The Real Mitt Romney
 

Since I live in San Diego, this is something that caught my ear.

In 2007 we had a SECOND round of bad wildfires sweep through the (mostly) eastern part of the county. Hundreds of homes were lost, as the fire was pushed by strong, hot winds off the desert (what we call "Santa Anna" winds), which blew at up to 60 mph. Several people were killed, and many pets and farm animals lost, as well.

The fire followed the winds, the fuel, and the canyons. Eventually, we had fires in the North, East, and West, and another large one in the Southern part of the county. Major highways like I-15 were seared by the flying, burning, embers. Some had to be closed.

Romney has a home in San Diego county, and he knew someone had been caught up in the fire area. Romney's son, called him up and asked what they could do to help.

Fortunately, the man's home had lost it's fence and a large tree, but escaped most other damage. There was a large stump still left in the yard from the burnt tree, however.

Next day, the Romney "group", including Mitt, were out digging a huge hole in the guy's yard, so the stump could be removed. Mitt, working a shovel, down in the hole. No press, no camera's, no blog about it, that I'm aware of.

That's Mitt, and the values he's passed onto his family.

The Real Obama? His half-brother lives in dire poverty, in Kenya, and has received no help whatsoever.

Romney has done a lot of these personal gestures to help others, far from the spotlight.

the real Mitt Romney, at a private fundraiser for big donors:

While Romney is certainly reprehensible, I'm much more worried about Ryan.

Why?

Because he's worrisome. I'm going to bed now. I'll have a better answer shortly.

Romney helps out rich neighbours.
Obama refuses to give handouts to foreigners.

Neither are new headlines, shurely.

Ryan is a loose canon AND he has that devilish hair-do.

And he's got those ice-blue eyes. There's some furor in there somewhere...

I believe form says a lot about someone even though I'm not SUPPOSED to believe it.

Look at Palin: she looked like an idiot and lo and behold, she was an idiot.

I know it' shallow of me. But I just get these intuitions.

Carry on.

He certainly seems intense. And seems willing to put his faith forward while forgetting the half about compassion. He might just be the most dynamic Catholic politician since Adolph Hitler.

Adolph never read Ayn Rand, but if he had he would have joined her book club.

I doubt that.

And you know that why? Because Rush Limbaugh said it?

Sound like Romney should be running for Vicar of a Methodist Church. Not for president.

So Mitt's the kind of guy who helps a friend in a little bit of need, but not a stranger in great need.

I hate assholes like that.

Hahahahahaa!

Seriously. Giving handouts to his neighbors. Enabling his neighbors to be lazy. He ought to be ashamed.

@Happy Monkey:
Yes, some of Romney's good deeds have come out, now that he's a possible President. Not all of them, but most.

@Tw:
Because a reporter was interested enough to go see Obama's relative, and was surprised to find him a very poor street vendor.

Nobody denies it, btw.

@Sundae:
The rich neighbors weren't affected by the fire. In San Diego, the rich people live along the coast. The fires always start in the eastern mountains - typically from lightning strikes, which are common there in the Summer.

This is SD however. We have a lot of homes that are three hundred thousand dollars. That's not rich, here. Just an average price of a home in San Diego Co.

@Ibby:
These "47 percent" comments were made at a fund raiser last May. Romney is saying that 47 percent of the voter, are unlikely to vote for him. As a practical matter, people who pay no federal income taxes aren't that interested in voting for a politician who is trying to cut federal income taxes, and to shrink the size/cost of our federal bureaucracy.

He is hoping to get just over 50 percent of the votes. As of yesterday, some surveys have put Obama at 47 percent support, among voters. Romney's percentage projection was correct.

In their surveys and focus groups, a candidate with a Hispanic surname, was popular. The Latino vote is an important group, that any politician will try to win.

Re: Insolvable problems, like the Israel/Palestinian problem.

You can't make intractable people, sit down and negotiate, in good faith. Every President since Kennedy has tried to solve this problem, either directly, or indirectly, through the State Department, special envoys or other back channels.

What do the Palestinians want? Their property (land) back, which is currently inside Israel, and death to Israel.

