Barack Obama: A Historic President

[CS Martin]

Um, Chicago is in Illinois. Just sayin'.

I'm fully aware of this fact. Cincinatti (a city in Ohio) has their newer international airport in fucking Kentucky**, what's your point? Chicago "happens" to be located in IL. IL is not a given based solely on Chicago.

Note: Florida is split right down the middle with the deciding factor being the I-4 Corridor. Not surprising that Obama's latest visit to Central Florida included a procession right up I-4.

P.S. saw new JLO Gucci commerical just now. Damn, I'm a convert. JLO, lead me to the promise land!!

**Ok, it is a very nice airport!!

 

[daydreamer41]

Um, Chicago is in Illinois. Just sayin'

Left wing agenda??? Oh, jeez. Actually, the left wing, what little there is of it in the US of A, is quite unhappy with Mr. Obama. This comment of yours is so silly as to hardly warrant reply. Those on the left will most likely vote for Obama, if only in self defense considering the wing-nuts that the Republicans are offering up. Many, however, will just stay home in disgust.

Yeah, wing nuts. The Real wing nut is in the White House winking at the Occupy crowds.

 

[Guido]

Omaba blocking the oil pipeline from Canada has made the Chineese government very happy .
Can you say $4.00 gas anyone?

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

I'm fully aware of this fact. Cincinatti (a city in Ohio) has their newer international airport in fucking Kentucky, what's your point? Chicago "happens" to be located in IL. IL is not a given based solely on Chicago.

No, what's your point? How, pray tell, does Obama's being from Chicago guarantee him Ohio, a state that doesn't even border on Illinois. You, Mr. Martin, have a fertile imagination. Have you given thought to seeking employment at Disneyworld? Fantasyland, perhaps.

Using your "logic", Rick Perry's being from Texas should guarantee him Colorado. No?

 

[Merlot]

Too bad, Doc. Nice seeing you post in the Sports threads.

Barack Obama is the dumbest and least effective President the United States (all "57 States") ever had. If the current leader Newt Gringrich was nominated, Gringrich would humilate Obama in the debates. You may not like Gringrich, but at least he has ideas and is articulate, the opposite of Obama.

He is a loser and he will lose next November.

Huh,

"Dumbest" would be an adjective far more fitting for anyone who accuses others and thinks there are 57 states. Could you list the 57 or provide a link that shows there are 57. This is why others have a right to wonder about how and where you get your information. Happening to be a certified historical expert myself it's pretty obvious you know little about American history, or you are just a hardcore President Obama hater...well, we know at least the last part is true.

President Obama certainly isn't stupid by any means, except by the most myopic and childish of standards where he simply doesn't agree with the views of others. Disagreement is not being stupid. I respect any who disagree as long as it is a result of thoughtful consideration, NOT the knee-jerk party-line hyperbole above. Of course people like you would think Gingrich would humiliate Obama because you have already decided anything Obama might say is totally wrong and Gingrich is totally right. You have no wish to listen or think, just follow the party line.

Personally, I don't think President Obama has been very successful. He did stop the looming economic disaster situation from a total meltdown, and had a few general successes. But overall I would not apply the word "successful".

Now please explain how there are 57 states if there is any credibility in your word.

Let me make one bold prediction here: Barak Hussein Obama will be re-elected to a 2nd term in 2012. There is no way he (or anyone) can lose to the current field of Republican hopefuls. The GOP's best candidate is Mitt Romney. However, his own party hates him. The majority of Republicans would rather stay home than go out & vote for him.

I don't see how anyone can say this Doc. Everyone, even the super rich are worried about the economy and at best Obama has brought the situation under control with very little improvement if any.

True. Considering an old Conservative adulterer, hyper-Conservative inexperienced sometimes kooky nobody, an economically simplistic and likely lech, a fraud promoting success that cannot be duplicated in other states, the waffle king changing positions with the political wind, and a maverick isolationist who doesn't mind if 50 million uninsured could die, the Republican candidates are a lousy crop this time around except for a couple...MAYBE, who are no where near the lead for the party position in polls.

But regardless of the Republican candidates and all the continuing economic worries, even Liberals are dissatisfied with President Obama.

56%?? 56%?? That's the best Fox, the propaganda arm of the Republican party, could do??

Anyone basing their views on Fox isn't looking for answers, just confirmation of what they want to see.

