Charlie Rose

MisterMittster  02/05/2013 07:05 PM Report

Hah! I'll Get You for that! I swear I will!

http://www.youtube.com/watchfeature=player_detailpage&v=Nc2mmqiO8mk

NeilMacCallister  01/31/2013 01:27 AM Report

Hah!! ..You are still cowering under your covers! ..like a snake on a day of rain!!

You should choose an HONEST life, ..maybe it will "Catch on", ..maybe someday America may even elect an HONEST President !!!

Yes, ..Raise up your vision!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HagzTRmUBIE

Hah!!

Laughs are only good for so long you know:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zww7FQILQec

But someday, you Obama puppet you,...

"Someday we may ALL be free!!!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8TJnoa2WTg

Huh?????

MisterMittster  01/22/2013 06:35 PM Report

Hah!

MisterMittster  01/22/2013 06:30 PM Report

Neil,

To start with, I Got your 'sock puppet' right Here, Buddy. And,

What's your 'unusual' interest in my or any other commentators' real name(s) Anyway?. Who cares what anybodies name would be when it comes to the Truth of things. Why are you So Political? Even in such a benign environment. You really sound like a Nutty Zealot. Do your customer/clients know about your 'Opinionated Extremes' of thought?. You kooky carpenter You.

I think people would be afraid of you. Neil MacCallister (your friendly door to door Beggar)

NeilMacCallister  01/19/2013 07:50 PM Report

You are a coward and a thief, sock puppet, ..you not only put on your hood every time you come out here in public, ..but now you even paint someone else's name on the front of your cloak. You must be truly ashamed of who you are, and what you do.

***

Mitt Romney stated he would slow the increases of government spending by not allowing government job-holders to continue writing themselves paychecks larger than the paychecks given to equal job titles in the private sector.

And he stated he would raise tax revenues by capping deductions at $75,000 dollars per taxpayer.

Barack Obama stated he would print a lot of money, and share it with anyone who voted for him.

Barack won.

***

So now America will chew its grass down to the roots, eat the roots, and then starve to death.

***

The fighting is going to get ugly soon.

Many people will blame Barack Obama.

Barack thinks it best if he takes away our guns.

MisterMittster  01/19/2013 02:58 PM Report

And for ALL THAT, Neil, you blame Obama and ONLY democrats;

Why?! .. because the Tea Party told you so. The same Tea Party funded by these millionaire socialist elete free-loaders of the falling middle-class, the same Wall Street republican lobbyists legalizing fraud and destruction of the American economy.

Why should they make loans?! Why risk it? It's more profitable to just sit on it, and/or spend it on you and yours, Only.

That's what the bankers are doing now; while scheming up the next financial gimmick to syphone more money out of the desperate and diminishing middle-class.

Why Not?

It' 'Idiotocracy' really happening right before our eyes, and your brainwashed mind is right in there with it.

NeilMacCallister  01/18/2013 03:45 AM Report

Well, John, ..I'm glad you're happy for all the "rich potentials" being opened for that "high-tech investor" fellow,

..but the World Bank just cut its 2013 growth predictions for the ENTIRE WORLD!!

***

As Berry Grey writes on the 'World Socialist Web Site' (..go figure):

"More than four years after the September 2008 financial meltdown on Wall Street, there is no end in sight to the economic crisis. The economic policies pursued by governments and central banks around the world have benefited the wealthiest social layers at the expense of working people.

"The combination of massive bank bailouts, virtually free and unlimited credit for banks and financial institutions, has served to prop up the financial system and further enrich the ruling elite by inflating financial asset values, but has done nothing to revive the real economy.

"On the contrary, the fact that economic growth continues to stagnate despite vast subsidies to the banks and investment houses speaks to the fundamental and systemic character of the economic crisis."

***

The World Bank reported its prediction that America's GDP Growth is going to fall once again -- from 2012's 2.2%, down to 1.9% for 2013.

***

Now back to that wsws(dot)org site:

"These projected rates are insufficient to significantly reduce the near-Depression-level jobless rates in the US and much of Europe, or to stem the spread of poverty."

***

I don't know, John, ..but I have heard that a growth rate of at least 2.1% is the least necessary just to stay alive,

..so I guess we really ARE dying??

***

Like I said, John, we'll meet again in the fields -- planting, or planted.

