massachusetts
        Hawaii
        Connecticut
        New Jersey
        Maryland
        Median income: $54,023 – $65,144

        It’s Interesting that most federal money goes from richest states to poorest states. In other words, most poor states get more money from Washington than they send to Washington.

      • Karolyn

        Amen!

      • Karolyn

        Well, George to grow the economy in SC, you need more infrastructure and provide more training for it to be business friendly. Where does that money come from? SC has very low taxes; and , consequently, has poor infrastructure and not enough trained/educated people. In the county where I live, they built a spec bldg. in a new industrial park; however, for many businesses there is not a competent workforce; and the roads are not the greatest. You also find rural counties with the powerss that be not wanting new business to come n and pay workers more than what they are used to paying, thus changing (that dreaded word!) the climate. They want to keep their feet on the necks of the peons. And, of course, these powers are all republicans. Thank God at least our county is democrat and we have great state reps.

        • George E

          Karolyn,

          Sounds like SC might need a make-over. By that I don’t recommend taking on a lot of debt, especially to pay government workers. I also don’t recommend raising tax rates higher than other business friendly states. Infrastructure projects are fine if needed and the money is spent wisely. If citizens are willing to pay higher taxes to support these projects, that’s fine. If not, that’s fine as well. The only thing is they should understand what it takes to create a business friendly environment. If the infrastructure is inadequate, businesses won’t locate there. Unfortunately, too often in the past politicians have pushed their favorite spending program to line their own pockets or that of a friend or family member. Citizens become aware of this kind of abuse and eventually refuse to fund any spending program to prevent this sort of abuse. There are also other things that make a difference to businesses, like tax rates, crime rates, cost of living, quality of life, etc. Make sure these factors are competitive with other states. Good luck.

      • RevNowWhileWeCan

        George E,
        I agree. So I will vote for the most conservative candidate our “democracy” ……..bwahaha! sorry, I couldn’t say that without laughing, has to offer.

      • George E

        Norm,

        Fair point. However, how about unemployment, job growth, state and city budgets, population growth?

      • JeffH

        Financial Crisis 2011: The Ten Worst States

        Which States are in the poorest financial condition? It depends on how you look at the problem. There are basically three ways to answer this question:

        - States with the largest fiscal deficits.

        - States with the most excessive debts.

        - States with the largest unfunded worker pension and benefit liabilities.

        The following table ranks the worst of the worst in each of these three categories
        http://charlestonteaparty.org/financial-crisis-2011-the-ten-worst-states/

        Rank
        Worst Deficits – Worst Debts – Worst Unfunded Benefit Liabilities

        1 Arizona – Massachusetts – Ohio

        2 California – Connecticut – Wisconsin

        3 Nevada – New Jersey – Alaska

        4 Illinois – New York – Illinois

        5 New Jersey – Illinois – Alabama

        6 New York – California – New Jersey

        7 Rhode Island – Wisconsin – South Carolina

        8 Kansas – Maryland – Colorado

        9 Oregon – Louisiana – Connecticut

        10 Alaska – Florida – Minnesota

        Other
        SC = 33
        SC = 12
        California = 11

      • Karolyn

        Jay – what good is being solvent when the citizens are starving!

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

    Barack Obama delivered a desultory acceptance speech during the Democrat 2012 convention, lacking fire, conviction, or even his usual rhetorical flourishes of bovine excrement. Now, the dark thunderclouds hang heavy over DNC Headquarters while wailing and gnashing of teeth are heard emanating from the facility.

    Certain unpleasant-for-liberals-to-accept facts have become painfully obvious.

    First, Barack’s energy and optimism are as depleted as the spirit of the 1979 Iranian Revolution.

    Second, that Obama is about as psychologically strong as a pinata donkey at a Mexico City dive bar on Cinco de Mayo.

    Third, that if the Democrat party loses this election, they descend back to their historical roots as Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dwellers (CHUD).

  • jopa

    Jay You are just being so silly now.Time to man up and accept the DNC convention was a great success compared to the other.Even the Cinco de Mayo thing is not even celebrated in Mexico.That’s a US thing is what I was told when I was there.

    • Frank

      Yes Jopa, it was a roaring success when the arab supporters booed the inclusion of accepting Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Well anyway there was a roar of boos.

  • Karolyn

    Is ThIs the kind of Christian we want in office? Wishing Obama’s children be fatherless and his wife a widow! Unbelievable!
    http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/01/13/403911/kansas-gop-house-speaker-prays-that-obamas-children-be-fatherless-and-his-wife-a-widow/?mobile=nc

    • Karolyn

      This is the kind of story that PLD would love if it were a dem!

      • Kate8

        Karolyn – And if it were a dem, you’d say it means nothing.

        BTW, his orders leave many other people widowed and fatherless all over the world. He even targets Americans now.

        None of us are safe as long as he claims this power. I would call it self-defense, as it appears that he places himself above the law.

    • George E

      Karolyn,

      It’s unfortunate that Mike O’Neal chose that verse because it can be interpreted to mean wishing death on a leader. However, he says that’s not what he meant to convey, and I have no reason not to believe him. You may note that he resigned his office, probably as a result of this issue, which is something Democrats almost never do when they slip up like this, and they do. Obviously, our politicians need to be very sensitive regarding their statements, but they are, after all, imperfect human beings just like the rest of us. If O’Neal had a history of radicalism, I would probably feel differently, but I have no reason to think he did.

  • Karolyn

    Wondering why all the posts are appearing out of order.

  • nnicko

    Okay everyone, the party is over….FLASHY has a crystal ball she reads from….she has it figured out for the next 4 years………what a prediction…will your meatball hold up until November , you twit!!

  • Thomas Weaver

    Looking back into time:
    Obama needed a filet mignon in the June employment report. Instead he got a rubber chicken.
    Only 80,000 new jobs were created last month, way below Wall Street expectations. It’s the fourth consecutive monthly disappointment. For a few months last winter, jobs were rising at an average of 225,000 a month. But that has sloped way down to only 75,000. The unemployment rate continues at 8.2 percent, which is the forty-first straight month above 8 percent. The U6 unemployment rate, which includes discouraged workers, is just under 15 percent. As voters finalize their election impressions this summer, all of this is bad news for the Chicago incumbent.
    At a campaign stop in Ohio on Friday, Obama actually said we’re still “heading in the right direction.” Is he kidding? As a stagnant GDP drops below 2 percent, employment falters, retail sales decline, and the ISM index for manufacturing drops below 50 (signaling contraction)? No objective observer can deny that the economy is headed in the wrong direction.
    I don’t like playing the pessimist, but the numbers are the numbers. This is exactly what former Clinton advisers James Carville, Doug Schoen, and Stanley Greenberg have been warning Obama about. People just don’t believe the economy is getting better. So he’s gotta change his message.
    The above was for June and we are now into September and nothing has improved. On the contrary everything is downhill.

  • ONTIME

    As far as I was concerned the Deemer convention was a pack of ingrates displaying anti american behavior and looking for the opportunity to grab more handouts at the expense of the nation.

    A 2 hour cult isalm prayer to open the convention, anti Christian thinking, anti Israel, anti self reliance,anti constitution, anti law, a lying uncredentialed Fraud and a known impeached pervert to be the high lights of the bachnal of screaming and whinning. There were some who thought this covention was one of the Deemers best….low standards nowadays..

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.