By Squirrellygirl

June 17, 2011 11:10 AM | Link to this

Vick, I agree about how it appears that America has backed tyrants. Then these tyrants use the arms we supplied them with against us, and this happens over and over again. We made agreements with China and others so we could live in peace even though we didn’t approve of their abuse of their own citizens. We did this so we wouldn’t blow the world up. But assisting the rebels to get rid of current leaders in this “Arab Spring” is a different kind of animal, although it does involve leaders that are as you said; however, we have no guarantee that the voids will be filled with better leaders. In the case of Egypt, Muslim Brotherhood who now are taking over Egypt, have plotted to annilate Israel. They are now taking their part and position against Israel. The other rebel countries will join in suit once the radical islams take over them, too. America has unwittingly joined them with our monetary substidies, but they will turn on America because freedom cannot tolerate Shariah Law oppression, and vise versa. The Arab Spring is a concentrated, coordinated effort and is the radical islams’ way of bringing back the 12th Imam, because havoc (this is what they believe) must be present in order to bring this about. It doesn’t matter if you or I believe it, but it matters that they do, and they are doing what they think they need to do to bring this about. It’s all about annilating Israel.

By vick

June 17, 2011 10:11 AM | Link to this

SG, the US government has an unfortunate habit of supporting oppressive rulers. And that tradition continues. It’s a long list but I’ll throw out one name just for fun: Saddam Hussein. We supported him when he waged his war against Iran. We could overlook his atrocious despotic behavior when he was doing what we considered to be acceptable; slaughtering people from a petroleum-rich country (Iran) that our government opposes. But when Saddam invaded our ally (Kuwait), our beloved supplier of oil, suddenly he was on our list of bad guys. This list of “friends” is heavily influenced by our desire to remain a global super power. Look at the Central Asian tyrants in former Soviet republics who we try to influence with varying degrees of success. We are playing a game of global super power chess with the likes of China, Russia, and India. Libya’s Gaddafi has been a despotic tyrant for decades. Libya has oceans of petroleum. Do I need to say more? The list of tyrants we have supported over the years is long….Saddam, just one of them. That relationship soured. Our love of democracy doesn’t always extend to our “friends.” Right now our relations with Pakistan are fragile. We propped up one Pakistani tyrant after another for decades. Where’s the democracy in Afghanistan now that it has been supposedly “liberated” from the Taliban? Is Iraq now a democratic society? I have my doubts….and so it goes.

By Squirrellygirl

June 17, 2011 8:22 AM | Link to this

Vick, there was that incidence, and another that comes to mind is in Egypt, when rebels that were recognized that were terrorists that also received arms from us, and then there’s the one in the most recent news about Mexican cartels given arms, they followed them, and then lost them. Yes, I’m aware it also happened before Obama’s administration as well.

By vick

June 16, 2011 5:18 PM | Link to this

Squirrelly, since you referred to Osama Bin Laden I’m guessing that you are aware that the US provided covert support for the efforts of Bin Laden’s cohort in Afghanistan long before he orchestrated the acts of 9/11. They were our monsters, until they weren’t. I’m sure you knew that, right? Your statement: “There was talk that we are arming rebels in these mid east countries (where mostly Muslim people are rebelling against their own governments) that some of these same rebels have fought against American soldiers and we are arming them with arms that can later be used against us.” If you want to make statements like that it helps to know your history….these things usually come back to bite us.

By Mark from St Paul

June 16, 2011 4:16 PM | Link to this

Kenneth Pollack was a Bush I appointee who Clinton was unable to get rid of until 1995. I was writing for City Pages when we went to war in Iraq, and Pollack was utterly reviled by the mainstream left for his neo-conservative “liberalism.” As for Israel, the need for them to return to their 1967 borders was first made by Richard Nixon, then reaffirmed as U.S. policy by Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Obama is simply reaffirming what every president before him affirmed. You can look that up as often as you like, but the truth is the truth and U.S. foreign policy has always called for Israel to return to their original borders.

By Squirrellygirl

June 16, 2011 3:25 PM | Link to this

We are limited in what we can do. We have to make sure that we are secure as a nation before we exaust our resources in other countries. We haven’t secured our own borders and hundreds of people are dieing on our borders and terrorists are able to slip through our borders into our country. Obama going into Libya “to keep Gadaffi from killing his own people” without going through congress was wrong and illegal. There was talk that we are arming rebels in these mid east countries (where mostly Muslim people are rebelling against their own governments) that some of these same rebels have fought against American soldiers and we are arming them with arms that can later be used against us. We don’t know which side we are on. In Egypt, where Obama thought it was so good that rebels got Mubarak out of office, we found out that a journalist was raped by multitudes of rebels while they were celebrating their “democracy”. We find now that Muslim Brotherhood, who swear to annilate every Jew on earth, are now in control and our tax money and union money went to help these rebels. We can’t continue to ignore the influence of Shariah law over there and now over here where they are challenging American laws in our own courts. We must put down Obama’s attitude that he doesn’t need to answer to the other branches of government. Obama’s refusal to follow our laws by getting congressional approval is worthy of his impeachment. He based his decision to go into Libya/Yemen on UN’s R2P instead. This cannot go unquestioned.

