Letters to the Editor

^ Posted Jun. 20

Sometimes politicians should flip-flop


Warren D. Golightly wrote about Mitt Romney's flip flops (June 16). Most politicians flip flop Sometimes they should. If a politician, over time, comes to the realization that he is wrong on a position, he should change positions. It doesn't show he is a "flip flopper." Rather it shows he is honest, something sorely needed in the government these days. Such is the case with Romney's position on gay rights, abortion and government health care.

Barak Obama doesn't flip flop. That's right, he "evolves." What has he "evolved" on? He:

In a capitalistic economy, businesses are in business to make profits. Sometimes businesses fail in spite of the best efforts to save them. Most of Bain's businesses succeeded. Far more jobs were created under Bain than lost. The company in Kansas failed two years after Romney left, and during a time when many steel companies were struggling and failing.

Would I "buy a used car from Mitt Romney"? Better a used car from Romney than the wreck Obama sold us.

L. John Bost, Strasburg


An excellent article on the Financial Page of 'The New Yorker' entitled Private Inequity by James Surowiecki dated January 30, 2012.

As governor, Romney refused to endorse the Bush tax cuts in 2003. "Romney told the state’s congressional delegation that he 'won’t be a cheerleader' for tax cuts that he doesn’t agree with, adding that he wouldn’t oppose Bush’s cuts either, because he 'has to keep a solid relationship with the White House'.” Romney NOW supports the Bush tax cuts.

He claims as governor he "authorized the State Police to enforce immigration laws." Right! He sign the order December 13, 2006; knowing he was leaving office Jan. 4, 2007. Democrat Deval Patrick, who had won the race to succeed Romney, had already said the program was a "bad idea", rescinded the order because of the extreme burden it would impose on law enforcement.

"Romney: Following the end of the Cold War, President Clinton began to dismantle our military. He reduced our forces by 500,000. He retired almost 80 ships. Our spending on national defense dropped from over 6 percent of GDP to 3.8 percent today. He called it a "peace dividend" (Frontiers of Freedom, April 18, 2007)...NOT TRUE. "The peak in defense spending that Romney speaks of was in the Reagan administration."

Romney: As governor, I saw the power of fiscal conservatism. The state budget was $3 billion short. Liberals wanted to raise taxes, but I cut government instead. I eliminated and combined duplicate agencies and wasteful programs, and I balanced the budget four years in a row (Miami-Dade Lincoln Day Dinner, March 7, 2007)...Romney raised nearly $500 million by doubling fees for various services...A National Conference of State Legislatures study showed that Romney in 2003 imposed more than $501.5 million in fee hikes, more than any other state. New York, with a far larger budget, was a distant second with $367 million. Among the fee increases the study found: Marriage licenses went from $4 to $50, driving permits from $15 to $30, deed-recording fees from $25 to $100 and mortgage-recording fees from $36 to $158.

Romney stated that the Massachusetts "state budget was $3 billion short" when he took office; however, the $3 billion shortage turned out to be only $1.2 billion.

Romney “reduced unemployment to just 4.7 percent.” Factcheck: It’s true, according to unemployment data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, that the unemployment rate in Massachusetts was 5.6 percent when Romney took office in January 2003, and it was 4.6 percent when he left office in January 2007. However, that’s not nearly as impressive when viewed against the nation’s unemployment record at the time. Massachusetts’ unemployment rate was slightly lower than the national unemployment rate of 5.8 percent when Romney took office and was roughly the same as the national rate when he left office.

One has to wonder what planet these people come from. The wreck Bost speaks of was deliberatly created by his cronies on the radical righrt in order to fulfill their life long passion to eliminate all social programs such as but not limited to Social Security and Medicare. The Paul Ryan budget which Romney supports wil do just that. Bost and his cronies should listen the Catholic Bishops and more importantly to a group of Catholic Nuns who have launched a bus tour to speak out against such draconian cuts that they say are immoral, a word that Bost and those on the radical right cannot seem to grasp the true meaning of.

President Obama was forced either to extend the Bush tax cuts or have taxes rise on the middle class. Look no further than the opposition from the Republican controlled House to see why he has been forced to abandon or modify his positions.

Bain Capital developed some very, very successful businesses; e.g., The Rush Limbaugh show is syndicated by Premiere Networks, Inc, part of Texas-based Clear Channel Communications. Clear Channel is the largest owner (about 850 stations) of full-power AM, FM, and shortwave radio stations and twelve radio channels on XM Satellite Radio, and is also the largest pure-play radio station owner and operator. Bain Capital Owns Clear Channel (Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, and an USO contract). Bain Capital was founded in 1984 by Bain & Company partners Mitt Romney, T. Coleman Andrews III, and Eric Kriss. CEO Romney left Bain Capital in 1999. Bain Capital employees have contributed very heavily to Romney campaign to date. Limbaugh signed an eight-year contract worth $400 million, plus a signing bonus of about $100 million.

Good stuff Jane. Thanks

Hospital Corporation of America (acquired July 2006, admittedly after Romney left, by Bain) -- HCA is the largest private operator of health care facilities in the world HCA admitted fraudulently billing Medicare and other health programs by inflating the seriousness of diagnoses and to giving doctors partnerships in company hospitals as a kickback for the doctors referring patients to HCA. They filed false cost reports, fraudulently billing Medicare for home health care workers, and paid kickbacks in the sale of home health agencies and to doctors to refer patients. In addition, they gave doctors "loans" never intending to be repaid, free rent, free office furniture, and free drugs from hospital pharmacies. In late 2002, HCA agreed to pay the U.S. government $631 million, plus interest, and pay $17.5 million to state Medicaid agencies, in addition to $250 million paid up to that point to resolve outstanding Medicare expense claims. In all, civil law suits cost HCA more than $2 billion to settle, by far the largest fraud settlement in US history. (wikipedia)

Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corporation (acquired in 2006 by Bain Capital, LLC in a take-private transaction) is a national department store retailer focusing on clothing and shoes, with over 450 stores in 45 states and Puerto Rico. Under investigation from animal welfare organization Humane Society of the United States, Burlington Coat Factory has been accused of labeling real fur products as "faux fur". The company agreed to pull the false advertisements after an undercover investigation revealed "faux fur" as actually made from the pelts of animals killed in China. Burlington Coat Factory's coats have also been found to contain DOG PELTS. (wikipedia)

"Though Mr. Romney left Bain in early 1999, he received a share of the corporate buyout and investment profits enjoyed by partners from all Bain deals through February 2009; four global buyout funds and 18 other funds, more than twice as many over all as Mr. Romney had a share of the year he left. He was also given the right to invest his own money alongside his former partners. Because some of the funds and deals covered by Mr. Romney’s agreement will not fully wind down for several years, Mr. Romney is still entitled to a share of some of Bain’s profits." (NYT)

The financial background information posted by Jane may be an indicator of why Romney refuses to release his income tax returns. When Romney was being vetted for vice president during McCains campaign he gave them tax returns for 23 years. What does Romney not want us to know about?

is going to end in a few short years anyway if it is not serously refomend, because it will go broke.

