The Grand Obstructionist Party

Free-thinking: one who forms opinions on the basis of reason independently of authority.

I'd say that's pretty close. I make my decisions based on reason independently of what someone of authority decides.

I remember looking into Geithner as soon as I learned that he was up for the nomination because he worked with Paulson in the previous administration. I knew that he majored in government and asian studies at Dartmouth, went to John Hopkins for international economics, worked for the International Affairs division of the Treasury under Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton where he worked his way up to Under Secretary of that division, worked for the IMF for a couple years, became President of the New York Fed, was involved in the talks for the loan to help J.P. Morgan buy out Bear Stearns' assets and he was also a part of the talks for the AIG bailout as well. Oh yeah, he also helped in the bailout of Indonesia and Mexico in the 90's. Plus I watched his confirmation thanks to C-SPAN.

I wouldn't exactly call that "uninformed", in my opinion. Oh and by the way...that's why I said "value" and not "agree with".

Thank you for that quote, G.I. but I'm fairly certain that we're all aware that he was supported and confirmed by the Senate too, unfortunately.

G5,

"Science is not built on consensus, but on Scientific Method as used in research"

"It makes no difference how many scientists or other people believe something, only if it's true."

Points taken and agreed upon. And this is why I stated that:

"...that idea/position has MORE merit than it's opposition."

Not that scientific consensus makes anything absolutely true, but that a consensus among the scientific community gives more creedance to a position.

This is also why I said that I agree with some CAVEATS.

But my quesiton now would be, are you not invalidating your own point? Did you not put forth the results of a survey that establish a scientific consensus as support for your position that biological race does not apply to humans?

You stated:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The same survey, taken in 1999,[75] showed the following changing results for anthropologists:

* physical anthropologists 69%

* cultural anthropologists 80%

This trend continues, and although I often find errors in Wikipedia about some topics, I find no reason to disagree with with the posted scientific findings."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So I do not understand why you can use a scientific consensus found through survey to support your position, but when I do the same you counter that scientific consensus doesn't matter and that the scientists involved in the "global warming hoax" don't actually count as scientists. Does that not seem hypocritical? Could I not make the similarly spurious claim that all of the scientists that were involved in the survey you referenced were "not really scientists at all" and "impostors".

Also, scientific consensus is ultimately very important. You are correct in asserting that it is not consensus, but evidence and proof that validates a position. However, it is impossible for all scientists (let alone the general public) to examine ALL existing evidence that supports EVERY existing claim. Moreover, it would be a waste of time and resources for ALL scientists from EVERY field to validate every single claim another scientist makes by rational examination. (Not to mention the fact that it would be implausable for laypeople to attempt such a feat).

So we are stuck, right? How can I be a proponent of the theory of evolution, when I have not objectively examined all of it's supporting evidence myself? The answer, scientific consensus. Many scientists research evolution, they put forth hypotheses, they provide evidence to backup their hypothesis, and their findings are peer reviewed by many in the scientific community. As such, the rest of the scientific community (and the public at large) "trusts" these findings to be correct, despite the fact that they have not all personally verified the results, because a consensus has been reached by a majority of scientists who are learned in that field.

Essentially, I believe in something because the evidence supports it. But I believe that the evidence supports it not because I have personally verified all of the evidence, but because the majority of scientists have reached the consensus that the evidence does in fact support it.

"since the global warming hoax runs mostly along political lines, and is expressed by lying politicians with an agenda, like Al Gore and other Socialist reprobates, it means nothing."

I don't understand this hatred of Al Gore. Yes, he does have an agenda. He listened to what the majority of scientists were saying about global warming, and decided to act upon it by politicizing it. That is how our society acheives monumental tasks. The scientific community does not have the ability to act on such large issues on its own. The global warming issue is not going to be solved by some lone scientists working out of a garage to find the "solution". The issue needed to be made public on a grand scale to receive public support so that legislation could actually be passed regarding global warming. This required the politicization of the matter. And I don't understand how aiming personal attacks at Al Gore helps the discourse on the matter.

