Tuesday, May 18, 2010

And we are going to get this guy again

Watching the Kitzhaber victory speech and I'm just incredulous that Oregon Multnomah County is going to elect this guy again.

We will get the government that we deserve.


Anonymous said...

Did you think the old tyme train conductor was going to win or something?

Robin said...

I still stand by my prediction... especially with who he is running against.

Although I am not happy about it.

Anonymous said...

The unions and democrats are going to run this state off of a financial cliff. Perhaps then and only then the idiots that vote for them will wake up and see the error of their ways.

Anonymous said...

A painful reminder of how weak, stupid and desperate the Liberals of oregon are.

They and Kitz have NO new ideas to solve our problems and I guess they want more Big Brother "Helpers" only, not poeple WORKING to be self sufficient.

They are making us the Greece of america and obviously want it that way.

They even let Susan Castillo, a lousy leader per their own newspapers and many fellow D's, ru(i)n our multi-billion $ Schools for yet another 4 years, after 8 years of PROVEN failure. Stupid is as stupid does.

Anonymous said...

When you can't come up with a decent candidate of your own with solid credentials and serious ideas, blame the voters who elect the guy who has both. Better work on those free throws, Miglavians, even though Dudley's going to have to make a 3-pointer from half court blindfolded to win! LOL!!!

DAVE01 said...

ANON 12:44 PM
We've all seen the solutions that the democrats have. The state is run by those solutions right now. They must be great solutions. Aren't our children doing really well in the schools? Isn't the state doing well financially?

The republicans had people with solid credentials (whatever the hell that means, maybe it means the person has to be a SEIU member or a laywer or a lifetime government worker) with serious ideas. Maybe you should shut your mouth and open your eyes and ears, you will learn more.

Why doesn't a successful businessman have solid credentials? I'm not talking about Dudley, I'm talking about Alley. Our current governor was an attorney. How are those solid credentials? In fact, a lot of our current leaders are lawyers and looking at the sorry state our state and country are in, they should be banned from leadership positions.

Then again, you probably think life is just hunky dory under failed leadership. You wouldn't know if successful leadership hit you in the mouth. You might have to get up off your ass and produce.

I don't know why I waste my time getting people like you to think outside the box, you wouldn't know the truth if it hit you in the face. You just believe what you are told to believe, definitely un-American. I just laugh at the clown like you who defend losers like Kitzhaber and Kulongoski and Obama and the rest of the clowns. Those people have destroyed a lot of Americans lives and you defend them. You are pathetic. We should get the best, not the worst.

Anonymous said...

Dude, I know John Kitzhaber, and he has more intelligence in his left thumb than you have in your entire family tree. As for "destroying American lives," that's got to rank as one of the most laughably absurd statements I've ever heard from a Miglavian, given that you guys are shameless apologists for the administration that launched a war in Iraq that has resulted in thousands of Americans in caskets and many thousands more with their legs, arms, balls and faces blown and/or burned off. Tell me, Dave, as an American: What do we have to show for it?

Best of luck to you carrying water for Fuddy Dudley. You deserve each other.

Dee said...

Dave, could you please explain to us precisely how John Kitzhaber has "destroyed a lot of American lives"? What's the body count, in your estimatation, that can be attributed directly to him?

[I actually can't disagree with you on that assertion regarding Obama, because he now shares responsibility with Bush for actually destroying a lot of American lives by ensuring that a lot of American boys remain in Iraq and Afghanistan to get killed and wounded. Of course, since the destruction of American lives is clearly such a source of outrage to you, I'm sure you could post a link to comments you've made in the past condemning the Bush administration for "destroying a lot of American lives." Given that he was in office for two terms and had Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan for most of that time, you certainly had ample opportunity, so I'm sure you were quite prolific on the subject, an outspoken critic of American foreign policy in Iraq. Could you give us a sampling?]

DAVE01 said...

