Sure as hell it's not the Democrats.
I'm voting 100% Republican,I seen the DAMAGE the Democratic party has done in 4 years and I can't wait to vote worthless Obama out of office

Neither party can be trusted to do right by us. But for the Democrats it's more a matter of insufficient belief that the people will back them if they do the right thing, so they don't have to rely on lobbyist bribes to stay alive politically,-while the Republicans are openly pushing for the interests of the rich and powerful that have so often done us more harm than any natural disaster.

In my opinion, this president is in way over his head. His decisions and lack of decisions, is why his ratings are free falling. He is surrounded by a bunch of "yes" Dems that go along with him, every mis-guided step along the way.

We need a powerful "no" voice to balance and guide this country in the right direction. Obama is certainly not listening to the people, who keep telling him, "Don't go there, your leading us into the Abyss"! At this point, the Republican's are our only hope. God help us.

Look at the incumbents I have
Hall
Schumer
Gillibrand

I have to out of my freakin mind to give them a vote

Talk about putting lipstick on a pig... You can dress up the latest poll to make it appear it isn't so bad for President Obama, but the fact remains people are realizing a great orator doesn't make a great President.

His answer is to throw money at every problem that he faces. The more money he prints, the less it is worth. Inflation will be out of control and all the fudging of core figures used to determine inflation numbers won't change what we are seeing around us. It isn't working and we will pay for our nation being indebted to China and others.

Pointing fingers at a few nut jobs and classifying all the Tea Party in the same mindset is also unfair. Morons can be found in any organization, including D's and R's. It isn't the Tea Party crowd that you and your Democrat friends need to worry about. It is those of us who are former Democrats that have chosen to vote independently for the candidate - not the party.

first i tryd to call in with ni success :
now ive been a democrate all my adult life but since recently seeing dem senators sign a health care bill into law after not even reading it !!!
can they be trusted ?
also NAFTA the fed gets more tax's for imports then sales tax wich they get in addition anyway thats why they dont repeal the economy killer nafta
and after watching what the dems call tranparency ( behind closed doors) and last but not least
seeing the dems IGNOR federal laws and not enforce the border because they might vote for the obombya rezeem is totally unacceptable and inexcuseable americans are dieing on our own borders there !! democrates are done they just dont know it yet.

this life long dem will vote republican all the way. and yes they may not be as social but they aren't socialists either !

thank you WILL R.

I agree completely with the post from Mike Q!

Both major parties have been in bed with Wall Street so it is time for a third and fourth party.

Vote the bums out.

========================

Obama Hires Former Wellpoint Exec to Implement Health Care Law
Jul 14, 2010 / http://tinyurl.com/2adco5w
From the Department of You Just Can't Make This Stuff Up, check out this little-noticed report from the Billings Gazette today:
Liz Fowler, a key staffer for U.S. Sen. Max Baucus who helped draft the federal health reform bill enacted in March, is joining the Obama administration to help implement the new law...
Fowler headed up a team of 20-some Senate Finance Committee staffers who helped draft the bill in the Senate. She was Baucus' top health care aide from 2001-2005 and left that job in 2006 to become an executive at WellPoint, the nation's largest private insurer. She was vice president of public policy at WellPoint, helping develop public-policy positions for the company. In 2008, she rejoined Baucus to work on health reform legislation.
http://www.openleft.com/diary/19449/obama-hires-fmr-wellpoint-exec-to-implement-health-care-law

Uncle Bucky William H.T. Bush sits on the board of Health Care with Susan Bayh the Democratic Senators wife.
http://tinyurl.com/yjxnggq
http://ir.wellpoint.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=130104&p=irol-govboard

the dems should be reelected.Do not forget this is a global recession and eexcept for the far east most european countries are worst than the US. Spain has a 20% unemployment rate and germany france and Italy are higher than us. when Obama took office they were laying off 70000 jobs per mo, Now it has slowed to a trickle but it should improve in 2011.The dems have passed consumer friendly bills like credit care and financial regulation with hardly any support fromGOP.The repub introduced the tarp money for the banks and most of them voted for it,When they were in power they gave money to the rich hade 2 wars medicare part d and no way to pay for these programs. Now they act like fiscal conservatives but if reelected would again give taxs breaks slash medicare and social security and not trying to preserve htese programs. Exxon made 44 billion last year and paid no tax. US co can go overseas and keep those profits there tax free. So before you rush to throw the bums out give your elected officials more time

So before you rush to throw the bums out give your elected officials more time

======================

Peter the Democrats might be the lesser of two evils but still are evil.

The system is corrupt and as soon as someone gets into office they spend half the time of the phone begging for donations.

Obama did more harm to liberalism because he rejected liberal principles.

Obama took Glass/Steagall off the table.

Obama took Single Payer off the table.

Obama will never leave Iraq and Afghanistan nor will the next president and the next president after that.

===========================

General Abizaid: Mideast Wars May Last 50 Years
November 1, 2007 http://tinyurl.com/2ubd58
PITTSBURGH - It might take as long as half a century before U.S. troops can leave the volatile Middle East, according to retired Army Gen. John Abizaid.

"Over time, we will have to shift the burden of the military fight from our forces directly to regional forces, and we will have to play an indirect role, but we shouldn't assume for even a minute that in the next 25 to 50 years the American military might be able to come home, relax and take it easy, because the strategic situation in the region doesn't seem to show that as being possible," Abizaid said Wednesday at Carnegie Mellon University.

Abizaid, the former commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, stepped down in March as the longest-serving commander of U.S. Central Command. He retired from the Army in May and now is at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,155402,00.html

UK 'may have 40-year Afghan role'
8 August 2009 / http://tinyurl.com/lz2nhc
The UK's commitment to Afghanistan could last for up to 40 years, the incoming head of the Army has said.
Gen Sir David Richards, who takes over on 28 August, told the Times that "nation-building" would last decades.
Troops will be required for the medium term only, but the UK will continue to play a role in "development, governance [and] security sector reform," he said.
Shadow defence minister Gerald Howarth said the UK had to be there long-term to achieve its objectives.
Gen Richards commanded 35,000 troops from 37 nations when he was head of Nato's International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan between May 2006 and February 2007.
He will take over from Gen Sir Richard Dannatt as the UK's chief of the general staff.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8191018.stm

"Now they act like fiscal conservatives.."

EXACTLY, that is why there must be balance. If a Republican president was implementing some of the same outrageous policies that Obama is pushing, you would not get any where near the level of resistance you are getting now. So in other words, they are acting like conservatives only BECAUSE they don't NEED to follow party lines. So we need more Republicans in power in order to stop this Administrations un-abetted rampage.

For example; Do you remember the Republicans arguing with Pelosi that the health care bill would allow abortion and she kept saying, that it was not true? Do you remember how Obama assured Stupak by executive order that he would not allow abortion in order to secure his vote? Well according to the article below, Obama lied. If there were more Republicans he could not have gotten away with this.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/07/under_obamacare_abortions_will.html

CAPISTAN the republiczns are no better than the democrats. They only support the rich and are not interested in the unemployed social security and medicare receipents. As long as they feed the rich and corporate interestrs they will say anything to get elected. At one time there would be modetates in the party and could get along with democrats but now they say no to everything. Ronald Reagan fixed social security with the help of the democrate. If he was running today they would consider him to liberal The democrats are not great but in my opinion they are the lesser of 2 evils

As long as they feed the rich and corporate interestrs they will say anything to get elected.

