The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

You would think the President coming to Oklahoma would be a good thing. He was here working, specifically talking about energy policies, something you think that Oklahomans would want him to focus on. He didn't just fly in and do a press conference at the OKC airport, but went to a small town and spent the night. Even though not a single county in the state voted for him in his election, it was great that he came here to talk about an important topic and his visit would have to be a good thing for Oklahoma. You would think.

Oh no.

Every bit of his trip was criticized by you people. The cost of his trip was headlines in the Tulsa World. The comments added online to the story made me ashamed to live here. As much as I like the reporter who wrote the story, the very fact that they ran this story assures me that they often forget they are journalists. They become evangelists telling their audience what they figure the majority of them want to believe. The headline said the trip costs taxpayers 1.7 million dollars. Yes. $1.7 million is real money for a one day trip. But when we compare spending 720 million dollars a day on an eight year war in Iraq, it seems like a bargain. By the way, the cost in the story was calculated on what it costs to fuel the big plane.

You know the big plane known as Air Force one. It is a mobile office that the President travels in. Including the other Presidents like the one before him. I don't question the price used to move the plane. What I do question is why it was a headline this time. He does travel in it often. President Bush before him took the plane to Texas for vacation 77 times in his eight years as President (yes, Bush took an average of ten Texas vacations a year). I never remember a single story about any of those trips. I guess traveling to Crawford must just be cheaper or less headline worthy than traveling to Cushing.

It wasn't just the Tulsa World. KRMG followed every sound bite of Obama's speech they used with a counterpoint that they called Factcheck. It was always just some nitpicking argument. When Obama said they drilling rig counts were up in the United States, they countered with the point that drilling was down on public land. Who cares besides oil companies what land was drilled? The overall gallons was up. That is like saying that losing weight using an exercise bike doesn't count because you didn't take the bike outside. Production is up, but damn if anyone involved won't blame Obama anyway.
 
President Obama said that he will make sure that regulations won't get in the way of building the new pipeline from Cushing to Texas. He clearly stated that he was going to make sure and cut the red tape. This project will be very good for Oklahoma and having the President say that he is fast-tracking it would be seen as a positive by Oklahoma leaders.

I am wrong.

Does our Governor accept this good news gracefully? Here is her quote, "In this case the president's 'support' means that he will not actively use the federal bureaucracy to sabotage this project as he has so many others. This kind of intermittent 'support' for the industry is not good enough."

Does our congressman applaud the President for changing his mind to agree with him on the importance of this project? Here is his quote, "The American people, suffering under the weight of high gas prices, are sick and tired of political games and photo ops like what the President is doing in Cushing today."

I went to my facebook page. Even though I am probably facebook friends with most of the few liberals in Oklahoma, I know that most of my Oklahoma friends are conservative in their political views. Surely people would not just adamantly bash the President on the day he comes to our home.

Alas, wrong again.

Here are some samples..."I'm glad she (Fallin) is unafraid to tell the clown in chief where to get off.",..."Yes the Commander and Clueless needs to take a walk and continue south until he hits water...and for goodness sakes keep walking.",...and those are from people I consider friends.

The news people around here bash Obama. The elected officials are downright rude to him. Even my friends are talking about the trip as a chance to be mean.

You people really hate Obama. What am I doing living here and trying to make a better world for my kids? The hatred toward Obama will wear me out. I don't know how much longer I can put up with you people.

He could single handedly balance the budget, putting us in the positive, give everyone a good paying job, solve the energy problems for the next century, solve world hunger and bring about global peace, but someone would take the opportunity to say he is a bad person because secrete service escorted him to take the dog to the groomers, but would have also accused him of something if he had sent the dog with a staff member for the grooming.  As they say, haters are gonna hate.

Mike, you arent alone.  Remember that almost a third of the vote went to Obama last time in Oklahoma.  Sometimes redneck politicians are the price you pay for living in such a beautiful place.

This all could have been avoided if we had elected McCain instead of Obama.  The Republicans would have been happy and of course the Democrats and everyone left of the far right are far to civilized to criticize the President.

I would just as soon not have the President visit, Democrat or Republican.  The visit causes the authorities to create Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFRs) over a large area.  They are roughly the equivalent of if the Pres visited Tulsa downtown that no one would be allowed to drive a private vehicle within several miles of downtown. Got a "doctor's" appointment that you made 6 months ago? Too bad, you aren't going to get there.  (I chose "several miles" due to the speed and routing differences between planes and cars.  TFRs are typically a 30 mile radius, about 10 to 15 minutes in the average small plane.)

Yep, saw a lot of that between 2003ish and fall of 2008.  But then Bush deserved it because there could be no legitimate differences of opinion.  Bush was just plain evil and wrong.  The man didn't have a civil bone in his body.  And he was stupid too. He only got about the same grades in college as John Kerry.

Criticism by the populace is one thing, disrespect by elected officials is quite another. Our elected leaders looked bad on this occasion and their comments make the state look bad.

Mike, growing up here was tough enough. Getting educated here was a struggle. But the real education comes from living and working here. Its a different reality. Screw New York, if you can make it HERE for 18 years, you can make it anywhere. I kept thinking that the state would progress rather than regress. Then after reading a lot of its history I realized it hasn't changed. As your eyes are opened with maturity you begin to see the state as it really is and always has been. Then if you have any self respect you simply have to move on. Some people recognize it earlier than others.

At least we didn't make headlines like Dallas did in '63.

yet 77 of 77 counties carried McCain :D

Actually I thank you, I was just the other day wondering what that stat was.

I hope this will be one of the few posts I ever make in political...the less I hang out here, the less I'm gonna pre-judge you all as blithering idiots when I see you out there in the real world.

(https://encrypted-tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSbH0i1LLYb4nYOfTNaBkoTvvSS6ERzal6Sk_0Ke2iu3vA7V1mE)

We'd be served better by politicians who can resist the urge to show up at some disaster, like Clinton did in OKC and Bush did in NYC, because the rescue and recovery efforts have to stop completely in order to accommodate their security needs.  Sure, I understand their need to be seen doing something to help, but in all honesty, when they're on the scene of a disaster, they merely impede the effort.  Bush may have seemed detached as he toured the devastation left by Katrina, but staying in the air was probably for the best.  He can be justifiably criticized for other failings regarding Katrina, but staying out of the immediate area was a good decision.

I seem to recall that the current administration approved more drilling permits than the previous one.  If that's true, why doesn't anyone in the media point it out when some pol claims President Obama is against drilling?  Has spin replaced journalistic integrity?

I usually hear the qualifier about private vs. public lands.  It's easy for the Prez to give me permission to put a pepper garden in my back yard.  When he gives me permission to stake off an area for a pepper garden  on a city golf course, that would be something to talk about.

you have heard of the "pundit primer", have you not?  The RNC sends talking points to FoxNews every morning.  I smile you not.

US oil production on a steep upward rise, and US demand on a decline, but somehow Obabma to blame for the price of gas.

We're not the only large oil consumer on the planet.  India and China are rapidly expanding their economies and both are grabbing fuel supplies to do so.  It's a global market and we're all competing in it.

We need a game changing technology, one that puts American innovation in the forefront of industrial nations.  And we need it to be a government project, much like the Manhattan project.  If we leave it to the private market, either they'll stifle innovation to protect our current energy industry, or they'll make it proprietary so no one else can use it.

It tends to go either way, you have those who will find fault in what a president of the other party does, but it really seems to be going beyond stupid with stuff on Obama.  Of course, it's been four years since I've seen it the other way around so my memory may be a little diluted with time, but I don't think that it is that much.

Everyone here knows where I come from on this issue. If not, look through some of my threads and posts.

For 4 years, I have been pointing out the leaders of the Teabagger/GOP ilk have purposely let lies and deception ruin the political dialogue. Due to the lack of good judgement by those with a voice to calm, only John McCain stepped forward to grab the mic, divisiveness prevails.

Michael, you've shot me down before when I stated racism and intolerance guide the ship of hate besieged upon our leader and how unpatriotic it all seemed to me to be.

KRMG news reported the story of Obama's visit to Cushing using two people saying hateful things about our leader. One woman called him stupid. Another was vehement in her dislike for the man. The reporter then read a hateful comment off a FB page. I thought that was incredible. The local TV stations found people with positive points of view, but local hate radio is much of the catalyst to the underlying hatefulness day in and day out.
Basically, 150 years on and you'd think we'd be past the civil war. Instead we've got a cultural war holding the progress of a nation back.

I understand this.  I'm just not sure that the RNC does. :o

I equate this to the Republicans holding their fingers in their ears and yelling 'nananananana' so as not to hear it.  Not all of them do this of course, but they appear to do so.  And most everyone knows what they say about appearances.

hey, don't get me wrong, if I was going to keep posting in N&IP, I would have gone on a whole thing about how the republcian strategy since before GWB is all based around negativity and destruction, and really, reactionary, at the core.

But I'll just say this.

Before te primaries, their strategy was "AnybodyButObama"

Then the runners came, and then it became "AnybodyButRomney" (anyone remember that?)

which yielded them Cain, Perry, and Bachman

Then Gingrich came along...Everything the RNC has stood for since Clinton....

Now Romney's the man.

What a bucking joke.

This is precisely it. The dysfunction and the culture wars are just a way of distracting us while our country is looted and left for dead. There's plenty of blame to go around here, no need to limit it to a particular political party. One could argue that some particular organizations are more culpable than others, but that misses the point that most of big (anything) and both political parties are participating.

Graft is everywhere. In healthcare we got Medicare Part D or ACA from Congress. In banking we got TARP out of Congress and most recently the backdoor bailout that was the mortgage settlement, gifted to us by the DoJ. Defense contractors sell us planes that cost half a billion each. Most every new TSA initiative involves some enormous no bid contract. Congresspeople go to Washington and find their nice new friends the lobbyists schmoozing it up and providing them with talking points, research, dinners, and junkets. And so they let the graft flow, often without even realizing it, since many of the bills that get submitted are mostly written by the lobbyists! And through this nifty deception, they get radicalized further and further.

I don't even blame most Congresspeople, individually. You have to remember the revolving door. The lobbyists are old hands, often respected in legislative circles, and obviously still have a lot of friends. If Joe, who you've always been in fairly strong agreement with on most issues, starts talking about how he doesn't like a particular bill (that he's getting paid to torpedo), you'll naturally be inclined to be more favorable to his view than you would be if you came to the issue without prejudice.

The saddest part is that choking out the federal government won't even help. The vast majority of statehouses are at least as corrupt, you just hear about it less often because there are fewer people watching. At least at the federal level we have laws that force most of it out into the open. That isn't true in many states.

tl;dr: The system is broken and nobody seems inclined to even acknowledge which end the smoke is coming from, much less do anything to fix it!

I'm glad the president came here.  He gave a very nice speech.  I am confident that when he approves the remaining northern leg of the Keystone in the next month or two it will make the republicans look very foolish, and make him look very cautious and methodical in his decision making process.  This will provide just enough time for oil prices to react before november and salvage any damage to his campaign.

I thought he received a very nice welcome here.  As with any candidate traveling into an area of opposing political philosophy, there were detractors and some protest, but no outright embarrassment.  

We learned some new things in his speeches yesterday, namely that the failure of green energy projects like Solyndra were more the fault of the 2005 Bush Congress and the Chinese.  I think that will help to clear his record, and put some people at ease who may have viewed that as a failure linked to the stimulus.  We also learned that he is "all in" for an all of the above energy policy.  For folks in Oklahoma this is very important because we are both supply and midstream focused, and we also have lots of wind and sunshine to sell.  

I was however a little upset that Air Force One did not purchase fuel here before heading to Ohio.  Our Jet A is among the cheapest in the country, and it would have made a great photo-op to show the president swiping his AMEX for 64,000 gal of Jet fuel.

All and all, it was a good visit.

Nathan & I agree. They are all equally culpable. They all play politics equally dirty. Seems to me that the reason politicians become politicians is to stay politicians, not to legislate. How do they have all this time to go on the networks and sling mud, especially considering the travel/vacation/actual work they are doing/should be doing?

Demand simple legislation with no unrelated amendments/riders. All legislation should be able to stand on its own merit.
Demand term limits. We limit the president, why not congress & unelected bureaucrats. Demand campaign finance reform.
Demand campaign finance reform. Personally I think their should be federal funds appropriated to federal elections, distributed equally among two or three candidates. It seems rash, but I think it would lessen the pressures of fundraising. Politicians are beholden to their cash cows. Not right. On that front, I also think congress should reside for most of the year in their home states. This would make lobbying more difficult if the lobbyees were spread out all over the country.

Ok, enough for now.

Interesting observations, many people I know have been sitting out the Republican primary. But they have every intention of showing up in November to vote for, quote, "anyone but Obama". These are people that are level headed (they don't think he's from Kenya, they don't care that he's black) and probably only get their news from the networks for the most part (who tend to be somewhat favorable to the President). They don't hate the man, they hate what they perceive he is doing to the county. Whether it's justified or not, Obama happens to be presiding during a time of extreme economic hardship. It is what it is, and people are laying the blame primarily on Obama. IMO, hearing Obama whine about his situation only seems to make it worse.

To fully appreciate Gaspar's post simply place in front of mirror for correctly reversed meaning. Then disregard in usual manner.

Nathan I am surprised at your cynical post. For the most part, we seldom elect really bright people to public office. We elect people with connections, social prowess, money or access to money for support, street fighting ability, are visually within the norm and possessing at least some measure of communications ability. They start at local levels where they can bully school boards, authorities etc. by using those characteristics and work up through state government populated with other mediocre minds. State governments are appalling in their lack of foresight and have always been so. Some are truly committed, intelligent, competent managers but they are a small, easily overwhelmed, minority. Most states are like Oklahoma, dominated by rural interests with poorly educated but well known and respected families. They insist on simple solutions that are easily described and fit well on a sign or sticker. Drill baby Drill. The Alaska governor who failed to even finish her term is the iconic example of the process.

Why would you expect that once they get into truly powerful national legislative positions that they would suddenly have a grasp of complex issues surrounding the operation of a huge bureaucracy filled with career employees who have seen politicians come and go for decades? It seems most of them are busy trying to understand how to do their jobs during their first terms and occupied with being re-elected most of the time. Being fairly ambitious folks they are always on the lookout for a position after the voters turn on them. My point is that lobbyists fill in the knowledge gap for guys who got elected on their charm, wits and other peoples money. If they didn't have that input we would have even worse legislation based on incomplete knowledge.

The answers have always been that rather than carping about how stupid the legislator is, or how self serving the lobbyist is, or how greedy and graft dominated our process is, that we instead focus on making sure we elect representatives who are smarter than we are, know exactly who the lobbyists are paid by, who they are meeting with and what relation to fund raising they have. Transparency. Education. Ethics training. Then, prohibit employment with any lobbyist they dealt with, any organization they regulated and any company who funded them for at least 4 years after stepping down. Combine that with moderating the staggering benefits they receive and we can right the ship.

Afterall, a lobbyist is merely the communications focus of large organized groups of the electorate. They are not inherently criminal.

 

+1
. . .And I'm still waiting for a signature on the STOCK Act!

No matter how you look at it, ACCOUNTABILITY is an issue for this president.  He is probably one of the best speech makers I have every heard, and yet he nether holds, or even accepts accountability for anything he poses. That which comes out of his mouth is opposed in practice and results.  

He is the most political president we have ever had, and the first that I can remember to spend his entire first term campaigning and convincing people that awkward programs would produce positive results (and they didn't).  Now his campaign for re-election hovers on proclamations that everything is everyone else's fault.

He's great at sales, but just not good Operations or CEO material.

The government was doing as much as it could to incubate bio-diesel and ethanol during the Bush admin.  The tax credits were there, federal loans were there, business incubator programs were there.  I was giddy with the prospect of so many start ups because they all require some sort of efficient heat source to distill or help catalyze the process.  I even got in on some of those projects, selling equipment.  IMO, that program was grossly mis-managed and what we wound up with was a bunch of small entrepreneurships run on preference/incubator type programs (i.e. race, gender or ethnic minority preference) which had zero clue about running a business and no way to get rid of waste by-products.  I’m not implying that minorities are poor business people, the problems with programs like that is that they seldom take an honest look at the merit of each proposal and business plan along with establishing some sort of prediction of success rather than the XY chromosome arrangement or color of skin as the larger basis for approval.

To be perfectly honest, the government needs big business to be the partner.  Big business can raise the capital needed to cover every aspect and has the ability to staff up much more easily to handle collection, refining, transportation, and supply chain.  As far as there being some sort of new "Manhattan Project” development, it’s hard to fathom what could be next or vastly different, yet I’m sure our great grand children will think we lived in the stone ages back in 2012.

I have no idea why this president and the two Congresses he’s worked with so far have not pushed this in a different direction.  Something about priorities and a huge deficit may be the problem.  Of course, biodiesel and ethanol are not the be-all end-all to our energy concerns but they can take pressure off demand for oil.  The argument that we cannot produce enough virgin stock to feed the earth and create fuel is entirely bunk. In fact, with newer ethanol technology, you wind up with a better quality feedstock off the back end of the process.  We’ve got the technology and space to do it.  Biodiesel could very easily stand on its own right now with no direct per-gallon subsidy and be competitive with petroleum diesel.  The private sector is starting to ramp up technology on their own.  I’m personally aware of a large scale project ADM is working on as well as Tyson Foods.  It’s coming around again and high fuel prices will make it worth the risk to those best equipped to make alternative fuels a better reality.

Michael, I was just as embarrassed to see people along the motorcade route giving President Obama the thumbs down as I was to see people flipping off Cheney’s motorcade when he came downtown a few years back.  I only have two nitpicks about what you wrote:

A) It’s not like there isn’t precedence for this sort of disrespect.  Please don’t try and con the rest of us into believing that the liberal hatred of President Bush was any different nor was it expressed respectfully.  “Shrub” or “Baby Bush” ringing a bell?  Go to Tim Gilpin’s FB page if you want to see daily reminders of Bush Obsession Syndrome.  

B) Just because President Bush may have exercised poor judgement in terms of debt and deficit, that’s an extremely poor excuse to continue the trend.  If you were CEO of a company and fired for continued piss-poor management and huge losses, how long would your successor expect to last in that job if they continued to manage the company as you had done and used you as an excuse for why they are still leading the company off a cliff?

Finally, it’s not uncommon at all for the governor of an opposing party to not meet with a sitting president when they come to their state or even for a governor of the same party to not meet with an unpopular president.  The governor is NOT the employee of the president, but rather the people of their state.

As far as politicians flapping their gums on what the pipeline is and isn't is basically a bunch of morons trying to take credit for other’s hard work.  It’s as much a stretch for President Obama to claim credit for approving the southern leg of the Keystone as it would be for Governors Fallin or Perry to lay claim to it.  

My understanding is there’s really not much red tape at all on the southern portion of the pipeline and it’s much simpler since the State Department doesn’t have to be involved in the process.  IOW, this would have happened with or without a visit to Cushing.  Personally, I don’t blame the president for making a campaign trip out here.  He needs the PR right now.  I admire him for not entirely forsaking Oklahoma in spite of the obvious lack of support for him here.

I’m tired of the constant arch partisan rhetoric.  I’m quite certain it wasn’t like this 30 to 40 years ago.  With the need to fill so much content time on radio and television, politics has become a blood sport in America.

I agree that lobbyists are not inherently bad or even that they espouse bad ideas. Agreed. Naturally, I believe that most of the government should be at the state level, with a far more limited federal government. Therefore, lobbying efforts that truly benefited each state would not be harmed by sending the legislature back home. Besides, it's not like we have the technology capabilities of the 19th century. Being in close proximity, like in D.C., is not a necessity anymore.

It's is the financing of the politicians that is far more troublesome. Money (financiers) speaks louder than words (lobbyists).

Funny you bring up stuff like that. Yesterday while searching for data on how many presidents have publicly visited OK (couldn't find anything in the last two decades), I came upon a published masters thesis about the subject of presidents campaigning during office. It turns out that since the late seventies presidents have grown to become full term campaigners aided by jets, computers, the internet and constant demands by their constituents. Every president now spends his entire term in what can be construed as campaigning.

This highlights your lack of perspective on politics. You say he's the most political president we've ever had, yet unless I've missed something in your posts I don't think you have a poli-sci degree or have done much political history research. Just in my lifetime Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Clinton, and BushII were all equal to or greater than Obama in political leaning. Lyndon was the master, Roosevelt was pretty good too. When it suits you I'm sure we'll hear how incompetent he is in the political mastery of legislative politics. That shows your anti Obama streak with a spotlight.

You wouldn't recognize good CEO or operations material if it was right in front of you and it is. We have 24 months of recovery, we dodged a deep depression through his leadership, our particular state benefits from his energy policy more than most yet refuses to acknowledge it because of resolute political lunacy like yours.

I know how disappointing it is for your ilk to have to run a prevaricator like Romney against a president who has lead us through a financial nightmare with humor, dignity and respect. A president who is benefiting from a recovering economy and still will visit states hostile to him like AZ and OK. It limits your choices. You can pray for economic downturn or insure one by electing Romney.

This shows your anti-republican steak with a spotlight. What makes you believe Romney would be that detrimental to the economy?

While I'm not a fan by any means, I'm not ready to go out and say he would be a disaster either.

There is no synergy in states being strengthened to the point where legislators work from home. And at worst you will find states start to regionalize and create alliances that are at odds with other regional alliances and soon separationist talk emerges. I have never been impressed with the mentality of states that are usually dominated by rural vs metro battles. If either side dominates the state loses. There is immense value in states representatives meeting face to face on a regular basis to transact the nations business. How often have you seen misunderstandings on forums or e-mail totally destroy communication?

I think everyone is dismayed at the power of money to corrupt our election process. Financiers of campaigns like Newt's (his comes to mind) scare the bejeezus out of us all. Free speech is a biotch.

He's attached to a party that's gone completely and entirely 'round the bend.  

Surprised that I am an Obama supporter? But I am not an anti-republican or even anti-conservative. A huge difference between guys like Gas and myself. I look for what an elected official says and does before I consider their political persuasion. I am in the great American middle that finds something to like about Bush and something to admire about Obama but can't find much to like about an Inhofe or a Gingrich. I like some things about Christie, Jeb Bush and others who are republican but seem to think for themselves and act for their constituents. My republican friends are frustrated at the ineptness in finding a candidate that will represent them.

Romney has such a weak relationship with public service and the truth. He left politics after one term as governor for private service yet continued to run for president for the last 8 years or so (the Palin strategy). He never holds a political position any longer than it takes to get him what he needs at the moment. The etch a sketch remark by his top campaign manager was a matter of fact reflection of what they all know. And, he is an inveterate liar. His own party knows it and unfortunately could not find anyone with as much money who could overcome his momentum.

There is absolutely no indication that he has the integrity, the knowledge of foreign affairs or the political skills necessary to be anything but a pretty good CEO of a corporation. This country isn't a corporation.

I believe Romney will say anything to get elected, like many if not all politicians. But his actions are not that different than Obama's. So again, what' gives on the assumption that he would be a failure?

Did you have the same perceptions about Obama prior to his election? I mean, what indications did he give you that he would or would not be a success?

One distinct difference, as I see it, between Romney and Obama is Romney actually has a hands-on grasp of economics.  Obama’s experience is being led by his nose by the likes of Jeffrey Immelt and Warren Buffett.

Many politicians, not all. His actions are so different from Obama's that it will get him his party's nomination. Obama toured Europe and the middle east before running for president. He assembled grass roots support and navigated the state politics of Illinois then sat in Congress and participated in the meat grinding. He is an academic having taught as a professor. His outlook is decidedly oriented to thoughtful research of issues, varied input from advisors and cabinet members, then reflection and decisionmaking. What I see, and saw in him in 2008 was a Kennedy, Truman like leader who understands that you need the best and the brightest to advise you but in the end it is your decision. Its an intellectual approach. Yet he is a devoted family guy who can speak to a new generation and knows their language.

Romney blurts out that we should go to war with Iran without much deliberation. He simply follows the party line. He fully supports the Ryan budget but hasn't even read it. He saw how Gingrich was skewered for analyzing Ryan's proposals and judging them as radical. Not going to make the mistake Gingrich did of thinking for himself. He comes from a father whom I admired greatly but he seems to have drawn the wrong things from his father's political failures. His dad spoke out on the lunacy and failure of our Viet Nam strategies in the late sixties. That destroyed his political future. Romney makes sure he says nothing to offend the torch bearers of his party. He knows about the view from the corporate top floor and has made a lot of money from manipulating corporate entities, but when faced with the realities of the common guy he doesn't have a clue. "Corporates are people." "I like being able to fire people" right or wrong it shows his propensity to shoot first and ask questions later. He's a guy who oversaw a great idea into fruition with insurance coverage in his own state and can't run fast enough away from it once his party revulsed at the thought of it. His balls are shrinking to obscurity every day he utters the word Obamacare.

The two guys are real different to me. Some guys like to make money, some guys transcend that.

Hmm.

You have some very good points.

You cite several accomplishments that President Obama should be very proud of, but that's not what he's campaigning on. Why is that?

You mention:

Recovery-The unemployment numbers are set to go down again this month, but not because of expansion in the workforce, but rather another reduction in those actively seeking work.  Totals are still rather stagnate.  Big corporations and Wall Street are recording record profits, because the competitive landscape continues to shrink, and banks continue to be rewarded for restricting loans and barring entry into the market for business start-ups.

Energy policy-We're all discombobulated here.  Prices are high at a time of the year when they should be low.  We are exporting fuel because of a slow economy, and export provides a higher profit because it's not subject to blending regulations.  Production on private and state land is up from permitting 5 years ago, but no new steps have been taken to grant permits on federal lands.  Trillions are being pumped into green initiatives that promise return but return no promise. The president takes credit for the building part of a pipeline as if it's a mission accomplished moment.

Both items you mention above could be far greater successes, or actual successes, with very simple action on the part of the president. 

1. Stop the .25% interest program for bank reserves and watch small businesses grow. 

2. Quell the uncertainty looming over the private sector through your calls for tax increases and ambiguous healthcare requirements.

3. Gas prices can be temporarily overcome by lifting the restriction on foreign flagged vessels from transporting fuel from one US port to the other (currently they can deliver only, but cannot deliver from port to port even though they may be running at particle capacity).  That adds significantly to the cost of fuel because oil companies are required to run tankers with empty tanks in may cases.  He could also suspend blending standards as a temporary fix. 

4. As a long term fix, he could open up permitting on millions of acres of federal land.  Even if it is only for a small # of wells, this would make the speculators convulse, and lower futures and delivery prices. Because royalties on public land go back to the government this could be the vehicle to fund all green initiatives without punishing the tax payers any more.

5. Create a massive slush-fund for alternative energy fueled by our current reliance on congenital energy (above).  Two birds---one stone. 

6. Because the cost of energy is the biggest drag on our economy, the president would be able to actually celebrate his accomplishments instead of re-inveting himself under the meme of "fairness," and try to get re-elected on the backs of those disenfranchised by his own lackluster performance.

Before his nomination or after. I recall the Germany speech which was decidedly after he was nominated.


Again, not advocating necessarily for Romney, but what again is the difference? It sounds to me that because Romney is a Republican, he is not capable of critical thought, is rash, and is incapable of making decisions. I could argue just as easily that he is just as capable if not more so in that department by looking at his private equity experience. I know everyone rails on private equity, but in pe you have to make decisions and live with them. If you make too many wrong decisions, you WILL be punished. Your fundraising will dry up in a heart beat if you don't produce.


How do you know what he is thinking?


Again, how do you know?


Obama doesn't? From where I am sitting, Romney has done far more to offend his party than Obama would ever dream of.


So his mistake is Obama's victory?


Pretending to be above it all while showing a decidedly Obama biases as you have been is no different than what we rail on these politicians for doing. You (and I) and the politicians are often unable or unwilling to step back and look objectively at what is really in front of them.

To add to that, the federal government SHOULD take equity positions in these companies and rollover the profits into new deals. Kind of create a snowball. As it stands we guarantee loans and best case scenario is we just get paid back. The way we do it subsidizes the actual company and all the investors as well. The investors get to keep all the profit, their ownership is not diluted at all, and their risk level is alleviated.

I know that generally I am against government subsidizing private industry, but seeing as spending on new energy is not going to go away, this is my next best solution. I know it is government ownership, but let's face it, most wouldn't exist without the government, just like many research positions. Once the entity becomes profitable, the feds can sell their stake and move on.

Can't agree with that, because it ends up giving corporate governance rights to government, and if there is one thing we've learned it's that government has no business governing anything!.

"Gimmy tha keys, ike can drive!"

Agree or not, we already do. And I'm not talking about GM. Oklahoma has it's own Venture Capital Fund, i2e or something. It can be done. I like you though have little faith in anything getting done right though.

There are two distinct thoughts here, so feel free to pick and choose.

First, if you have a thousand acres of corn, what is the best use for it as fuel, corn oil or alcohol?  You could dry it and burn it too, but only steam punks want vehicles powered that way.  Corn oil can run in pipes, I think, but alcohol has to go by truck as it's too corrosive.  Corn oil can become bio-diesel.  Maybe we can just grow our own fuel.  For that matter, I wonder if you can get oil from cannabis sativa?  People would be happier about the resulting exhaust gas.

On the other matter, here's some insight into politics from 50 years ago:

"...The entire page 14 of the Dallas Morning News, November 22nd, 1963, was devoted to an advertisement, ominously bordered in black like an announcement of mourning. Under the sardonic heading, "WELCOME MR KENNEDY TO DALLAS,"...

..."It was another 'Wanted for Treason' broadside. But there were two differences. This denunciation was reaching a vast audience through the pages of a respected newspaper. And it was appearing within hours of the President's arrival.

...In 1963 the Dallas Morning News was published by a man named Ted Dealey [as in Dealey Plaza]. When criticized for it later, Dealey said that before agreeing to print the JBS ad, he'd read it meticulously and approved it, arguing that it 'represented what the Dallas Morning News have been saying editorially'.

"Actually, in agreeing to go to Texas, JFK knew he was heading into extremely hostile territory. Joe Pool - the Democratic Congressman from Dallas - was heavily backed by big money . He told "Big D" constituents that the Kennedy administration had "turned my stomach". The mayor of Dallas - Earle Cabell - was a friend and associate of Robert Welch, the founder of the John Birch Society. The mayor and his wealthy cronies hated JFK. Some of them affixed bumper-stickers to their cars saying "K.O. the Kennedys". Their wives played a game called "Which Kennedy do you hate the most?". Prosperous, well educated young marrieds gathered over jumbo highballs in the trendy suburbs to swap jokes about assassination and lewd gossip about the First Family.

(I forgot to add this: http://www.orwelltoday.com/jfkjbs.shtml (http://www.orwelltoday.com/jfkjbs.shtml) )

The difference then was that without the internet, all those people with a violent dislike of a politician were confined to writing letters to the editor or running some local newsletter.  Now, they have websites and much greater reach.  My father was fond of paraphrasing Frank Lloyd Wright, who was alleged to have said, "California and New York are the low points of the country.  All the odd balls roll there!"  I think you'd agree that some webpages are the modern low points, and they're just as attractive to oddballs.

Actually you can do both, feed stock and fuel.  The feedstock is a byproduct once you have extracted what you want for energy.

Fattens them up too and produces big beautiful fat livers!

Fat is flavor!

Why do we not do bio-diesel in America again? From what I understand it is widely used in western Europe. I saw some thing on CNBC some time ago where a fellow was going around collecting cooking oil from businesses and turning it into fuel. It went on to discuss Bio-Fuels further. I don't know that they are that much better emissions wise, but they sure smell a heck of a lot better when you are sitting behind them in traffic.

Places still do, but it's expensive. 

I agree with that about 1000%.  Second part - you just dated yourself - the arch partisan rhetoric was exactly like it is today.  Nothing much has changed in 40 years, except for the possible inclusion of a few more expletives on TV.  It has always been a blood sport.  Especially those times when the military has been called out to mow down civilians.

Gerald Ford was demonized just as much as anyone today for being "clumsy".  And the fact he pardoned Nixon.  But not electing him President was one of the bigger bonehead moves this country has made - right up there with electing Baby Bush once, and electing Nixon twice.

I'm truly sorry if you cannot perceive of the differences. I am not his campaign manager nor do I intend to get into tit-for-tat. All that you ask is either available by watching multiple cable outlets or hitting the Google with minimum skill. Just watch some of his old videos and how he uses the truth to aid him in his lies. Have you seen the one where he takes a McCain quote that Obama used during the last campaign, then truncated it to sound like Obama had originally made the statement? The entire meaning of the quote was obliterated. When confronted with it he said it was the truth. That's corporate behavior and acceptable if you can get away with it but do you really want a president who does that? Romney will continue to show himself as the race continues.

As an aside, you seem much younger than me and I hope you are able to learn something from the mistakes we made. From reading the above I think you may be happier under a French or Canadian socialist system.

Thank you. Nothing opens up a conversation like a compliment. However, I couldn't tell you if or why the president is or isn't running on what I mentioned. Perhaps playing his cards and timing?

There are only one or two proposals you made above that aren't loaded with innuendo, political postures and spin. We could in fact achieve some temporary relief with a few tweaks of the delivery system. Not sure of the unintended consequences. Perhaps if the oil industry, the folks you mentioned who in private conversations hate him so much, and local elected officials would actually take a stab at respectful conversation rather than play  games with accusatory press releases and mobilizing funds to defeat him....they might make the light of day.

I am doubtful that you are so worldly as to have come up with these "simple" solutions so readily. Ask those who are feeding you these solutions to bring them to Romney, Obama, or Congress and let them set up study groups to see if they are even feasible. Otherwise its just parties outside this realm with agendas that are not apparent using an adept forum user for their own purposes.

Partisanship paralysis is the reason all these retiring legislators are citing for wanting to get out.

Difference was, aside from the rhetoric 40 years ago, there was room for compromise and Congress and the Executive Branch actually managed to accomplish quite a bit without a bunch of pile bills packed with all sorts of unrelated funding and additional laws in order to get anything passed.

Speaker O’Neill and President Reagan had different political ideologies, and publicly had bitter words for each other at times.  Through all that, there was an underlying respect the two had for each other and the office each held.  They also were able to work together to help move the country forward from difficult social and economic times.

Politicians now display open hostility toward each other because they think that’s what their constituents want.  Their constituents pick this up from the entertainers on talk radio and cable, as well as the blogosphere.

Like it or not, it’s free speech at work.  We are just as free to openly despise someone as we are to love them.  At some point, we can only hope those in power will wake up and realize they have allowed bitter partisanship to completely wreck this country and bring it to a standstill.  

We are all political hacks and armchair quarterbacks.  I'm sure there are reasons both political, and realistic that the simple and obvious solutions of the day have not been considered, however, at the end of the day, we go to bed knowing that solutions do exist.  

Rather than a dialog on any solutions, we are spoon fed excuses, blame, and algae.  That is what hurts us.  That is what makes us shake our heads and say how can you eat this dog food and recommend it to others?

There was a lot of that driven by the fact that the Democrats controlled Congress for many decades, while the Presidency was held by a Republican through much of it.  That seemed to work pretty well for the most part.  I know, Tip held a majority for much of Reagan, but he also was a rubber stamp to Reagan throughout.  Whether it was fear of being unelected, or the fact he could see the monetary benefit that accrued to him and his buddies is the big question.  I think the money was the biggest motivator.

He was by no means a rubber stamp, it was just that both parties were closer together then and Reagan had a way of making friends with his enemies.  He and Tip could fight like cats and dogs but have a drink and a meal at the end of the day.

Today, the parties have grown apart with each seeking contrarian philosophies just for the sake of being contrary. 

To the contrary, I think the country was much more moderate.  When Limpbag became popular in the early 1990’s, he started an industry for arch-conservative thought.  Then, of course, someone figured out there was room for very left leaning commentators like Chris Matthews.  Couple that with the tit-for-tat that Whitewater was for Iran-Contra and Watergate.  The blogosphere also allowed a whole new crop of arch liberal and arch conservative thought to have more of a forum.  What’s unfortunate is extreme conservative and extreme liberal viewpoints on the tube, radio, and inter webs get the most airplay because it sells advertising more than “boring” moderate thought.  I have not seen recent polls, but I believe around 60% percent of us identify ourselves as moderate or moderate leaning, while about 20% each consider themselves to be very liberal or very conservative.

Back to Limpbag, he spent the entirety of the Clinton administration complaining about what a tax and spend “liberal” Clinton was.  Turns out, history is showing us the Clinton years were actually pretty much the opposite.  How much of that was the result of a GOP Congress after 1994 and how much was Clinton is still rife for debate.  Gingrich and Hastert actually did manage to accomplish quite a bit in concert with Clinton.

Today, the stated purpose of the GOP in Congress is to ensure Obama is a one term president and to attempt to block any and every agenda item he proposes.  I don’t recall that ever being a stated purpose in the past.

The only thing I was trying to point out is the similarities between the two candidates. Neither of which I care for in the least, but it is what it is. I'm not going to say "well Obama did this...Romney did that" to justify anything they do, which is what everyone seems to want to do, to justify their own bad behavior. The comments you were making about Obama and Romney just seemed so editorial.

Let's take the fact that everyone thinks Obama is brilliant. By what standards do people come to this conclusion? He went to Columbia & Harvard & was editor of law review. Taught constitutional law of U of C. Romney went to BYU (morman) and Harvard Business. Yet he is not held in the same esteem. Heck Bush went to Yale and HBS and we all know how he is portrayed.

Obama is an eloquent speaker. Tell me people are not serious when they say that because he reads off a teleprompter exceptionally well that this signifies brilliance. I don't know how many 4-H'ers (no disrespect) in high school that could give a fantastic speech, but were nowhere near what I would call brilliant.

Look I'm not saying he's stupid, you can't be and get to where he is at. I'm just saying he isn't particularly smarter than any other President. What would lead me to that conclusion?

You, my friend, like many others, have a double standard and are unwilling to admit it. I do to. Obama's your guy, I get it.  Course I don't agree with any of them so it makes it a tad easier to be impartial in this particular debate. But I've got my favorites (issues) and I admit it is sometimes difficult to be impartial when you feel strongly about something.


What, I make one comment in favor of a socialist type program and I get this. All I was saying is that I know that the US government will NEVER stop spending money on this stuff...SO...in the meantime, why should we be subsidizing the investors when all we really want is the product. They are going to spend the money anyway, why not make it equity instead of a debt guarantee. The government has tons of researchers looking into things that may not be profitable (NASA anyone) and no one considers that to be a crazy idea. heck I think the government even collected on patents and such from said NASA programs inventions. Why not for energy as well. As it stands, there are only 2 outcomes for the government in these deals; lose or draw.

The lobbyists bring their checkbooks. But only because the Congresspeople are their good buddies.  ::)

There was a great article in The Atlantic (I think) recently about lobbyist culture.

Also, don't mistake my cynical view for me thinking that Republicans and Democrats are the same or think that it means that I think participation is pointless. IMO, while the Republicans fairly clearly would like to drive the bus directly over the cliff (witness the manufactured debt ceiling debacle last year), it seems equally clear to me that the Democrats are at least willing to stop for beer first. My hope is that the beer stop gives us an opportunity to fire the existing team of drivers and hire all new help that doesn't think that the best way forward is over the cliff. It may be the shortest way down, but it's also the most painful.

Gaspar, as I've noted before, you can expect the labor participation rate to continue to fall for at least another 20 years. The wave of retirees has begun and will not be stopping any time soon. It's time to get over that and move on. ;)

The fact remains that for centuries our National leaders rose above this crappola. Today, the lack of respect from leaders and their lack of dignity dealing with others continues purposely detouring the management of our business. They all can't sleep well at night knowing that to do the right thing would cost them their jobs. It's called the Poppy Bush syndrome or the "read my lips" syndrome. Cut the bs. It's the new counterculture war that is the root of the problem. Their mantra is Grover Nordquist's saying about shrinking government. Try shrinking corporate America....or for that matter, shrink the average American household further. There's a touch of false equivalency for you and the others here who bring up such ancient history meanderings that no longer apply nor need be revisited! This is now...the deficit situation is getting more serious as inflation and interest rates begin to gradually rise. Putting politics against the Nation's best interests has turned burly and dangerous.

Be here now. Time to raise revenues before it gets seriously bad. Come December after the elections, you will witness the center coming down with a calibrated pre Bush Tax Dodge supported by both sides of the aisle. It's their only chance before they change make-up and clown suits. Realists and Lame Duckies to the rescue! And my guess: it will be fair.

The country will be forced to watch more theatrics from the teabagger/righties for 2 more years at least only this time around they'll pick up on the Santorum mess talking points. They'd just love to find an Executive error or scandal, but they'll settle for governing your private life or what's left of it. Their main-line talking points again will be questions of our President's patriotism and authenticity. They'll still be calling him names in 5 years when he leaves office. Not much else for those bozo's to whine about.

Not really. There's a reason why we have all the civil service rules and "weird" regulations on procurement processes, campaign finance laws, and all the rest. They weren't included in the box with the Republic. It took years and years of nearly limitless graft and corruption to get the first regulations attempting to get a handle on it. As people found a way around the rules, the rules were updated. Sometime in the 80s, we forgot. We called what we had good enough and not too long after even began questioning the reason for the arcane rules and regulations and slowly began rolling them back all across government. That has led us to where we are today, with graft culture again fully entrenched.

No, it never really went away, but it was reduced at least to a dull roar for a while.

Erfalf, I never meant to imply that i thought Obama brilliant. Clinton was brilliant. Big deal. What I admire is his process of problem solving and his calm demeanor. He is a good example as a human being and incredible that he didn't come from elite environs like most politicians at his level. I like that. I like his sense of humor and his ability to be serious if required. Like Clinton said, "I'd like to think I would have made the same decision" when referring to the Osama raid. I'm not sure what you mean by a double standard. But by my age I've had everything else so it doesn't surprise me.

I have really enjoyed this thread. Some interesting insights. I'm pretty much done though.

That is some good stuff there (channeling my inner Johnny Carson).

The President does not control the Federal Reserve, thankfully. Even if he did, this is a boneheaded idea. Right now, that's the only tool short of buying securities that the Fed has in its arsenal given where interest rates are. It makes it pretty much impossible to have real deflation which is still something of a danger, especially with the turmoil in Europe.

Deflation will hurt small business more than a quarter point on bank reserves.


Tell you what, you get the law changed so that the oil companies actually have to pay substantial royalties (the federal government's royalty checks are worse than mine!) and we'll see about that one. ;)

Wide selection of political cartoons going back almost 200 years.   Politics has always been dirty.

http://www.google.com/search?q=1800%27s+political+cartoons&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=MJw&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=d_1xT-3OK6apsQLO7oX9BQ&ved=0CC0QsAQ&biw=1255&bih=936

Maybe so, but not so overtly hostile.

Also dawned on me that no Democrat figureheads greeted Bush or Cheney on their last visits to Oklahoma.  Funny I didn’t hear anything about disrespect then.  We had a Democrat governor and mayor at the time.

Do you have evidence of that, or is it just an assumption? Last I heard you were wondering about it but hadn't actually looked into it.

Hey, he's no longer a Repiglican in name only....lol

Nope, they did not.

One other clarification request: Was this while they were in office, or after?

Nope, both were still in office.  Bush’s visit was, 2008 to OKC, Cheney either ’07 or ’08.  They ran his motorcade the wrong way up 2nd St.  It was so refreshing to see hipsters flipping off our VP.  Spoke quite well for Oklahoma, don’t you think?

I didn't equate Obama as a war criminal like those clowns Bush and Cheney....but I know you still tow the potty line.

Why not?  He’s continued their aggressions.  I seriously doubt rendition has come to an end either, regardless what the official line is.

I don't really care what the hipsters do. I care more about what our elected representatives do. If they were still in office and Brad Henry's office didn't send someone to meet them, he's as deserving of scorn on that point as Fallin is.

Honestly, it doesn’t bother me if an elected official from the opposition party doesn’t greet a sitting president.  I certainly wouldn’t expect one of them to alter their schedule on such short notice either.

I seriously doubt this is anything new, nor is Oklahoma the first state for this to happen.

See, I think it shows a lack of respect for the office, which is deserved regardless of how great or crappy the person holding it is.

Does Partner One hate Obama?  If so, please offer a scaleable argument that contributes to that perception and somehow quantifies Partner One as a member of "You People."

Have you guys ever done an ad campaign for a certain Hormel product?

I think they have.
(http://willmydoghateme.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/spam.gif)

West Virginia must REALLY hate Obama:


http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/05/08/meet_keith_judd_the_death_row_inmate_winning_delegates_against_barack_obama.html

(http://www.orkugifs.com/en/images/Laugh-out-loud_1427.gif)

I believe there were no public events on that 2008 trip. He flew in to Tinker Air Force base, talked to reporters, then went to a private home to fundraise for John McCain.

Obama came to Oklahoma for a public appearance and to make a speech on energy policies.

I believe there is a difference in protocol for different type of events.

It's West Virginia.  A lot like Oklahoma.

Oklahoma democrats ran an incarcerated, convicted felon against Obama? I missed that story. Rather than finding an excuse to run down our state, perhaps next time you could just laugh at a funny story.

Not the felon...just a commentary on how we do a whole lot of the same type of stuff - really stupid, ignorant things the make all companies out there want to drop everything and move here so they can join in.

And yeah, it was a funny story.  Like our personhood bill story.  


As for convicted felon, incarcerated elections - no, not against Obama - we had that back a few years ago with the county commissioner "scandal".  Only in Oklahoma, it wasn't a scandal, it was just "boys will be boys"....  So, yeah, I guess we do have pretty much the exact same kind of stupid, so the comparison holds.

And it really ISN'T running down our state when stupid things we do are pointed out.  It is bringing to light an area for improvement. 

Maybe if you posted some Oklahoma stupidity coming from the left. It's almost like this state is the straw man to bash conservatives or what some believe. Also, maybe if there were more positive threads as well about us, or some of its great people, then my perspective might change.

The left here is moderate elsewhere.

Take a good gander at our state and federal reps.

Pop some meaningful positive threads about Oklahoma.  Please.

Now that the President has said he supports gay marriage I can't imagine how angry Jesus will be in the Southern Baptist churches this week.

I'll start working on more. Hard to overlook the porn thread... ;D

And his Daughters helped change his mind. What else can this man be convinced of? and by whom?

And my spelling inability continues.  :(

"Whom"

You're a target rich environment, sir.  Ending a sentence with a preposition... Ay Yah

edited to say:  BTW, I'm absolutely kidding with you.  I use cuss words as most of my nouns and descriptives.  I have no room to talk.

So he’s a flip-flopper now.

As far as why Obama is hated in West Virginia has a lot to do with how he said he intends to hobble the coal industry.

...and "He diffrunt dan us."

That's the reason imo. 

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AfGlzD2-XE&feature=youtu.be[/youtube]

I would think that coming up with ways to continue using coal while not paying the enormous environmental cost would be a good thing for West Virginia (and Wyoming).

Depends on whether or not you are a mine worker whose job has been idled by environmental diddling or not.

Way to think about the kids. ;)

Fox News reaction to gay marriage announcement:

(http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/536803_448826101813515_205344452828349_100677587_292335992_n.jpg)

That's so gay.  

http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2012/05/09/obama-reverses-position-same-sex-marriage

This might piss off the WV voter enough to vote for a criminal...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRl5HWZS6JY&feature=related[/youtube]

If we let the hisitronic lobbyists control everything we do, we won't ever make any progress.

Yeah, they updated it to try to look less moronic.

GOOD! this charade is over! http://truth-out.org/news/item/9036-obama-backs-same-sex-marriage

Breakthrough!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbiPDSxFgd8[/youtube]


Doe Doe, touch me! :-*

Funny from Daily Kos:

Well thank goodness we have you out there to keep us grounded since histrionic lobbyists have nothing to do with the bases of your opinions.

RNC: Obama 'playing politics' with gay marriage

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/05/rnc-obama-playing-politics-with-gay-marriage-122970.html (http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/05/rnc-obama-playing-politics-with-gay-marriage-122970.html)

Gay GOP group: Obama took the 'Cheney position'

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/05/gay-gop-group-obama-took-the-cheney-position-122968.html (http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/05/gay-gop-group-obama-took-the-cheney-position-122968.html)

(http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/559601_10150863635906749_6815841748_9563569_224219918_n.jpg)

make no mistake.... bring it!

contract law 101

You want to try again? I don't even understand what this says. They're all english words, but it doesn't parse as an english sentence.

Have you ever been to West Virginia, Guido?  It's just like Oklahoma, only with more trees and less teeth.

So why is it a flip-flop? Is it a moral failure every time a politician changes his stance on a particular issue, regardless of the circumstances?

Your right. It's no more than him saying that's what Romney did on the subject of killing Bin Laden.

So did you guys just miss the last half decade or more, during which time Obama consistently said that his views on gay marriage were "evolving?" Or is it more about the gotcha than any real logic?

Looks like Romney's waiting to see the fall out from the President's announcement before he decides to flip flop again.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/05/09/_mitt_romney_refused_to_answer_.html (http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/05/09/_mitt_romney_refused_to_answer_.html)

If it’s a ‘publican, it’s called flip-flopping.  If it’s a ‘crat it’s an evolution in his/her thinking.

Got it.

Of course I appreciate the snark, but let's answer the question.  Is it always morally reprehensible to change your position?  Especially, I might add, when our form of government is "representative?"

So Obama changes course.  He either did it (as advertised) after much deliberation and soul-searching, or he did it in response to sustained polling indicating that (the NC result notwithstanding) a majority of Americans support gay marriage.  Or -- third option -- a mixture of both.  What's the problem with any/all of those? 

No, I take both at their word and don't really give a smile if they change their mind. Only the idiots and the ignorant so strongly believe in the fundamental correctness of their views that they never change.

I think you struck a nerve on this flip flop Conan. Walking down memory lane, I found another flip flop thread re: Obama....

http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=9612.0

No nerve struck.  I'm not smarting in a corner.  I was just asking for clarification.  Like I said, I appreciate snark as much as the next guy, but snark doesn't answer my question.  Kind of like posting a link to an old thread doesn't answer my question. 

So, Guido:  if you're a politician in a representative democracy, is it always morally reprehensible to change your position? 

well said!

Not at all, as long as you don't mind not having....what's the word...oh, yes. Character. Testing wind direction in order to come up with a point of view is wrong, and if Romney does it, he's wrong too. Incidentally, here is a little timeline re Obama:

June 1996--Obama signs letter “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight effort to prohibit such marriages,”

Nov. 2008-- Obama says marriage between man and woman, and does not favor gay marriage.

Then, what he said today....
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/12424857-418/barack-obamas-ever-evolving-views-on-gay-marriage.html


 And maybe do a search of "Romney flip" in this forum and see folks in here chastising Romney on flipping. Hell, the biggest dumb@ss in this forum, the guy posting right above me, boldfaced "Only the idiots and the ignorant so strongly believe in the fundamental correctness of their views that they never change". 5 DAYS AGO he wrote this:


http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=18521.msg237419#msg237419

Not to defend TTC, but you're coming dangerously close to saying that it's not possible for one to both disagree with the electorate as a whole on a subject and speculate on how the electorate will respond to that subject. I can hold the opinion that "flip flop" as some kind of gotcha is plain stupid and also allow for the fact that people who don't think the same way will see it differently.

Ok, got it.  So any change in conviction whatsoever is a failure of character.

EDIT:  My point is, there's a difference between what Romney has done on a host of issues and what Obama has done on this issue.  Romney says one thing and hopes you don't zing him with the historical record.  There's no attempt to explain the disparity, there's no attempt to create a logical reason, there's just what the current Romney says and everything he's said in the past.  IMO, that's the source of his flip-flopper rep.   

At least here, Obama tried to create some consistency, explain how his thoughts have changed, put it in context of his beliefs.  It actually also lines up with actions his administration has taken to date, including eliminating Don't Ask Don't Tell and pointing out through the DOJ certain parts of DOMA that are inconsistent/unconstitutional. 

Obama's got his faults but this ain't one of em. 

Well said Wevsus. The trend from the populace has been towards favoring unions in the last two decades. Now up to over half the population favors them. In light of that, Guido must feel the general population has no character and is guilty of flip flopping. Any elected official who doesn't agree with them is anti-marriage. Disagree and you're stubbornly ignoring the public.

So, as usual the anti-Obama, anti-Democrats, like to have it both ways. Its all about winning, not logic to them.

So I guess we could say the entire country has "flip-flopped" on this issue. Just 26 percent of Americans favored same sex marriage in 1996. President Obama has said he was evolving on this issue, and as it appears, so are the majority now of all Americans.

Not so much of a "flip-flop" on the part of the president, as a mirroring of public sentiment- one that will continue to evolve untill full equality is finally achieved.

At least this sitting president has the balls to come out and say the right thing, for the first time in history, against extreme and hateful opposition, in an election year. To turn that into a negative is shameful.

Kudos to the president!

These people are complete idiots. Dick Cheney, who has a gay daughter, took the cowardly way out by waiting until he was well out of office before making any such statements. In fact, he was in full support of or at the very least stood idly by as the Bush administration implemented or tried to implement their anti-gay policies. GoProud is a joke and has a severe case of self-loathing. It's no wonder they have become the media darlings of conservative news outlets. 

But what do you expect from a group who invites Ann Coulter to speak at a fundraiser, who then publicly ridicules them, and then is appointed a year later as the group's honorary chairperson whom they titled a "gay icon". Pretty much sums it up.

Cheney could be easily accused of political expedience on the issue.  

There’s room to accuse President Obama of it as well.  He waited to publicly define himself on the issue until six months before the next election.  Economically, he has little success to point to and that could be his complete un-doing in the Nov. election.  I think the timing is such that now he doesn’t have to worry about complacency within a group which typically does support Democratic candidates.  

Let’s face it, most political candidates are going to become chameleons as the issues change amongst their perceived constituencies.  Obama is certainly not alone.

Deeply moral conservatives need to take note that “gay marriage” is not forcing the issue on the church and never can, it’s also not an attack on traditional marriage or the family.  It’s purely a legal issue in the context we are talking about.  I really don’t see why if two men or two women are committed in a long-term relationship that they should not have the same survivorship, insurance, and real property rights that MC and I were able to share the moment we got married.

At least I can say I flip-flopped on gay marriage long before POTUS Obama did.  ;)

Did you not see the timeline I gave you. in 1996 is favored gay marriage. He didn't just start favoring this week. Here's the text of the article so everyone can see:


So stop defending his hypocrisy and deal with it. Good grief, it happens on both sides. Where were these mental gymnastics on behalf of Romney and his flips?

And it didn't help that just this week North Carolina, where the Dem Nat'l convention is being held this year, passed a gay marriage ban, ol' crazy uncle Joe ran his mouth favoring gay marriage, and the press got after Carney. This whole "conversion" & "evolution" stuff is just contrived BS. Seriously, Obama suddenly saw the light?  Suckers.

[/color]

Speaking of gay, did anyone see that Tim Tebow interview on Good Morning America?

Guido, please, send that to as many friends as you have. All three of them will see that as a progression, a maturing, an evolving political stand that co-incided with the populace. Unlike Romney's changes which are seemingly capricious and unexplained other than who was supporting his campaign at that particular time. Abortion, auto-bailout are just two that come to mind. He is the etch-a-sketch candidate.

Yes, politicians change viewpoints but he defines the flip and the flop like Fosbury.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b2/Fosbury.jpg/220px-Fosbury.jpg)

Winner.

Do you really want to get into Obama's flips since he became president? Here's a list (after of course telling us in 2004 he would not run for president in the next election):

1)  Closing Gitmo

2) 5 days of public comment on full bills before a vote

3) Recognize the Armenian genocide (the date passed with no action, as always)

4) Reduce or eliminate earmarks

5)  Cut deficit spending by half

6) Not raising taxes on families making less than $250K

7) No signing statements

8.) Military tribunals for detainees

9) indefinite detention of detainees

10)  rendition

11) no lobbyists in his administration...  

I guess Obama is just evolving on these issues.

A story (with video) that aptly summarizes my thought on this flip flop. This is the kicker:


http://hotair.com/archives/2012/05/10/obama-yeah-weve-been-fibbing-about-my-position-on-same-sex-marriage-for-a-while-now-or-something/

It's a shame that Obama's more enlightened views just make him look like a flip-flopper to social conservatives.

Guido, notwithstanding the lack of credibility you have with me (and vice versa I'm sure  :) ) you chose as issues mostly those he had no unilateral power to enable and that depended on changing circumstances and information. Its one thing to have a position before an election, like closing Gitmo, and then having your atty general and the military give you more powerful arguments not to close it based on current information, then change your view. Its quite another to continue your obstinance in the face of overwhelming facts because you're afraid a poster on a forum in a redneck state might think you flip/flopped.

Kennedy thought the Russians had superiority in nuclear missiles and ran on that as part of his campaign. Eisenhower knew different but couldn't let it be known. When Kennedy took office he was informed and changed his support. Damn flip flopping Democrat!

Anyway, as I pointed out, its the manner in which Romney seems to wave in the breeze that gave him his well earned reputation. The Republicans want to take that weakness and ignore it by forcing the spotlight on their enemy and accuse him of the same thing. Who is the sucker in this scenario?

That's so true AM.

Bristol Palin weighs in:
I love this horseshit. Can someone explain that incomprehensible gibberish she spewed in that blog? I tried to read it
and can't make heads or tails of what the intercourse she's talking about. Listening to advice from Bristol on morals is like
getting relationship advice from Limbaugh!

Why did you give it a moment of your time?

Good question....

Aquaman and Nathan have it pin pointed.

Look, the GOP/Teabaggers are warriors in the culture war. It's their way or the shitter.



It would be nice if the Republicans would look forward instead of living in the past.

I am not going after your credibility. You believe what you want to believe, you espouse it, and that's it. Same for me. Credibility in my mind is about believability and truth. Here, you and others are spending lots of time trying to lessen the impact of a plain flip flop, which you know to be a bad thing since you go after Romney for doing so. In my mind, that makes you look hypocritical and holding your side to a different (double) standard.

Look at that list I gave of Obama flipping, or in your mind evolving or accepting political reality. You call his responding to "changing circumstances and information". Sheesh, just accept the FACT that Obama has changed his view on gay marriage and the defense of marriage act on numerous occasions since 1996. He was for it in 1996, before he was against it in 2008, now he's for it 2012--as well as other actions throughout. He also took this current position within DAYS of Biden doing what he does best and the North Carolina vote on gay marriage. Oh, did I mention he is up for reelection this year? This is all FACT. Please, stop trying to make this whole thing about some sudden spiritual or maturing awaking. It's not. Is it that hard for you to accept that Obama is a politician and, gulp, will make decisions for political gain?

I'm going to guess that his views haven't changed much.  Just what the handlers believe the electorate might want to hear.

These guys are running a giant popularity contest.

I'd promise to get recess lengthened too.

T for President!!!!

Agreed.  I think Crazy Uncle Joe was just sending up a well-orchestrated trial balloon to see if it was time for POTUS to come out of the closet on the issue finally.

Smart move apparently.

Count Chocula weighs in

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/05/09/krauthammer_first_time_in_history_evolution_has_been_accelerated_by_an_upcoming_election.html


(http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2011/5/24/a68b2e9d-b9f8-4527-b802-c1ee7f787404.jpg)

I'm pretty sure this is what happened, too.  North Carolina definitely gave the announcement a goose, too. 

Seven states where Obama's evolution could hurt him and why.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76143.html

Interesting.  He'll definitely see some fallout for his stance, but Politico's reasoning is based on data and voter turnout in some cases dating all the way back to 2004.  As we've seen, polling on gay marriage has moved into net positive territory only recently . . . but what that means is opinion has been undergoing a strong shift only very recently.  Data from 2004 -- two whole presidential cycles ago! -- is going to be less than fresh. 

His method of trial balloon, accidental release, and timing before an election I will concede as political tactics. Smart ones too that he has used before and Fox and friends (tp's) never see it coming. Darn that Biden, there he goes again....

The process of moving positions based on inside knowledge, compromise (the republicans hated word) or evolution of thought is real and totally different from talking like a farmer when your speaking to farmers. Romney will change a viewpoint in a heartbeat and every one of his opponents called him on it and lambasted him for it because they know it is based on where he is speaking and who he is speaking to. That contrasts severely with Obama.

I would take this case to a jury and feel pretty secure that your argument would be dissected correctly. Romney wins the Fosbury award hands down.

Apparently the people in North Carolina didn't get the memo. Neither have the other 40 plus states where marriage is between a man and a woman or the 30 or so states that have banned same sex marriage.

You may not have noticed this, but the population distribution is not exactly uniform between the states. ;)

This also applies to his positions on gun control.  He has worked actively in the past FOR it, and has been absolutely silent in public about it for the last 4 years.  He is still evolving....


I have no problem at all with his evolution about gay rights - been there, done that, got the t-shirt...way back in the 60s - but going back AND forth does seem a little odd.

There is no excuse for the kind of disparity we see today on gay versus straight family units.  Doesn't matter if it is called a marriage or a domestic union, all couples should have the same rights.  And of course, there is one step further to this - should 3 or more people fall in love and want to share their lives as a family, who could possibly justify any government intrusion into their private life?  Where would it be anyone's business but the people involved?

Only the same people who want the government out of big business' hair, but meddling in personal matters as much as possible.  You know who that is....

Curious isn't it, how many states disregard the rights and values of their own constituencies. These people get in office and bring their own agendas and the public has to suffer the humiliation. Yes, Oklahoma, I'm talking about you.

Probably would've turned out differently if they'd held the vote in November.  There's a reason why some elections are held in low turn-out times.

The other states will start to change as intellect overcomes intolerence.

Who's getting protected anyway?  Marriage between man and woman is happening less and less.

Marriage was originally for financial reasons.  Must be in defense of the god of money.

The director of the Pew polling center was on NPR this morning, talking about this very thing.  In essence, he said that the polling numbers support the contention that 1) "gay marriage" is an activating issue for Republican voters more than Democratic voters; 2) especially with North Carolina -- and in other states as well -- these initiatives tend to be pushed strategically, so that they show up in times and places where the Republican voters are already motivated to show up at the polls.  For instance, in NC, the vote was scheduled over the Republican primary, so GOP voters -- and activist GOP voters, at that -- were already at the polls. 

He also pointed out that there's been a major cultural shift since about the mid 90's, and the movement is almost entirely generational (amongst respondents 40 and under) and with both Democrats and Independents.  The voting bloc that hasn't changed at all since the 90's is the GOP bloc.  Support is low and has stayed low. 

IMO, most of the gay marriage bans/legislation mask a fundamental weakness.  Legislation continues to be enacted because of excellent strategy on the GOP's part, but it doesn't reflect actual public opinion. 

The government can get involved when it comes to government benefits like Social Security survivor benefits, disability for a spouse, etc.  This raises an interesting question.  If it’s a state’s rights issue, wouldn’t the feds still have to pass legislation allowing for same sex spousal benefits?

It can become rife for abuse and fraud at some point, that’s the point where the government can and should get involved, especially if people suddenly had five spouses to suck up more benefits.

Probably.  Details - we already have a mass of "stuff" in place for marriage - it could just extend to domestic partnerships.  I don't see it happening anytime soon.  I think I'll be able to kick back and roll my own before we have equal rights for gays.

The plural marriage....that could be real messy, but so long as I don't have to pay any welfare/foodstamps, etc to support it - which applies to ANY marital arrangement - I don't see that as any of the governments business whatsoever.  It appears to be mostly a religious thing, but even if not, whose business is it other than the people involved?  With all the usual caveats about existing criminal law involving minor children, etc.

Yeah, I do see it as problematic but solvable. My widowed granny lived with another widower back in the late 60's to game SS. Her entire downtown apartment complex was full of these immoral sinners. Then theres polyamory to deal with. I do think it is all inevitable however and likely sooner than H thinks.

You already pay for welfare/foodstamps, etc. to support marital arrangements.  Why would polygamy be any different in your eyes?

No, all the feds have to do is repeal DOMA and married means whatever the state that issued the license wants it to mean.

OK doesn't take the OK marriage licenses all that seriously anymore.

Got married in another country and the state said "good enough".

I do not care about gay marriage because it is not going to affect me. But I wouldn't call people opposing SSM as "intolerant" or lacking intellect. There are many many of us who value tradition, believe family is about procreation and carrying for young, or those who fear a slippery slope. Point is, not all of us have a religious-based opposition to SSM. Some I dare say with more intellect than you or I. After all, at one point the smartest person ever to be president opposed SSM until recently.

As for how the NC vote could have turned out if held in Nov. is nothing but speculation--and sorry, sounds a bit desperate. I think the better argument is that states with larger, more intelligent and tolerant populations like California, New York, Oregon, etc., tilt the majority favoring SSM.

We have differing opinions.

I believe the dictionary definition of the world intolerant would say otherwise. That's not to say that intolerance is automatically wrong, but let's call a spade a spade. I guess I'm just not sure what difference it makes who the government issues marriage licenses to, so long as they aren't forcing churches to solemnize them. After all, the government will happily issue a marriage license to two divorced Catholics, even if the Catholic church disagrees with the fact of their divorce.

The government is not and should not be in the business of imposing the views of a religion on society as a whole.

Very reasonable.

Please explain this to your fellow conservatives.

We are still in the first century of the U.S. government trying to replace the church as American’s primary religion.  Give ‘em time to come around.  ;D

I can't. And besides, it's not a liberal/conservative thing to me. In NC, there were large numbers of African Americans that voted in favor of SSM and for prop 8 in CA. Are they conservative? Damned intolerant bigots... ;)

Don't think it would.  The people I personally know in plural arrangements are the same as all the rest of us - go to work, support their family, raise their kids, send the kids to school, support the economy with their participation and taxes, etc.  I have yet to meet any of those fundamentalist types that are in the news with 25 wives and 100+ kids.

(http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/FirstGayPresidentLarge.jpg)

The rainbow halo is perfect. +1 Newsweek.

I don't know a  single conservative that cares about gay marriage.

The closest of everyone I know at most just doesn't want to call it "marriage" as they relate that to religious dogma.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZMndjLIQUFw[/youtube]

Obama is in a pretty convenient spot on this one, never having employed a single person. Can't fire someone if you've never hired someone.

Someone might think about changing the channel from Fox News every once in a while.  Is Steve Doocy frequenting the forums now?

 :o

Obama economics:

Extend u/e benefits to 99 weeks so many of the unemployed have zero incentive to look for work for almost two years.  Then keep spending into oblivion because Bush did it too.

Just extending my point that Obama doesn't really take a stance on anything therefore he can be anyone.

He reminds me of people I work with. They just try not to make waves. Don't do anything (good or bad) that will get them noticed. They go through life never really achieving anything other than keeping their job.

You seriously think unemployment is high because people are too lazy to look for work?

really?  Wow.

OBL.  Gone.
Health insurance expanded to those many who didn't have it.
Pre-existing condition refusal.  Bye bye.

Doesn't help that the Republican's stance on his Presidency from day 1 is anything he is for we're against...even if we were for it before he was inaugurated...

Thank the 111th congress. I seem to recall political commentators lamenting that Obama was not getting involved enough in the Health Care debate. I remember watching MSNBC and hearing every one of the talking heads pleading the president inject himself in the debate.

Nope.

I am saying though there’s a significant number of people who have no incentive to find a job until their benefits run out.  I can’t even begin to tell you the number of people who come in to get their “ticket punched” each week who have absolutely no intention of working for us.  I can also give you multiple anecdotes of people I know who are refusing to take jobs they consider beneath themselves while doing cash work on the side and justifying it with: “I paid for those benefits for 20 years, I’m going to get all the benefits I can!”

Yes, that really is the line the right wing bloviators have been pushing the last few months. Obama, the do-nothing President. (in addition to pushing some legislation through his words, I seem to recall more than a few executive orders the righties got mighty pissed about) God forbid even a smidgen of truth creep into their polemics.

Edited to add: Conan, as you're aware, I'd like to put everyone on UE more than a couple of weeks to work at least one day a week mowing parks or whatever else needs to be done that we don't have the money for due to the economic situation. Have you noticed a difference in attitude among those looking for work since it was announced that extended UE is going away in Oklahoma?

I don't disagree that there are people out there with a massive sense of entitlement. Personally, I think people should feel free to use benefits available to them, but I also think they should be doing whatever they need to do to get off assistance if possible. If that means they need to see a shrink, that's fine by me. If it means they need to see a doctor, also OK. If that means they need to pound the pavement and find a job, that's good too.

At the same time, although that's not at all what it's for, I don't blame people for taking something of a vacation for a couple of weeks. Most of us only get a week or two off a year, which is just patently ridiculous. That's simply not enough free time to be a mentally healthy and well balanced human being. Moreover, a lot of companies give you zero days off the first year. IMO, that's abusive.

Yes, Conan truly believes in that bs. He's stuck in Oklahoma where the wind comes sweeping in the smell of west side refineries.

War weary vets prefer POTUS OBAMA over a Hypocritical Corporate Elitist... http://news.yahoo.com/weary-warriors-favor-obama-131752838.html

What?  That doesn't work?  
When you get depressed, doesn't running up your credit cards make you feel better?

I don't know.  Ask George W.  Obama wasn't the only President to do that.  Dubya made it stylish...

We could look at the history and find that Nixon & Ford started the trend, Carter reversed it but did not close the gap, Reagan blew up the deficit despite raising taxes by quite a lot, Clinton reversed the trend to the point of (cash) surplus, and GWB reversed course. Thus far in the modern era only Democrats have left office with a smaller budget deficit than they began with. (HW was about even) Weird, that.

Similarly strange is how more jobs have been created since 1945 with a Democrat in the White House than with a Republican despite Republicans holding office more.

So that video is Obama's commercial that runs 2 minutes long starting tonight in Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Colorado. I thought that it was just something that TTC dug up to make a point.
I Guess the gloves are off. Let the mud slinging begin.....or continue.  ::)

P.S. Don't that dude in the video look like Bob Newhart ?

You and I really aren’t that different on our views of UE benefits.  I think you give someone a week or two to earnestly look for work, then they need to start checking in and performing work for the UE benefits but not just one or two days a week.  I suspect a couple of my friends would take one of those less than ideal jobs they’ve been offered if the alternative became shoveling stalls at the fairgrounds, picking up litter along a highway, or mowing right of ways in 100 degree heat until they found something better.

Are we really blaming correctly though?  Reagan had a Democrat-controlled Congress for eight years.  Clinton had a GOP Congress for his last six years in office.  Bush had a Democrat Congress his last two years in office when we saw the deficit start to spike again.  Congress controls the purse strings and can put the kabosh on the President’s budgetary proposals.

Of course we could re-hash the 17 warnings to the def ears of that Democrat congress by Bush et al. concerning the dire concequinces that continuing the Fanny/Freddy scheme would create, but that would be so boring.  :D

If they spend too much time working for the government, they won't have enough time to find a job in the private sector. FWIW, I'd also like to see no-cost-to-the-student job training (and general ed) at community colleges. If we really do have a structural unemployment problem as the right wing economists claim, that should fix it right up. Moreover, requiring general ed classes as part of that retraining will help people to become more well rounded and give them a solid foundation on which to participate in our political system.

If we really want to attract employment, we need employees who can do the work being asked of them. With a strong system in place to get workers the skills they need without saddling them with mountains of debt that keeps them in what may end up being a failing industry, companies can be assured of not having long term difficulty finding employees. Short term, sure; training does take a while. But long term, no, unless they are paying so poorly they can't compete in the job market.

Conan, at least in Reagan's case, the Republicans have long been happy to take all the credit. As far as GWB goes, his deficit situation improved after the Democrats took over Congress. In FY2000, the federal government surplus was about $200 billion. (and arguably helped cause the 2000 recession, government surpluses do that sometimes) By FY2004, we were very nearly to $400 billion a year in deficit. In FY2005, the deficit was over $400 billion. FY06 closed the gap by about $100 billion and successive budgets closed the gap even further, to about $180 billion before the financial crisis hit.

I think we all know how the deficit situation is now. Bad but improving, albeit very slowly.

Gaspar: One more time, Fannie and Freddie did not cause the subprime bubble. They were marginalized by MBS packaged by the big banks. Fannie and Freddie actually had rules to keep from lending money to people who couldn't pay it back. The big banks wanted as much toxic smile as they could get because they knew it could be unloaded to suckers like the landesbanks. Unfortunately for them, when the music stopped they had big deals in the works that left them with plenty of crap on their own books. (or in the case of Bear and Morgan Stanley, they intentionally bought some of the crap from other banks)

In the last couple of years of the party, the banks weren't even selling MBS much any more. They were doing fully synthetic deals because they couldn't find enough borrowers. Fannie and Freddie can't even legally do that.

I really don't. Here are some more people who "hate" Obama:
http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2012/05/13/same-sex-marriage-supporters-opponents-gear-up-for-november-ballot/

Their religion causes them pain.  If they were more accepting they wouldn't have these issues.

We shouldn't be blaming people (Dem/Rep) per se. We need to be focusing on what policies worked and what didn't regardless of who did them.

I wouldn't throw the baby out over this. I am pro-life (anti-abortion) and anti-death penalty because of religion/faith. I also donate heavily to very needy people largely because of a sense of moral obligation I got while in church. I am also "don't give a sh!t" over SSM despite my religion.

Not yours.  Theirs.  That gentleman decided his beliefs make it so unacceptable that he's pushing politics in a tax free business.

Good news everyone.

The TW is tweeting that: 
Yup, they spent time for that. 

Good thing because we all had our doubts. 

Hell, I thought there were going to be gay marriages and show tunes all over this state by this weekend.

Color me surprised.

O K L A H O M A ...I just realized why they shut down Discoveryland

We can argue about whether church's are "tax free" all day long (and also the contradiction about treating corporations like citizens via taxation but give them no "personhood")--and not quite sure what church taxation policy has to do with your original point about religion driving beliefs or "causing them pain". Straw man?

This is a thread about hating Obama. Go back to the first post in this thread and read about us disrespecting Okies. Better yet, here's the last bit of RM's rant:

Not quite seeing RM's rage at others being hateful or being meanies. Perhaps I am getting fed up at the never ending ripping this state gets from within.

Here ya go!!!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gAlxfNBWvY[/youtube]

Religion, as in all things, should be in moderation.

We'll never agree about the tax thing.

Using a religion to hate is just sad.  It happens often though.

Yep.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnlRrxXv-v8[/youtube]

I love it, HuffPo actually provides some of the more balanced reporting these days.  Whouda thunk?

GST wasn’t that robust if Bain came in to the picture in the first place.  Where was the Clinton White House in trying to help protect American steel worker’s jobs from cheap imports flooding the market in the first place?  Looks like Bain was trying to help out where the government wasn’t.  And finally, what does an investor or investment house do?  They expect a return on their investment.  Not all end happily.  If anything the GST workers would have been out on their donkey long before 2001 if not for Bain.

Move 'em all to a corner of Wyoming and the rest of us can move on with ourselves.

Use any of them you want to make a point.  They're all crazy or confidence artists in my book.

Just away from Jackson Hole (oh, and from this).

(https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTC_UQQZkCbK_RW3q1q6WI7iw3Ol-itYQqYKkoRicIuXdugD4sz)

Whoops! there for a second I thought that was Nugent.

It's a good issue for the president.  He is going to campaign with Ricky Martin next week according to a press release today.  I think the gay marriage issue will take some pressure off of him so that he doesn't have to address the economy, jobs, energy or other issues.

Gay rights is an issue that has sharp teeth for candidates who embrace positions of faith or pander to evangelical voting blocks.  If he can exploit enough momentum in the gay community, he can perhaps expand this issue to overshadow at least part of the larger spectrum of important issues.

I think he needs to be careful though, because he may serve to alienate part if his base in the older African American and Hispanic community.  While they may vote Democrat, they tend to embrace more conservative social values as a community.

The ball is squarely in Romney's court now.  How Romney handles this will determine if this flip-flop was a good idea for the president (in 2008 Candidate Obama affirmed several times that he believed marriage was "between a man and a woman"), or if he is shooting himself in the foot yet again.

We are about 6 months out and we continue to see these attempts to steer from logical, fundamental, economic, or leadership issues to emotional exploits.  This scares me a little because when it comes time for presidential debate, we may see a re-run of 2008 where hopey-changy rhetoric trumps any discussion of reality.  If this is the setup, again, track record and qualifications will be meaningless.

And Michelle is still stirring up the carp.  There are people who actually thought this kind of liar would be a good President...oh, wait...what?


http://news.yahoo.com/bachmann-fundraising-whopper-202734700.html

WTH does this have with the president’s trip to Cushing?

Wait...What?  Marshall’s!

One can have a robust (and profitable) business and still sell it to PE. The problem is the deals are structured to load the debt onto the company being purchased while simultaneously extracting management fees large enough to pay the PE firm more than the company was purchased for within a few years rather than paying off the debt, even if the company has to draw on lines of credit to do it. It's much like the CDO scam, actually. Nobody cares about the long run because their payday comes rather soon.

If the company does manage to make its way out from under the debt load, that's just a bonus. The firm will have long since made their money back and more.

I don't have a problem with the concept of PE, mind you. I have a problem with most PE deals being designed to funnel money to the PE firm at the expense of lenders, suppliers, and employees with zero consideration for keeping the company a going concern for more than a couple of years.

Edited to add: Not to mention they'll be happy to buy up a profitable company and sell its machinery to a chinese company if the machinery happens to be worth more than the business for whatever reason. (Sometimes just worth more than what can be extracted from the business now) The argument could be made that the world as a whole is better off after such a transaction, but it's hard to say that our country is better off when that happens. The argument also could be made that the owner of the company just mispriced it and therefore the world as a whole may not be better off.

By no means am I defending the actions of some PE firms, because they are deplorable. But the thing is, in most cases the company that got acquired, agreed to it. Rarely are takeovers hostile. So say what you will. Those complaining should have either done their due diligence (it should be no surprise that PE companies do what they do) or stop complaining at the outcome. If they wanted control, they shouldn't have given it up.

I have seen several reasons for engaging PE firms, and Nate is right.  In many cases a PE firm can be courted to purchase a profitable company.  Management and labor issues are also a good reason to engage 3rd party investment.  PE companies thrived in the 80s because companies were growing in many cases too fast to keep up with management requirements.  The infrastructure of these companies was fragile, and many went boom to bust quickly because of that.  Smart investors in a company will engage a good PE firm if they see that pattern and want some assurance.

Bain worked several sides of the equity equation. They bought the good, the bad and the ugly.  Romney's specialty was buying the ugly.  These were companies that were in some cases months away from complete failure.  He did quite well. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204331304577140850713493694.html

He bought dogs and turned them into show-ponies.  Sure 22% of them failed but most of those escaped the grave with Bain resources for as long as 8 years before filing bankruptcy, and currently there are hundreds of thousands of jobs that exist today because of tough management decisions made by Romeny and his group.

I guess when you really consider it, 21 million employees, $15 trillion in debt, and $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities. . .sounds like a job for Romney!


 

Romney, unfortunately, will be wandering into the same thicket that greeted Obama, namely a GOP-led House -- and possibly Senate, in 2014 -- that is as preoccupied with making ideological statements as it is in actually governing.  I don't believe that Romney will have any latitude whatsoever to actually govern -- he will be preoccupied with the Tea Partiers, who will spend their time pushing him ever rightward, forcing him to support ever more cockamamie legislation in their pursuit of symbolic purity. 

This is a problem because Romney will need at least some level of flexibility to deal with our monumental national issues.  He'll have to be able to find enough votes on the other side of the aisle, but his own party will demand that he not bend at all, and in order for him to win re-election -- which he will start running for as soon as he's inaugurated, he will have to kow-tow to the base. 

Romney is an awful choice if you have any concern whatsoever about how the Tea Partiers have governed so far. 

Sounds like you are just writing president Obama off.  Don't give up, he could be re-elected. It could happen!

They don't have to be hostile. The existing owner(s) get a big check to retire to an island somewhere. Other stakeholders, however, get zero say. (I'm not saying the workers should control the business, but they and the wider community should be taken into consideration when making this kind of decision)

If you're the boss you're the boss. I understand there are other "stakeholders", but in the grand scheme of things, if the boss wants it, it gets done. Because Romney's firm was there to profit is immaterial. If not Bain, it would have been someone else.

Sorry if you got the impression that I think Bain should be singled out. The PE scam goes far beyond them. I also agree stakeholders like employees shouldn't get decision making power over the business (unless they buy it through an ESOP or something). However, their interests should be considered. When you buy a company and run it into the ground with a crushing debt load you placed upon them, you're making money by screwing them (and the surrounding community).

I work for a guy who buys failing companies in a certain industry and turns them around. He usually has to cut jobs for a while to do it, after all, the reason he buys them is because they're losing money. If they were making money, their owners wouldn't want to sell. So he eliminates some redundant positions, invests in equipment that allows the operation to run more efficiently, and beefs up the sales staff to increase volume and away they go (usually). He does not force his companies to take out large loans to pay off the loans he took out to buy the operation in the first place.

Point being that there are non-scammy ways to do what PE firms do.

There are, and there are non-scammy PE firms out there too.

I'm kind of naive in this regard often in that I believe that people usually have the best intentions. That being said, people that start, grow, and build there own businesses often want the best for their companies. Unfortunately best intentions do not always create success. Maybe being bought out was the best solution. Sad but true I am sure in many cases. PE firms offer one thing, CASH. It is what it is. Some, like Venture Capital (which I am more familiar with) offer expertise and guidance as well. Of course VC is often taking an idea and trying to turn it into something profitable. I've also worked for a tad less desirable PE firm who bought Real Estate and struggling companies. And unfortunately, the struggling companies often remain so. The turnaround success rate is definitely less than half, but it does happen. And I don't think any of the deals were done just to shut them down. Although shutting down some business units within a company is sometimes necessary to regain profitability. It's kind of like a bunch of the government programs. I would argue that many are not necessary, but it would hurt real bad for some to just stop them right now. A failing company will have made some bad decisions, correcting them is not always a pleasant task.

I think you and I agree that there is a market for this sort of thing. I don't know about you, but I really don't view Romney's time at Bain as a particularly bad thing. Many good and decent people work in the industry. No reason to let a few bad apples spoil the bunch.

I think our main point of contention here is the frequency of the "bad" deals. I think most of their deals are bad deals (for the company, not the PE firm), even when they end up working out through some miracle. I guess my biggest problem is that the deals are often structured to reduce or even eliminate any real incentive the PE firm might have to care about the long-term health of the business.

I don't think that the short term focus is exclusive to PE, mind you. It's pretty much a universal problem in our society at the moment.

Is there some indication that Bain does it the “scammy” way every time? 

Okay. It's been about 5 days now. I am officially SICK of SSM and all things gay for a while. Who's with me???

No, they are an extremely well respected, well capitalized company. They are far more diversified than just buyouts.

If a company were to continue scamming people, they would go out of business. Trust me, Bain didn't become Bain by being shady. Skirting morals doesn't lend itself to longevity in PE, because you often do business with the same crowd over and over.

So essentially, it’s just easier to spread innuendo and outright misinformation about Romney and toe the party line rather than admit to the failures of Obama and consider the possibility that Romney might just have a better grasp on how to turn the economy and jobs situation around.

You're (incorrectly) assuming that the people being scammed are people who have any say in the process.

Beyond the broad outlines and the few deals regarding which details have been leaked, these deals are usually kept quiet. Not necessarily out of any nefarious intent, but for the same reasons most private companies don't make much financial information public. The point being that it's really not possible to say what percentage of the deals are "scammy." Assuming that all the deals that haven't attracted attention were kosher is equally as misguided as assuming that they all were scamming somebody.

All we really know for sure is that many PE firms have done some deals that maximize short term profit for the firm at the expense of the long term viability of the purchased company. Bain happens to be one of them. I don't personally think that someone who worked in that field has the right mindset to be President. Being President is largely about setting aside what it is that you want in favor of doing what the country needs.

Romney's experience would be relevant if we were planning to do an LBO of China.

I think we went over this. Only a small majority of deals are takeovers. Most are agreed upon by both parties.


Details are private because it has to be. There are plenty of dollars chasing every deal. If PE firms were blabber mouths they would be out of business. Besides it's a private matter unless regulations state otherwise. I think it is good policy to keep it that way. I think you are buying into this whole PE Bad business that is just rooted in ignorance. People think that because some people got rich it must be inherantly bad. It's not. People are bad. The business model isn't. If I had to guess what percentage deals are "scammy" I would say well below 10%. You are making the false assumption that every company that a PE firm buys is viable. They are not. If I had to estimate the success rate in Venture Capital (a different strategy), I would say that only about 25% of the portfolio companies are still open in 10 years. Does that mean that they are evil money grubbing businesses? No. It means that about 75% of the start-ups got money that shouldn't have. But hind sight is 20/20. They take the risk, they get the reward. Again, PE is not inherently evil.


Again, you are mistaken in making the assumption that all PE firms are looking for the quick fix. They are looking to maximize profit, as should any reputable business. If that means a quick turnaround, fine. If it means longevity, they will do it. I understand there is pressure on them to produce returns. But they will not just sell to the first bidder I promise. They are going to position their assets for the highest possible return.

I don't agree. We need a slash and burn (efficiency creator) type President now more than ever. You can't disagree that our federal government is just getting too bloated and spending money on things that have no relevance to running our country. The current occupant is the complete opposite of efficiency. Funny you even say that the President is about setting aside what you want in favor of what the company needs. PE is probably the most effective industry in the world at cutting through the crap and doing what needs to be done, regardless of the poll numbers. They do what is right.

I remember an interview with the Home Depot guy. He was discussing criticism about his firm putting little guys out of business. He basically said that they deserved it and if he were running a business that was so poorly run that they couldn't stand some competition, it would be his own fault if he couldn't stay open. If businesses provide a product/service that is desirable, they would have stayed open. I mean they didn't put everyone out of business, only the marginally run ones. Should we feel sorry for them?

Yes, we've been over this. It's not the company's previous owner that is getting screwed. If they were, they wouldn't sell. People aren't stupid. Workers, the community, and the buyers of the bonds are the ones who get smile on. It's very similar to the CDO scam.


Aside from a few large VC firms, they all lose money for their investors (and the fees charged to investors keep them open), but the investors keep coming back for more. I don't know if they just see Facebook or whatever and see dollar signs or what, but the stats are out there and quite sobering. I understand how it works, though. You bet a relatively small sum on a lot of companies in exchange for a relatively large equity stake and one or more positions on the board of directors, and if it goes well you either invest more or IPO the company, which gets you millions in fees even if the share price isn't what you'd like it to be. ;)


Ok, this may be our fundamental disagreement. What is right and what makes money are often two very different things. Sometimes it's a tradeoff between what is right and what makes more money.


The Home Depot guy is a moron if he really said that. His company gets enormous tax breaks to build new stores. Tax breaks paid for by their effin' competitors! Of course Home Depot is going to look well run with government's thumb on the scale. Could you compete if you were paying your competitors to open new stores?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILdRxjrja9A[/youtube]

Not to oversimplify, but PE firms are really only one step removed from the concept of junk bonds or “B” loans.  For the amount of risk involved, there has to be a big return because the rate of failure and charge offs is a whole lot higher than there is underwriting an IPO for listing on NYSE or NASDAQ.

Without PE firms, there are a lot of companies which would not exist today. 

If you can’t go to a conventional lender or through conventional financing processes because the risk is too high for them, you end up dealing with loan sharks.  Sometimes companies recover from having to go to those depths sometimes they don’t.  Do you blame the original owner of the company for not simply shutting down, filing bankruptcy, and releasing all his/her workers and selling to a PE firm who kept many of those workers on payroll for another 5-10 years?

Bash on them all you want but there’s always a need for alternative credit sources in every level of society and business.  The reward is always much greater for those willing to take the biggest risks.  That’s been a core tenet of investing as long as there’s been civilized society.

It's a mistake to confuse the rating of the bonds they issue in the name of the purchased company to pay themselves back for the purchase price and the prior financial viability of the company. People sell their businesses all the time, often for reasons that have nothing to do with profitability or lack thereof.

Well, there's this for levity in this thread...


(http://danieljmitchell.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/clooney-obama.jpg?w=225&h=300)

That's a good one.

And for more on how we're living in a country that is more than happy to practice socialism as long as the benefits accrue to big political donors:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01182008/watch.html (note the date)

Well this is some welcomed news for Obama:

There are still comies? Wow....we really need to be fearful. :D

Cory Booker, who I like but now a bit disappointed in because of a wobbly spine, hated Obama (for less than a day apparently). Here is the "caught in the lie" video regarding Booker's Bain comments and the Obama administration's subsequent leaning on him.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=rGd8Xx7p_YM#![/youtube]

Obama lying? Say it ain't so, RM. :P

Well, he is a lawyer.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXILNncQwH4[/youtube]

Everyone is calling Bookers walk-back address "The Cory Booker Hostage Video"  The terror in his eyes says it all.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsdD3AvSgVQ[/youtube]

PLEASE HELP ME. AXELROD HAS MY FUTURE IN HIS HANDS.

Maybe they called in Rahmbo to Fedex a dead mackerel to Mayor Booker.

Booker I'm sure can handle himself against Rahm:

(http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/assets_c/2011/02/rahm%20ballet-thumb-500x943-31903.jpeg)

If by "hated" you mean disagreed with on one policy point. Hyperbole much?

If by not welcoming Obama with open arms and a nice sloppy kiss when he visits Oklahoma equals hatred? Welcome to the mockery of this entire thread--started ironically of course by the guy who called Obama a liar, campaign cheat, and race baiter...

To bring this thread back to its origins, here is RM's over-the-top righteous indignation directed at Oklahomans:

Emphasis mine

And once again, here is RM back in 2008--being one of the "you people" he apparently just cannot put with:


http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=9493.0

Again, why are you obsessed with my words, especially the me from 2008? You are getting creepy.

I don't understand what it means to you. If I criticize Romney, you post words I said about Obama. Is that your defense? Maybe creepy ain't the right word...maybe you are just unable to defend Romney and desperate.

It's not obsession. It's noting your so damned obvious hypocrisy over this fauxny outrage over Oklahomans who dared to not kiss his majesty's ring (or in your case his arse  :D) when he visited last. Again, I'm not defending anyone right now as I do not see the need until the fall. Rather, I would like to just keep reminding people how you damned the entire state, contemplating leaving, over how Obama was mistreated. Yet you did the SAME thing. Sorry that your own words hurt so much--which incidentally is the BEST defense to opinionated politicos.

I'll tell you what, you tell us at what point did Obama stopped being a liar, campaign cheat, or race baiter and become a superior candidate to Romney and I'll lighten up.

Also, rather than just ragging on RM, why not start some threads on how wonderful Obama is? Let's see those posts.

is that a multiple choice?

Guido is ODS suffering from Obama Derangement Syndrome...
I've tried to point this out for years now.


oh yes: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/05/obamas_second_term_transformation_plans.html#.T7PXZn5O-JE.facebook

A gift for all you righties....your type of politics.

Guid, I have reported RM's previous statements to AttackWatch and the Truth Team (I wasn't sure which agency has jurisdiction).

(http://www.hillaryis44.org/wp-content/themes/spirit/images/AttackWatch.jpg)
(http://www.glynncountydemocrats.org/GD%20Election2012/OFA_TruthTeam.jpg)

RM, that buzzing sound is most likely a drone.

You are right guido. I have said nice things about you on this forum.

I must just be a liar.

As I have said over and over, I am not the type to just fall in line for any candidate. I do my homework and often post what I have learned on this forum. I wrote about Obama's relationship with his pastor long before any of the national media did. I also thought that he had not been involved in national party politics long enough to be effective as president. I still think that was one of his problems this past three years. I have also started many a thread about other candidates, including Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, and others.

But somehow, in your simpleton view, that is a terrible thing to you. It is as if I wrote negative things about McDonalds and then wrote bad things about Burger King, you would obsess about my past views about McDonalds. Instead of writing your own thoughts about hamburger restaurants, you would continually repost my thoughts about the golden arches again and again.

Frankly, I am disappointed in you, guido. I thought you were up to the challenge of discussing issues and candidate's backgrounds in a civil and moderated forum. I thought you could be able to express your views like an adult. Instead, your creepy obsession about continually just posting things I said years ago shows you are not able to be a grown up.

Put on your big boy pants and defend your candidate instead of just rehashing other people's words about theirs.

RM may get the best of both worlds.  Biden is not favored in swing states, and the swing states are the primary battle ground for this election.  As it gets closer to the convention, Biden my be replaced.  His replacement guarenteeing an election land-slide for President Obama will likely be Hillary Clinton.

I know. . .I know, you're going to say I'm nuts for suggesting it, but I think it will happen.

Let me be the first. You're nuts for suggesting it. Any successful precedent you can name?

That’s really not the problem.  He has no leadership skills and didn’t have a track record of them prior to becoming president and the last three years have been pretty much as I’d predicted.  He’s had some shining moments, but for the most part his priorities have been out of whack and he’s deferred leadership to others on crucial issues.

There’s a huge difference between being a leader or an organizer.

Not one of those remarks is defensible. In fact they sound like boilerplate criticisms of every Democrattiic presidential candidate since the late fifties. Sounds like your recovery from republicanism is failing. Climb back up on that wagon. :)

I guess you’ve missed my point before about what a great leader President Clinton was and how much of a better leader I thought Hillary would have been than President Obama.  My observation has nothing to do with partisanship, it’s all about job performance.

Let’s hear you defend President Obama’s leadership record by listing some of the obvious high lights.  You really can’t use Obamacare since he deferred to Congressional leaders to lead on the issue.  Rather than to make a wholesale dismissal of my observation simply because it suits your paradigm, let’s see some brain power, Aqua.  ;)

You are are a double speaking, flip flopper and you are disappointed in ME? Frankly, I'm embarrassed for you. There, insults aside,  since you cannot identify the point in time when Obama quit being a liar etc. enough for you to favor him over Romney, can we all assume that Obama is still a liar, etc. but Romney is just worse? That's what is sounds like.

And please stop changing the subject from "just rehashing other people's words about theirs". We are talking specifically about your unabashed bashing of Obama on the one hand and you starting a thread about OTHER PEOPLE hating him on the other. This thread is about people hating Obama, of which you were one (and perhaps would still be one had Hillary gotten the nomination). Why can't you see how bad that makes you look>

I am not sure Gassy is nuts but I tend to agree with you. Dumping Biden could be seen as purely political and reactionary, and a signal of failure and blame laying IMO. As much as I enjoy ripping on Biden for being, well, Biden, whatever he says that is stupid is shrugged off.

Why? This is a game with no end. None of my observations are acceptable to anti-Obaman's. None of Republican observations are acceptable to me. What I see as leadership, you see as failed leadership. What you see as out of whack, fits my concept of responsible and pragmatic. and on, and on...What I see In the end is this is a popularity contest just like high school. We pick our favorites and defend them to the end against all criticizms whether accurate or not because of our long term goals, strategy preference and what tactics we identify with.

Issues and goals rule. Long term strategy and the tactics used to achieve those goals are a close second. Unless candidates are totally unappetizing and incompetent, they are almost irrelevant. Either of these candidates are sufficiently prepared to do the job. When I look at what each represents, I see a real difference in their goals and tactics. Dwelling on those differences is harder than attacking personality and skewing their histories. But either is acceptable as as administrators. Once you divide up into teams as some have done, the general good is destroyed.

Anyone who would characterize Obama's administration as failed, his goals as anti-business, anti-American and generally out of step with the population is just being cool to their school. They can make their case and those who disagree can make theirs. Its futile unless you just enjoy high school cheerleading.

Can't dump this guy.  He wants you to smell this finger.

(http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/562584_333453303391317_133054730097843_772884_761348288_n.jpg)

The flies are circling.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/05/biden-unfavorable-swing-state-poll/1#.T74t9Y6Ri5Q

In other words, you are either much more disassociated with what has happened the last three and a half years than you’d like us to believe or you simply cannot come up with a list of substantive achievements. 

I really don’t see them dumping Biden.  I’ve tried to think of a precedence and can’t for such a move. 

I thought he wanted me to go the The Villages...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmRXH7RkCZQ[/youtube]

Nah, just don't want to play that game. There are other games though....Thunder plays Spurs Sunday. We all love Thunder, right? :)

Whew!!!  I got dizzy there for a second...I thought I was in a time warp back to 2001-2008!

It's ok now....I sat down for a minute and it's all much better now.

Couple of things - with no results improving the economy for over a year and a half, even with a trillion + dollars thrown at banks, the recession actually started to go away only 5 months after the stimulus package ($300 billion tax cut - biggest in the history of the world), that put actual money into real people's pockets.  So, any rational thought process would lead to the valid conclusion that bailing out banks is no where near as effective as actually getting money into people's hands.  Just think how much better things would have been if the trillion had gone to real people instead of banks!!


Second, US manufacturing has increased in the last 3 years at DOUBLE the rate of Bush's 8 years.  2 times, in half the time - that's a factor of 4:1 improvement.  And with a true evaluation - how did your company do from 2001-2008 versus 2009- today?  In terms of percentage growth.

Well, at least you think it is.  We'll let you have that little delusion.

It is better!  Very quickly I came back to the reality that even though he is talking about Bush, we don't still HAVE Bush.  Just for that, it is gonna be a good Memorial Day!!

I was referring to:

Socialists Love Obama?

(http://thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/obama-democrat-socialists-e1337910360714.jpg)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Tmstx1HWX08[/youtube]

This is the kind of dirtball "news" you should expect from FOX NEWS.... sad what they've accomplished for journalism and our country.

Absolutely despicable to dredge up all of that!  We need to stop focusing on the past and look to the future.  Vorwärts!

You goofed...it's lies and deception....something the Teabaggers/GOP don't ever recognize. A good example would lie in Iraq....