SAVAGE OFFERS GINGRICH $1 MILLION TO DROP OUT OF THE RACE

[Oh Shoot]

Nope, it still wouldn't be a stalemate. Obama could still push a lot of his agenda through executive orders, and as we both know, this president has no fear of abusing executive orders.

Yeah, I know...and yet even EOs pale in comparison to the long term effects from Supreme Court appointments. Due to age demographics of the present court, could be that he gets to select more than any president since FDR.

- OS

[greenego]

Guess if Newt gets "Cained" he can drop out and pick up a cool mil.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Well, I understand Beck's side of the argument. Pretty damning stuff I didn't

know about Newt. Of course all the talkies are trashing Beck now.

I didn't hear Savage make the offer but I agree after hearing Beck's evidence.

It isn't over, yet. I do think the progressive/Rino rights are doing crappy stuff

right now.

And y'all thought Palin was no good, ha! I will gladly admit I was wrong about

Newt. He can play the crowd, sure had me fooled.

[Guest lostpass]

Although "scared" is somewhat of a euphemism, off top o' my head, to put it on as personal a level as possible.

- My health insurance went up to almost equal my rent, jumped 75 per month. This is directly due to Obamacare (the fact that insurance companies are limited in % jumps NEXT year). OS

They also have to spend, like 80% on medical payments or something?

- Little doubt that in two years, Medicare ain't gonna treat me nearly as well as traditionally expected. Maybe I'll be lucky with my health, maybe not. My doc, for example (who is part of a quite large partnership based health care fiefdom) has admitted they may terminate Medicare acceptance. They gave up on TennCare some time back, for example, and see Medicare as almost to same point of diminishing returns for them.

Sad to say this is true. I know plenty of doctors and one who left Summit cause of this. More sadly, the notion that republicans are somehow better on this is flawed. The general republican plan is to replace medicare with vouchers. Generally, non tax adjusted. I'm torn here. If it were me I;d probably just do away with the whole mess but the reason this country is any good is because of the people who lived here before me. So I owe them something.

-- Living on $9K less than when I retired 3 years ago. Interest rates; was finally losing ground on my nut I'm looking to buy my last property with. Pretty much directly tied to fact money isn't needed now, because even though the banks and financial institutions were bailed out, they sit on the money rather than lend it, etc. All directly and indirectly tied to climate of business uncertainty regarding ever increasing regulation either passed or proposed by O's admin.

I think that interest rates are largely controlled by the fed. Right now it is free money, if you can get it. But interest rates have been far too low for far too long. In the name of spurring the economy. Can't really put that one on Obama in my opinion. But I've been thinking interest rates don't reflect reality for a dozen years or so.

-

- And by virtue of Obamacare, Homeland Security, BATF, Treasury Dept, FEMA, Justice Dept selective enforcement, chicanery, litigation against states, etc ad nauseam, I perceive encroachments on individual liberty now becoming an all out assault. Since we're here on a gun forum, if one thinks that given a majority in House and Senate for say, only two of O's last four years, and doesn't think hje's going to have to jump through some pretty big hoops at the least to maintain same level of firearm freedom within a few years, I'd suggest one is infected with terminal Pollyannaism.

nothing I've seen has convinced me Obama is concerned about guns one way or another. When that is the issue he just gravitates to the politically expedient option. The all out assault was the patriot act. The establishment of the TSA and so forth. I don't see any reason to fear Obama more than anyone else on these issues.

-

And forget Congress: O has the biggest ace in the sleeve of a president in a long time: he'll get to appoint God knows how many Supremes in the next four years. And as long as Senate stays Dem, no worries. You're liking Sotomayor and Kagen? Hell, they'll be foaming right wingers compared to the next ones. The odds are he'll get to appoint at least 2 and maybe even 4, depending on the croak factor. This is a legacy that would essentially gut what little is left of the constitutional as far as states' rights and individual liberty. Basically, there will be one de facto default judgement for most every question: i.e., the federal government can do whatever it wants because it's best for you.

Justices generally wait to retire until they think they'll get a replacement like them. Sandra day O'Connor was an exception. I doubt Obama will be able to swing the court. But I also think that analysis is a bit shallow. Judges like to follow law and right now it is assumed that the Supreme Court is right leaning by a five to four margin. Yet I haven't seen Roe V Wade overturned.

-

Mainly, though in the most immediate of concerns, I really do believe we're on the verge of a big financial crash. And I mean catastrophic. I don't think we can endure a long bleak Russian type decline after their crash in the 90's, or the Argentine hyperinflation in the 80's, because of drastic differences in population totals and densities, JIT supply lines, and just lack of a unifying national ethos. Whether a different admin can at least slow that, I don't know, but this admin has just sped it along.

These are things, I suspect, are outside any admins control. And even if you could postpone it with laws and such are you really doing anything? Besides, end of the world scenarios are probably as old as sentient humans, so far it hasn't happened. Doesn't mean it won't happen tomorrow but it does mean that everyone has been wrong. So far.

Yes, much of this I see as inevitable, due to population/resources upside down pyramid, but I still see O's reign as speeding it all up. And again, "scared" really isn't accurate, more "sadly fatalistic". If I had family, though, "scared" would probably apply.

