Isn't It Kind Of Ridiculous?

[Guest]

Isn't it ridiculous when the same Congress, the same House of Representatives that vote to approve increased government spending later vote to disapprove increasing the debt that the spending creates? How can they change their minds so quickly, vote in such an illogical manner? Could it be politics?

Here's a "did you know". On January 10, 2010 there was widespread support in the Senate for the bipartisan Conrad-Gregg bill to establish an 18-member commission to recommend widespread spending cuts and fiscal reform. The bill would have created the Simpson-Bowles Commission and was worded to prohibit any debate or amendments to the commission's recommendations. It was to be a straight up-or-down vote in the Senate and then the House. John McCain co-sponsored the bill along with six other Republican senators and a like number of Democrats. Mitch McConnell made an impassioned speech from the well of the Senate recommending the need for such a commission and the fiscal reform it would bring. Yet, when the Senate vote was held only 16 days later, on January 26, the Senate blocked the bill with a straight party line vote of 53 Democrats voting in favor and 47 Republicans voting no, not enough to get the 60 votes needed to prevent a filibuster.

Both McCain and McConnell and the other GOP sponsors of the bill voted against it's passage. In fact, the record shows that when McCain and the other six other GOP senators who had actually co-sponsored he bill voted against it, it was the first time in Senate history that the sponsors who introduced the legislation voted against it!!

What happened you ask? Shortly after Senators Gregg and Conrad introduced the bill and McConnell made his supportive speech, Preident Obama also stated his support for the legislation, encouraging the Senate and the House to pass it, saying he would enthusiastically sign it.

Whoops! The Republicans decided they couldn't in good conscience vote for a bill that their bitter political enemy Barack Obama actually supported, even though it was something desperately needed by the country. It might make the President look good. Not good politics they decided. So the GOP made sure Judd-Gregg failed, voting it down on a straight party line vote Of 53 Democrats to 47 Republicans.

I'm sure there are other examples of how the Democrats cratered much-needed legislation sponsored by he Republicans--try Harry Reid's tabling votes on a federal budget for almost three years. Or even Obama himself. He proceeded to form the Simpson-Bowles commission, although it didn't carry the force of law it would have if authorized by the Congress. But when the commission published its findings and recommendations, what did Obama do? He ignored them. Why you ask? The report was published early in the mid-term election campaign cycle. Embracing lts cost-cutting and entitlement reform would have been bad politics.

If you really don't believe our government s broken, that we need an entirely new Congress, and that our political parties and system simply no longer serve the interest of the people, then you're not paying attention.

[Guest]

Isn't it ridiculous when the same Congress, the same House of Representatives that vote to approve increased government spending later vote to disapprove increasing the debt that the spending creates? How can they change their minds so quickly, vote in such an illogical manner? Could it be politics?

Here's a "did you know". On January 10, 2010 there was widespread support in the Senate for the bipartisan Conrad-Gregg bill to establish an 18-member commission to recommend widespread spending cuts and fiscal reform. The bill would have created the Simpson-Bowles Commission and was worded to prohibit any debate or amendments to the commission's recommendations. It was to be a straight up-or-down vote in the Senate and then the House. John McCain co-sponsored the bill along with six other Republican senators and a like number of Democrats. Mitch McConnell made an impassioned speech from the well of the Senate recommending the need for such a commission and the fiscal reform it would bring. Yet, when the Senate vote was held only 16 days later, on January 26, the Senate blocked the bill with a straight party line vote of 53-47, not enough to get the 60 votes needed to prevent a filibuster.

Both McCain and McConnell and the other GOP sponsors of the bill voted against it's passage. In fact, the record shows that when McCain and the other six other GOP senators who had actually co-sponsored he bill voted against it, it was the first time in Senate history hat had happened!!

What happened you ask? Shortly after Senators Gregg and Conrad introduced the bill and McConnell made his supportive speech, Preident Obama also stated his support for the legislation, encouraging the Senate and the House to pass it, saying he would enthusiastically sign it.

Whoops! The Republicans decided they couldn't in good conscience vote for a bill that their bitter political enemy Barack Obama actually supported, even though it was something desperately needed by the country. It might make the President look good. Not good politics they decided. So the GOP made sure Judd-Gregg failed, voting it down on a straight party line vote Of 53 Democrats to 47 Republicans.

