Mitt Romney's Leaked Fundraiser Video

[Skoozle]

It's hard to be honest 100% of the time and nearly impossible to do 100% of the things you want to do.

The sad fact of the matter is that if a candidate is honest, he won't sound half as good as the guy who's vomiting fairy tails everytime he opens his mouth.

With that being said, you'd be hard pressed to find a candidate more truthful than Gary Johnson. Look at his goals and then look at what he did in New Mexico.

You may not agree with what he wants to do, but I think you can expect him to try his best to do everything he says he wants to do.

[gramps]

[quote name='ChicagoRSX' timestamp='1348161343' post='556834']
[quote name='gramps' timestamp='1348086088' post='556779']
I'm just a hard-working American who is sick and tired of being lied to by my President.
[/quote]

You show me a politician/presidential candidate that doesn't lie to the American public and I will personally place my lips on your backside, but I'm pretty sure my lips are safe.
[/quote]
Aye, you're right. But some lie even when they don't have to lie. The ones I hate parse their words carefully so that it's hard to tell they're lying.

[headhunter]

[quote name='Skoozle' timestamp='1348149841' post='556826']
[quote name='Hassouni' timestamp='1348011117' post='556693']
[quote name='headhunter' timestamp='1348010204' post='556690']
And to be honest i have never liked him as i have stated before, this video just furthers my idea that he should not be the leader of this country (as Chris has stated), even if that means Obama gets back in (even though im not voting for either of them) he would still be better than Romney. just my
[/quote]

If you further believe he should not be the leader of this country, abstaining from the vote or [b]voting for somebody with zero chance doesn't help manifest your opinion[/b].

[/quote]

Really, Man?!

You think the best way for him to represent his opinion is to vote for someone he doesn't like? It's this kind of thinking that has America trapped in this two-party system.

The voting is anonymous. If you vote for a loser, no one will make fun of you.

If no one votes for a third party because they have "zero chance" of course they won't win. But if everyone voted for who they actually thought was the best candidate, we might actually get a good president. or at the very least, improve our chances for getting a good president in 2016 or 2020.

It's not a horse race or a football game where we are betting on who will win. It's the presidential election where we are voting on who we want to win. It's a decision we have to live with for the next 4 years.

Don't encourage people to vote for the lesser of two evils because if everyone does, we will absolutely end up with another 4 years under an evil president.


[quote name='IainUM' timestamp='1348097768' post='556795']
pass, i'm not voting this year, so i don't want to see them
[/quote]

Take an hour or so out of your day on Nov. 6 to let your opinion be known. Overall only about 70% of elegible voters actually vote. Why? probably because they don't like the Dem. or Rep. option. If all of those voters voted for a third party that they believe in, the third party would have a great shot at winning.

You're not going to get what you want unless you ask for it.
[/quote]

sir, +1 for coming up to bat for me as well as voicing an opinion that it seems so few have. Thank you for restoring some of my faith in Humanity.

[Rani]

I really believe in the hopes of a true multi party system, however I have decided I'm going to vote late and keep an eye on the early returns because every instinct I have tells me if it's truly close we'd better support Obama. I've spent the last few weeks really investigating them both and I'm convinced that Obama is a better person than most people think he is and that Romney would be the absolute death of any business not a trans national corporation. I had the same gut reaction to Reagan and 90% of where we are now is directly resulting from his changes to government. Like Henry the Eighth they let him loose and all hell broke loose from there.

'Rani

[Chreees]

They're all going to say shit to get elected. It's all about who you think will have your best interests in mind the most. For example, Obama has already helped me by allowing my wife and I to stay on our parents' insurance until we're 26, which GREATLY helps our situation until we're able to find better-paying jobs where we can afford our own insurance. With pre-existing conditions gone, we will have a much easier time getting insurance, due to my wife's thyroid, kidney, and knee issues. Also, taxes are much less for us common people than they were under Bush, or even Clinton. Therefore, for the things he has done for me and my family, I am inclined to vote for him again. But I also like Gary Johnson a good bit the more I hear about him, so I dunno. I'm as of yet undecided on who I will vote for. But I think overall Obama has done a decent job, so I'll probably just give him my vote again.

