Saturday, April 21, 2012

Vote for WHO? And WHY?

"[I]f Mitt wins the nomination, as seems very likely, I will enthusiastically support his candidacy.
For my friends who have hesitation on that score, I'd just ask you to keep four things in mind:  Justice Scalia just turned 78, Justice Kennedy will turn 78 later this year,  Justice Breyer will be 76 in August, and Justice Ginsburg turned 81 about a week ago. We wish them all well, of course, but the brute fact is that whoever  we elect as president in November is almost certainly going to choose at least  one and maybe more new members of the Supreme Court -- in addition to hundreds  of other life-tenured federal judges, all of whom will be making momentous decisions about our lives for decades to come.
 If you don't think it matters whether the guy making those calls is Mitt Romney or Barack Obama, I think you're smokin' something dangerous ." 
-columnist Andrew McCarthy

Z:  Think what you will about Romney, he won't be appointing Elena Kagan types of judges, that's for sure.

z

235 comments:

1 – 200 of 235   Newer›   Newest»
namaste said...

Z, appointing our supreme court justices is truly something important to be considered. as you know, Mitt has my vote. the most important thing is to take our white house, therefore our country, back. great post!

Joe Conservative said...

If you don't like the Republican nominee or Obama, just vote for Gary Johnson. He's already got 6% of the popular Republican vote. And guess what, he won't appoint liberal justices, either.

...and if Mitt loses, tough titties. I wasn't the one who insisted that he be the Republican nominee. Blame the elite moneybag U.S. Treasury robbers for that.

Always On Watch said...

I haven't been able to work up enthusiasm for any Presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan.

And I won't be able to up much enthusiasm for Romney either.

BUT

The issue of appointing SCOTUS justices -- that's a big factor in my decision. Surely the next President will influence the balance on the highest court of our land. And those justices serve for life -- or nearly so, anyway.

I have no doubt that if this Supreme Court rules against ObamaCare that the matter will come again before the court if Obama wins in November and appoints one or more SCOTUS justices.

BTW, I know that we are all focused on the Presidential race. Let us not forget the Congressional elections! Those matter!

PS: Damn! I hate the new Blogger dashboard interface. **sigh**

Cactus Mark said...

A *very* good point.

Let me add that the Senate is up for grabs too and I would be please beyond measure if they'd pass a budget. You know, their LEGAL duty.

sue hanes said...

Ya make a good point here - Z.

That is even MORE reason for people to GET OUT AND VOTE.

I'd like 2012 to be the Year of the Vote.

What makes me sad is people that NEVER vote.

viburnum said...

Joe: "If you don't like the Republican nominee or Obama, just vote for Gary Johnson."

Now is not the time for empty gestures. 6% of the Republican vote amounts 4 more years of Obama.

CnC said...

I will vote for Romney but I hope he gets a decent running mate that I can get enthused about.

FairWitness said...

November 6th 2012 will be the most consequential election in history. This will be our last chance to reverse liberalism and return to a conservative republic. This is it folks, so please go to the polls and vote out Barack Obama.

And that means voting for the opposing candidate that has a chance of winning. Gary Johnson has NO CHANCE, ZIP, ZERO, NADA, AIN'T-GONNA-HAPPEN! If you vote for Gary Johnson in the general election you are voting to retain President Obama.

Furthermore, JOE, you're a fool because our nation, as we know it, will be destroyed and YOU will be responsible for that. Please reexamine your stance. Your country needs you to exercise some good judgment and put the country's survival ahead of your own selfish views! You have a duty to sacrifice & compromise for your country!

Yamba de pukin honeyant, bruz said...

Many Obama folk are disillusioned with his "Hope and Change" rhetoric. And all we see is big debt,rising unemployment and economy that gets worse instead of better.

As Jmaes Carvill said "Its the economy stupid".

Many including myself see Obama as the great divider. And he seems to prove that thought every day with is racial comments such as he did in the George Zimmerman Trayvon Martin speech.

We simply cannot afford 4 more years of this appalling incompetent President and must elect Romney to bring us out of this nightmare that the liberals created.
Obama is hopeless in every aspect and if he had any integrity at all he would take his wife and the rest of his freak show on a vacation in Kenya or Hawaii, or Spain,or Egypt and stay there.
That's my position and I'm sticking to it.

Ed Bonderenka said...

This was the issue last election and we still got Kagan and the "wise latina".
We're not voting for a president, but a Supreme Court.
Hard to believe the Founders meant it to be such.

Thersites said...

Gary Johnson is the only honest man in this year's Presidential contest. That Madison Avenue has duped the Americans who vote to continue the corporate corruption of America is NOT my fault... its" theirs.

Ed Bonderenka said...

And frankly, while I try to be as polite as possible in political discussions...
Any conservative that does not vote for Mitt Romney in this election (since he is the only candidate that has a credible chance against Obama) is as stupid as dirt, and a traitor to this nation.

Thersites said...

You have a duty to sacrifice & compromise for your country!

Sorry, but THAT piece of stupidity failed to make it into the Constitution. You have a du to bite me, Fairwitness.

Thersites said...

Romney's a corporate shill, just like Barrack. Fool yourself into believing that Republicans and Democrats are your only choices.

Thersites said...

Gary Johnson was a two term Governor. Unlike Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, no one OWNS him.

FairWitness said...

Therasites, do you really need the US Constitution to tell you what you need to do when we're faced with losing our entire way of life? You think it's stupid to demand that voters set aside personal desires? That we should be realistic, in the face of certain doom, if Barack Obama gets another 4 years?

I wish some other candidate would gain the Republican nomination, too. But I only have one vote and my guy isn't going to be the nominee. The most important thing for me to do now is to get rid of Barack Obama!

Any conservative or libertarian who doesn't vote for Mitt Romney, the candidate most likely to defeat Obama, is a FOOL & TRAITOR!

That's me doing my "du" and biting you!

Thersites said...

lol!

It's Now considered treason in America to actualy stand FOR something and not settle for the "lesser of two evils"?

The founders threw the bum, King George III O-U-T. Some called them traitors, but I call them PATRIOTS.

Throw the bums O-U-T in 2012!

Vote Gary Johnson FOR president. It's a LONG way to November.

Thersites said...

btw - Gary Johnson IS going to be the Libertarian Party "nominee.". YOU can BANK on it.

Thersites said...

btw - the US taxpaers are going to fund Gary Johnson's campaign...

so climb aboard the train, or get left in the dust.

Bob said...

It is hard to believe that there are people around with a political death wish. Voting for Gary Johnson is like committing suicide. It might sound like a protest message at the time, but the consequenses would be forever, and you wouldn't like it.

There is nothing wrong with Mitt Romney. We would have been much better off the last time around if you dummies would have nominated Romney instead of John McCain, that generator of terminal yawns.

OK. So Mitt had a brain fart with the Massachusetts health care system. He has recanted, and promised to never do that again.

As far as that inane comment that Romney is a corporate shill, give it up. Mitt Romney made millions of dollars by recycling worn out corporations. Ain't that a hoot?

Mitt Romney is the best Republican candidate for President to come along in a very long time. Rejoice in the opportunity to vote for someone who has his record of personal and professional accomplishments. If you don't like Mormons, just swallow it and move on.

Just because you cannot get your prefect candidate doesn't mean that you have to sit on the sidelines during the fight. I don't think anybody is that dumb.

Joe Conservative said...

There is PLENTY wrong with Mitt Romney. 60 percent of Republicans would rather vote for someone else. Nows their chance. The RNC slit its' own throat. They thought that like Dole in '96 and McCain in '08' that they knew what was better for America... crony corporate capitalism.

The elite choice is Romney. The patriotic choice FOR a better America is Gary Johnson.

Liberalmann said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Joe Conservative said...

...but if you'd rather bow to the money men and beg for quarters while the government prevents others from begging dimes, that YOUR prerogative.

Liberty or guaranteed slave security... THAT is America's choice in 2012. And its pretty clear that it only behooves a dog to continue to lick his master's hand.

Sam Huntington said...

