November 22, 1963

If you can remember that day, then you look at history and politics just a little bit differently. Despite the Cold War and clashes over civil rights, Americans were much more optimistic in 1963.

More info:
Online, a digital trove of JFK material

  1. #1 by brewski on November 22, 2013 - 4:35 pm

    Let’s see, a leftist murdered a President who was pro-Life, a tax cutter, and asked people to “ask not what their country can do for you”.

    So now we have a Democratic party which is anti-JFK in every way; pro abortion, tax raisers, and nanny-state whiners.

    Where oh where did you go wrong.

    • #2 by Richard Warnick on November 23, 2013 - 11:42 am

      As usual, brewski offers a comment packed with half-truths and misinformation.

      Lee Harvey Oswald self-identified as a leftist, but it would be more accurate to describe him as mentally ill.

      President Kennedy made a point of keeping his religion separate from politics – unlike many politicians today. Ever wonder why you never hear about JFK’s position on abortion? There’s a good reason why not: there is no public record of any statement by him on the subject.

      The right-wing claim that JFK was a supply-sider is nonsense. He proposed to cut the top marginal rate from 91 to 70 percent, but that was intended as a compromise to win support for programs to help middle- and working-class Americans. Anyway, it was Lyndon Johnson — not Kennedy — who actually passed the early 1960s tax cuts.

      The full quote from JFK’s inaugural address is: “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” This was a call to action for the public to do what is right for the greater good. Unlike today’s politicians who prefer to pander to special interest groups.

      Most of today’s Democrats believe forced pregnancy laws are wrong. Why can’t women and their doctors make decisions about their own health in private? OTOH right-wing Republicans seem to not want any votes from women, how’s that working out?

      The Bush-Obama Tax Cuts For The Rich were a set-up. Bush turned a surplus into record deficits. Of course Democrats have to raise taxes now, after those tax cuts more than doubled the National Debt. Somebody has to act responsibly.

      Complain about the so-called “nanny-state” you want. If right-wingers propose cutting Social Security (the only defined-benefit retirement plan most Americans have), they know they won’t win re-election. Which is why they always try to trick Dems into doing it!

  2. #3 by brewski on November 23, 2013 - 12:05 pm

    self-identified leftist = mentally ill

    Interchangeable terms

  3. #4 by cav on November 23, 2013 - 12:25 pm

    It always impresses me how, in the face of an “Official Story” any and all other conclusions – no matter how credible / substantive, become just so much conspiracy theorizing.

    A gigantic pile of ammo = a place to start.

  4. #5 by brewski on November 23, 2013 - 2:08 pm

    “Conceived in Grecian thought, strengthened by Christian morality, and stamped indelibly into American political philosophy, the right of the individual against the State is the keystone of our Constitution. Each man is free.”

    John F Kennedy

  5. #6 by brewski on November 23, 2013 - 2:09 pm

    “The ever expanding power of the federal government, the absorption of many of the functions that states and cities once considered to be responsibilities of their own, must now be a source of concern to all those who believe as did the great patriot, Henry Grattan that: “Control over local affairs is the essence of liberty.””

    John F Kennedy

  6. #7 by brewski on November 23, 2013 - 2:09 pm

    ” I’d be very happy to tell them I’m not a liberal at all…I’m not comfortable with those people.”

    John F Kennedy

  7. #8 by brewski on November 23, 2013 - 2:11 pm

    ” If it is in the public interest to maintain an industry, it is clearly not in the public interest by the impact of regulatory authority to destroy its otherwise viable way of life.

    John F Kennedy

  8. #9 by brewski on November 23, 2013 - 2:11 pm

    “we also recognize that beneath all the laws and guidelines and tax policies and stimulants we can provide, these matters all come down, quite properly in the last analysis, to private decisions by private individuals.”

    John F Kennedy

  9. #10 by brewski on November 23, 2013 - 2:12 pm

    “This administration intends to cut taxes in order to build the fundamental strength of our economy, to remove a serious barrier to long-term growth, to increase incentives by routing out inequities and complexities and to prevent the even greater budget deficit that a lagging economy would otherwise surely produce. ”

    John F Kennedy

  10. #11 by Richard Warnick on November 23, 2013 - 5:22 pm

    John F. Kennedy quotes

    “If by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people-their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties-someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal”, then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.”

    — John F. Kennedy, Profiles in Courage

    “If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.”

    — John F. Kennedy, Kennedy’s Inaugural address of 1961.

    “All of us do not have equal talent, but all of us should have an equal opportunity to develop those talents.”

    — John F. Kennedy

    “The gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages; the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage; neither our wisdom nor our learning; neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.”

    — John F. Kennedy

    “It is our task in our time and in our generation to hand down undiminished to those who come after us, as was handed down to us by those who went before, the natural wealth and beauty which is ours.”

    — John F. Kennedy

    “The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war. This generation of Americans has already had enough—more than enough—of war and hate and oppression. We shall be prepared if others wish it. We shall be alert to try to stop it. But we shall do our part to build a world of peace where the weak are safe and the strong are just. We are not helpless before that task or hopeless of its success.”

