Hello:

We got Dog on roof guy, or Man on dog guy.. I can't decide.

excon

What?

You mean dog on man guy?

wtf?Hello NK:

Well, you ARE a Canadian...

Mitt Romney strapped his dog to his car roof while the family made a cross country trip... Rick Santorum believes that if gay people are allowed to marry, we'll be on our way to "man on dog" marriages...

excon

Oh.. thanks. Carry on.

Neither are looking very good to me at this time. Romney stepped into it big time with the campaign finance disclosures. He seems hell bent to play his Thurston Howell, III image for all it's worth .
Luxury Hotels Of The Romney Campaign (http://pinterest.com/thinkprogress/luxury-hotels-of-the-romney-campaign/)

By the way... he did not "strap his dog to the roof". He put the dog carrier on the roof and the dog travelled in relative comfort in the carrier (until it got the runs) . I imagine the dog had a better ride than those frequent cases where dogs are sedated and put in the cargo hold of airplanes.

Santorum needs to know when to make a political answer . He says too much in his replies . He isn't wrong .But ,as the President might say , sometimes his answers could be more "artful" .

I don't know about any man on dog issues, but this appears to be a real story.

Dog on Santorum (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/rick-santorum-and-the-dog-that-had-an-accident/2012/02/19/gIQAgNJkNR_blog.html?tid=pm_politics_pop)

He has a single tale of being peed on by a dog ? That's happened to me too often to remember . Sounds like he handled it well.

Hello:

"April 20, 2003, Santorum stated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_controversy_regarding_homosexuality)that he believed mutually consenting adults do not have a constitutional right to privacy with respect to sexual acts. Santorum described the ability to regulate consensual homosexual acts as comparable to the states' ability to regulate other consensual and non-consensual sexual behavior, such as adultery, polygamy, child molestation, incest, and bestiality, whose decriminalization he believed would threaten society and the family, as they are not monogamous and heterosexual."

Isn't bestiality man on dog??

excon

The complete unedited interview segment is here
Raw Data: Excerpts of Santorum's AP Interview | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84862,00.html)

He's right you know .If the so called 'right to privacy 'is absolute ,then the state has no business making restrictions on that behavior so long as it's consentual. But states have always had the right to define the parameters of what is marriage ;and what is approved behavior in private . He just didn't say it "artfully" .

Here is the real key part of this interview :


Would a President Santorum eliminate a right to privacy — you don't agree with it?


SANTORUM: I've been very clear about that. The right to privacy is a right that was created in a law that set forth a (ban on) rights to limit individual passions. And I don't agree with that. So I would make the argument that with President, or Senator or Congressman or whoever Santorum, I would put it back to where it is, the democratic process. If New York doesn't want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn't agree with it, but that's their right. But I don't agree with the Supreme Court coming in.

The only man on dog issues I have is if I see that dane in my yard again it is a stake right thought him

Romney may have taken the dog on trips on the roof of his car, but at least he didn't eat him.

Obama as a Boy Ate Dog Meat (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/obama-as-a-boy-ate-dog-meat/)

Jim Treacher's response (http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/17/obama-bites-dog/)? "I know the Secret Service has a lot to deal with right now, but are they protecting Bo? From Obama, I mean."

I'm only concerned about Bo's private jet rides.
Was Obama dog Bo flown back from Hawaii holiday to Washington for photo op? | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2077721/Was-Obama-dog-Bo-flown-Hawaii-holiday-Washington-photo-op.html)

Well, Romney is toast. Obama campaign staffers saw (http://barackobama.tumblr.com/post/20940829314/a-good-omen-for-the-next-208-days) the Obama logo in a glass of beer. Personally I think it looks more like a snail.

Was it a staffer or someone from his Secret Service Advance Team ?

Good question, maybe his advance team was also working on the campaign so they could continue their sweet gig next year.

Maybe this will help you decide, Romney's apparently a bad neighbor (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/07/garden/mitt-romney-the-candidate-next-door.html?_r=4&hp&pagewanted=all). Although one neighbor says, “If this were Obama" she'd "probably be fine with it.”

Damn, that NYT is sure doing some bang-up investigative journalism these days. What next, his haircuts cost more than John Edwards' dos did?

Wow ! They are really probing and digging up that dirt!! Good job NY Slimes! Can't wait to read their 5,000 page expose on Obama's membership in the radical socialist 3rd Party in the 1990s ;the 'New Party'.

Can't wait to read their 5,000 page expose on Obama's membership in the radical socialist 3rd Party in the 1990s ;the 'New Party'.Hello again, tom:

More Brietbart stuff... Snicker.. Snicker... You're willing to buy ANYTHING negative about Obama, aren't you?

I WISH he were a socialist... Then we'd have single payer heath care - not a bunch of insurance companies making a FORTUNE off us like we do.. Somehow, THAT stuff goes right past you.

excon

Come on Ex, you know Tom and the right worship free markets, and hate unions and poor people. The whole world should be corporate controlled, and governed. Remember the New World Order. Slaves and rich people. That's why they love Scot Walker, the darling of the union busters, and Mitt Romney, the corporate king.

Tal what Ex is referring to is the Obaama Adm's secret emails where they struck a deal with the so called "BIG PHARMA " to concede on the issue that the President campaigned on... buying cheap imported drugs under Obamacare. Since sell out is a hallmark of national socialists(and international socialists for that matter ) I'm surprised anyone would be surprised.

Tom the issues here are to tax or not to tax, anything else is small cheese

tal what Ex is referring to is the Obaama Adm's secret emails where they struck a deal with the so called "BIG PHARMA " to concede on the issue that the President campaigned on ...... buying cheap imported drugs under Obamacare. Since sell out is a hallmark of national socialists(and international socialists for that matter ) I'm suprised anyone would be suprised.

I think he was referring to how you guys wouldn't consider single payer, because it was socialism. You guys have issues, you see socialism every where.

Look under your own bed.

