published Wednesday, May 16th, 2012

Deregulation

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

179
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.

The free market will solve the stop sign problem in a more efficient way.

May 16, 2012 at 12:12 a.m.

Exactly who is arguing that these are the types of regulations that hamper the economy? You cannot be this dense. Is deregulation really a slippery slope toward the removal of traffic signs? It's clear that you've never operated a business yourself, but this cartoon makes me wonder if you've ever even met or spoken with someone who owned a business. It's a wee bit more complicated than simply being either for or against regulations cart blanche. You cannot be this dense.

May 16, 2012 at 12:55 a.m.
hotdiggity said...

http://archive.sba.gov/advo/research/rs264tot.pdf

"The statements, findings, conclusions, and recommendations found in this study are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Office of Advocacy, the United States Small Business Administration, or the United States Government."

So how did deregulation and lack of oversight work out during the S&L crisis, the internet bubble, Enron, housing bubble, banking crisis, etc.? But hey, the rich and powerful appreciate your support.

May 16, 2012 at 2:31 a.m.
dougmusn said...

The problem with regulation is you easily see the cost but the benefit is hidden. Ask any mother who did NOT take thalidomide during a pregnancy or anyone who did NOT get E. Coli OX:159 sepsis or anyone who did NOT get polio how they feel about regulations of the FDA, state health departments/food inspectors and the like. Ask anyone who DID get all their monies back when their bank collapsed and they WILL tell you they like the FDIC very much, thank you.

May 16, 2012 at 5:40 a.m.
328Kwebsite said...

This cartoon reminds me of the need for a warning sign at the intersection of Fourth and Lindsay Street after Mayor Corker re-reouted traffic in the city to boost the value of his real estate assets. I'm surprised that no one has died from crashing into that telephone pole after he refused to allow civil engineers to do their duty and protect public safety by properly reconstructing the roadways. All to his profit.

That kind of corruption brought us the big bag of bankruptcy that is the empty building he built at Fourth and Georgia: not only unprofitable, but a hazard-creating endeavor.

Do not tolerate the misdeeds of Chattanooga Mayors who make it a habit of lining their personal pockets with taxpayer cash. Do not accept self-paying, self-appointing, unelected fatkat corrupt substitutes for officials.

Get out and vote. Do not elect any more of these real estate cronies. Find a mayor worth having and get him elected.

And fix the #$%^&* intersection ruined by Bob Corker at Fourth and Lindsay. The warning sign used to be there; but it was cut off the last time it was run over. Mayor Ron Littlefield's sycophant administration did not replace it.

Safety first. Do not elect corrupt and stupid people to the office of Mayor. Thanks.

May 16, 2012 at 6:55 a.m.
328Kwebsite said...

While we're at it, you can think of all the street signs that falsely state, "Pedestrians must push button." Total BS. They are all over the city. The crosswalk signs change with the flow of traffic, regardless of what the pedestrian does. Instead of teaching people to cross the street, they put up lying signs that encourage people to push buttons that do nothing.

At most intersections, you have to wait two cycles of the light before the signal will change. Mayor Littlefield's administration put up those signs because he does not care to alter traffic patterns because they are a determining factor in assessing commercial property values. Easy traffic makes for real estate money.

That is how Republican Mayors jeopardize citizen safety to try to make a profit around here. Just pathetic.

Insist on good government. Elect a mayor smart enough to write a street sign that does not lie to you.

May 16, 2012 at 6:59 a.m.
moonpie said...

I think Republicans need to be specific about which regulations they would like repealed. Few of them occurred in a vacuum, and most were created to combat abuses.

I am not a blanket supporter of regulation. But we must be practical. And specific.

Let's start with tobacco and advertising as an example. Government public awareness and restrictions have helped lead to a massive decrease in smoking nationally. Is this bad? Should we unfetter the tobacco industry?

What about the unregulated pollution of our local streams like Chattanooga creek? Anyone want to turn back the clock so we can have another superfund site?

May 16, 2012 at 7:14 a.m.
MTJohn said...

Self government without self control won't work. People who advocate deregulation lack self control.

May 16, 2012 at 8:10 a.m.
davisss13 said...

Republicans care for one thing: money. Everything else can and does take a back seat. Republicans have no ethics, morals or decency.

May 16, 2012 at 8:25 a.m.
moon4kat said...

Some things are too tightly regulated, and some not enough. I'd like to be able to buy fresh, raw milk, farm-fresh eggs, and traditional herbal remedies without heavy-handed interference from the USDA and FDA. Full-disclosure should be required, and the well-informed consumer should allowed to choose to assume some individual risk.
On the other hand, it's clear that we need national regulations that result in a clean water and air, stable financial institutions (that don't require taxpayer bailouts!), and more efficient use of fossil fuels. Re-examination and adjustment of the breadth and scope of regulations really should be a bi-partisan (or non-partisan) issue.

May 16, 2012 at 8:30 a.m.
mymy said...

There is a toon in this:

Wolfe Giving Obama A Run For His Money In Arkansas

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Chattanooga attorney John Wolfe is giving President Obama a run for his money in Arkansas.

A new poll by Talk Business-Hendrix College puts Wolfe just seven points behind the President for the upcoming Democratic primary. The poll was taken last Thursday.

The perennial candidate, who has visited a number of states in an anti-Obama campaign, got 38 percent to Obama's 45 percent.

Attorney Wolfe was the only other person to qualify to be on the Democratic ticket in Arkansas.

May 16, 2012 at 8:37 a.m.
ibshame said...

"tu_quoque said... HotDogger Sniffs:

http://archive.sba.gov/advo/research/rs264tot.pdf

"The statements, findings, conclusions, and recommendations found in this study are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Office of Advocacy, the United States Small Business Administration, or the United States Government."

So what you’re saying is that the standard boilerplate disclaimer at the beginning of each outside generated study is evidence that the study is fraudulent. That if your precious “Office of Advocacy, the United States Small Business Administration, or the United States Government” didn’t create or give its approval then it must not have any worth. Typical Libtard big government teat suckler"

It all depends on who paid for the so-called "outside generated study." Those so-called "outside studies" are like the Bible. You can find a passage to suit just about anything you want at anytime. It all depends on what you're looking for and who is doing the looking. Kinda like the material from those right-wing rags owned by Rupert Murdoch you like to post. For the most part they are not credible but then neither are you.

May 16, 2012 at 8:51 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

Hell I don't mind some regulations where the health of large populations are concerned. But when a ten year old girl needs a $300 vending license to put a lemonade stand in the driveway, then it's out of control.

May 16, 2012 at 9:19 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

I agree, TOE. I know that regulation is necessary, as big businesses will put the bottom line above safety, environment and worker benefits. But in a lot of areas it has gone too far. We can't regulate ourselves into a risk free world.

May 16, 2012 at 9:23 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Happywithnewbulbs said: "The free market will solve the stop sign problem in a more efficient way."

Thanks, but no thanks, HWNB. The global financial collapse of 2008 has shown us the kind of global chaos that deregulation in the U.S. can create. The world is still struggling to recover.

It’s scary to think what would happen if Mitt Romney were actually given the opportunity to fulfill his campaign promises to “get rid of Dodd Frank “ and “get rid of Sarbanes-Oxley.”

Indeed, Romney promise more “modern” financial regulations, but a quick glance at his campaign contributors says his version is not going to include a much needed Volcker rule, which would bar proprietary trading by banks with federally insured deposits:

“When the head of JPMorgan Chase met with shareholders to answer for a trading loss of more than $2 billion Tuesday, it was against an evolving political backdrop: Donors from big banks are betting on Mitt Romney to defeat President Obama and repeal new restraints on risky, large-scale investments. . .

The top five donor groups in Romney’s campaign are individuals and political action committees associated with large financial institutions, led by Wall Street giants Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase, according to information compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research group that tracks campaign donations.”

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2012/05/16/donors_with_big_bank_ties_favor_romney_desert_obama/

May 16, 2012 at 9:32 a.m.

Claydunce is showing his true colors today. Only an hard-line political hack would think as he does. Just silly.

May 16, 2012 at 9:35 a.m.
ibshame said...

Too many regulations especially ones that make no sense are costly. On the other hand when those charged with enforcing regulations fail to do their jobs then we have a problem. JP Morgan-Chase's actions are like those of an ADDICTED GAMBLER that falls off the wagon. It is beyond belief this kind of gambling is healthy for the economy even if it was not like the last time. $2 billion dollars is a lot of money to just be thrown down the drain. One can only hope this is not the tip of the iceberg and others are not doing the same thing that led us down the road to disaster in 2008.

May 16, 2012 at 9:48 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

I think the problem may lie in the fact that these bureaucracies that were created with good intentions in mind, have become nothing more than full-time jobs for people to do nothing BUT write regulations. If you think about it, these bureaucrats do nothing else their entire life. So I believe they tend to over think and over write these regulations out of sheer job justification.

Perhaps doing away with these permanent bureaucracies in favor of more localized panels from both sides of the potential issue, more pragmatic minds (and regulations) would prevail.

May 16, 2012 at 10:18 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Dead lice wouldn't fall off most gubment workers.

May 16, 2012 at 10:32 a.m.
MickeyRat said...

Conservatives: Deregulate government, corporations and environmental laws, but they sure as hell need to your personal life.

They burn the midnight oil to figure out ways to deregulate corporate behavior, but Republicans and teabaggers want (need) to regulate personal morality and push for laws that would force archaic biblical fantasies on everyone. Conservatives are hell-bent on regulating what goes on in the bedroom between consenting adults, deny science and regulate what kind of person teaches in schools.

For all of you yearning for a "deregulation nation’, start with repeal the criminal laws on people for 24 hours. During those 24 hours, you would see hell on earth --- murders, bank robberies, rape, arson, theft, and a total collapse of civilization. But then again, something very much like it occurred not so very long ago. Why did our economy collapse in 2008? Ohhh yea…….

May 16, 2012 at 10:52 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

Barney Frank and Chris Dodd Forcing Fannie and Freddie to make sub-prime loans to people who couldn't afford to pay them back?.....Answer to last question.

May 16, 2012 at 11:08 a.m.
MickeyRat said...

Barney Frank and Chris Dodd DID NOT Force Fannie and Freddie to make sub-prime loans to people who couldn't afford to pay them back? That is a bald faced lie and is a testament to the intellectual dumbing down of today’s conservatives. No bank was ever “forced” – or coerced or incentivized by the government in any way – to make a bad loan. Try again Mr. Hannity.

May 16, 2012 at 11:26 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Ibshame said: “JP Morgan-Chase's actions are like those of an ADDICTED GAMBLER that falls off the wagon. It is beyond belief this kind of gambling is healthy for the economy even if it was not like the last time. . . One can only hope this is not the tip of the iceberg and others are not doing the same thing that led us down the road to disaster in 2008.”

Gambling is the correct word in this case, Ibshame. In spite of the global financial collapse of 2008, it’s become obvious that Wall Street and the big bankers are still trying to resist regulations in the financial industry, especially the Volcker rule. Ezra Klein says that regulators from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, FDIC, the Fed and SEC “have held a whopping 3,445 meetings with outside groups since Dodd-Frank’s passage." He got the info from the Davis Polk law firm, which has been tracking the process.

http://www.davispolk.com/firm/

May 16, 2012 at 11:44 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

Community reinvestment act.

May 16, 2012 at 11:59 a.m.
MickeyRat said...

TOES02800 referred to Community reinvestment act.

Yea and?

May 16, 2012 at 12:35 p.m.
BobMKE said...

Ann Rand: “The government was set to protect man from criminals-and the Constitution was written to protect man from government. The Bill of Rights was not directed against private citizens, but against the government-as an explicit declaration that the individual rights supersede any public or social power.”

Supreme court Justice William Rehnquist: “It is always time consuming, frequently, and not infrequently impossible to run successfully the legislative gauntlet and have enacted some facet of one’s own deeply felt value judgments. It is even more difficult for either a single individual or indeed for a large group of individuals to succeed in having such a value judgment embodied in the Constitution. All of these burdens and difficulties are entirely consistent with the notion of a democratic society. It should not be easy for any one individual or group of individuals to impose by law their value judgments upon fellow citizens who may disagree with those judgments. Indeed, it should not be easier just because the individual in question is a judge. & The living Constitution is genuinely corrosive of the fundamental values of our democratic society.”