I'm sure there are other examples of how the Democrats cratered much-needed legislation sponsored by he Republicans--try Harry Reid's tabling votes on a federal budget for almost three years.

If you really don't believe our government s broken, that we need an entirely new Congress, and that our political parties and system simply no longer serve in he interest of he people, then you're not paying attention.

Can understand why some politicians are driven to becoming Independents with stories like this one. As well as why some voters have gone to the Independent status.

[Guest]

without term limits and campaign finance reform nothing will happen no matter the President.

[Guest]

Isn't it ridiculous when the same Congress, the same House of Representatives that vote to approve increased government spending later vote to disapprove increasing the debt that the spending creates? How can they change their minds so quickly, vote in such an illogical manner? Could it be politics?

Here's a "did you know". On January 10, 2010 there was widespread support in the Senate for the bipartisan Conrad-Gregg bill to establish an 18-member commission to recommend widespread spending cuts and fiscal reform. The bill would have created the Simpson-Bowles Commission and was worded to prohibit any debate or amendments to the commission's recommendations. It was to be a straight up-or-down vote in the Senate and then the House. John McCain co-sponsored the bill along with six other Republican senators and a like number of Democrats. Mitch McConnell made an impassioned speech from the well of the Senate recommending the need for such a commission and the fiscal reform it would bring. Yet, when the Senate vote was held only 16 days later, on January 26, the Senate blocked the bill with a straight party line vote of 53-47, not enough to get the 60 votes needed to prevent a filibuster.

Both McCain and McConnell and the other GOP sponsors of the bill voted against it's passage. In fact, the record shows that when McCain and the other six other GOP senators who had actually co-sponsored he bill voted against it, it was the first time in Senate history hat had happened!!

What happened you ask? Shortly after Senators Gregg and Conrad introduced the bill and McConnell made his supportive speech, Preident Obama also stated his support for the legislation, encouraging the Senate and the House to pass it, saying he would enthusiastically sign it.

Whoops! The Republicans decided they couldn't in good conscience vote for a bill that their bitter political enemy Barack Obama actually supported, even though it was something desperately needed by the country. It might make the President look good. Not good politics they decided. So the GOP made sure Judd-Gregg failed, voting it down on a straight party line vote Of 53 Democrats to 47 Republicans.

I'm sure there are other examples of how the Democrats cratered much-needed legislation sponsored by he Republicans--try Harry Reid's tabling votes on a federal budget for almost three years.

If you really don't believe our government s broken, that we need an entirely new Congress, and that our political parties and system simply no longer serve in he interest of he people, then you're not paying attention.

With so many examples you pick this one...assuming it is all true and in context (some of your posts do lose a bit in context) but assuming its truth, you point out the vital point of how nasty and dastardly those Republican are.

We need many more of the Dems, like Reid...the guy holding up all registration.

Thanks VK for allowing us the details on the bad guys.....keep it going.

Just as an addendum.....the President would NOT support this bill until he was pressured by Democrats to do so a few days before the vote as I recall. You also failed to mention the time that went by from inception of the bill and the vote....and how the bill then became an allowance for the MAJORITY party to raise taxes and the MINORITY party to have no chance to change that.

But that is ok..you pick a bill from 2 years ago to show the incompetence of congress.....wonder why the lack of action TODAY is not a good example.

But you done good...you showed up the bad guys...good job

[Guest]

VK...here is another way to get the Republicans and it has to do with present tense.

I posted a thread about 209 bills sent from the House to the Senate and they are just sitting with no debate or vote which includes a few job producing bills, and the good part...you have a Democrat..oh you will be giddy over this...Nancy Pelosi herself blaming the Republicans for that happening. So there you go !!!

[Guest]

Thanks VK for allowing us the details on the bad guys.....keep it going.

But you done good...you showed up the bad guys...good job

An unusual event -- I agree with bucco. Good job VK, as always!!

[Guest]

An unusual event -- I agree with bucco. Good job VK, as always!!

I know....those darn Republicans are evil incarnate. Wish all were like those Democrats...such wonderful, godfearing, articulate men and women !!!!! Would be great if everybody would just vote straight party...that would fix it all and then VK would have to tell ALL the facts in his posts.

