Gay Marriage Opponent Topless Photos Leaked

Ha A chest so good, you see stars? Or not!

Outspoken beauty pageant winner denies implants

Comments

[mark l.]

is that a cheney size bulge in his right pant leg, or just another AP photo shop?

[SacTownMan]

Ouch, That is just wrong on so many levels!!

Nice touch with the pasties though!

[IslamoLlama]

Your secret love for Obama is showing.

[mark l.]

my 'love' should be no secret.

I want a dem that promises everything to everyone, without any concern for how to pay for it, without concerns of practicality.

considering the utter lack of business sense that is guiding his policy, mission accomplished.

god forbid that a moderate, intelligent dem should have won the election. at least he has that charisma thingy...

[nishna]

You had that guy with George W. Bush. From Surplus to monumental mess, all in just eight years.

That whole Iraq thing was gonna cost how much again?

[templar knight]

Hahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You liberal shitheads aren't criticizing your pres for opposing gay marriage. You ought to quit being such monumental...hypocrites. Bwahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[IslamoLlama]

Btw, the gay marriage ninjas have taken Maine. The gay-itus is spreading. Time is running out on that "Going Galt" thing. Your state could be next.

Ooga-booga!

[Lala]

I can't wait for the threesomes. Who will cut the cake?

[mark l.]

"From Surplus to monumental mess, all in just eight years."

in my jim mora voice:

surplus? surplus?!?

so where does obama return us to a surplus in the next 8 years?
to be honest, his own spending results in a 600 billion dollar deficit in eight years.
apparently the debt associated with monumental mess is now being baked into the cake, as obama will exceed bush debt, yearly.

the relative position of debt under obama versus bush will be 5 trillion in debt, versus obama's 9.2 trillion.

a surplus?
bush's management of the economy would save 4 trillion dollars v. obama.

[mark l.]

obama's legacy?
probably not going to be in foreign policy or domestic agenda...

I actually hope he wins reelection, so that his last year in office will be spent balancing how wonderful a president he was, with a national debt that will cross the 20 trillion dollar mark, with social security and medicare shortfalls lurking a lot closer.

the servicing on the debt we hold will be nearly 1 trillion a year. We could pay it out of tax revenue, or just continue a ponzi scheme, and borrow to pay for the debt servicing. i'm sure people will be lining up to loan us more money...

we may, someday, run out of oil in the world, but there isn't a magic money well that is going to loan us money.

I love obama. I love the idea that he is going to represent everything "democrat". bona fortuna, barry.

[Lala]

Is there a "gay" test for same-sex Marriage?

Non-gays could marry their roommates and take advantage of health benefits and other goodies.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- surplus? surplus?!? --"

$40 billion / year surplus. You might remember it from the Bush v Gore debates back in 2000, when everyone was arguing over how best to divvy up the extra loot in terms of tax cuts.

Bush's original ten year $1.3 Trillion tax cut plan was premised on the idea that we were going to continue growing the economy at Clinton's rate and that Clinton's budget projections for the next ten years were going to yield increasingly large budget surpluses.

I mean, I know this may come as a shock to you but we haven't always been running nine and ten digit deficits.

"-- the relative position of debt under obama versus bush will be 5 trillion in debt, versus obama's 9.2 trillion. --"

Bush has taken the national debt from $5.2 trillion to over $10 trillion. That number isn't going to change because Bush's term is done. Obama's PROJECTED deficits could add another $9 trillion to that debt assuming the economy continues to stagnate with little or no growth. Given that he's been in office less than half a year, I think it's a little early in the game to start screaming about the Obama budget deficit when the spending bill hasn't even made it through Congressional Reconciliation yet.

"-- a surplus?
bush's management of the economy would save 4 trillion dollars v. obama. --"

That's neat math. I guess we should have elected Hillary Clinton, since she would have saved us over 9 trillion vs Obama. Cause, you know, that's how Clintons roll.

You a Clintonista all of a sudden?

Or maybe we should have gone back to Carter, the last President before Clinton to run a budget surplus. Or we could dig up Nixon or Kennedy, right?

History fail.

[mark l.]

"assuming the economy continues to stagnate with little or no growth."

I am assuming it. Have you seen the projections of gdp that the wh is going on? They predict a 3 year run of plus 4% gdp...pretty funny.

a side note, with equal deference to bush and obama?
I had roughly 30% of my portfolio in banking/financials. I boogied out when the french trader exclaimed, we don't know what it is worth. Still took a 15% hit from peak on the third of the portfolio, total loss of 4.5% to the portfolio.

