will you guys possibly split the Republican party by having him primaried in 2016?

Discuss.

I would assume it would depend on how successful "lib'rul" Romney is.

"Lib'rul" George H.W. Bush was primaried by Pat Buchanan, but that was largely because of an economic downtown. If things are going well, you'll probably hear some grumbling in such an event but I wouldn't foresee a challenge.

So, then, all the rumbling from the right about keeping his feet to the fire is inversely proportional to how well the economy does? Seems a little fairweather...or, in this case, not-so-fairweather.

We're not libertarians. We understand compromise.

I'd dare say there is a wing of the party that doesn't and wouldn't be counted as libertarians.

It is rather puzzling, Iggy, how you can be such a purist that you'd rather see Romney lose than settle for a Republican that doesn't conform to your inflexible standards. And at the same time you scorn the Tea Party as contemptuously radical. That really doesn't compute.


Romney would unquestionably be miles above the national suicide that Obama offers over the next four years.

http://www.rkmbs.com/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/1189872#Post1189872

1) I think it was pretty clear when I said "this might be the single worst-written article I've ever read" that I didn't give much credit to many of the claims in the article.

2) While I'm sympathetic to the Tea Party and like many of their points, I'm not a member or participant of the Tea Party

3) There is a clear separation between (1) the "Birthers" and "Obama is a muslim" groups (those two I think arguably have a lot of shared opinion), and (2) the Tea Party crowd which are largely focused only on overtaxation and federal debt.
The conflating of the Birthers with the Tea Party is an attempt by liberals (and people like yourself with a hidden agenda) to slander the Tea Party, when I think an overwhelming majority of Tea party members, as well as an overwhelming majority of mainstream Republicans (Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly, for example) disown the "Obama was not born in Hawaii and his birth certificate is fake" crowd.

Repeatedly, I see you lashing out with slanderous venom at Republicans as a whole, conflating the opinion of a tiny minority to smear the whole of Republicans.

It seems to me that you ALWAYS attack Republicans, and NEVER unleash the same slanderous venom on Democrats or the liberal media. And that to me makes your conservative beliefs often rather suspect.
You support Ron Paul to the exclusion of every other republican, and yet you scorn the Tea Party which are the core of Ron Paul's support. That is rather suspect.

But, you do give it credit by posting it and then discussing how it makes you engage in musings of whether or not Obama is a sleeper agent and the domestic enemy.



Count yourself lucky to not be included in their number.



My "inflexible" ass fell on the side of Dick Armey--of whom I am quite suspect--of all people on this one. We fought tooth and nail to keep it a matter of tax and debt and, by way of that, a more inclusive movement. The Sociocons had other plans, however. Today, you will rarely if ever find a "Tea Partier" gain any traction without aligning themselves to the Sociocon agenda.





I have a hidden agenda now!

Reason number 2 I've become less favorable towards Tea Partiers and those sympathetic to Tea Partiers...PARANOIA!!!



While I may not agree with them on all the issues, I've found myself siding more and more with guys like Brooks, Douthat, Frum, and Gerson. I'm just a little louder and clearer in expressing my disdain. The GOP and the conservative movement are dangerously close to becoming complete caricatures of themselves or--even worse--irrelevant.



I think there are already plenty of voices out there decrying the "socialist/communist/alinsky-ist/secularist/abortionist domestic enemies out to destroy God and country" Somebody has to be the introspective one.

As for Paul, I remain a supporter. It doesn't mean, however, I haven't had many a fallout with the "Kenyan, Marxist usurper hellbent on establishing a Western Caliphate" Bagger crowd.

As for Romney, I have little faith in someone who feels like he can say whatever he chooses so long as the campaign can issue a clarification a few hours later (see, for example, pre-existing conditions). He lacks specifics. Other plans seem only half thought out. The only thing I feel I really know about Mitt is that he really wants to be president. You want to have a debate over this stuff...I'm game. As of now, I'm unconvinced that a potential eight years of Mitt is better than another four of Obama and a completely clean slate in 2016.

Whomever is elected president this time around will get to control the federal judiciary , and possibly the SCotUS, for a generation or two. considering how much power the courts have to uphold, or curtail, liberty and/or the size of the federal executive branch, that alone makes even a 'lib'rul' Romney preferable to Obama.

Because there is absolutely no evidence of either side ever holding up appointments and leaving vacancies unfilled......what else have you got?

On the Supreme Court? You're insane.

As for lower courts, they may or may not be some hold-ups in the coming four years, but that doesn't mean Obama won't get any appointments.

But don't worry, Iggy. I'm sure any appointments Obama gets will be much more closely aligned with your "libertarian limited government ideals" that big bad Romney.

I also posted one about allegations that McCain was a traitor who sold out his country. And I seriously doubt you think I believe McCain was a traitor who got other Americans killed. But I raised it for discussion. I've done that on many subjects I disagree with, or at least am skeptical about.



Empty insults, not facts. I've repeatedly posted a gallup poll of Tea Party members that shows they are virtually the same demographically as the rest of the U.S. in their representation of racial groups, in their breakdown across various income levels, and in their proportionate spectrum of political and social beliefs across the spectrum.
NOT dumb rednecks.
NOT ignorant racists.
NOT an all-white-only club.
NOT rich blueblooded children of privelege who only care about themselves and hate all poor and brown people.
NONE of your repeated vicious stereotypes.

