Steve

Americans know that removing guns won't make America safer. We will still kill each other. Compared to other western worlds, we are a violent society. Especially our urban centers. Have there ever been a time when our major cities weren't violent? Yes, the murder rate and overall crime rate have taken dips but comparatively speaking to other developed countries, we remain violent. That said, i understand the European view of why make it easier with guns. Yes, we will kill continue to kill each other but we won't be as efficient. if you walked into a school with a knife, you won't be able to kill as many people. Both views have some validity to them. There is an unhappy medium in there somewhere. For guns to be banned as well as the overall crime rate of America, society has to go through a cultural change.

I've had guns. However, I don't like the NRA. They really are no different than relgious fanatics with regards to abortion. My problem with the NRA is they seem to oppose sensible limitations. My problem is they see pretty much ANY limitations as a slippery slope to the complete banning of guns. When I meet fellow gun owners, I usually end up putting them in a few categories in my mind. There are some like me, who really don't want them, who would rather be in a world without one but we either live in areas that we feel a firearm in our home will protect us and our families from harm.. I said this before. When most people own one for the reasons I did, you pray to God you never have to use it, even if you have to protect your life. If an intruder tried to kill me and I justifably killed him to protect my own life, I'd still feel rotten about it. You have some who are on some cowboy, ego, my dick (gun) is bigger than yours bullshyt. In some areas gun-ownership shot up after Obama got elected. Those folks scare the hell out of me as well. It wasn't because they thought he'd bad guns, the blogs they are on are forecasing some race war and Obama's election is a sign like Revelations in the Bible of the coming apocolypse. You have some who want to go out in the desert and shoot at large inanimate objects or watermelons and such and do it for the sheer sense of power that it brings. They scare the f*ck out of me as well. I've been in gun shops. The funny thing is the looks on some of these guys, Sons of Anarchy, militia types and they are looking at me with a face, as if 'what the hell are you doing in here?'. As if I don't have a right to the same thing they do because of what I look like. Getting guns out of the hands of the nut cases is a problem and the more we have these tragedies the harder it is for the NRA. America has to change culturally. Unfortunately, it will take more incidents such as this.

As soon as anyone talks of publicly financing elections the parties challenge it in court under the 'freedom of speech' provision in the constitution. Not saying they have a point, just saying its their way of saying we want to continue buying the election. More so than ever the rich and powerful have a bigger ownership of the candidates. We do the voting but the candidates are beholden to the ones who paid for their election and its NOT the people who voted for them. The ONLY difference between Obama and Romney is that Obama says he's for the people and Romney at least public beholden to the rich. We are a complete mess.

This is my unscientific view on the tax rate thingy. I'm not an economist obviously. While i do think there are pros and cons to the different views of where the marginal tax rates should be and I tend to think that a lower tax rate overall seems logically better than a higher one, I don't think tax rates, within reason, are a huge determinant of if an economy will expand and grow. Particularly to America, I think the one thing that has had the most impact on growth are Americans themselves. We've always been a country of entrepreneurs, ideas, and risk takers. Its pretty much in our DNA. Most countries are like that. Not just America. There are tax rates of vastly different rates throughout the world and people have prospered in all of them. If you build a better mouse trap you will make money. No matter the rate. Some European countries have what seems to be a horrifically high rate to Americans but have produced great companies and billionaires. It doesn't matter what the rate would have been in the '90s, the Internet and Tech boom was so big, it was going to overcome pretty much any obstacle. Many people actually got rich in the Depression era. Since '08, the Dow increased and pretty much most of the Forbes 400 got back their 'loss' (paper loss actually) from '08 and a good percentage are even richer. This during a financial crisis and slow recovery. Economies go in cycles and trend up. Japan has been stagnated for almost a couple decades now and were still the number 2 economy unti recently. I also think this business roundtable the White House has is all BS. Big business are always going to complain and always going to ask for way more than they need in terms of regulations, tax rates, etc. Why shouldn't they? If I were a CEO I'd do the same. What this roundtable needs are people from the consumer or taxpayer advocacy groups who call them on the bullshit. What corporation is going to say they don't need corporate welfare, when its clear they don't need certain ones. These business groups argue to keep it all the time. I'm not saying they don't have valid concerns but just taking them a their word is not wise either. Government decisions can slow or kill growth or speed it up and visa versa. However, no matter what the government does, economic forces are always bigger. Those forces are what ultimately expands or contracts the economy. All the government can do is do what it can to help the boon times go longer or shorten the bad times. It can't stop either altogether.

