Smitty and his prediction that President Obama will drop out

From Smitty on “The Other McCain:”

Prediction Update: Your Next Six Weeks

Posted on | October 2, 2011 | 25 Comments and 10 Reactions

by Smitty

Back in July, before Solyndra, I ‘boldly’ predicted that BHO wouldn’t complete the term, or run for re-election, for that matter. Now, watch the near-term future unfold. As the USS Obama capsizes and works on its submarine impression, the Left, casting about for someone, anyone, who is both

  • reliable, in the sense that they can be counted upon to maintain the Progressive status quo, and
  • has enough name recognition to run for President, and
  • is a big enough megalomaniac for the task.

I know, you think I’m going to say ‘Dennis Kucinich’, but really: we mean Hillary here, don’t we? The question is when?

Peering into my crystal bollocks, I don’t see how the administration survives the mounting tsunami of crap past the end of this month. So, I’m saying that, by 01 November, Silent Hillary shall have been identified as the Great White Democrat Hope. Literary allusion hyperlink provided in advance to deflect accusations of raaaaacism and anti-fat chick bias with that might come from a snarky sharky reference.

Of course, I had to check out The Other McCain, because John Hitchcock’s Truth Before Dishonor got some link-love there, and it certainly wouldn’t hurt for CSPT to get a few back-links as well. :)

Smitty is hardly the first political wonk to suggest that President Obama will decide not to run for re-election, based on his dramatically dropping poll numbers, but he is the first person I’ve seen to put an actual date — 1 November 2011 — on President Obama’s predicted withdrawal. We have, therefore, a hard mark, a point at which we can say, definitively, that the prediction was either right or wrong.

As for me, I don’t think that he will withdraw. President Lyndon Johnson announced, on 31 March 1968, that he would neither seek nor accept the nomination of the Democratic Party for another term as President. His renomination was very probable, if he had sought it, because he thoroughly controlled the party machinery, something far more important in 1968 than it was in, say, 2008, when the party leadership couldn’t deliver the nomination for Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY). But President Johnson also knew that he’d have a very rough time of it in the general election, with Governor George Wallace (D-AB) siphoning off Democratic votes in the Solid South, and the Vietnam War becoming increasingly unpopular.

The point is that President Johnson could take his decision with just a hair over seven months until election day, because the nomination calendar was not so greatly stretched out. For President Obama to take a decision not to run, based on a foreseen probability of being defeated in the general election, he really would have to take it by the date Mr McCain specified, five months earlier than President Johnson could, for any serious Democratic candidate to have a reasonable chance to mount a campaign. But with a whole year before the general election (at that point), President Obama could also have some hope that things will turn around in the economy, sufficiently to give him a chance at re-election. Once we get into 2012, it becomes almost impossible for President Obama to decide to withdraw without totally sabotaging the possibility of the Democratic nominee winning in the general election.

But it seems to me that there is another reason. When I read what some of our friends on the left write, I see an amazing pigheadedness, a will not to believe that any of the Republican candidates are actually serious candidates. They constantly deride the Republican candidates — with the exception of Jon Huntsman, who has no more chance of winning the nomination than I have — as just total losers and weirdos and freaks, even though every one of them other than Herman Cain has actually won elections (plural) in the past. Rick Perry has been elected Governor of Texas thrice. Michele Bachmann and Mitt Romney and Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum and Jon Huntsman have all presented themselves to the voters in the past, and have all won elections. That, in itself, makes them serious candidates,period. Yet, if President Obama is foolish enough to believe the political talking points his party and his campaign send out, he’s running against nobodies; that would be a very foolish assumption, but it’s one which would nudge him toward running again, and not dropping out.

Further, even though I’ve never met President Obama, and certainly don’t know him personally, from what I have seen of him on television and read about him in the news, it is my opinion that he really does believe that he can, and will, turn this campaign around, and that he really does believe that he’s the best man for the job, and he’s quite frankly baffled that he isn’t viewed as a better President.

Finally, it seems to me that President Obama, specifically, and many of the Democratic leaders more generally, simply cannot and do not understand how anyone from their coalition, women, teachers, blue-collar workers, blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals, welfare recipients, you name it, could ever vote Republican. Yet they had a real clue — or should have — last month, when Jews, normally the second most loyal Democratic demographic, deserted the Democratic nominee in the New York 9th congressional district special election, electing a Republican to that seat for the first time since the 1920 general election. I think that they are genuinely astonished that President Obama is perceived so poorly, and that their party did so badly in the 2010 elections. That they are using the spectacles on the left through which to view their party and its chances seems obvious. :)

Well, no one knows the future. It is always possible that the economy will make an unexpected turn-around, with sufficient economic growth to be appreciated, and a significant decrease in the unemployment rate, enough for President Obama to be re-elected. Such doesn’t seem very probable at the moment, but you just never know. And if President Obama isn’t doing too well in the opinion polls right now, there’s only one poll that actually counts for anything, and that won’t be taken for another thirteen months.

UPDATE (John Hitchcock): Linked by The Other McCain.

180 Comments

  1. Pingback: Prediction Update: Your Next Six Weeks : The Other McCain

  2. Thanks for the response. I think we may be talking past each other a bit; the scandals unfolding seem to threaten the very validity of our government. BHO’s ego, while not inconsequential, will be beside the point.

  3. Dang, boy. You got Smitty to comment on your site. That’s as good as the golden key to the top toilet.

    But I have to say, Barack Hussein Obama will definitely not go softly into that good night, to the detriment of freedom-lovers the world wide. And I don’t want the worst President in the 235-year history of the United States to decide not to run for re-election. I really don’t. Because if the worst President in the 235-year history of the United States runs for re-election, that is a down-right guarantee that more Democrats die a political death at the ballot box than if the worst President in the 235-year history of the United States bowed out “for the good of the country”.

    No, Barack Hussein “ya gotta love lilly-livered socialism” Obama on the top of the ticket guarantees — GUARAN-DANG-TEES — Democrat fails at the US Senate, US House of Representatives, State Legislature and so on, and guarantees a resounding success for the US, each state itself, and at the local level.

    With Barack Hussein Obama at the top of the ticket, Democrats are absolutely guaranteed more failure than if Barack Hussein Obama bows out. Guaranteed. And the US and each State and each Locality where Democrats lose due to Barack Hussein Obama being the top of the ticket is guaranteed to be without doubt far better off as a result.

    So no, BHO is too narcissistic and too into the cult of personality that considers him the Savior of the World to back down, and his refusal to back down is too important to the free world and to America. His refusal to back down will be a huge cost on the Democrat Party — which has gone Socialist — and a huge benefit to the US.

  4. Oh, Perry the bridge-builder, and the New Zealand Socialist book putter-backer:

    Smitty did a tour of duty for the US Navy in Afghanistan. He’s better than you two trolls.

  5. I’m not sure just what a “golden key to the top toilet” is worth. :)

    But I do have to wonder just what our loyalist Democrats really think about the free-fall our President is in. I can understand them thinking that it is wholly undeserved, but do they at least recognize it, and just what do they think could or should be done about it? Do they believe that the President can turn it around, or are they at least harboring the Dump Obama, Run Hillary thoughts that have sprung up elsewhere among Democrats?

  6. “But I do have to wonder just what our loyalist Democrats really think about the free-fall our President is in.”

    Instead of this, Dana, you owe President a debt of gratitude for preventing Great Depression II and putting our economy back on a growth track, one which would have been even stronger had it not been for your do-nothing Repub party. Perhaps, reviewing the pathetic cast of characters (with one notable exception) your party is considering to nominate, you might even decide to vote a second term for President Obama, correct? If you had the well-being of our country in mind instead of your partisan worthless ideology, you might give some serious consideration to the President and the compassionate Dems.

    Had it not been for President Obama and the Dems, I suspect your family would have one wage earner, the other on unemployment!

  7. If you had the well-being of our country in mind instead of your partisan worthless ideology, you might give some serious consideration to the President and the compassionate Dems.

    I’m curious — how is this “bridging the gap?” Do you ever walk the walk, Perry, or as usual are you just full of useless platitudes?

  8. “I think we may be talking past each other a bit; the scandals unfolding seem to threaten the very validity of our government.”

    You hit on something important here, Smitty: the scandals. The scandals are on Wall Street (peddling toxic assets and stock market manipulation), in our Corporate Headquarters (fraudulent behavior and corruption of government), and in our government (corruption, dysfunction, and failure to enforce the laws against pervasive white collar crime).

    Capitalism without sufficient regulation and oversight turns into a severely corrupted entity which is more powerful than our elected government, as we are witness to this process on a daily basis! And people like Dana, Hube, and Hitchcock support this process 100%!

  9. “I’m curious — how is this “bridging the gap?” Do you ever walk the walk, Perry, or as usual are you just full of useless platitudes?”

    Bridging the gap requires facing up to reality, Hube. Three decades of the ideology you folks are spouting have been proven to be a global failure, bottom line. Moreover, when we have a President and his party who have attempted to reach out since January of 2009, and the response is to make a first priority limiting the President to one term and do nothing, this makes bridging the gap nigh on to impossible. It takes two to tango! What do you think?

  10. “Citation please, Hypocrite!”

    You can take it as my opinion, hypocrite. Do you deny my allegation? Let the readers decide!

  11. Bridging the gap requires facing up to reality, Hube.

    Is that so? There are plenty of instances where we could say the same to you, Perry — bottom line. No, bridging the gap actually means working together and debating reasonably to mutually solve problems. You do not do that — not whatsoever. IOW, your blog’s name is a total fraud, as are you. The sooner you realize this, then maybe some REAL gap bridging will occur.

  12. You can take it as my opinion, hypocrite. Let the readers decide!

    They have. And the decision is that you’re a blowhard hypocrite. All political stripes realize this, as has been previously documented.

  13. “No, bridging the gap actually means working together and debating reasonably to mutually solve problems.”

    I agree with that, but I am amazed to see that statement coming from you, Hube, [of all people]. Moreover, your party certainly does not perform with this sentiment in mind. Please tell me where we can start, then, to bridge the gap under those behavioral circumstances by your party? Clearly, it is your way or no way. How can one bridge the gap with that attitude on the other side?

  14. “They have. And the decision is that you’re a blowhard hypocrite. All political stripes realize this, as has been previously documented.”

    So you now set yourself up as the spokesman for “the readers”, the pinnacle of arrogance! Meaningless and hypocritical that is, for sure!!!

  15. So you now set yourself up as the spokesman for “the readers”, the pinnacle of arrogance!

    I don’t have to “set myself up.” As I said, it’s been documented. Your own political stripe may tolerate your hypocritical nonsense, but that is all.

    I agree with that, but I am amazed to see that statement coming from you, Hube, [of all people].

    Why is that? Show me where I’ve been adamantly opposed to negotiation as you claim the current GOP is. Or, if you prefer, CITATION PLEASE!

    Moreover, your party certainly does not perform with this sentiment in mind.

    I see. Then how was that last budget deal arrived at, pray tell?

    Clearly, it is your way or no way. How can one bridge the gap with that attitude on the other side?

    Wrong. See above. Moreover, it is YOU who has ascribed that saying, not the GOP, so the onus is on you to live up to it. Again, you have not. Not one bit.

  16. “Clearly, it is your way or no way. How can one bridge the gap with that attitude on the other side?”

    Right, a short term deal following the disastrous debt ceiling hostage taking, done by your Repubs which succeeded in lowering our credit rating and made the unstable global financial situation more unstable. Yeah, Hube, that was real responsible. And yes, don’t forget, also, your Repub party bore major responsibility for the crash of Fall 2008 with your tax cut/big spending/laissez faire policies finally coming home to roost, now followed by a do-nothing Congressional dysfunction.

    You folks caused these major problems, and now attempt to blame President Obama for them! Some integrity that is. If we happen to elect you crackpot radicals back into power, we will then deserve getting more of the same dysfunction, which will then say more about the dysfunction of the American people themselves. I’m hoping that this will not be the outcome in 2012, that the American people will step up, being above and beyond having such dysfunction.

