The Housing Bubble

This is why we get to hear pronouncements such as “America has a strong dollar policy” when in truth we have just the opposite.

That’s a pretty good summation of the problem. We have a “democracy” where “we the people” are in charge. Right?
And “we the people” want our government to be accountable.
We DIDN’t want “bailouts” by a large majority, and we got them anyway because a group of 535 people were bamboozled into believing the world would implode without them.

“We the people” have a economic policy instituted by the “independent” Federal Reserve banking cartel, who have destroyed investment incentives and propped up their buddy banksters, of, by and for the benefit of an elite cartel of Banksters and Wallstreet trading firms.

Quite simply, ”we the people” don’t have any control over our government and the OWS people are targeting the wrong group. They should all be parked out in front of the FEDERAL RESERVE Banking Houses and on the White House Lawn.

So, i guess in spite of all the rhetoric to the contrary, the Obama administration really does believe in “trickle down” economics…..So long as the Banksters are being fed Trillions of dollars of money, then the belief that all will be okay is predominant. All Hail Goldman-Sachs!!

“…contrary to the macro-economic incentive of his country wanting to have a weak currency…”

Therein lies the Achilles’ heel for the ephemeral ‘cash is king’ episode we are currently experiencing. Any major trading power which does not continually weaken its own currency risks pricing itself out of the export market.

“The Bernanke”

You reminded me of a favorite Great Recession era youtube cartoon:

Quantitative Easing Explained

QE cartoon

great repost
i love the “the ben bernanck”- “the goldman sachs”

Old folks will be winnowed out of the population pool via “healthcare”.

Which is precisely why Medicare was instituted in the first place. Seniors couldn’t buy insurance at any price.

If you want to complain, direct your anger at the insurance companies who eagerly take money from the young and healthy and pass the old and sick off onto the tax payer, profiting off this separation of risk pools.

We already have “death panels”. Depending on how many zeros you have in your checkbook.

If you want to complain, direct your anger at the insurance companies who eagerly take money from the young and healthy and pass the old and sick off onto the tax payer, profiting off this separation of risk pools………

A ridiculous argument. Completely false and misleading.
You can buy insurance when you are young and healthy. And if you keep paying for it into old age, you have insurance.
What you can’t do is NOT buy health insurance when you are young, wait until you are OLD and sick and then expect to jump into the pool. That is what all you leftists want.
Whatever group you wish to provide “services” for, you want them to be able to skim off the greater society without the contingency of being paid in.

Your concept of passing them off onto the taxpayer is only so because we have government imposed “laws” about providing medical care for people who don’t have enough money or any insurance. It’s a tough life.
If you were selling insurance, I can be most assured you would NOT be recruiting retirees into your pool, unless they paid a SUBSTANTIALLY higher premium for the added risk.
If they are over 80, you could just about forget about it.

I have no problem with insurance companies. I have a real problem with lack of competition and way too much in the way of Mandates from the various States about what they must cover, if they cover one thing, then something else is mandatory. I would prefer to have my “level” of coverage customized for me, not by some bureAucratic moron.

You can buy insurance when you are young and healthy. And if you keep paying for it into old age, you have insurance.

That makes sense except for how we get it from our employers and our employers regularly force us to find other employers. If the gaps between employment go on for very long we have to choose between food and insurance even though Cobra may be available.

I’ve never been uninsured. Yet. But I can clearly see how easily it could happen.

“There was a discussion on a radio program”

Weak.

“You can buy insurance when you are young and healthy. And if you keep paying for it into old age, you have insurance.”

LOL. As long as you can afford it as it gets more and more expensive every year, then yeah, no problem.

Oh, and you know why the insurance companies can’t drop you just for getting old or sick? Because of those darn meddling liberals and their regulations. Kind of funny that you point to those protections as evidence for the viability of our system, since you attack those same liberals all the time. Kind of like complaining about mommy and daddy trying to run your life, then going to them for money. If we followed your advice, those protections surely would not be there.
___

smartmoneydotcom
“Expect Rate Increases. In most states, private health-insurance plans are what the industry calls “rated,” says Georgetown’s Pollitz. This means premiums rise with age. So a person who buys coverage at age 50 might find it prohibitively expensive by, say, 55. Some people get around this by changing plans from time to time, since new rates tend to be lower than renewals. But as people age, it becomes more difficult to jump around and individual policies get pricier.”