====================

Peter look very closely and you will see the Democrats and Republicans all belong to the Corporation Party.

Obama inherited the worse financial meltdown since the Great Depression and instead of implementing liberal policies he was begging Republicans to help him and they did not.

EVEN WITHOUT ONE REPUBLICAN OBAMA STILL WATERED DOWN ALL THE BILLS BECAUSE OF HIS CORPORATE WALL STREET DEMOCRATS.

This proves to me that both parties are really "ONE CORPORATION PARTY"!


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

Evidence makes Dorgan’s charge against the White House seem entirely plausible / Dec 18, 2009 / http://tinyurl.com/ylz32mr
Yesterday, we reported that Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) is making an extremely serious accusation - he essentially asserts that the White House political staff coerced the Food and Drug Administration into issuing a safety warning, not on the basis of sound science, but in order to protect the pharmaceutical industry's profits. If this accusation is true, it would mean that the Obama White House engaged in precisely the kind of politicization of science that the Rove White House engaged in.
Details about exactly what happened are going to come out on this in the next few weeks. When they do, we'll report on them. But in the meantime, let's look at two important pieces of circumstantial evidence that supports Dorgan's accusation:
http://openleft.com/diary/16574/evidence-makes-dorgans-charge-against-the-white-house-seem-entirely-plausible

"Obama inherited the worse financial meltdown since the Great Depression and instead of implementing liberal policies he was begging Republicans to help him and they did not."

Capistan, I agree Obama inherited a financial mess but what do you mean by liberal policies? Did you want the Republicans to agree with more bailouts and spending? Bush started the fire but Obama keeps pouring gasoline on it. Did you want Republicans to help Obama by fanning the flames or by trying to put it out?

Capistan, I agree Obama inherited a financial mess but what do you mean by liberal policies?

===========================

Nader Was Right: Liberals are Going Nowhere With Obama
Aug 10, 2009 / http://tinyurl.com/kotjan
The American empire has not altered under Barack Obama. It kills as brutally and indiscriminately in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan as it did under George W. Bush. It steals from the U.S. treasury to enrich the corporate elite as rapaciously. It will not give us universal health care, abolish the Bush secrecy laws, end torture or “extraordinary rendition,” restore habeas corpus or halt the warrantless wiretapping and monitoring of citizens. It will not push through significant environmental reform, regulate Wall Street or end our relationship with private contractors that provide mercenary armies to fight our imperial wars and produce useless and costly weapons systems.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090810_nader_was_right_liberals_are_going_nowhere_with_obama/

Obama took a garden variety recession and turned it into a depression by implementing his leftist wish list.

Bush inherited the Clinton recession and tax cut it away for all Americans..
---------------------------------------
Friday, March 5, 2010

The United Socialist States of America:

President Obama is close to completing his socialist revolution. Since coming to power last year, he has sought relentlessly to transform America. From his days as a student radical, Mr. Obama has been obsessed with smashing the traditional free-market system. Like most leftists, he thinks capitalism is the enemy.

"He was a Marxist-socialist in college," said John C. Drew, who knew Mr. Obama as a university student, in an interview. "He kept talking about the need to overthrow capitalism in favor of a working-class revolution."

One of Mr. Obama's favorite philosophers was Frantz Fanon, a post-colonial Marxist who championed Third World liberation movements. Fanon argued that the West - led by America - was based on racism, imperialism and the economic exploitation of the world's poor. The only remedy was authoritarian socialism and a massive redistribution of wealth from Western nations to developing countries.

Throughout his career, Mr. Obama has had radical associations. At Columbia University, while teaching constitutional law, he embraced postmodernist legal theory that maintains that the U.S. constitutional system presents an artificial veneer for liberty while actually advancing the economic interests of powerful white males. As a community organizer in Chicago, he studied and tried to mimic the activism of Saul Alinsky - a neo-Trotskyite who championed "permanent revolution." His longtime associates, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn are supporters of Marxist liberation and share a deep hatred for the United States. They believe only fundamental, sweeping change can redeem America.

Rather than being a pragmatic centrist - as the mainstream media insists on portraying him - Mr. Obama is the very opposite: an ideologue who is pursuing his political project even at the risk of badly damaging the Democratic Party.

This explains his bizarre, almost reckless desire to ram Obamacare through Congress. The president has said he wants an "up-or-down vote" on his health care overhaul - preferably by the end of this month, before the Easter recess. In other words, he has given the green light to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, to use reconciliation, a parliamentary process designed to fast-track budgetary measures. Under these arcane rules, a simple majority in the Senate of 50 Democratic votes plus a tie-breaker from Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. will be enough to pass health care reform. The filibuster will be rendered impotent.

This is unprecedented. Never in our history has reconciliation been used to pass a major piece of social legislation on a narrow partisan majority. Obamacare will overhaul nearly one-sixth of the U.S. economy. By contrast, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid passed with overwhelming bipartisan consensus. Contrary to popular myth, numerous Republicans endorsed the New Deal-Great Society welfare state. This is why repealing it has been so difficult (if not impossible).

The White House and its media allies claim that the 1996 welfare reform bill, the 1997 children's health insurance program and the 2001 Bush tax cuts were passed using reconciliation. This is misleading. Every one of these measures had strong Democratic support - especially in the Senate.

Mr. Obama is engaged in an abuse of power. He is thwarting the will of the majority of the American people who do not want socialized medicine. They rightly fear that the proposal's massive $1 trillion price tag will add to our skyrocketing national debt, which has brought us to the brink of ruin. They understand it will stifle medical innovation and reduce the quality of care, leading to rationing and longer waiting lines. It represents the greatest expansion of entitlement spending since the 1960s.

Moreover, Mr. Obama's actions are undermining the traditional system of checks and balances established by the Founding Fathers. The institutional role of the Senate is to serve as a bulwark against raw majority rule. By circumventing the filibuster, Mr. Obama is not only thumbing his nose at the voters - including those in Massachusetts who elected Republican Sen. Scott Brown - but the very constitutional safeguards meant to prevent this kind of usurpation of power.

His proposal seeks to create a centrally planned medical economy that will erect a gigantic government bureaucracy based on massive taxes, subsidies and regulations. Mr. Obama is willing to sacrifice his party's political fortunes in November - and even his own re-election in 2012 - because he understands one fundamental fact: Nationalized health care is the heart of cradle-to-grave statism. No country that has ever embraced socialized medicine - Canada, Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy - has ever been able to regain economic freedom.

This is not because government-run health care is so effective or beloved; rather, it fosters a debilitating spirit of dependency that is fatal to a self-governing people. In short, it kills the self-reliance and individualism critical to a free-market democracy.

