The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by molson

Expensive gas is a good thing.

In the grand scheme of things for this country, it really is. It will make for a couple of really bad years for a lot of people but in the end it would be for the best.

SI

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Numbers are in for jobs. There were jobs added, though fewer than was forecast. Unemployment rate and underemployment rates both remained basically unchanged.

Unemployment Rate - U.S. FINALLY Added Jobs In March, But Unemployment Rate Won't Budge

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Couldn't find an angry one and thought it best to avoid the path you so subtly suggested.

I thought he was suggesting Michael, to be honest.

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

It appears that the health care honeymoon barely lasted two weeks. His numbers are trending down again. We noted this before and the public continues to pound it home. The health care bill isn't going to make much difference for Obama if he doesn't reverse the job and economy downward trends.

Didn't you recently suggest in this thread that this health care bill would be a big deal in the 2010 and 2012 elections? As opposed to, say, the economy & jobs?

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I do love how $3/gallon gas (saw my first in a long time the other day) doesn't merit nearly the news story it did when Bush was in office.

We've been at $3 before, so it's not as big news.

If it makes you feel better, NPR did a story on it recently, and they are, of course, a bastion of liberal bias.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Didn't you recently suggest in this thread that this health care bill would be a big deal in the 2010 and 2012 elections? As opposed to, say, the economy & jobs?

Absolutely and I'd still say it is a big deal to many people. But I never said 'as opposed to' the economy and jobs. The health care issue will be a blip on the radar if the economy and jobs don't improve. That affects everyone regardless of class.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Absolutely and I'd still say it is a big deal to many people. But I never said 'as opposed to' the economy and jobs. The health care issue will be a blip on the radar if the economy and jobs don't improve. That affects everyone regardless of class.

Oh look - the jobs are improving - albeit more slowly than everyone would like (obviously).

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The U.S. economy gained more jobs in March than any other month in the last three years, according to a government report released Friday.

The Labor Department said the economy gained 162,000 jobs in the month, compared to a revised reading of a 14,000 job loss in February. That makes March only the third month of gains since the recession began.

"Employers aren't looking at this and saying, great it's over, I can go hire," said Tig Gilliam, CEO of Adecco Group North America, a unit of the world's largest employment staffing firm. "But it's moving in the right direction."

Christina Romer, chairwoman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, pointed out that the first quarter had an average monthly job gain of 54,000, compared to an average monthly job loss of 753,000 in the first quarter of 2009 when the Obama administration first came to office. But she said more needed to be done.

"It is obvious that the American labor market remains severely distressed," she said in a statement. "It will take sustained, robust employment growth to bring the unemployment rate down. Further targeted actions to spur private sector job creation are critically needed to ensure a more rapid, widespread recovery."

Perhaps the most encouraging sign in the report was that the gains were spread across various sectors of the economy -- 60% of industries added jobs -- the most widespread gains seen across the economy in four years.

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

She looks like a Sesame Street character. Like a Tickle-Me-Elmo or something.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Oh look - the jobs are improving - albeit more slowly than everyone would like (obviously).

I'm assuming you saw where I already posted that information earlier in the day. That was the whole start of this discussion.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'm assuming you saw where I already posted that information earlier in the day. That was the whole start of this discussion.

nope i didn't. been busy. or rather i saw that you posted a link to something, didn't have a chance to check out the substance of it.

[JPhillips]

Another nice piece on the GOP from David Frum's blog. This is long time Republican Chris Currey.

I am an old Republican. I am religious, yet not a fanatic. I am a free-marketer; yet, I believe in the role of the government as a fair evenhanded referee. I am socially conservative; yet, I believe that my lesbian niece and my gay grandchild should have the full protection of the law and live as free Americans enjoying every aspect of our society with no prejudices and/or restrictions. Nowadays, my political and socio-economic profile would make me a Marxist, not a Republican.

