Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

Holy shit. Stop the presses and alert Rupert Murdoch. Somebody has gone rogue at Fox News.


[url=http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/07/17/obama-right-americans-cant-succeed-without-government/?intcmp=obinsite]Obama's right, Americans can't succeed without government | Fox News[/url]


[quote]A lot has been made over comments made by the president last Friday to this effect. In many cases, President Obama was deliberately quoted out of context. Here is what the president actually said:[/quote]



[quote]It’s not either/or. The president was clear: We succeed because of our individual initiative but also because of the public investments that help springboard that success. Don’t believe me? Then go start a business in Pakistan or Russia. American entrepreneurs succeed in part because they’re in America. And in America, we don’t get ours and then yank away the ladder of opportunity for the next generation.

We can slash Medicare and Social Security and public schools and college grants and all of the stepping stones that poor and middle class families have historically relied on to help climb the ladder of prosperity. Or millionaires and billionaires can pay the same tax rate as the middle class. [/quote]




Well, that happy feel good moment didn't last long.


[url=http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/07/24/small-business-owner-to-obama-owe-us/]Small business owner to Obama -- you owe us! | Fox News[/url]


:laughing-

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=HailGreen28;927052]You said he's been talking about plenty of issues. I asked "Like what?".

Claiming to have to dig through campaign footage to find Obama actually talking about issues, and seeing how Obama's going almost totally negative campaigning on TV ads, speaks for itself. Doesn't it?[/quote]

Dude, I'm not your personal Obama surrogate. Take your ass on the internet and find out. Go to whitehouse.gov. Nearly every fcuking day he's talking to voters at events and townhall meetings.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=mlmpetert;927011]You know at first i was going to call Dan Pffeifer a complete idiot but im thinking its not really his fault. No one knows whats going on in this administration. Its got to be painful working working there, regardless of how strongly you feel about Admin's ideology. For God's sake the second cabinet meeting of the year was just held. Wtf does Obama do all day?

[url=http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-holds-first-cabinet-meeting-january_648993.html]Obama Holds First Cabinet Meeting Since January | The Weekly Standard[/url]

And come on 12th. I appreciate your summary of what happened but thats not at all what im saying. Do you not find it odd at all the way the the British Embassy phrased the return of the statue? I mean this is such a non-issue in retrospect. So why did the Obama admin or the Brits never clarify. I mean regardless if you think it was an issue or not we all thought it happened. Even Pffeifer, bless his sole, had no idea what was going on.[/quote]

I can't believe I'm still discussing this retarded issue, which says a lot about me actually.

In terms of Cabinet meetings. Really? The president is in meetings everyday. But if you're really concerned, just like I told HG28, go to whitehouse.gov and POTUS' sked is posted daily. Daily. Yes, it's public information.

The mix-up was in the initial reporting by the British newspaper, not the White House. Had they clarified from the jump that there were two busts instead of one, this conversation wouldn't exist. It's really that simple to me. Why should the executive branch of our government, with all the pressing issues, keep tabs and report to the general public and media the location of Winston Churchill's bust. Do realize how absurd that sounds?

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=12thMan;927111]Dude, I'm not your personal Obama surrogate. Take your ass on the internet and find out. Go to whitehouse.gov. Nearly every fcuking day he's talking to voters events and townhall meetings.[/quote]You want me to do your research for you? What "issues" were you talking about before? "Someone else built it for you."? The evil Republicans?

At least Romney talks about something right or wrong. Repealing Obamacare, cutting taxes, cutting spending, privatizing Amtrak.

Not that they both aren't idiots. Just saying.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

I think Pfeiffer's intent was to needle Krauthammer a bit, that's it.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

What President Obama's doing in the White House every day.

[url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/schedule/president/2012-W30]President's Schedule - July 22 to July 28, 2012 | The White House[/url]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=HailGreen28;927117]You want me to do your research for you? What "issues" were you talking about before? "Someone else built it for you."? The evil Republicans?

