Politics

[magogian]

If elected, Romney will balance the federal deficit by 2040.

So there's a chance?

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

So there's a chance?

Apparently there is unless we get into another unfunded war. I hope it can get balanced in my lifetime. I'm not holding my breath though.

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

Dick Cheyney's not concerned. He said deficits don't matter. But that was before he got a heart.

 

[Redbar]

Dick Cheyney's not concerned. He said deficits don't matter. But that was before he got a heart.

Neo-cons, who the genius Mitt Romney has surrounded himself with, don't seem to care abut deficits. At least they didn't when Reagan, and Poppy Bush were in office then they did for eight years when Clinton was in office then they didn't again for another eight years while W did his thing. Now it is very very important again, go figure.

 

[Junkhead]

I voted for Obama, but not sure I would again. I would've voted for a dead dog over Bush, so who knows. I consider myself a moderate, and right now I don't see Obama or Romney being capable of changing the status quo. I probably won't vote at all. There are too many extremes on both sides. The middle class is disappearing, who can fix that?

 

[Bogtrotter07]

That's not a "true graphic" because that is only one measurement of the unemployment, and a very untrue one at that. To add up the number of people without jobs (and have given up hope and aren't looking), and to add the number of underemployed, is a scary statistic.



It's practically impossible to move unemployment from 2% to 1%, or even 4% to 3%. It not hard to get it from 18% to 17%. Obama's situation is somewhere between those extremes, and the closer you get to 0% the more exponentially difficult it is to do so. I can recognize that.

Still, I do not think the unemployment improvement--if there has been some--under Obama is anywhere near acceptable. Of course, he said that too; and I don't think he's a particularly arrogant man, simply a naive amateur and his quote of "if I don't have this thing figured out in three years, then there's going to be a one-term proposition..." is quite telling. He was pretty confident his academia-instilled psuedo-economic classes would have easily paid off. He found it didn't have anywhere near the right answer, in my opinion.

I mean look they said that if we passed the stimulus, unemployment would be ~5.7% right now. And if we did nothing it would be at ~6.4%. HA!

The drastic miscalculation is, to me, a testament of the economic amateurism happening in the White House right now.

And, we haven't even taken into account how much of the job growth is due to something that this administration and environmentalists detest--shale oil and cheap energy. How ironic is it that fossil fuels are powering a good deal of the Obama "recovery?" I mean that's funny stuff.

Double and, we haven't taken into account that we are living in an artificially low low interest bubble. That too will burst with time. We have traded a dotcom bubble for a housing bubble and a housing bubble for an interest bubble. It's all a mess.



1) Bush sucked, and was a somewhat of an amateur himself.

2) I don't see that, at all. Hell even your TIME article says this:



and this:



and most importantly, this:



He didn't fix it because Bush was in over his head, too. He was a jokester who surrounded himself with GOP stars of the 1980s, for good or for bad. More bad than good.




The Mexican Border comment a few days ago should have stuck a fork in him. He's done.

You know buster I agree with almost everything you said, except I don't see what is wrong with using the governments own numbers. I don't know where you got yours, or why they are better. The point was this was the same graphic used in the comercial, compressed, to make it all look more like it was Obama's failed policies that caused it.

About Joe: The Republicans already won. They jurymandered Marcy Kapturs Ninth District to include Loraine, nearly a hundred miles away so they could eliminate Dennis Kucinich. So they got rid of Dennis in May, and will get rid of the circus clown in November. Ironic thing is that the actual place Joe lived in, that he may have lost, is now in Latta's 5th.

 

[Grimm]

I voted for Obama, but not sure I would again. I would've voted for a dead dog over Bush, so who knows. I consider myself a moderate, and right now I don't see Obama or Romney being capable of changing the status quo. I probably won't vote at all. There are too many extremes on both sides. The middle class is disappearing, who can fix that?