Iain- Voting is important, especially in your state. As it seems to be every election, Florida is a major swing state, so your vote matters more than mine here in Tennessee, which Romney is going to win anyway. I agree with what Skoozle said. I guess you don't have to vote at all if you truly do not care, but if you are unhappy with both major candidates, feel free to write in whoever you want. Write in the Dos Equis man!

[Chreees]

This seemed relevant, lol:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-september-19-2012/chaos-on-bulls--t-mountain

[Rani]

[quote name='Chreees' timestamp='1348202414' post='556891']
[color=#0000cd][b]They're all going to say shit to get elected. It's all about who you think will have your best interests in mind the most. [/b][/color]For example, Obama has already helped me by allowing my wife and I to stay on our parents' insurance until we're 26, which GREATLY helps our situation until we're able to find better-paying jobs where we can afford our own insurance. With pre-existing conditions gone, we will have a much easier time getting insurance, due to my wife's thyroid, kidney, and knee issues. Also, taxes are much less for us common people than they were under Bush, or even Clinton. Therefore, for the things he has done for me and my family, I am inclined to vote for him again. But I also like Gary Johnson a good bit the more I hear about him, so I dunno. I'm as of yet undecided on who I will vote for. But I think overall Obama has done a decent job, so I'll probably just give him my vote again.

Iain- Voting is important, especially in your state. As it seems to be every election, Florida is a major swing state, so your vote matters more than mine here in Tennessee, which Romney is going to win anyway. I agree with what Skoozle said. I guess you don't have to vote at all if you truly do not care, but if you are unhappy with both major candidates, feel free to write in whoever you want. Write in the Dos Equis man!
[/quote]

For me, the most important research I did was to read their own books they wrote themselves. Read Romney's book "No Apology" and if you're not scared to death of him afterwards, you're not thinking straight. Reading Obama's "The Audacity of Hope" and starts to become apparent that he really does care. For most of his political life, his views were formed by the people themselves. He didn't do big speeches for the most part. He went door to door, kept his mouth shut and listened and his thoughts were consistently a work in progress based on those talks. So I think when he's accused for example of backing down on the gay marriage issue, it's not that he just caved into any kind of pressure. He appears, from everything he says in a book he wrote before he considering running for the presidency, to be someone who gives real consideration to what people think. My respect for him did increase after reading the book and I think his biggest "perceived flaw", is the fact that he's very professorial. Not a raging enthusiast. Some people interpret that as smug, but after reading his own words, I don't get him that way at all.

Romney on the other hand most definitely comes across as a much smarter, much more dangerous GW Bush. Same lack of open mind. Same certainty he can do no wrong. He has a huge center focus and never sees the interconnected issues. By that I mean........ Hmmm........ Okay, for example, people are always, always talking about all the people on welfare and how many of them are frauds, etc. Okay, so let's stop all welfare. Fine, done. So what happens to all the people who work in welfare? Social workers, case managers, supervisors, hell all the way down to the janitors. These are people who are cash carrying contributors to our economy. And because their jobs are more stable than most, they tend to be bigger contributors to the economy. They buy homes, cars, television sets, and things that are made in the very same factories the rest of us are working in. So what happens to our jobs when hundreds of thousands of people are now not working and buy? Yeah.....

Social Security is approaching broke, we all know that. We've heard it. But it's clearly broke, even the politicians say so because more people are taking out than are paying in. Romney says it's broke, let's take it away from it's current managers and give control of it to Wall Street because they know how to make money. Obama says let's put more people to work so they're paying more in. Since the problem is not enough people paying in, which approach do you think is the most effective? Shifting a broke system off somewhere where they have to gamble with it? Or solving the core problem? Romney doesn't look below the obvious. Or at the interconnected. And don't even get me started on the fact that he thinks the Pentagon should have all the money they want to do anything they want both here and abroad. Whereas Obama at least tries to be a force for peace.

I highly recommend everybody read both their books. Then make your own decision, not on appearances or media spin, but on who they each appear to be in their own words. Before they aspired to the highest office. I don't think you'll like what you see from Romney. Not at all.

'Rani

[gramps]

Taken to the extreme scenario -- ideally, everybody would either be employed by the government or on welfare? Doesn't scale very well. Or, we could just create more jobs to get able-bodied people off of welfare. I haven't heard a candidate say they want to end all welfare, but nice straw man.