    — John F. Kennedy

  11. #12 by brewski on November 24, 2013 - 3:04 pm

    Your selection of JFK quotes are interesting. Many of the quotes you selected would be considered conservative and not your brand of liberalism at all. For example you selected the quote:

    “All of us do not have equal talent, but all of us should have an equal opportunity to develop those talents.”

    This seems to be lost on Regressives that some people have more talent than others and those people are more successful. Regressives want to ignore different talents and force an equality of outcomes regardless of one’s lack of talent or effort.

    • #13 by Richard Warnick on November 24, 2013 - 4:20 pm

      Remember, I am still a conservative at heart. But the GOP right-wingers are heartless, so I don’t identify with them.

      I agree that some people have more talent than others. I disagree that talent and success are always highly correlated. As President Kennedy remarked, equal opportunity is very important.

      • #14 by brewski on November 24, 2013 - 4:37 pm

        You are a conservative in the same way Mao was a conservative. You are a large government statist redistributionist. You want the government to command outcomes based on your feelings.

        I have never heard anyone ever say that equal opportunity isn’t important. You people want equal outcomes not equal opportunity. You don’t seem to know the difference.

        • #15 by Richard Warnick on November 24, 2013 - 5:42 pm

          Former libertarian, member of Young Americans for Freedom and the Society for Individual Liberty. Did not see Mao at any of our meetings! 😉

          Campaign worker, James L. Buckley for Senate (1970).

          Where do you get the “equal outcomes” crap? Guaranteeing a living wage for full-time work is a baseline, not an equal outcome. Social Security retirement benefits are not an equal outcome.

          • #16 by brewski on November 24, 2013 - 7:04 pm

            “Former” being the operative word. That was before your emotional breakdown and your embrace of Mao-ism.

          • #17 by Richard Warnick on November 24, 2013 - 8:11 pm

            Still a conservative at heart, as I said. But the Bush administration was the breaking point for me.

            If you really can’t distinguish between a progressive (think Teddy Roosevelt) and Mao Zedong, then maybe some Political Science courses are in order. 🙂

          • #18 by brewski on November 24, 2013 - 8:44 pm

            I don’t think someone who doesn’t understand 3rd grade math should be recommending political science courses to anybody.

            You did extoll the virtues of Marxism to me on this site.

          • #19 by Richard Warnick on November 24, 2013 - 9:31 pm

            Your math reminds me of Karl Rove’s math.

            It works like this:

            (1) Start with your desired political outcome (e.g. the rich get richer), and
            (2) Pull numbers out of thin air until you find some that “prove” your outcome is right (e.g. infinite horizon projections).

          • #20 by brewski on November 25, 2013 - 7:21 am

            The old Richard Warnick trick.

            When you’ve lost and have nothing else to say, throw in the words “Faux News” “Karl Rove” “Bush” or “Halliburton” and hope no one notices.

          • #21 by cav on November 25, 2013 - 8:29 am

            Blithering is quite noticeable. And, thanks for playing.

          • #22 by Richard Warnick on November 25, 2013 - 9:07 am

            You brought up the subject of math, and that’s the math you are fond of using.

          • #23 by brewski on November 25, 2013 - 11:49 am

            Your link has nothing at all to do with anything I have ever said. You are white noise.

    • #25 by brewski on November 25, 2013 - 11:51 am

      Liberalism in 1960 has no relation to liberalism today. JFK wouldn’t recognize today’s liberals. He would call them kooks.

    • #26 by Richard Warnick on November 25, 2013 - 1:01 pm

      Kennedy was a moderate Democrat, but nonetheless unafraid to call himself a liberal. That put him well to the left of most present-day Dems.

      Can’t help but note that Barry Goldwater would be appalled at the right-wingers calling themselves “conservatives” today.

      • #27 by brewski on November 25, 2013 - 4:34 pm

        WE’ve been over this. Aren’t you listening?

        The word liberal in 1960 does not mean the same thing today. He invaded Cuba. He sent forces into Vietnam. He cut tax rates. He invoked God frequently. He was pro life.

        Today’s liberals who use the word liberal hate all of those things. They would throw him out of the looney lefty party today.

        • #28 by Richard Warnick on November 26, 2013 - 7:24 am

          Kennedy was President during the Cold War. So of course the times were different. That said, the Bay of Pigs was not Kennedy’s plan. Neither was the Vietnam War.

          Kennedy did not cut taxes, we’ve established that. He kept religion out of politics. He never stated a position on abortion. I think you’re the one who is not listening.

  12. #29 by brewski on November 26, 2013 - 7:31 am

    Kennedy was the only commander in chief. He invaded Cuba.

    Kennedy sent thousands of troops to Vietnam.

