Liberal Forum

Simple "whore" would be one of the nicer things said about her from the Liberals here, Joe, as you well know.All I ever said is that I'd like to grudge **** her. And I would. Oh, and that I don;t respect her. And I don't.Oh, yeah,and that she's stupid - and she is. And if you don't think palin is stupid, then you are just stupider, that's all.Imagine that. Stupider than palin.

Remember that time all of you were saying she faked her pregnancy to cover up her daughter's?You must admit that the way she handled her pregnancy was rather odd and suspicious. She kept it a secret until late into her pregnancy, she never looked pregnant, and knowing that she was going to have a special needs child, instead of going right to a hospital when she went into labor here in the lower 48, she got on a long flight back to Alaska. And then instead of going to a big hospital, which was close to the airport and well equipped to deal with a special needs child, she drove to a much smaller hospital which was further away.So in your mind questioning someone's odd behavior is the same as calling them a bitch and a ho, and depicting them as a stripper on a pole? Seriously?

Simple "whore" would be one of the nicer things said about her from the Liberals here, Joe, as you well know.Who was talking about the Liberals here?Has MoveOn.org or some Liberal PAC ever put out an ad like that about any female Conservative?Shouldn't PACs like Turn Right USA's standards be a little higher than the posters on a political forum?Why can't you just say it's wrong?Unless maybe you don't think it is. Edited by MistyBlue, 22 June 2011 - 04:02 PM.

Michelle Bachmann's hypocrisy on Socialism exposed. Her pork-barrel handouts conflict with her free market message.VIDEOTranscript:ODONNELL: Time for tonights Rewrite. The Republican candidates for president are trying to outdo themselves with anti-government rhetoric. Mild-mannered former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, who is most likely to win the honor of losing to President Obama in the general election, has actually made the most libertarian anti-government statement of anyone running, including the actual libertarian Ron Paul, and the Tea Party virtual libertarian Michele Bachmann. Pawlenty said, if you can find a good service, a good or a service, on the Internet, then the federal government probably doesnt need to be doing it. In other words, if the private sector is doing something, the federal government doesnt need to be doing it at all. This is as close to a pure capitalism statement as you can get. But Pawlenty was the governor of a state that thrives on handouts from the federal government, cash handouts to farmers, from the Department of Agriculture, and of course, the ethanol tax credit. There is no sector of our economy more rife with socialism than the agriculture sector. But supporters of farm socialism like Pawlenty and Minnesotas Michele Bachmann have no idea how much they actually like socialism, because theyve never paused over what socialism actually is and how much their political careers depend on it. Michele Bachmann, as has been pointed out in this space before, has a family farm that has received over a quarter of million dollars in direct cash from the federal government. That is, of course, in addition to her federal salary of 174,000 dollars for her real full-time job as a member of Congress. Thanks to Sam Stein at the Huffington Post today, we now have yet another example of Bachmann political dependence, career dependence on socialism. The Huffington Post obtained a letter Bachmann wrote on October 5th, 2009, to the Obama administration secretary of agriculture, Tom Vilsack, thanking him for government intervention in the pork industry. Thats right, government intervention in the market. She wrote, your efforts to stabilize prices through direct government purchasing of pork and dairy products are very much welcomed. Yes. This is the same woman who said this about the Democrats health care reform bill. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)REP. MICHELE BACHMANN[R], PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: This is the crown jewel of socialism, this bill. This is the crown jewel of socialism, this bill. (END VIDEO CLIP)ODONNELL: Yes, there were some socialistic elements to the Obama health care reform bill. But it was not nearlynot nearly as socialistic as the Agriculture Departments intervention in the pork industry, its control of the price of pork. The Agricultural Department is a permanent participant in the pork market for purely socialistic reasons. If the pork industry doesnt like whats happening to the price of pork, it gets members of Congress, like Bachmann, to urge the government to intervene in the market and drive up the price of pork. That is exactly what she was thinking and what she was thanking the socialistic secretary of agriculture for doing. In fact, Bachmann wants nothing but pure socialism coming out of the Agriculture Department every day to make life easier for the agri-businesses in her congressional district. Free market preacher Michele Bachmann goes all socialistic when it comes to the price of pork and the pork industry. Now, I for one believe Michele Bachmann would pass a lie detector saying that the federal governments control of the pork market is not socialistic, because, like everyone who rants against socialism in this country, she doesnt know what socialism is. As Ive pointed out here before, we have good socialism and bad socialism. And the socialism that Michele Bachmann openly advocates is very, very bad socialism. It is worst kind of socialism. It is intervention in the market simply because the government doesnt like the price that the market would find through free market forces. Even Sean Hannity, who is normally at least as confused about socialism as Michele Bachmann is, doesnt like this particular piece of socialism. Before Hannity knew Bachmann was involved in this socialistic scandal, he wrote a note on his blog opposing it, beginning with the very Hannity line, your tax dollars are being used to buy a lot of pork. And I mean literally, exclamation point. Ive never thought our politics would allow me to say this. And I have no expectation of ever being able to say it again. But on Michele Bachmanns pork socialism, I agree with Sean Hannity.

