DamnYankees: People can't even fathom how different our politics would be with completely publicly financed elections. Oh, how I long...

We don't even need that. Just require that media stations provide airtime to a candidate's campaign commercials free of charge and it must be equal time for anyone requesting air time. That way the campaigns will only have to worry about spending money on staff, travel, and office space. The costs to air TV/radio ads is what kills most campaigns...

Clear policy distinctions with his opponents? Last time I checked everyone but Ron Paul is the same.

To recap: The president had the chance to bring significant oil into the United States from Canada, rather than Middle Eastern petro-dictators or Venezuela, and create some U.S. jobs. Environmentalists opposed the pipeline, partly because the Canadian oil is extracted from tar sands and partly because of concerns about the construction of the pipeline.

I really enjoy an unbiased Politico article. This pipeline wouldn't be built overnight and we would still be in bed with "petro-dictators" for years to come. This pipeline is a shortsighted goal with long term environmental consequences. I doubt Obama was just kowtowing 100% to environmentalists.

As far as Catholic hospitals providing contraception.....you don't want to provide certain medications and medical procedures, don't be in the healthcare business. Especially if you are being reimbursed by Medicaid and Medicare.

You can't fix anything if you're not elected, so you have to play their game to get there. It's the classic catch-22 of trying to make change in politics - You can't get elected if you don't play by the current rules first.

I'm just going to assume noone has enough cheese on hand to go with all that whine.

DeltaPunch: Can you believe that Usurper in Chief?!? Strengthening our economy and lowering unemployment JUST so he can get reelected. What a partisan dick.

You're forgetting the real depth of this conspiracy. Obama actually relaxed gun control in his first term so that he will be able to fully abolish the 2nd amendment during his 2nd term.

/NRA

mrshowrules: RexTalionis: I wasn't going to donate to President Obama before. And I still won't. That's why I'm going to write a check to the SuperPAC, because it is legally independent from Obama.

Can a Canadian donate?

He can stand at the border and hurl pennies into the US. Does that count?

/Canadian pennies

FTFA: Jim Messina, one of the president's top political advisers, met privately with financial services industry executives - big banks, money managers - and promised them Obama will not demonize Wall Street as his reelection efforts unfold. Not demonize Wall Street? Hasn't that been a consistent theme of the Obama presidency?

Um... no. No it hasn't. He hasn't been sucking their cocks quite as hard as the Republicans, but I'm not sure how that's "demonization".

Dimensio: Terlis: DamnYankees: People can't even fathom how different our politics would be with completely publicly financed elections. Oh, how I long...

We don't even need that. Just require that media stations provide airtime to a candidate's campaign commercials free of charge and it must be equal time for anyone requesting air time. That way the campaigns will only have to worry about spending money on staff, travel, and office space. The costs to air TV/radio ads is what kills most campaigns...

Such regulation would encourage a multitude of "fringe" candidates demanding free airing of advertising to such an extent that media broadcasters would be unable to air any paid advertising, thus eliminating all income for those companies.

Simple solution: set an upper limit of how much airtime needs to be allocated to this purpose. Say, 10% of advertising time.

The second is that Barack Obama, for all his talk of moving beyond conventional political tricks, is doing just that, which wouldn't be so glaring had it not been for his incessant call for a newer, cleaner and more transparent paradigm for American politics.

Waaaaaah! Republicans have been dicks to him for 4 years and he's not taking it anymore! Waaaaah!

The State of the Union is ... very political

History's worst monster.

To recap: The president had the chance to bring significant oil into the United States from Canada, rather than Middle Eastern petro-dictators or Venezuela, and create some U.S. jobs.

He knows that oil wasn't staying in America, right?

HeartBurnKid: Dimensio: Terlis: DamnYankees: People can't even fathom how different our politics would be with completely publicly financed elections. Oh, how I long...

We don't even need that. Just require that media stations provide airtime to a candidate's campaign commercials free of charge and it must be equal time for anyone requesting air time. That way the campaigns will only have to worry about spending money on staff, travel, and office space. The costs to air TV/radio ads is what kills most campaigns...

Such regulation would encourage a multitude of "fringe" candidates demanding free airing of advertising to such an extent that media broadcasters would be unable to air any paid advertising, thus eliminating all income for those companies.

Simple solution: set an upper limit of how much airtime needs to be allocated to this purpose. Say, 10% of advertising time.

So each candidate gets like 10 seconds of airtime?

Car_Ramrod: HeartBurnKid: Dimensio: Terlis: DamnYankees: People can't even fathom how different our politics would be with completely publicly financed elections. Oh, how I long...

