[poochee]

September 18th, 2012
02:45 PM ET
21 hours ago
Eastwood: If they were 'dumb enough to ask me…'
Posted by
CNN's Dana Davidsen

(CNN) – Clint Eastwood isn't taking much time to reflect on his unique endorsement of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney at last month's Republican National Convention, after all he says if they're "dumb enough" to ask him, they'll take what they get.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...k-me/?on.cnn=1

[Littlefield]

Originally Posted by poochee

Media should go easy on Romney — for their own sake
By Dana Milbank, Published: September 18The Washington Post



http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...rc=nl_politics

Too bad Obama got it dead wrong on Letterman last night when he did not say the Libyan attack was pre -planned but instead said the film was used as an excuse for the attack. Of course the media will not point that gaffe out. Dana Milbank is a tool.

[ekim68]

The Radical Rich

Sure, it was stupid for Mitt Romney to insult the non-Federal-tax paying "47 percent" on that video, especially since so many of them are Republican voters. But it was only "stupid" in traditional political terms. For a radical – and make no mistake, Romney is a radical – those rules don't apply.

The bile flows out of this unscripted Romney. He says of his father, the governor, presidential candidate and car company CEO: "Had he been born of Mexican parents, I'd have a better shot of winning this." This kind of resentment, as absurd as it is, is a very real emotion for the Radical Rich.

The words seem to sting his lips when he says "they believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, that they are entitled – to health care, to food, to housing, you name it. That's an entitlement."

Feast your eyes on the articulated rage of the Radical Rich. Romney and his audience are genuinely angry at people who "don't pay taxes" – although almost all of the "47 percent" do, counting payroll and sales taxes. That doesn't matter. The Radical Rich consider all of them – the disabled, the elderly, poor people, veterans – the Other.

From Savanarola to Sarah Palin, from Robespierre to Romney, the psychology never changes: You're either one of us or one of them.

[poochee]

Originally Posted by ekim68

The Radical Rich

He has no idea of how to communicate with the 99%. Very condescending. Keep on talking Mr Romney, it's helpful to the Obama campaign.

[poochee]

David Wood
Veterans, Combat Wounded Push Back On Mitt Romney 'Dependents' Video
Posted: 09/19/2012 1:09 pm Updated: 09/19/2012 1:49 pm

Bobby Henline isn't dependent on government either, even though he received free medical care after he was catastrophically burned in a bomb blast in Iraq and -- like other severely wounded combat veterans -- received a tax-free $100,000 insurance payout from Uncle Sam.

Few Americans receive as much from government as the combat wounded. Their military medical care, from treatment on the dusty battlefield to the exquisitely meticulous surgery and rehabilitation care, is given on a damn-the-cost basis. The Department of Veterans Affairs insurance program pays out a maximum of $100,000 for severe wounds, in addition to disability payments and other assistance.

Such largesse seems to be precisely the thing that bleeds away Americans' personal responsibility and "fosters government dependency," according to GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney.

But that view is out of whack with the reality of many of the severely wounded, and other veterans and their families.

I don't know too many vets who are living in Beverly Hills on their VA benefits."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1897200.html

[buffoon]

Originally Posted by ekim68

The Radical Rich

From Savanarola to Sarah Palin, from Robespierre to Romney, the psychology never changes: You're either one of us or one of them.

What the dickens has gotten into this pen abuser? How the heck does one compare Savonarola (and spell the name right while you're at it) with someone like Palin or Robespierre with Romney?

Clear case that the stance of Democrats being progressive and thus literate as well as better educated requires revision. Moonbattery couldn't have scribbled worse tripe.

Not griping at the gist of the article but some people sure don't know when to stop.

[nittiley]

Originally Posted by Littlefield

... Dana Milbank is a tool.

i'll say this for milbank.. have you ever seen a voluntary write-up by a congressional member openly stating all their perks & bribes by a campaign & its sponsors (the way this journalist did)?

