Thinking Right

By Jeff

October 4, 2007 8:50 AM | Link to this

There is only one Republican for me (and only one Presidential Candidate in general):

Dr. Ron Paul

And that is the vote I will cast in the Republican Primary.

By Joel

October 4, 2007 8:55 AM | Link to this

I’m voting for Newt Gingrich.

By jbmlaw

October 4, 2007 8:56 AM | Link to this

Good morning all. Unlike Republicans, I would describe myself as generally gruntled. While I would have to be counted among those who desire an approach different than that pursued by President Bush, the approach I desire is a traditional or libertarian conservative one, not a “compassionate” conservative approach. I am tired of big spenders – obviously the democrats are not a real alternative there – so a Republican in the style of McCain, Thompson, or Romney would be my first choice.

I think I am parroting Jim’s perspective. Nevertheless, I don’t have a real problem with Rudy – as Jim aptly notes, fear of the Hilldebeest will motivate the conservative majority to vote for our guy, whoever that is.

By TW

October 4, 2007 9:01 AM | Link to this

The right wing voter turn out will be the same no matter who the dem candidate. The same smear machine that has chewed on Hillary since ‘92 will have 8 mos to feed on ‘Breck Girl’ or ‘Osama Obama’ if the nomination goes to one of them. The right is scared of Hillary, hence your column today, Mr. Wooten. That said, who’s gonna beat her? Jeffs Romney? The PRO-abortion cross-dresser from NY? Hollywood ‘Thompson the LOBBYIST’?

‘08 is over for the right…and rightfully so.

By Joel

October 4, 2007 9:04 AM | Link to this

Is Clarence Thomas running? I’ll vote GOP if he runs. Now there’s a man we can trust to be who he is. His VP choice should be C. Rice, or Anita Hill. The Paparrazi on that alone would keep the terrorists away.

By getalife

October 4, 2007 9:28 AM | Link to this

Geez, I wonder if the wingnut base will vote for pro choice Rudy and Hillary to win in a landslide?

By Truthifier

October 4, 2007 9:28 AM | Link to this

Yeah, that Hillary Clinton is bad news and is no friend to conservatives. When her husband cheated on her and humiliated her in front of the world, did she divorce him as many women would have done and would have been entitled to do? No, she maintained her marriage vows and stuck it out and saved her family. When George Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq, did she go soft and oppose him? No, she voted for the war, and despite the efforts of those on the left to get her to disavow her vote has consistently maintained that she did what she thought was right and would not support a withdrawal from Iraq that would cause an expansion of the civil war there. When Republican candidates talk about Christian values but have to admit that they never attend church, what is Hillary doing? To my knowledge she is sitting in a pew on Sundays as she used to do when I would see her at church every Sunday in Washington when I lived there. Yeah, that Clinton woman is a direct affront to all good God-fearing Americans even if she does embody the values that others only talk about.

By Dennis

October 4, 2007 9:31 AM | Link to this

Mr. Wooten writes, “…any of the top tier of Republicans appeal over any of the likely Democratic contenders.”

Even if that was true, Mr. Wooten, that’s not saying much.

And if the proof is in the pudding, no doubt, like a good Republican, you can explain away why the Democrats are now holding (albit with shakiness and clumsiness) two houses of Congress.

But realistic Republicans, just like Democrats, now know and admit that GWB has been ruinous for this nation. And only an idealistic, disillusioned person can miss that.

You don’t have to be a blind conservataive not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By haha

October 4, 2007 9:32 AM | Link to this

Let’s see the only candidate of the five main repuplicans running that still has their original wife is the one who’s religion used to allow more than one. Mitt Romney must be the only one with true family values.

By Craig

October 4, 2007 9:38 AM | Link to this

For a good reference on Jim’s sterling ability to predict election outcomes, let’s remember his predictions for the Senate and House results in 2006….

By Truthifier

October 4, 2007 9:44 AM | Link to this

Just realized that “bring it on” must be a favorite Republican phrase! Jim, I’d be careful if I were you. Remember what happened the last time someone uttered that famous phrase!? The results for the GOP could be just as disastrous in 2008.

By Joel

October 4, 2007 9:47 AM | Link to this

Americans are sick of Iraq, and pretty much ignore the news about it. I wonder what’s happening in Iraq now. Camera to convoy ready to patrol at 6am….

“Okay, squad leader one, squad leader one, the company is ready, let’s roll”

“If you say lets roll one more time…”

“Alright, what did I say about chatter and yelling in the mic? Stop yelling in the mic. Gadz”.

“Maintain distances, people. You’re too close Red Swan back off.”

“sorry, I have a problem with left lane bandits”.

“Bandits? WHere?”

“no, i was just saying, you know, like….nevermind”

“Stay off the mic unless you see something, people”.

“Hey, what’s that? That wasn’t there last night. Stop the convoy! Check out that VW bug, Blue Checker.”

“Why me? I checked out the souped up plymouth belvedere yesterday, it’s not fair”.

“Somebody fire a round into that bug.”

“I’m not discharging my weapon, there’s too much paperwork. Who do you think we are, Blackwater Mercenaries?”

“Come on guys, that bug is obviously a bomb. Just shoot it. It’ll go off and we can get some breakfast.”

“Alright, I’ll use my good-luck derringer my grandfather gave me….hold on…..POP….BOOM!”

“there, was that so hard? Now lets roll…..Sorry! Forgot again.”

Camera to convoy heading to a newly-opened McD’s as things are really quite normal in the 51st state of the USA, New Alabama.

fini

By Craig

October 4, 2007 9:58 AM | Link to this

And now we find out that even as the Bushies were telling us they didn’t torture, they were secretly in fact authorizing it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/washington/04interrogate.html?hp

more lies from the Bush administration. It will take us years to erase the stain of these people from our country.

By getalife

October 4, 2007 9:58 AM | Link to this

As usual, this gop hack is dead wrong.

Wingnuts will form their own party if Rudy is nominated or stay at home.

Rudy is liberal. Pro choice, anti gun and cross dresses.

He has been married three times, his kids hate him, real heroes, the firefighters hate him and he is running on the worst terrorist attack in history with OBL granted amnesty.

President Clinton cleaned up daddy Bush’s mess and the Clintons will clean up w’s disasters.

It will be a landslide for the dems especially after w’s veto and gop support of hating poor sick children.

Then there is the Iraqi holocaust.

By Dennis

October 4, 2007 10:08 AM | Link to this

By Craig October 4, 2007 9:58 AM “And now we find out that even as the Bushies were telling us they didn’t torture, they were secretly in fact authorizing it.”

Not that we didn’t know it anyway. But watch the Republicans ignore it, including Jim Wooten.

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By Joel

October 4, 2007 10:11 AM | Link to this

This whole idea of a civil war in Iraq has never been analyzed. people just say, “its a civil war”.

I dont think any of you have any idea what you’re talking about, do you?

Especially not sir cheeksalot.

By Truthifier

October 4, 2007 10:21 AM | Link to this

Joel, I think we all know what a civil war is, but since you’re not clear here is the definition:

American Heritage Dictionary -
A war between factions or regions of the same country.

Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary - (a) war between citizens of the same state

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - –noun a war between political factions or regions within the same country.

By MELO

October 4, 2007 10:29 AM | Link to this

To say Hilary will lose simply because of the hate vote, is garbage. She is the most cerebral and will win people’s hearts thru argument, not hate speech like the Repugnants. Thats where they will lose the plot. If u think the hate vote will come in full force, consider the underground women vote too in her favor. Repugnants are faling from the chandeliers like cockroaches, thus the Jim Wooten early scary tactics!! They wont work. The white house is a lock. What Republican worth their salt will vote for a pedigreed polygamist- pseudo Christian or a gay friendly playboy with multiple divorces or an elderly playboy actor.Viz a loyal wife faithful to her vows of untill death do us part!! Yu fools are kidding, right?

By getalife

October 4, 2007 10:29 AM | Link to this

In Latest Poll, Good News for Both Clintons Senator Has 8-Point Lead Over Giuliani

It is early and the smearing of Rudy and Hillary has not begun.

The Iraq ethnic cleansing is nearly complete with most Iraqis leaving and the rest have formed their own states like the Biden plan.

By TimeForChange

October 4, 2007 10:30 AM | Link to this

If Hillary is nominated in the primaries. Republicans will come to the poles and vote Democrats and Hillary Clinton for President. They are tired of the Republicans and Bush lies and incompetence.

By YouDontSay

October 4, 2007 10:31 AM | Link to this

Hot Dang, that 10:21 post from Truthifier sounds like there is a civil war going on in Iraq. Who knew?

By Jake

October 4, 2007 10:44 AM | Link to this

PLEASE, remove RUDY to the back of the PACK, Heaven forbid that he ever takes the leadership reins. If I had to vote GOP I would vote for Mc Cain BUT I prefer Hillary over all,

Jake

By Peter

October 4, 2007 10:47 AM | Link to this

I think it will be interesting if Hillery wins the Democratic nomination…….

I actually think it will be more about is America, and the rest of the world ready to see another WOMAN as president.

The first being Margret Thacher, who apparently did a good job…..

BUT the kicker here is how will the rest of the world, ESPECIALLY the Muslim world interpret her leading the strongest country in the world.

We all know the Muslim distain for woman doing anything but being in the home. I think that the negotiations with the Muslim world would be more difficult at best.

