Lucky...

Seems like he's begging some opportunist liberal to file a malpractice suit against him. That would be a shame.

W/o researching all the data, I did read thru it, but w/o impeaching it, let's say it's legit, WHAT OPTION DO THE VOTERS HAVE THIS NOV AND IN 2012; THE REPUBLICANS? So this is a good news / bad news situaation for R's. The party that got us into the housing mess, the mortgage scandals, hyperinflation, Iraq / AFG Wars, etc. What are teh options; the party that got us in or the one that's getting us out? Most politics are a least bad scenario rather than a best good scenario. Altho I love the Obama Admin, I realize most people don't keep abreast to data like: - Unemp - GDP - Stock Market - US Dollar vs other currencies - etc (both current and historical) Also, as for Carville, he may be acting humble in order not to seem too brash and overconfident. But it would be unusual if the Dems don't lose seats in a vacuum sense. I think voters are more likely to elect/retain Dems than R's, but it pretty much boils down to jobs; the admin needs to get us to 8.5% tops, preferably

I will continue to respond to any questions I wish and you will continue to dodge all questions that corner you; nothing changes - I'm not speaking for John.

I think you need to do some fact checking. Your boy has actually distributed more TARP funds than GWB, and I dislike TARP as much as I dislike the stimulus and the HC bill. BO has had a lot more time to spend TARP funds than GWB had. Do you have a point? My point goes towards my reference to 'billions of dollars' that have been spent. On top of the stimulus we have TARP money. Are you impressed that the economy is rebounding? Nope, we bought our way out of this one on credit, the other options were to enjoy decade(s) of suffering or do as Hoover did and raise income taxes 260%. Well, with the stock market up 50% since this time last year there should be enough capital gains to cover the cost of the stimulus. Right, assuming profit-takers are cashing in. I just don't get some people so married to their ideologies that they refuse to look at the totality of the situation. After FR's mess, GHWB started in small steps to fix it, Clinton and the Dem congress in 93 took huge steps and did fix it. Then GWB trashed it worse than ever, now Obama will fix it and I wonder if the idiot American electorate will still be mesmerized by: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi9y5-Vo61w Or perhaps this is more the speed of the American electorate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jx7a3leZJJI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijz1CdUj5fg&NR=1 Or maybe a Nixon throwback, he was such a great Republican. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB48/nixon.html As Nixon trivializes 19 or 23 dead soldiers....almost nothing. And Nixon states: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/04/richard-nixon-recordings "Never forget," he tells national security advisers Henry Kissinger and Alexander Haig in a conversation on December 14 1972, "the press is the enemy, the press is the enemy. The establishment is the enemy, the professors are the enemy, the professors are the enemy. Write that on a blackboard 100 times." From that we can discern that Nixon was Pol Pot light. And are we now going to have the Republican electorate bring us back to that kind of censorship and imposed ignorance?

Gee, what could have changed? Well, in late 2005 we were in the middle of the stolen money house ponzi scheme that GWB presided over while doing nothing. IOW's it was the false appreciation surge where lots of money was out there. Then it popped and Obama inmherited the mess that your guy sat there, dumbfounded, not knowing what to do, so he just signed for 700B for the richest of the rich. Now you say it's Obama's fault for the BK filings that are generally induced by the GWB housing meltdown. Brilliant. That's like me lending you my 200k mile car, having it break down and me asking what you did to fuck it up; keep the abstraction going, it's all you have.

Growth needs to be - want in one hand / shit in the other. GDP growth is >5%, jobs growth ALWAYS LAGS over all other indicators; show me a time where that isn't true. >>>>>>>> Both the Federal Reserve and Obama administration expect joblessness will remain above 9 percent through the end of this year. I haven't read that, but so what if it's true? Show me a time where unemp has skyrocketed 3.4% in a year. You act as if this is a garden variety recession. This is way worse than the fascist pig allowing the fed to contract the money supply and throwing us from 8ish into 10.8% unemp. Here we have the banks failing and the home mortage industry failing too. You demand a 15 minute fix or you say BO is no good; just ridiculous. YOUR PARTY DID THIS; MINE IS FIXING IT. YOUR PARTY WATCHED THIS MESS AND REFUSED TO RESPOND (like Katrina, etc); MY PARTY IMMEDIATLEY RESPONDED. All the revisionism in the world won't change the above facts

I think you need to do some fact checking. Your boy has actually distributed more TARP funds than GWB, and I dislike TARP as much as I dislike the stimulus and the HC bill. BO has had a lot more time to spend TARP funds than GWB had. Do you have a point? My point goes towards my reference to 'billions of dollars' that have been spent. On top of the stimulus we have TARP money. Are you impressed that the economy is rebounding? Nope, we bought our way out of this one on credit, the other options were to enjoy decade(s) of suffering or do as Hoover did and raise income taxes 260%. - Deficit spending - Tax-n-spend - Do nothing and dream it will fix itself Do you have other ideas? I am im pressed we have a leader and a congress that does something rather tha, 'TAX CUTS, MY FRIENDS."