"There are many ways of knowing things, and science is just one. With it's propensity to change, Science can hardly be a reliable method to find truth"

Quite the contrary. With it's ABILITY to change, science is the BEST AVAILABLE method to find truth. Science's conclusions change to fit the best available evidence. Yes, this does mean that science sometimes comes to incorrect conclusions, but it is then science that invalidates these conclusions in favor of the correct ones. Science is not infallible, nor does it claim to be. But it is the BEST method we have to determine the truth of the world around us.

If you have a better method of determining what's true and untrue, I would be glad to hear it (as well as the reasoning behind the method).

The following comment was posted by G5 in a separate thread. It is reposted here by me because I will be responding to it with my next comment, and thought it would be more convienient.

**************************************************************************

jhat,

I read those proofs that you supplied supporting your position on "race". I disagree with them and find the following definitions more acceptable.

Scientific Definition:

Scientists keep finding more information about "race", and how it applies to humans. The science information you supplied was either archaic or selected from a biased source.

According to the following survey asking scientists how many DISAGREE with the concept of "race" in humans the following results show a trend. I used Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(class...

________________________________________________

A survey, taken in 1985 (Lieberman et al. 1992), asked 1,200 American anthropologists how many disagree with the following proposition: "There are biological races in the species Homo sapiens." The responses were:

* physical anthropologists 41%

* cultural anthropologists 53%[74]

The figure for physical anthropologists at PhD granting departments was slightly higher, rising from 41% to 42%, with 50% agreeing. This survey, however, did not specify any particular definition of race (although it did clearly specify biological race within the species Homo sapiens); it is difficult to say whether those who supported the statement thought of race in taxonomic or population terms.

The same survey, taken in 1999,[75] showed the following changing results for anthropologists:

* physical anthropologists 69%

* cultural anthropologists 80%

__________________________________________________

This trend continues, and although I often find errors in Wikipedia about some topics, I find no reason to disagree with with the posted scientific findings.

Colloquial Definition:

I reject your colloquial definitions because they are opinions by politically biased sources. Those sources attempt to divide people and to maintain artificial divisions resulting in more strife, and underclasses. (Poverty pimps find "Class Envy" as a useful tool.)

In effect they would create "artificial racism" to fit their agendas. How else can they scream "racism" when there isn't any? A more reasonable target would not be race, but would be culture and ethnicity. But, culture and ethnicity do not have the explosive and emotional shock value that the trigger-word "Racist" does.

Don't quote social science to support your assertions about race. I have degrees in Social Science, and have worked in the fields extensively. There is a big difference between "science" and "science-ism". Science-ism is understood by science wannabes, not scientists. Rebuilding the hideousness of applied "race" through Colloquial definitions rooted in politics appalls me.

-- Posted by G5 on Fri, Mar 13, 2009, at 6:08 PM

**************************************************************************

The above comment was posted by G5 in a separate thread.

o.k. you mentioned one. What is your opinion of the tax problems, of the various appointees, that were reported by ABC, NBC, CBS, etc. etc. And I hesitate to defend G5 because many of his posts labast only one side of our current problem (I believe it is the fault of POLITITICIANS)(and notice, I posted MANY).

I hesitate to debate you because I believe your education to be much broader than mine. You may be correct to criticize G5's method or maybe, his "opinions", but merely criticizing the method does not necessarily make his points incorrect. Do you offer any rebuttal to his assertions?

"real intellectuals" who might you be referring to? Someone who can't spout anything other than what he is been spoon fed by CNBC. I haven't heard a wit of criticism of anything in our government except how badly the Bush and the republicans have screwed things up. Where the intellectual honesty in that? Can you honestly tell me you agree with everything that has gone on in this administration so far? You guys all use the same tactics, criticize, impugn and consider yourselves so much superior to everyone else. Your "bullet" comment is the equivalent of a third grader's "I hope you die" tantrum. Wow your intellectual power is killing me. The bullet I catch will be while I'm standing up for what I believe in. Yours will be next to a mass grave they have herded you into like sheep. You're your "intellect" reflects bullets.

"It is simply wrong for commentators to continue to focus on President Barack Obama's high levels of popularity, and to conclude that these are indicative of high levels of public confidence in the work of his administration. Indeed, a detailed look at recent survey data shows that the opposite is most likely true. The American people are coming to express increasingly significant doubts about his initiatives, and most likely support a different agenda and different policies from those that the Obama administration has advanced."

