The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Mitt Romney Video: Barack Obama Voters 'Dependent On Government' Posted: 09/17/2012
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/17/mitt-romney-video_n_1829455.html?1347909335

QuoteThe overwhelming majority of voters who back President Barack Obama do so because they are "dependent on government" and "believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing," Mitt Romney told a closed-door gathering of about 30 major donors earlier this year, according to video of the event that has surfaced on the Internet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ft7zHARLUs0

Quote from: guido911 on September 17, 2012, 07:27:17 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ft7zHARLUs0

And that's why you're a total scumbag, Greedo... thanks for playing.

Quote from: TulsaRufnex on September 17, 2012, 07:34:42 PM
And that's why you're a total scumbag, Greedo... thanks for playing.

Nah, it just makes him look petty now.  No snide comeback line.

Would seem the Romney campaign is starting to implode.  I won't count them out, but it almost seems like they want to lose now.  Because no campaign can be this inept.

Gweed, you need my pacifier yet?   ;D

(http://www.troll.me/images/creepy-willy-wonka/the-truth-hurts-i-know-please-argue-with-me-some-more-in-a-desperate-attempt-to-recover-your-broken-ego.jpg)

Nothing petty or unusual about a person telling the damned truth. Now where have we seen that 47% figure before....Oh yeah, that' s the number of people that do not pay federal income tax. And linking to David Shuster? Sheesh, isn't he the guy who thought Rove was going to be indicted? Oh wait, he was the guy who accused the one with the snuke up the snizz of pimping out her kid.

Like the Marine's say, " We're supposed to help those, who can't help themselves!"

I'm beginning to think Mitt's campaign is all about a tax shelter...

Goldwater 2! I'm wondering if in 50 years Americans will look back on RMoney's losing attempt to become President as middle of the road.

Keep 'em coming Gweed because you keep this forum on balance despite your inflexibility.

I'm sure everyone is equally offended by this:

Quote from: erfalf on September 17, 2012, 08:23:37 PM
I'm sure everyone is equally offended by this:

Nice...bring up some 2008 campaign rhetoric because you can't find anything from him on this?

(http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/6335/large/mittromneyetchasketch_beforeandafter.jpeg)

Quote from: guido911 on September 17, 2012, 07:59:14 PM
...Now where have we seen that 47% figure before....Oh yeah, that' s the number of people that do not pay federal income tax.

And surprisingly enough, that number (though it changes whenever it's convenient for your argument) speaks more to the level of poverty in this country since that 47% or 45% or 42% or 40% don't have enough income to owe any federal taxes. You imply that they're freeloading on the taxpayers.  I suggest you spend a month or two living on food stamps and government cheese.

Current electoral vote forecast:305/232

Quote from: Hoss on September 17, 2012, 08:29:46 PM
Nice...bring up some 2008 campaign rhetoric because you can't find anything from him on this?

Just to be clear, is nothing prior to 2012 allowed to be brought up for discussion when it pertains to Obama anymore?

Quote from: erfalf on September 17, 2012, 08:23:37 PM
I'm sure everyone is equally offended by this:

Let's see... did Obama accuse 47% of the electorate of being "bitter" and "clinging to guns and religion"?

Nope.

Yet the conservatives turned that into a bigtime election issue...

This needs to be a bigtime issue when Romney stereotypes Obama voters as the 47%, many of whom are veterans, disabled, seniors, unemployed, etc etc... many of them are Republicans, evangelicals, Ron Paul dittoheads, tea partiers, etc etc... and MANY of them still paid a higher percentage of their income than Romney did last year...

Quote from: erfalf on September 17, 2012, 08:37:27 PM
Just to be clear, is nothing prior to 2012 allowed to be brought up for discussion when it pertains to Obama anymore?

Didn't say that.  It does, however, speak to the desperation that the Romney water-carriers currently use.

Quote from: guido911 on September 17, 2012, 07:59:14 PM
[img]The truth hurts...

I paid a higher rate of federal taxes than Mitt Romney did last year.
And I won't vote for a "legacy" who thinks "middle income" is a salary of $200k to $250k per year...

I wouldn't think that insulting 47% of the population would be a winning election strategy.

"And so my job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

-Mitt Romney

Quote from: Hoss on September 17, 2012, 08:41:36 PM
Didn't say that.  It does, however, speak to the desperation that the Romney water-carriers currently use.

Um, hardly...

I think there is plenty of material over the last four years, and I rarely see anyone on the campaign drudging up stuff from the '08 campaign (although there is plenty). The nature of the Romney video just reminded me immediately of the similar Obama quote. That's all.

So is everyone upset by Romney saying it, or the fact that it has a grain of truth to it?

Edit: Or are they just upset because it came out of Romney's mouth, so therefore it must be hateful and evil, no matter how on point it is?

Quote from: erfalf on September 17, 2012, 08:45:51 PM
Um, hardly...

I think there is plenty of material over the last four years, and I rarely see anyone on the campaign drudging up stuff from the '08 campaign (although there is plenty). The nature of the Romney video just reminded me immediately of the similar Obama quote. That's all.

Yeah, because pretty much cutting loose those '47 percent' is going to help Mittens in the general.  And it is so synonymous with what Obama said in that quote.  Gotcha.   ::)

Who is upset?

True or not, it is a poor thing to say seven weeks before an election.

I am obese, but if you called me fat so I wouldn't vote for you.

Quote from: erfalf on September 17, 2012, 08:46:32 PM
So is everyone upset by Romney saying it, or the fact that it has a grain of truth to it?

Edit: Or are they just upset because it came out of Romney's mouth, so therefore it must be hateful and evil, no matter how on point it is?

It's actually an un-truth.

Obama's "47% who will vote for him no matter what" is NOT the same 47% who had zero federal tax liability last year, no matter how much Republicans would like to make that their 2012 meme...

End of story.

Funny how most of the states with the highest number of filers with no federal tax liability are RELIABLY RED...  ::)

http://taxfoundation.org/article/states-vary-widely-number-tax-filers-no-income-tax-liability

QuoteThe map on page 1 and the table below show the percentage of tax filers in each state who have no income tax liability as well as the state's rank among the other 50 states. Nine of the ten states with the largest percentage of nonpayers are in the South and Southwest. In Mississippi, 45 percent of federal tax returns remit nothing or receive money with their federal tax returns; that is the highest percentage nationally. Georgia is next at 41 percent, followed by Arkansas at 41 percent, and Alabama, South Carolina, and New Mexico at 40 percent.

All of the top 10 ranking states have among the lowest median family incomes in the country. Of this group, Georgia has the highest median family income at $60,268. Mississippi has the lowest at $46,668.

By contrast, the states with the lowest percentage of nonpayers are not as geographically concentrated. What they tend to have in common is higher incomes. Half of the 10 with the lowest percentage of nonpayers are in the Northeast and half are in the West and Northern Plains states. Alaska has the lowest percentage of nonpayers, 21 percent of filers. Massachusetts has the second lowest at 27 percent, followed by Connecticut (27 percent), New Hampshire (28 percent), and Wyoming (28 percent) to round out the bottom five.

QuoteAll of the top 10 ranking states have among the lowest median family incomes in the country.

By contrast, the states with the lowest percentage of nonpayers are not as geographically concentrated. What they tend to have in common is higher incomes.

I never would have guessed.  ;D

Quote from: erfalf on September 17, 2012, 08:37:27 PM
Just to be clear, is nothing prior to 2012 allowed to be brought up for discussion when it pertains to Obama anymore?

Absolutely yes it is allowed.  I will continue to bring up his previous actions/thoughts/words regarding the curtailment of the Second Amendment.

It's telling that he blames the victims of his financier's schemes for being unemployed. The poor economy, the Bush tax cuts, and the growth in retirees are the primary drivers of the low number of people who owed federal income tax in 2009. 2009, the first full year of the most severe financial crisis since the Great Depression, and you guys try to use it as some kind of evidence of the rise of government dependency. It defies all logic. Of course people are going to be more dependent on charity and the government when they've lost their jobs or had their earnings slashed by the credit crunch and resulting recession.

What this shows is that Romney isn't just pretending to be a clueless idiot to try and win an election. Apparently, he actually believes the bull exit he spews. You guys better hope that he doesn't manage to keep saying enough stupid smile to get Democrat-leaners energized. If he does manage to come up with a real stunner, he'll blow it not only for himself but for the down ticket races.

(http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/308490_517208798292878_2097767527_n.jpg)

Quote from: erfalf on September 17, 2012, 08:46:32 PM
So is everyone upset by Romney saying it, or the fact that it has a grain of truth to it?

Edit: Or are they just upset because it came out of Romney's mouth, so therefore it must be hateful and evil, no matter how on point it is?

Guess it is good for those people that everything he says actually is hateful and evil...they can be consistent in their upset.  Bonus for them that it is seldom "on point".

I am not sure what is more pathetic. People thinking this comment, which is nothing more that a restatement of this bozo, is offensive:



OR...That if Barry wins, then we know 47% of the voters perhaps did vote for him because they IN FACT are dependent on government. And soccerpunk, no one believes you pay taxes... :P

Quote from: nathanm on September 17, 2012, 11:02:56 PM
It's telling that he blames the victims of his financier's schemes for being unemployed. The poor economy, the Bush tax cuts, and the growth in retirees are the primary drivers of the low number of people who owed federal income tax in 2009. 2009, the first full year of the most severe financial crisis since the Great Depression, and you guys try to use it as some kind of evidence of the rise of government dependency. It defies all logic. Of course people are going to be more dependent on charity and the government when they've lost their jobs or had their earnings slashed by the credit crunch and resulting recession.

What this shows is that Romney isn't just pretending to be a clueless idiot to try and win an election. Apparently, he actually believes the bull exit he spews. You guys better hope that he doesn't manage to keep saying enough stupid smile to get Democrat-leaners energized. If he does manage to come up with a real stunner, he'll blow it not only for himself but for the down ticket races.

Well, I guess I have to agree with Mittens...if they had just borrowed the money to start a business from their parents, they wouldn't be in this condition, so it is obviously self-inflicted....**



**
I'm kidding!!!

Quote from: guido911 on September 17, 2012, 11:09:27 PM
OR...That if Barry wins, then we know 47% of the voters perhaps did vote for him because they IN FACT are dependent on government. And soccerpunk, no one believes you pay taxes... :P

(http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/s480x480/420888_421062394616768_1388305051_n.jpg)

INTEGRITY...

(http://voiceofdetroit.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Shirley-Sherrod1.jpg)(http://www.grandforksherald.com/media/full/jpg/2011/08/01/gabriellegiffords.jpg)

SCUM....

(http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/20100216-column_okeefe.jpg)(http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/giffords-crosshairs.jpg)

Quote from: guido911 on September 17, 2012, 11:09:27 PM
I am not sure what is more pathetic. People thinking this comment, which is nothing more that a restatement of this bozo, is offensive:

One person speaks for themselves and Romney is stupid enough to generalize that to 47% of the electorate? You might try another line of argument, counselor.

Quote from: nathanm on September 17, 2012, 11:47:26 PM
One person speaks for themselves and Romney is stupid enough to generalize that to 47% of the electorate? You might try another line of argument, counselor.

What he said was 100% accurate though.  47% of the people have grown to be dependent on government, and will not likely vote for a candidate who promises to end that dependence.

The grotesque element of that comment is that it is true, and should not be.  It would be different if it was possible to debate the validity of the ratio, but it is accurate.  53% of the public supports the other 47%, and for whatever reason, be it elderly, student, unemployed, unskilled, uneducated, unmotivated, or just unlucky, this shouldn't be acceptable.  All Americans should have access to the skills, education, and opportunities to be free of dependence on others.  Our parents and grandparents should have the resources to retire comfortably without fear that what they worked so hard for will be pillaged by government or diluted with inflation.

The dangerous flaw in the current system that cannot be denied, is that falling on government dependence is very difficult to escape.  The current administration pushes dependence programs, working to increase dependence.  Once enslaved, the people become generational dependents that politicians both Republican and Democrat struggle to keep.  Paid voters, fed with scraps, and motivated by threats to cut off their funds, or healthcare, or education.

His comments angered both Republicans and Democrats, but most of us Libertarians are thrilled that a candidate would actually say this.  There are now some rumors that this was actually leaked on purpose to change the dialoge.  If so, I like the direction it's taking.  

This is a good morning.  Today, Romney looks a little less like a Republican.

Quote from: Gaspar on September 18, 2012, 07:16:43 AM
What he said was 100% accurate though.  47% of the people have grown to be dependent on government, and will not likely vote for a candidate who promises to end that dependence.

The grotesque element of that comment is that it is true, and should not be.  It would be different if it was possible to debate the validity of the ratio, but it is accurate.  53% of the public supports the other 47%, and for whatever reason, be it elderly, student, unemployed, unskilled, uneducated, unmotivated, or just unlucky, this shouldn't be acceptable.  All Americans should have access to the skills, education, and opportunities to be free of dependence on others.  Our parents and grandparents should have the resources to retire comfortably without fear that what they worked so hard for will be pillaged by government or diluted with inflation.

The dangerous flaw in the current system that cannot be denied, is that falling on government dependence is very difficult to escape.  The current administration pushes dependence programs, working to increase dependence.  Once enslaved, the people become generational dependents that politicians both Republican and Democrat struggle to keep.  Paid voters, fed with scraps.

His comments angered both Republicans and Democrats, but most of us Libertarians are thrilled that a candidate would actually say this.  There are now some rumors that this was actually leaked on purpose to change the dialoge.  If so, I like the direction it's taking.  

This is a good morning.  Today, Romney looks a little less like a Republican.

Yep.  And a little more (if that were possible) like an elitist tool that most of us know him as.  If you think this helps him then please continue to drink the Kool Aid.

Quote from: Gaspar on September 18, 2012, 07:16:43 AM
What he said was 100% accurate though.  47% of the people have grown to be dependent on government, and will not likely vote for a candidate who promises to end that dependence.

It's impossible to make a rational argument when you're busy hearing what you want to hear and seeing what you want to see.

Quote
53% of the public supports the other 47%

This is a complete fabrication. Why do you insist on lying? We all pay many forms of tax. Property tax, sales tax, user fees, the list goes on.

Quote from: nathanm on September 18, 2012, 07:21:37 AM
It's impossible to make a rational argument when you're busy hearing what you want to hear and seeing what you want to see.

This is a complete fabrication. Why do you insist on lying? We all pay many forms of tax. Property tax, sales tax, user fees, the list goes on.

I'd say 'consider the source', but since some people on here get a sad when I do that, I won't.

;D

I wonder what Gaspar thinks of the over 10,000 tax units with an income of over $200,000 that paid no income tax in 2009. (Or the 1,480 of those who had zero worldwide income tax liability)

The entire concept might make his head explode...

Quote from: nathanm on September 18, 2012, 07:34:13 AM
I wonder what Gaspar thinks of the over 10,000 tax units with an income of over $200,000 that paid no income tax in 2009. (Or the 1,480 of those who had zero worldwide income tax liability)

The entire concept might make his head explode...

I wonder why they paid no taxes?

The current tax system is abhorrent.  Perhaps we can agree that it needs to be "reformed"?

Liberals like the word reform don't they?

6,000 pages of loopholes, advantages, layers, and incomprehensible complexity make for an uneven playing field for everyone.

Quote from: nathanm on September 18, 2012, 07:34:13 AM
I wonder what Gaspar thinks of the over 10,000 tax units with an income of over $200,000 that paid no income tax in 2009. (Or the 1,480 of those who had zero worldwide income tax liability)

How many tax $ does that represent?  What are the circumstances that allowed them to pay no income tax?  Inquiring minds want to know.

Quote from: Gaspar on September 18, 2012, 07:16:43 AM
What he said was 100% accurate though.  47% of the people have grown to be dependent on government, and will not likely vote for a candidate who promises to end that dependence.

Does Mitt not realize that many of those 47% are republicans who were going to vote for him? Now that he has insulted them and pointed out why they should not vote for him, they probably won't.

Quote from: TulsaRufnex on September 17, 2012, 08:43:10 PM
I paid a higher rate of federal taxes than Mitt Romney did last year.
And I won't vote for a "legacy" who thinks "middle income" is a salary of $200k to $250k per year...

If that's middle income, then I'm way below poverty level.

Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 18, 2012, 08:14:02 AM
Does Mitt not realize that many of those 47% are republicans who were going to vote for him? Now that he has insulted them and pointed out why they should not vote for him, they probably won't.

If they value their dependence then they shouldn't.

If they value opportunity over opportunism then they probably will.

I guess we will see.

Quote from: Red Arrow on September 18, 2012, 07:57:28 AM
How many tax $ does that represent?  What are the circumstances that allowed them to pay no income tax?  Inquiring minds want to know.

What difference does it make in the context of this discussion where Romney cherry picked a single year's tax statistics to claim that 47% of the country is dependent on the government? Like their circumstances are apparently irrelevant to Romney (and Gassy), the circumstances of high income people that allow them to get away with paying zero income tax is equally irrelevant. Can't have it both ways.