I grew up in an era where William F. Buckley fought the John Birch society and kicked them out of the Republican Party. I grew up with -– in fact voted for the first time for –- Eisenhower. In 1956, he ran a campaign of dignity. A campaign that acknowledged that there are certain projects better suited to be handled by the government. See, business thinks in the short term, as he said. That’s the imperative of the marketplace. I invest and I expect that in a few quarters, I garner the fruits of my investment. Government, on the other hand, has the luxury to wait a few years, maybe decades, for a return on a given investment. As a former businessman, I know that first hand. Am I a Marxist for thinking that?

I witnessed the fight for equal civil rights in the 1960s. And as a proud American, I applauded the passage of the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act, and we became a better country because of them. Those acts made America stronger. Those acts, at their core, represented and still represent all the values upon which the Republican Party was founded. Yet today, our GOP representatives and leaders are ashamed of them. When they talk about them, you feel their discomfort, their clumsiness, and sometimes their shame. That awkwardness is so strong that it crosses the television screen and hits you in the face in your living room. Why is that? What happened to this generation of Republicans? We are the party of Abraham Lincoln, and yet we act and behave as if we are the party of Nathan Bedford Forrest.

I did not like Medicaid and Medicare when they were passed. I was opposed to them. Maybe I was too young, too strong, and too ideologically confined. Yet, over the years, I saw how Medicare helped millions of elderly Americans. I saw how Medicare helped my mom in her final years battling emphysema caused by years of smoking. You have to be blind to oppose those programs. You have to be blind to wish for the suffering of millions of Americans just because you believe in personal responsibility.

As a businessman, I was torn between my bottom line and providing health coverage for my employees. I knew that if I provided them with that coverage, their productivity increases. I did my best, but the riptide of the health insurance market defeated me. And with a heavy heart, I offered them gimmicky coverages that, deep down, I knew did not provide a comprehensive and adequate coverage, but it was the only coverage I could afford.

I voted for Nixon and for Reagan. Although I did not like the deficit spending of the Reagan administration, I blamed it on and rationalized it by the necessities of fighting the Cold War. I liked Reagan — who didn’t? Even my Democrat and liberal friends liked and respected him. I voted for Clinton, twice. I thought he was the best Republican president since Ike. No, I did not make a mistake. Bill Clinton was closer ideologically to Eisenhower and Nixon than Bush I and II could ever be. I thought that Clinton practiced and articulated true Republican ideology in his fiscal discipline, job creation, smart tax cuts, and foreign policy better than anyone since Ike.

Then something happened in the 1990s. The leaders of the GOP grew belligerent. They became too religious, almost zealots. They became intolerant. They began searching for purity in Republican thought and doctrine. Ideology blinded them. I continued to vote Republican, but with a certain unease. Deep down I knew that a schism happened between the modern Republican Party and the one I grew up with. During the fight over the impeachment of President Clinton, the ugly face of the Republican Party was brought to the surface. Empty rhetoric, ideological intolerance, vengeance, and religious zealotry became the common currency. Suddenly, if you are pro-choice, you could not be a Republican. If you are for smart and sensible taxes to balance out the budget, you could not be a Republican. If you are pro-civil rights, you could not be a Republican.

It started with minorities: they left the party. Then women; they divorced the GOP and sent it to sleep on the couch. Then, the young folks; they left and are leaving the Republican Party in droves. Then, someone stood up and told my niece and my grandchild that they are not fully Americans — just second class Americans because they are homosexual. They wished hell and damnation upon my loved ones just because they are different. Are we led by priests or are we led by rational politicians? Now, we have became the party of the Old Straight White Folks. We should rename the Republican Party the OSWF rather than the GOP.

Recently, since the election of Barack Obama, common sense has left the Republican Party completely. We are in the era of craziness. As David Frum has written, a deal was there to be made over the healthcare bill. Instead, this ideological purity blinded the GOP. As LBJ said it, instead of being inside the tent pissing out, we choose to be outside the tent, pissing against the wind. And we got splashed by our own nonsense. Why did we do that? Well, when a political party shrinks its electoral based to below 30% and is composed by one demographic group, all that is left are a bunch of zealots. We shrank it by kicking out of the party those who believe that abortion should be legal but limited. We shrank it by kicking out those who believe that an $11 trillion economy, like ours, needs a strong government, not a government that can be drowned in a bathtub. We shrank it when we sanctified Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck, and canonized Sarah Palin. These are the leaders of my party nowadays. How did we go from William F. Buckley to Glenn Beck? How did we go from Eisenhower and Nixon to Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann? I do not know. What I do know, however, is that these leaders remind of me of the leaders of the Whig Party. And if they continue on their nonsense, they will bring the collapse of the GOP.

