He is a big spender for the wealthy, with the reckless and unaffordable stupid tax cut.

Gotta love REAL conservatives who live in REALITY.

Fact: The more you know the less you like! That’s the fact about the Ozero!

Obama did not want to spend so much, but just felt the circumstances presented to him required it.

LMAO!
THAT’S THE DEFINITION OF A F’N LIBERAL!!!

“I FELT THE NEED TO SPEND!!!!”

skyfet said:
He is a big spender for the wealthy, with the reckless and unaffordable stupid tax cut.

Fact: Just post talking points and never has the facts! skyfet is the dope!

He’s just another idiot lib.

BHO has added $3.2 trillion to the debt in less than 2 years!

How much more do you want the clown to spend, Andrew?

Obama saw an old movie featuring the song ‘Hey, Big Spender’ and couldn’t get the song out of his head.

Libs are always telling us not ot believe our lyin eyes.

notsofast said:
He’s just another idiot lib.

BHO has added $3.2 trillion to the debt in less than 2 years!

How much more do you want the clown to spend, Andrew?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/06/09/business/economy/20090610-leonhardt-graphic.html

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
Libs are always telling us not ot believe our lyin eyes.

Sorry to disappoint, but Sullivan is a conservative.

Greg said:
Greg says:
January 3, 2011 at 12:38 pm Greg(Quote)
Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Sorry, son, you lose again.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20019931-503544.html

New numbers posted today on the Treasury Department website show the National Debt has increased by more than $3 trillion since President Obama took office.

The National Debt stood at $10.626 trillion the day Mr. Obama was inaugurated. The Bureau of Public Debt reported today that the National Debt had hit an all time high of $13.665 trillion.

The Debt increased $4.9 trillion during President Bush’s two terms. The Administration has projected the National Debt will soar in Mr. Obama’s fourth year in office to nearly $16.5-trillion in 2012. That’s more than 100 percent of the value of the nation’s economy and $5.9-trillion above what it was his first day on the job.”

And this clown has been at it for only 2 years, son- not 8!

Yeah, so are David Brook and Arnold! Nice try!!

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
Sorry to disappoint, but Sullivan is a conservative.

Not at all. That’s what YOU libs call him.

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
Sorry to disappoint, but Sullivan is a conservative.

Fact: Not to me but I can see that he is to you!

notsofast said:
Not at all. That’s what YOU libs call him.

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
Yeah, so are David Brook and Arnold! Nice try!!

No, Sullivan is a REAL conservative, you are neo-con kooks who have corrupted the real movement.

“When you say “radical right” today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye”
-Barry Goldwater

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
Sorry to disappoint, but Sullivan is a conservative.

Riiiiiight.

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
Yeah, so are David Brook and Arnold! Nice try!!

Don’t forget Kathleen Parker.

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
No, Sullivan is a REAL conservative, you are neo-con kooks who have corrupted the real movement.

YOU do not determine who and who is not Conservative. Anyone who says $3 trillion in debt is not that much in 2 years is NO WAY a Conservative.

Try again!

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
No, Sullivan is a REAL conservative, you are neo-con kooks who have corrupted the real movement. “When you say “radical right” today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye”-Barry Goldwater

It’s so cute when libs try to tell us who best represents us.

Bob Dole
GW Bush
John McCain

It’s rich.

VoiceofReason said:
Riiiiiight.

Don’t forget Kathleen Parker.

LOL

What fucking planet is this dude on? ObamaCare, the stimulus, TARP, bailouts… I know Bush started a lot of this, but Obama piled on without a second thought. Sullivan is off his fucking rocker.

This is so typical of politicians of both partisan sides. Bush claimed he wasn’t a big government goon either, yet he grew the size of government contrary to his lies.

And like Bush, Obama is a HUGE spender. For example, from 1990 to 2000 the national debt rose from $3.2 trillion to $5.6 trillion. That’s an increase of $2.4 trillion over a decade.

From 2000 to 2008 the national debt rose $5.6 trillion dollars. It doubled under Bush.

So what has Obama’$ debt increase been? In 2008 the national debt was $9.9 trillion. Today it is almost $14 trillion dollars. In just two years under Obama is grown $4.4 trillion. Not to mention the fact that out deficit is about 1.3 trillion just for the year.

Obama, Andrew Sullivan and the rest of the liberals and neocons can say whatever the hell they want to say but the reality is they are huge spenders and they don’t really care.

Sullivan is a ridiculous Trig Truther. How can anybody take him seriously, on anything?

notsofast said:
YOU do not determine who and who is not Conservative. Anyone who says $3 trillion in debt is not that much in 2 years is NO WAY a Conservative.

Try again!

Neither do YOU. Anybody who believes in death panels, banning gays from the military and tries to say that they believe in freedom but believes in the war on drugs is not a TRUE conservative.

VoiceofReason said:
It’s so cute when libs try to tell us who best represents us.

Bob Dole
GW Bush
John McCain

It’s rich.

lol,, NO $HIT,, throw in Huckabee onto that pile as well,,
G. Will too!
Romney
LMAO

LOL,Ed Rollins,,, PILE ‘EM UP HIGH!!!!

When Obama filled out the census, he checked off African American, not mixed-race. This received criticism from some, but Sullivan defended Obama. He said, “Obama is not half white and half black, never was.”

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
Anybody who believes in death panels

So you are stupid if you believe in death panels, son?

Really? That’s what you say?

Let’s look at the libs favorite Nobel winning economist Paul Krugman and see what HE said would help balance the budget,shall we?

LOL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDnvmOQDkkw

“I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in “A,” “B,” “C” and “D.” Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?”
-Barry Goldwater

notsofast said:
YOU do not determine who and who is not Conservative. Anyone who says $3 trillion in debt is not that much in 2 years is NO WAY a Conservative.

Try again!

Good point. Bush was nothing but a big government/ open borders/ deficit spender.
Wow, that sounds just like obama

notsofast said:
So you are stupid if you believe in death panels, son?

Really? That’s what you say?

Let’s look at the libs favorite Nobel winning economist Paul Krugman and see what HE said would help balance the budget,shall we?

LOL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDnvmOQDkkw

I’m not your son, I’m not your friend, your buddy, your dougie, your peep, your fella, or your dude, you stupid little bitch.

Furthermore, you know exactly what I was referring to. Nice “spin” though.

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
I’m not your son, I’m not your

Ahh, son- you are just another hate-filled libby.

What’s wrong- did someone tell you you had to get off welfare?

You are as useless as rubber lips on a woodpecker, son!

The Whopper is always best when served up by a lunatic-left d-crat socialist:

political hack sullivan: “You Lie!” hussein is a fiscal conservative !
“one-term” burris: I did not have a verbal deal with that man, Blagojevich.
“You lie!” hussein: The countrywide-dodd/buffoon-barney frank financial overhaul bill will end bank bailouts.
crazy pelsoi: I did not have briefings on that subject, “enhanced interrogation.”
wrong-way napolitano: The border has never been more secure.
kagan: she’ll do her best to “consider every case impartially, modestly, with commitment to principle and in accordance with law.” (She even managed to say that with a straight face!)
“wee-weed” hussein: You can keep your current plan and doctor under socialized heathcare.
“crazed sex poodle” gore: I created the internet.
“shakedown” hussein: Under obozocare, insurance premiums will decrease by 3000%
“bite-me” biden: pelosi’s PORKULUS created or saved millions and millions of jobs.
“post-racial” hussein: We’ve got the “shovel ready” projects ready to go.
jimmy “the peanut” carter: My presidency was a success!

And the mother of them all:
“monica-stain” clinton: I did not have se*ual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
The_Reasonable_Lib says:
January 3, 2011 at 12:57 pm The_Reasonable_Lib(Quote)

Son, look at this:

Mr. Obama frequently lays blame for soaring federal deficits on his predecessor.

“By the time I got into office we already had a $1.3 trillion deficit and we had exploded the national debt,” he said last month during one of his backyard chats with Americans.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20019931-503544.html

LOL

And this clown added $3 trillion to the debt in 2 Years and gave us a $1.4 trillion deficit in one year alone! Not in 8 years but in one!

U.S. Budget Deficit Hit Record $1.4 Trillion in 2009

Published October 07, 2009

| AP

WASHINGTON — The federal budget deficit tripled to a record $1.4 trillion for the 2009 fiscal year that ended last week, congressional analysts said Wednesday.