Another lie, the president has put forth proposals for major cuts.Everytime a republican mentions the word "deficit" they look like such a fool b/c every single one of their heroes were for EXPLODING the deficitby pushing the Bush tax cuts for the rich to the tune of $3.9 trillion.$3.9 TRILLION.That's the name of that tune.Actually, RichClem is correct. Obama has literally spent 3.1 trillion dollars within 2 yrs. That's a record even by democrate standards. Yes, of course the republicans have done their share of exploding the deficit, but no where near Obama. Not by a long shot. What is worse is that the democrates have no desire whatsoever to cut the spending. The plan Obama laid out regarding his plan to reduce the deficit mounts to peanuts. It wont even make a dent.

Actually, RichClem is correct. Obama has literally spent 3.1 trillion dollars within 2 yrs. That's a record even by democrate standards. Yes, of course the republicans have done their share of exploding the deficit, but no where near Obama. Not by a long shot.Bush's two wars, his tax cuts, and his crashing of the economy (lower revenues) are a big part of the current deficit. He's the gift that keeps on giving.What is worse is that the democrates have no desire whatsoever to cut the spending.Not true. Republicans refuse to even entertain the idea of raising revenues, even if it just means closing tax loopholes. In fact they want to cut revenues even more, by giving more tax cuts.We need to do both. Cut spending and raise revenues. Edited by MistyBlue, 22 June 2011 - 04:31 PM.

Bush's two wars, his tax cuts, and his crashing of the economy (lower revenues) are a big part of the current deficit. He's the gift that keeps on giving.Not true. Republicans refuse to even entertain the idea of raising revenues, even if it just means closing tax loopholes. In fact they want to cut revenues even more, by giving more tax cuts.We need to do both. Cut spending and raise revenues.I'm not disagreeing that Bush's administration exploded the deficit. When Clinton left office, and Bush began, the deficit was at 4.2 trillion. After 8 yrs of the Bush administration the deficit was at 10.1 trillion. When Obama took office it is now 14.3 trillion. It took 8 yrs for Bush to ring up 6 trillion dollars. It only took Obama not even 2 yrs to ring up almost 3.2 trillion and he isnt even finished with his first term. His spending is unprecedented to what this country has ever seen before.Here is my source: http://www.treasuryd...debt_histo5.htmIt lists the deficit back from 9/30/00 to 9/30/10 Edited by liberal-slammer, 22 June 2011 - 04:41 PM.

I'm not disagreeing that Bush's administration exploded the deficit. When Clinton left office, and Bush began, the deficit was at 4.2 trillion. After 8 yrs of the Bush administration the deficit was at 10.1 trillion. When Obama took office it is now 14.3 trillion. It took 8 yrs for Bush to ring up 6 trillion dollars. It only took Obama not even 2 yrs to ring up almost 3.2 trillion and he isnt even finished with his first term. His spending is unprecedented to what this country has ever seen before.You're confusing the national debt with the yearly deficit.Get back to me when you learn the difference.