By Squirrellygirl

June 16, 2011 12:17 PM | Link to this

Iraq consulted with Usama regarding 9/11. Hussein continuously moved his WMD around when they were being inspected and wouldn’t let the inspectors inspect certain areas where those weapons were. They were playing games with us. Also, you can’t forget that Bush got congressional approval first before going in to Iraq and Afghanistan. On the other hand, Obama has not and willfully rejects the continued questions about why he won’t get congressional approval even to this day, and he can’t justify what our objectives are in Libya (or at least he doesn’t want to say what his objectives are!!!). You know how smart this administration is? A good example is in the news now about how ammunition was sold and lost to cartels, etc. This president is supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, the Arab Spring, the concentrated effort of radical islams to get rid of Israel by rebelling against their own governments, taking over, and then making war with Israel. Listen to their rhetoric and you will know what the “Arab Spring” is all about. I’m pretty sure Michele Bachmann isn’t a Muslim, but I can’t say that about Obama. I look at his actions, and I have to come to the conclusion that Obama is not on America’s side. His bills have killed jobs, stopped oil production here in U.S. to a great degree, is killing the coal industry, is printing money to deflate our dollar, is continuing to spend money when he has already added $4 trillion to our deficit, gone into 2 wars without congressional approval, and is taking his orders from the socialist UN R2P. Israel is next to be attacked by UN using their R2P even though they refuse to recognize the retraction of the report from which they are basing their decisions. President Obama and his cohorts are trying their best to demolish our U.S. laws and allow Shariah Law to prevail here in the U.S. This is a concentrated deliberate collaborative effort of socialists to weaken our country, to overthrow our capitalist Republic, and push our country into socialism. IMO Obama should go to prison along with Bill Ayers, Van Jones, Holder, and the rest of those socialist cohorts who are intentionally ruining our country and turning our international allies against us. Yes, I think Michele Bachmann as GOP candidate for president would be a breath of fresh free American air!! And Alfred E. Newman and Daffy Duck could do a better job as president/vice president even if all they did was quack and say “What? Me Worry??” all day long.

By vick

June 16, 2011 10:31 AM | Link to this

SG, you have all these reasons for justifying our unending war in Iraq. You have all this justification for invading Iraq. Then you say “Libya and Yemen haven’t attacked us” and I’m wondering if you think that Libya’s Gaddafi, who continues to slaughter his own people is somehow nicer than Saddam Hussein? And it is the UN that is trying to keep Gaddafi from killing his own people, right? Oh, and when did Iraq attack us? I must have been asleep that day (snore).

By Squirrellygirl

June 16, 2011 9:58 AM | Link to this

I agree with Harold that the Obama administration is weakening our Republic in order to strengthen his Socialist agenda. He helps the efforts of the radical islams and clears the path for the eventual attempted destruction of Israel by instructing Israel to give up the borders she fought for in 1967. It appears to me that the Obama administration has worked hard supporting unions and George Soros and with the radical islams to bring about the takeover of the Muslim Brotherhood over in Egypt, which will be more destructive to our ally Israel than President Hosni Mubarak’s which was at peace with Israel for decades. This administration has supported the “Arab Spring” which is a concentrated and coordinated effort to bring about radical islam rule over middle east countries and the destruction of Israel, and eventually America. We taxpayers are paying for this political agenda which changes U.S. policy. Also, Obama’s new wars w/o getting congressional approval are furthering the advancement of the Muslim Brotherhood hold on the “Arab Spring” countries. I still wouldn’t be a bit surprised if it came out in the end that Obama is secretly a Muslim, not a Christian as he proclaims. If you look at Rev Wright, you can see it very plainly. Just listen to what he says, and you will have to agree.

By Squirrellygirl

June 16, 2011 9:29 AM | Link to this

Chemical weapons employed by Saddam Hussein killed and injured numerous Iranians and Iraqis. I think the fact that Hussein had in his possession and was using the poisonous gas is a good enough reason, plus Hussein consorted with Usama. Also, they found the supply of gas masks hidden at one of those Iraqi hospitals where they were hiding them. Shortly before war ended in 1988, the Iraqi Kurdish village of Halabja was exposed to multiple chemical agents, killing about 5,000 of the town’s 50,000 residents.[54] During the Gulf War in 1991, Coalition forces began a ground war in Iraq. Despite the fact that they did possess chemical weapons, Iraq did not use any chemical agents against coalition forces. The commander of the Allied Forces, Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf, suggested this may have been due to Iraqi fear of retaliation with nuclear weapons.

By Raoul

June 16, 2011 8:33 AM | Link to this

Vick, the following is from a memo written towards the end of Clinton’s administration by Kenneth Pollack, who was a top advisor to President Bill Clinton on Iraq: “…because of the nature of containment, the next administration would be left with two choices: to adopt an aggressive policy of regime change to try to get rid of Saddam quickly or undertake a major revamping of the sanctions to try to choke off the smuggling and prevent Saddam from reconstituting his military, particularly his hidden WMD programs.” The arguments about WMD’s will likely go on forever, but in 2001 virtually everyone that knew anything about Iraq believed that Saddam was a serious threat, was hiding weapons, and was particularly interested in nuclear weapons. Saddam may have been bluffing, but most experts (even those that can hardly be called Neo-cons) agree he posed serious threats. Bush and Cheney called the bluff. Do you think the Arab Spring has anything to do with the newly democratic Iraq? I don’t know, but think it is an interesting quesion.

By Harold Richard

June 15, 2011 8:57 PM | Link to this

I don’t know that Michelle would be my first choice for President. I do know I would rather have her than Obama. As others have mentioned, there are many back room plans and a terrible instruction to Israel that Obama is unqualified to make. Who is this clown to suggest Israel give up land and return to the 1967 borders? Obama no more belongs in the White House than Hitler. I care deeply what happens in Israel and America. Obama does not act like a normal American President. After hearing his Rev. Wright, Van Jones, Cass Sunstein and George Soros, I clearly understand his plans to weaken our Republic in order to strengthen his Socialism. My intuition tells me he is a strong support for Islam. So, yes to Michelle over Obama.

