your dream presidential candidate for 2012

[MV/Liberace!]

i'm just happy he didn't start a land war in China when they captured that AWACS spy plane and it's crew

i remember that.  shortly before 911.  yup, that could have been bad.


hey b_dubb... something i like about you... you're not a zealot.  you're not beyond convincing or above looking at other points of view. 


for instance... you asked for an example with the bush town hall thing, one was provided, and you responded by saying, "thanks for posting that.  i hadn't seen it."  that's refreshing.  over the life of this forum, there have been many obama fans who would have refused even to consider that bush clip as a valid example (for one reason or another), just for the purpose of preserving their original contention.  you're not like that.

[b_dubb]

you like me you really like me

i was unable to find a youtube video of Sally Field's epic blunder.  the above will have to suffice


hey .. when i'm wrong .. i'm wrong.  what can i say?  except ... that .... I AM RIGHT!!! MUHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

[DoYouThinkItWasAngels]

i'm just happy he didn't start a land war in China when they captured that AWACS spy plane and it's crew

That cowardly capitulation was actually the first thing he did that really really annoyed me.  We actually sent a letter of two apologies to them.  Disgusting!  Retreating from strong China and nuclear North Korea, aggressive against the bronze age Afghanistan and pitiful Iraq; Bush was the very picture of a schoolyard bully.

[MV/Liberace!]

i'm just happy he didn't start a land war in China when they captured that AWACS spy plane and it's crew

That cowardly capitulation was actually the first thing he did that really really annoyed me.  We actually sent a letter of two apologies to them.  Disgusting!  Retreating from strong China and nuclear North Korea, aggressive against the bronze age Afghanistan and pitiful Iraq; Bush was the very picture of a schoolyard bully.

i agree with you, particularly about the letters of apology, but when you're dealing with a nuclear power and a population of one billion, you have to be a bit more calculated in how you proceed about things. 

[MV/Liberace!]

one more thing about this town hall nonsense:

PRESIDENT OBAMA TOWN HALL, MTV

MTV, BET and CMT are casting the audience for town hall meeting with President Obama. Shooting Oct. 14, 4 p.m. in Washington, D.C.

Seekingâ€"Audience Members: males & females, 18+.

To apply, email townhallaudience@mtvnmix.com and put “Town Hall” in the subject line. To ensure that the audience represents diverse interests and political views, include your name, phone number, hometown, school attending, your job and what issues, if any, you are interested in or passionate about. Also, provide a recent photo and short description of your political views. Submission deadline: Oct. 14. No pay.


click here.

[Queen]

Glenn Beck 2012

[ringthane]

re: hannity -- doesn't have an original conservative thought. He will rail against unions 'just because'. As a conservative, I'm not opposed at all against unions. Two or more workers should be allowed to join together for a common interest. Unfortunately, there's no competition with unions. Or choice. Or a voice in what groups my union is financially supporting. But hannity can't form nuanced arguments.


One other thing in regards to intelligence, oratory skills, extemporaneous thought, etc --


Just before Obama's inauguration, both Pres. Bush and Pres-elect Obama were asked essentially the same question on the same day: give us your overview of this economic mess and how to fix it. Here's a pretty rough quote of the two separate responses:


Politician 1: gave a broad but informed overview of keynesian vs. friedman economic models and nailed the economic mess with this succinct statement: "we have too much capital chasing too few assets." Bang. Knocked it out of the f*cking park.


Politician 2: waffled a lot, stammered, spouted platitudes, bromides, cliches. Lots of catch phrases like "vigorous pursuit of", transparency, accountability, main street vs. wall street.


I do not know where this notion comes from that Obama is a genius. Erudite? The guy couldn't introduce Kathleen Sebelius to a schoolroom full of grade school students without a teleprompter. There is a marked difference between Obama's ability to give a speech and field questions from reporters, which is why the guy didn't hold a press conference for 300+ days.


