When the NYTimes hired Maureen Dowd, they let a nutter get a foothold.

““Evolution is no myth…”

Actually it is a theory.

theory- 2.a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

She would serve as a good balance for Dennis kasinich.

I love watching a witch like Dowd melting as 11/2/2010 approaches.

MD is the one on the far left above.

Maureen just thinking back …http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgyZCgw6kdw

ripped off from another post: “There’s a famous anecdote about 1950s presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson. A supporter at a campaign stop called out, ‘All thinking people are for Stevenson!’ Stevenson shot back, ‘That’s not enough, I need a majority!’”

Ah, a familiar bit of buffoonery from the left. Don’t vote for Republicans because they are nutters. I am sure tens of millions of voters will be convinced, by this sophisticated argument, to hold on to a Congress that passes trillion dollar, pork-filled bills without reading them. Because, after all, what could be nutter-ly about good, old-fashioned Democratic incompetence, cronyism and borrowing from the Chinese on their broken programs?

Check out the NY Times today …. extensive coverage explaining the Republican campaign without any mention of tax cuts, deficits, fiscal responsibility, etc. But plenty of emphasis on the sheer evilness of people who dare run against Democrats. Hard to believe that the people working for this ministry of disinformation have the nerve to call it a newspaper.

It’s still better than letting the footers get a nut hold.

Azarkhan said:
““Evolution is no myth…”

Actually it is a theory.

theory- 2.a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

A theory based on a lot of scientific evidence , where as Creationism, has zero.

writer said:
It’s still better than letting the footers get a nut hold.

LOL what was your preference Bada Bing?

good one.

As usual, I’ll be here all week. Try the veal.

I don’t think Obama let the nutters get a foothold. I tend to agree with Jimmy Carter’s comment the other night. What used to be the fringe 2 or 3% has been amplified and supported by media outlets looking to exploit controversy, so the fringe gets more exposure and more converts. A temporary setback.

Different story same idea… Far right fracture group can advocate for replacing fire department with noah’s ark brigades and it’s the Democrats who are responsible…

Ah, yes. The Carter years. Mile long gas lines, the Iran debacle, 20% mortgages. When Jimmy speaks, we should listen.

I love how the right-wing nutters hate Maureen Dowd. Just proves how right on the money she is about O’Donnell and her ilk.

Now hold on if Azakhan says ” Dowd ” is a nut, then she is a nut!

writer said:
It’s still better than letting the footers get a nut hold.

CosmosDan said:
LOL what was your preference Bada Bing?

good one.

yest it was

writer said:
As usual, I’ll be here all week. Try the veal.

uh oh – you know the “lefties” don’t like killing baby cows

felixw said:
Ah, a familiar bit of buffoonery from the left. Don’t vote for Republicans because they are nutters. I am sure tens of millions of voters will be convinced, by this sophisticated argument, to hold on to a Congress that passes trillion dollar, pork-filled bills without reading them. Because, after all, what could be nutter-ly about good, old-fashioned Democratic incompetence, cronyism and borrowing from the Chinese on their broken programs?

Check out the NY Times today …. extensive coverage explaining the Republican campaign without any mention of tax cuts, deficits, fiscal responsibility, etc. But plenty of emphasis on the sheer evilness of people who dare run against Democrats. Hard to believe that the people working for this ministry of disinformation have the nerve to call it a newspaper.

Your typical drivel. The NYTimes has printed reams on the Republican plan regarding “tax cuts, deficits, fiscal responsibility” but not nearly enough underscoring the insanity of extending Bush’s originally preferential tax cuts for the wealthy; the record deficits created under Bush; and ‘fiscal responsibility’ under Republican leadership as a complete joke. Fact: job creation post Bush tax cuts the WORST of any administration in modern history. Here’s the link from that bastion of liberalism, the Wall St Journal. http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/

felixw said:
Ah, a familiar bit of buffoonery from the left. Don’t vote for Republicans because they are nutters. I am sure tens of millions of voters will be convinced, by this sophisticated argument, to hold on to a Congress that passes trillion dollar, pork-filled bills without reading them. Because, after all, what could be nutter-ly about good, old-fashioned Democratic incompetence, cronyism and borrowing from the Chinese on their broken programs?