  17. I have the beginnings of an article in the can. It could help get Perry’s blog hits up from their absolutely dismal and sinking levels. But I rather doubt Perry will like that all that much. Imagine Perry getting 10 unique hits in a single day — with residuals following, all as a result of my reporting. And imagine those hitting his site actually commenting and letting him know it was my fault he got the hits and comments. Kinda delicious, no?

    Bless your heart, Perry.

  18. Pingback: A Bridge Too Far(t) « Truth Before Dishonor

  19. I have the beginnings of an article in the can.

    Well, that’s certainly appropriate for your articles, but how did you print them off on toilet paper?

  20. “And if President Obama isn’t doing too well in the opinion polls right now, there’s only one poll that actually counts for anything, and that won’t be taken for another thirteen months.”

    That is absolutely correct, and the Repubs have long been on track to do everything they can to prevail in 2012, whether legal and legitimate, or illegal and illegitimate, as has been their mantra in the past exemplified by Lee Atwater in 2000 for GHWB, Karl Rove for GWB, and now the Koch Brothers et al for the radical Righties in general, in other words, now it is huge sums of money and a multitude of dirty tricks.

    First there is the massive voter suppression effort going on, focused on the battleground states. Then there are the other individual efforts going on within the states, for example, Art Pope and his minions in North Carolina. This is what American politics has come to, the way the Repubs now do it, and the worst thing of all is: It works! Shame on us for allowing this deterioration into an oligarchy to continue to occur!!!

  21. Perry wholly missed the point:

    “But I do have to wonder just what our loyalist Democrats really think about the free-fall our President is in.”

    Instead of this, Dana, you owe President a debt of gratitude for preventing Great Depression II and putting our economy back on a growth track, one which would have been even stronger had it not been for your do-nothing Repub party.

    Had you paid attention to the sentence immediately after the one you quoted, “I can understand them thinking that it is wholly undeserved, but do they at least recognize it, and just what do they think could or should be done about it?” you might have understood the question. I’ll grant that you think that the President’s free fall is undeserved, but do you at l;east recognize that he’s in one? I’ll grant, again, that you think the President’s free fall in the polls and in the opinions of the American people is unjustified, but just what do you think could or should be done about it?

  22. If we happen to elect you crackpot radicals back into power, we will then deserve getting more of the same dysfunction, which will then say more about the dysfunction of the American people themselves.

    Is this like Herman Cain saying too many blacks are “brainwashed?” And he gets called racist. We’ll just call ‘ol Fossil an Alzheimers-induced demented Neanderthal, though.

    (And yes, Perry, that is an ad hominem.)

  23. Besides those of other-than-conservative political stripes’ evidence that Perry is no gap-bridger, here is solid statistical evidence that people recognize him for the fraud he is, courtesy of Hitchcock’s now-completed post. Visitors to Perry’s fraudulently named site:

    And be sure to read Hitch’s post, which is chock full of examples of how Perry is hypocritical fraud.

  24. Notice Perry’s and the Left’s favorite devil, the Koch Brothers, doesn’t even reach the top 33 but the vast majority of the top 33 are heavily Democrat. Oops, there goes that Leftist lie.

  25. “I’ll grant that you think that the President’s free fall is undeserved, but do you at l;east recognize that he’s in one?”

    No, Dana, I do not. As a matter of fact, it is the do-nothing Congress which is in a “free-fall”, as well as the economy which you Repubs ruined. You radicals forget that you discounted President Obama’s chances a year before the 2008 elections, and pulled every slander and dirty trick you could dream up about him, you know, the “empty suit”, the Rev Wright association, the slander of his community service, the birthers, the whole bit, and it did not work. Now you are trying to blame him for the unprecedented post-war financial/economic mess which your party caused, together with your continued refusal to work with him to pull us out. I remain hopeful that the American voter will see through your untruthful facade once again.

  26. “And be sure to read Hitch’s post, which is chock full of examples of how Perry is hypocritical fraud.”

    Hitchcock’s propaganda is easily dismissed for what it is, garbage, as has been demonstrated for years on this very blog! Most readers understand this fact!!!

  27. Hitchcock’s propaganda is easily dismissed for what it is, garbage, as has been demonstrated for years on this very blog! Most readers understand this fact!!!

    Here, I’ll pull a Perry: And you now speak for most readers, Perry?? How arrogant is that??

    Second, you’re right in that Hitch’s post is full of garbage — because he quotes you extensively! LOL!!

  28. You radicals forget that you discounted President Obama’s chances a year before the 2008 elections, and pulled every slander and dirty trick you could dream up about him, you know, the “empty suit”, the Rev Wright association, the slander of his community service, the birthers, the whole bit, and it did not work.

    1. Someone who runs for president of the United States after being a community organizer, then briefly state senator, then briefly US senator is an empty suit. Hardly slander.

    2. How is it slander stating that Obama is associated with Wright — when he sat in the moron’s pulpit for twenty years?

    3. What slander about community service? Other than that it ain’t exactly a real job?

    4. Where did Dana, me or Hitch subscribe to the Birther nonsense, Fossil? CITATION PLEASE?

    5. “The whole bit?” Is that what you say when you run out of false allegations? ‘Cuz #s 1-4 sure didn’t work!

  29. I love how the radical Left continue with the lie that Republicans are stealing elections with money when the data show the Democrats being the top money-getters and money-givers, politically.

  30. It’s those nasty voter ID laws which “disenfranchise” those poor helpless elderly and minorities, Hitch. And Perry is an Electioner, you know. Like Truthers and Birthers, Electioners believe GOP shenanigans illegally led to Bush being elected in 2000 and 2004!

  31. Yeah, it’s strange how Hispanics in “battleground” states favor Voter ID by more than 7 to 1. Not what the Democrats want anyone to know about in their propagandistic push to eliminate Voter ID while keeping Tobacco ID and Alcohol ID and Driver ID and R-rated Movie ID and Prescription ID.

  32. I think we would all do better to keep our mouths closed (the dropout people that is). What if Truman had dropped out with his stats below 30% days before the election. political wises are not related to political thought LET IT BE.

    further, No president in the world has ever dropped out of office or an election without a Gun pointed at his or her head and even then many would not.

    Mr. Obama is nothing if not a fighter check out the man and not the politics. He has done to politicking last year and lost, being kind to all the Wiesel s.

    now he will show many his manly side, and his politics I say will not be destructive but more instructive and lead the country back to civility to the way it was before the COWBOY and the love of the super rich.

  33. No president in the world has ever dropped out of office or an election without a Gun pointed at his or her head and even then many would not.

    Seems to me there was a President who decided not to run for re-election in March of the year of the election. Perhaps it was in the article where you commented.

    Seems to me many of the Presidents before FDR decided not to run for a third term, which was available for them.

    But thanks for dropping by and showing your historical ignorance.

  34. Perry, you don’t have to believe Hube, listen to John Hitchcock or even nod one to Dana. All you need do is listen to the empty suit himself:

    George Stephanopoulos, ABC News: “And a lot of anger out there. There’s so many people who simply don’t think they’re better off than they were four years ago. How do you convince them that they are?”

    President Obama: “Well, I don’t think they’re better off than they were four years ago. They’re not better off than they were before Lehman’s collapse, before the financial crisis, before this extraordinary recession that we’re going through.

    Unless you think the Solyndra fraudster and American citizen murdering thug is lying. Your call, buttercup.

  35. And now we have learned that denial is not just a river in Egypt! n Perry wrote:

    “I’ll grant that you think that the President’s free fall is undeserved, but do you at l;east recognize that he’s in one?”

    No, Dana, I do not. As a matter of fact, it is the do-nothing Congress which is in a “free-fall”, as well as the economy which you Repubs ruined.

    Well, Perry, every poll shows that the President is plummeting in his job approval ratings, while his disapproval ratings continue to climb. Your fellow Democrats are getting worried that the top of the ticket will drag them down to defeat as well, and that’s why you’re seeing the movement, among Democrats, to nudge the President into retiring, and letting the Secretary of State run this time. I don’t know what you’ve been drinking that is so different from otyher Democrats . . .

    OK, that’s a lie; I pretty much do know what you’ve been drinking, as illustrated to the left. :)

    Heck, even Vice President Biden said:

    Right now, understandably — totally legitimate — this is a referendum on Obama and Biden and the nature of the state of the economy. Even though fifty-some percent of the American people think that the economy tanked because of the last administration, that’s not relevant. What’s relevant is we’re in charge. And right now we are the ones in charge and it’s gotten better, but it hasn’t gotten good enough.

  36. David Ellis Shird wrote:

    No president in the world has ever dropped out of office or an election without a Gun pointed at his or her head and even then many would not.

    The two term tradition was begun by President Washington, who was enormously popular, but chose not to run for a third term, a tradition many of his successors honored. Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, both still very popular, chose not to run for third terms, even though both would probably have won again. Theodore Roosevelt, also enormously popular, served almost two terms — he became President upon the assassination of President William McKinley — and retired, saying that the two term tradition applied in his case, even though he would almost certainly have won another term in 1908 if he had run again.

  37. Hube asked Perry:

    Where did Dana, me or Hitch subscribe to the Birther nonsense, Fossil?

    I’ve said, many times before, that it doesn’t matter, because the Constitution provides no enforcement mechanism. Despite the Constitutional requirements to become President, if the Electoral Collegfe votes for a 17-year-old Nepalese boy who speaks no English, and the House of Representatives certifies the Electoral Colleges vote, then said 17-year-old Nepalese boy becomes the next President, and there’s nothing anyone can do about it. The Supreme Court does not have the authority to invalidate such an election, and the only possible enforcement mechanism would be impeachment and removal.

    I never paid much attention to the birther nonsense, because it seemed to me that, even if it could be proved that President Obama wasn’t a natural born citizen, he still couldn’t be removed from office.

  38. Perry angrily wrote:

    You radicals forget that you discounted President Obama’s chances a year before the 2008 elections, and pulled every slander and dirty trick you could dream up about him, you know, the “empty suit”, the Rev Wright association, the slander of his community service, the birthers, the whole bit, and it did not work. Now you are trying to blame him for the unprecedented post-war financial/economic mess which your party caused, together with your continued refusal to work with him to pull us out. I remain hopeful that the American voter will see through your untruthful facade once again.

    In 2008, the voters had some hope that Barack Obama really could do the job of President of the United States. We Republicans pointed out that he had exactly zero executive experience, but that argument did not sway a majority of the voters.

    But it ain’t 2008. President Obama will be going into the 2012 election with an actual record on which the voters can judge his ability to be President. At least so far, it does not seem as though the public thinks he has done well at his job.

    And you even know it! Your continual efforts to claim that President Obama really did do well, but it’s just that we wicked reich-wingers put him in such a deep hole from which to start, virtually admits that the President’s record doesn’t appear very impressive to most people. Maybe you actually do believe that he’s the greatest thing since sliced bread, but even the things you write show us that you know most people don’t agree.

  39. Should things continue the way they are now, it’s entirely possible that every elected branch of government could change hands – Democrats could easily lose the Senate, Obama would probably lose to Romney and would be in a dead heat with the less appealing Perry, and the House is so unpopular that “throw the bums out” could sweep the Republicans to the curb there.

    I would like to comment on the Jews of NY-9 electing a Republican. The Jews of NY-9 aren’t like the Jews of the rest of the country. A disproportionate number of the Jews in that district are Orthodox, who make up only ~10% of the Jewish population of the rest of the country. They are heavily socially conservative, and the election turned in no small part on the Democrat Weprin’s vote for marriage equality (a position that more mainstream Jewish voters – and much of the Reform establishment – tend to support). My hunch is that we Reform and Conservative Jews, who make up the other 90% of the Jewish population of the country, are a different breed of cat. There’s some evidence for this in the polls, and I’m relatively sure that Obama and the Dems are in no danger of losing the Jews of Wake County, NC :-)

    Also, Dana, I didn’t know George Wallace was from Alberta! ;-)

  40. “But it ain’t 2008. President Obama will be going into the 2012 election with an actual record on which the voters can judge his ability to be President. At least so far, it does not seem as though the public thinks he has done well at his job.”

