Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $85,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $30,772
36%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 36% is in!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by Common Tator

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • COMMON TATOR (RAY) PASSED AWAY THIS MORNING

    03/31/2009 7:14:34 PM PDT · 371 of 401
    Common Tator to Miss Marple

    Thank you for mentioning the love “Ray” had for my mother. She was the love of his life, with computers and politics next.

    His daughter,

    Tabitha

  • Employment Situation...(MORE JOBS LOST Since Hussein's Election than in previous 11 months)

    03/07/2009 3:11:26 PM PST · 46 of 99
    Common Tator to Heartland Mom
    I cannot for the life of me understand why unemployed Americans are not screaming this from the roof.

    You can't understand why a laid off GM Worker doesn't move to Southern California to pick fruit for minimum wage?

    Do you really think a worker would sell his house, move his wife and kids to where the low paying jobs are and take one instead of collecting unemployment insurance until it runs out?

    Here is what must happen. The excess production of houses and other items have to be sold. Once there is no surplus supply of goods on the shelves, people will have to be hired to meet the demand. Once those who have not been laid off see workers being called back, they will believe the recession is over. They will start buying and we will be in recovery mode. We will be back on the road to prosperity. Jobs will be created and employment will grow at a rapid rate.

    What Reagan did in 1981, 1982 and 1983 was the cure. He just waited until the excess supply of goods has been sold. By 1984 the demand for goods and services was greater than the supply being produced. Plants had to increase production. The surpressed demand was unleashed, and we were back in prosperity mode until production exceeded demand again.

    Reagan had a batchelors degree in economics. He understood the system and how it works. Government cannot create prosperity. Prosperity is a function of productivity. When we find ways to manufacture at lower cost per item, we can afford more items. As the cost per computer went down, the number of people who bought computers went up.

  • Activists: help discredit Luis Gutierrez on his nationwide tour for amnesty

    03/07/2009 1:26:36 PM PST · 31 of 32
    Common Tator to The Spirit Of Allegiance

    What we were talking about was your asking people to not post views with which you disagree.

    That is surpression of free Speech.

    If this site only allowed those with whom the owner agrees to post it would be a worthless site.

    Mostly posters create threads based on published articles with which most Freepers disagree. That allows those of us who wish to post to refute the arguments made in the articles. Some sub posts are in oposition to those in the main post to which some of us may disagree.

    Your mentioning of Tokyo Rose and Axis Sally is of no value. No one in the west believed anything Tokyo Rose or Axis Sally published. Their words were totally ineffective and accomplished the exact opposite of their intentions. They only revealed how little the Japanese and Germans knew about the United States Canada, and Great Britain.

    If those that are discouraged and in doubt never post there is no way to know of their doubts and to change their minds.

    Supression of Free Speech is always a bad thing. There is no way to change someone’s mind if that person does not post his true views.

  • Activists: help discredit Luis Gutierrez on his nationwide tour for amnesty

    03/07/2009 12:47:25 AM PST · 28 of 32
    Common Tator to The Spirit Of Allegiance
    There is a huge difference... Both try to prevent those that don't agree with their views from posting positions of which they don't approve.

    Both the far left and the far right believe they know the truth but can't stand for anyone to post an opposing view.

    The only reason to ask those who disagree with you not to post is you are unsure your view can prevail in the open market place of opinions. You believe others are dumber than you and will not see through what you can clearly see through.

    It is the ultimate put down of your peers and the expression of a colossal ego.

  • Activists: help discredit Luis Gutierrez on his nationwide tour for amnesty

    03/05/2009 9:30:34 PM PST · 25 of 32
    Common Tator to The Spirit Of Allegiance
    NOTE: If you just tend to whine and post negative “we’re screwed” messages, BUTTON YOUR LIP. DON’T post. You’re part of the problem. Go get positive and come back ready to be a positive force. We’ve got enough anchor dragging without you.

    The only difference Between the FAR LEFT and the FAR RIGHT is nither believes in free speech!!!

  • Obama's Spend, Tax and Borrow Policies Will Wreck the U.S. Economy

    03/03/2009 10:56:14 PM PST · 19 of 20
    Common Tator to AFPhys
    They Media puts out the word that by having the Government buy employees health insurance they are making companies more competitive in the world market. They point out that small business spends a fortune to provide health care insurance for employees. If the cost of that benefit is transfered to the government then they say the prices small businesses must charge to make a profit will go down.

    They also say they can do it for less than the employer pays now. That has to be garbage. As a former employer I know I spent a lot of time and effort trying to get my employees and I the most coverage for the fewest bucks. I know government will not do what I and every other employer does to lower his costs. My primay job as owner was to produce the best product at the lowest cost. If my competitors found a way to save a few bucks, I had best do it too, or kiss my customer base goodbye. And if I found a savings it did not take my competitors long to find and implement the same savings. It is the way competition works. And I could not get good employees with out providing excellant health insurance.

    But how does Obama propose to pay for the insurance on both employees and those who do not currently have insurance? They are going to tax those who earn more than 250 thousand dollars a year. Those who pay taxes on income larger than 250 thousand dollars are mostly small businesses that are not incorporated. And just because you are making more than 250 grand a year does not mean you are personally spending over 250 grand a year on your own personal wants and desires. Future operating capital is in that 250 grand plus. That is the disadvantage of not incorporating.

    Our tax laws have a point in which a small business becomes large enough that incorporating becomes more tax effective than running a business in your own name as a business that is not incorporated.

    A corporation has to have a board of directors who have control of the business. They hire the CEO who runs the company. A small business must find people who will let the CEO have control, yet meet the legal requirements for their independent control.

    But who is OBAMA going to tax to pay for the universal health care. The same small business people now subject to personal income taxes. The small business owner is going to get the increase in taxes.

    So what will they do? Most likely they will reduce their profits to keep from paying the taxes. One way to do that is to stop growing. Just raise prices enough so the volume of business lowers enough to reduce profits. But to think this will cause small businesses to try to grow and add jobs just defies human nature.

    I have been head of 2 companies that I ran under my personal income tax account. I have been head of 3 corporations handling all the problems caused for a small business operating under tax rules created for small corporations.

    The primary difference is the cost of accounting. Corporations have significant accounting costs that are quite expensive for a small corporation. There are also many taxes and fees(another name for taxes) placed on corporations that have to be paid.

    But I fail to see how transferring the cost of health care from the small business directly and then putting both his cost and the cost of insuring the uninsured on his tax bill does anything except make the small business less competitive.

    Obama reminds me of an employee I once had. He could speak at length on most subjects sounding as if he were totally on top of the subject. But when his thoughts were analyzed by any thinking person his ignorance of the facts and situation, were found to be extensive, but if one studied the situation you soon learned of all the factors he was not considering.

    Oh and don't put much faith in Bill O'Reily. He proves every day on his show that he has never been there, done that, or actually studied the situation businesses face. He is only good at interrupting those that have while pretending to know what he is talking about.

    If I were doing commericals I would use the following line.....to take down Obama care.

    Who do you want to pay for your health insurance... your employer or YOU? IF you say your employer then why don't you tell you congress person and senators of your opinion. You need to know that if we taxed at the rate of 100 percent of all those making more than 250 thousand a year... it would not cover the bill. That leaves you to pick up the tab.... and the employers off the insurance hook.

    Oh one final thought. Did you ever go to the Cleveland clinic and check the nationality of its patients? Here is a clue.... Canada is the answer. Were I a Canadian I would be dead. I was diagnosed with terminal cancer in 1997 and again in 2006. I would not have been eligible for treatment that saved my life in 1997. Canada does not try to cure terminal patients. What part of only receiving comfort treatment in 1997 do you think makes the Canadian system appeal to me most?

    If under some circumstances the cancer cured itself in 1997, I would have been allowed to die in 2006.

    That is why Canadians sell their homes and all their possessions to come to the USA for treatment when they are diagnosed with terminal cancer. What part of us getting the same system as Canada do you think makes the American system appeal to them most?

    One other thing. In the USA if a doctor or hospital takes Medicare patients they MAY NOT TURN DOWN a patient with out insurance. You will note that there are no stories in the MSM about all the people who die with out care in the USA. The reason is simple... THERE ARE NONE!!!!

    IN 1997 I had no insurance. No one who cared for me at the Adena Cancer care center, or the Adena Hospital knew I did not have either Medicare or health insurance of any kind. I got great care.

