When Mitt Romney Came To Town — Full, complete version - YouTube
Printable View
I like Newt, he is a complete cunt and can't help sticking his foot in his mouth. At least he doesn't pretend otherwise like other candidates. I like the attitude, yeah I cheated on my cancer stricken wife. So what? Believe me the other candiates including Obama have similar skeletons in the closet ,even worse,because to get to be a politician at the highest level you have to be a psychopath.
I think he could be doing it for two reasons
1 He is throwing everything including the kitchen sink at romney because Newt was fucked over in Iowa. Newt knew it ,everyone knew it ,he probably knows he can't win as all the establishment have annointed romney similar to Obama,Notice how if anything negative is said about romney on fox , it is similar to how Obama was treated by the liberal media in 2008? Wahh wahh ,don't be mean. etc etc. So he is trying to drag Romney down with him,even if he wins once Newt is done with him,he will be damaged goods.
2 Newt might have been 'asked' by some powerful person to drag this stuff out on romney now even if it means falling on his own sword as they know Obama and the dems will be running with this as part of their campaign against romney. They want to test romney out to see how he handles it,how his campaign handles it.They want to see how the US voters think about this. If things go tits up for romney they can annoint someone else.. Even get someone else to enter the race and annoint,like palin or jeb bush if they think the rest of the field is shit and can't win (I think that) .I think romney is going to struggle against Obama as well. It is also possible a powerful person/people dislikes romney or doesn't think he can win,and wants him gone. So trying to ruin his chances,though it is an odd way to do it,far better in my opinion to focus on Romneys questionable conservatism. I think the former in point two is most likely. Not 1 newt isn't stupid.
Well Ben......I get your point, but as a matter of fact, the video has been deconstructed, and discredited as being largely false.....
I have to admit, there's something about Newt I like too. I'd never support him, but that's a different matter. I guarantee you if you injected sodium pentothal into Axlerod's fat white ass, he's tell you he'd prefer to run against anyone but Newt, not because he doesn't think he couldn't beat him, but because when Obama crosses the finish line in Nov. 2012, Newt would leave him so torched and battle scared, he'd be unable to govern ( not that he can now either) .. Newt is Axlerod ten fold.
Newt is undisciplined, unforgiving, and has the heart of a political assassin, but for most of us.....it's about winning. And Newt can't win....but man it sure would be a fun summer if he were the nominee.
Who do you exactly support?Quote:
Originally Posted by onmyknees
There is nothing about Newt one can possibly like. He's morally bankrupt, intellectually sophomoric, a puff-up pastry with an over reaching ego. He's a successful liar because he convinces himself of [the] truth of his own lies. Not just lies. Newt makes stuff up and believes it. Sometimes it true, sometimes it's not. Doesn't matter. If it came out of his brain, or he thinks it came out of his brain, it's gotta be true. That's why this particular turn of events is a little bit interesting. Newt might actually convince himself that certain kinds of venture capitalism [are] not good for the country. He might actually start to believe there should be some form of regulation of the financial markets. Now that's an interesting turn of events.
I just love the idea that Romney is being attacked for the crime of being able to speak French.
QUELLE horreur!Quote:
Originally Posted by Prospero
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/op...irty-word.html
well clearly being well educated is a bad thing in a country where shows like jersey shore get madeQuote:
Originally Posted by Prospero
akthough i agree with the general notion that being able to speak the language of the surrender monkies is a bad thing
Rrrrrribbit!Quote:
Originally Posted by Prospero
Those would be the same surrender monkeys without whose help and active military support you would never have won your own revolution, I take it. Have you heard of Lafayette? Check your own history.Quote:
Originally Posted by muh_muh
And to suggest that the ability to speak another language is somehow a bad thing indicates a level of xenophobic anti-intellectualism that surprises, even from a Merkin.
what are you on about? the last time the surrender monkies had military success against us that i can think of was napoleonQuote:
Originally Posted by robertlouis
from 1870 on it was all downhill for them
Quote:
Originally Posted by robertlouis
I bring this up all the time to those dittoheads who relish in bashing the French.
Or for those who forget who gave us the Statue of Liberty overlooking NYC.