Bush sounded like an idiot with his malapropisms, spoonerisms, grammar butchery, etc, but when he was on the wagon and lucid, you could tell the guy paid attention in the cabinet meetings and could regurgitate administration strategy in a cogent way. Not bumper sticker dialectics, but strategy and principles.

[ringthane]

Oops, forgot my dream candidate.


I'm going to throw a curveball--


Camille Paglia.


As much as I think Ron Paul is a fine guy and agree with him in principle on many things, the whole Federal Reserve gold standard fiat money moonbattery would just get him creamed in an election.

[MV/Liberace!]

Bush sounded like an idiot with his malapropisms, spoonerisms, grammar butchery, etc, but when he was on the wagon and lucid, you could tell the guy paid attention in the cabinet meetings and could regurgitate administration strategy in a cogent way. Not bumper sticker dialectics, but strategy and principles.

i have heard numerous people say that when you get bush alone, away from the cameras and microphones, he's 1000% the opposite of what we routinely saw for 8 years. 


i didn't hate bush.  actually, i voted for him twice... enthusiastically the first time, holding my nose the second.  it's just that he wasn't a conservative, and he contributed more to the destruction of the republican party and the conservative movement than any democrat could have dreamed of.  he grew the size of the federal government at a rate unseen in any previous administration.  he expanded entitlement programs.  he orchestrated this "new tone" which essentially meant anybody could say whatever they wanted to say about him and/or his administration, and he would do noting to refute it or to educate the public.  it was the wild west ideologically.  the conservative movement died under bush because of this "new tone" and an utter lack of leadership.  conservatives have embraced the bush family again and again, apparently thinking each time they're finally going to get a real conservative.  think again.  if, god forbid, jeb bush runs for the presidency, hopefully conservatives will have learned their lesson when it comes to the bush family.  they are not conservatives, and can not be trusted by the very same conservative movement they use again and again to empower themselves politically.

[Queen]

Bush for 2012 he should run again since according to dems he didnt win in 2000 he should be able to run again

[b_dubb]

Bush for 2012 he should run again since according to dems he didnt win in 2000 he should be able to run again

nope

[PhantasticSanShiSan]

Real need a nice mix of new blood and wisdom & experience..... MV FOR PREZ w/ RON PAUL WATCHIN' HIS BACK!!!!! 

[MV/Liberace!]

Real need a nice mix of new blood and wisdom & experience..... MV FOR PREZ w/ RON PAUL WATCHIN' HIS BACK!!!!!

WHOA! The pressure!

[MV/Liberace!]

Bush for 2012 he should run again since according to dems he didnt win in 2000 he should be able to run again

Bwahaha! That would be a hoot.

[999]

I campaigned for Ron Paul during the last presidential election and, seeing how he was treated by various networks (incl Fox) especially in regards to debates, it would be hard to see how anything would change for 2012.


Glenn Beck called Ron Paul supporters terrorists BTW.

[Pirate King Atomsk]

I campaigned for Ron Paul during the last presidential election and, seeing how he was treated by various networks (incl Fox) especially in regards to debates, it would be hard to see how anything would change for 2012.


Glenn Beck called Ron Paul supporters terrorists BTW.

While valid, this is past material. They've all lightened up their tone about since the rise of the Tea Party movement. I don't give a fuck anymore. Whatever gets a guy like Paul in, it doesn't matter how to me. The ends justify the means.

I means, except if it's like chopper fire on small municipalities or whatever.

[MV/Liberace!]

Glenn Beck called Ron Paul supporters terrorists BTW.

WHAT?!?!?

[999]

[size=78%]Glenn Beck called Ron Paul supporters terrorists BTW.[/size]

[size=78%]WHAT?!?!?[/size]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eg8M2JBIoqo

I can't remember if he ever apologized or addressed it.

(I don't know what is the deal with Glenn Beck - he's been all over the map ideologically.)

[MV/Liberace!]

