Interesting that you didn't address my point regarding Sarah Palin. But of course you couldn't, there's no justification for her idiocy.

And Obama isn't my president. I didn't vote for him. I was behind Hilary Clinton.

I addressed your point regarding Sarah Palin by referencing a few of the many stupid comments Obama has made. I can add to it by listing off the long list of ignorant statements made by the man who currently is just a heartbeat away from the Presidency, if you like. Does it make you feel better knowing that the painfully ignorant Palin is safely out of the way in Alaska while Joe Biden stands eagerly by?

As for Hilary... we agree. She would have been the better choice for Democrats and for the country.

I addressed your point regarding Sarah Palin by referencing a few of the many stupid comments Obama has made. I can add to it by listing off the long list of ignorant statements made by the man who currently is just a heartbeat away from the Presidency, if you like. Does it make you feel better knowing that the painfully ignorant Palin is safely out of the way in Alaska while Joe Biden stands eagerly by?

As for Hilary... we agree. She would have been the better choice for Democrats and for the country.

Have Joe Biden or Barack Obama confused North and South Korea in regards to which side is an ally of the United States? I didn't think so. That Palin screws up an issue that is so current, so crucial, as the conflict between North and South Korea, is just shocking to me. I absolutely feel better knowing that she's tucked away in Alaska, as Barbara Bush said, I think she should stay there too.

Hilary would have been the better choice. I think she has proved that in her role as Secretary of State, a role she has excelled in.

The perception that the rich hoard their money and don't invest it back into the economy is ridiculous. Yes, of course these people seek to make more money - but do you think they plant it in their money garden and $100 bills grow up around them? Come on, they build and expand, and that always means more jobs for somebody. I'm far from rich but I don't begrudge those who have it, particularly those who invest it in the economy. They are businesspeople and that is what they do... They are consumers, like us. And when times are tight and they've got to give more up in fees, taxes, etc., they turn tight-fisted just like us.

Nothing in any available data backs up a single thing you've said. All that has happened since the advent of Reaganomics is a consolidation of wealth, and the rich getting richer with a smaller and smaller percentage of the population hording a greater percentage of the wealth. There is no investment in the economy with the newfound tax-free dollars. And if you are like me, and see Reagan as the god of all things Republican, you would listen to David Stockman--the father of Reaganomics:

“Two years after the crisis on Wall Street, it has been announced that bonuses this year will be $144 billion, the highest in history. That's who's going to get this tax cut on the top, you know, 2 percent of the population. They don't need a tax cut. They don't deserve it. And, therefore, what we have to do is focus on Main Street, and that means getting our house in order fiscally, not tax cuts that we can't afford.”

Edited November 27, 201015 yr by quartermainefan

Nothing in any available data backs up a single thing you've said. All that has happened since the advent of Reaganomics is a consolidation of wealth, and the rich getting richer with a smaller and smaller percentage of the population hording a greater percentage of the wealth.

Where is the data for your statement? I suppose I could (should?) look up data, charts, graphs, etc. to illustrate my point, but the basis of my statements are drawn from shared experience and common sense in general:

Have you ever been hired to work for a poor person?

Do the downtrodden sign your paycheck?

Do the poor provide the necessary capital to start a business?

Does a 401k match come from a broke employer?

Class warfare has never worked and isn't working now. The rich who own business, even the nastiest amongst them, hire individuals and pay them a salary which goes back into the economy...

If you are concerned about hoarding of wealth, perhaps our friends in Hollywood should work for less and fork over a minimum of half their salaries to worthy causes for the most unfortunate in society. Maybe Al Gore can for cheap sublet some of the rooms in his mansion that requires multiple air conditioners to keep cool...

Have you ever been hired to work for a poor person?

