Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
Visit dwillie's column >>

DWILLIE

Patron of the erudite, supporter of the voiceless, bane of the vacuous
Articles Posted: 47  Links Seeded: 49
Member Since: 6/2008  Last Seen: 2/22/2012

What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Will Americans Be So Dumb?

Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:13 PM EST
politics, obama, gop, government, president, jobs, taxes, president-obama, mitt-romney, labor, capitalism, newt-gingrich, wealth, rich, presidential-election, poor, ballot, private-equity, envy, republican-primary, vulture-capitalism
By dwillie

Andrew Sullivan and Newsweek whacked the proverbial hornet's nest with a cover story that asks the question "Why are Obama's Critics So Dumb".

In true cerebral fashion, progressive reaction has been muted and will likely be more introspective. On the other hand, any web search on the subject will reveal that conservatives are having a conniption fit over the article that I find quite entertaining. Even as their presidential candidates prove every day just how stupid they are - Turkey doesn't get any foreign aid from us Governor Perry - I can't help but wonder if they are naught but a reflection of the Americans who put them into their positions. If I were a Texan, I would not have admitted voting for Perry. To be sure, there are a handful of people in the republican presidential field who are decidedly not dumb. But they are incredibly dangerous, which leads me to wonder if Americans are going to be so dumb that they put one of those malevolent men into office.

For all of his professorial smarts, big ideas and elocution, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich is petulant, capricious and vindictive. He was as the most divisive speaker in modern history and literally taught republicans how to cynically employ the language of hatred in the exercise of government. Ron Paul would unilaterally disengage the United States from the rest of the world and Rick Santorum would institute a uniquely American version of Sharia Law and, like Gingrich, engages in calumnious rhetoric for the consumption of racists and bigots. None of those men are dumb, but neither are they worthy and the likelihood that 35 - 40% of us are going to vote for them is alarming enough. I focus special attention and alarm, however, toward the presumptive leader of the motley republican crew, Mitt Romney. I note a fatalistic acceptance of the notion of Romney as the republican nominee. Not only is it evidently his turn, conservatives who acknowledge that Romney has the best chance of beating President Obama clearly recognize how far out of the mainstream they are. What they don't acknowledge is how for many of them, much of their acceptance of - if not enthusiasm for - Romney is motivated by a palpable personal hatred for the President, a blinding hatred that squashes all reason. The real question, however, is will the rest of us be so stupid as to put this man into the White House.

We are treated time and time again to the callousness in Romney's character just below the blow-dried, stump-speeching, patrician Ken-doll, surface and the transparency of his priority on money and power. While we might be inclined to ignore the occasional gaffe, there is no avoiding the Dorian Grey-like portrait that emerges when anyone with a normally functioning brain begins to connect the dots. The picture of him and his colleagues with money falling out of their teeth and pockets should say enough. The arrogant mendacity to call himself a job creator when his profession had nothing whatsoever to do with creating jobs should say enough. His argument that questioning the stripping of companies is tantamount to attacking capitalism should say enough. His assertion of envy as the motivation for questioning the value of vulture capitalism should say enough. His view that $374,000 is small potatoes should say enough. His assertion that corporations are people too should say enough. His affinity for firing people should say enough. The cavalier manner in which he would bet $10,000 should say enough. But putting the data points together, we must come to the unavoidable conclusion that Mr. Romney is at best a flat-out jerk who gives less than a damn about anyone whose income is measured on a W-2 statement, particularly if it is below six figures.

Is anyone really surprised that someone with the above profile would be in favor of a plan that lowers his taxes and raises them for the bottom 40% of Americans? Is anyone really surprised that such a person would be in favor of neutering an already flaccid regulatory construct? By the way, the next President will pick at least two Supreme Court justices. Wanna bet $10,000 what happens to reproductive choice, personal liberty and consumer protections if Mr. Citizens United is picking those justices.

In spite of President Obama's supposed shortcomings, dumb would be the most charitable word to describe the American electorate if it were to put Mitt Romney into the White House.

  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • dwillie's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: 112th United States Congress, BlackFolks, DemGuys, Election 2012, Elephant POOP!, FIRED UP DEMOCRATS!, GOP Watch , Left of Center, Mad For Rachel Maddow, Obama Derangement Syndrome, Obama Supporters, ObamaExpress, ObamaVine, Proud Liberal and Progressive, Rational Progressive Party, Rightwingnutjobs, Way Smart
  • Regions: none
  • Public Discussion (267)
Jump to discussion page: 1 2
dwillie

If we put Mitt Romney into the White House, then Andrew Sullivan's question is in fact an understatement.

CoH applies.

  • 33 votes
#1 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:16 PM EST
trm2008

I hate to remind you, but the American electorate put Bush in the white house--twice.

  • 60 votes
#1.1 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:25 PM EST
not over it

I hate to remind you, but the American electorate put Bush in the white house--twice.

Darn, you beat me to it. :)

  • 26 votes
#1.2 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:27 PM EST
Concerned Citizen-1303521

"The intelligence of the creature known as a crowd, is the square root of the number of people in it." - Terry Pratchett

  • 21 votes
#1.3 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:32 PM EST
dwillie

Gee, trm, thanks. You correctly remind me that, yes, Americans CAN be so dumb. I'm holding out hope that by perhaps we won't be this time.

  • 31 votes
#1.4 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:38 PM EST
trm2008

I'm sorry dwillie. I should have broke it to you gently. LOL

  • 22 votes
#1.5 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:46 PM EST
not over it

Americans CAN be so dumb. I'm holding out hope that by perhaps we won't be this time.

Me too. Crossing fingers. But I will never forget talking to Bush supporters that were intending to vote for him a second time and the despair I felt when the only explanation they could provide was because we hadn't been attacked since 9/11. Wow, that was their only reason. Nothing else bothered them. Not the failed economic policies, not the unfounded wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, not the unfunded wars, and the many other failed Bush policies. That is when my complete lack of faith in the electorate started.

  • 25 votes
#1.6 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:50 PM EST
Bob Nelson.

... the American electorate put Bush in the white house--twice.

TWICE!!!

  • 18 votes
#1.7 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:53 PM EST
magnoliaaveExpand Comment Comment collapsed by the community

And, the same electorate put Obama in the WH, but not this time!

  • 14 votes
#1.8 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:03 PM EST
Truth Sleuth

On the other hand, any web search on the subject will reveal that conservatives are having a conniption fit over the article that I find quite entertaining...

Remember, Andrew Sullivan is also a conservative and who many of us consider to be a true conservative, which is usually quite different from a modern-day "Republican." It's a very important distinction. One should never automatically equate "conservative" and "Republican."

Good article.

