The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Arles

There's a danger here of painting everyone with a concern on cap and trade, public health care options, school curriculums, social security or current debt levels as some right-wing nut job. Eventually, a vast majority of voters is going to be among that group and you don't want them remembering how they were called "nutjobs" for having that concern in the next election. You don't have to dignify all the concerns, but you shouldn't be putting down everyone with concerns on a daily basis as well.

But no one is painting everyone who disagrees with Obama as a nutjob. Debates about public health care, current debt, social security, and cap and trade- these are all things that have legitimate facets to them. I don't want to say sides as that presumes there are just two opposing viewpoints when many of these issues are much more complex than that, even if many places want to boil it down to "either yer wit' us or agin' us".

However, I think there's a fairly broad line here between airing legitimate complaints and giving the flat earth society a forum. And I think, similarly, there's a very big difference between those who espouse those different types of views. I also think these issues are exasperated by various media outlets giving equal time when there isn't equal merits to many of the arguments in a debate but I suppose that's another post for another time.

SI

[miked]

Everyone keeps complaining about the focus on the nutjobs, but isn't that what it's come down to? Most politicians can't hold a simple town forum because of the nutjobs shouting them down about death panels and socialism. It would seem if the republicans wanted a true voice in this (and I wish they would) they would put forth an actual counter-proposal and encourage rational debate (like McCain did to his shouters) instead of being the donkey on Family Guy (no,no,no,no,no,no,no!!!). Unfortunately, you have scum like Grassley in the forefront and that really prevents things from happening.

On the other side, it would be nice if somebody stepped up and peed on both Pelosi and Baucus.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by miked

Everyone keeps complaining about the focus on the nutjobs, but isn't that what it's come down to? Most politicians can't hold a simple town forum because of the nutjobs shouting them down about death panels and socialism. It would seem if the republicans wanted a true voice in this (and I wish they would) they would put forth an actual counter-proposal and encourage rational debate (like McCain did to his shouters) instead of being the donkey on Family Guy (no,no,no,no,no,no,no!!!). Unfortunately, you have scum like Grassley in the forefront and that really prevents things from happening.

On the other side, it would be nice if somebody stepped up and peed on both Pelosi and Baucus.

I think Grassley's a perfect example of what's wrong. He has generally been a pretty sane, reasonable conservative voice, but now he's had to embrace death panels to keep from getting primaried from the right or losing his coveted committee assignments. The discussion will stop being about the crazies when the crazies stop running the GOP.

[King of New York]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

i think you're a wingnut because you apparently buy into the idea that this was some big conspiracy to indoctrinate children. that there was some secret speech that he was going to give that he scrapped at the last minute because glen beck and rush limbaugh sussed out his secret plan to steal all your children. that doesn't even pass the "common sense" test.

When the thought that "I do not know, and I cannot know, what speech Obama would have delivered if there hadn't been so much attention paid to it," elicits the above, clearly we have reached a point where rational discussion is no longer possible.

I think you have proved my point that Obama's most ardent supporters are freely flinging the term wingnut at those who reckon themselves Obama supporters, yet whose support of the president is not absolute and unquestioning.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by King of New York

When the thought that "I do not know, and I cannot know, what speech Obama would have delivered if there hadn't been so much attention paid to it," elicits the above, clearly we have reached a point where rational discussion is no longer possible.

I think you have proved my point that Obama's most ardent supporters are freely flinging the term wingnut at those who reckon themselves Obama supporters, yet whose support of the president is not absolute and unquestioning.

I thought long and hard about that post - I actually debated whether I wanted to use the phrase "wingnut" in it at all, but since that's what the conversation was around I didn't want to change the word and confuse the discussion.

Well that's true...you cannot know and do not know what speech he would have delivered. And neither do I. But that's like saying "I cannot know for certain that mankind walked on the moon since I have not physically done it myself, so I will choose to believe that they faked it." It just doesn't pass the "common sense" test. There's a lot of things you take on faith. You cannot see your social security accruing, but you take it on faith that it will be there. If you're religious you cannot see evidence of god, but you take it on faith.

Common sense tells us that mankind walked on the moon. Common sense tells us that Obama intended to deliver the same speech before and after the commotion (commotion after all that was caused by the lesson plans drawn up by some jr. level somebody-or-other that i'm sure obama never even saw).