What do the Israeli's want? Security from the terrorist attacks of the Palestinians, and wars from it's neighboring countries.

Israeli's know perfectly well that they would be attacked inside their country, if they allowed the Palestinians to return.

You can make their leaders smile and shake hands (ala President Carter's negotiations), but you can't make them live up to their promises. If the respective leaders try hard enough, they know they will be assassinated by their own people.

You know this from history.

The Muslims have a religion AND a strong ideology. As long as they spread the ideology of hatred for the Jews (which they have had since [I believe it was before the Battle of The Trench, but not certain]. Anyway, the Jews betrayed them at a critical battle), there will be no peace. The ideology is reinforced in their school text books, and etc., almost without let up. In their value system, the Jew ranks in the lowest parts, along with the pig (which they will not eat and generally despise).

Until these ideologies change, there will be no peace in the Middle East.

Yes, "fissile" could be simple radioactive material, for a dirty bomb. A dirty bomb would kill a lot of Israeli's, if it went off in a city, but not nearly as many as a nuclear bomb (with the required fissile material, of course). The latter is the real worry.

Romney is not perfect, but he's a great deal more knowledgeable about business, and his team is a great deal more knowledgeable about the economy, than Obama and Biden.

If you want to see us go another five TRILLION dollars into debt, you should vote for Obama/Biden. Understand that programs like medicare and social security WILL be put into serious jeopardy by a massive federal debt like that.

When things start to pick up, we'll be hit by serious inflation, as well. We saw that in Carter's administration -- devastating.

Yeah, I hate him also - he keeps giving millions to charity, and making me look bad. :eek:

:rolleyes:

That is sort of annoying. Not only is tithing tax-deductible, but you can claim that it's charity.

So his tithing helps him manage to get his tax rate below even the capital gains rate, and he then equates them, and touts "the number".

When I was in San Diego I was browsing a real estate magazine, for funsies.

I found a "lovely little starter home" for 660,000 dollars. So the $300,00 houses are either doghouses, or made up. I don't think there are ghettos in SD but I could be wrong.

Whose school books?
Not the Muslims I teach in my school. Probably not Rhianne's family. Not my friends in Leicester. No, not all Muslims are peaceable, decent people. But neither are all Americans. And they can be as far apart in action and ideology.

These were school books for elementary kids, in Saudi Arabia. Laid out the value's of: pigs, other animals, Christians, non-believers, Jews, former Muslim's who had left Islam, and of course, Muslims.

It isn't the religion of Islam that is the problem. It is the ideology and common practices and idea's that have fastened onto Islam, like a barnacle to a ship. Some of those practices are good, some are indifferent, but some are just a parasite, and totally damaging to the religion of Islam.

Look back, into the actual history of Islam's leaders, and see just How many of those leaders were killed by their own followers? Even by their own followers within their branch or sect. It's a very high percentage, compared to other major world religions.

Even today, the Shia and the Suni, and the Sufi's, are regularly killed in sectarian attacks, from other Muslims.

When the Christians, with the blessings of the Pope and the King of France, were slaughtering the French Rosicrucians, it was dogma that by killing off the wayward sect, they were acting to "save" all their potential progeny from hell. Nipping it in the bud, as it were.

That would never be accepted in Christianity today, likewise "honor killings" for Muslims who leave the faith.

But that seems to be where Islam is left today. I know many Muslims are not violent, and not Jew-haters, but that is not enough. Overall, the Muslims have done next to nothing to protest the violent excesses and racial hatred incidents, within their faith.

Was it Edmund Burke who said: "For evil to prevail, all that's needed is for good men to do nothing."?

After the 9/11/2001, which was CLEARLY the largest and most publicized attack by violent and radicalized Muslims, did you see any large protests of that, from Muslims? Any Jihad groups trying to arrest or capture Osama Bin Laden, or other 9/11 leaders?

Anywhere?

Crickets.

That's all you heard from most of the Muslim followers - after the cheering and dancing in the streets scenes were done, of course.