By Mark from St Paul

June 15, 2011 3:51 PM | Link to this

Rule #1: keep repeating the same lies. Rule #2: cite discredited hacks like Toby Harnden of the hacktastic Telegraph (the most disreputable and oft factchecked and failed newspaper in the UK). Rule #3: keep repeating the same lies, allegations and unfounded rumors. Meanwhile, here in Minnesota, absolutely no one’s getting excited about Tim “Gov. Bridgefail” Pawlenty or Michele Bachmann. To get excited by these two, you have to chain yourself to the cable news channels where anyone can sound presidential for thirty seconds.

By vick

June 15, 2011 2:21 PM | Link to this

Squirrelly, I can’t believe you neglected to mention that Bush/Cheney orchestrated that fancy dog and pony show where they had their Sec. of State make that grand presentation which proved without a doubt that Iraq possessed WEAPONS of MASS Destruction!! And thus, their pretext for invading…oh Squirrelly of the convenient memory and shifting facts….where are those WMD? Do you know? Those Words of Massive DISTRACTION….I’m sure you believed every word of it, too.

By Squirrellygirl

June 15, 2011 11:21 AM | Link to this

The huge debt not only came from the 2 wars, but from catastrophes like Katrina. Also, there was the housing melt down with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which it has been proven that both parties had members who took advantage of government incentives illegally. I wonder if anyone was ever held accountable to repay for what they took, also I never heard of anyone going to prison for that, although they should have. Bush compounded the problem along with Obama with the government entitlements, and Obama went nuts like a school girl with a stolen credit card after that.

By Squirrellygirl

June 15, 2011 11:17 AM | Link to this

Those were different times then now. After 9/11 we had to search out the enemies that were attacking us in our own country. Bush sought and got approval from Congress to go into Afghanistan and Iraq before he did it. Iraq was using poisonous gas on its own people. Remember the pictures of the dead babies and children in the streets? Libya and Yemen haven’t attacked us, and Obama’s waging war with them based on UN’s R2P was loony, and he didn’t get Congress’ approval. I think Obama has dissed the other branches of government, and he has made them of noneffect. He is now a dictator.

By Squirrellygirl

June 15, 2011 10:29 AM | Link to this

No, Vick, I wasn’t lieing. Obama pushed us into 4 wars AT ONE TIME, 2 of those wars we were already in (Iraq and Afghanistan), but 2 of those were added by Obama (Yemen and Libya), along with Pakistan who is not friendly with us right now, and we may later see some results from bombing Osama’s compound inside Pakistan. Also, UN is eyeing Israel to attack next on its agenda. America should withdraw from the UN since it is not representing freedom but oppression. UN doesn’t recognize the Palestinian terrorists, but it recognizes a retracted report on Israel and continues to eye Israel as their next target for R2P. This current administration is not on Israel’s side. Obama showed his true colors when he told Israel to give back the land they fought for in the 1960’s. The rhetoric coming from Hamas and the fact that the Palestinians won’t recognize Israel is why Israel won’t and can’t give up those borders—it would be suicide for Israel to do that.

By vick

June 15, 2011 9:22 AM | Link to this

SG, so your statement that Obama “pushed” the US into 4 wars was simply untrue. And Irish, you make a good point; most of the Democratic majority in Congress supported the Bush wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.They were being patriotic. Remember that? Now if Obama wanted Congress to vote to invade those same 2 countries today one has to wonder just how much Republican support he would get. The Republicans were waving those flags so hard for them as Bush wars…if Obama wanted to invade them today would those same Republicans vote against it? Interesting thought….what happened to all those patriotic Republicans who couldn’t wait to approve US incursions into foreign lands?? Did they finally realize that our economic troubles could be partially the result of the massive debts incurred through these 2 never-ending Bush wars?? Curious, eh? Where’s all that cheap Iraqi oil that Bush was hoping for? And Obama was left with this huge mess. I’m not making excuses for him. But that’s the reality we now face.

By Squirrellygirl

June 15, 2011 8:15 AM | Link to this

Also, Obama went into Pakistan, which has nuclear bombs. I think he put our nation’s security at risk by doing this. Of course, I’m glad Osama is dead, but it scares me that Obama felt he could go into another country and not have anything happen to the U.S. as a result. He is spreading our troops so thin, and putting us in a precarious situation of which we may not be able to get out. I like Michele Bachmann, but I have reservations, something that I can’t put my finger on…I would feel better if Herman Cain could get his positions out there, especially on foreign affairs. I don’t think Romney is far right enough, and some of his positions, for example hc, scare me that he could flip flop once he got in office, even though he says he would get rid of Obama’s hc bill. I’m not sure I believe Romney. I believe Herman Cain.

By Squirrellygirl

June 15, 2011 8:01 AM | Link to this

No, I posted the article about Obama calling Bush a socialist because Vick, you seemed so surprised when I called Bush a socialist. I’m not using Obama’s calling Bush a socialist for my basis for calling him one, though. I’m just pointing out the fact that Obama also called Bush a socialist. I think Obama is a bigger socialist than Bush. I didn’t answer yesterday because I wasn’t at a computer. And Obama waged war on Libya at the marching orders of UN’s R2P w/o going through Congress as he was required by OUR U.S. LAW! So Obama, in effect, has trumped our U.S. Law with UN’s. Also, UN has increasingly been anti-freedom, investigating countries like Israel for false claims of violence when Palestine and other countries like Iran continue to abuse their own people and UN totally ignores it. Yemen is yet another country Obama has thrown American into a WAR. And whose side are we on? I believe all of it is a distraction and yet another way for Obama to exaust America’s resources to force us into socialism, just like his huge entitlement programs, his refusal to cut deficit, cut spending, his moratorium on oil at the same time he’s sending billions of our tax dollars out of our country to countries like Brazil for drilling there so we can purchase our oil from them, he says. If you read the article I posted below, you will find that Obama accused Bush of doing the same things Obama, himself, has done…but to a greater degree. Obama has added 4 trillion to our deficit and added 2 more wars, and there’s no end in sight to the 9.1% unemployment and rising gas prices. His energy policies are forcing energy prices to skyrocket, and the printing of money by the FED is putting the nail in America’s casket. Anyone would do a better job as president than Obama.

