20% of Republicans leaning to Obama!

I smell something else...and it isn't blood.

WorldNetDaily also claims that Glenn Beck, Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich are liberal. It has been a leading outlet claiming that the current President is not a naturally born American citizen. It makes no bones that Ron Paul is it's first choice candidate. It has had libel suits filed against.

In this case, this article fits some people's worldview that this President is going to win re-election by double digits

this President is going to win re-election by double digits

Yep, and Democrats will take the House and keep the Senate. Republican control will hang on ONE Supreme Court justice. If the SC knocks down ACA by a 5-4 vote the nation will erupt in outrage at Republicans.

If the SC knocks down ACA by a 5-4 vote the nation will erupt in outrage at Republicans

Ohhhh great Prognosticator, could you please give the winning numbers to the upcoming powerball drawing?

I personally care more about the U.S. Senate and many politicians getting out and retire.

this President is going to win re-election by double digits

Agreed...:)

Whatever, the late President Nixon won his re-election also.

Whatever, exactly....Apples and Oranges...

Yep, and Democrats will take the House and keep the Senate. Republican control will hang on ONE Supreme Court justice. If the SC knocks down ACA by a 5-4 vote the nation will erupt in outrage at Republicans.

Now that's the power of positive thinking. Very unlikely that it interpret into a real outcome. He will be back living in Chicago's Kenwood section at this time next year.

Agreed...:)

See above.

Supposition doesn't mean much, but I'll be happy to repeat 2.8 by this time next year...:)

Supposition doesn't mean much, but I'll be happy to repeat 2.8 by this time next year...:)

Feel free.

Point of information: ACA is Affordable Care Act. I was most familiar with the idea when it was more widely referred to as Health Care Reform.

We'll just keep calling it Obamacare. Fine with me. I'm not too anxious to give it up either. For the first time in 2011, my policy removed the lifetime caps for care. I like that worry being lifted. And just might force my insurance provider and health care provider to negotiate to bring costs down, let their lawyers hash it out. Same with preexisting condition, providers will have to negotiate prices more effectively with insurance companies. Health insurance companies have to pay a higher part of their revenue on actual health care as well. Some of these things make sense.

I am grateful there is once again at least one decent person running for office.

me too!! and very well stated Mofongo!

Mofongo-- thank you for being a member of a believed extinct species-

A RATIONAL Republican.

♥♥♥ Consider this an early Valentine's Day gift.

then I'm the King of Siam...

Queue the Un-Monkey song "I'm a Disbeliever"

Ahh to live in Bizarro world.....

The Republican Party on the other hand have descended into a twisted nasty thing I don't even recognize any longer

I could not agree with that statement more......I'm the type that votes my conscience and not by party...but I can NOT in good conscience vote for either one of the Republican party..they have shown to be against the advancement of women, minorities and the middle class....I'm am all 3 of those things...unlike some, I have the good sense not to vote against my own interest.

Me too Mofongo. I second your motion, basically as you stated it...Now if I hit the lottery,NOT, maybe I would go with the rich guys... 'club'.

#4.1:me too!! and very well stated Mofongo!

Good morning to all of my friends (and everyone else, too). Make that me three, Mofongo!

Hey MEG, good morning to you too! ;)

There are those democrats that always vote for the dem no matter who is running, like most on this site, makes no diference if it a local election, state or Presidential they vote all straight dem ticket period. Then you have the same on the rep side, those that vote the straight ticket no matter what, no matter who is running. Then you have those that may vote predominantly dem or rep but from time to time cross over as they may not like who is running on either ticket but 20 percent of rep voting dem is not likely. In my opinion Indep are those that vote rep and dem depending on other factors. Obama stands a better chance of winning reelection then the rep does of taking it, it usually works that way but we never know what will happen. Many are in the position on the rep side that dont like MR, whom seems to be the one that will be the rep, and dont like BO so time will tell which way those vote.

It Aint So

If Mofongo is a "Registered Republican", then I'm the King of Siam...

Not even close on either.

I'm afraid so your highness. I've been a registered Republican my entire adult life. But I must admit that as it stands today, I'm a full fledged RINO. It's only a check mark on a database at our town hall. I've got to get around to changing that.

I will not be associated with the vile thing that the Republican Party has become.

Morongo says:

I voted for Obama... he seemed like a moderate who could work with people.

Accept he can't work with people and has continually proven so.

Also I thought we needed a serious break with the foreign policy of the Bush/Cheney fiasco.

So Obama starts a war in Libya, continues wire tapping and rendition, and assassinates an American and you're happy with him?

I thought they (Tea Party) may actually try and focus on fiscal responsibility and responsible tax reform.

Instead you have Obama piling on nearly a trillion a year in debt for Solyndra and other leftist dreams?

Imagine my disappointment when they (Tea Party) turned out to be shills for wealthy special interests with a membership made up largely of racist fascists from southern former slave states.

And you, as a supposed Republican, actually believe that MSNBC provided garbage?

There's no way you're an informed "registered Republican".

Name the top three ideals you have that make you a Republican.

Oh, and one more tidbit of subjective "statistical data". I'm know a few Republicans like me who are disgusted and have "crossed over" the river of poo laid down by Republicans. But I actually know more Republicans who have simply given up. They intend to skip voting because.....

1. They are disgusted with the Republican party and their utter lack of performance.
2. They see an Obama victory as a forgone conclusion and view their vote as irrelevant.

What the hell does that say about the GOP? Inspiring its members to stay away from the polls! Holy crap!

I'm not certain whether Obama is winning or these GOP guys are simply masters of suicide.

If you really crossed "Poo River", then admit you're a Democrat. Is that so hard?

Did you feel the same way in October of 2010?

Are you suggesting that no Democrats have been turned into Republicans by Obama?

This is really funny stuff you're saying! (your math ain't adding up)

Mofongo, isults don't "do it" for me.

You are clearly a liberal posing as a Repubican.

You can't answer why you're a Republican.

Bye bye, wish you well!

I miised your "party of hate" comment.

You're a REGISTERED REPUBLICAN who calls their own party the "party of hate"?

