The whole argument sounds like a re-issue of “midat S’dom.”

Obviously, the system your liberals support is in sync with Midas Sodom, not vice-versa.

Not everything Rush Limbaugh says is Da’as Torah.

I didn’t ask for anything, I already have my answer. Click on the links above to prove your “long-term trend” theory false. The first link proves that Central Park has seen significant amounts of snow since records were recorded. Nothing seemed to have changed due to the tropical winds. The second link discusses the sea levels and glaciers. Both prove this theory wrong.

Charlie, don’t get me started on energy (with 5 buck a gallon gas in view), our dependence on foreign oil is largely in our hands. We have ANWR and offshore reserves, Drill Baby Drill… If Obama wants to “bankrupt” the coal business and curb nuclear energy we might be in even a bigger dilemma.

Charlie,

You might want to try the links I post, you would become more informed about what goes on outside DailyKos. I actually linked to the hilarious NYT opinion above (that was published just now, on December 25, with the blizzard for NYC on the horizon while others were already hit). Nevertheless, I like facts and numbers, and they don’t seem to support it .

Dave, are you running for office :-)? Are you practicing to set up a right-wing political blog?

I hate to disillusion you, but there are still plenty of Democrats in our circles.

We don’t make as much noise – or usually write such long posts – but we’re here.

And some of us are doing content analysis on some of the more enthusiastic “redstate” posts because we want to understand a mindset that’s so totally removed from the reality of the country.

I don’t know where to start repudiating Dave Hirsh’s refudiation, as it is so wrong in so many ways. So I’ll start with a few points.

former Delaware senatorial candidate Christine O’Donnell does not understand the difference between (a) the words and meaning of the US constitution, and (b) a short-hand phrase to refer to a provision of the US constitution.

Second: your discussion of Obama’s youthful drug use. I stand by my explanation, i.e., he was youthful and youths do stupid things

“other legal substances” refers to alcohol: that is dead wrong outside Utah. Maybe you are from Utah, in which case I can forgive the confusion.

Mr. Obama’s intellectual gifts, education and experience

That does not per se mean he would be a good president

I’m not even counting W, because he did not win his first election

As for Ms. Palin’s experience, being mayor of a village of 9,000 people, or governor of a state of 600,000 (which state receives substantial federal aide and has oil tax revenue that enables it to pay cash subsidies to its citizens) is hardly adequate preparation for governing a nation of 308,000 000 people

and Ms. Palin’s policy statements (e.g., I can see Russia) hardly indicate that she learned anything on the job.

As between Mr. Obama and Ms. Palin, there is no comparison between their personal qualities as to who is better equipped to fulfill the duties of the office.

Mr. Obama’s primary opponents in 2008 had other interests in suggesting that he was not the best person for the job.

Charlie, is this all you have to defend your thin-skinned, unpopular, naive and inexperienced “Messiah” President. It’s interesting how you claim that those supporting Palin are hypocrites while you do exactly the same. Those are facts (therefore they’re more Restate.com than DailyKos). If you want to disprove it, be a man, let’s go. I’m fully ready and prepared for a debate. Just don’t quit suddenly as you did by every debate you had with me until now.

How is it possible that those liberal and Democrat icons were able to swear that Obama isn’t prepared; yet, miraculously after he became the nominee he is and even better (because of Palin!)? Hypocrisy!

Yes, I prefer “Fair & Balanced” news over sources that “Get thrills up their legs” and “journolists” that manipulate news. I’m color-blind when it comes to race and don’t differentiate between Man and Woman, Religion or Race; I elect one that’s fit for office. I look out for the day when Martin Luther King’s dream will come true. I wait for the day when we will live in a nation where we won’t be judged “by the color of the skin but by the content of our character.” I look forward to a life of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness” where white men won’t be discriminated against; a time when “reparations” will be the talk of yesteryear and presidents will be elected according to their merits. I didn’t demand FDR to compensate me for the genocide of my grandparents and nation – I want everyone treated in kind. I also don’t vote for hype and rhetoric, I vote for substance!

