I am under the impression Obama lost the popular vote in 08. The electoral college still voted him in.You are under that impression because you go to Tea Parties that serve Kool Aid.
. Originally Posted by LovingKayla
Yeah, and in 1776, if we'd only opted for incremental change and worked with King George, what a much different place this would be.If we lose freedom in America in the next few years, none of us will live to see it restored, probably not our grandchildren either.
Incrementalism only works in reverse. That's been proven. Your type of incrementalism will only give people who want change a little peace, while they get screwed from behind by the system that claims, "Don't ask for too much, let's get ahead incrementally."
You know full well that if Romney is elected, we will be looking at President Hillary Clinton in 2017. You think McConnell was bad about wanting Obama to be a one-term president, watch Reid and Pelosi go to work on whatever good (which won't be much) that Romney wants to do in his first term.
It just keeps going back and forth like that. Each time the pendulum swings a little harder, and harsher. Eventually, and it will be soon, the pendulum will stop swinging, and there will be total executive control of government - a de facto dictatorship, with a Congress and press as window dressing for the ruling elite. We may already be to that point.
So any incremental change wrought by Romney will be reversed in 2017, if not sooner. It's a waste of time and energy. We have to come up with a way of peacefully throwing out the entire system. If we don't, we're doomed to totalitarianism. Wake up, look around. It's happening. Romney won't stop it, he's part of it.
"Prudence ... will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." THOMAS JEFFERSON, Declaration of Independence
Obviously not a "reasonable conservative". Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy
You are under that impression because you go to Tea Parties that serve Kool Aid.That really doesn't make any sense. Were you trying to formulate a thought?
Quit drinking that shit. If you lived in Iran, the President there would convince you there had been no holocaust. That is how nutty our Tea Party is... Originally Posted by WTF
That really doesn't make any sense. Were you trying to formulate a thought? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuyKayla was under the impression that Obama lost the popular vote.
No one in the Tea Party thinks that Obama lost the popular vote. That misinformation cannot be related to her attendance at the Tea Party rallies, so you make no sense. If anything, such misinformation spouted from some MSNBC tirade, or O'Reilly. Or she may have simply confused 2008 with 2000. Your hero Joe Biden forgot he was in Virginia today when he asked them to help win North Carolina. So Kayla just made an honest mistake. No big deal, except to those who live to bash her and the Tea Party. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuyI am not trying to bash her. I like her. But the Tea Party folks are fuc'd in the head when it comes to political reality. She attends those rallies. I do like to bash those nit wits.
I am under the impression Obama lost the popular vote in 08. The electoral college still voted him in.
I really don't want to be a downer on this thread but I'm just curious. What will happen if obama loses to romney say... 60/40 on poplar vote and still gets reelected because the electoral college (why do we need them anyway? Not constitutional as far as I know) votes obama in no matter what. It would just look better if he didn't lose soooo badly.
After everything he's gotten away with, this is not outside the realm of possibilities. Originally Posted by LovingKayla
I am under the impression Obama lost the popular vote in 08. The electoral college still voted him in.I have seen some strange posts from the Far Right Wingers through the years but this one may top them all!
I really don't want to be a downer on this thread but I'm just curious. What will happen if obama loses to romney say... 60/40 on poplar vote and still gets reelected because the electoral college (why do we need them anyway? Not constitutional as far as I know) votes obama in no matter what. It would just look better if he didn't lose soooo badly.
After everything he's gotten away with, this is not outside the realm of possibilities. Originally Posted by LovingKayla
BTW; before we dirft off into the world of Area 51 and such;Once they figure out that he wants to give the rich a tax cut and then cut their Medicare ...those trends will reverse in a hurry
Speaking about Joe Biden, the new Rasumussen poll is very encouraging for Tea Party and other patriotic Americans...
It's ALL good trending................
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...s_right_choice
Especially notable:
50% view Ryan favorably (higher than Joe Biden)
66% think spending cuts is the solution......and more.....
Hope and change my poltical buddies, change isa coming ! Originally Posted by Whirlaway
You suppose he could get a job in Mitt's cabinet, shoud he win?
David Stockman savages Paul Ryan's budget
Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
Before the ascendancy of Rep. Paul Ryan as the GOP's latest 'budget guru," there was a similar self-annointed "boy genius" congressman a generation ago, David Stockman. He combined blind faith in supply-side "trickle down" economics with green-eyeshade budget credentials, and became the living symbol of GOP efforts to dismantle the New Deal/Great Society programs. Stockman served as Ronald Reagan’s OMB director until 1985. Today, Stockman Savages Ryan:
Stockman only occasionally bursts into public view these days, but has now done so with a vengeance in a New York Times op-ed column blasting Ryan’s budget plan as a complete fraud. Though using Ryan’s Veep selection as his point of departure and the Ryan Budget as a major talking point, Stockman is generally indicting his own former party and the conservative movement that once praised him in terms identical to its current love-fest with Ryan:Thirty years of Republican apostasy — a once grand party’s embrace of the welfare state, the warfare state and the Wall Street-coddling bailout state — have crippled the engines of capitalism and buried us in debt. Mr. Ryan’s sonorous campaign rhetoric about shrinking Big Government and giving tax cuts to “job creators” (read: the top 2 percent) will do nothing to reverse the nation’s economic decline and arrest its fiscal collapse.[H]e certainly knows his budget numbers, and isn’t afraid to challenge Ryan’s deficit-cutting street cred:
Mr. Ryan showed his conservative mettle in 2008 when he folded like a lawn chair on the auto bailout and the Wall Street bailout. But the greater hypocrisy is his phony “plan” to solve the entitlements mess by deferring changes to social insurance by at least a decade.
A true agenda to reform the welfare state would require a sweeping, income-based eligibility test, which would reduce or eliminate social insurance benefits for millions of affluent retirees. Without it, there is no math that can avoid giant tax increases or vast new borrowing. Yet the supposedly courageous Ryan plan would not cut one dime over the next decade from the $1.3 trillion-per-year cost of Social Security and Medicare.
Instead, it shreds the measly means-tested safety net for the vulnerable: the roughly $100 billion per year for food stamps and cash assistance for needy families and the $300 billion budget for Medicaid, the health insurance program for the poor and disabled. Shifting more Medicaid costs to the states will be mere make-believe if federal financing is drastically cut.
Likewise, hacking away at the roughly $400 billion domestic discretionary budget (what’s left of the federal budget after defense, Social Security, health and safety-net spending and interest on the national debt) will yield only a rounding error’s worth of savings after popular programs (which Republicans heartily favor) like cancer research, national parks, veterans’ benefits, farm aid, highway subsidies, education grants and small-business loans are accommodated.This is a large and angry revival of Stockman’s constant theme in The Triumph of Politics that Republicans were only interested in cutting federal spending or tax subsides that benefitted someone other than their own constituencies. And as in the 1980s, he’s more than happy to go after the supply-side faith he once shared as well:
The Ryan Plan boils down to a fetish for cutting the top marginal income-tax rate for “job creators” — i.e. the superwealthy — to 25 percent and paying for it with an as-yet-undisclosed plan to broaden the tax base. Of the $1 trillion in so-called tax expenditures that the plan would attack, the vast majority would come from slashing popular tax breaks for employer-provided health insurance, mortgage interest, 401(k) accounts, state and local taxes, charitable giving and the like, not to mention low rates on capital gains and dividends. The crony capitalists of K Street already own more than enough Republican votes to stop that train before it leaves the stationOriginally Posted by WTF