    President John F. Kennedy brought up the issue of tax reduction in his 1963 State of the Union address. His initial plan called for a $13.5 billion tax cut through a reduction of the top income tax rate from 91% to 65%, reduction of the bottom rate from 20% to 14%, and a reduction in the corporate tax rate from 52% to 47%. The first attempt at passing the tax cuts was rejected by Congress in 1963.
    Kennedy was assassinated in November 1963, and was succeeded by Lyndon Johnson. Johnson was able to achieve Kennedy’s goal of a tax cut in exchange for promising a budget not to exceed $100 billion in 1965. The Revenue Act of 1964 emerged from Congress and was signed by Johnson on February 26, 1964.

    You make me laugh.

    • #30 by Richard Warnick on November 26, 2013 - 7:58 am

      President Kennedy could have called off the already-planned invasion of Cuba, but the political consequences of doing that might have been worse than letting the Bay of Pigs operation fail. A tough decision, no good options.

      JFK planned to withdraw from Vietnam in 1965.

      Training would end. Support for South Vietnam would continue. They had an army of over 200,000. The end of the war was not in sight. After the end of 1965, even under the withdrawal plan, 1,500 US troops were slated to remain, for supply purposes. But the war would then be Vietnamese only, with no possibility of it becoming an American war on Kennedy’s watch.

      The tax cut proposal, as we’ve already established, was in exchange for sweeping social programs (remember the Great Society?)

      • #31 by brewski on November 26, 2013 - 8:39 am

        Your power of rationalization and willingness to ignore facts and history is truly astounding.

        • #32 by Richard Warnick on November 26, 2013 - 8:56 am

          Right-wingers are no good at re-writing history. Maybe they should find another hobby. 😉

          • #33 by brewski on November 26, 2013 - 10:01 am

            I don’t know who you are referring to.

          • #34 by Richard Warnick on November 26, 2013 - 12:24 pm

            Your sources for the “JFK was a conservative” nonsense. The same people who are attempting to re-write the history of Reagan and Bush.

          • #35 by brewski on November 26, 2013 - 1:01 pm

            Which sources in particular of mine are you referring to right wingers ?

          • #36 by Richard Warnick on November 26, 2013 - 1:13 pm

            If you would be kind enough to cite some sources, with links, then I can answer that.

          • #37 by brewski on November 26, 2013 - 8:55 pm

            Ah, exactly.

            So you are referring to “your sources” even though they don’t exist. Are you hearing voices again? How many symptoms in addition to hearing voices and an irrational devotion to Marxism and Stadt-ism do you have?

          • #38 by Richard Warnick on November 26, 2013 - 11:38 pm

            I don’t believe that you decided to re-write the history of the JFK administration all on your own. Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence. Sources not cited are still sources!

          • #39 by brewski on November 27, 2013 - 8:33 am

            I didn’t rewrite any history. You did. Oswald was one of you people and one of your people killed someone who had many conservative views. You just can’t deal with your guilt.

          • #40 by Richard Warnick on November 27, 2013 - 9:14 am

            I doubt if you can find any thoughtful progressive who thinks Lee Harvey Oswald was a sincere leftist. You can find plenty of people who think he was a CIA plant, or some kind of agent provocateur gone rogue.

            I don’t believe Oswald had a reality-based political or ideological motive, or was part of any conspiracy.

            The history of the JFK administration has been written. Right-wingers can’t change it no matter how hard they try. Neither can they re-write Reagan or Bush in any serious way.

          • #41 by cav on November 27, 2013 - 9:22 am

            Try though they will.

          • #42 by brewski on November 27, 2013 - 9:32 am

            That’s really funny. So you are limiting your universe of people you are willing to listen to only being leftists to ask them whether or not Oswald is a leftist. That’s like asking a racist whether or not he is a racist. You will never get an honest answer from a leftist on this question since they have blood on their hands.

          • #43 by Richard Warnick on November 27, 2013 - 9:35 am

            You’re welcome to provide sources for Oswald’s alleged leftist views. With links, please.

  13. #44 by brewski on November 27, 2013 - 9:41 am

    “A self-described Marxist, Oswald defected to the Soviet Union in 1959, married and returned with his Russian wife, Marina, to the U.S. in 1962…

    CBS News’ Dan Rather reported after Oswald’s arrest: “The man is 24-year-old Lee Oswald, espouser of leftist causes, an active member of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, an avowed admirer of Russia and of Cuba’s Fidel Castro, a man who once lived in Russia.”

    CBS News

    Your assertions to the contrary are a transparent joke.

    • #45 by Richard Warnick on November 27, 2013 - 9:46 am

      Tell me how Oswald came to be living in Dallas, Texas after defecting to the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War.

  14. #48 by brewski on November 27, 2013 - 12:46 pm

    His mother and brother both lived in Dallas. Nothing odd about that.

    • #49 by Richard Warnick on November 27, 2013 - 12:50 pm

      And the trip to Mexico City?

      • #50 by brewski on November 28, 2013 - 5:25 am

        He went to the Cuban embassy in Mexico City to offer his services to Fidel.

      • #51 by Richard Warnick on November 28, 2013 - 10:46 am

        Which raises a lot of questions, for example what services? If Oswald wasn’t working for the CIA, they must have been aware of his activities at the very least.