Quote from: Gaspar on September 18, 2012, 08:24:54 AM
If they value their dependence then they shouldn't.

Who was it that said you can't reason someone out of an opinion that isn't based on reason?

Quote from: Gaspar on September 18, 2012, 08:24:54 AM
If they value opportunity over opportunism then they probably will.

Pure B.S.

I have rarely read comments that both are meant to be insulting yet mean nothing. But you and shadows have that together.

Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 18, 2012, 08:28:57 AM
I have rarely read comments that both are meant to be insulting yet mean nothing. But you and shadows have that together.

He will make a fine Republican officeholder someday, if they manage to keep staggering on without any kind of vision or plan, anyway.

I'm going to step away from this thread and let you guys continue to bloviate.

Lets see where this goes over the next few weeks.  ;)

I don't think his comments are having the effect the left was hoping for.

Quote from: Gaspar on September 18, 2012, 07:16:43 AM
What he said was 100% accurate though.  47% of the people have grown to be dependent on government, and will not likely vote for a candidate who promises to end that dependence.

 First off, I would bet that a very large portion of that 47% are Republicans  (I wonder what the actual percentage is).  Secondly, yes they would vote for a candidate who promises to end that dependence.  

I run into people here in Oklahoma all the time who are rabidly anti-Obama and anti-government.... who are very dependent on the government and yes, quite counterintuitively, would vote Republican.  I hear stories, from someone I know who works at a clinic for poor people (that is paid for mostly by federal funding) about the people he runs into all the time who rail about Obama, and then complain about having to pay $4 for a prescription, or $10 for an exam, etc. (that the rest of us would pay hundreds, sometimes thousands of dollars for)  then turn right around and again start complaining about Obama and hating the Democrats.  I met someone a while back who worked for the Federal Government in DC, was visiting Tulsa and he asked me why Oklahoma was so conservative when so many in this state were on foodstamps?  Many of the most conservative people I meet would be out on the streets or dead without government assistance (if they did not change their habits or circumstances), yet want government to be cut?  They may be right in their "want", but I think its wrong for someone to assume that just because people do not pay taxes and or are on the government dole, that they are automatically Obama supporters.  That may be the message the Republicans want to put out there, but it's wrong from what I can tell.

 

Quote from: nathanm on September 18, 2012, 08:25:08 AM
What difference does it make in the context of this discussion where Romney cherry picked a single year's tax statistics to claim that 47% of the country is dependent on the government? Like their circumstances are apparently irrelevant to Romney (and Gassy), the circumstances of high income people that allow them to get away with paying zero income tax is equally irrelevant. Can't have it both ways.

So you don't know and are making the whole thing up.

Quote from: TheArtist on September 18, 2012, 09:09:00 AM
 First off, I would bet that a very large portion of that 47% are Republicans  (I wonder what the actual percentage is).

I can see how you would believe that living in Oklahoma but how does that fit with the overall US?

Quote from: Ed W on September 17, 2012, 08:32:37 PM
And surprisingly enough, that number (though it changes whenever it's convenient for your argument) speaks more to the level of poverty in this country since that 47% or 45% or 42% or 40% don't have enough income to owe any federal taxes. You imply that they're freeloading on the taxpayers.  I suggest you spend a month or two living on food stamps and government cheese.

Current electoral vote forecast:305/232

That number also includes the retired, the very young (children) and the Armed Services. I guess this group of losers needs to pay their fair share in Mitt and Guido's world.

Quote from: carltonplace on September 18, 2012, 10:07:31 AM
That number also includes the retired, the very young (children) and the Armed Services. I guess this group of losers needs to pay their fair share in Mitt and Guido's world.

No, it's based on tax payers, and actually it is inaccurate now.  The number is actually closer to 49%. 
The numbers are based on the fact that currently 49% of tax payers carry no tax liability on their income taxes. 
(http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/CDA-2012-index-dependence-govt-chart-1_732.jpg)

Quote from: Red Arrow on September 18, 2012, 09:58:09 AM
So you don't know and are making the whole thing up.

Nope, I didn't make it up. You should know by now that I don't make things up. I stand by my question of the relevance of how it is they came to pay no tax despite having positive income greater than $200,000 in 2009 in the context of a discussion about Romney saying that those who pay no income tax are dependent on the government.

It's actually mildly interesting, but it's utterly irrelevant.

You're more than welcome to look at the latest SOI release if you want to verify my figures. I should note that the number I supplied is just the rounded increase in that category in 2009 relative to prior years.

The BBC described Romney's answers having to do with this as "long and rambling".  Thinking the UK is still not a big fan.

They also stated he was grouping all democrats as the 47%. 

The Real Romney Captured on Tape Turns Out to Be a Sneering Plutocrat
By Jonathan Chait
New York Magazine


Presidential campaigns wallow so tediously in pseudo-events and manufactured outrage that our senses can be numbed to the appearance of something genuinely momentous. Mitt Romney's secretly recorded comments at a fund-raiser are such an event — they reveal something vital about Romney, and they disqualify his claim to the presidency.

To think of Romney's leaked discourse as a "gaffe" grossly misdescribes its importance. Indeed the comments' direct impact on the outcome of the election will probably be small. Romney repeated the wildly misleading but increasingly popular conservative talking point that 47 percent of Americans pay no income taxes. The federal income tax is, by design, one of the most progressive elements of the American tax system, but well over 80 percent of non-retired adults pay federal taxes. But most people hear "income taxes" and think "taxes," which is why the trick of using one phrase to make audiences think of the other is a standard GOP trick when discussing taxes. For that very reason, it won't strike many voters as an insult: Most people who don't pay income taxes do pay other taxes, and fail to distinguish between them, and thus don't consider themselves among the 47 percent scorned by Romney.

Instead the video exposes an authentic Romney as a far more sinister character than I had imagined. Here is the sneering plutocrat, fully in thrall to a series of pernicious myths that are at the heart of the mania that has seized his party. He believes that market incomes in the United States are a perfect reflection of merit. Far from seeing his own privileged upbringing as the private-school educated son of an auto executive-turned-governor as an obvious refutation of that belief, Romney cites his own life, preposterously, as a confirmation of it. ("I have inherited nothing. Everything I earned I earned the old fashioned way.")

(snip)

The revelations in this video come to me as a genuine shock. I have never hated Romney. I presumed his ideological makeover since he set out to run for president was largely phony, even if he was now committed to carry through with it, and to whatever extent he'd come to believe his own lines, he was oblivious or naïve about the damage he would inflict upon the poor, sick, and vulnerable. It seems unavoidable now to conclude that Romney's embrace of Paul Ryanism is born of actual contempt for the looters and moochers, a class war on behalf of his own class.

The rest: http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/09/real-romney-is-a-sneering-plutocrat.html

Read the whole thing. It is perfect. Says it all, and has a bunch of helpful links that blow Mitt's "47% moocher" argument straight over the frickin' moon.

Quote from: Gaspar on September 18, 2012, 07:44:31 AM
I wonder why they paid no taxes?

The current tax system is abhorrent.  Perhaps we can agree that it needs to be "reformed"?

Liberals like the word reform don't they?

6,000 pages of loopholes, advantages, layers, and incomprehensible complexity make for an uneven playing field for everyone.

Yet no one seems to challenge the smoke and mirrors aspect of Democrats not doing one damn thing about revamping the tax code.  Instead, they promote this meme that everyone else's opportunity is being stolen by the wealthiest.  They are protecting their rich donors every bit as much as the Republicans do.

Quote from: Gaspar on September 18, 2012, 10:38:08 AM
No, it's based on tax payers, and actually it is inaccurate now.  The number is actually closer to 49%. 
The numbers are based on the fact that currently 49% of tax payers carry no tax liability on their income taxes. 

Romney said "47% of all Americans" he did not say "47% of all potential tax payers"

"And so my job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

-Mitt Romney

Bottom line is the only people who are pissed off about this wouldn't have voted for Romney in the first place.  It's the usual suspects on here and in the media calling him out.  Each supposed gaffe from the Romney campaign is supposedly the one that killed his campaign.  I also like the electoral vote predictions at this point, is that supposed to dissuade Romney supporters from voting?  Good luck with that.

Oh and Ruf, a little PWI last night?

Quote from: Conan71 on September 18, 2012, 11:22:40 AM
Yet no one seems to challenge the smoke and mirrors aspect of Democrats not doing one damn thing about revamping the tax code.  Instead, they promote this meme that everyone else's opportunity is being stolen by the wealthiest.  They are protecting their rich donors every bit as much as the Republicans do.

most American's agree that the tax code should be "reformed", even among the 47% of ALL Americans that are deadbeats and that refuse to take care of themselves.

You guys are wrong to try to sugar coat this. He actually thinks that half of the population of Americans that he wants to preside over are worthless and don't contribute.

Quote from: Conan71 on September 18, 2012, 11:38:10 AM
It's the usual suspects on here and in the media calling him out. 

Motherjones is releasing the rest of the videos this eve according to Slate.

NPR 47% graphic:

(http://www.npr.org/news/graphics/2012/09/pm-incometax/gr-pm-incometax3-462.gif)

A few Twitter statements within the last 30 minutes:

Politico:  Joe Biden, on the ropeline in Ottumwa, on the Mitt Romney 47% video: "I'll let his words speak for themselves."

Slate:  You know who often doesn't pay taxes, Mitt: retirees and students.

CNN:  Video threatens Romney campaign: Seven weeks before voters decide on their next president

Drudge:  Florida farmhand arrested for sex with miniature donkey...(Republican switching party apparently)

USA Today:  Will Romney's 47% comment make a difference in the election?

MSNBC:  Conservative response to Romney's fundraiser remarks mixed

Time:  Has Mitt Romney's luck run out?

Daily Beast:  Why Mitt is 100% wrong about the 47%

Quote from: Townsend on September 18, 2012, 11:48:57 AM
Drudge:  Florida farmhand arrested for sex with miniature donkey...(Republican switching party apparently)

Gotta be against some law in Florida.

Bill freakin' Kristol is calling Romney out on this one and Conan seems to think it's just "the usual suspects" while Gaspar doubles down on stupid. And I used to think history didn't repeat itself...

Quote from: carltonplace on September 18, 2012, 11:40:49 AM
most American's agree that the tax code should be "reformed", even among the 47% of ALL Americans that are deadbeats and that refuse to take care of themselves.

You guys are wrong to try to sugar coat this. He actually thinks that half of the population of Americans that he wants to preside over are worthless and don't contribute.

No, I believe he was simply making the statement that people who favor entitlements over work have never voted Republican in the first place, if they even bother to vote.  I don't personally consider Social Security retirement benefits nor Medicare to be entitlements as someone worked and made compulsory contributions to the system to get the benefits.

The demographics from the last election illustrates what Romney is speaking of.  FWIW, in the 65 and over age group it was 53% to 45% McCain v. Obama.   In terms of income, those making less than $15,000 per year voted 73% to 25% Obama v. McCain, 60% to 37% in the 15,001 to 29,999 group and 55% to 43% in the $30,000 to $49,999 group all in favor of Obama.  People in those lower income brackets are more likely to be on some sort of government assistance.

I never heard him say they are worthless and don't contribute, did you?  All I've heard are loose and fast interpretations of what he "meant" by the liberal spin-meisters. 

Students and retirees know better than to fall for this tripe.

Quote from: nathanm on September 18, 2012, 11:56:02 AM
Bill freakin' Kristol is calling Romney out on this one and Conan seems to think it's just "the usual suspects" while Gaspar doubles down on stupid. And I used to think history didn't repeat itself...

Desperate much?

Last I checked Bill Kristol has one vote.

Quote from: Conan71 on September 18, 2012, 12:05:18 PM
Last I checked Bill Kristol has one vote.

Yep, but when he's one of many conservative's conservatives calling out Romney on his idiotic statement, that's a pretty clear sign that it's not just a liberal tempest in a teapot.

Quote from: nathanm on September 18, 2012, 12:07:55 PM
Yep, but when he's one of many conservative's conservatives calling out Romney on his idiotic statement, that's a pretty clear sign that it's not just a liberal tempest in a teapot.

QuoteIt remains important for the country that Romney wins in November (unless he chooses to step down and we get the Ryan-Rubio ticket we deserve!). But that shouldn't blind us to the fact that Romney's comments, like those of Obama four years ago, are stupid and arrogant.

Indeed: Has there been a presidential race in modern times featuring two candidates who have done so little over their lifetimes for our country, and who have so little substance to say about the future of our country?  

Kristol doesn't appear to be much of a Romney fanboi in the first place.  Bill Kristol isn't going to influence my vote one way or the other. 

I hope Romney was using that stat and conversation while talking about the election and not governing. I hope he wouldn't be so stupid to say he won't ever worry about those in the 47% if he were to win.

But honestly, I don't think so. When he says they are moochers, I think he means it. It doesn't matter that the 47% is comprised of senior citizens, college students and people working in low paid jobs. Romney probably doesn't know any of those people except the rich ones.

He is getting attacked about his taxes, so he responds by talking about other people's taxes.

He might be the worst candidate for president I have ever seen from a major party.

Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 18, 2012, 12:15:26 PM

He might be the worst candidate for president I have ever seen from a major party.

2nd worst perhaps. 

The worst being the current incumbent, here are the accomplishments he's (not) running on:

-More people on food stamps than ever before.
-Gasoline is near $4.00 per gallon when it was under $2.00 when he took office, that alone is doing more to harm the consumer economy than anything else
-There are now 23 million unemployed and underemployed in this country
-Now $16 trillion in debt, and no concerted leadership on deficit reduction
-Has not been able to cajole the Democrat-controlled Senate into approving a budget
-The CBO tells us that Obama's signature legislation, the Affordable Care Act is now likely to cost twice as much as initial estimates in the first 10 years

Romney Videos Top Two Million Views

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/09/18/romney-videos-top-two-million-views/?mod=WSJBlog&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/09/18/romney-videos-top-two-million-views/?mod=WSJBlog&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)

QuoteMother Jones videos of Mitt Romney's closed-door remarks to donors have been viewed more than two million times so far on YouTube, in a sign of the potential impact on the 2012 election.

The main video – in which Mr. Romney describes nearly half the U.S. electorate as "dependent on government" and who feel "entitled" to various services, including health care, food and housing – had gotten nearly 1.7 million views as of midday. Other slices of his remarks to the group – on the economy, on his strategy for the election and other topics – had gotten more than 500,000 views.


Romney Says Comments 'Not Elegantly Stated'
According to a broader measure from video tracker Visible Measures, the various video clips have been viewed 2.4 million times overall as of noon. That figure includes views of about 130 clips in all — both the original clips and dozens of derivative videos.

The exact impact of the comments has yet to be determined. Mr. Romney described the comments on Monday night as "not elegantly stated," but basically stuck with his underlying message about the expanding number of Americans receiving government benefits, and the rising percentage who don't pay federal income tax. Both are common complaints among conservatives. Mr. Romney's language struck some conservative commentators as tone-deaf, however.

Note: Mother Jones now reports that the fundraiser was held at the Boca Raton, Fla. home of a private equity manager, Marc Leder, on May 17

Quote from: Conan71 on September 18, 2012, 12:25:29 PM
-More people on food stamps than ever before.

Yes, blame population growth and the continued lack of demand on Obama, not the Congress that refuses to do anything about the situation.

Quote
-Gasoline is near $4.00 per gallon when it was under $2.00 when he took office, that alone is doing more to harm the consumer economy than anything else

And now you're blaming Obama for the economy not being as bad as it was when he took office. You know very well that the only reason gas was that cheap was because oil prices were in the toilet because of the credit freeze.

Quote
-The CBO tells us that Obama's signature legislation, the Affordable Care Act is now likely to cost twice as much as initial estimates in the first 10 years

It didn't say that at all. You might check your dates again. ;)

Quote from: Conan71 on September 18, 2012, 12:25:29 PM
2nd worst perhaps.  

The worst being the current incumbent, here are the accomplishments he's (not) running on:

-More people on food stamps than ever before.
-Gasoline is near $4.00 per gallon when it was under $2.00 when he took office, that alone is doing more to harm the consumer economy than anything else
-There are now 23 million unemployed and underemployed in this country
-Now $16 trillion in debt, and no concerted leadership on deficit reduction
-Has not been able to cajole the Democrat-controlled Senate into approving a budget
-The CBO tells us that Obama's signature legislation, the Affordable Care Act is now likely to cost twice as much as initial estimates in the first 10 years

You might as well go back to the election board and change to R. How you can fathom voting for this guy is beyond me.

Unless you don't plan on voting for him, then my apologies.

I however, have not cinched my vote for the incumbent, before you start in on that.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus

First ad about it:

Quote from: TulsaRufnex on September 17, 2012, 08:43:10 PM
And I won't vote for a "legacy" who thinks "middle income" is a salary of $200k to $250k per year...