What a world, and thanks for validating the half truths in the post..that helps to clean up this doggone mess. Forget about what is happening now....twist the facts, leave most out and just say it...that is how our President does it and has...you know...lie, half truth...we will keep this control and get this country back in good shape

[Guest]

I know....those darn Republicans are evil incarnate. Wish all were like those Democrats...such wonderful, godfearing, articulate men and women !!!!! Would be great if everybody would just vote straight party...that would fix it all and then VK would have to tell ALL the facts in his posts.

What a world, and thanks for validating the half truths in the post..that helps to clean up this doggone mess. Forget about what is happening now....twist the facts, leave most out and just say it...that is how our President does it and has...you know...lie, half truth...we will keep this control and get this country back in good shape

Mixing sarcasm and irony makes you a little hard to follow. That's alright, I'm sure richie approves.

[Guest]

I know....those darn Republicans are evil incarnate. Wish all were like those Democrats...such wonderful, godfearing, articulate men and women !!!!! Would be great if everybody would just vote straight party...that would fix it all and then VK would have to tell ALL the facts in his posts.

What a world, and thanks for validating the half truths in the post..that helps to clean up this doggone mess. Forget about what is happening now....twist the facts, leave most out and just say it...that is how our President does it and has...you know...lie, half truth...we will keep this control and get this country back in good shapeBucco, you never cease to amaze me. You only read into what is written what you want to believe. Almost never do you read in context what is written. If what is posted in any way differs from what you believe, you take umbrage, saying that the statements unfairly criticize your beliefs and the party or candidates you support.

Maybe you should slow down and read what I've written again. Actually, I've amended my original post with another example. If you want to continue to believe that anyone who doesn't embrace your years-long rant against President Obama, keep it up. It probably makes you feel better.

But if you read my posts closely, you might come to the amazing revelation that you and I will probably be voting fr the same candidate fr POTUS in November. But no doubt, for materially different reasons.

[Guest]

Bucco, you never cease to amaze me. You only read into what is written what you want to believe. Almost never do you read in context what is written. If what is posted in any way differs from what you believe, you take umbrage, saying that the statements unfairly criticize your beliefs and the party or candidates you support.

Maybe you should slow down and read what I've written again. Actually, I've amended my original post with another example. If you want to continue to believe that anyone who doesn't embrace your years-long rant against President Obama, keep it up. It probably makes you feel better.

But if you read my posts closely, you might come to the amazing revelation that you and I will probably be voting fr the same candidate fr POTUS in November. But no doubt, for materially different reasons.

I read your additions and that makes more sense now. I respect you for that, and will only ask you THREE questions.....

1. I think you agree that your changes make a SUBSTANTIAL difference, especially the ACTUAL ACTIONS of the president. Why were they not part of your original post ?

2. Why go back to 2010 to show congress (both parties by the way) for what they really are ?

3. Those who came on here and lauded you so for your post....why do you think they did that when it was not totally factual ....will they be taking back their compliments ?

Again, thanks for editing your post.....it makes A VERY BIG DIFFERENCE and you surely can criticize the Republicans anytime you want.....not my party of choice at all. My opposition is to the man in the WH who conned his way in and is lying to all of us. Even his party is beginning to fracture a bit which is shocking

[Guest]

...My opposition is to the man in the WH who conned his way in and is lying to all of us....Would you call substantially changing your position on an issue "lying"? If so, you probably should be equally critical of Mitt Romney. If you go back just a few years, Romney has taken diametrically opposed positions on issues--health care reform, gay rights, taxing the wealthy, the environment, etc. If "flip-flopping" is lying, we have two liars running against one another for the presidency. In fact, many of the candidates who have now dropped out can be similarly accused.

I'm a lot less concerned about what the candidates say--they'll all say whatever they think the voters want to hear, even if they flip and flop on issues. I'm a whole lot more interested in what the candidates do (or don't do) vis-a-viz their campaign promises. I don't agree with all that Obama has done as President, but given the continual opposition he's had in Congress, he's delivered quite a bit on what he promised. The problem is that too many people, myself included, didn't listen closely enough to what he was promising.

In retrospect, even had I listened intently, I still would have voted for him. I thought the alternative was that bad. The terrible choice presented was disappointing.

If Romney wins, I hope I'm not similarly disappointed four years from now. He'll get my vote, not because I think he has a wonderful platform that addresses important issues facing the country--I don't. Rather, I'll vote for him because I think he's probably lying (by your definition). I think it's very likely that if he is elected, he'll steer more to the middle, accomplishing what he can thru compromise and negotiation, but with a tilt towards fiscal and social conservatism.