I do not recognize myself in the Republican Party anymore. As someone said it before, I did not leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party left me. I have the same ideological positions on most of the issues that I had when I voted for Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan and George W. Bush in 2000. However, I just cannot trust the reins of our government and nation, of this formidably complicated and complex gigantic machine that is the USA, to the amateurish leadership of the Republican Party.

We are living through tough times. We are being challenged like I have never seen America being challenged before. China is a formidable foe, and it is out there competing against us on every field and beating us on several fronts. While our education budgets are being slashed in every state across the nation, China is doubling and tripling theirs. These are the challenges and challengers that we are facing. And we need our best and brightest to lead us, not a half-term governor or radio/TV talking heads.

Maybe I am too old and too cynical, but I think the Republican party is in the last stages of agony. If nothing happens, we might win an election or even two, but in the long run we will lose America.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Another nice piece on the GOP from David Frum's blog. This is long time Republican Chris Currey.

I wouldn't particularly disagree with the basic contention that Currey & I don't really belong in the same party. But much of the party he describes nostalgically isn't one I ever supported either.

Perhaps his party of old has left the building in much the same way as the Democrats abandoned anything I could support. Political evolution maybe {shrug}.

[Swaggs]

I really like this quote and think is is appropriate:

As LBJ said it, instead of being inside the tent pissing out, we choose to be outside the tent, pissing against the wind. And we got splashed by our own nonsense.

[RendeR]

I'd be interested to see a comparison of Democratic standards over the decades like he did for the Reps in this piece.

I'm betting the Dems haven't changed nearly as much or as pathetically.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RendeR

I'd be interested to see a comparison of Democratic standards over the decades like he did for the Reps in this piece.

There's pretty much nothing recognizable left in the Dem party I was once associated with, or at least nothing of any particular value.

[miked]

Originally Posted by RendeR

I'd be interested to see a comparison of Democratic standards over the decades like he did for the Reps in this piece.

I'm betting the Dems haven't changed nearly as much or as pathetically.

You've obviously never heard of a Dixiecrat.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

There's pretty much nothing recognizable left in the Dem party I was once associated with, or at least nothing of any particular value.

It's interesting to go to Wikipedia and look at the list of governors for southern states like Mississippi and Alabama during the 50s and 60s...

(hint: they were all Democrats)

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

There's pretty much nothing recognizable left in the Dem party I was once associated with, or at least nothing of any particular value.

Give your age, I have to ask if the Democratic party with which you once associated was the party of Carter, Mondale & Dukakis?

Because if so you've changed more than the Democratic party has (and I think the Democratic party has changed plenty in the past 50 years).

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

It's interesting to go to Wikipedia and look at the list of governors for southern states like Mississippi and Alabama during the 50s and 60s...

(hint: they were all Democrats)

If I remember correctly, it was the Democrats that were against the abolition of slavery and segregation.

[Galaril]

Yes, the democrats of the civil war if I remember more or less moved to republican and the dems became the Republicans.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by RendeR

I'd be interested to see a comparison of Democratic standards over the decades like he did for the Reps in this piece.

I'm betting the Dems haven't changed nearly as much or as pathetically.

I dunno. Talk to my parents, who are on the bobo side of the yuppie-bobo divide. She talked about how her gen was a little miffed at how Gen X turned out- after they fought for women's rights, racial equality, and an end to war, nothing substantially liberal has really happened in the last 30 or 40 years despite having control for a decent amount of the time.

SI

[molson]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I dunno. Talk to my parents, who are on the bobo side of the yuppie-bobo divide. She talked about how her gen was a little miffed at how Gen X turned out- after they fought for women's rights, racial equality, and an end to war, nothing substantially liberal has really happened in the last 30 or 40 years despite having control for a decent amount of the time.

SI

Somewhere along the way many of them decided that complaining about things was way easier than changing anything.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

She talked about how her gen was a little miffed at how Gen X turned out- after they fought for women's rights, racial equality, and an end to war, nothing substantially liberal has really happened in the last 30 or 40 years despite having control for a decent amount of the time.

Gen X's attitudes are more based on what their parents did during the 80s and 90s than what they did in the 60s and 70s.

[JPhillips]

Research shows that voting patterns are largely determined by the feelings for the president when the person was growing up. Negative feelings for Carter and positive feelings for Reagan built a solid foundation for Bush2. Likewise, if the economy turns around the combination of negative feelings for Bush2 and positive feelings for Obama will make a good foundation for Dem X twenty years from now.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

So Stupak serves us this shit sandwich of a health bill and then decides it's going to be too tough of a reelection race and decides to retire? Thanks for nothing, you moron. Must be tough making that decision while collecting your pension and full health care coverage.

[DaddyTorgo]

Stupak is a fuckwad

[JonInMiddleGA]

CNN nor Fox have posted it online yet but ajc.com "breaking news" headline on the website says Justice Stevens is retiring.

Kind of saw that coming I guess, figured I'd throw it in here anyway.

[larrymcg421]

I doubt Ginsburg will stay through 2012, so we could likely have two confirmation battles coming up.

It will be interesting to see if the GOP would be willing to filibuster a SCOTUS nominee.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I doubt Ginsburg will stay through 2012, so we could likely have two confirmation battles coming up.

It will be interesting to see if the GOP would be willing to filibuster a SCOTUS nominee.

There's zero chance of that happening because they are philosophically opposed to filibustering judicial nominees.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

There's zero chance of that happening because they are philosophically opposed to filibustering judicial nominees.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I doubt Ginsburg will stay through 2012, so we could likely have two confirmation battles coming up.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

CNN nor Fox have posted it online yet but ajc.com "breaking news" headline on the website says Justice Stevens is retiring.

Called it, bitches! (And Souter. See page 4, I think.)

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

So Stupak serves us this shit sandwich of a health bill and then decides it's going to be too tough of a reelection race and decides to retire? Thanks for nothing, you moron. Must be tough making that decision while collecting your pension and full health care coverage.

Except didn't all the polls show he was quite likely to win in November?

SI

[Swaggs]

I'm quite liberal and really dislike a lot of what the Tea Party has done, but I really hate how legitimate (or, at least, semi-legitimate) publications, journalists, and TV personalities continue to call them teabaggers.

It was a little funny the first time we all heard it, even though most folks had probably already come up with it on their own, but after a year + it has gotten stale. It is similar to how conservatives seem to get off on calling the Democractic Party the "Democrat Party."

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Except didn't all the polls show he was quite likely to win in November?

SI

I don't know about quite likely. He was elected in a district that was 53% for Obama. We also didn't have a change to judge a long-range effect of the health care bill and his decision to switch sides on his popularity. He was facing some heavy backlash both publicly and nationally. And while he wouldn't admit it, his wife all but came out and said that the efforts of the Tea Party movement (for better or worse) played a major role in his decision not to run for reelection.

We'll obviously never know for sure, but he faced an uphill climb to say the least.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I don't know about quite likely. He was elected in a district that was 53% for Obama. We also didn't have a change to judge a long-range effect of the health care bill and his decision to switch sides on his popularity. He was facing some heavy backlash both publicly and nationally. And while he wouldn't admit it, his wife all but came out and said that the efforts of the Tea Party movement (for better or worse) played a major role in his decision not to run for reelection.

We'll obviously never know for sure, but he faced an uphill climb to say the least.

what does "all but came out and said" mean to you? i haven't been following this at all, but i'm curious...

[JonInMiddleGA]

Missed this last week amidst one thing or another

http://www.gallup.com/poll/127262/De...ecord-Low.aspx

PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans' favorable rating of the Democratic Party dropped to 41% in a late March USA Today/Gallup poll, the lowest point in the 18-year history of this measure. Favorable impressions of the Republican Party are now at 42%, thus closing the gap between the two parties' images that has prevailed for the past four years.

Gallup last measured party images in late August/early September of last year. At that point, the Democratic Party enjoyed an 11-point favorable image advantage over the Republican Party. Now, the favorable ratings of the two parties are essentially tied.

The images of the two major parties have particular significance in a midterm election year. For example, the favorable rating of the Democratic Party exceeded that of the Republican Party by 52% to 37% just prior to the 2006 midterm elections, in which the Democrats gained 31 House seats.

Americans' current 41% favorable rating of the Democratic Party is five points lower than the party's previous low, recorded twice in 2005.

For those around here who like the whole "independent voters" thing, I'll note that one year ago Ind. had a 47 favorable for D's & 33 favorable for R's. This March? 30 for the D's and 37 for the R's.

R favorable for D's? Down from 11 to 8.
D favorable for R's? Pretty much steady between 12-15 since May '09.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Missed this last week amidst one thing or another

http://www.gallup.com/poll/127262/De...ecord-Low.aspx

PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans' favorable rating of the Democratic Party dropped to 41% in a late March USA Today/Gallup poll, the lowest point in the 18-year history of this measure. Favorable impressions of the Republican Party are now at 42%, thus closing the gap between the two parties' images that has prevailed for the past four years.

Gallup last measured party images in late August/early September of last year. At that point, the Democratic Party enjoyed an 11-point favorable image advantage over the Republican Party. Now, the favorable ratings of the two parties are essentially tied.

The images of the two major parties have particular significance in a midterm election year. For example, the favorable rating of the Democratic Party exceeded that of the Republican Party by 52% to 37% just prior to the 2006 midterm elections, in which the Democrats gained 31 House seats.

Americans' current 41% favorable rating of the Democratic Party is five points lower than the party's previous low, recorded twice in 2005.

For those around here who like the whole "independent voters" thing, I'll note that one year ago Ind. had a 47 favorable for D's & 33 favorable for R's. This March? 30 for the D's and 37 for the R's.

R favorable for D's? Down from 11 to 8.
D favorable for R's? Pretty much steady between 12-15 since May '09.

FYI - if nothing else, that was a shoddy piece of reporting by Gallup. The margin-of-error should have been up there in the body of the piece, not buried halfway down the page.

Originally Posted by that website

For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.

[Flasch186]

or "quite likely" which should go in the file with "vast" in the MBBF dictionary and "uphill climb" with numbers that show the opposite to be true. Its like he's the anti-nostradamus.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

FYI

Yep.

Meaning that the gap could be as much as 9 points in favor of the poor, but only, hope we've got.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Yep.

Meaning that the gap could be as much as 9 points in favor of the poor, but only, hope we've got.

You say that, I say 7 points the other way.

*shrug*

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

FYI - if nothing else, that was a shoddy piece of reporting by Gallup. The margin-of-error should have been up there in the body of the piece, not buried halfway down the page.

Y'know, you really aren't telling me anything, there's not any new "I", I wrote stories like that for years.

And yes, I looked for the margin of error in the body but at the same time it isn't uncommon for it to be absent from the body text of the results listing, it's included in the Survey Methods section of this poll same as it is on every other Gallup poll release. This was straight from Gallup, not from wire copy, which is where you typically find the margin of error included in the body text.
Why? Because the link I saw referencing it sent me to Gallup's site not to a news article. If it had been the other way around then it would likely have shown up when I posted it.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Y'know, you really aren't telling me anything, there's not any new "I", I wrote stories like that for years.

And yes, I looked for the margin of error in the body but at the same time it isn't uncommon for it to be absent from the body text of the results listing, it's included in the Survey Methods section of this poll same as it is on every other Gallup poll release. This was straight from Gallup, not from wire copy, which is where you typically find the margin of error included in the body text.
Why? Because the link I saw referencing it sent me to Gallup's site not to a news article. If it had been the other way around then it would likely have shown up when I posted it.