Ignore my previous comment. I hit the wrong key or something.

"The wreck Bost speaks of was deliberatly created by his cronies on the radical righrt in order to fulfill their life long passion to eliminate all social programs such as but not limited to Social Security and Medicare." That's and unproven statement. I, personally, have no such "lifelong passion." I don't believe my "cronies" do either. Anyway, s going to end in a few short years anyway if it is not serously refomend, because it will go broke. It's time for Obama and his "cronies" to stop blaming everyone else for the bad economy and produce a budget that will fix it. The democratically controlled Senate hasn't passed one in over 3 years. It defeats every budget Obama sends it, and won't even consider the many the Congress sends it,but doesn't produce an alternative. Republicans then get the blame. By the way, the economy did start going down under Bush, but when both houses of congress were controlled by democrats.

Why the Senate hasn't passed a budget

Feb 15th 2012, 22:36 by G.I. | WASHINGTON D.C.


Republicans have relentlessly harangued the Senate's Democratic leadership for failing to pass a budget resolution. "1,000 days without a budget," was the title of a typical missive last month. On the weekend Jack Lew, who has just been named Barack Obama's chief of staff after serving as his budget director, defended the Senate by saying it couldn't pass a budget without 60 votes, i.e. without the cooperation of some Republicans. Republicans jumped on Mr Lew, pointing out that under Congress' budget procedure, a budget resolution cannot be filibustered and thus only needs a simple majority vote - typically 51 votes - to pass. Glenn Kessler, The Washington Post's fact checker, awarded Mr Lew four Pinocchios, the top score, for fibbing.

In fact, Mr Lew, while wrong on the narrow wording, is right on the substance. It is true that the Senate can pass a budget resolution with a simple majority vote. But for that budget resolution to take effect, it must have either the cooperation of the house, or at least 60 votes in the Senate. Only someone intimately familiar with Parliamentary procedure can explain this. Jim Horney of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is such a person. The following are his edited remarks from our email conversation:

It’s true that you cannot filibuster a budget resolution in the Senate, because the Budget Act provides special rules for consideration of a budget resolution, including a time limit on debate. So the Senate can pass a resolution with only a majority vote. However, the resolution does not take effect when the Senate passes it. It takes effect in one of two ways: if the House and Senate pass an identical resolution, usually in the form of a conference report; or if the Senate passes a separate Senate Resolution (as opposed to a concurrent resolution, which is what a budget resolution is) that says the House is “deemed” to have agreed to the budget resolution passed by the Senate.

But there are no special procedures for the simple Senate Resolution required by this second, “deeming” process, so it is subject to the unlimited debate allowed on almost everything in the Senate. If you do not have the support of 60 Senators to invoke cloture and end a filibuster, or prevent a filibuster from even starting (because everyone knows 60 Senators support cloture), you cannot pass such a deeming resolution in the Senate.

Because its rules are different, the House with a simple majority can pass a resolution deeming that the House and Senate have agreed to the House resolution so that it can take effect. This means the allocations in the resolution, such as for appropriations, are in effect in the House and anybody can raise a point-of-order against legislation that would cause a committee to exceed its allocation.

But this is for purposes of enforcement in the House only. What the House does has no effect whatsoever on the Senate or its budget enforcement. And vice versa, if the Senate deems that its budget resolution has been agreed to.”

Does the lack of a budget resolution matter? Jim notes that budget resolutions are supposed to set limits on discretionary spending in appropriations bills and facilitate changes in taxes and entitlements via reconciliation instructions or via allocations to authorizing committees. But nowadays, discretionary spending caps have already been set by the Budget Control Act (which ended the debt ceiling standoff) and there is little or no prospect of cross-party agreement on tax or entitlement policies. Moreover:

With the exception of reconciliation legislation, it effectively takes 60 votes to consider any legislation in the Senate so it really does not matter whether the resolution has been adopted; if you have 60, you can consider the legislation, if you don't, you can't.

The bottom line is the budget process set out in the Budget Act works pretty well when the Congress can agree on budget policies. When they cannot, no process in the world can make things work smoothly, but Congress muddles through and does what absolutely has to be done (like keeping the government from shutting down or defaulting on the debt). Not having a budget resolution in place is a symptom of the inability to reach agreement – not the cause of Congress not being able to accomplish things.”

So yes, the Senate could pass a budget resolution, but without the cooperation of the house or 60 votes, that resolution would not take effect; it would be an empty gesture. The fact that the House managed to pass a budget last year, including a major overhaul of Medicare, reflects its different rules that allow it to deem the budget resolution to have taken effect. But it didn't ultimately matter: the provisions in its budget, including the Medicare changes, were not binding on the Senate.

Yessir, I'd like to make it official by declaring the number of foaming-at-the-mouth political crackpots in the Northern Valley obsessed with "Romney Is The Man (?)" rhetoric has just been increased by one.

(... and now the race is on to be the first Republican commentator to imply my above remark was self-referential.... sorry, I stole your thunder)



P.S. Per his request I find it extremely easy to ignore his writings. In fact, I am eager to comply....


Ronbo44.... Excellent factual rebuttal to Bost's fact-free blather.

So, John Bost, the big question is whose plan---Republicans or Democrats--- do we trust to fix Social Security and Medicare so it is fair for everyone?