If he does that, many will accuse Romney of lying in this campaign. So be it. But to move forward (geez, that's Obama's campaign theme, isn't it?), I think the president has to lead the country where progress can be made--towards the middle, towards compromise, towards statesmanship, towards progress instead of stalemate. If Romney does that I'll be happier than I am now....regardless of what he says and promises while campaigning.

[Guest]

Would you call substantially changing your position on an issue "lying"? If so, you probably should be equally critical of Mitt Romney. If you go back just a few years, Romney has taken diametrically opposed positions on issues--health care reform, gay rights, taxing the wealthy, the environment, etc. If "flip-flopping" is lying, we have two liars running against one another for the presidency. In fact, many of the candidates who have now dropped out can be similarly accused.

I'm a lot less concerned about what the candidates say--they'll all say whatever they think the voters want to hear, even if they flip and flop on issues. I'm a whole lot more interested in what the candidates do (or don't do) vis-a-viz their campaign promises. I don't agree with all that Obama has done as President, but given the continual opposition he's had in Congress, he's delivered quite a bit on what he promised. The problem is that too many people, myself included, didn't listen closely enough to what he was promising.

In retrospect, even had I listened intently, I still would have voted for him. I thought the alternative was that bad. The terrible choice presented was disappointing.

If Romney wins, I hope I'm not similarly disappointed four years from now. He'll get my vote, not because I think he has a wonderful platform that addresses important issues facing the country--I don't. Rather, I'll vote for him because I think he's probably lying (by your definition). I think it's very likely that if he is elected, he'll steer more to the middle, accomplishing what he can thru compromise and negotiation, but with a tilt towards fiscal and social conservatism.

If he does that, many will accuse Romney of lying in this campaign. So be it. But to move forward (geez, that's Obama's campaign theme, isn't it?), I think the president has to lead the country where progress can be made--towards the middle, towards compromise, towards statesmanship, towards progress instead of stalemate. If Romney does that I'll be happier than I am now....regardless of what he says and promises while campaigning.

I realize that I confuse you with my constant opposition to Obama. We had a number of exchanges as you recall on here in 2008. I said at that time that I had a problem with all the mystery and question in his background...I said that I thought his background that was visible projected a violent rise in spending by the federal government an a further erosion of all of our spending programs along with a deterioration of our defense against terrorism.

First of all, and maybe this will explain part of my feelings...one of the issues on which Obama spoke and really got my attention was health care. I really think I understood where he was coming from and I actually awaited his action. but I imagined it would take some time for it (his plan) to come to fruition based on our economic woes and the breadth of his plan.

Lo and behold, he tackled pretty much right away or within a shorter period of time that I had expected. I was surprised by assumed he was taking advantage of having control of both bodies of congress.

While I eagerly awaited the public debate (didn't really care if it was on CSPAN as he had said) it was apparent it was being done behind closed doors and pretty much ALL within the democratic party which bothered me, BUT ......then he could not get his own party on board without doing some fancy dancing and payoffs. THAT really bothered me, since if you recall, we watched him buy and cajole votes on something we knew little IF ANYTHING about that had MAJOR consequences to all of us. As information leaked out and congress began to talk about it (I am speaking of the democrats), it became apparent that the bill would not address ANY of the things he had beat to death on the campaign trail nor any of those ideas he brought to the Oval Office. Nothing at all addressing COSTS, which he said was the major component, nothing addressing TORT REFORM and while I am much more limited than you on understanding the economics of issues, I began to understand that this bill was of GREAT HUGE COST and it would be paid for with "guesses" on what might or might not happen in the future.

We now have, as a result of his lies (and they were not mistakes in promises, they were in fact lies) we now have a huge item sitting in the hands of the Supreme court, and no matter what they do or dont do, many americans are going to suffer and we have DONE NOTHING to address the COSTS that we were supposed to. We now have, in my opinion, a worse situation that we did when he began his campaign. Then I have looked into WHY he would tell these lies. knowing the impact. It appears there is not grandious mistake....no error in judgement....just simple lying because he wanted this bill to be his legacy and he had to get it done before the 2010 election.

This one program taught me that he seems to be all about telling lies, not making mistakes in judgements and evolving....for example...