The Congressional Budget Office estimate, while expected, is bad news for the White House and its allies in Congress as they press ahead with health care overhaul legislation that could cost $900 billion over the next decade.

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
Sorry to disappoint, but Sullivan is a conservative.

Sullivan didn’t even know he was gay for a long time. When he found out he decided that he wasn’t a conservative or a republican. He is just another DADT lib.
Liberals are in the closet today, they don’t want anyone to know who they are. Even you are afraid to use your real name.

gordonbloyershow said:
Sullivan didn’t even know he was gay for a long time. When he found out he decided that he wasn’t a conservative or a republican. He is just another DADT lib.
Liberals are in the closet today, they don’t want anyone to know who they are. Even you are afraid to use your real name.

You have a very unhealthy obsession with homosexuality, Gordon. Did somebody catch you slipping during your time in San Francisco?
Please stop with the bullshit already. You’re like a child in adult’s clothing. Really,I haven’t heard this much “you’re fake” bullshit and gay innuendo since high school. Even an episode of Jersey Shore contains less of them than a single post from you.

That is one grotesque little monkey . No offense .

RL, you seem especially UNreasonable today. Bad weekend?

Just4thefax said:
Fact: Just post talking points and never has the facts! skyfet is the dope!

Ahhh, that’s rich coming from you.

Andrew’s piece destroys the right-wing/Fox narrative about Obama, noone here will buy it, even if it’s true.

if he was on Christine Mathews you know he isnt a true conservative, he only debates with people he agrees with

This story just shows you how extreme the dems have got. A guy who takes over the auto industry, healthcare, student loans, ets. ISN’T a liberal (he must be a conservative like Sullivan). What then is a liberal.

Just look how far they’ve come from the OTP (original tea partier) John Kennedy. JFK understood that lower taxes “raised all boats” and understood that there was evil in this world which could be countered by American ideas.

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
“No, Sullivan is a REAL conservative, you are neo-con kooks who have corrupted the real movement.”

notsosmart says:
“YOU do not determine who and who is not Conservative. Anyone who says $3 trillion in debt is not that much in 2 years is NO WAY a Conservative.”

According to wikipedia:
Andrew Michael Sullivan (born August 10, 1963) is an English author, editor, political commentator and blogger. He identifies as a political conservative. So now the right-wingers want to make facts up. Oh, wait, it’s what they do at Fox: make things up. The not so smart viewers repeat the false claims. That is why they come off as so radically misinformed.

Tedderman said:
Andrew’s piece destroys the right-wing/Fox narrative about Obama, noone here will buy it, even if it’s true.

A modern day “mainstream” liberal is now a Commie, therefore Obama isn’t a liberal (Socialists maybe but not a Commie)

Skyfet:

Just how does cutting taxes equate to being stupid? Holding the tax-rate at present levels is about the only thing Obimbo has done half way right. You are right though, about Obimbo being a big spender.

GlennBeckReview said:
The_Reasonable_Lib said:“No, Sullivan is a REAL conservative, you are neo-con kooks who have corrupted the real movement.” notsosmart says:“YOU do not determine who and who is not Conservative. Anyone who says $3 trillion in debt is not that much in 2 years is NO WAY a Conservative.” According to wikipedia:Andrew Michael Sullivan (born August 10, 1963) is an English author, editor, political commentator and blogger. He identifies as a political conservative. So now the right-wingers want to make facts up. Oh, wait, it’s what they do at Fox: make things up. The not so smart viewers repeat the false claims. That is why they come off as so radically misinformed.

Just because he says it doesn’t mean its true. Just look at you: you promised the world that there would be a Beck “bombshell” which would finish him, yet we’ve seen nothing. You just can’t believe everything you hear.

CAconservative said:
Skyfet:

Just how does cutting taxes equate to being stupid? Holding the tax-rate at present levels is about the only thing Obimbo has done half way right. You are right though, about Obimbo being a big spender.

Let me educate you. W found surplus left to him by Clinton. W gave huge tax cut they didn’t pay for at the time of war. If you give that kind of cut’s, something else has to give (cut spending). But that didn’t make it to the GOP’s diary, they extended Medicare and spent money like there is no tomorrow.
So you see my phony conservative friend, somethings gotta give. Tax cut is like spending, if you give it something’s gotta give ahh. I think there’s a movie by that name (something’s gotta give) Let me check it out.

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
Sorry to disappoint, but Sullivan is a conservative.

Not exactly. For a brief period, a few months perhaps, back in the early 2000s, he pretended to be a compassionate conservative.

Then it got too hard to defend conservatism to all his progressive friends, it was easier to join them. Especially since disease and drugs caused noticeable diminution of his mental faculties.

How do I know? Because for a period of time I was a daily visitor to his blog, until I could no longer. I didn’t change, Sullivan did.

Not a big spending liberal?

BULLSHIT!

GBR can’t decide whether to drop the bombshell, or give Beck a knife and wait for him to do the honorable thing.

skyfet said:
Let me educate you. W found surplus left to him by Clinton. W gave huge tax cut they didn’t pay for at the time of war. If you give that kind of cut’s, something else has to give (cut spending). But that didn’t make it to the GOP’s diary, they extended Medicare and spent money like there is no tomorrow.So you see my phony conservative friend, somethings gotta give. Tax cut is like spending, if you give it something’s gotta give ahh. I think there’s a movie by that name (something’s gotta give) Let me check it out.

If you followed the words of the Original Tea Partier, John F Kennedy, you’d see that he understood that lower taxes actually RAISED federal revenue. It did with JFK’s tax cuts, it did with Reagan’s tax cuts AND IT DID WITH GWB’s TAX CUTS. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years.

GlennBeckReview said:
The_Reasonable_Lib said:“No, Sullivan is a REAL conservative, you are neo-con kooks who have corrupted the real movement.” notsosmart says:“YOU do not determine who and who is not Conservative. Anyone who says $3 trillion in debt is not that much in 2 years is NO WAY a Conservative.” According to wikipedia:Andrew Michael Sullivan (born August 10, 1963) is an English author, editor, political commentator and blogger. He identifies as a political conservative. So now the right-wingers want to make facts up. Oh, wait, it’s what they do at Fox: make things up. The not so smart viewers repeat the false claims. That is why they come off as so radically misinformed.

Spoken like a true Sullivanian “conservative” Tiffany.

Or attention whore….can’t figure which.

skyfet said:
Let me educate you. W found surplus left to him by Clinton. W gave huge tax cut they didn’t pay for at the time of war. If you give that kind of cut’s, something else has to give (cut spending). But that didn’t make it to the GOP’s diary, they extended Medicare and spent money like there is no tomorrow.So you see my phony conservative friend, somethings gotta give. Tax cut is like spending, if you give it something’s gotta give ahh. I think there’s a movie by that name (something’s gotta give) Let me check it out.

Obviously you have no idea how they got there……….

Here’s some work for you to do…….Google “Schoolhouse Rock I’m just a bill”

gordonbloyershow said:
Sullivan didn’t even know he was gay for a long time. When he found out he decided that he wasn’t a conservative or a republican. He is just another DADT lib.
Liberals are in the closet today, they don’t want anyone to know who they are. Even you are afraid to use your real name.

I am a proud liberal, always have been. I live in one of the most conservative congressional districts in the country, Newt Gingrich’s old district. I wave the liberal banner everywhere I go. My church actuallt has glen Beck fans.

By the way I think the discussion in the video clip was an excellent description of Obama and his position. Obama was known, at Harvard Law School, as a liberal who could easily talk with conservatives. That’s why he was elected head of the prestigious Harvard Law Review. At the time both the faculty and student body were split along ideological lines. There was a radical left wing movement in the law school headed by Professor Duncan Kennedy. They were called the “Critical Legal Scholars. To oversimplify their argument they argued essentially that law, and law schools, functioned with the goal of reproducing the current hierarchy found in society. Therefore legal education was there to preserve the class structure in society. It was a neo-Marxist position.

http://duncankennedy.net/documents/Legal%20Education%20as%20Training%20for%20Hierarchy_Politics%20of%20Law.pdf

The conservatives a the law school and the radicals had been fighting for years. The split between these groups was reflected in the student body.

Barack Obama was singularly able to bridge the gap between the two groups and greatly reduced the level of animosity at the campus among the student body. He was a liberal who could comfortably discuss issues with the radicals on the left and the conservatives. I spoke at the school twice during this time period of time. Once before Obama arrived and once while he was there. His presence was effective. He was a good politician even then. His focus as always on the possible, not the ideal.