I only see socialism where there is one.. . as in a President who strong arms insurance companies to go along with his plan or sets up a system that will force the rest to go out of business... or practices state socialism with the combination of threat and reward to the pharmaceutical companies .The reward being renaging on a campaign promise to allow cheaper imported drugs as an option

Then uses mandates to get the rest of us on board. The combination of which effectively takes over a huge section of the economy...

And mind you... this is but a preliminary step towards utopia... that single payer system you desire. What he didn't anticipate (or maybe he did) was the impending striking down of the law as completely unconstitutional .

And what leaverage did he have to strong arm and impose his will on these corporations??

I only see socialism where there is one .. ...as in a President who strong arms insurance companies to go along with his plan or sets up a system that will force the rest to go out of business ...or practices state socialism with the combination of threat and reward to the pharmaceutical companies .The reward being renaging on a campaign promise to allow cheaper imported drugs as an option

Then uses mandates to get the rest of us on board. The combination of which effectively takes over a huge section of the economy ....

and mind you ...this is but a preliminary step towards utopia ...that single payer system you desire. What he didn't anticipate (or maybe he did) was the impending striking down of the law as completely unconstitutional .

You still haven't let go of the fact your side lost, a single payer system isn't utopia but it can be fairer with only one criteria for eligability, you can still have your doctor, but you can also have a private insurer if you want

I only see socialism where there is one .. ...as in a President who strong arms insurance companies to go along with his plan or sets up a system that will force the rest to go out of business ...or practices state socialism with the combination of threat and reward to the pharmaceutical companies .The reward being renaging on a campaign promise to allow cheaper imported drugs as an option

And this is some how different to corporate oligarchies? You know, the ability of corporations with sufficient market power to influence the price, output and investment. The same ability to exercise a monopoly of power thus limiting the ability of new competition to enter the industry.

Sounds exactly the same system to me.

Tut

And this is some how different to corporate oligarchies? You know, the ability of corporations with sufficient market power to influence the price, output and investment. The same ability to exercise a monopoly of power thus limiting the ability of new competition to enter the industry.

Sounds exactly the same system to me.

Tut

Such as?

And this is some how different to corporate oligarchies? You know, the ability of corporations with sufficient market power to influence the price, output and investment. The same ability to exercise a monopoly of power thus limiting the ability of new competition to enter the industry.

Sounds exactly the same system to me.

Tut

The government has the power of force behind what it does.

Such as?

Oil
Energy
Drugs
Insurance
Banks
Farming
Investment Banking/ who has a candidate for president.
Manufacturing
Retail
Hi Tech

To name a few big ones.

The government has the power of force behind what it does.

The government is bought paid for, an dictated to. Because they have the money. Going price for the presidency, ONE billion dollars, and that's for republicans, an doesn't count Romney. He has his own loot.

Socialism cannot exist in a free market society. Hell, it barely is 10 percent of China!!

Oil
Energy
Drugs
Insurance
Banks
Farming
Investment Banking/ who has a candidate for president.
Manufacturing
Retail
Hi Tech

To name a few big ones.

So stop driving, go holistic, drop your insurance, bury your money in a can, grow your own food, make your own stuff and ditch the computers and cell phones.

The government is bought paid for, an dictated to. So you believe. The logical solution to that is term limits .
Going price for the presidency, ONE billion dollars Based on the claim that the President said he'd raise. When he decided in 2008 to ditch public funding in favor of his own fund raising ,he showed how serious the Dems are about this whole issue of money in politics . I'm frankly bored with that argument . This year the Dems say don't trust the Massachusetts rich guy. In 2004 ? Not so much .

I guess you fell for the marketing and made rich guys job creators. No truth in that, and as a free market guy you should KNOW better. You shouldn't trust the rich guy from Mass. Either, unless you have off shore interest and swiss accounts worth a few hundred million, and he is unemployed.

Hey maybe you are loaded Tom, but you will never share a ceegar and brandy with the Mitt. Hell between Trump and Romney, you will need food stamps to supplement your minimum wage job. Unless your DADDY was a rich guy and you have a silver spoon or a golden parachute. Which one of these things were you blessed with?

So stop driving, go holistic, drop your insurance, bury your money in a can, grow your own food, make your own stuff and ditch the computers and cell phones.

You forgot about the water, and you pry the computer and cell phone from my dead cold fingers!!

With the heat index 108, I will pay for the air to run, and the water to flow... COLD. How deep should I bury the empty can??

And you'll never have Pâté de Foie Gras and arugula with Barack and the The Devil Wears Prada lady (http://nymag.com/daily/fashion/2012/06/anna-wintour-angling-for-an-ambassador-post.html). What's your point?

Speaking of the Massachusetts rich guy, the left seems to be compensating for the huge bummer Obama turned out to be by going all in for Fauxcahontas.

Exit question, were some Democrats disenfranchised because they couldn't get into the convention to vote for Marisa DeFranco without a valid photo ID?

I wouldn't hob nob with those stiffs if I had the chance;and I don't practice 'class envy' either .The only use they are to me is the jobs they create ;and their philanthropy.

I don't envy the wealthy either, but they are far from the job creators that you paint them to be, and the motives behind their philantropy is suspect, and a great way to shelter wealth, and pick winners, and losers.

Philanthropy and the estate tax - CSMonitor.com (http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Tax-VOX/2010/0720/Philanthropy-and-the-estate-tax)

Tax Shelters and Charity (http://charitylawyerblog.com/federal-tax-law/tax-shelters/)

Tax Charities And Tax Shelters: Old Wine In New Bottles? (http://www.americanbar.org/content/newsletter/publications/gp_solo_magazine_home/gp_solo_magazine_index/charitytaxshelters.html)

So if a guy gives millions to help others for a tax break he should stop giving? Oh wait, you think the Fed could better distribute those millions to the needy. Bwa ha ha ha!!

