So showing this is supposed to make me forget that Obamacare isn't going to be bad and cost a lot more than Obama has said it would? LOL

Showing this will remind you that Romney initially came up with and then implemented in his state what is now known as Obamacare.

There are actually lots of differences, though there are certainly some similarities.

The important difference though, is that one is done on a State level - where it should be, and one is Federal.

This is actually valid critique. Too bad Romney (and his entire campaign) is not as well informed as you are.

Romney has stood by his Mass plan actually, and said that while it isnt perfect it suited the needs of the state at the time. He has also said repeatedly that he thinks that the State level is the proper format for that type of legislation.

I think the word twisting regarding how he has said it "is a model for the nation" and trying to make it sound like he endorses a Federal program is unfair.

Politicians spend lots of money to get elected????? I didn't know that.

Where is your cartoon making fun of Obama spending almost 1 billion dollars in his election. Or do you only make fun of Republicans??

Obama spends more than anyone. He is the undisputed king of political cash.

Is that bad or good?
The main factor is to observe the main corporations behind each campaign.. being republican or democratic

health care,weapons/war industry,dairy/meat/grain(seeds) industry,banks/oil. Do you really believe that donations are from people and not by corporations?.

Mithus makes a valid point. Assuming that Derid is correct in his assertion that Obama spends considerably more than anyone else, doesn't it stand to reason that he would be more beholden to his corporate minders than anyone else and give the lie to the assertions that all conservative movements are astroturf while making the claim that all liberal movements are grassroots?

From outsider viewpoint, to me republicans are linked to weapons/war industry, bankers and wall street lobby, oil industry, automobily industry, health care corporations

but for which coporations democractics can be linked?

All of the above. Dems are *more* linked to Auto and Health and Wall Street, GOP are *more* linked to Military, Banking and Oil. But both parties are closely intertwined with all 6 of the above examples and examples can readily be found for both parties being involved with favors, lobbying and money from any sector mentioned here.

Had this site for awhile and was looking foward to one day being able to use it. It is a break down of the top 140 all time largest contributers, and to which party they kicked money to. If a bussiness kicked more than 60% of its funds in one direction, then it is considered leaning that way, dem or rep.

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A

And to answer your question, they are linked also, both parties are bought and paid for. With the exception of auto and oil indy, both parties recive close to the same amount of money( with in 20%).

Interesting that you have to get all the way down to #19 before you find one that leaned republican, but astounding how many of the top 25 are nearly 100% democrat.

While I agree that alot are blue, there is still a large number that kicks money to both sides. Its just good bussiness to play both sides of the field, so whomever is elected, they are paid for.

That's the thing with Democrats, they are the better politicians because you think that.

Democrats are better at spreading lies the are Republicans.

Just thought I would share a picture as well...

Is that the unemployment question sheet the guy in Az filled out before going to go shot the congress women?

just kidding.

In all honestly, both parties are bending us over, both parties are full of crap, both parties are sold out to corpations and speacil intrest groups.

We, the silent americans, that moves back and forth over the center has done it to ourselves, we have let the chooses the lesser of two evils, the lesser of the crap from the left or the right, the lesser best among us to take the mantel of leadership. The die has been cast, the wheels have all ready been set in motion, we are now but riders on the train, where it goes and where it stops, no one knows.

This is where we need to stop the same old political game. Many voted for Obama because he is young, speaks well using a teleprompter along with his campaign of change. He wasn't well known because he hasn't been in the political game very long. Since he had not been in the political game very long that had Intrigued me, but his whole background and how he got into the political arena didn't make me warm and fuzzy inside.

I'm a Ron Paul fan, I think his domestic plans are spot on. Many aren't given him a thought because many has said he's a crazy old man, well maybe so but for a crazy bastard he sure has a great domestic plan. To bad the Republican party wasn't pushing for him. I really think he would wipe the floor with Obama if he had the GOP's full support!

GOP is rotten through and through, and before you come back with "so are democrats" - not even close. It is like comparing slightly brown banana to a roadkill carcass in a Texas sun.

Would real Mitt Romney please stand up?

Romney praises socialist government-controlled healthcare.



Too bad Israel's health care system is socialized and thier numbers are very much in-line with most first-world socialized healthcare countries.

Republicans vs Democrats

Irrelevant argument. Like Coke vs Pepsi. Same shit, different label. Slightly different taste, same end result.

I would vote Ron Paul without hesitation. Assuming I believed voting actually makes a difference in this country
anymore. Voting makes the wee little folks feel like we have a say so of sorts in how this whole thing is run.

"Many voted for Obama because he is young, speaks well using a teleprompter along with his campaign of change."

Many voted for Obama because they were desperate enough to hope that he was genuine in his resolve to fix things.

Oh what a hard lesson learned, for both the public and Obama.
( It takes more than one man to fix things now, regardless of your resolve. )



Afterthought:

8% of Israel GDP = 19B USD
8% of USA GDP = 1.2T USD


It's somewhat like the telecom industry. In tiny ass countries, you can upgrade the network to the latest,
greatest state-of-the-art system relatively cheaply. Not a whole lot of infrastructure to replace.

However, the bigger the gorilla gets, the more expensive and difficult it becomes to do anything with it. Even minor
changes are expensive as hell and difficult to implement.

What Sinij has pointed out cannot be justified. In other words, hes right. Romney is a piece of shit and no one should vote for him. Voting for him is the same as voting for Obama. So unless he picks Sarah Palin as his veep, Ill be sitting this one out and trying to defeat the 3rd bond issue in my district. Fucking school board tries to get a new bond passed every 5 years

Cheerio, can you tell me what you find appealing about Sarah Palin as a politician? Also what do you think about recent Cheney's comments about Palin?

This is from other thread that I decided not to derail into Romney discussion...



Really? So what is certain about Romeny? What is his budget policy, what is his foreign policy (other than possibly start war with Iran maybe)? His campaign is absolutely devoid of any kind of details, you know _NOTHING_ about him because he has _NO POLICY PLATFORM_.

Its not that Romney is considered awesome, but Obama scares the living crap out of most people who operate businesses of any sort at this point.

This isnt even a Dem/GOP thing either, or even partisan. Its entirely Obama. Clinton sure as heck did not instill the kind of fear that Obama does.

Ironically, I think Jon Stewart was right when he pointed out that Romney is being as vague as he is at this point precisely because... he is intentionally running as a "generic Republican". Because as Stewart pointed out, Obama polls slightly higher than Romney, but "Generic Republican" trounces Obama.

She is(was?) a real person. She could be the Mr Smith in Washington. To me that is a breath of fresh air. As for her beliefs and such I dont share them, but I respect them. She didnt try to lie about them.

If you compare Palin to any other prez/vice prez candidate, in the last 50 years I think she compares favorably IF you think that power corrupts and DC is a cesspool, as I do.

Pardon me for a moment while I wipe the tears of laughter from my eyes...
You're kidding right? This is a joke? A little bit of good natured ironic ribbing at your own candidate?

On a serious note, Cheerio is exactly right about Palin.

Well, please enlighten me what is Romney's policy on deficit reduction and balancing the budget? Specifics please.

I need to respectfully disagree about Mrs. Palin, to me she ran from her job to her state to seek a life before the TV camera. To me she is nothing more then anthoer kardashin(sp).

Don't take me it as questioning you, but being outsider (that how I interpret "a real person") is not enough to be enthusiastic about any given politician.

I haven't read through all of this, but you didn't ask me if I agreed with it. You asked for the details... I hope its not too much trouble to read between the lines and see how these things impact the deficit and budget without them actually saying, "this will lower the deficit" etc.

Copied straight from the campaign site.

Set Honest Goals: Cap Spending At 20 Percent Of GDP

Any turnaround must begin with clear and realistic goals. Optimistic projections cannot wish a problem away, they can only make it worse. As president, Mitt’s goal will be to bring federal spending below 20 percent of GDP by the end of his first term:

Reduced from 24.3 percent last year; in line with the historical trend between 18 and 20 percent
Close to the tax revenue generated by the economy when healthy
Requires spending cuts of approximately $500 billion per year in 2016 assuming robust economic recovery with 4% annual growth, and reversal of irresponsible Obama-era defense cuts

Take Immediate Action: Return Non-Security Discretionary Spending To Below 2008 Levels

Any turnaround must also stop the bleeding and reverse the most recent and dramatic damage:

Send Congress a bill on Day One that cuts non-security discretionary spending by 5 percent across the board
Pass the House Republican Budget proposal, rolling back President Obama’s government expansion by capping non-security discretionary spending below 2008 levels

Follow A Clear Roadmap: Build A Simpler, Smaller, Smarter Government

Most importantly, any turnaround must have a thoughtful, structured approach to achieving its goals. Mitt will attack the bloated budget from three angles:

The Federal Government Should Stop Doing Things The American People Can’t Afford, For Instance:
Repeal Obamacare — Savings: $95 Billion. President Obama’s costly takeover of the health care system imposes an enormous and unaffordable obligation on the federal government while intervening in a matter that should be left to the states. Mitt will begin his efforts to repeal this legislation on Day One.
Privatize Amtrak — Savings: $1.6 Billion. Despite requirement that Amtrak operate on a for-profit basis, it continues to receive about $1.6 billion in taxpayer funds each year. Forty-one of Amtrak’s 44 routes lost money in 2008 with losses ranging from $5 to $462 per passenger.
Reduce Subsidies For The National Endowments For The Arts And Humanities, The Corporation For Public Broadcasting, And The Legal Services Corporation — Savings: $600 Million. NEA, NEH, and CPB provide grants to supplement other sources of funding. LSC funds services mostly duplicative of those already offered by states, localities, bar associations and private organizations.
Eliminate Title X Family Planning Funding — Savings: $300 Million. Title X subsidizes family planning programs that benefit abortion groups like Planned Parenthood.
Reduce Foreign Aid — Savings: $100 Million. Stop borrowing money from countries that oppose America’s interests in order to give it back to them in the form of foreign aid.

