News Briefs

Burt PrelutskyLike everyone else in the civilized world, I was delighted that Osama bin Laden was killed by Navy Seals. But I must admit I regret it didn’t happen under George W. Bush’s watch. I just have this feeling that he would have given all the credit to the warriors who risked their lives carrying out the mission, and not kept the lion’s share for himself.

I am also disappointed if what I’ve read about bin Laden’s final send-off is true. Was the creep’s corpse actually washed, wrapped in a white sheet and had an Islamic prayer read over it before it was dropped into the sea? If I remember correctly, bin Laden played a major role in the murder of 3,000 Americans, forcing a number of them to leap from skyscrapers because their option was to be incinerated, and we’re giving him a respectful burial? If it had been up to me, I’d have wrapped his cremated remains in a pigskin and then had a midshipman punt him off the poop deck.

The good thing is that he will be incinerated for all eternity without the option of leaping off a tall building.

Moving on, more often than not, folks would do well to keep in mind that liberals only use their brains to keep their ears apart. For instance, have you heard that Democrats have come out in opposition to people having to show photo IDs if they wish to vote? Their contention is that it’s an affront to blacks, Hispanics, young people and even democracy, itself, although they carefully refrain from explaining the nature of the affront. Which, even I have to grant, is perfectly reasonable on their part; otherwise, they would have to explain how it is that democracy, even for blacks, Hispanics and young Americans, has so far survived such insidious things as drivers’ licenses and Homeland Security requirements at the airport.

Someone who used his brains for something other than a cranial buffer zone might actually wonder why anybody would think that driving to the mall or flying to Fresno should be taken more seriously than making certain that voting in our elections be a right limited to American citizens.

Finally, although I still enjoy listening to Donald Trump, especially when he’s taking on Obama, I’m afraid that after his embarrassing performance in Las Vegas, I can no longer consider him a viable GOP nominee in 2012. It’s not that I’m a goody two-shoes; I admit that I occasionally swear in private, but never in print. And if Trump is too dumb to recognize the chasm that exists between public and private speech, and the necessity for a Republican candidate to win the hearts and minds of evangelical voters, he’s simply too dumb to be president.

When people say that they don’t know why Trump kept dropping those “F” bombs in Vegas, I explain it’s because Trump was behaving like a typical liberal. Whenever left-wingers get together, they let their true feelings out, and that usually translates into opening their potty mouths. So it was that when Whoopi Goldberg and Billy Crystal appeared some years ago at the Radio Music City Hall for a Democratic event, they never thought twice about making a series of unfunny, off-color remarks playing off George Bush’s last name.

In similar fashion, when Barack Obama was hitting up San Francisco businessmen for campaign donations in 2008, he casually denigrated Southern and Midwestern Christians as those yokels who cling to their religion and their guns.

So it was that when Trump dropped the first obscenity on the crowd of Vegas drunks, whom he had generously and foolishly plied with free booze, it got such a resounding response, he got carried away. In this day and age, when modern technology almost lets people know what you’re thinking, let alone saying, you have to be a complete dunce to forget that your audience doesn’t consist of the 500 knuckleheads in the room, but everyone in the entire world with a radio, a TV or an Internet connection.

What Trump neglected to keep in mind is that it’s not Gospel, but merely the tagline for a tourism campaign, that what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.


©2011 Burt Prelutsky. Comments? Write Burt!
Get your personally autographed copy of Liberals: America’s Termites or Portraits of Success for just $19.95, shipping included.

Get both for just $39.90.

Liberals: America’s Termites Profiles of Success (60 candid conversations with 60 Over-Achievers)

Author Bio:

Burt Prelutsky, a very nice person once you get to know him, has been a humor columnist for the L.A. Times and a movie critic for Los Angeles magazine. As a freelancer, he has written for the New York Times, Washington Times, TV Guide, Modern Maturity, Emmy, Holiday, American Film, and Sports Illustrated. For television, he has written for Dragnet, McMillan & Wife, MASH, Mary Tyler Moore, Rhoda, Bob Newhart, Family Ties, Dr. Quinn and Diagnosis Murder. In addition, he has written a batch of terrific TV movies. View Burt’s IMDB profile. Talk about being well-rounded, he plays tennis and poker... and rarely cheats at either. He lives in the San Fernando Valley, where he takes his marching orders from a wife named Yvonne and a dog named Angel.
Author website: http://www.burtprelutsky.com/
  • investment realty

    It’s really a great and helpful piece of info. I am satisfied that you shared this helpful info with us. Please stay us informed like this. Thanks for sharing.

  • Brendan Horn

    Mario,

    Here is the source of economic data:
    http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

    I am learning from you that an air war for oil based on lies is okay as long as NATO is running the show and the UN approves. Maybe Libya will work out better than I think, or perhaps it will turn into another Somalia,complete chaos, one of worst run countries in the world.

    I personally hope one of these rockets does kill Khaddafy. It would be taking out the garbage, something no country does better than America. I guess Obama would say “my bad” if Khaddafy is killed. It is comical that he is pretending that he does not want to kill him. I thought Liberals actually wanted honest politicians. It turns out they only want honest Republicans.

    I am learning from you that there is a statute of limitations for genocide. In your estimation, ten years means that genocide should be forgiven, or at least not prosecuted. By the way, almost no one at the UN and very few liberals in congress wanted America to go into Iraq and prevent the massacres that took place there after Hussein was knocked out of Kuwait. Many liberals did not even want America to help Kuwait at all. They considered it not a worthy cause.

    Here are the best things Clinton did. He lost the House of Representatives for the Democrats for the first time in 42 years. This is the best thing he did. This was the key to his success. The second best thing he did was he passed welfare reform. He did this because he wanted to get reelected. It was a smart move and the economy flourished as a result.

    Obama might have helped himself get reelected by being so unpopular in his second year. He helped the Republicans win the House of Representatives in a landslide. This may be enough to prevent him from doing the things he wants to do that will hurt the country much the same way it helped Clinton.

    Also, the reason most Republicans can never support Democrats is because of taxes. Democrats impose so many new taxes in such creative ways that no one can breathe. It is the Democratic solution for every problem. This is a bigger issue on the state level than on the national level because states cannot print new money. You will notice that the most out of control spending states are the most liberal states. Some Democrats still believe that taxing the wealthy is the solution for this problem even though rich people are pretty good at avoiding taxes. This is part of the reason they are wealthy in the first place.

    • MarioP

      Brendan,

      Thank you for that government data you provided, but that data is exactly the same what I’m using, so I’m not sure why you called it “manipulated”. Actually, your link goes to the same government website (Bureau of Labor Statistics) as the one I use, so please explain yourself, because I’m confused. It would be helpful identifying the differences you see between the data I presented and your data if you actually pointed them out to us by certain year.

      I’m glad you’re learning from me, but it’s obvious you’re not learning correctly. The conflicts in Libya and Iraq were both for oil, but the US can not initiate a conflict strictly based on oil, as that would look inappropriate. There needs to be additional reasons for us to get involved. Back in 2003 our government told us that the Iraqi war was for the (nonexistent) WMDs, the (imagined) Saddam-to-terrorists connection, and the freeing of Iraqis. Although the first two reasons were fictitious, the last justification had some merit, but then again why didn’t we go into Iraq when all the massive killings were happening over a decade before we invaded? Back then we would have saved thousands of lives, and by the time we finally invaded in 2003, Saddam wouldn’t have been known as such a mass murderer, although still a murderer. In late 80’s we watched Saddam murder the Kurds, with US chemical weapons, and in 1991 we watched him murder thousands of Iraqis after we pushed him out of Kuwait. What were we waiting for by not acting then? The statute of limitation for Saddam’s genocide has expired since we didn’t act when it truly mattered, hence we shown the world we didn’t care what he was doing in 1988 and 1991 to his people, and therefore we didn’t care what he did back then when we finally invaded in 2003. Was there an immediate threat to the Iraqis in 2003 when we finally invaded? Since there wasn’t a threat to the Iraqis at the time of the invasion, and our purpose was only to liberate them, then we should have invaded Iran or North Korea instead, since those peoples were also oppressed with no immediate threat to them, yet their governments are a greater threat to the US by possessing WMDs, or the ability to make some shortly. Obviously the reason for the Iraqi invasion was oil, and the only true reason to justify our invasion was weak, while the lies made our justification even weaker.

      In Iraq we didn’t act when it mattered, and that is what we are trying to avoid in Libya today. The conflict in Libya is justified with humanitarian aid, because the Libyan dictator was about to eliminate tens of thousands of people. Obviously you still don’t see the difference between the two conflicts, as only one of them was based on lies, and therefore you still need some learning. But don’t worry, you’ll eventually get there. And regarding the approval from UN and NATO, it is always wiser to have the majority of the world on our side, since they can help fund the conflict, and the more people agree with us, the chances are our intentions are true and justifiable. If only a few nations feel our way, our position may not be fully justifiable, and in our case, turned out to be a blatant lie. The more oversight and agreement from the rest of the world there is, even if the reasons later turn out to be faulty, the rest of the world gave the go-ahead and we alone will not look like morons, having to face the rest of the world, like we did after Iraq. Do you understand all that? It’s all pretty simple when you think about it.

      And again you blame Obama for the strikes against Libya. I already told you who is in command there, so stop it! Obama doesn’t want Gaddafi dead. Obama’s preference would be to have Gaddafi step down or leave Libya altogether, but not dead. Yet I wouldn’t be surprised if Gaddafi turned up dead, Obama would not care.

      Finally taxes. You are upset the rich can avoid taxes, yet you are OK with Republicans giving the rich more tax breaks? You make no sense. The Liberals understand that the tax codes need to be reworked to eliminate all those tax loopholes and deductions for the rich, but the Conservatives are against all that. And I would be on your side with the Conservative way of lowering taxes if the economy was stronger and the national debt was lower with the GOP’s policies. But we actually see the opposite. So it appears the Conservatives are short-sighted and selfish, because they think the lower taxes will make their paycheck bigger. They don’t realize that their paycheck is smaller because the economy isn’t pumping at its full potential, if they get a paycheck at all. The Republicans also keep eliminating welfare and unemployment services, because they claim they cost too much. But common sense tells you that the best way to lower welfare costs is to create jobs. Democrats create jobs, while the Republicans lose them, hence their strategy for lowering the social services costs is faulty. If the GOP was creating jobs, they wouldn’t have to worry about high welfare costs. Once lower taxes and cutting of social services prove themselves as the better way to run our nation, I’ll step over that political line and start voting Republican. Until then, I’m a Democrat. I find it comical when the Conservatives lecture the Liberals, even though the Conservative policies are under performing the Liberal ones. First show me the proof, and then I’ll believe and switch.

      I know I’m repeating myself with similar statements, but obviously if I say things only once, they don’t come across correctly or are ignored.