At least Romney talks about something right or wrong. Repealing Obamacare, cutting taxes, cutting spending, privatizing Amtrak.

Not that they both aren't idiots. Just saying.[/quote]

Haha...I see you even got the mis-quoted quote wrong. So funny.
Obamcare is here to stay, pal. All three branches of government said it's the law of the land.
Taxes are at an all-time low. But keep convincing yourself we can keep the economy stable and growing without raising revenue. You go right ahead.

Romney hasn't been specific about much of anything. He's being vague and general right now, as he should. But time is running out.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=12thMan;927124]Haha...I see you even got the mis-quoted quote wrong. So funny.
Obamcare is here to stay, pal. All three branches of government said it's the law of the land.
Taxes are at an all-time low. But keep convincing yourself we can keep the economy stable and growing without raising revenue. You go right ahead.

Romney hasn't been specific about much of anything. He's being vague and general right now, as he should. But time is running out.[/quote]Ooops, I did misquote it. Correction: "If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen." - Obama.

How is that's substantially different than what I said before?

Obamacare exists as taxes. I hope we replace it with something better than Obamacare or Romneycare.

[IMG]http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/obamacare-taxes.jpg[/IMG]

Taxes are not at an all-time low. Here they are per capita, in $2005 dollars.

[url=http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/revenue_chart_1950_2015USd_13s1li011mcn_10t]Government Taxes and Revenue Chart: United States 1950-2015 - Federal State Local Data[/url]

[IMG]http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/usgs_line.php?title=Income%20Taxes&units=d&size=m&year=1950_2015&sname=US&bar=0&stack=1&col=c&legend=&source=a_i_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_i_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_i_a_i_a_a_a_a_a_a_e_e_g_g_g_g&spending0=1246_1545_2039_2057_1989_1778_1931_1970_1833_1764_1975_1938_2009_2061_2106_2111_2331_2505_2457_2933_2787_2446_2649_2758_2812_2653_2661_3031_3180_3391_3366_3413_3227_2946_3109_3319_3359_3721_3716_3929_3840_3705_3668_3848_4027_4249_4525_4852_5228_5338_5835_5444_4663_4230_4398_5046_5588_5899_5471_4080_4064_4564_4891_5673_6120_6413[/IMG]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=12thMan;927116]I can't believe I'm still discussing this retarded issue, which says a lot about me actually.

In terms of Cabinet meetings. Really? The president is in meetings everyday. But if you're really concerned, just like I told HG28, go to whitehouse.gov and POTUS' sked is posted daily. Daily. Yes, it's public information.

The mix-up was in the initial reporting by the British newspaper, not the White House. Had they clarified from the jump that there were two busts instead of one, this conversation wouldn't exist. It's really that simple to me. Why should the executive branch of our government, with all the pressing issues, keep tabs and report to the general public and media the location of Winston Churchill's bust. Do realize how absurd that sounds?[/quote]

Dude, take it easy maaaaan. It's like this bro, if the information is not available on the websites I frequent it does not exist. Information must be observed to exist...honestly, it is your responsibility to disapprove anything we say not the other way around.


As for the Churchill bust, you can never have too many of his busts in the White House. It's disappointing that we only have one of his busts when we could have had two.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=12thMan;927124]Haha...I see you even got the mis-quoted quote wrong. So funny.
Obamcare is here to stay, pal. All three branches of government said it's the law of the land.
Taxes are at an all-time low. But keep convincing yourself we can keep the [B]economy stable and growing without raising revenue. You go right ahead. [/B]

Romney hasn't been specific about much of anything. He's being vague and general right now, as he should. But time is running out.[/quote]

With the left its all ways about increasing spending to fix things and it never works. Obama tried to fix everyting by spend a trillion dollars and it didn't do shit. Maybe if he gave the American people the money to spend it themself on things they need it would have done alot more.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

Taxes are not at an all time low SPENDING Is AT AN ALL TIME HIGH.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=firstdown;927417]Taxes are not at an all time low SPENDING Is AT AN ALL TIME HIGH.[/quote]

Where do you get this stuff from?

[I]Federal revenues will only consume 14.4 percent of GDP this year – the lowest percentage since 1950. The postwar average is about 18.5 percent and there were many very prosperous years when revenues were considerably higher. In the late 1990s, they averaged more than 20 percent of GDP, which was a key reason why we ran budget surpluses.[/I] (not me quoting)

As far as spending, federal spending has grown at it's slowest pace since President Ike. The idea that Obama has grown gov't is a myth. You're confusing structural deficit with actual spending by Obama.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=12thMan;927436]Where do you get this stuff from?

[I]Federal revenues will only consume 14.4 percent of GDP this year – the lowest percentage since 1950. The postwar average is about 18.5 percent and there were many very prosperous years when revenues were considerably higher. In the late 1990s, they averaged more than 20 percent of GDP, which was a key reason why we ran budget surpluses.[/I] (not me quoting)

[B]As far as spending, federal spending has grown at it's slowest pace since President Ike. [/B]The idea that Obama has grown gov't is a myth. You're confusing structural deficit with actual spending by Obama.[/quote]

What the hell are you smoking today.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[IMG]http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/usgs_line.php?title=Total Spending&units=r&size=l&year=2000_2017&sname=US&bar=1&stack=1&col=c&legend=&source=a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_b_b_b_b_b_b&spending0=1.79_1.86_2.01_2.16_2.29_2.47_2.66_2.73_2.98_3.52_3.46_3.60_3.80_3.80_3.88_4.06_4.33_4.53[/IMG]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=12thMan;927116]I can't believe I'm still discussing this retarded issue, which says a lot about me actually.

In terms of Cabinet meetings. Really? The president is in meetings everyday. But if you're really concerned, just like I told HG28, go to whitehouse.gov and POTUS' sked is posted daily. Daily. Yes, it's public information.

The mix-up was in the initial reporting by the British newspaper, not the White House. Had they clarified from the jump that there were two busts instead of one, this conversation wouldn't exist. It's really that simple to me. [B]Why should the executive branch of our government, with all the pressing issues, keep tabs and report to the general public and media the location of Winston Churchill's bust. Do realize how absurd that sounds[/B]?[/quote]

I completely realize how absurd it is for the White House to spend time with correspondence of tabloid type issues, but isnt that part of the purpose of The White House blog? Or the Attack Watch team or Obama's Truth Team or the White House Twitter account, or maybe even Obama's Twitter account?

So like you said HAD they clarified this at the begaining it would be a non-issue. And HAD Pfeiffer not simply just made something up (that wasnt true) to dispute a claim thats several YEARS old, then neither of us would be wasting out time on this. Unfotunitly no one knows whats going on there.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

Who's going to see this?

[url=http://2016themovie.com/]2016: Obama's America | Official Movie Site[/url]

Looks like Oscar material to me :cool-smil

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=mlmpetert;927448]I completely realize how absurd it is for the White House to spend time with correspondence of tabloid type issues, but isnt that part of the purpose of The White House blog? Or the Attack Watch team or Obama's Truth Team or the White House Twitter account, or maybe even Obama's Twitter account?

So like you said HAD they clarified this at the begaining it would be a non-issue. And HAD Pfeiffer not simply just made something up (that wasnt true) to dispute a claim thats several YEARS old, then neither of us would be wasting out time on this. Unfotunitly no one knows whats going on there.[/quote]


Pretty remarkable that we've had these many exchanges and still don't eye to eye. The purpose of the White House blog is not to debunk baseless right wing theories as to the location of artwork. The White House has an entire office dedicated to that. So that, you know, the president and his staff can focus on governing.