I like that. You’ll take anything as “authoritative”, no matter how illogical, so long as you find it in print somewhere, other than here. Any source will do.

Beats saying ‘I heard it on (talk) radio’. The bastion of right-wing propaganda for the oafs.

Ever find a link for your assertion? Didn’t think so.

And do you think that private health insurance doesn’t get more expensive as you get older? I have it. It does.

If we want to have healthcare as cheap as other countries, then decisions for major procedures for those older will be in the hands of the doctors, not the patients or their families.

Welcome to more affordable healthcare.

’sea of mideast despots’

So who gets direct US “aid” for decades, and uses it keep their population underfoot? Eqypt did as did Tunisia. Jordan,Yemen, etc still do. Several that have enough oil/money of their own are given cover by the US (in the UN and elsewhere) to continue to suppress their people; Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, for example.

Who freaked out the most about Egypt getting rid of the dictator? Neocons and the like. Who drew up the borders in Iraq? Here’s a hint; it wasn’t the people that lived there. And we wonder why all these people won’t get along.

From the article:

‘There was no formal distinction between Syrians, Lebanese, Palestinians and Jordanians. But when, after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the European powers divided the Arab world between them, a state called Palestine became a fact under the British Mandate, and the Arab Palestinian people established themselves as a separate nation with a national flag of their own. Many peoples in Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America did the same, even without asking Gingrich for confirmation.’

The present troubles of former subjects of the Ottoman Empire are the consequences of a huge credit bubble and its subsequent collapse.

We should get a clue and stop trying to keep our own debt fueled empire expanding.

Hi Ben,

Just as you once were a voice in the wilderness, talking about the delusions of American housing prices at a time (as still was quoted yesterday) when nearly everyone who was confronted that housing would be a disaster “reacted with anger or condescension”, making you and others of our like Cassandra, making us shake our heads with sadness that so much ignorance and assumption would not be rational, so too I am saddened when snippets and observations are taken out of context for agendas that don’t reflect what I see as painful reality.

I will offer a few snippets of idea. I could give you a book’s worth of cut-paste history, but I’d prefer a good back-and-forth, not a flood, so I will start by tossing out just a few notions…

Do clarify, “So who gets direct US “aid” for decades, and uses it keep their population underfoot?”

I see “Their population” as an odd choice of words.

Israel’s arab citizens are members of parliament, vote freely, are not forced to wear burkhas, do not have honor-killings embraced by their government, win supreme court cases and more. Their women are allowed to drive, attend University, worship in non-Jewish houses of worship, and be free of religious civil wars that kill tens of thousands. Rather like the USA. Name a surrounding Arab country that treats its Arabs so well or which treats its Jews in the manner Israel treats Arab citizens. Seriously.

Perfect? No. Exceptions? Sure.

But, then, the USA pepper sprays students sitting and smiling. Lebanon killed 100,000 people in a religious civil war. Syria’s non-elected leader has slaughterd 5000 of his “99 percenters” (that phrase being popular today) during the last few months. Show me a Jewish woman member of the elected Saudi Parliament who can wear a bikini to the Saudi beach

The issue of the captured territories of course is the hot-button issue, and the population there is not “their population”, no doubt a sticking point. The would-be-Palestinians are not Israelis and are not part of Israel’s “population”. They are an anomaly to some degree, the only refugee population that was not absorbed into host countries after there were population shifts during a war.

The arab “brothers” of the would-be-Palestinians have done nothing altruistic to help them, keeping them as pawns against Israel. I will add some posts (to keep each post relatively short) with some history about this.