      • Brendan Horn

        Mario,

        I find it amusing how liberals still believe in the UN. We know the UN is one of the most corrupt institutions in the world. We now have the leader of the IMF charged with rape. We have seen several other cases of UN employees charged with rape in third world countries. We should know that these people can be bought and sold. UN “peacekeepers” are nothing but watchers. It is difficult to trust such people. They might be right every once in a while, just like a broken clock, but they cannot be trusted. I wish Saddam Hussein had surrendered power when he had the chance. Instead we had the idiot Jacque Chirac, the corrupt leader of France, telling Hussein that he could keep the USA out of Iraq. We know how that worked out.

        If you want to see how Democrats can be job killers, you should study the state of Connecticut. It used to be a very prosperous state until liberal politicians addicted to taxing and spending took over. Their solution for every problem is taxing and spending. They never consider the fact that they are wasting too much of the taxpayers money. Our politicians made horrible deals with unions time and again and the taxpayers are the people who suffer. We now have the anti-Christie running our state: Dannel Malloy. He says that everyone needs to sacrifice. The people have sacrificed enough. It is time to stop wasting the taxpayers money.

        Perhaps your statistics for unemployment were the same as what I referred to. I just thought it was cheap to combine Reagan and Bush as if they were the same person. They were clearly not the same person. Reagan’s unemployment numbers should satisfy someone who only cares about the unemployment rate. They would be even better when you look at how the rate of inflation was reduced during his administration; and this was a president who never had a majority control of congress by his party. He had to work with Democrats controlling the House of Representatives for all eight years of his presidency. Here is another thing: Obama’s first year was one of the worst years for any president in loss of jobs. Do we blame him completely for all of the jobs lost during his first year? I do not. I blame Pelosi and Reid for a lot of what happened during his first year, and even for much of what happened into his second year.

        • MarioP

          Brendan,

          You stated:
          ” We know the UN is one of the most corrupt institutions in the world.”

          We know UN as one of the MOST corrupt institutions in the world? Really? Or is that just your opinion?

          And then you state:
          “We now have the leader of the IMF charged with rape. We have seen several other cases of UN employees charged with rape in third world countries. We should know that these people can be bought and sold. UN “peacekeepers” are nothing but watchers. It is difficult to trust such people. They might be right every once in a while, just like a broken clock, but they cannot be trusted.”

          Although that cluster of statements mentions some facts, the conclusions are nothing but your twisted opinions. Why did you even bring up IMF? Does IMF = UN? What? The leader of the IMF is charged with rape, therefore the organization is corrupt? How about some facts that actually prove IMF is corrupt! One bad apple, addicted to sex, doesn’t prove the IMF is paid off in some way. And that UN employees are charged with rape and therefore UN is full of people that can be paid off? What? Where is your connection there? With you logic, I guess the entire police department of a given city is corrupt because a few criminal policemen were raping women in the back of their cruisers. You have shown some great logic there! A new low for you.

          UN is the best hope the world has for keeping peace, humanitarian aid, and avoiding reckless decisions like the one to invade Iraq in 2003. Even if there are some flaws with the UN, and there may be some individuals that do not behave as they should, that doesn’t prove that the UN is corrupt. The US army had some bad apples in Iraq that killed innocent Iraqis because the US soldiers behaved our of anger, so is the ENTIRE US army corrupt? That is what you are saying with your logic. That’s just silly.

          You stated:
          “I wish Saddam Hussein had surrendered power when he had the chance. Instead we had the idiot Jacque Chirac, the corrupt leader of France, telling Hussein that he could keep the USA out of Iraq. We know how that worked out.”

          Who doesn’t wish Saddam had surrendered? Well, probably only Bush2’s administration, since in early 2003 Saddam eventually started cooperating with the UN, yet Bush2 claimed it was too late and invaded. And we do know how the whole thing worked out. The majority of the world knew there were no WMDs in Iraq, as the UN did their job and could not find any, and hence the world believed the US was only bluffing with the threat of invasion. No one around the world actually believed the US truly thought Saddam had WMDs.
          No one around the world believed the US was so incompetent that they put lives on the line for such faulty intelligence. The most powerful nation in the world, which should have the best intelligence, made a massive blunder like that. That’s so very embarrassing, and just plain wrong! Do not justify the invasion of Iraq in 2003 to yourself as anything but an error. Any minor benefits that came of that invasion are heavily outweighed by the massive loss of lives, American and Iraqi, the wasted funds that could have been spent in a more productive way, right here in the US, and the loss of respect for our nation from the rest of the world.

          I don’t know, and I don’t care, what happened in Connecticut. You are pointing to a small sample of the nation and blaming the problem on the Democrats. The logic you have shown me over the last few posts make me very skeptical of your conclusions. All I know about Connecticut is that one of it’s Senators is an independent, a former Democrat, that leans too much to the Right and therefore had to leave the Party. You are swimming against the tide when you try to disparage the federal Democrats and praise the Republicans. The data, which you should now know is correct and not manipulated, presents the significantly better performance of the Liberal policies.

          And you’re still upset because I combined Reagan and Bush1, because you still don’t get what I’m saying. I WAS COMPARING THE PERFORMANCE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTS TO THE REPUBLICAN ONES, AND >>>ON AVERAGE<<< THE PERFORMANCE WAS SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER FOR THE DEMOCRATS. If I wanted to compare each and every single president to others, regardless of his political party, I would have listed Reagan as the only Republican president over the last half a century to lower the UR during his two terms. But that was not my point, as I only showed the obvious pattern in the UR when the president changes party.

          You stated:
          "Reagan’s unemployment numbers should satisfy someone who only cares about the unemployment rate."

          Really? Reagan's average annual UR was about 7.5%, which is significantly higher than the Republican average of 6.2%, which is significantly higher than the Democrats' 5.3%. Reagan's UR also peaked at 10.8%, which was the highest we have seen since the Great Depression and counting. Reagan's lowest monthly UR was 5.3%, which is the Democrats' annual average. You really believe Reagan's UR numbers are satisfactory? To me the word "satisfactory" means "average", so I'm not sure when you use that term. Let us not forget the massive deficits Reagan initiated, which resulted our nation to become addicted to such spending. UR isn't the only indicator or Reagan's poor performance.

          It has become pretty evident that your view of our world is really skewed due to some of your statements. I hope you found our discussion educational, because it's obvious your beliefs are not of the reality and you needed some learning. Your mind is clouded with misinformation and you can't see the world for what it truly is. You rationalize, like the typical Conservative, until you become satisfied with your Party's failed policies. With your rationalizing you magnify the faults of your opponent so they outweigh the incompetence of your side, incompetence that is strongly supported with factual data. And whenever the facts show you are wrong, you call the facts wrong or twisted.

          All I ask from you is to be fair, which can easily be done. Put yourself in my position. Pretend that your opponent's party had the worse economic data in the unemployment rate, unemployment rate change, inflation, the growth on the GDP and the stock market, the number of recession started. Pretend that your opponent's administration initiated a war that started because of a lie, or poor judgment. Pretend that your opponent's party's presidents, on average, were loosing jobs every year. Would you be so understanding of your opponent if he told you the economic numbers were wrong or whatever the justification is the Right gives the Left for their blunders? I highly doubt so. You would take the obvious evidence and run with it. So, be fair and go with the blatant facts.

          Take Care,
          Your Friend,
          MarioP

          PS. Talking about the facts, you place blame on the Democrats for the job losses during Obama's first year. Where is the fact that Bush2's housing bubble caused the economic mess Obama had to deal with? Where is your accountability? You don't actually think Obama, Pelosi, and Reid would have caused such a job loss had Bush2 not handed the keys over in the midst of the Great Recession, do you? I hope not!

          • Brendan Horn

            Mario,

            You are the typical liberal. You think Reagan was horrible but you want everyone to believe Obama is wonderful. Obama has a long way to go before he can get close to Reagan. Reagan inherited a horrible economy from Carter. The unemployment rate he inherited was horrible, the inflation rate was even worse. In 1980, the inflation rate was around 13% for the whole year. By 1988 the inflation rate was around 4%. Reagan inherited a worse economy than Obama. Reagan turned things around. High inflation hurts more people than unemployment since it effects everyone. You should make more use of inflation in your analyses.

            Maybe I exaggerated a little about the UN, but you must be like Woodrow Wilson who believed WWI was the war to end all wars. If you believe that the UN will solve the problems of the world, you are quite naive. China and Russia have veto power. America does also. The setup of the UN is not conducive to solving serious problems. If you do not believe that votes are bought in the UN, you must also believe in fairy tales. As you are someone who believes almost every negative notion about America, I am surprised that you are so optimistic about the UN where the USA and a few other nations have much more power than the other nations,

            You don’t care about Connecticut. Perhaps you are aware of the state of California. The liberals are so outrageous in their spending there that they had to resort to the equivalent of IOU notes to pay their bills. Schwarzenegger was governor but the legislature had a very high percentage of liberals throughout his term. He could not get anything of substance done because the tax and spend liberals had too much power. America has always had divided powers so I find that you yourself are incredibly selective in what information you will look at. The president has power but the power is shared with the congress. The president usually gets too much credit when things go well and also gets too much blame when things go poorly. You can continue to worship your liberals but you should know that Obama has a long way to go before he can match Reagan.

          • MarioP

            Brendan,

            You stated:
            “Reagan inherited a worse economy than Obama.”

            With every post, you always surprise me, and not in the positive way. You are the very first person I discussed politics with to state that Reagan inherited worse economy than Obama did. Actually, you are the very first person, period, I heard making that statement, which includes news analysts, talkshow hosts, and Republicans. I suggest you quit this debate before it may be too late. What Reagan inherited was an economy with a stabilized UR in mid 7% for eight months, an economy which was out of a recession for half a year. The UR remained at that level for another nine more months after Reagan took office, but by fall of 1981, it started to climb. In October of that year the UR hit nearly 8%. For the next 15 months the UR was in an uptrend. I think it’s pretty obvious why the UR started its climb in October of 1981, as that was the month Reagan’s very first budget, budget of 1982, became active. Something with Reagan’s first budget caused people to lose jobs. Unfortunately that year we also saw the budget end in the second largest deficit since WWII, second only to Ford’s budget of 1976. So, Reagan inherited the UR at 7.2%, nearly the same rate as his average annual UR of 7.5% for his eight years. Was that a bad situation? UR in the mid 7% isn’t that bad, unless there are worse things happening, like the rate of change for the UR.
            Now what economy did Obama inherit? Obama inherited the UR at 7.3%, very close to what Reagan inherited, but when Obama took over the UR has been climbing for over a year, and the nation has been in a recession just as long. So you tell me which president had it worse? Was it president A with the UR stabilized in the mid 7% and the economy out of recession for half a year, or president B with the UR in the mid 7% and climbing each month for over a year, while the nation was in 13 month long a recession? Yeah, I though you would think the answer was pretty obvious. You gonna take back yet another statement?

            Then you stated:
            “High inflation hurts more people than unemployment since it effects everyone. You should make more use of inflation in your analyses.”

