Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2011 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2011 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
204 comments Add your comment
NRB
September 13th, 2009
7:17 am
Well despite a liberal phoning in a bomb threat on Friday, there was a hell of an anti-government protest in DC and other states yesterday.
The Demowits can only ignore real Americans and their concerns for only so long, ya know.
In other words, Dumbocrats: don’t bite the hand that feeds you. It’s not in your best interest to always support parasites, losers, and criminals.
I know thats your voter base, but still…
Finn McCool
September 13th, 2009
7:23 am
Football!
Rah rah ree, kick em in the knee!
Rah rah rass, kick em in the other knee!
Finn McCool
September 13th, 2009
7:27 am
NRB, such anger on a wonderful Sunday morning?
Just 24 more hours till Limbaugh is back on the radio. You can hold on! You must hold on!
The “real” Americans voted by landslide numbers in November that we were no longer going to be led by wingnutters who get nothing done except pass tax breaks off to the richest amongst us. Which, basically, is all the Republicans did while they had the House, Senate, and White House during the first part of this decade.
Normal
September 13th, 2009
7:28 am
Cigareete ashes…
cigarette butts…
we’ve got (the other team) by the nutts…
pull, team, pull…
Normal
September 13th, 2009
7:29 am
Finn, NRB just needs more fiber…he’s just too full of it.
Normal
September 13th, 2009
7:32 am
Now, time for serious stuff.
MR. PRESIDENT, BRING OUR TROOPS HOME NOW!
TaxPayer
September 13th, 2009
7:37 am
We want less government. Bring home the troops and set them free to become hard working non-killing members of our society. Make love, not Republicans.
NRB
September 13th, 2009
7:37 am
Thats funny…I’m not rich and yet I was able to benefit from Bush’s tax cuts? Oh thats right…thats because I invest my money…I don’t waste it on iphones, blu-rays, 20″ rims, and whatever other “rights” you dumb liberals yank out of your arse.
Speaking of landslides, 2010 will be interesting when the useless parasite Democrats all get tossed out on their cans.
Like I said, you can only support criminals, terrorists, and parasites for only so long…and your joy ride is about to end.
NRB
September 13th, 2009
7:42 am
We want less government. Bring home the troops and set them free to become hard working non-killing members of our society. Make love, not Republicans.
——————————————————————————-
Bring home the troops? You might want to tell that to Oblahma since he’s INCREASING troop levels in Afghanistan. Well you wouldn’t know it because the media coddles him after working so hard to elect him…but the wars are still going strong!
I know I know…it’s Bush’s fault, and will be for the next 100 years…and it’s racist…and this and that.
TaxPayer
September 13th, 2009
7:44 am
Bush did not cut taxes. He and his Republican cronies deferred them and they did that by borrowing money from places like China and the Social Security trust fund. Further, they set their own tax cuts to expire in 2010. Why! Because their own analysis proved that their own tax cuts did not pay for themselves with corresponding cuts in spending or increased tax revenues. Bush and his Republican cronies are liars and cheats that use nothing more than smoke and mirrors to fool anyone willing to believe.
NRB
September 13th, 2009
7:46 am
Michael Moore’s lame hit piece on capitalism can’t even gain interest at Cannes..LOL:
http://www.deadline.com/hollywood/michael-moore-and-harvey-weinstein-shut-out-at-venice-film-festival-israeli-war-film-lebanon-u-s-director-todd-solondz-win/
TnGelding
September 13th, 2009
7:46 am
NRB
September 13th, 2009
7:17 am
Thanks for supporting us. Would you volunteer for an IRS audit?
NRB
September 13th, 2009
7:48 am
Well certainly you can’t cut taxes without cutting spending that’s for sure. The government really only needs about 10% of the current amount of money it steals from us.
They need to SPEND LESS not STEAL MORE.
Why is the solution to always steal more? I don’t get it.
