While you were busy whining about politics...

[Jim Rosenthal]

Yes, I have noticed an overlap between "birthers" and TPs. The irony is that I think there IS a lot of waste and fraud in government spending (I think a lot of Cheney's buddies did quite well financially out of our recent overseas adventures) and I think it does need fixing, because all those funds wasted could have been used elsewhere for something of merit. But despite their advertising their movement as being about taxes and government spending (much of which I COULD support) somehow it ends up also being about 1) Sarah Palin and her views on everything, if one can call such half-baked ideas "views" 2) Michelle Bachmann and her ideas about, among other things, the Gardasil vaccine (medicine is something I DO know something about and I can tell you that Michelle Bachmann doesn't know any) 3) a point of view on abortion that I can't espouse- although I'm no great fan of it. One of my friends in Utah (David Kirkham) is an avid TPer and is evidently running for something out there. Although we're good pals, I can't get on board with most of HIS ideas either. And since they claim to have no leaders, there's no one to debate anything with. Or you debate all of them. The only one who's consistent is Ron Paul, who has basically said the same thing for his entire career. I don't agree with a lot of it, but at least I know who he is and where he stands. Unfortunately, a lot of his prior publications, which he now pretends to know nothing about, contained statements that were not acceptable to me about Jews (like me) And I can't agree with much of what he advises in the modern era. But at least he's consistent, more or less.

The central fallacy in all this nonsense is that if you don't agree with them, you hate America and all it stands for. Discussions don't go on for too long after statements of that kind, because after you've been accused of hating your own country, you lose your appetite for debate. At least I do. And I kind of feel, at that point, that the accusation of "hate" ought to be directed elsewhere. Like at the person making it, maybe. I don't hate my country; there's a great deal of difference between not agreeing with everything it does, and hating it.

 

[Jim Craik]

Jeff, Jimbo,

Although the "blinded by the right" folks here on our fourm can not see this, Americans in general certinally can!

Americans know that just being a Democrat does not make you a Communist, Socalist or Nazi!

Careing about people in general does not mean that you hate America!


The hate filled right is going down!!!!!!

Republican party will pay the price for this very un-American activity. From their "Circular firing squad" primaries, to their hate filled retoric, they have "screwed the pooch".

In the end, Mr Fechter, Craig and the other hate filled loosers have done America a great service. On almost daily basis, pointing out why they have no business running anything!

This is a few months old, but this trend has been increasing.

*****************

Support for Tea Party Falls in Strongholds, Polls Show</NYT_HEADLINE><NYT_BYLINE>
By KATE ZERNIKE

<NYT_TEXT><NYT_CORRECTION_TOP></NYT_CORRECTION_TOP>Support for the Tea Party — and with it, the Republican Party — has fallen sharply even in places considered Tea Party strongholds, according to an analysis of new polls.

<!--forceinline-->
Members of the Tea Party hold 60 seats in the House.


In Congressional districts represented by Tea Party lawmakers, the number of people saying they disagree with the movement has risen significantly since it powered a Republican sweep in midterm elections; almost as many people disagree with it as agree with it, according to the analysis by the Pew Research Center.

Support for the Republican Party has fallen even further in those places than it has in the country as a whole. In the 60 districts represented in Congress by a member of the House Tea Party Caucus, Republicans are now viewed more negatively than Democrats.

*****************

One hundred years from now, in history books, the tea baggers will be religated to a small section with other failed, un-American groups like the real Communists of the 1930s, Huey Long and the John Burch Society.

America did not get to where we are today by listening to hate filled crack pots like Mr Fechter and his defenders.

 

[Pat]

Great thought Jim.
A famous politician unveiled his “Share Our Wealth” plan, a program designed to provide a decent standard of living to all Americans by spreading the nation’s wealth among the people. He proposed capping personal fortunes at $50 million each through a restructured, progressive federal tax code and sharing the resulting revenue with the public through government benefits and public works. In subsequent speeches and writings, he revised his graduated tax levy on wealth over $1 million to cap fortunes at $5 - $8 million.