You can't be serious.

The truth will set you free! C'mon, admit it!

I'm a registered republican as well Morongo... voted Bush in the first cycle (no one shoot me)... then didnt vote in the second... but voted Obama this last and given the current choices, will vote for him again.

Didnt stop me from voting republican in representative, state and local... if that makes me not an R... can't say I'd be sad to let that association go.

So Obama starts a war in Libya, continues wire tapping and rendition, and assassinates an American and you're happy with him?

I'm happier with that than the two fronts that Bush breached practically simultaneously (Afghanistan, Iraq) with full military force. I'm also happy that Obama let the seals do their work on OBL. The fact that he has continued some of the Bush "negotiation" practices isnt the best news... but I dont think the public is well informed enough to judge some of those decisions. While I would like to know all, I do recognize the inability to know all when it comes to the various military efforts.

Instead you have Obama piling on nearly a trillion a year in debt for Solyndra and other leftist dreams?

I think the Solyndra dream is a much more sane reality than the "moon base" dream. I also think it's more realistic than Romney's "gonna clean up Washington 'cause I havent served" dream. Obama ran on that, and even I said... yeah right... the only way to clean up Washington is to flush it down the toilet and start over...

Back to Solyndra though... the one thing that would allow us to become a great nation again is our independence from foreign energy. If we could harness and control our own energy sources in a way that wouldnt ruin the ground we grow food in, the air we breath, and the water we drink, we could stand alone and apart from all the energy politics. Everyone thinks we went to Iraq for the oil (whether it's true or not is not a discussion here) but the oil dependency we create for ourselves is what keeps us hobbled in negotiations and keeps us looking like we have our hands in the cookie jars when we ask for "coalitions" to fight "the great (insert middle east dictator here) powers of corruption".

All that said... Solyndra was a mistake. Maybe it was also a sink for pork projects and a feeding frenzy on the part of political idiots... but I would still foot the bill for energy companies to make a real effort for change in the energy market of today.

I wonder how many millions of dollars were wasted when they were firing rockets at the moon and kept missing... and all of those investments were for pride and accomplishment... there was no real win from setting foot on the moon... no hidden gold or oil up there for us to really make steps forward.

As for the tea party... they have degenerated back into a fractious bunch of do-nothings. All they argue loudly for and against are the hot button issues like abortion, gay marriage, and churches. They dont even want to stop the spending... hell they could cut the military budget, but they wont budge. There are a lot of much more expensive things in government funding than the unemployment program.

If we are stuck spending the money we might as well hand it over to the poor people... they at least will spend it all and have it end right back up at the top of the food chain... I dont subscribe to trickle down economics... that is crap.

I respect and admire the republican oath and take its tennats as my ideals (except for wavering support for the last one obviously):

I BELIEVE the strength of our nation lies with the individual and that each person’s dignity, freedom, ability and responsibility must be honored.

I BELIEVE in equal rights, equal justice and equal opportunity for all, regardless of race, creed, sex, age or disability.

I BELIEVE free enterprise and encouraging individual initiative have brought this nation opportunity, economic growth and prosperity.

I BELIEVE government must practice fiscal responsibility and allow individuals to keep more of the money they earn.

I BELIEVE THE proper role of government is to provide for the people only those critical functions that cannot be performed by individuals or private organizations; the best government is that which governs least.

I BELIEVE the most effective, responsible and responsive government is government closest to the people.

I BELIEVE Americans must retain the principles that have made us strong while developing new and innovative ideas to meet the challenges of changing times.

I BELIEVE Americans value and should preserve our national strength and pride while working to extend peace, freedom and human rights throughout the world.

I BELIEVE the Republican Party is the best vehicle for translating these ideals into positive and successful principles of government.

not that it matters - but what is the penalty for "registering" as a repug and then voting as one sees fit?

NONE as far as I can see.

IF your intention is to participate in the repug nominating process and produce the lowest grade candidate, then so what?

"repug": I don't really have anything substantive to offer, so I'll just act like a third grader.

Welcome to American politics!

Miss Diagnosed, I felt the same way in 96-I abstained. Clinton (Gingrich) was doing a good job and Dole was a McCain.

But that list you posted at the end couldn't be more anti-Obama.

But that list you posted at the end couldn't be more anti-Obama.

We will have to agree to disagree there I guess.

I only disagreed with a couple of the stated creed and I am a Yellow Dog Democrat,Miss_Diagnosed.

I guess Republicans arent the great evil of all Yellow Dog... if only they would subscribe to their traditional values and quit with the hotbutton snark-words :/

I BELIEVE the most effective, responsible and responsive government is government closest to the people.

I'm sorry, but, this is not Obama. Not even close - as exemplified by the HCA.

I BELIEVE free enterprise and encouraging individual initiative have brought this nation opportunity, economic growth and prosperity.

Neither is this. He's stated almost exactly the opposite on multiple occasions.

I BELIEVE THE proper role of government is to provide for the people only those critical functions that cannot be performed by individuals or private organizations; the best government is that which governs least.

Nearly exact opposite of the current administration I would provide examples, but, I have a feeling it'd be entirely pointless after comments like:

If we are stuck spending the money we might as well hand it over to the poor people.

That said, Romney, Gingrich and Santorum aren't any better in these areas either - and I would argue they're worse in the others than Obama - so I don't begrudge anyone who would vote for Obama. I probably will.

I dont share your opinion on your statements. I look at things differently.

I BELIEVE THE proper role of government is to provide for the people only those critical functions that cannot be performed by individuals or private organizations; the best government is that which governs least.

Nearly exact opposite of the current administration I would provide examples, but, I have a feeling it'd be entirely pointless after comments like:

If we are stuck spending the money we might as well hand it over to the poor people.

If you notice, I said if we are stuck spending the money... I dont like spending the money on anything, least of all corperate bail out in the guise of keeping enough jobs around to keep the markets from failing. I didnt mind bailing out GM because they at least make something. All the banks make is paper (not just money paper, but contracts and dividends, futures and things they can bet on with more paper)... and paper causes bubbles...

