Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
If by saying "weren't right wing enough" means not being conservative enough then you're right. The fact is this is a right leaning country always has been and always will be. The Republicans of the past have not been conservative enough, they've all gotten away from the conservative philosophy of limited govt. and fiscal responsibility just to name two.
You're already counting Sharon Angle out and I think that's foolish. I'm confident that she will defeat Harry Reid and she will do it quite soundly.
But once the Republicans reclaim the House, which they will and quite possibly the Senate also, they need to focus on cutting some of these entitlement programs, namely unemployment insurance and most of the other welfare programs that do nothing but keep poor people poor.
Unemployment insurance needs to be reduced back down to 13 weeks, keeping it at 99 weeks allows people to sit on their ass waiting for that "perfect" job instead of taking what's available.
They need to not only keep the Bush tax cuts, they need to make them permanent.
I don't think the Republicans can do all that. Not with President Obama controlling a Veto.
I don't think we as a people are ready for self government again. We need to work on the hearts and the minds of people. We need to change the culture. If we do that the government will change as a natural consequence. If we don't it doesnt matter who has power, because we will end up destroying ourselves as a nation. We will be in slavery.
We need to seriously wake people up now to the power of individual liberty. If we have people who are self sufficient and who refuse to take government handouts, it doesnt matter what the government does. We will be free.
Its a choice to take handouts. We need to change hearts and minds.
An historic new Gallup Poll showing the party of Lincoln has now built a whopping 10-point lead -- 51 to 41 -- among registered voters over Obama's Democrats in the revealing generic congressional ballot for the Nov. 2 elections.
10-point Republican lead on generic congressional ballot now largest in 68 years: Gallup | Top of the Ticket | Los Angeles Times
Obama sure kicked that pedulum back in the other direction hard and fast.
This looks good for the Republicans if they are running someone named Joe Generic in November
Problem is they have to put actual names on the ballot. When voters are given actual names with actual political platforms, the GOP starts to falter.
With so many Tea Bagger candidates spouting extremist rhetoric there is a huge probability of implosion.
"Did you really say THAT?"
Can someone remind me of what those generic Republican positions are again? NO
I refer to that situation as inbreeding among liberals.An historic new Gallup Poll showing the party of Lincoln has now built a whopping 10-point lead -- 51 to 41 -- among registered voters over Obama's Democrats in the revealing generic congressional ballot for the Nov. 2 elections.
10-point Republican lead on generic congressional ballot now largest in 68 years: Gallup | Top of the Ticket | Los Angeles Times
Obama sure kicked that pedulum back in the other direction hard and fast.
True. And the sad part is, there are idiots that still support him.
The U.S. Constitution allows Congress to override the President's veto with a two-thirds majority vote of both the House and the Senate.
I'm old shool I think the only way to get people off their asses and back to work is stop giving them free shit. The Republicans can create an economical envirornment that will in turn create jobs, if they stick to conservative principles.
Hard to believe the Republicans have never enjoyed more than a 10 point margin in any of the last 68 years. Not Eisenhower vs. Stevenson? Johnson vs. Goldwater? Nixon vs. McGovern?
Methinks somebody has been fiddling with the statistics again.....
If by saying "weren't right wing enough" means not being conservative enough then you're right. The fact is this is a right leaning country always has been and always will be. The Republicans of the past have not been conservative enough, they've all gotten away from the conservative philosophy of limited govt. and fiscal responsibility just to name two.
No, we're a dysfunctional country. In poll after poll, when you ask people whether they're conservative or liberal, they'll say they're conservative. If you poll on specific liberal initiatives, like public education, environment, alternative energy, health care, those same people all of sudden are fer it.
No one is against healthcare, alternative energy, education or the environment, and those issues are not exclusively liberal. Where the difference lies is in the application and how to get there. In nine of 15 issues examined in an Associated Press-GfK Poll this month, Most attuned voters tilted toward the GOP. Issues like the economy, unemployment, federal deficits and terrorism.
