Anti-Obama propaganda

It does speak volumes (to those those not deafened by p/c multi-culturism rhetoric)

I almost follow what you say, but once in a while you throw in a democrat bumper sticker slogan that just isn't true like "bush gave a tax cut to the richest 1%" while on its face this is not a lie, but it leaves out the fact that so did the other 99% receive a tax cut.
This puts you out there as a just blame it on bush or reagan kind of person and makes the rest of what you post rather suspect.

ocanada is exactly right...and you're a bigot. So everything you have to say is suspect.

ok ocanada is right --only the top 1% got a tax cut from g.w (rolls eyes)
your forgetting that everyone here was alive then and they know ur full of shit.

You know what he meant. But in the end it doesn't matter what you think...you're a bigot and bigots deserve nothing more than our scorn.

LOL bigots deserve scorn but you endorse fags and pedophiles.
at least your consistent

What the hell are you talking about Montesooma (almost like Monsanto). You realize that the tax checks given to the middle class during bushes tax cuts was something like a one time $200 while the taxes cuts for the people that make over 1 million were more than 30% annually thus if you only made 1 million you would keep an additional 300 thousand on your taxes. If you made 500 million you would pay $150 million per year less in taxes and all of this was never made up for. Therefore it has added to the deficit that you and your republican cronies pretend to care about so much.

You loosers are a walking contradiction to what you say and believe. To you, it's not about the hard working Americans, it's about a few pennies you may save while giving away the mothership to the uber wealthy!

America needs these taxes to pay for itself as it had been for 40 years until Reagan came along and blew up the deficit by giving giant tax cuts to the wealthy elate.

Treasury Department analysts credit President Bush's tax cuts with shifting a larger share of the individual income taxes paid to higher income taxpayers. In 2005, says the Treasury, when most of the tax cut provisions are fully in effect (e.g., lower tax rates, the $1,000 child credit, marriage penalty relief), the projected tax share for lower-income taxpayers will fall, while the tax share for higher-income taxpayers will rise.
: Source: U.S. Treasury, Office of Tax Analysis

That's spin. Either yours or theirs. His tax cuts were disproportionate...but the real question is how did they work out for us. Bush said they would stimulate the economy, you tel me...did that happen. How did the economy look when he shuffled off the stage?

no - the rebate checks were NOT the tax cuts in question.

who are you the word police?
no one is throwing words around, words have a purpose and mean nothing without context.
i calls it what it is.

Obama's tax cuts for the middle class came in the form of reduced payroll tax withheld

Maybe all your bigotry is slowing down your questionable ability to understand logic. Nobody is saying Bush ONLY cut taxes for the richest 1%...we're saying that they massively and disproportionately FAVORED the richest 1% (see the chart provided). That, and his economic policies (the ones you favor now) lead the country to near collapse in September of 2008.

Like in most things....you are wrong again.

right on -- new stats show that half of americans paid no tax last year.
kind of puts a crimp in the phony class warfare scheme.

thanks to barney fwank and his bandits fweddie and fannie and bad loan pwactices since the 70's, it came time to pay the piper.
so much for gubermint wegulation.

Yet he is poised to rape EVERYONE with the C02 and V.A.T taxes in order to pay for the health takeover that he said wouldn't cost a dime but would actually help the economy.
im not surprised but you will be.

A VAT tax is inevitable, every major europen country uses them and they all have stronger revenue and social programs than the US. Simple fact. I wonder about you, you do not seem to fit the profile of a wealthy American yet you are so opposed to taxes that will help our financial situation. Poor or middle class people who oppose thes types of taxes really work against their own best interests. Your a walking talking conundrum.

As the tax cuts should have favored the investors, corps, and job creators -- that is the engine of the economy. Where do you think it all comes from obama's stash? The money tree?
This may surprise you but i didn't support much of bush's policies, and i believe that
most every repub and democrat in washington is guilty of taking payoffs and is corrupt to the core.
Saying that people keeping their own money is the problem is something only those who desire the money would say.
Tax cuts are not and have never been the problem with the economy.

europe is bankrupt - even those countries with 90% tax rates.
There is no evidence that higher taxes leads to prosperity, if fact just the opposite -- governments that confiscate that money NEVER produce any more money from it, they only waste and spend it.
Socialism contains a design flaw that always eventually leads to an implosion of it's host.

