2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[Major Robert Dump]

#1: Greed exists alive and well in the 250k and under bracket. At big box retail corporate stores people will literally shank each other over a promotion that gets them 50 more cents an hour. Now imagine what an accountant would do to win a lawsuit, or a contractor to win a contract, or a grifter to claim an injury. Crooks and liars, crroks and lairs.

#2: We cannot have actual, equal discourse as long as we remain a touchy-feely country intent on finding inequalities where they simply don't exist. While I sympathize with people who have gotten a raw deal in the past and continue to get a raw deal, the typical solution is a broad brush stroke that alienates just as many people as it helps. The gender wage gap debate is a prefect example of this. The hate crime debate is a perfect example of this. The minimum wage debate is a perfect example of this. Everyone deals in absolutes, and if you disagree you are a sexist, a racist, you hate poor people, you are jealous of rich people, etc. Twitter and the internet don't help, because now everyone isan expert. Read the comments in a yahoo news article sometime. It's one thing to make tacky jokes, I love tacky jokes. Shock value, yum. It's another thing for a perfect stranger to write a 1000 word diatribe about democrats-this or republicans-that, and then a whole host of fools respond with 1000 word diatribes, as if anyone cares. WTF WTF

[a completely inoffensive name]

#1: Greed exists alive and well in the 250k and under bracket. At big box retail corporate stores people will literally shank each other over a promotion that gets them 50 more cents an hour. Now imagine what an accountant would do to win a lawsuit, or a contractor to win a contract, or a grifter to claim an injury. Crooks and liars, crroks and lairs.

The middle class has been shrinking for a while now. If greed is really the primary driver for these people why are they doing a piss poor job at keeping their wealth and standard of living?



#2: We cannot have actual, equal discourse as long as we remain a touchy-feely country intent on finding inequalities where they simply don't exist. While I sympathize with people who have gotten a raw deal in the past and continue to get a raw deal, the typical solution is a broad brush stroke that alienates just as many people as it helps. The gender wage gap debate is a prefect example of this. The hate crime debate is a perfect example of this. The minimum wage debate is a perfect example of this. Everyone deals in absolutes, and if you disagree you are a sexist, a racist, you hate poor people, you are jealous of rich people, etc. Twitter and the internet don't help, because now everyone isan expert. Read the comments in a yahoo news article sometime. It's one thing to make tacky jokes, I love tacky jokes. Shock value, yum. It's another thing for a perfect stranger to write a 1000 word diatribe about democrats-this or republicans-that, and then a whole host of fools respond with 1000 word diatribes, as if anyone cares. WTF WTF

You are just ranting now about how much you hate life and in the process misconstruing what I have been saying. Actually, you highlight what I have been saying, people have different ideas of where injustice occurs or originates from and you take this hostile attitude because to you they "simply don't exist". If they don't then by engaging in discussion about the subject will bring it to light, bringing up the online circlejerks and being a cynical ass to everyone because people obviously should "just get it" is the perfect crux of someone who is angry about the system and then proceeds to hurt himself by projecting his anger on others instead of building something constructive.

[a completely inoffensive name]

True, but the trend so far is going in the opposite direction. It is easier than ever to sell a slanted view to a willing audience. History suggests that as the situation gets worse (economically, especially) people will rally around feel-good notions and "Us against Them" mentalities.

It's a language game. Redefine "Us" and "Them".

Also people are lazy citizens. If everyone was as passionate as the people here in the backroom, it would be a different ballgame.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Ehh I analyzed MRD's #2 point incorrectly because I skimmed the first few sentences. Looks like I suck at constructive dialogue. Will edit when I get my head together tomorrow.

[Lemur]

Interesting bit from an article about social networking: Super PACs hate it and leave it the hell alone (http://www.wired.com/business/2012/06/on-bubbles-facebook-and-playing-for-keeps-ten-questions-with-clay-shirky/).

Clinton used mailing lists in ’92, and every election since then — famously Howard Dean to Barack Obama — has involved considerably more imaginative use of social media. And this election has not. I’ve been quite surprised by that.

I had a student looking at Super PACs a while ago, and we said, “Let’s try and find out what the Super PACs’ social media strategy is.” As she came back about 10 days later, she said, “I think I know what the Super PAC’s social media strategy is: Don’t use it.” That’s exactly the whole point of being a Super PAC, to be able to spend unlimited money on the kind of media where no one has the right or the ability to respond, and to minimize transparency. This election feels to me, right now, more Nixon-Kennedy than Obama-McCain because television has become the tool of choice for the source of unlimited fundraising. Politicians like television better; nobody gets to yell back to you if you’re yelling on TV.

[Major Robert Dump]

The middle class has been shrinking for a while now. If greed is really the primary driver for these people why are they doing a piss poor job at keeping their wealth and standard of living? .

An odd question coming from a die-hard union supporter. It's easy to screw people over and steal from the government when you have money, it is business as usual. Keep the middle classes fighting over dumb, divisive social issues, and then tell them they are not more successful because they don't work hard enough. I wasn't kidding about the 50 cent raise thing. People will lie and make others lose their jobs for promotions that amount to an extra tank of gas a week.




You are just ranting now about how much you hate life and in the process misconstruing what I have been saying. Actually, you highlight what I have been saying, people have different ideas of where injustice occurs or originates from and you take this hostile attitude because to you they "simply don't exist". If they don't then by engaging in discussion about the subject will bring it to light, bringing up the online circlejerks and being a cynical ass to everyone because people obviously should "just get it" is the perfect crux of someone who is angry about the system and then proceeds to hurt himself by projecting his anger on others instead of building something constructive.


You are mean

[ICantSpellDawg]

This election feels to me, right now, more Nixon-Kennedy than Obama-McCain[/ind]

Ha! Kennedy was a promising candidate back then and Nixon looked terrible. Romney is better looking than Barack Obama and Obama has already shown himself to be a PR glam flop over the past 4 years. Nothing like that election except that the President has the cool factor, but nearly every Democratic candidate has has that over the GOP and look at the balance sheet. If we are talking about the stuff that people vote on, Obama has no promise and Romney is better looking, not scary and measured. I think we have a shot this time on the superficial stuff alone (also known as the important stuff)

[PanzerJaeger]

In the case of Romney, you can literally only point to his ambition as a so-called positive trait.

That is just not true. I've written extensively about the qualities that I feel would make Romney a good president - experience, competence, leadership qualities, management skill, pragmatism, and an analytical decision making approach are just a few of those traits that come to mind.

You act shocked.... shocked!... that Romney is running more on rhetoric than reality, as if you hadn't lived through 2008... or 2004... or 2000. Welcome to American democracy. Do some reading on the election of 1800 if you really want to see some ugly populism... or the turn of the century big city bosses and the ballot stuffing that persisted well into the '60s (and handed the JFK his victory). Americans are so much more informed today than they ever have been, and our elections are far more fair.

You're obviously not even reading my posts, so I won't bother to waste my (now crunched) time on a point by point response to yours. My only point to you is that this is a thread about the 2012 election. The constant bitching and condescension about the 'system' is getting tired. I get it, by taking an interest in the election as it stands, by trying to make a realistic (not idealistic) choice, I'm an uninformed dolt propping up a broken system. If I really cared about the direction of this country, I would sit on the sidelines and pout about how awful things are.

Now that I think about it, though, I'm not even prepared to cede the point that the system is broken - at least to the point of dysfunction. It's messy, its dirty, and it often seems unfair, but it always has been. And, yet, America has persisted. After all the drama, the best candidate won. He usually does. There was no question that Romney was the best of the lot, and after all the drama, he managed to make it out of the primaries. While he wasn't my absolute, number one pick, there is no question he has the experience and talents to be president, and I will have no reservations about voting for him. I think he is a pretty admirable guy, much more so than Bush actually, and I can think of few contemporary politicians better suited for the office. The system worked, at least for me.

[Major Robert Dump]

My ideal candidate right now would be Gilbert Godfried.

I do realize that I get into round and rounds with people, and act all offended, and act all pessimistic, and I think I made PJ mad about something because he won't even talk to me anymore or cyber with me on Steam, but in the end what it boils down to is that I just do not care any more. I haven't given up on anything in terms of politics, because that would assume that I actually stood for something to begin with. Nor do I think that people should stop pursuing what they believe in, divisive or wrongheaded or not.

I have now reserved myself to 4 things:
- pursuing my non-profit work, in a country other than the USA
- minor enteprenuership, enough to support my non profit and bad habits
- marrying a little brown island girl half my age, because based on my looks a brown girl+me will make the prettiest babies, and good looks = more success
- having lots of babies with said girl half my age. Very difficult, very hard work, I am a true hero making a sacrifice

These 4 things are not conducive to me staying in the continental USA, running the rat race, and arguing over the things the politicians want us to argue about.

I may get shanked by a crook who wants my watch in the 3rd world, I may get kidnapped by Abu Sayaab from a beach because I am an American, I may die a horrible, preventable disease because I forgot not to drink the tap water...... and it will all be worth it because it means I will never have to listen to Chris MAtthews or Glenn Beck ever again. As of 2013, my taxable annual income will never, ever again exceed $18,000. Have a nice day

Also I am drunk

[ICantSpellDawg]

My ideal candidate right now would be Gilbert Godfried.

I do realize that I get into round and rounds with people, and act all offended, and act all pessimistic, and I think I made PJ mad about something because he won't even talk to me anymore or cyber with me on Steam, but in the end what it boils down to is that I just do not care any more. I haven't given up on anything in terms of politics, because that would assume that I actually stood for something to begin with. Nor do I think that people should stop pursuing what they believe in, divisive or wrongheaded or not.

I have now reserved myself to 4 things:
- pursuing my non-profit work, in a country other than the USA
- minor enteprenuership, enough to support my non profit and bad habits
- marrying a little brown island girl half my age, because based on my looks a brown girl+me will make the prettiest babies, and good looks = more success
- having lots of babies with said girl half my age. Very difficult, very hard work, I am a true hero making a sacrifice

These 4 things are not conducive to me staying in the continental USA, running the rat race, and arguing over the things the politicians want us to argue about.

I may get shanked by a crook who wants my watch in the 3rd world, I may get kidnapped by Abu Sayaab from a beach because I am an American, I may die a horrible, preventable disease because I forgot not to drink the tap water...... and it will all be worth it because it means I will never have to listen to Chris MAtthews or Glenn Beck ever again. As of 2013, my taxable annual income will never, ever again exceed $18,000. Have a nice day

Also I am drunk

I still believe in stuff, but not too much stuff - that's why I find what others believe in to be laughable sometimes.

[ICantSpellDawg]

These are absolute garbage requisites. This is a bare freaking minimum. My problem isn't that you find him to be competent, but that you think competence is enough. Is it too much to ask that we, as a supposedly enlightened society, demand a truly high standard!?

So we need what? a Messiah? Give me a break - we need a guy who is a mover and a shaker and can bring people together and make us all rich without ruining everything. Romney can do that, Obama can't. Obama has proven that he can't, Romney has proven that he can.

[a completely inoffensive name]

So we need what? a Messiah? Give me a break - we need a guy who is a mover and a shaker and can bring people together and make us all rich without ruining everything. Romney can do that, Obama can't. Obama has proven that he can't, Romney has proven that he can.

A messiah indeed.

You are a hollow M&M.

[ICantSpellDawg]

A messiah indeed.

You are a hollow M&M.

At least i'm not filled with turd nuggets

[a completely inoffensive name]

At least i'm not filled with turd nuggets

I passed those yesterday.

[ICantSpellDawg]

A high standard means you demand specific policy information from your candidates before you vote for them, and it means you're up in arms to make sure they don't get another term when they turn around and do the exact opposite. This isn't rocket surgery man, its accountability. A politician willing and able to be accountable would be a very high standard these days, when its so fashionable to treat the white house as a "do whatever I want with no real consequences" zone.

But who are we talking about here?

[PanzerJaeger]

These are absolute garbage requisites. This is a bare freaking minimum. My problem isn't that you find him to be competent, but that you think competence is enough. Is it too much to ask that we, as a supposedly enlightened society, demand a truly high standard!?



You do not seem to understand what I am referring to when I say competence. Proper administration of very large organizations is very difficult and requires a unique skill set that most do not possess. That is why the private sector pays such incredibly high salaries to men like Alan Mulally. It's why Apple sucked after they fired Steve Jobs. He wasn't so much a visionary as he was a taskmaster, keeping the organization's constant focus on its goals. The Peter Principle eliminates 99.9% of those willing to attempt management at that scale, leaving competition for that .1% very intense.

IIRC, the United States government is the largest, most complex organization on earth - that or the Chinese PLA. And that is not even counting the Healthcare takeover.

IMO, the reason Obama has failed is not because of ideology, but because he has been an ineffective manager (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/little-america-infighting-on-obama-team-squandered-chance-for-peace-in-afghanistan/2012/06/24/gJQAbQMB0V_print.html). An objective look at the Bush administration would show a similar deficiency. Both men could have been great left/right of center presidents, but they simply could not harness the federal government to effect change. Instead, the complexities of navigating Washington overwhelmed them and we were left with wasted political capital and middling results.

At this time, in our current situation, we do not need an ideological president. This isn't Roosevelt versus the monopolies. It's not Reagan versus the Great Society. The country doesn't need a hard ideological shift. We know broadly what needs to be done, and it is largely administrative. The country isn't actually in bad shape long term, we've just suffered too much ideology and too little management at the top.

Romney's unique skill set is not the bare minimum we should expect, but, frankly, more than we could ask for. The man could be making hundreds of millions of dollars in the private sector, but has decided for whatever reason - genuine patriotism, ambition, daddy-issues, or some mix of the three - to put himself through the exhausting campaign process and the personal demonization to take a shot at righting our ship. The presidency was a big income and stature boost for a community organizer turned one-term, record-less senator. He and his family's lives have been upgraded tremendously because of it. In contrast, Romney doesn't need this. He makes more than the presidential salary in less than a week. It's a service.

[a completely inoffensive name]

A. You have no idea if Romney is ideological or not because he was ideological during the primaries and now he is being mister moderate during the general election, like every smooth talking politician.

B. If you want to portray him as a man who just wants to do his service to the country you are going to get laughed at by me when I recall and re-watch the 1990s debates with Ross Perot. Now that was a guy who really didn't need to be in there, but he busts out his charts in a completely unorthodox manner (and some would say embarrassing manner) and doesn't give a **** about how oddball he comes across. That's a guy who is there because he wants to do a service and that actually resonated in the American public with the large percentages he was grabbing.

Romney is the complete opposite of Perot presentation wise, he is the textbook definition of processed and polished.

[Lemur]

YAnd that is not even counting the Healthcare takeover.
Oh please. You mean the thing where we smoothed all the rough patches to subsidize and preserve private medical insurance? That takeover? Next you'll be going on about death panels.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Nobody, because the American people don't have the backbone to cast off bad politicians, preferring instead to apologize for their party of choice.

Who is this ideal person you are talking about? You try to make it sound like you are a true believer, but it doesn't seem like you have anyone in mind or have ever met anyone capable of filling the roll that needs to be filled. Go write fiction or watch a disney movie if you can't live in the real world. Pull the lever or press a button for Romney if you want a decent President who wants to make the world a better place and satisfy his own ambition after years of making himself and his investors very rich.

Or you can vote for another 4 years for Obama, who clearly sucks. Lets get a manager in there and see how he does, hell, Obama can even write speeches for him and we'll have the best of both worlds.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Hey, look, an opinion on the internet. That never happens.

Not sure what you're point is, though. You seem to be calling my grasp on reality in to question, while at the same time throwing your vote behind someone you know nothing about (blind faith, I'd call it). Oh, he's a good manager! Seriously, can you tell me what his platform is? Nah, of course you can't. Proceed to lecture me on how expecting transparent aims from your leadership is a pipe dream, then.


I know Romney's platform better than most. I knew it 4 years ago even better than I do now. I've met him, I own (and skimmed) both of his books and watched many of his town hall style discussions. I follow the campaign and the people he hires, the endorsements that he receives. I followed the endorsements that he made at the mid-terms. What would you like to know? If you have a question on a specific policy issue I will go over his evolution on that issue. If you want the stump, go to his website.

Do I need to get a doctorate in Romney to have an idea what I'm talking about? Here is a link to "Romney, tuffstuffmcgruff" keywords (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/search.php?searchid=9033705). Peruse, leisurely, on your own time. Can I get a witness? I'm obsessed with Romney and I DO question your grasp of reality if you haven't picked up that much about me.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Ah, well search those 2 keywords. The Governor is as vague or in depth as he needs to be. He had crafted specific policy positions 4-4 years ago and lost the primary. He will begin to draw well thought out policy positions as issues come up. Remember now, Hope and Change was not specific and that won the last election. We need to find a generality delivers a winnable segment of the electorate. Mitt Romney is not a micro-manager. His big lesson from the health care plan is that you can have a good idea, get it done and have it work pretty well, but if you get mired in explaining the specifics it is easy to find folly. A good manager talks very little about details, he understands them himself, but allows the experts that he manages to craft and explain those for him. The main point is to allow local governing bodies to design detail. We want to draw the blueprints that helps them to do this rather than decide national details wholesale. A good President is vague in most areas of speech, explicit in the few that he must be.

Here is a 49 minute comparison of the affordable health care act (http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/299476-1) and the massachusets plan, done by Romney. I've watched it and liked it. I've got lots more like like this if you would like to watch them. If you want to get to know the candidate watch his town halls from 2007.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I know Romney's platform better than most. I knew it 4 years ago even better than I do now. I've met him, I own (and skimmed) both of his books and watched many of his town hall style discussions. I follow the campaign and the people he hires, the endorsements that he receives. I followed the endorsements that he made at the mid-terms. What would you like to know? If you have a question on a specific policy issue I will go over his evolution on that issue. If you want the stump, go to his website.

Do I need to get a doctorate in Romney to have an idea what I'm talking about? Here is a link to "Romney, tuffstuffmcgruff" keywords (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/search.php?searchid=9033705). Peruse, leisurely, on your own time. Can I get a witness? I'm obsessed with Romney and I DO question your grasp of reality if you haven't picked up that much about me.

You know who has also written a lot of books? Donald Trump. And I'm ashamed to say that I actually have read every single one of them.

[ICantSpellDawg]

You know who has also written a lot of books? Donald Trump. And I'm ashamed to say that I actually have read every single one of them.

Why would you do that? I can't even say I've read both of Romney's books. I was about half way through turnaround and stopped reading. I barely even cracked open No apology. I only read a ton of 3-15 page articles, legal statutes, watch talks, but I have no interest in reading books. Ironically, I probably read 500 pages a day, I just hate reading books. I dislike fiction because I feel like I am spending my time not learning about facts and corrupting my understanding of real things - I'd rather watch a movie or mini-series with a time limit. I can only read about 20 pages of nonfiction at a time because I get bored. I'd rather space it out all day and read about as much as possible on as many topics as possible. Most people only have a few articles of things worth saying anyway, so why not cut to the chase, eh?

[Lemur]

This is more my speed ...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ao4HVlV7wZU&feature=relmfu

[Lemur]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yzw2ZiMt3y4&feature=relmfu

[Lemur]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6r9CdNenuk&feature=relmfu

[Lemur]

Candidate Romney is having a very bad week or four. For anybody who hasn't been following, here's the basics (http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/16/opinion/frum-romney-week/index.html) (bolding for what I believe is the most relevant bit):

Thursday morning, the Obama campaign released a tough ad attacking the record of downsizing and outsourcing at Romney's old firm, Bain Capital.

The Romney campaign reacted with outrage. That same day, it announced a multimillion-dollar purchase of airtime for an ad that bluntly accused President Obama of lying.

In support of the ad, Romney's team argued that he had left Bain Capital in February 1999; the incidents alluded to by the Obama campaign all occurred after that date and had nothing to do with Romney.

Wham. The first attack on Romney had been a jab, dropping Romney's guard against the haymaker: On Friday, the Obama team counter-charged that it was Romney who was lying in his ads or who had committed a felony, lying on 140 official forms that he signed as CEO and sole shareholder of Bain between 1999 and 2002.

Romney now chased the Obama story, granting five TV interviews to reiterate his version of events. The more he talked, the more deeply into trouble he sank. By Sunday, even Romney supporters were urging the thing he wants least: release of more income tax returns.

And here again, what got Romney into the trouble was his war room. It was the too-fierce response to Attack 1 -- the adamant insistence that Romney had nothing, nothing to do with anything that happened at Bain after February 1999 -- that set up Romney for Attack 2: Did he lie on SEC forms? And now he will struggle through the rest of the election trying to reconcile his answers. [...]

