"GO BACK TO RUSSIA"-U-LOVE SO MUCH SO - WHY - YOU - DON'T GET BACK THERE!!!!!
RUSSIANS-JEWS TURNED AMERICA TO A NIGHTMARE TO LIVE IN-HOW'SHVITS-
STOP, THE STALKING - RUSSIAN-JEWS-MANIACS
The russians jews up-stairs-in their balcony watching my-apartment-brought same-device (maybe Iphone) and giving me the hell for years and years - Those JEWS - are not JEWS - They are first of all-"RUSSIANS" and then they are JEWS!!!!!!!!!!! I don't like extremists-of any culture!!!!!!!!!
Peggy Noonan, who, as speech writer, used to be Ronald Reagan when he wasn't around. She can cry real tears on cue whenever Reagans "memory" is invoked. She also used to be news editor at NPR playing at being Ms Bi-partisan. She was NPR's concession to Karl Rove who was probably making similar threats like he's doing now over Juan Williams. PBS has David H Koch to deal with who is very glad to see Moyers gone. See "CIGNA exec says Michael Moore was" (right) interview by Moyers on YT.
I think the true revelation is in the Jewish vote. Republicans proclaim their love for Israel on a constant basis and yet, Jews support the Democratic Party. One has to wonder why that is.
@fatchickskinny I'll tell you why Jewish Democrats and Democrats who support Israel don't buy the Republicans' bullshit love of Israel. Because it's based on the bible, and a literal reading of the book of revelations, according to which all Jews have to be converted or killed in order for Jesus to come back to earth. If you were Jewish, how would that make you feel? Republicans don't love Jews; they love Israel, but only for what it gets them. Jews they could live without.
I see Purplehorny spends most of his/her day on here trying to mislead people. He/she doesn't realize the only person looking stupid and naive here is his/herself.
@purplehorny You realize you are the only person here using foul language? You realize you are the only person not willing to hear others opinions or listen to the facts. I happen to agree with some of what Ms. Noonan said, but you've gone off on this bogus rant about the racism in the Republican Party which has been unfounded. The party decades ago played on white fears, but it has never had any type of institutional racism, and the same cannot be said for your party.
LOCATE where I ever said the Republican Party was "racist," JohnRhysMusician. I said that they long ago kicked away the black vote and are not working to reclaim any of that. The only response out of you is to blame the Democrats for the KKK, which is just plain stupid.
The Democratic Party has long overcome this. If the Democratic party is in such a dubious position where race is concerned, then explain the large number of African-Americans who vote for Democratic candidates, JohnRhysMusician.
And you are LYING in saying that I am the only one using foul language. Note the comment I was responding to in that post, lying JohnRhysMusician.
@purplehorny I believe that the Democratic Party misleads low income and uneducated voters by engaging in faux class warfare and idealistic claims that can never be achieved. I believe that their opposition to policy that could benefit the poor and minorities like school vouchers, school choice, tax reform, litigation reform, etc. I believe that the Democratic Party has a tendency to be dishonest and its campaign style is radical.
@JohnRhysMusician The Democratic Party DEFENDS the working class. The Republican Party defends the corporate class. THAT is why more common people go for the Democratic Party. School vouchers is a dumb idea and has worn out its welcome in national discourse. Case closed on that one, JohnRhysMusician.
@purplehorny YOU MISLEAD EVERYONE DADY BECAUSE YOU'RE A RACIST FUCKING PEDOPHILE WHO TALKS ABOUT FECES ALL THE FUCKING TIMES YOU FILTHY RACIST SCUM !!!!!
If Bush was the president and said he was going to save the economy by doing the very thing that got us here (overspending!) you would have been furious and condemning him as continuing to do same old stupid policies. Yet, Obama has spend more in 8 months than all presidents combined and you praise and defend him for it ?!? You are so self-deceived, biased and hyprocritical no one should listen to a word you print.
"...in 2000, when there was a budget surplus of $200 billion, you had a Republican admin. and a Republican Congress, and we had two tax cuts that weren't paid for, you had a prescription drug plan -- the biggest entitlement plan, by the way, in several decades -- that was passed, without it being paid for, you had two wars that were done through supplementals...you had $3 trillion projected because of the lost revenue of this recession." -President Obama, with a few FACTS for you, bobplane777.
Ridiculous. The deficits are what they are BECAUSE of the FAILED BUSH administration's SQUANDERING of the budget surpluses THEY inherited, cornsplutter100.
No. The deficiits are what they are because of massive pork barrel spending such as the $700 billiion stimulus package sponsored by Obama and Pelosi. Current deficits completely dwarf the deficits that existed when Bush was president. This is strictly a democrat mess.
Ridiculous. The deficits are what they are BECAUSE of the FAILED BUSH administration. The Obama administration contributed a MINISCULE FRACTION of that total, cornsplutter.
This is a REPUBLICAN mess which Obama has INHERITED, cornsplutter.
... nice try, but wrong target. I never defended the Bush spending policies only fiscal conservatism -which you fail to answer or have an answer for. At the turn of the 1900's the tax rate was a whopping 4% ! Now we are paying more taxes than most socialistic countries (33-40%), not to mention hidden taxes on gas, food, property & other necessities.
No, we are paying NOWHERE NEAR the tax rate paid by, to name two less egregious examples, Germans and Hungarians. We are talking 40% on income tax alone. We pay NOWHERE NEAR that, bobplane777.
Checkout Russia, Cuba & other socialized countries. You can't fix a spending problem by more spending- the economy grows by jobs created by Americans willing to take a risk & invest in their country. The government doesn't create jobs based on it's own capital but only entitlements or welfare burdened on the backs of tax laden citizens-by the way- WE don't PAY for TAX cuts-that money is already OURS! And what govt program has worked? Soc Sec, welfare, Dept of energy? (brainwashed liberal)
Ridiculous. Government spending ABSOLUTELY grows the economy every bit as much as tax cuts do. Tax cuts are impractical at the moment. You need to get educated on economics, bobplane777.
The economy is in the tank because of Wall Street's massive failure, aided and abetted by the asleep-at-the-switch attitude of the FAILED BUSH administration. Obama did not create this mess, he inherited it, cornsplutter.
@purplehorny Believe whatever you want. Obama owns the recession now and instead of trying to improve the economy he spends his time trying to nationalize health care and other parts of the economy. Don't underestimate the disaster that is facing your democrat/communist party in November. You'll be lucky to retain 200 house seats.
Obama, unlike FAILED BUSH, is trying to do something about the suffering caused by this recession, which is a legacy of mismanagement on Wall Street, aided and abetted by the FAILED BUSH administration.
There is no "Democrat" Party, moron. It is called the "Democratic Party" and it is MAINSTREAM AMERICAN. Your calling it "communist" just proves how utterly IGNORANT you are, stupid cornsplutter.
@purplehorny There is nothing democratic about your party at all. It is a party of the left rather than the mainstream. Fortunately, there is a good chance that it will be largely wiped out in the next election.
@purplehorny The democrats have historically been the party of slavery, sedition, and segregation. More recently they have become a party lead by liberals, communists, and socialists. They are probably most similar to the British labor party and other similar socialist parties in Europe.
@purplehorny Your President, and the house and senate democrat leaders are all far to the left as are many democrat senators and congressmen. Of course, they are all careful not to officially spell out their philosophy. The democrats are completely responsible for thesegregation that occurred from the civil war to the 1960s. CARRIED THE TORCH? Who? Bull Connor" George Wallace? Robert KKK Byrd. Bullshit.
Ridiculous. The Democratic Party CARRIED THE TORCH for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, at GREAT ELECTORAL COST to itself. Robert Byrd LONG AGO bolted from the KKK and has voted a CONSISTENTLY pro-civil-rights since the late 1960s. Note which party African-Americans overwhelmingly support, and with good historical reason, cornsplutter.
@purplehorny As a result of civil rights protest, northern democrats, with help from republicans finally passed the civil rights laws. Byrd filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He only changed when he had no choice. Blacks have no good historical reason for being democrats. Democrats are 100 percent responsible for the segregation policies that existed throught the first 60 years of the twentieth century.
Byrd DID have a choice. He could have remained an unapologetic supporter of segregation, as Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond most certainly did, cornsplutter. However, he didn't. There is no large African-American population in West Virginia. Therefore, it stands to reason, Byrd has FULLY RENOUNCED his racist past.
So who is to blame here, cornsplutter? Do you not think that the Republican Party should ask itself how it lost all that African-American support within two decades?
@purplehorny Thurmond stopped being a segregationist when he joined the republican party in the 1960s. I don't believe there is any real evidence that Jesse Helms was ever a segregationist.
@purplehorny I was challenge you to find an example of any republican politician ever advocating segregation. Segregation is entirely the responsibility of your party. You party is completely responsible for the racial animosity that exists today. And you all work to perpetuate it.
I named TWO examples of Republican politicians advocating segregation: Srom Thurmond and Jesse Helms.
And NO political party is entirely responsible for segregation. Blaming racial animosity on the Democratic Party, which has CHAMPIONED minority rights, just proves your ignorance yet more, stupid cornsplutter.