            Now let us talk about inflation, since you requested that I make more use of it in our debate. Did you ever sit down and ponder about the effects of inflation and the UR, whether they are good, bad, indifferent, or the combination of all three? Based on your past post, probably not. Let me start with a question to you. Tell me, which one would you consider to be worse, inflation at 15% or the UR at 15%? How about inflation at 5% or the UR at 5%? One truly can’t compare those two linearly, as they are not similar nor connected to one another. Therefore I would prefer the 5% UR over the 5% inflation, but I would prefer 15% inflation over 15% UR. And why is that? High inflation affects everyone in the nation, like you stated, but are all the effects negative? Let’s see.
            First the negatives. The money one has stashed under his mattress looses value. His retirement fund loses value. And his savings account also loses value, but he makes up some of the loss with the higher rate the bank pays him for using his money.
            Now what about the changes that happen during high inflation that do not affect the average person? Although the cost of living goes up, since everything costs more in dollars and cents, so do the salaries. Hence one isn’t going to feel the increase in prices. Google a graph comparing the CPI to the change in earnings, and you will notice that the two follow each other pretty closely. Actually, over the last two decades, salaries have increased slightly more than the rate of inflation.
            Finally, are there any benefits of high inflation? As unbelievable as it may seem to you, there are. Pretend that you purchased a home and your monthly mortgage payment is 50% of your monthly salary. Now pretend that due to high inflation, in 10 years the dollar is worth half (7% annual inflation), rather than during average inflation of 20 years (3.5% annual inflation). So, after owning your home for ten years, your salary has doubled due to the inflation, yet your mortgage payment has remained the same. You are now paying 25% of you monthly salary to the mortgage company. Hey, that sounds like a positive effect of inflation! Right? Now pretend the inflation was at 0% for decades. Your mortgage payment would stay the same, your salary would not be adjusted for inflation, and the only way to get a boost in your pay would be with more experience, if you had room for improvement. Hence your mortgage payment would remain close to the same percentage of you salary as when you purchased your home years/decades ago. That’s a bummer! Now what happens to your car payment during high inflation? Although the typical car loan lasts no more than five years, by the fifth year you will feel a significant discount in your monthly payment of about 30%, if the dollar is worth half in 10 years. But what if you don’t have a mortgage nor a car payment, how will you benefit from high inflation? Well, every American will benefit from high inflation because the value of the national debt will be reduced. If the dollar loses half of its value in 10 years, the value of the national debt is also reduced to half in that time period. This means it will be easier for the government to pay off the debt, hence the percentage of the national budget dedicated to paying off the debt will be cut in half, and tax money can be spent on other programs or tax rates may be reduced. High inflation ain’t that bad, eh?

            Obviously there are positive effects of high inflation, but are there any benefits to high unemployment? Unless you are in the minority and work in a field that benefits from having a high number of unemployed people, like working the welfare line, you will be negatively affected by the high UR, regardless whether you have a job or not. For the obvious reasons, we do not need to discuss why the jobless workforce is hurt by high UR. But what about the employed workers, how are they negatively affected? Well, since there is a large qualified unemployed workforce, the employer has leverage over his employees. He can cut salaries, benefits, and any perks. Some employee may actually be demoted to part time status, since if anyone complains, they may be replaced by someone more desperate and willing to work for less money from the unemployed workforce. What if an employee wishes to change job for one that pays better, is closer to home, or just because he wants to change his profession. First he needs to find a company that is hiring. Then he has to compete for the new job with a larger number of applicants, many of whom are unemployed and more desperate to work for a smaller compensation. And starting a new profession during those tough times will make it nearly impossible to get hired as someone unemployed with more experience will probably get the job. So, unlike during high inflation, we see nothing but negatives during times of high unemployment. I think it is safe to say that people would rather live through a decade with 15% inflation and 5% UR, rather than 5% inflation and 15% UR. And I would rather live with 3% inflation than 0%. Obviously no one would want to live through deflation, as the things you purchased will be worth significantly less over time, and while your salary decreases, your monthly payment will remain the same.

            Back to UN. Yes you did exaggerate about the UN. And UN is the best thing the world has today for dealing with conflicts and humanitarian aid. If you disagree, please post a better solution. And who cares about veto power? That is the whole point of UN, to negotiate and avoid vetoing. The reason why US, UK, France, China, and Russian have the veto power is to prevent the superpowers from leaving the organization. It would be to no one’s benefit not having the most powerful nations as part of the UN. The veto power keeps the five interested in their UN participation.

            You really need to analyze how our world truly works and not simplify the world to the most basic level you see presented on FoxNews and hear from Rush. There are reasons why the intelligent rulers of the world make certain decision, and if you think you somehow know more than they do, with their education, experience, and exposure to all the intelligence, you are delusional. Just think about it. Do you really think people in power are total morons? Although Bush2 was a bozo, he was surrounded with intelligent, yet sneaky, people, like Cheney and Rumsfeld.

            You stated:
            “America has always had divided powers so I find that you yourself are incredibly selective in what information you will look at. The president has power but the power is shared with the congress.”

            I agree that the power is divided in our government, and if both party’s presidents performed at the same level, I would expect the data for UR, UR change, inflation, stock market and GDP growth, and the number of inflations to be split more evenly. But obviously there is something very wrong with the past GOP presidents. Either they were incompetent, they couldn’t work with the congress, or both. Therefore I don’t see any reason why our nation should select another Republican president until the Democratic ones start performing worse than the past GOP ones. And looking at the potential future GOP presidential candidates, like Palin and Bachmann, doesn’t show me much hope on how the Right picks their candidates. Those two are the worst potential presidential candidates I can remember. Much of the simplistic Right lost hope in their typical politicians, since their past elected presidents failed them, and they turned to a more desperate way of choosing future president by picking the more basic people. I could never elect a president that is less intelligent than I am, could you? And if you believe you are more intelligent than Obama is, than you have some serious egotistical issues.

          • Brendan Horn

            Mario,

            Sorry for the late response. If you like inflation so much perhaps you would like modern Zimbabwe or the Weimar republic. I think even you know that those are two perfect examples of the dangers of high inflation. I think a healthy rate of inflation is in the range from 2% to 4%. That is basically what it has been for the past 20 years. We have not had problems with dangerous inflation since the time of Reagan. He helped solve the bad inflation created by Jimmy Carter.

            You ask what is worse 15% inflation or 15% unemployment. It is not as easy to answer as you assume. Nowadays, unemployment in America is not as bad as it used to be. We have very long and very generous unemployment benefits in this country. Perhaps the benefits are too generous as we pay people to do nothing. FDR at least paid people to do things. Liberals nowadays think it is better to pay people to do nothing. Obama is not FDR. This is why your statistics are far too simple: Obama is not FDR.

            Which do you think is worse between these two: unemployment above 7% and inflation above 14% or unemployment around 7% and inflation around 4%? This is what the difference is between what Reagan inherited and what Obama inherited. Inflation over 10% is not good. People on fixed incomes get killed. High inflation usually hurts the elderly the most.

            The UN is not the boon to society you think it is. Nowadays, it is a place for people to complain about America and Israel. There are positives about the UN. The UN might once in while do something positive but it is mostly an inept institute where not much gets done unless America does it. The world complains about America and then wants America to solve the problems of the world. Every once in a while it should be okay for America to tell the rest of the world to screw off. I am not sure if I could create something better than the UN. I am also not sure that disbanding the UN would make things significantly worse for the average American.

            Your simplistic analysis consistently ignores state politics. There is plenty of evidence that states that are run by Republicans are in much better shape than states run by Democrats. High taxes, which liberals seem to love, are another consideration that your study of unemployment ignores. High taxes are the same as getting paid less money for the same amount of work. Tax rates generally have been going up, especially on the state and local level. These taxes generally affect the middle class more than the other classes. Rich people have better accountants and avoid taxes and will continue to do so no matter how many “loopholes” the liberals claim to have closed.

            I do not think Obama is stupid. I think if the unemployment rate is near 9% in two years he should be considered incompetent. I do think his intelligence is somewhat overrated. People cite his teleprompter speeches as signs of his intelligence. I find his speeches boring and usually not very informative. Your paragraphs usually are more informative than his whole speeches. I am not saying he is stupid. I am just saying that intelligence is not enough to make someone an effective president.

            Sarah Palin can read a teleprompter better than Obama, in my opinion. I am not voting for Palin in 2012 unless she somehow wins the nomination. I would be surprised if she or Bachman win the nomination. I do think that America would be okay even if Bozo the Clown became president because of the checks and balances that exist in American government. Bozo the Clown might be less dangerous than Obama because people would be less likely to mindlessly follow a clown than they would be to continually follow Obama no matter how little Obama has done to merit the mindless support he receives.

          • MarioP

            Brendan buddy,

            You are still claiming the inheritance of the Great Recession was less problematic than what Reagan inherited. Now I’m unsure what I should think of you. You have at least partially changed your position on some of the issues we have discussed after reconsidering the facts, which takes maturity and intelligence. I give you lots of credit for that. Yet your conclusion on the condition of the economies in early 1981 and early 2009 baffles me. I have nothing else to add to our discussion. I’m sure the readers have made up their minds, with ease, on which of the two economies was worse long before we brought it up. Good luck trying to convince anyone from the obvious truth.

            Take care my friend, and maybe I’ll see you during another discussion.

            MarioP

  • http://BurtPrelutsky.com Burt Prelutsky

    Dear Readers: I think it would be a boon if everyone began his message by stating to whom it is being directed. Half the time I haven’t been able to tell who was agreeing or disagreeing with me.

    Regards, Burt

  • kevin

    Just because a priest objects to celebrating the killing of OBL doesn’t make him a “liberal.” I stopped watching your segments a while back after you made some anti-Christian statements, and then today I caught the first few second tonight and there you go again saying something over the top bone-headed, and I then I remembered why I turned you off in the first place. Not sure why O’reilly lets you bring down his show. Something is wrong with you big guy and you’re lucky I’m actually taking the time to tell you.

    • Konrad Lau

      Kevin,

      Correction: Bernard is not Burt.
      I just thought I would point that out for future reference.

      Konrad

  • Konrad Lau

    It truly is a moot point on how OBL was buried, where he was buried, if he was killed last week or last year, wether he was armed or no. Those commited terrorists still alive are still commited alive terrorists and they bear no love for any of us or what the United States represents. If we had held a full blown Muslim funeral with State honors, we would still be villified.
    I pesonally agree with what the sainted Marshal Rooster Cogburn said:
    “Mr. Rat, I have a writ here that says you are to stop eating Chen Lee’s cornmeal forthwith. Now, It’s a rat writ, writ for a rat, and this is lawful service of same!
    See? He doesn’t pay any attention to me.
    BOOM!
    You can’t serve papers on a rat, baby sister. You either kill him or let him be.”

    Konrad said,”If you take the time and expense to catch a rat, you don’t take him to your back yard and turn him loose.
    No respect is due vermin of any description.”

  • Bruce A.

    The religious burial given to Bin Laden was a lot more than some of our people got.
    Some think the dumping in the sea was not proper, as for me I will think about him every time I flush.
    Good Bye & Good Ridace Osama!