  • 26 votes
#1.9 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:11 PM EST
capt.ace23

i think the point is that the electoral; collage isnt prefect so hope that they are smart this election year

  • 1 vote
#1.10 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:17 PM EST
FumlerExpand Comment Comment collapsed by the community

I hate to remind you, but the American electorate put Bush in the white house--twice.

---the majority of Americans would rather have W back in the white house now instead of Obama(maybe you think that makes them dumb, but it's a fact).

The dumbest thing the electorate ever did was put Obama in the White House once(it won't happen again)...he has done more to DESTROY this country in three years than any foreign enemy could ever hope to accomplish!

  • 6 votes
#1.11 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 2:11 PM EST
dwillie

It is indeed a fact that people who would rather have Bush back in office are dumb.

  • 28 votes
#1.12 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 2:17 PM EST
caballojoe

Well, I guess that's it. We don't need to have an election. Fumler speaks for the majority. /s

  • 12 votes
#1.13 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 2:22 PM EST
Roy Batty

the majority of Americans would rather have W back in the white house now instead of Obama

That is a rather broad assertion.

  • 22 votes
#1.14 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 2:32 PM EST
Fumler

Well, I guess that's it. We don't need to have an election. Fumler speaks for the majority

Thank you caballojoe...I should say I BELIEVE that the majority of Americans would rather have W back than have Obama(although I have seen some polls showing this, I can't remember where to cite them right now)

It is a fact and I DO SPEAK for all sane Americans when I say, WE ALL can't wait to Vote Obama out in November!

  • 3 votes
#1.15 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 2:33 PM EST
Mr. Roger Rabbit

Dumb enough to replace Busch with Obama, double dumb to keep him in the office.

  • 9 votes
#1.16 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 2:36 PM EST
dwillie

Fumier, the vacuous hyperbole in 1.11 lends not an iota of credibility to the absurd notion that we would be better off with the administration that created the mess we're in or with the man who said our economy was sound when it actually was imploding. McCain continues to tell the American people that they were smart not to elect him when he continues to assert that picking Palin as VP was a great decision.

That you believe President Obama has done more damage than a direct attack on the citizens of the United States only highlights the clear inanity of your stated perspective.

  • 31 votes
#1.17 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 2:57 PM EST
gotme!!

You want to see the height of dumbness , check who they currently voted into office . They went brain dead on that one !

  • 4 votes
#1.18 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 3:06 PM EST
not over it

the majority of Americans would rather have W back in the white house now instead of Obama

Just because someone put up a billboard that says "Miss Me Yet" does not make that statement true.

  • 22 votes
#1.19 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 3:07 PM EST
I'm God

"The intelligence of the creature known as a crowd, is the square root of the number of people in it."

That's not sensible - a crowd of 40,000 people does not have an IQ of 200. Perhaps the intelligence of the creature known as crowd is its average intelligence divided by the square of the number of people in it.

  • 4 votes
#1.20 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 3:15 PM EST
Lisa Schneider

But they are incredibly dangerous, which leads me to wonder if Americans are going to be so dumb that they put one of those malevolent men into office.

We Americans did it in '08....the question should be posed: will we be so dumb to repeat that mistake?

  • 8 votes
#1.21 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 4:25 PM EST
northtosouth

I hate to remind you, but the American electorate put Bush in the white house--twice.

I'm surprised nobody caught this one yet, but Bush was only voted in once. His brother took care of the other.

  • 16 votes
#1.22 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 4:35 PM EST
Fred Evil

And, the same electorate put Obama in the WH

Ah, so you are suggesting we learned from our mistakes with W? I agree.

  • 7 votes
#1.23 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:08 PM EST
Silvaria

To those of you who keep saying that Obama won't be re-elected, first, I thank you for the laugh, and second, who will be elected and why? The two front-runners, Romney and Paul, are both jokes...Romney is an animal abuser and Paul is just plain nuts. How do you figure either of those will beat Obama?

In other words, can you come up with anything other than a hit-and-run assertion?

  • 16 votes
#1.24 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:07 PM EST
FumlerExpand Comment Comment collapsed by the community

To those of you who keep saying that Obama won't be re-elected, first, I thank you for the laugh, and second, who will be elected and why? The two front-runners, Romney and Paul, are both jokes...Romney is an animal abuser and Paul is just plain nuts. How do you figure either of those will beat Obama?

Silvaria, you need to get out more......Obama wouldn't get re-elected if he ran against maggot infested cat puke!!!..................Maggot infested cat puke 58% ---- Obama 42%

Maggot infested cat puke approximately 500 electoral votes

Obama 3 to 25 electoral votes

  • 3 votes
#1.25 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 9:22 PM EST
Silvaria

No Value. Care to try again, and actually answer the question of who will beat Obama, and why?

  • 13 votes
#1.26 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:24 PM EST
Hecate's Daughter

Yeah, Fumler...since most, if not all, of the Republican hopefuls could be described as "maggot infested cat puke", you have to be a bit more specific than that. So which puke do you think has a chance to beat Obama?
:) HD

  • 16 votes
#1.27 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:49 PM EST
WaltUU

Clearly, in the United States, partisan passions run high. That a George W. Bush supporter would claim that people would prefer Bush isn't surprising - isn't notable. It's just self-gratifying nonsense - mental masturbation. What would be more interesting would be to see the perspectives of people relatively free of the inane hoopla of American media-driven fanaticism. If you ever have any interest in seeing things a bit more honestly, read foreign press. While they have their own biases, you can almost always root those biases out quickly and see a much clearer picture of American than we can see from viewing our own media.

And yeah, they generally put George W. Bush and Benito Mussolini pretty-much on-par with each other.

  • 8 votes
#1.28 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 5:58 AM EST
Mike-584822

I use Deutsche Welle for my news source. The American media is usually slanted for the left or the right. An overseas source is more newsworthy.

  • 2 votes
#1.29 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 8:11 AM EST
Zoolopolis

I don't think what Romney does is capitalism.

Capitalism is profiting through adding value to goods and services.

Romney strips value from companies and leaves stripped carcasses.

  • 8 votes
#1.30 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 8:13 AM EST
Hecate's Daughter

Mike Ja, ja, "Deutsche Welle" ist sehr gut!!! I read a lot of world news there; and not just because my family lives in Germany. There is very little slant, and it is much better than our news media here. American media is pretty much useless, anymore.

HD

  • 1 vote
#1.31 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 8:35 AM EST
deryl -638200

Jobless claims lowest since April 08.

Yeah we really want Bush back /s

  • 4 votes
#1.32 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 8:53 AM EST
Bob Nelson.

Capitalism is profiting through adding value to goods and services.

Nope.

Capitalism is "private ownership of means of production and distribution". The "owners" may add value or may destroy it -- they are the absolute masters of what they own. Any other stakeholders -- notably employees -- are just so much raw material to be ground into whatever the company produces.