Some details of his "Share Our Wealth" Proposal are as follows:
• Cap personal fortunes at $50 million each (later reduced to $5 - $8 million)
• Limit annual income to one million dollars each
• Limit inheritances to five million dollars each
• Guarantee every family an annual income (one-third the national average)
• Free college education and vocational training
• Guaranteed old-age pensions for all persons
• Veterans benefits and healthcare
• Free higher education and vocational training
• A 30 hour work week
• A four week vacation for every worker
• Greater regulation of commodity production to stabilize prices

The politician charged that the nation’s economic collapse was the result of the vast disparity between the super-rich and everyone else. A recovery was impossible while 95% of the nation’s wealth was held by only 15% of the population. In his view, this concentration of money among a handful of wealthy bankers and industrialists restricted its availability for average citizens, who were already struggling with debt and the effects of a shrinking economy. Because no one could afford to buy goods and services, businesses were forced to cut their workforces, thus deepening the economic crisis through a devastating ripple effect.

Sound familiar?
It was Huey Long…

 

[Jim Craik]

Veek,

Yes it does sound familiar. Just like the 1930s Communists, who blamed all on Capitalism and the John Birch society who blamed all on Communists and Huey Long who blamed all on the rich.......................

Now we have the tea party blaming all on Liberals and the 99% blaming all on the rich.

As we now know, they were all wrong!

Nothing is as simple as these crack pot groups try and make it.

In the depth of the depression, folks like Mr Long and the Communists made a powerfull nitch for themselfs by telling gullable folks who to blame for their problems.

There are always going to be large groups of easly led "sheep" who can be swayed by strong voiced "leaders" who blame all their problems on:

PICK ONE

The rich
The poor
The liberals
The consevatives
The govenment
The teachers
The media
The immigrants
The Jews
The Chinese
on and on and on.........

As history has shown nothing is that simple.

History has also shown that crack pot leaders can only lead sheep for very short periods of time.

Times up!

 

[Bob Fechter]

Veek,


History has also shown that crack pot leaders can only lead sheep for very short periods of time.

Times up!

We agree, Jim, Obama's time is nearly over!

 

[Jim Craik]

We agree, Jim, Obama's time is nearly over!

Once again you are confused, we are not talking about our President, the leader of the Free World, we are takling about "crack pot" leaders.

Now Bobby, go outside and play, the adults are having a conversation.

 

[Bob Fechter]

Aren't you full of yourself!

Once again you are confused, we are not talking about our President, the leader of the Free World, we are takling about "crack pot" leaders.

Now Bobby, go outside and play, the adults are having a conversation.

 

[Jim Craik]

I certinally have had my fill of you, go away!

 

[Bob Fechter]

Bye, bye, b.o.!

The only one going anywhere is b.o.


"Gallup released their annual state-by-state presidential approval numbers yesterday, and the results should have 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue very worried. If President Obama carries only those states where he had a net positive approval rating in 2011 (e.g. Michigan where he is up 48 percent to 44 percent), Obama would lose the 2012 election to the Republican nominee 323 electoral votes to 215."

Gallup state numbers predict huge Obama loss | Campaign 2012 | Washington Examiner

 

[Jim Rosenthal]

Well, we'll see, Bob. Half the fun of re-electing him will be seeing what YOU say about it. It isn't a slam dunk, though. We'll just have to work a little harder at it.

Hey, you left out Fox News, Bob!! you're slipping in your old age.

 

[Bob Fechter]

Well, we'll see, Bob. Half the fun of re-electing him will be seeing what YOU say about it. It isn't a slam dunk, though. We'll just have to work a little harder at it.

Hey, you left out Fox News, Bob!! you're slipping in your old age.

The funny part is, thanks to the liberal propaganda against Fox Limbaugh, Beck, etc., I source my links from other sources to avoid the predictable B.S. that automatically triggers when sourcing them. Its a nuisance, but the material is out there.

 

[Jeff Young]

Re: Bye, bye, b.o.!