Check out the NY Times today …. extensive coverage explaining the Republican campaign without any mention of tax cuts, deficits, fiscal responsibility, etc. But plenty of emphasis on the sheer evilness of people who dare run against Democrats. Hard to believe that the people working for this ministry of disinformation have the nerve to call it a newspaper.

2. Once again, you have “evilness” confused with stupidity. I have no problem with smart candidates running against Dems; I could easily vote for the right one. Unlike you I wont lower myself to voting for chimps. I gathered another snippet from another board: “This woman (ODonnell) isn’t worth talking about. Whatever she personally believes, if she’s elected, she will do what her corporate sponsors want her to do…” and to be honest, one of my great fears about the Tea Party folks is how manipulable they will turn out to be. The fresh and innocent (not to mention goofy) always are.

MrAut said:
2. Once again, you have “evilness” confused with stupidity. I have no problem with smart candidates running against Dems; I could easily vote for the right one. Unlike you I wont lower myself to voting for chimps. I gathered another snippet from another board: “This woman (ODonnell) isn’t worth talking about. Whatever she personally believes, if she’s elected, she will do what her corporate sponsors want her to do…” and to be honest, one of my great fears about the Tea Party folks is how manipulable they will turn out to be. The fresh and innocent (not to mention goofy) always are.

No, you haven’t read the New York Times carefully today. This week the story is that Republicans are evil. The ‘Republicans are stupid’ story will run next week. Which leaves the New York Times with only one remaining story angle — namely, the one about Republicans being racist. I’m sure they will run that one right before the election.

And that sums up the only three kinds of stories the New York Times ever runs about Republicans. Never a whisper about policy…..a matter that the Times is afraid to broach.

felix, the New York Times saves money that way. It’s always the same paper, they just change the date at the top.

no-touchy, I was of course referring to a soy bean substitute.

MrAut said:
Fact: job creation post Bush tax cuts the WORST of any administration in modern history

Unemployment rate at the end of the Bush presidency 7.2%
Unemployment rate under Obama = 9.6%

If Bush’s record on jobs is the worst, how do you describe this trend:

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=usunemployment&met=unemployment_rate&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=unemployment+rate

What buffoons you find on the left — to make claims that are so easily disproved.

MrAut said:
Bush’s originally preferential tax cuts for the wealthy; the record deficits created

Bush tax cuts led to the greatest increase in federal tax revenues in history. During the four years following the passage of the Bush tax cuts, Federal tax receipts increased by an annual rate of $800 billion — much larger than any increase in the history of the United States.

Check out the numbers:

http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/images/federal_government_revenue.jpg

How embarrassing it must be to make statements that are so easily disproved.

MrAut said:
the record deficits created under Bush

No, the record for deficits belong to Obama. Check out the real numbers:

http://factreal.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/ecoobamavsbushbudgetdeficit2010feb.jpg

Obama has already spent more borrowed money than all the Presidents from George Washington to Ronald Reagan.

How pathetic for the Left to toss out such easily disproved fabrications.

MrAut said:
I have no problem with smart candidates running against Dems

Your arrogance is so amusing when matched up with the all the bogus factoids you present.

writer said:
no-touchy, I was of course referring to a soy bean substitute.

HeHeHeHeHe

Hey are you still having those thoughts?

Maybe not knowing is part of the attraction.

felixw said:
No, you haven’t read the New York Times carefully today. This week the story is that Republicans are evil. The ‘Republicans are stupid’ story will run next week. Which leaves the New York Times with only one remaining story angle — namely, the one about Republicans being racist. I’m sure they will run that one right before the election.

