Sunday, January 22, 2012

Newt's Family Values

It was the Newster all the way in South Carolina last night. This wasn't as big a surprise as you might think. Newt had spent the entire primary subtly pressing all of the right racial buttons and it worked out for him better than even he anticipated I'm sure. You see, South Carolina Republicans don't really care for black people that much. When you enter a place where the Confederate flag still waves proudly over the statehouse, you'll be encountering people with - "issues" shall we say? John McCain learned this lesson the hard way in 2000.

After ha
ndily winning in New Hampshire that year, McCain came into South Carolina with a healthy lead over the dim-witted son of a failed ex-president. The Bush Mob were not to be deterred. They spread the nasty rumor that McCain's adopted, dark-skinned daughter was the product of a liaison between him and a black prostitute. It worked. That's just the sort of thing that would work in that state I'm sorry to say. The momentum he had gained heading into the Super Tuesday Primary all-but-died and his campaign was toast from that moment on. Thanks to the stupidity and racism of the average South Carolinian Republican voter, America got saddled with the worst president since James Buchanan. Nice.

From this point on anything can happen - and probably will. Gingrich has an unfortunate tendency of going ballistic and flaming out just as things are beginning to look up for him, and I haven't a doubt in my mind that history will repeat itself very soon. It will probably be Mitt Romney who receives the coronation next summer - but I haven't given up hope for Newt. I want him to get that nomination so badly it makes me drool buckets! Can you imagine what fun his campaign would be to watch? Oh, please, fate!

It matters little at this stage who gets the nomination. It's a fairly safe assumption to say that the election of 2012 is essentially over. Are Romney and Gingrich secretly working for Barack Obama's campaign? That would seem to be the case given their behavior in recent days. They've done so much damage to one another (and their party) that his reelection in November is almost written in the stars.

Here's another thing to take to the bank, boys and girls: Romney (assuming he will be the nominee) will be placed in the same position that McCain was forced into in 2008. In order to bring out "the base" he will be forced to place on the ticket with him someone (like Sarah Palin) who is such a right wing extremist that he or she is in serious danger of falling off of the face of the earth. Remember how well that worked out for them last time 'round? As it did four years ago, the choice of running mate will scare the living shit out of moderate Americans. Just you wait and see.

Here are the Cliff Notes: The Republican party is imploding before our very eyes. Life is beautiful.

Which brings me back to the thrice-married Newt: In an eleventh-hour interview with Marianne (the second Mrs. Gingrich) in which she revealed that when she found out about Newt's affair with Barbi-doll-wannabe Callista (the third Mrs. Gingrich) Newt informed the poor gal that from that point on, he wanted their marriage to be an "open" one. Shortly after she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, Newt served Marianne with divorce papers - much in the same manner he had served the cancer-stricken Jackie (the first Mrs. Gingrich) with divorce papers a decade earlier. The day after he unloaded the bad news on her, Newt gave a speech highlighting the traditional values of American families.

Are you following this?

Newt's history as a serial marrier did didn't mean a thing to the "Family Values" mob in South Carolina, All that matters to these clowns is the fact that old Newt really despises
that Big, Black, Bolshevik Boogieman in the White House. That's good enough for them. He told these nutty people that he didn't merely want to bloody Barack Obama's nose, he wanted to "knock him out". Bop the coon! He'd have done much better in the final tally had he just told this crowd that he was in the mood for a good old fashion lynching. String 'im up!!! That would have brought out the base alright - in droves.

But he did the next best thing. By constantly referring to "food stamps" and "welfare", Gingrich lassoed the imaginations of these jackasses and was able to paint a black face on nearly every issue. He knows that the only way the Republicans are going to take back the White House next January will be by appealing to the very worst in America's historical character - and Newt Gingrich is the world's outstanding authority on the subject of bad character. All he needs to do is exploit the irrational prejudice toward the most oppressed people in the history of the human race. And to do so under the guise that he has the Almighty on his side? My goodness. Hell must be beckoning.

If there's any doubt in your mind that 2012 is going to be the nastiest political year of our lifetime all I can tell you is, hang onto your hats, folks. This is gonna get ugly. Very ugly indeed. It might very well get violent in some places. This Tea party crowd has lost their minds. As Al Jolson liked to say in his day, "You ain't seen nothin' yet!"

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
tomdegan@frontiernet.net

SUGGESTED VIEWING/LISTENING:

This is a link to a tender little lullaby to the GOP that I came across during my meanderings through cyberspace:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OE-8emw39fA


It really tugs at the old heartstrings, doesn't it?

Cheers!

78 Comments:

At 10:30 AM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

I guess the frat boy pranks never ended after he left Yale, huh?

It's another indicator of the ingrained and inherent racism that's so typical of way too many conservatives.

 
At 10:49 AM, Blogger Ronni said...

Cheerfully awaiting the rest. Damn, it's nice to read what I'm thinking, stated so much more eloquently than I was thinking it.

 
At 11:33 AM, Anonymous Just the Facts! said...

Cutting to the chase, you are predicting that Obama will be reelected not because of the great job he has done as President, but due to the GOP primary's weakening his possible opponents.

If you check Obama's election history you will see that has been the history of ever one of his election contests. That should be what peaks your curiosity, instead of stating the self evident.

 
At 3:34 PM, Anonymous Liberals Are Sexy said...

Tom,as usual, right on!!!

JTF,from day one of Obama's election his destruction was screamed for by the rabid right. 3 years they had to come up with a good candidate to run against him, and this motley crew is the best of the best they could come up with. Nice.

 
At 4:06 PM, Blogger Rain said...

Obama has been very fortunate in how his opponents have often shredded themselves. This appears to be another of those times. I also think no matter who they run now, they have had to go so far right that they cannot get the middle to trust them. Some think Newt might do in the Republican party for a generation to come. I guess we'll see but whatever the case, I do think Obama, short of something unexpected on his side, is going to have a much easier election than we expected.

 
At 4:50 PM, Blogger Nancy, Near Philadelphia said...

Brilliant, as usual, Tom. I've put a link on Facebook, so watch out.

 
At 6:11 PM, Blogger Tom Degan said...

Thank you so much for that, Nancy. Send me a link to your Facebook page!

Love and Peace,

Tom

 
At 6:14 PM, Anonymous Just the Facts! said...

Liberals are sexy?

So what if Obama has been opposed since day one? That's politics.

If he is so spot on, why isn't he running on HIS 3 year record, during which his party held BOTH Houses for 2 of those years?
My post stands unaddressed by your reply.

 
At 7:00 PM, Anonymous Liberals Are Sexy said...

JTF, Yes, Liberals are sexy. VERY sexy.

Of course Obama's running on his record. Who's record could he run on if not his own? It's the record of the R's running that make them each a non qualifier. No competition. I can only hope Newt gets the nomination. What fun. He'll ruin what's left of the GOP for a long time.

 
At 8:08 PM, Anonymous Just Facts! said...

Tom is predicting that Obama will be reelected not because of the great job he has done as President, but due to the GOP primary's weakening his possible opponents.

 
At 8:25 PM, Anonymous Liberals Are Sexy said...

JTF, I imagine you're trying to make some point here. Whatever it is.

Would you care to make a prediction as to whom the President will be after election day. Extra points for the reason for winning.

 
At 8:30 PM, Blogger charles moore said...

Tom, spot on target as usual. Amazing that SC, so fond of Bible thumpers and the family value set would pick Newt with all of his baggage, but you are correct that they are a racist state. Plus the idea of a Mormon - a cultist who wears magic underwear - is absolutely unthinkable to them. I am just surprised that Santorum didn't make a better showing being that he is so high up on the family values bandwagon.

 
At 8:36 PM, Anonymous anonymous said...

Just The Facts, I have to agree with Liberals are Sexy. If there is a point to your rambling postings, just what the hell is it? Tom and others has stated the obvious and that doesn't seem to work for you. A little dense are you?

For starters, Obama managed to get bin Laden and he also brought our troops home from Iraq. And don't tell me these were started on Bushes regime.

 
At 8:59 PM, Blogger JeannetteLS said...

Thank you, thank you, thank you. And, may I just say, thank you. When I try to write about Newt, all I manage is an incoherent, primal Yarp.

I am, however, not as confident as you about the election results in November. If the far left can recognize that President Obama never DID say he was as liberal as they wanted him to be, it will help. And if his campaign people can find a way to publish what he has done--even though the accomplishments may not seem sexy--it will help.

And if college students who are disappointed can recognize the danger of the alternative, THAT will help.

But I'm gonna hold onto your optimism.

 
At 11:56 PM, Anonymous Just the Facts! said...

Bush never stopped looking for the late bin Laden, Obama was smart enough to never stop the search. So the search was started when Bush was president.
So you agree with Tom and me that Obama will get re elected based not on his job performance, but due to the weakness of those running against him.

Charles, is it possible that SC picked Newt because they thought he was the most conservative of the four running?

 
At 5:34 AM, Anonymous Good Luck Charlie said...

No asshole..South Carolina chose Newt because the other guy is a member of a very dangerous horseshit religious cult. South Carolina is mostly Baptist

 
At 7:23 AM, Anonymous Tyrone Witherspoon(s) said...

It ain't no surprise that the "War on Poverty" and the "Great Society" created the plantation. The plantation is a large voting block.


Give a man fish and he eats today.

Give a man fish every day and he votes for the Democrats every election.

 
At 9:46 AM, Anonymous Just the Facts! said...

Good luck Charlie,

Provide data to support your claim.

 
At 10:17 AM, Anonymous Liberals Are Sexy said...

JTF, Newt speaks conservative very well. He would like to be a conservative for you and me and everyone else. For himself...not so much.

 
At 2:09 PM, Blogger YhuntressE said...

Not to mention is "passion for his country" excuse to explain his adultery makes him look worse. If he just admitted that he let his hypocrisy and dick do his thinking for him, maybe people would be a little more forgiving.

 
At 2:58 PM, Blogger De_Bill said...

Just the Facts! said...

Bush never stopped looking for the late bin Laden, Obama was smart enough to never stop the search. So the search was started when Bush was president."

Really?

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

 
At 5:28 PM, Anonymous Jusrt the Facts! said...

DE Bill, so you take those quotes to mean, the USA was no longer searching for bin Laden? That's a stretch, even for a blame Bush for every thing liberal.

On the other hand, can we take your quotes to mean that Obama knew where bin Laden was but didn't ok his killing until almost his 3rd year in office? After all if Obama knew where bin Laden was, why didn't he take him out day one? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to believe that the USA under Bush never stopped looking and continued to do so under Obama, and when bin Ladin was found, the order was issued to kill him by Obama?

Of is possible that bin Ladin is not dead, since there was no body to prove same? But instead he is working with Elvis at the Stop and Rob owned by Jimmy Hoffa off interstate I70 in West Virgina? And that all three of them, bin, Elvis and Jimmy, were a part of the crew that blew up the Twin Towers, since that was an inside job planned by Bush?

 
At 7:19 PM, Blogger De_Bill said...

I can prove Bush said those words. Can you prove ANY part of your alternate version of 'reality'?

 
At 11:04 PM, Anonymous Just the Facts! said...

De Bill,
Get a life. You are not worth my time.

 
At 11:45 PM, Anonymous Just the Facts! said...

Liberal family values:

"The city of Detroit is a case study in how high taxes can help to trigger a city’s decline. Detroit has had many problems, but at the top of the list: taxes the city has imposed on income, property, and utilities. Those taxes are three times higher than the average for the rest of Michigan, according to Stephen Henderson of the Detroit Free Press. Shopkeepers and homeowners have thus chosen to flee the high cost of doing business in Detroit. From 1950 to 1980, Detroit lost 34% of its people; from 1980 to 2010 Detroit lost 40% more. Each wave of fleeing citizens means fewer people are left to support schools, businesses, and urban services. Economist Gary Wolfram, my Hillsdale College colleague, estimates that 40% of Detroit adults are functional illiterates–people abandoned by the public school unions but too poor to leave town.

Not all big cities have followed Detroit’s path. Some started in that direction, and then altered their strategy. For example, New York, Boston, and San Francisco–like Detroit–all lost population from 1950 to 1980. But those three cities became part of a tax revolt that capped or limited tax hikes in their states. Prop 13 in California, for example, capped property taxes at 1%, which, according to scholars Steve Hanke and Stephen Walters, “slashed San Francisco’s [tax] rate by almost two-thirds.” What was the result? Between 1980 and 2010, San Francisco grew 19%, Boston grew 10%, and New York 16%. As Hanke and Walters note, “tax caps not only improve the immediate cash flow on investments in real property but–perhaps more important–secure it against further expropriations.” People stay and invest when they know the rules and are allowed to make some money.

The lesson for the U.S. today is clear. If we overtax and overregulate, we create an unstable climate to invest, which cuts the chances people have to make money. Thus, people with money leave and invest elsewhere. All of this decline plays out over several decades. Therefore the U.S. can increase taxes, debt, and regulations and be like Detroit–and like New York, Boston, and San Francisco from 1950 to 1980–or the U.S. can cut its corporate tax (which is currently the second highest in the industrialized world) and its high income tax and, above all, cut its reckless spending and be more like New York, Boston, and San Francisco after 1980, when they capped taxes and encouraged investment. The choice is ours. Our future will depend on our decisions."

DR. Burt Folsom

www.burtfolsom.com/

 
At 10:05 AM, Blogger Harley A. said...

Newt is the perfect example of a man living in a glass house but throwing lots of stones. A supposed conservative, who took LOTS of "consulting" money from FANNIE MAE, calling out Romney for paying $3MM in taxes, which he paid per the tax code? Am I crazy, or does that sound like a far left-leaning liberal argument? Does Gingrich expect me to believe he doesn't understand the fundamental tax code difference between Romney and the average American? Also, that the conservative electorate would be so supportive of an unapologetic adulterer surprises me.

 
At 10:41 AM, Anonymous Just the Facts! said...

While I am not in Newt's camp at this time, I would suggest that those who want to review his relationship with Fannie Mae, they also review with the same vigor the relationship Senator Dodd and Congressman Frank had with Fannie and Freddie.

 
At 11:04 AM, Anonymous Liberals Are Sexy said...

Just the Facts! said...
While I am not in Newt's camp at this time, I would suggest that those who want to review his relationship with Fannie Mae, they also review with the same vigor the relationship Senator Dodd and Congressman Frank had with Fannie and Freddie.



JTF is using the old "but, but...they did it too" arguement. When either Dodd or Frank run for Commander In Chief, it would probably be a major problem for them as well.

 
At 11:13 AM, Blogger Harley A. said...

Yes, JTF, but Dodd and Frank aren't trying to convince me they're conservatives.

I have a problem with a "conservative" who is engaging in petty class-warfare antics and who took my tax money from a liberal boon-doggle like Fannie Mae.

 
At 1:48 PM, Anonymous Just the Facts! said...

Understood Harley A, I don't beleive Newt's the conservative he claims he is either. I just want those who attack anyone who is not a liberal, to be aware of the actions committed by liberals before they paint with a dirty paintbrush, anyone not liberal.

Did I say that correctly?

 
At 2:01 PM, Anonymous Just the Facts! said...

I still want "liberals are sexy" to review that actions of Dodd and Frank with the same vigor they would investigate Newt. Remember, Barney and Chris were at the time, on the Govt pay roll, and it is quite possible they benefited from their actions personally at the expense of the American tax payer.

Has nothing to do with "but...they did it too". It has to do with finding out how the rel-estate bubble grew and then burst, causing many of the problems we face yet today. I don't care of they are members of the GOP or DNC, those who prevent the action needed to stop the mess at Fanny and Freddie from exploding from Maxine Waters, through Chris, Barney, to Newt, be called on to explain their actions. Like it was Watergate or the Congressional Postal Office scandal, this can not be swept under the rug. As of now, there has been nothing done to control
F & F, so the pot still boils, waiting to boil over again.

 
At 3:45 PM, Anonymous Liberals Are Sexy said...

JTF, if ANY wrongdoing with F&F is proven, it needs to be taken care of. That's certainly not Newt's only problem by far. Plus he is now seeking the highest office in the country. Good place to start, no? He is also now trying to browbeat the media into not dare ask him tough questions. He IS fun to watch. My dislike for the GOP has me rooting for him.

 
At 5:49 PM, Anonymous Just the Facts! said...

What I seem to be unable to get across is how hypocritical it is to look at the mite in your neighbors eye, while ignoring the beam in yours.

Examples:

Dems saying Romney not paying his fair share at 15% income tax bracket, but forget that Kerry when he ran was paying only 13%. And Kerry didn't lift a finger to earn any of his wealth, which is much greater than Romney.

Teacher Unions claims it's all about the kids, yet the the Michigan Education Association [MEA] has had a manual that urges its members to use students as propaganda in contract negotiations.

The left claims the rich will not give more to charity if taxed less, yet in 2010 Romney gave 14%, Obama gave 6.1% and the man a heart beat away from the Oval Office gave $380 or 0.15% to charity.

Obamam claims to support the 99% of us yet only 12% Agree With Obama’s Position On Abortion, 51% Have Pro-Life Stance.

 
At 11:38 AM, Anonymous Liberals Are Sexy said...

JTF, I have no idea where you're getting your numbers from. I'd like to see where. Anyway, you seem to be all over the place with your thinking. Alot to take care of before election day. Look, If the GOP wanted to win this thing, don't you think they could come up with some credible canditates? Does one exist?

 
At 4:13 PM, Anonymous Liberals Are Sexy said...

Ouch. Darn old "liberal" press again.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203806504577178594236642420.html#articleTabs%3Darticle

 
At 5:03 PM, Anonymous Just the Facts! said...

Thread titled titled "Newt's Family Values" Dave D is a liberal.

Now try to focus, my point is liberals are hypocritical, for example, I offer/and support my last post.

Starting to wonder if liberals are sexy is code for dumb as a rock.

 
At 5:48 PM, Anonymous Liberals Are Sexy said...

JTF, I still don't know where you got your numbers from for your post above. You do try to sound all facty. Maybe you should be named Just YOUR facts. If the link I gave came out incorrectly, what I tried to link to was yesterdays Wall Street Journal article titled "The GOP Deserves To Lose". It just says what I've been saying. The GOP has NOTHING for candidates.

Also what Liberals are being hypocritical? Anyone in particular? Me? Are you confusing Dems with Liberals? I'm TRYING to focus but you make it difficult.

 
At 7:01 PM, Blogger Nance said...

I'll never defend SC--can't and won't--but I would point out that the confederate flag was removed by law from the dome of the State House in 2000 with a bill that passed 36 to 7. The flag was, however, placed in a monument on the lawn.

That said, your characterization of "the stupidity and racism of the average South Carolinian Republican voter" is accurate in my observation as a 20+ year resident who's "not from around here." The state's support of the newtron bomb was a humiliating display of the worst aspects of the South. May Gingrich implode spectacularly and soon.

Somebody buy my house, please.

 
At 7:17 PM, Anonymous Harry Deitch said...

What a failure Trickle Down Government has been! Lets just hope Obama gets flushed down the toilet in the next election!

 
At 7:38 PM, Anonymous Liberals Are Sexy said...

Harry, I'm not sure what trickle down government is. What is it? Anything like trickle down economocs (Reganomics)? The trickle from St. Ronnie is surely the drenching we're feeling today.

Flush Obama & replace him with who? One of the stellar GOP candidates?

 
At 8:27 AM, Anonymous Just the Facts! said...

"JTF, I still don't know where you got your numbers from for your post above."

Liberals are Sexy?

Google would be a good place to start checking the facts I gave you. Why should I waste my time doing for you what you should do for yourself?

As to the WSJ article, I did link it, and I did read it. Thanks for sharing one persons opinion. And that is exactly what the article is, an OPINION, which are are like armpits, every body has two of them.
A FACT however like I gave you is what it is, vs. what someone feels or thinks. With me so far?

I happen to agree with the WSJ article, but that doesn't mean it is a fact. In my opinion, the problem with the two front runners is they are too busy ripping each other apart vs Obama, which a conservative could do. The Prez can not run on his record to date, of any of his elected offices. So, in my opinion, he is running as he has in all his past elections. My opinion should be easy enough to check.
What I find interesting is your defense of Obama. You are simply attacking all GOP Presidents, back to Reagen, and now the GOP front runners for the 2012 election.
That is not a very inspiring give me four more years to fix our problems campaign.
In my OPINION, any of the top 3 GOP people running would do a better job as President, even with all their baggage, than what our current President has done and will do.

Now what is your OPINION? And what FACTS have you used to support them?

 
At 12:08 PM, Anonymous Harry Deitch said...

Liberals are Sexy, I got a rebuttal for you.

8.5% + unemployment for the last three years. The price of fuel is up, so is the price of food. The value of your home continues to fall. Bank failures are up, and the dollar is falling to historically low levels. Nobody is hiring. More people are on food stamps every day, nearly half the country.

Want more of this? Vote for Barack Obama.

 
At 12:18 PM, Blogger Harley A. said...

"Flush Obama & replace him with who? One of the stellar GOP candidates?"

Yes, I think that's what we're saying.

 
At 8:21 PM, Anonymous Liberals Are Sexy said...

JTF, where in my comments have I defended Obama? By pointing out that the GOP has had 3 years to come up with a candidate to trounce him and are serving some pretty weak tea? I am NOT an Obama defender nor am I a Dem. Please tell me which candidate will be the challenger and if he (sadly only males now) will be triumphant. I'm rooting for Newt!

 
At 9:13 PM, Anonymous Just the Facts! said...

Please tell me which candidate will be the challenger,

Sorry, my crystal ball is out for repairs.

 
At 9:28 PM, Anonymous Just the Facts! said...

Libs are Sexy?
Still waiting from an answer from your to this question instead of your normal deflection.

"Now what is your OPINION? And what FACTS have you used to support them?"

 
At 9:32 PM, Anonymous Liberals Are Sexy said...

ANOTHER Republican debate tonight? Come on folks. You have to like one of these candidates.

 
At 10:21 PM, Anonymous Liberals Are Sexy said...

JTF, You said, and I quote "In my opinion, the problem with the two front runners is they are too busy ripping each other apart vs Obama, which a conservative could do."

I say...What exactly does this mean?

You also said I'm defending Obama. When & how?

 
At 11:19 PM, Anonymous Liberals Are Sexy said...

JTF Said."What I find interesting is your defense of Obama. You are simply attacking all GOP Presidents, back to Reagen, and now the GOP front runners for the 2012 election."

I said that somewhere? Where? Come on...You're the fact person. Well, I am questioning the 2012 bunch. The rest...do tell.

 
At 3:18 AM, Blogger Murr Brewster said...

Oh man, I hope it's Newt. A debate between the smartest guy in the room and the guy who thinks he's the smartest guy in the room should be a doozy.

 
At 3:36 AM, Blogger Tom Degan said...

Robert Reich just published a dandy piece yesterday why we should all be praying that Newt doesn't get the nomination. Here's a link to it:

No Democrat Should Want Gingrich Nominated

 
At 8:17 AM, Anonymous Tom V said...

Talk about cutting off your nose to despite ones face. And this party really thinks they are going to win in November?

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/26/conservatives-criticize-drudge-for-anti-gingrich-assault/

 
At 9:31 AM, Anonymous Just the Facts? said...

More reasons why Obama cant run on his record.

Ener1--a company that manufactures batteries for electric cars, and that received $118.5 million in federal stimulus money, and that Vice President Joe Biden visited last year the day after President Obama’s State of the Union Address—announced 1/26/2012that it has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

Real GDP increased 1.7 percent in 2011 (that is, from the 2010 annual level to the 2011 annual level), compared with an increase of 3.0 percent in 2010.

The increase in real GDP in 2011 primarily reflected positive contributions from personal consumption expenditures (PCE), exports, and nonresidential fixed investment that were partly offset by negative contributions from state and local government spending, private inventory investment, and federal government spending. Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, increased.

Am I getting this straight, I should for Obama because.....?

 
At 9:32 AM, Anonymous Just the Facts? said...

I know, I should vote for Obama cause he does a less than fair imitation of Al Green!

 
At 12:14 PM, Anonymous Harry Deitch said...

"Oh man, I hope it's Newt. A debate between the smartest guy in the room and the guy who thinks he's the smartest guy in the room should be a doozy."

Which is the guy so brilliant that he sealed his academic records?

 
At 5:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just the Facts,
Do you have a life or do you just sit on this site all day spewing nonsense?

 
At 7:27 PM, Anonymous Just the Facts! said...

Anonymous

That's cruel and not very liberal minded of you.
My advise is to stop reading this blog if you don't like my posts.

 
At 8:45 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just the facts,

You say I am cruel and not very liberal minded? And I suppose you think that you are liberal minded, or if not liberal at least open minded? Yet you say things like:

De Bill,
Get a life. You are not worth my time.

Sorry guy (or gal) but you are boring, close minded, stupid and pathetic. If you are going to argue with everything everyone posts here, why don't you go to anther blog?

 
At 11:24 PM, Anonymous Just the Facts! said...

Nah, Anonymous, if that is your real name, I don't think so.

 
At 9:39 AM, Blogger whirlygirl said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 9:43 AM, Blogger Tom Degan said...

Thanks so much for the kind words, whirlygirl! This is a strange time to be alive, is it not?

All the best,

Tom

 
At 11:38 AM, Anonymous Just the Facts! said...

Earlier this week during his State of the Union address, President Obama said, “The defining issue of our time is how to keep that [American] promise alive.”

What he conveniently omitted from his speech was that his failed policies have done nothing to make it easier to achieve, or afford, success. In fact, as the table below shows, the Obama Administration has left Americans worse off.