I would rather see fewer voters casting ballots intelligently, rather than massive numbers voting with the mental deficiencies displayed by Liberalmann. More dummies result in more Obama ... and this country cannot sustain four more years of that wretched communist.

Joe Conservative said...

Now is not the time for empty gestures. 6% of the Republican vote amounts 4 more years of Obama.

Continuing to support the RNC after candidates like Dole, Bush, McCain and now Romney just guarantees more bland corporatists nomineesad infinitum.

An empty gesture beats blind subservience eight days a week.

We survived four years of gross stupidity. We'll have to pray that our SCOTUS justices stay healthy... and relearn the lesson of trusting in G_d instead of government.

One thing IS for certain. We can't trust the Republican Party to do what's right for America. They keep nominating moneyed elitist know-it-alls.

Joe Conservative said...

Crazy is doing the same thing over and over... and expecting a different result. The Republican result, with one exception in 1980-8', has always lead to the SME result.

Break the cycle. THROW THE BUMS O-U-T!

Mark said...

I am always unsure about potential candidates because, as they've so often demonstrated, what they say they'll do is seldom what they end up doing, and I am almost always disappointed.

I think the last candidate that actually did what he promised was Reagan.

That said, I will vote for Romney. Ann Coulter likes him and I've never known her to be wrong about anything. So, if he's good enough for her, he's good enough for me.

Mark said...

Above all, the most important thing to do this election is get Obama out!

If he is allowed 4 more years to operate on our government, we will no longer have a Constitutional Republic, but instead, a dictatorship.

Mark my words.

Whoever the Republican nominee is, vote for him and vote often. We must must Obama!

Mark said...

I mean we must oust Obama.

net observer said...

there's a serious movement to write-in gary johnson at this point? is it a merely a handful of loud, passionate johnson supporters? or more than that?

Ed Bonderenka said...

"Break the cycle. THROW THE BUMS O-U-T!"

Reward any good man with another chance to do right again.
Some of the best we have, have proven who they are by doing the job well, or demonstrated trying..
Some people have no discernment or are too lazy to figure out who's doing good or not. So they say "throw the bums out", usually meaning everyone.
If you vote for anyone other than Romney, or don't vote, you're for enabling Obama.
Or you want to see collapse and insurrection, in which case you're just plain stupid or uninformed, hard to tell which from here..
Collapse of government has only worked well once in history, and we don't have enough patriots or firepower this time around.

Joe Conservative said...

Enjoy your slavery Ed. You get what you vote FOR.

Ed Bonderenka said...

I may get what you won't vote against.
And I won't be alone.
You'll get it to.
Enjoy.

Impertinent said...

"just vote for Gary Johnson...."

Why waste a vote? You might as well just pull the lever for Osamma. It'll be that close that those 6% will be enough to give it to Osamma again, if you toss it away like that.

Z said...

Imp, that's exactly right.

Joe C, Thersites, FJ, nicrap..WHOEVER.....
You vote for Gary Johnson, then weep when you've got the Socialist back in office.

Ed Bonderenka said...

But their conscience will be clean.
Huh.

Z said...

ED, exactly...
just what we need, a clean conscience and a country going even further downhill and even faster than it did the last 3 1/2 years.
The Founding Fathers must be rolling in their graves wondering how it took one guy to not only start shredding the constitution but slamming capitalism and insulting the successful. WOW. My conscience tells me Romney won't do those things.

-FJ said...

I'll only weep for Americans who no longer trust in G_d and will vote to continue living on their knees, beggars to corporate handouts and publically funding big too big to fail kleptocrats.

Better to take a chance, however remote, of living in liberty than take the sure path to slavery and degradation.

The founders are indeed " rolling in their graves". A clear conscience is what the Revolution was ALL about.

-FJ said...

The Founders didn't need a SuperPac.

Z said...

FJ, ah, so now those who accept reality and still live with the hope that getting Obama OUT will help our country are Godless!? Wow, FJ...that's something for you to say!

-FJ said...

Name a founder who would support Mitt Romney... the very thought is sending them spinning in their graves.

-FJ said...

And G_dlessness and TRUSTING in G_d are two completely differrent things.

Taking chances requires TRUST in Him.

But if you prefer the SURE road to perdition, by ALL means, vote Romney in 2012. It won't make you G_dless. Just a need to be more G_d fearing in the future.

Z said...

FJ, thanks for the advice.
You are absolutely entitled to your opinions, of course. I'll be a good steward for GOd and do all I can while accepting the obvious situation on the ground and do all I can for the best possible result.
Our Founding Fathers fought in their circumstances, too. Trusting all the way, but doing all they could.

You still don't seem to believe Romney is the nominee. Or would you vote for someone who can't win just to make sure the guy you're not 100% with loses and we get a country the Founding Fathers would never even recognize?

Impertinent said...

"My conscience tells me Romney won't do those things..."

I think he'd better. He has to point out Osamma's failures....in energy, health, racial health, the DOF, Solyndra, SS and those divisions that have caused way too much strife in the country. He has to explain his failure to arrest and indict ( his people ) the NBPP thugs....his ATF thugs...Jon Corzine thug...Holder thug...czar thugs...

Romney needs to get down and dirty. Blacks, Latinos and the rest of the perennially aggrieved won't vote for him so he shouldn't waste time or money on them.

We're now an officially divided country. So go for the right vote Ronmey.

He's just the "divisionist" in chief of a balkanized country.

Impertinent said...

I think Romney needs a super pac like Osamma's..."African hyphenated Americas for Osamma.

WASP's for Romney.

Bob said...

"Name a founder who would support Mitt Romney"

1. George Washington
2. Thomas Jefferson
3. James Madison
4. Benjamin Franklin
5. John Adams

It is hard to imagine a founder that would not have voted for Mitt Romney. Those men were realists. They were all rich, and composed the elite of the American colonies at that time.

There is a reason why Gary Johnson never got any significant number of votes. Nobody likes him. He is an outlier, and small potatoes.

If Gary Johnson were so great, people would have voted for him over Palin, Santorum, Gingrich, Paul, and the others. It didn't happen.

Bob said...

AOW said: "PS: Damn! I hate the new Blogger dashboard interface. **sigh**"

I keep trying to tell you guys that WordPress is where it is at. You can open up a free WordPress.com account in about five minutes, configure your site in another fifteen, and a couple of clicks later you can import all your Blogger articles to WordPress and not miss a thing.

In my opinion the WordPress dashboard is not perfect, but it is lightyears ahead of Blogger. I don't know why Google has let Blogger slide, but WordPress has a continual improvement process.

Sermon over.

-FJ said...

z, if I thought that Romney was going to govern on founding principles, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat.

BUt the man leads a syndicate of crony capitalists. THEY are what has gone wrong in this country. Corporations should't have both immortality AND legal protections. And the fact that they pay less taxes than individuals...

Sorry, a revolution in economic policies is needed. Mitt Romney is status quo ante Bush-lite candidate. There is no difference between Obama and Romney... except WHO gets to play "head of the syndicate". Neither offers a change and return to free-market capitalism.

-FJ said...

...and the Founders would never support a self-serving etch-a-sketch principled political HACK for president. The founders had character... Romney has none.

Thersites said...

There is another choice next November that doesn't mean more American economic malaise. And people who say that there really are no choices other than the annoited corporatists, are just plain wrong.

Thersites said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bob said...

FJ, let me help you a little. You are decrying Romney as a crony capitalist. Do you even know what crony capitalism is?

If you believe Wikipedia, it says, "Crony capitalism is a term describing an economy in which success in business depends on close relationships between business people and government officials."

By that definition, Mitt Romney is not a crony capitalist. Indeed, George Washington and Benjamin Franklin were, since both profited from their relationship with the new US Government.

Your history is wrong, and your knowledge of economics is practically non-existent. Try to do a little research before using terms like, "crony capitalism", "corporate shills", "corporatism", or any other term you pick up on MSNBC.

In particular your comments are emotional, and without factual basis. Give us examples of your assertions, and then maybe you can sway others with your gift of gab.

-FJ said...

I hate to tell you this, but George Romney is running for a govrernment job... kinda the definition of a crony capitalist.