I'm in same camp. There are no room for moderates anymore. Politics has become a feud, blood sport where winning and being partisan is what matters. Compromise is considered weak. It feels like a sport where you just hate everything about the other side. This board is a very civil place where people really still try to like each other despite a debate. But even here, if you are a Republican you are likely to hate everything about Obama and you are a Democrat it goes the other way. I don't live in the US right now and when I come home and watch Fox and MSNBC I just find it depressing. I just don't see how it is going to change. Maybe a third party?

 

[BGIF]

I'm in same camp. There are no room for moderates anymore. Politics has become a feud, blood sport where winning and being partisan is what matters. Compromise is considered weak. It feels like a sport where you just hate everything about the other side. This board is a very civil place where people really still try to like each other despite a debate. But even here, if you are a Republican you are likely to hate everything about Obama and you are a Democrat it goes the other way. I don't live in the US right now and when I come home and watch Fox and MSNBC I just find it depressing. I just don't see how it is going to change. Maybe a third party?

You think it was better when the sitting Vice President Aaron Burr killed the former Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton?

Or in 1856 when Senator Brooks savagely beat Senator Sumner with a metal tipped cane on the floor of the Senate while Sumner was sitting at a desk? And while his fellow South Carolina Representative Keitt used a gun to prevent rescuers from intervening. Sumner was unable to serve in the Senate for 3 years due to the savage beating. Brooks was reviled throughout the North and the civilized world but cheered in The South. The University of Virginia Debating Society sent Brooks a new cane to replace the one he broke beating Sumner. Congressman and Senators alike "carried" guns and or knives on the floor to the House and Senate to protect themselves from their colleagues.

In 1858 Representative Keitt tired to choke another Congressman.

See John Calhoun's statue in Charleston with his arms folded and his back definately facing the north for his no compromise stance on slavery, states rights, and succession.

Read about the 1824 Presidential Election.

Read about the history of voter fraud. See "Landslide Lyndon", Tammany Hall, The Pendergast Machine.

Take a gander at: Freakonomics » The Complete History of Dirty Politics: A Q&A on Anything for a Vote


It's not new to politics, a poliitical party, nor America. We now have 24/7 news and the internet so what used to be restricted to a couple of counties, cities, or states now is news worldwide.

 

[Grimm]

You think it was better when the sitting Vice President Aaron Burr killed the former Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton?

It's not new to politics, a poliitical party, nor America. We now have 24/7 news and the internet so what used to be restricted to a couple of counties, cities, or states now is news worldwide.

Actually, yes, I do think it is significantly different. And that over the last few years it has become much worse then the previous 40 years. It's always been partisan and brutal, but country came first and the basic tenants of governing were followed. And there was conversation and dealing. Do you think Congress is functioning? I mean, the senate can't even get it together to pass a budget for three years. It's crazy. This doesn't seem to be keeping with historical precedent.

I would be happy if there was the occasional duel if that would get things working again!

As an aside, the couple of responses I have on this thread included a Justice Stevens quote and references to Aaron Burr. Not your usual type of board!

 

[BGIF]

Actually, yes, I do think it is significantly different. And that over the last few years it has become much worse then the previous 40 years. It's always been partisan and brutal, but country came first and the basic tenants of governing were followed. And there was conversation and dealing. Do you think Congress is functioning? I mean, the senate can't even get it together to pass a budget for three years. It's crazy. This doesn't seem to be keeping with historical precedent.

I would be happy if there was the occasional duel if that would get things working again!

As an aside, the couple of responses I have on this thread included a Justice Stevens quote and references to Aaron Burr. Not your usual type of board!

Tthe country always came first?

During the Contintential Congress?

When Thomas Jefferson hired a ghost writer to verbally assassinate his friend John Adams?

When New England towns flew the British Flag during the War of 1812 because they didn't want to be attacked. To hell with those soldiers and sailors who were losing their lives.

Slavery?

During the Dred Scott Decision?

Abolitionists?

John Brown?

Bloody Kansas?

Van Buren Presidency?

