Charlie Rose

doodah  09/16/2011 04:00 PM Report

@laupan 09/16/2011 12:17 PM

Wow! I'd like to see footage of those words coming out of Sarah Palin's mouth. She must be reading my commentary; Good for Her.

IT'S ABOUT TIME!!!

charlizecourriers  09/16/2011 03:24 PM Report

It's time for Obama to practice a different swim stroke-I suggest the dog paddle. You can't sink and your nose stays out of the water. Plus it allows you to think about the consequences of real panic.

laupan  09/16/2011 12:17 PM Report

Sarah Palin has made these points this past week.

United States has been governed by a “permanent political class,” drawn from both parties, that is increasingly cut off from the concerns of regular people. These Republicans and Democrats have allied with big business to mutual advantage to create what she called “corporate crony capitalism.” Third, that the real political divide in the United States may no longer be between friends and foes of Big Government, but between friends and foes of vast, remote, unaccountable institutions (both public and private).

In supporting her first point, about the permanent political class, she attacked both parties’ tendency to talk of spending cuts while spending more and more; to stoke public anxiety about a credit downgrade, but take a vacation anyway; to arrive in Washington of modest means and then somehow ride the gravy train to fabulous wealth. She observed that 7 of the 10 wealthiest counties in the United States happen to be suburbs of the nation’s capital.

The permanent class stays in power because it positions itself between two deep troughs: the money spent by the government and the money spent by big companies to secure decisions from government that help them make more money.

“Do you want to know why nothing ever really gets done?” she said, referring to politicians. “It’s because there’s nothing in it for them. They’ve got a lot of mouths to feed — a lot of corporate lobbyists and a lot of special interests that are counting on them to keep the good times and the money rolling along.”

“This is not the capitalism of free men and free markets, of innovation and hard work and ethics, of sacrifice and of risk,” she said of the crony variety. She added: “It’s the collusion of big government and big business and big finance to the detriment of all the rest — to the little guys. It’s a slap in the face to our small business owners — the true entrepreneurs, the job creators accounting for 70 percent of the jobs in America.”

Now we have the first President in US History who has achieved success through the system backed by the new deal of the Roosevelt Era….

Obama was born in the year 1961 in Honolulu his father quickly became an absentee father, his mother had to rely on her parents and food stamps and financial assistance in Hawaii. His grandparents assisted in supporting finically as well as spiritually. His mother moved to Jakarta where he lived for four years. At the age of 10, he returned to Hawaii and was raised by his maternal grandparents. After high school he attended first Occidental College and then Columbia University where he graduated with a degree in political science. Five years later he attended Harvard Law School and graduated magna cum laude in 1991.

Upon graduating from Columbia University, Barack Obama worked first at Business International Corporation and then at the New York Public Interest Research Group, a non-partisan political organization. He then moved to Chicago and became director of the Developing Communities Project. After law school, Obama wrote his memoir, Dreams from My Father. He worked as a community organizer along with teaching constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years.

His whole life has been one raised in an entitlement environment; he has succeeded in life through his intelligence supported through the entitlement system. How can we expect this President not to have this mentality and philosophy guide his judgment as a President? Are we supposed to be surprised by his methods and that of the “permanent political class?” The results!

doodah  09/16/2011 06:51 AM Report

... and of course he can always tell the judge, "that depends on what the definition of, 'Life' Is IS.?." "I was referring to a box of cereal" ... "and I told my wife, "Leggo my Eggo! Set it Free! Or I'll Break Up the Fammalleee!"

doodah  09/16/2011 06:44 AM Report

@SharkswithfrikingLazers 09/15/2011 06:32 PM

In all 'Fairness' to Rick Perry, he did say, "I will always error on the side of life", AND, "I can't be bought for Just $5000.00 U.S. American Dollars". ..he IS a Noble man (Hey! He's Left of Michelle Bachmann!) now that's sayin somethin

SharkswithfrikingLazers  09/15/2011 06:32 PM Report

Jeff Zeleny says Rick Perry has only been in the race for 33 days. So when will Perry finally be vetted?

Here I will help:

Did Rick Perry execute an innocent man?

Watch this and you just might think he did: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/death-by-fire/

Does this make Rick Perry a murderer or just incompetent with the lives of citizens? Pay particular attention to what he did to the Commission.