May 16, 2012 at 12:46 p.m.
ibshame said...

"mountainlaurel said...

Gambling is the correct word in this case, Ibshame. In spite of the global financial collapse of 2008, it’s become obvious that Wall Street and the big bankers are still trying to resist regulations in the financial industry, especially the Volcker rule. Ezra Klein says that regulators from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, FDIC, the Fed and SEC “have held a whopping 3,445 meetings with outside groups since Dodd-Frank’s passage." He got the info from the Davis Polk law firm, which has been tracking the process."

"Too big to fail" was supposedly the reason for the bailouts the last time around. Sadly, some of the so-called "too big to fail" banks have gotten even bigger because they bought out the smaller banks. JPMorgan-Chase bought out Washington Mutual, Bear Stearns. The same goes for Citigroup and the others. So instead of becoming smaller after the 2008 disaster they have gotten even bigger making it even more dangerous for our economy if they should go under.

That is why I don't understand how Mitt Romney and others like him can be in favor of just letting them run wild on Wall Street without any restraints. If it didn't work before, how is it going to be better now? Too much regulation is not good but too little can be even worse.

May 16, 2012 at 12:52 p.m.
ibshame said...

"BobMKE said... Ann Rand: “The government was set to protect man from criminals-and the Constitution was written to protect man from government."

Yep that old girl Ayn Rand has quite a bit to say about INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHTS. Funny how those on the Right can use her quotes when it suits their purpose. Kinda goes back to what I said earlier about the Bible, you can find a passage to support just about anything if you're looking for it.

I'm no fan of Ayn Rand but if I was I would like the one below. Most especially when it comes to states banning Gay Marriage.

" Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual)." Ayn Rand

May 16, 2012 at 1:11 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Ibshame said: " I don't understand how Mitt Romney and others like him can be in favor of just letting them run wild on Wall Street without any restraints. If it didn't work before, how is it going to be better now?"

Yes, it is hard to understand why Mitt Romney is so willing to advocate for deregulation when it comes to the U.S. banking and financial industry. Maybe it's because a lot of his money is tucked away off shore in the Cayman Islands and in a Swiss Bank account, which is regulated:

"All banks in Switzerland are regulated by Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA), which derives its authority from a series of federal statutes. The country's tradition of bank secrecy, which dates to the Middle Ages, was first codified in a 1934 law."

May 16, 2012 at 1:24 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Toes02800 said to MickeyRat: "Community reinvestment act."

Interesting and revealing response to MickeyRat's post, Toes02800. But I believe most honest folks fully understand the difference between fraud and the goal of the Reinvestment Act:

A) The Community Reinvestment act is about encouraging regulated financial institutions to help meet the credit needs of communities - consistent with safe and sound operation.

AND

(B) Bankers and other financial institutions issuing and securitizing mortgages that are known to be fraudulent - Issuing and securitizing a mortgage that is known to be fraudulent is fraud.

May 16, 2012 at 1:57 p.m.
timbo said...

Ibshame... The problem is not with regulating banks, it is with regulating ALL banks. Even the ones that did not cause the problems. The draconian rules have made it almost impossible for small business to get financing with or without collateral. They simply won't let small banks loan take any risk at all. They are the life blood of small business. It is no surprise that employment is lagging when the new job generator can't get financing.

Liberals like you are just ignorant of what it takes to run the real world. Big banks make mistakes loaning money to big corporations and lose money. They should be regulated on an individual basis. Banks that did not cause the problems shouldn't be punished along with the ones that did.

As far as other regulations go...most have outlived their usefulness. Liberal stupidity knows no bounds.

May 16, 2012 at 2:52 p.m.
mymy said...

When push comes to shove the economy will be what reasonable people will be thinking about in the voting booth in Nov., and Obama and his bad policies which have made things worse will loose. His excess regulations play a big part in the problem. This toon shows how everything coming from the left is extreme/excessive, etc. Nobody thinks this is what is meant by deregulations.

There are several common sense videos/interviews other than the one below from Neil Cavuto. Oh, please left save your comments re Fox. It shows your foolishness.

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/your-world-cavuto/index.html#/v/1640900532001/massive-government-debt-becoming-key-issue-in-2012-race/?playlist_id=86929

May 16, 2012 at 2:56 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Timbo said: “The draconian rules have made it almost impossible for small business to get financing with or without collateral. They simply won't let small banks loan take any risk at al.”

Draconian rules? Please, lets get serious here, Timbo. Banks have always required some kind of collateral. The reason small businesses are having difficulty getting small business loans is due to the fact that collateral financing has taken such a huge hit. In the past, people used equity in their homes to obtain small business loans, but since the housing bubble burst many small business owners do not have the same level of equity in their homes any more.

Timbo said: “The problem is not with regulating banks, it is with regulating ALL banks. Even the ones that did not cause the problems.”

But smaller banks are explicitly exempted from most of the requirements in Dodd-Frank bill, Timbo. So exactly what are you talking about here? As I recall, the Independed Community Bankers of American president applauded the new law because it helped to “level the regulatory and competititive playing field for community banks." They were particulary pleased with the higher capital and liquity requirements for the bigger banks, the Volcker rule, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the new rules that force bigger banks to pay more in deposit insurance. I have read some small bank complaints about insider trading and executive compensation provisions in the Dodd-Frank bill, but this is about it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/gop-candidates-say-dodd-frank-kills-small-banks-the-banks-beg-to-differ/2011/11/10/gIQAhgWJ9M_blog.html

May 16, 2012 at 5:51 p.m.
moonpie said...

Tu,

You make a good point about regulations being a hidden tax.

What is the cost of not having those regulations?

Keep in mind, the cost is not limited to just $$$$. There can be human costs.

God forbid we deregulate coal mining.

If we followed your sweeping statements, we would be in a terrible mess.

To present a convincing argument about deregulation, you really have to be specific. Otherwise you're just preaching to the choir or talking to hear yourself talk. What's the point?

May 16, 2012 at 7:42 p.m.
hotdiggity said...

Tutu says "So what you’re saying is that the standard boilerplate disclaimer at the beginning of each outside generated study is evidence that the study is fraudulent."

Uhh, wrong. I neither said nor suggested that. But, as usual, you are welcome to your delusions.

I was suggesting what ibshame so eloquently posted on May 16, 2012 at 8:51 a.m.

I noticed that you conveniently did not address the rest of the post. Here ya go...

So how did deregulation and lack of oversight work out during the S&L crisis, the internet bubble, Enron, housing bubble, banking crisis, etc.? But hey, the rich and powerful appreciate your support.

May 16, 2012 at 8:28 p.m.

Mountainlaurel, are you sure you don't want the free market stop signs? I'm really sure we won't have accidents! And if we do, I'm sure somebody will met consumer demand for a solution. Like catapults to launch cars over intersections!

Wwwtw, actually the opposition to regulations does tend to be blanket, without even acknowledgement of any benefits ever. Probably because people never see the fires that don't happen because electricians followed code or see the cancer they didn't get.

As for a lemonade stand...that may appeal to people's idea of nostalgia, but it is a terrible business plan for today. Population and market dynamics have changed. People will not stop to buy a drink of bad-tasting flavored water. Parents would do better to tell their children to spend their time more effectively. I actually can't remember a time when it ever worked, it's just featured on TV with a bunch of other zany schemes.

May 16, 2012 at 11:36 p.m.
fairmon said...

There should be a cost benefit analysis required for any new and all existing regulations. Those increasing cost to government should increase individual taxes by that amount. That would of course double the cost to tax payers since businesses will increase prices to pay for compliance cost. Many but all are essential.

May 17, 2012 at 5:31 a.m.
moonpie said...

Harp,

Cost benefit analysis is nice. Increasing costs to government do need to be recouped, but are you sure tax increases are needed? Perhaps sometimes they would be, but frequently new regulations expand on industry and create a larger tax base.

There was a time when hospitals and medical offices were allowed to discard blood soaked bandages, needles and syringes into the regular garbage.

It cost more to dispose of these safely, sure. There are oversight costs associated with OSHA etc. But there are also new products created. People had to start making more and more Sharps containers. More incinerators were needed to handle infectious products. Entire businesses (which pay taxes) were created for this regulation.

The workplace was safer, meaning fewer occupational exposures to HIV and other infectious diseases. This would translate to fewer medical bankruptcies and therefore decreased burden on the social safety net.

So, when people (like tu) talk just about the costs associated with regulation, clearly they are missing a great deal of the picture.

May 17, 2012 at 8:59 a.m.
davisss13 said...

Republicans are mentally challenged and show it here every day.

May 17, 2012 at 9:05 a.m.
miraweb said...

Timbo - it is true the banks are sitting on capital and not lending. However, the bulk of the new rules don't go into effect until this summer.

It isn't regulation that is gumming up the lending system. Some banks just got religion and are sitting tight on their cash.

A lot of small business people (my uncle, for one) have lost their lines of credit because of banks pulling back during the recession and because of damaged credit from extended unemployment and home foreclosures.

Other 'banks' are playing their last two months in the markets (like JP Morgan Chase) to see how much of their own money they can lose before they have to start being banks again.

The lending system does need to be fixed and most of the real work will have to be done by the banks themselves. So far, they have shown little appetite for the job.

Just cutting regulations is using a chain saw to do heart surgery.

May 17, 2012 at 9:29 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Happywithnewbulbs said: “Are you sure you don't want the free market stop signs? I'm really sure we won't have accidents! And if we do, I'm sure somebody will meet consumer demand for a solution. Like catapults to launch cars over intersections!”

Yes, I’m quite sure, HWNB. Without a doubt, there would be a toll charge at every stop sign. Things like catapults aren’t cheap. And, of course, there would be the costs for personnel. The launch workers would probably be paid minimum wage, but those “free market” executives will need to be indulged to support the extravagant lifestyle to which they’ve become accustomed.

May 17, 2012 at 9:58 a.m.
adolphochs said...

Oh! I get it. You're comparing opposition to excessive government regulation to cutting down stop signs.

May 17, 2012 at 10:23 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

It's like this. Opposing excessive government regulation makes you a racist. Or homophobe. Or misogynist. Or crab carrier. Or something.

May 17, 2012 at 10:33 a.m.
timbo said...

mountainlaurel...I am not refering to some talking point you read on the, "Obama for President" web site or liberal newspaper. I am talking about the real world. My banker has told me time and again that the new regulations have changed small banking. The requirements, rules, amount of collateral have all increased by the almighty government that they literally can't take any risk. He told me stories of people with 8 to 10 million in assets that couldn't get financing because of the "cash flow" requirements of these banking regulators. He said that he has seen more regulators in the last year than he saw in the previous 20 years. This is a profitable bank that never needed a bailout.

Again, you liberals are all theoretical...the government said this and Obama said that and then you quote the Washington Post that is the most liberal source this side of the New York Times...blah, blah, blah.. I deal with it every day and we are successful no matter what kind of crap the government puts in front of us.

You know nothing about what it takes to run a business or create wealth that creates jobs. For you know nothings to keep giving the Obama/liberal line constantly on every subject is ludicrous. Either speak from experience and the real world or keep you big mouth shut..

May 17, 2012 at 10:34 a.m.
jesse said...

the TIMES has an article this morn on bicycle riders bitchin about auto's don't yield to bikers! i play golf at mocc.bend on occasion and some times when i leave they are cyclist pumpin down mocc.bend road three abreast and cars backed up 6 deep and they ignore your butt!they OWN THE ROAD! maybe some o them signs they are takin down could be put to use lettin bicycle riders know they DON"T OWN the roads!!

May 17, 2012 at 10:36 a.m.
Salsa said...

Hey Jesse...when 100% of automobile drivers start obeying 100% of the traffic laws 100% of the time then maybe you can cry. Until then, auto drivers are the biggest killers in this country every year. They kill far more people than guns.

May 17, 2012 at 10:39 a.m.
timbo said...

Salsa...Let me give you a physics lesson....Bike/people weigh 200 lbs., cars weigh 2000 lbs. Wonder who wins that contest??

May 17, 2012 at 10:48 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Timbo 10:34 Well stated, sir.

May 17, 2012 at 10:51 a.m.
moonpie said...

timbo,

I deal with banks everyday, too. We have seen requirements tighten on us both professionally and personally.

Certainly new business can be stiffled by making it harder to get loans... no matter what the underlying reason is.

Clearly the banks did not do enough in the past to protect their back doors. Look where that got us.