DEE, destroying lives and dead people are two different things. I use them differently. Here is an example of destroyed lives, million more of unemployed people losing their houses. Does that make sense to you? The democrats started that piece of shit Community Reinvestment Act which caused a lot of the housing and banking meltdown. Ask Barny Franks, Chriss Dodd and Maxine Waters. I'm sure there are others but those are the main culprits. Obama was going to name the culprits but as always he lied and said nothing.

Watch this video:

It makes me want to puke every time I watch it. There are others, look for them.

I'm sure you forgot but Al Qeuada attacked us from Afghanistan. Do you have a problem with us fighting our enemy who killed three thousand people and caused several hundred billion dollars of damage? Should we just turn the other cheek? We either fight them over there or here. Clinton forgot that and they attacked us here twice. At least Bush kept them busy over there which saved lives in our country. It is a war. People will die. I prefer they die.

I'm a veteran and totally support the troops and their mission. You can't have one or the other.

Only history will tell the truth about Iraq. I do have a problem with us trying to stabilize the mid east because we need to. I also have a problem with us being involved with the UN and asking their permission to attack somebody. Was there WMD's in Iraq? Yes. Were they removed before we went in? I believe so. They had them before and I can't believe Saddam would change his ways. We gave them too much time and too many warnings before we attacked them. He was truly evil. With Iraq being in a more stable position, that benefits this country in many ways.

If we used our own oil and other resources, we wouldn't need to be there. Europe and China and others would be policing the mid east for their own benefit instead of us. This is why it's so important to use our own resources instead of foreign entanglements.

I have also been bitching at republicans for years about their uncontrolled spending habits which that debt is now also destroying American lives and the future for my grand children. The republicans were supposed to be small government types and became too much like the democrats who wanted large governments.

Now as to Kitzhaber and Kulongoski destroying lives as in not dead but having crappy economics. Look at the history of Oregon.
Here are the 4 person meduim income for Oregon from 2001 to 2008.
2001: 55,947
2002: 53,909
2003: 58,315
2004: 58,737
2005; 60,262
2006; 61,570
2007; 61,250
2008; 61,945
Here is the US for the same period:
2001: 56,061
2002: 59,981
2003: 62,228
2004: 63,278
2005: 62,732
2006: 65,093
2007: 66,111
2008: 67,019

Number don't lie. In 2001, we were close to the national average, now we are way behind.

Dee said...

If by "destroying lives" you mean "crappy economics," then Republicans are every bit as totally responsible as Democrats are -- although if you knew jack about economics, which you obviously don't, you'd know that government (at all levels) has virtually no impact over what median incomes are. Show me a single piece of legislation at any point in American history that contributed directly to either the raising or lowering of median income. Interesting that you bring it up, though, because there was a thing in the papers last week about median income. Did you see it? It was about how taxes (all taxes, every level of government) are at their lowest level since the 1950s as a percentage of how much median income they take. Maybe you missed that. Maybe you missed that because you were out on the street with the Tea partiers (most of whom, I'd bet, enjoyed a tax cut from President Obama this year) bitching about how taxes are supposedly out of control.

As for Kitzhaber, he gave us the Oregon Health Plan which I'm willing to wager has actually SAVED lives for a lot of people who otherwise wouldn't have been able to get into a doctor. Literally saved them.

If you're a veteran, then you must know (maybe you don't, if you spend all your free time in front of FOX News) know that there are a lot of veterans, more every day, who are speaking out against both wars, who don't buy the government propaganda bullshit about how you MUST support the mission if you support the troops. LOL! Daniel moans about "sheeple," and yet you're one of them!

We weren't attacked from Afghanistan, you idiot. If you want to talk about national culpability, let's talk about Pakinstan and Saudi Arabia. Pakistan basically created the Taliban, and their intelligence guys knew that 9/11 was going to happen. Yet they're our "friend," and a big recipient of our financial aid. The Saudis finance
Al Qaeda, and in fact, one of the key founders of that group was a guy who headed Saudi intelligence and in 2005 was welcomed to the U.S. by the Bush administration as an ambassador for fuck's sake! but who am I to argue with you? You "prefer they die." Interesting way to "support" them. I'll stand with the troops who have the sense to realize that what the government has ordered them to do is wrong and based on a crock of lies. Because I prefer that they don't die.