    When I was cancer free and got the 400 thousand dollar bill for my treatment, the hospital office was surprised when I offered to pay what Medicare would pay them. The office was shocked. She asked me what size payments I would make if they agreed. I replied Full SIZED! I told her I would write her a check within 30 days for the full amount that Medicare would approve for my treatment if I had Medicare. That took an 800 thousand dollar bill and turned it into a 400 thousand dollar bill. I paid it promptly.

    But that was after I got the treatment they thought they were doing for nothing.

    I did the same with my wifes cancer treatment in 2003 and 2004. But this was with the JAMES CANCER treatment center in Columbus. They only knew that my wife Samora had no insurance. The treatments did not work, but she got all the treatments her condition called for. They did not stop treatment until she requested HOSPICE care. And she got in the best Hospice in Columbus with no insurance... She got the best care.... But by 2006 I had insurance, Medicare plus AARP suplimental that covered all but a few hundred bucks.

  • Arlen Specter losing support of Republican peers

    02/12/2009 11:35:19 PM PST · 19 of 98
    Common Tator to sinanju
    If GWB hadn’t bailed him out in his last election, Pat Toomey would be in that seat even now.

    If Toomey could not win a majority of the Republican primary vote, there is no way he could win a majority of Republican and Democrat votes.

    If Toomey could have won, Bush would never have campaigned for Specter.

    Toomey is a conservative. The Toomey campaign for the nomination made sure that every voter in PA knew that both Toomey and Rick Santorum were conservatives. As I predicted at the time that resulted in Specter being re-elected and Santorum being defeated at the next election.

    Running as a conservative in PA only results in defeat. Santorum had been elected as a moderate and governed as a conservative. Defeating Santorum was apparently what Toomey and his supporters wanted most. Either that, or they are too ignorant of PA politics to even understand what it takes to win in a moderate dominated state like PA.

    If Moderates voted for Conservatives then all moderates would be Conservatives.

    What part of Republicans in order to win must get more than half the moderate vote can't you figure out?
  • Pelosi frustrated by Senate [Spector, Snowe & Collins threaten to pull out. Kill Porkulus]

    02/12/2009 12:52:52 PM PST · 330 of 356
    Common Tator to AvOrdVet
    The Socialist Dems should have never HAD your vote! The Republican party need to clean house and purge all RINOs... as I said in my email to the new RNC head Michael Steele.

    Like most people who don't understand our nation you think that reducing the number of Republicans in the house and senate and electing nothing but Democrat presidents will somehow fix the situation.

    There are some 17 states that tend to elect conservatives. There are some 17 states that tend to elect Liberals. That makes for about 34 conservative senators and 34 liberal senators. The other 16 states are about 35 percent Liberals, 35 percent Conservatives and some 30 percent moderates.

    In these states,Ohio is a great example, the voters tend to elect either RINOS or DINOS. RINOS and DINOs are what Moderates vote for. When republicans elect a 20 of the 30 RINOS, they are in charge. They can afford to lose two or three RINOS and still prevail. When they have only 14 or 15 RINOS they are certain to lose 2 or 3 and fail.

    The right wing reaction is to drive all the RINOS out of the party. That would give the Democrats 34 Liberals and 32 Dinos. They could lose 4 DINOS and never lose a vote in the Senate.

    Moderates do not vote for conservatives. Any winning candidate in states like Ohio must get a majority of moderate votes to win. There are not enough conservative votes to elect a conservative. That is how we get TAFTS, VOINOVICH, And DEWINES as Republican office holders in Ohio.

    Many right wingers must have flunked math. They seem to think that 34 percent of the voters can cast 50 plus percent of the votes.

    Liberals figured it out decades ago.. THEY RUN MODERATE AND GOVERN LIBERAL.

    If the positions that appealed to Conservatives appealed to Moderates all Moderates would be Conservatives.

  • Handicapping 2010

    01/25/2009 7:53:21 AM PST · 11 of 19
    Common Tator to M.K. Borders
    The turn out in Indiana was large.. There were few who did not vote.

    Swing voters determine who wins in Indiana. Swing voters determine who wins in 16 states. Swing voters, sometimes called moderates, do not vote on ideology. They vote based on two simple criteria. They vote for the most likable candidate who promises to do the most or them.

    If the moderate voters like a candidate they will vote for that candidate. If both candidates are equally likable they will vote for the candidate that they think will do the most for them (not society at large.. not the economy.. but for them). For moderate voters ideology is never a factor.

    There is a lot of election history in which moderate voters will in the same election vote for a very liberal candidate for one office and a very conservativew one for another office. That is what happened in indiana... the swing voters went for the Governor. They also went for Obama.

    If the views that persuade Conservatives persuaded Moderates, all Moderates would be Conservatives.

  • Will GOP rise again in OH?

    01/24/2009 8:09:04 AM PST · 37 of 41
    Common Tator to Badeye
    Ohio is a swing state with about 35 percent Conservatives 35 percent liberals and 30 percent moderates.

    There is no way a conservative or a liberal can win with out also winning slightly more than half the Moderates.

    Liberals in Ohio, tend to run as centrists. They talk the moderate language and when the do, they win.

    I posted in 2006 that all the Conservatives gained by trashing TAFT was the election of TED STRICKLAND as Governor. When moderates hear Republicans trashing Republicans they reason it is time to throw the bums out. So they elected a lot of Democrats.

    Had the Conervatives ignored TAFT and just promoted Blackwell they might have one. As it was only conservatives voted for Blackwell and Strickland won an easy race. But it is doubltful that Blackwell could have won the race. He presented himself as a real conservative, and that cost him tons of moderate voters.

    Conservatives are pretty stupid. Look what they did when conservatives in Penn tried to take Senator Spector down. They answered people who said a conservative like Tooney could not win, by saying that Senator Rick Santorum was a conservative and he had won. At that time I posted that conservatives had just destroyed Santorum. Letting the voters know that Santorum was a real conservative would not defeat Spector, it would defeat Santorum.. and it did.

    In swing states like Ohio and Pennsylvania Rinos have a much better chance of getting elected than either a conservative or liberal.

    At anyone time there are about 35 Conservative Senators and 35 Liberal Senators. The remaining 30 are moderates... they are some combination of RINOS and DINOS. If the Republicans elect a majority of RINOS in the swing states they control the senate. If in those same swing states the Democrats get a majority of DINOS elected,then they control the Senate.

    Those on the right that can't figure out that swing states sometimes fo for Republicans and sometimes go for Democrats can't understand why Conservative candidates rarely if ever win. Moderates control who gets elected.

    Swing voters vote on just two issues. Which candidate do they like, and if elected what will he do for them. Preaching ideology is just stupid. It never convinces the voters needed to win.

    If the Republican party tries to go right wing in OHIO... it will end up never get more than 35 percent of the votes. It takes a RINO to win Ohio.

    Their is chaos in Ohio because the Right Wing turned on the RINOS. And the party is split and the must have moderate voters have turned to a united Democratic Party

    Conservatives must have flunked math..they think 35 percent of the voters can cast 50 PLUS percent of the vote.

  • Biden shushes wife after secretary of state slip

    01/19/2009 1:12:09 PM PST · 37 of 54
    Common Tator to BenLurkin
    "Veep is perfect for a nincompoop like Biden."

    Obama is perfectly stupid enough to appoint Biden Secretary of State.

    The Democrats were stupid enough to make Biden head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee?

  • Both engines missing from jet ditched in Hudson ('Miracle on the Hudson' .. 'Sully' feeling fine.)

    01/16/2009 2:22:01 PM PST · 42 of 87
    Common Tator to xJones
    Very true. But how would a flock of geese tear off two engines? Just asking, I don't pretend to know about these things

    The engines hit the water just after the body of the plane. The engines are designed to come off when they hit something.

    When hit by something going 160MPH water is very hard and will knock the engines off the plane.

    The birds ruined the rotors inside the engines so they stopped producing output. The water in the river tore the engines off the plane... just as it was supposed to do.

  • AP Slammed Bush’s ‘Extravagant’ Inaugural in ’05, but Now It’s Spend, Baby, Spend

    01/14/2009 2:22:27 PM PST · 25 of 31
    Common Tator to Osage Orange
    "WHERE ARE THE ELECTED PUBBIES.....POINTING THIS OUT!!!!????"

    We all know the media can not wait to tell the public anything elected Pubbies say..

    Who else besides the media is a source of information for the public?