Never more divided than the Lincoln years. Aside from the empty desks from the Seceding Congressmen and Senators, Lincoln filled the prisons with suspension of Habeus Corpus. The debate over The Patriot Act is a middle school debate by comparison.

According to Shelby Foote before 1860 the expression was "The United States ARE" after 1865 the expression was "The United States IS".

States Rights is still a battle and Arizona wasn't a state in 1860.

The New Deal and FDR trying to circumvent the Constitution by Packing The Court?

The McCarthy Era?

Did the country come first when Lyndon Johnson's Administration planted a CIA agent in Barry Goldwater's campaign headquarters to spy. Had Woodward and Bernstein been around, Johnson would have beaten Nixon into retirement (and a pardon).

Johnson has the most legislation passed of any president in US history but he was also the most ruthless and dirty in during so. Democrats hated his ruthlessness as much as Republicans. He was an equal opportunity abuser. Didn't matter if you were in his party or not. Dare to vote against one of his bills and you were a target for ruinination. Lyndon didn't twist arms, he simply ripped them off. "I never trust a man unless I have his pecker in my pocket?" Ranks right up there with "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country," doesn't it?

Google Donald Segretti, Lee Atwater, Karl Rove.

Did you miss ACORN while you were overseas?

Party affiliation doesn't matter, does it.

Is it "cleaner" today because politicians use Robocalls to mislead? Provide polls with biased questions to get the answers either sides wants? Because they use bloggers to distort the truth instead of anonymous handbills?


Engineeringwise there's a signicant difference between a cesspool and a septic tank but they're both full of fecal matter. When either backs up your house is still full of crap and needs sanitizing.

 

[Grimm]

Engineeringwise there's a signicant difference between a cesspool and a septic tank but they're both full of fecal matter. When either backs up your house is still full of crap and needs sanitizing.

Ok, very valid points. You win. It's as sh***y as it has ever been.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Speaking of which, to tie back to earlier in the thread:

Part of complete coverage from Peter Bergen

Are 'Swift Boat' attacks on Obama bogus?

By Peter Bergen, CNN National Security Analyst
updated 2:07 PM EDT, Sun August 19, 2012

President Obama announces the killing of ***** bin *****, in a broadcast from the White House May 1, 2011.


Former U.S. officers accuse Obama of leaking classified information for political gain
Peter Bergen says much of the information cited came from sources outside White House
He says administration sought to keep details secret, but events led to disclosures
Bergen says the idea that Obama doesn't deserve credit for bin ***** raid is wrong

Editor's note: Peter Bergen, CNN's national security analyst, is a director at the New America Foundation, a Washington-based think tank that seeks innovative solutions across the ideological spectrum, and the author of the new book "Manhunt: The Ten-Year Search for Bin ***** -- From 9/11 to Abbottabad."

Kabul, Afghanistan (CNN) -- A group of former U.S. military and intelligence officers, including retired Navy SEALs, appear in a 22-minute documentary that was released on Wednesday asserting that the Obama administration has leaked considerable classified intelligence about the raid that killed ***** bin ***** for political gain.

They also claim that the administration has given itself too much credit for this feat of American arms and intelligence gathering. The film even makes the dramatic charge that the Obama administration is "purposefully putting lives in jeopardy" because of its purported leaks about national security.

The charges bear some resemblance to the "Swift Boat" tactics used against Sen. John Kerry in the tight 2004 presidential election against President George W. Bush in which Kerry's service in Vietnam, seemingly a strength of the candidate, was turned into a weakness.

GOP strategists: Bain attack ads are this year's Swift Boat campaign

The particulars of the indictment against Obama as laid out in the new film, which is titled "Dishonorable Disclosures," are:

-- The president announced the bin ***** raid before intelligence picked up from bin *****'s compound could be fully exploited.

-- The use of hitherto covert "stealth" helicopters on the raid was publicized.

-- The name of the secret unit that executed the raid --SEAL Team Six -- was made public putting them and their families at risk.