If pursued with focus and discipline, Mitt’s approach provides a roadmap to rescue the federal government from its present precipice. But that respite will be short-lived without a plan for the looming long-term threat posed by the unsustainable nature of existing entitlement obligations. Learn more about Mitt’s proposals for entitlement reform: Medicare and Social Security.
Empower States To Innovate — Savings: >$100 billion
Block grants have huge potential to generate both superior results and cost savings by establishing local control and promoting innovation in areas such as Medicaid and Worker Retraining. Medicaid spending should be capped and increased each year by CPI + 1%. Department of Labor retraining spending should be capped and will increase in future years. These funds should then be given to the states to spend on their own residents. States will be free from Washington micromanagement, allowing them to develop innovative approaches that improve quality and reduce cost.
Improve Efficiency And Effectiveness. Where the federal government should act, it must do a better job. For instance:
Reduce Waste And Fraud — Savings: $60 Billion. The federal government made $125 billion in improper payments last year. Cutting that amount in half through stricter enforcement and harsher penalties yields returns many times over on the investment.
Align Federal Employee Compensation With The Private Sector — Savings: $47 Billion. Federal compensation exceeds private sector levels by as much as 30 to 40 percent when benefits are taken into account. This must be corrected.
Repeal The Davis-Bacon Act — Savings: $11 Billion. Davis-Bacon forces the government to pay above-market wages, insulating labor unions from competition and driving up project costs by approximately 10 percent.
Reduce The Federal Workforce By 10 Percent Via Attrition — Savings: $4 Billion. Despite widespread layoffs in the private sector, President Obama has continued to grow the federal payrolls. The federal workforce can be reduced by 10 percent through a “1-for-2” system of attrition, thereby reducing the number of federal employees while allowing the introduction of new talent into the federal service.
Consolidate agencies and streamline processes to cut costs and improve results in everything from energy permitting to worker retraining to trade negotiation.

Individual Taxes

America’s individual tax code applies relatively high marginal tax rates on a narrow tax base. Those high rates discourage work and entrepreneurship, as well as savings and investment. With 54 percent of private sector workers employed outside of corporations, individual rates also define the incentives for job-creating businesses. Lower marginal tax rates secure for all Americans the economic gains from tax reform.

Make permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates
Maintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains
Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains
Eliminate the Death Tax
Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)

Corporate Taxes

The U.S. economy’s 35 percent corporate tax rate is among the highest in the industrial world, reducing the ability of our nation’s businesses to compete in the global economy and to invest and create jobs at home. By limiting investment and growth, the high rate of corporate tax also hurts U.S. wages.

Cut the corporate rate to 25 percent
Strengthen and make permanent the R&D tax credit
Switch to a territorial tax system
Repeal the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)

Free Enterprise

As president, Mitt Romney’s first step in improving labor policy will be to ensure that our labor laws create a stable and level playing field on which businesses can operate. As they hire, businesses should not have to worry that a politicized federal agency will rewrite the rules of the employment game without warning and without regard for the law.

Appoint to the NLRB experienced individuals with respect for the rule of law
Amend NLRA to explicitly protect the right of business owners to allocate their capital as they see fit
Reverse executive orders issued by President Obama that tilt the playing field toward organized labor

Free Choice

Mitt Romney believes in the right of workers to join a union or to not join a union. To exercise that right freely, workers must have access to all the relevant facts they need to make an informed decision. This means hearing from both the union about the potential benefits and from management about potential costs. This also means being able to act on that decision in the privacy of the ballot booth.

Amend NLRA to guarantee the secret ballot in every union certification election
Amend NLRA to guarantee that all pre-election campaigns last at least one month
Support states in pursuing Right-to-Work laws

Free Speech

As matters currently stand, unions can take money directly from the paychecks of American workers and spend it on politicking—each election cycle, unions spend hundreds of millions of dollars. In non-Right-to-Work states, employees have little choice but to watch their money go toward such expenditures, even if they do not support the union and its political agenda. The result is the creation of an enormously powerful interest group whose influence is disproportionate to its actual support and whose priorities are fundamentally misaligned with those of businesses and workers—and thus with the needs of the economy.

Prohibit the use for political purposes of funds automatically deducted from worker paychecks

Retraining Workers

Mitt Romney will approach retraining policy with a conservative mindset that recognizes it as an area where the federal government is particularly ill-equipped to succeed. Retraining efforts must be founded upon a partnership that brings together the states and the private sector. The sprawling federal network of redundant bureaucracies should be dismantled and the funds used for better purposes. One particularly promising approach that Romney supports and believes states should be encouraged to pursue is a system of Personal Reemployment Accounts for unemployed individuals. These accounts would facilitate programs that place individuals directly into companies that provide on-the-job training—as governor of Massachusetts, Romney helped create just such a program.

Eliminate redundancy in federal retraining programs by consolidating programs and funding streams, centering as much activity as possible in a single agency
Give states authority to manage retraining programs by block granting federal funds
Facilitate the creation of Personal Reemployment Accounts
Encourage greater private sector involvement in retraining programs

Attracting the Best and the Brightest

To ensure that America continues to lead the world in innovation and economic dynamism, a Romney administration would press for an immigration policy designed to maximize America’s economic potential. The United States needs to attract and retain job creators from wherever they come. Foreign-born residents with advanced degrees start companies, create jobs, and drive innovation at an especially high rate. While lawful immigrants comprise about 8 percent of the population, immigrants start 16 percent of our top-performing, high-technology companies, hold the position of CEO or lead engineer in 25 percent of high-tech firms, and produce over 25 percent of all patent applications filed from the United States.

Raise visa caps for highly skilled workers
Grant permanent residency to eligible graduates with advanced degrees in math, science, and engineering

Better yet tell us Obama's... he's the sitting President and still hasn't put forth a balanced budget going on 4 years... now that's something.

You know what else he hasn't down in 4 years? Mow the lawn. You know why? Because it is not his fucking job.

Policy doesn't work that way. This is like saying "we are going to cure cancer!". Alright, but devil is in the details. Just like in other discussion and Rep. Mick Mulvaney's bill - if there are no details it is all bunch of political theater.

Plus what little is there is outright wrong. For example nobody pays max corporate rate, that number is meaningless so is lowering it. Repeal death taxes? As if wealth inequality is not bad enough already. Plus how are you going to pay for this AND cut deficits.

How about this for a policy, wrap Romney in a copper wire and put him next to a magnet, this way we can solve our energy crisis with electricity produced from all the flip-flopping he does.

Here's your link from the other post... try reading it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_and_Accounting_Act_of_1921

There are quotes from you in the other thread saying that the budget process MUST begin with the president. You even backed that up with links to the procedure on wikipedia. Now you say its not his job. Which is it?

Then its all just political theater since when they do include the details, no one reads it. And, I'm inclined to agree with you on this one, but that begs the question, how can you defend this statement:

I'll take your blanket dismissal as a concession and a lack of desire or ability to debate any of these points.

Well, this explains a lot about why you understand so little about efficient energy creation.

Here is how it work (LONG READ)

http://congressionalresearch.com/98-720/document.php?study=Manual+on+the+Federal+Budget+Process

POTUS already finished his part of the process, and it is not part that matters. Appropriation committee (and that why chair of approp committee is such sought-after position) and Congress have final say with Senate and POTUS only having power to not pass/veto what Congress produces.

In layman's terms - Congress creates and passes the budget.

It doesn't say if this is criminal or civil law but surely there is some punishment due Obama since he didn't submit one for the first two years of his term.

I believe the debate was whether or not it is POTUS's job to create a budget. Clearly it is, and is required by law.


I think I'll draw my own conclusions since yours seem to leave out important details. Didn't you say that's where the devil is?

Here, I found more concise source:

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/34649.pdf

Do tell me what you end up deciding.

There is such a thing called compromise. Clinton as able to do it. I guess Obama just doesn't have the nerve to get it done.

I thought a President was supposed to lead. I guess we are expecting to much from Obama!

That was sarcasm. I've already decided.

1) The president is required by law to submit a budget by the first Monday in February.
2) His budget isn't binding, its merely a suggestion.
3) Congress considers the POTUS budget and political games begin in earnest.
4) The budget made by congress appears to be a "follow it if you want" resolution, not actually legally binding.
5) What more evidence do we need that there needs to be a balanced budget amendment to the constitution?

Ding ding ding... we have a winner!

No, megacorps and ultrarich people get around the death and corp taxes. People in the middle get hammered. That is why they are so despised.

C'mon sinij, I just KNOW you have to have read plenty on the leftist news/opinion sites on how the megacorps, ultra wealthy and well lawyered and connected get around those things while the small guy gets hammered.

Edit: on another note... Palin? Eck. Red nailed her on the head. She didnt run for Prez because she is happy making money now anyhow. Good for her I guess, but I sure wouldnt want her in a position of authority. She might be better than Obama, but thats just because I consider Obama actively and intentionally evil. But if Palin were elected, I do not think she has the capacity to understand things well enough to make sound judgements regarding her advisers and their advice - so even if she is purehearted would just end up being taken advantage of by sycophantic evil flunkies.

