Yeah...lots of "little people", not big, bad Wall Streeters". haha

Yeah, probably most of it originated from the taxpayers redistribution to the non workers.

twix -- obama had a fundraiser in NYC recently where dinner cost $38,500. are you suggesting that lots of little people have a budget that allows them to spend this kind of money for one dinner?

obama and the dnc are going to try and buy this election given the horrendous record that the president has acquired in his nearly 3 years at the top

James...look up "sarcasm"...

Republican voting straight Dem Ticket in 2012. Good luck President Obama.

A vote for someone evil just to make a president a "one term" president is insane. And to blame the president for not doing your jobs the past 2 years (a "do nothing Congress") is just as insane. I have an education... I have common sense and regardless of how many times my party wants to spout "Your President has not done a thing in office" will not change my mind because I know he has and I know he has tried... which is more then I can say for my party. Fact: Nothing has been done in Washington because Congress has not done their jobs. It's Congress who is to come up with plans and bills to fix the budget etc. So far as of today... nothing, notta, they are still on their 2 year paid vacations and their plan has backfired on them. They have split their own party. Stupid is as stupid does.

(Lack of) insight iowa - Who is evil? We are voting against Obama because of what he has done. By the way, "notta" is not the term. It's "nada," the Spanish word that means "nothing."

Country is in economic chaos while Europe is buring and about to further exacerbate the problem and Obama is off fundraising. That is his only expertise. He did nothing for two years in the Senate as he was campaigning and fundraising and now he is "do nothing" president as our economy goes up in flames.

Meanwhile Europe is coping with their problems by cutting the size of government and freezing public sector salaries even as Obama is expaning our federal bureaucracy exponentially.

yeah insight iowa...you're republican. sure you are.

..you know this this where liberal democrats come on here and say "i have been a republican my whole life until now....and i'm voting for democrat strait ticket this year" is pretty sad.

it tells you how desperate the dnc is....but i dont think folks on here are stupid, and they see right through it.

"obama and the dnc are going to try and buy this election"

Everybody is going to try to but this election, and somebody is going to succeed. That's how our system works. If you don't like it, help us change it, instead of just blaming it all on the "other" guy.

obama boasted he had a billion dollars for his re-election campaign.

....makes you wonder where he got the money from.

I agree Jock...

I really don't have anything against Obama, I just disagree with his idea that you have to continue to use old unfair, self serving business and economic tactics in order to coerce Republicans to do something in exchange for the Democrats. As well as his siding with the rich & powerful and not listening te common man in all races in America to help this country prosper.

I do see now that there is a shift in tide of the political atmosphere forexample the FDA is preventing certain anti-biotics in our food supply.

They are coming to terms with mary jane.

The Obama administration is currently looking for real time solutions to our depleted job situation by beginning a drive to bring middle class jobs back to this country. (focus on large corps.)

I even see a drop in driving while license is revoked in Charlotte, NC where they are beginning to understand this critical situation.

I believe that we all will thrive and began to handle everything that we do in the RIGHT manner.
Doing that and acting responsibly will provide us with longevity.

The government can keep it's power but, let's make the American citizen's life a little less stressful.

Of course President Obama needs a billion dollars. Not because of what those that seem to be tilting to the right on here imply (buying the election) but to counter what Romney (an assumption on my part, but one that's proving to be true if the current polls can be trusted), his Super PACs (yes, plural) and the RNC will throw at him. Look at what Romney did to Gingrich in Iowa, and how Gingrich couldn't respond because he didn't have the economic fire power. Not that I give two beans about what happened to Newt or who did it, but in the post Citizens United v. FEC (with Citizens United being a conservative, non-profit) these are the new rules. Now the purported conservatives on this board have the audacity to complain about utilizing the new rules they championed just because someone does it better than their candidate. Seriously? You all are the definition of hypocrites!

Rather than complaining, how about add something substantive to the conversation? How about touting your particular candidates alternative approach to healthcare in this country to address the 49.9 MILLION people uninsured as of 2010 (which increased 12.8 MILLION from 2000 - 2010)? No, you'd rather rally behind a candidate who's sole healthcare platform is to repeal Obamacare? How about talking up your candidate's jobs plan? Yeah, trot out that tired old horse that there have been multiple jobs plans offer by the Republicans. Survey after survey of economists have shown all of them to be a retread of previous worn out Republican ideas (tax cuts for the wealthy, reduce regulations, balance the budget amendment, etc.) Query: If tax cuts for the wealthy are to magically produce jobs, why hasn't that happened in the last 10 years? And reducing regulations was so important that they had to include in their Jobs Plan the prohibition on the EPA regarding farm dust? Nevermind that the EPA hasn't introduced a regulation regarding farm dust. Further, as found by the Heritage Foundation, 9% of business owners (you know, those men and women that actually own the businesses that the GOP keeps saying they're trying to protect) cited taxes or regulation as inhibitors to employment. The overwhelming number cited demand as their issue. President Obama and his team know that the only way to create demand in this country is to put additional dollars in the hands of those people without current disposable income. That's not the millionaires and billlionaires. That's Joe and Jane Sixpack. Those working for a living but living paycheck to paycheck. This economy is driven (in some estimates) 70% by consumer spending. So through tax cuts, etc., get additional dollars in the working families hands so they'll spend it. Duh, that's Economics 101.

I suppose that when your candidate has nothing to run on, the best they can do is lay the current economic problems at the feet of the current president, do everything they can to block any progress and adopt a platform of "I'm not him". No wonder they call this the weakest Republican field of candidates in recent history.

"aint obama" is a pretty good reason to vote.

