Romney 2012: Same sales pitch, same product, different salesman
The man above may seem vaguely familiar to many of you. He appeared in New York this week to kick off a symposium sponsored by the George W. Bush Institute and launch the institute’s “4% Project.”
As our former president explains:
“This July the institute is publishing a book — gotta be a staggering thing for some of the cynics out there, I publish a book and the Bush Institute publishes a book, they didn’t think I could read, much less write a book — we’re publishing a book called “4 Percent Solution.”
The goal of the book and of the larger initiative, he tells us, is to advocate entitlement reform and tax and immigration policies that if implemented would create real annual growth in GDP of at least 4 percent. It’s an ambitious goal, he concedes, “but most of the experts believe it’s doable.”
Certainly, it’s been achieved in the not-too-distant past. As the chart below documents, we did manage to achieve real annual GDP growth of at least 4 percent for four consecutive years, from 1997-2000.
However, that goal was never achieved during the eight years in which President Bush held office, even though during most of that time the Republican Party controlled Congress. Indeed, by the time Bush left office after implementing many of the same policies that he now advocates through the Bush Institute, the economy was in a free fall the likes of which we had not seen in some 80 years.
Do the words “This sucker could go down” ring a bell?
It is true, of course, that President Bush is no longer in office. It is also true that he is not on the 2012 presidential ballot. In fact, members of his party seem to have tried to wipe their one-time champion from their collective memory, as if it were all just one bad dream.
But here’s the thing. As the video above demonstrates, the former president appears to have learned nothing from the traumatic collapse of the economy under his leadership. He continues to advocate the identical policies that he advocated before he took office and before the economic events documented in the chart above. It’s as if it never happened.
“If you raise taxes on the so-called rich, you’re really raising taxes on the job creators,” he says. “And if the goal is private sector growth, you gotta recognize that the best way to create that growth is to leave capital in the treasuries of the job creators….”
Far more importantly, while his party may try to forget Bush himself, it too continues to champion his economic approach. It too has learned absolutely nothing from the events of the past dozen years, and it has changed absolutely nothing.
The economic policies advocated by Mitt Romney in the campaign of 2012 are identical to those that were advocated — and later implemented — by George W. Bush in the 2000 campaign. (The foreign policy approach is identical as well, but that’s a topic for another day). Are the American people expected to simply forget that they have seen those policies implemented and put into action, and that they have seen the consequences?
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
655 comments Add your comment
Butch Cassidy
April 11th, 2012
11:59 am
Jm – “Obama is a 1 percenter”
Yes.
Joe Hussein Mama
April 11th, 2012
12:00 pm
B. Cassidy — “The scary thing is that he doesn’t care.”
I think you may be right, sir.
timbo
April 11th, 2012
12:00 pm
JamVet
April 11th, 2012
11:54 am
According to dems and libs and the media, it was Bush’s fault when gas prices went up.
And that is your excuse for doing the same thing?
Ummm….for starters, Bush never said he would like to see a gradual increase in gas prices.
JohnnyReb
April 11th, 2012
12:01 pm
Moonbats – how about explaining to us ignorant wingnuts just exactly what is Obama’s plan on the economy if he is reelected?
Butch Cassidy
April 11th, 2012
12:01 pm
larry – “I remember very well sitting in gas lines when Nixon was in office.”
Apparently in oblamas world, Nixon is easily confused with Carter due to the similarities in their appearance, party platform and policies.
oblama
April 11th, 2012
12:01 pm
Never said Roosevelt started WWII …. World War II started before the U.S. even got involved. Germany and Japan started WWII. You must have me mixed up with someone else on that one. I did say that LBJ started the Vietnam war and that can’t be disputed. The rest of that stuff you said is home made rehash. Jammy Codder all over again – Oblama. Oblama is comparing the Romney/Oblama campaign to the LBJ’s election which he won in a landslide. However, the circumstances Oblama failed to point out were that JFK, unfortunately, had been assassinated and LBJ, being the VP, assumed office for the remainder of JFK’s term ( about one year) then he got the sympathy vote for JFK. Then LBJ injected U.S. troops in to Vietnam, escalating the war. He left office in disgrace- declining to run for a second term.
Janney
April 11th, 2012
12:02 pm
Jay, both you and Kyle did a very nice job last night of explaining the need for ethics reform in Georgia.
Butch Cassidy
April 11th, 2012
12:03 pm
JohnnyReb – ‘how about explaining to us ignorant wingnuts just exactly what is Obama’s plan on the economy if he is reelected?”
How about we start with Romney explaining his?
Joe Hussein Mama
April 11th, 2012
12:03 pm
B. Cassidy — “Kind of like when they used to tee up G. Gordon Liddy for commentary.”
I actually met GGL some years ago when changing planes in Cincinnati; we were on the same Dulles-Cincy flight and were both changing planes (I was coming back home, don’t know where he was going). Just for fun, I invited him to join me in the Delta Crown Room as my guest, as I figured he’d be an interesting drinky partner for a while and would be good for a story I could tell later, but he had a tight connection and couldn’t accept.
I *do* recall that he was wearing a *remarkably large* quantity of black hair dye. No way was his natural hair color so dark and shiny at his age.
stands for decibels
April 11th, 2012
12:04 pm
timbo, sorry, not bothering to watch what I’m assuming are cherry-picked video snippets in lieu of an actual argument-against.
More specifically, I remember the summer of 2008 quite well. Nobody especially liked paying 4 dollars a gallon, but I don’t really believe most voters were thinking they’d base their decision about the GOP v. Dem presidential candidates on that particular annoyance.
