Steve

Plenty of legit criticisms of Democratic solutions for heath care. However, first, the Republicans had to come kicking and screaming even to address affordable health care which is a crisis. When 2 of 3 personal bankruptcies are health costs related its a crisis. Second, what are their solutions? Health Savings Accounts? Does nothing but create a new tax dodge for people. It doesn't address the core issues. The core problem is that the health industry has too much power with Congress and until that is addresssed health care costs will continue to be a crisis. Medical tourism is one result of that. Americans are spending their money overseas for medical care instead of in the U.S.

Gas prices are kept high by the oil companies and the oil producing countries. With respect to America specifically, the oil companies send a lot of that oil out of the country. The big lie about this pipeline is that it will NOT lower prices in America. In all liklihood not much of that oil will be kept here. China, South Korea and Japan are probably more excited about that proposed pipeline the Republicans are pushing than anyone else. I was speaking to a friend who worked in the oil industry (Mobil) in the old days and he said that we've gotten scarily close to breaking even technology for fusion, etc. but those companies and such get bought out by the oil companies and you never hear from them again. I know sound like a conspircay nut but with the amount of money they can lose, I completely believe they are hindering alternative energy technology and keeping it to the wind, solar variety because they know that won't catch up. As for Obama, the ironic thing is he's come under brutal criticims from black pundits on the left. There is a guy with a talk show who is very popular amongst blacks named Tavis Smiley, he and a lot of the liberal black intelligentsia/academia have been very very critical of Obama and the masses aren't happy with them about it. You have to be conservative AND black to be called an uncle tom nowadays if you criticize anyone black. Herman Cain would be an example. Henry Louis Gates Jr for example, is not because he is a Dem but has been very critical of Obaama. He has taught at an Ivy league school, Harvard I think, anyway, part of the liberal elite that HH doesn't like. Again, the standard is that its okay for a liberal to criticize Obama and not be thought of as a racist but if you're white and conservative you run that risk. I don't like it, its not fair, but to some extent, conservatives have to bear some of that fault for sometimes using minorities to get votes.

Flash, in my defense, in the forum I got that link from I posted that the list is vastly overstated. I think he has had mixed results on a few things. I think he's been better at foreign policy than he has been on the domestic front but I don't think he's failed domestically. I think he could have been more successful but the bleeding stopped and we seem stabalized and looking on the up. I think had he done a few things differently we'd have been ahead economically a year or two earlier.

I like to get HH's blood boiling once in a while. Helps the circulation http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/march_april_2012/features/obamas_top_50_accomplishments035755.php?page=1 Obama's Top 50 Accomplishments

National polls are complete BS and their only purpose is to sway the bandwagoners. Ask any of the candidates would they rather be ahead in a national poll but behind in the 6 biggest swing states or behind nationally and ahead in the 6 biggest swing states and its a no brainer. As is well known, 40 of the 50 states are spoken for. Its done. California will go Democrat, Texas will go Republican no matter what national polls say. The 10 swing states are all that matters and the most important ones are Ohio, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Virginia probably in that order. Romney can lead by 20 points but if loses Florida and Ohio its game, set, match. As for the birther thingy. Again, I think it plays perfectly into Obama's hands. First of all, despite more controversy in '08 over this issue, Obama won handily. He's already President and its going to seem more like sour grapes and desperation than anything else. For me, I can't get past that the state of Hawaii accepts him as born there so they would have to be in on the lie. It ends it there for me if someone is suggesting that the state itself is lying or just as ludicrous is 'fooled'. I don't know the law well enough but I am pretty certain that if a state says someone is born there the rest of the states have to honor it unless the Surpreme court gets involved. I would assume by default the federal government has accepted Obama as a natural born citizen since he is President, legally he has met the requirement. I would assume a state can't arbitrarily say different. If a state supreme court upholds it, I would assume the federal district court or supreme court wouldn't even hear the matter but dismiss it outright. I can't imagine they'd even hear evidence or reasons why it should have standing. Without the support of someone important, a Congressman or even a Governor, I can't see this thing being anything but seen as vindictive, mean spirited and prejudicial by a lot of folks and turn off the center. As for as the nomination process, its over. Its Romney, the press will make a meal out of any Santorum or Gingrich win but the only question is what Romney has to do make peace. He will be the nominee. Any suggestion otherwise is not worth entertaining. The press should say so but won't because it needs people to stay interested for money reasons.

Flash, there is certainly a double standard. The Dems get a pass on some things that a Republican wouldn't. However...(and you know there will be), the Republicans have to blame themselves. All too often they run issues based on the very same fears. They demonize groups such as latinos, blacks, gays and even some women with the issues they use to get people fired up. Dems are preaching the opposite so its no wonder to me when you get a conservative who has a racist friend and a liberal who has a racist friend that conservative will get more hot water. HH, as for Obama..lol...wow you really get worked up over him. He's not nearly as bad as you make him out to be. Liberals have far, far more reason to dislike him than conservatives do. Obama is mainstream, connected now. He and his people are part of the establishment. He's been a decent President actually. My criteria are 1. judging him against the presidents of the last 20 years or so and 2. the enormity of the mess he inherited. I know its an old horse that we should stop beating but we really were on the brink of a meltdown and although things are far from perfect these days, there are firm signs, visible signs to most Americans that the bleeding has stopped and we have seen the bottom of things. None of his predecessors of the last 20 years or so had to work with the difficulties he inherited. Don't get me wrong, he made mistakes. Big ones. For me, pushing healthcare when he should have worked on the economy via infrastructure. A few other things as well. His cozying up to the big money guys and such. That makes him typical not terrible if that makes any sense.

Obama is half white. Furthermore he was raised by his white half and raised in an environment (Hawaii) that had very few blacks throughout his formative years. He would have be one helluva self hating guy to be anti-white. His record as President and as a public official says otherwise. Not saying that its okay to have people with those very wrong notions as a friend is right. However, in theory, I could be guilty by association. I have many childhood friends and even present black friends who have become nation of islam, anti white, jew, anti american bigots. Some have deep ingrained issues against the majority society and see anti black sentiment in the most inane things. Anyone that knows me knows that's not me. I argue with those friends and you become friends with such people for a myriad of reasons. Just like how I have white friends, very dear white friends who have friends who are devout racists. Not once did I feel those friends were racists because of how sincere and great they are to me. All of us have friends we are embarassed by and kept them around because we have history. Those friends also can be great friends. Its politics but I look at the person and their history of relating to people. Obama hasn't shown any indication that he believes and supports that type of thinking. His administration certainly doesn't reflect it. The lack of blacks at senior levels is evidence of that. The people he has at his senior levels are some of the very people the Jeremiah Wrights of the world speak out against: connected, rich, white folks.

Biggest crock of BS. Saving someone's life and invading privcay are two totally different things. The only way I would ever consider cell phone searches okay is the criteria that is used for searching someone's house or car without their permission. As for saving someone's life, its presumed a parent or the owner of a cell phone, the victim themselves, would not be opposed to gathering information to secure their release. Its insulting to equate the two as the article suggests from some law enforcement. There is no more freedom. Its gone. They are just open about it these days.

http://news.yahoo.com/case-let-thousands-calif-criminals-vote-193650198.html The nonpartisan League of Women Voters and two prisoners' rights groups sued California elections officials on Wednesday, claiming that tens of thousands of criminals being shifted to county jails and community supervision should be eligible to vote. The state's new realignment law that took effect in October is sending lower-level offenders to county jails instead of to state prisons, where they are barred from voting. It also ends parole for many ex-convicts, substituting a similar program called "post-release community supervision" instead. The plaintiffs said more than 85,000 offenders who are no longer in state prison or on parole should be allowed to vote in the June primary election. They are challenging a memo from Secretary of State Debra Bowen's office that said people who are sentenced to county jail or supervision under realignment are ineligible to vote under California law. California is one of 48 states and the District of Columbia that prohibit felons while they are incarcerated. The exceptions are Maine and Vermont. According to The Sentencing Project, a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy organization, 35 states ban parolees from voting and 30 of the same states bar voting by people on probation as well. My view is while you're still paying for your crime to society some rights are suspended. Freedom and the right to vote mainly. However, I feel that after your parole, your right to vote should be restored. You paid your debt to society. We give back all the rights except one. The right to vote. Seems silly that as an ex-con you can technically still be voted in as president but you can't vote for one. Yes it means a former rapist or murderer can vote. But it also means the guy who gets caught with pot can vote as well. Either you have paid your debt to society or you haven't.