Obama is the biggest crony capitalist in the history of this planet.

Of course he GAVE AWAY over $1 Trillion dollars to his Wall Street, Union and Corporate supporters

Now Obama is getting corrupt "pay back" from the same Wall Street, Union and Corporate supporters

It is the Chicago way

Of course giving away $ 1 Trillion to get back $ 1 Billion is not a very effective use of Taxpayer money

No wonder the economy is in the tank

I would find it very hard for all of these liberals loons to once again say that the democrats are for the middle class and the republicans are for the wealthy. This number proves that there are a lot of very wealthy democrats and that the top 1% are made of both dems and repubs.

But I am certain that the dems and their liberals lunatics will continue to write about this as an anomaly. NOT! If the liberal loons and the dems want to continue to try to make our country divided by class warfare as they do, they better try to hide their greed to re-elect a dem in a better fashion than they currently are doing. Raising that amount of money did not come from a lot of middle class/poor pocketbooks. That money is coming from the pockets of a lot of wall street cronies that have and will continue to support the dems.

Madison,

I don't know why I would expect more from you given your history of posts, but which is it? The economy is in the tank because of the President (meaning the federal government) gave away a trillion dollars, so obviously the government can create jobs with its budgetary actions? Or is it we need to give all these tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires because the government's policies don't create jobs? Pick one side or the other. I love it when someone is so two-faced in their opinions that they can give themselves mouth-to-mouth resuscitation.

And as for your trillion dollar number, you might want to actually look at those numbers and where those monies went (or are intended to go):

Providing $288 billion in tax cuts and benefits for millions of working families and businesses. Isn't that a very Republican idea? No wait, they just want the tax cuts for the wealthiest.

Increasing federal funds for entitlement programs, such as extending unemployment benefits, by $224 billion. Or have you adopted the Republican talking point that if they can't find a job, too bad. Nevermind that they paid into the system for years. Getting unemployment insurance payments is for slackers. But at the same time, please don't forget to blame President Obama for the current economic state that all your Republican representatives are doing everything to maintain simply to win an election.

Making $275 billion available for federal contracts, grants and loans. Let's make sure we block this part of the legislation because who needs the double threat of having a more secure infrastructure and actually getting people back to work on projects that this country desperately needs? That might actually get President Obame re-elected. *gasp*

And Madison, whoever your candidate is on the Republican side, you might want to check what financial backers they have and wonder what return on their investment they expect.

Keck, I don't know if you were trying to make my point for me, but the irony is that you did, quite well.

There is a direct correlation between the donations and who got bailouts here is the disclosure of Obama 2008 contributions:

University of California $1,648,685

Goldman Sachs $1,013,091 (bailout 10 billion)

Harvard University $878,164

Microsoft Corp $852,167

Google Inc $814,540

JPMorgan Chase & Co $808,799 (bailout 4 billion)

Citigroup Inc $736,771 (bailout 45 billion)

Time Warner $624,618

Sidley Austin LLP $600,298

Stanford University $595,716

National Amusements Inc $563,798

WilmerHale LLP $550,668

Columbia University $547,852

Skadden, Arps et al $543,539

UBS AG $532,674

IBM Corp $532,372

General Electric $529,855 (Full Payback for this profiteer of war ???)GE CEO appointed “job Czar” while still working for GE…HUGE conflict of interest

US Government $513,308 IS THIS EVEN LEGAL!!!???

Morgan Stanley $512,232 (Bailout 10 billion)

Latham & Watkins $503,295

Here is the source for the above

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638

Here is a good article on where the bailout money went and where I got the bailout figures above:

http://dailycapitalist.com/2010/12/02/who-got-the-bailout-money/

Goldman Sachs was a top contributor and a top beneficiary of the bailouts, but if you read the article in the link below it looks like either Goldman thinks Romney will be EVEN BETTER for them than the 10 billion Obama/stimulus gave them (gee 10 BILLION return on a 1 MILLION investment isn’t good enough?)or maybe they are just trying to make sure if a Republican gets in it will be someone they can count on to be a good puppet like Obama has been. Tell me what YOU think!

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/us/romney-perry-and-cain-open-wide-financial-lead-over-field.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

Kind of ironic that the only Mention of Ron paul in the article is this:

Representative Ron Paul, the Texas Republican whose libertarian views have won him a loyal grass-roots following, showed $8.3 million in contributions, half in amounts of less than $200 each.

ANYONE who follows politics will tell you that you can find out who a candidate stands for by who they get their donations from!

inthemiddle,

Who has said there aren't a significant number of wealthy Democrats? Of course there are. But your first two sentences aren't related in any way, shape or form. Just because you hold a particular economic status doesn't determine what policies your support and who's impacted by them. Case in point: a significant percentage of self-identified Republican voters who have never made $250,000 per year consistently vote for programs that extend tax cuts to those people making that annual number and more.

You made the statement that "I would find it very hard for all of these liberals loons to once again say that the democrats are for the middle class and the republicans are for the wealthy". The Democrat position (pre-negotiation with Bawling Boehner) was to continue the tax cuts for those taxpayers making less than $250,000 per year and let them expire for those making more. Clearly a policy that supports the middle class. Republicans trotted out their worn-out rhetoric about how that was going to kill jobs because you've taken away the money from the job creators. Clearly supporting the upper class. How hard is it to understand that your economic status doesn't determine your point of view? Oh, wait, my mistake. In the Republican lexicon that's not the case. I made mine and I want more tax breaks, even if that means others can't have a fair chance at earning theirs. That's the Republican way.