Yeah there is always nefarious reasons behind good works . That's why the libs think the government should be the sole source of charity. Or is it only the rich that have bad intent when they support causes like...
Celebrity Fight Night Foundation,Children with AIDS,David Foster Foundation,DoSomething.org,Friends of Scotland,Jimmy Fund,Make A Child Smile Appeal,Make-A-Wish Foundation,Mississippi Animal Rescue League,Muhammad Ali Parkinson Center,Neurofibromatosis, Inc. Operation Smile,Paralyzed Veterans of America,Pediatric Epilepsy Project,Raising MalawiReef Relief,Smile Train,St. Francis Food Pantries and Shelters,The Doe Fund,UNICEF,Wounded Warrior Project (all Trump supported organizations )

I cannot read the hearts of men, but can do the math, and its not good enough or wise to assume in light of the fact that many have already been caught in fraud, and many more are being looked at closer, that humanitary reasons are what motivate some wealthy people into philanthropy, and a good name for good works has to be scrutized given those facts.

I believe in good people, don't get me wrong, but the bad do exist. And for sure the greedy want to look good.

You just assume then that if they lean conservative then their motives need to be questioned ?

I cannot read the hearts of men, but can do the math, and its not good enough or wise to assume in light of the fact that many have already been caught in fraud, and many more are being looked at closer, that humanitary reasons are what motivate some wealthy people into philanthropy, and a good name for good works has to be scrutized given those facts.

I believe in good people, don't get me wrong, but the bad do exist. And for sure the greedy want to look good.

"Part of the bourgeoisie is desirous of redressing social grievances, in order to secure the continued existence of bourgeois society,”(The Communist Manifesto. )

So if you were a pastor you wouldn't allow your church to accept money from sinners?

I assume no such thing as greedy, or downright evil doesn't have a party affiliation or social title. A good human, is a good human, liberal, or conservative or D's or R's.

"Trust but verify". Ronald Reagan

Great Reagan quote - largely irrelevant to philanthropy but entirely relevant to government "largesse." A dollar is a dollar to World Vision, just as long as they can keep caring for children (http://www.worldvision.org/) that REALLY have nothing.

Reagans quote is relevant to many things I have found, and I am for great works, but we must always verify.

World Vision - World Vision statement regarding alleged fraud in Liberia (http://www.worldvision.org/content.nsf/about/20090604-liberia)

The worst in people can show up anywhere. Not blaming WV, but glad they closed a few loopholes.

And you'll never have Pâté de Foie Gras and arugula with Barack and the The Devil Wears Prada lady (http://nymag.com/daily/fashion/2012/06/anna-wintour-angling-for-an-ambassador-post.html). What's your point?

Speaking of the Massachusetts rich guy, the left seems to be compensating for the huge bummer Obama turned out to be by going all in for Fauxcahontas.

Exit question, were some Democrats disenfranchised because they couldn't get into the convention to vote for Marisa DeFranco without a valid photo ID?

Hi Steve.


The point is that both sides are the same, there is no difference.

You don't see the significance of this?


P.S. What is a 'Fauxcahontas?


Tut

Reagans quote is relevant to many things I have found, and I am for great works, but we must always verify.

World Vision - World Vision statement regarding alleged fraud in Liberia (http://www.worldvision.org/content.nsf/about/20090604-liberia)

The worst in people can show up anywhere. Not blaming WV, but glad they closed a few loopholes.

Um, World Vision auditing their own workers is fantastic. Not sure what that has to do with the motives of their donors.

Hi Steve.


The point is that both sides are the same, there is no difference.

You don't see the significance of this?

So if there's no difference I guess we're all wasting our breath and our vote.


P.S. What is a 'Fauxcahontas?


Fauxcahontas is the left's latest Messiah and Senate candidate who falsely claimed Cherokee heritage (http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/05/hundreds-of-cherokees-form-new-group-to-challenge-elizabeth-warren/) to get ahead. She also apparently plagiarized recipes (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/18/did-elizabeth-warren-plagiarize-pow-wow-chow-recipes) for a Cherokee cookbook and claimed she wasn't wealthy (http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/elizabeth-warren-says-shes-not-in-the-1) with a net worth of $14.5 million and a $429,000 salary.

That's a Fauxcahontas.

LOL, so the right expands the birther crap, while Mitt is unemployed??

What??

You think the Elizabeth Warren lies and academic fraud at Harvard Law School compares to the birther nonsense ? I think Harvard should seriously consider her termination.

"for at least six straight years during Warren's tenure, Harvard University reported in federally mandated diversity statistics that it had a Native American woman in its senior ranks at the law school. According to both Harvard officials and federal guidelines, those statistics are almost always based on the way employees describe themselves.”
http://articles.boston.com/2012-05-25/news/31852969_1_harvard-law-school-answer-elizabeth-warren

What?????



You think the Elizabeth Warren lies and academic fraud at Harvard Law School compares to the birther nonsense ? I think Harvard should seriously consider her termination.

"for at least six straight years during Warren’s tenure, Harvard University reported in federally mandated diversity statistics that it had a Native American woman in its senior ranks at the law school. According to both Harvard officials and federal guidelines, those statistics are almost always based on the way employees describe themselves.”
Filings raise more questions on Warren?s ethnic claims - Boston.com (http://articles.boston.com/2012-05-25/news/31852969_1_harvard-law-school-answer-elizabeth-warren)

Mitt sits at a table of low income people and said he was unemployed and you guys worry about Warrens' great great whoever. Unreal, I mean who cares what the spin is, its not worth digging in the weeds about. The topic is whose better, Its real simple to me, Mitts plan (officially online) has plenty of holes and assumptions we can question, and Obama has been clear about what he wants from the congress. The congress is clearly gumming up the works for real job creation, and that's the issue, not some nonsense about some bodies ancestors. That birther talk! Enough of this crap.

The only one mentioning birthers here is you Tal. We don't need no stinkin' birther nonsense, Obama's incompetence and record is more than enough to run against.