In my worries on fighting terrorism, he was so loud, ridiculed so much, mocked people so much that I thought any program that would fight terrorism was history. As it turns out, he has not only adopted almost 100% of the previous administrations plans in that area, he has even grown them. That was not a lie in my estimation....to me, he certainly evolved into what had to be done, thus you will hear very little criticism of him on that issue at all.

There has been a violent rise in spendng, some can be justified, some I just disagree with him on and there is more to come if he is reelected and do not get a big head but I did learn quite a bit from you over the years on here by you getting me to read things I normally would not,and one thing you were pushing a number of years ago was the spending and not addressing any cuts and that is where this is going. VK...we have no budget in this country...we do not even discuss it. We basically are closer to financial disaster than ever, but we continue to talk about spending our way out of it.

I see congress different than you. As you do I blame them ALL, but when I see the Senate, the upper chamber if you will, do the bidding of a political agenda instead of the countries business, I shudder. YES, many of the proposals from Republicans scare me as well, but they as well as I know. those proposals are dead on arrival and going nowhere ever to be discussed. They can say all they want....it WILL NOT BE DISCUSSED. Would a Republican senate be different I have no idea.

HOWEVER, MY MAIN problem with Obama is that he DOES IN FACT JUST LIE....not flip flop...not evolve...just lie and he is so good at it....lobbyists, which I posted an opinion piece on this week is a good example...he has not changed what he says since 2007, YET.....what he is doing is 180 degrees from that and he still says it. NOW that is lying. The current secret negotiations on trans pacific partnership where he supports it and it will give away a lot of our gains in mfg in this country. He may be way ahead of me on this and perhaps we should give up any dream of getting back our place inthe world, but then he should share it and lets get fixing.

There are many more but if I continue, you and others will jump on your horse's can call me some select names.

I still distrust his past...the President offered hush money to his minister and it is NOT NEWS ???? He told the man that his problem was telling the truth all the time....the President said that. You tell me that is not a worry, I will disagree with you...THAT is a symptom of what I told you about in 2008. He will face the truth only when forced and you cannot believe what he says at all...you have to watch what he is doing.

On the more mundane soap opera things.....I dont care at this point where he was born, but it is evident that he has "played games" for whatever purpose he had on where he was born. The President of the United States did this.

So we shall see.....as you can see, I do make a difference between flip flopping and evolving, and as I said I am on board with Obama evolving on somethings....but lying and flip flopping and evolving are three different things to me.

I see what his explanation on the current Bain capital ads means.....BUT THE ADS themself do not even get close to that...they are mean spritited and do not surprise me. I have not forgotten his calling Bill Clinton a racist in South Carolina because he and his campaign felt that was needed....that is Obama. I see not using Wright but allowing the NYTIMES and WASHPOST to investigate Romney's religion without a word except to criticize Romney for not coming out soon enough (I think it took a few hours) to debunk the Wright ads.

All of this, TO ME, speaks directly to this mans character. I did not trust him in 2008 and distrust him more now than then. I felt his backgroun was cloaked in mystery and I still do.

A long post but trying to explain....cause all folks seem to be doing is giving me one liners...NOBODY comes here and supports him or talks about what he has done or even discusses them. They only thing is the ridicule of anyone against him and to make your day, THAT is exactly what Saul would have wanted and exactly how a neighborhood organizer works.

[Guest]

It would be hard to argue with much of what you said, Bucco. Oh, there could be different ways to look at the same sets of facts, but it's not too important at this point, over three years into Obama's first term. We're all going to find out whether he's around for another four years or not in only a few months.

On the ads you referred to, get ready for more and worse, from both sides. It's the super PAC's empowered by the Supreme Court who will be at it until November with very deep pockets. Unfortunately, all the attack ads will keep a very inattentive electorate focused on anything except the important issues facing the country.

I am every bit as critical of the Republican party as you are of Obama's performance as POTUS. if you want to read a book on how broken our government is and why, read the recently-released book, "It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How The American Constitutional System Collided With The New Politics Of Extremism". The authors, Thomas Mann and Norm Orenstein, have tons of experience on the American political scene. It's not a book that will put you to sleep at night feeling good about things.

Maybe we should be even more critical of the GOP than the liberal Democrats because it's uncooperative factions have delivered candidates and a Congress so maddeningly disjointed and unwilling to agree on even a single, reasonable political agenda that they've disadvantaged themselves and their candidates in competing with the more consistent progressive Democrats. The result is that the public is dissatisfied and distrustful of our entire system of governance. It's a terribly sad state of affairs.