...I attended these events for five hours straight on Tuesday and could not identify a single delegate.
...An hour later, the Bloomberg Link held its breakfast event — also featuring Jarrett. Attendees, including Time’s Mark Halperin, BuzzFeed’s Ben Smith and three from The Post editorial page... got purple Bloomberg beachbags containing sunglasses and water bottles.

...hurried to the National Journal-CBS Breakfast (sponsors include United Technologies, Volkswagen and Pfizer), which featured Obama pollster Joel Benenson informing a roomful of journalists that the president’s crowds have been getting bigger.

There was little time to process this wisdom, because I was late for a breakfast done by the Hill (sponsors include Tyco, Allstate and lobbying firm Holland and Knight), where Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.) announced that Obama’s advisers have been 'astonishingly successful.' By then I was behind for the Yahoo-ABC News event, so I missed Obama campaign manager Jim Messina telling the roomful of reporters that 'the president is building an economy built to last.'

There were a dozen media events to go...But if I went... could I still make it to Wednesday’s breakfast sponsored by Bloomberg and The Post?

Possibly — but I’d need a nap at the Huffington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...d13_story.html

any wonder the mainstream media & some bloggers have been discredited?

sounds like the very wise benjamin franklin had it right ages ago when he said, 'believe none of what you hear and half of what you see.'

[poochee]

Michael McAuliff
Harry Reid Slams 47 Percent Remarks, Hidden Tax Returns Of Mitt Romney
Posted: 09/19/2012 11:52 am Updated: 09/19/2012 1:45 pm

Reid went on to say that many of the 47 percent are people looking for work because private equity companies like Romney's Bain Capital "closed their factory, shipped their jobs off to China." Others, Reid said, are veterans, seniors on Social Security, and families raising children with help from the earned income tax credit -- "a hand up Republicans once bragged about helping to enact."

"For all we know, Mitt Romney could be one of those who has paid no federal income tax," charged Reid in a renewal of his claim that Romney may have paid no tax in some years. "We'll never know since he refuses to release his tax returns for the years before he was running for president ... We can only imagine what new secrets would be revealed if he showed the American people a dozen years of tax returns, like his dad did."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1896908.html

[poochee]

Jackson Ripley, 12-Year-Old Coloradan Boy, Writes Letter To Romney Saying His 'Plan For America Isn't What We Need'
PHOTOS
The Huffington Post | By Andrea Rael Posted: 09/18/2012 9:20 am Updated: 09/19/2012 9:24 pm

Although Gov. Mitt Romney has largely confounded the media while trying to sway voters over to his increasingly difficult to pinpoint health care plan, his comments are not evading one 12-year-old Coloradan.

Last week Jackson Ripley was watching political news coverage with his mom about pre-existing health care when he suddenly got up and decided it was time to write a letter to Romney.

The letter begins (Editor note: all text from letter remains unedited):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...ef=mostpopular

[ekim68]

Originally Posted by buffoon

Not griping at the gist of the article but some people sure don't know when to stop.

Thanks for making me look up Savonarola and Robespierre and I agree, I don't see the connect... But some journalists think they're lyrical and maybe literal and can't keep their fingers shut...

[iltos]

Originally Posted by buffoon

What the dickens has gotten into this pen abuser? How the heck does one compare Savonarola (and spell the name right while you're at it) with someone like Palin or Robespierre with Romney?

Clear case that the stance of Democrats being progressive and thus literate as well as better educated requires revision. Moonbattery couldn't have scribbled worse tripe.

