Aug 7, 2008

GOP calls for protesters against Speaker of the House to bring their own crayons

The Michigan Republican Party and Chair Saul Anuzis are organizing a protest against Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi tonight at Borders in downtown Ann Arbor where she will join a panel discussion and sign copies of her new book, "Know Your Power" at 7 p.m.

The intention of the protest is to build on the Grand Oil Party’s juvenile stunt last week where they preached to each other in the dark after the House and Senate were adjourned for the annual summer break on how giving oil companies more leases in environmentally sensitive areas will reduce gas prices. The email blast to supporters says the intention is to “… send her a strong message that she needs to call Congress back into session now, and hold a vote on an energy bill that will allow America to develop America’s oil.” No word on why they don’t just ask the head oil man in the White House to call them back into session since he has the power to do that, or why for all but the last 18 months of President George Bush’s time in office when the GOP controlled both Houses of Congress no real energy plan was adopted.

To help in the protest and to lend an air of authenticity, Anuzis is asking his followers to bring homemade signs, and since he knows they probably can’t think of any catchy slogans for themselves, he sent along some helpful suggestions, such as “Gas b-4 Book Tour" "Bring Congress Back" "We Want Lower Gas $" "End The Shutdown" and "Give Us A Vote."

Bill Nowling and the MGOP communications team have really outdone themselves. That was money well spent.

I have a few slogans of my own for the Grand Oil Party attendees to use: “Food stamps for Exxon,” “We don’t need no stinking books,” “Books are for liberals,” “Tell Bush to tell you to bring Congress back,” “Drill on those thousands of leases you already have,” “oil execs need help to pay for their Bugatti Veyrons,” or “We need our gas prices to go down by 2 cents in 10 years now.”

The Ann Arbor stop will be Pelosi’s first stop on a 13-city book tour, and because there are so many people expected to want to meet the Speaker, Borders began giving out wristbands this morning when the store opened. According to Borders, the wristband guarantees a place in line, but offers no guarantee you'll meet the Speaker.

I have a better suggestion for the GOP: buy a book at Borders to benefit a Michigan company. That may be asking a little too much. Buy a DVD while you are there and do some real good. Make sure you carpool.


Brett said...

Just when I think you can't come up with anymore BS to top the others you've printed on here, you prove me wrong and pile it higher.

First of all, Pelosi will probably have to GIVE books away so she can sign them. Her book isn't even charted on the NYTimes bestseller list. I guess the people have figured out that they don't want that liberal writing pop up books for their children. I wonder where the proceeds are going from Pelosi's book.

As for President Bush calling Congress back, be careful what you ask for. Oil prices are on the rise today. If this becomes the trend again, he may call them back.

A wristband to get yourself a place in line???? No guarantee of speaking to her though. INteresting.

It's good that she's in Ann Arbor. That liberal haven may produce five people for her to sign a book for, but I suspect that they will be people that were going to the book store at the time that she happened to be there.

Like all liberals, she's only out to make a name for herself and not to work for the people. If she were concerned about the people, she'd have allowed debate (what is she afraid to talk about?) and then a vote. But then, if a vote on drilling was allowed, she'd lose.


Communications guru said...

They don’t need to call Congress back, especially if all the Grand Oil Party wants to do is give more oil leases to the oil companies. Tell them to drill on the millions of acres they already have. But, again, Bush can call them back. Yes, a wristband. I have never lied on this blog, so here’s where it came from:

It would seem to me if she is also doing a panel discussion, there will not be enough time to sign and speak to that many people.

Again, liberals made this country great, and I guarantee you know someone who has a better life because of liberals.

Brett said...

I've given you the reason for them not drilling for oil on current leases. Suppose you tell me why they don't want to drill on those leases. Please cite your sources.

Liberals didn't make the country great. Liberals have prevented the country from becoming even greater.


Communications guru said...

Oil companies don’t want to drill on those leases and they have capped wells to keep the supply low and keep the price up. The only reason you gave for the oil companies not drilling on the more than 10,000 leases they own is because they said so, and you didn’t provide any source.

Liberals did make the country great, and like I have said many times before, you know someone who has a better life because of a liberal initiative.

Brett said...

The source I gave was the testimony of the oil companies in the Senate and House Committee meetings.

The source you've cited? Yourself.

Seems to be quite a difference here.

Prove that I know someone that has a better life because of liberal initiative. It's impossible for you to prove, but you're welcome to try.

You can say liberals made the country great all you want, but saying it, and saying it often doesn't make it true.


Brett said...

Thu Aug 07 2008 08:11:48 ET

The most powerful woman in the history of American politics is suffering a humiliating defeat at the nation's bookstores, sales figures show.