Romney's core problem is this: He heads a party that must win two-thirds of the white working-class vote in presidential elections to compensate for its weakness in almost every demographic category. The white working class is the most pessimistic and alienated group in the electorate, and it especially fears and dislikes the kind of financial methods that gained Romney his fortune.

Romney has a strong potential defense: Bain was in the business of making companies more efficient and profitable. Downsizing and outsourcing were necessary -- and often indispensable -- means to that end. In a growing economy, the workers who lost their jobs should find new jobs elsewhere, and it's precisely the relentless search for profitability that causes economies to grow in the first place.

That's an argument that, to borrow an old joke of Henry Kissinger's, is not only convincing but has the additional merit of being true. However, it's not an argument that appeals much to the voters Romney most intensely needs to win. Hence his unleashing of the war room -- but in the end, there's only so much a war room can do.

[Hooahguy]

Id say Obama has it pretty bad too. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/13/remarks-president-campaign-event-roanoke-virginia)

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.

Whelp, once again, on the fence. As someone who actually has friends who have started small businesses, to say that they didnt build it themselves it atrocious.

Interestingly enough, I cant find any major news source save for Fox News that even mentions that. But then again, I didnt look very hard. Still, the fact that the media is taking sides, regardless of which side they take, is disturbing,

[Lemur]

As someone who actually has friends who have started small businesses, to say that they didnt build it themselves it atrocious.
Actually, if you read what he said, it's obvious he was talking about things like infrastructure. Or as a conservative intellectual put it (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/309559/what-shall-we-do-together-yuval-levin):

The first thing to say about the president’s argument is that most of it is true, and is very, very obvious. No one would disagree with the specific things he says, except perhaps the vague and strange “If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.” Who? But the president clearly thinks that some people do disagree with his more general point that everyone depends on society. It’s very evident from this passage and from a great deal of what he has to say about his opponents that Obama thinks he is running against a band of nihilistic Ayn Rand objectivists who champion complete and utter radical individualism.Or, if you'd rather get your interpretation of the quote from someone who actually is a nihilistic Ayn Rand objectivist who champions complete and utter radical individualism (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/07/16/barack_obama_hates_this_country):

I'll tell you what. I think it can now be said, without equivocation -- without equivocation -- that this man hates this country. He is trying -- Barack Obama is trying -- to dismantle, brick by brick, the American dream.

There's no other way to put this. There's no other way to explain this.

He was indoctrinated as a child. His father was a communist. His mother was a leftist. He was sent to prep and Ivy League schools where his contempt for the country was reinforced. He moved to Chicago. It was the home of the radical-left movement. He hooks up to Ayers and Dohrn and Rashid Khalidi. He learns the ruthlessness of Cook County politics. This is what we have as a president: a radical ideologue, a ruthless politician who despises the country and the way it was founded and the way in which it became great. He hates it.

[Hooahguy]

Oh dont you go and put me in bed with that idiot Rush.

Anyhow, I get the point about working together. But I do think the way Obama phrased it was very, very poor.

[Lemur]

Oh dont you go and put me in bed with that idiot Rush.
Indeed, the man is so toxic (to all but his 1.4 million-or-so listeners (http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-03-13/news/31158380_1_limbaugh-average-quarter-hour-radio-stations)), I'm kinda surprised no Republican presidential candidate has had a Sister Souljah moment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sister_Souljah_moment) with him. Alas, Romney does not have the conservative bona fides to do so, so it ain't gonna happen this cycle.

[Centurion1]

What is with right-wing pundits trying to equate "American" with "Republican"?

There's nothing un-American about leaning to the left, but there's a lot of things un-American about trying to paint all the opposition as unpatriotic. People like Rush Limbaugh up there really need to just quietly go away.

I concur with your second point. However, I think that in its essence America how it was conceived by our forefathers is quite clearly in line with republican ideals. Democrats are not necessarily wrong because of that it is simply a fact.

[Major Robert Dump]

I love the whole "you outsource jobs" argument that is going on, when Democrats are just as guilty of it, and the POTUS job creation ad about the green energy jobs that fails to mention the cost per job.

I had the pleasure of viewing half a dozen Senators and Reps financial disclosures the other day. Dems and Repubs. I was thoroughly disgusted at how these people have their filthy little fingers in virtually everything, and we allow them to "self police" when it comes to conflicts of interest, etc.

And meawhile we pay for their conventions

[a completely inoffensive name]

However, I think that in its essence America how it was conceived by our forefathers is quite clearly in line with republican ideals.

Let's see we have:

1. Generalized statement about mythical, homogenous "Founding Fathers".
2. An unfounded connection between 18th century political science and 21st century labels.
3. An overall point that is of no relevance whatsoever because as Thomas Jefferson said:


Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was very like the present but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading; and this they would say themselves were they to rise from the dead.

[...]
I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.



EDIT: I guess I should post the continuation of that statement for the full context. More context was added. Source is listed as "Letter to H. Tompkinson (AKA Samuel Kercheval), 12 July 1816"

[Major Robert Dump]

Good post. I'd also like to throw in the obvious observation that if the constitution wasn't meant to be altered then it wouldn't have provisions within its very pages that allow for it to be altered.

No.

The Consititution is a read-only document. Benjamin Franklins and Thomas Hamilton would roll over in their graves if they found out that women were voting when there are tasty cakes to be baked. If the Chinese had built our internet tubes without equal protection under the law -- like they did our railroads and telegraph lines -- we would all have free internet, a better economy and probably more rain because God would reward us for being awesome

[PanzerJaeger]

Anyhow, I get the point about working together. But I do think the way Obama phrased it was very, very poor.

Indeed, it was exactly what you would expect from a man who has never run a business. Yes, yes, I know the comment was made in the midst of the standard liberal straw man on taxes (as if anyone is actually arguing for no taxation), but it reads like a Freudian slip. If you've spent your life in academia and on the government dole and never actually had to take a loan out against your house to make payroll, it's very easy to view business as dependent on the state's largess. It wasn't your time, resources, and soul that built that internet business - it was Al Gore. The reality is quite different, however. Without the business community, Al wouldn't have had the tax base to invest in the military's internet R&D budget. Whether Obama cares to admit it or not, business was here long before the government built the interstates or the internet - and paid for much of both of them.

In general, the attacks on business and wealth creation disgust me more than the overt racial appeals and class warfare. I fear the GOP simply doesn't have the time or resources to explain creative destruction to an American public completely detached from the realities of globalism and the international business environment.

Edit: Also, I think Romney needs to go nuclear on Obama. The president has set the tone... err... lowered the bar... early this cycle, and, unfortunately, Romney needs to follow suit or go the way of John Kerry. It's time to bust out the s-word.

[a completely inoffensive name]

In general, the attacks on business and wealth creation disgust me more than the overt racial appeals and class warfare. I fear the GOP simply doesn't have the time or resource to explain creative destruction to an American public completely detached from the realities of globalism and the international business environment.

Tbh I think you are just reading too much into a reality you have painted in your own head. Talking about class warfare is rush's territory.

[Major Robert Dump]

I knew these girls once who would shoplift as a team

The hot one would show her breasts, and the fat one would run out with the beer

By giving us free boobies,

The government steals all of our beer


I cannot beieve GM and the Green Energy stimulus is actually being used as a pro-Obama campaign message. The fact that they are certainly shows how jacked up things are, and what we consider successful.

[Centurion1]

Let's see we have:

1. Generalized statement about mythical, homogenous "Founding Fathers".
2. An unfounded connection between 18th century political science and 21st century labels.
3. An overall point that is of no relevance whatsoever because as Thomas Jefferson said:


EDIT: I guess I should post the continuation of that statement for the full context. More context was added. Source is listed as "Letter to H. Tompkinson (AKA Samuel Kercheval), 12 July 1816"



Ah yes of course because republican ideals revolve completely and utterly around allowing the Constitution to be altered. Interesting you used Mr. Jefferson who was essentially the father of Americans States rights and small central government.... whose principles does that mirror??? Ah yes the GOP.

Such gems as

The democracy will cease to exist
when you take away from those
who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

It is incumbent on every
generation to pay its own debts as it goes.
A principle which if acted on would save
one-half the wars of the world.

My reading of history convinces me
that most bad government results from too much
government.

No free man shall ever be debarred
the use of arms.

Very impressed with your go at trying to humiliate me though.

1. Your right such homogeneous statements such as "founding fathers" is foolish. I would encourage you to choose better subjects to quote, men such as hamilton and adams would have served your purposes much more aptly.
2. Political thought has been through some changes of course.... did I say they were mirror images of each other though? No, I said they were in line. There are differences and alterations of course.
3. Well we went over what I think of drawing individual quotes and the overall message Thomas Jefferson would likely have wished for America.


It is quite in line with republican ideals, I'll give you that. Its just a shame the republican party hasn't followed those ideals since before you or I were born.

Doesn't mean the ideal have changed.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Yep, ineffectual leadership on the part of the GOP has prompted hardliners to urge a "go bold or go home" response, even among the non religious like PJ. This is the essence of how politics as a game destroys a liberal democracy from the inside out.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Ah yes of course because republican ideals revolve completely and utterly around allowing the Constitution to be altered. Interesting you used Mr. Jefferson who was essentially the father of Americans States rights and small central government.... whose principles does that mirror??? Ah yes the GOP.

Except it doesn't, unless doing so helps them. This is the delusion that you need to crack. States rights become important for the GOP, until they are in power on the Federal level. Tell me again why Ron Paul and his young libertarians are isolated and delegated as resident "crackpots" by the GOP leadership and mainstream. I can think of no one else more in favor of states rights and following a narrow view of the Constitution.



Such gems as

The democracy will cease to exist
when you take away from those
who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

This is not a Jefferson quote, it does not appear in his works.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson#Misattributed


It is incumbent on every
generation to pay its own debts as it goes.
A principle which if acted on would save
one-half the wars of the world.

You act as if the GOP are the only ones who care about the debt. Yawn.



My reading of history convinces me
that most bad government results from too much
government.

My research tells me that this is not a Jefferson quote either.
http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/bad-government-results-too-much-government-quotation



No free man shall ever be debarred
the use of arms.

You forgot the end of that quote, the most important part. "...within his own lands."



Very impressed with your go at trying to humiliate me though.
Are you impressed with my second go? Knocking 2.5 out of 4 is pretty good.



2. Political thought has been through some changes of course.... did I say they were mirror images of each other though? No, I said they were in line. There are differences and alterations of course.
More differences than similarities. Either way, no one advocates for a non republican style of government any more than libertarians advocate for no taxation.

The GOP is not inspired or following the line of republican ideals. They are following the money. Same as every politician.



3. Well we went over what I think of drawing individual quotes and the overall message Thomas Jefferson would likely have wished for America.
Doesn't mean the ideal have changed.

No we didn't because you can't even give real quotes from the man. You just hear pretty words from some internet liar on the other side of the country and it made you more than happy to dig no deeper.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWdD206eSv0

[Centurion1]

Except it doesn't, unless doing so helps them. This is the delusion that you need to crack. States rights become important for the GOP, until they are in power on the Federal level. Tell me again why Ron Paul and his young libertarians are isolated and delegated as resident "crackpots" by the GOP leadership and mainstream. I can think of no one else more in favor of states rights and following a narrow view of the Constitution.



This is not a Jefferson quote, it does not appear in his works.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson#Misattributed


You act as if the GOP are the only ones who care about the debt. Yawn.



My research tells me that this is not a Jefferson quote either.
http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/bad-government-results-too-much-government-quotation



You forgot the end of that quote, the most important part. "...within his own lands."


Are you impressed with my second go? Knocking 2.5 out of 4 is pretty good.


More differences than similarities. Either way, no one advocates for a non republican style of government any more than libertarians advocate for no taxation.

The GOP is not inspired or following the line of republican ideals. They are following the money. Same as every politician.



No we didn't because you can't even give real quotes from the man. You just hear pretty words from some internet liar on the other side of the country and it made you more than happy to dig no deeper.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWdD206eSv0

A. Ron Paul is a crackpot.
B. I'm talking about party ideals not the men who twist party ideals for their own agendas on either side of the aisle.

Fine, you want more quotes?

A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circlue of our felicities.


I own that I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.


I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.


My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.


My point is that I could find a thousand more quotes that probably support me and that Jefferson wasn't the best man to support your defense what with his being a gentleman farmer and his dream of an american run by state governments and consisting of yeoman farmers.

[Strike For The South]

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.

Well shit. That settles it.

You know what my favorite thing to do is? Listen to the farmers bitch and moan about welfare queens, then I ask to see their government checks for Ag subs, they pucker up like an armadillo in July.

Does anyone care to look up how much in gov't receipts the rice farmers in Pauls district gets? It was top 20 in the country last time I checked.

Make no mistake, small gov't is a pipe dream payed lip service by the GOP to solidify votes and convey an easily digestible message.

[a completely inoffensive name]

A. Ron Paul is a crackpot.
B. I'm talking about party ideals not the men who twist party ideals for their own agendas on either side of the aisle.

Fine, you want more quotes?

A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circlue of our felicities.


I own that I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.


I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.


My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.


My point is that I could find a thousand more quotes that probably support me and that Jefferson wasn't the best man to support your defense what with his being a gentleman farmer and his dream of an american run by state governments and consisting of yeoman farmers.

You re-used one of the previous quotes, which turned out not to be a legitimate quote at all. But let's pretend that it's 1991 and Google isn't around yet and get back to the heart of the matter.

My argument wasn't that Jefferson was a modern day liberal. You made a call to authority towards the wise sages known as the "Founding Fathers" and the Constitution "they" wrote. You asserted a link between the ideals of the Constitution and the Republican Party. The point was that I showed you the words of one of the Founding Fathers warning us not to treat the Constitution as a modern day bible. Thus, we should not care which party is "in line" with the Founders. I'm exposing the hollow talking point and following up with a relevant Jefferson quote yet again.



The earth belongs to the living, not to the dead.

The Constitution is not perfect. Discussions on the American government should be based around people courageous enough to debate on the merits of what the Founders said and implemented and not based around the degree to which we try to imitate them in life and spirit.

Also if Ron Paul is a crackpot, than Ayn Rand is a garbage writer on the same level as Stephenie Meyer. And I am fine with that conclusion.

[Lemur]

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.
Man, you are full of fake quotes! The earliest attribution (http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/bad-government-results-too-much-government-quotation) of that line is from 1913, brutha; the first attempt to link it to T. Jefferson was 1950. That's almost as sloppy a fake as the invented Lincoln quote (http://www.snopes.com/quotes/lincoln/prosperity.asp) my rightwing friends keep posting on Facebook.

If you're going to show up to a quote fight, at least check your sources. This is kinda ... discrediting ... and what's worse, ACIN already pointed this out, and then you said it again.

Maybe you're living in an alternative universe of your own construction, where all of the Founding Fathers were Republican fantasy sexbots, quoting Ayn Rand (http://wonkette.com/443650/ayn-rand-sucks) and the National Review in between enshrining the Prosperity Gospel (http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/2009/03/The-Problem-for-the-Prosperity-Gospel.aspx) as the national religion and clearly writing into the Constitution that ALL TAXES ARE TEH BAD.

https://i.imgur.com/u6aln.jpg

[Kralizec]

Fine, you want more quotes?

Quotes suck- or at least, the very short ones do. I could selectively quote bits of texts from James Madison to discredit democracy and argue that the USA was never intended to be one. The catch being that in those days "democracy" was understood to mean direct democracy only. When a short quote is both real and not ripped out of context they're often no more than aphorisms that give no insight in the author's reasoning behind it.

[Lemur]

The president has set the tone... err... lowered the bar... early this cycle, and, unfortunately, Romney needs to follow suit or go the way of John Kerry. It's time to bust out the s-word.
Actually, if you remember from the primaries, candidate Romney's complaints sound an awful lot like what we were hearing from Santorum (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/212965-santorum-hits-back-at-romney-over-appeal-to-michigan-democrats), Gingrich (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/02/news/la-pn-newt-gingrich-complains-romneyboated-20120102), et al. This means Romney is more than capable of going negative when he sees a profit in it. And as soon as he sees a stronger upside than downside to attacking candidate Obama personally, he will do so. Romney is nothing if not practical and opportunistic.

In fact, Romney's surrogates and spokescreatures (Sununu in particular (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57474053-503544/sununu-calls-obama-un-american-then-backtracks/)) spent the last two days qustioning the American-ness of Obama. I suspect they did this in an attempt to fire up the base, which is not (and may never be) enthusiastic about Romney.

I think Romney is in a funny position; most Americans like Obama the person, even if they disagree with Obama the politician. (I know, on the far right Obama is the mutant spawn of Satan and Hugo Chavez, but that's a take largely limited to the GOP echo chamber. Polling shows that most Americans think Obama is okay, even if he's misguided.) So personal attacks on Obama are chancy. On the other hand, the GOP base is not real excited about Romney. So what to do? Argue policy and watch the base go to sleep? Or fire up the Obama-as-Antichrist crowd and risk alienating indy voters, who decide the elections?

Not an easy path to walk.

[Major Robert Dump]

HAHA

Pantywaist


http://news.yahoo.com/star-pro-obama-ad-isnt-big-obama-fan-182157898.html

[drone]

Since someone brought up Rush:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/rush-limbaugh-do-you-think-that-it-is-accidental-that-the-new-batman-villain-is-named-bane/

Do you know the name of the villain in this movie? Bane. The villain in The Dark Knight Rises is named Bane, B-a-n-e. What is the name of the venture capital firm that Romney ran and around which there’s now this make-believe controversy? Bain. The movie has been in the works for a long time. The release date’s been known, summer 2012 for a long time. Do you think that it is accidental that the name of the really vicious fire breathing four eyed whatever it is villain in this movie is named Bain?
…
You may think it’s ridiculous, I’m just telling you this is the kind of stuff the Obama team is lining up. The kind of people who would draw this comparison are the kind of people that they are campaigning to. These are the kind of people that they are attempting to appeal to.
Rush is entering Beck territory here. Sure the villian is "Bane", but isn't the hero a rich white guy? Maybe Nolan's movie symbolizes the struggle for Mitt's soul. :crazy:

[Major Robert Dump]

I believe the character Bane was invented in the 70s.

I saw the headline where the "Obama Administration" was allegedly trying to make a tie to Bane and Bain. Then I read the article. It was a Dem analyst. A blogger. Some random talking head. And of course the right wingers pick it up and start running with it.

This is why America is so sad.

[Kralizec]

I recall that when LOTR: the Two Towers went to cinemas, some morons in America objected because it reminded them too much of the twin towers and insisted that the title was inconsiderate and offensive. I don't think the USA has more morons relative to the population than any other country; they just manage to get disproportionately much media attention for some reason.


He can't be that stupid. Is there any chance he's joking?

Well, "stupid" could mean (willfully) ignorant, delusional or just plain lacking in intelligence. In this case I imagine that Limbaugh is simply not aware that Bane was a pre-existing character (I didn't know of it, either) and did not bother to check his facts before putting his spin on the whole story. A couple of months ago he accused Obama of fighting against christianity because he supported Uganda in their struggle against the Lord's Resistance Army, so this story doesn't impress me much.

[Major Robert Dump]

I forgot about that LRA thing.

And yet still he is top rated.

[Lemur]

I believe the character Bane was invented in the 70s.
Bane was created by a DC comics author in 1993 (http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Batman:_Vengeance_of_Bane_Vol_1_1), during the Clinton Presidency. So Rush is obviously talking nonsense.

Of course, now he can back up and claim that he was kidding. Really, within his bubble he's invulnerable; dance on the edge of paranoid, insane conspiracy theories, enjoy the media attention without danger, since his own base isn't going anywhere no matter what happens, and then claim to be kidding you say something so nutty and counter-factual that the whole world makes fun of you.

Would Rush be destroyed in an open debate? Of course. Would he wither and die if he had to interact with normal people? Already happened. But so long as he has his studio and his audience, and no requirement to interact with reality, contrary views or normal people, the man is untouchable. Goes without saying that he's probably a miserable person.


And yet still he is top rated.
Radio ratings are a notoriously black art. The numbers given out by the distributors and syndicators are so inflated (especially the cumulative, or "cume" figures), most ad buyers divide them by ten. As in, if a distributor claims to have fifty million cume listeners, it's probably more like five. If they claim two million cume it's probably more like 200k. Or at least, that's how the media buyers treat it, and they're the people putting their money down and paying for the whole thing, so I expect they've given it more thought than most of us ever will.

There's no doubt that Rushbo is the largest draw in talk radio, but that may be a big slice of a smaller pie than anyone involved will ever admit.