"Polling data show that Mr. Obama's approval rating is dropping and is below where George W. Bush was in an analogous period in 2001. Rasmussen Reports data shows that Mr. Obama's net presidential approval rating -- which is calculated by subtracting the number who strongly disapprove from the number who strongly approve -- is just six, his lowest rating to date."

It's not just losing Republicans:

"Overall, Rasmussen Reports shows a 56%-43% approval, with a third strongly disapproving of the president's performance. This is a substantial degree of polarization so early in the administration. Mr. Obama has lost virtually all of his Republican support and a good part of his Independent support, and the trend is decidedly negative."

And it's not just Rasmussen:

"Recent Gallup data echo these concerns. That polling shows that there are deep-seeded, underlying economic concerns. Eighty-three percent say they are worried that the steps Mr. Obama is taking to fix the economy may not work and the economy will get worse. Eighty-two percent say they are worried about the amount of money being added to the deficit. Seventy-eight percent are worried about inflation growing, and 69% say they are worried about the increasing role of the government in the U.S. economy."

What do you know? As it turns out, you can't break multiple campaign promises in a month and still expect the Hopeychangey armor to work.

Poor Guillermo, you assume I'm not aware of comic genius. I'm perfectly aware of comic genius. However, I don't think Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert would fit that bill. I laugh at their complete lack of intelligent thought quite a bit, I'll have you know. There's no shortage of laughter here. If that's what you think constitutes comic genius then fine. I know you like to label disagreement as "ignorance" which is ignorant itself but I just have a different opinion. Frankly, I've wasted enough time discussing someone as irrelevant as Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert anyway.

Profit = positive gain after an investment or business operation - all expenses

I don't disagree that there are punishments IF they get caught AND a court finds they went outside their scope of services. I just don't see the point in allowing it to get to that point.

You're right about our differences though. We differ about whether non profits and for profit companies should be on a level playing field. Then again, I've always had an apprehension for anything that undermines competition and fairness in the business industry.

"I never said that you did mention his earmark plan."

Again, I never said that you said that. I was merely expressing my confusion as to why you brought it up, when were were discussing the benefits/detractions of earmarks, NOT the actual process of earmarking. So, I have been caught up. Let's put the issue to bed.

Most businesses are honest and hard working. I'm not suggesting that they are not. However, all for-profit businesses are dedicated to making profits to give to their shareholders or private owners. That is the primary goal of a for-profit business, to make money. There is nothing wrong with that, it's good for the economy.

A non-profit business's goal is not to make profit, but provide for the public good. This is why they receive special treatment under the law. They are tax exempt because we recognize that their efforts are not always in THEIR interest, but in the PUBLIC's interest. So they get special treatment in the eyes of the law. Which is why I don't think it's unreasonable to give them preference when spending the PUBLIC's money.

There are a complex system of laws (Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. § 501(c))regulating what activities a non-profit can engage in, as well as what it can do with it's money.

An executive of a non-profit who takes excess profit and goes on a golf trip to the Bahamas would be BREAKING THE LAW (state laws vary).

"Excess: what's left over. Profit: what's left over. Just because it's an economic term doesn't make it less redundant."

It is not redundant. Excess profit and normal profit refer to different things. Please excuse me for using a economics vocabulary term when talking about businesses. I'll try not to in the future. (Sarcasm, in case you missed it)

Normal Profit = Cost of Opportunity + Cost of Capital

Basically, the cost of running the business, paying everyone's salaries, renting office space, etc.

Excess Profit = Normal Profit + any more profit

In a for-profit company, the excess profit ends up in the hands of the shareholders/owners/etc.

In a non-profit company, the excess profit is required to be put back into the company. Using that money for personal benefit would be violating the laws regulating non-profit entities.

Example: There was a non-profit hospital in a town I lived in. The CEO did receive a sizable salary. However, he directed some of the hospital's excess profits to building his house close to the hospital, claiming it was acceptable use because it was essential for the business. The hospital was audited, he had to pay back the funds, and he was asked to retire.

I think our argument is boiling down to this:

I think non-profit organizations should receive special treatment under the law.

You think they shouldn't receive special treatment under the law.

You said, "I also made no comments about Obama's earmark reform plan. "

I responded, "I never said that you did mention his earmark plan." Let me know when you're caught up so we can put that issue to bed.

