Bill Clinton Just Re-Elected Barack Obama

The whore-monger certainly wasn't at the top of his game. Seemed like his heart wasn't in it.

You're definitely a die-hard Republican. That's all I'm going to say.

Not a Republican at all! I am a conservative leaning Independent.

Interesting. I am a Democrat and never denied my bias toward the Democratic party. I recognize a party bias when I see it.

BM's delusions are impervious to evidence or facts. Even the evidence of her own ears and eyes is discounted if it doesn't fit the irrational narrative playing on and endless loop in her head.

She's as much an independent as I am an American.

From Canada, with love.

In the future, we will be sending up F-15s to meet any of those Canadian Geese you send this way w/o valid passports.

MariAna, I would also be more likely to take you at your word for the same reason Lora cites. However, let me ask: have you ever voted Democrat? Do you always vote Republican? Many of your remarks lead me to believe that you never vote Democrat and always vote Republican. If so, then you may not be a card carrying member of the Republican party, but that doesn't put you in the "independent" column either. BM's blind hatred comes across as a virtual evacuation of her bowels with every comment directed at Obama or the Democrats.

For example your remark above that Obama does not have a chance is along those lines. It sounds like partisan wishful thinking. Polls, and there are far too many of them to all be wrong, show the race to be pretty much a dead heat, meaning both candidate have a strong chance. The lack of a bounce in the polls for Romney following the RNC (hardly a surprise given how many controversial or clumsy things went on in that convention) and the possibility of one for Obama following what has been, so far, an excellent convention at the DNC makes it even more likely that Obama has a pretty good chance.

Who but a partisan would say otherwise given the evidence?

First off I have no "blind hatred" For anyone. If Bill Clinton wasn't a whore monger then you might have a point. I don't hate him I just hate his total lack of morality. Wouldn't even care about that if he hadn't been diddling the intern while in the Oval Office. The least he could have done is take her to a cheap motel rather then disgrace the office.

As far as Obama goes, Never met the man so don't hate him at all. What I do hate is his attempts to tear done my country and to "fundamentally transform" it his version of a Marxist nightmare. NDAA, Re-distribute the wealth , 16 trillion dollars national debt, removing work requirement from welfare reform, usurping the constitution, and it goes on and on and on. Then there is the lavish spending of Tax dollars on personal vacations for his wife, family and friends. He is a one trick pony and it has to be that way if America is to have even the slightest chance to survive as a sovereign nation.

Then there is the lavish spending of Tax dollars on personal vacations for his wife, family and friends.

But a war that cost us $3.2-4 trillion (according to a study at Brown University), a president vacationing 69 days in his first year PLUS 78 days at Camp David the first year (that's 147 days total away from his job that he's still getting paid to do), and a president taking a surplus to $9Trillion in debt....that's all OK?

Meanwhile Obama took 15 days vacation his first year and has only accumulated $4T in debt....he's taking heat over $4T when Bush ran up MORE THAN $9T!!!

As Clinton pointed out --- "it's called arithmetic!"

So the answer is, put a Republican back in office so our debt can increase by, what...another $10-12 trillion or so? GREAT idea!

Within two years Romney would have us at war with Iran and Syria. That would ensure his re-election to a second term because America never switches presidents during a war.
A bunch of Republicans would get wealthy and at the end of it, America might actually see her demise this time.
Think about that when you go to the voting booth.

First off I have no "blind hatred" For anyone.

Really? The above you immediately followed by:

If Bill Clinton wasn't a whore monger then you might have a point. I don't hate him I just hate his total lack of morality. Wouldn't even care about that if he hadn't been diddling the intern while in the Oval Office. The least he could have done is take her to a cheap motel rather then disgrace the office.

Dishonesty is unbecoming.

Another evacuation from BM!

Thanks for the distinction about not hating Clinton or Obama, just everything they stand for. Good to know.

Of course, if you had any clue what they stand for it might make some sense. But you blame Clinton for having sex in the Oval Office, as if he was the first to do so... when everyone know he wasn't. You blame Obama for being a communist for a debt he only can be held partially accountable (and I don't hear you calling Reagan or the Bushes communists), for "removing work from welfare" when he did quite the opposite, for "usurping the constitution" but of course you offer no examples and for the NDAA which, I agree, was a bad thing but in the same vein as the Patriot Act.

I suppose it was communism to bring in the ACA which was first proposed by Bob Dole and enacted in Massachussetts by Mitt Romney and gives private insurance companies a captive market.

(BTW: Vacations for presidents and their families are always expensive because of the security concerns that have to be met and the cost of transporting all of those personnel and the vehicles that a president travels in and the pre-scouting that the SS does to ensure safety of the first family. This was true for every other president as well, not just Obama, but then all those presidents were white and no one questioned the expense. Coincidence? You tell me.)

Lora,
"Mitt was destroying companies and people's lives for the all mighty dollar."
Be honest now, Mitt went in to failing businesses, NOT successful, profitable businesses. He went in to try to save those that were savable, and liquidate those beyond saving. Businesses are in business to make a profit, NOT to just hand out checks. If you had the money and an idea for a business, would you just stay open to provide a money source for employees? If so, I'd like an application.

$9 Trillion was passed during the Bush administration, but if you remember correctly, the 2nd stimulus was SPENT by Obama. The left has tried to place that 2nd stimulus in Bush's column, and it doesn't belong there.

"I am also a conservative leaning independent and what Big Mama said was not being biased but being honest."

Well, you both talk like, and take sides with RW extremists/positions on this site, so I have a hard time believing this~actually, I don't believe it at all!


The whore-monger certainly wasn't at the top of his game.

This appears to fit the OP of this comment more than Clinton, much more!

He went in to try to save those that were savable, and liquidate those beyond saving.

Yet, he wanted Detroit to go bankrupt. He said there were "procedures" to follow that would allow them to liquidate and possibly start over through the bankruptcy process.
This from a man who's made his life about saving failing businesses. Allegedly.

Here's the chart:

</>

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57400369-503544/national-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/

And this is taken from a right-wing article. It shows what the debt was when Obama started.
$9T....we had a surplus when W entered office. So, it went from zero to $9T under Bush.