-- The name of the Pakistani doctor recruited by the CIA to help find bin ***** was leaked, jeopardizing him and the CIA's ability to recruit spies in the future. The doctor is now serving 33 years in a Pakistani prison.

Pakistani doctor who helped US appeals verdict

-- Obama has taken way too much credit for killing al Qaeda's leader. "Mr. President, you did not kill ***** bin *****, America did. The work that the American military has done killed ***** bin *****. You did not," says a former Navy SEAL interviewed in the film.

Criticism of the way that the bin ***** raid has been discussed publicly by the Obama administration makes up the bulk of "Dishonorable Disclosures," but the administration is also taken to task for supposedly leaking details of covert U.S. actions against the Iranian nuclear program to New York Times reporter David Sanger (who has said he was not the recipient of "deliberate leaks out of the White House") and outlining to other journalists the personal involvement of Obama in selecting targets for the CIA drone program in Pakistan.

One former Navy SEAL featured in the film demands dramatically, "Tell the president to stop leaking information to the enemy."

Is there any merit to these serious accusations?

In fact, Obama and his national security team made every effort -- successfully -- to keep the intelligence about bin ***** a closely held secret for almost a year, from the time they first identified what they believed might be the al Qaeda leader's hideout in the city of Abbottabad, Pakistan, in August 2010 until May 1, 2011, when the raid was launched to kill him.

The raid itself was conducted as a covert operation under the overall direction of then-CIA Director Leon Panetta.

I have written a book about the hunt for bin ***** during the course of which I was the only journalist granted access by the Pakistanis inside the compound in Abbottabad where bin ***** was killed. I also spoke on the record about the hunt for bin ***** with a variety of current White House, Pentagon and intelligence officials, as well as former Defense Department and CIA officials familiar with aspects of the story.

None of them divulged classified information about the bin ***** operation. Indeed, they went to great pains to avoid doing so.

What precipitated the operation going public was not Obama's announcement of the raid but the crash of one of the Black Hawk choppers used in the raid, which turned what had hitherto been a covert operation into a very public event.

Pakistani journalists started arriving at bin *****'s Abbottabad compound soon after the helicopter crashed and started filing stories about the mysterious helicopter and its oddly shaped tail rotor. An Abbottabad resident even tweeted about the unusual sound of helicopters flying over the city in the middle of the night.

It wasn't much of a leap for reporters to ascertain that these helicopters had particular features that had prevented them from being detected by Pakistani radar.

Soon after the SEALs had raided the Abbottabad command, Pakistani officials on the ground were interrogating bin *****'s wives and children at the compound who told them that bin ***** had just been killed. None of this was going to stay secret for long.

Indeed, it was Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, Pakistan's top military officer, who sped up the Obama administration's announcement of the raid. A few hours after the raid, Kayani told his American counterpart, Adm. Mike Mullen, "Our people need to understand what happened here. We're not going to be able to manage the Pakistani media without you confirming this. You can explain it to them. They need to understand that this was bin ***** and not just some ordinary U.S. operation."

Mullen then told Obama and his national security team, "Kayani has asked for us to go public," which swayed Obama to announce the raid sooner than was planned. (Obama wanted to wait for 100% DNA confirmation that it was bin *****. At the time of the president's announcement about the raid the confirmation was at 95%.)

During his speech to the nation and world, Obama did not divulge the name of SEAL Team Six, saying only that a "small team of Americans carried out the operation with extraordinary courage and capability."

A visit to ***** bin *****'s lair

It quickly leaked that SEAL Team Six had executed the raid, but this was hardly surprising as the SEALs are the principal Special Operations Forces in the Afghanistan/Pakistan theater, something that has been discussed in multiple news stories over the past several years and in bestselling books such as "Lone Survivor" by former Navy SEAL Marcus Luttrell.