Now Ben Franklin was a corporatist... but he advocated LIMITED corporations established to perform somevery specific and limitted functions INSTEAD of government.. ie libraries, universities, fire departments, light houses.

Now the crony part comes in when businesses depend upon government supplied contracts to survive. With Bush, it was the homeland security business. With Gore it was the carbon credit business. With Obama, it has simply been the government union business and related green energy boondoggle businesses.

Now Mitt Romney's business successes have always been through public-private partnerships ... the OLYMPICSbeing but one example. He brought in more government money than anyone else had ever imagined possible. And using public money to ensure private profit is what he does. What are the US taxpayers doing subsidizing Olympic games venues?

The founders had no problem profitting from public service. They did have a problem with the government picking winners and losers in business. So perhaps THAT explains YOUR confusion, Bob.

-FJ said...

erratum - Olympics link broken above...

-FJ said...

to quote Newt Gingrich...

"Crony capitalism in Congress is fully as bad as crony capitalism on Wall Street and they had better clean up the Congress if they expect to be re-elected".

Crony capitalism marks the source of 90% of public campaign financing... to think that lobbyists are merely extended Congressional staffers is a frequent RNC mistake when writing legislation...

-FJ said...

Had Mitt Romney gotten a federal bailout for the Salt Lake City Ollympic Games, a LOT of Mormons would have lost their shirts. And as a taxpayer, I say... "tough"!

and just a word of advice to Mitt. Corporations are NOT people. It's a sin that the legal system treats them as if they WERE. A mistake that requires a corrective.

-FJ said...

erratum "NOT gotten" above. IPad keyboards suck!

Liberalmann said...

I don't know why you're deleting my post where there are no insults included-but the same is not true with those who did read it before it was dumped. I said:

The current SCOTUS just gave corporations the same status of individuals allowing them to anonymously give as much as they want to political campaigns. Even corporations with foreign interests. You think selling our democracy by the highest bidder is good for America?

The current SCOTUS just ruled that it's OK for local police to strip search anyone who is arrested for even a minor offense including a traffic violation.

SCOTUS Clarence Thomas' wife makes ten of thousands working as a lobbyist for an anti-climate change organization. Think selling our public policy to corporations is good for America?


Right, give the SCOTUS yet another loony Conservative judge and they can complete the job of transforming America to an Oligarchy and destroy the middle class.

Wake up before it's too late.

Liberalmann said...

Impertinent said..."I think he'd better. He has to point out Osamma's failures....in energy, health, racial health, the DOF, Solyndra, SS and those divisions that have caused way too much strife in the country."

I sure wold love to sit down with you have you explain these 'failures' and how they are Obama's fault alone. I'd shred you. Leave the bombast to Fox News, eh?

Liberalmann said...

Bob said: "It is hard to imagine a founder that would not have voted for Mitt Romney. Those men were realists. They were all rich, and composed the elite of the American colonies at that time."

Sure they were. And they also wanted you to be a land owner to be able to vote. You rather go down this path towards Oligarchy?

Joe Conservative said...

Better land and shop owners voting then millions of welfare queens of Obama's America.

Land owners don't pretend that medical care and good jobs are "rights".

Joe Conservative said...

...and the founders establish a timocracy, NOT an oligarchy (the corrupt crony capital version). THAT means that winners and loosers are not titles that are government confered. HONOR is what government confers... not profits.

Liberalmann said...

The current SCOTUS just gave corporations the same status of individuals allowing them to anonymously give as much as they want to political campaigns. Even corporations with foreign interests. You think selling our democracy by the highest bidder is good for America?

The current SCOTUS just ruled that it's OK for local police to strip search anyone who is arrested for even a minor offense including a traffic violation.

SCOTUS Clarence Thomas' wife makes ten of thousands working as a lobbyist for an anti-climate change organization. Think selling our public policy to corporations is good for America?


Right, give the SCOTUS yet another loony Conservative judge and they can complete the job of transforming America to an Oligarchy and destroy the middle class.

Joe Conservative said...

In case you've never heard of a timocracy

Liberalmann said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Joe Conservative said...

The probelm is that corporations have the same legal rights as individuals...

It's a problem that Jonathan Swift recognized early... struldbruggs. They need to DIE or be limitted to specific functions that don't compete with small business owners.

Joe Conservative said...

The terrm that followed their title USED to be Ltd. (for Limited). They have, over time, become Unlimited.

Average American said...

The trouble with you Libertarian types is not your beliefs, I agree with you on almost all of them.

B U T, always trying to get the biggest apple off the highest branch of the tree, but never succeeding, is a really dumb mistake. Try grabbing a whole bunch of perfectly good apples off the lower branches.

For 40 years the Libertarians have tried to win the White House and have NEVER even come anywhere near close. With even less energy they could have many House and Senate seats by now. They would therefore have much more clout and eventually could even become an actual legitimate party. They could accomplish this WITHOUT giving the Presidency to the Demorats.

To those of you saying that you will vote for Johnson, all I can say is that I hope his dreams of 5%+ are dashed to smithereens. I hope he gets less than .00001 % of the vote. Much more than that WILL cost ALL Americans more than anyone could ever calculate. If that happens, a POX on ALL of you that do.

Average American said...

Hey Z, a very passionate comment by the Average American, and not a single cuss word! I must be slipping. heh heh heh

The Conservative Lady said...

This is a GREAT point. There's more to this election than Romney and Obama, and Americans need to take all things into consideration.

Z said...

AA, good job :-)

And I absolutely agree with you on your comment about what losing this election will cost Americans. Half of them don't even see that, or don't want to see that, or see it and feel that Socialism is just terrific! How we raised kids to think that is beyond me, but with a president slamming being successful, it isn't that far a leap, is it.

Z said...

Here's a Yahoo! title and subtitle on one of their headlines this afternoon

"Voter registration curbs could hurt Obama
New state laws enacted to fight fraud may reduce turnout and pose a problem for the president."

You just can't make this stuff up! We all know how that sounds...I'm not sure it isn't very near the truth, frankly.

Bloviating Zeppelin said...

Voting for my DOG over Obaka.

BZ

Yamba de pukin honeyant, bruz said...

Bloviating Zeppelin said...

Voting for my DOG over Obaka.



That's a No Brainer!

Ed Bonderenka said...

BZ: Don't give O a reason to eat him....

Z said...

Ed, priceless!

Impertinent said...

Best line of the week...

"It turns out U.S. Secret Service agents are the only men who can walk into a Colombian nightclub and not spot the professionals.

Are they really the guys you want protecting the president?



Yes.

Liberalmann said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Kid said...

That's quite true about the Supreme Court. One thing to say about that is the liberal judges consistently vote to remove you liberties rather than preserve them.

Outside of that, it's simple. The democrats have clearly displayed they intend to implement full blown socialism. If you think socialism will make your life better, go for it. It won't btw. Even if you're a loser it will not make your life better.

So, this is not a vote for romney or obama. It's a vote to follow socialism, or potentially not by changing horses.

Fredd said...

Joe Conservative:

Gary Johnson? Yes, I could certainly support a G. Johnson administration.

And I could also support the Tooth Fairy for Veep.

Get a grip, Joe. Reality is a tough thing sometimes to grasp, but Mitt is the guy, like or not, get behind him, he's 100000% better than another term of Obama.
\
PS> my perfect choice for president would be Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, and he has as much if not more support than Gary J.

They Say/We Say said...

Not all complaints reach the Supreme Court; deciding what is to be heard in the Supreme Court is not a crap shoot.
So, the Lower Courts finding, stay-most of the time.
That is why the Lower Courts appointees are just as if not more important than just the Supremes.
And not to forget that some Repubs appointees were supposed to be conservatives; only to find out later read into the constitution something that the most leftist libs would have.

Stanley Kowalski said...

Obama Romney... not a sliver of difference between them.

Speedy G said...

I gots ta get me some o dat O'bRomneyCare!

Speedy G said...

Republicans arguing with Demoncrats over O'bRomneyCare...

Tastes great!

Less filling!

Tastes great...

note the difference... none.

Z said...

Dear STanley Kowalski, you say
"Obama Romney... not a sliver of difference between them."

then you're not paying attention.