Holy suckamoly, misleading statistic Batman?

So this "survey" only assumes the President will win states in which he has a net positive rating? Ok. Now take Romney and Santorum and the same and everyone will lose.

Recent polls (as in yesterday) show the President with ten point+ leads over Romney and Santorum.

I agree with Jim it's no slam dunk and elections can change quickly. That siad, that article and its "analysis" is worse even than what you see on Faux News.

And now I just noticed it is from the Washington Examiner, yet another joke source.

The only one going anywhere is b.o.


"Gallup released their annual state-by-state presidential approval numbers yesterday, and the results should have 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue very worried. If President Obama carries only those states where he had a net positive approval rating in 2011 (e.g. Michigan where he is up 48 percent to 44 percent), Obama would lose the 2012 election to the Republican nominee 323 electoral votes to 215."

Gallup state numbers predict huge Obama loss | Campaign 2012 | Washington Examiner

 

[Jim Craik]

Jeff,

I'm fairly sure that at this point no one here would believe anything that Mr Fechter says, this is just another in a long line of missleading posts.

Here is some real data, from a CNN poll, as of March 28, 2012:

Without winning both Ohio & Florida the Republicans have no realistic path to the White House (if George W. Bush had lost either Ohio or Florida in either 2000 or 2004 he would have lost.)
Pennsylvania: Obama 45% Romney 42% (Obama won Pennsylvania by 10% in 2008.)
Ohio: Obama 47% Romney 40% (Obama won Ohio by 4% in 2008.)
Florida: Obama 49% Romney 42% (Obama won Florida by 2% in 2008.)

********
Santorum's numbers are even worse

 

[Jim Rosenthal]

This IS no slam dunk. What will be a lot of fun, regardless of the outcome, is watching Fechter hold his nose and vote for Romney. Hard to fill out the card when you have the dry heaves, Bob? I'll let you in on a secret, Bob (wait for it)....











Old Mitt is really a Democrat!!!!!!!!!!! Ask Reverend Rick, or Neuter! They'll tell you!

 

[Jim Rosenthal]

I forgot to mention that Bob's buddy Dick Cheney now has a heart. This should have been done years ago, and we wouldn't have ended up in Iraq, have all those people in Gitmo, etc. Sigh.

 

[Jim Craik]

You know, I actually think a slam dunk is comming.

Those CNN numbers are from yesterday, they are likely voters.

The republicans have been campaigning for months, Obama has done relatively little, yet he easily leads those key states.

Additionally a good portion of the tea party and Bobbies on the right will stay home, or write in Sara Palin. I think a lot of them would never vote for Romney.

Besides, white men can't dunk

 

[Jim Craik]

I forgot to mention that Bob's buddy Dick Cheney now has a heart. This should have been done years ago, and we wouldn't have ended up in Iraq, have all those people in Gitmo, etc. Sigh.

Jimbo,

When you say that the big Dick has a "new heart", that implies that he had a heart to begin with...............all evidence to the contrary.

 

[Doug S.]

Jimbo,

When you say that the big Dick has a "new heart", that implies that he had a heart to begin with...............all evidence to the contrary.

My wife worked for KBR and knew Chaney from meetings. She said he gave sharks a good name.....he was vicious and cared not for whoever he hurt in the process.

As much as I dislike the man's actions, I find myself almost mesmerized when he speaks...publicly, a TV interview, that sort of thing. When Chaney speaks it is with such confidence that this listener finds himself buying into whatever Chaney is selling as the truth, he's that good.

.....later, though, the :idea: experience sets in and I return to a condition as close to sanity as I can manage.

Cheers!

Doug

 

[Jim Rosenthal]

Look again. I said "now has a heart"; he didn't before. Dick Cheney is a really evil SOB. I'm glad I've never had to think about whether to save his life or not, it would be a difficult decision. If the good die young, Dick Cheney isn't going any time soon. He really is a war criminal, and I don't say that lightly.

 

[craig]

Heartless Cheney vs Brainless Biden hahaha