May 28, 2015 4:00 pm -


Paula Jones has come forward to say, “Don’t let Bill back in the White House.”

In an exclusive interview with Daily Mail Online Jones delivers her own verdict on Hillary’s bid to become president, saying that her husband’s attitude towards women disqualifies Bill from re-entering the White House – while what she calls Hillary’s ‘lies’ disqualify her from the Oval Office.

‘There is no way that she did not know what was going on, that women were being abused and accosted by her husband,’ she says. ‘They have both lied.’

…’She should not be running with the terrible history they have,’ she told Daily Mail Online

‘Who would want Bill Clinton back a second time, doing the same stuff he was doing before, philandering with women? They have both lied.

‘He does not have a right to be in the White House to serve the people the way he treated women, sexually harassing women.

‘There were many women that came out and spoke out about what he did to them. He does not have a place in the White House to serve the American people.’



D.B. Hirsch
D.B. Hirsch is a political activist, news junkie, and retired ad copy writer and spin doctor. He lives in Brooklyn, New York.

287 responses to Paula Jones Warns Against Hillary

  1. AnthonyLook May 28th, 2015 at 4:22 pm

    All right, Mr. DeMille, I’m ready for another 15 minutes.

  2. allison1050 May 28th, 2015 at 4:40 pm

    Paula who?

    • Basil Smith May 28th, 2015 at 10:58 pm


    • johnnybizzoy May 29th, 2015 at 3:30 am

      Translation: I don’t care what implications this brings up because I’m having fun being a cheerleader. The rich and powerful don’t have me completely fooled into being a useful idiot drone, no sir!

  3. Dammitjim May 28th, 2015 at 4:54 pm

    Daily Mail…all I need to know.

    • Pilotshark May 29th, 2015 at 11:43 am

      isn’t that a Murdoch paper? as well.

  4. Budda May 28th, 2015 at 5:03 pm

    If what you allude to is half true you weren’t a ‘victim’ you were a party to an adulterous affair. What does that make you?

    • AnthonyLook May 28th, 2015 at 5:45 pm

      A lying Republican with delusions of victimization.

  5. StoneyCurtisll May 28th, 2015 at 5:25 pm

    I see Ms. Jones hasn’t got any better looking in the last 25 years….
    Then again, neither have any of us…
    Yet she still remains just as irrelevant.

    • Chris May 28th, 2015 at 7:37 pm

      She did get a nose job.

      • amyskene May 28th, 2015 at 9:17 pm

        Nice Chris. You’re clearly a high quality human being. You’re probably a homosexual too. Right?

        • Antigone May 28th, 2015 at 9:23 pm

          What is wrong with being a homosexual?

          • amyskene May 28th, 2015 at 11:48 pm

            Do you really want to know? No, you don’t. I’m through wasting my time with degenerates and their supporters.

          • Antigone May 29th, 2015 at 12:13 am

            Yes, I really do want to know…..what is wrong with being a homosexual?

          • jasperjava May 29th, 2015 at 2:27 am

            She probably thinks there’s something wrong with being Black, too.

          • jasperjava May 29th, 2015 at 2:31 am

            There’s nothing more degenerate than being a pawn of the Koch brothers’ desire for total domination. There’s nothing more degenerate than to discriminate against people based on their race, their language, their nationality, their religion, or their sexual orientation. there’s nothing more degenerate than to want to see thousands of innocent people killed in unnecessary wars.

            The RepubliKKKans are the degenerates.

          • amyskene May 29th, 2015 at 8:19 am

            LOL. Yeah, because the Democrats don’t have their versions of the Koch’s. You ass-clown fools never cease to amaze with your one-sided blindness. Wake up. And I don’t discriminate against anybody but homosexuals are truly a mentally screwed up lot of degenerates and there is no way to justify it as “normal”.

          • fahvel May 29th, 2015 at 2:51 am

            ah hell, and here I was waiting for a truly remarkable explanation of what is wrong with homosexuals. You are a total disappointment and also simply degenerate – ya see, your mouth defines degeneracy.

        • Basil Smith May 28th, 2015 at 10:58 pm

          Really? This is exactly what proves you’re an idiotic c*nt, @amyskene:disqus.

        • fahvel May 29th, 2015 at 2:49 am

          you are one sad sick thingamajig.

        • Chris May 29th, 2015 at 7:32 am

          Amy, Amy, Amy. Check around; you have Google, right?

          She got a nose job. And my wife would bloody your nose with such a stupid, totally inappropriate allegation. This is why we liberals laugh at you.

          • amyskene May 29th, 2015 at 8:12 am

            A) who cares if she fixed her nose? Is that a character flaw? Something a “decent” human gets to pick on because he has a perfectly phony smile? B) your wife. Man or woman? Really, its a valid question – thank you liberals!

          • Chris May 29th, 2015 at 1:31 pm

            A) Paula Jones apparently cared about her nose and saw it as a flaw.
            You talking about a perfectly phony smile? Look at your avatar.

            B) Your ignorance again is on full display. Gay men refer to their mates as “husbands.”

            You’re welcome.

          • Dwendt44 May 30th, 2015 at 6:26 pm

            The nose job, IIRC, was paid for with the bribes the Clinton Haters paid her to make her accusations. From a trailer park to driving around in a Mercedes would turn anyone’s head, at least for a while.
            Two years later she was back in low income housing looking for a well paid husband.

        • Anomaly 100 May 29th, 2015 at 9:13 am

          Don’t do that here please. We don’t like banning people. That said, hating on gays will get you there.

          Have a nice day.

        • Anomaly 100 May 29th, 2015 at 1:42 pm

          You say that as if it’s an insult. You’re not welcome here anymore.

          Buh bye.

    • amyskene May 28th, 2015 at 9:16 pm

      Although, she is more relevant than you, isn’t she honey.

      • Basil Smith May 28th, 2015 at 10:57 pm

        Really? Do you know @StoneyCurtisll:disqus? For all you know, he could be the local dog catcher, a mechanic or a school custodian. He’d be far more relevant than Paula Jones, and certainly more relevant than a dumbf*ck like you.

        Why don’t you do us a favor and remove your head from your anal orifice before you respond to people you half-wit.

        • StoneyCurtisll May 29th, 2015 at 1:40 pm

          Or even a truck driver…;)

    • johnnybizzoy May 29th, 2015 at 3:44 am

      That is sexist. What do you have against fully grown and mature women?

  6. Ricky C. May 28th, 2015 at 5:31 pm

    She would know.

  7. ChrisVosburg May 28th, 2015 at 5:58 pm

    Good grief, the only reason Paula wound up filing suit against Clinton was because of the allegations of a few Arkansas State Troopers, who told David Brock that they’d hooked her up with Clinton and she was a willing participant. The Trooper who escorted her to Clinton’s room at the Excelsior had said that Jones told him she wouldn’t mind being his mistress, for example.

    Bearing in mind that Paula was at the time engaged to be married to a long-time boyfriend, at first it was only a contemplated suit against the slanderous lies of said Troopers, but then the right wing money machine got wind of it, and convinced her to shift the focus to Clinton, and suddenly Paula had a brand-new story– that she was the blameless victim of the odious Big Dog, who wagged his dick at her in a hotel room which she had gone to only in the innocent hope of getting a staff assignment, or something.

    I may take some shit over this, but I don’t think Bill ever in his life needed to corner a woman and force her to watch him get hard against her will– say what you want about the man, he got more mojo than to need to bring brute force.

    • amyskene May 28th, 2015 at 9:14 pm

      Well hey, you’ve certainly made a solid argument for Bill Clinton’s character. That’s exactly the kind of guy we want to lead the free world. And wouldn’t it be great if his wife could do the same. Because we are America and that’s just the best we have to offer, ain’t it ya’ll!

      Seriously, does anybody think anymore? Or is it just blindly pushing a button next to your political party regardless of what scum bags they are? Are you serious?!

      • Antigone May 28th, 2015 at 9:31 pm

        “That’s exactly the kind of guy we want to lead the free world”. My dear child, he has already lead the free world and did a pretty good job of it. Here alone in US, he was able to create a generous surplus, which good ole boy Dubya managed to piss through.

        • johnnybizzoy May 29th, 2015 at 3:35 am

          I love it when people attribute the ebb and flow of the global economy to whatever BS artist happened to be occupying the white house at the time. It just lets me know exactly how deep people aren’t thinking

      • Basil Smith May 28th, 2015 at 10:55 pm

        @amyskene:disqus, I’d rather have a guy who has fooled around and lied about it than a mental midget who lies about WMD’s and ends up putting us in two unnecessary wars where thousands of people died and tens of thousand have been wounded, costing America more than a trillion dollars, ruining our economy and putting my kids and grandkids in debt to pay for his blatant lies.

        In other words, pull your head out of your anal orifice.

        • johnnybizzoy May 29th, 2015 at 3:41 am

          Was it necessary for Hillary to arm al-Qaida in Libya and Syria? Is it necessary for Obama to arm, train, and payoff Nazis to kill ethnic Russians in Ukraine? How many innocent people have lost their lives due to those conflicts? Do you even care?

          • Hirightnow May 29th, 2015 at 8:28 am

            And of course you’re ready to source that BS with links from Newsmax and Twitchy, I’m betting.

      • jasperjava May 29th, 2015 at 2:26 am

        Bill’s not perfect. Hillary wouldn’t be my first choice.

        But have you seen the collection of creeps and psychopaths that the RepubliKKKans are fielding? Soulless, brainless, heartless, ignorant, crazy, immoral, bloodthirsty ideological fundamentalist fanatics, all of them.

        Bill Clinton was not perfect, but he’s a giant compared to these moral midgets.

        • amyskene May 29th, 2015 at 8:20 am

          It’s clear you type the same phrases over and over as if it’s copy and paste. Jeesh. Anything new and original to say?

          • jasperjava May 29th, 2015 at 1:04 pm

            Says the B*tch whose only reason for existence appears to be to spread hate and ignorance.

            I’m so glad that conservatives are slowly but surely dying off. We’ll all be better off without you and your evil selfish ideology.

      • fahvel May 29th, 2015 at 2:47 am

        are you just very young or are you really as ignorant and narrow as you present yourself?

      • johnnybizzoy May 29th, 2015 at 3:33 am

        only a few people think, and mostly strategically. Everyone else just pushes a button and has fun cheerleading. These are the American people – they are predominately idiots. It’s not like Conservatives are any better, just a different culture – same low IQ’s all around

        • amyskene May 29th, 2015 at 8:14 am

          I’ll give you the low IQ thing. It is all around. It’s the America we’ve become.

          • Robert Kennedy May 29th, 2015 at 11:48 am

            And it’s endemic in conservatism as evidenced by their attacks on education in general and creative thinking and critical thinking in particular.

          • Dwendt44 May 30th, 2015 at 6:21 pm

            True that. The Republicans are desperate to continue the lure towards low effort thinkers. If the voters started thinking about the issues, they’d be out of a job for a long, long time. That happened during the 40’s and 50’s when Republicans were out of power for ~40 years.

        • burqa June 6th, 2015 at 10:10 am

          And you want those “idiots” to go up against the barracudas in the financial markets and somehow hang on to their life savings?

          • johnnybizzoy June 8th, 2015 at 7:11 pm

            Not everyone is a barracudas.
            1) walk into local bank
            2) purchase Roth IRA
            3) go back to watching “Dancing with the Stars”

      • Chris May 29th, 2015 at 8:07 am

        So you’re saying marital fidelity is a make-or-break for president, right? Spend a minute and check your Republican pols’ history for this.

        I don’t admire Clinton regarding this issue. But he is not alone in this. Newtie was working on cheating himself while going after Bill’s impeachment . Even St. Ronnie got divorced.

        And Bil is still married.

        • Dwendt44 May 30th, 2015 at 6:18 pm

          In fact, St. Ronnie was fooling around with wife number two while still married to wife number one. Getting knocked up sort of messed up that little game he had going.

      • ChrisVosburg May 29th, 2015 at 3:35 pm

        Sorry if seem to be giving Bill a pass here, Amy, but I consider this “scum bag” to be that most unremarkable of all moral failures, a man who adores his wife but doesn’t mind getting a little on the side.

        As for your scold about “blindly pushing a button next to your political party,” I’ll concede that it’s true I’ve voted consistently for Democrats for many years. Thankfully, I often have the choice of more than one, in primary contests.

        I’m starting to get a “bold individual unswayed by blind party loyalties who is not afraid to vote for third candidates” vibe from you here, so I’ll just leave it at: “Thanks Again, Ralph.”

      • burqa June 4th, 2015 at 7:10 pm

        Clinton was a superb president. In other posts below, I have listed numerous successful results of Clintonomics that the Republicans can’t match on their rather poor record.
        In foreign policy, while Clinton got the occasional illicit beejay, he also:

        * Brought peace to war-torn Northern Ireland.

        * Peacefully restored democracy to Haiti.

        * Saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of Kenyans with Operation Noble Resolve at a cost of $800,000.

        * Won a war without losing a man in combat in the former Yugoslavia.

        * Negotiated a treaty with Russia to not only decommission their nukes, but also to provide jobs and incomes to their nuke scientists so they didn’t have to go to work for, say, the Iranians.

        * Handed al Qaeda their first defeat and prosecuted terrorists so aggressively that they stopped attacking us.

        * Negotiated trade agreements like GATT nad established the WTO – all of which served to increase our exports 90%

        * When Iran threatened our diplomats and installations abroad, Clinton launched a quiet program that got Iranian intelligence officers thrown out of dozens of countries around the globe, paralyzing their foreign intelligence operations.

        * Oh, and he got a few beejays.

    • johnnybizzoy May 29th, 2015 at 3:32 am

      I know, his charisma makes me forget what kind of standards I would like to see in a presidential family as well. He really is charming. Oh heck, I’m don’t really deserve a better President anyway.

    • Robert Kennedy May 29th, 2015 at 11:46 am

      And at least one of those troopers went to jail for his perjury in the case against Clinton.

  8. Suzanne McFly May 28th, 2015 at 7:08 pm

    Since when can adults claim they were abused and accosted when they engage in an affair with a married person?

    • Contrarian May 28th, 2015 at 7:26 pm

      Paula Jones was not married at the time!

      • dtm May 28th, 2015 at 8:06 pm

        Bill was. Is there some sort of double-standard? Ok for single woman to sleep with a married man but not so for a married man to sleep with a single woman? Adultery takes two.

        And actually, Jones was married in 1991

      • Suzanne McFly May 29th, 2015 at 8:53 am

        Ummm, the governor was and it was not a hidden fact.

    • Dwendt44 May 30th, 2015 at 6:15 pm

      Especially so when said woman offers sexual favors just to be near the rich or powerful. Seduction takes many forms. Paul flirts with any male in her area and a few have responded. Monica seduced Bill and he’s the one suffering for it.

      • Suzanne McFly May 30th, 2015 at 10:05 pm

        My head exploded when they were claiming Monica was some innocent 23 year old who was exploited by a man in power, I sad BS. I was about the same age as Monica and I was hardly innocent, as a 23 year old you know what you are doing. You may make better choices later in life, but you are responsible for your actions. These are the same people who no problem charging a 12 year old as an adult for a crime they committed.

        • burqa June 4th, 2015 at 6:56 pm

          I was married and we were raising someone else’s kid when I was 23.
          In the military, we have 23 year-olds commanding hundreds of troops in the field, flying combat aircraft and operating complex, rather deadly systems like missile batteries.

          • Suzanne McFly June 4th, 2015 at 7:25 pm

            Exactly, I was enlisted when I was 18-24 and believe me when I say if I was not at my post on time and in clean and pressed uniform at 18, my CO would never of said, “oh, she is young and we can’t expect her to know how us adults are expected to live and be accountable”.

          • burqa June 5th, 2015 at 8:48 pm

            You, uh, still have your class-A uniforms? I, uhh, have a thing for women in uniform….

          • Suzanne McFly June 6th, 2015 at 9:32 am

            Lol, I kept a few of them.

          • burqa June 6th, 2015 at 9:38 am

            [burqa closes his eyes, leans back a tad and gets a slight grin on his face]

            I’m going to need a minute…..

  9. Contrarian May 28th, 2015 at 7:28 pm

    If Paula Jones was a Democrat, and had made similar accusations against a Republican politician, you moonbats would be going ballistic. What nauseating hypocrisy. So do you think ALL the women were lying??? Really??

    • Dwendt44 May 29th, 2015 at 12:37 am

      The difference is that the right wing Republicans insist that they have the ‘moral high ground’, their self righteousness and ‘holier than thou’ attitude, while surrendering to their own base instincts, while the Democrats don’t claim to be superior characters.

    • jasperjava May 29th, 2015 at 2:42 am

      Bill Clinton is an adulterer. So what?
      At least he’s not a fascist right-wing conservative bloodsucker.

      You people have no moral compass. Sex with a consenting intern? Atrocious!
      Invading the wrong country and slaughtering hundreds of thousands of innocent people for nothing? No big deal. Pass the popcorn, and masturbate while watching videos of mangled bloody corpses. You are sick, inhuman, bloodthirsty psychopaths.

      • Contrarian May 30th, 2015 at 12:06 pm

        Look in the mirror!

  10. LittleD May 28th, 2015 at 7:30 pm

    Oh look- more roaches crawling out of the woodwork…

  11. Chris May 28th, 2015 at 7:36 pm

    Well, folks, fasten your seatbelts. It’s time to take a trip back to the 90s again.

    Here’s a sidebar: One of the reasons I favored Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton back in ’08 was that I thought the country would be ill-served by a continuation of the right attacking the Clintons. Surely, with this new face on the block, espousing most of my views, the right would settle down and help in tackling the issues of the day without the distractions of the constant character assassination of the Clintons from Fox News.

    Boyyyyyy was I wrong. The past seven years have shown us in no uncertain terms that no matter who the Dems put up, Fox News has institutionalized 24/7 hatred and fear against the Democratic Party. The poison will never end until the American people show they’ve had a gut full of it.