In the past, when I worked for others... i've never been hired to work for a rich person, either. Certainly nobody who has a yearly bonus in the billions. My former employers all lived in upper middle class homes and took home less than one million a year. THAT is the type of employer that america needs to get behind. You know what i'd like to see? i'd like to see the government compeltey cut off EVERYTHING for about one 4 year election cycle. Cut taxes by about 90 pecent, and dump EVERYTHING in the laps of the private sector. Roads, education, ALL OF IT. Then tell the republican party, "You think the private sector can do such a great job at everything? PROVE IT". Then all the greedy, hoarding rich in this country wouldn't cough up a dime for anything. And the poor certainly wouldn't be able to afford it. Or they might decide to fix roads in the major cities and let us out here in farm country twist in the wind. But we can also feed ourselves, and they CAN'T. And if we decided to hoard all the land and food for ourselves out here, they'd be in for a RUDE AWAKENING when the grocery store shelves are empty.

Well, Scotty, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. The fact is that the majority seems to agree with me on the issues and with politics in general. The election bears that out, eh?. I respect the office of the President, however I have little respect for the joke that currently occupies the office. Every time you and your ilk reach back to Bush in an attempt to prop up Obama, it screams of desparation and insecurity. Obama is a failure, as is the liberal agenda he espouses. Democrats lost control of the House because of his failures, and Republicans will capture the Senate and possibly the Presidency in two years because of his arrogance and refusal to listen and accept the will of the majority in America.

Actually this election wasn't so much a vote for the Republicans as it was a vote against the Democrats because the instant gratification American public didn't get all the results they wanted fast enough. You have to remember that this nation suffered through eight years of Bush and his Republican cronies.....just like when Clinton and the Democrats had to clean up after the first president Bush back in the early '90s....it takes time to fix things.

And Obama is hardly a failure....just look at the years of 2001-2009 if you want to see what a failure looks like. Think of Hurricane Katrina, the so-called WMD's in Iraq, and all the other things which Bush failed at during his term in office. And no, I don't need to resort to "desperation and insecurity" there...the Republican Tea Party nutjobs did a perfect job of that all by themselves during this last election. Everyone should be thankful that Christine "I'm not a witch" O'Donnell didn't win...

Not at all... I just miss Presidential Presidents, not losers with no plan, no hope, and an uncanny ability to turn everything he touches to crap.

I never unfairly bashed Clinton back in the day... every criticism by me and everyone else of him was dead on. He was generally considered a smooth talker, a liar, and a perv in some circles. But he did (and still does) love America, cares for the people, and respected the office he held. Hillary would have, too, had she not been pushed aside by the party and the media. I don't agree with much of the Clinton agenda, frankly, but I have no concerns of an America in their hands. In fact, I believe the Democrats would still hold both houses of Congress if Hillary had been elected.

A poor vote when I declined to Vote for Gore? Hell no. Gore remains one of the biggest idiots ever to run for high office. And in case you haven't seen any recent polls, the number of people who would vote for Bush today vs. Obama is about equal. People DO actually miss Bush... especially after two nightmare years with Obama running the ship aground...

I long for a real President... don't you? Honestly, how can you defend Obama's record? Hell, pass over whatever it is you're smokin', dude! I want to be in your happy place, too...

Yes, however most of those people are late night talk show hosts and comedy writers.

Actually this election wasn't so much a vote for the Republicans as it was a vote against the Democrats because the instant gratification American public didn't get all the results they wanted fast enough. You have to remember that this nation suffered through eight years of Bush and his Republican cronies.....just like when Clinton and the Democrats had to clean up after the first president Bush back in the early '90s....it takes time to fix things.

And Obama is hardly a failure....just look at the years of 2001-2009 if you want to see what a failure looks like. Think of Hurricane Katrina, the so-called WMD's in Iraq, and all the other things which Bush failed at during his term in office. And no, I don't need to resort to "desperation and insecurity" there...the Republican Tea Party nutjobs did a perfect job of that all by themselves during this last election. Everyone should be thankful that Christine "I'm not a witch" O'Donnell didn't win...

Hey Scotty, I agree that the vote was definitely against Democrats, but not because they didn't get "instant gratification" -- it was because the majority in America rejected a liberal agenda and Democrats totally ignored the thoughts and opinions of both the general public as well as the people they represented in their districts. Almost every poll taken underscored these facts and the election cemented them.

