I Just Don’t Get It…


I wandered around the internet today checking out various liberal entities. From fellow piss ant WordPress bloggers to big name national publications the narrative was the same. President Obama has done a lot of great stuff!

The schizoid cherry atop this insane sundae was the New Yorker piece by Ryan Lizza I quote its closer which seems to be a big talking point:

Obama didn’t remake Washington. But his first two years stand as one of the most successful legislative periods in modern history. Among other achievements, he has saved the economy from depression, passed universal health care, and reformed Wall Street. Along the way, Obama may have changed his mind about his 2008 critique of Hillary Clinton. “Working the system, not changing it” and being “consumed with beating” Republicans “rather than unifying the country and building consensus to get things done” do not seem like such bad strategies for success after all. (emphasis mine)


Are you f!@#ing kidding me!??!?!?!?!?!

The Economy

The actual state of the economy at the time Obama entered office cannot and should not be understated for partisan benefit. It MUST be conceded that the economy was in the shitter or there really isn’t any point in entering a discussion. On the flip side if one is to deny that ANYBODY has stopped something from happening they are foolishly whispering past the cemetery gates.

Folks, the world is at odds with itself over what to do.The usual suspects of Keynesian excess are pledging austerity while folks from the other side are screaming for bigger, better,more stimulating deficit spending. Nations,not just banks and companies are on the verge of collapse. The plants Obama and his bots want to claim clipping success over whilst denying any responsibility for the original seeding are in fact like the infamous kudzu plant and flourishing. Saved the economy from depression? Sorry folks at best that scores too soon to tell.

Universal Health Care

Passed it? More like rammed a pork laden suppository into the rectum of  a patient that was looking for a small oral dose of something good. In EMS humor there is a classic: “Rectum? Damn near killed him”

If you ever suffer insomnia actually read the health care horror novel that was reconciled into history and be enlightened as to why some folks salivate at its abortion before it experiences full birth.

Wall Street.

Dodd/ Frank reformed Wall St? This thing came out of the gates and went on a blind date with Sarbanes/Oxley and is now hurting the US economy. It ain’t helping the consumer either,can’t wait to hear Lizzie Warren’s spin on that.

This is kind of like one of those feedback loop kind of things. I wonder if folks like Barney Frank will deny any responsibility when the scourge of this thing plays out? I doubt it.

Here’s a memo…Reality

Do I think Obama has tried? I think this ties into a thread already up here at in2thefray. It is not so much what his effort has or hasn’t been but his actual ability. Obama apologists quote Truman’s lament about POTUS not having any real power. This is insane. Seriously folks, just think FDR,Reagan and Clinton. Like them or loathe them there has and hopefully will be those who CAN be that which being President of the United States requires as well as what the days/times demand and dictate. Barack Obama IS NOT one of those.

The three men I’ve listed could easily be joined by another 20th Century President,Woodrow Wilson or we can go back to the nations early years. Hostile Congress? Pphhtt! Unpopular policy? Really,ya going there? Tough times? OMG!

The trials and tribulations of Barack Obama are far, far from being unprecedented contrary to what some folks want you to believe. I’ll take a pail and say Obama had some ideas,hopes and a naïve but exuberant outlook. I’ll go even further and say he tried some things he thought would work well. This pail win must include the caveats though of his choosing bad advisers and accepting bad advice. One must also take into account a pretty obvious failure to evoke the mantle of office properly. Classic examples are his pathetic energy exertion for the failed and ludicrous Chicago Olympics try,as well as the Cambridge Police/Harvard professor saga. Spending clout on that but allowing Congress and hacks to muck up things he thought were truly important? Back to the title….I Just Don’t Get It.



  1. guest says:

    How lame can you get.


    or willful ignorance

  2. Alfie says:

    Your fluff is easily shredded I invite others to click it and do so. A great example would be the Space category which Obama himself admits to be a downer for his Admin.This is evidenced by his need to cut NOT expand and to backtrack from campaign promises/plans. The bulk of the list is an exercise in repetitive spin which fails to do Obama a good turn.

  3. Alfie says:

    Of note the “guest” is bvilleyellowdog who stayed 51 seconds,commented and clicked out but not via a link. This shows he obviously didn’t read the post thoroughly,didn’t check the New Yorker link and chose only to fly in,glimpse a few lines and offer the knee jerk rhetoric based partisan comment with talking point linkage.

  4. Tex Taylor says:

    Even Dawg’s steaming piles are lame… 😆 The runs…literally.

    Dawg, you’re such a limp noodle of a man, you’re not even worth my scorn anymore. So, the new Tex Taylor is going to do a mental deficient like you a favor and get you some new friends now that Graychin dumped you and your site.

    Here’s some new friends with the same capabilities you possess:


  5. Rutherford says:

    Ya never know, ole Dawg could be a speed reader. 🙂

  6. Rutherford says:

    Alfie, I’m actually readying a post on this subject (not Lizza but two reputed conservatives who within the past week have taken opposite sides on Obama’s record). I plan to compare and contrast the two views. Will take me some time but I hope to produce it late tomorrow.

    I know you won’t comment but I hope you’ll stop by to read it. (Hell you can comment about it here,)

    P.S. Sorry don’t mean to be blog-pimping … just saying my answer to your post will itself be a post.

  7. Alfie, this post may very well be your best to date! The Keynes comment left me a bit cornfused, but all in all you nailed it!

    I’m saving my comments for the utter and epic failure known as obama for when he is on his way out the door. In the mean time I’m going to concentrate on State and local issues as things in Wyoming are really beginning to heat up.

    LOVE the EMS comment!

  8. Tex Taylor says:


    Anybody that spins the successes of the Obama Administration is lying not only to their audience but to themselves. Even Rahm Emanuel, a lying, corrupt bastard if there ever was one, was intercepted informing Obama to not even address his first term in tonight’s SOTU speech. That is clearly an indicator of how poorly these last three years are viewed.

    Any liberal that is being fair and not deranged as most are, would recognize you don’t lose 70 house seats in a mid term election, historic routs in the state houses that exceeded anything since the Civil War, and have people loathe you the way Obama is loathed without something being terribly wrong with the path this President has chosen.

    Bill Clinton was intelligent enough to at least make a presentation of trying to moderate himself.

    Barack Obama has done just the opposite, doubling down toward the path of stupidity called liberalism. It is a guaranteed failure, as the last three years have demonstrated.

    Our country has not been this fractured since the Civil War. I have at least two friends, well to do, that are making plans for leaving this country in the event Barack Obama wins this election – not threats – facts. Both are in the process of divesting their business interests.

    Unfortunately, this country for forty years has been trending toward the nanny state, which even in the most dire of times, will result in an election that should not even be close, but will.

    One thing is for sure – we can’t carry on this way much longer and the feeling of revolution is palpable. It is going to get very, very ugly the next two years, especially if Barack Obama loses.

  9. El Tigre says:

    Dawg, take this back to G-chin. More proof of the Post Office efficiency he held out as proof the government delivers services better than the private sector.


  10. Tex Taylor says:

    😆 Didn’t the fat man use the Post Office as “proof” that government is capable of “efficiently delivering” health care? I remember we mocked G-Chin unmercifully, but I can’t remember what had transpired to that point. I think it was healthcare.

    Unlike Yeller Dawg, Graychin wasn’t a stupid man.

    But many of the conclusions Graychin reached were beyond stupid. My favorite was on this very blog, where Graychin accused all of as racists, only for us to discover there is not one black in his entire zipcode. 😆 David “Graychin” Duke.