We'll see what we see. All indications are she's dropping hard, refusing to deal with the mainstream media (instead relying on the loony extremists), and failing to fess up to her major screw-ups like putting Scientologists in charge of prisons. She's a gift.
But they won't. You seem to miss the point that people are unhappy that the economy didn't turn on a dime after the next election, but when faced with some right wing extremist, they'll find a lot more pragmatism than you give them credit for. Nope, I see this more like the '64 race when the Birchers were about as loud and crude as the tea baggers, and the dems looked like they were dropping like rocks in the polls, but when the curtain was closed on those polling booths, the people chose the better alternative.
If we want to dive into the abyss of becoming a third world shithole full of destitute squaters, you're probably right. But until jobs are available for the vast majority that's not going to happen. It would be interesting if the GOP runs on that in states like Ohio and Michigan.
Jobs are available but why take a job that paid less than your previous job when you can sit on your ass for 99 weeks? And the way to create jobs is not by placing a moratorium on offshore drilling, which kills even more jobs, but creating an environment where corporations and industries have the confidence to expand business.
They need to not only keep the Bush tax cuts, they need to make them permanent.
We can't afford them, and the people who've been most blessed, don't need them. In fact, I'll argue they're counterproductive in rebuilding our economy. The Clinton tax structure did more to facilitate investment for the simple reason was that investing and reinvesting within companies generated more wealth than pulling money out to spend on European vacations and the latest Mercedes.
Bullshit we can't afford them, fact is we can't afford not to have them. After President Bush took office, America experienced six years of uninterrupted economic growth and a record 52 straight months of job creation that produced more than 8 million new jobs. The unemployment rate averaged 5.3 percent. We saw labor-productivity gains that averaged 2.5 percent annually a rate that exceeds the averages of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Real after-tax income per capita increased by more than 11 percent. And from 2000 to 2007, real GDP grew by more than 17 percent, a gain of nearly $2.1 trillion.
The U.S. Constitution allows Congress to override the President's veto with a two-thirds majority vote of both the House and the Senate.
I'm old shool I think the only way to get people off their asses and back to work is stop giving them free shit. The Republicans can create an economical envirornment that will in turn create jobs, if they stick to conservative principles.
Im aware of that. But though I'm optimistic about Republicans taking the house, I dont see them getting the 2/3 majority they need to override the veto.
I am also skeptical about them sticking to Conservative Principles.
No, we're a dysfunctional country. In poll after poll, when you ask people whether they're conservative or liberal, they'll say they're conservative. If you poll on specific liberal initiatives, like public education, environment, alternative energy, health care, those same people all of sudden are fer it.
No one is against healthcare, alternative energy, education or the environment, and those issues are not exclusively liberal. Where the difference lies is in the application and how to get there. In nine of 15 issues examined in an Associated Press-GfK Poll this month, Most attuned voters tilted toward the GOP. Issues like the economy, unemployment, federal deficits and terrorism.
We'll see what we see. All indications are she's dropping hard, refusing to deal with the mainstream media (instead relying on the loony extremists), and failing to fess up to her major screw-ups like putting Scientologists in charge of prisons. She's a gift.
But they won't. You seem to miss the point that people are unhappy that the economy didn't turn on a dime after the next election, but when faced with some right wing extremist, they'll find a lot more pragmatism than you give them credit for. Nope, I see this more like the '64 race when the Birchers were about as loud and crude as the tea baggers, and the dems looked like they were dropping like rocks in the polls, but when the curtain was closed on those polling booths, the people chose the better alternative.
If we want to dive into the abyss of becoming a third world shithole full of destitute squaters, you're probably right. But until jobs are available for the vast majority that's not going to happen. It would be interesting if the GOP runs on that in states like Ohio and Michigan.