In her first week at market, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi sold just 2,737 copies of her book KNOW YOUR POWER, according to NIELSEN BOOKSCAN.

The DOUBLEDAY release was launched with a full media push, featuring high profile interviews on TODAYTHEVIEWTHISWEEK.

"I wrote the book in response to people asking me what it was like to go from housewife to House Speaker and for advice as to how young people, especially women, could balance family and career," Pelosi told the WASHINGTON POST.

Pelosi's sales debacle [#41 on the Non-Fiction Chart] is dramatically overshadowed by the first high profile anti-Obama book, OBAMA NATION, which debuts at #1 on both the BOOKSCAN and the NEW YORK TIMES Bestseller List, with 21,466 copies moved, industry insiders tell DRUDGE.

"The speaker was pre-occupied with house business last week," a source close to Pelosi explained Thursday morning. "She has now turned her focus to promoting this extraordinary book... doing local signings and speeches. I think we'll see an uptick."


Communications guru said...

That’s not a source that’s what you say they said. Plus, oil companies execs are certainly the most honest people around, just ask Sen. Ted Stevens. I guess he knew what he was doing when he refused to swear them in when they testified before the Energy and Commerce committee he chaired in 2005.

I find it hard to believe you don’t know someone collecting Social Security, used Medicaid or was protected by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

I think lifting the country out of the Great Depression, helping win World War II and setting the stage to put a man on the moon helped make this country great.

Brett said...

The source was the testimony. They were under oath. If they lied, they'd have been found to have committed perjury.

Do you really want to bring up Senator Ted Stevens, who has not been found guilty yet with the Mayor of Detroit now in the county lockup for violating his bond?

You're citing Social Security as your liberal policies helping? Social Security takes your money during your lifetime. If you die in less than a month after retiring, your family must return the check. However, they generously give a $255 death benefit. Those that live longer get more than what they paid, but then Social Security is going broke. It will be in the red in 2017 and they will not be able to pay out full benefits in 2041. Being helped yourself by a government program that takes from another and the other will suffer later when it runs out is a perfect example of taking the hard earned money of one person and giving it to another.

You're citing medicaid? This is money taken from a workers pocket to pay for health care for people that don't work. But then, we won't have to worry about Medicare/Medicaid. It starts operating in the red this year and will be exhausted by 2019.

You're citing FDIC? You're insured up to $100,000. Those that had more than that in the recent bank in California (IndyMac) didn't get back their excess money. In addition, if all of the banks went under at the same time, the FDIC would only be able to pay out 17 cents on the dollar.

You're citing the Great Depression? Liberal programs extended the depression and put it into another recession in 1937. What really got us out of the Depression and the following recession over the next ten years was World War II.

You're citing winning World War II? I fail to see how World War II was a liberal policy, but it is interesting that you claim it. Do you also claim all of the losses during the first four years of that war? We really didn't have any major successes during that first four years. How many died in that war? Yet you bitch and moan about 4,000 in the war that liberals complain has gone on longer than WWII.

You cite putting a man on the moon? Interesting that you would do that. I'm sure you're crediting JFK with that. Yet there are two things here. 1. JFK wasn't as liberal as the liberals of today. At most, he was a moderate. One example; he suggested lowering taxes to drive the economy, which we know from your constant whining about lowering taxes, that liberals never consider lowering taxes. They believe in higher taxes and higher spending to move the economy. You're playing both sides of the fence on that one. 2. When man first walked on the moon (Neil Armstrong, July 20, 1969), Richard Nixon was President. Not a conservative, but not a liberal. He was a moderate at best.

Anytime you take away from one person to boost another, you're robbing Peter to pay Paul. You're not helping Peter, he's been robbed. You're not helping Paul, he's been given a handout and we all know that handouts are not appreciated like EARNING what you get.

If that's what you mean by liberals helping others, then you're proving my point that liberalism is not helping anyone.

None of those situations that you cited prove that anyone I know has been helped by liberalism. My family all works for a living. Three brothers and a sister, not to mention the children of my siblings and myself, not to mention my folks, all work for a living. When one has financial trouble, or health trouble, we help each other and don't take any handouts from government. Not one of us has stooped to living off of welfare. Not one of us has ever forced another family to pay taxes to the government to give to us. In fact, not one of us has ever even asked for charity in hard times. We call them personal loans and so far, they have all been paid back to the lenders, whether personal or institutional.

Liberalism is all about taking what someone else has worked hard for and handing it to someone that refuses to get off their dead butts and get even a minimum wage job, let alone try to better themselves.

It's also about butting into private lives, private businesses and forcing them to give away to others.