How did that work out for business? It nearly killed ours.

And don't just blame the banks, while you're at it. Lots of companies are sitting on capital because of this shake up. Despite record profits and increasing reserves, some companies are not expanding or hiring new people. Poor oversight has decreased many people's confidence in the American financial system and the American economy. Rightly so.

May 17, 2012 at 10:57 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Miraweb said: “Other 'banks' are playing their last two months in the markets (like JP Morgan Chase) to see how much of their own money they can lose. . .”

Just read an informative Bill Moyers’ interview on with Simon Johnson, former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund and now a professor at MIT's Sloan School of Management and senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. Moyers asks some good questions:

INTRODUCTION: “Once again, doing God's work -- that is, betting huge sums of money with depositor funds knowing that you are too big to fail and can count on taxpayers riding to your rescue if your avarice threatens to take the country down -- has lost some of its luster. The jewels in Dimon's crown sparkle with a little less grandiosity than a few days ago, when he ridiculed Paul Volcker's ideas for keeping Wall Street honest as "infantile."

MOYERS: “Should Jamie Dimon resign?. . . Chase and other huge banks have been using their enormous wealth for years to, in effect, buy off our politicians and regulators. Chase just had to pay up almost three quarters of a billion dollars in settlements and surrendered fees to settle one case alone, that of bribery and corruption in Jefferson County, Alabama. It's also paid out billions of dollars to settle other cases of perjury, forgery, fraud and sale of unregistered securities. And these charges were for actions that took place while Mr. Dimon was the CEO.“

JOHNSON: “. . . there should be an independent investigation into how JPMorgan operates both with regard to these losses and with regard to all of the problems that you just identified. This investigation should be conducted separate from the board of directors. Remember that the shareholders and the board of directors absolutely have an incentive to keep JPMorgan Chase as a too-big-to-fail bank. But because it is that kind of bank, its downside risk is taken by the Federal Reserve, by the taxpayer, by the broader economy and all citizens. . . “

MOYERS: Dimon is also on the board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which, as everyone knows is supposed to regulate JPMorgan. What in the world are bankers doing on the Fed board, regulating themselves?

JOHNSON: This is a terrible situation. . . It goes back to the origins, the political compromise at the very beginning of the Federal Reserve system about a hundred years ago. . . It's completely inappropriate to have such a big bank represented in this fashion. The New York Fed claims there's no impropriety, there's no wrong doing and he doesn't involve himself in supervision. . . Perhaps, but why does Mr. Dimon, a very busy man, take time out of his day to be on the board of the New York fed? He is getting something from this. It's a trade, just like everything else on Wall Street.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-moyers/whats-the-ultimate-price_b_1522397.html?ref=yahoo&ir=Yahoo

May 17, 2012 at 11:12 a.m.
jesse said...

HEY SALSA! maybe it would be a good idea if bicycle riders learned to git the funk outta the way ! the reason they git their a$$ run over is cause they want to ride in the middle of the road! when i lived on e.brain.rd. was a dude had one of them lay down and ride bicycles,see him every day rideing on e.brain.rd .LIKE he owned it! got his A$$ run over 2 or 3 time and i ain't seen him around latly! like if you got your a$$ on a main drag hangin in the wind on a bicycle ,common sense will tell you you ain't bullitproof! don't GET INTO A SHOWDOWN W/5,000 LBS.OF VEHICLE WHEN YOU RIDIN A BICYCLE! that'S A LOSE-LOSE SITUATION!PERIOT!

May 17, 2012 at 11:15 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Timbo said: “I am not refering to some talking point you read on the, "Obama for President" web site or liberal newspaper. I am talking about the real world.

And in the real world, banks have always required collateral, Timbo. To suggest that the Dodd-Frank bill changed this requirement is a ludicrous statement.

Timbo said: “My banker has told me time and again that the new regulations have changed small banking. The requirements, rules, amount of collateral have all increased by the almighty government that they literally can't take any risk. He told me stories of people with 8 to 10 million in assets that couldn't get financing because of the "cash flow" requirements of these banking regulators.”

You’re statement doesn’t make much sense as it stands, Timbo. Small business loans are usually around one million dollars or less. To suggest an individual with 8 to 10 million dollars in assets can’t get a small business loan from "your banker" due to unreasonable “cash flow” requirements of the banking regulators sounds fishy to me. Maybe you should look for a new banker for your small business loan:

“Banking Grades is a proprietary online tool that grades every bank on its commitment to small business lending. Using public data from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), Banking Grades compares the amount of a bank’s deposits to the amount of loans that bank has made to small businesses.

These loans are $1,000,000 or less. . .

On Banking Grades, anyone can search for an FDIC-regulated bank by name, zip code, city and/or address. Banks that make the most loans to small businesses (proportionately to their deposits) receive an A. Conversely, the banks are not making small business loans, receive an F. There are thousands of banks in between. . .

Banking Grades gives an A grade to 2,693 banks in America. In order to receive an A grade, a bank needs to utilize 25 percent or more of its domestic deposits to make small business loans.”

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/The-Entrepreneurial

May 17, 2012 at 12:12 p.m.
joneses said...

And you libtard dummycrats want more of this?

The National Defense Authorization Act was signed into law in December by President Obama, allowing for the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism. The law gave the government authority to move against individuals who engage in political speech with views that "may be extreme and unpopular as measured against views of an average individual.

Attorney Carl Mayer, speaking for plaintiffs at oral arguments earlier this year, had noted that President Barack Obama said the bill should be upheld and enforced to the fullest intentions of the bill.

After the ruling, Mayer called on the Obama administration to drop its decision to enforce the law. He also called on Congress to change it "to make it the law of the land that U.S. citizens are entitled to trial by jury. They are not subject to military detention, policing and tribunals, all the things we fought a revolution to make sure would never happen in this land."

This is a perfect example of where obastard's definition of moving this country forward means. Forward to obastard means to quiet the citizens by eliminating freedom of speech so he and his fellow communist supporters can arrest anyone that disagrees with them or anything else he does not like. Is this what you liberal fools want? Thank God a judge had enough sense to rule against this complete unconstitutional law that obastard signed.

May 17, 2012 at 12:17 p.m.
jesse said...

hey joneses! i'm NOT a dummycrat,libitard! AND i'm gittin a little tired of your high blown rhetoric! i don't know you and thats a blessing BUT as a some what right of moderate i think you are a raving idjit! wheather you know it or not you are making us look like fools! AND i ain't no fool!although you are makin everybody that isn't lib look like an a$$hole!

May 17, 2012 at 12:32 p.m.
timbo said...

mountainlaurel.... Argue with someone else...your ignorant on this subject. Just talked to another real estate developer at lunch who says he is having the same problem. I have been in business 20 years and understand how it used to be, versus now. Collateral has always required but it has increase exponentially. I want respond to you again.

May 17, 2012 at 1:07 p.m.
ibshame said...

"jesse said... hey joneses! i'm NOT a dummycrat,libitard! AND i'm gittin a little tired of your high blown rhetoric! i don't know you and thats a blessing BUT as a some what right of moderate i think you are a raving idjit! wheather you know it or not you are making us look like fools! AND i ain't no fool!although you are makin everybody that isn't lib look like an a$$hole!"

Thanks!! You are one of the few who will man-up. I may not agree with you the majority of the time but at least you are not willing to allow someone like Joneses to represent your viewpoint. That I do admire!! It is one of the reasons I "ALMOST" considered voting for John McCain the last time but will never even consider voting for Romney because he is a weakling puppet for neo-cons like W. He was given the perfect opportunity to show he had the courage like McCain to correct one of the many falsehoods about President Obama but he let it ride. On a scale of 1-10 for respect, Romney now stands at a 4 in my estimation.

May 17, 2012 at 2:57 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Timbo said: “Argue with someone else...your ignorant on this subject.“

Sure, sure, Timbo. But since you’re the one who posted the ridiculous statement about Dodd-Frank’s alleged “draconian rules” that have allegedly “made it almost impossible for small business to get financing with or without collateral,“ I’d say you’re the one who needs a little education on banks and what is required for small business loans.

Timbo said: “I have been in business 20 years and understand how it used to be, versus now. Collateral has always required but it has increase.”

At least, you're finally admitting that banks have always required collateral.

As for your comment about "how it used to be versus now," I suggest you review a bit of U.S. history to get a bigger picture, Timbo. You could start with what cause of the Great Crash of 1929 – a time when banks were failing and engaging in a lot of market speculation - and why the Glass-Steagall law was established by Congress in the first place.

In doing so, I'm sure you will note that this Nation had almost fifty years of prosperity and great success under the Glass-Steagall Act – commercial banks were lending lots of money; investment banks were making their deals as usual; securities firms were selling lots of stocks and bonds; and insurance companies were selling lots of insurance.

The financial collapse of 2008 came about after Glass-Steagall was repealed. Clearly, it was a big mistake for Congress to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act. The new Dodd-Frank and Consumer Protection Act are good steps toward recovery, but this recent $2.3 billion J.P Morgan loss is telling us loudly and clearly that the “Volcker Rule” must be tightened and enforced.

May 17, 2012 at 3:29 p.m.
joneses said...

I do not care what you think because you are not important to me. Can you answer the question on my next post?

May 17, 2012 at 3:33 p.m.
joneses said...

jesse,

Do you think Obama was being honest when he said he would cut the debt in half if he became president and he actually ended up adding 6 trillion dollars to the debt increasing it by 60%? Please do not answer the question "he just changed his mind" or "the Republicans would not let him tax the wealthy" or "it was president Bush's fault" or "you have to spend money to be able to cut the debt". There are only two answers, one is "yes" and the other is "no" so please do not answer with any other answer other than yes or no.

May 17, 2012 at 3:43 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Joneses said: "Please do not answer the question "he just changed his mind" or "the Republicans would not let him tax the wealthy" or "it was president Bush's fault" or etc."

Well, Joneses, like it or not, the Bush Tax cuts have been costly to this Nation. As of a few minutes ago, the tax cut costs to this Nation - for just the top 5% - was 1,094,596,500,074.

http://costoftaxcuts.com/

May 17, 2012 at 4:06 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Wicky-Laura: You're incorrigible.

May 17, 2012 at 4:52 p.m.

How can tax cuts "cost" the nation anything? Spending is the problem. Cut spending. Entitlements are the problem. Cut entitlements. Marxists are the problem. Cut them out of our society.

May 17, 2012 at 5:22 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Hey mountainlaurel!! Shouldn't the Bush tax cuts now be called the Obama tax cuts? I recall Obama extending the Bush tax cuts not long ago!!

May 17, 2012 at 6:07 p.m.
fairmon said...

moonpie said...

Harp,

Cost benefit analysis is nice. Increasing costs to government do need to be recouped, but are you sure tax increases are needed? Perhaps sometimes they would be, but frequently new regulations expand on industry and create a larger tax base.

Response: You like many here jump to a conclusion based on what you think someone means. Many regulations add no cost to a business of the consumer. Some result in reduced cost to the consumer and in some rare instances the business. Others do add cost with little to no positive impact. The only point is there is never an overall review of regulations and compliance cost and duplication at the local, state and federal level opposite what the regulation will accomplish. Patch work changes and reactive overlapping additions result in a complex system similar to the millions of words in a tax system no one understands completely.

May 17, 2012 at 6:22 p.m.
mymy said...

The Vetting “Andrew Breitbart was never a "Birther," and Breitbart News is a site that has never advocated the narrative of "Birtherism." In fact, Andrew believed, as we do, that President Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on August 4, 1961. Yet Andrew also believed that the complicit mainstream media had refused to examine President Obama's ideological past, or the carefully crafted persona he and his advisers had constructed for him. It is for that reason that we launched "The Vetting," an ongoing series in which we explore the ideological background of President Obama (and other presidential candidates)--not to re-litigate 2008, but because ideas and actions have consequences. It is also in that spirit that we discovered, and now present, the booklet described below--one that includes a marketing pitch for a forthcoming book by a then-young, otherwise unknown former president of the Harvard Law Review. It is evidence--not of the President's foreign origin, but that Barack Obama's public persona has perhaps been presented differently at different times”

“Regardless of the reason for Obama's odd biography, the Acton & Dystel booklet raises new questions as part of ongoing efforts to understand Barack Obama--who, despite four years in office remains a mystery to many Americans, thanks to the mainstream media.”

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/17/The-Vetting-Barack-Obama-Literary-Agent-1991-Born-in-Kenya-Raised-Indonesia-Hawaii

May 17, 2012 at 6:32 p.m.
fairmon said...

ML

I have doubts you would know a free market if it hit you in the buttock. I doubt anyone here is old enough to have seen a truly free market with some government regulations but no interference in the business via tax breaks, incentives and payola to get support and voters. With true competition with no price fixing prices will be competitive and the well managed will survive and those not providing good value in use will die. Why did the democratic congress and the SEC allow bankers to also be brokers? Banks have also been allowed to be involved in managing peoples money and investments. I agree banks are still too big but should not be protected from failing.

May 17, 2012 at 6:41 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

NO president ever, has come under less scrutiny by the media than BHO. Just a fact.

May 17, 2012 at 6:47 p.m.
timbo said...

mountainlaurel .......you are an idiot .

May 17, 2012 at 7:02 p.m.
alprova said...

Joneses wrote: "The National Defense Authorization Act was signed into law in December by President Obama, allowing for the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism. The law gave the government authority to move against individuals who engage in political speech with views that "may be extreme and unpopular as measured against views of an average individual."

No one can be detained or arrested for simple political speech. Why make up this crap?

"Attorney Carl Mayer, speaking for plaintiffs at oral arguments earlier this year, had noted that President Barack Obama said the bill should be upheld and enforced to the fullest intentions of the bill."

B.S., plain and simple. The President said when he signed the bill, "I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed . . . I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists."

"After the ruling, Mayer called on the Obama administration to drop its decision to enforce the law. He also called on Congress to change it "to make it the law of the land that U.S. citizens are entitled to trial by jury. They are not subject to military detention, policing and tribunals, all the things we fought a revolution to make sure would never happen in this land."

This bill was a Republican initiative. The House Vote was 190 Republicans for the bill and 43 opposed to it. 93 Democrats voted for it and 93 voted against it.

"This is a perfect example of where obastard's definition of moving this country forward means. Forward to obastard means to quiet the citizens by eliminating freedom of speech so he and his fellow communist supporters can arrest anyone that disagrees with them or anything else he does not like. Is this what you liberal fools want? Thank God a judge had enough sense to rule against this complete unconstitutional law that obastard signed."

Nothing in that bill allows for anyone to be arrested for any speech expressing disagreement with the Government. It targets terrorists, foreign and domestic, who engage in the support or actual taking up of arms against military members of this nation.

Please try dispensing your utter B.S. elsewhere Francis.

May 17, 2012 at 7:37 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Landslide victory for republicans in November! It doesn't matter if you like Romney or not, people realize that Obama's "hope and change" was just the cherry filling to his socialistic plan for America.

May 17, 2012 at 7:41 p.m.
alprova said...

Timbo wrote: "mountainlaurel.... Argue with someone else...your ignorant on this subject. Just talked to another real estate developer at lunch who says he is having the same problem."

Timbo, it appears that your undeclared ignorance trumps anyone else's on the subject of banking.

Banks are very reluctant in loaning money to real estate developers at the moment, and for one very good reason. Real estate has not reached the bottom of the barrel yet and there are millions of existing properties out there that can be picked up at bargain basement prices and that will sell far sooner and for far less than newly developed properties.

Real estate of any description is considered at the present time, a very poor form of collateral because the values of real estate are highly unstable. So it shouldn't come as any surprise that real estate developers are being shut out of the loan process, unless they have an established relationship with a bank, a well proven record of success, and a long time in business.

"I have been in business 20 years and understand how it used to be, versus now. Collateral has always required but it has increase exponentially."

You act as if there is some secret as to why that has come to be. Real estate values have plummeted, severely in some places. Right across the street from my own business, another commercial property sold for one-fifth of what it sold for 8 years ago.

It's a buyer's paradise out there right now, but you have to have the finances in place, or a very warm and long time relationship with a bank in order to take advantage of the good deals out there currently.

I didn't have to borrow a dime to start my business, but my banker of more than 30 years assures me routinely that should the need arise, that all I have to do is to come by and sign a note and I can have whatever I need.

May 17, 2012 at 8:02 p.m.
joneses said...

alprova

You are a lying sack of s%$t. Read the bill stupid. Read what the judge said that ruled against the bell. And guess what Alice, I retrieved this article from a liberal news outlet stupid. No one believes your liberals lies anymore you wimp ass POS. LOL!

May 17, 2012 at 8:15 p.m.
alprova said...

Harp3339 wrote: "Why did the democratic congress and the SEC allow bankers to also be brokers?"

I have no idea where you are getting your information from, but the Gramm-Leach-Blilely Act of 1999, which rescinded the 1933 Glass-Stegall Act, was a Republican initiative all the way. The Three sponsors of the bill were all three Republicans, who were all thrown out of office their next election.

In Congress, a much larger number of Republicans versus Democrats voted for it. In the Senate, the vote was split right down party lines with Republicans voting for it and Democrats opposing it.

"Banks have also been allowed to be involved in managing peoples money and investments."

Banks have been offering investment management since at least 1982. Some were allowed to offer such services in the late 70's. All was well until the mismanagement issues began cropped up after 1999, with the passage and implementation of the Gramm-Leach-Blilely Act, which repeated some of the same fiascoes that led to the Great Depression, which was triggered by the collapse of Wall Street in 1929.

May 17, 2012 at 8:26 p.m.
joneses said...

mountain laurel

Do you think Obama was being honest when he said he would cut the debt in half if he became president and he actually ended up adding 6 trillion dollars to the debt increasing it by 60%? Please do not answer the question "he just changed his mind" or "the Republicans would not let him tax the wealthy" or "it was president Bush's fault" or "you have to spend money to be able to cut the debt". There are only two answers, one is "yes" and the other is "no" so please do not answer with any other answer other than yes or no.

May 17, 2012 at 8:26 p.m.
alprova said...

Frances wrote: "alprova, You are a lying sack of s%$t. Read the bill stupid. Read what the judge said that ruled against the bell."

I did. US District Judge Katherine B. Forrest ruled the NDAA 2012 likely violates the 1st and 5th Amendments. Issuing a preliminary injunction prevents the US government from enforcing section 1021 of the NDAA's "Homeland Battlefield" provisions pending further order of the court or an amendment to the statute by US Congress.

Section 1021, in its final version, includes the power to detain, via the Armed Forces, any person "who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners", and anyone who commits a "belligerent act" against the U.S. or its coalition allies in aid of such enemy forces, under the law of war, "without trial, until the end of the hostilities authorized by the [AUMF]." The text authorizes trial by military tribunal, or "transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin", or transfer to "any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity."

Now Francis, you are free to quote any sentence from the bill and link to it, that states anything close to your prior claim that people who speak in disagreement with the Government are subject to the above actions, but you and I know that you will not be doing that anytime soon, don't we?

"And guess what Alice, I retrieved this article from a liberal news outlet stupid. No one believes your liberals lies anymore you wimp ass POS. LOL!"

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867es/pdf/BILLS-112s1867es.pdf

Knock yourself out. There's the link to the entire bill. Please feel free to cut and paste any relevant section that you feel supports your claim that an American exercising his or her free speech rights, is subject to detention and/or arrest by the military and can be held indefinitely without a trial.

Francis, your ignorance is astounding but has come to define you as a person in this forum.

Your anger and typical responses when called on the carpet for your B.S. is quite expected and typical.

You are in need of some professional assistance to help you deal with the black helicopters circling over your home 24 hours a day, because goodness knows that if someone could be arrested for expressing negative views in conjunction with your expressed opinion today about The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, you would have been detained this past January.

May 17, 2012 at 8:51 p.m.
joneses said...

Alice,

If you would have removed your sisters panties from of your ass you might have been able to pay attention to what is actually going on with this bill.

(b) COVERED PERSONS.-A covered person under this section is any person as follows: (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks. A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

This paragraph starts out by reiterating the authority granted to the President under the AUMF, the power to detain those involved in the execution of the terrorist attacks of 9/11. It then expands this authority, extending it to allow him to detain any person that he feels has committed a belligerent act. What is a "belligerent act"?

The fact is that the term "belligerent" can be taken to mean many different things. This is one of the main criticisms of the law. What is a belligerent act? You'll have to ask the President.

Pay close attention to (1)- "the end of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force" refers to the undeclared "War on Terror". Basically, the President is required to release his detainees when the War on Terror ends. Since the War on Terror is indefinite, the 2012 NDAA allows the President to hold detainees indefinitely, without the requirement of a trial.

This would appear to directly contradict the 6th amendment requirement for a "speedy and public trial."

This is why the judge ruled against this moron. You are really that stupid aren't you?

Maybe after you get your sisters panties out of your ass you can remove your head from obastards.

You look foolish now don't you? LOL

May 17, 2012 at 9:59 p.m.
moonpie said...

Harp,

Very sorry to jump to a conclusion. It's what I understood from your post. Your clarification was much more specific. I imagine you even have specific examples which some of us would find illuminating.

Indeed, it can be difficult to learn if you are in compliance at times because different things are overseen by varied departments at local, state and federal levels.

We have tried to learn if we are in compliance on certain issues and have had conflicting information about to which department we need to report to. Sometimes when we know the correct department, they merely refer us to the inscrutable annotated code which could be interpreted differently.

We have actually been told on one occassion that a department could not tell us if we were in compliance; however, we would find out when we are inspected.... If not in compliance, we could be fined.

So thanks for the clarification. I always welcome dialogue. That's why I ask you questions. I don't blankly assume you are wrong. You have to admit, that unlike face to face conversations, it's a little more laborious to get full understanding of nuance.

So thanks again. Although I'm still not sure how the tax assessment would work.

I'm glad you started posting again. You are a reasonable voice from the right of center.

May 17, 2012 at 10:39 p.m.
alprova said...

Francis wrote: "Alice, If you would have removed your sisters panties from of your ass you might have been able to pay attention to what is actually going on with this bill."

Do tell...

"(b) COVERED PERSONS.-A covered person under this section is any person as follows: (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks. A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces."

I already quoted the above. Nowhere does it specify anyone exercising their free speech rights could be included.

"This paragraph starts out by reiterating the authority granted to the President under the AUMF, the power to detain those involved in the execution of the terrorist attacks of 9/11. It then expands this authority, extending it to allow him to detain any person that he feels has committed a belligerent act. What is a "belligerent act"?"

A belligerent act is defined as an act committed by an individual, group, country or other entity which acts in a hostile manner, such as engaging in combat. Look it up.

"The fact is that the term "belligerent" can be taken to mean many different things. This is one of the main criticisms of the law. What is a belligerent act? You'll have to ask the President."

Sorry Francis, but you're not going to find any definition anywhere of "belligerant" that involves the use of a person's mouth to express their free speech rights, as you previously claimed.

Don't you know how to Google something before you go spouting off about it? You are a class A fool.

"This is why the judge ruled against this moron. You are really that stupid aren't you?"

Uh no...I guess that description falls on your shoulders. No ruling came down against the President. The bill wasn't his idea or creation. Congressional Republicans sponsored that bill and overwhelmingly voted for it. The President signed it under protest, as I pointed out earlier.

"You look foolish now don't you? LOL"

Don't think so. I'm still looking for the proof that simply speaking one's mind in disagreement with our Government can land an American in military custody indefinitely, as you previously claimed.

You're totally ignorant and you apparently are the only person not to know it.

May 17, 2012 at 11:59 p.m.
joneses said...

Alice,

You just proved a point. You are to stupid to acknowledge facts. Obastard signed the bill did he not moron? Do you not understand that the ACLU, NY Times, Human Rights Watch and a Judge from Manhatten ruled against this and you still are so stupid you think it is a good bill? You are really that stupid aren't you? Please stop you do not have to prove anymore what an idiot you are. It is pathetic you do not even realize what a fool you are. On your way to bail your wife out of jail after being arrested for prostitution last night on 23rd street where you met her think about what an idiot you are. You have not the power to convince the ACLU, NY Times and Human Rights Watch you are right so with that in mind you are not convincing anyone this bill is good. Give it up loser. This bill leaves interpretation up to the president and sets it up where he can decide what "belligerent" is. So therefore moron it gives obastard the power to determine who gets detained and who does not just for being what obastard decides as being "belligerent". A first year law student could see this as an attack on freedoms. But then again you are still in first grade as you still do not know what the color blue is you pathetic loser. The point is this part of the bill gives obastard more power than the constitution allows. But you are to stupid to see that. This falls in line with what Valerie Jarrett saying "Obastard will be ready to rule from day one" stupid.

“ Due process would be a thing of the past. ” -Charles C. Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar, four star generals, in a New York Times editorial.

“ The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield. ” -Anthony D. Romero, ACLU executive director.

“ By signing this defense spending bill, President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law. ” -Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch.

May 18, 2012 at 5:46 a.m.
joneses said...

The co-chair of Barack Obama's Transition Team, Valerie Jarrett, appeared on Meet the Press and used, shall we say, an interesting word to described what she thinks Barack Obama will be doing in January when he's officially sworn into office. She told Tom Brokaw that Obama will be ready to "rule" on day one. It's a word that reflects the worst fears that people have for Obama the "arrogant," the "messiah," that imagines he's here to "rule" instead of govern. Jarret told Brokaw that "given the daunting challenges that we face, it's important that president elect Obama is prepared to really take power and begin to rule on day one.

May 18, 2012 at 6:05 a.m.
joneses said...

Norman Mattoon Thomas (November 20, 1884 – December 19, 1968) was a leading American socialist, pacifist, and six-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America.

The majority of present-day Democrats don't know what they are. They don't understand the issues, can't even identify the major politicians that shape our government, and have no cohesive philosophy.

So many Democrats, principally the self-professed ultra liberal ones, don't even understand the definition of the terms they are dealing with. For example, if someone is touting a new government program, all they have to do to lure the clueless, hapless Liberal is to present the idea as being the fulfillment of social justice, that it is a program of generosity. Libs eat this stuff up, but they don't realize what is being put before them is pure Socialism.

Soviet dictator Khrushchev once observed: "We can't expect the American people to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism."

"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas

You may think I am being dismissive of Democrats, but in my experience, Conservatives think, Liberals just feel. I once had a heated argument with a Liberal. When I produced a copy of the Constitution and conclusively proved that what he was talking about was not written there, he didn't admit that he was wrong. He just shot back, "Oh yeah? Well......... it should be!"

That is the Liberal attitude in a nutshell. They don't care about reality. They believe that whatever they conceive as being best should be adopted, no matter whether it is sensible, practical, or if it is even Constitutional. Source(s): These are the modern Democrats.

May 18, 2012 at 6:10 a.m.
alprova said...

Francis wrote: "Alice, You just proved a point. You are to stupid to acknowledge facts. Obastard signed the bill did he not moron? Do you not understand that the ACLU, NY Times, Human Rights Watch and a Judge from Manhatten ruled against this and you still are so stupid you think it is a good bill?"

I'm not defending the bill or its contents at all. Of course the bill has problems and issues that need to be resolved. Presidents are forced to sign bills they disagree with all the time.

It was passed with a two-thirds majority of Congress.

"You have not the power to convince the ACLU, NY Times and Human Rights Watch you are right so with that in mind you are not convincing anyone this bill is good. Give it up loser."

You can whine, call me names, speak ill of my wife, and rant all you want, but what you are still failing to answer to is my challenge to your ignorant assertion that people can be detained indefinitely for speaking out against the Government -- your prior claim.

"This bill leaves interpretation up to the president and sets it up where he can decide what "belligerent" is."

B.S. -- I posted the definition of "belligerent." It is what it is. Your version of the word is meaningless and totally ignorant.

"So therefore moron it gives obastard the power to determine who gets detained and who does not just for being what obastard decides as being "belligerent"."

You're making all this up off the top of your head. There has been no court hearing or dialogue regarding the use of the word "belligerent."

The court challenges from day one have involved concerns for any U.S. citizen being detained by the military, indefinitely or otherwise, for crimes cited in section 1021. No court challenge cited any concern about Presidential powers, and none of them were about anyone being detained for exercising free speech against the Government.

"The point is this part of the bill gives obastard more power than the constitution allows."

The same kind of crap was raised when the Patriot Act was passed when GWB was in office. Same crap -- different President. Same crap -- different political party.

May 18, 2012 at 7 a.m.
joneses said...

Alice,

You are a fool if you think your spin is working. Obastard said in his State of the Union address in January of this year:

The executive branch also needs to change. Too often, the Executive Branch is inefficient, outdated and remote. That’s why I’ve asked this Congress to grant me the authority to consolidate the federal bureaucracy so that our Government is leaner, quicker, and more responsive to the needs of the American people.

It sounds like obastard is asking congress to give him, the executive branch more power. The Executive Branch was meant to be remote to limit the power of the president and now obastard wants to give himself more power to rule. Do you not see that obastard is all about him having more power? Do you not see how wrong this is. Are you that stupid? Apparently you are. This all falls in line with the power he seeks through the The National Defense Authorization Act as I have proven above. Obastard is all about positioning himself in a position to "rule". Get your head out of your ass and listen to what he and his blind followers say stupid. I have to get to work now so I can pay for you to sit on your sorry ass and continue to loot taxpayers like myself. Get a job moron.

May 18, 2012 at 7:16 a.m.
moonpie said...

joneses,

Answer the question, please. You are running from alprova.

If you are right, you don't need to run. Produce the language.

Here is the passage in question:

SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE. (a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war. (b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section is any person as follows: (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks. (2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces. (c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following: (1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force. (2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111–84)). (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction. (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity. (d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force. (e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States. (f) REQUIREMENT FOR BRIEFINGS OF CONGRESS.—The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be ‘‘covered persons’’ for purposes of subsection

May 18, 2012 at 8:01 a.m.
alprova said...

Francis quoted: "Due process would be a thing of the past." -Charles C. Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar, four star generals, in a New York Times editorial."

Also written in that same editorial, which was written BEFORE the bill was passed with a two-thirds majority of Congress, was;

"Having served various administrations, we know that politicians of both parties love this country and want to keep it safe. But right now some in Congress are all too willing to undermine our ideals in the name of fighting terrorism."

Neither General expressed any concern about the President when writing that editorial. Their concern extended to those in Congress who wrote, sponsored, introduced, and voted for the bill.

**"The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield." -Anthony D. Romero, ACLU executive director.

He also wrote, "While President Obama issued a signing statement saying he had “serious reservations” about the provisions, the statement only applies to how his administration would use it and would not affect how the law is interpreted by subsequent administrations."

"By signing this defense spending bill, President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law. ” -Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch."

The hypocrisy is so thick, you can cut it with a knife.

Francis, you have repeatedly identified yourself as being opposed to all things that involve Liberals, Democrats, or anything associated with the left-wing, correct?

Human Rights Watch was quite vocal in its opposition to the powers extended the military and then President, George Walker Bush, in the Patriot Reauthorization Act of 2005.

I've yet to read you reference the simple fact that similar wartime Presidential powers existed in that document that you are railing about now.

Your outrageous remarks and accusations about our current President will forever remain testimony to your utter ignorance.

President Obama was essentially forced to sign that legislation, and he did so while verbally citing his reservations and concerns about the rights of United States citizens at the time he signed it.

Your hatred for the man who happens to be our President prevents you from using your brain to discern fact from fiction, truth from lie, and that same hatred prevents you from adopting concepts regarding any and all logic.

You represent the most glaring example of an irrational human being imaginable.

May 18, 2012 at 8:05 a.m.
alprova said...

"Alice, You are a fool if you think your spin is working. Obastard said in his State of the Union address in January of this year: (quote snipped)"

What's this? Another diversion from addressing my challenge to your previous accusations? You're quite the dancer, aren't you? You tango around the truth all day long.

"This all falls in line with the power he seeks through the The National Defense Authorization Act as I have proven above."

1.) The President did not write, sponsor, introduce, or pass the bill in question. The powers awarded by Congress were not asked for by the President. The powers awarded by the Congress to the military were not asked for either.

2.) You have proven nothing. You have made wild and unsubstantiated accusations, at best.

"Obastard is all about positioning himself in a position to "rule". Get your head out of your ass and listen to what he and his blind followers say stupid."

You are hopeless.

"I have to get to work now so I can pay for you to sit on your sorry ass and continue to loot taxpayers like myself. Get a job moron."

Don't worry about me. I assure you, I am quite self-supported.

Your lashing out at me will never in a million years hide the simple fact that you cannot back up your claims.

May 18, 2012 at 8:24 a.m.
joneses said...

Alice,

You are a liar.

Obama rose to power like a typical Marxist by organizing the urban poor. 

Obama’s sympathies and origins are Marxist and It may help to consider the similarities and the differences between a Communist and a Fascist. Let me start with the similarities. Both Marxists and Fascists are Statists who favor big government. Both begin with powerful, charismatic leaders who want to run all-powerful central governments. 

As another similarity, both Marxists and Fascists want to destroy the middle class. Middle class folks are independent and responsible. They resent the burden of government regulations and taxes. They want the freedom to work hard to improve their own lives and the lives of their children. At least in America, those who see themselves as middle class usually don’t believe in big government and the welfare state. 

In short, both Marxists and Fascists want charismatic leaders to take over the government and to strengthen its power; and in order to accomplish these ends, both Marxists and Fascists try to suppress a vigorous middle class. 

Where the Marxists and the Fascists differ is in their publicly declared constituencies or power bases. Fascists tend to locate their power in the wealthy classes, especially in the leaders of large companies and industries. Their goal is to manage the existing economic structure from the top down. This is the surprising and shocking direction that Obama has taken since becoming president. Obama built his original power base from a Marxist, internationalist viewpoint. But those who claim to advocate for the poor are now safely in his political corner. They helped get him into power and they have no alternative leaders—none whatsoever. 

Immediately after his election, Obama began to focus on taking control over the political establishment and especially corporate America. He made corporate America his new constituency and doled out billions to it. Even when some companies did not want the money, he forced it on them. In that way, Obama seized control of the economic engine from the top down, and made the CEOs and their Boards afraid of him and dependent upon him. 

So is Obama going to turn out to be a Marxist or a Fascist—or something else? It all depends on what Obama has to do to maintain power. His long-term goal is that of all Statists—to use the government to gain as much power and as much control over the nation’s citizenry as possible.

We often talk of entitlements in regard to government handouts. There’s another kind of entitlement that is key to understanding Obama. Obama is not driven by ideology as much as by his self-righteous sense of personal entitlement to run the country. Like most people who feel entitled to bend and break the rules to their own advantage, opportunism is Obama’s ideology.



May 18, 2012 at 8:25 a.m.
joneses said...

Alice,

More proof stupid.

Does America Have its first Marxist President?  You bet it does and Here’s the Verification:  9 June 2009 © www.BarackObamaWebPage.com   Founded in 1992, the New Party is a Marxist political coalition whose objective is to endorse and elect leftist public officials - most often Democrats. The New Party’s immediate objective is to turn the Democrat Party hard left, in an attempt to create a new Marxist party. Most New Party members come from the Democratic Socialists of America, the hard left organization ACORN and an assortment of Maoists, Trotskyites, and Communist Party USA members.  It was very active in Chicago, with membership including none other than BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA. Since his ascent to prominence, there have been attempts at “scrubbing” New Party references of Obama having been a member or their even having provided support in his early elections.  But thanks to a concerned reader of www.BarackObamaWebPage.com, we have obtained archival material proving that Barack Hussein Obama is the first Marxist Socialist President of the United States. The adoring mainstream press has worked feverishly to cover up Obama's dedication to Marxist ideology going back to his teenage years.  But substantiation of New Party membership can be seen by the following documents in pdf format.  So you don't have to read documents in their entirety unless interested, we have yellow highlighted the name of Barack Obama for convenient recognition.  Click for Document 1, Document 2.  New Party Support can be seen in Document 3.

May 18, 2012 at 8:29 a.m.
joneses said...

alice,

More proof you are a gullible idiotic sheep being led to slaughter.

Obama’s Early and Continued Infatuation with the Left October 29, 2008 © Michael G. LeventhalBarackObamaWebPage.com Beginning in his teenage years, Obama sought out a black father substitute.  In some way, this would compensate for being deserted by a left wing, Black, Kenyan, womanizing, alcoholic father. Gravitating towards the hard left, he turned to Black radicals who were equally alienated from white society. During his teenage Hawaii years, Obama became close with the poet Frank Marshall Davis, a hard core Communist Party member, hater of America and Christianity.  Davis was one of the many "father figures" the emotionally fragile Obama sought out as a substitute for the father that deserted him. It was Davis who crystallized Barack Hussein Obama's racist, anti-American views.  His motto was "never trust white people." In later years, this mantle would be taken up by Chicago's anti-American racist Preacher Jeremiah Wright.  This father figure/mentor relationship publicly lasted for twenty years, until 2008 when voters were confronted with movies of Wright's racism and anti-American ravings in its vilest form.  Obama publicly pulled away, at least until the Presidential elections were over. But Black or White, Obama always gravitated to people who wanted to remake America into a more collectivist image.  He would reinvent his deceased Marxist father's reputation, by transforming America into the Socialist state he would want.  When Obama claims that he wants to "change America as we know it," he really means what he says.

May 18, 2012 at 8:31 a.m.
joneses said...

alice,

I own you but believe me I am not proud of owning an imbecile. You are not as sharp as you think you are. Just supporting obastard proves you to be a gullible fool.

May 18, 2012 at 8:33 a.m.
ibshame said...

Joneses, About the only thing you own is the title of being a demented, ignorant, bigot. You have not provided one iota of proof of President Barack Obama being a Marxist. Not one. I understand why you are so in an uproar of what you perceive as President Obama's power to limit free speech. Just think if you couldn't post the BS you post what would you do? LOL You are the gullible one because what you see as fact is merely someone else's opinion.

May 18, 2012 at 9:03 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

Yaaaaawwwwnnnn!! I WANT MY HOSENPHEFFER!!!

May 18, 2012 at 9:21 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/new-york-times-obama-socialist_644226.html

Note that this a New York Times article. Obama's very own newspaper.

May 18, 2012 at 9:34 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Please, can we lose the Alice and Francis deal?

May 18, 2012 at 9:55 a.m.
ibshame said...

"TOES02800 said... http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/new-york-times-obama-socialist_644226.html

Note that this a New York Times article. Obama's very own newspaper"

Note if anyone cares to read the WHOLE ARTICLE from the New York Times and not some blogger's opinion about what the article is stating then one would find the New York Times is not calling President Obama a Marxist or a Socialist. Instead the article states the new president of France's economic policies are more suited to that of the United States but they depart in matters of foreign policy. No where in the ENTIRE article does the New York Times say Barack Obama is a Socialist or a Marxist.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/08/world/europe/hollandes-economic-policy-may-better-suit-the-us.html?_r=1

May 18, 2012 at 10:01 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

Howsa bout dem Braves? You know, I would hope that with all of the meaningless regulations out there, there would be one against leaving sharp, jagged and protruding metal sticking out of the ground when you hacksaw street signs down.

May 18, 2012 at 10:03 a.m.
joneses said...

ibshame,

Bigot, get real you moron. You do not even know what a bigot is. I do not like the white half of obama either. I do not like Bill Ayers or George Soros for the same reason and they are white stupid. You have shown how inept you are by playing the race card. Look at what obastard has done and said and that is all the proof I need to prove he is a Marxist. It is people like you who are so blind and stupid you cannot see what he is doing to this country. Surely you are not that big of an idiot to believe he has done a good job. Everything he has done has been a complete failure and you and the rest of your sheep are to stupid to acknowledge this. It is amazing how blind you are. I do appreciate you reading all my post and maybe one day they will open your blind eyes.

May 18, 2012 at 10:08 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

The very last sentence says exactly this, "....is Obama (more or less) a socialist? Now when you have the most truthful newspaper in the world asking that question, you have to wonder. It never even gave the question a chance for a "no" answer. Just (more or less)a socialist. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck.......

May 18, 2012 at 10:12 a.m.
davisss13 said...

Republicans are jackasses. This election is going to be a showcase in Atwater/Rove GOP morality.

May 18, 2012 at 10:16 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

Wrong again, it's actually the democrats who are the jackasses. It's on their buttons.

would you rather be able to pay your bills, or be destitute but moral?

Obama's turning this country into one of "strive for mediocracy" instead of "strive for greatness". Because it seems that if we strive to be great and succeed, we immediately become targets of the liberals for doing better than somebody else.

So instead of "forward" as the new slogan, it should really say "strive for mediocracy"!

May 18, 2012 at 10:21 a.m.

A comment on the NDAA argument above. Alprova thinks the definition of belligerent is set in stone. That is what we all thought about "is" until Clinton turned that word on it's head. The same reality acrobatics could apply to anything in a court of law when a president is involved. The government is your enemy. That is why we had so many protections from it included in the founding documents.

May 18, 2012 at 10:22 a.m.
alprova said...

FPSE, the definition of a "belligerent act" is indeed set in stone.

A belligerent act involves waging an act of violence, such as taking up arms against our military members, as it applies in that defense bill.

It does not and never will involve someone verbally speaking out against the Government, as Francis claimed.

I again wish to state that I am in no manner defending the language in that bill that provides that any American arrested on U.S. soil can be held by the military indefinitely without access to our civilian courts.

But then, now that certain provisions are now signed and codified into law, if any American is caught taking up arms in sympathy with known terrorists or aids a known enemy in actions against our military, then I say they give up all rights as an American, up to and including any right to our legal justice system.

May 18, 2012 at 11:01 a.m.
quietreader said...

This cartoon has been beat to death. Why not change things up and draw one about the walkinghorse idiots.

May 18, 2012 at 11:31 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Davissss: Atwater/Rove morality? What is that like?

May 18, 2012 at 11:34 a.m.
ibshame said...

"TOES02800 said... The very last sentence says exactly this, "....is Obama (more or less) a socialist? Now when you have the most truthful newspaper in the world asking that question, you have to wonder. It never even gave the question a chance for a "no" answer. Just (more or less)a socialist. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck......."

No, the very last sentence in the New York Times Articles is printed below. What you are quoting from is some blogger's opinion of the article, NOT THE ARTICLE PUBLISHED BY THE NEW YORK TIMES. No where in the Article does it state President Obama is a Socialist or a Marxist. That is all in the interpretation provided by the blogger from the right wing "Weekly Standard."

"President Obama called Mr. Hollande after his victory and invited him to meet with him in Washington in advance of international meetings there and in Chicago this month."

May 18, 2012 at 11:49 a.m.
ibshame said...

Something I don't usually do but to prove a point here is the ENTIRE ARTICLE FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES:

Change in Paris May Better Fit U.S. Economic PositionsBy ANNIE LOWREY WASHINGTON — With the victory of the Socialist candidate, François Hollande, in the French presidential election, the White House has lost one of its closest allies on the Continent, but perhaps gained one with economic policy beliefs more closely aligned with its own.

Mr. Hollande is virtually unknown in Washington, and his policy positions on both domestic and international affairs remain only lightly sketched out. That is in stark contrast to the departing president, Nicolas Sarkozy, whose frequent discussions with and ardent defense of the White House earned him the nickname “Sarko the American” back home.

But in the past few months, Mr. Sarkozy has parted from the White House in his support of the German-led austerity project in the debt-soaked euro zone, a project that the White House objects to on the grounds that cutting budgets too soon will lead to sluggish growth and high unemployment across Europe without satisfying the demands of skittish bond investors.

Mr. Hollande, in contrast, ran on a promise of rebalancing Europe away from austerity and toward growth, and his narrow victory is seen in Washington as a public rejection of governments imposing strict cuts on battered economies.

“Austerity need not be Europe’s fate,” Mr. Hollande said shortly after his victory. To that end, he has said he plans to renegotiate the fiscal pact Europe struck this winter to allow for more budgetary breathing room for countries that can still borrow money to support themselves at reasonable rates on the debt markets. He also supports measures to support growth by, for instance, bolstering infrastructure spending.

The Obama administration had pushed for such pro-growth policy changes even as Mr. Sarkozy joined Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany in calling for deep spending cuts.

“If every time economic growth disappoints, governments are forced to cut spending or raise taxes immediately to make up for the impact of weaker growth on deficits, this would risk a self-reinforcing negative spiral of growth-killing austerity,” Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner told a Congressional committee in March, comments echoed since then in his statements at many international forums.

“The administration hopes, in broad terms, that this election will change the conversation,” said Edwin M. Truman, a senior fellow at the Peter G. Peterson Institute for International Economics. “In principle, you’d be saying, ‘Don’t tighten your belt!’ to the countries with the scope to do so,” Mr. Truman said.

May 18, 2012 at 11:55 a.m.
ibshame said...

cONT: Mr. Truman noted that Mr. Hollande would be “adding some supportive material to make the compact more growth-friendly,” rather than starting from scratch.

The official said that the White House did not know the details of how the French president-elect hoped to change the compact, but that many options were on the table, including delaying some austerity measures, bolstering the Continent’s methods for recapitalizing its banks and evening out imbalances between countries with big deficits and those with surpluses.

Observers said that though Mr. Hollande was likely to hew closer to the Obama administration on economic issues, he would almost certainly move further away from it on foreign and military policy.

Mr. Sarkozy had led a significant rapprochement between the French and American governments on foreign affairs, joining Washington in promoting harsh new penalties for Iran and playing a leading role in gathering an international coalition to topple the Libyan dictator, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, among other actions.

In a briefing Monday, a State Department spokesman, Mark C. Toner, acknowledged the administration’s closeness to Mr. Sarkozy, and said he hoped that the bilateral relationship would deepen with Mr. Hollande.

“We’re going to have an opportunity to sit down at the highest levels, the president with President-elect Hollande, to discuss all these issues,” he said. “I’m not going to prejudge in any way how those discussions might go.”

Mr. Hollande has a reputation as conciliatory and consensus-driven, and Obama administration officials stressed that they expected a close ally in his government.

In an interview with the Web magazine Slate.fr, Mr. Hollande — who noted that he speaks English — praised the Obama administration’s foreign policy and said that the countries had a “convergence” on economic issues. In the past, he has expressed skepticism about some United States positions on military issues.

President Obama called Mr. Hollande after his victory and invited him to meet with him in Washington in advance of international meetings there and in Chicago this month.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/08/world/europe/hollandes-economic-policy-may-better-suit-the-us.html?_r=2

May 18, 2012 at 11:56 a.m.
ibshame said...

""TOES02800 said... The very last sentence says exactly this, "....is Obama (more or less) a socialist? Now when you have the most truthful newspaper in the world asking that question, you have to wonder. It never even gave the question a chance for a "no" answer. Just (more or less)a socialist. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck......."

Now if you could only pick out the EXACT SENTENCE AS YOU HAVE STATED ABOVE FROM THE ARTICLE. lol A blogger's opinion is not the NEW YORK TIMES.

May 18, 2012 at 12:04 p.m.
ibshame said...

TOES02800 said... The very last sentence says exactly this, "....is Obama (more or less) a socialist? Now when you have the most truthful newspaper in the world asking that question, you have to wonder. It never even gave the question a chance for a "no" answer. Just (more or less)a socialist. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck......."

So, to be sure you understand the difference between an OPINION by a blogger as to what an article is saying as opposed to what the article is ACTUALLY saying I'm going to post the article you are so sure is from the NEW YORK TIMES. Again compare the two and show me and everyone else where the last sentence you claim is in the NEW YORK TIMES IS AS YOU STATED. IF YOU NOTICE THE TITLE OF THE NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE IS NOT "OBAMA IS A SOCIALIST." Instead that is the title the blogger chose to use to get someone like you and joneses attention.

New York Times: Obama Is a Socialist William Kristol May 8, 2012 10:08 AM

We've been skeptical of the arguments by some of our brethren on the right that Barack Obama is a quasi-socialist or a crypto-socialist ... or just a plain old socialist. But now the New York Times is weighing in, in favor of the proposition.

In an article, "Change in Paris May Better Fit U.S. Economic Positions," the Times reports:

'With the victory of the Socialist candidate, François Hollande, in the French presidential election, the White House has lost one of its closest allies on the Continent, but perhaps gained one with economic policy beliefs more closely aligned with its own....Mr. Hollande seems 'naturally more palatable to the administration,' said Justin Vaïsse, the director of research for the Center on the United States and Europe at the Brookings Institution....Observers said that...Mr. Hollande was likely to hew closer to the Obama administration on economic issues....Mr. Hollande...said that the countries had a 'convergence' on economic issues.' So, according to the Times, the French Socialist is 'closely aligned with,' 'naturally more palatable to,' and 'likely to hew closer to' the Obama administration on economic issues. Is, therefore, Barack Obama (more or less) a socialist?"

WHERE IN THE NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE DOES IT ASK THIS QUESTION? THIS WHOLE BLOG FROM KRISTOL IS NOTHING MORE THAN CONJECTURE ON HIS PART AS TO WHAT THE NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE IS STATING ABOUT THE RESULTS OF THE ELECTION IN PARIS

May 18, 2012 at 12:20 p.m.
hambone said...

FrancisTROLLMONKEYjones?

May 18, 2012 at 12:25 p.m.
mymy said...

Hey smarty pants ibshame: Hollande is proposing a 75% tax and the rich are getting ready to leave.

No wonder O is overjoyed to meet him. You are too stupid to see where O is headed!

May 18, 2012 at 12:31 p.m.
alprova said...

mymy wrote: "You are too stupid to see where O is headed!"

Wherever the President is headed, one thing for sure is that it will be far more interesting and exciting than where you go during your average day.

You seem to be very enamored with landing on the Fox News channel -- not a very interesting destination, to say the least.

May 18, 2012 at 12:38 p.m.
mymy said...

Alprova: You are such a fool and deserve no response from anyone! So roll around in your stupidity like a pig in mud.

May 18, 2012 at 12:54 p.m.
News_Junkie said...

More bad news for Romney on the polling front:

In Gallup polling conducted earlier this month, 60 percent said Obama was the more likeable of the two presidential nominees while 31 percent called former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney more likeable.

And in a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, 56 percent of respondents said they had a favorable opinion of Obama while just 35 percent said the same of Romney.

To read the entire article, go to: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/why-a-jeremiah-wright-attack-probably-wont-work/2012/05/17/gIQAXOqCWU_blog.html?wpisrc=nl_politics

May 18, 2012 at 1:34 p.m.
timbo said...

alprova..... You are as dense as mountainlaurel... I am not talking about buying houses, I am talking about financing the 10-100 employee business that are the cornerstone of our economy. You know the ones that aren't subsidized by the government that take raw materials and make something and sell it. We don't need the Small Business Administration (Who loans very little money themselves, they guarantee half of a commercial loan) for handouts. We need financing unencumbered by the stupid government.

You imbeciles are so dumb you work against your own interests. Is it better for the owners of a business and the employees getting the money or the government?

I will quote the idiot VP Biden about liberals and businessmen, "..You people just don't get us." Yea, Biden I do get you...a millionaire who started a political career without a pot to piss in who made money as a career politician. How do these politicians make so much money without working a real job??????? Even dumba$$es like you can figure that out.

May 18, 2012 at 1:38 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Jack Dennis said: ““Wicky-Laura: You're incorrigible.”

Timbo said: “mountainlaurel .......you are an idiot.”

Please, get real, guys. . . It’s the two of you that are arguing that its OK for big bankers, Wall Streeters, and the rest of the financial industry to gamble and take big risks with the taxpayers' money - talk about idiocy and incorrigibility.. . . Indeed, one would think the two of you would have learned a little something from the financial collapse of 2008. . . But I guess not.

May 18, 2012 at 1:49 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Harp3339 said: “I have doubts you would know a free market if it hit you in the buttock. I doubt anyone here is old enough to have seen a truly free market with some government regulations but no interference in the business via tax breaks, incentives and payola to get support and voters.

Well, good afternoon, Harp3339. Welcome back. Where have you been?

As to your accusation and your statement about a “truly free market,” I understand the difference between a “free market” and “crony capitalism:”

“Wall Street bankers, along with the rest of the players in the financial industry, like to think of themselves as swashbuckling capitalists. They battle cutthroat competition with one hand and oppressive government bureaucracy with the other. In reality, the financial industry is deeply dependent on the government. Far from the rugged, go-it-alone types they wish they were, they are more like well-dressed, coddled adolescents. And this is true in good times and bad.

The industry’s dependency takes five main forms:

• an explicit safety net provided by government deposit insurance;

• an implicit safety net provided by “too big to fail”;

• a special privilege of being the only untaxed casino;

• an open invitation to raid state and local governments for fees;

• a right to change contract terms after the fact.

These dependencies are entrenched, and, despite loud protests to the contrary, the removal of government from the financial sector is not really on the agenda. The issue up for debate is not the virtues of the free market versus government regulation. The industry wants government regulation, just not in a way that curtails its profits.

In thinking about regulation, then, we need a fuller appreciation of the industry’s dependency on government. This will not tell us what to do, but it should open the door to a debate about regulatory reform that takes up the real question: will regulation be structured in a way that advances the public interest or in a way that allows the financial sector to profit at society's expense?”

http://bostonreview.net/BR35.1/baker.php

May 18, 2012 at 1:57 p.m.
timbo said...

mountainlaurel...Do you even read the posts we make...I said they should punish the banks that do wrong but not the ones that don't..

You are misquoting both Jack and I.

You liberals remind me of some mentally challenged kid who watches the same "Barney" tape over..and over...and over...

Quit commenting on something you know nothing about. You look like a complete fool to those of us who do.

May 18, 2012 at 1:58 p.m.
mymy said...

News_Junkie: I'm not voting on personality and neither will people when they go to the voting booth in Nov. if they care/understand about the direction O is taking this country.

Poll results depend on Who is polled, Who is doing the polling and How the question is ask. I prefer Rasmussen because it polls Likely voters.

"Our firm has been a pioneer in the use of automated telephone polling techniques, but many other firms still utilize their own operator-assisted technology (see methodology). Pollsters for Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton have cited our "unchallenged record for both integrity and accuracy."

"During Election 2008, Rasmussen Reports projected that Barack Obama would defeat John McCain by a 52% to 46% margin. Obama was 53% to 46%. In 2004, Rasmussen Reports was the only firm to project the vote totals for both candidates within half a percentage point".

Here is today results:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows Mitt Romney earning 46% of the vote and President Obama attracting 44% support. Four percent (4%) would vote for a third party candidate, while another six percent (6%) are undecided.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

May 18, 2012 at 2:09 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Timbo said: "mountainlaurel...Do you even read the posts we make...I said they should punish the banks that do wrong but not the ones that don't..You are misquoting both Jack and I. You liberals remind me of some mentally challenged kid who watches the same "Barney" tape over..and over...and over...Quit commenting on something you know nothing about. You look like a complete fool to those of us who do."

As I recall, your original complaint was about banking "regulations," Timbo.

TIMBO SAID “The problem is not with regulating banks, it is with regulating ALL banks. Even the ones that did not cause the problems.”

MOUNTAIN LAUREL RESPONDED: “But smaller banks are explicitly exempted from most of the requirements in Dodd-Frank bill, Timbo. So exactly what are you talking about here? As I recall, the Independed Community Bankers of American president applauded the new law because it helped to “level the regulatory and competititive playing field for community banks." They were particulary pleased with the higher capital and liquity requirements for the bigger banks, the Volcker rule, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the new rules that force bigger banks to pay more in deposit insurance. I have read some small bank complaints about insider trading and executive compensation provisions in the Dodd-Frank bill, but this is about it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/gop-candidates-say-dodd-frank-kills-small-banks-the-banks-beg-to-differ/2011/11/10/gIQAhgWJ9M_blog.html

May 18, 2012 at 2:17 p.m.
mymy said...

nooga: and O is doing what to grow the economy?

May 18, 2012 at 2:35 p.m.
timbo said...

mountainlaurel.. There are two problems with your retort...One is it is completely false and two it came from the Washington Post (Otherwise known as "emergency toilet paper") Get out your Barney tapes and leave the commenting to us adults.

May 18, 2012 at 2:38 p.m.
timbo said...

nooga...Bush was a big spending, Rino, idiot. The Republicans should be horse whipped for getting us $5 trillion in debt in 8 years. Neither party can help the economy but both can hurt it. Bush was bad, Obama is worse. He ran up the same debt as Bush in half the time. He runs the government like a high school kid runs a bake sale. It is hard to be dumber than Bush but Obama has done the impossible.

May 18, 2012 at 2:43 p.m.
davisss13 said...

Two terms as president, two congresses where they had a lock on power and the GD Republicans STILL won't accept responsibility for Bush.

Jesus, what does it take for you degenerate swine to stand up for what you've done?

May 18, 2012 at 2:54 p.m.
ibshame said...

"tu_quoque said...

Over the next 2 ½ hours and about 10,000 characters you rant on and on about this misunderstanding on your part. There’s hardly anything that you could possibly do to affirm your low grade mental state and debating style"

No, what toes attempted to do is to say the New York Times article claimed President Obama was a Socialist. I called him on it just as I call you on your attempts to post crap from right wing rags to support your fantasies. Your problem here is the fact I posted BOTH ARTICLES for the readers to see for themselves that it was NOT THE NEW YORK TIMES CALLING OBAMA A SOCIALIST RATHER IT WAS NONE OTHER THAN WILLIAM KRISTOL who was making that ascertion based on his interpretation of the article. Get a life, you are out of your league with me and I don't usually say that to anyone but it must be said to you.

"TOES02800 said... The very last sentence says exactly this, "....is Obama (more or less) a socialist? Now when you have the most truthful newspaper in the world asking that question, you have to wonder"

THE MOST TRUTHFUL NEWSPAPER IN THE WORLD DID NOT ASK THAT QUESTION AND IF YOU CAN SHOW WHERE THE ARTICLE FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES ASKS THAT QUESTION YOU WIN THE ARGUMENT BUT YOU CAN'T BECAUSE IT'S NOT THERE. That is why I posted both articles to prove my point. YOU ON THE OTHER HAND SHOW EXACTLY WHY YOU ARE AS DUMB AS SARAH PALIN.

May 18, 2012 at 4:56 p.m.
ibshame said...

"tu_quoque said... Noogies Haranges:

”According to news reports, former President George W. Bush -- whose administration ended as the global financial system collapsed collapsed -- is preparing to publish a book “outlining strategies for economic growth.”

I think I’ll go out on a limb here and say that someone punked you and you’re too low grade to realize you’ve been played. Of course you could always post your proof but we know you will not and can not."

Looks like you've been played AGAIN. Here is your PROOF:

"Coming This Summer: For $24.95, George W. Bush Will Share His ‘Strategies For Economic Growth’ By Pat Garofalo on May 16, 2012 at 10:45 am

Former President George W. Bush jumped back into presidential politics this week, endorsing presumptive 2012 GOP nominee Mitt Romney. He also, according to the New York Times, plans to release a book in two months that will lay out his advice on boosting economic growth:

Gingerly, the 43rd president is beginning to add his voice back into the national dialogue. A month ago, he spoke publicly in favor of one of his defining domestic legacies, the tax cuts that still divide the country. Two months from now, he plans to publish a book outlining strategies for economic growth. And on Tuesday, he made a rare return to Washington to promote freedom overseas."

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/05/16/484981/bush-economic-book/?mobile=nc

DON'T YOU GET TIRED OF LOOKING STUPID???

May 18, 2012 at 5:16 p.m.
mymy said...

nooga: NO, Obama has not done the best that could have been done. Just the opposite of what needed to be done. When he said "we are 5 days away from fundamentally changing this country." I knew what he meant. Socialism! You are a foolish person.

May 18, 2012 at 5:25 p.m.
ibshame said...

More like shooting fish in a barrel or shooting a herd of moose from a helicopter. LOL

May 18, 2012 at 5:26 p.m.
ibshame said...

"mymy said... nooga: NO, Obama has not done the best that could have been done. Just the opposite of what needed to be done. When he said "we are 5 days away from fundamentally changing this country." I knew what he meant. Socialism! You are a foolish person"

Yeah I'll bet the voices in your head tell you quite a bit. Too bad most of it is not reality.

May 18, 2012 at 5:28 p.m.
mymy said...

You should have been watching The Five on Fox. They just finished a discussion re France, etc......

May 18, 2012 at 5:34 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Timbo said: "mountainlaurel.. There are two problems with your retort...One is it is completely false and two it came from the Washington Post (Otherwise known as "emergency toilet paper") Get out your Barney tapes and leave the commenting to us adults."

You’re wrong, Timbo. The information in the Washington Post article IS correct. I tracked the information provided in the article to a news site for the Independent Community Bankers of America, and the information provided by the Washington Post IS there. The newsletter identified both the positives and negatives of the Dodd Frank bill from the perspective of the Independent Community Bankers of America organization. It was published July 15, 2010. The ICBA newsletter basically has three sections and identifies Dodd-Frank actions that they consider to be “Victories; Helpful Exemptions; and Harmful and Disappointing Measures." The Washington Post article included some of the Dodd-Frank actions from each section that the ICBA had identified in the newsletter. If in doubt, check-out the link below.

http://www.icba.org/files/ICBASites/NSPDFs/Frank-DoddSummary071510.pdf

May 18, 2012 at 5:40 p.m.
ibshame said...

"mymy said... You should have been watching The Five on Fox. They just finished a discussion re France, etc......"

Sorry but Fox is only good for the syndicated comedies they run each night. After all Fox is owned by Rupert Murdoch, the man an investigative committee of the British Parliament said wasn't fit to run News Corp. Why would anyone trust one of his companies to provide REAL NEWS?

May 18, 2012 at 5:45 p.m.
mymy said...

YOu are a foolish person!

May 18, 2012 at 5:47 p.m.
News_Junkie said...

Another unfavorable poll for Romney:

"according to a USA Today/Gallup poll released this week, 56% of those polled believe the president will cinch re-election this fall, compared to 36% percents who think Romney will win."

To read the entire article, go to: http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/17/politics/obama-likeability/index.html?hpt=hp_bn5

May 18, 2012 at 6:15 p.m.
alprova said...

Timbo wrote: "alprova..... You are as dense as mountainlaurel... I am not talking about buying houses, I am talking about financing the 10-100 employee business that are the cornerstone of our economy."

That's not what you wrote about in the post I responded to. You specifically brought up a conversation you had just had with a "real estate developer" and his inability to find financing.

I will be happy to respond to what you are whining about now. Business people with good credit, who have a long time in business, and a working relationship with a bank or banks, are not having any difficulty finding financing for their needs.

"You know the ones that aren't subsidized by the government that take raw materials and make something and sell it. We don't need the Small Business Administration (Who loans very little money themselves, they guarantee half of a commercial loan) for handouts. We need financing unencumbered by the stupid government."

I've owned several businesses over the years and I've borrowed all that I need without any assistance or guaranteed loans by the SBA, so I have no idea what you are rambling about, nor how it applies to a thing you are arguing.

"You imbeciles are so dumb you work against your own interests. Is it better for the owners of a business and the employees getting the money or the government?"

Again, what exactly are you referring to? Taxes?

"I will quote the idiot VP Biden about liberals and businessmen, "..You people just don't get us." Yea, Biden I do get you...a millionaire who started a political career without a pot to piss in who made money as a career politician. How do these politicians make so much money without working a real job??????? Even dumba$$es like you can figure that out."

I have no idea how Joe Biden made his fortune. I really don't care. And apparently, a back and forth between you and I is going to be next to impossible, because you are all over the place in what you are railing about.

Let's try again sometime when you can stick to one subject at a time.

May 18, 2012 at 7:09 p.m.
alprova said...

mymy wrote: "Alprova: You are such a fool and deserve no response from anyone! So roll around in your stupidity like a pig in mud."

Aw...gee, why not just come on out and tell me how you REALLY feel?

Your opinion of me is of no consequence. You're never going to score many points in the debate department by quoting Fox News all the time. But you feel free to go right ahead and keep on posting those useless links to them anyway.

May 18, 2012 at 7:17 p.m.
alprova said...

my my inquired: "and O is doing what to grow the economy?"

Silly person. He, like every other President who has been faced with a lagging economy, whips out his magic wand and has been waving it about.

Whether or not you and other people like yourself care to admit it, the economy across the nation has been slowly improving for most of the nearly three and a half years he has been in office, with a few setbacks along the way.

I'm in no manner making the claim that the President deserves all or even most of the credit, but he definitely deserves more credit than you and others like yourself would or ever will give him.

President Obama has done as good a job as President as John McCain would have done had he been elected. No matter which man had inherited the mess that this country was in at the time, he would have had his hands full.

Contrary to my previous statement above, no man who has held the office as President, has ever waved a magic wand and transformed this nation's economy from bad to good overnight, and never in three and a half years.

Do some research on that simple statement to discover the simple truth that every recession that this country has experienced has taken no less than eight years to recover from.

The deep recession of 2008 was doggone near as bad as the Great Depression. Aspects of it are still not over, but there is light beginning to illuminate the path for the people of this nation to find their way out from a long tunnel of hard times.

And if people are not allowed to repeat the same mistakes that led us here, such as people in the know taking short cuts to seek extreme amounts of profit, or scam artists being allowed to thrive unchecked, we might have a chance at another economic boom in a few years.

If you are not any better off than you were at the beginning of 2009, then the problem might lie within yourself and your inability to run your life, rather than with the President of the United States.

Nothing the President has done has had any great affect on my life, in both positive or negative terms. I dare offer that the same is true for everyone who participates on this board on a regular basis.

If I am incorrect, then I would love for them to specifically cite a thing the President has personally done since he has been in office that has directly impacted their life.

May 18, 2012 at 7:48 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

But it was Obama's promise to fix all of these "bush" problems in his first term.

And if what a president does has no effect on anyone's life both positive and negative, then how can you sit and blame Bush everyday ?

May 18, 2012 at 10 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Newsjunkie cites a liberal news network poll. HAHA! Nice try tard!

May 18, 2012 at 10:13 p.m.
mymy said...

alprova said.....Your opinion of me is of no consequence.

Back at ya as you roll in your stupidity like a pig in mud. You are a hoot!

May 18, 2012 at 10:18 p.m.
mymy said...

Toes: Posted that yesterday. It is interesting. It is part of "The Vetting", an ongoing series in which they explore the ideological background of President Obama (and other presidential candidates)--not to re-litigate 2008, but because ideas and actions have consequences.

WE are in the consequence stage now and the left here has no clue.

May 18, 2012 at 10:31 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

The ACTUAL proof that Obama is a socialist is his everyday policies that say the government is better than individual freedom. And quite frankly, we don't need any article to prove that.

May 18, 2012 at 11:10 p.m.
mymy said...

Toes: Agree. Watch what he does not what he says. Two different things.

May 18, 2012 at 11:15 p.m.
alprova said...

TOES02800 wrote: "And if what a president does has no effect on anyone's life both positive and negative, then how can you sit and blame Bush everyday ?"

I challenge you to quote any sentence I have ever written in this forum, blaming former President Bush for anything other than for leading this nation into the war in Iraq under false pretenses.

May 18, 2012 at 11:53 p.m.

Looks like quiet reader called the subject of the next cartoon correctly.

May 19, 2012 at 1:25 a.m.
chet123 said...

LISTEN TO TOESO2800 LIE HA HA HA HA HA...OBAMA IS A SOCIALIST ....HA HA HA....AT IT AGAIN TOESO2800 HA HA HA HA HA

YOU SAID OBAMA EVERYDAY POLICIES SAID THE GOVERNMENT IS BETTER THAN INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM!.....

ALL I CAN DO IS LAUGH...IF THATS NOT THE DUMBEST STATEMENT I'VE READ POSTED ON TFP IN WEEKS.....CALLING THE PRESIDENT A SOCIALIST HA HA HA HA HA....I THOUGHT YOU COULD BE MORE CREATIVE TOESO2800....YOU HAVE ALREADY USE THESE TERMS(SOCIALIST.COMMUNIST,ARAB,MUSLIMS,KENYAN BORN,TERRORIST,BOOGIEMAN,CON MAN,GREEN ALIEN,THATS NOT HIS REAL FACE ITS A MASK, FROM OUT OF SPACE)HA HA HA HA......YOU ARE BEING LAUGH AT TOE....BE MORE CREATIVE

YOU AND YOUR REPUBLICAN PARTY HAVE NERVES TO TALK ABOUT INDIVDUAL FREEDOM..HA HA HA HA..THIS THE PARTY THATS SUPRESSING MILLIONS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS FROM PARTICIPATING IN THE ELECTION..THE SAME REPUBLICAN PARTY THAT TAKING AWAY THE INDIDUAL RIGHT BY GIVING THE LARGE CORPORATION AND BILLIONAIRES THE RIGHT TO SMOTHER OUT AMERICAN PEOPLE VOICE......AND THIS CLOWNS TALKING ABOUT INDIVIDUAL RIGHT?????....THIS THE PARTY THAT SAYING CORPORATION ARE PEOPLE!!! HHA HA HA HA HA HA HA

THE PROBLEM WITH TOESO2800 IS THAT THIS POOR FELLOW DONT HAVE THE CAPACITY TO THINK AND HE IS VERY SHALLOW IN HIS THIKING...HES MOTIVATED BY HATE...I REALLY FEEL SORRY FOR TOESO2800..LIKE JONESES HE LAY IN THE BED AT NIGHT THINKING ABOUT OBAMA AS HE WATCHES THE CEILING ....HE READ ALL THE RIGHT-WINGS LINKS AND THINK ITS THE TRUTH OR HOPE SO HA HA HA......AND HE STUPID ENOUGH TO PRESENT FLAWED INFORMATION THAT HAVE LITTLE OR NO MERIT TO POSTERS ONLY TO HAVE POSTERS OF THE DEMOCRAT PARTY SHOOT IT DOWN WHILE THEY ARE LAUGHING AT HIM......THIS IS A TYPICAL BLUE COLLAR REPUBLICAN....GOING AGAINST THE INTEREST OF THEIR CHILDREN AND THEMSELVES.......HA HA HA.....REALLY AMAZING!!!

May 19, 2012 at 9:28 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

Go to hell little child muslim. Your father must have fondled you at some point. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!! AS#WIPE HAHAHAHAHA!!!! CHILD MOLESTER CHET HAHAHAHA!!!!!

May 19, 2012 at 11:39 a.m.
ibshame said...

"tu_quoque said...

So your evidence is that a blogger at a left wing rag says he read it in the NYT but by your own standards that is no evidence at all. I’ll even go as far as calling B.S. on the NYT and you until I see something else that collaborates their and your claims about this so called book. A one sentence reference in an article just isn’t going to get the job done. If the story is true there is other evidence out there but you won't because it is not true.

LMAO at you"

You really are dumber than a THIRD GRADER because you evidently flunked reading comprehension. You asked for proof that Bush was writing a book. Proof of the fact was provided to you not only from the blog but also all you had to do to check to see if the blogger was correct was google the info or check with the New York Times as I did for the article that was MISQUOTED by toes saying the New York Times had labeled President Obama a Socialist. The New York Times article NEVER labled President Obama a Socialist nor did it question whether or not he was a Socialist. William Kristol is the one who provided that question in his blog. NOT THE NEW YORK TIMES.
You aren't just stupid but you are arrogantly stupid. The proof is out there all over the internet as to Bush writing his book on Economic Growth. No matter what source you want to use. Once again go to the mirror and see who has the "poo" on his/her face. LMAO at you

May 21, 2012 at 11:20 a.m.
huynhhai said...

Glorious info here. This fascinating post made me smile. Possibly should you throw in a couple of footage it would make the whole thing more interesting.http://aluminumbusinesscards.co/ Anyway, in my language, there are not much good source like this.

November 28, 2012 at 5:11 a.m.
huynhhai said...

Hello, http://sdsufml.com I saw a 3 of your attention-grabbing posted posts and wished to ask if you happen to would http://sezonowi.org/ be concerned with http://portal-surf.com reciprocal pages? Team have blog about alexis texas ass! Anyway, in my language,that lung there usually are not a lot good source like this.http://selenasource.com/

ht

November 28, 2012 at 5:12 a.m.
huynhhai said...

You may be driving faster than you can see

January 2, 2013 at 10:39 p.m.
huynhhai said...

Excellent stuff from you, man. I’ve read your things before and you are just too awesome. You make it entertaining and you still manage to keep it smart ! I adore what you have got right here.

January 2, 2013 at 10:44 p.m.
huynhhai said...

Excellent stuff from you, man. I’ve read your things before and you are just too awesome. You make it entertaining and you still manage to keep it smart ! I adore what you have got right here.

November 7, 2013 at 11:22 a.m.
huynhhai said...

Hi, this is a very interesting article and I have enjoyed read­ing many of the arti­cles and posts con­tained on the web­site, keep up the good work and hope to read some more inter­est­ing con­tent in the future. I got a lot of useful and significant information. Thank you so much... http://cuitreem.vn

November 7, 2013 at 11:24 a.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.