@purplehorny Strom Thurmond repudiated his segregationist politics prior to joining the GOP. Jesse Helms never clearly advocated segregation, plus Robert Byrd was in the KKK, you can't say the same for a Republican. KKK was a terrorist wing of the Democrat Party. The cold hard truth is that the Republicans don't need blacks, Democrats need blacks, but blacks need Republicans.
Strom Thurmond NEVER repudiated segregation. Cite a source for this, JohnRhysMusician. Jesse Helms ABSOLUTELY DID advocate segregation when he owned a local TV station in North Carolina, and NEVER repudiated it. Robert Byrd LONG AGO repudiated his membership in the KKK. The KKK was IN NO WAY a "wing of the Democratic Party," stupid JohnRhysMusician.
Why the hell do blacks need Republicans? What have Republicans done to earn their votes?
@purplehorny Thurmond stopped being a segregationist when he joined the republican party in the 1960s. I don't believe there is any real evidence that Jesse Helms was ever a segregationist.
@purplehorny WOW. You really don't know your history, and you don't want to hear the facts or discuss legitimate policy positions, so I am not going to waste my time explaining these facts to you. You can easily go back find out about the origins of the KKK, Jim Crow policy, Civil War, New Deal, etc.
@purplehorny As a result of civil rights protest, northern democrats, with help from republicans finally passed the civil rights laws. Byrd filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He only changed when he had no choice. Blacks have no good historical reason for being democrats. Democrats are 100 percent responsible for the segregation policies that existed throught the first 60 years of the twentieth century.
@purplehorny Democrats specifically direct their campaigns at blacks and other minories, often offering extra government help to their favored groups. This is a bad policy because it leaves a lot of people permanently dependent upon the government.
Bullshit. Democrats have PROVEN themselves to be allies to the minorities by their past actions, which have been HONORABLE. Chief among these accomplishments were the civil rights bills of the 1960s, cornsplutter.
@purplehorny Republicans do not dismiss the black vote. Fighting for the end to slavery as the party's first issue, Senator Dirksen crafting the civil rights act, and trying to promote school choice is hardly dismissing the black vote.
School choice is a LOSER of an issue that has long worn out its welcome in public debate. And Republicans IGNORE the black vote. They concede the black vote to the Democrats.
Blacks USED to be Republicans. What happened to that, JohnRhysMusician?
So why have African-Americans abandoned the Republican Party, JohnRhysMusician? It was the Democratic Party which carried the torch on civil rights, JohnRhysMusician.
@purplehorny As a result of civil rights protest, northern democrats, with help from republicans finally passed the civil rights laws. Byrd filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He only changed when he had no choice. Blacks have no good historical reason for being democrats. Democrats are 100 percent responsible for the segregation policies that existed throught the first 60 years of the twentieth century.
@purplehorny As a result of civil rights protest, northern democrats, with help from republicans finally passed the civil rights laws. Byrd filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He only changed when he had no choice. Blacks have no good historical reason for being democrats. Democrats are 100 percent responsible for the segregation policies that existed throught the first 60 years of the twentieth century.
I am still waiting for you to name ONE Socialist or Communist currently holding office as a Democrat, cornsplutter. Neither you nor that idiot Glen Beck can name even ONE, I wager.
@purplehorny Obama and Pelosi are definitely socialists even though they don't acknowledge that. The same is true other leading democrats in the house and senate. None of these people believe in a market economy at all. I think some are actually communists.
@purplehorny I think the evidence for both Obama and Pelosi is the massive and intrusive government takeover of the health care system and the cap and trade legislation. Examples of communists in the senate would be Dodd, Leahy, Schumer and Boxer. In the house I would definitely pick Waxman.
This is NOT a government takeover of the health-care industry. It will be PRIVATE as always, with the insurance companies being the CHIEF BENEFICIARIES. We are speaking of PRIVATE insurance companies, cornsplutter. Nothing "socialist" about that.
Explain how Dodd, Leahy, Schumer, Boxer or Waxman is a Communist. Do you even know what "communist" means?
@purplehorny If it is not a government takeover, I don't know what else you would call it. The people that I have listed would all fit in perfectly with the old soviet politburo. They would regard you as a useful idiot.
Ridiculous. Communism, FIRST AND FOREMOST, requires ABOLITION of private property. NO ONE, not ONE U.S. politician, has called for ANYTHING OF THE SORT, cornsplutter.
This "takeover," as you call it, is a HANDOVER to the PRIVATE INSURANCE INDUSTRY of that small percentage of Americans without health insurance. That is the OPPOSITE of "socialism," cornsplutter.
@purplehorny Obama and Pelosi are definitely socialists even though they don't acknowledge that. The same is true other leading democrats in the house and senate. None of these people believe in a market economy at all. I think some are actually communists.
@purplehorny Obama and Pelosi are definitely socialists even though they don't acknowledge that. The same is true other leading democrats in the house and senate. None of these people believe in a market economy at all. I think some are actually communists.
Bullshit. Obama "owns" the recession in the sense that he is now responsible for doing something about it, but he IN NO WAY caused it. Going by YOUR logic, Jimmy Carter can't be blamed for the inflation rate in 1981, can he, cornsplutter?
@purplehorny But the recession is Obama's responsibility. So far, I haven't any serious effort on his part to turn the economy around. All I have seen are massive efforts by Obama and the left-wing congress to expand the control of the government over American industries in an effort to convert the United States into the failed, lagging, European socialist economic systems that they admire.
The recession is Obama's responsibility insofar as he is the current president; however, it is NOT his FAULT. The recession was WELL UNDERWAY at the time Obama was INAUGURATED, cornsplutter.
And he has tried in NUMEROUS WAYS to turn this around: Stimulus package, cash-for-clunkers, the health-care bill. Yes, the health-care bill will HELP the economy, as the CBO figures have proven, cornsplutter.
@purplehorny The programs that you have described have done nothing for the economy, They have only caused a further explosion in deficits. The new health care bill is already resulting in much higher taxes for Caterpillar, John Deere and many other companies, discouraging investment right in the middle of the recession.
Ridiculous. Have you seen the unemployment figures for March? Things are looking up. I guess this should be considered BAD NEWS for you and the Republicans, shouldn't it, cornsplutter?
Oh, and do continue to weep for the welfare of impersonal corporations who always have enough money to pay their executives' zillion-dollar salaries.
Oh, Christ. Obama has made it perfectly clear he does not want to be the Car Maker in Cheif. He inherited their mess and refused to see hundreds of thousands of more layoffs further cripple the economic health of the nation. [But conserveratives were FINE seing them go under becaue they dont give a sweet shit about the working class] As for the worlds best health car system 1] not for 40 million uninsured and the US lags re infant mortality, obesity, longevity and preventative care.
In taking over the auto companies Obama completely dumped on bondholders while giving major ownership shares to the UAW which, with its outrageous work rules and excessive wages, wrecked the U.S. industry in the first place. Polls show that more than 80 percent of the public are happy with their health care and don't want the crappy rationing system that Obama wants to impose. People in this country are able to get medical treatment whether they are insured or not.
The UAW did not decide what kinds of cars and trucks the company would produce or how to promote them. GM was grossly mismanged by executives making absurd slaries. They consistently resisted developing fuel efficient cars and CAFE stands. US troops were not responsible for the disaster in Iraq, US leaders were [ ubtil Petraues]. ENRON employees were not resposible for the companies gross corruption and ultimate implosion, highly paid ENRON executives were.
Yes, there is plenty of blame to go around in the GM debacle. However, the UAW did negotiate contracts with wages and benefits far out of line with workers making Japanese cars in nonunion facilities in southern states. This made it impossible for GM to make profits on any products other than high-priced cars, and large SUVs and pickup trucks. I suppose the big three could have resisted the contracts more strongly.
Do "green" cars make up a significant percentage of Ford's sales. I thought its strong sales products were pickup trucks and suvs. I think the public resents GM and Chrysler to some extent because of the bailout money that they accepted.
If Bush said he was going to save the economy by overspending you would condemned him for continuing old stupid policies. Yet, Obama has spend more in 8 months than all president term & you praise and defend it ?! You are so self-deceived, biased. 1/10th of one percent of the trillion dollar stimulus package could have bought all 40 million uninsured their own health coverage. This is not about caring but about control..the government wants every part of your life to be subject to their power.
Furthermore, Obama has fulfilled his promise to concentrate more intensely on the Taliban [ in Afghansitan and Pakistan], remembering that they gave safe haven to the psychopaths who perpetrated 9/11. He retained W's sec of defense because he respected his skills. Finally, he has inherited the worst economic mess since FDR, 2 wars, [ 1 entirely unecessary] and a broken health care system. W. inherited an economic surplus and ran the country perilously close to the brink of collapse.
He did inherit an economic mess, but his solution of massive federal deficits as far as the eye can see is only making it worse. As for the health care system, he should leave it alone instead of turning it into the hideous ration system that currently exists in Canada and Great Britain. Hopefully Obamacare will fail.
Public Policy Polling is a Democrat polling organization. In any case, I didn't realize that Palin is currently running for president. I do agree with your pro-gun and pro-life views and for those reasons I find it hard to understand why you voted for Obama.
Noonan isn't the only one who thinks Palin is unqualified.
A new national survey from Public Policy Polling finds that the American public has a pretty solid verdict on Sarah Palin: A full majority, 55% of voters, say she is not fit to be president, compared to just 37% who say she is fit for it.