I bought back in mid-march, a little past bottom. I have 120% return since...
I'm up 36% in two months, total portfolio, from it's 2007 peak. The dow is sitting below 9k, versus 14k. I imagine that most 401k's look the same as the dow.

The best freakin' part?
still pay low capital gains, and obama is going to do everything possible to make sure that people can't catch up and tax the workers of society, while protecting my modest 'wealth'. I'm at my 'john gault' point... The economy and people's lives are there for you to wreck. have at it.

[mark l.]

"History fail."
yep. 20 trillion, good work obama.

surely this must be a case of the "soft bigotry of low expectation".
you find bush lacking for running a debt, but when obama runs a larger debt, you point out that bush squandered the surplus. I take it, that you don't find obama capable of balancing the budget, that was done so by Clinton.

bush debt bad, obama debt greater, but good.
bush destroyed a surplus(without discussing the fact that we were in a recession when the baton was passed, and without any consideration of the ramifications of 9/11), obama is INCAPABLE of produing a surplus.

handling of economy?
Clinton>Bush>Obama.

please go on about obama's financial accumen, w is glowing in the comparison.

[nishna]

If Bush had managed the budget like a real fiscal conservative, we wouldn't be in this economic mess.

[AWW]

Nishna - full agree. But let's not forget to blame the Senate and House GOP that worked to send massive spending bills to Bush.

[Bob]

The difference between the Bush deficits and the Obama deficits is that Bush chose to run deficits when there was no compelling reason to do so. Bush amassed trillions of dollars of debt based only on the whims of Republican ideologues. The tax cuts were unnecessary, and simply irresponsible if they weren't going to be offset by spending cuts. The Iraq war only added to the debacle and gave us nothing in the way of improved national security.

In contrast, Obama is faced with a once-in-a-century economic crisis. Massive economic stimulus is the strategy of last resort to keep the world out of another full-blown depression. Republicans who lost the election may disagree, but what economic theories have Republicans had in recent decades besides tax cuts for the wealthy? If tax cuts on high earners were the cure for anything, we wouldn't be in this mess right now, would we?

So there's a clear difference between Bush's and Obama's deficits. Bush did it out of carelessness and venality. Obama's doing it because he has to.

[mark l.]

"If Bush had managed the budget like a real fiscal conservative, we wouldn't be in this economic mess."
no disagreement here. the problem is that the faults of bush in regard to spending are being increased in obama.

"The difference between the Bush deficits and the Obama deficits is that Bush chose to run deficits when there was no compelling reason to do so."

bush increased spending by 18% in his first four budget years. obama is going for 16% in his first year. If bush spent the money on crappy policies, one would think that they could be de-funded. Not hearing about any cuts that would make up for the 16% increase. Apparently obama want to leave the bush spending in place.

We picked up 5 trillion in debt under w at eight years...let's just pretend that Iraq cost 1 trillion, right now...
love to hear how the other 4 trillion was spent, but history is going to ask obama about his 9 trillion of borrowing, for programs that will be built upon borrowing.

"Massive economic stimulus is the strategy of last resort to keep the world out of another full-blown depression."
the stimulus isn't part of his budget. His own fed chief believes we will be out of recession by year's end. Once in a lifetime?

the 70's weren't very pretty, and the gloom is nothing like the early 80's.

bush, bad for not being a fiscal conservative, obama, good for not being a fiscal conservative?

[mark l.]

I love the new overlords...
their emphasis on the next depression helped depress financial stock prices at ridiculously low prices.

I just watched them 'handle' a weak strain of flu with all the deftness of mike brown/katrina.

Their MO?
they will promote fear to pursue their own agendas, much like bush/cheney did to advance their own. The only good stock I got out of bush/cheney was halliburton. I'm watching a gang of fear mongerers being spread across the country each with their own little agendas.

more fear, more profit.
(insert lyrics to won't get fooled again)
the only unique thing about obama and the dems is that they are so much easier to read.

[PA]

"That whole Iraq thing was gonna cost how much again?"

A lot less than the Obama spending spree.

[mark l.]

buck up libtards...
want a 'safe' investment?

swallow some pride and buy (some) NWS. Think of it as a hedge against the msm.