Do you think for one minute I would trust the party----today's extreme right wing Republicans---who fight to keep generous tax cuts for the richest among us and tax loop holes for wealthy corporations, while at the same time wanting to drastically cut programs that help the middle class and poor? Do you think any person just looking at the Ryan Budget passed by the House and supported by Romney, would not realize that given the chance, the Republicans would seriously "water down" and weaken Social Security and Medicare by eventually privitizing it or weaken it in some other way?

Many Democrats have agreed that perhaps we should look at changes to make Social Security more solvent and that will not hurt those who really need it (like everyone except the very wealthy)--------things like means testing, things like requiring that people who earn more than $250,000.00 to pay Social Security taxes. As you may know, right now current law caps the tax on about the first $106,800.00, even though benefits are distributed to anyone who qualifies and people can make millions of dollars after the $106,800.00 but do not have it taxed for Social Security. Right now I can not see the Republicans being for that as their priority is plainly to protect their wealthy donors.

Don't take my word for it, Mr. Bost. Ask Grover Norquist the no tax defacto leader of the conservatives. "My goal is to cut government in half in twenty five years, so to get it down to the size that we can drown it in the bathtub. It's called "starve the beast. " Here's how it works according to economist Paul Krugman: In order to stave the beast you must not only deny funds to the government; you must make the voters hate the government. Their is the danger that working class families might see the government as their friend. They hope to accomplish this by not only cutting taxes on the rich but if possible raise taxes on working class Americans in order as the Wall Steet Journal said to get their "blood boiling with rage." And so the deficit became larger as a result of the Bush tax cuts two unfunded wars and deregulation of corporate America creating the largest financial crises since the great depression with the deliberate intent to worsen the government's fiscal condition so that the draconian cuts proposed by Paul Ryans budget can be sold as the only way to cut the deficit. And so the beast is starving. Again this is deliberate despite the propaganda from Bost and his cronies.

Bost's letter and responses here are typical of the right wing conservatives. All they can bring to the table is the half truths, distortions and outright lies they listen to via FOX News, conservative talk radio and internet fabrications.

June 18, 2012: House GOP Still Holding 1.9 Million Transportation Jobs Hostage. The Senate passed its bill, 74-22, but the House GOP has repeatedly threatened to walk away unless the pipeline is attached.

How many US citizens heard/read about this? Did Fox News(sic) give it air time? June 8, 2012: Sundre, Alberta oil spill (http://www.torontosun.com/2012/06/08/crude-oil-spills-into-alberta-river- ) The country is desperate for jobs and yet the Republican House is still holding JOBS ransom because of Keystone.

Mr. Bost and fellow Republican's must follow the same mindset as someone who once publicly shouted out something that was very untrue and when I called them on it they said "Oh, it doesn't have to be true....just said to be believed!"

Seems that sums up why Republicans say the things they do, it doesn't have to be true just said for people to believe it.

I will risk repeating myself by once again bringing up the fact that federal employees such as Senators, Congressmen and women, etc do NOT pay into Social Security or Medicare, but they do have a private pension. That is the whole reason Republicans want to slice and dice Social Security and Medicare because it affects them not in the least and they could care less about anyone else.

You Republicans on Social Security better think long and hard and maybe even research what the Republican party wants to do with your benefits before you cast that vote in Nov.

Again you ignore the trillions of dollars that Obama added to the deficit. Trillions that have done nothing to resolve the economic crisis, but our grandchildren will have to repay. It may have started under Bush, but during a time of "democratic control in Washington. Obama had 2 more years of Democratic control, and still the deficit increased. Obama has had 3 1/2 years to follow through on his promise to fix the economy, and hasn't done so. It's time to give someone else a chance. Maybe this is "deliberate despite the propaganda from Mr. Rigelon and his cronies.

Then why doesn't the senate put forth a budget that both houses can consider, and maybe (I know it's a stretch) maybe an agreement can be reached. So far all the senate has done is so "no" to every budget that has come before it. And the Republican party has been called the "Party of 'no.'"

What part of this didn't you understand?

So yes, the Senate could pass a budget resolution, but without the cooperation of the house or 60 votes, that resolution would not take effect; it would be an empty gesture.

Again you ignore the budget deficit President Obama inherited when he took office. When Bush was given his job by the Republican Supreme Court the budget deficit was roughly 6 trillion. When he left office it was roughly 12 trillion. That came about as a result of two unfunded wars, a prescription drug plan that was not paid for and even so a tax break for the rich.

No President other than Franklin Roosevelt inherited an economy in worst shape.

ROTFLMAO calling the Democratic party the party of No. Republicans have fought President Obama at every twist and turn. All the Republicans have done is thwart his every initiative tooth and nail. Their stated objective is to make him a one term President, the Country be damned.

So when are you going to come up with some facts to support your lame rhetoric?

John Bost, I have to tell you after reading your posts and your unbelievable rhetoric, I alternate between actually laughing and just shaking my head in disbelief. I have heard political "spinning" in my time, but you ( and other extreme right wingers I have heard) sure have brought it to a new low. To even suggest that the Democrats are the party of "no" makes me wonder if you ever leave the bubble you apparently live in to see what is really going on in the world. It is hard to take someone serious when they come out with such a ridiculous statement as that. One look at the tea party/Republican House record for the past two years and the way they have said "no" to even things they originally were for, makes you look pretty foolish to even suggest otherwise. The fact that it might help President Obama look good is enough to make them obstruct everything even if it is something that would help the economy and Americans.

There are other posters on here who have done an excellent job of bringing out the facts to rebut your crazy rhetoric , but like so many extreme right-wingers you walk around with blinders on and refuse to look at facts. There are extremes in both parties, but the difference is the Republicans have been hijacked by the extreme right who are now "calling the shots" and the moderates have been drummed out and/or silenced.

As has been said, you can have your own opinion, but you can not have your own "facts".

The Republican Party is owned outright by wealthy fat cats like the Koch brothers who promote their sock puppet Mitt Romney. It is the Republican Party that has JUSTIFIABLY EARNED the moniker, "The Party of No Progress For America. The lies of the Republican Party championed by cheerleader Rush Limbaugh (and local apologist John Bost's stupefyingly dishonest comments) without question demonstrate deliberate dishonest political maneuvering to divert public attention away from Republican obstructionism against the benefit of the common man in the street while camouflaging efforts to give the wealthy top 1%'ers free rides on the backs of the downtrodden middle class.