"This from a man who's made his life about saving failing businesses."
Yes, a few of the businesses that he turned around...
* Sports Authority
* Guitar Center
* Hospital Corporation of America
* Gymboree
* Clear Channel Communications
* Houghton Mifflin
* Staples, Inc.
* D&M Holdings
* Domino's Pizza
* The Weather Channel
* Burger King
* Sealy Corporation
* Brookstone
* Burlington Coat Factory
* Dunkin' Donuts
* Steel Dynamics

"This from a man who's made his life about saving failing businesses."

Um, no. He went into failing businesses for the sole purpose of putting millions of dollars in his own pocket.

Here's a cute, and accurate, video that explains how Mitt Romney got so"obscenely rich."

Here's a list of companies that LOST jobs under Bain:

Dade International -1700
Holson Burnes Group -294
Physio-Control -50
GS Industries -750
Wesley Jessen VisionCare -600
American Pad & Paper (Ampad) - 385
Auto Palace/ADAP -20
Handbag Holdings -206
Transtar - 1000

That's a total of 5,005 jobs lost.
Bain made a profit on these lost jobs totaling $2.07 BILLION

That's what Mitt Romney will do for this country. He will fire you (cuz he loves firing people) and profit off sending your job overseas.

Great Robert Reich video, David ... it's almost unbelievable.

Lora, if we had a surplus when Bush took office, it is because of an accounting trick. Clinton was accounting for a small surplus in Social security as part of the total budget, where now if you apply the same surplus (which is now negative) the total debt would be around $30 Trillion.

Lora, those jobs may have been lost, but those companies continued to employ thousands of other people. Where is your accounting for that? By the way, most people in this work to earn a living. You can call that evil if you want, but it puts food on the table without the use of food stamps. Maybe that is what your objection is. That some people exist and give more to the government, than they get back. Be careful because without producers, the government would have nothing to tax.

Lora, do you remember your source for the Romney list of companies?

Thank you!

Bill was wonderful! I wish we could get HIM back in the white house...lol.

Sure, maybe he could diddle a few more interns with cigars in the Oval office.

"Bill was wonderful! I wish we could get HIM back in the white house"
...oh brother

Why don't you start refuting what Clinton had to say, with facts and figures, rather than to come up with mundane rants and thin attacks?

Can you, or can you not, defend the GOP platform--because Clinton did one heck of a consummate job, defending Democratic ideology, much less Obama's stellar record, under extreme adverse circumstances?

Tonight, my friend, Bill Clinton hit a grand slam home run for the Democrats and for the current President.

We're waiting for your rebuttal--and I have the feeling that we'll be waiting a long, long time for a convincing response from the likes of you.

....oh brother

"Why don't you start refuting what Clinton had to say, with facts and figures, rather than to come up with mundane rants and thin attacks?"

Because that's not their game. They don't have any real facts and figures besides the inaccurate misinformation spoon fed to them by Faux Noise and Breitfart.com. It's much easier to make snide jabs and throw out insults like "whore monger" or blather incessantly with conspiracy theories about commies and marxists in an attempt to deflect from the real issues. I'm embarrassed for them.

Well, in fairness, he did diddle an intern. He was impeached.

Because that's not their game. They don't have any real facts and figures besides the inaccurate misinformation spoon fed to them by Faux Noise and Breitfart.com. Ouch. That is harsh. Do you really believe that?

Here's the thing" They don't have anything negatively substantive to say about Clinton so it comes down to his sexual adventures which are none of their business anyway. Take a look at the job growth chart, and how it was declining under George H.W. Bush. Clinton took over and his job growth numbers increased every single year of his two terms.

And on the "we create jobs" claim of the Republicans: Obama came in WHILE the economy was on a big downhill slide. Prior to that EVERY SINGLE Democratic administration since WWII had better job growth numbers than the best performing Republican administration. They "don't" create jobs. They just talk about it.

DittoMYOB@RobertA

Diddle@Nal

Democrats@BrettC/jeanneclark

Dissed@OpionNateTed

Defence@StarkIndustries

DoubleD@BigMama

Delighted@Hyper Intellect

So are you all saying Clinton didn't diddle Monica in the oval office? when he decided to do it in our Oval office it made it our business. If he had taken her to a hotel/motel then it is not our business. He disgraced our oval office. Who here really thinks their boss would think it is A-ok for them to have sex on the job in their place of business with someone who is a subordinate? Let's have a show of hands!

"Clinton did one heck of a consummate job, defending Democratic ideology"

Exactly!

I didn't watch President Clinton speak but why go to the effort of trying to counter Democratic ideology? You all are happy with it and I prefer conservative ideology!

If President Clinton spoke about how good the last 3+ years have been (I'll assume he did) then I'll respond with this:

43 months of unemployment rate over 8% with the real unemployment rate at 11+%, 63.7% – Labor force participation rate (30-year low.).

More people on food stamps, 45 Million a 70% increase from 2007.

Middle class Families making $5K less per year.

"So are you all saying Clinton didn't diddle Monica in the oval office?"

No, we're saying it's time for you to get over it. Clinton's infidelity from over 16 years ago has nothing to do with any issues in today's politics. It's nothing but a deflection technique used to belittle Clinton because he makes sense and you can't deny what he's saying. It would be nice if people could stick to the relevant issues and keep the snide tabloid junk out of the conversation. And besides that, there's nothing classy about smearing the word "diddle" all over someone's post.

Anyone ever notice that the intern in question never complained about this? The Republicans made a big deal over it, while most of them were also diddling various mistresses, and tried to embarrass the president over it, but Monica Lewinsky never objected.

And that means it is only the business of Bill and Hillary. Butt out.

"So are you all saying Clinton didn't diddle Monica in the oval office? when he decided to do it in our Oval office it made it our business. "

I'm having trouble understanding this assertion.

"Why don't you start refuting what Clinton had to say, with facts and figures, rather than to come up with mundane rants and thin attacks?"

At least, fact checkers didn't tear up his speech like they did Ryan's~CNN did a fact check piece on Clinton's speech this morning, Clinton was on the money! Can anybody say A-R-I-T-H-M-E-T-I-C?!!

As an American citizen I was one of his employers and the diddling was done at the work place. That made it my business! The fact the the woman was a subordinate could have brought in whole lot of other charges so he got off easy. You have no skin in the game so your opinion means nothing Rory! you are irrelevant.

At least, fact checkers didn't tear up his speech like they did Ryan's

True dat!