    • MarioP

      I completely agree with you.

  • BARB

    Bin Laden Dead Again and Again and Again and Again

    Sunday May 1st, 2011

    informationliberation.com
    Osama Bin Laden Has Been Dead For Years

    Now that Osama’s dead body is being trotted out to boost Obama’s approval ratings, er, because he was just killed in an air strike or some nonsense, it’s worth taking a look back at the researchers who concluded Osama bin Laden died years ago. David Ray Griffin wrote an entire book about it. Mike Rivero also wrote the article “Osama bin Laden: A dead nemesis perpetuated by the US government,” where he cited numerous heads of state, CIA agents, intelligence officials, etc. who all concluded Osama has been dead for years.

    The evidence Osama has been dead for years is overwhelming, people have been predicting for years his dead body was going to be trotted out as part of some PR stunt. Absent the presentation of some overwhelmingly compelling evidence to the contrary, it looks like that’s what we’re witnessing right now.

    • MarioP

      That’s so very patriotic of you, trying to snuff out the celebration our nation, and the majority of the world, is currently experiencing by declaring Bin Laden’s death this week, a conspiracy. Bin Laden is dead, so leave it at that. But if you think Osama was dead for years, why didn’t Bush2 announce his death to improve his approval rating? He could have used such a trump card during his final six months on the job. Instead, he departed without achieving his most important goal, only to add another strike to his list of failures.

    • begbie

      I have to agree with MarioP. The news of Bin Laden’s death would be (and is now) a bombshell that would open opportunities for any sitting president to take advantage of. Why not come out with this when the health care debate was going on? Congress would have passed it more easily with the public’s attention diverted on celebration. Given Bush’s poll numbers during the last few years of his presidency, I don’t think he would have hesitated to release the news. Furthermore, he’s was a sincere president and I don’t believe he would have kept this a secret.

      So your theory don’t pass the sniff test. Also, for those who say he’s not dead even now, I say let OBL release a new video with today’s copy of the Pakistani Times in his hand. I don’t think we’ll see that.

      • MarioP

        begbie,

        Thanks for your support. Today Al Qaeda confirmed the death of OBL, and there will be a tape released of OBL, which was recorded prior to his death.

  • MarioP

    Yeah, yeah, yeah… You wish for everything positive to have happened under Bush, and everything devastating under Obama. Just like Rush, you are willing to sacrifice our nation’s success to justify your unpatriotic ideology. What’s new. Your claim that Bush would have credited the Navy SEALs for the successful mission while Obama has not, is ludicrous. Our President has credited the warriors, and even if Obama placed the SEALs on a pedestal and called them gods, you would still have preferred the elimination of Bin Laden would have happened under a Republican president, just so you can stand on your soap box and claim how the Republican military funding returns successful results. Face it, the Democratic presidents are at least as competent as their counterparts, but they often surpass the short-sighted Republicans.

    Second, you wish for Bin Laden’s burial to have been more demeaning? You obviously have the mind of the dispositioned adolescent. Such intentional act of religious disgrace would result in nothing but a negative view of the US amongst the Muslims around the world, and could have weakened, or terminated, any alliances we had in the Middle East. Would you prefer having the US being viewed as immature Crusaders, or is it wiser that we can show our content and self control, even when handling such hated individuals? Calling for such immature humiliation justifies my judgement of your challenged intelligence. And you question the Liberals’ intellect?

    • J.L. Tharp

      Murdering cowards like Osama should be villified and denigrated in every way possible. They should be treated like the scum and filth they actually are. The backstabbing Marxist Obama doesn’t in my opinion deserve much better. Bowing down to the filthy muslim fascist Royals around the World.

    • Brendan Horn

      Mario, I think you are the one who insults Muslims. I imagine that most decent civilized Muslims would not be offended if Osama, the scum of the earth, were blown into a million pieces like so many of the people he murdered. Any civilized rational human being would not worry too much about offending the fans of Osama. Honestly, I think it is better to offend people who hate America so much that they would be saddened about poor treatment for America’s worst enemy.We do not need such people for friends. I am glad that Osama sleeps with the fishes. I hope a shark gets a nice meal out of Osama.

      • CCNV

        Pics of the Hussain brothers were published and nothing happened. I’m curious (but doubtful) to see if any of the so-called ‘peaceful’ Muslims come forward and say “It’s about time”. BIG tough man there, Osama….grabbing a woman as a shield. As for Osama’s body, I’d have shoved a big ol’ pork chop in his mouth before dumping his butt in the sea.

      • MarioP

        Brendan,

        I was not complaining about the burial at sea Bin Laden received. I was replying to Burt’s suggested burial, with pigskins. How do you think Bin Laden’s hard core loyalists would respond if we disgraced his remains by conducting Burt’s burial? Do you think that will inflame his supporters even more? Do you think we may lose allies in that part of the world? Do you think the civilized world would see us as immature, losing even more respect for us? Nothing positive would come of such childish retaliation. Well, maybe you will get some satisfaction for your out-of-control rage. Take some anger management classes for that, please.

        On TV I see the families of the 9/11 victims say the killing of Bin Laden is a bitter-sweet ending. Do you think had we desecrated Osama’s body, that would have made things better for the families? I don’t think so.

        • Brendan Horn

          Mario,
          The people who would be offended by mistreatment of the dead body of the world’s worst terrorist are people who want to be offended and will find offense where none exists. I try not to worry about offending such people. You use the word “desecrated” when referring to Osama’s dead body. How can the dead body of a mass murderer be considered sacred? What kind of person would consider Osama’s dead body sacred? Perhaps you just chose the wrong word.
          I am glad Osama is dead. I am glad his dead body can be made useful. He is fish food, and perhaps that is a fitting enough burial. President Obama will be popular for a while because of this, but I think he is trying too hard to not offend people who will be offended no matter what he does. At times, Obama seems more concerned about not offending terrorists than he is about not offending conservatives. We see today that Obama does not want to release the photos of Bin Laden because he does not want to spike the football. He is being silly. He should release the photos not to spike the football, but because conspiracy theorists will not believe that Bin Laden is dead. He has gone through two years of nonsense because he refused to release his birth certificate. I guess he wants to go through two more years of nonsense over his foolish decision to not release the photos that will offer proof that Bin Laden is dead.

          • MarioP

            Brendan,

            Although you, I , and the majority of the world viewed Osama as the most evil person of our current times, Osama had a following, ranging from sympathisers to hard core loyalists. They viewed him as sacred, hence the use of the word “desecrated”. (Please don’t only view the world from your eyes only, as that always gets the US in major trouble around the world.) I’m not worried that a pigskin burial would offend the hard core followers, as they are going to retaliate regardless how he was killed and buried. I’m worried about the people whose views of Osama are/were on the fence. I’m worried about our allies in governments from that part of the world who would have to deal with revolting populations, had we shamed his body. And I’m not worried about offending the irrational conservatives of our nation. What are they going to do to me? Write a hateful blog? But I am worried about the retaliation from not only the Osama’s hard core followers, but now the former sympathisers that have turned to avenge his burial, had it been disgraced in their views. Such independent sympathisers would come out of the woodworks and could start their own form of terrorism, which would be extremely difficult to expose and prevent as they would not be affiliated with any terrorist groups. Those are my worries, and not Burt’s irrational harsh words.

            Regarding Obama not wanting to release the death photos to quiet any conspiracy theorists, we saw the garbage the Right tried to carry on after Obama released his long-form birth certificate, questioning its authenticity. I’m now convinced that Obama should not release any controversial material in the future, as it doesn’t improve his position. Well, Burt was finally convinced of Obama’s birthplace. Second, if Osama’s death was some sort of a conspiracy, don’t you think Osama would release a current video of himself, completely embarrassing Obama? I don’t need to see the death photos, and anyone calling for their release should not be short-sighted but should consider the consequences had Obama tried to pull a fast one over the entire world. Finally, how is a photo going to convince a conspiracy theorist that Osama is truly dead. Pictures can be doctored. The next thing the non-believers would be asking for is the video, and soon we will be searching for Osama’s remains at the bottom of the Persian Gulf. Enough! The proof of Osama’s death is already out there, and one just needs to put all the pieces together to see it.

          • Brendan Horn

            Mario,

            I think Burt was mostly joking when he wrote about wrapping Bin Laden in pigskin. I think liberals often have difficulty discerning the difference between a joke and a serious comment.

            Your comments demonstrate that you would let terrorists control your behavior. Is this the way to live life? Should people really worry whether or not their behavior will be offensive to people who believe murder is the path to heaven. I think the photographs of Bin Laden would be a stronger deterrent to terrorist behavior than the showing of respect to the dead body of a mass murderer. It would show the terrorist what will happen to them if they continue in their ways. Most people, including radical Muslim terrorists, do not really want to die. They say they want to die in order to frighten people. We should not let them frighten us. We should destroy them.

            People say America has created the terrorists. I disagree. I believe the parents of these terrorists have failed their children. They have not taught their children the proper values. The worst terrorists will murder people no matter what we say or do. We should not push borderline terrorists over the edge but I am not really sure there are so many borderline cases. I think people believe what they want to believe. Murder is an extreme crime. Moderate people cannot be persuaded so easily to commit murder.

            I believe Obama does not want to release the photos because he wants to be able to mock the people who demand the photos. He is playing a game here in my opinion. He enjoyed mocking the people who wanted to see his birth certificate and he will again mock people who demand to see the proof that Bin Laden is dead.

          • MarioP

            Brendan,

            Burt was joking about the pigskin? What else is a joke in his blogs? Burt criticized the burial Osama got, and his suggested alternative was a fantasy, eh?

            You believe my ideas allow the terrorists to control our behavior. Ok, let’s analyze the costs and benefits of releasing the death pictures. If the pictures were released, it is widely believed the retaliation would be greater and less predictable, but the ones who can’t logically admit to themselves that Osama is dead may be convinced of his death. And the opposite would happen if the pictures were kept hidden; there would be a smaller retaliation and the skeptics would be calling conspiracy. Hmmm.. which one should I pick. This has nothing to do whether the terrorists control our behavior, and everything to do with safety and money being wasted on damages, injuries, and deaths. We don’t need to “spike the football”, we only need a modest celebration. Don’t be immature about it. And don’t worry about them frightening us, because we are frightening them with constant raids.

            You stated:
            “People say America has created the terrorists. I disagree. I believe the parents of these terrorists have failed their children.”

            The parents are the cause of the terrorists’ problems? And why would the parents teach their children to love the US when we are viewed as invaders and occupiers of their lands for decades? Do you really expect a parent to raise their child with love for our nation in the war torn region where weapons are supplied by us to their enemies, and sometimes to both waring parties? If we are the ones that are supposed to be the more socially advanced than the terrorists, then why would we act the same way they are?

