[RunItUpTheGut]

^
Im a firm believer that you should only have as many kids as you can afford.
Meaning, if you need something like foodstamps to provide for your kids, you shouldn't have them.

Im not saying we should China it and cut it off at a limit, but something or someone needs to be held responsible. We would save more by paying to have tubes tied or supplying free birth control to those who want it than feeding the millions of kids who are born simply to provide a bigger check when in reality, there not getting any of it.

[Spirit100]

^
Im a firm believer that you should only have as many kids as you can afford.
Meaning, if you need something like foodstamps to provide for your kids, you shouldn't have them.

Im not saying we should China it and cut it off at a limit, but something or someone needs to be held responsible. We would save more by paying to have tubes tied or supplying free birth control to those who want it than feeding the millions of kids who are born simply to provide a bigger check when in reality, there not getting any of it.

Well then tubes tied after 2 if you're not working, paying taxes, and drawing welfare! That will put an end to that bs as well!!!

[TheRealThing]

^We're big on writing laws to make people do what's right these days. In the case of ObamaCare for instance, this president, who is the symbolic head of all things liberal, has clearly stated that people with money are going to be forced by laws like the Affordable Care Act, to pay for people who don't have money. In the case of the millions of kids being born out of wedlock, 1,607,773 in 2011 alone, we find ourselves awash in exponentially expanding debt and the socially destructive forces associated with what will soon be a majority group of federally coddled, ne'er do wells. Additionally, estimates predict that the majority of all births, will be out of wedlock births by the year 2016. That fact alone is unsustainable in financial terms but, it is equally damaging to our country in moral terms.

It is therefore no coincidence that we are pressing very close to the 50 million mark for those on food stamps. In fact, statistics show that by 2016, the number of welfare recipients will be greater than the number of gainfully employed who actually pay for said welfare. And, although it is certainly true that America and the rest of the world went through a global economic downturn beginning in 2007, (100% Bush's fault according to his successor) I believe that the pain wouldn't have been nearly as great had society in general, been as responsible as folks were in 1964 when LBJ first committed to purchase the grief of the poor with the implementation of the "Great Society." Those were the days you keep hearing about when nobody worried about even locking their doors at night or, leaving windows up to let in the cool night air. I mean, food stamps for 360 thousand, would scarcely merit a line item on today's insane budget document.

The number of abortions in 1964 was an invisible 823. So, even with baby boomers retiring at today's rate, our financial sted would be much much better. You didn't see jokers walking around back in 1964 bragging about having over 30 illegitimate children with 10 or 12 'moms' of a sort, in their stable funneling thousands of welfare dollars into their pockets. Perspective is an amazing thing. I saw all this stuff go down :yikes: One can listen to the drone of modern government telling folks what is right or, he can think for himself and see how far the insanity has come since bad behavior was in effect sanctioned and funded back in the ill conceived "Great Society" legislation.

Therefore, since fathers, both wed and unwed, are determined to misbehave on the taxpayer tab, they should be required by law to support such children. I'm a fan of the concept of the shot gun wedding myself but, that's just me. At any rate, the present situation amounts to nothing, if not government subsidized debauchery pure and simple. So, the lion's share our taxes are headed in one of two directions. On the one hand we face the prospect of funding cradle to grave entitlements. While on the other, we face funding abortion on demand at our local state funded, butcher's shop of horrors. Anybody other than me think America's ship of state is headed full speed for the rocks of financial ruin that are clearly visible, even as we speak?

[TheRealThing]

RealThing, I wanted to tell you that I enjoy reading your posts very much. That being said, I would be interested to hear your answers to a couple of questions. Understand, this is not a challenge. I am truly interested in your opinions on some questions that I have struggled with in discussions with other people.
Last, Christy from New Jersey. What do you think of him and what do you think his chances of being the nominee are?I know this is a lot of things but, if you have the time, I would really like to hear your thoughts on these issues. Thanks

Before I offer any opinion about Christie it would seem apt to mention his current troubles. In ironically Hurricane Sandy-esque fashion, the governor is presently suffering a storm surge of controversy resulting from bridge-gate. The reason is both an indictment and revelation into the mind set of the liberal media. They are the eveready bunny, right arm of the Democratic Party. True believers all, no lie is too thin, no depth too low to stoop and no sword too broad on which to fall, in the name of service, to spread and bolster the cause of liberalism. Bridge-Gate has generated more media coverage than the incredibly foolhardy closure of coal fired generating stations, Fast and Furious, Benghazi, the IRS scandal, Keystone Pipeline anyone? the NSA scandal, ObamaCare untruths, and the "fundamental transformation/remaking America" bid under way since the first day of the Obama Era, combined. And that by a very wide margin IMO.