  • 2 votes
#1.33 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 10:16 AM EST
Fred Evil

Maggot infested cat puke 58% ---- Obama 42%

Must be a Faux Entertainment poll, every other poll I've seen has him trouncing ANY of the GoTP candidates.

  • 1 vote
#1.34 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 10:31 AM EST
Stop the ignorance.

I guess what I find most interesting is that so many conservatives, indeed those on this thread, are busy claiming that Obama won't be re-elected while everyday denying the fact that the biggest challenge to the GOP is finding a candidate that is, in a word, electable.

  • 8 votes
#1.35 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 11:20 AM EST
Maggie-602935

I hate to remind you, but the American electorate put Bush in the white house--twice.

A good read is Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000)

  • 3 votes
#1.36 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 11:41 AM EST
ZenFreedom

I'm surprised nobody caught this one yet, but Bush was only voted in once. His brother took care of the other.

I was wondering if anyone was going to make that point. They bought the first term and used the fear factory to scare everyone into the second term.

  • 8 votes
#1.37 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 12:13 PM EST
greg-709692

Shakes head !

His brother took care of the other.

And for all this time i thought it was Katherine Harris that was at fault. And that makeup, gawd. :/

Liberals have such short memories on who they're supposed to complain about.

  • 1 vote
#1.38 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 12:17 PM EST
Nightbreeeze

Well one thing liberals have good memories about - they haven't forgotten who was running this country and allowed it to plunge into the worst financial crisis in nearly a century. But conservatives never want to talk about that, do they? They just want everyone to believe that they somehow now have the answers to all our financial problems. You already cost us millions of jobs. Your representatives in 2010 all ran on a platform of job formation - but all they did was filibuster and obstruct, earning Congress the lowest approval rating on record. We haven't forgotten that either. Now of course you'll ask us to accept Romney (because no matter what you say, it has to be Romney because he's the only one who stands a chance of beating Obama and that's all conservatives really care about in this election anyway). But we remember conservatives coining the phrase "flip-flop" and hammering the media with the phrase over and over as nauseum. We haven't forgotten how Romney is the veritable king of flip-floppers.

And you say it's liberals that have short memories. Please. Don't make me laugh.

  • 6 votes
#1.39 - Sat Jan 21, 2012 10:19 AM EST
ZenFreedom

qft

    #1.40 - Sat Jan 21, 2012 1:54 PM EST
    Reply
    weRdoomed

    patrician Ken-doll

    gave me chills.

    Love the article!!!

    • 8 votes
    Reply#2 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:40 PM EST
    Bob Nelson.

    Good article.

    Preaching to the choir, though, I fear. The wingnuts are impervious.

    • 24 votes
    Reply#3 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:54 PM EST
    TheyreAllCrooks

    And they'll continue to be impervious as long as we use words like...impervious!

    • 10 votes
    #3.1 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 4:51 PM EST
    Fred Evil

    Two syllables past, "um...huh?!"

    • 9 votes
    #3.2 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:09 PM EST
    Bob Nelson.

    Oh, sorry! ... ... Try "hermetic". Only three syllables instead of four... I'm sure it will be MUCH better understood...

    ;-)))))

    • 10 votes
    #3.3 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:14 PM EST
    Reply
    hugh b

    well done

    their ignorance is bullet proof

    • 12 votes
    Reply#4 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:17 PM EST
    TheyreAllCrooks

    Great article!

    "Obviously when you have a country that is being ruled by what many would perceive to be Islamic terrorists, when you start seeing that type of activity against their own citizens, then not only is it time for us to have a conversation about whether or not they belong to be in NATO but it's time for the United States, when we look at their foreign aid, to go to zero with it," Perry said, adding that Turkey "moved far away from the country it once was in the 1970s," when he was stationed there as an Air Force pilot."

    President Obama should call this Texas moron and tell him he's accepted Perry's advice and cut off all foreign aid to Turkey and he wants Perry to head a commission that will use all the Turkey funds that were going to Turkey to support Perry's campaign! IDIOT!

    Don't they have google in Texas?

    • 8 votes
    Reply#5 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:21 PM EST
    Mike-1499840

    Actually, having worked in Turkey several times...Perry isn't all that far off the mark. Saying so publicly might not have been a good idea...but Turkey is indeed a long way from the staunch NATO ally it was in the 80's & 90's.

    A lot of that is our fault. If we had made a better, more successful effort to help them get into the EU, they would be more firmly in our court. IMHO.

    Regards,

    Mike

    • 2 votes
    #5.1 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:07 PM EST
    Reply
    americandreamshattered

    A wise man once said,"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity"

    just sayin......

    • 5 votes
    Reply#6 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 2:23 PM EST
    caballojoe

    Konrad Adenauer said, "In view of the fact that God limited the intelligence of man, it seems unfair that He did not also limit his stupidity."

    • 5 votes
    #6.1 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 2:42 PM EST
    concerned-in-ohio

    You can't fix 'stupid'.

    • 2 votes
    #6.2 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 8:32 AM EST
    northofdenali

    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."

    - Albert Einstein

    • 3 votes
    #6.3 - Fri Jan 20, 2012 3:37 PM EST
    Reply
    caballojoe

    It's unfortunate. American voters are very dumb. The presidential race is as much a popularity contest as it is about issues. Thankfully, President Obama is the most likable candidate in the race, with the best temprement and he's the best looking. Women just swoon over him while with Romney, they choke and then swallow their tongue.

    • 8 votes
    Reply#7 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 2:38 PM EST
    Donna-3163307

    I prefer to think a good number American voters are uneducated. Problem is that they don't care and don't bother to get educated. That's what is really dumb. They listen to the talking heads on the news programs and often believe everything they hear instead of being objective and seeking the truth on their own. If voters would do that, Obama would have no worries.

    • 2 votes
    #7.1 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 1:03 PM EST
    Reply
    xrayspex

    It SHOULD read "Why are Obama's supporters so Dumb"?

    FACT: The Obama administration energy policies (the worst of which were signed off on by "conservative" President Bush) have EPICALLY FAILED, with a second round of $4 a gallon gas and corresponding (but thankfully small and short-lived) economic collapse as a result. The worst single policy is mandates for corn-based ethanol, a "witches brew" which DOES NOTHING to help the environment (it takes as much gas to make corn based ethanol as is saved), has caused gas prices to MORE THAN DOUBLE in four years, and has resulted in SKYROCKETING food prices, thanks to the FACT that more corn is used to produce biofuels than food !!!

    FACT: The Obama administration began their foreign policy with apologies to nations that DID NOT DESERVE them and allowed the DISGRACE of "El Presidente" of Mexico criticizing U.S. immigration policies concerning ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION in front of Congress when IN FACT the immigration policies of Mexico are FAR STRICTER toward immigrants (legal or not) than U.S. policy !!!