I believe Mohammad got Islam off to a great start, but in the ensuing violence over who should be the leader after he was gone - and all the subsequent battles, the religion of Islam, didn't move forward, as it should have.

Unfortunately, as any group becomes more radical and/or violent, they attract more members who want to be more radical and/or violent. If they're not careful, the group will be taken over by them.

Housing prices here have dropped dramatically since 2009. The average has climbed up a bit from about $320k, at it's lowest. There are area's of SD that you would not want to live in. One of the most notorious gangs in North America was HQ'd in SD, but finally killed a Catholic Cardinal while doing an assassination for the cartel. You guessed it, they killed the wrong guy, although he was wearing a Cardinal's traveling outfit, at the time.

There are still gang area's in SD. Lots of immigrants - we're a "sanctuary city". We're also broke because the politicians caved in to so many demands from the unions. (The unions fund the politicians that sell us out, you see).

They don't call us "Enron by the Sea", for nothing. Probably should be "Detroit by the Sea", however. :(

Yes, the politicians have played the "we will favor THIS kind of person, this week, and favor THAT kind of person, next week". "Wouldn't you like to donate to my reelection campaign?" :rolleyes:

Romney's tithing is no different from tithing done by religions around the world: the old Biblical 10%. Taxes calculations are not any different for Romney, than for anyone else. It's our politicians who keep messing with the tax code, who have caused one hell of a problem, and made lots of winners and losers, while doing it.

Both parties have done it, and done it a LOT.

We are still giving subsidies for farmers growing wool, because we thought it might be needed for wool socks and uniforms, back in World War I! :mad: And they wonder WHY I don't want the gov't managing more of my money and governing more of my life. ;)

I don't know that "both sides do it" applies to "if you include my tithing, my tax rate is higher"! That's more of a Romney thing.

Romney's tithing goes to his church. His church financially supports bills that black equal marriage laws. That makes both of them scum as far as I'm concerned.

When he starts feeding the homeless and poor, regardless of faith, etc. let me know.

And IMO, anyone who would vote for a man who hides his income in other countries, runs on his record as governor but has all his records sealed, brags about what a great job he did saving the Olympics but has all of those records destroyed, that voter REALLY needs to ask themselves, "Why?".

Obama's cousin is not some poor guy living in the ghetto, he's apparently a poor, alcoholic, con man living in the ghetto. How exactly would Obama help this guy, if he were so inclined?

...maybe... a government program that helps you, with government aid to pay for food-related costs, not from family members or wealthy friends or based on your connections... but instead based on whether or not you meet a very specific set of criteria (requiring you to be doing "your best", regulatorily speaking, to TRY to provide) but if you still fail to make ends meet... to provide a pittance as wiggle-room to help you meet the medical minimum of caloric intake.
No wait... that's the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program. That's "food stamps". That's the evil evil Welfare. nevermind, that's damn dirty socialism. his cousin, if he lives as a criminal wouldn't qualify. damn.

Romney's tithing goes to his church, just like any church members tithing goes to their church. No difference in the Mormons, compared to say, any other church, Protestant or Catholic, if they are tithing members (committed).

Romney has also contributed hugely to other charities, besides his church. His tithing has been just a start of his charitable giving.

What do you mean by "black equal marriage laws"?

If you mean "block", marriages being equal - in most religions, all marriages are equal.

If you mean gay marriage, that is because gays can't traditionally, make a marriage. Gays can make civil unions which can have the same rights as a marriage, by law, but they can't procreate (as a married couple might), and the ability to procreate has always been somewhat protected by the Bible, and by the Book of Mormon.

It's the lesson of Sparta. Sparta was a powerhouse for years in Greece, but their style of warfare did not evolve, while others did (notably Athens and Thebes). Sparta began losing more warriors, and because their birth rate was so low, they were subjugated before they could adjust to the new and more efficient style of warfare.

To provide a wide variety of specialists and soldiers/sailors, you need a lot of citizens - and that was a major concern to the writers of the Bible. They gave a strong preference to the marriage, because it was viewed as essential for the continuation of the nation.