I suspect he will try and play the same role, as the grownup in the room, and seek compromise between the Tea Party Caucus and those on the left who do not want to compromise on government spending and the reduction of taxes.

I believe the departure of Rahm Emanuel was a very good thing for Obama. His bad cop style was not suited to Obama’s basically conciliatory instincts and temperament. Clinton’s second term is the most likely model for Obama. It is suited to his temperament and experience.

Obama is very good politician, maybe a great one, We will see. People tend to see in him what they want to see. If he can be the grownup in the room and if the economy improves he will be hard to beat in 2012. If the economy continues to be sluggish he chances are slim, unless of course the Republicans implode and nominate Sarah Palin.

VoiceofReason said:
Obviously you have no idea how they got there………. Here’s some work for you to do…….Google “Schoolhouse Rock I’m just a bill”

That might be a little complicated for him

It’s rich too that libs…..when it suits their narrative….will crow about what Clinton did while he was being drug kicking and screaming by Republicans in congress yet NOTHING is Obama’s fault and is the sole purview of those same evil congressional Repubs.

BTW, Capt. I hate Glenn Beck because he’s so much more successful and notable than I am Review…….

You do understand anyone can put anything they want into wiki and as long as nobody objects….it stands…..so using wiki as a source to bolster your claim or poke at Fox viewers is really sad or stupid….or both…..

armwood said:
I am a proud liberal, always have been. I live in one of the most conservative congressional districts in the country, Newt Gingrich’s old district. I wave the liberal banner everywhere I go. My church actuallt has glen Beck fans. By the way I think the discussion in the video clip was an excellent description of Obama and his position. Obama was known, at Harvard Law School, as a liberal who could easily talk with conservatives. That’s why he was elected head of the prestigious Harvard Law Review. At the time both the faculty and student body were split along ideological lines. There was a radical left wing movement in the law school headed by Professor Duncan Kennedy. They were called the “Critical Legal Scholars. To oversimplify their argument they argued essentially that law, and law schools, functioned with the goal of reproducing the current hierarchy found in society. Therefore legal education was there to preserve the class structure in society. It was a neo-Marxist position. http://duncankennedy.net/documents/Legal%20Education%20as%20Training%20for%20Hierarchy_Politics%20of%20Law.pdf The conservatives a the law school and the radicals had been fighting for years. The split between these groups was reflected in the student body. Barack Obama was singularly able to bridge the gap between the two groups and greatly reduced the level of animosity at the campus among the student body. He was a liberal who could comfortably discuss issues with the radicals on the left and the conservatives. I spoke at the school twice during this time period of time. Once before Obama arrived and once while he was there. His presence was effective. He was a good politician even then. His focus as always on the possible, not the ideal. I suspect he will try and play the same role, as the grownup in the room, and seek compromise between the Tea Party Caucus and those on the left who do not want to compromise on government spending and the reduction of taxes. I believe the departure of Rahm Emanuel was a very good thing for Obama. His bad cop style was not suited to Obama’s basically conciliatory instincts and temperament. Clinton’s second term is the most likely model for Obama. It is suited to his temperament and experience. Obama is very good politician, maybe a great one, We will see. People tend to see in him what they want to see. If he can be the grownup in the room and if the economy improves he will be hard to beat in 2012. If the economy continues to be sluggish he chances are slim, unless of course the Republicans implode and nominate Sarah Palin.

Nice stories……too bad anecdotes do not = data.

I remember him as a coke fiend huckster prone to flights of depression and racist militant attitudes about whites…….

See how that works?

plenty of crickets over there on the left

Scott_in_MI said:
If you followed the words of the Original Tea Partier, John F Kennedy, you’d see that he understood that lower taxes actually RAISED federal revenue. It did with JFK’s tax cuts, it did with Reagan’s tax cuts AND IT DID WITH GWB’s TAX CUTS. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years.

Now this is the best example of Soviet style historical revisionism, I have seen in a long time .

Is “ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.” the same as “Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.” Ronald Reagan? John Kennedy was a liberal who believed in the necessity of a strong federal government. He used that government to enforce the power of federal law on states rights advocates like Governor George Wallace of Alabama.

The Tea Party is a a movement based in the same states rights philosophy advocated by both George Wallace and Ronald Reagan. When Reagan announced his candidacy for president in 1980, in Philadelphia Mississippi, the site of the infamous murders of three civil rights workers in 1964 Reagan allied himself with Wallace and against Kennedy by saying “i support states rights” I have an audio copy of the speech if anyone is interested in hearing it.

I think it’s nice that Reagan could reach out to a Democrat.

Who is this Andrew Sullivan fellow and why does anyone care about what he has to say?

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
You have a very unhealthy obsession with homosexuality, Gordon. Did somebody catch you slipping during your time in San Francisco?Please stop with the bullshit already. You’re like a child in adult’s clothing. Really,I haven’t heard this much “you’re fake” bullshit and gay innuendo since high school. Even an episode of Jersey Shore contains less of them than a single post from you.

You are the clown in the CLOSET. You are the one afraid to use your name. You are the liar here over and over again. You are the fake “the real john t.”, aren’t YOU? Now go play with your dolls.

GlennBeckReview said:
The_Reasonable_Lib said:“No, Sullivan is a REAL conservative, you are neo-con kooks who have corrupted the real movement.” notsosmart says:“YOU do not determine who and who is not Conservative. Anyone who says $3 trillion in debt is not that much in 2 years is NO WAY a Conservative.” According to wikipedia:Andrew Michael Sullivan (born August 10, 1963) is an English author, editor, political commentator and blogger. He identifies as a political conservative. So now the right-wingers want to make facts up. Oh, wait, it’s what they do at Fox: make things up. The not so smart viewers repeat the false claims. That is why they come off as so radically misinformed.

Wikepedia…almost as much credibility as Media matters. He can call himself a conservative all day long but it doesn’t make him one. His statements in the past show he isn’t and calling a Obysmal fiscally responsible just adds to the list.

armwood said:
The Tea Party is a a movement based in the same states rights philosophy advocated by both George Wallace and Ronald Reagan. When Reagan announced his candidacy for president in 1980, in Philadelphia Mississippi, the site of the infamous murders of three civil rights workers in 1964 Reagan allied himself with Wallace and against Kennedy by saying “i support states rights” I have an audio copy of the speech if anyone is interested in hearing it.

Typical liberal fool. You are simply using scare tactics and fear mongering to push your “point” which is basically that the federal government should be able to do what they want.

But I’m sorry fear-monger, the US Constitution gives considerable power to states. For example, to amend the US Constitution states are involved in both processes. However, the federal government is only involved in one of those ways to change the founding document. In one method, congress passes the amendment followed by the states. But in a process never used, 2/3s of the US states can call for a Constitutional convention and pass amendments without the US congress involvement.

Scott_in_MI said:
That might be a little complicated for him

“I am just a bill” was sung by trumpeter Jack Sheldon.

Color me naive, but surely if Sullivan says that “Obams is not an big spending liberal and never was”, then it must be true because it would be too obvious if it were not true.

I had an acquaintance in school who always had ‘facts’ to back up his position. He would forcefully interject those facts into every discussion. Eventually I checked a couple of his ‘facts’ and found them not to be supported by ‘objective’ input. He apologized and said those facts might be wrong but his position was not wrong, even though based on those ‘facts”.

Confused the hell out of me until I had met a few more people just like him. Willing to change facts to support a position.

It’s also called lying.

And I learned something else early on: If someone lies to me once, they will lie to me again.

Scott_in_MI said:
If you followed the words of the Original Tea Partier, John F Kennedy, you’d see that he understood that lower taxes actually RAISED federal revenue. It did with JFK’s tax cuts, it did with Reagan’s tax cuts AND IT DID WITH GWB’s TAX CUTS. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years.

I’ve got news for ya, Reagan raised taxes at least 7 times. It’s amazing that people like you have selective amnesia. He raised it so did is his successor (H.Bush). His record still stand as the biggest tax raiser in the State of California.
Your phony argument that raising taxes cut revenue sounds like W’s message during the 2001 General election. That’s when he said I can give you what you have with Clinton, but with lesser taxes. 10yrs later, people are now regretting and know that you can’t have something for nothing.
The laffer curve theory that states tax cuts increases the revenue is only a theory which has no real life evidence to support it, it’s nothing but a theory.