Voting out of fear is something that just does't make sense to me. If I'm voting against the lesser of two evils I am voting for evil. I don't think Obama is trying to destroy the country or Romney or Mitt are inherently evil. They have different views on how they country should run than I do. That is legitimate. But I'm not going to vote for Romney or Newt because I'm scared of Obama. Every single election cycle I get told who I can and can't vote for because if X wins he or she will ruin the country (one way or another). I get lectured on wasting my vote and so forth. I'll vote libertarian again and feel good about it.

[Oh Shoot]

They also have to spend, like 80% on medical payments or something?

Not yet, as I understand it; the audits haven't kicked in. That's why they're making record profits by gouging premiums while they can. All because Obamacare will limit them. All of them. Which kills competition.

I think that interest rates are largely controlled by the fed.

Fed only controls balances traded with the Federal Reserve. While it "suggests" max rates, the actual rates to you and me for loaning OUR money (CDs, etc) are determined by supply of and demand for money. If institutions need more money to lend, they'll pay higher rate for it. Problem is lending is down, partially because demand is down, but even many folks with excellent credit can't borrow money because the lending institutions are spooked about the value of anything they lend money on. Because of uncertainty about just what these Obama admin idiots will do next.

nothing I've seen has convinced me Obama is concerned about guns one way or another. When that is the issue he just gravitates to the politically expedient option. The all out assault was the patriot act. The establishment of the TSA and so forth. I don't see any reason to fear Obama more than anyone else on these issues.

Though admittedly somewhat biased, I suggest the current American Rifleman for a nonetheless pretty good synopsis. I only mentioned gun control because of the forum on which we're opining. The key word is CONTROL. Of every aspect of life. Because the government knows best and you don't know jack.

Justices generally wait to retire until they think they'll get a replacement like them.

Already been one conservative, forget which one, said he was waiting till after this coming election to retire; obvious he didn't want O to pick his successor, and is hoping O doesn't get reelected. But sounded like he'd do it regardless after 2012. Four justices will be in their eighties before the end of O's second term. The odds are at least one (or several) will croak or become incapacitated. Ginsburg, although a liberal, is old and has so far survived two types of serious cancer; but it hasn't been that long, and her replacement will make her look like a right wing extremist.

Judges like to follow law and right now it is assumed that the Supreme Court is right leaning by a five to four margin. Yet I haven't seen Roe V Wade overturned.

Right "leaning" is correct, not staunchly right. Plus it takes a long time for the right case to work it's way up to be reheard; abortion is a strange thing though when it comes to "liberal" or "conservative" judges. Though conservative politicians tend to be mostly "pro life", haven't seen exactly the same with the judiciary. In a way, I'm surprised that it's come to be the way it is; you'd think conservatives would be more "pro choice" in the sense of "stay away from MY body" and liberals would be more "pro life" in the sense of protecting human zygotes much like snail darters.

These are things, I suspect, are outside any admins control. And even if you could postpone it with laws and such are you really doing anything? Besides, end of the world scenarios are probably as old as sentient humans, so far it hasn't happened. Doesn't mean it won't happen tomorrow but it does mean that everyone has been wrong. So far.

Borrowing .40 of every buck spent can't do anything but hurry it up; and it's possible that with enough shared pain, the US could actually be the lone solvent major country in the world. The idea of eating more bologna and beans to prevent eating each other. No, it hasn't happened, and yes, it's a recurring scenario, but these are unprecedented times with unprecedented population levels and densities, unprecedented supply logistics, and unprecedented rapidity of change.

I get lectured on wasting my vote and so forth. I'll vote libertarian again and feel good about it.

I'd feel okay about it unless O won TN. I voted Lib last time, for same reasons you state, but admit I thought O might actually do okay, and was sick of the same ole GOP. I've been shocked. Now we've got the same ole GOP again, and as I predicted the Tea Party has been effectively diluted and absorbed by it. However, in apprehension that enough anti-O votes might be siphoned off by write ins, Lib, maybe even a third party or independent run by Paul, that I'm gonna bite the bullet and vote that damn GOP this time, for what I see as a MUCH less evil.

But all in all, these "interesting times" are less a curse to me personally than indeed just that -- interesting -- fast paced times to live through as a "contemporary historian". Birth, peak, decline, possible resurgence, sometimes even death -- it's a natural process and no country has beat it yet. We've just doing it faster than most and rose higher, quicker.

- OS

Edited December 14, 2011 by OhShoot

[Guest ArmyVeteran37214]

[Guest lostpass]

but admit I thought O might actually do okay OS

Sad to say, I agree. I thought O might fight against the patriot act, might close gitmo, might stop torture, and several other things. The saddest thing to me is that this liberal champion has done nothing to reign in the police state.

For all the change we were promised we got more of the same. What I learned was that voting for the mainstream options is voting for a ten percent difference. And that ten percent is generous. I don't know if it happens because of the entrenched lifers in the government or if idealistic politicians are mere fakirs. Either way, there is no real change that I see.

A vote for Romney or Gingrich won't change that. It will just change who is outraged. I'm not honestly convinced that the president really matters.

[Guest ArmyVeteran37214]

» Michael Savage Pulls Offer to Pay Gingrich a Million Dollars to Drop Out of Race Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!