DAVE01 said...

Dee, I don't have time to respond to your whole post. However, I'll respond to the first sentence of your last paragraph.

You said: "We weren't attacked from Afghanistan."

I guess I forgot where Al Queda was based. Maybe they were based in Clinton's white house. You don't seem to understand when I say I prefer they die. The whole paragraph is about killing our enemies, Al Queda. You seem to have a reading comprehension problem. Which troops are you going to stand with? Maybe I'm mistaken and you want to stand with Al Queda. If so, you are a traitor.

Anonymous said...

Dee, Kitz did invent the OHP and hundreds of thousands of low income Illegal aliens are thrilled and will vote for him in Nov. (and Si, Si, they can per voters pamphlet) to thank him for that FREE health care.

Dee, did OHP create more private or Gov't jobs? Duh.

Gov't DOES matter in the avg. wage of Oregonians as a Harvard Prof. of economics PROVED to the Fed 9th circuit court of appeals when AZ. made E-Verify the law, that massive illegal immigration lowers all wages.

and OR. Democrats have allowed us to remain a Sanctuary for illegal workers/voters/ID thieves/benefit stealers.

Insanity - expecting different results while using the same system, over and over = Electing Democrats, over and over.

Anonymous said...


From the AP:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Zach Hoffman was confident his small business would qualify for a new tax cut in President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law.

But when he ran the numbers, Hoffman discovered that his office furniture company wouldn't get any assistance with the $79,200 it pays annually in premiums for its 24 employees. "It leaves you with this feeling of a bait-and-switch," he said.

When the administration unveiled the small business tax credit earlier this week, officials touted its "broad eligibility" for companies with fewer than 25 workers and average annual wages under $50,000 that provide health coverage. Hoffman's workers earn an average of $35,000 a year, which makes it all the more difficult to understand why his company didn't qualify.

Lost in the fine print: The credit drops off sharply once a company gets above 10 workers and $25,000 average annual wages.

That's so generous of Obama, isn't it?

Some excerpts from another article from the AP:

About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009.

In 2007, about 38 percent of households paid no federal income tax, a figure that jumped to 49 percent in 2008, according to estimates by the Tax Policy Center.

Wow! Under that dastardly Bush, the number of people paying federal income taxes decreased from 62% to 51%, yet under Obama the Magnificent (PBUH) that number increased to 53%.

That's some tax cut, isn't it?

Anonymous said...

The reason the number of people paying federal income tax decreased under Bush is because they were losing their jobs, you moron. Think about it.

Anonymous said...

I do think that there are more people unemployed under NOBOMA , than Bush , even at 8% under bush thats still lower than the new norm under NOBAMA's 9.9 %
Thats a duh moment for you libs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Anon 5:57,

Nobody ever said that wasn't a factor.

However, if you're a leftist, then you're a hypocrite because your response is overly simplistic and shows a lack of nuance. Yup, complexity and nuance, two things leftists say they understand to show how they're so much smarter than everyone else.

If you're trying to imply that people were only losing their jobs under Bush, then you are engaging in sophistry. National unemployment averaged 5.2% from January 2001 to December 2007 with a high of 6.3% in June 2003.

In 2001, the percentage of households that had no federal income tax burden was only 27.2%. That number increased to 38% with unemployment remaining relatively stable during the period of 2001-2007.

More recent numbers::

Unemployment in January 2009: 7.7%
Unemployment in December 2009: 10.0%

All under Obama. All monthly percentages higher than the highest unemployment under Bush.

Unemployment in 2009 increased, yet the percentage of households escaping federal income tax fell to 47%.

You have some explaining to do.

And next time, leave the name-calling for the playground.