obama is spending like crazy

[slacker00]

Dark Horse, if you called the peak; you literally could have made millions at least shorting the oil market. The question is why didn't you do it or did you? If so, Andy is right; you are socialist, so where is the money?

Anyways, next time you see Bernanke pick his nose as a tip off let me know!

Just because someone can spot the trends doesn't mean they can capitalize on it. It takes money to make money. Same with sports betting, the best cappers are sometimes ones that don't even have the bankroll to make betting worthwhile as a realistic occupation. I know there seems like an injustice in there somehow, but it's the cold reality.

[therber2]

Just pointing out Slacker that with little money; one can hit it big in the market or with gambling. Lack of bankroll is not a crutch. You look for things with high potential, high return, and low cost. If Dark Horse saw the "trends" he could have turned a small amount into an enormous one. A lot of people did this (without a large bankroll), and made a killing. The "best cappers" and best investors always save cash for opportunity.

[slacker00]

Just pointing out Slacker that with little money; one can hit it big in the market or with gambling. Lack of bankroll is not a crutch. You look for things with high potential, high return, and low cost. If Dark Horse saw the "trends" he could have turned a small amount into an enormous one. A lot of people did this (without a large bankroll), and made a killing. The "best cappers" and best investors always save cash for opportunity.

We'll simply have to agree to disagree. There's just no way to turn 10k into 100k overnight no matter what you know. There's no such thing as perfect information, such as using a time machine and going all-in over & over on some huge parlays or whatever. Reality dictates risk management, which simply doesn't allow ridiculous turnover unless someone was taking on way too much risk without realizing it or cooking the books or whatever.

[losturmarbles]

You know who these neonitwits remind me of? That character from The Matrix.... Cypher.

They would rather live ignorant in a make-believe world than wake up and face the hardship of truth.

The TRUTHS that they can't deal with:

1. 9/11 would've been prevented had Dumbya done even minimal work. Instead he was busy playing golf and jogging in hot weather.

2. Dumbya manipulated gas prices by filling up the SPR unnecessarily back in 2001; invading Iraq; refusing to release oil from SPR to lower gas prices; refusing to sign a mandate to raise MPG; De-valuing USD by 50% which hurt OPEC's buying power.

3. Dumbya IGNORED the Subprime crisis by FIRING the Fannie Mae regulator who had warned him of the dangers.

4. Neonitwit congress had NOTHING to do with the budget surplus of the 90s. It had everything to do with Clinton's tax hike, slashing military spending and NAFTA. The only thing the neonitwit congress did was NOT interfere.

OPEN YOUR EYES TO THE TRUTH, NEONITWITS!!!!!!

dagger its 2009, bush is no longer president...

1. why not say what you really think, that bush was behind 9/11. scared people wont take you serious?? dont worry no one does. you wont lose any credibility with that one.

2. using your logic, democrats manipulated gas prices by refusing to drill domestic. funny how you pick and choose what you want to blame for cause and effect. and you contradict what you imply should be done. rationality is not your strong suit is it?

3. are you seriously trying to solely blame bush for the housing market bubble??? seriously? funny how you left gse's out this time. of course because it exposes how foolish you and your argument is.

4. in a thread talking about the current democrat president and democrat held house and senate spending (in which will triple the deficit), you present that the republican congress had nothing to do with the budget surpluses of the 90s. genius.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123564748462081261.html#articleTabs%3Dinteractive

[daggerkobe]

dagger its 2009, bush is no longer president...

1. why not say what you really think, that bush was behind 9/11. scared people wont take you serious?? dont worry no one does. you wont lose any credibility with that one.

"There were lots of warnings."
— Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld

"This was not something that had to happen."
"They simply failed."
— Thomas H. Kean

"They don't have any excuse because the information was in their lap, and they didn't do anything to prevent it."
— Senator Richard Shelby

"I don't believe any longer that it's a matter of connecting the dots. I think they had a veritable blueprint, and we want to know why they didn't act on it."
— Senator Arlen Specter

"Should we have known? Yes, we should have. Could we have known? Yes, I believe we could have because of the hard targets [CIA operatives were tracking]."
— Representative Porter Goss

"As of September 10th, each of us knew everything we needed to know to tell us there was a possibility of what happened on September 11th."
— Assistant Attorney General Michael Chertoff

"Had one human being or a common group of human beings sat down with all that information, we could have gotten to the hijackers before they flew those four airplanes either into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon or the ground of Pennsylvania."
— Senator Bob Graham

"If you put all those pieces together, I don't say you could have prevented September 11th, but there might have been some warning, had it been handled properly."
— Vice President Dick Cheney

2. using your logic, democrats manipulated gas prices by refusing to drill domestic. funny how you pick and choose what you want to blame for cause and effect. and you contradict what you imply should be done. rationality is not your strong suit is it?

How the oil man Bush raised the oil price and now holds the country hostage to environmental pollution by drilling offshore

Tania Solars
Jun. 18, 2008

It was interesting to hear US President George Bush, a failed businessman who destroyed the economy his country and took the world hostage to an illegal war that should have never happened.

President Bush urged Congress today to permit drilling for oil off America's coasts -- on the outer continental shelf -- to combat rising oil and gas prices. This is the biggest set up in the history of the world.

When Bush took over Whitehouse in 2001, gasoline price hovered between $1 and $2. Today it is between $4 and $5. This is how Bush and his administration helped the oil price rise:

The Iraq war took away 1.4 million barrels of oil per day from the market. Very little of that eventually came back. When Bush Administration took over power from the Clintons, the dollar was strong and gold price was making new lows. Bush Administration decided to spend ruthlessly in the name of conservatism and increase the budgert deficit. In the name of illusive globalization of trade they allowed countries like China and India to dump goods and labor in the US market. The budget deficit and trade deficit went through the roof and the US dollar lost half its value.

The lower dollar made the oil producers less enthusiastic to produce more oil. OPEC decided to restrict oil production. At the same time guess what India and China didi with the free flowing outsourcing money from United States? They subsidized petroleum products for their own citizen. That in turn increased world demand for oil by 40%.

Bush Administration did not stop at this in helping the oil tycoons that helped them to come to power. They went ahead and expanded the strategic oil reserve at a time when oil price on average is rising 30 to 50% every year. Instead of releasing the strategic reserve stock, they increased stocking it. It was the biggest consumer unfriendly move. Buying oil at the peak to build extra reserve when people in the country is going hungry to pay for their gasoline bill? It never made any sense as a leader who was put into power through a democratic process. It was a nonsense from the economic perspective too.

Now it becomes clear why Bush did what he did to artificially boost the oil price. At this stage he can make a case that oil price will come down by drilling offshore and in Alaska. Fact of the matter is that these political spins of the same Administartion who lied on ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’ to start an unnecessary war. It is a way to hand over the trillions of dollars to these oil companies and oil infrastructure companies like Dick Cheney’s Haliburton.

3. are you seriously trying to solely blame bush for the housing market bubble??? seriously? funny how you left gse's out this time. of course because it exposes how foolish you and your argument is.

"President Bush advocated the "Ownership Society." According to the New York Times, "he pushed hard to expand home ownership, especially among minorities, an initiative that dovetailed with his ambition to expand the Republican tent — and with the business interests of some of his biggest donors. But his housing policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged lax lending standards."

He insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the GSE) meet low-income housing goals and advocated government loans to help low-income homeowners make down-payments.

The Bush administration also replaced Fannie and Freddie's chief regulator in 2003 immediately after the regulator published a report warning of the risks posed by the GSE."

In 2004, HUD ignored warnings from HUD researchers about foreclosures, and increased the affordable housing goal from 50% to 56%. The MBS were very attractive to Wall Street, and while Fannie and Freddie targeted the lowest-risk loans, they still fueled the subprime market as a result. Subprime mortgage loan originations surged by 25% per year between 1994 and 2003, resulting in a nearly ten-fold increase in the volume of these loans in just nine years.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has conceded that self-regulation of investment banks contributed to the crisis. The SEC relaxed rules in 2004 that enabled investment banks to substantially increase the level of debt they were taking on, fueling the growth in mortgage-backed securities supporting subprime mortgages.

4. in a thread talking about the current democrat president and democrat held house and senate spending (in which will triple the deficit), you present that the republican congress had nothing to do with the budget surpluses of the 90s. genius.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1235...%3Dinteractive

MYTH #1: The 1998–2001 budget surpluses resulted from courageous sacrifices by President Clinton and the Republican Congress.

Fact: The end of the Cold War and the tax receipts from an economic and dot-com boom balanced the budget.

A popular narrative credits President Bill Clinton's tax and spending policies with finally balancing the federal budget from 1998 through 2001. In reality, the deficit was temporarily eliminated by two factors largely outside the control of the President and Congress: the end of the Cold War and the late-1990s economic and stock market boom.


The Clinton presidency saw a budget deficit of 3.8 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) transformed into a 1.3 percent of GDP budget surplus. Nearly this entire 5.1 percent of GDP shift occurred among tax revenues, defense spending, and net interest costs.[1]

1. Tax revenues rose by 2.2 percent of GDP. While President Clinton's 1993 tax increases increased revenues somewhat, they did not fully take off until 1997 when the economy began booming, triggered in part by capital gains tax relief.
2. Defense spending dropped by 1.4 percent of GDP. The end of the Cold War brought a "peace dividend" that temporarily reduced defense spending from 4.4 percent of GDP to an under-funded 3.0 percent—a reduction of one third.
3. Net interest spending fell by 1.0 percent of GDP. This was a residual of the lower debt ratio resulting from the revenue and defense movements. Slightly lower interest rates were also a contributing factor.

Other spending across the government dropped by 0.5 percent of GDP, with most savings attributed to a reduction in the cost of unemployment benefits as the economy grew.

President Clinton and the Republican Congress did not play a leading role in the stock market and dot-com boom (nor the subsequent bust), and did not cause the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union. Yet those two variables explain the vast majority of the swing from deficits to surplus. To the extent that lawmakers deserve credit, it is for staying out of the way. Spending on other programs was generally held in check, free trade was promoted, and Washington resisted urges for additional tax increases or regulations that would have killed the goose laying the economic golden egg.


See what I mean.... bunch of Cyphers.

[DwightShrute]

propaganda! sorry that you got sucked into believing that!

[daggerkobe]

[DwightShrute]

To dispel Bush clouds




In the coming months, years and decades, history will be the judge of what kind of leader former President Bush was, but those Americans interested in preserving his legacy must take an aggressive approach to dispel the many myths and lies that already exist.
Clearly, the most contested area of Mr. Bush's presidency will be his foreign policy, namely his decision to send troops to Iraq. For several years, numerous myths have existed about the war, and it is imperative that we correct any falsehoods for the historical record.
These myths have falsely portrayed Mr. Bush as an imperialist president who illegally invaded a foreign country to seize its oil and dominate its people. The truth however, is that Mr. Bush liberated a country from the cruelty and oppression of a sadistic dictator, returned the oil to the Iraqi people and acted in full compliance with both domestic and international law. In fact, Mr. Bush's decision to send troops back to Iraq not only complied with international law but fulfilled obligations set by the United Nations.
In October 2002, Congress authorized the president to use whatever military force was necessary to fulfill U.N. resolutions pertaining to Iraq and the Gulf war. This was because after the U.N. authorized a coalition of the willing to use military force against Iraq for its illegal invasion of Kuwait in 1990, the U.N. temporarily suspended the Gulf war in 1991 with a cease-fire agreement that imposed stipulations upon Saddam Hussein.
Saddam violated those cease-fire conditions by failing to give U.N. weapon inspectors unfettered access, which actually prompted military action from President Clinton in 1998 when he launched a massive bombing campaign against Iraq during Operation Desert Fox.
In 2002, the United Nations resolved that Saddam was in "material breach" of the cease-fire agreement and that Iraq faced "serious consequences." Because the cease-fire did not end but merely suspended the Gulf war, Saddam Hussein's continued violations of the agreement reactivated the war.
President Bush did not start a new war in 2003 that violated domestic or international law. He merely complied with Congress' 2002 vote by honoring resolutions passed by the United Nations that reactivated the original Gulf war.
The president's critics accuse his administration of falsifying intelligence about Saddam Hussein having the capability of building weapons of mass destruction. This stems from the claim that the president solely relied on intelligence that Saddam was trying to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger to build a nuclear weapons program. These reports later proved to be inaccurate.
The media failed to emphasize, however, that Saddam was already in possession of 550 tons of yellowcake uranium, which he was storing at the Tuwaitha nuclear complex south of Baghdad. That uranium was found and secured by coalition troops in 2003 after they liberated Iraq and was finally transported to Canada in July 2008.
The president's critics also blast him for allegedly implementing a new policy of Iraqi regime change when in fact that policy was established in the Iraq Liberation Act, signed by President Clinton in 1998. The Act made it the official policy of the United States to support the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. President Bush did not implement a new policy of regime change in Iraq. He was acting in the spirit of the policy already established by President Clinton.
The decision to send troops back to Iraq in 2003 was indeed liberation and not an invasion. Investigations by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the U.S. Department of State and the British government have all found evidence that the Iraqi people lived under a regime that systematically employed methods of torture and fear. Dissidents suffered from bizarre, cruel methods of torture including dismemberment, piercing, bone-crushing, cutting, acid baths and imprisonment inside coffin-size cells.
Women accused of prostitution were publicly beheaded without a trial and male soldiers were authorized to rape women to punish their family members for political resistance. Men were often forced to watch soldiers rape their wives, sisters and daughters as a method of punishment when the female victim was innocent.
The removal of Saddam Hussein from power was not an invasion, it was liberation.
One of the most widely spread conspiracy theories about President Bush and the war is the false allegation that he sent troops to Iraq to illegally steal its oil. There is no truth to this allegation. In fact, the new Oil Draft Law under consideration by the Iraqi government proposes using "production-sharing agreements," which is the same type of oil distribution system used in Iraq for decades.
Production-sharing agreements allow foreign governments or private corporations to drill for oil and keep a small percentage of profits for their work while giving the majority of profits earned to the host country. The new Oil Draft Law will continue to implement production-sharing agreements, but the Iraqi profits will now go to the new democratic government instead of Saddam. The United States is not stealing any oil from Iraq.
There are many more myths and lies the far left has successfully perpetuated about Mr. Bush and the liberation of Iraq, but this column is not the appropriate forum to dispel them. Because these lies have been so deeply ingrained in the consciousness of the American public, those wishing to restore the president's reputation must take a pro-active, aggressive approach that exports knowledge to the people.
Merely relying on a passive institute such as a presidential library and waiting for people to learn the truth on their own will not be sufficient in this unique case. Most people who visit the new George W. Bush presidential library will most likely already be sympathetic to him and there must be a more aggressive approach used to inform all Americans.
It is perhaps one of the greatest historical ironies and tragedies that a leader who cares so deeply about human rights and the freedom of oppressed people has been falsely portrayed as an imperialist invader. It is time for those working on the former president's legacy to adequately communicate his vision of worldwide liberation to the American people. The historical record must be corrected to accurately reflect President Bush's legacy and for the honor of our country.
Jeffrey Scott Shapiro is the National Organizer of HONOR FREEDOM (www.honorfreedom.com), a nonprofit foundation dedicated to correcting the historical record about President Bush and the war in Iraq.