Republicans and democrats have come out of recessions in the past by starting infrastructure projects, and hiring government workers, and modest targeted tax increases, now all of a sudden we can do none of that. 6,000 bridges that have failed inspections, what are we waiting for? Power transmission grids that are out dated antiquated, and inefficient, schools that are as old as I am, 80 year old water mains, man there are many things we should be doing if America gets off its lazy fat a$$!!

Well just maybe if we wean some of those lazy a$$es off the government's teat...

Besides ,it's not birther stuff ,it's genuine fraud. Did she or did she not get an advantage by lying about her heritage ? It's ethnic fraud ;which as a lib you should genuinely be appalled about because it undermines the programs your side champions to "level the playing field" . Was she alone ? Or were those liberal institutions of higher learning with ivory towers that recruited her complicit in the fraud ? Are the lies of the candidates on your side untouchable ? As I recall ;the major dinosaurs spent a lot of time trying to discredit GW Bush's past. Back then it wasn't the issues of the day they were concerned about... They tried to make his past the issue of the day.

there are many things we should be doing if America gets off its lazy fat a$$!!!

Not al lot of hope of that while you are supersizing your burgers and fries Tal

Don't worry about that.. Nanny Bloomy and his flunkies are on the case . He recently set in motion what will be a ban on the selling of large sodas in NYC .


The board hand-picked by Mayor Michael Bloomberg that must approve his ban of selling large sugar-filled drinks at restaurants might be looking at other targets.
The New York City Board of Health showed support for limiting sizes of sugary drinks at a Tuesday meeting in Queens. They agreed to start the process to formalize the large-drink ban by agreeing to start a six-week public comment period.
At the meeting, some of the members of board said they should be considering other limits on high-calorie foods.
One member, Bruce Vladeck, thinks limiting the sizes for movie theater popcorn should be considered.
"The popcorn isn't a whole lot better than the soda," Vladeck said.
Another board member thinks milk drinks should fall under the size limits.
"There are certainly milkshakes and milk-coffee beverages that have monstrous amounts of calories," said board member Dr. Joel Forman.
Health panel talks about wider food ban - New York News | New York Breaking News | NYC Headlines (http://www.myfoxny.com/story/18774940/health-panel-talks-about-wider-food-ban#ixzz1xgxIVLt8)

Oh what fun they'll have when the tackle the Burger King summer menu.


The world's second biggest hamburger chain on Thursday is launching several pork, beef and chicken sandwiches as limited time offers. And for a sweet ending, the company is also offering a bacon sundae — vanilla soft serve with fudge, caramel, bacon crumbles and a piece of bacon — that started in Nashville, Tenn. Earlier this year.
The salty-sweet dessert clocks in at 510 calories, 18 grams of fat and 61 grams of sugar. Ice Cream Whopper: Burger King Offering Bacon Sundae CBS Connecticut (http://connecticut.cbslocal.com/2012/06/12/ice-cream-whopper-burger-king-offering-bacon-sundae/)

So if there's no difference I guess we're all wasting our breath and our vote.



Hi Steve,

Best to see Tom on that one. He provided the quote:

Part of the bourgeoisie is desirous of redressing social grievances, in order to secure the continual existence of bourgeois society

I am pretty sure he also said on a number of occasion that when it comes to the welfare state both parties argue over who is better qualified to manage these affairs.

Tut

Yes I provided the Marx quote . He also saw an inherent evil in private charity . In the central command and control system that the progressives favor ,charity is best served by the government and utilized to expand their power..

You mean if its not tax deductible then no one will contribute to charity? Actually the propsal was to lower the deduction from 33% to 28%. For incomes above a thresh hold that doesn't evem apply to 95% of the wage earners.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/10/25/Obama-Unites-Country-on-Charitable-Tax-Donations.aspx#page1


Fee-for-service is the single largest financial support for non-profits – about half of all revenue. Government grants provide another 30 percent. Charitable contributions are just 12 percent, with investment income accounting for the remainder.

Steuerle called for prohibiting deductions for the first $500 for individuals and $1,000 for families, since most economists believe this would not affect giving; better policing of in-kind contributions, since the value deducted often far exceeds the actual cash delivered to charities; and adjusting the foundation pay-out rules to even out giving over the business cycle.

The CBO report, which used data from the 2006 tax year, said adopting a floor before the deduction kicked in, if coupled with limiting the deduction to a 25 percent refundable tax credit (which would lessen its value for filers in higher tax brackets), would generate an additional $1.5 billion a year for charity. At the same time, it would cut the $1.3 trillion budget deficit by $2.4 billion a year.

How about this one,

http://www.nationalmemo.com/public-sector-layoffs-and-obamas-fight-against-red-states/


As we've written before (article, white paper), the 11 states that the Republicans took over during the 2010 midterm elections – Alabama, Indiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin – account for 40.5 percent of the total losses. By itself, Texas accounts for an additional 31 percent of the total losses. So these 12 states account for over 70 percent of total public sector job losses in 2011. This is even more important because there was a continued decline in public sector workers in 2011 even though the economy was no longer in free fall.

I guess the president isn't entirely to blame on the economy.

http://www.nationofchange.org/why-economy-can-t-get-out-first-gear-1339597353


Can I say this any more simply? The earnings of the great American middle class fueled the great American expansion for three decades after World War II. Their relative lack of earnings in more recent years set us up for the great American bust.


Get it? We won't get out of first gear until the middle class regains the bargaining power it had in the first three decades after World War II to claim a much larger share of the gains from productivity growth.

Now can we drop this LIE, about who are the REAL job creators, and who are the rich and greedy? I think you conservatives are just the lookouts while the gang robs us ordinary people. No, its not just rhetoric from the left, because we all see the dust from the bandits going RIGHT, and you guys say they went thataway, and point Left.

Here it is, the ultimate reason to vote for Obama - nearly 65% of those polled think Obama would handle an alien invasion better (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-06-26/ufo-survey/55843742/1) than Romney. It's probably because he's one of them.

LOL, I hope they have their papers on them. If they land in Arizona they go to jail if they don't.