That could lead to a new world change, and perhaps change the way Muslims look at woman, or go the opposite way, and create a situation where they would really like to challenge her power and create allot of havoc.

Of course here in America, folks will have to realize it is not just about Hillery being President, but the fact a WOMAN is leading this country……

Is America ready for a WOMAN President…..that seems the question….

No matter who the Republicans send to the challenge, they will have their own issues to combat….especially the fact that they are part of this current, and soon to be ugly past of the non accomplishing Republican Party.

By Ernie Logman

October 4, 2007 10:51 AM | Link to this

I plan on voting this way

ABTD

Anyone But the Democrat

By Freddy K.

October 4, 2007 10:58 AM | Link to this

Bill needs some new poontang so elect Billary so he can lie and embarrass us again.

By AmVet

October 4, 2007 11:03 AM | Link to this

11:00 in the morning and already a plethora of great replies to our esteemed columnist’s veiled attempts at rallying the disarrayed, disillusioned “faithful”.

One could rightfully argue this statement - “that 48 percent of Republicans prefer a candidate who takes a “different approach” from that pursued by President Bush.” is merely a euphemism for “even half of the GOP now admits that this administration has been a complete train wreck”.

Why the other half is so damned intransigent is beyond me.

On this particular issue (security and terrorism), any of the top tier of Republicans appeal over any of the likely Democratic contenders.

And if you think you heard 9/11 mentioned a billion and seventeen times by the fear-mongering GOP last time around, you ain’t heard nothing yet.

It is ALL they have to run with.

On every other single issue - social, fiscal, domestic and even foreign policy issues - the neo-conservatives are going to get hammered. And based on their “results”, rightfully so.

And that is why even if Rudy does pull off the upset over the other New Yorker, unless he is a closet neo-con, which is highly unlikely, that failed and for the most part, repudiated political ideology will be officially toast.

The King is dead, Long live the King!

By Aquagirl

October 4, 2007 11:04 AM | Link to this

To clear the stench emanating from 1600 Pennsylvania, a lot of people will vote this way:

ABTR

By Peter

October 4, 2007 11:05 AM | Link to this

HEY HA HA ……. interesting point you make……..

“Let’s see the only candidate of the five main republicans running that still has their original wife is the one who’s religion used to allow more than one. Mitt Romney must be the only one with true family values.”

It will be interesting to see if the Republicans actually use that slogan again…… seems like that was never a reality !!!!!

By JP

October 4, 2007 11:11 AM | Link to this

I figured I’d drop in and see what the Wootbag had to say about Hillary.

Ernie..you remind me why I don’t bother with this forum/column much anymore. The question, “any early favorites among those here likely to vote in the Republican primary?” Ernie’s answer: “Anyone but the Democrat.”

Good luck, are you SURE you can pull that off Ernie? Brilliant!!

As for me, I say - good luck Ron Paul. Finally a sensible Republican.

By joyce

October 4, 2007 11:15 AM | Link to this

Don’t let the “dumbing down of America” asinine emails deter you Mr. Wooten. Surely there are enough intellectuals left in this country to elect the best MAN for the job of president next year. HOPEFULLY…

By Peter

October 4, 2007 11:17 AM | Link to this

Here is what the Republicans will be bringing to the table………

Weak economy, WAR, nothing resolved with Health care, or Social Security…….largest debt ever, largest Government ever….and SCANDAL in the White House, and in Congress…….

Please read todays headlines…..

Factory Orders Drop by Biggest Amount in 7 Months Reflecting Widespread Weakness

WASHINGTON (AP) — Orders to U.S. factories fell in August by the largest amount in seven months, reflecting weakness across a wide swath of manufacturing.

The Commerce Department said that orders dropped by 3.3 percent last month, even worse than the 2.8 percent decline that had been expected. It was the biggest setback since orders fell 4.2 percent in January.

The fall-off was led by a huge plunge in demand for commercial aircraft, which fell by 39.9 percent. However, orders were also weak in a number of other industries, from autos to industrial machinery and home appliances.

Orders for durable goods, items expected to last at least three years, fell by 4.9 percent, while demand for nondurable goods, items such as food, clothing and gasoline, fell by 1.6 percent.

Economists are worried that the steepest housing slump in 16 years and the biggest credit crunch in nearly a decade could push the country into a full-blown recession.

In other news, the Labor Department said that the number of newly laid off workers filing claims for unemployment benefits shot up by 16,000 to a total of 317,000. The gain was the largest one-week rise in four months and was bigger than analysts had expected.

Here you have it WRONGS…… King Bush has driven us into recession…. we cannot take care of our own, ALL the Money spent on WAR !!!!!!!! Oh Yes and allot going to the Buddies of the guys making WAR !!!!!

By AmVet

October 4, 2007 11:21 AM | Link to this

BTW, I wonder how that reasoned and reasonable, not to mention classy, oracle of the right wing, Ms. Coulter feels about Rudy being popular with the female types?

Wasn’t one of her countless erudite comments something to the effect of reconsidering the 19th amendment as there is, according to her, an abundance of “stupid women voters” in this country?

No matter how this election plays out it is going to be nearly hysterical watching the more rabid in the GOP practically eat each other in their demented, continued, albeit failing, quest for self-righteous domination.

By getalife

October 4, 2007 11:27 AM | Link to this

Dobson Makes It Official: Religious Right Leaders Will Back Third-Party Challenger Against Rudy

w fooled them twice and IRS should tax these wingnuts.

By Buy.Danish

October 4, 2007 11:31 AM | Link to this

Getapile: shortbus and helmeted is no way to go through life.

By Hellbent

October 4, 2007 11:33 AM | Link to this

Freddy K: I think I’d rather be embarrased about a President who lied about gettin’ a piece-o’-tail than I would about a President who has lied to the world about everything he’s doing. Has completely ignored the Constitution, and written his own agenda…all in the name of “religion”.

By 'Splain it to me

October 4, 2007 11:35 AM | Link to this

I’m perplexed as to why men hate Hillary so much. Here is a woman who did NOT hire the best divorce attorney money can buy, take her husband to the cleaners and destroy his life after he went elsewhere for his ..um… needs. After listening most of my adult life to men WHINE and COMPLAIN ad nauseum about their cold compassionless wives and cruel, merciless exes…. I wonder why y’all haven’t nominated this woman for SAINTHOOD! Hello????

By Shame me once

October 4, 2007 11:42 AM | Link to this

Buy.Danish, your 11.31 post was so funny, I cant stop laughing. I showed your comment to my boss and all the members of the board at the monthly meeting and they all fell out of their chairs. You are just funny, and smart, and everything you write is gold, as opposed to the smell-warts who stink this blog up all day long and nobody even reads their putrid spew.

Keep up the good work.

By abortalllibs

October 4, 2007 11:44 AM | Link to this

Boy, must be a designated blogathon day for the idiots at doofusunderground or moveit.commie .

The true reality is that half the country wouldn’t vote for Hillary even if she cured cancer, and the shame of it that the current crop of GOP candidates is the best that they have to offer, which isn’t saying much.

By Dems Raise Taxes

October 4, 2007 11:46 AM | Link to this

I just love it when liberals try to make a point about the economy. All of a sudden they are interested in a factory orders datum. It’s the “factory orders” stupid.

Any Democrat elected will raise taxes on the rich (which Obama states is anyone making over $97K/yr.). With less of our own money to spend, how will that impact “factory orders”?

The Democrat party doesn’t understand economics. Their solution: raise taxes….doesn’t matter what the question is.

By jbmlaw

October 4, 2007 11:47 AM | Link to this

After surveying the morning notes, it seems our leftist friends are all bitter about something – not that there is anything unusual about that. Please keep presenting that bitter and angry face to the undecided public – we Republicans will need your continuing help to take back the legislative branch next year. So far you have accommodated us nicely:

supporting the Move On slander of a patently honest military man

initiating a slander of the military’s favorite talk show host

raising federal spending on and adult and middle class health spending by a factor of six

ensuring the largest tax increase in the history of the world

You guys frightened me a little last week when all three of your major candidates affirmed that they were unlikely to take any meaningful steps to remove our military from Iraq. Harry the moonbat is trying to help us overcome that temporary burst of sanity, however, with new efforts to constrain the performance of our noble military. The best thing you could do for us is to tie President Bush’s hands so much that there is another successful attack on the country – then we would take 80% of every vote. So keep plugging away, guys.

By JustMe

October 4, 2007 11:50 AM | Link to this

Hillary was RIGHT about the medical and insurance industry mess years ago. It was the stupid conservatives that stopped her then.

The Bill Clinton years were the best this Country has seen in decades. And, I don’t care about arguing whether he was the cause or not because the basic fact remains the same. I hope that Hillary can bring back our honor, reduce our debt, and fix everything else that 8 years of republican rule has brought on us.

By Dems Know Best

October 4, 2007 11:50 AM | Link to this

“The Democrat party doesn’t understand economics. Their solution: raise taxes….doesn’t matter what the question is.”

You should tell that to Warren Buffet who is a self-proclaimed Democrat. He seems to do pretty well financially and thinks the Dems know better than the Republicans. But maybe you’re not impressed with his billions.