DeborahinAthens
September 13th, 2009
7:50 am
You are so right TaxPayer, not to mention the fact that the Republicans keep many of the biggest expenses out of the budget. Their philosophy? If we don’t put it in the American people are too stupid to notice it. One of the first things this administration did was make sure that the costs of the two wars were reflected in the budget. Don’t you love the hypocritical ranting of the Repugs about the deficit?
whimpyO
September 13th, 2009
7:54 am
Cheerleaders on the left are beginning to urge him, in the words of Maureen Dowd, to be “more Rocky, less Spocky.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27057.html#ixzz0Qzutp6Ml
ROFLMAO
He’ll gladly pay you one day for a health burger today.
Put a fork in him, he’s done.
NRB
September 13th, 2009
7:59 am
Don’t you love the hypocritical ranting of the Repugs about the deficit?
——————————————
Not as much as I love the hypocritical rantings of Dems about the wars. As in, the wars are now okay or somehow justified…cuz it’s a Dem in office. That’s why commie rags like the AJC don’t print headlines anymore announcing a daily troop death toll, that’s why losers like Jay don’t blog anymore about how “the surge won’t work” etc. etc. and on and on and on.
And oh yeah…all the paranoid ranting about the patriot act, detainee rights, wiretapping etc…Obama UPHELD these policies and extended them yet you don’t hear any criticism about it now do you.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
You friggin’ retarded dumb kool-aid drinker.
TaxPayer
September 13th, 2009
8:02 am
Republicans keep clamoring for less spending so let’s do it. Let’s see, one of those Republican plans to reduce healthcare spending is to get rid of Medicare and give folks a voucher in stead. The Republicans voted on and approved this plan in the form of a field trial to be started in six major metro areas in 2010. So, all of you folks in need of reduced government spending need to start showing some more vocal support for this Republican plan. Then, there is the other gigantic chunk of spending, the DoD. We spend $670+ billion dollars annually on the DoD and yet people like Saxby Chambliss whine when Obama and Gates agree that we don’t need so many F-22s, for example. Well, Saxby, you have to cut spending programs in order to cut spending. Is that one too much for your little sugar-coated peanut brain.
TnGelding
September 13th, 2009
8:05 am
NRB
September 13th, 2009
7:37 am
Tax rates were lowered across the board because the Democrats foolishly insisted. As a result, too many, myself included, aren’t paying anything. What would your investments be worth if not for the wasteful spending by dumb liberals and government “investments” to keep the economy from collapsing in the 8th year of a failed administration?
TaxPayer
September 13th, 2009
7:44 am
I like that deferred statement. They wanted to make the reductions permanent, but senate rules wouldn’t allow it. What about when they expire we put a 10% surtax on every taxpayer until we can close the budget gap? What irks me is the projected surpluses allowed for some serious changes to the entitlement programs that went unheeded. Newt had wanted to attack Social Security but the conservatives ran him out of town. He remained eerily silent after the Y2K coup.
TnGelding
September 13th, 2009
8:11 am
NRB
September 13th, 2009
7:48 am
You got that right about not cutting taxes unless you also cut spending. But they still contend the lower rates produced higher revenues, completely ignoring the trillions in debt ran up in the meantime. It would take 30% just to support the bloated Pentagon budget. Are you suggesting it be cut 67%? I would suggest about 40%.
TaxPayer
September 13th, 2009
8:13 am
The Muslims are coming , the Muslims are coming. Let’s see, that’s one if by land, two if by sea. What about air! Oh crap! We need more F-22s in order to maintain air superiority over New York City, that place where they make that good Picante Sauce. Isn’t that so, Saxby!
TnGelding
September 13th, 2009
8:13 am
whimpyO
September 13th, 2009
7:54 am
He has the opportunity to be one of our best ever. Let’s see if he’s up to the challenge. You might be right, but I’d say you are premature in your analysis.
TnGelding
September 13th, 2009
8:18 am
NRB
September 13th, 2009
7:59 am
From tha AJC:
“5 US troops among 50 killed in Afghan violence”
KABUL — About 50 civilians, security forces and militants were killed in a wave of violence around Afghanistan, including a bomb that left 14 Afghan travelers dead in one of the country’s most dangerous regions. Five American soldiers died in two attacks using roadside bombs.
http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/5-us-troops-among-137052.html
The policies will change. Stay tuned. He always said the fight was in Afghanistan, not that I agreed. The withdrawal from Iraq is on schedule.