You say most non profits are overwhelmingly devoted to public good and I say most businesses are overwhelmingly honest, hard working organizations only looking to make an honest living. Now, why should they be disadvantaged because of that? Non profits can increase a salary, buy a golf course, take an expensive trip or any other number of things and still label it as being reinvested in the organization and be free from litigation because it can all be construed as an "investment."

I'm sorry you devoted so much effort to why we shouldn't have no bid contracts. I never said for-profits shouldn't be subject to no bid contracts. I was saying that non-profits are just as able to abuse profits as anyone else and they should also be subject to no bid contracts when they would be in competition with a private entity and not given preferential treatment simply because of their tax filing status.

You said you were frustrated because you saw contracts going to businesses you could have underbid in a bidding process. Imagine how a business that could have underbid a non-profit feels when that non-profit gets the contract without a bidding process. The principle is no different whether you're a for-profit or non-profit. Fair is fair and everyone should have to play by the same rules.

Excess: what's left over. Profit: what's left over. Just because it's an economic term doesn't make it less redundant.

Since you are a contractor you should know that when approving a bid that your bid only has to be the lowest responsible bid. If you and the others bidding all submit bids that would include what you call "excess profits" and yours is the lowest. Your bid can be accepted and it is 100% legal. If the only difference between the three of you is the price and the agency chooses a more expensive bid, for example, then it is not legal and will probably be contested in court. I've never heard of anyone losing in court because a company made "excess profits" in a fair bidding process.

G5,

You confusion stems from the multiple meanings of the word "race".

1. Scientific definition

The term 'race' is used in scientific circles to mean race "any inbreeding group, including taxonomic subgroups such as subspecies, taxonomically subordinate to a species and superordinate to a subrace and marked by a pre-determined profile of latent factors of hereditary traits."

So the term is used to classify subsets of flora and fauna.

All humans belong to the same species, Homo Sapiens. One could state that 'races' (e.g. latino, asian, caucasian) DO fit the definition of a subspecies.

To be a subspecies, a group must

-1 Be reliably distinguishable from members of other groups.

-2 Have a minimum amount of genetic flow between other subspecies.

So perhaps back when interracial marriages were not legal or socially acceptable, the scientific definition of "race" could have been applied to humans (as there was a minimal amount of cross-breading between races)

However, with so many interracial marriages today, most people would probably agree that our concept of "race" no longer meets the second criteria, and is not scientifically valid.

Which brings us to:

2. Colloquial definition

"The categorization of humans into populations or groups on the basis of various sets of heritable characteristics."

This definition (while including biological factors) typically incorporates social and cultural values as well.

Wikipedia has two differnt articles, one for each meaning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(biolo...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(class...

Interestingly, the same thing happens to the word "evolution". With the colloquial definition meaning "a guess or an idea about how something happened", and the scientific definition meaning "an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena."

Mccook1,

OOOOOOOOOK, you are either misunderstanding me or not reading my post.

I never said that you said that Obama said he was going to end earmarks. We are complete agreement that he never made that claim, and that you never claimed that he made that claim.

Additionally, I never claimed that you said I mentioned his earmark plan. You are the one who brought up his earmark plan. I was simply trying to express my confusion, as I thought we were discussing the good/bad aspects of earmarks, and you started criticizing Obama's earmarks plan. My original point had nothing to do with HOW earmarks are handled, but whether they were helpful or detrimental.

"So if anonymous earmarks are "ELIMINATED" and it's online. Why repeat legislation that's already passed"

Um, we don't. Listen to his speech, or read the transcript. He was not calling for anonymous earmarks to be eliminated. He did mention that they were ALREADY eliminated. He was calling for more transparency and government oversight of the content of earmarks. For instance, he said that he want's to make it so that every congressman requesting earmarks lists those requests on his website. And he wants to open them up to public debate. In short, he was talking about more transparency.

"The "excess profit" as you so redundantly call it"

Not redundantly. Excess profit (aka, supernormal profit) is a term in econmoics referring to profit exceeding normal profit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excess_prof...

"could also go back to shareholders"

Yes, it could. But it could just as easily go to executive bonuses. I thought that you especially would appreciate that, given you were just talking about corruption in non-profit entities.