We could means-test Social Security so that the very rich wouldn't receive benefits, and we could raise the limit on the amount of income subject to Social Security taxes. Of course, I would have loved for my "contributions" to have been invested in anything other than government corruption. The market goes up and down, but overall over time it goes up.

[quote]I had the same gut reaction to Reagan and 90% of where we are now is directly resulting from his changes to government.[/quote]
You apparently don't remember Reagan the way I do. I was an adult, married (1977) and starting a family (1979) during this time. I nearly lost everything before Reagan took over. This is more like it really was:

Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures
by Peter Ferrara

In February 2009 I wrote an article for The Wall Street Journal entitled “Reaganomics v Obamanomics,” which argued that the emerging outlines of President Obama’s economic policies were following in close detail exactly the opposite of President Reagan’s economic policies. As a result, I predicted that Obamanomics would have the opposite results of Reaganomics. That prediction seems to be on track.

When President Reagan entered office in 1981, he faced actually much worse economic problems than President Obama faced in 2009. Three worsening recessions starting in 1969 were about to culminate in the worst of all in 1981-1982, with unemployment soaring into double digits at a peak of 10.8%. At the same time America suffered roaring double-digit inflation, with the CPI registering at 11.3% in 1979 and 13.5% in 1980 (25% in two years). The Washington establishment at the time argued that this inflation was now endemic to the American economy, and could not be stopped, at least not without a calamitous economic collapse.

All of the above was accompanied by double digit interest rates, with the prime rate peaking at 21.5% in 1980. The poverty rate started increasing in 1978, eventually climbing by an astounding 33%, from 11.4% to 15.2%. A fall in real median family income that began in 1978 snowballed to a decline of almost 10% by 1982. In addition, from 1968 to 1982, the Dow Jones industrial average lost 70% of its real value, reflecting an overall collapse of stocks.

President Reagan campaigned on an explicitly articulated, four-point economic program to reverse this slow motion collapse of the American economy:

1. Cut tax rates to restore incentives for economic growth, which was implemented first with a reduction in the top income tax rate of 70% down to 50%, and then a 25% across-the-board reduction in income tax rates for everyone. The 1986 tax reform then reduced tax rates further, leaving just two rates, 28% and 15%.

2. Spending reductions, including a $31 billion cut in spending in 1981, close to 5% of the federal budget then, or the equivalent of about $175 billion in spending cuts for the year today. In constant dollars, nondefense discretionary spending declined by 14.4% from 1981 to 1982, and by 16.8% from 1981 to 1983. Moreover, in constant dollars, this nondefense discretionary spending never returned to its 1981 level for the rest of Reagan’s two terms! Even with the Reagan defense buildup, which won the Cold War without firing a shot, total federal spending declined from a high of 23.5% of GDP in 1983 to 21.3% in 1988 and 21.2% in 1989. That’s a real reduction in the size of government relative to the economy of 10%.

3. Anti-inflation monetary policy restraining money supply growth compared to demand, to maintain a stronger, more stable dollar value.

4. Deregulation, which saved consumers an estimated $100 billion per year in lower prices. Reagan’s first executive order, in fact, eliminated price controls on oil and natural gas. Production soared, and aided by a strong dollar the price of oil declined by more than 50%.

These economic policies amounted to the most successful economic experiment in world history. The Reagan recovery started in official records in November 1982, and lasted 92 months without a recession until July 1990, when the tax increases of the 1990 budget deal killed it. This set a new record for the longest peacetime expansion ever, the previous high in peacetime being 58 months.

During this seven-year recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third, the equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany, the third-largest in the world at the time, to the U.S. economy. In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years. Nearly 20 million new jobs were created during the recovery, increasing U.S. civilian employment by almost 20%. Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989.

The shocking rise in inflation during the Nixon and Carter years was reversed. Astoundingly, inflation from 1980 was reduced by more than half by 1982, to 6.2%. It was cut in half again for 1983, to 3.2%, never to be heard from again until recently. The contractionary, tight-money policies needed to kill this inflation inexorably created the steep recession of 1981 to 1982, which is why Reagan did not suffer politically catastrophic blame for that recession.

Real per-capita disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989, meaning the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in just seven years. The poverty rate declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one-sixth from its peak. The stock market more than tripled in value from 1980 to 1990, a larger increase than in any previous decade.