I'm sure that you believe that you pay 1/2 of your social security benefits and your employer pays the other half. It's the way it's told, but it's not the way it happens. But then, you'd have to be in business to understand that.

Now again, I ask you to cite your source for whatever you think the reasons are that oil companies are not drilling for oil on lands they are paying leases.

Now let's see if you can cite a source, other than your opinion without the continued streak of BS. I don't have confidence in you.


Communications guru said...

You still have not provided a source, just your opinion. My reference is at

According to them, oil companies own leases on nearly 68 million acres of federal lands. Now, not all of them are producing, but that also does not include private property. There are 25.7 million acres of leased lands that are producing oil.

Yes, I want to bring up Sen. Stevens. Like I have always said, Kilpatrick should be recalled. But his actions have not effected the price I pay at the pump.

Yes, I am including Social Security as my “liberal policies helping.” It’s like an insurance policy that you pay into. When you retire you collect it. It’s also for families that lose their primary breadwinner. I have been paying for car insurance for years, and I have never used it once.

I meant to say Medicare, but I forgot about Medicaid. Your take on Medicaid is a disgusting lie. It is for individuals and families with low incomes and resources, not for “people that don't work.” I know many hard working people who that have no health care, many working more than one job, and that’s a situation that’s growing every single day. I don’t believe health care is just for the rich and well off.

Yes, I am including FDIC. Now, I don’t pretend to be an economist because I only took one economics class in college, but FDIC gave people confidence not to start a run on banks. I could be wrong, but that’s what I believe. I do know this, it was a program started by FDR that still is in existence today.

Yes, I’m citing the Great Depression. What liberal program caused the crash of 1929, and what liberal program “extended the depression and put it into another recession in 1937?”

Yes, I am citing World War II. FDR’s leadership helped bring it to a conclusion. There were plenty of losses, especially when you consider how widespread the war was, but I have never heard anyone question the overall strategy or the actions of the troops. WWII took less time to win that the Iraq occupation. The difference is Iraq was a war sold with propaganda to the American people that did not need to be fought. We were also attacked by the enemy in WWII. None of those things can be said about Iraq.

Yes, I cite putting a man on the moon. It was not only under JFK’s leadership, but LBJ’s and even Nixon to an extent. JFK may have been a moderate, but so is Clinton and Obama. Certainly liberals consider lowering taxes, but conservative act like paying taxes is evil. I will never understand how they can hijack the flag and patriotism, but they hate to pay their share of being a citizen and almost never serve in the military.

I don’t consider paying taxes, the price of living in one of the greatest country in the world, as being robbed. Again, I don’t believe for a second you do not know someone who has benefited from one of the liberal programs I just described. Who ever said people who collect SS or use Medicare do not work for a living.

Liberalism is the backbone of freedom, the defender of personal liberty, the guarantor of free speech and religious worship and the nurturer of democratic movements across the world. That’s why the ACLU defends even disgusting bigots like Rush Limdick.

Brett said...

Did you even read the source you cited at factcheck? That just backs up and adds to the testimony which I cited from the oil companies in front of the two committees in Congress.

You're wrong in your assessment of Social Security. Or at least incomplete. It's not the end all for retirement. Yes, it does provide for children and a spouse if death occurs while children are young. Until the child reaches age 16 both the spouse and the child receive a benefit. When the child turns 16, the spouse (mother or father) loses their check. At 18, the child loses that check.

Life insurance pays out the face amount of the policy at death of the insured. That payout is tax free. Social Security pays $255.00 and that's it.

With life insurance, if it's the proper type, you can retire and start drawing a monthly income from it. If you die, whatever remains of the time you've chosen, or the dollar amount, depending on how it's set up, is paid out to the beneficiary. Social Security pays only $255.00 to the spouse.

Franklin Roosevelt introduced Social Security. He promised:

Participation would be completely voluntary.

Participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 into the system.

The money deposited would be deductible on income taxes.

Participants money would be put into an independent trust fund and not the general operating fund.

Annuity payments would never be taxed to retirees.

Of course, his promises didn't come true and remain true. Those that did make it through were changed, with the last change being in 1993 when Al Gore cast the deciding vote to raise taxes including the taxable portion of Soc. Sec. from 50% to 85%.

The very first recipient of Social Security was Ida Mae Fuller. She'd paid in approximately $2.50 into Social Security. When she began withdrawing it the check continued until she died, which I believe was in 1975. She had drawn over $19,000 from the fund. Not a bad return on $2.50. Unfortunately, this means that she took money from people that had paid in the remainder of that $18,997.50. Again, robbing Peter to pay Paul. Paul in this case is Ida Mae Fuller. Peter was some other poor schlub that paid in but his money went to Miss Fuller rather than for his own benefit.