    That is because a large contingent in the mass media (I am talking about Fox News and Rush Limbaugh et al.) have been on a crusade to destroy this man. Frankly, I’m surprised that you folks have not assassinated him by now, considering all the heat that has been packed at his town halls, and all the hatred of the man on a daily basis, on this very blog too.

    And Dana you keep claiming the Repub mandate from the 2010 elections, but ignore the mandate that Obama and the Dems won in 2006 and 2008. Instead of working toward a functioning government, especially in these troubled times, you folks have made top priority keeping President Obama to one term. And you folks think of yourselves as patriots? Far from it!!! A better word would be subversives – that is the way you folks have been behaving.

    Interesting that you wingnuts do not mention a word about Congress’s favorable ratings, less than 20% favorable; President Obama’s are more than double that. Yet you talk about President Obama’s record only. What about Congress’s record, Dana? Doesn’t that count. Is Congress not accountable as well?

    Thus there is absolutely no integrity among the wingnuts on this blog on this issue, none!!!

  41. Mr Hitchcock wrote:

    I love how the radical Left continue with the lie that Republicans are stealing elections with money when the data show the Democrats being the top money-getters and money-givers, politically.

    In the New York 9th Congressional District special election, the Democrats, when they realized that their man wasn’t a shoe-in, poured a quick half-million into that campaign, far outspending the Republicans, but they still lost. Jon Corzine, multi-multi-millionaire, poured millions of his own money into winning a Senate seat, and then the gubernatorial seat in new Jersey, but when it came time for him to run for a full term — he won initially in a special election after Jim McGreevey resigned — was beaten by Chris Christie, who had far less money.

    The most money does not always buy the victory.

  42. “I love how the radical Left continue with the lie that Republicans are stealing elections with money when the data show the Democrats being the top money-getters and money-givers, politically.”

    Citation please!

  43. Perry is really agitated tonight!

    “But it ain’t 2008. President Obama will be going into the 2012 election with an actual record on which the voters can judge his ability to be President. At least so far, it does not seem as though the public thinks he has done well at his job.”

    That is because a large contingent in the mass media (I am talking about Fox News and Rush Limbaugh et al.) have been on a crusade to destroy this man. Frankly, I’m surprised that you folks have not assassinated him by now, considering all the heat that has been packed at his town halls, and all the hatred of the man on a daily basis, on this very blog too.

    Perry, it doesn’t matter what Fox News and Rush Limbaugh say; if President Obama had a strong record, he’d be re-elected. If we had reasonable economic growth and unemployment was going down at a noticeable rate, it wouldn’t matter what Fox said, or what I wrote on this blog; the President would have far more support.

    What you are finding, Perry, is that, partisan arguments aside, the man’s record counts. It doesn’t matter what you say would have happened without the stimulus plan; what matters is that unemployment is 9.1% That’s the number you just can’t hide. If it was 6.1%, all of the things Rush Limbaugh might say wouldn’t make one bit of difference; people would still see that 6.1%.

    And now we find out that we’re all just closet assassins, to boot! Well, I guess when one set of accusations doesn’t get you the results you want, it’s time to turn up the stridency a bit further, and see if something else will stick.

  44. Dana Pico says:
    3 October 2011 at 06:47

    Do they believe that the President can turn it around, or are they at least harboring the Dump Obama, Run Hillary thoughts that have sprung up elsewhere among Democrats?

    That’s been my thought for over a month or more now.

  45. Perry, stop with your “citation please” nonsense. Go up in this thread and look at the chart. See for yourself who the big-money people are and where that big money goes. You have eyes, yet you refuse to see; ears, yet you refuse to hear.

  46. Nah, Dana. Perry has already declared me a terrorist. He is so shrill that he’s a standing joke now. Practically nothing he writes marks the mind of a sane man; practically everything he writes suggests the opposite. But that’s the new way for the insane to “bridge gaps,” by calling people terrorists and closet assassins.

  47. Perry sez:
    That is because a large contingent in the mass media (I am talking about Fox News and Rush Limbaugh et al.) have been on a crusade to destroy this man. Frankly, I’m surprised that you folks have not assassinated him by now, considering all the heat that has been packed at his town halls, and all the hatred of the man on a daily basis, on this very blog too.

    IMO, It was fairly easy Perry. BO cooperated in his own destruction beyond everyone’s expectations.

  48. “Nah, Dana. Perry has already declared me a terrorist.”

    And an assassin, unpatriotic, subversive, racist and on an on.

    But check our what Chris “Tingles” Matthews put out tonight: Speaking about what happens if Obambi looses in 2012…..

    “Tea Partiers and neocons…celebrating the death penalty, elevating torture, ending environmental protection as we know it, breaking unions, punishing gays, starting more wars, and enacting one more giant tax cut for the rich – or worse”

    Sounds like Perry has become Tingles writer.

  49. “Perry, stop with your “citation please” nonsense. Go up in this thread and look at the chart. See for yourself who the big-money people are and where that big money goes. You have eyes, yet you refuse to see; ears, yet you refuse to hear.”

    You supplied no citation for that chart, Hitchcock. Based on your reputation for lack of integrity and propagandizing, of course I need a citation to see what funds are covered in that chart. So where is your citation?

  50. Do they believe that the President can turn it around, or are they at least harboring the Dump Obama, Run Hillary thoughts that have sprung up elsewhere among Democrats? >dp

    ++++++++++++++++++++++

    The other side of the coin is, there has to be a Repub candidate who can defeat him in the general, even as unpopular as Obama might be (and there’s no guarantee that attitude will prevail until next November).

    Which of your RW bozos could beat him? Who is your champion?

    There’s a long list of things he has done/not done that I don’t like, but he still is not a moron — he doesn’t question evolution or global warming. He doesn’t go hunting at Niggerhead Rock. I think y’all are just too much Repub primary types to perceive reality.

    Will the Supremes decide before Nov 2012 on the health care issue [mandate]? That could take a lot of the crazy out of the election, whichever way they decide.

  51. Perry, the only people who accuse me of having a lack of integrity are the known Leftist Liars around here. And you have been proven to be a radical Leftist Liar time and time again over here, so you can stuff it. Liar.

  52. Thus there is absolutely no integrity among the wingnuts on this blog on this issue, none!!!

    Right. Says the man with the gall to name is visitor-less blog “Bridging the Gap.”

    If it’s so distasteful, here’s what you do: Leave.

  53. Perry loses it (again):

    That is because a large contingent in the mass media (I am talking about Fox News and Rush Limbaugh et al.) have been on a crusade to destroy this man. Frankly, I’m surprised that you folks have not assassinated him by now, considering all the heat that has been packed at his town halls, and all the hatred of the man on a daily basis, on this very blog too.

    Uh huh. Guess you’re forgetting about a certain time frame, namely 2001-2008. Surprise that, huh?

    You’re the walking, talking personification of the term “joke,” Perry.

  54. BB wrote:

    The other side of the coin is, there has to be a Repub candidate who can defeat him in the general, even as unpopular as Obama might be (and there’s no guarantee that attitude will prevail until next November).

    Which of your RW bozos could beat him? Who is your champion?

    There’s a long list of things he has done/not done that I don’t like, but he still is not a moron — he doesn’t question evolution or global warming. He doesn’t go hunting at Niggerhead Rock. I think y’all are just too much Repub primary types to perceive reality.

    This is a statement based upon your caricatures of the Republican candidates, not reality. My friends on the left like to claim that Rick Perry’s record is nothing, is overrated, is whatever, but when the voters have to look at the records, and note that Texas led the nation in job creation by a very wide margin, they will be looking at that, not the demagoguery that is coming from the Democrats.

    The voters tend to look at reality far more than caricatures.

  55. And Perry points out how “radical” it is to be against Obambi. Meanwhile, Roseanne Barr shows “liberal sanity” on Russia Today:

    “I first would allow the guilty bankers to pay, you know, the ability to pay back anything over $100 million [of] personal wealth because I believe in a maximum wage of $100 million. And if they are unable to live on that amount of that amount then they should, you know, go to the reeducation camps and if that doesn’t help, then being beheaded,” Barr said with a straight face.

    Yes, you guys are so compassionate. I say that with a straight face too.

  56. “And Perry points out how “radical” it is to be against Obambi. “

    That’s right, Hoagie. Instead of us working together to resolve our fiscal and monetary problems and create jobs, your party has in effect isolated itself from the administration. You have stated that your first priority is to unseat President Obama. You have favored a do-nothing approach in Congress. And your no-tax increase pledged position has continued to put the burden on the middle and poor Americans. This is my definition of RADICAL, Hoagie.

    What has taken 25 years of a debt fueled economy and fraud to create is not going to go away in a few short years, Hoagie:

    “The United States is in a very tough spot, economically and politically. The 25-year debt-fueled boom of 1982-2007 has ended, and it has left the country with a stagnant economy, massive debts, high unemployment, huge wealth inequality, an enormous budget deficit, and a sense of entitlement engendered by a half-century of prosperity.

    After decades of instant gratification, Americans have also come to believe that all problems can be solved instantly, if only the right leaders are put in charge and the right decisions are made. And so our government has devolved into a permanent election campaign, in which incumbents blame each other for the current mess, and challengers promise change.

    The trouble is that our current problems cannot be solved with a simple fix. They also cannot be solved quickly. It took 25 years for us to get to this point, and it will likely take us at least a decade or two to work our way out of it, even if we make the right decisions.”

    In other words, you have placed unrealistic expectations on our government, the middle, and the poor to resolve this crisis, all for your political gain. You have refused to take accountability for your part in causing this crisis. That, Hoagie, is radical! And I might add, to witness major media outlets, such as Fox News and Rush Limbaugh et al, carry out personal attacks on our President and vilify the man and his party, just like what happens on this blog on a daily basis, yes Hoagie, that is radical as well.

    Read the link, Hoagie.

  57. Perry loses it (again):

    That is because a large contingent in the mass media (I am talking about Fox News and Rush Limbaugh et al.) have been on a crusade to destroy this man. Frankly, I’m surprised that you folks have not assassinated him by now, considering all the heat that has been packed at his town halls, and all the hatred of the man on a daily basis, on this very blog too.

    Uh huh. Guess you’re forgetting about a certain time frame, namely 2001-2008. Surprise that, huh?

    You’re the walking, talking personification of the term “joke,” Perry.

    Hube, you and Hitchcock are without question the worst haters I have ever encountered. Rather than dealing with the issues and our disagreements, both of you lace your rhetoric with personal attacks, constantly. You two otherwise intelligent individuals have no concept of how weak you both appear to be, with your childish, schoolyard behavior, which is actually a pathology when exhibited as adults, because it has become an out-of-control compulsion. No wonder you two have problems with interpersonal relationships.

  58. “Nah, Dana. Perry has already declared me a terrorist. He is so shrill that he’s a standing joke now. Practically nothing he writes marks the mind of a sane man; practically everything he writes suggests the opposite. But that’s the new way for the insane to “bridge gaps,” by calling people terrorists and closet assassins.”

    Flashing those photos of unattributed, mangled fetuses was certainly an act of terrorism, Hitchcock. The fact that you don’t own up to it is on you! No sane and compassionate person would ever do that, which is exactly the same thing as those who line the entrance of clinics flashing the same pictures in the face of women who are entering. There are compassionate ways to approach these women who are in great distress. Where is your compassion, John?

    The rest of your insane tirade of hatred is just that, insane. Why cannot we just discuss our differences without your constantly resorting to your childish invectives? Get control of yourself, John!

    Now back to the topic, where is the citation for your chart, John?

  59. Hoagie quotes Chris Matthews:

    “Tea Partiers and neocons…celebrating the death penalty, elevating torture, ending environmental protection as we know it, breaking unions, punishing gays, starting more wars, and enacting one more giant tax cut for the rich – or worse”

    You do agree that Matthews is correct, don’t you Hoagie?

  60. Fist off Perry, I read your link and though I don’t buy it all most makes a great deal of sense to me.

    Now to respond to your assertions
    1.”…. you have placed unrealistic expectations on our government, the middle, and the poor to resolve this crisis, all for your political gain.”

