Ann s worried about Mittens' mental health if he becomes president.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/29/us-usa-campaign-annromney-idUSBRE88S00820120929
Ann is worried about Mittens' mental health!
Ouch.
What a ringing endorsement...
What a ringing endorsement...
From the guy who's against Romney because he's Mormon and for Obama because he likes beer.
Brilliant.
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
What a ringing endorsement...
Paraphrasing Ann ever so slightly:
"It's hard. Please leave us alone because we can't take the pressure."
"I'm worried about his mental-health."
There is a pattern developing here...
So, the Right will attack Obama supporters for any small reason just to divert attention from their own candidate who is beginning to fall apart, again.
Fox News went on and on about how Obama was the worst president in history. If that were the case, anybody should be able to run against him and win (unless Fox is also saying that the 53% or whatever of the country who voted for him are also the worst in history). Mittens is trailing Obama, even in polls conducted by the never biased Fix, and they don't know what to do.
Didn't some prominent Republican advisor say that if Mittens loses that they would have to rethink the entire party?
Do recall that this thread is about Mittens, after all...
Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"
You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."
Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"
You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."
Fox News went on and on about how Obama was the worst president in history. If that were the case, anybody should be able to run against him and win (unless Fox is also saying that the 53% or whatever of the country who voted for him are also the worst in history).
There are two no sequiturs here.
First, just because someone is the worst president in history doesn't mean that anyone could run against him and win.
Second, just because someone is the worst president in history doesn't mean that the people who vote for him are the worst in history.
Epic logic failure there.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
Fox News went on and on about how Obama was the worst president in history. If that were the case, anybody should be able to run against him and win (unless Fox is also saying that the 53% or whatever of the country who voted for him are also the worst in history).
There are two no sequiturs here.
First, just because someone is the worst president in history doesn't mean that anyone could run against him and win.
Second, just because someone is the worst president in history doesn't mean that the people who vote for him are the worst in history.
Epic logic failure there.
Correct. A better way to have phrased it would have been to ask why, if he is the worst president in history, even a moderately competent challenger should not be able to beat him handily.
Correct. A better way to have phrased it would have been to ask why, if he is the worst president in history, even a moderately competent challenger should not be able to beat him handily.
That would be a better way to ask it.
The answer to that question may lie in the difference between being president and campaigning/running/getting elected for president.
It may also be in the question or possibility that he is the worst president to date and the the proposed opponent is perceived as an even worse option. Sort of a "better the devil you know" thinking.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
Correct. A better way to have phrased it would have been to ask why, if he is the worst president in history, even a moderately competent challenger should not be able to beat him handily.
That would be a better way to ask it.
The answer to that question may lie in the difference between being president and campaigning/running/getting elected for president.
It may also be in the question or possibility that he is the worst president to date and the the proposed opponent is perceived as an even worse option. Sort of a "better the devil you know" thinking.
In my book George W Bush takes the award for the worst ever. I was just talking the other day with a friend and we agreed that we would welcome the days of Reagan ( the odd thing is as I've said before he wouldn't stand a chance of being elected today as the GOP wouldn't want him. Too liberal ) or even Bush senior in comparison. Dubbya was the worst by far and look what 8 years of him left us with! Anything else pales in comparison.
You can say what you want about Obama the the problem Bush Jr left us with means anyone following him ( Democrat or Republican ) would only be able to ( for at least one term ) be reacting to the problem he left us with.
It was that bad.
Romney could very possibly be worse as he's smarter than Bush but with just as bad ( or worse when you consider his running mate ) an agenda for the country.
Just what we don't need right now.
If you think the plight for the middle class and the poor is bad now if Romney was in charge they'd all be eating " Cake ". Fortunately it looks like the chance of that happening is shrinking by the day. Thank God!
In my book George W Bush takes the award for the worst ever.
OK. So?
You can say what you want about Obama the the problem Bush Jr left us with means anyone following him ( Democrat or Republican ) would only be able to ( for at least one term ) be reacting to the problem he left us with.
It was that bad.
Thanks for your opinion.
