Mitts that are too thin-hided sometimes don't finish the season.

In a nutshell.

I encourage everyone to vote for President Obama, and to donate what you can to his re-election campaign.

I think you done fell and bumped your head.

Good of you to be so nice Cameron. I think his injury is so severe he don't have good walking around sense.

Gunnar...You just made me miss your Mom's Letters to the Editor where she wrote about "Wingnuts". Think about her often.

Thank you Jeri.

Moronic statements from the right with no solutions is about all we can expect from their candidate.

I recall the only literate conservative poster who used to post here, by the name of Rick K., after much red herring and crapola arguments, finally admitted that there is no conservative solution to the current economic crisis, other than to repeal government regulations.

This from a group that lives off of government entitlements. He was laughed out of here, and has never returned.

Stupid conservatives will remain stupid conservatives. It is up to us to elect progressives who support public education, so that the next generation is not as log stupid as their family.

Please re-elect President Obama.

Thomas and Cameron. Sounds like a gay couple. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[This message has been edited by neonfreedom (7/19/2012)]

gunnar..you should be horse whipped,,we are trillon in the hole and going more every day..and know he wants to give 2 billon to rebuild..you are a ass,,he needs to GO.

That last post has to be coming from someone on the left trying to make the right look like idiots.

LOL, David...just couldn't be a densely stupid brain washed viewer of Faux News...ROFL

Bob, though I am not gay, I would think a liberal such as yourself, seeing nothing wrong with being gay, would not even make notice of such a thought. Maybe you need more Kool-Aid...

Blake: the deficit was Bush's fault, not Obama's. The AFA will save us money according to the CBO. It's thinking like yours that has prevented us from recovering faster from the GOP-caused Great Recession of 2008. Only the federal government can stimulate the economy. The US is NOT a household. If a nation cuts back in bad times, it can only make times worse. We have to stimulate now and then pay it back when we can afford it, when we have "full employment". Making the 1% pay what they used to pay in taxes will help a lot.

In 1935, James P. Warburg (a former Pres. advisor) wrote the book "Hell Bent for Election". A synopsis of what he wrote about:
"How have Mr. Roosevelt's actions since he became President compared with his statements, and promises on the strength of which he was elected in November, 1932?"

He goes on to say..."I think the fair answer would be the following:

1) "He has done a few things that he promised to do __more things that he promised not to do___and still more things that his Socialist opponent promised to do".

2) "He has led us into an orgy of wild spending undreamed of prior to his administration, "piled commission on commission and bureau on bureau", and set up, or tried to set up, a federal dictatorship over all the various factors that affect the lives of our citizens."

3) He has flouted the Constitution which he swore on oath to support.

4) He has made a laughing stock of the sanctitiy of our national promises.

5) And he has done all this in the name of an emergency which, if it ever did justify such actions, certainly justifies them no longer.

What is so interesting is that Pres. Roosevelt was re-elected and in a book about the Depression in North Dakota, the author tells how the folks in power hated it that he developed the programs like the CCC's, WPA, etc. all of which saved 50% of the farms in North Dakota. Of course they lived in the East where they felt a bit "higher end". (The Years of Despair, North Dakota in the Depression", D. Jerome Tweton, Daniel F. Rylance.)

Now is really our chance to study the proposed budgets of each party and see if we are ready to face an austerity budget or, something more progressive. It appears that hatred of a party has always been prevalent...so, rising above all of it and educating ourselves will help everyone. I just wanted to share with you how far we have come since 1935:-) I have a couple more books like Mr. Warburg's. Purchased them at an auction of a member of the John Birch Society. Always interesting to know how others think. Sorry to be so windy...just sharing.

I have never understood how people can say, look, these idiots got us into this mess so let's put them back in control. That, my friends, is the definition of insanity.

Remember the fifties? Ike? Interstates? Country booming? And the tax rate on the wealthy was?

Brace yourself.

Top rate was. . .

I kid you not.

90%.

Economy was booming like mad. I guess the 'job creators' today just flat out don't know what they are doing, as they are paying the lowest taxes in generations and aren't creating any jobs!

Wow, I had to look that one up ...

http://www.taxpolicycente...?Docid=213

A little math(sort of)...

You want "A" to happen so you vote for candidate "1" who claims to support "A".

Due to circumstances, perhaps the fault of now-president "1", perhaps not, "A" either doesn't happen or doesn't happen enough.

In the next election, "1" is challenged by candidate "2".

"2" not only doesn't want "A" to happen, he wants to crush the very concept of "A".

"A" is very important to you and you are disappointed in president "1". Even so................................................................

WHY THE PROCREATE WOULD YOU VOTE FOR CANDIDATE"2"?

Because candidate 1 didn't get me a pony dammit, and he promised me one.

WHY THE PROCREATE WOULD YOU VOTE FOR CANDIDATE"2"?

with apologies to our neighbors to the north...

Because "Candidate 1" is a "socialist bastard" that might use position "A" to turn the whole country into "eh?"

BNII, you left out the part about how candidate 2 had fought for and achieved "A" for his home state. That candidate 2 thought "A" was brilliant up until it became a liability for his presidential aspirations.

The duplicitousness of candidate 2 should not be overlooked.

Good points everyone.

I hate posting serious political crap, but oh well. I am the epitome of conservative at heart, but here's where the republican party loses me.

1. Get away from the fundamentalist christian hate mongering. Who cares if gays get married??? Quit hiding your hatred and prejudice behind a bible.

2. Let the rich pay more!! I quit cheering for pro sports teams when I realized how ridiculous it was for me to be worshiping millionaires playing a game wearing a jersey of the billionaire who will pay them the most money. Times are tough! I have to budget to get by and so should you. And, don't forget about the wealth that's closeted away. If your using it to live on, then treat it as income.

But, other than that, I think Romney is completely out of touch and Obama is completely impotent as a leader.

FH

so based on all that Frank, for whom will you vote ?

I kind of like the Howdy/Bonine ticket myself.

FH

LOL, Frank....what an imagination!!...