The same as the rest of America. Virtually exactly the same, across every category.
And it again draws a spotlight to what lying motive you would have to slander them, against the clear facts.



I've never heard the term "SocioCon" whatever the hell that means.
And I doubt many, if any, Tea Partiers have heard the term you label them under either. Every Tea party person I've spoken to has only raised federal debt and tax issues. None have ever mentioned abortion or gay rights or whatever with me.
However... I consisently hear rabid liberal Promod-type slanderers try to ALLEGE that these issues are of equal importance to Tea Party members. Tea Party members are largely conservative. Some conservatives are more concerned about social issues (gay rights, abortion, stem cell research). There is inevitably some crossover. SOME social-issue advocates will inevitably be Tea Party activists too. But that is not the same as the entire movement being enslaved to an abortion agenda or litmus-test.
And you can always pull out one conservative or liberal who is of that opinion to make the allegation. That's not an honest representation of what the movement is all about.





Yes. At this point, you've slandered so many conservatives, you've defended the vile left-wing Occupy Wall Street movement, you rail endlessly on Fox News. But you **NEVER** criticize the liberal media, you only support conservatives who splinter the Republican party (Whomod was a big Ron Paul supporter too. And was a big McCain supporter also when he was attacking other Republicans, and then bitterly railed on him the second he became the 2008 nominee). And you have a really obnoxious liberal tendency toward insults, slander, and harassment of anyone who disagrees with you.
You are identical in style to Halo 82, Whomod and Prometheus.



It's not paranoia when you really are a partisan tool, pretending to be something you're not.





That tells me a lot right there. Frum and Brooks I regard as Democrats disguised as Republicans. I used to love Brooks before he went to the New York Times, lost his conservative street-cred, and became a guy who salivated over the prospect of an Obama presidency in 2008, and gushed about being "very impressed" by Obama's genius staff of "overeducated achievatrons", "off to a start that nearly justifies the hype".
With conservatives like that, who needs liberals?

It's a joke to call these guys "conservative opinion".




Why?
Why dodge the true issue? You claim to be conservative, but mock "God and Country". Just like Pro. Just like Whomod.

Introspection is recognizing the true enemy from within. Alinsky teaches to infiltrate the system, put on a suit and tie, pretend to be "the man" and collapse the system from within. In the news media, in education, in college academia (which you coincidentally work in), in movies, television and entertainment, that infiltration is precisely what's happened over the last 45 years or so.

And Obama in particular and Hillary Clinton, are the embodiment of that deceit. All that is the fruit of Saul Alinsky, in whom both are clearly and unapologetically indoctrinated.
The edge of the cliff Obama has brought us to is the wet-dream of Frank Marshall Davis, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Cloward and Piven strategy, William Ayers, Jeff Jones (who WROTE the Stimulus and Obamacare bills!), Valerie Jarrett and Van Jones.

Obama has brought us to the edge of economic, financial and military collapse. Destruction of the nation. What could possibly be more important and "introspective" to discuss?!?




"Bagger."
Again with the empty insults characteristic of the far-left, of a Promod.

It was Dinesh D'Souza's ROOTS OF OBAMA'S RAGE that finally convinced me that there was a more refined explanation than Obama being a muslim or conventional marxist to explain his actions as president.
Obama is a "choom-gang" dope-smoking hippie. He is an ultra-liberal on many issues, such as gay rights and abortion, that many muslims would oppose. I would more readily believe him a marxist than a Manchurian muslim. As D'Souza details, it is a hostility toward Western culture and a shared anti-Colonialism Obama shares with muslim conservatives, not their core beliefs.
But in any case, Obama relies on deceit to advance a decidedly un-American agenda.

Obama doesn't have a goal of a North American caliphate, but he does clearly advocate wealth redistribution, class warfare, and (consistent with his indoctrination in liberation theology) wants to diminish U.S./western global power to raise the power of non-european peoples, domestically and worldwide.
That is not "bagger" ignorance or paranoia, that is often verbatim what Obama himself has said, and done as president, as liad out in campaign speeches and prior.





I watched Steve Hayes before the 2nd debate last night, saying it's ridiculous to say Romney has not been specific. That while he could be more specific, he has already been far more specific in what he would do as president than Obama has in either 2008 or the current campaign.

Democrats will never acknowledge anything Romney offers as valid, no matter how specific. They will just slice it into misrepresentative pieces and throw them back at Romney in smear ads.

And by the way, what SPECIFIC plans has Ron Paul laid down that he would do as president?
Abolish the education system?
Abolish the IRS? (Without a specific plan to replace it.)
Abolish the Federal Reserve?
Those are nice sweeping little rabble-rousers to get the Ron Paul crowds cheering, but I don't hear much in the way of specifics of how these would be done without further wrecking the country. Romney addresses many of these issues in a more careful and lucid way, for which you demonize him, despite that he offers more specifics than Paul.