[Bob]

I think what Obama is doing (and this probably applies to the flu epidemic too) is to plan for the worst and hope for the best. If we come out of the recession relatively soon and no additional stimulus is needed, why on earth would Obama continue with the stimulus plan? It's ridiculous to act as though Obama wants to be in this situation and have to spend that kind of money. But the dominant paradigm in modern economics says that until the worst is over, this kind of spending is barely sufficient to have the desired impact. A lot of well respected economists (Stiglitz, Krugman, Kuttner) have said repeatedly that they think Obama's plan should have spent even more. But of course, why should any good Republican listen to the experts in any field when they have blowhard ideologues like Limbaugh or Gingrich to tell them what to think?

And by the way, what is the beef with the handling of the influenza epidemic? They had the virus isolated and its genome sequenced within days. They've already determined that it's likely not that dangerous of a strain. It took about two weeks to figure things out. Meanwhile, preparations were under way if it had turned out to be the serious pandemic that everyone feared. A lot of Americans don't realize how lucky we are to have the CDC and the HHS. These are just two examples of effective government agencies that we'd all be screwed if we didn't have.

[Lala]

I Won can't bring about the changes he wants if everything is going swell. He needs chaos to frighten people into swallowing the junk he wants to implement.

I can't wait to see Marion Barry start a riot over gay marriage in DC. What fun!

[Lala]

Lots of complaints about the CDC on a google search. Here's one good thing they did though -

"In a marvelous moment of candor, a federal Centers for Disease Control (CDC) committee has reported that it cannot find any evidence that gun-control laws reduce violent crime"

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YWM3YzEyM2YxNWZjOGQ0MDMwNTUwYmQ4Y2QzNWNkODM=

Applause.

[seekeronos]

Gay marriage is inevitable, and WILL become the law of the land (watch for that godless ONE to do all in his power to repeal DOMA) ...

... this WILL HAPPEN, not because of the might nor because of the wisdom of Same Sex Marriage (SSM) proponents, but because the American people, who have forsaken their God, and turned to heathenism and atheism and unbelief... they are willing to heap wickedness and perversity to themselves.

The INEVITABLE passing of SSM laws WILL happen not because of SSMers' wishes, but because WE THE PEOPLE have rejected God and His Law from our personal and national lives.

And thus shall we pay the price, and receive judgment for our foolishness: the pederasts, the polyamorists, and those who defile themselves with animals (practitioners of bestiality) will all be lined up to take advantage of their new-found legal status as "protected minorities" with corrupt and wicked "judges" to back them up.

[mark l.]

"On October 7, long after Lehman Brothers collapsed and the extent of our economic downturn was known, Teresa Finch of Nashville, Tennessee, asked both presidential candidates: “How can we trust either of you with our money when both parties got — got us into this global economic crisis?” Then-candidate Barack Obama replied: “What I’ve proposed, you’ll hear Sen. McCain say, well, he’s proposing a whole bunch of new spending, but actually I’m cutting more than I’m spending so that it will be a net spending cut.” A “net spending cut.”
(heritage)

2009 federal budget-3.1 trillion.
2010 federal budget, proposed-3.6 trillion dollars.

adding 500 billion to the budget is a "net" spending cut? maybe obama can offer up some more of his wisdom on things like "profit"(sic)/earnings ratios.

[IslamoLlama]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Determining-What-Works-Line-by-Line/

From the OMB Director Peter Orszag. $17 billion in budget cuts specifically targeting programs that are redundant or fail to meet their goals. That is still just the tip of the iceburg. But it's a more aggressive and comprehensive reform of the federal budget than was attempted in the last eight years under Bush.

And let's not even get into Republican budget projections. That $20 trillion number was pulled out of the GOP's ass, along with their "Iraq will pay for itself" and "Laffer curve means increased revenue via tax cuts" bullshit we got handed in 2001 and 2003.

Bailouts like the ones we had to offer up in 2008 and 2009 won't be the norm in 2010. Scale backs in Iraq will save the country billions of dollars PER MONTH.

Again, you only need to leaf back through the pages of history to see that Democratic Presidents have been the better stewards of the budget. Clinton, Carter, and Kennedy all ran better than balanced budgets. Obama's budget will recover the mess the GOP made over the last eight years, and he'll do it while providing access to affordable health care for all Americans and the infrastructure that will lead to energy independence.