Joe Hussein Mama
April 11th, 2012
12:05 pm
oblama — ” I did say that LBJ started the Vietnam war and that can’t be disputed.”
Um, yes, it can.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_war
JohnnyReb
April 11th, 2012
12:06 pm
Butch Cassidy
April 11th, 2012
12:03 pm
JohnnyReb – ‘how about explaining to us ignorant wingnuts just exactly what is Obama’s plan on the economy if he is reelected?”
How about we start with Romney explaining his?
_________________________________________
Butch, I’ll put you down as not knowing Obama’s plan but you don’t like Mitts. Jay seems to be the expert on Mitts/Republican plans. Maybe he will give more detail instead of just stating it is more of the same. He may even know Obama’s plan. If he does, he has a crystal ball because no one seems to know Obama’s plan.
Paul
April 11th, 2012
12:06 pm
We have a progressive tax system – the more one earns, the more one pays. Has to do with the marginal utility of a dollar and such.
New Republicans seem to embrace a regressive tax system – the more one makes, the less percentage taxes should be paid.
New Republicans get all riles and use the term ‘class warfare.’ They get real upset when anyone wants to take us from a regressive system back to a progressive system.
I’ll qualify that a bit. They get upset only if it’s Pres Obama or a Democrat who makes the proposal. Let someone like Rep Paul Ryan talk about eliminating deductions for wealthy Americans and they don’t say a word.
Probably because they know it’s good PR and the Party will never let it happen.
But I do have a question. Rep Ryan calls it a special interest giveaway that the rich have put in place to have a major source of their income taxed lower than people who earn income.
What do Republican bloggers here call it?
Lakeisha Jackson
April 11th, 2012
12:06 pm
Jay, I take a back seat to no one in my disdain and complete, utter contempt for George Bush.
But to be fair, the only reason our GDP growth was at 4% during those four years was because of the technology bubble. Venture capitalists (who should have known better) were throwing billions of dollars around left and right because they didn’t want to get left out of the “next big thing”. There was a running joke in silicon valley that you could have dinner with an execute from a financial firm…show him a “business plan” written on a napkin…and if you had an Asian engineer as your Chief Technology Officer, you’d walk out of the restaurant with two hundred million dollars in startup capital. Notice how the GDP growth plummetted as soon as the bubble burst.
I agree that we need entitlement and tax reform. But the GDP growth in the years cited really had nothing to do with tax policies. Jimmy Carter had done the same thing that President Clinton did…he raised taxes. The difference was that…instead of a technology bubble, Carter got stuck with an oil embargo that drug the economy just about to a halt. Sometimes a president has good luck, sometimes bad.
MightyRighty
April 11th, 2012
12:07 pm
This article is so far from the truth it hardly deserves comment. Jay, care to compare the Bush economy for the first three years or for the last three years of the Bush presidency to Obama’s three years? Funny how you don’t want to compare the Obama’s economic disaster to Clinton’s economy. Obama has spent three plus years blaming his economic ignorance on Bush and now Jay is trying to blame Romney for Bush as well. With the Obama economic policies fully implemented the future of the U.S. will look very much like Stalin’s Russia, Castro’s Cuba and Mao Tse Tung’s China. A more modern example would be almost any European country including Greece.
stands for decibels
April 11th, 2012
12:07 pm
just exactly what is Obama’s plan on the economy if he is reelected?
J-reb, there’s a very nice, professionally designed website you might want to check.
http://www.barackobama.com/record/economy?source=primary-nav
Lots of stuff in there about what’s planned for the years ahead.
JamVet
April 11th, 2012
12:08 pm
Bruno, the definition of a human being is a person.
The philosophical definition of a person is a self-conscious or rational being.
A bit of a quandary…
Bruno
April 11th, 2012
12:09 pm
Rejected on its face. If this were true, then abortion would be wholly illegal, or else you’d be arguing to do away with abortion altogether. I don’t doubt that your *opinion* is as you have articulated it, but as a matter of law, a fetus is not a living human being.
Joe–If you’re going to challenge Premise #1, then you have to do it on a biological basis, not a “legal” basis. As your flow of “logic” shows, any support for unrestricted abortions depends upon rejecting point #1.
yep, nothin’ says “I want a civil conversation” like addressing a diverse group of individuals as “you libs.”
sfd–Please spare me any lectures on politeness. You are among the rudest of posters here. If you can’t debate the point, then sit quietly on the sideline.
JohnnyReb
April 11th, 2012
12:10 pm
“Carter got stuck with an oil embargo that drug the economy just about to a halt. Sometimes a president has good luck, sometimes bad.”
Carter was not a leader, his failed presidency had nothing to do with luck. The only significant difference between Carter and Obama is, Obama is not only not a leader, he is a divider. Considering his history, that’ no surprise.
oblama
April 11th, 2012
12:11 pm
Inflation is the next shoe to drop….. the Fed has flooded the market with $7,000,000,000, in an effort to prop up the economy and all we get from that is 9% unemployment? The economy is flat. I hope it does recover – even if Oblama is reelected but that is wishful thinking. The Fed has created the environment for The Great Inflation. $4 gas? It’s going to $10.
Butch Cassidy
April 11th, 2012
12:11 pm
oblama – “Never said Roosevelt started WWII …. World War II started before the U.S. even got involved. Germany and Japan started WWII.You must have me mixed up with someone else on that one.”
