OBAMA THE BEST MAN FOR AMERICA

I find it ironic that they used a pic from The Watchmen since this article seems to be as much of a joke as the Comedian found out.

If any are sufficiently confident in their ability to have a serious debate then it can be arranged. http://current.com/groups/skype-debates-beta/91865525_participant-rights-and-res...

None have shown the proper amount of intestinal fortitude to put in the effort into carrying it out yet which shows the strength of their positions or their convictions in them

So when can we look forward to your book?

Somehow you are quite fascinated by who gets to see the President. I guess that could be an interesting hobby but purely a waste of time.

I judge a man by, amongst other things, who he associates with. Don't you know that is one of the basic principles of a discerning evaluation? Oh yes, I forgot, wisdom,insight and perspicacity are not part of your paradigm. Forgive me for expecting too much.

But hearing from all sides is a bad thing I guess!

It's his hobby, also he likes to debate what should he spread first the peanut butter or the jam. Two thumbs up buddy.

sieg heil mein fuhrer!

Not to be an Obama-Hater apologist, but the very fact that you said "take the medicine your LEADER is trying to give you..." This is the very thing that makes people nervous and upset. The fact is, we do not elect LEADERS, we elect SERVANTS. (I'm a Liberal.)

Will do...lol...I can understand what you were saying (whether I agree with the medicine or now..lol...) my only point was that language is far more powerful that we give it credit for. We must parse our words carefully.

good post. lets see how dem's spin this one.

Why bother with spin. It's actually a pretty funny graphic, and although a bit off-mark, if it stirs the Demusseins to action, then so much the better.

Although you might not like the action that gets stirred up!

So basically your a Pee Party guy, always pissing and moaning with lies about who are President really is. Get on the Pee Party bus they are making a tour that just got started in Nevada.

I can always tell when you feel cornered.....you throw a timothy tantrum and deliver the usual insults and abuse. Pathetic.

Can't handle the truth as usual, Pee Party guy!

Is it possible for some civilized citizens commenting? All of this name calling and lowlife commenters should be subscribing to the national inquirer and leave the trashy talk in the stinking evergllades.

No way. . ?

it is true

who downed this?

Probably one of the inhouse truth denying loons.

Someone sucks at Photoshop

lol epic.

Haven't you got on the Pee Party bus yet, always pissing and moaning and spreading lies. You have been found out!

Weapons of mass destruction Never Found = Bush (WRONG)
Billions of Dollars on War = Bush (CONGRESS FUNDS THE WAR)
Budget Gone due to 2 wars = Bush (CONGRESS PASSES BUDGETS AND FUNDS WARS)
Gitmo Bay Abuse and Torcher = Bush (WHAT TORTURE - DON'T SAY WATERBOARDING - THAT'S NOT TORTURE)
Overspending on Contract Workers For War = Bush (CONGRESS - AGAIN)
9/11 Attacks = Stemmed From Bush Pissing off the Wrong Country (HE WAS IN OFFICE ONLY 8 MONTHS - THESE ARE TERRORISTS THAT WOULD OF DONE THE SAME THING UNDER ANY PRESIDENT)

It was not Bush Pissing Off the Wrong Country! Even though, his picked man, Colin Powell stormed out of a Middle East Summit over the Palestine issue only a month before.

Bush was good at pissing off nearly every country! (except country and western)

Yes but BUSH asked Congress to do it for him and since the CONGRESS was a republican house well you do the math. So it was BUSH all along.

Also think of when BUSH SR was in office the terrorist counties never liked him either so it does not matter if his SON was only in office 8 months still BUSH.

nothing went wrong during the time clinton was in office everyone was cool and the world was calm and no one had any beef. you put Bush JR in and the world turns to chaos.

And yes Waterboarding is Torture or dont you remember everyone getting charged because they were doing that to inmates at Gitmo?

Wel-l-l maybe except for the Dixie Chicks. . !

As opposed to what other president's foreign relations?

out of fear or respect or both, countries listened. now, they laugh and dismiss us.

What are you taking about nobody listened to Bush. Russia kept supplying Iran with material to build their nuclear plants. But now that we've actually started TALKING with the Russians... lo and behold, they are helping us deal with Iran and have ceased giving material to them.

Thats what happens when grown ups do diplomacy, not little boys who think they are Cowboys and engage in Cowboy diplomacy.

Aren't you one of those Pee Party people, have you got the Pee Party bus. Always pissing and moaning just like the Pee Party people.

"Pee Party" -- Not bad. Is that a name you came up with? I hope it catches on, but likely won't make it to the mainstream: I don't think I'll hear Wolf Blitzer mentioning "Pee Party" on his show. Maybe Stephen Colbert.

Yes, I did have a dream last night that this is a great idea to call them. I posted a couple of articles as soon as I came up with it. Check em out jahbini, I think it quite right to call them this since they have tried once again to claim the patriotic message. How shameful of them disgracing that event in our history.

Time to get on the Pee Party bus dude. Always pissing and moaning just like the rest of the Pee Partiers!

It really seems to be that we as individuals gravitate to those who hold opinions much the same as our own, doesn't it?

That being said, I'm exposed frequently to a cross section of society from a wide spectrum of social and financial backgrounds, and for the most part, I find that the majority of those who discuss the current issues of government, our economy and politicians in particular, are not content with the direction that we are currently going, and are not confident that we have elected representatives who listen and heed our concerns.

The health-care issue is a prime example - mostly, all those that I've spoken to don't argue the need for health-care reform, but that it was not and is not bi-partisan in any fashion. Furthermore it is feared by many (but not all) that I've spoken to, it is going to turn out to be a huge financial and bureaucratic disaster.

You point out that if people were really unhappy, their opinions would not be conflicting from week to week, but imho, that is nye onto impossible with the media in the Obama camp - touting their agenda and denigrating alternatives as posed by conservatives. ...and please don't give me the tired lie that they (republicans) do not have good applicable proposals as well, because they do, but it was not what the social democrats wanted and they determined to have it their way because - by god they're right and by god they've got the power, so take that America, we know whats good for you, so sit down and stfu.

We shall see, come hell or high water!

There are 200 Republican amendments in the bill!

Out of how many?

Good comments, and very accurate. The 60's were a great time, but we paid a price in the early 70's, when gas prices jumped due to the OPEC'ers. The economy tanked due to fuel prices, while the Sheiks laughed in our faces. Rampant inflation followed with limited job opportunities outside of the oil industry. Can you imagine mortage rates of 17%? Well it is true! Many of the children of the 60's were crushed under this burden and Reaganomics had nothing to do with the economic disaster. LBJ was the architect of a failed strategy. He was a disaster of a President and failed the entire country.

My grandmother bought me a t-shirt once with a picture of the founding fathers and a caption that read "Right Wing Radicals." I didn't have the heart to tell her that the founders were all Liberals..lol..

you may or may not realize, but classical liberalism is extremely different from modern liberalism. just thought i'd mention that. wasn't sure if you were aware of the difference based on your comments . i apologize if you knew that already. if you are a classical liberal today, you would probably be more commonly referred to as a libertarian. therefore, it would be more appropriate to say this country was founded on libertarianism.

Classical liberalism is liberalism. Conservatives have an imaginary concept of liberalism that they like to think is "modern liberalism".

Liberalism is now, and always has been, based on the concept of human rights and individual civil liberties. It is the role of government to ensure that those rights are protected from attacks from other individuals, groups, corporations, and the government itself. It is also the role of the government to improve the nation by improving the lives of the individuals within that nation. That means providing defense, education, and health care.

Modern Conservatism isn't even an ideological stance anymore- it's not about "small government", "less taxes", or "capitalism". It's just about God, Guns, and Greed.

Well phrased!

Modern Conservatism only wants to conserve their own assets. At everybody's expense. Their tools are guns, the Fear of God, and their motives are pure, evil, greed.

So shoot me now. Don't wait for later.

RIP: Katanajon, J_Jammer

Actually as Dennis Prager puts it, that which Liberalism once was, but now is, is much more concise;

"Liberalism believed in American exceptionalism; the left not only does not believe in it, the left opposes it. President Obama, when asked if he believes in American exceptionalism, replied, "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism, and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism."

Liberalism believed in creating wealth; the left is interested in redistributing it.