By Irishguy

June 15, 2011 7:14 AM | Link to this

Vick, when labeling them “Bush Wars” you forget to credit all the Dem Representatives that voted to authorize them. I don’t recall Mr Obama giving our elected reps that same opportunity…

By vick

June 14, 2011 9:48 PM | Link to this

Irish, thanks for answering for Squirrelly Girl. She said that President Obama has “pushed” the US into 4 wars. Did Obama push us into a war in Afghanistan? No. He was stuck with it. What about Iraq? No. Stuck again. Another Bush war. In regard to Libya; that’s the UN, right? As for Yemen, well we’ll see about that-it is just now underway…So SG’s claim that Obama pushed the US into 4 wars is simply incorrect, revisionist, shinola….sorry. That is why she hasn’t answered my question Irish…because she cannot.

By Irishguy

June 14, 2011 9:32 PM | Link to this

Vick, I’m sure SquirrellyG is referring to Iran, Afganistan, Libya and Yeman. It seems Mrs Bachmann did very in the debate. MSN’s Chris Matthews had this to say: “Maybe the biggest story from last night was not Romney’s cool or Pawlenty’s retreat, but the emergence of a star, Michele Bachmann. She was, of course, created here. She came off as poised, informed, that’s right, Gene, poised, informed and serious”. She must have done very well to earn praise from Mr Matthews, I can’t recall him ever having anything positive to say about Mrs Bachmann.

By Slightly Right

June 14, 2011 7:53 PM | Link to this

Vick, SG might be confused with all the wars she is talking about. I guess if you are a NATO nation, or a member of the United Nations, that you in fact a war monger and participant of all wars around the globe. George Bush as been gone for two and a half years and still getting blamed for everything but the Civil War. Get over it.

By vick

June 14, 2011 4:49 PM | Link to this

SG, so you called George W. Bush a socialist. Then you quote the man who you constantly vilify; President Barack Obama, as your foundation for calling W a “socialist….” Uh, what’s wrong with this picture? You can’t have it both ways, SG. Oh, and by the way, I’m still waiting for you to name the 4 wars that you claim Obama started. Which wars were they??

By You get what you voted for

June 14, 2011 3:32 PM | Link to this

The nice part is that when we all go down from Obama’s failed policies and government mandated health care, all the above liberals, dems and green huggers will be goin’ down in flames too.

By Squirrellygirl

June 14, 2011 3:18 PM | Link to this

I don’t know why a bunch of people don’t agree with me how bad it is that Obama sent oil drilling to Brazil and money to do it, but I don’t think having people agreeing with me that it is a bad thing should be a prerequisite for it being discussed or how important it is. I mean, our unemployment is at 9.1% and oil drillers left America to go elsewhere where they could drill w/o all of the regulation to hamper it. Plus there was discussion that a lot of money had already been spent and pissed away because of Obama’s policies here. Also, regarding Bush being a socialist (imo), Obama accused Bush of being a socialist. I posted the article and link here in a separate post.

By Squirrellygirl

June 14, 2011 2:53 PM | Link to this

“Assertion: The act of asserting. Something declared or stated positively, often with no support or attempt at proof.” Um, it’s been all over the newspapers, tv news, etc. so I don’t think I “asserted” anything. I repeated positively what the news said about Obama, that he bragged about giving Brazil billions of our dollars for oil drilling there and said we could buy our oil from Brazil. It’s a fact, not an assertion. And as to why people on this DDN site haven’t talked about it, don’t seem upset about it, whatever—maybe everyone is asleep. How the heck am I supposed to know why people aren’t upset about Obama taking away the oil drilling jobs here and sending it to Brazil with our money? It seems to me that a reasonable person would be upset about this, especially in our 9.1% unemployment climate, but then I’m still trying to figure out how we could have a new law that would send a school kid to prison for 8 years for pulling an alarm prank at school, while Representative Weiner takes a leave of absence to get better” after he used government facilities (computers? phones? gov’t workout facility?) to tweet naked pictures of himself to at least 1/2 dozen individuals. Why the man who moved a girl’s dead body was just released from prison w/o spending much time in prison, or why our own president waged a war in Libya w/o getting required congressional support and still to this day has refused to acknowledge this law and he’s still sitting as our president.

By ObamaCalledBushASocialist!