        • #52 by brewski on November 29, 2013 - 3:53 am

          Of course they were aware of him. He defected to your friends in the USSR.

          Exactly what services. That is why neither your friends in the USSR and Cuba wanted him since he didn’t have any value.

        • #53 by cav on November 29, 2013 - 9:22 am

          Trigger-man and other such services reflective of the 007 type.

          To make matters worse, Lee may not even have been aware of his dupedom. Sacrificial lambs are usually primed with visions of multiple virgins willingly at their beck and call or other such ‘Heavenly’ rewards.

          I know: Pretty silly.

        • #54 by Richard Warnick on November 29, 2013 - 10:33 am

          I have friends in Russia and Cuba? 😮

          • #55 by brewski on November 29, 2013 - 8:56 pm


          • #56 by Richard Warnick on November 30, 2013 - 10:43 am

            And where’s your evidence? Nowhere, as usual.

          • #57 by brewski on November 30, 2013 - 9:40 pm

            You told me so. Are you retracting it now?

          • #58 by Richard Warnick on December 1, 2013 - 9:50 am

            As usual, I never said what you say I said.

          • #59 by brewski on December 1, 2013 - 8:03 pm

            It just pisses you off that one of your fellow lefties offed a pro-choice tax cutter. It’s that simple.

          • #60 by Richard Warnick on December 1, 2013 - 9:31 pm

            brewski– Even considering the source, that’s really execrable. It goes beyond dishonest. You ought to apologize.

          • #61 by cav on December 1, 2013 - 9:36 pm

            It pisses me off that a coup occurred, good men were murdered, that precluded the cessation of a brutal and pointless war, that ultimately cost tens of thousands of dead Americans, over a million Vietnamese and other SE Asian defenders and collaterals. That destroyed both their country and ours.

            And that so little, if anything at all, was learned. That anyone can write this up as “That Simple” really tears at my assessment of humanity.

          • #62 by brewski on December 2, 2013 - 8:51 am

            You are right. I meant to say pro-life. I apologize.

          • #63 by cav on December 2, 2013 - 8:59 am

            Seems someone is all about pissing off the liberalz.

            Fortunately there’s a grain or two of salt nearby to be taken with his commentary.

          • #64 by Richard Warnick on December 2, 2013 - 9:27 am

            You have not provided any evidence that JFK ever took a political position regarding abortion. Just one item on a list of dishonest statements.

          • #65 by brewski on December 2, 2013 - 2:49 pm

            Lefties and Statists are born murders. Face it.

            Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50) 49-78,000,000

            Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1939-1945) 12,000,000 (concentration camps and civilians deliberately killed in
            WWII plus 3 million Russian POWs left to die)

            Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39) 7,000,000 (the gulags plus the purges plus Ukraine’s famine)

            Hideki Tojo (Japan, 1941-44) 5,000,000 (civilians in WWII)

            Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79) 1,700,000

            Kim Il Sung (North Korea, 1948-94) 1.6 million (purges and concentration camps)

            Leonid Brezhnev (Afghanistan, 1979-1982) 900,000

  15. #66 by brewski on December 2, 2013 - 10:46 pm

    It’s official, Obama is worse than Bush.

    “A YouGov/Economist survey reveals that 37 percent of Americans believe Obama has been a failure during his time in office, worse than Richard Nixon. Thirty-two percent of Americans believed former President George W. Bush was a failure, followed up by Nixon at 30 percent. Jimmy Carter came in fourth at 22 percent.”

    • #67 by Richard Warnick on December 3, 2013 - 9:19 am

      CNN/ORC Poll. April 5-7, 2013. N=1,012 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

      “Looking back on George W. Bush’s eight years in office, in general, would you say his presidency was a success or a failure?”

      Success – 31%
      Failure – 68%
      Unsure – 1%

      Remember, Nixon left office with a 24 percent approval rating, and Bush with a 22 percent approval rating. Worst President Ever. President Obama is currently at 45 percent according to Rasmussen.

      The president’s rating inched up…to 49% in October following the government shutdown but took a hard hit in November from the problems surrounding the rollout of the new national health care law.

      Bush – Worst terrorist attack in history, doubled the national debt, lost New Orleans, collapsed the financial sector and almost caused Great Depression 2.0.

      Obama – Trying to clean up Bush’s messes, looks like he got some on him. But still double Bush’s approval.

      • #68 by brewski on December 3, 2013 - 11:04 am

        Are you trying to set a record for the most verifiably false statements in a single post?

        You are very entertaining by your ignorance.

        • #69 by Richard Warnick on December 3, 2013 - 11:14 am

          You’re welcome to attempt to dispute the facts I cited.

          • #70 by brewski on December 3, 2013 - 12:11 pm

            I dispute every single one of them. They are all wrong.

          • #71 by Richard Warnick on December 3, 2013 - 12:36 pm

            Well, that settles it because brewski is the ultimate authority. No need for references or links. 😉

          • #72 by brewski on December 3, 2013 - 1:40 pm

          • #73 by Richard Warnick on December 3, 2013 - 2:22 pm

            Hurricane Katrina and Bush: A Tale of Two Photos

            Here’s the thing. President Bush failed to protect the country from the worst terrorist attack ever. Then in 2004 he ran for re-election having failed to locate Osama bin Laden (who appeared on video right before Election Day). Yet the Bush administration claimed to be all about protecting Americans from harm.