Our system will continue, and it will deliver a POTUS and a new Congress. But the way things are going, will anything change? Several months of attack ads will result in elected candidates being so badly damaged by several months of negative attacks as to be incapable of leadership. A new POTUS will enter the White House hated and distrusted by a significant percentage of people. Arguably, Congress will be held in even lower esteem than the single-digit percentage of Americans who approve of their work.

Now ask yourself...who are all the people, companies, countries and organizations who are funding and directing the super PAC's who will almost certainly determine the outcome of the upcoming election? The better question might be WHY are they willing to spend so much money getting candidates elected?

[Guest]

It would be hard to argue with much of what you said, Bucco. Oh, there could be different ways to look at the same sets of facts, but it's not too important at this point, over three years into Obama's first term. We're all going to find out whether he's around for another four years or not in only a few months.

On the ads you referred to, get ready for more and worse, from both sides. It's the super PAC's empowered by the Supreme Court who will be at it until November with very deep pockets. Unfortunately, all the attack ads will keep a very inattentive electorate focused on anything except the important issues facing the country.

I am every bit as critical of the Republican party as you are of Obama's performance as POTUS. if you want to read a book on how broken our government is and why, read the recently-released book, "It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How The American Constitutional System Collided With The New Politics Of Extremism". The authors, Thomas Mann and Norm Orenstein, have tons of experience on the American political scene. It's not a book that will put you to sleep at night feeling good about things.

Maybe we should be even more critical of the GOP than the liberal Democrats because it's uncooperative factions have delivered candidates and a Congress so maddeningly disjointed and unwilling to agree on even a single, reasonable political agenda that they've disadvantaged themselves and their candidates in competing with the more consistent progressive Democrats. The result is that the public is dissatisfied and distrustful of our entire system of governance. It's a terribly sad state of affairs.

Our system will continue, and it will deliver a POTUS and a new Congress. But the way things are going, will anything change?

Now ask yourself...who are all the people, companies, countries and organizations who are funding and directing the super PCC's who will almost certainly determine the outcome of the upcoming election? The better question might be WHY are they willing to spend so much money getting candidates elected?

Good points ! I am actually taking a bit of a break from Politics if I can and am about 1/4 through the new book "The art of Intelligence" by Henry Crompton and liking it.

I will simply say what a Democrat said today...

"* In an interview with the Associated Press published today, North Dakota Senate candidate Heidi Heitkamp (D) was critical of the president. “I think he’s failed in the one test America had for him, which was to unite the country,” she said. “I think he needed to be more hands-on.” Heitkamp faces Rep. Rick Berg (R) in an increasingly conservative state. "

Colin Powell questions Mitt Romney’s foreign policy, comes out in support of gay marriage - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/colin-powell-questions-mitt-romneys-foreign-policy-comes-out-in-support-of-gay-marriage/2012/05/23/gJQApcbLlU_blog.html)

Obviously for political purpose but I do agree and who knows what Romney might do, but we need a leader !!!!

[Guest]

Good points ! I am actually taking a bit of a break from Politics if I can and am about 1/4 through the new book "The art of Intelligence" by Henry Crompton and liking it...How is that book, Bucco?

I saw Crompton interviewed on "The Morning Joe" last week and the book sounded interesting. I downloaded the "sample" portion onto my iPad and read it. Honestly, I didn't feel compelled to buy it for $14.99 based on Chapter One (the extent of the sample). That chapter was pretty much only about his youth and early education and didn't get into his work with the CIA at all.

Does it get better? What do you think, worth fifteen bucks to download it?

[Guest]

How is that book, Bucco?

I saw Crompton interviewed on "The Morning Joe" last week and the book sounded interesting. I downloaded the "sample" portion onto my iPad and read it. Honestly, I didn't feel compelled to buy it for $14.99 based on Chapter One (the extent of the sample). That chapter was pretty much only about his youth and early education and didn't get into his work with the CIA at all.

Does it get better? What do you think, worth fifteen bucks to download it?

NO....I am enjoying it but no, would not buy again. It is very technical in the sense that he goes over all the different techniques, etc.

I find it more interesting I suppose because of my time with the Navy in the Pentagon, but oh my....they didnt have the kind of devices that they have now.