http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshhn343j09wV8RhK4m9 Dumbazz Of The Week: Pittsburgh Thug Robs A Girl For $60.. Then Calls Her Up To See If She Wanted To Go Out!

http://now.msn.com/living/0307-pat-robertson-pot.aspx Pat likes pot. Good news potheads, Pat Robertson is on your side

Was that scholorship as a kid? For me, you get a pass for anything done under say age 25 if you're running for president and you're presumably over 45 years old. Malcolm X led an honorably life as an adult but was a pimp and drug pusher as a kid. There is such a thing as redemption. If you're a regular person, you've done something as a kid. Smoked pot. DUI. Drunken frat boy stuff. Arrested for trespassing because you and some chick were pool hopping skinny dipping. I'd vote for a guy like that than some boyscout who never did anything right. Was part of Campus Crusades for Christ (hate saying that and feel guilty) and did nothing bad his whole life. That person can't identify with the average person and is judgmental.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/03/does-the-romney-ron-paul-pact-make-paul-a-sellout/253805/

I can't see anyone in Congress or the Supreme court touching the birther thingy unless someone comes up with more concrete info that has some real teeth. Too many people would have to be part of the lie. Obama would have been told at some point. His mother, grandparents that helped raise him, schools throughout his life, the state of Hawaii. Too many people. He's gone 40 someodd years without something that substantial being an issue and then it is all of a sudden? Nah, not buying it.

Although Obama is in election mode, he is right to some extent but talking about foreign policy and what do about certain countries has been part of the policial campaigning process for years. War though is a line that I would not cross. The Republcan candidates come dangerously close at times to saying they'd go to war with Iran. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/iran-obama-assails-republican-candidates-beating-drums-war-195123840.html Some of these folks have a lot of bluster and a lot of big talk," he said scornfully at his first White House press conference of 2012, but "those folks don't have a lot of responsibilities. They're not commander in chief." "The one thing that we have not done is: We haven't launched a war. If some of these folks think that it's time to launch a war, they should say so. And they should explain to the American people exactly why they would do that and what the consequences would be," he said. "Everything else is just talk." "When I see the casualness with which some of these folks talk about war, I'm reminded of the costs involved in war. I'm reminded of the decision that I have to make to send in terms of sending our young men and women into battle, and the impact that has on their lives, the impact it has on our national security, the impact it has on our economy," he said.

I supported Bush in '00 as well. Didn't trust Gore and couldn't stand his prudish wife. However, I keep hearing how Obama doesn't work with Congress but he's seen as weak for caving in to the Republicans. Which one is it?

They push for it, it plays into Obama's hands. It would be done at the state or county level probably where someone will not have him on the ballot until they prove it to them. The national party would be hurt by it and the best thing Romney and the heirarchy could do is squash it and speak out against it strongly. Not doing so and it can be used by the Dems. It won't be Obama it will be a mouthpiece. Some Senator or whatever and Obama will play the victim. Unfair hints of racism possibly, oh, it can be milked in a bad way. It will drive independents to Obama. It would be a hoot (wow, i really am my father) if he really wasn't born in Amerca...HAHA. Anyway, its too late. He's President and that horse has left the gate. The fringe right needs to get over it. The irony is that it was a Democrat, Hillary Clinton supporter who started it all. Wonder where he is right now? In '08 of the two candidates there was only one that it was proven wasn't born in America...and it wasn't Obama.

As to the Rush Limbaugh and Bill Maher as a rebuttal thingy, here are my thoughts. Both are wrong. What I find disconcerting is the weak response by Republicans, specifically Romney as well as others to condemn Limbaugh's statements. Using Maher as a 'well, what about them?' is a weak response. Its a pathetic response. As for Maher, the major difference is something said about a public figure and a person who is not. Its not right, but whether you're a Sarah Palin, Britney Spears, etc. you chose to be a public figure and unfortunately part of the social costs are that comics and others are going to make inappropriate comments. This woman is not in the same category as Palin as a public figure. She's regarded as a private citizen and thats why there was outrage over her and not Palin. Maher was wrong, not saying he isn't but there is a difference. Limbaugh's apologies seem to be said for financial reasons (lost sponsors) and not out of contriteness and not genuine. Had sponsors not started dropping him, would we have gotten the apology? Its not fair but there is a double standard with respect to a Republican vs. a Democrat on saying anything sexist, racist, homophobic. The GOP has won elections by dividing Americans and playing on fears and helped maintain a divisive environment by fear mongering to white voters over latinos/immigrants, blacks and gays. Its not right but the Republicans created the bias with a history of seeming anti-gay, black, female, etc. rhetoric. Clinton was forgiven by the women's groups for the Lewinsky affair. At the time I bashed the women's movement for the obvious double standard and for being hypocrites. Had it been a Republican that changed welfare, the NAACP and other black groups would have denounced it as nothing short of state sponsored racism. It wrong and its hypocritical. Limbaugh was joking truth be told. He's not relevant. He's pandering for ratings. That's obvious. Its an election year and unfortunately for the GOP conservative media pundit are viewed as representative of the GOP as a whole despite their comments being their own. It is what it is.

And some of you continue to think you still have freedom of thought or speech? hahahahaha http://redtape.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/06/10585353-govt-agencies-colleges-demand-applicants-facebook-passwords Govt. agencies, colleges demand applicants' Facebook passwords

By most accounts and on the 'street' the feeling is the American economy is improving. Slowly but surely. Not a good thing for Republicans. Oh, they'll argue the economy is in the crapper but voters in some regions can see the improvement and its a tough sell teling someone something different than what they are seeing and feeling. The one thing that the Republicans thought Obama would be vulnerable on due to lack of experience is foreign policy but its the one shining achievement of the Obama administration. I'm surprised they aren't touting it more. Probably will once the nominees are set. Obama is expected to look better in the debate than Romeny. Romney isn't expected to do well so I think if he does decently it will look like a victory of sorts. Obama isn't as good in a debate as he is in prepared speech I think. I've seen both and he's an excellent orator in a prepared speech. The randomness of a question sometimes catches him off balance in a debate. Being known as a good public speaker may hurt him a little as the expectations are very high so if doesn't deliver he can look a little bad even if he is the consensus winner. He is expected to win debates against Romney by a wide margin.

The hispanic vote is not monolithic. I grew up around latinos (mainly Puerto Rican, Dominicans and some Cubans) on the east coast and Mexicans, Salvadoreans and other central Americans on the west coast. The two coasts are vastly different in mentality and they don't all get along. Lots of rivalry. Cubans from my experience are more likely to vote Republican than any other. They view the Republicans as the most anti Castro. Puerto Ricans the most Democratic I think. Dominicans not far behind. Mexicans? Hmmm...from my limited experience, it depends on the generation. Older generations who have been Americans for decades are conservative. New arrivals, first generation are Dems since they view immigration as a more personal issue than older families. One fast growing niche that the Republicans would be very smart to grab on to are the fundamental latinos on the west coast. Droves of them are leaving the Catholic church and are joining fundamental Christian churches. They are dotting south central and east LA and the atmosphere is similar to Black churches. Immigration is important but not as important some might think. Social conservatism is extremely important to them. They have the same ani abortion/pro life, anti pop culture, anti gay marriage and pro Israel/end of days/biblical armageddon stance as the white fundamental church members. 7th day adventists and even Mormons have made great inroads in attracting latino members as well. I know of a few Latino 7th day adventist churches in LA with Kingdom Hall in spanish on the church.

http://news.yahoo.com/holder-speak-targeted-killings-americans-192324573--abc-news.html Under what conditions can or should the United States government target and kill -- without trial -- a U.S. citizen suspected of plotting terrorism? Attorney General Eric Holder today provided the most detailed terms to date on the legal principals behind the U.S. drone campaign and the U.S. government's legal authority to target and kill U.S. citizens such as Anwar al-Awlaki, a suspected high-profile al Qaeda recruiter. "Let me be clear: An operation using lethal force in a foreign country, targeted against a U.S. citizen who is a senior operational leader of al Qaeda or associated forces, and who is actively engaged in planning to kill Americans, would be lawful at least in the following circumstances: First, the U.S. government has determined, after a thorough and careful review, that the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States; second, capture is not feasible; and third, the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles," Holder said his speech at the Northwestern University Law School. "The evaluation of whether an individual presents an 'imminent threat' incorporates considerations of the relevant window of opportunity to act, the possible harm that missing the window would cause to civilians, and the likelihood of heading off future disastrous attacks against the United States." "Some have called such operations 'assassinations.' They are not, and the use of that loaded term is misplaced. Assassinations are unlawful killings," Holder continued in his prepared remarks. "The U.S. government's use of lethal force in self defense against a leader of al Qaeda or an associated force who presents an imminent threat of violent attack would not be unlawful -- and therefore would not violate the Executive Order banning assassination or criminal statutes." I don't lose one iota of sleep for the deaths of the filth and scum who are American citizens but help the terrorist. None at all. However, this is NOT the way. Its extremely scary when the government can justify murder of American citizens. There is no other word to describe it when you are denied due process. Holder says 'they determine' the person to be a threat. Its NOT his say or the justice departments say, its the court of law. Its a judge and jury of his peers. Its the worse precedence to set. So sad its coming from a Democratic administration. Shame on them. I'd expect that from a Republican administration but its sad to see it from the Dems as well. The constitution is really no more than a piece of paper now. I was discussing politics with some people last week and I said, and said it sadly, that I don't think we can come back as a nation. Not just economically but also in terms of civil liberties. Its too late. We're done. Another person at the table said they still had faith. The only thing I will not do is not do anything. What's that saying about 'good men doing nothing'? Not that I'm good. Far from it. I'll join any organization, sign any petition, etc. but I'll do so thinking silently that its going to be all for nought in a generation or two, maybe less. When it all goes sh*t, I don't want to die knowing I didn't do anything anyway. I was always the kind of nut case that would still play hard in a blowout and losing. For pride sake. I've said this before. American history has shown that we come together and do what is right when faced with some great event. That event may be military/war, economic, even social. We ended up doing what is right. The Civil War, World War II, the vote and Equal rights for Blacks and Women. The Great Depression. However, this century has had two great events and both times we failed miserably. 9/11 we used to not only go into two wars, with one being purely fabricated, we also used it as an opportunity to strip the citizens of civil liberties (Patriots Act, Homeland Security). The second great event, was the '08 financial meltdown. Insted of correcting the problem we ended up rewarding the companies that created it and give them a free hand to keep bleeding the people. Furthermore, the ones who we relied the most, the Fed Reserve chairman and Tresury secretary at the time, originally presented to Congress a document asking for an amount of money that whose figure was taken out of their ass and not based on anything concrete on a document that said they should be able to do with it whatever they wanted without any legal repurcussions whatsoever. Technically they could put in their back accounts with no recourse from the courts. It was arrogant and it showed just how far we've gone as a nation where they felt they could get away with it. I'm not seeing the fact it was rejected as any hope either. We're done. It hurts me like hell to say it. Its defeatest maybe. I hope I'm wrong in the worst way but to say that I think there is some hope would be lying to myself.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-election-campaign-quietly-organizes-while-republicans-fight-191727365.html President Barack Obama's supporters waited all of two months after his inauguration to start laying the groundwork here for what has become a re-election machine that is bigger and tougher than his would-be Republican rivals' nightmarish imaginings. Oh, I'm afraid the Obama campaign will be quite operational when his Republican challenger arrives. Powerful, the president's re-election effort is: A new NBC News/Marist poll finds Obama trouncing his opponents in hypothetical general-election matchups in this state. He leads Mitt Romney in Ohio by 12 points among registered voters, 50 percent to 38 percent; Ron Paul by 10 points, 48 percent to 38 percent; Rick Santorum by 14 points, 50 percent to 36 percent; and Newt Gingrich by 15 points, 51 percent to 36 percent. While the seesaw battle for the Republican Party's presidential nomination has grabbed the news media spotlight, the unopposed Democratic incumbent has quietly worked to enlist new supporters and woo back the armies of volunteers and small donors who powered his historic victory in 2008. Lots of things can happen between now and the election but the general vibe is that Romney will not beat the President. Obama has a great organization. Many dsimissed him as a 'community organizer' but those skills came to fruition in '08 as he ran a much tighter campaign than McCain and his organization is said to be unparralled this time around. Its the Republicans that have always had the reputation and in practice, been a far better organized machine than the Dems. Obama has changed that. The problem for Obama would be to get people excited again but he doesn't have to with the infighting happening in the Republican party. He's pulling away in some important swing states in the polls. Ohio and Virginia specifically. He should also take Wisconsin. Michigan used to be written off for the Dems but could even come in play now. The Republicans had a star in the making with Paul. Maybe he wouldn't have won the general election but he could have at least created some excitement and enthusiasm in bringing people in but the heiarchy just ignores him no matter what he does. Same with the media who amazingly just ignores him. Republican overlords do it because they can't control him. They won't support anyone they can't control. The only reason I can see the media ignoring him is because they are in bed with the establishment. Paul is a good story and is good news copy. Its a no brainer as a journalist I would imagine because he asks some hard questions and controversial or interesting questions gets eyes on paper or screens.

The fringe left has its moments. The People's Republic of Santa Monica has come up with some looney stuff and boystown aka West Hollywood, the center of gay LA, has come up with even loonier stuff like trying to equate your pet dog as an equal by legally saying you are not a dog owner. Since dogs aren't slaves. However, as batty as the far left can be they don't scare me as much as the far right. They seem more ominous. http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/gop-bill-outlaws-all-single-parent-and-all-gay-households-as-child-abuse/politics/2012/03/02/35633 A GOP lawmaker in Wisconsin is trying to pass a bill that would classify “non marital parenthood†as a cause of child abuse. Since gays cannot legally mary in Wisconsin, the bill automatically includes single and coupled gays and lesbians, plus any single person regardless of orientation. The bill “requir[es] the Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention Board to emphasize nonmarital parenthood as a contributing factor to child abuse and neglect.†Republican State Senator Glenn Grothman, who has a long history of radical positions, wants to spend tax dollars “educating†the public — with no scientific proof (because there is none) — that gays, lesbians, single mothers, and single fathers should not be allowed to be parents because their children will grow up in an abusive home. In fact, Senator Grothman is claiming that the very lack of two married opposite sex parents in a household constitutes child abuse. Apparently, Senator Grothman believes that marriage is for procreation, and therefore only married people should be allowed to raise children. In essence, the bill could, if it became law, be used to outlaw all gay couples raising children, and all single-parent households. This guy can make provisions like this because of the voters. I have to question what kind of electorate has people like this representing them. Actually, I don't question it. America's history is replete with examples.

Limbaugh is struggling to stay relevent. I don't agree we should be paying for contraceptive but Limbaugh went over my line for decency. Its free speech all around. If you public support a view on a public platform, you have to expect detractors. I listened to Limbaugh years ago to see what the fuss was all about. I'm not impressed. It was plainly obvious to me he carved out a niche and was milking for what its worth.