Gelles  01/17/2013 07:56 AM Report

Roger McNamee, high tech investor in Face Book and other companies, predicted a rich and user-friendly potential opening all around us. Wireless mobile IT and AI are part of this optimistic view of where we're headed. Neil, I do not know of the "fields" you imagine in a different picture. Throw away your camera. It's got the wrong images blocking out what's in store for the kids, now in their middle age, just in case we're dead.

NeilMacCallister  01/17/2013 02:22 AM Report

Hah! ..John!! ..You said it ALL with your two insights right here:

"The Republicans will let the government go to hell."

"The President will protect the government."

***

Every single piece of "the government" today is nothing more than an above-market paycheck for some friend of a bureaucrat,

..so I understand your anxiety.

***

Good luck, John. I'll see you out in the fields after America goes bankrupt, and we can talk.

Gelles  01/16/2013 05:21 AM Report

The Republicans who vote in the House of Representatives have been ordered by the President to give up taking the government hostage to advance their program to impoverish the middle class. They have been told to raise the debt ceiling or do away with it. If they want to cut entitlements, they have been told to write laws about entitlements and not about debt ceilings.

I agree.

It is now a contest between politicians. It will be decided by poll taking. If the Republicans think they win in the public opinion polls, they will let the government go to hell.

The President by executive order can protect the government by constitutional means. He has all the power. He will need all the nerve. He will be a Lincoln--and the Republicans will cave on the issue.

After that, the Republicans will be asked to agree on a future agenda that includes lots of stimulus and hardly any austerity. The middle class will be protected, as will the defense budget.

Here there will be no hostage taking. The two parties will agree and an Obama-Bernanke doctrine will promote economic growth by making war on unmet needs or war to prevent nuclear war.

These is called needs based Keynesian policy to match spending to need and then match supply to demand. Says Law is dead. Obama-Bernanke will prevail. Our money is not designed for suicide; it is designed for American democratic idealism as pointed out by Lincoln's soldiers at Gettysburg and Roosevelt's soldiers and their descendants in current struggles against foreign terrorists and domestic opponents of middle class security.

You may bet on the tea party. We will bury it. The future belongs to middle class political forces not to killers of the dream.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  01/16/2013 02:49 AM Report

"It's déjà vu all over again":

Eisenhower wanted to build the national highway system, which he considered an important investment in the future, but Senator Byrd was concerned that national debt built up during World War II and the Great Depression was becoming a permanent feature of the U.S. government ("It's déjà vu all over again").

Eisenhower asserted that he had “moved promptly and vigorously” to cut spending but still needed the debt limit raised to pay outstanding bills.

But Byrd was not satisfied, and he demanded more cuts in exchange for a debt-limit increase. For a while, Byrd held the upper hand, forcing Treasury to take emergency measures to avoid default, but eventually Eisenhower got the debt ceiling raised in 1954, though not as much as he had hoped.

“An essential part of this preparedness [for national security] is a debt limit high enough to permit the Treasury, if necessary, to borrow the funds required to carry out the government’s obligations under the Constitution and under the laws of the Congress,” Eisenhower said when he signed the bill establishing the new debt limit.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/history-lesson-why-did-congress-create-a-nation al-debt-limit/2013/01/13/21114db8-5db8-11e2-9940-6fc488f3fecd_blog.html#pagebreak

"It's déjà vu all over again".

SharkswithfrikingLazers  01/16/2013 02:36 AM Report

“I think if you look at the history, getting votes for the debt ceiling is always difficult, and budgets in this town are always difficult.”

— President Obama, news conference, Jan. 14, 2013

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. government can’t pay its own bills. ... I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”

— Then-Sen. Barack Obama, floor speech in the Senate, March 16, 2006

WOW--seven years can make all the difference in the world.

MisterMittster  01/15/2013 07:39 PM Report

My Goodness! Is it something I said? Mr. Jim.

Or is it more appropriately, a problem with the truth, and real people using their Constitutional free speech to espouse the Truth.?.

Get over it and move on, Mr. Jim.

The Truth Will Set you Free!

DiamondJim  01/15/2013 06:59 PM Report

My Lord! May I suggest that charlierose.com use whatever psychological screening tool the Administration comes up with in its gun control efforts, or an alternative, in screening those submitting Comments.

MisterMittster  01/15/2013 06:34 PM Report

Why should the President give an inch to the punky congress; especially after the way they behaved during his first term!?! - They Screwed the middle class!!! For 4 whole years!!! Thanks 'Bitch McConnell' and 'Pee Tea Party' 'Billionaire Funded Lunatic Sheeples'

They got more than their fair share of 'Sweet Deals' out of the 'physical cliff'. $weet Deal$ for they $ugarDaddy$.

Now we must spurr DEMAND! To get jobs back to the People!!

Now Get Out of the way, PIGS!!!

NeilMacCallister  01/15/2013 06:20 PM Report

You know? ..everybody we see on TV has a job,

..every single one of them is getting paid.

But I'll bet 1/3 to 1/2 of Americans have NO job,

..literally millions and millions of people!

Yet the President just gave pay raises to himself and to Congress.

Why????

MisterMittster  01/15/2013 06:20 PM Report

...assuming he's a hyper neoconservative pitch man, like the Heckle and Jeckel goons on the radio he 'enlightens' from time to time.

MisterMittster  01/15/2013 06:17 PM Report

Major Garrett wants a Carrot, doodah, doodah

and he doesn't want to share it, all the doodah day

SharkswithfrikingLazers  01/15/2013 05:15 PM Report

“an agenda for new jobs, new opportunity, and new security for the middle class.”

Sounds G=R=E=A=T!

Make it so.

fishtexas777  01/15/2013 04:28 PM Report

Bring back David Brooks.

tabs  01/15/2013 03:54 PM Report

NCP3

The Presidents "lack of diversity" Cabinet picks are an affirmation of what one has previously said about the President running on his core principles and being affirmed by his reelection that he has a mandate from the people on his ideological vision. For the second term the President has picked people who are sympatico with his own belief system and as such the President isn't interested in discourse, nor anybody elses opinions. President Obama is going to steam at full speed ahead at implementing a very left of center Social Democrat agenda. One that his Mother would have been proud of.

tabs  01/15/2013 03:43 PM Report

NCP2:

Let us move on and take a look at the Presidential language. The President likes to say, "I have proposed a sensible, responsible and very reasonable (fill in the blank)." The question becomes "sensible," "responsible" and "reasonbable" ACCORDING TO WHOM Mr President? Others might not share your wisdom in these matters and might have other opinions as to what "reasonable" etc is. This quite frankly is the type, kind of language that some people use to manipulate others when they are not getting their own way. Some people might even say that President Obama is acting like a "petulant" little child.

tabs  01/15/2013 03:21 PM Report

Oh how President Obama, the Democrats, and their minions like Al Hunt twist reality to suit their own ends. Nothing more clearly illustrates this as when President Obama said, "That the GUN LOBBY manipulates peoples fears about Gun Control which results in gun sales going through the roof." It isn't the gun lobby that causes people to fear Governmental Gun Control but the Presidents OWN WORDS that has caused every assualt weapon, magazine and round of ammo in gun dealers and distributors inventory to be sold at a large premium within days of the New Town tragedy. Further the NRA was and or is signing up 8000 new members a day. Is this truly the waning in the "GUN LOBBY" NRA support the Democrats and their media friends fondly like to indicate? Further the President is putting a rush job on implementing FURTHER gun control restrictions just as Nancy Pelosi said, "You have to pass it to know whats in it." Once again we have Political Theater on the Democrats part, which in the end will not stop the VIOLENCE. The question that remains is when will the Democrats stop trying to put bandaids on the problem and deal with the root cause of the problem which is the action of using violent means resolve ones problems.

Richard_DeBiase  01/15/2013 02:51 PM Report

Was it really necessary for Barack “The Butcher” Obama to kill 40,000 Mexicans during his first term just to stop me from using marijuana?

RichardDeBiase.com

Dasein  01/15/2013 02:24 PM Report

One quotation from the news conference pretty much says it all. You guess who said it. "The Republican Party is holding a gun to the head of the American people." Answer: Augustus Obama.

REMant  01/15/2013 12:19 PM Report

IMHO Al Hunt IS a total fraud, along with Greenspan, Geithner and Krugman, because all of them think the more money we print, the richer we are or can become. Of course we have to pay our bills, but printing money to pay them is not paying them. It is not putting us on the road to pay them. And that's what we are talking about because the Fed buys most our bonds, and other central banks much of the remainder. And I think we are going to have limit presidents to one term, because they invariably develop fat heads, and this one's was swollen to begin with. While I appreciate Garrett's news conference questions, which the president will now that he's left Fox have to answer, and am a little surprised CBS would hire him, I have a feeling he is not that much of a libertarian, and, to tell the truth, find the name a little obnoxious.