I haven't used a social program such as SS, Medicare, disability, etc....ever. The last so-called social program I've used is unemp comp probably 8 years ago. Not sure where you're dreaming up your fantasy, just keep em there.

http://bailout.propublica.org/main/timeline/index Not by much and if you count repayments, Obama has distributed less. As Kalledn was saying, therate of distribution is far less under Obama, but that is all semantics, either we had to bail them out, socialize the entire banking system or enjoy GD part II. Repayments under Obama: March 69 bailouts: $97,848,541,000 5 refunds: $353,000,000 April 50 bailouts: $35,739,137,642 6 refunds: $683,540,000 2 revenue payments: $995,000 (list) May 57 bailouts: $46,762,708,198 9 refunds: $735,320,000 565 revenue payments: $5,918,032,432 (list) June 45 bailouts: $27,704,074,395 12 refunds: $68,352,729,000 27 revenue payments: $2,310,724,665 (list) July 31 bailouts: $41,280,319,285 5 refunds: $2,189,254,840 16 revenue payments: $2,562,839,497 (list) August 19 bailouts: $15,554,377,000 3 refunds: $140,000,000 598 revenue payments: $3,027,307,235 (list) September 34 bailouts: $4,109,552,653 7 refunds: $403,938,000 17 revenue payments: $2,595,463,437 (list) October 23 bailouts: $23,517,137,332 3 refunds: $88,400,000 12 revenue payments: $609,053,915 (list) November 19 bailouts: $21,737,986,666 10 refunds: $368,618,000 596 revenue payments: $1,888,403,607 (list) December 66 bailouts: $37,370,432,333 15 refunds: $91,851,152,000 42 revenue payments: $4,456,280,090 (list) January 8 bailouts: $40,410,000 6 refunds: $448,506,421 22 revenue payments: $126,551,118 (list) February 3 bailouts: $17,580,200,000 6 refunds: $7,997,020,718 583 revenue payments: $757,437,133 (list) March 4 bailouts: $90,180,000 6 refunds: $6,123,076,735 5 revenue payments: $1,588,542,997 (list) $186,348,000,000 or, > 186 billion repayed under Obama, as he wouldn't allow the banks to continue massive bonuses and claimed our stake as shareholders, so the institutiuons repayed so they could continue their corrupt ways of multi-million dollar bonuses. OBAMA FORCED REPAYMENT. That's because you aren't real aware of the Great Depression and you think we can jsut do nothning and let the dissaster fix itself. I hope you don't follow that logic with skydiving or you would just ignore a major, high-speed mal and let it fix itself. Oh no, you agree with GWB on most issues. I didn't like C4C, however I do like most stimuls programs. The data is irrefutable, unless you characterize the mess your hero left us as being very minor in scope. That's funny, fascist pig Ronnie was mor epopular than most and he ran the country into the ground. GWB was so popular that he won after running teh country into the ground during his 1st term, of course he won the first time, allegedly, based on fewer poular votes. So who gives a fuck about popularity, if you're unwilling to understand teh dynamics behind the GD and think we can let teh banks fail and it will all fix itself then you are clearly unqualified to discuss the recent Great Republican Recession. Obama is popular early on basd upon the fact that he is not GWB, he is popular now in the fact that he has flipped this major mess around.

Are you a bird? Well, they inherited a stock market that was about 1/2 of its peak just a short time earlier, a GDP that was 4 of 5 Q's negative incl -6.4% the Q Obama inherited, and unemp that grew a shocking 3.4% the year prior to Obama's inauguration. Yea, why give Obama and his admin any credit? A) The first 700B was signed for by your hero, the 2nd 787B by my hero; quit giving all the blame for the 1.5T to Obama - it just isn't factually correct. B) The diff here is that your hero gave the 700B rubber check to the most elite of our society, my hero gave the 787B to the people. This is where the vomiting in teh mouth begins; Republicans continue to support the mega-rich - Dems the average guy. It's only the start, so to average that at this early stage is meaningless. Also, we would have to add the additional jobs lost if there were no stimulus to find a real number/cost-per job. But it is just like a Republican to put a value on human suffering vs 'let's just fix the problem.' Do you still sit there and wonder why Republicans are so unpopular right now?