    Only an idiot would believe the media would cover anyone who was critical of Obama on anything.

    YOU MUST BELIEVE THE MEDIA IS FAIR AND BALANCED!!!!

  • Why Obama’s ‘Tax Cuts’ Won’t Work ($500 per worker tax credits will do very little)

    01/10/2009 9:32:59 AM PST · 27 of 74
    Common Tator to SeekAndFind

    The middle class will save the money or use it to pay off debt. The lower class will spend it at Walmart. Look where people bought winter clothes this year. The department stores are going broke while Walmart had an increase over last years 4th quarter sales. Not as big an increase as they expected, but an increase never the less.

    Try looking at the goods in Walmart for where they are made. This cut will put people to work.. Unfortunately they will be Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, and Mexicans.

  • Universal healthcare and the waistline police: We risk a nanny state contrary to American ideals.

    01/08/2009 10:25:41 AM PST · 14 of 21
    Common Tator to VictoryGal
    With all due respect to the risks of a nanny state, quite real, this is Japan we’re talking about. Japan has a very heavy societal pressure component. Individualism is simply not valued like it is here. There is a Japanese saying: “The nail that sticks up gets pounded down.”

    Perhaps you have not read or watched the news in the last year or so....

    Just a reminder that that this nation just elected the most Liberal Senator as our next president and gave him substantial majorities in both houses of congress.

    And both the new president and the congress is in favor of universal health care.

    Governments are never able to run an efficient anything. That is because government bureaucracies are run for the benefit of the goverment workers not the people receiving the service they provide. That is logical all organizations are run for the benefit of those picking up the tab. If the goverment picks up the tab then it is run to benefit the goverment. So when (not if) we get universal health care it will be run to benefit goverment.. And that means it must greatly reduce services to the recipients. It has nothing to do with the American people. They just pay the governemt.. the goverment wil pay for the health care.

  • PRAYERS NEEDED FOR COMMON TATOR.....(Update at #156)

    01/08/2009 4:56:58 AM PST · 210 of 215
    Common Tator to prairiebreeze

    No... I am no longer at my Daughters. I came home a couple of months ago.

    I just feel a lot more comfortable in my home and the Dr. here is an old friend and I think he makes better judgements. He, like me, is a risk taker.

    ray

  • PRAYERS NEEDED FOR COMMON TATOR.....(Update at #156)

    01/07/2009 12:31:16 PM PST · 205 of 215
    Common Tator to prairiebreeze

    I finally got the news about my latest Cat Scan. It was not good the cancer in both my lungs and liver are still growing.

    The Doctor changed my Chemo to a more powerful one, the down side is it greatly reduces my resistance so I will have to be very careful about getting an infection.

    Thank you all for your prayers and best wishes. You will never know how much all my Freeper friends have meant to me.

    Thank you so much

    Ray

  • Israel's Response Is Disproportionate

    01/06/2009 10:56:22 AM PST · 4 of 27
    Common Tator to wk4bush2004

    What is the difference between todays Europe and Hitler’s Europe?

    Hitler used gas chambers to kill jews, today’s Europe wants Hamas to do it for them.

  • TYRANNY OF THE TAX-EXEMPT

    01/06/2009 10:22:51 AM PST · 3 of 20
    Common Tator to george76
    Here is the latest Tator take explaining the results of government intervention in the economy.
  • Pro-Bush Rally Draws Crowd From Loudoun

    01/06/2009 7:54:49 AM PST · 30 of 32
    Common Tator to exit82
    "He also put into effect the first law limiting immigration, which then was not enforced by Congress or succeeding Presidents, including Bush the elder."

    Reagan signed the law but he refused to enforce it.

    Like President George W. Bush today, Reagan had the good sense and compassion to see illegal immigrants not as criminals but as human beings striving to build better lives through honest work. In a radio address in 1977, Reagan noted that apples were rotting on trees in New England because no Americans were willing to pick them. "It makes one wonder about the illegal alien fuss. Are great numbers of our unemployed really victims of the illegal alien invasion or are those illegal tourists actually doing work our own people won't do?" Reagan asked. "One thing is certain in this hungry world; no regulation or law should be allowed if it results in crops rotting in the fields for lack of harvesters."

    In Reagan's farewell address to the nation in January 1989, Reagan beautifully wove his view of free trade and immigration into his vision of a free society: "I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and heart to get here."

    As Reagan biographer Lou Cannon points out in this book (pg. 119), Reagan proposed a treaty allowing for full freedom of movement for all workers throughout North America in his November 1979 speech announcing his candidacy for the presidency.

    In fact during his last year in office Reagan only implemented one part of the immigration act. That was the part that granted 2.8 million illegals the right to stay in the United States. He did nothing to close the border with Mexico. Neither did Bush 41, Clinton, or Bush 43.

    You may think you can get away with posting untruths about Reagan... but Reagan's record is clear. Reagan did sign the immigration bill, but only after he had demanded that congress water it down and give the 3 million illegals then in the contry legal status. Reagan wanted our border with Mexico to have the same rules as our border with Canada. Any canadian can come to the USA to work and stay as long as that person wishes. All that is required is a Canadian birth certificate or proof of Canadian citizenship. Reagan pushed for the same rules for the Mexican border but he could not get it done.

    Reagan did take down the Soviet Union, but Bush has taken down Saddam and the Taliban and freed 50 million people. But the Soviet Union never once fired a weapon at the USA. But the Muslims in the Middle East attacked us and Bush took preemptive action to protect us. The preemtive policies were Bush creations. There is no punishment for a terrorist who flies an airplane into a building or blows himself up on a crowded street.

    Reagan on the other hand only followed the same foreign policies of two geat Democrat Presidents ... Harry Truman and John Fitzgerald Kennedy ... in his 1980 campaign Reagan proposed to follow both the domestic and foreign policies of John Fitzgerald Kennedy. If Reagan was a true conservative then so were FDR, Harry Truman, and JFK.

    During his years in the office of president not once did Reagan ever invite Barry Goldwater to the White House for any reason. Democrat Speaker of the House Tip O'Neil was a weekly visitor ... Tip and Reagan were buddies.

    In the 1980 campaign the press had a pool that would be won by the first reporter who could get Reagan to say the words "Barry Goldwater". No matter what the question or how it was asked Reagan would not even mention Barry Goldwater by name. The closest any of us ever got was Reagan did mention "The Senator from Arizona."

    Everything Reagan did in office was a continuation or reimplementation of a policy orginated by a Democrat president.

    Oh and the initial funds to rebuild the miltary was passed during the last year Jimmy Carter was president. It went into the 1980, 1981 budgets. The build up of the military had been proposed to congress by Jimmy Carter.

    But back to immigration in 2004 Bush got about 40 percent of the Hispanic vote. 14.5 percent of voters in the USA are Hispanic. That percentage had grown from 20 percent in the early 1990s. At the rate of change it was expected that over 50 percent of Hispanics would be voting Republican in 2008.

    The media had to fix that ... because once a majority of Hipanics voted Republican it would be many decades before a Democrat won the presidency again.

    That is when the media started the illegal Mexican stories on TV and Radio. They knew that many on the right had enough racial prejudice to drive Hispanics back into the Democratic party.

    It worked.

    The Democrats have the 12 percent of the population that is black and are rapidly gaining ground on the 14.5 percent that are Hispanic. Soon the combination black and Hispanic votes will start a Democrat for the presidency with about 25 percent of the total vote.That is 1/2 the votes they need to win. Thus Democrats to win the presidency will only need 1/3 of the white vote.

    That also means that Republicans will have to win 67 percent of the white vote in order to win.

    Republicans are not likely to get that done any time soon. Conservatives can't even win the Republican nomination for president.

    This last Presidential election resulted in a far left liberal winning the biggest victory since 1988. The losing party ALWAYS moves in the direction of the winning party.

    It is amusing to watch Republicans tell us that what is wrong with the Republican party is it did not stay to the right. We are expected to believe that when the Republican party did not offer the voters a conservative enough candidate they voted for a far more liberal one instead. The other option is that since McCain was not a true conservative, Conservatives did not vote. But the turn out in 2008 was 132 million.. compared to 122 million in 2004, 105 million in 2000 and 96 million in 1996.

    There were no voters sitting on the sidelines in 2008 and even if they were, they will likley sit on the sidelines in 2012.

    The object of elections is to win the support of those that vote. Getting the support of non-voters is worthless on election day. The Republican party will move to the left... where the majority of the voters are ... or it will lose, lose, lose.

  • Pro-Bush Rally Draws Crowd From Loudoun

    01/05/2009 6:13:30 PM PST · 28 of 32
    Common Tator to WackySam
    Bush has grown the Federal Government at a faster rate than any other President in the history of the US. To top that he took the total amount of debt accumulated in the history of the US and doubled it. And if that wasn’t enough, he added another 11 Trillion in unfunded entitlements when he signed Medicare reform.

    The man has virtually guaranteed the financial destruction of our country.

    I despise the man. Ronald Reagan doubled goverment spending in his 8 years and also doubled the national debt. Do you hate him too?

    Reagan promised to cut the size of the federal goverment and reduce the number of departments. He never cut one department in his entire 8 years and doubled government spending.

  • [Democratic Majority Leader]Reid blocking 3 black replacements for [President-elect]Obama

    01/04/2009 5:38:49 PM PST · 13 of 16
    Common Tator to 2ndDivisionVet

    Because much of the population considers Mormonism an important factor in their decision not to support a candidate or office holder.

    Mormonism has never been accepted by the general population while the religions of the other people you name are accepted.

    However, if you go back to 1960 nearly every story about JFK mentioned his Catholicism. Back then Catholicism was not accepted and so it was mentioned in nearly all stories about JFK.

  • Reid cites "legal authority" to bar Illinois pick

    01/04/2009 7:56:17 AM PST · 30 of 72
    Common Tator to Zevonismymuse

    Why would McConnel want to give the Demorats one more senator to get them closer to the 60 votes they need to enact the Obama agenda?

    I take it you must support the Socialized Medicine and spending a trillion dollars we don’t have on boondoggle projects so dear to the heart of Democrats.

    You must think it is far better for Reid to need one less RINO vote to enact the Obama agenda.

    This is a majority party problem. If McConnell actually cares about stopping the Obama agenda he will do nothing to give the Democrats one more sure vote for Obama’s agenda in the Senate.

  • Obama is hit by 'affair' smears following claims that attractive aide was banned by his wife

    01/04/2009 7:46:28 AM PST · 80 of 81
    Common Tator to Beloved Levinite

    You haven’t a clue about why Viacom fired IMUS.

    Imus had high ratings when he signed his contract with Viacom. He typically scored between 8 and 10 rating points.. somtimes reaching an occasional 11 or 12.

    But by the time CBS (Viacom) decided to go after his “Nappy Heaaded Hoes” statement his ratings had fallen to about 5... sometimes as low as a 4. They were way over paying Imus and not making money on his show. IMUS was on in the most listened to time slot of the day.. morning drive time. Yet Rush Limbaugh had over 4 times the audience and Rush is on from noon to 3 and the 1 to 3 time slot has the lowest audience of the day.

    Looking a the fine print Viacom found that if he used vulgar language on his show his contract could be voided. So they just listened until he said something that the rest of the media could not condone... When the shock jock called some black women hoes, they figured they could safely fire him.

    So they fired him. But several times in the past Imus had made the same sort or even worse statements... but his ratings had been higher then. Imus sued based on things he had said in the past did not result in so much as repremand. Back then he had not been notified he was doing something wrong and his supervisors had not even mentioned the statements to him. In fact he got letters telling him what a great job he was doing.

    Imus’s defense was if it was not a violation of his contract back then.. why is a violation now. Imus and Viacom settled out of court.

    Imus is back on the air with other stations but his pay is now in line with his reduced ratings. The TV coverage of IMUS is no longer on a major cable channel. It is on RFD TV. RFD TV is not even carried on a lot of cable systems.

    And with RFD TV in the lower level of cable channels I doubt if he is being paid much for the TV coverage.

    Limbaugh was the first to get a salary that was half the profits of his show. A show with a 5 rating has less than half the ratings of a show with a 10 rating.

    Imus was being paid at least everything his show made.. perhaps even more. Viacom was at best losing a little or breaking even. No broadcaster keeps a show on the air that is at best breaking even.

    Imus was not about him saying “Nappy Headed Hoes”. It was about finding a way to break his contract when his ratings fell to half.

  • Obama is hit by 'affair' smears following claims that attractive aide was banned by his wife

    01/03/2009 8:17:58 PM PST · 43 of 81
    Common Tator to PghBaldy

    Most people think that public opinion is controlled by the MSM or at least the combination of the news departments of ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox. AS well as CNBC, MSNBC, CNN and Fox News channel.

    They are not the image makers they pretend to be. Their total audience is about 35 million people. There are 305 million Americans and they reach a bit over 10 percent.

    It is the media that determines public opinion, but it is the Lenos OBriens, and Lettermans who determine what most Americans think. It is not the newscasters and reporters or even the commmentators. It is the entertainment shows that tell jokes that control what voters think about Presidents.

    For 8 years the comedians on TV have trashed George W. Bush night after night after night. And each of them has a larger audience than the news casts and news channels combined.

    So what will the comedians do in the next 4 years. There is not 4 years of jokes left in a former president. Bush will certainly lay low for the next 4 years.

    Leno, O’Brien and Letterman viewers know little of politics, but the comedians need a butt for their jokes. And that during the next four years that will be Barrack Obama. Everyone knows his name and when every he says something stupid or something goes wrong he will be the butt of the network commedy show jokes.

    The MSM may spend the next 4 years kissing Obama’s rump. But the comedians need laughs and they will not spare Obama at a cost to their ratings. They will nail his a$$ to the same tree they nailed Bush. They may vote for him in 2012 but that will not stop the jokes at obama’s expense.

    The most politically powerful men in the USA are the major network comedians. Politicians know it... the MSM just refuses to report it.

  • (Israeli) Police looking for reporter who defied military censor

    01/03/2009 5:13:52 PM PST · 11 of 13
    Common Tator to humblegunner

    I expect Israel’s military to find the reporter and kill him.

    I don’t know but Israel likely has in force the same military laws the USA had for Reporters in WWII.

    In WWII all reports about United States or allied troops in combat had to be approved by a Military Censor (Yes it was the Office of Military Censorship and the workers had the title of Military Censor.) Release of any report not approved by the Military Censor was trial buy Military Tribunal and the punishment upon conviction was defined as death by firing squad. Many reporters were very angry about having to get the approval of the Military Censors, but they were afraid to violate the law.

    On the battle field or anywhere one can report on military actions, military law is in effect. In the USA and all the rest of the world. For all practical purposes civilians rights in an area under military law are what ever the General says they are. And a military tribunal can put anyone to death who violates the unauthorized reporting law.

    It works like this the General charges the reporter. The military police are charged with finding and arresting the suspect. A military tribunal is appointed to hear the case. Usually a tribunal made up of Light Colonels, Majors, and perhaps a Captain. If members of the tribunal ever expect to stay in the military and get promoted they had best rule the way the General wants them to rule.

    Early on in most conflicts not involving the USA there is a reporter or two who violate the fighting nations military law about censorship. Some idiot always thinks military law of another nation does not apply to him.

    Here in the USA, first Harry Truman in Korea and LBJ in Nam ordered closing the office of military censorship. But most other nations have kept it in force in their nations.

    I expect what would have happened in WWWII is what will happen in this case. The other reporters will be told what happened to this reporter. They will also be told that what happened to this reporter will under no circumstances be approved by a military censor.

    I always find it funny that to support their that WWII was justified and today’s conflicts are not, they point out that WWII reporters never reported bad things about the US military.

    They never mention the Censors would not allow it, and going around the Censors was a prescription for death. For some reason that put a real damper on negative reporting during WWII.

  • Reid pressured Blagojevich not to appoint Jackson Jr. to Obama’s U.S. Senate seat

    01/03/2009 4:16:58 PM PST · 40 of 46
    Common Tator to mass55th

    Most voters do not watch newscasts or read newspapers at all.

    Look at the ratings. The four major networks newscasts on ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox reach less than 10 percent of the population. They reach 25 out of 300 million people. And the number of viewers keeps falling. In the early 1990s they reached nearly 100 million out of 250 million. The cable TV channels reach a total of about 12 million people. The MSM and Cable TV total audiences total about 12 percent of the population.

    Newspapers reach fewer and fewer people with each passing year. Where the population is millions the paper subscriptions are hundreds of thousands. We are nearing the point where Chicago may not even have a daily paper. News magazines such as Newsweek and Time only reach a few hundred thousand people each.