I absolutely agree that the popular vote was not FOR a Conservative Republican agenda... I do believe, however, that the wants and desires (and politically leanings right now) of the majority more closely identify with center-to-right-leaning candidates. I'm surprised that moderate Democrats were booted, which underscores the punishment mentality of voters this year... as if they were saying "You're Democrat? Get out!!!"

As for Republican Tea Party "nutjobs"... they kicked ass this election, whether or not you actually like them. The biggest mistake, Scotty, you or any other Liberal make is to so readily dismiss them as bigoted, clueless losers... Trust me on this one...

Hey Scotty, I agree that the vote was definitely against Democrats, but not because they didn't get "instant gratification" -- it was because the majority in America rejected a liberal agenda and Democrats totally ignored the thoughts and opinions of both the general public as well as the people they represented in their districts. Almost every poll taken underscored these facts and the election cemented them.

I absolutely agree that the popular vote was not FOR a Conservative Republican agenda... I do believe, however, that the wants and desires (and politically leanings right now) of the majority more closely identify with center-to-right-leaning candidates. I'm surprised that moderate Democrats were booted, which underscores the punishment mentality of voters this year... as if they were saying "You're Democrat? Get out!!!"

As for Republican Tea Party "nutjobs"... they kicked ass this election, whether or not you actually like them. The biggest mistake, Scotty, you or any other Liberal make is to so readily dismiss them as bigoted, clueless losers... Trust me on this one...

Just to clarify, I may be a Democrat, however I am NOT a liberal.

And many of those Tea Party candidates were "nutjobs," just like Christine O'Donnell, Sharon Angle, and Rand Paul. That is why I have to give Lisa Murkowski credit for standing up against them and not caving under pressure like Mitch McDonnell did with his sudden flip-flopping on earmarks after supporting them for years.

Just wait and see how well the Republicans handle things the next two years, and if Americans will be supporting them in 2012, and you can trust me on that one.

Am I the only one who doesn't understand why the WikiLeaks thing is such a big deal?

So the USA is spying on everyone? Umm is that a surprise?

So Hillary Clinton ordered DNA collection and phone numbers and contact info for dignitaries on US soil...again, is that a surprise to anyone?

Bitchy retorts about Putin, the Koreans, Iran and the Afghan leader? Again, shocking? Not so far as I'm concerned.

The only issue I see with WikiLeaks is how did they get their hands on the information, THAT is the problem as far as I'm concerned.

Well, I opened a thread, but obviously everyone agrees with you – it's not interesting, apparently:

Just to clarify, I may be a Democrat, however I am NOT a liberal.

And many of those Tea Party candidates were "nutjobs," just like Christine O'Donnell, Sharon Angle, and Rand Paul. That is why I have to give Lisa Murkowski credit for standing up against them and not caving under pressure like Mitch McDonnell did with his sudden flip-flopping on earmarks after supporting them for years.

Just wait and see how well the Republicans handle things the next two years, and if Americans will be supporting them in 2012, and you can trust me on that one.

Duly noted with regard to the "Liberal" comment... As for Republicans and 2012, to build a greater majority, all they really need to do is what voters have asked them to do... And if they don't, I'll be the first in line to NOT vote for them.

<object classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" id="+id+" width="400" height="336" codebase="http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/current/swflash.cab"><param name="movie" value="http://embed.crooksandliars.com/v/MTg4ODQtNDE5MzA?color=C93033" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="quality" value="high" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><embed src="http://embed.crooksandliars.com/v/MTg4ODQtNDE5MzA?color=C93033" quality="high" wmode="transparent" width="400" height="336" allowfullscreen="true" name="clembedMTg4ODQtNDE5MzA" align="middle" quality="high" allowScriptAccess="always" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/go/getflashplayer"></embed></object>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzrziWHTrR8

And LOL at these dramatic titles – slaughtered, disaster, wallop!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/david-cameron/8174497/David-Cameron-slaughtered-Ed-Miliband.html

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/politics/article-23902957-pressure-on-ed-miliband-after-question-time-disaster.do

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/dec/01/david-cameron-ed-miliband-pmq