  11. El Tigre says:

    Tex, I think you’re right. It was followed with one of my favorites — something to the effect of democrats being “hope-rs and dreamers” and that’s what sets them apart.

    I just placed the highest stakes bet I’ve ever made. Loser has to sit through Obama’s pep rally tonight– with the volume on.

    I understand he’ll have all of the props for his tired talking points, including Gifford’s husband for the “tone of political discourse” non sequitur, Buffet’s secretary for “even the rich want to pay more taxes, Biden for . . . we love retards too.

    Pray for me. I can’t afford to lose.

    Oh, and thanks to you and Alfie for leaving us with Poolman and and Dr. Demento at R’s place. 🙄

  12. Rutherford says:

    Well at least we still have you to keep us on the straight and narrow. 🙂

  13. Alfie says:

    Sorry El Tigre. If it is any consolation my absence may become more a sabbatical than a forever thing.I’ll cross my fingers for you on your wager.

  14. Alfie says:

    I actually miss Graychin a bit. He’d be little stubborn but he was o.k.

  15. Alfie says:

    Issa is a tenacious guy. Nice to have a quality thorn for the sides of the (D)s

  16. Tex Taylor says:

    I just placed the highest stakes bet I’ve ever made. Loser has to sit through Obama’s pep rally tonight– with the volume on.

    True torture. Obama literally nauseates me with his stupid shuffling walk and shit eatin’ grin. I’ll skip because frankly, I can’t even stand to look at him. I’d rather listen to Bill Maher than Obama. Obama reminds me of a beta character from a Spike Lee movie.

    I haven’t abandoned you, Gorilla, Rabbit, or BIC – the good guys. I’m just going to convince you to come over here or move to BICs so we can be spared from Poolman. 🙂

    Fortunately, Alfie doesn’t tolerate the endless bullshit.

    I was going to just tell them all to go to hell before I left, but that would be like telling them to be sure and be home before midnight.

  17. Alfie says:

    I hear ya Tex. As I told the dog the points at the fantasy site repeatedly claim the stimulus in every category. Seeing as I’m from the school that the stim sucked and the credible juries are still out on its lasting effects I think I’m on the right side of it. Perhaps I’m too biased by the inner Hayak in me? I think we can take take a page from a former Obama advisor and say that regards the Keynesian stim and health care stuff….” America your chickens have come home to roost” The perfect example of that is how the “new” job losses are govt job losses,which were the same jobs the stim supposedly saved for the good of us all.I apologize for rambling.

  18. Alfie says:

    With hopes the stacked comments doesn’t mess folks up. Patrick thanks thats nice of you to say. You point out a very important thing when you speak about the local and state elections. Key stuff there especially since I’m having my first thoughts that O is indeed heading for reelection. 😦

  19. Alfie says:

    I know the most popular Wisconsin stories are recall related but has anyone else seen the stories how Walkers policies are SAVING real $$$$. I saw two and was shocked to learn even more stuff about how crazy some of the union monopoly stuff was. The teachers union owns the entity that is the teachers health insurance. They were a total monopoly and real stiffs where price was concerned. Now all of a sudden they’re offering lower prices in face of competition from independent/market competition. Districts are literally saving millions.

  20. Tex Taylor says:

    I had really never heard Mitch Daniels speak until tonight. Though he doesn’t carry the panache of many political loudmouths, he was actually very impressive in his response. I can see why he was appealing to a large part of the in-the-know crowd.

    His record in Indiana is quite impressive. No doubt, other than Gingrich’s incredible ability to play the crowd and debate, Republicans have the second string running. Note, John McCain didn’t even make the squad, so 2012 is vastly superior to 2008 but still…

    I heard Bozo’s highlights. His energy portion was absolute and complete falsehoods. It is amazing how the man can lie and idiots nod. Have you noticed how Obama’s grand ideas of Hope and Change are now small ball? Where’s the “We are the Ones” speeches? Pathetic.

    A small, dishonest man, not fit for the office. Class warfare and blame Republicans, taking credit for things he has been against. What an incredibly weak human being when the curtain is pulled. Hopefully and prayerfully, that is the last time I have to avoid a state of the union speech from the malignant narcissist and hypocrite.

  21. Tex Taylor says:

    WHO’S GREEDY? Obama Gave 1% to Charity, Romney Gave 15%


    When I use the term Shelly Antoinette, I am not just teasing. These creeps are so visibly phony and self-absorbed, it is mind boggling people actually still swoon.

    How deluded does one have to be to still believe in the greatness of Obama?

  22. Tex Taylor says:


    As a favor to an old friend, would you please pass this link along to Thor next time he visits your blog?


    I told Thor some weeks back at your blog during my last post, Thor was so entirely full of shit concerning our domestic energy policy successes under Obama, I wasn’t even going to waste my time correcting him.

    Fortunately, somebody has done that for me so that I need not bother wasting my own time. I believe this link will not only perhaps help Thor to restore his dignity, but might prevent him looking entirely the dumb ass as he proceeds throughout life.

  23. Rutherford says:

    I’m going back on a promise I made to myself not to engage with you Tex on matters personal and stick strictly to politics but I would like to remind you that in some people’s eyes, you were the beneficiary of my tolerance for “the endless bullshit”. Not censoring commenters benefits those with whom you agree and those with whom you disagree.

  24. Rutherford says:

    Couldn’t get past more than two sentences before reverting back to Obama attack mode. Tell us more about Mitch Daniels and how he would be better than any of the clowns currently seeking the GOP nomination.

    I know you don’t like Daniels. He’s a gentleman and Huntsman already failed on that score with you. Newt is your guy Tex. You’d rather see Obama get humiliated in a debate with Newt and still win reelection then go with a moderate who could actually beat Obama.

    Catharsis … a great thing!

  25. Tex Taylor says:

    Well now, you don’t have to worry about me being the beneficiary of my endless baloney clogging up your absolutely brilliant and marvelous blog, do you Rutherford?

    I, on the other hand, have made no such promises to keep it strictly political with you.

    But you too have been a benefactor in my absence. Now you can mock Jesus all you want sans retribution or preaching, cavorting with the other reprobates you attract and so dearly admire.

  26. Alfie says:

    I must confess that I don’t get the % thing. People want to harp on Romneys low %,a % that exists quite legal for all even the bit player on the St and mutual fund holders. A tax that exists along and on money that gets taxed at least twice by other ways,it is the primary reason the rate is low. He still forks over millions of dollars to public coffers plus millions to charity.

    Lets be clear what we’re seeing some of our fellow citizens applaud here. We’re seeing folks proposing a special law that says Person A and, only folks like Person A, must disclose the amount of all his/her money and then fork over 30% of it.

    Really think on that for a bit. This isn’t about saying “Hey you’re rich pay your share”. Its something else.

  27. Alfie says:

    Not censoring commenters benefits those with whom you agree and those with whom you disagree.

    That is not entirely true .

  28. Alfie says:

    Can someone help me out on something? In the SOTU speech (and other places/times) Obama speaks of using the money saved from the Iraq/Afghanistan draw downs for financing policy items.
    In a very bipartisan way I ask isn’t part of our greater economic mess that the money used for the wars is money we didn’t have in the first place?

    From a purely partisan place I can only say that although the words are different the bottomline re Obamas proposals is this. Nothing NEW!!!!!!!
    He is still all in for Keynesian policies,for programs that even if hopes they don’t, undoubtedly WILL, only benefit select groups.
    If we look back at this posts linked New Yorker article which used memos to explore Obamas thoughts,desires,hopes and feelings you have to think he just put himself on the road to another set of memos expressing his disappointment.

