You’ve probably heard the same stuff I have about how Mitt Romney’s wealth contributes to him being “unelectable.”
While I’m sure the teenie tiny fraction of Americans that would sooner attend an Occupy rally than buy a coffee at Starbucks would look at Mitt Romney’s wealth and say “I can’t vote for this successful businessman,” I can’t imagine why any normal, thinking American would take that view, especially when the other choice is Barack Obama.
Barack Obama’s net worth is over $10 million. I’ve checked multiple sources on this, and that seems to be a consisted low-end number.
That’s a very high net worth for someone who has never held a real job before.
Of course, the bigger issue here is that in America, why is wealth, and the accumulation of it actually considered to be a bad thing? If you think wealth is a bad thing, then you weren’t gonna support anyone but Obama anyway… because the only wealth that can be ignored by these anti-capitalist voters is the wealth of Democrats who seem to get richer while they keep the poor dependent on the government.
But really, if wealth is so bad to these people, why is Obama’s massive wealth, given his lack of ever having a real private-sector job, not an issue?
Blogs For Victory 
Mitt’s 2008 op-ed for the NYT saying “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt” was a strong clue. Allow an entity to lose nearly all its worth so “vultures” can pick it up for pennies on the dollar. – dennis
Well once again dennis, you display very poor understanding of reality, choosing instead to live inside the sensitive, ignorant liberal bubble. Bankruptcy laws are specifically designed for such instances and allows a company a temporary reprieve from creditors so that they can reformulate their business plan and renegotiate all contracts with labor, suppliers, etc. in an effort to emerge back on the market and regain profitability. In fact the NY Times, not exactly a conservative medium, supported bankruptcy for the airlines following 9/11:
Do you think the NY Times supports “vulture capitalism”??
The other fact is that the bail out just kicked the can down the street. GM still owes tax payers hundreds of billions of dollars, the Volt is a disaster, and union legacy costs still adversely impact the bottom line.
cluster
the truth is lost on leftist ideologues and fools.
From Jack Torry at the Columbus Dispatch:
“Even before votes had been counted in the South Carolina presidential primary between Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, a senior Ohio Republican e-mailed a colleague: “I would hope that our congressmen soon bury the Newt surge. He would be a disaster as a candidate and would pull the entire ticket down.”
That e-mail lifts the veil about the current mood of Ohio Republicans. To say they have the jitters about Gingrich being their nominee does not quite capture it. Mortal terror might be closer to reality.
They not only see the state slipping back into the hands of President Barack Obama but also figure they can forget about Ohio Treasurer Josh Mandel defeating Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio. And, just to make matters even scarier for the Republicans, they could lose the U.S. House.
“I think it would be very difficult for him to carry Ohio in the fall,” said one Republican who spoke only on condition of anonymity. “It would be clear we would lose (House) seats if Gingrich were the nominee. I still think we would hold the House, albeit by a smaller margin.”
Why such angst about Gingrich? After all, he is a former speaker of the U.S. House, the man who led the Republicans out of the wilderness to seize control of the House in 1994.
During his four years as speaker, the House and President Bill Clinton agreed to a sweeping overhaul of the welfare system, cut the tax on capital gains and enacted a children’s health-insurance program and a budget that led to four years of federal surpluses.
Clinton and Gingrich are both talented politicians who, when they weren’t playing politics, could forge the type of compromises that helped the country. Both are gifted public speakers who connect with their audiences as they confidently describe public policy in ways the average voter can understand.
But those results often are obscured by the Gingrich sideshows, which range from the comical to the embarrassing.
Try a few: At the time the House Republicans were impeaching Clinton in 1997 for lying about a sexual relationship with a White House intern, Gingrich apparently was having his own affair with a House staffer, who later become his third wife.
There was the time in 1995 when Gingrich publicly whined about being forced to ride at the rear of Air Force One instead of near the front of the jet with Clinton.
In 1997, the House voted 395-28 to reprimand Gingrich and fine him $300,000 for violations of House ethics rules. And in 1998, House Republicans, weary of the Gingrich style, deposed him as speaker.
“Newt is the best idea man and the best at articulating those ideas of anyone running,” said Robert T. Bennett, chairman of the Ohio Republican Party. “For every 10 ideas he has, five of them are pretty good, but three of them are disasters that he hasn’t thought through,” he said, adding that Gingrich “lacks the capacity for self-discipline.”
For Ohio Republicans, though, the Romney alternative has yet to catch on. Yes, Sen. Rob Portman has endorsed Romney. But much of the GOP establishment has remained relatively quiet, in part because a number of Republicans have little love for Brett Buerck. The former aide to onetime Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder is helping Romney’s campaign in Ohio.
“Clearly in Ohio there are concerns from even people who have endorsed Romney about Brett Buerck’s influence in the Romney campaign,” grumbled one Republican.
Then, of course, few Republicans have been dazzled by Romney’s tepid performance in most of the debates. “Gingrich scares the daylights out of (Republicans),” said Gerald Austin, a Democratic consultant in Cleveland. “But so does Romney. He’s showing he ain’t ready for prime time.”
“
Uh, Robin, just a friendly tip here—you might want to get some actual FACTS about this much-vaunted “reprimand” of Gingrich.
Hint: It was NOT for “violation of House ethics rules” and BTW, the $300,000 was NOT a “fine”.
The Semantic Infiltration tactics of the Left have everyone repeating the often-subtle but very important distortions of fact they spoon-feed the Complicit Agenda Media and get into common usage merely through repetition. If you’re going to quote or cite a member of the Complicit Agenda Media, you need to be prepared to have your citation ignored, and also to be branded with the same accusation of being dishonest. (What we call ‘lying’.)
I’m not a Newt supporter, but am tired of lies and distortions making up so much of what is said about him. (Ditto, by the way, about Romney.) If an argument can’t be made on fact, it shouldn’t be made. Or listened to.
House Reprimands, Penalizes Speaker
By John E. Yang
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 22 1997; Page A01
The House voted overwhelmingly yesterday to reprimand House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and order him to pay an unprecedented $300,000 penalty, the first time in the House’s 208-year history it has disciplined a speaker for ethical wrongdoing.
The ethics case and its resolution leave Gingrich with little leeway for future personal controversies, House Republicans said. Exactly one month before yesterday’s vote, Gingrich admitted that he brought discredit to the House and broke its rules by failing to ensure that financing for two projects would not violate federal tax law and by giving the House ethics committee false information.