The most recent poll cited in your link is from mid-September. Three of them are no more recent than May. The poll I cited is current.

The October 17 number you cite is Gallup only.

All of the recent polls show Obama beating his Republican opponents, the only close race the one with Romney, by two points. Of course, he doesn't have a difficult fight as all of the Republicans running, with the exceptions of Huntsman and Romney, are stark raving mad.

I don't know a lot about Huntsman, but only because the rest are so objectionable I might give him a look.

Having lived under Romney, I don't think he has any consistent philosophy that would let ANYONE identify or find his true character. Conservatives could never bring themselves to accept him and Liberals often find him to be just a political opportunist. Overall, he might be middle of the road enough to attract Independents, but he turns his positions almost like the waffles at your local IHOP.

I'm not happy with anyone running on any side, same as the last, though I think it's everyone's duty to make a choice.

Cheers,

Merlot

 

[CS Martin]

No, what's your point? How, pray tell, does Obama's being from Chicago guarantee him Ohio, a state that doesn't even border on Illinois.

Can you say JFK? I'm not going to give you a course in real U.S. History. Do some reading on the matter and get back with me once educated in the subject.

 

[lgna69xxx]

Everything oBama touches causes somebody, somewhere, something. Time for him to go, he has done nothing in 3 years and only made things worse. maybe his wife could at least stop spending a million dollars on her weekly vacations, that in itself would make him look better to the American people.

Omaba blocking the oil pipeline from Canada has made the Chineese government very happy .
Can you say $4.00 gas anyone?

 

[CS Martin]

Personally, I don't think President Obama has been very successful. He did stop the looming economic disaster situation from a total meltdown, and had a few general successes. But overall I would not apply the word "successful".

Anyone basing their views on Fox isn't looking for answers, just confirmation of what they want to see.

I don't know a lot about Huntsman, ......................................... I might give him a look.


I'm not happy with anyone running on any side, same as the last, though I think it's everyone's duty to make a choice.

Cheers,

Merlot

OK, what about the idea we're not supposed to agree on anything? Your posting of agreeable viewpoints causes me to re-assess my position......We just can't agree, it's unhealthy...LOL

BTW, saw Huntman on a news show (Meet the Press, I think). Quite interesting and almost impressive. But, see previous post. What we think is merely a mental exercise with Obama's current political position.

 

[daydreamer41]

Huh,

"Dumbest" would be an adjective far more fitting for anyone who accuses others and thinks there are 57 states. Could you list the 57 or provide a link that shows there are 57. This is why others have a right to wonder about how and where you get your information. Happening to be a certified historical expert myself it's pretty obvious you know little about American history, or you are just a hardcore President Obama hater...well, we know at least the last part is true.

President Obama certainly isn't stupid by any means, except by the most myopic and childish of standards where he simply doesn't agree with the views of others. Disagreement is not being stupid. I respect any who disagree as long as it is a result of thoughtful consideration, NOT the knee-jerk party-line hyperbole above. Of course people like you would think Gingrich would humiliate Obama because you have already decided anything Obama might say is totally wrong and Gingrich is totally right. You have no wish to listen or think, just follow the party line.

Personally, I don't think President Obama has been very successful. He did stop the looming economic disaster situation from a total meltdown, and had a few general successes. But overall I would not apply the word "successful".

Now please explain how there are 57 states if there is any credibility in your word.

Cheers,

Merlot

Hello Boyz and you Merlot,

Gee Merlot, You know I can't list them. But I think you should write a letter to the White House and ask President Obama to list them. In fact, your friend Barack thought there are 59 states. He didn't get to Hawaii and Alaska (the only 2 he didn't visit). Can't wait for the debates between the nominees, Merlot. :lol: :lol: . See the film Merlot.

[video=youtube;EpGH02DtIws]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws[/video]

 

[daydreamer41]

Here's some interesting results at Gallup: http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx
Unfortunately, I have to agree with Doc on this one. I didn't say Bama Baby was going to lose. I did say he's not as popular as the media and our leftest friends think he is. Obama will probably be re-elected based upon the following facts:

1) OK, let's address the "elephant in the room". He's black. The black population in the US votes almost (notice this modifier) totally along racial guidelines. Regardless of what Obama does, short of giving the keys to the Chinese, he's going to get at the lowest 85% of the black vote. His approval ratings among blacks usually hangs around 90%. So when you have some 30%+ of the poplation voting for bama right out of the box it's an uphill climb for anyone not black. Cain scared Obama because the conservatives came up with a black man to actually challenge him. So Obama quietly went out of the country while the liberal press of Chicago & NYC chopped Cain up with total BS.