Affectionately,
STELLA!! :-)

Z said...

TS/WS, good point about the lower courts. Look at our boobs on the 9th Circuit ! GASP!


Fredd...Tooth Fairy :-) Great comment.

Imp...THIS president, right! HAA!!

Pris said...

I've read all the comments here and can't believe anyone would be so foolish as to vote for Gary Johnson.

HE COULDN'T EVEN COME CLOSE TO WINNING THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARY!!! Are you kidding me?

Ok Theresites, Joe, FJ, and whomever, you go to your room and pout! You can believe you're pure because you couldn't compromise, which will solve exactly nothing.

If Obama wins a second term let me remind you for the umpteenth time, that he has all his czars, who are assigned the dirty work under the radar. The hammer will then come down even harder on us.

If Obama goes, so does his team of czars, and his dictates through executive orders.

Btw, while the court approved contributions from corporations, unions already had that privilege, so don't tell me corporations are such a problem, when unions have donated many millions of their members money to the left, and have for years.

If Romney wins, his base will be conservatives, as Obama's is the far left. We conservatives can keep the pressure on a Republican President.

If Obama wins we are not only disenfranchised but considered an enemy to this administration.

I don't believe Romney will tear apart the Constitution the way Obama has. We can wish there was another Reagan, but at this time, there isn't. It's time to grow up and at least make a reasonable decision.

beamish said...

Obama may be the final destruction of this country, but at least it's a country illucid enough to believe Mitt Romney is a conservative, so we're not taking about a major loss if America goes bye bye.

-FJ said...

HE COULDN'T EVEN COME CLOSE TO WINNING THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARY!!!

He took 3rd in the CPAC Straw Poll at the beginning of the "debacle" aka "The Republican Primary".

He's a fiscal conservative. He was a two term Republican Governor. He's credible, and he's NOT Mitt Romney, the Republican moneybag go-to guy. He can win disenfranchised populists AND Independents. There are STILL six months to go, so to say "He Can't win" before the race has even begun, officially, IS a rather "presumptive" assumption... especially given the "unresponsiveness" of Republicans to populist and Tea Party sentiment. Put Sarah Palin on that ticket... and Mitt's chances "officially" become ZERO.

...and as for your comment vis a vis "corporatism"

In 1955, sales of the Fortune 500 accounted for one-third of U.S. gross domestic product. By 2004 they commanded two-thirds. This means that a few hundred corporations enveloped not only the commons but also millions of smaller firms organized as partnerships or proprietorships.

If you want to know why the economy is failing, it's because America is becoming a nation of "corporate employees and union members" INSTEAD of a "nation of shopkeepers/ owners". Crony capitalism exacerbates this problem. It's time for a "free market" AND "legal" corrective that "levels the playing field" and stops subsidizing "green" at the expense of "carbon".

-FJ said...

We conservatives can keep the pressure on a Republican President.

Like you did with George Bush?

No thanks.

-FJ said...

ps - Four more years of Obama's failed policies is NOT a very frightening prospect. There will be a Republican House, Senate and Court that will stand against him and a tide of hatred from a failed economy in 2016. Of course, Republicans WILL share in THAT blame... and a NEW party will replace the moneyed but unresponsive failure that is the RNC.

-FJ said...

The helicon days of an ever growing large corporate industrial scale economy is OVER. The result has been a bloated and increasing slothful bureaucracy, run by ever more isolated plutocratic elitists.

The economy won't recover until we trim the corporate FAT from our economy... and we can't do that with a legal system that treats unlimited 300 year old corporate "immortals" better than their VERY mortal and financially constrained "mom and pop" counterparts.

Ed Bonderenka said...

I thought the Ron Paul Cultists were fervent.
Now Gary Johnson?
Ask 100 people on the street who Gary Johnson is and they'll tell you they went to school with him, they think. Of course it won't be "that" Gary Johnson.

A country that thinks Mitt Romney is conservative ought to go bye-bye?
THAT defines illucid.

Like Pogo said: We have seen the enemy and he is us."

Z; STELLAAAAAAAAAA!

Mark said...

I believe I remember the last election when I supported Duncan Hunter. I still believe he would make a better President than McCain, but our party nominated McCain. I didn't like it, but I didn't like Obama either, and rather than be partly responsible for electing a Marxist President, I held my nose and voted for McCain.

Those commenters who insist Gary Johnson would be a better President than Romney may be right, but Johnson will not be nominated.

As usual our choice for President will be Obama or Anybody but Obama. I will vote the latter, as I did last time.

Mark said...

I went to school with a Gary Johnson.

He had red hair, and, at 5'8", was the only player on the basketball team who couldn't dunk the basketball.

He is now an insurance salesman in Kansas City.

-FJ said...

Those commenters who insist Gary Johnson would be a better President than Romney may be right, but Johnson will not be nominated.

He actually WILL be nominated and WILL appear on ballots in ALL 50 states.

I held my nose and voted for McCain, too. It got me.... what, again? It got me Romney in 2012. Sh*t for a nominee.

Let the RNC walk all over you again, if you like. But do you REALLY think that the RNC will "change" for the "better" as a result? I say, make them LOSE some elections. Maybe THEN they'll allow another REAGAN to rise... and NOT outspend him 6:1 running "negative ads" and launching investigations into illicit affairs.

Speedy G said...

The RNC and DNC have a "corporate sranglehold" on the American political system. The only way to break it is to stop "buying into the narrative" that ONLY Democrats and Republicans can EVER be majority parties. History has proven that this is a FALSE narrative. Third parties CAN and DO surplant majority parties. And we can start another NECESSARY change starting TODAY to DOWNSCALE increasingly ever-larger corporations and government

Z said...

FJ, you're bringing ALL the 'guns' out, huh? As if we're going to change our minds and not do all we can to at least try to change things for the better?
We're realists, not less enlightened, or less informed, or less interested, or less patriotic than you, trust me.
We KNOW there could have been better candidates, we KNOW the GOP elitists are busy stirring the pot, we know.
But most of us will do ANYTHING to get Obama out...ANYTHING.

By the way, if you think, once SCOTUS (hopefully) moves against ObamaCare, Romney will perpetuate it if elected, you're really smoking something strong :) That's only ONE incident we know will be better than with Obama.

Speedy G said...

...and if SCOTUS doesn't?

I'm NOT trying to change your mind, just OPEN it to possibilities. In the internet era, 6 months IS an eternity. Don't preclude better options for safer ones. That's ALL I ask.

Speedy G said...

ps At the start of this thread I was a traitor for even contemplating a non-Romney vote. Am I really a "traitor" who doesn't want the best for America? Are liberals? I don't think so.

Speedy G said...

In November, ask me again who I will vote FOR. My answer today willneverbecast in stone. ;)

Speedy G said...

...and the mere THREAT of Romney getting outflanked from the RIGHT can NEVER be a "bad" thing.

Speedy G said...

Thats how conservatives need to hold the RNC accountable. With viable and credible voter alternatives.

Speedy G said...

...and Gary Johnson is but ONE of them... obviously STILL not credible/viable ENOUGH... But 6 months is STILL a long time away, so quien sabe por cierto? Nadie.

Speedy G said...

Rome may not have been builtin a Day... but polls can literally change "overnight".

Speedy G said...

A parting sentiment for all you Romney realists...

Lisa said...

"The current SCOTUS just ruled that it's OK for local police to strip search anyone who is arrested for even a minor offense including a traffic violation."

Hey Lib bit you agree with Obama saying American citizens can be held indefinitely without a trial right? Or a little kid or old lady getting felt up by the TSA?
Nobody is getting strip searched unless they are brought into jail for suspicious behavior ,not just a traffic violation.
Anyone who goes to jail has to get searched.

Z said...

Speedy...if I said you're a traitor, then I apologize. I can't imagine I said that.
Of course you're not a traitor for not supporting Romney, I just don't SEE AN ALTERNATIVE. And six months aren't going to bring one ..and, if they did, what disarray the Right would be in. The party that thinks things through, which doesn't just accept one person's views, the one who puts America first the most, and in such disarray they'll hand the country to the left again.