It'll be a neat trick to watch, if only because we'll get to hear alternating screams of "fascist!", "socialist!" and "the budget!" the whole way there. Like going to Disneyland with a pair of screaming brats in the back seat.

Obama will do from '08 to '16 what Al Gore would have done from '00 to '08. :-p

"-- this WILL HAPPEN, not because of the might nor because of the wisdom of Same Sex Marriage (SSM) proponents, but because the American people, who have forsaken their God, and turned to heathenism and atheism and unbelief... they are willing to heap wickedness and perversity to themselves. --"

So, you going Galt yet?

[nishna]

Yeah, fixing the Bush Recession / Depression is expensive.

[mark l.]

kuttner, stiglitz, krugman...

"The career of Paul Krugman epitomizes, if in extreme form, how the conventions of the economics profession work to block a resurgence of liberal activism. Krugman is a self-described liberal. Yet his counsel on a wide range of issues is that nothing can be done. And he is far more charitable to very conservative fellow economists (Milton Friedman, Robert Lucas, Martin Feldstein) with whom he ostensibly disagrees than to fellow liberals such as Lester Thurow, Robert Reich, and Laura Tyson, whom he dismisses as pseudo-economists and mere "policy entrepreneurs." On close examination, his disdain is often less about serious policy differences than about membership in the right disciplinary club."

written by robert kuttner, 1996.

"I won't try to defend my motives or the value of my academic work (or justify in detail why, over the course of 20 years as a professional economist, I have changed my mind about some things). Let me instead focus on the two important questions on which Kuttner and I disagree: what it takes to do good economics, and what it means to be a liberal."

krugman on kuttner

link provides some back and forth-
http://www.pkarchive.org/others/29-cnt.html

[seekeronos]

IL:

Dunno about the whole Galt thing.

Just saying that as a nation that has utterly rejected God and turned to hedonism, heathenism, and homosexuality - we are doomed, and bound to suffer for our collective national folly.

We shouldn't be at all surprised to see a whirlwind bearing down on us with a dreadful harvest of certain ruination after having sewn seeds of wickedness into the wind.

[seekeronos]

and fixing the budget would be soooo easy:

Cut spending.
Stop spending money.
Eliminate earmarks.
Defund Obama's war in Afghanistan, and bring home the troops from the 135+ countries we have them scattered to protect our southern border.

[mark l.]

not to throw cold water on the wh press release, but it appears that the wapo is unconvinced:

"President Obama has said for weeks that his staff is scouring the federal budget, "line by line," for savings. Today, they will release the results: a plan to trim 121 programs by $17 billion, a tiny fraction of next year's $3.4 trillion budget.

The plan is less ambitious than the hit list former president George W. Bush produced last year, targeting 151 programs for $34 billion in savings."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/06/AR2009050603454.html

still 17 billion in cuts...

that leaves 483 billion to go, to produce a "net spending cut".

as for the tax cuts fo 2001/2003...

"Growth in Federal Tax Revenues From 2003 to 2006
Total federal revenues grew by about $625 billion, or 35 percent, between fiscal
year 2003 and fiscal year 2006."
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/81xx/doc8116/05-18-TaxRevenues.pdf

the inherent misconception is that the deficits were a product of revenue shortfalls, but as indicated, over a 4 year span govt revenue INCREASED 35%. If bush had a failing, it was in curbing spending.

there remains a useful 'correlation' (I wouldn't introduce it necessarily as cause and effect)
hauser's law-

govt revenue, under ALL existing tax laws over the past half century, has always fell at/around 19.5%.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121124460502305693.html

as a side note: krugman is obsessed with getting 25-26% of gdp. given the infrequency of this occurrence-as in, NEVER, under even the 'sure-handedness' of the democratic presidents, doesn't it become a fool's errand?

all previous dems presidents who found 'prosperity' did so with the constant range. if obama seriously pursues this krugman plan, what are the implications to gdp growth? We will produce more, by taxing the producers?

[mark l.]

"and fixing the budget would be soooo easy:"

discretionary spending is 17% of the 2008 budget. Limit discretionary spending to fit within budget, based on previous year's deficit. Allow it to be overriden only in the case of 66 senators, and 2/3 of the house.

if they are going to vote on debt, it would be better to seperate the issues.

they vote to spend the money they have, then, if they choose, they must agree by the above majority to extend our debt to pay for all those wonderful extras.

What can be paid for, will easily pass.
What cannot must be put into a sperate debate.