TnGelding
September 13th, 2009
8:20 am
TaxPayer
September 13th, 2009
8:02 am
Did you ever find out which cities were selected to run the trials?
Mrs. Godzilla
September 13th, 2009
8:28 am
Good Morning Campers!
See the editorial in the Boston Globe?
“Let’s not mince words here: We now have an entire political party that is not only dedicated to the mediocre. It is dedicated to the nearly deranged.”
here:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/09/12/the_extreme_republican_party/?s_campaign=8315
NRB
September 13th, 2009
8:29 am
But they still contend the lower rates produced higher revenues, completely ignoring the trillions in debt ran up in the meantime.
————————————————————————-
The point about lower tax rates either increasing or decreasing revenue, is to me, moot.
You cannot run a deficit unless you spend more money than you’re taking in. That goes for a business, you or me, and the government. Fairly basic.
With that said, I want lower taxes because the money…plain and simple…belongs to people who work for it. Not the losers in government, and not the losers with their greedy little hands out begging the Dems for “moooorrreeee?”
Mrs. Godzilla
September 13th, 2009
8:36 am
Whatsoever you do to the least of the greedy little losers,,,,,that you do unto me!
Joe Matarotz
September 13th, 2009
8:39 am
Here is an interesting list I came across on opensecrets.org. These are the top 10 contributors to Obama’s presidential campaign. The text below is from their website.
***********************************************************************************************************************************
Barack Obama (D)
Top Contributors
This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization’s PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals’ immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.
Because of contribution limits, organizations that bundle together many individual contributions are often among the top donors to presidential candidates. These contributions can come from the organization’s members or employees (and their families). The organization may support one candidate, or hedge its bets by supporting multiple candidates. Groups with national networks of donors – like EMILY’s List and Club for Growth – make for particularly big bundlers.
University of California $1,591,395
Goldman Sachs $994,795
Harvard University $854,747
Microsoft Corp $833,617
Google Inc $803,436
Citigroup Inc $701,290
JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132
Time Warner $590,084
Sidley Austin LLP $588,598
Stanford University $586,557
*******************************************************************************************************************
By comparison, here are McCain’s number.
*******************************************************************************************************************
John McCain (R)
Top Contributors
This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization’s PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals’ immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.
Because of contribution limits, organizations that bundle together many individual contributions are often among the top donors to presidential candidates. These contributions can come from the organization’s members or employees (and their families). The organization may support one candidate, or hedge its bets by supporting multiple candidates. Groups with national networks of donors – like EMILY’s List and Club for Growth – make for particularly big bundlers.
Merrill Lynch $373,595
Citigroup Inc $322,051
Morgan Stanley $273,452
Goldman Sachs $230,095
JPMorgan Chase & Co $228,107
US Government $208,379
AT&T Inc $201,438
Wachovia Corp $195,063
UBS AG $192,493
Credit Suisse Group $183,353
************************************************************************************************************************
So if you think you smelled something, and you looked on the bottom of your shoe and it was clean, maybe you were smelling the Wall Street money smeared all over Obama.
And if you’re looking at this and saying it has nothing to do with Obama, then you’re still fooling yourself.
opensecrets.org. Don’t take my word for it – go see for yourself.
Normal
September 13th, 2009
8:45 am
Good article, Miz G. Thanks!
TnGelding
September 13th, 2009
8:46 am
Joe Matarotz
September 13th, 2009
8:39 am
Looked like a diverse group to me. Why would they support a socialist? Just shows what an incredible fund raising team he had.
Pennsylvanian
September 13th, 2009
8:49 am
John Linder has Joe Wilsoned POTUS Barack Obama. In writing –
http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=64507&SectionID=17&SubSectionID=&S=1
Linder says the POTUS has mislead us on some issues….