June 14, 2011 2:42 PM | Link to this

I couldn’t resist posting this. Obama calls Bush a Socialist! Just in case you don’t believe me, here is the link: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyharnden/9123157/BarackObamaGeorgeWBushisa_socialist/ Barack Obama: George W. Bush is a socialist By Toby Harnden World Last updated: March 8th, 2009 After an interview with the New York Times on board Air Force One, President Barack Obama was apparently unhappy with his answer to a question about whether he was a socialist. So he telephoned the reporters to have another go. He’s absolutely definitely not a socialist, the President insisted. But, he suggested, his predecessor George W. Bush was: “Just one thing I was thinking about as I was getting on the ‘copter. It was hard for me to believe that you were entirely serious about that socialist question. I did think it might be useful to point out that it wasn’t under me that we started buying a bunch of shares of banks. It wasn’t on my watch. And it wasn’t on my watch that we passed a massive new entitlement – the prescription drug plan without a source of funding. And so I think it’s important just to note when you start hearing folks through these words around that we’ve actually been operating in a way that has been entirely consistent with free-market principles and that some of the same folks who are throwing the word socialist around can’t say the same.” Here was his original, somewhat more wordy, answer: Q. The first six weeks have given people a glimpse of your spending priorities. Are you a socialist as some people have suggested? A. You know, let’s take a look at the budget – the answer would be no. Q. Is there anything wrong with saying yes? A. Let’s just take a look at what we’ve done. We’ve essentially said that, number one, we’re going to reduce non-defense discretionary spending to the lowest levels in decades. So that part of the budget that doesn’t include entitlements and doesn’t include defense – that we have the most control over – we’re actually setting on a downward trajectory in terms of percentage of G.D.P. So we’re making more tough choices in terms of eliminating programs and cutting back on spending than any administration has done in a very long time. We’re making some very tough choices. What we have done is in a couple of critical areas that we have put off action for a very long time, decided that now is the time to ask. One is on health care. As you heard in the health care summit yesterday, there is uniform belief that the status quo is broken and if we don’t do anything, we will be in a much worse place, both fiscally as well as in terms of what’s happening to families and businesses than if we did something. The second area is on energy, which we’ve been talking about for decades. Now, in each of those cases, what we’ve said is, on our watch, we’re going to solve problems that have weakened this economy for a generation. And it’s going to be hard and it’s going to require some costs. But if you look on the revenue side what we’re proposing, what we’re looking at is essentially to go back to the tax rates that existed during the 1990s when, as I recall, rich people were doing very well. In fact everybody was doing very well. We have proposed a cap and trade system, which could create some additional costs, but the vast majority of that we want to give back in the form of tax breaks to the 95 percent of working families. So if you look at our budget, what you have is a very disciplined, fiscally responsible budget, along with an effort to deal with some very serious problems that have been put off for a very long time. And that I think is exactly what I proposed during the campaign. We are following through on every commitment that we’ve made, and that’s what I think is ultimately going to get our economy back on track. Q. So to people who suggested that you are more liberal than you suggested on the campaign, you say, what? A. I think it would be hard to argue, Jeff. We have delivered on every promise that we’ve made so far. We said that we would end the war in Iraq and we’ve put forward a responsible plan. Q. In terms of spending. A. Oh, in terms of spending. Well, if you look at spending, what we said during the campaign was, is that we were going to raise taxes on the top five percent. That’s what our budget does. We said that we’d give a tax cut to 95 percent of working Americans. That’s exactly what we have done. That’s the right thing to do. It provides relief to families that basically saw no growth in wages and incomes over the last decade. It asks for a little bit more for people like myself who benefited greatly over the last decade and took a disproportionate share of a growing economy. I actually don’t think that anybody who examines our budget can come away with the conclusion that somehow this is a – that this is in any way different than what we proposed during the campaign. But more to the point, it is what’s needed in order to put this economy on a more stable footing. One of the problems that we’ve had is that we have put off big problems again and again and again and again. And as I’ve said in my speech to the joint session of Congress, at some point there is a day of reckoning. Well, that day of reckoning has come. What I’m refusing to do and what I’ve instructed my staff that we will not do is to try to kick the can down the road, to try to paper over problems, try to use gimmicks on budgets, try to pretend that health care is not an issue, to continue with a situation where we are exporting – importing – more and more oil from the middle east, continuing with a situation in which average working families are seeing their wages flat line. At some point, we’ve got to take on these problems. Q. Is there one word name for your philosophy? If you’re not a socialist, are you a liberal? Are you progressive? One word? A. No, I’m not going to engage in that

By vick

June 14, 2011 2:29 PM | Link to this

SG, Bill, Clarity, etc. I’m not saying that the story isn’t out there. I was merely observing that after endless ranting about the Brazil oil “story” that nobody else seemed to be agreeing with SG’s assertions. That’s all I was saying. Just an observation. Go back and count all the posts where SG talks about the Brazil oil deal. Then count the comments on those posts where other people agreed with her. I’m just saying…

By Clarity

June 14, 2011 1:59 PM | Link to this

“Let Me Be Clear” : ) (LOL) I think SG is a loon, BUT this Headline and story appeared in the Wall Street Journal on August 18, 2009. Obama Underwrites Offshore Drilling You read that headline correctly. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration is financing oil exploration off Brazil. The U.S. is going to lend billions of dollars to Brazil’s state-owned oil company, Petrobras, to finance exploration of the huge offshore discovery in Brazil’s Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro.

By vick

June 14, 2011 1:51 PM | Link to this

SG, I appreciate all my readers and commenters including you. I can only think of one commenter who bothers me. And since I will not post his comments, any antipathy I might feel toward him is a moot point. When he makes comments I simply delete them. Thank you.

By Just the Facts

June 14, 2011 1:49 PM | Link to this

@ Squirrely… So good I have to repeat it……Squirrelly, you are calling George W. Bush a socialist?! (stunned silence)…. Hey Vic, do you think the “Book Nook” could provide Squirrely with a Dictionary? It’s amazing to me how some of these people compare the Republican Party to Communists and Socialists? Please post the difinition for these poor uneducated rubes, then follow that with the Political platforms of each Major party so we can categorize them accordingly. : )

By bill

June 14, 2011 1:46 PM | Link to this

Story from the Wall St. Journal, August 2009: “Obama Underwrites Offshore Drilling” You read that headline correctly. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration is financing oil exploration off Brazil. The U.S. is going to lend billions of dollars to Brazil’s state-owned oil company, Petrobras, to finance exploration of the huge offshore discovery in Brazil’s Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro. I believe that’s what she was referring to, Vick.