"She might be better than Obama, but thats just because I consider Obama actively
and intentionally evil."

Meh. Doubtful it's intentional.

Delusions of grandeur maybe, but probably not intentional. I personally don't care
for Obama as he still has a lot of unfulfilled campaign promises to take care of. So
far his ideas of " fixing " our problems haven't done too much to actually fix anything.

I suppose the best way to look at it is:

" Are we any better off today than we were 3-4 years ago ? "

However, he is learning a very hard lesson in that the POTUS isn't really where the
power is. He can make all the suggestions to Congress that he wants, but since they
control the money, they make the rules.

It will be that way for any president with split houses of Congress. Only when one
party or another has a majority does anything ever change. ( Not always for the
better mind you )


" He who controls the spice, controls the universe. " -Baron Vladimir Harkonnen


Afterthought:

While I don't care much for Obama, I don't particularly care much for Romney either.
You want the top job ? You need to be a bit more transparent about your life. Release
your damn tax returns and show the world you really have nothing to hide, or forever
get dogged about it.

It's going to be hard to call this one.

I think the only way Romney is going to beat Obama is if he picks a super VP. Imagine
the fun that would start if he picked Ron Paul as a VP :D Folks would lose their minds.

lol

I agree the VP will make a massive impact. In other years, in other elections, not so much. But this year, yea that one pick will either give romney and company a boost or it will be a death toll.

I don't know about V.P. but if I were him I'd definitely pick Ron Paul for my Treasury Secretary. I think he should pick Rand for his running mate but I know that won't happen.

I happen to agree with Derid. I think that Obama is actively and intentionally evil. I disagree about Palin though. She may be naive but I don't think she's stupid.

I don't particularly care for Romney either but, he's not a communist. :)
Obama is demonstrably the least transparent president we've ever had. Even his autobiography is admittedly a collection of half truths and misinformation. I cannot for the life of me figure out why Romney's people don't at least mention that every time someone asks for his tax returns.

As for the tax returns, meh, he's not required to release them and the only reason the Dems want him to is so they can point out how much money he makes while completely ignoring how much he gives away. If he's managed to legally dodge taxes then good for him, maybe he'll fix that if elected. But rest assured, if he had done ANYTHING illegal on his tax returns this administration would know about it and would have used it by now. Instead they have Harry Reidless out making ridiculous and completely baseless claims, because they know the MSM will report it and no one will pay attention to the retraction.

I think both of you allowed partisanship to cloud your judgment. You could still be called rational if you, for example, seen Obama as incompetent or misguided, but seeing him as intentionally evil is a symptom of critical thinking failure of poisoning of information supply.

Lets go through a mental exercise - name 3 things that Obama could do to become more transparent. Now name other 3 presidents that have also done these steps.

After going through this exercise you will realize that Obama's transparency is average to above average. Yes, he explicitly promised to be more transparent, but under-performing on his promise wasn't the way you chose to criticize him.

I hold abusing the power of your office to advance your personal agenda , as well as ignoring the rule of law even though your oath was to uphold it, as well as using the power of your office to enrich your cronies as evil things. I do not think he is evil for the sake of evil in of itself like some supervillian caricature, rather he simply does things to advance his own power with no regard to whether or not it is evil.

You can think what you want. When he took office I did not hold this view, rather I have slowly come to it. I think you are rather making assumptions based on your own partisan view. But from funneling billions to cronies, to expanding the police state, to other things much too numerous to get into here - there is plenty of evidence to support my view.

I think you should pay more attention to what he does, not what he says, and not the hope you hold out in your heart for him.

I think in regards to partisanship, you are the one falls prey to that type of thinking - your constant theme is one of "vs the GOP" , I do not think I have seen you objectively frame any argument. It always comes back to "vs the GOP", and it really gives the impression that you project your own tendencies toward partisanship on others and just assume it taints their thinking.

Your tendency to make unfounded assumptions about others, and then throw in backhanded insults based on those assumptions is pretty much why you sometimes get a less than warm reception from people just FYI.

Lets try this again. Name 3 things that make Obama evil. How does it compares to Nixon (it is a stretch, but lets use it as an example of evil) administration?

For added fun, and since this is Romney thread, convince me that Romney would do different.

Frank Marshal Davis - Look him up.

Transparency
more transparency
Had to pass a law to get details...
Memo detailing how transparent they will be. Apparently they thought that you could just say they'd be transparent and no one would question them about it.
Obama's definition of transparency How many of these have they followed up on?
He illegally used executive privilege to conceal information concerning fast and furious records. Unless, of course, he was briefed, but he says he wasn't.

He said "no lobbyists in my white house" and then promptly hired a dozen or so and granted waivers to several others to continue operating as they had in the past.

He promised to televise the healthcare debate. Didn't happen.

He promised all new laws would be posted online for 5 days before he signed them so we could all comment on them. Failed to do this on his very first one (it was posted, but he'd already signed it), and only every one after that.

Subversively removed FBI training materials related to Islamist extremism and allowed folks with ties to terrorist organizations to dictate what training material would be allowed.

Countless statements and retractions and late Friday document dumps in hopes no one will see them.

The list goes on and on. Perhaps other president's did these things too, but Obama promised to be different. No so much.

I consider Nixon the worst President in modern history, wwho set the stage for most of our current problems. He was also corrupt as shit, liked to spy on Americans, and arguing who is more evil between him and Obama is like arguing the differences between Stalin and Hitler.

We wont be able to compare and contrast the two properly until Obama has been out of office and we start learning more about what has been really happening.

I also am not sure Romney would be any better, I just think that since Obama is now a known quantity he should certainly not be entrusted with 4 more years.

---

Some things about Obama -

1) Administration worked to keep Bradley Manning in torture-like conditions to force a confession.

2) Federal grants, loans and other cash basically ended up in the pockets of the "whos who" list of Dem donors and associated political families. (Gores, Kennedies among big recievers).

3) Wont cough up the Fast n Furious docs, claiming executive privilege. This program was run at the operational level by career gun control activists and surfaced emails have indicated that the top levels of the Administration were aware of its doings and responsible for the way it went. It was in fact a political maneuver.

4) Bringing numerous Federal cases against whistleblowers.

5) Has an "enemies list" much like Nixon. Uses the power of his office to intimidate, harass.

6) Axed 20k Delphi pensions during auto bailouts because they werent union.

7) Fights transparency even harder than Bush. Thats quite an accomplishment. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73606.html

8) Midnight signing of NDAA.


Theres 8... I might post up some more later just for the hell of it, but now I should probably do some actual work.

edit: had to add number 8

Delphi as in Delphi Automotive? I've worked for them (under contract now with Hewlett-Packard) for 15 years.. This is true then but the stories one could tell of the unions there.. Won't get into the fray but just wanted to confirm this is the Delphi you speak of.

Yes, thats the Delphi I am referring to. Big presence here in Ohio.. as you are obviously aware.

@ Kaotic, none of your examples hold up "how is that different from any other Administrations?" test. You stated that Obama is "evil" and "least open" of all Administrations, but you compare it to his promised standard. I agree, he did not deliveer on his election promise of openness, but this is not what you are arguing here.

Its Friday. Nothing gets done on Friday.

More info on #4,5.

How is 1,2,3 would be any different during any other Administration?

What does #6 has to do with POTUS?

For 4 and 5...

Heck dont take it from me... heres a sampling of some hard right wing sources though.
For whistleblowing:

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/04/o...s-combined.html

http://www.whistleblower.org/press/press...e-espionage-act

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/06...r-John-Kiriakou

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/27/busine...a-equation.html

-----
On Enemies list:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougschoen/2012/05/14/the-obama-white-house-enemies-list/
(Forbes might not be a hard left source, but the article is written by a Dem pollster)

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/pete...nst-gop-funders

Its hard to find sources that you would accept on this topic, because while its widely reported on right leaning and independent segments, not much has been said by the leftist apparatus yet.

But I will say that numerous Tea Party groups have been recently investigated and interrogated by the IRS.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/11/send-us-everything/

Btw the type of non-profit the Tea Parties claim is the same type as other groups like ACORN and MEdia Matters etc work under.. not the "you get a tax deduction for giving" kind.


For 1,2,3 - I do not see a President Paul for example engaging in that type of crap. In any case, wrong is wrong is wrong. I dont buy into the "the other guy does it too" crap.

For #6 http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news/decision-cut-pensions-political-decision-emails-sh/nQDBg/

Lots of fingers also pointing to Geithner.. do you think Geithner made an "in-a-vacuum" decision to chop non-union pensions and make the union employees whole? Do you think Obama was not in on that decision? I would find that *extremely hard to believe... and in any case, any President needs to be help accountable for the actions of their cabinet level officials. If the cabinet level guy does it, and the PResidents office and campaign defends as opposed to investigating it... I put it squarely on the shoulders of the Prez.

Actually it is what I'm arguing. I'm saying that he intentionally lied to get elected, has lied to us ever since getting elected and, judging from the commercials now running on television, will say absolutely anything to get re-elected. Believing that the ends justify the means, which is how he defends his lies and half truths, is walking right down the path to evil. He's either walking it or he's there. Take your pick.

It's simple, if he wants to take credit for "saving the auto industry" as he so regularly does, then he has to also take credit for the underhanded back room dealings that went to help his campaign donors in the unions and screwed everyone else.

1) Administration worked to keep Bradley Manning in torture-like conditions to force a confession.

I would really like you to go more indepth on this one.