A conundrum and a bigot. Judge his comments accordingly.

Germany has one ofthe strongest economies in the world. You know why? They manufacture high quality products that people are willing to pay a higher price for Mercedes Benz, Krupp, new green technologies where homeowners actually sell power back to the utility companies. You are woefully mistaken Greece and Iceland are in deep trouble but not Sweden, Norway, Finland, France, Netherlands Switzerland.
I will not comment back to you any longer due to your ignorance

"This may surprise you but i didn't support much of bush's policies"

Based on the way you defend them today...I suspect you supported them then. And based on your discriminatory comments, I have no reason to believe you.

You talk a lot about what will stimulate the economy. Clearly Bush gave a huge tax break to what you call the "engine of the economy" (total bullshit by the way). Here are some simple questions I'm sure you won't have the balls to answer.

-How did that work out for us?

-And why, given its failure, should we consider doing it again?

germany?
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,584374,00.html

Is this why bushes tax cuts added 3 trillion to the deficit because there was nothing put in place to make up the difference?

simply -- tax cuts have nothing to do with our current recession.
I have read a lot of theories about what caused our recession, not one economist that i've read has attributed it to people keeping too much of their money.

this wasn't a defense of bush -- germany SURVIVES because of capitalism.
Socialism cannot survive on its own, it implodes
nothing to do with who was president

You're right about one thing...that was a simpleminded answer.

So if tax cuts don't effect the economy, then explain how raising taxes do. And when Bush said that it was going to stimulate the economy and increase jobs, was he lying? Why did he squander the surpluses that Clinton handed him if it only led to fewer jobs and our economy shirking rather than growing? I guess deficits only matter when Democrats are in office, is that what you're saying monte?

Clearly you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

WOW are you dumb! In Germany healthcare is free everyone gets it. College or trade school after high school guess what its free too. I guess you'd call that socialism but you know what Germeny has blended the best of both and because of it is a world leader in Engineering all types

So nothing more recent then...makes me wonder why you posted it to begin with. lmao.

So Germany is now an example of capitalism at work? Question, do they have nationalized health care?

The recession? No. The debt? Yes.

Germany is more socialist than most other European countries.

Right. And the recession and the debt aren't connected at all. Please.

Nope not my spin, must be the trusty governments, ya think?
The tax cuts didn't facilitate the national financial crisis.
The repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act stripping the deregulation of commingling of bank assets with equity markets did, along with warehouse banking to facilitate sub-prime lending to accommodate the CRA act, then coupled with interest rates at next to nothing as facilitated by the Fed was the cause.
. . . then when the Bush administration warned of the imminent dangers due to mortgage banking and wall street maneuvering, Congress oversight committee members such as Dodd and Frank blew off the warnings as false.
It would not have mattered who was the POTUS at that period of time with those factors and actions that were in play then, especially since few politicians dared to face up to the pending and inevitable conclusion.

Revisionist history. Bush was the hero, right? He tried to warn Congress, but they wouldn't listen. Pull your head out of your ass.

Of course Bush is to blame. And his Tax cuts that went disproportionately to the richest among us also contributed to the weak ass economy we have today. And while the roots of the problem can be traced back to Clinton (on that we can agree), where was Bush for 7 and half years? Where was the Republican Congress for 10? Bush was just a victim of circumstances? Bullshit.

Bush was AWOL when was unable to show up for natioal guard sevice when called to do so but daddy Bush made that go away, he was no hero. As far as the financial ,debacle it was deregulation of the banking and financial sector by republicans starting all the way back in 1982 under Ronald Reagan and pursued under following Republican Administrations.

What does Bush national guard activity that have to do with the national financial crisis? . . absolutely nothing, but hey what can one expect from a lefty but the usual denigrative rhetoric. I also suggest you go back and recheck your facts regarding the banking/financial sector fiasco.

I know history of politics way better than you. Banking and financial deregulation was started under Ronald Reagan and Donald Regan. Those policies were furthered by following administrations until the regulations became so light that Banks became risk takers with depositers money and financial investment firms became banks as well. There was no more separation between the the two which ended up with AIG, Lehman Bros. and many of the rest bundling bad debt selling it off as good investment backed by credit default swaps which were not required to be backed up with money unlike insurance. All of this was the result of republican economic policies. Now go away your a idiot

Typical, insults to assist with your logic, and I'll wager that I've been around twice as long as you and seen and forgotten more that you now even know.