            Then they were caught utterly unprepared to deal with a hurricane, a totally predictable disaster for which the time and place were both known in advance.

          • #74 by brewski on December 3, 2013 - 8:14 pm

            David Corn? Really? I give you objective sources and all you can come up with is a hit piece by a paid partisan hack? At least try to keep up with me. Oh wait, you can’t.

          • #75 by Richard Warnick on December 3, 2013 - 8:30 pm

            You can’t deal with Bush’s failure. I get it.

          • #76 by cav on December 3, 2013 - 9:38 pm

            That’s where the dispute over success and failure is so often missed. So far as the perpetuation of the money divide and the promotion of the MIC goes – so far as proving the concept of the ‘Big Lie’ and getting away with all of their crimes goes, the Bush administration, as an example, has been a profound success. That’s what they set out to do, it’s what they did, and the mopping up, is going about as well as they could have hoped – not very.

            That’s precisely the area brewski and his ilk have as their playground.

          • #77 by brewski on December 4, 2013 - 5:00 am

            I apologize for using objective sources and easily proved you wrong. I know it makes your head explode. I am truly sorry for your misfortune.

          • #78 by brewski on December 4, 2013 - 5:07 am

            Cav, I don’t know how you make any connection between me and Bush, nor any connection between Bush and this topic. “Bush” seems to have been turned into this throw away phrase like “pinko” or “commie” which doesn’t really tell you anything other than the ignorance of the speaker. I expect better of you.

          • #79 by Richard Warnick on December 4, 2013 - 9:16 am

            Somebody started this thread-within-a-thread by claiming President Obama is worse than Bush.

  16. #80 by cav on December 4, 2013 - 9:24 am

    With all due respect brewski, the connections I might make between you and the Bush clan are probably reliant on the suspicion I have that one would need to go back to before you were born, before 1963, thus calling into question a sizable chunk of your commentary itself on this very subject.

    While you may very well have credentials in the world of economics, I seriously doubt you can remember the Thanksgiving just following the assassination of JFK, that George H.W. Bush was or had recently been deeply involved with the CIA, and would, before long, become vice president, then president – but one administration removed from Bush the lesser (all accomplished under clouds of doubt, lies and other toxic mischief (too mild a word)). It is in this context that so much of the policy we are struggling against this very day came into fruition, but for which you seem to find easy rationale. So evoking ‘Bush’ it’s not as the tossed off ‘Pinko’ or ‘Winger’. More like an observation of a particular blindness to a very meaningful slice of our history.

    In another thread you extracted an admission that the Dems failed to provide a better candidate than Obama. The very same can even more easily be said of the repubs with each and every offering they put forth – The repubs at least seem to be continuing in the rich tradition established by the likes of Nixon, Kissinger, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield and the like. Quality shit!

    I know you try to be bigger, more open minded than this, I only suggested that it only in this rather limited scope you operate best. And with that limitation, it was altogether too likely that you would be getting it wrong, and in my estimation, you do. This I bundle with your inescapable sense of unerring correctness. Sometimes it makes ignorance seem the preferable option

    I respect your attempts, your intellect, but, like your feelings toward me, I expect better from you as well.

    • #81 by cav on December 4, 2013 - 9:27 am

      What a bit of writing! Forgive the overuse of commas, poor editing and attempt to glean the essential points.

    • #82 by brewski on December 4, 2013 - 9:57 am

      I am well aware of JFK’s assassination, GHWB career, and pretty much everything else you mentioned. So I am not sure what your point is.

      The problems we have and to which you refer have a long history and involve both parties. You may recall that the Dems controlled Congress for 40 years from 1955 – 1995. There were also a lot of Dem presidents. A lot happened in those years. Vietnam. Iran. So to pin all of our problems on GHWB or W is a bit of a stretch.

      I have voted for candidates of four separate parties, so tying me to everything GOP and everything Bush doesn’t make much sense. For some reason you seem to equate me with the GOP. Yes, I do wish we had better choices other than one man who had not one single solitary professional accomplishment in his life and another man whose decision-making skills seem to be impulsive and irratic.

      As for comparing Obama to Bush. That is what the poll results said. Don’t blame me for answers you don’t like.

    • #83 by Richard Warnick on December 4, 2013 - 11:50 am

      Polls by nature are superficial. We’re all very disappointed in President Obama’s administration, mostly because he let right-wing Republicans dictate many of his policies and get away with obstructionism and blatant economic sabotage. Income inequality is getting worse. Nothing has been done about climate change.

      OTOH the failed occupation of Iraq is over, and the end of the pointless war in Afghanistan is in sight. Osama bin Laden was finally found and killed. U.S. diplomacy is scoring victories that could never be accomplished by more wars of aggression.