And that sums up the only three kinds of stories the New York Times ever runs about Republicans. Never a whisper about policy…..a matter that the Times is afraid to broach.

give me the link to “evil”

what is it about Republican “policy” you think they should cover better? Was this “biased”?: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/21/health/policy/21repeal.html?pagewanted=1&sq=republican%20policy&st=cse&scp=2. Or this? http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/23/us/politics/23repubs.html?scp=10&sq=republican%20%20policy&st=cse

Give me some specifics

MrAut said:
give me the link to “evil”

Front page of today’s New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/26/us/politics/26dems.html?ref=todayspaper

Democrats across the country build their campaigns with character attacks because they are afraid to run on issues.

MrAut said:
give me the link to “evil”

From today’s NY Times:

“In Ohio, Representative Betty Sutton calls her Republican rival, Tom Ganley, a “dishonest used-car salesman” who has been sued more than 400 times for fraud, discrimination, lying to customers about repairs, overcharging them and endangering their safety.”

From today’s NY Times:

“In Arizona, Representative Harry E. Mitchell accused his opponent David Schweikert of being “a predatory real estate speculator who snatched up nearly 300 foreclosed homes, been cited for neglect and evicted a homeowner on the verge of saving his house, just to make a buck.”

From today’s NY Times:

“In New York, Representative Michael Arcuri introduces his Republican challenger, Richard Hanna, as a millionaire who “got rich while his construction company overcharged taxpayers thousands, was sued three times for injuries caused by faulty construction and was cited 12 times for health and safety violations.”

From today’s NY Times:

“A debate has broken out among some Democratic officials about the effectiveness — or wisdom — of running such pointedly negative advertisements with five weeks remaining in the campaign. But party strategists said candidates did not have the luxury of waiting until the final stretch to go negative, particularly if the goal is to localize the races.”

This is your party, MrAut — the party of character attacks, smears, insults, ridicule and avoidance of the issues. Why is the Left so afraid of running on the track record of the Obama administration? That’s easy to answer — the Obama administration has been a disaster. So Democrats need to run on character attacks.

What’s really disconcerting here is the fact that supposed adults are putting some much stock in the rantings of a High School girl?
Excuse me, I forgot, it’s Dowd, and Maher…now it makes sense!!

felixw said:
Unemployment rate at the end of the Bush presidency 7.2%
Unemployment rate under Obama = 9.6%

If Bush’s record on jobs is the worst, how do you describe this trend:

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=usunemployment&met=unemployment_rate&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=unemployment+rate

What buffoons you find on the left — to make claims that are so easily disproved.

WOW
the Heritage foundation makes such pretty pictures.

If you would like to hear what real TAX ACCOUNTANTS have to say look here
http://www.tax.com/taxcom/taxblog.nsf/Permalink/CHAS-89LPZ9?OpenDocument

a small bit
Total income was $2.74 trillion less during the eight Bush years than if incomes had stayed at 2000 levels.

felixw said:
No, the record for deficits belong to Obama. Check out the real numbers:

http://factreal.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/ecoobamavsbushbudgetdeficit2010feb.jpg

Obama has already spent more borrowed money than all the Presidents from George Washington to Ronald Reagan.

How pathetic for the Left to toss out such easily disproved fabrications.

this one

felixw said:
Bush tax cuts led to the greatest increase in federal tax revenues in history. During the four years following the passage of the Bush tax cuts, Federal tax receipts increased by an annual rate of $800 billion — much larger than any increase in the history of the United States.

Check out the numbers:

http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/images/federal_government_revenue.jpg

How embarrassing it must be to make statements that are so easily disproved.

Total income was $2.74 trillion less during the eight Bush years than if incomes had stayed at 2000 levels.