Midwest2,

I fret over that notion. Her third party candidacy can turn out to be another Ross Perot spoiler. Although she denies it, I believe that her presidential aspirations will lead her to do just that. It might depend on the GOP nominee, but she is capable of pulling it off and become quite a force for a third party candidate. I hope, though, that she’ll put the country before her prestige and self-interest. We can’t afford another term with Obama in the White House; too much (irreversible) damage has already been done.

And, who tells you that she won’t pull off a victory in the GOP primary? She can do it the same way Obama did; run a good campaign, give eloquent speeches, duck important questions and talk about insubstantial things such as Hope and Change. She might also take others’ slogans and campaign promises and make it hers. Remember how Obama hijacked John Edward’s Healthcare reform?

Does this post comply with the Coffee-Room rule against “megillahs”? If there were a rule about getting the facts right, it would certainly be in breach of that rule. For example:

Moderating

Read: most probably!

Where did “David Hirsh” get this from? Moving around is not necessarily stressful, and Mr. Obama learned from the broad variety of his childhood experiences.

He did not use drugs or “other illegal substances” – whatever that is – because of the stress in his life. He tried drugs as a youth because that is what a lot of youths do.

Well, you can suggest that Obama was lying in his memoir as some of his friends suggest, but I gave him the benefit of doubt.

“other illegal substances” – whatever that is –

Yes, it’s true Mr. Obama is called divisive by some of his critics, but those critics are lying liars. It is not divisive to propose a policy that some people don’t like. It is divisive to suggest that Sarah Palin is not an American citizen – oh, wait, no one, not even the “divisive” Mr. Obama, alleged that about her. I must be thinking of someone else.

As for the “similarity” between Ms. Palin and Mr. Obama: the similarity is non-existent.

In 2003, Palin is appointed to chair the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission where she and restored honor to the bi-partisan commission. Obama, hardly finished campaigning for the House (and his re-election campaign) as he announces his run for the US Senate – something he was working on since 2002.

Mr. Obama advanced himself to high levels of academic and scholastic achievement – an Ivy League college and law school, top honors in law school, vs. Ms. Palin’s intellectual mediocrity and simple-minded opinions about a complicated world.

Ms. Palin does not begin to grasp the complexity of the problems facing the US and the world today,

and she has demonstrated – in her 2 years in the public eye – that she does not have the education or experience to address anything more complicated than skinning a large dead mammal.

In light of the above, I agree with you that Obama isn’t to be compared to Palin. Sarah Palin would bring more experience and bi-partisan leadership to the Oval Office. However, I believe that is is still too scarce for the US Commander-in-Chief.

White House Paranoia: Exit Polls Were Wrong – November Was About START!

TSA Screeners: Underwear – No, Loaded Guns – Yes

TEHILLIM: Boro Park Boy Critical From Swine Flu – Meir Dovid Ben Yitta Bracha.

If You Thought Things Can’t Get Worse for the Dems, You Were Mistaking

Biden Predicts Defeat in Afghanistan? – Promises Pullout by 2014

Wasn’t it supposed to be earlier than that?!

Pawlenty Sees Defeat in 2012? – Regrets Giving Minnesota to a Democratic Successor

Shabbos in Ben-Gurion Airport

An Award She Can Keep: Helen Thomas Receives the Anti-Semite Award

Debt Crisis: More Numbers

Obama’s Approval Hits Ground Zero Again

A Woman outside bklyn , I don’t see why Chris Christie should have more chances than, say, Mitt Romney (or even Paul Ryan) if the economy is the main issue. If you were referring to Bolton, I believe that anyone and everyone would win Bolton on domestic issues.

If there are clowns in the room you laugh; if there is an elephant in the room – you shut up!

Originally, I was planning to ignore suggestions such as Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan. They’re nothing more than laughingstocks and have no chance in winning the nomination. Their ages and philosophies will prevent that. However, I decided that it should be addressed. They are indeed the elephants in the room; nevertheless, I opted to make my position clear.