By Homie at Home

October 4, 2007 11:51 AM | Link to this

Wooten’s assertion that Hillary will unite the GOP is nonsense. The GOP will hire Blackwater Mercenaries to take over portions of Washington DC and cause a constitutional crisis, yes, but they wont use the ballot box to effect change, they dont trust it after they rigged the last two elections. The GOP now means Gay Ornery Pirates, and we may have some accessorizing to do.

By JustMe

October 4, 2007 11:52 AM | Link to this

Hillary was RIGHT about the medical and insurance industry mess years ago. It was the stupid conservatives that stopped her then.

The Bill Clinton years were the best this Country has seen in decades. And, I don’t care about arguing whether he was the cause or not because the basic fact remains the same. I hope that Hillary can bring back our honor, reduce our debt, and fix everything else that 8 years of republican rule has brought on us.

By DemDems4Ever

October 4, 2007 11:53 AM | Link to this

On Hillary:

The Clintons have a very obvious marriage of convenience. No love, no faithfulness, nothing similar to that which a marriage should be.

Hillary is a Socialist and has been since college. That is the reason any American with a brain should oppose her.

You liberals may very well elect Hillary and then will you have problems: socialized medicine, higher taxes and a runaway federal bureaucracy.

Do any of you really believe Hillary would be accepted in a Muslim country?

If Hillary will vow to close the borders, defeat the Muslim terror threat and support the military then she would appeal to a broader cross-section of the American public. Of course then she would not be the good little commie.

By jbmlaw

October 4, 2007 11:54 AM | Link to this

Dear AmVet @ 11:21, thanks for reminding me, conservative friends, Chairman Ann has a funny essay this morning about “Phony Vets.” Our leftist friends ought not bother, you will only be offended.

Dear getalife @ 11:27, great argument, please push that idea – if the conservative Christians understand the left’s desire, they will vote strongly with us.

By Hellbent

October 4, 2007 11:54 AM | Link to this

jbmlaw: Get off the short bus! Of course we’re angry, our Constitutional rights have been sh@t upon and nobody seems to mind. Keep your head buried in the sand. However, when your world falls apart because of your apathy and mis-guided “patriotism”, don’t come whining to us!

By JustMe

October 4, 2007 11:54 AM | Link to this

Hillary was RIGHT about the medical and insurance industry mess years ago. It was the stupid conservatives that stopped her then.

The Bill Clinton years were the best this Country has seen in decades. And, I don’t care about arguing whether he was the cause or not because the basic fact remains the same. I hope that Hillary can bring back our honor, reduce our debt, and fix everything else that 8 years of republican rule has brought on us.

By Abomi Nation

October 4, 2007 11:57 AM | Link to this

Yes, Republicans just gave us a $600,000,000,000.00 worthless war but Hillary is going to raise your taxes.

By Peter

October 4, 2007 11:59 AM | Link to this

Wow…… this makes the election even more interesting and really much harder for the Republicans…..

getalife brought this to the table today, but to all the WRONGS … you might want to read this……..

Dobson Makes It Official: Religious Right Leaders Will Back Third-Party Challenger Against Rudy By Greg Sargent - October 4, 2007, 10:14AM

Recently it was reported that around 50 pro-family leaders gathered behind closed doors to discuss what to do if a pro-choice politician — read: Rudy — won the GOP nomination. The reports were a bit vague as to what happened, suggesting that the group said they would “consider” nominating a third-party challenger.

Now, however, one of those leaders, Focus on the Family head James Dobson, has published an Op ed piece in The New York Times clarifying exactly what happened: The group voted almost unanimously not just to “consider” backing such a challenger, but to definitely do so. In other words, Dobson made it official, saying that if a pro-choicer wins the GOP nomination, these leaders will be going third party. Dobson wrote:

That’s pretty definitive. The group also discussed the possibility of creating a third party themselves, though there was no consensus on that question. Still, according to Dobson, they will almost unanimously endorse a third-party challenger. This could obviously have a major impact on the race by splitting the GOP vote.

Indeed, a new poll out from Rasmussen today says that more than a quarter — 27% — of Republicans would vote for such a pro-life third-party challenger. What’s particularly interesting about this poll is that it offers GOPers this choice while explicitly naming Hillary and Rudy as the major party nominees — suggesting that even the specter of a victorious Hillary wouldn’t dissuade many Republicans from going third party.

SO they way I see this…….. with a possible 3rd party candidate that is going to represent the extreme Religious Right REPUBLICAN, then we end up with a similar situation we had when Ross Perot took votes from George Senior, which lead to Bill Clinton’s election…….

How interesting…… the Republican party becoming fragmented……thus another Clinton being the beneficiary!!!!

You have to love all those that continue to want to mix Religion with POLITICS…….

Gee that stance is NO different then that of Osama Bin Laden !!!!

He may have different crazy ideologies, but it is still playing politics based on Religion FIRST !!!!

By getalife

October 4, 2007 11:59 AM | Link to this

ambulance chaser,

The wingnuts will not vote for pro choice liberal Rudy.

Run him.

By Dems Raise Taxes

October 4, 2007 11:59 AM | Link to this

On September 27th, Democrat Congressman John Dingell proposed a “carbon tax” that would raise the price of gasoline by 50 cents and would raise the price of nearly every product that consumers purchase. The measure would take an estimated $180 billion from taxpayers.

Dingell’s proposal also calls for the elimination of the mortgage deduction for homes more than 3,000 sq. ft. (Only rich people would have a home THAT large, right?)

Another example of why Democrats can’t be trusted on the economy.

By Freddy K.

October 4, 2007 11:59 AM | Link to this

Hellbent, And that makes him different from the rest how?

By jbmlaw

October 4, 2007 12:00 PM | Link to this

Dear JustMe @ 11:50, it would be highly beneficial to us conservatives if you would use your influence to persuade Hillary to push her healthcare plan before the election.

By Dems Raise Taxes

October 4, 2007 12:03 PM | Link to this

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday that every child born in the United States should get a $5,000 “baby bond” from the government to help pay for future costs of college or buying a home.

“I like the idea of giving every baby born in America a $5,000 account that will grow over time, so that when that young person turns 18 if they have finished high school they will be able to access it to go to college or maybe they will be able to make that downpayment on their first home,” she said.

The New York senator did not offer any estimate of the total cost of such a program or how she would pay for it. Approximately 4 million babies are born each year in the United States.

Another $20 Billion+ tax increase proposed by a Democrat presidential candidate—proving once again that Democrats cannot be trusted with the economy.

By jbmlaw

October 4, 2007 12:08 PM | Link to this

Dear HB @ 11:54, I think your post would be more accurate if you used the term “mad” instead of “angry.” “Crazy” is even more accurate than “mad.” By the way, what Constitutional right did you say you were deprived?

By Larry

October 4, 2007 12:09 PM | Link to this

The only persons bringing up the gay agenda or sodomy or causing deficit spending or big government is the Right.

When Clinton stained Monica’s dress, the Right made sure that even second graders heard about it and understood about the anatomy of the act. The Right is responsible for child abuse on a vast scale in this country.

Jbmlaw: Accessorize! You’re gonna need it to impress your fellow-renegades in sodomy-blogging.

It’s a fact that jbmlaw’s ilk would rather destroy the country and surrender it to terrorists than have a democratically elected president.

No backs. No vice-versas. no changies.

By jbmlaw

October 4, 2007 12:10 PM | Link to this

Dear getalife @ 11:59, what makes you think I would not vote for Rudy? Of course I would. Even though I am an anti-abortion Christian ultra-right winger.

By Dems Raise Taxes

October 4, 2007 12:11 PM | Link to this

Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, has proposed a war “surtax.”

The plan, unveiled by Reps. David Obey, D-Wis., John Murtha, D-Pa., and Jim McGovern, D-Mass., would require low- and middle-income taxpayers to add 2 percent to their tax bill. Wealthier people would add a 12 to 15 percent surcharge, Obey said. (Remember Obama said wealthy people are those making >$97k/yr.)

Obey, the Democrat, was the one who was going to end the dastardly practice of earmarks by openly disclosing them. And then he didn’t.

Besides Tax Increases and social programs, what do Democrats offer?

(Obey’s proposal will sure hurt those factory orders numbers.)

By Hellbent

October 4, 2007 12:11 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw: I will not argue with a fool. Have some more Kool-Aid.

By Ed

October 4, 2007 12:14 PM | Link to this

Four years ago it was Michael Moore that galvanized the right to go out and vote based on his not so accurate bashing of President Bush. In 2008 it will be Hillary because we have 16 years of documented BS that will surface when the time is right. Remember it wasn’t that long ago that democrats were trying to get as far away from the Clintons as possible. By the way do we call Bill Clinton the first husband or the first pimp.

By Dems Raise Taxes

October 4, 2007 12:17 PM | Link to this

“….Obama has suggested imposing the 12.4 percent tax on all income above $97,000 per year…”

Obama’s idea would raise more than $1 trillion over 10 years by subjecting income of more than $97,000 to a 12.4 percent tax.

If you earn $97K/yr., do you consider yourself rich? Democrats do. Obama’s $1 trillion tax increase would certainly affect “factory orders”, wouldn’t it.

Democrats don’t understand economic issues but they do understand tax increases.

By Peter

October 4, 2007 12:17 PM | Link to this

More silliness today by the WRONGS read below……

“By Abomi Nation

Yes, Republicans just gave us a $600,000,000,000.00 worthless war but Hillary is going to raise your taxes.”