Guns have not been discussed here at all recently, not even when the Court ruled on the issue a year or so ago. Leaving aside the constitutional question, which tho complex is quite clear and easily explained, despite the hundreds of learned articles on the subject, as a practical matter the evidence is that there is little relation between guns and murders - if anything it is negative - and that other causes of death exceed the number of firearm homicides by a factor of two or three, tho it is somewhat higher for adolescents and young men.

The number killed by mass murderers last year has been put at 86 (The Nation) or 151 (Mother Jones). At the same time, AP reports, 349 US military personnel killed themselves. According to NCHS, in 2010 there were 19,392 firearm suicides and 11,078 homicides, most involving pistols. Eighty children below age 15 took their own lives, and 373 were homicides, but a great many more drowned, or met their deaths in fires, car crashes, from poisoning, falls, child abuse or being born prematurely or underweight.

Altho a study by the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence determined that seven of the ten states with the strongest gun laws are among the those with the lowest gun death rates, the murder rate in handgun-banning US cities including New York, Chicago, and Washington, DC is far higher than in states like Pennsylvania, Connecticut and Vermont, where handguns are legal and widely owned.

The murder rate among African-Americans is six times higher than among whites, despite the fact that ordinary law-abiding African-Americans are much less likely than whites to own guns. Rural African-Americans own guns as frequently as whites, but the murder rate among them is only a tiny fraction of the urban African-American rate.

Gary Mauser and Don Kates analyzing data from the UN studies and Small Arms Survey found in Europe there were very few instances of nations with high gun ownership having higher murder rates than neighboring nations with lower gun ownership. If anything, the reverse was found to be the case. Norway, for instance, has one of the highest rates of firearm ownership per capita, but nevertheless one of the lowest murder rates. Other nations with high firearms ownership and comparably low murder rates include Denmark, Greece, Switzerland, Germany, and Austria. Holland has a 50 percent higher murder rate than Norway, despite having the lowest rate of firearm ownership in Europe. And Luxembourg, despite its total handgun ban, has a murder rate that is comparable to countries such as Norway and Austria.

Great Britain confiscated handguns in 1997. Yet from 1997 to 2005, both total homicides and gun homicides increased by more than 25 percent. The Met's Colin Greenwood testified to Parliament in 2007 that "Gun crime is out of control on the streets of Britain." In the period 1981-96, as American crime rates fell, British crime rates rose. A study by Patrick Langan of the US Department of Justice and David Farrington of Cambridge Univ published in 1998 showed that in both recorded crime and crime victim surveys, England and Wales had higher rates of robbery, assault, burglary and motor vehicle thefts. Other studies showed that 43 percent of burglaries in England and Wales were committed on occupied houses (a similar rate was found in Holland), while in the US only nine percent of burglaries were.

Eight decades of police-state enforcement of handgun prohibition have kept Russian gun ownership low, resulting in few gun murders. Yet Russia's murder rates have long been four times higher than those in the US and 20 times higher than rates in countries such as Norway. Former Soviet states like Lithuania also ban handguns and severely restrict other guns, yet have murder rates ten to 15 times higher than in European nations.

The Atlantic provinces have a relatively high number of gun owners per capita, but among the lowest homicide rates in Canada. British Columbia has fewer households with firearms than the national average, but a relatively high homicide rate. In 1991, Brandon Centrewall studied handgun availability and homicide in the jurisdictions on each side of the US/Canada border where demographic differences could be factored out. He found tho restrictions were few in the US states and the number of legally held handguns exceeded those on the Canadian side by a factor of ten, rates of homicide were virtually identical. Canada as a whole had better statistics before it embarked on gun control.

In the 19th c, in most US states, murders were few despite high gun ownership and virtually no gun control. Likewise in Europe prior to WWI when gun laws began to appear. Despite increasingly stricter gun laws, violence has increased in Europe.

The majority of murderers have life histories of violence, restraining orders, substance abuse problems, and/or a form of psychopathology. It is generally illegal for such people to have guns, but they ignore laws.

IMHO if there is any socioeconomic correlation it would have to be with monetary and fiscal policies that have for the past century increased the disparity in wealth and income, and produced a declining standard of living. At the same time, these policies have decreased personal responsibility allowing others to be blamed for it. The Gilded Age may have had its "robber barons," but real income was increasing with increases in productivity, and ppl could look forward to a better life. The decline in violence generally beginning in the mid-1990s was no doubt related to these same economic factors.