What's a guy to think, when you never have anything good to say about Republicans or Fox, and never seem to have any criticism of the Democrats and the liberal media, despite how they are deceitfully bringing destruction on us like has never been seen before.

For somebody who's interested in cutting the federal debt down, I would think you would be more interested in some specifics with Romney's tax plan. Romney's math doesn't add up and I could see it greatly adding to the debt.

You going to make me post all those sources that shows cutting rates/flattening rates creates increased income and, therefore, reduces the deficit again? I mean, I've been posting them on and off for years now. Haven't read them at least once?

It's also been firmly established at this point that even if we taxed "the rich" at 100 percent the national debt "would continue to explode."

The deficit is caused by spending. In this case, Obama's spending. If anyone's math doesn't add up it's the president's.

Adding to what G-man said, there are several economists who have endorsed Romney's plan, and say Romney's plan does add up.

I'm not naive enough to think any politician's plans stated during a campaign add up perfectly. No battle plan survives the first day of battle, and all that. Obviously, even the best plans face un-anticipated hurdles. But Romney has a proven record of responsibly managing a corporation for over 25 years, at managing the 2002 Winter Olympics (one of the few profitable Olympic events), and governing Massachussetts from high deficit to a surplus, and then taking over a floundering Bain and making it a strong company again. I think that's a remarkable track record.

As I've stated across multiple topics over the last 10 years, any raising of taxes just results in enabling more irresponsible spending.
As I said prior, if new taxation was used ONLY to pay down the debt, I (and I think most Americans) out of patriotic duty would gladly pay it.
But it's not.
Every dollar of raised taxes seems to result in at least 1.5 dollars spent. And the only way to reign in the rising debt is to not enable further spending.

As G-man has repeatedly pointed out, further taxation, especially in a recessionary/borderline-depression economy, where annual growth has been shrinking every year for 4 years, is suicidally dangerous, and could only further restrain growth, and push us further into recession. When Clinton raised taxes we had significant annual growth. That is no longer the case.

Further, G-man argues (with cases to back it up, in the presidencies of JFK, Reagan, and the early years of W. Bush) that lowering taxes results in more jobs and businesses, and therefore more taxable income, and greater federal revenue.
I was resistant to this idea, but have come to see the wisdom of it. That growth from lowered taxes allows us to pay our debt more so than further taxation.


Finally, Romney (and Ryan, and other Republicans) have put several plans on the table. Obama and the Democrats have not put a credible plan on the table in 4 years. EVEN WHEN THEY HAD ALL 3 BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT, with supermajorities no less.
I say give the Republicans all 3 branches, and see what THEY can do.

RAW

From JFK To Bush, Treasury Swelled After Tax Cuts

You mostly questioned in the McCain one and ended it by mentioning you'd never heard something as beyond the pale as the allegation. There is a big difference between that and saying the other thing is incoherent, rusty knife driving piece that makes you think about Obama's other allegiances and how Democrats would vote for him despite flaming 666s on his forehead. Please don't try to play like those are equal comparisons.



Old stats. How about something that hasn't been on the shelf for over two years. How about stats on how most view them unfavorably? How about recent ones that show one out of every two tea partiers you meet will be an evangelical? How about newer polls and studies showing the Tea Party shifting to being older, more male, and more white? Your case starts to fall apart when you look at where the tea party is trending.



Sociocon or SoCon is short-hand for social conservative, duh. You find that type of stuff outside of the SoCon fold. As for the Tea Party, the group is trending whiter and evangelical. Fact. Just the other week there were several "God and Country" Tea Party celebrations across the country. Many are openly accepting the rebranding as "Teavangelicals". Tea Party groups across that nation held "God and Country" celebrations just a week or so ago.

It may have once been overlap but it is looking more and more like a takeover.



The "petty insults" guy engaging in petty insults. That's hilaritas!!

[quote=Iggy]


Way to shrink the tent, numbnuts.



Must I sign a "God and Country" pledge to be a conservative? If so, fuck it. And, fuck you guys getting people like me on board so you can win fucking elections.



A movement that has become a caricature of itself while wallowing in the hypocrisy of engaging in similar partisan tactics to those they decry the president and his cronies of doing is worth pointing out. Both sides have acted like petulant children for--at least--the past two years. I don't see one side having control of the government in the coming four which means at some point both sides need to quit acting like kids, sit at the fucking table, and work out a god damned compromise that makes them both eat their fucking veggies. Both sides lose, not one or the other, and America wins.



You don't have to be a left-winger to find the Tea Party leaving a bad taste in your mouth. My experience in various TP groups has done that. So, yeah, I call 'em baggers. So. fucking. what?

As for how it relates to Paul, unfortunately there are people with that mindset that are part of the Revolution and self-described Tea Partiers.



D'Souza's quackpot movie is no truer now that it is on dvd than it was when it was in theaters. He may read from Obama's book but the crazy interpretation is all his own creation. Maybe, this is why he and his wife have separated and he is now involved in a bit of a scandal.



So, now it is okay for Republicans because "Obama did it first." Oy vey!



"Oh noes!!! Democrats won't play nice with it so we just won't show it to anybody!!!"

