Republican Party, Teabag Party and the Libertarian Party absolutely SUCK!

[Exterminator]

A poem by Paul Ryan:

This morning I was at Equinox
Getting ripped and shredded, pumped and jacked,
Cross-training with Jeremy
Who totally kicks my butt.
And I was like, "I shall not let my foes define me."
And I was so stoked
I punched Jeremy in the face.
Endorphins, mofo—
Sweet.
Who is Paul Ryan?
He can bench-press three times his weight,
Ochocinco a cinderblock in two,
Change the course of mighty rivers,
Bend steel in his bare hands,
And tug freighters with his teeth.
Paul Ryan:
Rock-hard abs,
Bulging delts,
Glistening pecs.
But not gay.
Ayn Rand wrote:
"The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me."
She could have been writing
About Paul Freakin' Ryan.
I don't read Ayn Rand anymore.
I disavow her atheist philosophy.
I just know that quote
Because it's tattooed on my left oblique.
So join me
In Paul Ryan's America:
Where heroes roam free
And pussies fear to tread.
Where a small boy from Wisconsin
Can grow up to join forces with a casino billionaire
To kick Iran in the cojones,
And leave behind the America of my foes:
Where the old and feeble
Expect food, medicine, and whatnot.
Not on my watch
Because I am Paul Ryan.
Paul Freakin' Ryan.
Drop and give me twenty, America:
It's clobberin' time.

[me]

It's obviously an opinion piece, however, the point is that Republicans are no longer pragmatic, but have become ideological.  Supporting the writer's opinion and points (although he did quite a good job supporting his own) are the actions and rhetoric of the Tea Party assholes that won Congressional seats in 2010.  Compromise is anathema to them, and because of it, problem solving takes a back seat to ideology.  Our national credit rating was downgraded because of just the kind of crap that this writer is talking about. 

Given the title of this thread, it's clear that the article is germane to the topic at hand.  Perhaps that's why it needed to be posted. 

And how do you explain the Democrats who won't vote for Obama again, including the blacks?  I'm sure you have something besides they have suddenly become racist, hate mongers, and uncle Toms.

[Exterminator]

And how do you explain the Democrats who won't vote for Obama again, including the blacks?  I'm sure you have something besides they have suddenly become racist, hate mongers, and uncle Toms.

When it comes down to it, those people will be voting for Obama as well because he is the only reasonable choice.  I know that your whole life has been nothing but associating with losers but you now have an opportunity to cross over and join the winning team.  Of course, you won't even though the other guys are blatantly telling you they want to take money directly out of your pocket and put it into the pockets of the rich...you know, the "job creators" that will stash their money in offshore accounts rather than create no jobs.  Talk 'til the cows come home about how it's anything except your obvious racism but the bottom line is that you have been proven on this forum to be a blatant liar and the only logical reason that you would vote against your own best self-interests is that Obama is not white.

[Palehorse]

FOR THE 1ST TIME IN MY LIFE, I WILL NOT VOTE FOR THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT.
I'm a life-long Republican, voted for John McCain, and supported Mitt Romney as the most realistic candidate in the primaries. However, as both a Republican and more importantly an American, I did not share Rush Limbaugh's view expressed in January 2009: "I disagree fervently with the people on our side of the aisle who have caved and who say, 'Well, I hope he succeeds'... I hope he fails." Nor do I agree with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell who in October of 2010, was asked what "the job" of Republicans in Congress was. McConnell answered, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." We were in the middle of the greatest economic crisis since the 1930's and my party has as its main goal trying to make sure the president fails — even if the country fails right along with him. What has happened to my Republican party, this is not a sporting event, we all either win or lose together.

In the past, Republicans were pragmatic, not ideological; they would ask "does it work", not "does it fit into my theory." Ronald Reagan is known for his tax cuts, but he also pragmatically raised taxes 11 times to address the growing budget deficit, and had a good relationship with Democratic Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill. Since Reagan was pragmatic, not ideological, he compromised and worked with congress and accomplished what needed to be done to help the economy. Pragmatic non-ideological republican presidents never had a problem expanding the national government to solve national problems. Republican President Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Republican President Theodore Roosevelt created the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Republican President Ford created the first federal regulatory program in education, with a program for special needs children. Republican President George Bush Sr. signed the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and raised taxes to fight the deficit. Republican President Eisenhower warned: "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, by the military–industrial complex" and was responsible for one of the largest Infrastructure projects in American history (Interstate Highway System). President Eisenhower also sent federal troops to Little Rock Arkansas so that discrimination against black school children would be ended. These men were not Left-wing radical hippies, but the "Tea Party movement" and their supporters in Congress would call them Socialist.