And yes, I DO think far leftists are traitors to what made this country great and still could...I think people who believe their neighbors make too much money are traitors to America's philosophy of applauding success. I think people who support debauchery and cheap sex and thievery, etc., in films/TV/etc., are traitors for hurting our children. I think people who would hand our sovereignty to any world court in any way is a traitor to our country. I think people who appease our enemies in the stupidity that they'll then like us, keep doing so, keep experiencing how it's only weakened us, and still appease are traitors.
I think a president who insults the Right and everything about it in such horrible terms of disdain and dismissiveness is a traitor to democracy and the different opinions which made this country great.
Need I continue?

beamish said...

A country that thinks Mitt Romney is conservative ought to go bye-bye?
THAT defines illucid.


Do you think Mitt Romney is a conservative?

Why?

Z said...

I want to add something about liberals and America.

I don't mean all Democrats. I hope that went without saying.

Moynihan, O'Neil, Kennedy (who'd be a Republican today, of course), etc. were Democrats who loved America and just wanted its success arrived at by different means. Most democrats today, I believe, must want America's success, sovereignty, safety and democracy. They know capitalism works when greed can be kept to a minimum (by the way, socialism's all about greed by the rulers, so let's not be too harsh on capitalism anymore with that silly canard that capitalism is the evil choice)...they don't want the FUNDAMENTAL CHANGES Obama wants to make...

Big difference to those leftwingers I described here, those who comment here at geeeZ, etc.

Bob said...

FJ said, "...helicon days". I believe he meant halcyon.

FJ. You really need to pay better attention to your terminology. Like your mis-interpretation of the term, "crony capitalism", these mistakes can take away from your intended meaning in the comments.

It would be interesting to know where you get your hatred of corporations. Your comments sound much like Marxist propaganda, even though I don't think you want to leave that impression.

It's OK to beat up on Romney. He can take it. But, it would help if you could demonstrate that you know what you are talking about in terms of getting your definitions straight.

Thersites said...

The party that thinks things through, which doesn't just accept one person's views, the one who puts America first the most, and in such disarray they'll hand the country to the left again.

Disarray, in this case, would not be a bad thing.

At some point a new coalition of anti-corporate, anti-government factions needs to form. It's important that they NOT be lead by forces bent upon Pro-government and/or Pro-corporate policies... but rather focused on creating community spaces where governments and corporations cannot intrude. A personal/individual zone of negative liberty and individual sovereignty and privacy where people can't force us to do what THEY believe "is best for us".

The Republicans aren't "there" yet. In 2001, they reverted to Bush "big compassionate government", intellectual-elite controlled policies which grew the % of gdp directed by government to WWII record levels. In 2009, Democrats and ObamaCare added another 18% of the economy to THAT chunk of government controlled, intellectual elite directed, pie.

Four more years of Obama policies may destroy America sooner than four more years of Bush- compassionate- conservatism... but we need to REVERSE those budget-busting policies as well, for they are bankruptng us all.

-FJ said...

these mistakes can take away from your intended meaning in the comments.

So what? I'm not George Will. I don't have the time or inclination to edit my comments and check them before hitting the publish button on my Ipad. And you were smart enough to figure out what I was trying to say... even is you still disingenuously claim that I don't know what "crony capitalism" is.

And ps, I don't "hate" corporations. They're very useful entities... in moderation. But they're out of control. 2/3 of gdp controlled by 500 corporations can't be a "good" thing.

As for my "leftist" sounding tendencies, Marx's critique of capital was not entirely "baseless". I prefer Jonathan Swift's and Adam Smith's, but that's beside the point.

Leftist arguments need to be read, understood, AND taken seriously. Corporate reform is a serious issue and the Left could be an ally in helping to limit unbridled corporate expansion. The right has been blindly "defending" corporatism for FAR too many years, and that needs to stop. But then the Left loves government expansion. That too, must be stopped.

Z said...

FJ, for pete's sake, everyone believes corporations should be limited in many ways. Loopholes have to be closed, off-shore finagling has to stop, etc...

And, disarray is a TERRIBLE THING at this point in America's future! Disarray means OBAMA WINS, and you just have to admit that!? We need to STOP OBAMA and then DEAL WITH THINGS...THEN rely on Ryan, Canter, Haley, etc to turn things around. They need to find a voice in telling Americans that we won't survive if spending doesn't stop.
People get that.

-FJ said...

btw - Helicon is a Mountain in Greece where the Tiresia's once caught a glimpse of Athena "naked" in her bath (in a great Tennyson poem). It's also the site of the Horse Springs, where the Muses bathe. So cut me some slack. I've read far too many Greek myths and if I confuse Helicon w/halcyon, I blame it on the phonetically based word index in cerebral cortex. Some of Broca's pathways aren't always as well travelled as Wernecke's.

-FJ said...

We need to STOP OBAMA and then DEAL WITH THINGS

...or Not, and deal with things. Either way, we need to DEAL with things. Romney has an "increased corporative-government" cooperation solution for our economic problems. That will make "DEALING" with the corporate AND government size problems OFF-LIMITS as TRILLIONS in corporate subsidies (and future American debt) get distributed and millions of civil servants get hired to monitor the new corporate welfare.

-FJ said...

America's economic re-organization will be painful. Do you really want to do it TWICE?

-FJ said...

...and those who believe that we can put off and defer the painful economic reorganization that is coming are living in denial. It's going to happen... if not SOONER, then most certainly, LATER.

We've already passed the "tipping point". That the government can't pass a budget should REALLY tell you something.

-FJ said...

Paul Ryan's budget isn't going to save us. It's far too little, and far too late.

-FJ said...

Reagan's cure for the economy was painful. This time, the cure may even be "fatal".

They Say/We Say said...

A third party Pres. isn't going to do anything without a third party controlled Congress!
The UN has complete control over the Senior Members of both isles.
That would only convince both party's (Dems. and Repub's.) to vote together with veto-prof Bills; only if we had enough Tea Party members to lessen a Veto-Prof Bill.
As far as Corporate Monopolies - ie...Employees, goes with saying, that the only real solution is for everyone to be a contract labor 1099 small business person and pay our own taxes! That would set the course of the country some where near the correct course.

beamish said...

Though I'm not on board with the committed far left Naderite FJ's anti-corporate "you're either a grandma killer or a totalitarian" binary agitprop, I do see a distinct advantage in seeing the Republican Party take a devastating loss this election. If the Democrats keep the Senate and take back the House, even better.

Better than than "conservatism" being blamed for Romney screwing things up further.

beamish said...

better THAT than, rather.

Thersites said...

Sorry beamish, but euthanizing your grandma to save you from paying some Social Security taxes will never be in the cards. Eichmann and Goerring won't ever turn THAT far right.

sullying the "conservative" label is the least of America's problems..

Thersites said...

I wish it were THAt simple (1099s).

But the government corporate tax break game has GOT to end. Nobody I know gets a 3 year tax holiday for relocating to Maryland.

And the second you try and tax them, 99% of corporations will transfer their operations off shore. This is where and why the commies insist upon "internationalism"

beamish said...

Sorry beamish, but euthanizing your grandma to save you from paying some Social Security taxes will never be in the cards. Eichmann and Goerring won't ever turn THAT far right.

Of course they wouldn't. The Nazis were far left like yourself, and signed up for totalitarianism - and got the grandma killing anyway.

sullying the "conservative" label is the least of America's problems.

It's clearly a symptom. A pro-abortion, pro-embryonic stem cell research, pro-gay marriage, pro-leftist judicial nominator from America's most left-wing state - making the Republican candidate Romney easily more left-wing than Obama himself - is the problem.

You got yourself caught up in Romney's bought-and-paid-for far left Tea Party Movement, now marshalled behind Romney's promise to restore $500 Billion to your fellow Baby Doomer communist's beloved Medicare debt generator, and I'm sorry for that.

Perhaps if people blithely calling themselves "conservative" without a whit of knowledge of what conservatism actually is weren't doing so, the greater of America's problems would have never been realized.

We sure as hell wouldn't be trying to soothe ourselves with an avalanche of articles from "conservative" magazines and websites all trumpeting what Romney "should say" to convince conservatives he's on their side.