Romney could very possibly be worse as he's smarter than Bush but with just as bad ( or worse when you consider his running mate ) an agenda for the country.
I see that you, like BR (et al) are actually convinced that Mitt Romney is substantially different from Obama. Uh huh. :rolleyes:
If you think the plight for the middle class and the poor is bad now if Romney was in charge they'd all be eating " Cake ".
Uh huh.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
I see that you, like BR (et al) are actually convinced that Mitt Romney is substantially different from Obama. Uh huh. :rolleyes:
I suppose from your vantage point, so many billions of miles from reality, the opposite edges of the Grand Canyon wouldn't resolve in the least.
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
In my book George W Bush takes the award for the worst ever.
OK. So?
You can say what you want about Obama the the problem Bush Jr left us with means anyone following him ( Democrat or Republican ) would only be able to ( for at least one term ) be reacting to the problem he left us with.
It was that bad.
Thanks for your opinion.
Romney could very possibly be worse as he's smarter than Bush but with just as bad ( or worse when you consider his running mate ) an agenda for the country.
I see that you, like BR (et al) are actually convinced that Mitt Romney is substantially different from Obama. Uh huh. :rolleyes:
If you think the plight for the middle class and the poor is bad now if Romney was in charge they'd all be eating " Cake ".
Uh huh.
OK. So?
The discussion was about the worst. If you can't connect the dots from that it's not my fault.
Thanks for your opinion.
That's just the thing MJ. It's not just my opinion.
Yup!That's " Right ". ( wink if I could )
I see that you, like BR (et al) are actually convinced that Mitt Romney is substantially different from Obama. Uh huh. :rolleyes:
Don't hurt yourself.
I suppose from your vantage point, so many billions of miles from reality, the opposite edges of the Grand Canyon wouldn't resolve in the least.
Now you're moving back to shitty analogies? This isn't helping your argument.
You're claiming that a "conservative" Republican from fucking Massachusetts is as far from Barack Obama politically as the two ends of the Grand Canyon.
Brilliant!
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
I suppose from your vantage point, so many billions of miles from reality, the opposite edges of the Grand Canyon wouldn't resolve in the least.
Now you're moving back to shitty analogies? This isn't helping your argument.
You're claiming that a "conservative" Republican from fucking Massachusetts is as far from Barack Obama politically as the two ends of the Grand Canyon.
Brilliant!
I don't really think he needs much help MJ. He's right on.
The discussion was about the worst. If you can't connect the dots from that it's not my fault.
I was wondering why what you thought about who was worst really mattered here.
That's just the thing MJ. It's not just my opinion.
I know. So what? We're not talking about George Bush.
Yup!That's " Right ". ( wink if I could )
Don't hurt yourself.
Don't hurt yourself.
The only ones at risk of hurting themselves are those contorting themselves into knots in order to claim this vast and significant difference between the two.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The discussion was about the worst. If you can't connect the dots from that it's not my fault.
I was wondering why what you thought about who was worst really mattered here.
That's just the thing MJ. It's not just my opinion.
I know. So what? We're not talking about George Bush.
Yup!That's " Right ". ( wink if I could )
Don't hurt yourself.
Don't hurt yourself.
The only ones at risk of hurting themselves are those contorting themselves into knots in order to claim this vast and significant difference between the two.
I was wondering why what you thought about who was worst really mattered here.
That was the discussion. Can't you read?
I know. So what? We're not talking about George Bush.
The discussion was about the worst president. Bush was a president. Can't you read?
The only ones at risk of hurting themselves are those contorting themselves into knots in order to claim this vast and significant difference between the two.
So says you.
That was the discussion. Can't you read?
The discussion was about the worst president. Bush was a president. Can't you read?
No it wasn't. The discussion about and is about the current election and the two candidates. Maybe you can't read*.
Do I get to call you "desperate" for resorting to personal attacks?
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
That was the discussion. Can't you read?
The discussion was about the worst president. Bush was a president. Can't you read?
No it wasn't. The discussion about and is about the current election and the two candidates. Maybe you can't read*.
Do I get to call you "desperate" for resorting to personal attacks?
Sure. It's what ever you say it was.