That much additional income would have more than made up for the lack of demand that keeps us mired in the Great Recession. That would mean no need for a stimulus, although it would not have affected the last administration’s interfering with market capitalism by bailing out irresponsible Wall Streeters instead of letting the market determine their fortunes.

right-is-wrong said:
Total income was $2.74 trillion less during the eight Bush years than if incomes had stayed at 2000 levels.

Great claim, except it’s not backed up by real numbers. Income went up substantially under Bush.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_2-oDfgGpQKg/SRW6rFyNJwI/AAAAAAAABgA/RKfOS3FkVnk/s400/GDP+per+capita.jpg

Where do you Lefties come up with all these easily disproved claims? What will you come up with next? You’re a joke when you spread these lies that anyone can refute in five seconds.

writer said:
Ah, yes. The Carter years. Mile long gas lines, the Iran debacle, 20% mortgages. When Jimmy speaks, we should listen.

Yeah, those low mortgage rates really worked out didn’t they? And cheap gas rather than using less. That sure steered us in the right direction.

felixw said:
No, the record for deficits belong to Obama. Check out the real numbers:

http://factreal.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/ecoobamavsbushbudgetdeficit2010feb.jpg

Obama has already spent more borrowed money than all the Presidents from George Washington to Ronald Reagan.

How pathetic for the Left to toss out such easily disproved fabrications.

Sorry, i’m not from your hated professional “Left”

Bush created record deficits http://articles.cnn.com/2003-02-03/politics/bush.budget_1_bush-budget-discretionary-federal-spending-tax-cuts?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS. Obama didin’t drop in out of the blue, dipshit – although I realize there is no appetite on the professional Right for reviewing Bush. Is it bullshit to question the Republican record on (record) deficit spending when they’re the ones screaming about fiscal discipline? Simple question: what’s their record on that one? If I am hiring someone to work for me I want to know his accomplishments, and how well results match promise.

MrAut said:
Bush created record deficits

You are such an idiot. You link to an article from 2003 on record deficits. Do you have any idea, Bozo, of the deficits Obama is running up right now???????

Look at some real numbers, and stop your stupid spin.

http://factreal.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/ecoobamavsbushbudgetdeficit2010feb.jpg

Who can take you seriously when you are so confused on the most basic facts?

felixw said:
Great claim, except it’s not backed up by real numbers. Income went up substantially under Bush.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_2-oDfgGpQKg/SRW6rFyNJwI/AAAAAAAABgA/RKfOS3FkVnk/s400/GDP+per+capita.jpg

Where do you Lefties come up with all these easily disproved claims? What will you come up with next? You’re a joke when you spread these lies that anyone can refute in five seconds.

Did you bother to read the link from REAL tax accounts?
Nope
You send me to some jpg picture from some unknown blog that has no root

Not Found
The requested URL / was not found on this server.

TRY AGAIN for us people with brains!

right-is-wrong said:
the Heritage foundation makes such pretty pictures.

My link was to a Google chart on the unemployment rate. But clearly you have uncovered a conspiracy — the Heritage Foundation obviously controls Google, and uses its manipulation of the search engine to distort the unemployment figures.

I know now why Lefties don’t like to debate, and prefer to dish out insults. People like you just make up the “facts” as you go along, and that doesn’t work very well in a debate.

felixw said:
Where do you Lefties come up with all these easily disproved claims? What will you come up with next? You’re a joke when you spread these lies that anyone can refute in five seconds.

Where do you Righties come up with all these easily disproved claims? What will you come up with next? You’re a joke when you spread these lies that anyone can refute in five seconds.

felixw said:
I know now why Lefties don’t like to debate, and prefer to dish out insults. People like you just make up the “facts” as you go along, and that doesn’t work very well in a debate.

Ready to debate.
Where is your data?

felixw said:
My link was to a Google chart on the unemployment rate. But clearly you have uncovered a conspiracy — the Heritage Foundation obviously controls Google, and uses its manipulation of the search engine to distort the unemployment figures.