Spend some time listening to Limbaugh distort EVERY mainstream newsworthy report and you soon realize Limbaugh is controlled by his Koch brother handlers and handsomely paid for his efforts. Limbaugh's strength is his willingness to fraudently analyze the news, twisting it to support the Republican position, distorting a barely plausible argument into extreme positions trying to glorify the Republican agenda. It is a total betrayal of conservative shareholders and a slap in the face for anyone who values rational behavior. It is easy to determine the mentality Limbaugh aims for with his rants. His listeners are the lowest common denominator of racists, bigots, and evangelical fundamentalists.

Modest political power has corrupted Republican ideology into a money grubbing stick-it-to-the-poor-and-middle-class propaganda juggernaut that is personified by FOX News. Slowly but surely, intelligent rank and file Republicans are coming to realize they have been duped by treacherous charlatans and con artists like Glen Beck, skilled at manipulating information to fit their political needs and dupe my conservative friends. The continuous lies and deceptions spewed by the Republican Party caused me to quit their pact with the devil in favor of becoming an Independent thinker willing to fight against their Republican treason.

Those who now remain in the Republican Party act more like remote controlled zombies than citizens capable of independent thinking. The Republican Party operates like a military boot camp, stripping away individuality and preparing what remains to obey without question. We see this at the national level; we see this in the internal power struggles of the local Warren GOP Committee.

Another poster on these forums says religion poisons everything. I cannot disagree. But, I will expand that position to include REPUBLICANS ARE POISONING EVERYTHING.

I'd love to comment further on Bost's "unblievable rhetoric" but after the above responses its been a pleasure. I could not articulate it any better. Thanks!

ROFLMAO, There are many, many very intelligent Republicans who do not listen to Limbaugh and Beck's rantings of hate and divide; unfortunately, there are many, many who do and as was noted on this thread, their listeners share common traits. The extreme of Republican Party, however, started the negative tone in our nation to produce a lack of working in a bipartisan manner which has become vastly worse with the introduction of the tea party members. One excellent example of this is the GOPAC's (Republican state and local political training organization created by Pete DuPont) document. "the 'GOPAC memo', called "Language: A Key Mechanism of Control", written (by Gingrich) and distributed to members of the Republican Party by Gingrich in 1994. It contained a list of "contrasting words" and "optimistic positive governing words" that Gingrich recommended for use in describing Democrats and Republicans, respectively. For example, words to use against opponents include decay, failure (fail), collapse(ing), deeper, crisis, urgent(cy), destructive, destroy, sick, pathetic, lie, liberal, they/them, unionized bureaucracy, "compassion" is not enough, betray, consequences, limit(s), shallow, traitors, sensationalists; words to use in defining a candidate's own campaign and vision included share, change, opportunity, legacy, challenge, control, truth, moral, courage, reform, prosperity, crusade, movement, children, family, debate, compete, active(ly), we/us/our, candid(ly), humane, pristine, provide. The cover page of the memo said: "The words in that paper are tested language from a recent series of focus groups where we actually tested ideas and language." (wikipedia)

One of the " common traits" shared by those intelligent conservatives who listen to Beck and Limbaugh is that they know that "rantings of hate and divide" are not characteristic of Beck and Limbaugh. A "common trait" of those who don't listen to them is that they believe that such rants, or even calm statements, do characterize them. Intelligent conservatives who do or do not listen to them love everyone including those with whom we differ. Another a common trait among those who do not listen to Beck and Limbaugh is that they characterize any speech that disagrees with their liberal views as "hate and divide." When did "hate and divide" come to be synonymous with disagree? Keith Halloran, a New Hampshire Democratic candidate, said on a Facebook thread that he wished Palin had been aboard the Alaska plane that crashed, killing five including Sen. Ted Stevens. Washington Post columnist Courtland Milloy said that after the health care vote he wanted to spit on and assault Tea Party members: “I know how the ‘tea party’ people feel, the anger, venom and bile that many of them showed during the recent House vote on health care reform. I know because I want to spit on them, take one of their ‘Obama Plan White Slavery’ signs and knock every racist and homophobic tooth out of their Cro-Magnon heads.”
Liberal talk radio host Mike Malloy suggested stringing up Internet king Matt Drudge, saying, "Drudge? Aw, Drudge, somebody ought to wrap a strong Republican entrail around his neck and hoist him up about 6 feet in the air and watch him bounce." That's hate speech. And you'll never hear anything like that from Limbaugh, Beck or Hannity.

I got that part. You still didn't answer my question. Let me make it simpler. Why don't they pass one anyway? Of course they can't get the house's cooperation with a bill they don't pass. That's what the house has said over and over - "send us a bill and we will consider it." If the senate does nothing but ignore and defeat any bill the house send them, and don't send the house one of their own, how can the accuse the house of not cooperating? Not cooperating with what?

Insert "Democrat" everywhere you have "Republican,' and "CNN" or "MSNBC" everywhere you have "Fox" and you would be closer to the truth.

But I wanted to hear from you. I enjoy our discussions. You are a worthy opponent.

I'm glad to bring you joy. I have no experience with rhetoric. I only know how to tell the truth. You only mentioned one specific example of my "rhetoric," and you misquoted me on that. I didn't say the democratic party was the party of no. I said, " So far all the senate has done is so "no" to every budget that has come before it. And the Republican party has been called the "Party of 'no.'"" Can you cite one example of a budget the democrats haven't said "no" to in the last year or so? If you can cite more examples of my "rhetoric" I will be happy to give you a response to laugh at.

"That's hate speech. And you'll never hear anything like that from Limbaugh, Beck or Hannity."

There are many levels to hate speech...Limbaugh's ranks NO. 1....

From this day forward, somebody propose it, liberals should not be allowed to buy guns. It's just that simple. Liberals should have their speech controlled and not be allowed to buy guns. I mean if we want to get serious about this, if we want to face this head on, we’re gonna have to openly admit, liberals should not be allowed to buy guns, nor should they be allowed to use computer keyboards or typewriters, word processors or e-mails, and they should have their speech controlled. If we did those three or four things, I can’t tell you what a sane, calm, civil, fun-loving society we would have. Take guns out of the possession, out of the hands of liberals, take their typewriters and their keyboards away from ‘em, don’t let ‘em anywhere near a gun, and control their speech. You would wipe out 90% of the crime, 85 to 95% of the hate, and a hundred percent of the lies from society.~Rush Limbaugh

LYING TO HIS AUDIENCE: Let's remember one thing, folks, while we go forward. Not one Republican voted for this bailout. Remember way back in the fall, not one Republican voted for the TARP bailout.... ~The Rush Limbaugh Show, 18 March 2009.

