President Obama strengthens national security

[Guest Guest]

We are already seeing signs of nervousness from Al Qaeda. They wanted McCain, who was going to continue Bush's policies and weaken America by sapping our resources. Instead, we gave them President Obama, who will put the United States back on the right track so we can effectively combat Al Qaeda.

"Al-Qaeda's rhetorical swipes at Obama date to the weeks before the election, when commentators on Web sites associated with the group debated which of the two major presidential candidates would be better for the jihadist movement. While opinions differed, a consensus view supported Republican Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) as the man most likely to continue Bush administration policies and, it was hoped, drive the United States more deeply into a prolonged guerrilla war."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ml?hpid=topnews

He's not a messiah. He's just an intelligent leader making good choices.

[Guest Guest]

We are already seeing signs of nervousness from Al Qaeda. They wanted McCain, who was going to continue Bush's policies and weaken America by sapping our resources. Instead, we gave them President Obama, who will put the United States back on the right track so we can effectively combat Al Qaeda.

"Al-Qaeda's rhetorical swipes at Obama date to the weeks before the election, when commentators on Web sites associated with the group debated which of the two major presidential candidates would be better for the jihadist movement. While opinions differed, a consensus view supported Republican Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) as the man most likely to continue Bush administration policies and, it was hoped, drive the United States more deeply into a prolonged guerrilla war."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ml?hpid=topnews

He's not a messiah. He's just an intelligent leader making good choices.

lol...are you serious? you get your quote from the washington post? its one of the most liberal newspapers in the entire country...of course they are going to have an article pro obama and anti anything republican. Im not debating your pro obama stance, i think he is going to be a good president, but you can't back up your points with newspapers like the washinton post, or the new york times, because anytime its political they go extreme left. i can bet you 100000% radical terrorist wanted obama in office and not mccain.

[Guest Guest]

Pull this leg, it plays "Jingle Bells".

[Guest Guest]

lol...are you serious? you get your quote from the washington post? its one of the most liberal newspapers in the entire country...of course they are going to have an article pro obama and anti anything republican. Im not debating your pro obama stance, i think he is going to be a good president, but you can't back up your points with newspapers like the washinton post, or the new york times, because anytime its political they go extreme left. i can bet you 100000% radical terrorist wanted obama in office and not mccain.

Al-Qaeda’s own correspondence said it, and actually it was the AP that broke the story. Conservative newspapers in Britain and the UPI also reported it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...supporters.html

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/10/22/Al-...31211224676774/

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/26/opinion/26kristof.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/22/a...r_n_136779.html

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/dreyfuss/374759

http://washingtonindependent.com/14183/al-...endorses-mccain

Just because left-leaning publications reported it doesn’t mean it isn’t true. The shame is that right-wing publications wouldn’t print it. It’s important news, don’t you think. You can bet that if Al-Qaeda had sent out messages calling for Obama’s election, it would have been on the front page of the WSJ and the New York Post and we would never have heard the end of it. Right wingers like you would have been marching in the streets and calling for Obama to be jailed. You can also bet that if it wasn’t true, all the right-wingnuts, including you, would have been calling for everyone who reported it to be sent to Gitmo.

Face it, Al-Qaeda wanted McCain elected president because they knew he would continue Bush's policies, which were destroying the United States. It's a fact. Honestly, don’t you right-wingnuts ever get tired of your own hypocrisy?

[Guest Guest]

lol...are you serious? you get your quote from the washington post? its one of the most liberal newspapers in the entire country...of course they are going to have an article pro obama and anti anything republican. Im not debating your pro obama stance, i think he is going to be a good president, but you can't back up your points with newspapers like the washinton post, or the new york times, because anytime its political they go extreme left. i can bet you 100000% radical terrorist wanted obama in office and not mccain.

Good. Let's bet on it. I'll bet you can't find any evidence to support that. In fact I know you can't because if there was any it would have been reported. Even you can't argue with that because the conservative press would have picked it up.

So post your name and address and I'll send you a contract to seal our bet. What would you like to wager? A month's wages? A new car? Put your money where you mouth is.