[daggerkobe]

[DwightShrute]

Imagine how I feel! multiply that by 1000

[losturmarbles]

dagger do you ever post an original thought?

why not just post the web link and save yourself the trouble of copy-pasting

[slacker00]

I have no respect for people who purely spew partisan propaganda. What kind of idiot wants to wave a flag for either major party right now? BOTH parties got us into this mess.

The only solution is to reform the system to restrict the power away from these idiot powers that be, Democrat AND Republican. It's like choosing to drink Coke or Pepsi, what if I want water? It's not a legitimate option. Well, let's make it a legitimate option.

[daggerkobe]

dagger do you ever post an original thought?

why not just post the web link and save yourself the trouble of copy-pasting

Why do FACTS scare you so much?

[therber2]

We'll simply have to agree to disagree. There's just no way to turn 10k into 100k overnight no matter what you know. There's no such thing as perfect information, such as using a time machine and going all-in over & over on some huge parlays or whatever. Reality dictates risk management, which simply doesn't allow ridiculous turnover unless someone was taking on way too much risk without realizing it or cooking the books or whatever.

Who said anything about overnight? Look how oil fell. Calculate how much you would have needed to start with to get 1 million from the peak (which DK "called"). It is a tiny fraction!

Like I said, to make money in the market you look for what is cheap, has sound fundamentals, figure out how much you can afford to lose, and take a shot. Hedging something, I personally feel is just second guessing yourself, but you can place stops to lower the loss if there is one. Seriously though, my point is DK; why go posting all over the board that you called something, but didn't do anything about it. I dunno maybe you did... Dagger, I'm calling oil to head north pretty good amount. If an investor wants to take a gamble here, realize stock in oil etf and futures price is cheap, and has the potential for high return.

You guys are great at "calling" what happened in the past, but you have no balls to predict the future.

[DwightShrute]

http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/engdahl/2008/0502.html

PERHAPS 60% OF TODAY'S OIL
PRICE IS PURE SPECULATION
by F. William Engdahl
May 2, 2008

[daggerkobe]

Who said anything about overnight? Look how oil fell. Calculate how much you would have needed to start with to get 1 million from the peak (which DK "called"). It is a tiny fraction!

Like I said, to make money in the market you look for what is cheap, has sound fundamentals, figure out how much you can afford to lose, and take a shot. Hedging something, I personally feel is just second guessing yourself, but you can place stops to lower the loss if there is one. Seriously though, my point is DK; why go posting all over the board that you called something, but didn't do anything about it. I dunno maybe you did... Dagger, I'm calling oil to head north pretty good amount. If an investor wants to take a gamble here, realize stock in oil etf and futures price is cheap, and has the potential for high return.

You guys are great at "calling" what happened in the past, but you have no balls to predict the future.

You sure sound like a run-of-the-mill, post-game capper. You know, all the experts that sound off once the game goes final.

I don't have balls? Yet I've been posting predictions of games for years now.

Where are your picks, genius?

[slacker00]

Who said anything about overnight? Look how oil fell. Calculate how much you would have needed to start with to get 1 million from the peak (which DK "called"). It is a tiny fraction!

Like I said, to make money in the market you look for what is cheap, has sound fundamentals, figure out how much you can afford to lose, and take a shot. Hedging something, I personally feel is just second guessing yourself, but you can place stops to lower the loss if there is one. Seriously though, my point is DK; why go posting all over the board that you called something, but didn't do anything about it. I dunno maybe you did... Dagger, I'm calling oil to head north pretty good amount. If an investor wants to take a gamble here, realize stock in oil etf and futures price is cheap, and has the potential for high return.

You guys are great at "calling" what happened in the past, but you have no balls to predict the future.

I'm predicting MSU over UNC Monday night. This is hardly a secret. I've had a great run in the tournament this year, calling games at an amazing clip. My record is documented on here if anyone wants to datamine the archives. I don't dwell on the past, though, only on the future. There's only so much I can learn from the past. Bragging is not of any use to me on here.

My point is that I'm not going to risk 100% of my bankroll on MSU. That's insane. Even if I was 80% sure that MSU would win, what happens when they don't? I'm busted. That's not how sensible investing works. Instead, I'm risking exactly 1% of my bankroll, which is a standard play. This is exactly how basic & reasonable risk management and variance avoidance works. I know I'm of a tiny minority on here that follow this "classic" school of thought, and I'll admit that's on the conservative end of the spectrum, but even the most experienced gamblers on here would wince at exposing more than 2 or 3% on any single play, even if it was their play of the year or whatever. Scale that towards futures commodities trading or whatever and it's the same deal. Even if you could jump from peak to peak in the oil futures market, you're never doing better than doubling your money every few months even in the best of circumstances.

[losturmarbles]

Why do FACTS scare you so much?

why does thinking on your own scare you?

[daggerkobe]

why does thinking on your own scare you?

Because FACTS shape my thinking, not propaganda bullshit from Rush Limbaugh.

[slacker00]

Because FACTS shape my thinking, not propaganda bullshit from Rush Limbaugh.

I'm not sure who you are pinning to Rush Limbaugh, but that's a tremendous insult! lol

[DwightShrute]

Because FACTS shape my thinking, not propaganda bullshit from Rush Limbaugh.

what? He is entitled to his opinion. I think it was an excellent speech buy someone who expresses honestly what he believes in.

One of the best speeches I have ever heard.here's part of it Youtube it.

Less government is always better!

Let me tell you who we conservatives are: We love people. [Applause] When we look out over the United States of America, when we are anywhere, when we see a group of people, such as this or anywhere, we see Americans. We see human beings. We don't see groups. We don't see victims. We don't see people we want to exploit. What we see -- what we see is potential. We do not look out across the country and see the average American, the person that makes this country work. We do not see that person with contempt. We don't think that person doesn't have what it takes. We believe that person can be the best he or she wants to be if certain things are just removed from their path like onerous taxes, regulations and too much government. [Applause]

We want every American to be the best he or she chooses to be. We recognize that we are all individuals. We love and revere our founding documents, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. [Applause] We believe that the preamble to the Constitution contains an inarguable truth that we are all endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life. [Applause] Liberty, Freedom. [Applause] And the pursuit of happiness. [Applause] Those of you watching at home may wonder why this is being applauded. We conservatives think all three are under assault. [Applause] Thank you. Thank you.