Sure. It's what ever you say it was.
No. It's not whatever I say it was. It's whatever it was. There's a difference. Come back to reality and join us. The discussion was about the current candidates for president. Look back at the posts where you interjected your opinion about Bush. Read again. See if you can figure it out.
But then you're obviously desperate about your position (or lack thereof).
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
Sure. It's what ever you say it was.
No. It's not whatever I say it was. It's whatever it was. There's a difference. Come back to reality and join us. The discussion was about the current candidates for president. Look back at the posts where you interjected your opinion about Bush. Read again. See if you can figure it out.
But then you're obviously desperate about your position (or lack thereof).
Come back to reality and join us.
When you get to reality let me know. I've got a lawn to mow. I'll get back to this silly tit for tat latter. Besides BR is really doing quite well at defending himself.
When you get to reality let me know.
I'm here. I'm reading the thread. I know what words mean. I can understand the english language. I can see the context. This discussion had nothing to do with Bush (or even worst presidents in general) is was a fallacious claim that if Obama was the worst president ever, anyone could run against him and beat him. Go back and give it a try. You might learn something.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
When you get to reality let me know.
I'm here. I'm reading the thread. I know what words mean. I can understand the english language. I can see the context. This discussion had nothing to do with Bush (or even worst presidents in general) is was a fallacious claim that if Obama was the worst president ever, anyone could run against him and beat him. Go back and give it a try. You might learn something.
But can you put the pieces together?
Sigh! You opened the question with this :
First, just because someone is the worst president in history doesn't mean that anyone could run against him and win.
To which I replied with my opinion ( and not just me ) who I thought was the worst. If you're going to make statements like that don't expect everyone to agree with you.
Sorry but you just don't make up all the rules much as you might want to.
There you go again with that condescending horse shit. Unless something different happens I have nothing to learn from you or conversations with you. Please get off your imaginary high horse. The excrement is getting a bit thick.
To which I replied with my opinion ( and not just me )...
You say that a lot. Do you have confidence and self-esteem issues? Do you need to be constantly reassured about your opinion by knowing that others agree with you?
To which I replied with my opinion ( and not just me ) who I thought was the worst. If you're going to make statements like that don't expect everyone to agree with you.
*sigh*
Wow.
You have completely missed the point. This is rather common of course.
Bergermeister claimed that some people think Obama is the worst president ever and that therefore the opposition could put anyone up against him and win or, if not, the voters are the worst in history. Both of these thoughts are fallacious.
I did not agree that Obama was the worst ever. I think he's terrible and might be the worst, but I don't really know for sure. I was addressing Berger's fallacious claims.
Now you...interjecting who you think was the worst, actually worked to prove my point. If you are correct (about Bush being the worst ever), then very possibly I am right.
Sorry but you just don't make up all the rules much as you might want to.
I'm not making up any rules. I'm pointing out faulty logic. Just because some one might be the worst president doesn't mean that the opposition could run anyone against him (or her) and win. That is faulty logic.
I have nothing to learn from you or conversations with you.
Fine, then stop conversing with me. I don't care.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
From the guy who's against Romney because he's Mormon and for Obama because he likes beer.
Brilliant.
I honestly could care less, as I'm not American.
But it's been my observation that presidents aren't chosen based on their economic platform, but rather on their likeability. George W Bush and Bill Clinton were both incredibly likeable, never mind the major differences in policies.
Mitt Romney simply isn't likeable. And I could care less whether he's Mormon, Muslim, Buddhist, or Raelian... But you know that shit matters to the average American. I invest in the stock market, I understand economics, I know Mitt Romney would likely be good for American businesses (and thus good for the stock market, and my wallet). But he's completely lost the average American voter - he's simply not likeable.
And Obama has pursued quite a few questionable policies, he makes the US look weak on the world stage (part of why the rest of the world likes him). He's certainly not been the best president. But he's immensely likeable, which is what propelled him to this position in the first place.
The beer thing was a joke, but it illustrates my point. Obama is the kind of guy you'd want to have a beer with. G W Bush was the kind of guy you'd want to have a beer with. Bill Clinton was the kind of guy you'd want to have a beer with (and maybe hit up a strip joint too). Mitt Romney isn't.
