OCinBuffalo

Which is why I continue to state that if my grandfather was alive, he'd be cracking Democratic party heads. He would not be alone. Let me explain why right now, that's not an if, and right now, it's more like 40-60. The idiots in charge are pissing away their blue collar and rural demographics, which have been largely Democratic since Andrew f'ing Jackson. I have been saving these 2 links for a thread that seemed appropriate. This is it: Assessing the Obama coalition 1 Assessing the Obama Coalition 2 For those of you with ADD, this all comes down to: Mindbogglingly, Obama seems to believe that metrosexuals and catering to the so-called "Creative Class"(as in, the stimulus spending on college professors and worthless green startups that were predicated on a market that has already failed), will replace the reliable and traditional votes he loses. These people are, by definition, unlikely to be loyal to anything other than their own self interest. And worse, they live in states that he is likely to win. Yeah, Democrats are setting up to be a real strong....regional party that can't win any branch of Federal government. Liberals are fond of making fun of the Midwest. Too bad they don't realize that the Midwest/Appalachia is the only reason they haven't been irrelevant for the last 30 years. It's hysterical that they don't realize the massive error of focusing on their little fiefdoms on the coasts...even as these fiefdoms lose House seats. Dissing the traditional blue collar and rural voters is how you pull a McGovern, and lose New York, never mind the swing states. And yes, magox, the fact that these idiots are too stupid to see this is laughable all day. Yes, let's strive to get 60% in 10 states, and lose the other 40...morons!

If Obama loses in 2012, history will surely blame Nancy Pelosi. Normally I would say too bad for Obama, but not in this case. He has chosen to throw every major initiative over the fence to Congress. He has refused to lead on anything. I have no idea why he would do this. IF Obamacare is Obamacare, not Pelosicare, then why in the hell would he let her(read: the Tides Foundation) write the bill? The same is true of the Spendulous, and everything else.

As I have been saying. This is either the stupidity of refusing to see the world as it is, or, the ignorance of simply not knowing any better, or, as you say, wishful thinking to the point of delusion.

Yes, you are denying the fact that Clinton purposely hired a Republican strategist to save him from being booted in 1996....but I am the one who's the quantum leap guy? Pathetic. No amount of goofing changes your terrible argument, and your lack of anything to support it.

What? I thought the fact that we weren't nice to people, and were "cowboys" under Bush, was the only reason the tinpot dictators hated us. I thought that all we had to do was "engage" with these leaders fueled purely by Charisobama and the undying adoration the rest of the world has for Barack the Humble! Perhaps instead of defending the obvious, you should turn your attention to those who made these wild claims? Also, it's time to admit that Obama has failed miserably on foreign policy. You of all people should know that. The only thing he has going for him is Hillary, but, that's only a recent development. "Let me be clear" : I don't blame Obama for most of this. I blame the people he chose to put around him. They honestly believed/deluded themselves/cynically spun that the only reason we had international problems was Bush. But, given their derangement syndrome, why would we expect anything else? Now, that reality has shown that those problems are due to a-holes, and not us, or Bush, or Obama, they have no plan. Great.

Again, historically inaccurate. Clinton RAN as a center-left Democrat. However, he attempted to GOVERN as a liberal the first two years. It appears you have your causes and effects mixed up. The Republican Congress elected in 1994 was the effect of the governing from the far-left cause. If Clinton hadn't pulled a bait and switch, I doubt the Democrats would have been rolled in 94. It's hardly like Clinton "decided" to move to the center. He had that decision made for him = move to the center or GTFO. And please, spare us from linking websites and docs that are written by the political office of the White House, and then archived by non-partisan people who have no control over the content. Did you even read the rest of that site? The concept that "issuing waivers" = the complete downsizing of Welfare, is laughable. It's trying to cover the fact that Clinton completely abandoned the leftists to secure his re-election. This was forced on Clinton and that he(read: Dick Morris) was smart enough to beat the Republicans to the punch, doesn't change a thing. The REAL history is clear as a bell. You can keep your rewritten spin version created by government political employees.