Yes, the Thebans had the famous "Band of Brothers" who were most feared in their day, and consisted of all gay partners. But they also died out as a unit, because they had insufficient children to take the place of those who had fallen.

Mormons ALWAYS feed the hungry, etc. They're way more active than your average church. Not as active as the Mennonites, and a rare few active Evangelical christian churches, but definitely ahead of the normal church. They are fine people. Their kids are spoiled many times, until they reach their older teens. Then the light comes on for them.

Romney doesn't HIDE his income. Rubbish! If you want to invest in ANYTHING overseas, or many brokerages that are based overseas, then you will want to keep funds available, overseas, AND in the currency that they require.

Nobody but an idiot would repeatedly pay the transfer fee for changing money from say, dollars, to euro's, over and over, for every transaction.

The tax laws also practically require it - and BOTH parties wrote those tax bills, and Romney had nothing to do with any of them.

Romney's finances are cleaner than a baby's bottom after a bath, and everyone knows it - he's released his entire tax returns. In addition, like several of our most honest politicians, he has his funds put into a "blind" trust, and managed independently, by a financial firm.

He can't "lobby" for any law that might help him out, because he doesn't manage his funds, and only finds out what's going on, after the report period has ended.

I want to see you match that level of honesty, in your life - I don't give a damn, WHO you are.

His "records" as governor, are public documents - laws and such. Anything private, is not public, and they are not "records", for public scrutiny.

BTW, Obama has hidden more of his personal life before entering the Senate, than any other president, in history.

We do know that the person who helped Obama buy his Chicago home, and the lot next door to it so it could be "larger", was the same person responsible for killing a few people, as a member of the Weather Underground.

In the Olympics, there was federal money, state and city monies, and international funds, as well. All of it had to be accounted for, of course. This is business, not the military. :D

The Salt Lake City Winter Olympics that Romney rescued, was, and is still, the only Winter Olympics that has showed a profit.

To get a full picture of the books for this Olympics, you'd have to have the books opened from City, State, several National sporting organizations, and of course, the IOCC, itself.

Since a few IOCC directors have been convicted of blackmail, graft, and such, since then, I can assure THAT access, they will not allow.

Has nothing to do with Romney. Romney saved the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, when they were already over-budget for their progress so far, and behind on their completion rate.

You ask ANYONE connected in any way with that Olympics, who saved those games? Who made them the most successful Winter Olympic games, ever?

Mitt Romney. Not bragging, just fact.

When Obama called Bush "unpatriotic" for running the national debt up to 9 Trillion Dollars, leaving every person in America with a huge debt (about 32,000 dollars), Obama was quite right.

Now that Obama has run up the national debt to over 16 Trillion dollars, it's supposed to be OK.

Oh Sure! :mad:

That's economic nonsense. The interest rates WILL be rising, and when it does, the amount of debt we will have to pay every year, on our debt, will cost more than the wars in Afghanistan AND Iraq, combined.

The above is not from my analysis, but from a professor of economics at Duquesne University. (also spelled Ducane Uni).

If you'd like to hear his full interview about it, let me know, it's on the net.

In November, we have a clear choice:

* Re-elect Obama - a guy who is strongly for socialism and doing things "fairly". Who's also never run a lemonade stand.

* and his V.P., an idiot named Joe Biden. Who, as a President, would scare the shit out of anyone.

or

* Elect Romney - who has been saving businesses, most of his life, and is a strong believer in the capitalism our country was founded on.

* and his V.P. candidate, a former head of the finance and budget committee in the Senate.

Which of those two choices would you prefer?

How does this "fair" idea work?

Here's an easy to understand idea, for students:

You work very hard, get a 3.8 point grade average. Your next door neighbor (also a student), hardly does much more than party, and gets a 1.8 grade point average.

You both graduate, but you aren't in the honor roll anymore. You wonder why the hell not, and then you see your GPA -- it's been lowered to a 2.8 GPA.

But that was only fair, because we needed to bring up your neighbor by a full 1.0, so he could have a 2.8 GPA, as well.

And that's socialism, in a nutshell. Isn't that fun?