We don't want to tell anybody how to live. That's up to you. If you want to make the best of yourself, feel free. If you want to ruin your life, we'll try to stop it -- and make -- but it's a waste. We look over the country as it is today, we see so much waste, human potential that's been destroyed by 50 years of a welfare state. By a failed war on poverty. [Applause]

We love the people of this country. And we want this to be the greatest country it can be, but we do understand, as people created and endowed by our creator, we're all individuals. We resist the effort to group us. We resist the effort to make us feel that we're all the same, that we're no different than anybody else. We're all different. There are no two things or people in this world who are created in a way that they end up with equal outcomes. That's up to them. They are created equal, given the chance - -[Applause]

We don't hate anybody. We don't -- I mean, the racism in this country, if you ask me, I know many people in this audience -- let me deal with this head on. You know what the cliche is, a conservative: racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe. Excuse me, ladies and gentlemen of America, if you were paying attention, I know you were, the racism in our culture was exclusively and full on display in the Democrat primary last year. [Applause]

It was not us asking whether Barack Obama was authentic. What we were asking is: Is he wrong? We concluded, yes. We still think so. But we didn't ask if he was authentically black. We didn't say, as some southern Christian leadership conference leaders said: Barack is not authentic, he's not got any slave blood. He's really not down for the struggle, but his wife does. So don't expect the race industry to go away. Southern Christian Leadership Council-- you may not know this, because it wasn't reported in the Drive-By Media -- the racism, the sexism, the bigotry that we're all charged with, just so you across the United States of America know, and you'll see demonstrated here as the afternoon goes on, doesn't exist on our side. We want everybody to succeed. [Applause]

You know why? You know why? We want the country to succeed and for the country to succeed its people, its individuals must succeed. Everyone among us must be pursuing his ambition or her desire, whatever, with excellence. Trying to be the best they can be. Not told, as they are told by the Democrat Party: You really can't do that, you don't have what it takes, besides you're a minority or you're a woman and there are too many people that want to discriminate against you. You can't get anywhere. You need to depend on us.

Well. Take a look, someone has to say this -- I am thrilled for the opportunity to say it in my first national address to the nation -- and I'm going to touch on this in more detail in a moment but this is just to get you thinking -- take a look at all the constituency groups that for 50 years have been depending on the Democrat Party to improve their lives. And you tell me if you find any. They're still complaining, still griping about the same problems. Their problems don't get fixed by government. And those lives have been poisoned. Those lives have been cut short by false promises, from government representatives who said don't worry about it, we'll take care of you. Just vote for us. [Applause]

For those of you just tuning in on the Fox News Channel or C-SPAN, I'm Rush Limbaugh and I want everyone in this room and every one of you around the country to succeed. I want anyone who believes in life, liberty, pursuit of happiness to succeed. And I want any force, any person, any element of an overarching big government that would stop your success, I want that organization, that element or that person to fail. I want you to succeed. [Applause] Also, for those of you in the Drive-By Media watching, I have not needed a teleprompter for anything I've said. [Cheers and Applause ] And nor do any of us need a teleprompter, because our beliefs are not the result of calculations and contrivances. Our beliefs are not the result of a deranged psychology. Our beliefs are our core. Our beliefs are our hearts. We don't have to make notes about what we believe. We don't have to write down, oh do I believe it do I believe it we can tell people what we believe off the top of our heads and we can do it with passion and we can do it with clarity, and we can do it persuasively. Some of us just haven't had the inspiration or motivation to do so in a number of years, but that's about to change. [Cheers and Applause]

Now, let me speak about President Obama for just a second. President Obama is one of the most gifted politicians, one of the most gifted men that I have ever witnessed. He has extraordinary talents. He has communication skills that hardly anyone can surpass. No, seriously. No, no, I'm being very serious about this. It just breaks my heart that he does not use these extraordinary talents and gifts to motivate and inspire the American people to be the best they can be. He's doing just the opposite. And it's a shame. [Applause] President Obama has the ability -- he has the ability to inspire excellence in people's pursuits. He has the ability to do all this, yet he pursues a path, seeks a path that punishes achievement, that punishes earners and punishes -- and he speaks negatively of the country. Ronald Reagan used to speak of a shining city on a hill. Barack Obama portrays America as a soup kitchen in some dark night in a corner of America that's very obscure.

He's constantly telling the American people that bad times are ahead, worst times are ahead. And it's troubling, because this is the United States of America. Anybody ever ask -- I'm in awe of our country and I ask this question a lot as I've gotten older. We're less than 300 years old. We are younger than nations that have been on this planet for thousands of years. We, nevertheless, in less than 300 years -- by the way, we're no different than any other human beings around the world. Our DNA is no different. We're not better just because we're born in America. There's nothing that sets us apart. How did this happen? How did the United States of America become the world's lone super power, the world's economic engine, the most prosperous opportunity for an advanced lifestyle that humanity has ever known? How did this happen? And why pray tell does the President of the United States want to destroy it? It saddens me.

The freedom we spoke of earlier is the freedom, it's the ambition, it's the desire, the wherewithal, the passions that people have that gave us the great entrepreneurial advances, the great inventions, the greatest food production, the human lifestyle advances in this country, why shouldn't that be rewarded? Why is that now the focus of punishment? Why is that now the focus of blame? Why doesn't -- Mayor Bloomberg the other day, ladies and gentlemen, resisting his Governor's call for an increased tax on the rich in New York had some astounding numbers. Eight million people live in New York. 40,000 of those eight million pay roughly 60 to 70% of New York's operating budget. He was afraid that if he raised taxes on those people some of them might leave. Mayor, one already has, by the way. [Applause] Stop and think of this, though. Stop and think of this. 40,000 people out of eight million. He's right, if 10,000 of them leave, or 5,000, they've got a huge problem. Because New York has its own welfare state inside the one the federal government's created. They've got a dependency class that has grown up and been educated their entitlement is to be fed and taken care of by these evil mean people who have more than they do. If New York City, New York State or Washington, DC were a business, these 40,000 people would be taken on golf tournament trips to Los Angeles, and they would be wined and dined and they would be thanked and they would be encouraged to keep it up. They wouldn't be told they're the problem. They wouldn't be told, except there's -- I pride my accuracy rating. There is one other business where the customer is always wrong and that's the media. Sorry about that. [Applause]

Have you ever called to complain about whatever they do? They say, yes, sir, yes, sir, three bags full. They hang up and say you're too stupid to know how they're doing what they're doing. You can't get it. You're not sophisticated enough. So that's another business where the customer is always wrong. But, seriously, the people who have achieved great things, most of it is not inherited. Most wealth in this country is the result of entrepreneurial, just plain old hard work. There's no reason to punish it. There's no reason to raise taxes on these people. Barack Obama, the Democrat Party, have one responsibility, and that's to respect the oath they gave to protect, defend and follow the US Constitution. [Applause]

They don't have the right to take money that's not theirs and none of it is from the back pockets of producers and give it to groups like ACORN which are going to advance the Democrat Party. If anybody but government were doing this, it would be a crime. And many of us think it's bordering on that as it exists now. [Applause]
President Obama is so busy trying to foment and create anger in a created atmosphere of crisis. He is so busy fueling the emotions of class envy that he's forgotten it's not his money that he's spending. [Applause] In fact, the money he's spending is not ours. He's spending wealth that has yet to be created. And that is not sustainable. It will not work. This has been tried around the world. And every time it's been tried it's a failed disaster.