      Under President Obama, the deficit as a percentage of GDP has been cut by more than 50%. The private sector has added 7.8 million jobs. The Bush administration doubled the National Debt and there was a net loss of more than 2.4 million jobs in the private sector.

      Any objective comparison would have to conclude that Bush remains the Worst President Ever.

      • #84 by cav on December 5, 2013 - 9:45 am


      • #85 by Richard Warnick on December 5, 2013 - 9:46 am

        Correction: For an apples-apples comparison, I should have referred to the NET GAIN of jobs under the Obama administration, which is upwards of 2.5 million over 5 years – this still beats Bush’s NET LOSS of 2.4 million jobs by 4.9 million, with three more years of job growth still to come.

        As the Calculated Risk graph below indicates, job losses from Bush’s Great Recession continued through most of 2009. The Obama administration had to add 7.8 million jobs to climb out of the hole left by Bush and the continuing free-fall after he left office, to go from a near-depression to where we are today.

        • #86 by brewski on December 5, 2013 - 11:07 am

          If you want to be apples to apples then you need to look at the same time frames as I already did in the numbers I show.

          Also, if you want to be apples to apples then you need to include the job losses W inherited when he took office due to the Clinton Crash which started 9 months before W took office. So if you are going to be apples to apples then you need to stick with apples to apples.

  17. #87 by brewski on December 4, 2013 - 6:28 pm

    Private employment
    Jan-09 111.05
    Oct-13 114.69
    Increase 3.64

    Private employment
    Jan-81 74.67
    Oct-85 81.56
    Increase 6.88

    You lose.

    • #88 by Richard Warnick on December 4, 2013 - 7:36 pm

      Compare the private sector job growth under both Bushes and President Obama. Don’t you get tired of being wrong all the time?

      Source: Calculated Risk blog

      • #89 by brewski on December 5, 2013 - 7:23 am

        So you admit the 7.8MM was a lie?

        • #90 by brewski on December 5, 2013 - 7:25 am

          That data does not seem to agree with the BLS.

          • #91 by Richard Warnick on December 5, 2013 - 9:18 am

            You have to consider the difference between President Obama’s claim of 7.8 million jobs created and the NET GAIN in private sector employment. The Bush administration cratered our economy, and the Obama administration had to add around 5 million jobs just to climb out of that hole.

            Another problem is that most of the jobs created since Bush’s Great Recession are low-wage jobs. The U.S. median per capita wage is now only $27,519.

            How the recession turned middle-class jobs into low-wage jobs

  18. #92 by brewski on December 4, 2013 - 6:31 pm

    Diplomatic victories? Are you kidding me? Please provide a list.

      • #94 by brewski on December 5, 2013 - 11:11 am

        Every single other country in the middle east would disagree with you about the “victory” with Iran.

        The Syria events were a victory for Putin, not Obama.

        Your other ones are pretty funny to call things such as Academic Travel a diplomatic victory.

        • #95 by Richard Warnick on December 5, 2013 - 11:50 am

          I gave you five headlines citing diplomatic victories. It’s what you said you wanted. There are more, of course.

          Given the choice between the Republican “nuke Iran” plan and diplomacy, I will take diplomacy. Our intelligence community has concluded that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program anyway. Those pushing for regime change in Iran are doing it all wrong- sanctions are screwing ordinary Iranians, not the regime.

          We got what we said we wanted in Syria, without adding to the carnage with U.S. air strikes. If this also improves our relations with Russia, that’s an additional bonus.

          • #96 by brewski on December 5, 2013 - 12:24 pm

            I agree that you can call those victories if you choose to. I appreciate the list and I am well aware of those events. Sorry that your view of them as being “victories” is not shared by most people.

            One guy saying “nuke Iran” does not make it the Republican plan. Do I get to quote every loony lefty and ascribe it to all Dems?

            Syria hasn’t done much for our relations with anyone else in the Middle East.


            I never said it improved our relations with Russia. I said it was a win for Putin. He now knows that Obama is a pussy.

          • #97 by Richard Warnick on December 5, 2013 - 12:31 pm

            “Most people” (the sane ones) prefer diplomacy to wars of aggression every time.

            Do I get to quote every loony lefty and ascribe it to all Dems?

            Pretty much on a daily basis. And I note that there has been no public disagreement with Congressman Duncan Hunter’s “nuke Iran” plan among Republicans.

            If we implemented the Green Economy, then we could ignore Saudi Arabia. If not for AIPAC, we could ignore Israel’s extremist government right now. Iran has far more geopolitical importance in the long run.

            I say we’re on the same page with Russia on how to deal with Syria, and that’s a good thing. You say our President looks weak because… we’re not still fighting the Cold War? That’s nuts.

          • #98 by brewski on December 5, 2013 - 1:13 pm

            You missed a big “if” in Duncan Hunter’s statement. Just shows how misleading you can be.