While I recognize that there's plenty of Bush hysteria (although I find it comical that the right doesn't bring him up much at all, except to say that President Obama has been in office for three years now to counter any comments about the current state of the economy) let's not slip into a similar habit of being consumed with Obama hysteria (meaning he's the reason for all your current complaints). Have your own opinion; that's your right. You can't have your own facts; that's just wrong.

Hot dang - look at all the squirmy TeaWorms...

Obama was given a $25,000 a plate fund raiser by the CEO of Solydra at his private home in St. Louis - about the time the company bankrupted and that money disappeared - wonder where it went?

He can raise a ga-zillion bucks for reelection, and it wouldn't matter to me.

I judge any standing potus, on his achievements while in office. And imo, his 3 years has shown me nada in the way of what's he doing for our economy. I'll give him tons of credit for things like saying YES on the go ahead on Osama. And a few other things.

But his TOTAL lack of actually doing anything REAL for this economy, gets an F from me.

(and please don't bring up that horrible thing called a stimulus plan..geesh..what a total waste of money).

LIke many, I listened to him sing a pretty song, dance a nice number, and voted for 'hope and change'.

NO WAY will I waste my vote his way again.

They ALL promise so much, and they ALL seem to fall down once in office.

Personally I wish ALL of 'the hill' would just go away.

sci,

Other that the FACT that your assertion of Obama being given a fund-raising dinner by the CEO of Solyndra is a complete and total fabrication (also known as a "lie"), that was a great post. The money you referenced never existed, so it certainly couldn't have disappeared. And please don't forget that Solyndra (with an "n") was already in line to get a DOE loan under President George W. and it was widely expected that Solyndra (still with an "n") was going to be the first company to get a loan under the program.

You can have your opinion; that's your right. You can't have your own facts (or make them up or regurgitate swill from Fux (rhymes with "sucks") News; that's just wrong.

TO: Skiddy who wrote:

"Yeah, probably most of it originated from the taxpayers redistribution to the non workers."

That's made-up blather. The fact is neither the rich nor the republicans can continue to avoid paying their taxes. Republicans need to address how they're going to pay back all that money they borrowed from China to pay for that Lie Called the War in Iraq.

Yeah, redistribute that unjust enrichment and give it back to China where you got from in the first place.

$68,000,000.00 is allot of money.!! What does this position pay..??

If anyone of these pro's run the country with the same enthusiasm that they run their campaigns America would be a world leader..

Their all in it for personal gains.

Tax the politicians & their campaign funds, make them pay up before the elections are held..

Wow Insight Iowa: I am trully impressed with your honesty, but you prolly want to watch your back; Teapubs don't take too kindly to one of their own telling the truth.

96ws6 I think you missed the boat.

The country was faced with a choice, honor its financial obligations, created by the greed of Wall Street or go bankrupt as a nation and thereby sink the entire world's financial system. You missed the boat because you obviously don't understand that America IS the standard in the financial industry, and it is this standard that guarantees the solvency of the world's financial markets. See what happens when you want to carry a big stick...

There is a direct correlation between the donations and who got bailouts here is the disclosure of Obama 2008 contributions:

University of California $1,648,685

"

"

Tell me what YOU think!

So the GOP is gonna get rid of a President who kowtows to big corporations?

Private equity firm leaders raising big bucks for Romney

Righhhht.

Hey Obama-

I think you need to give your "fair share" to the federal government. Let's see, how about 40% of your donations go to the federal coffers....oh, you say this money was already taxed....well, how about 1t or 18% such as capital gains that is already taxed. If millionaires and billionaires and corporations are paying their "fair share" how about you lead the way and give 15 to 18% of this to help fund the payroll tax cut...or are you against a tax cut for the middle class if it directly impacts you....

BTW, I wonder how much of this money was from the $3 minimum raffle to have lunch with the President of the United States. This man, and I use that term loosely, auctioned off lunch with the most powerful office on the planet for campaign contributions. This guy has no shame. Don't get me wrong, if a President actually made a habit of picking out 3 taxpaying citizens randomly and brought them to DC to really listen, that would probably be money well spent. But, this clown is auctioning off time with the President of the US for campaign contributions. If this doesn't prove this absolute disgrace to the office can't be bought, nothing does...

Absolutely disgusting...and libs, watch how quicly Obama gives up his "fair share"...right when pigs fly out of my butt....

"If you're willing to work even harder in this election than you did in that last election, I promise you change will come," Obama said

That is what he said last time and the change was for the worse. If he wins this time, things will get worse than last. Watch for new taxes on everyone. Watch for more gun control by sidestepping congress, just like he did with "Fast and Furious" creating a problem where none exists. Watch for even bigger deficits and higher debt for your children to be stuck with. Watch for welfare to rise, fewer than 50% paying any federal taxes, and the end of America as a world power.

A vote for Obama is a vote to destroy America. Of course the "me" generation doesn't care about that as long as it can get some more form those who are actually paying.

Conservatives keep saying that President Obama is opposed to business and hates rich people, yet he seems to get campaign donations from both and Warren Buffet is a big supporter. I wonder why.

RealAmericansFirst

"So the GOP is gonna get rid of a President who kowtows to big corporations?

Private equity firm leaders raising big bucks for Romney

Righhhht."

Unions trying to remain relevant donate to Obama. Really, what is the difference?

$25 buck of that came from me. Funny: you multiply an average of, say $10, by 100 million democrats, and you get a billion dollars! No doubt that's not the way he filled his whole warchest, but I would be interested to know how many little folks have used our money as speech. Every ad, I can say, "I funded part of that!"