And of course you won't, because you're just blowing hot air and you know it.

[Guest Paul]

lol...are you serious? you get your quote from the washington post? its one of the most liberal newspapers in the entire country...of course they are going to have an article pro obama and anti anything republican. Im not debating your pro obama stance, i think he is going to be a good president, but you can't back up your points with newspapers like the washinton post, or the new york times, because anytime its political they go extreme left. i can bet you 100000% radical terrorist wanted obama in office and not mccain.

You say that, but these are excellent newspapers, among the finest in the country and the world, and respected all over the world. Their standards are high and except on rare exceptions, they check their facts carefully. In the particular case, you're not making a credible argument. This story was reported widely, and no one denied it was true.

[Guest Guest]

You say that, but these are excellent newspapers, among the finest in the country and the world, and respected all over the world. Their standards are high and except on rare exceptions, they check their facts carefully. In the particular case, you're not making a credible argument. This story was reported widely, and no one denied it was true.

first of all, im a democrat, so where you people are getting im a right wing nut , is just dumb. My point was the fact the poster believed that because some terrorist made a statement im supposed to believe it. Its democrats making statements like that, that gives right wingers the fuel to fight our agendas. It makes us look like left wing lunes, and that doesn't help us get anywhere. and to the guy, who wants to bet a month's salary, i seriously doubt you could afford a months salary at my current status. In fact your tax dollars are paying my salary anyway so you will be paying me regardless. We haven't had any terrorist attacks after 911. dont forget 911 was planned and setup while clinton was in office. While i am a democrat at heart and beliefs in helping people out, i am a republican when it comes to keeping the nation safe. Im sorry, but i might not agree with bush's policies in torture ect., but if it saves american's lives, then keep doing it. (by the way this wasn't directed toward paul, i just hit reply and i quoted your post)

[Guest Guest]

first of all, im a democrat, so where you people are getting im a right wing nut , is just dumb. My point was the fact the poster believed that because some terrorist made a statement im supposed to believe it. Its democrats making statements like that, that gives right wingers the fuel to fight our agendas. It makes us look like left wing lunes, and that doesn't help us get anywhere. and to the guy, who wants to bet a month's salary, i seriously doubt you could afford a months salary at my current status. In fact your tax dollars are paying my salary anyway so you will be paying me regardless. We haven't had any terrorist attacks after 911. dont forget 911 was planned and setup while clinton was in office. While i am a democrat at heart and beliefs in helping people out, i am a republican when it comes to keeping the nation safe. Im sorry, but i might not agree with bush's policies in torture ect., but if it saves american's lives, then keep doing it. (by the way this wasn't directed toward paul, i just hit reply and i quoted your post)

If you're a Democrat, you're still listening too much to right wing talking points. The very fact that Al-Qaeda members, in talking with each other, said they wanted McCain to win the election, is the story. If you go on a website of fundamentalist Christians and see them chatting about how to disprove evolution, it doesn't take long to figure out that they're against it. That is the point. Al-Qaeda wanted McCain in office because they know that Bush's policies had our military tied up in Iraq and unable to respond anywhere else; and they knew McCain would continue those policies. They also saw how much money it was costing us. This isn't rocket science. The story is that someone penetrated one of their discussions and reported what they said. That is the story.

Apparently you've bought into the radical right wing line that the Washington Post and the New York Times are far left newspapers, when in fact they are two of the top five most respected newspapers in the country. The Wall Street Journal used to be in the list of the top few until Murdoch took it over.

So what's the test for a good quality newspaper? In part it's the quality and depth of reporting, and in those respects the WP and NYT are at the top of the field. Name any other newspaper except for the Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times or Wall Street Journal that can match either of them. Count the number of awards they win. Those two papers are consistently among the leaders.

Of course, you have to look for accuracy and coverage. It's all about professional standards. WP and NYT have the highest standards of any papers in the business, so much so that when they make a mistake or an omission they publicly admit it. It doesn't happen very often, but when it does you hear about it. Contrast that with the WSJ, which hews to the radical right wing line and never admits anything.