—Who freaked out the most about Egypt getting rid of the dictator? Neocons and the like. Who drew up the borders in Iraq? Here’s a hint; it wasn’t the people that lived there. And we wonder why all these people won’t get along.—-

This has merit, but I find it a sidebar to the issue about Israel and Palestine. I have found flaws in general in both hard right and hard left political thought.

I often post with a bit of a light-hearted even facetious tone, tweaking the random hostile quotes I see from various writers. I will eschew that in this thread, and give you the courtesy you have well earned, that of serious answers to serious notions, even ones with which I disagree.

I will end this post with a single food-for-thought serious question. Other related topics will be in other posts.

Israel “won the war” in 1948 when multiple arab countries attacked it after Israel (but not “palestine”) accepted the UN partition plan, a plan which really left such odd geography that one could argue that neither created country (had “Palestine” also accepted) had viable borders. Israel during the 1948 war was meant, publicly, to be “driven into the sea” by the invading arabs, per the Arabs’ own propaganda. Extra Genocide to WWII.

Still, Israel won.

But, today all the hard core anti-Israel negotiators (at least those who don’t call for Israel to disappear altogether) demand return NOT to pre-1948 borders but rather to pre-1967 Borders.

So here is the question. If pre-1967 borders (before Israel captured Arab land in the 1967 war) were/are acceptable, who had that “Palestinian” land after 1948 but before 1967? Who didn’t make it “Palestine” when Israel didn’t have it for 20 years?

More later.

Thanks, Ben, for this board and for the chance to have some intense chat.

Humans have very short memories. It is no surprise that the saying “those who forget history are doomed to repeat it” is a popular bromide.

One reason the Near East (what casual players tend to call the Middle East) has turmoil is that the whole zone is new to nationalism. 100 years ago there essentially were no polities in the region, rather just the Ottoman Empire. Most of what today we call regional countries were carved out of the Ottoman Empire, often for reasons serving the superficial needs of the subsequent British rulers in the area, as is often the case in colonial situations. The random markings of borders that the Powers put in place (why is “Saudi” Arabia not just “Arabia”), the lack of respect or understanding or caring then about regional ethnic differences within brand new countries that were new to the idea of being countries (it seems Sunni and Shia didn’t mix so well), have created a century of strife. There is not a history of strong national borders in this area, not like Europe and the Americas.

Fine.

As I’ve noted, Palestine was a region, not unlike the notion of a midwest in the USA. Midwestern Americans and nearby non-midwestern Americans are still just… Americans. The same model largely has been true in the Near East, though some today would forget that.

There were Christian and Muslim arabs throughout the Ottoman zone (though many of the Christian arabs have been purged by the intolerance of their majority Muslim neighbors), but they were Arabs. There were not countries of “Jordan”, “Saudi Arabia”, “Kuwait” and so forth.

By 1947 there indeed were big Jewish and Arab-Muslim populations in the “pan Arab Midwest”, or… “Palestine”. Most of the Muslim population there had followed in the Jewish population when Jews bought land from the Ottoman Empire and build up the desolate zone (food for another thread).

There was not an indigenous unique-to-region “Palestinian Arab” culture. There were rather Arab Muslims residing in Ottoman Palestine.

Relatively recently, as a hammer to whack Israel, has the issue of a need for a gazillionth Arab country to be created been an issue.

Here are some Arab views of the situation, before the notion of an actual Polity called “Palestine” came into vogue, indeed partially the Israelis fault (for reverse reasons) as Israel, leading to independence, also accepted the notion of “Palestine” as in, “fine… some land for them, some land for us”

—”There is no such country (as Palestine)! Palestine is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria.” - told to the peel Commission in 1937 by Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, a local Arab leader.—–

—”The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people’ to oppose Zionism…

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa. While as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.” - PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein, March 31, 1977, interview with the Dutch newspaper Trouw.—-

‘Still, Israel won.’

And Native Americans won at Little Big Horn. That didn’t keep the govt from putting them on reservations. Here in N AZ, most of the land is reservations, some of the worst land you’ll ever see. How would it work if I went around Flagstaff and said the Navajo, Zuni, etc were “invented people”? I could say it, but what would it accomplish or help?