    I have done no such thing. I specifically stated more than once it is all the citizens duty to join together and work together. It is not I who employs class warfare, my friend. And if telling the government to level spending, reduce hireing and cut waste, fraud and abuse is “unrealistic expectations” then we should stop the discussion right now.

    2.”You have refused to take accountability for your part in causing this crisis. That, Hoagie, is radical!”

    If you are referring to me personally, I had no part in causing the crisis. I’ve always been a fair employer and fiscally sound in my personal and business decisions. If you’re saying “my party”, then you know I have stated many, many times this spending/taxing/borrowing/printing and regulating crap is the result ofboth parties.

    3.”And I might add, to witness major media outlets, such as Fox News and Rush Limbaugh et al, carry out personal attacks on our President and vilify the man and his party, just like what happens on this blog on a daily basis, yes Hoagie, that is radical as well.”

    First off, in case you don’t know, Rush Limbaugh is not a “major media outlet”, he is a radion commontator and an entertainer. Secondly, how many other major media outlets that operate on the right other than Fox are there? Whattsamatter, one lone voice in the wilderness is one too many? So by your standard the WSJ is a radicl rag because it dosen’t tow the line with the NY Times or Washington Poste, right? Thirdly, when it comes to villification no one on the left can talk after we listened to 8 years of “Bush Lied”, Bushitler and every other slur you clowns could muster. Even as we now cannot open our mouths without being called names like “racist” or whatever. Give me a break and open yourr eyes.

    4. “Instead of us working together to resolve our fiscal and monetary problems and create jobs, your party has in effect isolated itself from the administration.”

    As I have explained more than once Perry, the administration does not create jobs the private sector does. And as long as the administration targets and threatens the private sector jobs won’t happen.

    5. “You have stated that your first priority is to unseat President Obama.”

    That is our first POLITICAL priority Perry, not our first economic, military, social or personal priority. We, unlike you, can discern between different priorities which is why we can run businesses-different priorities for different objectives.

    6. ” And your no-tax increase pledged position has continued to put the burden on the middle and poor Americans. This is my definition of RADICAL, Hoagie.”

    A no tax increase pledge is because Perry, the last thing you want to do in a recession is raise taxes”. That includes on individuals, business and in the form of tarriffs. Have you ever heard the line “if you want less of something-tax it”? Well, Perry, if you want less investment, spending, growth, expansion etc., then tax it. Taxing people who are already in a recession is MY deffinition of RADICAL, Perry. Not to mention, stupid.

  61. Hube, you and Hitchcock are without question the worst haters I have ever encountered. Rather than dealing with the issues and our disagreements, both of you lace your rhetoric with personal attacks, constantly. You two otherwise intelligent individuals have no concept of how weak you both appear to be, with your childish, schoolyard behavior, which is actually a pathology when exhibited as adults, because it has become an out-of-control compulsion. No wonder you two have problems with interpersonal relationships.

    A lot of words that, in the end, are useless.

    How do you know we have trouble with interpersonal relationships? (Why do you beat your wife, Perry? Why do you drive her insane with your constant repetition?) On the contrary, the only relationship we have trouble with is with you because you’re a hypocritical fraud. Just like Mike Matthews and Steve Newton do. I guess that’s their fault, too, never yours … as usual.

    As for us being the worst you’ve ever encountered, you must not own a mirror, then.

  62. Flashing those photos of unattributed, mangled fetuses was certainly an act of terrorism, Hitchcock.

    Yet another example of your encroaching insanity, old man.

  63. “On the contrary, the only relationship we have trouble with is with you because you’re a hypocritical fraud. Just like Mike Matthews and Steve Newton do.”

    I should have responded to this remark weeks ago, because it is false. I had disagreements with Steve Newton on issues, but we had a cordial on-line relationship. To relate his behavior to yours is wrong, because yours is pathetic, Steve’s was exemplary. I have great respect for him, little for you Hube, I’m sorry to say.

    And regarding your not having interpersonal relationship problems, you know you have, so you are being untruthful. I’ll leave it at that.

    You are two-faced Hube. When we had lunch, you were pleasant and cordial, whereas on-line, you are nasty and hateful. And it is not just on here; ask the regulars on Delaware Liberal what they think of your behavior.

    I ask again, why can’t we just stick to debating the issues, without all this other personal stuff being injected? Answer that simple question for me, Hube.

  64. I had disagreements with Steve Newton on issues, but we had a cordial on-line relationship.

    Except for the fact that he felt the need to call you out on your bullshit now, didn’t he? Why is that, I wonder? Not to mention Mike Matthews.

    And regarding your not having interpersonal relationship problems, you know you have, so you are being untruthful.

    Citation please! You don’t have any proof. How I relate to you on here is hardly proof, since all I am doing is responding to you in kind. For you, it’s called “demented denial.”

    You are two-faced Hube. When we had lunch, you were pleasant and cordial, whereas on-line, you are nasty and hateful.

    I could say the same to you, Perry.

    And it is not just on here; ask the regulars on Delaware Liberal what they think of your behavior.

    And this just goes to show how far gone you are. Delaware Liberal?? The site that uses every four letter word in the book on a daily basis? The site that advocated shooting all Republicans? The site that engages in Trutherism? The site that bans every and anyone who dissents from their view even a bit? If they despise me, I wear that with a big badge of honor. They are the most hateful peons in the blogosphere, aside from Kos and D.U., whom they love to emulate.

    The fact that you do not recognize them for such once again proves you could care not one iota about gap-bridging, you shriveled fraud. You’re a narcissist who blames everything on everybody else, perpetually blameless and who thinks that anyone who does not share your view on a matter makes him “extreme,” “hateful,” and “radical.” Etc.

    Kiss my ass.

  65. “And if telling the government to level spending, reduce hireing and cut waste, fraud and abuse is “unrealistic expectations” then we should stop the discussion right now.”

    All this without having addressing revenues on the table, Hoagie, amounts to putting all the burden on the middle and poor. This is not right.

    On Fox News and Rush Limbaugh et al, both are major media outlets. Fox News dominates cable and network TV, and Rush et al dominates the radio air waves. I would think you would know that, Hoagie.

    On creating jobs, the administration and Congress are in a position to help create the climate for job growth in the private sector. In the public sector, these two do indeed create jobs. But I do agree, we need to put emphasis on streamlining our government by being more efficient and by eliminating unneeded programs.

    “That is our first POLITICAL priority Perry, not our first economic, military, social or personal priority. We, unlike you, can discern between different priorities which is why we can run businesses-different priorities for different objectives. “

    I wish this were true, Hoagie, but it is not. Especially since your party took over the House, your party has refused to work with the President, which is why they are called a “do-nothing Congress”.

    “A no tax increase pledge is because Perry, the last thing you want to do in a recession is raise taxes”. That includes on individuals, business and in the form of tarriffs.”

    I recently read that if we bring tax levels back to the prosperous Clinton years, in ten years we will have raised sufficient revenue to pay down about $4 trillion of our national debt. I will search further for the citation. Moreover, Hoagie, I do not think it is out of line to ask the upper income folks like yourself to share more of the burden at this time. The Clinton income tax levels make sense to me.

  66. And regarding your not having interpersonal relationship problems, you know you have, so you are being untruthful.

    Oh, and BTW — if you are insinuating here what I think you may be, you’d better be VERY careful, Perry. VERY careful. And if you’re wondering if this is what you think it is, the answer is “yes.”

  67. There’s a long list of things he has done/not done that I don’t like, but he still is not a moron — he doesn’t question evolution or global warming. He doesn’t go hunting at Niggerhead Rock. I think y’all are just too much Repub primary types to perceive reality.>bb

    This is a statement based upon your caricatures of the Republican candidates, not reality. >dp

    ++++++++++++++

    ??? To the contrary, all three assertions I made above are from fresh news stories. If that’s caricature, then Perry is doing it to himself.

    Small Correction: It’s Niggerhead Ranch, not Niggerhead Rock — the big rock is where the name ‘Niggerhead’ used to be painted.

    How can a person be that dumb / provincial in this era? Does ‘dumb’ even matter to a Repub voter? Maybe it does matter to some, Perry is currently somewhat down in the polling.

  68. Especially since your party took over the House, your party has refused to work with the President, which is why they are called a “do-nothing Congress”.

    Another lie. For, how did that budget deal come about, pray tell? Oh, right — that “do-nothing” Congress worked with President Obama.

  69. Hey, burninbush, you do realize that in the 1980s when all this allegedly happened (and much of it is inaccurate allegation in an attempt to personally destroy the man, as Leftists will always do to their enemies), Rick Perry was a Democrat, right? You do realize Rick Perry was a big guy in the Texas Democrats’ attempt to get Al Gore the President job in the 1980s, right?

    Yeah, a little research goes a long way.

  70. “Except for the fact that he (Steve Newton) felt the need to call you out on your bullshit now, didn’t he?”

    Of course, feel free to call me on my “bullshit”, Hube, just cut out the personal attacks, if you can, but you cannot, which is my point.

    “I could say the same to you, Perry.”

    No, Hube, you could not and still be truthful, which I understand is a demonstrated challenge for you!

    “The site that advocated shooting all Republicans?”

    “The site”? I’ve never seen that. I cannot imagine Pandora, or Unstable Isotope, or Delaware Dem, or el Som, or Cassandra_M, or LiberalGeek, or Nemski would say that. You are exaggerating well beyond all credibility.

    “And this just goes to show how far gone you are. Delaware Liberal?? The site that uses every four letter word in the book on a daily basis?”

    You are a fine one to say this, Hube. Like I’ve said many times, we are all hypocrites, you too for sure!

    “You’re a narcissist who blames everything on everybody else, perpetually blameless and who thinks that anyone who does not share your view on a matter makes him “extreme,” “hateful,” and “radical.” Etc.

    Kiss my ass.”

    And this is not hateful, Hube? You have deep personal problems that need attention! Your behavior is a disgrace to this CSPT site. You should leave!

  71. Perry: And regarding your not having interpersonal relationship problems, you know you have, so you are being untruthful.

    Hube: Oh, and BTW — if you are insinuating here what I think you may be, you’d better be VERY careful, Perry. VERY careful. And if you’re wondering if this is what you think it is, the answer is “yes.”

    I have to say, threatening people over the Internet if they mention your probkems with interpersonal relations is about the best evidence around for, well, probkems with interpersonal relations.

    *snicker*

  72. “Another lie. For, how did that budget deal come about, pray tell? Oh, right — that “do-nothing” Congress worked with President Obama.”

    Right, your party got burned in the polls for the debt ceiling hostage taking, so they knuckled under on this one issue. My statement was meant to be general, therefore is generally true. Where do you think the name “do-nothing” and “dysfunctional” comes from?

  73. Fox News dominates cable and network TV,

    Try cable only. Another Perry lie.

    No, I meant exactly what I said. If you think I am wrong, prove it Hube!


  74. And regarding your not having interpersonal relationship problems, you know you have, so you are being untruthful.

    Oh, and BTW — if you are insinuating here what I think you may be, you’d better be VERY careful, Perry. VERY careful. And if you’re wondering if this is what you think it is, the answer is “yes.”"

    Are you now making a threat, Hube? You better be very careful yourself, because now you are bordering on instability and uncertainty.

  75. I have to say, threatening people over the Internet if they mention your probkems with interpersonal relations is about the best evidence around for, well, probkems with interpersonal relations.

    You mean like always mentioning you have a girlfriend, Phoe?

    *snicker*

  76. Are you now making a threat, Hube?

    You read what I wrote. I stand by it. I advise you to heed it.

    No, I meant exactly what I said. If you think I am wrong, prove it Hube!

    YOU made the claim. Provide the substantiation.

    Right, your party got burned in the polls for the debt ceiling hostage taking, so they knuckled under on this one issue.

    IOW, they made a deal. I guess when Obama deals then, that he ALSO is knuckling under because he reads the polls?

    “The site”? I’ve never seen that. I cannot imagine Pandora, or Unstable Isotope, or Delaware Dem, or el Som, or Cassandra_M, or LiberalGeek, or Nemski would say that. You are exaggerating well beyond all credibility.

    All documented at Colossus, and then some. Once again, you’re proven wrong. Again and again and again.