Oh no - I wasn't trying to accuse you of shoddy reporting. I was saying that the writeup (which admittedly was on Gallup's site and not a wire-service site) was poor because it buried the margin-of-error. But maybe that's how Gallup's site always does things...I don't know.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

what does "all but came out and said" mean to you? i haven't been following this at all, but i'm curious...

Something like this........

Stupak Retires, Hints At Successor | TPMDC

Though Stupak mostly chose not to engage with the tea party groups and anti-health care reform conservatives -- who have bombarded him with criticism since he cut a deal with Democratic House leaders and the White House over abortion language in the bill -- his wife did not. Introducing her husband at the speech today, Laurie Stupak said that the calls and letters from angry conservatives had left their mark.

"During the recent health care debate, our offices and home were deluged with calls," she said. "Unfortunately some of those calls were vulgar cruel and insulting."

Laurie Stupak said "95 percent" of the calls had come from outside the district, and she defended her husband against charges from the right that his vote for the health care bill betrayed his anti-abortion convictions.

"He has always been pro-gun, pro-life and pro-health care," she said.

Originally Posted by Flasch186

or "quite likely" which should go in the file with "vast" in the MBBF dictionary and "uphill climb" with numbers that show the opposite to be true. Its like he's the anti-nostradamus.

Good to see your back. I missed these personal insults with no rebuttal related to the actual discussion.

[DaddyTorgo]

I don't quite read that as "all but came out and said" MBBF.

That's also not something that we should be encouraging as part of our civilized political discourse (the personal harassment of Congressmen's families), as much as Tea Party folks seem to be embracing it. It makes us seem like some war-torn Central African nation.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I don't quite read that as "all but came out and said" MBBF.

That's also not something that we want to encourage as part of our political discourse.

Which is exactly why I noted 'for better or worse' in the original thread. I never endorsed the behavior.

When your wife calls out political pressure from the opposition in your retirement speech but doesn't allow that opposition to have the satisfaction of knowing that their efforts broke down that individual, that's the definition of 'all but came out and said'.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

That's also not something that we should be encouraging as part of our civilized political discourse (the personal harassment of Congressmen's families), as much as Tea Party folks seem to be embracing it. It makes us seem like some war-torn Central African nation.

Ahem ... whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

If that means going after their support structure as well then so be it.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Ahem ... whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

If that means going after their support structure as well then so be it.

You know - ideologically i figured you would say that, but as an avowed family man I would have thought you'd be against such tactics.

So I take it you were okay with those Tea Partiers who almost blew up the brother+family of that Congressman by fucking with his gas line?

You really have no shame. I know...I know...big surprise. I should know this by now. Thought there might be a shred of humanity left somewhere down in there though.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Ahem ... whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

If that means going after their support structure as well then so be it.

While realizing where you usually stand in regards to this discussion, I do agree that government needs a major kick in the pants right now. There's a shocking amount of stupidity on both sides of the aisle right now and I think that Congress needs a major clean-out at this point. I don't approve of some of the methods, but I continue to be floored at the number of Congress members who act surprised at the outrage coming from both sides. People are pissed off right now.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Good to see your back. I missed these personal insults with no rebuttal related to the actual discussion.

Felt like pointing out your spin....again. It isnt about rebutting. When you make a statement citing a statistic or fact, and it isnt so, then there isnt much to rebut other than to point out the spin.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

So I take it you were okay with those Tea Partiers who almost blew up the brother+family of that Congressman by fucking with his gas line?

That depends ... who was the Congressman?

More importantly (although it isn't nearly as good as a one-liner), what was the brother's role in the Congressman's life & what were his (this brother) positions on the various key issues?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Felt like pointing out your spin....again. It isnt about rebutting. When you make a statement citing a statistic or fact, and it isnt so, then there isnt much to rebut other than to point out the spin.

Except that there wasn't any spin. But still, nice to have you back.

[Flasch186]

Right, you dont even know when you spin anymore.