And, even if we knew 100% that the excess profit would go to the shareholders instead of executives. As a conservative, do you really want government OVERPAYING for projects because companies aren't allowed to bid for them?

I have no illusion that all for-profits are greedy and non-profits are saints. But they are different types of entities that need to be treated differently under the law.

"A non-profit could take that "excess profit" and give a big increase to their executives, spend it on an extravagant trip to the Bahamas, buy a new jet, they could buy luxury cars for certain executives to drive for work but they could do good things with it too."

Only if they break the law. In order to be a non-profit organization, the organization typically provide a public good (hospitals, schools, etc), and reinvest excess profit into the organization where it is not allowed to benefit individual shareholders. This is why NPO's have tax exempt status. There are many laws regarding how a non-profit must operate.

Now, I don't have any illusion that ALL non-profits work this way, there are certainly some that bend or even break the law. But they still require different treatment than for-profit businesses.

"legal definition of a non-profit goes WAY beyond those examples "

I am aware, here is the list. non-profit goes WAY beyond those examples.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:No...

A company that makes itself a non-profit has demonstrated a dedication to the public good over the potential to make a profit. Thus, they are treated differently (e.g. tax exempt status). Yes, there are probably some that don't have the best of intentions. But NPO's are overwhelmingly charitable organizations that provide public good.

"If "excess profit" is why you think businesses should bid contracts then I sure hope you are not in government because that is NOT why projects are put out to bid. "

Yes, they are. They are also put out to bid for the reason you stated, so the taxpayers get their money worth. Projects are governed by scope, cost, and time. During bidding, if two companies are able to deliver equivalent scope and time, cost is the deciding factor.

And as a matter of fact, I DO work for the government, as a contractor. When the government puts out a project for bid, my company competes with contractors to see who can achieve the scope and time constraints of the project for the lowest cost. (or sometimes the scope and cost for smallest time, etc.)

No-bid contracts are frustrating for us, because we see other companies get projects that we could have underbid them for (while providing equivalent time and quality).

"They are the ones we need to get rid of and quick." I agree. But with such a high congressional incumbency rate, that is unlikely. Next best thing: getting rid of a mechanism they abuse for financial gain (hint: it's no-bid contracts)

Thanks Carl. That story made me thankful that I don't bet on horses.

jhat,

I'll try to put this in simpler terms. I said people were fooling themselves if they even thought he would oppose earmarks. I never said anything about him ending earmarks.

I never said that you did mention his earmark plan. I was using that as an example of the only thing he plans to do about earmarks other than to approve each one that comes in front of him.

"If you've been paying attention, 2007 legislation (that Obama helped write) established an unprecedented level of transparency for earmarks, putting federal spending online and ELIMINATING anonymous earmarks."

So if anonymous earmarks are "ELIMINATED" and it's online. Why repeat legislation that's already passed.

The "excess profit" as you so redundantly call it, could also go back to shareholders, be used to create more jobs in the company, across the board raises for all employees, expand their offices or it could go into one of the many community programs that businesses support. You are using the assumption that "businesses are bad and greedy" and "non-profits are good and do no wrong" and that is nothing more than a stereotype.

A non-profit could take that "excess profit" and give a big increase to their executives, spend it on an extravagant trip to the Bahamas, buy a new jet, they could buy luxury cars for certain executives to drive for work but they could do good things with it too. They could do all of that and still claim they "invested it all back into the organization". Obama uses schools and the like as an example but the legal definition of a non-profit goes WAY beyond those examples and he knows it but the schools, fire departments, red cross make better examples than energy consultants, law firms or grant writers which compete with for-profit businesses. If a non-profit is in competition with a for-profit they shouldn't be exempt from bidding requirements just because they formed their organization differently but perform the same services.

If "excess profit" is why you think businesses should bid contracts then I sure hope you are not in government because that is NOT why projects are put out to bid. They are bid to encourage competition, ensure the project is to be completed as planned and get the most for the taxpayer's dollar not because some bureaucrat thinks a company is making too much money. However, I will concede that some lawmakers have no better reason than that due to their own lack of concern for the American business economy. They are the ones we need to get rid of and quick.

I am not a blind dog, I am a person who doesn't understand vague metaphors.

"while I have not had time to reasearch the facts you stated, let me offer this. If the people have more money to spend, will they not spend it on goods and services?"