JOHN LENTINI: The state of Texas executed a man for a crime that they couldn't prove was really a crime, and the evidence says this was an accidental fire. And if it was an accidental fire, it doesn't matter how many posters of Iron Maiden Cameron Todd Willingham had on his wall, or Led Zeppelin, or whether he liked to play darts or drink beer, or whether he smacked his wife around. It only matters that the fire was not really a set fire.

NARRATOR: Texas governor Rick Perry was running for reelection.

Read more: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/death-by-fire/etc/transcript.html#ixzz1Y43JDy6B

SharkswithfrikingLazers  09/15/2011 06:27 PM Report

This was NOT a referendum on Obama.

You want analysis please watch Jon Stewart:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-september-14-2011/the-dong-goodbye?xrs=share_copy

Fallacy of the single cause (causal oversimplification[24]): it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.

Ed Koch called the voters (robocalls) and endorsed and told them to vote for the Republican. The Democrat did not live in the district and he was endorsed by Bowser.

The Democrats in this district DID NOT VOTE against Obama.

Karl Rove's trigger points (Guns, Gays and God) were in play and the Gays are also blamed for another loss:

http://www.brooklyndaily.com/stories/2011/38/all_weprinblamesbarack_2011_09_23_bk.html?comm=1

tabs  09/15/2011 03:14 PM Report

The Republican win in NV was no surprise as that was Dean Heller's(R)old district, which comprises the whole of Nevada and a small portion of Las Vegas metro area. Heller was appointed to John Ensigns Senate seat upon his resignation. The Democrat opponent had no experience except as a fund raiser for Harry Reid whereas the Republican had experience in the State Legislature and is well liked and respected.

The Republican victory in a district held by the Democrats since 1923, is Chuck Schumer's old district, along with having a large Jewish demographic? Nearly 90 years is a BIG DEAL which should cause fear and panic among Democrats, for nothing is sacred anymore.

This morning in a CNN Opinion piece James Carville among other things suggested that President Obama FIRE his economic team. If that is the case then President Obama should FIRE HIMSELF and Valerie Jarret his long time bell weather friend and anchor to the old days in Chicago. The reason why President Obama should fire himself is because he is a prisoner to his own ideology and can not change course to save himself. Barrack Obama will cause the Democrat Party to self immolate for the sake of his perceptions.

The inability of President Obama to makes changes in course have been expressed by one on more than one occasion since before the 2008 election. President Obama has based his whole life on the supremacy of the intellect (thoughtful deliberation) over emotion. Which then translates to his political belief system that it is central governmental planning and direction(intellect) over the Free Market system(emotion) that is the goal to be achieved. President Obama does this because his childhood was not all that stable and his way of coping with this instability was not to feel emotions but to stick to his intellect as an avoidance of those messy feelings. That is why people like General Mcchrystal have said after discussing Afghanistan strategy with him that, "President Obama was detached." Thus for President Obama to change political direction is for him to repudiate everything he learned as a coping mechanism since he was a child. If he were to do that he would have to start questioning everything that he believed in and that would cause a meltdown of the personality as he would not know what is real and what is unreal. And that in a nutshell is simply why changing course for Barrack Obama politially ain't gona happen. So Democrats be prepared to crash and burn with Barrack Obama.

REMant  09/15/2011 11:31 AM Report

Weiner's was, I understand, a highly Jewish district, and so I suppose the economy, plus Obama's criticism of Israel and his support for what looks more and more like ppl hostile to it, was the reason for the upset there, tho it would be interesting to know what Zionists think of the GOP's support for the "Arab Spring." There's no doubt Perry is challenging the Bush/McCain bloc. Contrary to the latter, IMHO, he is the only electable candidate and I think the only thing that can derail him is to become distracted by fundamentalist social and foreign policy issues. His position seems to me a lot like Obama's during the last campaign.

The Democratic campaign seems apparent. It is redistribution; tax the wealthy to aid the rest. Bernie Sanders wants to tax them to bolster the Social Security trust fund; the president wants them to pay for unemployment. This is probably justifiable considering they have benefited most from the inflation created by previous actions to aid the poor and middle classes, but none of it solves the basic problem of earning a living, or of tackling the country's basic indebtedness, and I doubt whether there's really enough money available in any case. And if it "slows" the economy, in the Keynesians' judgment, the Fed will simply print more money and start the cycle all over again.