    Nearly all voters below the age of 30 get all their views on political leaders from TV Shows like LENO and Letterman,
    The comedy shows are huge opinion setters for most adults under 50. For 8 years they have been making fun of Bush and the Republican party.

    It is the comedy shows that reach the swing voters.

    These guys can’t get laughs for the next four years by trashing Republican senators and house members. Their audience does not even know who are the leaders of the house and senate ... let alone the minority leaders.

    So we will find Leno, Letterman, O’Brien and others making fun of Obama and his Democratic administration. A joke has to be simple. It cannot explain complex situations. Obama will be the butt of the jokes.

    Obama can do two things .. he can hide or he can appear at press conferences. He will be unable to keep himself from saying dumb things at press conferences. On the other hand if he hides, that will give the comedians an easy way to make lots of jokes about Obama. Leno, O’Brien, and Letterman need laughs. No matter how much the MSM praises Obama, he can not stop the comedians from using him as a source of jokes.

  • Reid pressured Blagojevich not to appoint Jackson Jr. to Obama’s U.S. Senate seat

    01/03/2009 6:37:33 AM PST · 36 of 46
    Common Tator to mass55th

    There are no blacks in the Senate. Therefore there can be no members of the Black Caucus in the Senate. Obama was the ONLY black in the Senate.

    But it would not matter. The Black Caucus is an organization made of of House Members. They tend to vote as a group in votes before the HOUSE. However they have no vote on who does nor does not get a seat in the Senate. Only seated Senators get to vote on seating a new senator. There will be 98 white seated senators who get to vote.

    If 40 Republicans vote to seat him they will only need 10 Democrat votes to override Reid. The question is will they Republicans vote to seat him. I would suggest the answer is NO. The longer this goes on in Illinois, it will be hard for Obama to get his agenda passed in the Senate.

    Since everyone knows the Democrats are in control, it will be hard to blame Republicans and make most voters believe it.

    Since 2006 the media coverage of the Senate and Republicans blocking Democrats, that a majority of voters actually believed that the Republicans had control of the senate. After this election they know that the Democrats are in charge.

    It is in many respects like 1992. The Republicans did all they could to block the Clinton agenda ... including Hillary Care. When it went down in defeat the Democrat voters blamed Bill and Hillary and took it out on the Democrats in the House and Senate in the election of 1994.

    Because of the Republican opposition of Clinton and his agenda they were predicting a 50 vote Democrat pick up in house seats in 1994. They were shocked to learn that Democrats lost 50 house seats in 1994.

    It was real proof that when a party is totaly out of power as the Republicans were in 1992, that there are voter rewards for total opposition. Both parties are well aware of that situation.

    Thus Obama is trying to use his initial popularity to get his economic agenda passed in the first 3 or 4 days the congress is in session. And they have refused to even let the Republicans see the bill until it comes up for vote.

    It will be blocked and with out Democrat Senators from Minnisota and Illinois it is likely the Repubicans can make a filibuster stick. Thus Reid wants Franken.

    The question is do they want to have the Republicans do to Obama what they did to clintion in 1993 and 1994 or do they want to let blago appoint a senator. So far they want to trash Blago.

    Reid is stupid. He must not have read the Florida returns from 2006 When a party leads on taking out one of their corrupt or immoral senators, the voters assume most of that party is immoral. They vote them out of office.

    The more Reid and Democrats trash Blagojevich for criminal behavior, the more likely voters are to elect a Republican governor and Senator at the first chance they get.

    The more Democrats try to impeach or convict Blagojevich, the less chance they have of holding control of the Illinois government. They think it will cause voters to believe that Democrats are good guys becaue they are trying to clean up their own house. That is not the way voters look at it. Voters tend to put the other party in power.

  • Reid, McConnell to preach unity Sunday

    01/02/2009 5:29:30 PM PST · 29 of 34
    Common Tator to BenLurkin

    It is part of the game. Now and until the next congress is in session the Republicans will talk about working together with Democrats.

    The Democrats will talk about working together with Republicans. But as we have seen in the stimulus package, the Democrats won’t even show it to Republicans before the Democrats bring it to the floor for a vote.

    The idea is for Republicans to create the impression that they are going to try to work with Democrats for the good of the nation. Democrats are saying the same thing. Democrats will hope to blame the Republicans if Obama’s agenda does not get passed. But if Republicans keep saying they are trying to work with Democrats and the public knows the Democrats are in power, the voters will blame the Democrats for their failure to get the Obama agenda passed. The Democrat base will be ticked when the Obama agenda does not get passed.

    If you recall after the 1992 election the Republicans in the house and senate blocked every Clinton initiative they could ... including Hillary Care. The Republicans stalled, trashed and did all they could to block everything the Clintons tried.

    The conventional wisdom was that the voters would teach the Republicans a lesson come the 1994 elections. The media was astounded when Republicans for the first time in 40 years won both the house and the senate. Clinton to get some legislation passed adopted much of the Republican agenda. From his state of the union speech with the works “The era of big Government is over!” to welfare reform Clinton adopted much of the conservative agenda.

    It was a lesson not lost on Democrats in 2001 as they started their 8 year obstructionism of the Bush administration.

    Now it is the Republicans turn to stop the Democrats in their tracks. When Republicans have control of even one of the houses of congress or the presidency there is motivation to try to get some things passed. But when a party does not have the house, senate or the presidency it has every motivation to stop the other party from getting anything done.

    The voters blame the party in power when things don’t get done. Even if it is the out of power party doing the blocking.

    Both the Democrats and the Republicans know that Republicans in the Senate are going to try to block the Obama agenda. Reid is saying ... “You are going to block us anyway, why should I involve you in the stimulus bill creation process.”

    This is the first time since 1992 that the Republicans had lots of motivation for making sure nothing gets done. As long as Bush is president they have motivation to try to work with Democrats. Now that Republicans have lost the house, senate and the presidency they have every motivation to see Obama fail.

    As of January 20th they will have every reason to make Obama and congress a failure. That is what they will do.

  • Reid Plans to Seat Franken; GOP Furious

    01/01/2009 1:38:09 PM PST · 96 of 104
    Common Tator to bronxboy
    History says that in the 2nd year election of a presidents term his party loses seats. The more the out of power party opposes the in power party the better it does. There is just one exception in the last 80 years and that was in 2002 and the President was George W. Bush

    Republicans did all they could to block Bill Clinton in his first two years as president. They made Clinton change his order on homosexuals in the military and they killed HILLARY CARE and stopped BILL CLINTON Dead in his tracks. They did it by filibustering nearly every Clinton and Democratic proposal put up for a vote. You may not know that but every senator and house member does.

    The result was that in 1994 the Republicans won both the House and Senate for the first time in 40 years. You may not be aware of that but every member of the house and senate is well aware.

    That is why the Republican members of the senate will stay together and vote as a unit.

  • Has Israel learned its lesson?

    01/01/2009 9:22:26 AM PST · 18 of 42
    Common Tator to Starboard
    I may be proven wrong but I'll bet that many of his(Obama's) foreign policies will be based on neglect rather than interference. He'll "vote present", and pass the buck to the UN. There is nothing in his past to indicate he'll be willing to handle any hot potatoes. He just wants to be a president, not actually assume the responsibilities and perform the functions of a president.

    Worth Repeating!!!

  • Has Israel learned its lesson?

    01/01/2009 9:22:05 AM PST · 17 of 42
    Common Tator to Starboard
    I may be proven wrong but I'll bet that many of his(Obama's) foreign policies will be based on neglect rather than interference. He'll "vote present", and pass the buck to the UN. There is nothing in his past to indicate he'll be willing to handle any hot potatoes. He just wants to be a president, not actually assume the responsibilities and perform the functions of a president.

    Worth Repeating!!!

  • Reid Plans to Seat Franken; GOP Furious

    01/01/2009 9:03:27 AM PST · 91 of 104
    Common Tator to cashman
    Never in the history of our nation have either Conservatives or Liberals managed to get more than about 1/3 of the votes. Typically in our 100 seat senate there will be about 34 Conservatives, 34 Liberals and some combination of 32 Rinos and Dinos. The American population is about 34 percent liberal, 34 percent conservative, and 32 percent moderate.

    If the Democrats have 16 DINOs and the office of Vice President or 17 or more DINOs they will control the Senate. If the Republicans have 16 or 17 RINOS they will control the Senate. If the Republican party consisted of only Conservatives it would never have more than 34 or 35 Senators.