[size=78%]Glenn Beck called Ron Paul supporters terrorists BTW.[/size]

[size=78%]WHAT?!?!?[/size]

Glenn Beck - Ron Paul - Terrorism?

I can't remember if he ever apologized or addressed it.

(I don't know what is the deal with Glenn Beck - he's been all over the map ideologically.)

first off, glenn beck is a mormon.  for me, that ALONE is enough to raise an eyebrow.  how a thinking, educated adult can believe in that organization, its formation, and its teachings is beyond me.


more important than the fact beck belongs to the world's largest religious cult is the fact that he's a fucking fraud.  i never liked this guy, and i've been saying it for years now.  i've had enough of his feigned crying and his obvious attempts to paint himself as some sort of modern day paul revere.  get lost.


the very tea party "revolution" beck is today capitalizing on was STARTED BY RON FUCKING PAUL and his supporters!!!  not by beck... not by limbaugh... not by hannity.  i saw what was coming waaaay back in 2006... and anyone else who was following dr. paul saw it as well.  apparently, beck has only recently come to be aware of the fruits of dr. paul's work.  good for beck.  i hope it gets him better ratings and more website subscribers.


ron paul was the only politician i've ever donated money to.  i guess i was a part of the fringe extremist sect that took the word "revolution" a little too far.  there is a heap of complexity behind the tea party movement, what it means, what its participants believe, and who will be relegated to the ash heap of political history by it.  it is first and foremost a libertarian movement.  glenn beck and sean hannity should take a moment to realize that their past choice to denigrate and ridicule dr. paul and his supporters is going to come back to haunt them.  as much as they would like to portray themselves otherwise, they are NOT a part of this movement.


i hope i haven't said anything stupid here.   i'm all hopped up on allergy medicine, and i'm pretty messed up today.

[ringthane]

the very tea party "revolution" beck is today capitalizing on was STARTED BY RON FUCKING PAUL and his supporters!!!  not by beck... not by limbaugh... not by hannity.  i saw what was coming waaaay back in 2006... and anyone else who was following dr. paul saw it as well.  apparently, beck has only recently come to be aware of the fruits of dr. paul's work.  good for beck.  i hope it gets him better ratings and more website subscribers.

ron paul was the only politician i've ever donated money to.  i guess i was a part of the fringe extremist sect that took the word "revolution" a little too far.  there is a heap of complexity behind the tea party movement, what it means, what its participants believe, and who will be relegated to the ash heap of political history by it.  it is first and foremost a libertarian movement.  glenn beck and sean hannity should take a moment to realize that their past choice to denigrate and ridicule dr. paul and his supporters is going to come back to haunt them.  as much as they would like to portray themselves otherwise, they are NOT a part of this movement.

i hope i haven't said anything stupid here.   i'm all hopped up on allergy medicine, and i'm pretty messed up today.

You touched upon something that's been bothering me for awhile. Not so much the soft coattailing by conservative media, but perception of the tea party on the left.


In 2010, it's virtually impossible to dick with historical revisionism due to media/internet saturation. Someday if I become independently wealthy/bored, I'm going to construct a timeline of how the MSM/liberal media painted the tea party.


Like you said MV, this all started prior CNBC's Ray Santelli tea party comment on-air in 2008 (which I saw live). Its roots go back to Ron Paul in '06 and much further back.


I think the left's initial silence, surprise and then derision of the tea party stems from the fact the left has controlled the media narrative since Viet Nam. The right has grumbled about issues in silence amongst ourselves because we have jobs. We go to work. We're not rent a mob students that have the time to travel to a host G20 city and smash windows. The left assumes since conservatives on the street have been silent for so long that this sudden 'surge' must indicate an organized, funded backing by (fill in moonbat theory).


It's interesting to see how the MSM has really struggled to get a handle on the tea party, to craft a narrative. From 2008 until April 15, 2009, the MSM ignored the tea party. Nothing, nada, zilch. If we scrunch our eyes hard enough, we can pretend it doesn't exist.