2) Obama has the Chicago Mafia Political Machine behind him. This will insure the critical State of Ohio, while the large Muslim popluation in Michigan will insure that state.

3) Obama's extreme left wing agenda will insure his support from that sector. Yes he gave up the Jewish vote with his stabbing in the back of the US's only true friend in the Middle East (Israel), but the US Muslim vote is now strong enough to push him over the edge in New York State.

Bottom line is, barring a miracle, Obama will be re-elected by the traditional minorities and a careful selection and newer targeting of specific special interest groups. The US popluation will be forced to endure another 4 years of Obama. In summary, Obama has managed to blend just the right amount of racial & class warfare together to remain in power. Quite similar to many Arab Countries & Southeast Asian Communist regimes. So while I memorialized Doc's promise, I doubt he'll be forced to honor it. He's made a good bet.

But the bet was free, without downside to me.....so what the hell.

In fact, if Obama loses I'll attend a GT and buy everyone a beer. Don't bother booking your hotel room at the HDLM on that one, because the chances of getting your beer aren't good. Again, another zero chance bet on my part.....LOL

The poll you linked Obama vs Republican challenger has no bearing right now. Obama is identifible. But no one really knows who will be the Republican nominee. Once a Republican nominee is identified, people will make a distinction between the candidates.

Obama will not win for the following reasons:

1. The key states which Obama won in 2008 and are in play for Republicans are:
State / Electoral Votes / Unemployment Rate / Rank by State

Florida / 27 / 10.6 / 45th
Pennsylvania / 21 / 8.3 / 25th
New Jersey / 15 / 9.2 / 36th
North Carolina 15 / 10.5/ 43rd
Virginia 13 / 6.5 / 10th
Ohio 20 / 10.1 / 33rd
Indiana 11 / 8.9 / 30th
Michigan 17 / 11.1 / 48th
Colorado 9 / 8.3 / 25th
Minnesota 10 / 6.9 / 13th

Total Electoral Votes: 143

Even California with 55 Electoral Votes with 11.9 percent Unemployment and Nevada with 5 Electoral votes and 13.4 percent Unemployment, Oregon with 7 Electoral votes and 9.6 UE and Washington with 11 EV and 9.1 UE may be in play.

Obama won 365 to McCain 173. With such high unemployment in most of the toss up states and even higher in some traditional Democratic states, Obama is not set to win re-election if the Unemployment situation does not improve.

 

[Merlot]

Hello Boyz and you Merlot,

Gee Merlot, You know I can't list them. But I think you should write a letter to the White House and ask President Obama to list them. In fact, your friend Barack thought there are 59 states. He didn't get to Hawaii and Alaska (the only 2 he didn't visit). Can't wait for the debates between the nominees, Merlot. :lol: :lol: . See the film Merlot.

[video=youtube;EpGH02DtIws]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws[/video]

Right,

I just reread your post including mention of the "57 states". IF...you could write properly you might have indicated you were referring to a misspeaking in a video by President Obama. Quote marks alone don't show that. It reads like your statement.

So he misspoke once in a video about a simple fact, maybe a few times more other times is possible since being elected and you still think the always-bumbling mouth G.W. Bush is smarter??? :lol:

It's clear you let...even deliberately make...your hatred of Obama form your views. Not smart at all.

In any case, you are far too devoted to hating Obama to be any judge. You aren't alone. The assertions in post #360 in this thread are so over-the-top I'm not going to bother quoting it or dealing with it further, except to say anyone who thinks Obama "will" be re-elected, as in the manner of making a guarantee, is not being realistic about the situation in this country...and that's not counting the perplexing scenario painted in the post. Whether he will be re-elected can at best be a qualified assessment/opinion ...nothing more. The situation is too dour and the candidates on both sides too weak to make any guarantees for anyone...which, yes you guessed it...is just normal one year before an election.

Maybe if Obama had frozen Osama and made his death announcement two days before the election.