Yep, I apologize. That statement was made a few weeks back by that idiot Mighty Righty.
Adam
April 11th, 2012
12:12 pm
Bruno: (1) A fetus is a living being, in fact a human being.
You would benefit from reading this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definist_fallacy
JamVet
April 11th, 2012
12:12 pm
then you have to do it on a biological basis, not a “legal” basis.
Says you! (Nanny nanny boo boo!)
Bruno
April 11th, 2012
12:13 pm
Bruno, the definition of a human being is a person.
Jam–You’re going to have to dig a little deeper. How do you biologically classify a fetus?? Is at alive, or not alive?? If it is alive, can it rightly be considered a “being”, or is it simply an amorphous mass of tissue, as Adam attempted to argue yesterday?? And if it is a being, is it not a “human” being?? If not “human”, then what other species is a fetus??
timbo
April 11th, 2012
12:14 pm
stands for decibels
April 11th, 2012
12:04 pm
timbo, sorry, not bothering to watch what I’m assuming are cherry-picked video snippets in lieu of an actual argument-against.
More specifically, I remember the summer of 2008 quite well. Nobody especially liked paying 4 dollars a gallon, but I don’t really believe most voters were thinking they’d base their decision about the GOP v. Dem presidential candidates on that particular annoyance.
The truth scares most dems and libs, I understand.
Joe Hussein Mama
April 11th, 2012
12:15 pm
Bruno — “Joe–If you’re going to challenge Premise #1, then you have to do it on a biological basis, not a “legal” basis.”
Science doesn’t trump law, Bruno. You need to decide the basis of your argument, rather than switching back and forth between legal and biological arguments when it suits you. And just FYI, I also challenge Premise #1 on the basis that it’s nothing more than Proof by Assertation.
“As your flow of “logic” shows, any support for unrestricted abortions depends upon rejecting point #1.”
And your flow of “logic” goes like this: Assertion — corollary #1 — corollary #2 — corollary #3. There’s absolutely no logical support for your assertion, let alone anything following it in the chain.
If you maintain that a fetus is a living being, then you must — morally — oppose *all* abortion. And given that you’ve been arguing in favor of the 20-week law here lately, it’s pretty clear that you are — from all appearances — okay with abortions performed *prior* to 20 weeks.
Are those <20-week fetuses not humans, Bruno? Maybe you should elaborate a bit on that.
Adam
April 11th, 2012
12:15 pm
Bruno: If you’re going to challenge Premise #1, then you have to do it on a biological basis
Again I refer you here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definist_fallacy
Your redefinition of terms is a fallacy. Come back to this topic when your’e ready to argue on the basis of what the terms “biological” and “life” actually mean, instead of what you wish they meant.
JohnnyReb
April 11th, 2012
12:16 pm
oblama
April 11th, 2012
12:11 pm
Inflation is the next shoe to drop…..
__________________________
Exactly. The government is lying with the numbers; here’s an example.
The battery in the SUV failed the other day. It had been installed 30 months. Sears replaced it under warranty, I had to pay labor. In 30 months the price of the batter had risen $20 and the labor to install increased by $7. Yet, the Obama administration reports no to little inflation. BS
Butch Cassidy
April 11th, 2012
12:17 pm
Off topic, but if any of you folks down in Georgia are complaining about gas prices, please feel free to come up here to NYC. I use premium to fill the Can Am, and it’s running around $5.00 a gallon.
Bruno
April 11th, 2012
12:17 pm
You would benefit from reading this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definist_fallacy
Pretty funny you would reference the “Definist Fallacy”, since that is your whole basis for arguing for unrestricted abortions. You attempt to “legally redefine” common sense terms such as “life”, “being” and “human”. Though you may have convinced yourself and your new blog admirer, Becky, it’s not washing with any of us who have actually studied biology.
Butch Cassidy
April 11th, 2012
12:21 pm
update
Mobil 303 W 96th St near West End Ave
Manhattan
$4.85 gallon
Paul
April 11th, 2012
12:21 pm
JohnnyReb
So the US Dept of Labor bases the US inflation rate on price changes in SUV batteries?
I never knew that.
Bruno
April 11th, 2012
12:22 pm
Science doesn’t trump law, Bruno. You need to decide the basis of your argument, rather than switching back and forth between legal and biological arguments when it suits you.
Face palm please, Brosephus. This coming from someone who claims that Republicans are “anti-science”. Essentially, Joe, you are saying that because you don’t like accepted biological/medical definitions of “life”, “being” and “human”, then you’re okay with the law simply redefining these terms.
Can even ONE Lib here put up a reasonable argument today in support for unrestricted abortions??
mm
April 11th, 2012
12:23 pm
Another blog without a single truthful statement from a con.
JamVet
April 11th, 2012
12:23 pm
Reb, you obsess about Carter.
As for failed presidencies how do you square that opinion with the fact that he averages 27th out of 43 previous US Presidents in 16 different rankings?
Meaning that fully a third of all previous presidents rank below him.
Not great but obviously NOWHERE near what you claim.
Apparently it is only you Bush-forgiving Republicans who consider certain presidencies failures, even though the historians do not. While certain others are given a free pass.
So, tell me where do you rank GWB on that list of 43?
timbo
April 11th, 2012
12:23 pm
More specifically, I remember the summer of 2008 quite well. Nobody especially liked paying 4 dollars a gallon, but I don’t really believe most voters were thinking they’d base their decision about the GOP v. Dem presidential candidates on that particular annoyance.
The difference is, we were paying $1.80 when we went to the polls in 2008. It will be over $4 a gallon in Nov. 2012. Higher gas prices have a HUGE domino effect that is felt all across the economic spectrum. Obama himself admits that he doesn’t mind seeing a gradual increase in the price of gas. For folks who do not spend a whole lot of time listening to politicians, they will notice higher prices for groceries and gas. There are a lot of uninformed people out there that will be voting in November that only see the surface, and are not informed. If the economy doesn’t turn around, Obama will get the blame. Remember, ‘it’s the economy, stupid’.
williebkind
April 11th, 2012
12:24 pm
TO THE LIBERALS:
Portland State University Offering ‘Revolutionary Marxism’ Course ”
The course’s instructors, Grant Booth and Wael Elasady, are both admitted socialists. They define the course’s goals as:
1. Students will learn the fundamentals of Marxist theory
2. Students will apply a Marxist analysis to current events
3. Students will apply Marxist theory to local political and community organizing
UPDATE: Wael Elasady, one of the professors of “Revolutionary Marxism: Theory and Practice,“ returned our call and wanted to clarify that students are free to ”apply a Marxist perspective” to any local community/political organization; the list of organizations on the syllabus are simply pre-approved.
Is it not time to really stop donating to colleges and higher education?
Adam
April 11th, 2012
12:25 pm
Bruno: Pretty funny you would reference the “Definist Fallacy”, since that is your whole basis for arguing for unrestricted abortions
You would also benefit from reading this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
See, I already pointed out to you that you need to admit you are basically redefining things to suit your own position, and that you have no actual factual basis for any of it. Biological terms are not legal terms, just like the term “theory” is different for a science context than it is for a layman. You KNOW that, and yoet you conflate the two just to try to be persuasive, which is EXACTLY why you fit the Definist Fallacy. And then, when you basically assume that you ALSO have a point when you tell me I’m doing the same thing, you are committing the Tu Quoque fallacy.
So far, you have:
1) Redefined life to be whatever you want it to be
2) assumed your assertion is all the proof you need
3) Declared yourself to be correct, and anyone who challenges you on that is clearly just stupid or wrong
4) Firing back at me when I make a deliberately ridiculous counter-argument to highlight your own with a “you’re doing it too! I win!” argument
Which brings me back to my entire original argument, which goes like this:
You do not have factual data to back up any concept of life beginning at conception. You are making that up, and attempting to make it sound as though biology backs you up when it does not, in fact, do so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
“Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, the current understanding is descriptive…”
Bill Orvis White
April 11th, 2012
12:26 pm
The rightful Bush Tax Cut$ were much-needed to stave off the Clinton “administration’s” recession. It helped a bit, but President Bush was strong-armed into signing Medicare Part D by the likes of the liberal AARP group. That strong-arming was the same thing that got President Bush’s daddy in trouble early in his first term when liberal Democrats strong armed HW into signing in a tax increa$e. OK? Now, signing Medicare Part D was THE ONLY thing that the honorable President George W. Bush did wrong during his eight successful years in office. We all make mistakes, but Medicare Part D was a little bit of an impediment on Bush’s expanding economy. More dollars were in businessmens’ pockets like me. We went on a hiring spree after President Bush gave us our money back. Unfortunately, there weren’t ENOUGH TAX CUT$ and that certainly wasn’t going to happen when Nanny Pelosi got the gavel! Facts are facts and what shows is that GW Bush was handed a recession from Bubba Clinton’s bad economic policies. Mr. Bush did his very best to repair the damage done by the previous “administration,” but He could have only done so much. Mr. Bush needed a rightful Republican Congress during his entire eight years and a rightful Republican Congress that would not be pressured by the likes of special interests, Hairy Reid and Bawney Fwank. Facts are facts and it is shown that Reaganomics worked even when that fat liberal Taxachusetts speaker forced Pres. Reagan into some modest tax increases to fund “his” socialistic tax and spend programs. Pres. Reagan prevailed, but not so much for His successor, the honorable Pres. George HW Bush.
Amen,
Bill
Adam
April 11th, 2012
12:27 pm
Bruno: In addition, your entire argument about what constitutes life also falls under the following fallacy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)
Bruno
April 11th, 2012
12:28 pm
If you maintain that a fetus is a living being, then you must — morally — oppose *all* abortion. And given that you’ve been arguing in favor of the 20-week law here lately, it’s pretty clear that you are — from all appearances — okay with abortions performed *prior* to 20 weeks.
Joe, apparently you stopped reading at Point #3. Point #4 states that “In the end, the interests of two beings must be balanced, that of the mother and that of the fetus.” Though we are forced to draw an arbitrary line, at some point the interests of the fully formed fetus outweigh those of the mother. Up until recently, the dividing line was predicated upon “viability”, whose date has been pushed back in recent years due to medical advances.
Joe Hussein Mama
April 11th, 2012
12:28 pm
Bruno — “Face palm please, Brosephus.”
Actually, that face palm will be for you, Bruno. Keep reading.
“This coming from someone who claims that Republicans are “anti-science”.
I challenge you to demonstrate that I have ever said any such thing on this blog, Bruno.
“Essentially, Joe, you are saying that because you don’t like accepted biological/medical definitions of “life”, “being” and “human”, then you’re okay with the law simply redefining these terms.”
No, and here’s your facepalm moment, Bruno. You object to me using legal arguments, but *your own* Point #3 directly refers to the law — and then dodges right back to biological arguments. Since you’ve obviously forgotten your own argument, here’s your Point #3:
“(3) Just because because a woman is pregnant doesn’t place her above the law.”
No one argued that anyone or anything should be “above the law.” In fact, your Point #2 seems to be saying, albeit obliquely, that pregnant women should be FOLLOWING the law, so you’ve apparently ceded at least part of your argument to legal matters, as opposed to purely biological.
“Can even ONE Lib here put up a reasonable argument today in support for unrestricted abortions??”
I’m not arguing for unrestricted abortions. I’m simply demonstrating the holes and shaky logic in *your* position.
JamVet
April 11th, 2012
12:28 pm
Is at alive, or not alive?? If it is alive, can it rightly be considered a “being”, or is it simply an amorphous mass of tissue, as Adam attempted to argue yesterday?? And if it is a being, is it not a “human” being?? If not “human”, then what other species is a fetus??
I have never discounted the definition in biological terms.
Just as you have never discounted them in legal, sociological or philosophical terms.
You insist that your biological definitions are paramount. And trump everything else.
I contend otherwise.
timbo
April 11th, 2012
12:28 pm
Adam,
I thought you were on your way to an OWS riot…I mean protest?
Liar.
The Truth
April 11th, 2012
12:29 pm
oblama (You’re the obvious liar)
The lie….. there is no evidence that Reagan traded arms for hostages – just a Jammy Codder theory. What Reagan did do was let them know he would send a missile up their butts – they got a little nervous and turned the hostages loose.
On March 4, 1987, in a nationally televised address, Reagan accepted full responsibility for his own actions and for those of his administration, including activities undertaken without his knowledge. In the same broadcast, he stated that “what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages.”
Reagan, Ronald (1987-03-04). “Address to the Nation on the Iran Arms and Contra Aid Controversy”. Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation. http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1987/030487h.htm.
Paul
April 11th, 2012
12:30 pm
williebkind
“TO THE LIBERALS:
Portland State University Offering ‘Revolutionary Marxism’ Course ”
The course’s instructors, Grant Booth and Wael Elasady, are both admitted socialists. ”
I’d suggest the cons on the blog take the course.
Then they’d realize how silly they sound with their “Obama’s a socialist Marxist” rants.
Joe Hussein Mama
April 11th, 2012
12:31 pm
Bruno — “Joe, apparently you stopped reading at Point #3.”
Not at all. However, once your started proceeding with no more logical support than your assertion, your later points simply stand unsupported, regardless of the order in which they follow.
“Point #4 states that “In the end, the interests of two beings must be balanced, that of the mother and that of the fetus.” Though we are forced to draw an arbitrary line”
Rejected. Argument From Authority. And I don’t recognize your authority to draw that arbitrary line.
“at some point the interests of the fully formed fetus outweigh those of the mother.”
Based on your definition, which I do not accept.
“Up until recently, the dividing line was predicated upon “viability”, whose date has been pushed back in recent years due to medical advances.”
The dividing line as drawn by *some* was predicated upon viability, yes.
JamVet
April 11th, 2012
12:33 pm
willie, perhaps you should take that course, so you have some basic working knowledge of that system, because the way you, and your fellow McCarthyist neocons, use the word now, it is clear you have none…
JamVet
April 11th, 2012
12:35 pm
Tell these guys that they are rioters:
http://www.thenation.com/sites/default/files/user/20/ows_veterans2_ap_img.jpg
Or these…
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/392885/thumbs/r-VETERANS-OCCUPY-WALL-STREET-large570.jpg
Support the troops.
sam
April 11th, 2012
12:35 pm
“President Bush was strong-armed into signing Medicare Part D by the likes of the liberal AARP”….beautiful comment, completely ridiculious, but beautiful
Joe Hussein Mama
April 11th, 2012
12:36 pm
williebkind — “Is it not time to really stop donating to colleges and higher education?”
Taking a first aid course doesn’t make a student a doctor any more than taking a course on Marxist theory makes a student a Communist.
Just as taking a Bible Lit class doesn’t make a student into a Christian.
Ideas can’t hurt you, Willie. And neither can books.
Adam
April 11th, 2012
12:37 pm
JHM: Ideas can’t hurt you, Willie. And neither can books.
Well…
carlosgvv
April 11th, 2012
12:38 pm
Bush betrayed the trust of our soldiers and sent them off to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan for empty and useless ideals. As If that wasn’t bad enough, the enormous cost of these wars, combined with his tax cuts for the rich, virtually wrecked our economy. Now, he’s putting out a book whose “solution” would cause us even more misery. It’s hard to believe one man could do so much damage to our country.
willie lynch
April 11th, 2012
12:38 pm
Don’t raise taxes on the job creators. Yeah, those lower taxes have worked out real well for us.
Paul
April 11th, 2012
12:39 pm
carlosgvv
You’re saying we should not have attacked Afghanistan?
JamVet
April 11th, 2012
12:40 pm
Hey Rush would be POd!
Phony soldiers!
http://static8.businessinsider.com/image/4eb1b71a69beddbc4b00004c-650/occupy-wall-street-veterans.jpg
Becky
April 11th, 2012
12:40 pm
willie lynch-isn’t it about time cons mention trickle down???
timbo
April 11th, 2012
12:41 pm
Jamvet,
Did they participate in any of the several riots that the OWS crowd instigated?
JamVet
April 11th, 2012
12:42 pm
So tell me again why you Republicans hate teachers, nurses, truck drivers, cops, machinists, auto workers, housewives, students and veterans for exercising their sacred right to assemble and petition?
I never tire of your awesome reasons…
Joe Hussein Mama
April 11th, 2012
12:44 pm
timbo — “Did they participate in any of the several riots that the OWS crowd instigated?”
I don’t know, but you can ask them yourself.
http://www.iava.org
JamVet
April 11th, 2012
12:44 pm
Don’t you mean, didn’t they participate in the tens of thousands of peaceful protests in hundreds of cities around the country?
Why yes, they did!
Joseph
April 11th, 2012
12:44 pm
The thing that you left out Jay was 9/11 along with an inherited recession that was occurring when Bush took office. After that the GDP began rising again until you know what happened. Harry and Nancy took over Congress along with the housing bubble created by democrats and their entitlement mindset. I noticed you also left out how attrocious its been the last two years with your made up chart.
http://www.google.com/imgres?q=real+gdp+growth+1996-2012&hl=en&rlz=1T4DMUS_enUS285US286&biw=1016&bih=496&tbm=isch&tbnid=BN_nWu4QnsCSVM:&imgrefurl=http://www.chineserestaurantbusinessplan.com/&docid=RWP_k5lzvwedhM&imgurl=http://www.restaurantbusinessplan.com/RealGDP2012Pic.JPG&w=804&h=606&ei=xrSFT8-aHaei2wX5-MDfCA&zoom=1
timbo
April 11th, 2012
12:44 pm
Jamvet,
So tell me again why you Republicans hate teachers, nurses, truck drivers, cops, machinists, auto workers, housewives, students and veterans for exercising their sacred right to assemble and petition?
As long as they assemble PEACEFULLY…like the Tea Party events…I have no problem. But the problem is, the majority of them do not. Oh, and taking baths would also be nice.
timbo
April 11th, 2012
12:47 pm
Oh jeez….get ready for the ‘War on Occupiers’ now.
Trial balloon launch in 3…2….1
RB from Gwinnett
April 11th, 2012
12:49 pm
Remind me again which of Bush’s policies it was that made people stop paying their mortgages….
I think you’re all making a huge mistake by ignoring the effect $4 gas had on that. And here we are again…. Last months employment numbers were a bit over half of projections for a reason. Anybody wanna bet on this months numbers?
Adam
April 11th, 2012
12:49 pm
JamVet: I am convinced that timbo is either satire or stupid. It would probably be best not to respond to him. He is one of the people on my ignore list for that reason, as well as Joseph and Mighty Righty. Redneck Convert and BOW get scrolled past because of pure satire. Some other get this treatment as well, but the common theme is really that there is either no point to responding due to satire or stupidity, or both.
I remember
April 11th, 2012
12:50 pm
Obama on the other hand will need a whole new sales pitch. His old pitch won’t pass the snicker test.
1. Post partisan – The most partisan president in history
2. Post racial- Not hardly
3. “Third way” – Turns out he was a traditional hard left progressive. Maybe a little further left than most.
4. Hope and change – Please, please take it back
5. Limit unemployment – Made matters worse and lasted longer
Obama’s whole promise has been a fraud. He is going to sell negative and hard. It’s bad for America but he will do it anyway.
Bruno
April 11th, 2012
12:50 pm
1) Redefined life to be whatever you want it to be
I’m going with the biological definition of a living being: “An individual form of life, such as a plant, animal, bacterium, protist, or fungus; a body made up of organs, organelles, or other parts that work together to carry on the various processes of life.” Since a fetus contains organ systems, it meets the biological definition of an “organism”, i.e. a “whole being”. It’s not simply a clump of amorphous cells, or even tissue, such as a cancerous tumor.
No one argued that anyone or anything should be “above the law.” In fact, your Point #2 seems to be saying, albeit obliquely, that pregnant women should be FOLLOWING the law, so you’ve apparently ceded at least part of your argument to legal matters, as opposed to purely biological.
Sorry, but that is the argument of a lot of the Lib Ladies here “It’s my body, I have absolute dominion over it”. Never mind the fact that we don’t have free dominion over our bodies in regards to what drugs we can legally place in them, or even what medical procedures we can subject ourselves to without regulation. As such, pregnancy doesn’t extend rights that aren’t there to begin with.
Midori
April 11th, 2012
12:50 pm
what’s this I hear about the moron who dubbed the Obama as the “food stamp president” BOUNCING CHECKS?????
stands for decibels
April 11th, 2012
12:50 pm
Did they participate in any of the several riots that the OWS crowd instigated?
[...]
As long as they assemble PEACEFULLY…like the Tea Party events…I have no problem. But the problem is, the majority of them do not.
“several” to “a majority” three minutes. Awesome.
Adam
April 11th, 2012
12:51 pm
RB: Last months employment numbers were a bit over half of projections for a reason
And the projections for the month before that was that we would only have 100K extra jobs, and that unemployment would go up.
I prefer to wait for the actual numbers because of that.
Don't Forget
April 11th, 2012
12:51 pm
oblamer – gas lines were in 1973 (due to Nixon price controls) and in 1979 due to banning of iranian imports.
Adam
April 11th, 2012
12:52 pm
Bruno: I’m going with the biological definition of a living being
In other words, whatever you want it to be. Consistency in your opinion doesn’t change your opinion to fact.
getalife
April 11th, 2012
12:54 pm
Our President is ending both occupations w put on the credit card.
ZoSo
April 11th, 2012
12:54 pm
and Adam that’s all you have, an opinion
JohnnyReb
April 11th, 2012
12:54 pm
JamVet
April 11th, 2012
12:23 pm
Reb, you obsess about Carter.
As for failed presidencies how do you square that opinion with the fact that he averages 27th out of 43 previous US Presidents in 16 different rankings?
______________________________________________
No, I don’t obsess; I just can’t stand to see someone state he was anything but a failure.
If he had not been suce a limp wrist and sent the military into Iran when they took the hostages, we might not have the problems we have today. His presidency demonstrated to the world that the US can be pushed around.
Conversley, all it took was Reagan being elected and all of a sudden the Iranians released the hostages.
I’m convinced Carter is a good, decent man, but not a leader and certainly a failure as POTUS.
Adam
April 11th, 2012
12:56 pm
ZoSo: and Adam that’s all you have, an opinion
That’s all either side has when discussing what constitutes life as an attempt to tell everyone what is “right” when it comes to abortion.
Brosephus™
April 11th, 2012
12:56 pm
Yet another day in Bookmanland where the daily proverbial question is still, “If you say the same thing over and over, day after day, week after week, are you really saying anything at all?”
JohnnyReb
April 11th, 2012
12:57 pm
stands for decibels
April 11th, 2012
12:07 pm
just exactly what is Obama’s plan on the economy if he is reelected?
J-reb, there’s a very nice, professionally designed website you might want to check.
http://www.barackobama.com/record/economy?source=primary-nav
Lots of stuff in there about what’s planned for the years ahead
_________________
How can you believe that crap? Nothing they claim is true to the point of worthy credit.
Mad Max
April 11th, 2012
12:57 pm
Why don’t we make being anything but Democratic, athiest and liberal illegal and deport all of them thar Republicans, conservatives, religious fanatics and such. Then you gutys wouldn’t have anything to bash.
Bruno
April 11th, 2012
12:57 pm
You insist that your biological definitions are paramount. And trump everything else.
JamVet–Maybe Joe Mama never trotted out that tired “anti-Science” charge against Republicans as he claims, but it has been a staple in your anti-Republican rants from the gitgo. If we don’t draw our definitions of “life”, “being” and “human” from Biology, then where can we rightly draw them?? Should we just make up anything we like to avoid facing “An Inconvenient Truth” that abortion results in a human life being ended prematurely.
So, since not one of you here can prove in any reasonable, factual way that a fetus is NOT a living human being, should I assume that you all are simply throwing in the towel and admitting that you are wrong??
Joe Hussein Mama
April 11th, 2012
12:58 pm
Bruno — “Sorry, but that is the argument of a lot of the Lib Ladies here “It’s my body, I have absolute dominion over it”.
Yeah, but THEY didn’t say it this time. YOU did. It’s your argument now.
“Never mind the fact that we don’t have free dominion over our bodies in regards to what drugs we can legally place in them, or even what medical procedures we can subject ourselves to without regulation.”
Again you cede ground to the legal while objecting that your biological argument is being ignored. This is why I’m objecting to you switching around, Bruno.
But to go directly to the point here, you actually appear to be *advocating* that women follow extant laws with regard to abortion, *despite* the fact that some of those laws seem to be in conflict with your personal opinion on the starting point for life.
Once again, no one is arguing that women should be above the law with regard to abortion. But you have a lengthy and steep row to hoe in demonstrating that your personal opinion and the law should be in congruence. I’m afraid that I’m going to need a bit more than your assertion on that score.
“As such, pregnancy doesn’t extend rights that aren’t there to begin with.”
I haven’t asserted that it does. And you haven’t demonstrated that your personal opinion should be the basis for *constraining* the rights that *are* there.
JohnnyReb
April 11th, 2012
12:59 pm
Paul
April 11th, 2012
12:21 pm
JohnnyReb
So the US Dept of Labor bases the US inflation rate on price changes in SUV batteries?
I never knew that.
_____________________
Paul, you are better than that, even if I don’t agree with you.
My Party has ALL the answers. Your party is full of poopyheads! (formerly That Black Guy)
April 11th, 2012
1:00 pm
Midori
April 11th, 2012
12:50 pm
what’s this I hear about the moron who dubbed the Obama as the “food stamp president” BOUNCING CHECKS?????
__________________________________________________________________________
Midori, the answer to your question is IN your question.
Hint: Newt’s a MORON
stands for decibels
April 11th, 2012
1:00 pm
You are among the rudest of posters here. If you can’t debate the point, then sit quietly on the sideline.
Golly jeepers, I’m sorry if I’ve distracted you from your ongoing apology tour for the party that’s devoted to keeping women down and in a world of crap, Bruno.
You may carry on splitting hairs about embryonic personhood whilst ignoring public policy realities regarding same for, oh, another decade or so if that’s what floats yer boat.
Joe Hussein Mama
April 11th, 2012
1:01 pm
Bruno — “JamVet–Maybe Joe Mama never trotted out that tired “anti-Science” charge against Republicans as he claims”
The claim was yours. You asserted that I *had* made such statement.
I’d appreciate your substantive clarification or polite retraction on that point, please.
Adam
April 11th, 2012
1:01 pm
If we don’t draw our definitions of “life”, “being” and “human” from Biology, then where can we rightly draw them??
The problem here is that you are not actually promoting acceptance of science, but you are looking for psuedo-scientific ways of redefining what is inherently a metaphysical concept that cannot be defined by concrete methods. It’s the same kind of thing that went into the whole “Intelligent Design” argument. You’re not really promoting science for the Republican Party, you’re trying to force scientific constructs onto a non-scientific discussion.