The argument that might makes right, but only once and when the winner decides is curious. Now non-western might is forbidden and those exercising it are terrorists as it might upset the “winner”.

You don’t have to make any special case for my posts, I’m just another person in the room with an opinion. Anyway, this isn’t my fight, or it shouldn’t be made my fight by people like Gingrich.

Hi Ben,

—‘Still, Israel won.’ And Native Americans won at Little Big Horn. That didn’t keep the govt from putting them on reservations.—-

Again, I sense a bit of Apples and Oranges.

First, England is not Kelt because Bill the Conquerer “won” in 1066. This is how history… becomes history. People do win. However, this is a distraction, not an argument for or against, the point I raised.

Note, please, that when I wrote, “Still, Israel won”, I reference 1948, in a war initiated by drastically larger numbers of Arabs who promised to drive the Jews into the Sea. Israel ended up with the land largely as per the UN Partition plan. I do not reference the 2nd next war Israel didn’t want, in 1967 when Israel indeed bumped its borders of control

In 1948 when Israel won, no “palestinians” were placed in reservations by Israel. Indeed, ALL Arabs in Israel (once Israel “won the war” thus allowing it to survive and its people not to have to suffer completion of genocide as promised by the invading armies) became… Israelis.

I repeat… in 1948 the Arab Muslims in the newly “won”, “conquered”, what have you, land of Israel became… Israelis. And, I’ve already posted on the rights of Arab Israelis vs Arab other-country citizens and on the ‘rights’ of jewish Saudis and the like.

Again, I might be wrong, but I believe you are a bit tentative here on the 1948 vs 1967 history, which is… huge.

After 1948, the only regional Arabs who were put into reservations were put there, no joke, no game, by Arabs. This perhaps is the money point of the current branch of this discussion. Think on it. If it remains unclear I will expand on it.

I ask again, if today the “aggressive” (but non genocidal agains Jews like Hamas is) Arab negotiators with Israel want Israel to return to “Pre 1967 Borders” and if Israel in 1948 WAS at pre-1967 Borders, then who prevented there from being a Palestine from 1948-1967? Seriously.

—The argument that might makes right, but only once and when the winner decides is curious. Now non-western might is forbidden and those exercising it are terrorists as it might upset the “winner”.—

Ben, either I was unclear in my prior post or you missed my point, but this is a straw man.

Putting aside that the history of the USA is “might makes right” and I’m not sure what sort of map you’d have for the world if we did not buy into it, I have taken us back to the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. “Might makes Right” has nothing to do with the 1948 bounderies. Indeed, this was one of the great world experiments in not requiring might in order to make right. Borders for Israel and “Palestine” were created by the UN. No “Might” involved. Rather negotiation in a world forum designed to prevent the need for “might”.

Israel indeed accepted this. Let’s praise Israel for that, shall we? “Palestine” did not accept and with 6 Arab countries waged genocidal war in fact trying to use “let’s have Might make Right”. They lost. Israel won. Israel thus stopped Arabs from what you don’t like “might making right” and implemented what the negotiated process at the UN had proposed.

Seriously- no snark- if you don’t like “might makes right”, you should compliment Israel for accepting a NON “Might makes Right” proposal, and then for resisting “might makes right” that the arabs tried to impose.

Again, Israel won in 1948. Israel resisted “Might makes right”. But, you and I both realize that without might, the monsters often will win, right?

But, again, all Arabs in Israel became citizens. Israel had none of the “post 1967″ land. Again, why then did the remaining land, that which the UN intended to become Muslim Palestine, that to which the Arab countries today want Israel to give up (Israel having gained it in 1967, not 1948) NOT become Palestine when the armistice was signed in 1949?

“Israel indeed accepted this”

Why wouldn’t they? They gained a country, courtesy of the current residents, whether the current residents liked it or not.

But lets forget the history, let’s talk about the present. Which is the fact that Israel has way more influence into the conduct of US policy than their size and importance rates.

