Printable View
I'm not a fan of either party.
But Mitt Romney seems the sanest among the so-called top three: Mitt, Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry. (Remember the mainstream [or corporate] media is ignoring Ron Raul. Because, in part, of his anti war stance, I think -- :)
Mitt Romney: Angry At New Hampshire Town Hall - YouTube
Really can't trust ANY of them or the system they work in,
thanking our selves for our complacency in fostering
national failure.
It is gonna be a long way to anyplace
that resembled our more optimistic times.
Being the sanest of a trio that includes Michele Bachmann isn't exactly an endorsement lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
No. Not an endorsement -- ha ha!Quote:
Originally Posted by robertlouis
Part of the game of politics is to compromise -- and, too, to flip-flop. I mean, I've no idea where Romney stands on the issue of climate change. Maybe he doesn't even know -- ha ha! :)
I mean, the art of politics, too, is to position oneself, well, just right. Plus he has a Republican right-wing base that he has to appeal to.
Mitt Romney Flip Flops on Climate Change - YouTube
Vote for me! I'm farther out on the fringe than anyone else!
That's my story & I'm sticking to it...
until my handlers decide to change it.
hippifried, good point. I mean, how far right does the Republican Party have to go -- or is willing to go. I mean, is there no, say, Stop Sign, as it were?Quote:
Originally Posted by hippifried
I mean, the Republican Party is becoming the Crazy Party.
I guess being rational, intellectual, thoughtful, calm, science-minded, steeped in historical perspective, um, economically rational... just doesn't cut it in the Republican Party.
And I'm not talking about conservative people. I'm merely talking about the Party itself... :)
He's a social retard....at least in public.
Well Ben,
It's primary season early. Primaries are just withing the parties. Last year, a bunch of conservative Republicans got knocked off by reactionary teabaggers in the primaries. Now the party's running scared. Romney's willing to say anything to whatever group he's fishing for votes from. I can't see any principles in the guy at all.
:iagree: That's certainly how it looks from this side of the pond.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
Interesting vid clip. Thanks Nicole....Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicole Dupre
I would appreciate him more if he were gagged & bounded:praying:
Will Obama Make Romney's Mormonism an Issue? - YouTubeQuote:
Originally Posted by Nicole Dupre
JPMorgan's CEO embraces Mitt Romney
By Alex Pareene
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/w...y/md_horiz.jpg AP
Jamie Dimon and Mitt Romney
Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase, is not supposed to endorse a presidential candidate, because he sits on the board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, but he is out partying and attending fundraisers with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. (Of course, Dimon also probably shouldn't have accepted billions of dollars from the Fed while sitting on the New York Fed board either, but that happened.)
Dimon is a Democrat and former BFF of President Barack Obama, but one day Obama said "fat cat bankers" and everyone on Wall Street threw a tremendous tantrum. The president has gone on to lightly criticize the financial industry and endorse a plan to slightly raise income taxes on very wealthy people, which has reportedly driven scores of Democratic backers from the finance industry into the open arms of the GOP.
Here's someone explaining the switch (this is an anonymous source talking to the New York Post, which has a vested interest in presenting the Democratic Party and Barack Obama as avowed enemies of capitalism and free enterprise, but I assume this is a fairly accurate explanation of Dimon's thinking):One insider said, “There is not a person on Wall Street, with the exception of the genetic Democrats, who would get anywhere near supporting Obama. The hostility to the administration is huge. Dimon will continue to look bipartisan, then work behind the scenes to get a Republican elected.”Dimon supporting a Republican is only natural. Billionaire financial executives have obvious reasons to support a Republican presidential candidate. The Republican party line is that rich people should keep more of their money and the financial sector should be lightly or not-at-all regulated. But when the "longtime Democrats" who also happen to be bank executives make the switch to the Republican party, they for some reason feel the need to come up with justifications beyond material self-interest. Thus, flailing attempts at sustaining the Democratic party's disappearing middle-class base by lightly soaking the rich are seen as horrific personal attacks on innocent bankers. This makes these billionaires seem like hypersensitive children, but that is apparently preferable to being seen as attempting to maximize their profit by directing political support to the people most likely to allow them to continue vacuuming up and hoarding the world's wealth.
The Democratic party has been extraordinarily friendly to the interests of the financial sector since the Clinton era, but they are learning now what should've been obvious all along: It is impossible to be more billionaire-friendly than the Republican Party, because the Republican Party's entire political philosophy is that government should exist solely to serve the interests of the wealthy.