3w . publicpolicypolling . com / pdf / PPP_Release_National_708 . pdf
Palin's polling numbers can change. However, Noonan will continue to flack for Obama while pretending to be a republican. Also, who is Liz Trotta and who cares what she think?
Trotta has also worked for CBS and NBC (see wikapedia). Noonan was probably a conservative back when she was writing Reagan's speeches but she has been a RINO for many years. Look, these people are entitled to their opinions about Palin, but they don/t represent the views of the majority of Republicans.
I would seriously question whether Noonan and Trotta's views represent the views of the majority of Americans. As for the CPAC poll, it shows that she was ranked third in popularity among conservatives behind Romney and Jindahl. However, I don't understand why you Democrats keep attacking her. Surely she doesn't pose any problem for Obama does she.
First, according to Public Policy Polling survey 55% of voters say she isn't fit to be president.
Second, she's behind Romney who lost the primary and Jindal whose response to Obama's SOTU was less than endearing to him (Jindal that is not Obama), to put it mildly.
Third, i'm neither democratic or republican.
I'm a pro gun, pro life conservative who nonetheless supports Obama and volunteer to be English teacher to poor muslim kids in Indonesia (And currently live there too no less).
Who is Liz Trotta? Liz Trotta is an arch conservative hammer-head shark who is presently employed by the extremely right wing Washington Times which is owned, like Fox News, by a foreign born billionaire, the Rev Sung Yung Moon, the wingnut who gave us the 'Moonies', has been indicted for fruad and tax evasion multiple times and believes himself to be the living messsiah. Washington Times 'reporters' appear on FOX on a daily basis [ Bill Salmon being the most regular]. Had enough info yet?
Liz Trotta also made some idiotic comment about assassinating Obama some time ago. The Washington Times has become a much more liberal newspaper in recent years than it was in earlier times. However, if you want to believe that Trotta is an authentic voice of conservatives that's fine with me.
Mr Corn Find me one positive article about Obama in the Wash Times and I will have an airport named after you. As for authentic voices revolted by or unhappy with Palin and we have Murhpy, Noonan, Trotta, Krauthammer, Fred Barnes, George Will and David Brooks for openers. And be sure that Huckabee, Romney [ do computers have birth certificates?} and the hypocrite adulturer extraordinaire Newt will go after her like shark on chum come the primaries. [Who ARE the authentic conservative voices?}
The Washington times has been critical of George W Bush for several years, and was critical of McCain during the 2008 campaign. I don't Noonan and Brooks are conservative. Palin certainly has the support of Limbaugh, Hannity, Mark Levin, Coulter, Rudy Guiliani and Michael Reagan to name a few as well as some republican governors and senators. Polls show that she also has approval ratings of 70 percent or more with the republican base.
Being critical of Bush, a failed president by all accounts [ childrens books ] is by no means the same as applauding Obama.They were critical of McCain because he wasnt extreme enough [ did they criticize Palin?}. Speaking of the beauty pageant runner up, the notion that she has 70 percent approval in the [ ever shrinking] GOP base is expressive of their implosion as a viable party. That she is adored by the radio pit vipers is no surprise. Remember that Rush called Sanford the next GOP JFK.
No. The Times had gotten increasingly liberal through the years which is why I cancelled it sometime ago. Those people that you call vipers are far more representative of republicans than the snooty beltway pundits that you admire. Prominent Democrats also once admire Eliot Spitzer.
All right cornbutter, I am losing ny patience with your fantasises. Go to the Wahington Times website RIGHT NOW and tell me what you see there. I was just there and so dont waste your time bullshitting me. Otherwise, no string cheese for Christmas. And I mean it.
The Times was critical of McCain because he wasnt extreme enough [ not big on torture]. Coulter loathed him [ that gutless, often tortured war hero]. And also joked that 9/11 widows were gold-diggers. Limbaugh makes sport of people with terminal illnesses. Savage goes after autistic children.Levin makes Cheney look like a Code Pink house wife. These are your authentic voices. Voices of what? Sadism? No wonder they so adore a clinical narcissist like Palin.
The reason Coulter Limbaugh, Levin and many other republicans don't like McCain is that he votes like a democrat about half of the time. I don't know anything about Savage. What I don't understand though is if Palin has such serious flaws what are you worried about? After all she's dead in the water anyway right?
Palin doesn't worry me, she disturbs me, in the same way learning that a six year old would be called upon to land a 747 in a cornfield would disturb me. She is by no means a problem for the Democrats, more a gift that keeps on giving, the poster girl for know-nothing, reactionary drivel. I PRAY she decides to run in 2012, so that we can see her Republican primary opponents take full measure, aim and fire.
If you are praying that she runs in 2012, why are you citing these "conservative" pundits who say that she's stupid and inarticulate. Or are you afraid that she might someday pose a serious threat to your radical statist president as he continues to sink in opinion polls.
Haha, Obama is radical. What a load of shit. In the words of Bill Maher, "Obama isn't even a liberal." Obama is a disgrace for the simple reason that he is not liberal enough.
Franklin Roosevelt comes to mind, but closely followng him is Teddy Roosevelt, who took on the corporate pirates of his generation. Obama is far more a pragmatist than a 'radical' , hence his decision not release photos of prisoner abuse because he suspected it would lead to the death of US solidiers. Mahers critique is just bullshit, lacking any sense of the political realities, such as the power of blue dog democrats and abscence of moderate Republicans. The radicals are on the right, bucko.
With Obama's nationalization of two auto companies, his takeover of several major banks, his enormously destructive planned cap and trade program, his attempt to take over and wreck the world's best health care system, I don't see how you can see him as anything other than radical. He is far more radical than either Roosevelt.
If no effort is being made to take over the U.S. health care system, then what do you call this 2,700 page Stalinist monstrosity that Pelosi is trying to ram through the house of representatives? If enacted into law, it will force everyone to buy health insurance, convert health insurance companies into public utilities regulated by the federal government, and result in severe rationing of health care with dire consequences for older Americans. Premiusms will sharply increase.
There is NO "Stalinist" ANYTHING being proposed by Nancy Pelosi or anybody else in Congress. Educate yourself in political philosophy, cornsplutter.
Health insurance companies will NOT be converted into public utilities. In fact, they will be most happy with the majority of this arrangement. Premiums will go DOWN with a larger risk pool. That is economic common sense. Get some, cornsplutter.
Noonan has been consistently attacking Obamas policies since day one. Fred Barnes, the cranky old Fox News/Weekly Standard functionary, has also jumped ship, knowing well that she wil indeed run [ her pathological narcissism] and that this exercise of pure vanity will further divide a fractured and rudderless party. Rev Huckabe was also very suspicious of her decision to abandon ship. Romney, the uber -coward, simply chewed on his lip and mumbled something that sounded distinctly like 'quitter'
I reviewed Noonan's Wall Street Journal editiorials available at her web site, but could find little or no criticism of Obama. I agree that Fred Barnes was disappointed in her resignation. It is likely that Huckabe and Romney would both compete with Palin if she sought the republican nomination for the 2012 election.
This is a classic. Palin was such a goddamn joke even then, she needs to be remembered as such. I'm shocked they're even considering running her again in 2012 against Obama. lololol
Just slandering somebody doesn't mean that they deserve. It just means that you don't like them. For all the left have complained about her, I fail to see any actual evidence that the hatred and/or disdain is justified. It is strange and I really don't get it.
Oh those poor people, so lazy. We should just burn them all and leave the naturally superior "rich and successful" to rule the planet. Man you are so brilliant, why didn't you run for president. Joe the plumber could have been your running mate.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Peggy Noonan was exposed as she really is, we heard it in her own words. I don't think she is a Republican, like Colin Powell is not a Republican, but I don't understand why they are still registered as Republicans? They are free to move to the party they prefer, like everybody else, but I guess therer is some kind of hidden interest behind. I don't trust this kind of people.
Sage80, don't make a fool of yourself, parroting this "real" vs. "elitist" b.s. It's as gimmicky as the "narratives" that bug Peggy Noonan. Most folks worth $200,000 vote Repub. Elitists are the engine of the Repub agenda. Ask any Repub foreign policy analysts about their elitist educations, their silver spoons. Those Repubs aren't "real" enough for you? Hate to tell ya, that Norman Rockwell painting you bought's a fake. My granpa was an honest Republican. We buried him 25 years ago.
"Most folks worth $200,000 vote Repub. Elitists are the engine of the Repub agenda."
Rubbish! The dems feed off capitalizing off of compassion', as a rule, and specifically with groups that consider themselves victimized in society. This is the heart of their agenda, and the word elitist refers to those (over 90%) in Universities who preach and indoctrinate the young with leftist, Marxist ideology. This is what it is all about, and why liberals hate school choice over kid's best.
It is funny how the left stoops to stereotyping, labeling and even racism (judging someone by the color of their skin rather than content of their character) while at the same time accusing others of such ugly, low class behaviour. oh well.
Oh please, stop with your bullshit Newspeak. "The Left". I have no idea who or what that means except anyone who disagrees with conservative pundits, because they (and their fans) are the only ones who use this label. I never mentioned anyone's color of skin. Those people holding signs during the election saying that Obama was a Muslim spoke for themselves.
"..stop with your bullshit Newspeak. "The Left". I have no idea who or what that means.."