My support isn't absolute and unwavering. Shit, if he comes out tonight and gives away the public option I'll tear the guy from pillar to post. I might anyways, because I firmly believe that single-payer was the way to go. But you can place a lot of that blame on the Congress as well as him. Wasn't necessarily a problem 100% caused by him.

I'm dissapointed by the rendition and Guantanamo positions that he's taken.

[JediKooter]

Here's how I see it (my opinion): The people from a particular political party who are not a wacko, nutjob, loon, crazy, etc, do nothing to distance themselves or speak out against the people who ARE a wacko, nutjob, loon, crazy, etc, that are in their same political party.

It's like, "Oh, that's just crazy uncle Larry, we still love him though." No, get uncle Larry some damn help, he isn't helping your cause one bit and is making the rest of you guilty by association.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

The people from a particular political party who are not a wacko, nutjob, loon, crazy, etc, do nothing to distance themselves or speak out against the people who ARE a wacko, nutjob, loon, crazy, etc, that are in their same political party.

There are plenty of posters in this very thread that do exactly that.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

There are plenty of posters in this very thread that do exactly that.

In all honesty, I wasn't addressing FOFC, but, what we see on the news or read. Look at Van Johnson, I haven't heard anyone from the democrat side say anything at all. Unless I missed it. Look at Pat Buchanon and his Nazi/Hitler revisionist crap he's been spewing out the last few days, haven't heard any republicans call him out on his bovine scatos either.

I think in these two instances, silence, is saying plenty loud and clear. Again, just my opinion and it's possible that I missed someone from their own politcal party call them out.

[miked]

Speaking of wingnuts who nobody can reel in, Sara Palin with an op-ed in the WSJ...

Originally Posted by crazy lady

"Is it any wonder that many of the sick and elderly are concerned that the Democrats' proposals will ultimately lead to rationing of their health care by-dare I say it-death panels?" she writes. "Establishment voices dismissed that phrase, but it rang true for many Americans."

"But the fact remains that the Democrats' proposals would still empower unelected bureaucrats to make decisions affecting life or death health-care matters. Such government overreaching is what we've come to expect from this administration," she says.

Democrats are praying that she wins the nomination. I actually wish somebody with an intelligent voice in congress would write something rational...on either side. I don't think we'll get that though.

[CamEdwards]

You're going to have a lot of Republicans say there's no need to speak up when Obama's approval numbers keep dropping. Latest AP poll has his personal approval at 50/49 (it was 67/24 back in February), approval on health care at 42/52 (was 53/28 back in April), approval on economy at 44/52 (was 58/35 in April), and approval on handling of federal deficit at 33/56 (was 49/41 in April).

There are a lot of conservatives who aren't happy with the noise from the fringe, but as long as Obama's numbers keep dropping they're not going to have a great deal of traction to try and quiet them down.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Just read up on the Van Jones thing. I was vaguely aware of it, but don't watch cable news or read blogs so missed most of it.

My god. Is there no vetting of any kind? Simply politically speaking, that was a no-brainer to not appoint that guy.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

You're going to have a lot of Republicans say there's no need to speak up when Obama's approval numbers keep dropping. Latest AP poll has his personal approval at 50/49 (it was 67/24 back in February), approval on health care at 42/52 (was 53/28 back in April), approval on economy at 44/52 (was 58/35 in April), and approval on handling of federal deficit at 33/56 (was 49/41 in April).

There are a lot of conservatives who aren't happy with the noise from the fringe, but as long as Obama's numbers keep dropping they're not going to have a great deal of traction to try and quiet them down.

On other hand, I believe the GOP numbers are far worse, which says something... not that the extremes may necessarily care.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

You're going to have a lot of Republicans say there's no need to speak up when Obama's approval numbers keep dropping. Latest AP poll has his personal approval at 50/49 (it was 67/24 back in February), approval on health care at 42/52 (was 53/28 back in April), approval on economy at 44/52 (was 58/35 in April), and approval on handling of federal deficit at 33/56 (was 49/41 in April).

There are a lot of conservatives who aren't happy with the noise from the fringe, but as long as Obama's numbers keep dropping they're not going to have a great deal of traction to try and quiet them down.