We don't even need that. Just require that media stations provide airtime to a candidate's campaign commercials free of charge and it must be equal time for anyone requesting air time. That way the campaigns will only have to worry about spending money on staff, travel, and office space. The costs to air TV/radio ads is what kills most campaigns...

Such regulation would encourage a multitude of "fringe" candidates demanding free airing of advertising to such an extent that media broadcasters would be unable to air any paid advertising, thus eliminating all income for those companies.

Simple solution: set an upper limit of how much airtime needs to be allocated to this purpose. Say, 10% of advertising time.

So each candidate gets like 10 seconds of airtime?

How many candidates are you thinking of, here? I mean, have you seen how many ads are on commercial TV?

HeartBurnKid: Car_Ramrod: HeartBurnKid: Dimensio: Terlis: DamnYankees: People can't even fathom how different our politics would be with completely publicly financed elections. Oh, how I long...

We don't even need that. Just require that media stations provide airtime to a candidate's campaign commercials free of charge and it must be equal time for anyone requesting air time. That way the campaigns will only have to worry about spending money on staff, travel, and office space. The costs to air TV/radio ads is what kills most campaigns...

Such regulation would encourage a multitude of "fringe" candidates demanding free airing of advertising to such an extent that media broadcasters would be unable to air any paid advertising, thus eliminating all income for those companies.

Simple solution: set an upper limit of how much airtime needs to be allocated to this purpose. Say, 10% of advertising time.

So each candidate gets like 10 seconds of airtime?

How many candidates are you thinking of, here? I mean, have you seen how many ads are on commercial TV?

From Wiki:

The October 7 recall election had many declared candidates, several of whom are prominent celebrities. In total, there were 135 candidates who qualified for the ballot in this election

Brilliant headline, subby.

DamnYankees: People can't even fathom how different our politics would be with completely publicly financed elections. Oh, how I long...

Why not just have spending limits. I see no reason why I should spend money to allow morons to spout messages I find repugnant. Let them spend their own money, but put a limit on how much money.

Free speech is just that. It is NOT commercials or other taped messages bombarding us on TV or radio around the clock. And if the Supreme Court disagrees with me, that's just how much they are out-of-touch. Like Billy Joel sang, you can speak your mind, but not on my time.

Car_Ramrod: HeartBurnKid: Car_Ramrod: HeartBurnKid: Dimensio: Terlis: DamnYankees: People can't even fathom how different our politics would be with completely publicly financed elections. Oh, how I long...

We don't even need that. Just require that media stations provide airtime to a candidate's campaign commercials free of charge and it must be equal time for anyone requesting air time. That way the campaigns will only have to worry about spending money on staff, travel, and office space. The costs to air TV/radio ads is what kills most campaigns...

Such regulation would encourage a multitude of "fringe" candidates demanding free airing of advertising to such an extent that media broadcasters would be unable to air any paid advertising, thus eliminating all income for those companies.

Simple solution: set an upper limit of how much airtime needs to be allocated to this purpose. Say, 10% of advertising time.

So each candidate gets like 10 seconds of airtime?

How many candidates are you thinking of, here? I mean, have you seen how many ads are on commercial TV?

From Wiki:

The October 7 recall election had many declared candidates, several of whom are prominent celebrities. In total, there were 135 candidates who qualified for the ballot in this election

Again, have you seen how many ads there are on commercial TV? Between that and the panopoly of stations available, there's no reason you can't give everyone adequate time, unless you start getting on the order of thousands or tens of thousands.

I enjoyed this headline over a sherry in my sitting room.

Clinton was constantly on the campaign trail. But he was mostly likable, even with his voracious sexual appetite beyond the Hillary piece. That was Bill and people didn't seem to mind.

Obama is out selling hate, trying to divide America along class lines for the purpose of getting re-elected. This quote from the prayer breakfast is classic nonsense that just hands amo to people accusing him of promoting class warfare:

"... it's hard for me to ask seniors on a fixed income, or young people with student loans, or middle-class families who can barely pay the bills to shoulder the burden alone."

Why the hell would he or anyone else ever ask those groups to shoulder the burden alone? Not even evil Republicans, rest assured.
With the exception of middle class families, the rest are pretty much shouldering none of the load.
The "alone" part is pure crap. The brunt of the tax burden is being born by the upper end of the income scale.
The groups he cites, excepting much of the middle class, is a net receiver of government services, not a provider of shoulder.

Sure, it's politics. It's sleazy, tiring and nonproductive and practiced by both sides. But don't let your worship of Obama blind you to his reality.

Mr. Titanium: DamnYankees: People can't even fathom how different our politics would be with completely publicly financed elections. Oh, how I long...