Gary Johnson 2012



Thirty years of consistent thought in speeches, books, and pamphlets are there to answer any questions you may have. You can even get some for free in pdf format over at the Mises Institute library (cheap plug win!!!).



I think there are three types of people not voting for Obama in this election: the loud Obama haters, the Romney's the best we can do so let's shut up and get it over with types, and the why trade one tool for another vote third party crowd. I fall into the latter of those, of course.

So far, I have no Democrats on my slate of votes for Nov 6. They are all either Republicans or libertarians. If Mitt doesn't get elected, I don't think it will be the end of the world. Moodys is saying 12 million (that's Mitt's number) new jobs are forecast regardless of the 2012 outcome. All others point to a slightly smaller but similarly great increase in jobs over the next four years. Considering those are the forecasts, Mitt's "Get America Working Again" is just empty rhetoric unless he means that his 12 million are on top of that 12 million which would mean 48 months of continuous job growth of 500,000 jobs a month (see also, when pigs fly).

Everything else he has said is heard it before and not falling for it again.

So sue me when I don't rave about the bank funded, crony, vulture capitalist being vaunted as the solution to the bank funded, crony capitalist community organizer.

But, just to let you know, I would sign the dotted line for an entire Senate full of guys like Coburn, DeMint, and Paul if they promised to check their social values at the door and focus on only the debt and the economy. There are many of us out here who feel this way. Tell 'em to come a-courtin' anytime they're willing to deal. And, get used to it because it is going to be the new face of the GOP electorate if they don't confine themselves to irrelevance.

Errr...Yeah. *cough*bullshit*cough*

I don't ignore republicans. I am, after all, a republican.

You, on the other hand, are trying way too hard to rationalize voting for a right wing Nader.

You know it's only going to damage the country more, and yet you do it anyway. All in the name of coming across as a typical hardcore Ron Paul retard.

Address the twelve million jobs, please. Else, you've got nothing but Mitten's empty rhetoric.

I don't give a fuck about Romney's projections. I care about the policy he's pushing. And trying to fool me into believing that you actually give a damn about it won't help your case when you've gone far out of your way to condemn the republican candidates for whatever reason you could scrounge. If it wasn't fiscal issues, it'd be social issues. And if it wasn't social issues, you'd go after him for being Mormon.

Or do you honestly believe that Obama's current plan is going to be [as prosperous as/less damaging than] Romney's? I know that's what you're implying, but it flies in the face of your hollow "libertarian" lip-service.

His policy is the same stuff we've heard and never achieved since like Ford. But, no, you're right...it is going to be different this time around.

We've heard of, but never totally achieved, a true free market and elimination of entitlement programs during the 20th century. Does that mean it was/is stupid to labor for such things?

And I notice you dodged the question with some graemlins. You're channeling Prometheus more and more each day.

Actually, Iggy just said recently that the two left wing candidates-Obama and the Green Party person-were more aligned to his presidential voting preferences than Romney. I think that's alone tends to blow any claims of him being a fiscal conservative out the window.

When was the last time a republican president had a balanced budget?

That one at the end, bigger as anyone else's, that's Obama's deficit. All Romney would have to do is take us back to a Bush era deficit and he'd be hailed for cutting the deficit in half.

Obama has already failed. Anyone arguing Romney is worse is simply delusional or disingenuous

I think a good case could be made that McCain would have had a large deficit too because of the recession. When it gets down to it republicans are historically only fiscally conservative when they don't have the presidency. Ryan for example voted for & helped pass a medical expansion that didn't even attempt to pay for itself.

Right in line with the DNC talking points you are trying to pretend the last four years haven't happened. Bush is not the president. Clinton is no longer the last Democrat to occupy the White House. Obama has a record now and it includes an unprecedented level of debt. He, and you, can't keep pretending we don't know how he'd perform on this issue.

As noted above, all Romney has to do as President is be "as bad as Bush" on this issue and he'd be twice as good as Obama.

Can't defend the lemon so shoot the guy pointing out that its a lemon. Good job, guys.

It's been defended, Iggy. MEM and the rest of the Obama supporters just don't want to listen.

You'd have a lot more credibility yourself on this, BTW, if your "pox on both their houses" persona didn't always end up throwing the pox directly on Romney while giving Obama pass after pass....not to mention you admitting you'd vote for either Obama or a green party candidate over the GOP nominee.

The Obama record of failure speaks for itself. Now, I am happy to criticize the guy. Just don't expect me to ramble on about his "communist/socialist/alinksy-ite/anti-colonialist" ways. He's a turd, no doubt. He's just not any of those. His entire re-election campaign, from my perspective, has been just as bad as Romney's campaign. Essentially, I just see him as saying he promises to do in his next four years what the promised and yet failed to do in his first four. His economic vision was built by those who removed the backstop, as I call it, that made the poorly executed deregulation of Wall Street under Dubya possible (see also, Larry "Douchebag" Summers). But, hey, what should one have expected? His campaign was funded and his administration was staffed by his good friends at Goldman-Sachs. Though, it should be note that they are bank rolling Romney with an Obama hedge this time around.