            Regarding Obama’s mocking, although I do not agree he is mocking anyone, he may release the photos in the future to embarrass someone in high position who’s not trusting him, just like we observed last week. Is it fair? Well, if you don’t believe in what Obama is telling us, even though there is plenty of evidence out there that supports his claims, you deserve to be publicly embarrassed for being dumb.

          • CCNV

            MarioP,

            Terrorists DO control your behavior. Think about it the next time you go to the airport.

          • MarioP

            CCNV,

            You stated:

            “Terrorists DO control your behavior. Think about it the next time you go to the airport.”

            Ok, so what do you want the nation to do? Should we call for the elimination of the security measures at the airports? That will show those terrorists that we won’t let them control us! Right?

            So since you have shown that the terrorists already control our behavior, what was Brendan talking about not giving into the terrorists? They are already controlling us, you’re too late Brendan.

          • MarioP

            Brendan,

            As expected, Al Qaeda announced retaliation for Bin Laden’s death and calls for jihadists to rise against the US, without the release of the photos. Now, imagine the reaction we would get had those photos been released. Al Qaeda also confirmed the death of Bin Laden, so there is yet another clue, in addition to the several out there already, that the most wanted man in the world is dead. Do the skeptics still need more proof? Really? Bin Laden’s death has been proven and confirmed, without the unnecessary excitability the release of the death pictures would cause.

          • Brendan Horn

            Mario,

            I do not expect or even want the terrorists to love America and Americans. I just hope that someday soon they will realize that murdering people randomly and indiscriminately is not the solution to their problems. I would like them to see the dead body of Bin Laden to show them that this is what happens to terrorists. Allah did not protect Bin Laden and will not protect the rest of terrorists. Let them see how he died. He did not die glamorously. Terrorists will not want to die like Bin Laden.

            America has not caused the problems in these countries. Buying Arab oil is not the cause of Arab problems. Helping the Mujahedeen did not cause the problems in Afghanistan. Helping Kuwait should should have helped Muslims to see that America is not the enemy. Terrorists should not still be angry about Christians winning wars 600 years ago. I am not angry that Muslims are occupying Europe in large numbers. Are Arabs really so angry about Israel, a country about the size of Connecticut, that they are willing to murder people halfway around the world? Arabs have done almost nothing that has benefited the Palestinian cause. I am not aware of any Arab countries that even offer citizenship to the Palestinians. I am glad that the inept governments in the Middle East are now facing strong opposition. The incompetent governments that run Arab countries are the real problem. America is not the problem.

            Idiots these days are now talking about “Islamaphobia” as if Muslims are the victims of the world. They are not victims. It could be argued that “Americaphobia” is a bigger problem than Islamaphobia. People throughout the world are so irrational in their hatred of America that they blame America for all of the problems in the world. Islamic terrorists are Americaphobic. They only see negatives when they think of America. America is not perfect but it has solved far more problems than it has created and America is still the greatest country in the world.

          • MarioP

            Brendan,

            You stated the following:
            ” Let them see how he died. He did not die glamorously. Terrorists will not want to die like Bin Laden.”

            True, terrorists will not want to die like Bin Laden. Instead, terrorists want to die by being blown into millions of pieces. Do you really think seeing Bin Laden’s shot up face would deter terrorists from terrorism? If you truly believe that, which is what you concluded in your last post, then your logic is irrational. How will a terrorist, who decided to die for his cause, be scared off by seeing the death pictures? They will get fired up and put their suicidal plot in motion before being tracked down and caught through the inteligence the SEALs gathered at Bin Laden’s compound.

            Then you stated:
            “Are Arabs really so angry about Israel, a country about the size of Connecticut, that they are willing to murder people halfway around the world?”

            Do I really need to answer your question? Where have you been over the last 60+ years? Why am I having a conversation with someone so out of touch with reality?

            Later you stated:
            “People throughout the world are so irrational in their hatred of America that they blame America for all of the problems in the world. Islamic terrorists are Americaphobic. They only see negatives when they think of America. America is not perfect but it has solved far more problems than it has created and America is still the greatest country in the world.”

            Ask yourself why there is so much disapproval, and hatred, towards the US for its actions around the world? Why isn’t the same kind of hatred directed towards Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark, Canada, or so many other westernized nations around the world? Although the US is the very first nation to respond to the majority of disasters around the world, and always in the greatest scale, all those great acts are quickly forgotten and ignored because of the problems the US has caused. We are a bipolar nation, often viewed as hypocritical, selfish, and careless for not able to understand the other side. On one end we preach for democracy (Iraq), while at the other end we are supporting a dictatorship (Egypt) and a kingdom (Saudi Arabia). The US doesn’t have morals and only agrees with what benefits us, at the expense of others. You view all the good the US has done around the world over the last century as enough to justify all the worldwide filth we have done. Obviously many people have the opposite view; seeing our filth outweighing all our goodwill. To have the rest of the world view the US in the same light as you see it, we first need to stop all the garbage we do to so many people around the world, and then the beauty of our nation will come to the surface.

          • Brendan Horn

            Mario,

            You seem to believe the same things that the terrorists believe. Are you a secret terrorist yourself? You gave yourself an Italian name but perhaps you are really Abdul, or Ismail, or Mohamed? I don’t really consider you a terrorist but I also don’t mind insulting you.

            People hate America not because America does bad things but mostly because America is the best country in the world. Jealousy is the number one cause of Americaphobia, in my opinion.

            Islamo-fascists want to conquer the world and America is the biggest threat to their fascist fantasies. Thus America is the number one target.

            The point I was trying to make about Israel is that the reasoning that Muslim terrorists give to justify their atrocities is usually quite lame. They attack America because they hate Israel. They still cry that Spain was lost around 500 years ago. They should get over it. Nowadays, Muslim terrorists encourage their children to overwhelm the rest of the world through high birth rates. This might be a way they can win their unholy war, through population warfare.They hope to occupy the world. You seem to be the one who does not pay much attention to current events if you do not see that the terrorists are spreading throughout the world in ways similar to McDonald’s: pirates off the coast of Somalia, terrorist plots throughout Europe, kidnappings in the Philippines, and of course terrorism exists in most Muslim countries with Muslim terrorists murdering their civilized brethren. Encyclopedias could be devoted to the atrocities of extremist Muslim terrorists.

            I think you give the terrorists more credit than they deserve. They are basically a much more dangerous version of Charles Manson. They use pathetic reasoning to justify their atrocities. Fishfood Bin Laden exposed himself as the phony that he is when he urged his children not to join Al Qaeda. He encourages other people’s children to die for his idiotic cause but tells his own children not to fight? He encouraged other people to blow themselves to bits but would not do it himself. The terrorists who blow themselves up are nothing more than miserable perverts. They are usually people who would commit suicide under normal circumstances, but they are used by people like Bin Laded to commit atrocities. They are sold a perverted fantasy to push them over the cliff that they wanted to jump off in the first place. People like Bin Laden are so diabolical that they see a suicidal person and hope they can persuade that person into becoming homicidal as well.

            I don’t hope to persuade you to my way of thinking but I am glad I live in a country like America where both you and me can say or write virtually anything we like. This is part of the greatness of America. I love this country. Do you?

          • MarioP

            Brendan,

            You stated:
            “People hate America not because America does bad things but mostly because America is the best country in the world. Jealousy is the number one cause of Americaphobia, in my opinion.”

            You are one odd character, I must tell you. Jealousy turns one to hate? Is that how you view people that have something you desire? You hate them? You hate the $100 million lottery winner. You hate the man married to an attractive wife with great personality. You hate the ones that are successful. The jealous people around the world developed hatred towards the US instead of trying to come to our shores and live the American dream. That is one crazy way of looking at reality. You don’t believe the American support of Israel, the funding of dictatorships and puppet governments around the world, the simultaneous selling of weapons to nations fighting against each other, the unjustified invasion of a nation, … none of those acts by the US caused any hatred towards us? All those acts resulted in death and destruction, and you don’t believe the families of the killed victims feel any hatred towards us? Boy, you are one serious fool, if you believe the hatred towards the US is because of jealousy.

            Your rant about Muslim suicide bombers is yet more evidence of your tunnel vision. Put yourself in the Muslims’ shoes. Imagine what Christians would do under the same circumstances. If the US was invaded by China, and a puppet government was set up, do you think there would be a few/dozens/hundreds/thousands of Americans that would be willing to drive a vehicle loaded with explosives towards a group of the occupiers? Of course! You don’t think Christians are willing to die for their faith if a Communist, or any other, invader would oppress Christianity? If we would witness such an occupation of the US, we would see so much bloodshed, because Americans would be signing up on waiting lists to strap on an exploding vest. Don’t tell me that the entire Christian community will deal with such an enemy through peaceful demonstrations. The occupying power would restrict any Christian activity, and as a last resort, the god fearing Christians would die for their faith. My point here isn’t to claim that such a fictitious US occupation is equal to what is happening in certain Middle East nations. My point is to show you that in Islam and in Christianity there are religious extremists willing to die for their cause when the proper circumstances present themselves.

            Finally, you claim you love our nation and you question whether I love it. I’m always confused how the Right defines love, because the Right always complains about the state our nation is in, and the Right’s ideology is more destructive than the Left’s. Hence, the Right doesn’t love our nation because they are unhappy with it, nor does the Right show love for our nation, because the conservative policies do more damage than good. The average Republican president is economically outperformed by the average Democratic president. Nine of the last ten recessions started under Republican presidents. On average, the Republican president loses jobs every year, while the average Democratic president creates the jobs the Republican lost, plus some. The Republican presidents racked up over 2/3 of the total national debt. The inflation is higher under the Republican presidents. The environment suffers under the Republican presidents. Under the Republican presidents the foreign relations are strained, hence more money is wasted and lives are lost in international conflicts and wars. Social services are cut under Republican presidents. So how are you, a conservative, claiming you love our nation? How do you show your love? I know I changed the subject a bit from terrorism to the economy, but you asked whether I love our nation, and I’m showing you my love for it. I’m pretty sure I, a liberal, love the US more than you do.

          • Brendan Horn

            Mario,

            You, who claim to love this country more than I do, are very creative at interpreting America’s involvement in history in a a very negative way. I have yet to read anything positive about America in your postings. Maybe I missed the positivity.

            I do believe that miserable people often do become hateful towards those who are doing better than themselves. I think people like Noam Chomsky, perhaps the most miserable human being since the time of Karl Marx, have incredible inferiority complexes that lead them to use their creativity towards tearing down the people whose existence has made them feel inferior. These people believe they should be ruling the world and so they like to tear down the people who are actually ruling the world. Noam only complains for a living. Some people actually have to do real and useful things to make the society function. People like Noam Chomsky would lead the world into a permanent stone age.

            I am not a strictly pro-conservative anti-liberal person. FDR was a very good president. Kennedy and Clinton, though not impressive as human beings, were decent presidents. I would not put too much stock in your pro-liberal propaganda about conservatives vs. liberals. People can manipulate data in amazing ways. You and I both know that Jimmy Carter was a disastrous president. Barack Obama has not proven himself as a president who will turn around the economy. Don’t tell me the economy is getting better until unemployment gets below five percent, which is where it was during part of the seventh year of the Bush administration. No one should be happy about 9% unemployment. Fishfood Bin Laden’s death will not get Obama reelected. Only an improved economy can lead to an Obama reelection.