America Before President Obama Took Office and Now


Number of Unemployed1 +9%


Long-Term Unemployed2 +107%


Unemployment Rate3 +9%


“High Unemployment” States4
up from 22 to 43 for a 95% increase

Misery Index5 +46%

Price of Gas6 +83%
then $1.85 now $3.39

“Typical” Monthly Family Food Cost7
+4%

Median Value of Single-Family Home8
-14%

Rate of Mortgage Delinquencies9
+55%

U.S. National Debt10 +43%


1 Number of unemployed in January 2009 and December 2011. http://www.bls.gov/data/#unemployment.
2 “Long-term unemployed” means for over 26 weeks; data for January 2009 and December 2011. http://www.bls.gov/data/#unemployment.
3 Unemployment rates in January 2009 and December 2011. http://www.bls.gov/data/#unemployment.
4 “High unemployment” means having a 3-month average unemployment rate of 6% or higher. From the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ “Extended Benefits Trigger Notice” for January 18, 2009 and January 22, 2012. http://www.ows.doleta.gov/unemploy/trigger/2009/trig_011809.html and http://ows.doleta.gov/unemploy/euc_trigger/2012/euc_012212.html.
5 The “Misery Index” equals unemployment plus inflation. For January 2009 and December 2012. http://www.miseryindex.us/indexbymonth.asp.
6 Average retail price per gallon, January 2009 week 3 and January 2012 week 4. http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=EMM_EPMR_PTE_NUS_DPG&f=W.
7 U.S. Department of Agriculture, values represent monthly “moderate” cost per family of four for January 2009 and November 2011. http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/USDAFoodCost-Home.htm.
8 U.S. median sales price of existing single-family homes for metropolitan areas for 2008 and 2011 Q3. http://www.realtor.org/research/research/metroprice.
9 Residential mortgage delinquencies (real estate loans) for 2008 Q4 and 2011 Q3. http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/chargeoff/default.htm.
10 Values for January 21, 2009 and January 23, 2012.


http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np.
/waysandmeans.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=276866

Obama = fail!

 
At 8:41 PM, Anonymous Liberals Are Sexy said...

JTF,

If Obama = fail
Newt = _?
Mitt = _?

 
At 11:24 PM, Anonymous Just the Facts! said...

Liberals are sexy?

Sorry, crystal ball in shop for repaired.

Plus we are only blessed with only one President at a time, and in case you haven't heard, his name is Obama. So to ask about Newt or Mitt as failures as President, is about a dumb a thing anyone has asked on this blog. To date.

BTW what is your take on those sterling examples of the continued failure of liberalism that I listed? Going to blame Bush, Newt, or Mitt for those?

 
At 9:12 AM, Anonymous Liberals Are Sexy said...

JTF...Geez, so quick to call names. I thought you were talking about running on ones record. That seems to be your main point in this thread. You insist Obama can't run on his record. Well, Newt & Mitt have records too. What do their records equal?

You also put alot of blame on liberals. Liberals are not your enemy. Unjust, unpaid for wars, the banking industry, and Wall Street gamblers are not Liberal ideals.

 
At 10:47 AM, Anonymous Just the Facts! said...

Wall Street gamblers= Solendra and green energy. I'd call that White House gamblers only they are playing with our money.

What was Obamas record before he was elected President, what did he run on then, what can he run on now?

I just wish in 2008 the media and all liberals had held Obama up to the same examination as they are holding up today's GOP's front runner today.

As for unpaid wars, show me one that was ever paid for as it was fought in our history. "banking industry" what exactly are your referring to and what does any of this have to do with why I should vote for Obama?

Why should I vote for Obama in 2012?

 
At 1:31 PM, Anonymous Liberals Are Sexy said...

JTF...I've said from the beginning I'm NOT defending Obama. I'm NOT telling you to vote for him. Never have, never will. That's a fact. I will defend Liberals and say that Obama's no Liberal. Some Liberals may have believed he was, but they are probably over that notion by now.

To equate a presidenial race to a boxing match, don't send a challenger into the ring with one or two arms tied behind their back to try and knock off the reigning champ. That's the challenge the GOP has set up with Newt & Mitt. If you are happy with either of these guys, I'm happy for you. I hope it's Newt. (or Mitt)

It's also a disgusting travesty, in my opinion, the amount of money being donated and spent in the election process.

 
At 5:39 PM, Anonymous Just the Facts! said...

"disgusting travesty, in my opinion, the amount of money being donated and spent in the election process."

Why? It's their money, why cant they spend it the way they want? Don't you feel that by spending their money they are performing a service to the economy? Look at the people who are getting paid by them, isn't that better than them being unemployed? Doesn't this just prove that if the rich have money they will spend it, if it is not taxed away from them? And look at this way, the money they spend goes directly into the economy instead of through govt bureaucracy.

Want a bet the sign makers, TV producers, radio stations, printing ink suppliers, bumper sticker makers, gas stations, restaurants, political button makers in the states where all the money is being spent are pretty darned happy for their up turn in business. Best kind of stimulus there can be, demand stimulus not command stimulus.