For Mr. Obama, that is precisely the point. Vladimir Lenin, the leader of the Bolshevik Revolution, laid out the Marxist blueprint that has been followed by the radical left since 1917. Lenin urged that any disaster should be exploited to "hasten the destruction ... of the capitalist class." The 2008 Great Recession brought Mr. Obama to power. He has been seizing this crisis in order to overthrow the old capitalist order.

Mr. Obama is relentlessly giving birth to a new nation: the United Socialist States of America - the U.S.S.A.

Peter Republicans support the rich????? Who does Oprah, George Soros, Warren Buffet Jay Rockefeller , countless athletes and actors support? Certainly not Republicans? Check your facts the Democrats want to take your ability to become rich.

"Mr. Obama is relentlessly giving birth to a new nation: the United Socialist States of America - the U.S.S.A."

Yeah, except it would be called the Divided Socialist States of America- the D.S.S.A - there is nothing united when it comes to this president.

"The American empire has not altered under Barack Obama."

Caspian, I guess I am still not clear. Your article does not really answer my question. It says that nothing has changed under Obama, so I don't see where, "he was begging Republicans to help him and they did not." If your point is financially he would have done things differently if the Republicans had gone along with his Liberal policies then my question remains:

"Financially what would have been his liberal policies?" Would he have started to raise our taxes more? Spent more? Bailed out businesses? Take control of businesses? Make government bigger? Add more entitlements?

It would seem he has done all these things, without any help from these Republicans that called for the opposite and in my opinion, none of these things are good for America.

Mag you better check your facts. You named a few but don t forget there are are alot of millionaires. Also corporation contribute millions to the republicans and pac money also goes to republicans; In every piece of legislation they vote against the consumer and vote like a bunch of sheep.They can not wait until they get back in to start screwing the middle class. John Boehner said on the new fianancial regulation that all business should not be regulated for a fews bad apples. What a joke they lead us down in the sewer in the greatest depression and real estate foreclosres.By the way there were more millionaires created under Clinton than any other president.So check your own facts before you shoot your mouth off.This is my opinion and if you do not like it to bad

Mike G. you can call Obama and his policies liberal all you want but it does not make it true.

How come the so called liberal Obama did not help the homeowners with foreclosures?

Obama is basically continuing Bush/Cheney policy and giving it a very small tweak.

Bush and Obama are making sure Wall Street wins and we the people lose.


=============================

The New Finance Bill: A Mountain of Legislative Paper, a Molehill of Reform / July 16, 2010 / http://tinyurl.com/29fx2as
Thursday the President pronounced that "because of this [financial reform] bill the American people will never again be asked to foot the bill for Wall Street's mistakes."
As if to prove him wrong, Goldman Sachs simultaneously announced it had struck a deal with federal prosecutors to pay $550 million to settle federal claims it misled investors - a sum representing a mere 15 days profit for the firm based on its 2009 earnings. Goldman's share price immediately jumped 4.3 percent, and the Street proclaimed its chair and CEO, Lloyd ("Goldman is doing God's work") Blankfein, a winner. Financial analysts rushed to affirm a glowing outlook for Goldman stock.
Blankfein, you may recall, was at the meeting in late 2008 when Tim Geithner and Hank Paulson decided to bail out AIG, and thereby deliver through AIG a $13 billion no-strings-attached taxpayer windfall to Goldman. In a world where money is the measure of everything, Blankfein's power and influence have grown. Presumably, Goldman can expect more windfalls in future years.
Although the financial reform bill may have clipped some of Goldman's wings - its lucrative derivative business may require Goldman to jettison its status as a bank holding company, and the access to the Fed discount window that comes with it - the main point is that the Goldman settlement reveals everything that's weakest about the financial reform bill.
http://robertreich.org/post/818142564/the-new-finance-bill-a-mountain-of-legislative-paper

"Financially what would have been his liberal policies?" Would he have started to raise our taxes more? Spent more? Bailed out businesses? Take control of businesses? Make government bigger? Add more entitlements?

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

Mike G. 12 years of Reagan/Bush bloated and increased the size of government with the greatest deficits in history until 8 years of Bush/Cheney!

Reagan and the Bush's said they are for smaller government only to get you to vote for them.

Clinton and Obama say they are for a Woman's right to choose only for votes.

It is the game Mike G.!

Only a game!

Newt Gingrich and his neo-con Republicans took control of Congress back in 1994 to 2006. 12 straight years.

Plus the Supreme Court has been Rightwing Republican for decades.

The Republican party could have overturned Roe v. Wade for many years and they did not do it.

Republicans need that issue for votes so I believe they will never undo Roe vs. Wade.

Caspian, I am not saying Obama's policies are Liberal but I don't know what they are then, perhaps Corporate? I know they are not conservative and I would not call Bush's policies Conservative either. There was way too much spending.

My answer was in response to your statement, "...instead of implementing liberal policies he was begging Republicans to help him and they did not."

In what way could Repubs help him with Liberal policies? You named helping homeowners. Is that a Liberal thing to do? If so, that is still spending, how does that get paid back? By raising our taxes or perhaps a Corporate tax?

I am really just trying to understand the difference. I guess for me, big government, entitlements, bailouts, out of control spending are all Liberal policies. On one hand, it would appear to be directed toward helping the people but if we wind having to pay more in taxes, slower economy, loss of jobs and a overall degraded quality of life, especially for the middle class. Then it is like giving me something in one hand and taking it away with the other.

You said you like Ralph Nadar and that he is a Liberal. What would he have done to help the average hard working middle class American financially? Quite often it seems, the more government tries to supply our needs the less likely we are to be productive on your own. All I want from government is to create opportunity, make sure the game is fair and let me be responsible for my success. I guess that is Conservative?

Peter it's clear you drink the Democratic cool aide. George Soros and Warren Buffett are billionaires. Democraps just want to raise taxes. They will pay a high price for their mismanagement in November and I'm not a Repuke. In NY we need a Chris Christy who cuts government or we need for the state to go bankrupt so we can invalidate contracts

In what way could Repubs help him with Liberal policies?

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

Mike G. Obama caved in even more just so Republicans would give him cover but I'm glad they all voted against him.

Single Payer is a liberal idea and Obama took it off the table and did not even give a very weak public option.

The Obama health care bill was a Republican bill similar to what Mitt Romney did.

Bush and Cheney did the same with the Senior Citizen Prescription Drug Bill which all Americans still pay the highest prices for medicines.

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

Foster: White House Had Role In Withholding Medicare Data
HHS Actuary Feels Bush Aide Put Hold on Medicare Data
March 19, 2004 http://tinyurl.com/zjtkv
Richard S. Foster, the government's chief analyst of Medicare costs who was threatened with firing last year if he disclosed too much information to Congress, said last night that he believes the White House participated in the decision to withhold analyses that Medicare legislation President Bush sought would be far more expensive than lawmakers knew.
Foster has said publicly in recent days that he was warned repeatedly by his former boss, Thomas A. Scully, the Medicare administrator for three years, that he would be dismissed if he replied directly to legislative requests for information about prescription drug bills pending in Congress. In an interview last night, Foster went further, saying that he understood Scully to be acting at times on White House instructions, probably coming from Bush's senior health policy adviser.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A6339-2004Mar18

Caspian, not to beat it to death here but your statement had to do with inheriting a financial meltdown and Repubs not willing to implement Liberal polices to help Obama out of that mess. The only thing I could think of was the stimulus and recovery bills but Obama had no trouble implementing those and adding to the deficit without accomplishing much at all.

I know Liberals wanted single payer or public option but that is more of an entitlement health care program, not much to do with fixing the economy or creating jobs or fiances. Perhaps, I mis-understood the context of the statement.

Mike G. truth be told Obama is not a liberal so he took liberal ideas off the table from the start thinking Republicans will give him "Cover" and vote with him.

This is the game both sides play.

The HMOs/Big Pharma wrote the Obama health care just like they did for Bush and Cheney in 2003 and 2006.

Mike if Obama bites the hand that feeds him Wall Street will start funding Republicans.

It is blackmail plain and simple which makes both parties prostitutes for Wall Street.

You seem to be against the average American by not investing in We The People because the government always has the TRILLIONS for the Pentagon and Subsidies "Corporate Welfare" for the wealthy.

99% of politicians always bring up cutting Social Security and Medicare and never bring up cutting the Billions and Trillions going to war profiteers at the Pentagon with waste and fraud.

I am in favor of investing in our citizenry instead of giving the funds to Wall Street/Pentagon.

===========================

Max Baucus WellPoint/Liz Fowler Plan"
September 8, 2009 / http://tinyurl.com/md9or8
All this time I’ve been calling Max Tax health care Max Baucus’ health care plan.
But, as William Ockham points out, it’s actually Liz Fowler’s health care plan (if you open the document and look under document properties, it lists her as author). At one level, it’s not surprising that Bad Max’s Senior Counsel would have authored the Max Tax plan. Here’s how Politico described her role in Bad Max’s health care plan earlier this year / http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/09/08/liz-fowlers-plan/

Caspian, That is a straight and good answer which helps me to understand exactly what you mean by Liberal policies.

So you see it as government taking our tax money and using it for their own purposes, whether that be kick backs for the already rich and powerful or wasteful spending in the military and that this amounts to trillions which should be going directly to “we the people” instead.

I think where we agree is I want what is best for “we the people” also, especially those majority in the middle class that seem to be stuck with paying all the bills. We need to do more for the poor but they already have many programs we pay for and the rich have lots of money, so the middle class gets the worst of it.

Where we disagree is how “we the people’ will benefit the most. For example, single payer. You think I don’t want the heavy burden of health care lifted off my shoulders? Of Course I do but I don’t trust this government to do that. They have proven in so many ways they can’t be trusted, so I don’t want to give them more power and control over our lives. What about military spending. There we MUST rely on government and if there is waste in military or ANY program lets cut it but above all, we can’t make a mistake and cut military too much and not be able to defend ourselves or our freedoms. In this respect I would rather have more then less.

So I guess my idea of the best way to help the middle class is NOT by government GIVING us something but by not taking our money in the first place. In an ideal world where government is honest and trust worthy I believe your Liberal policies would work. However, by now you must know this is not the case, so the next best thing is to limit government, which in effect empowers “we the people”. No, I don’t believe the Republicans have OUR interest in mind the way they talk about tax cuts, or limited government but in a round about way, I think that philosophy is what is best for us.

So now Caspian, here is my big question to You, John, Mike Q, anyone to think about. All things considered for the past 20 years from NAFTA to foreign conflicts, from bailouts, to backing Big Corporate, to additional spending and implementing Obamacare, would we have been better off with less government overall or more?

In my opinion, the real role of federal government is to protect “we the people” from those that have the power to harm us or our way of life. That includes any entity, enemy, business, or people. Has the government done that? Do we want more government, bigger government, that is not serving we the people?

Where we disagree is how “we the people’ will benefit the most. For example, single payer. You think I don’t want the heavy burden of health care lifted off my shoulders? Of Course I do but I don’t trust this government to do that.

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

Mike G. I don't trust the government either but the Middle Class and Working Poor always takes it on the Chin.

Instead of a real Single Payer where 99% of all Americans would benefit Obama continued more of the same where the HMOs/Pharma get the largest windfalls.

The United States always spends more on Military than the next 10 countries combined.

The Pentagon has always been a Sacred Cash Cow that both parties never talk about.

USA = 46.5 %

The next 10 countries combined 20.7%.

China 6.6%

France 4.2%

England 3.8%

Russia 3.5%

Mike G. We both need a good balance between less government and more government so I suggest a third and fourth party who will not take Wall Street funding.

Unfortunately the both parties and corporate mainstream and corporate right wing media won't allow it in America.

WALL STREET WINS AND WE LOSE!

===========================

No Debate: How the Republican and Democratic Parties Secretly Control the Presidential Debates / http://tinyurl.com/4q5vf8 / October 2, 2008
The Obama and McCain campaigns jointly negotiated a detailed, secret contract dictating the terms of all the 2008 debates. This includes who gets to participate as well as the topics raised during the debates. We speak to Open Debates founder and executive director George Farah.
Whats missing however is any concern about the fairness of the very structure of the debate. The Obama and McCain campaigns jointly negotiated a detailed contract dictating the terms of all the 2008 debates. This includes who gets to participate as well as the topics raised during the debates. But the contract remains secret and the Commission on Presidential Debates, a private corporation created by the two major parties, has refused to release the contract to the public.
Open Debates is a non-profit committed to democratizing the presidential debate process. Last month Open Debates and nine other pro-democracy groups called on the Commission to make the contract public.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/2/no_debate_how_the_republican_and

In my opinion, the real role of federal government is to protect “we the people” from those that have the power to harm us or our way of life.

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

Mike the government cannot protect you and never will protect you.

Where are the cops when you really need them?

Do you lock your windows and doors at night?

Lincoln, JFK, and even Reagan almost got killed in Boston with his Secret Service and local cops protecting him.

Bush did not protect America and Obama will not either.

Sincerely,

September 11, 2001

February 26, 1993

December 7, 1941

"Mike the government cannot protect you and never will protect you."

Caspian, I agree, government will never be able to keep us entirely safe but imagine no government or no military at all? Our enemies would invade us and take over our lives and resources quicker then a flash flood. So we need some limited government. When I say protect, I don't just mean militarily. I mean protect our borders, protect us from powerful corporate monopolies, protect our liberties from controlling entities, protect our America values, protect our money and future by being responsible with it.

In your own words government cannot protect us. My point is, if they cannot or will not protect us, then they are not worth additional investment. Why would i want them running my health care, if they are not responsible anywhere else?

When I say protect, I don't just mean militarily. I mean protect our borders, protect us from powerful corporate monopolies, protect our liberties from controlling entities, protect our America values, protect our money and future by being responsible with it.

====================

Mike G. Wall Street always steals from us with the governments help.

I do understand your reluctance to trust government but I feel just as strong against Wall Street Robber Barons.

What it comes down to is Obama destroyed liberalism and Bush destroyed conservatism.

Most Americans believe falsely that Obama is a liberal and Bush was a conservative.

Look what the Supreme Court did recently?

