she's kind of a lightweight.

and, if she's surprised by obama's actions - in service, always, to the powerful - then she never did her homework. methinks she fell for his purple prose, like the rest of the dummies. remember: he is doing exactly what he planned to do, as opposed to what he promised on the campaign trail.

__________________
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

Men generate testosterone from their gonads.

Female testosterone is related to adrenaline production.

Men have balls because it is their nature.

Women because they have engaged the fight-or-flight circuit.

I prefer working, living, encountering men who are primarily testosterone-based and women who are estrogen-based.

Others may differ.

Any who wish to send hate mail I will setup an e-mail account and you can slam me all you want.

I might be wrong but it seems that "blowing it" is what led to trouble in the Hillary family.

She's not a bad looking woman, even considering her age.

After reading her article, I thought she was a conservative.

I checked out her page on Wikipedia, and she's a liberal. I'm liking her more and more.

"In 2010, Dowd was ranked #43 on The Daily Telegraph's list of the 100 most influential liberals in America; in 2007, she was ranked #37 on the same list.[12].

__________________
Paul S.

2001 E430, Bourdeaux Red, Oyster interior.
79,200 miles.

1973 280SE 4.5, 170,000 miles. 568 Signal Red, Black MB Tex. "The Red Baron".

She is attractive, assertive and intelligent.

I find her personality unpleasant.

It is a matter of personal taste. It has nothing to do with her abilities or 'worth' (as if I can evaluate that).

But I did say that the NY Times has a very poor track record of accuracy with their punditry. I'm more aware of the foible's of their Noble prize-winner, Krugman than Dowd but note that in general the Times speak with authority that an analysis of their accuracy does not justify.

Personally I find Peggy Noonan of the WSJ much more insightful and Coulter more attractive. Just a matter of taste.

who cares what they look like? how wonderfully facile of you.

peggy noonan. speechwriter for reagan and bush 41. how warm and fuzzy. i think i am going to tear up in a second, reflecting on the "thousand points of light."

ann coulter. disinformation specialist. proven liar. promoter of hate. "let's blow up the new york times bldg".

i know, jesus loves them too.

__________________
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

It was a good column. Dowd is no dummy.

Hard to say about Obama. He does often seem to be a freshman surrounded by hard-ass upperclassmen. OTOH, my take is that plenty of Rs were willing to go to default mode just for the drama.

Republicans are more believable in the 'holding a gun to the nation's head' maneuver.

Obama often pulls out good moves though. We'll see.

__________________
1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

My guess is that Obama is not done yet on this issue.

And if you think he is a wimp, well, you just aren't thinking straight.

Think of all the mouth breathers that would love to grease him.

__________________
[SIGPIC] Diesel loving autocrossing grandpa Architect. 08 Dodge 3/4 ton with Cummins & six speed; I have had about 35 benzes. I have a 39 Studebaker Coupe Express pickup in which I have had installed a 617 turbo and a five speed manual.[SIGPIC]

..I also have a 427 Cobra replica with an aluminum chassis.

It's about Dowd, not Obama.

Just sayin'.

How exactly did she "nail it"? The debt is no going away- either we have to make a sacrifice and pay it- or our kids have to make a sacrifice and pay it. Who do you think will have a bigger debt to pay- us or our kids? We as adults continue to dig a deeper hole and thus make the situation worse.

It's better to make a short term sacrifice for a long term gain.

We have now not made that sacrifice and our kids will pay for it. When as a country are we going to understand that we cannot keep kicking the can down the road? I'd much rather give my generation the pain instead of my kids getting the pain, but the left thinks it's okay to give the kids the pain.

The right needs to get off the "we are here to protect the economy" by not touching the wealthy, and the left needs to stop thinking that people who work hard and work smart and are rewarded for that are responsible for millions of people who choose to NOT WORK SMART OR HARD. We or anyone cannot continue to add more to the take pile- which gets bigger all the time- and have less to the give pile. The feds are already far too large and attempt to be everything to everyone- which means they will fail- and they have failed. Stop spending and start paying the bills- and when we have gotten the bills in order we can then debate what to do with the "extra" money.

Oh let's see; billion dollar "bail outs", tax breaks for the corporations, Ohio class boomer subs, giant artillery pieces which are too large to move to a battle field, a "border" fence, mortgage subsidization, bloated government subsidies, social services run amok, two overseas conflicts, military and social support to regimes not exactly friendly to us...

Where to start?

Sound's grim...I would rather eat a BLT, dripping with Hellmans, then trying to fathom that mess.

__________________
CHILCUTT~
The secret to a long life. Is knowing when it is time to leave.

X1000.

This is the part of the debate that drives me bananas..... During the latest (mostly unsuccessful) attempt to rein in government spending we've heard endless moaning and wailing about the people trying to stop absurd and unsustainable levels of spending as 'holding a gun to the head of the country' or 'acting like terrorists' They try to frame the argument as the choice is either to hold the country hostage or not hold it hostage.... doesn't the other side of this argument see that continuing down the road we're on is also holding a gun to the head of future generations?

How can they not see that?

__________________
98 Dodge-Cummins pickup (137K)
13 GLK250 (157k)
06 E320CDI (341K)
16 C300 (89K)
82 300GD Gelaendewagen (54K)

I found this graph interesting even though it's from an obviously biased source (although the projections are based on CBO data).


Even if we eliminate the defense spending completely and tax the rich (pick a number over $250K/yr.) 100% of their income we'll still run a deficit as long as entitlement spending can never be touched. And since entitlement spending can never be touched and there aren't enough "millionaires" to tax enough to bring in enough revenue to put a dent in the deficit, that burden will be shifted to those of us that aren't.

We're going to have to pull harder.

__________________

1980 300TD-China Blue/Blue MBTex-2nd Owner, 107K (Alt Blau) OBK #15
'06 Chevy Tahoe Z71 (for the wife & 4 kids, current mule) '03 Honda Odyssey (son #1's ride, reluctantly) '99 GMC Suburban (255K+ miles, semi-retired mule) 21' SeaRay Seville (summer escape pod)

I don't understand why that graph shows Social Security as such a large contributor to the deficit. I thought it was accepted that Social Security has not historically added to the deficit, at all. Many believe that it is going to add to the deficit in the future, that that graph shows it as contributing to the deficit in the past as well.

What am I missing?

And why do they show Obamacare contributing to the deficit in the out years? They disagree with CBO on that one.