I bought it also because of "it sounds interesting"....but I like to read and try to keep it varied.

I assume you will be reading the new #1 book on NYT bestseller list...."The Amateur" LOL

[Guest]

....I assume you will be reading the new #1 book on NYT bestseller list...."The Amateur" LOL
Is it really #1? I downloaded the sample onto my iPad but I doubt very much that I'll be springing for $14.99 to buy the full version.

[Guest]

Is it really #1? I downloaded the sample onto my iPad but I doubt very much that I'll be springing for $14.99 to buy the full version.

"It looks like the public hasn’t been ignoring Klein’s book, however, because Regnery Publishing (around whose metaphorical water cooler we HUMAN EVENTS writers gather) announced today that The Amateur will debut at Number One on the New York Times nonfiction list for June 3rd."

"The Amateur" to debut at Number One on the New York Times bestseller list - HUMAN EVENTS (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=51708)

[Guest]

I realize that I confuse you with my constant opposition to Obama. We had a number of exchanges as you recall on here in 2008. I said at that time that I had a problem with all the mystery and question in his background...I said that I thought his background that was visible projected a violent rise in spending by the federal government an a further erosion of all of our spending programs along with a deterioration of our defense against terrorism.

First of all, and maybe this will explain part of my feelings...one of the issues on which Obama spoke and really got my attention was health care. I really think I understood where he was coming from and I actually awaited his action. but I imagined it would take some time for it (his plan) to come to fruition based on our economic woes and the breadth of his plan.

Lo and behold, he tackled pretty much right away or within a shorter period of time that I had expected. I was surprised by assumed he was taking advantage of having control of both bodies of congress.

While I eagerly awaited the public debate (didn't really care if it was on CSPAN as he had said) it was apparent it was being done behind closed doors and pretty much ALL within the democratic party which bothered me, BUT ......then he could not get his own party on board without doing some fancy dancing and payoffs. THAT really bothered me, since if you recall, we watched him buy and cajole votes on something we knew little IF ANYTHING about that had MAJOR consequences to all of us. As information leaked out and congress began to talk about it (I am speaking of the democrats), it became apparent that the bill would not address ANY of the things he had beat to death on the campaign trail nor any of those ideas he brought to the Oval Office. Nothing at all addressing COSTS, which he said was the major component, nothing addressing TORT REFORM and while I am much more limited than you on understanding the economics of issues, I began to understand that this bill was of GREAT HUGE COST and it would be paid for with "guesses" on what might or might not happen in the future.

We now have, as a result of his lies (and they were not mistakes in promises, they were in fact lies) we now have a huge item sitting in the hands of the Supreme court, and no matter what they do or dont do, many americans are going to suffer and we have DONE NOTHING to address the COSTS that we were supposed to. We now have, in my opinion, a worse situation that we did when he began his campaign. Then I have looked into WHY he would tell these lies. knowing the impact. It appears there is not grandious mistake....no error in judgement....just simple lying because he wanted this bill to be his legacy and he had to get it done before the 2010 election.

This one program taught me that he seems to be all about telling lies, not making mistakes in judgements and evolving....for example...

In my worries on fighting terrorism, he was so loud, ridiculed so much, mocked people so much that I thought any program that would fight terrorism was history. As it turns out, he has not only adopted almost 100% of the previous administrations plans in that area, he has even grown them. That was not a lie in my estimation....to me, he certainly evolved into what had to be done, thus you will hear very little criticism of him on that issue at all.

There has been a violent rise in spendng, some can be justified, some I just disagree with him on and there is more to come if he is reelected and do not get a big head but I did learn quite a bit from you over the years on here by you getting me to read things I normally would not,and one thing you were pushing a number of years ago was the spending and not addressing any cuts and that is where this is going. VK...we have no budget in this country...we do not even discuss it. We basically are closer to financial disaster than ever, but we continue to talk about spending our way out of it.

I see congress different than you. As you do I blame them ALL, but when I see the Senate, the upper chamber if you will, do the bidding of a political agenda instead of the countries business, I shudder. YES, many of the proposals from Republicans scare me as well, but they as well as I know. those proposals are dead on arrival and going nowhere ever to be discussed. They can say all they want....it WILL NOT BE DISCUSSED. Would a Republican senate be different I have no idea.