That person made out. The next person made out okay, but my children, or my grandchildren will be screwed out of their promise of a supplement to their own retirement, that they paid into because the Ida Mae Fullers have already taken the money that they have paid in and they will never see that again.

Ponzie schemes always get somebody.

The FDIC in 1933 had accounts insured up to $10,000. There was a run on the banks and 4004 banks went under. The FDIC did not prevent a run on the banks. People did receive 85% of their money much later, but that means they still lost 15%. That's $1,500 on a $10,000 investment. I wonder what the equivalent of $1500 would be in todays dollars.

Roosevelt appointed a guy named Crowley. Leo, I think to be the head of the FDIC. Crowley used the FDIC to embezzle money. Roosevelt covered it up. It was only discovered in the mid 90's. Either 1995 or 1996.

Obama is the most liberal of Congress. Not bad for only 153 days in office.

Clinton wasn't moderate. He fooled those that voted for him by claiming to be a new Democrat, but proved himself to be the same old liberal in February, less than a month after taking office by saying, 'I've never worked so hard in my life but there is just no way for me to give that middle class tax cut that I promised.' Then he tried to pass a $16 billion tax package. Later that year, he did get the largest tax increase in history when Al Gore cast the tie breaking vote on raising everyone's taxes. No Republican voted for the tax increase and only four or six Democrats opposed it. Clinton a moderate? Right, and I've got ocean front property to sell you in Nevada. (That was sarcasm in case you didn't recognize it)

The rest of what you have to say is really just biased partisan drivel not supported by the facts and too much for me to waste time on when there is no way you'd see the ever burning mercury light at the end of the tunnel. You'll have to either educate yourself on the rest or continue to live in your blind trust of those robbing you blind.


Communications guru said...

Yes I did read it, and I’m still waiting for the source of your claims. As the article says, there are “68 million acres of federal land that are part of non-producing leases.” But there’s nothing stopping oil companies adding them to the 25.7 million acres of leased federal lands that are producing oil.

I never said SS was the “end all for retirement.” But for many working people it certainly is, and as more companies strip workers of benefits it will be even more.

SS has never been voluntary, and the rest of your claims are also false. I thought those false Republican talking points were retired when Bush failed to privatize SS back in 2004? I guess not.

I have no idea if the stuff you put out about the FDIC is true or not, but it’s simply irrelevant. It does give people confidence in banks and it has stopped runs on other banks. What little I know about the IndyMac Bank situation is that it was the only bank that experienced a run, and it’s also open again.

Obama is not he “most liberal Senator.” The National Journal took one arbitrary set of votes and makes that determination. Another set of votes could have given a completely different answer. I wish he was more liberal, and liberal is a good thing.

Clinton certainly is a moderate. He balanced the federal budget and turned over a surplus to Bush who quickly squandered it. I have no idea what “conservative” means, because Bush/McCain have conserved nothing.

Brett said...

REad the ENTIRE article at your fact check site.

I never said that SS was voluntary. I said, "Roosevelt PROMISED". Look up the history of Roosevelt and Soc. Sec. If you can read, you'll learn something.

Do a google on FDIC. Again, you'll learn something, if you know how to read and comprehend.

You're wrong about Obama and Clinton.

Bush and McCain are not running for anything together. You see, Presidents are only permitted two terms at most. They may only extend the 8 year period if they served as President for two years or less prior to their own elections.

McCain is liberal. You've never seen me call him conservative and in fact, you've only seen me call him liberal.

There have been 7 bank failures this year and predictions of more over this year and next. IndyMac's assets are being assessed and will be up for sale soon. Bank of Omaha just bought the 6th and 7th bank failures.


Communications guru said...

I did read the entire fact check article. Roosevelt never promised SS would be voluntary, and all of your talking points were false.

Bush and McSame's’s policies are basically alike, and Bush supports McSame. McSame is most certainly not a liberal. Plus, he has said he is proud conservative Republican. I heard him say those very words with my own ears when I attended a town hall meeting when he was in Livingston County.

You are correct; five banks have failed this year because of the housing crisis. But the FDIC is running IndyMac and the bank is open, at least according to U.S. News and World Report,

Brett said...

I've given my source three times.

From your factcheck source:

Unused Acres?

According to the U.S. Department of the Interior's Mineral Management Service, there are nearly 68 million acres of federal lands (onshore and off) that are part of non-producing leases as of fiscal year 2007. This is in contrast to 25.7 million acres of leased lands that are producing oil. So, there are 68 million acres of leased land on which companies aren't extracting oil, but Obama went too far when he said oil companies "haven't touched" them. As Bureau of Land Management Petroleum Engineer Bill Gewecke, who manages the onshore sites, told us, he "wouldn't say untouched, [I] would say undeveloped."

That's because these leased lands that don't contain productive drilling operations likely are not lying idle as Obama implies. There are a lot of steps and procedures involved in setting up a productive oil well on leased land, both onshore and off. The Bureau of Land Management's Web site lists the regulatory hurdles that need to be cleared as part of the larger five-step life cycle of a well. The path to setting up an offshore drilling operation is even longer, as shown in a large flow chart developed by the MMS.

And there is a lot of activity occurring on leased lands that does not qualify as "production." For 2006, the BLM reported that there were 77,257 productive holes onshore in the U.S. Beyond that, there were 6,738 applications for drilling permits, 4,708 holes in which companies had begun drilling and 3,693 where drilling had ended among onshore lands. That's a total of more than 15,000 holes that were being proposed, started or finished that do not count as "productive" holes. And that doesn't even include holes that might have been continually drilled throughout the year for exploratory reasons.

It's not known how much of that drilling is taking place on leases currently classified as "non-producing" and how much is taking place on leases that are already producing oil. BLM's Gewecke told us that the agency does not track acreage that is being developed or explored. And Andy Radford, an analyst with the American Petroleum Institute, an industry trade association, told us that the oil companies are "very secretive about announcing where they are testing, exploring and thinking of drilling because the industry is very competitive."

Brett said...

On another matter....

Nancy Pelosi had her book signing yesterday.

However, to be able to speak to the Speaker, you were forced to buy a book.

There is no report on how many people actually bought a book to be able to speak to the Speaker and there is no report, yet, as to how many people actually showed up.


Communications guru said...

Sorry, you have not given me a source. What you have given is your opinion of what oil company execs said. I have given you a link to my source. I don’t see the point of reprinting the article I gave you a link to as my source. There 68 million acres of federal land that are not being used. I have no idea if there is oil there, but common sense says either find out or stop leasing them before you ask for more. It also says there are 25.7 million acres of leased lands that are producing oil.

Communications guru said...

And that is different from a normal book signing how? There is a report of how many people showed up. The Ann Arbor News said some 200 people showed up to hear her speak and ask questions, and some 30 rightwing tools showed up to protest for their gimmick issue.

Brett said...

Testimony given to two committees in governemnt is the source.

I was once at a book signing for Newt Gingrich. I didn't buy the book on that day. I also don't care for autographs. I just went to the book signing. Others were there in line to have the book signed. I just went up to the table and said "Mr. Speaker, thank you for the work you did in getting the Republicans into the majority." He said it was a collective effort, and asked if I was buying his book and I told him that I was there for another book for one of my children. He stood up and offered his hand to me, wished me good luck and said he hoped I'd get his book soon.

So how is it different than any other book signing? Sometimes, people are human and not out seeking publicity and money from each person they run into.

200 people? In the liberal enclave of Ann Arbor? Seems a pretty poor showing. But, the good news for her is that she is now only shy of 3,000 books sold by about 150. I wonder if that will move her up on the list.


Brett said...

President Roosevelts original three point plan for social security submitted to Congress Jan. 1935. Notice the privatization and then compare the actual plan implemented. Roosevelts plan could have worked with great success. Congress' plan failed miserably which is why we're now looking at either phased in privatization to save the system and make it viable for everyone or the nasty alternative of saving social security with a tax hike that will leave us paying a 65% rate which will destroy the American family.

Had Roosevelt gotten what he wanted, I doubt that Democrats would have lost as many Presidential elections over the years since.

President Bush should have used this in 2004 to push his privatization plan. The liberals would have looked like fools with their thumbs up their backsides.


"In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles: First, non—contributory old—age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps thirty years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self—supporting system for those now young and for future generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one—half of the cost of the old—age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self—supporting annuity plans.'

Communications guru said...

Again, I am still waiting for your source on oil company leases.

I don’t know about this alleged Newt Gingrich book signing, but when you have popular authors you have to have a little more control. If I was in line and somebody pulled a stunt like you did I would be a little unhappy. It just amazes me that anyone respects a man like Gingrich who has no morals whatsoever.

He dumped his first wife while she was in the hospital recovering from cancer surgery. Then, while he was trying to impeach President Bill Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky scandal, he was cheating on his second wife. Snoot then asked his second wife for a divorce during a telephone conversation while she was attending her mother's 84th birthday party. He later married the woman he was screwing around with; a well paid staffer that was 23 years younger than snoot. What a class act, what a Christian.