“Newt has done some things that have embarrassed House Republicans and embarrassed the House,” said Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.). “If [the voters] see more of that, they will question our judgment.”
House Democrats are likely to continue to press other ethics charges against Gingrich and the Internal Revenue Service is looking into matters related to the case that came to an end yesterday.
The 395 to 28 vote closes a tumultuous chapter that began Sept. 7, 1994, when former representative Ben Jones (D-Ga.), then running against Gingrich, filed an ethics complaint against the then-GOP whip. The complaint took on greater significance when the Republicans took control of the House for the first time in four decades, propelling Gingrich into the speaker’s chair.
With so much at stake for each side — the survival of the GOP’s speaker and the Democrats’ hopes of regaining control of the House — partisanship strained the ethics process nearly to the breaking point.
All but two of the votes against the punishment were cast by Republicans, including Rep. Roscoe G. Bartlett (Md.), many of whom said they believed the sanction — especially the financial penalty — was too severe.
Two Democrats, Reps. Earl F. Hilliard (Ala.) and Gene Taylor (Miss.), voted against the punishment. Taylor said the measure should have specified that the $300,000 come from personal funds, not campaign coffers or a legal expense fund. Hilliard did not return telephone calls.
In addition, five Democrats voted “present,” many of them saying they believed the sanction was not severe enough. “If Newt Gingrich did what they said he did, he should have been censured,” said Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), one of the five who voted “present.” A censure, second only in severity to expulsion, would have threatened Gingrich’s speakership.
House ethics committee members took pride in yesterday’s bipartisan resolution of the case. “We have proved to the American people that no matter how rough the process is, we can police ourselves, we do know right from wrong,” said Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.), who headed the investigative subcommittee that charged Gingrich.
But even as they brought the case to a close, committee Republicans and Democrats traded potshots over the chaos of the last two weeks, during which an agreement for lengthy televised hearings collapsed amid partisan bickering.
The ethics case added to the last congressional session’s fierce partisanship, as Democrats sought to embarrass House Republicans with it in last year’s elections. Lawmakers in both parties said they hope the vote to punish Gingrich will help ease those tensions.
“If our action today fails to chasten this body and bring a halt to the crippling partisanship and animosity that has surrounded us, then we will have lost an opportunity,” said Rep. Nancy L. Johnson (R-Conn.), ethics committee chairman.
Similarly, President Clinton, when asked about the matter, said: “The House should do its business and then we should get back to the people’s business.”
For Gingrich, it was another humbling event in a remarkable series of peaks and valleys since 1994. That year, he led his party to the promised land of control of the House and Senate, only to threaten it when he was blamed for two partial government shutdowns during the battle over the budget, making him seem reckless. Then he complained about his treatment on a long flight aboard Air Force One, making him seem petty. The GOP narrowly retained its House majority last November, giving him a brief reprieve. The next month, he admitted to the charges brought by the ethics subcommittee.
The speaker was barely visible yesterday, staying away from the House floor during the 90-minute debate and vote on his punishment. He was in his office and did not watch the proceedings on television, according to spokeswoman Lauren Maddox. Gingrich left late yesterday afternoon for a two-day GOP House leadership retreat at Airlie Farm and Conference Center in Fauquier County, Va. As he left, he was asked if he was glad the case was over. He smiled broadly and said “yes.”
House Democrats had considered trying to force a vote yesterday on reconsidering Gingrich’s Jan. 7 reelection as speaker — the first for a Republican in 68 years — but decided against it, fearing it would distract from the harsh punishment being meted out. In addition, Democrats believe enough damaging information has been presented to tarnish the speaker, Democratic leadership aides said.
“This is not a vote on whether Mr. Gingrich should remain speaker,” said Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin (Md.), the ethics panel’s top Democrat in the Gingrich case. “In the days and weeks to come, Mr. Gingrich and each member of this House should consider how these charges bear on the question of his speakership.”
In a strongly worded report, special counsel James M. Cole concluded that Gingrich had violated tax law and lied to the investigating panel, but the subcommittee would not go that far. In exchange for the subcommittee agreeing to modify the charges against him, Gingrich agreed to the penalty Dec. 20 as part of a deal in which he admitted guilt.
Johnson called the reprimand and financial penalty “tough and unprecedented. It is also appropriate,” she said. “No one is above the rules of the House.”
The ethics committee that handled the charges against Gingrich went out of business at midnight last night without resolving complaints that the speaker received improper gifts, contributions and support from GOPAC, the political action committee he once headed. House Democrats are likely to submit those charges to the new ethics committee.
In addition, the Internal Revenue Service is looking into the use of tax-deductible charitable contributions to finance the college course Gingrich taught, which was at the center of the ethics case, and the ethics committee is making the material it gathered available to the tax agency.
At a closed-door meeting of House Republicans yesterday morning, the speaker noted his agreement to accept the sanction, which the ethics committee approved on a 7 to 1 vote Friday night, and said he wanted to get the matter behind him, according to lawmakers who attended.
Many House Republicans said they had trouble reconciling their leaders’ characterization of Gingrich’s rules violations as tantamount to a jaywalking ticket and the magnitude of the penalty. “That argument loses its steam [when] you talk about $300,000,” said Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.).
Rep. Mark Sanford (R-S.C.) said that had he known what was in the ethics committee’s report, he would not have voted for Gingrich as speaker. “The gray got grayer when you read the report,” he said. “When I think of my three boys and what kind of example I want to set for them for leadership in this country, gray is not the example.”
But some lawmakers said the $300,000 financial penalty, described as a reimbursement to the ethics committee for the additional cost Gingrich caused it when he gave it false information, was too severe.
“I was willing to swallow hard and vote for the reprimand, but when they add the $300,000 assessment . . . that’s excessive,” said House Government Reform and Oversight Committee Chairman Dan Burton (R-Ind.), one of three committee chairmen to vote against the punishment.
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.), who cast the lone dissenting vote on the ethics committee, said of Gingrich’s violations: “They are real mistakes but they shouldn’t be hanging offenses.”
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) gave a spirited speech calling the penalty unwarranted. Answering those who said a speaker should be held to a higher standard of ethical conduct, DeLay said: “The highest possible standard does not mean an impossible standard no American could possibly reach.” He closed by declaring: “Let’s stop this madness, let’s stop the cannibalism.”