Also one thing I consider to be evil regardless of who is in office is the POTUS to issue kill orders for American Ciztens.

Then why are you implying that its Romneys job? Dont you care that Obamas plan to reduce the deficit et al are total bullshit, and according tou you, not hos job anyway.

you are probably going to say that the presidents job isnt to propose budgets. its also not hos job to reduce the budget, right? both are actually congress' job

so far, Sinij, your attempts to use Alinsky have been miserable failures. Give it up

Unbelievable. You guys have truly gone off the deep end. I can only hope the rest of the country agrees with me.

With the addition of Paul Ryan to the republican ticket, I am more resolved than ever to support Obama and what I consider the CLEAR lessor of two evils.

Sadly. Jet have you seen http://90days90reasons.com/ ?




Yes, but Paul Ryan going to be popular with GOP. People who weren't excited about Romney because he wasn't 'hardcore right' enough now will support the ticket. There is chance now that Romney/Ryan ticket might win.

Speaking of cronyism, if they win you can kiss you Medicare and Social Security goodbye, because it will all be turned into "other people's money" for the Wall Street to gamble with.

How Paul Ryan captured the G.O.P.

Is that supposed to be a detrimental article on Ryan? Seems like if his colleagues all got the boot for not supporting conservative ideals and he kept his job then his constituents must have thought he wasn't one of the RHINOs.

The rest of the article seems to extol the virtue of his desire to not just stand against Obama but to offer a counter plan. Isn't that one of the things you claim the right never does?

Honestly I am pretty torn. Its not that I particularly like Romney at this point. But, I *really* want to see the depth and breadth of what Obama has really been up to come to light and see some accountability.

The problem is, I am not sure it would happen under Romney. Just like Obama either got scared or cut corrupt deals to protect all the crazy shit Bush was doing/crazy people that operated with impunity under Bush... its entirely possible, even probable that Romney would continue in the same tradition and bow to the same elite cadre of corrupt powers.

But, if there was less fear of retribution - its actually Dems that would start speaking up.

So it makes for a tough call. Give the current embodiment of evil and corruption another 4 years.. or replace it with something that has about an 80% chance of being almost or just as bad. Honestly I consider it a real pickle.

As far as Medicare/SS... that doesnt matter to me. Because I already know for a fact that on our present path, neither program will have any relevance 30-40 years from now. If anyone my age is in a position where they have to rely on these govt programs , we are basically screwed. My generation will continue to be heavily looted by the Silent and Looter (Boomer) generations and be left with nothing.

Thing is, his voting record is not _ANY DIFFERENT_ from those RINOs that got tossed out, only his rhetorics are.

Derid, I just want to let you know that you are irrational borderline into conspiracy theories. I am not saying this to insult you in any way or try to endear Obama, but I do hope at some point you can figure out where emotions overrode your reason.

None of the facts that you have presented so far, not even when taken at the face value, support "embodiment of evil and corruption" conclusion. Yes Obama is not all sunshine and roses, yes he under-delivered on number of promises, yes some of his policies were continuation of Bush but nothing near that you could even stretch into "embodiment of evil and corruption".

You think what you think, and I think you view things from a slanted perspective that lacks in objectivity. I think you carry around a lot of intellectual baggage that you have probably carried for so long you forget that you even have it. I think this baggage induces you into making lots of assumptions, which I think you would be better off challenging on occasion.


If you think that considering an Administration that constantly fights transparency, prosecutes genuine whistleblowing, sends cash to friends, let corrupt cronies off the hook, fights to eliminate or reduce Constitutional rights, lies pathologically and is hypocritical in the extreme as corrupt and evil is irrational and borderline "conspiracy theory" then I really have no more to say to you on the subject.

You will continue to view them as well intentioned people who just happen to do and ignore a lot of horrible things, I will continue to view them as cynical power seekers who do not feel bound by morality or who in the best case think the perceived ends justify the means. /shrug

As much as I dislike it, unfortunately sinij is correct here. I double checked Ryans voting record earlier and it is actually pretty damn shitty. A lot shittier than I expected TBH.

I openly admit that I do not operate 100% objective in any political discussion. This why I post here, to get my ideas challenged.



Such Administration would indeed be contemptible and "evil". I just disagree with your conclusions that such Administration is _this administration_.

I've read your links, I openly admit that some of them were news for me. I also admit that most of them, regardless how you assign the blame are black mark on this Administration but they do not add up to what you describe above. Especially if you objectively apply "how is that different from say, Clinton or Bush administration" test.

Do you also think that all Administrations since Reagan were "embodiment of evil"? Why not?

What do you mean "Why not?" I more or less think they were. Clinton less, Bushes more.

Perhaps that is where we differ. You are comparing Obama to others, comparing relative evil. I am looking at the absolute value of the evil present. Something I have mentioned before that you probably do not fully appreciate, is that I spend 6 years bashing Bush as the most contemptible piece of human waste that could have possibly been chosen to sit the Oval Office. ( I am exaggerating slightly, I think Nixon was probably worse all things considered)

"The other guy is evil too" means jack and shit to me. How is evil diminished by the presence of more evil?

I was also surprised that Obama turned out to be even worse than Bush. I expected him to be a bit of a leftist, but I was completely flabbergasted that he turned into a Bush++ neocon replete with all the same corruption. His total 180 turn between rhetoric and action does in fact make me wonder who really holds the power in Washington sometimes.

You call it an "under performance of promises"... however while technically true in a literal sense, I find it an extremely poor description. More precisely, its a reversal of principles - which is something I consider completely different.

Saying you are going to "fix the economy" then failing to due so, due to lack of ability, lack of luck, lack of whatever is one thing. Typical promise underperformed on... and certainly not an indicator of mal-intent. I certainly think it possible to act on your stated *principles and yet underperform in many areas, especially the economy, and especially if you are a leftist.

Saying you are going to protect civil liberties, protect wwhistleblowers and run the most open administration in history... and the proceeding to eradicate civil liberties, prosecute whistleblowers, and run an operation even more secretive than Bush is not "underperformance". It is a very deliberate choice to operate on a completely different set of *principles than what had been stated.

To me, this is a very very different thing - and whenceforth my perception of evil arises.

One thing you might not have noted in my previous list, is unlike so many on the blowhard right-wing media that I think it likely you reflexively associated my view with, is that none of my reasons given have anything to do directly with the *existence of* Obamacare, Bailouts, or wanting to tax the rich, etc. Perhaps there are some particular things that happened in the course of those events that I find particularly shady (like hosing the Delphi ppl during auto bailout)- but I am not basing my view off his economics or leftist stance, no matter how idiotic I believe it to be. Because incompetence and evil are certainly different, and incompetence should be ruled out before assigning ill-intent.


I do not see how someone could take those factors and , accepting that they were true, not come to the same conclusion I have. Also, there is a lot more where that came from. A *lot* more. I also believe that the buck stops with him. If he did not approve of actions taken by underlings, and they are not representative of the ethics he holds, they should have been/be fired and in some cases investigated. If they arent, then I hold him responsible for them. Just like I did and do with Bush. I dont think Bush actually had a plan to destroy the fabric of this country. I think he sat on the sidelines drooling while his appointees did it for him willy-nilly. Doesnt matter, he took an oath of office that in my view he failed to live up to, including defense of the Constitution. Also by failing to enforce ethics on his inner circle when in a position of power I also attribute to him the actions of his underlings.

Well I can see your position more clear now - Every president, based on actions of their administration, since Reagan was/is evil. I will admit this is a very consistent view. I even agree with you in principle. Unfortunately I do not think that our modern political system could produce anything else. This was also the reason I was rooting for Ron Paul, despite disagreeing with him on a large number of issues. Despite knowing that there is no way he would ever get a nomination.

Do you think Romney, given that he also very likely going to be considered evil by application of this standard, is likely to be more or less evil than Obama?

You may think I am stupid, but it is the second four years where a president has nothing to lose where they have the most influence and will go with their gut and real core values.

My personal political views are much more liberal (Duh!), and in line with Obama's. The social issues, human rights, and the infiltration of the religious right into our laws are just plain scary to me.

Watching the Koch brothers funding Citizens United and buying Clarence Thomas right in front of our faces is a prime example of what I personally want to fight against.

Justices Thomas and Scalia have both been frequent guests of the Kochs. Between 2003 and 2007, Virginia Thomas, wife of Justice Thomas, was paid $686,589 by the Heritage Foundation, which was funded by David and Charles Koch.

These are the same guys planning on spending $400,000,000 on electing the Romney team.

To me, the choice is totally clear.

Thats the great question of the day. My general position is that he is more deserving of the chance because it is not yet known that he will be.

As I said earlier, I put it at about 80% that Romney would be as bad. It would be 100% except he is independently wealthy and Mormon. So he may not feel as much like he has to succumb to outside pressure and actually surprise some people with some honest govt.

Honestly, after finding out that Obama is a pathological liar and an extremist at heart... the thought of 4 more years of Omaba "following his gut" genuinely terrifies me.

Plus I am not sure its true... yeah its "conventional wisdom" because it "sounds logical"... but looking back on the second terms of recent Presidents, I cannot say that you could actually make much of a case from empirical evidence.

Rather, the influence of corruption at the top has time to penetrate even further.. and entrenched folks who are temped to follow the dark path are emboldened to try.

In Obamas case, I think that Valerie Jarret and Eric Holder are genuinely terrifying people who need to be removed from the nexus of power ASAP lest they leave a legacy more damaging than Rove and Cheney.