I know now why Lefties don’t like to debate, and prefer to dish out insults. People like you just make up the “facts” as you go along, and that doesn’t work very well in a debate.

My link was from REAL TAX ACCOUNTANTS,
You have some pretty color pictures with no data or reference to back it up.

right-is-wrong said:
Did you bother to read the link from REAL tax accounts?
Nope
You send me to some jpg picture from some unknown blog that has no root

You’re the one who sends a link to some liberal pundit. Here are the real tax receipt numbers from the Federal government.

http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/images/federal_government_revenue.jpg

The source is listed on my chart, dufus — it’s the Office of Management and Budget” in the federal government. But hey, you have a liberal journalist as your source, so why bother looking at real numbers?

right-is-wrong said:
My link was from REAL TAX ACCOUNTANTS,

Your link is to an article by a liberal journalist. My link was to numbers from the Office of Management and Budget of the Federal Government.

I repeat tax revenues went up after the Bush tax cuts. Those are the plain facts. You will not be able to disprove them no matter how much you try to spin this matter.

felixw said:
Front page of today’s New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/26/us/politics/26dems.html?ref=todayspaper

Democrats across the country build their campaigns with character attacks because they are afraid to run on issues.

end of discussion. If you can equate a news story on Democratic advertising strategy with the NYTimes calling Republicans evil, then you’re more far gone than I thought. and do you mean Republicans don’t use negative campaign tactics against dems? Do you mean the NYTimes should just stop reporting on the use of negative ads?

felixw said:
You’re the one who sends a link to some liberal pundit. Here are the real tax receipt numbers from the Federal government.

http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/images/federal_government_revenue.jpg

The source is listed on my chart, dufus — it’s the Office of Management and Budget” in the federal government. But hey, you have a liberal journalist as your source, so why bother looking at real numbers?

OOOOH. Pretty picture at least had a real website this time.

I am SOOOOOO sorry I sent you to those Liberal Pundits over at TAX.COM.

Guess you need to add that to your list of NBC,CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, TAX.COM

right-is-wrong said:
My link was from REAL TAX ACCOUNTANTS,

Here is another table from the tax policy center

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

Check out the federal tax receipts after the Bush tax cuts. Here I will spell them out for the mathematically challenged

All figures in billions
2003 $1,782.3
2004 $1,880.1
2005 $2,153.6
2006 $2,406.9
2007 $2,568.0

You are a joke for disputing facts like this — all part of the public record. What else do you want to claim? That Elvis is still living and hanging out at your local supermarket?

right-is-wrong said:
I am SOOOOOO sorry I sent you to those Liberal Pundits over at TAX.COM.

Federal tax receipts after the Bush tax cuts

All figures in billions
2003 $1,782.3
2004 $1,880.1
2005 $2,153.6
2006 $2,406.9
2007 $2,568.0

Try to dance your way around these numbers. You can’t, buddy. Case closed! I just dunked on you!!!!!!!

Slam-dunk-a-rooney baby!!!!!!!

MrAut said:
end of discussion. If you can equate a news story on Democratic advertising strategy with the NYTimes calling Republicans evil

Ha, ha, ha….end of discussion. Sure, buddy, run and hide after getting your backside handed to you! Adios!!!!!!

felixw said:
Ha, ha, ha….end of discussion. Sure, buddy, run and hide after getting your backside handed to you! Adios!!!!!!

Sorry
I’ll check your facts when I’m done laughing.

right-is-wrong said:
That would mean no need for a stimulus, although it would not have affected the last administration’s interfering with market capitalism by bailing out irresponsible Wall Streeters instead of letting the market determine their fortunes.

I’m not sure about the rest of your “facts”, but I do agree with you on the above statement. President Bush was more moderate than conservative. One thing for sure, President Obama and the other Democratic libs are only making it worse. Heaven help us if they stay in control much longer.

felixw said:
Slam-dunk-a-rooney baby!!!!!!!