    I’m gonna give myself the biggest ObamaPail I’ve ever awarded myself. If nothing else is true,the Presidency Obama wanted,hoped for has clearly failed to transpire. Deep down,and maybe not too deep he’s gotta feel the sting and it is only gonna get worse. I don’t think even reelection can heal it.

  29. Tex Taylor says:

    Actually, I have said on this very blog not 48 hours ago, Newt is not “my guy.” He’s my guy of what is left of the 2nd string Republican squad. If Romney could somehow develop a mean streak with the intent of going after Obama and the lame stream media in the tank for Obama, he would be my guy. To beat an evil, malicious, nasty piece of work with his lackey media in the tank, you have to be willing to go to the mat. I don’t feel Romney has what it takes to do that.

    I have a gut feel of what will win this election and I feel confident if implemented, this election would not be close. And being a smart version of milquetoast for nominee won’t cut it. That is Romney’s major weakness. Not RomneyCare, or flip flopping, or even his money – he doesn’t have the fortitude to take on progressive radicalism and call it what it is – Saul Alinsky and Cloward-Piven strategy. He’s not willing to call the toads of your cause in media what they are – rank propagandists.

    In a Gallup poll today, Gingrich scores equally well as Romney in a head to head with Obama.

    I’d remind you, your record of prediction since I have met you couldn’t be worse and became the butt of jokes at your own blog. I don’t find you terribly perceptive, except for the one gift of your quick recognition of when liberalism or Obama in big time trouble.

    Yes, I would like to see Newt Gingrich debate Barack Obama. But I also know Barack Obama is savvy enough that he knows he would get his clock cleaned in a head to head debate with Gingrich, because Obama is an intellectual lightweight and the debate would prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. And Barack Obama is going to run scared cat up a tree when Gingrich comes looking if Gingrich is elected.

    I don’t just want Obama humiliated. I want Obama, his uppity, entitled, angry black woman wife, his dog, his friends, his backers, and any Obama sycophant humiliated for the gross incompetence of the last three years, and the outrageous treatment of George Bush during his two terms.

    The core principles of modern day liberalism are hateful to me, and I use the word principle loosely in this regard,

  30. Rutherford says:

    Wow, even the dog gets your abuse. I thought you loved dogs. They’re man’s best friend regardless of political persuasion. 😉

    So that was your long way of saying you wouldn’t want Mitch Daniels running either, right?

  31. Rutherford says:

    LOL Ok Alfie … let’s just say not censoring commenters benefited ole Tex. Even he would admit the truth of that statement. 🙂

  32. Rutherford says:

    OK, since the topic is “I just don’t get it” could someone give me a simple explanation for why Romney supposedly gets taxed twice? I understand the 15% on capital gains but I’m also hearing he gets taxed 35% in some other fashion. Am I misunderstanding this and if not, please help me understand what is going on.

    By the way, given the choice of increasing Romney’s cap gains rate to 30+% or dropping everyone else’s regular income tax rate to 15% I take the latter.

  33. Rutherford says:

    LOL Alfie why do you have to be so damn LOGICAL about things? You don’t see how great it is to stop spending money we don’t have on wars and instead spend money we don’t have on programs? 😉

    Damn I wish I could print money on demand like the government does.

  34. Alfie says:

    First I don’t believe it is the plan to raise capital gains tax on 250k plus’ers but instead to go after overall assets so perhaps I’m just as confused. As for the doubling taxation it is more than that. You have real money in your pocket which has been taxed somehow first. Then you invest it. When you’re a big investor or owner of a company you more than anyone else experience the corporate tax rate on your earnings (the us corp rate being way too high compared to our competitors) . Let’s not get started on the maze of taxes and write offs and regulatory fees etc. Then you post your gains and take a hit on those.

  35. El Tigre says:

    Your investment in capital comes from post tax income.

    And there’s a reason for not taxing capital gains the same as ordinary income. I trust you understand that. I trust you also recognize that government revenue goes down when cap gains rates are excessive.

    R, were you aware that Romney paid out a collective 42% of his 2011 income on taxes and charity?

    By contrast, ” Biden and his wife, Dr. Jill Biden, grossed $379,178, paid $86,626 in tax and reported just $5,350 in charitable donations, with $950 of that accounted for by used clothing and household items donated to Goodwill.”


  36. El Tigre says:

    Alfie, I have never understood that either. The libs must be talking about a tax on net wealth or something else equally absurd. I don;t see how it works on the so-called “over $250k” threshold.

  37. Alfie says:

    Let me go on the record that I was against the practice that was implemented to finance the wars so I’m actually consistent on my govt. financing schemes when it comes down to it.
    I’m one of those folks that want us to spend only what we have. My standing on the divide is that I cut first THEN tax and let there be no doubt I would indeed tax.

  38. El Tigre says:

    Where did that choice come from R? e math doesn’t work like that. You could confiscate 100% of all millionaires wealth and it still doesn’t work — well unless your objective has something more to do with class envy.

  39. Rutherford says:

    OK, got it … so Romney gets taxed as a business owner first and then the cap gains tax hits him when he invests his already taxed income. Of course, he hasn’t been taxed on this business income in a good seven years or so (ever since he left Bain) so I’m not sure Argentina should really cry for him.

  40. Rutherford says:

    Tigre, that is the choice that I’ve always heard debated … in fact in the Monday Florida debate I believe Gingrich said his goal was to get everyone down to Romney’s rate rather than raise Romney’s rate.

    As for the benefit of taxing (milking) the rich Alfie’s ABC article spoke to the notion of how few really rich folks there are and what little could really be gained by overtaxing them.

    You know Tigre, one of the things the mean girl in high school says when she gets dissed for being a b*tch is “well, they’re just jealous of me.” This has nothing to do with envy. Romney’s a rich man … more power to him. The point of a progressive tax structure is the recognition that poor people cannot afford to give the government the same share of their limited funds that rich folks can. That’s why a flat tax doesn’t work. A 20% flat tax forces the poor to do without essentials. A 20% flat tax forces Mitt to do without a fifth yacht.

    It’s not about envy. It’s about everyone doing what they can. It’s about … dare I say it … fairness.

  41. El Tigre says:

    Yeah, Imagine that. The tax structure influences his behavior (i.e. taking/deferring income, choosing corporate versus personal tax rates, electing certain capital investments over others, making charitable contributions). How novel.


  42. El Tigre says:

    Your comments prove the contrary. For the ten millionth time, rich folks don’t stock pile cash in a safe at home. The do something with it. Need I send you back to a few Friedman excerpts?

    Actually, to your point, do you need me to re-link the 2008 DNC debates where Obama asked why he favored an increase in capital gains rates when doing so would result in LESS government revenue?

    I swear. It is all about “spreading the wealth” not creating it and know it damn good an well.

  43. El Tigre says:

    “That is the choice that I’ve always heard debated … in fact in the Monday Florida debate I believe Gingrich said his goal was to get everyone down to Romney’s rate rather than raise Romney’s rate.”

    I didn’t hear it, so without context I can’t speak to it. But the question I have is, “what does that mean to you?” It doesn’t speak as choice to me — only the idea that less taxation is the objective because it stimulates the economy, not more taxation which is all the left knows. Of course it also thinks food stamps are “stimulus.”

  44. El Tigre says:

    Of course the simpletons on the left also thinks food stamps are “stimulus.”

  45. jonolan says:

    Ah yes, Rutherford; we’ve heard that one before in slightly different words – From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

    But tell me how it is “fair” that I pay for other’s services, even if those services are perceived needs?