Just so I'm straight...in your world Bush and the Republicans saw the economic collapse coming (which was caused by Freddie and Fannie), tried to stop it by calling for MORE regulation...but the democrats stopped them. Oh...and Bush's 8 years economic leadership and massive tax cut that went disproportionately to the richest 1% had nothing to do with the recession. However Obama's year and half of leadership has been a disaster of epic proportions (even though almost every single economic indicator shows improvement). And all of this is true because Brit Hume says so? Because he's a credible source.

Just a couple of quick questions, who was the president in 2001? Who controlled congress? And the strong regulation was needed for the GSE's, but not for any private institutions? AIG or Lehman's for example? Those guys were doing just fine, huh? They were just victims in this whole thing, right? Hilarious.

Revisionist history and bald face hypocrisy. But what should we expect?

A vast majority of jobs in the U.S. come from State, Federal, and Local governments and small businesses, defined as those with under 30 employees. A majority of U.S. corporations also paid no federal income tax. Including British petroleum with profits of more that 12 billion dollars. It didn't pay a dime. More than 200 billion dollars is lost to corporate tax evasion each year in the Cayman Islands alone. BP has as many as 200 wholly owned subsidiaries based in the Cayman Islands. The top one percent of earners are also more than fifty percent more likely to cheat on their taxes yes they are the least per capita group targeted by IRS tax auditing. Between three men alone, Allan Stanford, Bernie Madoff, and Ken Lay more than 80 billion dollars were embezzled in the last decade. Three people! That's more than the entire GDP of a majority of developing nations!

If we took serious action to get our tax income back. In the trillions of dollars of holding in tax shelters across the globe we could seriously cut back the deficit. If we created a value added tax, we could make up for some of the disparities in income associated with the fact that the lowest 50 percent of Americans pay no income tax on the federal level. Working to make the tax system more eqitable to all isn't communism, its common sense.

That he was a failed stewards. That he was irresponsible. A better illustration would be that he set a new record for the most time spent on vacation as president. Fully one third was spent, at either Crawford or other vacation destinations. He was fully detached fro the economic situations of average Americans and showed a callous disregard for their circumstances. I doubt anyone on this forum spent a third of this last decade on paid vacation.

Yawn. Bush was president. The Republican's had a majority in both the House and Senate. If it was a priority, they would have done something about it.

Once again, fiscal responsibility only seems to matter when the democrats get into office.

Typical.

right on!

Not to mention, CA lawmakers (who are facing a HUGE budget shortfall) have decided in their infinite wisdom today that people who sell their houses via short sales won't have to pay taxes on the difference in price of what they owned on the mortgage vs for what the bank sold the home. In the past, this was viewed as unearned income, and their lender issued a 1099 for the amount of the write-down for tax purposes. CA law now follows Federal law on this issue. So once again, all consequences of taking risk in capitalism have been removed, with the State assuming the costs.

Which raises the question: what is our government doing, letting revenue sources slide between their fingers in this magnanimous manner of government bail-out mentality?

On the other hand, if bail-outs are given to financial and auto-makers corporations, why not give bail-outs to the little people, too?

Here's a novel concept: how about giving NO bail-outs, and letting free markets work as they're SUPPOSED to? I know, we're nowhere CLOSE to free market.

How fair is this, though, to the responsible parties who DIDN'T buy when they realized prices could ONLY DEPRECIATE, and were smart enough to see this not-so-subtle MASSIVE Ponzinomics real-estate scheme and expect it NOT to come crashing down, to end badly?

Talk about MASSIVE moral hazard, and we'll all be paying for it now.

Yes, the Republicans failed to exercise their fiduciary responsibility, however by that time it would have been akin to slapping a bandage on a hemorrhage. . . That does not excuse them however, in that I concur.

Imho, fiscal responsibility matters, no matter who is in office - the failings of past administrations does not in any way exonerate failings of the present administration.

The parallels between today's events and those dramatized in Rand's 1957 novel Atlas Shrugged are striking.

In a recent Wall Street Journal column, for instance, Stephen Moore observed that "our current politicians are committing the very acts of economic lunacy" that Atlas Shrugged depicted 52 years ago. In the novel, he points out, politicians respond to crises "that in most cases they created themselves" with more controls and regulations. These, in turn "generate more havoc and poverty," which spawn more controls, "until the productive sectors of the economy collapse under the collective weight of taxes and other burdens imposed in the name of fairness, equality and do-goodism."

This certainly seems like an apt description of, say, the housing crisis. For decades, Washington promoted homeownership by people who couldn't afford it: think Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Community Reinvestment Act, tax incentives to buy homes, housing subsidies for the needy, among other programs. And when people started to default on their mortgages by the truckload? The government didn't scrap its controls, but instead promised to bail out delinquent homeowners and irresponsible bankers and impose more regulations on all lenders (responsible or not).

But what commentators miss is that Rand's novel provides the explanation for why this is happening--and the cause is not some inexplicable "lunacy" on the part of politicians. The cause is our very conception of fairness, equality, and the good.

***** States the hero of Atlas Shrugged to the people of a crumbling world: "Why do you shrink in horror from the sight of the world around you? That world is not the product of your sins, it is the product and the image of your virtues." *****

In Rand's novel, government puts the needs of the meek and less fortunate first. For instance, the Anti-dog-eat-dog Rule is passed to protect some long established, less-efficient railroads from better-run competitors. Why? Because it was deemed that those "established railroad systems were essential to the public welfare." What about the superior railroad destroyed in the process? Its owner needs to be less selfish and more selfless. The Rule fails to stem the crisis, and the country sinks deeper into depression. But, wedded to the ideal that each must be his brother's keeper, government imposes more burdens and regulatory shackles on productive companies in the name of bailing out the struggling ones--only to drive the country further toward disaster.

These are the same slogans invoked and implemented today. We must be "unified in service to the greater good," President Obama tells a cheering nation. We must heed the "call to sacrifice" and "reaffirm that fundamental belief--I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper...."

Washington allowed Fannie and Freddie to pile up dangerous levels of debt. It used the Community Reinvestment Act to coerce banks into relaxing their lending standards. It used our tax dollars to dole out housing subsidies to otherwise unqualified borrowers. And when it turned out that home buyers who couldn't afford homes without government help, also couldn't afford them with government help, we still do not abandon these failed policies. Clinging to the notion that we are our brother's keeper, everyone today proposes new policies to bail out the "unfortunate."

While the details of these policies have been debated, no one challenges their goal. No one questions whether it is morally right to be selfless and to sacrifice to "promote something greater than ourselves."

***** Why is it morally right to regard some individuals as servants of those in need, rather than as independent beings with their own lives and goals? What is noble about a morality that turns men into beggars and victims--the bailed out and the bailers out? *****

{excepts from article written by: Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights}

On that we can agree. Somebody is going to HAVE to raise taxes to pay for the sins of our fathers. Who do you think is most likely to do that?

Why MUST taxes be raised? Why cannot our government constrain themselves to curb "pork" spending, and actually exercise monetary controls that stay within the funds allocated for the Federal Budget?

We who are responsible citizens must live within the means of our own finances and budget and strive to do so, so why must I not expect the same from those we elect to represent and protect our interests?

Unless there is true and actual fiduciary restraints to stay within the fed budget, cost overruns (i.e. deficits) will continually demand more and more funding to bring the budget into balance - inevitably leading to more demands on the citizens to fund those deficits from their pockets. - I want the government working to protect my interests. . . not me working for the interests of the government.

I've read Atlas Shrugged many times. With all due respect, your “parallels” are total fantasy. The book created a dream world where a virtuous "productive class" put creation and quality above profits. The heroes of the book were a private group of industrialists who cared more about making things of substance than they did about making money. It’s an attractive notion, but pure fantasy. All you conservatives picture yourselves as John Galts and Dagny Taggarts, but you’re not. Where are your railroads? Where’s your Rearden metal? See…you can’t skip the accomplishment part. You can’t be the great productive class, if you haven’t produced anything of value. I get it. It’s fun to make believe. But that’s all you’re doing here.