I can see Apaio saying "papers please?". Then deporting them.

Good one Tal, they're aliens so they are probably much more advanced than we are and know better than to land in Arizona. Or Texas, we're all armed to the teeth you know.

Little green men or little brown men it's all the same, shot it, bag it and tag it

What if the aliens have better guns? Just asking. I would be cautious about some one who could fly through that far in a space ship.

I think I've seen to many movies. The wife says they are already here, and would go to McDonald's before they went to the White House.

So you think the aliens like chew and spew or that they see the golden arches as a welcome sign, get out the Frank Ifield now
Frank Ifield - I remember you (1962) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQF-VsbMfDA)

What if the aliens have better guns? Just asking. I would be cautious about some one who could fly thru that far in a space ship.

I think I've seen to many movies. The wife says they are already here, and would go to McDonald's before they went to the White House.

Agent K is a Texan you know.

Texans won't get you out of it they caused the last mess

Don't mess with Texas Clete!!

Texans won't get you out of it they caused the last mess

Barnie Frank is not a Texan.

George Bush is a texan we can thank him for Iraq and going a bit further back GHW Bush is a texan and we can thank him for not finishing the job and Lyndon B Johnson was a texan and he escalated the involvement in Vietnam, so Tal the next texan who puts up his hand, shot him

Perry got shot down in his presidential bid.

George Bush is a texan we can thank him for Iraq and going a bit further back GHW Bush is a texan and we can thank him for not finishing the job and Lyndon B Johnson was a texan and he escalated the involvement in Vietnam, so Tal the next texan who puts up his hand, shot him

Well, maybe if the rest of the world would get off their a$$ and do something you could criticize them for a change instead of projecting all your misery on us.

Well, maybe if the rest of the world would get off their a$$ and do something you could criticize them for a change instead of projecting all your misery on us.

Hey speech I don't have any misery when you stop projecting misery on the world I'll stop sending it back where it came from. I know you don't like to look in the mirror but sometimes you have too, Just remember it is your country that spends more than the rest of the world combined on the military. What are you afraid of?

With great power comes great responsibility. Admit it ,you like the American deterence.

No I don't like it because realistically we don't need it, I haven't seen a single american warship deter an asylum seeker boat or even rescue one, where was america when East Timor was being ripped apart by Indonesia, in either instance they were nowhere to be seen. However american military power has created the situation where millions of refugees look in our direction to deliver them.

Your deterence is to keep your own shores safe from I'm unsure what, the North Korean navy, if there is such a thing, the Chinese navy, perhaps the rusting Russian fleet, perhaps the Iran navy. It was used to destroy Iraq, hardly deterence. You see Tom I'm feed up to the teeth with the rhetoric of deterence, MAD no longer impresses in the way it once did.

No your deterence is to project your military power, as the bully on the block you carry a very big stick, not to mention your Saturday night special

And I'm fed up to the teeth with ingrates that rely on American protection at the same time they complain about it.

and I'm fed up to the teeth with ingrates that rely on American protection at the same time they complain about it.

I don't rely on it Tom you see you like to give the lie that America protected Australia in WWII, we were just a convenient base in the South Pacific, what you were really doing was protecting yourself and prosecuting the war. We had that meglomaniac Macarthur posturing all over the place.

"The President of the United States ordered me to break through the Japanese lines and proceed to Corregidor to Australia for the purpose, as I understand it, of organising an American offensive against Japan, the primary purpose of which is the relief of the Philippines. I came through and I shall return." I don't see anything about defense of Australia in that statement


The self-styled "Hero of the Pacific" was greeted with adulation by Australian politicians, public and media. Despite this adulation, MacArthur's passion for self-glorification drove him to lie about the manner in which he had arrived in Australia. He told the press that his aircraft had been closely pursued by Japanese fighter planes and had narrowly escaped Japanese bombers as it was landing at Batchelor Field. This story captured the public imagination but it was all a lie. Master Sergeant Graf, who was the wireless operator on MacArthur's flight from the Philippines, later exposed MacArthur's story as a figment of his imagination. According to Graf, the flight to Australia was uneventful. MacArthur's aircraft was never under threat from the Japanese.

MacArthur came to Australia with an obsession to return to the Philippines as a hero. With his mind unwaveringly fixed on a triumphant return to the Philippines, MacArthur would neglect the northern defences of Australia and almost hand the Japanese a victory on the Kokoda Track.


We have stood beside you fellows in a number of wars, none of which were particularly in our national interest and yet you like to be condescending towards us as if you are doing us a favour of allowing us to die on your battlefield. Let me remind you that we were in the teeth of battle in WWI and WWII, while you were still deciding whether you were neutral or not. It wasn't concern for us that shook you out of your lethagy but concern for yourself interest.

So stop with the yankee B/S Tom and let us have a rational discussion

hey speech I don't have any misery when you stop projecting misery on the world I'll stop sending it back where it came from. I know you don't like to look in the mirror but sometimes you have too, Just remember it is your country that spends more than the rest of the world combined on the military. What are you afraid of?

Our country also spends more money publicly and privately on foreign assistance than anyone else. I love it, too when whiners bite the hand that feeds - and protects them. I really think all you ingrates' tune would change if we were to get out of the picture.

With your constant whining about my country, and yes I do tire of it and take offense, all I can say is some "friend" you are. I've always spoken highly of your country, it's not my problem that Aussies like Big Macs so get over it.

Our country also spends more money publicly and privately on foreign assistance than anyone else. I love it, too when whiners bite the hand that feeds - and protects them. I really think all you ingrates' tune would change if we were to get out of the picture.

With your constant whining about my country, and yes I do tire of it and take offense, all I can say is some "friend" you are. I've always spoken highly of your country, it's not my problem that Aussies like Big Macs so get over it.

Speech I know you don't like it when we call you fellows on the rhetoric but we get a little fed up with the we saved you crap. I'm not sure what it is you think you are protecting us from. Go protect yourselves from the Cubans, they are a real threat.