In a scripted symphony of hypocrisy, the argument against Christie goes like this. He created an atmosphere of retribution in his administration. "Christie's critics argue that the governor has created an atmosphere of intimidation in his administration, and they depict him as a bully. The larger critique is that Christie doesn't have the temperament to be president."
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/Ken-Wal...t-for-2016 Meanwhile, it is considered credible, I suppose, to buy into the argument offered over and over again ad-nauseum, from the podium in the White House Briefing Room that the President didn't know a thing about all the above mentioned scandals until he read about them in the news paper. :lame:

The media employs all the movie grade drama their formidable training will afford, that along with the ability to distort and falsely characterize facts and politicians in what ever light will help "The Cause", make them a nuclear grade weapon available only to Democrats. They engage in a form of propaganda that is incredibly effective during campaign season but, by no means do they back off any during the off season when they make of living casting domestic and world events in a light favorable for liberals 24/7/365. When speaking of Liberal Democrats, the media will portray them as humanitarian and savvy public servants to be admired. Frequently casting them as intellectuals of renown while slamming the integrity and intellect of conservative Republicans as was the case of George W Bush who actually graduated in the top ten percent of his class at no less than Yale University. At any rate, is it any wonder the love affair between Washington DC and Hollywood is so prevalent? What we see every night passing for news, is nothing less than a theatrical production, intended to persuade the minds of the viewer in a particular political direction. And like NASCAR drivers, they only go one way, circularly to the left, LOL.

While George W. was president the press castigated his policies and efforts to govern, in as ill a light as they could without becoming overly obvious about it. Likewise, they have worked feverishly to enhance the image of president Obama, featuring him in as favorable a light as possible. So, you know being the dutiful junkyard dogs they are, they will in dog like fashion, shake the stuffing out of the Christie doll, and then toss and shred whatever remains, for all their worth. The reason? Frankly, they are nearly orgasmic in gleeful anticipation of a Hillary Rodham Clinton Presidency. No Republican candidate will therefore be treated honorably by any news outlet. And, that goes for FOX News too. More anchors for Fox lean left than to the right. Christie is the heir apparent and media types will be going for the jugular like a vampire awakening from hibernation. It will be horrific in terms of honesty. They'll be lying to pad the Clinton resume and bury any inconvenient truths, while again lying to discredit her hapless foe.

The whole situation is sickening to me. Like passing a bucket of monkey puke, liberals and their shallow following greedily gulp down the daily DNC/media offering.

So, as the article for which I have provided the link above suggests, this all-in media assault against Christie is a recently tried and proven tactic, with which to defrock one's political foe. Romney was painted as an epically greedy and unethical business man, who ran over his thousands en route to amassing his ill gotten fortune. It was a lie in every aspect but, like I said, for the Democrat seeking office, no tactic is out of bounds as to them, the end always justifies the means. Lies are just tools to gain the power of federal office.

In my mind, the intellect, patriotism and statesmanship Christie would bring to the oval office measured in candlepower. Would when compared to the Obama tenure, be like holding up a flickering match to a super nova. We, as a people, have strayed deep into the wilderness under the watch of the present administration. Thus, a Christie Presidency, would be a decidedly welcome breath of fresh air. Is he perfect? Not hardly. But, he at least has a frame of reference by which to understand America's history and tradition of conservative values, other than the alien and foreign forces that shaped the views of this president.

I've spent a lot of time talking about governance from the middle. How is it that folks seem unable to recognize that while Democrats rail against what they call right wing extremism, (which is nothing more than the normal American behavior of our fathers) they are themselves pegging the us to the left in foaming at the mouth fashion? For the USA to survive, enough folks are going to have to wake up so as to win an election or two. Will the Christy candidacy survive? Romney's did, but, the question to me is will America survive?

[Granny Bear]

^^
That's quite profound, but reserving agreement for now.

^
Im a firm believer that you should only have as many kids as you can afford.
Meaning, if you need something like foodstamps to provide for your kids, you shouldn't have them.

Im not saying we should China it and cut it off at a limit, but something or someone needs to be held responsible. We would save more by paying to have tubes tied or supplying free birth control to those who want it than feeding the millions of kids who are born simply to provide a bigger check when in reality, there not getting any of it.

Well then tubes tied after 2 if you're not working, paying taxes, and drawing welfare! That will put an end to that bs as well!!!

Just so both of you turkeys know.....a vasectomy is much less invasive and expensive that having one's "tubes tied".

[TheRealThing]

^^
That's quite profound, but reserving agreement for now.

Reserving agreement with what part? :biggrin:

[Granny Bear]

Not sure I could vote for Christie.

Now, rest assured, before I voted Obama or not vote at all, I would write in your name...just not sure about Christie.

[TheRealThing]

Not sure I could vote for Christie.

Now, rest assured, before I voted Obama or not vote at all, I would write in your name...just not sure about Christie.

LOL, I can understand what you're saying. I was answering from the perspective Quickkick asked of me. I'm no Christie fan either but, I would view him as more of an interim, or stop gap candidate. Don't forget about Benghazi and HillaryCare.

EXCERPT---
"Bill Clinton made waves last week with his pronouncement over Obamacare's most infamous (for now) dishonored promise. Conspicuously absent from the resulting hullabaloo was any comment from Bill's wife, Hillary, whose fingerprints are all over the imploding health law:"
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2...e-n1748971

I hope the Republicans can do better than Chris Christie. We need a strong candidate, in order to reverse some of the damage and I'm not sure he wants to be that guy. Romney has said he will not run again, and unlike most folks, I still would like to see a Romney presidency. My second choice would be Paul Ryan. He's a kind of quiet intellectual, who has a hard time shouting over the din of Democrat rhetoric and the media crucified him during his run for VP. The downside for either of these two would be minimal to my thinking.

I love Ted Cruz and Mike Lee, and I believe they are crucial to moving the country back to the center right, the position in which we're all used to living and being governed. And yet, until conservative America shows some sign of a pulse, I doubt that they are electable. And, for the record, I'd be thrilled to be wrong about that, but it is truly chilling to consider that Obama was elected not once but twice. And that in the face of an abundance of information that elevated Mitt Romney and exposed the short falls of Obama.

[TheRealThing]

^ I should probably clarify my view of Christie a bit further. Even though I don't trust the media as far as I can throw a boxcar, in no way did I intend to defend him with regard to bridge-gate. I'm not suggesting for one second that he wasn't pulling the strings of those who closed the lanes headed for Fort Lee. All I was saying above was that when one weighs the importance and effects the federal scandals mentioned, the lane closures pale by comparison. And, where was the coverage? Now, trying to strong arm mayors and the like in normal times, should probably disqualify Gov Christie at least, in the minds of voters. And yet somebody will be elected to the oval office in 2016. So, if the Democratic candidate is yet another rabid liberal, it wouldn't be all that hard to vote for a guy that is both against gay marriage and is pro life, even though his arrival of the latter position was only achieved in 2011. King size warts not withstanding, a sizeable improvement over our present situation IMO.

[WideRight05]

Christie is not someone I would like to vote for, but anyone would be better than who we have in office right now. Given the liberal state where Christie is coming from, he will find it easier to lean toward the right should he occupy the white house. The one major issue I have with him was that he signed a bill making gay conversion therapy illegal for those under 18. The only other state to have that is California. If he were to be elected, he would likely support everything for gays except marriage. Even with that, he probably wouldn't take a big stand to stop it from happening (same-sex marriage was legalized in his state a couple months back). Christie is pro-life from what I can gather about him, but I truly think if he were to get elected it would represent a turning point...

and not to the good.

Christie comes across to me as more of that fiscal conservative/social liberal that a lot of young people today like. He's not totally liberal socially, but he is in some areas. He has the support of Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, who is conservative fiscally (from what I gather) but participates in gay pride parades. Zuckerberg is the model of what a lot of this young generation represents, even those who support Republican candidates. Should Christie get elected, it would represent the "turning point" in that the Republicans will have sacrificed some of their values that the media pressured them to do after the dreaded election on November 6, 2012 so they can get into office again. If he does get elected, George W. Bush will very much likely be the last president to have had a strong stance against social issues such as same-sex marriage. It is very likely that we would see more Republicans modeled after Christie in the future who are socially in the moderate to liberal range, should he get elected.

[Pick6]

The "War on Poverty" was lost when our government, at the behest of international corporations doing business in the US, started signing free trade agreements. Manufacturing almost immediately went off shore to take advantage of cheap labor and no environmental, health or safety regulation. Then we started allowing guest workers who had cheap education costs to compete for professional citizen labor saddled with 6 figure education debt. Ever since NAFTA was signed in the mid 80's the middle class has shrunk while wealth and poverty expand wildly. BTW, this is a "non-partisan" accomplishment as Gingrich and Clinton both lobbied hard for this!

[TheRealThing]

Christie is not someone I would like to vote for, but anyone would be better than who we have in office right now. Given the liberal state where Christie is coming from, he will find it easier to lean toward the right should he occupy the white house. The one major issue I have with him was that he signed a bill making gay conversion therapy illegal for those under 18. The only other state to have that is California. If he were to be elected, he would likely support everything for gays except marriage. Even with that, he probably wouldn't take a big stand to stop it from happening (same-sex marriage was legalized in his state a couple months back). Christie is pro-life from what I can gather about him, but I truly think if he were to get elected it would represent a turning point...

and not to the good.

Christie comes across to me as more of that fiscal conservative/social liberal that a lot of young people today like. He's not totally liberal socially, but he is in some areas. He has the support of Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, who is conservative fiscally (from what I gather) but participates in gay pride parades. Zuckerberg is the model of what a lot of this young generation represents, even those who support Republican candidates. Should Christie get elected, it would represent the "turning point" in that the Republicans will have sacrificed some of their values that the media pressured them to do after the dreaded election on November 6, 2012 so they can get into office again. If he does get elected, George W. Bush will very much likely be the last president to have had a strong stance against social issues such as same-sex marriage. It is very likely that we would see more Republicans modeled after Christie in the future who are socially in the moderate to liberal range, should he get elected.

^First, 2016 is a long time from now, so things can and will happen. I'm not saying I like the situation, far from it. But, unless we see Republicans sweep the mid-terms again, you're going to see the Dems come up with a hard left candidate. Christie is probably the worst candidate from among the list of Republican probables and yet, if he were to get the nomination, it's either going to be Hillary, or somebody even more left than her, and worst case scenario as far as Republicans are concerned, Christie.

That is one reason that I am so hopeful about the mid-terms this fall. If we take the Senate and manage to hold the House, the chances that we will get a more favorable candidate will be much greater. I completely agree that Christie more suits the liberal palate than that of the conservative, and he fulfills the profile liberals have been offering up for Republicans to accept as part of their crowing fest resulting from Obama having been reelected. (they've been in a state of denial since the mid-terms of 2010 and they love declaring victory before it is actually achieved) The problem is that we conservatives will have to vote for whoever the Republicans put up there, or abstain. Hopefully, we'll win in November and send an undeniable message to DC and the DNC. :biggrin:

[TheRealThing]

The "War on Poverty" was lost when our government, at the behest of international corporations doing business in the US, started signing free trade agreements. Manufacturing almost immediately went off shore to take advantage of cheap labor and no environmental, health or safety regulation. Then we started allowing guest workers who had cheap education costs to compete for professional citizen labor saddled with 6 figure education debt. Ever since NAFTA was signed in the mid 80's the middle class has shrunk while wealth and poverty expand wildly. BTW, this is a "non-partisan" accomplishment as Gingrich and Clinton both lobbied hard for this!

You're not going to get any argument out of me with regard to getting backdoored by NAFTA. Neither will you with regard to the fact that our fiscal house started to deteriorate because of decisions made during the William Jefferson Clinton administration. There was a presidential get together in support of NAFTA, which was televised. It was one of those moments that can only be described by the word betrayal. I mean, you could have knocked me over with a feather when I saw Reagan and Bush there to lend their support.

We will have to agree to disagree on the dynamics which have served as the engine behind the failure of the War on Poverty. At any rate, no member of labor I know of ever had to saddle the burden of a 6 figure education. A high school diploma was sufficient for the best labor job out there.

[Quickkickonthird]

Monkey puke???? I loved that one!

Your position on Christey, as I have gathered from your answer, is very similar to mine. That, in itself, proves that you are a very intelligent man. LOL! Anyway, I feel like the GOP will have to nominate someone like Christey to have a shot at the White House. He can pick up a lot of the independent voters who will be afraid to vote for someone who is as far to the left as Hillary and he can also pick up the dems who feel disaffected. I really have a problem with some of the press already labeling him as a RINO which is absolutely not true. It is getting to the point that any Republican who doesnt have Tea Party views are labled as a RINO and that angers me. I am a proud Republican and have been so for 38 years (since I turned 18). I am proud to say that the first vote that I ever made was for Ronald Reagan. To label a person a RINO because he has a different view on an issue that the extreme right has is simply not fair.

I, like you already illustrated, think that it is a long time until 2016 and that gives the liberal media time to shoot many bullets at Christey. I am afraid that he wont be able to dodge them all, however, I hope that I am wrong or we may be looking at Hillary in 2016.

Since that is the end of my questions, I want to thank you for fielding them in such a complete and precise way. Several, if not all, of the questions were very open ended which required long answers and you knocked them all out of the park. I may not have agreed with every part of every answer but you certainly made very good arguements for them all. I would sure hate to tackle you in a real debate, LOL! I look forward to reading future posts and comments by you.

[TheRealThing]

Monkey puke???? I loved that one!

Your position on Christey, as I have gathered from your answer, is very similar to mine. That, in itself, proves that you are a very intelligent man. LOL! Anyway, I feel like the GOP will have to nominate someone like Christey to have a shot at the White House. He can pick up a lot of the independent voters who will be afraid to vote for someone who is as far to the left as Hillary and he can also pick up the dems who feel disaffected. I really have a problem with some of the press already labeling him as a RINO which is absolutely not true. It is getting to the point that any Republican who doesnt have Tea Party views are labled as a RINO and that angers me. I am a proud Republican and have been so for 38 years (since I turned 18). I am proud to say that the first vote that I ever made was for Ronald Reagan. To label a person a RINO because he has a different view on an issue that the extreme right has is simply not fair.

I, like you already illustrated, think that it is a long time until 2016 and that gives the liberal media time to shoot many bullets at Christey. I am afraid that he wont be able to dodge them all, however, I hope that I am wrong or we may be looking at Hillary in 2016.

Since that is the end of my questions, I want to thank you for fielding them in such a complete and precise way. Several, if not all, of the questions were very open ended which required long answers and you knocked them all out of the park. I may not have agreed with every part of every answer but you certainly made very good arguements for them all. I would sure hate to tackle you in a real debate, LOL! I look forward to reading future posts and comments by you.

As I will yours. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on a list of things I care about deeply. It was a pleasure. :biggrin:

[Granny Bear]

Oh Quickkick!! I LOVE reading TRT's posts!! I don't agree with all of them either, but they are so insightful and he is tremendously articulate.

[Quickkickonthird]

Oh Quickkick!! I LOVE reading TRT's posts!! I don't agree with all of them either, but they are so insightful and he is tremendously articulate.

I agree Granny. Articulate and insightful describes RealThing very well. I will find more things to ask TRT in the future just to read his responses. One doesnt have to agree with him( I assume he's a him, LOL) but he always makes a good arguement to support his positions and I respect that. I watched something on television the other night where people were lined up to get a book signed by Hillary (I think it was Hillary) and the people almost to a man said that they liked her policies but, when asked, they couldnt name any of her positions. I thought that was really funny and just illustrates how many people vote. Many people get caught up in the popularity contest of an election rather than looking at the issues and making an informed decision. Jefferson said that the biggest threat to democracy was an uninformed electorate. Thats the reason I like TRT's posts. He supports his positions.:Shaking:

[WideRight05]

^First, 2016 is a long time from now, so things can and will happen. I'm not saying I like the situation, far from it. But, unless we see Republicans sweep the mid-terms again, you're going to see the Dems come up with a hard left candidate. Christie is probably the worst candidate from among the list of Republican probables and yet, if he were to get the nomination, it's either going to be Hillary, or somebody even more left than her, and worst case scenario as far as Republicans are concerned, Christie.