Now, this would probably be the best time to bring up Dodd-Frank. Dodd-Frank is the biggest bunch of hooey pretending to do something about Wall Street that has been seen in quite some time--if ever. As Dodd has been a proven bankster puppet over and over again.

He kinda delivered on his promise of transparency by making sure that all the meetings he doesn't want us to know about took place off the White House visitation books. A very demented deceptive way of doing it but it does a great job of faking the results.

PPACA, for all their howling, is nothing more than a federal giveaway to the insurance companies.

He's done a great job of eliminating the current generation of al-Queda while strengthening their future recruitment drives by escalating and spreading the use of drones throughout the Middle East.

If you listen closely, you can hear the parasites he's allowed to suck the beast dry. I'm just not convinced in the slightest that Romney's brushing away of the parasites is anything more than giving a chance for the vultures to get their turn.

So... the net result of what you advocate is to re-elect Obama.

No sane person could realistically say that Obama will make the next 4 years better than Romney would.
1) Romney would create far smaller deficits (his vice president is the only person to put forward a feasible plan to reign in debt).
2) Romney has a better hope of winning majorities in the Senate and Congress in November, and therefore being able to break the gridlock and get a fiscally/economically responsible plan passed.
3) Romney would pursue American interests in the middle east, and not allow U.S. interests to decay even further.
4) Romney would create pro-business policies, that have a far greater chance of building jobs and business in the U.S., as opposed to Obama's that are preventing the creation of jobs, and driving capital out of the U.S.

And as for your fronting Obama "not being an Alinskyite", what do YOU call a man who used to teach Saul Alinsky marxist principles and tactics of deception to classrooms of Chicago street activists?

To say nothing of Obama's clear "communist/socialist/alinksy-ite/anti-colonialist" ways, that you for some reason mock despite their being way beyond deniable:

• 
  Barack Obama
  
  Valerie Jarrett
  
  Van Jones
  
  Rev Jeremiah Wright
  
  Derrick Bell
  
  Frank Marshall Davis
  
  William Ayers

Romney would be a diseaster with the middle east. Loud political bluster might impress some people (who probably voted for the guy who chose to ignore multiple warnings that Bin Laden wanted to crash planes into buildings) but not me.

No, you forget the recession started under Bush and it was well known that this wasn't a typical recession. Bush got a surplus when he started, Obama got the mess to clean up while you guys bitched that it wasn't fast enough. The economy is starting to turn around but we simply can't afford another Bush styled president.

In other words, the DNC talking points. Again.

The unemployment rate when Bush left office was 7.8%.

The lowest its been under Obama is right now and it's (drum roll)...7.8%.

The deficit under Bush was less than half what it is under Obama.

Yeah, Obama's really "cleaned up [that] mess."

Maybe. I'd only have to endure four of Obama and then could get a clean slate in 2016. Might be better than eight of Romney or four years of Romney that hand the office back to the Dems in 2016 anyway. I've said before that quite a few of the RNC speeches seemed less "Go, Mitt!" and more "Remember this face in four years!". That was a tell. We'll survive four more years of O. T-Paw quitting less than 90 days as campaign co-chair and assumed shoo-in for a great cabinet gig to become a banking lobbyist was a tell. This wasn't stepping down for calling the US a nation of "whiners" like in '08. This was straight up peace-ing out. I can't think of any prior instances like that as the precedent setter. The Republic will endure. Save an outside situation like a Euro-crash or major Chinese slowdown, the economy is expected to continue to grow over the next four years anyway. Maybe, four more years of Barry taking the heat for the tepid recovery won't be such a bad thing.



So, every person that doesn't agree with you is certifiable?



The best metric to gauge this on is his picking of Ryan and on again off again support of the Ryan budget and his vague budget plans. What we can gather from both is that they supposedly solve a debt crisis while continuing to run budget deficits of five to ten trillion. Now, it could be that Romney has an ace up his sleeve that similar to Pelosi on health care--we'll have to elect him to see it-- but, the numbers don't add up and the six studies held as proof vary widely on baselines and the like so I don't think they really hold much water either.

Obama's plans are far from likeable but, that doesn't mean I'm going to hitch my cart to hype over substance. And, from what I've read, I think that just about sums up the Romney-Ryan Plan(s).



Well, at least, you are optimistic about something. I'm less optimistic placing Dems in control 51/49..at best for Republicans (this is even granting the chances of the I winning Maine and caucusing with the GOP). So, a Romney win will just turn current "obstructionist" rhetoric around.

House looks like Dems might just shave off some of the majority but that will also see the current party retain control.



Because that will be so gosh darned important when he delivers on the "energy independence" we've been promised for the past forty years!



Our best interests in the ME is to contain it and finally let the powder keg blow up like it has been more or less set to do since the fall of the Ottomans.



http://capitalbusinesscredit.com/knowled...oods-elsewhere/

A lot of high-end manufacturing is moving back. Estimates across the board show the economy adding 9-12 million jobs in next four years regardless of the election outcome. What you are saying doesn't match the facts, pal. It is pure partisan projectionism.



Key words there: USED TO. People change. Get a grip. Or, should I just accept that Romney is still to the left of Ted Kennedy on abortion and gay rights because he was in '94?

And, seriously, get over a man that his been dead for forty years and, well...



He's lying, of course. Because, THEY ALL FUCKING LIE!!!!

It's debatable whether or not we'll survive Wilson's legacy let alone Obama's.

And your use of the word "survive" is sketchy. For instance, I'm not so much worried that I'm going to die as I am that yet more of my freedoms will expire and/or be ceded to the UN.

But I'm not really surprised that you'd resort to such strawmans, Pro.

Tell me, what freedoms did Barry steal that Romney wouldn't agree with him taking? Just curious.

Free Speech in the Era of Obama

That thread is good for some laughs...



...Except for those still worried that Obama was just waiting for his second term to get them I suppose.

Well, we all know, in Obama's own words, that he plans to be "much more flexible" after the election.

i.e., radical

In your highly opinionated opinion.

This paragraph is so laden with your own personal slang idioms that I can barely discern your meaning at several points. I had to look up "T-Pac" to figure out what you were trying to say. For those of us who speak english instead of Newspeak.





Just making the point that Romney has a plan, Obama does not.
Expecting a better result under 4 more years of Obama is not rational. Just ask former Obama voter and resort hotel owner Steve Wynn, and many other business owners, who say Obama's policies are suppressing business and job creation.



What "we can gather from both" is that (like JFK, like Reagan, like W. Bush) Romney is following a proven model that reducing taxes results in creation of more taxable jobs and businesses, and therefore increases federal revenue.
For an alleged conservative, you have a remarkably poor understanding of conservative tax policy.

As for changing plans, and not explaining every detail, doing so would just open up Romney/Ryan to a new salvo of distorted attack ads that would deliberately misrepresent their plans. Romney has already given far more detail of his plans than Obama.

This much is absolutely true:
Average annual deficit under W.Bush: $400 billion
Anverage annual deficit under Obama: $1.4 trillion

I'll take the party that hasn't quadrupled the deficit and added 5.6 trillion in 4 years with no end in sight, thank you very much.



As I just said, Romney offers a more lucid and detailed plan than Obama. Obama really offers nothing, except fronting that Romney is the white racist vulture-capitalist reincarnation of W.Bush.




We'll know in 14 days.
Rove and Morris offer alternative views, with numbers to back them up.



Letting the whole middle east turn into a radical (in Iran's case NUCLEAR ARMED) islamic caliphate endangers U.S. trade and our allies, way beyond just oil supply.



Aside from the apparent syntax error, you appear to have just lost your attempt to discredit my use of the word "insane" above to describe the irrationality of your argument.
"Let the powder keg blow" and let the radicals kill off all the friendly governments and moderate muslims in the region? Let them, emboldened, build more terrorist-training camps and launch more attacks on the U.S., Europe, and westerners in the region?

Wow, what a great idea. Brilliant!



I'll grant you there are alternative arguments, and that SOME manufacturing is moving back to the U.S.
But I'll also remind you of the coal, gas, and oil industries that Obama has suppressed from job creation, and in coal's case, that Obama has openly boasted he would drive out of business.
Add to that Steve Wynn and the other business leaders --some of whom voted for Obama in 2008-- who say Obama's harassment is suppressing exapansion and job creation.
I'll take their word, over some blog you posted that I never heard of, that may or may not be a progressive front organization.




Gee, I missed the part where Obama loudly renounced his radical-left/Proggressive fanaticism. Look again at the Discoverthenetworks link for Barack Obama I posted. People who knew him --who in the quoted article profoundly renounced Marxist proggressivism-- describe Barack Obama as a deeply committed Marxist. They describe Obama as a deeply committed Marxist revolutionary (circa 1981) The ones who described Obama clearly renounced Marxism. Obama never did.

Far from it, Obama had lifelong close associations with Frank Marshall Davis, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Prof. Derrick Bell, Valerie Jarrett, William Ayers, and on and on.

And appointed radical Marxists into his White House inner circle: Van Jones, Mark Lloyd, Anita Dunn... does that sound like someone who fits the rationale that "people change?!?!
No, it manifests someone who is a marxist radical with a deceitful hidden agenda, that is clear in his Anti-American actions as president, that are hurting our financial solvency ((Cloward and Piven strategy), our military strength, and our ability to preserve our allies and interests worldwide.

Selling out the U.K., selling out Poland and Czech Republic, selling us out to the Russians, enabling Iran, selling out Mubarek in Egypt instead of backing him through some more peaceful and democratic transition... what exactly manifests a "people change" from radical marxism in those actions?

People who renounce marxism (such as David Horowitz and Michael Savage) tend to renounce it in a loud and heartfelt way. Obama has not.
Quite the contrary, Obama consistently enables marxists in and around his administration.




Whatever that ambiguous bit of snarkiness is supposed to mean. Saul Alinky is in his grave. But his disciples live on in some of the highest seats of power in our government. And I mean Hillary Clinton as well as Obama and his minions.
Alinsky taught them to infiltrate the system and collapse it from within, and by all evidence, that is precisely what they are doing. That is certainly nothing to dismiss or "get over". That is something to defend the nation against.