Just some facts
“52 years of Congress private sector jobs created: Republicans: 24 million. Democrats: 42 million”, If the government created a single job, then it was not a private sector job.
Job score for last 29 months: President Obama: 4 1/2 million. Congressional Republicans: zero. Not congresses job to create jobs.
GM/Chrysler jobs: Obama: 250,000. Romney: zero. Obama did not create 250,000 jobs that were not already in existence before he bailed out the UAW. Most if not all of those jobs would have continued even if a conventional, lawful bankruptcy process was followed.

If we call Obama a socialist or communist, it is because his actions resemble known socialist or communist platforms. That shoe seems to fit him and he does not seem to complain about anyone calling him a communist. His friends seem to be communist, why are you attempting to defend the indefensible?

Romney and the Republicans are claiming they will be job creators, but no one expects them to actually do the hiring. Rather what they are claiming they will do is create a climate in which the private sector has the confidence and the resources to create jobs. But that is entirely the point about Democrats out performing Republicans in fostering an economic climate in which businesses grow and hire.

Obama's record of helping foster an environment in which 4.5million jobs were created is his, and not the Congress's because the Republicans only tried to prevent anything from happening.

The 250,000 jobs in the auto sector are not the jobs that were saved, that was over a million jobs, they are the growth in the sector since Obama saved it. That means he gets the credit for these jobs and Romney doesn't because he wanted to let it fail.

It is clear you have no idea what communism is. A Communist would have brought in universal, government funded, single-payer health care, instead of giving the private insurance industry a windfall. A Communist would have nationalized the banks, not simply bailed them out. A Communist would have taken control of Chrysler and GM, rather than merely providing them with bridge financing. A Communist would not have appointed Wall Street types to his cabinet.

There is nothing in Obama's record that speaks of communism. Nothing.

"Clinton's infidelity from over 16 years ago has nothing to do with any issues in today's politics."

...uh, other than the fact that BJ Clinton is a certified liar and that is directly connected to his credibility. The entire DNC was a string of unending lies, so, why would anyone (excluding "useful idiots") believe BJ Clinton's jive ass speech?

Gregory House said it best... everybody lies. To suggest otherwise is an exercise in naivety. I'd trust a former president that lied about an affair (a personal issue that's no one's business besides his and his wife's) rather than a presidential nominee that can't tell the truth about his tax returns. Bill Clinton doesn't need to convince anyone of his credibility... his words speak for themselves. The fact that the Romney camp can't rebuff anything he said speaks volumes.

I agree with Tony Stark's Clinton-specific comments, just above. Lying about sex? Why TF was anyone asking him? Don't ask, don't tell.

I try to be big enough to admit when I am wrong - and I think Big Mama recently pointed out an area where I was temporarily partially incorrect.

She notes an employer having an affair with a subordinate sometimes presents an unfair power structure to the lower-rung employee.

Unlike Big Mama, though, I try not to be fundamentalist about it. Who am I to deny someone if s/he truly wants to fall in love (or have a fling) with their boss? Proximity often = desire. And some such subordinates even initiate such matters.

I would actually like to explore this dichotomy more. Maybe even with a good-looking boss.

Aw, good ol' Newt. Yeah, love 'em and leave 'em when they have cancer Newt...
I'm not saying democrats are immune from affairs. But they step down. And seek help, for the most part.

Monica pursued him. There was no sexual harassment. How do you know?? Do you think that he bore any responsibility?

Hi Lora, I'm glad you are happy to see Clinton speaking. I know you really like him.

Thanks! :)

I can agree with one thing, Vegas is hurting. Last time I was there, those casinos took every cent I put in (that was almost 2 years ago). I didn't win one penny!
Two years prior to that I as there and did OK. I didn't win a jackpot or a car or anything but it was fun. So, I have seen Vegas decline. I don't know whether that's directly attributable to the President or not.
I hold more contempt for the Republican congress people because I honestly don't think this debt or budget problem has one bit to do with that office.
And, oh how I wish Clinton could run again. Or even that Hillary were running. Given the choices available, I have to roll the dice on Obama. :)

by "that office" I meant the office of the President.

Lora - it sounds like a good chance Hilary might go for 2016!

I actually think Madeleine Albright sounded a bit "presidential" when I heard her being interviewed at the convention.
She's a little old but she's sharp as a tack.

Hillary will not run. Her chance has passed.

the GOP have a bad day on Nov. 6, 2012

The RNC/GOP looses and the whole world wins !!!

The best part is that the Romney camp has no rebuttal for Clinton's speech. They can't deny any of it, so they're just trying to ride out the storm. I wonder how that tactic will work out for them?

They don't have to Tony,
All the TRIPLE R TEAM ( Romney, Ryan, Republicans) needs to do is to keep pointing out the failed policies of the Obama administration!

The best part is that the Romney camp has no rebuttal for Clinton's speech. They can't deny any of it,

Exactly right.

The Republican party is too busy making up one lie after another. The dishonesty of the party, especially the extremist and bigoted tea party wing, is a dishonor to America.

Couldn't agree more, David.



"They don't have to Tony,
All the TRIPLE R TEAM ( Romney, Ryan, Republicans) needs to do is to keep pointing out the failed policies of the Obama administration!"

Kinda hard to point out something so minuscule that it's dwarfed by his policies that didn't fail.

And the "TRIPLE R Team"? Quite the eye-roll inducer.

But they can and will deny it; they've been denying truth and logic for so long it's become a reflex.

Indeed, I have no doubt that at some point their lies will spew forth.

Which ones didn't fail?
Tony?

Here let me Help!

43 months of unemployment rate over 8% with the real unemployment rate at 11+%, 63.7% – Labor force participation rate (30-year low.).

More people on food stamps, 45 Million a 70% increase from 2007.

Middle class Families making $5K less per year...

Obama FAIL!

Your numbers don't recognize an extremely obstructive Congress that said “no” to all of Obama’s policy initiatives. Senate Republicans used the filibuster relentlessly and unprecedentedly. You also have conveniently forgotten (or never knew in the first place) that Republican policies engaged in extravagant borrowing for two unpaid wars, tax cuts for the rich, an unpaid-for Medicare expansion that was a gift to the drug industry, and deregulation of the banks and Wall Street are responsible for those numbers.