  46. Tex Taylor says:

    No, I was impressed with Mitch Daniels – he would at present be considered part of the ‘A’ team. Romney has the potential to be an ‘A’ team player.

    But not as long as he is afraid to call Obama what he is – a red diaper baby. Same rule would hold true for Mitch Daniels if he proved too gutless to go the mat.

    Why is that so hard to understand?

  47. Tex Taylor says:

    Sure. I have told you numerous times, I have appreciated and admired, even respected your openness and willingness to present an open forum for debate.

    But Alfie is right. Poolman doesn’t debate – he’s a dishonest buffoon and blog disrupter seeking attention – the proverbial deficient child at the back of the room pulling his pants down to get attention. Poolman needs to be in the special education class of Fat Grannies. You know that. You’re not stupid like Poolman.

    That one item separated you from Graychin’s joke of a blog, Fat Grannies, and other assorted peer groups with which you reside. 🙂

  48. Tex Taylor says:

    Great points Tigre. I’m not sure that excellent explanation got through to Rutherford, because I have tried numerous times to explain why it is beneficial to everyone to hold capital gains low. I can make a good case the capital gains rate should be zero.

    Not only does a low capital gains drive growth and investment in capital, but it is indeed post tax. More so, a man of Mitt Romney’s stature and wealth could defer his interest income if he so chose, and Rutherford’s beloved government would receive nothing as compensation. A dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow – net present value way beyond the normal lib intellect.

    If Romney so chose, the government could in theory receive nothing if it decided to become punitive – hence, the Cayman address. If I had Romney’s money, I would be doing the same thing. The Obama government is not to be trusted, and has the obvious potential of becoming quickly fascist. We all know it, and why Obama disdained in so many circles.

    Not only do we loathe him as President, we don’t trust him as a man.

  49. Tex Taylor says:

    Indeed, you are right. What Rutherford apparently fails to understand is the flat tax makes provisions for a minimal level of income without taxation.

    Libs are notorious for scaring the poor for their vote. They dangle food stamps and other staples to keep the poor in their place, while propagating the vicious lies of theft of that assistance. If you can keep the poor ignorant, you can manipulate the mob for a vote. Obama is a master at this.

    The Left wing is equal parts evil and cannibalistic. It is not the Republican party keeping the working poor, poor. That is a myth and the press now needs to be called on it. That’s why Newt Gingrich is so effective in his message. He’s willing to tell the truth and articulate enough to explain in layman terms that people understand.

    Baggage or no baggage, the Left is scared shitless of Gingrich’s message and willingness to convey that message without fear of the personal attack. That is the one overlying quality that has made Gingrich now the front runner for the GOP nomination. And if Romney wants to win, he needs to adopt that policy quickly.

    Romney is personally capable, but may not have the intestinal fortitude. Romney desperately wants to be liked and universally admired – like McCain. He apparently does not understand his political adversaries are lying in waiting to personally destroy him.

  50. Rutherford says:

    Dude, Mitch is p-whipped. You expect him to stand up to Obama (or Putin?) MD: “No honey, I won’t run I promise … please don’t hit me again.” 😆

  51. Tex Taylor says:

    Just like a lib. Politics before family. Politics before God, or there is no God more likely. Politics before friends, or kids, or even principle.

    Politics is the end all to be all. What completely empty, soulless people you are, Rutherford. More unedifying than even the Mohammadens.

    Instead of admiring a man enough to consider his wife and her wishes before fame, the man is kind enough, loving enough to say, “Talked it over with the Mrs. No thanks. Family comes first.”

    Contrary to that monkey faced, shrewish Michelle Antoinette, so stupid she couldn’t handle practicing law, wanting another four years of the rich and famous.

    “Gaz dammit Barry. We uz needs some more of thats cash for me and the kidz to go to Hawaii on thez fool’s dime. Haw Haw Haw Haw. Stupid white folk. You get your black azz and out there and gets some more cashs – Ice don’t care hows you gets ut. Theze mofos are dum and I aints ready to leave this house yets.”

  52. jonolan says:

    No, not cannibalistic – they don’t eat their own. They’re more like farmers practicing animal husbandry with the poor as their livestock.

    At best, the Liberals are like the landowners just after the Civil War who took on newly freed slaves as sharecroppers and then never let them buy the parcel. This is why I often refer to “the Liberals and their minority tenants.”

    Landowners and sharecroppers, the saga has only changed its nomenclature and venue, not its substance.

  53. Raji says:

    “Gingrich said his goal was to get everyone down to Romney’s rate rather than raise Romney’s rate.”

    Everyone is at Romney’s rate if they are declaring Capitol Gains. The rate used to be 20% then lowered to 15% to help senior citizens who depend on capitol gains for their retirement income. Money invested is taxed as ordinary income prior to the investment. Upon sale of said stock if there is a gain it is taxed at 15%. I don’t understand why this has become such a big deal.

    Enlighten me if I am wrong.

  54. Rutherford says:

    Tex you are a classic. Daniels’ wife left the mofo to marry someone else …. then divorced that loser and took Mitch back. I’m telling you she is not the good wife you sacrifice a political career for … she’s a bad mamajamma. Mitch is lucky to have all his teeth. 😉

  55. Tex Taylor says:

    No, you’re right Raji. But 15% isn’t enough out of your pocket if you’re to believe Obama. Got to stroke the class warfare to get the rubes, the mooches, the leeches, and the wards to the polls.

    Free smoke and drink for some ballot stuffing.

  56. Tex Taylor says:

    Daniels’ wife left the mofo to marry someone else …. then divorced that loser and took Mitch back. I’m telling you she is not the good wife you sacrifice a political career for…

    Okay. A further indicator Daniels is a class act and loving husband who loves his wife more than his job, warts and all. I don’t expect a liberal to understand that. It’s called character – something the entire left wing of the Dimocratic party is bereft of.

  57. El Tigre says:

    No enlightenment needed Raji. Why the concept eludes so many on the left is downright scary.

  58. Alfie says:

    Well I have to say I have discovered yet another thing I Don’t Get right here in this thread.
    Rutherfords comments regards the Daniels prompted me to brush up on some things. I don’t get Rutherfords position and I mean I REALLY DON’T GET IT.

    The Daniels political employment history seems to hint that the guy has consistently desired to stay close to his family. One could speculate to reasons for this given the divorce angle in a number of ways. One would also need to explore that the couple actually does love each other.
    I see some on the Left want to make a deal of this story. I wonder is it pure evil on their part or a warped vindictiveness due to their Chosen Ones blow job episode?
    Apparently it is ok for their guy to be the philanderer or to have a rocky marriage and still pursue higher office. Ironically the party of NOW adds another female of (R) persuasion to their c@#t list in the face of a vile double standard.
    I think one could also say the Lefties are extremely vile in their position on the Daniels affair (PUN!!) given that their latest Chosen One has a wife who is fairly private,protective of her kids and all in all is supposed to be hands off for the medi-whores.
    FWIW I think the Daniels suffered an unfortunately not uncommon episode of American life. The fact that they reconciled and seemingly care what a POTUS run would invite to this particular closet of their private life is no shocker to me.

  59. Alfie says:

    @ Jonolan…I like that comment on so many levels.

    Landowners and sharecroppers, the saga has only changed its nomenclature and venue, not its substance

    I find that to be so sadly true here in my home state. The various high end limousine liberal communities that talk a big game on race but are horrified when a black man graces the sidewalks of their community outside of service sector work and even then too.
    The same folks that were outraged by the Harvard/CPD episode are the same olks that expect their police to do EXACTLY that on their streets.
    Thats just one level,there are many more.