VoiceofReason said:
Nice stories……too bad anecdotes do not = data.

I remember him as a coke fiend huckster prone to flights of depression and racist militant attitudes about whites…….

See how that works?

So you are saying that Obama hates his white mother and grandmother who raised him.? OK I see your reasoning. By the way, why is Obama not considered white? His mother was white. He was raised by white relatives? He was not raised by any black people at all? As Arsenio Hall used to say on his TV show, “things that make you want to say hummmm”.

In academia historians value first hand accounts above all other types of reports. But I am not the only one who says this. If you had followed his election campaign you would have seen it reported a lot. I was living in south Korea at the time and I read it and so videos on the internet describing what was so obvious to me and those I know who attended Harvard Law School with him. Here is one article I read back in 2007 making this same point that I made that you are questioning.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/us/politics/28obama.html

I cannot emphasize how important it is to read widely. The American public has become so accustomed to 30 second video spots that many people ,especially young people do not read and are as a result not well informed regarding the issues of the day.

Liberty Back For More said:
Typical liberal fool. You are simply using scare tactics and fear mongering to push your “point” which is basically that the federal government should be able to do what they want.

But I’m sorry fear-monger, the US Constitution gives considerable power to states. For example, to amend the US Constitution states are involved in both processes. However, the federal government is only involved in one of those ways to change the founding document. In one method, congress passes the amendment followed by the states. But in a process never used, 2/3s of the US states can call for a Constitutional convention and pass amendments without the US congress involvement.

Where is the scare tactics. Please, I beg you, at least attempt to challenge the factual basis of my statements. Let’s make it in interesting. Please prove that I said something that is not factual. Name calling and fact checking are not the same thing. I enjoy being fact checked. Please challenge my assertions if you disagree with them.

gordonbloyershow said:
“I am just a bill” was sung by trumpeter Jack Sheldon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dVo3nbLYC0

Skyfet:

The question is, why did Reagan raise taxes in California? Was it to pay for the “entitlement programs” the CA-legislature was constantly passing for the bottom-feeders, could that be it? In the immortal words of Rev-Wright, “the chickens have come home to roost”!!

armwood said:
Now this is the best example of Soviet style historical revisionism, I have seen in a long time . Is “ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.” the same as “Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.” Ronald Reagan? John Kennedy was a liberal who believed in the necessity of a strong federal government. He used that government to enforce the power of federal law on states rights advocates like Governor George Wallace of Alabama. The Tea Party is a a movement based in the same states rights philosophy advocated by both George Wallace and Ronald Reagan. When Reagan announced his candidacy for president in 1980, in Philadelphia Mississippi, the site of the infamous murders of three civil rights workers in 1964 Reagan allied himself with Wallace and against Kennedy by saying “i support states rights” I have an audio copy of the speech if anyone is interested in hearing it.

JFK might have been liberal on social issues, but theres no doubt that he was a hard core Conservative on fiscal and defense issues.

Does “Rawmuscleglutes” and his “Power glutes” even have one shred of credibility? The man is a joke. A really bad joke. He says the most ridiculous things that only an insane person would believe.
And because he was so enthralled with digging up dirt on Sarah Palin, I leave you with a little nugget of dirt on him:
http://tinyurl.com/233rmly

CAconservative said:
Skyfet:

The question is, why did Reagan raise taxes in California? Was it to pay for the “entitlement programs” the CA-legislature was constantly passing for the bottom-feeders, could that be it? In the immortal words of Rev-Wright, “the chickens have come home to roost”!!

Ahhh got ya, lol. Reverting to Rev. Wright in a tax cut debate. That says more than you than the topic at hands.

Barack Obama and Andrew Sullivan – America’s finest conservatives.

I don’t care who you are, that’s funny right there.

Armwood says:
So you are saying that Obama hates his white mother and grandmother who raised him.?

You mean that “typical white woman” he speaks of that is scared of people based solely on their skin color?

Scott_in_MI said:
JFK might have been liberal on social issues, but theres no doubt that he was a hard core Conservative on fiscal and defense issues.

That is a very arguable position because his tax policy was conservative and he positioned himself to the right of Nixon in the 1960 campaign arguing that there was a “missile gap’ between the US and USSR. Of course this was false but it help to establish his defense credentials in his race against the anti-communist Richard Nixon.

To my eyes Hilary Clinton tried to position herself like Kennedy preceding her run for president in 2008. The publics impatience with the Iraqi War caused her strategy, which seemed very sound a couple of years earlier, to fail.

skyfet said:
The laffer curve theory that states tax cuts increases the revenue is only a theory which has no real life evidence to support it, it’s nothing but a theory.

Here’s some FACTS for you:

Federal Government Tax Revenue 1921 (yr of Coolidge’s tax cut): $719 million
Federal Government Tax Revenue 1928 (last year of C.C.’s term): $1.16 Billion

Federal Government Tax Revenue 1961 (yr of JFK tax cuts): $94 Billion
Federal Government Tax Revenue 1968 (7 yrs after cuts): $153 Billion

Federal Government Tax Revenue 2003 (year after GWB tax cut): $1.78 Trillion
Federal Government Tax Revenue 2008 (last yr of GWB’s 2nd Term): $2.5 Trillion

armwood said:
That is a very arguable position because his tax policy was conservative and he positioned himself to the right of Nixon in the 1960 campaign arguing that there was a “missile gap’ between the US and USSR. Of course this was false but it help to establish his defense credentials in his race against the anti-communist Richard Nixon. To my eyes Hilary Clinton tried to position herself like Kennedy preceding her run for president in 2008. The publics impatience with the Iraqi War caused her strategy, which seemed very sound a couple of years earlier, to fail.

So you agree that JFK was a supply sider?

musiccityvic said:
He can call himself a conservative all day long but it doesn’t make him one.

He can call himself a gay-married Catholic too, but that doesn’t make it so.

armwood said:
When Reagan announced his candidacy for president in 1980, in Philadelphia Mississippi, the site of the infamous murders of three civil rights workers in 1964 Reagan allied himself with Wallace and against Kennedy by saying “i support states rights” I have an audio copy of the speech if anyone is interested in hearing it.

That is just crap on a cracker, armwood. The only thing that is true in that statement is that Reagan said “I support state’s rights.” Here’s a transcript. Notice the date of the speech. And notice that George Wallace isn’t mentioned and the only Kennedy mentioned is Ted, who was running for the same job. Here’s that quote in context:

I believe in state’s rights; I believe in people doing as much as they can for themselves at the community level and at the private level. And I believe that we’ve distorted the balance of our government today by giving powers that were never intended in the constitution to that federal establishment. And if I do get the job I’m looking for, I’m going to devote myself to trying to reorder those priorities and to restore to the states and local communities those functions which properly belong there.

Skyfet:

I certainly wouldn’t disagree on your opinion of Bush’s first two years, with a Republican held Congress. They spent money without hesitation and Bush never questioned it. The problem is, the next two years with Democrats, and then the two under Obimbo have been even worse. That’s four years of uncontrolled spending. I don’t care which inept political party is in power, this crap has to stop or we’ll be just another third-world country. I’m glad you liked my Rev.Wright analogy, I that it was apprapoe…didn’t you?

Scott_in_MI said:
Here’s some FACTS for you:

Trillion

Loads of trillions indeed, but like every jokers you showed the rosy picture. What you ignores is the amount in revenue lost to the tax cut. If you cut taxes you have to cut spending to increase revenue. Where there hell in the real world d o you eat your cake and still have it? it’s ridiculous.

GlennBeckReview said:
He identifies as a political conservative.

So? And?

Tell me all the conservative things he believes in?
You mean these “Conservative” positions, son?

From YOUR own Wikipedia link.

You are a pathetic clown.

“Sullivan has largely supported a classical liberal definition of gay rights”

“Sullivan harshly criticized the Bush administration for its prosecution of the wars, especially regarding the numbers of troops, protection of munitions, and treatment of prisoners. ”

“Sullivan has written blog entries criticizing the excesses of the War on Drugs. ”

“Sullivan has been a vocal critic of former Alaska governor and possible 2012 presidential candidate Sarah Palin since John McCain named her as his running mate in 2008.”

“On August 31, 2008, Sullivan posted on his “Daily Dish” blog about a wide-spread rumor circulating on the Internet that Palin faked her fifth pregnancy, the baby was actually her daughter’s, and that this was done for political gain”

“On February 8, 2010, Leon Wieseltier wrote an article for The New Republic, suggesting that his former friend and colleague Sullivan has a “venomous hostility toward Israel and Jews.” He wrote that Sullivan is a “Buchanan of the left”, and someone who is “either a bigot, or just moronically insensitive” about Jews.”

You are just another run of the mill, ignorant lib.

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
Armwood says:
So you are saying that Obama hates his white mother and grandmother who raised him.?

You mean that “typical white woman” he speaks of that is scared of people based solely on their skin color?

He was talking about his grandmother. This is the truth. There are plenty of white women who feel this way. It is not there fault. It is a result of cultural stereotypes. When I was young I used to get the same response from white women in elevators. I always dressed conservatively. I used to just smile and make an off hand comment about the weather or something to put them at ease. We have to tell the truth. Obama did that in his Philadelphia speech on race. That speech is his masterpiece in my opinion, better than the 84 convention speech because the topic is so sensitive.

I am fortunate to have an extremely close family that is tri-racial, black, southern white and Chinese. We have had to all deal with these issues a long time ago. Everyone needs to lay their feelings on the table, get them out but listen to the other side and not judge people simply based upon their views.

I can argue vociferously about politics with someone and change the topic to jazz or food, whatever and we are the best of friends. I love that. One of what I call my second fathers was an Irish, NYC fireman. He was a neighbor of mine who fixed my bicycles and was very close to me after my parents divorce. I went on long distance overnight bicycle trips with he and his nephews who were my very close friends. We used to argue politics in his front porch to late at night, sometimes 2:00 in the morning. He has passed but I now feel a tinge of guilt for those nights taking him away from his wife and daughters. We argued about Nixon, the Vietnam War etc all the time. We were extremely close. I tutored his nephew in reading as a teenager and babysat for his nephews and nieces. My mother taught his daughters in Junior High School.

In my view we are all connected. I have white ancestors, English, Irish and German. Many white southerner have African blood. I work with a woman who I can see it in her features. I mentioned it to her which sparked a long discussion about her family roots. She was unaware of a black ancestor but acknowledged that it was possible.

I love to argue politics but i do not believe relationships with people should be determined by politics. I have many conservative friends. We agree to disagree but we do have fun arguing policy.

Obama represents the best of America, a man who pulled himself up by his own bootstraps, started at a community college, his grades and scores were so good he was able to transfer to Columbia University and then attend Harvard Law School. He is both white and black. He is an American success story. We should be proud of his achievements because it represents the best of all of us even though we may disagree with some or all of his policies. I was not in America when Obama won though I voted and led two expeditions of Americans to a Fed Ex office over an hour away from where I lived to vote.

The day the results came in we were all watching the results on CNN International. The vast majority of the people I were with were Koreans with a couple of Brits, Canadians and one other American present.

As Americans we felt so proud. You could see the looks of wonderment and joy in the eyes of the Koreans particularly but also in the eyes of the Brits and Canadians. This could only have happened in America. I even saw Obama T-shirts, the next day, in the underground mall near my home.

The world looks at America for leadership. We showed the world our greatness with the election of Barack Obama. A person of African decent, who was also white, like many of us, who when I was a teenager could not even have entered the local library where I now live and in 2008 he was elected president. I was not allowed to participate in class elections where I lived in NYC growing up. This change in our country is something I never believed I would ever see. I cannot forget this. This was not a parisan event. It was an American event.

Obama’s election was an event of historical proportions. Whether we are liberal or conservative we will be able to tell our grandchildren we saw this great historical event.

armwood said:
So you are saying that Obama hates his white mother and grandmother who raised him.? OK I see your reasoning. By the way, why is Obama not considered white? His mother was white. He was raised by white relatives? He was not raised by any black people at all? As Arsenio Hall used to say on his TV show, “things that make you want to say hummmm”. In academia historians value first hand accounts above all other types of reports. But I am not the only one who says this. If you had followed his election campaign you would have seen it reported a lot. I was living in south Korea at the time and I read it and so videos on the internet describing what was so obvious to me and those I know who attended Harvard Law School with him. Here is one article I read back in 2007 making this same point that I made that you are questioning. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/us/politics/28obama.html I cannot emphasize how important it is to read widely. The American public has become so accustomed to 30 second video spots that many people ,especially young people do not read and are as a result not well informed regarding the issues of the day.

Yet more anecdotes.

Too bad we can’t verify all this wonderfulness of The Messiah……if he would only release his records…….talk about shit that makes you go …..hmmmmmm?

Pablo said:
That is just crap on a cracker, armwood. The only thing that is true in that statement is that Reagan said “I support state’s rights.” Here’s a transcript. Notice the date of the speech. And notice that George Wallace isn’t mentioned and the only Kennedy mentioned is Ted, who was running for the same job. Here’s that quote in context:

That’s just play number 2334234 out of the lib obfuscation playbook.

Good looking out.

Pablo said:
That is just crap on a cracker, armwood. The only thing that is true in that statement is that Reagan said “I support state’s rights.” Here’s a transcript. Notice the date of the speech. And notice that George Wallace isn’t mentioned and the only Kennedy mentioned is Ted, who was running for the same job. Here’s that quote in context:

What I said was clear. Reagan liked Wallace supported states rights. Reagan announced his campaign in Philadelphia Mississippi, at the sight of the murder of three civil rights workers in 1964. You may be to young to remember that during that time of American history “states rights” was synonymous with segregationist. I offered to provide a copy of the actual recoding of the speech. I already have it and the transcript. I collect this sort of thing. I never said he mentioned George Wallace. What I said clearly was he adopted the same “states rights stance as did George Wallace. This is indisputable. This is American history. Since you dispute what I wrote read this and then let’s discuss this some more:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/opinion/13herbert.html

armwood said:
Is “ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.” the same as “Government exists to protect us from each other

Not at all?

It means stop looking to the Govt to do everything for you and start asking how you can help your country to be better. It means stop being a whining lib who expects the govt. to solve all his problems and give him handouts.

BTW, neither JFK,nor Sorensen came up with that line. It was taken from a previous quote.

skyfet said:
Loads of trillions indeed, but like every jokers you showed the rosy picture. What you ignores is the amount in revenue lost to the tax cut. If you cut taxes you have to cut spending to increase revenue. Where there hell in the real world d o you eat your cake and still have it? it’s ridiculous.

Would you say this is crazy talk, skyfet?

But the most direct and significant kind of federal action aiding economic growth is to make possible an increase in private consumption and investment demand — to cut the fetters which hold back private spending. In the past, this could be done in part by the increased use of credit and monetary tools, but our balance of payments situation today places limits on our use of those tools for expansion. It could also be done by increasing federal expenditures more rapidly than necessary, but such a course would soon demoralize both the government and our economy. If government is to retain the confidence of the people, it must not spend more than can be justified on grounds of national need or spent with maximum efficiency. And I shall say more on this in a moment.

The final and best means of strengthening demand among consumers and business is to reduce the burden on private income and the deterrents to private initiative which are imposed by our present tax system — and this administration pledged itself last summer to an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes to be enacted…

skyfet said:
Loads of trillions indeed, but like every jokers you showed the rosy picture. What you ignores is the amount in revenue lost to the tax cut. If you cut taxes you have to cut spending to increase revenue. Where there hell in the real world d o you eat your cake and still have it? it’s ridiculous.

You cannot lose money to a tax cut.

See if you can follow……

THAT MONEY ISN’T YOURS!!!!!

And you do not have to cut spending to see an increase in revenues…….two different columns on the ledger dopey. Spending has ZERO to do with what you take in. This has been shown by the previous cuts……taxes were lowered and revenue increased. They took in more. Plain and simple.

Now with regard to spending……they took in more after the cuts but they spent like they had taken in 1000% more than they had. That means they don’t have enough money to pay the bills. Hence borrowing or pumping up our debt.

These things are not joined at the hip and that seems to be the disconnect with your run of the mill lib. It is possible to have one without the other.

armwood said:
What I said was clear. Reagan liked Wallace supported states rights.

You said Reagan allied himself with Wallace and against Kennedy in that speech. You lie.

Reagan announced his campaign in Philadelphia Mississippi, at the sight of the murder of three civil rights workers in 1964.

Actually, that took place outside of Philadelphia, and certainly not on the stage of the Neshoba County Fairgrounds.

You may be to young to remember that during that time of American history “states rights” was synonymous with segregationist.

“That time” which is relevant to Reagan’s speech was August 1980. The rest is race baiting bullshit for which you ought to be deeply ashamed, but you are clearly too ignorant to allow that to happen. The connection between those events exists only in the minds of race baiting creeps like yourself and Bob Herbert.

I never said he mentioned George Wallace.

How do you announce an alliance with someone while not mentioning him? You lie.

armwood said:
Obama’s election was an event of historical proportions. Whether we are liberal or conservative we will be able to tell our grandchildren we saw this great historical event.

I’d be just as happy if my grandkids learned of the election of the first not entirely white President and thought “So what? I don’t see what the big deal is.”

That would be progress.

notsofast said:
Not at all?

It means stop looking to the Govt to do everything for you and start asking how you can help your country to be better. It means stop being a whining lib who expects the govt. to solve all his problems and give him handouts.

BTW, neither JFK,nor Sorensen came up with that line. It was taken from a previous quote.

I am breaking my promise to myself not to respond to your posts but you are partially right that it meant to do for your country (not government). John Kennedy believes in a larger role for the federal government than did his predecessor, Dwight Eisenhower. He proposed what became the 1964 Civil Rights Act. This involved using the powers granted congress under the “commerce clause” of the constitution to expand the reach and size of the federal government to enable it regulate the behavior of private businesses engaged in the stream of interstate commerce which were denying access to African American citizens. This proposal was a major enlargement of the role of the federal government. It was opposed by both conservative Democrats and Republicans and supported by liberal Democrats and Conservatives. Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan and H.W. Bush opposed this legislation. Republicans like Jacob Javits, Charles Percy and John V. Lindsay strongly supported it. Southern Democrats generally opposed it. LBJ, a Southern Democrat, led the fight for its passage as a memorial to both John Kennedy and of course the many martyrs of the civil rights movement.

to describe John F. Kennedy as anything but a supporter of big government is another example of USSR type revisionist history. John F. Kennedy supported as pushed through congress a mother-load of legislation, during his presidency, which increase the size and cost of the federal government. Here are some representatives samples of the big government legislation that Kennedy supported and were almost all passed during his presidency.

It is one thing to call something a fact. It is quite another to actually know the facts.

John Kennedy supported

The Community Health Services and Facilities Act of 1961
H.R. 4998 Public Law 87395, approved October 5, 1961

Practical Nurse Training payed for by the federal government.
S. 278 Public Law 8722, approved April 24, 1961

Water Pollution Control (a precursor to the EPA)
H.R. 6441 Public Law 8788, approved July 20, 1961

Air Pollution Control Study
S. 455 Public Law 87761, approved October 9, 1962

rug Industry Act of 1962
S. 1552 Public Law 87781, approved October 10, 1962

National Institutes of Health
H.R. 11099 Public Law 87838, approved September 16, 1962

Clean Air Act
H.R. 6518 Public Law 88206, approved December 17, 1963

Maternal-Child Health and Mental Retardation
H.R. 7544 Public Law 88156, approved October 24, 1963

Medical School Bill
H.R. 12 Public Law 88129, approved September 24, 1963

Mental Health Program
S. 1576 Public Law 88164, approved October 31, 1963

Water Pollution Control
S. 649 Passed Senate October 16; pending in House Public Works Committee

FHA Mortgage Insurance Increase
Senate Joint Resolution 89 Public Law 8738, approved May 25, 1961

Housing Act of 1961
S. 1922 Public Law 8770, approved June 30, 1961

Insured Mortgages–Extend Authority
S. 2876 Public Law 87623, approved August 31, 1962

Savings Association Loans on Apartment Houses
H.R. 13044 Public Law 87779, approved October 9, 1962

Savings Association Loans on Apartment Houses
H.R. 12628 Public Law 87723, approved September 28, 1962

ssential Housing Mortgages
S. 1952 Public Law 88127, approved September 23, 1963

Housing for the Elderly
House Joint Resolution 724 Public Law 88158, approved October 24, 1963

Mortgage Insurance Authority
House Joint Resolution 467 Public Law 8854, approved June 29, 1963

S. 200Public Law 87273, approved September 22, 1961 (provided federal funds for vocational training)

Adult Indian Vocational Training
S. 1868 Public Law 88230, approved December 23, 1963

Foreign Aid Authorization Act of 1961
S. 1983 Public Law 87195, approved September 4, 1961

Peace Corps
H.R. 7500 Public Law 87293, approved September 2, 1961

Racketeering Enterprises
S. 1653 Public Law 87228, approved September 13, 1961

Antitrust Civil Process Act
S. 167 Public Law 87664, approved September 19, 1962

Water Pollution Disputes–Court Jurisdiction
H.R. 10617 Public Law 87830, approved October 15, 1962

Public Defenders Act of 1963
S. 1057 Passed Senate August 6, 1963; H.R. 7457, House Calendar

Minimum Wage
H.R. 3935 Public Law 8730, approved May 5, 1961

Railroad Retirees
S. 2395 Public Law 87825, approved September 22, 1961

Manpower Retraining Act
S. 1991 Public Law 415, approved March 15, 1962

Migratory Health Services
S. 1130 Public Law 87692, approved September 25, 1962

Welfare and Pension Plan Amendments
H.R. 8723 Public Law 87420, approved March 20, 1962

Work Hours Act
H.R. 10786Public Law 87581, approved August 13, 1962

Agricultural Workers Fair Labor Standards
S. 523 Passed Senate June 11, 1963; pending in House Education and labor Committee

Daycare Services for Migrant Farm Children
S. 522Passed Senate June 10; pending in House Education and Labor Committee

Manpower Training Act Amendments
H.R. 8720 Public Law 88214, approved December 19, 1963

Migratory Farmworkers–Educational Opportunities
S. 521 Passed Senate June 10, 1963; pending in House Education and Labor Committee

Railroad Labor Dispute
Senate Joint Resolution 102 Public Law 88108, approved August 28,1963

Registration of Interstate Farm Labor Contractors of Migrant Workers
S. 524 Passed Senate June 11; H.R. 6242, House Calendar

Pablo said:
You said Reagan allied himself with Wallace and against Kennedy in that speech. You lie.

Actually, that took place outside of Philadelphia, and certainly not on the stage of the Neshoba County Fairgrounds.

“That time” which is relevant to Reagan’s speech was August 1980. The rest is race baiting bullshit for which you ought to be deeply ashamed, but you are clearly too ignorant to allow that to happen. The connection between those events exists only in the minds of race baiting creeps like yourself and Bob Herbert.

How do you announce an alliance with someone while not mentioning him? You lie.

I never said Reagan mentioned George Wallace and never said they had met. I never said the murders occurred on the fairground stage, You might need some reading glasses. Is English your native language? Dictionaries are readily available for you to check the meanings of words you do not understand.

The murders were in or around Philadelphia Mississippi, in the same county. Please calm down and fact check your posts before you get yourself so worked up you result to crude language.

So you are clear because you obviously did not understand what I was saying. Ronald Reagan and his campaign purposefully chose the location of the murder of three civil rights workers, James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner to announce his 1980 campaign for the presidency. He purposefully used the racially loaded term “states rights” the same term used by George Wallace and every other major segregationist as a legal justification for their resistance to the federal government and courts ordering them to desegregate. Ronald Reagan was purposefully following in the steps of Richard Nixon using his infamous “southern strategy” to win the presidency. I am sorry to burst your bubble but you cannot deny the facts as they are. You may want to argue about the location of the murder, was it here or a few miles over in the county if you wish. That diversionary tactic will not work.

Read the history

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/bhmjustice4.html
Definition of ALLIED

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/allied
1
: having or being in close association : connected
2
: joined in alliance by compact or treaty; specifically capitalized : of or relating to the nations united against Germany and its allies in World War I or those united against the Axis powers in World War II
3
a : related especially by common properties or qualities
b : related genetically
See allied defined for English-language learners »

Examples of ALLIED

“people with foreign language fluency and an allied skill such as the ability to relate to people from different cultures”

You do not have to know someone to be allied with them.

Here is some further reading for you on the topic;

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/10/innocent-mistakes/

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E6DF1E30F935A35753C1A9639C8B63

That diversionary tactic will not work.

The facts of the matter are not a diversionary tactic, armwood. Lying is, though.

‘States rights” does not equal “Hey, how about them Yankee Civil Rights workers and their colored buddy that you Godbothering crackers killed kinda near here 16 years ago? Yeehaw!”

Enough with the bullshit. Why is it all your fine erudite friends from the New York Times all decided that late in 2007 was a good time to call Reagan a racist?

BTW, that Herbert piece on Bennett is itself ridiculous and repugnant. Is it any wonder that rag is swirling the drain?

Andrew Sullivan is not a fiscal conservative, never was.

Pablo said:
The facts of the matter are not a diversionary tactic, armwood. Lying is, though.

‘States rights” does not equal “Hey, how about them Yankee Civil Rights workers and their colored buddy that you Godbothering crackers killed kinda near here 16 years ago? Yeehaw!”

Enough with the bullshit. Why is it all your fine erudite friends from the New York Times all decided that late in 2007 was a good time to call Reagan a racist?

BTW, that Herbert piece on Bennett is itself ridiculous and repugnant. Is it any wonder that rag is swirling the drain?

Obviously you are living in a fantasy world. Did I hear you received a C in American history?

Well, that’s quite a rebuttal, armwood. Did I hear you won the blue ribbon at last year’s “I Know You Are But What Am I?” tournament?

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
“No, Sullivan is a REAL conservative, you are neo-con kooks who have corrupted the real movement.”

notsosmart says:
“YOU do not determine who and who is not Conservative. Anyone who says $3 trillion in debt is not that much in 2 years is NO WAY a Conservative.”

GlennBeckReview said:
“According to wikipedia: Andrew Michael Sullivan (born August 10, 1963) is an English author, editor, political commentator and blogger. He identifies as a political conservative. So now the right-wingers want to make facts up. Oh, wait, it’s what they do at Fox: make things up. The not so smart viewers repeat the false claims. That is why they come off as so radically misinformed.”

Scott_in_MI says:
Just because he says it doesn’t mean its true. Just look at you: you promised the world that there would be a Beck “bombshell” which would finish him, yet we’ve seen nothing.”

So you’re claiming that Sullivan lied about his own political orientation. Uh huh, and notsosmart, one of the most reactionary and idiotic trolls commenting here is more accurate about Sullivan than Sullivan is. Scott, you should be embarrassed to side with a despicable moron like nososmart, but you, too, have no shame.

What I said was coming out about Mr. Beck is still scheduled to come out, possibly this week. I never promised that it would come out; in fact I made the argument that Beck’s skeleton is nobody’s business. That was until we uncovered evidence that he’s been hypocritical on the matter. Whether this bombshell will finish him is questionable. It should give many of his supporters pause, and Beck will, no doubt, deny the facts as he is so accustomed and talented at doing. I hope this bombshell destroys his life as he knows it now. Habitual liars don’t belong on a stage that Fox Propaganda (Murdoch) has placed Beck on.

musiccityvic says:
“Wikepedia…almost as much credibility as Media matters.”

Like .Media Matters, they will update the page on something or someone if they get something wrong. That is what gives them credibility.

Beck, on the other hand, virtually NEVER corrects any of the many, many lies he tells. That gives Beck zero credibility as a commentator but very high marks as a deceitful and hypocritical propagandist. He is what I call a yellow propagandist, and the haters out there eat his nonsense up.

skyfet said:
He is a big spender for the wealthy, with the reckless and unaffordable stupid tax cut.

What tax cut? Oh…you mean the extension of the CURRENT TAX RATES! My bad I have trouble understanding liberal speak.

Absolutely, Andy! Barack Obama is not a big spender and Trig is not Sarah Palin’s son.

paulejb says:
“Absolutely, Andy! Barack Obama is not a big spender….”

The view from the far right, including Fox propaganda, is that Obama is a socialist and a big spender. However, the view from the far left is that he’s a corporate liberal, a centrist.

What are missing are truly objective reporting and truly objective consumers of news.

Hey Atticus, if liberals are the big spenders, then why does the deficit always soar under the conservatives? Also, it’s a matter of public record that the country has ALWAYS done better economically under democrats. Reason that away if you think you can.

pedro_nam says:
“What tax cut? Oh…you mean the extension of the CURRENT TAX RATES! My bad I have trouble understanding liberal speak.”

The stimulus package included a significant tax cut for the middle class. The CURRENT TAX RATES are a result of the Bush TAX CUTS that have shoved the treasury toward bankruptcy. That’s why his 1st Sec. of Treas., Paul O’Neill, was forced from his position: he kept pointing out how irresponsible Bush’s tax cuts were. Even supply0-sider David Stockman has railed against these tax cuts. Can you understand conservative speak?

GlennBeckReview said:
pedro_nam says:“What tax cut? Oh…you mean the extension of the CURRENT TAX RATES! My bad I have trouble understanding liberal speak.” The stimulus package included a significant tax cut for the middle class. The CURRENT TAX RATES are a result of the Bush TAX CUTS that have shoved the treasury toward bankruptcy. That’s why his 1st Sec. of Treas., Paul O’Neill, was forced from his position: he kept pointing out how irresponsible Bush’s tax cuts were. Even supply0-sider David Stockman has railed against these tax cuts. Can you understand conservative speak?

I was technically refering to skyfet’s quote “He is a big spender for the wealthy, with the reckless and unaffordable stupid tax cut.” The reference liberals make about not being able to afford tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, when they recieved no tax cut but merely the current tax rates were extended. Its also funny how liberals say we (the government) cannot afford to allow people to keep money they actually earn. That is plain and simple.

As for you, the Bush TAX CUTS have NOT shoved the treasury toward bankruptcy. The lower tax rates lead to INCREASED TAX REVENUE. Excessive SPENDING is the cause of our current financial crisis. And yes it is was caused by BOTH Republicans and Democrats.

pedro_nam says:
“As for you, the Bush TAX CUTS have NOT shoved the treasury toward bankruptcy. ”

That answers my question: you do not know conservative speak. Stockman thinks that the Bush tax cuts were insane. Bush’s onw Treas. Sec., Paul O’Neill called them irresponsible.

You claim about “excessive spending” being the cause of our financial crisis is a-historical. Reagan’s tax cuts lead to a tripling of the national debt and G. Bush nearly doubled it again with his tax cuts. Nice try though; if you were dealing with someone who doesn’t know the facts, you might have scored points with your false assertion. There is plenty of money to pay for our social programs and our wars; the rich have decided that they don’t want to pay that much. Their pawns in gov’t and their cheerleaders on Fox have the gullible believing that spending is the cause of our red ink. Of course, Beck is the biggest cheerleader for the corporate fat-cats. He’s also the most dishonest, but he’s convincing.

GlenBeckReview, you are clearly wrong.
First, you can’t really compare tax cuts to the national debt. You see debt is created when you spend more than you take in. Which means if you create debt then you clearly have a SPENDING problem. If you want to blame the debt on tax rates, then I suggest we look at the bottom 47% of income earners who pay absolutley no federal income taxes ands many of which actually recieve a check from the government called a refundable tax credit.

Second, since when do the rich get to decide how much they want to pay in taxes (i.e. “the rich have decided that they don’t want to pay that much.)? These rates are set by our government. I can see why many rich people complain about their tax rates, when the top 1% of income earners pay nearly 40% of all income taxes. I think that is certainly above and beyond their fair share especially when you consider that these are the same rich people who create jobs by opening small businesses and investing their money into the US economy.

See this web site for the facts. http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

Third, Lets get some more facts about “Reagan’s tax cuts lead to a tripling of the national debt”. Fact is federal reciepts for fiscal year 1981 was $599.3 Billion and federal reciepts for fiscal year 1988 was $909.2 Billion. So the Reagan Tax Cuts lead to increased revenue of $309.9 Billion. Clearly the tax cuts increased revenue. Under Bush the federal reciepts for fiscal year 2001 was $1.991 Trillion and federal reciepts for fiscal year 2008 was $2.524 Trillion. So the Bush tax cuts lead to increased revenue of $533 Billion. Clearly the tax cuts increased revenue yet again. The facts. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

GlenBeckReview,
Got some more facts for you. Even President Obama acknowledges that when tax rates are lowered the tax revenues are increased. Now he did say that he would still look into raising the rates based on “fairness”. Take a look. Please note in this instance we are talking about the Capital Gains Tax Rate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpSDBu35K-8

pedro_nam says:
“GlenBeckReview, you are clearly wrong.
First, you can’t really compare tax cuts to the national debt.”