When I voted for Mitt Romney in the primaries, I believed Mitt was a moderate pragmatic Republican as was his father, George, when governor of Michigan, and as was Mitt himself when he was governor of Massachusetts. I thought Mitt had to move to the right to secure the nomination, but once he had it, he would move back to the moderate pragmatic center. Unfortunately, that has not happened; so taking this into consideration, and including the recent revelations about the secrecy with which Mitt Romney handles his financial affairs, I have had to re-evaluate my support for a Republican presidential candidate..

While I question some of President Obama's policies, I don't believe Mitt's policies regarding the economy will work. Mitt's business experience and wealth come from Wall Street, not Main Street, and I doubt he would have broken up the banks "too big to fail." As he said "The TARP (bank bailout) program was designed to keep the financial system going," and as a CEO of a private equity firm, he was a part of this financial system. If anything, given his background and avowed dislike of government regulation, I believe Mitt would have been even more hands off overseeing Wall Street and the banks "too big to fail." I know this non-involvement would NOT help a small business on Main Street. The firms which benefited from TARP, acted completely irresponsibly and contrary to the intent of the program by giving their executives huge bonuses, while restricting credit to small businesses. The problem with TARP, a program devised under President Bush, was too little regulation not too much.

I am disappointed in the pace of the economic recovery, yet I also know this was not an ordinary business cycle recession. It was initiated by an institutional Bank Panic in 2008, akin to the 1929 Wall Street Crash, in which some of the largest and most prestigious banks and financial corporations were threatened with failure and bankruptcy (ie Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, AIG, etc). By the end of 2008 the lost of potential purchasing power (decline in value of homes, stocks, IRA's etc) in the United States alone, exceeded 14.5 TRILLION DOLLARS. Thanks to an old regulation left over from the 1930's, the FDIC, the anxiety and fear did not spread to small depositors at local banks, so there was no run on these small local banks. If not for the FDIC the economic crisis we faced would have been much worse, proving not all regulation is bad. However, since these small local banks also had their assets affected by the crisis, and the large banks were not extending credit to them, they could not make loans. The flow of small business credit dried up. The prevailing fear was that this panic would feed on itself, so that the economy would continue to spiral down.

It was once said, "As GM goes, so goes the nation." As people lost purchasing power, the demand for new cars dried up as people stopped buying them. This caused the car companies, including GM, to become threatened with bankruptcy. If the car companies went bankrupt, more then 100,000 additional workers would be unemployed. It was feared this would only be the tip of the iceberg as people wondered what would be the ripple effect on car part manufacturers, and what would be the effect on consumer confidence? Obama deviated from TRAP's stated purpose when he, without congressional authorization, used TARP to bail out GM and Chrysler thereby saving them from bankruptcy. Mitt would have not done this, as he stated: "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt." However, who would bid for these companies at this time of economic uncertainty, even Mitt's former company, Bain Capital, had reduced their acquisitions. I fear that China, for symbolic, political, and economic reasons might have bid to take over GM in a bankruptcy proceeding. This may seem farfetched until you realize GM sold more cars in China last year, then it sold in the United States. While I may oppose Obama's actions in theory, in practicality there was no other choice. Obama was pragmatic, he made a decision that solved the problem.

The TARP and actions by the Federal Reserve System (FED) provided approximately 3 trillion dollars for the financial system which stabilized it. Thus the financial system's private debt became public debt, and was added to the federal deficit. As opposed to this as I might be on a theoretical basis, I know as Mitt said "The TARP (bank bailout) program was designed to keep the financial system going." However, the Obama "Stimulus Program" which also included tax cuts, was inadequate. How can you expect to fill a 14.5 TRILLION DOLLAR HOLE caused by lost potential purchasing power with a program of less then one trillion dollars? The Stimulus should have been twice the size that it was. Between the TARP, the stimulus program, and the temporary cuts in the payroll tax, enough money was pumped into the economy to stabilize it and end the downward spiral into a depression. However these programs were not enough to "jump start" the economy, so that it would grow fast enough to reduce unemployment significantly. Yet, I can not condemn Obama because of the role the Republicans played in preventing the "Stimulus Program" from being adequate enough to solve the economic problem.