The last phrase echoed the May 31, 1989, resignation speech of House Speaker Jim Wright (D-Tex.), who called on lawmakers “to bring this period of mindless cannibalism to an end.” Wright resigned in an ethics scandal triggered by a complaint filed by Gingrich.
Despite the partisanship that surrounded the Gingrich ethics case for more than two years, DeLay’s speech provided the only spark of yesterday’s debate. With Gingrich willing to accept the punishment, the outcome was never in doubt.
Still, more lawmakers were on the floor than for the average House debate; many of them were reading Cole’s report. Rep. Doug Bereuter (R-Neb.), presiding over the debate, took the unusual step of reading aloud from the House rule that admonishes lawmakers to “maintain an atmosphere of mutual respect” at all times.
As they have since Gingrich publicly admitted to the charges Dec. 21, Republicans sought to minimize the speaker’s misdeeds while Democrats tried to make them more sinister.
Rep. Steven Schiff (R-N.M.), a member of the ethics investigative subcommittee that charged Gingrich, called the speaker’s submission of false information to the panel “a comedy of errors.” But Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called it a “violation of trust. . . . We trust each other that we will deal truthfully with each other.”
Republicans also sought to portray the question of using charitable donations to finance projects that appeared to have a political intent as a matter of unsettled tax law. But Rep. Thomas C. Sawyer (D-Ohio), a member of the ethics panel, countered that “ethical behavior may be more important when the lines are blurred than when they are clear.”
Rep. Jim McDermott (Wash.), who had been the ethics panel’s top Democrat, was among those who voted “present.”
He withdrew from the Gingrich case last week after being implicated in the leaking of a tape recording of a telephone conference call involving the speaker, which Republicans said was illegally made.
McDermott did not return telephone calls.
More forker out of this world fantasy and BS
That came from the Columbus Dispatch neocon not from TDBDP. When are you gpoing to stop playing the village redneck idiot and actually try to discuss issues and seek solutions? Oh I’m sorry that’s right you can’t because you are such an old bigot that to do that might let some sunlight in on your brain. I’ve always wondered what the dinosaurs felt when they finally realized they were all going to be wiped out. Seeing your ignorant ill-logic regarding all things Progressive now i understand. Your dumb kind is being replaced though not quickly enough for me and you clearly can’t outbreed black or browns or liberals so your far right nonsense will be gone like you will be in the next generation or so. I take a bit of comfort there.
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/01/why-are-obamas-critics-so-dumb.html
Are you quoting Andrew Sullivan – the “conservative”??
LMAO
Andrew Sullivan IS a conservative. What he is not is an extremist radical who scoffs and sneers and any deviation from movement “conservative” dogma. He is not a person who is obsessed with pointing out inconsequential short-comings and failures. The link was to Bill Maher, who is liberal, progressive and a libertarian. The facts speak for themselves and no matter how much you all here try to deride the president and his accomplishments no one is paying any attention to what you all say; other than yourselves. So reinforce your opinions and exclude reality when it creates a conflict with what you want to be and what is. The facts are, he did lower taxes and it was under his presidency that allot of bad guys have been killed. Including Bin Laden.
He might have this confused with the many articles on why-are-obama-supporters-so-dumb.
The article that mitch seems to find so compelling is in the same category as the just-thinking-about-eating-meat-makes-people-mean-and-convinced-that-they-are-superior articles that impress his kind.
Still no defense of the claim that Obama NEVER worked a real job.
Obama worked a year at Business International Corporation after graduating from Columbia University.
Maybe Amy can provide a rational why working at Business International is not a real job or how many years before never becomes some.
One Year!!! Hell if that’s the case, I qualify for any position then. Good to know.
Was this post a joke barstool? Are you actually touting Obama’s private sector experience based on one year of employment?
@Clueless
once you have to qualify things with “private sector” and “one year” you have lost the argument. Colin Powell was career military but would make a fine president. Are you going to argue that the military is a private sector job? Again that 1 year private sector experience is 1 MORE than Newt.
@Amy
Obama has 1 year more in the private sector than Newt. That doesn’t impress me with Obama, it makes me wonder at Matt’s support for Newt. It seems the mark of a partisan hack to apply a more stringent standard to your opponent than to yourself. If having a REAL JOB was important to Matt for Obama it should be so for Newt as well.
Golly, you found an ex co-worker that says Obama embellished. Newt has an ex-wife that says Newt is a dishonest pig. Since
In the real world, most people have envious co-workers but not spiteful ex-wives claiming they wanted open marriages. Congratulations, once again you have shown that Newt is unfit for office.
@dbschmidt
If you pay social security, you have a real job. If you pay income taxes, you have a real job. If you earn enough money to support yourself without committing a crime, you have a real job.
Newt as a politician=real job. Mitt as venture capitalist=real job. Colin Powell as career military=real job. Obama as politician, lawyer, whatever=real job.
So what exactly did Barry DO at this “job” which evidently has made such an impression on you?
BTW, you may (or may not) care that I was not the person who used the phrase. I merely came in later with a comment on being a community agitator paid with government funds not being much of a job.
OK—the ball’s in your court. Now is the time for you to snout around in archives and posts to dig up verbatim comments so you can quibble and nitipick this to shreds. It’s what you do. If you can obsess over the miniscule you can pretend you are participating in a discussion instead of actually contributing anything to it.
How about a real, rational, fact-based discussion of Obama’s real job history, what he did and how well he did it and how it prepared him for the Presidency?
From a New York Times article, written by JANNY SCOTT:
Published: October 30, 2007, about Obama:
Some say he has taken some literary license in the telling of his story. Dan Armstrong, who worked with Mr. Obama at Business International Corporation in New York in 1984 and has deconstructed Mr. Obama’s account of the job on his blog, analyzethis.net, wrote: “All of Barack’s embellishment serves a larger narrative purpose: to retell the story of the Christ’s temptation. The young, idealistic, would-be community organizer gets a nice suit, joins a consulting house, starts hanging out with investment bankers, and barely escapes moving into the big mansion with the white folks.”
In an interview, Mr. Armstrong added: “There may be some truth to that. But in order to make it a good story, it required a bit of exaggeration.”