And the SEALs have hardly kept a low profile of late, cooperating in a movie "Act of Valor" that was released in theaters this year, which actually featured real SEALs playing the parts of the heroes of the movie.

Perhaps if you had absolutely no knowledge of the U.S. military, or indeed access to Wikipedia where SEAL Team Six has had an entry since 2004, it would be news to you that SEAL Team Six, along with the Army's Delta Force, are America's premier counterterrorism units. Obviously, a mission to take out bin ***** would not be entrusted to any other than these elite units.

So the notion that the public naming of the unit that killed bin ***** endangers the lives of its members and their families is overwrought. Members of SEAL Team Six are well able to take care of themselves and their families. And who first leaked the involvement of SEAL Team Six in the bin ***** operation remains unclear.

It is just plain wrong that anyone in the U.S. government leaked the name of the CIA asset in Pakistan, Dr Shakil Afridi, who was recruited by the agency in its quest to find bin *****. This information first surfaced in a story in the Guardian newspaper in July 2011 after Afridi was arrested by the Pakistani intelligence service, ISI. It is obvious that this information was leaked not by the Americans but the Pakistanis who have done their own investigation of the bin ***** raid, which embarrassed them considerably.

As to the notion that Obama has taken too much credit for the bin ***** raid, well he is commander-in-chief, and it was entirely his decision to launch the risky raid on Abbottabad based on the only fragmentary intelligence that bin ***** might be there.

As Adm. William McRaven, who was the military commander of the bin ***** raid, told CNN's Wolf Blitzer last month, "at the end of the day, make no mistake about it, it was the president of the United States that shouldered the burden for this operation, that made the hard decisions, that was instrumental in the planning process, because I pitched every plan to him."

The raid decision was opposed by Vice President Joe Biden, who had run for the Democratic nomination for the presidency against Obama. If Biden had won the White House in 2008, ***** bin ***** might still be alive.

And the decision to do the raid was also opposed by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who had served every president going back to Richard Nixon. Gates was concerned about some kind of replay of the 1980 Iran hostage rescue debacle, which helped to turn President Jimmy Carter into a one-term president.

The notion that the decision to greenlight the risky raid was made by anyone other than Obama is just plain silly, and it was a decision he made against the advice of both his vice president and his secretary of defense.

The film "Dishonorable Disclosures" gets even sillier. At one point one of the former officers interviewed for the film charges that the Obama administration "divulged to the world we are using drone technology." The fact that the United States uses drones in Pakistan is one of the world's worst kept secrets. In fact, the New America Foundation where I work has maintained a public database of these attacks since early 2010.'

First look at the ***** bin ***** movie

Similarly, the claim that the Obama administration has recently leaked information about the Stuxnet virus attacks on the Iranian nuclear program to the New York Times is overblown, as this information has been reported since 2010, and the Iranians themselves publicly acknowledged that their nuclear program was under cyberattack two years ago. It is true that the U.S. role in the cyberattacks was disclosed in the New York Times.

And in June, Attorney General Eric Holder appointed two federal prosecutors to investigate leaks including the New York Times story about Obama ordering the cyberattacks against Iran with the Stuxnet virus.

There remains much that is unknown about the still-classified intelligence surrounding the bin ***** raid, including:

-- How did the CIA find the real name of bin *****'s courier who was the key to finding him?

-- How was the courier's cell phone first tracked down?

-- How was he tracked to bin *****'s compound in Abbottabad?

-- How did the CIA establish a safe house in Abbottabad? And who staffed it?

None of this information has been leaked, and it remains classified for good reason as it gets into the CIA's "sources and methods."

Don't expect to hear any of those details any time soon.

See? It isn't about disagreeing with any of you, or a political ideology that is important to me, it is just about all of the fukking liars, who expect to gain something by pulling the wool over people's eyes.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Here is one you barely touched on, seperate from the House Unamerican or Kefauver Committee hearings, just posted it to show how widespread and voluminous it was. The terror of this was so great, defendants couldn't find legal representation!