While the polling numbers are certainly going the wrong way in a hurry, I don't think much credit should be given to the vocal fringe of the Republicans. I think the Democrats and their ability to shoot each other in the foot repeatedly have been far more damaging to this administration and Democrat majority than anything the Republicans have done.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

See? I knew conservatives were smarter than liberals

Why do all the red states rank at the bottom of the rankings in educational statistics?

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

On other hand, I believe the GOP numbers are far worse, which says something... not that the extremes may necessarily care.

I think lots of people are sick of both parties and the current climate of politics. The GOP is certainly letting far right people speak for them too much, while the Dems are dealing with Obama breaking campaign promise after campaign promise and showing himself to really be not much of a change, except that he's wasting all our money on something other than defense.

As mentioned on the last page of the thread, we need a real third party with more moderate views to push the whackos off to either side and start shrinking government and getting it out of being in all the businesses it has no business being in.

[CamEdwards]

You're both right, but you're thinking too logically.

I don't believe the fringe is responsible for the falling poll numbers, but since they've been all over the media as the numbers are falling, there will be plenty of Republicans (as opposed to conservatives) who are willing to give them the credit.

As for the GOP numbers being just as bad... that's largely true, though the GOP is starting to lead on a number of issues. Still, in politics, getting and maintaining power is always going to be more of a priority than having a coherent agenda.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Why do all the red states rank at the bottom of the rankings in educational statistics?

let me field this one on behalf of our conservative posters: it's obviously because the statistical measurements were designed by dirty no-good liberals.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I think lots of people are sick of both parties and the current climate of politics. The GOP is certainly letting far right people speak for them too much, while the Dems are dealing with Obama breaking campaign promise after campaign promise and showing himself to really be not much of a change, except that he's wasting all our money on something other than defense.

As mentioned on the last page of the thread, we need a real third party with more moderate views to push the whackos off to either side and start shrinking government and getting it out of being in all the businesses it has no business being in.

I think we're starting to see that manifest itself in the House. There's a surprising number of representatives that aren't too reliable for either party. I think the Senate is quite a bit more polarized in comparison. It's certainly not a third party by any means, but there seems to be an increase in the number of reps who don't vote along party lines.

[JPhillips]

I think the fringe has been effective because of the way the media has covered their arguments. When news organizations cover the daily outrage by equating crazy with rational, that's bound to lend an air of legitimacy to the crazies.

"Some conservatives say President Obama plans to kill your grandma, Democrats say that's not true. We'll cover the both sides of the controversy next."

[Flasch186]

private schools are doing just fine thank you very much.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

You're both right, but you're thinking too logically.

I don't believe the fringe is responsible for the falling poll numbers, but since they've been all over the media as the numbers are falling, there will be plenty of Republicans (as opposed to conservatives) who are willing to give them the credit.

As for the GOP numbers being just as bad... that's largely true, though the GOP is starting to lead on a number of issues. Still, in politics, getting and maintaining power is always going to be more of a priority than having a coherent agenda.

where are these polls? what time periods are they covering? when were they taken? what issues are they referencing? what areas of the country did they sample? Who took the polls?

plenty of questions to be asked about those

(note...i'm not seriously asking for answers to them...i've got work i should be doing, just pointing out that your citation was incomplete)

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I think we're starting to see that manifest itself in the House. There's a surprising number of representatives that aren't too reliable for either party. I think the Senate is quite a bit more polarized in comparison. It's certainly not a third party by any means, but there seems to be an increase in the number of reps who don't vote along party lines.

Who are these in the GOP? They've voted as a block against everything Obama's supported.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I think the fringe has been effective because of the way the media has covered their arguments. When news organizations cover the daily outrage by equating crazy with rational, that's bound to lend an air of legitimacy to the crazies.

"Some conservatives say President Obama plans to kill your grandma, Democrats say that's not true. We'll cover the both sides of the controversy next."

This I agree with. The national media is failing this country bigtime.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Who are these in the GOP? They've voted as a block against everything Obama's supported.

In general, there's definitely more Dems who are unreliable than Republicans. I think that has more to do with what I'd call the 'Specter' effect. There were a lot of candidates who ran as Democrats in the House elections on the pro-Obama/anti-Bush coattails just to get elected. I think we're seeing that there were a lot of Democrats elected who weren't quite as Democrat as they'd like you to believe. You can certainly sense that frustration in some of the House leaders on the the majority side of the aisle. They seem to be frustrated that they can't just ride the majority numbers to bill passage.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Who are these in the GOP? They've voted as a block against everything Obama's supported.