    In fairness I think Rutherford is one that recognizes that even if he has additional and passionate thoughts on it. I dare say it is one of about three areas where R experiences real pain about his political allies.

  60. Tex Taylor says:

    Alfie, I agree with your take about Rutherford and his winching. Rutherford has many of the same vile qualities as most progs that I detest (PDS/BDS buffoonery, socialist tendencies masked under social justice, religious mockery and hostility, basic Sodom and Gomorrah type philosophy). But concerning the issue of race, I give Rutherford a shred of credit about admitting my disdain for Obama has nothing to do with race. And I will admit my immense loathing of Michelle Obama has much to do with race – she is the ultimate entitled, angry black woman contrary to her putrid denial. It couldn’t be more obvious.

    But Rutherford has at times even admitted that the pandering to black America from limousine liberals is nauseating. He recognizes the hypocrisy.

    The issue of race is one reason you and I would part ways in our opinion of men like Graychin. Though no limousine liberal, Graychin was the same quality of hypocrite from the do as I say, not as I do crowd – frequently using minority representation or lack thereof as a bat when Graychin himself had little or no relationship in any regard with black America.

    In fact, Graychin lived in far and away the most segregated part of the state of Oklahoma. IMHO, Graychin lived the worst type of double standard and why I held him in such low regard.

  61. Rutherford says:

    Some of my poking at the Daniels is in jest. I DID find Mitch’s series of injuries while he was being courted for the POTUS run kinda funny (separated shoulder, conk on the head) and the notion that he was a battered husband was a not foo far fetched comic conclusion to arrive at.

    More germane to a serious conversation, from what I have seen, Daniels would satisfy the ‘base” no more than Huntsman or Romney. These are all polite dignified men who don’t go out of their way to piss people off. The base wants a flame thrower right now.

  62. Rutherford says:

    But tell me how it is “fair” that I pay for other’s services, even if those services are perceived needs?

    Let me put on my asbestos underpants before I channel Elizabeth Warren.

    The roads you drive on to go to work are paid for by the community at large. You could not make a living if it were not for the community agreeing to maintain infrastructure, pay police, fire fighters etc.

    The “social contract” does not equal socialism. It is a recognition that “society” involves shared contribution, sacrifice. and cooperation. The notion that any of us are self made men on our own island is delusional.

  63. El Tigre says:

    R, a large segment of the conspicuous right seems to be working against Newt. I think the realization that a reckoning will occur if Newt continues is becoming too obvious to ignore.

    Anyone else seeing it?

  64. El Tigre says:

    Oh back to the “all or nothing” debate tactic again?

    So equalizing wealth by redistributing it is part of the social contract?

    Cut the shit R.

  65. Rutherford says:

    I’ve noticed in this thread some miscomprehension of what I do and don’t understand. I DO understand the value of a low capital gains tax. We want to encourage investment because investment sustains business.

    On the other hand, claiming that lowering income tax is a cure for our ills is not something I understand. The Bush tax cuts did nothing to hold off the worst slump since the Great Depression. If we limit ourselves to an examination of human behavior, the notion that money in people’s pockets (not taxed) goes into the economy is a bad assumption, especially in a bad economy. Money in people’s pockets either gets saved, or pays off massive debt. The notion that this money goes back into the economy is greatly overstated.

  66. Rutherford says:

    I think Graychin gets a bad rap. If Tex could prove that a black family moving into Gray’s neighborhood would prompt him to move out, then I could understand the indictment. I don’t know Gray’s wealth. But I do suspect that most affluent neighborhoods are not by and large integrated and I don’t think that fact is grounds enough to accuse its liberal residents of hypocrisy.

  67. El Tigre says:

    “The Bush tax cuts did nothing to hold off the worst slump since the Great Depression.”

    Yeah. His spending was out of control.

    “The notion that this money goes back into the economy is greatly overstated.”

    Bullshit. Compared to confiscation by the government?

  68. Alfie says:

    I’ll only say that Rutherfords line is an example often put forth by the more polite on the Left. I find it funny though that food stamps and unemployment is championed so strongly as synergizers of the greater economy yet rich folks spending….not so much.

  69. jonolan says:

    Those roads are, by and large, paid for by taxes that are specifically aimed at those who use those roads. They aren’t generalized confiscation of wealth to pay for services that others use.

    We as a nation used to do that a lot. Taxes, more often called levies, were assessed for specific purposes and were agreed to. Now, we don’t do that much since the government wants to be able to allocate monies to whatever pet project will get them the most votes or contributions.

    Nothing in the “social contract” says that I must pay for the basic upkeep or comforts of those who cannot afford to do so themselves.

    BTW – You’ll need less in the way of asbestos underpants if you don’t make stupid statements like, “The notion that any of us are self made men on our own island is delusional” when nobody (statistically) involved in this discussion or the national debate dismisses the idea that basic shared infrastructure must be paid for – though we likely disagree as to how widespread the payer base should be (intra-state vs. national).

  70. Rutherford says:

    You are absolutely right. A large contingent of the right knows that Newt makes a great primary candidate but is toxic in the general

  71. Rutherford says:

    What nonsense. The only way to not “redistribute” wealth is stop taxation completely. Is that what you are calling for?

  72. Rutherford says:

    I find it funny though that food stamps and unemployment is championed so strongly as synergizers of the greater economy yet rich folks spending….not so much.

    I think the claim that food stamps and unemployment insurance stimulate the economy is an attempt to appease conservatives. To me, these programs are nothing more or less than a compassionate way of helping people in dire straits.

  73. El Tigre says:

    No. I am using your logic response to what you’re calling for.

    All or nothing. . . all or nothing. . .

    Come on R. I am talking about the “purpose” of taxation being to level the wealth regardless of source. If that ain’t part of the social contract you’re referring to (or the actual point of the discussion), quit with the silly departure.

  74. El Tigre says:

    Appease conservative?

    You mean placate the libs that might question how it is that government creates jobs in the private sector.

    Cognitive dissonance.

  75. Rutherford says:

    Nothing in the “social contract” says that I must pay for the basic upkeep or comforts of those who cannot afford to do so themselves.

    I disagree because that carries the assumption that you will always be on the “giving” side.

    I’m quite sure there are quite a few conservatives in this country who have lost their jobs and now find themselves in need … and have softened their views somewhat about “redistribution” of wealth.

    The social contract means that we are all here for each other. Preferably, friends and family can get us through the tough times but when that fails, a government safety net is desirable.

  76. El Tigre says:

    safety net does not equal welfare state and dependence form entitlement programs.

    the few conservatives that have lost their jobs would like. . . wait for it. . . jobs.

    R, no one is calling for abandonment of safety nets R.

  77. jonolan says:


    I have no such assumption because I’ve been in a position to be on the receiving end of government largesse before. I just didn’t choose to take advantage of it.

    Frankly, insofar as i can see, the “government safety net” is nothing but a sign that this “social contract” has already broken down and many people are no longer part of society since they have neither a society of fellows to help them in bad times nor the ability to generate enough sympathy to garner people’s charity.

    Or is that your desire? Is the government’s function to support those people within the confines of society who are so loathed that the society will not voluntarily support them?

    If so, then the government is an active enemy of its own society.

  78. Rutherford says:

    First to Tigre, the “purpose” of taxation is to help the government provide for the general welfare of the populace. If we agree that poverty is a blight on society as a whole, then government should concern itself with fighting poverty and use the funds at its disposal to do so. HOW they do it is a very reasonable area for difference of opinion.

    the “government safety net” is nothing but a sign that this “social contract” has already broken down and many people are no longer part of society since they have neither a society of fellows to help them in bad times nor the ability to generate enough sympathy to garner people’s charity.