The poll you linked Obama vs Republican challenger has no bearing right now. Obama is identifible. But no one really knows who will be the Republican nominee. Once a Republican nominee is identified, people will make a distinction between the candidates.

Obama will not win for the following reasons:

1. The key states which Obama won in 2008 and are in play for Republicans are:
State / Electoral Votes / Unemployment Rate / Rank by State

Florida / 27 / 10.6 / 45th
Pennsylvania / 21 / 8.3 / 25th
New Jersey / 15 / 9.2 / 36th
North Carolina 15 / 10.5/ 43rd
Virginia 13 / 6.5 / 10th
Ohio 20 / 10.1 / 33rd
Indiana 11 / 8.9 / 30th
Michigan 17 / 11.1 / 48th
Colorado 9 / 8.3 / 25th
Minnesota 10 / 6.9 / 13th

Total Electoral Votes: 143

Even California with 55 Electoral Votes with 11.9 percent Unemployment and Nevada with 5 Electoral votes and 13.4 percent Unemployment, Oregon with 7 Electoral votes and 9.6 UE and Washington with 11 EV and 9.1 UE may be in play.

Obama won 365 to McCain 173. With such high unemployment in most of the toss up states and even higher in some traditional Democratic states, Obama is not set to win re-election if the Unemployment situation does not improve.

Hey Wow! You're using accurate data and rationally calm statements? PRAISE JESUS...Glory hallelujah. Why not do this all of the time.

Cheers,

Merlot

 

[daydreamer41]

Right,

I just reread your post including mention of the "57 states". IF...you could write properly you might have indicated you were referring to a misspeaking in a video by President Obama. Quote marks alone don't show that. It reads like your statement.

So he misspoke once in a video about a simple fact, maybe a few times more other times is possible since being elected and you still think the always-bumbling mouth G.W. Bush is smarter??? :lol:

It's clear you let...even deliberately make...your hatred of Obama form your views. Not smart at all.

In any case, you are far too devoted to hating Obama to be any judge. You aren't alone. The assertions in post #360 in this thread are so over-the-top I'm not going to bother quoting it or dealing with it further, except to say anyone who thinks Obama "will" be re-elected, as in the manner of making a guarantee, is not being realistic about the situation in this country...and that's not counting the perplexing scenario painted in the post. Whether he will be re-elected can at best be a qualified assessment/opinion ...nothing more. The situation is too dour and the candidates on both sides too weak to make any guarantees for anyone...which, yes you guessed it...is just normal one year before an election.



Hey Wow! You're using accurate data and rationally calm statements? PRAISE JESUS...Glory hallelujah. Why not do this all of the time.

Cheers,

Merlot

If I could write more properly? Excuse me? Obama's 57 state talk is common knowledge, at least by people who are politically aware.

Anyhow, Merlot, I ALWAYS use accurate data and rationally calm statements. If you don't agree with my views, you personally think otherwise.

There are other really dumb statements that Obama has made. I agree Bush was not the best speaker, either. But if you are talking about teleprompter Barack, he can't speak without the teleprompter. He did not save us from further damage from the meltdown. What happened, if you remember, Bush started the bailout, with help from Congress, before he left office. Obama added to it after he took office, with help from Congress.

Obama is a loser. He has done nothing to help the US in the last 3 years. I think the 2012 election will be like the 2008 election. 2008 was an Anti-Bush election. Bush was not very popular at the of his 2nd term. 2012 will be an Anti-Obama election. Obama has been heading down the same road.

 

[CS Martin]

In any case, you are far too devoted to hating Obama to be any judge. You aren't alone. The assertions in post #360 in this thread are so over-the-top I'm not going to bother quoting it or dealing with it further, except to say anyone who thinks Obama "will" be re-elected, as in the manner of making a guarantee, is not being realistic about the situation in this country...and that's not counting the perplexing scenario painted in the post. Whether he will be re-elected can at best be a qualified assessment/opinion ...nothing more. The situation is too dour and the candidates on both sides too weak to make any guarantees for anyone...which, yes you guessed it...is just normal one year before an election.

Stand by the post and also by the qualifiers therein. Most with a grasp, both on the ground and in the politico world, of a truly world view would agree. Notice, I used a "world view" description.