    Your behavior is a disgrace to this CSPT site. You should leave!

    Quack, heal thyself, first.

  77. For the 2007-2008 season, ABC.com came out on top, followed closely by NBC.com. CBS.com came in third and FOX.com rounded out the top four. Linky

    Not precisely what you wanted but my googling skills are not precisely what I want, either.

    But since it is your claim, Perry, that FOX News outpulls the networks, being ABC News, NBC News, CBS News, it is your responsibility to provide the proof to your claim, not someone else’s responsibility to provide the proof otherwise. This is your constant tactic, to make an outrageous assertion and then require everyone else to do your homework for you to prove you wrong.

    No, Perry, it is your job to provide the Neilsen Ratings for ABC News, NBC News, CBS News and show they’re lower than FOX News. But you cannot do it because the Big Three networks have more viewers than the cable FOX News Network.

  78. Perry wrote:

    Flashing those photos of unattributed, mangled fetuses was certainly an act of terrorism, Hitchcock.

    This, of course, follows his statement that:

    Frankly, I’m surprised that you folks have not assassinated him by now, considering all the heat that has been packed at his town halls, and all the hatred of the man on a daily basis, on this very blog too.

    And, of course, we can’t forget this:

    Hatred of Obama: Is Race a Factor? I definitely think it is, otherwise how does one explain the outright unabashed hatred of President Obama coming from regions and from those who have a history of racial prejudices, and coming from a popular right wing radio host who makes no bones about his hatred for Obama, and his racist outlook, both in general and specifically.

    So, for Perry, if someone opposes President Obama, he is a racist, if someone tells the truth about abortion, he is a terrorist, and all of us on the right are really potential assassins.

  79. So, for Perry, if someone opposes President Obama, he is a racist, if someone tells the truth about abortion, he is a terrorist, and all of us on the right are really potential assassins.

    Let’s not forget for Perry, all Republicans are radicals, all TEA Party activists are extremists. And he has the audacity to call that “gap bridging”.

  80. Also, duly elected Governors and Legislators who work within the confines of the Laws of the Constitutional Republic and the Laws of the State are “dictators” when they don’t do as Perry wishes, even when by working within the confines of the Laws of the Constitutional Republic and the Laws of the State, the Governors and Legislators save the State and Localities tens of millions of dollars in tax-payer money.

  81. “So, for Perry, if someone opposes President Obama, he is a racist, if someone tells the truth about abortion, he is a terrorist, and all of us on the right are really potential assassins.”

    No Dana, your conclusion here does not represent what I am saying or about whom I am talking.

    On terrorism, I was speaking specifically of Hitchcock’s behavior re those unattributed mangled fetus photos which he posted. I can tell that you are not sensitive to that, perhaps because you are not a woman in distress trying to figure out the right thing to do for herself. I wonder what your wife would say? Would you be one flashing such a photo in the face of such a woman, Dana?

    On racism, are you trying to tell me, Dana, that racism is no longer alive in America? Then consider what someone other than I, Jim Wallis, senses about this:

    “But fourth — and importantly — there was, and is still, a hard core of racially-motivated white people in this nation who did vote against Obama because he is black, and who virulently oppose him as president because he is black. And that racist core of angry white Americans resides on the extreme political right of U.S. politics. The far-right wing in America has never supported racial equality. Their political representatives voted against both the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965, and most have never repented of it. And, let’s be honest, the loudest voices of right-wing talk radio and cable television appeal directly to that core with subtle and not-so-subtle racial messages, as has the right-wing of the Republican Party for many years.”

    I stand by my point, and note it present on your blog, though I have no proof, because few racists would ever outright admit it.

    On the assassination subject, how else can one explain the behavior and mentality of an anti-Obama person who would show up at one of his rally’s with weapons clearly on display? Why would the secret service keep close watch on these people? What would it take for one to go over the edge? Would you be one who would go to an Obama rally with a visable weapon on display.

    Come on, Dana, don’t play this holier-than-thou game with me, pretending to be in denial of these sensitive issues being prevalent among political and religious extremists on your side of the aisle, several of whom participate on your blog on a daily basis.

    And finally, I cannot help but note that you choose to call attention to some controversial issues that I raise, yet do not bring up the extreme behavior of several Righties on this blog who are on your side of the political aisle. Couldn’t be that your behavior is politically motivated, could it Dana, instead of being motivated by first principles? You are demonstrably quite selective when you decide to call someone out. You don’t even live up to your own stated guidelines on your own blog. Not impressive, but to be expected in the polarized environment in which we live! Don’t forget to fasten your seat belt! :)

  82. I stand by my point, and note it present on your blog, though I have no proof…

    Perry “stands by it” and notes “it’s present on this blog” … but there’s no proof.

    Nicely done there, Per.

  83. You are demonstrably quite selective when you decide to call someone out.

    And this differs from you how, Perry?

    You don’t even live up to your own stated guidelines on your own blog.

    Nevertheless he went out of his way to get you your own blog now, didn’t he? Instead of constantly complaining, maybe you ought to demonstrate just a little gratitude.

  84. You keep using the term “unattributed” when you know for a fact that I provided a link to where I got those photos. You keep using the term “terrorism” when the photos do not at all rise to the level of terrorism. In both instances, you have been demonstrably proven a liar.

    “The site”? I’ve never seen that. I cannot imagine Pandora, or Unstable Isotope, or Delaware Dem, or el Som, or Cassandra_M, or LiberalGeek, or Nemski would say that. You are exaggerating well beyond all credibility.

    And Hube linked to examples. Where is your mea culpa, Perry? I seriously doubt you’ll have one because you’re a demonstrably proven liar.

    And where is the proof that the Big Three broadcast network news programs pull in fewer viewers than the top Cable news program? You cannot provide proof for that outrageous assertion because you know the proof is the exact opposite of your claims. Again, you are a demonstrably proven liar and propagandist.

  85. Hey, burninbush, you do realize that in the 1980s when all this allegedly happened (and much of it is inaccurate allegation in an attempt to personally destroy the man, as Leftists will always do to their enemies), Rick Perry was a Democrat, right? >JH

    +++++++++++++++++++++

    LOL — but it’s in the news today, go figure. I saw a picture of the rock just yesterday.

    Here’s some fresh news: Christy has just officially declined to run — another RW champion backs away from the heat. So, I think it’s gonna be Romney for your side, and all we’ll have to do to defeat him is to point out how much he is like Harry Reid. Or Hitler.

    Four more years!

  86. Burninbush, your claim that the Moderate with a Backbone, Chris Christie, is a “right-wing” champion is laughable. Sure, he’s the best New Jersey could hope for, but gun-grabbers (for one) are not “right-wing” champions.

    And your ‘it’s in the news today, go figure’ business just goes to show you how deep a draught of the Kool-Aid you have taken. Why wasn’t it “in the news” when it happened? Was it because he was a Democrat and besides, it wasn’t newsworthy to begin with? And why is the “news” of it today so full of erroneous “reporting”? Is it because he’s now a Republican and a threat to the Socialist Democrat in the Oval Office, and the radical Left has to resort to character assassination instead of discussing policy and Teh Won’s actual record?

  87. “You keep using the term “unattributed” when you know for a fact that I provided a link to where I got those photos. You keep using the term “terrorism” when the photos do not at all rise to the level of terrorism. In both instances, you have been demonstrably proven a liar.”

    Sorry, Hitchcock, but when my opinion is not the same as yours, that does not make either of us to be “liars”. But you always say that, characteristic of absolutists, of which you are demonstrably one.

    “And Hube linked to examples. Where is your mea culpa, Perry? I seriously doubt you’ll have one because you’re a demonstrably proven liar.”

    Several examples does not constitute a “site”, John. Hube has had an ongoing feud with Delaware Liberal, and they with him, for a long time. It is similar to the feud I have with him on this blog, and you too, just so you understand. No mea culpa is necessary.

    “And where is the proof that the Big Three broadcast network news programs pull in fewer viewers than the top Cable news program? You cannot provide proof for that outrageous assertion because you know the proof is the exact opposite of your claims. Again, you are a demonstrably proven liar and propagandist.”

    No, I don’t know that, John. Please prove it!

  88. Of course, Perry makes outrageous assertions and demands other people do his homework for him because he does not want to even attempt to back up his outrageous assertions.

    And of course, Hube provided links proving Perry dead wrong about Delaware Liberal and Perry is not man enough to admit he was dead wrong. Because having eyes, Perry refuses to see; having ears, Perry refuses to hear the Truth that defeats his hyper-partisan propaganda.

    Of course, it is the height of dishonesty for Perry to continue as he does, even as he has been called out by Liberals, Libertarians, Conservatives. But I don’t expect any honor out of Perry, because he has not shown any.

  89. Several examples does not constitute a “site”, John.

    Oh, of course not. You just listed all the contributors and I linked to several of them to show that I wasn’t “exaggerating well beyond all credibility.” But now you backtrack by saying “Hube has had an ongoing feud with Delaware Liberal, and they with him, for a long time. It is similar to the feud I have with him on this blog, and you too, just so you understand.” But why didn’t you say that in the first place? You initially excoriated my behavior here by saying “And it is not just on here; ask the regulars on Delaware Liberal what they think of your behavior. What sense does it make to ask them when I’ve never blogged with the pure hatred that they do, nor use the profanity that they do? It’s not even close.

    Y’see, Perry, when you initially began commenting at Colossus, things were pretty civil between us even though we disagreed. But then you began pulling your usual antics — the same antics which drew rebukes from Mike Matthews and Steve Newton — and you got all upset when I called you on it. Just like Matthews and Newton did. The difference between them and I is that I had to deal with your antics a lot longer. Which means I ultimately resorted to harsher language in my rebukes than they had to. (And believe me, had you continued at Matthews’ site, you’d have gotten a lot worse from him than me.)

    The bottom line is you want your cake and eat it too. You think distinctions without a difference make you “above the fray.” You can call Dana, Hitch and I “radicals,” “haters,” “racists,” etc. by referring to “you righties” or whatever the term du jure is, but then get upset when we call you an “idiot,” “fossil,” or whatever. Most reasonable people see that there is a distinction w/o a real difference, Perry. If you feel it wrong for us to call you (one-to-one) an “idiot,” why is it not wrong to refer to us collectively as “racists, “haters,” etc.? You certainly get no debating points for being “less direct;” it just makes you look incredibly petty when you say those things, and then bitch about people engaging in “personal attacks.” You just don’t get it — and I doubt you ever will. That is your problem; not the problem of others.

    As for my “threat” above, you were once privy to some personal information about me a couple years back, info that I actually had an argument with Hitch about that got pretty heated. If you were referencing that, then that is the basis for my response. If not, there is nothing to worry about. You’ve taken the low road before by bringing some of my family members into our political/one-to-one discussions; like then, and always, these are out of bounds. I’ve never brought your family into anything to do with CSPT or Colossus and never will — unless you force my hand. Just keep that in mind, big man.

  90. No, I don’t know that, John. Please prove it!

    Do you even read the threads you participate in, Perry? Hitch proved it several comments up — that Fox News does not beat the Big Three news networks. This is precisely what I was talking about — you go round and round and round, no matter how often you’re proven wrong … even when people do exactly as you demand !! And then you have the balls to get all self-righteous and uppity when people point this out to you?

    And you really have the nerve to tell others that they need help??

  91. Perry’s MO: Make an outrageous assertion then, when called on it, order everyone else to prove him wrong, never actually doing the work himself and finding out for himself his outrageous assertion is dead wrong. Perry’s MO, as stated, can be seen all over this blog site. It’s a typical passive-aggressive action, among many typical passive-aggressive actions Perry deploys.

  92. Perry wrote:

    “So, for Perry, if someone opposes President Obama, he is a racist, if someone tells the truth about abortion, he is a terrorist, and all of us on the right are really potential assassins.”

    No Dana, your conclusion here does not represent what I am saying or about whom I am talking.

    On terrorism, I was speaking specifically of Hitchcock’s behavior re those unattributed mangled fetus photos which he posted. I can tell that you are not sensitive to that, perhaps because you are not a woman in distress trying to figure out the right thing to do for herself. I wonder what your wife would say? Would you be one flashing such a photo in the face of such a woman, Dana?

