His response was indeed appropriate...it's unfortunate that he tempered that with also stating "We'd be Cuba if there were no Fox News, I ought to tell you."
Not that I'm a Fox zealot, but with only a party organ (the major networks controlled by liberals) on the television airwaves, we may not be "Cuba" but we would similarly have only the "liberal" view presented to us. Is that not true or is it only unfortunate that he said it?
It's unfortunate that he said it, because he generally comes off as a reasonable guy. There's not much 'truth' to the blame game of media bias....mostly politically driven opinion. I have a less fervent view of liberal bias in the corporate media than most here. Said media thrives on the political duopoly.
We wouldn't be more like CUBA. We'd be more like STALINIST RUSSIA without the emergence of a challenging alternative to an overwhelmingly left-leaning media who operated untrammeled without opposition, question or pause for decades until Bill Buckley published Man and God at Yale, and then Rush Limbaugh appeared to make Buckley's sentiments less self-consciously erudite and more accessible to average folk. Rush's addition of comic-satiric tongue-in-cheek elements while making deadly serious points was a stroke of genius.
It certainly awakened and roused the ire of what had been The Silent Majority.
FOX is nowhere near conservative enough for my tastes, but at least it isn't the New York Times or MSNBC & CO.
Obama and Carson both are speaking irresponsibly. All of this contributes to the destruction of the American Republic. Look to the end of Weimar Germany. All of this has happened before.
I heard Obama's putrid, sneering attack on this political enemies, accompanied by a herd of barking, clapping circus-trained seals.
The sad irony of his statements concerning standing up to Putin, Iranians, etc, is that he has stood up to nobody. He's been a pathetic weakling on the world stage, and all our enemies are in a materially better situation than when he took office.
Yes. Obama's doing a perfect job. I'm not being sarcastic. He's following the script brilliantly.
As Americans we keep thinking politics is primarily about personalities. That's sometimes important. But more often it's the policies that matter. The experts work with decades-long plans which transcend personalities. Bush Jr and Obama are very different men. But has the direction really changed? Really?
and before Ducky flaps in here quacking about how I want a president who bombs everything... Wrong!
Obama has approached every nation that hates us from a position of weakness and then given them everything.
Meanwhile, he destabilized Egypt by first backing the Muslim Brotherhood, Yemen (his success story he was crowing about just 6 months ago) is in revolutionary flames, ISIS has gobbled up whole chunks of Iraq and Syria, half of Syria's population is displaced, he destroyed Libya with no plan for what to do after and now Europe is suffering a migration crisis of Biblical proportion, Iran gets all their frozen money back so they can revitalize Hezbollah terrorism around the world, Afghanistan is sliding...
He has been strong exactly nowhere, and our nation is worse off, overseas and here domestically, after seven years of his inept reign.
About all they can really claim is that the economy has improved, and I then ask what Obama policies contributed to that?
Factoring in the precipitous increase in the National Debt, how has the "economy.......improved"? That sounds as fallacious as the, reported, 5% unemployment rate disregarding the horrible Labor Participation Rate. Speaking of that, B.O. just reinforced that Keystone won't happen. Since B.O. is coming on to announce this I must scramble for the remote.
JonBerg: I'm not defending Obama, but all economic indicators have improved since Bush left office: Unemployment, GDP and even the rate of borrowing has gone down as revenue has increased.
having said that, this is the worst economic recovery on record, we have record number of people who have abandoned the workforce,and wages for all but the 1% have been flat for over 2 decades.
Still, by universally-recognized measures, the economy has improved.
But so what? That can either be used as an analytic indicator to prompt suggestions of how it could have been improved or a simple stat that the fringe right uses to bash Obama.
I agree that "by universally-recognized measures" the economy appears to have improved. However, in reality, I don't believe it has when factoring in the detrimental long term effects of reckless borrowing. My previous comment was, in no way, meant to impugn what [you] were saying. I'm afraid that some of our "universally-recognized measures" amount to no more than 'smoke and mirrors' !
Larger issues are the cost of debt service and the effectiveness of spending. If you are borrowing below the inflation rate then you aren't generating a serious increase in the cost of debt service. Now you can argue the long term effectiveness of the spending for improving growth but that is a separate (and critically important) question.
When is it desirable to reduce stimulus spending and reduce the gross debt level. To me the answer is determined by the resulting cost of debt service as a percentage of income.
Lol! Inflation is a symptom of a growing economy. No worry's about that ever happening again with King Barrack killing energy infrastructure projects and suing energy companies over global warming.
Farmer and Jon Berg. We compare things to other things to make evaluative judgments. Using the same standards we measured the economy during other presidencies, the economy has improved.
By those same standards, we also see it has been the most pathetic recovery on record.
Move off of that, and you start sounding like Ducky who laughingly beclaims Reagan destroyed the economy when in fact it was just the opposite. Carter destroyed it, Reagan fixed it, and Clinton was smart enough to continue Reaganomics.
Still and all, other countervailing economic forces were swirling underneath the surface. Wages have been flat for over 2 decades, and it would be ridiculous to blame that on Obama, since he was still a dope smoking community activist when the trend began.
This was from Jan 2013... Based on how unemployment was calculated in the 1980s, economist John Williams reported the true number for December to be 23%. It's a "new (post WW II) high," he said.
A hiring surge before Christmas.... lets CELEBRATE!
I stand by my statement. Even Shadow Statistics shows all three lines tracking together, no matter how you slice it.
I like that site, btw. I wish it wasn't a pay site.
To answer AOW's question on down the thread, yes, government apparachiks twiddle the knobs, fudge the data and make clandestine changes to methodologies to suit partisan political agendas.
Still, declaring all data is meaningless removes any context for discussion.
Despite the Obama and the Pelosicrats happy talk, echoed by a complian press and a dumbed-down proletariate, we all know this is a crappy recovery because we are living through it.
There is no "improvement" in the 'shadow" unemployment data. There is merely an indication that the problem has not gotten "worse". Contrary to your assertion, it does not substatntiate your claim that "things are getting better". In fact, we have merely to await the arrival of millions more economic refugees to see the data turn negative.
Thersites. We agree its a crap economy, but statistics have improved since Obama took office. Continue arguing against that, but you're starting to sound like Ducky.
I don't care if I sound like ducky. This economy is structurally incapable of sustaining all these "improvements" especially in light of the pending ceding of sovereignty under the TPP.