Again, ANTOHER example of liberals not seeing the world as it is. Apparently your dream world doesn't include foreign multinational corporations, who you would be giving a massive leg up to if you wanted to massively tax large American-based corporations. Moreover, you don't understand that many US corps do business overseas, and employ hundreds of thousands. What do you think they would do if your tax plan was implemented? Yes, that's right, move everything overseas, Moron! GM makes more $$ overseas than it does in this country, Moron! The reason so much manufacturing has moved overseas: taxes and unions, Moron! Conner read this next sentence and learn it: Free Trade Stops War, MORON! They have a permanent, inverse relationship. Every dipschit liberal that is against free trade is by definition FOR WAR! If you want me to explain in detail, I will. Now, if you want to talk about corporations using their power to subvert competition, that is another thing entirely. Free Trade includes free competition, or it is by definition not free.

Blah, blah.... Again, you haven't explained how a sensational story like ACORN was largely ignored or minimized by MSM bad actors for almost a year. Again, you haven't explained why a sensational story like Duke was misreported for months. You are acting like "covering these stories" is as homogeneous as flipping a switch. Clearly it is not. If I send a reporter out for 24 hours to "cover" a story 2 months after it has been reported on by other media, I am "covering the story", but nowhere near the level that I should be. Either I am mostly incompetent, or there is some other reason I am not covering the story, especially when it's a sensational story. If I am covering it because now I have to, because other media have made it a story that I can no longer purposely ignore, there is your omission argument in technicolor. Is this really that hard to understand? This is the exact story with ACORN, and many many other stories. Let me help you. Regarding ACORN, Breitbart constructed a media strategy that was specifically designed to not only overcome the MSM bias, and purposeful avoidance of the story, but to also expose the corruption of the MSM. The simple fact is: if there was no corruption, the strategy wouldn't have worked. In an unbiased newsroom, stories compete on their merits, with merit #1 being "will it sell papers/air time?". We can argue about the other merits, and their order, but #1 is #1. Therefore, normally, you want to pack everything you've got into your story, so that it has the biggest effect, such that it gains the most attention, and gets the lead story/front page. But, this will not work in the biased newsroom. Excuses will be made, the story will get chopped up/distorted, because somehow the story "is not as important" as the other stories, and it will end up on page 37/given 10 seconds. As if ACORN wasn't an "important story". But, Breitbart knew this. So he did the exact opposite of "normal". He released the story a little bit at a time. In essence, he did what Woodward did, but he did it intentionally. By releasing only a little bit at a time, he made his story immune to the bias, because every time the MSM thought they had played it off, he'd release another vid, and it would start all over again. The rest is history. Again, this approach wouldn't have worked if there wasn't any bias, because the bias itself became part of the story. Even the casual observer wanted to know why this group they had never heard of kept coming back up in the news, and why it kept only being a one day story so many times in a row. It looked like exactly what it was, the media trying to ignore a story that clearly merited further investigation. Why weren't cub reporters looking to make a name for themselves all over this, especially if we are to believe Tom's "sensationalism" argument?

No, you make excuses for your inability to argue with me, like this. Would you rather I post 3 points you can't argue with, rather than 10? Want me to hit you with one thing at a time? Then, you will then cry about the volume of my posts, but you still won't be able to argue with them. Edit: Back on point, and still waiting for you to defend your position that the first 2 years of Clinton were the same as the last 6.

Doh! The mosque builders are either complete idiots, or, they are as cynical as possible. Applying for 9/11 rebuilding $$$? WTF? Are they trying to get owned? Or, do they think that they are entitled to it, or worse, do they think that we are just too weak to refuse to let this nonsense continue? Once again, I call BS on this thing being a "community center", since it has no "community" that requires it. The simplest explanation is that this is about proving to us that they can do whatever they want with impunity. How else can you explain applying for 9/11 funds, while telling us that they aren't near ground 0, at the same time? Edit: It will be highly entertaining to see GG and Tom try to defend their already weak-ass position in light of this new development. I doubt they will even try very hard.

Maybe I'm way off the mark here but, shouldn't we be happy that things like Dancing with the Stars exists, from a cultural perspective, as opposed to the other crap that is out there? Doesn't something that actually requires ability, practice, hard work and determination, serve as an uptick in cultural value? Now, of course we could say that WWE requires the same thing. But, dance is a fine art. Wrestling is basically a soap opera, the lowest form of writing, with dudes running around in their underwear. It's not like I have time to watch either, and it's not like I watch network TV very often, but I can't see complaining about people doing something that improves/reinforces art, regardless of who is doing it. And, I am glad that we are celebrating real talent, rather than heaping praise on low-end crap.

You're unable to argue with me, because you simply don't have the ability. Calling me names simply underscored that fact.