Book signings are designed to do one thing: sell the book. They are promotional tours. I don’t think 200 people inside a store is a bad crowd at all. If I had known about it ahead of time I might have gone. The only way I found out was through the rightwing blogs and emails putting out all these hot action alerts. And how many did they get, 30, and half of them were impeach Bush protestors.

Communications guru said...

These are nothing but old arguments that were debunked back when Bush tried to enrich his Wall Street friends by trying to privatize Social Security after he already enriched his oil buddies by scaring people.

Your distortion of this quote, “Voluntary contributory annuities, by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age," that government funding, quote, "ought to ultimately be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans” was debunked shortly after Faux News first used that talking point.

As you know, he was proposing that both mandatory contributions and voluntary annuities would eventually eliminate the need for a different fund which was established to provide pension benefits to Americans who were already too old in 1935 to contribute payroll taxes to the Social Security system. You just need to read the SSA’s take on it, that says. “The primary purpose of the plan is to offer persons not included within the compulsory system a systematic and safe method of providing for their old age.”

SS has been the most successful government program, and it has not “failed miserably.” The predictions of gloom and doom and insolvency were just threats to scare people, and they too have been debunked.

“I doubt that Democrats would have lost as many Presidential elections?” Since then it has been 9-6 for Republicans, I’m not even counting Gore. Now, I agree Democrats should not have lost as many presidential elections because the Republican Party is bankrupt, but the reason is not because of a false, debunked talking point.

Bush did use that in his bid to privatize SS, and it was debunked.

SouthwestWashtenaw said...

Hmmm...I’ve been gone a few days and it seems that Brett has had much to say on a variety of issues. Since brett (not surprisingly) never responded to my last post in the “Another smear attack...” thread, here are a few of the points/questions he still has yet to answer.

On the Mackinac Center...
-The Mackinac Center claims on it’s web site that they are “a nonpartisan research and educational institute devoted to improving the quality of life for all Michigan citizens by promoting sound solutions to state and local policy questions. The Mackinac Center assists policy makers, scholars, business people, the media and the public by providing objective analysis of Michigan issues. The goal of all Center reports, commentaries and educational programs is to equip Michigan citizens and other decision makers to better evaluate policy options.”

-Even you (brett) referred to them as “right-wing” ...apparently you don’t think they are non-partisan or objective either...Do you seriously think the Mackinac Center is “non partisan” and “objective”?

-When did I “dismiss” the number they cited leaving the state? I questioned the implied causal relationship between the tax increases and tax rates in general and the reasons people are leaving the state.

brett said...“I believe they are open and honest about what they want.” 

-Read the passage I quoted directly from their web site...They claim to be non-partisan and provide “objective analysis” actually think they are being “open and honest about what they want”?

On the budget...
brett said...“You asked what "fat" I'd trim from education. It didn't apply to what I had said earlier. First of all, I didn't say "fat in education". I said cut the state budget 20% across the board.”

-Yes it did apply to what you said earlier...Do you read your own posts? You said “If the state cuts the funding by 20%, it's possible that the tuition will increase the first year. However, when they no longer are getting students because their costs are too high, they'll cut their fat to be competitive with like schools from other states.”

-Again what “fat” do you think colleges and universities should cut?

brett said...“I'm for cutting it all by 20%...If you truly want to share the pain, cut spending by 20% across the board.”

-So explain how you are going to cut 20% across the specific and explain how cutting 20% of the education budget, the department of corrections budget, revenue sharing, programs for the elderly, DNR, DEQ, etc. will impact the state. Will you close state parks, reduce the state police force, close prisons? It is easy to just suggest a cut and not explain the impact of those cuts.

On tax cuts...
-On the impact of tax cuts, I’ll stand by my earlier statements (and the data I presented) along with the statements of conservative economists like Greenspan, Bernanke, and Mankiw that indicate that tax cuts do not pay for themselves...they do not generate more revenue than would have been generated without the tax cuts. If you believe otherwise, please provide the actual data...just because you say tax cuts generate more revenue, doesn't make it so.

Brett said...

Hmm, at 1:47 pm, you talk about Newt Gingrich's sex life and lie about the situation with his first wife. She actually told him to bring the divorce papers to her hospital room.

Then at 3:00 pm the breaking news of John Edwards admitting that he had an affair in 2006. Doesn't his wife have cancer? I believe it's become inoperable. Interesting comparison.

I know you liberals like to say things are debunked to justify your positions even when they haven't been debunked. All you have to do is read your annual statement from Social Security. Not only do they tell you the situation on the first page, but they even give you the dates. So much for this latest lie of yours. Better luck next time.