    FACT: The Obama administration passed health care "reform" that leaves an already broken system in place, has DONE NOTHING to solve the problems behind the stratospheric rise in costs to health care providers, employers or individuals, but is the equivalent of hitting the powerball jackpot to Big Pharma.

    FACT: The Obama administration has DONE NOTHING to prosecute those behind the abuses of Wall Street and corporations that resulted in the Great Recession.

    FACT: The Obama administration has added more to the National Debt in One Term than ANY President before him (and considering he followed the economically inept "W", that is simply STUNNING). If there is a second Obama term, he will have added more to the debt than ALL Presidents before him COMBINED !!!

    I could keep going, but why bother ?? The trouble is, most people have their minds made up to either blindly support the President or blindly (and after that horrible debate with all the chest thumping of the chickenhawks, only Stevie Wonder wouldn't have serious issues with the Republican field) oppose him.

    The point is, there is NOTHING "Dumb" about legitimate criticism of the President, and if he somehow wins reelection (which is more dependent on a GENUINE economic recovery than whoever is selected as the Republican Presidential nominee), you can expect more of it (but no birther nonsense or concern about the size of the First Lady's backside) from me !!!

    • 4 votes
    #8 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 2:47 PM EST
    dwillie

    It SHOULD read "Why are Obama's supporters so Dumb"?

    But that would be a lie, which is why it wasn't written. Try posting without the all caps and exclamation points and perhaps your screed might be worthy of a considered response. Shouting doesn't equal credibility.

    • 18 votes
    #8.1 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 3:08 PM EST
    xrayspex

    I shout at "Dumb" $h*t like the policies I've tee'd off on and which this article definitely qualifies as.

    • 3 votes
    #8.2 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 3:20 PM EST
    dwillie

    Which only confirms the puerility and amplifies the inanity of your ongoing participation.

    • 19 votes
    #8.3 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 3:24 PM EST
    northtosouth

    I love the Limbaugh "fact" bus. It's always a-rockin.

    • 3 votes
    #8.4 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 4:38 PM EST
    Bob Nelson.

    Doesn't even know what a "fact" is... presents pure opinion behind an all-CAPS "FACT"!

    Wingnuts are as dumb as rocks. Or is that an insult to rocks?

    • 11 votes
    #8.5 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:15 PM EST
    Hecate's Daughter

    Bob

    Wingnuts are as dumb as rocks. Or is that an insult to rocks?

    My pet rock demands an apology!

    :) HD

    • 8 votes
    #8.6 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:35 PM EST
    Bob Nelson.

    Oh... sorry!!

    ;-)))

    • 7 votes
    #8.7 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:35 PM EST
    xrayspex

    I have never been a Republican and don't have time for fat boy's rants (I work nights and am usually asleep when the jackass brays). Just because you've got on the Obama blinders, doesn't make his many mistakes go away, as a trip to the gas station, grocery store or glance at unemployment figures will confirm !! Just because you disagree with something stated by someone with a different perspective than yours on a dicey subject, doesn't mean it's not based in fact.

    Do any of you really believe that Federal spending isn't absolutely out of control (and has been for at least ten years, since Bush foolishly squandered the progress made by President Clinton and his Republican controlled Congress??) ?? Do any of you really believe the Alternative Energy Act of 2007 has done anything positive for the environment (any gasoline saved is used in the inefficient manufacture of corn based ethanol. Do any of you really believe that the Affordable Health Care Act has or will reduce individual health care costs without resorting to government subsidies? Do any of you believe the Obama Justice Department has gone after Wall Street crooks?

    The President's primary opponent this year will be the economy, and unless there's significant progress on the economy, particularly unemployment figures (and that means true progress, not the bogus numbers that have been posted since early in the Bush Presidency) he may well join the millions of Americans who have found themselves unemployed during the Great Recession (which he didn't cause, but which his policies have done very little to end) !!

    • 3 votes
    #8.8 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:56 PM EST
    Uthaclena

    xrayspex

    FACT: The Obama administration has DONE NOTHING to prosecute those behind the abuses of Wall Street and corporations that resulted in the Great Recession.

    This is the only thing that comes close to a "Fact;" the others are all rather biased "Opinions," or getting really close to "Lies."

    • 5 votes
    #8.9 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 11:32 PM EST
    Timba65

    Apparently you don't know that since Obama became President that domestic enegy production has increased. If Obama's energy policy is a failure and using that policy we are producing more gas and oil then what would you call the corporate-created Bush energy policy? You also don't seem to understand how gasoline is priced. Speculators have infinitely more impact on the price of gasoline than the President. That alone makes the rest of your post unreadable.

    • 8 votes
    #8.10 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 11:37 PM EST
    madvargr

    Oh yeah - its all Obama's fault he hasn't unilaterally imposed his own royal edicts to cover all the legislation that would never get past a GOP clogged senate. LOL

    Why not go post a screed at the Koch Brothers who are making billions of dollars by buying up oil and gas futures just to raise the price so they can make more money. That would be one of two REAL reasons why gas prices are higher than when Bush was President.

    • 6 votes
    #8.11 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 1:59 AM EST
    xrayspex

    Obama's and Bush's post '07 energy policies are virtually identical, so of course I had serious issues with the Bush policies (as noted in #8). It is sheer folly to use a feed grain in the production of biofuels, regardless of whether Democrats or Republicans support it (I support ethanol, but strongly oppose corn-based ethanol).

    I have posted on speculation before but will repeat that those not involved in the industry should be limited or restricted in their ability to trade in oil futures. Of course with our piss poor policies on recovering domestic energy resources (the Democrats signed off on relaxing off-shore drilling, only to rescind that relaxation after Obama was elected), it makes it much easier to jam up the plumbing through speculation.

    Finally, unless I am missing something, Democrats are in control of the Senate, only the elected "repesentatives" of BOTH of our parties are so F**Ked Up that it takes 60 votes to pass a lot of legislation !!

    • 2 votes
    #8.12 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 5:34 AM EST
    Dowser

    I thought gas was over $4 under Bush. It sure hasn't been that high under Obama!

    • 3 votes
    #8.13 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 7:10 AM EST
    magnoliaave

    Dowser....last summer of 2011 gas was well over $4.00 a gal. We travelled cross country to CA and, sometimes, it was over $5.00 a gal.

    • 2 votes
    #8.14 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 11:13 AM EST
    northtosouth

    magnoliaave-

    Where were gas prices over $4.00/gallon last summer? Nowhere according to consumer reports.

    • 2 votes
    #8.15 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 1:07 PM EST
    deryl -638200

    I think premium was

      #8.16 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 1:22 PM EST
      northtosouth

      Maybe premium, but regular wasn't.