The dream end of this is that this keeps up to the convention and we have a replay of Chicago 1968 with burning cars, protests, fires, literal riots, and all of that. That's that's the objective here. ~Rush Limbaugh telling his listeners about his idea to turn the National Democratic Convention into "Operation Chaos" (April 2008)

"And I'm not going to apologize for it, I'm just quoting Emanuel. It's in the news. I think the news is that he's out there calling Obama's number one supporters effing retards. So now there's going to be a meeting. There's going to be a retard summit at the White House...." Feb 2010

"So, Ms. Fluke and the rest of you feminazis, here's the deal: If we are going to pay for you to have sex, we want something for it, and I'll tell you what it is — we want you to post the videos online so we can all watch." ~Limbaugh, March 2011

."[Obama] wouldn’t have been voted president if he weren’t black. Somebody asked me over the weekend why does somebody earn a lot of money have a lot of money, because she’s black. It was Oprah. No, it can’t be. Yes, it is. There’s a lot of guilt out there, show we’re not racists, we’ll make this person wealthy and big and famous and so forth…. If Obama weren’t black he’d be a tour guide in Honolulu or he’d be teaching Saul Alinsky constitutional law or lecturing on it in Chicago. Jul 2010

[Speaking about Blacks] "They’re 12 percent of the population. Who the hell cares?”
[To an African American female caller]: “Take that bone out of your nose and call me back.”
“We need segregated buses… This is Obama’s America.” ~Limbaugh

"Limbaugh has called Obama a ‘halfrican American’...that Obama was not Black but Arab because Kenya is an Arab region, even though Arabs are less than one percent of Kenya. Since mainstream America has become more accepting of African-Americans, Limbaugh has decided to play against its new racial fears, Arabs and Muslims. Despite the fact Obama graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law school, Limbaugh has called him an ‘affirmative action candidate.’Limbaugh even has repeatedly played a song on his radio show ‘Barack the Magic Negro’ using an antiquated Jim Crow era term for Black a man who many Americans are supporting for president. So Rush Limbaugh has managed to make racist attacks on four of the most admired and respected people of African descent in the past one hundred years, in Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Colin Powell and Barack Obama. He has claimed that Joe the Plumber, who isn’t even a plumber is more important in this election than Colin Powell, a decorated military veteran who has served honorably in three administrations. So Rush Limbaugh has managed to make racist attacks on four of the most admired and respected people of African descent in the past one hundred years, in Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Colin Powell and Barack Obama. He has claimed that Joe the Plumber, who isn’t even a plumber is more important in this election than Colin Powell, a decorated military veteran who has served honorably in three administrations." ~Casey Gane-McCalla, Jul 16, 2010

No you didn't get it. Tell me Mr. Bost what is the track record for Republicans cooperating with Democrats on budget issues? Need some specifics not unsubstantiated rhetoric.

Can you cite an example of the House cooperating with the Senate on a Budget issue.

BOST: 'One of the 'common traits' shared by those intelligent conservatives who listen to Beck and Limbaugh is that they know that 'rantings of hate and divide' are not characteristic of Beck and Limbaugh....That's hate speech. And you'll never hear anything like that from Limbaugh, Beck or Hannity."

"I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. ... ~ Glenn Beck May 17, 2005

"When I see a 9/11 victim family on television, or whatever, I'm just like, 'Oh shut up' I'm so sick of them because they're always complaining." –"The Glenn Beck Program," Sept. 9, 2005

"The only [Katrina victims] we're seeing on television are the scumbags." –"The Glenn Beck Program," Sept. 9, 2005

''I could give a flying crap about the political process ... We're an entertainment company.'' ~—FOX News Channel's Glen Beck, Forbes interview; April, 2010

''...'if you take what I say as gospel, you're an idiot.''
—Glenn Beck, New York Times, March 29, 2009

i believe that with that last quote, Beck HIMSELF proved my point!

Aw, Mr. Bost, you brought a smile to my face when I read your "BOSH: 'One of the 'common traits' shared by those intelligent conservatives who listen to Beck and Limbaugh is that they know that 'rantings of hate and divide' are not characteristic of Beck and Limbaugh....That's hate speech. And you'll never hear anything like that from Limbaugh, Beck or Hannity."

"I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. ... ~ Glenn Beck May 17, 2005

"When I see a 9/11 victim family on television, or whatever, I'm just like, 'Oh shut up' I'm so sick of them because they're always complaining." –"The Glenn Beck Program," Sept. 9, 2005

"The only [Katrina victims] we're seeing on television are the scumbags." –"The Glenn Beck Program," Sept. 9, 2005

''I could give a flying crap about the political process ... We're an entertainment company.'' ~—FOX News Channel's Glen Beck, Forbes interview; April, 2010

''...'if you take what I say as gospel, you're an idiot.''
—Glenn Beck, New York Times, March 29, 2009

Believe Beck HIMSELF proved my point!

John Bost, you say you "don't have experience with rhetoric and only know truth" but the problem is this so-called "truth" you talk about is only as it exists in your own little, limited "bubble universe".

There have been people posting on here, far better than me, who have given you excellent, well researched, well thought-out responses and rebuttals to everything you have commented on, but it appears that you would rather close your mind and be argumentative. What you say does not even have any substance.

I have heard the hateful, divisive garbage that Beck and Limbaugh and their ilk spew out and just the fact that you can say that hate and divide is not characteristic of them makes you have no credibility. If you can read through the excellent quotes from Limbaugh that Jane Machie has posted and not say that is sick, hateful talk, you have a problem.

Giving some anecdotal stories of left wing examples of "hate" does not make any kind of a point----of course everyone knows there are radicals on both sides but the fact is today the radical right wingers/ tea party have taken over the Republican Party and with their influence and bully tactics, have just about stopped our government from working. I might also add the hate talk is dominated far more by the radical right. There are slews of radical right wing radio shows on the airways in which people like Limbaugh, Beck, Michael Savage and the others who make a very good living off of the small-minded people who have to tune in to see how they should think. (Limbaugh's followers actually refer to themselves as "ditto-heads"????!!!! I rest my case.) And how many left wing radio shows? It does not take long to count them there are that few and they have never really taken off like the right wing shows. Wonder why?