Brett said...

Oy. Are we back to this discussion again from Southwestern?

I'm not going to change your mind and you're not going to change mine. So I'll quickly answer your questions and you do with them as you choose.

First you say that even I think they are partisan, then you ask me if I really think they are non partisan. Then you ask it yet again a couple of lines later. So, let me be frank. I believe they analyze their research and form honest ideas on their research.

Regarding 20% cuts across the board. Read again. The state should cut spending 20% across the board. K-12 education is a failure in government schools. Cut it. Throwing money at the problem has not worked.

Colleges and universities receiving money from the state will have their welfare cut by 20%. They'll find ways to make that up, either through cuts in their fat, or by raising tuition. If they raise tuition and it costs them students, they'll find other ways to make themselves a viable educational institution or they'll go under. Welcome to the real world.

Regarding your request that I explain specifically what to cut from each department the answer is no. Each department will have to cut if each department is required to cut 20%. Now's your chance to trust your government. Will they cut things that put the public at risk? If you think so, then you must think that the state is not looking out for your best interests and then you understand my position.

Government has been given everything they've asked for for years. Did you notice the elections this past week? Libraries were denied more money. Many millages failed. People are beginning to get fed up with throwing their money into the black hole known as the State of Michigan government.

Your comments show that you depend on government to get you through life. There are very few uses for government. The only time that I get a government check is when I pay too much taxes during the year. That hasn't happened in ten years.

Me, I prefer to take care of myself and would prefer that the government not put their hindrances in my way. I don't need them to take my money and give it to people that I wouldn't give it to. I prefer that I choose my charitable contributions. I gladly send something to military personel each month. It's my way of giving them something back. I gladly give to the church of my choice that uses it in ways that I support but doesn't give it to support people getting abortions. I prefer making donations to support the prevention of child abuse (no, not the state program) rather than add to the ever climbing rolls of people that are abusing their wives or children or both because they do nothing but sit at home and have nothing better to do.

I go deer hunting and since I don't like venison, I give the meat to a few people that need it rather than just waste it.

I'd like some say in where my hard earned money goes and my choices don't include supporting people that refuse to work or refuse to keep their legs together when out with a boyfriend.

But fear not, I'm one of those that is in the process of taking my business out of Michigan and moving across the border to Indiana. This state is not business friendly. I can handle my clients in Michigan from an hour away in Indiana and do it more effectively because I won't be paying exorbitant fees to this state just to do my job.

I'll actually cut the fees I have to pay in half by making this move as well as opening up an entirely new business base in Indiana.

But that's my choice. Yours is obviously to stay and have the government tell you how to live your life. Good luck with that .


Communications guru said...

Sorry, I didn’t lie about his first wife. If you have something to prove your claim please present it.

I had no idea the John Edwards story would break, but you really can’t compare him to Gingrich. This is an incident that occurred two years ago, and he and his wife worked it out. He didn’t dump her on her sick bed like Gingrich. He also doesn’t pretend to be a moral Christian in judgment of others like Gingrich.

I don’t know else else to say about Social Security. I provided links to back up my claims to your talking points that were debunked years ago; you provided nothing to back up your claims.

Brett said...

Good news!! Nancy Pelosi gained a spot on the Amazon best seller list. She's now at 1769 after being 1768 yesterday. Oh wait, it's not good news. She dropped lower. She may have been better off staying in DC and acting scared of debate rather than traveling the country trying to schlep a book.


Brett said...

Tough day for liberals. Edwards admits sexual affair as wife suffers cancer. Detroit Mayor gets out of jail only to be charged with two felonies. Hillary seems to be plotting a takeover at the convention and it's being reported by the drive by media(that can't be good to have the liberal media exposing her on youtube).

Next we'll find out that part of Bill Clinton's deal for speaking at the convention is to have a girl in the podium in front of him ala the movie Police Academy.


Communications guru said...

True, but Edwards admitted his mistake and worked it out with his wife instead of dumping her. You can read what Elizabeth Edwards has to say about the incident at the Daily KOS:

No one can be surprised Cox is bring charges against a Democrat. Why a simple assault is being handed by the state Attorney General is beyond me.

Barack Obama will be the next president, and the corporate media is far from liberal.

Just so you don’t think Republicans have the moral high ground, I have no idea why anyone would think that, here’s a shining example of a good conservative.

JEFFERSON CITY -- Missouri state Rep. Scott Muschany, R-Frontenac, was indicted today in connection with a reported sexual assault of a 14-year-old girl on May 17, the day after this year’s Legislative session ended.

The alleged victim is the daughter of a state employee. The girl’s mother and Muschany -– who is married and has two children -- were romantically involved, the woman said.