Hillary would had an easier time of winning than Obama in 08.

Yeah, you're right. On the federal level at least tell the states you won't oppose the legalization of pot and prostitution so they can make their own choices. Trust me, even the bible belt would consider it once they saw the money it. Look at gambling. That has spread once they saw the jobs and money it provided.

The public saw Graham and McCain as bitter men, playing party politics. Obama's overall foreign policy record has been very good, better than anyone expected. It was supposed to be his weakest point so said the pundits back in '08. Understandably so, he had no experience. Conversely, Romney came off as a shoot first, ask questions later hawk and foreign governments, even allies, were turned off. You negoatiated and talked with allies and enemies under Obama. Romney came off as if he would talk AT allies and enemies and more apt to use force. Good to hear Republicans talking about going back on the pledge not to raise taxes. The pledge was idiotic. You can not account for every scenario. Generally speaking, I firmly agree that raising taxes should be a last resort but you can't say never. Its simply not realistic and its too strong of an approach in a government where you must compromise to make anything work. What I think a possible solution would be a national sales tax on certain goods and services. Its a consumption tax of sorts and would raise lots of money. Its how the government made money until the income tax. Taxes on goods and tarriffs. I also think a national lottery would be a boon. The powerball amounts would see now would be the norm. Cut the states in on the action and provide a portion for the states. The winning state gets the lions share but all states get something. Like how the revenue sharing works in sports leagues. Any foreign national that wins it while living in the U.S. is offered immediate citizenship if they have no violent or major criminal acts. Make the money from a national lottery, program specific so it can't be wasted on boondogle. Maybe education, health care, social security, something inviolate that it can't be siphoned off no matter what. It would raise untold billions. It only taxes the willing. Legalize pot and prostitution on the state level so they can raise money that way. Kitty ranch type of places, where there is a health code, etc. The only area I would not touch and must admit its for personal bias reasons is the internet. Leave that open and free.

There was an economist that called America's energy future as a 'Saudi America'. I still want us to move away from fossil fuels where we can and slowly remove ourselves from it for a variety of reasons. Also, there has always been lots of oil and gas that we know of but are in areas that are deemed environmentally sensitive. Another topic that I want to hear comments about is the Susan Rice thing. What's up John McCain's and Lindsay Graham's asses? They have a hard on for this girl. They are also hypocritical as hell, Condi Rice straight out lied. No question. Susan Rice was parotting talking points from a situation she was not party to. Condi was in the thick of the WMD mess. The fiscal cliff thingy favors the Democrats. The Republicans are at a disadvantage. Obama may be on a revenge tip and he's gonna serve it cold. I don't want him to do the revenge thing. I want him to govern for everybody.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/21/opinion/duty-before-party-for-gov-chris-christie.html?_r=0 A report in The Times on Tuesday by Michael Barbaro showed just how low Republican leaders sank in the final week of the presidential campaign. Hurricane Sandy struck the East Coast eight days before Election Day, and all the party could see was a Republican governor praising a Democratic president. When the president visited New Jersey, Mr. Christie had the temerity to describe him as “outstanding†and “incredibly supportive.†Republicans don’t forget that kind of thing, said Douglas Gross, a party operative in Iowa. “The presumption is that Republicans can’t count on him,†Mr. Gross said. At the Republican Governors Association meeting last week, Pat McCrory, the governor-elect of North Carolina, told Mr. Christie: “People keep asking me why you were so nice to the president.†He added, “I tell them you are doing your job,†but the message was conveyed. It wasn’t just the praise for the president, though, that seemed to bother Mr. Romney’s supporters. For years, the party’s loudest activists have tried to delegitimize Mr. Obama, questioning his birthplace and his patriotism, even calling him a socialist and saying outright that he was in over his head. How could you stand so close to Mr. Obama on the tarmac, one donor to Mr. Romney asked, suggesting that physical proximity to the president was out of line. How could you have boarded the presidential helicopter for a tour of the shore? Apparently party leaders and donors really expected Mr. Christie to refuse to meet the president at a time when his state was suffering. They wanted him to reflect their own pettiness — so obvious in the last four years — and shun the hand dispensing federal aid. We have previously been critical of some of Mr. Christie’s shortsighted actions as governor, but it was hard not to admire him for standing up to his party’s worst elements and putting his state first.