    America has the power to defang this hate machine. Just show up next year November and vote the Republicans out of office. Decisively.

    • OldLefty May 28th, 2015 at 7:51 pm

      From former Reagan aide, Bruce Bartlett;

      “Many conservatives live in a bubble where they watch only Fox News on television, they listen only to conservative talk radio — Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, many of the same people,” Bartlett told CNN’s Brian Stelter on Sunday.

      “When they go onto the Internet, they look at conservative websites like National Review, Newsmax, World Net Daily.”
      “And so, they are completely in a universe in which they are hearing the same exact ideas, the same arguments, the same limited amount of data repeated over and over and over again. And that’s brainwashing.”

      • Scarce Patriot May 28th, 2015 at 7:56 pm

        Good thing you Liberals, on the other hand, are really broadening your horizons on…Liberaland.

        • OldLefty May 28th, 2015 at 9:15 pm

          This is just a nice way to have an over the backyard fence with their fellow Americans.

          You have to read different sources and factcheck them.

          • fahvel May 29th, 2015 at 2:45 am

            oh please, these folks on the right don’t read. They just puke back what the idiot machine feeds them in their paltry and sad lives.

          • johnnybizzoy May 29th, 2015 at 3:26 am

            you’ll notice folks on the right have pretty much taken over every comments section on every news outlet that still allows comments. I wonder why that seems to be the case? Do you wonder?

          • OldLefty May 29th, 2015 at 5:47 am

            They have?

            No, I don’t wonder.

            I assume it’s;

            1) People like Doug Goetzloe, an anti-tax right-wing talk show host and former Young Republican who heads up Advantage Consultants. Here is the copy from one of his ads advising his conservative clients to ‘flood the zone’:
            “Are you ready for a blog attack?

            “Get ahead of your opponent with Professional Blog Warriors.

            “Be prepared to ‘flood the zone’ with comments from professionals who are ready to put your talking points on the blogosphere 24/7.

            “Whether it’s defense or offense, Advantage Consultants has a dedicated team of experienced blog warriors ready to advance your candidate or campaign.

            “Why wait for the attack? Launch your attack with a battery of blog and forum comments aimed at all media and blog sites in your district.

            2) They are the ones who have nothing else to do.

          • johnnybizzoy May 30th, 2015 at 4:16 am

            sounds like a conspiracy theory you’ve got brewing there

          • OldLefty May 31st, 2015 at 11:10 am

            Not a conspiracy.
            Just quotes from the echo chamber and facts from other polls.

          • jasperjava May 29th, 2015 at 2:07 pm

            Folks on the Right have taken over the comments sections because it take very little effort to regurgitate mindless talking points.

          • johnnybizzoy May 30th, 2015 at 5:21 am

            Well you’d think since the democrats get about 50% of the vote in this nation as a whole, that they would be equally represented in the comments sections of news websites – but I assure you they are not. They are only equally or overly represented on special liberal enclave news-sites like this one. I just wonder about that. Why is that?

          • jasperjava May 30th, 2015 at 9:49 am

            As I said, Republicans only have knee-jerk screeching talking points. Not only is it more difficult to make thoughtful comments, the cesspool of the right-wing mindless tripe is a repulsive thing to wade into.

          • burqa June 4th, 2015 at 6:04 pm

            This is not a news site.
            One of the disservices Rush Limbaugh has performed is confusing people to where they have no idea of the difference between news reporting and op-ed punditry.
            I am active on a few other boards and have been on several others and it is always the same. The conservatives get creamed because all they have is emotion and petulance.

            The American people have preferred the Democrats over the Republicans since at least the 20s, because they have elected more Democrats to serve in Washington.
            The economy has performed better under Democratic Party presidents than under Republicans by every significant measure, a number of which I gave you, below.
            The Republicans not only bring up the rear in those categories, but they have the worst records when it comes to expanding the size of the federal government or setting new records for the size of the deficit.
            Where the rubber meets the road in real life, the economy performs better when the Democrats are in charge. The best economic times have come when Democratic Party economic policies are in place and the worst economic times have come when Republican economic policies were in place.
            Plus, the Democrats have many other achievements, such as passing the most important civil rights legislation, integrating our society, breaking glass ceilings for women and cleaning up the environment.
            Oh sure, Republicans usually hop on the bandwagon, once the Democrats get things going – like after the Democrats created the strategy to win the Cold War.
            We also led the nation to victory in World War I and World War II, by the way.

            It gets even worse when you break it down to conservatives versus liberals.
            Conservatives were on the side that came in second place during the American Revolution.
            Conservatives were also first runner-up in the Civil War.
            Conservatives failed to keep women from getting the right to vote.
            Conservatives own the 3 worst scandals in the last century – Teapot Dome, Watergate and arms-for-hostages aka Iran/Contra.

          • Dwendt44 May 30th, 2015 at 6:10 pm

            And theirs a cabal of right wing supporters that have taken on the job of distorting the comment sections of many forums and blogs.

        • Dwendt44 May 30th, 2015 at 6:09 pm

          Don’t you mean ‘scared patriot?

      • Chris May 28th, 2015 at 8:06 pm

        I have noticed this also. When you argue with them, they counter with total non sequiturs. Many of them have no sense of logic, believing that a debate is composed of attack lines devoid of any sense of followup in subject. Others are just total trolls.

        Such as, “I believe Hillary would be an excellent candidate given her stances on the issues. Her positions on wage parity and common sense defense bear examining.” To which replies would be either, “Yeah, Bill could molest more people back in the White House” or, “Yeah, her stand down order in Benghazi really helped kill more Americans.”

        Pray for this country. And hope that enough people show up in November next year to vote the Republicans out of office.

        • OldLefty May 28th, 2015 at 9:13 pm

          Also, David Frum said, “Republicans have been Fleeced, Exploited And Lied To’ by a Conservative Entertainment Complex”.

          That’s why they were so sure Romney was going to win. They were always dealing with Fictional Obama.

          And, that’s why Romney didn’t have a concession speech prepared.

          • burqa June 6th, 2015 at 9:36 am

            Ahhhh, you’re bringing back pleasant election night memories of Karl Rove………….thanks, OldLefty!

        • Matt Thomas May 28th, 2015 at 10:23 pm

          Democrats play the same dirty game. That’s politics.

          You are a LIAR if you really think Democrats are sweet innocent angels.

          • Kick Frenzy May 28th, 2015 at 11:34 pm

            No. No they don’t.
            Granted, there are a few dirty Dems, but the award for egregious behavior goes to the Reds.

            One of the things I like to do is to look at what kind of policies and actions each side takes, regardless of what they say.
            When you do that, you come away knowing that Democrats are working for equality and a more robust America.
            While Republicans have proven time and again that they are for restricting freedoms and equality, even to the detriment of the government and the country.

          • johnnybizzoy May 29th, 2015 at 3:24 am

            If dems push equality and repubs push for restricting freedom – then how do you explain that only republicans have advocated for a flat tax, while democrats continually push for a more and more progressive income tax curve? Seems rather unequal, no? And since you bring up freedoms, what about the right to bare arms? Don’t republicans tend to champion that set of freedoms, while democrats seek to restrict it? And while we are on the topic of freedom, how about the freedom to open a business and run it how one sees fit? Aren’t republicans the ones advocating for less regulations while democrats argue for more regulations? Just want to know how you view these issues.

          • Chris May 29th, 2015 at 7:39 am

            I, for one, want to protect our right to bare arms, especially with summer and hot weather approaching.

          • Robert Kennedy May 29th, 2015 at 11:43 am

            Because the flat tax is another way of making the rich richer and the poor poorer. Take for instance a parking ticket. $50 may be a day’s pay for some, but ten minutes pay for others That’s what the flat tax is, the most unfair tax of all, so of course Republicans are for it.

          • johnnybizzoy May 30th, 2015 at 5:18 am

            The tax issue is fascinating to me. On one side of the equation you have extremely high earners, like Mitt Romney, whose income taxes are so large (even at 14%) that they go to pay for the public services utilized by hundreds of people. And on the other end of the spectrum, you have tens of millions of households receiving public assistance, and 45ish% of those households not only don’t pay income taxes to fund the services they utilize, but often get cash – directly from the government – cash that was earned and provide by the high earners.

            back to the flat tax – you believe that taxing rich people less, helps them get richer? You don’t think that what is helping them get richer, is their ability to earn the money in the first place?

            And how would a flat tax make the poor poorer? What if we just kept the tax rate near zero for the bottom brackets, and only raised it as high as say 15% on anyone (on income over $32K/year, let’s say). What would be the problem with that? They already pay this rate. Everyone below that income level would pay no taxes. How is that hypothetical scenario bad for poor people?

          • Dwendt44 May 30th, 2015 at 6:08 pm

            the budget accountants have looked at the two scams (flat tax, fair tax) and found them lacking. Social Security and Medicare are self funded by wage earners, and are therefore not a part of discretionary spending, though the right wing likes to think it is. You dream plans won’t work, period. While cutting the Pentagon would do wonders for the deficit, the Republicans won’t allow it. They seem to like overpaying for weapons systems that don’t work, are so fancy they break down at the drop of a hat, or funnel campaign contributions into their pockets.
            We don’t need to be the world’s police force.

          • Robert Kennedy May 30th, 2015 at 10:59 pm

            What you’re proposing is not a flat tax. But how does it make the rich richer and the poor poorer? Well the average poor person may pay 50% or more of his income in rent, and a rich person rarely pays more than 1 or 2%. Now if it cost the rich the same % of their income to live, then the problem with the flat tax wouldn’t exist. But there is one place the flat tax would be fair, in social security payments. Many rich people pay only on the first day or week of their income while the poor pay all year. eliminate the cap and SS would be solvent forever and payouts could be lifted to a livable amount. But the rich will not support the flat SS tax, just the ones that help them and damage the poor.

          • johnnybizzoy May 31st, 2015 at 2:28 am

            I have a better idea – get the government out of the business of forcing people to save for retirement – and just let people make that decision for themselves. People who make good decisions will be rewarded with good outcomes, and people who make bad decisions – we won’t just let them starve. But let’s not roll out the red carpet for bad behavior. I believe in the concept of economies of scale. I understand that the consumer economy and the sugar lobby and the corn syrup lobby are interested in EBT cards as a solution – but I think we can feed people far more healthful food AND save money doing it by require those with their hands out to confine their utilization of the abundance created by hard-working makers of good decisions, to a system that requires them to receive their handouts in a way that makes sense for society and for the people actually paying the bill, rather than a system that works as conveniently (and un-healthily) as possible for those who make bad decisions, AND for the unhealthy food lobbies who are behind our socially destructive EBT programs (folks buying soft drinks, corn chips, tobacco, even pot brownies with their EBT cards is a result of this destructive union of “liberal” political groups).

          • burqa June 6th, 2015 at 12:27 am

            Johnnybizzoy: “I have a better idea – get the government out of the business of forcing people to save for retirement – and just let people make that decision for themselves.”

            Hard as it may be to believe, but people can save for their retirement now in many ways besides paying into Social Security. No, really, they can, I’m not making that up!


            johnnybizzoy: “People who make good decisions will be rewarded with good outcomes, and people who make bad decisions – we won’t just let them starve. But let’s not roll out the red carpet for bad behavior.”

            You don’t mention what you’d do for those who took bad decisions investing for retirement. For example, I know a guy who lost a huge chunk of his savings by investing in what was supposed to be a solid blue-chip company – Enron.
            I know a lot of poor people and would not go to any of them for investment advice and if their only way to get anything in retirement was in the private market, they would all be soon taken advantage and lose it all.

            Social Security has always paid for itself and we would be in fine shape if the Republicans had just left it alone. But nooooo, they had to raid it to pay for their out-of-control spending and reduce the size of deficits that nonetheless set new records.

            What you have yet to learn is when it comes to handling large sums of money, Republicans have the worst record. The more conservative they are, the worst.

            This is why conservatives and Libertarians are only comfortable with theory – fuzzy blackboard scribblings and napkin graffitti, rather than real life. They do not point to previous successes in history because they know economic policies enacted by Democrats outperform anything they have.

            When it comes to feeding people in need, politically the Democrats have passed measures that have fed more people than the GOP. When it comes to providing other needed services to those in need, the Democrats have a better record there, too.
            If the GOP did not have wedge issues to distract people, they would have been tarred and feathered and run out of the South and midwestern rural states because the GOP has been about reducing help to low income Americans.

          • johnnybizzoy June 6th, 2015 at 4:12 am

            “You don’t mention what you’d do for those who took bad decisions investing for retirement”

            I know plenty of people who worked into their 70’s and 80’s. I would encourage old folks who needed money, to go that route. If the government had to step in to mitigate the problem of poverty for the elderly, I would advocate a cost-effective, no-frills solution. What I would prefer, is that private charities were allowed to flourish. If kind-hearted folks like yourself felt the no-frills, bare-minimum government solution wasn’t good enough, you could donate your extra money and time to a private charity that provided bubble baths and foot rubs.

            ” I know a guy who lost a huge chunk of his savings by investing in what was supposed to be a solid blue-chip company – Enron”

            He should have diversified his portfolio, that is investment 101. As we all collectively, in society, will have to personally care for those who cannot save enough for retirement, we’ll need to be having that, “diversify your portfolio” conversation a little more often at our Christmas parties.

            “I know a lot of poor people and would not go to any of them for investment advice and if their only way to get anything in retirement was in the private market, they would all be soon taken advantage and lose it all.”

            Those poor people feel no natural incentive to pull their heads out of you know where, because they know the government will wipe their bottoms for them. If they looked around and saw a world where people rose and fell on the strength of their own efforts, they might concentrate a little harder on making good decisions. It’s not difficult to walk into a bank and sign up for a 401K with automatic deductions from your paycheck. That is a another conversation we will be sure to have with people all the time, so that we, as a society, begin to re-learn how to be self-sufficient human beings, rather than living off the government and remaining emotionally and intellectually stunted, hooked on TV, and disconnected from ourselves as proud, globe-conquering human beings that we all are.

            “Social Security has always paid for itself and we would be in fine shape if the Republicans had just left it alone”

            Is that why they keep raising the retirement age and cutting the COLA formula? What was that whole Simpson-Bowles thing about anyway? Did they conclude that SS was fine and we didn’t have to worry about it funding itself in perpetuity?

            “What you have yet to learn is when it comes to handling large sums of money, Republicans have the worst record. The more conservative they are, the worst”
            I agree. And yet, you can pretty much bet that they will control roughly half the government for the rest of time. So – maybe you want to re-think putting all the money and all the power and all the decision making into the hands of the government, hmm? Seems reasonable, no?

          • burqa June 6th, 2015 at 10:08 am

            “You don’t mention what you’d do for those who took bad decisions investing for retirement”

            Johnnybizzoy: “I know plenty of people who worked into their 70’s and 80’s. I would encourage old folks who needed money, to go that route.”

            I hvae done work on a few retirement homes packed with people in their 70s and 80s who couldn’t work. Raising the retirement age that high is not a reasonable option.


            “I know a lot of poor people and would not go to any of them for investment advice and if their only way to get anything in retirement was in the private market, they would all be soon taken advantage and lose it all.”

            Johnnybizzoy: “Those poor people feel no natural incentive to pull their heads out of you know where, because they know the government will wipe their bottoms for them.”

            No, they don’t know jack about investments and markets and would be eaten alive by the sharks who swim in those waters. Many are not just ignorant, but slow and gullible.


            “Social Security has always paid for itself and we would be in fine shape if the Republicans had just left it alone”

            Johnnybizzoy: “Is that why they keep raising the retirement age and cutting the COLA formula? What was that whole Simpson-Bowles thing about anyway? Did they conclude that SS was fine and we didn’t have to worry about it funding itself in perpetuity?”

            It is noted you do not directly say my statement is false, because of course you know it is true. Social Security was heading for trouble in the 90s and when budget surpluses showed up, Superstar Bill Clinton wisely proclaimed “Sicial Security first!” and made it soluble out to 2052, when the demographic spike of the baby boomers would have subsided.

            Then along came the Republicans who raided the Social Security Trust Fund so their massive deficits wouldn’t be even more massive.

            My statement was true and you know it.


            “What you have yet to learn is when it comes to handling large sums of money, Republicans have the worst record. The more conservative they are, the worst”

            Johnnybizzoy: “I agree. And yet, you can pretty much bet that they will control roughly half the government for the rest of time. So – maybe you want to re-think putting all the money and all the power and all the decision making into the hands of the government, hmm?”

            No, because before they can do too much damage the American people throw them out. We’ve gotten through the Great Depression, the Great Recession, the Reaganomics Recession, Watergate, Teapot Dome and arms-for-hostages and we’ll be able to withstand more Republican disasters.
            Your last sentence is a red herring.

          • johnnybizzoy June 8th, 2015 at 7:11 pm

            “I hvae done work on a few retirement homes packed with people in their 70s and 80s who couldn’t work. Raising the retirement age that high is not a reasonable option.”

            And yet the retirement age was already raised from 65 to 67, back in 1983 (Democratic House of Representatives). And there are proposals to raise it to 70, in order to deal with the insolvency set to hit in about 15 years. But once again, rather than you and/or government control freaks deciding when and how people should retire, I think folks should be allowed to keep more of their money by not paying into SS if they don’t want to, and instead investing that money however they choose. It would be hard to do worse than the return folks get on the SS trust fund, which is less than 2%.

            “No, they don’t know jack about investments and markets and would be eaten alive by the sharks who swim in those waters”
            I think a major reason our population is so widely ignorant of finance is because the majority of them suffer in failing public schools. That is another area where I would remove the government mis-management of a vital societal necessity, and re-introduce the freedom for people to choose how their children are educated.
            But I doubt it would be very hard for even those totally ignorant of investing to do worse than the SS trust fund. They just need to walk into any bank branch and sign up for a 401K, or a Roth IRA. Either of those instruments would be sufficient, and we can teach people how to do this with radio jingles and PSA’s on tayvay.