It's not an enormous difference, but so far during this Congress, more democrats in the house vote with their party than republicans.

House voting with party scores | 111th Congress | Congressional votes database | washingtonpost.com

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

In general, there's definitely more Dems who are unreliable than Republicans.

DINO's to go with the RINO's?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

In general, there's definitely more Dems who are unreliable than Republicans. I think that has more to do with what I'd call the 'Specter' effect. There were a lot of candidates who ran as Democrats in the House elections on the pro-Obama/anti-Bush coattails just to get elected. I think we're seeing that there were a lot of Democrats elected who weren't quite as Democrat as they'd like you to believe. You can certainly sense that frustration in some of the House leaders on the the majority side of the aisle. They seem to be frustrated that they can't just ride the majority numbers to bill passage.

Can you show me one Democrat that only ran as a Democrat because of Obama? They would have declared they were running long before Obama was the nominee. Were they psychic?

Historically the Dems are just more diverse ideologically than the Republicans. I don't have a perfect explanation for why, but getting the Dems to vote together has been a struggle for every leader since Truman at least.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Why do all the red states rank at the bottom of the rankings in educational statistics?

I think this is more of an indication of where the wealth is.

Based on census data one could reasonably argue that the Blue States have
(a) The highest concentrations of wealth
(b) The highest tax rates
(c) The largest budget shortfalls despite a & b
(d) Artificially high census figures in relation to education levels due to the amount of people who move there to pursue wealth

So, by that one could draw the conclusion that blue states (and by extension, Liberal fiscal policy) ends up in a have/have not society where the poor vote for the candidate that will take the most from the rich (or appear to on the surface...which just gets moved to some other "fee" or price increases which screws them anyway). This is (admittedly a strawman) usually attributed (as a strawman) to Conservative fiscal policy due to the (desired) equality in income tax (or lack thereof) across the board.

Does anybody really believe DC's public education system produced 47% Bachelor's degrees and 26% Advanced degrees? That might be an extreme circumstance, sure. How about the next few states?

Massachusetts

Maryland

Colorado

Connecticut

New Jersey

Virginia

Of those (including DC) none of them make the top 15 in HS Diploma residents(Colorado is 16th). So if education equals wealth (or access to wealth), they have a higher % of wealthy people but also a higher % of poor people whereas the red states have a more evenly balanced population (in comparison).

On the other hand Alaska is #4 in HS diploma residents while California is 5th from the bottom (46th though Cali is 15/14 BS/Advanced degrees...perhaps reinforcing the have/have not argument).

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Can you show me one Democrat that only ran as a Democrat because of Obama? They would have declared they were running long before Obama was the nominee. Were they psychic?

You'll have to ask the person that said that someone ran only as a Democrat because of Obama. It certainly wasn't me. There's a huge difference between riding coattails that were increased in magnitude by Obama's historic candidacy and what you've stated in the above quote.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

let me field this one on behalf of our conservative posters: it's obviously because the statistical measurements were designed by dirty no-good liberals.

Ooh, there goes your streak, you missed that one by a mile.

I'm not particularly planning to answer the question 'cause it'd open a whole different kettle of fish but you definitely were way off on my answer(s).

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

At the risk of being lambasted for posting something from a conservative website, the Drudge Report has some information regarding House members on both sides who are opposed to the current House bill. It appears that Pelosi is not correct that she has enough votes to get the House bill through a vote. 44 Democrats still remain opposed to the current bill.

DRUDGE REPORT: WHIP COUNT: DEMS LACK THE VOTES 2009®

WHIP COUNT: DEMS LACK THE VOTES
Wed Sep 09 2009 17:03:37 ET

At least 44 more moderate Members of the Democrat Caucus have gone on the record in opposition to the current health care bill in the House, a Hill source claims. Likewise, at least 57 liberal Members of the Democrat Caucus have gone on the record saying they will vote against a health care bill without a strong public option.

Unless multiple Democrats flip on their stated position on health care, Speaker Pelosi lacks the votes to pass a bill through the House on the strength of Democrat votes alone.