In The End of Prosperity, supply side guru Art Laffer and Wall Street Journal chief financial writer Steve Moore point out that this Reagan recovery grew into a 25-year boom, with just slight interruptions by shallow, short recessions in 1990 and 2001. They wrote:

We call this period, 1982-2007, the twenty-five year boom–the greatest period of wealth creation in the history of the planet. In 1980, the net worth–assets minus liabilities–of all U.S. households and business … was $25 trillion in today’s dollars. By 2007, … net worth was just shy of $57 trillion. Adjusting for inflation, more wealth was created in America in the twenty-five year boom than in the previous two hundred years.

What is so striking about Obamanomics is how it so doggedly pursues the opposite of every one of these planks of Reaganomics. Instead of reducing tax rates, President Obama is committed to raising the top tax rates of virtually every major federal tax. As already enacted into current law, in 2013 the top two income tax rates will rise by nearly 20%, counting as well Obama’s proposed deduction phase-outs.

The capital gains tax rate will soar by nearly 60%, counting the new Obamacare taxes going into effect that year. The total tax rate on corporate dividends would increase by nearly three times. The Medicare payroll tax would increase by 62% for the nation’s job creators and investors. The death tax rate would go back up to 55%. In his 2012 budget and his recent national budget speech, President Obama proposes still more tax increases.

Instead of coming into office with spending cuts, President Obama’s first act was a nearly $1 trillion stimulus bill. In his first two years in office he has already increased federal spending by 28%, and his 2012 budget proposes to increase federal spending by another 57% by 2021.

His monetary policy is just the opposite as well. Instead of restraining the money supply to match money demand for a stable dollar, slaying an historic inflation, we have QE1 and QE2 and a steadily collapsing dollar, arguably creating a historic reflation.

And instead of deregulation we have across-the-board re-regulation, from health care to finance to energy, and elsewhere. While Reagan used to say that his energy policy was to “unleash the private sector,” Obama’s energy policy can be described as precisely to leash the private sector in service to Obama’s central planning “green energy” dictates.

As a result, while the Reagan recovery averaged 7.1% economic growth over the first seven quarters, the Obama recovery has produced less than half that at 2.8%, with the last quarter at a dismal 1.8%. After seven quarters of the Reagan recovery, unemployment had fallen 3.3 percentage points from its peak to 7.5%, with only 18% unemployed long-term for 27 weeks or more. After seven quarters of the Obama recovery, unemployment has fallen only 1.3 percentage points from its peak, with a postwar record 45% long-term unemployed.

Previously the average recession since World War II lasted 10 months, with the longest at 16 months. Yet today, 40 months after the last recession started, unemployment is still 8.8%, with America suffering the longest period of unemployment that high since the Great Depression. Based on the historic precedents America should be enjoying the second year of a roaring economic recovery by now, especially since, historically, the worse the downturn, the stronger the recovery. Yet while in the Reagan recovery the economy soared past the previous GDP peak after six months, in the Obama recovery that didn’t happen for three years. Last year the Census Bureau reported that the total number of Americans in poverty was the highest in the 51 years that Census has been recording the data.

Moreover, the Reagan recovery was achieved while taming a historic inflation, for a period that continued for more than 25 years. By contrast, the less-than-half-hearted Obama recovery seems to be recreating inflation, with the latest Producer Price Index data showing double-digit inflation again, and the latest CPI growing already half as much.

These are the reasons why economist John Lott has rightly said, “For the last couple of years, President Obama keeps claiming that the recession was the worst economy since the Great Depression. But this is not correct. This is the worst “recovery” since the Great Depression.”

However, the Reagan Recovery took off once the tax rate cuts were fully phased in. Similarly, the full results of Obamanomics won’t be in until his historic, comprehensive tax rate increases of 2013 become effective. While the Reagan Recovery kicked off a historic 25-year economic boom, will the opposite policies of Obamanomics, once fully phased in, kick off 25 years of economic stagnation, unless reversed?