    Jonolan, that is a very interesting way of looking at it. I’m not sure I disagree. So what does government do in this case? Stand back and watch the squalor? I’m no Gingrich fan but one of his talking points that I enjoy is when he says Romney just wants to “manage the decay”.

    Does government have any role in reversing this breakdown in the social contract?

  79. jonolan says:

    I can’t think of an appropriate role for the government in reversing the breakdown of the social contract, especially since the government has a symbiotic and synergistic relationship with that breakdown.

    As for your statement about poverty to Tigre – first you have to properly define poverty and the basis of the metrics to measure it.

    You can – and you seem to – measure it relatively, whereby the poor will always exist. Or you can set an objective measure for poverty, whereby poverty can be ended.

    It’s telling – and relate back to the government’s relationship with the breakdown of social contract – that the government keeps getting more and more fond of the relativistic approach, especially when the Liberals are in power, even though approximately 99% of America’s “poor” are in the wealthiest 1% of the global population both in terms of money and lifestyle.

  80. Rutherford says:

    There is no arguing that. By definition if we define poverty on a relative basis, it will always exist. Some objective measurement is needed. I think a good start is the inability to provide food and shelter for oneself.

  81. jonolan says:

    Better watch out, Rutherford. You’re getting close to invalidating your whole “fair” premise for wealth redistribution since income inequality has nothing to do with an objective metric for poverty or any other social-economic strata. 🙂

    Not that I mind. I’ve traveled to enough hellholes across the globe to have a different view of poverty than most Americans.

  82. Rutherford says:

    I don’t know … you may be on your own slippery slope. Do we have to wait for American ghettos to resemble those of Calcutta before we say we have a poverty problem?

  83. Tex Taylor says:

    The Bush tax cuts did nothing to hold off the worst slump since the Great Depression. If we limit ourselves to an examination of human behavior, the notion that money in people’s pockets (not taxed) goes into the economy is a bad assumption, especially in a bad economy. Money in people’s pockets either gets saved, or pays off massive debt. The notion that this money goes back into the economy is greatly overstated.

    No, you still don’t get it. I don’t think you ever will. The Bush tax cuts were never meant to stave off the Depression, because we were in at best a mere recession during the first bubble (tech) when the tax cuts were implemented.

    The Bush tax cuts not only stimulated the economy, they drove the national debt even with two simultaneous wars, to 1/10 of what it is now, accompanied by full employment of 4.4%. That bullshit you ignorant parrots mouth about the Bush tax cuts were “for the rich” isn’t even a worthy lie by prog standards. The tax cuts were across the board.

    Obama’s “tax cuts” were nothing, and accompanied by another 3/4 of trillion in new regulation costs and accompanied by a host of other slush funds intended to enrich Obama campaign contributors. And you won’t even admit that, though it is fully documented by Peter Schweizer.

    Hypothetically: If you get $100.00 of capital gains at 15% interest vs. $60.00 of capital gains at 20%, which one is more apt to stimulate investment, Rutherford? Capital gains can simply be deferred for as long as necessary.

    You don’t get it at all, and that is your problem.

  84. jonolan says:

    😆 What ghettos in Calcutta? At it’s nadir that was the whole city – a true case of income equality.

    But, of course, your assuming that the poor, if measured objectively, are a renewable and expanding “resource” and that, left unchecked, they would increase and become even poorer. I don’t subscribe to that belief nor do, for that matter, most of the Liberal statists since they push so strongly for a relativistic measurement of poverty.

    But…if we approach poverty via objective measurement, there’s far less need for that government safety net because there’s fewer “poor” to be spent upon and NGOs can handle much of it through charity.

    As for those who can’t get that charity and have no personal society to help them survive – failure at that level is lethal and it should be since we’re talking of individuals that society has already condemned.

  85. Tex Taylor says:

    Not nearly as ironic as libs thinking it is most fair to provide handouts to the disenfranchised with a guarantee of leaving them in multi generational poverty, but never do a thing to provide an incentive, which a chance of a job at a living income, restoring a sense of worth. LIberals are incredibly compassionate – with other people’s money to buy a vote.

    Liberals understand little of human nature. Frankly, most are stupid. Dawg is not unique in any manner, and in fact, I would state typical. One perusal through Fat Grannies blog would adequately demonstrate the lowbrow, amoral, puerile nature of both progressive men and women.

    Critical thinking is beyond even their brightest like Rutherford.

  86. jonolan says:

    No, Rutherford can think critically. He just uses a different language to do so. It sounds like American English, but the words and thought language aren’t the same.

    Take “fair” – to him it seems to mean “equitable”, whereas to us it means “just.”

  87. Tex Taylor says:

    Another specious answer framed in the interrogative. Your question would leave us to believe the problems with “the ghetto” are lack of support.

    We’ve poured over $6,000,000,000,000.00 into the New Society since 1965 and poverty has not immeasurably improved.

    The problem with the ghetto is the ghetto and the government assisted breakdown of the two parent unit, good intentions beside the point. The Great Society is a failure.

    When 74% of your babies are married into a single parent home, the predictability of poverty, crime, and moral breakdown following are astronomical.

    Yet, your solution is double down on what is clearly not working.

  88. Tex Taylor says:

    I am not talking Graychin’s neighborhood. I’m talking about his entire zip code, which encompasses an entire town called Eucha, OK.

    Wake up.

  89. Tex Taylor says:

    I know Rutherford far better than you do after thousands of comments of back and forth now approaching four years.

    Whether arguing semantics or not, Rutherford can not think critically. Rutherford’s world is a game of carrying forth with the meme developed by the liberal media, disproportionately MSNBC and the NYTimes.

    Rutherford is a highly educated rube, albeit a more mannerly one.

  90. Tex Taylor says:

    😳 Make that measurably improved.

  91. jonolan says:

    Here’s the odd thing, Tex – by every core economic measurement the “poor” in the ghetto are better off than before, though I doubt it much, if anything to do with the New Society. It had more to do with cheap import goods and Agro Bizz that let them achieve higher standards of living.

    On the other hand, you’re right. “The problem with the ghetto is the ghetto” and antisocial behavior in them has not declined even as overall economic situations have – so throwing subsistence money at it doesn’t seem logical.

    Hell! We can’t even convince large numbers of them to leave the ghetto because their attacked and ostracized by their peers for even wanting to do so.

  92. Tex Taylor says:

    I would disagree that by every core economic measure, the “poor” in the ghetto are better off.

    Contrary, what the Great Society has done is to further increase poverty across the entire demographic spectrum, to where almost half of Americans are now considered poor/working poor.


  93. jonolan says:


    That’s a relative measurement of poverty. Look at their living conditions vs. their income – http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty

    That’s what I meant by core measurement – food, housing, stuff, lifestyle, not dollars vs other people’s dollars.

    Come on! We’re in a country where one of the biggest complaints about the poor is that they’re OBESE!

  94. Rutherford says:

    whereas to us it means “just.”

    I can see that … and it feeds the notion that some folks deserve the dire straits in which they find themselves so f*ck ’em. And that probably is true of some of the poor. How do we figure out for whom the bad outcome is fair? Should the free market decide?

    Like my hero Herman Cain used to say, “if you can’t find a job, blame yourself.” 🙂

  95. Rutherford says:

    So are you suggesting that Eucha is a racist town?

  96. Tex Taylor says:

    Jonolan, I gave that same speech to Rutherford, accompanied by an excellent video from Bill Whittle. Rutherford was outraged. He won’t buy the argument.