Why not just have spending limits. I see no reason why I should spend money to allow morons to spout messages I find repugnant. Let them spend their own money, but put a limit on how much money.

Free speech is just that. It is NOT commercials or other taped messages bombarding us on TV or radio around the clock. And if the Supreme Court disagrees with me, that's just how much they are out-of-touch. Like Billy Joel sang, you can speak your mind, but not on my time.

Hey! I know. Let's make it No Politician Left Behind! They start out fully funded, but if each time they lose a primary they lose funds.

Car_Ramrod: The second is that Barack Obama, for all his talk of moving beyond conventional political tricks, is doing just that, which wouldn't be so glaring had it not been for his incessant call for a newer, cleaner and more transparent paradigm for American politics.

Waaaaaah! Republicans have been dicks to him for 4 years and he's not taking it anymore! Waaaaah!

The State of the Union is ... very political

History's worst monster.

To recap: The president had the chance to bring significant oil into the United States from Canada, rather than Middle Eastern petro-dictators or Venezuela, and create some U.S. jobs.

He knows that oil wasn't staying in America, right?


And we currently have an interior surplus.

Wendy's Chili: Brilliant headline, subby.

I'll keep that in mind the next time you call me a f*cking retard ;)

Cletus C.: The "alone" part is pure crap. The brunt of the tax burden is being born by the upper end of the income scale.


Your a idiot. (new window)

So basically....


September 2011. Obama's Approval Rating 42% Politico Narrative: "Obama is clueless and in over his head, and the American people are widely rejecting his Presidency. The question isn't if he'll get defeated in 2012, but whether he take House and Senate Dems with him because of his toxicity."
....
Febrauary 2012. Obama's Approval Rating 49% Politico Narrative: "Wah, people like him again!!! Obama's too good at politics !!! We're not even going to have a competitive general election to cover this year!!!"

DROxINxTHExWIND: DozeNutz: Clear policy distinctions with his opponents? Last time I checked everyone but Ron Paul is the same.

Naw, Gingrich is a bigot, too. Paul isn't the only one.

your reply doesn't even make sense. And honestly using the race card? I guess the stereotype of liberals IS true, they go to the race card EVERY TIME.

DozeNutz: DROxINxTHExWIND: DozeNutz: Clear policy distinctions with his opponents? Last time I checked everyone but Ron Paul is the same.

Naw, Gingrich is a bigot, too. Paul isn't the only one.

your reply doesn't even make sense. And honestly using the race card? I guess the stereotype of liberals IS true, they go to the race card EVERY TIME.

Like this? (new window)

DozeNutz: race card

*chug*

DozeNutz: DROxINxTHExWIND: DozeNutz: Clear policy distinctions with his opponents? Last time I checked everyone but Ron Paul is the same.

Naw, Gingrich is a bigot, too. Paul isn't the only one.

your reply doesn't even make sense. And honestly using the race card? I guess the stereotype of liberals IS true, they go to the race card EVERY TIME.

You do realize you can be a bigot without being racist, right? Racism is just one form of bigotry.

That being said, judging from the shiat that both Paul and Gingrich have been spewing out of their mouths, I think it's safe to say both might just be a little bit racist.

mrshowrules: Cletus C.: Clinton was constantly on the campaign trail. But he was mostly likable, even with his voracious sexual appetite beyond the Hillary piece. That was Bill and people didn't seem to mind.

Obama is out selling hate, trying to divide America along class lines for the purpose of getting re-elected. This quote from the prayer breakfast is classic nonsense that just hands amo to people accusing him of promoting class warfare:

"... it's hard for me to ask seniors on a fixed income, or young people with student loans, or middle-class families who can barely pay the bills to shoulder the burden alone."

Why the hell would he or anyone else ever ask those groups to shoulder the burden alone? Not even evil Republicans, rest assured.
With the exception of middle class families, the rest are pretty much shouldering none of the load.
The "alone" part is pure crap. The brunt of the tax burden is being born by the upper end of the income scale.
The groups he cites, excepting much of the middle class, is a net receiver of government services, not a provider of shoulder.

Sure, it's politics. It's sleazy, tiring and nonproductive and practiced by both sides. But don't let your worship of Obama blind you to his reality.

The GOP has specifically asked this increased burden to be shouldered by these groups alone. Where have you been the past 2 years?

Correct. Some people hear these things often enough and begin to actually believe them. That is why it remains an effective, if dishonest, campaign strategy.

God's Hubris: Cletus C.: The "alone" part is pure crap. The brunt of the tax burden is being born by the upper end of the income scale.


Your a idiot. (new window)

I guess so, if I fell for this:
The top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8 percent) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (30.6 percent) of income.
The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent of all individual income taxes.

Link (new window)