Maybe the next guy will be as bad.... but I figure its better to find out sooner rather than later. Giving corrupt POS only 4 years at a turn instead of 8 might be small solace, but its probably the best that can be accomplished right now.

I don't think you're stupid for thinking that. Obama himself told Medvedev that exact thing when he thought no one was listening. I just hope that Derid's assessment is right and O was lying when he said it.

That's really discouraging.

I'm not a big fan of Ryan. Rubio would have been a better pick, and before people start saying he's not experienced enough need to think back 4 years ago to the shit sandwich that was voted in office.

What about the Ryan pick?

Interesting political analysis. Choice quotes:

Well then The Atlantic needs to get their heads out of their collective asses. What do they think the Tea Party movement is, if not a "civil war" over conservative principles and values?

Tea Party taking over GOP will be the end of conservatism in our lifetime. They are socially conservative (god hate fags), fiscally irresponsible (get your hands off my medicare), don't understand how society works (cutting deps of education, EPA and a number of others).

Fortunately, Tea Party only popular with rural and old white crotchety man. Young, urban and ethnically diverse population will have none of that.

Have you see TV show Glee? That what voter of tomorrow will look like. Now try selling TP to them.

I dont think that your last post is particularly accurate. See huge crowds that Ron Paul draws. I think that a lot of young people are realizing that the cake is a lie, and so are all the promises made by Big Govt. I think that the Tea Party social conservativeness is vastly overhyped by the media.

Also, Glee? I have not seen it.. but nonetheless... I have never seen any TV show produced in my entire life that even marginally resembled reality in regards to how contemporary young people actually act or think.

Dept of education necessary for society? Not by a long shot. The EPA has a place in principle, but could certainly use a re-inventing.

I think your prejudices and assumptions are showing again.

Its not just your prejudice showing, you have no idea what you're talking about.

You've clearly never seen unedited footage of a Tea Party gathering. There are folks at every rally I've seen of every ethnicity and age. In fact, you may recall the Tea Party being excoriated in the media for being gun toting lunatics, and seeing footage of a guy at a rally with an AR-15 slung over his shoulder. They even talked about "white rage" while showing that footage. Problem is, that guy was a black man, but they cleverly edited that to show you what they wanted you to see.

"God hates fags" is the Westboro Baptists and they are a mixture of left and right fringe morons.

Alright Sinj, you made a broad sweeping satement with out fore knowledge.

I go to Tea Party Rallies, I was going to them since Apr 15 2008, in response to Bush bailouts, long before Obama was the front runner. Next, my best friend is gay, he loves the cock, he is in essance a gay version of me, I love the pussy, he loves the cock. Guess what, he goes to Tea Party Rallies also. So take that comment that Tea Party people hate fags and shove it up your ass, you are being insluting and I will insult you in kind.

Next at our Tea Party rallies what is the racial and age make up of said rallies? Glad you asked, while close to 60% are white, the rest are black, latino, and india/pakastiany(sp). The age runs from to those that are to young to walk, to being to old to walk. So once again take your comment and shove it up your ass.


When are people going to take thier head out of thier ass and stop labeling any one that they disagree with as being evil. Really folks, we are beset on all sides by those that wish to divide us to control us, and numb nuts like Sinji eat up and ask for more. My god Sinji, get your head out of your ass.

And as a last note, I still love you Sinji, I think your are a wonderfully smart inspired person, but you say that most backass things, that take away from your hard charger style of getting facts out in the open.

What did you use for your source Derid? I went and looked and the most comprehensive site that wasn't a .gov with a simple yes/no list was this one. Everything else I found had a very obvious bias one way or the other and most of them were summaries with little or no context. While I don't agree with some of these votes, I also don't know his rationale. It's entirely possible that where his votes diverge from my values, there were other things in those bills that I too would have disagreed with.

Having said that, for the most part, I don't have a problem with these votes.

In that case I will defer to your expertise in this matter. Since you are TP, describe to me what TP think of Romney, now that Ryan his running running mate. Also what do you think of Ryan's Plan?



Thank you. Educate me. As you could imagine "what Tea Party rally is like" is not something I could Google and get unbiased account of.

A hall mark for the Tea Party is that it is composed of indevuials. It defys labels on the grounds that each person brings thier own belief and idealogoy, We are held closely by the stance of being fiscal conservative. Yes some groups with in the tea party have a larger ageanda, but using an example of a few to describe all is wrong. Like saying every liberal is brain dead and wants the gov to support them. That is wrong and not true.

So when you ask me to speak for millions of Americans, I can't and won't do it. I can share my insight but not thiers due to I am not them.

Come to Texas, and I will be happy to take you to one. I get updates all the time from ours, the Obama campaign, anf Ron Paul.

Thank you for you generous offer, but I don't think I will be going back to Texas anytime soon. Years I've spent living there were years too many.

What I am trying to get is how enthusiastic is TP about Romney and Romney/Ryan. Current Democratic thinking is that Romney had to pick Ryan in order to get TP energized, that was up until then understandably underwhelmed by the flip-flopper. Did it work?

Did he just use Glee in a argument??

Tea Party became energinzed from my perspective when the SC handed down its desccion on the Affordable Healthcare Act, as a tax. Justice Roberts did more in one sentce then any choice of VP did for team romney. While I feel it does solidfy his central right leanings with the ryan pick. It now opens up for disccusion his views of the ryan budget and how he will apporach it.

Yea, I laughed and vomited a little at the thought, then I laughed again.

Red, despite your insistence that Tea Party and GOP are not socially conservative, sadly this is not the case. Both GOP and TP are far, far right of the country on these issues and the fact that Bachmann or Sanatorium could be taken serious are ticking bombs. They only reason that GOP still exists today is because young people are not very involved in politics.

Yes I used Glee as an example of what modern standard on social issues is.

@Kaotic

Ryan was/is co-sponsor for rounds of Bush tax cuts ("Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act of 2001" and "Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003") and "Death Tax Elimination Act of 2001". Those alone are "big deals".

You do realize that about 40% of the country identify themselves as conservative, 30% moderate, and only 20% liberal, right?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/154889/Nearly-Half-Identify-Economically-Conservative.aspx

Less so for social conservatism.

I did not say that there were no elements that had addentoanl agendes. I infact included that that there are groups with in the Tea Party that do. I said that one core fiber that brings us togather is fiscal conservative. I also liken it that not every liberal is brain dead. Did you gloss over it and are you now trolling?

Your asking me to speak for millions of people that have different opinons on different matters. The Tea Party is a big tent, all are welcome, and a vast majority do shy away from or exclude the social issues. And I will say it one more time, that there are those in it that do make social issues there all or nothing apporach to voteing, but not every one.

You seem intent on labeling, why do you do this? Can we not still be on the same side while have differing views? You seem to want to ripe people apart couse of differnces instead of trying to find things that do bind us togather, and we can work and agree on. The only war in poltics are those that seek to divide us to conquer us.

Cant we all get along?

Where in Texas were you living Sinij?

Lets talk about Ayn Rand. Since Paul Ryan is self-admitted Rand disciple and his Ryan's plan is very much along the lines of objectivism.

Ayn Rand... I share quite a bit in common with her - I too escaped communism while young, I also like her came to US and became successful. I very much agree with her on matters of religion and religious morality. I also like her no-nonsense approach to feminism, where she acknowledges difference in sexes while rejecting inequality.

Where I don't agree with her is her Objectivism philosophy, that I see as a reactionary to communism. Instead of understanding differences and nuances she blindly formulated Anti-Communism doctrine by forming point-by-point opposition to it. Her ideology makes as little sense as communism.

Ayn Rand rejection of altruism, her insistence on individualism ignores the very fabric of society that allows us to exist. Gordon Gekko channeled her ideology in his famous "Greed Is Good" speech.

Allow me to disagree. Ayn Rand blind faith in "rational" self-interest ignores the very obvious fact that self-interest is not, and cannot be rational without society, social contract and laws. Why create when you can take away?

Please assume we're all too stupid to see what is obvious to you, and explain it to us.

Objectivism (Ayn Rand political philosophy) at its core is based on notion of rational egosim. Ayn holds that it is irrational to act against one's self-interest and that combination of individuals acting in self-interest would produce desirable outcome.

Here is an example to demonstrate why such thinking is flawed: For example there is a general vote to set tax rate to 0%. As a well-off individual guided only by self-interest you'd always vote for this. Direct consequence of such tax rate is that there would be no money for infrastructure and society would collapse into anarchy.

Adherence to Ayn Rand ideology leads to conclusion that successful individuals acting in self-interest should renege on Social Contract, because they least benefit from it.

Objectivism ignore the notion of Social Contract; the notion that unlimited natural freedom and self-interest includes freedom to screw others, effectively creating "war of all people against all people". To avoid this society is created, and we as individuals give up some of our natural freedoms (for example freedom to rape and murder each other) in order to establish civil society (where we don't have to worry about getting raped and murdered). Civil Society and Social Contract are not costless, it takes common effort to maintain it and its integrity starts to break down when individual members feel they do not adequately benefit from it (see Somalia).

My own ideology is that individual success is only possible due to access to all benefits society provided to said individual. Once individual becomes successful such individual should honor social contract and put best interest of society ahead of his or her own interest.

We survived until 1913 without an income tax, and only levied occasional taxes to raise funds for things like the civil war.

This line of thinking lies outside of the foundation of our constitution which expressly states that man has the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Your right to liberty precludes someone else's desire to rape you (to use your example). You see, you don't have the "freedom to screw others" without suffering the ramifications of your actions. There is no "social contract" here, there is simply the recognition of each individual's God given rights. The concept of "adequate benefit" from society is a point of fundamental disagreement between you and me. Our society doesn't owe anyone any benefit. The promise of America is that you will be allowed the freedom to pursue your idea of happiness as long as that doesn't impinge on anyone else's rights. This covers everything.