Doug

President Obama is going to need every penny he can get his hands on. He will need to fill the nations television screens with pure BS, maybe he'll use some of your talking points. His "formidable challange" will be covering up his time as President. He has been a failure to this country and he will lose big time.

1/20/2013 - the end of an error

"I promise you change will come." That's even scarier now than in 2008. Really, what has he done other than make us all worse off?

Skiddy, you are right and it's scary to think there are people who still believe a word

this big mouth lying hypocrite says! he's anti-american and should be impeached!

you folks - JH, skiddy, goodvsevil - better learn what hypocrite means. not to mention the other words in your posts. the gop side is attacking each other of being hypocrites and liars - that doesn't say much for them about telling the truth does it. gingrich is clearly the leader in revisionist story telling - claiming that capitalism is evil (in certain context, when it's convenient for him) santorum (voting for medicare part d without plans to pay for it a thing that will add trillions to the debt), perry (who is a w wanna be, and not that bright), and then there is romney (the man who wants to be president so badly that he'll say literally anything who knows what he really believes - the epitome of hypocrite) all this because they want to make the president a one termer (mcconnells words and apparently the fight song of the right). so if you want a not so smart, revisionist, hypocite big spender for president - go for it and see how much they care about you when you get old and need social security (which you pay into) or medicare (which you pay into). think people think.

Casual

Do you recall someone being called a "Chicago Thug", inexperienced", etc... Or maybe he could be a candidate because he is ,afterall, a light skinned man that doesn't have the "negro dialect". It's called the primariwes Casual. Each side attacks their own during the primaries. It's a good thing to get the garbage out of the way before the general election. President Obama is in for the fioght of his life because he has nothing to be proud of during his time at the White House. He is has not brought us together, his "change" has been enedless unemployment, and the rest of the world has not jumped to our side. He has failed and he needs to be a one term President. The dems tried everything they could to make Bush a one termer and they failed.

I do agree with you on one point. The American people really need to think about their later years. But I see more people on the left thinking that they can't wait to be taken care of. What they need to be thinking of is taking care of themselves so we can actually take care of those who really need assisitance. Just look at the whiners who belong to public sector unions, they scream and cry about having to contribute to their own health care and retirement. That needs to change and it will change as soon as the American people think about getting conservatives in office.

1/20/2013 - the end of an error

I have been unemployed now for 3 years and at 63, do not see anyone hiring me anymore; but, I, too, contributed online to Obama...if I get another couple bucks, I'll send that, too. Anything to get rid of the republican house/senate/supreme court/state legislatures!!! The republicans are not of this world, lol.

Janis

That is exactly what the dems count on, people like you getting their entitlements and sending the money back to them. You libs are living in a helpless circle. Sooner or later your elected dems are going to run out of your money. Then you will wish that you followed the conservative model of self reliance and taking care of yourself.

I beg your pardon, JH479998...people like me getting entitlements? I am a republican and what have they done to me since Bush? I've worked since I was 15..paid for my degree..paid for my house and carefully planned my retirement so I could live comfortably. BUSH took ALL that away - him and his ex oil CEO, Chenney! I put into that system, just like we all did, only to be robbed by the deregulated banks and wall street I watched them ship jobs oversees - including mine - for what--croney capitalists? Get real -- after all these years of living the American Dream - it's OVER? and I shouldn't get food stamps?? or ALL of my retirement due to my job career ending because of his tinkle down policies? You are in a freakin world of your own, buddy!!! Just ask 99% of us who are fighting this republican war - yes, even past republicans can wake up and do something about it -- vote for the Dem's as they are doing MORE good than Bush's 8 years of Harm!

His "formidable challange" will be covering up his time as President. He has been a failure to this country and he will lose big time.

Really? The Dow back over 12,000, jobs on the RISE, economic outlook is not terrible, it could be better, but after the housing scandal that arose under a Republican President, the same President who handed Obama a 750,000/month job LOSS trend, we're doing pretty well.

Oh, and Osama's dead, DADT has been repealed, we're intercepting and returning MORE illegals than ever before, 30,000,000 more AMERICANS have healthcare coverage than before, and the Party of NO hasn't passed a SINGLE jobs bill that is even remotely passable by the Senate.

Anything else you are unaware of? Any REAL reasons to vote against Obama? Because right now, the GoTP field is beyond ludicrous, Barnum and Bailey have been trying to contract every one of them for the past 6 months!

Ah Janis, sorry for the loss of your job, but explain to me how that is Bush's fault (you have drunk the Obama kool-aid). NAFTA was signed by Clinton, who was a Democrat. Perot was the only one really going against NAFTA at the time. With that said, w/o NAFTA, we'd all be paying more for products, so one way or the other, we get bit in the tail.

I find it funny that after $1 trillion in stimulus, unemployment goes up, and after the $0.5 stimulus light is stopped, unemployment and things tend to get better, as all that federal spending clears the system and the private sector actually drives the economy into better circumstances. In fact, if you go back to the Clinton/Newt years, when deficits and spending was the lowest, then unemployment was at the best. Even in the Bush years, revenues were closer to expenditures, but that started to go out of whack during the housing crisis and blew up when the Dems and Obama took over, and what happened? Unemployment skyrocketed. I don't agree, but even if you say it's Bush's fault, then how do you explain Obama saying that unemployment would go over 10 % just this past summer when he was pushing stimulus lite. That was canned and there is some hint at spending being somewhat curtailed at the federal level and unemployment starts dropping. Coincidence, I think not. Do something for real with the deficits, by reducing spending, keeping the money in the private sector, and watch everyone be better off...except Democrat politicians who lose power....