While Mitt Romney and Barack Obama did not disagree over the need or size of the stimulus program, they do disagree on what type of stimulus would be most effective. Mitt believed taxes should be lowered for job creators who are people with high incomes, aka "the investor class" or "the rich." In theory, this money would be invested to build new business enterprises which would create jobs, thereby creating demand for good and services. However, there is no way to guarantee this money would not be sent to "tax haven offshore banks" or be invested in foreign countries for a higher return, or even hidden away with gold. These will not circulate this money into the American economy and help it grow to produce jobs. Obama believed the money should be spent on people who will purchase goods and services with any extra money they have, aka "the American consumer" or "the middle class." He lowered taxes for low and middle income workers and increased spending directly by the government to create infrastructure like roads and schools, prevent layoffs in local communities, and support unemployed consumers who are able to buy products, thereby creating demand for good and services and creating jobs. Obama would quote the famous American investor Warren Buffett who said "the only reason why I'm going to hire is if there's more demand." Mitt's approach was "investor" or "supply side" driven; Obama's approach was "consumer" or "demand side" driven.

I can use myself as an example since I am considered a successful businessman. I have never made a business decision based on taxes. They never deterred me from expanding my business when I saw an opportunity to meet a demand by consumers. Taxes never took 100% of any additional income I made by expanding my business. They were just a cost of doing business like any other necessary cost. They paid for services my business and I, as an individual, needed, such as policemen, firemen, and road maintenance. On the other hand, while I always appreciate lower taxes, they would not effect how I ran my business. If my taxes were lowered, but there was no additional demand by consumers, I would not expand my business. However, I would take a nice European vacation and see Paris or Rome, or buy a Mercedes-Benz rather then a Ford, or perhaps buy a second home on a Caribbean island and open up a bank account there. Like any successful businessman, I am not ideological, I am pragmatic.

To those who question whether I am a Republican, let me remind them, there was once a time when we were a "big tent" party. I believe in smaller government only to the extent we had smaller corporations, since in many ways corporations have more control over our lives then the government does. Government power is the only counterbalance to corporate power, and at least we have some input into what the government does by our vote. We no longer live in a capitalist society, we live in a corporatist society. Therefore, I was spooked when Mitt Romney said "Corporations are people" and implied they should be given the same constitutional rights as citizens.

Those who advocate a new age of austerity, like the Romney/Ryan budget, will cite Greece with an unemployment rate of 22.6% and say Greece is a nation we are sure to follow if we do not tighten our belt and reduce government services. They also cite Spain's 24.3%, Portugal's 15.2% and Italy's 10.2% unemployment rate. However, what they do not say is that in each of these countries tax avoidance seems to be a national sport. As a Republican I can not support Mitt Romney because everything, from his refusal to reveal his taxes to offshore bank accounts in tax havens with strong bank secrecy laws, seem to indicate he is a tax avoider. I do not agree when Mitt Romney says that if he paid more taxes than were required, he wouldn't be qualified to be president. I think that if he paid a few more dollars in taxes then he had to, as I have done, it would be admirable. Mitt is a part of the problem, not the solution.

Mitt's father established the precedent of presidential candidates releasing their Tax returns in 1968. He released 12 years of them, saying "One year could be a fluke, perhaps done for show, and what mattered in personal finance was how a man conducted himself over the long haul." When Mitt's campaign was asked to release more then two years of returns, it responded "We've given all you people need to know" and has refused to give out additional information, even as many Republicans requested. People, including myself, are starting to ask "What is Mitt trying to hide?"

As Newt Gingrich put it, "I don't know of any American president who has had a Swiss bank account." But Mitt Romney also has accounts in the tax havens of Luxembourg, Bermuda, and the Cayman Islands. The Cayman Islands have a bank secrecy law so strong that a person can be jailed for up to four years, just for asking about account information. Mitt's desire for secrecy is so great that one time he neglected to include a Swiss bank account on required financial disclosure forms. Perhaps, it was because the Swiss account constituted a bet against the U.S. dollar, something no presidential candidate would want to reveal. When asked about it, Romney's campaign spokeswoman, Andrea Saul, said that the candidate's failure to include his Swiss account in the financial disclosures were merely a "trivial inadvertent issue." From 1984 to 1999, taxpayers were allowed to put just $2,000 per year into a tax-free I.R.A., and $30,000 annually into a different kind of plan he may have used. Given these annual contribution ceilings, how can his I.R.A. possibly contain up to $102 million, as his financial disclosures now suggest? As Mitt said "I pay all the taxes that are legally required, not a dollar more." However as Lee Sheppard, a contributing editor at the trade publication "Tax Notes" said, "When you are running for president, you might want to err on the side of overpaying your taxes, and not chase every tax gimmick that comes down the pike." Has Mitt Romney acted as a model for all of us, the way a president should?