    There are in the USA some 17 States that are quite conservative and 17 states that are quite liberal. But the remaining 16 states have about 34 percent Conservatives and 34 percent liberals while the remaining 32 percent of voters are moderates. In those states the moderates always determine a winner unless the moderates are equally divided.

    Moderates, often called swing voters, sometimes vote for Republicans and at other times vote for Democrats. They are not ideological. There have been many elections in these states in which the same moderate voters will elect a Republican Governor and a Democrat Senator or vice versa.

    They almost always vote for the most likeable RINO or DINO on the ticket. In such states it is next to impossible for a Conservative to be elected. But it does occasionaly happen. Leftist Candidate in such states pretend to be moderates and often get elected. Conservatives nearly always demand they be labeled as conservatives and therefore rarely if ever win.

    Pennsylvania did have a conservative Senator. The right tried to take down Spector in his last primary by pointing out how conservative Rich Santorum was. They pointed to conservavtive Santorum and said if they could elect one conservative Senator they could elect 2.

    The result, Spector easily won the primray and the general election. The problem was moderate voters in PA now knew that Santorum was conservative so they defeated him when he ran for reelection.

    It was one of the dumbest moves I have ever seen. When they were trying to take down Spector, I posted that the right would not defeat Spector. They were just setting up Santorum for defeat. Of course the idiots on the right told me i did not know what I was talking about. When Santorum got beat they never bothered to blame themsleves for defeating one of their own. Learning from experience is something few on the right ever do.

    It is just one more example of the total political arogance of those on the right. They think they know it all when in fact they know next to nothing about winning elections. They actually believe that Conservatives can win in a swing state. Democrats know better. They have their liberal candidates run as moderates... and the liberal base understands they have to do that to win. The right can't wait to trash any Republican who tries a similar strategy.

    But back to my main point. What happens when a party loses it all? If Obama and his Democrat controlled house and senate are successful they are going to hold all the power for many years.

    For RINO to get back into power one of two things must happen. He or she could leave the Republican party and join the Democrats who are already in power. that would make the right wing happy while causing Democrats to be ecstatic. It is one reason the media thinks those on the right are stupid. The second course of action is to see to it that the DINOs and Liberals do not have any success enacting their agenda. That will reduce the support of their base. It is the self interest of the RINOs who want to be back in power that causes them to stay in line when the Republicans are totally out of power.

    Of course the Republican party is full of people that think that they can win a majority of Senate seats if they just run enough strong Conservative candidates in the swing states. They must have flunked math in grade school. They actually think that 34 percent of the voters can cast 50 plus percent of the votes. That has never happened and never will.

    The key to a parties success is to elect in swing states as many In Name Only party members as possible.

    Look what has happened in Ohio. The Republican party was taken over by conservatives and they proceded to run as many conservative candidates for state offices as they could find. They lost them all.

    The end result was the state of Ohio went from being a state dominated by Republican (RINO) office holders to true LIBERAL Democrats being in power while pretending(at election time)to be DINOs.

    The right wingers apparently think that a DINO such as Senator DEWINE is much inferior to LEFTIST Senator Sherrod Brown. They no doubt are anxious to replace RINO Voinovich with a true liberal. I have heard conservatives say "I would rather have real liberal than a fake one. Drive the Rinos out of the party." They need to take a course in math and try spending about an hour in the REAL WORLD.

    The choice in Maine is not SNOW and COLLINS or two Conservatives. The choice is SNOW and COLLINS or two far leftist Democrats.

    If people like you got your way, the Democrats would never lose the house the senate or the presidency in the 21st century.

    Vonservative victory hinges on electing conservatives in conservative states and as many RINOS as possible in the swing states. Then working with the RINOs so every one with an R by his or her name gets some of what they want.

    The primary stupidity of the right is the belief that the reasons that cause them to be conservatives would convince moderates and liberals to be conservatives if someone just taught them the truth as the conservatives see it. NOTHING COULD BE LESS TRUE.

    Moderates are not unaware of what conservatives believe and why they believe it. They are aware and reject those reasons. Making the same rejected arguments to them 10,000 more times will not change the results.

    The key to a conservative victory in the house and senate is for Conservatives to work to elect as many conservatives from conservative states as possible. And to elect as many RINOs from swing states as possible.

    Then to have a majority leader of the Senate and Speaker of the house who understands that to get RINO support on issues important to conservatives that conservatives must give to RINOs some of what they want. It cannot be a one way street as so many conservatives demand.

    The most surprising thing to me is how ignorant of our system of goverment conservatives are. Our system was designed to make it very hard to get anything passed in the Senate that is not approved by a majority of the moderates. It is easy to do in the house. A simple majority will do. And the house leadership has real power over its members.

    But the Senate was constructed so it would be very hard for either side to make major changes in our laws or policies. The founders wanted those in power to have to find a way to get the support of moderates or fail.

    You seem to be saying.. I know how to help get my views adopted... sure all I have to do is trash Snowe, Collins, Spector and McCain..that ought to prove how much I approve of party loyalty.

    I used to be puzzled at how the nation could be such a center right nation and yet the left, mostly by its lonesome self, wins time after time. But no more. It is obvious that the right believes that the nearly 1/3 of the voters who are moderates should have no say in government.. In fact any RINOs who expect a fair shake in the Republican party should be run out of town on a rail.

    Did you ever ask yourself if RINOs And DINOS don't have majority support in their states, how do so many of them get elected?

    When Ronald Reagam told Conservatives to, "SPEAK NO ILL OF A FELLOW REPUBLICAN!... Did it ever occur to you he meant RINOS?

    Did it occur to you Reagan was trying to convey was Conservatives can't win with out RINO support so don't trash them?

    Didn't think so! e

  • Will Mexico Fail in 2009 or 2010?

    01/01/2009 6:43:49 AM PST · 11 of 49
    Common Tator to Flavius

    They will do what all nations in trouble when the price of oil falls.. they will double and triple then quadruple production.

  • Will Mexico Fail in 2009 or 2010?

    01/01/2009 6:43:21 AM PST · 10 of 49
    Common Tator to Flavius

    They will do what all nations in trouble when the price of oil falls.. they will double and triple then quadruple production.

  • Reid Plans to Seat Franken; GOP Furious

    12/31/2008 5:28:11 PM PST · 12 of 104
    Common Tator to luv2ndamend

    All that will ensure is that McConnel will attempt to filibuster nearly every part of the Obama agenda.

    With 41 Republican senators motivated by this act to oppose Reid, Obama may find it will be very hard to get any of his agenda passed.

    Then in 2 years when the next eletion occurs the Demorats may do very badly. The corruption stories on top of corruption stories with mixed with worsening economy just might take the Senate back to 51 or 52 Democrats and no chance of Obama getting anything passed.

    The anger of the left at Reid and Obama blowing the biggest leftist chance since 1933 could cause a lot of them to take a walk in 2010 and 2012.

    The media has over and over presented the Obama win as a huge win. When he fails to deliver the goods they want, they are going to blame Obama and his fellow Democrats.

    At the end of his term Obama could make Bush look like a popular president.

  • The man who owns 2008 (Nope, not Obama. It's Petraeus)

    12/31/2008 11:14:01 AM PST · 9 of 22
    Common Tator to jazusamo

    I keep comparing Bush Administration and his generals in Iraq with Lincoln and his generals in the Civil War.

    From the start of the civil war until 1864 when Lincoln finally went with General’s Grant and Sherman the civil war was a terrible disaster that cost tens of thousands of lives more than it would have had the Union had Generals like Grant and Sherman in charge from the start. Prior to Grant and Sherman, the north had every advantage except the better generals.

    In the USA during peace time the warriors are pushed to the bottom while the paper pushing chairwarmers rise to the top. From Burnside to Hooker to Howe the northern generals were not a pimple of Robert E. Lee’s rump. It had not changed by 2003. WE lucked out during Bush 1. Startzkoff was both a good pencil pusher and a great general. That is rare. It was also after 8 years of Reagan... who knew the difference between warriors and pencil pushers.

    As for the Civil war when Grant was put in charge of the Army of the Potomac the nothern victories started. Sherman’s march though Georgia showed the civilian population of the South that there were real consequences to rebellion.

    At the time of Lincolns death, there were literally millions of Americans who thought of him as an inept and poor quality president.

    Today he is considered to be in the top 2.