You’re funny, Pedro. The historical record is very clear about this. Reagan lowered taxes and nearly tripled the national debt in his 8 years. Clinton raised taxes, mostly on the rich, and created in a few years federal budgets in the black. Bush came in and cut taxes again, and the national debt nearly doubled in his 8 years (~79% increase).

Tax levels are directly released to budget deficits, and one thing became very clear during the Bush years of anemic job growth: trickle down, supply side economics is an epic failure, pretty much like most everything else Bush dealt with in his 8 years of incompetence.

Tax levels and budget health are directly related, and any assertion to the contrary is a-historical. My question for you pedro is what fat-cat is paying you to support low taxes on the uber-weatlhy? If you’re not getting paid and you’re not a fat cat yourself, then you’re arguing for tax policies that are not in your (or the national) self interest. Your making, thus, irrational arguments for uber-luxury for people that would prefer to spit on you rather than look at you.

Why?

GBR, are you serious? This is plain and simple. If the revenue increases and debt also increases then there is an obvious spending problem. It does not matter what the tax rate is, what matters is how much revenue it generates. Please post a link so I can see the “historical record” you keep talking about. I posted up my sources, where are your sources?

Reagan, taxes were lowered and revenues went up $309.9 Billion. Debt increased because we spent more then we took it. The Democrats were in controll of the House the entire time Reagan was in office. If you will remember all spending bills originate in the House. Spending not revenue is the problem.

Clinton did actually raise taxes in 1993 and from 1993-1996 the economy grew 3.2%, 11.6 million jobs were created, and the S&P 500 went up 78%. However in 1997, Clinton lowered taxes and from 1997-200 the econmy grew 4.2%, 11.5 million jobs were created, and the S&P 500 went up 95%. So lower taxes lead to better economic growth, yet again. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/03/tax-cuts-not-the-clinton-tax-hike-produced-the-1990s-boom

The Clinton surplus is actually a myth. The National Debt increased every single year Clinton was in office. I will readily admit we as a country were more fiscally responsible during his 8 years in office. Keep in mind the Republicans controlled the House the last 6 years of Clinton’s Presidency, and as we learned earlier all spending bills originate in the house. See spending under control (somewhat) and the debt did not spiral out of control as bad. http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

Bush, taxes were lowered and revenue went up $533 billion. As we learned earlier, that if revenue increases and the debt increases then the problem is SPENDING. Now Republicans controlled the House the first 6 years of the Bush presidency and they overspent as well. Then Pelosi and the Democrats take over and spending goes to another level. During the 110th Congress the Democrats in the House with Speaker Pelosi managed to increase the national debt $2 Trillion. Since President Obama has taken over with the 111th Congress the Democrats in the House with Speaker Pelosi manages to increase the national debt another $3.4 Trillion. Spending is constantly spiraling out of control. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

Tax levels and budget health are loosely related. Revenues and Budget health are directly related. The problem here is how one looks at the economy – either from a “static view” or from a “dynamic view”. A static view believes that people will continue to operate as always regardless of the tax rates or federal regulations. A dynamic view takes into account the way people will behave based on tax rates and federal regulations. You must look at the US economy from a dynamic viewpoint in order to it accurately.

I am not really sure why you hate wealthy people. They earned what they have, or at least someone in their family did. I for one have never recieved a job from a poor person. I actually perfer the Fair Tax, and that would be in my best interest. I believe in self reliance, I do not need the government to regulate everything I do or make sure that I am taken care of. I am able to do that on my own. I also do not need the government to take the earning from one individual and give to someone who did not work to earn the benefit. Plain and simple, if I plunder my neighbors house because I need food to feed my family then I will probably be arrested and sent to jail. But its ok when the government confiscates tax dollars from those who earn it and give it to those who didn’t.

pedro_nam says:
“I am not really sure why you hate wealthy people. They earned what they have, or at least someone in their family did.”

I could turn the statement around and ask why you hate poor people, but that would be as counter productive as your question. I don’t hate people unless someone really does me personal harm. Many wealthy people have incomes and wealth extracted from an inherently unfair system of corporate capitalism. Many fat cats make more than they deserve while the workers on their payroll make far less than they deserve. I’m not sympathetic to those who set their own wagers and get wealthy on the backs of people actually doing the physical work. We have, in that regard, an unjust system.

Tell me what you mean by “Fair Tax.” I believe in a fair tax too, one that falls under the theory of Rawls’ justice and fairness. If you mean a flat tax, that is inherently not fair.

I need more time to respond to the rest of your posts. Right now I’m on the job and on and off the road. Bear with me.

The Fair Tax – http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer. Give it a read.

“Many wealthy people have incomes and wealth extracted from an inherently unfair system of corporate capitalism. Many fat cats make more than they deserve while the workers on their payroll make far less than they deserve. I’m not sympathetic to those who set their own wagers and get wealthy on the backs of people actually doing the physical work.”

What exactly is unfair about Corporate Capitalism? These “Fat Cats” are they people who took risks and opened up small business and became successful? Well people who as you say “set their own wages”, I can only assume that they own their own business. Which means they had an idea and went out to make it a reality. They hired employees and built manufacturing plants to make those dreams a reality. Did they get wealthy? Well of course, it was their idea, thier vision, that created a successful business and the employees they hired certainly helped. If those employees do not think they are being paid a fair wage, then they are free to go work somewhere else. The really good employees that are esential to the “fat cats” business will no doubt be compensated enough to be keep or they will leave a move over to a competing business. What is unfair about this? It’s called freedom. The jobs belong to the business owner not the employees.

When I think of “Fat Cats”, I think of Union Employees. The government unions are the worst, since they get to vote in the people who set thier wages. This is bankrupting many cities and states nationwide because the union members are paid well in excess of what private employees earn for the same job. The private company unions, car industry for one, have nearly bankrupted their employee and thus themselves out of a job. Why because they are paid more than the market can bear. Then with the car industry we the tax payers bail them out. Using tax dollars to save union jobs, its not right. Any private company that is ran poorly and is going bankrupt should never be bailed out with taxpayer dollars. It reinforces irresponsibility, which shoud be punished ( let them fail). In a truly free capitalistic environment you are free to succedd and you are free to fail. To me the only thing I can think of that is unjust about our current system is that our government tries to step in and decide who the winners and losers are.

Take a look at these “fat cats”. http://biggovernment.com/dloos/2011/01/06/new-york-citys-no-show-seiu-snow-jobs/

GBR, you still have not posted up any of your sources.

GBR, the “Theory of Rawls’ Justice and Fairness” sounds alot like Socialism. I tend to default to freedom.

pedro_nam says:
“GBR, the “Theory of Rawls’ Justice and Fairness” sounds alot like Socialism. I tend to default to freedom.”

It’s not Socialism; it is contract theory in the tradition of John Locke. Rawls wants more people to be free, not just those who can afford it under the system of maldistribution that the rich have put in place today.

pedro_nam says:
“GBR, you still have not posted up any of your sources.”

Bear with me. I have a lot on my plate, but I’ve been calling for a good debate that doesn’t get personal and is constructive in nature. I’m interested in this but have a full plate and other priorities right now. I will continue this. Let me add two points for now. 1) I thought you were wrong about the myth of Clinton’s budget surpluses, but my preliminary research indicates that the debt did not go down as a pure number. 2) Don’t even think that anything at the proven liar, Breitbart’s biggov’t.com blog is anything I’m going to consider. Find a better reference. Breitbart, like Beck, has zero credibility. I will look at other website you recommend.

I do use, very often, information and idea at zfacts.com. That’s where I found the debt did not decrease during Clinton’s Administration.

pedro_nam says:
“The Fair Tax – http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer. Give it a read.”

I did. Generally I’m opposed to a sales tax, but the Fair Tax described here is at least moderately progressive since it reimburses for necessities. I’d have to see more details on how much could be raised since the budget has to run in the black for generations to pay back the Reagan/Bush debt that caused the vast majority of the current debt. On that, see the third graph down at http://zfacts.com/p/318.html. In fact, you might want to spend lots of time reading his site. He’s the most objective and unbiased financial analyst I’ve read online.

I would not be against replacing the current tax system with one that is fair and progressive, but I don’t think repealing the 16th Amendment is wise. The gov’t needs to be able to raise large sums in an emergency.

Glenn Beck has got to go!

Only in the universe where Spock has a beard.

In reality, he’s the poster boy for AIDS-induced dementia. Or a liar, take your pick.