Obama's policies have kept us from a Great Depression. Without him, we would be much worse off. 29 straight months of private sector job growth (that's 4.5 MILLION jobs) while facing extreme obstructionist opposition is nothing to shake a stick at. Keep making disingenuous statements if you like (and Im sure you will), but they'll fall on deaf ears.

So say the Obama supporters,
Obama had a majority in both branches of Congress in the beginning of his term! He could have enacted any of his solutions....Why didn't he?
And which of his policies were the ones that saved us from "a great depression"

So says the truth.

He did. The problems came afterward, when more steps were needed to be taken and a repub led congress stood in the way. Like I said, that's why 29 straight months of private sector job growth in the face of that adversity is so impressive.

Really? As if you don't know. Let's not waste each other's time.

Indeed, I have no doubt that at some point their lies will spew forth.

Yes, that is what they do. The Republican party, especially the tea party extremists and bigots, simply lie about everything, both through intentional distraction and outright intentional falsehoods.

Meanwhile, the Obama saved the country from the economic disaster the Bush administration left it in.

He did this despite the fact that THE major causes of the debt are the Bush tax cuts, the two Bush wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the near depression economic collapse that occurred during Bush's second term.

He did this despite the tea party bigots increasing the debt over and over with their dishonest attacks on the President, on the economy, and on the middle class. All so they could give even more tax cuts to the super-rich and more tax loopholes to the megacorporations who ship jobs overseas and hide their income from taxation offshore. Yes, Obama did this despitethe tea party Republicans voting AGAINST every effort to stimulate jobs and help the middle class.

He did this despite the fact that the unemployment rate started skyrocketing during the Bush presidency and shot up to 10% before Obama took office and got the stimulus package money flowing to help the middle class.

Imagine how much better off we would be if the bigoted and dishonest tea party hadn't been actively working to hold back the recovery out of bitter hatred of the guy in the White House who doesn't fit their bigoted definition of "the right kind of American."

The tea party has been actively attacking the middle class in order to give more to the super-rich with every single vote they have cast since Obama took office. And still, with the Republican party admitting it was working against Americans, Obama managed to save the country from depression, save the US auto industry, speak up for the middle class and every other group the bigoted tea party has attacked, and put us on a path forward toward a sustainable economy for ALL Americans, not just the ones born rich.

"The best part is that the Romney camp has no rebuttal for Clinton's speech."

Notice there wasn't a Romney rebuttal to Ma Gov Deval Patrick's speech, either!

Obama had a majority in both branches of Congress in the beginning of his term!

You mean during the first two years he was in office while Bush's crap storm was still in full swing? He put the brakes on it and then started the recovery in 2010.
Show us the numbers from Jan 2010 to now. Yeah, different picture, eh?

It isn't a Triple "R" team, it's a Quadruple "R" Team:. Romney, Ryan, Republicans and Rand, as in Ayn Rand.

Their entire platform is based on the lunatic philosophy of sociopathic.

Their entire platform is based on the lunatic philosophy of sociopathic.

Exactly. An entire platform built on the philosophy of a Soviet-born novelist.

Novelist, as in, a complete fantasy world fabricated to emphasize the paranoias of the masses.

'Nuff said.

Ayn Rand basically had an open relationship with her husband. Although she was married to Frank O’Connor, she set her sights on her friend Nathaniel Branden, who was also married. Ayn kindly told Branden’s wife that the two of them were going to start sleeping together, and then they did. His wife divorced him after a few years, and Nathaniel started seeing one of Ayn’s fans. She freaked out and publicly denounced him. She and Frank O’Connor remained married until his death in 1979.

Read the full text here: http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/21414#ixzz266xwi8nu
--brought to you by mental_floss

Quit an idol Paul Ryan has.

Wowee the libtards have a slobberfest going on right here on the Daily Kather.

To bad for you guys that Clinton only has two legs for humpin'.

Don't cry, Eric. Obama's victory will be in your best interests, too, even though you are too spaced out to realize it.

Only if he wants to give up freedom and sovereignty. Obama is a mess and if you think he's so great why don't ask him to come and be king of Canada? Then you can have him all to your self.

Who said Obama was great? By comparison with the Republican offering he is magnificent, but on his on merit no more than adequate.

We don't need to import Americans to run our country, thank you. We do just fine on our own.

Actually Rory, you might agree that with the Laws of Checks and Balances, here, in our country, the fundamental issue of COOPERATION, as former President Clinton pointed out, might well have prevented us from seeing just how great Barack Obama might have been, in his first term.

Now that I am encouraged by Clinton's Grand Slam HomeRun, we might live to see the day, from 2012-2016, as to how great Obama might become.....

I hope that is true, Brett.

We don't need to import Americans to run our country

Well, they won't be running the country, but you might have a flood of Democrats moving to your country if Romney buys this election.

I wouldn't blame them one bit.

I'm not packing just yet. I have faith in the Democrats and the American people to make the right decision.

Honest question: If Roe v. Wade was given back to the states, would that be cool? Would that be "gutting" the law? Just to compare what has happened to Welfare.

Just another attempt to weaken women's right to choose.

Are you asking if the issue of abortion should be decided on a state by state basis, Renee? I'm not clear on where you are going with that.

Renee

Honest question:

Since it was you who broached the subject of honesty, that leads me to ask the following: I will accept your answers as being truthful and the issue will be closed, if you answer directly and don't skirt the questions.

1) are you an American citizen

2) in what American state are you a registered voter

3) have you ever voted in an American election



My questions in no way are meant to disparage you as a person, in any way whatsoever. The questions are only to determine by what standards you write your GN articles and respond to other debaters during a debate or discussion on a posted issue.

Lora, sorry for the off topic comment, if you feel compelled to delete it, I will fully understand.

Excellent point, Lora. Republicans always want two sets of rules, one for them, one for everyone else. They get this attitude from their wealthy masters who always want, and usually get, exceptional treatment under the law as well.

Scott, whether or not Lora deletes it, I really doubt that Renee will answer it.

Actually I believe both issues should be left to the states. I also believe healthcare laws should be left to the states. The Federal Government has stepped so far over it's constitutional restraints that it has become a serious threat to states rights as well as our individual rights.

The reason I was asking was there was controversy that the work requirement for the welfare law had gone back to the states. People said Obama "gutted" the law. But those fact checkers said that Obama didn't remove the work requirement - just made it a state by state decision.