The Smith Act trials of Communist Party leaders were a series of trials held from 1949 to 1958 in which leaders of the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA) were accused of violating the Smith Act, a 1940 statute that set penalties for advocating the violent overthrow of the government. The prosecution argued that the CPUSA's policies promoted violent revolution; the defendants countered that they advocated a peaceful transition to socialism, and that the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech and association protected their membership in a political party. The trials led to the US Supreme Court decisions Dennis v. United States (1951) and Yates v. United States (1957).

The first trial, in 1949, was one of the lengthiest and most contentious trials in American history. The hearing was featured on the cover of Time magazine twice, and large numbers of supporters of the communist defendants protested outside the courthouse daily. During the trial, the defense frequently antagonized the judge and prosecution, and five of the defendants were sent to jail for contempt of court because they disrupted the proceedings. The prosecution's case relied on undercover informants who described the goals of the CPUSA, interpreted communist texts, and testified that they believed the CPUSA advocated the violent overthrow of the US government.

While the first trial was under way, events outside the courtroom influenced public perception of communism: The Soviet Union tested its first nuclear weapon, and communists prevailed in the Chinese Civil War. Public opinion was overwhelmingly against the defendants. After a ten-month trial the jury found all eleven defendants guilty and the judge sentenced them to terms of up to five years in federal prison. When the trial concluded, the judge sent all five defense attorneys to jail for contempt of court. Two of the attorneys were subsequently disbarred.

After the first trial, the prosecutors – encouraged by their success – tried over 100 additional CPUSA officers for violating the Smith Act. Some were tried solely because they were members of the Party. Many of these defendants had difficulty finding attorneys to represent them. The trials decimated the leadership of the CPUSA. In 1957, eight years after the first trial, the US Supreme Court's Yates decision signaled an end to similar prosecutions, by holding that defendants could be prosecuted only for their actions, not for their beliefs.

 

[Cackalacky]

Bogtrotter,
Its called "Cognitive dissonance" "cognitive bias" and "group think"......

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Bogtrotter,
Its called "Cognitive dissonance" "cognitive bias" and "group think"......

Huh? All this time I thought it was rationalism over objectivism. Shows you what I know. I remember when certain adults tried to cram bull shiit down my throat when I was a little shaver, I just said no!

 

[Cackalacky]

By all means continue to do so sir.

 

[GoIrish41]

Not saying this didn't happen, Bog, but your paragraph above is quite vague. What questions did you ask him? And your statement, "He was either not able to answer them or answer them incorrectly," doesn't necessarily mean anything...in the above context you provided. And as far as DD-214's go, well, uhm, I don't know anybody that actually carries them around. That'd be like asking a person on the street whom you were having a conversation with to produce his actual college transcript to you to prove his point of view/credentials Don't have it? Oh well, he therefore must be lying to you. And besides, a DD-214 not only provides a summation of your entire military career, but also has personal and medical information on it. So, again, the fact that somebody wouldn't share that with you doesn't mean anything...in the context you provided.

Or their photo voter ID card. "Don't have it? ... you must be committing voter fraud"

 

[GoIrish41]

You think it was better when the sitting Vice President Aaron Burr killed the former Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton?

Or in 1856 when Senator Brooks savagely beat Senator Sumner with a metal tipped cane on the floor of the Senate while Sumner was sitting at a desk? And while his fellow South Carolina Representative Keitt used a gun to prevent rescuers from intervening. Sumner was unable to serve in the Senate for 3 years due to the savage beating. Brooks was reviled throughout the North and the civilized world but cheered in The South. The University of Virginia Debating Society sent Brooks a new cane to replace the one he broke beating Sumner. Congressman and Senators alike "carried" guns and or knives on the floor to the House and Senate to protect themselves from their colleagues.

In 1858 Representative Keitt tired to choke another Congressman.

See John Calhoun's statue in Charleston with his arms folded and his back definately facing the north for his no compromise stance on slavery, states rights, and succession.