I feel sorry for you, that you don't have enough sense of self worth to know that you can succeed on your own without help from anyone else. I wish that you could have had the childhood that I did, where I learned that there are literally no limits to what you can do in this country, as long as you're willing to work for it. That ability to succeed has nothing to do with a "social contract" and everything to do with our founders' recognition of our rights as human beings and the incorporation of those rights as the foundation of our country.

I am afraid I didn't do good job explaining concepts in a way you could understand.

"God given right" that you mention and Constitution are both social contracts, or do you think fear of getting smitten or getting damned to hell is what keeps people from raping and pillaging?

If you are so sure you could succeed on your own, would you move to Somalia and try it there? Why not?

By strict definition of the words that can be said to be true about our constitution (except that's not what liberals mean by the phrase "social contract") but not about our rights. Our constitution is a recognition of the natural rights of man. Rights that all men are born with, not "rights" that are assigned by the government. Once you believe as you do, that rights come from the government, then there is nothing stopping them from taking them away.

What keeps people from raping and pillaging is many-fold, but some of the basics are:
I don't kill others because I don't want to be killed in retribution.
I don't kill others because I value the sanctity of human life.
I don't kill others because I respect and cherish their rights as much as I respect and cherish my own.
I don't kill others because I it violates my moral code.


I have no desire to move to Somalia because the Somali government doesn't recognize and protect the rights of its people as our constitution does. However, while it would be incredibly difficult, I am confident that I would thrive or find a way to change my circumstances, up to and including leaving if necessary. Which, I believe you mentioned, is how you got here. I'm confident in that belief because I believe in the indomitable will of humanity, and its irrepressible desire for freedom. I do not believe that the government must take care of me or anyone else. That's MY job!

So Sinij, are you willing to admit that you made a baseless claim to demonize millions of people just couse you do not agree with them?

I have read about TP asking GOP to not focus on social issues. Interesting. I will change my mind about TP/GOP when they stop pandering to no abortions/no gay marriage crowd and actually condemn bigots/sexists.

Examples:

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statem...-pride-events-/

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/us/politics/13tea.html?_r=1



http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/tea-party-nation-gay-rights-will-doom-america




So red, are they all wrong and you are right?

Random though, why is TP and GOP always harp on social welfare but never mention corporate welfare? Like corn ethanol of even 70+ bil spent on Big Oil?

The politifact article is about some pre-TP event regarding some mayoral candidate in FL. I dont see how it is relevant to the discussion.

The NYtimes article does not seem to support your position, I am not sure why you posted it. Article talks about all the various types of right leaning groups, and how some "claim" the TP mantle.

The rightwing watch is just a report of a post on TPN- the Judson Philips site. Judson is a guy who made a website... and... people can post things on it. When they post an original topic, it gets emailed to all the members. I signed up at one point... email got spammed with like 5-10 posts a day.

So, someone posted something on a random TP site and due to the mechanic of the site the post got emailed out to people on the site mailing list. People also can post on the topic and if you know anything about TPN, you know that there are all sorts of huge debates about all sorts of things.

Interestingly enough, Judson was a big Newt supporter.. Newt is nothing at all like a TP guy. Lots of TPers dont even consider TPN to be a real TP site, though it claims the name. It is a general grass roots conservative site.

Talk about bad examples.

Also, the TP I am familiar with does talk quite a lot about corporate welfare. The GOP/conservative sites dont so much, but thats actually one good way to tell if a TP group is a real TP group or a GOP front with Tea Party in the name.

----------


Heres an idea.

http://www.teapartynation.com/forum/topi...steel-trap-mind

This is a pro-Ryan post on TPN. Now, go read some of the community replies. See what they talk about. Learn a little bit about even a single, even GOP/oriented Tea Party group.

^This.

You don't see this reported on the news or on the left leaning sites because they have an agenda, and honest reporting of the facts would be counter productive for them.

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/arti...olicy-victories

Interesting Tea Party article. Though not the point of the article, it is quite apparent that there are many many different Tea Parties - even national ones, let alone local - and regional Tea Parties , and they all work on various things that are important to them locally. Often times without even using a Tea Party name.

Also, Kaotic I forget exactly which site I was on looking at Ryans voting record. This that pissed me off on it were voting for PAtriot Act, voting for TARP, voting for Bush Medicare expansion.. and a few other things.

Sinij, I think you misunderstand Ayn Rand and your analysis of Objectivism is way off the mark. Objectivism doesnt believe in no-govt.. it espouses the concept of the rights of individuals and the concept that govt is only good when it protects individuals as opposed to promoting collectivist idealism with physical force. You ought to read Atlas Shrugged sometime for yourself, instead of relying on leftist sites to tell you what Objectivism is about.


Also.... Somalia reference again? /facepalm

Because having a simplified and transparent Federal Govt that focused on having a strong military, a high level of actual electoral accountability due to the "weeds" being sorted out locally, courts and basic infrastructure would result in various ethnic warlords setting up tribal kingdoms. Uh huh. Sure. /doublefacepalm

Sinji, others responded before I have and are right, you can call yourself a Tea Party Group with out being a Tea Party Group.

Also I think the problem people have is that it is a group with no national identy. You can think progressives, and the mind is filled with past and current leaders, and a charter of thier stance on everything. You can think GOP and get the same picture.
The reason it is hard todo this with the Tea Party is the fact it is a massive grass roots. The Occupy Wallstreet Movement to me is much the same. It is a new movement, it is grassroots, it have no hardcore set doctrine.

That being said, there will allways be those groups that will push social issues under the umberal of a larger movement. I have stated this before several times, and I will keep stating it. Your stance to label and demonize people is a driving force that is used by not only those on the left but on the right that wish to divide us to conquer us.

Will do. I can't tell apart real/not real TP websites, so appreciate heads-up.

I read comments in your link, they were better than I expected, but...



So as a senior you voted and supported spindrift governments your entire life, and when finally there is a push to do something you want to excuse the very people that ought to take most responsibility from a fallout. I am all for supporting senors, but not when it bluntly "I already got mine" way. Even I have limits. Combination of "repeal Obamacare" + "keep your hands off the medicare" opinions really piss the fuck out of me. If this is your opinion allow me to extend invitation to go fuck yourself from all young/younger people, you selfish pricks.

Plus, from the same site...

Supporting Ryan - http://www.teapartynation.com/profiles/blogs/political-deserts
Blaming Democrats for everything - http://www.teapartynation.com/profiles/blogs/the-democrats-are-the-problem
Most active thread on forums - Birthers http://www.teapartynation.com/forum/topics/the-eligibility-issue
Thread on Ryan, all supportive - http://www.teapartynation.com/forum/topics/the-decision-has-been-made

Derid, were you hoping I would not look around?

No, I was making the point that even on a GOP/Conservative (not real TP) site, that there is all sorts of difference of opinion.

Judson himself (the owner) was a Newt guy as I said, not really what you call TP. But even on his site, where he ultimately controls what goes on the front page there are still plenty of different voices and opinion especially in the comments.

Look around all you like, maybe even make some note of some of the things that are said. Because some have merit (not all). Its more or less the GOP equivalent of the Huffpost.

Things to note:

1) Its a GOP/conservative site, not true TP.
2) Lots of people posting different things, none are paid contributors.. its just people. Though Judson will veto things he doesnt like, no Paul people allowed for example.
3) Even with Judson running it the way he does, you still see a lot of discussion and varying opinion in the comments.

I think this is key to understanding your misunderstanding. The Tea Party isn't a centralized, nationally run, political party. It is random groups of concerned citizens who see a problem and are standing up to effect a change. The desire by the left and the media to pigeon-hole the Tea Party into some some vast Koch funded, right wing hate group precludes honest reporting on/of Tea Party events. The right is also guilty of projecting their desires onto the Tea Party in their attempt to co-op them.

I hope you can appreciate how difficult it is for me to keep this conversation constructive, there is just so much temptation in here...

Can I ask you in the future to be more specific in presenting "This is 'My Type' of Tea Party opinion" in the future. I understand idea behind not defining the movement, but for anyone looking from the outside refusal to define is just an open-ended invitation to define it based on labels.

Sinij... not really... If you want to stop trying to be constructive feel free though, I thoroughly enjoy responding to open invitations at deconstruction as you well know.

And its not refusing to define a movement... its the objective reality that a general label of "Tea Party" applies in some form or fashion to literally thousands of groups. Its very heterogeneous movement.

The labels you have been trying to attach to the movement though, and the lefties in general have been trying to attach... are akin to me calling every Dem a Marxist. I have known plenty of Dems, and plenty of liberals.. and even been to a few Dem campaign events. Guess what..... plenty of Marxists. Yeap, even at Dem campaign events I have known true Marxists.

There is a Marxist element in some areas of the Dem party. This is objective fact. However, if you try to call the Dem party a Marxist party, most Dems take offense. So, because there are a few pockets of Marxism in the Democrat party... should anyone be able to label them all as Marxists?

If you bother to take some time to truly understand the dynamics in the Dem party.. its actually pretty apparent that the vast majority of Dems arent Marxists. Even though portions of the right wing media likes to make the claim.

Its really pretty simple. Put the shoe on the other foot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UdNAOoCX-M&feature=youtu.be

Interesting commentary. Lots of truth.