    If I believed it would work, yes. As it happens, I doubt that such is our most effective argument, but if after the other arguments have been tried, and failed, then what Mr Hitchcock did, which was to post a photograph of the results of abortion, which was to tell the truth, might work.

    That a woman is “in distress” because she is pregnant and does not wish to be is sad, but it is not so sad, nor so threatening, that another person should have to pay for it with his life.

    On racism, are you trying to tell me, Dana, that racism is no longer alive in America? Then consider what someone other than I, Jim Wallis, senses about this:

    “But fourth — and importantly — there was, and is still, a hard core of racially-motivated white people in this nation who did vote against Obama because he is black, and who virulently oppose him as president because he is black. And that racist core of angry white Americans resides on the extreme political right of U.S. politics. The far-right wing in America has never supported racial equality. Their political representatives voted against both the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965, and most have never repented of it. And, let’s be honest, the loudest voices of right-wing talk radio and cable television appeal directly to that core with subtle and not-so-subtle racial messages, as has the right-wing of the Republican Party for many years.”

    I stand by my point, and note it present on your blog, though I have no proof, because few racists would ever outright admit it.

    And how many people voted for Barack Obama because he is (half) black? You see, if you attribute some of the votes against Mr Obama because he is black as racism, then it’s clear that votes for Mr Obama, because he is (half) black are racism as well; both would be decisions taken on the basis of race.

    But you do far more: when we make arguments against President Obama’s policies, you seem to assume that those arguments are based on racism, as though we would somehow support his policies if he was white.

    Look at Herman Cain, a Republican candidate who is (not half) black, coming from nowhere to win the Florida straw poll, and if it is unlikely he will win the nomination, he’s attracting some support, because he worked his way up from poverty and has been a successful businessman, and because he is a better speaker than most of the other candidates. He is attracting support and admiration because a lot of us agree with his positions on the issues, not because he is black.

    On the assassination subject, how else can one explain the behavior and mentality of an anti-Obama person who would show up at one of his rally’s with weapons clearly on display? Why would the secret service keep close watch on these people? What would it take for one to go over the edge? Would you be one who would go to an Obama rally with a visable weapon on display.

    You are getting ridiculous: anyone who showed up at a rally where the President was present with a visible weapon would quickly be arrested. And if someone was actually going to attempt to shoot the President, a visible weapon is the last thing he’d want; he’d want some way to take his shot without interference, and going in packing visible heat ain’t the way to do that.

    And you’ve been reading this blog for some time now, and you know, as certainly as anyone, that our intention is to defeat President Obama at the polls. You’ll note that Mr Hitchcock, in one of the earliest comments on this thread, noted that he didn’t want President Obama to decide not to run, because he believes that President Obama will be a down-ticket drag, taking more Democrats down to defeat than would be the case without him; why would someone who thought that want to “assassinate” President Obama?

    In all of this time, you have somehow managed to create caricatures of your political opponents, and then started believing the caricatures to be reality. After all this time, you have demonstrated one thing, very clearly, and that is that you do not understand conservatives at all.

  93. No, I don’t know that, John. Please prove it!

    Do you even read the threads you participate in, Perry? Hitch proved it several comments up — that Fox News does not beat the Big Three news networks. This is precisely what I was talking about — you go round and round and round, no matter how often you’re proven wrong … even when people do exactly as you demand !! And then you have the balls to get all self-righteous and uppity when people point this out to you?

    And you really have the nerve to tell others that they need help??

    My question to you, Hube, is do you read the threads and and links carefully? The answer is no, because you will note here that Hitchcock and I were talking about TV news, whereas Hitchcock’s so called proof, according to you, was referring to “touches” on the major networks. So Hitchcock offered no proof, and you repeated his error.

    I look forward to your acknowledgement of your error and your apology, Hube.

  94. PS: Note that Hitchcock makes the same error, his not even knowing the content of his own link, and forgetting the exact point of our debate:

    “Perry’s MO: Make an outrageous assertion then, when called on it, order everyone else to prove him wrong, never actually doing the work himself and finding out for himself his outrageous assertion is dead wrong. Perry’s MO, as stated, can be seen all over this blog site. It’s a typical passive-aggressive action, among many typical passive-aggressive actions Perry deploys.”

    This is typical of the kind of crap I get from Hitchcock on here all the time, on a daily basis, most of the time without even the benefit of an example.

    So Hitchcock, I await your apology as well!

  95. So Hitchcock, I await your apology as well!

    Perry, I am sorry you’re a passive-aggressive, willfully blind and willfully deaf hyper-partisan propagandistic radical Leftist who makes outrageous accusations of others and outrageous fact-free assertions and will never apologize for any garbage you pull.

  96. I didn’t expect an apology, Hitchcock, because it is not in you to do so, as demonstrated on here quite often, correct? Instead we get more of your crap, as demonstrated on here quite often, like again right here, correct?

    You are not man enough to behave like a truly Christian man would, because you are not one, instead, a coward pretending, one who yells all the time while cowering with fear inside, as demonstrated on here quite often, correct?

    I’m sure your daughter could tell us a thing or two about your demeanor, as demonstrated to her quite often, I’m sure, correct?

    That Dana would consider you a “coblogger” boggles my mind. Or maybe not, because you serve him very well as his front man, you know, the marine on the front line, while he sits comfortably at his desk in the rear, pontificating with his Machiavellian approach to things, correct?

    The deterioration in this blog seems to mimic the deterioration we see in the “American way”, wide scale dysfunction and mistrust, accompanied by an inability to act in a meaningful way, while simultaneously preventing those who wish to act to act, correct? Thus, we wallow together in the mud, correct?

    And guess what, this may well be only the beginning, as the chaotic demonstrations on Wall Street are beginning to take root. People who are desperate do desperate things, correct?

    I have worried for some time that chaos would be the outcome of our national malaise, as it had been in the ’30′s, when it was class warfare by the wealthy which produced the conditions for chaos at that time, just like today, caused by a right wing extremist movement financed by the upper 2% who already own a predominant portion of our national wealth and wish to further enhance their power, correct?

    Thus, instead of learning from history, we seem to be repeating it, correct???

    End of rant!

  97. If you don’t like it here, Perry, like you didn’t like it at Colossus of Rhodey and elsewhere when they called you out for your buffoonery, you can always hang out with all your friends at your own grossly misnamed propaganda site. Nobody’s holding a gun to your head and forcing you to read the Truth on this site.

    But I tend to believe you revel in your passive-aggressive victimology and won’t readily give that up.

    This one’s for you, Perry. It fits you quite well.

  98. And to answer all your outrageous accusations you passive-aggressively formed into your lie-filled questions, no, you are not at all correct about absolutely anything. But you would already know that if you had a fully functioning mind.

  99. I look forward to your acknowledgement of your error and your apology, Hube.

    You can wait until the hell freezes over, Mr. P.A.

    1. You made the initial assertion without any proof.
    2. Hitch at least provided some proof.
    3. Here — proof that you were wrong:

    According to MediaBistro.com, on Sept 20 the NBC Nightly News had 8.2 million viewers, and CBS and ABC each had 7.5 million viewers (for a total of 23.2 million). On the cable side the largest audience was for The O’Reilly Factor with 2 million (or 3.1 million if you include his rebroadcast) viewers. So the network audiences are still much larger than any particular cable show, but their audiences are going down steadily (as seen in the graph) due to the internet and cable news.

    I look forward to your acknowledgement of your error and your apology, Perry.

  100. I’m sure your daughter could tell us a thing or two about your demeanor, as demonstrated to her quite often, I’m sure, correct?

    And let’s just say if you asked me that question in person, your spine might end up just as “in line” as that question is. Just so’s ya know.

  101. Perry stated; ” Moreover, Hoagie, I do not think it is out of line to ask the upper income folks like yourself to share more of the burden at this time.”

    I agree. Of course if my taxes are raised I will have to make up the shortfall in income. Perhaps I’ll terminate my groundskeeper and our housekeeper and send them your email so you can hire them? Or maybe I’ll just fire the landscaper and do it myself. You tell me Perry, who should I fire to pay your taxes? Ah, those phuckin’ unintended consequences!

    It’s amusing that even after I explained why I decided not to open a new market/restaurant earlier this year ( thereby NOT creating about 20 new jobs ) you still keep up your class warfare crap. IOW, there are 20 or so people who are NOT employed right now because of the policies you espouse. But in your mind that makes ME the bad guy. But it is guys like you threatening guys like me with onerous regulations, taxes and mandates that stop us from creating the jobs. BTW, what was the last job you created? I love how you, Pho, Whistler, et al, talk the talk but do not employ anybody. But you actually believe that raising my taxes will “hurt” me! It will hurt the people I let go or don’t hire in the future, not me.

  102. “I’m sure your daughter could tell us a thing or two about your demeanor, as demonstrated to her quite often, I’m sure, correct?”

    Woah, Perry! Where the hell would a statement like that come from? Your entire rant of 08:03 was so convoluted it almost sounded like bluebonnet wrote it, but that swipe about Hitchcock’s daughter was lower than low even for you or Pho. Uncalled for.

  103. I’m sure your daughter could tell us a thing or two about your demeanor, as demonstrated to her quite often, I’m sure, correct?

    Unreal. The guy so concerned about “personal attacks” always seems to inject others’ family members into these online scuffles. This was why I posted my “warning” to Perry above as I believe he was hinting at that (again).

    Reason #7639 why Perry is just a big baby hypocrite.

  104. Perry writes:

    “The deterioration in this blog seems to mimic the deterioration we see in the “American way”, wide scale dysfunction and mistrust, accompanied by an inability to act in a meaningful way, while simultaneously preventing those who wish to act to act, correct? Thus, we wallow together in the mud, correct?”

    Perry,

    Although I have decided to refrain from adding comments to Dana’s blog, I have for the last several weeks at least, and probably longer, looked in to see how things had developed in the absence of a considerable number of Dana’s former regulars.

    Ropelight, and AOTC, and I all left, along with a number of other readers Dana had seemingly gained. While our reasons for leaving would from your point of view probably be described as rationalizations, the effect of those departures whatever our motivations, should have been greatly to your liking and ushered in changes enough to make you happy.

    Sharon even briefly returned it appears, and beyond that, Dana treated you to some of his bandwidth so you could construct your own web site.

    The Puritans have migrated, and you have the country to yourself. You should be deliriously happy.

    Yet you still bitterly complain, and the New Zealander still appears here only to troll and eject bile, and nothing has seemingly changed for the better as far as you are concerned.

    What a shame all this is, given the amount of work that Dana must have put into building up his blog.

    Some crazy who apparently has had past dealings with John here, has even decided to ratchet the hostility up a notch by troubling himself to manufacture a counterfeit of John’s own TruthBeforeDishonor web site. This was done in order to attack and defame John by fraudulently forging John’s name to outrageous articles and opinions John had not written. (John’s name still appears, if you look at the HTML script)

    So, Perry, as you were saying …

  105. Hube, there is no discussing anything with you, because the onslaught of your personal attacks will continue unabated, regardless of anything I say. You cannot help yourself, that’s been obvious!

    Hoagie, I said nothing against Hitchcock’s daughter. Better go and reread it. My comment was directed at Hitchcock’s behavior. It does not take a stretch to assume that the way he treats certain individuals on this blog would translate to his treatment of others in person, his daughter included. You know this, I’m sure. The point is to call Hitchcock’s attention to his own behavior, which applies to Hube’s as well. You might note that Hitchcock went to the extreme of revealing my full name on here, and not one of you called him out on that. To his credit, Dana deleted it.

    Regarding my rant, yes, that is exactly what it was. Apparently it attracted your attention, which was the point. How was it convoluted? My point is that our politics have become so convoluted as to be dysfunctional to the point where the very future of our country is in jeopardy.

    When we have a crisis, which we can all agree we do, a government that will not act in time of crisis is not serving its people. I blame you Repubs for this dysfunction, with your due regard for the wealthy elite, and none for the middle and the poor. Do you disagree, Hoagie? What have you said on here on behalf of the middle and poor Americans, Hoagie?

  106. *yawn* Perry, full of bile, will never apologize for the years’ worth of bile he has spewed all over multiple blog sites because, just like Obama, Perry believes his fecal matter don’t stank.

  107. Well look who is back. Hope you are well in good health and spirits, DNW.

    “Yet you still bitterly complain, and the New Zealander still appears here only to troll and eject bile, and nothing has seemingly changed for the better as far as you are concerned.”

    You are correct here about me, as I am more concerned than ever about the future of our country, DNW, but I do think you mischaracterized PiaToR, whose political counters are so sharp and on point as to drive his adversaries to drink and mad behavior. I also note the absence of your calling out the behavior on here of Hitchcock and Hube with their personal attacks and garbage-mouthed outpourings. Is this omission an expression of your political bias?

    “Some crazy who apparently has had past dealings with John here, has even decided to ratchet the hostility up a notch by troubling himself to manufacture a counterfeit of John’s own TruthBeforeDishonor web site. This was done in order to attack and defame John by fraudulently forging John’s name to outrageous articles and opinions John had not written. (John’s name still appears, if you look at the HTML script)”

    I was unaware of this. Not to excuse this behavior in the least, John brings adverse reaction upon himself by his own outrageous behavior, I must say, so I am not that surprised.

    Isn’t it amazing, DNW, how our political environment has worsened in the relatively short time since your departure from commenting on this blog? I would think this must be a concern of yours as well. It certainly is of mine, which is probably why my complaints have turned “bitter”, as you put it. In order to unseat Obama, the Republicans have turned our government off, thus neglecting the immediate need for proactivity, as we sink further into a fiscal, monetary and moral abyss!

  108. You might note that Hitchcock went to the extreme of posting my name on here in the same manner as I have previously done elsewhere and as Dana has done on my own site (which I have not done anything about), and not one of you called him out on that.

    There. Fixed it for you, you lousy passive-aggressive victimologist.

  109. Isn’t it amazing, DNW, how our political environment has worsened in the relatively short time since your departure from commenting on this blog? I would think this must be a concern of yours as well.

    Yup, that’s why he’s an author on my blog. He doesn’t have to put up with crazies like you and the New Zealand Socialist. You’ll also find AOTC commenting on my blog where she doesn’t have to put up with crazies like you and the New Zealand Socialist.

  110. Hube, there is no discussing anything with you, because the onslaught of your personal attacks will continue unabated, regardless of anything I say. You cannot help yourself, that’s been obvious!

    Blah blah blah … obviously everything I wrote was for naught. It’s still everybody else who is at fault, never Perry. And again, bringing up people’s family members is WAY out of bounds. I warned you to be careful; if you insist on continuing with this, be aware that your own family is then fair game.

    Oh, and Hitchcock “revealed” your full name? Are you going down that [ridiculous] road again? How can he “reveal” that which you have already provided yourself? How is that possible?

  111. Perry, the future of our country is in jeopardy but NOT from guys like me. It’s in jeopardy because some how guys like you believe you can exist, comfortably, without guys like me. You keep talking about “the middle and poor”. Who do you think provides jobs for them? Other poor people?

    The poor, middle and rich are constantly in flux. Some poor become middle, some middle become rich, some rich fall back to middle or poor. Classes in this country aren’t static, they are fluid. When you start talking about “sharing the burden” or “what’s fair” what you are in fact saying is that anyone who is upwardly mobile must be sacrificed for those who aren’t. That’s bull!

    BTW, I’m sure you will hire my employees when I have to lay them off to pay higher taxes, right? You really don’t get it do you? Hoagie has “X” dollars. Hoagie can pay his employees “X” or Hoagie can pay higher taxes in “X” amount. In order to be “fair” you want to tax Hoagies money away because he has “X” dollars more than you do. Even if that means Hoagie has to terminate the employment of his groundsman and housekeeper. But that’s okay, their employment was sacrificed on the alter of “fairness”. Somehow, I don’t believe Ruth and Cory would agree with your idea of fairness when they’re unemployed.

    And that Perry is your first lesson in microeconomics and why it counts a boat load more than macroeconomic theory.

    P.S. Ruth is an excellent housekeeper (yes, she does windows ) and Cory maintains my property all four seasons. As a matter of fact he spent all yesterday closing the pool and cleaning the filters and lines. Today he’s repairing some fence. He also does electrical, plumbing and more. Should I forward them your email? Are you hireing?

  112. Hitchcock, if I had wanted my full name used, I would have used it on here. I did not. Moreover, it is not up to you to decide. But you did anyway.

    That said, I will also call you out for that so-called quote, with the implication that is is mine, which it is not. Is there no depth of depravity into which you will choose not to descend? That was pretty slimy, Hitchcock, such behavior as will always be anticipated in the future from you! That is who you are!!

  113. Hitchcock, if I had wanted my full name used, I would have used it on here. I did not. Moreover, it is not up to you to decide. But you did anyway.

    But you’ve used it on your own blog and elsewhere so it makes ZERO sense for you to fly off the handle about someone else using it. Merely asking that person not to use it would have sufficed, instead of ridiculous self-righteous indignation screaming and yelling. Much like your hypocritical “personal attack” ravings.

  114. Reading for comprehension is not your strong suit, is it, Perry? Go back and try again until you get it right, mmkay? Bless your heart, if you try hard enough, even you will be able to understand.

  115. “It’s in jeopardy because some how guys like you believe you can exist, comfortably, without guys like me.”

    No, Hoagie, this is simply not true. If you will recall, I have complimented you on your successes, but you forgot that.

    I just want you folks to share part of the burden to pull us out of this mess. Reinvoking the Clinton level of tax brackets is not too much to ask, don’t you agree? If I remember correctly, doing so would reduce our deficit by $4 trillion in 10 years! Not too shabby!!

  116. “But you’ve used it on your own blog and elsewhere so it makes ZERO sense for you to fly off the handle about someone else using it.”

    I believe you are incorrect about this, Hube.

  117. I believe you are incorrect about this, Hube.

    What you believe and the actual facts often, if not always, contradict, Perry.

  118. It’s fun watching Perry squirm in his derangements. And for him to accuse me of implying he said something I never implied he said is almost knee-slappingly funny. Of course, he never did claim he could comprehend what someone else wrote, that I can recall.

  119. “The poor, middle and rich are constantly in flux. Some poor become middle, some middle become rich, some rich fall back to middle or poor. Classes in this country aren’t static, they are fluid. When you start talking about “sharing the burden” or “what’s fair” what you are in fact saying is that anyone who is upwardly mobile must be sacrificed for those who aren’t. That’s bull! “

    I know that this is your perception, Hoagie, but it is no longer true. Upward mobility has been tapering off for decades. The middle class has been stagnant, and middle management jobs in large businesses has been declining. Moreover, over this time period, the wealth of our nation has been moving from the middle to the top, just like what happened in the ’20′s leading up to the Great Depression.

    These trends are unsustainable for the future health of our nation, in my view.

  120. “I just want you folks to share part of the burden to pull us out of this mess. Reinvoking the Clinton level of tax brackets is not too much to ask, don’t you agree? If I remember correctly, doing so would reduce our deficit by $4 trillion in 10 years! Not too shabby!!”

    How much of the burden would you like us “folks” to share? Currently I pay almost $140k in federal taxes and since 2000 have paid around 2.5 million. How much should my “share” be?

    And please, don’t pull numbers out of you arse or quote some “expert” about future prognostications, they never pan out and you know it. If taxes were raised to Eisenhower levels, let alone Clinton levels, the pols would just piss it away faster and furious’er. Reduce the deficit, indeed!

  121. “Perry, how many dollars a year do you pay in taxes? Without violating the Tenth Commandment, how many dollars a year should Hoagie pay in taxes?”

    I believe in the progressive tax system which we have. I do agree that the tax code needs to be cleaned up and simplified, but the progressive approach should remain.

  122. “How much of the burden would you like us “folks” to share? Currently I pay almost $140k in federal taxes and since 2000 have paid around 2.5 million. How much should my “share” be? “

    Like I said, Hoagie, the Clinton level is what I favor. This will raise my taxes too, btw.

    You do know that our taxes are the lowest of all the developed nations on earth, so you and I are doing OK, Hoagie, relatively speaking.

  123. You do know that our corporate taxes are either the highest or second highest in the developed world, right, Perry? Where do you think that will land businesses?

  124. “It’s fun watching Perry squirm in his derangements. And for him to accuse me of implying he said something I never implied he said is almost knee-slappingly funny. Of course, he never did claim he could comprehend what someone else wrote, that I can recall.”

    Hitchcock, you are having great difficulty again putting together an intelligible sentence here. What are you drinking?

    Anyway, let me see the cite for that quote, then the truth will be known.

  125. “You do know that our corporate taxes are either the highest or second highest in the developed world, right, Perry? Where do you think that will land businesses?”

    That is certainly true, which is why I favor lowering them to where we will be competitive.

  126. “I believe in the progressive tax system which we have.”

    Of course you do or you wouldn’t be a good little socialist. Like I said, if you want less of something, tax it. Progressive taxation taxes wealth creation. So if you want less wealth creation, tax it. It’s funny you don’t realize the more wealth you tax the more wealth moves off shore. I guess people just don’t want to give you their money. Funny about that.

    How about we tax all income over 50k at 100%? I mean hell, if progressive tax is good let’s make it great!

  127. Not quite 11:00am my time and already 71 visits and 105 page views according to SiteMeter. Maybe I should be taxed 50 percent on that in order to help out the little guy whose numbers are approaching microscopic levels.

  128. Hitchcock, you are having great difficulty again putting together an intelligible sentence here. What are you drinking?

    Anyway, let me see the cite for that quote, then the truth will be known.

    Actually, I put together three complete and cogent sentences, but you did go ahead and prove that your reading comprehension level is quite low. Thanks for that. As far as what you call a quote in need of a cite, you did go ahead and prove that your reading comprehension level is quite low, as I already said.

    Since you struggle so mightily with reading comprehension, I suggest re-reading that which you cannot comprehend until you figure it out.

  129. How about we tax all income over 50k at 100%? I mean hell, if progressive tax is good let’s make it great!

    We could always go with the Roseanne Barr option and send rich people to re-education camps and if they still want to be rich, cut off their heads.

  130. Hoagie says:
    5 October 2011 at 11:17

    Nice to see ya, DNW. You’ve been missed. So has AOTC and Ropelight.”

    I visit and comment at John’s “sister site” to this one, fairly often.

    The thing I feel bad about, is the fact that Dana lost so many well intentioned new readers who found his site interesting and even compelling, and who would on their own say so’s have become regulars, but who instead decided that they could not abide the constant flaming and emotionalism that came along with it.

    You know Hoagie, before we finally managed to drive a spike through the head of the gun control collectivists, I had some rather lengthy experience in debating the RKBA issue on-line. That’s how I eventually showed up here, after having met Art Downs and accepted his invitation.

    Invariably, the exchanges there, no matter how technical in original intention and thrust, degenerated into personal attacks; and the forum we employed finally (after our side won the pubic issue) devolved into a sandbox, which a small number of neurotics obsessively continued to use for the deposition of their mental litter.

    Life is too short and time too valuable, to spend any of it providing manic depressives and borderline cases a pretext or a forum for scratching their insatiable itches. The counterfeit of John’s site demonstrates their real motivations, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the resolution of policy or philosophic questions through critical reasoning and the dialectical process.

    Regards …

  131. “You do know that our taxes are the lowest of all the developed nations on earth…”

    No Perry, I do not know that because I do not know the rates, deductions, allowences, and exclusions afforded in “all the developed nations on earth”, therefore I think it foolish to make such a statement. Perhaps the “stated tax rates” are the lowest but is the tax revenue generated by those rates on a percapita basis? I don’t even know (nor do I care) how taxes are applied in other nations. I care about us and how we treat equal citizens like chattel, taking from one and “giving” it to another. That’s bogus.

    Also, perhaps those other developed nations have governments that provide more “benefits” and therefore require higher rates. I don’t think that’s something we should emulate. In fact, more expansive government is something we should be avoiding.