WHIP COUNT

44 Democrats Opposed

1. Rep. Altmire
2. Rep. Adler
3. Rep. Barrow
4. Rep. Boren
5. Rep. Boucher
6. Rep. Boyd
7. Rep. Bright
8. Rep. Carney
9. Rep. Childers
11. Rep. Cleaver
12. Rep. Cooper
13. Rep. Costello
14. Rep. Cuellar
15. Rep. Dahlkamper
16. Rep. Davis
17. Rep. Driehaus
18. Rep. Ellsworth
19. Rep. Gordon
20. Rep. Griffith
21. Rep. Halvorson
22. Rep. Hill
23. Rep. Holden
24. Rep. Kanjorski
25. Rep. Kaptur
26. Rep. F Kratovil
27. Rep. Marshall
28. Rep. Massa
29. Rep. Melancon
30. Rep. McIntyre
31. Rep. Minnick
32. Rep. Murtha
33. Rep. Oberstar
34. Rep. Ortiz
35. Rep. Perriello
36. Rep. Peterson
37. Rep. Polis
38. Rep. Pomeroy
39. Rep. Ross
40. Rep. Shuler
41. Rep. Stupak
42. Rep. Tanner
43. Rep. Taylor
44. Rep. Titus

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

You'll have to ask the person that said that someone ran only as a Democrat because of Obama. It certainly wasn't me. There's a huge difference between riding coattails that were increased in magnitude by Obama's historic candidacy and what you've stated in the above quote.

In rereading t a few times I can see your point, but that is one confusing sentence.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

Based on census data one could reasonably argue that the Blue States have
(a) The highest concentrations of wealth
(b) The highest tax rates
(c) The largest budget shortfalls despite a & b
(d) Artificially high census figures in relation to education levels due to the amount of people who move there to pursue wealth

So, by that one could draw the conclusion that blue states (and by extension, Liberal fiscal policy) ends up in a have/have not society where the poor vote for the candidate that will take the most from the rich (or appear to on the surface...which just gets moved to some other "fee" or price increases which screws them anyway). This is (admittedly a strawman) usually attributed (as a strawman) to Conservative fiscal policy due to the (desired) equality in income tax (or lack thereof) across the board.

Alternatively, by looking at poverty rates, one could argue that blue states spend more on social services (even to the detriment of their budget balances) resulting in a "less poor" population.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

At the risk of being lambasted for posting something from a conservative website, the Drudge Report has some information regarding House members on both sides who are opposed to the current House bill. It appears that Pelosi is not correct that she has enough votes to get the House bill through a vote. 44 Democrats still remain opposed to the current bill.

DRUDGE REPORT: WHIP COUNT: DEMS LACK THE VOTES 2009®

At least it wasn't from the World Nut Daily or the Huffington Post.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

At the risk of being lambasted for posting something from a conservative website, the Drudge Report has some information regarding House members on both sides who are opposed to the current House bill. It appears that Pelosi is not correct that she has enough votes to get the House bill through a vote. 44 Democrats still remain opposed to the current bill.

DRUDGE REPORT: WHIP COUNT: DEMS LACK THE VOTES 2009®

None of these votes counts matter yet. There isn't a blueprint for what the Senate is going to pass and until there is Dems in the House have complete freedom to make all the threats they want. Wait until the final bills get clearer and then you can start doing vote counts. How many Dems are really going to allow themselves to be the votes that killed healthcare reform?

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

None of these votes counts matter yet. There isn't a blueprint for what the Senate is going to pass and until there is Dems in the House have complete freedom to make all the threats they want. Wait until the final bills get clearer and then you can start doing vote counts. How many Dems are really going to allow themselves to be the votes that killed healthcare reform?

As many of them feel like they might not get re-elected if they were to be the vote that passed Obamacare.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Alternatively, by looking at poverty rates, one could argue that blue states spend more on social services (even to the detriment of their budget balances) resulting in a "less poor" population.

I wouldn't argue against that but I would add that paying out social services isn't much different than giving rebates for things like cash for clunkers...only you have to pay a middleman (i.e. the bureaucrat). But if you didn't give these government rebates the prices/costs would have to come down to the level that the majority (in a given area) could afford. This, in turn, would lower the profit for the wealthy business owner and keep "wealth" in relative balance.

But all higher taxes/increased social services do is continue to widen the gap between the wealthy and the poor. It seems perfectly fine when times are good...but when times are bad and the wealthy stop spending/investing, etc...the poor who were accustomed to living on the "system" are looking to the government for help instead of being self-reliant enough to have planned, budgeted, and made arrangments to survive. This is how we are teaching the poor (i.e. presumably because they are less educated) to interact in society.