What's the longest war in American history? Did somebody say the war on poverty? Smart group. War on poverty. The war on poverty essentially started in the '30s as part of the New Deal, but it really ramped up in the '60s with Lyndon Johnson, part of the great society war on poverty. We have transferred something like 10 trillion, maybe close to 11 trillion, from producers and earners to nonproducers and earners since 1965. Yet, as I listen to the Democratic Party campaign, why, America is still a soup kitchen, the poor is still poor and they have no hope and they're poor for what reason? They're poor because of us, because we don't care, and because we've gotten rich by taking from them, that's what kids in school are taught today. That's what others have said to the media. You know why they're poor, you know why they remain poor? Because their lives have been destroyed by the never-ending government hay that's designed to help them but it destroys ambition. It destroys the education they might get to learn to be self-fulfilling. [Applause] And it breaks our heart. It breaks our heart. We lose track of numbers with all of the money, with all the money that's been transferred, redistributed, with all the charitable giving in this country.

Ladies and gentlemen, there ought not be any poverty except those who are genuinely ill equipped. But most of the people in poverty in this country are equipped for far much more. They've just been beaten down. They're told don't worry, we'll take care of you. There's nothing out there for you anyway; you'll be discriminated against. Breaks our heart to see this. We can't have a great country and a growing economy with more and more people being told they have a right, because of some injustice that's been done to them or some discrimination, that they have a right to the earnings of others. And it's gotten so out of hand now that what worries me is that this administration, the Barack Obama administration is actively seeking to expand the welfare state in this country because he wants to control it.

They don't care about paying for it. All that's just words. All that's just rhetoric paying for it because he knows you have to worry about paying for it. He knows we all have to be concerned -- oh, except, wrong again. Except the words of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd who were given homes that everybody knew they could never pay for, and now Barney Frank and Chris Dodd the architects along with Bill Clinton of the policy that gave us the whole sub-prime mortgage crisis get to sit around and act as innocent spectators to investigate what went on when they largely had the biggest role in causing it. [Applause]

Congressman Frank's definition of affordable housing is you get a house you don't have to pay for that everybody else in the neighborhood will pay for. Why? Because it's unfair that some people can have a house and some people can't. Geez, it's just unfair. So here we have two systems. We have socialism, collectivism, Stalin, whatever you want to call it, versus capitalism. Admittedly over on the right side capitalism there will be unequal outcomes because we're all different. And some of us care more and have more passion and we know what we want to do and others are still struggling for it. Some people are just going to work harder than others. Okay. You get what you work for. Those who have a genuine inability for whatever reason are taken care of. We're compassionate people. On the left side when you get into this collectivism socialism stuff, these people on the left, the Democrats and liberals today claim that they are pained by the inequities and the inequalities in our society. And they believe that these inequities and inequalities descend from the selfishness and the greed of the achievers. And so they tell the people who are on different income quintiles, whatever lists, they say it's not that you're not working hard enough, you could have what they have, perhaps, if you applied it. They're stealing it from you.
So what liberals do, and I say this again to the -- another thing, I know people in the country are watching. I was watching a focus group after some event this week. Might have been after Obama's State of the Union show. [Laughter] And they had -- it was a typical, you know, Drive-By Media focus group. They round up losers -- [Laughter] -- who hear Obama speak and think that the next day their gas tanks are going to be filled up and get a new house and a new kitchen and a new car. And so this one guy said -- oh, it was some guy responding to Bobby Jindal.

Oh, by the way did you hear about Joe Biden? Joe Biden
Now, let a conservative say something like that and he's brought up before John Conyers' committee with Pat Leahy wanting at you next. Many people think I lose my place in these speeches because -- by the way what time is it? We have plenty of time. We have to be out of here by -- [Applause] We have to be out of here by 6:00 -- okay, depends on how you behave. I'll decide as we go on. What liberalism Democrat, for those of you in the country, I really want you to believe this because it's the truth. I'm not saying it just because I believe it. This is a core. I want the best country we can have. We want the most prosperous people. We want to be growing. We want to lead the world. We want everybody to come here legally. We want this country to be so damn great and we just cringe to watch it basically capitalism be assaulted and our culture be reoriented to where the people that make it work are the enemy. That's not the United States of America. The people that make this country work, the people who pay on their mortgages, the people getting up and going to work, striving in this recession to not participate in it, they're not the enemy.

They're the people that hire you. They're the people that are going to give you a job. They're the people that are going to give you a raise, the people that need you to do work for them. [Applause] President Obama and take your pick of any Democrat love to say we've tried it your way. Meaning Reaganism. We've tried it your way. We tried it your way in the '80s and it didn't work. We tried it your way eight years, the last eight years and it didn't work. Excuse me. Excuse me. Have you ever noticed those of you watching around the world in my first international address to the world, Fox is on some international satellites. They're watching this in the UK right now going (cringing). When Obama talks about past economies, he somehow always leaves out the recession of the '80s as worst than this one. Why does he leave it out? Because you know why he leaves it out, America? He leaves it out because we got out of that recession with tax cuts. [Applause] For those of you watching at home I'm not nervous it's just really hot in here. These people are wired. We got out of the 1980s recession with tax cuts. Do you know that President Obama, in six weeks of his administration, has proposed more spending than from the founding of the country to his inauguration?

Now, this is not prosperity. It is not going to engender prosperity. It's not going to create prosperity and it's also not going to advance or promote freedom. It's going to be just the opposite. There are going to be more controls over what you can and can't do, how you can and can't do it, what you can and can't drive, what you can and can't say, where you can and can't say it. All of these things are coming down the pike, because it's not about revenue generation to them, it's about control. They do believe that they have compassion. They do believe they care. But, see, we never are allowed to look at the results of their plans, we are told we must only look at their good intentions, their big hearts. The fact that they have destroyed poor families by breaking up those families by offering welfare checks to women to keep having babies no more father needed, he's out doing something, the government's the father, they destroy the family. We're not supposed to analyze that. We're not supposed to talk about that. We're supposed to talk about their good intentions. They destroy people's futures. The future is not big government. Self-serving politicians. Powerful bureaucrats. This has been tried, tested throughout history. The result has always been disaster. President Obama, your agenda is not new. It's not change, and it's not hope. [Applause] Spending a nation into generational debt is not an act of compassion. All politicians, including President Obama, are temporary stewards of this nation. It is not their task to remake the founding of this country. It is not their task to tear it apart and rebuild it in their image.

(Crowd chanting "USA!")

It is not their task, it is not their right to remake this nation to accommodate their psychology. I sometimes wonder if liberalism is not just a psychosis or a psychology, not an idiotology. It's so much about feelings and the predominant feeling that liberalism is about is about feeling good about themselves and they do that by telling themselves they have all this compassion. You know, if you really want to unhinge a liberal it's hard to do because they're so unhinged now anyway, even after -- but all you have to do is say you know what the things you people do, the things you people believe in are cruel. That's the last way they look at themselves. They are the best people on the -- they're the good people. You tell them that their ideas and that their policies are cruel and the eggs start scrambling.