      • 2 votes
      #8.17 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 1:45 PM EST
      Dowser

      It wasn't here in KY, for regular, anyway. :-)

      Diesel is another story, and I don't really keep up with it.

        #8.18 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 3:17 PM EST
        xrayspex

        Gas was $4 a gallon (again) last spring because of the Japanese Tsunami and Libyan Arab Spring revolt.

        • 1 vote
        #8.19 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 4:02 PM EST
        northtosouth

        Where was regular gas $4/gallon?

          #8.20 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 5:17 PM EST
          xrayspex

          The nationwide average was $4 a gallon May 4, 2011 and 2011 set the all time record for gas prices, at $3.51 a gallon. This despite the fact demand is down from having more fuel efficient vehicles and driving fewer miles. This year is likely to mirror last, with gas peaking at or just above $4 a gallon in May and declining in the summer.

          • 1 vote
          #8.21 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 5:50 PM EST
          northtosouth

          Consumer reports had the national average at $3.96 on regular gas, so I guess I missed that one. Never got that high in Tampa that I remember.

            #8.22 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 6:20 PM EST
            DayvidM

            xrayspex - I think you make some valid points. Do you feel the Republicans will do a better job? The won't go after Wall Street, that's for sure. They want to repeal the new Healthcare initiatives - will that lower health care costs? I think not. Do you really believe they will interfere in "free market" setting of energy costs? No, me neither. Obama is certainly not perfect, but he's a damned sight better than the alternative as far as I can see.

            • 2 votes
            #8.23 - Fri Jan 20, 2012 12:39 PM EST
            ZenFreedom

            The alternative and what he took over from. It sucks to be handed a sh!t sandwich.

            • 2 votes
            #8.24 - Fri Jan 20, 2012 12:58 PM EST
            greg-709692

            Can I get in on the "Off Topic" gas discussion or will I get deleted for being off topic.

            Here it goes.

            We pay too much for gas period, but government will not do anything about it, even President Obama. Actions, or non-action by President Obama shows that. He's more worried about funding millions to "Green Companies" that go broke or purchase products from overseas. Can we say, "Political Pay Off" !

            • 1 vote
            #8.25 - Fri Jan 20, 2012 1:46 PM EST
            northtosouth

            We pay too much for gas period, but government will not do anything about it, even President Obama. Actions, or non-action by President Obama shows that. He's more worried about funding millions to "Green Companies" that go broke or purchase products from overseas. Can we say, "Political Pay Off" !

            Well, if you'd post something accurate you might be ok. Now this, not so much. Considering President Obama's energy policy has increased domestic production of oil and natural gas, I'd say you're a bit off base.

            • 2 votes
            #8.26 - Fri Jan 20, 2012 1:53 PM EST
            greg-709692

            I wasn't speaking about production, I was talking about the cost to US. Big difference.

            Liberals. Geeeeez!

            Liberals Complain constantly about revenue loss to government, yet, they don't say much about government fraud, like the funding of companies that go broke soon after government shells out OUR money to them, but they sure want US to pay more to make up for that failure. And why the Hell is President Obama still shelling out subsidise to big oil, when Liberals hate Big Oil so much.

            • 1 vote
            #8.27 - Fri Jan 20, 2012 2:02 PM EST
            Bob Nelson.

            Actually, Americans pay far too little for fuel. The low price encourages profligacy.

            • 2 votes
            #8.28 - Fri Jan 20, 2012 2:02 PM EST
            greg-709692

            Actually, $ .75/gallon was just fine.

            Lets take the tax outa fuel. That will reduce the cost by a bunch.

            That's another one of those taxes we pay when Liberals try to tell us we have the lowest tax rate in "centurries", on top of all the other taxes bestowed on us.

            • 1 vote
            #8.29 - Fri Jan 20, 2012 2:18 PM EST
            northtosouth

            Liberals Complain constantly about revenue loss to government, yet, they don't say much about government fraud, like the funding of companies that go broke soon after government shells out OUR money to them, but they sure want US to pay more to make up for that failure.

            One company goes under (happens a lot in the business world, ya know) and it's liberals this and liberals that. Quit the grenade trolling, it's unbecoming.

            And why the Hell is President Obama still shelling out subsidise to big oil, when Liberals hate Big Oil so much.

            Well, probably because it's the Republican controlled House that won't let anyone touch said subsidies.

            Lets take the tax outa fuel. That will reduce the cost by a bunch.That's another one of those taxes we pay when Liberals try to tell us we have the lowest tax rate in "centurries", on top of all the other taxes bestowed on us.

            Talk to your state and county govenments about that, the federal tax only makes up a small portion. 75 cent/gallon gas? Never happening again. If you want to know what fuel really costs, go ask the owner of a gas station. They'll tell you.

            That's another one of those taxes we pay when Liberals try to tell us we have the lowest tax rate in "centurries", on top of all the other taxes bestowed on us.

            Here, this explains the tax on gas, all $.184 /gallon of it. Depending on the state and county you live in, you're looking at maybe a dollar in additional taxes. That's maybe $1.184/gallon in taxes (mostly state and local). So, where's the other $2.20/gallon going since you think gas should be $.75/gallon after all the taxes are taken away? Hm?

            • 2 votes
            #8.30 - Fri Jan 20, 2012 2:37 PM EST
            xrayspex

            Our economy depends on affordable energy prices, and what part of higher gas prices despite more efficient vehicles and driving fewer miles (which means less profligate fuel use) didn't register, Bob ??

            As for the question about Republicans. I have MAJOR reservations with both of our political parties and the fact that a minority of extremists control both. It is high time the majority in the middle told the far left and far right to F**K OFF and take our country back!! If that means a third party (the last legitimate moderate one, the Reform Party, was taken over by right wing extremist Pat Buchanan in 2000 and intentionally scuttled), so be it.

            • 1 vote
            #8.31 - Fri Jan 20, 2012 2:39 PM EST
            greg-709692Deleted
            greg-709692Deleted
            Bob Nelson.

            Lets take the tax outa fuel. That will reduce the cost by a bunch.

            OK... on the condition that we also get rid of all the fiscal advantages that Big Oil has. Gasoline would cost something like $ 10 or $ 15!!

              #8.34 - Fri Jan 20, 2012 6:08 PM EST
              greg-709692

              :)

              ODA

              • 1 vote
              #8.35 - Fri Jan 20, 2012 7:13 PM EST
              WaltUU

              Actually, Americans pay far too little for fuel. The low price encourages profligacy.

              This is a critical fact that a lot of Americans not only are not aware of the foundation for, but even if they become aware of the foundation for it still insist on denying it out of their own personal desire to deny the reality of it. People want to drive; they want to get in their car and drive. They don't want a car ride to be a line item expense. However, it should be. We shouldn't be building our society such that people live so far from where they work, and live so far apart from each other that the local services (market, church, post office) could not be within walking distance of everyone, etc.