Anything to get rid of the republican house/senate/supreme court/state legislatures!!!

Hey, idiot...the Senate is controlled by a bunch of do-nothing Dems. The House has passed several pieces of legislation designed for job creation; Harry Reid won't even bring those bills to a vote! Obama and the rest of you idiots need to blame your fellow Dems...not the Repubs who are trying to fix the economy.

My apologies jwilson, but I must use your language:

Hey, Idiot...the Senate IS majority Democrat, but is CONTROLLED by the Rethugs. How many votes are taken in the Senate? Not nearly enough because EVERY VOTE requires a super-majority. Votes to close debate routinely come out 54-46 (plus or minus), a majority by any f'ing measure. Yet the R's refuse to even bargain or negotiate.

But then, I guess you support the notion of the Constitution, but when it comes to following it? Not so much. (And please save your tired "Obama's destroyed the Constitution" BS. AT WORST, he failed to undo the damage W and the R's fought for--think The (un)Patriot Act, warrent-less wiretapping, indefinite detentions, renditioning, etc.--fudge you very much.)

Casual Observer-1894928

"you folks - JH, skiddy, goodvsevil - better learn what hypocrite means."

Seems that most everyone knows what hypocrite means except the hardcore Obama supporters.

"But then, I guess you support the notion of the Constitution, but when it comes to following it? Not so much."

Have you even read the constitution? Federalist papers? Written works of the founders? Highly doubtful. But to give you the benefit of the doubt, please tell us how he has upheld the constitution by pushing laws that have nothing to do with it. Please tell us how ignoring immigration laws is constitutional. And the Patriot Act was passed by Bush after 1911 when war broke out, yet Obama is all for keeping it going as the wars wind down. If you are going to blame Bush then you must blame Obama too, or you are a hypocrite. You are not a hypocrite, are you? If not, then why are you supporting a man that is following the same policies as Bush and one who has actually perpetuated them by signing the extended and enhanced legislation instead of vetoing it? He is Bush on steroids.

Bush is history. Obama is present. What has really changed other than some want to use the race card to play for someone who denies that he is half white while those who are obsessed with him keep calling him black? He is neither or both, but not one or the other.

This is money on the books whose sources you can check.The real money will be untracable and you have no idea who is donating and how much. It is typical for the GOP to show just enough to pay the bills until the quarter that is reported AFTER the election when they suddenly dwarf the DNC in contributions. Be that as it may your conservative Supreme Court has decided that corperations as well as being persons are above the laws that govern our political donations and can give thier hush money and bribes be they citizens, foreigners, or criminals with no declaration of the transaction. hmmm No judicial activism there.

And back at you, FC...

if Harry Reid doesn't even sked a vote, there is no debate. The Senate doesn't debate bills that aren't allowed on the agenda....Reid's not even opening these things up to debate. So, again, who really is the DO NOTHINGs in Congress? The Senate Dems....

To Bob, the answers are: Yes, yes, and yes; in addition to loving to study history--especially political/military history.

As a matter of fact, many of the points you raise are quite valid and I am PISSED at Obama for not undoing the R attack on the foundation of our country. Don't even get me started on the NDAA. What a piece of s**t move. (note the use of "failed to undo..." in the original post). Please take this as friendly humor--I know you meant 9-11--but al Qaeda hitting us in 1911? Seriously, the PATRIOT Act is a piece of crap, pushed through in a panic by a terrified Congress. If memory serves, it was reauthorized in 2006 or 2007 when sober minds should have prevailed, yet the fearful lemmings--this time Dems terrified not of al Qaeda but of 30 second ads--allowed it to pass again. Then once again the President pushed through another reauthorization as you identified, choosing politics over the Constitution. Shame on him. Let us table the Health Insurance debate: you say its unConstitutional, I say it isn't; and most likely neither of us is qualified to say with certainty one way or the other. So yes, I object to much of what the President has done (damn I wish he'd go hardcore Teddy Roosevelt (R) Progressive on the banksters).

Now, why do I still support a President who's disappointed me? Because look who the opposition is: Willard Romney--"Corporations are people!", f**k you. Gingrich? The most arrogant piece of crap since Gary Hart, and don't even get started on his integrity. Perry. Seriously, Perry? Paul? I believe that he truly believes his schtick. The problem is, is that this Libertarian ideal may work in a tiny 19th century village, but in a country of 300+ million? Not a chance. It favors the ultra-weathy--I'd say disproportionally, but it beggars the word--and leaves the rest of us at their mercy. The only remotely acceptable option is Huntsman, but he is unelectable (at least so far). Moreover, I've gotta say that I respect his service as Ambassador to China, but to run against the man you served? Classless. And in every case except for Paul, they've held more positions for the cameras than Jenna Jameson, and the positions they've settled on are, in my opinion the most anti-American since Rockwell and the American Nazi Party (dang, I hope I didn't slander Rockwell, but I THINK that he was the head of the ANP during Skokie).

And jwilson, respectfully, Reid not bringing votes is sometimes tactical--allowing him to raise the issue later--and sometimes cowardice; but in EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE, the R's have required a super-majority for everything including naming a Post Office in BFE. You suck the R chum down, but I bet you couldn't write a condemnation of your own candidate(s) as I did.

Bob, I'd love to continue a (civil) discussion.

Zap ... stealing a quote from your man, Flipflop Mitt ... "wanna bet $10,000 on that?"

I'd take that bet! The ABO vote is going to be a painful one, might as well throw your money down the drain!

Fred Evil, you said jobs on the rise, just today they posted 25.000 adding to the list of un-employed.