[Rani]

I'm a writer myself gramps and we lie when it suits our slant against someone we've decided to hate. Mr. Ferrrera simply is not telling the truth. No economist blessed deregulation for instance, and Obama hasn't actually enacted any economic policies because Congress has stopped him at every endeavor. Blame him for not getting things through if you will but don't then blame him for the result of his having been blocked. Reagan later referred to his own program as voodoo economics. I know you're never going to see beyond you perceptions. If they work for you fine but don't be surprised that our perceptions tell us Romney is the biggest threat to freedom and business we've faced yet.

'Rani

[Rani]

And by the way gramps my suggestion was that you read THEIR own words and judge them on what they themselves say. You and I can quote back and forth what third parties say until hell freezes over and never run out of sources. Read their words. Unless you're afraid to keep an open mind.

'Rani

[gramps]

I haven't had the chance to read anything written by Romney, but I have read Obama's book (I doubt he actually wrote it). It's frightening. I do know that Romney is a man of faith, something I can't say about Obama. Ye shall know them by their fruits. So far all the Obama fruits I see are rotten.

When I made the comment about Obama believing in redistribution, all I got back was "no, not [i]wealth [/i]redistribution", but he plainly told Joe the plumber "when you spread the [i][b]wealth[/b][/i] around . . .". He may have pulled the wool over your eyes, but my eyes are open. Does he have to come to your house, look you straight in the face, and tell you he believes in redistribution for you to believe it? Can you not put 2 and 2 together?

If we can't even get past that, there's no point in going further.

[Chreees]

We get it, Gramps. Obama's an "evil socialist." Not once have I heard the man say, "We must take from the rich, and give to the poor." Again, he's just wanting to even the playing field so that the common man has an actual shot at living the American Dream. You know, like we used to be able to... before Bush and his cronies fucked it all up. Noticed how at the RNC no one cared to talk highly of Bush or his eight years in office? Or really talk about that whole period of time at all? It was as if those 8 years didn't exist. Can't remind the voters that it's actually the Republicans that got us to where we are today! No, that wouldn't be a good selling point at all. They're reliant on skewing the perception of citizens, confusing them as to what really happened and who was responsible for what happened in the past, rewriting history if you will, to get votes. After all, they "don't care about fact-check," right? (Source: [b][url="http://tinyurl.com/9sncy3p"]http://tinyurl.com/9sncy3p[/url][/b] )They ought to just snap back to reality and admit, "Look, we fucked it all up, Obama isn't fixing it fast enough because we're blocking him in every possible way, shape, and form, like we promised we'd do when he was elected, so you should give the situation back to us and we'll make it aaaaall better... using the same policies that put us into this mess in the first place." Yeah, let's do that. Good idea.

I'm really rather tired of the whole "Obama's a socialist" argument. It's pathetic, really. Fact is, he's the worst socialist ever...

[b][url="http://tinyurl.com/8otykvk"]http://tinyurl.com/8otykvk[/url][/b]

[b][url="http://tinyurl.com/6owp4a9"]http://tinyurl.com/6owp4a9[/url][/b]

[b][url="http://tinyurl.com/7lem8uk"]http://tinyurl.com/7lem8uk[/url][/b]

[b][url="http://tinyurl.com/7bbrnbk"]http://tinyurl.com/7bbrnbk[/url][/b]

There's more links, but I think you get the idea. Oh wait... I forgot, all news sources other than Fox News are "the liberal media" and should therefore be ignored.

I'll take "Obama's a socialist" over Romney's blatantly writing off half (the most important half, might I add) of the American population any day of the week.

This funny but true image is for those who argue we're fucked either way:

[attachment=5946:fuckedeitherway.jpg]

One more time...

[Rani]

If wanting to make peace instead of war, if wanting freedom of faith, if feeling like we should actually be helping each other climb higher, if believing even the poor should have equal opportunities, if believing greed is not the ultimate way of life, if believing in education and choice and equal rights for all even the gay and non-white and poor and women makes me too a socialist then I choose that title proudly.

Rani

[Hassouni]

May I also point out that communism and socialism are NOT the same thing. Canada and most of Europe are socialist to an extent, and just as free and prosperous as anywhere else.

[Chreees]

Correct, Hass. I totally agree. I really enjoyed my sociology class in college.

To be honest, democratic socialism is becoming appealing to me. It's like it takes the best parts of capitalism and the best parts of socialism and puts them together. Kinda makes sense if you ask me. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism"]http://en.wikipedia....ratic_socialism[/url]

And Bernie Sanders (a well-known democratic socialist) is a BAMF:

This video is him talking about Romney's comments, relevant to this thread:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sM-Xvgg1p7U[/media]

This video is him touching on the insane unequal distribution of wealth in our country, among other things (two parts):
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDR-cGUYEEc&feature=related[/media]

Listen to his words carefully in the second video... Our country doesn't sound much like a democracy, does it?

[Rani]

Democratic Socialism........... I'd never done any research on it until you mentioned it here, but I don't agree with all it's tenants. Redistribution of wealth is not something I would never support. Steve Jobs for example worked his ass off for his wealth. He earned it, he's entitled to it, and no, the state shouldn't take it away from him. I do believe in redistribution of resources at the most basic level in order to raise those who are disadvantaged to equal educational and self-reliant levels. What I find interesting is the very same people who yell socialism about the Affordable Health Care Reform still send their children off to public schools, don't they?

What's the difference between providing health care and an education? Not that much. We're just used to education. It's been around all of our living lifetimes. So we accept it as our right (and obligation) as American citizens. We instituted public education because it raised the intelligence of a nation in order to compete with other nations in business abroad. We need public health care to raise the health of the nation to stay competitive with those nations, because they already have universal health care. Lack of health care in this country isn't just draining private bank accounts, it's draining the nation. Almost every hospital that exists in this country gets some kind of federal funding. Tax money. County hospitals across the country are currently 100% tax revenue funded. People are griping about the "tax" if you're uninsured, but if someone is uninsured and a burden on the rest of us, shouldn't they be penalized? How else are we going to get them off our bank accounts and onto their own, hmmm? Seems to me that's about as logical as it gets.

Improving the health and education, and yes, welfare of every person in the country isn't about improving THEM. It's not about being kind, or supportive, or charitable. It's about building and keeping a strong competitive nation that will continue to hold it's own. People are RESOURCES. They work, move money around when they pay taxes, buy goods and services, they make a country strong and vibrate and keep it's economy health and growing. They invent things and processes and raise standards. They make discoveries and improve living standards. They become stronger and better contributors to the nation and the world. People are our number one resource. If we're not utilizing them by supporting them and bringing them up to their full potential, well, that's just plain stupid.

'Rani

[TheScotsman]

[quote name='Rani' timestamp='1348282267' post='556943']
I'm a writer myself gramps and we lie when it suits our slant against someone we've decided to hate. Mr. Ferrrera simply is not telling the truth. No economist blessed deregulation for instance, and Obama hasn't actually enacted any economic policies because Congress has stopped him at every endeavor. Blame him for not getting things through if you will but don't then blame him for the result of his having been blocked. Reagan later referred to his own program as voodoo economics. I know you're never going to see beyond you perceptions. If they work for you fine but don't be surprised that our perceptions tell us Romney is the biggest threat to freedom and business we've faced yet.

'Rani
[/quote]

How the hell did congress stop him when he had a super-majority in the senate, and a majority in the house for 2 out of 3.8 years. It wasn't until the public saw what a sham the DNC was, and tossed the leaches out in 2010 that PEBO no longer had a congress that would rubber stamp everything he wanted. What did he do? Did he create jobs? Eh, not so shovel-ready. Fix the border mess? Put an end to bush's surveillance of the general public? close gitmo? Hell, 3/4 of the deaths in assganistan came from pebo's watch. Did he fix anything, hell no, wasted it on a BS healthcare regulation that has caused a 25% spike in insurance costs & medical expenses, shitty school lunches kids won't eat, solyndra, fiskars, the gawd aweful volt, 100% increase in corn and wheat prices, and cash-for-clunkers. Go oooobama. Calling a dead ambassador a, how did he put it... "bump in the road"???? Great foreign policy, took bushleague's cocked-up mess, and turned it into a complete raging disaster of epic proportions.

Republican congress stood in his way? Ya, sure, that republican minority in the house could really stand in the way of anything-remember when Pelosi just locked them in the hallway and wrote a bill 100% based on WH desires? Please, you can't be that far out from reality. Wasn't it DEM "dingy" harry reid that refused to bring Mr. O's budget to the senate floor? Why, yes, it was! Dems lead by harry reid blocked Mr. O's tax hike bill in the senate, Senate dems blocked the president's jobs bill... Ya, it's all the republicans fault nothing gets past. Would be funny if the idea wasn't so completely silly.