So who is Rufnex voting for since Obama agrees?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/14/romney-middle-income_n_1883819.html?utm_hp_ref=business

Conan, here's the deal. Romney's unfavorables are already incredibly high. People already didn't trust him to look out for anyone but the rich and didn't trust him on foreign policy. Saying stupid things like this isn't going to make people think that he's the one they should look to for solutions on Social Security and Medicare or anything else that primarily affects the middle class. That's a recipe for disaster.

This video is only echoing things he's already hinted at in public speeches. As I said before, I previously ascribed his more inane views to pandering, while this shows pretty clearly that his privately held beliefs aren't actually any different than the BS he spewed throughout the primary.

Quote from: nathanm on September 18, 2012, 01:02:00 PM
Yes, blame population growth and the continued lack of demand on Obama, not the Congress that refuses to do anything about the situation.

I would think that the midterms in 2010 would be more than enough evidence that what Obama and the Dems were doing and wanted to do, were not popular and the general population felt needed stopping, which they did.

Quote from: nathanm on September 18, 2012, 01:02:00 PM
And now you're blaming Obama for the economy not being as bad as it was when he took office. You know very well that the only reason gas was that cheap was because oil prices were in the toilet because of the credit freeze.

Or oil prices are high due to a combination of EPA regs, administration willingness to demonize the oil industry, and quantitative easing? Let's not forget any of those things.

Quote from: nathanm on September 18, 2012, 01:02:00 PM
It didn't say that at all. You might check your dates again. ;)

I agree. But just out of curiosity, are there any forecasts for the second ten years? I thought most of the "balancing" of the ACA was due to the fact that most of the benefits were postponed in relation to the revenue generating.

The press pool at the White House was grilling Carney on Obama's "bitter clinger" remarks this morning. Funny stuff.

WATCH: Full Secret Video of Private Romney Fundraiser


http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/watch-full-secret-video-private-romney-fundraiser (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/watch-full-secret-video-private-romney-fundraiser)

QuoteOn Monday and Tuesday Mother Jones published exclusive video that captured Mitt Romney speaking to donors at a May 17 fundraiser, which was held at the home of private equity mogul Mark Leder. Responding to a question about the "Palestinian problem," Romney said peace in the Middle East is not possible and a Palestinian state is not feasible, telling donors that Palestinians have "no interest whatsoever in establishing peace and that the pathway to peace is almost unthinkable to accomplish." At another point, the GOP presidential nominee told attendees of this $50,000-a-plate dinner that 47 percent of Americans—those who back President Obama—are "victims" who are "dependent upon government" and "pay no income tax." He noted: "my job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives." These comments set off a media firestorm and generated headlines around the world.

Romney's remarks, denigrating nearly half of the electorate, sent the Romney campaign—already roiled by infighting—into panic mode. The campaign hastily convened a late-night press conference to address his controversial statements, and Romney stood by his "off the cuff" comments, while conceding that they were "not elegantly stated." He claimed his comments where merely a "snippet" and not the "full response." That was not true; his comments were shown in full. He added, "I hope the person who has the video would put out the full material."

Romney is not the only one who has called for the release of the full 49-minute video. And we're more than happy to oblige. The complete video demonstrates that Romney was not snippetized and that he was captured raw and uncut. Here it is, in two parts:

Quote from: erfalf on September 18, 2012, 01:53:13 PM
The press pool at the White House was grilling Carney on Obama's "bitter clinger" remarks this morning. Funny stuff.

That's because unlike Romney, they'll field questions from the press.

Quote from: Hoss on September 18, 2012, 01:59:43 PM
That's because unlike Romney, they'll field questions from the press.

Ok, now that I have picked myself up off the floor. That's a good one for sure.

Quote from: nathanm on September 18, 2012, 01:02:00 PM
Yes, blame population growth and the continued lack of demand on Obama, not the Congress that refuses to do anything about the situation.

And now you're blaming Obama for the economy not being as bad as it was when he took office. You know very well that the only reason gas was that cheap was because oil prices were in the toilet because of the credit freeze.

It didn't say that at all. You might check your dates again. ;)

Why do you feel the need to apologize for poor leadership?

These are all metrics by which any sitting president would be judged. 

Except for this one, apparently.

Quote from: erfalf on September 18, 2012, 01:52:12 PM
Or oil prices are high due to a combination of EPA regs, administration willingness to demonize the oil industry, and quantitative easing? Let's not forget any of those things.

What new EPA regulations have increased the cost of oil or gasoline? Domestic production is up, so I'm not quite sure what your argument is? It would be up more if it weren't for the EPA? I'm also not sure what hurting people's feelings has to do with price discovery in an efficient market. The QE argument seems a lot more reasonable, but QE wouldn't be necessary if Congress would act. The Fed is required by law to keep inflation and unemployment low. With inflation at or below target, the Fed can't just decide to say love it and not act on the other half of their mandate. With Congress refusing to move on stimulus and interest rates already near historic lows, the Fed doesn't have a lot left in its toolbox.

If the problem is that the Tea Partyists are worried about increasing the deficit, why are they against a deficit neutral stimulus? Taxes go up temporarily to pay for a temporary increase in spending so as to accomplish something with government that the people are incapable of doing on their own. Their inability to brook such a compromise is very revealing.

Quote
I agree. But just out of curiosity, are there any forecasts for the second ten years? I thought most of the "balancing" of the ACA was due to the fact that most of the benefits were postponed in relation to the revenue generating.

It's projected to reduce the deficit out to something like 2050. Of course, much of that is from bending the cost curve, not any kind of reductions relative to today's spending. But that's largely unimportant. Keeping cost growth in line or better than GDP growth is enough. The issue isn't the present rate of spending (presuming we can get the economy back where it should be and let the Bush cuts expire when it does), it's the continuing large increases projected far out into the future that makes the forecast look so bleak.

Conan, if you have a problem with my pointing to Congress when discussing the economy, you might take it up with the Constitution and the 54% of our countrymen who blame Bush and the Republicans for the current state of the economy. Mitt Romney's deadbeats plus some, apparently.

The Republicans are rapidly losing the electorate on issue after issue. 43% of Republicans want to see the Bush cuts expire on either all taxpayers or those who earn more than $250,000 a year. Better than 60% majorities of both Independents and Democrats are on that page also. A majority of the country agrees that the stimulus was the right thing to do. A majority of the country sees favoritism for the wealthy as a bigger problem than over-regulation. More than half the country wants more stimulus, barely a third want more tax cuts. It's no wonder Obama is polling so well relative to Romney. He is arguing for the things the country wants. Romney isn't, get over it. It doesn't help that the approvals on his reaction to Libya are so embarrassingly awful. (-20% approval..even his supporters didn't like what he had to say)

Out of curiosity, is Romney part of the 47%?

Quote from: erfalf on September 18, 2012, 02:01:35 PM
Ok, now that I have picked myself up off the floor. That's a good one for sure.

Have you seen him field many questions?  He walked out on them after his missive about the consulate attacks the other day.  See my avatar for what Romney is doing to his own campaign.

But I get it.  Can't respond to my statement?  You just talk about laughing hysterically.  Keep doing that.  I'm sure that will help your boy Romney win the election.   8)

Quote from: Hoss on September 18, 2012, 02:46:00 PM
I'm sure that will help your boy Romney win the election.   8)

My BOY ?!?!?! Did you say my BOY ?!?!?

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_b1RJ02emR14/TCtJNjXZ0_I/AAAAAAAABoA/7Jtd_4VlNJ4/s400/rev-al-sharpton2.jpg)

Quote from: Hoss on September 18, 2012, 02:46:00 PM
Have you seen him field many questions?  He walked out on them after his missive about the consulate attacks the other day.  See my avatar for what Romney is doing to his own campaign.

But I get it.  Can't respond to my statement?  You just talk about laughing hysterically.  Keep doing that.  I'm sure that will help your boy Romney win the election.   8)

Uh, I'm watching a press conference right now, where he is answering questions, not just talking. He had one the other day after his comments in regards to the Libyan embassy remarks, where he again answered questions. He has the balls to go out after so called gaffes and field questions from an openly hostile media who it would seem are out to get him (as they should, however it seems to be singularly focused on Romney until today).

By comparison, Romney is an open book in comparison to his counterpart. Obama has given 17 press conferences, which to be fair is more than Bush Jr. However Obama has only fielded 97 questions as opposed to Bush Jr's 307. So to come out here and criticize Romney for not being accessible is as laughable as I first indicated.

Quote from: erfalf on September 18, 2012, 03:09:34 PM

By comparison, Romney is an open book in comparison to his counterpart. Obama has given 17 press conferences, which to be fair is more than Bush Jr. However Obama has only fielded 97 questions as opposed to Bush Jr's 307.

W only had to answer "9/11" to 289 of the questions.

Quote from: Townsend on September 18, 2012, 03:17:14 PM
W only had to answer "9/11" to 289 of the questions.

Obama only had to answer "Bush" to all of them.  ;D

Quote from: nathanm on September 18, 2012, 01:02:00 PM
Yes, blame population growth and the continued lack of demand on Obama, not the Congress that refuses to do anything about the situation.

I certainly wouldn't blame population growth on Obama. That's for sure considering his radical stance on abortion, he more than most is trying to keep the population down.  ;)

Ok, that was a little below the belt, but I couldn't help it.

A more "eloquent" quote would have been "that roughly 40% of the population, the ones that would never vote Republican, believe in trickle down welfare, whereas I believe in Trickle Down Wealth."

Quote from: erfalf on September 18, 2012, 03:29:18 PM
I certainly wouldn't blame population growth on Obama. That's for sure considering his radical stance on abortion, he more than most is trying to keep the population down.  ;)

Ok, that was a little below the belt, but I couldn't help it.

How is that stance radical?  Guess you've never heard of Roe v Wade?  It IS the law of the land.

This whole discussion smacks of a setup. Romney says things that piss off people who won't vote for him anyway as a homage to the rich. Either it don't matter if he loses as long as they make this fight or they are desparate to change the conversation about Romney's other failing ideas.

Quote from: erfalf on September 18, 2012, 03:40:03 PM
A more "eloquent" quote would have been "that roughly 40% of the population, the ones that would never vote Republican, believe in trickle down welfare, whereas I believe in Trickle Down Wealth."

"Trickle down welfare?"  Wrong.  We believe in public schools, public roads, public health, farm subsidies, minimum wage tied to the cost of living, public options in higher education, the rights of labor to organize and negotiate, and a simple social security system not subject to the whims and insider trading of Wall Street.  We believe in welfare... but not for corporations or good-for-nothing parents, but for their kids, who shouldn't be allowed to go hungry due to the sins of their parents or the sins of the corporate world.  We believe that pre-existing health conditions, giving future seniors medicare vouchers, and the declaration of bankruptcy based on medical expenses should be sentenced to the dustbin of history, where those ideas belong.

I am better off than I was 4 years ago.
I checked my 401k.   :P

Quote from: TulsaRufnex on September 18, 2012, 05:39:24 PM
"Trickle down welfare?"  Wrong.  We believe in public schools, public roads, public health, farm subsidies, minimum wage tied to the cost of living, public options in higher education, the rights of labor to organize and negotiate, and a simple social security system not subject to the whims and insider trading of Wall Street.  We believe in welfare... but not for corporations or good-for-nothing parents, but for their kids, who shouldn't be allowed to go hungry due to the sins of their parents or the sins of the corporate world.  We believe that pre-existing health conditions, giving future seniors medicare vouchers, and the declaration of bankruptcy based on medical expenses should be sentenced to the dustbin of history, where those ideas belong.

I am better off than I was 4 years ago.
I checked my 401k.   :P

You may be and I applaud you for it. But what I meant by trickle down welfare was more of a direct comparison to trickle down economics. The welfare benefits from trickle down from the resources of those at the top.

Quote from: Hoss on September 18, 2012, 03:45:50 PM
How is that stance radical?  Guess you've never heard of Roe v Wade?  It IS the law of the land.

I know there are many on the right that are against abortion, with legitimate arguments, but as you point out it is the law of the land. That being said, your man Obama is for extremely late term abortions, even as late as if the child is born alive, he thinks it not worth protecting infants born alive after abortion attempts. I would guess that most would agree that is a bit on the extreme side.

What the heck are you even talking about? Is there some new abortion scare story circulating around church or something?

Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 18, 2012, 05:03:54 PM
This whole discussion smacks of a setup. Romney says things that piss off people who won't vote for him anyway as a homage to the rich. Either it don't matter if he loses as long as they make this fight or they are desparate to change the conversation about Romney's other failing ideas.

Maybe so. There are plenty for sure.

This evening I flipped between CNN & MSNBC and it was wall-to-wall Romney gaffe coverage. I did not witness any other event being covered in the early evening shows. It would seem to me that the Obama administration is just as happy for the subject to be changing. Away from the middle east issues.

Quote from: nathanm on September 18, 2012, 06:54:08 PM
What the heck are you even talking about? Is there some new abortion scare story circulating around church or something?

It's old news, but like most things about Obama it just goes by the wayside. The guy voted for some Born Alive acts in Illinois years ago four times, claiming that he thought it would undermine a woman's right to choose even though the legislation specifically said it could not and would not undermine a woman's right to choose.

Edit: This is something that he has a propensity to lie about because politically it is reprehensible to most voters.

Quote from: erfalf on September 18, 2012, 06:57:55 PM
It's old news, but like most things about Obama it just goes by the wayside. The guy voted for some Born Alive acts in Illinois years ago four times, claiming that he thought it would undermine a woman's right to choose even though the legislation specifically said it could not and would not undermine a woman's right to choose.

Edit: This is something that he has a propensity to lie about because politically it is reprehensible to most voters.

That's rich.  This coming from a supporter of one of the biggest liars on campaign right now.

Quote from: erfalf on September 18, 2012, 06:51:59 PM
I know there are many on the right that are against abortion, with legitimate arguments, but as you point out it is the law of the land. That being said, your man Obama is for extremely late term abortions, even as late as if the child is born alive, he thinks it not worth protecting infants born alive after abortion attempts. I would guess that most would agree that is a bit on the extreme side.

Cite please?

Awesome.  So in this same video he says the following:

Mitt Romney on dad: 'Had he been born of, uh, Mexican parents, I'd have a better shot at winning this'

(just for Gassy here)

Just epic FAIL all over this guy's campaign.

http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2012/09/mitt-romney-on-dad-had-he-been-born-of-uh-mexican-parents-id-have-a-better-shot-at-winning-this/

Quote from: Hoss on September 18, 2012, 07:15:03 PM
Cite please?

http://www.jillstanek.com/2008/02/links-to-barack-obamas-votes-on-illinois-born-alive-infant-protection-act/

Quote from: erfalf on September 18, 2012, 07:27:05 PM
http://www.jillstanek.com/2008/02/links-to-barack-obamas-votes-on-illinois-born-alive-infant-protection-act/

Can you cite from a non-biased source?  This lady is the same person who said the guy that killed the doctor in Kansas "did not get a fair day in court"....

This lady also, later on in 2008, said she 'made a mistake (http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/08/21/jill-stanek-admits-mistake-chicago-tribune-obama-abortion-record)' when referring to his stance on abortion.

Quote from: erfalf on September 18, 2012, 06:57:55 PM
It's old news, but like most things about Obama it just goes by the wayside. The guy voted for some Born Alive acts in Illinois years ago four times, claiming that he thought it would undermine a woman's right to choose even though the legislation specifically said it could not and would not undermine a woman's right to choose.

Edit: This is something that he has a propensity to lie about because politically it is reprehensible to most voters.

Is this a source for your point?

QuoteIt's a striking claim, and he's not the only Republican presidential candidate making it. Speaking at the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition Forum last March, Rick Santorum said, "any child born prematurely, according to the president, in his own words, can be killed."

Both Gingrich and Santorum are referring to "born alive" bills that were brought up in the Illinois Legislature in 2001, 2002, and 2003 when Obama was a state senator. The intent of the legislation was to protect any infant who survived a botched abortion by requiring the doctor to give life-saving care. In part, the bill said "a live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law."

Then-state Sen. Obama opposed the legislation because he said it would undermine the legal protections given to abortions under Roe v. Wade.

On the state Senate floor, Obama said he believed courts would eventually overturn the legislation since it would "essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child." He added that Illinois already had a 1975 state law that protected the life of an infant that survived a botched abortion, if doctors determined the infant could survive. When the legislation came up for a vote in 2001 and 2002, Obama once voted "present" -- essentially a non-vote -- and once voted against it.

In 2002, Congress was also writing a "Born Alive" bill. Obama said several times he would support that version of the bill because it contained a clause that would protect the legal standing of Roe v. Wade. Opponents of abortion rights, such as the National Right to Life Committee, challenged his explanation, saying the 2003 version of the Illinois law contained language virtually identical to the federal law, so by his own logic he should have supported it. He didn't. The new legislation never made it out of the Health and Human Services Committee that he chaired.