Yep, and there are stories out about how employers can't find workers too.

The president wasn't elected to "lead through molding consensus". He was elected to clean up the mess of the previous Administration, to turn the economy around and restore our nation to greatness. Despite every effort from the rightwingut Teabaggers to sabotage our nations, he is doing just that.

@ Mr Dahly... let's talk through that one a bit more. Let's say YOU contract with ME to build you a house by a certain date. You stress the importance of keeping the completion date, and even have me sign an agreement that if I don't finish by that DATE, I'll be penalized, and you'll pay me less or none at all for my work. So, I start building your house, and the next day, when I return, I find the things I'd done, the day before, are either torn out or damaged by your friends. So, I fix the damages, and continue building your house. But, just as the day before, when I return, I return to find a lot of things I did the day before torn out or damaged again. Each day, for 6 months, this continues, until the day comes that I was to be finished with your house, but it's only a third complete. So you pull out that agreement (with your friends smiling in the background) and loudly tell me you're NOT going to pay because I didn't do what I said I would do WHEN I said I would do them.

Now I ask you, Dahly, do you see any resemblance to Obama & the ReThuglicans as to your rather biased comment above?

Leaders lead, failures blame others and point fingers. "You don't lead by striving for consensus, you lead by molding consensus." MLK

No Dahly, the deal is One and One MORE!!!!! You keep drinking the hate Kool-aid that'll drive you crazy for the next 15-20 years to come.

Stick a fork in him, he's done.......

Dahly, that has to be the most bizarre statement coming from a rightwingnut to date: "Leaders lead, failures blame others and point finger." Name one, just one, failure from the previous Administration that Republicans have "owned" up to, and where they haven't blamed Obama. Just one. The wars? Obama's fault. Gitmo? Obama's fault. The economy? Obama's fault. The list goes on and on. We get it. Man, the party of responsibility takes no responsibility at all.

Stick a fork in him, he's done.

No, he's not. He's trouncing EVERY one of the potential GoTP candidates. You may WANT him to be done, but in reality, he's looking like it's going to be a cakewalk in October.

Seriously, have you conservatives considered nominating someone who isn't a gibbering buffoon?!

MacNfries.

Perfect analogy. I'm going to use that one again and again.

Yo Fred...just goes to show how stupid democratic voters are...the election is in Nov - not Oct.

jwilson, anyone who says "Yo" shows a great deal of intelligence (sarcasm).

"Not meaning to focus on Romney", but you fail to mention AT ALL the fact that Obama is working on upwards of ONE BILLION dollars for his re-election campaign.

You want government to return to working for the people of this country? How about if they get out of our lives then? How about they get rid of the out and out stupid regulations and, and laws that impose the will of one political group on an entire nation and instead keep the IMPORTANT ones that protect us?

How about instead of looking for "social justice" and "entitlement" instead the government say that every individual has the right to succeed, or fail, on their own merit and failure won't be subsidized?

Yeah it is sad isn't it?

We're screwed if you ask me. I don't see much changing for the average citizen in the near future. Day after day I read these news pieces about the election and the dumb politicians that encompass it. Day after day I still feel helpless and hopeless.

the government say that every individual has the right to succeed, or fail, on their own merit and failure won't be subsidized?

I'm fine with that, let's take away big oil and big Farm's subsidies, take away the HUGE and mostly unnecessary military industrial complex, and the cost savings will be ENORMOUS.

But no, you'd rather complain about the 'poor' or the 'entitled' citizens, who can barely manage to put food on their table, because we have to make sure folks like Soros and the Koch's can keep their ridiculously low 15% capital gains tax!

Fred -

Remove the 'subsidies' (which aren't really subsidies, by the way, but tax credits) and watch the price of fuel and groceries skyrocket!

You'll wish you hadn't ended their 'subsidies' then...

Personally, all feel that all 'subsidies' should be ended - whether to an industry(solar energy, oil, farming), a business (GE, Solyndra), or an individual (AFDC, food stamps, etc). I know it's not going to happen overnight, and there will still need to be safety nets.

But get used to even higher prices as prices reset to cover the loss of 'subsidies'.

If you would check your HISTORY, you'll find that the ONLY Presidents lately that have sent troops off to armed conflict without the approval of Congress have been Democrats. Truman in Korea, Kennedy and Johnson in Vietnam, and Obama in Libya.

You of course FAIL to mention that Bush did not put us into ANY armed conflict without FIRST taking it to the Congress and the American people for approval, and that he got APPROVAL from both.

While I don't particularly agree with Iraq myself, if you'd check the reason that we went into Afghanistan was because 3000 people were MURDERED by terrorists supported by the government of that nation.

But of course that's all part of the "Bush days", so condemnation of attacking the Taliban that ruled Afghanistan and Al Queda that headquartered there is pretty easy for people like you, isn't it? It's always been simple for the left to FORGET the reason we're there and instead put out the filth of how ANY Republican is nothing more than just another warmonger, isn't it?

You want the likes of Korea and Vietnam where tens of thousands of Americans died, or Libya where OUR military actually were under orders of foreign countries, then by ALL MEANS vote for an idiot from the left.

mod -- not go back but go forward. you need to get over your bush derangement, he left nearly 3 years ago. the guy now has proven to be excellent at two things -- campaigning and fund raising. As for being the leader of the free world he has been a huge disappointment.

Moddem. Obama recently changed his IRAN rhetoric to we can't allow IRAN to get nuclear weapons. I don't know if he will invade, but it is possible even before the next election anyway.