          • Kick Frenzy May 29th, 2015 at 6:31 pm

            Like Robert said below me, a flat tax is anything but equal.
            It demands more from those who make very little and less from those who make a lot.
            In the end, the government gets less money, the lower incomes get hit hard and the very wealthy get a big tax break.

            As for the right to bear arms, Republicans tend to champion unregulated arms ownership.
            Democrats, on the other hand, simply want common sense regulations (training, license, background check), but do not look to deny the right altogether.
            All rights come with responsibility and the right to carry firearms, whose only purpose is to hurt, main and/or kill, should come with heavy responsibilities.

            Finally, being able to run a business how you want only goes so far.
            If you want to discriminate against a group of people, then no… you shouldn’t get legally protected bigotry or racism.
            And Republicans are actually the ones looking for more regulations and restrictions, while Democrats pursue equality.
            More simply put, Republicans pursue regulations that allow discrimination while Democrats pursue regulations that specifically don’t allow discrimination.

            And that’s how I, and the facts, view those issues.

          • johnnybizzoy May 30th, 2015 at 5:44 am

            I personally don’t have anything against wealthy people, and I don’t have a problem with giving them a tax break. I think poor people (like myself) already pay too much in taxes. I would set the flat tax at something like 15% tops. And I would only apply it to annual income of over $20K to $30K. That way, the Federal Government would be about 8% to 10% of the total economy (as opposed to 21% or so today). So we would slash the Federal budget by more than half. I wouldn’t mind slashing defense spending by up to 65% – because I frankly don’t like how our government runs around killing poor people. The other budget items that are large, such as Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security – I would privatize those things as much as possible. And I would try to slowly wean people off of welfare, and try to cut that budget by at least half.

            Some Democrats absolutely do look to deny the right altogether. That is why the gun issue is so polarized. As a 2nd amendment supporter, I could be convinced of some reasonable gun control, if only I didn’t know that there were those on the other side of the issue who would use every compromise to advance their own agenda of total gun confiscation. Many powerful Democrats have said this openly.

            As for businesses, I believe people should have the right to discriminate. But I would clarify this. For instance – grocery stores, banks, auto repair – stuff that was vital and necessary to people’s lives – I would say no, they can’t discriminate. But when it comes to wedding cakes, like that recent event in the news – I mean if the wedding cake store doesn’t want to cater your gay marriage – just go find another wedding cake store, jesus effing Christ! Something like a wedding cake, or a bar, or a gym or something – services that are not vital to the public health – why not? Let them discriminate, who cares? People naturally segregate themselves already, it’s human nature (and it’s racial identity politics pushed by the elite to keep the proletariat in check, but that’s another topic). Let them, that’s what I say. Big friggin deal. Grow up and get over it. Not everyone has to like you, you can’t go everywhere, that’s life.

          • Kick Frenzy May 31st, 2015 at 9:33 pm

            Ok, so you would exempt $30k and less from taxes altogether.
            Then you would keep a few in the same bracket and everyone above ~$38k gets a tax break.
            And your solution for the lost federal income would be to… cut military spending by 65%?!?
            THEN you would privatize government health care… and Social Security, which isn’t funded by the government to begin with.
            THEN you would somehow, magically, kick half the people on welfare off of it.

            Sorry, but your plan would completely ruin this country.

            I don’t know of a single Democrat who wants to deny the 2nd Amendment altogether.
            Please, feel free to tell me who has said they want to take away ALL the guns.

            Your last point is just pure ignorance.
            Unless you’re saying you’re ok with racism, bigotry, misogyny and whatever else could fall into the “deny groups of people” category.

            This country ended segregation and racist business practices because it’s wrong to deny people services because of how they were born.
            Tell you what, you go sit in the back of the bus, use a separate water fountain/lunch counter/entrance/etc. (not to mention simply being treated as a second-class citizen) and let’s see if it’s still not a big deal.

            I’d be more likely to agree with the religious exemption if it wasn’t total BS.
            They’re clamoring against homosexuality, yet they wear blended materials, eat shellfish and their women are allowed to talk in church and form their own opinions… not to mention, I don’t see any of them stoning their kids to death for getting drunk and mouthing off to their parents.
            Every single person who pursues a Bible based anti-LGBTQ agenda is a hypocrite.
            Plus, religiously based arguments to deny services to people are against the constitution anyway.

            And it’s not easy to just “grow up and get over it” if you live in a state where a majority of services would become unavailable to certain groups of people.
            It’s unjust and bigotry deserves no lawful protection.

          • johnnybizzoy June 1st, 2015 at 8:14 pm

            Regarding guns, there are PLENTY of liberals and Democrats who want to ban all guns. Here is a very quickly and easily gathered list:
            Diane Feinstein,

            “If I could have banned them all – ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns’ – I would have!”

            Rosie O’Donnel, “if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison.”

            Video blogger Jason Mattera has Illinois Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky saying that an assault weapons ban is just the beginning. She also says that a complete ban on handguns could be possible through state and local action.


            NY Governor Andrew Cuomo said in a radio interview in late December (audio below), “Confiscation could be an option…mandatory sale to the state could be an option.”


            According to, San Diego’s [police chief] Lansdowne, who plays an active role in the western region of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), said in the interview it may take a generation, but guns will eventually be taken off the streets through new laws.

            The Obama administration’s Attorney General Eric Holder doesn’t suggest banning or confiscating guns. He just thinks we should brainwash the American people into wanting to get rid of guns

            “A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls … and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act … [which] would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns.”
            – Josh Sugarmann (executive director of the Violence Policy Center)

            “All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.”
            – Mao Tse Tung

            “My view of guns is simple. I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned.”
            – Deborah Prothrow-Stith (Dean of Harvard School of Public Health)

            “I don’t believe people should to be able to own guns.”
            – Barack Obama (during conversation with economist and author John Lott Jr. at the University of Chicago Law School in the 1990s)


          • Kick Frenzy June 1st, 2015 at 11:56 pm

            First, there’s a difference between believing people shouldn’t own guns and having an understanding, and adherence to, the Constitution.
            Second, the quote from Mao Tse Tung and the comment about “brain-washing” are unnecessary digs that distract from the more salient points.
            You’re leading the reader, instead of just using facts.

            Also, I should’ve mentioned that I’d meant congressional Dems… oops.
            No biggie, your point is made and I sta… er, sit… corrected.
            There’s enough there (some I’d known, but forgot) to admit there’s definitely those with a more extreme view than I think should be taken.

            Happily, the ones who would pursue those extreme actions are in a small minority.

            For instance, Bernie Sanders is pro-guns and certain freedoms, while also pro-regulation.
            And he’s the strongest not-Hilary candidate… and getting more and more popular by the day.

          • johnnybizzoy June 2nd, 2015 at 9:44 pm

            I want to see Bernie Sanders vs. Rand Paul.

          • Kick Frenzy June 3rd, 2015 at 12:22 am

            I would like that too.
            Granted, Sanders isn’t a plagiarist or blind to the needs of a government to care for the country it runs… but it would be a better debate than most other Republicans running for prez.

          • johnnybizzoy June 1st, 2015 at 8:22 pm

            regarding taxes – the “sweet spot” for federal government control of GDP via tax dollars is widely considered to be 18% of GDP. We are today at 21% or 22%. We need to bring down the size of government, at least a little bit. But I personally am one who believes that technological revolutions can allow us to conduct government business at far less that that – perhaps at 12% to 13% of GDP. This would obvious require at least some privatization of social security and Medicare, which I think would be a good thing. I believe it is a problem that half of our population cannot support itself at all without the government forcibly taking resources away from everybody else, and redistributing them. I don’t necessarily blame the poor entirely for their problem. But I also think that money and resources should be given in tandem with some kind of effective program to change the behavior of those who are poor – because ultimately – as hard as it is to change human behavior – it is their behavior (most of them) that keeps them poor. Unless you are talking about folks with disabilities, who I have no reservations about providing a humane lifestyle for – when you are talking about the majority of folks on welfare being single mothers and their children – while the generally educated, rational, moral population of working and middle class Americans slave away for dwindling wages and prolong starting families until they can save enough money, or buy a house in a good school district – what you have are terrible incentives for people. Now you are incentivizing intransigence and irresponsible behavior on the part of the welfare mothers, while you are penalizing punishing and strangling the attempts by honest decent hard-working Americans to ever get ahead by doing it the right way and playing by the rules and having integrity and honor. So while I am not one who thinks we should let children starve or suffer at all, I am also one who very loudly and emphatically proclaims that we need to HOLD WELFARE MOTHERS ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR SOCIAL DYSFUNCTION – and to have the strength of character to say to young girls that they SHOULD NOT BE GETTING PREGNANT AT A YOUNG AGE, OR BY A BABY-DADDY WHO CANNOT OR WILL NOT PROVIDE THE RESOURCES TO RAISE THAT CHILD WITHOUT HELP FROM THE GOVERNMENT.

          • Kick Frenzy June 2nd, 2015 at 12:23 am

            Woah… getting pretty cray about the “welfare mothers”.
            And to assume that welfare empowers people to just live it up off the backs of everyone else is to be ignorant of the majority of those who are on welfare.
            The incentive is to afford a safe place, to be able to not have to worry about which bill to pay next, to be able to breathe.
            Many people on welfare are already working, some more than one job.
            I’m sorry to say it, but you seem to be misinformed and disillusioned about what life is like for most people on welfare.

            Privatizing Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security are not good ideas.
            If those services had been privatized previous to the Great Recession, all those people who count on them would be s*t out of luck.
            ALL of them.

            As for the GDP issue and government size, what matters more is “what does it take to do it right”?
            There are areas we could cut back in government, there are areas where we need to be more heavily financed (like infrastructure and education).
            But health care (medicare/medicaid), social support (welfare) and retirement plans (social security) shouldn’t be the first things compromised.

          • johnnybizzoy June 2nd, 2015 at 10:29 pm

            Two thirds of people on food stamps are single mothers and their children. More than two thirds of all children in the US today, live in a household on some kind of federal assistance. We are creating a society of people who are dependent on welfare. We should be sending a message, through our media, through our politicians, and through society – that it is wrong to have a baby if you cannot afford to take care if it yourself. Period.

            If you want to find examples of healthy young people on welfare who have no intention of ever working another day in their life – you can spend a thousand hours on youtube watching them brag about it.

            Those who are working and on welfare – I feel for them I really do. I worked for YEARS in very tough jobs that were very low paying. I know what it’s like to be desperate, go to bed hungry, feel shame, and lose a job and hit bottom. I’ve been there trust me. But I never asked for welfare. I got a new job – a WORSE job, making LESS money, working HARDER. And I never stopped taking care of myself. Now I have a BETTER job, making MORE money, and all my peers are younger than me, and have more education. But what they don’t have is my determination never to fail again.

            I feel that retirement savings should be handled by individuals, privately. They’d get a far better return on their investments if they did that, rather than how they are forced to put away money to SS – which earn interest at the lowest possible rate – which is frequently pilfered by shady politicians – which we all know is insolvent – which is part of the driving force behind filling this nation up with millions of illegal immigrants in the desperate hope that they all get college degrees and start paying middle class salaries back into SS. It’s a game of musical chairs, combined with a pyramid scheme, and it’s broken. The only solution to “saving” SS and Medicare, is to tax rich people more and give them less. That’s it. That is the only solution Democrats seem to have for every problem. Just make the rich people pay for all the stuff we want and need. And justifications about how evil they are ABOUND. It’s self-serving rule of the mob degradation, and it is the death of Western society if it continues. People need to grow up and take care of themselves, and stop trying to use the government to steal from the rich. Any rich person will tell you – they support welfare and social security and other programs – only because it’s cheaper to pay people not to riot, than it is to have to deal with them rioting. All hope that the people might pull themselves up and make something of themselves is virtually gone. Eventually they’ll have a technological final solution to apply. We all know this is how some people think. What reasons do the masses give them to pause? Any?

          • burqa June 2nd, 2015 at 11:38 pm

            Ah, now we see where the racism and the resentment of welfare recipients comes from.

            You “… worked for YEARS in very tough jobs that were very low paying.” You “went hungry,” were “desperate,” and felt “shame” and were mired at “the bottom” till you got a “WORSE job.”

            There you were, stuck at the bottom without the talent to rise above menial manual labor watching all those African Americans develop skills and get promoted while you did the kind of work illegal immigrants and low IQ dropouts end up with.
            You don’t have the education to know that while Social Security has always run a surplus for around 80 years, plenty of others have had their savings wiped out in the stock market and were left with nothing. Fortunately they were not left to starve to death the way they once were.
            I know a guy who was wiped out in the Enron debacle, where they lied about the health of the company and conservatives pumped it as a can’t-miss blue-chipper.
            Many thousands of our fellow citizens lost it all in the financial melt down we saw in the Great Recession and you aren’t bright enough to learn, which is why you’re stuck doing stoop labor. Your solution is to remove the safety nets for these people and make their lives worse so Donald Trump can have more money to buy golf courses in other countries with.

          • johnnybizzoy June 3rd, 2015 at 4:10 am

            Total amount of money you can make monthly and still receive Welfare $1000

            Total Number of U.S. States where Welfare pays more than an $8 per hour job 39

            Number of U.S. States where Welfare pays more than a $12 per hour job 6

            # of U.S. States where Welfare pays more than the average salary of a U.S. Teacher 8


            “Most Americans Feel Welfare Being Abused”


          • Kick Frenzy June 3rd, 2015 at 12:36 am

            No, we are creating a society where people have no choice but to use welfare.

            With all the money pooling at the top and wages stagnating at the bottom, while Republicans cut funding for things that would help, it’s unavoidable that the low and middle classes would suffer enough to see the growth in welfare use.

            No system is perfect, but you don’t just throw the baby out with the bath water.

            And how long ago did you go through those crappy low paying jobs?
            It sounds like it’s been long enough that those low paying jobs were during a time when a dollar went much further than today.

            As for SS, it’s not an issue of “just tax the rich people more”, it’s an issue of “tax the rich people at the same rate as those making $118,500/year.
            That’s where the problem is.

            It’s not a solution of gouging the rich, it’s a solution of everyone paying the same percentage of income towards SS.


          • burqa June 2nd, 2015 at 11:23 pm

            Um, no, today we are just under 17%.
            During the Clintonomics boom of the 90s when a record-sized deficit was turned into a record-sized surplus years ahead of schedule, exports increased by 90% and unemployment plunged from 7.4% to 3.8%, the percentage of GDP taken in taxes was just over 20%.

            The economic policy you suggest is the same one implemented before the Great Depression, the Great Recession we just went through and the next worse recession that came after Reaganomics was implemented.

            Way to pick a loser.

          • johnnybizzoy June 3rd, 2015 at 2:20 am

            40% of GDP


            41.6% for state and local


            25.3% for Federal spending


          • burqa June 3rd, 2015 at 5:20 pm

            Sorry, spending and tax rates are not the same thing.
            They’re just not.

            Don’t worry, you have plenty of company who are likewise confused on the Right, which is why GOP presidents have signed 18 of the last 20 budgets that set new records for size of the deficit.
            GDP has risen at a slower rate under Republicans and spending under them has been greater, compared to Democrats.
            Not only that, but when Republicans are in charge we have worse and longer deficits than when the Democrats are in power.

            And isn’t that what we should be seeking in an economic policy?
            Shouldn’t we try to have an economic policy that works best?
            Just go back and look at previous economic booms and the policy in place and you’ll see what works best and what tax rates have been in place when the economy performed the best.

            You’ve been conned into supporting losers and also to going for a pie-in-the-sky plan that no one knows will work as advertised, but since it comes from conservative rich guys, be on guard because they were the ones who told us Reaganomics would kick off a boom and balance the budget in 2 years or less.
            Reaganomics was implemented and in their time frame, 2 years later the budget was not balanced, it had gone from a deficit of about $135B to $299B and unemployment had gone from 7.5% to 10.8% and the economy was mired in the worst recession since the Great Depression (which came about under the same sort of austerity measures you find appealing). So Reagan realized he had been lied to and reversed course, signing tax increases and the economy recovered and took off.

            Recently I took a look at my note on recessions. I was born when Ike was president and in the time since he took office the economy has been in recession for 105 months under Republican presidential economic policies and for 6 months under Democratic Party presidential economic policies.

            When your ass gets kicked 105-6 it is time to change, my friend.

          • johnnybizzoy June 3rd, 2015 at 10:42 pm

            Complained to moderator to remove posts he didn’t like – CHECK
            Mocked me for being poor, felt joy at the notion that I suffered – CHECK
            Rude, insulting, childish demeanor – CHECK
            Ignored/confused by facts with citation – CHECK
            Believes talking points are statistics – CHECK
            You sir, are clearly a, “liberal.” Congratulations?

          • burqa June 3rd, 2015 at 11:15 pm

            CHECKed out CHECKers hamburgers – CHECK!

            Correction: I am not a liberal, I am a proud liberal!

