Magox

Free **** for everyone is a tough message to beat. I as well truly see it as a battle for America's soul.

I would argue that the Federal Reserves action from my perspective was the true hero of the day.

No, I did. I said that if you were to make the argument that the church should have this internal discussion, I could understand it, you're the one who is incapable of attempting to see the constitutional argument and respecting the beliefs of the church. Which by definition, makes you an intolerant person on this matter.

This has 0 to do with individual conscience, it has to do with separation of church and state. Now if you were to say that you believe that the Catholic church should have an INTERNAL debate and discussion over this matter, and how they should move forward, then I could understand that. This isn't the Conservative POV, its the constitutional case. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-overreach--obamacare-vs-the-constitution/2012/02/16/gIQAmupcIR_story.html Read it

Please, Mayock is one of the best. You really expect someone who's job it is to rate hundreds of football players a year to have close to 100% track record? And PDADDY won't be happy with Mayocks analysis.

What are you talking about??

I remember reading in Politico and WAPO that a big reason why Obama didn't approve the Keystone pipeline really wasn't so much about his own environmental concerns but because of the money he would lose through fundraising for his re election campaign. This provides a little context. Funny how they felt compelled to respond to Buell's concerns. Basically this is a tactic, not that I disagree with the contributors tactics, but certainly a ploy in demanding that the Pipeline ends up being a no go. No honey, no money, and that's what this boils down. Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/02/15/MND61N71MS.DTL&ao=2#ixzz1me4bAphT Kinda amazing how we have a president that cares more about saving his own ass over a project that would create ALL Private sector jobs that wouldn't cost the taxpayer a dime, and actually would even generate tax revenues, not to mention lessening our dependence on Middle East Oil.

I actually agree with DC, people do have short memories, look at how peoples perception of the economy has unfolded just over the last few months. Obamas approval ratings has hit 50% on a few different polls recently, the right or wrong way indicator albeit still overwhelmingly negative as began to trend higher, plus I can feel it, I can sense a bounce in perception, and this has all happened over the past few months. Or how about the McCain campaign, he was actually leading in a few polls, but once the economy really went down the tubes and the market began to crash, so did his campaign. And DiN, where did I say that if under Romney it would be at 2% or for that matter anything that could be misconstrued that way? I'll tell you, nowhere. What I have CONSISTENTLY said over and over is with a president who actually has a basic understanding of the free market economy, that with less regulations, a more pro business relationship with the business community, more dealings with our Emerging market partners and corporate tax reform, that the recovery would be better than this anemic piece of **** of an economy that we have today. I mean for crying out loud, we are growing at 2.5% GDP, that would even suck if we had already recovered. Considering the depth of the hole we are inright now, we should be experiencing much better growth than we are 3 years into the recovery. Remember that Small business Gallup poll I posted yesterday? HALF of all small businesses cite Overregulation. Remember how I spoke to you about that, and how that was a major deterrent for growth? Remember how you scoffed at it? Well it's right there, and as the president says correctly, "Small businesses are the engine of this economy" Well the engine is sputtering and they are specifically stating overregulation, AND 85% say they don't plan on hiring at all over the next 12 months. Sorry DiN, we can do better than this.

I reall don't know anything about this and I'm sure their are some bureaucratic obstacles to go through, but it really doesn't seem like something to difficult to overcome, if there is a strong will behind it.

Ouch!

And if you count all the discouraged workers, not just the ones that they noted over the past 4 weeks, but all of them. REAL UNEMPLOYMENT is at a whopping 23% But yeah you're right, it's all a conspiracy. Don't you care to know the truth? Or does the koolaid taste too good? Look at it man! Look at it! Even since the bounce in jobs that we have been experiencing, which is an improvement, you will see that the REAL UNEMPLOYMENT rate hasn't dropped at all! Seek the truth man!

Hold on a second, you said if you take the social isues out, he's the most conservative? He's a very pro union "conservative", he voted for Medicare part D under Bush which was one of the most fiscally irresponsible pieces of legislation in GOP history, he was a huge pork barrel republican, voted for mountains and mountains of othe spending bills, and you say he is the most "conservative" if you take out the social issues? Really?? Really????

Wow! I refrained, but I guess this proves it, you're DiN²

Because he's pandering to the Evangelicals, don't ya know, it's loony primary season... Duh

I take back half of what I said about Romney, America hates successful capitalists

ummmm, the way she sung the SSB was incredible.

Doesn't sound like it should be that difficult.

What? Like as if there would be something wrong with that. Sheeesh

I'm Lost

Well you did it now, the mellows are harshing man, the mellows are harshing....

If this happens, I'm dippin back to South America

I've never heard of the term. Who said it?

Now if that's not Crony Capitalism, then there is no such thing as Crony Capitalism.

I don't know that, and you can't say for sure that you do either. What I do know is that people who are in the know, that are in a much more informed position disagree with you and others. That I do know. Let me reiterate, I've never been a war hawk, I don't promote it, as a matter of fact I've spoken against it on this board. So I'm a little uncomfortable with the idea that I am somehow defending aggressive behavior. Having said that, I understand the concept of how military muscularism can be seen as a deterrent. Is having 1500 warheads any more of a deterrent than having 350? I have no idea and I don't profess to know unlike some other posters. I made an extremely SIMPLE argument that having more strength than others can be an effective deterrent. I cant help that some of you interpreted that the way you wanted to. That's your problem. So there

I dunno