            One last thing: I find it peculiar that we can now see the dead bodies of everyone except for the actual target of the raid on Bin Laden’s mansion. Do you really think seeing his dead body would cause much of an uproar? He is not their holy book. He is not their prophet. He is a man who had to dye his beard to make himself presentable. I think a lot of his followers would be demoralized to see their loser hero defeated. Just my opinion.

          • MarioP

            Brendan,

            I do want to thank you for continuing this discussion. Often many debaters go into hiding.

            The reason why you’ve not heard the positive qualities of the US from me is because you were confused why the terrorists, and a good chunk of the world, views the US negatively. I therefore explained to you why by listing the negatives the US has done in the past.

            Although I do not agree with Noam’s libertarian socialism, Noam is a very intelligent person. He understands the double standard the US has been passing out around the world, just like I stated in my earlier posts. Such double standard makes the US come across as hypocritical, which taints all the great things we do around the world. Even good acts are viewed with skepticism, forming doubt and questions about what the true intentions and benefits of such humanitarian aid are. Had the US been consistent with its foreign policies, always calling for democracies around the world and rejecting dictatorships and puppet governments, we would truly be seen as the honest and caring nation. But our selfish and careless interventions around the world resulted in nothing but criticism of even our foreign aid. People like you overlook the damage our destructive policies have caused, after WWII, which is where you are making your mistake. You can’t say that the two great acts the US did outweigh the one negative. In reality all three acts are viewed negatively since the US instilled doubt with that one negative act. Picture a doctor saving lives every day for decades, but then he is arrested for molesting a child. How will you view the doctor then? Would saving thousands of lives throughout his career outweigh his one molestation? I’m sure you’ll view him negatively. The US is that doctor, tainted for its few bad decisions.

            Thank you for admitting there were good Democratic presidents. And I agree that Carter was a disaster, when compared to the rest of the Democratic presidents, but there were some Republican presidents that did much worse of a job than old Jimmy did. And even with Carter’s poor economic performance, the average Democratic president outperforms the average Republican president. Yet question the data that is out there, but I doubt you would be so skeptical had it shown the GOP outperforming the Democrats. Right?

            You then carelessly state the following:
            “Barack Obama has not proven himself as a president who will turn around the economy. Don’t tell me the economy is getting better until unemployment gets below five percent, which is where it was during part of the seventh year of the Bush administration. No one should be happy about 9% unemployment.”

            There are several areas in that cluster of statements that beg for scrutiny.

            First, where did you get that unemployment rate (UR) statistic for Bush2? From the same governmental source I use? The same source that you call manipulated? Please directly where you get your economic statistics. I made several requests from the conservatives that attack the public economic statistics to show me their historic economic data sources, but I have yet to be pointed to one. Please don’t fail me as well.

            Second, you do not believe the economy is improving unless the unemployment rate gets below 5%? How did you come to that conclusion? Do you even realize the magnitude of that 5% UR? Let me help you comprehend what 5% UR means by showing you the unemployment statistics of Obama’s presidential predecessors through the last half a century (JFK – Bush2).

            – The average annual UR = 5.8%
            – The annual UR range = 3.5% (Nixon) – 9.7% (Reagan)
            – The monthly UR range = 3.4% (Johnson, Nixon) – 10.8% (Reagan)
            – The average annual UR when the president was a Democrat = 5.3%
            – The average annual UR when the president was a Republican = 6.2%
            – Number of years the average annual UR was below 5% = 14 of 48 years = 29%
            – Number of months the UR was below 5% = 152 of 576 months = 26%
            – The monthly UR range for Reagan = 5.3% (end of 1988) – 10.8% (end of 1982)
            – The average annual UR for Reagan = 7.5%
            – The monthly UR range for Bush2 = 4.2% (early 2001) – 7.3% (end of 2008)
            – The average annual UR for Bush2 = 5.3%

            Now, after looking at those statistics, how do you view that 5% UR rate you claim would indicate the economy is “getting better”? By the time the UR hits that 5% our economy is already in a solid shape, significantly above the average, right? The average Republican president’s UR is 6.2%, yet you claim 5% for Obama is “getting better”? What???

            From the above UR comparison, we can now see why the Right has such a twisted and unrealistic expectations of Obama and the condition of the economy. The Right expected miracles from the newly elected Democratic president, as early as one year after he inherited the biggest economic disaster since the Great Depression. The Right considers the economy improving only after the UR gets below 5%; I wonder what the URs need to be for the Right to call the economy “average” and “strong”. The Right is a bit delusional, don’t you think? Reagan, the GOP hero, inherited an economy that emerged from a short, 6 month long recession, 6 months before he took Office, with the UR at 7.2%. Two years after taking Office, the UR peaked at 10.8%. Do you consider Reagan a failure? He took a nation not in a recession, and managed to increase the UR to the highest levels since the Great Depression by the end of his second year. And Reagan’s monthly UR never dropped below your demanded 5%. Therefore per your standards, the economy never “got better” under Reagan. Your expectations of Obama are so extremely unrealistic. How about the fact that the UR didn’t get much past the 10%? We could have easily seen that number reach 20% had someone less competent won in 2008. Just because the economy is slowly recovering doesn’t mean Obama’s economic policies are a failure. Had we entered another depression, then maybe your claims of economic failure would have some validity.

            You even misuse the simple term “getting better”. What does it truly mean to you? To me it means there is an improvement occurring. Well, the UR peaked at 10.1% in October of 2009. Since then the UR has dropped to the current level of 9.0%. That looks like an improvement to me. Yes, the improvement is slow, but do not forget the poor state of the economy Bush2 left behind.

            I would suggest that you think about your statements before you post them, because this wasn’t the first time you presented something that lacked some decent thought.

          • Brendan Horn

            I rushed my previous post. Technically if the unemployment rate keeps declining that is a sign of progress in the economy. I should have stated that when George Bush, who many liberals consider to be an incompetent idiot and an evil genius at the same time, was president for seven years and throughout the seventh year the unemployment rate was at 5% or less which is historically a pretty good number. It was not until the eighth year of his administration where the economy really tanked. I would argue that it was not a coincidence that the worst year by far of the Bush administration coincided with liberal control of Congress. Pelosi and Reid were a disastrous duo for the economy. Things did not get better when Obama took over. Things have seemingly stopped getting worse but no one will be impressed if the numbers do not improve drastically a year from now. Obama could lose to Bozo the Clown if the unemployment rate is near 9%.

            The constant negativity about America bothers me because there is no sense of balance. A lot of these clowns look at something like the building of the Panama Canal as a negative or they do not give any credit for defending Kuwait. Even with Iraq, people act like we took out a peaceful dictator. Hussein, though he was not as devastating to peace and stability as Hitler, was almost a pure evil. No one else would ever take out garbage like Hussein. They would rather make sweet deals on his oil, much like the French. People called it a war for oil. If it was really a war for oil, we would have taken over his oil fields and sent the oil straight to
            America. Why is Libya not considered a war for oil? They have plenty of oil, more than Egypt, Lebanon, the Ivory Coast, and many other places where civilians are slaughtered. If America does not take out the world’s garbage: who will? No one will.

            World War II was a long time ago, but I would argue that the respect for what America did should still continue. I hate greedy Americans much like you but I do not hate whole people because of a few people. I do not hate bankers, CEO’s, the rich, nor do I hate Wall Street. I do not hate Muslims. I know there are plenty of good Muslims. I do, however, hate terrorists. I think it is healthy to hate monsters who not only do not value their own lives but also do not value the lives of anyone else including women or children. I also do not hate liberals. I have far too many friends and relatives who do not share my world view for me to hate people based on their world view. I like a country where people can disagree and share their disagreements without being imprisoned or tortured. America has long been such a country and hopefully it will continue to be such a country for much longer.

          • MarioP

            Brendan,

            I’m saddened to see yet another conservative attack the federal economic numbers, which he is willing to use to his advantage but call manipulated when used against him, and not present the data he believes is truthful. My search for the numbers the conservatives apparently use privately, continues. :(

            You are proud that Bush2 managed to keep the unemployment rate (UR) below 5% during his seventh year? True, UR below 5% (like you learned from my previous post) is a pretty good number, but you have to consider the UR when Bush2 came to power. Here is a quick timeline of the annual UR of the 2000’s.

            2000 = 4.0%
            2001 = 4.7%
            2002 = 6.8%
            2003 = 6.0%
            2004 = 5.5%
            2005 = 5.1%
            2006 = 4.6%
            2007 = 4.6%
            2008 = 6.8%
            2009 = 9.3%

            So, Bush2 inherited the nation with UR in 2000 at 4.0%. Actually, the UR at the end of 2000 was at 3.9%. By the end of his first year, 2001, the UR was at 5.7%. A year later the UR was at 6.0%. Bush2 managed to increase the UR by 50% in his first two years. (This is very similar to what Reagan did during his first two years.) The UR continued to climb until the middle of 2003, when it peaked at 6.3%. From then on, the UR was dropping until 2006-2007, when it dropped to 4.4%. We know the rest of the story after that. So, again, how accomplishing was Bush2’s UR in his 6th and 7th years when it was below 5%? He inherited the nation at 4%, so the UR at 4.4% at the top of the housing bubble was actually a regression and nothing to be proud of! Bush2’s UR below 5% would be called an accomplishment had he entered Office with the UR significantly higher than 5%, but that wasn’t the case.

            Since we are talking about the UR, did you ever happen to come across a graph depicting the annual UR? Did you notice a pattern in that graph? If not, let me point one out to you. The following are the years with their matching presidential political party and unemployment rates before a president is replaced by one from the opposing party since WWII.

            1940 (D) = 14.6%
            1952 (D) = 3.0% (FDR/Truman decreased the UR from 14.6% to 3.0%)
            1960 (R) = 5.5% (Eisenhower increased the UR from 3.0% to 5.5%)
            1968 (D) = 3.6% (JFK/Johnson decreased the UR from 5.5% to 3.6%)
            1976 (R) = 7.7% (Nixon/Ford increased the UR from 3.6% to 7.7%)
            1980 (D) = 7.1% (Carter decreased the UR from 7.7% to 7.1%)
            1992 (R) = 7.5% (Reagan/Bush1 increased the UR from 7.1% to 7.5%)
            2000 (D) = 4.0% (Clinton decreased the UR from 7.5% 4.0%)
            2008 (R) = 5.8% (Bush2 increased the UR from 4.0% to 5.8%)

            The pattern of the UR history is pretty obvious, don’t you agree? From this pattern one shouldn’t be surprised that the average Democratic president drops the UR by 0.3 percentage points each year, while the average Republican president increases it annually by 0.2 percentage points. The most significant economic indicator, the unemployment rate, is strongly and consistently improved by the Democratic presidents, while the Republican ones constantly worsen it. The Republican presidents constantly lose jobs, while they are responsible for over 75% of the total national debt, prior to Obama. The Democratic presidents manage to create jobs, while racking up less than 1/3 the debt their Republican counterparts managed to rack up. The Republican performance is pretty sad in this department, you must agree.