Bruno
April 11th, 2012
1:01 pm
In other words, whatever you want it to be.
Adam–I didn’t write any Biology books, and they don’t quote me when presenting the definition of “life”, “being” and “human”. They aren’t “my” definitions in the least. It is you who keeps proposing some kooky “definitions” simply so that you don’t have to admit the truth that abortion ends a human life. So far, you’ve claimed that a fetus isn’t even “alive” and that it’s definitely not “human”. What reasoning, biological or otherwise, can you offer to support such an asinine position??
Don't Forget
April 11th, 2012
1:03 pm
Bruno
“An individual form of life, such as a plant, animal, bacterium, protist, or fungus; a body made up of organs, organelles, or other parts that work together to carry on the various processes of life.”
Sorry Bruno, but until the lungs are “able to carry on the process” of breathing, a fetus does not meet your definition.
Obama is over
April 11th, 2012
1:03 pm
Obama’s sales pitch has changed from 2008 when he ran on a platform of hope and change and unification of the entire country. He was able to attack the GOP and the Clintons because he did not have a track record. Unfortunately in 2012, he does have a track record and it is not pretty. Obama does not understand the inverse relationship between raising taxes and collecting revenues. John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton figured it out and created growth and a balanced budget by cutting taxes. Of course, in Obamaland, tax increases are about fairness and not growth or remaining competetive in the global market. Tax increases don’t have to make economic sense or pay down debt. Taxing millionaires under the Buffett rule will generate $47B OVER 10 YEARS. Great. Do it. Exactly how is this going to offset the $TRILLION annual deficits under the current administration? I still like Geitner’s infamous quote about the administration’s plan to address the deficit versus the Ryan plan: ” We don’t really have one, we just know we don’t like yours.” Since Obama’s tax plan makes no economic sense, it obviously is designed to buy votes by dividing the population. The reality of increasing capital gains and dividend taxes is that retirees dependent upon investment income to supplement social security are going to be affected as well as companies who depend upon the capital markets to raise funds for growth. Another cruel Obama reality is that based on his track record of Chicago style back room politics, there will be plenty of new quid pro quo tax loopholes to circumvent any tax increases.
JamVet
April 11th, 2012
1:04 pm
I’m going with the biological definition of a living being:
Which is your choice, brother B.
And when biologists run this country, you will perhaps see a different reality here!
Instead of a Secretary of State, we would have a Secretary of Genetics, while the Secretary of Defense would be replaced by the Secretary of Cell Theory.
But under no circumstances could we have a Secretary of Evolution! (grin)
Cake dough is not a cake. And a fetus is not a person, otherwise it would have all of the rights afforded people under our laws.
Reb, no answer about where you rank GWB? Interesting.
Adam
April 11th, 2012
1:04 pm
Bruno: It is you who keeps proposing some kooky “definitions” simply so that you don’t have to admit the truth that abortion ends a human life
Like I said, this is not a “truth.” It is leaping from metaphysical to physical and back again through the use of psuedo-scientific arguments like redefining what “life” means. If it ends a human life in biological terms, and all you care about is the biology of it, then leaping back to whether or not that is moral and should be legislated is, well, a leap.
They BOTH suck
April 11th, 2012
1:05 pm
“John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton figured it out and created growth and a balanced budget by cutting taxes”
Did the current Federal income taxes go up since Obama took office?
oblama
April 11th, 2012
1:05 pm
JamVet – Laws and legal terminology change with time and opinions. DNA and genetics do not. A fetus is genetically a human being and always has been and always will be. In an abortion a human life is taken. Some consider that to be murder even though it may be legal based on law based on someone’s opinion. The fact is a human life was taken without the owner’s permission. You may say the mother OWNS that life but I disagree. For one person to own another is illegal in this country and that would be slavery.
Paul
April 11th, 2012
1:07 pm
JohnnyReb
It isn’t about me.
You are the one who used the battery example to accuse Pres Obama of lying about inflation.
You know full well a single commodity price change cannot be cited as evidence of a country’s overall inflation or deflation.
Mad Max
April 11th, 2012
1:07 pm
Interesting that the same people who cling to “science” when talking about global warming are now debunking “science” when talking about human life. When does it begin, only after you graduate from college or before that, when you start to talk or when you get out of diapers; when they cut the cord or when the woman dilates when it becomes viable outside of the room or when the sperm permeates the egg? They can’t define life, yet they want to be considered intelligent.
stands for decibels
April 11th, 2012
1:07 pm
How can you believe that crap? Nothing they claim is true to the point of worthy credit.
If you have specific assertions being made by the campaign that you’d like to discredit, I guess I’m willing to read them, but you’d asked for what Obama plans to do, and I figured you wanted an answer. (shrug.)
They BOTH suck
April 11th, 2012
1:07 pm
Obama is over
After the tax cuts signed into law by Reagan, did he not also sign into law NUMEROUS tax increases?
Paul
April 11th, 2012
1:08 pm
Hi Midori!!!
The Truth
April 11th, 2012
1:08 pm
JohnnyReb
*Conversley, all it took was Reagan being elected and all of a sudden the Iranians released the hostages.*
You’re either not smart, or you want to ignore the facts.
On March 4, 1987, in a nationally televised address, Reagan accepted full responsibility for his own actions and for those of his administration, including activities undertaken without his knowledge. In the same broadcast, he stated that “what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages.”