Nice take down, Felix. That had to hurt!

Should we let David Stockman into the discussion, former Budget guy for President Reagan?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01stockman.html?pagewanted=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

yeah, I know, published in the NYTimes so must be a slander ;)

Patrick Henry said:
I’m not sure about the rest of your “facts”, but I do agree with you on the above statement. President Bush was more moderate than conservative. One thing for sure, President Obama and the other Democratic libs are only making it worse. Heaven help us if they stay in control much longer.

Hello PH (that’s ok?)
That statement is an excerpt from
http://www.tax.com/taxcom/taxblog.nsf/Permalink/CHAS-89LPZ9?OpenDocument
President Obama and the other Democratic libs are only making it worse.
Debate?
Fact?

felixw said:

This is your party, MrAut — the party of character attacks, smears, insults, ridicule and avoidance of the issues. Why is the Left so afraid of running on the track record of the Obama administration? That’s easy to answer — the Obama administration has been a disaster. So Democrats need to run on character attacks.

I read that article. Let’s not promote the fantasy that conservatives do not resort character attacks. I’d love to see the Dems have the balls to fight back based on policy. They should demand their opponents talk about specifics rather than generalities.

I think examining the character of new candidates is perfectly valid. If they have no political background what are you going to look at? Some of the things quoted look pretty dam serious if true.

Obama and his Czars are committed to THE IDEA…Much like other elite intellectuals Mario Savio and Bill Ayers(named here because I had personal interactions with their IDES’s), once they have the IDEA and start trying to put it into effect they do not recognize (nor care about) the collateral damage they cause. Whether using force to take over and destroy university building, bomb the Pentagon or Pass a Law to Distribute the Wealth, the IDEA is just about all that they understand. They do not understand that others who do not hold that IDEA as holy also have rights.

felixw said:
Federal tax receipts after the Bush tax cuts

All figures in billions
2003 $1,782.3
2004 $1,880.1
2005 $2,153.6
2006 $2,406.9
2007 $2,568.0

Try to dance your way around these numbers. You can’t, buddy. Case closed! I just dunked on you!!!!!!!

You might want to look at this while you’re doing the victory dance.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf

felixw said:
Here is another table from the tax policy center

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

Check out the federal tax receipts after the Bush tax cuts. Here I will spell them out for the mathematically challenged

All figures in billions
2003 $1,782.3
2004 $1,880.1
2005 $2,153.6
2006 $2,406.9
2007 $2,568.0

You are a joke for disputing facts like this — all part of the public record. What else do you want to claim? That Elvis is still living and hanging out at your local supermarket?

Read the chart.
See your numbers. – I can CLEARLY see that revenue went up.
Now – Tax professionals say

Total income was $2.74 trillion less during the eight Bush years than if incomes had stayed at 2000 levels.

That much additional income would have more than made up for the lack of demand that keeps us mired in the Great Recession. That would mean no need for a stimulus, although it would not have affected the last administration’s interfering with market capitalism by bailing out irresponsible Wall Streeters instead of letting the market determine their fortunes

felixw said:
Ha, ha, ha….end of discussion. Sure, buddy, run and hide after getting your backside handed to you! Adios!!!!!!

another tough guy on the Internet. oh well. The only ‘scary’ thing about you dude is your inability to read a newspaper – and then bragging about it

MrAut said:
Should we let David Stockman into the discussion, former Budget guy for President Reagan?

Only if you want to talk about stuff that happened 30 years ago.

Azarkhan said:
Only if you want to talk about stuff that happened 30 years ago.

pick a topic
http://www.inthe80s.com/time1980.shtml

Dowd doesn’t seem to understand The Backlash. What was the President supposed to do or say?

I’m sure that he felt that the Tea Party’s reversion to the 19th Century or 1750 would be enough to get the progressives to work as hard as they did two years ago, but apparently too many of them are concerned about what Obama hasn’t done well enough for their particular pet projects.