Now ask yourself why the story about Al-Qaeda's preference in our presidential election wasn't covered on Fox or in the WSJ. It's because it didn't support the party line they were trying to promote. WP and NYT cover both sides, granted from a somewhat liberal perspective. You're not much of a Democrat if you buy into the talking points of the radical right, which hates the NYT and the WP because they cover real news. Right wing rags don't. Right wingers want to present a completely biased view of the world, and hate papers like NYT and WP because those papers cover things the right wing would rather not know --- and especially doesn't want anyone else to know.

You're also not much of a Democrat if you buy the ridiculous argument that we haven't been attacked since 9/11/01. We had never been attacked like that in more than 200 years. Bush comes in, ignores the intelligence memo and we get hit. Give me a freaking break. It's the president's job to protect against that, and eight months in office is more than enough time to see it coming, especially when he had a memo six weeks before we were hit. It's not Clinton's fault. It's Bush. He had been in office 8 months, and the plan was carried out on his watch. The very fact that you mention this at all proves that you're buying too many right wing talking points. It would be OK if they made sense but they don't.

[Guest Guest]

first of all, im a democrat, so where you people are getting im a right wing nut , is just dumb. My point was the fact the poster believed that because some terrorist made a statement im supposed to believe it. Its democrats making statements like that, that gives right wingers the fuel to fight our agendas. It makes us look like left wing lunes, and that doesn't help us get anywhere. and to the guy, who wants to bet a month's salary, i seriously doubt you could afford a months salary at my current status. In fact your tax dollars are paying my salary anyway so you will be paying me regardless. We haven't had any terrorist attacks after 911. dont forget 911 was planned and setup while clinton was in office. While i am a democrat at heart and beliefs in helping people out, i am a republican when it comes to keeping the nation safe. Im sorry, but i might not agree with bush's policies in torture ect., but if it saves american's lives, then keep doing it. (by the way this wasn't directed toward paul, i just hit reply and i quoted your post)

For a Democrat, you're not very smart. The very fact that you've bought the right wing propaganda about the Washington Post and the New York Times, and that you're linking Clinton to 9/11, proves it.

You gotta hand it to the wingnuts on the radical right. They've managed to convince people that they're "fair and balanced." If you want to do propaganda, which is what the radical right does in the United States, say the craziest and most outrageous things you can think of. Most people won't believe anyone could be that devious and they'll think anyone who criticizes them is the radical. It's straight out of Hitler's Mein Kampf.

“To whom should propaganda be addressed? To the scientifically trained intelligentsia or to the less educated masses? It must be addressed always and exclusively to the masses. . . . The content of propaganda is not science any more than the object represented in a poster is art. The art of the poster lies in the designer's ability to attract the attention of the crowd by form and color.”

“The function of propaganda is, for example, not to weigh and ponder the rights of different people, but exclusively to emphasize the one right which it has set out to argue for. Its task is not to make an objective study of the truth, in so far as it favors the enemy, and then set it before the masses with academic fairness; its task is to serve our own right, always and unflinchingly.”

“But the most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unfiagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Here, as so often in this world, persistence is the first and most important requirement for success.”

“. . . a slogan must be presented from different angles, but the end of all remarks must always and immutably be the slogan itself. Only in this way can the propaganda have a unified and complete effect.” http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch06.html

"When you tell a lie, tell big lies. This is what the Jews do, working on the principle, which is quite true in itself, that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility......"

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/Adolf..._Mein_Kampf.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mein_Kampf

This is exactly how the right wing and the Republican party have operated for several decades now. Invent imaginary weapons of mass destruction. Declare a red or orange terrorist alert just before a significant vote in Congress or an election. Call Obama a friend of terrorists. Call anyone who opposes the war a terrorist appeaser. Talk about how you’re the friend of the little guy while you’re taking his money and giving it to the rich. If anyone complains, accuse them of class warfare. Invent phony election fraud stories that magically disappear the day after the election (until it’s time to drag them out for the next election). Pander to religious sentiment by telling people that creationism is science and evolution is bunk. Talk about lipstick on pigs. Make sure the election isn’t about the issues, especially if you’ve just screwed up the economy, weakened the nation’s defenses and destroyed our diplomatic relations all over the world. Say it’s all Clinton’s fault. Declare Democrats and liberals the enemy and set about to demonize them by any means, truth be damned. I can't believe how many people don't see it. I can’t believe you don’t see it. Open your eyes.