Wow I guess every Republican thinks the American Treasury HAD the cash just siting around collecting interest…….and then Bush decided to spend it……… HA HA HA HA HA HA……….

Nice to SEE a REPUBLICAN admit to this being a WORTHLESS WAR!!

Remember George’s DAD…..”Read my lips I will not raise taxes!”

If you WRONGS don’t think we have to raise taxes to PAY for this WAR you are all nuttier than I thought……

Come on folks our economy is BASED on Americans spending their money daily and GETTING into DEEP Debt……

When that stops……. then what…..get a clue folks….. we are up to our Collected A$$’s with debt we owe to CHINA……BECAUSE of this WAR…….

If we don’t get rid of that, we will be the United States Territory of China !!!!!!!

OH YES we certainly can TRUST the BIG Government Republicans…….BIG DEBT Republicans !!!

By Tim Smith

October 4, 2007 12:21 PM | Link to this

During the Clinton years America had the most robust economy in history and a budget surplus. And don’t say it was because of Reagan. Then W came and messed it all up. We need to put the Clintons back in the White House in 08.

By getalife

October 4, 2007 12:22 PM | Link to this

Of course you would fake wingnut.

You have no morals or principles, you are an ambulance chaser.

You are a fraud like dusty.

Geez.

By Jackie

October 4, 2007 12:25 PM | Link to this

Dubya continues to make political moves that is literally destroying the GOP and any chance it has of winning the White House in ‘08. Pete Domenici (R-NM) has/will announce his retirement; Larry Craig (R-ID) continues to his charade and will be thrown out by the Repubs. Dubya and Norman Podohertz are trying to find justification and means to attack Iran. The Israelis attacked Syria at our behest; Hunt Oil made a secret deal with the Kurds, in violation of the Iraqi constitution. The British are trying to find a way out of Iraq. Dubya vetoes the SCHIP bill that has Repub support. These are the folks that we will ask us to lead the nation in ‘08? Is this scenario written by Tom Clancy?

By jm

October 4, 2007 12:32 PM | Link to this

The depressing thing about this lot is that this country is in sore need of a Roosevelt (either one), a Truman, an Eisenhower (less for his abilities but more for right man at the right time) or even a Reagan and this is what we have to choose from.

The best one can hope is that whoever gets the prize will grow into the job. Judging from what I have seen so far, my hopes are not that high.

By Larry

October 4, 2007 12:34 PM | Link to this

Because porn causes sex which causes children who eventually will need healthcare, you can fight SCHIP with the V-chip.

By Abomi Nation

October 4, 2007 12:37 PM | Link to this

((Yes, Republicans just gave us a $600,000,000,000.00 worthless war but Hillary is going to raise your taxes.))

Hey Peter, I’m not a Republican. I’m glad you think that kind of logic is absurd. Great post btw!

How much has the worthless war cost the average taxpayer “Dems raise taxes”? The Highway Bill? Medicare Part D? No Child Left behind? The Department of Homeland Security? The massive deficit? Abstinence Only program?

HILLARY IS GOING TO RAISE YOUR TAXES!! LMAO!

By JustMe

October 4, 2007 12:39 PM | Link to this

You all (republican) idiots so concerned with ANY democrat plan that costs $20 billion or so…. why the heck aren’t you worried like crazy over the ridiculous cost of this war? Oh yeah, it is because you all are hypocrites in the worst way!

Do you really think that this war will not eventually require an increase in taxes? How do you think that we will pay for it?

The idiot short-term Bush approach is to just be in debt. Yeah, that’ll work.

It kills me how stupid and narrow minded conservative republican really are. You all have on blinders and only see what you chose to see - selective sight.

By Dems Raise Taxes

October 4, 2007 12:39 PM | Link to this

In addition to Hillary’s $20B “Baby Bond” tax, she already voted for raising taxes by another $1.35 trillion by not voting for the permanent repeal of the Death Tax.

Prior to President Bush’s tax cuts in 2001, a family wishing to pass along a family farm or small business to the next generation faced a Death Tax of up to 55 percent. Under the 2001 tax cut, Death Taxes will be completely eliminated by 2010.

But if Democrats fail to extend that tax cut, the rate will return to 55 percent in 2011. It sounds crazy, but it’s true: Under current law, if a small business owner dies on December 31st, 2010, the owner’s family will able to carry on the business without paying additional taxes. But if the owner lingers on through the night and dies on January 1, 2011, the family could owe over half the value of the business to the federal government in taxes.

Unless they extend the death tax relief, Democrats will be saddling our economy with a $1.35 trillion tax hike.

On on Jun 8, 2006 Hillary Clinton voted “nay” on (permanently repealing the death tax (vote number 2006-164). Why do Democrats want to tax someone just because he dies? The dead have already paid taxes on everything they’re leaving to their heirs.

Talk about your impact on “factory orders.”

By AmVet

October 4, 2007 12:41 PM | Link to this

Even Newt knows all is lost for this “new” GOP.

And he was the very creator of it!

In the past under his tutelage, the most vile tactics were extremely effective and the idiots on the far left responded in kind.

12 years later the nation, at least the centrists and moderates, are nauseated by this vitriol, even though the trickle down theory still remains, albeit on the lunatic fringes, as evidenced by the modus operandi of some here.

But like it or not, reactionaries, times have changed.

And it is unlikely that the smear machines will be nearly as effective this time.

And as alluded to here earlier, the hate vote is probably not going to carry the day next November.

So perhaps, the country will be forced to make decisions actually based on issues, rather than on spin and mischaracterizations as advanced by professional henchmen like the disgraced Mr. Rove.

At least I can dream, can’t I?

By JustMe

October 4, 2007 12:41 PM | Link to this

You all (republican) idiots so concerned with ANY democrat plan that costs $20 billion or so…. why the heck aren’t you worried like crazy over the ridiculous cost of this war? Oh yeah, it is because you all are hypocrites in the worst way!

Do you really think that this war will not eventually require an increase in taxes? How do you think that we will pay for it?

The idiot short-term Bush approach is to just be in debt. Yeah, that’ll work.

It kills me how stupid and narrow minded conservative republican really are. You all have on blinders and only see what you chose to see - selective sight.

By JustMe

October 4, 2007 12:43 PM | Link to this

You all (republican) idiots so concerned with ANY democrat plan that costs $20 billion or so…. why the heck aren’t you worried like crazy over the ridiculous cost of this war? Oh yeah, it is because you all are hypocrites in the worst way!

Do you really think that this war will not eventually require an increase in taxes? How do you think that we will pay for it?

The idiot short-term Bush approach is to just be in debt. Yeah, that’ll work.

It kills me how stupid and narrow minded conservative republican really are. You all have on blinders and only see what you chose to see - selective sight.

By Captain Freedom

October 4, 2007 12:43 PM | Link to this

THE Captain is relieved that a True Belief Shining Star (and not our wobbly Mr Wooten) has recognized the danger that a Don Vito Giuliani candidacy poses to the safety of millions of blastocyst-Americans. Mr Wooten should be ashamed of promoting the babykilling, cross-dressing, h0mo-loving Rudy.

THE Captain is a solid acolyte of the Godly James Dobson. This Man is a shining light of Truth and Clarity in an age gone mad. THE Captain has been especially grateful for Rev Dobson’s tips on dog training, and has applied the belt and cudgel to great effect. THE Captain is only sorry that His seed has fallen on barren soil, and that He has no sons upon whom He can implement the Godly Dobson approach to raising strong and healthy White Christian Males.

THE Captain especially regrets no being able to use the technique of bringing His (sadly, unconceived) young son into the shower with Him and displaying the Glory of His Manhood to ensure that the son does not become a Godless Sodomite.

(I understand that poor Sen Craig’s father failed to dangle his diddly in the young lad’s face, leading Sen Craig to spend a lifetime trying to fill this void in public restrooms. a tragedy that could have been so easily avoided.)

So, please, Mr Wooten, enough with these Godless Dagos and hom0-loving Mormontology cult candidates. Right Thinking Americans need a candidate we can depend on.

Really in the end, it comes down to Alan Keyes, a True Belief Conservative who is unafraid of the insults (bonkers, bat$hit crazy, etc) that inevit ably follow his public pronouncements. He proves himself worthy by his willingness to publicly slander and disown his lesbian daughter for her ungodliness. This is Man we can Trust, even if he is one of Those People. But as Justice Thomas has so admirably proved, a compliant Darky can be very useful to White Christian America. They’re just happy to sit at the table.

Alan Keyes for President. It is the Right Thing to do.

By MELO

October 4, 2007 12:50 PM | Link to this

Joyce,Surely there are enough intellectuals left in this country to elect the best MAN for the job of president next year And since u are no intellectual Republican woman urself, u agree to be reduced to a domestic cookie maker.Pathetic Repugnant brainwash.Are u a Mormon woman?

By Captain Freedom

October 4, 2007 12:52 PM | Link to this

The Islaministofascists continue to whine about the cost of Our Leader’s Just and Good Permanent War. This is simply misguided, ignorant pansy lib handwringing that shows a clear lack of understanding about how wars are funded.

To help these dopey liberals (pardon the superfluous redundant repitition), I offer the words of Sen Lindsay Graham (who is almost certainly NOT a homosexual):

“You pay for the war by winning the war,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC). “This is not an accounting exercise. How did we pay for World War II? Everybody rolled up their sleeves and did the best they could.”