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-02-24/politics/politics_fact-checking-gingrich-infanticide-charge_1_bar-abortions-opponents-of-abortion-rights-barack-obama?_s=PM:POLITICS


And for those that want the facts about this, listen to this debate and report regarding the Born Alive Act. I am convinced that the lives of the babies that survived abortion and needed medical attention (other words, left to lay and die) were less important to Obama than preserving Roe v. Wade. Period. That is what you support when you back Obama.

More recent analysis.

QuoteA speaker in the ad Hicks is considering, Melissa Ohden, says that Obama "voted to deny basic Constitutional protections for babies born alive from an abortion." Hicks writes, "This is true in the sense that the Illinois bills would have guaranteed certain protections for these infants. But Ohden's claim lacks context: Obama's objections to the bill suggest that he wasn't so much bent on denying rights to newborns as wanting to block any legislation that could erode the premise of the Roe v. Wade decision." He then awards Ohden "one Pinocchio for her slanted take on the president's position."

What Ohden said was true in the sense of being true, and Hicks's criticism is irrelevant. Yes, Obama thought that legislation offering protection for pre-viable infants would in principle erode Roe's premise, and that's why he opposed giving them any protection. In other words: Just as pro-lifers have long maintained, his devotion to abortion was so extreme that he thought a form of infanticide should remain legal.

Hicks continues:

    [Mike] Huckabee said Obama "believes that human life is disposable and expendable . . . even beyond the womb." But this is a mischaracterization of the president's stance on the Born-Alive Infants Protection legislation in Illinois.

    Granted, we don't know why Obama voted against the 2003 bill that included a clause to protect abortion rights. The measure never made it out of committee, and comments from the meetings are not recorded. Nonetheless, we find it hard to fathom that the former senator expressed a belief that human life is disposable outside the womb.

    Huckabee earns Three Pinocchios for his twisted interpretation of Obama's no votes.

Huckabee was right: Obama did believe that at least some human lives, "even beyond the womb," are "disposable and expendable." He believed that for the law to treat them otherwise would be wrong. Whatever Hicks can or cannot fathom, Obama expressed that view both in his words and in his votes.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/316590/obama-and-infanticide-ramesh-ponnuru#

What get me is that there is no disputing the content of the bills, Obama's votes, or the effect of the opposition to the Born Alive Act on "born alive" infants. It was about whether that "born alive" infant has cognizable rights, which Obama said "no" to because it would interfere in his mind with Roe v. Wade.

Quote from: guido911 on September 18, 2012, 07:40:23 PM
More recent analysis.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/316590/obama-and-infanticide-ramesh-ponnuru#

Because the National Review is so....unbiased.... LOL

Quote from: Hoss on September 18, 2012, 07:41:21 PM
Because the National Review is so....unbiased.... LOL

You are a doofus. Did you ever read the article? Did you read the CNN article? Did you watch the CNN video? lol,..And where's your damned source contradicting the NRO article? Or, are you expecting to find a media source out there you like that is going to portray Obama negatively? Tell me, which one would that be.

Those non-biased sources, like you, are so nuzzled up in Obama grundle that you refuse to even look at what really happened in Illinois. By the way, I have family there and they remember the story unfolding just as it was reported in the NRO...but you probably know more. 

Hoss, try clicking through on the links of my post. Unless you can prove that the state docs were doctored I guess.

Look, I could find reasons to discount pretty much every bit of information out there. If you want to just ignore anything that doesn't fit in with your world view that's fine I guess.

Quote from: erfalf on September 18, 2012, 07:50:33 PM
Hoss, try clicking through on the links of my post. Unless you can prove that the state docs were doctored I guess.

Look, I could find reasons to discount pretty much every bit of information out there. If you want to just ignore anything that doesn't fit in with your world view that's fine I guess.

Hmm...that sounds like a familiar position to take, doesn't it?....

Quote from: guido911 on September 18, 2012, 07:49:25 PM
You are a doofus. Did you ever read the article? Did you read the CNN article? Did you watch the CNN video? lol,..And where's your damned source contradicting the NRO article? Or, are you expecting to find a media source out there you like that is going to portray Obama negatively? Tell me, which one would that be.

Those non-biased sources, like you, are so nuzzled up in Obama grundle that you refuse to even look at what really happened in Illinois. By the way, I have family there and they remember the story unfolding just as it was reported in the NRO...but you probably know more.  

Tick tock...tick tock.

Love how a post about Mitt RMoney turns around and becomes an Obama bashing thread.

The wheels are coming off...they have been for a week.  Now the frame is wobbling.

(http://media.caglecartoons.com/media/cartoons/47/2012/09/18/118862_600.jpg)

Quote from: Hoss on September 18, 2012, 07:52:58 PM
Tick tock...tick tock.

Love how a post about Mitt RMoney turns around and becomes an Obama bashing thread.

The wheels are coming off...they have been for a week.  Now the frame is wobbling.

Love how four U.S. department officials are murdered in Libya and you and media want to talk about Romney. See how that works Hoss? I sometimes wonder why I ever engage you. I have had chats with my 6 year old that are more productive than listening to your mindless, zombie-like devotion to Obama.

And I take it you haven't read the CNN cites as well since you changed the subject. Sheesh. Even RM knows Obama lies.

Finally, since you are now back to criticizing thread content, are you back to forum policing again?

Here ya go:
(http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRDMty0R_jysp8yyS7wmTGNza3-JAhQZIUKxQrBifBIIxYPl7AJLPczgXmy)

edit.

Quote from: guido911 on September 18, 2012, 08:00:56 PM
Love how four U.S. department officials are murdered in Libya and you and media want to talk about Romney. See how that works Hoss? I sometimes wonder why I ever engage you. I have had chats with my 6 year old that are more productive than listening to your mindless, zombie-like devotion to Obama.

And I take it you haven't read the CNN cites as well since you changed the subject. Sheesh. Even RM knows Obama lies.

Finally, since you are not criticizing thread content, are you back to forum policing again?

Here ya go:

(http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRDMty0R_jysp8yyS7wmTGNza3-JAhQZIUKxQrBifBIIxYPl7AJLPczgXmy)

Unfortunately, Tony, you hear what you want to hear.  I have never once endorsed Obama for this campaign.  I do however, think Mittens is a terrible choice.  I'd rather not vote than vote for the Romney trainwreck.

But if it makes you sleep a little better at night calling me a 6 year old and calling me forum police, please do so.  While I watch this campaign unravel, I'll be snickering all the way...knowing our resident ad-hominem expert gets his release...

Quote from: TulsaRufnex on September 18, 2012, 05:39:24 PM
I am better off than I was 4 years ago.
I checked my 401k.   :P

You must be contributing faster than it is losing market value.  Are you a closet 1%er?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/opinion/brooks-thurston-howell-romney.html

Wow, the piling on continues...

Quote from: Hoss on September 18, 2012, 08:03:37 PM
Unfortunately, Tony, you hear what you want to hear.  I have never once endorsed Obama for this campaign.  I do however, think Mittens is a terrible choice.  I'd rather not vote than vote for the Romney trainwreck.

But if it makes you sleep a little better at night calling me a 6 year old and calling me forum police, please do so.  While I watch this campaign unravel, I'll be snickering all the way...knowing our resident ad-hominem expert gets his release...

You may not endorse Obama, but you have never once failed to deflect (attempt) criticism. I think they are both terrible choices, but what does that leave me with?

During the '08 campaigns, I recall saying that they both sucked as well, it's just that one was going to drive us to the poor house in a Corvette (appropriate now, don't you think) instead of an old beater, getting us there much quicker. Same applies for this election. Romney has shown propensity to be the "big government" type. I think this election is so difficult for him because he thinks he needs to be something that he's not, a conservative. Which just further makes me believe that political parties are a ruse to keep us interested, and that generally both parties (in private) are working towards the same things.

Quote from: Hoss on September 18, 2012, 08:07:50 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/opinion/brooks-thurston-howell-romney.html

Wow, the piling on continues...

Was this supposed to be one of those instances of hating on their own? Because it's pretty funny.

Quote from: erfalf on September 18, 2012, 08:09:25 PM
You may not endorse Obama, but you have never once failed to deflect (attempt) criticism. I think they are both terrible choices, but what does that leave me with?

During the '08 campaigns, I recall saying that they both sucked as well, it's just that one was going to drive us to the poor house in a Corvette (appropriate now, don't you think) instead of an old beater, getting us there much quicker. Same applies for this election. Romney has shown propensity to be the "big government" type. I think this election is so difficult for him because he thinks he needs to be something that he's not, a conservative. Which just further makes me believe that political parties are a ruse to keep us interested, and that generally both parties (in private) are working towards the same things.

If you don't think he's conservative, then why do you say you'll vote for him?

My criticisms of Obama are plenty.  Not closing Guantanamo is the biggest.  Allowing warrantless wire-tapping is another.  It is, however, difficult to criticize a President when bill after bill sits in Congress languishing because the Republicans number one priority was to ensure he did not have a second term.  Not doing the business of their constituents.  Where is the rage there?

Not difficult to like your guy when he had a rubberstamp Congress last time out.

Quote from: Ed W on September 17, 2012, 08:32:37 PM
And surprisingly enough, that number (though it changes whenever it's convenient for your argument) speaks more to the level of poverty in this country since that 47% or 45% or 42% or 40% don't have enough income to owe any federal taxes. You imply that they're freeloading on the taxpayers.  I suggest you spend a month or two living on food stamps and government cheese.

Current electoral vote forecast:305/232

I have seen firsthand severe abuse of government programs designed to help people make ends meet in times of hardship. It's ridiculous that people are content living that way, being fully supported by others, but trust me, it happens.

Quote from: Hoss on September 18, 2012, 08:16:39 PM
If you don't think he's conservative, then why do you say you'll vote for him?

My criticisms of Obama are plenty.  Not closing Guantanamo is the biggest.  Allowing warrantless wire-tapping is another.  It is, however, difficult to criticize a President when bill after bill sits in Congress languishing because the Republicans number one priority was to ensure he did not have a second term.  Not doing the business of their constituents.  Where is the rage there?

Not difficult to like your guy when he had a rubberstamp Congress last time out.

How do the 23 million unemployed or under-employed, $4 a gallon gas, roughly $7 trillion more in debt (and remember whomever is in the WH next year inherits even more debt from this fiscal year and budget, not forcing the Senate to approve a budget, and a "healthcare overhaul" which does nothing more than shift payment points while incurring more debt for the gov't sit with you?

What about Obama's presidency is not a train wreck?

Quote from: TulsaRufnex on September 18, 2012, 05:39:24 PM


I am better off than I was 4 years ago.
I checked my 401k.   :P

So are the "dooshbags" like Romney, Gates, Buffet and other tycoons who get to only pay 15% on those gains.

They really should love Obama since he hasn't had the cajones to restructure the tax code.  He's made a great bogeyman out of the rich, but he's done absolutely nothing about it other than chatter.  He had both houses until January of 2011, as well as the ability to allow the Bush tax cuts to sunset so no excuses.

Quote from: erfalf on September 18, 2012, 08:09:25 PM
You may not endorse Obama, but you have never once failed to deflect (attempt) criticism.

We have a winner. Hoss is being a typical bleacher bum. Shouting at one side when they stumble, and sure as sh!t quiet when his side fails. Or, in this case, pretends his side is not Obama. It's a joke. What's not funny, is that he all but begged for source citations on Obama's "Born Alive" votes, then WE give them to him, then he runs down the cites. When that doesn't work because at least CNN was cited, he then b!tches that we are now attacking Obama in a Romney thread. Never once by the way refuting the point that Obama voted to let infants who are born alive die rather than jeopardize Roe v. Wade.

Incidentally, this is the post where I found that Roe mentioned, can't seem to recall who wrote it though...

Quote
How is that stance radical?  Guess you've never heard of Roe v Wade?  It IS the law of the land.

On topic, it seems that this entire thread was about Romney attempting to divide up society and taking sides. That is precisely what we have been seeing in this country for the past several years. Be it the tea party or the pee party, haves vs. have nots, the fact is that class warfare is in full swing. Why are people shocked that Romney has joined in?

Quote from: nathanm on September 18, 2012, 07:21:37 AM
Quote
53% of the public supports the other 47%

This is a complete fabrication. Why do you insist on lying? We all pay many forms of tax. Property tax, sales tax, user fees, the list goes on.

What percentage do you think it is?  I do not count Social Security and Medicare since I believe they are earned benefits.

For the moment, set aside why people are dependent on the government.  There is plenty of blame to go around.  It's unlikely that very many people believe that the government is providing 100% support for 47% of the population.  Public support includes food stamps and earned income tax credits.  Welfare benefits are obvious support but are not always 100% support. 

Yes, we all pay many forms of tax, including the wealthy.

Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 18, 2012, 08:14:02 AM
Does Mitt not realize that many of those 47% are republicans who were going to vote for him? Now that he has insulted them and pointed out why they should not vote for him, they probably won't.

Artist evidently has experience that says those Republicans that are part of the 47% will still vote for Romney.  (At least among Oklahoma residents.)

QuoteFirst off, I would bet that a very large portion of that 47% are Republicans  (I wonder what the actual percentage is).  Secondly, yes they would vote for a candidate who promises to end that dependence.

If what Artist sees is true, it would appear that Romney may not have hurt himself too badly.

Quote from: nathanm on September 18, 2012, 08:25:08 AM
What difference does it make in the context of this discussion where Romney cherry picked a single year's tax statistics to claim that 47% of the country is dependent on the government? Like their circumstances are apparently irrelevant to Romney (and Gassy), the circumstances of high income people that allow them to get away with paying zero income tax is equally irrelevant. Can't have it both ways.

I asked two simple questions that I expect you have answers for right at your finger tips.  I gave you a reason for asking.  As discussed before, you are not obligated to answer. 

You made a statement without references.  You have frequently asked for references.  Providing a link to your information would be far more polite than just telling me to go look something up if I want to verify your numbers.

Quote from: Hoss on September 18, 2012, 08:16:39 PM
If you don't think he's conservative, then why do you say you'll vote for him?

Barring extraordinary circumstances, one of two men will be President of the USA for the next 4 years.  If you don't want it to be Obama more than you don't want it to be Romney, the realistic choice is to vote for Romney.  Not voting will remove your right to complain about the results.

Quote from: Conan71 on September 18, 2012, 09:13:00 PM
So are the "dooshbags" like Romney, Gates, Buffet and other tycoons who get to only pay 15% on those gains.

Just for grins I decided to find the income level for us ordinary folks to pay an effective 15% income tax rate using the standard deduction and exemption(s).

For married filing jointly:

$119000 AGI
$11600   Standard deduction
$7400     Exemption, 2 at $3700 ea
$100000  Taxable income
$17244    Income tax

$17244/$119000 = 14.49%


Single:

$62500  AGI
$5800    Standard Deduction
$3700   Exemption
$53000  Taxable income
$9381    Income tax

$9381/$62500 = 15.01%

If you have a 401K available, you can add approximately 15% to your AGI without raising your taxes.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040tt.pdf

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040.pdf

Quote from: Conan71 on September 18, 2012, 09:09:42 PM
How do the 23 million unemployed or under-employed, $4 a gallon gas, roughly $7 trillion more in debt (and remember whomever is in the WH next year inherits even more debt from this fiscal year and budget, not forcing the Senate to approve a budget, and a "healthcare overhaul" which does nothing more than shift payment points while incurring more debt for the gov't sit with you?

What about Obama's presidency is not a train wreck?

Funny how a guy who pretends to have a major mancrush on Bill Clinton can't see the forest for the trees....

Funny how before I get on the Stillwater BOB bus back to Tulsa, I see CNN and Fox in the lobby, and YOU, Mr. Conan, are parroting the meme you got from Faux News... you also HATED Obama from Day 1, so you have zero credibility on his accomplishments as president... I voted for Obama over Mrs. Clinton, and I am happy to not have a democrat president who finds some useful scumbag like Dick Morris to "triangulate" his policies... Clinton wanted healthcare reform, Obama got it done... Clinton and Bush didn't get bin laden, Obama DID.... Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive, no thanks to Republicans....

If dems were unhappy with Obama, he would have had a primary challenger...

Obama's Top 50 Accomplishments
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/march_april_2012/features/obamas_top_50_accomplishments035755.php

Quote from: TulsaRufnex on September 18, 2012, 11:55:47 PM
Clinton and Bush didn't get bin laden, Obama DID.... Bin Laden is dead

Obama didn't do that.

Navy Seals, intelligence services, and taxpayer dollars for equipment did that.

Quote from: Red Arrow on September 18, 2012, 08:05:54 PM
You must be contributing faster than it is losing market value.  Are you a closet 1%er?

What ARE you talking about?
Check the stock market... now, check the stock market when Obama took office... if you can't see the difference I don't know what to tell you.

Quote from: Red Arrow on September 19, 2012, 12:03:43 AM
Obama didn't do that.

Navy Seals, intelligence services, and taxpayer dollars for equipment did that.