Why is Bain important? We must not forget a major contributing cause of the Financial Crisis of 2008 was the filing of false or misleading documents with the SEC. This is no small matter; since 2009 the SEC has collected fines of over 3 Billion dollars for this violation from financial institutions such as, among others: Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Merrill Lynch, Credit Suisse, J.P. Morgan, and UBS. Even if Mitt Romney actually left all operational control of Bain Capital in 1999, he sanctioned and acquiesced to the filing of false and misleading documents with the SEC until 2002. While this violation may not rise to the level of these other institutions, it does indicate a certain attitude towards these filings: The complete and truthful disclosure of all facts is not important. This was an attitude all too prevalent in the financial community prior to 2009, and all of us paid the price.

Is full disclosure to the SEC one of the regulations Mitt would do away with? What about other regulations overseeing the financial community; Wall Street and the banks too big to fail? If you put a fox in charge of the chicken coop, you have a problem for the chickens. Will Mitt's election be the equivalent of that for the small investor? As a small investor, and businessman, I can not take that chance. The sad thing is that Bain was first brought up by a candidate who wanted to colonize the moon, and the false filing was never mentioned. If this was discovered earlier, I would not have supported Mitt in the primaries and Republicans may have had a different candidate. Perjury is perjury. It was ethically and morally wrong as it was related to a public institution and there could be no equivocation since the two official documents Mitt signed exactly contradict each other 100%. He can not flip-flop between these two documents.

Mitt has said "I would like to have campaign spending limits", however his most recent position is "the American people (and corporations) should be free to advocate for their candidates and their positions without burdensome limitations." The necessity of spending limits became apparent during the Republican primaries. The ability of one candidate to outspend his rivals by 5, 6, 7, 10 times distorts the electoral system. Good men could be destroyed by a barrage of false negative ads, and lack the ability to fight back. It is no longer a level playing field where the best man emerges victorious. Do we want a system where it is possible to indirectly buy elective office?

These are the reasons that for the first time in my life, I will not vote for a Republican candidate for president. I will vote to re-elect Barack Obama. —

It provides hope for those of us who have been endlessly bombarded by the closet racism for the last 4 years, that despite the propaganda blitzkrieg there are actually still members of the republican party in possession of critical thinking skills!

[me]

When it comes down to it, those people will be voting for Obama as well because he is the only reasonable choice.  I know that your whole life has been nothing but associating with losers but you now have an opportunity to cross over and join the winning team.  Of course, you won't even though the other guys are blatantly telling you they want to take money directly out of your pocket and put it into the pockets of the rich...you know, the "job creators" that will stash their money in offshore accounts rather than create no jobs.  Talk 'til the cows come home about how it's anything except your obvious racism but the bottom line is that you have been proven on this forum to be a blatant liar and the only logical reason that you would vote against your own best self-interests is that Obama is not white.

Then you're saying that no one should vote for anyone else because Obama is so great that no one, even in his own party, can compare.  If that is the case why bother even having an election lets just appoint him commander in chief forever.  Now that may not be what you mean but the way you talk anyone who doesn't see things your way is described as racists, hate mongers, idiots, and liars.  Do you not believe in freedom of choice? 

Whether you chose to admit it or not there are both dem's and blacks who are not voting for Obama again because they do not like the way things are going and don't happen to think he is a winner.   

[Palehorse]

. . .

Whether you chose to admit it or not there are both dem's and blacks who are not voting for Obama again because they do not like the way things are going and don't happen to think he is a winner.   

And where I am from they call those individuals sheep. People who are so blinded by their suppressed hatred that they will cut their own throats.

ANYONE who has been truly paying attention over the last 4 years would know that if there is any doorstep at which blame for the failure of progress over the same time period needs to be laid, it is at the doorstep of congress.

A congress that set all-time historical records for inactivity, saying no, and filibustering.

(And right next door to them, the hate filled war mongers who blindly cheer them on despite the personal pain inflicted upon them by their idols).

Despite all of this blathering about, my game plan for voting this November remains unchanged; every single incumbent is out, except for the man in the White House.* 

*Disclaimer - Unless of course the repugnican party continues to "tow the line" of hate and malice. In which case I will vote straight Democrat for the first time in my voting history.

[me]

I just keep wondering what's gonna happen should he be reelected and is not eligible to serve again what is going to happen. Will you all think he is so perfect the term limit should be extended to 12yrs because no one could fill his shoes?   