 
At 6:48 PM, Anonymous Liberals Are Sexy said...

JTF, Yes spending is good for the economy in simplest terms. What's NOT good is that it's now possible to get candidates bought by the highest bidder. Not even knowing where that money comes from. You'll probably tell me that corporations are people next.

 
At 7:15 PM, Anonymous Just the Facts! said...

"highest bidder" Who is doing the bidding here? No one is.
You are totally confused as what ownership of money and the freedom to spend it means.
Still, explain why I should vote for Obama

 
At 7:47 PM, Anonymous Liberals Are Sexy said...

Just the Facts! said...
"highest bidder" Who is doing the bidding here?

Well we won't know, Will we? You're fine with the concept of unlimited money from unknown sources for candidates running for political office in the USA? You're really ok with this?

I won't tell you to vote for Obama. Look back up thread. Never did, never will. Vote your pleasure. I'm still rooting for Newt for the GOP nomination. (or Mitt)

 
At 9:19 PM, Anonymous James said...

JTFs, Obama is following in Bush's footsteps in every way. Even his giving Solendra 500 mil was copying the way Bush and Cheney gave hundreds of billions to their favorite corporations like Halliburton.

If you liked what Bush did, you should like what Obama is doing or is it just related to skin color?

 
At 9:51 PM, Anonymous James said...

Hey Tom, still optimistic about Obama? Read this

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/01/25-3

 
At 10:43 PM, Anonymous Just the Facts! said...

"You're fine with the concept of unlimited money from unknown sources for candidates." LES?

When it was John Kerry's own money did you have a problem with him spending his own? Did you have a problem with the millions Obama raised and spent in 2008 and is raising to spend in 2012? Or is it only when conservatives raise money that you have a problem?

Halliburton, are they bankrupt like the "green" company's Obama gave millions of dollars to? Does Halliburton need govt funding to stay in business making a product that no one afford or wants? Like Solaranda or ENER1
Name the companies that compete with Halliburton by providing the same service or product as they do. Did those companies bid on the govt work that Halliburton bid for, if so, why didn't they win the bid?
Name the companies that bid for the 500 million dollars that were given to Solaranda and the millions to ENER1 under Obama? Both bankrupt due to the failure of the liberal concept of command economics vs. demand economics? Does any of this bother you? If so, do you ever post about here on else where? Or do just brush this aside in your headlong rush towards what ever it is your rushing to?

"As Newsweek and Breitbart editor Peter Schweizer have reported, Mr. Obama’s green energy loan and grant program have funneled 80% of the Energy Department’s $20.5 billion to companies owned by or associated with Mr. Obama’s top campaign fundraisers and bundlers."
NEWSWEEK reports this not some right wing blog, but frigging Newsweek!
Did Halliburton do that?

And with all of this, you want to engage me in a conversation about who the GOP might run, and the money needed to run a campaign, when if you were honest, it wouldn't matter who the GOP ran, you would'nt vote for them. If this money bothers you so much, demand Obama return the billion he has raised for the 2012 election.

But through all of this give and take, name calling and finger pointing no has yet posted here why should I vote for Obama instead of the GOP candidate?
No one.

 
At 10:49 PM, Anonymous Just the Facts! said...

James said.."or is it just related to skin color?"

Man, James you got me on that one! I sure didn't see the race card coming from a liberal poster on a liberal blog. Golly gee whiz, racism, the liberal trump card, played when ever their arguments are show to be wrong.

BTW, I hope you are aware James, that you have offended a very large minority in America by bringing up skin color in regards to our first half white president. I think you owe them an apology.

 
At 10:08 AM, Anonymous Liberals Are Sexy said...

JTF...I guess you were assuming I meant the GOP when I was talking money involved in the political process.I wasn't.

Name calling? Nope, not me.

Telling you to vote for Obama? Again, not I.

I'm happy for you and the GOP candidates that are chosen.

Peace.

 
At 12:36 PM, Anonymous Just the Facts said...

"Telling you to vote for Obama? Again, not I"
Not saying you are telling me to vote for Obama, I'm asking why should I vote for him if the GOP candidates are so bad?

 
At 1:25 AM, Blogger Dearest Friend said...

So is it a Steprich Wife or a Gingford wife? That is not a real person he's married to...and where's any sense of any pride in a woman who would marry him after all that other stuff? Sorry, I'm just tired and Calista Gingrich is just plain scary...Star Trek The Next Generation's "robot" officer, Data, can have her...but he's intellectually way above her, I'm sure.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home