The corporate Democrats who are called liberal voted in favor of Eminent Domain 5-4.

The corporate Republicans who are called conservative voted in favor of more Wall Street money in politics 5-4.

Mike G. this is our real fight and not who is called liberal or called conservative.

BTW: Bush and Cheney never closed our borders and ports even after September 11, 2001.

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

Business as usual
Bush's strong support of the Dubai ports deal isn't so surprising in light of his family's many financial ties to Arab sheikdoms.
By Joe Conason / Feb. 24, 2006 http://tinyurl.com/h9yah
The president's shift in tone is as remarkable as his threat to use his first veto in five years to protect the Dubai deal in the face of bipartisan congressional opposition.

But Bush's passionate defense of the United Arab Emirates and the ports deal inevitably raises questions -- not only about the due diligence of his administration in this instance but about his and his family's long-standing ties to the Persian Gulf sheikdoms, and specifically to the UAE's rulers. His insinuation that skepticism is equivalent to bigotry cannot deflect such concerns, which first arose in the months after the 9/11 attacks.

By now, everyone paying attention to the furor over the Dubai ports deal should be aware of the UAE's mixed record with regard to terror and global security. The Emirates' ruling families formerly maintained close relationships with the Taliban and Osama bin Laden, whose hunting camps in Afghanistan they frequented; two of the 20 hijackers in the 9/11 plot were UAE nationals who used safe houses and banks in Dubai; and the A.Q. Khan nuclear smuggling network also used facilities there to mask its operations. Since 9/11, however, the Emirates have cooperated with U.S. operations against al-Qaida, and their state-owned corporations have eagerly participated in American attempts to improve transportation security.

What seems worrisome even to some who might ultimately accept the Dubai ports deal is the "casual attitude" of the Bush administration in vetting the company, as Sen. Carl Levin put it. Considering the history of Bush entanglement with the oil despots of the Gulf, that lax indulgence was bad policy and worse politics.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2006/02/24/ports_controversy/

"BTW: Bush and Cheney never closed our borders and ports even after September 11, 2001."


Only because the Democrats in Congress wouldn't allow it, as they cried racism against the Republicans every time it came up. AND YOU KNOW IT! The politics and machinery of the left is the largest and most corrupt of all the corporations and you are example of their most dishonest spokesman.

Man Who Knows Malaise Warns of Obama-Era Malaise:

Jul 16, 2010

Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski showed up on "Morning Joe" today to hang another Carter analogy on Obama.

"I think we're now going through a phase in which there is a sense of pervasive malaise, which affects different groups in society in different ways. So people are dissatisfied, they're slightly worried, they don't see a good future for themselves or for the country, he said.

Video here.

Yes, A Period of Consequences
The time for evasion is over:

July 26, 2010

Last month, we published an editorial under the title “A Period of Consequences.” The phrase was taken from a speech in the House of Commons in late 1936 in which Winston Churchill warned: “The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays is coming to its close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences.”

In the editorial, we lamented the procrastination, half-measures, soothing and baffling expedients, and delays that have characterized U.S. policy toward Iran’s nuclear program. We argued that U.S. military action to stop the program was preferable to a nuclear Iran, and urged the Obama administration to keep open (and plan for) the possibility of such action. Reuel Marc Gerecht makes the case in our pages this week that an Israeli strike would also be better than no strike at all. This is certainly the case. Still, American action is preferable, and desirable.

But looking at the world in the summer of 2010, we’re struck that we have entered a period of consequences on many more fronts than just the Iranian nuclear program. Churchill’s words seem to capture all too many aspects of the present moment.

- We’ve been living beyond our means and have failed to come to grips with the problem. The financial crisis has been followed by an irresponsible “stimulus” package that has meant the assumption of more debt, and a financial regulation bill that doesn’t address our core financial problems. A European sovereign debt crisis is bearing down on us as the global economic recovery falters, and our fiscal and monetary policy instruments seem exhausted. Now we are entering a period of consequences that will require an end to procrastination, and that will necessitate both difficult short-term choices, and a fundamental rethinking of a host of government programs and the very structure of our fiscal and monetary policies.

- We’ve allowed—nay, in many cases encouraged—our government to become unlimited in its goals, bloated in its size, and arbitrary in its action. In this respect Obama-care is more the culmination of decades of policy-making than a deviation from them. We’ve indulged in the fatal conceit that we can ask the state to attend to all our cares and invite the government to correct all our perceived problems, without considering either the counterproductive practical consequences (e.g., Obamacare will make health care less effective and more costly) or the enfeebling of the private sector (crony capitalism turns private businesses into supplicants of the state) or the undermining of our capacity for self-government (federal bureaucrats and federal judges govern us rather than carry out and interpret the laws passed by our elected officials). Now we are entering a period of consequences. To restore the idea and practices of limited, energetic self-government will require more than half-measures.

- We’ve hoped that the world might remain reasonably peaceful, friendly, and civilized—while skimping on our defense budgets and our military forces. More recently, we’ve signalled weakness to friends and enemies alike. We’ve pretended that happy talk and “soft power” would suffice in dealing with the hard truths of dictatorships, terror, fanaticism, and weapons of mass destruction. Now we are entering a period of consequences, which will require rejecting soothing and baffling expedients, and will instead demand strength and conviction on behalf of freedom and civilization.

- We’ve allowed our universities to become politically correct, our media to become juvenile, and our entertainments to become ever-more adolescent—and then we wonder why we’re baffled by the difficulties we have as a society in being candid, serious, and grown up. As C.S. Lewis put it, “We make men without chests and expect from them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.” Now we are entering a period of consequences in which delaying the decay is no longer enough, and in which the counter-cultural and reconstructive cultural efforts that are underway will not only have to be intensified, but will have to make a difference quickly.

The British economist and businessman Josiah Charles Stamp is said to have remarked, “It is easy to dodge our responsibilities, but we cannot dodge the consequences of dodging our responsibilities.” Stamp, along with his wife and son, was killed in London in 1941 during the Blitz. Those deaths, and tens of millions others, were the result of decent people seeking for too long to dodge their responsibilities and to evade the consequences.

"Only because the Democrats in Congress wouldn't allow it, as they cried racism against the Republicans every time it came up."

Nothing irks me more then passing the buck. This Administration is driving the car recklessly and as we head toward destruction they blame Bush and if we temporarily gain control, they take credit. They are dishonest, phonies in my opinion.

To your point, for sure the Democrats are not looking to secure the borders they are even willing to sue one of our own states to keep it from happening. However, no way do I give Bush any sort of pass on this. Remember the slogan, "we need them to do jobs the Americans won't do." Bush really made very little effort to close the borders for different reasons, he wanted them open.
If we really want to be honest, I think it is impossible to blame the Democrats for the open borders, without also blaming the Republicans.

Only because the Democrats in Congress wouldn't allow it, as they cried racism against the Republicans every time it came up. AND YOU KNOW IT!

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

The Republicans controlled the HOUSE from 1994-2006 and the Dems lost the Senate in 2003.

Stop with the BALONEY Bill F.!

You are still confusing corporate Democrats with liberals which have no power in Washington DC.