I mean, if he really was on conservatism's side, would he really need primers?

beamish said...

eftist arguments need to be read, understood, AND taken seriously.

That is totally not the problem.

beamish said...

We don't need to "understand" leftist views, we need to stop entertaining them.

Thersites said...

The only conservative in beamish's vocabulary is himself.

And he's about as consistent in the use of the term as George Bush and Mitt Rpomney are. It means whatever he chooses it to mean at the moment.

Grow up, little boy.

Z said...

Don't tell me we're killing grandmother again

SCdottr2012 said...

I cannot uderstand the need some people seem to have to sabotage any hopes of winning elections by coming up with some person that no one really knows about.
Yet this great unknown is somehow held up as being better than the person who is actually getting the votes.

Listen, I lived in New Mexico while Mr.Gary Johnson was governor.
So sorry but he just lucked into that because the Dems pretty much run that state. Been that way for years.

SCdottr2012 said...

I cannot uderstand the need some people seem to have to sabotage any hopes of winning elections by coming up with some person that no one really knows about.
Yet this great unknown is somehow held up as being better than the person who is actually getting the votes.

Listen, I lived in New Mexico while Mr.Gary Johnson was governor.
So sorry but he just lucked into that because the Dems pretty much run that state. Been that way for years.

Kid said...

This gary johnson thing is either someone holding their breath and stomping their feet because the 'perfect' candidate isn't in focus, or more likely, this is the DNC hitting conservative blogs trying to motivate non-oblabber voters to stay home. It's the main way they'll win. It's how they won in 08.

Thersites said...

So what is you point, SCdottr? Last time I checked, Massachusetts (Romney's alma mater) was a Democrat controlled state as well...

Thersites said...

Obama won in '08 because the economy DIED in '08 after 8 years of Republican stewardship.

what part of TOO BIG TO FAIL don't you economic catastrophe denialists understand? It happened almost entirely on the Republicans watch?

Sam Huntington said...

@ Ms. Z

We must greatly admire our founding fathers, who within a mere four months gave us our Constitution, and in less than one year incorporated our Bill of Rights.

In contrast, were it left to most of the people in this discussion thread, we would still be operating according to the Articles of Confederation.

Thersites said...

Electing another Republican won't SOLVE anything. Republicans don't even SEE the problem. Obama's financial backers merely continued the Bush economic program, with a tilt towards green instead of homeland security.

At least Gary Johnson will throw out the current tax code. Romney's simply going to reduce corporate taxes (highest in the world) in the vain hope that he isn't going to start a worldwide corporate tax relief bidding war for corporate investment. The problem will get WORSE, not better. EVERY small business will be eaten up by the Fortune 500..

Thersites said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Thersites said...

Given the centralization of federal power since the Revolution, a return to the Articles of Confeederation might actually restore some local independence.

But then, why have 50 boards of directors when one will do, eh, Sam? Bigger is always better!

Kid said...

Hey Ther. Democrats ruled Congress from 2006 on. While I'd agree that Republicans were about as useful as a school of fish the first 6 years They had control and they overspent, it was the 'house for everyone' started by jimmy cater and quadrupled down on by bubba clinton that brought the house of cards down. Republicans were warning about that very thing from 2005.

Economies don't often move on the head of a dime. Things take years to have any measurable Positive effect on an economy. By the same token, imbeciles like the democrats can totally destroy an economy in a very short period of time. Takeaway: It's really had to make things better but it is easy as hell to screw things up.

Things are a little more complicated than you liberals would like to believe. Understanding takes a little education and effort. It's obvious you're added little to one of both components.

Thersites said...

Maybe the GSA can hire some contractors to teach Prostitution negotiation skills to Secret Service agents in Vegas next year. The government could never possibly get to big so as to become bloated and/or inefficient.

Kid said...

Hey Ther... You don't have to SCREAM. Conservatives are capable of reading and comprehension.

Won't you be surprised when you find out everything that CNN and msnbc haven't been telling you ;-)

Thersites said...

lol!

Yes, please,kid edumacate us liberals some.

Kid said...

Hey Ther... while you concentrate on the minute. (Ok, it probably does take all your energy..) Big things are happening to your world. See if you can figure out a way to find out what they are. Would be my best advice to you.

Thersites said...

I gots ta go tune in some Clinton News Network and MSNBC talking points else I can't think clearly....

Kid said...

"lol!

Yes, please,kid edumacate us liberals some. "

No thanks. Do your own research. I don't care about you enough. You don't display any desire to help yourself and that is the first component of me deciding to help you.

Thersites said...

MYbe I should swiitch to FOX and start listening to Rushmore like you.

Z said...

"Thersites said...
I gots ta go tune in some Clinton News Network and MSNBC talking points else I can't think clearly...."

YOU said it, NOT US :-)

But..seriously, no, Thersites (et al) is not a lefty plant.

But Kid's got a point.

So's my friend SCDottr..sounds like Johnson got elected and never did much for the state?? Just let the Dems continue to control?

Sam... yes, BELIEVE me, I admire the Founding Fathers IMMENSELY!!
All they did in a relatively short time is almost miraculous.

Z said...

Thersites: I don't know who you're addressing, but I haven't listened to a total of one hour of Rush in my entire life.

Thersites said...

Heck maybe I should even go to college and take a degree in smartness like you got.

Kid said...

Ok, Ther, I'll give you this much, just to clear the air a bit.

I don't watch FOX, can't stand it.
I don't listen to Rush, have no desire to live in the transmission (as in gearbox), of politics. I also don't agree with much of what he's talking about anyway. It's just as diversionary as anything from the other side.
I also don't listen to hannity.

Hint Numba 1, stuff that comes to you free and easy over widespread channels is usually worthless or misleading.

You want some reality delivered in an excellent manner? Try these.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=FB3BcUKmSlo#!

Part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vNhtoY_pu7o

Kid said...

Ther. No college will just set you back even more.

Thersites said...

I knew the Republicans were too smart to sell houses to poor people... only please explain the following...

For 1996, HUD required that 12 percent of all mortgage purchases by Fannie and Freddie be “special affordable” loans, typically to borrowers with income less than 60% of their area’s median income. That number was increased to 20% in 2000 and 22% in 2005. The 2008 goal was to be 28%. Between 2000 and 2005, Fannie and Freddie met those goals every year, funding hundreds of billions of dollars worth of loans, many of them subprime and adjustable-rate loans, and made to borrowers who bought houses with less than 10% down.

Did Jimmy Carter make them do it?

Thersites said...

Somuch for Republican "warnings" in 2005....

Kid said...

Ther. Ok, now I'm feeling playful, and you didn't come back with insults, which is a plus in your favor.

Ask yourself this question. No need to reply.

What does the federal government do for you? part II What do they do that makes you feel like a customer who would otherwise be willing to give them more of your money or power over you.

IMO, That's the first thing you gotta figure out if you are going to vote to give them more power over you and take more of your money. Maybe you're not a tax payer now, but likely you will be. How much of either are you willing to hand over to imcompetents and criminals?

Tea Party is the only thing left that might do us some good, if they get enough members in Congress. The dems are evil and enemies of liberty, the repubs are useless, and this train is headed for a cliff.

That's it in a nutshell.

Lisa said...

I know why liberals always demonize Fox and Rush. Because they don't like that we find out things they prefer for us not to know,like the democrats who are speaking out against Obama's Health Care plan and not to mention everything else we wouldn't know about if we depended on MSNBC for all our info.

Kid said...

Ther. Yea, jimmy carter started the while thing. bubba clinton threatened to sue lenders who denied low quality applicants home loans. This became the mantra of fannie and freddie.
Could the repubs have reversed it in 6 years? I don't think so, but I'm also not saying the republicans are the answer to anything. I'm just saying they didn't start all this.

As for current events, the dems over the last 3 years have clearly demonstrated their intention to take America full bore socialism.

If you think socialism will make your life better go for it. But it has to make anyone's life better. Anywhere. Ever.

Kid said...

socialism has yet to make anyone's life better...

Z said...