    But there is more to life than simply material possessions like a refrigerator and an air conditioner. And if you don’t recognize the black community is in dire trouble, much more so than 1964, you haven’t been following the news as of late. Roaming groups of young thugs that have stretched well beyond the ghetto.

    I don’t even call it the ghetto anymore. It’s a war zone – sometimes an obese one. 😉

  97. Rutherford says:

    We can’t even convince large numbers of them to leave the ghetto because their attacked and ostracized by their peers for even wanting to do so.

    I can actually vouch for this first hand — well second hand. I had an acquaintance in college who could look forward to harassment upon his visits back home because his “homies” considered him a sell-out and hifalutin’. I felt real bad for the dude.

  98. Tex Taylor says:

    I’m suggesting there are parts of Oklahoma that choose (even demand tacitly) to remain segregated. Do you not find it the least bit ironic there isn’t one black family in an entire zipcode of people?

    And trust me – Eucha, OK, is hardly the garden capital of Oklahoma. It has some of the highest poverty rates in the state, mixed in with the suburban folk who have moved to the lake. The serfs mow their lawns.

    But you won’t find any black faces doing it.

  99. Rutherford says:

    Obesity in the ghetto is not a product of improved life conditions. It’s a product of the only affordable food being junk food.

  100. jonolan says:

    Recognize it,Tex? I live in it – BedStuy in Brooklyn to be precise, though my little section of it is the counter-example where they never let themselves degrade to ghetto and NEVER let the ghetto come in.

    But these aren’t directly economic problems. They’re cultural problems that we can’t fix by spending.

  101. jonolan says:

    You don’t know much about food or cooking do you, Rutherford?

    Junk food is by far NOT the least expensive food available to the poor, nor is it often even the most convienent.

  102. Rutherford says:

    My Dad spent about 30 years teaching in BedStuy in a junior high school. Most of that time spent as an administrator. It got to the point where he would have to give himself extra time to get to work in the morning so he could park real close to the building … that was after he got mugged leaving work one evening. If I recall, he even vaguely recognized his attacker, a former student. I got to live in a nice home on Long Island because my Dad commuted to that hell hole every day. Interesting that you choose (I assume choose) to live near such a hotspot jonolan.

  103. jonolan says:

    I chose to move here a little over 7 years ago. You just can’t beat a full 4-story 100+ year-old brownstone for 620K and I couldn’t find one anywhere else. And I’m only a couple of blocks from the subway, which you’ll understand.

    As for the crime – my car got broken into once about 5 years back but my neighbor stopped the crackhead in mid-theft, beat the living shit out of him, and called the cops.

    And once, a couple of years ago some thug tried to mug me late one night but failed messily. The DA chose not to proffer charges against me given the circumstances as confirmed by witnesses and the perp’s rap sheet.

    Aside from those two instances it’s been clear sailing and my neighbors are actually neighbors, which is something I’d never experienced before moving here.

    Frankly, Rutherford, I’ve traveled, worked, and lived in places that are so very much worse than BedStuy ever was or likely will be that it just doesn’t phase me. Those same places also are what give me a jaded view of America’s “poor.”

  104. Tex Taylor says:

    Obesity in the ghetto is not a product of improved life conditions. It’s a product of the only affordable food being junk food.

    Damn Rutherford. 😆 You don’t know a damn thing about nutrition or biochemistry, do you? The ignorance of science and biology is almost staggering. 😆

    Rutherford, junk foods are some of the very most expensive buys in the grocery store. Ever checked out the price of a box of Ding Dongs or a package of Oreos? Sheet, were talking $4.00+ for a sack of potato chips now.

    Now listen up so you don’t confused yourself again. These size 18 two axe-handle lard asses you’re seeing with 44GG boobs bouncing around the hood aren’t eating rice for dinner. Have you seen many lard assed Vietnamese as of late?

    Pork ribs and chocolate cake for breakfast, brother. You don’t get that big by consuming celery and lettuce or Romaine noodles. You couldn’t eat enough carrots in your lifetime to add three pounds.

    No, these three foaty babes with the fro caps and filthy flip flops you’re seeing are munching on some of the most expensive items food stamps will buy. Trust me. I’ve watched them pile up the sheet on the Walmart conveyor belts.

    They’re eating a lot better than you and I are, old friend. They may not get to take trips to Hawaii, but they buttering the rolls up six times a day.

  105. Tex Taylor says:

    Bed Stuy. Been there, done that in the safety of a large truck. Of course, I thought Bed Stuy looked like Paris compared to East New York or the Bronx.

    Braver than I am. 😉

    Great restaurants, though. Best Italian food I’ve ever eaten.

  106. Alfie says:

    I mentioned it somewhere but one of the most underestimated things in America is the industriousness of some of the lower $$ classes. Some of the black market stuff,some of the bartering for goods etc is pretty neat on some level.
    Anyway I’ve been in some total lily white rural slum areas as well as worked in places like Roxbury,Mattapan,& Southie in Boston and Harlem in NYC. Never been Bed-Stuy but did some time in Crown Heights. There is a culture that is for sure. Nowhere near as extensive as Jonolan but I also had the opp to be in all the wrong places in England some time back,again there is a culture to it.

  107. Alfie says:

    “trying to be white”???!!!
    That is indeed a sad thing to see/hear. I had a real good friend who faced that crap. He was the kind of brother that wanted to do the right thing,stay in the neighborhood,set an example all that. He ended up saying f!@# it!. I had another friend almost got knifed for trying to talk to some hoodies on a bus once. He was a deacon or something at his church so he was into reaching out to kids. The guys were swearing and acting stupid and my friend goes to talk to them. Asks them how they want to be seen,how were they raised etc. Man I thought he was meat.

  108. jonolan says:

    Crown Heights is next door to Bedstuy and not a lot different.

    It’s funny to me though, the places you mentioned. I spent a lot time in: Yemen, Pakistan, Afganistan, Kuwait (Saddam crossed the border while I was there), Sudan, Chad, Kenya, Somalia, Honduras, Columbia, etc…Basically a lot of places where aid workers need “rough men” with firepower nearby in order to actually survive trying to get their job done.

    …And that was after I got out of service. 😆

  109. Tex Taylor says:

    Mitt Romney was much better in the debate tonight. Much better. I’m a believer that Mitt Romney will be the eventual champion, even though I have been a soft Newt supporter.

    If Romney is to win, I believe Romney owes Newt Gingrich a thank you. Gingrich has forced Mitt Romney to become a more polished candidate and debater. Romney desperately needed to toughen up and learn to attack – because he will need that against President Platitudes and his group of media henchmen.

    Actually, all four were good for the last 90 minutes tonight. The first 30 minutes were a complete waste of time by CNN.

    Bless Ron Paul’s heart. He’s an old curmudgeon. Sadly, his ideas about fiscal policy are right on, and his stance on abortion is my stance. But his ideas of foreign policy are so lunatic, he makes Barack Obama look sane.

  110. Tex Taylor says:

    Alfie & Jonolan,

    I actually worked near/on Greenpoint Ave in Queens, on and off for two years. There was this cemetery (Calvary, I think) that was real close with two enormous towers or stacks I used to look out at in the background.

    In the movie the Godfather, in the scene they bury Vito Corleone, I have always thought those two huge stacks in the background where in the same ones in the same proximity, but I never could confirm that.

    Took many a ride through the Queens Midtown Expressway into Manhattan for a fancy meal on the corporate dole – actually used to stay in Midtown and take the subway to Brooklyn, where the brothers of the firm would pick me up and take me over to Greenpoint to slave for them.