I'm a believer that there will (and has to be) a poor class of people in every society that is not educated and does the menial tasks that are asked of them while the more talented do the things that require more talent. But it isn't like ALL rich people can maintain their wealth only by selling or catering to ONLY other rich people. Some do of course...but not all. The majority's buying power is the relevant item to consider...and therefore can and should be preserved to keep the wealthy in check.

But the more social services you add the more you distort this balance. And you just end up bandaid-ing the bandaid-ed problems of wealth inequality in society to the point of making the wealth relationship so beyond complicated that the poorer classes could never know how exactly they get screwed...they just know they are screwed. So...here we are I guess.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

To be blunt, and I know the conservatives don'r want to hear this, nobody is going to get defeated if they pass comprehensive health care reform. Yeah, if they pass a crappy bill, they might be in trouble, but if a bill is passed with strong insurance protections and a public option, nobodies losing their seat because of that.

Now, there are people who will lose their seats in conservative-leaning districts, but they were going to lose regardless of what did or didn't pass. The truth is, _more_ Democrats will lose their seat if a health care plan _doesn't_ pass than if one does and those that will lose their seats will be the conservative and moderate Democrats. So, it's actually in their best interest to pass the bill. Now, unfortunately, many of those conservative and moderate Dems are whores to the the insurance lobby. However, this simple truth remains. Nancy Pelosi ain't losing her seat. Barney Frank ain't losing his. Neither is Anthony Weiner.

Finally, there is no ObamaCare Cam and you know that. There's five separate bills that haven't even been combined yet.

I'd agree with this, in general. Even if they pass a crappy bill, given the amount of time it will likely take before implementation, how many swing voters would be affected by the time elections are up...and of those, how many might very well be on to the next topic by then.

I think there are lots of reasons Dems should be worried about the mid-terms...but health care is probably...important, yes...critical, no. There are about 3-4 other things that swing voters(is this still used or am I old?) will be more influenced by. Not the least of which...the perceived Stimulus effects & Afghanistan(assuming we're still there).

[SirFozzie]

It's kinda sad, that the health care "debate" (and I'm indicting both sides on that for drowning out the signal with noise), has overshadowed the economic side.

There was some good news today, as a report from the government noted that the recession appears to be over (NOTE: Neither it, nor I, is saying that the EFFECTS of the recession is over, but it looks like the economy is going to grow by 3-4% (most of it business related spending). Still have a way to go, before consumer confidence is what it was, but it looks like we've threaded our way through the minefield.

Newsroom

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Ooh, there goes your streak, you missed that one by a mile.

I'm not particularly planning to answer the question 'cause it'd open a whole different kettle of fish but you definitely were way off on my answer(s).

i wasn't exclusively trying to respond in your voice...

[sterlingice]

Well, I'm fully ready to be screwed tonight

SI

[NiteMaestro]

"The time for bickering is OVER"

Truer words have never been said...

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Well, I'm fully ready to be screwed tonight

SI

I think this is the wrong thread for that.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Well, I'm fully ready to be screwed tonight

SI

That's what she said...

[miked]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

i wasn't exclusively trying to respond in your voice...

He's probably going to say something not nice about a group of people. Go figure. The red states aren't necessarily the lowest I believe. I think New Mexico and Arizona are among the bottom, and that is likely due to some extreme poverty in populous areas. As for down here, Georgians think important issues are state flags bearing the confederate colors and putting stickers on books warning people on evolution. That, and the best way to fight a drought is to pray for rain. I'm already looking for some private schools, though I think my area has some decent public schools.

[lungs]

Politics must be for the daytime crowd around here....

[ISiddiqui]

Btw, I thought the speech was very well done. Consumer protection regulations on insurance companies, a health insurance exchange for the uninsured, and an individual mandate. Lets get it done!

And I voted for McCain, mind.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Btw, I thought the speech was very well done. Consumer protection regulations on insurance companies, a health insurance exchange for the uninsured, and an individual mandate. Lets get it done!

And I voted for McCain, mind.

Socialist.

[lungs]

Dola

I'm obviously jaded, but wasn't the Republican response rather shallow?

[SirFozzie]

They have a tendency to fumble their responses, but I don't remember the Demos being any better when Bush was prez.