All that aside... Id rather not spend the money at all.. but I realize that in order to make money you have to move money, and the biggest money movers arent the biggest companies, they hoard money... it's just reality. I'd rather give money to the poor and small company owners as investments. Just my opinion.

That said, Romney, Gingrich and Santorum aren't any better in these areas either - and I would argue they're worse in the others than Obama - so I don't begrudge anyone who would vote for Obama. I probably will.

*Sigh*

Miss_Diagnosed

All repubs are not Beelzebub in the flesh. But the crazies can give him a run for his money.

I'm good with Yellow Dogs!

YELLOW DOG, agreed. Our Paulistinian fringe annoys the heck outta me.

Accept he can't work with people and has continually proven so.

Um no, I don't accept that at all.

I didnt mind bailing out GM because they at least make something.

So was Pennsylvania Rail Road. And we allowed them to go under because the automobile and airplane became superior modes of travel. That argument is ignorant at best. They were making an inferior product. That should not be rewarded, that should not be coddled. They were bested in a fair market place.

All the banks make is paper (not just money paper, but contracts and dividends, futures and things they can bet on with more paper)... and paper causes bubbles.

So do tulips! Ban tulips! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania

Seriously though, you're leading me to believe that the left wing is right when they say the Republican party is void of any intellectual thought. Your comment reinforces that statement.

All that aside... Id rather not spend the money at all.. but I realize that in order to make money you have to move money, and the biggest money movers arent the biggest companies, they hoard money.

Incorrect. Hoarded money has virtually no return. The expression "The rich get richer" isn't because they sit on piles of money.

it's just reality. I'd rather give money to the poor and small company owners as investments. Just my opinion.

As would I, however, sacrificing financial liberty for financial security is no different than sacrificing physical liberty for physical security. In the end we will deserve neither. Further, that's not the role of the federal government.

If you want a discussion Matt in MN... blaming my thought processes for the failure of the party and calling me ignorant of current affairs as well as void of intellectual thought isnt a very good first step in taking this party back.

But thanks for playing the... lets change her mind by telling her she's wrong because I think she's wrong game... lets see how much further that gets us in any discussion.

Inferior product or no, at least it's a tangible marketable product, unlike bloated overpriced fees for money lending advice (aka the finance gurus services).

Like it or not, our country has disentigrated into an economy based practically entirely on invisible goods and services. What happens when people find out that those services are backed, supported and made possible by a big bunch of hot air and paper? A balloon burst...

I prefer GM over bank bailout. I go further to say I prefer no bailout, but the reason why bailout was "needed" was again because people decided investing in paper was a better way to make money. It's easier... but leaves us wide open for this crap to happen. And when the dust settles no one wants to spend a red cent on anything... because its all worth a big pile of crap.

The rich do get richer by sitting on piles of money... I dont mean they literally dont spend it... they spend it on more paper. They havent invested in anything of worth or value in YEARS, even decades. They continue only to buy other companies, partition them, sell them, invest in futures in them, sell the futures, bet on the futures, deal with the stocks, play with the paper and generally make a killing on "attitude" of the market. There is no worth there... NONE.

I agree wholeheartedly in small business people and hard workers keeping the money they earned. I dont want to curb people who are making money or unfairly tax them because they do make a lot of money...

I do think that taxing money that is made by betting for and against paper is taxible... people arent working for that money... they arent earning that money... they arent even making that money work for anything or anyone of value. That is crap. I would gladly pay 30, 40 or even 50% on my capital gains. It's money I made by doing and contributing nothing to anyone but myself. Its free @!$%#ing money... and people shouldnt be afraid to call someone for making free money on a system that is built for people to make more free money then whine when they are asked to give some it back.

We had near total financial liberty once... and it ended in 1929... for good reason. No game in life should be played without a few rules.

It'll be interesting listening to the conservative pundits attempt to deny the existance of "Obama Republicans". Much like the phrase "Reagan Democrat" was added to the vernacular of U.S. politics, I predict that after it's all said and done, that the phrase "Obama Republican" just may be an appropriate way to describe the sandblasting of the shellack after the 2012 elections. We should starting using this phrase immediately and often so that it sounds natural when spoken.....and folks can start getting used to it. Besides, if this phrase is added to the American vernacular, it's will be so much fun just to watch the FOX News opinion jockey's heads explode.

Miss_Diagnosed, #4.30, spoken like a true American.

Anyway, as I said Obama is the only rational choice.  And a good one

Mofongo

No about rational. This is why we change Presidents every 4 years. So far our gracious President is a control freak and......we are not children.

Yeah, well I'm one of them. Registered Republican who will vote for Obama. It's not even close. There is no choice to make.

We all make our choices and live with the consequences. Believe me, at the end of the day your choice is not any better then mine.

The rich do get richer by sitting on piles of money... I dont mean they literally dont spend it... they spend it on more paper.  They havent invested in anything of worth or value in YEARS, even decades.  They continue only to buy other companies, partition them, sell them, invest in futures in them, sell the futures, bet on the futures, deal with the stocks, play with the paper and generally make a killing on "attitude" of the market.  There is no worth there... NONE.

I wish that I am in that position.

Why do you blame the not to spend and save? Our dollar does not have the same value as before.

Why to give Hollywood my hard earned dollars? The stars use theirs for heavy drugs and later die.

Believe me, at the end of the day your choice is not any better then mine.

I don't believe it. And it should be "than mine"...not, "then mine." Just sayin'.

I'm sorry tyler... I dont see the user name insult that you do. What are you talking about?

Just curious... I dont understand what I did wrong.

Oh... yikes.. I see... I typed Morongo... I'm sorry Mofongo... that was a total typo on my part. I apologize!!!!

No game in life should be played without a few rules.

I absolutly love this line.

Actually, I think the line would be more realistically stated like this:

No game should be played without knowing which rules you can break and when...

Miss_Diagnosed

If you want a discussion Matt in MN... blaming my thought processes for the failure of the party and calling me ignorant of current affairs as well as void of intellectual thought isnt a very good first step in taking this party back.

But thanks for playing the... lets change her mind by telling her she's wrong because I think she's wrong game... lets see how much further that gets us in any discussion.

Well I don't understand your logic. How is the paper worthless?

Lets look at the alternatives that even the mainstream Republicans do not champion. When McCain said we need to stop the crazy element. He sure got that right. Lets look at the gold standard. The key failure of the gold standard is that it will lead to higher unemployment and let rich people horde gold and do even less to get richer. This will lead to more income inequality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWbB1s_pk8E

Why de-regulation does not work.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YwUnjqsIQM

The GOP has a big point in their favor with a majority of Americans: Nearly everyone has seen their buying power rot away over the years, due to compression of wages and/or not-so-great investments. These people now see their portfolios as their only savior. The GOP's unabashed desires and actions to increase returns on investments, thus gains them support.

Higher returns are nice, but the "low hanging fruit" has long since been picked. Today, it is done by exporting living-wage jobs, bashing unions of those who're left, or otherwise gaining ROI's by taking them away from workers. How easy it is to announce "changes" to employee pay or benefits, and then sit back and count the money. As long as the GOP is dedicated to this sort of thing, they will get votes. I don't want to "earn" money by throwing other Americans under the bus. But there are plenty who are quite willing to do so.

If you want a discussion Matt in MN... blaming my thought processes for the failure of the party and calling me ignorant of current affairs as well as void of intellectual thought isnt a very good first step in taking this party back.

First, I never said you were any of those things. I said, your arguments are representing a position that is indicative of those things. Which is undeniably true.

lets change her mind by telling her she's wrong because I think she's wrong game... lets see how much further that gets us in any discussion.

I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm trying to correct your obviously misguided perceptions and present you with an alternative to making patently false claims and ignorant arguments. I'm trying to help you!

Inferior product or no, at least it's a tangible marketable product

Inferior product does not equate to a tangible marketable product. That is an oxymoron.

unlike bloated overpriced fees for money lending advice (aka the finance gurus services)

"Bloated" is impossible. If you think it's "bloated" don't use it. The price is set to what the market will bear. If the market will accept prices that you deem "bloated" it's not the product at fault - it's the consumer you should be blaming.

In addition, this is another indicative comment to your utter refusal to base your argument on a position of fact.

Like it or not, our country has disentigrated into an economy based practically entirely on invisible goods and services.

At one point, our economy was based entirely on agriculture. It "disintegrated" into a manufacturing based economy. Then it "disintegrated" into a tech economy. You say this like A.) It's a bad thing and B.) It's unnatural. Based on the rest of your arguments, I'm not willing to take your word for it.

What happens when people find out that those services are backed, supported and made possible by a big bunch of hot air and paper? A balloon burst.

A balloon that was inflated by the federal government - but - alas, bubbles can be created by TULIPS - I don't see you clamoring and stumping around to put controls on tulips.

I prefer GM over bank bailout

This says mountains about your ideological leanings. Me? I'm against both.

I go further to say I prefer no bailout, but the reason why bailout was "needed" was again because people decided investing in paper was a better way to make money. It's easier... but leaves us wide open for this crap to happen. And when the dust settles no one wants to spend a red cent on anything... because its all worth a big pile of crap.

So let's extend your analogy to the automotive industry. The consumer was not going to spend a red cent on a GM because it was worth a big pile of crap. You're apparently okay with them being bailed out. Just out of curiosity does your hypocrisy know any limits?

They havent invested in anything of worth or value in YEARS, even decades...There is no worth there... NONE.

It's impossible to even discuss this topic any further with you. Your argument has denigrated itself to platitudes and lamentably false statements. It's beyond asinine.

they arent even making that money work for anything or anyone of value.

Are you f'n kidding me? This is such a blatantly wrong comment - it's barely worth even pointing out.

I would gladly pay 30, 40 or even 50% on my capital gains.

Good, because after the corporate tax rate, you are.

It's money I made by doing and contributing nothing to anyone but myself. Its free @!$%#ing money.

I either hope that you have someone else making you that "free" money or you don't make that "free" money for anyone else. Your knowledge and expertise on investment and finance are severely lacking based on your arguments.

We had near total financial liberty once... and it ended in 1929... for good reason.

Does that honestly justify it to you to sacrifice all of your financial liberty? So since, the stock market, according to your flawed ideology has no value, how about we shut it down? You on board with that?

No game in life should be played without a few rules.

Except, the federal government doesn't create rules, they pick winners and losers.

johny

I'm not talking about gold backed money, or money in general.... or even the exchange rate (although that is the next big ticket to wealthy since the world doesnt regulate exchanges and right now, the fluxuating currency rates are like a full trough to the pigs).

I'm talking about the method by which most billionaires become billionaires... they bet paper exchanges against other paper exchanges.

When you pay money for something tangible, it makes money worth something. So I can say... 1 dollar will buy me 1 apple, which is worth 1 snack. A snack is useful for me because I spent 1 dollar on my food supply for the day. Say my whole day's worth of food is 5 bucks... then I know that I can predetermine my spending habits based on 5 bucks worth of food.

In business I can invest 1000 bucks on a new computer... that computer could employ X number of people from start to finish of production... I could employ one person who needs the new computer to do a better job. I have also added something of worth to my business.

Now... if I pay money for something intangible, it makes the money worth some unknown value. The unknown goes up or down in relation to the intangible. So I buy 5 bucks of amazon stock, which someone thinks is worth 10 bucks and I just doubled my paper... but amazon really isnt worth anything extra.... then I trade that 10 bucks for ATT which goes up to 20 bucks and again... ATT isnt worth anything more, it is just thought of as worth more... I continue this trend until I'm trading in futures... where I buy some paper that says I think that ATT will become X price in the next three months or I will bet against myself... or I trade my dividends (the actual earnings that I'm paid back) to some other person who is betting my dividends will actually yeild more than what I think they will because someone thinks ATT will produce a profit worth paying larger sums...

Now I'm investing in the idea the company is worth more than it is... and the company starts cooking some books... maybe I know the accountant related to my aunt's best friend and I sell all my stock right before the book cookin comes out... Now I've left a whole bunch of people will a failing company who everyone realizes isnt worth what they said they were.

And I'm allowed to keep 85-90% of that money at current rates.

Tell me, what worth was added to the companies I invested in? What jobs were resultant from my play up the stock exchange?

Now extrapolate that into the billions... At this point I can throw my weight around the market. I BECOME the person who says which company is actually "worth" something because I spend accordingly. Do I have a real job? Am I adding anything of worth to the market? No... I just take some money and throw it at a company, bloat the idea that the company is worth something, then sell in small bursts...

There are a million new scenerios open from this point and almost none of them include innovation, value-building, hard work or contributing anything to the job market.... but it wont stop them from screaming bloody murder at being taxed because the money they play with was "already taxed once".

I apologize Matt in MN. You are right and I am wrong.

So much for constructive conversation.

You know... I was going to leave this alone... but I cant...

Matt in MN... if you really want to help people, here is some advice... instead of picking apart what someone says and then saying each section is wrong because it shows ignorance or whatever... how about trying some rational debate?

I dont discredit that you have an opposing view, and I definitely dont want you to think the same way I do... but when I respond to you, I do not pick your statements out in a disrespectful way.

Let me give you an example (which by the way is really hard because you havent offered many single points that show your own opinion in discourse, just pick at everything and say it's ignorant):

So do tulips! Ban tulips! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania

Do you really think that the tulip market in holland is a fair comparison to the stock market of today? The tulip market was based on speculation, yes, but to compare that simplistic organization to the stock market shows a real ignorance of the way the stock market works. I sure hope you arent applying the same principles learned from the tulip market to your stock market returns.

Now, what I said up there is baiting, it's rude and it isnt constructive... it sure doesnt help... as you most definitely assert you are trying to do for me... and it is taking something out of context to make a completely asinine point about the way someone else thinks just to justify a superior feeling and attitude about someone else's opinion.

Do you really think that the tulip market in holland is a fair comparison to the stock market of today? The tulip market was based on speculation, yes, but to compare that simplistic organization to the stock market shows a real ignorance of the way the stock market works

I'm not the one drawing the comparisons. I'm pointing out the very things that you're railing against, are not isolated to the those issues.

I sure hope you arent applying the same principles learned from the tulip market to your stock market returns.

Yet, that's exactly what you're doing when you're talking about bubbles bursting solely because of finance. It's an absurd argument, because all you're offering are platitudes devoid of any basis in reality.

Now, what I said up there is baiting, it's rude and it isnt constructive

I didn't interpret it that way at all. Especially, since it was so incorrect and indicative of the exact reason why your arguments are so baseless.

and it is taking something out of context to make a completely asinine point

Hmmm...That sounds familiar - let me help:

they arent even making that money work for anything or anyone of value.

I would gladly pay 30, 40 or even 50% on my capital gains.

It's money I made by doing and contributing nothing to anyone but myself. Its free @!$%#ing money.

No game in life should be played without a few rules.

What happens when people find out that those services are backed, supported and made possible by a big bunch of hot air and paper? A balloon burst.

It's easier... but leaves us wide open for this crap to happen. And when the dust settles no one wants to spend a red cent on anything... because its all worth a big pile of crap.

All the banks make is paper (not just money paper, but contracts and dividends, futures and things they can bet on with more paper)... and paper causes bubbles.

None of these statements apply any more than the Dutch tulip crisis to our stock market - further, our economy as a whole. That's what makes your argument ignorant and absurd. All I'm doing is pointing out the very obvious generic flaws in your argument.

Now, all of these comments in perpetuity demonstrate an argument that is seriously lacking in any form of intelligent thought. I'm sure you're a very bright person, I just can't figure out why you would be making such ignorant arguments.

So much for constructive conversation.

If you're in favor of constructive conversation, might I suggest not making such asinine arguments devoid of any basis in reality.

Miss_D...

Do you understand where the money goes when you invest in a company? Or are you under the impression it merely sits in a safe somewhere until you sell your stock?

That money is used by the company to invest in things like expansion (more jobs, both white and blue collar), R&D (new, improved products and more jobs), and marketing (even more jobs).

And you, as an investor (do you have a 401(k)?), make money.

More jobs, great! Which country do most of 'em go to, China? India? Korea?

And can any conserv ever "earn" enough ROI's?

Where the jobs go depends on the global labor market parameters and variables.

No, not exactly; where jobs go depends on where they provides the biggest gain in profits and investment returns. Three points come into play in the matter: gimmee, gimmee, gimmee.

And....I know 2 Dems at least that are going to vote ABO. Santorum is not a Saint of my devotion, but....anyone deserves a change an get a medal.

demented not determined--only 2?

If I had a 10% approval rating at my job I would be fired. But what can we do to the Dems and GOP in congress? They don't care because we have no real recourse. We are scared to vote our party out because it may open the door for the other party.

If I had a 10% approval rating at my job I would be fired.

that's for sure! You would thing they would get together and get some GOOD going for the country. Hopefully the Dems can pick up seats in both houses and change the landscape a little. No where to go but UP ^

You people do realize that 10% approval rating includes the Dem controlled Senate also right?

You do realize 20% of Republicans are voting for Barack Obama right?

Of course not Boston. Doesn't appear math is important or relevant in this situation. Sorry Jimster, one little blub in an article 10 months out from election time is nothing to hang your hopes on.

Coral, despite your insult, I agree with you that both are not equally dismal. I would give the Dems a 20% rating rather than 10%, and the GOP a 5%.

And Boston, yes we understand the Dems are included when describing "Congress".

But ignoring the partisan attacks... does anyone care to provide a solution instead of point fingers? Unless you are perfectly happy with your party... how do we show our displeasure at congress without allowing the "other party" to slip in.

Bravo, sendlo. You point up an important distinction in these kinds of discussions: Are we talking about issues, or, are we exploiting issues as vehicles to lambaste our political "enemies" because playing sport with partisan hatred is more "fun" and cathartic than actually talking about the facts of the issues.