[Locutus]

I just keep wondering what's gonna happen should he be reelected and is not eligible to serve again what is going to happen. Will you all think he is so perfect the term limit should be extended to 12yrs because no one could fill his shoes?   

You better be careful.  Nonsensical babbling like this is what has you in the lead on the TUZ flat out lie tracker. 

Your pants are going to be on fire before you know it!  Have a fire extinguisher handy?  I hope so. 

[The Troll]

I just keep wondering what's gonna happen should he be reelected and is not eligible to serve again what is going to happen. Will you all think he is so perfect the term limit should be extended to 12yrs because no one could fill his shoes?

  "ME" you and Henry are so cock sure that Romney and Bug Eye Ryan in going to win.  I got a bet.   

  I got a C-Note a $100 bet for each of you.  You put up a 100 bucks $$ and I'll put up a 100 bucks against both of you and I'll bet that Obama cleans Romney ass.  Put your money where your mouth is.      Don't have the guts do you?  All mouth and nothing more and don't give me that bull shit that you don't have the money or you don't gamble because that's a lie too.    

[me]

You better be careful.  Nonsensical babbling like this is what has you in the lead on the TUZ flat out lie tracker. 

Your pants are going to be on fire before you know it!  Have a fire extinguisher handy?  I hope so. 

Ask me if I care.  If my "nonsensical babbling," as you put it, doesn't make you think about what's going on I don't know what to tell you. 

[Locutus]

Ask me if I care.  If my "nonsensical babbling," as you put it, doesn't make you think about what's going on I don't know what to tell you. 

As I've informed you before when you've said that, I'm sure you don't care.  However, you're the one who has posted lies here; I haven't.  You can't even seem to stay on topic.  When your lies and/or distortions are pointed out, you either evade, try to change the subject, or simply hold your tongue altogether.  People like you and HH make me fear for the future of our country not because you hold a difference of opinion, but because your opinions don't seem to be grounded in facts.  Therein lies the difference twixt you two and those of us who challenge you.  I offer that up just in case you two choose to do some introspection. 

[me]

As I've informed you before when you've said that, I'm sure you don't care.  However, you're the one who has posted lies here; I haven't.  You can't even seem to stay on topic.  When your lies and/or distortions are pointed out, you either evade, try to change the subject, or simply hold your tongue altogether.  People like you and HH make me fear for the future of our country not because you hold a difference of opinion, but because your opinions don't seem to be grounded in facts.  Therein lies the difference twixt you two and those of us who challenge you.  I offer that up just in case you two choose to do some introspection. 

I went to great lengths to back up a claim because I couldn't find what I needed on the net because it had been removed and I was given a load of crap because I didn't quote from memory exactly what was said, I was off by a word or two, and I will not do it again.  I will continue to post what I post if I'm satisfied it is correct and won't go to those lengths again to back it up even though I could.  I just don't have the time for it.  Like I said you all should start researching at the library and check out the first edition books, not the revised ones, and figure things out for yourselves.  After all that's the way it was done before computers where things get changed and removed.  When you google you only get what some want you to see and not necessarily the truth.

My missing a year, well in one case quite a few years, or a word does not change the basic fact of what I said Olias so don't even start.  Now that I think about it I never stated a year on the grape thing I just stated they couldn't grow them for a period of time, which was correct as I proved but I will not go digging for the post so, like I said Olias, don't even go there.

[Henry Hawk]

People like you and HH make me fear for the future of our country not because you hold a difference of opinion, but because your opinions don't seem to be grounded in facts.

Are YOU fucking serious?

[Bo D]

My missing a year, well in one case quite a few years, or a word does not change the basic fact of what I said Olias so don't even start.  Now that I think about it I never stated a year on the grape thing I just stated they couldn't grow them for a period of time, which was correct as I proved but I will not go digging for the post so, like I said Olias, don't even go there.

Don't tell me where to go when you continue to spread your stupid lies.

Here we go again with the inability to count. A few years? More like a few hundred. And you said they can't grow grapes NOW! Want me to prove it AGAIN?

[me]

Don't tell me where to go when you continue to spread your stupid lies.

Here we go again with the inability to count. A few years? More like a few hundred. And you said they can't grow grapes NOW! Want me to prove it AGAIN?

Doesn't really matter now does it 'cause as long as a person has an opinion different than yours you're gonna continue your same crap.  The US doesn't have 57 states either but with Obama it was a misstatement and for HH or me to misstate something is the height of stupidity.  For Troll to misspell is just being Troll for HH or me to misspell something is, once again, the height of stupidity.  Oh, and if it's you or Ex it's just a typo.  Strange how that works huh?