Australians don't like Big Macs but your marketing techniques put the small business hamburger shops out of business, so we don't like the way you do business because what you market is an inferior product and you even recognise this yourselves, Ask Michael Moore. I am for the underdog by the way. You call my comments whining when you fail to recognise the truth of what I say. It is time you took a real good look at yourselves because from where I stand, something isn't working.

You want to look at your record on foreign assistance, your percentage of GDP spent on foreign assistance is the low in comparison with developed countries and most of that is tied aid flowing back into your own industries. It doesn't wash speech

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

Speech I know you don't like it when we call you fellows on the rhetoric but we get a little fed up with the we saved you crap. I'm not sure what it is you think you are protecting us from. Go protect yourselves from the Cubans, they are a real threat.

If I had said that you may have a point, but I didn't.


Australians don't like Big Macs but your marketing techniques put the small business hamburger shops out of business, so we don't like the way you do business because what you market is an inferior product and you even recognise this yourselves, Ask Michael Moore.

I couldn't give a rat's arse what Michael Moore says. You can't get any more lunatic - and hypocritical as a man who makes millions slamming the system that made him rich - than him. But yes, McDonald's is an inferior product, but we aren't making Aussies return for more. Or are you saying your lack of self-control is so profound you just couldn't help but support 701 McDonald's restaurants in your country?

Gimme a break and take responsibility, I didn't force a Big Mac down anyone's throat and I darn sure didn't force them to keep coming back for more.


You want to look at your record on foreign assistance, your percentage of GDP spent on foreign assistance is the low in comparison with developed countries and most of that is tied aid flowing back into your own industries. It doesn't wash speech

You suffer from the same spin problem as our own leftists. Total dollars from the US dwarfs the rest of the world, and that doesn't include private giving. From your source, our 30,353 (USD millions) is more than double the next, Germany at 12,985 and nearly 8 times yours at 3826. And again that does not take into account private charity abroad which as of 2005 reached nearly 4 times that of our government's foreign aid.

What would you rather have, more dollars or more inefficient federal dollars as a percentage of GNI?

Well I was primarily speaking post WWII . But since you bring it up ;what fleet was there between you and the Japanese?. You telling me that great Aussie fleet that blocked the attack of Darwin ?
Yeah I've always given Australia the credit for putting up it's fair share in the alliance. But you know and I know that without the US umbrella you would've quickly fallen under the sphere of the other super power... just like you will fall under the sphere of China if the US abandons or gets pushed out of the region. That is why you continue the alliance.. out of your own brand of self interest.

You suffer from the same spin problem as our own leftists. Total dollars from the US dwarfs the rest of the world, and that doesn't include private giving. From your source, our 30,353 (USD millions) is more than double the next, Germany at 12,985 and nearly 8 times yours at 3826. And again that does not take into account private charity abroad which as of 2005 reached nearly 4 times that of our government's foreign aid.

What would you rather have, more dollars or more inefficient federal dollars as a percentage of GNI?

You suffer from a spin problem yourselves You want to say you give 8 times as much as we do, not that our giving is high on the list but yours is the largest economy and ours is the 13th largest your population is more than fourteen times ours. Our GDP is a 10th of yours and Germany about a fifth of yours. In the days of the Asian tsumani we out gave you many times over
http://www.theage.com.au/news/Asia-tsunami/PM-pledges-1bn-in-aid/2005/01/06/1104832185285.html

Well I was primarily speakin post WWII . But since you bring it up ;what fleet was there between you and the Japanese ? ....You telling me that great Aussie fleet that blocked the attack of Darwin ?
Yeah I've always given Australia the credit for putting up it's fair share in the alliance. But you know and I know that without the US umbrella you would've quickly fallen under the sphere of the other super power ...just like you will fall under the sphere of China if the US abandons or gets pushed out of the region. That is why you continue the alliance.. out of your own brand of self interest.

Some sort of twisted history there Tom I think there might have been a US warship sunk in Darwin harbour but I don't recall the US preventing raids on Darwin. I think you might have been eluding to what we call the battle of the Coral Sea where as I recall you and the Japs mauled each other but I thought you were preventing an attack on Port Morsbey.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Coral_Sea
Which as it happens is not in Australia but was at that time in an Australian mandated territory. Some elements of the Australian navy took part in that engagement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Darwin

Thing is Tom smaller countries are always under someone's sphere of influence, the Chinese recently suggested we should consider being under theirs, however we won't desert you yet in your hour of need, our relationship is too long for that, but we don't want to get drawn into a stoush between yourselves and China. We have a long history of fighting someoneelse's battles, first with the British and more recently with you, so we understand something about it you may not. (It is called being screwed no matter which way you turn) It appears to be the price of friendship

Careful Clete, conservetives love to rewrite history. You should see what they want us to think aout the civil war here. They claim it was about states rights, but don't want you to know it was states rights to own slaves.Thats what the shooting was about.

Just like the new war is about church right, but they don't want you to know its about the church being aove the law, and can make everyone do as they want them to, whether they are in the church or NOT!!

They claim it was about states rights, but don't want you to know it was states rights to own slaves.Thats what the shooting was about.
I have written plenty of times about the cause of the Civil War ;and you have never seen me write anything about States rights .I don't believe in States Rights . States and the Federal Government have powers . People have rights. Powers of the Federal Government are enumerated and limited . All other powers not given to the Federal Government ,or prohibited by the Constitution belong to the States.
The Civil War was totally a slavery issue.

Same thing with the power of the government to prohibit free exercise. It is a Constitutional restriction .

Why is it my posts disappear

Maybe not you specifically, but conservatives in general.

Conservatives generally delete posts?