Yessiree, Putin shakes in his shoes when the mighty B.O. speaks-OMG! It's, indeed, sad that anyone can still take this fraud seriously. Was he just being sarcastic?
I'm curious, what would the media look like if the right had it's way?
No more Bill Kristol on Fox News Sunday ? Chris Wallace gets canned? Morning Joe loses its extra hour on communist MSNBC? The Vulgar Gasbag, Bill O'Really and Sean Inanity host the network evening news? "This is Meet the Press with our guest Senator Ted Cruz" "Tonight on Newshour commentator David Brooks ..."
... just what does it look like when all this so called liberalism is purged. Or is the fact that any small vestige of liberal thought must be purged?
It's not that I think the right is shallow and delusional, I just think they've gone through a conditioning that Pavlov wouldn't have thought possible.
FT, Thank you for your restraint. I'm going through a bad patch at the moment, and blogging isn't on my front burner -- although I am trying to post as frequently as I can manage.
You don't need to be purged, you need to recognize that yours is only one viewpoint, and that those who disagree with you are not doing so out of malice, or some programmed reaction. We would more than welcome a reasoned debate regarding both causes and solutions to our problems. That sort of politics has not been the norm now for decades, and it's not only the fault of the right. When every legitimate issue we raise is discounted, and vilified, how do you expect to resolve anything? "My way or the highway" has become the rule, but you seem unwilling to see the consequences of such an approach. Given the left's obvious aversion to the use of force, why are you provoking situations where its invocation becomes inevitable?
Viburnum, One reason that the Right is abandoning reasoned responses is for exactly the reasons you have mentioned.
Clearly, patience and turning the other cheek haven't worked out very well. We may have reached the point that at least some screeching must be employed so as to prevent our own annihilation.
The DEMOLITION DERBY mentality that has taken over American politics is disgusting, distressing, depressing, despicable and deplorable.
It reduces consideration of serious matters to the level of a food fight in the junior high school cafeteria. That means it doesn't even rise to the level of a good old fashioned barfroom brawl.
FT, Yes, it is demolition derby and will remain so until at least Election Day 2015. I've been thinking that the last time America was in such a mood was the 1856 Election.
You mentioned "barfroom brawl." A typo, I think. But the term fits. LOL!
SF, Are those "universally-recognized measures" valid today? I'm asking because I'm not seeing muc recovery with regard to the unemployed and the underemployed whom I personally know.
Don't need no job if u lurnt how to get in the system for yo entitlement u can get yo crib and yo food paid for now u get free health care and disability and u don't have to work at all what we need is the govamint to gives us cars and gas money an we be ballin
That reply was FABULOUS and SO TRUE. Now if he'd only stick to lines like that........ Hear Politico's admitting they totally made up the West Point smear?
Z, I heard about the Politico smear, and the first thing that popped into my mind was the following: "Why wasn't Barack Hussein Obama's past scrutinized like that?"
Regarding the economy: When I have to make a choice between buying a new bra or a new pair of tennis shoes - the economy doesn't look better to me. Both are essential items, unless of course, asking my spouse. smile
... I am not going to defend Ben Carson for his untruths... I just hope that the gleeful primarily left leaning media remember that they have not been overly harsh or judgmental when Democratic politicians have been found to be playing fast and loose with the facts.
If the press adopts a stance mocking the right, who will undoubtedly, with the exception of Trump, show Carson some grace, should we not make the same charge when the left forgives lying by those from that side?
The incident of Hillary Clinton avoiding sniper fire in Bosnia comes to mind. Her lying and fabrication on that issue seem to have caused her no harm in the eyes of many Dems.
All this shows to me is that Ben Carson is little different from Hillary Clinton and many other politicians. He lies. He fabricates. Sadly, it is what politicians do, from both the right, and the left.
It's all so troubling to me. Why is it so pervasive?
Maybe the "left" and "right" are both constructs used by cynical men to control and subvert.
What do "left leaning" or "right leaning" media biases really mean? People supposedly on the "left" talk about the "conservative bias" of the mainstream media. They have plenty of evidence to back it up.
As long as we think that any of the mainstream media outlets are "on our side" (whatever that side may be), we are being fools.
The truth - that we have no truly honest media - liberal or conservative - is easily provable. But who wants to look with open eyes and accept what that means?
Normally TTTT, when you copy and paste another persons exact words, in this case mine, you give attribution, otherwise representing them as your own is called plagerism...
Is the left as damning about Biden's plagiarism? Alec's right on the media, of course. I'd love to hear some liberal try to say otherwise with facts :-)
Well Anon, I'll assume you've never made a typo in your life. Yes, I spelled plagiarism wrong, but it seems everyone here fully understood the context.
Why the need to get snippy only with my comment when a simple check of many of the comments here will probably show numerous other typos, as well as dangling participles, sentences ending with prepositions, incorrect use of capital letters and general run on sentences.
It's blogging on the run.
Z... I'm not sure how to interpret your comment. I only brought up the issue because someone used my words, verbatim, without attribution, passing them off as their own.
As for Biden, much as I may like the guy, because of his issues with PLAGIARISM, I could not vote for him as President. Just as I will not be able to do so if Hillary is the Dem nominee.
Hi, Dave...I haven't the time to read every comment above...sorry, I thought you were referring to the plagiarism accusations to Carson. I apologize Thanks for the explanation......
That link is a good example of narrative journalism. It inflames fears and hatred of "lone gunman" and "crazies" while leaving out the most important contextual information.
Assuming the details Fox News gave are true, the student, Faisal Mohammad, was engaging in textbook violent Jihad which his religion tells him will guarantee his entrance into paradise if he dies while carrying it out. The "smile" he had exactly mirrors that of his idol, the first Mohammed. "Mohammadens" are instructed to pattern their lives not after the Koran, but after the man Mohammed. The first Mohammed laughed as Kafirs were beheaded in front of him. And to Faisal, every person in that room was a Kafir.
This is not a dangerous loner that we have to fear (although he might have been those things). This is a classic "Mohammedan". Fox, you fail again.
Alec, I grow weary of narrative journalism with "news stories" slanting content according to an agenda (or sheer ignorance). The unstated theses are obvious to those who use discernment. But how many use discernment?
"Narrative journalism" belongs on the opinion page.
His smile indicates inner peace because he is certain that he is doing the will of Allah and closely followed the model of the prophet. Now, how often do we hear of those matters in the mainstream media -- and even in some conservative media.
Though I'm not sure that I'd call Fox News conservative media.