Even China had the good sense to finally ditch most of it.

No. I officially bow out of this thread. Too much for me to address.

yes, yes; the poor people "party" and toke it up and get a 1.8.

Yes, the poor deserve to be poor. The rich, well, they've been ordained by God to be rich and thus deserve it by "working hard" (by which you mean running rum during prohibition, playing dirty politics and all those other nasty things our american dynasties did to get to where they are)

So. Somebody needs to watch HBO's documentary HARD TIMES: Lost on Long Island.

Plus, you're an idiot if you think Romney knows how to run a business. He knows how to MAKE MONEY FOR HIMSELF; those are two different things.

Here

Attachment 40753

.

The Real Mitt Romney? A conservative's view of Romney's 47% line.

Both parties have participated in the over-spending by the gov't. No doubt about that. The Republicans have done it usually slower, but Bill Clinton did a fine job on this, when he was in office. Bush II did not limit spending, but he did have the extra problem of the 9/11 attack and the wars, to deal with.

We went to #2 in the world wide survey of "countries with free business practices", during the Clinton years. (Below only Hong Kong). Now we are ranked out of the top 15.

The truth is, socialism only works well, when you have a large source of income to "feed" it. Norway for instance, has a large oil field in the North Sea, that they have been drilling into, for years. Germany has a very smart set of export laws for their businesses, and a gov't that is required by the constitution, to be pro-business (they must provide jobs).

We have a President who refuses most efforts to increase our jobs:

* No keystone pipeline. Obama doesn't want Canadian oil. Let it go to China, instead. :mad: Good, high-paying jobs - who needs them?

* No frakking for oil, on federal lands. Thankfully, Obama can't stop it on private lands, but he's tried.

* Very limited drilling on federal lands, even after permits have been secured, environmental studies done and approved, etc.

* Coal (which we have a huge amount of), burning power plants are being run out of business - just as Obama promised he would before he was elected.

Clean burning coal is of no interest - here is where you run around your neighborhood flapping your arms like a kid - we'll use wind power, instead. Wind power. Solar power - because we know that the wind always blows more than 15 miles per hour, and the sun always shines. Yeah, right. :rolleyes:

If you want to dream, go socialist. It's an unmotivating dream, but it can work, until the money runs out. Even a huge number of religious monasteries have found a way to bring some major aspect of capitalism into their lives: they sell cheeses, wine, fine brandy, even transcribe documents into computer records! Without that injection of capitalism, they would have to close.

When your governments power increases, your freedoms decrease, and your take-home pay, it decreases too. Because government lives off of the money it takes from it's citizens. EVERY penny they spend, comes from the tax payers - absolutely.

I always laugh when I hear people (usually young people), bad-mouthing capitalism.

Just what do they think has kept this country strong for the last 200+ years?

Capitalism == Opportunity == People willing to take risks == more jobs, more products, more inventions,

Who invented the iPhone, the Personal Computer, the Radio, even the car in your driveway, etc.? It was CAPITALISM, (private companies), not the government.

Your statement is not factual. You need to re-read Romney's recorded statement, or listen to it more carefully.

Mitt was talking about political estimates of his supporters, and estimates of Obama's supporters, for the upcoming Fall election.

He wasn't discussing economic, welfare, or monetary theories.

You're implying a great deal about his talk at the fundraiser last May, that simply was not included.

Listen to his talk again, keeping in mind the setting - a political fundraiser, and this was back in May. It's not a talk about theories. It's a talk about political realities that he expected to see, in the Fall.

Are you touting Germany as socialist, or non-socialist here?

Because they are far more socialist than the US, and are heavily invested in solar and wind power - about 20% of their total generation.

Or are you saying that their capitalistic success lets them tax their "job creators" enough to fund their socialism?

Part of it was about political realities:
And part is about his political theories on why he can't get them:
Neither the theories nor the "realities" are patricularly laudable, or accurate.

I expect that Romney's right that at least 47% won't vote for him, but it's not particularly correlated with the set of people who don't pay Federal income tax.