You're confusing the national debt with the yearly deficit.Get back to me when you learn the difference.Oh f-ck me naked, you know what I meant. Yes, I got the wording wrong, but the argument is the same.

Oh f-ck me naked, you know what I meant. Yes, I got the wording wrong, but the argument is the same.You left quite a few things out of your argument, like the fact that when Obama took office, we were in a deep recession verging on a depression and hemorrhaging over 750,000 jobs a month, so naturally revenues were dramatically decreased. He had no choice but to borrow.Bush OTOH inherited a very healthy economy, and proceeded to put it in the toilet. Edited by MistyBlue, 22 June 2011 - 10:46 PM.

More on Bachmann's taste for pork.Michele Bachmann Literally Praised Government Pork In Letter To Obama Official WASHINGTON -- Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) has built a large part of her conservative appeal on strict opposition to federal intervention in the free market. Her real-time criticism of the Troubled Asset Relief Program earned her plaudits among the base voters who will soon decide Republican primary elections. Her pledge to repeal President Obama's health care law, on grounds that it imposes an across-the-board government solution, has become a focal point of her presidential campaign. When it comes to the agriculture industry, however, Bachmann's record doesn't match the fiscal conservative hype. A Freedom of Information Act request for communications the Minnesota Republican has had with the Department of Agriculture shows that she leaned heavily on federal officials for help -- never more so than when it came to aiding the pork and dairy producers in her state. On Oct. 5, 2009, Bachmann wrote Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack praising him for injecting money into the pork industry through the form of direct government purchases. She went on to request additional assistance. "Your efforts to stabilize prices through direct government purchasing of pork and dairy products are very much welcomed by the producers in Minnesota, and I would encourage you to take any additional steps necessary to prevent further deterioration of these critical industries, such as making additional commodity purchases and working to expand trade outlets for these and other agricultural goods," Bachmann wrote. At the time, the pork industry was facing a two-pronged calamity: fallout from the H1N1 influenza crisis and the ripple effects of the recession. Pork producers had lost nearly $4.6 billion in equity since 2007 and Vilsack, sensing greater market doom, had injected funds into the industry at least four times since that spring. In March 2009, the USDA purchased $25 million in pork, in April it made a $50 million purchase and in July it bought 775,000 pounds of ham, according to reports. In September, just one month before receiving Bachmann's letter, Vilsack had signed off on $30 million in additional federal purchases of pork. Seeking to balance the narrow political interests of her district (which is affected by the ups and downs of the pork market) with her broader message of reining in government spending, Bachmann urged Vilsack to ensure that "any federal funds expended are used wisely to provide timely assistance to struggling producers." Clearly, however, she welcomed the crutch of federal funds, pleading that producers had not experience a situation as dire "in decades." Bachmann's congressional office did not return requests for comment for this article. Backers of federal purchasing of pork did, however, defend the practice on its merits. "This isn't a subsidy," said Dave Warner, Director of Communications at the National Pork Producers Council. "This is the federal government getting the food they need for food assistance programs and getting it at a good price."As Warner notes, the government helps feed significant swaths of the U.S. population, from low-income students to the elderly, military personnel and prisoners. When Vilsack purchased more pork, it came from within pre-existing Department of Agriculture budget allocations. It also saved jobs. "I don't know if it stabilized things, but it helped," said Warner. "Obviously it helped."But it wasn't the conservative way of doing things. Indeed, even before Bachmann wrote her letter, Fox News' Sean Hannity had penned a blog post blasting the government for "literally" buying pork. Among the list of items he found objectionable: "$16.7 million to Minnesota for 'canned pork'" -- money that came from Vilsack's purchase of 775,000 pounds of ham.While Hannity's critique was centered on the budget lines of the president's stimulus package, farm subsidies at large have increasingly received ridicule for the budget-slashing crowd. The specific pork purchases Bachmann referenced aren't technically a subsidy. They do, however, represent the type of federal involvement in private industry that leaves both think-tankers and activists bothered. "This action favored some producers and took funding away from others," said Chris Edwards, editor of the Cato Institute’s Downsizing Government website. "If pork and dairy producers were affected by that particular outbreak [H1N1], that is why they have insurance. Federal government has massive farm insurance programs. They can also save. Farmers can save up for years with poor weather conditions or other problems like disease on the horizon ... I think this is just a way to provide subsidies for a private special interest without a budget."If the Vilsack letter were a solitary incident, Bachmann would likely be excused for conducting simple, provincial politics. Three of the six counties in her district are among the top ten recipients of dairy subsidies in the state. Federal help is influential in maintaining the good will of her constituents. But as she prepares to barnstorm through early primary states, in what is increasingly being treated as a serious candidacy for the White House, her record on government spending is undergoing enhanced scrutiny. Bachmann herself has a family farm -- managed most recently by her now deceased father-in-law -- that received $251,000 in farm payments between 1995 and 2006. The congresswoman has been careful to hit the right notes with respect to ethanol subsidies, which help her home state but have become a crowning example of government spending that could be dropped. But with respect to other federal expenditures, including earmarks, her record has raised doubts. She infamously argued that transportation projects should not be subjected to Congress' earmark ban. "Advocating for transportation projects for ones district in my mind does not equate to an earmark," she said.Bachmann appropriated more than $3.7 million worth of earmarks while in Congress before the ban was passed. Even earlier, as a state senator, she proposed more than $60 million in earmarks for her state and district. Bachmann's office responded to reports of her past earmark requests by drawing a distinction between proposing earmarks for one's own state or district and supporting pork-barrel projects that lack such a direct benefit. But, as Matt Lewis of the Daily Caller wrote, "Tea Party activists may find the argument that earmarks are fine at the state level as appealing as Mitt Romney’s argument that individual health care mandates are fine so long as they are enacted at the state level."Looks like Bachmann talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk. Edited by MistyBlue, 22 June 2011 - 11:33 PM.