Well, then you apparently missed one of the single largest turning points in the PC/culture/"mandatory acceptance of the left's opinion as fact" wars we have had so far. Apparently you missed Kelly telling O'Reilly, long before anybody else, that there's no way these guys were guilty. She had the story right WAY before anybody else. I purposely checked the other media outlets, and ALL of them were treating them as guilty when she started poking holes in the "evidence". Apparently you missed the 30+ liberal Duke professors who signed a "statement" condemning the players before anybody had any clue what was happening. You also missed the vast majority of the MSM(loved how you cherry pick one guy out of 100+ ) coverage of the story, which was the finest example of "guilty before proven innocent" behavior we have ever seen. Apparently you missed everything Nancy Grace had to say on the subject. (and then didn't show up for work the day they were exonerated) And, apparently you missed the fact that a Democratic DA was using this case to further his own chances of getting elected, and was willing to use every awful tactic he could, including ruining the lives of innocent people. So, given your liberal leaning positions....did you really "miss" this case...or are you just wishing we would all forget about the entire media getting suckered, the corruption of a liberal DA, and the massive joint hypocrisy of most of liberal professors at Duke? And, none of this explains why the MSM was beaten to the story by: 1. College kids in the ACORN case 2. A new hire at Fox News who was given hardly any air time, in the Duke case. The ONLY rational explanation for how these two sensational stories were covered: BIAS!

So are you saying that the first 2 years of Clinton was no different than the last 6? Are you trying to tell us that he didn't get up and say "The era of big government is over?" Are you trying to say that Clinton and Gingrich weren't racing each other to see who cold cut spending fastest after the Republicans took the house? It is historically accurate to stay that Clinton: you know, the guy that passed welfare reform? the guy who hired Republican Dick Morris to create the triangulation strategy, which is basically doing Republican ideas before they do, so that they can't argue with you? yeah, that guy? was a centrist President for the last 6 years he was in office....and look how well that worked. In contrast, look at the results we get when the far-left agenda is followed = crap. We got decent results with far-right economic policy, or did you forget about the Reagan Revolution, and/or the fact that the Bush tax cuts prevented the recession everybody said would come right after 9/11? As I said, the above is historically accurate. Opinion is not history.

The truth is: 1. The Dead know they can never stop it 2. The more they try to stop it, the more desirable it becomes. 3. They were better off letting people hook up to the PA, or letting them set up their gear, because at least this way, they could ensure that the quality of the tape was good. Now, if only we could get the drug prohibition people to 1. Admit hat they can never stop it 2. Realize that the more they ban it, the cooler it becomes. 3. Accept the reality that we are better off letting people buy drugs directly from pharma companies, because at least this way, they could ensure that the quality of the drugs was good, and won't cost us a $250,000 emergency room visit every time we turn around. The cost treatment for bad drugs alone justifies legalization. Looks like the Dead are once again ahead of their time. Perhaps in my lifetime we can put an end to the emotional, "drugs are bad" argument, and pursue the reasoned, "drugs are here" argument?

Well, you can't repeal Obamacare with Obama in office. But, you can deny funding, cut programs, and basically be a bastard about it. I wouldn't be surprised if they force him to veto things, because it hurts him a lot more than it does them. It will look like he's refusing to listen to the people. The House GOP are holding all the cards at this point. Let's face it: with 22 Democratic Senators coming up for election in 12, it's not like the Senate will be interested in risking their butts for the far-left, or Obama. But, I have been thinking about this lately: is there a diminishing marginal return on forcing vetos? As in, at some point will Obama start to look reasoned, and even, principled, if he keeps vetoing everything? It's a hell of a risk to take, but Obama may be past the point of having nothing to lose.

Yep, that, and: Walking around the parking lot at a Dead show and suddenly having an epiphany. You will never find more free marketers, tax evaders, IP thieves, and profiteers than you will at a Dead show. You will never find more defective products, dangerous products, deregulation, and did I mention profiteering? than you will at any of these shows. These are the people that claim superiority over "evil corporations", but in practice are just as bad if not worse. These are the people that claim to represent what being a liberal is all about, but I can't tell the difference between them and the Wall Street people I worked with later on. Both are selfish, self-absorbed, and walking around with a faulty belief in their own superiority, while doing very little to prove it. Since then, I have worked with DC people, and found the same thing. That was the day it hit me: nobody is truly "superior" to anybody else because of, their political beliefs, or, which group they choose to belong, and, everybody will try to make as much money as they can given the opportunity. Pretending as if there is some sort of exception, or that somehow liberals are better people than conservatives, is the height of buffoonery. It mostly comes down to what your family does for a living, and for some people, how much they hate their parents.