            Moving on. You stated that people should be upset about the elimination of Saddam, since he was so evil. Well, why did the US place Iraq in their crosshairs in early 2003? Was is because Saddam suddenly became a horrible dictator? No. Saddam was even more horrific throughout his 25 year dictatorship than by the 2000’s, killing thousands of Kurds, eradicating his political opposition, and using chemical weapons on Iran. So, claiming that the US invasion of Iraq was because of Saddam’s dictatorship is completely false.
            If you recall, in early 2003 the US government presented some “facts” about the WMDs in front of the UN. Even though the UN watchdogs in Iraq claimed there were no WMDs in that nation and asked the US to direct them to such a stockpile, the US did not offer help in the WMDs search and instead invaded. But for what reason? Obviously it wasn’t because of the people’s oppression, since that has been happening for decades. It wasn’t because Saddam was manufacturing or stockpiling WMDs, since there were none. It wasn’t because Saddam was connected to terrorism, since he actually resented terrorists and Muslim extremists. That leaves only one thing. OIL! But with a twist. Saddam threatened to start selling his oil to only certain nations and for Euros instead of the typical oil currency, the US dollar. Can you imagine what fiasco that would have caused had he succeeded? So, Bush2 was desperate to eliminate him with any poor reason backed by weak intelligence. If you remember, Iraq was once a US ally, and Saddam received WMDs from Reagan. But Saddam lost trust and respect for the US when we screwed him more than once. In the 80’s we sold weapons to Iraq to aid his was against Iran, but we secretly sold weapons to Iran as well. Later, in the early 1990’s, just before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait due to Kuwait’s tilt drilling into Iraq and other reasons, Saddam sat down with the US ambassador to discuss his plans of invading Kuwait. He was told by the US that the US would stay out of any conflicts between Arab nations, pretty much giving him the green light to invade. Had the US opposed Saddam’s invasion, we should have expressed our concerns. We did not.

            Finally, your claim that because we didn’t take the Iraqi oil, the 2003 Iraqi invasion wasn’t for oil is completely ludicrous. How would such pillaging of an invaded nation’s natural resources be viewed by the rest of the world? Don’t forget that such taking of the victory spoils is against international laws. Oil was the driving force for elimination of Saddam, but not for the reasons the average uninformed dunce believes.

          • MarioP

            Brendan,

            Do I feel like a bozo. I should be more careful when rereading my posts. Please see the following for the correct statements of my previous post:

            The second-to-last paragraph should have started with:

            “Moving on. You stated that people should ***NOT*** be upset about the elimination of Saddam, since…”

            Later in that paragraph I meant to say:

            “In the 80′s we sold weapons to Iraq to aid his ***WAR*** against Iran, but…”

            My apologies.

          • Brendan Horn

            Mario,

            I notice you did not mention anything about Libya as to why it should not be considered a war for oil. Why Libya and not Syria? The answer to “why” is oil. The liberals are not arguing against the war in Libya, and it is certainly a war, because their guy is in power. It is sort of lame to argue that this war is only to protect civilians. Why are civilians more important in Libya than in Syria. They are more important because there is oil in Libya. Europeans in support of this war are worried about the flow of oil even though they claim to be worried about Libyan civilians. Should we go after Khaddafy now when there was American support for him in the past, because he gave up his pursuit of nuclear weapons? (I am applying your reasoning here that America should not change its policies even if circumstances change. I myself do believe circumstances matter and that support today should not guarantee support tomorrow.) Hussein was actually much worse than Khaddafy when it came to slaughtering civilians. Hussein actually tried to commit a real genocide against the Kurdish people in his country. I am not aware of Khaddafy attempting a genocide. Perhaps he did, but this would only make him an equal to Hussein. I am learning from liberals that is okay for Obama to have a war for oil but not okay for any Republican to do the same.

            While I see that you have put a lot of thought into your economic statistics into liberal vs. conservative effect on the economy, I am still not convinced. I think it is too simplistic to only look at who is the president. For example, Clinton’s best economic years coincide with a Republican control of congress. Also, you combined Reagan and Bush 1 as if they are one person. They were obviously different people who pursued different policies. Next, you blame Bush for his first year in office but you give Obama a pass for his first year in office. I would say the first year is too early to get a real measure of impact of economic policies. Also, you do not take into account external factors that are outside of the president’s control. The attacks of 9/11 had a hugely negative impact on the economy. I do not blame Bush for those first two years. After that, things were tolerable until about a year after the Democrats took control of Congress. Now, no one should be too excited about the current state of the economy. If the economy gets significantly better in the next year and a half I might even consider voting for Obama myself. If things stay the way they are, I would vote for anyone on the ballot other than Obama.

          • MarioP

            Brendan,

            The US involvement in Libya should not be called a war for the US unless one are trying desperately to defend the war in Iraq. In Iraq 2003 the US had over 100K soldiers on the ground, with over 170 casualties within the first two months. How many US troops are on the ground in Libya? Zero. How many US casualties are there? Zero. Therefore it’s silly calling today’s Libyan conflict a war for the US. The Conflict may grow into a war for the US in the future, but currently we’re not there. Since you call the Libyan conflict a war for the US, then you certainly must call Panama, Kosovo, and Somalia a war for the US as well. We had troops on the ground and took casualties in those three conflicts. So did you call those conflicts wars for the US? I highly doubt so. If you did, people would have looked at you funny, the same way they look at you today when you call Libya, a war.
            But since you asked me about our involvement in Libya, then I’m gonna continue. The US involvement in Libya is again because of oil. Gaddafi’s dictatorship was being threatened by the spread of revolutions across the Middle East, and he was the first in the rash of these revolutions to use significant force in a attempt to subdue the protests, which was against the West’s liking. When the West started turning against Gaddafi, Gaddafi announced that he would start selling his oil only to Russia, China, and other such nations, a decision which understandably made the West even more upset. Shortly after Gaddafi’s March announcement, the West decided that not only were people’s lives at stake, so was their oil supply, and the call to attack Gaddafi’s forces, and his dictatorship, went out. Both the 2003 Iraqi and the current Libyan conflicts were/are for oil, but Iraq was actually a war, although against a minor enemy when compared to a superpower, and Libya is an involvement for the US, at least for now. But unlike Libya, Iraq was started on false premises and poor intelligence, justifying the invasion by claiming the presence of WMDs in Iraq. Had there been WMDs in Iraq, the UN would have probably found them before the US invaded, and had Saddam refused to destroy them, the US with the UN would have been justified in eliminating Saddam. What false premises were there in attacking Libya? No one is making up any intelligence this time, so don’t be justifying the invasion of Iraq to yourself because of Libya. Liberals aren’t arguing against the current Libyan conflict, because it wasn’t started on lies. And second, Liberals, like anyone else, are happy to see the UN on our side in this conflict. Do you see the difference? I hope so. Had Obama made up some lies about Libya and had gone against the UN, the Liberals would have given it to him, don’t worry.

            You also stated that Saddam was worse than Gaddafi, because Saddam committed genocide against the Kurds. If the US was so inclined to have Saddam eliminated because of the Kurdish genocide, why didn’t we do so during the 1991 Gulf War? Saddam attacked the Kurds in the late 80’s, so during the Gulf War in 1991 the attacks on Kurds were still fresh in our minds. True, Saddam was worse than Gaddafi, but we should have acted when it mattered, and not 15 years later. Do yourself a favor, visit Youtube, and search for “Lawrence O’donnell Asks Condoleezza Rice About Aluminum Tubes”. Towards the end of the video even Rice admits that the last administration’s main reason for invading Iraq wasn’t for humanitarian purposes but because Bush2 viewed Saddam as a threat. But Rice fails to proof that Saddam was a threat to the US public when the US invaded, only listing several points that Saddam was a threat over a decade ago. So, if you believe the US’s job in Iraq was to liberate the Iraqis, then you’re truly mistaken. Even the last administration doesn’t agree with you.

            Libya is yet more evidence which supports my claims that the US has double standards for their international policies. We decide who deserves democracy, and we decide who deserves humanitarian aid. We always consider the benefits to the US before the welfare of others, and as a result, our consistency of goodwill suffers. Today there are several nations like Iraq and Libya where people are suffering, such as Sudan and Ivory Coast, yet the US does not offer such military help. There are other dangerous and oppressing dictators similar to Saddam and Gaddafi, like Kim Jong il and Omar al-Bashir of Sudan, yet we look the other way. We decide who and where to help, which is understandable since we are paying for the costs, and therefore we should not be surprised such handpicked aid may be, and is, viewed negatively.

            Back to the history of our economy. Of course you’re not convinced about the poor economic record of the GOP presidents. You’re the typical stubborn conservative, who denies the obvious because you rationalize your belief until you’re satisfied. You think it’s “simplistic” to only look at the presidents, but when you have such overwhelming failure rate among the Republican presidents, there obviously must be something significantly wrong with the Republican administrations’ way of running our nation. Every major economic indicator (unemployment rate, unemployment rate change, GDP change, stock market change, national debt, inflation, number of recessions) is worse under the GOP presidents. What does that tell you? Probably that the Republican presidents can’t work with the opposing Congress, but then again Bush2 couldn’t work well with the Republican one either. The Democratic president are able to work with either Congress, so why would we ever want another Republican president? Beats me.

            And you have a problem with me combining Reagan with Bush1? So what? I was showing you how the two parties’ presidents affect the unemployment rate, and I wasn’t comparing each and every president to another. You didn’t complain that I combined JFK with Johnson, nor Nixon with Ford. Probably because the two Democratic presidents kept on improving the UR, while the two Republican presidents kept on worsening the UR. Reagan is the ONLY GOP president that managed to lower the UR during his term since Harding/Coolidge did so 90 years ago. That’s pretty sad for the Republican presidents. One would think that if both parties’ presidents were equally competent, their performance would be more split in the middle. The truth is far from it.

            Later you claim that I compare Bush2’s first year in office to Obama’s, and that I give Obama a pass. Where did I do that? I stated that during Bush2’s first TWO years he managed to increase the UR by 50%, just like Reagan, but I did not compare Bush2 to Obama. But since you brought it up, is such a comparison fair? Bush2 inherited a nation not in a recession. What did Obama inherit? Only the second worst economic disaster, second only to the first worst economic disaster also caused by a Republican president with a Republican Congress 80 years earlier. Again, we have a Democratic president needing to repair the mess caused by deregulated industries with no oversight in place. But I will agree with you that 9/11 was a large negative impact on our economy, which made things difficult for Bush2; I can’t argue that. Yet what I can argue is your place of blame for the last recession on the 2007 Democratic House; the 2007 Senate was split 49/49/2, so don’t call it a Democratic Congress. Our economic troubles started way before the year 2007. Actually, some crazed conservatives go as far back as the Clinton years, pointing out Clinton’s changes to the Community Reinvestment Act. Conveniently those clowns forget to mention the act Bush2 signed in 2003 that removed the last hurdle in taking out a mortgage, but more on that later. You’re blaming the 2007 House and not the Republican president for the Great Recession, while the other conservatives are blaming Clinton and not the Republican Congress. So which is it, the president or the Congress? This is all so confusing! I guess it’s always the Liberals, and never the conservatives. Always blame the Democrats, even when the statistics show it’s the Republican. Nice! Sounds like Reagan’s 11th commandment, “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican”. What a turd he was. How is the nation going to improve if one will not admit fault?