    Lincoln was followed by a an inept and largely unqualified successor. By contrast Lincoln started to look much better in hindsight.

    The same thing will happen to Bush but Bush will be alive to enjoy the restoration of his reputation.

    The more I look at Obama the more I see a man unable to make real decisions on partial information. Yet a president making good decisions based on partial information is what has separated the good presidents from the bad.

    Obama is really a man with little self confidence in his own judgement. He is like a man standing on a ship beside a life boat and a churning sea. He cannot decide to get in the boat until he is certain the ship is sinking. If his head is above water he is not sure the ship sinking.

    We are in for 4 years of delayed reaction to events and no pre emptive actions at all. You can bet the terrorists have this figured out. All they have to do is make it partially unclear about what nation or organiztion sponsored them and Obama will not know how to respond.

    We may have a lousy 4 years in store.

  • D.C. lobbyist sues Times over McCain affair story

    12/31/2008 9:07:12 AM PST · 7 of 13
    Common Tator to tom h
    The New York Times issued a statement following the filing of the suit: “We fully stand behind the article. We continue to believe it to be true and accurate, and that we will prevail.

    This is the standard defense when the paper is guilty.

    If the story were true the papers defense would be. "The story is true and here is the evidence that proves it is true." Such as motel or hotel room records and witnesses that saw them go into a room at night and other witnesses that saw them come out in the morning.

    When a media outlet has nothing to back up their story they just say they stand behind the story and they believe it to be true and accurate. It is the defense lawyers recommend when their client is guilty. They just hope the jury is too dumb to figure it out.

    Of course Clinton had to speak for himself when he claimed that oral sex was not sex. No attorney who hoped to keep his license would say that for a client.

    What an attorney can do for a guilty client is say, "He says he is not guilty and I believe him. I think the evidence will show he is not guilty." That means he is guilty as sin.

  • Big is back: As pump prices plunge, SUV sales surge (The Prius is out of style?)

    12/30/2008 8:25:35 PM PST · 27 of 76
    Common Tator to Graybeard58
    "My little Corolla will seat four comfortably and gets better than the sticker shows, which is 42 mpg highway. If we need more room we use my wife's Trail Blazer at about 20mpg.

    how much room will you need in your Corolla when some drunk hits you head on going 60 miles per hour.

    That happened one of my best friends going home from work one Friday evening. He was so smashed up they had a closed casket at the funeral. You would be surprised at how much less gasoline you need when you are dead.

  • The Non-Constitutional Problem from Illinois

    12/30/2008 8:04:24 PM PST · 16 of 45
    Common Tator to Congressman Billybob

    When the house senate and presidency are split between the parties there is a fair amount of isle crossing in the senate and it is hard to make a filibuster stick. But when one party has the house senate and presidency the out of power party tends to stick together to block as much of the in power party agenda as possible

    If Obama can’t get his agenda passed because Reid refused to seat a Democratic senator, there will be hell to pay with his more liberal senators who see this first year as the best leftist chance since 1933.

    Look for McConnell to force a cloture vote on nearly every bill that comes up. Refusing to seat a sure vote for cloture in order punish Blago and please the press is not a very bright thing for Reid to do. I doubt if Reid has the votes to make it stick.

    Reid has said several times that he has the votes to do something when in fact he does not.

  • Blagojevich, Burris and More Problems for Illinois Dems [WaPoo lamenting a major Rat Spat alert]

    12/30/2008 3:11:11 PM PST · 15 of 23
    Common Tator to Zakeet
    The Supreme court ruled that congress does not have the right to reject some one elected to the house on any grounds not listed in the constitution.

    Those are
    1) each senator must be at least 30 years old,
    2) must have been a citizen of the United States for at least the past nine years, and
    3) must be (at the time of the election) an inhabitant of the state they seek to represent.

    The senate may refuse to seat a person to the senate who fails to meet one or more of these criteria.

    Once seated a senator be removed from the senate by a vote of the senate.

    The Constitution permits the Senate to expel any member by a two-thirds majority vote. But they would have to seat the Blago appoinment and then expell him.

    Consider the danger if the senate could vote to not seat any senator. Say the Demorats hold 51 seats in the senate. But lose enough so the new senate will only have 40 Democrats.

    So the old senate refuses to seat all the newly elected Republicans... so the Democrats continue to have a majority of a senate with only 79 members becuase they refused to seate the 21 newly elected Republicans.

    I look for the supreme court to overrule Harry Reid. And the new Senator selected by Blago to not be too interested in supporting anything that Harry Reid was for.

  • All-out war - Israel pounds Gaza for third day; tanks on the border

    12/29/2008 7:35:58 PM PST · 26 of 49
    Common Tator to Lurker
    If they send in the Merkvas they're going to lose a bunch of them to mines, traps, and RPGs

    Is that anything like the 10,000 troops we were going to lose if we attacked Saddam?

  • Oil said to back near $100 by 2010-2015

    12/29/2008 6:40:05 AM PST · 18 of 28
    Common Tator to thackney

    There are several basic problems with his prediction.

    Lets go back to the late 1970s oil crisis. Oil was in short supply. The fall of the Shaw of Iran and the increasing demand had taken the price of Gasoline to new heights.

    Ronald Reagan said that if removed some of the bans on Oil drilling in the USA the price of Gasoline would fall. Teddy Kennedy among others predicted that the Reagan plan for more oil would result in $3.00 a gallon gasoline. Teddy thought that government controlled alternative fuels were the only answer.

    But Reagan got elected and in not a very long period of time the price of gasoline fell and stayed relatively low for nearly 25 years. The low cost of fuel was a huge part of the great economies of the 1980s and 1990s.

    This last summer we faced a situation where the supply of oil was not enough to meet demand. The price of gasoline exceeded 4 dollars a gallon.

    That caused a downturn in the world economy that lead to a major decrease in demand. Now they argue that once the economy recovers the price will go back through the roof.

    This time the USA has no Reagan and it is unlikely our dumb a$$ed leaders will allow our nation to increase supply. But that is not what other nations are doing. New huge oil fields are being found in such places a Brazil. Vietnam and it is likely that China will find as much of its own oil as possible.

    It may be decades before the returning demand exceeds the new supply. Even in the middle east, the regimes who held power based on 60 dollar a barrel oil must find a way to get it to 60 bucks or find a way to increase production.

    Only Iraq is on the way to being a Democracy. In other middle east nations the government owns the oil. They use the revenue to provide for their citizens.

    It has been proved many times. When a nation loses the support of its citizens, the government falls. The rank and file in the army and police forces are made up of working class people. When those ordinary citizens refuse to follow the orders of the ruling elite, the government no matter how oppressive loses its power and falls. We may not understand that, but bet your fanny the worlds dictators do.

    OPEC has a long history of ordering cuts in production, it has a long history of those orders never being followed.

    The predictions that all the worlds oil has been found and that we are reaching the point of decreasing production, have been made year in and year out for nearly 50 years. It has never been true and is not true now. Every few weeks there are low level stories in the media about new oil fields being found. The stories always say that while it is possible the new find is huge, it is not a proven fact and may not be true.

    Yet the world keeps finding oil.. In the oceans, in remote areas of Central and South America even Africa and Asia. They are finding new oil. The media may not chose to cover it, but that does not mean those nations will not drill for it.

    The price of oil may recover a bit, but it will be a long long time before we see 140 dollar a barrel oil.

    China will not pay huge prices for oil. They will build nuclear electrical plants by the thousands.

    Take a big hunk of the Chinese demand for oil out of the supply demand equation and we have a surplus of oil for decades to come.

  • WILLIE BROWN: Caroline Kennedy is in for a rough ride

    12/28/2008 9:38:01 AM PST · 7 of 32
    Common Tator to Mojave

    Back in 1964 LBJ ran for president and Bobby Kennedy ran for senator from New York.

    It was said that New Yorkers could not stand the loud mouthed uncouth LBJ. But in 1964 LBJ got a lot more votes in New York than Bobby Kennedy.

    The Kennedy myth about the popularity of Camelot is just that a myth. When a little over a year after JFK’s assasination, LBJ did better in liberal new york than Bobby, that tells us a lot about the real Kennedy popularity.

    JFK was in Florida and then in Texas in 1963 because polls showed he was going to lose both states in 1964. The media said his death made the Kennedys a huge political force. If that is true how come LBJ got more votes in New York than Bobby.

    It was common knowledge that LBJ hated John and Bobby Kennedy. It did not hurt LBJ in 1964.