In your lame responses to the excellent postings from all the other previous posters, you have demonstrated why your crowd--- the small, but very loud group of very radical right wing/tea party bunch---has been instrumental in keeping us from having intelligent and productive conversations on how to come to some consensus in how to solve the many problems our country faces.

The radical right wing thinks compromise is a bad word; they are of the mind-set of "my way or the highway"; they are, in their minds, "always right" and those who do not think and act in lock-step as them, are "always wrong".

I wish there was a feature on the NV Daily that would allow you to edit your posts. That way I would not have to make multiple posts addressing the same situation. In any case Mr. Bost, are you aware the Senate now has 51 Democrats, and 47 Republicans? There are two independents. Now as I stated in the lengthy article I posted it takes 60 Senators to agree to a budget. Tell me which other 9 or so Republicans will vote with the Democrats on a budget in the current climate? The clock is ticking.

See how detrimental it is to one's brain and mental health to even just read QUOTES from the hateful garbage Limbaugh spews? In re-reading my last post, I found that I mistakenly wrote, "---'excellent' quotes from Limbaugh---" when what I meant to say was that Jane Mackie did an excellent job of posting examples of Limbaugh's disgusting and divisive talk!

Take heed! For those listening to the hate talk from Limbaugh and the other radical right wingers on a steady diet, it is dangerous to your health! Better get to your healthcare provider pronto!

I guess we'll never know the answer to your question,since it doesn't seem as if Harry Reid will ever allow a vote on a budget. Everything you say is true, but, do you seriously believe that the Senate doesn't vote on a budget because no Republic would vote with them? More likely because it would show their own fiscal irresponsibility.

Tell me Mr. Ronbo, what is the track record for Democrats cooperating with Republicans on budget issues?

"The radical right wing thinks compromise is a bad word; they are of the mind-set of "my way or the highway"; they are, in their minds, "always right" and those who do not think and act in lock-step as them, are "always wrong". The same could be said for Democrats. The fact is, when you have convictions, you must stick to them. You cannot compromise with your convictions.

The use of satire does not imply hate, and is not hate speech.

It's interesting to note that this discussion began in response to my letter about flip flops and "evolving." It was pointed out that Romney flip flopped. My point was that Obama did too. The conversation quickly got away from that to attacks on me, Limbaugh, Beck, etc. The question we need to get back to is flip flopping. It's clear that both candidates have done it. Questions: 1. Since both have done it, is it relevant for one make the charge against the other? 2. Are one's flips worse than the other? 3. Since Romney flipped since becoming a candidate, or even before, are his flips are they relevant since Obama has flipped while being president. Do Romney's flips make him any less qualified for election any more than Obama's flips done while president. Or is it accurate to say that Obama has shown that he is a flipper as president, not to be trusted, while Romney should be given the benefit of the doubt that he has firmed up his position on the issues? 4. Do you agree that it is sometimes good for a candidate/ office holder to change his position? Please answer the questions without being judgmental. Thanks.

You answer my questions first. The clock is still ticking.

So yes, the Senate could pass a budget resolution, but without the cooperation of the house or 60 votes, that resolution would not take effect; it would be an empty gesture.

Can you seriously ask that question when the Republicans have dug in their heels at each and every initiative the Democrats have put forward? Rhetoric rather than factual responses from you again.

To reinforce my position with some actual substance that has been lacking from Mr. Bost.


Right, again, Ronbo44. Every time the Republicans send a bill forward, they deliberately include something that will ensure Obama WILL NOT sign the bill; e.g., Highway Bill including Keystone. Reality........

Apr 13, 2012
LINCOLN, Neb. - Gov. Dave Heineman has confirmed he will sign a bill allowing Nebraska to restart its review of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline.
Heineman told reporters Friday that he wanted the oil pipeline project to move forward, as long as it avoids Nebraska's environmentally sensitive Sandhills.
Heineman has long said he supported the pipeline, but opposed its original route through the groundwater-rich Sandhills.

Obama blocked the pipeline earlier this year, citing uncertainty over the Nebraska route — a decision that drew fire from Republicans and industry groups.

So has Nebraska/TransCanada resolved the issue of another route? If not, why did the Republicans include Keystone in the bills sent to the President? Let me guess!

There is obviously a connection between the sheer feebleness of John Bost's nebulous claims supporting Mormon Mitt Romney and the absolutely fanatical certainty with which it is advanced that can hardly be called negligible.

Thus, instead of a rational discussion about the best way to contain and defeat political fanaticism as exemplified by today's version of the Republican Party (intimidated into inaction by its far right wing of religious fanatics), Bost presents instead a style of far right religious fanaticism adapted to a complimentary far right Tea Party fanaticism.

Separately or together, they are immune to ideological change in much the same way all fanatics ignore all information contradictory to their heartfelt beliefs. This union of Tea Party and far right religious fanaticism has now re-conjured the historical, bloodstained specter of the Crusaders, perhaps best remembered as one of the first examples of biblical fanaticism hell bent on converting all viewpoints to theirs. This is what has become of the Republican Party, who, to their growing regret, courted, captured, and manipulated the sort of religious fanaticism so useful to the Republican political agendas. This is because religious and political movements can never get started, let alone thrive, unless for the influence of men as fanatical as Moses or Muhammad or John Smith or John Bost.

As the Presidential campaigns progress towards election day, Romney's Mormonism will create a growing schism with evangelical fundamentalists who know with absolute certainty Mormons are not Christians.

Republican strategists will present a Hobson's Choice with the inevitable counter argument, a dilemma offering a choice between the lesser of two evils -- Muslims are even farther removed from Christianity than Mormons; which do evangelicals prefer, a black Socialist Progressive Muslim of questionable birth origins or a white Republican Mormon from Utah?

This is the ugliness not totally unforeseen by the Founding Fathers who created America's political foundation believing cooperation among divergent views and goals was evolutions contribution enabling humanity to rise above the beasts. Unfortunately, evolution and the spirit of political cooperation has bypassed John Bost and Tea Party Republicans.