The "left" has specific ideologies, which are identifiable, and often diametrically opposed to the "right". (or, conservative world view) People having different values does not make them right or wrong, just different. I have been finding it ironic that those who are of the 'left' (based on the world view) often behave worse than the ones they accuse. That's all, no biggie. Just ironic.
Also, re people suspecting Obama of being a Muslim.
The suspicion comes from some facts, not all fantasy. His father was Muslim, he lived and went to school in a Muslim country for a time, and his name is Muslim.
Also the church he went to has identical attitudes and opinions as many Muslims in the US. (such as the gov created aides to kill blacks, America is more an aggressor than a savior in the world, etc.)
Even w/out the church thing, the other points created the suspicion.
"His Mother! ...she was a "Christian". No one makes reference to that fact, why?"
Because that's not the anomaly. That his middle name is Hussein, his Dad was Muslim and he lived in Muslim Indonesia and went to a Muslim school, and than went to Hawaii and was mentored by a communist and than went, for 20 years to an anti-American political church and had associates that were literally terrorists.
If the guy on the right had half of this, he would have be ousted not elected.
Birth Certificates, fascist, marxist and socialist. Wow! What's next for this "usurper"? Palin/Bachman 2016? Lord help us!
The Church you're referring to in Chicago is Church of God. Even if the pastor said controversal things, what changes the fact that the congregation practices Christianity. You seem to have a selective memory when it comes to S. Palin's church. The one where the preacher, who calls himself a witch dr.!
"Even if the pastor said controversal things, what changes the fact that the congregation practices Christianity."
You are not thinking clearly. A person's values demonstrate their world view, and a Preacher is all about words, and a weekly event in a 'church'. The philosphy of this church is inherently anti-American in the sense that it is ironically anti-Christian as well. When values collide, so does the world-view. Its a concern as he should have left the church: why???
Who are you to determine what Church is classified as a Christian Church and which one is not?
You're questioning his (Obama) faith. I'm not! There, you have it. 50/50..That's were "opinions" are formed.
Have you ever attended that Church? NO! You grab clips off of the T.V. and run with them. I'm not defending Wright, but it's funny how they only show excerpts of the sermon.
When you attend that Church at least 3 wks. in a row, then comment. See O'reilly visits a Harlem rest.
"Who are you to determine what Church is classified as a Christian Church and which one is not?"
An ideology or religion has certain values which define it or contrast it. Imagine The Gay Alliance speaking out against gay marriage. People would rightly suspect they weren't living up to their title. Just recently Rev Wright said he can't talk to Obama because "of them Jews". Jesus was (is) a Jew. Christians support Israel more than any group in the US, as much or more than Jews.
The same person you are, to determine that there not a Christian Church. Don't you see the double standards you're practicing?
What's with all the gay questions? Do you want to tell us something?
As for Rev. Wright comments about President Obama, I believe R. Emanuel is a Jew. Christians supports Israel more than Jews? WOW, I didn't see that coming.
Ai, yi, yi,..please, somebody, anybody, get me some competition. This guy is a total DRONE!
1. there are far more Christians than Jews in the US, but also..
2. most Jews in the US are leftist & often take the exact same positions that Rev Wright does; which is to side with Palestine. Remember when Sarah was going to speak out against the visiting Iranian Pres.? When the National Jewish Democratic Council found out she was speaking they backed out. She was against Iranian rhetoric of genocide for Israel.
"GO BACK TO RUSSIA"-U-LOVE SO MUCH SO - WHY - YOU - DON'T GET BACK THERE!!!!!
RUSSIANS-JEWS TURNED AMERICA TO A NIGHTMARE TO LIVE IN-HOW'SHVITS-
STOP, THE STALKING - RUSSIAN-JEWS-MANIACS
The russians jews up-stairs-in their balcony watching my-apartment-brought same-device (maybe Iphone) and giving me the hell for years and years - Those JEWS - are not JEWS - They are first of all-"RUSSIANS" and then they are JEWS!!!!!!!!!!! I don't like extremists-of any culture!!!!!!!!!
src438 7 months ago
danger0usknowledge 1 year ago
I think the true revelation is in the Jewish vote. Republicans proclaim their love for Israel on a constant basis and yet, Jews support the Democratic Party. One has to wonder why that is.
fatchickskinny 1 year ago
@fatchickskinny I'll tell you why Jewish Democrats and Democrats who support Israel don't buy the Republicans' bullshit love of Israel. Because it's based on the bible, and a literal reading of the book of revelations, according to which all Jews have to be converted or killed in order for Jesus to come back to earth. If you were Jewish, how would that make you feel? Republicans don't love Jews; they love Israel, but only for what it gets them. Jews they could live without.
ctwriter 1 year ago
I see Purplehorny spends most of his/her day on here trying to mislead people. He/she doesn't realize the only person looking stupid and naive here is his/herself.
JohnRhysMusician 1 year ago
As long as you are posting on this page, I run NO RISK of appearing "stupid," JohnRhysMusician.
purplehorny 1 year ago
@purplehorny You realize you are the only person here using foul language? You realize you are the only person not willing to hear others opinions or listen to the facts. I happen to agree with some of what Ms. Noonan said, but you've gone off on this bogus rant about the racism in the Republican Party which has been unfounded. The party decades ago played on white fears, but it has never had any type of institutional racism, and the same cannot be said for your party.
JohnRhysMusician 1 year ago
LOCATE where I ever said the Republican Party was "racist," JohnRhysMusician. I said that they long ago kicked away the black vote and are not working to reclaim any of that. The only response out of you is to blame the Democrats for the KKK, which is just plain stupid.
purplehorny 1 year ago
The Democratic Party has long overcome this. If the Democratic party is in such a dubious position where race is concerned, then explain the large number of African-Americans who vote for Democratic candidates, JohnRhysMusician.
And you are LYING in saying that I am the only one using foul language. Note the comment I was responding to in that post, lying JohnRhysMusician.
purplehorny 1 year ago
@JohnRhysMusician purplehorny also uses an account called "budavol" and is the biggest most filthy racist on all of YT
ReturnOfSonOfBUDAVOL 1 year ago
Name ONE INSTANCE in which I ever tried to mislead anybody on here, JohnRhysMusician.
purplehorny 1 year ago
@purplehorny I believe that the Democratic Party misleads low income and uneducated voters by engaging in faux class warfare and idealistic claims that can never be achieved. I believe that their opposition to policy that could benefit the poor and minorities like school vouchers, school choice, tax reform, litigation reform, etc. I believe that the Democratic Party has a tendency to be dishonest and its campaign style is radical.
JohnRhysMusician 1 year ago
@JohnRhysMusician The Democratic Party DEFENDS the working class. The Republican Party defends the corporate class. THAT is why more common people go for the Democratic Party. School vouchers is a dumb idea and has worn out its welcome in national discourse. Case closed on that one, JohnRhysMusician.
purplehorny 1 year ago
@purplehorny YOU MISLEAD EVERYONE DADY BECAUSE YOU'RE A RACIST FUCKING PEDOPHILE WHO TALKS ABOUT FECES ALL THE FUCKING TIMES YOU FILTHY RACIST SCUM !!!!!
ReturnOfSonOfBUDAVOL 1 year ago
Purplehorny is a crack smoking, unemployed loser, who loves eating shit all day.
Icling2gunsnGod 1 year ago
Shit-eating RACIST Icling2Shit is a WORTHLESS pile of MAGGOTY RACIST SHIT who belongs in the SEWER!
Get back down below where you belong, shit-eating RACIST ICling2Shit! And close that fucking manhole cover behind you!
purplehorny 1 year ago
Check out Peggy Noonan Vs. Anthony Weiner
watch?v=I8faCj81Hhs
NEBTV 1 year ago
That was a GREAT EXCHANGE, wasn't it, NEBTV?
Anthony Weiner absolutely OWNED the annoyingly unctious Peggy Noonan in that one!
purplehorny 1 year ago
@NEBTV *unctuous
purplehorny 1 year ago
Peggy noonan is so fucking sexy
greeniem 2 years ago
If you think unctuousness is "sexy," then maybe, I guess, greeniem.
purplehorny 1 year ago
i was more thinking her pussy and mouth
greeniem 1 year ago
Is there a difference, greeniem?
purplehorny 1 year ago
you silly mental patient
greeniem 1 year ago
You dumb troll.
Referring to you, of course, stupid greeniem.
purplehorny 1 year ago
homos like you need to be in ovens
greeniem 1 year ago
Shit-eaters like you need to be in the SEWER, stupid greeniem.
purplehorny 1 year ago
To Molloyx
If Bush was the president and said he was going to save the economy by doing the very thing that got us here (overspending!) you would have been furious and condemning him as continuing to do same old stupid policies. Yet, Obama has spend more in 8 months than all presidents combined and you praise and defend him for it ?!? You are so self-deceived, biased and hyprocritical no one should listen to a word you print.
bobplane777 2 years ago
"...in 2000, when there was a budget surplus of $200 billion, you had a Republican admin. and a Republican Congress, and we had two tax cuts that weren't paid for, you had a prescription drug plan -- the biggest entitlement plan, by the way, in several decades -- that was passed, without it being paid for, you had two wars that were done through supplementals...you had $3 trillion projected because of the lost revenue of this recession." -President Obama, with a few FACTS for you, bobplane777.
purplehorny 1 year ago
The deficits under the current congress and administration are vastly greater than anything that occurred during the Bush years.
cornbutter100 1 year ago
Ridiculous. The deficits are what they are BECAUSE of the FAILED BUSH administration's SQUANDERING of the budget surpluses THEY inherited, cornsplutter100.
purplehorny 1 year ago
No. The deficiits are what they are because of massive pork barrel spending such as the $700 billiion stimulus package sponsored by Obama and Pelosi. Current deficits completely dwarf the deficits that existed when Bush was president. This is strictly a democrat mess.
cornbutter100 1 year ago
Ridiculous. The deficits are what they are BECAUSE of the FAILED BUSH administration. The Obama administration contributed a MINISCULE FRACTION of that total, cornsplutter.
This is a REPUBLICAN mess which Obama has INHERITED, cornsplutter.
purplehorny 1 year ago
@purplehorny Th deficit under Bush was $400 billion in 2008. The deficit under Obama was $1.75 trillion in 2009.
cornbutter100 1 year ago
Ridiculous. This deficit is, by FAR a legacy of fiscal mismanagement under the FAILED BUSH administration.
What happened to the budget SURPLUSES that FAILED BUSH inherited? Turning a surplus into a MASSIVE DEFICIT was quite an achievement, cornsplutter.
purplehorny 1 year ago
@purplehorny But your president has quadrupled thedeficit in only one year. Bush is not responsible for that. Look at the numbers.
cornbutter100 1 year ago
OUR President is trying to do something about the recession he INHERITED, cornsplutter.
purplehorny 1 year ago
Purplehorny,
... nice try, but wrong target. I never defended the Bush spending policies only fiscal conservatism -which you fail to answer or have an answer for. At the turn of the 1900's the tax rate was a whopping 4% ! Now we are paying more taxes than most socialistic countries (33-40%), not to mention hidden taxes on gas, food, property & other necessities.
bobplane777 1 year ago
No, we are paying NOWHERE NEAR the tax rate paid by, to name two less egregious examples, Germans and Hungarians. We are talking 40% on income tax alone. We pay NOWHERE NEAR that, bobplane777.
purplehorny 1 year ago
Checkout Russia, Cuba & other socialized countries. You can't fix a spending problem by more spending- the economy grows by jobs created by Americans willing to take a risk & invest in their country. The government doesn't create jobs based on it's own capital but only entitlements or welfare burdened on the backs of tax laden citizens-by the way- WE don't PAY for TAX cuts-that money is already OURS! And what govt program has worked? Soc Sec, welfare, Dept of energy? (brainwashed liberal)
bobplane777 1 year ago
Ridiculous. Government spending ABSOLUTELY grows the economy every bit as much as tax cuts do. Tax cuts are impractical at the moment. You need to get educated on economics, bobplane777.
purplehorny 1 year ago
then why is ther economy still in the tank despite months and months of massive deficits?
cornbutter100 1 year ago
The economy is in the tank because of Wall Street's massive failure, aided and abetted by the asleep-at-the-switch attitude of the FAILED BUSH administration. Obama did not create this mess, he inherited it, cornsplutter.
purplehorny 1 year ago
@purplehorny Believe whatever you want. Obama owns the recession now and instead of trying to improve the economy he spends his time trying to nationalize health care and other parts of the economy. Don't underestimate the disaster that is facing your democrat/communist party in November. You'll be lucky to retain 200 house seats.
cornbutter100 1 year ago
Obama, unlike FAILED BUSH, is trying to do something about the suffering caused by this recession, which is a legacy of mismanagement on Wall Street, aided and abetted by the FAILED BUSH administration.
There is no "Democrat" Party, moron. It is called the "Democratic Party" and it is MAINSTREAM AMERICAN. Your calling it "communist" just proves how utterly IGNORANT you are, stupid cornsplutter.
purplehorny 1 year ago
you weird purple penis eater
greeniem 1 year ago
You sure are one to call ANYBODY "weird," stupid greenshiteater.
purplehorny 1 year ago
purple has had so much cock in the mouth that "it" has brain damage
greeniem 1 year ago
Stupid greenshiteater has so much green shit in his mouth, it's no wonder he has green teeth.
purplehorny 1 year ago
@purplehorny you fucking RACIST PIECE OF PEDOPHILE WORSHIPPING GARBAGE !!!
ReturnOfSonOfBUDAVOL 1 year ago
@purplehorny There is nothing democratic about your party at all. It is a party of the left rather than the mainstream. Fortunately, there is a good chance that it will be largely wiped out in the next election.
cornbutter100 1 year ago
Ridiculous. The Democratic party is MORE democratic than is the Republican party. It is today's Republicans who are FAR OUT of the mainstream.
Keep dreaming, cornsplutter.
purplehorny 1 year ago
@purplehorny The democrats have historically been the party of slavery, sedition, and segregation. More recently they have become a party lead by liberals, communists, and socialists. They are probably most similar to the British labor party and other similar socialist parties in Europe.
cornbutter100 1 year ago
Bullshit. Name ONE Communist or Socialist currently holding office as a Democrat, stupid cornsplutter.
Name even ONE. Name ONE Communist or Socialist who has any leadership role in the Democratic Party. Name even ONE, cornsplutter.
The Democratic Party CARRIED THE TORCH against segregation and you know it, cornsplutter.
purplehorny 1 year ago
@purplehorny Your President, and the house and senate democrat leaders are all far to the left as are many democrat senators and congressmen. Of course, they are all careful not to officially spell out their philosophy. The democrats are completely responsible for thesegregation that occurred from the civil war to the 1960s. CARRIED THE TORCH? Who? Bull Connor" George Wallace? Robert KKK Byrd. Bullshit.
cornbutter100 1 year ago
Ridiculous. The Democratic Party CARRIED THE TORCH for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, at GREAT ELECTORAL COST to itself. Robert Byrd LONG AGO bolted from the KKK and has voted a CONSISTENTLY pro-civil-rights since the late 1960s. Note which party African-Americans overwhelmingly support, and with good historical reason, cornsplutter.
purplehorny 1 year ago
@purplehorny As a result of civil rights protest, northern democrats, with help from republicans finally passed the civil rights laws. Byrd filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He only changed when he had no choice. Blacks have no good historical reason for being democrats. Democrats are 100 percent responsible for the segregation policies that existed throught the first 60 years of the twentieth century.
cornbutter100 1 year ago
Byrd DID have a choice. He could have remained an unapologetic supporter of segregation, as Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond most certainly did, cornsplutter. However, he didn't. There is no large African-American population in West Virginia. Therefore, it stands to reason, Byrd has FULLY RENOUNCED his racist past.
So who is to blame here, cornsplutter? Do you not think that the Republican Party should ask itself how it lost all that African-American support within two decades?
purplehorny 1 year ago
@purplehorny Thurmond stopped being a segregationist when he joined the republican party in the 1960s. I don't believe there is any real evidence that Jesse Helms was ever a segregationist.
cornbutter100 1 year ago
No, he did not. Thurmond NEVER ONCE retracted his old, segregationist views. Neither did Jesse Helms.
WHAT??? NO EVIDENCE that Jesse Helms was a segregationist?? Hit the library and read a few biographies of him, cornsplutter.
purplehorny 1 year ago
@purplehorny I was challenge you to find an example of any republican politician ever advocating segregation. Segregation is entirely the responsibility of your party. You party is completely responsible for the racial animosity that exists today. And you all work to perpetuate it.
cornbutter100 1 year ago
I named TWO examples of Republican politicians advocating segregation: Srom Thurmond and Jesse Helms.
And NO political party is entirely responsible for segregation. Blaming racial animosity on the Democratic Party, which has CHAMPIONED minority rights, just proves your ignorance yet more, stupid cornsplutter.
purplehorny 1 year ago
@purplehorny Strom Thurmond repudiated his segregationist politics prior to joining the GOP. Jesse Helms never clearly advocated segregation, plus Robert Byrd was in the KKK, you can't say the same for a Republican. KKK was a terrorist wing of the Democrat Party. The cold hard truth is that the Republicans don't need blacks, Democrats need blacks, but blacks need Republicans.
JohnRhysMusician 1 year ago
Strom Thurmond NEVER repudiated segregation. Cite a source for this, JohnRhysMusician. Jesse Helms ABSOLUTELY DID advocate segregation when he owned a local TV station in North Carolina, and NEVER repudiated it. Robert Byrd LONG AGO repudiated his membership in the KKK. The KKK was IN NO WAY a "wing of the Democratic Party," stupid JohnRhysMusician.
Why the hell do blacks need Republicans? What have Republicans done to earn their votes?
purplehorny 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@purplehorny Thurmond stopped being a segregationist when he joined the republican party in the 1960s. I don't believe there is any real evidence that Jesse Helms was ever a segregationist.
cornbutter100 1 year ago
Spamming again, cornsplutter.
purplehorny 1 year ago
@purplehorny WOW. You really don't know your history, and you don't want to hear the facts or discuss legitimate policy positions, so I am not going to waste my time explaining these facts to you. You can easily go back find out about the origins of the KKK, Jim Crow policy, Civil War, New Deal, etc.
JohnRhysMusician 1 year ago
Saying that the KKK was a "wing of the Democratic Party" was a reflection of GROSS ignorance in history on your part, JohnRhysMusician.
purplehorny 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@purplehorny As a result of civil rights protest, northern democrats, with help from republicans finally passed the civil rights laws. Byrd filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He only changed when he had no choice. Blacks have no good historical reason for being democrats. Democrats are 100 percent responsible for the segregation policies that existed throught the first 60 years of the twentieth century.
cornbutter100 1 year ago
Why are you posting in triplicate, cornsplutter?
purplehorny 1 year ago
@purplehorny Not intentional. Not sure what is wrong.
cornbutter100 1 year ago
The Republicans should think about this question DILIGENTLY, cornsplutter. Simply dismissing the African-American vote is a losing strategy.
purplehorny 1 year ago
@purplehorny Democrats specifically direct their campaigns at blacks and other minories, often offering extra government help to their favored groups. This is a bad policy because it leaves a lot of people permanently dependent upon the government.
cornbutter100 1 year ago
Bullshit. Democrats have PROVEN themselves to be allies to the minorities by their past actions, which have been HONORABLE. Chief among these accomplishments were the civil rights bills of the 1960s, cornsplutter.
purplehorny 1 year ago
@purplehorny Republicans do not dismiss the black vote. Fighting for the end to slavery as the party's first issue, Senator Dirksen crafting the civil rights act, and trying to promote school choice is hardly dismissing the black vote.
JohnRhysMusician 1 year ago
School choice is a LOSER of an issue that has long worn out its welcome in public debate. And Republicans IGNORE the black vote. They concede the black vote to the Democrats.
Blacks USED to be Republicans. What happened to that, JohnRhysMusician?
purplehorny 1 year ago
So why have African-Americans abandoned the Republican Party, JohnRhysMusician? It was the Democratic Party which carried the torch on civil rights, JohnRhysMusician.
purplehorny 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@purplehorny As a result of civil rights protest, northern democrats, with help from republicans finally passed the civil rights laws. Byrd filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He only changed when he had no choice. Blacks have no good historical reason for being democrats. Democrats are 100 percent responsible for the segregation policies that existed throught the first 60 years of the twentieth century.
cornbutter100 1 year ago
@purplehorny As a result of civil rights protest, northern democrats, with help from republicans finally passed the civil rights laws. Byrd filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He only changed when he had no choice. Blacks have no good historical reason for being democrats. Democrats are 100 percent responsible for the segregation policies that existed throught the first 60 years of the twentieth century.
cornbutter100 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Correction: why are you posting in QUADRUPLICATE, cornsplutter?
purplehorny 1 year ago
I am still waiting for you to name ONE Socialist or Communist currently holding office as a Democrat, cornsplutter. Neither you nor that idiot Glen Beck can name even ONE, I wager.
purplehorny 1 year ago
@purplehorny Obama and Pelosi are definitely socialists even though they don't acknowledge that. The same is true other leading democrats in the house and senate. None of these people believe in a market economy at all. I think some are actually communists.
cornbutter100 1 year ago
Ridiculous. Obama is NOT a socialist. Pelosi is IN NO WAY a socialist.
PRODUCE EVIDENCE for this ridiculous assertion, cornsplutter.
Let's see you name ONE Communist. And back it up, cornsplutter.
purplehorny 1 year ago
@purplehorny I think the evidence for both Obama and Pelosi is the massive and intrusive government takeover of the health care system and the cap and trade legislation. Examples of communists in the senate would be Dodd, Leahy, Schumer and Boxer. In the house I would definitely pick Waxman.
cornbutter100 1 year ago
This is NOT a government takeover of the health-care industry. It will be PRIVATE as always, with the insurance companies being the CHIEF BENEFICIARIES. We are speaking of PRIVATE insurance companies, cornsplutter. Nothing "socialist" about that.
Explain how Dodd, Leahy, Schumer, Boxer or Waxman is a Communist. Do you even know what "communist" means?
purplehorny 1 year ago
@purplehorny If it is not a government takeover, I don't know what else you would call it. The people that I have listed would all fit in perfectly with the old soviet politburo. They would regard you as a useful idiot.
cornbutter100 1 year ago
Ridiculous. Communism, FIRST AND FOREMOST, requires ABOLITION of private property. NO ONE, not ONE U.S. politician, has called for ANYTHING OF THE SORT, cornsplutter.
This "takeover," as you call it, is a HANDOVER to the PRIVATE INSURANCE INDUSTRY of that small percentage of Americans without health insurance. That is the OPPOSITE of "socialism," cornsplutter.
purplehorny 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@purplehorny Obama and Pelosi are definitely socialists even though they don't acknowledge that. The same is true other leading democrats in the house and senate. None of these people believe in a market economy at all. I think some are actually communists.
cornbutter100 1 year ago
@cornbutter100 More spam from you, cornsplutter.
purplehorny 1 year ago
@purplehorny Obama and Pelosi are definitely socialists even though they don't acknowledge that. The same is true other leading democrats in the house and senate. None of these people believe in a market economy at all. I think some are actually communists.
cornbutter100 1 year ago
Bullshit. Obama "owns" the recession in the sense that he is now responsible for doing something about it, but he IN NO WAY caused it. Going by YOUR logic, Jimmy Carter can't be blamed for the inflation rate in 1981, can he, cornsplutter?
purplehorny 1 year ago
@purplehorny But the recession is Obama's responsibility. So far, I haven't any serious effort on his part to turn the economy around. All I have seen are massive efforts by Obama and the left-wing congress to expand the control of the government over American industries in an effort to convert the United States into the failed, lagging, European socialist economic systems that they admire.
cornbutter100 1 year ago
The recession is Obama's responsibility insofar as he is the current president; however, it is NOT his FAULT. The recession was WELL UNDERWAY at the time Obama was INAUGURATED, cornsplutter.
And he has tried in NUMEROUS WAYS to turn this around: Stimulus package, cash-for-clunkers, the health-care bill. Yes, the health-care bill will HELP the economy, as the CBO figures have proven, cornsplutter.
purplehorny 1 year ago
@purplehorny The programs that you have described have done nothing for the economy, They have only caused a further explosion in deficits. The new health care bill is already resulting in much higher taxes for Caterpillar, John Deere and many other companies, discouraging investment right in the middle of the recession.
cornbutter100 1 year ago
Ridiculous. Have you seen the unemployment figures for March? Things are looking up. I guess this should be considered BAD NEWS for you and the Republicans, shouldn't it, cornsplutter?
Oh, and do continue to weep for the welfare of impersonal corporations who always have enough money to pay their executives' zillion-dollar salaries.
purplehorny 1 year ago
@purplehorny I still see a 9.7 percent unemployment rate.
cornbutter100 1 year ago
Do you acknowledge that there was some improvement in March, cornsplutter?
Do you acknowledge that the unemployment rate was WORSE two years into the Reagan Administration, cornsplutter?
purplehorny 1 year ago
@purplehorny I still see a 9.7 percent unemployment rate.
cornbutter100 1 year ago
One of the best videos on YouTube for sure.
CarlaLR74 2 years ago
Oh, Christ. Obama has made it perfectly clear he does not want to be the Car Maker in Cheif. He inherited their mess and refused to see hundreds of thousands of more layoffs further cripple the economic health of the nation. [But conserveratives were FINE seing them go under becaue they dont give a sweet shit about the working class] As for the worlds best health car system 1] not for 40 million uninsured and the US lags re infant mortality, obesity, longevity and preventative care.
molloyx 2 years ago
In taking over the auto companies Obama completely dumped on bondholders while giving major ownership shares to the UAW which, with its outrageous work rules and excessive wages, wrecked the U.S. industry in the first place. Polls show that more than 80 percent of the public are happy with their health care and don't want the crappy rationing system that Obama wants to impose. People in this country are able to get medical treatment whether they are insured or not.
cornbutter100 2 years ago
The UAW did not decide what kinds of cars and trucks the company would produce or how to promote them. GM was grossly mismanged by executives making absurd slaries. They consistently resisted developing fuel efficient cars and CAFE stands. US troops were not responsible for the disaster in Iraq, US leaders were [ ubtil Petraues]. ENRON employees were not resposible for the companies gross corruption and ultimate implosion, highly paid ENRON executives were.
molloyx 2 years ago
Yes, there is plenty of blame to go around in the GM debacle. However, the UAW did negotiate contracts with wages and benefits far out of line with workers making Japanese cars in nonunion facilities in southern states. This made it impossible for GM to make profits on any products other than high-priced cars, and large SUVs and pickup trucks. I suppose the big three could have resisted the contracts more strongly.
cornbutter100 2 years ago
Why is Ford, which has been making 'greener', more fuel efficient cars than GM [ and Chrysler] doing so much better than GM.?
molloyx 2 years ago
Do "green" cars make up a significant percentage of Ford's sales. I thought its strong sales products were pickup trucks and suvs. I think the public resents GM and Chrysler to some extent because of the bailout money that they accepted.
cornbutter100 2 years ago
If Bush said he was going to save the economy by overspending you would condemned him for continuing old stupid policies. Yet, Obama has spend more in 8 months than all president term & you praise and defend it ?! You are so self-deceived, biased. 1/10th of one percent of the trillion dollar stimulus package could have bought all 40 million uninsured their own health coverage. This is not about caring but about control..the government wants every part of your life to be subject to their power.
bobplane777 2 years ago
Furthermore, Obama has fulfilled his promise to concentrate more intensely on the Taliban [ in Afghansitan and Pakistan], remembering that they gave safe haven to the psychopaths who perpetrated 9/11. He retained W's sec of defense because he respected his skills. Finally, he has inherited the worst economic mess since FDR, 2 wars, [ 1 entirely unecessary] and a broken health care system. W. inherited an economic surplus and ran the country perilously close to the brink of collapse.
molloyx 2 years ago
He did inherit an economic mess, but his solution of massive federal deficits as far as the eye can see is only making it worse. As for the health care system, he should leave it alone instead of turning it into the hideous ration system that currently exists in Canada and Great Britain. Hopefully Obamacare will fail.
cornbutter100 2 years ago
Public Policy Polling is a Democrat polling organization. In any case, I didn't realize that Palin is currently running for president. I do agree with your pro-gun and pro-life views and for those reasons I find it hard to understand why you voted for Obama.
cornbutter100 2 years ago
If you think that Palin is widely supported by the American public, dream on, cornbutter100.
purplehorny 1 year ago
Is Noonan a republican anymore at all? Why doesn't she just admit that she is a democrat and supports Obama?
cornbutter100 2 years ago
Noonan isn't the only one who thinks Palin is unqualified.