  • Obama bristles as the bubble closes in on him

    12/28/2008 9:27:25 AM PST · 94 of 132
    Common Tator to AndyJackson

    Print and broadcast Reporters are paid a base salary. Print reporters get paid extra for each line they get printed. If you are an AP reporter and 500 papers print each days story, you are in the bucks.

    For broadcast reporters the pay is based on seconds on the air or information provided being used on the air.

    Make the air every hour on Fox or CNN and you are in the bucks. If ABC, CBS, and NBC reporters make the evening news, the radio networks and recorded reports are used by local stations, that broadcast reporter is in tall cotton.

    Don’t have a story to file or have the same stupid hand out from the press secretary every one else has, and that reporter will take a giant hit in pay. If it goes on long enough the reporter will be replaced.

    How does a reporter fix it? They ask the president’s press secretary to get the presidents recorded reaction to some outrageous accusation. If there is no presidential reply, the reporter does a story that says the president has refused to deny that he has done or condoned something very bad.

    Once or twice and most presidents fold and do what the media wants.

    As they say, never get in a fight with a person that buys ink by the barrel or power by the megawatts.

    But Obama may very well try to control the media believing that they prefer supporting a president they agree with, rather than do whatever it takes to make the reporter big money.

    I would not bet on the media refusing to trash Obama if he does the hideaway act. I used to say that reporters think that all workers should be paid the same wage.. with the exception of reporters... they believe that Reporters should be paid more than all others.

    The first thing the media teaches a president is he had best kiss their a$$ or they will kick his. The primary difference is they give Republicans 15 minutes to fold and Democrats a week.

    The reporters will be on the job long after Obama is history. Teaching Obama and therefore all his successors a real lesson is something they will do. Letting Obama control the situation only convinces all successors to Obama that they can do the same thing.

    My take on Obama is he will do a lot to avoid making a decision. He likes to put things off for a later date. To do that he could tell the press he is not up on each situation or hide until he is forced to take a stand.

    I think the Obama agenda is to do a little less each day.

  • NY Times Gone In '09? (Murdoch Awaits?)

    12/23/2008 12:27:15 PM PST · 45 of 45
    Common Tator to Tex-Con-Man
    "I don't believe the Dem party will let the NY Times go out of business...and they are in charge."

    Pinch Sultzburger is in charge of the N.Y. Times. And he will hold on to it until the option is corporate bankruptcy and personal bankruptcy. Then he will sell to Murdock.

    If you have observed Democrats you will find they love to spend your money but absolutely hate to spend their own.

    Teddy Kennedy has allowed the Kennedy Hyannis Port estate to go into major disrepair as anyone who has visited can tell you. But he makes sure you pay for top maintenance and the finest furniture for his Washington office.

    If the Democrats can't find a way to buy it with your money they won't buy it.

  • NY Times Gone In '09? (Murdoch Awaits?)

    12/22/2008 8:38:49 PM PST · 36 of 45
    Common Tator to St. Louis Conservative

    The Kennedy’s are not fools. It would take the entire Kennedy fortune to bail out the New York times. Kennedy’s are like many liberals.

    They talk ideology but the invest like a conservative. There is no way that a single Kennedy has the money and they are very unlikely to go together to take such a huge risk.

    Investing in big newspapers in 2008 is like investing in Conestoga Wagons in 1904. In the 1800s the largest transportation vehicle company in the USA as Conestoga. It is a sure money loser. Kennedy’s invest in winners. The talk left and invest right.

  • Lee Iacocca: Where's the Outrage?

    12/20/2008 1:12:42 PM PST · 44 of 99
    Common Tator to realdifferent1

    Lee Iacocca was the man who did the Mustang. He rose to power after Henry Ford II learned that Iacocca who was the factory rep for Pennsylvania, had arranged with PA Banks to loan money for a ford at 100 dollars down and 100 dollars a month. PA was the only state that year where Ford out sold GM. Henry promoted Lee to sales manager.

    After his success at creating the Mustang Lee was trying to get rid of Henry Ford II so he could take over Ford. He is stupid, very ambitious and ungreatful man.

    Every year at Christmas the Ford Family got together at Ford II’s home to discuss the future plans for Ford Motor.

    Lee Iacocca got close to a young member of the Ford clan and had him wear a mike and trasmitters so Iacocca could hear what was being said.

    What Iacocca did not know is that Henry II has a device that could detect transmitters running in his home. It gave an alert, Ford II found the kid wearing the mike and went out to confront Iacocca.

    The next day Iacocca was fired from Ford. Henry II told Lee that he needed to learn to read. The name on the heaquarters building was FORD not Iacocca. Iacocca was out the door.

    In contract after contract after contract the UAW would start negotiating with the weakest car company. They would threaten to strike if they did not get what they wanted. During the Iacocca years at Chrysler they always went after Lee and Lee gave in to the UAW time in and time out.

    Then the UAW would demand that GM and Ford Give them what they had gotten from Chrysler.

    If Lee wants to know who gave the UAW most of its outrageous benefits... he should try looking in the mirror.

  • Rush Strikes Back at 'Turncoat' Colin Powell

    12/16/2008 10:04:01 AM PST · 9 of 61
    Common Tator to redk
    Colin Powell is just plain stupid.

    Rule number 1 is,
    Never ever start a fight with a man who has control of 15 hours a week on over half a thousand radio stations.

    Rules 2 through 10 are
    "See Rule 1"

  • Inhofe: Washington "out of control" on bailout

    12/15/2008 1:57:00 PM PST · 26 of 27
    Common Tator to SecAmndmt
    "Where is the constitutional authority found for the President to hand out money to a private company OR dictate terms of a UAW contract?"

    The constitution is what ever 5 agreeing judges on the Supreme Court have said it is today or said it was prior to today. Five justices may say it means the exact opposite tomorrow and if they do that is what it will mean. That is, until they change their minds about what it says.

    The constitution is what ever the Supreme Court says it is!!

    That was decided during the Jefferson administration in Madison Vs Marbury Case. Most people are aware of the Supreme Court's assumption of power to decide what the words in the constitution mean. It was done over 200 years ago. You should check it out.

    It was during the Jefferson Administration that the Supreme court ruled the man that wrote the constitution did not know what it meant but that the Supreme Court did.

    Try reading the Marbury Vs Madison decision for a clue. Yes Marbury VS the man that wrote the constitution and the supreme court ruled against Madison. The supreme court read and heard Madison's version of what the constitution says, and told him he was wrong. The fact that Madison wrote the constitution did not cut any ice with the supreme court. That decision is still on the books. Don't look for any Supreme Court to overrule it. Both Jefferson and Madison accepted that decision against the Jefferson administration.

    Do you know what the words in the penumbra of the constitution say? Right!! Only the Supreme court can understand the words in the penumbra. It was the Supreme Court that discovered the constitution had a penumbra and only they could understand what it said.

    Here is another clue. The congress appropriates money! The president spends the money. That is one of the executive powers granted under the constitution. The Supreme Court has upheld that Presidential power. (See above for powers exercised by the Supreme Court)

    There is nothing stopping a president from saying to the UAW, "Do as I say and I will give GM and Chrysler the money congress has given me to grant to those I chose. Don't do what I say and you don't get the money."

    Quite frankly Bill Gates could tell the UAW, "Do what I say and I will loan GM and Chrysler 14 billion Dollars. Don't do what I say and GM and Chrysler won't get my loan."

    Where is the constitution does it say that BILL Gates has the power to do that? Do you argue that would be unconstitutional for Gates to demand the UAW do his will before he would make GM and Chrysler a loan? After all he is worth somewhere between 50 and 100 billion.

    Many years ago a bank told me they would loan my Corporation the money to build a radio station.. but only if the FCC granted me a license to build the station. Third party conditions are common on most loans to corporations be they from a bank or a the government. And the FCC said what conditions my Corportation had to meet to get their permission to build a station.

    Where in the constitution does it say that only the FCC can grant a license to build a station. And that building a station with out an FCC license is a crime?

    The constitution that says Congress may pass and the president sign rules into law. All citizens and organizations must abide by those laws. Including the rules adopted by those goverment organizations the congress has authorized to make and enforce rules.

    Years later another corporation I headed was granted a multi million dollar loan but only if the FCC approved the purchase of the radio stations I wanted to buy.

    Nearly every business loan no matter who makes the loan has third party conditions.