I didn't say "T-Pac". I said T-Paw like a lot of those other liberal newspeakers at places like The Wall Street Journal or The National Review. You are just trying to make an "iggy's a crazy liberal" issue out of nothing and looking like an idiot because of that.

I could show you plenty more where people have referred to Obama as Barry or O but, you have fucking google so feel free to find it yourself. I'm sure you can find plenty of instances where democrats are simply referred to as Dems, as well.

That leaves my using "peace-ing out" as the great example of my indoctrination into newspeak. If you couldn't figure that out in context then you are a fucking retard.

Quit denigrating Blair.



And, many other business owners disagree. Steve Wynn, and people who feel like he does, aren't the arbiters of truth to anyone but people who agree with them.

BTW, it is really hard to believe his policies are suppressing business when profits are at record highs and wages are in the fucking dumps. Seems more like a problem of a business sector that we've bent over backwards to offer all the perks of personhood to without any of the responsibilities. Hence, you know, wages being in the fucking dumps; savings rates being in the toilet; and household debt eating up almost one hundred percent of gdp. BTW, corporate debt to gdp isn't really that much better.

And, this isn't just an Obama thing. These are lingering problems since--at least--Reagan with the only big exception being a fairly decent uptick in wages in the waning years of Clinton that got wiped out. The slide has been downward since.

I love the "stronger middle class" rhetoric but, I see little in terms of deviation from the previous thirty years of economic zombie-fication policies in Romney's plans. In fact, I've pretty much heard it all before over the past thirty years that have driven our total debt to gdp ratio to around current levels of 3.29:1. Admittedly, down from the 3.5:1 high of a few years ago. But, from the looks of it, releveraging is on the rise again. Hooray!

It's great Mitt wants to get the turd out of the punchbowl. The problem is he still wants to serve us the punch.



Reagan and Dubya also oversaw a decline in wages, middle class contraction, and a ballooning in cumulative debt. Now, please show me where they created a budget surplus as opposed to massive deficits because I can point you to a combination of tax hikes, wage increases, and spending cuts that did. I'm all for tax cuts but, they aren't a fucking panacea. So, either they are bad and we are too bully-headed to admit it or they are good and there is some other terrible flaw in the conservative vision.



And, the only other Democrat whose average annual deficit was worse than a Republican's was Carter. The key part of that sentence is "a republican". And, that fucking Republican was Nixon. Something is wrong with the conservative agenda.



You know, you've showed me more that Mitt has in common with Reagan and Dubya than how he is different.




I'd be delighted to share our notes with each other because I feel they are being grossly optimistic.



Argue with the intelligence reports on nuclear Iran.

There was a big Islamic Empire. We broke it up. It has been trouble ever since.



You are simply assuming the worse. On the other hand, the moderates and liberals could win. Dictators could be toppled and Islamic democracy could flourish. Who knows, they could even become something other than mostly oil reliant economies.

Including the revolution, it took us over a decade to get our shit together as it is today. Give 'em some fucking time and let them work things out themselves before you write them off as lost causes.



About the "progressive front organization's blog":



What a bunch of fucking commies!!!



Wow, I haven't heard something like that since listening to Alex Jones. Take that however you want to.



Freedomworks passes out Rules for Radicals as a textbook in grassroots uprisings.



ERMAGHERD!!!! It's Saul Alinksy...

















...meeting with George Romney.

This post seems to have really upset G-man.

No, I just thought I'd summarize it for the convenience of other readers. Apparently, my summation upset you, however.

Sure G-wonder.

Call him Blair or Orwell, he deconstructed well your tendency to deceive people by fronting a lie as if it were the truth.

I increasingly think you front to be something you're not. You demonize Republicans, but never give ther same scrutiny to Obama, the Democrats or the liberal media.
And increasingly, you just come right out and parrot the DNC talking points. You began to expose your true colors a year ago in the Occupy Wall Street topic, and you've been behaving like a Promodian jerk ever since.



I don't know how you jump to that conclusion about Romney.

And I wish I knew an easy answer to how you raise wages for the middle class. It seems like the alternatives are unemployment, or employment with slightly lower wages (in proportion to inflation) that has been a continuing trend since the 1960's.

But the problem is due to global trade and competing with countries like China, India and Latin America, that pay about a 10th to their workerss that we do. I'm a rare Republican who favors protectionism to insulate U.S. wages and industry from unfair competition with low-wage, no benefits global markets.






You again sound like a Promod-variety Democrat. Talking points and all.

As I said above, that didn't happen in a vaccuum. Global competition is lowering wages, not just here, but in Europe as well. So it's not eeeeeeeeevvvvvvvviiiiiilll Republicans.

The ONLY reason Clinton lowered the debt was because it was drafted and presented to Clinton by Gingrich and Republican majorities in both houses, that Clinton initially rejected, and finally signed into lsw under enormous public pressure.

The reality is, (as Pat Buchanan notes in his books) the Democrats buy votes by giving voters free stuff. And the Republican alternative equivalent to that "free stuff" is lowering taxes. Buchanan (in Where The Right Went Wrong, 2004) says under Bush's big government "compassionate conservatism", the Republicans tried to cling to power by out-Democrating the Democrats in terms of social spending, and that it would come back to hurt the Republican brand, and Buchanan was manifestly prophetic in the 2006 and 2008 elections.