    They were busted in conjunction with the Russian mafia. I never thought the brothers crooks – just bad businessmen.

    Used to eat at a restaurant called Bamonte’s. Either of you ever eaten there? Looked like something straight out of the Godfather. I kept waiting to overhear, “I’ll make them an offer they can’t refuse….”

  111. Rutherford says:

    I mostly agree with your analysis of the debate. CNN and ABC actually suck at this. Fox is a bit better and NBC has been best.

    Newt did not have a good night. I’ve always found his debate performances overrated and Romney’s underrated. But Romney had a particularly good night tonight. I was disappointed that Romney punked out on attacking Gingrich’s exaggeration of his relationship with Reagan. Newt actually said some real damning things about Reagan back in the day including criticism of Reagan’s handling of the USSR.

    Santorum continues to make a good point about needing a sharp contrast with Obama on health care mandate. This contrast cannot be achieved with either Mitt or Newt.

    If all of the players in the world were actually sane and responded to normal human incentives then Ron Paul’s foreign policy would be the best one on the stage. We need to mind our own f*cking business. Unfortunately, I doubt the sanity of Iran or Pakistan for that matter. When you’re dealing with a lunatic, the normal behavioral relationships become null and void. That is the only reason why Paul’s foreign policy is a non-starter … it comes off sounding naive.

    The “First Lady” question was stupid but I liked Romney’s answer the best. I really wanted Wolf Blitzer to ask Newt “seeing how your wife is a home-wrecker how good a First Lady would she make?” You notice Newt’s answer was probably the weakest … something like “I think all the wives of these candidates would make good First Ladies”. That’s not the first thing that should come out of your mouth if you really want to show support for your wife.

    I’m kinda sad about tonight’s debate because I really want Newt to win Florida so I can watch the GOP crap its pants. 😆

  112. Rutherford says:

    Not for nuthin but I think you mean the Midtown Tunnel.

    There was a restaurant when I was a kid slightly uptown called Xotchles. Damn good Mexican food, family owned and a real sentimental place for my family. Summer after my Freshman year, we took my college roommate there and almost as if I had planned it, Woody Allen, Mia Farrow and Tony Roberts came in for dinner. As much as I wanted an autograph, we left them alone to eat in peace. Shortly thereafter I think it became a Chinese restaurant and then disappeared altogether. 😦

  113. Tex Taylor says:

    Should have said “on” instead of through. I think you’re right – it was the midtown tunnel we went through.

  114. Tex Taylor says:

    The real blood for oil scandal – at least the life blood of the working poor:

    I wonder if Rutherford, now that we’ve determined that Uncle Warren and Uncle Georgie Soros will be huge benefactors of the nixing of the Keystone Pipeline and the new White House NGL proposal (see below) respectively, is ready to admit Barack Obama isn’t the representative for the “little man” that many liberals would like us to believe, and is in fact indebted and controlled by the one millionth of the one percenters?


    Crony capitalism and shenanigans are alive and well in this corrupt administration – just as they were in getting President Platitude elected in 2008.

    So Rutherford. Since the only way for fuel and heating costs to go is up assuming everything goes according to the current White House plan, you want to tell me how higher heating, fuel and electric bills will benefit the impoverished?

    Or is maybe Barack Obama not the man you thought him to be four years ago, as he stood in from of Greek columns at the sold out football stadiums like a rock star?

  115. Tex Taylor says:

    Overheard from a retired shop foreman at the old Republic Steel plant in Cleveland OH … when a young black man was being laid off.

    The black man said to the shop foreman: “You’re firing me because I’m black!”

    The foreman thought a moment and replied “No, we hired you because you were black.”… “We’re firing you because you are useless…”

  116. Rutherford says:

    Good affirmative action joke there Tex. Wouldn’t the real shame be if he had been kept on because he was black albeit totally incompetent? I think that joke has a real silver lining. 🙂

  117. Tex Taylor says:

    Rutherford, I can’t believe you haven’t shown me a compliment or two about my new gravatar.

    I found that for your benefit upon departure, knowing we would meet up, and have caught some grief around the internet for it – all out of my brotherly love for you. 😉 I’ve caught more than a few “you’re racist” accusations because of my favorite pic of Shelly – I love her so.

    But I’m glad you “enjoyed” my affirmative action joke. I actually thought that was funny just for the wit.

  118. Rutherford says:

    Tex, regarding the new gravatar … I did the best with you I could while you were at home my son. Now that you’ve left the nest, you’re on your own. As my own dear mother used to say “so long as you’re not asking me for my money, you can do what you want.” 🙂

  119. Tex Taylor says:

    Wise woman. 🙂

    But I wanted you to still feel you had a profound effect on my outlook. 😉 You never dreamed just how important you had become.

    Stop with the Jesus stuff, and you might win me back. Then again, you might be happy my B.S. is gone. Right?


    Have a good weekend “R”. I’m celebrating the wedding anniversary. We’re looking at pictures when my kids were your daughter’s age. My sister-in-laws house burned to the ground two weeks ago and my wife and brother-in-law are trying to fill in the gaps for her. I got roped into this. 😡 Lord, I had forgotten how pretty my children (and my wife minus the wild doo) were.

    Didn’t have all the cool equipment back then – so we are scanning pictures into a JPEG format. It’s literally amazing how capable these $150 HP Printers are. Print, copy and scan all in one.

  120. Alfie says:

    Happy Anniversary Tex

  121. Raji says:

    Tex, for old time’s sake you might want to reconsider as Rutherford’s is being run over by the “Fat Grannies” crowd.

    Happy Anniversary

  122. Alfie says:

    Well R I am tempted to add a comment on your latest but for now must tally up some here.

    On Huntsman: I just don’t get how the folks NOT in the GOP are so amazed by the rejection he faced.
    On soldiers urinating on Taliban bodies: This one really outraged me since NONE of your commenters seemed to have an appreciation to the mindset of those in theater. You were the most egregious of course with your psycho analysis fail. Huck came in second imo with a misapplication of his moral relevance dogma. I can’t go on with this subject right now but I am going to revisit it I assure you.

    Now for the “conservatives” compare and contrast post. I am very happy that you show your honesty on Sullivan,under no circumstances is this guy a conservative,a republican,a Tory,a journalist. He is a totally in the bag media whore Obama bot.
    As for Frum I don’t share the disgust/disdain others have for him. I will say he is right of center/center right in my opinion but I also think there is an important aspect to him. He was a Bush speechwriter,he was not a policy wonk for the Administration. I think that he was never really embraced in the latter category is key to some his vocal criticism of the Bush years.
    As for Frum going against Obama I think you failed to read it or at least do so with your honesty lenses in. The quote you use from Frum (type that 5 times fast lol) is weak,DF offered many more that clearly makes his case.

  123. Rutherford says:

    Thanks for the comments. I obviously disagree about Frum although even I was surprised when I finished writing the piece that I gave him so little credit. I found his criticism lacked cohesion. As I said there I don’t think he sufficiently tied his gripes to Obama in particular. Cenk Uygur actually did a better job.

  124. Rutherford says:

    Happy Anniversary Tex … another year to marvel that she still puts up with your sorry ass. 🙂

  125. Tex Taylor says:

    Nothing short of a miracle, Rutherford. Nothing short of a miracle. 🙂

    Speaking of short, I’ve got nothing short of the kindest, most generous person I’ve ever met for a wife – and that is the honest truth.

    Fate sometimes smiles on fools.

    Thank you all…

Comments are closed.