Liberalism believed in a strong defense. The left believes in cutting defense and a strong United Nations.

* Democrats should be referred to as Social Democrats.

This is not meant to be cute, let alone as a slur. But calling Democrats Social Democrats is an effective way of reminding Americans that there is no longer any difference between what is now known as the Democratic Party and the Social Democratic parties of Europe.
When the Democratic Party returns to its roots as a liberal, not a left-wing, party, we will happily resume calling the party by its original name. However, since no Democrat can cite a significant difference between the Democratic Party and the SD parties, there is no good reason not to use the more accurate nomenclature."

That was pretty good, but you forgot the one critical issue. The fact that Liberals want to redistribute the wealth is because over the last decade the wealth was redistributed up to the wealthy at the biggest redistribution rate ever. Do you understand that, we just want it the way it was before the Reagan tax cuts. Every time in history when the wealthy are given huge tax cuts they end up creating a financial mess that robs the middle class and the poor. It has happened every time in the history of this country. The top 1% wage earners in this country made 50% of the wages, the top 1% own 90% of the wealth of this country. What is so hard to understand that the pendulum is in the process of coming back our way. That's what the people want, I know the wealthy don't want it but that is tuff shit!

To put in a different perspective, take a look at it this way, again as postulated by Dennis Prager;

"The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen. i.e. - the bigger the government, the less significant the citizen.

This is easy to explain because it is definitional. The more the state does, the less its citizens are needed to do.

Fewer and fewer people work for themselves (which leads to, among other things, the disappearance of that quintessentially American ideal of the risk-taking entrepreneur).

It gets worse. As being needed and significant shifts from the individual to the state, the state increasingly determines who is needed and who has significance. That means, first of all, politicians.

Obviously, whoever controls the ever-expanding government has the most significance in a society. In the ever-expanding state that the left creates, the vast majority of individuals lose significance in that they are simply less needed as the state takes over many of their roles. With the ascendance of the left and the expansion of their state, much of the power and societal significance of the common citizen has eroded.

Over time, you will no longer fully decide your fate.

Indeed, over time, if the left has its way and the state keeps expanding, you will also not decide what temperature to keep your house or how to get to work. Nor will you be needed to educate your children (that is already the job of the state, and much of Europe now bans home schooling), or to raise and discipline your children (the state will ensure you are doing it correctly, and spanking is now illegal in 25 countries).

You will be needed primarily and essentially for one thing: to finance the one thing that is truly needed — the state."

So you obviously didn't think much about my redistribution of wealth answer, that has nothing to do with the state it just pure and simple shifts back the tax burden taken away from the rich since Reagan. Also if you read this comment to this point, Denmark for example must be doing something quite right since just recently they have closed two thirds of their prisons because they just don't have the criminals to lock up anymore. Got to love that socialism and giving everyone a free college education who wants to go and has the grades, not too mention the socialized medical and now they even out live us and are healthier at half the cost of our own. And this one will blow your mind very little if any homeless, but that would not be what the rich pigs in this country would want to see because it makes them feel superior to us commoners.

modern conservatives (neo-cons), aren't real conservatives and shouldn't call themselves such. and neither should anyone else.

Great points. I'll check into them. And I'll hope to understand them better soon.

But there is one small point here, Lt. Columbo asked me to put it in, that I though you might appreciate: The "ownership" of the language of discourse: The Republicans have had an incredible ability to put their twist on new and old buzz-words of our culture.

From changing "French Fries" into "Freedom Fries" to re-labelling the "Democratic" party as the "Social-Democrats." Maybe to give the Democrats a party wide identity crisis? (As if the Democrats HAD an identity.)

Totally AWESOME. Is this what Turd Blossom does? Cool!

Thats pretty correct to me, and don't forget the latest in their string of verbal attacks. Calling The Democratic party, the Democrat party. It's been the Democratic party since Thomas Jefferson called it such. What slimy people they have become. Oh I know the Rebupslug party that works for me. And Bohner will be Boner till he gets it right.

I am aware of the labels, and I don't need to read your links- it's not new information to me. The core ideals have been the same, just the methods used to achieve those ideals have changed; as they should as time goes on.

Your point about the motivations of politicians has nothing to do with liberalism or conservatism- Politicians are politicians.

Politicians of any stripe have the desire for power and control as their prime motivation.

The Politicians on the Left seek to gain power and control by pandering to Liberal ideals with promises and lip service with their fingers crossed behind their backs, while the Politicians on the Right seek to gain power and control by manipulating the simple minded with TV and religion to support the corporations that line their pockets.

And No, I am definitely NOT a Libitarian. Laissez-faire capitalism and deregulation caused the mess our economy is in. Government is necessary to protect the populace from anyone and anything that would infringe on our rights- including limiting the abuses of corporations.

Libertarians are one step from Anarchists, and while "Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome" might have been a good film, I would not want to live there.

We had the revolution, you missed it.

The revolution ended the Bush/Bush Sr/Ronald Reagan mindset of making the rich richer, the poor poorer, and shrinking the middle class.

We don't fix our problems with bullshit anymore- but as a FOX TV viewer, all you hear is bullshit.

Let's forget the freak Clinto for 8 years. Blowhard.

Bill Clinton?
You mean the president who for the first time since 1969 had a federal budget surplus?
The President who presided over the greatest boom in the US Economy?
The President who had a 65% approval rating, the highest end-of-term approval rating of any President since Dwight D. Eisenhower?

The president who had to fix the crap left over from Bush Sr, and then had all his hard work screwed up by Bush Jr?

Is that the "blowhard" you are talking about?

Let's hope we get more "freaks" like him.

For the record, there was no surplus under Clinton.

you mean clinton who rode the technology boom wave? clinton who had nothing but military failures? who degraded our military personal and equipment, who ignored the growing threat of islamic terrorists? who willingly permitted the chinese to create missiles now capable of hitting any city in the US? who seperated intelligence and enforcement agencies? who ignored north korea's violations of the nuclear proliferation laws? who created policy to force subprime loans to high risk borrowers? who pardoned known terrorists? who ignored the issues of national security? And to top it off, he became the second president to ever be impeached.

yes, lets not forget what a gem he was.

I'd vote this up five times if I could.

OK, then, for the record, there is no economic problem today. NO wars, either. All is la-la beautiful.

When did I say that? You think that because I tell you there was no Surplus under Clinton that means I am blind to what is happening today? I am simply trying to correct the record. Anyone who thinks there was a surplus under Clinton does not know how to do basic arithmetic.

What the hell?! Are you guys trying to rewrite history? Did you already start reading those Texas high school textbooks?

Clinton's term ended with a BUDGET SURPLUS.

Okie Doke buddy. Do you know what it was that he did to create that Budget Surplus? Are you sure you have done any independent research on this topic? Look, I am a liberal (unlike almost EVERY Democrat) but I won't stand by when TRUTH is distorted. There was NO Surplus.

Saying that there was no budget surplus, asserting that there was no surplus, and even SHOUTING that there was no surplus is not enough.

What is your independent research?

When you take a stand that is far afield from "common knowledge" you need to put some evidence, logic, and rational behind your words or you just make yourself look like a person with no substance.

So if common knowledge is wrong, let's hear your case. Otherwise no one will believe anything you say on the subject.

Ok, here you go. So when a person claims to have had a Budget SURPLUS, yet at the end of that Fiscal Year the Public Debt Increases, then there was no actual Surplus.

Example: "If in a given year you earn $30,000 and a friend loans you $5,000, and you spend $32,000, is that a surplus? While you can claim "I received $35,000 and only spent $32,000, thus I have a surplus," that's a pretty weak argument when you know that $2,000 of the money you spent was actually borrowed and has to be paid back later."

Third, the Trust Funds that the Federal Government has set up are not a part of the Budget, so when a Trust has a Surplus, it is normally recycled back into the Fund so that it can earn money. However, when Clinton calculated the Budget he included the surpluses from Social Security, Unemployment Trust Fund, Federal Retiree Trust Fund. None of these Funds surpluses should be calculated into the Federal Budget as these surpluses are recycled right back into the Fund itself, not into the General Budget, or to pay down the Debt.

The simplest way to highlight that there was no Surplus is that the National Debt GREW. If your National Debt grows more than the Interest Accrual, then you have ADDED to the Principal of the National Debt, this is called a budget DEFECIT.