By Just Asking?

June 14, 2011 1:44 PM | Link to this

@By Bill June 14, 2011 10:58 AM Bil, you need a $0.19 pill for schizophrenia. Obama is easily the worst President in US History. Please tell me ONE thing he did that you think is good, and please tell me one thing you think Bush did that is bad, and we will have a real debate. Why do you consider it “greedy” to have the desire to keep the money you earn? Why should I pay for “your” welfare? Please tell me why you shouldn’t earn your own check, and I am greedy or evil because I want you to get off the dang couch?

By Squirrellygirl

June 14, 2011 1:41 PM | Link to this

Vick, (to answer your question) no, that isn’t interesting. It’s a fact, it was reported by your lame stream media as well, although I heard more about it on Fox News because, well, it IS newsworthy. And Obama bragging about giving Brazil billions of our dollars for drilling there so we could purchase gas from Brazil is not a conspiracy theory. I’m not sure if DDN picked up this story or not. But DDN does have a news blog for a book Michele Bauchmann hasn’t written. Heh. As much as I think you hate my guts, Vick, I really do enjoy conversing with you. And if it wasn’t for the very few blogs available, we wouldn’t be discussing the conspiracy theory of “Obama and Brazil” which isn’t a conspiracy theory at all. It is a real event that happened. It’s even in your George Soros-paid-for news programs and blogs.

By Just the Facts

June 14, 2011 1:39 PM | Link to this

You’re right Joanie, I did post that incorrectly. Michelle Bachmann has a Master of Law’s Degree, which is a step over and above a Juris Doctorate. It’s considered an “Advanced” Law degree. You said the Country could use the laughs, so please tell us about YOUR resume and why you think she is such a joke? I also realize that Vic’s blogs are for “Book Nook”, so I understand his question about the books….. I was just giving my opinion that I don’t think the average voter cares if she has “paid” somebody to write a book for her. It really doesn’t matter. These people that post how big a “joke” or how “laughable” Bachmann is as a candidate will NEVER say why they think so. Mostly because they don’t know anything about her other than what they heard Whoopi Goldberg say on the View while they’re sitting at home thanking the good Lord that the working people of the world take such good care of them.

By truth in advertising

June 14, 2011 1:26 PM | Link to this

Bush was incompetent. Cheney was a puppetmaster and a shill for the aforementioned oil billionaires. Obama is clearly outmatched but still a good soul. As is Michelle Bachman, an obvious socialist with her paternalistic 23 foster children. and will this commentary grow up? Did too! Did not!

By vick

June 14, 2011 1:25 PM | Link to this

SG, this blog has a lot of readers. Many of my readers are conservatives, like you. You have been ranting about this supposed Brazil oil scandal for months; post after post after post. Even after all of this time I cannot recall any comments from my other readers that concur with your Brazil conspiracy theories, or give them any credence. Isn’t that interesting?

By Squirrellygirl

June 14, 2011 1:13 PM | Link to this

Mark, our dollar is failing because of QE1 and QE2. It takes more dollars to buy oil because under OBAMA the FED monetized the national debt. You know, the debt that Obama accrued, you know…where it went from 10 trillion dollars under Bush to 14 trillion under Obama? And Obama put a moratorium on oil drilling and Cass Sustein, his regulatory czar, refused to hand out oil drilling permits. So the oil drillers left America for less regulated waters. That’s right. This all while OBAMA went to Brazil to brag about the billions of dollars he was giving them to drill there so we could buy our oil from THEM! With unemployment at 9.1%, people don’t need cars to get to the jobs they don’t have. It sounds like Obama’s energy plan is, uh, working…to NECESSARILY SKYROCKET ENERGY PRICES! Koch brothers who? Seriously, George Soros is the one who the media should be covering. Koch brothers? @#^T&(^&%$%^%^&^^)&&!!!!

By Squirrellygirl

June 14, 2011 1:03 PM | Link to this

You are right, Vick. Only Pres Obama can have his racist comments printed. I, on the otherhand, did not post a racist comment. Martha Stewart would agree that reading comprehension is a good thing. Heh.

By Mark from St Paul

June 14, 2011 12:56 PM | Link to this

I didn’t want to jump into this thread, but the monstrous lie that Obama’s to blame for the Koch brothers’ aggressive oil speculation is just puerile. With the exception of Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela, oil is controlled almost exclusively by rightwing billionaires and sheiks. It would be simpler if you folks just said EVERYTHING BAD EVER IS OBAMA’S FAULT, and just let it go at that but in a world where NO ONE CALLED BUSH A SOCIALIST WHILE HE WAS IN OFFICE, I guess anything is possible.

By vick

June 14, 2011 12:55 PM | Link to this

Squirrelly, I read every post in its entirety. Since you post quite frequently and in voluminous measure please don’t expect me to go back and re-read through your comments to see what reference you might have been making to your prior posts. I don’t have the time to re-read all of your posts. When you made that ambiguous statement I had no idea what you meant because if you had made a racist comment I would have read it but then I would not have posted it. I did not understand what you meant for the reason I have stated.