            Here are some stats to show how GOP policies have performed in real life, compared to Democrats since World War II through 2009:

            Percentage change in job growth from
            beginning of term:

            1) Johnson ………… 21.3% ………. DEMOCRAT
            2) Truman …………. 21% …………. DEMOCRAT
            3) Clinton ………….. 20.7% ………. DEMOCRAT
            4) Reagan ………….. 17.7% ………..…. REPUBLICAN
            5) Nixon ………..…. 13.2% ……..……. REPUBLICAN

            6) Carter …………… 12.8% ………. DEMOCRAT
            7) Eisenhower ………. 7.1% ………..…. REPUBLICAN
            8) Kennedy …………. 6.7% ………. DEMOCRAT
            9) Ford ……………… 2.6% ………..…. REPUBLICAN
            10) Bush Sr. ….…….. 2.4% ……..……. REPUBLICAN
            11) Bush Jr. …………. 2% ………….…. REPUBLICAN

            Annualized job growth:

            1) Johnson ………… 3.8% ………. DEMOCRAT
            2) Carter ………..…. 3.1% ………. DEMOCRAT
            3) Clinton …………. 2.4% ………. DEMOCRAT
            4) Kennedy ….…….. 2.3% ………. DEMOCRAT
            5) Truman …………. 2.2% ………. DEMOCRAT

            6) Nixon ………..…. 2.2% ……………. REPUBLICAN
            7) Reagan ………….. 2.1% ……………. REPUBLICAN
            8) Ford ……………. 1.1% ……………. REPUBLICAN
            9) Eisenhower …..….. .9% ……………. REPUBLICAN
            10) Bush Sr. …….….. .6% ……………. REPUBLICAN
            11) Bush Jr. ………… .3% ……………. REPUBLICAN

            Annualized growth of gross domestic

            1) Kennedy ………… 5.3% ………. DEMOCRAT

            2) Johnson ………… 5.3% ………. DEMOCRAT

            3) Clinton ………….. 3.6% ………. DEMOCRAT

            4) Carter ………..…. 3.4% ………. DEMOCRAT

            5) Reagan …………. 3.4% ……….……. REPUBLICAN

            6) Ford ………….…. 3.1% ………..…. REPUBLICAN

            7) Nixon ……………. 2.4% ……..……. REPUBLICAN

            8) Eisenhower ….….. 2.3% ……..……. REPUBLICAN

            9) Truman …………. 1.8% ………. DEMOCRAT

            10) Bush Sr. ……….. 1.9% ………..…. REPUBLICAN

            11) Bush Jr. ……..…. 1.4% ………..…. REPUBLICAN

            Annualized per capita disposable
            personal income:

            1) Johnson ………… 4.1% ………. DEMOCRAT

            2) Kennedy ….…….. 3.1% ………. DEMOCRAT

            3) Reagan ………….. 2.7% ………..…. REPUBLICAN

            4) Nixon ……………. 2.6% ……..……. REPUBLICAN

            5) Clinton ………….. 2.3% ………. DEMOCRAT

            6) Ford ……….……. 2.1% ………..…. REPUBLICAN

            7) Carter ……………. 1.8% ………. DEMOCRAT

            8) Eisenhower .…….. 1.3% ……..……. REPUBLICAN

            9) Bush Jr. ……….… 1.3% ……..……. REPUBLICAN

            10) Truman ……….…. .8% ………. DEMOCRAT

            11) Bush Sr. ………….. .1% ………..…. REPUBLICAN


          • johnnybizzoy June 4th, 2015 at 1:35 am

            So what you are saying is that the President is the decisive factor in GDP and job growth? Is that truly your contention? And I guess if it is, you also believe that the policies that a President puts in place, have an immediate impact on the economy, and then that impact ceases as soon as a different party occupies the Presidency? So basically, you’re making a completely baseless, illogical, factually unsupported argument, based on correlation, and arbitrary time scales? Is that what I’m seeing here?

          • burqa June 4th, 2015 at 8:00 pm

            What I am saying is not important. What IS important is what the numbers are saying from a large sample size.

            The numbers tell us what happened in real life and that trumps my opinion, your opinion or someone else’s opinion on what may work and to what degree. These numbers show what DID work repeatedly and what failed repeatedly.

            Let’s not make this a personal spat between you and I, but, rather, be grown-ups and look at facts and then come to conclusions based on the facts.

            As for what has been said about an economic policy having an immediate impact, we have the words of those who implemented those policies. For example, in the 1992 election when the economy was in the doldrums and major companies were laying off people by the tens of thousands, Clinton promised his policy would create 5 million jobs in the first 4 years and would cut the deficit in half in 8. His policy far exceeded those goals.

            Ronald “Dutch” Reagan, on the other hand, promised us his policy would kick off an immediate economic boom. He came to office with the economy in similar doldrums.”Dutch” Reagan promised us his tax cuts for the rich would lead to them expanding their businesses and in 2 years or less the budget would be balanced.
            Ronald “Dutch” Reagan got his economics policy passed and 2 years later unemployment had risen from 7.5% to 10.8%, the defcit had gone from about $133 billion to about $300 billion and we were mired in the worst recession since the Great Depression.

            These are real life facts.

            You should be mature enough to understand that using hyperbole to restate someone else’s argument, rather than just take their words for what they mean is the more intelligent way to debate. They warp the argument all out of proportion until the numbers I gave you, above, become “baseless, illogical, factually unsupported argument.”
            In fact, what I posted is a large sample size of facts that provide a base for a logical factually supported argument.

            I prefer to let them speak for themselves and to watch you duck and dodge and fling hyperbole rather than a comparable sample size of facts that indicate something different about how the economy has performed under Republican or Democrat economic policies.

            If you think this is an arbitrary time scale, please give a similarly large sample sized one. I just gave you all the numbers in the charts that came with the article (giving official government stats, too, by the way).

            HELPFUL HINT: I’ve covered the more important economic indicators. Don’t waste your time trying to show the government grew more under Democrats, because the GOP leads there, too. They also dominate in the number of times they put their signature of approval on budgets with record-sized deficits.
            Don’t bother with trying to break it down by which party controls Congress, either. I’ve about completed a survey beginning in 1900 and it’s mighty bleak for the GOP by that measure, too.

          • johnnybizzoy June 5th, 2015 at 11:21 pm

            Even if your data is accurate, it wouldn’t matter because you have still not proven causation. You have shown correlation – and that doesn’t mean anything. It could very well be that voters are more likely to elect Democratic Presidents in good economic climates – that is to say – that the causation you would like to suggest is actually happening in reverse, and therefore not relevant. But there are so many other very good reasons why your data set is merely anecdotal, and thus proves nothing. Here are a few hurdles you must still clear before you can make an argument that I or any educated person would take seriously.
            1) The Democratic Party and the Republican Party essentially flipped in the 1960’s. Today’s Democrats are yesterday’s Republicans.
            2) Not every Democratic President follows the same economic policies. And the economic policies that lead to success under one set of circumstances, might not lead to success under a different set of circumstances.
            3) Congress has “the power of the purse-strings.” Congress sets the spending agenda, Congress passes a budget, Congress levies taxes. How many of your Democratic Presidents had Republican majorities in Congress? Most of them did, as I’m sure you know.
            4) Economic policies set in place take years to affect the economy. Every economist will tell you that in Econ 101. If you even got a two-year degree in sports medicine, you should know that.
            5) Numerous other factors, independent of politics, affect our economy in much bigger and more obvious ways – such as the price of oil, and technological innovation.
            6) The President of the United States has very little power over the economy. The primary place where the POTUS has power, is in foreign policy. Congress has far more power to affect the economy – and most of your Democratic Presidents had Republican majorities in Congress.
            You do have some interesting anecdotal data, but so far you still have not shown causation. So far you’ve shown correlation. It doesn’t even matter if your data is accurate or not – so far it is still merely anecdotal. You may be using this as an opportunity to “win” a “debate” like most people try to do. But if you want to actually convince me – a thinking person with a half decent education who is always willing to be convinced by evidence, reason, and logic – then you are going to have to introduce far more evidence, reason, and logic.

          • burqa June 6th, 2015 at 9:41 am

            When you get your ass waxed 77 – 6 in a football game it’s no coincidence.
            Sorry, but you’re wrong about your guess that voters may elect Democrats in good economic climates.
            Let us look at the economies handed off by Republicans to Democrats.
            Hoover handed off the Great Depression to FDR.
            Ike handed off an economy in recession to JFK.
            Ford handed off an economy in the doldrums to Carter.
            Bush Sr. handed off an economy in the doldrums to Clinton.
            Bush Jr. handed off an economy in the Great Recession to Obama.

            All you’ve got is bad guesses like that, so you resort to calling long-term stats of the most important economic indicators “anecdotal.”
            And you think I need to take you seriously after you have shown you don’t understand the importance of the most important economic indicators?

            Taking your questions,
            1) The parties did not flip. Each lost a significant portion of one of their wings to the other – conservative Dems went to the GOP and liberal Republicans went to the Dems.
            2) Democratic presidents’ policies have varied, but all fall under Keynesian theory, which is why they outperform what the Republicans put out there, which is reheated Hooverism. Since Keyesian economics worked so well for the Democrats, instead of doing the smart thing and hopping aboard the bandwagon, the GOP thinks they need something different and go with the policy in place for the Great Depression, the Great Recession and the next worst recession – the one when Reaganomics was in place.
            3) Don’t you pay attention? The budget process begins with the president submitting a budget and engaging in negotiations with Congress. See what I posted on Clintonomics. When the GOP got a simple majority, they were unable to alter the policy in place. Same thing happened to the Democrats after 2006. The greatest GDP growth has come with a Democrat president and a Democrat Congress. See the 60s, with 5.3% growth. See the New Deal with GDP growth over 8.5%. See Clintonomics with 3.6% GDP growth. The worst is when you have Republican congress and president. See the Great Depression and the Great Recession. I have gone over the whole 20th century as I did with recessions and the economy does about as well under GOP congresses as under their presidents – much worse than Democrats.
            4) False. If you’re a lending institution and suddenly have an extra billion to lend, do you sit on it for years or go to work? See Clintonomics. It freed up hundreds of billions quickly and it wasn’t borrowed, like the lesser prosperity under Republicans.
            Reagan would disagree with you, too. According to Reagan and all his top economics experts who had more than a 2 year degree in sports medicine, in 2 years or less the economy would be booming and the budget balanced. If you get money today you don’t have to wait years to spend it.
            5) yes, other factors affect the economy. History shows that if they have much effect, it is positive when a Democrat is in the White House and negatively when a Republican is in there.
            6) Contradicted by historic fact. When the president’s policy pumps hundreds of billions into the economy it has a positive effect. See my post on Clintonomics and how it worked.

            I have given you a large amount of important data over a long period of time that shows dramatic differences in how the economy responds to when a Republican is in office than when a Democrat is in there. It does not fit with your previous conclusions. If your previous conclusions were correct, it would.
            When, during the parameters you set, the economy is in recession 77 months for Republicans and only 6 months for a Democrat, it’s time to change your conclusions.

            No one loses a football game 77 – 6 by mere coincidences.
            Remember, those were YOUR parameters.

          • Obewon June 6th, 2015 at 3:56 am

            Exhibit A: GWB’s 12/07 Great Recession record low everything since (R) Hoover’s Great Depression! 1.08 M eight year private jobs total left “Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record on Record”-WSJ 1/09/2009. 2nd worst is GHWB Sr’s 2.5 M jobs, four year total
   <-BLS March 2014. As of 3/2015, 12 M+ Private Obama Jobs created.

          • burqa June 6th, 2015 at 8:54 am

            What I am saying is a large sample size of facts show an undeniable trend that shows the economy performs much better when we have an economic policy from a Democrat and far worse when the economic policy is one from a Republican.

            Annualized GDP growth in the 60s under LBJ and JFK was 5.3% for each. Under Clinton it was 3.6%.
            Reagan had the best for a Republican since World War II, trailing these 3 Dems at 3.4%.

            You have the numbers right in front of your face. They contradict the propaganda you’ve heard. You are unable to factor them into your conclusions. You need to change your conclusions to where these critical indicators fit in.
            Right now you’re in denial, but denial won’t make them go away.
            Elsewhere in this thread I have given recession stats that further hammer home the point that the economy performs dramatically better under Democratic economic policy than that crap the GOP has been dishing out that leads to the longer recessions, more recessions and massive deficits, while they tend to bring up the rear in the categories listed above.

          • johnnybizzoy June 8th, 2015 at 2:33 am

            I would like for you to define specific policies that you have termed, “democratic policies.” Can you point to the specific policies that any of these Democratic Presidents have enacted?

          • burqa June 3rd, 2015 at 11:41 pm

            CHECK CHACK paddywhack, give a dog a bone.
            You want stats? I got stats from the NBER.
            You’ve chosen the policies of the party of recession!

            Y’see, I like looking longer term for trends. Anyone can cite a statistical spike to falsely prove a point. I went back to 1900 and checked out recessions to date, here are the results:

            Number of recessions since the one in 1899-1900: 23

            Number of Democratic Party presidents: 8
            Number of Republican Party presidents: 12

            Number of Democrat presidents with a recession that began on their watch: 4
            Number of Republican presidents with a recession that began on their watch: 10

            Number of Republican presidents with multiple recessions that began on their watch: 6
            Democrat presidents with multiple recessions that began
            on their watch: 2

            Number of recessions that began under a Republican administration: 17
            Number of recessions that began under a Democratic Party administration: 6

            Number of Republican recessions handed off to a Democrat: 4
            Number of Democratic recessions handed off to a Republican: 1

            Number of Republican presidents without a recession that began on their watch: 2
            Number of Democrat presidents without a recession that began on their watch: 4

            Average length of a recession beginning under a
            Republican administration: 16.23 months
            Average length of a recession beginning under a
            Democratic administration: 10.5 months

            Total length of recessions that began under Democrat presidents: 5 years, 3 months
            Total length of recessions that began under Republican presidents: 23 years

            Average length of a recession that began under a Republican president: 16.23 months
            Average length of a recession that began under a Democrat president: 10.5 months


          • burqa June 3rd, 2015 at 11:50 pm

            I was born when Ike was president. Here are the recessions since he was elected.

            Length of each recession is given in months in parenthesis.

            NOTE that the total length of recessions under Democratic Party presients is 6 months, under Republican presidents, 105 months:

            July 1953 – May 1954, EISENHOWER, REPUBLICAN, (10)

            Aug. 1957 – April 1958, EISENHOWER, REPUBLICAN, (8)

            April 1960 – Feb. 1961, EISENHOWER, REPUBLICAN, (10)
            (handed off to Kennedy)

            Dec. 1969 – Nov. 1970, NIXON, REPUBLICAN, (11)

            Nov. 1973 – March 1975, NIXON, REPUBLICAN, (16) (handed
            off to Ford)

            Jan. 1980 – July 1980, CARTER, DEMOCRAT, (6)

            July 1981 – Nov. 1982, REAGAN, REPUBLICAN, (16)

            July 1990 – March 1991, BUSH SR., REPUBLICAN, (8)

            March 2001 – Nov. 2001, BUSH JR., REPUBLICAN, (8)

            Dec. 2007 – June 2009, BUSH JR. REPUBLICAN, (18) (handed
            off to Obama)


          • johnnybizzoy June 4th, 2015 at 1:39 am

            You truly are proud of yourself for having firmly chosen warm coke over flat beer. Be proud of that, because none of it was a waste of time, AT ALL.

          • burqa June 4th, 2015 at 6:15 pm

            I take it you concede my point, suppoirted by facts going back to 1899, that the economy performs far worse when a Republican president is in office than when we elect a Democrat.
            I got what I was after.
            Thank you.

          • johnnybizzoy June 5th, 2015 at 10:35 pm

            How many of those Democratic Presidents set the agenda for government spending, or tax rates?

          • johnnybizzoy June 1st, 2015 at 8:27 pm

            I don’t know how else I can be more clear. Banking, RIDING THE BUS, or other essential or city services obviously shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate based on race. But we cannot legislate morality. We cannot try to write laws about how we want people to feel about race. When it comes to wedding cakes and liquor stores, I don’t give a rat’s ass if people discriminate based on race, I really don’t. And as long as essential services are barred from doing it, I don’t think anyone else will mind either. It might be good for people to express themselves, and learn how the rest of society views them, and why. Will I be mad if my best friend can’t take his black wife out to eat breakfast with me at my favorite French restaurant? Sure I will, especially since she has a French name! But she is light-skinned, so it would probably fly. But “liberals” really need to get over their childish whining and bellyaching about what they fear or dislike about what is in other people’s hearts. I think if you let people express their thoughts and feelings openly without fear of reprisal by the PC police, after a generation or two like that we’ll get most of it out of our systems and our society will advance further than it has. The way things are going now – at the national political level – black people are beginning to circle the wagons politically – and that will not end well. As a student of political history and one who has read many comparative studies on racially stratified societies, I can assure you that the only hope for a peaceful future for black and white people is for black identity to fade away and black populations to break up geographically and disperse and be absorbed by other larger and less socially dysfunctional populations. There is no debating this in academic circles. None.

          • tracey marie June 1st, 2015 at 8:45 pm

            bwahahaha, translation…leave us bigots and racists alone to spew hate and discriminate.

          • Kick Frenzy June 2nd, 2015 at 12:46 am

            So, you’re an apologist for racism then.
            Got it.

            There is so much racist BS in what you posted, I don’t even know how to respond properly.

            And no, we tried having a society where people were free to discriminate based on the color of skin… it never worked out.

            But to try to reason with someone who considers black people a dysfunctional population and whose only hope is to be not black, is like trying to reason with a lemming that it’s going the wrong way.