          • #99 by Richard Warnick on December 5, 2013 - 1:19 pm

            Here’s what Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) said:

            “I think a ground war in Iran with American boots on the ground would be a horrible thing and I think people like to toss around the fact that we have to stop them in some way from gaining this nuclear capability. I don’t think it’s inevitable but I think if you have to hit Iran, you don’t put boots on the ground, you do it with tactical nuclear devices and you set them back a decade or two or three. I think that’s the way to do it with a massive aerial bombardment campaign.”

            Imagine if an Iranian mullah talked this way about the USA (for the record, Iran has no nuclear weapons and has never attacked any other country or threatened to do so).

            Rep. Hunter is not alone. In October, Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire casino owner who is the top Republican donor, said in a speech at Yeshiva University in New York City that Iran should be nuked.

          • #100 by brewski on December 5, 2013 - 1:27 pm

            We don’t need to “imagine”

            In 2005, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, during a meeting with protesting students at Iran’s Interior Ministry, quoted a remark from Ayatollah Khomeini, founder of Iran’s Islamic revolution, that Israel “must be wiped out from the map of the world.”
            Ahmadinejad then said: “And God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism,” according to a quote published by Iran’s state news outlet, the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA).

          • #101 by Richard Warnick on December 5, 2013 - 1:45 pm

            He didn’t say what you say he said.

            Israeli Minister Agrees Ahmadinejad Never Said Israel ‘Must Be Wiped Off the Map’

            As the Guardian columnist Jonathan Steele explained in 2006, a more direct translation of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s remarks would be: “this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time,” echoing a statement once made by the founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

            Question: Do you agree with Rep. Hunter’s threat? Yes or no.

          • #102 by cav on December 5, 2013 - 1:48 pm

            “God willing’ is something of and ‘If’…

            And how did Khrushchev put it?.. We will destroy ourselves from within, or something of that sort, but he, being the atheist that he was, was certainly cognizant of the God-like blessings our pols and religious leaders keep bringing up.

            It must be real.

          • #103 by brewski on December 5, 2013 - 1:59 pm

            Hunter didn’t make any “threat”.

          • #104 by Richard Warnick on December 5, 2013 - 2:07 pm

            Oh yes, he did. But for the sake of argument, we’ll call it a statement.

            Do you agree with Rep. Hunter’s statement regarding an attack on Iran? Yes or no.

          • #105 by brewski on December 5, 2013 - 2:11 pm

            How exactly is it a threat if Hunter does not have the ability to launch a nuclear weapon? That is like me “threatening” to flap my arms and fly.

          • #106 by Richard Warnick on December 5, 2013 - 2:16 pm

            Suppose Rep. Hunter had said, “I don’t think it’s inevitable but I think if you have to hit brewski, you do it with a baseball bat.” You wouldn’t think that was a threat, I suppose.

            Anyway, back to the question at hand. Do you agree with Rep. Hunter’s statement? This is a question that should be asked of every Republican.

          • #107 by brewski on December 5, 2013 - 2:36 pm

            Does Hunter have possession of a baseball bat?

            What does Hunter mean by “if”

          • #108 by Richard Warnick on December 5, 2013 - 2:44 pm

            Rep. Hunter is part of the U.S. government. If I were you, I would interpret his statement as a threat, and act accordingly. Obviously, it would not be necessary for him to personally attack you.

            Now, back to the question. Do you agree with Rep. Hunter’s statement regarding an attack on Iran?

          • #109 by cav on December 5, 2013 - 2:58 pm

            It’s pretty much what we’re equipped for, what we would like to be doing. Isn’t it?

          • #110 by brewski on December 5, 2013 - 3:02 pm

            Hunter is one out of 535 members of Congress. He has no baseball bat and has no control over any baseball bat. He’s never even seen a baseball bat. Doesn’t qualify as a threat. You also haven’t defined “if”.

          • #111 by Richard Warnick on December 5, 2013 - 3:49 pm

            And Ahmadinejad never had control of Iranian foreign policy, but you cited him as a representative of the Iranian government.

            Rep. Hunter’s statement was far from unique, in fact I think it fairly represents the belief among warmongers in both of our major political parties that the USA will launch an aerial assault on Iran sometime in the near future. In such an eventuality, nuclear weapons would have to be employed because some of the targets are buried under mountains.

            So, do you agree or disagree with Rep. Hunter?

          • #112 by brewski on December 5, 2013 - 4:17 pm

            I was mocking you for finding some guy making statements and applying to everyone. Don’t you understand when someone is making fun of you?

          • #113 by Richard Warnick on December 5, 2013 - 4:47 pm

            Every right-winger other than you took the Ahmadinejad mis-translation quite seriously.

            Since you are obviously not courageous enough to venture an opinion on Rep. Hunter’s threat, suffice it to say that he let the cat out of the bag by saying something in public that the PTB would prefer not to discuss. An effective air attack on Iran would require the use of nuclear warheads.

            I blogged about this back in 2008. Maybe now we can have the debate about whether the American people would support an unprovoked war of aggression using nuclear weapons.

          • #114 by brewski on December 5, 2013 - 5:37 pm

            You asked a question, I answered it.

            I have asked you several questions that you are not courageous enough to answer.

            I am not a right winger.