That is one reason that I am so hopeful about the mid-terms this fall. If we take the Senate and manage to hold the House, the chances that we will get a more favorable candidate will be much greater. I completely agree that Christie more suits the liberal palate than that of the conservative, and he fulfills the profile liberals have been offering up for Republicans to accept as part of their crowing fest resulting from Obama having been reelected. (they've been in a state of denial since the mid-terms of 2010 and they love declaring victory before it is actually achieved) The problem is that we conservatives will have to vote for whoever the Republicans put up there, or abstain. Hopefully, we'll win in November and send an undeniable message to DC and the DNC. :biggrin:

You're right that if the dems lose the senate in 2014, they will likely end up sending more of a moderate candidate to run. I would love to see them send Joe Manchin, who I have a feeling is eyeing a presidential run. Manchin is a rare democrat who is pro-life and conservative on a number of issues.

My big concern is what the media will do. Even the most naive of people are beginning to realize that our country made a big mistake voting in Obama and the democrats that have controlled our senate since 2006. They went to every length to help Obama despite his shortcomings. Given that the republicans have begun to gain momentum, I'm sure the media will pull whatever issues they can out of the bag to try to bring them down. What it comes down to, is whether or not the people have woke up.

[Warthog]

^Agree

[TheRealThing]

I agree Granny. Articulate and insightful describes RealThing very well. I will find more things to ask TRT in the future just to read his responses. One doesnt have to agree with him( I assume he's a him, LOL) but he always makes a good arguement to support his positions and I respect that. I watched something on television the other night where people were lined up to get a book signed by Hillary (I think it was Hillary) and the people almost to a man said that they liked her policies but, when asked, they couldnt name any of her positions. I thought that was really funny and just illustrates how many people vote. Many people get caught up in the popularity contest of an election rather than looking at the issues and making an informed decision. Jefferson said that the biggest threat to democracy was an uninformed electorate. Thats the reason I like TRT's posts. He supports his positions.:Shaking:

Your post correctly identifies the problem, folks are shallow IMO. If it comes to pass that Hill gets the nomination, most people who vote for her won't have a clue what her positions really are. Unwilling to invest the time it would take to become an informed electorate, they like rocks skipping off the water's surface, will barely be wetted by the truth a little. We have become a nation so preoccupied with our personal concerns, we are easily led about by shallow campaign rhetoric and hollow catch phrases. In elementary school playground fashion, mocking and name calling characterize national campaigns these days. I mean, if you don't think Democrats think folks are stupid, how could one otherwise explain why they think they can just put statements like; "If you like your health insurance you can keep your health insurance," behind them like so much smoke out the tailpipe of a junker?

In short, the uninformed want to be told what they think. It is far easier to pull the handle with a D on it than to determine the truth for one's self and thusly become a functioning American. The news media exacerbates the problem. By eagerly propagating the DNC generated distortions Du Jour, they give credibility to the incredulous. Duty binds them to give the public the truth but, don't look for that to happen anytime soon.

Just listen to the State of the Union Address tonight and see if the president makes an intellectual case for his upcoming agenda or, if he finger points, mocks, berates, and distorts the motives of the right. How many times have I heard him say lately, that if the Republicans have any ideas he will gladly consider them? Then only hours later, Republicans publish their legislative compromises for ObamaCare which, is promptly rejected out of hand. Thank goodness for clichés, (Dems seem to have trouble in redefining them), the one I have in mind is; "it takes two to tango." That being the case, it follows then that the congressional gridlock is not 100% the fault of the Republicans.

[Granny Bear]

I'm sorry; I know this is lame, but I could not bring myself to watch the State of the Union last night.

[TheRealThing]

I'm sorry; I know this is lame, but I could not bring myself to watch the State of the Union last night.