Or, MSNBC is trying to get people to pay attention to them, and possibly save them from becoming no better than a regional cable channel. It's pretty pathetic when YNN is doing a better job of covering politics than they are.

Thanks for this. It's a fairly comprehensive, and wishful thinking free, description of "the way things are" regarding Palin, Obama, politicians in general and our political discourse in general. A few responses: 1. MOST politicians are pragmatic. If the behavior you have been describing is happening, it's only because it tends to work. However, I don't see the TEA party being swayed by rhetoric as much as results. And, they are more educated than any other political block. So perhaps there is hope on this front. 2. Many ARE annoyed that the "girl who can't sing" has a fan base. Have you considered: that she exposes the crazy, and the hypocrisy of leftists is just as good a reason to be her fan as any other? Look at this board. There is no single faster way to prove that the Palin haters are irrational, than to use their Palin posts as evidence. If we can do this on a message board, what can the professionals do? The fun part is: apparently the Palin haters are too stupid to realize they are getting played, and that is hysterical. Yes, I do think that no serious GOP power broker will suffer Palin as the candidate in 2012. That doesn't mean they won't use her, as I said above, as a Howard Dean and draw out Democrat $$$ to waste chasing her down an idiot's rabbit hole.

This isn't even close to being historically accurate. This isn't even distortion. This is flat out BS. Did you just wake up from a 4 year coma? Who has been winning, and therefore, governing for the last 4 years prior to the election this month? Republicans? Get a grip. Over the last 60 years, CLEARLY, the far-left has the "winning" problem. LBJ, Jimmy Cater, the first 2 years of Clinton, and now the first 2 years of Obama all have something in common: bad results and massive amounts of mess that takes years to clean up, and often requires extreme measures.

Wrong. Once again you are distorting the truth. They are simply talking about the status of detainees, and that we cannot hold people, whose status has not been determined, indefinitely. They say that the process for determining who is an enemy combatant, and who is not, is not up to them. Rather, they say it's up to the President and Congress. So, there is no sweeping endorsement of your position in this document at all. So this is about solving a problem, not attribution of rights to scumbags. Instead, it's simply allowing a writ, so that the status of these people will be determined asap, after 6 years of nothing. That's not the same as giving full Constitutional rights to these idiots. This is specifically telling the WH: "do something. We aren't going to rule on what you do, but you can't continue to do nothing". So, your poor reading comprehension skills strike again. The Geneva convention sure as hell does supersede the Constitution, but somebody would have to beat us in a major war, and we would have to actually commit war crimes, for you to see that in action.

You still don't know what the Geneva convention is, do you? You still think that the US Constitution is supposed to be applied to every citizen of the world, don't you? Does the Canadian constitution apply to you? Does it apply to me?

Of course this isn't accurate, my joke wouldn't have worked if I didn't put it in there that way. You did read the part where I said (Tom, don't be technical and ruin it), right? Or are your reading comprehension skills as bad as Tom says? (Hmmm Tom is starting to look right about the ruining thing)

Are you saying that it doesn't protect US citizens accused of crimes? Of course it does. It does other things too, but you don't know what they are, and I am not doing your homework for you. Please explain where it says that foreigners captured on foreign soil for actively participating as combatants in an ongoing terror war against the United States and her allies...are to receive the same rights as US citizen, and somehow shouldn't be summarily executed for not wearing a uniform while participating in war. That's the law that is supposed to be applied here. We give them a chance to turn, and if they won't, or if they don't have anything useful to offer, it's firing range time. However, personally, I want to deny the enemy everything, and killing him might make him a martyr, and therefore happy. I would have shrinks determine what they hate the most, and do that. I know that's not possible but it's fun to dream.

A. I don't want to see this guy arrested for the docs he released, unless he did something illegal to get them. B. It's not like we are big allies with Sweden....of all countries. Certainly if we really hauled them in and told them they had to arrest this guy on trumped up charges, not only wouldn't they do it, but they'd be leaking the entire conversation to Wikileaks themselves. C. Rape has nothing to do with this stuff, and the fact that there are two women saying the same thing makes me think this has a good chance of being true. D. The fact that Sweden is making a big deal about extraditing this guy, when they rarely do this, tells me they are pissed. E. Of course, the prosecutor's character will be attacked, and her motives questioned...instead of her just being a prosecutor, who is trying to do her job.