              • 1 vote
              #8.36 - Sat Jan 21, 2012 5:02 AM EST
              xrayspex

              Once again that statement about fuel "the low price encourages profligacy" flies in the face of reality, which is that miles driven are down, which combined with more fuel efficient vehicles means fuel demand is at year 2000 levels despite 30 million more vehicles on the road in the past ten years !!

              As for the comments about where we should be "building our society", it is not anyone's business but mine where I live, and as long as sections of my city look like f**king Baghdad, don't be surprised when I move outward again. The elitist idiot eggheads (bank and Govco. "leaders" of BOTH parties) wanted the overwhelming majority of our cultural attractions and nightlife uptown, including a new NBA arena (with the old one torn down BEFORE IT WAS EVER PAID FOR), and a NASCAR Hall of Fame( both paid for out of the taxpayers' pockets instead of their primary tenants), well "mission accomplished" and the result is not pretty !! Areas that were once nice suburban parts of a nice suburban city have been transformed into seedy "wrong sides of town" by moving uptown section 8 recipients out, bringing their crime to the 'burbs, instead of uptown where the police could at least contain them and where they had access to public transportation.

              You live where you want to and I'll live where I want to, and we'll all get along fine, but I'm mad as hell seeing what has become of much of my once beautiful city (Charlotte, which is still beautiful uptown for those TV arena and stadium shots !!) thanks to elitist egghead urban planning and I will do all I can to ensure that future decision makers include the possible consequences of major decisions before they make them !!!

              I live within walking distance of a "market" but it is upscale and it is cheaper to drive to the blue collar market or farmer's market where I can afford groceries or Wally World, so that is what I do if I'm buying more than I can carry on my bike (or more than an item or two, in which case I might walk over to it). In any case, my movements are my business, not some nosy Nancy's !!

              Only one of my three most recent moves didn't take into consideration where I worked or where I went to work (they were separate when I traveled for a living, with the airport being where I went to work and wherever I landed being where I worked) at the time and that was because I was unemployed when I moved there, but again that is my business, not some egghead's !!

              • 1 vote
              #8.37 - Sat Jan 21, 2012 9:01 AM EST
              Bob Nelson.

              Once again that statement about fuel "the low price encourages profligacy" flies in the face of reality, which is that miles driven are down, which combined with more fuel efficient vehicles means fuel demand is at year 2000 levels despite 30 million more vehicles on the road in the past ten years !!

              I love it! Absolutely LOVE it!

              Using an ADDITIONAL THIRTY MILLION CARS to demonstrate that there is NO profligacy...

              I absolutely LOVE it!

              • 2 votes
              #8.38 - Sat Jan 21, 2012 11:27 AM EST
              ZenFreedom

              As for the comments about where we should be "building our society", it is not anyone's business but mine where I live, and as long as sections of my city look like f**king Baghdad

              Srsly, bro? Baghdad? You been to Baghdad? I've been alot of places and haven't seen places that look like the bad parts of Baghdad during the height of the wars (which is what you were trying to convey?). Less QQ, more reality plzkthx.

              • 2 votes
              #8.39 - Sat Jan 21, 2012 1:56 PM EST
              gramapoetmn-4177227

              Don't bother with xrayspex. He is a hater that will just continue his hateful rants as long as he gets a response. He obviously didn't listen to the State of the Union address. He obviously refuses to see any good thing our President has managed to bring about that is beneficial to anyone. He continues to spew hatred, venom, half-truths and flat out lies because it will give him a chance to spew more hatred.

              I agree he should move further out from his Baghdad ghetto. Like way out, like way, way out.

              Sorry, dwillie, This is just trolling for argument. If I'm out of line, I apologize.

                #8.40 - Sun Jan 29, 2012 9:51 PM EST
                Reply
                follow the money

                not "dumb",

                it's more like "misinformed". Here:

                http://www.census.gov/hhes/computer/publications/2009.html

                # of people with access to computers, and the internet.

                People are sometimes not shown a lot, kept in the dark,

                and have no clue what is going on, in the world.

                Goes back to that saying,

                "Knowledge is Power".

                • 6 votes
                Reply#9 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 2:58 PM EST
                northofdenali

                "The tax which will be paid for the purpose of education is not more than the thousandth part of what will be paid to kings, priests and nobles who will rise up among us if we leave the people in ignorance"

                - Thomas Jefferson

                • 4 votes
                #9.1 - Fri Jan 20, 2012 4:14 PM EST
                Reply
                LassenPark

                I won't comment on the intelligence of the American people in general, but if Republicans end up nominating a man whose claim to being worthy of the presidency is his business education and experience, then you really have to wonder just how stupid they can get. The whole notion almost writes its own opposition ads: Picture of smiling Romney with voice over: "Remember What Happened When America Elected Its Last MBA president?" Romney's face morphs into George Bush's against a background of recession headlines, etc. Republicans constantly whine about how President Obama keeps on blaming Bush and then nominate someone's who's planning to run on the same "credentials." Who would have thought Bush would be the gift that keeps on giving?

                • 9 votes
                Reply#10 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 3:14 PM EST
                Vlad's dog

                Good piece Dwillie. The GOP has placed itself in a deep hole of ideology and continues to dig deeper everyday. The idea that this president has created all the problems we now face is little more than ignorance or partisanship. Maybe both.

                • 7 votes
                Reply#11 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 3:27 PM EST
                dwillie

                Definitely both. Thanks much for stopping by and for the kind sentiment.

                • 10 votes
                #11.1 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 3:30 PM EST
                Timba65

                I agree, great article. Bill Clinton said, "When I find myself in a hole, I stop digging. Republican's get a bigger shovel." Could not find a better way to put it if I tried.

                • 8 votes
                #11.2 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 11:40 PM EST
                Reply
                Chum

                I really hope not. Desperately. Romney's treatment of his dog shows me his character--and it isn't anyone I would want in charge of a McDonald's, much less our country.

                • 8 votes
                Reply#12 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 3:41 PM EST
                Truth Sleuth

                I'm appalled too over his treatment of his dog. It broke my heart. But, if I vote for Romney, or not (probably not), it won't be based on that. Just mho.

                • 4 votes
                #12.1 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 4:00 PM EST
                Chum

                Character isn't something you can hide for long. He has shown his. As it happens, I have looked at his platform, as well as his history, and I approve of neither.

                • 6 votes
                #12.2 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 4:36 PM EST
                Mike-584822

                An abused pet will still love its master. Shame really.

                • 2 votes
                #12.3 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 8:22 AM EST
                Reply
                Connie says

                Why would anyone vote for a serial killer?

                I mean according to Romney corporations are people. Wasn't his job at Bain essentially to kill corporations....and he LIKED IT!!!!