[Guest 2smart4u]

For a Democrat, you're not very smart. The very fact that you've bought the right wing propaganda about the Washington Post and the New York Times, and that you're linking Clinton to 9/11, proves it.

You gotta hand it to the wingnuts on the radical right. They've managed to convince people that they're "fair and balanced." If you want to do propaganda, which is what the radical right does in the United States, say the craziest and most outrageous things you can think of. Most people won't believe anyone could be that devious and they'll think anyone who criticizes them is the radical. It's straight out of Hitler's Mein Kampf.

“To whom should propaganda be addressed? To the scientifically trained intelligentsia or to the less educated masses? It must be addressed always and exclusively to the masses. . . . The content of propaganda is not science any more than the object represented in a poster is art. The art of the poster lies in the designer's ability to attract the attention of the crowd by form and color.”

“The function of propaganda is, for example, not to weigh and ponder the rights of different people, but exclusively to emphasize the one right which it has set out to argue for. Its task is not to make an objective study of the truth, in so far as it favors the enemy, and then set it before the masses with academic fairness; its task is to serve our own right, always and unflinchingly.”

“But the most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unfiagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Here, as so often in this world, persistence is the first and most important requirement for success.”

“. . . a slogan must be presented from different angles, but the end of all remarks must always and immutably be the slogan itself. Only in this way can the propaganda have a unified and complete effect.” http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch06.html

"When you tell a lie, tell big lies. This is what the Jews do, working on the principle, which is quite true in itself, that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility......"

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/Adolf..._Mein_Kampf.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mein_Kampf

This is exactly how the right wing and the Republican party have operated for several decades now. Invent imaginary weapons of mass destruction. Declare a red or orange terrorist alert just before a significant vote in Congress or an election. Call Obama a friend of terrorists. Call anyone who opposes the war a terrorist appeaser. Talk about how you’re the friend of the little guy while you’re taking his money and giving it to the rich. If anyone complains, accuse them of class warfare. Invent phony election fraud stories that magically disappear the day after the election (until it’s time to drag them out for the next election). Pander to religious sentiment by telling people that creationism is science and evolution is bunk. Talk about lipstick on pigs. Make sure the election isn’t about the issues, especially if you’ve just screwed up the economy, weakened the nation’s defenses and destroyed our diplomatic relations all over the world. Say it’s all Clinton’s fault. Declare Democrats and liberals the enemy and set about to demonize them by any means, truth be damned. I can't believe how many people don't see it. I can’t believe you don’t see it. Open your eyes.

Hey I have to give you credit, you have all the loony left talking points memorized. Even quoting Hitler. Way to go!

[Guest Guest]

If you're a Democrat, you're still listening too much to right wing talking points. The very fact that Al-Qaeda members, in talking with each other, said they wanted McCain to win the election, is the story. If you go on a website of fundamentalist Christians and see them chatting about how to disprove evolution, it doesn't take long to figure out that they're against it. That is the point. Al-Qaeda wanted McCain in office because they know that Bush's policies had our military tied up in Iraq and unable to respond anywhere else; and they knew McCain would continue those policies. They also saw how much money it was costing us. This isn't rocket science. The story is that someone penetrated one of their discussions and reported what they said. That is the story.

Apparently you've bought into the radical right wing line that the Washington Post and the New York Times are far left newspapers, when in fact they are two of the top five most respected newspapers in the country. The Wall Street Journal used to be in the list of the top few until Murdoch took it over.

So what's the test for a good quality newspaper? In part it's the quality and depth of reporting, and in those respects the WP and NYT are at the top of the field. Name any other newspaper except for the Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times or Wall Street Journal that can match either of them. Count the number of awards they win. Those two papers are consistently among the leaders.

