| Author |
Message |
|
| livinliberal |
Posted - 11/3/2012 10:06:29 AM | show profile | flag this post
Funny how Mitt did exactly what his campaign manager said...after the primaries he suddenly etch a sketched himself from a hard core con to a much more centrist candidate...all of a sudden not making a $5 Trillion tax cut, denying he wanted Detroit to go bankrupt, etc. Major flip flop on every issue yet the conservatives TV "journalists" let him slide on every issue. Just shows how the cons control what goes over the airwaves. Fortunately the majority of the people saw right through the bullshit and are going to pull the lever for Obama...I am still not convinced of a win but feeling better as we get closer. Hard to think how screwed we will be if Romney wins...
|
|
| mpdodgson |
Posted - 11/3/2012 11:56:54 AM | show profile | flag this post
"THROUGH ALL THE flip-flops,
there has been one consistency in the campaign of Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney: a contempt for the electorate.
How else to explain his refusal to disclose essential information? Defying recent bipartisan tradition, he failed to release the names of his bundlers — the high rollers who collected hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations. He never provided sufficient tax returns to show voters how he became rich.
How, other than an assumption that voters are too dim to remember what Mr. Romney has said across the years and months, to account for his breathtaking ideological shifts? He was a friend of immigrants, then a scourge of immigrants, then again a friend. He was a Kissingerian foreign policy realist, then a McCain-like hawk, then a purveyor of peace. He pioneered Obamacare, he detested Obamacare, then he found elements in it to cherish. Assault weapons were bad, then good. Abortion was okay, then bad. Climate change was an urgent problem; then, not so much. Hurricane cleanup was a job for the states, until it was once again a job for the feds.
The same presumption of gullibility has infused his misleading commercials (see: Jeep jobs to China) and his refusal to lay out an agenda. Mr. Romney promised to replace the Affordable Care Act but never said with what. He promised an alternative to President Obama’s lifeline to young undocumented immigrants but never deigned to describe it.
And then there has been his chronic, baldly dishonest defense of mathematically impossible budget proposals. He promised to cut income tax rates without exploding the deficit or tilting the tax code toward the rich — but he refused to say how he could bring that off. When challenged, he cited “studies” that he maintained proved him right. But the studies were a mix of rhetoric, unrealistic growth projections and more serious economics that actually proved him wrong.
(Romney) seems to be betting that voters have no memories, poor arithmetic skills and a general inability to look behind the curtain. We hope the results Tuesday prove him wrong.
(WaPo oped)
|
|
| cruiser |
Posted - 11/3/2012 1:11:04 PM | show profile | flag this post
I'm not surprised
to see WaPo try to prop up Obama. Most (all?) of the left-leaning dailies do that. One can only hope their efforts are too little, too late.
"after the primaries he (Romney) suddenly etch a sketched himself from a hard core con to a much more centrist candidate"
This is what candidates for president of BOTH parties ALWAYS do...play to their bases during the primaries and move to the center for the general election.
The person who posted this must be a novice in following presidential politics.
|
|
| mpdodgson |
Posted - 11/3/2012 3:23:11 PM | show profile | flag this post
Well, that's true....
"play to their bases during the primaries and move to the center for the general election."
But, seriously--NO ONE has ever reached the extortionist proporations Romney has. Total flip on every single major issue of the day.
IF/When he loses, the screams from the Right that he wasn't conservative enough will be ear shattering.
|
|
| cruiser |
Posted - 11/3/2012 3:42:43 PM | show profile | flag this post
EXtortionist???
That's a pretty serious charge.
|
|
| etaoin shrdlu |
Posted - 11/3/2012 11:42:03 PM | show profile | flag this post
For all the NRA members...
among our "casual readers":
Remember, only one candidate among those running for President on Tuesday has ever signed a gun control bill -- or supported one.
Yep.
Mitt Romney.
Tuesday is the death of the TEA Party.
No matter who wins, America will have a flaming liberal in the White House.
|
|
| mpdodgson |
Posted - 11/4/2012 12:00:34 AM | show profile | flag this post
Now that's just not fair
Mitt was all fir gun control. Then against it. ObamaCare? Not that evil. Pro choice-then not. Global Warming a crisis, then not so much, tax the rich, then not, oh the list is endless
http://www.whichmitt.com/quiz
With all due respect etaoin, I don't think Tuesday will be the "death of the "Tea Party" unfortunately, they'll just grumble along. Same with the Grover Norquist crowd--the second President Romney has to raise taxes 0.0001% he'll be betrayed and pissed.