          • johnnybizzoy June 2nd, 2015 at 10:56 pm

            Academics and social psychologists know what I’m talking about is true. You look at black people who live in areas where blacks are a lower percentage of the local population – you have higher education, higher income, lower crime, better health, etc. You look at black people who live in areas with a high percentage of the local population that is also black – you have lower income, lower education, higher crime, worse health problems, etc. You look at the most successful black families in America – they live in white neighborhoods, and they do not self-identify primarily as “black” Americans. They are just Americans who are black but who have fully formed and functional identities that serve them well. Blacks who cluster together in low income neighborhoods and stay there, have no chance of learning better lifestyles from different and more successful groups. It makes a lot of sense when you think about it. Forget race – say you have groups of people who had bad upbringings, poor role models. You cluster these people together, they are going to share their bad ideas. They are going to run out any nerds carrying schoolbooks or walking home late from a double shift at work. Meanwhile, you take people with poor upbringing and you put them in a majority population area of folks who are successful and practiced at making good decisions, and like all people everywhere all the time, they will emulate the behavior of those around them and they will adopt some of the more successful behaviors of their neighbors. It’s just simple simple simple stuff. If blacks had a culture like the Jews – one based on education and religion and morality – then they could do like the Jews and cloister together in areas and send their children to Jewish school and insist they marry other Jews – and they would continue to occupy the top rungs of the economic political and social strata – as Jews do. But if black people still have huge numbers of their population that is criminal, drug addicted, low education – and they cloister together, they are only going to perpetuate these socially dysfunctional behaviors. I grew up in a mostly white neighborhood. You were either smart or not, good or not as sports, into music or not, into movies or not, into girls or not, into drugs or not. Good at school or not. well-behaved or not. One thing you weren’t unless you went to a different neighborhood, was white, or anything that was supposed to mean. We need to forget about our racial identities – or at least push them back to being a minor consideration. Unless of course we are Jewish, in which case we can do whatever we want because we control the banks and the politicians and about 50 nuclear weapons. 🙂

          • burqa June 2nd, 2015 at 11:12 pm

            Toodles, Johnnyjizzboy.
            We hardly knew ya and will soon forget….

          • johnnybizzoy June 3rd, 2015 at 2:09 am

            That’s okay – it’s not as if you all need to know anything I posted. Academics in every corner of every university who study sociology seriously already know what I said, that y’all had removed.

          • burqa June 2nd, 2015 at 11:19 pm

            Yeah, it’s kinda funny the way they try to disguise it. They can’t really hide it because then their message won’t get out so they can only try to dress it up with this other crap like pretending to be librul and their black friends who are some of the “good” ones.
            They’re too damned stupid and tie the shoelaces of both shoes together and try to walk and just fall on their faces when they try to be too clever by half, such as this case.
            Stand back, I think the Monty Python foot is about to descend…..

          • Kick Frenzy June 3rd, 2015 at 12:38 am

            Damn it.
            Another deleted comment that people can’t choose to see if they want to.
            No my comment just flails in the wind with nothing to refer to.

            I REALLY wish comments could be voluntarily viewed after deletion.
            It would make much more sense to anyone reading this.


          • burqa June 2nd, 2015 at 11:42 pm

            The racist crap below shows he a Lee Atwater guy…..

          • Dwendt44 May 30th, 2015 at 5:59 pm

            The ‘Flat Tax’ and the ‘Fair tax’ are just scams to give back door tax cuts to the rich. Poor people use every dollar just to exist; both of those schemes would take even more away from those that can least afford it.
            The ‘right to bare arms? Really? That was useful back in the days of the Revolutionary War and maybe the Civil War. Not needed today. We have a National Guard and a standing army, which was not present back then. A militia was the way they compensated for that lack of a military. Of course, the rabid right always overlooks the ‘well regulated’ part. Democrats and/or progressives aren’t trying to take the guns away from legitimate owners. We just think reasonable restrictions are appropriate, and SC justice Scalia agrees. Background checks (90% support) and reasonable limits on magazine size (if you need 20 rounds to kill a deer, you’re a lousy hunter to begin with).
            Running a business is great, IF you live by the rules. The law calls for public accommodation, fair treatment for employees, and no discrimination. What’s wrong with that?

          • burqa June 4th, 2015 at 6:34 pm

            The flat tax has no proven track record and is pushed by millionaires who would benefit most by it.

            They already do just fine under the classic American progressive tax system we have had since the nation began. They always did just fine.

            Me, I’m a fan of Clintonomics.

            * Clintonomics took a near-record-sized deficit and turned it into a surplus. Republicans don’t have that on their resume.

            * Clintonomics took unemployment from 7.4% to 3.8%.
            Republicans don’t have that kind of success on their resume.

            * Clintonomics increased exports 90%
            Republicans don’t have that sort of success on their resume.

            * Clintonomics added over 23 million jobs.
            The Republicans’ resume has nothing to match it.

            * Clintonomics lifted 7.7 million people above the poverty line.
            Republicans can’t match that either on their resume.

            * Clintonomics increased real income for median families twice as much in 8 years as in 12 years of Reagan/Bushonomics.

            Choose an unproven fantasy if you will, but as for me, I’m going with a tried-and-true winner that kicks ass!

          • johnnybizzoy June 5th, 2015 at 10:37 pm

            Please explain which specific economic policies you are referring to, when using the term, “Clintonomics”

          • burqa June 5th, 2015 at 11:00 pm

            First off, what I am interested in is real-life examples of what works.
            First I will explain what Clintonomics was then will folow with a post describing the results.

            Clintonomics was the name given for the policy enacted in 1993 by the Democrats. Not one Republican voted for it because they thought it would cause a massive recession on the level of the ones we’ve seen after Republican economic policies were passed.
            First, we have to look at the economic conditions it was designed to address.
            The economy was in the doldrums with low growth, unemployment stalled in the mid-7’s and major companies laying off tens of thousands of people.
            Deficits were at record levels and threatened to further overtake federal spending to a disastrous degree. (Massive, record-sized defcits are a hallmark of Republican economic policies.) Ross Perot illustrated this.
            Back then we did not borrow trillions from the Chinese to finance our deficits. Bush Jr. started that. Federal borrowing to cover the deficit was eating up a huge percentage that American lenders had to offer.

            Clintonomics basically did 3 things. It raised taxes, flatlined discretionary spending and increased exports. There was more, but these are plenty enough to discuss.

          • burqa June 5th, 2015 at 11:38 pm

            Now, how Clintonomics functioned.

            Clinton and the Democrats rescinded tax breaks for the rich that had been passed by Reagan and resulted in massive deficit growth (same thing happened when Bush Jr. and the Republicans brought those tax cuts back). Clinton told us we all had to help get us out of the mess that 12 years of Reaganomics had brought on us. So another tax increase was laid on the middle class. It was not a great deal, about 5%.
            By flatlining discretionary spending while increasing revenues, deficts began a looooong plunge. When the deficit dropped like that, it freed up hundreds of billions for lending institutions to loan to the private sector. In 1994, GDP shot up from about 2.3% to over 4% because of all that money released into the economy. The way Republicans pumped money into the economy was to borrow it, sending deficits skyward. Clintonomics injected billions into the economy that was not borrowed.
            The economy took off as deficits tumbled and both fed upon themselves.
            Clinton signed NAFTA, a trade deal that had a modest net benefit, but far better was GATT II and the creation of the World Trade Organization, which, along with other trade deals helped boost exports 90%.

            Since Clintonomics was passed, the Republicans shrieked about the tax increases and it was a major issue in the ’94 campaign in which they got a simple majority in the House. They took office in January 1995.
            Their first big move was a blunder, as Gingrich led them on a temper tantrum over the ’96 budget. They shut down the government and took a hell of a beating before relenting and Clinton got all he wanted.
            So the first budget one can say they had anything to do with was the one for 1997.
            In 1997, the deficit had dropped from about $300 billion to about $22 billion and unemployment had dropped from 7.4% to 4.7% at year’s end. 10 million jobs had been created.

            The Republicans had a simple majority in the House but not the supermajority needed to override a veto. They were unable to overturn Clintonomics, and why should they? The never tried to rescind the tax cuts, they were fine with flatlining discretionary spending and they passed all of Clinton’s trade deals. They were happy to ride the bandwagon and, as I like to say, nowadays Gingrich seems to think Clintonomics was named after him.

            When deficits evaporated and surpluses appeared, the Republicans wanted to give it all away in tax cuts, but Clinton was wiser. “Social Security First!” was the mantra, and it was made soluble out to 2052, when the demographic spike of the baby boomers would have pretty much gone by.
            On 9/11, the budget surplus was enough to pay the damages and underwrite insurance for the airlines without the need for additional revenue or borrowing.

            In 2000, federal revenue as a share of GDP was 20.7%. The budget was not only in surplus, but the CBO projected $11 trillion in further deficits for the decade if they just left things alone. Unemployment was stuck in 2000 at 4%. During the whole year it was either 3.8. 3.9 or 4.0%
            The tech bubble, which had begun in the late 90s popped, and economic growth was not growing as fast, but it was growing when Bush Jr. took office. We would have been fine had we left things alone, but Wall Street knew that a Republican president meant recessions, record-sized deficits, increased growth in the size of government and low growth, so they reacted and we entered a mild recession in March. Coming out of it we would have been fine but Bush and the Republican Congress did what they always do when they get in power – they wasted the surplus and had themselves a new record-sized defcit in just 2 years and expanded government by 27% in that time and a decade of malaise, topped off by the Great Recession followed the implementation of supply-side.
            The Democrats got a simple majority in the House in 2006 but were unable, as the GOP was in ’95, to override a veto and were unable to change the policy in place.

          • burqa June 5th, 2015 at 11:46 pm

            So, above, we see a policy that gave us a trememndous economic boom, transformed record-sized deficits to record-sized surpluses, and took unemployment down to 3.8% and kept it between there and 4%.
            We see a tax rate that allowed business to flourish. With the higher rates, incomes grew even more, so the net effect was a plus for everyone. The rich did not need those tax cuts and saving surplus money was wise and so was investing a lot of it in Social Security.
            The Republicans raided the Social Security Trust Fund and undid the repair Clinton enacted. They introduced supply-side and brought on record-sized deficits, low growth and stagnant wages. What gains were made were eaten up by rapidly increasing health care costs.

            Clinton did what no Republican did in terms of growth that was not on borrowed money, budget surpluses, low unemployment, GDP growth, increase in exports, Social Security and wages.

          • Chris May 29th, 2015 at 7:38 am

            Once again, for the umpteenth time: False equivalence. “They all do it” is the lazy man’s catchall response. Look at reality.

            Democrats come nowhere close to the Republicans when it comes to this.

          • Robert Kennedy May 29th, 2015 at 11:38 am

            Some of them are, but no Republicans since Teddy Roosevelt were or are.

          • StoneyCurtisll May 29th, 2015 at 1:32 pm

            Go back to WrestleZone were you belong.

    • amyskene May 28th, 2015 at 9:09 pm

      No Chris, liberals have shown they have no conscience. They have truly sunk to the bottom when it comes dirty politics and they just keep going lower when I think there isn’t any lower they can go. For the record, I don’t watch Fox News and I’ve pretty much left social media because what Democrats have come to represent is absolutely disgusting. Please, reality check.

      • Obewon May 28th, 2015 at 9:22 pm

        “no conscience”? GOP Impeached for Adult consensual Sex, embracing Child molesting pedophiles. You Greedy Oil Polluter freaks love Killing kids and our U. S. Milt to bailout Haliburton Cheney’s bankrupt firm!

        • amyskene May 28th, 2015 at 11:49 pm

          Are you talking about Democrats or Republicans? Open your eyes you freak-fools.

          • Obewon May 29th, 2015 at 12:20 am

            Debunking your delusions are chairmen Issa and Gouty’s “0 Indictments” following ’50 weeks of hearings per year.’

            “Discussion on Columbia Daily Herald: Why did Republicans cave in to paranoia?

            amyskene to Gregory D. Hanners 9 days ago
            Actually, it is our right to call them liars if it’s warranted. And I think that after Benghazi, NSA wiretapping, etc, etc, etc, there is plenty of reason to be suspicious of our federal government.“-Delusional “amyskene” debunked by reality.

          • rg9rts May 29th, 2015 at 6:35 am

            Standard issue troll ….probably related to Tater Tot

          • burqa June 4th, 2015 at 6:51 pm

            The red parts indicate when a Republican was president and the blue part is when a Democrat was president.
            The economy performs far better when a Democrat is in the White House than when we elect a Republican. Republican economic theories sound good on paper but in real life where it counts, their economic policies stink.
            Below you will find posts of mine with the stats on recessions going back to 1899 and others with enough of a sample size to support that conclusion.
            In one post, for example, I noted that I was born when Ike was president.
            Since he was elected, the economy has been in recession 111 months.
            6 of those months were during the administration of one Democratic Party president – Carter.
            105 of those months of recession came during the presidencies of Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr.

            Open your eyes and get with the economic policy winners – the Democrats.

        • tanya May 29th, 2015 at 8:40 am

          Wow, what selective memory. First, Bill was impeached for lying under oath not for sex. Second look at who voted FOR the Gulf war, Dems and Reps both, including your beloved Hillarat. At least if the libs put up someone like Elizabeth Warren they could save a little dignity but I guess it is win at all costs, country be damned.

          • Obewon May 29th, 2015 at 8:50 am

            Comprehension: impeached (indicted) but not convicted.

            HRC’45 was copilot to Clinton42’s U.S. record 40 M+ private jobs created, $550 B consecutive surpluses delivered of $5.6 T forecast. “We went from a $5.6 trillion (continued CBO forecast) surplus that George Bush inherited to over … $11-plus trillion debt when George Bush left office.”-True!

          • Robert Kennedy May 29th, 2015 at 10:38 am

            Because the Democrats didn’t realize the Executive branch would lie bout something so important and the few who knew the truth were threatened with prison if they told the truth.

          • StoneyCurtisll May 29th, 2015 at 1:29 pm

            Wow tanya..
            2 whole comments on your sock puppet account…

          • Chris May 29th, 2015 at 3:14 pm

            We Dems accept Hillary’s mea culpa; she did it, as others did, with Cheney’s cherry picked intel.

            The few in your GOP who admit Iraq was a mistake are very late to the party.

            Grow up re the impeachment; the GOP was frothing at the bit to get Bill no matter what. If you think “lying under oath” about consensual sex is “high crimes and misdemeanors”, you need an education.

          • madjayhawk May 29th, 2015 at 7:28 pm

            Bill committed some serious crimes, perjury and obstruction of justice. He lost his law license. You do not lose your law license for “lying under oath” about consensual sex. When the report on what he did was sent to the congress, not one Democrat bothered to read it. One of his former aides wrote: “The deep and searing violation took place when he not only lied to the country, but co-opted his friends and lied to them….when you have gone over the line, you won’t bring others into it…You don’t foul the nest.”

            How long did it take Clinton to come up with a suitable mea culpa for her Iraq war vote and full support of it at the time? Where is the line drawn between an acceptable mea culpa and coming late to the party? Clinton is a serious flip-flopper. Just flipped on support of ethanol subsidies for example. Her support, like her accent, for anything political is constantly ‘evolving’.

          • Chris May 29th, 2015 at 7:46 pm

            Uh, as has been reported elsewhere, EVERY Republican who served or was in line to serve as Speaker of the House during the Clinton kerfuffle was GUILTY OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT: Gingrich, Livingston, and Hastert . Think about this. Ponder this. Here’s more about your pure, upright Republicans courtesy of Wikipedia:

            “The Speaker-designate, Representative Bob Livingston, chosen by the Republican Party Conference to replace Gingrich as House Speaker, announced the end of his candidacy for Speaker and his resignation from Congress from the floor of the House after his own marital infidelity came to light. In the same speech, Livingston also encouraged Clinton to resign. Many other prominent Republican members of Congress (including Dan Burton of Indiana; Helen Chenoweth of Idaho; and Henry Hyde of Illinois, the chief House manager of Clinton’s trial in the Senate) had infidelities exposed around this time, all of whom voted for impeachment. ”

            How long will it take you GOPers to understand you were taken for a ride? Yes, Clinton lied under oath about his affair. Should he have done it? NO. But put it in proper context; use your brain. It was a CONSENSUAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TWO CONSENTING ADULTS. Not like the long string of buggerers on your side of the aisle. Heard about Denny Hastert today? How about Mark Foley? And on and on.

            You got nothin’. And your Republican waffling on the Duggars and Hastert speak volumes about your rank hypocrisy.

          • madjayhawk May 29th, 2015 at 9:07 pm

            Duggar’s (whoever that is) and Hastert’s wives aren’t running for president so who cares? Clinton, if you recall, wasn’t impeached or denied a law license because of sexual misconduct. He committed perjury and obstruction of justice. I don’t think any of the Republicans you named were guilty of a crime were they? I can’t recall. If they were I am sure they were tried and found guilty unlike Clinton who worked out a sweetheart deal with Federal prosecutors right before he left office to avoid being tried and, most likely, convicted of the crimes he committed. He, by taking a deal, admitted to committing the crimes.

            I could list off 50 Democratic criminals and for what purpose? My criminals are better than your criminals? All of these people are dishonest, lying jerks in my opinion. If you read my post, I did not hold up any Republican as a saint. You seem to think all Democrats are. You are totally disillusioned or live in a cave.

          • Chris May 29th, 2015 at 9:29 pm

            The issue you continue to ignore is this: Clinton’s “serious crimes, perjury and obstruction of justice” were about lying about an affair. Ken Starr investigated Clinton for years and this was the best he came up with. In one of the few moments of lucidity of the public, Clinton’s popularity shot up because it realized what a railroad job this was. Impeaching a president over lying about an affair. What a sorry mess that was. No wonder Europe thought we’d lost our minds.

            Goodbye. I have nothing more to say to you since you simply refuse to understand what the impeachment was about: taking down a popular president for simple sport simply because they thought they could.

          • madjayhawk May 29th, 2015 at 9:59 pm

            The President of the United States of America knowingly lied under oath in a disposition and in a interrogatory in order to prevent a woman from having her day in court. He thought he could lie in court because he understood that 21 year old subordinate employee had lied as well.

            You seem to think that the President should get a free pass and do whatever he felt was necessary to deny Jones a fair hearing in court. In other words, you feel that Clinton was above the law.

            A judge had decided that what Clinton was testifying to was relevant to the case. That doesn’t matter to you?

            Would you be happy if your wife, girlfriend, sister or Mother was in Jones’ place and the President lied as he did?

            Who cares what the Europeans think or popularity polls think? 54% of the people think that Hillary Clinton is dishonest and untrustworthy. I guess that makes her dishonest in your view.