AmVet
September 13th, 2009
8:57 am
I always laugh at these lamebrain prognostications for 2010, including the “theory” about how the GOP is going to win in a landslide.
But with whom? Who are their rising stars? Who will carry the banner for some new and improved GOP? Michelle Bachmann??? Mark Sanford??? Sarah BarraClueless???
Their fervent hopes for success are as imaginary as is their Garden of Eden story.
Their ONLY hope is that the loathed liberals step on their dicks repeatedly.
But make no mistake, they have NO hope that their repulsive, repudiated message for the flat-eathers and assorted misfits that make up their “base” is going to all of a sudden start ringing sufficiently true with the rest of the American electorate.
The ones who left their Pup Tent in record numbers over the past few years. The one that outside of the moron belt of Dixie is roundly laughed at.
They have NO hope that they can reinvent themselves to get past this era of repugnant fake conservatism and deadly ineptitude. As exemplified by their War First, War Last, War Always mantra. BTW how come you card carrying members of the 101st Chairborne aren’t thrilled with the escalation in Afghanistan? I expect to see some kudos given to BHO by you warriors!
Cat got your tongues?
No, I don’t think these record setting losers and laughable failures are going to radically change the destiny they’ve laid for themselves.
The one predicated on a 5 win, 67 loss record in the past two elections…
Ima Georgia Pol Crook
September 13th, 2009
9:01 am
I admit, I am a Ga political legislative crook and DO NOT want an ethics panel to watch my crooked, criminal acts. Thats why I voted to drastically cut the panels funds. We’ve always been crooks so why stop now!!!!
http://www.ajc.com/news/legislature-slashes-watchdog-agency-136912.html
TaxPayer
September 13th, 2009
9:11 am
TnGelding
September 13th, 2009
8:20 am
No, I have not found thaqt yet. I suppose I could start calling Republican politicians. Surely, one of them will know.
Kayaker 71
September 13th, 2009
9:11 am
Amvet,
Your continual reference to one of the most decorated and respected units in the US Army as the 101st Chairborne is wearing a little thin. You might mean it as a collective term but the reference is both demeaning and a bit stupid, especially from a person with your handle.
TaxPayer
September 13th, 2009
9:23 am
With that said, I want lower taxes because the money…plain and simple…belongs to people who work for it. Not the losers in government, and not the losers with their greedy little hands out begging the Dems for “moooorrreeee?”
The Republican party pushed through the tax cuts without reducing spending. You should have insisted that they make the cuts in spending to match the cuts in taxes instead of borrowing the money so theat we now have to pay that back plus interest. Bottom line — never trust a Republican with a credit card.
NRB
September 13th, 2009
9:25 am
You should have insisted that they make the cuts in spending to match the cuts in taxes instead of borrowing the money so theat we now have to pay that back plus interest.
————————————————————
And how much of that spending is the DEMOCRAT controlled congress responsible for, since they took over in ‘06?
And how much are the Dems borrowing NOW?
I love that when the focus comes to the evil that the current administration is involved in, the discussion always reverts back to 2005 and earlier, before congress was in control by the left wing fanatical commies.
NRB
September 13th, 2009
9:26 am
Tea Partyers Drown Out CNN Reporter During Live Report
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1Ntu7Aapys&videos=IMOpRCqY1f4&playnext_from=TL&playnext=1
jt
September 13th, 2009
9:39 am
ObamaCare in brief: Government feeds you to the insurance companies, while simultaneously feeding the insurance companies to you. The state takes home a doggie bag.
That’s the substance of President Obama’s proposals in his Wednesday speech to Congress.
First, feeding you to the insurance companies:
[U]nder my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance — just as most states require you to carry auto insurance. Likewise — likewise, businesses will be required to either offer their workers health care, or chip in to help cover the cost of their workers. There will be a hardship waiver for those individuals who still can’t afford coverage, and 95 percent of all small businesses, because of their size and narrow profit margin, would be exempt from these requirements. But we can’t have large businesses and individuals who can afford coverage game the system by avoiding responsibility to themselves or their employees. Improving our health care system only works if everybody does their part.
Nothing complicated there. It’s a poll tax, payable directly to the insurance industry, courtesy of Uncle Sugar. You can pay “voluntarily” or you can pay with the mugger’s gun visibly drawn and pointed at you, but you’ll pay whether you want insurance or not.
jt
September 13th, 2009
9:41 am
Next, feeding the insurance companies to you:
Under this plan, it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a preexisting condition. As soon as I sign this bill, it will be against the law for insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick or water it down when you need it the most. They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or in a lifetime. We will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they get sick. And insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies — because there’s no reason we shouldn’t be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer before they get worse.
So much for freedom of contract. Insurers will be forced to sell to anyone who wants to buy, in perpetuity, regardless of whether or not the deal is profitable for them.
Do you prefer a low premium and high deductible? Too bad. “Arbitrary caps” are illegal — except for the one on the customer’s expenses — and since care you may not want or need is mandated for coverage, you’ll get (and pay for) the policy Obama wants you to have, not the policy you want.
jt
September 13th, 2009
9:42 am
Finally, the doggie bag:
If you’re “too poor,” or the policies are “too expensive,” you can take advantage of a “public option” subsidized by taxing the insurance companies (and, indirectly, their customers) on the policies everyone else has been forced at gunpoint to purchase. That’s the doggie bag. The “public option” won’t be good insurance — most of its revenues will be spent creating sinecures for bureaucrats — but it will be there. And if ObamaCare manages to lurch forward from the starting line at all, its proponents’ real goal is to eventually dispense with what little is left of “private sector” health care entirely and pull every last American into this “public option.”
Now for the really bad news:
Not only will ObamaCare not deliver the promised result (affordable health care for all), it won’t even deliver what I described above.
Even if Congress can be persuaded to pass a turkey of a bill incorporating these monumentally stupid and destructive ideas, the insurance companies and their K Street lobbyists have other ideas and all the money in the world to get those ideas amended into the law as time goes on.
At the end of ObamaCare, “the excluded middle” won’t just be a logical fallacy you’ve heard of, it will be an apt description of the world you live in. The “individual mandate” will remain and the insurance companies will make bank on it. The “public option” will remain too — as a place for insurers to dump customers who aren’t profitable. All those “a free unicorn and ice cream for everyone at insurers’ expense” parts? Silly citizen … unicorns are for people who can afford lobbyists!
In health care as in all other areas, government is a cannibalistic enterprise in which the privileged elites get treated to lunch. You? You are lunch.
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
September 13th, 2009
9:43 am
Well, if it’s Free Swim then Bookman must be out cluttering up a golf course and making us real golfers wait for tee times. But I see nothing changed on here after I took Saturday off from this blog. People are still calling each other names.
Anyhow, all of you need to hit your knees and Pray this a.m. like I’m going to do down at the Church of Holiness right after I hear the Rev. Postlewaite blast the libruls and their heathen ways. That is, if I can get over this hangover. I’m going to be praying this Obamacare gets beat and all the librul bums go out and find a job and stop trying to steal my money that I earned thru hard work. I just can’t hardly stand to think of the future. We only got about 15 months till My President’s tax cuts go away and we start hearing the wailing and gnashing of teeth of the hard-working Americans that are going to be seeing the guvmint take more of their hard-earned money. I don’t think the tea-baggers are going to do much good for them at all.
Have a good Sabbath everybody.
josef nix
September 13th, 2009
9:46 am
Hamburgers, barbecue,
Greasy, Greasy,
We beat (yo team)
Easy, Easy
–cheer from my high school days…
Looks like an interesting bunch of sour grapes on here this a.m. And a blessed cheery good morning to one and all…
K’chak–in case you’re about, responded downstairs…still looking for that other shoe!
NORMAL:
“MR. PRESIDENT, BRING OUR TROOPS HOME NOW!”
…yes, and while you’re at it DADT!
Wimpy0–thanks for the MoDo quote…best quppist at work in the bidness now that Molly Ivins is trading barbs with St Pete…
The question of the day? Which stinks worse, Donkey sh*t or Elephant sh*t?