Obama made the DECISION to go after bin laden because he IS the decider.... dubya famously said he didn't care about bin laden.
If the mission went badly, I can guarantee that YOU would be among the first to BLAME OBAMA...
Typical partisan arrogance.

Quote from: TulsaRufnex on September 19, 2012, 12:07:02 AM
Obama made the DECISION to go after bin laden because he IS the decider.... dubya famously said he didn't care about bin laden.
If the mission went badly, I can guarantee that YOU would be among the first to BLAME OBAMA...
Typical partisan arrogance.

So then you believe that business owners did build their businesses.

Quote from: TulsaRufnex on September 19, 2012, 12:04:52 AM
What ARE you talking about?
Check the stock market... now, check the stock market when Obama took office... if you can't see the difference I don't know what to tell you.

Keep thinking.

Quote from: Red Arrow on September 19, 2012, 12:03:43 AM
Obama didn't do that.
Navy Seals, intelligence services, and taxpayer dollars for equipment did that.

And by your logic Osama bin Laden didn't fly the airplanes into the buildings.

Wow.  RM, your signature is about the epitome of the right-leaners in this thread.  This is pretty much why I've done away with any discourse with them.  You could tell them water is wet.  They'd want proof.

Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 19, 2012, 07:10:24 AM
And by your logic Osama bin Laden didn't fly the airplanes into the buildings.

Business leaders didn't build the infrastructure required to build their businesses.

Obama didn't train the Seals, gather the intelligence, fly the choppers get sentenced to jail for 30 years for supplying info to the US.

bin Laden didn't build the airplanes, airports, air traffic control and didn't train the pilots.

Quote from: Hoss on September 19, 2012, 07:18:46 AM
Wow.  RM, your signature is about the epitome of the right-leaners in this thread.  This is pretty much why I've done away with any discourse with them.  You could tell them water is wet.  They'd want proof.

No, I know water is wet without your help.  I would, however, look west in the morning for the sunrise if you told me it rises in the east.  ;D

How many times have you asked a right leaner for a link?

You guys get up way too early.

Quote from: nathanm on September 19, 2012, 08:50:21 AM
You guys get up way too early.

Some of us 47 percenters work for a living!

Quote from: Hoss on September 19, 2012, 08:51:19 AM
Some of us 47 percenters work for a living!

All of them do.  It's only the "starting from third base" mentality of the Romne-acs who think otherwise.  The real world interacts with the entire spectrum in a way that Romney will never understand, since he has never had to do so.  Even as elitist as Obama wants to be nowadays, he at least came from a modest background, so he HAS had to deal with the real world.

Quote from: TulsaRufnex on September 18, 2012, 11:55:47 PM
Funny how a guy who pretends to have a major mancrush on Bill Clinton can't see the forest for the trees....

Funny how before I get on the Stillwater BOB bus back to Tulsa, I see CNN and Fox in the lobby, and YOU, Mr. Conan, are parroting the meme you got from Faux News... you also HATED Obama from Day 1, so you have zero credibility on his accomplishments as president... I voted for Obama over Mrs. Clinton, and I am happy to not have a democrat president who finds some useful scumbag like Dick Morris to "triangulate" his policies... Clinton wanted healthcare reform, Obama got it done... Clinton and Bush didn't get bin laden, Obama DID.... Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive, no thanks to Republicans....

If dems were unhappy with Obama, he would have had a primary challenger...

Obama's Top 50 Accomplishments
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/march_april_2012/features/obamas_top_50_accomplishments035755.php

Facts are like kryptonite to you.  GM is alive no thanks to Republicans?  Really?  I guess you forgot Bush ordered the initial round of emergency funding:

QuoteWASHINGTON — The emergency bailout of General Motors and Chrysler announced by President Bush on Friday gives the companies a few months to get their businesses in order, but hands off to President-elect Barack Obama the difficult political task of ruling on their future.

The plan pumps $13.4 billion by mid-January into the companies from the fund that Congress authorized to rescue the financial industry. But the two companies have until March 31 to produce a plan for long-term profitability, including concessions from unions, creditors, suppliers and dealers.

In February, another $4 billion will be available for G.M. if the rest of the $700 billion bailout package has been released.

Even before the March 31 deadline, it might fall to the Obama administration to persuade Congress to release the second $350 billion of the Treasury Department's huge financial system stabilization program — a request that the Bush administration is reluctant to make.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/20/business/20auto.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.www

Here's some real accomplishments to be proud of from your list:

Quote32. Passed Fair Sentencing Act: Signed 2010 legislation that reduces sentencing disparity between crack versus powder cocaine possessionfrom100 to1 to 18 to1.  Man, that's a real accomplishment! I can't believe Bush or Clinton wasn't on that one like stink on smile!

Invested Heavily in Renewable Technology: As part of the 2009 stimulus, invested $90 billion, more than any previous administration, in research on smart grids, energy efficiency, electric cars, renewable electricity generation, cleaner coal, and biofuels. (squandered tax payer money on existing enterprises belonging to large bundlers.)

Avoided Scandal: As of November 2011, served longer than any president in decades without a scandal, as measured by the appearance of the word "scandal" (or lack thereof) on the front page of the Washington Post. (they are starting to reach...)

46. Recognized the Dangers of Carbon Dioxide: In 2009, EPA declared carbon dioxide a pollutant, allowing the agency to regulate its production. (Wow! No one knew the dangers of CO prior to 2009?)

Created Conditions to Begin Closing Dirtiest Power Plants: New EPA restrictions on mercury and toxic pollution, issued in December 2011, likely to lead to the closing of between sixty-eight and 231 of the nation's oldest and dirtiest coal-fired power plants. Estimated cost to utilities: at least $11 billion by 2016. Estimated health benefits: $59 billion to $140 billion. Will also significantly reduce carbon emissions and, with other regulations, comprises what's been called Obama's "stealth climate policy." (costs of which will be passed on to rate payers in regions which are already struggling economically).

Eliminated Catch-22 in Pay Equality Laws: Signed Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act in 2009, giving women who are paid less than men for the same work the right to sue their employers after they find out about the discrimination, even if that discrimination happened years ago. Under previous law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., the statute of limitations on such suits ran out 180 days after the alleged discrimination occurred, even if the victims never knew about it.

Never mind the pay gap in Obama's own White House: According to the 2011 annual report on White House staff, female employees earned a median annual salary of $60,000, which was about 18 percent less than the median salary for male employees ($71,000).
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/04/11/large-wage-discrepancy-in-the-white-house/

Never mind the increased compliance and paperwork costs so companies can defend themselves from spurious lawsuits resulting from this bill:

(The Paycheck Fairness Act established even more onerous requirements for proof of innocence. Fortunately, the Senate rejected them, saving employers from a far greater perpetual threat of litigation.

Supporters based the bill on the deception that women earn only 77 cents for every dollar men earn. The Washington Post's official "Fact Checker" refuted that contention. Bill supporters had obtained this figure by using only census data that best supported their case.

Anyway, pre-emptive record-keeping entails enormous nonproductive labor costs. That money could be going to employee raises, 401(k) plans or health care benefits. Instead, it's wasted.)
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/opinion/perspectives/964787-263/lilly-ledbetter-law-perpetuates-myth-of-equal.html

Passed Health Care Reform: After five presidents over a century failed to create universal health insurance, signed the Affordable Care Act (2010). It will cover 32 million uninsured Americans beginning in 2014 and mandates a suite of experimental measures to cut health care cost growth, the number one cause of America's long-term fiscal problems.

(This is the biggest whopper.  He did not reform health care.  I would consider it an overall success if it would actually improve our mortality outlook, it simply does not because proactive healthcare begins in the home, not at the clinic.  He managed to re-jigger the payment system.  I applaud the idea that pre-existing conditions are no longer a reason to deny coverage and that more people will supposedly have an affordable means to obtain health insurance.  There are parts to this legislation I like, there are parts which are troubling as they relate to unknown new payroll costs)

Ended the War in Iraq: Ordered all U.S. military forces out of the country. Last troops left on December 18, 2011.

Obama didn't bring an end to the war in Iraq, he simply observed the SOFA agreement, ratified in Nov. 2008 with Iraq which declared "All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011."

There are quite a few good accomplishments in that list and I applaud how Qadaffi (sp?) was toppled at minimal expense of life and money.  It remains to be seen in the long term how well Wall St. reform, credit card reform, and bank reform work out.  Oftentimes these "reform" initiatives end up being nothing more than hollow sound bites to make it look as if our president and/or legislature have accomplished something substantive when all they've done is print more paper for us to be overwhelmed by and assume it must all be good things to protect us.

However, many of these touted "accomplishments" are nothing more than the usual dumpster load of debt presidents spread around to their most ardent supporters or to demographics they are trying to woo.  He's also taken credit for other's hard work.  OBL would have been obliterated by any other president to suggest Bush's comments about not being worried about OBL means he would not have taken the same opportunity is moronic.  He was stating there were far more objectives to WOT than OBL.

At the end of the day, President Obama still has to answer to the same metrics other presidents have been judged by whether those issues are a result of their policies or not. 

-Unemployment
-Energy prices
-Overall economy
-How effective a negotiator and leader he has been (Clinton and Reagan are two excellent examples, Bush II had a bunch of enablers in Congress)
-Fiscal management (debt/deficit)

My biggest disappointment with President Obama stems from the problem that he's a great campaigner but doesn't know when to turn that off and be a leader.

QuotePresident Obama today will continue his record-smashing fundraising schedule with six events in two states, tying the number for most fundraisers attended in a single day of his re-election campaign. Obama will raise north of $3.6 million for the Obama Victory Fund in Baltimore and Philadelphia, according to figures provided by the campaign.

The latest round of money events – with several more scheduled for New York City on Thursday, including a star-studded reception at actress Sarah Jessica Parker's home – underscores the unprecedented amount of time the president is spending on the money trail.

In the first 12 days of June, Obama has attended 21 fundraising events.  All told, he has now attended 163 re-election fundraisers for his campaign and the Democratic Party – almost double the number George W. Bush attended in his entire first term (86) and more than any other president in history.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/obama-smashing-records-for-fundraisers/

I have no idea the current fundraiser count, it's astounding.

Finally, I don't need Faux Snooze to know that President Obama's first term in office has not been the smashing success his enablers and supporters keep trying to make it sound like.

But that's lost on partisan hacks like you, Ruf  :-*

Quote from: Conan71 on September 19, 2012, 09:14:46 AM
GM is alive no thanks to Republicans?  Really?  I guess you forgot Bush ordered the initial round of emergency funding:

Probably due to all our local and nation wide state Republican candidates blaming the bail out on Obama.

Quote from: nathanm on September 18, 2012, 01:02:00 PM
Yes, blame population growth and the continued lack of demand on Obama, not the Congress that refuses to do anything about the situation.

In which bizarro parallel universe does higher population not result in more demand in the consumer economy?

When a person has to pay twice as much for gasoline, that means they have far less money for durable goods and discretionary spending.  Higher transportation costs to get those goods to market means their dollar does not buy as much as it did four years ago. 

Whether it's a result of Obama's policies or not doesn't matter.  This is a metric by which previous president's job performance has been judged.

If Romney is to be expected to be judged by the actions of previous candidates (i.e. how many years of tax returns he released), Obama should be equally judged as his peers have been.  No excuses.

Quote from: Hoss on September 19, 2012, 08:51:19 AM
Some of us 47 percenters work for a living!

There's a distinct advantage in the commute to the office consisting of walking a few steps into another room. ;)

Conan, in the bizarro parallel universe where unemployment is high. I think it's more than a little amusing that in one breath you acknowledge that Obama's policies aren't responsible for gas prices being what they are (I suspect the hurricane that shut down oil rigs in the gulf and refineries on shore might have something to do with it) but judge him for it anyway.

Then you go on to say that if Romney is going to be judged by not releasing tax returns (which you don't judge him poorly for) Obama should be judged by the price of gas (which you do judge him poorly for). Funny how that works. At least be consistent, pls.

The fuel crisis in this country is just a load of crap. It all stems from the old. If we can get the grunts to accept and pay 3.59 cents a gallon, then what the heck. They will never see 1.39 a gallon ever again.
The Bull shirt excuse that it's the Hurricane in the gulf causing it is just that. The prices went up even before the wells were closed and because why? speculation of what we might use or lose. How bout we wait until it acually happens before we pre start the gas gouging? Nope can't do it.
Uh Oh! There's wild fires in California and Colorado. Welp we better raise those gas prices cause you know that's gonna affect oil production......Wait, What? How bout those unexpected heavy rains and snow in the upper North East? Yep thats gonna restrict oil production. Better raise them prices.

Just ten years ago what were gas prices? Detroit was pumping out Hummers for gawd sake. Now they are trying to get me to buy a large Duracell battery with wheels. And at $40.000 plus. It just makes no sense. Well unless you make a six figure salary. Pretty soon even those people may qualify for food stamps.

Quote from: nathanm on September 19, 2012, 09:38:23 AM
There's a distinct advantage in the commute to the office consisting of walking a few steps into another room. ;)

Conan, in the bizarro parallel universe where unemployment is high. I think it's more than a little amusing that in one breath you acknowledge that Obama's policies aren't responsible for gas prices being what they are (I suspect the hurricane that shut down oil rigs in the gulf and refineries on shore might have something to do with it) but judge him for it anyway.

Then you go on to say that if Romney is going to be judged by not releasing tax returns (which you don't judge him poorly for) Obama should be judged by the price of gas (which you do judge him poorly for). Funny how that works. At least be consistent, pls.

Uh, yeah.  Nice deflection.

I never said Obama's policies were not to blame.  I said regardless if the president's policies are or are not to blame, that is a valid metric by which his peers have been judged in previous administrations.  But since you decided to make light of my comments I'll indulge you in his failures (and those of previous administrations) on energy policy.  Oil prices were high before hurricane season.

-Someone needs to clamp down on commodity trading practices which cause economic pain to the masses while a few profit heavily. 

-Solar and wind power investment does little to help with the price of oil since most of the electrical generating capacity in the U.S. is from coal, natural gas, hydroelectric, nuclear, or biomass, not oil. 

-Proposing higher taxes on oil producers doesn't reduce the cost at the pump for the rest of us.

As far as your last statement, I'm making the point that Obama spooners who are all bent out of shape because Romney isn't playing by the same rules his peers did (totally voluntary mind you) libs don't seem interested in applying a common yard stick to their candidate and his peer group when it comes to his job performance.

Quote from: Conan71 on September 19, 2012, 10:34:20 AM
-Someone needs to clamp down on commodity trading practices which cause economic pain to the masses while a few profit heavily. 

I don't disagree with you here. However, Romney's answer is drill, baby, drill. We're already drilling more and prices have continued to rise. Not surprising, given that we're reaching the end of our supply of cheap oil. Instead of just sticking a straw in the ground, we have to do hydraulic fracturing or get oil from tar sands or whatever. Combine that with the ever increasing demand in China and elsewhere and well, here we are.

Quote
-Solar and wind power investment does little to help with the price of oil since most of the electrical generating capacity in the U.S. is from coal, natural gas, hydroelectric, nuclear, or biomass, not oil. 

I don't think anyone has ever claimed that solar and wind will reduce the price of oil except to the extent that electricity replaces demand for oil. Nice straw man, though.

Quote
-Proposing higher taxes on oil producers doesn't reduce the cost at the pump for the rest of us.

Nobody said it would. It would help us to shift demand from a limited resource to a less limited resource, though. Cheap oil is done for and has been for years. I don't blame Obama for that any more than I blame Bush for the increases in oil prices during his tenure. It's a stupid metric and has been for a long time.

Quote
As far as your last statement, I'm making the point that Obama spooners who are all bent out of shape because Romney isn't playing by the same rules his peers did (totally voluntary mind you) libs don't seem interested in applying a common yard stick to their candidate and his peer group when it comes to his job performance.

Interesting how acknowledging reality makes me an Obama spooner, while your own choice to engage in a little cognitive dissonance doesn't make you a Romney spooner.

Quote from: nathanm on September 19, 2012, 10:42:38 AM
I don't disagree with you here. However, Romney's answer is drill, baby, drill. We're already drilling more and prices have continued to rise. Not surprising, given that we're reaching the end of our supply of cheap oil. Instead of just sticking a straw in the ground, we have to do hydraulic fracturing or get oil from tar sands or whatever. Combine that with the ever increasing demand in China and elsewhere and well, here we are.

I don't think anyone has ever claimed that solar and wind will reduce the price of oil except to the extent that electricity replaces demand for oil. Nice straw man, though.

Nobody said it would. It would help us to shift demand from a limited resource to a less limited resource, though. Cheap oil is done for and has been for years. I don't blame Obama for that any more than I blame Bush for the increases in oil prices during his tenure. It's a stupid metric and has been for a long time.

Interesting how acknowledging reality makes me an Obama spooner, while your own choice to engage in a little cognitive dissonance doesn't make you a Romney spooner.