That certainly is one economic theory. And I do tend to agree with that general premise, except for one caveat: Lower income taxes on the middle and lower classes increases consumption, but that is not necessarily so for the wealthy upper class.

As income levels rise, marginal propensity to consume tend to drop. So economic demand (consumption) is best stimulated by reducing the tax burden on lower incomes while raising the burden on higher incomes.

See: "Demand theory, The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics"

If you look at the tax plan Obama proposed during the campaign, you'll see that it proposed exactly that. It was intended to increase the demand for goods.

It is the "supply side" vs "demand side" views of economics that is debated. Unfortunately, both views actually make 'logical' sense. What we have had for the last 8 years has been more "supply side" economics (think Bush tax cuts). And the idea now is that we should give "demand side" economics a try again.

Of course I still post here doodle, it's always fun to see what my hometown folks have to say.

Geeze, with Sean Hanity wanna-be's like McCook1/2 running around, it's hard to imagine why I'm not taking him very seriously.

Maybe things would be different if we were somewhere other than a second class newspaper website where bloggers write pro-bono about whatever they hear on more prominent news outlets.

Maybe it'd be easier to take someone seriuosly if they'd get out of their glimmering towers of morality and have an open conversation about the real pros and cons of current news topics. It's hard to not make a mockery of someone who is so cemented in their beliefs that they refuse to acknowledge any other point of view.

Maybe if some of those things changed, people would be more inclined to have a real discussion instead of making tongue-in-cheek jabs at each other. However, this is the internet and I don't expect the current discourse to change.

jhat,

I don't know where you keep getting this idea that I said Obama wanted to "end" earmarks. I said he is not "opposing" them. He requested nearly a billion dollars in earmarks in just 3 years in the Senate. Then he ran for President and withdrew all of his requests for earmarks. I guess he had a momentary "come to Jesus" moment. Don't you worry though because that moment passed away the night he got elected. You don't need to remind us that he likes his pork. Personally, I prefer my pork on a plate rather than on paper but that's just me. I can't expect Obama to fight against earmarks if he supports earmarks but I don't have to agree with his support of earmarks either.

The best his so-called "earmark reform" hopes to achieve is to make it easier to see who's responsible for specific earmarks and to avoid conflicts of interest for for-profit businesses only. So, any non-profit conflict of interest is ok because Democrats do a lot of business and back door dealings with non-profits. Where was it that Blago wanted to get a job for his wife again? Ah yes, he wanted a good paying job for her on the board of a non-profit organization. What's to prevent a Senator, Congressman or President from getting a specific earmark for a non-profit in return for a similiar favor? Just because they're called "non-profits" doesn't mean they don't make money because they do and their executives are still paid extremely well. They just don't get profit shares, they just get nice salaries and other perks like book deals and free travel.

Most of the people who submit these earmarks don't try to hide them anyway. They actually brag about them and frankly, expect full credit for every earmark they get. That's how a lot of these people get re-elected back home. Ben Nelson is a perfect example of this type of person. He loves his earmarks and never turns down a photo op to take credit for the latest earmark he's brought to fruition. There should be a new saying for Congressmen and Senators who want to be effective in helping their state in Congress: "those who can, work. Those who can't, pork".

G.I.,

That criticism of G5 was very Jon Stewart-esque. Using someone's own words against them. Intelligent and humorous. Kudos.

I'll tell you guys one thing - the rest of the world absolutely loves Obama. He's not just an all-time high with American citizens but with the entire planet. Not a single person I've met from Europe, Asia or Aussie has a single problem with him and a positive face is what American foreign policy needs right now in addition to everything else.

Who are you to tell anyone that?

You have yet to prove or disprove anything on this site, except that you and all the other all the other Depends-jockeys your age can dish out whatever whatever garbage that comes into your collective head without having to listen to a word of rebuttal.

If you would have watched the video attached to that link, you'd see that people didn't go back to New Orleans because liberals wanted to the corral up all the folks in the 9th ward, people came back because they wanted to go back to their homes.

It's like after every flood of the Mississippi where entire towns are flooded, yet after the waters recede, they're back to rebuilding.