There was a good article by a media buyer about casual versus "intense" listeners (as in, people who happen to be in the same room with a radio they aren't listening to, versus people who are actually paying attention), and how radio shock jocks work those two numbers in an attempt to drive up their ad rates, but my Google-fu is failing me. Can't seem to find it.

-edit-

Okay, I was mangling the last part a little bit, which is excusable since I am not a media buyer. The relevant concept is "TSL," time spent listening. If your market share drops, you can juice your ad rates by pushing up TSL. From a slightly dated article (http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/03/11/david-frum-mike-huckabee-brings-on-rush-limbaugh-s-decline.html):

But even more than the total size of the audience, radio advertisers care about a measure called TSL: time spent listening. The people who listen longest are of course the most ideologically intense.

Here’s how this operates in the real world. Limbaugh knows that his share of big markets like Dallas or Atlanta has dropped from his old 5 percent in any given hour to, say, 3 percent. But if he can entice that 3 percent to listen twice as long, he can more than make up the loss.

That imperative explains why Limbaugh kept talking about Sandra Fluke for so long. He was boosting his TSL to compensate for his dwindling market share. Few things boost TSL like getting the old folks agitated over how much sexy sex these shameless young hussies are having nowadays. (And make no mistake: Limbaugh’s audience is very old. One station manager quipped to me, “The median age of Limbaugh’s audience? Deceased.”)

[drone]

He can't be that stupid. Is there any chance he's joking?
I seriously doubt that he believes it himself. He's not stupid, he knows what to say to get paid.

Ever since I have worked grown-up jobs, at every place of employment there have been people who go out to their cars and listen to Rush during their lunch hour. :no: I've been waiting for someone to hack Clear Channel and replace his broadcast with a running loop of Bill Hicks' Rush Limbaugh bit, but I guess no one has a sense of humor these days.

[PanzerJaeger]

Candidate Romney is having a very bad week or four.

And yet, it seems to be having absolutely no effect outside of the Beltway. $100 million in anti-business ads bought Obama... his lead (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/19/us/politics/poll-shows-economic-fears-undercutting-obama-support.html?_r=1&hp)?



Declining confidence in the nation’s economic prospects appears to be the most powerful force influencing voters as the presidential election gears up, undercutting key areas of support for President Obama and helping give his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, an advantage on the question of who would better handle the nation’s economic challenges, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.

Despite months of negative advertising from Mr. Obama and his Democratic allies seeking to further define Mr. Romney as out of touch with the middle class and representative of wealthy interests, the poll shows little evidence of any substantial nationwide shift in attitudes about Mr. Romney.

But with job growth tailing off since spring and the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, wondering aloud whether the labor market is “stuck in the mud,” the poll showed a significant shift in opinion about Mr. Obama’s handling of the economy, with 39 percent now saying they approved and 55 percent saying they disapproved.

In the Times/CBS poll in April, when the economy seemed to have momentum, 44 percent approved and 48 percent disapproved.

The new poll shows that the race remains essentially tied, notwithstanding all of the Washington chatter suggesting that Mr. Romney’s campaign has seemed off-kilter amid attacks on his tenure at Bain Capital and his unwillingness to release more of his tax returns. Forty-five percent say they would vote for Mr. Romney if the election were held now and 43 percent say they would vote for Mr. Obama.

When undecided voters who lean toward a particular candidate are included, Mr. Romney has 47 percent to Mr. Obama’s 46 percent.


Obama is arguably in an even more difficult position than Romney. He certainly cannot talk up his stewardship of the economy on the campaign trail, but every day he campaigns on Bain and other ancillary issues no one really cares about, he looks weaker and more out of touch. Americans are facing a fourth year of economic stagnation that, incredibly, seems to be getting worse and the president is running ads and holding rallies trying to define the exact date Mitt Romney left his business over a decade ago. :dizzy2:

It is madness, but what else does he have to talk about?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Wow, someone bought into the political talking point machine.

[Major Robert Dump]

I love hypocrites.

Ssshhhhh, don't want anyone to know about her preferred stock ownership in companies that outsource jobs.

http://www.rollcall.com/news/nancy_pelosi_downplays_tax_return_demand-216283-1.html?pos=hln

[Strike For The South]

As soon as we wrap our heads around the fact corporatism runs rampant, the easier figuring out our political system becomes. The difference between between Bush and Obama is infinitesimal. The system is broken and the people on the fringes have ideas that don't square in a post-industrial, globalized world.

I say we burn something

[Major Robert Dump]

The moon

[Strike For The South]

The moon

Was he even born in America?

[Major Robert Dump]

That's racial, dude, take it back now

[PanzerJaeger]

I love hypocrites.

Ssshhhhh, don't want anyone to know about her preferred stock ownership in companies that outsource jobs.

http://www.rollcall.com/news/nancy_pelosi_downplays_tax_return_demand-216283-1.html?pos=hln


That's nothing. (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/07/president-obamas-disingenuous-attack-on-outsourcing/259851/) Obama's attacks on American business are Swiftboat-level in their disingenuousness.



Forget what Obama says.

Look at what he does and ponder who he is. Were America divided into two economic tribes, the "American protectionists" and the "Acela corridor elites," Obama would belong to the latter. He surrounds himself with guys like Tim Geithner and Larry Summers, who recently said, "There are those today who would resist the process of international integration; that is a prescription for a more contentious and less prosperous world. We should not oppose offshoring or outsourcing."

Obama's present strategy is so pernicious because he is misleading the tribe of "American protectionists" into thinking that he shares their populist attitudes. Nonsense. If reelected to another term, he's no more going to stop outsourcing or end offshore bank accounts (though some of Romney's seem shady) than he's going to renegotiate NAFTA. He's going to keep staffing his economic team with establishment elites from Wall Street and Ivy League universities. Any blue-collar populist who votes for Obama is going to be and feel betrayed. They're going to have less faith in politics. Told that a pol shares their perspective, only to find out that they were misled, some of them will wind up radicalized.

They'd be better off if Obama were just honest with them: Free trade, outsourcing, and Swiss bank accounts aren't going anywhere, regardless of who is elected in November and sworn in next year. In America, the left has no champion on these issues. Obama would be within his rights to claim that he has a plan to marginally reduce outsourcing, but that plan is premised on the notion that bad policy presently creates an incentive for companies to shift their labor abroad; it's therefore at odds with the idea that a CEO whose company outsourced is a pernicious man or bad leader. By the logic of Obama's own plan, tax policy is the problem, not guys like Romney. Do you know what figure I'd love to see? The number of Obama staffers and advisers who've outsourced a job at some time versus the number who've ever had one of their jobs outsourced.

Not to mention that the Obama's themselves, along with pretty much anyone with a 401k, own stock in companies that outsource (http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-has-investments-in-companies-that-ship-jobs-overseas/article/2502361).



President Obama has accused Mitt Romney of raking in profits from investing in companies that ship American jobs overseas, but according to his most recent financial disclosure, he and First Lady Michelle Obama have hundreds of thousands of dollars in a mutual fund that has large holdings in corporations that outsource jobs.

“(Romney) invested in companies that have been called ‘pioneers’ of outsourcing,” Obama said at a Saturday campaign event in Glen Allen, Va. “I don’t want a pioneer in outsourcing. I want some insourcing.”

But Obama’s own portfolio shows a willingness to invest in American corporations that have shifted employment overseas.


The whole outsourcing line of attack is a pathetic attempt to divert attention away from the economy, which, as I discussed above, is not working. I would argue that such blue collar populism turns off more independent voters than it attracts, as they tend to be more educated. Sure, you're going to fire up what uneducated, union labor is left in the Rustbelt who do not understand that screwing in a car seat is not worth $65,000 a year, but those folks were going to vote Dem anyway.

Anyone with even a basic understanding of the international business environment understands that companies outsource (and insource) out of economic necessity.

[Strike For The South]

I can get 65k for screwing in a car seat!

Obama is pro business, Romeny is pro business. Obama pays a slightly higher degree of lip service to the peoples needs but that's all it is. Of course anyone who agrees with me on the former sentence turns out to be batshit insane. So I just won't vote.

[a completely inoffensive name]

It's like politicians say things, and they aren't completely true. If only people realize the GOP are the only ones that are focusing on the real issues of today.

I think it's wonderful people get upset as if they were personally attacked.

[Strike For The South]

It's like politicians say things, and they aren't completely true. If only people realize the GOP are the only ones that are focusing on the real issues of today.

I think it's wonderful people get upset as if they were personally attacked.

Wasn't it clear a few months ago that PJ is touting Romney because he wants him to win? I love indignation as much as you but I think PJ's post in this thread are best viewed through a lens of lesser evil. I doubt he is as big a Romney cheerleader as you think he is

[Strike For The South]

Also, Ann Romney just dropped a "you people" bomb

The blogosphere is literally exploding

[PanzerJaeger]

It's like politicians say things, and they aren't completely true. If only people realize the GOP are the only ones that are focusing on the real issues of today.

I think it's wonderful people get upset as if they were personally attacked.

This is the second one of your posts today that seems like it is directed toward one of my posts but is just vague enough to make me cautious about responding.

[a completely inoffensive name]

This is the second one of your posts today that seems like it is directed toward one of my posts but is just vague enough to make me cautious about responding.

Tbh it is directed towards your posts. I guess I should stop pussy footing around. Here is my problem with what you are saying PJ, you seem to have transitioned from a cautious, principled conservative to a typical team-playing reactionary when I read your latest posts.

I'm not the biggest fan of Obama, and I'm not going to be the one who tries to defend him as the guy you really should be voting for. But you seem to be ignoring what I feel are just the reality of the situation:

A. The economy of the US is not falling, it's not rising at any reasonable rate to anyone's liking but it's not in a downward spiral like under Carter. Tbh, you know as much as I do how little control the president has over the economy, especially when
1. Congress is ultimately in charge of the purse strings, half of it is controlled by GOP.
2. We ain't the only ones with problems. China can't keep projecting super growth forever when it is obvious how shallow and fake a large portion of it is. Add to that the dicking around that Greece, Spain and Italy are doing in the Eurozone and I am at least grateful the world hasn't collapsed at this point given the caliber of politicians these days.

B. The president is in campaign mode and so is Romney. Why bother listening to anything they are saying? What are either of them spewing that isn't charged, hyperbole or spun in some way? Yeah we have problems to tackle and the president is focusing on something you think is stupid. Well in the 1950s everyone sat around the TV to listen to Nixon, not about information regarding US-Soviet relations but whether Nixon is going to give his dog Checkers away.

C. Being principled means not dumbing yourself down for the win. Joining the Rush team in asking Romney to break out the "s-word" (which I take to mean socialism) is just feeding the political game that undermines our liberal democracy. I don't call Romney the 1% and I don't have an Obama bumper sticker either.

I get very anxious when any single presidential election is treated like a life or death situation for the US, our system is stronger than that. The people are more than ready to have a carbon copy of the 2010 midterm elections if second term Obama fails miserably.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Wasn't it clear a few months ago that PJ is touting Romney because he wants him to win? I love indignation as much as you but I think PJ's post in this thread are best viewed through a lens of lesser evil. I doubt he is as big a Romney cheerleader as you think he is

Of course PJ wants him to win. The point being that I find myself not able to tolerate a dumbed down debate. It takes two to tango in a rational debate, all but impossible when someone walks in knowing that no matter what they say it will be completely positive towards their team.

[Strike For The South]

A debate about what? The two interchangeable executive candidates?

Overblown. I am actually rather impressed by PJs cheer leading, he's quite good at it.

[PanzerJaeger]

My recent comments are less of a defense of Romney than a reaction to the recent Bain attacks, which bother me on a deeper level. I fully expect the Obama campaign to attack Romney unfairly, and for the Romney camp to do the same, and I don’t blame them for it. That’s just the way the game is played – always has been. I’m not in ‘campaign mode’ and I have no intention of spamming this thread with Romney talking points. I guess being in business school for so many years made me sensitive to certain issues, though.

To me, the president’s full throated embrace of protectionism is equivalent to the GOP politicians who flirt with birtherism. By lending credence and a level of legitimacy to fear and ignorance, he is lowering the intellectual threshold of the whole nation. People need to understand that politicians are not going to bring manual labor jobs back to America unless Americans are willing to be paid according to the actual value they create (which is next to nothing in manufacturing), and giving them false hope only prolongs their misery.

[Strike For The South]

Sensitive and an MBA? Well now I'm all hot and bothered ~:)

But seriously. Romneys job was to make money, and he did precisely that. People don't like it because it does not square with the side of sensitive they make swallow along with your main dish of the Corporate republic. I have more sympathy for him than I do a president who's health care bill really only serves to provide insurance companies with new customers. Then this man has the BALLS to tout it is as "universal" care.

[a completely inoffensive name]

My recent comments are less of a defense of Romney than a reaction to the recent Bain attacks, which bother me on a deeper level. I fully expect the Obama campaign to attack Romney unfairly, and for the Romney camp to do the same, and I don’t blame them for it. That’s just the way the game is played – always has been. I’m not in ‘campaign mode’ and I have no intention of spamming this thread with Romney talking points. I guess being in business school for so many years made me sensitive to certain issues, though.

To me, the president’s full throated embrace of protectionism is equivalent to the GOP politicians who flirt with birtherism. By lending credence and a level of legitimacy to fear and ignorance, he is lowering the intellectual threshold of the whole nation. People need to understand that politicians are not going to bring manual labor jobs back to America unless they are willing to be paid according to the actual value they create (which is next to nothing in manufacturing), and giving them false hope only prolongs their misery.

This is perfectly understandable and I agree with most of it. But you must recognize that no president will win a second term by telling people that they need to be paid less. It's how it is. And the crucial part here is that Romney may be free to say it now, but the same impetus (and result as from Obama) will be on him if he gets into the Oval Office.

This is not to mention the fact that these jobs might not ever come back to the US under any condition because those jobs are physically disappearing by the abundance of robotic workers being created.

[Ironside]

My recent comments are less of a defense of Romney than a reaction to the recent Bain attacks, which bother me on a deeper level. I fully expect the Obama campaign to attack Romney unfairly, and for the Romney camp to do the same, and I don’t blame them for it. That’s just the way the game is played – always has been. I’m not in ‘campaign mode’ and I have no intention of spamming this thread with Romney talking points. I guess being in business school for so many years made me sensitive to certain issues, though.

To me, the president’s full throated embrace of protectionism is equivalent to the GOP politicians who flirt with birtherism. By lending credence and a level of legitimacy to fear and ignorance, he is lowering the intellectual threshold of the whole nation. People need to understand that politicians are not going to bring manual labor jobs back to America unless Americans are willing to be paid according to the actual value they create (which is next to nothing in manufacturing), and giving them false hope only prolongs their misery.

I suspect this is the weakest phase for Obama actually. He's got a fairly poor own achivements position and arguing about taxing the rich correct? So if he can paint Romney to be a rich buissnessman who care for nothing except money (in buissness), and is also taxdodging as heck, he'll be making his opponent the physical embodyment of his rethoric. He'll also show that taxing the rich more= closing legal taxdodging loopholes, that'll be close to impossible to counter attack (no really, the rich needs to be taxed less than the rest of the population, because having rich "noble families" are great for the economy and totally in spirit with the ideal of America).

Romney camp knows this and that's why we're stuck here. Since a proper counter will open up for really bad stuff.

[Lemur]

A debate about what? The two interchangeable executive candidates?
Statements like this bother me. There are some real differences between the candidates, even if those differences are getting a bit lost in the Issue of the Day 24-hour news cycle. Here's a smart person talking about it (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fareed-zakaria-romney-and-obamas-relevant-debate-over-americas-future/2012/07/18/gJQAjVhSuW_story.html?hpid=z3):

Below all the mudslinging lies a real divide. Obama has been making the case that the U.S. economy needs investment — in infrastructure, education, training, basic sciences and technologies of the future. Those investments, in the president’s telling, have been the key drivers of American growth and have enabled people to build businesses, create jobs and invent the future.

Romney argues that America needs tax and regulatory relief. The country is overburdened by government mandates, taxes and rules that make it difficult for businesses to function, grow and prosper, he says. He wants to cut taxes for all, reduce regulations and streamline government. All this, in his telling, will unleash America’s entrepreneurial energy.

Both views have merit. It would make for a great campaign if our nation had a sustained discussion around these ideas. Then the election would produce a mandate to move in one of these directions.

[Crazed Rabbit]

So here are some thoughts (http://rightcoast.typepad.com/rightcoast/2012/07/what-is-seen-and-what-is-not-seentom-smith.html) on Obama's chronic lack of comprehension about business:

Much could be said about how stupid was President { }'s recent comments about business founders not really having built their businesses by themselves, but rather owing them in large part to things others, especially the government, did for them. You drove on a public road to meet your 457th potential angel investor. Your third grade public school teacher taught you always to say please. And so government gets a lot of the credit for the thing you sweated blood to create. Big surprize. If you build anything, you can absolutely bet people will line up for the credit, like Al Gores for the internet. Failure, you can keep the credit for that.

But here's the question to ask -- how many more successful businesses, inventions, products, services, toys, tools, insights, and just plain fun would there be, if government did not in the first place make it so ridiculously difficult to start a business and keep it going? I don't see our young president taking credit on behalf of the state for all the failures it help cause, all the ideas that never got off the ground because the regulatory hurdles were so high, or all the established companies that never had to face competition because they had managed to get their rents written into law. This is part of the seen and not seen insight of Bastiat. What you see is a successful business when it manages to survive, and then people run up, the same people who taxed and regulated it nearly to death, and say I helped! I helped! What you don't see are all the businesses that perished or never got started because of the heavy hand of the state. And it's a very heavy hand.


Both views have merit.

Bah. You'd think, after so many failed attempts to use Keynesian plans to boost economies, people would stop crowing about government 'investment'.

CR

[Lemur]

Bah. You'd think, after so many failed attempts to use Keynesian plans to boost economies, people would stop crowing about government 'investment'.
As opposed to the clear benefits (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_housing_bubble) and never-ending wins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libor_scandal) of deregulation and trickle-down economics? Please.

Besides which, what do you call a Republican who gets to write a budget? A Keynesian. What do you call a Republican who doesn't hold the keys to the treasury? A deficit hawk.

A part of me wishes that Republicans would sweep both houses and the Presidency, just for the dubious pleasure of watching the entire party do a 180 on deficits and spending.

Besides which, if you'd bother to read Fareed Zakaria's excellent (and rather less grammar-challenged than your linked) article, you'd see he makes the "investment" argument in detail. If you're going to refute, do it from the source.

We need a tax and regulatory structure that creates strong incentives for businesses to flourish. The thing is, we already have one. The World Economic Forum’s 2011-12 Global Competitiveness Report ranks the United States No. 5 — and first among large economies. There has been a little slippage in this ranking the past few years, but it is modest and can be rectified. Overall, however, whether compared with our own past — of, say, 30 years ago — or with other countries, the United States has become more business-friendly. That’s why, just last week, the Economist magazine predicted an American economic renaissance.

America is worse off than it was 30 years ago — in infrastructure, education and research. The country spends much less on infrastructure as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP). By 2009, federal funding for research and development was half the share of GDP that it was in 1960. Even spending on education and training is lower as a percentage of the federal budget than it was during the 1980s.

The result is that we’re falling behind fast. In 2001, the World Economic Forum ranked U.S. infrastructure second in the world. In its latest report we were 24th. The United States spends only 2.4 percent of GDP on infrastructure, the Congressional Budget Office noted in 2010. Europe spends 5 percent; China, 9 percent. In the 1970s, America led the world in the number of college graduates; as of 2009, we were 14th among the countries tracked by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Annual growth for research and development spending — private and public — was 5.8 percent between 1996 and 2007; in South Korea it was 9.6 percent; in Singapore, 14.5 percent; in China, 21.9 percent.

In other words, the great shift in the U.S. economy over the past 30 years has not been an increase in taxes and regulations but, rather, a decline in investment in human and physical capital.

[Crazed Rabbit]

As opposed to the clear benefits (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_housing_bubble) and never-ending wins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libor_scandal) of deregulation and trickle-down economics? Please.

Who said I support "trickle-down" economics? You're acting like it's either Keynesian or trickle down economics. The housing bubble was the result of not following Austrian economics. Libor was partially the result of government involvement in the deceit.


Besides which, what do you call a Republican who gets to write a budget? A Keynesian. What do you call a Republican who doesn't hold the keys to the treasury? A deficit hawk.

I haven't considered myself a republican for a while.


We need a tax and regulatory structure that creates strong incentives for businesses to flourish. The thing is, we already have one. The World Economic Forum’s 2011-12 Global Competitiveness Report ranks the United States No. 5 — and first among large economies. There has been a little slippage in this ranking the past few years, but it is modest and can be rectified. Overall, however, whether compared with our own past — of, say, 30 years ago — or with other countries, the United States has become more business-friendly. That’s why, just last week, the Economist magazine predicted an American economic renaissance.

So we've been slipping, and we're now 5th among losers. A general ranking does not refute the fact that net regulations have been continually increasing.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303933704577531280097324446.html
http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/16/cpsia-safety-toys-oped-cx_wo_0116olson.html
http://rightcoast.typepad.com/rightcoast/2012/07/what-is-seen-and-what-is-not-seentom-smith.html;

I started a business, commercially unsuccessful, sadly, but we created some great technology. I was a libertarian before that, but I was really a libertarian afterwards. It's difficult to even explain how pervasive, expensive, frustrating and sometimes just plain insuperable the regulatory and taxation burden of the state is. It's not what did our venture in, but it helped. It's worse in other countries, where we seem to be headed. My engineers were in Italy. Italian counsel advised me that it was simply impossible, impractical, should not even be attempted to pay them in Italy. Even trying to do so would stir up a nest of officials and my guys would end up with pennies on the Euro. Just set up accounts in Switzerland and pay them that way, which he said was technically legal to do. So that's what we did. It's no wonder innovations by startups in Europe lag so far behind the US. And California? -- don't even think about hiring an employee in California. Read through what's involved in that and you will think it is some kind of joke until you realize it isn't. A whole ecosystem of plaintiffs' law firms exists just to sue employers who run afoul the complicated morrass of employment law requirements. And if you survive to be a public company, they will sue you every time your stock price dips. Some states, such as Texas, are better, but the reason they are better is not what they provide; it's just that they stay more out of the way.

And that's not even including the fact that EPA regulations increase every day, that cities generally increase rent-seeking laws for established companies like taxi services and restaurants vs food trucks.


America is worse off than it was 30 years ago — in infrastructure, education and research. The country spends much less on infrastructure as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP). By 2009, federal funding for research and development was half the share of GDP that it was in 1960. Even spending on education and training is lower as a percentage of the federal budget than it was during the 1980s.

Percentages. How much has such infrastructure spending increased in absolute terms, compared to inflation and population? That'd be useful info.


The result is that we’re falling behind fast. In 2001, the World Economic Forum ranked U.S. infrastructure second in the world. In its latest report we were 24th. The United States spends only 2.4 percent of GDP on infrastructure, the Congressional Budget Office noted in 2010. Europe spends 5 percent; China, 9 percent. In the 1970s, America led the world in the number of college graduates; as of 2009, we were 14th among the countries tracked by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Annual growth for research and development spending — private and public — was 5.8 percent between 1996 and 2007; in South Korea it was 9.6 percent; in Singapore, 14.5 percent; in China, 21.9 percent.

I'd say it's not the number but the quality of college degrees. Interesting that here he goes for ranking and not the percentage increase in college graduates compared to the 1970s. We also have a larger GDP than China, and China needs a lot more infrastructure. Again, percentages, how much money per person does the USA spend compared to Europe?

For the second research spending bit -
https://img692.imageshack.us/img692/694/2827strip.gif


In other words, the great shift in the U.S. economy over the past 30 years has not been an increase in taxes and regulations but, rather, a decline in investment in human and physical capital.

A slower percentage increase than other places who invested a lot less before is not a decline. And for all he touts Europe, we're doing better than that economic mess, almost as though not taxing and regulating everything to death mattered more.

CR

[Lemur]

The housing bubble was the result of not following Austrian economics. Libor was partially the result of government involvement in the deceit.
Ah yes, the guvmint caused the housing bubble. I believe that's been refuted early and often. The wicked, evil guvmint never forced anybody on Wall Street to create complicated financial instruments for badly-rated bundled mortgages. (And don't get me started on Austrian Economics. Any economic model that cannot explain empirical phenomena such as unemployment has a problem. Moreover, I find the fact that Austrian Economics appear to be unfalsifiable (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-aussm.htm) disturbing.)


I haven't considered myself a republican for a while.
And yet, by arguing that guvmint is the root of all evil, you parrot their talking points.


So we've been slipping, and we're now 5th among losers.
An interesting reading. We're ranked as 5th globally, first among industrialized nations.


Percentages. How much has such infrastructure spending increased in absolute terms, compared to inflation and population? That'd be useful info.
Somebody take your Google away? If you'd like to contrast percentages with hard numbers, surely that's within your purview?



Again, percentages, how much money per person does the USA spend compared to Europe?
Again, feel free to bring your own numbers to the debate, friend.


A slower percentage increase
What's the matter, did a percentage kill your brother? Do you have traumatizing memories of the percentages beating you up in school and taking your milk money? Zakaria uses percentages, but you're free to counter his research with your own numbers. As for your dismissal of the notion that we're in some sort of infrastructural decline, once again I'd say you're rowing a leaky boat up a counter-factual stream (http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/ellen-mcgirt/innovation-wednesday/minneapolis-bridge-collapse-our-crumbling-infrastructure).

Also, you keep re-posting the Tom Smith essay. Clearly the dude had bad experiences with his failed website for lawyers, and my heart goes out to him. Starting a business is chancy, dangerous, and generally bad for your health. Anybody who does so deserves some respect. But his essay is a tangled yarn of grammar and spelling errors (which are not game-stoppers in and of themselves, but indicative that he had neither the resources nor time to engage a proofreader, and no editorial backup), logical half-truths coupled with lame jokes (again the Al Gore and the internet? Really? Not only is that Epic Fail from an originality and skillful humor perspective, it's off-base, since we have subsequently learned that during the 1970s Al Gore did more to advance ARPANET and the subsequent Internet (http://web.eecs.umich.edu/~fessler/misc/funny/gore,net.txt) than any other elected official. So he actually does deserve some credit, just far less than his statement implied. More importantly see horse, dead, beating of.)

Where to go from there? His website for lawyers would disrupt existing businesses, who tried to block him with money and bought politicians. Cry me a Google river. If you push a disruptive technology, you better be prepared for a knife fight. We all love Tesla, but he went down hard to Edison. That's the way of the world.

Then he's shocked, shocked that international pay is a hellish thicket of tax laws and regulations. Speaking as someone who's had many paychecks from London, all I can say is, How the hell did this come as a surprise to you, web dude? Did you do any homework before locating your engineers in Italy?

And so on and so forth. He did a web start-up for lawyers and failed. Such is life. Now he's "really" a libertarian. Well, you know what? When I got turned down by this girl, I became "really" a misogynist, and I'm justified, 'cause girls are meanies.

[PanzerJaeger]

Statements like this bother me. There are some real differences between the candidates, even if those differences are getting a bit lost in the Issue of the Day 24-hour news cycle. Here's a smart person talking about it (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fareed-zakaria-romney-and-obamas-relevant-debate-over-americas-future/2012/07/18/gJQAjVhSuW_story.html?hpid=z3):

Below all the mudslinging lies a real divide. Obama has been making the case that the U.S. economy needs investment — in infrastructure, education, training, basic sciences and technologies of the future. Those investments, in the president’s telling, have been the key drivers of American growth and have enabled people to build businesses, create jobs and invent the future.

Romney argues that America needs tax and regulatory relief. The country is overburdened by government mandates, taxes and rules that make it difficult for businesses to function, grow and prosper, he says. He wants to cut taxes for all, reduce regulations and streamline government. All this, in his telling, will unleash America’s entrepreneurial energy.

Both views have merit. It would make for a great campaign if our nation had a sustained discussion around these ideas. Then the election would produce a mandate to move in one of these directions.

This is typical Zakaria oversimplification. According to Romney, tax and regulatory reform free up capital, which is then reinvested in new ventures. That business growth fosters growth in the tax base and organic revenue growth, as opposed to foreign indebtedness.

This is really an argument over public versus private investment and which approach will yield sustainable levels of prosperity.

[Lemur]

as opposed to foreign indebtedness.
Oh, that's not accurate. Romney's budget plans, as proposed right now, would involve larger deficts than Obama. He's already committed to tax cuts, funded by debt, an increase in military spending, financed by debt, and has stated that he won't touch medicare, medicaid or SS. So whatever you're envisioning down the road, the immediate (say, at least a decade) impact will be a mssive increase in debt.

Remember, once Republicans hold office, deficits stop mattering. It's magic.

[PanzerJaeger]

Oh, that's not accurate. Romney's budget plans, as proposed right now, would involve larger deficts than Obama. He's already committed to tax cuts, funded by debt, an increase in military spending, financed by debt, and has stated that he won't touch medicare, medicaid or SS. So whatever you're envisioning down the road, the immediate (say, at least a decade) impact will be a mssive increase in debt.

Remember, once Republicans hold office, deficits stop mattering. It's magic.

That depends on your outlook. Short term, their is no way to escape the debt. Long term, will the nation be better served through public or private investment? I would argue that sustainable public investment must be built on a strong private sector tax base.

[Lemur]

I would argue that sustainable public investment must be built on a strong private sector tax base.
That's not an argument, that's an obvious. The question is how to achieve that strong private sector.

I would argue if slashing taxes were the solution, we would know about it by now. The Bush Tax Cuts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts) have had a decade to yield massive wealth to society, and have manifestly failed to do so. Moreover, we're at historic lows in marginal tax rates (http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/US-tax-rates.png), and yet we're stuck in a very slow recovery.

Do businessmen complain about regulation and taxes? Constantly. Do they ever, under any circumstances, not complain about regulation and taxes? Nope. They're like Marines that way.

But when surveyed for what actually concerns them as businessmen, I believe demand wins the day by a long margin (http://blog.chron.com/lorensteffy/2011/10/survey-small-businesses-say-regulation-isnt-the-problem/). (Don't tell CR I referenced a percentage again. He's traumatized.)

[Xiahou]

Besides which, what do you call a Republican who gets to write a budget? A Keynesian. What do you call a Republican who doesn't hold the keys to the treasury? A deficit hawk.Hmm, didn't our current president run on fiscal responsibility? He called the $4trillion in debt under 8 years of Bush "un-American (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUPZJDBJI84)", while beating that number himself in half the time. He also promised to cut the deficit in half during his first term (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ziiZFcWChg).... how's that going?

[Lemur]

Hmm, didn't our current president run on fiscal responsibility?
Yup, but we all know he's a wicked socialist who's channeling the undead spirit of Hugo Chavez as he prepares us for tyranny and other bad things, so what's your point?

Receipts have collapsed in the recession, the Bush Tax cuts have continued, so there's a marked imbalance in income to expenditures. But when it comes to new spending, President 44 has been remarkably restrained (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-spending-binge-never-happened-2012-05-22?pagenumber=1):

https://i.imgur.com/DNq5W.jpg

There's the socialist spending binge. Fear it!

Meanwhile, I seem to remember a recent president, can't place his name, who started two off-the-books wars (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/somebody-in-government-finally-asks-a-taxing-question-about-the-next-war/2012/06/20/gJQA7HeLrV_story.html?hpid=z4) with no intention of paying for them, signed a massive giveaway to pharma and the elderly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Part_D) with no intention of paying for it, and huge tax cuts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts) with no intention of paying for them.

Deficit spending: IOKIYAR (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-iokiyar.htm). And as I noted above, if Romney does anything resembling what he has promised on the campaign trail, deficit spending will explode (for real this time). But that will be okay, because Romney is not a wicked socialist.

[Lemur]

P.S.: Anyone who wants to break down Zakaria's argument should probably start here (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-trouble-with-zakarias-assessment-of-the-economy/).

The United States is ranked 5th on the overall global competitiveness index, which is a weighted value reflecting scores assigned for 12 broad criteria presumed to affect “competitiveness,” [...] But on taxes and regulations, the U.S. ranks poorly. On the “Burden of Government Regulation,” the United States ranked 58th with a score of 3.4 on a scale from 0-to-7, slightly above the global average of 3.3. On the “Extent and Effect of Taxation,” the United States ranked 63rd out of 142 countries. On “Total Tax Rate, % Profits,” the United States came in 96th out of 142. On the issues that President Obama is pushing, the United States performs better than on those Romney advocates, which seriously weakens Zakaria’s argument.

The United States ranks 24th on quality of total infrastructure, better than on taxes and regulations. Likewise for “technological readiness” and “innovation.” “Higher education” (but not “job training”) generates bad scores for the United States, but clearly not for lack of spending. You can dig into the data here, and you’ll find that they tell a very different story than the one you may have read in yesterday’s Post.

Of course, Zakaria might still believe Obama has the stronger argument. But we should all be clear about the fact that regulations and taxes are real and growing problems, and that dismissing them as insignificant, even if inadvertent, doesn’t help policymakers find the solutions.

[Crazed Rabbit]

So, Lemur, when you finally post some facts they end up agreeing with me. I mean, it's like I summarized that without reading it:

A general ranking does not refute the fact that net regulations have been continually increasing.


Zakaria errs by citing the overall, weighted average U.S. rank of 5th to support his assertion that we already have a tax and regulatory structure that creates strong incentives for business to flourish. That relatively high ranking reflects a few obvious U.S. advantages—tax and regulatory structure not being among them.

:cool:

CR

[Lemur]

So, Lemur, when you finally post some facts they end up agreeing with me.
"Finally post some facts"? Sheesh. You might want to dab the corners of your mouth, there's some smug dribbling down the edge.

I'm interested in reality, whether it reflects my preconceptions or not. I'm happy to post links and quotes from articles that argue in whatever direction, so long as they seem to be argued in good faith off good data.

Cato is a hyper-partisan source, but this article seemed to be well-founded.

Unlike Austrian Economics, I try to be grounded in empiricism. If reality shows something to be different from what I thought, I bow to reality.

-edit-

P.S.: I note that percentages don't make you break out in hives when they're from Cato. So maybe it's the kinds of percentages?

[PanzerJaeger]

That's not an argument, that's an obvious. The question is how to achieve that strong private sector.

I would argue if slashing taxes were the solution, we would know about it by now. The Bush Tax Cuts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts) have had a decade to yield massive wealth to society, and have manifestly failed to do so. Moreover, we're at historic lows in marginal tax rates (http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/US-tax-rates.png), and yet we're stuck in a very slow recovery.


Ack. I've refuted this same reductionist pop-economics line several times on this board already. => Bush cut taxes and the economy sucks, thus the Bush tax cuts failed.

The problem with that line of reasoning is that tax policy is only one factor among many that, taken together, dictate economic trends. Significant economic growth actually did follow the Bush tax cuts, and a strong argument could be made that they helped bolster the nation against the economic headwinds coming from the East. And, of course, the economic crisis had nothing to do with tax policy. It is very difficult to accurately gauge the effectiveness of tax rate changes with so much other data effecting economic performance.

So while the exact effect the Bush cuts had on the economy may never be known, what is known with more certainty, is that raising taxes during a period of economic distress - as the current president has been campaigning on - is generally a bad idea.


Anyone who wants to break down Zakaria's argument should probably start here.

And just for fun - I'm always reminded of this TNR blurb (http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/96141/over-rated-thinkers?page=0,1) on Zakaria any time he is invoked in a serious discussion. The man is pseudo intellectualism embodied.


FAREED ZAKARIA
Fareed Zakaria is enormously important to an understanding of many things, because he provides a one-stop example of conventional thinking about them all. He is a barometer in a good suit, a creature of establishment consensus, an exemplary spokesman for the always-evolving middle. He was for the Iraq war when almost everybody was for it, criticized it when almost everybody criticized it, and now is an active member of the ubiquitous “declining American power” chorus. When Obama wanted to trust the Iranians, Zakaria agreed (“They May Not Want the Bomb,” was a story he did for Newsweek); and, when Obama learned different, Zakaria thought differently. There’s something suspicious about a thinker always so perfectly in tune with the moment. Most of Zakaria’s appeal is owed to the A-list aura that he likes to give off—“At the influential TED conference ...” began a recent piece in The New York Times. On his CNN show, he ingratiates himself to his high-powered guests. This mix of elitism and banality is unattractive. And so is this: “My friends all say I’m going to be Secretary of State,” Zakaria told New York magazine in 2003. “But I don’t see how that would be much different from the job I have now.” Zakaria later denied making those remarks.

[PanzerJaeger]

Trickle-down is the biggest load of crap the American people have ever bought into. We've followed it almost religiously since Reagan, and yet the wealth gap is bigger than it was before trickle-down theory became all the rage. Over a quarter of a century is more than enough time to declare it a stupid philosophy.

Sigh. Again, you're drawing a direct connection that does not exist. America's wealth gap is the result of changes in the economy, not tax policy. Just because something happened at the same time that something else was going on does not make the the two related. :wall:

[Major Robert Dump]

Hi guys,

Great debate,

But all these numbers and research are giving me a headache

Can we please just hyperbolize on some abortionz and school prayerz and the gayz? K?

[Greyblades]

Ugh all these conflicting viewpoints and biased sourcing, I'm starting to think no-one knows what the heck is going on or what to do.

[Major Robert Dump]

Thats what is so sad.

I cannot just look and see how much the President has spent without wading through 8 tons on feces, because everyone has a different formula. I realize that this is not uniquely american, but we take it to a level so low it cannot even be measured.

Never has info been so available to the uninformed masses, and never have people been so unwilling to do their own research, rather than listening to someone spoon feed them half truths. I am guilty of this as well.

[Greyblades]

Even then, there's no such thing as a truely unbiased source of information.

[Crazed Rabbit]

"Finally post some facts"? Sheesh. You might want to dab the corners of your mouth, there's some smug dribbling down the edge.

That would be the result of your snarky replies to my initial posts.


P.S.: I note that percentages don't make you break out in hives when they're from Cato. So maybe it's the kinds of percentages?

Or, you know, Cato has a lot less percentages.

CR

[SoFarSoGood]

A. The economy of the US is not falling, it's not rising at any reasonable rate to anyone's liking but it's not in a downward spiral like under Carter.

Sorry but that's bullsh*t. The US economy is shrinking and there's new taxes coming to make good the deficit, which will lead you back into recession by November. I predicted some time ago another bout 'quantitative easing' (fed buying Government debt) before November to ease Obamas campaign. I hope the fed doesn't fall for it.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Sorry but that's bullsh*t. The US economy is shrinking and there's new taxes coming to make good the deficit, which will lead you back into recession by November. I predicted some time ago another bout 'quantitative easing' (fed buying Government debt) before November to ease Obamas campaign. I hope the fed doesn't fall for it.

Numbers please?

[Ironside]

Sorry but that's bullsh*t. The US economy is shrinking and there's new taxes coming to make good the deficit, which will lead you back into recession by November. I predicted some time ago another bout 'quantitative easing' (fed buying Government debt) before November to ease Obamas campaign. I hope the fed doesn't fall for it.

To be picky, US economy has been running with the lowest taxes since the 1950-ties most of the time Obama has been president (the stimulus packages contained tax cuts, on top of Bush's). So removal of Bush's tax cuts for the rich (that never paid for themself according from what I've seen when searching) is Obama chosing the best option in a problematic situation, while Romney's more tax cuts suggestion is on loony bin level.

Of couse, none of them got mandate to properly balance the budget within 4 years.

[Xiahou]

Yup, but we all know he's a wicked socialist who's channeling the undead spirit of Hugo Chavez as he prepares us for tyranny and other bad things, so what's your point?That's the first indication that you can't defend the hypocrisy I've pointed out..... Painting the opposition as irrational while contributing nothing substantive. Let's see what else we have here....


Receipts have collapsed in the recession, the Bush Tax cuts have continued, so there's a marked imbalance in income to expenditures. But when it comes to new spending, President 44 has been remarkably restrained (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-spending-binge-never-happened-2012-05-22?pagenumber=1):Ah yes, the widely debunked (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-facts-about-the-growth-of-spending-under-obama-part-3/2012/06/05/gJQAY9YhGV_blog.html) marketwatch chart. Just for fun, let's take it at face value.... My memory isn't always that great- but I'm pretty sure that Obama was aware that the economy was tanking while he was running for office and promising to halve the deficit. So, why would he say that when he knew tax receipts were falling? Was he lying or just stupid?


There's the socialist spending binge. Fear it!More hyperbole...


Meanwhile, I seem to remember a recent president, can't place his name, who started two off-the-books wars (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/somebody-in-government-finally-asks-a-taxing-question-about-the-next-war/2012/06/20/gJQA7HeLrV_story.html?hpid=z4) with no intention of paying for them, signed a massive giveaway to pharma and the elderly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Part_D) with no intention of paying for it, and huge tax cuts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts) with no intention of paying for them.And he managed to do it all with less of that "un-American" deficit than Obama has seen under his single term.

In all, you've done nothing to refute my points. You hypocritically point out how Republicans came to power arguing for fiscal responsibility, while failing to live up to their promises once elected- while ignoring how the Democrats, including Obama, did that exact same thing.