I have learned how to tweak liberals everywhere. I do it instinctively now. Tweak them in the media. And no reason to be afraid of these people. Why in the world would you be afraid of the deranged? There really is no reason to be afraid of them. And there's no reason to assume they're the minority. And there's no reason to let them set all the premises and all the agendas to which we respond to. I'm getting a little bit ahead of myself here but everybody asks me and I'm sure it's been a focal point of your convention: What do we do as conservatives? What do we do? How do we overcome this?

Well, the one thing, and there are many, but one thing that we can all do is stop assuming that the way to beat them is with better policy ideas right now. I don't want to name any names. It's not the point. But I talk to people about the Obama budget or the Obama Porkulous bill or whatever else TARP 2 whatever it's going to be, and they start talking to me in the terms of process and policy. I say stop it. What do you mean? Who is setting the process or policy? They are. You want to tweak it? No. This is philosophy, folks. This guy, I forgot -- the guy in the focus group after Bobby Jindal said, I didn't want to hear him talk, he said: Republicans and Democrats. Republicans and Democrats. Ladies and gentlemen of the United States of America, that's exactly what your future is about, who wins, Republicans or Democrats, conservatives versus liberals. The notion of partisanship, false premise. Let me define bipartisanship for you. Bipartisanship -- everybody seems to go orgasmic over the concept of bipartisanship. Don't worry, I checked with Fox, that word's okay. [Laughter] [Applause]

Remember, they covered the Lewinsky thing, so that's my -- bipartisanship occurs only after one other result, and that is victory. In other words, let's say as conservatives liberals demand that we be bipartisan with them in Congress. What they mean is: We check our core principles at the door, come in, let them run the show and agree with them. That's bipartisanship to them. To us, bipartisanship is them being forced to agree with us after we politically have cleaned their clocks and beaten them. And that has to be what we're focused on. [Applause] Why would any of us in this room who hold the core beliefs we believe, somebody tell me where is the compromise on all of this spending? Where is the compromise on all this punishment of the achievers. I don't know. [Laughter] [Applause]

Where is the compromise between good and evil? Should Jesus have cut a different deal? Serious. From the standpoint of what we have to do, folks, this is not about taking a policy or a process that the Democrats have put forward and fighting around the edges. If we're going to convince the minds and hearts of the American people that what's about to happen to them is as disastrous as anything in their lives in peacetime, we're going to have to discuss philosophy with them. We are going to have to talk about principle, because our principles are not present in what's happening here. So where the hell do we go to compromise what we believe in when our principles are not their principles, they're just the opposite of what's happening? [Applause]

The American people -- it's a tough challenge. I admit -- I admit it's a tough challenge, but it's worth it. It's worth it. The way I just defined bipartisanship you could turn it around and liberals will define bipartisanship when we surrender and say okay we give. We're not quitting. We are not giving up. The country is too important. [Applause] There are certain realities. We don't have the votes in Capitol Hill to stop what's going to happen. What we can do is slow it down, procedure, parliamentary procedures, slow it down and do the best we can to inform the American people of what's really on the horizon. I know it's going to be tough. At some point I don't think it can happen even right now. This is still the honeymoon period, and there's a lot of devotion to the Obama administration. It doesn't have anything to do with intellectual thinking, it's feelings. It's going to take some time for this to play out. But I spoke to David Keene interviewing for my newsletter. I asked him about this. He said they're going to overreach. Wouldn't you say they have? [Laughter].

They're going to overreach. At some point, at some point people have got to realize none of this is possible. You can't have people living in homes they don't pay for. You can't have people driving cars they don't pay for. I mean, you can for a while. But after a while the people paying for it -- screw this. We're not putting up with it. And you're going to see -- you're already starting to see evidence of these. All the tea parties that are starting to bubble up out there. Those are great.Fabulous. [Applause] And here's the big question. Here's the big question. And I ask this again in the context of my first address to the nation. [Laughter] You don't know how I love saying that, how excited I am about this. Aside from the bastardization of the Constitution that the Obama plans are, that TARP is, it's not constitutional. Aside from that, where is the evidence that the people offering all of this have ever succeeded in any similar plans before? There's none. There is no evidence it works. [Applause]

So you say how is he getting it done? Dumb down public education. Dumb down public education. Emotions. And the ongoing -- this is why I think it's such a waste for a man as gifted as President Obama with the communications skills, you know he could wipe out the Republican Party. He can wipe out the Republican Party if he would inspire this country to be the best it could be, but we don't have to worry about that because that's not what he wants. He wants people in fear, angst and crisis, fearing the worst each and every day because that clears the decks for President Obama and his pals to come in with the answers, which are abject failures, historically shown and demonstrated. Doesn't matter. They'll have control of it when it's all over. And that's what they want. Because they think they can do it better. They see these inequalities, these inequities that capitalism produces. How do they fix it? Do they try to elevate those at the bottom? No! They try to tear down the people at the bottom. It's not fair you're up there. So they whack us. That's not what made the country great.[Applause] And no evidence of it is in play here.

John Kerry [Boos], who served in Vietnam. [Laughter] Think about this, and, by the way, Barney Frank got involved with this, too. Northern Trust, a bank in Chicago -- by the way, which holds the mortgage to the Messiah's house, purchased by Tony Rezko, Northern Trust holds the mortgage. Northern Trust was forced, like Wells Fargo was forced, to take TARP money. The Wells Fargo CEO said they were taken into Paulson's room and they were given until 5:00 to sign it. They weren't getting out until they did. They wanted it spread all over the banking business. Northern Trust was in there. They didn't want it. They took $1.6 billion. As you know, they went out and they sponsored the LA Riveria Open two weeks ago that Phil Mickelson barely hung on and won. [Applause]

And we find out they hired some liberals to entertain, but it still wasn't good enough. They hired Sheryl Crow. And they hired the rock crooner group Chicago, but they had the audacity, Northern Trust did, to entertain their clients, to try to reward their best customers, to get new customers, banking is in trouble, Northern Trust is trying to do what they always do, what all businesses do, and that is mine for new clients and reward existing good customers. Not since they took $1.6 billion, I guess. The haughty John Kerry wrote a piece of legislation said: He's getting sick and tired, sick and tired of these CEOs using taxpayer money to throw all these lavish parties. And I'm saying where do you get yours, Senator? [Applause]

Sad thing, sad thing is it works. They've created class envy in so many average Americans that they love hearing that. Yeah, you get even with those bank guys. How is it going to improve here? Let me ask a question for those of you watching my first national address. Take the favorite villain you've got, maybe it's John Thain at Merrill Lynch, because he used his own money, his company's own money, his company's own money, to redecorate a bathroom in a office for $1.2 million. By the way, to do that he had to hire a contractor. They got paid. Had to hire a designer and buy furniture, that's called stimulus. And he did it.

But all of a sudden John Thain's thrown out. John Thain is thrown out. He's humiliated and embarrassed; how dare he? He did it a year before they took the TARP money. And all these Congressmen are standing up saying this is not going to happen. We are not going to watch these people capping executive pay while Obama tries to live like one. You know, he's trying to emulate the lifestyle he is attacking. That's what liberals do. Two sets of rules: One for them; one for everybody else. But it's coming. See, if you think that John Thain or the Northern Trust CEO, if you love them getting attacked, if you love them being ripped, ask yourself the next day, do you have any more money in your pocket? Is your life any better because that guy got taken out or down by some haughty senator from Massachusetts?