Read about the 1824 Presidential Election.

Read about the history of voter fraud. See "Landslide Lyndon", Tammany Hall, The Pendergast Machine.

Take a gander at: Freakonomics » The Complete History of Dirty Politics: A Q&A on Anything for a Vote


It's not new to politics, a poliitical party, nor America. We now have 24/7 news and the internet so what used to be restricted to a couple of counties, cities, or states now is news worldwide.

Wouldn't let me rep you, but great post.

 

[BobD]

I was watching Romney and Ryan on CNN this morning. I find it hard to listen to anything they say, especially Romney. He's a snake oil salesman. He doesn't even beleive the crap that comes out of his mouth. Zero passion in him, he's trying so friggin' hard to say what he thinks you want to hear. I don't understand why more people don't see that?

 

[Rizzophil]

I was watching Romney and Ryan on CNN this morning. I find it hard to listen to anything they say, especially Romney. He's a snake oil salesman. He doesn't even beleive the crap that comes out of his mouth. Zero passion in him, he's trying so friggin' hard to say what he thinks you want to hear. I don't understand why more people don't see that?

It's because Romney's policies work. It's because Paul Ryan is policy driven

It's because Obama has zero character and his policies destroy jobs. Not that complicated.

 

[Cackalacky]

It's because Romney's policies work. It's because Paul Ryan is policy driven

It's because Obama has zero character and his policies destroy jobs. Not that complicated.

LULZ. See Post#s 762 and 764

 

[GoIrish41]

It's because Romney's policies work. It's because Paul Ryan is policy driven

It's because Obama has zero character and his policies destroy jobs. Not that complicated.

Which of Romney's policies "work"?
As far as I can see, he is adopting the policies of the W administration that took us from a surplus to a record deficit. Apparently you work closely with the Romney campaign, because that small group of people are the only ones who know what Romney's policies are. He certainly hasn't shared them with the press or American citizens. Unless you are talking about his record as govenor of Mass. There, his claim to fame was Romneycare, which he now disassociates himself with at every turn. So, tell us, which policies are you talking about?

Paul Ryan is policy driven?
Really? I've seen him interviewed several times since being chosen as the VP candidate and I find his answers about his own budget simply unbelievable. "We haven't run the numbers on that yet." It's a f***ing budget. How can you prepare a budget without running numbers? What policy is driving this idiotic response to a simple question?

Obama has zero character?
Oh, the guy who turned down high-paying jobs out of law school to become a community organizer that might help people at the grassroots level has no character? The guy who immediately after taking office began working toward universal healthcare millions could gain access to a basic human need ... he has no character? I suppose Romney has lots of character. He's the guy who bought up companies, stripped them of assets, and essentially ruined people's lives for his own enrichment. He's got character. They guy won't even show his tax returns because he's afraid of what may be discovered about his personal finances. But he's got character? You'll have to take his word for it that he's paid at least 13 percent in income taxes for the past 10 years. What a f***ing saint. My tax rate is higher than that and I didn't make anywhere close to $20 million in any of those years. This guy is just oozing character.

Obama's policies destroy jobs?
Well, I would have agreed with you if you would have made a reasonable assertion. But, as many are apt to do, you've gone too far. He may not be responsible for creating jobs at a quick enough pace, but it is simply not factual that his policies have "destroyed jobs." You know whose policies HAVE destroyed jobs? Romney's!!!!! He made his living of shipping jobs overseas and leaving American workers to fend for themselves.

 

[Cackalacky]

It's because Romney's policies work. It's because Paul Ryan is policy driven

It's because Obama has zero character and his policies destroy jobs. Not that complicated.

Romney is a flat out liar and possible felon and Ryan doesn't know **** about policies. This is the same guy that voted for TARP and the auto bailout, and all the things the republicans were in favor of 2000-2008 and are now agianst 2008-2012. oh the insanity...

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

How much stimulus money did Ryan put in for? But he was against that right?