And I don't understand your point about liberals keeping people in the ghetto through taxation (I would if you had references, but I understand that because you're old I'm supposed to take your word for it). It was under Republican rule that urban areas began to deteriorated the most, with Eisenhower presiding over such urban decay friendly actions as redlining and outsourcing (while at the same time creating the Interstate System, ensuring the economic drain of most inner city areas).

The crabs don't need to pull each other farther down in the bucket if there's someone there to put a lid on their progress.

Mike,

I'm not even going to get into the political aspect of this conversation as I believe in not fighting a battle of wits with an unarmed man. I want to point out something else you have said in regards to Justin.

I've known Justin for years on a personal level and have even traveled overseas with him and his wife. The fact that you can sit there, at your computer, and call a man that you know racist only proves that you have no business to judge people, let alone stand up and tell people their political views are wrong. Every time someone disapproves with President Obama or says anything about the illegal Mexicans stealing Americans jobs, the proverbial race card is thrown. If you had taken the time to actually read(and I mean ACTUALLY read) Justine's comments, you would have clearly seen that he was implicating ILLEGAL Mexican workers.

I, don't have a single problem with a Mexican doing a single job in this great country. What I do have a problem with are the ones without proper documentation to even work here to begin with. What you need to do is to sit back and reflect on what your views and opinions are of people you personally know and then let that tell you something about the people you DON'T personally know. Your judgement is not one I'd take very well at this point if this is how you treat people you know and you just take other comments out of context for your own self indulgence.

When you read this blog, and some of the liberal comments, all you can really do IS cry. Our country really is on it's last legs, with Democrats gleefully driving us on towards the total failure they want so bad.

What a sad day for our country. Look at what all the years of educational malpractice have done to our citizens.

Wait, politicians use lies to win over voters in an election?

I can't imagine anyone doing that!

Oh, wait:

"It's time to restore honor and dignity to the White House." - GW during the 2000 presidential campaign.

Justin,

I can see why you're ticked off (I don't think I saw anything racist about your previous post), but good lord man there is no need to swear.

Think of the children!!

Could someone tell me what "racist" remark Justin made when talking about another race? I can usually pick out when people overreact to an innocent statement but I couldn't find anything in Justin's posts that even came close to racism of any sort and I didn't even see him reference someone's race. Racism is not a light accusation and it should not be treated as such.

Unfortunately, Mike's arrogance is typical of others with his views and now the debate about Mexicans taking jobs from Americans is "tired" and therefore not worth debate anymore, because he said so. Many of these workers do work as farmhands, factory workers and construction. I know of a lot of people who wouldn't mind doing those jobs. However, nobody knows exactly how many illegals do specific jobs because they are undocumented and no employer would openly want to discuss their illegal hiring practices. Yet, people still claim they know based on guesses and assumptions and they expect us to end all debate based on their "best guess" but I'd prefer to enforce our laws, the way this nation of laws was designed to operate. Right now, we have laws and they need to be enforced. If you don't like the law then you can change it for better or for worse. The law is the law whether you like it or not. It's not always fair but it's still the law. What's the point in passing a law if you don't enforce it? You can pass as many laws as you want to fix a problem but what good does it do if you live in a nation that picks and chooses which laws it will enforce?

Anyone who thought Obama would be opposed to earmarks while he was campaigning only managed to fool themselves. Of course, I'm sure there was a lot of that going on inside peoples' minds. Here comes $8 billion more in pork. He promised change. Obviously, he didn't mean a change for the better.

I wish you would answer a question and stop preaching sermons that Republicans are bad and Democrats (unless he is Ben Nelson) are good.

Please advise us as to how President Obama'a budget is going to help people in SW Nebraska.

It is a pretty simple question, yet I have asked it 5 times.

Wow Justin can you be a little more racist the next time you post about a race other than your own?

Carter did not lose the election because of inflation, he lost because he could not figure out a way to free hostages in Iran?

And let's give it a rest on the Mexicans taking our jobs meme. It is nothing more than a red herring. The only jobs these "Mexicans" are taken are jobs that no one else will take. That argument is tired.

I also love that every post you type you are almost predicting the end of the world. But, what happens when nothing you predict happens? What happens when Obama is actually successful? Are you going to applaud him? I seriously doubt it. I have a feeling you will use one of two arguments: "Well most of the credit really should go to Bush" or "Things aren't as good as they appear".