Jobs are available but why take a job that paid less than your previous job when you can sit on your ass for 99 weeks? And the way to create jobs is not by placing a moratorium on offshore drilling, which kills even more jobs, but creating an environment where corporations and industries have the confidence to expand business.
We can't afford them, and the people who've been most blessed, don't need them. In fact, I'll argue they're counterproductive in rebuilding our economy. The Clinton tax structure did more to facilitate investment for the simple reason was that investing and reinvesting within companies generated more wealth than pulling money out to spend on European vacations and the latest Mercedes.
Bullshit we can't afford them, fact is we can't afford not to have them. After President Bush took office, America experienced six years of uninterrupted economic growth and a record 52 straight months of job creation that produced more than 8 million new jobs. The unemployment rate averaged 5.3 percent. We saw labor-productivity gains that averaged 2.5 percent annually a rate that exceeds the averages of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Real after-tax income per capita increased by more than 11 percent. And from 2000 to 2007, real GDP grew by more than 17 percent, a gain of nearly $2.1 trillion.
What a fucking liar you are. The employment figures in the Bush years did not even keep up with the kids graduating from high school and college. And the unemployment we see today is a result of the policies during his administration.
PPI: Bush vs. Clinton: An Economic Performance Index by Robert D. Atkinson and Julie Hutto
Bush vs. Clinton: An Economic Performance Index
By Robert D. Atkinson and Julie Hutto
According to public opinion polls, most Americans feel the U.S. economy has been moving in the wrong direction. Indeed, an analysis of several important economic indicators shows they're right. In apples-to-apples comparisons of annualized data, these indicators of the country's economic well-being show mostly negative change during President George W. Bush's administration, compared to mostly positive change during President Bill Clinton's administration. Presidents obviously do not control everything that happens on their watch. But it is fair -- and entirely appropriate -- to judge how they play the economic hands they are dealt. Bush's economic policies have diverged dramatically from Clinton's, and PPI believes the disparities in economic outcomes under each administration are attributable at least in part to those policy choices
If by saying "weren't right wing enough" means not being conservative enough then you're right. The fact is this is a right leaning country always has been and always will be. The Republicans of the past have not been conservative enough, they've all gotten away from the conservative philosophy of limited govt. and fiscal responsibility just to name two.
No, we're a dysfunctional country. In poll after poll, when you ask people whether they're conservative or liberal, they'll say they're conservative. If you poll on specific liberal initiatives, like public education, environment, alternative energy, health care, those same people all of sudden are fer it.
No one is against healthcare, alternative energy, education or the environment, and those issues are not exclusively liberal. Where the difference lies is in the application and how to get there. In nine of 15 issues examined in an Associated Press-GfK Poll this month, Most attuned voters tilted toward the GOP. Issues like the economy, unemployment, federal deficits and terrorism.
We'll see what we see. All indications are she's dropping hard, refusing to deal with the mainstream media (instead relying on the loony extremists), and failing to fess up to her major screw-ups like putting Scientologists in charge of prisons. She's a gift.
But they won't. You seem to miss the point that people are unhappy that the economy didn't turn on a dime after the next election, but when faced with some right wing extremist, they'll find a lot more pragmatism than you give them credit for. Nope, I see this more like the '64 race when the Birchers were about as loud and crude as the tea baggers, and the dems looked like they were dropping like rocks in the polls, but when the curtain was closed on those polling booths, the people chose the better alternative.
If we want to dive into the abyss of becoming a third world shithole full of destitute squaters, you're probably right. But until jobs are available for the vast majority that's not going to happen. It would be interesting if the GOP runs on that in states like Ohio and Michigan.
Jobs are available but why take a job that paid less than your previous job when you can sit on your ass for 99 weeks? And the way to create jobs is not by placing a moratorium on offshore drilling, which kills even more jobs, but creating an environment where corporations and industries have the confidence to expand business.
They need to not only keep the Bush tax cuts, they need to make them permanent.