Yankee
September 13th, 2009
9:53 am
Joe “The Heckler” Wilson. Why was I not surprise that this was a Southern Dixie (CONFEDERATE) Congressman. What do we really expect from a guy that’s from a state that still flies the Confederate Flag on it’s State’s Flag?
AmVet
September 13th, 2009
9:55 am
Yacker, it’s one of a VERY few terms I’ve Joe Bidened from someone else here. (GayGrayGeek?)
You know my work. I take no prisoners among these gutless Reich-wingers. I blaze a verbal path that others purloin from liberally (get it?). Which is fine. It’s just that I found that term exceptionally brilliant to describe the pro-war, never-served, never-will chickenhawks here that rooted and STILL root for the biggest and most deadly F Up to ever occupy the West Wing.
And yet they are mysteriously, almost inexplicably, silent regarding the Uppity Muslim Sans Birth Certificate’s escalation in Afghanistan??? Which they SURELY favor right????
Hmmmm, wonder why that is?
Any ideas?
Cat got their collective tongues?
I’ve got a few thoughts regarding their intellectual vapidness, inveterate dishonesty and a lack of testicular matter.
As for your “displeasure”, what can I say? Except get used to not getting what you want.
And I’ll keep doing my part to help ensure the lunatic-fringe dominated GOP get’s marginalized as the crazies and loons they clearly are…
Yankee
September 13th, 2009
9:56 am
NRB You know that OBAMA-HEALTHSCARE that you hate so much that’s being proposed by BIRTHER President might actually help you in attaing som PROZAC you MORON !!
NRB
September 13th, 2009
9:56 am
Blah blah racism blah blah racist blah blah. Who cares anymore. Okay it’s racist. Everything is racist. The sky is racist. The grass beneath our feet is racist. Racist racist racist. Blah blah.
Anyways, back to the real issues.
We aren’t going to let ANY communist, liberal, America hating, terrorist supporting, criminal LIAR, ruin this damn country…white OR black.
I Report/ Vast White Wing Conspirator :-) You Whine :-(
September 13th, 2009
10:00 am
Yeah and no peeing in the pool either, Taxpayer.
TaxPayer
September 13th, 2009
10:00 am
And how much of that spending is the DEMOCRAT controlled congress responsible for, since they took over in ‘06?
And how much are the Dems borrowing NOW?
I love that when the focus comes to the evil that the current administration is involved in, the discussion always reverts back to 2005 and earlier, before congress was in control by the left wing fanatical commies.
Since you seem to think that the Democrats are somehow responsible for all the spending since 2006, please feel free to show me. I do recall that the congress was Republican-controlled and the president was Republican when the tax cuts without corresponding spending cuts were passed. Do you have information that contradicts this, NRB. I would really like to read all about it.
NRB
September 13th, 2009
10:03 am
Yeah Republicans are “pro war”…
well…except for:
John F. Kennedy (D) who escalated Vietnam and killed 58000 troops.
Let’s go back further, to the first World War…Woodrow Wilson (D) declared war on Germany and marked our entrance into World War I. The USA suffered nearly 117,000 casualties.
Onward to World War II. In 1941, Franklin D. Roosevelt (D) declared war on Japan (and rightly so) after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. So why did we attack Germany, after all – they hadn’t attacked us? The US suffered nearly 417,000 casualties in World War II.
In 1950, Harry S. Truman (D) led the United States into a proxy war against Communist ideals (Soviet Union) via North Korea…The USA lost approximately 390,000 service members in the Korean conflict.
Yeah…I mean, the Republican party is obviously the pro-war one…we lost almost 5000 guys in Iraq, which obviously pales in comparison to the 1.5 million lost under Democrats.
As for Afghanistan, a better question is this: where is all the anti-war whining from the left now? Oh right. It’s a Dem in office. The war is okay now.
TaxPayer
September 13th, 2009
10:03 am
Run along to church, Andy. You wouldn’t want to miss an opportunity to give to your favorite charity.