I'll agree the situation is extremely dire. While I'm not happy about the prediction, I'll stand by it. Further, should I be wrong, I'll publicly admit it. But barring any miracle(i.e. things extremely out of the ordinary you'd expect in an election year, even taking into consideration October surprises), Obama will win. Merlot, I look forward to you calling me out on this in November 2012 should I be incorrect.

Now trace back how Cain became a threat and you'll come to the same conclusion. Pure statistics. Obama's I-4 procession was not an accident in time or place.

Read this article: http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/18/politics/gerrymandering/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

I state it again, black voters vote significantly based upon race. The statistics presented in the above story and Gallup Polls (among others) are extremely convincing. Cain (a black conservative) was a threat, the Chicago Political Machine made that threat go away for the most part.

 

[daydreamer41]

Stand by the post and also by the qualifiers therein. Most with a grasp, both on the ground and in the politico world, of a truly world view would agree. Notice, I used a "world view" description.

I'll agree the situation is extremely dire. While I'm not happy about the prediction, I'll stand by it. Further, should I be wrong, I'll publicly admit it. But barring any miracle(i.e. things extremely out of the ordinary you'd expect in an election year, even taking into consideration October surprises), Obama will win. Merlot, I look forward to you calling me out on this in November 2012 should I be incorrect.

No way. http://www.paxamerica.org/2011/08/05/the-unemployment-rate-and-the-president%E2%80%99s-reelection-an-historic-overview/

[h=1]The Unemployment Rate and the President’s Reelection: An Historic Overview.[/h]Posted by Deputy Policy Director on Friday, August 5, 2011

The United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, a subsidiary of the Department of Labor, in their Employment Situation Summary for July 2011, finds that the unemployment rate remains stagnant at 9.2 percent. Furthermore, the Bureau of Labor Statistics notes that since March, the unemployment rate has risen by a paltry 0.4 percent. With the unemployment rate at 9.2 percent and the economy showing few signs of improvement, President Barack Obama will have an arduous task ahead of him in the next sixteen months: convincing the American electorate that he deserves a second term as president.
When the unemployment rate begins to decrease in an election year, the incumbent president’s chances of winning reelection increase. Conversely, when the unemployment increases or shows little sign of improvement, the president loses his bid for reelection. This article examines the impact that high unemployment rates have had on incumbent presidents’ reelections. Furthermore, it examines the projected unemployment rate in the months leading up to the 2012 presidential election. If the unemployment rate remains stagnant, or continues to rise, it appears likely that President Obama will be a one-term president.
A weak economy and staggering unemployment numbers have periodically plagued incumbent administrations since the founding of our republic. However, it was not until the twentieth century that the unemployment rate became a central focus in presidential elections.
Since the 1976 presidential election, every incumbent president, excluding Ronald Reagan, lost their bid for reelection when the unemployment rate exceededseven percent.President Reagan’s landslide victory over Walter Mondale in 1984 was precipitated by an improving American economy, an increase in consumer confidence, and a drastic reduction in the unemployment rate. In November 1984, the unemployment rate stood at 7.2 percent, a 3.6 percent reduction from 1982, when it stood at a whopping 10.8 percent. When the unemployment decreases in the years and months prior to an election, the incumbent president generally wins reelection. A reduction in the unemployment rate propelled Ronald Reagan to a landslide victory over his Democratic challenger, Walter Mondale, in the 1984 election. Since 1976, no other incumbent president has been reelected when the unemployment rate has exceeded seven percent.
The table shown below indicates that when the unemployment rate exceeds seven percent, the incumbent president usually loses his bid for reelection. Furthermore, when the unemployment rate is lower than seven percent, the incumbent president wins reelection. In November 2012, the unemployment rate is projected to exceed 7.7 percent. With a high unemployment rate, can President Obama get reelected?
The table below depicts the unemployment rate during presidential election years, in which incumbent presidents were vying for reelection.

Unemployment Rate	Incumbent President	Election year	Election Outcome
7.7 percent	Gerald Ford (R)	1976	Democratic victory
7.5 percent	Jimmy Carter (D)	1980	Republican victory
7.2 percent	Ronald Reagan (R)	1984	Republican victory
7.4 percent	George H.W. Bush (R)	1992	Democratic victory
5.4 percent	Bill Clinton (D)	1996	Democratic victory
5.5 percent	George W. Bush (R)	2004	Republican victory

 

[CS Martin]

No way.