Meanwhile, yes, the Republican takeover of Congress is about to take us to hell in a hand basket (again).

Azarkhan said:
Only if you want to talk about stuff that happened 30 years ago.

yes, I see your point. So if I say, “should we consult the Founding Fathers on that?” the right answer is, “Only if you want to talk about the late 1700′s.” Got it.

It’s amazing to me that we have had this discussion about the prejudices against Muslims, and how tricks were used to paint the president as being Muslim, when his religion shouldn’t be a factor in his competency even it were true.

However, here we have a candidate who may well discount evolution because of HER religious beliefs, and somehow that’s a step backwards into the Dark Ages.

What Dowd and other elites are really saying is that religious beliefs are fine and that candidates should not be discounted for them, as long as they aren’t running as a Republican.

What Dowd doesn’t realize is that she is one of the chief nutters. Reading her column is like reading a spoiled teenager’s slam book.

Cosmos, if you were trying to make us nostalgic for Carter, it’s not working.

Great piece by Dowd that gets to the heart of the matter. The tea party candidates such as Christine have NO education, NO clue and do not belong in office. This is not student council, this is the Congress we are talkiung about here.

Christine does not have the smarts or the experience to be Delaware’s Rep, and even Republicans should know this.

right-is-wrong said:
Hello PH (that’s ok?)
That statement is an excerpt from
http://www.tax.com/taxcom/taxblog.nsf/Permalink/CHAS-89LPZ9?OpenDocument
President Obama and the other Democratic libs are only making it worse.
Debate?
Fact?

Hi R-i-W, yes PH is fine. That is my opinion on how I see things now. I’m no economist, but I read alot of history and I truly think we need tax cuts for small business (and for everyone for that matter), a capital gains tax cut, and to cut the size of government and spending to right this ship. I somehow doubt President Obama or the Dems in Congress would ever consider those ideas.

shootfromthehip said:
Christine does not have the smarts or the experience to be Delaware’s Rep, and even Republicans should know this.

Shoot, in reality, the main part of a Senator’s job is to cast a vote. Not that difficult, especially when you don’t even have to read the bill. I bet even you and I could do it!

Patrick Henry said:
Hi R-i-W, yes PH is fine. That is my opinion on how I see things now. I’m no economist, but I read alot of history and I truly think we need tax cuts for small business (and for everyone for that matter), a capital gains tax cut, and to cut the size of government and spending to right this ship. I somehow doubt President Obama or the Dems in Congress would ever consider those ideas.

Agree with the small business tax cuts (not large corporations with under 10 shareholders small).
Smarter govt, not lobbies, and term limits could achieve your view.

I think right now you have 2 problems.
1) the people who have been labeled Tea Party or Libertarian who hold non libertarian view ehn it comes to morality

2) the republicans just gutted the principals with their PLEDGE.

I for one see Libertarians as allies.
I see (or I believe) the Tea Party has been hijacked.

writer said:
Cosmos, if you were trying to make us nostalgic for Carter, it’s not working.

No I wouldn’t try to do that. I was only agreeing with one comment he made.

I personally think Carter could have been a much better president than he’s been given credit for but he was sabotaged by his own party who couldn’t take having a honest practical man in the white house who wanted to accomplish realistic things rather than operate from a point of political expediency. But that’s just my take on it.

Howard Dean is just as much to blame, as Obama, for letting the nutters get a foothold. This crap got out of control from 2000 on and peaked in 2008. It was amazing watching the Democrats run right off the cliff; as they embraced the nuttroots, the enabling media, and all the stupid ideas that they are hiding from now.

Reap, sow, fuc%ers Don’t say you weren’t warned.

Moderate said:
She would serve as a good balance for Dennis kasinich.

Balance? Actually, with the exception of Ms. Dowdy’s long history of boozing, I tend to think they’re peas from the same pod.

Cecelia said:
It’s amazing to me that we have had this discussion about the prejudices against Muslims, and how tricks were used to paint the president as being Muslim, when his religion shouldn’t be a factor in his competency even it were true.

However, here we have a candidate who may well discount evolution because of HER religious beliefs, and somehow that’s a step backwards into the Dark Ages.

What Dowd and other elites are really saying is that religious beliefs are fine and that candidates should not be discounted for them, as long as they aren’t running as a Republican.

I think that’s a valid point. If we were going to find one standard I’d say a candidates religion shouldn’t matter. If someone thinks rejecting evolution is a little extreme so what? How does that affect her ability to be a Senator?
I’d say it would matter to me if I saw a candidate’s religious beliefs so affect his or her voting in a way I strongly disagreed with. At that point it’s not about their religion but their votes.
When I was in high school my biology teacher refused to reach evolution because of his religious beliefs. At the time I didn’t care, it was just work I didn’t have to do. If my kids or my grand kids told me a teacher said that I’d have a problem. If an elected official made an effort to minimize science and teach “creation theory” I’d have a problem with that. Have whatever religion you want. When it bleeds over into society, and other people’s lives , they get to have a say.

JamesA1102 said:
What Dowd doesn’t realize is that she is one of the chief nutters. Reading her column is like reading a spoiled teenager’s slam book.

BINGO!

Big Eddie said:
Maureen just thinking back …http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgyZCgw6kdw

Something is wrong with that link, but thanks for your efforts just the same.

Cecelia said:
What Dowd and other elites are really saying is that religious beliefs are fine and that candidates should not be discounted for them, as long as they aren’t running as a Republican.

A well-reasoned deduction.

felixw said:
Unemployment rate at the end of the Bush presidency 7.2%
Unemployment rate under Obama = 9.6%

If Bush’s record on jobs is the worst, how do you describe this trend:

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=usunemployment&met=unemployment_rate&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=unemployment+rate

What buffoons you find on the left — to make claims that are so easily disproved.

The financial system collapsed under Bush, causing the unemployment, and the death spiral of the economy. Businesses couldn’t borrow, they laid people off, demand plummeted, therefore more people were fired. This whole process takes months.

felixw said:
No, the record for deficits belong to Obama. Check out the real numbers:

http://factreal.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/ecoobamavsbushbudgetdeficit2010feb.jpg

Obama has already spent more borrowed money than all the Presidents from George Washington to Ronald Reagan.

How pathetic for the Left to toss out such easily disproved fabrications.

Apparently Obama will be president until 2020, so I am glad the heritage foundation is so confident in his abilities.

felixw said:

Obama has already spent more borrowed money than all the Presidents from George Washington to Ronald Reagan.

How pathetic for the Left to toss out such easily disproved fabrications.

Ahem, ever heard of World War 2, I am pretty Roosevelt spent some money.

felixw said:
Great claim, except it’s not backed up by real numbers. Income went up substantially under Bush.

For the wealthy, meanwhile he absolutely destroyed the middle class, and turned us into some third world country where the rich have 95% of the wealth, and we get to fight over the scraps that fall off the plate. So screw the deficit, its just some BS the republicans are saying since they are in the minority. We have real problems.

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2010/09/wealth_disparity_weve_left_the.html

I still can’t figure out why a bitter old maid like Dowd (How apropos?) is still given a platform to spey her hatred.

pyrope said:
A well-reasoned deduction.

Well, there is a little difference between “I believe in God” and rejecting accepted science in favor of religious myth.

CosmosDan said:
Well, there is a little difference between “I believe in God” and rejecting accepted science in favor of religious myth.

My remark was made on the observation of dual standards as used by Ms. Dowdy.

There are
some interesting points in time in this article but I don’t know if I see all
of them center to heart. There is some validity kia soul but I will take hold opinion
until I look into it further. Good article, thanks and we want more!