A budget includes the spending and allocation of all assets and debits.

Even debt. Even the Rebuplicans and Pee Party Guys agree on that.

So what part of your "debt" that is contained in and acknowledged by the "budget" are we not in sync about?

That the "budget" was not the "real" budget? Then what was the "real" budget? Or was that in Bldg 6 of the World Trade Center, too?

Look at your Paycheck..do you see that part that says SSI? That portion goes directly into a savings account that is not counted in the General Budget, because it is a SAVINGS account. The direct Income tax is what pays for the Federal Budget. So, when there are more Dollars being paid into Social Security than is being paid out in that period, it is not counted in the General Budget, because it is not PART of the General Budget.

Look at it this way, if you have a Company Pension..part of your paycheck will go into that Pension Plan, then your company TAKES money out of that plan and says "Look, I have all this extra money!" Is that a Surplus for the Company, or is it theft? That is EXACTLY what happened in Clinton's Surplus. If I did the same thing, I would go to jail for embezzlement. But if the Government does it, it is a Budget Surplus? Are you sure you understand how logic works?

I would also like to point out that if you think the President is responsible for the Budget, then you need to revisit a U.S. Government class. I am NO fan of Republicans, I think they are scared, ignorant, imbeciles. However, it was a Republican Congress that wrote that Budget.

Yup. A Republican Congress. A pox on both their houses. (I don't think anybody really thinks that government uses logic except as camouflage)

So If you are right, then it will soon be true that all our cities will begin to look like Detroit -- an empty, decaying, shrinking shambles of the remains of greatness. (D'oh -- I think I may have said that somewhere else?)

Oh, BTW, I haven't had much of a paycheck to look at since the Neo-cons demolished science in the last decade.

I think it is distinctly possible that our cities could indeed begin looking that way..lol..To disengage us from the Sciences is to relegate us to the third world. (nothing against the third world, as I think they have a better appreciation for life and the things that have true meaning than we do here in the U.S.)

Just so you know. Since Ronald Reagan was President the Social security taxes have been incorporated into the general budget of the Uniyed States. This was done in an attempt to close huge budget deficits that were a direct result of the Reagan tax breaks for the very wealthy. I know this as my brother was hired by that administration to enact those tax cuts. My brother warned President Reagan and his sec of the tres Donald Regan that their tax cuts would usher in the greatest deficits of all time. So they merged the social security taxes paid into the general revenue paid to the government from income taxes and all other revenue to close those huge budget deficits.

Hmm. So the Budget, really IS a budget then, No? Yes?

neo cons don't believe in science, they believe in intelligent design, code words for religious fundimentalist. Its very sad that a five hundred years ago scientist were more regarded than today. Stupid is as stupid does and boy are conservative religious people stupid

"One nation under stupidity,
With Conformity and Religion for all"

Clinton lied and no one died, Bush lied and 4,700 men and women died in Iraq
I'll take the guy who lied about a blowjob over Bush who broke the law in his lies that took our country to war based on those lies.

according to DoD stats, 7500 people died under clinton in active duty...during peace times

Clinton did not lie about Somalia, Bosnia or any other military operations. He lied about a blowjob and no person died because of it. Military deaths are part of being in the military. But Clinton did not lie to take the country to war. You are a sick puppy. Just a liberal hater why don't you just come out and say that you hate liberals. But its OK for Bush to have lied about WMD's

so it's ok that during peace time 7500 soldiers died? in places we had no business being? and one of the leading factors in their deaths was insufficient equipment/funding because clinton took it away.

and i'm not a liberal hater, i'm an idiot hater, they're on both sides. and for the most part, liberals disgust me. on the flip side, so do many republicans. so cry about something else.

btw, this was a discussion on clinton, thanks for not being able to discuss that topic and instead starting bringing up bush. but bush but bush but bush blah blah blah. don't care. if you're not going to add to the subject at hand, don't pipe in. fyi, that tends to take credibility away from your point, which from this side is just bush bashing and has nothing to do with the subject at hand, clinton. thanks for playing.

if you're next comments are off topic again i'm just going to ignore you, just a heads up. nothing personal, just sticking to the subject.