You didn't mention whom this is directed to, but since you quoted my post, I'll assume it's me.

In case you didn't notice, those were not my statements. I had directly quoted and linked conservative editor Timothy Carney out of the Washington Examiner. Maybe you should talk to him about listening (and reading) more closely.

Yes!!!!!!!!!

I love this example! I use it at bars when I'm trolling liberals (I troll to people's faces, not anonymously). Its a perfect example because it is an extremely flawed example, but its flaw isn't completely obvious, so its extremely amusing watching people try to figure it out when you are pressuring them to 'disprove' it.


Can anyone guess the flaw?!?

The very fact that Romney believes that ANY American is NOT entitled to not starve to death - the fact that he DOESN'T believe that we are all entitled to food, in one of the richest countries on the planet - is alone enough to damn him, in my view.

No it isn't. There is so much wrong with what Romney said that it is difficult to even start. I don't have time or motivation to go into detail so here the basic points.

1) The income tax only accounts for 30% (I think...) of all government revenue. In fact, around 67% of this 47% do pay payroll tax. The people who are not are largely made up of the elderly, students, soldiers, and people making under 20 grand a year. While many of these people will vote democrat, the income tax has nothing to do with it.

2) The vast majority of this 47% lives in states that vote conservative. So that means some of these 47%ers are actually voting Republican or their votes don't actually mean much since their state is going Republican anyways.

3) Receiving benefits does not automatically equal dependency.

4) Only someone who makes decisions based on data points would ever believe that 47% of the US population is automatically against him. This was the year that Obama was supposed to lose. If you want a reason why people are supporting Obama, listen to the Republican primary debates. Republicans fell off the deep end a while ago and they are still falling.

Would it be the curve math being off kilter? Or the concept of a graduating class of two students? Or the idea of a school that determines a student's final GPA by how well other students do?

Or is it something a bit less obvious?

It's that socialism would actually be adjusting the way the class is taught in such a way as to give the failing student a better chance at being able to learn the material and to pass.

President Obama is not a socialist. Never has been, except on Fox.

If you want to talk about the profit the Utah Olympics made, good luck backing it up with proof since Romney had all his records destroyed.

If you want to talk about what a great job he did as Governor, good luck backing that up with proof. He had those records sealed.

If you want to talk about how much he gives to charities, good luck backing that up with proof. He hasn't even released ONE full year of his tax records.

If you want to talk about his support of gay rights, there's plenty of proof on video from when he was Governor.

If you want to talk about his opposition to gay rights, including gay marriage (and yes, it IS a marriage - GOD never created that word. It was invented by humans. Gays are human and can use the word as well. Don't like it, tough shit!) There's plenty of proof on video since he officially started running for President.

If you want to talk about his support for Universal health care, there's plenty of proof on video from when he was governor.

If you want to talk about his opposition to universal health care, there's plenty of proof on video since he started running for President.

If you want to vote for Romney for President, that's your right.
And it is my right to believe, with all my heart, that you are a fucking moron.

Not less obvious but similar.

True, but not what I'm going after.


Socialism, in the most fundamental sense, is basically a reaction to the inequalities associated with capitalism. Welfare, progressive tax systems, etc., is merely a way of limiting the negative consequences of those inequalities.

In our educational system (college is the best example), it is standardized so no matter what class you take, if you work hard enough, ideally you should be to get an A (4.0 GPA). That means a student in economics, chemical engineering, geology, art, etc. have the same potential to get a 4.0 GPA.

If we applied this to the working world, it would be if everyone who worked 60 hours a week, no matter the job, gets paid $40,000 a year, everyone who works 40 hours a week gets paid $30,000 a year, etc. Now, it seems that most Republicans have forgotten what the definition of socialism means but I'm sure this system fits the socialist definition. Therefore, it is not logical to apply welfare to an already existing socialist system.


A good response to anyone who mentions this is to agree with the GPA redistribution program under one condition. The grade you recieve be weighted by the salary in the field of the class you are taking. For example, if you are in a field where the average salary is $50 grand. Receiving a B (that is average nowadays) give you a 5.0. If you receive an A, then you get the 95% salary, lets say $80,000, or an 8.0. Also, in order to graduate, a 4.5 GPA has to be maintained so if you are taking classes in a field where the average salary is only $30,000 (3.0), you are fucked.