Not griping at the gist of the article but some people sure don't know when to stop.

yeah...as a gringo, i'm already weary of this campaign....the issues in america have grown glorious in their complexity: as a result, no candidate can reasonably define a solution.

meaning, to me, that it's really only about which direction you want this country's compass to point towards for the next 4 years
i've got issues with obama....he is the consummate politician, imo....so gifted at it that he scares people....there's a brilliant piece by a constitutional lawyer with a libertarian leaning that dissects one truth of obama's first term....it makes you wonder whatever you made you vote for the man in the first place....naturally, i didn't save it.

on the other side of the aisle, there's this...which i personally find to be rather fair and insightful....tho i have to wonder just how different obama is, after the suit comes off, and the crickets are the sound he hears from the white house lawn

a snippet

Who could possibly know? Romney has built his career, in business and in politics, on telling people what they want to hear in order to persuade them to let him manage their affairs. This is a man who tried to get to the left of Ted Kennedy in their 1994 Senate race and to the right of Rick Perry in 2012. The idea that he would reveal his true political beliefs to a group of people he’s trying to flatter, cajole and spook into giving him more money may be appealing to his critics, but it isn’t necessarily convincing.

What these comments definitely tell us, though, is what Mitt Romney, master consultant, feels his “clients” in the Republican donor base want to be told about this election and what will inspire them to dig deep and give freely to his cause. Assuming those instincts are correct, his comments help illuminate the way many well-off Americans feel about their less-fortunate fellow countrymen – and it isn’t a pretty thing to see.

have we become an oligarchy?
is that the question our fragmented dissent seeks to answer?

can i pose a question like this in a thread not labelled "debate"?

[ekim68]

I believe oligarchy got legal by the SCOTUS Citizen's United ruling.... The Golden Rule, eh?

[iltos]

Originally Posted by ekim68

I believe oligarchy got legal by the SCOTUS Citizen's United ruling.... The Golden Rule, eh?

and if that be true....then the arguement against casting a 3rd party vote (throwing away your vote) becomes irrelevant to the electoral process, doesn't it....

because the truth is that we have only have ONE meaningful avenue of protest....and that is the vote we cast....we can play dress up and posture about all sorts of things.....but if it's really important, our vote is the only voice that is heard

[ekim68]

I don't believe that the 3rd Party is a throwaway vote...I believe it will be a determining factor...

[buffoon]

Originally Posted by iltos

yeah...as a gringo, i'm already weary of this campaign....the issues in america have grown glorious in their complexity: as a result, no candidate can reasonably define a solution.

Oh, I don't see them as that complex. The problem to me lies more in the inconvenience entailed in telling the people the truth, said truth being (truly or assumedly) something that folks don't wanna hear and will punish you for by casting their vote the other way.

It's not an exclusively American problem, the whole West and its systems suffer from this. And thus the unpleasantness of putting some of the responsibility back on to the people by pointing out that we have to adjust our future expectations to reality (that they should also be told) is a venture that nobody dare be the first to engage upon, lest the other party profit.

Personally I have a growing suspicion that the people would take it with a certain grace, showing themselves to be far less dumb than the political class fears (for itself).

meaning, to me, that it's really only about which direction you want this country's compass to point towards for the next 4 years

Neither of the two biggies currently running have earned the aforesaid grace.

i've got issues with obama....he is the consummate politician, imo....so gifted at it that he scares people....there's a brilliant piece by a constitutional lawyer with a libertarian leaning that dissects one truth of obama's first term....it makes you wonder whatever you made you vote for the man in the first place....naturally, i didn't save it.

After 8 years of the last lot of incompetents nobody was taking even a piece of bread off them, let alone another candidate. The Dems could have set up a trained chimp and would probably have gotten in.

on the other side of the aisle, there's this...which i personally find to be rather fair and insightful....tho i have to wonder just how different obama is, after the suit comes off, and the crickets are the sound he hears from the white house lawn

a snippet

forget Romney, he's the prime exemplification of the fact that when one thinks that things can't get any worse, they sure as heck can. After GWB (actually, from my vantage, more the crowd that puppeteered him) that's saying something. Beyond that the only derivable solace is that Obama is the nincompoop that we now know. Perhaps a step towards the expectation adjustment I mentioned.

have we become an oligarchy?

long since
i

s that the question our fragmented dissent seeks to answer?

Sure seems like it.

can i pose a question like this in a thread not labelled "debate"?

Sure