Maybe not as lame as you might think. I watched in spurts, like during timeouts and halftime of the UK game, (or when LSU hit another uncontested three, LOL).

All I heard was another BHO rant extolling himself and blaming congress for his failed presidency. He's the quintessential true believing sidewalk philosopher for sure. Likely he'll still be making these same kind of speeches long after he has mercifully moved out of the White House, that is until he gets banned from coffee shops and city parks, LOL. His legacy was supposedly on the line last night. If that's the case, he's got a lot of work to do to my way of thinking, cause that speech sure didn't do it for him!

I don't know if the DNC spin machine can work it's magic well enough to snatch success from the jaws of failure as was the case with Clinton who, as you may recall, lived under a cloud of shame as his presidency concluded. The spinners were none the less, pretty successful in rehabilitating the Bill Clinton legacy against what I thought were pretty long odds. Polls indicate he has landed on his feet but, then again, he actually took responsibility and governed without crying about Republicans. Frankly, I think one could take every word Clinton ever uttered publicly meant to defame Republicans during his 8 year tenure, and easily fit them into just one cry baby Obama tirade. Still, Clinton did decimate the military and he restructured the CIA (from which it has never fully recovered), his policies forced the banking industry to relax lending standards that led to the now infamous housing bubble and subsequent collapse, plus an all out run-and-go at universal health care, all happened on his watch. Democrats Maxine Waters, Barney Frank, Gregory Meeks and Lacy Clay adopted the now very familiar strategy of stonewalling congressional investigative efforts in the Freddie and Fannie catastrophe. So, if one is a Democrat, he can get away with quite a lot of boners and retain that much coveted legacy. http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/29/vi...c-in-2004/

[Granny Bear]

I tend to get angry when watching Obama spew his monkey puke over the microphone. I didn't watch the UK game for similar reasons.

Forgive me, but I think it's hysterical that you used "he can get away with quite a lot of boners and retain that much coveted legacy" in the same paragraph with Obama, Clinton and Barney Frank.

[TheRealThing]

I tend to get angry when watching Obama spew his monkey puke over the microphone. I didn't watch the UK game for similar reasons.

Forgive me, but I think it's hysterical that you used "he can get away with quite a lot of boners and retain that much coveted legacy" in the same paragraph with Obama, Clinton and Barney Frank.

nicker: You are perceptive. And FWIW they were really passing it ^^ by the bucket load last night, you should be glad you missed it. Even liberal junk yard dog Bob Beckel couldn't defend what has been called the worst SOTU Address in the last 30 years.

[Granny Bear]

Can't wait for super bowl. I'm going to DVR O'Reiley/Obama interview, so I can watch it a couple of times and pick up on anything I missed the first time. Should be interesting. I can't see O'Reiley diluting his questions because of any pre-interview agreements. He won't allow Obama to circumvent the actual question either.

[TheRealThing]

Can't wait for super bowl. I'm going to DVR O'Reiley/Obama interview, so I can watch it a couple of times and pick up on anything I missed the first time. Should be interesting. I can't see O'Reiley diluting his questions because of any pre-interview agreements. He won't allow Obama to circumvent the actual question either.

Not a bad idea. O'Reilly will have to get out of his comfort zone if he intends to keep Obama from demagoguing away all the air time.

[SKINNYPIG]

O'Reiley will NOT ask the questions we want answered. Don't waste your DVR space on this. His questions were delivered weeks ago, along with the contract stating he would not stray.

[Granny Bear]

Are you serious?? That's very disappointing!

[TheRealThing]

^Now that Skinny mentions it, I remember hearing he always controls everything that goes down in one of these so-called interviews.

[Quickkickonthird]

I, as you Granny, look forward to the O'Reilly interview. I do, however, hope that O'reilly suspends his sometimes habit of answering his own questions and iterupting when the answers to his questions dont go the way he wants. Dont get me wrong, I like O'Reilly very much but I am of the old school. Like him or not, the president should be shown a huge amount of respect. I am a proud republican but I was ashamed when the representative from South Carolina (I believe) shouted out "you lie" during a SOTU address. Respect should be shown not for the man, but for the office. This is not to say that the president shouldnt be given tough questions and interviewed hard. Just do it with respect!