            “On August 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth before a Federal grand jury of the United States. Contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury concerning one or more of the following:
            (1) the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate Government employee;
            (2) prior perjurious, false and misleading testimony he gave in a Federal civil rights action brought against him;
            (3) prior false and misleading statements he allowed his attorney to make to a Federal judge in that civil rights action; and
            (4) his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action.”

          • Dwendt44 May 30th, 2015 at 5:45 pm

            50? The list of Republicans that have committed crimes or embarrassed their selves, their families, and their supporters is way longer. And since you seem to ignore it, Republicans are the ones who continually claim the ‘moral high ground’, self righteous superiority, and of course, ‘family values’, what ever those are.
            Waving the bible around, preaching to the choir and lauding their morality over everyone else just turns a lot of folks off.

          • madjayhawk May 30th, 2015 at 11:47 pm

            It must be embarrassing to have to justify Bill Clinton’s criminal activities by pointing out the criminal activities of others.

            Keep in mind that your candidate was a full, participating partner when her husband was committing those crimes.

            If someone, Democrat or Republican commits a crime they should go to jail. Don’t you agree with that? Hopefully all those Republicans have been through the justice system. That is not taking your ‘moral high ground’ or being superior, that is common sense. Criminals should go to jail PERIOD. The last thing I will do is research how many Democrats have been sent to prison or have committed acts many consider immoral and play that stupid game. If you think Democrats are all honorable and honest people you are totally naive.

            You are projecting a bunch of crap onto me without justification. I have never said I am a Republican. A lot of people, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents dislike the Clintons and all the shady things they have done or are involved in now.

            None of those Republicans you have railed against will ever be president. None of their wives will be. So what is the point other than to justify in your closed mind the things the Clinton’s have gotten aways with?

            It is disgusting to think that people like the Clintons will be back in the White House. Maybe they will return the silver and the furniture they took the last time and pay for the damage they and/or their staff did to the White House when they left.

            The Democrats have a lot of good people in their party. Find one that isn’t corrupt so we at least have a choice. Hopefully the Republicans will do the same.

          • Dwendt44 May 31st, 2015 at 12:45 am

            Jail for criminals? that depends on the crime. Minor or non violent offenses; NO.
            The wild claims of theft from the White House has been debunked back then, not that facts enter into your thinking. The furniture the Clinton’s took were given to them. Since they were in the White House at the time, the GAO determined that those pieces should have actually been ‘given’ to the government so the Clinton’s returned them. There was no china missing and the few pieces of silverware that were not accounted for, no one knows what happened to them. The ONLY items the Clinton’s took were returned.
            More rabid right wing lies.
            Even IF, and it’s very unlikely, that questionable claims of dishonesty by the Clinton’s were true, they are still head and shoulders above any of the current and likely candidates the GOP is or will be putting forward for next years election.

          • Dwendt44 May 30th, 2015 at 5:40 pm

            ‘Dandy’ Dan Burton was especially noteworthy. One of the most vocal of Clinton critics in Congress, yet he had what, two, or was it three, children from his mistresses during the impeachment hearings.

          • Chris May 30th, 2015 at 7:02 pm

            I only saw one on Wikipedia, but it’s worth checking out their piece. That high, nasal voice of his was like fingernails on the chalkboard. Kinda like Ted Cruz’s.

            What a corrupt, hypocritical SOB. (Well, that doesn’t distinguish him from the other GOPers, does it?)

          • burqa June 4th, 2015 at 5:46 pm

            My personal faves run in another direction – Republican sexless sex scandals.
            Republicans who ruined themselves in sex scandals in which they did not mange to have sex includes:

            * Senator Bob Packwood

            * Senator John Tower

            * Representative Mark Foley

            * Deputy Secretary of State Randall Tobias

            * Representative Jack Ryan

            * State Senator Bob Allen

            * Senator “Wide Stance” Larry Craig

            * Representative Chris Lee

            My personal fave is Rep. Jack Ryan, because the other person in his sexless sex scandal was his wife, the deliciously beautiful actress who played 6 of 9 on one of those Star Trek TV shows.

          • burqa June 3rd, 2015 at 4:43 pm

            It gets even worse when we consider that they had 3 speakers in a row who committed sexual misconduct, if the allegations against Hastert are true.
            Those 3 were elected by the family values party to not just lead the House of Representatives, but to be 2 heartbeats away from the presidency.

          • Chris June 3rd, 2015 at 6:42 pm

            Yeah, like I said in my first paragraph.

            (That’s OK, we agree.) 🙂

            Technically, Livingston was in line but stepped away once his affair came to light. See my second paragraph.

          • burqa June 3rd, 2015 at 9:51 pm

            Sometimes I go too fast and don’t comprehend what I read as well as I would like.
            Yeah, you got it all right.
            I remember the flurry of Republicans who were caught up in the various scandals after the colossal waste of time that impeachment deal was.
            What strikes me now is that they had 3 speakers in a row with sexual misconduct issues (if the charges against Hastert are true). That’s quite a streak to be on and one wonders if Boehner feels pressure to keep the string going…..

          • burqa June 4th, 2015 at 5:35 pm

            Your claims of Bill Clinton’s crimes were tried and he was acquitted of all charges.
            The loss of his law licence was an act of political sour grapes and he didn’t even bother contesting it because he had no intention of practicing law.
            And yes, the charge of lying had to do with consensual sex.
            The investigation in which he made the controversial statement was one tasked with seeing if he had committed sexual assault, so the question was not even pertinent. His mistake was to not let his lawyer point that out.
            The question was:
            “Is there an affair going on between you and Miss Lewinski.”
            He replied “No.”
            His reply was accurate, because the affair was over.
            This is why he said “It depends on your definition of the word “is.”

            Superstar Bill Clinton delivered more for the American people than any Republican president in my lifetime.
            * His economic program did not bring on the severe recession predicted by Gingrich, Gramm, and others. Rather, it took a near-record deficit and turned it into a surplus years ahead of schedule.
            * Clintonomics energized a moribund economy that grew swiftly with unemployment plunging from 7.4% to 3.8%.
            * Clinton reduced the size of government, a feat no Republican can match.
            * Clintonomics lifted half of those below the poverty line above it.
            * Clinton negotiated trade deals like GATT that helped boost exports by 90%
            * Had Republicans just left it alone, Clinton handed off an economic policy with a balanced tax structure that would have generated $11 trillion in further surpluses over the next decade. That would have been enough to pay off the national debt and still have $2 trillion to play with.
            * When surpluses appeared of course the Republicans wanted to give them away in tax cuts slanted toward the rich, but Clinton had a better idea. He reinvested it in Social Security, making it soluble out to 2052 when the demographic spike of the Baby Boomers would be subsiding.
            * In 8 years, real income for median families rose twice as much as the 12 years of Reagan/Bush.
            * Clintonomics created well over 30 million new jobs, 23 million net
            Republicans can’t match the record of Clintonomics – a name they derisively invented but stopped using as it generated success upon success. Where the rubber meets the road – actual real life performance – Clintonomics outperformed the economic policies of every Republican president going back at least to Teddy Roosevelt.


          • Dwendt44 May 30th, 2015 at 5:36 pm

            A lot of Democrats are guilty of believing a lying Republican president. Who would have thought that someone sitting in the big chair would lie our way into a war. That the V.P. and Republican campaign contributors profited mightily is also interesting.

          • burqa June 3rd, 2015 at 4:31 pm

            Yeah, Clinton was accused but was acquitted at the trial held by the Senate. The accusation was an alleged lie about a consensual sexual affair that had nothing to do with sexual assault, which was what the investigation was about.
            As for voting for the war, Democrats, Republicans and the American people were lied to and facts were withheld from us all during that debate.
            We were not told the aluminum tubes that the Bush administration claimed were only appropriate for centrifuges, had fallen apart when place in a centrifuge at Oak Ridge,
            We were not told that our drone experts in the Air Force had taken one look at photos of Iraqi drones and saw it was impossible for them to carry chem/bio weapons and dispersal equipment.
            I could go on, but the point is fraud negates consent.
            That is how they got the votes.

      • Basil Smith May 28th, 2015 at 10:48 pm


        No offense, but your a moron.

        • amyskene May 28th, 2015 at 11:47 pm

          You’re. You’re a moron. 😉

          And you are a stalking, nut-job, fanatic – the embodiment of my point. Thank you.

          • Dwendt44 May 29th, 2015 at 12:31 am

            What about the lows the GOP and it’s activists have sunk to?

            Conservative thinking is a mental condition. It can be cured, if the victim is willing.

          • fahvel May 29th, 2015 at 2:42 am

            you should have said, “nyah nyah” an intellectual expression fitting nicely with your exposed intellect.

          • rg9rts May 29th, 2015 at 6:33 am


          • amyskene May 29th, 2015 at 8:13 am

            At least you can spell. I’ll bet you looked it up though.

          • rg9rts May 29th, 2015 at 8:45 am

            Sweetie I forgot more words than you have in your vocabulary

      • fahvel May 29th, 2015 at 2:41 am

        hi amy, I am just agreeing with Basil – he’s is so precise.

        • amyskene May 29th, 2015 at 8:17 am

          I’m pretty sure Basil is either a she, or a confused he.

          • Chris May 29th, 2015 at 2:56 pm

            You show evidence of having a compulsion to reflexively accuse men of being effeminate or gay.

            Obamacare can treat you for this.

          • burqa June 4th, 2015 at 6:41 pm

            So there is something wrong with being female?

            ………………………………..what was that about being “confused”?

      • jasperjava May 29th, 2015 at 2:57 am

        Conservatives have shown they have no conscience. They have truly sunk to the bottom when it comes to dirty politics and they
        just keep going lower when I think there isn’t any lower they can go.

        They don’t even care about the blood on their hands, and their unqualified support for war criminals.

        Dirty politics? Ever heard of Nixon? The Willie Horton ad? Jesse Helms’ “Hands” commercial? The jungle drums playing in a RepubliKKKan ad against an African-American Senate candidate? Comparing a Vietnam vet who lost three limbs to Osama bin Laden? The list is endless.

        • madjayhawk May 29th, 2015 at 7:14 pm

          It is unrealistic to say one side or the other is the only one producing disgusting ads. Both do. The public is the one to blame for putting up with it, no matter who does it. I can guarantee you that I will not vote for someone who crosses the line in ads. Most of the time I do not even bother to watch them because they all are full of crap. I think both parties have campaigns that are run by drunken frat boys.

          • jasperjava May 30th, 2015 at 9:59 am

            The old “both sides do it” meme is one of the most insidious lies being spread around. That’s like saying that the Allies committed some atrocities in World War II, therefore they’re just as bad as the Nazis.

            Get some perspective. In the dirty tricks and lying department, the Republicans are far worse. There’s no comparison. The Republicans have to resort to these tactics, because their natural constituency is just bigots and billionaires. They have to fool millions of ignorant rubes into voting for them. They succeed because Democrats let them get away with it. Remember how John Kerry was Swift-boated by a bunch of liars?

          • Dwendt44 May 30th, 2015 at 8:53 pm

            Except that the Republicans are so good at dishonest and outright false ads, aired at just the key time frame to do the most good/bad.
            They know that there’s no down side to running them. If the lose, no one cares and if they win they don’t care.

      • rg9rts May 29th, 2015 at 6:33 am

        Been brain dead long?

      • Chris May 29th, 2015 at 8:00 am

        If you don’t watch (or monitor) Fox, then you have no dog in this hunt to say who has “truly sunk to the bottom.” Your post is then made out of ignorance.

        And you’re not watching Fox News because “what Democrats have come to represent is absolutely disgusting”?? This makes absolutely no sense. And totally in line with the non sequiturs that are the hallmark of Republican internet posters.

        • amyskene May 29th, 2015 at 8:11 am

          Point is: I don’t get my news from TV, period. And I’ve noticed you love your “non sequiturs”. It’s too easy to blind yourself to an argument by immediately writing off all other POVs.

          • Chris May 29th, 2015 at 1:44 pm

            Your argument is worthless because you are ignorant of what the primary fount of conservative misinformation, Fox, is saying. You thus have no basis of comparison.

            Is that plain enough for you now? And your accusation of me being guilty of non sequiturs is meaningless. Show me.

      • Robert Kennedy May 29th, 2015 at 10:33 am

        So caring bot others is why Democrats are bad and sentencing them to a life of hardship is why Republicans are good? You might want to read up on what Jesus said. Dirty politics is the right wing game, with stolen elections, voter suppression, and massive Gerrymandering. You must be suffering from Cranio-Rectal disease Amy.

      • dtm May 29th, 2015 at 12:00 pm

        Read about Dennis Hastert yet? What about the Texas Republicans that voted against funding for Hurricane Sandy yet now demand federal money for Texas flooding? How about Duggar and Huckabee stance on his exploits? What about the Republicans that are cutting Veterans benefits? Aaron Schock? Mark Souder? South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford?Nevada Sen. John Ensign?

        Which side has no conscience?

        • Elliot J. Stamler May 29th, 2015 at 6:38 pm

          AND Mark Foley, Larry Craig, Robert Livingston, David Vitter, Scott DesJarlais, Jon Hinson, Bob Barr, etc. etc. etc. (sigh-there are so many – they’d fill up half the hall at the next Values Voters/CPAC conferences.

        • madjayhawk May 29th, 2015 at 7:06 pm

          I recommend that you don’t vote for crooks, etc. no matter what party they are in. Knowingly voting for a thief, liar, racist, or sexual deviant just because he has a D or R after his name is almost criminal in my opinion. I never voted for Richard Nixon or Bill Clinton.

          • dtm May 29th, 2015 at 7:33 pm

            Which leaves us with…

    • Mitch May 28th, 2015 at 9:16 pm

      I guess I missed the part where Fox News is breaking all of the Hillary stories.

      • Chris May 29th, 2015 at 7:57 am

        All? No. But you must turn a blind eye to all of the anti-Hillary nonsense on Fox, eh?

    • johnnybizzoy May 29th, 2015 at 3:19 am

      So what you see in the media, and how it makes you feel, is the major factor in who you think should be the leader of the free world?

      • Chris May 29th, 2015 at 7:56 am

        Johnny Boy, I just said that I wasn’t looking forward to the Right Wing Rage Machine attacking again for 8 years; this was part of my decision to vote for Obama.

        My experience showed IT MADE NO DIFFERENCE which Dem became president; The RWRM would scream nonstop regardless of who was in. The focus shifted from Monica’s dress to Kenya, both irrelevant (and the latter a lie) to the duties of the president.

        • johnnybizzoy May 30th, 2015 at 4:56 am

          I agree, and the whole monica Lewinsky thing only caused me to tune republicans out for many years while I was younger. Then I discovered libraries and research, and now I don’t watch tv anymore. I don’t even own one, haven’t for years. Yea, I have Netflix, but c’mon, I’m a human being

          • Chris May 30th, 2015 at 1:05 pm

            I feel your pain (yeah, I’m being snarky.) I watch the local news, but the national is unbearable with the unending pecker pill ads and condensed coverage of important issues.

            There are still some good shows. We’re addicted to Big Bang Theory and (yeah, we’re liberals in the tank for) PBS shows. Thank heaven for TiVo.
            Netflix streaming is good on the TV, too.

          • Dwendt44 May 30th, 2015 at 5:28 pm

            Add in the issues and stories that SHOULD have been reported or investigated that were ignored.

    • madjayhawk May 29th, 2015 at 7:02 pm

      Not everyone watches FOX news 24/7. They get less than half the viewers. People on the left should ask themselves why people actually watch FOX news instead of the major networks.

      Voters voted Democrats out of office decisively in 2012. They did that for a reason.

      Clinton is a super-rich, old, worn-out, nasty, flip-flip-flopping old-line has-been pol that reeks of corruption. Obama was at least new and exciting to most people by design. The country would be better served if we had a choice between two younger candidates that actually had some good ideas and some good, solid experience. Most leftwingers hated Romney because he was rich, but love a very rich old woman whose dealings with her piles and piles of money are more suspect than Romney’s ever were. Do you think anyone like Clinton who takes truck loads of money from Wall Street is clean? Half the leftwing people in this country are blind and dumb.

      Watch the media literally destroy O’Malley for Clinton. That won’t be pretty. She won’t have to lift a finger.

      • dtm May 29th, 2015 at 7:42 pm

        “…why people actually watch FOX news instead of the major networks.”

        Well for one, Fox validates their own prejudices, er, I mean beliefs. Fox isn’t news. It’s Op Ed pieces.

        “Most leftwingers hated Romney because he was rich…” Wrong. Women didn’t like him because of his war on women. Most didn’t like him as he offered nothing but blame on Obama, no plans to what he would do for economy. And there was that whole 47 percent comment…

        “Half the leftwing people in this country are blind and dumb.” So, half see clearly and are smart? Why the need to generalize? Can you provide data to support your claim?

        • madjayhawk May 29th, 2015 at 9:36 pm

          I will provide data to support my claims when you provide data to support yours.

          The so-called war on women is a myth perpetuated by the media based on a couple of comments by a very few people who ‘misspoke’ or hadn’t ‘evolved’ yet. The media is very good at projecting the attitudes of a few onto a whole group of people in order to smear them so the low-informational voter will have someone to hate. Most call that bigotry.

          Obama had plans for the economy? Could have fooled just about everyone paying attention. What were they?

          Romney was pretty much right about the 47%. It is the way he said it that gave critics a chance to pile on. Isn’t it more likely that someone getting a government check going to vote for someone who will increase the amount of that check and/or not cut that check off? 47% of the people, hallelujah say the leftwing, get a government check of some kind.