If we really want to be honest, I think it is impossible to blame the Democrats for the open borders, without also blaming the Republicans.

============

Thanks Mike G.!

NAFTA comes first over the safety of Americans.

"If we really want to be honest, I think it is impossible to blame the Democrats for the open borders, without also blaming the Republicans."


If we "REALLY" want to be honest you would admit that the Democrats won the Hispanic vote in the last presidential election mainly because because of their opposition to Bush's and the Republicans attempts to limit illegal immigration, such as pulling the carpet from under the construction of a fence all along the southern border, by blocking the necessary funding needed for implementation. After all Mike you are an admitted Democrat aren't you? What else would you be expected to say about President Bush??? With all due respect, It should be taken from the source. Obama and the Democrats won't take action now for the very same reason....in fact they want amnesty for all illegals now in order to create an impenetrable voting block forever

"If we really want to be honest, I think it is impossible to blame the Democrats for the open borders, without also blaming the Republicans."


If we "REALLY" want to be honest you would admit that the Democrats won the Hispanic vote in the last presidential election mainly because of their opposition to Bush's and the Republicans attempts to limit illegal immigration, such as pulling the carpet from under the construction of a fence all along the southern border, by blocking the necessary funding needed for implementation. After all Mike you are an admitted Democrat aren't you? What else would you be expected to say about President Bush??? With all due respect, It should be taken from the source. Obama and the Democrats won't take action now for the very same reason....in fact they want amnesty for all illegals now in order to create an impenetrable voting block forever

"After all Mike you are an admitted Democrat aren't you?"

Yes, I am a Democrat, just like President Reagan was a Democrat..The Dems don't want to campaign using my posts, I can tell you that...lol.

Frankly Bill, it seems you have 20/20 vision with Obama but with Bush you never are able to see clearly. Respectfully IMO, this type of inconsistency is more emotional then factual. My point is, just because the majority of Dems are softer on illegals, perhaps many wanting full amnesty or citizenship, that does not mean the Repubs did good job of protecting our borders. THEY DID NOT. Why did it take nearly 6 years to start the fence with a Republican majority? Business and Politics that's why. Nothing to do with Democrats stopping them. Here are the unemotional facts:

FACT:
"December 21, 2004, President Bush said yesterday he wants to reform immigration policy so that the Border Patrol will be "chasing crooks and thieves and drug-runners and terrorists," and not the thousands who cross the border every day to find work.
Mr. Bush has for months tried to drum up congressional support for his plan to give illegal aliens "temporary worker cards" that would allow them to legally hold jobs that U.S. businesses say they can't fill with American labor."

FACT:
"WARREN, Mich., Oct. 26 -- President Bush signed a measure Thursday authorizing the construction of a fence along 700 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border, an action that conflicts with his own stated vision of immigration reform but one championed by many Republicans facing re-election in November."

Caspian & Mike G: I'll get back to you guys a little bit later, what Bill F qualifies as fact- is just tooooo funnnnny for words.
Yet he always contends that the enemies of his kind are not the Taliban who papa Bush's CIA and oil cartels now wants us to fully endorse, not Al Qaeda whom he dismissed years ago, not illegals who are just innocently crossing the border to scab and steal jobs...
but, his ENEMY is citizens who do not agree and refute the absolute and contradictory analness of right wing propaganda.

Caspian & Mike G: I'll get back to you guys a little bit later, what Bill F qualifies as fact- is just tooooo funnnnny for words.
Yet he always contends that the enemies of his kind are not the Taliban who papa Bush's CIA and oil cartels now wants us to fully endorse, not Al Qaeda whom he dismissed years ago, not illegals who are just innocently crossing the border to scab and steal jobs...
but, his ENEMY is citizens who do not agree and refute the absolute and contradictory analness of right wing propagand and the platforms that have already destroyed this country.
This "expertise" from the man who could only find four "hearsay" witnesses who would openly vouch that Bush made at least one "cameo" appearance on a national guard base to suggest all of those fabricated heroics and undying allegiance.
Just call me absolutely stunned after reading still more of the History of the World According to ... hahahahahaha

John,

In our friends world liberalism is a bad word.

Liberals hate America. Conservatives love America.

Liberals hate GOD. Conservatives love GOD.

Liberals are lazy. Conservatives are hard working.

Liberals are druggies, hippies, and homos. LOL

Rush Limbaugh and Fox News are Truth Tellers and real Americans and not propagandist.

Et Cetera!!!

Unfortunately almost half of America believes this also.

I might be embellishing a little but you get my point.

Bill F: Remember this? Is Permalink 07/13/10 @ 20:49
... all the intell you could muster to defend AWOL BUSH after all of these years?
I bet we could find more people in the California desert who still believe that based upon seeing Charles Manson just once or twice- is the Messiah.
If so, and the numbers were corraborated by dare we say for arguments sake equally biased or self serving persona would you capitulate and devote your life to defending Manson's *dubious honor?
*Afterall he hasn't been responsible for taking as many innocent lives- "in his name" as Dumbya and his prostelytizing ideology.
IT SEEMS THAT THIS MITIGATING FACTOR SHOULD ALSO BE WEIGHED ON THE SCALES COME JUDGMENT DAY. Hmmmmmmmmm!

Do you want to try on your lawyers hat to defend your client. Aaah, I do mean master.

A quick review through o the other hundred posts left and the same date as your post, with the reams of evidence citing the AWOL presidency and AWOL national guard service are sufficient to CLOSE MY CASE ON THE SUBJECT. Highlighted by "THE VIDEOS". You "do know" which ones they are don't you?

WHAT A PROMOTER! Heeeeere's, ..."the mote" TRUE BELIEVERS IN KILLING AND DESTRUCTION ALL LOVE "THE MOTE".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vefD3WSiis

AWOL as guardmens. Never was a pilot.

Body of Evidence:
military service- AWOL!
businessman- BANKRUPT!
governor- ABSENTEE LEADERSHIP, ...*RUTHLESS, THE MOST CAPITAL PUNISHMENT OF ANY MODERN GOVERNOR
resident-in-chief- AWOL! AWOL! AWOL! w/ the following genocidal policies that broke our nations unity and economy.
-WAR W/ IRAQ
-OCCUPATION
-THE $534B BOGUS HEALTHCARE PLAN
-DEREGULATION
-HARBORING THE CRIMINALS WITHIN HIS CABINET THAT UNMASKED A COVERT CIA AGENT
-HARBORING DICK CHENEY
-HARBORING AND PAYING HUSH MONEY TO AHMED CHALABI
-EXTORTIONS OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC
-INSIDER UNDERWORLD CONTRACTING PRACTICES & COLLUSION W/ INSIDIOUS TORTURE FIGURES WHO ENDANGERED THE WELFARE OF OUR TROOPS See: Halliburton, Blackwater.

How does anything that this man said or hsas done jibe with THE FACTS, AS THEY HAVE BEEN FULLY DOCUMENTED SURROUNDING HIS IMPOSTEROUS HISTORICAL PAST.