Say a bunch of Mormons/Christian Fundamentalists staked out a claim/bought land smack in the middle of Pakistan, and announced their Independence. Then started their own version of “Lebensraum” with the locals. And demanded that the US back up their actions, and protect them from the hostile natives.

We’ve seen this around here before. White, God fearing people intruding/taking over the land/reservations the “savages” are on, and when the natives try to run out the interlopers, the whites demand US Government protection from the “savages”. Manifest Destiny on a worldwide scale.

Some stuff never changes, I guess. Too bad the Sioux and Cheyenne didn’t have nukes.

Gee. Everytime I write anything that brings Jews into the conversation, my posts get deleted. I usually just say they are controlling our banks and money on a world-wide basis. via the IMF, world Bank and FED. YOu’ve said a whole bunch more and got to fill up half the blog. What’s the deal?

When will we get to vote for a candidate who makes it their business to be a friend to Americans, and stops campaigning for votes in Bethlehem, Beijing, Berlin, and other b-level (i.e., outside America) towns?

IAT

I asked this before, don’t know if the post ever showed up, but if Palestinians are an “invented” people, what are “Americans”? And is Israel not an “invented” country? Are not most countries “invented”, so to speak? Why dump on Palestinians for being “invented”, shouldn’t they have the same right to be “invented” that others do?

I’m not up on my bible, but aren’t both Israel and Palestine mentioned there?

—-Nice try at detracting from the organized violence of the IDF and corruption of the Israeli Govt they work for.—-

It has no issue-oriented material to offer, so it complains about misdirection and offers simply rant.

—-but if Palestinians are an “invented” people, what are “Americans”? And is Israel not an “invented” country? Are not most countries “invented”, so to speak? —-

A fair question, though you might not like the answer.

As has been said, “history is written by the winners”.

Depending how one parses language, yes, indeed, all people all countries can be parsed nigh unto “invented” status. Still, some are more “invented” than others.

it is one thing when a dominant population with unique regional characteristics and a functioning ability to run itself creates a polity.

It is another thing when a regional population consistent with a diffuse larger group (Midwestern citizens of the USA not really having claim to a unique country of Midwesternia), want to have yet another polity, when they previously turned one down, when their own leaders have declared (until recently) that they are part of larger regions (Jordan, Syria, etc, in case of the “Palestinians”.

See my posts today discussing with Ben the actual history of the middle east.

“My ancestors didn’t come over on the Mayflower, but they met the boat.” - Will Rogers

Is evildocs trying to convert the HBB into the pro-Israeli propaganda blog?

Why is a nuclear armed state allowed to continue it’s genocide on a minority population?

RAL — if you don’t knock it off, evildocs will force Ben to rename this web site the proIsraeliTalkingPointsblog dot com.

Get Stucco wrote, “Is evildocs trying to convert the HBB into the pro-Israeli propaganda blog?”

How mean of you. You didn’t ask Ben if he is trying to make HBB into an anti-Israeli propaganda blog.

Issues were raised. Ben raised some of them. I respond. Responding to issues raised on a blog is why there is a blog

And, that’s sort of the point.

You just snark. No issues. That’s why you invoke that famous saying,

As a great physician one day will say, “I see the Klingon’s lips move, but no sound emerges”

—Why is a nuclear armed state allowed to continue it’s genocide on a minority population?—

Strange. The USA is not committing any genocide. Why would you assert that?

Perhaps you should review the meaning of “genocide”

Per Stucco: “RAL — if you don’t knock it off, evildocs will force Ben to rename this web site the proIsraeliTalkingPointsblog dot com.”

As a great physician one day will say, “I see the Klingon’s lips move, but no sound emerges”

“history is written by the winners”.

True. so then, history of the middle/near east which you’ve laid out is not necessarily factual, but based on the viewpoint of the winner?

“Facts” can be “invented”, too, right?

—-“history is written by the winners”. True. so then, history of the middle/near east which you’ve laid out is not necessarily factual, but based on the viewpoint of the winner?
“Facts” can be “invented”, too, right?—–

I don’t consider Facts inventable. Claims can be invented no doubt.