Of course, you have to look for accuracy and coverage. It's all about professional standards. WP and NYT have the highest standards of any papers in the business, so much so that when they make a mistake or an omission they publicly admit it. It doesn't happen very often, but when it does you hear about it. Contrast that with the WSJ, which hews to the radical right wing line and never admits anything.

Now ask yourself why the story about Al-Qaeda's preference in our presidential election wasn't covered on Fox or in the WSJ. It's because it didn't support the party line they were trying to promote. WP and NYT cover both sides, granted from a somewhat liberal perspective. You're not much of a Democrat if you buy into the talking points of the radical right, which hates the NYT and the WP because they cover real news. Right wing rags don't. Right wingers want to present a completely biased view of the world, and hate papers like NYT and WP because those papers cover things the right wing would rather not know --- and especially doesn't want anyone else to know.

You're also not much of a Democrat if you buy the ridiculous argument that we haven't been attacked since 9/11/01. We had never been attacked like that in more than 200 years. Bush comes in, ignores the intelligence memo and we get hit. Give me a freaking break. It's the president's job to protect against that, and eight months in office is more than enough time to see it coming, especially when he had a memo six weeks before we were hit. It's not Clinton's fault. It's Bush. He had been in office 8 months, and the plan was carried out on his watch. The very fact that you mention this at all proves that you're buying too many right wing talking points. It would be OK if they made sense but they don't.

umm...yeah we were attacked in less then 200 years..i believe it was 93 or 91 the world trade center was attacked. and if your so called wonderfull paper the new york times was so great why is it on the verge of going bankrupt? its because people are sick of hearing reporters reporting their beliefs instead of facts. The ny times slammed the republicans during the election and let dems get away scott free without any negative press, barely mentioned ayres ect..So do not pretend to know everything because you guys quote wilkipedia articles, (which if you did not know anyone can post to with alittle knowledge., it does not make it factual)

[Guest Paul]

umm...yeah we were attacked in less then 200 years..i believe it was 93 or 91 the world trade center was attacked. and if your so called wonderfull paper the new york times was so great why is it on the verge of going bankrupt? its because people are sick of hearing reporters reporting their beliefs instead of facts. The ny times slammed the republicans during the election and let dems get away scott free without any negative press, barely mentioned ayres ect..So do not pretend to know everything because you guys quote wilkipedia articles, (which if you did not know anyone can post to with alittle knowledge., it does not make it factual)

In 1993 terrorists drove a truck into the WTC parking garage with explosives in it. That's much less public and harder to trace than getting flight training, buying tickets and hijacking four airplanes; not to mention the fact that Bush was specifically warned.

And as you've been told many, many times, most newspapers are in trouble. People are relying on the internet and cable TV more and reading newspapers less. The Times has a loyal following of people who want solid, in-depth news coverage from a single reliable paper.

You're hardly in a position to criticize someone for stating beliefs instead of facts.

[Guest keith]

umm...yeah we were attacked in less then 200 years..i believe it was 93 or 91 the world trade center was attacked. and if your so called wonderfull paper the new york times was so great why is it on the verge of going bankrupt? its because people are sick of hearing reporters reporting their beliefs instead of facts. The ny times slammed the republicans during the election and let dems get away scott free without any negative press, barely mentioned ayres ect..So do not pretend to know everything because you guys quote wilkipedia articles, (which if you did not know anyone can post to with alittle knowledge., it does not make it factual)

You said:

" its because people are sick of hearing reporters reporting their beliefs instead of facts. "

Does that sound like anyone else we know? umm...yeah...FOX

[Guest 2smart4u]

You said:

" its because people are sick of hearing reporters reporting their beliefs instead of facts. "

Does that sound like anyone else we know? umm...yeah...FOX

Most people don't agree with you keithboy, Fox viewers outnumber CNN and MSNBC (all 6 viewers) combined and the margin is growing.

[Guest Keith]

Most people don't agree with you keithboy, Fox viewers outnumber CNN and MSNBC (all 6 viewers) combined and the margin is growing.

Can you give a source on those numbers? I would like to check that out for myself.

If FOX is so almighty and according to you the majority of Americans watch FOX then:

1.) The majority of FOX news viewers voted for Obama, or

2.) You pulled those numbers right out of your ass. Maybe you should get your head out while you are at it.

[Guest Combat Veteran]

Most people don't agree with you keithboy, Fox viewers outnumber CNN and MSNBC (all 6 viewers) combined and the margin is growing.

And most AMERICANS don't agree with you. Dems and Obama supporters outnumber gop (you and fake patriot) and that margin IS growing.

Please continue to obstruct and destruct repubs.

[Guest Guest]

Most people don't agree with you keithboy, Fox viewers outnumber CNN and MSNBC (all 6 viewers) combined and the margin is growing.

Yeah, and Germany elected Hitler. Garbage is still garbage, no matter how many people walk over to smell it.

[Guest Guest]

Most people don't agree with you keithboy, Fox viewers outnumber CNN and MSNBC (all 6 viewers) combined and the margin is growing.

And most AMERICANS don't agree with you. Dems and Obama supporters outnumber gop (you and fake patriot) and that margin IS growing.

Please continue to obstruct and destruct repubs.

I didn't realize so many loony lefties were vision impared. Could it be the Kool-Aid??

[Guest Guest]

If you blame bush or clinton for 911 your a moron. If you blame bush for the current economic status, your a moron. It's all their faults (dems and rep.) They spend there days arguing over stupid shit instead of actually solving problems.

We gave wallstreet billions in a bailout and they gave out billions in bonuses...are you kidding me? i blame that type of move on republicans and there stance on government not getting involved and not being controlling stuff. you can also make the argument that the current home market mess is democrats faults because they felt the need to give poor people loans to own a home that they knew they had no chance of being able to pay for. It goes both ways.

People forget the last two years while bush was in office, democrats ran congress. So its there fault, and its bushes fault that we are in Iraq right now, which also hurts the finance districts during war time. If you sit home and watch cnn or fox, you are getting a biased side of the story. Your jobs as americans are to take in the information, see through the bullshit and figure out what the truth is on your own. Yes, Bush was a terrible president, but wasn't the worst. Jimmy Carter was the worst president in U.S. history. Hands down, and if you even try and argue that he wasn't, I'd really like to know how its possbile your head could go that far up your ass.

If the day ever comes where normal people are able to get into office, we will have a chance and moving forward. When people are voting based on their parties lines, and instead are voting on what makes sense to them. I can't believe im the only person that thinks its rediculous that people make up their minds on issues based on if there are republican or democrat before even hearing the full problem.

To sum it up, 911 wasn't bush or clintons fault. It was 20 something arab assholes who are burning in hell right now. End of story. The financial mess our country is in is caused by greed and poor management not republicans or democrats. And all news is biased, if your far left or far right your a moron and deserved to be slapped. An educated, well rounded person would be in the middle, with certain views and beliefs pulling them slightly right or slightly left. Saying your view is the right one and thats it, is ignorant and gets us nowhere, its what has been going on in government forever and its why we are in the spot we are in.

[Guest Radagast]

If you blame bush or clinton for 911 your a moron. If you blame bush for the current economic status, your a moron. It's all their faults (dems and rep.) They spend there days arguing over stupid shit instead of actually solving problems.

We gave wallstreet billions in a bailout and they gave out billions in bonuses...are you kidding me? i blame that type of move on republicans and there stance on government not getting involved and not being controlling stuff. you can also make the argument that the current home market mess is democrats faults because they felt the need to give poor people loans to own a home that they knew they had no chance of being able to pay for. It goes both ways.

People forget the last two years while bush was in office, democrats ran congress. So its there fault, and its bushes fault that we are in Iraq right now, which also hurts the finance districts during war time. If you sit home and watch cnn or fox, you are getting a biased side of the story. Your jobs as americans are to take in the information, see through the bullshit and figure out what the truth is on your own. Yes, Bush was a terrible president, but wasn't the worst. Jimmy Carter was the worst president in U.S. history. Hands down, and if you even try and argue that he wasn't, I'd really like to know how its possbile your head could go that far up your ass.

If the day ever comes where normal people are able to get into office, we will have a chance and moving forward. When people are voting based on their parties lines, and instead are voting on what makes sense to them. I can't believe im the only person that thinks its rediculous that people make up their minds on issues based on if there are republican or democrat before even hearing the full problem.

To sum it up, 911 wasn't bush or clintons fault. It was 20 something arab assholes who are burning in hell right now. End of story. The financial mess our country is in is caused by greed and poor management not republicans or democrats. And all news is biased, if your far left or far right your a moron and deserved to be slapped. An educated, well rounded person would be in the middle, with certain views and beliefs pulling them slightly right or slightly left. Saying your view is the right one and thats it, is ignorant and gets us nowhere, its what has been going on in government forever and its why we are in the spot we are in.

I agree with almost all of what you say. However, I think tagging Jimmy Carter as the worst President is a bit short sighted. That title, for now in my opinion, lies either with Herbert Hoover for making all the wrong decisions the last time we were in a similar economic mess or Warren Harding for turning the White House into a casino. The jury is still out on George W. Bush. As much as I personally don't like him, it is too early to judge the ultimate results of his actions.

You are so right about the thin line that's developed between different sides on issues. There seems to be a lot more people who are self-righteously digging their heels in depending upon which radio star they listen to. It's so much easier than thinking things through for yourself. The current debate in the US Senate over the Economic Stimulus Bill between tax cuts or spending on public works projects, reminds me of the old Miller Lite commercial, 'Taste Great, Less Filling' argument.

The bottom line is that nobody knows for sure what the government can do to help get us out of this hole even after we stop digging. There are no sure answers. All indications are that something has to get done rather than nothing. Of course, the Libertarians might argue that doing nothing and letting the market find it's own level is the right way to go. There's lots of ideas but, IMHO, the current majority in Congress better grab the bull by the horns and act decisively or they won't be the majority for long.

[Guest Guest]

Paul, Bern and crew want us to believe that government programs like Social Security, Medicare, etc. are models of efficiency. They don't thhink it takes five workers to do the job of one. They are partially right. Here is a case reported by MSNBC where they used one guy to do the job, they just paid him insane amounts of overtime to get the work done. That is if he actually got anything done.

Who said state jobs don't pay well?

State overtime was down last year, but some workers still raked in major cash according to tax reocres.

Robert Henry topped the list. Henry, who works for the Mid-Hudson Psychiatric Center, hauled in $100,500 in overtime on top of his $56,710 base salary. He also topped the list in 2004 and has made $800,000 in overtime over the last 10 years.

Henry is one of seven state employees who made more than $90,000 in overtime over the last year.

Three of them work at Pilgrim Psychiatric Center in West Brentwood, L.I., which had five of the top 20 overtime earners last year.

"Pilgrim Psychiatric Center is ... experiencing challenges in the recruitment and retention of registered nurses, resulting in the need for overtime," Jill Daniels, spokeswoman for the state Office of Mental Health, told Newsday.

State overtime dropped last year to $466 million, a 3.2 percent dip from the record $481.6 million in 2007. The state had seen double-digit percentage increases in recent years until 2008.

[Guest Paul]

Paul, Bern and crew want us to believe that government programs like Social Security, Medicare, etc. are models of efficiency. They don't thhink it takes five workers to do the job of one. They are partially right. Here is a case reported by MSNBC where they used one guy to do the job, they just paid him insane amounts of overtime to get the work done. That is if he actually got anything done.

Who said state jobs don't pay well?

State overtime was down last year, but some workers still raked in major cash according to tax reocres.

Robert Henry topped the list. Henry, who works for the Mid-Hudson Psychiatric Center, hauled in $100,500 in overtime on top of his $56,710 base salary. He also topped the list in 2004 and has made $800,000 in overtime over the last 10 years.

Henry is one of seven state employees who made more than $90,000 in overtime over the last year.

Three of them work at Pilgrim Psychiatric Center in West Brentwood, L.I., which had five of the top 20 overtime earners last year.

"Pilgrim Psychiatric Center is ... experiencing challenges in the recruitment and retention of registered nurses, resulting in the need for overtime," Jill Daniels, spokeswoman for the state Office of Mental Health, told Newsday.