Dimon's argument hinges on the idea that it's unfair to tarnish his industry as a whole because of the actions of a few bad apples. JPMorgan Chase, you see, is one of the "good banks," which means it is one of the banks that survived the 2008 financial crisis and remains incredibly profitable. It does not mean that the bank is in any sense a positive force for good or a productive arm of a healthy economy, unless you think illegally foreclosing on military families and driving counties to the brink of bankruptcy while bribing officials are good, productive things for Jamie Dimon's firm to be doing with its billions of dollars of revenue.
The moral is that we as a nation must never spook the skittish "job-creators" like Dimon, lest they leave us for greener pastures, as Dimon has left Obama for Romney.
He'd be a second choice.. yes we Cain! Oh wait I'm a Tea Party member... ahh... can we get a white guy here!
Romney = moron.
Status quo.
Bankster cocksucker.
I have become a newt fan, to get things done in washington in the coming years ,you are going to need a totally corrupt psychopathic cunt who can wheel and deal,bit like clinton. I personally think he would wipe the floor with Obama in a debate, I just hope he can bear the lethal hatchet job the media is doing to every republican candidate other than romney (they want mitt vs obama,because they know where romneys support will come from and romneys support while stable hasn't increased in six years ,they have prepped for romney) ,they totally destroyed cain, even went into the gutter with racism ,mscbc was like a klan meeting.
Since newt got to the top,the negative spin machine both from the left leaning networks, his rivals and his enemies in the republican party has gone into overdrive. Thats newts main weakness,he is a long time washington insider and has been in the sewer ,and sadly some of that shit will stick. His other weakness is his looks, a fat old white man, against the hip and jive still quite young looking tanned Obama. In todays politics appearance matters far more.,although the plastic fake looks of romney and perry are taking it too far.
If the 2 remaining are Romney and Obama that will be an easy decision.
http://ldsblogs.com/wp-content/uploa...ni-mormon2.jpg
A, to quote you, "totally corrupt psychopathic cunt who can wheel and deal,bit like clinton..." is quite frightening.Quote:
Originally Posted by arnie666
There was an interesting study done up in Canada. It stated that people in positions of power (and power, from a libertarian perspective, is exceedingly dangerous) come to believe in the justness or goodness and merit or importance of their own elevated status. And with that comes the belief that they're above the law.
Plus we've been inculcated or taught to think/believe that politicians are above the law.
Clinton lied under oath. Which is a felony. And carries a 5 year prison sentence. What happened? Well, nothing. Because we have a two-tier justice system. One for the financial and political elite and another for the rest of us. (Think: Nixon. And how he was pardoned by Ford. Think: Casper Weinberger and the whole illicit Iran-Contra affair and how he was pardoned by the first president Bush... and it goes on and on.)
Government is essentially a lawless institution... as it presently exists.
And Newt, like all the rest, will serve the top 0.01 percent. He doesn't care about working Americans. Truck Drivers. Nurses. Firefighters. Cops. He's in it for himself and his rich corporate buddies. (I mean, that applies to pretty much every politician. And, too, the political system has been usurped by the powerful business sector. We - all - know - that.)
I find it interesting that YouTube headlines are almost always wrong. Ron Paul didn't "educate" anyone, and he clearly lost the audience in a back and forth that Gingrich clearly won with a perfect "snapshot" answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
Mitt Romney: I'm Progressive:
Mitt Romney: I'm Progressive - YouTube
I heard Christine Connolly turned Gingrich into a newt. He never got better :)
Mitt believes the Angel Moroni left Joe Smith 200 pounds of gold plates buried in the ground just outside Palmyra, NY. They were inscribed with what Joe, who had no knowledge of ancient languages, said was Egyptian. The plates were placed on a table. Joe put a special divining stone in a hat, buried his face in the hat and dictated the plates to an assistant. When the dictation was lost, Joe went through the procedure again, with somewhat different results! Still the result of that "translation" is called the book of Mormon. It difficult to believe that there were ever any adults who accepted this book as divine truth. Mitt is one of them.
I have no faith in men of faith. Then again, Mitt's not as zany as Newt.
[QUOTE=trish;1063520]
I have no faith in men of faith. .
I think I understand.....what you're saying is for the 20 years Barry sat in The Rev. Wright's church, ( "He's like an Uncle") you were not the sycophant you are now. It was only after he threw him under the bus because of the political heat, and distanced himself from any church or faith that you became a " true believer"?
You mean Christine O'Donnell?Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
I always thought she was kinda hot, Wouldn't mind checking out the orgies that her coven surely throws.
Anyway: The Angel Macaroni must've used disappearing gold, because the tablets didn't even make it to Missouri. Well that's the story anyway. I always wondered (always since 2 minutes ago) if the Mormon Brigade didn't just haul them down to Tiajuana, & blow it all in the local whorehouse. Mitt could probably go either way on that contentin.
[quote=onmyknees;1063539]Wha..? Couldn't understand a word you posted. Try fixing some of those pronoun references and punctuate your phrasing. I'm sure it was a zinger and we all hate to miss it.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Yeah, Christine O'Donnell...the one who's not a witch.Quote:
Originally Posted by hippifried
Besides the Book of Mormon there's the Doctrine and Covenants which were revealed by the god of this planet at convenient moments in Joe's life. :smh The god of the earth told him Mormon men should practice polygamy. When it finally became clear the LSD (oops! LDS) was never going to rise in political influence unless they ditched that particular revelation, God's word was expunged from Doctrine and Covenants.
Amazon.com: Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith (9780385509510): Jon Krakauer: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51aTAGmAgYL.@@AMEPARAM@@51aTAGmAgYL
a fascinating read.
Mitt Romney will be whatever he has to be.
He's a complete and utter phony. Is he like Obama? Meaning does he lack any principles whatsoever. You be the judge.
He's the consummate flip-flopper. Which means he has no values, no backbone, no conception for the country, as it were.
He's: total big business malarky. He's trying to get into politics purely to enrich himself and his close colleagues....
He represents no change from Obama. His campaign slogan should be: "Vote for Mitt 'cause I'm a nit... wit." ha ha! :)
Mitt Romney Flip Flop # 2,367 - YouTube
Mitt Romney: Perfect tough guy for right-wing war cheerleaders
By Glenn Greenwald
A New York Times profile this morning details what Mitt Romney was doing during the Vietnam War. Although the article reflects quite poorly on his character, it demonstrates why his candidacy is resonating among our country’s right-wing war-cheerleading faction. Romney’s life reflects that faction’s perverse “values” perfectly.
While many of his fellow citizens from 1966 to 1969 were being killed in Vietnam, Romney — “a sheltered child of privilege” — spent those years in Paris and other cities in France trying to convert the French to Mormonism, which enabled him to obtain a “missionary” deferment. When Romney and his fellow Mormon missionaries encountered anti-American sentiment from war opponents, they decided that the French — unlike Romney and his war-supporting, war-avoiding friends — were “weak”:
The missionaries had often met with hostility over the Vietnam War. “Are you an American?” was a common greeting, Mr. Romney recalled, followed by, “‘Get out of Vietnam! Bang!’ The door would slam.” But such opposition only hardened their hawkish views. “We felt the French were pretty weak-kneed,” [Romney's fellow missionary Byron] Hansen said. So early on, Romney shared one of the defining values of the political movement he now wants to lead: namely, the belief that those who want to send other people off to fight wars are “strong” and “courageous,” while those who oppose sending others off to war are “weak.” As Romney’s co-missionary put it, perfectly encapsulating the right-wing war-cheerleaders of both then and now:Most of the missionaries, though, were also relieved that their service meant a draft deferment. “I am sorry, but no one was excited to go and get killed in Vietnam,” Mr. Hansen said, acknowledging, “In hindsight, it is easy to be for the war when you don’t have to worry about going to Vietnam.”What’s particularly reprehensible about all of this is that so much of the Republican Party spent years mauling Bill Clinton for avoiding service in a war that he opposed. But for years, Romney emphatically supported the Vietnam War, yet actively avoided service and never enlisted:Many church leaders considered the war a godly cause, and Mr. Romney said at the time he thought that it was essential to holding back Communism. . . . Eventually, the great debates of the day intruded even at Brigham Young. In the fall of 1970, the student government president and others distributed a pamphlet encouraging opposition to the Vietnam conflict by quoting past Mormon leaders on the evils of war, stirring a predictable campus fury.
Mr. Romney wanted no part of such things. “If we had asked Mitt to sign that pamphlet, he would have had a heart attack,” said Terrell E. Hunt, a fellow Cougar who signed it.
Mitt Romney, then and now: showing what a super-tough patriot he is by cheering on wars that other people — but never he nor his family — risk their lives to fight. What makes it all the more repellent is that while many Mormons did enlist — Brigham Young was one of the few campuses that was a hotbed of pro-war activism — Romney actively avoided service, first with his missionary deferment, and then by obtaining a student deferment once he got back from France.
And now, he has the audacity to claim that he wanted to fight, but cites his high lottery number as a reason why his supposed desire was never fulfilled — as though there was no such thing as voluntarily enlisting:Mr. Romney, though, said that he sometimes had wished he were in Vietnam instead of France. “There were surely times on my mission when I was having a particularly difficult time accomplishing very little when I would have longed for the chance to be serving in the military,” he said in an interview, “but that was not to be.”Note the lack of agency that he tries to insinuate — military service “was not to be,” as though he so desperately wanted to fight but it was just a matter of bad luck, having nothing to do with his own actions, that he never managed to make it to the glorious combat fields of Vietnam. It’s exactly the same, deceitful little act which we recently heard from our brave, combat-avoiding Warrior-in-Chief whom Romney wants to replace:President Bush wishes that he could be alongside the troops in Iraq — except that he’s too old. At least that’s what he reportedly told a blogger embedded with U.S. troops in Iraq. . . . ” N.Z. Bear,” one of the eight guests sitting around a table with Bush at the White House, reported: “Responding to one of the bloggers in Iraq he expressed envy that they could be there, and said he’d like to be there but ‘One, I’m too old to be out there, and two, they would notice me.’”
Poor Mitt Romney and George Bush, such frustrated would-be warriors, wanting so badly to fight in combat but thwarted at every turn by circumstances beyond their control.
So what exactly was it that prevented Romney — along with his powerful “shoulders [that] you could land a 737 on,” as The Politico‘s Roger Simon droolingly put it — from fulfilling his wishes to fight? A video narration accompanying the NYT article contains an interview with one of Romney’s fellow missionaries at the time. He playfully explains how he and Romney found zany costumes and dressed up in them and formed a group that had a “fun time doing little Vaudeville routines” — all while Romney’s fellow citizens were being slaughtered in the Vietnam War that he so believed in:
http://bp3.blogger.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/...400/romney.pngBy rather stark contrast, these were the costumes which Romney’s fellow citizens were forced to wear because of the war he supported:
http://bp2.blogger.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/...0/vietnam1.png
http://bp3.blogger.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/...0/vietnam2.png http://bp2.blogger.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/...0/vietnam3.png[photo credits: here, here, here]
More repugnantly still, both the NYT article and accompanying video contain all sorts of quotes from Romney and his co-missionaries complaining about how very hard life was for them in France because it was so difficult to convert people, without any sense of how that “hardship” compared to their fellow citizens’ fighting and dying in the Vietnam jungle. It’s hard to put into words what twisted self-absorption and lack of empathy is required to wallow in such self-pity — exactly the same strain that led Romney earlier this year to equate his sheltered sons’ work on his presidential campaign with other Americans’ sons and daughters who are in the Iraq war that Romney so loves and exploits for political gain.
Romney’s draft-avoidance isn’t quite as shameful as Super Tough Guy Rudy Giuliani’s, whose deferment request was denied in 1969, thus placing him at imminent risk of being drafted, when he somehow convinced the federal judge for whom he was clerking “to write to the draft board, asking them to grant him a fresh deferment and reclassification as an ‘essential’ civilian employee.” The very idea that a first-year judicial clerk, just out law school, is “essential” for anything is absurd on its face. Yet the swaggering tough guy Rudy Giuliani used that blatant lie to ensure that someone other than himself was sent to fight in Vietnam.
But Romney’s record is hardly better. Although he claims he was ultimately convinced by his dad that the war was wrong, he spent most of the war cheering it on — from the same safe and sheltered distance where one finds most of our right-wing tough guy warriors today, the ones who understandably recognize themselves in both Romney and Giuliani. Needless to say, a centerpiece of both of their campaigns is how “tough” and courageously pro-war they are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
Fact checking you is becoming a full time job Ben. You tell us you don't particularly like either party, but all your copy and pastes are from far left sites. I think I can smell what you're cookin' ! Not only did Romney voice displeasure with Obama's class ware fare, but Buffet himself called it "disingenuous" and urged Obama to stop it. While your friends at Think Progress did attempt to explain that capitol gains were taxed at a lower rate, they don't explain the economic reason behind it. Nor do they explain why anybody living off his capitol gains ( and having already paid taxes on it as income once, more than likely) would in his right mind list it as "earned income". These folks didn't get rich by being idiots. Your fact checker calls this a "stretch".
Mitt Romney's TOP contributors:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/co...2&id=N00000286
Mitt Romney is the perfect politician: he has no principles and doesn't care about issues. He's also a strict opportunist. He has a lot in common with Obama.
Romney says he's a man of: "steadiness and constancy." Exactly. Constancy. He IS definitely unwavering -- as the YouTube clips clearly show -- ha ha ha!
He's an empty vessel. Romney is merely a banker and backed by the big banks and will serve them dutifully.
Mitt Romney Flip-Flop on Abortion - YouTube
Mitt Romney lies about Ronald Reagan - YouTube
The Real Congressman Mitt Romney - YouTube
And of course the grand liar: Bill Clinton. Who, actually, committed perjury. The maximum sentence is: bein' thrown in a cage for 5 years. But, of course, he didn't spend a day in jail.
We've been inculcated to think that politicians are above the law. Clinton broke the law. But, well, who cares, eh?
Bill Clinton lies about his affair with Monica Lewinsky then later admits it. - YouTube
Clinton testify - YouTube