So there, libs. This is not about accounting, or even spending any money at all. If you win, the cost magically disappears. Conversely, if we leave and give up without winning, we would actually need to pay for the war with real money. Can you imagine what such expenditures would do to the economy of Our Great Nation?

This yet one more reason we must stay there and get the job done. It is the Right Thing to do.

By Peter

October 4, 2007 12:57 PM | Link to this

No problem Abomi Nation……. Now for more BAD news………

I guess if you are a WRONG………

WASHINGTON - Public approval for President Bush and Congress has sunk to the lowest levels ever recorded in The Associated Press-Ipsos poll.

Only 31 percent said they approve of the job Bush is doing, according to the survey released on Thursday. Though his positive ratings have hovered at about that range since last year, his lowest previous approval in the AP-Ipsos survey was 32 percent, which was recorded several times, most recently in June. That is virtually even with the latest reading.

Amid a major credit crunch and a weak housing market, a record low 34 percent said they approved of Bush’s performance in handling the economy. His prior low in the poll was 37 percent.

Bush also hit a new low with 31 percent approving of his work on domestic issues like health care, just below June’s 32 percent. The poll was taken as Bush was about to veto a measure adding $35 billion to children’s health coverage.

Here you go WRONGS…….add a fragmented Party because of the Right Wing Religious folks….. Wow…….it will be MORE than an up hill battle…….come election time….. Hillery or whomever…..

Now how to make America a better place….. ANY thoughts out there????

My question is how do we Pay for this WAR and Immense Debt… AND NOT leave the Bill for the Younger generation to PAY….??????

Any thoughts from the Republicans on this BLOG ????

By Shar

October 4, 2007 1:02 PM | Link to this

jm@12:32 - I’m with you. Senator Clinton, while favored by the Democratic faithful, has too many negatives and too little executive experience to win the White House. I am horrified and deeply ashamed by the unending parade of incompetance, imperialism and vicious self-interest oozing out of the White House, and I know that the next President will have to focus much more on repair (fiscal, domestic, foreign affairs, military) than on initiatives. As much as I want to “throw the b-tards out”, I would not be able to bring myself to vote for Sen. Clinton. Eight years of arrogance, inexperience and close-minded self righteousness has driven us to the brink. We can’t afford any more.

Given the God-awful, shameful, debilitating performance of the Republicans, it is an indictment of the Democrats that they can’t walk away with the ‘08 election. The candidate with the most executive experience and the best chance of appealing to moderates, Bill Richardson, cannot compete in the glamour stakes dominated by Sens. Clinton, Obama and Edwards. Unless Mr. Dobson et al self-destruct and do form a third party, we’ll have a strongly Democratic Congress and a Republican President. Perhaps the resulting gridlock is the best we can hope for from this sorry group.

And yes, there will have to be a tax increase, regardless of who is in office. In fact, there already has been. Debt is just a delayed tax increase made worse by interest costs. Just because Mr. Bush is too cowardly to call his deficit a tax increase doesn’t change the fact that it is. Shifting the blame will not shift the responsibility.

By Jackie

October 4, 2007 1:02 PM | Link to this

@By Dems Raise Taxes

Your 12:39 statement was “Prior to President Bush’s tax cuts in 2001, a family wishing to pass along a family farm or small business to the next generation faced a Death Tax of up to 55 percent. Under the 2001 tax cut, Death Taxes will be completely eliminated by 2010.” Could you please give one example, name, county, state of this event happening? I believe there is no documentation indicating that taxing one out of their inheritance ever occurred.

By ObamaPlease

October 4, 2007 1:08 PM | Link to this

Obama for president! And I rarely ever vote democrat. Please people, no Hilary! Bill was enough of a disgrace for one lifetime. Bush is the second!

By Dems Raise Taxes

October 4, 2007 1:11 PM | Link to this

This week Democrats tried to hoist another tax increase on productive citizens (Republicans). Though President Bush supported an increase of 20% in SCHIP spending, Democrats wanted more. They want to raise SCHIP eligibility to 400% of the poverty level (currently $82,600 for a family of four). That move would qualify no less than 71% of American children for public assistance.

Using children as a cover, Democrats want to use the back door to accomplish what they couldn’t achieve through the front door: Socialized medicine. Democrats use children, judges, and other willing or innocent stooges to raise taxes on working people since they know their proposals wouldn’t pass muster with the public. The result if their proposals are enacted? A slower economy and a lower standard of living for Americans. Republicans tried to copy the Democrats by using tax dollars to buy votes. We all suffered. But based on what Democrats have already proposed (prior to gaining the presidency) in the area of tax increases, we ain’t seen nothing yet.

(Another blow to the “factory orders” numbers.)

By biggydawwg

October 4, 2007 1:14 PM | Link to this

I would like to state I would vote for Fred Thompson, as I believe he would be the strongest to debate Hillary(the virtually assured Democratic nominee) and would more likely guarantee election with a running mate of Condeleeza Rice or Colin Powell or someone similar. As far a Bush failing at anything, I would like to state that the tax cuts have done more good than harm and should be made permanent, especially the death tax. I do not want to have to employ a law firm in order to pass along to my children, nor do I want anyone else to have to do that no matter how much money they are worth. I think too many people have forgot that success and the money that comes with it is the American Dream. Don’t be jealous of those already blessed with it whether they use it for good or not. Do you think you would be in favor of the taxes if it was you in their position? Lastly, the only way to be fair on taxes is to go to a national sales tax, with a sliding scale based on the goods and services taxed,(i.e. food and medicine on the lowest end of the scale and luxury goods on the highest). That would bring everyone onboard no matter how they make their income(even those who make their money illegally would be forced to fund the very agencies after them). As it is only 50% of Americans pay income tax because those in the lower thresholds don’t pay any. I would also set a corporate tax rate of a flat 18% with no exceptions. Our government would have more money than they would know what to do with. So much for my Ramble.

By Larry

October 4, 2007 1:21 PM | Link to this

If you dont support W, then you support the 911 conspirators, it’s that simple.

I’m ashamed to blog with terrorists. ASHAMED!

Now, either you all blog these words in five minutes, or I call the FBI: Blog this: “I was a dirty bird, Bush is not grungy, he’s b***’”

You now have 4 minutes andn 57 seconds….56…55…etc (I’m dialing…..)

By MrLiberty

October 4, 2007 1:23 PM | Link to this

Ron Paul is the only GOP candidate that can beat Hillary. The sooner the establishment clowns recognize this and get behind him the better.

By Peter

October 4, 2007 1:24 PM | Link to this

Well here is some really fun stuff……

“By Captain Freedom

The Islaministofascists continue to whine about the cost of our Leaders Just and Good Permenent War. This is simply misguided, ignorant pansy lib handwringing that shows a clear lack of understanding about how wars are funded.

To help these dopey liberals (pardon the superfluous redundant repitition), I offer the words of Sen Lindsay Graham (who is almost certainly NOT a homosexual):

“You pay for the war by winning the war,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC). “This is not an accounting exercise. How did we pay for World War II? Everybody rolled up their sleeves and did the best they could.”

So there, libs. This is not about accounting, or even spending any money at all. If you win, the cost magically disappears. Conversely, if we leave and give up without winning, we would actually need to pay for the war with real money. Can you imagine what such expenditures would do to the economy of Our Great Nation?

This yet one more reason we must stay there and get the job done. It is the Right Thing to do.”

Gee we were attacked in WWII by the Japanese…….. did we go after the Chinese ????

This WAR WE started…..with No plan, and currently NO results……

OK another thought….. “we are going to roll up our sleeves and do the best we can…..”

IS THAT THE PLAN……. WOW….. Now that sounds allot like the Plan to Invade Iraq to me……???????

YES no plan is the PLAN !!!!! Roll up your sleeves folks…… that is the PLAN !!!!!

HAHAHAHAHA……. gosh….. then what??? Invade Iran ????

Well of all the things written about the war this must definitely take the cake…..

“Our Leader’s Just and Good Permanent War.”

Well of all the things folks…..

Here we see War is Good…. WAR is Just, and more importantly folks war should be PERMANENT…..

OK no wonder they do not want to leave Iraq….

WAR should be permanent…….!!!!!

WOW what a statement….. F the budget…… let’s get another war going say the Chicken Hawks !!!!!

I also like the homosexual line as well….. “almost certainly not a homosexual”……so we are really not sure are we?????

Gee that must be a headline in accordance with “Family Values”…..

“We are almost certain that most Republicans are Not Homosexuals”

HA HA HA HA HA ……..

Oh by they way….. our writer never did tell us how war’s were funded did he ?????

By Deborah

October 4, 2007 1:26 PM | Link to this

It’s about time we had a President that isn’t “Pale, Male and Stale”.

Also, I believe the increase in taxes Mr. Obama is referring to is about fixing the problem with Social Security and the impending crises that will occur when the Baby Boomers are all retired. If that’s incorrect, someone please set me straight. He has proposed taxing income above the $97K cap to keep SS solvent for the generations following the Baby Boomers.

By Larry

October 4, 2007 1:27 PM | Link to this

Remember, write, “I was a dirty bird, Bush is not grungy, he’s beechin”

By Jack

October 4, 2007 1:34 PM | Link to this

I might vote for a dem if they would implement the fair tax.