 

[Cackalacky]

It's because Paul Ryan is policy driven

This is the same Ayn Rand economic objectivism desciple? Policy driven?

 

[Cackalacky]

In the end billions of dollars will be spent to make this entire race be about a non-christian blackman failing the american dream with a doofus sidekick named the "Mouth" versus a flip-flop felon and "i don't even know ny own policies" you betcha guy

We r fukked.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Cakalack is on to something. I am not an Obama defender by any means. But the Republicans have had a corner on a certain kind of dirty spin since the Nixon henchmen sunk Daniel Ellsberg, one of the most inteligent and character filled men I have ever met.

Daniel Ellsberg (born April 7, 1931) is a former United States military analyst who, while employed by the RAND Corporation, precipitated a national political controversy in 1971 when he released the Pentagon Papers, a top-secret Pentagon study of U.S. government decision-making in relation to the Vietnam War, to The New York Times and other newspapers. He was awarded the Right Livelihood Award in 2006. He is also known for a fundamental contribution to decision theory, the Ellsberg paradox.

This continued on with Ron, Newt, HW, (remember Willie Horton), and GW. It hit a new high with Turd Blossom. (After all he got that nickname for a reason. W's dad fired him calling him a "psychopathic henchman and a probable felon."

He is and people like him are working behind the scenes for the Republicans this cycle.

Me on the other hand, I am nothing, not in this conversation. But when I was in grade school, lilly white, a "richer than ever" Catholic school, we had one bi-racial student, Edith. Most treated her like shiit. The big thing was for everybody to refuse to drink out of the water fountain after her. As soon as all the plans were made with all the whispering, and I caugh wind, without hesitation, I walked up to the fountain and took a deep drink. She looked at me, we never spoke, but I hope she understood.

Years later, my mother who volunteered in the school library confided in me that she saw me outside with the other kids ganging up on me. They did often. I asked her who won. After coaxing she admitted I did, which is probably why she didn't make a big deal at the time.

It was penance. At that time I was half again as big as most of my class mates. We would get in wars. I violate their social rules, all the time. Then they would try to make me pay. I had a cousin wo was a corpsman assigned to a Marine platoon, who showed me most of what he learned with his hand to hand combat. I was a good student.

We had us some voracious fights. Didn't matter if we were playing football, our own special version called "smear the queer", or "King of the hill." It got out of hand whenever I didn't comply. And I never quit. And I was always the one that could take it the longest.

I guess the Ellsberg paradox does a lot to explain why some of us are not willing to jump on the status quo blame train, after all, and seem indiferent to "Cognitive dissonance".

 

[Cackalacky]

Or in 1856 when Senator Brooks savagely beat Senator Sumner with a metal tipped cane on the floor of the Senate while Sumner was sitting at a desk? And while his fellow South Carolina Representative Keitt used a gun to prevent rescuers from intervening. Sumner was unable to serve in the Senate for 3 years due to the savage beating. Brooks was reviled throughout the North and the civilized world but cheered in The South. The University of Virginia Debating Society sent Brooks a new cane to replace the one he broke beating Sumner. Congressman and Senators alike "carried" guns and or knives on the floor to the House and Senate to protect themselves from their colleagues.

In 1858 Representative Keitt tired to choke another Congressman.

See John Calhoun's statue in Charleston with his arms folded and his back definately facing the north for his no compromise stance on slavery, states rights, and succession.

South Carolina representin'! Its true about Calhoun statue and the *** whippin on the Senate Floor, which I believe was over whether or not to allow Kansas as a slave state or free state. When I was taught about the Civil War in pre-college history classes, it was referred to as the "War of Northern Aggression." LOL.

 

[GoIrish41]

I lived in the south for a number of years. i think many still refer to it as the War of Northern Aggression.

 

[Cackalacky]

I lived in the south for a number of years. i think many still refer to it as the War of Northern Aggression.

Yeah they still have not gotten over it yet.