[Lemur]

Or, you know, Cato has a lot less percentages.
The Cato article, like the Zakaria article, consisted entirely of percentages. But ... they were ... better percentages ...


The US economy is shrinking
ORLY? (http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/glance.htm)

https://i.imgur.com/ETipm.gif


Painting the opposition as irrational
I would go more with "dogmatic and monomaniacal," but what have you.


You hypocritically point out how Republicans came to power arguing for fiscal responsibility, while failing to live up to their promises once elected- while ignoring how the Democrats, including Obama, did that exact same thing.
Slight difference; Dems have not made deficits and smaller government their central plank, while it's all one hears about when Repubs are out of power. Emphasis, I'm sure you will agree, matters.

Also, the deficit under Obama has ballooned in the teeth of a recession and slow recovery, as opposed to the creative minds who gave us deficit spending in the midst of boom times. I appreciate your false equivalence, and admire it in an artistic sort of way. Can't wait for you to declare victory again. It makes me tingle.

[SoFarSoGood]

Numbers please?

January 1st new taxes start estimated to raise $494bn per year. Unemployment predicted to rise.... Obamas Keynesian stimulus is wearing off but you still have to pay for it. Hell the UK now borrow cheaper than the US and the $ is world currency reserve.

[a completely inoffensive name]

January 1st new taxes start estimated to raise $494bn per year. Unemployment predicted to rise.... Obamas Keynesian stimulus is wearing off but you still have to pay for it. Hell the UK now borrow cheaper than the US and the $ is world currency reserve.

I meant about the economy shrinking, which Lemur already pointed out....you are full of it.

[Lemur]

January 1st new taxes start estimated to raise $494bn per year. Unemployment predicted to rise.
You're referring to the so-called fiscal cliff (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/18/the-fiscal-cliff-comes-into-focus/). I don't think anyone plans to let the worst-case occur; why are you treating it as a certainty? (And as ACIN said, I was responding to your notion that the US economy is shrinking. Which by any rational measure, it isn't.

If you want to argue that the economy is shrinking and politicians are going to commit mass suicide by allowing all tax cuts to expire, please make your case. You'll note the orgiastic abandon with which we toss around links and numbers and graphs and things. Join the fun!

[Seamus Fermanagh]

You're referring to the so-called fiscal cliff (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/18/the-fiscal-cliff-comes-into-focus/). I don't think anyone plans to let the worst-case occur; why are you treating it as a certainty? (And as ACIN said, I was responding to your notion that the US economy is shrinking. Which by any rational measure, it isn't.

If you want to argue that the economy is shrinking and politicians are going to commit mass suicide by allowing all tax cuts to expire, please make your case. You'll note the orgiastic abandon with which we toss around links and numbers and graphs and things. Join the fun!

I miss the old days when our backroomers skipped evidence entirely and relied soley on passion and invective in their efforts to not convince anyone of anything....

On a more serious note.

I loathe the growth of government and the growth of the deficit, but it would be a little difficult to argue that the current or previous occupants of the oval have done much to curb spending. Clinton working with the GOP congress did so -- and with a carefully negotiated agenda of agreements done sub-rosa despite public diatribes and verbal abuse. The last two admins have featured divisiveness not seen since Harding and the Teapot Dome or Jefferson v Adams -- and little is getting done at all. I know gridlock is supposed to be a feature of our government, but this is a bit much.

As to the elections, I did appreciate the dash of class BOTH major candidates used following Friday's mass murder. Living in Florida as I do, it has been wonderful to NOT have to listen to 37 political hate ads per day for the last day or so -- I never quite understood how annoying they get until I moved to a state that is perennially a "battleground." I suppose it will go back to where it was in a couple of days, at least for those of us not in CO, but it has been nice.

[Lemur]

OMG I love bad political music SO FREAKING MUCH. This is the best thing I've seen since Hillary 4 U and Me (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FvyGydc8no). Gets epic at 0:36.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zm8msoKME4w

[Hooahguy]

That was so bad its good.

I think Im going to make it my ringtone.

[Major Robert Dump]

Whats funny is the ambiguous title, or perhaps this is satire...??

But yes, if Mitt Romney is a Hero to anyone, it is certainly only in their mind. I can think of a lot of things to call him or our current President, and hero is not amongst the words

[Lemur]

perhaps this is satire...??
Nah, it's legit, I browsed the guy's video uploads. He's a kook, not a comedian.

I prefer unintentional humor; it's usually funnier. (And lawd above, I do love bad political music, can't help myself.)

[Major Robert Dump]

Then surely you loved this. In fact, I probably found this here to begin with, but there's nothing wrong with some good music Necro


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhMepzqJvIw

[Lemur]

Oh, I love that one. Brilliant stuff.

I've been looking for a definitively bad Occupy Whatever song, but it has not been easy. Most of the stuff uploaded is just dumb and preachy without transcending into Wonderfully Awful. I'll keep looking.

There's always Hillary 4 U and Me, though. Instant classic.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FvyGydc8no

[Major Robert Dump]

That is the whitest thing I have ever seen or heard, I just don't know what she was thinking if she had anything to do with approving it. As a candidate, I would have found the people responsible for creating it and sued them for defamation. "Bring back Democracy" LOLOL

[Lemur]

An interesting essay by a couple of economists who make a decent argument that the debate about the economy and deficit is completely unmoored from what passes for consensus (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-23/the-u-s-economic-policy-debate-is-a-sham.html) among economists.

Do you remember the Republican concern that Obama had somehow caused gas prices to rise, a development that Newt Gingrich promised to reverse? There’s simply no support among economists for this view. They unanimously agreed that “market factors,” rather than energy policy, have driven changes in gas prices.

How about the oft-cited Republican claim that tax cuts will boost the economy so much that they will pay for themselves? It’s an idea born as a sketch on a restaurant napkin by conservative economist Art Laffer. Perhaps when the top tax rate was 91 percent, the idea was plausible. Today, it’s a fantasy. The Booth poll couldn’t find a single economist who believed that cutting taxes today will lead to higher government revenue -- even if we lower only the top tax rate.

The consensus isn’t the result of a faux poll of left-wing ideologues. Rather, the findings come from the Economic Experts Panel run by Booth’s Initiative on Global Markets. It’s a recurring survey of about 40 economists from around the U.S. It includes Democrats, Republicans and independent academics from the top economics departments in the country. The only things that unite them are their first-rate credentials and their interest in public policy.

Let’s be clear about what the economists’ remarkable consensus means. They aren’t purporting to know all the right answers. Rather, they agree on the best reading of murky evidence. The folks running the survey understand this uncertainty, and have asked the economists to rate their confidence in their answers on a scale of 1 to 10. Strikingly, the consensus looks even stronger when the responses are weighted according to confidence.

The debate in Washington has become completely unmoored from this consensus, and in a particular direction: Angry Republicans have pushed their representatives to adopt positions that are at odds with the best of modern economic thinking. That may be good politics, but it’s terrible policy.

[Lemur]

So apparently Mr. Romney's trip to Great Britain is something resembling a full-scale disaster. Check twitter under #romneyshambles (https://twitter.com/?tw_i=228627772866691072&tw_p=tweetembed#!/search/%23romneyshambles?q=%23romneyshambles), or read the condensed version here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-news-blog/2012/jul/26/mitt-romney-britain-gaffes#start-of-comments). (Right wing media absolutely silent on the unfolding fecal-fan collision; you have to admire their discipline.)

There's also a lively conversation under #AmericanBorat (https://twitter.com/?tw_i=228627772866691072&tw_p=tweetembed#!/search/%23AmericanBorat?q=%23AmericanBorat). Sample: "You can tell @MittRomney's doing badly when he starts getting booed by rich white people." I also spit up some coffee for: "After public jibes from Cameron and Johnson, Mitt Romney decides to retroactively cancel his trip to London."

[PanzerJaeger]

So apparently Mr. Romney's trip to Great Britain is something resembling a full-scale disaster. Check twitter under #romneyshambles (https://twitter.com/?tw_i=228627772866691072&tw_p=tweetembed#!/search/%23romneyshambles?q=%23romneyshambles), or read the condensed version here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-news-blog/2012/jul/26/mitt-romney-britain-gaffes#start-of-comments). (Right wing media absolutely silent on the unfolding fecal-fan collision; you have to admire their discipline.)

There's also a lively conversation under #AmericanBorat (https://twitter.com/?tw_i=228627772866691072&tw_p=tweetembed#!/search/%23AmericanBorat?q=%23AmericanBorat). Sample: "You can tell @MittRomney's doing badly when he starts getting booed by rich white people." I also spit up some coffee for: "After public jibes from Cameron and Johnson, Mitt Romney decides to retroactively cancel his trip to London."

International relations is fascinating. He says what British papers have been reporting for months and suddenly it's some sort of grand insult.

[Major Robert Dump]

So apparently Mr. Romney's trip to Great Britain is something resembling a full-scale disaster. Check twitter under #romneyshambles (https://twitter.com/?tw_i=228627772866691072&tw_p=tweetembed#!/search/%23romneyshambles?q=%23romneyshambles), or read the condensed version here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-news-blog/2012/jul/26/mitt-romney-britain-gaffes#start-of-comments). (Right wing media absolutely silent on the unfolding fecal-fan collision; you have to admire their discipline.)

There's also a lively conversation under #AmericanBorat (https://twitter.com/?tw_i=228627772866691072&tw_p=tweetembed#!/search/%23AmericanBorat?q=%23AmericanBorat). Sample: "You can tell @MittRomney's doing badly when he starts getting booed by rich white people." I also spit up some coffee for: "After public jibes from Cameron and Johnson, Mitt Romney decides to retroactively cancel his trip to London."

Not really his place to lip off

But what was especially painful was watching a news anchor on CNN interviewing Rand Paul try to get him to comment on the matter

To which he responded he didnt really care and it was irrelevent

Then she tried really hard to make it relevent

And he was like STFU WHORE

[Tellos Athenaios]

International relations is fascinating. He says what British papers have been reporting for months and suddenly it's some sort of grand insult.

It is not. However to go on the record with it is impolite to the point that even a Dutchie can see that.

[SoFarSoGood]

Said just what we all knew but our politicians are too spineless to say. Good on him but shame he's a loon.

[Centurion1]

Said just what we all knew but our politicians are too spineless to say. Good on him but shame he's a loon.

? he's a loon? IE a crazy man? How so, if anything by his moderate nature hes probably more stable than most of us.

[Major Robert Dump]

Um. He is Mormon. That makes him as big of a loon as our muslim president.

Mormons heaven is super wierd. And they couldn't just use the bible like evryone else, they had to write a whole new book and release it on kindle or something, with stuff about indian jesus and basketweaving.

I am racist against mormons

[SoFarSoGood]

He's a Moron. Happy?

[Lemur]

Hour-long documentary on Romney and Mormonism from the Beeb. Note that it's from Great Britain, where they say "cheerio" a great deal and do not much like Mitt, so we'll see. Will watch when I have time.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnrUWd_XLQI

[Lemur]

Words to live by (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-mechanics-of-a-dumb-campaign/):

For once, I’d like a pool report to tell the truth “Candidate x got off the bus and addressed an enthusiastic crowd with the exact same platitudinous crap he said four hours earlier to another equally enthusiastic crowd. There was no sense to it whatsoever, but man, these people really ate it up. And his enemies will twist his words into slightly offensive shapes and make a big dumb boring hullaballoo about it until the nation finally stirs itself to end this thing with their votes.”

[ICantSpellDawg]

Man, I love Mitt Romney. I think he's going to be the next President. I think he's a much more intelligent and interesting candidate than even he makes himself seem. The guy is awesome, embodies the style of leadership I'd like to try out in the White House, if only just once. Be a decent man, say whatever is voluminous crap is necessary just to clinch the election and then govern like a efficient business man with your eye on the economic ball. "Platudinous crap" without any substance is what I think of the current President and I have no respect for 80% of his Presidency. Lets thank him for the 20% he got right, escort him to the door and put up his portrait in the West Wing as the first (hopefully of many) Black President who killed Osama, helped overthrow Gaddafi and was more successful on Health Care than Hillary - at least. On to the next one

[Major Robert Dump]

Yes, Romney is unlike any guy ever who ran for office in the history of ever.

Be a decent man, say whatever is voluminous crap is necessary just to clinch the election and then govern like a efficient business man with your eye on the economic ball

So you are suggesting that he is making promises he will not keep, and your crystal ball tells you exactly what he will do when elected? I almost want him to win so you can see how full of crap you are, and hear your excuses in three years, like we are getting now with Obama supporters.

[Lemur]

So you are suggesting that he is making promises he will not keep, and your crystal ball tells you exactly what he will do when elected?
In fairness, isn't this what all of us do, to a lesser and greater extent, when we vote for someone? Okay, maybe not so much the "promises he will not keep"; Romney is kinda unique in his quality and volume of not-true-things-saying (http://3chicspolitico.com/willard-romneys-lies/), but when we choose to back a politician, don't we all project a bit of our own wishes and hopes into him or her?

Meh, Not really making a coherent point. Need moar coffee.

[Major Robert Dump]

That's my point exactly. But Dawg seems to think he knows which promises Romney won't keep.

I would have never thought Obama would have backed off his promises for a transparent white house. As soon as I saw who was getting hired in the Justice Department, and I realized that banks were going to go unpunished, the dream started to unravel fairly early on.

[Lemur]

But Dawg seems to think he knows which promises Romney won't keep.
Hmm, normally the promises a politico doesn't keep fall into one of two categories:


Stuff they never meant to do in the first place.
Stuff they'd like to do but can't due to exterior factors.


The tricky thing with Romney is that I have no idea what he really wants, beyond becoming President. As a Bloomberg Business columnist posits (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-27/does-mitt-romney-have-a-secret-economic-plan-.html), President Romney will be forced to do stimulus spending of some sort, no matter what he says in the campaign.

In general, the best way to figure out a politician's intentions is to read his platform. But Mitt Romney is no ordinary politician. [...]

It's possible to understand every action in Romney's life as an effort to become president. But once he is president, what will his goal be? I don't know (nobody knows) but I suspect getting re-elected will be near the top of the list. To increase his chances of getting elected, he will have to implement policies that are likely to grow the economy.

[ICantSpellDawg]

That's my point exactly. But Dawg seems to think he knows which promises Romney won't keep.

I would have never thought Obama would have backed off his promises for a transparent white house. As soon as I saw who was getting hired in the Justice Department, and I realized that banks were going to go unpunished, the dream started to unravel fairly early on.

I don't care what promises he doesn't keep. He'll keep just enough promises to try and get re-elected. He is knowable because he is (mostly) non-ideological. He is revolutionary in that he stands for the bare minimum. He has focus and makes broken things work. It doesn't matter what those things are, they are badly broken, he gets in there and fixes them. That is interesting.

So I'll be disappointed in 4 years and everyone in the world is full of crap. Better that my guy gets in than the other guy, since they are full of equal amounts of crap.

We all know that politicians say whatever is necessary to win. Check
We all know that the pandering is limitless. Check
We all know that Romney is a good Executive in every executive position he has held within out recent lifetimes.
We know that we need a good executive.
Most of us don't believe that he is a bad or vile person.

What more do you need out of a President?

[rvg]

I don't care what promises he doesn't keep.
Strange. Then why are you supporting him? It can't be the issues.


He'll keep just enough promises to try and get re-elected.
How can you be sure?


He is revolutionary in that he stands for the bare minimum.
Bare minimum what? What is it that he stands for? The biggest problem with Romney is that none of his political statements can be taken at face value. There's no point of leverage against which one could gauge his stances.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Are you suggesting that he will keep more promises than he needs to get re-elected? Or that he will intentionally keep no promises and be kicked out of office? I've watched the guy for years. He says what is needed to get people on board with the projects he takes up. He sets goals and then pulls people in with him to get it done. He wants to be a good and effective leader. He wants the balance of people who hire him to be happy with his leadership. I don't think it matters what he is leading or who, just that when you choose Mitt to do A job, or when he chooses to do it, he will focus and get it done.

Meaningless campaigns may not win elections, you still need to create some sort of narrative to keep voters interested, but the basics are simple. Do a good job, make some amount of history, and make impressive things work reasonably well. The particulars are just decoration to get people interested. I just don't hold people to a high standard, all I require of leaders is that they are competent, decent people playing in the highest league they can. I don't care what they say, just the results. My issues are mine, not theirs.


The biggest problem with ANY CANDIDATE EVER is that none of their political statements can be taken at face value.

fixed it for you. Listen to Barack Obama, nothing that guys says means anything in relation to what he thinks. "how do I know that?" blow it out of your hole. ;-)

[rvg]

fixed it for you. Listen to Barack Obama, nothing that guys says means anything in relation to what he thinks. "how do I know that?" blow it out of your hole. ;-)

That's just not true. He promised to screw up healthcare and he did. He promised to wrap things up in Iraq and he did. You can look at his record and see that he at the very least tries to implement his promises. Romney promises different things to different people, supports issues before he opposes them and thusly cannot be taken at his word. As a conservative I find it very difficult to support Obama, but I'd take him ten times over Romney.

[ICantSpellDawg]

That's just not true. He promised to screw up healthcare and he did. He promised to wrap things up in Iraq and he did. You can look at his record and see that he at the very least tries to implement his promises. Romney promises different things to different people, supports issues before he opposes them and thusly cannot be taken at his word. As a conservative I find it very difficult to support Obama, but I'd take him ten times over Romney.

Except all of those issues that Obama swore up and down about and then totally reneged on when it was politically convenient. There is a word for politicians who have an ideological interest in issues. They are called unemployed. A politician's job is minimally different from our own - in order to make money we say things that we don't mean so that people put money in our pockets or make the things that we want to happen happen. You work at a restaurant? You teach school kids? you settle injury claims? You sell cars? You are a lying whore whose only identity is your paycheck. And that's fine. We've got our hobbies.

[Montmorency]

Except all of those issues that Obama swore up and down about and then totally reneged on when it was politically convenient.

What's the sense in excoriating Obama uniquely for it, if systemic constraints and obligations apply to all political leaders?


Dishonesty in the system exists because people allow it, knowingly, as you are right now.

Why do you wish eliminate dishonesty, and how? Should a politician be recalled or impeached after a certain grace period to fulfill promises?

[Tuuvi]

Except all of those issues that Obama swore up and down about and then totally reneged on when it was politically convenient. There is a word for politicians who have an ideological interest in issues. They are called unemployed. A politician's job is minimally different from our own - in order to make money we say things that we don't mean so that people put money in our pockets or make the things that we want to happen happen. You work at a restaurant? You teach school kids? you settle injury claims? You sell cars? You are a lying whore whose only identity is your paycheck. And that's fine. We've got our hobbies.

I don't lie at my job. If a customer asks me if the pants he's thinking of buying look good or not, I have no problem telling him they're hideous.

[HopAlongBunny]

Dishonesty and politics. Inseparable.

The thing that changes from time to time, is the price. It's pretty clear, at this time, there is no demonstrable price to be paid for dishonesty. The disinformation campaign the media has waged has largely been successful: If nothing you hear is reliable, then best to rely on what you like/agree with-the rest can be safely ignored.

The consumer is the loser.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I don't lie at my job. If a customer asks me if the pants he's thinking of buying look good or not, I have no problem telling him they're hideous.

First off;

1) That is probably why you still sell pants
2) There is measure in controlled deceit. We tell them some element of the truth so that they look good in the right pants, thereby coming back for more pants and telling their friends how much of a straight shooter pant specialist you were. But when that guy comes in for the 20k pants? You sell him those things and never look back and stamp the receipt "final sale", no matter how they look. But make sure you give him the "discount" and hem them for him "no charge"

We combine 1 part truth, to 2 parts deceit (season to taste) finish it with competence and get good results. Obviously there are some people who lie more than they are worth, everybody gets a free pass at warping the truth to the right extent

[ICantSpellDawg]

Ah yes.. the old 'Hey, in the real world there is no black and white' argument.

Dishonesty in the system exists because people allow it, knowingly, as you are right now.

Wah! What do you do for a living?

We arn't talking about killing someone and lying to cover it up, we are talking about emphasizing your positions to the right audiences on difficult issues. Abortion? If you are running for office in Massachussets, you understand why a woman would be interested in her own health and wouldn't want government telling her what she can or can't do with her body. You would serve your office without making any attempt to change existing law, effectively pro-choice (can't hurt to put "strongly" in front of it). You're running for National level office as a Republican? You have had a change of heart, still recognize the difficult nature of the issue, but err on the side of life and consider yourself "pro-life" (can't hurt to put "strongly" in front of it). My concern is what policies do you support and who is your master, I never care what these guys say to make friends. I myself recognize the difficult struggle with abortion rights and the killing of human beings, but I want to get my people into positions of power and am willing to compromise wording to forge consensus.

What other "major lies" are we talking about here that arn't just semantics with emphasis on different points for different audiences? How about swearing up and down that you are against gay marriage, leaving your position open as "evolving", attacking DOMA, and the second you start getting pressure near another election and the polls have shifted - caving in and saying you are for it? That's a flip flop.
Or what about closing Guantanamo? never happened. Or ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan actively, rather than letting them run their course? Health care law is not a tax? They had constitutional lawyers swear that it would pass muster, even though clearly didn't and wouldnt based on the commerce clause - it was clearly a massive tax and they new it, they just didn't want to word it as one for political reasons.

Lies! Deceit! whatever. I oppose him not because he lied and deceived us, but because he lied and deceived us for end results that I disagree with and his supporters deny it happens.

[rvg]

Or what about closing Guantanamo? never happened. Or ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan actively, rather than letting them run their course? Health care law is not a tax? They had constitutional lawyers swear that it would pass muster, even though clearly didn't and wouldnt based on the commerce clause - it was clearly a massive tax and they new it, they just didn't want to word it as one for political reasons.

Lies! Deceit! whatever. I oppose him not because he lied and deceived us, but because he lied and deceived us for end results that I disagree with and his supporters deny it happens.

Seriously? These are your arguments against Obama?
Hmm... let's see

1. Gitmo.
Logistically impossible to close, short of killing all the inmates. Nobody wants to host them so it has to stay.

2. Iraq war. Wound down and ended in an orderly manner as the situation allowed. Do you seriously have a problem with that?

3. Afghan campaign. On track to end as soon as practically possible. What's the problem.

4. Healthcare tax/notax... Who cares? Either way it's a shame, but you're arguing pointless semantics.



We combine 1 part truth, to 2 parts deceit (season to taste) finish it with competence and get good results. Obviously there are some people who lie more than they are worth, everybody gets a free pass at warping the truth to the right extent

Except that in Romney's case the "1 part truth" is nowhere to be found.

[Major Robert Dump]

I also think we are all glossing over the fact that Romney is a Satan worshipper. I would rather have a muslim over a satan worshipper any day of the week, because at least muslims can make good curry.

[rvg]

I also think we are all glossing over the fact that Romney is a Satan worshipper.

At this point I'd vote for Satan himself, provided that the Prince of Darkness has a solid economic platform.

[Hooahguy]

Anyone hear the insanely deceitful and flat out wrong (at least thats what Im reading) ad that the Obama campaign put out?

Pity the Romney campaign dropped the ball responding to it. Romney needs to fire his campaign manager ASAP.

[Papewaio]

Dawg your discription of jobs looks to be shaped by the economy you are in. Or you are a salesman.

Here in Aus you could chose to be on welfare for life. Meh
Or
Earn more by stacking shelves
Or
Go to Uni and pay the $8 to $20k most of the Bachelor degrees cost as a tax increase if you in the future earn above a threshold. This loan is CPI indexed until paid off.
Then
You have the choice to be a teacher, a pants salesman, a waitress (we don't tip as a rule as basic wage is far higher here, we do for exceptional service) or whatever takes your fancy. But we don't need to lie as a standard operating procedure to get a job or maintain it. We can always get another one and really only those who have an illness cannot get a job here right now.

Mind you once China stops buying and the Aussie economy tanks I'm sure we will see an increase of tooth and claw activity. But in general if you want to stay employees you had better be good and deliver on expectations. Salesman are the only group that I have seen regularly gloss over items.

[Tuuvi]

First off;

1) That is probably why you still sell pants
2) There is measure in controlled deceit. We tell them some element of the truth so that they look good in the right pants, thereby coming back for more pants and telling their friends how much of a straight shooter pant specialist you were. But when that guy comes in for the 20k pants? You sell him those things and never look back and stamp the receipt "final sale", no matter how they look. But make sure you give him the "discount" and hem them for him "no charge"

We combine 1 part truth, to 2 parts deceit (season to taste) finish it with competence and get good results. Obviously there are some people who lie more than they are worth, everybody gets a free pass at warping the truth to the right extent

1. I'm only 21, I'm still in college.

2. With the right mindset it's easy to see through that kind of bullcrap. Yes those kinds of tactics can help you build sales but in the long run people are going to realize they've been duped and that's when they'll run to your more honest competitor. There's no need to rely on dishonesty to be successful.

People can tell when you're being honest and sincere, and they appreciate it. If there was a presidential candidate who was both honest and competent, he would totally blow away Romney and Obama, I guarantee it.

[Major Robert Dump]

Anyone hear the insanely deceitful and flat out wrong (at least thats what Im reading) ad that the Obama campaign put out?

Pity the Romney campaign dropped the ball responding to it. Romney needs to fire his campaign manager ASAP.

Pretty bad commercial. Worse than the Romney ad responding to the "you didn't do it alone" speech by using a "small businessman" who, in fact, turns out not to have done it alone.

There is so much garbage being pushed both directions I am curious what this is going to make the debates look like. Based on what I have seen so far, each candidate could spend all of his time calling the other guy a liar, and in both cases they would be 100% correct.

[Hooahguy]

Pretty bad commercial. Worse than the Romney ad responding to the "you didn't do it alone" speech by using a "small businessman" who, in fact, turns out not to have done it alone.

There is so much garbage being pushed both directions I am curious what this is going to make the debates look like. Based on what I have seen so far, each candidate could spend all of his time calling the other guy a liar, and in both cases they would be 100% correct.
Im seriously considering putting down Darkseid as my presidential candidate.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Daaaaawg, we've had this argument before. I think all of your examples are bad, and that we should tear down both parties and start again from a place of honesty and conviction. You've scoffed at this viewpoint as unrealistic and idealist.

To be honest, i'm not sure which things Romney has lied about. I hear that he is a "liar" from his opponents, but it is more the label that they use. The abortion issue is one of the few blatant flip/flop type issues that he's guilty of which has been equalized by Obama's stances on Same-sex marriage, in my opinion. I haven't heard other "lies", just over the top hype that all Presidents, salesmen, executives, leaders use. Vacillating on issues and "light on message" accusations can often ring true, but lying? I don't get it. The guy is pretty straight forward about most things, it's the social issues he tends to be a vague on.

Romney was found to be the least(or one of the least) dishonest in ads during the Republican primary campaign. I'm trying to find the source of that assertion. Anyway, please tell me what he is saying that is a lie, especially RVG.

GC, I like quite a bit of our system and don't really believe in tearing all but the most rotten systems down completely. I've explained before that media, an citizens, hold politicians in contempt when they tell the truth. Truth needs to be disseminated, but a spoon full of sugar helps the medicine go down. You wouldn't tell from these message boards, but I'm an effective negotiator over the phone and in person, one on one. I tell people very difficult things without havign them yell at me or threaten me, and they get off of the phone with some element of peace. I've told them the same thing as my co-worker who was barking at the claimant, but the sweetness and eagerness to assist made the same "go directly to hell" message sound like "sure it's warm, but people pay lots of money to travel to places this warm, and think of all the free entertainment". One is not a lie, it's a spin of some element of truth to make things go down easier for them (or just you sometimes).

[Major Robert Dump]

Interesting that "over the top hype" is not considered a lie any more. It is also not a lie to omit information that contradicts your agenda, nor is it a lie to repeat a lie told to you by someone else if you did not know it was a lie, nor is it a lie if done by your PAC and not yourself. We are completely removed from all forms of accountability at the state and national level.

Personally, I think Romney is going to win assuming he doesn't pick some white bread male for VP.

I could really care less either way.

[Montmorency]

The intent to deceive and the intent to conceal are one and the same. Think about it.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Interesting that "over the top hype" is not considered a lie any more. It is also not a lie to omit information that contradicts your agenda, nor is it a lie to repeat a lie told to you by someone else if you did not know it was a lie, nor is it a lie if done by your PAC and not yourself. We are completely removed from all forms of accountability at the state and national level.

Personally, I think Romney is going to win assuming he doesn't pick some white bread male for VP.

I could really care less either way.

The statistics show that Obama is likely the winner unless the economy starts dipping downward. fivethirtyeight has him at ~70% chance of winning.

[Hooahguy]

I think Obama is going to win because lets face it, Romney is a weak candidate. Nothing spectacular about him plus he is viewed as the stereotypical "rich white guy" in this era of rich white guys being practically crucified, ie OWS. The Obama campaign is great at digging up dirt, while the Romney campaign is terrible at refuting/responding to it.
The only think going for him is that he was a good businessman, from what I can tell. That being said, what ACIN said about Romney only winning if the economy dips right before the election is absolutely true.

[Major Robert Dump]

You guys get LOLs for the "if" the economy dips.

High Wall Street numbers and record corporate profits don't mean squat on the economy if the middle class and below is still bent over taking it.

If Obama is such a shoe-in then why all the left-wing whining about Romney outspending him?

[rvg]

You guys get LOLs for the "if" the economy dips.
It has to go into negative territory. The odds of that happening in the next 3 months are quite low.


High Wall Street numbers and record corporate profits don't mean squat on the economy if the middle class and below is still bent over taking it.
Amen to that.


If Obama is such a shoe-in then why all the left-wing whining about Romney outspending him?
It just goes nicely with the narrative of a silver spooned papa's boy who thinks he can buy the election.

[Lemur]

'Romney Murdered JonBenét Ramsey,' New Obama Campaign Ad Alleges (http://www.theonion.com/articles/romney-murdered-jonbenet-ramsey-new-obama-campaign,29114/)

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/RomneyJonbenet.jpg

CHICAGO—With campaign rhetoric becoming increasingly heated and both presidential nominees releasing more attack ads, a new 30-second spot from the Obama campaign this week accuses his opponent Mitt Romney of committing the 1996 murder of 6-year-old beauty pageant queen JonBenét Ramsey.

Titled “He Did It,” the advertisement asks if anyone can truly remember where Romney was the night of the child’s murder, and whether the U.S. populace wants a president capable of strangling a little girl and dumping her body in her parents’ basement.

President Obama appears at the end of the advertisement to approve the message.

“I think this is a fair ad, and I think Mitt Romney owes an explanation to the American people as to why he murdered JonBenét Ramsey,” said Obama campaign manager Jim Messina, who called the commercial’s black-and-white reenactment of Mitt Romney carrying a kicking and screaming child to her death “accurate.” “Ultimately, voters need to know who they’re getting with Mitt Romney: a job- and child-killing businessman who is so deceitful he won’t release his tax returns or admit to a senseless murder that shook the nation to its core.” [...]

“Personally, if I killed JonBenét Ramsey, I would have come clean and told the American people that on day one,” Obama’s communication director David Axelrod said on Sunday’s installment of Meet The Press. “But I think that’s a key difference between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. Barack Obama never murdered a child, and Mitt Romney did.”

According to sources at Obama’s Chicago headquarters, the “He Did It” commercial is just the first in a new series of attack ads that accuses Romney of drowning actress Natalie Wood in 1981, convincing cult leader David Koresh to burn down the Branch Davidian ranch in Waco, TX, and causing the Challenger disaster.

“I think these ads will end up being very effective,” former Bill Clinton campaign strategist Dick Morris said. “If you are an undecided voter and you are constantly seeing images of Mitt Romney standing over a child’s lifeless body, or, as in the case of the ‘Zodiac’ spot, shooting two high schoolers at point blank range on their first date, that’s a pretty persuasive image right there.”

Added Morris, “This ad very effectively reminds us that no child murderer has ever been elected into the White House.”

Though the Obama campaign has denied it, many Beltway observers have said the advertisements are retaliation for the Romney camp’s highly controversial ad, “Boom,” which accuses the president of being the fertilizer bomb that destroyed an Oklahoma City federal building in 1995.

[Centurion1]

'Romney Murdered JonBenét Ramsey,' New Obama Campaign Ad Alleges (http://www.theonion.com/articles/romney-murdered-jonbenet-ramsey-new-obama-campaign,29114/)

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/RomneyJonbenet.jpg

CHICAGO—With campaign rhetoric becoming increasingly heated and both presidential nominees releasing more attack ads, a new 30-second spot from the Obama campaign this week accuses his opponent Mitt Romney of committing the 1996 murder of 6-year-old beauty pageant queen JonBenét Ramsey.

Titled “He Did It,” the advertisement asks if anyone can truly remember where Romney was the night of the child’s murder, and whether the U.S. populace wants a president capable of strangling a little girl and dumping her body in her parents’ basement.

President Obama appears at the end of the advertisement to approve the message.

“I think this is a fair ad, and I think Mitt Romney owes an explanation to the American people as to why he murdered JonBenét Ramsey,” said Obama campaign manager Jim Messina, who called the commercial’s black-and-white reenactment of Mitt Romney carrying a kicking and screaming child to her death “accurate.” “Ultimately, voters need to know who they’re getting with Mitt Romney: a job- and child-killing businessman who is so deceitful he won’t release his tax returns or admit to a senseless murder that shook the nation to its core.” [...]

“Personally, if I killed JonBenét Ramsey, I would have come clean and told the American people that on day one,” Obama’s communication director David Axelrod said on Sunday’s installment of Meet The Press. “But I think that’s a key difference between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. Barack Obama never murdered a child, and Mitt Romney did.”

According to sources at Obama’s Chicago headquarters, the “He Did It” commercial is just the first in a new series of attack ads that accuses Romney of drowning actress Natalie Wood in 1981, convincing cult leader David Koresh to burn down the Branch Davidian ranch in Waco, TX, and causing the Challenger disaster.

“I think these ads will end up being very effective,” former Bill Clinton campaign strategist Dick Morris said. “If you are an undecided voter and you are constantly seeing images of Mitt Romney standing over a child’s lifeless body, or, as in the case of the ‘Zodiac’ spot, shooting two high schoolers at point blank range on their first date, that’s a pretty persuasive image right there.”

Added Morris, “This ad very effectively reminds us that no child murderer has ever been elected into the White House.”

Though the Obama campaign has denied it, many Beltway observers have said the advertisements are retaliation for the Romney camp’s highly controversial ad, “Boom,” which accuses the president of being the fertilizer bomb that destroyed an Oklahoma City federal building in 1995.

Thats disgusting and very very low. I'm probably going to do a write up on my opinion of politics after having served on a campaign staff this summer. Needless to say I'm not a fan.

[Lemur]

Thats disgusting and very very low. I'm probably going to do a write up on my opinion of politics after having served on a campaign staff this summer. Needless to say I'm not a fan.
But it's from American's Finest News Source™ (http://www.theonion.com/)!

[Major Robert Dump]

It just goes nicely with the narrative of a silver spooned papa's boy who thinks he can buy the election.

Whats comical about this is the sheer volume with which Wall Street donates to the Obama campaign (more than Romneys), and in return he gives them an occasional admonishment about something they did so it looks like he is being hard on them, while virtually no enforcement or head rolling commences.

It's like being mean to your girlfriend in public to impress your friends

[Major Robert Dump]

Oh Centurion.....

There's always gotta be one

[rvg]

Whats comical about this is the sheer volume with which Wall Street donates to the Obama campaign (more than Romneys), and in return he gives them an occasional admonishment about something they did so it looks like he is being hard on them, while virtually no enforcement or head rolling commences.

It's like being mean to your girlfriend in public to impress your friends

Very true. Obama is a friend of the Wall Street. Romney is Wall Street. A subtle but important difference.

[Centurion1]

But it's from American's Finest News Source™ (http://www.theonion.com/)!

Ahhhh didn't check the link just read the actual article attached. Touche Sir Touche




Whats comical about this is the sheer volume with which Wall Street donates to the Obama campaign (more than Romneys), and in return he gives them an occasional admonishment about something they did so it looks like he is being hard on them, while virtually no enforcement or head rolling commences.

It's like being mean to your girlfriend in public to impress your friends


They donate too both sides oftentimes in equal measure.

[Lemur]

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the worst political video of this election. So far. I can only hope for more at this level of sheer awfulness.

(Note that I measure all bad political videos against the masterpiece Hillary 4 U and Me (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FvyGydc8no), which stands as the high-water mark for this lemur. Yes, I think it's even better/worse than It's Raining McCain (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaP9eiWuX3s).)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5v4PWW301JM

[Fisherking]

This makes me so happy, that I am out of the country and don’ have to see this pile of steaming :daisy: every day!

It seems the American People never have any choice except bad and worse, and some how they always select worse.

I predict that no matter who is elected the state of American Government will only go to a still lower level.

[Hooahguy]

Elections nowadays seems to be more ad hominem attacks than anything else.

Cant wait for the debates.

[Centurion1]

Elections nowadays seems to be more ad hominem attacks than anything else.

Cant wait for the debates.

It hasn't changed at all in 230 years it has always been this way. I get so sick of this sort of false nostalgia like these politicians were any different 100 years ago. They were even worse there if anything.

[Major Robert Dump]

It hasn't changed at all in 230 years it has always been this way. I get so sick of this sort of false nostalgia like these politicians were any different 100 years ago. They were even worse there if anything.

I disagree.

I think that as media has allowed us to expose their lies, what is and is not acceptable/forgivable is far different than what was and was not a hundred years ago.

Yes, they all lie. The difference is that back then it was harder to prove them as being crooks; now, we know they are all crooks, we do not care as long as it is our crook, and the politicians know that this is how we view them so they behave like crooks. This mentality trickles down to the very people the government is supposed to regulate, and they behave like crooks, too, knowing that they will get a slap on the wrist and a bailout. Malice does not have to be present in order for it to be wrong.

[Hooahguy]

Also 230 years ago we could watch politicians duel if one thought their honor was being questioned.

[Lemur]

Elections nowadays seems to be more ad hominem attacks than anything else.
ROMNEY OFFERS TRUCE IN WHICH CRITICISM OF MITT ROMNEY WOULD BE BANNED (http://wonkette.com/480750/romney-offers-truce-in-which-criticism-of-mitt-romney-would-be-banned)

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, ha ha ha, ha… ha… ah ha: “Romney also said in the interview he would like a pledge (of sorts) with Obama that there be no ‘personal’ attack ads. ‘[O]ur campaign would be — helped immensely if we had an agreement between both campaigns that we were only going to talk about issues and that attacks based upon — business or family or taxes or things of that nature.’” Okay… okay… let’s consider this… HAHAHAH, hahahahah, ha ha ha ha ha, sorry, we can’t do it, ha ha ha… what a world. Even the good little brown-noser people at Politico have written, “What is surprising is hearing a candidate say, essentially, ‘stop hitting me.’” [...]

He’s trying to run his primary campaign of bombing the opposition with SuperPAC ads exclusively, instead of getting one single speck of dirt on his hands. And even his “issues-based” criticisms of Obama are highly personal in a cowardly back-door way. “This President’s economic policies show that he knows nothing about, wasn’t really raised in, and absolutely hates America,” and so on.

WILL OBAMA TAKE THE DEAL?

We’re only one or two days away from a “I’m suspending my campaign to go back to Washington and get in everyone’s ******* way” freakout. Ha ha ha ha.

[ICantSpellDawg]

You guys are all hyped up on this "lying" business. Most of what is happening is tasteless hyping up of one guy or over the top attacks on personal character of the other. These arn't lies. I have no idea what any of you are talking about. I haven't heard many lies in this campaign from either side. I think that all of you might be stupid or something. They are criticizing one another for little unrelated things and hypotheticals and using odd word play to associate one another with criminal malfeasance. What else are they supposed to do? One guy is the President, the other guy isn't. Neither of them are actual criminals, they just have different ideas for the direction of the country and want to be President for the next 4 years. They are trying to sell themselves and use terminology to associate the other guy with bad voter feelings. That's all this is. Grow up. Realize that people run for president every 4 years and try to get elected at the other guy's expense. Honestly, it's like you're all retarded or something. Lemur has the right idea, he's laughing about this stuff.

It's not crooked to try to avoid paying taxes legally. It's also not crooked to try to nationalize the health care system. Just because we don't like a specific candidate or their, lets not automatically convince ourselves that they are criminals or liars. If you find them guilty of a crime or ethics violation then we can talk about it.

[Major Robert Dump]

You guys are all hyped up on this "lying" business. Most of what is happening is tasteless hyping up of one guy or over the top attacks on personal character of the other. These arn't lies. I have no idea what any of you are talking about. I haven't heard many lies in this campaign from either side. I think that all of you might be stupid or something. They are criticizing one another for little unrelated things and hypotheticals and using odd word play to associate one another with criminal malfeasance. What else are they supposed to do? One guy is the President, the other guy isn't. Neither of them are actual criminals, they just have different ideas for the direction of the country and want to be President for the next 4 years. They are trying to sell themselves and use terminology to associate the other guy with bad voter feelings. That's all this is. Grow up. Realize that people run for president every 4 years and try to get elected at the other guy's expense. Honestly, it's like you're all retarded or something. Lemur has the right idea, he's laughing about this stuff.

It's not crooked to try to avoid paying taxes legally. It's also not crooked to try to nationalize the health care system. Just because we don't like a specific candidate or their, lets not automatically convince ourselves that they are criminals or liars. If you find them guilty of a crime or ethics violation then we can talk about it.

You actually stated in an earlier post that Romney would make just enough promises to get elected, then when he gets elected forget them and go about the real business. How is that not a lie, Mr Stupid Retard?

If we want to pontificate about how piss poor the system is, we are going to go at it. Just because "it is how it is" does not make it right, and just because it is legal does not make it right. All of these people are crooks. All of them. They do not hold themselves even to the same standards as people who work in the stock market. Here is a game for you to play: go pull the financials of your favorite guy in the senate or the house. See what they have investments and ownership in. Then come back here and tell me that these people are not engaging in massive conflicts of interest.

And please.... PLEAAAAASE... don't retort with "because someone manages his protfolio for him," which is one of the biggest shams to ever be perpetrated against curious minds who wants to know why Joe Senator has shares in a company his legislation benefits.

I am laughing at this. I am grown up, a lot more than you, Mr Glass House.

[Major Robert Dump]

ROMNEY OFFERS TRUCE IN WHICH CRITICISM OF MITT ROMNEY WOULD BE BANNED (http://wonkette.com/480750/romney-offers-truce-in-which-criticism-of-mitt-romney-would-be-banned)

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, ha ha ha, ha… ha… ah ha: “Romney also said in the interview he would like a pledge (of sorts) with Obama that there be no ‘personal’ attack ads. ‘[O]ur campaign would be — helped immensely if we had an agreement between both campaigns that we were only going to talk about issues and that attacks based upon — business or family or taxes or things of that nature.’” Okay… okay… let’s consider this… HAHAHAH, hahahahah, ha ha ha ha ha, sorry, we can’t do it, ha ha ha… what a world. Even the good little brown-noser people at Politico have written, “What is surprising is hearing a candidate say, essentially, ‘stop hitting me.’” [...]

He’s trying to run his primary campaign of bombing the opposition with SuperPAC ads exclusively, instead of getting one single speck of dirt on his hands. And even his “issues-based” criticisms of Obama are highly personal in a cowardly back-door way. “This President’s economic policies show that he knows nothing about, wasn’t really raised in, and absolutely hates America,” and so on.

WILL OBAMA TAKE THE DEAL?

We’re only one or two days away from a “I’m suspending my campaign to go back to Washington and get in everyone’s ******* way” freakout. Ha ha ha ha.

I don't understand why he doesn't just respond to the ads if they are so untrue? He has more money to burn and the polls are reasonably close.

This makes me think he may be concerned about his VP picks background, or maybe someone is getting close to a filthy little skeleton

[Memnon]

Andrew Jackson once had a dude try to assassinate him with two flintlock pistols--they both misfired, and he chased the would-be assassin down the street with his cane (as he was crippled, you see, from a musket-shot he took to the side during the war of 1812). Or so the story goes.

Nowadays they cower behind the secret service.

Well, to be fair, the chances of two weapons used by an assailant misfiring have dramatically decreased since then. Also, possibly only TR has even come close to the badassness of Jackson, regardless of their policies. I think I remember reading that Jackson had six bullets still in him when he died, and they had all been life-threatening when he got them, 20 or more years before he died.

[Lemur]

Looks like it's going to be Ryan (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/08/romney-vp-saturday/1#.UCXyJZ1lTHQ). Interesting.

[Centurion1]

Looks like it's going to be Ryan (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/08/romney-vp-saturday/1#.UCXyJZ1lTHQ). Interesting.

I like Paul Ryan he was going to be my primary vote

[ICantSpellDawg]

I am thrilled by this pick. These are my two favorite politicians. I think they represent center right politics that don't dehumanize the opposition. I'm thoroughly impressesed by this and the choice will be proven a good one in the debates. The Republican vision that we were all waiting for has entered the race.

Who ever said "my candidates never run"? If I could have designed a dream ticket that only I would have to vote for, this would be it.

I had no love for Rubio, he was just an interesting guy. Ryan has interesting ideas and I've come to realize that those will be much more important over the next few months if people are listening

[Hooahguy]

Well, both the conservatives and liberals are thrilled. Ill assume its for different reasons.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Well, both the conservatives and liberals are thrilled. Ill assume its for different reasons.

Last time we had Palin, who gave pretty great speeches and completely blew it in any rational conversation or debate. Paul Ryan makes people like him in discussions. I've never seen him go onto a show where people didn't seem to like him. They are polar opposites in style and ability.

There were alot of conservatives that were thrilled when Obama was nominated over Clinton, thinking that he would be easier to beat in the general. I was one of them. That didn't turn out to be the case. This pick ensures an element of seriousness and vision that the campaign could have lacked had it picked a Pawlenty or a Rubio. I agree that this particular time in U.S. history is perfect for a Romney/Ryan administration. I hope it happens.

Either way, I'm going to buy a whole bunch of mugs and t-shirts

[rvg]

One big problem with Ryan is that he's been at the heart of the congressional gridlock. Considering the low public approval numbers for the House, once his role in the House is prominently displayed for public scrutiny, the Obama campaign will have a field day with it. Washington insider and all that jazz.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Time will tell. Biden is a Washington Insider, moreso than Ryan will ever be. Ryan is not the same as Eric Cantor. Ryan has an agreeable personality and seeks compromise. The President recognized this early on in his presidency. Out of all of the Republicans he could have approached for common ground he approached Ryan because he was his most likely shot. The left can't blame the right for shooting down opposing ideological priorities, anybody would do the same. If you think congress should rubber stamp presidential decrees, vote for congressmen who are in favor of that. The failure of this administration to forge consensus is a failure of leadership. When you don't have the votes to pursue your exact agenda, you compromise to drive the agenda that will work. Otherwise you get gridlock.

Do any of you ever engage is compromise with bright and clever people? Do you know how it works? It takes alot of effort and alot of concession on both parties. Concessions are not made in Washinton, so why would you expect it to work? When you have extreme disagreement you don't get massively successful legislation through. You settle for lowest common denominator stuff. The American people saw what happened when there was no gridlock, the Health reform bill passed. The American people wanted gridlock after that took place and voted for people who would lock down the purses of the spendthrifts. Gridlock isn't the enemy, the enemy is both houses and the presidency being run by one party. You want to see compromise? A Romney administration balanced by a Democratic Senate and a slightly Republican House will show you how that works. No matter how you cut it, yo get things done in that type of enviroment there have to be major concessions made.

[Lemur]

I should become a pundit—then you can say anything you please, be wrong all the time, and still get paid. It's an amazing gig.

From yesterday: Paul Ryan Will Not Be Mitt Romney’s Running Mate (http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/08/10/Paul-Ryan-Will-Not-Be-Mitt-Romneys-Running-Mate.aspx#page1)

[Xiahou]

Ryan is a good pick. He's been willing to tell people the ugly truth about our fiscal situation that most politicians are afraid to even acknowledge. Further, he has real ideas about making tough choices to begin to fix it. The ticket now has an articulate fiscal conservative.

The Obama campaign will doubtlessly try to paint Ryan as wanting the push granny off a cliff (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGnE83A1Z4U) again. That's fine. Let America decide whether they want to have a grownup talk about our debt or continue to ignore the problem and demand more entitlements. At least there's a choice now.

[Hooahguy]

Whats sad is that the Romney campaign seems incapable of responding to any of the Obama campaign attacks. They need to fire their campaign manager.

[CBR]

...but it makes me happy that you all seem to believe he's a reasonable person. Something about the GOP and VP picks... its usually a horrible disaster.
http://www.hillheat.com/articles/2012/08/11/rep-paul-ryans-record-of-climate-denial

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) is an outspoken denier of climate science, with a voting record to match. A favorite of the Koch brothers (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/02/02/142061/paul-ryan-koch/), Ryan has accused scientists of engaging in conspiracy to “intentionally mislead the public on the issue of climate change.” He has implied that snow invalidates global warming. He has voted to prevent (http://capwiz.com/lcv/issues/votes/?votenum=249&chamber=H&congress=1121) the Environmental Protection Agency from limiting greenhouse pollution, to eliminate (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll087.xml) White House climate advisers, to block (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/06/18/247507/as-crops-are-killed-house-forbids-usda-from-preparing-for-climate-disasters/) the U.S. Department of Agriculture from preparing for climate disasters like the drought devastating his home state (http://host.madison.com/wsj/business/bad-outlook-seen-for-corn-crop-in-southern-part-of/article_02d770b4-e330-11e1-9d3b-0019bb2963f4.html), and to eliminate (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll055.xml) the Department of Energy Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA-E)
But I'm sure he is reasonable where it counts.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Whats sad is that the Romney campaign seems incapable of responding to any of the Obama campaign attacks. They need to fire their campaign manager.

The best way to respond to baseless attacks is to ignore them. Mitt Romney won't be responding to the Obama machine on why they think he won't make a good president. He will make the case for why he will be a good president on his own terms. The Obama campaign criticizes for anything and everything. To waste time adhering to their narrative is a losing option.

[PanzerJaeger]

"When a young person works hard and makes the honor roll, I know that it took a school bus to get him to school, but I don't give the bus driver credit for the honor roll." - Mitt Romney. Simple and effective. :yes:

[a completely inoffensive name]

Yep Paul Ryan is a Ayn Rand tool. Not too surprising Romney chose someone that would get Tea party patriots riled up since Romney is so vanilla and bland.

Well, this pick forces me to vote, even though I was planning on sitting out on this one. fivethirtyeight calculations show him to be one of the most extremist member of Congress ever to be a vice presidential
candidate.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/11/a-risky-rationale-behind-romneys-choice-of-ryan/

Various statistical measures of Mr. Ryan peg him as being quite conservative. Based on his Congressional voting record, for instance, the statistical system DW-Nominate evaluates him as being roughly as conservative (http://voteview.org/HOUSE_SORT112.HTM) as Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota.By this measure, in fact, which rates members of the House and Senate throughout different time periods on a common ideology scale, Mr. Ryan is the most conservative Republican member of Congress to be picked for the vice-presidential slot since at least 1900. He is also more conservative than any Democratic nominee was liberal, meaning that he is the furthest from the center. (The statistic does not provide scores for governors and other vice-presidential nominees who never served in Congress.)

Ryan is a sociopath in my opinion. His family depended on Social Security when he was young to get by and now he calls it a cancer on American's pocketbooks. He loves to quote Ayn Rand and yet seems to completely ignore the fact that she was a fervent atheist, whereas he is a staunch Catholic. It's all image, carefully maintained to trick everyone into thinking he is the new golden boy. Just like John Edwards used to be before everyone realized that he cheated on his cancer dying wife and DGAF'd on giving one bit of empathy.

[a completely inoffensive name]

"When a young person works hard and makes the honor roll, I know that it took a school bus to get him to school, but I don't give the bus driver credit for the honor roll." - Mitt Romney. Simple and effective. :yes:

But that's completely insidious and I don't understand why you nod your head like it's some virtuous thing to say. Yes, the bus driver didn't make the grades for the kid but the fact is that no man is an island and society allows us to move up in more ways than we can imagine. The tone of the message is of extreme individualism to the point where any acknowledgement of outside help is flippant and shows no humility at all.

[Lemur]

fivethirtyeight calculations (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/11/a-risky-rationale-behind-romneys-choice-of-ryan/) show him to be one of the most extremist member of Congress ever to be a vice presidential candidate.
Helpful graphic:

https://i.imgur.com/Rygvx.png

[Hooahguy]

Alright. Now that Obama is ensured victory, who do we think will be running in 2016?

[Lemur]

Too far-right to appeal to the moderate or socially liberal republicans, and way too far right to be able to reach across the aisle.
I also see that Congressman Ryan went on the Glenn Beck show and declared that progressivism is a cancer (http://bobcesca.com/blog-archives/2010/04/uhhuh_paul_ryan.html). And what do we do with cancer, children? WE KILL IT!

I get what Governor Romney is doing; if he's going to be tied to the Ryan budget, who better to defend than Ryan? And clearly the game needed shaking up, bookies are putting Obama victory around 70% odds. But ... surely he could have found someone as exciting as Ryan who would have more appeal to moderate Repubs and Indies.

Oh well. At least now we will see the Ryan budget get its day (or month) on the national airwaves.

[Hooahguy]

The only reasonable hope that Romney had on winning relied on him picking a moderate running mate. Now that he has failed, he can kiss this election goodbye.

[Xiahou]

Noted librul,William Saletan (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2012/08/paul_ryan_for_vice_president_he_s_the_fiscal_conservative_a_republican_should_be_.html), sees the Ryan pick pretty much the same way I do:
Ryan refutes the Democratic Party’s bogus arguments. He knows that our domestic spending trajectory is unsustainable and that liberals who fail to get it under control are leading their constituents over a cliff, just like in Europe. Eventually, you can’t borrow enough money to make good on your promises, and everyone’s screwed. Ryan understands that the longer we ignore the debt crisis and postpone serious budget cuts—the liberal equivalent of denying global warming—the more painful the reckoning will be. There’s nothing compassionate about that kind of irresponsibility.
Ryan may not help Romney win this election. For the reasons given above, he may actually hurt the ticket. And there’s a good argument to be made—which Democrats surely will make—that Ryan’s emphasis on austerity is a bad fit for a weak economy. But Ryan’s ideas are important for the future. As the recovery proceeds, we’ll move out of a context in which stimulus made sense, and toward a context in which reining in deficits and debt becomes more essential. We’ll need more attention to those traditional Republican principles. We’ll need more voters, especially young voters, who value those principles. We’ll need a generation that thinks like Paul Ryan.
Romney may lose the election after picking Ryan, but at least we can have a debate about the real problems this country faces.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Romney may lose the election, but at least we can have a debate about the real problems this country faces.

Exactly. We've ante'd up and are bringing people who exude a conservative fiscal policy to the debating table. I look forward to the debate. Hopefully our board members are showing the same prodigious foresight that caused them to sound the death knell of the Republican party just before the 2010 mid-terms (http://news.ca.msn.com/world/polls-put-obama-ahead-but-do-they-matter). I don't listen to television in order to form my political opinions, but at least some do as it's what moves our ad-based economy.

[Hooahguy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzSBrEPTOU4

[Strike For The South]

Meh I will probably just vote for the socialists

[ICantSpellDawg]

Meh I will probably just vote for the socialists

Great, let me ask you why you would vote for Obama Biden? What have they done that you've liked? Are you any better off due to their policies, do you expect to be after 4 more years of their policies?



Edit - I also realized why I love to be combative online and not in person or in real politics. It's because I never have to meet consensus here. I'm about as middle of the road in person because I like to get things done and I can't do that by being a terror. I can yell till I'm blue in the face or accommodate till I pass out, but it won't matter because we are incapable of effecting change, so why not say exactly what you think?

[Beskar]

Great, let me ask you why you would vote for Obama Biden? What have they done that you've liked? Are you any better off due to their policies, do you expect to be after 4 more years of their policies?

Well, in American politics, it is pretty easy to understand the extreme polarisation. There is simply no alternatives. If American politics magically reformed and 5 political parties sprung out from it "Socialists (Left)", "Liberals (Centre-Left)", "Democrats/Republican (Centre-Right)", "Tea Party (Libertarian)" and "God Party (Theocracy)", there might be a sudden shift back to real politics and issues. Otherwise it is a choice between Teaparty-Authoratarian-Theocracy or Not-them Party.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Otherwise it is a choice between Teaparty-Authoratarian-Theocracy or Not-them Party. Nonsense

[Papewaio]

I'd like to see a fiscal conservative who isn't beholden to special interest groups. I'd also like them to invest in infrastructure from hospitals to schools. Who is a straight shooter and who will at least try to build a middle ground solution but is also willing to show leadership and innovation.

As far as global warming is concerned I'd like them to prepare for change not to try and control the climate. Put in place the ability to react to massive natural disasters from heat to hurricanes to earthquakes to Yellowstone going off.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Nonsense

Great rebuttal. Really cranking out those well thought out thesis sentences.

[Lemur]

Did you know our muslin-Kenyan-Indonesian-not-president NOBAMA was secretly gay married to a Pakistani? Neither did I, until I watched this helpful video. Thank you WND! O-loser Nobama Obomber is a sausage-stuffing secret gayzor Muslim America-hater.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWh-JK75VmM

[drone]

Don't know who that guy is, but apparently he's never seen Seinfeld.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=st_j2J4diE4
Obama is just a playa!

[Beskar]

Great rebuttal. Really cranking out those well thought out thesis sentences.

At least he is always appreciative of your thought-provoking posts and criticisms of him.

[rvg]

Did you know our muslin-Kenyan-Indonesian-not-president NOBAMA was secretly gay married to a Pakistani? Neither did I, until I watched this helpful video. Thank you WND! O-loser Nobama Obomber is a sausage-stuffing secret gayzor Muslim America-hater.

But at least he didn't murder Jonbenet Ramsey.

[Major Robert Dump]

Pretending this is a shoe-in for Obama is a good way for the Dems to shoot themselves in the foot. Romney is no McCain. They will need to put down the bongs and go vote. This seems unlikely since they ae all so poor they cannot even afford ID cards, much less gas.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Pretending this is a shoe-in for Obama is a good way for the Dems to shoot themselves in the foot. Romney is no McCain. They will need to put down the bongs and go vote. This seems unlikely since they ae all so poor they cannot even afford ID cards, much less gas.

I love it, let them keep thinking that Romney and Ryan are un-electable. No matter who we put up, when the opposition vilifies you, they can never fathom why anyone would vote for you, yet we've held the Presidency for the past 20 out of 32 years. Ryan is one of the most likable and articulate members of Congress, hands down. Mitt Romney is one of the most moderate candidates in modern history. Republicans are making the right choices this year and, while worried about a 6-8 average poll point deficit at this point, I know that they don't tell the future. Barack Obama has done a terrible job governing this country, has a nightmarish vision for it's future and Americans can see it. Enough? that remains to be seen.

[HopAlongBunny]

ICantSpellDawg is correct.

If the Democrats once again underestimate how much snake-oil the public will buy, they could well get hammered.

The question is: can Obama re-ignite the enthusiasm of his first campaign? Does he have the credibility?

Healthcare was a huge achievement; do people realize that? If they do...are they willing to overlook the lack of adjustment to min.wage, the preservation of Guantanamo, his inability to deliver on needed adjustments to the tax code...etc. Republican policy, all the way back to Reagan has delivered anemic economic performance and debt; Democrats, election after election fail to make them pay for their record.

[Lemur]

I love it, let them keep thinking that Romney and Ryan are un-electable.
The opposition will always declare you to be an un-electable baby-killer. What should be more worrisome is the Republicans' reaction (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79697.html). (Admittedly, this is inside-the-beltway stuff.)

In more than three dozen interviews with Republican strategists and campaign operatives — old hands and rising next-generation conservatives alike — the most common reactions to Ryan ranged from gnawing apprehension to hair-on-fire anger that Romney has practically ceded the election.

It is not that the public professions of excitement about the Ryan selection are totally insincere. It is that many of the most optimistic Republican operatives will privately acknowledge that their views are being shaped more by fingers-crossed hope than by a hard-headed appraisal of what’s most likely to happen.

And the more pessimistic strategists don’t even feign good cheer: They think the Ryan pick is a disaster for the GOP. Many of these people don’t care that much about Romney — they always felt he faced an improbable path to victory — but are worried that Ryan’s vocal views about overhauling Medicare will be a millstone for other GOP candidates in critical House and Senate races. [...]

“Very not helpful down ballot — very,” said one top Republican consultant.

“This is the day the music died,” one Republican operative involved in 2012 races said after the rollout. The operative said that every House candidate now is racing to get ahead of this issue.

Another strategist emailed midway through Romney and Ryan’s first joint event Saturday: “The good news is that this ticket now has a vision. The bad news is that vision is basically just a chart of numbers used to justify policies that are extremely unpopular.”

[Graphic]

“The good news is that this ticket now has a vision. The bad news is that vision is basically just a chart of numbers used to justify policies that are extremely unpopular.”

Pretty much.

Come to terms with four more years. It will happen.

[Xiahou]

The opposition will always declare you to be an un-electable baby-killer. What should be more worrisome is the Republicans' reaction (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79697.html). (Admittedly, this is inside-the-beltway stuff.)I suspect these are the same "GOP insiders" who, during the Bush years, joked that reformers like Ryan would lead the GOP back to a minority party. They probably forgot what happened in 2006... and again in 2008. These anonymous operatives are only concerned with one thing- getting in power. Ideas for reform- you know, actually helping the country, mean nothing to them. They want to get the reins of power and hold onto them as long as they can and get kickbacks from their patrons. I would much rather see the Romney/Ryan ticket stand for something and lose than win by spewing a bunch of hopey changey nonsense and doing nothing to change our fiscal trajectory.

Make no mistake, our entitlement programs -as currently constituted- are unsustainable. Change needs to happen. Obama has made it worse by taking half a trillion dollars from Medicare so he could try to make his healthcare plan look less expensive than it is. Ignoring the problem is not a solution.

If Obama is going to claim Ryan's proposals are too extreme- what are his solutions? He's completely ignored the suggestions of his own deficit commission. Despite their best efforts to paint them as otherwise, Ryan's plan was quite measured (http://news.investors.com/article/622012/201208131805/ryan-budget-is-not-radical.htm?p=full)...


"But Ryan's budget plan is far from radical.

His proposed spending and revenue levels are above historic averages. His Medicare reform has strong bipartisan support. His tax reform plan is similar to one proposed by Obama's own bipartisan debt reduction commission.

Ryan's budget, which passed the House last March, would set the federal government on course to spend an average of 20% of GDP over the next decade. That's slightly higher than the post-World War II average of 19.8%.

His tax plan would produce revenues averaging 18.3% of GDP. That, too, is somewhat higher than the 17.7% post-war average. What's more, Ryan's plan would set tax and spending rates higher than every Democratic president before Obama.

By this measure, what's radical is Obama's tax and spending plans.

His last budget, issued in February, would set federal spending over the next decade at 22.5% of GDP, on average, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

For context, federal spending reached or exceeded that level in only seven years out of the past 65 — and three of those were under Obama."

Many on the right have said that Ryan's plans don't go as far as they need to. Maybe not- but we've go to start somewhere.

[Centurion1]

The opposition will always declare you to be an un-electable baby-killer. What should be more worrisome is the Republicans' reaction (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79697.html). (Admittedly, this is inside-the-beltway stuff.)

In more than three dozen interviews with Republican strategists and campaign operatives — old hands and rising next-generation conservatives alike — the most common reactions to Ryan ranged from gnawing apprehension to hair-on-fire anger that Romney has practically ceded the election.

It is not that the public professions of excitement about the Ryan selection are totally insincere. It is that many of the most optimistic Republican operatives will privately acknowledge that their views are being shaped more by fingers-crossed hope than by a hard-headed appraisal of what’s most likely to happen.

And the more pessimistic strategists don’t even feign good cheer: They think the Ryan pick is a disaster for the GOP. Many of these people don’t care that much about Romney — they always felt he faced an improbable path to victory — but are worried that Ryan’s vocal views about overhauling Medicare will be a millstone for other GOP candidates in critical House and Senate races. [...]

“Very not helpful down ballot — very,” said one top Republican consultant.

“This is the day the music died,” one Republican operative involved in 2012 races said after the rollout. The operative said that every House candidate now is racing to get ahead of this issue.

Another strategist emailed midway through Romney and Ryan’s first joint event Saturday: “The good news is that this ticket now has a vision. The bad news is that vision is basically just a chart of numbers used to justify policies that are extremely unpopular.”

I do work in the campaign circuit within the beltway and hear all this crap. These people are the unemployed or spited scrubs with no skill that couldn't get hired by anybody. I'm personally in an 80k position for about 40k so god knows you dont have to be smart to work these campaign jobs. I work for a congressional campaign but if you havent been hired by the romney campaign or some other campaign your a loser. Also from everyone i have talked to within the gop there's a very positive and healthy buzz about ryan.

basically before anyone asks i know these people arent likely to be employed or very good at their jobs because it serves everyones and everyones campaigns within the gop for the romney ryan ticket to win.

[Major Robert Dump]

I do work in the campaign circuit within the beltway and hear all this crap. These people are the unemployed or spited scrubs with no skill that couldn't get hired by anybody. I'm personally in an 80k position for about 40k so god knows you dont have to be smart to work these campaign jobs. I work for a congressional campaign but if you havent been hired by the romney campaign or some other campaign your a loser. Also from everyone i have talked to within the gop there's a very positive and healthy buzz about ryan.

basically before anyone asks i know these people arent likely to be employed or very good at their jobs because it serves everyones and everyones campaigns within the gop for the romney ryan ticket to win.

Centurion,

Since you are a Washington Insider now,
I was wondering if you could tell what are the best airport/rest stop bathrooms to cruise for closeted congressmen.
It's for research

[Centurion1]

Centurion,

Since you are a Washington Insider now,
I was wondering if you could tell what are the best airport/rest stop bathrooms to cruise for closeted congressmen.
It's for research

Any Texas BBQ place that's where all the red blooded Gay bashing southerners hang out plus strike and panzer are
Most likely to be there. Oh and obviously Ronald Reagan that's where I get my strange

[Major Robert Dump]

Any Texas BBQ place that's where all the red blooded Gay bashing southerners hang out plus strike and panzer are
Most likely to be there. Oh and obviously Ronald Reagan that's where I get my strange

Cool. Any chance you could also score me some tit pics of Nancy Pelosi or Barney Frank?
It's for research

[a completely inoffensive name]

At least he is always appreciative of your thought-provoking posts and criticisms of him.

The sad part is that you don't need your response to him be thought provoking, just a thought.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Well it looks like Ryan couldn't come to terms with Ayn Rand's atheism after all.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/297023/ryan-shrugged-robert-costa



“I reject her philosophy,” Ryan says firmly. “It’s an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my worldview. If somebody is going to try to paste a person’s view on epistemology to me, then give me Thomas Aquinas,” who believed that man needs divine help in the pursuit of knowledge. “Don’t give me Ayn Rand,” he says.



Political posturing or a devout man? Either way, I can't wait until someone who has read Thomas can chime in with some relevant quotes that Ryan may or may not be living up to.

[Major Robert Dump]

I don't believe this guy. :inquisitive: Not only is he an evil Theocon, but he's also giving the good Saint a bad name.

Although come to think of it, he is Catholic isn't he? How wierd is that, a Mormon and a Catholic running for the Republican ticket. This would have made people laugh until they died if went back in time to the '80s and tried to tell them what the 2012 elections were going to be like.

Time travel would be the ultimate solution for our political system
https://i520.photobucket.com/albums/w324/PrivateMajorG/20090615-back-to-the-future.jpg

As far as their religions go, if they were Democrats it would be a HUGE issue.

[Kralizec]

Is a mormon-catholic ticket a weirder combination than mormon-protestant?

Shame about the Romney/Ryan 2012 ticket. I was hoping for Limbaugh/Kony 2012.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Well it looks like Ryan couldn't come to terms with Ayn Rand's atheism after all.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/297023/ryan-shrugged-robert-costa





Political posturing or a devout man? Either way, I can't wait until someone who has read Thomas can chime in with some relevant quotes that Ryan may or may not be living up to.

Why is is so hard for people to understand that you are able to have multiple sources, some conflicting, as part of your understanding of the world? He appreciated Ayn Rands understanding of the nature and mechanics of human interaction and drive. He also rejects the mechanism as the purpose and accepts a theological underpinning for the reasons why we should do certain things and not others. I share the basics of his understanding of the world. I believe that self interest drives man, I believe that man is driven to engage in all sorts of activities and by harnessing this natural drive rather than hindering it, we can go further. Where we go and why, however is determined by a completely different set of understandings.

EDIT: i'm just guessing, but this is why most of my views are very different from one another and appear at first (maybe at last) to be conflicting.

[Xiahou]

Well it looks like Ryan couldn't come to terms with Ayn Rand's atheism after all.
When are people going to acknowledge that there's more to libertarianism than Ayn Rand and her atheism? Look up Isabel Paterson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabel_Paterson), for example.

[Furunculus]

Well it looks like Ryan couldn't come to terms with Ayn Rand's atheism after all.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/297023/ryan-shrugged-robert-costa
[/COLOR]

on the subject of Ryan's Randianism, and whether it indicates any inconsistency:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/08/paul-ryans-randianism

[drone]

Political posturing or a devout man? Either way, I can't wait until someone who has read Thomas can chime in with some relevant quotes that Ryan may or may not be living up to.
There is really only one way to tell. Check his Bioshock cheevos for Little Sister Savior.


Although come to think of it, he is Catholic isn't he? How wierd is that, a Mormon and a Catholic running for the Republican ticket. This would have made people laugh until they died if went back in time to the '80s and tried to tell them what the 2012 elections were going to be like.
And going up against the African-American (muslim/communist) incumbent. My grandmother would've have a stroke in the voting booth. ~D

[rvg]

And going up against the African-American (muslim/communist) incumbent...

From Kenya.

[drone]

From Kenya.

And possibly homosexual.

[Lemur]

This is kinda interesting (http://today.yougov.com/news/2012/08/14/what-americans-dont-know-about-economy/), and relevant (not just to this election cycle, either):

I asked [in a survey] about the number of recessions the US experienced in the last 50 years. To a degree, their responses confirmed my hunch. The actual number of recessions the US has experienced in the last 50 years is about eight: one in 1960s, two in the 1970s, two in the 1980s, one in the 1990s, and two in the 2000s. However, about 70% answered between zero and five, and 26% picked between zero and two. Only about 20% chose the correct range, which was 6 to 10. This misperception may help us understand why voters throw out incumbent presidents during downturns. When the economy happens to experience a downturn in an election year—as it did in 1980 and 2008—they see it as an unusual event with ominous implications, not realizing that recessions regularly occur. As a result, they may more often vote against the incumbent party.

[Lemur]

The internet is for porn, but also for this: Romney whiteboard (http://romneywhiteboard.tumblr.com/).

[Beskar]

Romney is a pretty good artist, except for the hairy fire-engine.

[rvg]

Romney is a pretty good artist, except for the hairy fire-engine.

But Obama sleeps with unicorns.

[Lemur]

But Obama sleeps with unicorns.
I was waiting for an excuse to resurrect my Sexy Obama Unicorn library:

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/hrmHDqWf7ix4s6cwtCdB7yKjo1_400.jpg https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/new_years_2009_obama_unicorn-21-550.jpg https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/obamasunicornluv.jpg https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/barack_obama_unicorn_nude.jpg https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/obama_unicorn_wall_street.jpg https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/obama_unicorn_roaring_sea_inprog.jpg https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/obama_victory_unicorn1.jpg

[Major Robert Dump]

HA I never saw the one with the baby angels, thanks!

[a completely inoffensive name]

When are people going to acknowledge that there's more to libertarianism than Ayn Rand and her atheism? Look up Isabel Paterson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabel_Paterson), for example.

The man name dropped Ayn Rand a lot when asked about his philosophy. I'm not trying to pigeon hole libertarians under one woman, I am trying to point out that his "identity" is fake on a scale comparable to Romney. The man spent 14 years in Congress and only became the Tea Party model when the Tea Party became a thing.

The only consistent people in Congress these days are the bonafide extremists, Ron Paul on the right and Bernie Sanders on the left.

[Lemur]

Wow, whether you agree or not, this is a fine piece of classical rhetoric and style (http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/08/paul-ryan-vs-fiscal-conservatism.html). (Epic simile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeric_simile), anyone?) As I writer, I am impressed.

[Paul Ryan] is, in some ways, a pellucidly bright plant bred in the conservative movement's hydroponic greenhouse. Barely exposed to natural light, these young fertile saplings are fed with a constant drip of Koch money, sprayed with anti-liberal pesticides and brought eventually into the political marketplace [...] He has no life or experience outside the greenhouse — which is why he glows with its certainties. Most important, he has that quintessential characteristic of the modern conservative — total denial of the recent past. Ryan was instrumental and supportive of the most fiscally reckless administration in modern times. He gave us a massive new unfunded entitlement, two off-budget wars and was key to ensuring that the Bowles-Simpson plan was dead-on-arrival. This alleged fire-fighter — whose credentials are perceived as impeccable in Washington — just quit being an arsonist. [...]

On the Republican side, we now have a debt-reduction plan that actually cuts tax rates for the very rich along with everyone else, vastly increases defense spending, and "balances" the entire thing on gutting care for the old, the poor and the sick (the Medicaid proposal is truly Darwinian) and ending loopholes (which Ryan refuses to specify). I'm all for ending loopholes but even then, we wouldn't get a balanced budget for three decades because of all the defense spending and tax cutting.

This isn't conservatism. It's rightist theology. In a fiscal emergency, the Republicans are proposing not clear remedies but ideological fantasies that were already disproven in 1990. They have learned nothing. And the immense damage they inflicted on this country's fiscal health in the last decade would be nothing compared to what would come under a Ryan-Romney administration.

Because it compounds the errors that came before it.

[Major Robert Dump]

I love how Republicans like to tout that increasing funding for something does not net results. Unless we are talking defense. Then suddenly this wasteful, terrible beauracracy they speak of apparently becomes the pinnacle of bang4Ubuckness.

Half of every tax dollar goes to defense. Half.

[CBR]

I love how Republicans like to tout that increasing funding for something does not net results. Unless we are talking defense. Then suddenly this wasteful, terrible beauracracy they speak of apparently becomes the pinnacle of bang4Ubuckness.

Half of every tax dollar goes to defense. Half.
6569

Yes, Solyndra is the tiny bit on the left.
The Solyndra Standard: On Loan Guarantees, Military Spending, And Clean Energy Politics (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/08/16/699811/the-solyndra-standard-on-loan-guarantees-military-spending-and-clean-energy-politics/)

[Major Robert Dump]

Someone needs to grow some balls and take us back to WWII era R&D for military. The entire justification and merit of outsourcing in the military is based on cost (its supposed to cost less). It defeats its own purpose, and the criteria used to determine military cost vs civilian cost is weighted at the expense of the military by inclusion of indirect benefits, not just salaries.

What you get are too big to fail companies, no competition (competition being an agrument for outsourcing), corruption and massive cost overruns.

The military RENTS all of its storage containers from a private company. WTF.

Of course fixing this would require a huge increase in actual "troops", which I am fine with, because it would create jobs and be a helluva a lot cheaper than paying Lockheed to not develop something.

This fantasy politician with balls would also bitch slap Karzai and stop wasting money hand over fist in Afghanistan, a good portion of which goes right back to the insurgency to perpetuate the war so the invaders keep paying more money to perpetuate rebuilding.

[Lemur]

Dunno if this should go in the Chicken Sandwich (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?142170-Irony-in-a-Chicken-Sandwich) thread or here. FRC's Tony Perkins is bragging that he personally authored the GOP's anti-gay-marriage plank (http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/exclusive-gop-platform-draft-strongly-defends-tr). Good on ya, as the Ozzies say.

Family Research Council president Tony Perkins told BuzzFeed: “You should read the entire plank on marriage, which I wrote. I feel very happy about it. I feel pretty optimistic about the outcome here.”

Calling out "an activist judiciary," the draft document blasts "court-ordered redefinition of marriage" before taking on the Obama administration.

"We oppose the Administration's open defiance of this principle [of separation of powers] — in its handling of immigration cases, in federal personnel benefits, in allowing a same-sex marriage at a military base, and in refusing to defend DOMA in the courts," the draft states.

Finally, after praising the benefits of marriage, the draft documents state, "[W]e believe that marriage, the union of one man and one woman must be upheld as the national standard, a goal to stand for, encourage, and promote through laws governing marriage."

[rvg]

Finally, after praising the benefits of marriage, the draft documents state, "We believe that marriage, the union of one man and one woman must be upheld as the national standard, a goal to stand for, encourage, and promote through laws governing marriage."

Good.

[Strike For The South]

Remember kids, I am a fiscal conservative only when it is politically expedient

Also, My love of Libertarianism and Catholicism are completely compatible.

[Major Robert Dump]

Oh Dawg, ever the pragmatic party liner.

"It's okay if he is a douche, becaue he is our douche"


I suppose thats what kept Tom Delay and Ted Kennedy in office the better part of my life. And we wonder why this country is screwed.

rvg: At first I was shocked to see this guy was on the Science Committee. Then I remembered the Democrat Hank Johnson on the Armed Forces Committee who worried that Guam would capsize if we put more buildings on our base , and Republican Ted Stevens from Alaska who was Chair of the Commerce Committee who gave an eloquent explanation of how the internet is made of tubes and is not, apparently, a truck.

Then I stopped being shocked.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNZczIgVXjg


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f99PcP0aFNE

[drone]

Is anyone else just a wee bit curious how evangelicals will spin it if Isaac hits Tampa during the convention, at say Cat 2? ~D

[Lemur]

I don't think anyone should be surprised at this late date to learn that God hates Florida.

[rvg]

I don't think anyone should be surprised at this late date to learn that God hates Florida.

Only between May and October.

[Major Robert Dump]

I don't think anyone will spin the hurricane. It is obviously Obama engaging in weather fraud. I am curious if he paid Isaac outright, or if perhaps he is saving a position for him in his 2012 cabinet. Either way, we all know it was POTUS

[Lemur]

GOP Announces Convention Theme “We Built This” In Stadium Built With 62% Government Funds (http://www.thedailydolt.com/2012/08/22/gop-announces-convention-theme-we-built-this-in-stadium-built-with-62-government-funds/)

[T]he GOP has announced that its Tuesday night session will be themed “We Built This!” [...] However, the stadium where the GOP will be announcing “We Built This!” was financed primarily by the government. The Tampa Bay Times Forum arena, which houses the Tampa Bay Lightning, was built in 1996 as the “Ice Palace” with 62% government funds. The total budget for the project was $139 million, of which public money accounted for $86 million and team money accounted for $53 million.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/facepalm.jpg

[Hooahguy]

Im failing to see the connection. The GOP is trying to put an emphasis Obamas comment about small businesses not getting to where they were on their own. Despite being taken out of context, it can be a hard hitting point if the general audience doesnt have the context for it to make sense.

Where the convention is being held is irrelevant. Besides, from what I can tell, the stadium is owned by a public agency and receives government funding anyways.
Point is moot.

[Major Robert Dump]

Stadiums are small business. Go back to skool

[Hooahguy]

Wouldnt really call a stadium a small business.

[Major Robert Dump]

I was kidding. I don't know what stadiums are. I don't even know what the definition of small business is anymore.

I would be willing to bet that this one employs several dozen people, not including security and vendors and concessions, who are often contracts or leases. You also have to consider that for the convention they will need to hire extra security to patrol the mens bathroom and they will need additional hot dog vendors to cover Chris Christie because he is FATZOR

[ICantSpellDawg]

Remember kids, I am a fiscal conservative only when it is politically expedient

Also, My love of Libertarianism and Catholicism are completely compatible.


Sounds like my kind of candidate. I forgot that we had such perfect couch politicians on the boards; who have never had to make political decisions or alter their ideas in any way. In the words of JFK: So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again--not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me--but what kind of America I believe in.

I don't believe that a grapefruit and an aircraft do the same thing or that they should. Different organizations should do different things and it is possible to have a standard for one and a completely different standard for the other. I believe in a modular society

[Lemur]

So apparently someone on the inside leaked 950 pages of Bain financial documents (http://gawker.com/5936394/) to the press. Somebody pass the popcorn.

(Note that if you don't see the delicious irony of hosting an event themed on fake outrage (at a misleading quote to gin up anti-"socialist" something-or-another) in a majority-taxpayer-funded arena, well ...)

[Haudegen]

(Note that if you don't see the delicious irony of hosting an event themed on fake outrage (at a misleading quote to gin up anti-"socialist" something-or-another) in a majority-taxpayer-funded arena, well ...)

Hmm, I´ll take it for granted that this Republican slogan is a response to Obama´s statement that nobody can succeed only on his own.

But in this case, isn´t the use of the word "we" at least ambiguous? An indirect confession that the GOP believes in the collective of the American people rather than the individual ~;)

[Hooahguy]

So apparently someone on the inside leaked 950 pages of Bain financial documents (http://gawker.com/5936394/) to the press. Somebody pass the popcorn.

(Note that if you don't see the delicious irony of hosting an event themed on fake outrage (at a misleading quote to gin up anti-"socialist" something-or-another) in a majority-taxpayer-funded arena, well ...)
The GOP guys must be going :wall: right about now.

Regardless of the dirt on Romney, I actually now kinda think he has a chance to win. From what Ive been hearing the conservative base is fired up to vote while Im not sure if 2012 will see the waves of Obama supporters coming in as we saw in 2008.
I think it will be a very close race.