You suffer from a spin problem yourselves You want to say you give 8 times as much as we do, not that our giving is high on the list but yours is the largest economy and ours is the 13th largest your population is more than fourteen times ours. Our GDP is a 10th of yours and Germany about a fifth of yours. In the days of the Asian tsumani we out gave you many times over
Australian aid sets the standard: Oxfam - Asia tsunami - www.theage.com.au (http://www.theage.com.au/news/Asia-tsunami/PM-pledges-1bn-in-aid/2005/01/06/1104832185285.html)

Really (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanitarian_response_to_the_2004_Indian_Ocean_ear thquake#Criticism_of_donor_response) now? Government, NGO and public aid from the US (not including corporate contributions and the assistance of our military) was $2,825,000,000.

From Australia it was $1,322,000,000. How many times over did you out give us?

Careful Clete, conservetives love to rewrite history.

I didn't know you were a conservative.

That's the problem with conservative friends, and family... they rub off on you!

I would hope so.

Be careful what you wish for. Because repealing Obamacare, and not expanding Medicaid is NOT fiscally responsible. For liberals,or conservatives.

The funniest/sadist part is its RED states that benefit the most, predominately in the south. Boggles my itty bitty brain.

The funniest/sadist part is ... my itty bitty brain.

See, we can agree on some things. :p

"The State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority."
Alexander Hamilton Federalist Paper 28 .

President Rerun is set to announce a "new" proposal to raise taxes on those making $250,000 or more (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-to-propose-tax-cut-extension-for-middle-class-households/2012/07/09/gJQAxDWuXW_story.html).


President Obama on Monday will propose a one-year extension of the George W. Bush-era tax cuts for people earning less than $250,000, his latest election-year effort to appeal to middle-class voters.

Gee, where have I heard that before? And before that?

Even Schmucky Schumer argued that 250k WAS middle class the last around when even Dems bumped it to $1 million and didn't get it through.

One way or another if Obama wins he still plans on raising taxes on those he needs to get the economy moving. I don't see how you can take this guy seriously, he has nothing new to sell you but the same old useless reruns.

President Rerun is set to announce a "new" proposal to raise taxes on those making $250,000 or more (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-to-propose-tax-cut-extension-for-middle-class-households/2012/07/09/gJQAxDWuXW_story.html). Hello again, Steve:

Couple things... The Bush tax cuts are going to expire. So, either EVERYBODY gets a tax increase, or only those who have done really, REALLY well in the past few years will get one. It's kind of a no brainer for me.

However, in the name of BIPARTISANSHIP, I'm willing to give the "job creators" a tax break... In fact, I'd be quite generous in my tax breakage IF it was tied to ACTUAL job creation. We can do that with tax credits..

What do Chinese laundry's say?? No job creation - no tax breaky.. What?? You want to give 'em ALL a tax break and HOPE?? Dudes.

excon

Well sir, it worked really well for stimulus funds, especially green sector job creation.

If that were on the table we could kick it around but what's on the table is Obama's "third time is a charm" rerun. How's that going to work out?

Obama has created a stifling economic atmosphere and people are going to hold back as long as he perpetuates the uncertainty. This rerun of a rerun isn't going to help anything, it's just more class warfare and we deserve better.

Obama has created a stifling economic atmosphere and people are going to hold back as long as he perpetuates the uncertainty.Hello again, Steve:

We've been here before... Our economy WAITS for no man. If I can't get my product OUT the door TODAY, and I "hold back" hiring or investing in a new factory because I'm "uncertain", my customers will go SOMEPLACE else. That is a fact of life here on the front lines.

This word "uncertainty" is a creation of Frank Luntz - just like he's telling the wingers in congress to NEVER say free market health care, but call it "patient centered care", whatever the hell that means..

I thought you right wingers KNEW how the economy works... Guess not, huh? First you tell us that the banks gave away ALL their money because Barney Frank told them too, and NOW you tell us that businessmen are sitting on their haunches WATCHING their companies disintegrate, all the while screaming hysterically about the sky falling... Dude.

excon

Keep listening to rich guys hollering about they need more money, and see if you end up with any. I mean we see what they do with what Bush and the republicans have given them already, they stashed it away for THEIR kids, and created jobs oversas.

What do you think they will do with even more? You got it, send it to the Burmuda triangle, never to be seen again!!

And I knew you were going there, but if customers are holding onto their wallets you won't need to get anything out.

There's no way for instance, that I'll be in the market for a new car any time soon. And, as much as I may want some things, I'm thinking twice a lot more than 5 years ago and I'm far from alone. Consumer confidence just isn't there (http://www.conference-board.org/data/consumerconfidence.cfm) and class warfare isn't going to make that any better.

I'm surprised that the President isn't following the Clintoon /Corzine model... keep the current tax rates until he wins in November... Then at the beginning of his term ,he can go on national TV and say he tried really really really really really really hard ,but he can't find a way out of the current Obama" recovery" without raising taxes.

He does that by saying we need to extend the tax cuts for those under $250k right now, and we can talk about the others later.

Speaking of taxes...


Denise Rich, the wealthy socialite and former wife of pardoned billionaire trader Marc Rich, has given up her U.S. citizenship (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/09/entertainment-us-usa-immigration-deniser-idUSBRE8680MN20120709) - and, with it, much of her U.S. tax bill.

Rich, 68, a Grammy-nominated songwriter and glossy figure in Democratic and European royalty circles, renounced her American passport in November, according to her lawyer.

Her maiden name, Denise Eisenberg, appeared in the Federal Register on April 30 in a quarterly list of Americans who renounced their U.S. citizenship and permanent residents who handed in their green cards.

By dumping her U.S. passport, Rich likely will save tens of millions of dollars or more in U.S. taxes over the long haul, tax lawyers say.

Those darn rich Repub... uh, Democrats just keep finding ways to avoid paying their fair share. But then that's the normal reaction when you raise taxes, people (and businesses) flee for friendlier confines. I think we've said that already.

Yup all you need to recall is John Kerry's docking of his yacht .

That's all right Europe needs a boost anyway, if they don't flee to Europe they will flee to the Cayman Islands. Do you really think the rich need to leave the country to avoid tax?