By Squirrellygirl

June 14, 2011 12:36 PM | Link to this

I will admit that I could have restated that comment in a better more understandable way where it would have stood on its own, but then you would have made fun of me for being too “wordy”. I was under the impression that you read all of these posts. If you had, you would have known that I was talking about Obama’s racism. Nevermind, I won’t assume anymore that you read all the posts.

By vick

June 14, 2011 12:14 PM | Link to this

Squirrelly, your comment that “Vick, you were stunned more by my socialist comment than the racist one?” is clearly ambiguous. If you want people to understand what you are saying you need to avoid making ambiguous statements like that one…

By Squirrellygirl

June 14, 2011 12:06 PM | Link to this

No, Vick. I didn’t make a racist comment. I’m not a racist. I did say that (in my opinion) Obama is a racist. I was wondering why you picked on the socialist comment, rather than the one where I said Obama was a racist. I’m not the only one who thinks this to be true of Obama, and Obama has given us plenty to come to this conclusion. Even the mainstream media has accidentally reported on several examples of it. Remember Obama calling the police department stupid when he admitted right away that he didn’t know the facts of the case? It was a friend of his who Obama immediately guessed was picked on because of his “race”. Reading comprehension is a good thing, Vick.

By vick

June 14, 2011 12:01 PM | Link to this

Squirrelly, are you saying that you made a racist comment? Please, don’t make racist comments. Thank you.

By Squirrellygirl

June 14, 2011 11:52 AM | Link to this

Vick, you were stunned more by my socialist comment than the racist one? Obama is both.

By Squirrellygirl

June 14, 2011 11:50 AM | Link to this

Yeah, he said that he didn’t think capitalism works. And he wanted to legalize illegal immigrants. And he spent gobs of our money the same way Obama has. I don’t think Bush is as bad as Obama, but I think he was bad enough. I do have to give it to Bush that he tried to fight the Fannie/Mae Freddie Mac insanity, but then he wasn’t as great at BS, I mean as great an orator, as Obama is and he didn’t get very far with that. I feel our nation was more secure under Bush than it is under Obama. But Obama’s socialism has “skyrocketed” Bush’s. Ooooh, there’s that pesky word again!

By vick

June 14, 2011 11:38 AM | Link to this

Squirrelly, you are calling George W. Bush a socialist?! (stunned silence)….

By Squirrellygirl

June 14, 2011 11:17 AM | Link to this

George W. Bush was not my favorite president (I believe he was also a socialist), but the worst so far has got to be Barack Hussein Obama, hands down. He has divided our Republic and set us on the same track as Greece and Brittain. And I think Obama is prejudiced against white people. He proved it over and over again.

By @Delusional Bill

June 14, 2011 11:14 AM | Link to this

What are you on, Bill, because I want some. Everything looks great when you put on rose colored glasses, but things aren’t so great in this country since Obama became President. Let’s start with inflation, Bill. Under Obama’s direction, the FED has printed so much money to monetize the national debt (which is now 14 trillion vs. 10 trillion under Bush) and deflate our dollar to the point where food, energy, everything has gone up. You think medicine cost too much under Bush? You just told us that it “skyrocketed”. Ooooh, you know who else used that same term? Obama when he was referring to how his own energy policies would cause energy prices to-yeah you got it-SKYROCKET! Everybody, thank Obama for his energy prices! “Thank you, Obama!” Thank Obama for the $4.00/gas prices. I paid $3.59 today, but how much you want to bet it goes back to $3.99/gal again? And unemployment under Obama has-you got it again-SKYROCKETED to 9.1%. Thank you, Obama! What happened to America under Obama? You want to talk about greed? Try looking in the mirror. Why did you vote for Obama for President? Because he promised “Freebies”, “Obamamoney”??? We are finding out right about now how “free” Obama’s handouts are. Remember the cash for clunkers? How about free health care? Or, try this one on, we can purchase our oil from BRAZIL! Thanks for all the lost jobs in America due to your regulatory czar sitting on permits and Obama’s moratorium on oil drilling! Just make sure you give the proper thanks to your president for killing our economy (with the help of Bill Ayers, Rev Wright, Cass Sustein, George Soros, there are so many others who deserve “thanks”, but I can’t forget to mention Obama’s “other woman”, the UNIONS!

By Bill

June 14, 2011 10:58 AM | Link to this

As usual, most statements from the right here are false. The Obama Presidency will go down as one of the best (Bush has the worst locked up) with what he was left to work with. Over the last 20 years the right has managed to put the middle class in a downward spiral while allowing the rich to rape and pillage. The amount of deregulation alone has cost the public millions to the point a $.16 pill for gout now costs $5, and meds for special needs pregnancy went from $7 to $650 overnight with no R&D costs to the drug companies involved. The right thrives on GREED with no regard for the middle class yet tiny minds like the rodent are sure they’ll be invited to join them.

By Joe L. Boxx

June 14, 2011 10:40 AM | Link to this

An attempt at comedy relief by the GOP

By Squirrellygirl

June 14, 2011 10:26 AM | Link to this

Which personality are you now, Me? The evil or the good one? You appear to be the not so nice one today…

By earl

June 14, 2011 10:24 AM | Link to this

I think Michele isn’t the pretentious ego-maniac that Barack is. I can’t see her writing two autobiographies, or have them written for her, to promote her political career.

