Welcome to the Brave New Obama World

Here's a "denigrate the source" for ya.

The master propagandists

Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle. American Thinker doesn't do anything but propaganda...

I won't forget either. It's weird, the republicans want to double down on the same policies that brought us here, and not often are they asked to explain that. (That sentence sounds a little palinesque, sorry).

proud, which policies from the republicans do you like? The trickle down tax cuts for the top? The endless defense budget? The government spending cuts that will bring the recovery to a halt and start us back into a recession? The attempts to bring theocracy into government?

How can you state that spending cuts will halt the economy while denying that tax increases will do the same?

Cutting government spending in a recovering economy is not a good policy. Most economists agree that until the recovery is on a much sounder footing, government cuts will take the economy backwards. And notice how the stimulus, (which republicans like to complain about) DID save jobs and helped local economies (which the same republicans try to take credit for). Of course we need to lower the deficit (if only the Bush tax cuts had not been in effect, the deficit would be way more manageable), but it should be the priority AFTER the economy is on solid ground. It gets tiring hearing about the deficit every day from the folks who said "deficits don't matter" when they ran it up.

http://econproph.com/2011/07/30/government-budget-cutting-slows-the-economy-thats-why-its-called-contractionary-fiscal-policy/

http://keystoneresearch.org/media-center/op-eds/states-cut-spending-wake-recession-worse-today

http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-bush-policies-deficits-2010-6

Cutting government spending in a recovering economy is not a good policy.

So you are also against raising taxes on the wealthy? It is a contractionary fiscal policy.

Why would we want to get rid of the EPA or Dept of Ed? And why do more of the same old, same old fossil fuels instead of working toward the future? The reason you give are the reasons I DON'T want republicans in office.

no more judicial activisim.

The most activist court is the current Roberts court, and the CU decision that overturned over a hundred years of precedence. I don't like that either, but I have a feeling you weren't talking about that judicial activism.

pea, since the wealth is currently being hoarded and not "job creating", I have no problem raising taxes (which are the lowest in DECADES). How about back to the rates in the 50's? 80's? Anything but this. Those policies have been part of the decimation of the middle class.

http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4?op=1

The rich already pay more income tax than anybody else

In dollar amount only. But as a percentage of income, not that much. (Why am I having this conversation AGAIN! Wasn't the last time enough? I'll be talking to myself again...)

Carbon Dioxide is a dangerous gas? Tell that to the plants.

Plants breathe carbon dioxide. We don't. More CO2 in the air isn't good for us. If we go too far, we'll all just die, and the Earth will recover and start over with the next intelligent species.

I'm all for alternative energy (count nuke in that category). We need an alternative source. But you know what? It aint happening anytime soon. Wind, solar, electric cars? They aren't working now and probably won't for some time. In the meantime, we need to use what we have, and we have plenty of it. Encourage alternative energy development but don't cut yourself off at the knees while trying to do so.

All good inventions started somewhere. The automobile, airplane and other inventions didn't start off the way we have them today. They started small and refined until we have what we use today. That means if we start using and researching alternative energy now, in 15-20 years we will have good reusable sources of power. But I guess I'm talking up a wall again. I guess we just need to build more nuke plants and drill, baby drill.

We have activist judges all across this country who have decided to insert themselves into the law making business.

Kind of like the ones getting ready to roll back all the social change that's happened over the past 50 years? I guess women and minorities will just have to wait their turn again...

Check out the definition of photosynthesis. Maybe you'll realize the correlation between CO2, O2 and HUMAN LIFE.

Well, maybe you'll realize that every acre of trees we harvest cuts down on that photosynthesis process. Throw in more coal plants, cars on the road and methane from melting ice packs, and we're going to have a hella summer...

Thanks, you're making my point for me.... again. Like I said, I'm all for alternative energy, but for the time being, we're stuck with oil. You want to kill it now? What are you going to use in the "15-20 years" (or longer) that it's going to take to develop alternative energy? Again, it's not working right now. We're using it, but it's just not viable now.

We've been "stuck" with oil for decades. Our cars aren't getting more fuel efficient, but they sure as hell are getting more toys (ass warmers anyone)? We've been using the same internal combustion engine for over a hundred years. And all we can seem to do is put in more MP3 players and ass warmers in our cars? Nice.

The only reason we're stuck with oil is because corporations aren't giving us any alternatives. But the oil companies are spending billions on commercials telling us how great they are, and how wonderful oil is.

Hell, even our nuclear plants are using old tech. The reason the Fukishima plant damn near exploded was because it was using 30-40 year old technology. Everyone talks about how wonderful nuclear power is, and then one cracks open and kills or mutates a bunch of people. And we're barely guarding our plants, too. Might as well hand Al-Qaeda a dirty bomb.

Talking about affirmitive action? Fine. Get rid of it. Ask all the "non-minority" people denied educational, professional or trade jobs how they feel about it.

Ask all the minority people that it helped, the ones that AREN'T sticking you up a the corner because they'll NEVER get a break, even with Affirmative Action.

And much like you said, WHY am I having this conversation AGAIN?

Because you live in a world of wealthy, white aristocrats burning the planet away and paying you a shilling for your trouble. And you like it.

Haven't you heard? Global warming is a lie. Things are working just fine.

Maybe where you live. I, however, see differently.

And because we don't have a viable alternative source, we're stuck for a few more decades. Unless you have some magic plan that will allow us to go petro-chemical free right now, we're going to continue to need it.

Oh I never said we are able to go oil-free. But one day we will have to go oil-free because one day it's going to become harder and harder to find.

At the expense of a non-minority, who was just as deserving, or more so, but was denied an opportunity based solely on the color of their skin. Geeezz, that sounds like discrimination, doesn't it?

So a white person loses one opportunity where there are others, and a black person gains one opportunity where there is none. Walk a mile in his shoes if you think otherwise.

Yes, I do. It beats the hell out of Obama's vision for the Country.

You have no idea what that means. It's just a canned response from some fear mongering Republican. You have no idea what "Obama's vision for this country" is and you know it.

We totally disagree on affirmative action. You seem to believe in eligibility based on skin color, I believe in eligibility based on qualifications. I don't need to walk a mile in anybody's shoes to know that qualified individuals are being denied opportunities based on their skin color (not a minority skin color).

How do you know that? Are doctors and lawyers dropped because a black guy walked in off the street? Affirmative Action doesn't force people to get hired based solely on the color of their skin. You have to be qualified to apply for the job, or I would be in a higher job by now. You have this idea that anyone can be replaced because some minority applied, regardless of qualifications. If that were the case, the unemployment numbers would be skewed a different direction.

Don't pretend to know what I know. I do know that what Obama wants for this country is not what I want.That pretty much equates to his vision is not my vision.

You're right. I don't know what you know. But you haven't done a good job of expressing what you know other than regurgitating talking points that other conservatives have provided for you, "Obama's vision for our country"... You base your idea of Obama's vision on the fact that you disagree with him. He's a Democrat and that's it. You can't prove you know what his vision is for the country. You're just spouting talking points, talking points that try to scar Obama's image and make him look like some kind of dictator. No proof, no substance.

So. You don't blame the Supply siders for low paying, part time jobs?

And even those part time jobs weren't plentiful not very long ago.

Incidently, the polls are showing that yes, we know what our world is like, and yes, we will vote accordingly.

The fact that one can get a part time job (which are plentiful) takes this person off the unemployment rolls. Part time jobs usually pay $7.00-$8.00 per hour. Ask me....I know.

and a product of republican & corporate influence... people complain about unions, many were good paying middle class jobs... but they are gone because of republicans and corporate influence... which group wants to cut the minimum wage? which group wants to roll back child labor laws.. which group is working with corporations to roll back employee benefits, 40 hour work week, paid holidays, overtime,,, which party wants to let your employeer decide what healthcare you can have... all for one reason corporate greed..

What does it matter if it is a Republican or Democratic thing....the facts are out there.

Companies are hiring part timers because they don't have to offer health insurance nor any benefits that employees enjoyed even four years ago. They, also, are aware that people are out of work and will take anything they are offered.

However one spins the issue....the price of everything has gone up....food, rent, electricity, gasoline.........everything, but a worker's paycheck.

Don't know about you, but five years ago, financially, life was better. Now, we owe our souls to the "company store".

It does matter, because which party gets power will determine if we stay on that path or are able to start "peeling back" the onion so to speak.

magnoliaave, I'm trying to figure out which republican policies you think will be good for the country, because so far all I hear are the same old bs that helped bring on the recession and decimation of the middle class. (Oh, and a lot of social engineering that limits personal freedoms/rights of many different groups). Please enlighten me.

What does it matter if it is a Republican or Democratic thing....the facts are out there.

However one spins the issue....the price of everything has gone up....food, rent, electricity, gasoline.........everything, but a worker's paycheck.

as Blue stated it does matter greatly... as those writing the laws thatmake the changes you hate are corporations with republican backing.. yes Democrats do stupid stuff as well but not nearly at the level we are seeing out of the R's...

Now, we owe our souls to the "company store".

and that is by design... we are no longer counted as valued but liabilities to the bottom line... to be discarded at a whim.. we are now a vehicle for the corporation to profit as the social contract is gone...

as for the price of everything going up specualtors are pushing prices for commidities to the top.. they have the full support and backing of republicans and eric cantor has stated he will fight any attmept to curb their manipulation of the markets..

If you have as aspirin between your legs....can't open 'em. It was a joke!

willard...why is it that liberals, for the most part, ALWAYS, use adjectives like bastards, douchebags, idiots, etc etc?

If you have as aspirin between your legs....can't open 'em. It was a joke!

None of the women I know were laughing. Well, I take that back, they weren't laughing with him, they were laughing at him.

If, in order to be called a joke, it must make everyone who hears it laugh, then no joke has EVER been told. Except the following...

A grasshopper walkes into a bar and takes a seat. The bartender says, "Hey! We have a drink named after you." To which the grasshopper replies, "Really?! You have a drink named steve?!"

It was a joke!

As a woman I was offended. Maybe it would have been funnier if republicans hadn't been trying to infringe on women's (and others) rights on many fronts. It spoke volumes about what the teapubs think about women. And I won't be forgetting it for a very long time. Actions speak louder than words, and the teavangelicals are very active in offending everybody except a certain group of believers.

lib, there is a drink called the grasshopper and the grasshopper's name was steve! Get it?!

No offense intended :-/

: ) ok about the grasshopper, not so much the aspirin.

As a grasshopper, I was offended...

It loses a little of it's humor when in absence of inflection you add the phrase, "to which he replied". Never add that phrase into a joke.

Ya gotta do it like crusty old bar patron peapod....something like "an den da grasshoppa, he says to da baahtendah"

Ha! I like that wolf, I'll be sure to consult you before my next textual joke! You may have a while to wait :-(

Walking must have been very difficult.