I've finally realized that you truly believe that the only way for this country to succeed is for a Republican to be in charge, even though in modern times most of our recession/depressions have started in a Republican administration and ended in a Democratic administration.

One more final thing. I heard on Fox News the other day that they are predicting (or claiming we are already in one)depression right around the corner. Pretty big switch for a network the collectively claimed not three months ago that we weren't even in a recession.

Oops I guess I have one more final final thing. Let's put a rest to something that all the cable news networks have been erronousely charging. Obama never made a campaign promise to end earmarks, he made a campaign promise to reform it and later today or tomorrow he will be pushing forward a plan to do just that.

Since President Obama is enjoying all time high approvals maybe you could make us all feel better in these depressing times by explaining how his budget is going to help hard working Nebraskans in particular those in SW Nebraska.

Thanks for your answer.

The best thing that could happen would be for Republicans to take control of the House, get the Senate within a couple votes of a 50-50 split (doesn't matter which side has more) and Obama already has the White House. That's our best shot at getting balanced legislation. If Republicans win the White House in 2012 then Democrats should take the House but the Senate should remain around 50-50.

I see you had a quote from a single Republican, who nobody paid any attention to before his quote. I've never heard of the guy or his quote until now but I love how one person's quote means he speaks for every single Republican. Is he the minority leader, a spokesman, anything other than one single man? Nope, just one Congressman out of hundreds, who happened to have a quote you'd like to pin on all Republicans but you can't. Doesn't mean you won't try though. Nice try but people have more common sense than that. I'm sure you get frustrated when Pelosi says something stupid that others try pinning on all Democrats and she's actually the Speaker of the House. Let's try to avoid the hypocrisy, it's an ugly thing.

What we have now is one party's total control of all legislation. They can pass anything they want in the House, they only need 1 vote in the Senate to break a filibuster and control of the White House. They have no reason to be whining about Republicans blocking their bills because Republicans don't have that kind of power right now. The most critical obstruction is coming from the Democrats themselves, who oppose this bill but I didn't see a single mention of that in this article. I looked several times but not one mention of the considerable DEMOCRAT opposition to this bill by DEMOCRATS!!! Republicans are joining Democrats in opposition/obstruction (whatever you want to call it) to this bill. Did you forget that part Mike or did you just decide to leave that part out intentionally? Therefore, Republicans are working in a bi-partisan manner with Democrats and actually trying to help Democrats. They're just not helping the Democrats you want them to help. Sorry, but you have a bad bill with DEMOCRAT written all over it. I only hope that those Democrats who opposed it don't get the blame for it too.

I gotta say to SW Nebraska Plant, or rather ask, when have I ever said Pelosi's plan is perfect for this country and when have I ever belittled anyone in opposition to her?

The answers are I haven't? As I have said many times before we are living in revisionist time in our lives where facts and history are changed, and words are put into a persons mouth or an a page to prove someone else's point. Just make sure I have actually said something you think I have said before giving me credit for it.

More commentary,

A eulogy for the right,

Mitt Romny in 2012?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/10/c...

"I want you to pay close attention to one line, 'Our goal is to bring down approval numbers...' So in essence what he is saying is their goal isn't to help Americans in this great time of need but to drive down approval numbers for the other party. That is pretty good definition of selfishness. Republicans in Congress are already running for office in 2010. Their goal is to basically wait out all of this, vote no on everything, and then when the 2010 election rolls around blame everything on the Democrats."

Mike, this Partisan BS has got to stop. I'm getting so tired of hearing this crap all the time. Of course the Republicans are trying to obstruct at all times hoping Democrats get blame. That is exactly what Democrats did while Bush was in office. That is unfortunately the way politics works in the United States. The party out of power tries to get in power by any means neccessary.

Furthermore, I understand you feel Pelosi's plans are exactly what will help America, but there are millions who do not believe it to be so. Why must you attack and belittle those who don't aggree with you? Oh yeah that question goes for all of the Web Warriors Right or Left who use forums like this to vent thier anger.

Personally I would like to see a viable third party come to prominence, unfortunately that won't happen because the only other parties are even more on the lunatic fringe than the two major parties are becoming. Maybe I'll have to win the lottery some day then create my own party.