We can't afford them, and the people who've been most blessed, don't need them. In fact, I'll argue they're counterproductive in rebuilding our economy. The Clinton tax structure did more to facilitate investment for the simple reason was that investing and reinvesting within companies generated more wealth than pulling money out to spend on European vacations and the latest Mercedes.
Bullshit we can't afford them, fact is we can't afford not to have them. After President Bush took office, America experienced six years of uninterrupted economic growth and a record 52 straight months of job creation that produced more than 8 million new jobs. The unemployment rate averaged 5.3 percent. We saw labor-productivity gains that averaged 2.5 percent annually a rate that exceeds the averages of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Real after-tax income per capita increased by more than 11 percent. And from 2000 to 2007, real GDP grew by more than 17 percent, a gain of nearly $2.1 trillion.
No, we're a dysfunctional country. In poll after poll, when you ask people whether they're conservative or liberal, they'll say they're conservative. If you poll on specific liberal initiatives, like public education, environment, alternative energy, health care, those same people all of sudden are fer it.
No one is against healthcare, alternative energy, education or the environment, and those issues are not exclusively liberal. Where the difference lies is in the application and how to get there. In nine of 15 issues examined in an Associated Press-GfK Poll this month, Most attuned voters tilted toward the GOP. Issues like the economy, unemployment, federal deficits and terrorism.
We'll see what we see. All indications are she's dropping hard, refusing to deal with the mainstream media (instead relying on the loony extremists), and failing to fess up to her major screw-ups like putting Scientologists in charge of prisons. She's a gift.
But they won't. You seem to miss the point that people are unhappy that the economy didn't turn on a dime after the next election, but when faced with some right wing extremist, they'll find a lot more pragmatism than you give them credit for. Nope, I see this more like the '64 race when the Birchers were about as loud and crude as the tea baggers, and the dems looked like they were dropping like rocks in the polls, but when the curtain was closed on those polling booths, the people chose the better alternative.
If we want to dive into the abyss of becoming a third world shithole full of destitute squaters, you're probably right. But until jobs are available for the vast majority that's not going to happen. It would be interesting if the GOP runs on that in states like Ohio and Michigan.
Jobs are available but why take a job that paid less than your previous job when you can sit on your ass for 99 weeks? And the way to create jobs is not by placing a moratorium on offshore drilling, which kills even more jobs, but creating an environment where corporations and industries have the confidence to expand business.
We can't afford them, and the people who've been most blessed, don't need them. In fact, I'll argue they're counterproductive in rebuilding our economy. The Clinton tax structure did more to facilitate investment for the simple reason was that investing and reinvesting within companies generated more wealth than pulling money out to spend on European vacations and the latest Mercedes.
Bullshit we can't afford them, fact is we can't afford not to have them. After President Bush took office, America experienced six years of uninterrupted economic growth and a record 52 straight months of job creation that produced more than 8 million new jobs. The unemployment rate averaged 5.3 percent. We saw labor-productivity gains that averaged 2.5 percent annually — a rate that exceeds the averages of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Real after-tax income per capita increased by more than 11 percent. And from 2000 to 2007, real GDP grew by more than 17 percent, a gain of nearly $2.1 trillion.
Bush's growth was based on smoke and mirrors. When you finance tax cuts with debt, what you wind up doing is the same thing as someone who maxes out their credit card for a month in Vegas, and says how great their standard of living is. Even with the deficet financed growth, Bush's entire record was enemic compared to Clinton. It's only a very small number of presidents who leave office with the equity markets lower than when they arrived.
Yes we can afford not to keep the Bush tax cuts, and you know what will happen? Those top 5% will keep their money in their business to grow their overall wealth, rather than take out fat salaries. Our country grew quite well even under the draconian top end tax rates under Roosevelt.
Nope, the Bush economy was a house of cards that put us into a freefall, that's just starting to turn around.