By offering a more detailed plan than Obama?




I initially thought 2 months ago that Morris was out of his head, predicting a "Romney landslide". But what he predicted has come true over the last 2 months.

Karl Rove is more of a hard numbers guy, and he was not initially as optimistic --and still is not-- as Morris. But either way, both are pollsters with decades of experience, and know what they're talking about.
I lost some confidence in Morris after he predicted an easy Senate-majority for the GOP in 2010, a prediction that came up way short of the mark. But we'll see.
Without Obama's major failures in the first debate and in Benghazi, I don't think Romney would be holding a slight lead at this point.




Not really.

The Ottoman empire was split up in 1918, and it never was a problem until Arafat and the PLO rose up in the 1960's. And even after that, terrorism was a minor annoyance largely limited to Israel until the 1990's. I think the West didn't take the measures to weed out radical isslam in the early decades, and allowed it to become virulent and widespread.
Not until the first attempted World trade Center bombing in 1993 did it reach the U.S.
And because there was no real damage, we again ignored the threat until Al Qaida pulled it off successfully on 9-11-2001.

And before you blame America and the West for Islamic terrorissm, remember that THEY OCCUPIED EUROPE for about 1000 years (Spain, Portugal, Southern France, the Balkans, Rumania, Bulgaria, Greece) and the last of them were pushed out the year that Columbus discovered America.

And muslims will likely rule Europe again in the very near future.

It has nothing to do with European colonialism. Look at Chechnya, Armenia/Azerbaijan, Russia, India/Pakistan, East Timor, and the Phillipines. Murderous islamic fanaticism is not a phenomenon all its own. It happens wherever Islam comes in contact with another culture.
And when there's not another culture to murder in the name of Allah, they murder any fellow muslims who don't believe in their fanatical brand of Islam. They commit honor killings and throw acid in the faces of their own women.
In fact, the most free and tolerant nation on earth for muslims to live is the United states, where they are free to practice whatever sect they believe, without persecution.
So stop trying to blame America or the broader West for what clearly is the inherent fanaticism of Islam.


[

No, I'm not assuming anything. I'm watching it unfold.

Thousands of moderates have been killed in Egypt. Thousands of Christians killed. Most of their churches burned.

In Libya, we handed them freedom on a silver platter, and less than a year later, they kill our ambassador and burn the embassy that brought them freedom. That's grattitude.

Islamic nations don't just repress a political minority, they slaughter them, so they will never have a chance to rise up in calmer times. I'd compare it to eastern Europe in W W II, where first the Germans came in and slaughtered the professional, academic and business class, and anyone else who mght have the slightest chance of cooperating with the Russian communists. And then two years later the Russians came through eastern europe, and slaughtered anyone who cooperated with the Germans. As a result, the economic capacity of eastern Europe was deeply repressed for nearly a century. THAT is the scenario I see unfolding in the muslim world if the Wahabist/Muslim Brotherhood/Hama/Hezbollah ideology is unleashed. It will not merely repress a generation of reformers, it will wipe them out.

Which you would probably retroactively blame the United States for.




Whatever. I never saw it before. And you just pulled it out of your ass to make a partisan one-sided case for how evil Romney is.

Without, of course, the slightest scrutiny of how bad for America's future Obama will be over another 4 years.
And how much damage Obama has done in a mere 4 years.




I don't watch Alex Jones, so I wouldn't know. I sampled Jones a few times, and on those occasions found him distateful because he ranted wild conspiracy theories and little or nothing to back them up.

I last mentioned him in a topic about Breitbart's death, where I expressed contempt for how he tried to allege without evidence that Breitbart was assassinated.
Don't try to conflate my opinion with Alex Jones'. That is clearly untrue.

The opinions I expressed above about Obama and his radical associations are absolute and indisputable fact. There is no conspiracy theory in what I said, just stated and easily sourced fact.





I vaguely recall seeing a news story about that.
Some in FreedomWorks are arming themselves with knowledge of Alinsky's tactics in a "know your enemy" way, in order to fight back against Alinsky tactics.



That's ridiculous. Alinsky was a political figure in in the region, visiting the state Romney was governor. Many political figures who are not aligned, and even despise each other, still have to shake hands and make nice periodically.

You might as well have taken a photo from one of the three presidential debates and said: "Look! Romney and Obama are shaking hands, they're secret allies."

But Romney didn't write Obama/Alinsky tactics on a chalkboard and teach their radical principles to classes of ACORN street activists. Romney didn't attend joint book appearances, cover-endorsements and other associations, the way Obama did with William Ayers.
Romney didn't stand in front of a crowd of students at Columbia and urge hundreds of students, and highly recommend them to "read and embrace the works" of fanatical racist Derrick Bell.
Romney didn't sit in Rev. Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years, and call him his greatest spiritual advisor.

To name just a few of Obama's radical assciations that extend way beyond a photograph.

MAybe Romney is going to win this thing http://www.katu.com/politics/ABC-News-tr...-176035561.html

Yeah, the momentum seems to be in Romney's favor, but anything can happen. It's still too close to call.