By Squirrellygirl

June 14, 2011 10:24 AM | Link to this

I don’t know about you, but I don’t think our country’s condition is very funny. I do think Obama is a clown, but he is the kind of clown that you are scared of. You know, like the one that comes out of the sewer drain and wants to suck your brains out. That kind of clown. Anybody would do a better job as president. My only reservation is that the eventual Republican candidate can beat Obama. I heard a rumour that our dollar could fail as early as 5 months from now. Thank you, Obama and FED! And our country is getting ready to lose its good credit rating. We need Obama’s agenda exposed to reveal exactly WHAT Obama is trying to change our country into…into WHAT? No matter who gets the nomination, I will vote for them for president. My preference is for someone who believes in our Constitution and someone who can obey our laws, unlike the Democrats…Weiner, anyone? This is the level of morality that the Democrats have fallen. Republicans and Independents had better get behind whoever wins this nomination, or you else you better have money to fly to another country and set up a new life there. This country is going down if Obama is reelected. There is no doubt in my mind about that. BTW, remember when I told you to store up food? Have you SEEN food prices lately? How about gas? Are you buying gold? Most of us can’t afford to do these things because we live paycheck to paycheck. That makes it even more important to nominate someone who can WIN the presidency.

By me

June 14, 2011 10:02 AM | Link to this

If it walks like a nut,talks like a nut, and acts like a nut, it must be Squirrelly Girl!

By Joanie

June 14, 2011 9:57 AM | Link to this

@Just the facts-Fact-a law degree is not a Master’s Degree. Actually, it is a JD-Juris Doctor degree. As to whether anybody cares if Bachman has written a book,it’s true that I certainly don’t, but this column is called “Book Nook,” so information about book written by and/or about figures in the news is pertinent for this column.

By Pat

June 14, 2011 9:50 AM | Link to this

She was very good on the debate last night…Makes more sense than the present president that is making a joke of the office he is holding…Don’t make comments if you don’t know anything about her…

By Bill

June 14, 2011 9:27 AM | Link to this

The GOP’s attempt at lighthearted comedy

By taxpayer

June 14, 2011 9:19 AM | Link to this

anyone is better than what we now have!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By Judi

June 14, 2011 9:00 AM | Link to this

Oh, those Republicans……..such a bunch of clowns! No wonder nobody takes them (or what they are doing to this country) seriously.

By Slightly Right

June 14, 2011 8:49 AM | Link to this

Michele Bachmann for President? Get past the gender thing, and she just might be most viable candidate the GOP has to offer so far. Like Reagan (former Dem) she feels her party left her.

By COMEDY

June 14, 2011 8:49 AM | Link to this

I really think this is a very long shot but again like two years ago as I predicted when the media(ie Dayton Daily)and the bloggers here talking about tea baggers being a joke and I was on here telling folks that they better be a little more serious about these folks as they will be a force. Well have you seen the momentum they have lately? The jokes have now faded and gone silent,not so much a joke anymore. I now predict that the so called tea baggers will make a difference in the presidential election and O’bama will be sent home in a landslide or the Dems will throw him overboard very very soon. As far as Bachmann,A real long shot but don’t count her out as being weak!

By ukgirl

June 14, 2011 8:34 AM | Link to this

She is such a joke…..only thing is she’s NOT funny! She is a total nut though if that makes a difference LoL

By Michelle Bachmann is nuts

June 14, 2011 8:33 AM | Link to this

That woman is guano loco!

By Joanie

June 14, 2011 8:27 AM | Link to this

I hope she gets the nomination. The Country could use the laughs.

By Squirrellygirl

June 14, 2011 8:18 AM | Link to this

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a socialist and his name is Obama. I would vote for Daffy over Obama. I hate it that this president has hurt and divided our country. It is time for new leadership. All I care is that whoever runs against Obama wins. We must get rid of the overregulation and hurtful laws of this administration, and get our country back on track and healed. Even liberals now know you can’t spend your way out of a recession. This president won’t learn, so he needs to be replaced.

By Just the Facts

June 14, 2011 8:09 AM | Link to this

well the first crack addict has posted…. redsailor. Apparently sailing on the giant sea of stupidity. Michelle Bachmann has a Master’s Degree in law; she is a US Tax Attorney; she has raised 5 children of her own; and she has raised 23 Foster children. Her political positions are clear to those that care to research it, and she does NOT believe that Washington freed the slaves. Those of you that don’t know it, redsailor is a paid shill of the Democratic Party. He is paid to get on here and post nonsense in the hopes that the Liberal rubes around Middletown might believe it. and Vick…… nobody really cares whether or not she has written a book. : ) Obama didn’t write EITHER of his, but since you brought it up…. he has two books and he is easily the WORST president in US history. I can hear his campaign this year. I fixed the budget? I fixed the economy? I created jobs? I closed Gitmo? I ended the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? I have a transparent administration? The truth is, Obama can NOT run on his record because he hasn’t done anything yet. Oh yeah, he has succesfully blamed Bush for nearly three years now. There is that!

By bill

June 14, 2011 6:27 AM | Link to this

9% unemployment, $4 gas and $14 trillion in debt.. just how much worse can anyone else be?

By Philman

June 14, 2011 5:27 AM | Link to this

How about covering all the Books about Obama Vic, can’t do that buddy they reveal his communist ties, how about telling the TRUTH about Obama’s two books, it is rumored that weatherunderground Terrorist Bill Ayers was the Ghost writer, not to mention all the marxist philosophy in them that the Marxist media ignores.

By Tim

June 14, 2011 4:51 AM | Link to this

Troubling, very troubling. But easy on the eyes:-)

By redsailor

June 14, 2011 12:36 AM | Link to this

She thinks washington freed the slaves, you can’t make this stuff up. What happened to the repubican party, the crazy are taking over.

By mott

June 14, 2011 12:06 AM | Link to this

President Michele Bachmann? Such comedy…

By Irishguy

June 13, 2011 10:19 PM | Link to this

That news should make Mark and Chris Matthew’s heads explode.