And honestly, I'd wager money anytime, that likeability will always trump policies... Honestly, the second that the Republicans chose Mitt Romney is the moment they lost the election. Herman Cain would have had a better chance...
But it's been my observation that presidents aren't chosen based on their economic platform, but rather on their likeability. George W Bush and Bill Clinton were both incredibly likeable, never mind the major differences in policies.
I think you're basically right. This almost certainly true of the independent swing voting bloc.
Mitt Romney simply isn't likeable.
Probably right.
I invest in the stock market, I understand economics, I know Mitt Romney would likely be good for American businesses (and thus good for the stock market, and my wallet).
That's probably debatable.
And Obama has pursued quite a few questionable policies, he makes the US look weak on the world stage (part of why the rest of the world likes him). He's certainly not been the best president. But he's immensely likeable, which is what propelled him to this position in the first place.
And honestly, I'd wager money anytime, that likeability will always trump policies...
I think you've nailed it.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
I'd like to see the evidence for that. Here's a complete analysis by Nate Silver from a few months ago. He shows definitively that it's not true.
Looking at his numbers, in 1980, voters went for Reagan in a lot higher numbers than the polls predicted, which is consistent with the "break for challengers" idea. But when Clinton beat Bush in 1992, it was a lot closer than the polls predicted (i.e., the votes broke for the incumbent). The votes also broke for the incumbent, in Clinton's favor this time, in 1996. In 1984, the polls were about right. There is no clear pattern of going for the challenger. And Silver has a bunch of data from smaller state-wide races that also show no challenger effect.
Here.
Wasn't Obama criticized for having attending elite liberal schools such as Harvard? You know, the same school that Mittens attended but there are no calls of elitist liberal ism isms??
I think it is more that all he did was attend elite liberal schools.
But Dick Morris said all the undecided would break to Romney, and Dick Morris is NEVER EVER WRONG EVER.
I certainly didn't claim he was never wrong. However, he has an extremely strong track record and is very experienced to say the least.
Please tell me we aren't going to end up with another religious nut in the White House!!! The most powerful nation (just) on earth shouldn't have anyone who thinks god talks to them in charge. If anything that should actually be a massive no no for standing in the first place!
When have we ever had a "religious nut" in the White House? And who is the religious nut who may take the job this time?
Well, even Fox News polls show Obama in the lead. Being pretty common knowledge that most of Fox' viewership represents the spectrum of anything between the "regular" right and the rabidly radical right, that says something about Obama.
The poll wasn't of Fox News' viewers, sammi. Their viewers have nothing to do with it.
That's fucking ridiculous.
I see you're back from your most recent Bizzaro World trip. The Democratic Party today doesn't even resemble the conservative Democrats who were in power from the 1940's to 1960's. It's run by radicals now.
Perhaps the race card still applies: he's a black guy - and anti-black racism is still well entrenched in the US establishment, although anti-dark-Middle-Easterner racism - which got a kick start in the late 1940s is now the flavor du jour, not only in DC but in "Middle America" as a whole.
Of course it applies. It applies because you claim it applies, as does the mass media and the Obama campaign itself. If Romney does win, I'm sure we'll hear all about how racism in America is back.
I certainly didn't claim he was never wrong. However, he has an extremely strong track record and is very experienced to say the least.
He's so spectacularly wrong so often, he has an award named after him.
Sounds like a very balanced take there, Flounder. Go back and look at Morris' track record, starting with almost single-handedly getting Clinton reelected. Then tell me how he doesn't have credibility.
Sounds like a very balanced take there, Flounder. Go back and look at Morris' track record, starting with almost single-handedly getting Clinton reelected. Then tell me how he doesn't have credibility.
He certainly seemed to have credibility as a strategist back in the 90s. Since then, in terms of predictions, I struggle to think of much that he didn't get spectacularly wrong, but perhaps I'm just not recalling his successes.
Taking historical policy into consideration, Obama, a "democrat" is further to the right that both Reagan and Nixon.