[url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/history/art]White House Art | The White House[/url]

[url=http://www.whitehousemuseum.org/floor0/curators-office.htm]Curator's Office - White House Museum[/url]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=12thMan;927477]Pretty remarkable that we've had these many exchanges and still don't eye to eye. [B]The purpose of the White House blog is not to debunk baseless right wing theories [/B]as to the location of artwork. The White House has an entire office dedicated to that. So that, you know, the president and his staff can focus on governing.

[URL="http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/history/art"]White House Art | The White House[/URL]

[URL="http://www.whitehousemuseum.org/floor0/curators-office.htm"]Curator's Office - White House Museum[/URL][/quote]

I thought the WH blog was to point to jobs Obama created in districts that don't exist.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;927467]Who's going to see this?

[url=http://2016themovie.com/]2016: Obama's America | Official Movie Site[/url]

Looks like Oscar material to me :cool-smil[/quote]

Interesting...CPAC speech.

"I think that if you take...and apply it to the action of the son...these are the guys I call Obama's founding fathers...this isn't just a, kinda hit job on Obama...I'm a college professor and the film is a journey...if the american people really knew who Obama was they would see he is not an ordinary democrat."


Any idea if the movie a comedy or a tragedy?

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=firstdown;927494]I thought the WH blog was to point to jobs Obama created in districts that don't exist.[/quote]



....that would be Bush.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=Giantone;927540]....that would be Bush.[/quote]

[url=http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jobs-saved-created-congressional-districts-exist/story?id=9097853]Jobs Saved or Created in Congressional Districts That Don't Exist - ABC News[/url]

After scanning that article its sad how they tout about saving 17 jobs by spending 17million dollars. That's a real success story in a district that does not exist.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=12thMan;927477][B]Pretty remarkable that we've had these many exchanges and still don't eye to eye.[/B] The purpose of the White House blog is not to debunk baseless right wing theories as to the location of artwork. The White House has an entire office dedicated to that. So that, you know, the president and his staff can focus on governing.

[URL="http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/history/art"]White House Art | The White House[/URL]

[URL="http://www.whitehousemuseum.org/floor0/curators-office.htm"]Curator's Office - White House Museum[/URL][/quote]


Haha, couldnt agree more.... at least thats one thing right?

[FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3] [/SIZE][/FONT]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]What i find problematic is the way Pfeiffer handled the whole thing. I think everyone would agree Pfeiffer made a mistake and maybe even went a little rouge in what hes otherwise supposed to be “reporting” on. [/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana] [/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]But this isn’t some baseless right wing theory. It’s a well known thing, carried on by some ignored by others. Honestly before last week didn’t you think the artwork was returned a little hastily? I think Saden1 even thought that it was returned perhaps in an insisting way. And that’s the whole point. No one really cares whos correct in mentioning the exact whereabouts of the bust. The whole issue which has been and is still being ignore is how the bust got to where it is.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][quote]
First to break the story of the Churchill bust being returned to the British Embassy was [I]The Sunday Telegraph’s[/I] Tim Shipman (now at [I]The Daily Mail[/I]), [URL="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/4623148/Barack-Obama-sends-bust-of-Winston-Churchill-on-its-way-back-to-Britain.html"][COLOR=#0066cc]who wrote in February 2009[/COLOR][/URL]:[INDENT]Barack Obama has sent Sir Winston Churchill packing and pulse rates soaring among anxious British diplomats. A bust of the former prime minister once voted the greatest Briton in history, which was loaned to George W Bush from the Government's art collection after the September 11 attacks, has now been formally handed back.
The bronze by Sir Jacob Epstein, worth hundreds of thousands of pounds if it were ever sold on the open market, enjoyed pride of place in the Oval Office during President Bush's tenure.
[B]But when British officials offered to let Mr Obama to hang onto the bust for a further four years, the White House said: "Thanks, but no thanks."[/B][/quote]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][quote]
Two weeks earlier, in January 2009, [I]The Times[/I] had revealed the bust had been removed from the Oval Office and placed in storage, in a piece headlined: "Churchill bust casts shadow over the Special Relationship" (no longer online, but available on news databases such as [I]Lexis/Nexis[/I]). Significantly,[I] The Times[/I] noted that the British government, led at the time by Gordon Brown, was keen for the bust to go back to the Oval Office:[INDENT]Britain wants President Obama to put a bronze bust of Sir Winston Churchill back in the Oval Office, where it stood for the past eight years as a symbol of an enduring special relationship with America. The White House is not so sure.
Shortly before Mr Obama's inauguration, the Jacob Epstein bronze is understood to have been removed and placed in storage by White House curators. Recent photographs show that a bust of Abraham Lincoln, one of the new President's heroes, has been moved to take the position once occupied by Churchill.
The bronze was lent to George Bush by Tony Blair in 2001 from the Government Art Collection for the duration of his presidency. It is now due to be returned.
[B]However, a spokesman for the British Embassy in Washington said yesterday: "We have made it clear that we would be pleased to extend the loan should Mr Obama so wish." He added that no response had been received; yesterday the White House declined to comment.[/B][/quote]

[url=http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100173136/churchill-bust-debacle-amateurish-obama-white-house-remains-firmly-in-denial/]Churchill bust debacle: ‘amateurish’ Obama White House remains firmly in denial over snub to Britain – Telegraph Blogs[/url]
[/FONT][/COLOR]
[/INDENT][/FONT][/COLOR][/INDENT]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=saden1;927495]Interesting...CPAC speech.

"I think that if you take...and apply it to the action of the son...these are the guys I call Obama's founding fathers...this isn't just a, kinda hit job on Obama...I'm a college professor and the film is a journey...if the american people really knew who Obama was they would see he is not an ordinary democrat."


[B]Any idea if the movie a comedy or a tragedy?[/B] [/quote]

Perhaps it falls in Shakespear's third category, a history?


I heard an interview about a month or so ago about this movie and it sounded pretty interesting. The director basically stated that conservitive documentries dont exist and that this is one form of media that liberals have used and done so well. He said a lot of his scripters/filmers/editors were all people that had experience with Moore or other liberal movie makers, and that in the process some of them turned conservative on many issues.......

But honestly, I watched the trailer to this thing this morning and it looks like it sucks pretty bad.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=firstdown;927442]What the hell are you smoking today.[/quote]

FD,
This has been posted several times. Keep up please.


[url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/]Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama? - Forbes[/url]


NEXT.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=NC_Skins;927637]FD,
This has been posted several times. Keep up please.


[URL="http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/"]Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama? - Forbes[/URL]


NEXT.[/quote]

That article is putting Obama's 800 billion stimulas on Bush Because he passed it in 2009.

Next.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=mlmpetert;927634]Perhaps it falls in Shakespear's third category, a history?


I heard an interview about a month or so ago about this movie and it sounded pretty interesting. The director basically stated that conservitive documentries dont exist and that this is one form of media that liberals have used and done so well. He said a lot of his scripters/filmers/editors were all people that had experience with Moore or other liberal movie makers, and that in the process some of them turned conservative on many issues.......

But honestly, I watched the trailer to this thing this morning and it looks like it sucks pretty bad.[/quote]

A movie based on suppositions doesn't make for a quality movie. It looks like dog shit but if they can get people to go watch it and make some change then it was worth is. In any case, is there any particular liberal movie you would like to compare this to?


As for people turning, well, people don't turn conservative...plus these conservative and liberal labels don't mean much these days because there are so many facets to individuals. African American's by and large consider themselves conservative but they are no conservative in voting sense.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=saden1;927133] it is your responsibility to disapprove anything we say not the other way around.
[/quote]

Romney didn't pay any taxes for 10 years.

[url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/31/harry-reid-romney-taxes_n_1724027.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003]Harry Reid: Bain Investor Told Me That Mitt Romney 'Didn't Pay Any Taxes For 10 Years'[/url]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

In case you are unaware of this story.

[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/worldview/does-the-us-government-have-the-right-to-kill-its-own-citizens/article4451256/]Does the U.S. government have the right to kill its own citizens? - The Globe and Mail[/url]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=drew54;927763]In case you are unaware of this story.

[URL="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/worldview/does-the-us-government-have-the-right-to-kill-its-own-citizens/article4451256/"]Does the U.S. government have the right to kill its own citizens? - The Globe and Mail[/URL][/quote]


In my opinion yes , and in the example in the link remember it wasn't the US that put the child there it was his "radical" father.If any of you remember on 9/11 the AirForce was order to shoot down any planes in open US air space after a while and I agreed with that at the time so I won't throw this on Bush or Obama.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=NC_Skins;927637]FD,
This has been posted several times. Keep up please.


[URL="http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/"]Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama? - Forbes[/URL]


NEXT.[/quote]Of course this "shell game" post comes from an "unbiased" source......the writer's tagline: Rick Ungar, writing from the left on politics and policy.

How about some real perspective on the Obama Admin and lefties shell game.

[url=http://blog.heritage.org/2012/05/24/setting-obamas-great-fiscal-restraint-record-straight/]Setting Obama's "Great Fiscal Restraint Record" Straight[/url]

and before you simply discount the link beause it's from Heritage....read and understand the numbers. We're talking real dollars, not percentage increases....the Obama Admin is playing a semantics and shell game here, nothing more. Bottom line, Obama has done nothing to address the entitlement tsunami that is coming over the next decade and has racked up $5T + of [I]REAL DOLLARS[/I] in National Debt in 3 years.

NEXT.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=drew54;927762]Romney didn't pay any taxes for 10 years.

[URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/31/harry-reid-romney-taxes_n_1724027.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003"]Harry Reid: Bain Investor Told Me That Mitt Romney 'Didn't Pay Any Taxes For 10 Years'[/URL][/quote]Certainly a credible source Reid has.....

[B][I]"Tellingly, neither Reid nor his office would reveal who the investor was, making it impossible to verify if the accusation is true. And as his quote makes clear, he's uncertain if the information is accurate.[/I][/B] The Romney campaign's press secretary, Andrea Saul, has previously [URL="http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/07/romney-camp-not-true-he-paid-in-taxes-129366.html"][COLOR=#000080]denied rumors[/COLOR][/URL] that Romney didn't pay "any taxes at all."

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;927884]Of course this "shell game" post comes from an "unbiased" source......the writer's tagline: Rick Ungar, writing from the left on politics and policy.

How about some real perspective on the Obama Admin and lefties shell game.

[url=http://blog.heritage.org/2012/05/24/setting-obamas-great-fiscal-restraint-record-straight/]Setting Obama's "Great Fiscal Restraint Record" Straight[/url]

and before you simply discount the link beause it's from Heritage....read and understand the numbers. We're talking real dollars, not percentage increases....the Obama Admin is playing a semantics and shell game here, nothing more. Bottom line, Obama has done nothing to address the entitlement tsunami that is coming over the next decade and has racked up $5T + of [I]REAL DOLLARS[/I] in National Debt in 3 years.

NEXT.[/quote]

So we should read Rick Ungar article as biased but the Heritage article as unbiased? LOL
All that stupid Heritage article shows is government spending increasing. When has it not year over year? You think as a percentage snapshots from 1960s to 2000 would think it would compare favorably to 2010 to 2050?


There is a simple way to prove you and the Heritage Foundation are full of it with a simple question: Can you account account for the 5 trillion dollars and show us the math?


The really sad thing is you don't even need to exaggerate deficit spending, his numbers scary enough on their own.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=drew54;927762]Romney didn't pay any taxes for 10 years.

[url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/31/harry-reid-romney-taxes_n_1724027.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003]Harry Reid: Bain Investor Told Me That Mitt Romney 'Didn't Pay Any Taxes For 10 Years'[/url][/quote]

LOL...vicious politics at it's best.

The fact that Romney has had a Swiss and Cayman Island bank accounts and 130 plus shell companies is sufficient for me to know his unscrupulousness. If he wants to hide his taxes it's going to be tough.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[url=http://www.barackobama.com/tax-calculator/]Who is fighting for the middle class? President Obama versus Mitt Romney. — Barack Obama[/url]


Needs to be seen.....

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=saden1;927667]A movie based on suppositions doesn't make for a quality movie. It looks like dog shit but if they can get people to go watch it and make some change then it was worth is. In any case, is there any particular liberal movie you would like to compare this to?


As for people turning, well, people don't turn conservative...plus these conservative and liberal labels don't mean much these days because there are so many facets to individuals. African American's by and large consider themselves conservative but they are no conservative in voting sense.[/quote]

I couldnt agree with you any more on your first 2 sentences.

Honestly i havent really seen any explicitly liberal movie/documentaries. Ive never seen a Moore flick, i never saw Al Gore's polar bear film. Ive saw Lose Change, but i dont know if id classify that as explicitly liberal or a documentary, rather just a conspiracy theory movie. It scared me though how easy it is to put something together thats captivating, persuasive and logical, yet sooooo factually flawed and misleading. Do you have any suggestions for me?

Im not sure what youre trying to say. Like people dont change? Can people not turn liberal either?

I actually put together a long winded response to your post yesterday, but decided not to post it.... too many digressions too many thoughts. In general i was thinking about how polarized it seems our country has become. I completely agree that conservative and liberal, left and right, totally lame and completely whack, no longer fit the population in general. All are regularly being used misleadingly and in different ways to change the traditional connotations.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

This is what we have become. I say you are a tax cheat, so it must be so. I say you are not an American citizen so it must be so. Mean while congress isnt doing shit and we are fighting over bullshit.

Vote for neither. Vote for independents. Find candidates that are not bought and paid for.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=drew54;928275]This is what we have become. I say you are a tax cheat, so it must be so. I say you are not an American citizen so it must be so. Mean while congress isnt doing shit and we are fighting over bullshit.

Vote for neither. Vote for independents. Find candidates that are not bought and paid for.[/quote]

If one I agreed with ran I be happy to vote for them. Tea Party is still pretty much on the state level.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

Buddy Roemer was never given a chance to even debate. Gary Johnson was allowed to attend one debate. They were not crazy enough to be selected for the Republican Party sideshow that went on this year.

It seems Gary Johnson is now on the Libertarian Party ticket, and if he could poll above 15% he can attend the debates. He will move the discussion away from the BS talking points, and I for one would love to see that.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=drew54;928306]It seems Gary Johnson is now on the Libertarian Party ticket, and if he could poll above 15% he can attend the debates. He will move the discussion away from the BS talking points, and I for one would love to see that.[/quote]This. So much this. Regardless of where Gary Johnson stands, or how he would split votes, we need campaigns with more than two candidates. Mudlslinging seems to work when it's just one candidate and an opponent. I think candidates would be less likely to do that, and talking real issues instead, when there's a third candidate that would only be helped by their opponents sniping each other.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

First this:
[URL="http://www.barackobama.com/news/entry/the-obama-event-registry/"]The Obama event registry — Blog — Barack Obama[/URL]


Then this:
[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_W2pjZGRr_c&feature=youtu.be"]President Obama Donates - YouTube[/URL]


Now this:
[URL="http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-asks-americans-to-sign-his-birthday-card-guess-what-you-get-to-do-in-return/"]Obama birthday card | TheBlaze.com[/URL]


At what point does it become just good old fashion pandering?