[Bob]

Mark, I would think it only adds to, not detracts from, the reliability of these economists' positions on the economic stimulus plan that they might seriously disagree in other areas. Kuttner, Stiglitz and Krugman (the latter two being Nobel Prize winners, BTW) have all said that they fear that Obama's stimulus plan doesn't spend enough. I'm sure that Obama is aware of such criticism, but probably felt that he needed to rein-in his plan for the sake of getting as many Republican, or at least Blue Dog Democrats, to sign-on.

What plan did the Republicans counter with during the debate over the stimulus plan? As I recall, more tax cuts. Just what we needed. And they followed that up with an alternative budget that had no numbers in it. At some point, someone on the right has to acknowledge that the Republicans are not making themselves serious partners during this crisis, but are using it as an opportunity for more demagoguery.

At least what Obama is trying to do is based on accepted economic theory. He's doing this because he feels -- rightly so -- that this is an extreme crisis that demands intervention. That stands in stark contrast to Bush slashing taxes and increasing spending when the economy was doing fine, just to satisfy the whims of conservative ideologues. Even being fair enough to say that perhaps the Bush administration isn't entirely to blame for the current fiscal crisis, if tax cuts were the magic elixir that Republicans always claim they are, why are the economy and the national debt now in such disastrous shape?

[mark l.]

the stimulus is a one time shot...

but if we are out of recession, it won't be attributable to the size of the spending in the stimulus.

http://www.cnsnews.com/PUBLIC/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=43708

"Only 23 Percent of Stimulus Will be Spent This Fiscal Year, Congressional Budget Office Finds"

"At least what Obama is trying to do is based on accepted economic theory."
I've read about modest deficit spending being good, and would agree to consider the point further.

there is no economic advocate that has found a decent means of expressing the reasonableness of deficit spending exceeding 3-4% of gdp. Obama is going for 15% (of gdp) deficit spending. Krugman et al may like spending money but they provide no means of collection. Did see paul go for a early position on a middle class tax hike, but even that falls short of paying for everything 'new'.

one other small point about krugman-
in his relationship with the nyt, who lends who on the issue of crediblity?

the shrinking nyt still provides more for krugman's rep, than he does for the papers editorial crediblity. Says something about his level of respect in the econ community.

[templar knight]

Yall settle down, now. You've gotten completely off the subject of this post, which is why our liberal overlords are not criticizing their dear leader for opposing gay marriage.

The world wants to know.

[nishna]

How to Lie with Statistics -- BFD - it's now how much you make, it's how you manage your money.

REAL Fiscal Conservatives save in good times to be ready for bad.

[Bob]

Templar knight, I think that Obama is being a typical hypocritical politician over the gay marriage issue. I suspect that a lot of Democratic politicians say they're against gay marriage only because they figure it's a hot-button issue that will cost them support if they endorse it. I think it's exactly analogous to abortion, where a lot of Republican politicians say they're against it just so they don't anger the religious right, when deep down they're probably pro-choice. However, just as there are members of both parties who are sincerely pro-life, I'm also sure that there are members of both parties who sincerely oppose same-sex marriage. The problem is knowing who they are since so many are being dishonest. It's hard for me to believe that, deep down, Obama really opposes gay marriage.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- and fixing the budget would be soooo easy: --"

If we just stopped collecting taxes and stopped spending money, then our budget deficit would definitely disappear. As would all federally provided services.

Sure, cut back all spending. Leave the banks to collapse. Let Americans fend for themselves against everything from H1N1 to monetary policy to personal defense. Go out into the woods, build yourself a log cabin, declare yourself a nation of one. Go Galt. That's a pleasant little fairy tale to embrace, until you take a look over in Somalia and realize that's what you're asking for.

Nations exist on taxes and spending. Go all anarchist and live like a cave man if you like. It's really not hard. Stop making use of US Currency. Barter and trade for everything you need. You'll live tax free.

Just, you know, don't own a cell phone that you didn't hand build. Don't expect to do much grocery shopping. Stop making us of the electricity grid or the water pipes. Don't send your kids to school - not even private school, on account of them only dealing in Evil Federal Obama Dollars.

Oh! And learn to make your own guns and ammo.

Have fun with that.

[Bob]

IslamoLlama, your post is a perfect opportunity to segue to the "Somalia: Libertarian Paradise" video. As the video says, "Because government isn't the SOLUTION to our problems, government IS the problem (and now you have cholera)"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0