I wondered if people would be cool with Roe v Wade going back to the states or if they would consider the law, as Rory said "weakened".

Scott: I am not sure why my personal location or background is relevant to whether bring Roe v. Wade back to the states is "gutting" the bill. You have mentioned it several times. I could give a hoot about your personal life. What are you trying to figure out? Whether I am qualified to discuss US policy?

I really doubt that Renee will answer it. ew, Rory

Scott:

Honest question:

Hypocrite much?

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474981568768

Renee as I said,

if you answer directly and don't skirt the questions.

Care factor <--------------------- low

lol, Thanks, Jay ;-)

Can't give you a darn good stalking to without that info, buddy.

Care factor <--------------------- low

LOL!

Renee Nal Sep 6, 2012, 1:50pm EDT
I really doubt that Renee will answer it. ew, Rory


I wasn't wrong, was I?

No, I just thought you respected my privacy. Clearly not.

My questions in no way are meant to disparage you as a person, in any way whatsoever. The questions are only to determine by what standards you write your GN articles and respond to other debaters during a debate or discussion on a posted issue.


Not much it wasn't the question was asked to try and embarrass and as you have pointed out in a comment

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474981568768

he is free to openly express his opinions, regardless of the projected attitude by which he delivers those personal opinions.

It's the American way !!!

So it should not matter to you or anyone else were Renee comes from or on what topics she writes. ITS THE AMERICAN WAY remember.

So it should not matter to you or anyone else were Renee comes from or on what topics she writes. ITS THE AMERICAN WAY remember.

Exactly.

I know I would not answer those questions nor any other questions like that. And I am ABSOLUTELY positive Renee is WAY TO SMART to allow any info out there that would endanger her or her goals.

Obviously, he has nothing to lose if he gives out his information, so he thinks everyone else is a LOSER like he is.

Renee, you could easily have answered the main point of those questions without risking any privacy at all.

It's called providing nonsensical excuses for not wanting to tell the truth.


Scott H.

1) I am an American citizen

2) I reside in the State of South Carolina where I am a registered voter

3) I have cast my ballot in every local, state and general election since 1964

There, see how easy it is, all you have to do is tell the truth.

It's fairly easy to give any of your personal information into the ether when no one cares who you are or what you think. Chuck your little league stats on the table, it's equally irrelevant.

You want something that's important to YOU. An avenue of attack. Anyone can say they're a hard voting American from a state. Got anything real? Like a reason for chasing this info like a squirrel after nuts when you've stated explicitly such factors aren't germane to the conversation?

all you have to do is tell the truth

Ah, if it were easy, there might be more of it. Lies flow like water for conservatives. As someone else stated on here, it's in their DNA.

What?

lol ;-) Where did that come from?

Thanks, Graham, Jay, & mm ;-) And Vic, for just saying "What"? lol

Who is Scot H? no posts, no photos, no videos, but loads of comments, has no pings, has belongs to no groups. Says he lives in State of South Carolina, says he is an American, says he is a registered voter, says he has voted in every local, state and general election since 1964.

Graham L no posts, no photos, no videos, but loads of comments, says he lives in State of South Carolina, says he is an American, says he is a registered voter, says he has voted in every local, state and general election. Except of course people can see that I am British have loads of photos and videos, have loads of posts, belongs to quite a few groups and has pings.

Anyone on Gather can do what Scot has done in fact they can have more than one account and I am always suspicious when I come across people who do this sort of thing. Having no photos or videos I can understand after all many people do not want their family shown on the net, but no posts, belonging to no group having no pings. And what member of Gather has no friends after being a member since 2010. Highly suspicious I would say highly suspicious indeed. Now what was that question about? Oh that's right TRUTH.

The privacy issue is not an issue. Once on the net, there is no privacy. IP addresses can easily be traced, computers hacked. If someone really wanted to know all about another Gather-ite here, there would be ways.

That said - it's not a matter of "not caring" that I have an honest profile up, and photos and videos. It's simply that when I joined Gather it was as a member of a writing community, and I was sharing information with others here who I felt were part of this community. I never felt a "threat" from another. No reason to hide anything. That doesn't mean all my personal information is listed here - but mainly what anyone in my neighborhood - my community - would see or possibly know about me at some point.

Scott H, I'm willing to bet that you are not an American citizen because you are a figment of somebody's imagination.

Graham,
As Hercules is not available we're lucky to have you to take on these Stymphalian birds that attack people and try to crap on everything.

Nous devons dire la vérité, comme nous le voyons, hey Ian

Well whomever is typing behind the name Scott H. is intelligent and has plenty of worthwhile input ---so who cares where he lives?

EXACTLY.

Lora, I believe I could not agree with you more. Scott, take note ;-)

Jay ;-)

Really, it depends what the definition of IS is.

U spilled it rong, ritey: Hear Iz thuh deafanishun.

Hey Hyper Intellect - I followed that link and am glad I did. That guy is amazing. A rendition that's pure ethereal beauty.

Hyper

I must say that was/is a wonderful redition of an old and beautiful song. Thanks for the link, it was well worth the trip.

Glad you enjoyed it, Dark Shadow & Bald Bust - I absolutely love Iz's version too.

That was pretty great.

Don't speak pidgin much, but IZ is beautiful! Hey Brah.

But since we're going off topic:
There are some talented young Hawaiians out there..as good as IZ maybe not in his caliber, but in a league of there own.

Justin Young - One Foot On Sand

Thanks for the tip, Dan E. - will check it out.

I'll ignore Mickey, as it's usually the best way to stay on topic.

Clinton's speech probably had some impact on independent voters- since he was thought of as more of a centrist than Obama, that's the sweet spot for him. I'm not going to say that he won the election for Obama, but I will say it clearly did not hurt Obama and probably helped.

I offer the opinion that Clinton's almost unvetted speech was much more useful for Dems than Eastwood's unvetted speech was for Republicans.

The wingnuts have been making fun of Obama since he came to office and nothing has changed, you're still racists. Just because Clint Eastwood crapped the bed on national TV, overshadowed Romney's speech entirely, and started an internet meme on people talking to chairs (the only lasting thing to emerge from the RNC) does not mean that your racist diatribes against your president are no longer racist, little micky. They are and so are you.

no one has been even talking about race but you Rory. And the one that is constantly bringing it up is more then likely the real racist. It always seem to be you. Maybe it is time for you to take a real good look at your self. But then again calling folks racist if they don't support Obama has been a dem. strategy since 2008. The problem with that is it has been over used and most folks don't care if you falsely accuse them of being racist anymore. It has lost it's sting. They are used the smears.