Just like you’re making believe when you continue to pretend that that this crisis was created by Fannie and Freddie. Again, I get how it fits nicely into your Ayn Rand fantasy…if only it were true. But unfortunately the very people you want to lionize (your productive class) were the ones that caused these problems due to their pursuit of profits at all costs. They didn’t “produce” anything. Credit swaps aren’t railroads, now are they? And the regulations that you and Ayn despise so much are exactly what could have prevented it.

Sorry, but fantasy time is over.

And in the same speech where you quoted Obama, out of context, saying: “I am my brother’s keeper”, he also says:

Now, don’t get me wrong. The people I meet -- in small towns and big cities, in diners and office parks -- they don’t expect government to solve all their problems. They know they have to work hard to get ahead, and they want to. Go into the collar counties around Chicago, and people will tell you they don’t want their tax money wasted, by a welfare agency or by the Pentagon. Go in -- Go into any inner city neighborhood, and folks will tell you that government alone can’t teach our kids to learn; they know that parents have to teach, that children can’t achieve unless we raise their expectations and turn off the television sets and eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white. They know those things.

And he also says:

Now even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us -- the spin masters, the negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of "anything goes." Well, I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America -- there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America -- there’s the United States of America.

Hmmm…people preparing to divide us. Who could he be talking about?

Here’s the whole speech. Read it for yourself.

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/convention2004/barackobama2004dnc.htm

The money has been spent. Sorry, maybe you've missed it. This is going to come as a shock to you, but we owe a little bit of money ($12,830,251,252,989)...and before you blame it on the last 15 months of the Obama administration, check yourself. This is a long time in the making. We're not going to find that kind of money in the sofa cushions. To borrow your analogy, our credit cards are maxed out. Yes we're going to HAVE to tighten our belts and curb pork spending. But alone that's not going to do it...not by a long shot. So that means higher taxes. It means hard decisions. You kidding yourself if you don't see that.

Again...fiscal responsibility matters. Not just when Democrats are in office and NOT just when it's easy. In fact it matters more when times are hard.

All eloquently spoken by one whose very purpose is to initiate more and more regulatory controls upon the citizens because "it is for their own good" - whether they want it or not!

What we now have being established within the constituency of those who govern is a plutocracy, as the U.S moves more and more away from a government "of the people, by the people and for the people," towards a government of, by and for the rich and influential - which is becoming increasingly clear are the very ones whom we foolishly elect to represent their "special" interests other than ours.

As a citizen who supposedly has a measure of freedom guaranteed me by our constitution, it is not a desire of mine to be part of a collective hive mind, without freedom of choice with restraints imposed upon me by a government which is determined to direct my desires and energies and destiny in a manner which they pre-determine that I must follow. . . i.e. such as mandates which imposes restrictions upon my freedom of self determination.

I want to be enabled by freedom of choice, not enable those without will of their own who turn their choice over to the government trough in trade for dependency. I have had my successes and failures in life, and know full well that life is in and of itself not "fair," and able to "man up" to the issues of my life, and have little regard of the dependent blood suckers who turn to the government to "care" for them.

Beware of governments altruism, it always bears a burdensome price - which is burdened upon the citizen!

Yes times do get tough, so do you double down on your debts, mortgaging your future income to meets todays needs. . . or do you tighten your belt and scale back your expenditures?

Nice speech Dagney. You really have bought into this whole Any Rand fantasy, haven't you? Hilarious. Let us know when you've invented a train that runs on no power. But until then, you can just keep on paying taxes like the rest of us.

It is funny that NOW you're worried about America becoming a plutocracy. And yet you defend the legacy millionaire, son of a president, grandson of a senator, brother of a governor half whit President at every turn. Were you lecturing on the evils of the plutocrats then?

Just out of curiosity, how is your freedom to self determination being restricted?

I'm afraid your analogy is falling apart. The federal government isn't a simple household budget. Taxes are going to have to be raised across the board. But given that the last ten years the wealthiest 1% have received a disproportionate amount of the tax relief, I'd think they should bear a little more of the burden this time around. But they have a little more belt to tighten, so I'm sure they'll be okay.

Given your distain for the plutocrats, I can only assume you'd agree that a wealthy president giving massive tax cuts predominantly to his wealthy friends was a travesty. Right?