I have made an issues oriented case in my posts to Ben. You are welcome to disagree with my points and present reasons why you disagree.

Or, you can post thesis that “nothing matters and nothing is real” and we can philosophize over beer and pizza.

For the “Facts” though, for example, if you believe that I am adopting the “winner position, Israel’s” and creating facts, such as my claim that the 1947 Partition plan was a NON “might makes right” notion, a grand non-violent experiment in the negatiated setting of the UN and that Israel accepted this while the invading Arab armies in fact embraced “might makes right” (only to lose, of course), then please… present evidence that my claim is non factual.

And so forth.

I can do the “klingon” thing all day to the irrelevant people who just want to snipe, but if you wish to explore issues or just to claim “there can be no issues because everything everywhere is arbitrary”, then please have at it. Maybe we can do it constructively

I only have this to say: you have to admire Mossad. I figure if you have to have war, capping a nuclear scientist with one shot from a motorcycle is way better than dropping bombs on entire cities.

They’re really good at that stuff.

‘“Facts” can be “invented”, too, right?’

Yep. Case in point:

People who insist The Holocaust never happened.

The Holocaust

Sorry — guess my link above was too long.

I find the cross-pollination between Israel and the USA very disturbing.

“I find the cross-pollination between Israel and the USA very disturbing.”

Don’t encourage the pro-Israel troll.

Let’s be clear. pro-death and organized violence troll.

—Let’s be clear. pro-death and organized violence troll.

As a great physician one day will say, “I see the Klingon’s lips move, but no sound emerges”

—–“Facts” can be “invented”, too, right?’

Yep. Case in point:

People who insist The Holocaust never happened.——–

Staw Man. This is claim, not fact. Claims are easy.

‘As a great physician one day will say, “I see the Klingon’s lips move, but no sound emerges””

Endless repetition is the hobgoblin of little minds.

Endless repetition is the hobgoblin of little minds.

I kinda like it.

Trolls are fun indeed.

I actually appreciate evildocs’s willingness to write on this subject. (seriously)

I once read a book called “O Jerusalem” about the founding of modern Israel. It was probably the most evenhanded book I have ever read regarding the Middle East and that era.

It presented ALL the characters and actors who had a hand in creating or opposing the founding and actually treated everyone with respect.

In fact, if there were a group one would have to label as acting with the most ill intent, it was one of the factions within the founders group, who were intent upon assassination and near civil war.

Perhaps it was just the view of the author, but the fairness and respect with he wrote about all the other groups involved, INCLUDING the Palestinians, Arabs and the other counties/kingdoms in that region that actively and militarily opposed the founding, is convincing enough for me.

A VERY eye opening book. Not easy to find as well.

I see in evildoc’s post, many references, some oblique, but some direct, that I saw in that book. So I appreciate the lengthy posts because I see facts, even though I really don’t know every facet of the situation.

Oh, and evildoc, don’t think means we’re dating or anything.

—-“I would not favor considering the people there Midwestinians.”

But it yet might come to be. Cascadians, too. ——-

I agree, Palmy.

What might happen is ill defined. Claims happen. Powers rise. Powers fall. “Should there be another Arab country founded, this one called ‘Palestine’” is a challenging issue- no joke- but should be engaged without embracing dishonest history. That’s been my point. Newt nailed it to fair degree too, even if it is not politically correct.

regards

me

“…and seem to be doing a pretty good job of establishing it in the Southwest.”

I am already a minority in the 4th largest city in the nation. The numbers say not, but the reality says otherwise.

It wasn’t supposed to happen for another 20 years.

There is something wrong with the selection process - not the election process, the selection process.

The wrong type of people are being selected as candidates for the elections.

Not saying that I know how to fix it, just saying that this, to me, seems to be the main problem

None, not a single one of them, can be any worse than The One. A very bright guy, he still tops the charts for cluelessness. Then you add in his aloofness and arrogance (e.g., “guns and religion”).