I’m a life-long registered Republican (born to Democrats though) and identify myself as conservative (politically). The reason for that is, because (aside from sharing philosophies) the Republican Party is home to the centrists. The Democratic Party includes mant extreme individuals that support radical socialism etc. while the GOP is more mainstream. A radical conservative will rather be part of the Libertarian, Reform or Conservative parties. The fact is that the Democrats nominated someone like George McGovern and the Republicans didn’t (and don’t tell me Barry Goldwater). Now, I know that Charlie Hall and other liberals will dispute my claims – the bi-partisan voting record websites support my claims. “Moderate” Democrats such as Barack Obama are more extreme than “radical” Republicans such as Sarah Palin and Michele Bachman. Take a look at their voting records. I believe that the GOP should stay on the middle path – the same path that Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan trotted down . Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan don’t fit this description and that’s why I don’t support them. Caring for the poor is important as well as the Government; we just have to know its limits and draw the line and not abolish it completely.

While I agree with them on some issues, I disagree with more. Fiscal policy is important, but with consideration. I’m also in support for a government that enforces morality and ethics. While I believe that the US should reduce its interference in foreign countries and stop sending our taxes abroad, I don’t think isolationism is the way to go. We ought to protect our allies in order to protect ourselves. Israel is our only ally in that region and should be well protected for our own good. I’d also vote for a pro-American president over a pro-Israel president, but I wouldn’t vote for an anti-Israeli president because that means anti-America. However, I do agree that we should refrain from using the term anti-Semite all too often.

I will talk about Palin in a thread for herself.

Charlie, in the words of a successful businessman.

Charlie, you’re fielding the important questions and issues again and jumping on some unimportant statements. But, just like I’ve done before (and your issues were cut in half, Laffer Curve etc.) I’ll do so again.

When I say induced growth, it isn’t government jobs (which also had a nice share in this growth – census etc.), I’m talking about the GDP – inflated by government expenditure on transfer payments that gets people to spend and boost the GDP (for me that seems to be indirectly, don’t know how far your blindness has taken you) temporarily (as long as the government is spending and the money is circulating). I want growth that is self induced by consumption and investment – natural growth! That’s what I call an economy! (I know socialists call government expenditure the economy.)

I can’t argue on something that I’ve never read about. I doubt that such a landmark recovery of the US and capitalism would be ignored by history text books. But all I can say is that this talk isn’t just talk of the government defaulting over debt – it’s the collapse of the currency as well (Russia already decided to go for the Chinese currency).

High debt leads to high interest rates. Period. Ask Greece! Read the article I linked to, to get an idea why the interest rates are low – it’s a timebomb waiting to explode.

I’m using factual evidence. The taxes were lowered and after it went into the system affecting the GDP the tax revenue increased above average. Yes, the economy crashed and brought the tax revenue along, that would’ve happened regardless – less tax base = less tax revenue. I just mentioned it so that you shouldn’t begin screaming that it dropped thereafter.

Purchasing goods or services does indeed have a direct effect on the economy. Did they invest in the military, infrastructure etc? That’s called purchasing goods or services. WWII did that – unemployment insurance is spreading the wealth – no direct effect!

I’m blinded by ideology? I don’t favor the (liberal) Keynesian theory as all, I’m a Monetarist. I just proved that even according to Keynes – tax cuts is the way to go. You couldn’t refute that claim. Does tax cuts have the disadvantages (that exist with spending) of crowding out and lags? Do tax cuts have the ramifications (deficit – even if you don’t believe in Laffer’s curve, it still proved to do less damage to the defict than spending – covering at least most {1% less than before} of the tax revenue) spending has? Do tax cuts work demand-side AND supply-side? Will temporary tax cuts really have an effect in companies hiring? How should we get the businesses start spending instead of stashing away cash beacuse of the low interest rates? According to Keynes, spending shouldn’t be transfer payments! Those are just some of the questions and points mentioned above – and it’s all according to Keynes – Obama’s ideology!

They just don’t get the message.