That's fucking ridiculous.
The only reason it strikes you as ridiculous is that you view the world through a totalizing scrim of right wing hysteria.
By the standards of todays right, Nixon was a screaming socialist who was hell bent on vastly expanding the powers and intrusiveness of the federal government. He created the EPA and OSHA, giant federal bureaucracies with the power to medal in the private sector AND KILL JOBS AND ENSLAVE US ALL. He raised Social Security benefits, because GOVERNMENT HANDOUTS. He imposed a minimum tax on the wealthy and pushed for a guaranteed minimum income for the poor on account of CLASS WARFARE AND REDISTRIBUTION. He proposed mandatory workplace health insurance with subsidies for those that couldn't afford so that TAKEOVER OF HEALTHCARE (and which, hilariously, the Democratic Congress shot down).
Of course, back in those days the right hadn't completely lost its fucking mind so using the power of the federal government to address societal ills wasn't instant proof of sinister plots to bring down the country (and of course Nixon was a nice normal American boy and not a foreign born Muslim sleeper agent who said anything about black, you're the racist!).
Romney is going to lose, you're going to blame it on the liberal media, the the Republicans in Congress will do everything in their power to prevent him from doing anything to improve the economy in the hopes that in four years things will still be shitty so they can win that election. Trouble being, more people than not are kind of noticing. The Republican Party is broken and dysfunctional and increasingly (and increasingly shrilly and hysterically) shouting nonsense to a shrinking pool of voters. I'm not sure why you think that's worth defending, if you want to see more conservative governance. Bellowing about Obama's socialism and radicalism is ahistorical and simply foolish. You should stop.
Taking historical policy into consideration, Obama, a "democrat" is further to the right that both Reagan and Nixon.
That's fucking ridiculous.
The only reason it strikes you as ridiculous is that you view the world through a totalizing scrim of right wing hysteria.
By the standards of todays right, Nixon was a screaming socialist who was hell bent on vastly expanding the powers and intrusiveness of the federal government. He created the EPA and OSHA, giant federal bureaucracies with the power to meddle in the private sector AND KILL JOBS AND ENSLAVE US ALL. He raised Social Security benefits, because GOVERNMENT HANDOUTS. He imposed a minimum tax on the wealthy and pushed for a guaranteed minimum income for the poor on account of CLASS WARFARE AND REDISTRIBUTION. He proposed mandatory workplace health insurance with subsidies for those that couldn't afford so that TAKEOVER OF HEALTHCARE (and which, hilariously, the Democratic Congress shot down).
Of course, back in those days the right hadn't completely lost its fucking mind so using the power of the federal government to address societal ills wasn't instant proof of sinister plots to bring down the country (and of course Nixon was a nice normal American boy and not a foreign born Muslim sleeper agent who said anything about black, you're the racist!).
Romney is going to lose, you're going to blame it on the liberal media, the the Republicans in Congress will do everything in their power to prevent him from doing anything to improve the economy in the hopes that in four years things will still be shitty so they can win that election. Trouble being, more people than not are kind of noticing. The Republican Party is broken and dysfunctional and increasingly (and increasingly shrilly and hysterically) shouting nonsense to a shrinking pool of voters. I'm not sure why you think that's worth defending, if you want to see more conservative governance. Bellowing about Obama's socialism and radicalism is ahistorical and simply foolish. You should stop.
Taking historical policy into consideration, Obama, a "democrat" is further to the right that both Reagan and Nixon.
That's fucking ridiculous.
The only reason it strikes you as ridiculous is that you view the world through a totalizing scrim of right wing hysteria.
By the standards of todays right, Nixon was a screaming socialist who was hell bent on vastly expanding the powers and intrusiveness of the federal government. He created the EPA and OSHA, giant federal bureaucracies with the power to meddle in the private sector AND KILL JOBS AND ENSLAVE US ALL. He raised Social Security benefits, because GOVERNMENT HANDOUTS. He imposed a minimum tax on the wealthy and pushed for a guaranteed minimum income for the poor on account of CLASS WARFARE AND REDISTRIBUTION. He proposed mandatory workplace health insurance with subsidies for those that couldn't afford so that TAKEOVER OF HEALTHCARE (and which, hilariously, the Democratic Congress shot down).