Good news for President Obama....a new poll shows him ahead in three key battleground states:

http://www.nytimes.com/20...ml?_r=1&hp

Hopefully by the election, more people will realize that Republican extremism and obstructionism is the real cancer in America. Take, for example, the Republican filibuster of a judicial nominee:

http://www.washingtonpost...story.html

What's wrong here?

1. The nominee has bi-partisan support, INCLUDING the TWO REPUBLICAN SENATORS from the nominee's home state of Oklahoma.

2. Its not the Supreme Court, ITS THE 10th CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS! Blocking a judicial nominee in the Court of Appeals is completely unprecedented.

Today's Republican party is so extreme, I think the President will win re-election even with the high unemployment rate. At least he's trying.

I posted the second story earlier to facebook, and ended up in a particularly frustrating discussion with a 1% that culminated in a call to end the FDA, the Dept. of Education, and the Dept. of Energy.

Surprisingly enough, one of our elites doesn't think that he'll need to worry about food safety in the coming glorious regulation free future.

Having had salmonella, I am a FANATIC about food safety. For no other reason than that, I would vote Democratic. Since I am also the possessor of an x chromosome, I am voting Democratic.

I also have an "x" chromosome and I am definiely not voting for Obama...Also voted yesterday for Ted Cruz for the Republican Senatorial candidacy in the Texas primary election againt the traditional, party-line favorite and long time state politician (Republican) Dewhurst.

Ted Cruz unexpectedly won by over 10% -- wake up both Democrats and fellow Republicans. Many of us are upset about the direction this country is taking.

After less than one term, Cruz will be like all the rest. Just a little crazier. His main mission in life will be to keep his seat. I hope you checked his birth certificate.

Yes, he is Canadian born. Qualified. But not at present qualified to be president.

You might want a heads up ... He and others are a force to be reckoned with in the November election.

http://www.nytimes.com/20...force.html

I don't get on here very often so this is a bit late. But for Bob, after that gay couple comment I am wondering what kind of sick poop is going through this idiots head. Things like that are what remind us every day that the liberal brain is not a very good one. Have a nice day Bob and try to keep the gay thoughts out of your head.

I hope that you, too, Cameron, has a nice day, and indeed the rest of the electoral season.

And I hope you can contribute a little amount...$5, $10, $20, whatever, to contribute to President Obama's re-election campaign.

If there ever was a crossroads in America....between maintaining America's vision of reaching out to the disenfranchised and the helpless, or retreating into cultural hatred and isolationism....this is the election for everyone to come forward now and support our president.

Yeah, Cameron. That gay couple comment was pretty searing, wasn't it?
I'm sorry I upset your tolerant sensibilities. Now why don't you go to Texas and join Dr. Mac in a nice session of Climate Change denial. Or perhaps a little discussion on your latest boogey-men...illegal immigrants, I suppose.
At least we know where Dr. Mac is from (Texas?!).

Yes, but lived in Montana for many formative years....Have many family and friend connections there. I don't mess with climate control...not a scientist except in one of the purest sciences -- math.

Not sure why the Texas attack? By the way, I was a reporter for the Miles City Star for about 6 years while I was in HS and college at Montana State. I think some of you may be very isolated from what is happening across the nation. You may consider yourselves blessed, but there is a serious discontent across the nation with Obama.

You are in Texas, one of the reddest of red states, lecturing us on being "isolated". That is rich.

I just happen to think Texas has more than its share of idiots. Texas has many fine qualities....great cities, great food, industry, etc. But damn! You sure elect some real geniuses. Ever hear of Rick Perry?

Why did Maryann change her name? Is this some sort of Teabilly rite of passage?

I think some of you may be very isolated from what is happening across the nation. You may consider yourselves blessed, but there is a serious discontent across the nation with Obama.

That is very true, but luckily for the country, old white fearful people are getting older and slowly dying off. It's just a matter of time before the electorate rejects the policies of fear and the cynical manipulation of the dumber masses by the ultra-rich, and restores America to its path of greatness.

You guys should listen to this interview with Green Party presidential candidate Dr. Jill Stein. She brings up many of the points that contribute to my amazement that so-called liberals continue to support Obama.

http://llnw.libsyn.com/p/...00d10ed7f1

Oh and Gunnar, I usually enjoy your posts but that is the silliest nonsense I have heard in a while.

[This message has been edited by Levi Forman (8/4/2012)]

But when the alternative is Romney, who else is there to support? The Green Party? We are not a parliamentary system to that is a wasted vote.

Another reason to vote for President Obama....he's a Philadelphia Eagles fan!

That must stop. Vick knows it, the Eagles know it and the club's fans know it. Geez, even the President of the United States knows it, with Barack Obama this summer imploring Philadelphia cornerback Nnamdi Asomugha "to tell Vick to slide."

http://www.cbssports.com/...te-in-2012

We are not a parliamentary system to that is a wasted vote.

Levi refuses to acknowledge this fact.

I know that if I vote for Jill Stein she will not be elected. I also know that if people like you all resign yourself to voting Democrat even if the candidate does not represent your views, or in the case of Obama, campaigned on your views but was clearly lying, nothing will ever change.

And no, I don't think that you or anyone else should vote for Romney.

The problem is, a vote for Ralph Nader or Jill Stein (whoever she is) is a vote for Romney in that it is one less vote for Obama. I think the change has to start at the local/state level. It is 100 years since the Bull Moose did not put Teddy R back in office. Didn't work in a smaller population. Won't work now.

You know all you people who think that voting for Obama is the wise thing to do, you are pure crazy as hell. Myself being a life long military retired person and also disabled vet can tell you that the majority of the entire military does not care for Obama and trust me. When the military supports the other canidate then that is who the majority of the population needs to be voting for. Romney has the expierence to get the economic problems turned around. He has done this before, and Obama has had a chance. Folks I worked in and around the nations political system a lot and in Washington DC and I can assure you that 99 percent of what the media tells is slanted toward who they wish to be elected. Keep in mind most media outlets are owned by Democrats, so therefore they control the slant of news. Don't kid yourself, dont be ignorant and DO NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA. I can't stress enough he is not the one we need to be leading our country.

So vote for Romney???

The problem is, a vote for Ralph Nader or Jill Stein (whoever she is) is a vote for Romney in that it is one less vote for Obama. I think the change has to start at the local/state level. It is 100 years since the Bull Moose did not put Teddy R back in office. Didn't work in a smaller population. Won't work now.

It won't work as long as people can still be convinced that they need to compromise to save us from the evil (insert party name here). Personally, I don't care at all which of the two shills gets elected. On the issues I care about most they are exactly the same, and they are +/- 10% on most others. Do you honestly believe that things will be drastically different based on whether Romney or Obama is elected?

When the military supports the other canidate then that is who the majority of the population needs to be voting for.

Damn straight! What we need now is a military junta!

Obama has a proven record to run on, or away from, has admitted himself that he doesn't deserve reelection if the economy remains stagnant, he should step aside and let someone with leadership skills, someone with an understanding of economics and capitalism, someone who will establish an energy policy once and for all to obtain our independence as a North American continent, if that includes green energy fine, if it doesn't fine, the marketplace should dictate. The American people should study Europe, if that entitlement society with all it's turmoil and impending debt is what you want, vote Obama, he is taking us down the same path. Europe presently is looking to us to back them, if we follow Obama who is going to back us?

The business of running a company for a profit and correcting the economy of a government are not the same thing. In business, you outsource, you fire people, you care about the money and nothing else. Government serves a different function.

We don't expect the military to return a profit. If we did, then we would be hiring cheap Chinese mercenaries to rob banks.

Romney was a draft dodger. None of his five healthy sons ever served in the military. Why should you expect him to be all gung-ho on the military, besides his desire to profit off the military-industrial complex?

If we run the government for a profit, we can all kiss our country good-bye because selling out to the Chinese is the profitable thing to do.

I know that if I vote for Jill Stein she will not be elected. I also know that if people like you all resign yourself to voting Democrat even if the candidate does not represent your views, or in the case of Obama, campaigned on your views but was clearly lying, nothing will ever change.

I agree with you, Levi. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is insanity.

I am not sure what Amorette specifically means when she uses the terminology "parliamentary system". I suspect this is some sort of direct vote system. While there are numerous problems with the electoral college, it does ensure that presidential candidates at least come to our area once in a while.

Under a direct vote system, presidential candidates would never get west of De Moines except to go to California. There simply aren't enough people here to make a difference and thus worthwhile to visit. And candidates like Brian Schweitzer won't likely fair very well with the east coast voter.

Government impacts our lives locally mostly through agricultural, land, and environmental policy. If presidential candidates don't come to visit, they won't have any understanding of our issues. Over time we will become more and more disenfranchised. Not a good situation.

I am not sure what the answer is, but I am very skeptical of a direct vote system.

By constantly running our government at a loss we are in fact selling out to the Chinese bit by bit, politicians hope we won't figure it out or don't care if we pass that on to our kids, much like we allowed them to raid the Social Security fund. We need a leader that will hold both parties accountable and run this government like a business, be willing to make the tough decisions, not someone like Obama who uses class warfare to try to devide and conquer and further his agenda of wealth redistribution. Wealth redistribution should be allowed to happen naturally in the marketplace, not forcibly by the hand of government.

The notion of running the government like a business, when it is NOT a business, is absurd.

Never said government was a business, but it must be run efficiently and in a cost effective manner so that it doesn't stifle the private sector or indebt itself beyond recovery, absurd Richard is the way it's being run now.

Never said government was a business, but it must be run efficiently and in a cost effective manner so that it doesn't stifle the private sector or indebt itself beyond recovery, absurd Richard is the way it's being run now.

Well, I agree. Spending 54% of our budget on the military is absurd.

I agree.

Mr. Romney has announced his plans to increase military spending while cutting taxes. How, exactly, has not been spelled out.

I wanted to like Obama. I hoped he would be all he promised. Today I am disillusioned and cynical. We've waited almost 4 years for Obama to prove he is the man we thought we elected, the recipient of a Nobel Peace Prize who would set things right.

Well, I'll give Obama another 2 months to convince me his promises were genuine and my support was not betrayed by a poser. Frankly I don't expect much, but I've waited this long, I might as well give him the rest of the rope.

Okeee. find a comfortable armchair. I've got 4 years worth of points and gripes to cover. It should prove to be worth the read.

Why as a Democrat Obama is not working
As a Democrat, I look at the future and see Obama running for re-election. Regarding the president's re-election campaign, I'm not excited; nor am I particularly happy. Sometimes I wonder what happened to the man who promised Democrats he would make sweeping changes to address problems and steer America in a new direction away from the failed policies of the past.

I look at America and see Guantanamo still open. I see America involved in more wars than president Bush started. I remember a candidate who promised to close Guantanamo and end the wars. I see vacant buildings and storefronts on the Main Streets of America and remember that conservative economic policies and lax regulation of our banking and investment sectors helped contribute to the economic downfall of 2008.

Tax cuts on Obama for the record
I remember strident conservative arguments that tax cuts for the wealthy create jobs for Americans. Over the 8 years of Bush's presidency, those "tax-cut jobs" never materialized and millions of good-paying US manufacturing jobs were lost as Wall Street invested it`s wealth in cheap foreign manufacturing. I think about Obama and I wonder why he has allowed the Bush tax cuts to remain in effect.

In hindsight, I realize that Obama has not pursued the promises he made to progressive democrats with any discernible degree of enthusiasm, and I wonder why that is.

Obama and his record on foriegn wars and the Nobel Peace Prize
I look at the world and see wide-spread social and political unrest spreading across many states of the mid east. This unrest has spawned conflict that President Obama has openly encouraged and in some cases directly supported with funding and military operations. Obama took advantage of America's desire to end it's involvement in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but has effectively doubled the number of wars we are involved in. The governments of several mid east countries, including Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya have collapsed and been replaced, while Obama continues to act against the governments of Syria and Iran.

Obama claims his decision to use direct military force in Libya was intended to protect civilians. That tired old argument helped get us into the Vietnam War. You would think if Obama was going to lie, he could be more creative than that. Obviously he couldn't re-use Bush's dishonest claim about WMD (in Iraq), since Libya agreed to give those up a decade ago.

Regarding those "civilians" Obama spoke of protecting, I remember TV video footage from Libya of men driving pickup trucks with giant machine guns mounted in the back. I remember seeing men brandishing AK-47s and RPGs. Such men would have been deemed battlefield combatants and mercenaries if they were fighting us in Iraq and Afghanistan, but since they were fighting Gaddafi in Libya, they are "civilians". This is intellectually dishonest. It angers me to think President Obama believes the public can be fooled and manipulated so easily.

Americans have no idea how much involvement the CIA may have had in these countries, although the developments seem unlikely to have come about by pure coincidence, and more likely to be the result of careful planning and coordination. Like Iraq, none of these countries have attacked us. Remember when Bush said "Saddam must go, he must leave Iraq"? Obama said the same thing about Gaddafi in Libya. It was a Freudian slip. Now he's saying the same thing about Assad in Syria. It's unbelievable. Does he think we are blind, or just stupid?

Regarding Libya, Obama has argued that the war powers act does not apply to him because we were not involved in "hostilities" as the legal term was intended to be used. The bottom line is Obama involved the US military in operations that were killing people in a foreign country that did not attack us, and he did so without the constitutional approval of Congress. In addition to this, Obama presides over a CIA drone program that targets and bombs groups deemed unfriendly in Pakistan and Yemen. Each of these individual acts tie together like a row of dominos leading ultimately to military action against Iran. Taken together, this strategic agenda seems to follow Dick Cheney's plan for the mid east more closely than it reflects the will of the democratic base that elected Obama.

Is this what his Nobel Peace Prize was for? War and mass murder for OIL and for Israel? I'm sure of one thing: We didn't vote for this.

Again, we dit not vote for this

Obama is not progressive
Many progressives have asked themselves where the change went. This man who rode a popular wave of change to the White House has applied that mantra of change almost entirely to Arab countries in the middle east, while little to nothing substantial has happened at home. Obama promised he would force a resolution of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, but after 2 years he has not even gotten Israel to honor the obligations of it's previous peace agreements.

Israel and Washington
In particular, the Road Map Agreement signed under GW Bush requires Israel to Stop all Settlement construction activity. This was Israel's obligation under Phase 1 of the Road Map. Phase 2 would commence direct negotiations between the two parties for core issues and final status.

Obama's insistence that the Palestinians go to direct negotiations with Israel without a complete stop of Settlement construction CONTRAVENES the Road Map Agreement that he pledged to honor and uphold when he was sworn into office. Worse, Obama used his veto in the UN Security Council to protect Israel's Settlement construction from a resolution that might have stopped it so that legitimate peace negotiations could proceed as per Road Map stipulations.

Lastly, Obama has used the US leadership position in the Quartet to cripple it and prevent advancement of the agenda for peace it was formed to pursue.

More evidence that Obama isn't a democrat: He said he would end the war in Iraq. He didn't, although he had 2 years to do so. Finally the government of Iraq threw us out when the "Status of forces" agreement expired, and now Obama wants to claim credit for ending the war. He didn't end that war, it literally expired. Guantanamo is still open. Obama promised to close it. We all know that Obama promised to end the Bush tax cuts, but they are still in effect almost 4 years after Obama took office on a promise to end those tax cuts.

Barack and national policy
Obama also slow-walked DADT (don't ask, don't tell) for more than 2 years. He appealed a court verdict on a civil case brought by the Log Cabin Republicans that over-turned DADT as unconstitutional, warning of "significant and immediate harms on the government" if enforcement of DADT were ended.

And Obamacare you say? What about the health care reform legislation? Obama removed the public option from that bill. The rest is a recycled Republican plan originally proposed by a group of 20 republicans, including Orrin Hatch, Charles Grassley, Robert Bennett, and Christopher Bond.

More than anything else, political arguments related to Obamacare have been used as a distraction to divert our attention from what Obama is doing in the mid east, his failure to close Guantanamo, and his failure to investigate allegations that POWs and war detainees were tortured.

Obama seems to operate on the premise that Democrats have no choice but to re-elect him because the other guys, the Republicans, are worse. Well. I've got to tell you I'm not ready to re-elect Obama without a careful analysis of what he promised to do and what he has actually accomplished for the party that sent him. From my perspective, that analysis does not produce a favorable result.

We voted for a man who would end the wars, close Guantanamo, investigate allegations of torture, repair the economy, create jobs, reign in the un-regulated and immoral behavior of Wall Street, protect the middle class from job losses and mortgage foreclosures, and adjust our income tax system to better address the incomes of the wealthy that completely outstrip the current tax table brackets.

We got none of that.

Economics of bailouts
After generously bailing out the banks, Goldman Sachs and Wall Street, and big corporations including General Motors and AIG, and after extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, Obama has done almost nothing for working class Americans who can't find jobs and are losing their homes to foreclosure. In fact, if you look at the net results of the first 2 years of Obama's administration, what you actually see looks a whole lot like George W. Bush's third term.

Obama's political tactics
Let's be honest: We need an aggressive leader in the White House for the political war that is consuming this nation. We need someone who knows how to take the fight to the opposition, someone who is willing to fight fire with fire. We DO NOT need a Compromiser in Chief, and frankly we are sick of Obama's polite exasperation when it comes to the tactics of conservatives who oppose our interests.

Instead of leading, Obama has consistently offered to compromise by taking the middle ground. Unfortunately, the political "middle ground" is utterly worthless as a descriptive term because conservatives have taken the middle ground and moved it several miles to the right. The middle ground is no longer in the center of the political spectrum. Obama has done nothing to take that middle ground and move it back to the place it used to be. Thus when he compromises, they move the middle further to the right, he compromises again, they move it again.

When that happens, we lose.

Aside from that, the lack of presidential words of leadership from Obama on issues like the right-wing attacks against Acorn, Planned Parenthood, women's reproductive rights, worker's rights, public radio, union rights and collective bargaining, and new voter-ID laws that oppress or prevent hundreds of thousands of legitimate minority votes are unforgivable. Obama has sat quietly as Republican governors in several states attempted to destroy some of the most prominent political organizing arms of progressive democrats.

Are you up for a sports analogy?

Regarding the economy, employment, banks, and Wall Street, Obama has operated like the ineffective coach of an arrogant football team that does not like him or his policies. This football team has become accustomed to making their own rules and serving their own corrupt interests, including fixing and betting on games for profit. They have no intention of allowing the coach to end their little party. To be rid of the coach and his progressive policies, once and for all, the team has chosen to intentionally lose until the coach gets fired.

Think about that for a moment. What can the coach do? How far is he willing to go to assert the authority of his office and regain control of the situation?

In order to overcome this situation and be effective, the coach needs to walk out onto the field and shoot a couple of those players. Right there, under the lights, in front of the crowd. An example needs to be made of real consequences for disrespect of the coach and his position of authority. Otherwise, these "football players", who are over-paid, arrogant, self-centered, and in many cases corrupt, will forget that they play to defend their home field, their school, and the honor of the men who came before them, and they will continue to place greed and personal profit ahead of fidelity and patriotism.

In my example above the football team is a metaphor for Wall Street and the corporate establishment. I'm sure some would ask me just how this "football team" has chosen to lose. Easy answer. Failing to produce American jobs while allowing more and more American worker's homes to fall into foreclosure puts pressure on the middle class, who the "team" hopes will ultimately fire the coach. That's Obama. These groups, including the US Chamber Of Commerce and dozens of corporate-funded PACs, have gone out of their way and spent millions of dollars to destroy Obama and the reforms that a majority of American voters supported.

We can not allow that.

We need a real leader
For all of this, Barak Obama, the man we elected to lead us, has sat quietly, never raising his voice, never shouting, never using visual aids, charts, or graphs, never pounding the podium, never behaving as an angry leader. Working class Americans are angry. Many are calling for blood to run in the streets. And Obama? You'd think he was up there getting a political enema. So why isn't he as angry as the democrats who sent him? Is he secretly working for the other side? Was he sent to betray us and gently compromise away all of our hopes and dreams? At this point, that's almost the only thing that makes sense out of what he has done.

It seems to me that Obama's real agenda for the 2008 election was to eliminate Hillary Clinton in the primary, get elected by hitting the "demographic sweet-spot" as a black democrat who was opposed to the wars, then accomplish little to nothing for democrats, compromise at every opportunity with Republicans, complete Dick Cheney's unfinished agenda of regime change for every Arab state in the mid east, prevent any investigation of torture of POWs and war detainees, and basically run out the clock on all the hopes and dreams of Democrats and working class citizens who voted for him.

He is either an ineffective leader who should resign, or he is a poser, an imposter, a fake copy of Martin Luther King who betrayed his own party by secretly working for republican interests to advance a conservative agenda. He is systematically destroying the democratic party from the inside. If he won't resign, he should be impeached by his own party. At least then we would get to see republicans who claim to despise Obama vote to keep him in office.

The sad thing is Republicans win if Obama gets reelected, and they win if he isn't reelected. Right now they are getting practically everything they could have asked for from a third term of the Bush administration. The Bush tax cuts are still in effect. Guantanamo is still open. Allegations of torture were never investigated. The war in Iraq ran its full term. Worse, Obama just signed an agreement committing the USA to roughly 12 more years in Afghanistan.

Washington supports illegal foreign policy in the Middle East and involvement in foreign wars
Finally, Obama has done more to protect Israel's illegal Settlement construction than George Bush ever did. Bush insisted in the Road Map agreement that Israel must stop all Settlement construction before negotiations begin for final status and core issues. Israel never honored that obligation. Obama has called on the Palestinians to renew negotiations even though Israel has refused to stop Settlement construction. That contravenes the Road Map agreement.

Obama was supposed to enforce the Road Map agreement. Instead, he has used his veto in the UN Security Council to protect illegal Settlement construction from a resolution that might have stopped it so that legitimate negotiations could proceed as per Road Map stipulations. This is an outrage for progressive democrats, but if you're a republican, what's not to like?

Does anyone wonder why Donald Trump trots out the birther story whenever Obama's poll numbers show support from his base is low? This is how Obama manipulates his base to shore up support from a group whose interests he has largely dismissed and betrayed. Can't let those lying birthers win, suckah.

The same goes for a complete lack of Republican campaign advertisements calling out Obama for failing to uphold his campaign promise to end US involvement in foreign conflicts. The evidence is on video tape. Obama was very clear as a candidate. He said he would bring change, that he would end US involvement in wars and foreign conflicts. He even won a Nobel Peace Prize for this promise. We assumed that meant in his first 100 days. Failing that, then surely in his first 2 years, right? Well, here we are 4 years later, with secret wars in Pakistan, Yemen, and Syria. Obama also ordered direct US military involvement in Libya to topple Gaddafi, and he just signed an agreement to keep US forces in Afghanistan for another 12 years.

Worst of all, Obama has demonstrated a desire to support regime change in Iran. This includes an implicit threat ("all options are on the table") to attack Iran over the issue of Uranium enrichment. So what happened to ending US involvement in foreign conflicts? Republicans have a giant opportunity to rub this lie in his face, but they have passed. Ask yourself why they would do that. The answer is they don't want to draw attention to Obama's ongoing work to complete Bush and Cheney's unfinished agenda of regime change for every Arab state in the mid east.

Instead we get political theatre on Obamacare, class warfare, and tax cuts for the wealthy. It's like the establishment is saying ~"Hey, no, no, don't look at that, look over here: Let's argue about health care and taxes! Let's question Obama's citizenship and investigate his fake birth certificate!" Folks, we are being played for suckers.

Allow me to tell you what keeps me up at night. I wonder if you ever paused to consider the possibility even the most remote possibility that some part of what I allege might actually be true?

Let's evaluate whether it is possible that such a thing could actually happen, that a "Manchurian candidate" could be foisted on the electorate in the current state of our system of government. For instance, is there anything that prevents one party from running their own people as sleeper candidates on the ticket of another party? No. In fact, recent news reports confirm that Republicans have gotten several "double agent" candidates on the ballot as democrats in the recall election of Wisconsin governor Scott Walker, and there's no reason to think this is a unique case.

Republicans like to talk about voter fraud to justify their "photo-ID" laws passed recently in many republican-controlled states. They claim these laws will prevent a problem that is pervasive in our political system, that one voter could pose as another to fraudulently cast more than one vote to help a candidate get elected. Oddly the statistics do not back up their concerns. In Georgia, there has not been a single conviction on a charge of voter fraud in the last 14 years, yet republicans claim this fraud is so significant it could affect the result of our elections.

Let's analyze that assertion about the election and how it is won

According to the 2010 census, Georgia has a population of 9,687,653, of which approximately 6,907,296 are of voting age. According to the state of Georgia, 5,804,812 of these people are registered to vote. Of those, let's assume 47 percent actually participate in an election by voting. That percentage would be 2,728,261 voters. Given that number, to affect the total vote count by just one half of a percent, the number of fraudulent votes cast in a single state-wide election would have to be 13,641.

Of course, elections can be lots closer than that. In the 2000 election, after the US Supreme Court stopped the Florida recount, George W. Bush won the state by 537 votes. Still, 537 votes is a mighty big number if you live in a state where there hasn't been a single conviction of voter fraud in the last 14 years.

Of course, voter ID laws do have an effect on elections. Everyone knows they tend to reduce the number of legitimate ballots cast from demographic groups that are likely to vote democratic like minorities, the poor, and the elderly. This is what the law actually does, but Republicans insist it makes elections more secure. On the other hand, it is apparently not a crime for republicans to fraudulently place one of their own operatives on the democratic ballot to pose as a Democrat during a primary election.

There was a case in South Carolina in which Alvin Greene, the surprise winner of the democratic primary for senate, refused a request by state party leaders to withdraw from the race after court records were revealed which indicate he was arrested for allegedly showing obscene photos to a college student. More telling, Greene, a 32-year-old unemployed veteran, couldn't explain where he got the money ($10,400) required to file with the state and qualify himself to be on the ballot.

State Democratic party officials said as far as they knew he had done no campaigning, had not attended any local democratic events, had not responded to invitations to local stump meetings, and they had no idea how he won. Greene later told Fox News he had no staffers and ran the campaign entirely on his own.

Questioning from reporters indicated Greene was ill-prepared regarding experience and knowledge of issues. Greene was completely unaware of the biggest political issue of the day, new federal legislation frequently referred to by it's acronym "TARP" the Troubled Asset Relief Program, better known as the Wall Street bail out.

Not coincidentally, Greene's competition for that senate seat was republican Jim DeMint. Most pundits decided Greene was paid by conservative political agents to run and was elected in the open democratic primary with crossover votes. The consensus was republicans feared some democrats might be swept into office that year on Obama's "coat-tails", particularly in states with large percentages of black constituents likely to vote democratic. South Carolina would be one of these cases, and if a qualified candidate were nominated on the democratic ballot, DeMint could lose his seat. The solution was to eliminate the possibility that a qualified democratic candidate might be nominated by electing a sleeper candidate with crossover votes in the open primary.

So clearly this kind of thing happens with some regularity, even though it should never happen. And it could very well have happened in the democratic primary for the top political office of the United States. Remember that Alvin Greene had no prior political experience. Likewise, Obama's prior federal experience (2 years in the US Senate) was uncharacteristically short for any legitimate candidate to the office.

Once that primary hurdle was cleared, the rest would be easy. The political winds and public disenchantment with the wars were making it more likely that a republican candidate would lose, so the alternative would win. All that was necessary was to *be* that alternative.

This was already accomplished in the primary, when the following series of events gave Obama a sufficient number of delegates to capture the democratic nomination.

(A) Significant numbers of crossover votes helped Obama win the democratic ballot in open primary states, and

(B) caucus states unexpectedly went for Obama when polls indicated Clinton was leading, and

(C) political sabotage resulted in the primaries of Michigan and Florida being "nullified", which affected voter turnout as well as ultimately allowing the two states to realize only half their normal number of delegate votes at the democratic convention. This damaged Obama's rival Hillary Clinton. And

(D) a deluge of unexpected switched votes from super-delegates who switched from Clinton to Obama at the very last-minute.

Here's more background regarding the political sabotage alleged in (C) above:
In August 2006, the Democratic National Committee adopted a proposal by its Rules and Bylaws Committee that only four states - Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina - would be permitted to hold primaries or caucuses before Super Tuesday, February 5, 2008.

In the Spring of 2007, the Florida Legislature (controlled by Republicans in both chambers), passed House Bill 537 which moved the date of the state's Republican and Democratic primaries to January 29, a week before the earliest permitted date of either party. The Florida Democratic Party tried to amend the legislation and make the date February 5; however, the Republican-controlled legislature refused. Thus the Florida republican party, in control of both the state senate and house, intentionally moved the date of the Florida primary election so that it was too early to be counted in the democratic primary. They knew that Obama's competition Hillary Clinton would win Florida, therefore they fixed things so that the Florida vote was nullified.

And what of Michigan? The Michigan Legislature passed a similar bill to move the date of the state's presidential primaries to January 15. Just as in Florida, the move-up bill originated in a Republican-controlled State Senate and passed by a 21-17 straight party-line vote with every Democrat casting a "no" vote. Again, Obama's competition Hillary Clinton was projected to win the Michigan primary, and in fact she did. This vote was also nullified.

This is solid evidence that republicans wanted Obama to win and engaged in unethical political actions to sabotage his competition in at least two states. In hindsight, we now have a better understanding of why they did this.

So is there any legal recourse for constituents if a candidate, once elected, breaks practically every promise he made to them, and in fact does in practice the exact opposite of what he promised to do? Well. there's impeachment, but that would require a majority in the Congress to vote for impeachment, and after trial, a majority comprising at least two thirds of the Senate (67 votes) must vote to convict.

In Congress, Republicans have enough seats to block any vote for impeachment, and in the Senate they would not vote for a conviction. There are several reasons for this. The first reason is a universal political truth that if party "A" has a problem that hinders it's popularity, party "B" is not likely to help party "A" rid itself of that problem. Thus if Obama is hurting the long-term health of the democratic party, republicans are not going to help democrats remove Obama from office. The second reason relies on my personal conviction that Obama is directly aiding republicans in their implementation of a conservative agenda. If Obama is their "man on the inside", they can't help democrats throw him out while he remains pivotal to their larger agenda. Maybe after that, but not during.

So impeachment is out as an option. What does that leave? Nothing. Sorry, you're screwed. At least until he comes up for reelection. So when that happens. are you then going to swallow his hollow argument that no matter how disappointed and betrayed you may feel, you certainly don't want those other guys the Republicans- to have the White House? -Are you going to fall for that fear-based argument?

Consider how far to the right the Republican party has had to steer itself in order to keep some daylight between themselves and Obama. That alone should tell you something. Obama has become so conservative in practice that republicans have had to redefine themselves with insane positions on the crazy fringe of the right so that voters can differentiate between the two sides. We didn't vote for that.

We didn't vote to waste our biggest chance in years to make the changes Obama talked about when he was a candidate. Sadly, that is what has happened. As a leader, Obama has presided over the biggest disappointment this party has ever seen in terms of what could have been and what actually is. In fact, I'm convinced he is secretly working for republicans to complete the unfinished agenda of the last administration. For example, Obama has done more to topple the governments of Arab states in the region surrounding Israel than he has done to help middle class American families facing foreclosure and loss of their homes. We didn't vote for that either.

Do we have to repeat history with the 2012 Presidental election
Lets get to the bottom of these questions in order to determine if we elected a Democrat, or just a lying Republican poser who fooled us into throwing away our future. Change? These days that's a bitter word to me, a cruel joke. It describes more what was done to us than what was done for us.

Obama has intentionally lied to the American public. For me that one thing is unforgivable, regardless of whatever the alternative may be. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against Obama because he's black or because some idiot questioned his nationality. Far from it. I'm against Obama because I think he's red. Obama has kept more of George Bush's campaign promises than he has kept of his own. I didn't vote for that, and I sure as Hell won't vote for it a second time.

To paraphrase an infamous Buddhism, fool me once, shame on you, We won't get fooled again.


http://political-economy.com/obama-2012/?replytocom=13445#respond

The alternative to a non Democrat in the White House is unthinkable due to the Supreme Court appointments which will come due during that term...Therefore I will vote for Obama....

Do you honestly believe that things will be drastically different based on whether Romney or Obama is elected?

Yes, partly for the reasons howdy articulated above, and partly because I'm willing to take the half (or even the quarter) loaf I can get from Obama and the Democrats instead of the smoking ruin promised to me by Romney and the Republicans.

Only SOME of the Democrats are dedicated to creating the second Gilded Age in America - ALL of the Republicans are, and that doesn't even begin to delve into the other areas of crackpottery that current conservative thought believes in.

Global warming is a hoax!!! Obama is a kenyan!! Eisenhower was a socialist!! MOAR ARSNIC IN OWR WATTRRR!!! NEW BLACK PANTHERS STOLE THE ELECTION!!! and it goes on and on.

If you're going to vote, vote for sanity and the possibility of calm, reality based governance. There are issues on the table that can't be ignored forever - do you honestly think that the nihilists in tricorn hats are the ones who will have useful solutions?

I am astonished at the length of several of these postings.

Earlier, Bridgier, you wondered why I changed my name? My full legal name(if I include everything) is Maryann Louise Mahoney Siegmyer McDaniel and it has changed through the years because of two marriages. I changed it on the forum at one point because of job changes. I am a 1966 honors grad of CCHS and proud Bobcat (1970).I have continued close connections to Miles City and Montana. I do not feel obligated to explain to you what those might be. My friends, relatives, and Montana colleagues know.

Some idiot on NPR this morning said he was going to register to vote so he could vote against Obama because Rush Limbaugh told him that Obama and his wife hated all white people. Like the grandparents who raised Obama, for instance.

The Electoral College was created so that an educated elite (white, male and property owning back in the day) picked senators and the president, not the uneducated masses. After listening to that, I can see where the idea came from.

The only reason I wondered Dr. Mac, is that your triumphant return to mc.com under your new name was a large stew of teabilly ranting.

I agree with Bridgier.

Ignorant teabilly ranting does not befit a person who holds a doctorate.

Umm... not even if you are the "Doctor of Democracy"?

Maybe if you are a Doctor of Tea.

If memory serves me, Rush Limblab refers to himself as the "Dr. of Democracy". Thus, the question.

I think we can safely identify mc.com posters as a total bunch of quitters. I, on the other hand, am growing out my eyebrows and voting for the most amusing fringe candidate. I hope it doesn't get violent when the ghost of Bob Kelleher rises from the grave to lead the next revolution.

I thought you were going to say Lyndon LaRouche.

This is a good time to point out that in the 2008 election, I voted for Bob Kelleher. As well as Denny Rehberg, and Derek Brown (a Helena City Commissioner).

That's right....old liberal socialist me, I voted for 3 Republicans in 2008.

I won't make that mistake again, now that the GOP has veered dangerously toward fascism.

I will be voting for President Obama AGAIN, and I urge every think person who reads this to do the same.

(To the non-thinkers, I'm not trying to reach out to you, so please move on).

Another reason to vote for President Obama: HE DRINKS BEER! He is the first president in modern times (probably since the Founding Fathers) to brew beer.

Mitt? He's a Mormon. No beer, no fun, just help the rich get richer at the expense of the working Americans.

The choice is pretty clear.

Good news, America! In three separate polls by CNN, Fox, and Reuters, President Obama leads Romney by 7 percentage points or more.

We have to take America back from the Tea Party extremists.

no truer words spoken Gunnar...America, if you want good things for the middle class, do not vote for Mittens...

http://www.huffingtonpost...lp00000009

[This message has been edited by howdy (8/10/2012)]

We interrupt this important Olympic broadcast of adults on children's bicycles to bring you this important news: Mitt Romney has selected a running mate.

Paul Ryan is beyond belief...Mittens has turned into a puppet for the ultra rightwing conservative who wants to do away with medicare and give more massive tax cuts to the wealthy while piling it all on the middle class...if this pair wins, America is doomed IMO...

Mittens declared Ryan the "intellectual leader of the republican party".

Paul Ryan is the "intellect" only in comparison to Sarah Palin. Other than that he is a radical, misguided Catholic on a crusade to vanquish the middle class in America.

If you want to talk about responsibility, start talking about Obama being responsible for economy being in the tank and getting progressively worse.

I watched Jon Stewart this morning and he showed a great Pie Chart with President Obama's inherited debt...and, ironically, all had been voted on by Mr. Ryan...who now states that he is going to solve the problem. Gets more interesting every day. Although, if you have been following the time from 2000 on, you know what happened.

One day I hope all of us realize the party leaders and the media love the fact we are so opposed to the others views. It is what makes them all money and gets them elected. Had lunch with a guy, we all know, the other day, never talked politics at all, what an amazing guy. Wow, who would have thought a crazy liberal and an idiot conservative could get along. Have a great day folks.

Obama is a bumb and that's all he worth saying about that

Would you care to elaborate upon that Chris? What, precisely, is it that makes him a bum in your eyes?

What is a 'bumb?' That's what I want to know.

GODDAMNIT AMORETTE YOU'RE GOING TO SCARE HIM OFF.

Amorette you gawdam liberal elitist snob!

Just got my absentee ballots in the mail for hubby and I....don't have to brave the weather and long lines this year...HOORAY...

Good for you, Howdy....be thankful that you do not live in a GOP-controlled Fascist state where, before you get to vote, the election officials ask:

Re-elect President Obama.................Not if I was his MAMA!

Lest we all forget...like him or not, when Bill Clinton left office, we had a balanced budget and a SURPLUS instead of a DEFICIT. Although a President can do little by himself, it takes Congress to pass laws and approve budgets, after 16 years of Bushes we had a 10 trillion dollar DEFICIT that was requested by the President`s and approved by Congress.
I think maybe we should give equal time to both parties and see where we are in 4 more years. We will either be farther in debt or maybe we could start digging out of the hole the President`s and our elected Senators and Representatives dug for us middle class voters.

The refrain we heard ad nauseum during the RNC - from Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Ed Gillespie, and from Mitt Romney, etc. - is how "divisive" Barack Obama has been during this term. Really? It's difficult to imagine a more acute case of "projection" imposed upon the national psyche by angry white males than this fantasy.

President Obama was elected by an electoral vote of 349 to 173 and a popular majority of 52%. Despite that mandate, he extended an amiable bipartisan spirit to Congress on each and every major initiative proposed to Congress by the White House. Ditto for Cabinet nominees and judicial appointments.

If a more perfect union was the main objective of the Republican party, all that was necessary was for Congress to support the president in our moment of economic crisis as he solicited its assistance in stitching together our frayed national fabric. That crisis required health care reform as health insurance premiums had become a cost-driving albatross around the neck of this country's GDP.

But that's not what happened, is it? Instead, on October 27, 2010, the eve of mid-term elections, we heard Senator McConnell (R-Ky) utter what would become the established condition of unity for the GOP when he said, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." It's now the GOP's mantra, no matter how many lies it needs to tell the electorate to justify its end.

If Republicans are sincerely interested in finding the source of their own fabricated "divisiveness", they need look no further than their own flawed leadership.

Re-elect President Obama.

Lest we all forget...like him or not, when Bill Clinton left office, we had a balanced budget and a SURPLUS instead of a DEFICIT.

This had little or nothing to do with Bill Clinton. The reason for the surplus was a huge increase in revenues due to the stock markets going nuts and people paying ridiculous amounts for stock in useless internet companies with no business model. When the tech bubble burst, so did the surplus.

That's not to say that Bush and Obama and their respective congresses haven't spent money at a totally unprecedented rate however.

Levi,

Who created the Tech Bubble?

Three words Joe...
Obama Derangement Syndrome

Actually, mufsy, Joe pretty summed it up as far as the current state of the nation.

You, on the other hand, are a troll and a coward who refuses to post under his own name.

Let alone think for your self and formulate your own opinions.

I do feel sorry for your ilk.

Thanks Gunnar, yeah we are excited too about voting absentee this year...I just hope that their plans for voter suppression all over this nation is shut down...Just read that Ohio got shut down by a fed judge who said it was unconstitutional and it is...Pa, however, got away with it so far...

Texas just got overturned as well....Hooray!!!

[This message has been edited by howdy (8/31/2012)]

Gunnar, I think that maybe Mufasa's post was fairly sympathetic in that those crying about Obama being divisive are the deranged ones. I could be wrong. Thanks for the support, though.

I was trying to say in a shorthand way what Joe said so rightly and eloquently. When I wrote it, I was thinking "The Graduate" and plastics.

http://soundcloud.com/mik...t-syndrome

[This message has been edited by Mufasa (9/1/2012)]

Who created the Tech Bubble?

Not exactly sure what you mean by that, but it was irrational exuberance on the part of venture capitalists and investors. When I got out of college in 1998 and set up my first 401k there was a whole list of tech heavy mutual funds to choose from that paid like 15-18% interest and everybody I knew was trading stocks online. Unfortunately for me I got in at the peak and it didn't last long after that.

Joe...You certainly have a wonderful way of saying it like it is and, I hope you don't mind that I "swiped" your words...still with your name...and, shared them with a couple of friends who do not read the "good stuff" on milescity.com. Thank you.

I think that anyone who took the time to post on this thread, prObama or cObama, is an extremist radical wacko.

ACK!! It becomes me! The HORROR!!

FH

The only mention of infrastructure on Mitt Romney's web site is of his support for the privately-owned Keystone XL pipeline. He has nothing at all to say about public infrastructure. Nothing.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, proposed that National Infrastructure Bank that had the support of both the U.S Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO. Congressional Republicans oppose the idea.