This country is fucked in a thousand different ways, I can't keep count anymore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by muh_muh
THe French provided material and logistical support during the American Revolution.
Without their contributions militarily, there would not be a United States.:yayo:
The monkeys - you can't even fucking spell it - didn't fight the US during the Napoleonic Wars you moron. They were on the same fucking side. The Americans remembered France's critical support during the War of Independence and tacitly supported them as much as they could. They were definitely outfought and outthought by the Prussians in 1870 and their soldiers were let down by confused leadership and direction in both world wars. Any country can have crap generals, but it's a huge insult to the bravery and resourcefulness of the ordinary French soldier to call them surrender monkeys. The Simpsons use satire, but I guess you're too dumb to recognise that too.Quote:
Originally Posted by muh_muh
Your ignorance of your own history is frankly staggering.
You write: "... to get to be a politician at the highest level you have to be a psychopath." Well, psychopathy helps.Quote:
Originally Posted by arnie666
That, too, applies to the business world.
A helluva lot of CEOs are psychopaths or sociopaths. And it certainly makes sense. Ya know, you've absolutely no empathy for people under you. You can't care. Because you lack the ability to care.
Also the entire corporate structure is psychopathic. It doesn't accept responsibility for its actions. Completely irresponsible. (Think: ExxonMobil.) Plus it can't assume responsibility. The corporate structure is guided by one thing and one thing only. It has no long-term goals. A corporation is concerned about the next quarter. To make as much money as it can and as fast as it can. And it must. By law.
So, who should head this callous and shallow and pathological and manipulative institution? I mean, who would you want? Betty White or Mitt Romney? Jane Goodall or Rex Tillerson, the CEO of Exxon? It makes sense why you'd want a psychopath.
Same with government. There are slight differences between government and corporate structures. I mean, corporations are merely private governments. But they do have some different interests....
Bloomberg TV's Shannon Pettypiece reports on psychopath executives - YouTube
Romney and the pathology of Bain:
http://www.salon.com/2012/01/13/romn...ain/singleton/
Without the French we would have lost 10's of thousands of good men taking Yorktown. The landing at Normandy might have never happened had it not been for the French underground.
Modern day politics seem to fuck up any relationship, the US owes a lot to our friends in France.
And, a decade later after the American Revolution, there was the Quasi-War. For the first hundred years, after the Revolutionary War, the relationship between the United States and France wasn't so great.Quote:
Originally Posted by giovanni_hotel
Don't you love politics..:dancing:
The Quasi-War lasted from 1798 to 1800. The French Revolution followed on the heels of the American Revolution. It was the French monarchy that aided us during our own revolution. After the monarchy fell, the U.S. resumed trade with Britain which didn't sit well with the new government in France. It also didn't sit well that we refused to pay our debts to France declaring that they were owed to the fallen monarchy. Consequently when we were set upon by French pirates the French Navy joined in. This was until 1800 when the provisional government in France was replaced by Napoleon. French pirates actually helped us in the War of 1812. Of course France's troubles weren't over by a long shot, and our relationship with France over the next half century was via a number of changing governments.
Our cultural relationship with France was always constant. Throughout the past we admired their philosophers (basing our own Constitution on Enlightenment values), writers, composers and scientists. We followed their styles, sent our children to France to be educated and spoke their language whenever we wanted to put on aires of sophistication. The ugliness with "freedom fries" and cries of "socialism" is relatively recent. I blame Bush :)
http://images.cheezburger.com/comple...6491966922.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by trish
Ben, please explain in what way are either Richard Branson or Bill Gates 'psychopaths'? Was Steve Jobs a psychopath who didn't care about his own employees or his customers? Really?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
As for this: Also the entire corporate structure is psychopathic. It doesn't accept responsibility for its actions. Completely irresponsible. Corporations might try and fix it so that law suits and other litigation doesn't cost them, but they usually take full responsibility -monitor the share price, thats one way of doing it! Have you really never heard of Ralph Nader and the campaigns he mounted in the 1960s and 1970s to get motor car maufacturers to make safer vehicles? What about corporation social responsibility?