By getalife

October 4, 2007 1:48 PM | Link to this

Judge denies Criag’s withdrawal of guilty plea.

Another gop pervert is history.

By rarringt

October 4, 2007 2:00 PM | Link to this

Afternoon all,

Just wanted to say I admire the relatively civil discourse on the blog today. Interesting discussion from both sides of the aisle.

I guess the folks at the looney bin are on lockdown today….

By AmVet

October 4, 2007 2:11 PM | Link to this

“Pale, Male and Stale”.

Deborah, that is one of the funnier things I’ve read in a long while!

You go girl!

But hey! Wait a minute! Granted, he fits the last two characteristics, but Alan Keyes isn’t pale!

And whoever wrote that Colin Powell might be induced by large Fred to run as his Veep is stretching the limits of believability!

I would think the General has had enough of the neo-conservatives for one lifetime!

By Play that Funky Music Whiteboy

October 4, 2007 2:17 PM | Link to this

The only times in recent history that a Republican was elected President, starting with Reagan, was when that candidate enjoyed an overwhelming majority of the (pardon my use of this Mr. Reed) Moral Majority or Christian Coalition type vote.

The rumblings have already begun among this crowd for the 2008 elections. They see no one to back - poor Romney would win the nomination in a landslide if he were not a mormon, but that’s just too much for a narrowly focused group to stomach. They are looking to send up their own candidate. Do not be surprised to see a Franklin Graham or Pat Roberson’s kid run under this group’s umbrella.

No way they could vote for Giuliani. There is no way a Pastor of a fundamentalist congregation could get up and endorse a person who married their cousin, then married a woman who very eloquently performed the Vagina Monologues (explain that one away at the local Baptist Church), then kicked her out of the mayor’s mansion and moved in his girlfriend and eventually married her - a candidate who is pro-choice and pro-gun control. Wooten, and other GOP’rs… are you serious when you think the same people who voted for George W. (I talk directly to Jesus) Bush would vote for Rudy?

As a Democrat, I hope its a Rudy vs. Hillary or Obama choice, because I feel like neither way I could lose and America would be better off than it has been since 1999.

By Shar

October 4, 2007 2:21 PM | Link to this

rarringt@2:00 - I second that. Nice to see these smart folks on topic and off each others’ backs.

By DemDems4Ever

October 4, 2007 2:25 PM | Link to this

Jackie@1:02,

Your question is nonsense. Under the old estate law, family businesses and farms were liquidated routinely to pay estate taxes.

By GreyGayGeek

October 4, 2007 2:30 PM | Link to this

DemDems @ 2:25

Waving your hands and insisting that it happened because you say so isn’t answering the question. If it was SO widespread a problem, you should have no problem coming up with an example or 10.

If you can’t, please quit parroting Rush and his Oxycontin-induced delusions.

By Play that Funky Music Whiteboy

October 4, 2007 2:34 PM | Link to this

Shar and rarringt - do you think the civility shows maybe some fatigue among the “Hillaryhaters”? Have they resigned themselves to a Hillary Presidency? Seemingly Newt Gingrich has as have others.

Maybe this could be spun into a vast rightwing talkshow and blog site (that one was for you Jim) conspiracy. Do you know how much more money those folks stand to make from four to eight years of Hillary? Rush was never more popular than he was when Bill was President. I mean, no Clinton in the White House, he fails miserably on his ESPN debut, loses his hearing, becomes a drug addict… deep down he has to want this, doesn’t he? Don’t you Jim Wooten?

By DemDems4Ever

October 4, 2007 2:35 PM | Link to this

To all you hand-wringing lefties, I have a question (or more).

How much would 2.1 TRILLION barrels of oil be worth in the global market in 2010?

What is the total of all known oil reserves outside the United States?

How overstated are the reserves of the OPEC nations?

What price are you lefties willing to pay to stop Iran from dominating the Middle East?

Any lefties out there with answers?

By jbmlaw

October 4, 2007 2:40 PM | Link to this

Dear Larry @ 12:09, thanks for a well-drafted display of leftist thinking and logic.

Dear Peter @ 12:17, thanks for a well-drafted demonstration of leftist economic thought.

Dear Tim Smith @ 12:21, great demonstration of “post hoc ergo propter hoc,” the democrat intellectual foundation.

Dear getalife @ 12:22, with all due respect I am a true wingnut; there is nothing fake about my wingnutness.

Dear Jackie @ 12:25, in contrast with the various items I mock in this post, and even though I usually mock you, I think you raise a legitimate question, albeit one answered definitively yesterday, “Neoconservatism’s Future, It’s still the only game in town” http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110010684 Best evidence of the correctness of the author’s thesis is the last democrat debate – the big three still have no answer other than the one proffered by George W. Bush.

Dear JustMe @ 12:39, I suspect you are not serious, but you swerved into the $600 million question: “why the heck aren’t you worried like crazy over the ridiculous cost of this war?” The obvious answer is, “for the same reason FDR was not worried like crazy over the ridiculous cost of WW2.” This is not an avoidable war; had we never started killing the Islamists after 9/11, they would have gone on attacking us, just as they did every year during the Clinton administration. Most of us think that unacceptable. Similarly, most thoughtful people believe it would be a bad idea for a lunatic-state like Iran or North Korea to have nuclear weapons, and that the US ought to take every step necessary to ensure that ceases to be a risk. So the short answer is that security is not ridiculous. Tolerating murderous free-radicals throughout the world, that would be ridiculous. (As to paying for it, join me in supporting abolition of the Department of Education and the Department of Agriculture.)

Dear getalife @ 1:48, just curious, do you describe Barney Frank as a pervert?

Dear GreyGayGeek @ 2:30, you know the original question was disingenuous – tax records are not public. Your assertion that death taxes CANNOT be the cause of business termination or breakup of family farms is irrational. You can fairly question the magnitude of the effect, but not its existence.

By Bill

October 4, 2007 2:46 PM | Link to this

RUDY GIULIANI is the next President of the United States, and just what we need. His record in NYC should be enough for any intelligent voter to make this easy decision.

Hillary clinton is a nightmare, and if she gets her hands on this country, we are doomed. Who wants to go back to the days of bomb shelters again? I don’t!

Rudy has my vote, and quite frankly, he will do the best job for this country that any President has done.

By Shar

October 4, 2007 2:47 PM | Link to this

Whiteboy @ 2:34 - I would not presume to answer for rarringt, but I suspect this unexpected outbreak of civility is due to who is (and who is noticeably not) contributing today. The folks who have posted seem more interested in hearing the ideas of other posters than in veering off to more contentious subjects or slinging abrasive insults. Let’s all have tea.

By Larry

October 4, 2007 2:49 PM | Link to this

I’ll tell you something: it never ceases to astonish me how quickly writer’s block descends upon me when it happens. Like a bladder infection. One minute niagra falls, the next, I’m howling in pain with every drip.

I cant write a word, not a word.

By GreyGayGeek

October 4, 2007 2:53 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw @ 2:40,

DemDems is the one making the claim. Jackie and I are simply asking for the claim to be substantiated.

Again, waving hands and staing that the claim can’t be proven, therefore it should just be believed, isn’t going to cut it. If this was SUCH a prolific problem, DemDems, you, or any other neocon should have no problem providing the audidence with 10 or 20 examples.

By Camus

October 4, 2007 2:54 PM | Link to this

Boy, the right wing extremists are so easy to manipulate, like little windup toys fueled by preposterous fairy tales.

The “horror stories” about the plague of family farms/businesses being lost to estate taxation is one of the great fictions foisted upon the public, ranking right up there with the idea that Iraqi soldiers were removing babies from hosptial incubators by spearing them with bayonets. You lot are so damned gullible. You’ve been especially entertaining with the broo-ha-ha over that guy who disrespected the American flag. No not that guy, the other one.

Now comes the concern troll Wooten gamely declaring ‘bring it on’ in regards to a Hillary nomination. They’re scared, the wingnuts, because they know their man-child in the White House has screwed the pooch for the conservative movement for years to come. Desperately hoping that someone anyone will save their crumbling reich. Thus, an embrace of St Rudy.

I don’t suggest the Dems are likely to do so well in power that they are a lock for a generation. But it will be a long, long time before the American public buys a pig in a poke like they did with Dubya. And nobody will pay attention to the psychotic ramblings of Christianist Radicals like Dobson/Robertson except their own demented flock.

I expect Hillary will become our first female president, and she will achieve this having been scrutinized more closely and demonized more viciously than any candidate in history.

And there’s nothing the Wootens and Rushjunkies of the world can do to stop it. The only thing that stands between Hillary and the White House is the liberal base of the Dem party who feels she is too much of a DLC demi-conservative.

I can’t wait for Inauguration Day. The sound of all the wingnut heads exploding will be sweet sweet music.

By MELO

October 4, 2007 2:55 PM | Link to this

biggydawwg, if Senator Thompson makes sure that trophy gal of his does not keep him up all night, he may well have a good debate with Hillary. But if she is going to have her way and escapade all night, look the man is in his 70s and his stamina may be found wanting!!