It's "rightist" media, not conservative. "Left" is really progressive, a euphemism for communist. "Right" is seen as conservative, but it's really becoming fascist, just as it did in Germany before Hitler. Fox follows a fascist agenda 100%. Now I'll be hated for saying this, but I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. The only channel more fascist-leaning than Fox is InfoWars.
Okay, to be fascist means that you are selecting a scapegoat (like the Jew) and blaming all of your society's problems on that scapegoat. Who is "Fox's" scapegoat when they mask and fail to address the killers self-proclaimed identity (Islamist) and try to pretend that its' a "revenge" killing?
If nothing else, Fox merely perpetuates the progressive-liberal narrative that there is nothing dangerously 'other' in the Other. It's the anti-thesis of fascism of the type found in the Nazi regime. In fact, it's a continuation of the so-called "anti-fascist" narrative.
This is how fascism is presented. But the idea of a scapegoat has nothing to do with it really. That's a tool that can be and is used by political cynics of all stripes.
Webster's unabridged defines fascism this way: any program for setting up a centralized autocratic national regime with severely nationalistic policies, exercising regimentation of industry, commerce, and finance, rigid censorship, and forcible suppression of opposition.
Notice something else that Webster's doesn't include? An autocratic dictator. The real marker of fascism is union of government and industry into cartels.
Individual rights are eradicated in both fascism and communism.
It's hard to reform our understandings of these things, because we've all been subjected to years of redefinition of words.
I'm on the way out, but can continue this later if you like.
Au contraire, It has everything to do with "scapegoats"
What you miss is that communism acknowledges class-conflict and seeks to elinintae it through the elimination of class (everyone a prole). The fascist through expulsion of the "external" contaminating element.
The class enemy. Howe else does explain Angela Merkel's open-border policy? She can't overcome Germany's "fascist" history. She recognizes the "fascism" in Stalin and Hitler, and has turned to Trotsyite "Internationalism" as a defense.
any program for setting up a centralized autocratic national regime with severely nationalistic policies, exercising regimentation of industry, commerce, and finance, rigid censorship, and forcible suppression of opposition.
Applies perfectly to China today. Is China a "fascist" regime?
The MSM's "scapegoats" are troglodyte "racists"... conservatives who hate immigrants and blacks. And any action which serves to minimize this "hatred" is a force for "progressive" good.
Both communists and fascists need a narrative which explains the "problem". And the cause of that problem is always its "scapegoat"... and anything negative done to said scapegoat and elimninate him "redeems" the goal ( a new world order). With the fascist, it's a foreigner. With the communist, a non-believer.
The point is that the "mythical people" whom the ideology serves don't exist. Not in the past. Not in the future. There will always be class conflict in a "captitalist" society. And capitalism (reciprocal altruism) is the resulting "Enlightenment" compromise in social relations between communality and dominance.
To eliminate class conflict, one would have to eliminate the differences between "individual knowlege" and "mutual knowlege" through a "hive mind". But even mother nature's most exceptional "hive minds" still repel invaders.
Only in Isaiah Berlin's "classical liberalism" will you find a kernal of "individual liberty" aka "negative liberty". Positive liberty, social justice, etc. ultimately results "individual liberties" absolute negation (for example - torture as an expedient vs unbroachable LIMIT to authoritarian power).
No, conservatism is very different than fascism. American conservatives though are being conditioned to accept fascism as being equivalent to conservatism. It's tempting, because human beings are easily manipulated by unanswered injustice, and we're being overpowered by it.
Stanley, who are you really? Hiding behind a false identity makes it hard to take anything you say seriously.
It's a truism that "conservatives" support the regime and "progressives" oppose it. But it is untrue to believe that conservatives support every form of the regime currently in power. Conservatives can be radically linked to an historical regime... in America's case, the classically liberal "Founder's" regime.
The problem that they have lie in the excesses of the once liberating economic principles the founders espoused. Corporations controlling an ever increasing share of GDP is never something that they envisioned, or would advocate. The Founders were petit bourgeois capitalists. Banks (and the subsequent Federal Reserve system) were problematic, even in their day.
A correction is needed. And neither party is an advocate for the necessary economic correction.
Respect is not something one gives Alec, it is something one earns. And in politics, there's no such thing as "grace".
Blogs are a place where tit-4-tat generally rules, provided the moderator is not over-zealously ideological. And I have never found AoW to be that.
ps - As I courtesy, by advised that I go by many blog handles. None is my "true" self. (Thersites, Stanley, Titan Uranus, -FJ, Farmer John, Joe Conservative, Glen Beck #1 fan, Mrs. Grundy, Inspector AIPac, Lyin' Brian, Absolute Marxist, Vrag Proletariata, et al.)
The diffranse between left and right be the left be saying they be too many people on the planet and the right be like why kill them people when we can put they ass on otha planets soon as we get them crop circle makin green bitches out the way.
The difference between Libertarians and Conservatives is that Libertarians believe government should get out of the way and allow the plutocrats to rule, while Conservatives believe governmental politicos should help the plutocrats (while enriching themselves, of course).
Both ideologies call for the further enriching of the already wealthy by screwing workers. Both here and in other countries. They hope to achieve this goal by pitting groups of workers against each other. Low wage minority workers against low wage White workers (by eliminating the minimum wage) and American workers against low wage workers in 3rd world countries (by eliminating tariffs). Their hope is that groups of workers will fight each other for who will work for the least amount of money.
I can't get all wound up over something that Dr. Carson wrote -- or didn't write -- relating to something that happened -- or didn't happen -- some 50 years ago.
Just saying ? Is that what you said when you "thought" you caught Hillary in s LIE? Did you just pass it off by saying " just sayings "? No! You people ranted s d raved about it got years and you still are! But when the shoe is on the other foot, you mearly seep it under the rug and say " just saying". The Man out and out lied, so why don't you admit it and rant s out that? Just Saying
I can't get all wound up over something that Dr. Carson wrote -- or didn't write -- relating to something that happened -- or didn't happen -- some 50 years ago.
What happened at Benghazi (9/11/2012) doesn't occupy the same place on the historical timeline; and Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Susan Rice are not spring chickens and should have known better than to float a deliberate lie about a YouTube "film." Dr. Carson, on the other hand, was about 18 years old when the matter of attending West Point arose.
If the press adopts a stance mocking the right, who will undoubtedly, with the exception of Trump, show Carson some grace, should we not make the same charge when the left forgives lying by those from that side?