I will have to watch it when I get home.

From what I have seen, and with what we have recently discussed in mind, it appears that aggregation of Tea Party establishments are now enthusiastic about Romney/Ryan ticket on basis of it being fiscally conservative, despite past and present evidence that they are not fiscally conservative.

Do you agree with above statement?

The ones that are into the GOP ticket... I think are largely into it because its perceived as more fiscally conservative than Obama. Right now the anti-Obama folks are cheerleading.. and a lot of other people are still trying to decide what to think about it.

Theres some mistrust... but lots of the conservative movement doesnt trust anything from the NYT/CBS/etc the same way you wont look at anything from Fox/WSJ/etc. There isnt going to be a lot of anti-Ryan articles circulating on the right wing media right now.. though there has been a small amount.

Initial VP pick is always followed by a round of loud cheerleading, what will be interesting to see.. is what the perception is after things have a chance to settle down and shake out some.

Most of the enthusiasm has to do mostly I think, with the fact that he was targeted so hard by the left previously. The Dems basically created something of a folk hero with that "Push Grandma off the cliff" ad, which was also universally panned.

But yeah, people are currently thinking of him as a fiscal conservative.. even though many things on his record dont really support that.

Democrats on other hand already started celebrating and feel elections are now "sure thing". I am somewhat concerned and think it is too early to celebrate, last time "sure thing" gave us Bush's 2nd term. At this point policy-only elections would be Obama's, but it is never plays out this way. I am also concerned about Voter ID laws getting rolled out in Pennsylvania. While I normally do not opposed to such laws, timing of this could not be interpreted as anything but vote suppression.

While I feel you are right here, I do think unforantly that the push for anyone but Obama, people will not sit down and make a truely informed vote. Instead make a kneee jerk push. I feel whom ever is elected/reelected must be held to higher standards. I truely wish Ryan would do an over haul of his plan, and aim to make it a 20% tax/ 20%spend balance.


And on a side note about the Tea Party, you are right, if you dont define who you are, you are allowing others to define you. I think that is something that should be worked on, but alast with no central organaztion, I do not see it happening. Instead you will see some one attempt to co-op, and then get burned.

Hypothetical question:

If you were given a choice to vote for Second term for Obama or Second term for Bush Jr., who would you vote for?

I voted for Gore the first time. I did not agree with Bushes pick for VP, I thought then, as I do now that Cheney is a bad man, I dont call people evil, but if i did, he would be at the top of my list.

I went with Bush for a secound term. I belive he did the right thing in his responce to 9/11. Iraq was mis handled, he should of dumped Rumsfield from the get go.

Now if I was to choose from Obama or Bush for a secound term.... I cant, one was a sitting war president, and the other ran on doing the right thing in Afgan, and then waited and he hawed for 30 days as more soldiers died. So ont he bases of the war, Bush.

Now take it out of the war, and look at bail outs. They both did them, I disagreed with both of them. So niether would get my vote based on that.

Next Bush and the passage of the Patriot Act, that erdoded civil liberties, I would not vote for. Now take Obama and his excuation of Americans with out a trail, I would not vote for.

I do agree that healthcare needed an over haul, what i disagree with is the way it was done, and some of the policys there in.


Honestly, I would not vote for either one of them for a secound term during peace time. During war time, I would vote for Bush a secound term. Obama, from my point of view, is to wishy washy about standing up for America.

What about ending war in Iraq and killing off Bin Laden?

What about creating TSA?

Obama did not end the war in Iraq, but rather failed to come to an agreement over SOFA. All he had todo was nothing, Bush handed the end of the Iraq war to Obama on a silver platter.

As for killing Osama, he does get points for it. But he fails to acknoldge the intleage network set up under Bush. I still blame Bush to this day for not getting him.

I think the TSA performs unwarrented searches in violation of our civil rights. While started under Bush, Obama has done nothing to curb thier illegal power. When we started to ignore our civil liberties in the name of secuirty, then the enemy has won.

If Obama came out tommorow and said that NASA will recive 1% of GDP for funding, I would vote for him. If he came out tommorow and ask congress to repeal the Afforable Healthcare Act, only if they had a better one ready to go in its place, I would vote for him. If Obama comes out tommorow and tells the UN that the US will never give up its 2nd Admenament Rights, I would really think about voting for him. If Obama came out tommorow with a budget plan that follows the princpale of 20% tax/20% spend, I would really really think of voting for him.

He can still in the next 2 months make the changes needed to not only secure a 2nd term, but put America on a course that would truely be an example for the rest of the world to follow.

Good post Red.

If Obama in fact had accomplished anything or wanted to accomplish anything that was good for most of us... I would find him much more palatable.

But since I am not in a union, work for a friendly megacorp like GE or a megabank like Goldman Sachs or the "green" energy industry... its kind of hard.

Especially when the economic livelihood of my general region, and the region where much of my family lives is highly influenced by fossil fuels.. especially coal, which Obama has all but declared war on.

Difference between Dem and GOP ticket is the distance between "certainly" as in 4 more years of Obama "certainly" will not be to beneficial, and "probably" where 4 years of the GOP ticket will "probably" not be beneficial.

In all reality though, theres at least a 50% chance I will vote for a third party anyhow.

Slate deconstructs Ryan's foreign policy speech

What is your thoughts on what I posted Sinij?

I thought it was surprisingly reasonable.

Sinij, do you ever read anything that isn't wholly and completely biased towards your point of view? Current medium excepted.

lol, when have I posted something that was way out in left or right field?

I been preaching tolerance from day 1. That is the only way we can real change in the system.

I actually do it all the time. For example I read WSJ, Forbes regularly, both are considered right-leaning. I only truly ignore FOX, nothing but noise ever comes out of that cesspool of ignorance. I believe in knowing my enemy, so to speak. I could channel Tea Partier or Birther or GOP rank-and-file fairly well. Would you like me to demonstrate? It is very natural to assume that others disagree with you because they don't understand your point of view. Let me assure you this is not the case.

The level of hate you seem to have for other people is amazing Sinij.

So how do you respond to "have you stopped beating your wife" kind of a comment? You could point out, that no, you never beat your wife and actually you are not even married. Such response is largely pointless, person that would ask you such question is not really interested in your point of view. What they interested in is ether provoking you or projecting on you.

So, Red, are you trying to provoke me or projecting something one? And have you finally stopped beating your wife?

Nope, I beat her every day, a good 600-700 times an hour. You see, you deflect thier stupid comment with something that is impossible.

Next how is my comment from my propescting provokeing, or projecting? I used the word "seem", you could not be a hater of others that disagree with you, but useing the word seem opens up the possiblity from my point of view that you may or may not.

So Sinij, I will say it once again, the level of hate you seem to have for other people is amazing.

It might be not part of your culture, or upbringing or both but it is fairly common understanding that it is OK to disagree.

In case you are not aware, I am letting you know that you no longer arguing politics and instead are now personally attacking me. Did you intend it to come through that way?

I thought I would add something...

Where have I not showen that it is wrong to disagree? Where I have I showen that it is wrong to disagree? I have showen that I will stand up when people make sweeping general statement about millions of people based on hate.

How is asking you about hating people attacking you? If I was to ask a racist why he hates black people(which I have done) is it consider attacking them? no, I am given them a chance to explain why they feel the way they do. You seem to have no desire to truely back up your stance with your own words. You use other words, or defelect when you are forced to answer. You cry attack when you are given a chance to explain. I have given you every chance to have the floor to explain your point of view, but you deflect, you make assumations, you attack millions of people. The hate you seem to show is just as bad as the hate I have seen from people from the right. And yes this is still polictis. Peoples hate or non hate does influnace who they vote for.

I gave you plenty of chances to redeem this conversation, comparing/accusing me of racism, hating people is an intellectual dead-end of this conversation. Don't insult my intelligence by staging kangaroo trials here.

No sir, I have given you chances, and you knee jerk back into deflecting, into deemeaning millions of people. I have not now nor ever insulted your intelligence, however you are attempting to play a victim when there has been no crime. I have not compraed you to racsim, but I have compred you to being a hater that makes sweeping statments about millions of people, when you can not even be bothered to go to one of there rallies and see first hand.

You insulted my intelligence by insinuating that simply disagreeing with your political views, opinions and value system is something that is not based on reason, and reason alone, but instead is somehow based on irrational emotion, hate. You present your Tea Party is some kind of vulnerable minority that is being prosecuted instead of what it truly is - economics Omish movement, and I am some irrational evil-doer hell-bent on prosecuting it that would see reason and join it if I could only stop acting hysterically.

I really don't mind insult and attacks, but what irks me when I have to wonder "does he think I am stupid to try to pull this off? does he really expect this to work?"

You sir give me more credit then you think. How have I disagreed with your policatal views, or opionions or value system? I have disareed with you on your hate and attack on millions of people that have a different opion then yours. I present the Tea Party as a collation of Americans from different back grounds, from different ages. That belive in a core of being fiscal conservative. I have admitted that there are those within it that go to far in pushing social issues. You on the other hand protray the Tea Party as out to change America by forcing an end to aboration, by takeing away peoples chooses in who they vote for. You have heaped upon them such negativty that is has come across as being nothing less then hate. Your words are what have stated this stance.

I am not here to pull the wool over peoples eyes. I am not here telling people that what they belive is evil and leading to the destruction of the world. What I have preached is tolerance for others peoles views. Asking people to explain themselves. Opening the doors for more conversation.