    [retrieved - pH]

  132. “I believe in the progressive tax system which we have.”

    Of course you do or you wouldn’t be a good little socialist. Like I said, if you want less of something, tax it. Progressive taxation taxes wealth creation. So if you want less wealth creation, tax it. It’s funny you don’t realize the more wealth you tax the more wealth moves off shore. I guess people just don’t want to give you their money. Funny about that.

    How about we tax all income over 50k at 100%? I mean hell, if progressive tax is good let’s make it great!

    Wanting the tax brackets to be at the Clinton level makes me a Socialist, is that where we are Hoagie?

    Moreover, if we raised levels to the Clinton levels, you then threaten to move the money offshore. What kind of an attitude is this, Hoagie?

    If your approach is correct, where are all the jobs you folks are creating? Obama has actually cut taxes below the Bush tax levels. Where are all the jobs that you folks are supposed to be creating with your low taxes? These days you folks always have some excuse, which boils down to neglect of your own country which has contributed to your success. Your crocodile tears do not impress me, Hoagie.

    Are you trying to tell me that if we had the Clinton levels you would not be able to afford Cory and Ruth. Please! Here, cry into my beer too!!

  133. Hoagie, not only are our tax rates lower than at any time since WWII, but they are very low when compared to other developed nations, as I indicated. Here is a credible reference, and here is the definitive data:

    So please remember this when this topic comes up again, because obviously your perceptions to date are in error.

  134. “Wanting the tax brackets to be at the Clinton level makes me a Socialist, is that where we are Hoagie?”

    No Perry, believing in progressive taxes makes you a socialist. Wanting taxes raised in a recession to Clinton levels makes you an idiot.

    “Moreover, is we raised levels to the Clinton levels, you then threaten to move the money offshore.”

    I did not “threaten” to move money off shore, I pointed out that tha’s what will happen if you keep taxing success. It’s not a threat, it’s a promise.

    “Where are all the jobs that you folks are supposed to be creating with your low taxes?”

    That’s cute Perry. So the only thing that creates jobs is lower taxes? Couldn’t be the uncertainty of having a bunch of lib-tards in government who at any time, on any whim can cahange the market, pass new regs, make new rules, pick new winners, create new loosers and prosecute success, right?

    And I don’t know what country you’re in but my taxes have not gone down under Obama. And my overall taxes (local, state, federal and property) have gone up-up-up and up.

    “Are you trying to tell me that if we had the Clinton levels you would not be able to afford Cory and Ruth.”

    Are you trying to tell me I could? Now you know my financials? You socialists amaze me. There is never an end to you telling other people what to do with their money is there?

    [retrieved - pH]

  135. Hitchcock is now in his sandbox playing games, manufacturing quotes with implications as to their origins:

    How about we tax all income over 50k at 100%? I mean hell, if progressive tax is good let’s make it great!

    We could always go with the Roseanne Barr option and send rich people to re-education camps and if they still want to be rich, cut off their heads.”

    Let’s see a cite for that quote, Hitchens.Hitchcock.

  136. Perry, first off the chart is corporate taxes not personal taxes which I was referring to. Secondly Bartlett is using the ole’ taxes as percent of GDP, whereas I was talking tax rates, effective tax rates. Finally, you were citing an opinion piece in the Times, culled and molded to fit Bartlett’s narrative.

    However, if you feel under taxed please feel free to hit the “donate” button Dana has previously provided.

  137. not only are our tax rates lower than at any time since WWII

    What about the entire tax burden facing Americans — federal, state, FICA, Medicare, sales, sin, etc.? How does that compare to immediate post-WWII levels?

  138. Perry demonstrating his confusion again:

    Hitchcock is now in his sandbox playing games, manufacturing quotes with implications as to their origins

    then

    Let’s see a cite for that quote, Hitchens.

    Is that like how Henry Whistler is Henry Wheeler? LMAO …

  139. Here’s the cite Perry.

    “Part of my platform is, of course, the guilty must be punished and that we no longer let our children see their guilty leaders getting away with murder. Because it teaches children, you know, that they don’t have to have any morals as long as they have guns and are bullies and I don’t think that’s a good message,” Barr told Russia Today (RT).
    “I do say that I am in favor of the return of the guillotine and that is for the worst of the worst of the guilty.
    “I first would allow the guilty bankers to pay, you know, the ability to pay back anything over $100 million [of] personal wealth because I believe in a maximum wage of $100 million. And if they are unable to live on that amount of that amount then they should, you know, go to the reeducation camps and if that doesn’t help, then being beheaded,” Barr said with a straight face.

  140. But it is interesting that Perry is still confused as to what constitutes a quote. Doubtful Perry will ever reach a middling level of reading comprehension skill.

  141. “Are you trying to tell me I could? Now you know my financials? You socialists amaze me. There is never an end to you telling other people what to do with their money is there?”

    Based on what you have revealed on here about your investments in gold and your profits therefrom (except with your latest investment, a pretty good loss so far), there is no doubt in my mind that you can easily afford Ruth and Cory if your Federal Taxes are raised to Clinton levels. So stop your whining, Hoagie.

    Your main problem is that you refuse to acknowledge and show gratitude to what your fellow citizens have done through their government to help enable you to be successful. Of course, your own investments and your apparent work ethic have been major factors too.

    So yes, Hoagie, government is great until you are asked to help pay for it, then you whine and put on the poor-boy face, and come out in attack mode. Unfortunately your self-centered attitude is prevalent in America today, which is part of the problem we face these days.

    It is one thing to be concerned about excessive spending, as most of us are, even us “Socialists”, but it is quite another to allow this to have us neglect our responsibilities to our nation and to our citizens who are suffering through no fault of their own. I don’t think you conservatives appreciate the latter.

  142. Perry provide a Federal Tax structure that does not in any way violate the Tenth Commandment. It is an impossibility for you to do so and remain pleased with the Federal Tax structure. And that’s a large part of why you will never under any circumstances even approach being able to understand Conservatism.

  143. Here is the answer to your question, Hube:

    Geez, I think Hitch really has a point about your reading skills, Perry. I asked “What about the entire tax burden facing Americans — federal, state, FICA, Medicare, sales, sin, etc.? How does that compare to immediate post-WWII levels?”

    Your chart/link compares the US total tax burden to other countries at present.

  144. “Still comparing taxes to GDP. Try actual tax rates and not compared to GDP. Try that one on for size. Nah, can’t do that, would change the meme.”

    The taxes to GDP ratio is the appropriate way to look at the tax data when comparing tax rates in different countries. This normalization of the data is standard, Hitchcock.

  145. BTW Perry, when do you plan to acknowledge that your assertion that Fox News out-rates the Big Three in terms of news was, in fact, wrong?

  146. If everyone is taxed identically and you have:
    10 government officials
    90 producers

    The tax compared to GDP will be much lower than if you have:
    90 government officials
    10 producers

    Therefore, tax compared to GDP is a false statistic for the purposes you’re using it.

  147. BTW Perry, when do you plan to acknowledge that your assertion that Fox News out-rates the Big Three in terms of news was, in fact, wrong?

    Probably right after he apologizes to me for once again falsely accusing me of lying, this time re: Roseanne Barr.

  148. “…. your investments in gold and your profits therefrom (except with your latest investment, a pretty good loss so far)”

    When I strike a purchase, whether in commodities, stocks or currency, I always put in a stop loss and sell price. In gold my stop loss was $20 my sell was $25. Obviously I lost and it sold -$20.81. It was kinda funny, it sold before we got back from dinner and when I turned on my laptop there was a “sold” message there. I actually thought I made money till I signed in. Imagine my supprise. OOPS! I had an $8200 dinner that night. Oh well.

  149. Here is the answer to your question, Hube:

    Geez, I think Hitch really has a point about your reading skills, Perry. I asked “What about the entire tax burden facing Americans — federal, state, FICA, Medicare, sales, sin, etc.? How does that compare to immediate post-WWII levels?”

    Your chart/link compares the US total tax burden to other countries at present.

    Yes, that was a careless error. Some sort of a reading comprehension dyslexia runs through my family, afflicting all six of us siblings. Hoagie’s writing dyslexia is a similar dysfunction. Reading is a chore for me, requiring me to be deliberate and focused. On the other hand, writing has always come more easily for me.

    Sorry for the mistake.

  150. “If everyone is taxed identically and you have:
    10 government officials
    90 producers

    The tax compared to GDP will be much lower than if you have:
    90 government officials
    10 producers

    Therefore, tax compared to GDP is a false statistic for the purposes you’re using it.”

    No, Hitchcock. All who work and get an income are considered to be producers, and all are subject to being taxed. The tax to GDP ratio takes into account the differences in the relative values of the different currencies, otherwise a valid country-to-country comparison could not be made.

  151. It is interesting math for someone to say a comparison between someone being taxed 20 percent of his guilders and another person being taxed 15 percent of his drachmas cannot be made. Must be that new math.

  152. Perry, your chart is an apples vs cauliflower comparison: if the tax burdens as a percentage of income are higher in some other countries, it’s worth noting that they are higher in the socialized medicine countries. Here we don’t have that, but when you start including private health insurance costs, it would begin to even out. We pay for our health care, and they pay for theirs, via different methods.

    And, of course, this is a democratic representative republic. We elect our government leaders based upon the promises they make to the voters, and one promise that successful politicns make is to cut taxes, not raise them. We don’t want higher taxes!

    Perhaps you’ve forgotten what the acronym for the TEA Party is: Taxed Enough Already. They advocate lower spending because they are unwilling to pay higher taxes to support higher spending; that seems like a pretty practical way of looking at it to me!

  153. You mean like always mentioning you have a girlfriend, Phoe?

    Well, firstly, I’m not always mentioning it – you are.

    Secondly, I’ve been offline for the past 34 hours or so. That also happens a lot during my weekends, too. For someone as addicted to teh Internet as me, draw your own conclusions.

  154. Hube writes: You can wait until the hell freezes over, Mr. P.A.

    1. You made the initial assertion without any proof.

    Bwaahahahaahahaahah – HUBE is writing this?

    Two words, nimrod – “common sense”, remember?

  155. These trends are unsustainable for the future health of our nation, in my view.

    No, Perry.

    They’re only unsustainable with America remaining a democracy. Cf Argentina.

  156. Perry just cannot get himself to avoid breaking the Tenth Commandment in each and every magicanomics comment he makes.

    Just like you and the Ninth. Where are those mobile weapons labs you claim the US captured?

  157. Perry: “I believe in the progressive tax system which we have.”

    Hoagie: Of course you do or you wouldn’t be a good little socialist.

    Socialism – “a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.”

    As we can see yet again, your claim to be an “economist” has a few holes in it…

    Oh, and by the way:

    “Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, 1785.

    This is, of course, a form of progressive taxation. Advocated by Thomas Jefferson in 1785. And for the exact same reason Perry advocates progressive taxation!!!!

    Which goes to show how demented and twisted your w1ngnut views have become.

  158. Perry provide a Federal Tax structure that does not in any way violate the Tenth Commandment.

    Matthew 22:15-21.

    Which makes you, well, the Pharisee in this little exercise.

  159. No, Perry, government officials do not produce anything

    You are lying again.

    Unless, of course, you don’t use tap water, drive on public roads, or have never used a post office.

  160. “Perry, your chart is an apples vs cauliflower comparison: if the tax burdens as a percentage of income are higher in some other countries, it’s worth noting that they are higher in the socialized medicine countries. Here we don’t have that, but when you start including private health insurance costs, it would begin to even out. We pay for our health care, and they pay for theirs, via different methods.”

    I don’t agree, Dana: the chart is the ratio of taxes to GDP, not income, and is the only way I know of to compare tax rates of different countries. Your point of an example of how the taxes are spent is valid, but that is another subject which can be discussed.

    If you had made the point that the health insurance mandate, to be implemented in several more years (2015?), can be viewed like a tax, I might have to agree with you there. In that case, we would have to count up the mandated health insurance premiums paid by those who otherwise would not have chosen to be paying any such premiums.

  161. Pingback: One of the best articles I’ve seen in a long time « Common Sense Political Thought

Comments are closed.