It would also work better as an analogy if the teacher changed the relationship of the students to the teaching and setting of the test (the means of production).

Socialism isn't about making everything and everybody even :P

But the target audience are people that do believe that! They don't care what socialism actually is (that would involve facts and critical thinking), they just care about what they believe socialism is. You know, their gut feeling.

And the beat goes on... duh duh duh
 

Romney says no to "Net Neutrality".
Romney Cites Energy Report That Advocates Carbon Price.

I'm saying that Germany is more socialist, but they have a fundamentally different government, and relationship of their people, to that government. For instance, they have little or no tax on their companies, who sell their products overseas, and bring that money back into Germany. In the US, we tax any funds like that, with the second highest corporate income tax, in the world.

That's why German products like BMW, Mercedes-Benz, and many other products, sell so well, around the world, BUT the jobs are kept in Germany to a large extent. American corporations can't do that, and it's a huge mistake. To even start to compete, we have to go offshore, and the money has to stay there, or be ridiculously taxed. (double taxed). Also, the gov't has a fundamental obligation to create jobs for it's citizens. I believe (but not sure), that it is in their constitution.

Their opinions of their gov't, are substantially different than ours. And I must say, we have had a HUGE number of absolute assholes in our legislature, over the years. Their cronyism and crass ability to exploit their position for huge monetary gain, just stinks to high heaven. If you or I did what they do, we'd be sent to prison (insider trading, just for one way they do it).

If the people want to go socialism, I have no problem with it. I don't believe it works well, but I KNOW you can't just grab some highly socialistic laws, and start shoving them down our throat, the way Obama has. You want to change to a national health care system, fine. I'm for it!

First, study what other countries have done, and let's get the best parts into our own, and leave out the parts that didn't work well. Second, do a pilot study in a state or region, and prove that it works. THEN, write up the federal laws, and enact it. Don't shove a 2,000+ page law at us, with no time to study it - or even READ it through, and say "we'll pass it now, and read it later".

That's bullshit!

We have lobbyists, unions, race baiters, bald face liars, and class haters, all well expressed in our gov't. What we don't have are statesmen, making wise decisions, in large numbers. The idea that the federal gov't would turn down something like the Keystone pipeline project, at a time when jobs are so badly needed, and fuel is up to $4++ a gallon (in CA), just drives me around the bend.

And is anybody talking about cutting our corporate tax rate so $$$ from overseas operations can come back to the US? Let us compete with other countries, more evenly, instead of having the $$$ taxed twice (once in the other country, and again when it returns to the US).

All you hear is:

Crickets.

And about how well Obama sounds when he's imitating Al Green, and all the other "your candidate is a jerk because...".
I want some good government out of our legislative branch, and we just haven't been getting it. And yeah, I believe socialism is demotivating for the people who have it, if it's overused, or set up in a stupid fashion.

I mean, every year we find out "Oops!, we have another 10,000 people who received some welfare benefit, who have been dead for at least a year", kind of stuff. And we will sue every state that wants to require a photo ID, when you vote. Because BY GOD!, we want those Zombies, to be represented by our fraudulent party! :(

And I want to get our medical drug costs down! No reason in hell why we should have to spend 2-10 times as much for drugs, than other countries, like Canada. And tax loopholes - oh don't get me started on tax loopholes. That's the most asinine example of lobby and political favoritism, that you'll ever live to see.

All these big corporations that all lined up to support Obama care -- and then immediately after it was passed, 98% of them lined up to get in their own exemption from it, which was built into the law, of course!

:rolleyes:

Actually, Canada is not a bad model to look at. They went progressive/liberal for many years, until it damn near bankrupted the country. Then they swung back and went largely conservative with a political party, and look at how well they're doing! Their dollar is worth more now, than ours are - and THAT is just for starters.