I think we just went thru this, fed data is basically an average, it doesn't, in this federal format, refer to state-by-state performance. Now, I don't see any data from you, nor do I see any data covering job gains. It is typical evem in teh best of economies to lose jobs, but job gains cover those losses and perhaps more, again in the best of economies. My point is that to inherit a 3.4% jump in unemployment while the previous turd just sat there dumbfounded, is unprecedented. Hell, even FDR inherited a horrible but stable mess, Obama's was still exponentially growing. Again, the unemp monster that grew 3.4% the year before Obama peaked and rounded the ark in October 09, eight to nine months after Obama took office, that is quality perfomance and a working stimulus. This is my point. Now humble job growth to be followed by steady and improving job growth; I wouldn't buy champagne for November as of yet. In fact, keep that bubbly bottled for Nov 2012 too. These are the things that remind us that we have a working government. Reviewing GWB reminds us that we had a dissasterous government. Altho the pig is fashionable, reviewing Reagan's tenure also reminds of horrible times too.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100402/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/us_economy Oh, right after the stimulus introduction. Maybe the dollar will rebound too. It will be fun to read to the critiques of this article/data, just remember, the unemp rate grew 3.4% from Feb 08 to Feb 09, which is unprecedented since the Great Depression. To turn the corner this quickly is amazing.

Or Nazis! What about the Nazis?? Or can they properly pronounce Corpsman??? Actually I illustart6ed that Obama did that, there is more than one correct pronounciation of, "Corpsman."

I love it, now the RW are the whiners. Alan Colmes weighs in on whether liberals are too harsh in their Tea Party critiques Oh, they're too harsh, too mean. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa you see whining? OK

I love it, now the RW are the whiners. Alan Colmes weighs in on whether liberals are too harsh in their Tea Party critiques Oh, they're too harsh, too mean. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Have another bong hit. Go whine some more

I love it, now the RW are the whiners. Alan Colmes weighs in on whether liberals are too harsh in their Tea Party critiques Oh, they're too harsh, too mean. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Thx bro, that was good; I hadn't seen it. In fact, right before HC passage, Michael Moore was saying this very thing. He was saying was that the Republicans were so popular for so long due to their forceful nature, that people (voters; electorate) love strong politicians / leaders and follow them even if their agenda is wrong, people (Americans) are just drawn to power and force. So become that, Dems, reconcilliation, recess appointments and all the forceful shit, just do it; these are the very things the the R's claim to abbor, yet do FAR MORE OFTEN than do the Dems. So yea, the Dems finally grew a pair, I had been saying they had/have great ideas for years, but were just nutless, now that they grew a pair teh R's are crying foul rather than congratulating them for finally growing a set. It's about time, late is better than never; the R's need to retool or they're done for a while. I guess it's like any process, they need to realize defeat, realize they are considered vile by their beliefs/ideologies and realize they are hypocrites. Then they have to reach out to the people and try to offer a better idea. Or they can just keep whining at teh Dems for doing the ame so-called dirty tricks they had been doing since Nixon and just wait for the Dems to be worse and to win by default.

Well it's good to see that moralist Larry Craig didn't leave politics. For a minute there I was affraid we would lose him.

Work is sporadic in my career. As for me, yes, if you have no argument about the substance, just turn it against me. Now, can you argue that we need to reduce our military expenditures or not? Explain how other countries can provide HC for all and still beat our dollar. I won't wait up. Which one? Acft mech. as you know. I realize you're a so-called engineer, but maybe that's why we have the skyvan; an acft that looks like a trailer.

Right, just let you good guys run the country.....sorry, get used to being the minority opinion.

is that a PA? Oh... you're saying he's a yank as in yankee... I thought you meant he was a ... well anyway. Is it hard to figure out that he meant Yankee? You are such a victim wait, it that a PA??? How am I a victim? That isn't even sensible in a sarcastic sense?

It depends on if I've just read some of your posts or not Yep, I'm 100% yankee

is that a PA? Oh... you're saying he's a yank as in yankee... I thought you meant he was a ... well anyway. Is it hard to figure out that he meant Yankee? well let's just say that when I think of you and the word "Yank", yankee doesn't come to mind immediately. Well, ya have to spell things out for some people. BTW, what "IS" Hitler doing right now?

Work is sporadic in my career. As for me, yes, if you have no argument about the substance, just turn it against me. Now, can you argue that we need to reduce our military expenditures or not? Explain how other countries can provide HC for all and still beat our dollar. I won't wait up.

And you would say the opposite if another D candiate won. Grass greener, meet Rush. Tell me, what do you think any other president would do with a: - Failed banking system - Mortgage mess worst ever - Unemp driving 3.4% the year before he took office - GDP 4 of 5 Q's negative, current Q -6.4% - 2 big wars in process, entered under false pretense, a total mess VN in the making - Deficit at record levels - Debt at record levels NOT MAKE WORSE LIKE THIS DUMB ASS IS Right, confidence in him is so low that the DOW and the S&P are way way down since he was inaugurated. Oh, wait, they're way way UP! (DOW fell 24% during Bush's presidency. DOW is UP 33% since Obama inaugurated.) I like how you quote it now and poo poo it at other times Nothing if not consistent are you Just the facts, Marc. Sorry you don't like them, but they ARE the numbers. Again, the R's aren't bad guys, they just suck at math. GDP, Unemp, market.