Religion poisons everything

This country has fallen prey to a select group--its true; however, it is not the religious right pulling the strings even though they might believe they are.

These, along with Norquist, the power players. Koch Industries (pronounced "coke") has been described by Hoovers as "one of the largest (if not the largest)" privately owned company in the United States. The company states that it "owns a diverse group of companies involved in refining and chemicals; process and pollution control equipment and technologies; minerals; fertilizers; polymers and fibers; commodity trading and services; forest and consumer products; and ranching." The company was started in 1927 by Fred Koch, a founder and charter member of the far right-wing John Birch Society. The company is led by Charles Koch and David Koch, arguably two of the leading and most influential financiers of anti-regulation and right-wing ideology in the United States. Koch Industries is a privately-held company. It is reported to have a revenue of over $100 billion in revenue per year. (sourcewatch.org)
*Hoovers* is a subsidiary of Dun & Bradstreet, a business research company that has provided information on U.S. and foreign companies and industries since 1990)

David Koch was the Libertarian Party's vice-presidential candidate in the 1980 presidential election. The Clark–Koch ticket promising to abolish Social Security, the Federal Reserve Board, welfare, minimum-wage laws, corporate taxes, all price supports and subsidies for agriculture and business, and U.S. Federal agencies including the SEC, EPA, ICC, FTC, OSHA, FBI, CIA, and DOE. The ticket proposed legalization of prostitution, recreational drugs, and suicide. The ticket received 921,128 votes, 1.06% of the total nationwide vote,.

In early February, the two made a pledge with about 250-300 other individuals to spend approximately $100 million to defeat Obama this November.

Just out of curiosity, which of the Limbaugh and/or Beck comments do you believe qualifies as satire vice spewing hatred?

I don't think any of Limbaugh's comments spew hatred. I'm don't know what Beck meant by the comment about killing Michael Moore. I really don't get to listen to him much. If Rush hates, it's behavior he hates, not the people.

Which questions are you referring to?

No substance. Just opinion. Neither side is wiling to budge. It takes 2 to have a gridlock.

Really good job, Jane Mackie, with the research and presentation on the facts of who is actually "pulling the strings". I was aware of only some of the facts regarding the Koch brothers that you had mentioned and had forgotten that David Koch had been the Libertarian vice-presidential candidate in the 1980 presidential election. I guess he and his cronies have concluded that they can better achieve their goals for this country by hiding behind the screen and by manipulating other conservative groups to do their bidding (such as the religious right) while making them think they are in charge of this ship----a ship that surely will sink this country for all Americans except for the few very richest ones at the top like the Kochs.

As someone I know always says, just follow the money and you will find the answers.

Jane there's a reason Karl Rove won't tuen over the donors behind his super pac, Crossroads GPS. It would be shocking to hear who they are. I noticed he attended and spoke at Mitt's big fund raiser (it took $50,000 to get a seat) in Colorado this weekend. That would seem to violate the law prohibiting coordination among Super pacs.

All I can do is shake my head at all this. You all could go on forever because you all sound just like the politicians you are arguing about. Both parties are more concerned about their own power and loss/gain of it than they are about making things better for the American people. Both parties are stonewalling the other, voting NO just to go against the other party. Until Americans start excersising their right to vote and get all these career politicians out of office, it will continue down the same path. And do you REALLY believe that our government can better manage money and programs better than the private sectors have? They are way behind in technology and everything that is managed by the government agencies costs more and takes more time & resources than any other private sector businesses. It's time for change, but when? Look at the primaries that took place earlier this month; more same old, same old.

Vote them out and replace them with what?? Sorry but that's a very simplistic statement about a complex situation. The problem is the next group falls victim to the same corporate, banking, etc. interests. The track record for the private sector is no better than that of the Government entities. We've had banking failure, industry failure you name it. How's your 401 K doing as a result of the greed and incompetence in the private sector?

"And do you REALLY believe that our government can better manage money and programs better than the private sectors have?"

Gail, American companies have proven more competent? REALLY?

Washington Mutual Bank (WaMu) was America’s largest Savings and Loan association, the sixth largest bank in the U.S., and the largest bank failure in history. Let that sink in for a minute.

Enron was an energy sector leader that started to dabble in e-commerce and exotic investment areas, such as weather futures. In 2001, Enron, once valued at $90 billion and the 7th largest company in the United States, went bankrupt. It took jobs, investor savings, retiree futures and even some lives with it. In following years, it emerged that they shredded documents, started partnerships with their own shell companies, and engaged in massive inside trading.

Akins Diet....Questions arose from the medical community, FDA, and top chiefs about the long term health effects of it. In 2003, it was reported to a skeptical public that the good doctor slipped on an icy sidewalk and died. The company went bankrupt within two years amidst the suspicion that his diet killed him. Meanwhile, a fickle public ditched low-card for the next fad. A year later, a leaked medical examinations report revealed that Dr. Atkins, 72, had a history of heart attack and congestive heart failure. He weighed 258 pounds at death.

Founded when James Buchanan was our nation’s 15th president (1857–1861), Bethlehem Steel was the backbone of the first blasting furnace, railroads, skyscrapers, coal, nuclear reactors, warships, cargo vessels, large construction projects like arenas, and other major infrastructural accomplishments. However, the company never adjusted to the new service-based economy that gained ground in the 1990s. Cheap imports worsened the situation. Bethlehem Steel, a piece of American history, disappeared forever when it filed for bankruptcy in 2001. was our nation’s president, Bethlehem Steel was the backbone of the first blasting furnace, railroads, skyscrapers, coal, nuclear reactors, warships, cargo vessels, large construction projects like arenas, and other major infrastructural accomplishments. However, the company never adjusted to the new service-based economy that gained ground in the 1990s. Cheap imports worsened the situation. Bethlehem Steel, a piece of American history, disappeared forever when it filed for bankruptcy in 2001. AND, as a result, the assembly work on the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. in California, and the pouring of the concrete road surface, will be done by Americans; BUT construction of the bridge decks and the materials that went into them comes with a "Made in China" label. Despite the American union complaints, former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, strongly backed the project and even visited Zhenhua’s plant last September, praising “the workers that are building our Bay Bridge.” In New York City alone, Chinese companies have won contracts to help renovate the subway system, refurbish the Alexander Hamilton Bridge over the Harlem River and build a new Metro-North train platform near Yankee Stadium. As with the Bay Bridge, American union labor would carry out most of the work done on United States soil.