Bill F: Remember this? Is Permalink 07/13/10 @ 20:49
... all the intell you could muster to defend AWOL BUSH after all of these years?
I bet we could find more people in the California desert who still believe that based upon seeing Charles Manson just once or twice- is the Messiah.
If so, and the numbers were corraborated by dare we say for arguments sake equally biased or self serving persona would you capitulate and devote your life to defending Manson's *dubious honor?
*Afterall he hasn't been responsible for taking as many innocent lives- "in his name" as Dumbya and his prostelytizing ideology.
IT SEEMS THAT THIS MITIGATING FACTOR SHOULD ALSO BE WEIGHED ON THE SCALES COME JUDGMENT DAY. Hmmmmmmmmm!

Do you want to try on your lawyers hat to defend your client. Aaah, I do mean master.

A quick review through o the other hundred posts left and the same date as your post, with the reams of evidence citing the AWOL presidency and AWOL national guard service are sufficient to CLOSE MY CASE ON THE SUBJECT. Highlighted by "THE VIDEOS". You "do know" which ones they are don't you?
_________________
WHAT A PROMOTER! Heeeeere's, ..."the mote" TRUE BELIEVERS IN KILLING AND DESTRUCTION ALL LOVE "THE MOTE".
You know the mantra.
Quote: the Mote- NEVERMORE!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vefD3WSiis
_________________
*****AWOL as guardmens. Never was a pilot.
http://www.teachpeace.com/bushpropaganda.htm

________________________
WITNESSES FOR THE PROSECUTION-
Body of Evidence:
military service- AWOL!
businessman- BANKRUPT! 1,2,3, ... THEN BROKE THE ENTIRE US CAPITALIST ECONOMY
governor- ABSENTEE LEADERSHIP, ...*RUTHLESS, PRESIDED OVER THE MOST CAPITAL PUNISHMENT OF ANY MODERN GOVERNOR. *Thinks torture is a virtuous act but only when performed under his minions.
resident-in-chief- AWOL! AWOL! AWOL! w/ the following genocidal policies that broke our nations unity and economy.
-WAR W/ IRAQ
-OCCUPATION
-THE $534B BOGUS HEALTHCARE PLAN
-DEREGULATION
-HARBORING THE CRIMINALS WITHIN HIS CABINET THAT UNMASKED A COVERT CIA AGENT
-HARBORING DICK CHENEY
-HARBORING AND PAYING HUSH MONEY TO AHMED CHALABI
-EXTORTIONS OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC
-INSIDER UNDERWORLD CONTRACTING PRACTICES & COLLUSION W/ INSIDIOUS TORTURE FIGURES WHO ENDANGERED THE WELFARE OF OUR TROOPS See: Halliburton, Blackwater.

How does anything that this man has said or proclaimed to have done jibe with THE FACTS, AS THEY HAVE BEEN FULLY DOCUMENTED SURROUNDING HIS IMPOSTEROUS HISTORICAL PAST.
Concerned people want to know.
_________________
Caspian: You can send these arguments to Judge Napolitano if you'd like. (smile)

John continue speaking truth to power.

That's all we have.

"Unfortunately almost half of America believes this also."
"John continue speaking truth to power."

If you truly want to be a believer in "The Way", "The TRUTH" and "The Life" then "deny your very selves and pick up your cross."

Whenever I hear Bush can do no wrong or Bush can do no right, I know out of hand it is not true. We must be objective and if we are, we will find truth and lies from both Conservatives AND Liberals. We all need to be honest with ourselves and straighten out the mess in our own house.

"Whenever I hear Bush can do no wrong or Bush can do no right....."

Truth be told, the longer that Barack Obama remains the president, the better
and better Bush's eight years will be remembered. What a loser the Democrats put forth. End of story!

Yes, I am a Democrat, just like President Reagan was a Democrat"


I knew Ronald Reagan, sir you are no Ronald Reagan! Besides, Ronald Reagan became a devout Republican early in his political career. Are you a devout Republican? I think not. Ronald Reagan was absolutely for a towering national defense the way President Bush was absolutely for a towering national defense. From your rhetoric you appear neutral on the subject or else you'd give Bush alcolades for his efforts and performance.

John:

Your Democratic left president and Congress in only 1 1/2 years negated all your Bush/Republican lies from the last 9 1/2 years. (See Below)

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

Quinnipiac Poll: Obama Would Lose to 'Unnamed Republican'

Wednesday, 21 Jul 2010

President Obama's standing with American voters is so low that the latest Quinnipiac University poll indicates Obama would lose an election to "an unnamed Republican" -- meaning any GOP opponent -- by 39 to 36 percent.

The poll shows Obama's job approval hitting a new low, 44 percent approval to 48 percent disapproval. That is the president's worst net score ever, according to Quinnipiac.

The most drastic news for the president politically: His approval with the critical independent voters is dismal.

By a stunning 52 percent to 38 percent, independent voters disapprove of Obama. And by 37 to 27 percent, independents say they would vote for a Republican contender in 2012.

Overall, by a 48 percent to 40 percent margin, American voters say that President Obama does not deserve to be reelected in 2012.

While the Obama administration has time to turn around its low approval ratings before its next election, the poll is likely to sound alarm bells on Capitol Hill where many members of Congress will be up for reelection in November. Midterm elections tend to be a referendum on the party in power.

Voters apparently have a "pox on both their houses" mentality when it comes to Congress, giving both Republican and Democratic members very low marks. But that may be little consolation to Democrats on the ballot in November, because respondents said by a 43 to 38 percent margin that they would vote for a generic Republican over a generic Democrat for Congress.

The Quinnipiac survey of 2,181 registered voters has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.1 percent, the university says.

The overall impression left by the poll is that voters are disenchanted with the reforms that President Obama stated he would enact if he were elected president. He gets strong negative ratings for his handling of the economy, foreign policy, and the Gulf Oil spill.

"It was a year ago, during the summer of 2009, that America's love affair with President Barack Obama began to wane," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. "In July of 2009, the president had a 57 to 33 percent approval rating.

"Today, his support among Democrats remains strong, but the disillusionment among independent voters, who dropped from 52 to 37 percent approval to 52 to 38 percent disapproval in the last 12 months, is what leads to his weakness overall when voters start thinking about 2012," Brown says.

More bad news for Democrats on the campaign trail: Obama's coat-tails are remarkably short this year. Only 12 percent of voters say they are more likely to support candidates for whom Obama campaigns, compared to 16 percent for candidates supported by Sarah Palin.

There are some redeeming glimmers for the administration in the survey: By a 42 to 32 margin, American voters continue to believe Obama has been a better president than George W. Bush.

That is remarkably similar to the 43 to 30 margin recorded in January 2010, which could imply Bush fatigue with voters is a lingering phenomenon.

Also, the poll shows support for the war in Afghanistan has hit a new low, with 48 percent of Americans saying the war was the right thing to do, and 43 percent saying America should not be fighting there.

"From your rhetoric you appear neutral on the subject or else you'd give Bush alcolades for his efforts and performance."

Yes I am neutral, not affiliated with any party. I loved Reagan and most Democrats hated Reagan. I can't stand Obama because I believe in the traditions and independent attitude of this country and Obama seems to want to change all that and make us more like Europe, more dependent on government.