Unless he completely melts down in the next 6 weeks, I would predict Romney by a electoral landslide. Either way, it's not going to matter. Next pres will preside over an economic disaster. We can look forward to inflation and slow growth that turns to stagflation after a burst of investment activity in the USA when the euro goes tits-up (love that socialism). Worst of all, I would dare bet that is the better scenario... Worst case would be a sudden recovery growth and the fed can't suck all that money they created back out of the market, we see inflation that makes a coffee can full of greek drachma look like a sound retirement plan. Either way looks like we are going to be screwed. No president can drive this car out of the ditch while 47% of the nation sits in the back seat expecting a free ride, and bitching the freebee isn't comfortable enough.


And by the way, if you are going to use an edited video that has been released by jimmy carter mk4, and base any form of pseudo-intillectual opinion on it, you got problems. One should always seek the original and complete version of every source of information. deliberate editing to remove context is lying, believing such is a fool's errand

[Chreees]

[quote name='TheScotsman' timestamp='1348637740' post='557235']
Unless he completely melts down in the next 6 weeks, I would predict Romney by a electoral landslide.
[/quote]

LOL! Wishful thinking, huh? He's screwed up too much to be elected now... Another example of "Shit Romney Says":

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/09/24/899441/romney-plane-windows/

Dude's an idiot and shouldn't be our president.

[quote name='TheScotsman' timestamp='1348637740' post='557235']
Either way looks like we are going to be screwed. No president can drive this car out of the ditch while 47% of the nation sits in the back seat expecting a free ride, and bitching the freebee isn't comfortable enough.
[/quote]

Sounds like you believe the 47% is nothing but a bunch of lazy freeloaders, huh? What about the senior citizens? What about the Iraqi war vets? What about the students trying to further their education by going to college? What about the over 4,000 millionaires who are in that 47% http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/18/pf/taxes/romney-income-taxes-millionaires/ Sounds to me like you need to watch something other than Fox News, Scotsman. You're being fed bullshit and don't even realize it!

Oh, but your argument will be, "It's the liberal media." Well let me make an example that I find illustrates my argument against that... When you have a bat-shit crazy person in the family and they say everyone else in the family is wrong, that they are not crazy and nothing is wrong with them, who seems more credible- The lone person, or all the other family members who agree that person is just bat-shit crazy? My mother was this way, not even realizing what she had done to her entire family. Now either no one talks to her or they just simply tolerate her. Fox News is bat-shit crazy, and all alone in their own little corner, while the rest of the news is actually... reporting the news?

[quote name='TheScotsman' timestamp='1348637740' post='557235']
And by the way, if you are going to use an edited video that has been released by jimmy carter mk4, and base any form of pseudo-intillectual opinion on it, you got problems. One should always seek the original and complete version of every source of information. deliberate editing to remove context is lying, believing such is a fool's errand
[/quote]

The full unedited video HAS been released since I posted this, and you know what? I watched it and my opinion is the same. Contrary to what you are trying to say about this video, it doesn't edit any of Mitt Romney's words to try to make it seem like he is saying something else, something that he did not really say. Whereas, as we all know, Romney has done in his ads with Obama's words: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/07/obama-romney-is-taking-my-words-out-of-context/1#.UGMbtBjdc70

[Rani]

Scotsman is never going to swing towards the "evil liberal" side of things. But backing Romney is unbelievably stupid for someone who owns a small business. He could give a rats ass about small business. They don't give him money. Transnational corporations, the same guys who want to put small business out of business so they can corner the markets and determine profits are the guys giving him millions. Beside Romney doesn't have a chance of winning. The tale is in the funding:

Romney has raised $35M mostly from corporate contributions;
Obama has raised $86M primarily from individual of the working class (and yes, that does include their unions), and small business, grass roots organizations, and entrepreneurs.

Now consider each donation counts as a vote. How many votes is $35M divided by say $1M per corporate donation, compared to the number of votes generated by $86M divided by the average of $5K donation, hmmm?

Landslide, potentially. But not in Romney's favor.