Electricity doesn't reduce demand for oil significantly since no one has figured out how to make electrically-based transportation a practical or economical alternative for most people in a society where we value personal transportation much higher than mass transit.  Secondly, most of our freight is dependent on motorized transport which cannot easily be replaced by electrical vehicles.

Romney's tax returns are of no use in determining his leadership ability.  Yet for some reason, in key areas which make the most difference to the average American, it would appear America has slid backwards under Obama.  Don't confuse great salesmanship with great leadership.

Quote from: Conan71 on September 19, 2012, 10:51:54 AM
Electricity doesn't reduce demand for oil significantly since no one has figured out how to make electrically-based transportation a practical or economical alternative for most people in a society where we value personal transportation much higher than mass transit.  Secondly, most of our freight is dependent on motorized transport which cannot easily be replaced by electrical vehicles.

Yes, Conan, we are going to have to change how transportation works in this country, no matter who is President. Get this through your skull: Oil is not going to be cheaper than it is now for any significant length of time. We're running out, whether you like it or not. That's not any President's fault, it just is what it is. Doubling down on oil would be a spectacular failure of leadership. Thankfully, Obama has seen fit to both increase efficiency, thus reducing pressure on oil supplies, and attempt to jump start alternative energy based transport. Some from column A and some from column B, not some ideological bull exit.

Quote
Romney's tax returns are of no use in determining his leadership ability.  Yet for some reason, in key areas which make the most difference to the average American, it would appear America has slid backwards under Obama.  Don't confuse great salesmanship with great leadership.

You seriously don't think that whether or not someone cheated on their taxes is relevant to their qualification to be President?

Quote from: nathanm on September 19, 2012, 10:56:53 AM
Yes, Conan, we are going to have to change how transportation works in this country, no matter who is President. Get this through your skull: Oil is not going to be cheaper than it is now for any significant length of time. We're running out, whether you like it or not. That's not any President's fault, it just is what it is. Doubling down on oil would be a spectacular failure of leadership. Thankfully, Obama has seen fit to both increase efficiency, thus reducing pressure on oil supplies, and attempt to jump start alternative energy based transport. Some from column A and some from column B, not some ideological bull exit.

You seriously don't think that whether or not someone cheated on their taxes is relevant to their qualification to be President?

That's fine if you can't accept Obama's energy policies (or lack thereof) are to blame for high oil prices.  I speak with people in the industry daily, and work with several exploration and production companies but I'll defer to your superior Googling skills over reality.

I have no doubt Romney has exploited the tax code to it's fullest extent and to his advantage.  However, there is a certain agency called the IRS who has access to his tax returns and I suspect they would have reined in any irregularities long ago.  As well, his taxes appear to have been up to snuff by FERC standards.  But continue to perpetuate this strawman if if somehow makes Obama a better candidate in your own mind.

That's what I love about Obama supporters.  They constantly lower the bar to make their candidate look better, or simply throw out shiny things as a distraction from the real issues whether it's  "Bush did it!" or "Romney must be a felon!".  That's not running on your record. That's running from your record.

Quote from: Conan71 on September 19, 2012, 11:04:08 AM
That's fine if you can't accept Obama's energy policies (or lack thereof) are to blame for high oil prices.  I speak with people in the industry daily, and work with several exploration and production companies but I'll defer to your superior Googling skills over reality.

Ok, what specific issues have your conversations brought up? Has domestic oil production declined during Obama's term? Imports? Have taxes actually increased? Have new regulations actually been issued? What's the deal, if it's not (some) speculation and (some) actual increasing demand?

RAND's American Life Panel is showing a dramatic turn from Romney to Obama among people without college degrees over the past couple of days. The panelists' winner predictions haven't changed much, though, so it may just be a temporary expression of disapproval of his disdain for half the population. Over 1% a day in Obama's favor for the past two days in that group, though. (insert the usual caveats about small sample size of subgroups here)

For the first time this election cycle, RAND is showing Obama with a big enough lead to get to 95% statistical confidence. This despite Obama supporters still judging themselves less likely to vote than Romney supporters. (insert the usual caveats about people still having plenty of time to change their mind here)

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on September 19, 2012, 09:14:06 AM
All of them do.  It's only the "starting from third base" mentality of the Romne-acs who think otherwise. 

It only takes one example to disprove "all".  I know one.   He's a good friend. 

HAHAHA

http://www.theonion.com/articles/now-that-my-campaign-is-over-id-like-to-talk-to-yo,29611/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=standard-post:headline:default (http://www.theonion.com/articles/now-that-my-campaign-is-over-id-like-to-talk-to-yo,29611/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=standard-post:headline:default)

(http://o.onionstatic.com/images/18/18108/3x4/90.jpg?2261)
Now That My Campaign Is Over, I'd Like To Talk To You All About The Church Of Latter-Day Saints

Quote from: DolfanBob on September 19, 2012, 10:20:15 AM
Well unless you make a six figure salary. Pretty soon even those people may qualify for food stamps.

My 6 figure salary includes too many place to the right of the decimal point.  

Quote from: DolfanBob on September 19, 2012, 10:20:15 AM
The Bull shirt excuse that it's the Hurricane in the gulf causing it is just that. The prices went up even before the wells were closed and because why? speculation of what we might use or lose. How bout we wait until it acually happens before we pre start the gas gouging? Nope can't do it.

Sounds like an efficient market to me, pricing in risk.

I would guess that a huge part of the consistent increase in energy prices has to do with the generally sad state of more other investments. I understand the stock market is on the rebound, but at one point people were fleeing in droves. And the real estate market, well... Investors want a return greater than what their mattresses would provide so they put in oil, then other commodities including food.

Think in 2008 during a full blown recession we had excess supplies and reduced demand, and nothing.

Quote from: Red Arrow on September 19, 2012, 12:03:43 AM
Obama didn't do that.

Navy Seals, intelligence services, and taxpayer dollars for equipment did that.

If you follow the left's logic, then Obama is responsible for the deaths of every American soldier or diplomat since he took office--including the four dead in Libya. And since Barry is the "decider", all that's wrong with our economy is on him because he "decided" on the stimulus, porkulus, bailouts, etc...As for bin Laden, it absolutely sickens me how all those damned anti-Bush bashers were all in the streets screaming about Geneva convention this, human rights violations that...yet, target drone killings, invading Pakistan to get bin Laden, rendition, keeping Gitmo open, military tribunals, and all the other things that WAS so terrible is now wonderful. Yay war machine...when we are controlling it.

And by the way, where are all of these morons:

(http://vocalminority.typepad.com/.a/6a00e54f8c22b788340133ec868441970b-800wi)

I know, they are doing this now:

(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQjVfsmPGRs19QVPZG0iZ7R7dZoWuq9bCA8GZQ4e1MbYMm2d5F6IQ)

(http://www.people-press.org/files/2012/09/9-19-12-3.png)

http://www.people-press.org/2012/09/19/obama-ahead-with-stronger-support-better-image-and-lead-on-most-issues/ (http://www.people-press.org/2012/09/19/obama-ahead-with-stronger-support-better-image-and-lead-on-most-issues/)

Interestingly, several polling organizations have had similar results over the past couple of weeks.

I do find it interesting though that "ordinary" people feel a connection to Obama since he generally hangs out with celebrities and the uber wealthy, takes posh vacations, and doesn't seem near as in touch with the disadvantaged as Clinton was.  I don't think he really even shows much empathy when he speaks.

Quite an interesting contrast during the convention when you had Clinton and Obama back-to-back.  Until that point, I think many people thought Obama was the greatest orator they had ever heard.

Now let's see what the poll looks like when Pew polls some Republijerks.  :P

Do you ever notice that you hear things like "greatest speaker ever", "greatest game ever", "worst conditions ever"? It's like people in the news/sports media have zero memories doesn't it?

Quote from: erfalf on September 19, 2012, 03:47:24 PM
Do you ever notice that you hear things like "greatest speaker ever", "greatest game ever", "worst conditions ever"? It's like people in the news/sports media have zero memories doesn't it?

Are all those started with "Some say" or "Some would say"?

Quote from: Conan71 on September 19, 2012, 03:28:53 PM
Quite an interesting contrast during the convention when you had Clinton and Obama back-to-back.  Until that point, I think many people thought Obama was the greatest orator they had ever heard.

They're both very good, they're just very good at different things. Obama doesn't talk numbers as well as Clinton. Clinton doesn't do soaring and inspirational rhetoric as well as Obama. Neither come close to being the best orator EVARRRR, but few people actually believe either of them are.

You might find this informative as to how it is people connect with Obama, among other things: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/10/michael-lewis-profile-barack-obama

Quote from: Townsend on September 19, 2012, 04:02:04 PM
Are all those started with "Some say" or "Some would say"?

Rarely, especially when it comes to stormageddon.

Quote from: nathanm on September 19, 2012, 04:05:49 PM
They're both very good, they're just very good at different things. Obama doesn't talk numbers as well as Clinton. Clinton doesn't do soaring and inspirational rhetoric as well as Obama. Neither come close to being the best orator EVARRRR, but few people actually believe either of them are.

You might find this informative as to how it is people connect with Obama, among other things: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/10/michael-lewis-profile-barack-obama

I remember quite distinctly the talking heads gushing about how eloquent he was and one of the best speakers, if not the best they had ever heard.  There were even people posting here about what a great speaker O was.  Heck it even sent a chill up Chris Matthews leg.  ;D

I could be the best speaker ever. I just don't talk in punctuation very well.

Quote from: Conan71 on September 19, 2012, 04:08:55 PM
I remember quite distinctly the talking heads gushing about how eloquent he was and one of the best speakers, if not the best they had ever heard.  There were even people posting here about what a great speaker O was.  Heck it even sent a chill up Chris Matthews leg.  ;D

It's the voice.  I make 'em all quiver when I talk too.  Deep voice and an eloquent way are two of my charms.

Quote from: Townsend on September 19, 2012, 04:02:04 PM
Are all those started with "Some say" or "Some would say"?

Oh come on, you've never heard the announcers at the national championship game, say this is greatest game ever. Or the weathermen claiming the worst storm ever, biggest earthquake ever, on and on and on... And tingles...  ;D

Haha....

(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/304972_426849110684107_1049664435_n.jpg)

Quote from: Red Arrow on September 19, 2012, 12:56:21 PM
It only takes one example to disprove "all".  I know one.   He's a good friend. 

Talk of a 47%er implies they make some money, but not enough to pay taxes - and that would lead to the requirement, if they are gonna benefit from "gaming" the system, that they must file a tax return (can't get earned income credit without earned income).  So your friend can't be a 47%er because he doesn't work, so doesn't have to or get to file a return, depending on circumstance.

Nice try, though.  That could slip by very easily, especially as a Romney sound bite!!

Quote from: erfalf on September 19, 2012, 03:47:24 PM
Do you ever notice that you hear things like "greatest speaker ever", "greatest game ever", "worst conditions ever"? It's like people in the news/sports media have zero memories doesn't it?

Wow!  (I will let the zero memory comment slide beyond that...)

Quote from: erfalf on September 19, 2012, 01:41:40 PM

I understand the stock market is on the rebound, but at one point people were fleeing in droves. And the real estate market, well... Investors want a return greater than what their mattresses would provide so they put in oil, then other commodities including food.

We are well beyond being "on the rebound".  We have rebounded.  We are floating around in that rarified atmosphere of irrational exhuberance where we spend much of the last 20 years or so.  (Hey!  I bet that would be a good place to put Social Security funds!)

Quote from: nathanm on September 19, 2012, 04:05:49 PM
Clinton doesn't do soaring and inspirational rhetoric as well as Obama.

That is one of the things I don't like about Obama.  I have always been distrustful and turned off by inspirational/motivational speakers.

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on September 19, 2012, 06:56:02 PM
Talk of a 47%er implies they make some money, but not enough to pay taxes - and that would lead to the requirement, if they are gonna benefit from "gaming" the system, that they must file a tax return (can't get earned income credit without earned income).  So your friend can't be a 47%er because he doesn't work, so doesn't have to or get to file a return, depending on circumstance.
Nice try, though.  That could slip by very easily, especially as a Romney sound bite!!

Some investment income from when he did work, the small portion of retirement that his ex-wife did not get in the divorce and some disability.  Not old enough, yet, for Social Security.  Yes, he has to file.

Quote from: Hoss on September 19, 2012, 05:34:42 PM
Haha....

(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/304972_426849110684107_1049664435_n.jpg)

Imagine the traffic jam if those 47% were on the road.  OUCH!

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on September 19, 2012, 07:08:25 PM
We are well beyond being "on the rebound".  We have rebounded.  We are floating around in that rarified atmosphere of irrational exhuberance where we spend much of the last 20 years or so.  (Hey!  I bet that would be a good place to put Social Security funds!)

The price of my employer's stock is about where it fell to in late 2008 and early 2009.  There were some minor peaks, right about stock purchase plan purchase times,  since then.  The recent price is still about 30% off what it was in 2008 before the nosedive.

Quote from: Red Arrow on September 19, 2012, 08:48:50 PM
The price of my employer's stock is about where it fell to in late 2008 and early 2009.  There were some minor peaks, right about stock purchase plan purchase times,  since then.  The recent price is still about 30% off what it was in 2008 before the nosedive.

That is truly sad.  Mine has rebounded back to where they were.  And previous places have all come back, too.

There has to be some additional economic input affecting that price.  Business down?  Hope it gets better.

Stock price isn't the biggest thing in the world (depending on position in 401k) but I would wonder if it represents an adjustment to get to 'normal' level, or indicator of deeper issues....  might may me nervous.

Do you think someone might be "gaming" it??

Quote from: Red Arrow on September 19, 2012, 08:44:14 PM
Imagine the traffic jam if those 47% were on the road.  OUCH!

Good flip....And then there's this....

(http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/548815_10151270682750555_1109582420_n.jpg)

(http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/H/k/4/romney-lazy-bastards.jpg)

Quote from: TulsaRufnex on September 19, 2012, 10:59:49 PM
(http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/H/k/4/romney-lazy-bastards.jpg)

And then, in the irony of ALL ironies, the recording was made by Jimmah Carter's grandson!

Karma.  It's a grumble!

hmmm... on second thought, maybe I prefer this one... The Onion couldn't have come up with better headlines...

(http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/F/k/4/mitt-hits-the-fan.jpg)

Quote from: guido911 on September 17, 2012, 07:59:14 PM
(http://www.troll.me/images/creepy-willy-wonka/the-truth-hurts-i-know-please-argue-with-me-some-more-in-a-desperate-attempt-to-recover-your-broken-ego.jpg)

(http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/N/k/4/romney-47-divisive.jpg)

Look I understand has foot in mouth disease. But there is a grain of truth to this.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/crs-report-number-of-able-bodied-adults-on-food-stamps-doubled-after-obama-suspended-work-requirement/article/2508430#.UFswnrJlTSg

http://www.scribd.com/doc/106346145/CRS-Memo-ABAWD

Quote from: guido911 on September 19, 2012, 10:49:07 PM
Good flip....And then there's this....

The irony being that Mitt's supporters are largely retirees. Lazy clucks should get their asses to work!

erfalf, I see you're still listening to people who have trouble with the arrow of time.

Quote from: nathanm on September 19, 2012, 11:56:30 AM
RAND's American Life Panel is showing a dramatic turn from Romney to Obama among people without college degrees over the past couple of days. The panelists' winner predictions haven't changed much, though, so it may just be a temporary expression of disapproval of his disdain for half the population. Over 1% a day in Obama's favor for the past two days in that group, though. (insert the usual caveats about small sample size of subgroups here)

For the first time this election cycle, RAND is showing Obama with a big enough lead to get to 95% statistical confidence. This despite Obama supporters still judging themselves less likely to vote than Romney supporters. (insert the usual caveats about people still having plenty of time to change their mind here)

It's interesting the support Obama has amongst the groups still hardest hit by unemployment.  He's managed to do something no other president appears to have been successful at: deflecting blame on unemployment to the wealthy and the job creators and pretty much slithered away from any responsibility on the issue.

Unemployment has been tied to a president's job performance for almost a century, or longer, hasn't it?

Granted, unless a president creates new government jobs by edict, he really has no direct impact on employment.  However, a president can set a tone which will appeal to job creators either via policy or by inspiring confidence when he speaks, which many potential job creators say is dismal from this administration.

Makes me wonder if perhaps we put too much into job numbers as it relates to a president's performance, or he's simply done a masterful job at campaigning against a bogeyman who won't hire all these blacks, Hispanics, women, and people without college degrees.

I think the primary issue is that Romney has done a great job of campaigning against himself. It doesn't help his prospects that people seem to still be placing most of the blame for the crappy situation on Bush and blame Congress (somewhat) more than Obama for the gridlock in DC that they see preventing any action on jobs.

Actually, after I wrote that I realized there's a larger dynamic in play. The Republican Party has been largely taken over by Tea Partyists. The fact of the matter is that only about a third of the electorate cares for the Tea Party agenda, and even less than that care for the moronic rhetoric spouted by TP candidates. With the Republican Party doubling and tripling down on that agenda, it's a lot easier for people to vote for mediocre. Somehow circumstance and the Romney camp have thus far managed to make the election a referendum on Romney rather than the referendum on Obama that the Republicans might have a chance at.

Quote from: Conan71 on September 20, 2012, 10:36:57 AM
It's interesting the support Obama has amongst the groups still hardest hit by unemployment.  He's managed to do something no other president appears to have been successful at: deflecting blame on unemployment to the wealthy and the job creators and pretty much slithered away from any responsibility on the issue.

Unemployment has been tied to a president's job performance for almost a century, or longer, hasn't it?

Granted, unless a president creates new government jobs by edict, he really has no direct impact on employment.  However, a president can set a tone which will appeal to job creators either via policy or by inspiring confidence when he speaks, which many potential job creators say is dismal from this administration.

Makes me wonder if perhaps we put too much into job numbers as it relates to a president's performance, or he's simply done a masterful job at campaigning against a bogeyman who won't hire all these blacks, Hispanics, women, and people without college degrees.

Or, maybe as my avatar implies, Romney has simply shot himself in the foot enough this election season that it will either be vote for the gaffe-master (he now makes Biden look like an amateur gaffe-master) or don't vote at all.  Or vote for the incumbent, which is likely what many independents will do.

I wonder if Romney's campaign even knows what the term 'damage control' is.

Quote from: Conan71 on September 20, 2012, 10:36:57 AM
It's interesting the support Obama has amongst the groups still hardest hit by unemployment.  He's managed to do something no other president appears to have been successful at: deflecting blame on unemployment to the wealthy and the job creators and pretty much slithered away from any responsibility on the issue.

Unemployment has been tied to a president's job performance for almost a century, or longer, hasn't it?

I get the impression many of them fear Romney and the GOP more than they fear Obama and the democrats.

They may feel more of a threat of losing what they get if the GOP and Tea Party gain control of the Federal government.

Quote from: Townsend on September 20, 2012, 10:55:05 AM
I get the impression many of them fear Romney and the GOP more than they fear Obama and the democrats.

They may feel more of a threat of losing what they get if the GOP and Tea Party gain control of the Federal government.

But if the belief is employment is tied to a president, the partial term senator turned president hasn't been a job creator.

Romney, on the other hand as a businessman and governor understands what helps create jobs. 

I think the left has done a credible job of completely misleading a portion of the electorate on how many jobs VC and PE have contributed, instead only focusing on the failed investments of those firms, therefore trying to make it look as if Romney doesn't have a clue how jobs are created.

Either that or the 23 million who are unemployed or under-employed must be enjoying their UI benefits, SSDI, and TANF which doesn't appear to be so temporary anymore a whole lot more than I would guess.

Quote from: Townsend on September 20, 2012, 10:55:05 AM
I get the impression many of them fear Romney and the GOP more than they fear Obama and the democrats.

It's not just about fear, though. If you look at the polling, you'll find that over half of the country agrees with most or all of Obama's stated agenda. They prefer tax increases to cuts in benefits. They prefer diplomacy to war. They prefer building on Obamacare to repealing it outright. On nearly every issue more of the country agrees with Obama than Romney.

Quote from: Conan71 on September 20, 2012, 11:09:46 AM
But if the belief is employment is tied to a president, the partial term senator turned president hasn't been a job creator.

Romney, on the other hand as a businessman and governor understands what helps create jobs. 

I think the left has done a credible job of completely misleading a portion of the electorate on how many jobs VC and PE have contributed, instead only focusing on the failed investments of those firms, therefore trying to make it look as if Romney doesn't have a clue how jobs are created.

Either that or the 23 million who are unemployed or under-employed must be enjoying their UI benefits, SSDI, and TANF which doesn't appear to be so temporary anymore a whole lot more than I would guess.

Except for the few million jobs that have occurred in the last 3 years... and no, I don't give him any more credit than I would anyone else.

But then we have Romney, who does indeed know how jobs are created, and has on occasion created some.  But then chooses to buy a company, part it out, and put the people out of work rather than run the business.  He is the Anti-Warren Buffett.

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on September 20, 2012, 11:14:46 AM

Except for the few million jobs that have occurred in the last 3 years... and no, I don't give him any more credit than I would anyone else.

But then we have Romney, who does indeed know how jobs are created, and has on occasion created some.  But then chooses to buy a company, part it out, and put the people out of work rather than run the business.  He is the Anti-Warren Buffett.

Warren Buffett doesn't invest in firms which are already teetering on the brink of bankruptcy.  Without PE firms, many of those companies would have gone tits up far sooner, and many owe still being in existence and being successful today due to investment from PE.

Quote from: Conan71 on September 20, 2012, 11:09:46 AM
But if the belief is employment is tied to a president, the partial term senator turned president hasn't been a job creator.

Romney, on the other hand as a businessman and governor understands what helps create jobs. 

I think the left has done a credible job of completely misleading a portion of the electorate on how many jobs VC and PE have contributed, instead only focusing on the failed investments of those firms, therefore trying to make it look as if Romney doesn't have a clue how jobs are created.

Either that or the 23 million who are unemployed or under-employed must be enjoying their UI benefits, SSDI, and TANF which doesn't appear to be so temporary anymore a whole lot more than I would guess.

I really do believe it's more fear of loss than anything else.  It may be some fear of what has been said by some of the scarier folks wanting to be in charge.

I fear that some of the hard-core socially conservatives will believe another win would be proof that they should be in charge.

Here's some PE food for thought. I'm going to exclude hostile takeovers, because they are so infrequent, it isn't worth talking about.

When a PE firm acquires a firm, the owners had to accept the offer. More than likely because they needed the money. The alternative in a non-PE world would be bankruptcy or a prolongued decline.

And I know we like to believe that PE firms buy things break them up and sell them. Let's say they do. You're saying that it is better for the economy for a company to stay together that can't create enough value to be worth more than the assets they own? By continuing to run they actually are devaluing the assets.

And yes, fear is being used on both sides. People are afraid of PE because most of them just don't understand.

(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/252425_427105853991766_1956954688_n.jpg)

Romney going to win nine of the top ten "moocher" states. That is another reason why his comments are so odd. Maybe he feels he can insult that many people and enhance his appeal to the others.

I honestly just think Mitt just doesn't personally know any poor people. He may recognize a waiter or gardener by face and know the name of his housekeeper, but he just lives in a world where rich people hang out. Super rich people are handicapped by this. A millionaire is one thing; a guy worth a two hundred million is something else.

He needs to show he has something in common with the majority of Americans. Most of them don't have a house with a three story garage with an elevator) to park their many private cars.

Let's face it, in terms of pissing off potential voters, by and large all the outrage here seems to be from people who weren't going to vote for Romney in the first place.

Same thing as Obama's "You didn't build that" speech.  Those who were most offended (or if you listen to his apologists "misinterpreted" it) weren't going to vote for Obama in the first place.

I'd call both comments damage neutral.

My mother and my in-laws are retirees and they all receive some sort of government benefit.  However, none of them were put off by Romney's comments.  I suspect they are not the only ones in existence.

Quote from: Conan71 on September 20, 2012, 02:28:31 PM
My mother and my in-laws are retirees and they all receive some sort of government benefit.  However, none of them were put off by Romney's comments. 

They probably listen to Fox News.

It would be interesting to hear what Romney said after that comment. I understand the "full length" tape actually had some time missing after that particular comment. The hidden taper (Carter) didn't realize it went off for a minute or two.

Quote from: Conan71 on September 20, 2012, 02:28:31 PM
Let's face it, in terms of pissing off potential voters, by and large all the outrage here seems to be from people who weren't going to vote for Romney in the first place.

Same thing as Obama's "You didn't build that" speech.  Those who were most offended (or if you listen to his apologists "misinterpreted" it) weren't going to vote for Obama in the first place.

I'd call both comments damage neutral.

My mother and my in-laws are retirees and they all receive some sort of government benefit.  However, none of them were put off by Romney's comments.  I suspect they are not the only ones in existence.

Most people probably never think they are included in generally derogatory sounding remarks.

I get why republicans support Mitt's 47% spiel: He basically just read the GOP platform verbatim.

Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 20, 2012, 02:30:50 PM
They probably listen to Fox News.

I'm sure they are closet racists as well.

Yep, I look for comedy...I find news...LOL.

In Wednesday's Gallup release:

Quote
"As you may know, a video in the news today shows Mitt Romney speaking at a fundraiser earlier this year. In the video, Romney described Obama supporters by saying 'there are 47 percent who are with Obama, who are dependent on government, who believe they are victims, and who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them.' Do these comments by Mitt Romney make you more likely to vote for Romney, less likely to vote for Romney, or don't they make a difference?"

     More likely    Less likely    No difference    Unsure    
                %    %    %    %    
    

9/18/12     20    36    43    2    

Yep, stuck his foot in it.

Quote from: Conan71 on September 19, 2012, 10:51:54 AM
Electricity doesn't reduce demand for oil significantly since no one has figured out how to make electrically-based transportation a practical or economical alternative for most people in a society where we value personal transportation much higher than mass transit.  Secondly, most of our freight is dependent on motorized transport which cannot easily be replaced by electrical vehicles.

Just a reminder...

(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lznor8Y2Al1qf10tro1_400.jpg)

An ideology without promise
By Michael Gerson, Published: September 20
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/michael-gerson-a-republican-mind-set-without-promise/2012/09/20/798901f8-0344-11e2-91e7-2962c74e7738_story.html

QuoteIs this Romney's view of the nature of our social crisis? Romney was appealing to a common Republican belief that the expansion of government has produced a class of citizens who live off the sweat of others, regard themselves as victims and refuse to accept responsibility.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Restoring a semblance of equal opportunity — promoting family commitment, educational attainment and economic advancement — will take tremendous effort and creative policy.

Yet a Republican ideology pitting the "makers" against the "takers" offers nothing. No sympathy for our fellow citizens. No insight into our social challenge. No hope of change. This approach involves a relentless reductionism. Human worth is reduced to economic production. Social problems are reduced to personal vices. Politics is reduced to class warfare on behalf of the upper class.

A few libertarians have wanted this fight ever since they read "Atlas Shrugged" as pimply adolescents. Given Romney's background, record and faith, I don't believe that he holds this view. I do believe that Republicans often parrot it, because they lack familiarity with other forms of conservatism that include a conception of the common good.

But there really is no excuse. Republican politicians could turn to Burkean conservatism, with its emphasis on the "little platoons" of civil society. They could reflect on the Catholic tradition of subsidiarity, and solidarity with the poor. They could draw inspiration from Tory evangelical social reformers such as William Wilberforce or Lord Shaftesbury. Or they could just read Abraham Lincoln, who stood for "an unfettered start, and a fair chance, in the race of life."

Instead they mouth libertarian nonsense, unable to even describe some of the largest challenges of our time.

Mitt Romney Does Not Have the Right to Dismiss Us
Moby
DJ, singer-songwriter and musician
Posted: 09/23/2012 6:40 pm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/moby/mitt-romney-47_b_1907920.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

QuoteOkay, I think I figured it out.

Mitt Romney is disdainful of anyone receiving government assistance because:

1. He comes from a rich and privileged background, so he has never needed or received government assistance and...

2. He comes from a rich and privileged background, so he's never known anyone who's needed or received government assistance.

Almost everyone I know has received some sort of government assistance, whether it's student loans or small business loans, Medicare or Medicaid. And almost everyone I know now pays taxes and contributes to society.

I'll use myself as an example.

I was the only child of a single working mom. We struggled a lot economically, and there were times when we lived off of food stamps, social security and government assistance. And then when i went to the University of Connecticut and SUNY Purchase, I received Pell grants and student loans.

So, according to Mitt Romney, I was part of the 47 percent "who are dependent upon government... who pay no income tax." He made clear that his "job is not to worry about those people. [He]'ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

In the past 20 years, I have either personally or professionally paid millions of dollars in income taxes to the state, local, and federal government. I have employed hundreds of people, who have in turn paid income taxes and in many cases have gone on to start their own businesses.

So I think it's safe to say that the government assistance my mother and I received was money well spent.  I was able to go to decent schools and get a decent education, all thanks to 'government assistance.' My mother and i were able to eat, all thanks to 'government assistance.' I was able to see doctors, all thanks to 'government assistance.' We were able to pay our rent at times thanks to 'government assistance.'
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mitt Romney came from extreme wealth. He has never once needed financial assistance from the government, as his family had millions and millions of dollars at their disposal. But there are millions and millions and millions of americans like me who didn't come from extreme wealth and who needed help with education and food and health care and shelter, but who have gone on to start businesses and pay taxes.

We are not an 'entitled' class, we are not 'dependent upon the federal government' and we do not consider ourselves 'victims.'

Quote from: TulsaRufnex on September 23, 2012, 08:07:02 PM
Mitt Romney Does Not Have the Right to Dismiss Us

QuoteAnd almost everyone I know now pays taxes and contributes to society.

So you are another Romney.

Quote from: TulsaRufnex on September 21, 2012, 08:19:36 PM
Just a reminder...

(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lznor8Y2Al1qf10tro1_400.jpg)

What's the link to the leftist daily meme blog?  I want access to it!

So I take it you remember the Dow hit it's all time high in 2008 as well?

Gasoline had fallen under $2.00 a gallon when Obama took office.  His energy policy is a disaster.  It's the same as previous administrations: reward your best donors.

Quote from: Conan71 on September 20, 2012, 02:28:31 PM

My mother and my in-laws are retirees and they all receive some sort of government benefit.  However, none of them were put off by Romney's comments.  I suspect they are not the only ones in existence.

Amazing isn't it?  How the candidate can slap them in the face, call them worthless, non-contributors, and they aren't put off by it...

I get the same kind of thing in my family.  A few more items they complain about is the ignorance of the wars we have been getting in (Iraq in particular - they agree with me that we should never have done that), and the plan the Republicans have to dismantle medicare/medicaid - they don't like it.  Or that medicare prescription plan from Baby Bush's time.  All of which are directly from the party of the guy they 'support'....  Absolutely amazing....

They have been supporters of Inhofe, too, since about 1968 (no exaggeration...) and just recently have I started to hear comments to the effect that he should retire and let someone new in....  (to carry on the tradition of graft, corruption, and overall sleaze - my edit).

Quote from: Conan71 on September 24, 2012, 08:49:25 AM
Gasoline had fallen under $2.00 a gallon when Obama took office.

Hmm..financial crisis or expensive gas. Decisions, decisions.

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on September 24, 2012, 09:21:15 AM

Amazing isn't it?  How the candidate can slap them in the face, call them worthless, non-contributors, and they aren't put off by it...

I get the same kind of thing in my family.  A few more items they complain about is the ignorance of the wars we have been getting in (Iraq in particular - they agree with me that we should never have done that), and the plan the Republicans have to dismantle medicare/medicaid - they don't like it.  Or that medicare prescription plan from Baby Bush's time.  All of which are directly from the party of the guy they 'support'....  Absolutely amazing....

They have been supporters of Inhofe, too, since about 1968 (no exaggeration...) and just recently have I started to hear comments to the effect that he should retire and let someone new in....  (to carry on the tradition of graft, corruption, and overall sleaze - my edit).

That's because all three of them know they have contributed plenty and paid plenty in taxes over the years to earn the benefits they now receive. 

I also suspect their superior intellect won't allow them to vote for Obama and his shenanigans.  :P

Quote from: Conan71 on September 24, 2012, 09:27:20 AM
That's because all three of them know they have contributed plenty and paid plenty in taxes over the years to earn the benefits they now receive. 

I also suspect their superior intellect won't allow them to vote for Obama and his shenanigans.  :P

And yet, Romney, Murdoch, and minions STILL call all that an "entitlement".....go figure...


I agree with them, by the way on that point - paying for what they are receiving.  Found this random statement on Social Security and have adopted it as one of my recent mantras - was sent this link about all the bullets the government is buying so Social Security offices can shoot down the rabid protestors that are likely in case of major economic meltdown... (Alex Jones is another one of the Murdochian minions.)

http://www.infowars.com/social-security-administration-to-purchase-174-thousand-rounds-of-hollow-point-bullets/


The bullets are not the point - if you look at paragraph 6, a snarky little lie is made where Watson calls it "Social Security Welfare"....

Of course, it isn't.  And it is not an "entitlement" (whatever that is supposed to be...) 

I paid CASH for my Social Security insurance.  Our benefits are not some kind of charity of handout.

Congressional benefits - premium Federal healthcare, outrageous retirement packages, 67 paid holidays, 3 weeks paid vacation, unlimited paid sick days - not THAT is welfare!!

And anyone has the nerve to call my retirement an "entitlement"???

(Like Romney, Rand, et. al.)

Quote from: Conan71 on September 24, 2012, 08:49:25 AM
Gasoline had fallen under $2.00 a gallon when Obama took office.  His energy policy is a disaster.  It's the same as previous administrations: reward your best donors.

So wait... if Obama's policies (reward your best donors) are the same as previous administrations, then maybe you should quit while you're behind.
Bush was supposed to have had the most oil industry friendly administration in history... Obama was supposed to have the most anti-industry friendly administration in history, yet we have higher domestic production under Obama than in previous decades.... funny dat.

Typical childish partisan rhetoric from Tulsa's logic-deficient "Children of the Oil"   :D

(http://i.bnet.com/blogs/bush-obama-oil-production-graph-1.jpg)

Whew. Dick Morris says Romney would win by 4-5 points if election held today...

Quote from: guido911 on September 24, 2012, 11:59:05 PM
Whew. Dick Morris says Romney would win by 4-5 points if election held today...

Dick says the damnedest things when you take the panties out of his mouth.

He made the same claim about McCain 4 years ago.  Morris rode to fame on Clinton's coat-tails and he's still trying to ride that pony.  He's inaccurate at best.  There is about 7% of the electorate that will decide this election, and of that 7%, only the ones in a few battleground states really matter, with FL, OH, and NC being the most important. 

There however could very likely be a turnover in some of the other smaller electoral distribution states like NM, CO, and even NV.

Romney is going to lose without a doubt unless he grows a pair, and begins to fight back against the massive negative advertising in those states.  His responses are too measured and dignified.  He's going to have to go Chicago to win and I don't know if he can do that.

Quote from: TulsaRufnex on September 24, 2012, 09:41:37 PM
So wait... if Obama's policies (reward your best donors) are the same as previous administrations, then maybe you should quit while you're behind.
Bush was supposed to have had the most oil industry friendly administration in history... Obama was supposed to have the most anti-industry friendly administration in history, yet we have higher domestic production under Obama than in previous decades.... funny dat.

Typical childish partisan rhetoric from Tulsa's logic-deficient "Children of the Oil"   :D

(http://i.bnet.com/blogs/bush-obama-oil-production-graph-1.jpg)

Sad.  You can't even read your own graphs.  Domestic production was higher around Dec. 2002 than the tail end of your graph.  Highest in decades?  It would help if you even knew how long a decade is. 

Name one policy your messiah has passed which would have led to greater domestic production.

You also have ZERO clue as to how oil exploration and drilling is a long term proposition.  The up-tick in production has more to do with advancing (and controversial) technology as well as higher oil prices making it more cost effective to frack, horizontal drill, and use steam extraction techniques.

Quote from: Gaspar on September 25, 2012, 07:44:10 AM
Dick says the damnedest things when you take the panties out of his mouth.

He made the same claim about McCain 4 years ago.  Morris rode to fame on Clinton's coat-tails and he's still trying to ride that pony.  He's inaccurate at best.  There is about 7% of the electorate that will decide this election, and of that 7%, only the ones in a few battleground states really matter, with FL, OH, and NC being the most important. 

There however could very likely be a turnover in some of the other smaller electoral distribution states like NM, CO, and even NV.

Romney is going to lose without a doubt unless he grows a pair, and begins to fight back against the massive negative advertising in those states.  His responses are too measured and dignified.  He's going to have to go Chicago to win and I don't know if he can do that.

Morris was also predicting in late '07 that Hillary would be the very clear Democrat nominee.

Quote from: Conan71 on September 25, 2012, 08:49:44 AM

You also have ZERO clue as to how oil exploration and drilling is a long term proposition.  The up-tick in production has more to do with advancing (and controversial) technology as well as higher oil prices making it more cost effective to frack, horizontal drill, and use steam extraction techniques.

Here - this will help with the history for the two of you.


As for long term proposition - well, you forgot the most important thing - the intentional withholding of about 3/4 of the available leaseholds and proven reserves from exploration and production.  For two complementary reasons - first, as a semi-conscious effort to "use the other guys oil first", so we keep a kind of savings account thing going.  Second, to make the propaganda point the we need to open up vast new areas for exploration and drilling (ANWAR ??) since we obviously can't produce enough with what we already have available.  Gets people scared so they will vote more 'conservative', which begets more preferential treatment from the friendly guys thereby installed.  Likely even saves some money; if you can scare people into voting for the guys you own, you don't have to spend quite so much on electioneering - they are still expensive, but there is a little bit of discount there....


http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mcrfpus1&f=a

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on September 25, 2012, 09:28:49 AM

Here - this will help with the history for the two of you.


As for long term proposition - well, you forgot the most important thing - the intentional withholding of about 3/4 of the available leaseholds and proven reserves from exploration and production.  For two complementary reasons - first, as a semi-conscious effort to "use the other guys oil first", so we keep a kind of savings account thing going.  Second, to make the propaganda point the we need to open up vast new areas for exploration and drilling (ANWAR ??) since we obviously can't produce enough with what we already have available.  Gets people scared so they will vote more 'conservative', which begets more preferential treatment from the friendly guys thereby installed.  Likely even saves some money; if you can scare people into voting for the guys you own, you don't have to spend quite so much on electioneering - they are still expensive, but there is a little bit of discount there....


http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mcrfpus1&f=a

You ruined your credibility as you left out:

"Baby Bush"
"RWRE"
"Murdochian"

Quote from: Conan71 on September 25, 2012, 09:51:53 AM
You ruined your credibility as you left out:

"Baby Bush"
"RWRE"
"Murdochian"

I also noted no mention of the Koch brothers.

Quote from: Conan71 on September 25, 2012, 09:51:53 AM
You ruined your credibility as you left out:

"Baby Bush"
"RWRE"
"Murdochian"

??


While Baby Bush's family made most of their fortune from oil related activities in concert with the Bin Laden family, they weren't really the main players in this particular area - they are beneficiaries to that form of corporate welfare.

RWRE is more a political, religious movement that has oil as one of its articles of faith, but not the main goal - I see it more as a financial benefit item.

Murdoch - well we all see what he is and while he, too, is a beneficiary at some level, he is not likely directly concerned with oil policy, but more of a cheerleader to those who are.  He is more a political entity.

Koch - see "Baby Bush" above...along with RWRE leanings.

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on September 25, 2012, 10:02:33 AM
??


While Baby Bush's family made most of their fortune from oil related activities in concert with the Bin Laden family, they weren't really the main players in this particular area - they are beneficiaries to that form of corporate welfare.

RWRE is more a political, religious movement that has oil as one of its articles of faith, but not the main goal - I see it more as a financial benefit item.

Murdoch - well we all see what he is and while he, too, is a beneficiary at some level, he is not likely directly concerned with oil policy, but more of a cheerleader to those who are.  He is more a political entity.

Koch - see "Baby Bush" above...along with RWRE leanings.

That's better.

Quote from: Conan71 on September 25, 2012, 10:08:16 AM
That's better.

Sidebar.

Quote from: Conan71 on September 25, 2012, 08:49:44 AM
The up-tick in production has more to do with advancing (and controversial) technology as well as higher oil prices making it more cost effective to frack, horizontal drill, and use steam extraction techniques.

Yet somehow people still claim that Obama has somehow kneecapped the industry. Odd, that. You'd think that the President who had declining production during his years in office would be accused of such, but not in upside down world.

Quote from: nathanm on September 25, 2012, 11:17:57 AM
Yet somehow people still claim that Obama has somehow kneecapped the industry. Odd, that. You'd think that the President who had declining production during his years in office would be accused of such, but not in upside down world.

MurdochianBizarroFantasyWorld.

Season tickets available until Nov 7 for half price....

Some more of the 47% that will vote for Obama apparently...

There's another Mother Jones video of Romney from the 80's this time talking about his company and harvesting companies for profit.

Not really sure how it's a surprise or shocking but it will most likely be on the mainstream this eve or in the morning.

Lefty news outlet edited the video and did some dubbing to put words in his mouth.

Quote from: TulsaRufnex on September 24, 2012, 09:41:37 PM
So wait... if Obama's policies (reward your best donors) are the same as previous administrations, then maybe you should quit while you're behind.
Bush was supposed to have had the most oil industry friendly administration in history... Obama was supposed to have the most anti-industry friendly administration in history, yet we have higher domestic production under Obama than in previous decades.... funny dat.

Typical childish partisan rhetoric from Tulsa's logic-deficient "Children of the Oil"   :D

(http://i.bnet.com/blogs/bush-obama-oil-production-graph-1.jpg)

Here's a little perspective:

(http://gailtheactuary.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/us-production.jpeg)

Something tells me that higher oil prices might have something to do with increased production.

sorry the graph is so freaking big, don't know how to re-size.

Quote from: erfalf on September 28, 2012, 07:49:04 PM
Here's a little perspective:

(http://gailtheactuary.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/us-production.jpeg)

Something tells me that higher oil prices might have something to do with increased production.

sorry the graph is so freaking big, don't know how to re-size.

You obviously have incorrect data since it doesn't support the Obama administration.

Oil was higher during the 2008 speculative bubble. A little hint for you, though: We aren't going back to 30 dollar a barrel oil, unless we find some new easily accessible liquid oil. Unfortunately, it seems that which remains to be discovered is under 10,000 feet or more of water and several thousand feet of rock.

RA, that extra large graph has nothing to do with anything except pointing out that we already pumped all the easy to get stuff back in the 70s. It is interesting, however, that in your mind (apparently) anything that improves has nothing to do with Obama, yet everything that fails to improve or gets worse is his fault.

Quote from: nathanm on September 28, 2012, 10:01:37 PM
RA, that extra large graph has nothing to do with anything except pointing out that we already pumped all the easy to get stuff back in the 70s. It is interesting, however, that in your mind (apparently) anything that improves has nothing to do with Obama, yet everything that fails to improve or gets worse is his fault.

Please correlate that to the claims that domestic oil production is higher now than in the last few decades.
FWIW, I didn't even blame Jimmy Carter on the big increase in oil/gasoline prices when he was in office.  Some things are beyond the President's control.  His policies may have contributed to the price but he alone was not responsible for the price spike.

However, you are right about everything wrong with this country being Obama's fault.

You are such a predictable partisan.  You are becoming boring.

Yes, production has only returned to about the level it was in 2002. Might as well not even bother. I'm not sure what's partisan about pointing out when you say things that don't make sense.

That said, I am partisan. The Republican Party has been taken over by radicals and seeks to make drastic changes to the status quo. I am very much against them in their quest to remake society. I'm also against all the goddamned lying that both parties do, but I see the extremism as a more immediate danger.

Quote from: erfalf on September 28, 2012, 07:49:04 PM
Here's a little perspective:

Something tells me that higher oil prices might have something to do with increased production.

sorry the graph is so freaking big, don't know how to re-size.

Every single post - just keep showing how history totally left itself out of your mind.  Do you not understand how oil prices have been increasing the entire time that you show the graph to make the point that production has gone down because prices weren't going up??  Do you even recognize this stuff when you brain thinks it??  Amazing....

Clue; oil prices have been rising since the 30's with very short, sporadic dips from time to time.  Just so you can have a little touch of reality....enjoy!

Quote from: Red Arrow on September 28, 2012, 10:10:00 PM
Please correlate that to the claims that domestic oil production is higher now than in the last few decades.
FWIW, I didn't even blame Jimmy Carter on the big increase in oil/gasoline prices when he was in office.  Some things are beyond the President's control.  His policies may have contributed to the price but he alone was not responsible for the price spike.

However, you are right about everything wrong with this country being Obama's fault.

You are such a predictable partisan.  You are becoming boring.

Hint: look at the graph that shows the last 7 years that the big graph leaves out.  (Don't be going erfalf on us, now!!)

Sorry to disappoint you about Jimmy, but oil was much higher before he even took office.  (And has continued to increase.)  Still cheap comparatively speaking...

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on September 28, 2012, 11:36:30 PM

Every single post - just keep showing how history totally left itself out of your mind.  Do you not understand how oil prices have been increasing the entire time that you show the graph to make the point that production has gone down because prices weren't going up??  Do you even recognize this stuff when you brain thinks it??  Amazing....

Clue; oil prices have been rising since the 30's with very short, sporadic dips from time to time.  Just so you can have a little touch of reality....enjoy!

I really wasn't trying to prove much of anything, except that short term series aren't always the most reflective of reality. Hence, the "perspective".

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on September 28, 2012, 11:44:07 PM
Hint: look at the graph that shows the last 7 years that the big graph leaves out.  (Don't be going erfalf on us, now!!)
Sorry to disappoint you about Jimmy, but oil was much higher before he even took office.  (And has continued to increase.)  Still cheap comparatively speaking...

Hint:  Look at 2001 to 2003.  The levels were pretty much as the present peak.  That was only 9 years ago, not decades (plural).  If production continues to climb, great.

(http://i.bnet.com/blogs/bush-obama-oil-production-graph-1.jpg)

QuoteSorry to disappoint you about Jimmy, but oil was much higher before he even took office.  (And has continued to increase.)  Still cheap comparatively speaking...

I remember the price of gas went down a bit at the end of Ford's administration and I think it continued down some during the early part of Carter's administration.  I remember it going back up before Reagan took office.  The price of oil/gas was an issue during the 1980 election and there was no FOX news to pounce on a sitting Democratic Party President.

Let's finish the chart, shall we?

(http://www.eia.gov/oog/info/twip/crtpusm.gif)

Quote from: nathanm on September 29, 2012, 01:20:34 PM
Let's finish the chart, shall we?

(http://www.eia.gov/oog/info/twip/crtpusm.gif)

Ignoring the slight dip, it appears to be leveling off.

Quote from: nathanm on September 29, 2012, 01:20:34 PM
Let's finish the chart, shall we?

The excuse will be the 35 minutes of hurricane....

Quote from: Red Arrow on September 29, 2012, 06:39:04 PM
Ignoring the slight dip, it appears to be leveling off.

It was pretty level last year before the jump early this year.

Quote from: Conan71 on September 25, 2012, 09:51:53 AM
You ruined your credibility as you left out:

"Baby Bush"
"RWRE"
"Murdochian"

Your credibility was ruined when you characterized Obama as an "empty suit" from Day 1 and continue to insist he is my "political messiah."

I grew up in this state and will never take anything the oil industry says at face value.

What is it about the oil industry that allows it to suck the brains out of many of its otherwise intelligent and politically diverse mid-level and lower level employees?... putting all their political eggs in one basket.... and when you have a hardline industry agenda that decrees the EPA should be destroyed and dismantled rather than pursue arguments of reform and avoidance of "unintended consequences," and an industry that routinely buys congressmen to loudly proclaim global-warming/climate change to be a "hoax".... well, geez... I wonder why the citizens who live in states that aren't highly influenced by oil-based oligarchies have a distinct dislike of the modern-day petroleum industry and the government subsidies rubber-stamped by the "small-government" Republicans that support it?  Buehler?  Buehler?  

Your oil-based political views validate my opinions.

Quote from: TulsaRufnex on September 30, 2012, 10:18:58 AM
Your credibility was ruined when you characterized Obama as an "empty suit" from Day 1 and continue to insist he is my "political messiah."

I grew up in this state and will never take anything the oil industry says at face value.

What is it about the oil industry that allows it to suck the brains out of many of its otherwise intelligent and politically diverse mid-level and lower level employees?... putting all their political eggs in one basket.... and when you have a hardline industry agenda that decrees the EPA should be destroyed and dismantled rather than pursue arguments of reform and avoidance of "unintended consequences," and an industry that routinely buys congressmen to loudly proclaim global-warming/climate change to be a "hoax".... well, geez... I wonder why the citizens who live in states that aren't highly influenced by oil-based oligarchies have a distinct dislike of the modern-day petroleum industry and the government subsidies rubber-stamped by the "small-government" Republicans that support it?  Buehler?  Buehler?  

Your oil-based political views validate my opinions.

Can't blame him - I supported each of the companies I worked for in the industry - and will do so again, if I get back into it.  Don't forget - his company sells to the industry.

However, supporting the company doesn't mean I have to support the insanity of gutting the EPA that has occurred in the last 25+ years.

It's often couched in terms of liberty. Of course, it completely flies in the face of libertarian thought, not that the post-Randists would understand that. Not only do polluters trample on other people's property rights, laissez-faire capitalism guts the purpose of government in their world view by abdicating government's responsibility to prevent aggression between its nationals. What do you expect from people who refuse to acknowledge that corporations, being creations of the state, can somehow have rights other than those specifically granted by the state?

The 47% I think Romney was referring to. See if you can find soccerboy:

(http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/431704_10151172595943058_1564150058_n.jpg)

Quote from: guido911 on October 04, 2012, 06:06:42 PM
The 47% I think Romney was referring to. See if you can find soccerboy:

You can see Jamie Dimon's donkey rather clearly in that shot.

Quote from: nathanm on October 04, 2012, 06:33:06 PM
You can see Jamie Dimon's donkey rather clearly in that shot.

I wasn't part of this picture. What vantage point did you have when you located Dimon?

Quote from: guido911 on October 04, 2012, 07:03:13 PM
I wasn't part of this picture. What vantage point did you have when you located Dimon?

The one you've got right now.