I heard on Hardball with Chris Matthews that with McCain its personal over the '08 election. Thing is Obama has a habit of trying to make friends out of rivals. He made his primary opponents VP and Secretary of State. He publicly said he would appoint Romney to head something and in the process keep him relevant. He made Huntsman the ambassador to China. Romney's comments killed that. McCain was offered a peace pipe right after the election and he kept on talking shit. These personal battles are part of the gridlock. To be fair, Dubya tried to be friendly with Ted Kennedy and invited him to a special screening of a movie involving his family, Ted, ignored it and went after him.

What is up McCain's and Graham's ass with regards to Susan Rice? They are acting as if she engineered the Benghazzi thing herself. She's a minor bit part in all of it. Is it some sort of move to force the President to expend some political capital? McCain is a hypocrite in the whole thing. When Condi Rice was being nominated for a position, she had the WMD baggage and he attributed the Democratic objections to her as sour grapes over the mid term elections. Condi Rice had a LOT to answer for. Susan Rice in comparison has been exemplary from all accounts in representing our interests at the UN. Not sure why.

The problem as I saw it with the Republican primaries was that the leadership wanted Romney because they were all about winning and he polled the best against Obama. The Republican far right wanted Santorum or anyone farther right of Romney hence his rocky road to the nomination. The moderates or sensible ones of the crowd (Huntsman, Paul, Johnson) were not wanted by the leadership primarily because they did not seem to be able to beat Obama by the leadership (Johnson, Huntsman) or in the case of Paul, someone they could not control nor liked. The far right didn't want Huntsman because he was a China amabassador for Obama and therefore tainted. Johnson wasn't a religious nut. Pro-choice, pro gay marriage, pro pot legalization. Paul? Not sure why the far right didn't want him. Maybe not religious enough. In any event, all the different factions will presumably come up with a compromise candidate they all support. Jeb Bush could be that person. Christie may not appeal enough to the far right. Jindal may. Rubio has financial issues but may appeal to them. I think Jeb Bush would make a good candidate but family name may polarize things a bit. He'll have to do the I am not my brother's keeper act. His name and the 2000 election are his obvious negatives. They can be overcome though. Plus a latino wife Huge plus.

Johnson, Paul or Huntsman would have been a viable option. Hunstman especially who had all the criteria. He has a very strong resume and he is not some fundamentalist. Johnson is a little quirky but he's a common sense guy. Paul would do well frankly. Independents would love him.

These post election comments prove to me at least that Romney actually believed the 47% comment. Furthermore, what gifts? Black and latino unemployment was extremely high, Black teen unemployment was near 20%. Even college educated Blacks had a 7% unemployment rate v. 3.8% for White college educated workers. The only 'gift' I can think of is the Auto industry bailout. Those were mostly white workers. Goes to show you not only how out of touch he was but also his dishonesty. Other Republicans rightfully distanced themselves from the comment. He's done. They realized he was not only wrong but it will further alienate the party from getting new voters.