            You stated:
            “I do not blame Bush for those first two years. After that, things were tolerable until about a year after the Democrats took control of Congress.”

            I guess I’ll agree with you that things seemed “tolerable” to the average Joe, but things were also building up into a bubble almost from Bush2’s first day on the job. As soon as Bush2 came to power, he started lowering the fed rate, with the first lowering coming only ten days after taking the oath. During his first year, he lowered the fed rate by over 70%, from 6% to 1.75%, which was an unprecedented lowering in a 12 month period. What do you think such a quick and major drop in the fed rate would do to property prices? Since potential home buyers would be able to afford a larger mortgage for the same monthly payment, they were willing to pay higher prices for their new homes. Panic quickly struck the home building and buying business, as people witnessed home prices climb 10%-20% annually for years. Potential home buyers were desperate to get into a home, because they didn’t want to pay that extra 10%-20% the following year. In 2001 the prices of the average home hit an all-time high, when adjusted for inflation. Coincidence? Bush2 was proud of his housing market, yet not fully satisfied. So in December of 2003, he signed the American Dream Downpayment Act, eliminating the need for a downpayment when purchasing a home. Obviously Bush2 didn’t think Clinton went far enough with his lending deregulation, as Bush2 needed to eliminate the last hurdle in home buying. In 2006 the highest number of the sub-prime mortgages we issued. Unfortunately, by early 2006 the housing bubble has peaked. From then on things were heading downwards, even before the 2007 Congress was sworn in. Bush2’s administration had a final chance to avoid the complete financial meltdown in middle of September 2008, but hours before the melting started Henry Paulson, appointed by Bush2, declined to back Barclays’ purchase of the troubled Lehman Brothers, with measly $20B, because he “didn’t want to risk tax payers money”. Boy, that turned out to be a great decision, based on the inability to foresee the disastrous impact of Lehman Bros’ failure.

            Finally, you claim that no one should get excited about the current state of the economy until it gets significantly better. Let us look at Reagan’s UR. When he entered office, the UR was at 7.2%. The rate peaked two years later at 10.8%. By the end of October ’84, the UR was at 7.4%. If you were old enough to vote that year, did you vote for “anyone on the ballot other than” Reagan again? Now looking at Obama, he entered office with UR at 7.3%. Nice months later the UR peaked at 10.1%. All Obama has to do in the next 1.5 years is to bring down the UR to the mid 7%, and you’ll vote for him, since that is what you did, or would have done for Reagan if you we not of voting age. But Obama has a slight advantage over Reagan. When Reagan came to power, the nation has just recovered from the shortest recession ever, while Obama was in the midst of the greatest recession ever. If Obama will match Reagan’s UR progress, Obama should get your vote in 2012, correct? Well, that is if you voted, or would have voted, for Reagan in ’84.

            Oh, I nearly forgot. Are you willing to tell me where you get your economic data that you presented, which isn’t manipulated? I requested you to direct me where you get it, but you must have forgotten about it.

            Thank you for continuing this debate, and I apologize for the delay.

            PS: By the way, I do want to make another correction to my last long post. I made a typo for Bush2’s UR rate for the year 2002. Instead of 6.8%, it should have read 5.8%. But I doubt that makes any difference in our debate.

          • Brendan Horn

            Mario,

            I see you put quite a bit of thought into your posts. It is difficult to respond to all of it so I will just make a few points.

            First, Libya is indeed going through a war right now. You say we are not war with them yet we are dropping bombs on them and many people are dying as a result. It is “Shock and Awe” without ground troops. Even the hated “warmonger” Bush did not kill Hussein’s grandchildren. Here are some lies about this war. Obama keeps claiming he does not have a goal of killing Khaddafy yet his bombs keep coming pretty close to places where he might kill Khaddafy. Secondly, I have not heard him admit anything about oil being a consideration for why we are dropping bombs. He called his bomb dropping humanitarian in nature as the predominant consideration. Khaddafy, however, does not have the track record of slaughtering civilians like Hussein had. I think the reason the UN is going along with Libya is because they are concerned about the price of oil. Normal people should be somewhat concerned about the price of oil because the whole world’s economy is based on oil. The whole economy could tumble again like in 2008 if oil prices get too high.

            I do not remember where I got my economic data. I think it was a government website but it seemed legit. I think it might have different from what you are posting.

            Look, if we want to go all through history Republican and Democrat we can go back to Andrew Jackson, a democrat who nearly destroyed the economy, and a Republican, Abraham Lincoln, who saved the country. I think we can both agree that the nature of both parties changes through time and that FDR is not the same as Clinton. I did not like that Reagan and Bush were combined because it seemed like a gimmick. Reagans numbers were better than Bushes. You write that Reagan’s first term was not that great but FDR’s first two terms were not really that great economically. FDR was still an excellent president in my opinion. He was far better than the do nothing isolationist Republican’s he came up against. Obama will need to show some signs of real improvement in the economy in order to justify his reelection. The economy is still not good and I hope he does not pretend that people should be impressed with the shape of the economy.

          • MarioP

            Brendan,

            You stated:
            “First, Libya is indeed going through a war right now.”

            Although Libya is going through a civil war, you must agree that the US involvement in Libya is nowhere close to what it was in Iraq, hence the conflict is NOT a war for the US. The last I heard the US had only 20 fixed-wing aircraft involved in Libya. We lost more fixed-wing aircraft in Iraq. If you call Libya a war for us, then you must have called Panama a war for us as well, which is silly. Of course if the conflict will go beyond our small airstrike involvement, with ground troops, then I’ll agree with you that it turned into a war. But at this moment you’re a bit premature with your conclusion.

            You stated:
            “You say we are not war with them yet we are dropping bombs on them and many people are dying as a result. It is “Shock and Awe” without ground troops.”

            Ok, so if we send just ONE aircraft to Libya, which will be dropping bombs and killing people, will you still call it a war?

            You stated:
            “Here are some lies about this war. Obama keeps claiming he does not have a goal of killing Khaddafy yet his bombs keep coming pretty close to places where he might kill Khaddafy.”

            What are you saying here? Because bombs are dropped close to Gaddafi, Obama wants to kill him? First of all, what do you call close? And second, is Obama in charge of the bombing missions or is it the NATO? Remember? This isn’t Iraq, and our president is not in charge of a rouge attack force. Nice vague and twisted facts you posted there.

            You stated:
            “Khaddafy, however, does not have the track record of slaughtering civilians like Hussein had.”

            So what? The last massive killings by Saddam, that we know of, happened in 1991. True, Saddam was a mass murderer, but we should have brought him to justice when it mattered, and not over a decade later with made up evidence. That’s just sloppy and amateur-like.

            I agree with your statement about the price of oil and economy, hence the attack on Libya.

            Regarding your economic numbers which you can’t track down, here is the link to the government website where I got my data:

            bls*gov/cps/cpsaat1*pdf

            (The * represents a period.)

            The numbers on that government website match data throughout the internet, on other government and economic sites. If you claim the numbers you used are different yet still from a government website, then either you found a bad site, or you’re just making your numbers up. I mean do you truly remember the numbers you saw, which you now can’t locate? You must have an impressive memory to recall your numbers, but then again you can’t remember the site, so now I’m not sure. I provided you with the numbers everyone accepts as true, so please show us the numbers you claim are different, yet true, so we can check them out for ourselves. Otherwise, I’ll conclude your statement about my numbers being “manipulated” is untrue, which will place doubt on the rest of your claims.

            You stated:
            “Look, if we want to go all through history Republican and Democrat we can go back to Andrew Jackson, a democrat who nearly destroyed the economy, and a Republican, Abraham Lincoln, who saved the country. I think we can both agree that the nature of both parties changes through time and that FDR is not the same as Clinton.”

            Exactly! Political parties change over time and the Republicans are not what they stood for in the past. Today the GOP policies are destructive and the economic numbers prove that. But why would we want to dig up the performance of our presidents from two centuries ago? Outdated data will not help us today, and we should concentrate on recent performance numbers. I can care less what Jackson’s performance was like. What matters is what the current performance is, and not only from one good apple. We need consistency and we need to compare them as a group. BTW, Jackson abolished the National Bank and was for a small federal government. That sounds more like a Republican, probably because he originally belonged to the Democratic-Republican Party, later to be know as the Republican Party.

            As always, you’re keeping me entertained. But I think to maintain your validity, your next step needs to be to come up with a link to the economic numbers you claim are true. Otherwise, you’re coming across as someone with an unsupported, and false, opinion.

          • Brendan Horn

            Mario,
            Here is the source of economic data:
            http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

            I am learning from you that an air war for oil based on lies is okay as long as NATO is running the show and the UN approves. Maybe Libya will work out better than I think, or perhaps it will turn into another Somalia,complete chaos, one of worst run countries in the world.
            I personally hope one of these rockets does kill Khaddafy. It would be taking out the garbage, something no country does better than America. I guess Obama would say “my bad” if Khaddafy is killed. It is comical that he is pretending that he does not want to kill him. I thought Liberals actually wanted honest politicians. It turns out they only want honest Republicans.

            I am learning from you that there is a statute of limitations for genocide. In your estimation, ten years means that genocide should be forgiven, or at least not prosecuted. By the way, almost no one at the UN and very few liberals in congress wanted America to go into Iraq and prevent the massacres that took place there after Hussein was knocked out of Kuwait. Many liberals did not even want America to help Kuwait at all. They considered it not a worthy cause.

            Here are the best things Clinton did. He lost the House of Representatives for the Democrats for the first time in 42 years. This is the best thing he did. This was the key to his success. The second best thing he did was he passed welfare reform. He did this because he wanted to get reelected. It was a smart move and the economy flourished as a result.
            Obama might have helped himself get reelected by being so unpopular in his second year. He helped the Republicans win the House of Representatives in a landslide. This may be enough to prevent him from doing the things he wants to do that will hurt the country much the same way it helped Clinton.

            Also, the reason most Republicans can never support Democrats is because of taxes. Democrats impose so many new taxes in such creative ways that no one can breathe. It is the Democratic solution for every problem. This is a bigger issue on the state level than on the national level because states cannot print new money. You will notice that the most out of control spending states are the most liberal states. Some Democrats still believe that taxing the wealthy is the solution for this problem even though rich people are pretty good at avoiding taxes. This is part of the reason they are wealthy in the first place.