                Obama 2012!!

                • 11 votes
                Reply#13 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 4:13 PM EST
                Alan Curtis Montgomery

                Few clearly define the 1% as Mitt Romney; white, elite, wealthy, corporate-insider, out of touch with average Americans, conservative, and arrogant. If 1% was defined in the dictionary with an example Mitt Romney would fit that definition perfectly. It is people like Mitt Romney why the 99% can not stand most of the 1%. He will be bad not only for this country but bad for the world as his hawkish nature is very clear and his view on immigration is the most extreme out of all the candidates. If America does elect such a man America better prepare for four years of utter misery far worse then anything we are dealing with currently.

                • 6 votes
                Reply#14 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 4:17 PM EST
                Becks72

                Bush handed Obama a Nation on the brink of bankruptcy, an economy fraught with criminals in the banking insurance and financial arena, a financial melt down from his tax cuts and two unfunded wars and some one would want him back in office is absurd, ludicrous and just plain stupid. Bush was and still is a war criminal in the eyes of the world and brought disgrace to this Nation. Obama has his faults but to compare him to the Republican right wing trash is too much.

                • 9 votes
                Reply#15 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:38 PM EST
                itsnotademocracyDeleted
                Mike-1499840

                I fixed your article. I made it not only more truthful, but also more terse...See below.

                Given all of President Obama's supposed shortcomings, dumb would be the most charitable word to describe the American electorate if it were to put him back into the White House.

                I also demonstrated that as a general rule of thumb, the truth is usually a lot simpler and requires not near the convoluted explanation the original article did.

                Regards,

                Mike

                • 4 votes
                Reply#17 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:55 PM EST
                dwillie

                You've merely demonstrated a high propensity toward prevarication. No new news there.

                • 13 votes
                #17.1 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:41 PM EST
                Mike-1499840

                will,

                You've merely demonstrated a high propensity toward prevarication. No new news there.

                Yeah, but that's a LOT bettern' lyin'. :-)

                Regards,

                Mike

                • 3 votes
                #17.2 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:31 PM EST
                Reply
                Bootstraps

                Will Americans be so dumb to allow the argument to remain on the revenue side of the equation?

                • 1 vote
                Reply#18 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:41 PM EST
                dwillie

                Assuming you mean tax revenues, dumb is agreeing to more tax cuts when federal tax revenues have been the lowest as a percentage of GDP since 1950. Tax receipts for 2011 are 13% lower than they were in FY2008. Over $1.2 trillion of our increase in federal debt is directly attributable to the lower tax receipts received over the last three fiscal years.

                To be sure, we will not balance our budgets on tax increases alone, nor will we do it on spending cuts alone. Not recognizing that fact is truly dumb.

                • 9 votes
                #18.1 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:49 PM EST
                not over it

                Assuming you mean tax revenues, dumb is agreeing to more tax cuts when federal tax revenues have been the lowest as a percentage of GDP since 1950. Tax receipts for 2011 are 13% lower than they were in FY2008. Over $1.2 trillion of our increase in federal debt is directly attributable to the lower tax receipts received over the last three fiscal years.

                Agreed. We need to raise tax revenues and even then Obama has continued to lower taxes for 95% of Americans and every tax bracket is at a 20 year low.

                Which, I do think Obama is correct in lowering taxes for the bottom 95% but should end the Bush tax cuts for the rich, like he has been trying to do.

                • 6 votes
                #18.2 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:03 PM EST
                Bootstraps

                So, O and the Billion dollar campaign will point to one side of the room saying "taxes down, love me" and point to the other "I didn't want to, love me" while whispering "Ignore the spending". Brilliant.

                • 1 vote
                #18.3 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 1:15 PM EST
                not over it

                It's not all that complicated to understand. Obama, and many economists, know that lessening the tax burden on the middle class will spur the economy because the middle class needs disposable income to purchase things. That is a good thing.

                They also know that we need more revenue so raising the tax burden on the top 1%, those that can afford it, is needed.

                • 4 votes
                #18.4 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 1:37 PM EST
                dwillie

                No, bootstraps.

                I suspect that the campaign will correctly point out that stimulus spending and tax cuts were necessary to keep what was the worst economic downturn since the depression from turning into another depression, a point with which economists agree. Now that we have emerged from that recession, attention must turn to deficit reduction, infrastructure investment and management of growing entitlement program costs paid for through a combination of spending cuts in defense, through rationalization in discretionary areas of government (like the commerce/trade function consolidation he asked Congress for last week), through new revenues from social security tax increases and the sunset of the Bush tax cuts and through overall tax reform.

                • 4 votes
                #18.5 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 3:24 PM EST
                Reply
                Dowser

                Why are Obama's Critics So Dumb?

                I often wonder that myself.

                • 10 votes
                Reply#19 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:58 PM EST
                MJL-3

                Dowser

                Because they aren't very smart?

                Actually they can't help it

                Karl Rove syndrom and watching fox

                http://www.alternet.org/story/149193/study_confirms_that_fox_news_makes_you_stupid

                • 8 votes
                #19.1 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:02 PM EST
                Dowser

                LOL!

                I would agree with that!

                • 6 votes
                #19.2 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:04 PM EST
                MJL-3

                Dowser

                :)

                • 5 votes
                #19.3 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 9:04 PM EST
                Reply
                DocPhil

                I'm hoping that the American people look at the horrendous mistake we collectively made in 2010 and decide that they've been fooled by the right wing one time too many......You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time....... This time many Americans won't make the same dumb mistake and vote for the republican retrograde reactionaries.

                • 11 votes
                Reply#20 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 8:41 PM EST
                Dowser

                Dear God, I hope not.

                • 9 votes
                #20.1 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 8:44 PM EST
                MJL-3

                We will vote the GOP OUT

                Obama and the dems will rule in 2012!

                • 8 votes
                #20.2 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 8:57 PM EST
                Reply
                B.L. Frazer (NYC)

                The Obama haters never take a holiday. They will continue to spout Fox generated bullet points as "FACT". Beck72's post # 15 was spot on. But it shows that the American public is easily swayed. I don't know how a President who handly dismantles Al-quida by killing off their leaders is still having to justify his ability to lead. For the 1st time in 15 years, our dependency on foreign oil is BELOW 50% according to a report today. And Fact: Pres. Reagan increased the dept and raised taxes more than any President, not Obama. But whatever Fox news says must be Right.......(winged) that is.

                You have Gov. Perry who thinks eating a Turkey sandwich makes him an authority to speak on foreign policy.

                You have Ron Paul who's publications continually show a racist and bigoted attitude, not to mention a willingness to cut the US off from every other country almost immediately.

                You have Daddy Warbucks Romney who flip-flops more than a halibut with the line still in it's mouth. Let's Go 1 percenters! Screw the other 99%. - Catchy Slogan, huh?