You left quite a few things out of your argument, like the fact that when Obama took office, we were in a deep recession verging on a depression and hemorrhaging over 750,000 jobs a month, so naturally revenues were dramatically decreased. He had no choice but to borrow.Bush OTOH inherited a very healthy economy, and proceeded to put it in the toilet.True. Obama was and is against the wind when he inherited the economy. The problem was that he didnt learn from history. In the past, such as the great depression and other deep recessions that America has encountered, we usually got out of those slumps by cutting both taxes and cutting spending simultaneously. This allowed Americans more money in their pocket, which in turn allowed Americans to spend more in the economy. But you have to do both. You cannot reduce taxes but still spend the same. That wont work. Obama has done the complete opposite of what history has already proven to work. He raised taxes and he increased spending. Now, Americans have less money to spend in the economy because of the taxes, which gives us less money to spend in the economy. Not only do we have less money to spend in the economy, but Obama is bleeding what little we do have as well. Why would he or anyone think that would work? Edited by liberal-slammer, 22 June 2011 - 11:52 PM.

In the past, such as the great depression and other deep recessions that America has encountered, we usually got out of those slumps by cutting both taxes and cutting spending simultaneously.Not true. Take a look at this chart showing unemployment levels during the Great Depression.Notice how unemployment was going down until around 1937, when it started to rise again.That happened because Roosevelt was pressured by Conservatives to cut spending, which caused a setback in the recovery.Much the same thing that is happening to Obama right now.The government is forced to become the spender of last resort during an economic crisis like this.Republicans seem to be intent on hindering any kind of recovery and maybe even causing a second dip in the recession, because that would benefit them politically.Case in point......my next post. Edited by MistyBlue, 23 June 2011 - 02:17 PM.

I think you are agreeing with me actually. As I said in my post, the recovery happened due to cutting spending. This is what you are saying as well, yes?

Senate Republicans block another jobs bill.Senate Republicans Oppose Economic Development Administration They Once Supported WASHINGTON -- Republicans filibustered a reauthorization bill Tuesday of a federal program that many had previously praised as a job creator, saying they would not move forward with the bill without a guarantee for GOP amendments. In a 49 to 51 vote, Senate Republicans blocked a bill to reauthorize the Economic Development Administration, which provides grants to local projects. The program has drawn fire from Republicans for the projects it supports, with conservative Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) calling the "pet projects" a waste of money. Four Democrats, Sens. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Tim Johnson (D-S.D.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) also voted against cloture."This program too often has used federal dollars to fund pet projects that have little relation to the national interest," DeMint wrote in a June 15 op-ed for the Wall Street Journal.Democrats disagree -- and they are eager to point out that many Republicans once spoke highly of the Economic Development Administration. "A million jobs, and all we need is a cloture vote," Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said on the Senate floor before the vote, where she also read from statements Republicans had made in the past in support of the Economic Development Administration. "This bill is a sparkplug. You put in a dollar, you get seven dollars of ... investment. ... I hope our friends will vote with their hearts and look back at their press releases."DeMint, who called himself a "recovering earmarker," admits that he supported "certain EDA grants in the past." But he does not mention in the op-ed that his office held a workshop about year ago to "highlight competitive funding opportunities available to community businesses and organizations," including the Economic Development Administration. Other Republicans who opposed cloture spoke highly of the agency in the past, among them Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), who said in March 2010 that funds from an EDA grant "would pave the way for the creation of new jobs and business opportunities, which will strengthen the region's economy," according to a local East Texas NBC news affiliate. Cornyn said on Tuesday he planned to vote against cloture, referencing a White House "statement of administration policy" from June 7 in support of the bill that also says the bill authorizes more spending than the president requested."The Administration believes that the need for smart investments that help America win the future must be balanced with the need to control spending and reduce the deficit," the statement says. Cornyn echoed the statement, saying the bill spends too much money. "It seems to me it's going in the wrong direction at a time when we're broke," he told HuffPost. The EDA is the latest congressional attempt at job creation to fall victim to creeping deficit concerns that rest on the idea of the country's insolvency. But CIA data show the United States is one of the world's richest countries, with one of the lowest tax rates.Mostly, though, Republicans said they would not support cloture because Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is not allowing Republicans to offer amendments to the bill. Adam Jentleson, a spokesman for Reid, said the amendments offered were unrelated to jobs. "This is a jobs bill. If Republicans offered amendments that had anything to do with creating jobs, we would have been happy to accommodate them. But instead, Republicans filed over 80 amendments dealing with everything from light bulbs to the lesser prairie chicken to a sand dune lizard -- everything except jobs."Although he praised EDA projects in the past, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said he would not support cloture because the GOP must maintain its leverage. "If you make an agreement you've got to work to keep the agreement," he told HuffPost. "That's about the only leverage we have in the minority to get our ideas up." Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) also said she supported the Economic Development Agency broadly but was unsure whether she would vote for cloture. She praised the program in April for "creating good jobs" and helping to "encourage further business growth," the Bangor Daily News reported. Collins stood behind her support of the program, but told HuffPost she still might not support the bill. "I have seen first hand that it has led to the creation of jobs in my home state and has been a catalyst for private sector investment," Collins told HuffPost. "Having said that, I want to make sure there are amendments to the bill."

I think you are agreeing with me actually. As I said in my post, the recovery happened due to cutting spending. This is what you are saying as well, yes?No. I'm saying just the opposite. As you can see by the chart I posted, when Roosevelt cut spending during the recovery from the Great Depression, the economy took a sharp downturn.

But your graph is misleading. The Unemployment rate really started diving in 1940, which of course was the war. It didn't start diving due to FDR's New Deal and Second New Deal plans. In fact, there is no immediate way of showing whether those plans really had a meaningfull impact because government stimulus plans don't go into fruitation the moment they are implemented. It takes years to see if anything came from them. Below is an example of how cutting spending and cutting taxes can and does work. http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/the-other-great-depression-1920-1921-or-the-not-so-great-depression/blog-299507/ Harding's Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover wanted government intervention in the economy which as president he was to pursue when he faced the Great Depression a decade later but Harding would have none of it. He insisted that relief measures were a local responsibility. Federal spending was cut from $6.3 billion in 1920 to $5 billion in 1921 and $3.2 billion in 1922. Federal taxes fell from $6.6 billion in 1920 to $5.5 billion in 1921 and $4 billion in 1922. Harding's policies started a trend. The low point for federal taxes was reached in 1924; for federal spending, in1925. The federal government paid off debt, which had been $24.2 billion in 1920, and it continued to decline until 1930.

But your graph is misleading. The Unemployment rate really started diving in 1940, which of course was the war.And why was that? Two words....government spending.BTW, by 1944, the top tax rate had soared to 94%.Obviously you and I have two completely different views when it comes to economic policy.

And why was that? Two words....government spending.BTW, by 1944, the top tax rate had soared to 94%.Obviously you and I have two completely different views when it comes to economic policy.No. Because the war gave jobs. A lot of jobs. Mostly to women since the men were out fighting. A lot of the private sector flourished due to tool making, ship and plane construction, and even hollywood. They made a lot of films during that era. Additionally, Americans were forced to buy less of overseas goods and instead they bought American products. yes, I guess you are correct. we will probably not agree, but thats ok:)

Michele Bachmanns Husband Calls Homosexuals Barbarians Who Need To Be Educated And DisciplinedWhen trying to figure out where presidential candidate Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) gets her stringent, anti-gay views, you only have to look as far as her husband. Dr. Marcus Bachmann, who has described himself as his wifes strategist, runs a Christian-based counseling center in Minnesota that has been rumored to offer reparative treatment for those looking to ungay themselves. Just last summer, Dr. Bachmann explained his position on homosexuality while offering theoretical advice to parents concerned that one of their children was gay. BACHMANN: We have to understand: barbarians need to be educated. They need to be disciplined. Just because someone feels it or thinks it doesnt mean that we are supposed to go down that road. Thats what is called the sinful nature. We have a responsibility as parents and as authority figures not to encourage such thoughts and feelings from moving into the action stepsAnd lets face it: what is our culture, what is our public education system doing today? They are giving full, wide-open doors to children, not only giving encouragement to think it but to encourage action steps. Thats why when we understand what truly is the percentage of homosexuals in this country, it is small. But by these open doors, I can see and we are experiencing, that it is starting to increase.Listen:Along with offering faith-based counseling at his clinic, Bachmann also gives presentations at various conferences. In November 2005, he and Rep. Bachmann both ran sessions at a Minnesota Pastors Summit in Eden Prairie, Minnesota: hers focused on the gay marriage amendment she was trying to push through the state legislature, and his was titled The Truth About the Homosexual Agenda.One of the people present for Dr. Bachmanns talk almost had to leave the room because there was so much bile. Curt Prins, a marketing executive who identifies as gay, reported that Bachmann believed homosexuality was a choice rather than due to genetics: The climax of the presentation was when, according to Prins, Bachmann brought up three ex-gays, like part of a PowerPoint presentation. The trio, two white men and a black woman, all testified that they had renounced their homosexuality. One of them said, If I was born gay, then Ill have to be born again, Prins recalls. The crowd went crazy.After seeing her husbands virulent remarks, its no surprise then that Michele Bachmann has fiercely disparaged the gay community and has announced shes in favor of an anti-gay marriage amendment on the campaign trail. Whats the most terrifying isnt what Dr. Bachmann said, but the threat that the United States could elect a president who believes that homosexuality can be disciplined out of someone. Sarah Bufkin