Interesting how when the numbers favored Barack Obama in 2008 and for several years, liberals and the media perpetuated the myth that McCain was the Wall Street crony who was raking in all the cash, and curring his favors in exchange. Which is now proven completely false.
Deflection. This must've stung deep.
Fact, not deflection.
You deflected that Obama was protected by media propaganda, and McCain was slandered by the same media. Obama narrowly won, and I believe that was because of unprecedented partisanship by the liberal media.
No one on the Left, yourself...
You really think I'm a leftist?
You seem to be arguing for marxist revolution and wealth redistribution, and arguing the talking points of the Left. Until this particular topic, I previously never got that impression from your posts.
You also have been trolling and cheerleading Pro's infantile antics.
You also don't acknowledge the unprecedented level of corporate welfare and crony capitalism under Obama. And this is not historical discussion, this is ongoing Obama use of taxpayer dollars to favor coprorations, narrow competition and raise proces for the middle class and poor, that will continue as long as Obama remains in office. He's still trying to ram through another Stimulus bill (renamed with a deceitful focus-group-selected misnomer as a "Jobs Bill")
Or, succinctly,
Seriously, show me one post where I absolve Obama of being a corporatist wanker. I'll wait.
You seem to be arguing for Obama's re-election, with a dismissive rejection of Romney. But you mentioned Republicans of interest for you as Ron Paul, Gingrich, and Roemer.
But my impression is you'll ultimately pull the lever for Obama and label the Republican candidate as a corporate whore. (a la Prometheus)
You imply by saying this that if Romney takes the money (which he has to, to get elected, because even with these donations, Obama's war-chest is expected to be a billion dollars or more)
Expectation meets too big to fail reality, news at eleven.
That's just a snide remark, not a refutation of the arguments I presented.
The reality is, Obama will have a slander machine with a billion dollars or more, and Romney will have significantly less to win on (he currently has raised 90 million).
that if Romney takes money from Goldman Sachs or other firms, assume that he necessarily will act as corruptly and subserviently to corporate donors as Obama has.
But...
He wants to repeal most, if not all, aspects of what was a completely watered down financial reform bill.
That's another DNC talking point, not reality. He wants to repeal Obamacare, and get rid of SOME (not "all") of the strangling regulation that is driving business overseas.
All the Republicans (including Paul, Gingrich and Roehmer you say you favor) talk about creating incentives to bring business and capital back to the United States.
Romney, unlike Obama, was heavily involved in the financial industry and understands it.
And, he supported the bailout of it. Like Dubya then, he supports abandoning the free market to "save it."
I answered that. The TARP bailout (unlike Obama's endless hemmoraging of trillions into bailouts) was repaid in full, with interest. I opposed it up until the point it was announced repaid.
I still oppose the various Stimulus bills, that threaten to collapse our dollar and end its global reserve status. At that point, we will no longer be able to print dollars to pay bills. And that time is coming fast.
Romney, unlike Obama, enters the campaign with a personal fortune of 300 million, and arguably cannot be bought, because he already is wealthy.
Because greed, like the thirst for power, has limits...
Another snide remark that doesn't answer the factual points I raised.
Romney, unlike Obama, is not in favor of a strong socialist central government. Unlike Obama, does not favor crony capitalism that would use corporations to advance an ideological socialist experiment. (as I sourced from Tim Carney's book OBAMANOMICS, that reliance on state-run capitalism results in greater market-share for the largest corporations, creating higher costs that drive out smaller competitors, and results in less competition and higher production cost, resulting in higher prices for everyone, most impacting middle class and poor consumers.)
I repeat, he supported and still supports the abandonment of free market principles to "save" the free market (see, bailouts).
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/11/news/la-pn-romney-bailouts-20111011Again, while I salute you for giving a sourced counter-argument, there is a huge difference between the TARP bailout (which was to be repaid, and has been) and the Stimulus spending.
Your argument is better supported by the auto bailouts (W Bush and Obama)and AIG bailout (W Bush), which arguably are more risky and less likely to be paid off.
And we all know the Stimulus money is gone forever. Its only real purpose has been as a slush fund for the DNC, for liberal corporate donors (under the pretense of job creation) like G.E. and Pfizer, and activist organizations like SEIU, teachers unions, ACORN and the like.
Why do you assume that a free-market guy like Romney would enact the same kind of corporate free-for all that Obama did? When Romney is a free-market guy, and Obama is a central-planning guy?
Fuck Obama. Obama, too, is Wall Street's bitch. And, see above, Romney supports the Bush bailouts that were admittedly not of free market principles.
Again: there is a difference between TARP (which was repaid in full) and the Stimulus spending.
I do cede that W. Bush's TARP bailout opened the door for the kind of Stimulus, Omnibus, Cap-and-Trade, etc. spending that Obama rammed through, and Democrat majorities in congress rubber-stamped.
Obama's 2008 level of Wallstreet and other corporate donors --where even the New York Times reported that Obama was out-spending McCain an average of 4-to-1 nationwide, and even 8-to-1 or higher in some highly contested areas-- went virtually unreported.
Yet you are quick to make snap assumptions about Romney, whose donations are less incriminating than Obama's donations and stated intent were in 2008-2010.
Apparently, you don't know where to get any decent information. It's called alternative media, Dave. Gives you the full rundown on how bought and sold both of these stupid fuckers are.
Despite your condescending dismissiveness, I don't see that you disproved my point. The Democrats had far greater campaign funds in 2008, and had full complicity of the media in slandering McCain as the Wall Street Whore (even though Obama took in far more, a historically unprecedented amount of money from Wall Street firms, and despite that he kicked stimulus money to them in the form of corporate welfare, borrowing and printing trillions more, dramatically further bankrupting the country).
I don't see that your made a case for your allegation that Romney or other Republicans are just as bad. Obama is unprecedented in his damage to the country, and three years later, it still isn't even being reported!
Republicans are just as bad? Prove it.
And again: what's the alternative?
Seriously, though, go ahead and vote for Romney. I don't care. I'm done trying to save people like you who continue to live in some phony ass world where the political parties still mean something. They don't. Romney, just like most other Republicans, is just as committed to bringing about the New World Order as Obama and Soros are. You are just locked into the paradigm they built for you.
Go ahead. Vote for Romney and find out that those FEMA camps that make Glen Beck cry really know no political preference.
Again: we have a choice in Nov 2012, most likely between Obama and Romney.
If you really believe that Obama is the best choice, or that Romney is equally bad, that the New World Order pre-selects which two R / D puppets we'll have to choose from, why do you voice interest in Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich or Roehmer?
I hear a lot of ideas on the Republican side for how to get us out of this mess (reduce federal spending; balance the budget; increase oil production inside the U.S. to both create a million-plus jobs here, while simultaneously ending foreign oil dependence, and getting rid of the trade deficit caused by foreign oil dependency; lowering cororate taxes to make us competitive with other nations, and bring both capital and manufacturing back to the U.S., Connie Mack's "Penny Plan", Herman Cain's "9-9-9 Plan", etc.)
You brand the Tea Party as dupes, despite that the co-opted Occupy Wall Street movement is funded by Soros, SEIU, UAW, MoveOn and so forth.
Please tell me what you see as the master plan to resolve this. Because I see a lot of non-specific cynicism, and shots you take at everyone else, but no clear suggestions on your part. Other than your support for a bunch of unwashed neo-hippie rabble in the streets who talk about --in no uncertain terms-- intimidating if not violently rioting to take stuff from people who worked for what they have.