                You the also have the "Gingrich' who stole Christmas - Nuff said.

                finally, Santorum. Why is this fool still running? He was shown to be corrupt as a Senator and was kicked out. The fact that people are voting for him is why there is the very question of the Article. Yes, Americans are dumb enough to put one of these fools in office over the very competent President Obama

                TRULY SAD !

                • 9 votes
                Reply#21 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 8:56 PM EST
                greg-709692

                There seems to be a missing piece from the Newsweek article, this article seems to eliminate on purpose. The article from Newsweek also labeled the "Purist Left" just as dumb.

                Here is the key line:

                But given the enormity of what he inherited, and given what he explicitly promised, it remains simply a fact that Obama has delivered in a way that the unhinged right and purist left have yet to understand or absorb.

                • 4 votes
                Reply#22 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 9:12 PM EST
                dwillie

                No doubt, greg, and I agree with Sullivan. While I am disappointed that we didn't get single payer, GITMO is still open and immigration reform is yet undone, I think it ludicrous that progressives would even consider not supporting this President. The last time progressives had such a brain cramp was when they gave 97,000 Florida votes to Ralph Nader, causing Al Gore to lose Florida's 23 electoral college votes and the presidency to George Bush. Progressives helped put that clown in office and the results have been disastrous.

                • 8 votes
                #22.1 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 9:23 PM EST
                greg-709692

                The results ain't working so well now either.

                How many "People" have been helped so far ?

                Bet you can count how many of the Big Corps. have been helped though. :)

                Obama is a Big Corp. kinda guy, even if you don't want to believe it. Take the Health Care system we supposedly have now. Big Insurance and Big Pharma made out the best.

                Barack Obama has always wanted to fit in. And has partially treated his journey to the presidency not as a political venture but one of personal discovery.

                Upon entering office, instead of focusing on a jobs issue, he ditched all of his bipartisan rhetoric in order to get his health-care reform passed. To do so, he essentially threw out his promise to keep lobbyists from power and he cut deals with the insurance and drug industries that guarantee them customers and near monopoly pricing. His deal included all number of gimmicks to "juice" the savings numbers and hide the costs. It introduced almost no price competition into health-care meaning that health-care will continue to consume more and more of the economy.

                Instead of billions of dollars, didn't we get something like $17.50/week as our bonus from Mr. Obama and a few Big Corp. saved jobs ?

                Woulda been cheaper if he had just given us "working" little people 200 grand each. The bills we coulda paid off with that little bit of cash and those companies that would have had delinquent bills paid off and the jobs that would have really been saved. Wow! Talk about everyone being able to get back on track.

                And those Bonus's the CEO's got with that stimu-less money. Holy Cow! Talk about a Big Corp. Lover. That's Mr. Obama for sure. :)

                • 1 vote
                #22.2 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 9:38 PM EST
                Timba65

                Considering the obstructionism of the right why do you believe that ACA would have been better. As for the stimulus that got passed, again you can blame the right for paring it down to make it less productive and also for directing so much to tax cuts. As for CEO bonuses, that money came from TARP and was put out under Bush and had zero strings thanks to Paulson. Epic fail, try again.

                • 6 votes
                #22.3 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 11:50 PM EST
                greg-709692

                The CEO clause about bonus's was taken out of the Stimu-less package. "Member the Dodd Contraversy over it ?

                http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/18/sen-dodd-admits-adding-bonus-provision-stimulus-package/

                In a dramatic reversal Wednesday, Sen. Chris Dodd confessed to adding language to a spending cap in the stimulus bill last month that specifically excluded executive bonuses included in contracts signed before the bill's passage.

                Dodd, D-Conn., told FOX News that Treasury officials forced him to make the change.

                As far as the Republican Only Blame, Dems had total control of everything. Are you saying we had Wimps in control of both houses and the White House ?

                • 2 votes
                #22.4 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 7:25 AM EST
                Libertarian y2k

                Greg, a lot of the argument from some on the left is based on "how much worse" a conservative or GOP president would have been; not how good Obama is. A lot of them are trapped into agreeing with his policies because to do otherwise would be to strengthen a conservative's chances in their view. A vote for Obama is actually a vote against the GOP; not an agreement with the man's policies. For the same reasons whoever gains the nomination for the GOP will get a sizable vote; much of which will be based on votes against Progressives/Obama and not for the canidate. So once again we will have an election decided by people that are voting against someone not for someone.

                • 3 votes
                #22.5 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 10:24 AM EST
                greg-709692

                So once again we will have an election decided by people that are voting against someone not for someone.

                That's the talk about town! :)

                Same thing happened in Nov. 2010. Against, not for.

                I read that Independants are flocking away from President Obama. That's a good thing. :D

                • 2 votes
                #22.6 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 10:28 AM EST
                gramapoetmn-4177227

                Rumors fly, greg. Guess we will just have to see if Americans are so stupid to vote out the best President we have had for a lump of coal that can only see the good of the wealthy.

                Don't believe everything you hear. . . alot of it is wishful thinking.

                • 1 vote
                #22.7 - Sun Jan 29, 2012 10:08 PM EST
                Reply
                taryta-2616152

                It amazed me watchinG the debates the other day how these candidates(except for Ron Paul:) look so rehearsed and were so obviously trying to be inspiring as they lied through their teeth. Then the audience was hysterical I'm sure they had a "clap now" sign going on through the whole thing. The only thing missing was the laugh track. I just can't believe people buy into the lies. well yes i guess i can believe it.

                • 6 votes
                Reply#23 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 9:36 PM EST
                tyler-1708225

                Interesting. The democrats say the republicans are dumb and the republicans say the democrats are dumb. For once the parties agree on something -
                everyone is dumb.

                • 2 votes
                Reply#24 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:48 PM EST
                UNA_Lion

                Big Money is fully behind Mr. Obama, and so shall you be. You dare not oppose the rich and powerful! Your vote has been duly purchased, so fulfil your mandate without question.

                • 3 votes
                Reply#25 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 11:15 PM EST
                SgtNickAngel

                One thing that you can always count on is that a large majority of Americans are intellectually ignorant.

                • 5 votes
                Reply#26 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 2:01 AM EST
                Jump to discussion page: 1 2
                Leave a Comment:
                You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                Newsvine Privacy Statement
                As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                FUN STUFF:
                • Leaderboard |
                • E-Mail Alerts |
                • Top of the Vine |
                • Newsvine Live |
                • Newsvine Archives |
                • The Greenhouse |
                COMPANY STUFF:
                • Code of Honor |
                • Company Info |
                • Contact Us |
                • Jobs |
                • User Agreement |
                • Privacy Policy |
                • About our ads
                LEGAL STUFF:
                • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com