Facts transcend politics. Opinions are fine. Differing opinions are fine, and to be expected. It's not necessary to frame every discussion in "my team is better than yours." It's a choice. And if the old quotation, "fiddling while Rome burns," were ever more aptly applied than in current American partisan warfare, then I can't imagine what it is, other than ancient Rome itself.

The way I see it, one team is better than the other one and I have to do everything within my power to help make sure that the better one wins. I think that the country will be better off that way.

whining. ;-) which you seem to be an advocate for...

I don't know why I or anybody bothers to come to your articles/seeds or why Newsvine allows you to even continue to be here with that kind of so-called "moderating," which is nothing more than heckling. If 6.10, which was made in sincerity and good faith, is "whining" to you, then what are your posts? That was a rhetorical statement about emotional childishness and insecurity, not a question, so please don't answer.

my conservative reagan loving step dad said if its romney he is voting obama, I think the same for santorum...he does like gingrich.....but if its romney obama gets his vote.

Not much to brag about, is it?

A moderate among Republicans is the same as a sighted man amongst the blind.

They just can't see well enough to pick that guy to run for president...

usually when you vote for "none" you have an idea of the one you would like.

Maybe the Grumpy-Dopey" pairing?? Seem like good Repugs to me...one is obstinate and the other is stupid - just like their candidates.

Nope, I don't really like any contenders or the current POTUS. I'll be hard pressed to find a reason to vote. Ideally if we could take bits and pieces of all 5 (4 GOP and President Obama) and blend them together that would be ideal to me. I like bits and pieces of each piece of the puzzle but standing alone each piece doesn't make much sense.

it's not like Chinese take-out. You can't choose 1 from column A and 2 from Column B. You get the whole magilla - the good, the bad and the UUUUGGLY (and the right wing nuts are rather UGLY!)

whoop,

Therein lies my dilemma, 4 uglies and a poser and not one of them worthy of my vote. 4 out of the 5 (Ron Paul excluded)have big money behind them and will be the best money can buy. All will give lip service to the middle class and none will truly give a damn. It's been this way as long as I can remember and yet they will find people to follow. I was inspired by president Obama at first then let down when the change he promised never materialized. He promised to change the tone, be transparent... then looked at McCain and said "we won John" and I knew nothing was going to be different.

Rep Ron Paul will bring US Senator R. Paul to the WH. Very refreshing.

Not in the Republican party, will that ever happen, determined0a1. The GOP would burn the WH to the ground before that would happen. They are too liberal.

In his last address, Boehner faltered a lot when reading his message. Frankly, I think this guy needs to lay off the sauce, he is handicapped both ethically and chemically. This is the voice of his party? There is something terribly wrong going on in congress.

Ambivalent--They started out drinking the tea, now they are smoking it!

If that were so we might be better off.

big fish
small fish
red fish
DEAD FISH (that's bonehead in a nutshell - oh, yeah - remove the SHELL)

I have always said especially if its Romney or Santorum it will be a 40+ state win for Obama, if its Gingrich it will be close.

They really really do need to clean house. It's either that or join the dinosaurs and the dodo birds in history books.

Given the evidence from this survey, it is far more likely to go the other way, a complete demoractic sweep. The public is very sick of the negative rhetoric, the demeaning attitude, and the disparagement cast upon them by the Republicans. They are completley out of touch with the real concerns of the average American. See #17 below. The Republicans are their own worst enemy.

Ahh, I see the new radical wish list is being created. Hope for four years of disintergartion of our country is sooooo patriotic.

Hope for four years of disintergartion of our country is sooooo patriotic.

First of all, I have no idea of what "disintergartion" is, so I cant comment further.

But if you meant "disintegration", no, I'm not hoping for that. I have investments that I need to grow for my retirement, and I also want prices to either stabalize, or come down.

I want better schools, I want a better infrastructure.

Is the current clown in the WH the person to get this done? He hasnt proved it so far.

Oh, but I forgot...the poor baby gets too much "obstructionism" from his non-believers.

Too bad...if you cant take the heat, then get out.

the GOP can capture the Senate, then Obama is a dead fish.

Yep, I'm for certain the teapugs are smoking the tea...

Wow, 'the boy-who-would-be-king' is a mouthful of crap. He's fifty, how the heck old are you, or does this pertain to something other than his calendar age?

In summary: He can't get enough done because we deliberately obstruct, and although we want what he wants, we will obstruct until he leaves.

That is some really convoluted reasoning. Amazing...

And I also figure the country will be in such sad shape by then

We are all fortunate that this statement has no basis in reality

Thank you spelling police for your condesention. I have a bit of dyslexia and I am left handed so typing is not my strong suit.

I hope you investments do get better It Ain't So. Maybe then you will gain some sense of satisfaction and relax more.

All of us want to see things get better. You are not alone in that department.

We are all fortunate that this statement has no basis in reality

There is no "reality" until it does or does not happen.

Thank you spelling police for your condesention.

Oh, I'm just yanking your chain a lil, Vlad. I actually like you, and your writings.

(Bet that made your day, now didnt it?)

That is some really convoluted reasoning. Amazing...

Not really...unless you want to sit there and tell me that the Dems worked hand-in-hand with Bush on every issue.

Blaming the GOP for everything past and present is childish. I do think that the GOP should pick their battles better, and I do agree that they arent doing themselves any favors these days...period.

It should say alot that the primary reason obama will get re-elected is the absence of a quality candidate from the opposing party...period.

Kinda like the Indy Colts playing a HS team for a championship. The Colts arent good at all, but they would probably win that battle.

Thanks Dude. I guess I got a little defensive. I apologize.

No need to apologize. Have a good day...

It Aint So

I think your optimism is admirable but I see the Republicans losing the oval office the House, and the Senate in a clean sweep by Republicans. Meaning that Democrats won't so much win as Republicans will give voters every incentive to vote for the candidate who is "not them".

I see large numbers of moderates, independents, women, minorities, gays, organized labor, and elderly all running away from Republicans and towards Democrats. While the Republicans attract the much smaller groups of wealthy voters and rabid religious zealots from the less populous former southern slave states. I don't see the math working in favor of the Republican party in 2012 with or without the Gerrymandering they are trying to use to rig elections in states like Texas or the lame attempt at "Voter ID" laws in southern states which are just a thinly disguised resurrection of Jim Crow for the 21st century.

Yeah, if the clean sweep happens in the executive and legislative branch, the judicial branch is a given.

Supreme Court justices live a long damn time...

income inequality

Otherwise known as class warfare. Which THIS President knows and tries to do so well.

It ain't so

No, It ain't so---Income inequality is a real problem, its a fact that can be measured, you can't redefine it with antagonistic rhetoric like "Class Warfare" and expect to work in any positive way towards a solution. If a few people are becoming ultra rich and powerful while a majority of people are becoming poor and powerless that's a big problem in a democracy. If that trend contiues long enough you will soon have some sort of totalitarian monarchy/ dictatorship. If that happens then you really will have class warfare. Then and only then will it be appropriate to use your definition since it will no longer be rhetoric but fact.

Do you find it at all ironic that your term "Class warfare" applied to a simpler problem like income inequality could actually lead to the very thing YOU DON"T WANT???

IAS- yes we know - you have the normal talking points down to a T.

There is no "class warfare" and realistically, you know it as well as I do. It's a matter of the 1% whining about not wanting to pay that extra 4% that they've been able to avoid now for how long. Under Clinton when the tax rate was 39% things were just fine. Class Warfare has become the new mantra to distract and deflect.

Trouble is: EVERYONE sees right through it.

Not EVERYONE.

If raising taxes was a good idea, Obama would've done it in 2009 or 2010.

Fact is, Obama had both houses and none of his solutions worked. Go figure?

What's you talking point comeback for that?

In "Class Warfare" the ammo is money.

Guess who has all the bullets?

Guess who's winning the war?

I seem to remember the Stimulus being forced through (bypassing Obama's self-imposed 5 day waiting period) to guarantee unemployment remaining below a certain number.

One man's vapid is another's ammo. Truth? You seem to be suffering from selective memory syndrome. The watering down of the stimulus was very minor. Democrats watered down Obamacare on a much higher level.

If the stimulus "worked" and the economy is recovering, why alter tax rates? You don't get this both ways Coral. Do you not remember Obama saying that raising tax rates on ANYONE in a recession was a bad idea:

w ww.youtube.com/watch?v=8glbYVk3WSo

What the Hell, let us call a spade a spade. If anything that the GOTHP has been saying is true, then I will move to Canada and become a survivalist.

Gee, Coral...isn't there something in the CoH about personal attacks? Deliberately twisting a viner's screen name and calling him/her vapid would tend to fall under that category.

Try moderating your own posts, even if you choose not to moderate the inflammatory posts of those with whom you agree.

FYI

The T.E.A. Party started after the Dems won the WH.

And......Glen Beck has an ad in the Chris Matthews Show.

then charge us 25% for credit

Coral just where and for what are you paying 25 % interest?

CA gets a week for that?

IS this a PG room? I thought at least most of the people in here were 21+. Youngsters usually do not hang out in political rooms.

Matter of fact....isn't he the seeder?

I think you should get a year for a predictable pun...

But I'm a tough grader.

Just think of the misery a punster causes. The groans, the moans, the almost irresistable urge to slap...

Don't you know polls are only skewed when they do not go in the liberal's favor?

I would agree with you. World Nut Daily and Wenzel are credibly and ethically challenged, to say the least. If Wenzel comes in with a poll favoring the President, I can only assume that the 20% is much higher a number than they care to publish. Perhaps this is their warning salvo across the bow to get those on the right back in line?

Perhaps this is their warning salvo across the bow to get those on the right back in line?

I was thinking reverse psychology, perhaps to light a fire under their butts, since the primaries are showing voter apathy from the republicans.

Don't you know polls are only skewed when they do not go in the liberal's favor?

But then you never whine when the polls don't favor your group do you Boston.

No we are not "covered in warts" I am really tired of this kind of snide and cynical insult. This is America and this is the democratic process that is going on, its the process that keeps us free and assures us of fair representation. If you don't like it pack your dang bags, otherwise reform your attitude and join the process.

I am all for the democratic process. But misinformation and political spin talk and ideological parroting neither solves issues or informs the voting public. Would you like a better president or a president that looks better? Why doesn't either party explain the virtues of their own views rather then demonize the others? I am against negative campaigning and if people like me have our way we won't be reforming our attitude and joining the process; we will be reforming the process and changing attitudes.

People like us can see thru it, and there are a lot of "us" out there. when you reform your attitude and join the process you also reform the attitude of others. People are already tired of negative ads, they are the questioning Citizens United decision, politicians are already having problems with their Pac sponsors, Corporations are wondering what political positions they can and cannot support and still retain their customer base, and the misinformation is embarassing liars at every turn, so the reform you speak of has already started. $hit happens and $hit gets cleaned up. The government is NOT the enemy, we are the government. There is no point in blaming both sides, we are both sides. The founding fathers understood that we all want to attain the same worthy and lofty goals, we just differ on how to get there, if we discuss it long enough we will find a way that we can all live with and we will still get there!

I think a lot of disillusioned conservatives will stay home, the wind is out of their sails, they will not vote for anyone. The recent turn out in Missouri, Minnesota and Colorado was dismally low. They are already starting to concede the election to Obama.

The republicans want to:

Get rid of Medicare.

Get rid of Social Security

Get rid of programs that help Mentally and Physically handicapped, safety nets.

Get rid of programs that help kids go to college.

They want all the money for these programs to go into the 1% Casino, the Stock market and we know the house ALWAYS wins.

How can any 99%er feel enthusiastic about republicans getting into office and representing only the 1%.

What is the turn out at recent republican primary polls telling us?

tt16, they don't want to "get rid" of those programs; they want to reorganize them so they are sustainable. You know, so we don't end up like Greece.