And this: A corporation is concerned about the next quarter. To make as much money as it can and as fast as it can. So if you find out that a firm has a 50-year growth strategy how does that fit with the 'fast buck'? If you are in it for the long term, long term planning takes place- in fact, its the firms who don't plan for the next 50 years who are least likely to survive.
Ben, I beg you, get a job, in the private sector, preferably with a mulitnational, at least get some inside experience of business; you will be surprised to find out how different it looks...ps they pay better than most other employers...
im germanQuote:
Originally Posted by robertlouis
whos the moron now dipshit?
Two things about corporations (and, again, they're very rational and great at achieving one aim: maximizing money): they are not benevolent institutions and they aren't concerned about externalities. So, for instance, the negative cost of oil companies is global warming. (In the 1990s, and Al Gore has affirmed this, oil companies commissioned their own scientific studies about global warming and said it's real and it poses a serious threat but we're going to have to undermine the science to serve our very narrow interests. Which, of course, is to maximize return on investment. So, the externality is future generations. And oil company executives cannot, because of their company code, as it were, be concerned about the cost of global warming to humankind and to future generations.) I mean, we can restructure the corporate framework. We can make them completely democratic. We can make them be concerned about the stakeholders. The stakeholders are separate from the stockholders. And they'd include communities. I mean, just to show how corporations aren't kind and caring institutions, well, they'll shut a factory in, say, Des Moines, Iowa and move those jobs offshore. Now, a corporation is looking for lower costs. So, it makes sense for them, as it were. But what about the people in Iowa? And it's easier for the CEO not to be, say, stressed out if he or she is a psychopath. It's easier to do your job: offshoring jobs -- :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
The American psychiatrist Robert J. Lifton coined the term doubling. Meaning in your personal life (and this could and most likely does apply to both Branson and Gates; and I'm sure they're very nice people) you can be the nicest person. Nice to your wife, kids, the neighbors and your family pets, as it were.
But in your institutional role, well, you've to be a monster. What do I mean by that? Well, take, say, Rex Tillerson. The CEO of ExxonMobil. He can't be concerned about global warming. If he becomes overly concerned about global warming and starts to care about future generations and says, ya know, we need to stop burning oil like right now. Well, he can't. If he does, well, he's out and someone else is in. I mean, the board would make sure he's pushed out. And this makes sense. I mean, if I'm a shareholder of ExxonMobil I don't want a CEO trying to stem global warming by stopping the burning of fossil fuels. I mean, my income comes from my Exxon shares.
The institution demands that you can't be concerned about future generations, the planet etc., etc. Now Rex Tillerson in his private life may care deeply about global warming. (Again, the Lifton term: doubling.) He may give generously to Greenpeace etc. But in his institutional capacity he can't be concerned because he's required, and this is by law, to put the interests of the shareholders above all else. Everything. Including the planet and future generations. (Take, say, Richard Branson. He's deeply concerned about global warming. Again, as a person he is committed to doing something about it. But in his professional life he owns an airline. And we know that the airline industry bears a great deal of responsibility for global warming. Again, doubling.)
And the corporate institution demands that Branson put the interests of shareholders above all else. The planet, future generations. I mean, Branson is indirectly saying, because of global warming, again to which he is deeply worried , that his grandchildren's future has no value.
So, again, Branson is a nice person with genuine worries about the future. But corporate structures aren't organized that way. And they can't be. Because it would be irrational.
Actually, we're called rational wealth maximizers. No one matters but me. Future generations, well, who cares. Depressing. But true.
The author and journalist Chris Hedges (all of his books are well worth reading) talks about varying forms of capitalism -- and the insidious form of corporate capitalism.
Chris Hedges: Forms of Capitalism - YouTube
Even ol' Sarah has been critical of corporate or crony capitalism. Albeit she doesn't critique the overall corporate structure or even the free movement of capital or free trade. Now, according to Adam Smith, the absolute core of free trade is the free circulation of labor. So, in that respect, we don't have free trade. Neither do we have free markets. We merely have corporate tyranny. And you can't live in a democratic society if the most powerful institutions in that society are de facto Kingdoms. Which is what corporations are. But, again, they're rational. Which is why they're sooo frightening because, as I've mentioned, things like global warming are simply externalities:
Sarah Palin "Crony Capitalism" Tea Party of America Indianola Iowa - YouTube
So CEO's aren't psychopaths. What you seem to be saying is that given their current structure, if each corporation were a person, then [corporations] would be psychopaths. I might add to that: never give a psychopath the keys to your car.Quote:
So, again, Branson is a nice person with genuine worries about the future. But corporate structures aren't organized that way. And they can't be. Because it would be irrational.