And this is the killer--for the first four years of a Romney presidency he is going to be responsible for a $15 Trillion dollar national debt--if it doesn;t disapear immeditely--it's the LAST GUYS fault. Yea. Ya don't think we're going to remind him of that rhetoric??
|
|
| cruiser |
Posted - 11/4/2012 10:35:01 AM | show profile | flag this post
Let's put this in proper perspective
There have been 44 presidents of the United States over a span of 220 years. The total national debt accumulated by ALL of them is about $16 trillion.
But ONE of them...Barack Obama...is responsible for fully one-third of that total...in FOUR SHORT YEARS.
|
|
| mpdodgson |
Posted - 11/4/2012 11:45:25 AM | show profile | flag this post
PROPER PERSPECTIVE???
"There have been 44 presidents of the United States over a span of 220 years" And holy crap--we wemt from 13 to 50!! FIFTY!! Talk about expanding government!! What a tyypical Dem/Lib thing to do!!
"The total national debt accumulated by ALL of them is about $16 trillion." Those spendthrifts..all of them.
"Barack Obama...is responsible for fully one-third of that total..."
WAIT A MINUTE. National debt when Obama took office--$14,256,300,000,000 Now? $16. HOW THE HELL do you go from 14 to 16 and say that's one quarter??
That's right up there with 'Obama doubled or tripled the deficit--from $1.4 trillion to $1.4 That's DOUBLING?!?!
Just like the Romney/Ryan plan to balance the budget by spending $7 trillion dollars--the MATH just doesn't add up.
|
|
| cruiser |
Posted - 11/4/2012 12:51:30 PM | show profile | flag this post
"debt when Obama took office--$14,256,300,000,000"
No, you need to stop using that fuzzy math. The national debt for 2008...the last year of Bush's presidency...was a tick under $10 trillion.
Obama tried to offload his instant expansion of the debt by dishonestly trying to assign all of his own 2009 spending and stimulus to Bush...and you left wingers fell for it.
|
|
| mpdodgson |
Posted - 11/4/2012 2:22:04 PM | show profile | flag this post
Because Bush lied
and kept things off the books, and everyone knows it:
The Obama Administration also made four significant accounting changes to more accurately report the total spending by the federal government. The four changes were:
1.accounting for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ("overseas military contingencies") in the budget rather than through the use of supplemental appropriations;
2.assuming the Alternative Minimum Tax will be indexed for inflation;
3.accounting for the full costs of Medicare reimbursements; and
4.anticipating the inevitable expenditures for natural disaster relief.
Bush "cooked the books" by leaving trillions out of the buget. the Obama team plugged in the correct numbers, and hence, ended up with a huge debt.
Did you really think those two wars and Medicare D were going to be "FREE"?!?!?!
|
|
| cruiser |
Posted - 11/4/2012 3:21:11 PM | show profile | flag this post
Now you've changed the parameters
and made it a whole different argument and I'm not going to go there. That's what you people do when your disingenuous crap gets shot down.
As far as the official budget and expenditure numbers are concerned, they are exactly as I stated. I looked them up from government sources.
|
|
| mpdodgson |
Posted - 11/4/2012 4:08:02 PM | show profile | flag this post
"Now you've changed the parameters"
which means now I've told the truth--and that's just not allowed in Wingnutia.
Everyone knows Bush busted the budget SKY HIGH (and fiscal genius Paul Ryan voted for every single budget busting measure btw)
Two wars and Medicare Part D will do that to you--BUT we'll just leave that for the next guy to worry about....
You're such a tool.
|
|
| cruiser |
Posted - 11/4/2012 4:32:49 PM | show profile | flag this post
Left wingers seem to think
they have to "win" every discussion (they turn them into arguments). Give-and-take discussion is just not possible with these people.
|
|
| orthicon |
Posted - 11/4/2012 5:15:01 PM | show profile | flag this post
it's probably not possible when one side..
has the facts and numbers on his side..
and the other has nothing except" ad hominem"..
at which he is the recognized expert..
"well, hell.. cruiztwit has to be good at SOMETHING..doesn't he?)
|
|
Log in to customize alerts, subscribe to newsletters, and apply to jobs.
June 4, 2013 | San Francisco