Are you aware of the fact that Greece is in the economic trouble it is in because too many Greeks refused to pay their taxes? They prefer to bribe tax officials than to pay up, and the tax officials are corrupt. And yet, they protest against austerity, they want it all free, they want it now, and don't care about the government coffers (which are now empty)! Do they teach math in Greece?

That is not the case in this country. In this country people are willing to pay what they must to get what they need.

Except for the wealthy and corporations, they need nothing so they want to give nothing, and are willing to go through all kinds of machinations to ensure they can do that. Just ask Romney about that.

ambivolent, nearly half of US taxpayers don't pay federal income tax.

That is a huge problem.

Half the taxpayers don't pay because they don't earn enough to pay and that is a big problem. Income Inequality is the problem. We have to move money that has trickled up to the 1% since Reagan back to the 99% so that everyone makes enough to pay taxes. That would be great.

There is more to taxation than federal taxes, try lookihg up state taxes and see who pays the most, it is unbelievable what this country does to the poorest of us. I'll find it for you...

soaking-poor-state-state There is no denying the facts.

tt16:

The republicans want to: Get rid of Medicare. Get rid of Social Security. Get rid of programs that help Mentally and Physically handicapped, safety nets. Get rid of programs that help kids go to college. They want all the money for these programs to go into the 1% Casino, the Stock market and we know the house ALWAYS wins. How can any 99%er feel enthusiastic about republicans getting into office and representing only the 1%.

Republicans claim any money not given to the rich is wasted. From seed:

America... veers right to reclaim its positions as the most vibrant economy in the world and the home of individual liberty.

They define "America" as a small aristocracy who has all the money and no one else has any. The "economy" right now is almost entirely composed of rich people, which is why cutting taxes and "regulations" "helps the economy" because it makes the rich richer and everyone else poorer. "Individual liberty" is freedom of the rich to exploit and oppress the people for profit.

Rational Brent, Think beyond the talking points---conservatives want to "reorganize" entitlement programs, sure they do, they want to reorganize them OUT OF EXISTANCE and turn most of their functions over to private companies. 50% of the people don't pay ANY taxes, thats false---they don't pay federal income taxes because they CAN"T AFFORD TO and we have a legally established graduated income tax system but those same folks pay a whole host of other regressive taxes just like everyone else.

You guys want me to get past talking points?

Explain to me in detail in your own words what "Income Equality" is and what specifically needs to be done to "fix" it.

Nearly half of US taxpayers don't pay federal income tax. That is a huge problem.

Prove it!

Explain to me in detail in your own words what "Income Equality" is and what specifically needs to be done to "fix" it.

Brent is unaware of how the playing field is tilted toward the rich and how all the money flows to them. For example, the rich capitalist class has top government officials and multinational organizations such as WTO help them out by regulating and securing the flow of capital from one country to another to take advantage of cheap labor in one country and rich markets in another. But we working class people have no one to look after our interests. The rich have paid lobbyists to protect their private interests while we have none. We are pawns in a rich man's world.

Brent is also unaware of the 15.3 trillion dollars stolen from the public treasury and handed to the rich. The rich have stolen trillions of dollars more in public debt than all consumer debt combined, that is, all the home loans, car loans, credit card loans together. Furthermore that consumer debt is being paid down by private citizens while the rich continue to loot the treasury of more trillions at this moment. The richest of the rich have stolen the most of all, the top one tenth of one percent having stolen 2.5 trillion of YOUR public money.

Brent,

We the American Tax payer pay for the protection of the world wide business interests of numerous multi-national corporations. Its our military, its our patent laws, its our legal system, its our diplomatic corps. These same Corporations shelter their profits in OFFSHORE TAX HAVENS so that they will not have to pay US taxes. In fact many of those same corporations actually get tax refiunds numbered in the 100's of millions. What do you think this costs? If you can't answer that, tell me when was the last time a fully armed nuclear powered aircraft carrier floated past your off shore drilling rigs!

While all of this is going on executives at these companies are getting huge bonuses and scheming to fix prices, destroy unions, bankrupt competition and exploit our natural resources while they pollute our environment. And yes these are the same executives that look down their nose at you from their limo on the way to their private jet. This is income inequality---this is take from the middle class and give scot free to the ultra rich.

Why wouldn't they? , Obama governs as a centrist.

Hell, I think he leans slightly to the right myself. He has shown himself to be another corporatist.

You are right. If each and everyone of us took only what we needed, we all would live in abundance.

Interestingly, we have voted the work away by repeatedly opting for supply-siders who convinced us that a plutocracy will raise all boats. It doesn't. It, in fact, creates one huge mega-yacht.

Ceding the leverage and value of our jobs to the executive class has resulted in a green light for those in charge to outsource our workforce to the lowest bidder - in effect destroying the middle class in America.

The problems we face today are because the people who work for a living can no longer make a living due to 40 years of Supply Side economics.

Get it right.

and the SCOTUS!!!!

I would like to get politics entirely off the SC, not just the Republican side of it. The rights issues the SC is charged with deciding are devoid of politics--or, rather, they're supposed to be.

Interestingly, during his administration, Reagan nominated two very good jurists--Sandra Day O'Connor and Douglas Ginsburg. O'Connor turned out to be a reasonable and fair Justice. She certainly did pro-choice proud. Also, as a funny aside, if she and Clarence Thomas were on the same side and he wrote the opinion, she would insist on writing a separate one herself. Also, she refused to join a single one of his dissents.

Ginsburg, who I think is brilliant, withdrew his name from nomination when it came out that he smoked weed. :) Sadly, Kennedy was eventually confirmed in his place.

We shouldn't be so quick to stereotype. John Paul Stevens was nominated by a Republican and was one of the finest, imho, justices we've had in recent history. Warren Burger was also nominated by a Republican.

And what I like about those examples, as well as many nominees from Democratic presidents, is that they kept politics out of decision-making. Sadly, that doesn't seem to be the case with Kennedy, Scalia, Alito and Thomas.

Sowell can always be counted on to release some America-hating anti-democratic smear. It's what he does for a living, it's what he's paid to do by his capitalist masters.