HOWEVER, MY MAIN problem with Obama is that he DOES IN FACT JUST LIE....not flip flop...not evolve...just lie and he is so good at it....lobbyists, which I posted an opinion piece on this week is a good example...he has not changed what he says since 2007, YET.....what he is doing is 180 degrees from that and he still says it. NOW that is lying. The current secret negotiations on trans pacific partnership where he supports it and it will give away a lot of our gains in mfg in this country. He may be way ahead of me on this and perhaps we should give up any dream of getting back our place inthe world, but then he should share it and lets get fixing.

There are many more but if I continue, you and others will jump on your horse's can call me some select names.

I still distrust his past...the President offered hush money to his minister and it is NOT NEWS ???? He told the man that his problem was telling the truth all the time....the President said that. You tell me that is not a worry, I will disagree with you...THAT is a symptom of what I told you about in 2008. He will face the truth only when forced and you cannot believe what he says at all...you have to watch what he is doing.

On the more mundane soap opera things.....I dont care at this point where he was born, but it is evident that he has "played games" for whatever purpose he had on where he was born. The President of the United States did this.

So we shall see.....as you can see, I do make a difference between flip flopping and evolving, and as I said I am on board with Obama evolving on somethings....but lying and flip flopping and evolving are three different things to me.

I see what his explanation on the current Bain capital ads means.....BUT THE ADS themself do not even get close to that...they are mean spritited and do not surprise me. I have not forgotten his calling Bill Clinton a racist in South Carolina because he and his campaign felt that was needed....that is Obama. I see not using Wright but allowing the NYTIMES and WASHPOST to investigate Romney's religion without a word except to criticize Romney for not coming out soon enough (I think it took a few hours) to debunk the Wright ads.

All of this, TO ME, speaks directly to this mans character. I did not trust him in 2008 and distrust him more now than then. I felt his backgroun was cloaked in mystery and I still do.

A long post but trying to explain....cause all folks seem to be doing is giving me one liners...NOBODY comes here and supports him or talks about what he has done or even discusses them. They only thing is the ridicule of anyone against him and to make your day, THAT is exactly what Saul would have wanted and exactly how a neighborhood organizer works.

Could ya expand on that a little?....I don't get it. :kiss:

[Guest]

Is it really #1? I downloaded the sample onto my iPad but I doubt very much that I'll be springing for $14.99 to buy the full version.I read the sample of "The Amateur" downloaded from the Apple Bookstore. I also researched Edward Klein (a not terribly well-respected ex-journalist) and the publisher (a publisher of far right wing books). I wanted to know a little more about the guy who wrote this popular new book.

After finding out where the author-publisher might be coming from all that was OK with me, as long as I understood the leanings of the author and how he might have chosen and interpreted the research he did in writing the book. I was impressed that he interviewed so many people in researching the book. Klein could be selective in who he quoted and which statements or situations he included, but it's a whole lot more than just a rant of his personal feelings.

The book is a page-turner and certainly seems to present a view of Obama's character well worth understanding. It might go a long way towards understanding how Obama has conducted himself as president. If it wasn't for the fifteen bucks it would cost to download the whole book, I'd enjoy reading it. Maybe it'll be discounted in a few months.

Regardless of what it says though, it won't change my voting plans.

[Guest]

I read the sample of "The Amateur" downloaded from the Apple Bookstore. I also researched Edward Klein (a not terribly well-respected ex-journalist) and the publisher (a publisher of far right wing books). I wanted to know a little more about the guy who wrote this popular new book.

After finding out where the author-publisher might be coming from all that was OK with me, as long as I understood the leanings of the author and how he might have chosen and interpreted the research he did in writing the book. I was impressed that he interviewed so many people in researching the book. Klein could be selective in who he quoted and which statements or situations he included, but it's a whole lot more than just a rant of his personal feelings.

The book is a page-turner and certainly seems to present a view of Obama's character well worth understanding. It might go a long way towards understanding how Obama has conducted himself as president. If it wasn't for the fifteen bucks it would cost to download the whole book, I'd enjoy reading it. Maybe it'll be discounted in a few months.

Regardless of what it says though, it won't change my voting plans.

It sounds like, at least I would hope, that it might validate a bit what I have been typing on this forum for years now !!!!

I do the same as you before I load up my Nook......I read about the author, publisher, etc....and you may not believe this but I probably wont read it.....I honestly try harder to read things from the OTHER side.....I dont need the validation on certain issues.