If you ask yourself this, you'll realize your life is no better off. That the Democrats and Obama are asking you to feel better simply on the basis that they're going to get revenge for you, but your life isn't going to improve, somebody else's is just going to be destroyed and they want you to be happy over that. That's sick. And that is not the United States of America. [Applause] Besides, as far as John Kerry is concerned, if it wasn't for his varicose veins he would be totally colorless. [Laughter]

Now let's talk about the conservative movement as it were. We, ladies and gentlemen, have challenges that are part and parcel of a movement that feels it has just suffered a humiliating defeat when it's not humiliating. This wasn't a land slide victory, 52 to, what, 46. 58 million people voted against Obama. There would have been more if we would have had a conservative nominee. [Applause] I don't mean that -- I mean that in an instructive way, as a lead-in to what I'm talking about here. No humiliating defeat here. I can't -- sometimes I get livid and angry. We do have an organizational problem. We have a challenge. We've got factions now within our own movement seeking power to dominate it, and worst of all to redefine it. Well, the Constitution doesn't need to be redefined. Conservative intellectuals, the Declaration of Independence does not need to be redefined and neither does conservativism. Conservativism is what it is and it is forever. It's not something you can bend and shape and flake and form. [Applause] Thank you. Thank you.

For the purposes of this occasion, I'm not going to mention any names, I bet with you I won't have to. People watching my first address to the nation might be curious what I'm talking about. They'll find out in due course, trust me on this. I cringed -- it might have been 2007, late 2007 or sometime during 2008, but a couple of prominent conservative but beltway establishment media types began to write on the concept that the era of Reagan is over. [Crowd Booing]

And that we needed to adapt our appeal, because, after all, what's important in politics is winning elections. And so we have to understand that the American people, they want big government. We just have to find a way to tell them we're no longer opposed to that. We will come up with our own version of it that is wiser and smarter, but we've got to go get the WalMart voter, and we've got to get the Hispanic voter, and we've got to get the recalcitrant independent women. And I'm listening to this and I am just apoplectic: The era of Reagan is over? When the hell do you hear a Democrat say the era of FDR is over? You never hear it. Not only that, the President of the United States today thinks he's FDR, thinks he's Abraham Lincoln, and sometimes, Tuesday night, thinks he's Ronald Reagan. Our own movement has members trying to throw Reagan out while the Democrats know they can't accomplish what they want unless they appeal to Reagan voters. We have got to stamp this out within this movement, because it will tear us apart. It will guarantee we lose elections. [Applause]

We have to. You see, to me it's a no-brainer. It's not even something to me: How do you get rid of Reagan from conservativism? The blueprint -- the blueprint for landslide conservative victory is right there. Why in the hell do the smartest people in our room want to chuck it? I know why. I know exactly why. It's because they're embarrassed of some of the people who call themselves conservatives. These people in New York and Washington, cocktail elitists, they get made fun of when the next NASCAR race is on TV and their cocktail buds come up to them, those people are in your party? How do you put up with this? It would be easy to throw them overboard, so as to maintain these cocktail party beltway New York City inside the beltway media relationships. But I tell you: This notion that Reaganism is dead, conservativism needs to be refined, let's take a look at this. We've got to go get the Walmart voter. I opened my remarks tonight by telling the people watching on Fox who we conservatives are. When I look out at you in this audience, I don't see a Walmart voter. And I don't see a black, and I don't see a woman, and I don't see a Hispanic. I see human beings who happen to be fortunate enough to be the luckiest people on earth you are Americans. [Applause]

Conservativism -- for us to make the decision that we've got to figure out policies, to get the Walmart voter -- psst, we've got most of them already, is the bottom line. Conservatism is a universal set of core principles. You don't check principles at the door. This is a battle that we're going to have. And there are egos involved here, too. When the situation like ours exists, there are people who want to lead it. They want to redefine it. Their egos are such that they want to be the next X, whoever it is. So there will be different factions lining up to try to define what conservatism is. And beware of those different factions who seek as part of their attempt to redefine conservativism, as making sure the liberals like us, making sure that the media likes us. They never will, as long as we remain conservatives. They can't possibly like us; they're our enemy. In a political arena of ideas, they're our enemy. They think we need to be defeated. Why do you think -- you all in this room know this. For those of you watching at home, my first address to the nation -- [Laughter] -- I'm sure you paid close enough attention, that you knew at one time Senator McCain was the favorite Republican of all the cable news networks and the Sunday shows. And they would just -- I mean their tongues would be on the floor. The media people (panting) when they knew McCain was coming. And they would treat McCain as the greatest guy in the world. Did you wonder why? You were told he was moderate. He was not strict. He was not an authoritarian, he was able to walk to the other side of the aisle, able to get along with the enemy. And everybody wants love and bipartisanship.

That's not why they invited Senator McCain. They invited Senator McCain because he happened to be the loudest at criticizing his own president and his own party and that's what they want, is people from our side -- and there will be factions in our movement, folks, who are going to make an effort to say we have to grow, we can't stay stale, I think I heard the term used the other day. Nothing stale about freedom. There's nothing stale about liberty. There's nothing stale about fighting for it. Nothing stale whatsoever. [Applause] Freedom. Are you getting tired of standing up, I don't blame you. By the way for those watching on TV you think the standing -- people are just tired. They've been up and out of their chairs 100 times here. [Applause] Thank you. Freedom -- freedom is the natural yearning of the human spirit as we were endowed by our creator. And the United States of America is the place in the world where that yearning flourishes. Where freedom is expected because it's part of the way we're created.

I loved it when the Soviet Union went down and the wall went down and the liberals in our country said you know they may not be ready for freedom over there. They've been oppressed -- yes, liberals will gladly tell you who can have freedom and who can't. And that's what the pieces of legislation is all about, folks, freedom, liberty, economic prosperity, they're all entwined here we'll have to as a conservative movement understand that our job, after we come to an agreement among ourselves, which shouldn't be hard but it's going to be difficult because the people that think they're smarter than everybody else are going to be out there forging alliances with people that try to make themselves look like new power brokers, and they will become the spokesmen, by the way.


So as I'm flying home from lunch, I'm watching television and I see that the word has leaked out that Obama is hosting a dinner with conservative media pundits at the home of George Will. I said: I wonder who these people are? [Laughter] In the media one of them is going to have to leak it. Sure as heck, one did. Now, we all know who were there. And let's see -- I can't rather all the names I won't mention any. But let me tell you Obama's purpose. Does anybody really think that Barack Obama had dinner with a bunch of conservatives hoping they would change his mind?

[daggerkobe]

I'm not sure who you are pinning to Rush Limbaugh, but that's a tremendous insult! lol

The ultimate insult is when a neonitwit says that I should learn to "think for myself".... all the while they get their "facts" from Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Youtube, blogs and chain letters.

[DwightShrute]

The ultimate insult is when a neonitwit says that I should learn to "think for myself".... all the while they get their "facts" from Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Youtube, blogs and chain letters.

Where is the evidence that you "think for myself" ?? You basically are saying that we who oppose your thinking cant "think for ourselves" and that you are some superior thinker.

[losturmarbles]

Because FACTS shape my thinking, not propaganda bullshit from Rush Limbaugh.

just let me know when you copy paste some FACTS

OR when you actually post an original thought

either may actually happen before the next halley's comet.

[daggerkobe]

Where is the evidence that you "think for myself" ?? You basically are saying that we who oppose your thinking cant "think for ourselves" and that you are some superior thinker.

So Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld did not say the following concerning 9/11 warnings?

"There were lots of warnings."

Or Senator Arlen Specter:

"I don't believe any longer that it's a matter of connecting the dots. I think they had a veritable blueprint, and we want to know why they didn't act on it."



And Bush didn't fill up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in 2001, which nearly doubled the price of barrel of oil overnight??

And Bush didn't invade Iraq, which took 1.4 Million barrels of oil offline??

And Bush didn't FIRE the Fannie Mae regulator who warned of the GSE & subprime??

And Bush didn't hand out $100,000 tax credit to business owners that purchased Hummers, Escalades and other gas guzzling SUVs??

And Bush didn't refuse to sign a mandate which raised fuel economy by 1MPG which would've saved MILLIONS of barrel of oil a year??

And Bush didn't spend so much that the USD lost 50% of its value, thus raising the cost of oil??

And Bush recession didn't start on December 2007 which cost 4 million jobs even before Obama took office??


Only if you were a clueless Rush Limbaugh listener.

[daggerkobe]

just let me know when you copy paste some FACTS

OR when you actually post an original thought

either may actually happen before the next halley's comet.

You remind me of the "independent thinkers" I've met downtown. They usually stand on street corners yelling something. One even accused me of being a "spy" following him from country to country.

Any thought not based on FACTS or REALITY is the blabberings of a clueless moron, Dwight is a perfect example.

[DwightShrute]

So Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld did not say the following concerning 9/11 warnings?

"There were lots of warnings."

Or Senator Arlen Specter:

"I don't believe any longer that it's a matter of connecting the dots. I think they had a veritable blueprint, and we want to know why they didn't act on it."



And Bush didn't fill up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in 2001, which nearly doubled the price of barrel of oil overnight??

And Bush didn't invade Iraq, which took 1.4 Million barrels of oil offline??

And Bush didn't FIRE the Fannie Mae regulator who warned of the GSE & subprime??

And Bush didn't hand out $100,000 tax credit to business owners that purchased Hummers, Escalades and other gas guzzling SUVs??

And Bush didn't refuse to sign a mandate which raised fuel economy by 1MPG which would've saved MILLIONS of barrel of oil a year??

And Bush didn't spend so much that the USD lost 50% of its value, thus raising the cost of oil??

And Bush recession didn't start on December 2007 which cost 4 million jobs even before Obama took office??


Only if you were a clueless Rush Limbaugh listener.

You are entitled to believe in what you feel is true. For every quote that you have entered (not free thinking btw, just copy and paste) I can and have shown you the other side.

I have seen what you think is true and while I don't complete disregard it, the articles that I personally feel represents the more likely truth are usually the opposite views of yourself.

Does that make you stupid? I don't think so.

But when you basically call us idiots for agreeing with Hannity or Limbaugh and anything that is contrary to your beliefs, then you lose credibility for your arguments!

[losturmarbles]

Any thought not based on FACTS or REALITY is the blabberings of a clueless moron

and yet you continue to copy paste non-factual, illogical, and irrational diatribes that have nothing to do with the original post.

[daggerkobe]

There's always 2 sides to a story.... but usually just 1 truth.

If you happen to have FACTS that proves Donald Rumsfeld & Arlen Specter did not say those things, then go ahead and post it.

If you have FACTS that proves that Bush filling up the SPR did NOT nearly double the price of barrel of oil, then post it.

If you have FACTS that proves invading Iraq did not put millions of oil production offline thus raising oil prices, then post it.

If you have FACTS that proves handing out $100k tax credit for purchasing Hummers, Escalades and other gas guzzling SUVs thus wasting tax payers money and increasing our dependence on foreign oil then post it.

If you have FACTS that proves Bush didn't advocate a "ownership society" and pushed for more minorities to own homes and even help with downpayments then prove it.

If you have FACTS that proves Bush didn't FIRE the Fannie Mae regulator who had warned him of the dangers of GSE & Subprime then post it.

If you have FACTS that proves Bush didn't refuse to sign the mandate raising fuel economy by 1MPG, saving the US millions of barrels of oil per year then post it.

If you have FACTS that proves Bush's out of control spending didn't devalue the USD by half, thus raising the price of goods such as oil then post it.


The only criteria is that they can't be Youtube, Blog or Jews advocating the invasion of Iraq. I mean what's next, a Pakistani advocating the nuking of India? Or a South Korean advocating the overthrowing of North Korea? Or the Hatfields wanting to wipe out the McCoys?

[daggerkobe]

and yet you continue to copy paste non-factual, illogical, and irrational diatribes that have nothing to do with the original post.

Non-factual? Yet you and the other neonitwits can't dispute any.

[DwightShrute]

Non-factual? Yet you and the other neonitwits can't dispute any.

I give up!

hopeless!

[jon101]

I agree Bush wasn't the best president but Obama is not a solution to a worse problem. Bush vetoed higher taxes while Obama embraces them (FACT SCHIP). Bush started a senseless war, and was part of Neocons that screwed us (Fact, not neowits nimwit). Bush embraced oilmen at the whitehouse, and screwed us all.

YES BUSH DID THAT, BUT OBAMA IS NOT DOING MUCH BETTER. HE IS A BAND AID TO THE REAL PROBLEM. ITS SOCIALIST SCUM THAT RAISE TAXES AND CARE FOR ONLY THE RICH ALL OVER AGAIN AS USUAL.
HE IS BUSiNESS AS USUAL AND THATS A FACT. HE IS A SPINELESS COWARD THAT WHEN THE EUROPEANS CHASTISE HIM SAYS NOTHING. I like Obama to a point, the point where we ship him back to Africa. Kenya can have him! When I have presented the facts the black jesus has done nothing but lie cheat and steal, and all you got is bush comebacks thats a load of horse shit.
If all you can do is label someone wrongly instead of presenting real facts that the republicans should have selected a better candidate and that Obama won by default. Then SHUT THE HELL UP!

Kiss my white redneck ass!

[therber2]

You sure sound like a run-of-the-mill, post-game capper. You know, all the experts that sound off once the game goes final.

I don't have balls? Yet I've been posting predictions of games for years now.

Where are your picks, genius?

This is the politics and economics section dude; get things straight. You are harping on and on about the past; what would you invest in for the future?

My game picks are always posted ahead of time! Don't give a damn what I sound like to you.

[daggerkobe]

I love how the neonitwits claim Obama ruined the country in 76 days. I mean it's not like Obama inherited the worst economic turmoil since the Great Depression or anything.

This is in contrast of course to how the recession began 2 months after Dumbya took office in 2001 yet it isn't his fault because his policies "hadn't taken affect yet." But all of today's problems are Obama's fault after 2 months.

[jon101]

Bout time you started talking about obama instead of bush.
76 days and he has already:
1.2 trillion deficit
taxed the poor
stimulated nothing

and you think we shouldn't complain.

Your the nitwit!