I’m still holding out for Hillary.

Partisan Potatohead® is that you?

GOP Uber Alles!

“None, not a single one of them, can be any worse than The One. A very bright guy, he still tops the charts for cluelessness.”

I find these Rush Limbaugh-style talking points rather confusing. Let’s review the record, then tell me what a Republican president would have done differently:

- Got Osama.

- Got Muammar.

- Got us out of Iraq.

- Cultivated close ties to Wall Street, resulting in a dearth of prosecutions for crimes connected to the Fall 2008 financial collapse.

- Kept the country running in the wake of the worst recession since the 1930s, which was already going for the last full year of GWB’s second term before Obama came in to office.

- Obama seems a lot less clueless than some of the finest the RNC can serve up, including Rick Perry, who couldn’t remember the names of the government agencies he wants to eliminate, or Herman Cain, who inspired an army of women to make up scurrilous stories to keep him out of the White House, or Newt Gingrich, who was having an affair with his own intern at the very time he was trying hard to get Bill Clinton impeached over an intern affair, and who recently enjoyed a lucrative consulting contract with the infamous Freddie Mac. And then there is poor Romney, who seems the most electable among the Republican candidates, but who can’t win over the Republican party’s evangelical Christian fringe.

Conclusion: The Republicans don’t seem to have the ability to field an electable presidential candidate.

“I’m still holding out for Hillary.”

Maybe after four more years with Obama, your wish will be granted.

I apologize for the oversight in the above post; like Mitt, RP is on the RNC’s “qualified but not wanted” list. They would rather put some brain-dead puppet in the WH than have a president who thinks and acts for himself.

“…then tell me what a Republican president would have done differently…”

Chirp…chirp…chirp…

– Crickets

Newt Gingrich, who was having an affair with his own intern at the very time he was trying hard to get Bill Clinton impeached over an intern affair……… Oh, PLEASE.

I could refute most of your post, but i thought i stick with the more stimulating topic……illicit affairs.
Let’s just get the facts straight.
Bill Clinton was not being impeached for Sex. Bill Clinton was put through this process for committing a crime…..Lying to Congress. Period. End of story.
Bill Clinton was under investigation for alleged criminal activity against other women. It was Bill Clinton and Hillary that helped support the spurious legal investigative techniques(to curry favor with women’s groups) that ANY and ALL suspected, reported, rumored, or undiscovered sexual activity that any person has OR MAY HAVE committed during their lifetime, when under investigation for sexual harassment, or rape or any other crime is OKAY to use as part of the prosecution….. (A pattern of conduct).
Unlike most other crimes, when “past behavior” is NOT ALLOWED and is considered prejudicial, the past behavior of people accused of SEX Crimes is allowed into evidence as being a “pattern” of sexual misconduct, i.e, you are a “predator”.
Bill Clinton was being investigated for Sex Crimes. Under his own standard of legal interpretation, a report on a 6th grade school card that Little Johnny had “touched” little Janie, could be used a “proof” of a pattern of conduct.
Consequently, having a “affair” with an intern, only added to the many “affairs” which this man is alleged to have had during his time at various government positions. Questioning him about her was part of an ongoing “investigation” about “patterns” of sexual misconduct. HE LIED ABOUT IT.
He was found out. He committed a crime.
The CRIME was not about SEX, is was about LYING to Congress when you are under investigation.
The Coverup is usually worse than the Crime. So There!
Let’s stop the “on trial for an affair” lie. It was LYING, or the more legal term: PERJURY. A Criminal offense.

Ron Paul stands tall at GOP debate
Published: 14 September, 2011, 00:33

Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul speaks during the presidential debate sponsored by CNN and The Tea Party Express at the Florida State fairgrounds on September 12, 2011 in Tampa, Florida (Win McNamee / Getty Images / AFP)

Despite what the mainstream media reports, congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul is closing in on the Republican frontrunners as his odds of coming out on top for the GOP nomination becomes more and more likely.