By Shar

October 4, 2007 3:02 PM | Link to this

Dear jbmlaw@2:40 - Your post convinces me that, despite the certainty of unveiling my ignorance for all the blog to see, I must ask for clarification. What, precisely, is your definition of a “wingnut”? The only one I could find was hardware-related, which just doesn’t work with your context. And while we’re on the subject, would you please define another favored term of yours, “moonbat”? I have a very bad feeling that I qualify, in your mind, for one or the other terms, and my current naivete precludes effective self defense. Many thanks.

By Captain Freedom

October 4, 2007 3:03 PM | Link to this

melo -

THE Captain finds the image of Frederick of Hollywood draping his lovely trophy bride with his ample hound dog flesh a bit too much to take.

But fear not. The Godly Sir Frederick knows better than to allow a not-man person to sap his precious bodily fluids. His recent vigorous campaign appearances in Iowa proves that he is wise to the dictum “women weaken legs”.

He will be more than ready to demolish any Dem VP candidate in debate, as Alan Keyes’ running mate.

Alan Keyes for President. With Newt out, he’s our only hope.

It is the Right Thing to do.

By Camus

October 4, 2007 3:06 PM | Link to this

Shar -

A “wingnut” is a radical extremist ultra-conservative who robotically parrots the ideas spoonfed to them by their movement leaders. There are plenty of examples here on this board.

By Camus

October 4, 2007 3:09 PM | Link to this

Shar

A little more etymology.

Wingnut is derived from the phrase “right wing nut job”, shortened to wingnut for ease of use. Concise, with some logical basis.

“Moonbat”, on the other hand, is a term coined by the especially extreme wingnut Michelle Malkin (the one who likes concentration camps for US citizens). This term has no genesis in logic, but is rather just a madeup invective like ‘poopyhead’ or ‘stupidnose’. But the wingnuts seem to like to say and write this, thinking that it serves them as some kind of magical argument winner.

By Larry

October 4, 2007 3:16 PM | Link to this

That’s right shamus, the terms wingnut and moonbat are obsolete, overused harmless phrases used only by someone totally out of touch with the political realities in the USA today.

That’s why this blog blows.

By MELO

October 4, 2007 3:26 PM | Link to this

Captain Freedom, I pity those old folks in Iowa.Thompson awoke them from their deep sleep after his speech. Maybe Thompson and Jim Wooten can be running mates, with the resident jbmlaw the consultant. Thats the Country Club Ticket.

By AmVet

October 4, 2007 3:26 PM | Link to this

Dear Captain, I read an article just this morning where Jeri Thompson protests that she is not a trophy wife.

Apparently she worked hard to get large Fred. I’ll leave it up to everybody’s imaginations, as to just what was involved.

And I love that phrase “women weaken legs”!

Kind of an ironic, new age twist on “Loose Lips Sink Ships”!

By A libertarian

October 4, 2007 3:29 PM | Link to this

Hey jmblaw, whats the term for a Bush loving far right conservative that pretends to be a libertarian?

Embarrassednut?

By DebbieDoRight

October 4, 2007 3:29 PM | Link to this

Do any of you really believe Hillary would be accepted in a Muslim country?

Current and Former Female World Leaders:

Liberia — President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf

Megawati Sukarnoputri — Indonesia (Indonesia is a Muslim Country)

President Pratibha Patil — India

Indira Ghandi — PM India

Margaret Thatcher — PM England

Mary Robinson — president of Ireland

Sheikha Lubna Al Qasimi, UAE Minister of Economy Money talks bushSh#t walks

Michelle Bachelet - President of Chile.

Angela Merkel - Chancellor of Germany

Benazir Bhutto — PM Pakistan (the first woman to head the government of an Islamic State)

I am always amazed how people HAVE computers, know how to Google, but yet STILL make ridiculous and asinine comments!! AMAZING!

By Jackie

October 4, 2007 3:36 PM | Link to this

@jbmlaw,

You have the right to receive or reject anything that is published on this web. I reject the notion that you have the right to your own set of facts, however! Secondly, the White House announced the torture memos were not authored in the White House. Do you think Alberto ate his handywork? Dubya is doing everything he can to REVISE his legacy. One problem with that approach, there are too many media outlets. Third, Larry Craig was denied the opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea. Wonder what the Repubs in the Senate will do now? They said if he did not resign, they were going to demand a PUBLIC hearing. The criminals are dropping of the sinking ship!!!!

By DebbieDoRight

October 4, 2007 3:36 PM | Link to this

Oops I forgot one more Female Leader:

Condoleeza Rice — Sec. Of State USA

By Jackie

October 4, 2007 3:41 PM | Link to this

GAO investigators testified in a House subcommitte today that Iraqi corruption - amongst US contractors - had reached $188 Billion dollars over the last 3 years. Help me understand why Dubya would veto a bill that raises taxes on cigarettes to fund the SCHIP of a measly $7 Billion per year for the next 5 years? Wonders never cease!!!!

By Tim Smith

October 4, 2007 3:48 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw@2:40 I know you and your GOP types are very upset about the reality the Clintons wills most likely win the election and occupy the White House after the 2008 election. The facts hurt I know about how terrible these last seven years have been under W and the GOP. It’s time we elect someone to office that knows what they are doing and know how to lead this country. Not some that wants to dictate. We need someone in office that represent the people not someone that represents special interest groups. We’ll put a real leader in the White House in 08. (Hillary Clinton )

By DemDems4Ever

October 4, 2007 3:49 PM | Link to this

DDR,

Listing the number of female leaders in the world does not then mean the Muslim countries will do any more than give polite conference and then ignore Hillary.

Now of course, when Nancy Pelosi violated Federal law and visited the Muslims they listened and spoke of her because even a wild-eyed Muslim fanatic knows a propaganda opportunity when one arises.

Your answer is just as dense as those meaningless statistics you published yesterday. Google your brains out, oops appears you already have.

*All Day Every Day Debbie, how is your legal career, law school, land magnate, wife duties and all else you claim? Must be suffering from your 10 hour a day blog habit.

By Larry

October 4, 2007 3:53 PM | Link to this

I cant write one word, I cant believe it. I just tried my novel and here’s what I wrote: “….the night passed and then day passed and then night came on and then the dawn came and went and then, my friends, then the midafternoon snack came and boy was I hungry….”

I got nothing.

By Jackie

October 4, 2007 3:56 PM | Link to this

@DemDems4Ever

October 4, 2007 2:25 PM | Link to this

Jackie@1:02,

Your question is nonsense. Under the old estate law, family businesses and farms were liquidated routinely to pay estate taxes.

As usual, you do not have an answer to the question, therefore you choose to obfuscate.

By DemDems4Ever

October 4, 2007 3:58 PM | Link to this

*GGG@2:53,

You lefties are amazing at adding your fantasies to a post. What waiving arms?

Anyone who has been involved in the income tax business for enough time can cite examples but as jbmlaw pointed out to you there is no public record and a practitioner would be violating a confidence.

You would have to be totally dense not to believe estate taxes have ruined businesses.

By michelle

October 4, 2007 4:00 PM | Link to this

as a registered democrat, i’m voting in the dem primaries. but when it comes down to the big vote, it will depend on who’s the front-runner and who they picked as VP for each respective party. like, if ron paul wins the repub nomination and hillary wins the dems…i probably will vote GOP….again though, depending on the VPs as well.

By Larry

October 4, 2007 4:03 PM | Link to this

I think that any estate should be taxed into non existence when the owner of the estate dies. That money belongs to the people.

Call it a death tax, but I call it a bite me tax. Bite me if you dont like it, but if you croak, then your estate is uncle sam’s. Period.

I’ve really got writer’s block bad, man. Hate this.

By Jackie

October 4, 2007 4:04 PM | Link to this

@DemDems4Ever

Yes, and the dog ate your homework! Uh-huh, I see your keyboard pronouncements, but the clarity, depth and voracity of your pronouncement do not cause a ripple in the pond.

By getalife

October 4, 2007 4:08 PM | Link to this

Craig is staying

Bwa.

By Greedy Guy

October 4, 2007 4:16 PM | Link to this

If I cannot leave my wealth to my family, then I will transfer it prior to my death to the most socially irresponsible, disgusting organizations I can find, including communist, fascist, dictators. Shove that up your goody two shoes and panties! If that avenue is blocked, then I will convert all my wealth to whatever is in shortest supply in the world, most likely gasoline, and you guessed it, have a big controlled burn on my own property. If food is in dire shortage, then I will buy huge amounts of food, spray it with gasoline, and again have a controled burn on my own farm land. I will leave nothing for people who I hate and dispise.

By GreyGayGeek

October 4, 2007 4:17 PM | Link to this

DemDems @ 3:58,

Keep waving those arms and insisting that the sky is a bright purple madras plaid. “Proof by repeated assertion” is a favorite neocon tactic, but “proof by facts” works better with those of us who have resisted drinking the Kool-aid.

You can either back up your claim with some examples, or you may shut up with your Rush-like parroting of nonsensical statements. Your call, bucko.

By Camus

October 4, 2007 4:21 PM | Link to this

Shorter DemDems4Ever: Despite having absolutely no evidence whatsoever, I believe this to be a true fact, and if you disagree with me, you are an idiot.

By Greedy Guy

October 4, 2007 4:21 PM | Link to this

Larry, aka Jim, has permanent writters block, mostly because he has no brain.

By @@

October 4, 2007 4:34 PM | Link to this

Jim, I will vote for Rudy without any reservations. My husband will vote for Rudy while holding his nose. Like jbmlaw I want Huckabee on the ticket. With that combination, I think we’ll have ourselves a winner.