A new national survey from Public Policy Polling finds that the American public has a pretty solid verdict on Sarah Palin: A full majority, 55% of voters, say she is not fit to be president, compared to just 37% who say she is fit for it.
3w . publicpolicypolling . com / pdf / PPP_Release_National_708 . pdf
laleeloolelo 2 years ago
Palin's polling numbers can change. However, Noonan will continue to flack for Obama while pretending to be a republican. Also, who is Liz Trotta and who cares what she think?
cornbutter100 2 years ago
Uh Corn as REAGAN'S SPEECH WRITER i think Noonan isn't pretending to be republican.
As for Liz Trotta she's FORMER BUREAU CHIEF of The Washington Times and the winner of THREE EMMY AWARDS and TWO OVERSEAS PRESS CLUB AWARDS.
She has the credential to call Palin ""inarticulate and under-educated."
laleeloolelo 2 years ago
Trotta has also worked for CBS and NBC (see wikapedia). Noonan was probably a conservative back when she was writing Reagan's speeches but she has been a RINO for many years. Look, these people are entitled to their opinions about Palin, but they don/t represent the views of the majority of Republicans.
cornbutter100 2 years ago
But they do represent the view of the majority of Americans when it comes to Palin.
Even conservatives gave her a low rating of 14% back in 2009 CPAC.
Are those conservatives there "RINOs"? /Sarcasm.
laleeloolelo 2 years ago
I would seriously question whether Noonan and Trotta's views represent the views of the majority of Americans. As for the CPAC poll, it shows that she was ranked third in popularity among conservatives behind Romney and Jindahl. However, I don't understand why you Democrats keep attacking her. Surely she doesn't pose any problem for Obama does she.
cornbutter100 2 years ago
First, according to Public Policy Polling survey 55% of voters say she isn't fit to be president.
Second, she's behind Romney who lost the primary and Jindal whose response to Obama's SOTU was less than endearing to him (Jindal that is not Obama), to put it mildly.
Third, i'm neither democratic or republican.
I'm a pro gun, pro life conservative who nonetheless supports Obama and volunteer to be English teacher to poor muslim kids in Indonesia (And currently live there too no less).
laleeloolelo 2 years ago
Who is Liz Trotta? Liz Trotta is an arch conservative hammer-head shark who is presently employed by the extremely right wing Washington Times which is owned, like Fox News, by a foreign born billionaire, the Rev Sung Yung Moon, the wingnut who gave us the 'Moonies', has been indicted for fruad and tax evasion multiple times and believes himself to be the living messsiah. Washington Times 'reporters' appear on FOX on a daily basis [ Bill Salmon being the most regular]. Had enough info yet?
molloyx 2 years ago
Liz Trotta also made some idiotic comment about assassinating Obama some time ago. The Washington Times has become a much more liberal newspaper in recent years than it was in earlier times. However, if you want to believe that Trotta is an authentic voice of conservatives that's fine with me.
cornbutter100 2 years ago
Mr Corn Find me one positive article about Obama in the Wash Times and I will have an airport named after you. As for authentic voices revolted by or unhappy with Palin and we have Murhpy, Noonan, Trotta, Krauthammer, Fred Barnes, George Will and David Brooks for openers. And be sure that Huckabee, Romney [ do computers have birth certificates?} and the hypocrite adulturer extraordinaire Newt will go after her like shark on chum come the primaries. [Who ARE the authentic conservative voices?}
molloyxx1 2 years ago
The Washington times has been critical of George W Bush for several years, and was critical of McCain during the 2008 campaign. I don't Noonan and Brooks are conservative. Palin certainly has the support of Limbaugh, Hannity, Mark Levin, Coulter, Rudy Guiliani and Michael Reagan to name a few as well as some republican governors and senators. Polls show that she also has approval ratings of 70 percent or more with the republican base.
cornbutter100 2 years ago
Being critical of Bush, a failed president by all accounts [ childrens books ] is by no means the same as applauding Obama.They were critical of McCain because he wasnt extreme enough [ did they criticize Palin?}. Speaking of the beauty pageant runner up, the notion that she has 70 percent approval in the [ ever shrinking] GOP base is expressive of their implosion as a viable party. That she is adored by the radio pit vipers is no surprise. Remember that Rush called Sanford the next GOP JFK.
molloyx 2 years ago
No. The Times had gotten increasingly liberal through the years which is why I cancelled it sometime ago. Those people that you call vipers are far more representative of republicans than the snooty beltway pundits that you admire. Prominent Democrats also once admire Eliot Spitzer.
cornbutter100 2 years ago
All right cornbutter, I am losing ny patience with your fantasises. Go to the Wahington Times website RIGHT NOW and tell me what you see there. I was just there and so dont waste your time bullshitting me. Otherwise, no string cheese for Christmas. And I mean it.
molloyx 2 years ago
Why waste time reading something I don't like. If you think its a conservative newspaper go ahead and believe that.
cornbutter100 2 years ago
Are you suggesting that the Washington TIMES is LIBERAL??? Don't tell me you think that worldnetdaily is "mainstream," cornsplutter.
purplehorny 1 year ago
The Times was critical of McCain because he wasnt extreme enough [ not big on torture]. Coulter loathed him [ that gutless, often tortured war hero]. And also joked that 9/11 widows were gold-diggers. Limbaugh makes sport of people with terminal illnesses. Savage goes after autistic children.Levin makes Cheney look like a Code Pink house wife. These are your authentic voices. Voices of what? Sadism? No wonder they so adore a clinical narcissist like Palin.
molloyx 2 years ago
The reason Coulter Limbaugh, Levin and many other republicans don't like McCain is that he votes like a democrat about half of the time. I don't know anything about Savage. What I don't understand though is if Palin has such serious flaws what are you worried about? After all she's dead in the water anyway right?
cornbutter100 2 years ago
Palin doesn't worry me, she disturbs me, in the same way learning that a six year old would be called upon to land a 747 in a cornfield would disturb me. She is by no means a problem for the Democrats, more a gift that keeps on giving, the poster girl for know-nothing, reactionary drivel. I PRAY she decides to run in 2012, so that we can see her Republican primary opponents take full measure, aim and fire.
molloyx 2 years ago
If you are praying that she runs in 2012, why are you citing these "conservative" pundits who say that she's stupid and inarticulate. Or are you afraid that she might someday pose a serious threat to your radical statist president as he continues to sink in opinion polls.
cornbutter100 2 years ago
Haha, Obama is radical. What a load of shit. In the words of Bill Maher, "Obama isn't even a liberal." Obama is a disgrace for the simple reason that he is not liberal enough.
badtown88 2 years ago
All right then, name any past American President that you consider more radical than Obama.
cornbutter100 2 years ago
Franklin Roosevelt comes to mind, but closely followng him is Teddy Roosevelt, who took on the corporate pirates of his generation. Obama is far more a pragmatist than a 'radical' , hence his decision not release photos of prisoner abuse because he suspected it would lead to the death of US solidiers. Mahers critique is just bullshit, lacking any sense of the political realities, such as the power of blue dog democrats and abscence of moderate Republicans. The radicals are on the right, bucko.
molloyx 2 years ago
With Obama's nationalization of two auto companies, his takeover of several major banks, his enormously destructive planned cap and trade program, his attempt to take over and wreck the world's best health care system, I don't see how you can see him as anything other than radical. He is far more radical than either Roosevelt.
cornbutter100 2 years ago
Obama has NEVER EVER proposed taking over the U.S. health care system. Get your facts straight, cornsplutter.
purplehorny 1 year ago
If no effort is being made to take over the U.S. health care system, then what do you call this 2,700 page Stalinist monstrosity that Pelosi is trying to ram through the house of representatives? If enacted into law, it will force everyone to buy health insurance, convert health insurance companies into public utilities regulated by the federal government, and result in severe rationing of health care with dire consequences for older Americans. Premiusms will sharply increase.
cornbutter100 1 year ago
There is NO "Stalinist" ANYTHING being proposed by Nancy Pelosi or anybody else in Congress. Educate yourself in political philosophy, cornsplutter.