Muschanym 42, has been seen by some as a rising star in the conservative wing of the Republican Party.

Brett said...

Edwards admitted his mistake (after he was caught).

I already get my fill of ultra liberal blogs when I read yours. Why should I read something that Elizabeth Edwards has to say? What I know is that they want to be left alone to deal with their problems. If he admitted this to her two years ago, why do they need to deal with their pain again today? I'd suggest you use some common sense, but no sense in asking for the impossible.

It's not simple assault. It's felony assault. It's allegedly done by an elected official. That elected official controls the local police. Again, the State investignation makes sense if you used common sense.

I don't think Obama will win, but it barely matters to me. One liberal facing another liberal in a Presidential race only means that a liberal will win in November.

Moral high ground? In politics? They are all a bunch of greedy, horny, corrupt politicians.


Communications guru said...

The case could have been passed on to any county prosecuting attorney. Obama will win. You can call Grampy McSame a lot of things, but liberal is not one of them. I disagree with your assessment of political leaders. But they are human.

SouthwestWashtenaw said...

brett said... “Oy. Are we back to this discussion again from Southwestern?”
-I realize right wing blowhards don’t often like to actually have to support/defend their ridiculous ideas, especially when confronted with actual data that refutes their ridiculousness, but I won’t let you off the hook that easily...of course, I am assuming that you are capable of making any kind of reasonable defense of your ideas...probably an assumption I should not make.

brett said...“I'm not going to change your mind and you're not going to change mine. So I'll quickly answer your questions and you do with them as you choose.”
-Of course I’m not going to change your mind, you wouldn’t want facts to get in the way of your parochial view of the world...I never thought I would change your mind, nor was that my intent was to get you to provide data to support your claims (which you haven’t been able to do...big surprise) and to more clearly illuminate that the claims made by people on the lunatic fringe, that “cut the fat” or “stop throwing money at the problem”, etc. is nothing more than empty succeeded in doing that spectacularly.
-What brilliant analysis you provide. I ask you to be specific about “cutting the fat” in education and you say “they’ll find ways to make that up, either through cuts to their fat, or by raising tuition”...and you called legislators morons.
-Why would you want colleges and universities to raise tuition? According to you everyone pays tuition, even if they or their children aren’t attending college.

brett said....“...I believe they analyze their research and form honest ideas from their research”
-Then you are a bigger fool than your posts suggest.

brett said... “K-12 education is a failure in government schools. Cut it. Throwing money at the problem has not worked.”
-More claims without evidence...brett says it is so, so it must be true.

brett said..."Regarding your request that I explain specifically what to cut from each department the answer is no.”
-Of course not...right wing lunatics always just say “cut the fat” but rarely provide any specifics...If you actually tell people the impact of your crazy proposals, you would likely find that very few people, except maybe other right wingers on the lunatic fringe, would end up supporting them.

brett said..."Did you notice the elections this past week? Libraries were denied more money. Many millages failed. People are beginning to get fed up with throwing their money into the black hole known as the State of Michigan government.”
-Sometimes millages pass and sometimes they fail...the reasons they pass/fail are varied. To suggest that a millage fails because “People are beginning to get fed up with throwing their money into the black hole known as the State of Michigan government” is simplistic (not to mention inaccurate...the proposals on the August 5 ballot were LOCAL proposals). A quick review in 4 counties shows that most proposals passed. In Conservative Livingston County all 7 proposals passed. In Conservative Lenawee County 17/18 proposals passed. In Washtenaw County 4/5 proposals passed. In Ingham County 5/8 proposals passed...perhaps you have the data for the entire state which indicates how many passed/failed.

brett said...“Your comments show that you depend on government to get you through life. There are very few uses for government.”
-Everyone “depends” on government at some level...How do you think roads/bridges are maintained? Who do you think runs/funds police departments and the department of corrections? If you have access to water/sewer services, how do you think those systems are built/maintained? etc.

brett said...“I'd like some say in where my hard earned money goes and my choices don't include supporting people that refuse to work or refuse to keep their legs together when out with a boyfriend.”
-You do...we call it voting...but, I know what you mean...I would prefer that tax dollars not go into a system that allows people to get a marriage license and then (after they have kids) lets them get a divorce (unless there is physical abuse, etc.)...what a waste of taxpayers money, not to mention being immoral...what ever happened to “for better or for worse”?

brett said...“But fear not, I'm one of those that is in the process of taking my business out of Michigan and moving across the border to Indiana...”
-Good for you, Michigan needs more well-educated, talented people...judging by your posts, the state isn’t going to be missing much.