# You’re decent, but just confused and stupid. (Political GDG)



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Good morning, hillbilly mouth-breathers! How are we today? Did we put our shoes on the correct feet and wipe all the drool off our faces before heading outside to plant turnips and whup our kids? Good, good. 

Now go find a Democrat to help you read the rest of this post. I’ll try not to use words that are too big or fancy but if you come across something you don’t understand, your Democrat friend is right there to explain everything. 

I’ve been concerned ever since I ran the reader poll that showed me that 95% of you are ignorant racists with sexual inadequacies. The world told you what to do but you won’t listen and I guess that’s because you’re just too dumb to know how dumb you are. 

Well, thank God for Barack Obama and Joe Biden. They hope to bring the change you can believe in - if you can just try really hard to put down the guns and Bibles and burning crosses long enough to take some learnin’.

The first step is to only listen to the “correct” political commentary. Obama, last summer:

The one thing that I want to insist on is that, as I travel around the country, the American people are a decent people. *Now they get confused sometimes. You know, they listen to the wrong talk radio shows or watch the wrong TV networks,* um, but they’re, they’re basically decent, they’re basically sound.​
See, you’re good folks but you just don’t know what’s good for you. You listen to Rush Limbaugh, and that is wrong. You watch Fox News Channel, also wrong. 

Now, he wasn’t clear on which radio or TV shows are the “right” ones to watch, but I’m guessing they would include all the ones who are blatantly and unapologetically in the tank for Mr. Obama himself. You’re too stupid and confused to know it, but that would be ALL OF THEM EXCEPT FOX. Your Democrat helper-friend can show you how to use your TV channel menus and radio tuning dial to find those. Try not to get any poop or slobber on those devices during your lesson. 

As for why you’re so confused and misguided, well it’s simple. Mr. Biden explained it yesterday:

The Republican party and some of the blogs and others on the far right, are trying very hard to paint a picture of this man, they’re trying the best as they can to mischaracterize who he is and what he stands for.

All this stuff about how different Barack Obama is, *they’re not just used to somebody really smart. They’re just not used to somebody who’s really well educated. They just don’t know quite how to handle it. Cause if he’s as smart as Barack is he must not be from my neighborhood*.​
Ain’t that the plum truth? I personally have never met anyone as smart or as educated as Barack Obama. Why, in my immediate family there are only two master degrees, one college professor, two engineers, one licensed P.A. (high-level medical professional), and one director of an honors math department. So, no, I just can’t handle someone like Barack with all his education and brains. It’s completely beyond my scope of understanding and it is yours, too. Don’t get confused by Sean Hannity and go thinking otherwise. 

(That would be racist.)

You know who is smart enough to handle Barack? This douche, I mean genius on the Huffington Post:

…if you are a McCain/Palin/Bush voter, you and I do not have a difference of opinion. *We have a difference in brain power.* 

Now, I want to be clear and speak directly to those of you who LOVED that Palin interview. *You’re an idiot*. I mean that.

…if you watched those interview excerpts and weren’t scared out of your freakin’ mind, then *you’re mentally ill, mentally disabled, or mentally disturbed.* What you are NOT is responsible, informed, curious, thoughtful, mature, educated, empathetic, or remotely serious. I mean it.

…Stop voting for people who remind you of your neighbor. Stop voting for the ideologically intransigent, the staggeringly ignorant, and the blazingly incompetent.

*Vote for someone smarter than you. *​
Clearly, Huffington Post is one of the “correct” avenues from which you should be getting your information. 

Well, morons, I hope this has been helpful. Frankly, I’m surprised so many dummies are even able to access my blog, seeing as how it requires taking your finger out of your booger-laden nose long enough to wield a mouse. If you’re like me, you had to have a Democrat turn on the computer for you and show you where to click. 

In fact a Democrat is typing this for me right now because I’m so confused about how to handle Obama’s staggering genius that I’ve curled into the fetal position and am sucking my thumb, which I only stop doing long enough to shout out the N-word and ask for some juice and Froot Loops. After I’ve been fed, my Democrat is going to read aloud from Daily Kos for me until it’s time for my nap.

LINK to original article.


----------



## Matt McKenzie (Oct 9, 2004)

Could you say that again, but slower?


----------



## Steve (Jan 4, 2003)

I'm an engineer. I'd venture to say that a whole lot of these "smart" people couldn't make it through freshman year of engineering school.

If the liberals were actually intelligent, they wouldn't be supporting the same old socialistic programs, which only burden an economy.


----------



## Roger Perry (Nov 6, 2003)

Obamba --- top of his class at Princeton

McCain ---- bottom of his class at Annapolis


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

SO? just getting into the USNA is tough, nevermind graduating. Sen McCain flew jets, the US Govt doesn't trust just anybody with one of them. Anybody can become a community organizer, just ask Al Capone, Jesse Jackson or Jimmy Hoffa.


----------



## DeadDucks (Sep 8, 2008)

Roger Perry said:


> Obamba --- top of his class at Princeton
> 
> McCain ---- bottom of his class at Annapolis


I just about flunked out of high school, now I have a Ph.D in Chemistry. Furthermore, I graduated from graduate school at the top of my class. Grades sure tells us alot about how intelligent we are.


----------



## TXduckdog (Oct 17, 2007)

Wow, is this yankee chick serious or is this a parody of some sort?
A google search on her, got my finger out of my nose for a second, gives mixed signals.


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

Roger Perry said:


> Obamba --- top of his class at Princeton
> 
> McCain ---- bottom of his class at Annapolis


check your spelling on your guy Obama.....

For You OBH supporters ,  I cant tell whether its that you are so fed up with the current administration (as is the majority of the country) or that you are all drinking the same kool aid and have fallen for the hype and a slick marketing campaign...the same type of marketing that gets you to buy a certain car, use a brand of soap, drink a certain beer..( I got my degree in marketing)...how else do you explain his meteoric rise to the top of your party and along the way knocking off what is/was arguably the most formidable political machine in modern day politics in the Clintons...maybe Bill was right , you all bought into the fairy tale, you were disillusioned and looking for a great story and they told you a tale and if you dont wake up by Nov.its going to end in a very bad way and you will have no one to blame but yourself and the million others that have bought into the same hype


----------



## Roger Perry (Nov 6, 2003)

bonbonjovi said:


> check your spelling on your guy Obama.....
> 
> For You OBH supporters , I cant tell whether its that you are so fed up with the current administration (as is the majority of the country) or that you are all drinking the same kool aid and have fallen for the hype and a slick marketing campaign...the same type of marketing that gets you to buy a certain car, use a brand of soap, drink a certain beer..( I got my degree in marketing)...how else do you explain his meteoric rise to the top of your party and along the way knocking off what is/was arguably the most formidable political machine in modern day politics in the Clintons...maybe Bill was right , you all bought into the fairy tale, you were disillusioned and looking for a great story and they told you a tale and if you dont wake up by Nov.its going to end in a very bad way and you will have no one to blame but yourself and the million others that have bought into the same hype


Obama is not necessary MY guy. I voted Republican until George Bush ran and I felt I could with good concience vote for him. To me, I was right. Again I do not really like either canditate that is running for our highest office.


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

Arguably one of the most brilliant people in history, Albert Einstein had a really tough time in math in primary school. His teachers nicknamed him Der kline dumbkopf, the little dumbhead.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Roger Perry said:


> Obamba --- top of his class at Princeton
> 
> McCain ---- bottom of his class at Annapolis


My brother, a retired Doctor, reminded me years ago - just to make me feel safer about seeking medical care, I guess - of the name they call the people who graduate in the bottom half of their class in medical school. "Doctor". Interestingly, some of those are the better ones.

Evan


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

What do you call the person who graduates last in their law school class? Your Honor!


----------



## Roger Perry (Nov 6, 2003)

Bob Gutermuth said:


> What do you call the person who graduates last in their law school class? Your Honor!



Bush 43 was not smart enough to even get into a Texas law school and look what he has done to the country. 

McCain's Father and Grandfather were admirals in the Navy, my guess is that McCain did not have too hard of a time getting into the Acadamy.


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

I dont think you want to even trek down the road when it comes to BHO lineage and parental upbringing...just like when the libs question Sarah Palin's qualifications to be the VP....people in glass houses shouldnt throw stones


----------



## subroc (Jan 3, 2003)

It just doesn’t matter to lefties. This is their playbook.

Extreme left wing radical politicians are smart, anyone that is right of center is dumb.

It is just their playbook.

As in any debate or argument, when you resort to name calling you have lost the argument or debate on the merits.


----------



## Roger Perry (Nov 6, 2003)

subroc said:


> It just doesn’t matter to lefties. This is their playbook.
> 
> Extreme left wing radical politicians are smart, anyone that is right of center is dumb.
> 
> ...


George H. W. Bush: 
I'm conservative, but I'm not a nut about it.



George W. Bush: 
This administration is doing everything we can to end the stalemate in an efficient way. We're making the right decisions to bring the solution to an end.



George W. Bush: 
As Luce reminded me, he said, without data, without facts, without information, the discussions about public education mean that a person is just another opinion. (September 9, 2003)



George W. Bush: 
There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee...that says, fool me once, shame on...shame on you. Fool me...you can't get fooled again. [9/17/2002]



George W. Bush: 
Our nation must come together to unite.



George W. Bush: 
It's exciting; I don't know whether I'm going to win or not. I think I am. I do know I'm ready for the job. And, if not, that's just the way it goes.



George W. Bush: 
In my sentences I go where no man has gone before.



George W. Bush: 
I have a different vision of leadership. A leadership is someone who brings people together.



George W. Bush: 
A lame duck session, for people who don't know what that means, it means the Senate is coming and the House is coming back between now and Christmas and they've got a few days to get some big things done. [11/7/2002]



George W. Bush: 
He can't have it both ways. He can't take the high horse and then claim the low road.



George W. Bush: 
For every fatal shooting, there were roughly three non-fatal shootings. And, folks, this is unacceptable in America. It's just unacceptable. And we're going to do something about it.



George W. Bush: 
I was proud the other day when both Republicans and Democrats stood with me in the Rose Garden to announce their support for a clear statement of purpose, "You disarm, or we will." [10/5/2002]



George W. Bush: 
Leadership to me means duty, honor, country. It means character, and it means listening from time to time.



George W. Bush: 
Whether or not it needed to happen, I'm still convinced it needed to happen. [explaining why he sent U.S. troops into Iraq, Dec. 12, 2005]



George W. Bush: 
As governor of Texas, I have set high standards for our public schools, and I have met those standards.



George W. Bush: 
I appreciate that question because I, in the state of Texas, had heard a lot of discussion about a faith-based initiative eroding the important bridge between church and state.



George W. Bush: 
People that are really very weird can get into sensitive positions and have a tremendous impact on history.



George W. Bush: 
I mean, there needs to be a wholesale effort against racial profiling, which is illiterate children.



George W. Bush: 
Should any Iraqi officer or soldier receive an order from Saddam Hussein.... don't follow that order. Because if you choose to do so, when Iraq is liberated, you will be treated, tried and persecuted as a war criminal. [1/22/03]



George W. Bush: 
See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.



George W. Bush: 
The law I sign today directs new funds and new focus to the task of collecting vital intelligence on terrorist threats and on weapons of mass production. [11/27/2002]



George W. Bush: 
One of the great things about books is sometimes there are some fantastic pictures.



George W. Bush: 
Too many good docs are getting out of business. Too many OB/GYN's aren't able to practice their, their love with women all across this country.



George W. Bush: 
It's clearly a budget. It's got a lot of numbers in it.



George W. Bush: 
We must all hear the universal call to like your neighbor just like you like to be liked yourself.



George W. Bush: 
We look forward to analyzing and working with legislation that will make -- it would hope -- put a free press's mind at ease that you're not being denied information you shouldn't see.



George W. Bush: 
You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test.



George W. Bush: 
There's not going to be enough people in the system to take advantage of people like me.



George W. Bush: 
There's only one person who hugs the mothers and the widows, the wives and the kids upon the death of their loved one. Others hug but having committed the troops, I've got an additional responsibility to hug and that's me and I know what it's like. [12/13/2002]



George W. Bush: 
We cannot let terrorists hold this nation hostile or hold our allies hostile.



George W. Bush: 
Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?



George W. Bush: 
The most important job is not to be governor, or first lady in my case.



George W. Bush: 
I glance at the headlines just to kind of get a flavor for what's moving. I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who are probably read the news themselves. (September 21, 2003)



George W. Bush: 
I am mindful not only of preserving executive powers for myself, but for predecessors as well.



George W. Bush: 
If you find a neighbor in need, you're responsible for serving that neighbor in need, you're responsible for loving a neighbor just like you'd like to love yourself. [11/16/2002]



George W. Bush: 
I can't wait to join you in the joy of welcoming neighbors back into neighborhoods, and small businesses up and running, and cutting those ribbons that somebody is creating new jobs.



George W. Bush: 
They want the federal government controlling Social Security like it's some kind of federal program.



George W. Bush: 
That woman who knew I had dyslexia: I never interviewed her.



George W. Bush: 
No, I know all the war rhetoric, but it's all aimed at achieving peace.



George W. Bush: 
Will the highways on the Internet become more few?



George W. Bush: 
We look forward to hearing your vision, so we can more better do our job. That's what I'm telling you.



George W. Bush: 
Washington is a town where there's all kinds of allegations. You've heard much of the allegations. And if people have got solid information, please come forward with it. And that would be people inside the information who are the so-called anonymous sources, or people outside the information — outside the administration. (September 30, 2003)



George W. Bush: 
One of the common denominators I have found is that expectations rise above that which is expected.



George W. Bush: 
I mentioned early on that I recognize there are hurdles, and we're going to achieve those hurdles. [1/22/2003]



George W. Bush: 
We are ready for any unforeseen event which may or may not happen.



George W. Bush: 
Natural gas is hemispheric. I like to call it hemispheric in nature because it is a product that we can find in our neighborhoods.



George W. Bush: 
I understand small business growth. I was one.



George W. Bush: 
I believe the results of focusing our attention and energy on teaching children to read and having an education system that's responsive to the child and to the parents, as opposed to mired in a system that refuses to change, will make America what we want it to be — a more literate country and a hopefuller country. (January 2001)



George W. Bush: 
The administration I'll bring is a group of men and women who are focused on what's best for America, honest men and women, decent men and women, women who will see service to our country as a great privilege and who will not stain the house.



I rest my case.


----------



## subroc (Jan 3, 2003)

what case?


----------



## M_J (Jun 16, 2005)

There are probably dozens of Obama quotes that are just as contradicting. 

Quotes taken out of complete context don't really prove anything to me anyways.

And, speaking of being taken out of context, I could do the same with any post here, yours included.

If I was motivated, I would look them up. 

I'm not going to do it.

I rest my case...


----------



## labhauler (Oct 22, 2007)

The whole ballgame is a big joke on all of us


----------



## subroc (Jan 3, 2003)

Obama without a teleprompter…

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

BTW, this proves noting.

This election isn’t about personalities, It is about policies.


----------



## subroc (Jan 3, 2003)

Roger

You left me  chuckling 

I was just thinking that you guys are still running against President George W. Bush. You think he is dumb. You attempted to prove some point by your post. He beat 2 of your smart guys in 2 separate elections. You guys aren’t even smart enough to realize there are different people running this time. Keep running against President George W. Bush and soon enough we will have a Vice President Sarah Palin and her running mate President John McCain.

You will be left in the same state of shock as the last 2 elections, wondering what just happened and Chris Mathews can make more comments about sending foreign correspondents into the United States to find out what happened.

Still  chuckling


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Bob Gutermuth said:


> Arguably one of the most brilliant people in history, Albert Einstein had a really tough time in math in primary school. His teachers nicknamed him Der kline dumbkopf, the little dumbhead.


I read a biography of Einstein's life. It was especially detailed about his childhood. The idea that Einstein struggled with math as a child is a myth. It is discussed online here:

http://physics.about.com/b/2007/09/19/physics-myth-month-einstein-failed-mathematics.htm


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

Interesting. I read the story about his alleged problems in school years ago in Parade or whatever they stuffed in the Baltimore Sun back in the 1960s


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

So Roger, you really endorse this idea then that liberals are smarter than conservatives?

That is the case you are trying to make.


----------



## M Remington (Feb 16, 2006)

The research has actually shown that liberals are better educated than conservatives. The current presidential candidates reinforce that research.


----------



## Bustin' (Jun 5, 2007)

If Biden keeps talking, McCain is a sure winner!! Higher taxes = Patriatism?


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

M Remington said:


> The research has actually shown that liberals are better educated than conservatives. The current presidential candidates reinforce that research.


Who said "better educated?" The question is about _intelligence._


----------



## M Remington (Feb 16, 2006)

Most people equate intelligence with education, unless you're talking about plumbers or carpenters.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Roger,

Everyone knows that Bush is inarticulate. Heck, liberals say he is stupid! 

*What is Obama's excuse?*



Brent Bozell said:


> ABC reporter Jake Tapper follows politicians around for a living. On his blog, he suggested Barack Obama has a problem: "The man has been a one-man gaffe machine."
> 
> Just in the last few days, in Sunrise, Florida, Obama said, "How's it going, Sunshine?" He did the same thing in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, calling it "Sioux City." Some of his geographic struggles seem calculated. When asked why Hillary Clinton trounced him in Kentucky, Obama claimed "I'm not very well known in that part of the country...Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it's not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle." But Obama's home state of Illinois is more than "near" Kentucky -- it borders Kentucky.
> 
> ...





Michelle Malkin said:


> But what about Barack Obama? The guy’s a perpetual gaffe machine. Let us count the ways, large and small, that his tongue has betrayed him throughout the campaign:
> 
> Last May, he claimed that tornadoes in Kansas killed a whopping 10,000 people: “In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died — an entire town destroyed.” The actual death toll: 12.
> 
> ...


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

Well,, all I can say is that Mrs Gooser says I'm REALLY special when I show off my smarts!!!--I do it quite often too!!

I'm not even CLOSE to bein a Liberal!!
So at least thers 1 "special" guy in the other group!!-- Whats they call em??


Gotta go clean my gun before Church tomorrow!

Gooser


----------



## M_J (Jun 16, 2005)

AmiableLabs said:


> Roger,
> 
> Everyone knows that Bush is inarticulate. Heck, liberals say he is stupid!
> 
> *What is Obama's excuse?*


See? That's what was too lazy to go look for. 

Once again, I rest my case...


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

M Remington said:


> Most people equate intelligence with education, unless you're talking about plumbers or carpenters.


Malarkey! Intelligence is what you are given from nature, education is only one of the things you do with it.

My stepfather had two PhDs and an MD (a conservative by the way). He wrote eight books, several used in medical school, and in his retirement years made a career testifying in court as an expert witness. Yet he routinely needed help with the simplest of things like opening a can or putting a lid on a box.

My mother was a high school graduate and was extremely intelligent (her IQ was measure at 163). She started at the bottom as a file clerk of a huge county hospital, and within ten years, with no college education, had climbed to be one of the top administrators overseeing all areas of finances, a job usually reserved for MBAs.

Do you understand? An education feeds you information. Nothing wrong with that! It is my chosen career; I am a huge advocate! But how a person uses it is going to depend on their intelligence.


----------



## Russ (Jan 3, 2003)

Roger Perry said:


> Obamba --- top of his class at Princeton


Something new to me. Where did he place and what is the reference?


----------



## Steve Hester (Apr 14, 2005)

M Remington said:


> Most people equate intelligence with education, unless you're talking about plumbers or carpenters.


Intelligence and education don't necessarily go hand and hand. There millions of very intelligent people who never went to college. And you certainly don't have to be overly intelligent to go to college. Ever hear of an educated idiot?


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

I think it was Will Rogers who said" Ain't nothin dumber than an educated man in something he ain't educated in."


----------



## gsc (Oct 4, 2007)

Educated doesn't = smarter!!!

It does mean more time being feed the liberal garbage that they aren't smart enough to see for what it is. The emperor was wearing his underwear, and all the "educated" couldn't "see it".

It takes intelligence and smarts to get value out of an education.


----------



## Henry V (Apr 7, 2004)

AmiableLabs said:


> So Roger, you really endorse this idea then that liberals are smarter than conservatives?
> 
> That is the case you are trying to make.


Kevin, thanks for sharing the original post from a right wing blog. IMHO you started this thread to perpetuate the right wing talking point that liberals think conservatives are stupid. This latest line of yours is clearly and attempt to stir this up more.

Of course, this is not a new right wing tactic and I am sure it does work to rally the troops. In fact, this exact talking point was posted on a recent Sarah Palin based thread


> Clearly, the liberals who include lawyers, professors, teachers, the media and pseudo hippies do not like Sarah. They all think that you and I are too stupid to govern ourselves and that we should only vote for the people that they select.


Perhaps you are afraid that the Palin excitement is wearing off here just like in the polls so you know you have to go back to other tried and true tactics to rally the troops? Of course, I see it is not wearing off with you since your signature line now indicates that voting for the VP will be like dating. Interesting point of view.

Maybe I should waste my time looking up and quoting something from a blog too. No, better yet, maybe I should quote one of the numerous posts by conservatives on this website that have suggested over and over again that anyone who votes for Obama is stupid. I won't waste my time there either but all those quotes might be a bit more relevant to those on this board than some one who posted at the huffington post, but then again what do I know. 

Right now I am much more worried about the fact that a Republican administration has had to resort to essentially socialist policies to save this nation's banking and investment system from a complete meltdown and the start of depression II. I am also concerned about what will happen over the next days, weeks, and years as taxpayers try to pay off the estimated $700 billion to $1.5 trillion dollars that this government had to offer the private sector to avoid depression II. The next administration has a tough road ahead with no easy answers.


----------



## Dave Burton (Mar 22, 2006)

While all the "smart democrats" were in school the rest of us dummies were either fighting for our country or working to make a good living for our families. I work at one of the major universities in the country and I have seen more than my share of educated dumb people.(not all educated people are dumb) You wouldn't believe some of the stuff they come up with in some of the meetings I have to attend.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Henry,

Your best argument is to impugn my motives with contrived straw men? Surely you can do better! Surely you have more!

At least Roger is honest about it! Admit it -- liberals think conservatives are backwards and unelightened. We come from backwards states like Indiana (Quayle), Texas (Bush) and Alaska (Palin). We are uneducated, inarticulate, and this lack of enlightenment is the charitable explanation for why we "cling bitterly to our religion and guns." We need to recognize America is not the contributor to the solution to the world's problems, we are the cause of them! If we would only tolerate ALL beliefs and worldviews no matter how destructive they are to our social framework and culture (except intolerance, of course). If we would only hang up our guns, and sing cumbayah with all of nature. If we would only negotiate unconditionally with those who are dead set on destroying us, they will stop hating us!

Yup, conservatives are the stupid ones. :roll:


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

One more thing, regarding intelligence and the Presidency (which is off-topic for this thread), a good President cannot know everything and will surround himself with advisers who are experts in their fields. So the President's _judgement_ is far more important than his intellect.

Give me a President who is wiser than he is smart, over a President who is smarter than he is wise.


----------



## gsc (Oct 4, 2007)

Education with out religion only makes a clever devil...think about it.


----------



## dixidawg (Jan 5, 2003)

M Remington said:


> The research has actually shown that liberals are better educated than conservatives. The current presidential candidates reinforce that research.



What research?


----------



## subroc (Jan 3, 2003)

M Remington said:


> The research has actually shown that liberals are better educated than conservatives. The current presidential candidates reinforce that research.


 chuckling 

And in the last presidential election, with all that brain power available, the best you could come up with was a guy, John Kerry, whose college years show he was a bit dumber than President George W. Bush.

It appears that liberals aren’t using their superior intellect very well when selecting their presidential candidates.


----------



## mileswest (Feb 13, 2008)

For the last 50 years the poor have mostly voted for democrates
one thing that hasn't changed in 50 years is their still poor


----------



## wheelhorse (Nov 13, 2005)

I am sick and tired of "if you vote for Candidate A you are a moron" attitude this nation has and most of this board has. Doesn't matter if you are a conservative or liberal, WE ARE NOT MORONS. Liberals vs conservatives, extremist on both sides will continue to bring this country down. We need leaders that will reign in the polarization of the extremes. 

Kathleen


----------



## subroc (Jan 3, 2003)

wheelhorse said:


> ...We need leaders that will reign in the polarization of the extremes.
> 
> Kathleen


How is that done?

Do you have a leader in mind?


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Henry V said:


> Right now I am much more worried about the fact that a Republican administration has had to resort to essentially socialist policies to save this nation's banking and investment system from a complete meltdown and the start of depression II. I am also concerned about what will happen over the next days, weeks, and years as taxpayers try to pay off the estimated $700 billion to $1.5 trillion dollars that this government had to offer the private sector to avoid depression II. The next administration has a tough road ahead with no easy answers.


And where is the money going to come from? Never mind tax increases, we want a tax cut. Forget that we borrowed more than a half trillion dollars to pay for Iraq, now we're going to to borrow a trillion dollars or more and bail out the bad debts on Wall Street and stick it to the guy on Main Street. Every trillion dollars is roughly $3333 for every man woman and child. We're already nearly $10 trillion in debt, so the average family of four already owes over $133,000. And while we're at it, we'll destroy the dollar. We are going to inflate our way out of it, hyper inflation here we come. You think gas prices are high now, just wait a little. It'll make what we are paying now look cheap.

But none of that should be of any real concern. After all, they are going to let gays get married, let women get abortions, and they are going to take your guns away from you.


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

And what is going to happen if we don't bail out those crooks at the various financial houses? Can we afford to let them colapse?


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Buzz,

Lots of gloom and doom there! I rather not presume.

I can't say I agree with the bailout. But when I look at the FACTS it is the Republican administration making the proposal, and the Democratic congress that is going to enact it! You are wrong to point the finger in any one direction.

Regarding tax increases, even the Democrats now admit that tax increases stymie the economy, and Obama is having second thoughts now about his plan that taxes those making more than $250 a year because of the harm it might do.

That puts you and those who think like you out on your own little planet.


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

AmiableLabs said:


> Buzz,
> 
> That puts you and those who think like you on your out on your own little planet.



Ok. Taxes are bad, tax cuts are good. Now explain where all the money to pay our debts is going to come from. Oh, that's right I almost forgot. Tax cuts ALWAYS result in more revenue...

You seem to think I'm over reacting. So, apparently I shouldn't be nervous when the Treasury Secretary tells congress that we are within DAYS of the world financial system melting down, and the economy slipping into Depression 2.0.


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

The dims contributed mightly to this mess. In 1999 Slick Willey signed the repeal of the Glass Steinberg? Act(not positive of the second name), a Depression Era act that limited the ability of investment banks to dabble in mortgages. Now comes BHO who appoints to his VP vetting committee the former head of Fannie Mae. Fannie and Freddy contributed 1/2 a million $$$ to Baracks campaign. Another BHO advisor was CEO of one of the investment houses that recently tanked. Rep Barney Frank chair of the House Banking committee and Sen Charlie Schumer who charis the corresponding comm in the Senate are and have been sitting on their hands, likely hoping that a financial mess will help their guy in the election. The dims want to adjourn Congress and wash their hands of the whole mess doubtless for the same reason.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Buzz said:


> Ok. Taxes are bad, tax cuts are good. Now explain where all the money to pay our debts is going to come from. Oh, that's right I almost forgot. Tax cuts ALWAYS result in more revenue...


That is what BOTH parties currently believe. Again, that can't be a wedge issue.



> You seem to think I'm over reacting. So, apparently I shouldn't be nervous . . . .


No, those feelings are justified. But predicting the worst is not.


----------



## KBcoltcompany (May 28, 2008)

"umm, uhhh, um, uh ,ummmm, ummmm, well, I....um, uhh, umm, we....um, uhh, where am I?"

Barry Obama


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

KBcoltcompany said:


> "umm, uhhh, um, uh ,ummmm, ummmm, well, I....um, uhh, umm, we....um, uhh, where am I?"-- Barry Obama


Be fair! He doesn't do that when he has a teleprompter.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

i have a bridge to sell ANYONE who believes that we can pay for the war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, bail out businesses that fail KNOWING that they failed out of greed and stupid risks, and send billions upon billions overseas to prop up foreign governments that kill us every chance they get by LOWERING TAXES!

how stupid are we??????

I CALL B.S.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!-Paul


----------



## DeadDucks (Sep 8, 2008)

I wish I could have been a lawyer that graduated at the top of my class. Then I could pull the wool over everyones eyes just like Obama and I probably would not stumble when I was speaking publicly. I believe that there is a saying that the measure of a man is not what he says but what he does. As far as I can see, Obama has never done anything but talk.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

paul young said:


> . . . .by LOWERING TAXES!


McCain wants to keep the Bush tax cuts. Obama says he wants to cut taxes.

So are you suggesting we should raise taxes?


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Bob Gutermuth said:


> The dims contributed mightly to this mess. In 1999 Slick Willey signed the repeal of the Glass Steinberg? Act(not positive of the second name), a Depression Era act that limited the ability of investment banks to dabble in mortgages. Now comes BHO who appoints to his VP vetting committee the former head of Fannie Mae. Fannie and Freddy contributed 1/2 a million $$$ to Baracks campaign. Another BHO advisor was CEO of one of the investment houses that recently tanked. Rep Barney Frank chair of the House Banking committee and Sen Charlie Schumer who charis the corresponding comm in the Senate are and have been sitting on their hands, likely hoping that a financial mess will help their guy in the election. The dims want to adjourn Congress and wash their hands of the whole mess doubtless for the same reason.


Yes, Clinton signed it. It was put in to the omnibus spending bill in 1999 by Phil Gramm, it was called the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Phil isn't one of my favorite people, and neither is Clinton. I never voted for the guy and couldn't stand the sight of him or the sound of his voice when he was in office. This is why I love "Foreclosure Phil" so much:



> *Involvement in "Enron Loophole" Legislation*
> 
> Gramm was one of five co-sponsors of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000[3]. One provision of the bill was referred to as the "Enron loophole" because the House Agriculture Committee drafted it and it was later applied to Enron. Some critics blame the provision for permitting the Enron scandal to occur.[4] At the time, Gramm's wife was previously on Enron's board of directors.
> 
> ...


The Enron Loophole is blamed by many for the rampant speculation in the energy (oil) markets.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

show me where else to get the money, aside from borrowing MORE.....-Paul


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

paul young said:


> show me where else to get the money, aside from borrowing MORE.....-Paul


It's really just that simple isn't it? After 9-11 we were directed to all go out shopping weren't we?


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

paul young said:


> show me where else to get the money, aside from borrowing MORE.....-Paul
> 
> 
> Buzz said:
> ...


Spending raises revenue and spurs all segments of the market (industrial, manufacturing, services, etc.) creating growth. Higher taxes reduces spending.

It is accepted by the economists advising BOTH PARTIES that raising taxes harms the economy, and right now, the economy cannot handle anymore stress. 

This is why it is being reported that Obama is currently considering changing his plan to raise taxes on those making more than $250,000 a year. The economy cannot handle the hit right now.

Apparently you think you know better.

We can try and reduce domestic spending, outlaw earmarks, tear down trade barriers, open more land to oil drilling, fast track contracts for petroleum refineries, begin approvals for more nuclear power plants,. . . .

Oh wait, the Democrats are in charge of congress. Never mind.


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

AmiableLabs said:


> Spending raises revenue and spurs all segments of the market (industrial, manufacturing, services, etc.) creating growth. Higher taxes reduces spending.
> 
> It is accepted by the economists advising BOTH PARTIES that raising taxes harms the economy, and right now, the economy cannot handle anymore stress.
> 
> ...


Is there any point at which further decrease in taxes is harmful to the economy? Would the economy be better off if the tax rate went to zero?

Earmarks seem to be a pretty popular topic this election cycle. What is the total spent on earmarks a year. What percentage of the budget are they. What percent of the deficit do they account for? I haven't looked it up, but something tells me that the focus on earmarks is more about getting people emotional than anything else.

Do taxes actually decrease total spending in the economy? Given constant government spending, I guess it would decrease spending by the amount at least equal to decreased "borrow and spending."


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Buzz said:


> Is there any point at which further decrease in taxes is harmful to the economy?


I am not an economist, but it is my understanding that you can grow an economy too fast, so it seems to me the simple answer to your question would be "yes."



> Earmarks seem to be a pretty popular topic this election cycle. What is the total spent on earmarks a year.


According to Taxpayers for Common Sense -- "The total congressional earmarks for fiscal year 2008 numbered 11,780 worth $18.3 billion." Keep in mind there are only 635 congresscritters requesting al those special allocations to their pet pork projects, and a few, like McCain and Ron Paul out of principle do not request any.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

I got a question in pm, and just in the case there are others who are wondering, when we talk about "revenue" we are talking about the $$ the federal government gets. 

A super simple example --

If I spend $100 buying a tv set, there are a whole line of people and companies in line from the manufacturer of the component parts to the assemblers, to the delivery people, to the sales reps, everyone, that has to pay all sorts of taxes (incomes, sales, property, etc.) and fees (to use utilities like electricity, cell phones, heating oil, etc.) to government agencies because of the sales of all those tv sets. Additionally all these people and companies turn a profit keeping people employed, paying salaries, so all of them can spend $100 buying tvs too. And that grows, and grows, and grows. And not just tvs, but cars, and homes, and lightbulbs, and furniture, etc., etc.

Or we can all just not spend the money, send the $100 to the government instead, not feed the economy, not help pay all those salaries, and not have the tvs.

The government is going to get their cut! Every election, we get to choose how.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

Kevin, 

i'm not an economist either. however.......

if we eliminate ALL the earmarks,(18 billion/year-your number) we could pay off the Iraqui component of the war on terror in about 30 years.

my youngest grandson would be 37 years old at that time.

who knows? by the time he's my age, we (but not you and me-we'll be long gone) may be able to pay off the Afghani component.

eliminating earmark funding is the proverbial pee hole in the snow, when compared to the debt resulting from the wars, bailouts, and nation building efforts we have taken on.

the current economic mess was created by people buying beyond their means with greedy people enabling them, and the government encouraged the madness. now you and others are going to try to convince me that we can spend our way to prosperity?

sure you don't want a bridge of your very own? we'll put you on the easy payment plan and spread it out over the next 2 generations. c'mon let's deal.....-the Skeptic formerly known as Paul


----------



## subroc (Jan 3, 2003)

Paul/Kevin

Interesting that you 2 are debating how to pay down the national debt and neither of the 2 candidates running are talking about it at all.

I am not sure that any candidate during the primaries from either party worried about it all that much.

Even with the 700 billion-dollar deal in the works, there isn’t a payback component. Interesting that now that we have some number to debate, the 535 members of congress are in there all trying to get their piece of the pie. Assuming we need to bail out these financial institutions to prevent our banking system from collapsing, the first thing that comes to our congressional leaders minds is how can I get mine.

Congress just spends money on pet projects that they believe they can use to bribe their constituency to vote for them. 700 billion-dollars is just too tempting to let get out of congress without them all getting a piece.

Just because you care about it and think it (raising taxes) is a means to an end (paying off the national debt) doesn’t mean your congressional leaders and presidential candidates have it in their plan at all.

The raising of taxes (as he says, on the rich) by Obama is solely so he can fund his pet projects, buy votes and use the best liberal boogieman (the rich) available to his advantage.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

AmiableLabs said:


> This is why it is being reported that Obama is currently considering changing his plan to raise taxes on those making more than $250,000 a year.


 
This is how Obama "explained" his tax plan on 60 Minutes last night, i.e. that only people earning over $250,000 would be paying more higher income taxes. Those earning $150,000/year would "pay less in texes".

It was not clear whether this was a "change" to a prior plan or whether it was an explanation of the "original" plan, unless one was familiar with the details of the original plan.

Earmarks: A recently passed bill reported in our local newspaper noted that $5 billion in earmarks were included. That may raise the $18.5 billion figure mentioned by an earlier poster.

Both candidates referred to "greed" in reference to the Wall Street/banking debacle. McCain added that, as President, he would ask for the resignation of the Chairman of the SEC.


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

I am not an economist either, but its real simple: politicians have forgotten that it's OUR money, it doesn't just materialize out of thin air. They need to be more careful how they spend it. Obama just last week pledged $50BILLION (if he wins)to some UN anti poverty program to reduce world poverty, that money needs to stay here not be sent to Hotzeplotz where the local govt will likely use it to line their own pockets instead of helping the poor in that country.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/0...t-promises-billions-for-anti-poverty-program/


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

you mean like all the money we've sent to Iraq and Afghanistan? we don't even know how most of that money was spent......and it's WAAAAYYYYY more than 50 billion.

he can pledge any amount he wants. the legislative branch still would have to go along with it and appropriate the fundsbefore it could happen.

we just don't learn.

how much closer would we be to energy independance if all the money we've blown over there were invested in alternative fuels and nuclear power? we pi$$ away more money overseas in one year than any government on this planet does in ten years. and it's increasing at an increasing rate.-paul


----------



## John Kelder (Mar 10, 2006)

Paul , 
In your last sentence , I think its 1 month , not 1 year .Nobody shells out its citizen's cash like D.C.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

agreed! it was all rhetorical-i have no hard figures to back it up.-paul


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

paul young said:


> if we eliminate ALL the earmarks,(18 billion/year-your number) we could pay off the Iraqui component of the war on terror in about 30 years.


Economies are not static. 



> the current economic mess was created by people buying beyond their means with greedy people enabling them, and the government encouraged the madness. now you and others are going to try to convince me that we can spend our way to prosperity?


I am NOT saying we can spend our way out of THIS MESS! I am only talking about normal circumstances.

I have NO answer for this mess. It is way above my head.

As a conservative, my intuitive inclination is to not bail them out, and let the market work. However reading the opinions of more knowledgeable people than I, that over the years I have learned to trust, they all appear to be in favor of it. So I don't know what to think.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

as a liberal, i say bail them out.

then make the CEO'S ,CFO'S AND BOARDS OF DIRECTOR'S of the failed companies forfeit their salary and bonuses for 2008 and 2009. further, make them invest 75% of their personal assets into the companies they mis-managed. DO NOT FIRE THEM! MAKE THEM FIX THEIR MESS OR GO BROKE IN THE TRYING!

they had their party; time to bay the bills!-Paul


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

"If I spend $100 buying a tv set, there are a whole line of people and companies in line from the manufacturer of the component parts to the assemblers, to the delivery people, to the sales reps, everyone, that has to pay all sorts of taxes (incomes, sales, property, etc.) and fees (to use utilities like electricity, cell phones, heating oil, etc.) to government agencies because of the sales of all those tv sets. Additionally all these people and companies turn a profit keeping people employed, paying salaries, so all of them can spend $100 buying tvs too. And that grows, and grows, and grows. And not just tvs, but cars, and homes, and lightbulbs, and furniture, etc., etc.