What if he insists it's his car and really believes it?Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
More of Chris Hedges:
Chris Hedges: The Treason of the Intellectuals - YouTube
Fake like you're throwing the keys to him (but instead throw something shiny and jingly (like your medical alert bracelet). Pretend you throw like a girl and make sure the "keys" go between his legs and behind him. When he turns to pick them up, run for the car, unlock the door remotely, dive in, lock, start and lay rubber.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dino Velvet
That's some good thinking there. Have a good supper tonight?Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Make sure you tell the voters, cause they don't think so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
Quote:
Originally Posted by Faldur
Yea....that 60 seconds may propel him to win South Carolina, and weathervanes like Ben don't have a clue as to why. It's not that they suddenly discovered Gingrich, ...shit he's been around longer than dirt. It's not that they think he's even electable, it's because figuratively speaking he sticks his boot right in the ass of these pampas, insulting , condescending liberal main stream media types. That alone is worthy of their vote. My only regret that the NY Times isn't sanctioning a debate !! I gotta admit when he schooled that asshole Scott Pelly about shoot to kill orders, I was cheering like I was at a Giants game. Well done Newt. Take no prisoners, these fuckers don't deserve it
Maybe Newt isn't screwed. There are too many twists and turns in this amazing reality show.
http://www.salon.com/2012/01/20/the_...ood/singleton/
Wait, Wait....A Democracy Now review of the Republican Debate?? Let me get right to it.
I could have told you what it was going to say before I even hit play. Nothing to see here...2 liberal pinheads with the usual cast of characters...a liberal pundit, and a black guy with an axe to gring that sees a racist behind every tree. Let's cut to the angry black guy now and get his take........Yawn. Already been seen Ben. Nothing new here. Don't waste me time if this is all ya got.
Here's a useful rule of thumb Benny......the more you hear empty, baseless, redundant cries of racism, the more you know the internal polling of the Democrats is showing them Obama is falling further behind the generic Republican candidate....so by mid summer, we should be rockin' around the clock with cries of racism...what a fucking joke.
I think there is a problem with the Presidency at election time -on the one hand a President is part of the policy-making process, so his policy proposals must be analysed; on the other hand he also becomes Head of State -like our Queen, for example- and should have popular appeal to fuflil the functional requirements of a Head of State. Too much is made of the candidates popular appeal -their electability- even if most people -not necessarily the ones who actually vote- are not interested that much in policy, or just have one thing that concerns them.
Gingrich is the consummate politician -cold, analytical, incisive, with a tendency to think of ten ideas when one will do, he has no popular appeal beyond an amusing sarcasm when being questioned by people he considers to be his inferiors; and as far as I know he is not a serial philanderer, he was married to Wife no 1 for 18 years, for Wife no 2 for 18 years and frankly if women fall to their knees when he enters a room, I would expect it to be them falling over each other in the stampede to get away as fast as possible, or maybe he has some charm and charisma I don't notice.
Look, if the USA wants a serious debate on the policy options on domestic and foreign policy, it would make more sense for Gingrich and Ron Paul to be the focus of attention, as both are interesting to listen to on policy detail, and have strong views which would at least draw out the folly of voting Republican, whoever the candidate is.
I don't know whether Newt is schtupping a different gal every week or not. Don't really care. He does, however, seem to be frightened of the idea of taking care of a wife in sickness unto death. He dumped his first wife while she's in the hospital dying of cancer. He dumped his second wife, on the phone, shortly after she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. A slow degenerative disease that can leave one seriously decapacitated for years. I really can't see Newt changing diapers and taking care of someone in that condition, and nor could Newt.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/21/op...-marriage.html
I'm not judging either way...but his own daughter disputes that story..Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
...and for those that don't know: she's still alive today, it was a benign tumor.