          Fox is like all the other ‘news’ outlets believe it or not. Opinions, not reporting. I do not watch any of them. They are all entertainment outlets actually trying to make a buck for their big corporations. Those that are succeeding at appealing to the most people are making money and those who aren’t are failing miserably. The funny thing is that those who are failing do not recognize why they are failing. They keep directing their newscasts and print materials to about 35% of the country. If all of them would just report the news instead of reporting opinions they would be a lot more successful than they are now I bet. I watched Al Jazeera consistently for a while because they were being fairly balanced but they have hired a bunch of dedicated hard leftists as reporters and anchors (Suarez and Velshi) and are seriously slanting their stories that way now. They lost me. I just want news. It was good while it lasted. They still have very good stories that do not involve any type political angle. Worth watching.

          • mea_mark May 29th, 2015 at 9:44 pm

            If you want to be taken seriously and not as a total RWNJ, you might want to support your position with some data coming from reputable links, otherwise …

          • whatthe46 May 29th, 2015 at 10:06 pm

            damn, you are truly stupid. it’s sad, it’s really sad.

          • dtm May 29th, 2015 at 11:06 pm

            First, I didn’t make the claim that half leftists are blind and dumb. I merely surmised the other half were the opposite. So the onus would be on you to support your claim.

            Second, I didn’t say Obama had a plan. I stated a reason why Romney lost. He criticized Obama but didn’t say what he would do.

            Right, Romney made the comment regarding 47%. Right or wrong, he said it and people did not like it. Another reason he lost votes.

            You said that “Most leftwingers hated Romney because he was rich…” and I provided valid other reasons why left were not in favor of him.

            I agree with you regarding news on all channels, though I can find actual stories on CNN occasionally. Lots of fluff, but sometimes a story does pop up…followed by fluff about it, but some news.

          • Dwendt44 May 30th, 2015 at 5:26 pm

            Anyone who thinks the ‘War on Women’ is a myth needs their heads examined. The bills proposed by Republicans that limit or eliminate freedoms for women, the disparaging comments by right wing talking heads. The Republican governors that are cutting benefits for single mothers, etc.. The list goes on and on.

      • Chris May 29th, 2015 at 7:55 pm

        Your Fox News tail is wagging your Republican dog, and don’t try to deny it. EVERY REPUBLICAN who badmouths Fox ends up walking back his comments. Fox is the holy shrine of the GOP, nothing less than a propaganda mill. I don’t ask myself why “people” watch Fox News; in your opening sentence, you just said “they get less than half the viewers.” People who do watch Fox have been shown to be even less informed than people who watch no news at all. Proud of that?

        The Dems lost in 2012 simply because they didn’t show up. I’m not proud of that, but that’s the reason. We have a problem in off-year elections, unlike the GOP which gets fired up because someone’s gonna steal your guns.

        Your penultimate paragraph is just “winging it” hate with no connection to reality. Really? You with the “(Hillary’s)piles and piles of money are more suspect than Romney’s ever were” statement? Take two aspirin and call your shrink in the morning.

        • whatthe46 May 29th, 2015 at 10:09 pm

          i think she’s not taking the pills the shrink prescribed to begin with.

      • William May 30th, 2015 at 11:06 am

        “People on the left should ask themselves why people actually watch FOX news instead of “….

  12. Basil Smith May 28th, 2015 at 10:47 pm

    Conservatives like Ann Coulter have even dismissed Paula Jones as “trailer park trash”. (Ann Counter’s words, not mine.)

    No one really knows what happened. Based on what we do not to be facts, women were attracted to him by his power and offered sexual favors of their free will. I can easily imagine that she, like Monica Lewinisky, gave him a BJ (or more) and only agreed to file a law suit two days before any statue of limitation ended on an alleged sexual coercion or legal case. This hussy saw a huge paycheck and tried to cash-in. Where is she now? Well, she’s posed for Penthouse and solicited donations (for sexual favors, I wonder?) for a nose job. She then went on to do d-list celebrity boxing match. Her husband left her and her kids have had all kinds of drug/crime issues. This woman just tried to cash in after throwing herself at the then-governor. No court ever said she suffered emotional distress as a result of her sexual rendezvous.

    What’s more, if she did have sexual contact with him, he was a married man. I have zero respect for women who knowingly have affairs with married men. To me, they’re both pigs.

    • Dwendt44 May 29th, 2015 at 12:28 am

      She only went forward with the law suit because right wing activists (and Clinton Haters) pushed, cajoled, convinced and maybe bribed her to do it. The attention swung her over. Had they left her in the trailer park no one would be aware she existed.

    • Elliot J. Stamler May 29th, 2015 at 6:35 pm

      “Hussy”?? My that is not a word one reads much nowadays. If Ms. Jones reads your comment, Mr. Smith, she will call you a “varlot.”

      • burqa June 3rd, 2015 at 5:00 pm

        In the Deep South where I am from, we still use the word “hussy” and we spell the other one v-a-r-l-e-t and the usage you suggest from Jones would not be appropriate.

    • madjayhawk May 29th, 2015 at 6:42 pm

      I agree that it was he said/she said. All the crap that followed that you outlined pretty well was totally avoidable from Clinton’s point of view. He eventually paid Jones off which essentially, whether it did or not, said that her case had merit. Bill was pretty adamant that nothing happened. But he was pretty adamant about not having sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky and others as well. He should have taken Jones seriously from the beginning and do what was necessary to make her go away. Who really cares what Paula Jones has to say now?

      • Dwendt44 May 30th, 2015 at 8:50 pm

        Not specific to this situation, but suits are often paid of just to get rid of them.
        It’s often cheaper to pay off the plaintiff then spend time and money fighting a worthless case in court.

    • burqa June 2nd, 2015 at 11:53 pm

      I don’t think Clinton paid her a dime.
      What I recall is when her case turned out to be a bag of fart, the right-wingers abandoned her, then her husband split, then she posed naked for Penthouse to pay back taxes and support her kids instead of getting a regular job like regular people.
      Now I imagine selling pictures of her hoo-hoo won’t bring in much so she’s trying a rerun of the same crap that messed up her life in the first place.

  13. fahvel May 29th, 2015 at 2:39 am

    what the hell is a paula jones?

  14. rg9rts May 29th, 2015 at 6:31 am

    Who is she???

    • allison1050 May 29th, 2015 at 7:42 am

      Good Morning! She had an affair with Clinton during the 80’s if I remember correctly.

      • rg9rts May 29th, 2015 at 8:47 am

        Ah then she had her vaginal probe…or was that the cigar lady…I get confused…….we moved to 11

        • allison1050 May 29th, 2015 at 9:11 am

          Already?? I have to drop in and see the new digs. My desktop was down from the wee hours yesterday until yesterday afternoon.

          • rg9rts May 29th, 2015 at 10:45 am

            Yesterday the whole thing fell apart…

          • allison1050 May 29th, 2015 at 10:51 am

            I dropped in and love the photos. Have you been out to ride yet?

          • rg9rts May 29th, 2015 at 12:12 pm

            Maybe later…tough night

      • dave-dr-gonzo May 29th, 2015 at 6:47 pm

        Chicks dig the Big Dog. He can’t help it if his kevorka is amped up to 11.

        • allison1050 May 29th, 2015 at 8:15 pm


        • bpollen May 30th, 2015 at 4:17 pm

          Makes me think of the episode of Family Guy where Peter tries to confront Clinton for sleeping with his wife and ends up sleeping with him too…

        • StoneyCurtisll May 30th, 2015 at 5:02 pm

          The “korvorka”…

    • madjayhawk May 29th, 2015 at 6:37 pm

      Jones claimed she was sexually harassed by Bill Clinton when he was governor of Arkansas. Basically a she said he said. Unless you were anti-woman Jone’s story was believable considering who did it to her. Poor Bill, instead of dealing with the case directly and quickly, decided to fight it and wound up getting himself impeached and losing his law license because he committed perjury in a Federal Court proceeding on the Jones case. His wife lied too but that is another story. He finally threw in the towel and paid Jones $800,000 to make her go away. He made two bad decisions. One asking Paula up to his hotel room and two not admitting that he did it and then facing the music.

      What is weird is that liberals normally side with the woman in cases like this and the man is always guilty until proven innocent but in this case they sided with the man for some reason. Watching liberal feminists bend themselves into pretzels to justify how Bill Clinton treats women is hilarious to watch. Wait until Orgy Island comes in the election.

      • Bunya May 29th, 2015 at 9:37 pm

        And if I remember correctly, Newt “family values guy” Gingrich was leading the charge against Clinton, turning that job over to well-known crook, Tom DeLay, because, well, it came to light (at a very inconvenient time, I might add) that he, himself, was being “serviced” by his mistress whore. It seems accusing others of “moral bankruptcy” while getting blown by the local gutter snipe in the back seat of a Mercedes, just doesn’t sit well with the general public.

        • madjayhawk May 30th, 2015 at 11:41 am

          It seems that liberals when faced with an inconvenient truth, they always use, with endless lists of bad Republicans, the old third grader justification, “Johnny did it too” to try to justify to themselves and others that their guy is not a common criminal/adulterer/sexual predator. It is like using, say, the Armenian genocide to argue that the Holocaust was okay or not so bad. The Turks did it so it is okay for the Germans to do it too. Livingston, Gingrich, et al did it so it is okay for Clinton to do it. That sort of logic is really dumb and very transparent.

          • bpollen May 30th, 2015 at 3:41 pm

            Actually, what’s being said is that the “prosecution” was a political hatchet job spearheaded by a person DOING EXACTLY THE SAME THING! It’s not that Newt is an adulterer (though he is,) it’s that the HYPOCRISY and DUPLICITY of the Republican leadership in this case was a “shining” example of IOKIYAR. Democratic aduiterers BAD. Republican adulterers get a pass.

      • William May 30th, 2015 at 11:03 am

        ” instead of dealing with the case directly and quickly, decided to fight it and wound up getting himself impeached” …
        and whom (may I ask) was the shining example of republican fidelity and values that led that impeachment effort?
        Oh right, the guy who was boffing his staff member while his wife was an impatient in a cancer ward. Poor Newt was sh!tcanned and almost replaced by Livingston who had to take a powder because his sordid escapades were published in Huster. Livington retired and was replaced by diaper dude Vitter.
        Please do pop in any time and share your tales of republican virtue.

        • whatthe46 June 8th, 2015 at 3:18 am

          i’m gonna double my dose of aspirin now. (wipes brow, turn ceiling fan on tripple high) lol

      • wpadon May 30th, 2015 at 12:13 pm

        It is undeniable that Clinton committed adultery, that is between Bill and his family to reconcile. Looking at the greater body of work that Clinton and other Democrats have accomplished and championed is why the Clinton’s still enjoy overwhelming support from the liberal base. On a side note, the Democrats do not make an issue of “family values” as the Republicans, therefore, there is no hypocrisy.

      • dtm June 1st, 2015 at 4:29 pm

        • whatthe46 June 8th, 2015 at 3:16 am


      • OldLefty June 1st, 2015 at 4:55 pm

        What is weird is that liberals normally side with the woman in cases like this and the man is always guilty until proven innocent but in this case they sided with the man for some reason. Watchin


        Liberals simply go by the facts.
        The facts never backed her up, but they DID back up the political witch hunt that tried to revoke an election….twice.

  15. Hirightnow May 29th, 2015 at 8:30 am

    Huh. This post must have raised a red flag at Troll Central.

    • mea_mark May 29th, 2015 at 8:51 am

      Yeah, I think it is time to throw out some trash.

      • Hirightnow May 29th, 2015 at 9:34 am

        Dissenting voices are one thing, and while I hate to see different opinions silenced (“FIRST AMENDMENT! I’M BEING CENSORED!!1!”), how does a person justify

        You ass-clown fools never cease to amaze with your one-sided blindness.
        Wake up. And I don’t discriminate against anybody but homosexuals are
        truly a mentally screwed up lot of degenerates and there is no way to
        justify it as “normal”.

        as debate of any type?

        • mea_mark May 29th, 2015 at 9:45 am


        • dave-dr-gonzo May 29th, 2015 at 8:16 pm

          Someone’s a li’l obsessed with homosexual assclownery, if you catch my drift.

          I would recommend you steer him toward any recent post on Dennis “Fresh Outta the Closet and Faaaaaabulous!” Hastert.

          • Hirightnow May 29th, 2015 at 10:31 pm

            It was a poster named amyskene, further down (up?) this very thread.

      • dave-dr-gonzo May 29th, 2015 at 6:46 pm

        Someone needs to go into the Disqus backend and post a few of their IP addresses…

        • mea_mark May 29th, 2015 at 6:58 pm

          That is not legal. That would be opening the door to lawsuits. I like the idea though, just no can do.

          • DrPills June 12th, 2015 at 4:15 pm

            OK, so we just go to the Chinese hackers and get the same info. Do us a favor, save us all the time.

    • StoneyCurtisll May 29th, 2015 at 1:23 pm

      They are coming from far and wide…:)

    • William May 30th, 2015 at 10:55 am

      The troll alert system.

      • whatthe46 June 8th, 2015 at 3:13 am

        i just saw this. coming to s.a. anytime soon? lol. i have so got to go on aspirin.

  16. Zina May 29th, 2015 at 9:33 am

    Anything this woman says means absolutely nothing. And she says it to the UK Daily Mail, that tawdry rag produced in England? No thank you.

    • ChrisVosburg May 29th, 2015 at 3:18 pm

      Bonus hilarious freudian slip from the Daily Mail article.

      “This is her first public intervention since the Clintons left the White House in January 2001.”

      If only we had staged an intervention earlier…

    • dave-dr-gonzo May 29th, 2015 at 6:45 pm

      Calling the Daily Mail a “tawdry rag” is an insult to tawdry rags.

  17. Robert Kennedy May 29th, 2015 at 10:24 am

    Paula Jones lied before and the troope who backed her story ended up in prison for perjury. Why isn’t she there as well?

    • madjayhawk May 29th, 2015 at 6:25 pm

      Didn’t Bill Clinton give this ‘liar’ $800,000 after turning all the dogs out on her?

      • dave-dr-gonzo May 29th, 2015 at 6:44 pm

        No. Try getting your facts straight before posting easily debunked smears, Sparky.

        And, for the record, she has been proven to have lied on multiple occasions. Bill Bennett tore her apart on the witness stand, if you would care to review the actual court record.

  18. gilligan May 29th, 2015 at 11:16 am

    Paula WHO?

  19. Elliot J. Stamler May 29th, 2015 at 1:21 pm

    Concerning Ms. Jones I am reminded of the wonderful James Carville’s comment at the time her notoriety emerged: Drag through a trailer park and there’s no telling what kind of trash you’ll get. (or very similar words).

    • ChrisVosburg May 29th, 2015 at 3:11 pm

      The actual quote, which was classic Carville:

      Drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you’ll find.

      • madjayhawk May 29th, 2015 at 6:21 pm

        Drag a $250,000 check around the mansions in Chappaqua and you don’t have to guess about what you will find.

        • dave-dr-gonzo May 29th, 2015 at 6:43 pm

          Namely, the Bill and Hillary Clinton have more integrity in their little fingers than Paula Jones and her cronies have in their entire living bloodlines. When $250,000 goes from Republican tech billionaire Mark Brown to the Clinton Global Initiative, it’s because it’s doing the world good.

          When you have done as much as the CGI has in eradicating poverty and hunger, you will have earned a right to make snide remarks about “drag[ging] a… check around the mansions in Chappaqua,” most of which are owned by conservative.

          Until that happens, you’d be wise to sockinit to avoid looking like a churlish, shallow troll.

  20. Hawthorne May 29th, 2015 at 3:24 pm

    Completely irrelevant. Next!

  21. mywordisfinal May 29th, 2015 at 6:39 pm

    but yet you knowingly slept with a married man.

  22. granpa.usthai May 30th, 2015 at 1:33 am

    better the US continue the search for Iraqi WMD’s?

  23. wpadon May 30th, 2015 at 12:02 pm

    I would not vote for any Republican.

  24. burqa June 4th, 2015 at 10:05 pm

    Johnnybizzoy: “Both political parties pursue the agenda of the oligarchy, not the American people.”

    Having spent a lot of time in Europe and knowing how distorted their view of America is, I’m not bothering with the link. Besides, what’s the point? If you’re saying both are the same, it does not persuade me to move from one to the other.

    Johnnybizzoy: “Wages have stagnated for 40 years, over the past 9 Presidents ”

    A glance at the link and the Pew chart confirm what I posted, which is logical. The official stats I posted show that wages rose at a greater clip under Clinton than Reagan/Bush, and I already posted the numbers that show it was worse when Republicans were in the White House.

    Johnnybizzoy: “500,000 Iraqi children died as a result of economic sanctions enforced by Bill Clinton in the 90’s.”

    First, the numbers have been disputed. You’re getting Saddam’s numbers.
    Second, Saddam brought it on himself by failing to live up to his agreements.
    Third, I am not aware of any surge of Republicans clamoring to lift the sanctions.
    Fourth, Clinton’s policy disarmed Saddam of his WMD, especially after Desert Fox brought Saddam to his knees.
    Fifth, Under Clinton, Saddam was no threat to us and was contained at a cost of less than a billion dollars a year and no American lives. At the same time, Clinton’s policy maintained Iran’s biggest enemy and counterweight in place, thus maintaining an eye on our strategic interest in the region. Bush removed that, and now Iraq has a Shiite government with a constitution interpreted by Iranian-trained mullahs and is an ally of Iran.
    Sixth, I gotta hand it to you. We don’t see many Americans taking the side of Saddam over the U.S. much any more.

    Bravo to you for being a Saddam Hussein fan!

    Johnnybizzoy: “The Vietnam War, the bloodiest, most shameful, and most pointless war in our nation’s history, was started by the Democrat, Lyndon Johnson. ”

    Johnson escalated it, sure, and conservatives were in the lead cheering it on.
    The Vietnam War had been going on since the end of World War II. We tried to stay out of it until Eisenhower came along and negotiated the SEATO Treaty, which obligated us to fight to defend South Vietnam. Ike sent in military advisers and arms and by the time LBJ took office, hundreds of Americans had died there.
    Yeah, LBJ is blameworthy, but so are others. Ike is the one who poured the concrete around our feet to keep us there.