Mr. Armstrong’s description of the firm, and those of other co-workers, differs at least in emphasis from Mr. Obama’s. It was a small newsletter-publishing and research firm, with about 250 employees worldwide, that helped companies with foreign operations (they could be called multinationals) understand overseas markets, they said. Far from a bastion of corporate conformity, they said, it was informal and staffed by young people making modest wages. Employees called it “high school with ashtrays.”
Many workers dressed down. Only the vice president in charge of Mr. Obama’s division got a secretary, they said. Mr. Obama was a researcher and writer for a reference service called Financing Foreign Operations. He also wrote for a newsletter, Business International Money Report.
*****************************
After about a year, he was hired by the New York Public Interest Research Group, a nonprofit organization that promotes consumer, environmental and government reform. He became a full-time organizer at City College in Harlem, paid slightly less than $10,000 a year to mobilize student volunteers.
Mr. Obama says he spent three months “trying to convince minority students at City College about the importance of recycling”
****************************
Ah, yes. I am starting to see how Obama’s work history DOES compare favorably with that of Romney, and may even exceed that of Gingrich who, after all, spent so much time as a teacher, which can hardly qualify as a “real job”.
@Amy
Obama has 1 year more in the private sector than Newt. That doesn’t impress me with Obama, it makes me wonder at Matt’s support for Newt. It seems the mark of a partisan hack to apply a more stringent standard to your opponent than to yourself. If having a REAL JOB was important to Matt for Obama it should be so for Newt as well.
Golly, you found an ex co-worker that says Obama embellished. Newt has an ex-wife that says Newt is a dishonest pig. Since
In the real world, most people have envious co-workers but not spiteful ex-wives claiming they wanted open marriages. Congratulations, once again you have shown that Newt is unfit for office.
baldork
bardolf January 30, 2012 at 1:56 pm #
@Amy
Obama has 1 year more in the private sector than Newt.
that was already proven to be a lie in a post above on this thread.
Neoconehead
No it wasn’t.
I am not saying that Obama has never head a “real” job but by your standards I would have surpassed his “qualifications” by the time I was 12 with my two years of an afternoon paper route (delivery, collections, and paying of my vendors) or maybe by 16 after I had 2 years in as a dishwasher and right-side short order cook at a grill. After that was a gasoline station (still full service at the time) & mechanic before the Marines So what does constitute a “real” job?
dbschmidt
me too
Being paid for your time.
see above
quibbling over how many angles can dance on the head of a pin…nice deflection.
blah blah he ran a lemon aid stand so he was REALLY “employed”, ya de ya and fit to be POtuS because of this “business experience…….Ha!
neo68
How many angels fit on the head of a pin, not angles. Though much derided the angels on the head of a pin question is important.
It is not about 3 vs. 100 angels as you might suppose. It is about a finite number say 3 vs. infinite. The question gets at the heart of whether angels are material beings as we understand our physical universe. If they are material beings in the common sense the answer is finite if not the answer is infinite.
Why is it important to know if angels are material beings? Because, if they are created, but not material as we reckon material the entirety of creation is much more glorious than we imagine.
1 Corinthians 6:3
Don’t you realize that we will judge angels? So you should surely be able to resolve ordinary disputes in this life.
you are the “mathematician” I meant ANGLES, equilateral of course.
please answer accordingly
(Mick Ultra)
Don’t you realize that we will judge angels?,?i>
I JUDGE the ANGLES to be Obtuse.
Neoconehead rewrites the bible!
My only point was to show Bardolf, Mitch, and the rest the idiocy of their “argument” but they could not even understand that so I leave it up to the viewers to decide.
baldork
Riiiight
and ayers was just a guy in the neighborhood, wright a crazy uncle, resco a neighbor he hardly knew, faracan a close buddy of his crazy uncle…..etc etc etc
He’s been president for over 3 yrs now. That’s a job. She can’t stand the fact that he’s president. I’ve yet to meet someone in real life who is as snide and cocky as her. Must be a defense mechanism. “Look at me! I’m a business person. I have well thought-out ideas! And everyone who disagrees with me is intellectually inferior and lazy!”
Business person. Big whoop.It’s what you are; your character that matters. Not what you do and Ama’s intolerance and condescending attitude which she wears like a badge of honor is a character flaw.
Bmitch
Noooooo she calls stupidity, ignorance, and BS what it is, Like my self I have very little room for Morons spewing vitreal, lies and garbage.
3 years into his apprenticeship (that has been a disaster) is a job for sure, in between the golf, lavish partays at the white painted house and vaaaaacations.
We are talking PRE his apprenticeship.
By HIS OWN words……ROOKIE!!
bomberBmitch
Business person. Big whoop
how about sharing who you are and some of your credentials and accomplishments? Mr. top 5%er.
I AGREE 1000%
The one charge not dropped was a charge of claiming tax-exempt status for a college course run for political purposes.
Hmmmmmmmmm
charley wrangle, mad maxxxine, je$$e jr ?
geitner? bwany ? etc etc etc.
read it and weep
http://www.biography.com/people/newt-gingrich-9311969
More of Obomba’s “national security force” at work…just wait until nov.
Thugs attack cabbie, passenger
BY STEPHANIE FARR
Philadelphia Daily News
IN A HORRIFIC assault in Center City on Saturday night, three teenagers who were spouting racial slurs pulled a man out of a cab to beat him. And when the cabdriver intervened to stop the assault, the teens turned their rage on him, police said yesterday.
About 8:25 p.m., a cab was stopped at a red light at 15th and Chestnut streets when two 17-year-old boys and a 15-year-old boy approached and started calling the male passenger in the back seat racially derogatory names, police said.
The boys then threw an unknown liquid at the cab before they opened the door, pulled the passenger out and started to pummel him, police said.
Police said the three teens were black and the cabbie and passenger were white. Police did not immediately know whether the teens would or could face hate-crime charges.
Of course NOT just some of holders “people” having a lil fun.
Holy Hillary
Did Michelle Obama Really Spend $50,000 on Lingerie in ‘One Shopping Spree’?
Update #2: The White House is now denying they story. (They dont sell saddles there or granny panties for BIG butts)
@Clueless, once you have to qualify things with “private sector” and “one year” you have lost the argument. Colin Powell was career military but would make a fine president. Are you going to argue that the military is a private sector job? Again that 1 year private sector experience is 1 MORE than Newt.
Coming from someone who lives in the ivory tower, I can see how one year of real employment impresses you. Rational people? Not so much. And Colin Powell would make a terrible President.
Thanks for playing stool.
Clueless
Teaching isn’t a real job either? Are you envious of my ivory tower position?
Colin Powell would make a helluva lot better president than Fig Newton.
but the COLIN isnt running, well maybe bwanys version.
Are you envious of my ivory tower position?
Hands on ankles?
Nah
Ama, I’m guessing Detroit automakers nearly failed at least in part because the govt was subsidizing gas guzzlers when the American people were wanting smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles. I don’t think unions dictated either the kind or quality of cars that were being built; those were corporate decisions made badly, on the basis of conservative attitudes (speaking not politically but in terms of resistance to change).
Please explain how “it was Obama and the feds who were the vultures” in the auto industry bailout. How did the feds “feed off the sick company”? Who personally enriched themselves in the process? Do you really think GM and Chrysler should have been allowed to go bankrupt in the fashion Mitt Romney wanted them to, at a time our economy was reeling from the worst blow since the Great Depression?
Mitt said, “If General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye… its demise will be virtually guaranteed.” As it turns out because of Obama’s comprehensive plan GM and Chrysler were able to reorganize, countless thousands of jobs were saved (not just the carmakers themselves but also many manufacturers in the supply chain), the economy was spared a devastating blow, GM once again became the top-selling carmaker in the world in 2011 and Chrysler paid off $7.5 billion six years ahead of schedule. So much for Mitt Romney’s business acumen vs Obama’s.
Speaking of silly rants you quite ignore that it was Rick Perry who brought the term “vulture capitalist” to define Romney, not the “RRL” whatever that is. And you have no rational basis for linking Saul Alinsky with Socialism or Communism – you’re just mindlessly echoing a right-wing meme designed to tar Obama by association with a name arbitrarily picked as a bogeyman. In fact George Romney, Mitt’s very conservative daddy, consulted with Saul Alinsky on civil rights matters in 1967 when he was the Republican governor of Michigan. There’s no accounting for the sneering condescension and hate on display here.
Wow, even your first sentence is drivel:
Ama, I’m guessing Detroit automakers nearly failed at least in part because the govt was subsidizing gas guzzlers when the American people were wanting smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles.
dennis, the majority of Americans NEVER WANTED smaller vehicles, in fact SUV’s are the leading selling vehicles and the reason why Ford has done so well. It’s the government that has been pushing fuel economy. Are you really this thick??
Do you really think GM and Chrysler should have been allowed to go bankrupt in the fashion Mitt Romney wanted them to,
Yes, and if you actually understood bankruptcy laws, you too would agree. Furthermore, GM still OWES TAXPAYERS hundreds of millions of dollars, union legacy costs still hurt the company and the Chevy Volt is on fire, and not in a good way. Meanwhile, Ford, who continues to sale F150’s (not exactly a smaller, fuel efficient car) at a rapid pace, and never took a bail out, is doing very well.
Let me guess dennis – you live in an urban area and rely on public transportation, right?
Or a bicycle …. 🙂
HUH ?
WTF X1000
And you have no rational basis for linking Saul Alinsky with Socialism or Communism – you’re just mindlessly echoing a right-wing meme designed to tar Obama by association with a name arbitrarily picked as a bogeyman. In fact George Romney, Mitt’s very conservative daddy, consulted with Saul Alinsky on civil rights matters in 1967 when he was the Republican governor of Michigan. There’s no accounting for the sneering condescension and hate on display here.
no condescending, hate, sneering……just insane useful idiots and dumbed down drones regurgitating marxist leftist garbage.
bomberBmitch
Bwaaaaa ha ha ha
As far as my employment history, I am paid for my time, my experience and my skills.
so is the newspaper and shoeshine boy…..
MOTESAH ?
Neo never actually uses any reasons in his arguments, rather he dismisses out of hand all rebuttal’s through the use of derision. He portrays himself as someone so preoccupied with his own certainty that he can’t be bothered to actually defend his opinions and in this classic defense is the presumption that he is more qualified than anyone to know “the truth” and therefore it is a task to spout words like “morons, lies and garbage” because its’ a reactionary response to stereotypes, it’s mindless and it’s cognitively lazy. To compound the issue, he links to websites with no credibility, ideas that have that no substance and vulgar, crude and ignorant presumptions.
He is a racist of the worst order. And this website encourages him. Sad.
As far as my employment history, I am paid for my time, my experience and my skills. I do not begrudge anyone for being financially successful as long as they don’t cheat or exploit others. But when someone makes money from having money and they then claim that they can relate to the guy who gets up everyday, follows the rules and does what he (or she) must in order to support themselves and those that depend on them, I am a bit skeptical.
In this election yr, Newt has exposed himself as what everyone on the right is saying about him and the more they point it out, the more his behavior in reaction to it reinforces their perspectives. Someone earlier sarcastically said that Andrew Sullivan wasn’t a conservative. Well neither is Newt. Nor is Romney. Who will be the nominee and will loose. And after he looses, maybe what’s left of the Republican party will exorcize the religious zealots, the movement conservatives, the socially intolerant and the teaparty from the political party so that next time they will actually have a chance at governing in a way that’s productive. Not obstructionist, not promoting economic anarchy by protecting the ultra wealthy and actually caring about the country as a whole. Not getting rid of a black guy who they think cheated to get elected.
Mitch,
Let me start by asking you how you believe neo is a racist – is it because he opposes Obama? Because you might recall that neo is also a huge Allen West & Herman Cain fan. So just curious.
Re: the rest of your post – the elections of 2010 ushered in a new young conservative movement, of which I am very happy with as is most conservatives. The MSM, democrats, and you are not and I get that, mainly because they are stopping Obama’s agenda, which they were voted in to do. Obstructing asinine policies is a good thing, of course those are the policies you said were “productive”, which made me laugh.
Mitt is conservative enough for me to support him and will help turn the tide until a more conservative President can be elected – ie: Marco Rubio. I am however amused by your premise that liberal policies are the only policies that “care” about our country. Juvenile attitudes like that hurt the process.
And it’s LOSE, not LOOSE
In a Facebook post this weekend, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin defined the GOP primary as not a battle between Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney but one between “the GOP establishment vs. the Tea Party grassroots and independent Americans who are sick of the politics of personal destruction used now by both parties’ operatives with a complicit media egging it on.”
She acknowledged that Gingrich was far from a perfect vessel for the Tea Party movement, but called the tactics the establishment used against him the last week as nothing short of Stalin and Alinsky-esque.