Oh, GEE, Thersites, don't TELL me Republicans aren't PERFECT ALL THE TIME...and here I was thinkin.... :-)

I guess I'll NEVER vote fer one uh dem, huh?

ANYBODY BUT OBAMA, get it?

JOHNSON WILL NOT BE THE CANDIDATE BUT HE COULD PEROT US RIGHT INTO ANOTHER FOUR YEARS OF NIGHTMARE.

Great choice, Thersites!!??

beamish said...

The only conservative in beamish's vocabulary is himself.

And he's about as consistent in the use of the term as George Bush and Mitt Rpomney are. It means whatever he chooses it to mean at the moment.


No, "conservative" has a very clear, specific meaning that can't be stretched to include far left Naderite parasites who wail for unlimited guarantees on Social Security and Medicare and other government handouts like yourself.

Instead of, you know, trying on some of that personal responsibility stuff actual conservatives are familiar with.

beamish said...

Tea Party is the only thing left that might do us some good, if they get enough members in Congress.

No, Kid, no. There are too many of Romney's bought and paid for Tea Party bloc in Congress already.

We need conservatives, not Tea Party dipshits. There is a difference.

beamish said...

Don't tell me we're killing grandmother again

Fj's leftist hymnal has but one song.

beamish said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Elmers Brother said...

FJ you're looking at this all wrong. This is nothing more than the establishment Republican's form of card check.

beamish said...

ANYBODY BUT OBAMA, get it?

Why not me? Or you? Write in your cat's name?

Sure, Obama must go, but why trade him for someone more left-wing than he is, like Romney?

Elmers Brother said...

Great choice, Thersites!!??

As opposed to no choice...you betcha.

Elmers Brother said...

socialism has yet to make anyone's life better...

replace 'socialism' with 'politics' and you'll be closer to the truth

beamish said...

This is nothing more than the establishment Republican's form of card check.

I'm not interested in a Republican Party that ignores its own primary delegate allocation rules to give Romney more delegates than he actually won.

Elmers Brother said...

Any conservative that does not vote for Mitt Romney in this election (since he is the only candidate that has a credible chance against Obama) is as stupid as dirt, and a traitor to this nation.

would you like to take away my military retirement too?

Elmers Brother said...

I'm not interested in a Republican Party that ignores its own primary delegate allocation rules to give Romney more delegates than he actually won.

Neither am I, I was being sarcastic.

beamish said...

Neither am I, I was being sarcastic.

Right there with you. :)

beamish said...

Republican unity strategery:

1. Insist that the election / re-election of [insert Democrat's name here] will be the worst crisis America has ever faced since the last election cycle

2. Repeat

beamish said...

Any conservative that does not vote for Mitt Romney in this election (since he is the only candidate that has a credible chance against Obama) is as stupid as dirt, and a traitor to this nation.

And the horse you rode in on.

As a conservative, I'm faced with two electable candidates who are far too extremely left-wing for my tastes. So I have to knuckle down and vote for the "more conservative" of the two candidates.

That candidate is easily Barack Obama.

beamish said...

Maybe Romney can win independent and Democrat votes with a "look here folks, 75% of Republicans hate my guts" strategy.

But I wouldn't count on it.

beamish said...

If Romney's Free and Strong America Tea-stablishment PAC kicks Comrade Bachmann some campaign cash, do you think she'll campaign for him?

Elmers Brother said...

She'd do it for a corndog.

Z said...

completely off topic but utterly fascinating:

They don't EAT dog in Indonesia..it's against the law because the large amount of Muslims there don't like anybody doing what they don't do, right?
Ya, apparently, Obama's family would have had to go on the black market to find dog meat ready to cook. So, unless they killed and cooked their own pet, it never happened. Odd, isn't it.

beamish said...

Hey, if Bill Ayers wrote that Obama ate dog meat as a child, it's the gospel truth.

Thersites said...

Ther. Yea, jimmy carter started the while thing. bubba clinton threatened to sue lenders who denied low quality applicants home loans. This became the mantra of fannie and freddie.

That still doesn't explain why HUD targets FOR "BAD" LOANS were raised and raised again (2005/2008)... unless Jimmy Carter was still president... (and I suspect you may know this... he WASN'T!)

Thersites said...

btw - You may NOT know this, HUD is NOT a part of FREDDIE/FANNIE and is not a "Government Sponsored Entity", but the very government (Executive Branch) itself, and controlled by the Chief Executive (aka - President).

Thersites said...

Andrew Cuomo was HUD Secretary under Clinton. He raised targets before he left office in 2000... but then Bush's HUD Secretary RAISED THEM AGAIN!

Yes, the Republicans make mistake. But "why" do they make them?

I believe that it is because they are "blind" to their interests. yes, corporations are wonderful employers who provide jobs for millions of people... but can one EVER have "too much of a good thing"?

When Walmart puts millions of private mom & pop enterprises OUT of business, is THAT what's "best" for America? When Bank of America buys up all the local banks that were stuck with the HUD mandated non-performing loans, is THAT a "good" thing?

Too Big to Fail is rapidly becoming Too BIGGER to FAIL. Under Romney, it will become, Too BIGGEST to FAIL. And "fail" it eventually, WILL.

In 2002, 10 top banks controlled over 50% of America's banking assets. Today, it's 77%... and under a Romney presidency, who knows, 95%???

Bigger isn't ALWAYS better. Water is GREAT. Too much water, you drown.

Thersites said...

I know why liberals always demonize Fox and Rush.

I'm sorry, did I denounce them? If I did, I apologize, but if I didn't...

Thersites said...

far left Naderite parasites who wail for unlimited guarantees on Social Security and Medicare and other government handouts like yourself.

...as opposed to those who insist that in the name of "conservative values" current benefits be terminated immediately and those dependent upon them thrown into the street with beamish's grandma.

-FJ said...

See how easy it is to mischaracterize other people's positions, beamish?

Only, it's okay when you do it, but G_d forbid someone should EVER do it to you... that's, THAT's FAR-OUT LEFTISM TALKIN"!

BWAH!

Thersites said...

In case your wondering, Lisa, I'm a liberal only in the "classical" sense... not the "progressive" sense.

Thersites said...

and kid...

What does the federal government do for you? part II What do they do that makes you feel like a customer who would otherwise be willing to give them more of your money or power over you.

Are you sure we're having the same conversation? My argument is that BOTH big-government AND big-corporations are bad. I'm not saying, "make government bigger" so that THEY can make corporations smaller." I'm saying, "write some smart laws that restrict the size and spans of control of BOTH!"

Laws that get the government out of the "choosing economic winners and losers" business (that penalize incandescent light bulb manufactures to subsidize l.e.d. light bulb manufacturers) and into the "ensuring a level playing field with small businesses and individual businesses and don't favour the "behemoth" corporations with underserved tax breaks.

Thersites said...

I don't WANT a $40,000 Chevy Volt. I can't AFFORD a $40,000 Chevy Volt.

Forcing me to BUY a $40,000 Chevy Volt isn't something that the government should be attempting to do. Especially when their taxpayer subsidies are putting Ford at a competitive disadvantage.

Bob said...

FJ said: "So what? I'm not George Will. I don't have the time or inclination to edit my comments ..."

That's funny. I'm sure nobody ever accused you of resembling George Will.

As to Mitt Ronmey, by definition he is not a crony capitalist. He has not relied on government for his wealth. His wealth was made before he got involved in politics. Your prototypical crony capitalist pair is Barack Obama and Geoffrey Imelt, CEO of GE. Check it out.

Your utterances about the size of corporations is meaningless. Just because things have changed in 50 years doesn't mean that things are bad because of corporations. That's the kind of mindless drivel you hear from Marxists.

The government is the problem in the economy, not corporations. Can you pick up on that clue?

Thersites said...

He has not relied on government for his wealth.

lol!

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that Mitt Romney had earned all his money standing on a street corner and shining shoes. I was under the misapprehension that he might have used his connections to secure government loans and subsidies for the companies he bought and re-organized while with Bain Capital, like he did when he got the government to help subsidize Olympic venues and events in Salt Lake City, and that he might be attempting to prevent competing interests from doing likewise...