Geez guys don't ruin it. We have a consensus. Every body is for a tax cut for 98% of the population, lets go with it. But watch republicans balk at it, and hold the tax cut hostage unless rich guys get one too! That's what they always do!

Even though EVERYBODY gets a tax cut for the first $250,000, as opposed to Romney's 5 trillion dollar budget buster. So much for wanting to cut the debt/deficit. They just want to cut the middle class because lets be real, rich guys don't seem to need customers to make money. They have hall street.

But we all know congress is on vacation until 2013, so its all talk for now any way.

This is a better story to follow,

http://articles.boston.com/2012-06-24/metro/32379941_1_delegates-and-alternate-delegates-republican-caucuses-state-caucuses

The New Republican party, with Mitt as its leader. What if he doesn't win in Nebraska Saturday?

Maryland instituted a "millionaires tax " in 2007 that expired in 2010 . In the 3 years it was in effect ,31,000 fled the state ,and the state lost $1.7 billion in lost tax revenues.
This is not just a one state trend .
Over the past decade, states without an income tax have seen 58% higher population growth than the national average, and more than double the growth of states with the highest income tax rates. What this means for your state of Texas is that you now have 4 new Congressional seats . My State of NY lost 2 as people flee our high tax rate.
I love my state . But when the time comes ,I will flee too. I certainly will not retire here . The property taxes alone is like paying an additional rent on my home on top of the mortgage.

So yeah ,keep piling it on the rich... Who is John Galt ?

That's all right Europe needs a boost anyway, if they don't flee to Europe they will flee to the Cayman Islands.

You mean flee from Europe, like the French are about to do.


Do you really think the rich need to leave the country to avoid tax?

Ask Denise Rich. Or as tom reminded, just park your yacht in another state.

1,800 Americans renounced citizenship last year .That's a record number since the IRS began publishing a list in 1998. It's 8x more than in 2008, and more than the total for 2007, 2008 and 2009 combined.

This year Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin renounced too.

Geez guys don't ruin it. We have a consensus. Every body is for a tax cut for 98% of the population, lets go with it. But watch republicans balk at it, and hold the tax cut hostage unless rich guys get one too!! Thats what they always do!.

I've already pointed out that Democrats did not support this idea the first two times. Schumer and Pelosi have already come out again for extending the tax cuts for those making up to a million (http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2012/07/09/obama-announce-left-pelosi/). You keep blaming it all on Republican obstruction and you have to admit, Obama's tax proposals like his budgets are DOA with Dems, too.

Unlike lock step republicans, democrats are free to express different opinions to their party leaders. So I doubt if it came to a vote Pelosi, and Shimmer would vote against it.

You are right though, it will never get through the house, or senate as long as republicans obstruct it, and hold it hostage for the bogus "job creators", since it's the rights goal to kill progress, and extract wealth.

After all, "the job creators" have lost no wealth, and have thrived greatly while most other have and are still struggling through a recession, and a sluggish recovery. And its sluggish because the fat "job creators" are not being motivated to help push the car out of the ditch. Instead, the fat guys sit in the front and only more money can move them.

While I am on the subject, lets be clear the role republican state governors have played in destroying the middle class, shedding teachers, firefighters, and police and highway workers, while cutting state taxes for those same rich guys who promise jobs, but deliver nothing.

Whose really kicking the middle class in the gut?

Hello again,

I'm a job creator.. I'm just waiting for my taxes to go down before I HIRE a bunch of people...

??

Do you right wingers know how STUPID that sounds??

excon

Hello again,

I'm a job creator.. I'm just waiting for my taxes to go down before I HIRE a bunch of people...

?????

Do you right wingers know how STUPID that sounds????

excon

It does, but I don't hear anyone saying that.

Unlike lock step republicans, democrats are free to express different opinions to their party leaders. So I doubt if it came to a vote Pelosi, and Shimmer would vote against it.

You are right though, it will never get thru the house, or senate as long as republicans obstruct it, and hold it hostage for the bogus "job creators", since its the rights goal to kill progress, and extract wealth.

After all, "the job creators" have lost no wealth, and have thrived greatly while most other have and are still struggling thru a recession, and a sluggish recovery. And its sluggish because the fat "job creators" are not being motivated to help push the car out of the ditch. Instead, the fat guys sit in the front and only more money can move them.

While I am on the subject, lets be clear the role republican state governors have played in destroying the middle class, shedding teachers, firefighters, and police and highway workers, while cutting state taxes for those same rich guys who promise jobs, but deliver nothing.

Whose really kicking the middle class in the gut?

Tal, you sound like a broken record.

It does, but I don't hear anyone saying that.Hello again, Steve:

Okee doakee, then. How about THIS?

I'm UNCERTAIN about the future so I'm NOT going to HIRE anybody. Does it matter whether I NEED to hire somebody or not?? Nahhh, uncertainty is the key??

Do you know how stupid THAT sounds?

excon

Tal, you sound like a broken record.

It is my hope that if facts and logic are repeated, then the noise from the right can be overcome.

Hey, I can dream can't I??

It's my hope we can get past repetitive clichés.

You mean the any body but Obama cliché you guys push? Or the trickle down economics cliché? How about a get the government out of our business cliché?

The only clichés you like are yours. I can dig it! I like mine.

I don't push those.

Yes you do. You would vote for a dog before you voted for Obama. You would vote for the rich guy who has secret money everywhere before you vote for Obama. You would vote for the rich guy or the dog that promises to take away YOUR kids Social Security, and Medicare, to get rid of Obama. You would vote for the rich guy, and a dog who has said they will lower there own taxes, and have even more secret money, rather than vote for Obama.

You would vote for anyone that called themselves a conservative job creating republican rather than Obama, whether they have a track record to show or not! You are sheep that follow the shepherd.

That's not a cliché. Just keepin' it real!

I would vote for Hillary before I'd vote for Obama. I'd probably vote for that rich guy Lurch that parked his yacht in RI to avoid MA taxes before I'd vote for Obama - but I don't push the cliché. I have your answer memorized.