You see a conspricay agasint you. I see a person that refuses to accept that ability to change. I am more then willing to change, I am not perfect, I belive there are those that know more then me. However I am not navie enough to think everyone has my best intrest at heart. I listen to both sides, I think for myself, and choose to make the best descion on the information I have that I have verifed for myself.

I am trying to understnad why you seem to have so much hate for the GOP, for people that go to Tea Parties. These folks think differently then you, hell they think differently then I do. But I am willing to give people a chance, you seem to want to attack them.

I am trying to understand you.

Paul Ryan got busted lying about requesting stimulus money.

Romney advisers confirm it: We’re running a `just trust me’ campaign.

Ryan forced to moderate on abortion.

Meh.

Everyone has an opinion on politics, much like religion. Truth is, the opinions don't amount to much until you're running for office. Then they tend to come back to haunt you. :|

You all should quit worrying about politics. The politicians certainly don't care what we all think. If you think otherwise, you're deluded. ( Or you should run for office )

Usually the passage I think of when folks start taking politics, religion, ( or anything for that matter ) too damn seriously is this one by Carl Sagan:



We succeeded in taking that picture [from deep space], and, if you look at it, you see a dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever lived, lived out their lives. The aggregate of all our joys and sufferings, thousands of confident religions, ideologies and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilizations, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every hopeful child, every mother and father, every inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every superstar, every supreme leader, every saint and sinner in the history of our species, lived there on a mote of dust, suspended in a sunbeam.

The earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that in glory and in triumph they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of the dot on scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner of the dot. How frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds. Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the universe, are challenged by this point of pale light.

Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity -- in all this vastness -- there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves. It is up to us. It's been said that astronomy is a humbling, and I might add, a character-building experience. To my mind, there is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly and compassionately with one another and to preserve and cherish that pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known.

@Sinij
Ah yes the great abortion topic. Few things get people to abandon their senses, ignore real issues that make an immediate material difference in real life and go into state of political tunnel vision like talking about abortion.

As long as people are talking about wedge issues, they arent talking about things that might actually put the powers that be in a tight spot.

--
@ Daye

Sagan was an interesting fellow. I still remember reading Cosmos that I got out of the school library in 4th grade. Its quite safe to say that... not his conclusions.. but his mindset and style of analysis had a great impact on me that I still carry around to this day.

Ty Dave.

GOP in Compromise on Mortgage-Interest Deduction



That much for trying to be fiscally-conservative small-government.

Yet another election about rolling back society to 50th. Let economy burn, debt spiral but GOP WILL NOT LET ABORTION STAND!

Why Todd Akin Isn't Dropping Out—and What It Means

Abortion is such a minor issue, dont really see why you are focusing on it.

It is ammo the Obama team can use against Romney. Even if Team Romney had the excat smae thoughts on it as Obama. It will throw a wedge faster then anything else. Team Obama wants to take the focus off the econmy, jobless rate, the difference of spend to revnue, the mounting natinoal debt. It is something they want to talk about so people will ignore everything else. It has been used succefully in the past.

Abortion is fairly minor issue (unless you are a woman denied reproductive rights), but usually abortion is directly tied to the rights of sexual and ethnic minorities. Abortion + Immigration + Gay Marriage => 1 social-conservative package. Some would also throw evolution on top of that, but I think ignorance is entirely separate issues and is a co-morbidity of the above.

Its well established that the GOP has a large strain of social conservatism, and I obviously would like to see that reduced.

If the Dems had *any significant wing that either made economic sense or cared about the rights of individuals I would be a Democrat.

I agree, in fact growwing up in my family we were dems, they are to this day. I am the only one that went indepent and wanted to look beyond any one side to try and find other solutions.

AHAHAHAA. thats a riot. so the voting public of the future is going have a totally balanced demographic profile? one that reinforces every dopey stereotype liberals believe?

the population of the US is getting older, and more Hispanic. those are the trends.

Your attitudes about the Tea Party couldnt be more wrong. Its like Im reading Rachel Maddows diary with your posts. the tea parties i went to were not well funded. they were full of all kinds of people. to this day no one has. een able to post a pic or vid of any tea partiers committing violence, advocating violence, using racial, sexual, or even cultural epithets

Your posts on this subject are full of lies and hearsay. stick to what youre good at: reposting other peoples opinions.

if you dare to look, heres some coverage of OWS, so you have some idea what hateful, violent, despicable people actually look like.

http://pjmedia.com/zombie/2011/10/24/is-occupy-oakland-as-bad-as-they-say/

@Cheerio

So it seems that Romney is no stranger to government bailouts... he even has a history of getting them with his "we built it" business.

Bailouts of Bain & Company



Lets read this again:

I suggest GOP change their moto to "We bailt it".

i guess this is what is considered an adequate response:

I guess from your response you are pro-bailouts?

Let me illustrate it for you:


FDIC



ROMNEY

"I find no fault with the ideals I follow. I find nothing but fault with ideals of others that do not agree with me. I will attack the ideals of anyone I feel is against my ideals wither I have proff of it or not. If proff is offered that proves me wrong I will ignore it, deflect, and counter attack."

Okaaay.

Sinij, I knew you would post that pic of us when we were in Thialand buying blow and grabing some hookers. :)

Guilty pleasures. The best kind.

im not for bailouts. a question: what does the "I" in FDIC stand for?

also: i dont believe in income tax, but i still cash my tax return checks

Does I stand for TARP, because I am fairly sure D stands for Deposit and not bad business Decisions.

so you dont know, or are you refusing to answer because it will sink your argument?

when it comes to tarp, not sure why you think you can beat me over the head with it: your precious jil stein thinks it was too small!

the "I" in FDIC stands for "insurance", so was it a bailout or a claim?

FDIC bailed him out. They were created as a response to Great Depression "run on the bank". Traditional function of FDIC is to a) insure deposits of the consumers and b) take over failed banks to do "a". Anything not "a" or "b" is a bailout.

WSJ - Romney Struggles to Gain Traction in Battlegrounds



I think the fat lady just sang.

Great! There's really no need for you to brave the masses and push your way into the polling place in November. :D

Usual asshatery from the usual suspects:

More on post-truth Romney:

Republicans Race to Criticize Obama in Wake of Attacks on U.S.

Pretty sure his statement was in reference to the attacks in Libya not Egypt. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I am sure you are all aware about recent Romney comments that were recorded at a closed-door donor event.

He said: "All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what ....These are people who pay no income tax. "

Here is good analysis of how he is wrong:

Where Are the 47% of Americans Who Pay No Income Taxes?



I will go even further and claim that GOP' war on "social safety nets" is one of the key contributor to such "disproportional" distribution.

Here is uncomfortable truth - strong social safety nets lead to decreased poverty, and to fewer people not paying any federal taxes.

Just because they are red states doesn't mean they aren't full of folks who are on the government dole, who do, in fact, vote for the guy who promises them more stuff from everyone else. What it does mean is that the rest of us show up in force because we know we have to counter that vote. I've lived in 3 of those states and I can tell you its the same in all three.

So, he insulted people that were not going to vote for him anyway.

Pretty much.

Not a huge issue considering all candidates think the same way. They're not trying to "woo" the other sides candidates. That's a lost cause. Is why they concentrate on certain states to begin with.

They're trying to get to the undecided folks.

The way I see it, either way we go will likely suck.

If I had any faith in humanity, I'd lose it just by arguing with conservatives.

No, actually a number of "47%" people do vote for GOP ticket, and there are more of these people in red states, when compared to blue states.

Some of these people are retirees, some of these people are 0.5% that dodge taxes and most of these people that are poor and still pay other kinds of taxes, just not federal taxes.

If you only focus on his comments in context of poor, Romeny's comments are ridiculous and shows how out of touch this ivy tower plutocrat is.

Still, I am willing to give him benefit of the doubt and assume he was talking about himself and his pre-2010 tax returns that put him firmly into that 47%.

According to NPR, 12% non tax payers are disabled, along with anthoer 7-8% retirees. So thats roughly 19%-20%, those that have paid into the belly of the beast, and those that have come to the point of being unable to work.

Also, who said I was consertive? I belive in fiscal consertive but nothing running for election or reelection has that.

I also might add that I dont payroll federal income taxes, I have enough kids and depents not to. So instead of giving the fed an intreast free loan every year I keep it. How ever I do pay property taxes, school tax, hosptial tax, college tax, but those are reduced by 30% for being disabled thru the VA.

You are in 47%, yet you don't think Romeny's comments are out-of-touch?

WSJ - Time for an Intervention

Tampa debacle clearly illustrated as much. Articles now popping up pretty frequently on conservative websphere trying to beg/guilt/cajole the liberty wing of the party to come help beat Obama. Its pretty humorous.

Now that Mitt has served to crush the various grassroots elements in the GOP both for this year and 2016 - expect the neocons he thought he had sufficiently pandered to start turning on him, so they can put up another Bush in 2016 and keep the Bush/Obama/Bush cycle of corruption flowing.

You think I am joking? Just watch.

To me, he has insulted people that would not vote for him anyway. Yes, I am part of the 47%, but since I live in Texas, my vote does not matter one way or the other.

Obama has not showen he has done enough, and what he has done, I feel he has gone about it the wrong way.

Romney is an unkown to me on if he will be better then or worse then Obama. But I am willing to give him a chance, and if he does not do the job, then flush him down the toliet and move on to the next guy.

Sleep with the dogs...

Primary difference is Romney hasn't said "i won't work with lobbyists" while Mr. Obama made that a primary stance of his first campaign, then proceeded to fill his white house with them.

The Stench



Ouch.



Ouch.