In a new poll conducted by CNN, the congressman from Texas placed only six percentage points behind second place candidate Mitt Romney, with 12 percent of over 1,000 American adults surveyed saying they are most likely to vote for Rep. Paul. In that study, pollsters asked Americans to consider a race where former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin would be included in the race. While Palin remains a favorite among Tea Partiers, she has not formally announced her candidacy.

The latest poll from CNN, conducted in the few days leading up to September 11, 2011, shows that Paul has managed to double his support since the last survey conducted by the cables news network only two weeks earlier. His success still puts him behind frontrunner and Texas Governor Rick Perry, but comes as a surprise to the many in the mainstream that have played Rep. Paul off as a fringe candidate seemingly unlikely to secure the Republican nomination.
…

“Let’s just get the facts straight.
Bill Clinton was not being impeached for Sex. Bill Clinton was put through this process for committing a crime…..Lying to Congress. Period. End of story.”

I don’t buy it. The Republican special prosecutor went after Clinton’s sex life in a diversion of the purpose for which he was appointed, and the likes of Newt piled on. Now the RNC is getting its come-uppance, as they are having a hard time finding a candidate they like who lacks a sordid history of marital infidelity.

A person’s sex life is nobody’s damn business unless it involves crimes.

Infidelity is still not a crime. It’s stupid, but not a crime.

“…as they are having a hard time finding a candidate they like who lacks a sordid history of marital infidelity.”

Gee, I wonder why? Among other things.

http://www.republicanoffenders.com/

Pick any 4 at random.

The Lord works his wonders in strange ways.

I have no idea what worm has crawled up your posterior Sloth. I am not the Knight of Republicans, nor the Front Runner of Evangelists. Yet I oppose your condemnation of them outright. I’ve known my share of the corrupt and the sincere, and I’ll defend them all for the sake of one.

I am the Liberal that you pretend to be.

“I have no idea what worm has crawled up your posterior Sloth…I’ll defend them all for the sake of one”

You’re the one who called such an upbringing ‘abusive’. Don’t get all defensive and attack me for pointing out your own words.

Maybe you need to get in touch with your ‘inner you’. You seem to be experiencing some internal contradictions.

I certainly wouldn’t characterize my upbringing as “abusive.” Most interestingly, my father was strongly opposed to the extreme form of religion in which he and I were raised. Over the course of time, my entire nuclear family escaped. It was a blessed epiphany to learn that we owned the key to personal deliverance from religious extremism.

P.S. At current thirty-year mortgage rates of around 3.6 percent APR, that would translate into a present value of $275/sq ft, or for a 2000 sq ft home, $550,000.

Your rental rates are roughly three times ours, and purchase price about five times for a modern spec house.

Spending more time doing something does not mean one is more productive, so the entire first paragraph of the AP story is irrelevant. Productivity is defined as:

Amount produced
Productivity rate = ————————–
Time (or energy) expended

So, it looks like the Norwegians, who get more done per hour than anyone else, is the most productive.

IAT

Or, put another way, productivity is defined as:

Productivity Rate=(Amount Produced/Time Spent)

IAT

So what? You choose one definition- hourly- the UN study looked at that, in which we are number two; and they looked at yearly productivity- in which we are number one.

So we’re either one or two, depending on how you define it. You were clearly guessing we weren’t in either position,

“Frankly, I doubt the American worker is the most productive worker in the world. Its probably the German worker or the Japanese worker. ”

And you were wrong. QED, IAT.

Not quite. I was right we are not number #1. And, if you’re an American you know the drill — if you aren’t first, you’re last. BWWWAAAAAHAHAHAHA.

Seriously, thought, the point is the first paragraph is totally wrong. If you work 1 hour a day and produce 100 “products,” and I work 10 hours a day and produce 101 “products,” yes I am producing more per person but you are almost ten times more productive. In other words, production per person is a . . . stupid measure of productivity, and its use suggests a desperate effort to avoid being second, which, of course, would mean one is really last. BWWWAAAAAHAHAHAHA.

IAT