Of course, back in those days the right hadn't completely lost its fucking mind so using the power of the federal government to address societal ills wasn't instant proof of sinister plots to bring down the country (and of course Nixon was a nice normal American boy and not a foreign born Muslim sleeper agent who said anything about black, you're the racist!).
Obama is going to win, you're going to blame it on the liberal media, the the Republicans in Congress will do everything in their power to prevent him from doing anything to improve the economy in the hopes that in four years things will still be shitty so they can win that election. Trouble being, more people than not are kind of noticing. The Republican Party is broken and dysfunctional and increasingly (and increasingly shrilly and hysterically) shouting nonsense to a shrinking pool of voters. I'm not sure why you think that's worth defending, if you want to see more conservative governance. Bellowing about Obama's socialism and radicalism is ahistorical and simply foolish. You should stop.
They still can't explain (or are unwilling as Mittens did say once that he needs 50.1% of the vote) their tax plan, even on a very (oh, yes, so very usually) Fox News.
It would take me too long to explain, so I won't explain at all. Trust us™.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/30/paul-ryan-tax-plan-mitt-romney_n_1926660.html
Ryan also set the bar low for Mittens' debate performance, so I'm not holding my breath that any new positions will be made public.
Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"
You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."
Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"
You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."
He certainly seemed to have credibility as a strategist back in the 90s. Since then, in terms of predictions, I struggle to think of much that he didn't get spectacularly wrong, but perhaps I'm just not recalling his successes.
Yes, by all means...let's focus on throw away bounce predictions, which are never based on anything more than instinct. Morris makes those just like any other pundit. I'm talking about the predictions that are based on analysis of polling data. Morris knows this better than just about anyone.
The only reason it strikes you as ridiculous is that you view the world through a totalizing scrim of right wing hysteria.
Yes, signal..I'm nothing but a lunatic right wing fringe nut job. How well you know me.
I will grant you that Nixon was not exactly conservative on growth of power of government. In fact, he may be the ultimate example of an Imperial president. This, however, does not mean Obama is "more conservative" than Nixon. He's also operating in an environment that is totally different. The government is already far more intrusive and massive than it was during the Nixon administration, so Obama is starting from a different baseline. One could even argue our government doesn't even resemble what Nixon started with. The same applies to FDR. FDR expanded government more than anyone. I happen to disagree with much of what he did in terms of the entitlement state, government employment, etc. However, he was at least starting with something much smaller than we have now.
Tell me, how has the federal government EVER been successful at "addressing societal ills?"
If Romney does lose, much of the result will be due to media indeed. The mainstream media is 100% in the tank for Obama such as I've never seen. It goes far beyond bias. It is outright campaigning. As for Obama's policies, I've never called him a socialist per se. I do think he is a radical in terms of his worldview, one that is proving to be a complete disaster when put into practice.
They still can't explain (or are unwilling as Mittens did say once that he needs 50.1% of the vote) their tax plan, even on a very (oh, yes, so very usually) Fox News.
It would take me too long to explain, so I won't explain at all. Trust us™.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/30/paul-ryan-tax-plan-mitt-romney_n_1926660.html
Ryan also set the bar low for Mittens' debate performance, so I'm not holding my breath that any new positions will be made public.
Tell me, Berg...what is Obama's tax plan? It's amazing. We have a President that is doing something no incumbent has done before: He is ignoring his record and refusing to say what he's going to do. Presidents simply don't run for reelection like this. On the flip side, we have Romney. Romney has a multitude of specific proposals with documentation...including a 150 page jobs/economic growth plan. And your reaction is that Romney and Ryan are hiding something. Obama has no plan. But what does that matter? Romney's a rich, out-of-touch white guy who doesn't know why airplane windows don't open.
He certainly seemed to have credibility as a strategist back in the 90s. Since then, in terms of predictions, I struggle to think of much that he didn't get spectacularly wrong, but perhaps I'm just not recalling his successes.