I did not like Bush. IMO he was not good, along with many untrustworthy Republicans, still they were better then Obama and the Dems. I see this because by not backing either party,I can be objective. I believe that is where you will find truth.

I plan to vote Republican across the board this November, only because I want balance in government. Neither party is worthy of full control and this Administration has abused that power immensely.

Whenever I hear Bush can do no wrong or Bush can do no right, I know out of hand it is not true.

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

Read between the lines Mike G.

There are "ALWAYS THREE" sides to a story.

Both sides lie and tell half-truths and the truth is somewhere in the middle.

I compare Democrats to Racketeers and Republicans to Gangsters.

Colombo's and Gambino's.

LOL

Follow The Money and you will find where the truth lies.

Yes I am neutral, not affiliated with any party"

I said you were neutral towards national defense, unlike Ronald Reagan who was very much a hawk and built up our military to meet any potential threat from any hostile nation.Don't say you were like Reagan when you have major differences.

"I said you were neutral towards national defense, unlike Ronald Reagan who was very much a hawk and built up our military to meet any potential threat from any hostile nation."

Actually, I believed back then and still believe in a strong military and National defense. Thats different from some of the conflicts we are fighting today. Many threats we face today are not resolved by building up our military because it is not other countries military forces we are fighting against.

In my opinion the biggest threat we face today is IRAN getting a Nuclear weapon. The second is more terrorist attacks like 9/11. So by far, the best National defense would be to focus every effort to stop IRAN from continuing their Nuclear program, defend our borders, invest in more airline security, strong police work, etc. This is a different world then the Reagan days.

"Both sides lie and tell half-truths and the truth is somewhere in the middle."

Caspian, I certainly agree. The truth is always objective and in the middle. Is Jesus a Republican or a Democrat? Since he is the "truth" I am sure he is neither.

"Actually, I believed back then and still believe in a strong military and National defense"


That is hollow and meaningless when you cannot make the hard choices like Bush had to, under the extreme pressures of 9/11 and after eight years of a cowardly Democratic administration's such as Clinton's signaling to Islamo-fascists that the USA was too weak and too lazy to defend itself. No other president since Franklin Roosevelt was tested like President Bush was tested, certainly not even Ronald Reagan and you'll never know if he could have performed nearly as well.... Reagan was my hero but I doubt it. It is obvious to me that it is your your Democratic roots speaking and not logic when you mostly refer to Bush.

"In my opinion the biggest threat we face today is IRAN getting a Nuclear weapon"

Talk is cheap!
But were you in favor of a military strike along with Israel as Bush was to pre-empt the hopeless handcuffed, scenario that Obama faces today? You should have heard the panic here on RNN every time the leftist media was reporting such a possible event. A number of years ago Israel could have done the job with naval and air support from the US. Just a real threat, fully supported by even the Democratic Congress might have been enough to promote meaningful negotiations, but with part of our country branding Bush as a war monger and with those same individuals trying to pull the carper from under and Iraq War win, what Islamist would believe the threat? This was only due to your spineless Democratic Party, that hasn't had the stomach for war since Vietnam....and the Islamists bank on that as Ben Laden was quoted several times before 9/11..

"In my opinion the biggest threat we face today is IRAN getting a Nuclear weapon"


Talk is cheap!
But were you in favor of a military strike along with Israel as Bush was in order to pre-empt the hopeless handcuffed, scenario that Obama faces today? You should have heard the panic here on RNN every time the leftist media was reporting such a possible event. A number of years ago Israel could have done the job with naval and air support from the US. Possibly just a real threat, fully supported by even the Democratic Congress might have been enough to promote meaningful negotiations without war, but with part of our country branding Bush as a war monger and with those same individuals trying to pull the carpet from under an and Iraq War win, what Islamist would believe the threat was genuine? This was only due to your spineless Democratic Party, that hasn't had the stomach for war since Vietnam....and the Islamists bank on that as Ben Laden was quoted several times before 9/11 saying just that.

Obama administration takes credit for Bush success in Iraq:

Feb. 11, 2010

In the midst of weak polls numbers, the Obama administration is grabbing on to anything that will boost the image of a flailing presidency. Everyone from President Obama to Vice President Joe Biden to White House Press Secretary Joe Gibbs are more than willing to say the successes in Iraq are due to Obama administration policies without crediting the President Bush's foundational groundwork, like the surge (which Obama and Biden opposed) and setting up the military drawdown in Iraq with Prime Minister Maliki before he left the White House. The Fox News Channel details further the Obama administration's attempt to call any success in Iraq their own, while trashing the Bush administration in the process.

It remains amusing that the White House will continue to repeat they "inherited" the Bush economy, when Obama's economic policies continue to fail, while embracing any victory in Iraq that rightfully belongs to the prior administration's work with the U.S. Military and Iraqi government.

This is sort of like beating up on the class nerd everyday, demand he does your class work, score straight A's, still beat up on the class nerd, and truly believe you are some kind of genius for getting good grades. Unfortunately for President Obama, the teachers are the American people. He has not paid attention to them, and stealing the credit for someone else's hard work will not bring up his poll numbers.

Actually, I believed back then and still believe in a strong military and National defense

====================

Mike G. then you must be against Bush and Cheney?


Reports: US Still 'Dangerously Vulnerable'
Study: Bush Administration Missed Numerous Opportunities
September 9, 2008 / http://tinyurl.com/5ttvmd
WASHINGTON -- As the somber, seven-year anniversary approaches, a new study suggests that the United States remains "dangerously vulnerable" to chemical, biological and nuclear attacks, despite new initiatives prompted by 9/11. And a House Democrats' report says the George W. Bush administration has missed one opportunity after another to improve the nation's security.
The recent political rupture between Russia and the U.S. only makes matters worse, said Lee Hamilton, the former Indiana Democratic congressman who helped lead the 9/11 Commission and now chairs the independent group's latest study
Efforts to reduce access to nuclear technology and bomb-making materials have slowed, thousands of U.S. chemical plants remain unprotected, and the U.S. government continues to oppose strengthening an international treaty to prevent bioterrorism, according to the report produced by the bipartisan Partnership for a Secure America.
The group includes leaders of the disbanded 9/11 Commission, the bipartisan panel that investigated government missteps before the 2001 terror attacks on the United States.
"The threat of a new, major terrorist attack on the United States is still very real," concludes the report to be released Wednesday, the same day a congressional commission will hold a hearing in New York on nuclear and biological terrorism threats.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26618858/

Bill F.- "But were you in favor of a military strike along with Israel as Bush was to pre-empt the hopeless handcuffed, scenario that Obama faces today?"

Like most Americans I am in favor of using aggressive military options when all else fails and there is a clear legitimate reason to do so. The first Gulf War and Afghanistan after 9/11 had widespread support. Vietnam and IRAQ had much less support. When the objective is not clear or ever changing, especially in long protracted wars people begin to question. When you think about it, if the main reason for are current conflicts are to stop the spread of terrorism then national defense and securing our borders should be the top priority.

Caspian- "Mike G. then you must be against Bush and Cheney?"

See above.