Cheryl

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Vietnam end during Nixon? Republicans don't like to mention his name because of Watergate but ending a war (without using an atomic bomb) is worth a mention.

@ Cheryl ... please correct me if I'm wrong, as well, but didn't Cheney & Rumsfeld convince Bush ... then Bush convince Congress that Iraq had WMD's ... which was the premise of invading Iraq ... that's "faults pretense" which should have resulted in Cheney & Rumsfeld warming a bench in a federal penitentiary for 15-20 years for LYING to Congress? I just know I read that someplace ... maybe that was a Democratic fabrication, though ...

yeah....every single democrat from kerry to kennedy swore sadaam was making anthrax during the clinton years.
...even our current vice president said it starting in 1993 until 2003 joe biden told americans "sadaam was making and storing "vast amounts of wmds" (look it up)

lets see....bush was governor of texas during the clinton years.....maybe bill clinton lied about wmds in iraq ? ...if he did then it is a clear case of genocide...after all it was clintons sanctions that killed 1 million iraqi civilians from 1993-2000, yes ?

just what did the democrats say about sadaams wmd programs during the clinton years ? hmm ?

funny the left forgets the lies they told us about wmds in iraq during the clinton years. why is that ?

gee, even the democrats (pelosi) sponsored "the regime change act of 1998" ....and clinton signed it. in 1998.

in 1998....george w bush was governor of texas.

...so it does look like you are wrong macnfries.

oops.

care to rebuff ?

...anyone ?

Nobody wants to return to the Bush days. He is gone and now we have a fraud in the white house. ANYONE BUT obama IN 2012!

keck ... I won't mind rebuffing you, my man. The main difference was that GW Bush lied about the WMD before Congress, then REACTED on their lies by putting us in a war. It never was about WMD.

Hey, I can say I'm going to beat your head in with a club, but if I don't do it, no foul is committed. Once I strike you in the head, guess what ... I've violated the law. THAT, my dear ReThuglican, is the difference. Let's face it. Cheney and his buddies wanted to secure the OIL in the mideast. Cheney was President of the USA ... not GW Bush. Bush was a mere puppet.

Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfelt ought to be in a Federal prison right now shining a prison seat with their butts.

Mac -

Congress had the exact same intelligence available as Clinton and then Bush!

I guess you see it as 'lying' when Bush accepted making the hard decisions with Iraq using the exact same information as Clinton had - even though Clinton was the one who initially brought the information before Congress at the end of his term.

How more hypocritical could you possibly be?

MacNFries...there's a difference between lying to Congress and being convinced by the avail info at the time that everyone believed and acting on it only to find out that the info wasn't accurate. The Pres was given intel which told him that Iraq had WMDs, he acted on it. Was it a mistake? Maybe...but it sure the heck wasn't lying!!!! Obama told us that there were plenty of "shovel ready jobs" waiting for everyone if we passed the stimulus then admitted that those projects weren't as "shovel-ready" as originally thought! Using your logic, can't we call Obama a liar? He also promised that if the stimulus were passed, unemployment wouldn't go above 8%. The stimulus bill passed and unemployment spent nearly 2 1/2 yrs above 9%, even going over 10% at one point. Again, using your logic, isn't it fair for us to call him a liar?

haha

the liberals dont realize bush43 did his job....and they want him dead beacause the democrats lied about wmds in the clinton years.

sorry liberals....you dont get to kill george w bush for democrats lies about wmds in the 90s

...if the was the case joe biden would be in prison...as well as hillary clinton...for lying about wmds in iraq in the 90s.

you liberals are so easy.....you hate what you did , and then blamed bush.

good job, epic fail....typical of the liberal democrat.

It's understandable that you don't want politicians who love power and riches, but the amusing thing is you seem to think the Republicans would be better than the Democrats? LOL

GoodvsEvil, But if moochele don't make money, how is she gonna get those $500.00 tennis shoes?

The system was changed where each presidential candidate would get the same amount(remember the checkoff box on your 1040 form). But Liebama broke his promise to accept that amount in 2008 which effectively ended the program. Now with millions out of work and more people on food stamps than in any time in our history, candidates will be spending billions to land a job that pays $400,000. Of course the job does come with perquisites, like spending millions of taxpayer money to fly your wife all over in separate planes for vacations and conferences.

Oh please, give up the fantasy.

Then why is he still ahead in almost every national poll? Given that and the fact the the economy is starting to improve and he is a good campaigner, I fail to see the reason for your optimism.

MSNBC tell you that? They will tell you half truths and flat out lies. Better take another look. MSNBC has a vested interest, along with G.E.

Did you see the number of unemployment claims that came out today ? Number went up big time to 399,000. I wonder if obama will take credit for these dismal numbers as he did last week when they went down a bit?

Man you are not kidding! Obama has done enough damage and must be spent back to chicago where he can use his alleged intelligence to organize a community. I feel bad for the people of chicago! ANYONE BUT obama IN 2012!

not if americans can help it.

keck, we are all Americans.

and 60% of americans disapprove of obama.

...note getting elected with numbers like that.

And 90% of Americans disapprove of the GOP.

Obama/Biden again in November 2012...

Gonna be some mighty disapointed Republicans in November.....they actually think they might beat President Obama..........ain't gonna happen.

Amen Jorge. Rome was not built in a day as the saying goes.

some democrats think obama cant be beat.

boy are they in for a shock.

We know someone could probably beat him, like maybe J.C. if he returns, but NO ONE in this current crop can touch him.

i thought you guys thought obama was J.C. ?

some democrats think obama cant be beat.

