RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events If an elected Romney turns out to be "lib'rul" MA Romney...

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.

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.