To the hard-core evangelicals I say…”Eat more fiber, MoveOn and flush Hillary in ‘08.”

BTW, I’m doing my part. When I’m at church, I make a point of calling some of the older, hard-core Democrats names like Religious Fanatic, Wacko Fundie, Son of Osama.

When the shocked looks come over their faces I point out it’s what Hillary supporters call them. I’m just delivering the message.

Is it O.K. if I copy the posts from your site and ml’s? I’d love to print ‘em up and hand them out in the parking lot after services.

By Peter

October 4, 2007 4:35 PM | Link to this

JBMLAW……. you actually have zero to say and actually don’t add anything of substance typically……..

Why don’t you use your splendid intelligence and tell me how our economy works……of course according to a Republican……..

Also please tell us how we are to get out of this huge debt, and how we are going to pay for the WAR………

Thank you for the enlightenment we all will receive !!!!

By DebbieDoRight

October 4, 2007 4:56 PM | Link to this

TwiddleDemDemDumbDee: Your answer is just as dense as those meaningless statistics you published yesterday. Google your brains out, oops appears you already have.

Tsk. Tsk. Tsk. Truth hurts doesn’t it? Why are you so afraid of FACTS? Are facts the new kryptonite to republicans or something?

All Day Every Day Debbie, how is your legal career, law school, land magnate, wife duties and all else you claim? Must be suffering from your 10 hour a day blog habit

What? Jealous? Wish you had a man of your own to curl up to? Nothing suffers from my “blog habit”. Like millions of well-adjusted, educated, employed Americans, I can do up to 4 things at once!! It’s called “multi-tasking”; you should try it. Might help with your A.D.D.

By Dems Raise Taxes

October 4, 2007 5:02 PM | Link to this

Democrats are creative about not wanting to defend our country. They even try to use economics as a justification for not defending the U.S. Since they don’t understand economics, they just can’t succeed.

Today’s Wall Street Journal reports that as a share of the overall economy, defense spending fell almost in half to 3% of GDP from 1999-2001. It has since climbed back to 4%, and may hit all of 4.2% once final figures are in for fiscal 2007, which ended last week. That’s still far below the peak during the Reagan arms buildup of 6.2% in 1986, and less than half the Vietnam peak of 9.5% in 1968. For 6.2% of GDP, Reagan helped end the Cold War.

The war in Iraq isn’t crowding out domestic needs. Defense spending in 2007 will probably come in at 19.7% of total federal outlays. The Bush Administration request for fiscal 2008 is 20.1%, which is still below what it was (21.6%) in 1992 when Bill Clinton was elected; as recently as 1987, it was 28.1%. Mr. Clinton and Congress slashed that defense share to 16.1% in 1999, before they began to remember that the world remains a dangerous place.

Another demonstration why Democrats can’t be trusted with national security—or matters that require an understanding of economics.

By Shar

October 4, 2007 5:13 PM | Link to this

Camus@3:06 and 3:09 - You think, therefore you are. You share, therefore you are a swell person. Thanks for the elucidation.

By DebbieDoRight

October 4, 2007 5:18 PM | Link to this

DemDemDumbDee4Evr,TFTT, MarKus,Brett Girl, Buy Polar and any other aliases you can come up with:

Give us the FACTS of the statement you just made. I see more YOUNG REPUGLICANS who are certainly capable of going to Iraq, but,(like their heros, Saxby, Sonny, and that other guy),just refuse to go. Maybe they can drop their money on their feet and declare themselves inelligible or whatever — but back to the subject, PROVE what you’re saying with some FACTS.

Since you’ve made such an open ended BOLD statement, I KNOW you have some verifiable facts to back up your ridiculous comment.

Still waiting for something reliable, factual and not some rhetorical over used Fox Network soundbites coming from you. Try to focus and Good luck.

By DebbieDoRight

October 4, 2007 5:21 PM | Link to this

Joke Of The Day:

Another demonstration why Democrats can’t be trusted with national security—or matters that require an understanding of economics.

How BIG is the US debt again?

By jm

October 4, 2007 5:28 PM | Link to this

DebbieDoright@5:21 - I just like the fact that the canadian loonie is now worth more than the dollar. So I guess when I get that canadian quarter or dime with my change I should feel better since I am now coming out ahead.

By DemDems4Ever

October 4, 2007 5:29 PM | Link to this

GayGeek, Jackie and Camus,

Nothing but left wing comments in a vacuum from you three. You wish for me to prove that which in the tax community is generally accepted. Much like the sky is blue - looks blue to me but I can neither prove nor disprove.

None of you will ever have an estate tax problem so you do not care that the tax is nothing more than a redistribution plan of accumulated wealth already taxed when earned. Double taxation by any standard!

You are all three classic examples of social parasites living off the work of others and clamoring for more. How do you all like what I “read into your posts”?

You have offered no argument, simply a refusal to accept the obvious that no small business or farm has 55% of the value in cash to pay such a tax.

By Larry

October 4, 2007 5:29 PM | Link to this

I see everyone else has writer’s block too, as every comment has been rated by clinical sociologists and they think they’ve stumbled upon the wi-fi non compos mentis central.

By Dee Dee Deeee

October 4, 2007 5:30 PM | Link to this

Of course the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are largely funded through supplementary spending bills outside the Federal Budget, so they are not included in the military budget figures listed by Dems Raise Hope.

By jbmlaw

October 4, 2007 5:33 PM | Link to this

Dear Shar @ 3:02, apologies for late response, I think our friend Camus gave you a pretty reasonable answer. I would add that our friend getalife uses the “wingnut” term, as I use “moonbat,” as a term of endearment for people with whom we profoundly disagree, maybe as a mild form of disparagement. As I have suggested previously in this space, I would not apply that term to you or to my friend Southern Democrat. People who write real arguments do not deserve even mild disparagement; you have my respect, even when you have my disagreement. The reason you have my respect, when many others with similar views do not, is your studied effort to avoid epithet.

By DemDems4Ever

October 4, 2007 5:39 PM | Link to this

DDR,

You are the Joke of Every Day

Were the statistics on defense spending too much for your shrinking mental ability?

How big is the US debt again?

Far less than the value of 2.1 trillion barrels of oil!

By jbmlaw

October 4, 2007 5:42 PM | Link to this

Dear DemsDems @ varioius times, you posted a lot of creditable arguments today, my compliments.

By DemDems4Ever

October 4, 2007 5:50 PM | Link to this

Peter,

Oh ye who attacks the righteous comments from the RIGHT,

Are you still supporting Hillery as you so proudly announced at 10:47 this morning? Or are you now a supporter of Hillary Clinton? One misspell could be a typo but two?

Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister not President of England. Perhaps you were thinking of India?

By Dee Dee Deeee

October 4, 2007 5:55 PM | Link to this

How about the future interest on Defense spending and wars, did you add that in too? Remember we lowered taxes, those burdens are going to be much higher now.

What about the future medical costs for Iraqi Vets? Forget that one? Military hardware depletion will take years to restock, higher military pensions also need to be added. Are those in your pretend figures Dems Raised?

By DemDems4Ever

October 4, 2007 6:00 PM | Link to this

DDR,

Your statistics on the military yestrday were meaningless variations.

16+/-% of the military is Black but only 14.8+/-% of the population is Black? That is supposed to be what? An indication the “Black-hating” white man is targeting black youth to send them off to war?

OK, I will agree when the NBA becomes 14.8% Black, along with the NFL and MLB.

Could simply be the Black youth do not avail themselves of education.

By DemDems4Ever

October 4, 2007 6:03 PM | Link to this

Dee Dee,

Taxes were lowered, but revenues increased. You LEFTS always ignore that simple fact.

By Dems Raise Taxes

October 4, 2007 6:14 PM | Link to this

Democrats prove their ignorance about all things economic related when they assert that lowering taxes results in a decline in tax revenue to the U.S. Treasury.

Despite ample examples—from JFK to Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush—these Democrats don’t understand issues such as dynamic scoring of budget initiatives or even simple elasticities that change human behavior in response to changes in tax policy. Or do they?

The real aim of Democrats isn’t to reduce the budget deficit or trade deficit (Democrats don’t understand the difference) or to be fiscally responsible.

Rather, Democrats want to punish the “rich”, which as we know is anyone making more than $97k per year.

Take a few econ courses, Democrats, then return to this blog and show us what you learned. And remember that taking from others doesn’t improve your lot in life….unless you’re wanting to take from others so you can get your greedy hands on it.

To jump start you Democrats, visit the following link and read everything on the site. You might want to read the lesson on JFK’s tax cuts which reads in part: “Clearly the Kennedy rate cuts were successful gambles. The Treasury, which did not take into account the effects of rate reduction on economic activity, projected six-year revenue losses of $89 billion as a result of the 1962-64 cuts. Instead, revenues increased by $54 billion over that period.” [SSU Summer Lesson #3: The JFK Tax Gamble]

Here’s your “free” education [which is what Democrats expect everything to be]: http://www.wanniski.com/ssu.asp

Democrats aren’t used to logic and numbers. But be patient as you might learn something really useful.

By Larry

October 4, 2007 6:18 PM | Link to this

I’m constipated too. Do you think there’s a connect with the writer’s block? Now I’m frightened.