    The fact that you then wander off on even more topics that are unrelated to the performance of the economy under Republican versus Democrat presidents convinces me you are throwing in the towel on the issue, which is fine with me.
    You have had plenty of chances to reply and have not been able to rebut my point, supported by facts in a massive sample size going back over a century.
    I have shown definite, undeniable trends that show the economy performs far more poorly when Republican economic policy is in place.
    Obama’s term is not over, but even if his administration were to rank last in all the important categories I gave since World War II, the Republicans still dominate the lower rankings while the Democrats dominate the upper rankings, including first place in every category.
    I will say this: No Republican was handed off an economy as bad as the one Obama was handed off. This is also a trend we see in the recession stats I posted. 4 of 12 Republican presidents handed off a recession to a Democrat, yet only one Democrat handed off a recession to a Republican and that was Wilson.. Yeah, it has been 94 years since a Democrat handed off a recession to a Republican and Bush handed off not just any recession, but the worst recession since the Great Depression, which was handed off to a Democrat by a Republican, of course.
    So not only have Democrats done better than Republicans, but they did so even when handed off an economy in recession or in doldrums coming out of one (such as Ford to Carter and Bush to Clinton.

    Attack Democrats all you want, but none of your arguments shows the economy flourishing under Republicans better than under Democrats. You have nothing that indicates the reverse.

    If you want to try out this throw-anything-and-everything-at-the-wall tactic, I have extensive notes on Bush’s negligence before 9/11 and Reagan’s arms-for-hostages deal.
    Other trump cards in my hand are Teapot Dome, Warren Harding in general and Watergate. You’re not going to top any of them in awfulness.

    • johnnybizzoy June 5th, 2015 at 11:49 pm

      “Having spent a lot of time in Europe and knowing how distorted their view of America is, I’m not bothering with the link. ”

      You didn’t like the link because it was to a bbc article? You should at least read the evidence if you want to make a coherent argument against it. The article references a study done at PRINCETON UNIVERSITY – in America. Here, see for yourself. My point is well made, I can provide additional studies from other Universities, and other think tanks if you wish.,d.aWw

      “The official stats I posted show that wages rose at a greater clip under Clinton than Reagan/Bush”

      yea – no – because WAGES HAVE BEEN STAGNANT. Just look at the chart. There has been NO GROWTH, UNDER EITHER PARTY, FOR 50 YEARS. Just look at the chart.

      “First, the numbers have been disputed. You’re getting Saddam’s numbers”

      no sir, those are the UN’s numbers. They are not seriously disputed.

      Here’s your buddy, former Secretary of State Madeline Albright, showing how liberal and loving she is

      Johnson escalated it, sure, and conservatives were in the lead cheering it on.
      The Vietnam War had been going on since the end of World War II.”
      See? You’re starting to understand. Johnson escalated, conservatives cheered him on. Democrats and Republicans, ignoring the will of the people, working hand in glove to distract the American people and pursue the policies of the elite.
      Just to very quickly agree with you while denying your attempt to call Johnson’s contribution an “escalation,” I will go off memory and state that:
      Vietnam was a French colony, which they attempted to re-conquer after WW2. The French were unable to launch this operation without US help, and by the end of their failed attempts, the US was providing about 90% of their weapons and funding for their operation, which failed spectacularly at Dien Bien Phu (spelling?)
      Ike was responsible for this aspect. Kennedy continued it, but at the time of his death, we had less than 10,000 “advisors” who many say he was preparing to pull out.
      Johnson did not escalate the war. He re-started a war that was already over. The Communists had already totally defeated the French, and would have marched on Saigon ten years earlier (with a lot less bloodshed to follow) if Johnson hadn’t futility gone in there to murder Asians and funnel billions to the Pentagon. There’s another loving liberal for you. Nixon was also a scumbag, this isn’t about proving Democrats are worse than Republicans. This is about pointing out that BOTH ARE EVIL SCUM.
      You still have failed to grasp that I am not arguing in favor of republicans. Just against those Democrats that can do no fault in your eyes. Vietnam was absolutely a Johnson policy. 500,000 dead Iraqi babies could not have happened without Clinton. Your data set on job growth has not shown causation. You are welcome to address my criticism of your central thesis by providing specific details on which economic policies you believe are more conducive to growth. That would be a worthwhile conversation.

      • burqa June 6th, 2015 at 12:52 am

        The BBC is very good, but, like I said, Europeans often have a distorted view of America.

        I don’t need to bother with your other links because I already have the stats on growth in disposable income, GDP growth, unemployment, etc. and in every category the Democrats dominate the upper rankings and the Republicans dominate the lower rankings under those 9 presidents.
        That’s a span from LBJ to Obama.
        Here are the recessions in that period of time with their length in months given in parenthesis:

        (LBJ – no recessions began on his watch or that of JFK, although Ike handed one off to him, in true GOP fashion)

        Dec. 1969 – Nov. 1970, NIXON, REPUBLICAN, (11)

        Nov. 1973 – March 1975, NIXON, REPUBLICAN, (16) (handed
        off to Ford)

        Jan. 1980 – July 1980, CARTER, DEMOCRAT, (6)

        July 1981 – Nov. 1982, REAGAN, REPUBLICAN, (16)

        July 1990 – March 1991, BUSH SR., REPUBLICAN, (8)

        (No recessions took place on Superstar Bill Clinton’s watch, of course)

        March 2001 – Nov. 2001, BUSH JR., REPUBLICAN, (8)

        Dec. 2007 – June 2009, BUSH JR. REPUBLICAN, (18) (handed
        off to Obama)

        Once again we see the dismal performance of the economy when a Republican president is in office. We see the economy was in recession 77 months on their watch and 6 on the watch of the Democrats.

        And you’re trying to tell me things were better with Republicans?

        • johnnybizzoy June 6th, 2015 at 4:39 am

          Dude, I’m getting a little disappointed in your ability to have a conversation of any depth. Once again:
          1) you are showing a potential correlation. you are not showing causation. Do you know what those terms mean?
          2) The links I provided were to a PRINCETON UNIVERSITY STUDY – it has nothing to do with Europe. The study found that the American political system is an Oligarchy – not a democracy. Do you know what the term, “oligarchy,” means?
          3) Have you ever taken a college level course on economics, yes or no?
          4) Do you feel that you have a good grasp on how the economy works? yes or no?

          Instead of continuing to repeat factoids, you may want to address any of the number of reasons I’ve suggested that your interpretation of those factoids may be incorrect. That would be the logical next step in our discussion. Continuing to repeat yourself, rather than addressing my critiques, only more and more strongly suggests that you cannot defend your factoids from very simple questions about their relevance.

          • burqa June 6th, 2015 at 6:06 am

            I have given you causation.
            I have given you official government stats.
            I have given you links.
            I have given proof that in every major measure of economic performance, the economy had done better when Democratic Party policies are in place than when a Republican Party economic policy has been implemented.
            You have not addressed what I have posted, but have tried to duck and dodge.
            You have not posted numbers where we can compare economic performance between Republicans and Democratic economic policies.
            C’mon, put-em up!

            You have not addressed the frequency with which recessions occur when Republican economic policy is in place or why they are more severe than when Democratic economic policies are in place.
            You have not addressed why the top rankings when it comes to GDP growth, percent change in job growth, annualized job growth, or growth in personal income are dominated by Democrats and the lower rankings are dominated by Republicans.

            You have not given numbers in important economic categories that show the economy has done better under Republicans because you can’t.

            Look, compare the two better performances by a Democrat and a Republican, Clinton and Reagan.
            Reagan came into office and was handed off a floundering economy coming out of a recession with a $136 billion deficit – considered high – and 7.5% unemployment.
            Clinton came into office and was handed off a floundering economy coming out of a recession with a deficit around $300 billion – considered high – and 7.4% unemployment.
            Both got their economic policies passed, but Reagan went on a spending spree, asking for more money than Congress budgeted in one year, while Clinton flatlined discretionary spending. Reagan cut income so deficits soared to about $300 billion while under Clinton the deficit began a long, steady decline.
            Under Reagan, 2 years in, when he said the budget would be balanced by supply side and we’d be in a boom, unemployment has shot up to 10.8% and he averaged a 7.5% rate for his 2 terms.
            Under Clinton, unemployment steadily declined like the deficit and he averaged 5.2% for his two terms.
            The lowest Reagan got unemployment was 5.3%.
            The lowest Clinton got unemployment was 3.8%

            Other categories to consider:
            Percent change in job growth from the beginning of term:
            Reagan: 17.7%
            Clinton: 20.7

            Annualized job growth:
            Reagan: 2.1
            Clinton: 2.4

            Annualized GDP growth:
            Reagan: 3.4%
            Clinton: 3.6%

            Annualized growth in disposable per capita income:
            Reagan: 2.7%
            Clinton: 2.3%

            And the thing to remember is Reagan’s economic prosperity was all borrowed and had to be paid back by you and I, whereas Clinton eliminated the deficit and it was pay-as-you-go and we paid as we went. The cost of everything under Reagan was more because not only did he borrow hundreds of billions to finance it all, but the interest on all that borrowing made government that much less efficient because so much had to be paid just to service the massive deficits he ran up. Under Clintonomics, those hundreds of billions were effectively dumped back into the economy to circulate and so we had a net of 23 million jobs, far more than under Reagan.
            Conservatives are only concerned about deficits when a Democrat is in office and it is like pulling teeth to get them to discuss it under Republican presidents.

            Once you have the numbers, there’s all kinds of ways to look at it.
            For example, the best unemployment number for Reagan was 5.3%. It took him all the way to November 1988 to get it that low from the 7.5% rate he inherited.
            Clinton started off at 7.4% and got it down to 5.3% in June of ’96.

          • johnnybizzoy June 6th, 2015 at 9:01 pm

            “I gave you causation.”

            Where? Please quote.

            “I have given you official government stats”

            You are trying to use anecdotal factoids to draw spurious conclusions. You haven’t shown causation.

            “I have given proof that in every major measure of economic performance, the economy had done better when Democratic Party policies are in place”

            No you haven’t.

            You have shown how TWO measures of economic performance have often CORRELATED with Democratic Presidential terms. You haven’t defined which policies those are, you haven’t shown how the Democratic President is solely responsible for those policies, you haven’t addressed the reality that economic policies take years to have measurable effects on the economy. You haven’t addressed the contributions of republican congresses, you haven’t addressed the far more relevant trends in the macro economy. You have only shown correlation – it proves nothing and predicts nothing. You have not yet made a valid argument.

            “You have not addressed what I have posted, but have tried to duck and dodge”

            I have addressed it in a detailed and repetitive way. You have failed to respond.

            “you can’t handle the GOP getting waxed 77-6”

            I don’t care about the GOP. Both parties are controlled by the same oligarchical interests. I believe that the economy is far more affected by numerous factors other than the President, factors that I have listed for you repeatedly. You have ignored my attempts to have that discussion because you want to stick with your Presidential Astrology theories. Post a link to a peer-reviewed study that explores your thesis. Post one link to something academic.

            “So you call those recessions “factoids,” as if recessions don’t indicate anything about economic performance.”

            They are anecdotes that you have claimed imply something fundamental about Democratic Party leadership – something fundamental that you have yet to define or describe. Without context, your data are not relevant, and does not predict anything.

            “Look, compare the two better performances by a Democrat and a Republican, Clinton and Reagan”

            “Both got their economic policies passed”
            How much of the Clinton economy was still under the influence or Reagan’s economic policies? How much of the Clinton economy was influenced by the Republican Congress at the time? How much of the Reagan economy was influenced by inflation and oil prices? How much influence does the President have over those variables? How much of the Clinton economy was based on new technological innovations that were not present during Reagan’s economy? How much influence did Clinton have over developing those technologies? You see – these are all the issues and factors that you are ignoring. You are ignoring them because they are LEGITIMATE VARIABLES, that when added to the equation, DESTROY THE RELEVANCY OF THE ANECDOTAL DATA YOU HAVE PRESENTED. That is why you have ignored half a dozen posts where I’ve tried to get you to address them. you will ignore them again here I’m sure.

            I think the bottom line here is that your “method” of analyzing the data is not academically rigorous. It is rhetorically persuasive only to someone who is ignorant of economics. When I try to add context or dimension to your data, it begins to look less impressive, and that is why you continue to ignore the context and dimension. You may continue to try to dazzle and impress the ignorant, but your data has yet to dazzle impress or convince me of anything. It is worth a second look, perhaps – but you have failed to show that it is relevant or predictive

            Go dig up the peer reviewed, academic research that your data comes from, and post links or the names of the researchers or the name of the study, and I will analyze that and see if there is anything here that is useful.

          • burqa June 6th, 2015 at 8:21 am

            See my posts on Clintonomics, below for causation.
            When I took yopur parameter of the last 9 presidents and showed you the recessions during their time in office, we were in recession 77 months under Republicans and 6 under Democrats.
            That’s no “potential correlation.”
            When a football team loses 77 – 6, and tries to excuse it by saying, “The sun was in our eyes….. We got new uniforms that are kinda tight….. We got a bad call by the refs……the field was kinda soggy……no, you got your ass waxed 77 – 6.

            I have given the official stats in the most important categories and the economy consistently performs far better under policies enacted by Democrats and consistently does far worse under Republicans. This is even worse when you recall the stats I gave on the number of times the Republicans handed off an economy in recession and the massive defcits they rack up.
            I have given large enough sample sizes to show these are not just atypical spikes but are conclusions based on long-term trends you have nothing to rebut with.

          • johnnybizzoy June 8th, 2015 at 2:32 am

            I don’t have much time this week, so just very briefly:
            Can you please explain which specific policies you believe caused GDP growth, and what specific actions you believe Democratic Presidents have taken to enact those policies?

      • burqa June 6th, 2015 at 11:21 am

        The Vietnam war had not ended when LBJ took office.

        It had never stopped since the end of World War II..
        Johnson ramped up the troops but we had been in a war over there before Kennedy.

        You fail to understand the significance of the SEATO treaty, and do not seem to be aware of what we were doing.
        The CIA had been there since its founding, taking over from the OSS which had been there during World War II.
        Here are descriptions the activities of 3 CIA officers over there during the 50s. Sure sounds like they were engaged in warfare to me:

        Lucien Conein:
        ” Conein went to North Vietnam on sabotage missions, destroying trains and buses, contaminating fuel and oil, organizing two hundred Vietnamese commandos trained by the CIA, and burying weapons in the cemeteries of Hanoi. He then returned to Saigon to help shore up President Diem, a mystic Catholic in a Buddhist country whom the CIA provided with millions of dollars, a phalanx of bodyguards, and a direct line to Allen Dulles”
        Legacy of Ashes by Tim Weiner (Anchor Books, 2008), page 243

        Anthony Poshepny (aka Tony Poe)
        “Poe lived at the CIA’s base in the Long Tieng valley of central Laos, close to a hundred miles north of the capital. With a bottle of Scotch or Hmong rice whiskey his constant companion, Tony Poe was the field commander of the secret war, walking point on the highland trails and valley paths with his Hmong and Thai troops. He had gone completely native and more than a little crazy.”
        Legacy of Ashes, page 292

        Ed Lansdale:
        “Washington was not counting on Diem alone. There was also the CIA. In 1954, Edward Lansdale arrived in Vietnam on assignment for the Agency. His orders were straightforward: stop the communists. Lansdale pulled together a unit that waged paramilitary operations and political-psychological warfare against the Viet Minh. A Lansdale team based in the north, and run by Lou Conein, Shackley’s former office mate in Nuremberg, sabotaged Hanoi’s buses and railway equipment. In South Vietnam, Lansdale bribed religious and political sect leaders to support the aloof Diem.”

        Blond Ghost, by David Corn (Simon & Schuster, 1994), page 172

  25. burqa June 6th, 2015 at 10:58 am

    You claim we funded al Qaeda and the Islamic State and want to be taken seriously. It’s impossible if you have no more sense than to see that stuff is nonsense.
    I don’t care where you are politically. It doesn’t change my opinions or the historic facts or economic stats over the last century that don’t comport to your opinion.
    I’m not worried whether you vote for Hillary, either. In fact, I hope the nonsense about her “funding the worst and most evil and violent criminals around the world” is plastered all over the place in ads for the GOP challenger.
    Women are going to see that and get even more pissed and their pent up anger over a campaign that tosses around that silliness will rise and she’ll cruise to an easy victory.
    People are getting sick of the hyperbole and women are sick of being condescended to by conservatives.
    And please, stop trying to let on you’re not a conservative.
    And if you think the Libertarians are going anywhere you’re mistaken. They offer a little liberals like and a lot they don’t and offer conservatives a little they like and a lot they don’t. That’s why they have been stuck going nowhere and will continue to do so. Ron and Rand Paul sold them down the river and are going nowhere just like the rest of them.

    • johnnybizzoy June 8th, 2015 at 7:17 pm

      I’m sorry you don’t see what is absolutely totally obvious to all serious observers of foreign policy. The Obama Administration and the Hillary Clinton State Department have unquestionably been involved in arming and funding Sunni militas in Syria – and that means ISIS. They and the GWB administration paid off al-qaida/sunni militias in Iraq to stop fighting long enough for our forces to withdraw under conditions that weren’t obvious, open warfare. That means they paid off al-qaida and ISIS. Did you forget our CIA was the mid-wife of the birth of Al-Qaida? And that ISIS considers Al-Qaida it’s philosophical fore-bare. I mean – dude…I’m not going to go into all this stuff. you can laugh and scoff but anyone who ignores the BS narrative of the Obama Admin and goes looking for the truth of ISIS, our government funding and arming them, and the Ukrainian neo-nazis. It’s all a matter of reading the news and paying attention. You scoff those realities because you know most folks don”t;