Yes, by all means...let's focus on throw away bounce predictions, which are never based on anything more than instinct. Morris makes those just like any other pundit. I'm talking about the predictions that are based on analysis of polling data. Morris knows this better than just about anyone.
Well, seeing as you quoted me, I should point out that I was not focusing on bounce predictions - I was referring to his post-Clinton career in general. But, as I said, you may have examples of his successes that I don't recall.
He certainly seemed to have credibility as a strategist back in the 90s. Since then, in terms of predictions, I struggle to think of much that he didn't get spectacularly wrong, but perhaps I'm just not recalling his successes.
Yes, by all means...let's focus on throw away bounce predictions, which are never based on anything more than instinct. Morris makes those just like any other pundit. I'm talking about the predictions that are based on analysis of polling data. Morris knows this better than just about anyone.
The only reason it strikes you as ridiculous is that you view the world through a totalizing scrim of right wing hysteria.
Yes, signal..I'm nothing but a lunatic right wing fringe nut job. How well you know me.
I will grant you that Nixon was not exactly conservative on growth of power of government. In fact, he may be the ultimate example of an Imperial president. This, however, does not mean Obama is "more conservative" than Nixon. He's also operating in an environment that is totally different. The government is already far more intrusive and massive than it was during the Nixon administration, so Obama is starting from a different baseline. One could even argue our government doesn't even resemble what Nixon started with. The same applies to FDR. FDR expanded government more than anyone. I happen to disagree with much of what he did in terms of the entitlement state, government employment, etc. However, he was at least starting with something much smaller than we have now.
Tell me, how has the federal government EVER been successful at "addressing societal ills?"
If Romney does lose, much of the result will be due to media indeed. The mainstream media is 100% in the tank for Obama such as I've never seen. It goes far beyond bias. It is outright campaigning. As for Obama's policies, I've never called him a socialist per se. I do think he is a radical in terms of his worldview, one that is proving to be a complete disaster when put into practice.
They still can't explain (or are unwilling as Mittens did say once that he needs 50.1% of the vote) their tax plan, even on a very (oh, yes, so very usually) Fox News.
It would take me too long to explain, so I won't explain at all. Trust us™.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/30/paul-ryan-tax-plan-mitt-romney_n_1926660.html
Ryan also set the bar low for Mittens' debate performance, so I'm not holding my breath that any new positions will be made public.
Tell me, Berg...what is Obama's tax plan? It's amazing. We have a President that is doing something no incumbent has done before: He is ignoring his record and refusing to say what he's going to do. Presidents simply don't run for reelection like this. On the flip side, we have Romney. Romney has a multitude of specific proposals with documentation...including a 150 page jobs/economic growth plan. And your reaction is that Romney and Ryan are hiding something. Obama has no plan. But what does that matter? Romney's a rich, out-of-touch white guy who doesn't know why airplane windows don't open.
If Romney does lose, much of the result will be due to media indeed.
No SDW. It's like I said the only ones who like him are the Republicans. And even not all of them like him. Part of it is he has no plan or more over the same old tired plan the GOP has been pedaling for years now.
It's like I said the only ones who like him are the Republicans.
You act like this is a fact yet have not proven it. Care to?
And even not all of them like him.
This is certainly true. It's also quite likely true for Democrats and Obama. There's nothing new here.
Part of it is he has no plan or more over the same old tired plan the GOP has been pedaling for years now.
Hmmm. Interesting. I think Romney is more like a slightly more "conservative" Democrat. I mean he's a Republican "conservative" from Massachusetts for goodness sakes. This may explain why some Republicans don't like him. For example, he has no real plans to lower taxes. He created the prototype for Obamacare that is now driving the state of Massachusetts toward bankruptcy. He may have attempted to pander to conservatives (the so-called "conservative base") to win the nomination.
The real problem is the we have two candidates that are a blend of socialism and corporatism (economic fascism) with a bit of market capitalism thrown in for rhetorical purposes. Ultimately they are both members of the ruling elite party that gives the appearance of two vastly different parties in order to gin up strident partisanship and "my team vs. your team" rivalry that keeps the American people strongly divided.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