She made the point that the GOP establishment was fiercer in their attacks against Gingrich than they were against President Barack Obama and rightfully asked who the GOP establishment is running against.
amen to the circular GOP firing squad.
neo is also a huge Allen West & Herman Cain fan. So just curious.
and Condi Rice among others,
I want West as POTUS and Rubio as VP.
and Saaaaarah? wellll I am married LOL
“I want West as POTUS and Rubio as VP.”
Don’t know about that Neo, do you think Mr.West is a good compromiser? Do you think he will cross the isle and work with donkyrats enough?
Wouldn’t we be better of with the more
moderatesquishy former Gen. Colin Powell?Colin Powell?
isnt that the part that attaches to the lower intestine?
bomberBmitch
I post a lot of articles, many state what I believe (not all) and written better than I can say in my own words so they stand.
A HUGE raaaacist? LOL
Because I am NOT one, I am FREE of white guilt and able to point out the HUGE duplicity and hypocrisy by the left including barry HUSSEIN, wright, king zulu, shabaz, faracan, Je$$e, Al, the SCLC, and many many many more racist and race baiting people and entities.
The very fact there is the CBC, black colleges, associations, awards, etc ad nausium is hugely racist in their own right…….
I am not afraid of controversy because I have a clear conscience. I have been raised, schooled, worked, served, church-ed, & paled, with, and are friends and neighbors with Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians. Also had a black man in my family…so all your accusations are pure BS.
I went on a job last week and some guy was screaming at me thinking I was walking somewhere I shouldnt be. A young Black man walked up to him and said something and the guy walked away.
Later I asked what that was all about?
The young man 27-28 yo said, when he saw who this guy was yelling at he told him I was his Boy and STFU I belonged where I was.
The young blacks on the job call me POPS and all like me as well as I them. I dont take any BS from them and give them none we respect each other.
NEXT LIE?
Cluster I’ve lived in a rural area since 1981 and driven Subarus since ’83 – I need 4wd to get up my mountain in the winter. I used to drive Ford pickups but quit enjoying burning up gas money needlessly a long time ago. Consumers tastes have been changing over the last 20 years, I said “in part” above (reading comprehension again), fuel economy was hardly the only way the big three went off the rails.
Chrysler paid off early and GM doesn’t look in danger of defaulting. You’re fixated on the Chevy Volt for some reason but that hasn’t kept GM from dominating in sales worldwide – see http://www.forbes.com/sites/michelinemaynard/2012/01/19/gm-is-back-in-the-auto-sales-drivers-seat/
The Chevy Volt was a liberal driven product that is failing big time, much like the entire Obama regime, and that is the reason for my mention. GM pushed a lot of product onto dealers and counted them as sales, so those numbers are a little askew, but that being said, GM is regaining market position because of the volume of product they make, a volume of which dwarfs most other car companies. And their ranking was not a result of a tax payer bail out either. GM could have reorganized just as easy by filing bankruptcy, and that would have also saved tax payers a lot of money. I don’t know why you support tax payer hand outs to corporations.
And I will remind you that Ford, which continues to thrive off of F150’s and SUV’s, DID NOT go off the rails, so try and gain a little perspective.
dennistooge
but that hasn’t kept GM from dominating in sales worldwide –
but yet they went BANKRUPT and STILL ARE, why do you think that is dennisstooge ?
maybe this ????
————————————————————————————-
GM program gives laid-off nearly full pay
By Reuters | November 30, 2005
Dean Braid does not have a job, but the 49-year-old auto worker is not unemployed either.
The Michigan native, who once helped develop the V6 engine for General Motors Corp., was laid off after about 20 years on the job — yet he still collects his full salary.
”I’d much rather be working, doing what I enjoyed doing,” Braid said. ”But things could be worse, I suppose.”
Braid is one of thousands of US autoworkers who, instead of working on engines or installing car parts, spend their time doing crossword puzzles, watching movies, or doing community service — and keep getting paid by GM’s jobs bank program.
The jobs bank was established in 1984, during contract talks between the United Auto Workers Union and the Big Three — General Motors, Ford Motor Co., and Chrysler Corp. The program guarantees pay and benefits to union members whose jobs were eliminated due to technological progress or plant restructurings.
Some analysts estimate GM has about 5,000 employees in its jobs bank, but the auto giant does not disclose figures. However, according to a four-year labor contract GM signed with the UAW in 2003, the automaker agreed to contribute up to $2.107 billion over four years.
That’s INSANE!! F**K the unions
The money is running out out. Soon we will be Greece. Is there any doubt about it? Which candidate will stop spending our money like it belongs to him? In my opinion Mr. Romney will not only not quit spending our money he will keep on spending more of it.
The leftys will put up a big stink about how horrible it is to not fund every cowboy poetry festival and and art show out there and Mr. Romney will cave in the name of compromise. Cave in the name of reaching accross the isle. In the name of this is not the hill to die on. Cave in the name of this is not the battle to fight.
Whatever.
Mr. Romney is no threat to the welfare state. In fact he will expand it.
Mr. Romney is no threat to the welfare state. In fact he will expand it.
And you’re allowing it to expand from your living room. So which is worse? And you know what they say about opinions.
I am allowing it to expand from my living room? How so?
By passively waiting for the perfect candidate rather than working with what’s in front of you.
Ahh, I see now. It is back to me destroying the country again if I don’t vote for whatever candidate the repubs throw out there. I accept responsibility for destroying whatever hope you have.
Better start working on your survival kit. It is looking more and more likely Romney will have a very hard time getting elected. Not that it is impossible mind you, just that it will be a very tough go for him.
What will he do when msm really starts tearing into him? If Mr. Romney is the nominee the repubs have already lost the biggest issue to hammer him with.
Does Mr.Romney have the fortitude to withstand a full 44/7 msm assault. Only time will tell. First he must get the nomination and that has not been decided yet.
Ahh, I see now. It is back to me destroying the country again if I don’t vote for whatever candidate the repubs throw out there.
That’s not what I said. Why do you have to rely on the repubs for anything? Are you not capable of finding and supporting the candidate of your choice? Are you involved with the tea party? Have you done any fund raising for your preferred candidates?
Democracy requires vigilance, not complacency. I will choose to work with what’s in front of me and hold them accountable.
GMB
The saving grace of the USA is that Neoconeheads like to breed and the Greeks haven’t had too many kids.
One can always tighten the belt, cut back on bloated health care costs, stop paying for the defense of Europe … Not having a generation of children is a permanent loss.
GMB is not exactly a ray if optimistic sunshine. Speaking of bloated health care costs – has anyone ever considered that since 1968, healthcare costs have outpaced inflation and has seen costs skyrocket much more so than any other service of product? Why you ask? That’s when government got involved.
Neoconeheads like to breed
heh heh heh 🙂
Neoconeheads like to breed? Hehe thats a good one. I must be a Neoconehead then, with the addition og the twins my wife gave birth to last november, we now have six children.
I would like for my children to grow up in a free country. That will not happen until the opposition party either starts opposing or thier place is taken by an opposition that opposes the progressive agenda.
Clueless
Government got involved in health care during WW2. Trying to be nice they put wage caps for what employers could pay during a labor shortage.
The employers turned to “benefits” to attract better employees. Health care became associated to employers, subsidized indirectly by tax breaks and soon every big company was also a defacto health insurance provider.
I would prefer socialized health care to today’s mess. At least companies could plan better for their growth and focus on doing what they do best.
January 30, 2012 – Romney Romps To 14-Point Lead In Florida GOP Primary, Quinnipiac University Poll Finds
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has a 43 – 29 percent lead over former House Speaker Newt Gingrich among Republican likely voters in Florida, the nation’s first big-state presidential primary, according to Quinnipiac University poll released today. Only 7 percent are undecided, but 24 percent say they might change their mind by tomorrow’s election
Neo68, I like my Sam Adams slightly chilled.
I think I’ll go get the chicken poop Amazona recommended for the garden now! Thanks again!
baldork
Neo68, I like my Sam Adams slightly chilled.
It will be warm by the time u dig it out mule. 🙂
dennistooge
Born to Russian-Jewish parents in Chicago in 1909, Saul Alinsky was a Communist/Marxist fellow-traveler who helped establish the tactics of infiltration — coupled with a measure of confrontation — that have been central to revolutionary political movements in the United States in recent decades. He never joined the Communist Party but instead, as David Horowitz puts it, became an avatar of the post-modern left.
Though Alinsky is rightfully understood to have been a leftist, his legacy is more methodological than ideological. He identified a set of very specific rules that ordinary citizens could follow, and tactics that ordinary citizens could employ, as a means of gaining public power. His motto was, “The most effective means are whatever will achieve the desired results.”
Alinsky studied criminology as a graduate student at the University of Chicago, during which time he became friendly with Al Capone and his mobsters
But Alinsky’s brand of revolution was not characterized by dramatic, sweeping, overnight transformations of social institutions. As Richard Poe puts it, “Alinsky viewed revolution as a slow, patient process.
The trick was to penetrate existing institutions such as churches, unions and political parties.” He advised organizers and their disciples to quietly, subtly gain influence within the decision-making ranks of these institutions, and to introduce changes from that platform. This was precisely the tactic of “infiltration” advocated by Lenin and Stalin.[3] As Communist International General Secretary Georgi Dimitroff told the Seventh World Congress of the Comintern in 1935:
“Comrades, you remember the ancient tale of the capture of Troy. Troy was inaccessible to the armies attacking her, thanks to her impregnable walls. And the attacking army, after suffering many sacrifices, was unable to achieve victory until, with the aid of the famous Trojan horse, it managed to penetrate to the very heart of the enemy’s camp.”[4]
Alinsky’s revolution promised that by changing the structure of society’s institutions, it would rid the world of such vices as socio-pathology and criminality.
Arguing that these vices were caused not by personal character flaws but rather by external societal influences, Alinsky’s worldview was thoroughly steeped in the socialist left’s collectivist, class-based doctrine of economic determinism. “The radical’s affection for people is not lessened,” said Alinsky, “… when masses of them demonstrate a capacity for brutality, selfishness, hate, greed, avarice, and disloyalty. It is not the people who must be judged but the circumstances that made them that way.”[5] Chief among these circumstances, he said, were “the larcenous pressures of a materialistic society.”[6]</b?
To counter that materialism, Alinsky favored a socialist alternative. He characterized his noble radical (read: “revolutionary”) as a social reformer who “places human rights far above property rights”; who favors “universal, free public education”; who “insists on full employment for economic security” but stipulates also that people’s tasks should “be such as to satisfy the creative desires within all men”; who “will fight conservatives” everywhere; and who “will fight privilege and power, whether it be inherited or acquired,” and “whether it be political or financial or organized creed.”[7] Alinsky maintained that radicals, finding themselves “adrift in the stormy sea of capitalism,”[8] sought “to advance from the jungle of laissez-faire capitalism to a world worthy of the name of human civilization.”[9] “They hope for a future,” he said, “where the means of production will be owned by all of the people instead of just a comparative handful.”[10] In short, they wanted socialism.
Lets hope for a brokered convention and this is the man they draft.
Now that I can support – I love Marco Rubio and hope one day to call him President. And how about this GMB, I think Rubio would be the VP for Romney – that’s also why I currently support Romney
If romney wins fla then the nomination and does not pick West or Rubio he will not beat O. He needs the black or Hispanic vote and either of these two will carry him.
remember mittens lost to mcLame and even Palin couldnt save him.
Tomorrow will tell us a lot.
I’ve been following this blog longer than some of you have been posting. What I witness are academic arguments about impractical methods of governing huge masses of people, the promotion of economic anarchy, a fixation on the civil unrest of the early ’70’s and the idea that morality should be legislated. Lately some of you have been worried about the breakdown of society because of just whom is the president. I read in jaw-dropping eye-spinning incredulity a defense of a war based on lies, the denial of climate change and the questioning of settled biological science. I’ve read an awe like admiration of political figures who’s answer to every geopolitical problem is to drop bombs. I’ve seen people make fun of diplomacy, being educated and expecting those who have benefited the most to pay a teeny tiny bit more than the rest of us. There are some here who believe that any social program is the equivalent of armed robbery. During some of the debates when the audience cheered that a sitting governor had lacked the ability to reflect on the death penalty, when they cheered that letting a person who lacked even the most basic health care should just be left to die and when they booed an active military member….someone who fights a war most of you take delight in because hes’ gay and had the guts to come out live on TV, I thought of this website.