I look forward to your calling me out on my prediction in November 2012. I look forward to humbling myself to both you and Merlot.

BTW, great article in National Geographic on the Albertine Rift. Very enlightening history. Very instructive in my methods prediction. Take the time to read the entire article, including pictures, graphical representations and enclosed maps. Then come back to me. Approximate 1 hour read time.

as I continue to leave crumbs......

 

[CS Martin]

Latest Quinnipiac Poll shows Gingrich leading the Republican Nominees.This sounds the death nell for Republican hopes. Obama wins by default, but the US loses big. Asking the black population of the US to vote for Gingrich is the equivilent of asking Pelosi to cut off funding for Planned Parenthood. Quinnipiac shows Obama at 49% vs. Gingrich at 40%. Assuming the demographics stay the same and no miracles happen, there does not exist a scenario where Obama loses, thus America is a bad bet. Does anyone know what the Vegas odds are? Smart Money always shows the way. April 2011 Vegas odds show Obama at 59% chance of winning. Anyone have updated odds?

 

[lgna69xxx]

$4 million holiday vacation to be paid for by tax payers

The Obamas will once again vacation in Hawaii over the holidays this year, but this time it will be a bit more expensive than previous trips.

The Hawaii Reporter writes that the President and First Lady's separate trips to Hawaii (Michelle and the girls arrived Friday; check out photos of President Obama arriving last year here) as well as the extended stay of the vacation will cost American tax payers nearly $4 million, roughly $2.5 million more than the President's 2010 trip.

The Hawaii Reporter states that the Obamas are not staying at the "Winter White House" (check out video of it here) this year and instead have rented and paid for their own accommodations in the form of a beach front rental on Kailua. The President's staff and White House Press Corp will be put up at the Moana Surfrider, a Westin resort on Waikiki Beach.

Kailua is a popular community on Oahu and boasts a beach that was rated as the best beach in the country by "Dr. Beach" in 1998.

Obama, for his part, has stated that he will postpone his trip for "as long as it takes" Congress to extend payroll tax cuts and unemployment insurance, according to the Associated Press.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/...c1_lnk3&pLid=121649#s211245&title=August_2008

Just unbelievable, this guy is obviously not very bright to do this when the economy is the way it is, and the election being less than a year away, hopefully this is the last straw to seal his fate as a one termer.

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

The Hawaii Reporter writes that the President and First Lady's separate trips to Hawaii (Michelle and the girls arrived Friday; check out photos of President Obama arriving last year here) as well as the extended stay of the vacation will cost American tax payers nearly $4 million, roughly $2.5 million more than the President's 2010 trip.

Let's compare the cost of President Obama's vacation with the cost of George Bush's war. "The most recent major report on these costs come from Brown University in the form of the Costs of War project, which said the total for wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan is at least $3.2-4 trillion."

And, of course, that doesn't begin to take into account the hundreds of thousands of deaths for which Messrs. Bush and Cheney are responsible. It would take a lot more than $4 million to wash the blood from their hands.

Meanwhile, while the Repubican congress fights with itself, President Obama's popularity is at a two year high. http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/updates/2982

 

[lgna69xxx]

Where in that article did it say anything about Bush and War? Stick to the subject at hand and stop making excuses for Obama for once, can ya? Lol, sorry, i already know the answer. This is a direct slap in the face to the American People and other countries as well. Whats wrong with going over the river and through the woods to grandmas house for the holidays? that would not cost the tax payers a dime. I mean cmon, FOUR MILLION DOLLARS FOR A HOLIDAY VACATION, and what the heck, make the taxpayers foot the bill, it is only the worst economy ever seen by most or all of them. :crazy: what a joke ... 322 days to go. :thumb:

Let's compare the cost of President Obama's vacation with the cost of George Bush's war. "The most recent major report on these costs come from Brown University in the form of the Costs of War project, which said the total for wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan is at least $3.2-4 trillion."

And, of course, that doesn't begin to take into account the hundreds of thousands of deaths for which Messrs. Bush and Cheney are responsible. It would take a lot more than $4 million to wash the blood from their hands.

Meanwhile, while the Repubican congress fights with itself, President Obama's popularity is at a two year high. http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/updates/2982

 

[Lovemaker]

Ron Paul is a good man http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMUZIVYuluc