• It’s over. The Western-culture core of America is on a decline that cannot be reversed.

• The Limbaughnic plague has run its course.

• That America would be better governed by conservatives is no longer relative if conservatives will never again have a majority.

• Obama IS a socialist. As political rhetoric, you’re right. No one’s listening. But as a statement of fact, it’s a matter of fact.

There is a probability that we are seeing the end of the Republican Party as we have known it. There is also a probability of resurgence, but the “with us or against us” faction doesn’t seem likely to welcome a return to any “Big Tents” anytime soon.
.
Only time will tell which way the Elephant drops, but the current direction looks more and more like self-marginalization and impotence.
.
Whether the Libertarian Party can fill the approaching vacuum, or some other politcal group does remains to be seen. My money is on something we haven’t actually recognized yet, as the Libertarians just haven’t reached any kind of critical mass (in issues or membership).
.
Difficult to prognosticate here. Not much in the way of precedence to go by. Just the Whigs, and who remembers the Whigs?

Amen, Abdul. I’m done with the R’s for the reasons you cite. Most people are okay with principled opposition, but self-righteousness never plays well.

Ah, but growing government is such fun, and then there are no limits as to what you can do until the house of cards falls down flat and you no longer have anyone else to blame. As the thieves pick over your property (oh, they are not in session just now)be happy that the looters are showing restraint. Polls are generally worthless as a guide as to what should be done-consider who they are asking?

“And before I forget, can we drop the “Obama is a socialist” rhetoric. When you have a President with a 67-percent approval rating the only people who are going to listen to you are the other 23-percent who don’t like the job he’s doing.”

Why drop the rhetoric? He is a socialist, and I believe that the under-21 and Hispanic populations you spoke about are socialists. We are going to become a very socialist state. The “live-and-let-live attitude about life” is only part of what these folks believe in. Most fully believe in that if they screw up, everyone else should be there to bail them out. The bailouts would be via taxation which goes to the government for various programs. I have heard from plenty of single mothers that if you have a bastard child, you are rewarded with tons of free money for college. It doesn’t matter your family’s economic status, the single mom thing just go so huge, that we should reward such behavior with free college.

Even if the Republican/conservative party didn’t care about abortion, they most certainly care about other individual rights. This country is turning away from individual rights with every passing day. Just look at the public smoking bans. If the majority wants it, it will come, the US Constitution be damned. I want a party with the live and let live attitude, but also one that isn’t going to turn around and demand more of my money to bailout those who screw up in life. I personally predict a huge collapse of this country. We will likely be turd world status within one or two decades.

The only relevant point I can add to this entry is that Tom Ridge is the proud owner of two of my dogs siblngs (a third sibling is owned by the Sulatan of Brunei). Ridge and the Sultan can proudly proclaim the same thing about Shorebreak :)
.
As for the GOP, the above assessment holds little substantive value. The root cause of the disassociation from the GOP isn’t touched, if Daniels “Get’s It”, our nation is doomed anyways if the GOP ever makes a comeback, and I can promise you that the only reason Obama has a 67% approval rating is because he’s marketed as a populist. The financial sector knows that they need a dramatic shift and centralization in national policy if they want to successfully merge the US with an integrated global system. Obama is a marketing strategy, used as a weapon against a population who is poorly educated and who has no clue that media is a tool to form their political and social beliefs in a controlled manner.

>a lot of things and have a live-and-let-live attitude about life.
.
Funny you would mention that in the same blog entry deriding people who believe tearing a baby apart in its mother’s womb is not just a “choice” but something far more drastic, barbaric, and symptomatic of some of the social issues we face today.
.
Lastly, I was a mindless democrat for many years, voting for them because it was what “…Black people are supposed to do.” In 1994 I woke up and started voting outside the box. By 1998, I stopped supporting Republicans wholesale and don’t consider myself democrat or republican but I tend to vote for republicans far more than democrats.
.
Does this poll take into account people, who like me, don’t identify with any party but trend voting for one or the other?

Most of the polling actually show a slilght but signficant increase in anti-abortion rights attidues among the young. In otherwords, this new generation is actually more against abortion than before.
.
I totally agree on the immigration issue. Repubicans can’t win long-term if they come across as bashing Latinos. We need immigration reform…the system is broken and has been for years.
.
I most certainly disagree that the Repubican Party is floundering because of social issues, even though I don’t agree on some of those social issues. Republicans can win when they can combinie the fiscal and social conservatives, even though they don’t always get along. The Republican Party is failing because it is no longer seen as a fiscally conservative party. Many of those voters go to the Democrats.
.
Republicans cannot win just being fiscal conservatives. As noted below, we’re not seen as the fiscally conservative party any more. There is a reason why Goldwater got creamed – Republicans have to have fiscal and social conservatives to win.
.
A few years ago, I took a poll in my class and asked them several questions, including which party was best at keeping taxes low and controlling spending. The Democrats were overwhelming labeled as the party that would do that. If you want to know what’s wrong with the Republican Party, that is is…not social issues.

You’re right. Obama is not a socialist. He is actually a Fascist. The federal government now directly owns and controls some of the largest financial corporations in the country.

Paul, I tend to agree with your assessment. The media and democrats are warning republicans they’re becoming irrelevant because they’re too far “to the right.” lol…
.
The reason I distanced myself from the GOP is they moved from the right and too far to the left. The GOP needs to think about two things with this latest trend of group think:
.
a) If they move to the center or to the left of center then how do they differ from the democrats and in what significant way that would make someone decide to vote for them versus a democrat?
.
b) Why the hell would they follow the advice of their political enemy? Were I a democrat strategist/media person, I’d advise the republicans to do the very thing I knew would ultimately destroy them. That is what I see as happening and like dumb asses they’ve been following that script since 1998. It wasn’t being a better democrat that caused the groundswell of support in 1994.

67%

I know I can no longer stomach the talk show hosts that constantly bash President Obama. They make me want to run from Republicans.
.
I used to listen to them every day. Now they just sound hateful and grouchy.

Reprint of Paul J. Koivuniemi’s letter to IndyStar’s Bob Kravitz regarding his article supporting the Colts position that a deal is a deal.

WHEN IS A DEAL A DEAL?

“The fact is, even in business, when a deal’s so bad for one party, it’s usually renegotiated and restructured.

There’s no need to beat your chest and say, “I won,” especially if you intend to have a long-term relationship with the partner.

It tells me a lot about the Colts management that they’re so insistent that a deal-is-a-deal. Contrary to Kravitz’s conclusion, the Colts are the ones I wouldn’t do a deal with.”

Here’s an idea: How’s about the GOP forgetting about the left/right and conservative/liberal labels and just advocate and implement good, honest, minimal, constitutional government? Is good, small, unobtrusive, lawful government too much to ask for?
.
(note to self: if the highest paid and best educated policy makers aren’t implementing THAT, I have to conclude that party leadership doesn’t WANT good, small, unobtrusive, lawful government – they want eloborate social policy and expansive federal control in it’s place.)

I like you a lot, Abdul, but this was an awful post. Local politics are more your game, and you’re right than Daniels is solid. Now for some facts:

Obama’s 67% is lower than any president but Clinton since 1968. You also also did the math wrong with the 23% comment. Obama is NOT popular at all, sir. And most who admire him are very ignorant of the past 100 days of disasters.

As some have noted, your abortion, social issues rant sounds like an out of touch elitist, ala those libs on the coast. Don’t do that. I also dislike centrists who try to bash both sides, but when it comes down to it, are bashing the party (the GOP) that has moved toward the center while not criticising the party hijcked by the left! Look at their “leaders”: Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Holder, etc.

67% my ass! Real Clear Politics has a poll average at 62%, which is still probably too high. You’re too blinded by your man-crush to realize that his popularity is entirely media-driven. It is folks like you who are the problem, Abdul. You had an opportunity to actually inform your listeners of what kind of man Obama was before he got elected, but sat back and did nothing but fawn over the guy. You (a so-called conservative), after jumping on the Obama bandwagon, have no business giving any advice to the GOP on how to gain strength on a national scale.
If the profoundly ill-informed American public would actually pay attention to what Obama is doing to rip away the foundations of our once-great nation, maybe something would be done about it. But his supporters in the media can’t afford to actually inform their viewers or listeners. They are too busy telling us about the Obama’s picking the family dog. (He’s clearly not a dog lover, so this is one of countless things he’s done solely for the public’s consumption.)
And since when is it racist to actually suggest we enforce our immigration laws? That’s another typicallly liberal move, Abdul. Be aware. You might actually get what you hope for. The Latino community is overwhelmingly pro-life. If Obama’s pro-infanticide agenda is ever actually reported on by the Obama sycophants in the MSM, then their support would be forever lost.
This country has lost its way. I wouldn’t expect a Muslim to understand, or even care about that. Until January of this year, this nation was a Christian nation–a Christian nation that was tolerant of other faiths–but a Christian nation none-the-less. Maybe it’s in God’s plan for this once-great nation to fall as the Roman Empire did. It is clear, by who we’ve chosen to lead us, that we would deserve it.
You’re last comment is not factual at all. Those 62% like him, but far fewer like his policies. So, until you kick me off this blog, I will continue to call it like it is. The man is an anti-American, pro-infanticide, SOCIALIST!!!

Abdul,
There’s 33% left, rather than 23% you wrote unless there is a 10% neutral that you left out.
.
While fiscal irresponsibility is the basis for our banishment to the political wilderness over the last 6 years, social/wedge issues are also significant contributors to the Republican party’s downfall; how can we claim intellectual consistency and honesty when on one hand we stand for smaller and limited government, but on the other hand we stand for government intrusion in the name of social/morality issues? The answer is that you can’t because the two concepts are diametrically opposed on most issues. Abortion, gay rights, etc. shouldn’t be litmus tests for whether you’re an R or not. Hell, there shouldn’t be any litmus tests in my opinion; social issues are a sliding scale rather than an either/or proposition for each individual or family.
.
I truly find the opposing, and often competing, viewpoints within each our parties to be the true reflection of irony: Dems have environmentalists and manufacturing unions, yet those union jobs mostly rely upon the consumption of natural resources, they also have the hispanics and blacks (who generally oppose gay marriage and have an unfavorable postion on homosexuality) along with the GLBT folks; Repubs have the social/morality folks and the limited government folks, we also have “big business” and the anti-illegal immigration folks even though anyone who knows economics knows that a nation eventually has to import its workforce to do the low-end jobs as the prosperity of the nation increases and that our immigration policy is incapable of addressing our workforce needs. Truly ironic.
.
Republicans/Conservatives/Independents who share the views above will be vilified or castigated by posters on this blog and in other conservative media, but those actions perfectly exemplify why we’re on the outside looking in as the Dems reshape this country in a manner with which most of us disagree.

AJ, I’m going to pick on you in this thread to make a point – it’s not personal so please don’t be offended.
.
What is “the Left”?
.
Going back to the root of left/right politics and it’s emergence in representative government, you need to go back to the French parliament in the 1700’s. In their parliament there were two predominant camps. One camp conducted government according to the needs and interests of banking and the most powerful industrialists. And one camp conducted government according to the needs and interests of citizens as individuals whom they represented. The “banking camp” sat to the right in the parliament, and the “people camp” sat to the left in the parliament, therefore, left/right.
.
In other words, those who voted for the banks and private interests were “the right”. Those who voted for the people and for individual rights were “the left”.
.
With the advent of modern media and the consolidation of media under corporate control, we’ve seen a dramtic shift in the meaning of left/right politics. Rather than focusing on government for the people v. government for the corporations, the media has reframed left/right to contrast moral issues. In the process, the “purpose” of government argument conversation has been entirely, 100% ignored by the same media.
.
For those of you who have been kindly patient enough to read through my entire post, my premise should be clear – the left/right paradigm that is promoted daily in mainstream news and by radio propagandists is nothing more than a distraction to focus you on social issues. Either side of social arguments can be used to justify expanding government. And in the process, you are drawn 100% away for the real left/right issue – which is that private interests and corporations have virtually merged themselves with government, where leadership of both now populate both our government and the leadership of private finance and industry. So I smile to myself any time someone claims that “the left” has taken control. That’s what our Constitution dictates – control by the people, or, by “the left”.
.
So from now on, whenever you hear someone on the radio or televison condemne the left or right, remember that the argument has been changed to lead you away from arguing “by the people’ v. “by the corporations”. Social policy has taken it’s place and is used to stir your emotions and to justify exponential government expansion, no matter which side of the social issue we support.

[...] that same talk show host has posted the following on his blog (he also spoke about it briefly on the sow today and promised to spend more time on it [...]

“I know I can no longer stomach the talk show hosts that constantly bash President Obama. They make me want to run from Republicans. I used to listen to them every day. Now they just sound hateful and grouchy.”

Melyssa, give me a break. The conservative criticise Obama with facts and logic. Keith Olbermann, the NY Times and Hollywood spent 8 years wishing ill upon Bush, concocting stories, calling him names worse than Hitler and making films about his assassination. THEY are the ones spewing hatred — at a president who kept us safe since 9/11 during a time of war.

Most “liberals” are totalitarian fascists.

AJ, that post made me laugh. Most people couldn’t create (and defend) a logical argument if their media gig depended on it (as it doesn’t seem to).
.
But, what is something worse than Hitler? Just one or two examples would be OK.
.
Nice job of overgeneralizing while demonizing. Ever consider a job in advertising?

“a president who kept us safe since 9/11 during a time of war”.
.
That’s a classic, right there. Safe from who? From the folks who were armed and trained by Bush Sr. and Zbig back in the late 70’s – because, as Zbig told them, “God is on their side”? At what point did God realize his mistake and change sides? I’m just curious.
.
Also, what was “the enemy” gonna do – pour into Saudi Arabia and convince the US consulates to grant them 1,000’s of student visa’s, like the other 19 who were “erroneously” granted visa’s before them, in hopes that NORAD would have another bad radar day?
.
It’s just amazing to me that people who actually believe this crap are functional enough to find their way around a computer. Here’s a serious question: When was the Patriot Act written – before or after 9/11?

Shorebreak may have a point. We probably just got lucky for the last 8 years.

I suppose we shouldn’t have teamed up with Stalin to defeat Hitler? Sometimes we have to get in bed with the enemy for the greater good.

And if you sincerely believe that Bush had nothing to do with preventing further attacks on our soil after 9/11, then you’re more delusional than I thought.

Karl – according to your argument, we “just got lucky” for several decades before 9/11 too. And was it luck that the invasion plans for Afghanistan were actually circulating the White House BEFORE the 9/11 attacks?
.
It’s amazing to me how people will reach out to their media provided arguments to justify unconstitutional, immoral, non-conservative, policies that do nothing more than get our bravest patriots killed and maimed. They put a flag on it and call it patriotism because the song that was played while their heart bled made them proud, and that’s how they want to feel about their boys who are dying.
.
Wake up, people. If we love our boys and our country, we need to rid ourselves of the lying coporatists who will kill any number of us when they need to use it as an excuse to project power.

My argument? What are you talking about? I was agreeing with you.

Sorry Karl – it smelled like sarcasm. :) I stand corrected.
.
But…. I also doubt there was much luck involved. There were dozens of things that had to “go wrong” on and before 9/11 for the attacks to be successful. The fact that every one of them DID go wrong implies that luck wasn’t a factor then either.

It’s amazing how every 8 years or so people are bemoaning the death of either the Republican or Democratic party. I recall this same kind of talk about the Democrats not all that long ago. It is all cyclical. I don’t think anybody ever votes “for” anybody or anything anymore; they just vote “against” the status quo because the status quo usually sucks. Once the party in power screws things up for awhile then the pendulum will swing back the other way.

Weel, it was sarcasm as was my second comment. I am heartened to see that you acknowledge that luck had little to do with the non-recurrence of an attack on American soil. I wonder if you might go one step further and credit Bush with seeing to it that the comedy of errors that led to 9/11 was not repeated.

From the same Gallop Poll:
“Aggregated data from the first quarter of 2009 show that 52% of Americans identified as Democrats or said they were independent but leaned to the Democratic Party, while 39% identified as Republicans or leaned Republican.”
However, you might want to see Friday’s Rasmussen poll:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/party_affiliation/partisan_trends

“In April, for the second straight month, the number of Republicans in the nation fell by roughly half a percentage point. The number of Democrats remained unchanged from a month ago.
Currently, 38.7% of Americans say they are Democrats while 32.6% consider themselves Republicans.

Since last August, the number of Republicans in the nation has stayed in a very narrow range from 32.6% to 33.8%. During that same period, the number of Democrats has ranged from 38.7% to 41.6%. (see history from January 2004 to present)

It’s worth noting that both parties are now at the low end of their recent range and the number not affiliated with either party is at the highest level since July.”

Comedy of errors? I love it, Karl. But I guess “A comedy of Errors” was played out according to a script too, so you may be closer to the truth than you realize. I’m sure that you’ll understand if I consider you to be rather naive.
.
Since you like it to a Shakespearean production, let’s analyze a little bit of the plot, shall we? What was the biggest “error” in your opinion? Was it the fact that the Chairman of the JCS claims that he was unaware of the attacks until it was all over because he was in a meeting with a senator? Was it the fact that Biden was meeting in Washington with the guy who wired money to Atta before the attacks? Or was it Dave Frasca (head of the Bin Laden Unit at the FBI) who refused to investigate reports of terrorists training at flight schools, and who refused to allow agents to search Moussaoi’s laptop (the 20th hijacker) until after the attacks were carried out – even though arresting agents warned that he was part of a plan to hijack planes and attack the World Trade Center?
.
Sounds like quite the “comedy”, doesn’t it? Which of the “errors” was the biggest?

Assuming arguendo that each of those errors was a cause leading to the attack (or at least preventing the attack from being thwarted), the question I posed still remains. Is Bush to receive no credit for seeing that those sorts of errors did not recur?

Karl – you are assuming that they were errors.
.
Since my premise is that they were NOT errors, your question means that you want me to imagine otherwise, and then formulate an answer. That’s a foolish exercise.
.
If you want to talk about the Dave Frasca error, Frasca was rewarded and promoted after stonewalling investigations that would have thwarted the attacks. In the case of NORAD, it was Bush policy implemented in the spring of 2001 that routed permission for all intercepts to go through the Vice President, as opposed to the traditional NORAD chain of command. That was never a problem before the White House got their fingers in the mix.
.
Those were both leading causes of the attack. Do you know what was done to fix them?
.
How about the fact that the football and the President were both potential targets on 9/11, their location was publicly known, airspace over southwest Florida was not secure, NORAD wasn’t responding to errant hijacked aircraft, yet the President wasn’t removed immediately to an unknown secured location? Policy was ignored when it should have mattered most. Has that situation been addressed? I recommend reading Sir Arthur Conan Doyle about dogs who don’t bark when an intruder enters.

Ah. A Truther. I was beginning to surmise as much earlier, but the ACD reference cinches it. Why didn’t you just say from the beginning that the government itself attacked us on 9/11? We would have disregarded your paranoid BS much earlier.

“Wake up, people. If we love our boys and our country, we need to rid ourselves of the lying coporatists who will kill any number of us when they need to use it as an excuse to project power.”

Shorebreak, I believe Stalin used the same terminology. Is your life that bad here in America? Somehow I doubt it. Most who speak as you do are wealthy & secure, thanks to some of our leaders and our brave military.

So now I’m a “truther”. OK, that’s fine. Since you like to assign labels I guess that makes you a “coincidencer”.
.
As for “the government did it” that’s a rediculous premise. I know a whole lot of folks in government and I can assure you that none of them were involved in planning or orchestrating 9/11. And I can promise you that most folks in government who were aware of such a thing would have done their best to shut it down or expose it. The reality is that it was a very small group in senior leadership positions who made it happen – and the dirty work was all carried out by foreigners.
.
And I love the dismissive “paranoid BS” phrase too. I can support every single concern with substantial and valid material (not from one of your so-called “truther” sources) so please, feel free to hold your head high and choose your reality if it makes you feel better. I can promise you one thing – taking that “eyes closed tight” approach will never lead to maintaining a strong constitutional government, security for our soldiers, or a more stable future for our nation.

“The reality is that it was a very small group in senior leadership positions who made it happen – and the dirty work was all carried out by foreigners.”

Q.E.D.

AJ – are you seriously comparing me with Stalin? Please try to remember context, my friend. It’s a virtue.
.
I will say this – when Stalin condemned Trotsky of being a corporatist, Stalin was 100% correct. But… does agreeing with Stalin that Trotsy was a corporatist REALLY mean that I’m like Stalin? If I claim that the west are capitalistic, does that also make me like Stalin? Again, context is a virtue. Please try to use it.

Karl – since you are so convinced of yourself, please explain to us how it so happened that the plans for the US military invasion of Afghanistan were drafted and in curculation at the White House in the days immediately before the 9/11 attacks. Or – will you simply dodge the question once again with another label or other method to avoid answering?
.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1550366.stm
.
If you’d like, I can also link you to a pre-9/11 policy publication that recommends US strategic military dominance in Central Asia, beginning in Afghanistan. We can walk through all of the steps in the document and see how the Bush administration accomplished about 50% of the objectives.
.
Then, if you need a little bit more detail, I can even show you some footage of Biden promising that the Obama Administration would finish what Bush started in Central Asia, and I can show you specifically where the Obama Administration has continued to implement the same policies. I can even show you that the author of the policies is now Obama’s most senior foreign policy advisor.
.
Shall we?

OK Realitybreak, but I’m going to have to go to my own version of Cocktails and Conversation here in a minute. But, just for the fun of it, I’ll play along – I mean, as Deputy Undersecretary for Misinformation and Propaganda (DUMP), a nefarious secret governmentmental bureau in which I work, I suppose it is my duty.