State overtime dropped last year to $466 million, a 3.2 percent dip from the record $481.6 million in 2007. The state had seen double-digit percentage increases in recent years until 2008.

That's dishonest commentary. I have never said that these programs are models of efficiency, only that we are better off with them than without them.

[Guest Paul]

I agree with almost all of what you say. However, I think tagging Jimmy Carter as the worst President is a bit short sighted. That title, for now in my opinion, lies either with Herbert Hoover for making all the wrong decisions the last time we were in a similar economic mess or Warren Harding for turning the White House into a casino. The jury is still out on George W. Bush. As much as I personally don't like him, it is too early to judge the ultimate results of his actions.

You are so right about the thin line that's developed between different sides on issues. There seems to be a lot more people who are self-righteously digging their heels in depending upon which radio star they listen to. It's so much easier than thinking things through for yourself. The current debate in the US Senate over the Economic Stimulus Bill between tax cuts or spending on public works projects, reminds me of the old Miller Lite commercial, 'Taste Great, Less Filling' argument.

The bottom line is that nobody knows for sure what the government can do to help get us out of this hole even after we stop digging. There are no sure answers. All indications are that something has to get done rather than nothing. Of course, the Libertarians might argue that doing nothing and letting the market find it's own level is the right way to go. There's lots of ideas but, IMHO, the current majority in Congress better grab the bull by the horns and act decisively or they won't be the majority for long.

Jimmy Carter was ineffective but he is far from the worst of our presidents. His ineffectiveness was a result of trying to take on the power brokers in Washington, something Americans say they want until someone actually tries to do it. Carter did not understand Washington, thought he had more power than he really had, his efforts backfired early in his presidency and he never recovered his political strength. However, if we had listenened to him on energy we wouldn't be in the current mess. He also tried mightily to create a truly decent world, in which human rights would be universally respected. Unfortunately, that's not the norm in this world or even in this country. Just the same, I respect his effort.

You're right about George W. Bush, if only because history always needs time to settle in. My bet is that history will record him as perhaps the worst of all our presidents, or very close to the worst. The damage he has done is too extensive and too ridiculously conceived for me to see how it could come out any other way. It isn't just the effects of his policies, but also the deadly combination of incompetence and blistering arrogance. The only worse combinations of traits for someone in a position of power are those of the epic tyrants. But as you say, time will tell.

[Guest *Autonomous*]

Paul, Bern and crew want us to believe that government programs like Social Security, Medicare, etc. are models of efficiency. They don't thhink it takes five workers to do the job of one. They are partially right. Here is a case reported by MSNBC where they used one guy to do the job, they just paid him insane amounts of overtime to get the work done. That is if he actually got anything done.

Who said state jobs don't pay well?

State overtime was down last year, but some workers still raked in major cash according to tax reocres.

Robert Henry topped the list. Henry, who works for the Mid-Hudson Psychiatric Center, hauled in $100,500 in overtime on top of his $56,710 base salary. He also topped the list in 2004 and has made $800,000 in overtime over the last 10 years.

Henry is one of seven state employees who made more than $90,000 in overtime over the last year.

Three of them work at Pilgrim Psychiatric Center in West Brentwood, L.I., which had five of the top 20 overtime earners last year.

"Pilgrim Psychiatric Center is ... experiencing challenges in the recruitment and retention of registered nurses, resulting in the need for overtime," Jill Daniels, spokeswoman for the state Office of Mental Health, told Newsday.

State overtime dropped last year to $466 million, a 3.2 percent dip from the record $481.6 million in 2007. The state had seen double-digit percentage increases in recent years until 2008.

(emphasis mine)

Considering that the article flat out states that the problem is that they cannot recruit and retrain nurses, the article does not actually support your point. Government inefficiency is not the problem here.

[Guest Guest]

That's dishonest commentary. I have never said that these programs are models of efficiency, only that we are better off with them than without them.

What you said was that these and most government programs were not nearly as wasteful as many people think and that government was pretty good at running things. I disagree with your assesment.