'Rani

Oh, and Scotsman, remember before you continue to demonize liberals...... Jesus Christ was the ultimate liberal. I'm thinking Republicans aren't going to be on his good side.

[Rani]

And his chances of winning sink........

Mitt Romney speaking to an Ohio crowd informed them he's not going to be giving them any tax breaks. He wants to reform the individual tax system and lower deductions (resulting in HIGHER taxes to the middle class) while giving more breaks to business saying that would encourage them to hire. ("Vote for me so I can screw you!" Yep, yep, that's gonna work by golly.)

No Republican has ever won the White House without winning Ohio, and I think it's pretty much certain, Ohio is going to go Obama.

You know what's sad about this election, is that as many things as I like about Obama as a person, I think there are certainly others who might have been able to gain more cooperation on Capitol Hill. He always downplays the race card, but honestly considering that Washington is mostly run by middle-aged white Southerners, it's no wonder they've blocked him every chance they got. There's just an instinctive rejection of anything he wants to do. The man could discover the cure for cancer, bring about complete world peace and pull off a total reversal of the global economy crises, and they'd still chalk it up to chance rather than a black man pulling it off. I hope for his second term that the gloves will come off. He'll stop being so "professorial" and start spitting nails back, really. It's what we need at least here. Diplomatically, I hope he doesn't change a thing because it's working.

I do think it's also important to remember that it took a full 12 years for the economy to rebuild after the rash of 1929, and we were a hairs breadth from that level. To expect it to have turned around in on 3 years, makes whoever's doing the expecting a damn fool.

'Rani

[Hassouni]

[quote name='Rani' timestamp='1348674924' post='557278']
[b]Jesus Christ was the ultimate liberal. [/b]I'm thinking Republicans aren't going to be on his good side.
[/quote]

I'm completely irreligious, but this is very, very true.

[Rani]

[quote name='Hassouni' timestamp='1348677631' post='557286']
[quote name='Rani' timestamp='1348674924' post='557278']
[b]Jesus Christ was the ultimate liberal. [/b]I'm thinking Republicans aren't going to be on his good side.
[/quote]

I'm completely irreligious, but this is very, very true.
[/quote]

Oh, I just happen to think God can take a joke. Probably laughs at most of us a lot.

'Rani

[Rani]

While I was snubbing Scotsman I forgot to add one thing.......

Obama NEVER had a supermajority. That requires 60 Democratic Senators. The most he ever had was 58 in 2009. And the Republicans filibustered 415 times to stop everything he tried to do.

'Rani

[Chreees]

Concerning Jesus:

[img]http://tarheelred.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Jesus-Healthcare.jpg[/img]

[img]http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f221/turpeinen/Macros/RepublicanJesus.png[/img]

The thing that is wrong with America RIGHT NOW is President Obama is trying to do his damn job but Republicans won't let him. This is why we are seeing progress, but not at a very fast pace. They block him on everything, then blame him. They are the party that doesn't know what it stands for, but does know what it stands against.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-A09a_gHJc

[Rani]

Young people need to vote in droves...... Hardly anybody under 30 supports the Republican agenda, and unlike the GOP I don't think the youth are a bunch of losers. However, of voter tun-out it's often the under 30 crowd that tends to stay home Election Day.

If those of you under 30 can help to change that, it will help to send a clear message we need to consider compassion and support of all Americans especially those who needs a leg up as a resource to invest in. If you let the GOP keep luring the country in the direction it's going, your future sucks. Wall Street does not and never will care about anybody not old enough and established enough to invest millions with them so they can keep making billions.

No politician candidate will ever consider your future if you can't contribute to their campaign, and if you're just coming out of college and broke, looking for work, you'll never be able to do that. Yes, threats to Social Security and Medicare are cause for concern, but what will happen to you who are under 30 if you don't make your voice heard now? You think it's bad for us approaching that age, what happens to you 20 or 30 or 40 years from now?

So I would strongly suggest you do whatever you can to encourage young people to vote. America used to be a land of opportunity for everyone. That window is closing on the next generation as the transnational corporate structure takes over your chance at a future. It's up to you to raise enough hell with your voices and votes to keep that window open. Some of us old tree-hugging-ex-hippie liberals will help, but in the end you are the future. Better make it what you want it to be one of opportunity and promise.

'Rani