You said yourself that Osama Bin Laden was wanted for prior terrorist activities. The Clinton administration had information that he was taking refuge in Afghanistan and was being protected by the Taliban. Indeed, at one point, as I understand it, they had him in a sniper’s scope but failed to capitalize on the opportunity (More proof, I suppose, that the goal was never to keep Americans safe, but to use him as a scapegoat down the road). Nonetheless, as a result, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the U.S. government realized prior to 9/11 that the Afghan govt was harboring terrorists and that it might become necessary to address that problem (i.e. regime change).

To that end, the military might have drawn up plans for a possible invasion of Afghanistan. Prior to 9/11. But, it’s all very hinky considering that we did eventually carry out just such an invasion. Admittedly, the only reasonable conclusion is that a cabal of highly placed government officials orchestrated an attack on its own people to justify the carrying out of Stage I of Middle East Conquest (okay, I’m being sarcastic again in case you missed it). Biden’s comments prove that the cabal remains intact (although that calls into question whether Cheney and Halliburton were really behind it in the first place) and that Obama is complicit. It seems that the cabal has survived three successive administrations.

You can save your links. I already have them here in the files of the Ministry of Misinformation and Propaganda.

The military has “plans” for various actions layng about all the time. They get paid cash money to do that kind of stuff.
.
That’s why they call it “planning”.
.
No big conspiracy. In fact, I’d be disgusted if contingency plans didn’t exist for all kinds of scenarios that might appear unlikely.
.
Really, I think everybody needs to put down the Stalinist, Trotsky, Hitler terminologies and step away from the ignorance table (or at least THAT particular ignorance table).

LOL – That really was a funny post, Karl. I mean it. Sometimes we need a little bit of humor to help us see past our own noses.
.
Trust me on this – I’m the first to admit that my concerns are NOT the concerns that are shared by the majority of people. But just as you don’t work for DUMP (I really like that), I’m not some conspiracy junkie who’s sequestered in my mothers basement.
.
With regards to the Clinton/Osama issue, I only agree that the failure to knock the guy out was intentional because of the numerous other circumstances where hijackers were protected rather than pursued. Able Danger was a perfect example, where the entire program was shut down once Atta was identified, and where the Congressman (Weldon R-PA) who pursued the action was demonized by the media and ultimately accused of crimes during his re-election campaign, which were dropped after he lost the election. There are many other examples, but Able Danger received the most attention.
.
However, to place the blame on Bin Laden and the harboring of terrorists in Afghanistan is to make several critical mistakes. The primary mistake is that numerous policy documents prior to 9/11 recommended US strategic control over Eurasia (starting in Central Asia – and specifically in Afghanistan). Those published policy works began to circulate while Bin Laden was still being sheltered in Sudan. In other words, if the invasion of Afghanistan was directed towards terrorism and it’s support, the initial policy recommendations would have been directed towards control over parts of Africa.
.
Additionally, the entire argument ignores the fact that Pakistan’s ISI placed the Taliban into power, and that the ISI was created and funded by the US via US foreign aid to Egypt back when the US was radicalizing the Afghan militants as a tool to use against the Soviets. By focusing solely on Osama bin Laden, it was possible to create a fable, or a legend, used to generate braod public support for a pre-planned US invasion of Afghanistan.
.
And anyone who says blames Cheney and/or Halliburton is simply parrotting the false claims of someone else. And for the record, it’s more than 3 successive Administrations who have been usurped by private interests – But nice try. :)

Abdul its people like you who would keep the Republicans relevant. Quit it out, your input is not appreciated by conservatives and liberals alike.

Good post.

Those Pat Toomey people drive me nuts.

However, i dont know where you found the 67% approval rating, I am sure one poll says that (probably an MSNBC poll) nonetheless i think he does have a high approval rating.

>I know I can no longer stomach the talk show hosts that constantly bash President Obama.
.
Melyssa…you’ll be alright. If the democrats and leftists came out okay during Bush with the incessant 24-7 character trashing, half truths, and outright mendacious B.S. including movies plotting his assassination then you’ll be okay. In fact, I listened to a sampling of right-wing talk shows last week. They’re not bashing enough.
.
Remember, it’s not bashing if it’s true! lol

But Obama IS a socialist!!

“Is good, small, unobtrusive, lawful government too much to ask for?”

I’m with this guy. Living beyond our means without expectations of responsiblilty from all assure an Easter Island outcome.