Health insurance companies will NOT be converted into public utilities. In fact, they will be most happy with the majority of this arrangement. Premiums will go DOWN with a larger risk pool. That is economic common sense. Get some, cornsplutter.
purplehorny 1 year ago
Obama is IN NO WAY "radical." There has never been a "radical" American president. Therefore, no one can name any, cornsplutter.
purplehorny 1 year ago
Noonan has been consistently attacking Obamas policies since day one. Fred Barnes, the cranky old Fox News/Weekly Standard functionary, has also jumped ship, knowing well that she wil indeed run [ her pathological narcissism] and that this exercise of pure vanity will further divide a fractured and rudderless party. Rev Huckabe was also very suspicious of her decision to abandon ship. Romney, the uber -coward, simply chewed on his lip and mumbled something that sounded distinctly like 'quitter'
molloyx 2 years ago
I reviewed Noonan's Wall Street Journal editiorials available at her web site, but could find little or no criticism of Obama. I agree that Fred Barnes was disappointed in her resignation. It is likely that Huckabe and Romney would both compete with Palin if she sought the republican nomination for the 2012 election.
cornbutter100 2 years ago
You need to review Noonan's editorials again, then, cornsplutter. She has been highly critical of Obama.
purplehorny 1 year ago
Noonan may not always agree with Obama but she has drifted to the left in recent years. She does not speak for conservative republicans.
cornbutter100 1 year ago
Do you think that Christopher Ruddy, Marc Williams or Rush Limbaugh speaks for conservative Republicans?
Maybe you should check out Peggy Noonan's most recent column in the WSJ. If that is "pro-Obama," then the moon is made of green cheese, after all.
purplehorny 1 year ago
Noonan is a Republican. She supports Obama? How many of her editorials have you read lately, cornsplutter?
purplehorny 1 year ago
Awesome!
downloadmoviesfree(dot)tk
Uneput 2 years ago
They have the official ringtone for this video at TheSickestTones. com check it out yall!
GIOVANNIivwilfuom 2 years ago
LOOKMY VIDEO.....BELLA ZIO
hardtesk 2 years ago
MEDIA bullshit, who cares what these guys think! Who made them experts. SINICKS......
skb7966 2 years ago
LOL
yanasty 2 years ago
Peggy Noonan is terrible at being a human.
cutswift 2 years ago
This is a classic. Palin was such a goddamn joke even then, she needs to be remembered as such. I'm shocked they're even considering running her again in 2012 against Obama. lololol
Arrowhead2k1 2 years ago
Arrowhead2k1:
Just slandering somebody doesn't mean that they deserve. It just means that you don't like them. For all the left have complained about her, I fail to see any actual evidence that the hatred and/or disdain is justified. It is strange and I really don't get it.
itreeye 2 years ago
The three stooges!
appletrades 3 years ago
Oh those poor people, so lazy. We should just burn them all and leave the naturally superior "rich and successful" to rule the planet. Man you are so brilliant, why didn't you run for president. Joe the plumber could have been your running mate.
lamouchemorte 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Peggy Noonan was exposed as she really is, we heard it in her own words. I don't think she is a Republican, like Colin Powell is not a Republican, but I don't understand why they are still registered as Republicans? They are free to move to the party they prefer, like everybody else, but I guess therer is some kind of hidden interest behind. I don't trust this kind of people.
Politeama 3 years ago
Sage80, don't make a fool of yourself, parroting this "real" vs. "elitist" b.s. It's as gimmicky as the "narratives" that bug Peggy Noonan. Most folks worth $200,000 vote Repub. Elitists are the engine of the Repub agenda. Ask any Repub foreign policy analysts about their elitist educations, their silver spoons. Those Repubs aren't "real" enough for you? Hate to tell ya, that Norman Rockwell painting you bought's a fake. My granpa was an honest Republican. We buried him 25 years ago.
firstinfinity 3 years ago 7
firstinfinity:
"Most folks worth $200,000 vote Repub. Elitists are the engine of the Repub agenda."
Rubbish! The dems feed off capitalizing off of compassion', as a rule, and specifically with groups that consider themselves victimized in society. This is the heart of their agenda, and the word elitist refers to those (over 90%) in Universities who preach and indoctrinate the young with leftist, Marxist ideology. This is what it is all about, and why liberals hate school choice over kid's best.
itreeye 2 years ago
Noonan & Murphy are eastern conservative elitist. They don't represent real conservatives.
Sage80 3 years ago
Yeah, if by real conservatives you mean uneducated rural voters who think Obama is a Muslim.
lamouchemorte 3 years ago 8
lamouchemorte:
It is funny how the left stoops to stereotyping, labeling and even racism (judging someone by the color of their skin rather than content of their character) while at the same time accusing others of such ugly, low class behaviour. oh well.
itreeye 2 years ago
Oh please, stop with your bullshit Newspeak. "The Left". I have no idea who or what that means except anyone who disagrees with conservative pundits, because they (and their fans) are the only ones who use this label. I never mentioned anyone's color of skin. Those people holding signs during the election saying that Obama was a Muslim spoke for themselves.
lamouchemorte 2 years ago
lamouchemorte:
"..stop with your bullshit Newspeak. "The Left". I have no idea who or what that means.."
The "left" has specific ideologies, which are identifiable, and often diametrically opposed to the "right". (or, conservative world view) People having different values does not make them right or wrong, just different. I have been finding it ironic that those who are of the 'left' (based on the world view) often behave worse than the ones they accuse. That's all, no biggie. Just ironic.
itreeye 2 years ago
lamouchemorte:
Also, re people suspecting Obama of being a Muslim.
The suspicion comes from some facts, not all fantasy. His father was Muslim, he lived and went to school in a Muslim country for a time, and his name is Muslim.
Also the church he went to has identical attitudes and opinions as many Muslims in the US. (such as the gov created aides to kill blacks, America is more an aggressor than a savior in the world, etc.)
Even w/out the church thing, the other points created the suspicion.
itreeye 2 years ago
Are you ppl. forgetting about President Obama's bloodline? His Mother! I do believe she was a "Christian". No one makes reference to that fact, why?
whiteliberal1 2 years ago
whiteliberal1:
"His Mother! ...she was a "Christian". No one makes reference to that fact, why?"
Because that's not the anomaly. That his middle name is Hussein, his Dad was Muslim and he lived in Muslim Indonesia and went to a Muslim school, and than went to Hawaii and was mentored by a communist and than went, for 20 years to an anti-American political church and had associates that were literally terrorists.
If the guy on the right had half of this, he would have be ousted not elected.
itreeye 2 years ago
Birth Certificates, fascist, marxist and socialist. Wow! What's next for this "usurper"? Palin/Bachman 2016? Lord help us!
The Church you're referring to in Chicago is Church of God. Even if the pastor said controversal things, what changes the fact that the congregation practices Christianity. You seem to have a selective memory when it comes to S. Palin's church. The one where the preacher, who calls himself a witch dr.!
What does that make her? DOUBLE STANDARDS....
whiteliberal1 2 years ago
whiteliberal1:
"Even if the pastor said controversal things, what changes the fact that the congregation practices Christianity."
You are not thinking clearly. A person's values demonstrate their world view, and a Preacher is all about words, and a weekly event in a 'church'. The philosphy of this church is inherently anti-American in the sense that it is ironically anti-Christian as well. When values collide, so does the world-view. Its a concern as he should have left the church: why???
itreeye 2 years ago
Who are you to determine what Church is classified as a Christian Church and which one is not?
You're questioning his (Obama) faith. I'm not! There, you have it. 50/50..That's were "opinions" are formed.
Have you ever attended that Church? NO! You grab clips off of the T.V. and run with them. I'm not defending Wright, but it's funny how they only show excerpts of the sermon.
When you attend that Church at least 3 wks. in a row, then comment. See O'reilly visits a Harlem rest.
whiteliberal1 2 years ago
whiteliberal1:
"Who are you to determine what Church is classified as a Christian Church and which one is not?"
An ideology or religion has certain values which define it or contrast it. Imagine The Gay Alliance speaking out against gay marriage. People would rightly suspect they weren't living up to their title. Just recently Rev Wright said he can't talk to Obama because "of them Jews". Jesus was (is) a Jew. Christians support Israel more than any group in the US, as much or more than Jews.
itreeye 2 years ago
The same person you are, to determine that there not a Christian Church. Don't you see the double standards you're practicing?
What's with all the gay questions? Do you want to tell us something?
As for Rev. Wright comments about President Obama, I believe R. Emanuel is a Jew. Christians supports Israel more than Jews? WOW, I didn't see that coming.
Ai, yi, yi,..please, somebody, anybody, get me some competition. This guy is a total DRONE!
You're too easy..Now, show me my opponent!
whiteliberal1 2 years ago
whiteliberal1:
"Christians supports Israel more than Jews?"
They do in the USA.
1. there are far more Christians than Jews in the US, but also..
2. most Jews in the US are leftist & often take the exact same positions that Rev Wright does; which is to side with Palestine. Remember when Sarah was going to speak out against the visiting Iranian Pres.? When the National Jewish Democratic Council found out she was speaking they backed out. She was against Iranian rhetoric of genocide for Israel.
itreeye 2 years ago