I'vw long read that white women were the biggest beneficiaries of Affirmative Action. Whites have always had far lower unemployment numbers than Blacks and Latinos. So, AA hasn't had the negative effect as some may think if employment rates and wages are what we are going by. AA has given us Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas and Barack Obama to name a few. I'm not even sure exactly what it is any more. The courts have changed nd modified it since its inception and it means different things to different institions, companies and universities. Regarding Latinos, people speak of them as a monolithic group and they are very, very diverse. They don't all get along. A Puerto Rican and a Mexican-American are very, very different culturally. They even have problems understanding each other in spanish similar to a Texan and a Brit trying to understand each other. The slang, cadence and even pronunciation is different.

Mitt's remarks doesn't read good. I don't think he gets it. What gifts? I didn't get mine. If that's what the Republicans are thinking they are in a lot of trouble. Women and minorities didn't get any gifts. In fact, a few Black politicians were criticizing Obama for NOT doing enough for the horribly high Black unemployment. Maxine Waters a few years ago at a speech was lamenting at a speech saying she doesn't know why the President doesn't even come to Black events and speak or addresses the specific needs of the high Black unemployment rate. The numbers bear out. Black and latino unemployment rates far exceed Whites, even amongst college educated, its almost doubled. If ever there was a chance for the Republicans to capture a good portion of the Black vote specifically it was the last election. Kemp was smart and said that he would privatize the federal housing projects and give it to the people in them and make them instant homeowners for example. He also championed and pushed for 'enterprize zones' for the inner city that if a company opened a business there they would get favorable tax treatment. Those solutions are win-win. Housing projects cost the government untold millions each year. They are decrepid, unsafe, often crime and drug ridden. There was a pilot program in St. Lous where they made the residents, almost all Black owners and when they saw that they had equity in property the place changed dramatically. It was changed into a co-op and they instituted curfews and such and voted out those who consistently violated the rules. They painted the place, planted flowers, etc, because they saw that their 20k value of their apartment could easily go to 30k or 40k if it were safe and looked good. Wonderful idea. Went no where because of a lack of support from the government. So we go on wasting millions when we could have had a lot of poor people who would be paying property taxes, and lowering the crime rate of their area. Anyway, I digress. What amazed me was the internal polling of the Republicans. There was absolutely no doubt in my mind Obama would win, it was just a matter of how much. The various polls saw it. I posted it. Those polls are very accurate. Vegas even picked it and they are not in the habit of getting odds wrong when money is on the line. Now the Republicans are going after the latino demographic with immigration compromise. They've written off Black support. Too much bad history there. I do think that is the wrong idea. They can get a good chunk of the Black middle and upper classes. Middle class is middle class. No matter where you are around the world, no matter the race. You have the same concerns. Are you going to get your kid a good education and get them into a good college and how are you going to pay for it. Can your home value hold steady. Etc. I've heard a lot of Blacks talk about Ron Paul for example. The Dems are willing to look at every demographic and find out if there are any points to score. The Republicans seem to be living on some other planet believing old stereotypes, etc. Disconnected from anything outside their traditional demographic. The fact is America is changing and the demographics, whether we like it or not, are going to get 'darker'.

California is already Democrat for presidential elections and won't change anytime soon. The shift happened in the early '90s. Calfornia was actually a 'Red' state for the Republicans. Piror to '92 they went for the Republican candidate during the '80s, '70s, etc. The state turned Blue because of their anti immigration stance. The state republicans were drafitng a lot of anti immigrant legislation. The Rodney King riots in '92 saw a lot of latinos get angry as well, They were in there rioting with Blacks (and even some Whites, Hollywood's rioters were mostly poor whites). You have to understand that it wasn't only Blacks that were being beaten by cops, Latinos were often worse because they had no voice. Both legal and illegal latino immigrants were even more marginalized than Blacks were who at least had the NAACP and other groups. What does a Guatemalen or Salvodorean have who was stopped and beaten by a cop? in '93 there was propsition 187 which was very very divisive. It was an anti immigrant bill drafted by Republicans and made the state's latinos turn Democratic. The state's Republicans turned that state Blue. The state Republicans did what Republicans did nationally and thought they could get out the white vote by going against a minority group. They ignored the demographics and now its bit them in the ass. Probably one of the biggest blunders in terms of Presidential consequences there ever was in recent history.

Romney's former economic advisor says raise the rate on the rich. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/13/mitt-romney-glenn-hubbard_n_2124160.html The top rate is 36% right? That seems awfully high but the thing is no one pays that. The richer you are the less it seems one pays in actual taxes paid. There are so many write offs and loopholes that they have (and none of us make enough to afford) that they often pay less than you and I pay. Everytime we hear of the uber-rich, whether its Romney or Buffet or whomever we hear how they pay less than their own employees. Its the loop holes that have to be taken care of. I'd even go for a cut down to 33% for the tax rate IF we get rid of the loopholes.

What I don't understand is why this unprecedented amout of petitions. Okay, some don't think Obama is a good President. In recent history some have been much, muich worse (Nixon, Dubya), why no secession petitions then? As for Texas specifically, if they seceded, they would become a minority dominated 'country' so let them. The demographics suggest that latinos and blacks are having kids at a far larger rate than whites. Aslo, good luck in protecting that border. They'll spend a large part of their 'GNP' on that alone. Texas secedes they'll basically be a latin America country...lol.

http://news.msn.com/politics/update-many-still-blame-bush-for-bad-economy-according-to-survey Update: Many still blame Bush for bad economy, according to survey A number of Americans think the country is headed in the right direction but a lot more needs to be done before things get better. WASHINGTON - Rising prices and chronic unemployment were heavy on the minds of voters Tuesday even as a glimmer of optimism peeked through. Four in 10 said the nation's battered economy is getting better. Most everyone agreed there's still a long way to go. Voters were less likely to blame President Barack Obama for the economic troubles, however, than to point the finger at his predecessor, George W. Bush, according to preliminary results of a national exit poll. In a much tighter race than the one that swept Obama into the White House, the poll showed him again leading among his key demographics of women, young people, blacks and Hispanics. Republican challenger Mitt Romney was strongly favored by men, whites and those with family incomes of $50,000 or more. He was doing a little better among these critical groups than John McCain did four years ago, and also echoed McCain's lead among seniors. Only a fourth of voters thought they were better off financially than four years ago when Obama was elected in the midst of the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression. Voters were most likely to say their families were doing about the same, and Obama led among that group. A third felt worse off, and they were voting heavily for Romney. The survey of voters as they left polling places showed 6 in 10 ranked the economy the top issue, way ahead of health care, the federal budget deficit or foreign policy. The majority who don't yet see economic improvement were roughly divided over whether things were getting even worse or just stuck in place. About 4 in 10 blamed Obama for the nation's economic woes, and almost all of them voted for Romney. Voters pointed to years of high unemployment and rising prices as the biggest troubles for people like them; those two worries far outstripped concerns about the housing market or taxes in the exit polls conducted for The Associated Press and television networks. Joseph Neat, a stay-at-home father in Hagerstown, Md., said Obama hasn't solved the problems that are hurting families like his, especially gasoline prices that Neat called "insane." "We don't have time for him to make changes. We need the changes now," he said of Obama. "And four years is plenty of time." Overall, slightly more than half of voters thought the nation was seriously off on the wrong track instead of going in the right direction — usually a bad sign for an incumbent. Three-fourths said the economy is poor or not so good, and they mostly backed Romney. Still, many voters like William Mullins of Lansing, Mich., felt Obama needed more time to fix things. "Obama had a lot to deal with when he came to office," Mullins said. "You can't change everything overnight." Only a quarter of voters were feeling enthusiastic about Obama's administration; at least as many were angry about it. Romney's voters were a bit more likely to say they had reservations about their man. About a fourth felt that way. Overall, most voters felt strongly about their choice, however, with Obama's supporters somewhat more enthusiastic. The presidential campaign grew bitterly negative at times, but on Election Day the voters didn't dwell on that: Just 1 in 10 said they were primarily voting against the other guy. About half said government is doing too many things better left to businesses and individuals, a point hammered by Romney throughout the campaign. Only 4 in 10 wanted government to do more. "I haven't had a raise in two years because of Obama's anti-business policies," said Ken Keller, a Schaumburg, Ill., engineer who voted for Romney. The Obama campaign's insistence that the multimillionaire Romney would do more for well-heeled Americans seems to have taken hold in many voters' minds. Half said they think the former Massachusetts governor's policies generally favor the rich and barely any thought he favors the poor. "I don't think Romney understands people who are down and out," said Cari Herling, an insurance analyst from Sun Prairie, Wis. In contrast, only about 1 in 10 said Obama, who has pushed higher taxes for the wealthy, favors rich Americans. The biggest group — 4 in 10 — said Obama's policies help the middle class, with the poor coming in second. Voters tended to think the U.S. economic system as a whole favors the wealthy. About half said taxes should be raised on income over $250,000 per year, as Obama wants. Yet voters gave a resounding "no" when asked whether they wanted taxes raised to help cut the spiraling budget deficit. Nearly two-thirds of voters said they thought illegal immigrants working in the United States should be offered a chance to apply for legal status, instead of being deported. In a race that's been neck-and-neck for months, about 1 in 10 voters said they'd only settled on their presidential choice within the last few days or even on Election Day. They were closely divided between Obama and Romney. Although the election worked out okay for Obama were his strategist I would have advised him to state that at the very least it would take 6 years to be completely out of it and on the right track because of the magnitude of the mess. That would have bought him time through the re-election. I'm sure McCain would have said something similar had he won. Frankly, its not too far from the truth. People seem to minimize just how close to an economic cliff we were. There is no way on God's green earth that the economy would be fine in 4 years. None. I read an article that the recovery for every recession for a generation has taken longer than the previous one. This one may take a while before we're completely out of the woods. We're not helping ourselves with some of the things we are doing either.

What makes the religious right even more odious is that they are hypocrites. First, there is no way Jesus of the bible I know would support their economic view. Jesus spoke about the rich giving back to the people and that we should help the poor. Furthermore, the religious right have always backed a Christian candidate, especially born agan Christian candidates EXCEPT Barack Obama. By their own admission they said it was better to vote for the Christian over a non Christian. They don't consider Mormonism true Christianity and have labled it a cult. Billy Graham ministries took it off their cult list before the election. They supported the non "Christian' over one of their 'own', Obama. Personally, I think someone's religion or lack of one shouldn't be part of the voting equation. I'm a born-again Christian but as for as voting, I'd vote for an atheist in a heartbeat if they had the better plan. The hypocracy is what kills me. Christianity was fine until it became a state religion of Rome. They were growing by doing what Jesus said. Help the poor, love others, etc. The early church fed and clothed anyone when it was outlawed by the Romans and they grew because of their good works. People saw the unity and love they had not only for each other but for others and joined them in flocks. As soon as Rome took it as a state relgion it went downhill. The papacy grew out of it being a state religion. But I digress. As I said before, the gay marriage issue and the abortion issue are religious issues to the right. Essentially, they want to legislate their religious view of marriage and what constitutes life. I've long told Christians that science and medicine does NOT support our view of when life starts. Furthermore, Christianity specifically is a faith based religion because you can't scientifically prove most of it so it can't use it for legislation because we all have to play by the same rules and that is science, logic and reason. Essentially, the Christian right want non Christians to accept as law their view of these issues.

The insinuation is that that lower or under educated people vote Republican and smart people vote Democrat which I find not only false but a bit insulting and borderline elitist. What people fail to realie is that the Red states vote about 2/3 Republican give or take a few percentage points. A third sometimes up to 40 percent of the electorate vote Democrat. The reverse for the Blue states. Obama wins those by about 2/3 as well so there are plenty of 'educated' folks that voted for Romney.

Interesting. But I would not be willing to draw the obvious conclusion the person is trying to make.

Kamui, a friend of mine basicly said the same thing...lol.

My two main worries are that the Republicans in Congress will not compromise and continue the "deny Obama any thing he wants even if we agree with it strategy" and Obama continues to be embittered and becomes combative.