Post April 15, 2009 -- hundreds of thousands protest on tax day. From this point forward, new MSM narratives are spun every month. At first it was the tea party was small/insignificant (re: Searchlight, NV rally of 10,000 described by AP as attended by 'hundreds, possibly dozens', etc).


Then we were health insurance operatives in Brooks Brothers suits and swastikas (thanks for that one, Nancy Pelosi).


Then we were racists. (prominent blacks such as Knoxville tea party organizer Antonio Hinton notwithstanding)


Then failed terror attempts are conjectured to be that of a white disgruntled tea partier; MSNBC's Contessa Brewer is 'frustrated' to find out suspect Faisal Shazad is a Muslim.


Axelrod et al tried floating an astroturfing meme a few months back.


The MSM narrative lately has been a jumbled mess, it will be interesting to see how things post-election 2011 play out.

[MV/Liberace!]

The MSM narrative lately has been a jumbled mess, it will be interesting to see how things post-election 2011 play out.

it certainly will be. 


problem is, despite the groundswell of conservative activism and progress, i still am not optimistic.  even today we have "republicans" admonishing us that they will "not have as much power as we think" and that they're going to compromise with messiah hussein obama.  they're planning to benefit from the tea party movement despite the fact that the tea party movement is the result of THEIR MISMANAGEMENT OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY!!!  holy shit, is that frustrating.  the only solution here, in my opinion, is a third party... meaning the republican party needs to become a third party, the likes of which will be populated only by RINOs like lindsay graham and his moderate butt buddy john mccain.  those two really go nicely together.

[MV/Liberace!]

by the way...
for the dummies out there who incessantly prattle on about the bush tax cuts being "only for the rich..."


remember the liar-in-chief stating during his 2008 marketing campaign that he would not increase taxes on anybody making over $250,000.00?  well, i certainly do.  i can assure you, the combined income of both my wife and myself comes NOWHERE NEAR $250,000.00, yet we'll certainly see an increase.  my federal taxes will rise by another $1,143.00 if the tax cuts are not made permanent.    your taxes will rise, too (assuming you work rather than collect free money from the government... and if you DO collect free money, well, then your opinion on the matter is rather irrelevant as you are a part of the problem).  go here to find out how president hussein obama's policies will affect you.

[MV/Liberace!]

ok, i'm going to say it: meg whitman is an empty vessel cunt.  she's EVERYTHING that's destroyed the republican party over the last ten years.  holy christ.  there's A REASON she's going to lose to a cadaver.



Both Ways: Meg Whitman's latest flip-flop...on the right to choose.




"Whitman-Brown" Time to change California.

[ringthane]

by the way...
for the dummies out there who incessantly prattle on about the bush tax cuts being "only for the rich..."


remember the liar-in-chief stating during his 2008 marketing campaign that he would not increase taxes on anybody making over $250,000.00?  well, i certainly do.

During the campaign, the tax rate was at 1.25 mil. Then it was 500k. Then it was 250k. Biden was an absolute gaffe machine on the campaign trail, always giving a different figure.


I forget what recent column this was in, but a point was made that the reason why most working-class democrats don't buy liberal class envy/tax the rich bastards shtick is because they still believe what our parents, grandparents etc believed -- by working hard, ingenuity, elbow grease + and a little luck America is still the land of opportunity where a governing body can't limit/cap one's potential.


In my early 20s (I'm 41 now), my friend married a woman in her 40s that was a successful business owner. I wasn't privy to her exact 'salary', but in 2010 dollars I'm guessing she was close to $250k. With taxes and everything else, they were pretty much mac-n-cheese people, rent a VHS instead of going out... by no means austere, but not a wildly lavish lifestyle that someone making minimum wage might expect. The only difference is this couple pretty much dictated their own schedule on their own terms and didn't have to repeat 'would you like fries with that?' 100 times a day.