Founded in 1927, PanAm airline was a part of American culture for the better part of the 20th century. It led the industry in international flights and luxury travel. It was also the first airline to make widespread use of jumbo jets, and the first to use an air staff of stewardesses as a PR focal point. Little girls grew up wanting to be PanAm stewardesses, and boys grew up wanting to pilot one of the fleet. Unfortunately, as an American icon, PanAm was also a target for terrorism. A few horrific incidents, coupled with the increased global competition that came with DEREGULATION, caused the airline—and its accompanying era—to collapse in 1991.

Bloomberg reported tht Koch companies had traded and worked extensively with Iran over a ten year period. Notable Koch-Iranian collaborations include the construction of the world's largest methanol plant for the National Iranian Petrochemical Company at the city of Bandar Assaluyeh. The plant is being used to tap into Iran's extensive natural gas resources. A purchase order for refining equipment at the plant was sent the day after President George W. Bush outlined the concept of an "axis of evil" in his 2003 State of the Union address, where he articulated his view that Iran was a direct threat to the United States and specifically advocated for economic sanctions that Koch companies may have been violating. “Every single chance they had to do business with Iran, or anyone else, they did,” said one whistle blower of Koch Chemicals' dealings with Iran

"...just follow the money and you will find the answers."

So true; however, believe this also applies....

The hardest thing about searching for the truth...Is that sometimes you find it. ~Unknown

What initiatives would that be?

You've hit the nail exactly on the head.

You and Gail are SO out of touch with reality. The computer you use, the cell phones one uses as well as the GPS --pretty much all miniaturized electric circuitry in existence is a direct result of the space program--a government program. Know anyone who wears scratch-resistant lenses? Result of a government program. The cordless power tools in existence today are a direct result of the space program. Satellites are used for a large number of purposes. Common types include military (spy) and civilian Earth observation satellites, communication satellites, navigation satellites, research satellites, and WEATHER satellites.

The entire purpose of the early Apollo missions was to choose a suitable landing ground for the first man on the moon. To do this, they needed technology that could photograph the moon's surface. NASA created this technology, and from it scientists developed Computer-Aided Topography (CAT) and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) technologies. Today, CAT scanners and MRIs are used in hospitals world-wide.

As with athletic shoes, part of the astronauts' outfits was adapted for non-space purposes. This feature of the astronauts' outfit was the suit itself. The suit was designed to keep astronauts at a comfortable temperature while working in space. Today, the same concept is behind the suits that race car drivers, nuclear reactor technicians, shipyard workers, people with multiple sclerosis, and sufferers of hypo-hydrotic ectodermic dysphasia wear.

When contaminated food, e.g., lettuce enters the U.S. food chain, the public expects the FDA to trace the source and correct it. We are lucky to have so few incidents given the fact we have so few inspectors.

NIH research teams have detected many tiny and common gene variations that together could account for at least one-third of the genetic risk for schizophrenia.

NIH-funded scientists identified over 300 human genes that play a role in West Nile virus infection. The findings reveal several potential targets for antiviral therapies.

NIH-funded researchers devised a fast new technique for producing human monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) that can roam the bloodstream to target and destroy infectious microbes.

CDC - So we should abandon this agency and take our chances with infectious diseases entering the U.S.?

You hit the nail on the head Jane

Never argue with an idiot. They will just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Bost has proven he has nothing to share, nothing to contribute, no answers, and no useful information besides pure partisan fantasy bolstered by patently false and misleading propaganda. His "wisdom" has now been reduced to terse sputtering of one liner comments.

Education is a marvelous thing. Let us keep trying! I don't believe that most humans are idiots; Mark Twain explained it as well as anyone.

"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing."

There are two kinds of fools: those who can't change their opinions and those who won t.

Actually I am trying to get the discussion back to the original topic of candidate flip fops. Actually I agreed with Jane in my last comment to her. I believe the only other discussion that I have been in with her concerns talk show hosts. I confess that I am unqualified to argue on that point since I am not able to listen to them very much. So, at least for the moment, I confess defeat in this battle, though I don't think I have lost the war. I would still like an answer to my question about flip flip flops, since that was the original topic of the discussion. It wasn't me who took the conversation away from that. Is anyone willing to deny that Obama flip flops? By the way, I never said Romney hasn't done so. I just pointed out that Obama does too. Was I wrong?

Actually there was more to your letter than just flip flops which was duly commented on. You participated in that dialogue for over 65 comments. When you were forced into a corner with your lack of facts, one liners, same ole same ole you now try to say things are off track. Your comments lack substance and I am tired of engaged you because of that.

Change engaged above to engaging. Where is that edit feature NV Daily??

Agree. "READ MY LIPS" (GHWB)...I am not willing to waste my valuable time explaining politicans' 'flip-flops' as, without exception, they ALL do it. Trust that some of the info we provided here will make Mr. Bost realize that research and being truly informed is the key to being a good citizen. Even when I read an article, I search to see the qualification of the writer. It is sad to see by virtue of posts on NVD, The Hill, WASHPO, Rawstory, etc. how often citizens actually quote 'talking heads' without verifying whether or not their words are true. If you are that type of individual, the only person who loses is you. Thank you to those individuals on this site who actually were engaged; and, Mr. Bost, may I suggest that when you hear the Limbaughs of the world who hope to have your ear and engage you without question, Google their words and verify. Factcheck, Snopes, truthorfiction, politicalfacts...these sites favor neither Democrats or Republicans...they favor truth!

Wow, Jane, really wise words! I don't see how anyone with any sense could honestly disagree with what you said as it is all so true.

Leave a comment

What do you think?

(You may use HTML tags for style)


Comments that are posted on nvdaily.com represent the opinion of the commenter and not the Northern Virginia Daily/nvdaily.com. If you feel that a comment is objectionable, please click on the Report Abuse link above. We will review the reported comment and make a decision on deleting it if we feel that it contains inappropriate content.

Copyright © The Northern Virginia Daily | nvdaily.com
152 N. Holliday St., Strasburg, Va. 22657
Contact Us: (800) 296-5137 | info@nvdaily.com
nvdaily.com | The Northern Virginia Daily