I guess poor Rory has a case of "White Guilt." Get over it, man!

You are probably right about that Spirit. I suggested he move Obama to Canada and make him King so he can have him all to himself But he hasn't responded. Guess he really doesn't want Obama screwing up his country either.

Big Mama Sep 6, 2012, 1:01pm EDT
no one has been even talking about race but you Rory.

micky d Sep 6, 2012, 10:56am EDT
Dirty Harry, sir, in 12 minutes time you made it possible for people to make fun of and humiliate Obama. People who simply tell the truth about OBUNGLER, like Eastwood did are no longer called RACIST for telling the truth.

You were saying, BM?

Spirit: I don't entertain guilt even in regards to my own actions, let alone those of others. Guilt is a useless emotion.

But I have no hand, not even an ancestral one, in the subjugation of blacks. While your ancestors were stealing Africans from their home to enslave in America, mine were fighting for their freedom from slavery in their native Ireland. My family arrived here as refugees from Ireland's final war of emancipation in 1920.

My ability to perceive racism even when cloaked in code is more due to my kindred spirit with those who have been targets of it, as my people were for 800 years, and as my grandfather experienced in Canada when he arrived and looked for work to find signs that said: "No Irish Need Apply".

No doubt, micky, many millions of white Americans voted for Obama. No doubt many millions of white Americans are not racists, amongst them even many who did not vote for Obama. But that does not mean, by any means, that racism is over in the USA. There are still many millions of white Americans who see Obama as an uppity nigger and will do everything that they can to get him out of office for reasons that have nothing to do with policy. Many of your past comments indicate, to me, that you are likely amongst that group. I would place 98% of birthers in that group, the other 2% being gullible and naive to the point of being childlike.

Your offensive use of the n word is a violation of TOS so I request that you please stop using it in your comments. It is highly offensive!

No, I will not. I don't agree with the segregation of that word from the rest of the language. I have not called anyone a nigger, but rather used the word to expose what I believe some others are thinking or intending but not saying.

Don't like it? Report me. Ce me fait rien.

Rory, my ancestors came over here long after slavery was gone. Some were in Serbia fighting the Ottomans to preserve Western Civ, others were still in Prussia (Germany, my great great grandfather was a captain in the Prussian Army), still others were Russian Jews who suffered under the pogroms.

Big Mama, I'd never wish Obama on Canada, they'd really don't want him. He's be more suited for Cuba or some African kleptocracy.

Canadian polls show that Obama would win in a landslide if it was up to Canadians.

From a progessive liberal and an admittedly biased voter;

President Clinton did what his party called upon him to do and he did it undisputedly well with style and strength. He stated the case for the re election of President Obama, by providing fact after fact after fact of recorded progress by the Obama administration. He discredited all the rhetoric of unsubstantiated accusations made by the Republicans for the past two years.

President Clinton spoke about jobs losses, industry losses, healthcare failure, tax increases for the middle class and tax reduction for the wealthy, banking deregulation and industry tax losses, all problems which occurred under the G.W. Bush administration. Those being problems which were inherited by the Obama administration and were being addressed by new programs instituted by the Obama administration. He stated the facts as to how each of those losses have been turned around and are on their way back to normalcy under the leadership of President Barack Obama.

You can argue, debate and challenge unsubstantiated assumptions, inuendoes and prophecies with good argumentative reason. But, you can not deny nor challenge facts, figures and recorded documentation, all of which were the basis and premises of President Clinton's speech.

As was to be expected from a man of his political statue and prowess, President Clinton hit a home run with bases loaded. There is no doubt, Arkansas' Favorite Son is alive and well and all Democrats owe him a vote of Thanks for a job well done !!!

Lora

Thanks for the article.

You are right in your assessment, that is, if you are speaking/referring to those conservatives here on GN. But for the Republican Party it's self, the RNC has decided to just ignore the fact checkers altogether. But to ignore, is not to deny, only to not challenge that which they can not dispute.

One of the most disturbing aspect of the modern Republican attitude is the divergance from fact. I think it started with the Creationist non-sense and the "Christian Right". Feeling their simplistic understanding of Christianity was threatened by the science of evolution (which it isn't, it is perfectly possible to be a devout Christian and to understand the fact of evolution) they simply made up a "science" to present as an alternative. I think they are on their third or fourth version of that "science" now, having believed wholeheartedly in each of the earlier versions until they collapsed under the weight of their own contradictions. Then they just made up a new version, and believed in that!

This tactic was readily adapted to Global Warming/Climate Change. Not wanting to acknowledge anything that might impact on corporate profits or face up to any needed life style changes, the right just denied what 98% of the world's scientists were telling them, and showing them with mountains of data, so they just made up a bunch of stuff about solar flares or simply denied that is was happening at all. So here we are with carbon levels and temperatures still rising and bound to do so for decades yet to come. Wheeee, what fun!

Now they are so used to ignoring facts, denying evidence, making stuff up and just believing in whatever suits their perspective that they have become impervious to facts. Republicans raise the debt every time they are in office, but their supporters just deny and ignore that truth. Democrats create more jobs, but Republicans just pretend its the other way around. Bob Dole proposes a health care plan as an alternative to the Clinton attempt to address the issue and Mitt Romney enacts it in Massachussets, but when Obama brings a basically identical plan to the national scene he is a communist who is stealing from medicare and inflicting death panels on the elderly... facts be damned!!

If America is to have any future as even a shadow of the great nation it has been, this kind of approach must be soundly rejected by voters at the ballot box. Not only must Obama be re-elected, not only must Congress and the Senate fall under Democratic control, but the Republican Party must be soundly rejected state by state to teach the lesson that facts do matter to voters. Voters must establish that they will only listen to real world solutions to problems that exist in the real world, and only reality based politicians can expect to be elected.

I don't expect that to happen. I think Obama will likely win, though this is far from a sure thing. I think it possible that the Democrats will gain ground in the House, but unlikely they will gain control. I think the "red" states will continue to vote for Republicans who make up what ever they want, and what ever they think you want to hear.

And I think the USA in 50 years will be a pale imitation of what it once was.

Oh The racist tactic didn't work so now you attack Christianity. LOL you are so predictable. LOL.

they are so used to ignoring facts, denying evidence, making stuff up and just believing in whatever suits their perspective that they have become impervious to facts.

Very well said.

I think the "red" states will continue to vote for Republicans who make up what ever they want, and what ever they think you want to hear.

Once again a good observation of the situations.

I think the USA in 50 years will be a pale imitation of what it once was

I do not agree, the USA has had to weather the Republicans and their ideology ever since the U.S. Constitution was formed. We will always be the better for what we have to endure. We are like the childs toy called the "Weebles" we can be knocked down, but we always get back up, better and stronger than ever. Not weaker and less of statue than we were before, as your assessment somewhat suggest.

Big Mama Sep 6, 2012, 1:03pm EDT
Oh The racist tactic didn't work so now you attack Christianity. LOL you are so predictable. LOL.

Absolutely not, BM. An attack, instead, on the political perversion of Christianity that masquerades as religion amongst the right wing in America.

Scott H.: I sincerely hope you are right, Scott. I often observe that I have a true love/hate relationship with the United States. What I love about it is what I fear is being undermined by the reality-challenged right, the things I hate about it are what they seek to establish: a narrow minded theocratic form of fascism. I would love for America to succeed not only in re-establishing its economic vibrancy but also in living out the true meaning of its founding documents. But nothing is forever and even a great nation like yours cannot abandon sense, science, fact-based public policy making and the bottom two-thirds of its populace for long and continue to thrive. The Bush years almost did you in, the Romney years would be just as bad.

It'll take much more than the words from an impeached perjurer to get the Bamster re-elected.

You are correct about that. It will take a hell of a lot of useful idiots going to the polls.

True, there are plenty out there, let's hope we outnumber them.

While I don't agree with your partial summation of Bill Clinton, it's not where the words originate that matters, but the validity of those words. Attacking someone's character because you can't deny what they've said seems pretty desperate.

The impression of many who watched this was yes, Okay folks, Bill just clinched the election. The jobs numbers was impressive.

So over 25 million unemployed ( and that is just the ones still receiving unemployment benefits. There are really much more unemployed then the numbers show) and this is a good thing? The number of people on food stamps has more then doubled and that is good? Are you all nutts?
A $16 trillion national deficit is A-Ok with you people? What is wrong you folks? do you not have even a minimal amount of common sense?

No, those are all terrible things that happened because Bush and the Republicans destroyed the economy in order to transfer massive amounts of wealth to those who already had most of it.

Obama's slow paced recovery has not eradicated all the effects of the Bush collapse, Clinton acknowledged that quite clearly. As he said, quite correctly, no president could have cleaned up that mess in only four years. Obama is on track to restore American economic vibrancy, but he needs those additional four years to cement the growth that he has restored. There are no guarantees that he can do it even in eight years, the world took a big hit when Bush brought down the house and the effects of that catastrophe are still being felt in many countries and will still impact the American economy for years to come, no doubt.

But choosing to go back to the very policies of enriching the greedy by sucking the life blood out of everyone else, the policies that brought the world to the precipice of another Great Depression, is madness. Utter madness. Unadulterated madness. Blithering, barking, drooling madness.

Bush Bush Bush, some would say Rory has a sick mind. He needs to stop fixating on former presidents that are at the helm when the time bomb that was lit before he came into office, goes off. Did you know that a class action suit was brought against City Bank to force it to stop what was called red lining. Red lining is where some banks made it hard to get loans in some arias because the houses where in depressed arias. On one side you could view this as racist, and on the other hand it was good banking. After the law suit and 186 people were given loans that were in fact subprime, when the housing bubble broke, only 19 individuals of the 186 kept their homes and were not foreclosed or forced into bankruptcy. You could ask yourself why were 167 homes sold to people or families that could not payback those loans? Did those people really see help from the government in the end, or would they have been better off not loosing that equity and renting an apartment. So who do we call to the carpet for this? Jimmy Carter, for signing the community reinvestment act. Bill Clinton for relaxing the banking laws and using Janet Reno as a pit-bull to force banks to write loans that were not in the best interest of the bank and were subprime. Who else could be to blame? How about Mr. Obama himself as one of the lawyers who worked on the class action law suit. I will even blame George Bush as he realized what was about to happen and did almost nothing, in all fairness, not sure what he could have done. In the end, each one of these presidents attempted to help some people, by itself, not a bad idea, but truly a road to hell paved by good intensions.

He did de-regulate banks, cut taxes for the wealthy, run up the debt and embroiled the country in two money wasting wars. Those were huge contributing factors.

If they had de-regulated the banks sooner, then the banks would not have given loans to those who could not pay and the housing bubble would have been deflated in a control manner. Tax cuts to the wealthy, I am trying to quantify how that effects the economy negatively, it’s really a plus. Just for proof sake, if you declared a tax holiday for say a year. The economy would improve because of all the additional disposable income. I am not sure how hurting the rich helps the economy in your mind? Wasting money on two wars, well wasting is perspective. If we were on an island and did not allow people to come visit and did not have to worry about terrorists then yes one of the wars was a waist. But because we do allow people in and we lost 3000 people and several large buildings do to terrorism, tells me that someone needed their butts kicked. If we did not do the job that we did, then Israel or maybe Canada would be next after they got done with the US. Or do you think those nut jobs would have given you a pass because you are such a nice guy? If the Saddam had not invade an ally, and if Saddam had followed countless UN resolutions, then maybe we would not have had to stabilize that country. Yes the wars did cost a lot, but the last time I did the math on it, Obama had spent more money in 3 years than Bush spent in 8. Now he has had 4 years of spending that generations of my grand kids will be paying back. Contributing factors, not really…

Giving the rich more money will not make the economy healthier. Quite the contrary. It is illogical on the face of it and it has already failed badly.

Wealth disparity is the problem, not the solution.

But you go ahead and keep worshipping the rich. Just don't expect anything from them in return, not even gratitude.

If they had de-regulated the banks sooner, then the banks would not have given loans to those who could not pay and the housing bubble would have been deflated in a control manner.

Yes, Romney/Ryan want to deregulate the banks again. How could you vote for them if you believe the statement you wrote above?

I am not sure how hurting the rich helps the economy in your mind?
The rich paying an extra few percentage points on their income isn't going to "hurt" them like that same number of points might completely devastate a working class family.
Cutting taxes on wealthy is not a plus because they aren't doing anything with that money but pocketing it. They save, the poor spend. Doesn't it make more sense to give the extra money to the spenders?

Ever notice the Trolls use false names and not their real names like "Big Mama" and "Spirit of 1966" rather than their true names and use the same old Republican talking points which were stale a long time ago. Yes you are blind to what has been happening to this country or are you being paid to be shills for the Republican/Tea Party? Over the last thirty years the Republicans have made a living lying to the American people over and over the same stale lies which when held up to the light show just how dirty they are.

As for the "Racist Card" you keep flashing, I grew up in the racist south and it never went away so for all your posturing you are racists and no matter how much you protest the name sticks to you as well as bigot.

As for that claim he attacked religion, no he only pointed out the lies there as well. If you can't take the heat stay out of the line of fire. Religion is based on "belief" not facts. Just ask a preacher who will admit the truth. So making up a false science then calling it truth is in the same vein as the Republican lies.

But then when you believe those lies letting go of them is hard I know but one day you just might see that is what you have been fed for so long by the Republicans. I truly feel sorry for you.

:O\

Why the hell would I want you Psychos to know my real name? So you can hunt me down and harass me or my family in person? There have been a couple of instances where gather members have been harassed by liberals who found out their personal info by using google to hunt them down. We know that some you folks are unhinged and giving our real names would be unwise. I notice you don't have your full name listed and we only have your say so that James is in fact your first name so bla blah blah.
And you calling me a racist is ridiculous. You have never met me nor have we even interacted before, so you are full of crap. When you can tell me my the race and nationality of my parents maybe I will think you know a little Sumpin sumpin about me but you can't so...........Take your lies and shove em up your behind.

I have nothing but contempt for useful idiots so move on little kid your bothering me.

Wow, Big Mama, sounds like the post by the seldom heard from guy, James T. really got your dander up. Calm down, cool off, relax, take five, your paranoia is beginning to show.

I know that Bill Clinton really hurt you conservative guys last night, but, there will be plenty more speeches yet to come. So save some of all that pent up reactionary histeria for others on GN who know you better.

Ever notice the Trolls use false names and not their real names

Always. As one of their own party would say "It's harder to hate up close."
In this case, that means they are free to be as hateful as they want behind a computer screen. Put them in the light of day and they would NEVER say what they say on here. Why? Because Republicans are hypocrites and don't stand behind their word. Just look at their party's nominee! He stands for nothing.

BM reacted so strongly because, of all the phony personae maintained on Gather by the horde of rightwingnuts, hers is the phoniest. In fact, I suspect her (if in fact "she" is a "her") original intention was to poke fun at "welfare queens" and hide her thinly disguised prejudices behind an allusion to being an African American. Since then her icon has gone from a heavy set black woman (or was that a black man in a fat suit, it looked like a picture from a movie in which that was done) to being a cartoon depiction of a heavy set white woman.

I have been accused by some on the right (perhaps even by old BM 'herself', but I couldn't be bothered to keep score) of presenting a fake persona myself. But that photo icon is me (superimposed on the moon!) and Rory is my real name and M. my real initial and if you look through my postings on Gather you'll probably find my full last name somewhere as well as information that would locate me here in Canada. I couldn't care less. None of the blustering rightwingnuts inspire fear in me, except for the fear of the destructive regimes they would elect to power.

That I'll continue to stand up against, even if I am not an American and don't get a say at the ballot box.

"Wow, Big Mama, sounds like the post by the seldom heard from guy, James T. really got your dander up."

And, that's sad because James & other members like him stay away because of the nastiness spewed by BM & his/her cohorts~we are missing out on a lot of thoughtful, rational & intellectual dialogue!

"I have nothing but contempt for useful idiots so move on little kid your bothering me."

I missed this earlier because I try to ignore comments from BM, but in scrolling, this just caught my eye...Note: "the seldom heard from guy" didn't take your ignorant bait!

I need some bait...LOL

Wow BM (can't write that without thinking of a nurse coming into a hospital room asking if the patient has had a BM, Bowl Movement) you really know how to write, NOT.

"I have nothing but contempt for useful idiots so move on little kid your bothering me." Let's see here, you have "contempt for useful idiots", makes as much sense as the rest of your long winded gaseous expulsion from the lower regions of your body. "Your" should be you're as in you are. "Little" does not describe me in any way and "kid" surely you don't think I'm some kind of goat and I do not make noises like you have just made. And you are no May West that is for sure.

As for your lame excuse for using a false name I don't think any Liberal would care to dirty their hands with you in any way form or fashion. That is something those on the Right do to other people so projecting your feelings and thoughts on others does not work with anyone who is intelligent enough to know how to blow their nose.

As for my name I don't care if you believe it is my name or not. I know it is and what you think of it matters less than your over inflated ego to me. You see I never worry that some wingnut is going to come after me. Like I told a burglar one night after I caught him trying to steal from my home and he said he would be back as he sat in the county patrol car. I told him show back up and this officer will be placing your body in a coroners van not the back of his patrol car next time. Today I can still put a bullet in a bulls eye from 21-45' from the target. Not bragging just truth, I practiced whenever there was an opening at the departmental firing range.

So BM if you think you are funny, got to let you know you fall way short of that goal, or do you actually have any goals other than to hide behind false names and spout nonsense on Gather?

:O\

Jimmy, T., I don't want these leftist nutters knowing my real name, I already have too many alligators biting me in the ass, why do i want more? B-) B-P B-Q

People who are not ashamed of what they stand for tend not to be afraid to let people know it.

When you hide behind a false name excuses are about as lame as the name is. As for calling me "Jimmy" that is not my name and never have I been called that and you don't get the right to use that as a nickname for me so James as it states is my name on here and yes it is my real name not some fake name like you use.

Hiding behind a curtain such as a false name is more along the lines of stupid and whatever you say should be and will be taken as just gibberish since you hide behind false statements and are not man enough or woman enough to stand with them. For all anyone knows you are the same one using BM as another hiding place. It is childish and as I stated above you have nothing I want to hear so goodbye.

Clinton still has the charm, for sure. But if Castellanos was right about his ability to move the numbers, Hilary would be President.

Lora

Agreed, you appearantly know the Clinton's as I do.