Unfortunately, our political party is also home to lots of less than desirable types, that give the whole conservative philosophy, a bad taste. That's a shame, because conservatism is not what you learned from Bush (one or two), or what the liberals try to frame it as.

As far as business went, Clinton ranks highest among recent Presidents, as a conservative (not counting Reagan, of course).

I think that's quite a fair point actually.

Sure, it's logical and practical. It's also impossible in a society where the Drug, Insurance, and Medical Device industries, own so many politicians.
The ONLY way it can happen is the way it did, making huge concessions to those industries, then slowly chipping away at those concessions until the plan is the best it can be. In the mean time, although not the best, millions more have at least some coverage.

And even this plan, a grab bag of Republican proposals, is deemed "highly socialistic".

The problem is, with our current stupidity of paying 2-10X what Canada pays for the very same drugs, you run the whole program into the red, and convince even more people, that the whole idea is a terrible one.

It doesn't have to be that way. There may be more expedient idea's for getting the cart of a National Health Plan moving, but when you're relying on horsepower, it's important to remember to put the horse BEFORE the cart, and not after it.

It isn't just WHAT you do, it's the order you do them in that's important, as well.

You don't have to sound SO surprised. :D

Yup, that would be bad. Luckily, as EVERY investigation has shown, it hasn't.

One of the 47% Romney isn't concerned about...

http://news.yahoo.com/slammed-using-...XBhZ2U-;_ylv=3

The stigmatizing comes from Reagan's myths of the welfare queen in the Caddy and furs, and the lazy Black Buck with the food stamps buying the best steaks in the market. It's been carped by the right ever since, even though it's been disproven repeatedly. Before then, reasonable people understood that giving a helping hand to needy people was a good thing.

Personal story.. In 1970 I got in a squeeze between sudden divorce and being forced out of work for five months by a strike of the shop union at Westinghouse. I was salaried but we honored their picket line for two weeks and when we went back were laid off for the duration. Westinghouse fought our collecting unemployment during the layoff.

To make a long story longer, I collected welfare and food stamps for three months until the unemployment finally kicked in. I even got double food stamps one month through a clerical error. At that time you got a voucher in the mail and took it to the bank where they would give you the actual stamps. When I tried to return the stamps to the welfare office they had no mechanism to retrieve them, so told me to keep them.

It was tough getting by on unemployment (paying two lawyers and all) but when I went back to work the state sent me a letter asking me to repay the welfare. I did that over a couple months and became square with the state, meaning I would be eligible to collect again should the need arise, but didn't have to repay the food stamps. I feel it's a good program, working the way it did.

Now I realize welfare's been a tool for several generations, to keep them ghetto niggers in line so they won't be raping the white women with their free time they have, since we won't give them jobs. This was planned by some, but mostly unintended consequences to most of the population. It's a bad situation and very very difficult to remedy now. It's also, with the help of Reagan's myths, easy lose sight of the fact that most people on welfare are not black, and not in northern cities, but in the south.

So part of the problem is racism, partly misinformation, and partly cussedness.

List your "investigations", because it's common in So. CA, and infamous in Nevada and Illinois.

Bottom line is, nearly EVERYONE has a valid photo ID. You need it to get a checking account, driver a car, travel out of the country, I need it when I withdraw cash from my bank, get a library or video store card, sometimes, even to cash a check.

And all those who don't have a valid photo ID, can get one from the state, for free.

So WHAT'S the *BIG PROBLEM* in showing it, when we vote?

Name another country where you vote, without showing an ID (either a card or a thumb/finger print, or both).

Not Mexico, not Canada! Here's the requirements for Canada:

WHY do we need NOTHING in order to vote? What possible reason could there be for that?

Voter F-R-A-U-D.

England (can't talk for any other part of the UK).

You show your voting card. But that just has my name, address and voting number on it. I could easily use my sister's or my sister-in-law's or even my mother's voting card for all the interest which is shown in it. In fact I do know people who have voted for friends/ relatives/ housemates etc. It's illegal, but only in the same way it's fraud for me to use Mum's debit card - I've only ever done it when asked and with permission for a specific purpose.