The incident of Hillary Clinton avoiding sniper fire in Bosnia comes to mind. Her lying and fabrication on that issue seem to have caused her no harm in the eyes of many Dems.
All this shows to me is that Ben Carson is little different from Hillary Clinton and many other politicians. He lies. He fabricates. Sadly, it is what politicians do, from both the right, and the left.
Tell me all you escapees from that progressive blog. What did Carson say that was untrue. Give me the EXACT quote, not a media report.
We have Hillary's emails and logs where she states definitively that the Benghazi attack had NOTHING to do with that You Tube video. Benghazi was a national security disaster and the Obama Administration spun a web of lies just before a presidential election to cover it up.
Did Carson confuse a general's invitation to apply to West Point with a scholarship when he was 17 years old? OH MY GOD! Stop the presses!
At least he didn't hang out with Commie Radicals and spend 20 years in the Church of a Nuttiie Pastor who hated our Country and called Jews all those disgusting things. Like the Marxist we have in the White House currently
I am speaking of Carson, and I'm referring to media questions about events that he has raised. One of the primary [fairly legitimate] criticisms about Obama's path to the White House....other than his lack of experience...was poor vetting by the Fourth Estate.
He's not complaining about being vetted; as he said he understands vetting, he's simply pointing out the irony that they're looking into him and insisting on vetting when the media's not even been interested in why Obama's records are closed, etc...... What he's raised, he's explained; the NY Times agrees with Carson, as does the Washington Post.
Z, The NYT and the WaPo agree with Carson? About which matter? The matter of the West Point scholarship or the matter of witnesses to his violent behavior as a teenager?
Almost everyone on this blog is going to pull the (R) lever, even if the candidate was a monkey, as some of them are. So for the 3 or 4 people who are liberals and post here on a regular basis anything that they may say would never change anyone's mind It becomes a feel good blog for the mindless Teebaggers.
Ever occur to you that those "teebaggers" have as much right to their opinions as you have, that this is still America and anyone can vote as they wish, AND there's a very good reason many Americans would vote Republican over any Liberal? Think, man.
Yup....we have to ignore Keystone and its failure because Obama didn't want to okay it and then go to Paris....why else would he wait till one week before going to this CLimate Change B.S. otherwise?
By the way, Eleanor Clift said last night that "Keystone would have only created 40 jobs..!" I've worked on really large projects that are nowhere near the size of Keystone and just the office workers would have totalled more than 40 let alone the men and women working on the line!! UNbelievable stupidity...liberal Eleanor lies again.
We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion: 1. Any use of profanity or abusive language 2. Off topic comments and spam 3. Use of personal invective
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
His response was indeed appropriate...it's unfortunate that he tempered that with also stating "We'd be Cuba if there were no Fox News, I ought to tell you."
ReplyDeleteNot that I'm a Fox zealot, but with only a party organ (the major networks controlled by liberals) on the television airwaves, we may not be "Cuba" but we would similarly have only the "liberal" view presented to us.
DeleteIs that not true or is it only unfortunate that he said it?
It's unfortunate that he said it, because he generally comes off as a reasonable guy. There's not much 'truth' to the blame game of media bias....mostly politically driven opinion. I have a less fervent view of liberal bias in the corporate media than most here. Said media thrives on the political duopoly.
DeleteWe can agree to disagree, right?
DeleteAbsolutely.
DeleteWe wouldn't be more like CUBA. We'd be more like STALINIST RUSSIA without the emergence of a challenging alternative to an overwhelmingly left-leaning media who operated untrammeled without opposition, question or pause for decades until Bill Buckley published Man and God at Yale, and then Rush Limbaugh appeared to make Buckley's sentiments less self-consciously erudite and more accessible to average folk. Rush's addition of comic-satiric tongue-in-cheek elements while making deadly serious points was a stroke of genius.
DeleteIt certainly awakened and roused the ire of what had been The Silent Majority.
FOX is nowhere near conservative enough for my tastes, but at least it isn't the New York Times or MSNBC & CO.
Obama and Carson both are speaking irresponsibly. All of this contributes to the destruction of the American Republic. Look to the end of Weimar Germany. All of this has happened before.
ReplyDeleteYes, we all know what happens when demagogues are rewarded with "silence".
DeleteI heard Obama's putrid, sneering attack on this political enemies, accompanied by a herd of barking, clapping circus-trained seals.
ReplyDeleteThe sad irony of his statements concerning standing up to Putin, Iranians, etc, is that he has stood up to nobody. He's been a pathetic weakling on the world stage, and all our enemies are in a materially better situation than when he took office.
Yes. Obama's doing a perfect job. I'm not being sarcastic. He's following the script brilliantly.
DeleteAs Americans we keep thinking politics is primarily about personalities. That's sometimes important. But more often it's the policies that matter. The experts work with decades-long plans which transcend personalities. Bush Jr and Obama are very different men. But has the direction really changed? Really?
and before Ducky flaps in here quacking about how I want a president who bombs everything... Wrong!
DeleteObama has approached every nation that hates us from a position of weakness and then given them everything.
Meanwhile, he destabilized Egypt by first backing the Muslim Brotherhood, Yemen (his success story he was crowing about just 6 months ago) is in revolutionary flames, ISIS has gobbled up whole chunks of Iraq and Syria, half of Syria's population is displaced, he destroyed Libya with no plan for what to do after and now Europe is suffering a migration crisis of Biblical proportion, Iran gets all their frozen money back so they can revitalize Hezbollah terrorism around the world, Afghanistan is sliding...
He has been strong exactly nowhere, and our nation is worse off, overseas and here domestically, after seven years of his inept reign.
About all they can really claim is that the economy has improved, and I then ask what Obama policies contributed to that?
"the economy has improved"
DeleteFactoring in the precipitous increase in the National Debt, how has the "economy.......improved"? That sounds as fallacious as the, reported, 5% unemployment rate disregarding the horrible Labor Participation Rate. Speaking of that, B.O. just reinforced that Keystone won't happen. Since B.O. is coming on to announce this I must scramble for the remote.
JonBerg: I'm not defending Obama, but all economic indicators have improved since Bush left office: Unemployment, GDP and even the rate of borrowing has gone down as revenue has increased.
Deletehaving said that, this is the worst economic recovery on record, we have record number of people who have abandoned the workforce,and wages for all but the 1% have been flat for over 2 decades.
Still, by universally-recognized measures, the economy has improved.
It's the least robust recovery on record, maybe.
DeleteBut so what? That can either be used as an analytic indicator to prompt suggestions of how it could have been improved or a simple stat that the fringe right uses to bash Obama.
One would be useful. The other is asinine.
...but the premise underlying and inspiring either response is still true.
DeleteSF,
DeleteI agree that "by universally-recognized measures" the economy appears to have improved. However, in reality, I don't believe it has when factoring in the detrimental long term effects of reckless borrowing. My previous comment was, in no way, meant to impugn what [you] were saying. I'm afraid that some of our "universally-recognized measures" amount to no more than 'smoke and mirrors' !
Berg, why is borrowing at an interest rate lower than the rate of inflation reckless?
Deletethe economy appears to have improved.
DeleteDon't Bogart that joint, my friend, pass it over to me!
I agree, The more money I borrow in the future, the richer I'll get! The government's going to PAY ME to borrow money...
Delete"Berg, why is borrowing at an interest rate lower than the rate of inflation reckless?"
DeleteThe National Debt exceeds our annual GDP and growing. What plans are being made to pay this off?
It will probably never be paid off.
DeleteLarger issues are the cost of debt service and the effectiveness of spending.
If you are borrowing below the inflation rate then you aren't generating a serious increase in the cost of debt service.
Now you can argue the long term effectiveness of the spending for improving growth but that is a separate (and critically important) question.
When is it desirable to reduce stimulus spending and reduce the gross debt level. To me the answer is determined by the resulting cost of debt service as a percentage of income.
Lol! Inflation is a symptom of a growing economy. No worry's about that ever happening again with King Barrack killing energy infrastructure projects and suing energy companies over global warming.
DeleteFarmer and Jon Berg. We compare things to other things to make evaluative judgments. Using the same standards we measured the economy during other presidencies, the economy has improved.
DeleteBy those same standards, we also see it has been the most pathetic recovery on record.
Move off of that, and you start sounding like Ducky who laughingly beclaims Reagan destroyed the economy when in fact it was just the opposite. Carter destroyed it, Reagan fixed it, and Clinton was smart enough to continue Reaganomics.
Still and all, other countervailing economic forces were swirling underneath the surface. Wages have been flat for over 2 decades, and it would be ridiculous to blame that on Obama, since he was still a dope smoking community activist when the trend began.
Ducky's from the leftwing progressive "Spend you way to Prosperity" school...
DeleteRight up there with "Smoke your way to good health."
SF,
DeleteGreat analogy!
Using the same standards... LOL!
DeleteThis was from Jan 2013... Based on how unemployment was calculated in the 1980s, economist John Williams reported the true number for December to be 23%. It's a "new (post WW II) high," he said.
A hiring surge before Christmas.... lets CELEBRATE!
;p
DeleteI stand by my statement. Even Shadow Statistics shows all three lines tracking together, no matter how you slice it.
DeleteI like that site, btw. I wish it wasn't a pay site.
To answer AOW's question on down the thread, yes, government apparachiks twiddle the knobs, fudge the data and make clandestine changes to methodologies to suit partisan political agendas.
Still, declaring all data is meaningless removes any context for discussion.
Despite the Obama and the Pelosicrats happy talk, echoed by a complian press and a dumbed-down proletariate, we all know this is a crappy recovery because we are living through it.
There is no "improvement" in the 'shadow" unemployment data. There is merely an indication that the problem has not gotten "worse". Contrary to your assertion, it does not substatntiate your claim that "things are getting better". In fact, we have merely to await the arrival of millions more economic refugees to see the data turn negative.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteBesides, the entire "economic improvement" you tout has been borrowed".
DeleteThe recovery this ailing economy is a wreckovery.
DeleteUm, should read "this recovery OF this ailing economy is a wreckovery.
DeleteYet another of my iPad typos.
Thersites. We agree its a crap economy, but statistics have improved since Obama took office. Continue arguing against that, but you're starting to sound like Ducky.
DeleteThe doubled debt is an improvement? Who knew?
DeleteI don't care if I sound like ducky. This economy is structurally incapable of sustaining all these "improvements" especially in light of the pending ceding of sovereignty under the TPP.
DeleteI cited GDP and unemployment statistics. Both have improved from the day Obama took office.
DeleteI'm not defending Obama, simply citing the most common statistics people cite when making comparisons.
We've already established that we agree on the crap Obama economy, TPP and the debt.
ReplyDeleteYessiree, Putin shakes in his shoes when the mighty B.O. speaks-OMG! It's, indeed, sad that anyone can still take this fraud seriously. Was he just being sarcastic?
Jon,
DeleteBHO takes himself seriously and believes his own legend. Narcissist.
When limp wristed liberals vote for limp wristed Presidents they get limp wristed results.
ReplyDeleteThis made me laugh. Thanks for lightening it up, Odie. :)
DeleteOdie rocks!
DeleteBari Umene, M.A. said
ReplyDeleteGiven the choice between tit and tat, I'll take tit any day.
You very funny man, Bari. Thanks for the chuckle.
DeleteI'm curious, what would the media look like if the right had it's way?
ReplyDeleteNo more Bill Kristol on Fox News Sunday ?
Chris Wallace gets canned?
Morning Joe loses its extra hour on communist MSNBC?
The Vulgar Gasbag, Bill O'Really and Sean Inanity host the network evening news?
"This is Meet the Press with our guest Senator Ted Cruz"
"Tonight on Newshour commentator David Brooks ..."
... just what does it look like when all this so called liberalism is purged.
Or is the fact that any small vestige of liberal thought must be purged?
It's not that I think the right is shallow and delusional, I just think they've gone through a conditioning that Pavlov wouldn't have thought possible.
Yes, well what WE think of YOU is unmentionable in polite society, and unprintable at respectable blogs like AOW's –– or mine.
DeleteFT,
DeleteThank you for your restraint. I'm going through a bad patch at the moment, and blogging isn't on my front burner -- although I am trying to post as frequently as I can manage.
what would the media look like if the right had it's way?
Delete...the WSJ?
You don't need to be purged, you need to recognize that yours is only one viewpoint, and that those who disagree with you are not doing so out of malice, or some programmed reaction.
DeleteWe would more than welcome a reasoned debate regarding both causes and solutions to our problems. That sort of politics has not been the norm now for decades, and it's not only the fault of the right.
When every legitimate issue we raise is discounted, and vilified, how do you expect to resolve anything?
"My way or the highway" has become the rule, but you seem unwilling to see the consequences of such an approach.
Given the left's obvious aversion to the use of force, why are you provoking situations where its invocation becomes inevitable?
"My way or the highway" has become the rule, but you seem unwilling to see the consequences of such an approach.
DeleteYes, so true.
Viburnum,
DeleteOne reason that the Right is abandoning reasoned responses is for exactly the reasons you have mentioned.
Clearly, patience and turning the other cheek haven't worked out very well. We may have reached the point that at least some screeching must be employed so as to prevent our own annihilation.
It is telling that Ducky's mind goes to purges and other dictatorial actions.
DeleteIt unmasks his own leftwing statist prog mindset.
The DEMOLITION DERBY mentality that has taken over American politics is disgusting, distressing, depressing, despicable and deplorable.
ReplyDeleteIt reduces consideration of serious matters to the level of a food fight in the junior high school cafeteria. That means it doesn't even rise to the level of a good old fashioned barfroom brawl.
FT,
DeleteYes, it is demolition derby and will remain so until at least Election Day 2015. I've been thinking that the last time America was in such a mood was the 1856 Election.
You mentioned "barfroom brawl." A typo, I think. But the term fits. LOL!
I agree people so camped out to hate they gone hate no matta what
ReplyDeleteSF,
ReplyDeleteAre those "universally-recognized measures" valid today? I'm asking because I'm not seeing muc recovery with regard to the unemployed and the underemployed whom I personally know.
Don't need no job if u lurnt how to get in the system for yo entitlement u can get yo crib and yo food paid for now u get free health care and disability and u don't have to work at all what we need is the govamint to gives us cars and gas money an we be ballin
ReplyDeleteYes, Great reply.
ReplyDeleteThat reply was FABULOUS and SO TRUE.
ReplyDeleteNow if he'd only stick to lines like that........
Hear Politico's admitting they totally made up the West Point smear?
Z,
DeleteI heard about the Politico smear, and the first thing that popped into my mind was the following: "Why wasn't Barack Hussein Obama's past scrutinized like that?"
Later, I read this:
Politico ‘Stealth Edits’ The Hit Piece On Ben Carson, But It’s Still Wrong.
Dr. Carson's press conference of 11/6/15 (full video).
DeleteRing/Cloak of Gyges treatment by the media is again revealed.
DeleteRegarding the economy: When I have to make a choice between buying a new bra or a new pair of tennis shoes - the economy doesn't look better to me. Both are essential items, unless of course, asking my spouse. smile
ReplyDeleteWoof! Bow wow!
... I am not going to defend Ben Carson for his untruths... I just hope that the gleeful primarily left leaning media remember that they have not been overly harsh or judgmental when Democratic politicians have been found to be playing fast and loose with the facts.
ReplyDeleteIf the press adopts a stance mocking the right, who will undoubtedly, with the exception of Trump, show Carson some grace, should we not make the same charge when the left forgives lying by those from that side?
The incident of Hillary Clinton avoiding sniper fire in Bosnia comes to mind. Her lying and fabrication on that issue seem to have caused her no harm in the eyes of many Dems.
All this shows to me is that Ben Carson is little different from Hillary Clinton and many other politicians. He lies. He fabricates. Sadly, it is what politicians do, from both the right, and the left.
It's all so troubling to me. Why is it so pervasive?
Maybe the "left" and "right" are both constructs used by cynical men to control and subvert.
DeleteWhat do "left leaning" or "right leaning" media biases really mean? People supposedly on the "left" talk about the "conservative bias" of the mainstream media. They have plenty of evidence to back it up.
As long as we think that any of the mainstream media outlets are "on our side" (whatever that side may be), we are being fools.
The truth - that we have no truly honest media - liberal or conservative - is easily provable. But who wants to look with open eyes and accept what that means?
Alec
Alec,
DeleteThe truth - that we have no truly honest media - liberal or conservative - is easily provable.
Indeed!
It's all narrative journalism now. Pffft.
DeleteNormally TTTT, when you copy and paste another persons exact words, in this case mine, you give attribution, otherwise representing them as your own is called plagerism...
DeleteIs the left as damning about Biden's plagiarism?
DeleteAlec's right on the media, of course. I'd love to hear some liberal try to say otherwise with facts :-)
No, Davidino, it's called P-L-A-G-I-A-R-I-S-M.
DeleteIf I had written that remark, I would be ashamed to own up to it, as should you.
Well Anon, I'll assume you've never made a typo in your life. Yes, I spelled plagiarism wrong, but it seems everyone here fully understood the context.
DeleteWhy the need to get snippy only with my comment when a simple check of many of the comments here will probably show numerous other typos, as well as dangling participles, sentences ending with prepositions, incorrect use of capital letters and general run on sentences.
It's blogging on the run.
Z... I'm not sure how to interpret your comment. I only brought up the issue because someone used my words, verbatim, without attribution, passing them off as their own.
As for Biden, much as I may like the guy, because of his issues with PLAGIARISM, I could not vote for him as President. Just as I will not be able to do so if Hillary is the Dem nominee.
Hi, Dave...I haven't the time to read every comment above...sorry, I thought you were referring to the plagiarism accusations to Carson. I apologize
DeleteThanks for the explanation......
Why wouldn't you vote for Hillary?
narrative journalism is alive and well in the US of A.
DeleteThersites,
DeleteLet's see if this report turns out to be the ugly truth...
Report: UC Merced stabber was on terror watch list, had Islamic State flag
If the above does turn out to be true, the mainstream media will bury the story. Count on it.
Orwell's Ministry of Truth was the epitome of narrative journalism.
DeleteThat link is a good example of narrative journalism. It inflames fears and hatred of "lone gunman" and "crazies" while leaving out the most important contextual information.
DeleteAssuming the details Fox News gave are true, the student, Faisal Mohammad, was engaging in textbook violent Jihad which his religion tells him will guarantee his entrance into paradise if he dies while carrying it out. The "smile" he had exactly mirrors that of his idol, the first Mohammed. "Mohammadens" are instructed to pattern their lives not after the Koran, but after the man Mohammed. The first Mohammed laughed as Kafirs were beheaded in front of him. And to Faisal, every person in that room was a Kafir.
This is not a dangerous loner that we have to fear (although he might have been those things). This is a classic "Mohammedan". Fox, you fail again.
Alec,
DeleteI grow weary of narrative journalism with "news stories" slanting content according to an agenda (or sheer ignorance). The unstated theses are obvious to those who use discernment. But how many use discernment?
"Narrative journalism" belongs on the opinion page.
His smile indicates inner peace because he is certain that he is doing the will of Allah and closely followed the model of the prophet. Now, how often do we hear of those matters in the mainstream media -- and even in some conservative media.
DeleteThough I'm not sure that I'd call Fox News conservative media.
It's "rightist" media, not conservative. "Left" is really progressive, a euphemism for communist. "Right" is seen as conservative, but it's really becoming fascist, just as it did in Germany before Hitler. Fox follows a fascist agenda 100%. Now I'll be hated for saying this, but I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. The only channel more fascist-leaning than Fox is InfoWars.
DeleteAlec
You want a challenge?
DeleteOkay, to be fascist means that you are selecting a scapegoat (like the Jew) and blaming all of your society's problems on that scapegoat. Who is "Fox's" scapegoat when they mask and fail to address the killers self-proclaimed identity (Islamist) and try to pretend that its' a "revenge" killing?
If nothing else, Fox merely perpetuates the progressive-liberal narrative that there is nothing dangerously 'other' in the Other. It's the anti-thesis of fascism of the type found in the Nazi regime. In fact, it's a continuation of the so-called "anti-fascist" narrative.
DeleteHi Stanley,
DeleteThis is how fascism is presented. But the idea of a scapegoat has nothing to do with it really. That's a tool that can be and is used by political cynics of all stripes.
Webster's unabridged defines fascism this way: any program for setting up a centralized autocratic national regime with severely nationalistic policies, exercising regimentation of industry, commerce, and finance, rigid censorship, and forcible suppression of opposition.
Notice something else that Webster's doesn't include? An autocratic dictator. The real marker of fascism is union of government and industry into cartels.
Individual rights are eradicated in both fascism and communism.
It's hard to reform our understandings of these things, because we've all been subjected to years of redefinition of words.
I'm on the way out, but can continue this later if you like.
Alec
Au contraire, It has everything to do with "scapegoats"
DeleteWhat you miss is that communism acknowledges class-conflict and seeks to elinintae it through the elimination of class (everyone a prole). The fascist through expulsion of the "external" contaminating element.
The class enemy. Howe else does explain Angela Merkel's open-border policy? She can't overcome Germany's "fascist" history. She recognizes the "fascism" in Stalin and Hitler, and has turned to Trotsyite "Internationalism" as a defense.
Deleteany program for setting up a centralized autocratic national regime with severely nationalistic policies, exercising regimentation of industry, commerce, and finance, rigid censorship, and forcible suppression of opposition.
DeleteApplies perfectly to China today. Is China a "fascist" regime?
The "difference" lies in the scapegoat.
DeleteThe MSM's "scapegoats" are troglodyte "racists"... conservatives who hate immigrants and blacks. And any action which serves to minimize this "hatred" is a force for "progressive" good.
DeleteBoth communists and fascists need a narrative which explains the "problem". And the cause of that problem is always its "scapegoat"... and anything negative done to said scapegoat and elimninate him "redeems" the goal ( a new world order). With the fascist, it's a foreigner. With the communist, a non-believer.
DeleteThe point is that the "mythical people" whom the ideology serves don't exist. Not in the past. Not in the future. There will always be class conflict in a "captitalist" society. And capitalism (reciprocal altruism) is the resulting "Enlightenment" compromise in social relations between communality and dominance.
To eliminate class conflict, one would have to eliminate the differences between "individual knowlege" and "mutual knowlege" through a "hive mind". But even mother nature's most exceptional "hive minds" still repel invaders.
DeleteOnly in Isaiah Berlin's "classical liberalism" will you find a kernal of "individual liberty" aka "negative liberty". Positive liberty, social justice, etc. ultimately results "individual liberties" absolute negation (for example - torture as an expedient vs unbroachable LIMIT to authoritarian power).
DeleteAlec,
DeleteAre you saying that Conservatism today has morphed into fascism?
Hi AOW,
DeleteNo, conservatism is very different than fascism. American conservatives though are being conditioned to accept fascism as being equivalent to conservatism. It's tempting, because human beings are easily manipulated by unanswered injustice, and we're being overpowered by it.
Stanley, who are you really? Hiding behind a false identity makes it hard to take anything you say seriously.
Alec
It's a truism that "conservatives" support the regime and "progressives" oppose it. But it is untrue to believe that conservatives support every form of the regime currently in power. Conservatives can be radically linked to an historical regime... in America's case, the classically liberal "Founder's" regime.
DeleteThe problem that they have lie in the excesses of the once liberating economic principles the founders espoused. Corporations controlling an ever increasing share of GDP is never something that they envisioned, or would advocate. The Founders were petit bourgeois capitalists. Banks (and the subsequent Federal Reserve system) were problematic, even in their day.
A correction is needed. And neither party is an advocate for the necessary economic correction.
"Who" I am is none of your business. If an oak posed serious questions, I should take an oak seriously, were I a wise man.
DeleteI rest my case. You are not worthy of the time. Sticks and stones, troll.
DeleteAt least we now both recognize on which side of this conversation the "unseriousness" (or is it really "incapacity"?) lies. :)
DeleteEnjoy your fetish. I know I will. :)
DeleteAlec,
DeleteStanley isn't exactly a troll.
Yes, I know who it is. It is not I, but I do know who it is. Just bloggers havin' fun.
I don't divulge those confidences.
Well AOW, some of us like our "fun" based on mutual respect.
DeleteHave to check back out now. Enjoy the rest of your day.
Respect is not something one gives Alec, it is something one earns. And in politics, there's no such thing as "grace".
DeleteBlogs are a place where tit-4-tat generally rules, provided the moderator is not over-zealously ideological. And I have never found AoW to be that.
ps - As I courtesy, by advised that I go by many blog handles. None is my "true" self. (Thersites, Stanley, Titan Uranus, -FJ, Farmer John, Joe Conservative, Glen Beck #1 fan, Mrs. Grundy, Inspector AIPac, Lyin' Brian, Absolute Marxist, Vrag Proletariata, et al.)
And AoW was being somewhat"diplomatic". I'm not a troll. I'm a troll's troll.
DeleteFJ,
DeleteI'm diplomatic? Who knew?
I've lost track of the multitude of blog handles you have.
Diplomatic. I'm MUCH worse than an ordinary troll.
Deleteps - Wanna know the kicker? Guess who the WaPo is scapegoating for Obama's incompetence...
Blaming demographics?
DeleteStanley,
DeleteI freely admit that you can be relentless.
The diffranse between left and right be the left be saying they be too many people on the planet and the right be like why kill them people when we can put they ass on otha planets soon as we get them crop circle makin green bitches out the way.
Deleteyou can be relentless....
Delete"the opposite of existence is not non-existence, but insistence: that which does not exist, continues to insist, striving towards existence"...
...or as FT would say, "that which does not go gently into that good night." ;)
@ KB - Most of us on the right think that fences make good neighbors. We just need to stop worrying about what happens on the other side of the fence.
The difference between Libertarians and Conservatives is that Libertarians believe government should get out of the way and allow the plutocrats to rule, while Conservatives believe governmental politicos should help the plutocrats (while enriching themselves, of course).
ReplyDeleteBoth ideologies call for the further enriching of the already wealthy by screwing workers. Both here and in other countries. They hope to achieve this goal by pitting groups of workers against each other. Low wage minority workers against low wage White workers (by eliminating the minimum wage) and American workers against low wage workers in 3rd world countries (by eliminating tariffs). Their hope is that groups of workers will fight each other for who will work for the least amount of money.
This seems to set up "the left" as the "good guys". Is that what you believe?
DeleteI can't get all wound up over something that Dr. Carson wrote -- or didn't write -- relating to something that happened -- or didn't happen -- some 50 years ago.
ReplyDeleteJust sayin'.
Just saying ?
DeleteIs that what you said when you "thought" you caught Hillary in s LIE? Did you just pass it off by saying " just sayings "? No! You people ranted s d raved about it got years and you still are!
But when the shoe is on the other foot, you mearly seep it under the rug and say " just saying". The Man out and out lied, so why don't you admit it and rant s out that?
Just Saying
Ahem.
DeleteRead my comment again:
I can't get all wound up over something that Dr. Carson wrote -- or didn't write -- relating to something that happened -- or didn't happen -- some 50 years ago.
What happened at Benghazi (9/11/2012) doesn't occupy the same place on the historical timeline; and Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Susan Rice are not spring chickens and should have known better than to float a deliberate lie about a YouTube "film." Dr. Carson, on the other hand, was about 18 years old when the matter of attending West Point arose.
And, now, "To tell the truth," buzz off. You're done here.
DeleteTry to post again here at this blog, and a blog administrator will delete your comment on site.
Amazing someone can't make the distinction.
DeleteAnd the Carson "lies" are unproven or semantics.
As for Hillary, it's a matter of Congressional Record.
Everyone IS aware that Politico's admitted fabricating the Carson West Point story, right?
ReplyDeleteNo, please tell us
ReplyDeleteIf the press adopts a stance mocking the right, who will undoubtedly, with the exception of Trump, show Carson some grace, should we not make the same charge when the left forgives lying by those from that side?
ReplyDeleteThe incident of Hillary Clinton avoiding sniper fire in Bosnia comes to mind. Her lying and fabrication on that issue seem to have caused her no harm in the eyes of many Dems.
All this shows to me is that Ben Carson is little different from Hillary Clinton and many other politicians. He lies. He fabricates. Sadly, it is what politicians do, from both the right, and the left.
Tell me all you escapees from that progressive blog. What did Carson say that was untrue. Give me the EXACT quote, not a media report.
ReplyDeleteWe have Hillary's emails and logs where she states definitively that the Benghazi attack had NOTHING to do with that You Tube video. Benghazi was a national security disaster and the Obama Administration spun a web of lies just before a presidential election to cover it up.
Did Carson confuse a general's invitation to apply to West Point with a scholarship when he was 17 years old? OH MY GOD! Stop the presses!
At least he didn't hang out with Commie Radicals and spend 20 years in the Church of a Nuttiie Pastor who hated our Country and called Jews all those disgusting things. Like the Marxist we have in the White House currently
DeleteHere's a Yahoo News Headline I just read "Now a front-runner, Carson faces scrutiny that comes with it"
ReplyDeleteDo any of you remember ever reading that about Obama when he was running?....
No, I don't think so.
I hope the irony is not lost, that the currently polled frontrunner is one with zero experience and griping about being vetted.
ReplyDeleteIf you're speaking of Carson, where is he complaining about being vetted? Perhaps misconstrued or lied about, but not vetted.
DeleteI am speaking of Carson, and I'm referring to media questions about events that he has raised. One of the primary [fairly legitimate] criticisms about Obama's path to the White House....other than his lack of experience...was poor vetting by the Fourth Estate.
DeleteHe's not complaining about being vetted; as he said he understands vetting, he's simply pointing out the irony that they're looking into him and insisting on vetting when the media's not even been interested in why Obama's records are closed, etc......
DeleteWhat he's raised, he's explained; the NY Times agrees with Carson, as does the Washington Post.
Z,
DeleteThe NYT and the WaPo agree with Carson? About which matter? The matter of the West Point scholarship or the matter of witnesses to his violent behavior as a teenager?
currently polled frontrunner is one with zero experience and griping about being vetted.
DeleteHillary's complaining again?
http://news.yahoo.com/nastiness-threatens-online-reader-comments-053929979.html
ReplyDeleteNow the media hatin on everybody
Chaos is much harder to live with than overly simplistic propaganda.
DeleteThey all show up with they custom vape boxes tryna be bigger and badder and they I roll up with a fog machine in my trunk
Delete
ReplyDeleteAlmost everyone on this blog is going to pull the (R) lever, even if the candidate was a monkey, as some of them are. So for the 3 or 4 people who are liberals and post here on a regular basis anything that they may say would never change anyone's mind It becomes a feel good blog for the mindless Teebaggers.
Ever occur to you that those "teebaggers" have as much right to their opinions as you have, that this is still America and anyone can vote as they wish, AND there's a very good reason many Americans would vote Republican over any Liberal? Think, man.
Delete".............even if the candidate was a monkey" he or she would be a big improvement over what we have now!
DeleteThanks for saving the world, President Obama!!!
ReplyDeleteToday's official scapegoat... carbon.
BHO is a megalomaniac.
DeleteYup....we have to ignore Keystone and its failure because Obama didn't want to okay it and then go to Paris....why else would he wait till one week before going to this CLimate Change B.S. otherwise?
DeleteBy the way, Eleanor Clift said last night that "Keystone would have only created 40 jobs..!" I've worked on really large projects that are nowhere near the size of Keystone and just the office workers would have totalled more than 40 let alone the men and women working on the line!! UNbelievable stupidity...liberal Eleanor lies again.
Z,
DeleteI find it impossible to believe that the statement is mere stupidity.