Is that really the impression you want to give to the general public?
Because if it is, it’s failing faster now than screen doors on a submarine. Romney and Gingrich, besides destroying themselves, are baring for all the world to see just what a shambles the Republican party has become by exploiting the extremists that Wm. F. Buckley warned about. Ronald Reagan, a man who is a deity to the right, would not be welcome in today’s party. The unprecedented disrespect shown to Obama, combined with the chaos the 2 candidates are fomenting and the lack of cooperation in congress is pissing off the public. A consequence of this is to paint the President in sympathetic light which combined with his oratory skills and his actual record will all but insure his reelection. This isn’t some wild-eyed statement I’m making, it’s been repeated for the past several weeks by conservatives!
We’ve got the head of the RNC comparing him to a ship captain whose lack of judgement killed people. (The only people I know of that Obama had killed are terrorists.) We’ve got Allen West saying he should be impeached over his economic philosophy. And then, on a more personal level, we have Neo who has deluded himself into believing that he is not a citizen, that he is a secret Muslim, that he smokes cracks and gives head. This, along with comparing him to an ape and praying for his death. I’ve come to the conclusion that very few of you have any ability to be logical and reasonable. You have an ideology and damn it, you’re going to stick to it regardless of fact. Fortunately, there are very few of you.
bomberBmitch
then try the Ko’s or huff po. They welcome leftist loons there.
“The unprecedented disrespect shown to Obama,” Not even one tenth of the disrespect liars like you had for GWB. The rest of your post, just pure garbage.
Don’t like what you read, go somewhere else, no one will miss you at all.
bomberBmitch
most of you take delight in because hes’ gay and had the guts to come out live on
he was Boo’d because we take delight that he is a homosexual?
when I introduce my self I NEVER start it out by identifying the position I like best in the bed room….why would anybody ?
BECAUSE it is an AGENDA, a STFU in your face identification to stifle any decent.
Very much like the race card.
It may work in in the cubicles of corporate with the metro sexual castrodi who work there but it dont fly in Rio Linda with REAL men and women.
This, along with comparing him to an ape and praying for his death.
you mean like THIS?
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushchimpanzee.htm
hmmmmm
http://www.flickr.com/photos/96024429@N00/5162188427/
bush = Chimpy.
barry = *O*chimpy
we are just carrying a tradition you Morons had in place for 8 years, suck it up you have 1 more to go before WE sing.
Na Na Na Na Na, Hey Hey Hey, Goooood BYE !!!
mitch,
There just isn’t enough time to address your drivel of liberal half truths, and brain damage. Suffice it to say that if you could somehow untangle yourself from the litany of liberal talking points and objectively look through a different political prism, you might just gain some clarity. I am not holding my breath
” and when they booed an active military member….someone who fights a war most of you take delight in because hes’ gay and had the guts to come out live on TV”
And once again the bomber shows hes has no understanding of the truth. I could point out that audience bood the question not the questioner but that would not fit bomber mitch’s narrative.
Once again though the bomber points out why he is a progressive. He needs his betters, he needs the political elite to tell him what to think.
he needs the political elite to tell him what to think.
IE
a useful idiot
a drone
WOW talk about……….
http://ts2.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=1536438769729&id=f1ba6fe03dcc4b6f2266d240a3daebf5
barry and the “dreamers”
Not only CLUELESS, but CLASSLESS
A President who uses his bully pulpit to mock and taunt Americans, who incites his followers to be confrontational, creates an atmosphere of incivility and violence.
Obama To Supporters: “Argue With Friend and Neighbors Get In Their Face!” video
Obama Mocks Fox, “Teabaggers” video
Obama Mocks Republican ‘Armageddon’ Rhetoric (Again) video
Obama: Police Acted ‘stupidly’ in Scholar Arrest video
Obama On GOP Running On Repeal: ‘Go For It’ video
NRA: Barack Obama – “bitter gun owners” video
President Obama, No One in Arizona is Laughing video
Obama, during his private pep talk to Democrats, … asked, “Does anybody think that the teabag, anti-government people are going to support them if they bring down health care? All it will do is confuse and dispirit” Democratic voters “and it will encourage the extremists.” – Nov. 7, 2009
Obama Attacks Americans – Says Those Who Support AZ Law Are “Anti-Immigrant” (video)
Obama uses knife/gun fight quote to fight the GOP – “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun, because from what I understand, folks in Philly like a good brawl.” (video)
Obama Tells GOP “Get In Back” (video)
OBAMA TO LATINOS: ‘PUNISH OUR ENEMIES’ (Youtube audio-vid)
As Debt Ceiling Skyrockets, Obama No Longer Calls Bush ‘Unpatriotic’ for Increases
Fox News ^ | 1/30/2012 | fox news
As President Obama prepares to raise the debt ceiling — after the Senate waived its opposition last week — $5 trillion hikes evidently are no longer “unpatriotic” as Obama said they were in 2008 while describing former President George W. Bush’s $4 trillion increase over eight years.
The White House requested authority earlier this month to raise the debt ceiling to $16.4 trillion, up $1.2 trillion from last summer and more than $5 trillion from the statutory limit of $11.3 trillion set in October 2008 before Obama took office. The debt at the time Obama entered the White House was $10.6 trillion. The ceiling was raised to $12.1 trillion within a month of his inauguration.
Such increases used to be anathema to Obama, who voted in March 2006 along with all his Senate Democratic colleagues against Bush’s hike of the debt ceiling to $8.9 trillion.
At the time, Obama called raising the debt limit “a sign of leadership failure.” Out on the campaign trail in July 2008, he suggested the move was downright un-American.
“The problem is that the way Bush has done it in the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion from the first 42 presidents. No. 43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome. So we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back. $30,000 for every man woman and child. That’s irresponsible, that’s unpatriotic,” he said.
They (members of the audience) did not boo the questioner, Megan Kelly. Nor did they boo the respondent, Rick Santorum who did not react as he tried to claim that gay’s are destroying the military. And they did not boo the question for if they did, it would be a show of support to actively servings gays. They boo’d the soldier which is a demonstration of abject disrespect for members of the military which is a fetish of the right. Nice spin though.
bomberBmitch
that gay’s are destroying the military.
they ARE and this country.
Unprecedented disrespect? LOLzer get a friggen clue. You mean disrespect like this?
Whatever the bomner says. Had any luck remembering that number yet?