The problem with this tax is $250k covers a *lot* of subchapter C corporations... you know, people in your hometown that own the pizzaria, the dry cleaner, etc. People that are spending 14+ hrs a day to make something of themselves. People that are saving to send their kids to college. Don't even get me started on the new $600+ 1099 for businesses.


Again, it's easy to beat the class envy drum and think yeah, those rich bastards making over $250k need to pay their fair share.


Another issue -- someone making $250,000 in a place like, say, Fargo, North Dakota vs. Manhattan or San Jose.


Yet another issue -- do you really think Kennedys, Rockefellers et al are paying this? Really, liberals? Of course not. Liberals know the filthy rich 'landed' old wealth (unlike the unwashed parvenue wannabes) always skirt this shit. Foundations (ie, tax-exempt Clinton Foundation). Off shore laundering. Simple stuff like John Kerry saving hundreds of thousands by docking his yacht in RI instead of Mass. All this tax talk is to rattle the cage of union workers and to step on the hose of the free market.


My friend's wife eventually got wiped out due to EPA regulations.


Me? I've been building momentum since 2006 to launching my own business and had targeted mid-2011 to becoming legit. I would not be making outrageous money. It would never go beyond hiring a few part-time people. Through tax breaks, it would allow me to pay the rent, have pocket money and maybe blow $75/month on mindless bullshit. Above all, I'd be independent.


With the recent changes, there's no way I'm starting up. Generate a 1099 for anything over $600? Fuck that. I'd have to have a part-timer just for paper work.

[MV/Liberace!]

Generate a 1099 for anything over $600? Fuck that. I'd have to have a part-timer just for paper work.

this is not america.


i think most of the people who continue to support obama are people who produce nothing.  they have no vested interest in what happens with taxes or how the bureaucracy grows and affects people.  funny thing is, to most deadbeat obama supporters, $250K probably sounds like a HUUUUUGE sum of money.  it's not.  after sales tax, property tax, sometimes city and/or county income tax, state tax, federal tax, capital gains taxes, and a slew of other taxes i can't think of at the moment, you're not left with much.  leftists believe that the money you take home is due to the good grace of the government that "allows" you to take it.  they see the money you take home as a favor done for you by the government rather than seeing it the other way around as they SHOULD.  you can see this to be the case when you listen to democrats talk about tax cuts in terms of how much it will "cost" the government.  they assume ownership of your money until and unless their policies allow otherwise.

[punkinpie]

Generate a 1099 for anything over $600? Fuck that. I'd have to have a part-timer just for paper work.

this is not america.


i think most of the people who continue to support obama are people who produce nothing.  they have no vested interest in what happens with taxes or how the bureaucracy grows and affects people.  funny thing is, to most deadbeat obama supporters, $250K probably sounds like a HUUUUUGE sum of money.  it's not.  after sales tax, property tax, sometimes city and/or county income tax, state tax, federal tax, capital gains taxes, and a slew of other taxes i can't think of at the moment, you're not left with much.  leftists believe that the money you take home is due to the good grace of the government that "allows" you to take it.  they see the money you take home as a favor done for you by the government rather than seeing it the other way around as they SHOULD.  you can see this to be the case when you listen to democrats talk about tax cuts in terms of how much it will "cost" the government.  they assume ownership of your money until and unless their policies allow otherwise.

YES!  YES!  YES!  Well said.  I wish there were a smiley that would clap! 

[b_dubb]

y'all have gone so far to the right that you've left the country

ok.  i'm a 'moderate democrat'.  i'll agree that there's an extreme left element that thinks government should do everything up to and including wiping your/their ass.  but these are a small group.  i'd say a good chunk of the 'democrat core' is the working stiff who wants to shelter/feed/clothe his kids while also making a payment on a bass boat or whatever. 

what i don't get about the democrats is why they've allowed themselves to get hijacked by fringe interests - gay marriage/rights, affirmative action/ reverse discrimination, etc. their fixation with making the world safe for all things gay just annoys the fuck out of me.  i think EVERYONE should be able to live their lives as they see fit provided they aren't fucking things up for someone else in the process.  i just don't think gay marriage is a high priority when we need to cut expenses and balance spending (STOP SUBSIDIZING HALIBURTON AND BECHTEL FFS). 

i am self employed and know where you guys are coming from when you talk about being taxed to death.  i pay $300/month in property tax on a condo that is valued at $100k.  and that's just getting started. 

btw - Gaffe Machine was the Secret Service's 'handle' for Biden during the debates

[onan]

I am not fond of political debates or discussions laid out in an internet forum. The subtle nuances of speech are lost, no one can really tell what tone is used to make a point and it is difficult (for me) stay focussed when every other post takes the conversation in another direction.

But I too lean democratic in my thinking. I too mostly just try to stay financially afloat year to year. But when I look at where the country has floundered from the late 60's to today I start to hang my head. I blame most of the social problems we are plagued with to an economy that has moved from manufacturing to service.

I find it maddening that we are in a national debate about a tax rate being raised on those making over 250,000 a year by 3%. During the years that our economy was dynamic and the shining star of the world that tax rate was at 91% in the 50's and 70% in the 70 percentile. So today the majority of those that decry the evil's of a tax rate that does not even affect them are putting coffin nails into our already failing infrastructure.

Obama/Biden 2012

[ringthane]

I am not fond of political debates or discussions laid out in an internet forum. The subtle nuances of speech are lost, no one can really tell what tone is used to make a point and it is difficult (for me) stay focussed when every other post takes the conversation in another direction.

But I too lean democratic in my thinking. I too mostly just try to stay financially afloat year to year. But when I look at where the country has floundered from the late 60's to today I start to hang my head. I blame most of the social problems we are plagued with to an economy that has moved from manufacturing to service.

I find it maddening that we are in a national debate about a tax rate being raised on those making over 250,000 a year by 3%. During the years that our economy was dynamic and the shining star of the world that tax rate was at 91% in the 50's and 70% in the 70 percentile. So today the majority of those that decry the evil's of a tax rate that does not even affect them are putting coffin nails into our already failing infrastructure.

Obama/Biden 2012

RE: failing infrastructure -- I keep seeing this pop up in various places and it almost paints the picture of the US ca. Ukraine 1960, like we're all driving Trabants and our state-sponsored housing sits next to some acid runoff from a mining operation. If infrastructure were so important, I don't think the 700+ billion stimulus would've gone into garbage like studying the mating songs of sperm whales, covering state budget deficits, union slush funds and bank/wall street bailouts. I don't think most conservatives would take issue with 'radical' ideas like building highways and bridges (which really should be handled by state appropriations, but that's another story).


This 3% tax issue reminds me of a recent slide I saw on a website -- we've all seen them: top 20 places to move, 20 celebrity liberals, 20 slimming foods, etc. The one I saw was 20 musicians that went bankrupt.


These weren't garagebands but high profile, chart-topping performers. Some who have gone bankrupt multiple times. Billy Joel, Ted Nugent, Toni Braxton, MC Hammer. The reasons for going bankrupt were typical -- crooked managers, cocaine, bad real estate, more cocaine, stupid business deals. All of them due to mismanaged money.


I can't think any of their personal finance problems were because CD prices needed raised 3%, or royalties 3%, or ticket prices 3%. You can give an addict a 13% or 33% bump and that surplus is getting snorted, toked or smoked. It's not a revenue problem, it's mismanaged spending.


Stimulus bill -- Tennis courts in Bozeman, MT. An area that can sustain an active tennis season (*snort*) of, what, 4 months? Some roads in western MT aren't even open/completely plowed until mid-May. I wouldn't invest in tennis courts in MT. Would you?


I wouldn't give a smart relative/trusted friend 3% of my pay for a dumb investment, why would I give a dumb government 3% for a dumb investment? It shouldn't be maddening that we have a debate where all of our money is going to.


re: loss of manufacturing -- bipartisan blame to spread all around, but since we're discussing nails in coffin, Richard Nixon + Bretton Woods 1971 + monopoly money = where we're at today. The world is calling for it now. We need to get back on some sort of sane gold standard.


I don't think Americans have the stomach for it.

[onan]

RE: failing infrastructure -- I keep seeing this pop up in various places and it almost paints the picture of the US ca. Ukraine 1960, like we're all driving Trabants and our state-sponsored housing sits next to some acid runoff from a mining operation. If infrastructure were so important, I don't think the 700+ billion stimulus would've gone into garbage like studying the mating songs of sperm whales, covering state budget deficits, union slush funds and bank/wall street bailouts. I don't think most conservatives would take issue with 'radical' ideas like building highways and bridges (which really should be handled by state appropriations, but that's another story).

I am not sure if you are denying there is an infrastructue failing in this country or just trying to deflate the point. I suggest looking at these articles... just to start...
http://www.planetizen.com/node/30700
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_2648_127/ai_54680883/
http://www.citymayors.com/development/us-infrastructure.html
http://www.citymayors.com/development/us-infrastructure.html

This 3% tax issue reminds me of a recent slide I saw on a website -- we've all seen them: top 20 places to move, 20 celebrity liberals, 20 slimming foods, etc. The one I saw was 20 musicians that went bankrupt. 

The 3% is the amount of increase that is being discussed for those making over 250,000 a year. What your point is, I am not sure.

http://politics.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977623449

http://www.chamberpost.com/2008/03/infrastructure.html

I can't think any of their personal finance problems were because CD prices needed raised 3%, or royalties 3%, or ticket prices 3%. You can give an addict a 13% or 33% bump and that surplus is getting snorted, toked or smoked. It's not a revenue problem, it's mismanaged spending.

Not seeing the necessity for tax rates that actually pay for the programs alrerady in existence is myopic at best and demented at worst. To think that we can cut taxes and increase governement spending is going into the realm of magical thinking.

Stimulus bill -- Tennis courts in Bozeman, MT. An area that can sustain an active tennis season (*snort*) of, what, 4 months? Some roads in western MT aren't even open/completely plowed until mid-May. I wouldn't invest in tennis courts in MT. Would you?

I grew up in Montana lived there for over 20 years and yes those backwoods-igloo-living-snow-eating-never-liked-the-sun-anyway folks actually play tennis too. But to point out straws to break isn't really helpful and may even be intellectually dishonest.

I wouldn't give a smart relative/trusted friend 3% of my pay for a dumb investment, why would I give a dumb government 3% for a dumb investment? It shouldn't be maddening that we have a debate where all of our money is going to.

This is tough to argue with because you have laid out an unprovable argument--Is the governement dumb or not? Well at any given moment in someone's day I could probably make a case for mental incompetence. I am a forensic psychiatric nurse... trust me I could. But the fail safe is that in the overall context most people perform above those criteria. The same can be said for the government.

re: loss of manufacturing -- bipartisan blame to spread all around, but since we're discussing nails in coffin, Richard Nixon + Bretton Woods 1971 + monopoly money = where we're at today. The world is calling for it now. We need to get back on some sort of sane gold standard.

I find this argument to be misplaced. I am dumbfounded that when a liberal suggests certain things they are attacked with a lack pf patriotism. Well bend me over the barrel cuff my wrists to my ankles and call me Shirley. How unpatriotic is it to move your business to another country and cause the loss of thousands of jobs which leads to communities completely failing. To suggest that moving companies is for survival of said is perhaps partially true but it is not the complete truth.

I don't think Americans have the stomach for it.

You may be right, but I do not have the stomach for what has passed "for the USA's good" in the 8 years prior to Obama.