...the very definition of crony capitalism.

The government is indeed the problem... so how is Mitt being able to help out HIS corporate friends through government contacts better than Obama helping HIS, again?

Thersites said...

Oh, wait, I guess he DIDN'T get all his money from shining shoes. My bad....

Mr. Romney’s disclosure is sure to reignite complaints that private equity executives — among the nation’s wealthiest individuals — get preferential tax treatment. Private equity executives are taxed at the capital gains rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings, a rate well below the 35 percent tax on ordinary income. Certain hedge fund managers, real estate investors and venture capitalists also earn much of their pay in the form of carried interest.

Most of Mr. Romney’s income comes from distributions by Bain Capital, the private equity firm that he left in 1999. A large percentage of his wealth remains invested in Bain’s funds.

The White House, which has long expressed support for raising the tax rate on these investment managers, immediately seized on Mr. Romney’s acknowledgment. The president’s spokesman said Tuesday that the 15 percent tax rate reveals unfairness in the tax code.

The bulk of private equity executives’ compensation comes in the form of carried interest, which is the 20 percent cut of a fund’s profits they keep for themselves. If a private equity firm sells a company for a $1 billion profit, the firm’s executives are entitled to keep $200 million as a performance fee. (Mr. Romney’s former firm, Bain Capital, because of its superior investment record, keeps 30 percent of the profits in many of its funds.)


He made his money by helping a big corporation (Bain Capital) buy/re-sell smaller corporations after they would defraud the government into paying Medicaid reimbursements for unnecessary blood tests and claim "profiatbility" on their newly dressed up financial statements....

Thersites said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
SCdottr2012 said...

My point about Mr. Johnson is , that getting a good paying job in New Mexico, was about impossible.
Unless one lived in one of two -3cities in that state.
So, seeing as how people need jobs , this man, is not the savior some are touting.
But, to Perot an election is fast becoming the main strategy for keeping something or someone else from getting a chance at doing some good.

Call me delusional but I thought there was a problem with our economy and revenues.


The man did not cause prosperity to come to New Mexico. In fact, more jobs left. That's why my husband and I left.

Thersites said...

I agree, people need jobs. Corporations can be very efficient job creators. But people who go to "work" for "someone else" aren't nearly as diligent and/or risk-tolerant as people who "work for themselves". They tend to "sit on their hands" and "let others do"... are afraid to "make mistakes." They are not nearly "independent" minded as business owners.

At one time, America was chock FULL of independent risk takers. Farmers, small businessmen... and those self-employed and largely "independent souls" are mostly gone now.

Now, even their kids all go to college and attempt to take the "safe" route to prosperity... only the "safe route" has become clogged and 1/3 to 1/2 of all college graduates aren't finding jobs. A college education no longers prepares one for the workforce, as steady "established" jobs have become fewer and fewer. A job taken today is likely to be obsolete in three years. And if you want a "union" job, you'll find yourself on a second-tier payscale with half the benefits that older workers enjoy.

But the "reason" why Mr. Johnson was unable to turn the economy in New Mexico around is largely for the same reasons that Obama has been unable to turn the US economy around.

Corporations aren't investing in the highest taxed country in the free world. The smart corporate money is being invested in Asia and India, with low tax rates and low employment investment costs. There are no "green" restrictions there either on manufacturing equipment.

A corporate manager who recommends siting a factory in the US would be looked at as "crazy" by his risk-averse peers. Corporate managers are worried about this quarter's profits, not whether or not their neighbor has a good paying (but more costly to him) job.

And the only way to turn this situation around is to disadvantage corporate structures that vertically concentrate investment wealth and resources in the 1% and outsource jobs overseas.

CEO's earn exorbenant salaries not because their services are "worth" what they earn, but because so much wealth is concentrated in ever fewer and fewer large corporate entities.

Corporations should also pay dividends instead of amassing huge capital war chests and spending them on mergers and acquisitions. The investors should benefit NOT only when the "SELL" their shares, but also when they HOLD them. Stock TRADING shouldn't make people rich, stock HOLDING should.

But we need a new tax code. Mitt Romney shouldn't pay 15% while the rest of us pay 30%+ Perhasps corporations should have to pay a 50% tax whenever they merge with other companies and/or are granted an "immortality extension" on a LIMITED corporate charter. This would squeeze a lot more "corporate money" back into the general economy... provided they all didn't simply high tail it for the Caimen Islands or some other "tax haven" (which is exactly what Romney & Co. would do despite all their protesations of "love" for America.

Thersites said...

Here's the deal, though. If Mitt Romney is elected, he'll reduce corporate tax rates. That'll bring jobs to America... for a while... until the other nations respond by lowering THEIR corporate tax rates.

...and the cycle will continue, wealth concentrating ever upwards, Walmart putting more & more mom & pop shops out of business, small businesses being bought out and merged into ever bigger corporate entities, and a nation of shopkeepers will continue to get converted into a nation of shoppers, as the S&P 500 control of gdp rises from 66% to 75-80%.

Romney's election may also bring short-run prosperity... but will have solved nothing in terms of establishing a healthy and/or robust economy and fostering "independence" in the minds of millions. After all, the game wil prove to once again have been "fixed". Too big to fail has allowed the wealthy to privitize their gains, and make the public pay for their losses (the CC-PP Game)

As the "populist" President, Andrew Jackson, stated in 1834 upon the closing of the Second Bank of the United States, "I have had men watching you for a long time and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the Bank. ... You are a den of vipers and thieves.

Liberalmann said...

‪Kid‬ said...
"I don't watch FOX, can't stand it."

Bill Whittle lies even more than Fox News.

"the dems over the last 3 years have clearly demonstrated their intention to take America full bore socialism."

Really? Explain how instead of parroting the tired old talking points.

Z said...

libman, you aren't man enough to wipe Bill Whittle's shoes.

Of course socialism is next unless you're simply not paying attention.
Maybe you don't know what REDISTRIBUTION means, I hate to be hard on you if you're just that ignorant?

How about a president who decides when someone's made enough money? Want me to link that video for you? You don't have to READ you can listen.

Honestly, I hate being this unkind but it's kind of fun ;-)

Other than that,
When you understand Obamacare, you'll wake up.

We've also never had a president act like capitalism is the scum of this earth. Gad, it's like he was raised in Indonesia or something!

Kid said...

liberalboy, here's my one comment to you in case you're in suspense over there...

I won't ever be addressing your comments. Your lack of intelligence is so huge, there is no way you and I could communicate. Like a parent trying to talk to a 3 yr old. It's that simple.

Enjoy yourself and I hope you'll be good to your fellow man. That's probably the pinnacle of what we can ask of you.

Liberalmann said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Kid said...

Ther, you said "Are you sure we're having the same conversation? My argument is that BOTH big-government AND big-corporations are bad. I'm not saying, "make government bigger" so that THEY can make corporations smaller." I'm saying, "write some smart laws that restrict the size and spans of control of BOTH!"
"

You're speaking more intelligently today, but no, I suspect we are not having the same conversation.

Think of it this way. There is enough regulation on business and big corporations. But there is No Regulation on government.

When the democrats pass the HC bill without one repub vote that will take over 1/6th of the American economy, and the then Speaker of the House says "We have to pass it so we can know what's in it", and when 70% of the American public are against it. (We can assume 30% of the public are morons no?) So we can say 100% of the public is against it, then there is no regulation on government. Checks and balances? Fairy tale. Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness? Out the window.

I'll take corporations over government everyday.

I can decide which corporation to give my money to in the majority of cases.

Everything that I value in my life (House, car, food, energy) comes from a corporation. The only thing the Fed provides (and much less of with oblabber) is National Defense.

If the government was responsible for 'providing' all those things, we'd all be driving and slaves to chevy volts. Our houses would be built like crap, food would be about worthless, and you'd have 4 channels on the TV set, all government sponsored crap.

Dig?

Maybe that's a plainer description of what I'm saying.

Z said...

liberal...Kid's right.
I wish you all the best.

You're deleted again. You just don't make any sense and your 'facts' are, frankly, NUTS.

thanks!

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 235   Newer› Newest»