I'm not a ''Shrugger,'' it so happens that the piece I posted made valid points (of course you disagree, they are not of your facet of thought) that I wished to express.

How do you ascertain that I defend whom you claim, because I'm a constitutional conservative? If you would take notice, I do in fact point out fault upon both political parties, however I do take exception to the progressive stance of self-righteous intellectual superiority when in fact they are as much or more so hypocrites than those whom they denigrate as being such.

Also I am not just now concerned, I have been for years, as anyone with a bit of intuitive and cognitive observation could see the transitions unfolding before their eyes. . .
Whether or not how I express my view here or elsewhere of a plutocracy becoming embedded within our government is of no consequence to me and certainly is not dependent upon being validated by you. . .

In answer to your question about my freedom of self determination being imposed upon, the government mandating health insurance upon me quickly comes to mind.

In fact I do.

Well said. 2hellnwait FOR PRESIDENT!!!

Well...I'm glad to hear you're not waiting on my validation.

Of course you're entitled to your point of view 2hellnwait but if you envision the government requiring you to purchase something you probably already purchase on your own as some terrible affront to your sense of self determination...then I'd suggest you're maybe being hyper sensitive. There are people who are dealing with a lot worse. If I had to choose between a family that can't afford to see a doctor...between a single mother who can't leave her job because her child has a pre-existing condition...between a couple who have have to declare bankruptcy because they maxed out their lifetime health benefits fighting cancer and your injured sense of self determination. Well...that's a pretty easy choice. And not just for me, but for the other 69,000,000 Americans who voted for Obama. Because that's how representative democracy works. For example, I didn't like the fact that our president got us into a war under false pretenses, which has cost 4,390 Americans their lives. And you don't like the fact that you're going to be required to buy something you probably already buy and that will ultimately help you live longer and be healthier.

So I guess we're even...hold on...what?

Great! Something else we agree on.

." Well, I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America -- there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America -- there’s the United States of America.

Is this the same guy who mocks those who don't agree with him?
Mocks people waving tea bags -- people from all these groups.
This guy's words mean diddly squat.

Once again monte fails to back up his comment with any citation. Typical. But what should we expect from a bigot?

i may be what you call a bigot, but at least i don't let govnment and political correctness tell me how im supposed to speak.
Im a free man, ur not.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Geewdx_OwOw

"I believe all Americans who believe in freedom, tolerance and human rights have a responsibility to oppose bigotry and prejudice based on sexual orientation."

-Coretta Scott King

"The mind of the bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract."

-Oliver Wendell Holmes

The world has always had bigots and it has always passed them by. Just as it's now doing to you.

"ye shall judge them by their fruits" - Jesus The Christ

But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

[Matthew 6:15]

But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just.

[Luke 14:13 &14.]

Jesus was a liberal.

he won't even say the word terrorist -- doesn't wanna offend his buddies

I'm pretty sure the Tea Party aren't his buddies. Oh I see, you meant those other terrorists that actively target the president of the united states for muder and called him a house N*%^& when he was inaugurated. Not sure they are too friendly to him either.

ooh female govenor who believes in the constitution and the right to life
that is dangerous -- beware

yeah well theRe has not been a terroristic ATTACK on his watch yet!

there has been like six dude, do you even read the paper?

More like Governor who didn't know Africa was a continent. Very scary. The woman had to attend more than a hanful of colleges for a four year degree. Refused almost all media entreaties and when she accepted it made an ass out of herself on Caitie Couric, not known for being a hard hitting journalist. She stumbled over softballs like, What papers do you read? What makes you think she could stare down world leaders? The idea of someone of that little intelectual heft occupying the oval office truly horrifies tens of millions of people in this nation.

she is NOT stupid, she is actually quite shrewed.
starting with prez ford dems have made republicans out to be stupid.
They did it to ford, quail, reagan, gingrich, both bush, bachman, palin etc etc.
Most people see it as just partizan insults, this tactic grows less effective each time they use it.

she apparently Knows when people are trying to distort it for their own gain.

quail?

This post is about stupidity...right?

Hilarious.

talk about bigotry -- judging someone on their mental acuity -- this is something they were actually born with.

that makes no sense.