Or we can all just not spend the money, send the $100 to the government instead, not feed the economy, not help pay all those salaries, and not have the tvs."

then what was this post about Kevin? sounds like you think spending will fix it to me.....

and by the way, letting the market work is precisely how we got to this point.-paul


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

paul young said:


> then what was this post about Kevin? sounds like you think spending will fix it to me.....-paul


Read it again -- that post has nothing to do with this mess. I was simply explaining paying taxes (or "revenue") through a growing economy versus increased taxation.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

paul young said:


> and by the way, letting the market work is precisely how we got to this point.-paul


Not true. Read up! It all goes back to the government's Fannie and Freddie making loans to people who would otherwise not qualify, and then the private sector having to try and compete with Fannie and Freddie.

Eliminate Fannie and Freddie, or at least making them obey market rules, and we would not be in this mess.

This mess rests on the shoulders of Democrats Chris Dodd in the Senate and Barney Frank in the House.


----------



## dixidawg (Jan 5, 2003)

From the NY Times:

September 11, 2003
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae 
By STEPHEN LABATON 
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago. 

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry. 

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios. 

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.


... Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing. 

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.'' 

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed. 

''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

dixidawg said:


> From the NY Times:
> 
> *September 11, 2003*
> New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
> ...


There, fixed it for you. ;-)


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

Kevin, what was the title of this thread? 

it seems to me like you (a self proclaimed conservative) were taking a shot at my mental acumen (i am a liberal and a registered democrat).

that is, unless you define stupid and confused in some other manner than is found in Webster's dictionary.

if i was wrong, and that was not your intent, please let me know and i will be glad to apologize.-Paul


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

paul young said:


> Kevin, what was the title of this thread? it seems to me like you (a self proclaimed conservative) were taking a shot at my mental acumen (i am a liberal and a registered democrat).


You didn't read the first post?

It was the title of an article about how *liberals think conservatives are "Decent but confused and stupid."* 

I am not mocking you or anyone. I am mocking the idea that liberals are superior to conservatives intellectually. It is absurd. But it is what many, many liberals believe.

But I can see how my statement could be ambiguous, so I will go back delete it.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

oh, i read it. and you were certainly demeaning SOMEBODY....

i figured it was people of lesser means than you or me who might be leaning toward voting for Obama, and that if they asked for guidance from the democrats, we would help them understand anything they were unsure of, and that we would lead them away from "the truth"...

suppose i could be wrong there, as well, though.-Paul


----------



## cshive (Dec 29, 2007)

I think both candidates are horrible. 

Whichever one wins our country is doomed in one way or another


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

The current financial mess is obviously the fault of the dims. If the top dims could find a Republican to jail or tar with being at fault they would be screaming for investigations by special prosecutors and Congress itself. The fact that Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer, and Chirs Dodd aren't making all kinds of noise about getting to the bottom of this crisis is proof positive that they know who is at fault: They and their dim buddies and contributors precipitated the crisis.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

right.

not a single republican crossed the aisle on that vote.........-paul


----------



## M Remington (Feb 16, 2006)

That's rich, Bob. Somehow, Phil Gramm is missing from your list of those to blame. That's right, he was the darling of the right so he's above reproach. Or maybe McCain's role in the Keating Five scandal has been forgotten. There's enough blame to go around.


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

Well then why are Schumer and co not screaming for an investigation?


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

M Remington said:


> That's rich, Bob. Somehow, Phil Gramm is missing from your list of those to blame. That's right, he was the darling of the right so he's above reproach.


No, Phil Gramm is partly at fault. The point is when you check the record it was the Democrats Barney Frank and Chris Dodd who stood in the way of reform. Look at the NY Times article posted up thread. 



> Or maybe McCain's role in the Keating Five scandal has been forgotten. There's enough blame to go around.


What role was that? When he refused Keating's bidding, and Keating called him a "wimp?" Or when McCain confronted Keating and yelled at him what he was doing was wrong! I have no love for John McCain, and I certainly had even less back then. But do you even know what the "Keating Five" is? Do you know that there were four Democrats and one Republican charged by a Democrat controlled congress? I am old enough to remember. McCain was the one Republican. It was widely accepted that he was only named because the Dems did not want only their party to get a black eye. Yet McCain was the only one of the five to go and testify at the hearings to clear himself. And sure enough, he was exonerated.

The Keating Five scandal has NOTHING to do with what is going on now. If it did the media would be all over it like white on rice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five

I would suggest the next time you hear someone try to attack McCain over the Keating Five, you question their motives and their credibility.


----------



## subroc (Jan 3, 2003)

M Remington said:


> ...Or maybe McCain's role in the Keating Five scandal...


As someone who leans right, I haven’t forgotten the Keating Five.

Nor have I forgotten the un-indicted co-conspirator or $90,000 wrapped in tin-foil in a freezer, or Chuck Shumer and his anti gun zealotry.

The interesting thing is more often than not a leftie gets a pass in the media and anyone right of center gets crucified.

That said; just because they get a pass in the media and/or no charges get filed, doesn’t mean we can’t make a judgment on crooked politicians.

I think a large block of Americans vote based on political party with the mantra “my scoundrel, right or wrong. The classic example of this is District of Columbia Mayor (DC), Marion Barry.


----------



## JDogger (Feb 2, 2003)

subroc writes;

"I think a large block of Americans vote based on political party with the mantra “my scoundrel, right or wrong."

You be 'kiddin' me? Right Joe?

JD


----------



## Cody Covey (Jan 29, 2008)

Am i misinformed in stating that mortgage companies were more or less forced to lend to low income families by congress? they want to gives money to people that obviously can't afford it then are surprised when they dont pay their bills...hardly shocking. Then to top it off Bush will get the blame for this regardless of where the legislation came from to allow low income families these loans


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

Thread closed due to personal attacks.

Guys and gals, discontinue the personal attacks now, PLEASE!

Chris


----------