I don't know ANY who think he can't be beat. Indeed, right now he is as vulnerable as virtually any President in modern history. HOWEVER, I don't think ANY of those on the GoTP slate as yet have a snowball's chance, and neither does any poll I have seen.

i thought you guys thought obama was J.C

Still not sure where you cats got that idea. Certainly he is VASTLY superior to the last mumble-tongue joker who held the office, but he's not supernatural. Heck, I don't even believe in JC, why would I think Obama has his ID in his pocket?

You know what constantly makes me LMAO when you post your blather Keck? Your avatar. It kills me the idea of someone trying to identify themselves by an avatar from a movie that is obviously so far over his head that he must get a nosebleed when he watches it.

As for all the whiny,pissy Republicans complaining about how much money the President has raised and from whom...

...YOUR side brought the Citizen's United case before the Supreme Court. YOUR conservative justices rendered the judgement that guaranteed that the auction system that we call elections in this country will ALWAYS be the bailiwick of the rich and the corporations...

...and now you bitch and moan when OUR side plays by the rules YOU wanted. What a bunch of hypocritical crybabies the lot of you are.

For pity's sake,there is ONE candidate on EITHER side who is running on a platform of getting ALL the special interest money out of the process---all the corporate money,all the union money,capping individual donations at $100 dollar-one time levels and getting rid of all the PAC money---that man's name is Buddy Roemer and he is running for President as a Republican. So why aren't you all fighting for this man to at least get a chance to represent himself and his views in your debates? Why,instead,is your party making sure to rig the rules to deny his being heard?

I'll tell you why---because you are completely full of @!$%#,that's why.

As a Democrat I want all special interest money out of the system. Corporate,union,Pac and mega-donations from individuals. But I'll be damned if I'm going to tell the candidates I support to sit on their hands and not play the system the way it is now---the way YOUR side went to court to fight for---to it's fullest. I'm sure the GOP would like the Dems to be that stupid. Sorry,not going to grant you that wish.

Here's a movie scene that you should pay more attention to Keck,as it's very apropos to this debate...

...the scene in Casablanca when Louis the French Gendarme Commandant,played by Claude Rains,tells Rick the owner of the club,played by Humphrey Bogart,that he must close his establishment down.

"What do you mean closing me down? For what reason?"

"Rick,I am shocked...shocked,to discover that there is illicit gambling going on here."

Just then one of the clubs croupiers walks in and dumps a wad of money into Louis' hands.

"Here are your winnings Commandant" says the croupier.

"Oh,thank you very much"says Louis,stuffing the cash into his pockets.

That's BOTH parties right now when it comes to complaining about what the other party raises and from whom,at least have the intellectual honesty to not sit here and bitch and moan and act like it's NOT the system your side wanted and went to the Supreme Court and fought for. And then got it's 5 loyal lapdogs to rule on in your favor.

90% of Americans disapprove of the GOP? Proof please...also, latest polls show that if the election were held today, Romney would beat Obama by 2-3%. Ron Paul - of all people - is in a statistical dead heat with Obama. You can't get any worse than that...Ron Paul is a frickin' whack job!!!!!

thanks kennyw.

..you always make me laugh....in a good way.

see you in november.

one of the big lies conservatives arrogantly let the Radical lying Democrats get away with for years was that the rich are Republicans - we used to have many rich and sometimes famous like Bob Hope (good people) but most of the rich now are the Dems who know they can buddy up with Obama, the bankers, and the Congress and get what they want ......

Now now you two do as your candidate says and stop displaying such Envy!

i aint voting for that flip floping richie rich mofo either.

romney is obama.

...and we cant take four more years of obama

Mr. Wall Street? NEVER

...obama took 790k from goldman sachs in 2008...but i wouldnt call him "mr wall street"

Maybe I should have said Mr. Venture Capitalist......aka : Corporate Raider.

thats better.

The are currently 7 other choices all of who would be better that Obama...the 7th is my black mouth cur.

Wrong! ANYONE BUT obama IN 2012! I don't care who runs against him.

poor Kathryn Sullivan - she's been duped! She is poor but she could afford the Kool-Ade...... Michelle will buy a new pair of false eyelashes with your money thanks

I think i'll go donate 20.00 in each of your names to the obama campaign! yes, I will.

You go right ahead and waste your money. Also be sure to put your name in the drawing to win a dinner date with the Obamas and you too can go ape sh*t like this dude...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UK7fClYIWiQ

If 99% of the people are loser's as you call them.........then this country is way off track and needs a reset, Obama style.

We need to send obama back to chicago where he can ruin, oops i mean "organize" a community. ANYONE BUT obama IN 2012!

They call themselves the 99%. Actually, they are the fringe of less than a few hundred noisy, dirty marxists who want something for nothing. When the real majority awakens in November, you'll realize who's really hacked off with our current and soon to be unemployed president.

obama is the worst president in american history. The lesser of two evils? ANYONE BUT obama IN 2012!

obama is the worst president in american history.

Wow, you don't remember W?!

Going to make a donation to the DNC in mcpaddywack's name!

Let's see...6 out of 8 yrs during the Bush admin, unemployment was between 4 and 5%. 3 out of 3 yrs of the Obama admin, unemployment has been between 9 and 10%....yeah, Bush was so much worse (sarcasm intended)!

best oxymoron of the new year: MSNBC JOURNALISM

Obama's thoughts.......

"I know $35,000 per plate at these Democrat fundraisers is a lot of money BUT can I still get to demonize you guys??".... ( you know how I love to say ...... "pay your Fair share", "millionaires and billionaires", "corporate jets", "your secretary pays less" )

LOL