          • #115 by Richard Warnick on December 6, 2013 - 11:00 am

            Dismissing a question is not the same as answering it. I provided the answer, which is that Rep. Hunter’s threat ought to spark a public debate over the first use of nuclear weapons to attack Iran or any other country.

            IMHO this ought to be a huge deal, because U.S. policy during the Cold War was no first use!

          • #116 by brewski on December 8, 2013 - 2:21 am

            “a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done.”

            Could Hunter inflict pain, yes or no?

          • #117 by cav on December 8, 2013 - 8:54 am

            I find the attitude, and expression to be sufficiently pain inducing (both on my own nervous system, and potentially upon the citizenry of the ‘target nation’) as to reject it wholesale. Far from ‘turning the other cheek’.

            That such a mean person has risen to this position is most distressing.

          • #118 by Richard Warnick on December 8, 2013 - 11:35 am

            The intention Rep. Hunter states is not his alone. As I have explained (even back in 2008), an effective aerial attack on Iran would require nuclear weapons. Let’s have that debate – long overdue.

          • #119 by brewski on December 8, 2013 - 10:58 pm

            Could Hunter inflict pain, yes or no?

          • #120 by Richard Warnick on December 9, 2013 - 8:05 am

            By threatening the first use of nuclear weapons against Iran, Rep. Hunter brought an important issue into the open for debate. Maybe we could debate it?

          • #121 by brewski on December 9, 2013 - 8:12 am

            Nice dodge.

            Could Hunter inflict pain, yes or no?

          • #122 by Richard Warnick on December 9, 2013 - 8:17 am

            Not a dodge. A threat is a threat. What do you think? Is it a good idea to use nuclear weapons in a war of aggression against Iran?

          • #123 by brewski on December 9, 2013 - 8:35 am

            It isn’t a threat if you don’t have the capacity to do damage.

            You also never explained Hunter’s meaning of the word “if”.

            Yes, you dodged.

          • #124 by Richard Warnick on December 9, 2013 - 8:45 am

            Maybe you could call it an empty threat, but I’m not so sure because on a practical level some targets in Iran can only be destroyed using nuclear weapons. More like an unspoken threat every time our politicians say “all options are on the table” – a frightening statement if you know what the options are.

          • #125 by cav on December 9, 2013 - 9:18 am

            That saner thinking might prevail.

          • #126 by brewski on December 9, 2013 - 9:32 am

            A “threat” is phrased in the form of “I’m going to nuke you”, or “I am planning on nuking you”, or “If you don’t so what I say then I will nuke you.”

            He did not phrase his statement like that at all.

            What he said was and how he phrased it was :

            “”I think if you have to hit Iran, you don’t put boots on the ground,” Hunter said. “You do it with tactical nuclear devices, and you set them back a decade or two or three.”

            So there are several parts:

            “if you have to hit Iran”
            That makes everything after that contingent on the first part. “if you have to hit Iran”. He didn’t ever say that we did “have to hit Iran”. So the qualification has not been satisfied.

            Then the next part “You do it with tactical nuclear devices”. He did not say he could do it or that he wanted to do it. What he was saying and how he phrased it was a tactical opinion that the way to do it, if one “had to”, would be to use tactical nukes.

            So this was not a “threat” of any kind. It was a qualified tactical opinion. Nothing more.

          • #127 by cav on December 9, 2013 - 10:13 am

            Giving Ahmadinejad such slack wouldn’t be right though. Would it?

            Or is it the simple invocation of ‘God’s willingness’ that rattles you?

            Hypocrite. (return of the favor)

          • #128 by brewski on December 9, 2013 - 2:50 pm

            How am I being a hypocrite?

          • #129 by Richard Warnick on December 9, 2013 - 3:16 pm


            There’s a simple test. If Hassan Rouhani said what Rep. Hunter said, do you think Americans would consider it a threat? Imagine what Faux News Channel would say.

  19. #130 by brewski on December 9, 2013 - 3:36 pm

    Hassan Rouhani is not even close to an equivalent comparison to one of 535 congressman.

    So your standard is now to do whatever Fox News says? Thanks for the clarification.

    • #131 by cav on December 9, 2013 - 4:15 pm

      Perhaps then, you were only LYING. Liar!

      Oooo, this IS fun!!

      • #132 by brewski on December 9, 2013 - 4:39 pm

        Show me one lie of mine.

        Just one.

        • #133 by cav on December 9, 2013 - 4:54 pm

          Liar, hypocrite, fascist, or teatard. (I’m being generous with the choices). Pick one.

          There’s no escape.

          Then give us a break-down of your depletion allowance and the mark up/down on your royalties payments.

          • #134 by cav on December 9, 2013 - 5:02 pm

            My belligerence, disgusts me – especially at this holy time of the year.

          • #135 by cav on December 9, 2013 - 5:05 pm

            Plus, it’s kinda nice having the ‘this’ comment below each new comment. kind of a special reinforcement, applause.

          • #136 by brewski on December 9, 2013 - 5:49 pm

            Thanks for confirming my suspicions. You make it easier.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: