How Does Obama Survive This?

“the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution? — because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level to make to make sure everybody has got a shot,” – Barack Hussein Obama, 1998
So Obama believes he needs to set up government systems and take OPM (other peoples money), to redistribute to those in need, and of course that government led by Obama would be the sole determiner of who wins and who loses. It’s not enough that only 53% of wage earners pay all income taxes, and it’s not enough that the top 10% pay over 71% of income taxes. Obama believes he needs to redistribute more.

Why does he hate the 53%?

He is toast. I am sure the media will be all over this.

Oh wait.



202 thoughts on “How Does Obama Survive This?

  1. casper September 18, 2012 / 7:23 pm

    I’m sure the media is real interested in speeches made 14 years ago. That said, there is nothing in the speech about hating the 53%. In fact the speech has very little to do todays election. Looks like what you really want is some kind of gotcha.

    • Caveat Emptor September 18, 2012 / 7:53 pm

      Was he lying then, or is he lying now?

      • Casper September 18, 2012 / 8:00 pm

        “Romney had taken positions in Massachusetts that were anathema to the conservative base, particularly on abortion and gay rights. Running against Ted Kennedy in 1994, Romney had declared himself a supporter of a woman’s right to choose on abortion, and claimed he would do more for gay rights than Kennedy.”

        Was he lying then or is he lying now?

      • Caveat Emptor September 18, 2012 / 8:11 pm

        Romney changed; he is now pro-life. I thought we made that clear the other dozen times you brought it up.

        What has that to do with Obama lying about redistribution? He claims now he is not a Socialist, but clearly if he was telling the truth 14 years ago, he’s lying now.

      • Casper September 18, 2012 / 8:20 pm

        “Caveat Emptor
        September 18, 2012 at 8:11 pm #
        Romney changed; he is now pro-life. I thought we made that clear the other dozen times you brought it up.

        What has that to do with Obama lying about redistribution? He claims now he is not a Socialist, but clearly if he was telling the truth 14 years ago, he’s lying now.”

        So Romney has changed but Obama is lying. Then again, maybe Romney is lying and Obama has changed.

      • Caveat Emptor September 18, 2012 / 9:12 pm

        Are you saying OBAMA admits he’s a Socialist now?

      • Amazona September 18, 2012 / 10:30 pm

        Of course, Obama repeated his comments on redistribution during the last campaign and has since said things like there should be a limit on how much people should be allowed to make (except for actors and athletes and crooked politicians of course) and he has packed his administration with hard-core redistributionist Marxist/Maoist types. He has been consistent his whole life regarding his disdain for capitalism and his passion for Leftist economics and politics.

        On the other hand, millions who once got sucked into the superficial appeal that “choice” was about the personal freedom of the female gestator have evolved to a deeper understanding of the brutality and atrocity of killing unborn children.

      • dognpony September 19, 2012 / 4:42 pm

        Actually, the question is, are YOU lying then or now. A: All of the above.

        The quote is about pooling government resources to be more efficient. But you don’t really care about the whole quote, do you?

    • Count d'Haricots September 18, 2012 / 7:58 pm

      But, it is real important that we discuss Bain Capital letterhead from 20 years ago, and dog carriers from 30 years ago.

      • Casper September 18, 2012 / 8:03 pm

        “Count d’Haricots
        September 18, 2012 at 7:58 pm #
        But, it is real important that we discuss Bain Capital letterhead from 20 years ago, and dog carriers from 30 years ago.”

        We could do the past all day.

      • Count d'Haricots September 18, 2012 / 8:12 pm

        And you still won’t be able to make a salient point.

      • Casper September 18, 2012 / 8:14 pm

        And neither will you.

      • Count d'Haricots September 18, 2012 / 9:13 pm

        Wow, I wish I had said that.

      • Amazona September 18, 2012 / 10:32 pm

        Hey, it’s classic casper. Narny narny narny, I know what you are what am I, his usual level of discourse.

    • Retired Spook September 18, 2012 / 8:03 pm

      I’m sure the media is real interested in speeches made 14 years ago.

      Oh, I don’t know. The media couldn’t get enough of the fact that the Romneys lashed their dog kennel to the top of their car — THIRTY YEARS AGO

      • Amazona September 18, 2012 / 10:19 pm

        And a TEACHER says “media IS” instead of “media ARE”.

        Those lucky lucky Casper students—hopefully it won’t take them too long to catch up after they get out of casper’s classes.

    • Retired Spook September 18, 2012 / 8:10 pm

      Looks like what you really want is some kind of gotcha.

      Coming from the King of Gotchas that’s hilarious. No, I think what Cluster is trying to illustrate is the absurdity of comments like this from the previous thread:

      Poor Cluster. Can’t see the burning forest for the trees.
      Kids, your guy just lost the election.

      Or this:

      Mitt is toast now. Done. Finished. Kaput. His campaign is DEAD. About time, too.

    • sarahbloch September 19, 2012 / 9:44 am

      Casper the age of the clip doesn’t matter to me, the medium is the message here. This clip makes Romney’s statements seem even more tone deaf and uncaring. Redistribution as a code word will inspire far Right conservatives but not as much as the “cares for their lives” comments will motivate Liberals.

  2. neocon1 September 18, 2012 / 7:39 pm

    He doesn’t……

    Florida Poll: Romney 48%, 0bama 47%

    • Retired Spook September 18, 2012 / 8:04 pm

      There’s that 47% AGAIN – LOL!

    • 6206j September 18, 2012 / 8:15 pm

      do you have the crosstabs on that poll?

      • 6206j September 18, 2012 / 8:22 pm


      • Mark Edward Noonan September 18, 2012 / 8:34 pm


        The poll seems to over-sample Democrats by 6 points – so, given that, I figure that Romney is already 50%+ in FL and its a very good chance that Mack will knock out Nelson for the Senate.

    • Mark Edward Noonan September 18, 2012 / 9:12 pm

      It is a curious thing but I’m starting to hear – whispered, so far – a new meme for the Democrats. Romney may win the popular vote but Obama will still win the electoral college because he’s got a lock on Ohio. This would pre-suppose that Romney wins FL, NC, VA, NV, and CO but loses NM, IA, WI, MI, NH and PA – in such a scenario it would be Obama 257, Romney 263 – with OH’s 18 EVs deciding the issue. Of course, if any of the battleground States supposedly “won” already by Obama go for Romney (and its a bit brave to expect Obama to win IA and WI at this point), then the scenario is knocked in to a cocked hat…but what the emergence of this meme tells me is two things:

      1. Obama’s path to 270 absolutely requires Ohio.

      2. Democrats will do everything they can – including cheat – to win Ohio.

      Our best defense is to not only pour it on in Ohio, but also pour it on in NM, IA, WI, NH and PA – after all, supposing the Democrats manage to cheat their way to a narrow victory in OH, it won’t matter if IA and WI have gone for Romney.

      • casper September 18, 2012 / 9:30 pm

        “Mark Edward Noonan September 18, 2012 at 9:12 pm #

        It is a curious thing but I’m starting to hear – whispered, so far – a new meme for the Democrats. Romney may win the popular vote but Obama will still win the electoral college because he’s got a lock on Ohio.”

        What I’m hearing is that Obama will win both the popular vote and the electoral college. Romney will win NC, but lose FL, VA, NV, NM, IA, WI, MI, NH and PA and I’m not so sure he wins NC.

      • bardolf September 18, 2012 / 9:39 pm


        I think Romney has abandoned New Mexico. The governor is already distancing herself from the 47% remark since there are so many poor in the state.

      • Amazona September 18, 2012 / 10:21 pm

        “What I’m hearing is that Obama will win both the popular vote and the electoral college. ”

        Those voices in your head, eh, cappy?

      • sarahbloch September 19, 2012 / 7:20 am

        Mark the average of polls that I see which is similar to the work that Nate Silver is doing at fivethirtyeight is Obama trending higher in both IA and WI and with a five point lead based on a 16 September poll in VA. If Obama wins FL OH and PA the election is over. All the states Romney needs to win now are where he is trailing and have high to moderate Latino voting bases which are 2 to 1 for Obama.

  3. Cluster September 18, 2012 / 8:16 pm

    No, I think what Cluster is trying to illustrate is the absurdity of comments like this from the previous thread: – Spook

    You and I are always on the same page. I couldn’t resist doing this.

    I was listening to Hugh Hewitt this afternoon, and he was saying that Romney’s message has absolutely energized the conservative base, because he proved to us that HE GETS IT!! And Hugh is right. Tax reform is paramount, because in that 47% who don’t pay taxes are millionaires who game the system, which just exposes how ridiculous our tax system is, and those people will oppose reform with every fiber of their being.

    Naturally, the liberals can only think of victims. Conservatives think of victors.

  4. September 18, 2012 / 8:49 pm

    This poster has been on the spam list for months now for constant racial and religious bigotry. Please do not respond to him. //Moderator

    • Cluster September 18, 2012 / 8:56 pm

      LOL. Oh bloody, you’re good for a laugh. Romney has released tax returns, and if you think his reputable accounting firm and the IRS have let him slide on not paying taxes, then I have a bridge I would like to sell you, to steal a phrase from Al Sharpton.

      Secondly, Romney didn’t put his foot in his mouth, he said exactly what we all wanted to hear. Bravo Mitt!

      • irisspirit September 19, 2012 / 9:28 am

        Cluster, I hope you are right about Romney saying exactly you “we all wanted to hear.” I hope he keeps saying exactly what you and others on the far right want to hear. When he speaks as he did on the tape, we know who the real Romney is and that is what we need to know. Who is this man and what does he really stand for??? Up to now, no one really know what are his core beliefs. Now, he needs to start providing details as to what he plans to do to improve the jobs issue, what tax cuts he plans to make and no more of this “trust me” or you will find out when I am elected. He needs to provide some details now.

      • Cluster September 19, 2012 / 11:56 am

        ……no more of this “trust me” or you will find out when I am elected. He needs to provide some details now.

        You mean like when Pelosi said that we would have to pass it to find out what’s in it, I agree 100%. I also want Romney to get more detailed, and he will. But I like the fact that he speaks the truth without worrying whose feelings he hurts. We need more of that. We need adults to run this country.

      • freethinker September 20, 2012 / 1:06 pm

        No Cluster, that is not what I mean. Peloisi is not running for President. I mean Romney. No details from him – at least not so far.

      • Amazona September 20, 2012 / 2:12 pm

        Velma, in Florida it is a crime to surreptitiously record a conversation without the knowledge and permission of those being recorded.

        I’ve been waiting for your outrage at his violation of the law—did I miss it? As a lawyer you surely believe in the rule of law and I will join you in trying to bring this criminal to justice.

      • tiredoflibbs September 20, 2012 / 2:22 pm

        Uh, Velma do you need your hand held too? You can’t go to Romney’s website and find details for yourself?

        No, of course you can’t. You can’t defend your philosophy without some talking head telling you what to regurgitate and what to think. It is no coincidence that once you are in over your head you run away.

  5. Freedom Fries September 18, 2012 / 9:01 pm

    Yeah, wow. . . That’s devastating!

    Of course once you hear the quote and you realize that he’s talking about roads and schools. . .well, most Americans agree with him.

    In contrast, remember that if you make under $200k Romney wants to raise your taxes. Most likely by eliminating child tax credits and the mortgage interest deduction, since people who use those are “freeloaders”, but Romney won’t exactly tell us the details of his tax plan.

    And let’s not forget that Romney himself may have paid no federal income taxes, which would make him a freeloader as well. That and the fact that taxpayers bailed out Bain capital and all the companies that they drove into bankruptcy as well.

    • Cluster September 18, 2012 / 9:13 pm

      I will make you the same offer. Do you really want to leave this post up for everyone to see?

      • Freedom Fries September 18, 2012 / 9:19 pm

        Remember how Santorum recently said that the GOP will never get “smart” people to vote for them? Even a broken clock like Santorum is sometimes right.

      • tiredoflibbs September 18, 2012 / 9:27 pm

        DoYouWantFriesWithThat: “may have paid no federal income taxes”

        Wow, that is up there with:
        obAMATEUR may have been born in Kenya.
        obAMATUER may be gay.
        obAMATEUR may have used drugs…..oh wait he did (i remember when to the proggies it was important if Bush did drugs – now it doesn’t matter with obAMATEUR).

        Do you even read the crap before you mindlessly regurgitate it like a good little drone?

      • irisspirit September 19, 2012 / 9:33 am

        Cluster, what is wrong with Freedom’s post? Why do you feel the need to take down posts that you do not agree with? I thought you believed in freedom of speech but apparently that is true only if you are in agreement. You take down quite a lot of posts and I always wonder what on earth did these people write that you found so offensive.

      • Cluster September 19, 2012 / 11:53 am


        I didn’t take it down. It’s still there. I just gave him the option to have it taken down because his comments were mind numbingly stupid. I thought he might be embarrassed. It’s that compassionate conservative thing.

    • tiredoflibbs September 18, 2012 / 9:19 pm

      DoYouWantFriesWithThat says: “remember that if you make under $200k Romney wants to raise your taxes.”

      Oh, if only that were true (it is true to the hundreds of mindless obama zombies out there who are desperate for brains).

      Romney’s tax plan:

      Individual Taxes

      America’s individual tax code applies relatively high marginal tax rates on a narrow tax base. Those high rates discourage work and entrepreneurship, as well as savings and investment. With 54 percent of private sector workers employed outside of corporations, individual rates also define the incentives for job-creating businesses. Lower marginal tax rates secure for all Americans the economic gains from tax reform.

      *Make permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates
      *Maintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains
      *Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains
      *Eliminate the Death Tax
      *Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)

      Eliminate, repeal and make permanent. I guess at the fry station those mean increase or raise.

      Try again drone.

      • Freedom Fries September 18, 2012 / 9:23 pm

        You’re missing the part about closing tax loopholes. This recent video makes it clear why Romney won’t deny that he wants to get rid of the mortgage deduction. . Because he DOES want to eliminate it since he believes that people who use these deductions are “freeloaders”

        Even GOP analysts admit that the math doesn’t add up. He can’t close 500 billion in loopholes without getting rid of the child tax credits and the mortgage deduction.

        Sorry to use facts and numbers, I know that facts and numbers aren’t in the Romney budget.

      • tiredoflibbs September 18, 2012 / 9:38 pm

        wow, DoYouWantFriesWithThat, if Romney makes sufficient tax cuts and makes them PERMANENT there would be no need for the “loopholes” you describe. “loopholes”? People who pay a mortgage are now “freeloaders”? ….. are you listening to dumbed down talking points again?

        Let’s see… mortgage deduction is only used by those who are paying a mortgage. Does everyone have a mortgage? As I said, if the tax cut is sufficient there would be no need for the deduction and EVERYONE will pay less in taxes. I am sure people would want their money up front rather than waiting almost a year to take advantage of a DWINDLING deduction.

        You claim to use “facts” but your sources and references are lacking.

        Is that the fry buzzer I hear?

        “The people who make all the money are the ones who benefit.”

        A fry cook who attends the Occupy rallies…. explains a lot.

        Again, do you even read the crap you mindlessly regurgitate?

        “You think that I benefit more from roads, airports, schools, universities, bridges, and the military than the owners of WalMart?”

        Do you benefit or have benefited from:
        Schools? Hardly…..
        Universities? Definitely not.
        Military? They would not want you.

      • Cluster September 18, 2012 / 9:39 pm

        Want some facts and numbers? Entitlements have increased 5500% since 1971. In 1982, 82% of wage earners paid income taxes, now that percentage is 47%. Average household income has dropped by $8000 in the last four years, unemployment has stayed above 8% for 42 months, the debt has increased almost $6 trillion in the last four years, gas prices have increased nearly 60%, and the labor participation rate is the lowest since the 1930’s.

        Sorry doesn’t even begin to describe it.

      • watsonredux September 18, 2012 / 9:45 pm

        So a videotape is released of MItt Romney in which, according to David Brooks, “a kind, decent man” says “stupid things because he is pretending to be something he is not.” It’s all over the news for the last 24 hours. Everyone’s talking about it. But the best B4V can do is post an article about something Barack Obama said in 1998 and ask, how does Obama survive that?! Boy, you guys are right on top of things.

        It’s good to know that Mitt Romney has dismissed my mother–who collects Social Security–as a “victim,” not to mention some of you. Dismissed her (and some of you) as someone who doesn’t take responsibility for herself. I’m sure she (and you) are thrilled to learn that.

        tired posted Romney’s tax plan. Unfortunately, everyone who has looked at knows that it will grow federal deficits. Romney claims he will fix this by closing tax loopholes. But which ones? No one knows, because they’re “to be determined.”

        This week Romney was supposed to start rolling out the details. What details have we received so far? Well, let’s just say he’s had his hands full with other matters. Perhaps he should take his teleprompter with him even when he speaks among friends.

      • Cluster September 18, 2012 / 9:56 pm

        zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz oh was that you Watson?

        Your mother already paid her income taxes, and she is now drawing on her payroll taxes. Ask her, she might teach you something.

        Meanwhile, the ME is killing Americans and enraged, 23 million Americans can’t find work, gas prices are $4 a gallon, the debt is over $16 trillion and Obama is partying with Jay Z.

        Yup, Romney’s the problem alright. Good call sport.

      • watsonredux September 18, 2012 / 10:07 pm

        That’s correct, cluster. And according to Mitt Romney, she’s nothing but a victim who will never take responsibility for herself. Those are not big words and she understood what he meant very clearly, as did everyone who heard it.

        Meanwhile, Cluster is furiously browsing youtube hoping to come up with another Obama video from 20 years ago.

      • Cluster September 18, 2012 / 10:12 pm

        Hey did you ever find out who the enemies of the Hispanics are? When Obama told the Hispanic caucus to “punish their enemies”.

        LOL. You’re such a rube. Have a good night.

      • watsonredux September 18, 2012 / 10:17 pm

        Cluster said, “Hey did you ever find out who the enemies of the Hispanics are? When Obama told the Hispanic caucus to “punish their enemies”.”

        Just throwing stuff out there, eh, Cluster? Weak.

        I can’t wait for tired to respond by explaining to us that it’s just a hatchet job by the media that caused Mitt to say these things.

      • Amazona September 18, 2012 / 10:37 pm

        “Just throwing stuff out there, eh, Cluster?”

        If that’s how you are going to try to dismiss an actual reference to a REAL effort to denigrate and dismiss about half of America, then go for it.

        In this case, the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES was actively trying to turn one segment of Americans against another, and encouraging violence against them. This is what he said.

        Yeah, and there is a lot more that will “just be thrown out there” as time goes on, and you won’t like it either. Waaa waaaa waaaa.

      • Cluster September 18, 2012 / 10:41 pm

        Considering that Watson just skipped over the abysmal economic statistics and foreign policy debacle, casting aside an effort by the POTUS to divide Americans is real easy. And Watson is good at easy things.

      • Amazona September 18, 2012 / 10:45 pm

        If your mother truly “understood” Romney to mean “…she’s nothing but a victim who will never take responsibility for herself. …” then this is just proof that the watson apple did not fall far from the stupid tree.

        Guess this answers some questions about genetics, eh?

      • Cluster September 18, 2012 / 11:00 pm


      • watsonredux September 18, 2012 / 11:12 pm

        Mitt Romney showed he takes second to no one when it comes to dividing America and playing class warfare. He was very clear about that, don’t you think, Amazona?

        You did listen Mitt’s words, didn’t you, Amazona? Maybe you need a refresher, so let’s quote him:

        There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.

        [M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.

        Yup, those elderly folks on Social Security are merely victims who never take personal responsibility for anything. I wonder if this is what Mitt meant when he said he would be sharpening his message this week.

        Still waiting to hear about those loopholes, Mitt. And still waiting for tired to defend Mitt by claiming the libs did it first. lol

      • tiredoflibbs September 19, 2012 / 6:16 am

        As I said before cluster, this video’s release was carefully timed and saved for when obAMATEUR needed a distraction and deflect the political discussion away from his economic and foreign policy failures. The obAMATEUR campaign had plenty of time to craft a scenario against Romney.

        The FACT that obAMATEUR dropped the ball on intelligence that warned him of the pending attacks was starting to get reluctant media attention from his Ministry of Propaganda. They could no longer ignore it.

        And drones like watty, cyberdrone, mitchie and the frycook play right into his hands and mindlessly regurgitate the dumbed down talking points.

      • sarahbloch September 19, 2012 / 7:22 am

        Cluster what you describe has nothing to do with Liberal policy it is a clear reflection of the nation getting older. In 1982 the number of people on Social Security was significantly lower than it is today. The bulk of SS recipients pay no income taxes.

      • Cluster September 19, 2012 / 7:33 am

        Sarah sweety,

        I know it’s early and your brain may not be fully engaged, if it ever is, but those SS recipients, did actually work in their younger years, and did pay payroll taxes thus contributing to the benefits they are now receiving. They do not pay payroll taxes now because they are retired. Did you follow that honey?

      • sarahbloch September 19, 2012 / 9:17 am

        But candidate Romney made no distinction between lifetime workers who had paid into an entitlement system he simply said “the 47% who pay no income taxes.”

      • Amazona September 19, 2012 / 10:37 am

        Love the wattle’s spin on this: “[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

        Of course to sour conservative-hating wattle, this means that Romney REALLY MEANT it would not be his job, as president, to “worry about those people”.

        But Romney did not use the future tense, and he did not talk about what his job would be as president. He was talking in the present tense of the moment, to potential campaign donors, and he quite candidly and accurately pointed out that his job, as a candidate, would not be to worry about the people who would not vote for him anyway.


        What you people simply do not grasp is that conservatives have this conversation, in one form or another, all the time—–that some people will simply never be convinced that they should take personal responsibility and care for their own lives, but that they are stuck in dependency mode, encouraged by the plantation overseers who need them to remain dependent.

        Sorry it stings to see how you and your fellow Lefties are seen, but that’s the way it is.

        Yes, Mitt made a mistake in the shortcut of lumping all who do not pay taxes into the number of those dependent on the government.

        But as for the NUMBER of 47%—-what was the percentage of American votes that went to Obama in 2008? It was MORE than 47%, wasn’t it?

        So go ahead and pull out the hardworking middle class who are self-sufficient and do not have to pay taxes—-and while you are doing that, thank the GW Bush tax RATE cuts for a lot of that. Go ahead and pull out the SS recipients. But what you have left is the Moocher Class, and this is a significant problem in this country, no matter how hard you try to distract from it with your spinning.

        While I would have wanted Romney to take a minute to consider that not ALL of that 47% is in the Dependent Class, I cannot disagree with his assessment that, AS A CANDIDATE, he should not worry about those whose vote he could never get anyway, because they will always vote for whoever offers them more.

      • Amazona September 19, 2012 / 10:47 am

        “But candidate Romney made no distinction between lifetime workers who had paid into an entitlement system he simply said “the 47% who pay no income taxes.””

        Yes, he did. And it was a mistake.

        It was not part of a scripted speech, reviewed and vetted and read from a teleprompter. It was a spontaneous reference to an accurate number, and a perfectly legitimate pair of comments—that AS A CANDIDATE it was not his job to worry about people who would never vote for him anyway, and that some people will never be convinced that they should take personal responsibility for their own lives—but in the flow of the comment he did not pause and insert the disclaimer that not ALL of that 47% falls into the Dependent Class category.

        And what the Leftist rabble is baying about is that omission, that failure to say what they think he should have said.

        And this is what the Left is reduced to—shrill strident hysteria about what Romney does NOT say. He did not separate the working from the dependent in a statement that was otherwise completely accurate. OMG!!! Get a rope!!! He did not politicize the war in Afghanistan in his acceptance speech!!!

        Velma is having kittens because she can’t understand what he says about his policies, so that falls, according to her, into the Unforgivable Unspoken Things category.

        And this is what the campaign is going to be about. It will be about the Left howling about what they think is the significance of what Romney does NOT say, in a frantic and desperate attempt to distract from what their own guy HAS said. And done.

      • dbschmidt September 19, 2012 / 9:39 pm

        First, most of these wonderful dissenters should hear the complete, unedited, tape to understand the context but more to the point there are two things they need to overcome. First, payroll taxes are not Federal Income taxes–these are two very different animals. and Second, if I were to believe the “logic” of these folks then Romney was disparaging himself as he pays no Federal Income taxes at this point in time.

        But to the small minded–it must be so because Jimmah Carter’s (2nd worst President after Obama and barely beating Wilson) son/grandson released a tape to Mother Jones–no chance of misreporting there.

    • Cluster September 18, 2012 / 9:22 pm

      Speaking of roads and bridges Fries man, knowing that 53% pay income taxes and corporations pay more, who do you think paid for the roads and bridges? This country was built by people who actually work, make money, and pay taxes, so it is the 47% who benefit most from that. Not the other way around.

      • Freedom Fries September 18, 2012 / 9:27 pm

        The people who make all the money are the ones who benefit. They sure as hell aren’t the ones fighting for this country in the military (freeloaders since active duty are in the 47%), but they are using our public schools and infrastructure to educate their workers and bring goods to consumers. You think that I benefit more from roads, airports, schools, universities, bridges, and the military than the owners of WalMart?

      • Cluster September 18, 2012 / 9:33 pm

        Actually the all volunteer military has a higher college grad degree rate than the general population, but interesting to note that you denigrate them when convenient. And you benefit from the infrastructure as much as anyone. In fact, the earners built that for you which would allow you to start your own business and engage in commerce. Sadly, you choose to complain.

      • Amazona September 18, 2012 / 10:41 pm

        Cluster I wonder if “fries with that?” is really going to claim that THE RICH use more of what they pay for than anyone else. That would be an interesting argument, if by “interesting” you mean really really dumb.

        Too funny to see him floundering, such as trying to make something out of the educational system educating the workers hired by THE RICH . Yeah, HIRED BY THE RICH. You know, those people who own businesses and create jobs.

        Though more and more the public education system won’t be able to turn out decent workers and more and more of the good jobs will got to people who are privately educated, another example of LESS use of tax dollars by THE RICH .

  6. watsonredux September 18, 2012 / 11:32 pm

    This article by a reporter traveling with the Romney campaign is just classic.

    We all know how the B4V brain trust dismisses every dissenting opinion as nothing but talking points, right? But here we see exactly how B4V really works–as nothing but a talking point stooge for the Romney campaign.

    Mr. Romney and his advisers quickly grasped the severity of the video. A decision was made: Mr. Romney must go in front of cameras immediately to explain himself, lest questions about the video linger and overshadow two full days of his campaign at a crucial stage in the general election.

    By Tuesday afternoon, the campaign seemed to find its footing. Aides inside Mr. Romney’s Boston headquarters began highlighting a video of their own: a 1998 clip showing Barack Obama, then a state senator, saying that he wanted the government to facilitate the distribution of wealth. “I actually believe in redistribution,” Mr. Obama said on the tape.

    And right on cue, B4V delivers.

    • Cluster September 19, 2012 / 7:30 am


      If you were even on an intellectual par with an endangered salmon, I might take you seriously. As it is, you are intellectually beneath even those on MSNBC so your posts are nothing more than amusements for me.

      This thread I threw up was purely in jest, to expose the idiocy of you, the media, and essentially every liberal that ever lived. Romney was explaining his strategy to his supporters on how he was focusing on the 53% of the people that pay for this country to win the election, knowing that much of the 47% who don’t pay for this country, were in the Obama camp. That’s all, and he is 100% correct. This wouldn’t even be an issue if the media weren’t so dishonest and 100% behind Obama, and if you weren’t so mind numbingly stupid.

  7. Herp Fuqhuson September 19, 2012 / 1:42 am

    Here’s a blast from the past… good times,

    I really do urge our Democrats to step back from the edge – you are sitting in a lake of gasoline and you are playing with fire. We on our side will only put up with so much before we start to pay back with usury what we have received. If you can’t defeat Tom Delay in the electoral field, then you will simply have to accept him as Majority Leader of the United States House of Representatives – and you’d better start accepting political reality before things get really bad.

  8. sarahbloch September 19, 2012 / 7:44 am

    Cluster it goes to the point that Mark really is good at believing but not very good at reading political tea leaves. The mid terms in 2010? Everyone here at my blog knew in August that the House would shift to the GOP and we wrote about the many reasons for that shift. With a member of the GOP House leadership staring down an indictment and numerous other members under investigation at the time in late August 2005 Mark still believed in the party that holds his worldview at least at a level of lip service. The point I make is that the difference between our blog and B4V is B4V cannot accept any failure by the party that they believe holds their values to heart. Only during moments when once ardent Conservatives tack ever so slightly to the center do you ever see any dissent here from Mark or Cluster. When Obama is out of office in 2017, B4V in whatever new incarnation it takes on will I am sure still be populated with Conservative voices who have strong opinions but the tone will be different, especially if Hillary Clinton is President in January of 2017. Herb just scratched the surface with his quote; here’s what puts that quote in context:

    As our Sister Toldjah noted earlier, the “indictment” of Tom Delay is entirely bogus – from what I’ve read, Tom Delay didn’t know about the perfectly legal transaction he is accused of conspiring to make. We have now left entirely the field of normal political conflict and entered a twilight world where fantasy is presented as fact and the only standard of conduct is “will it work?”. This is not the actions of a political Party engaged in seeking a majority – it is the action of a Party determined to destroy its opponents entirely and sieze [sic] all power for itself…it is, in short, the stuff from which civil wars are made.

    In a normal democratic society, the political parties argue it out, resort to the voters and abide by the results – in our very abnormal society, there is no argument. There is accusation and innuendo, and the count of the voters is considered null and void unless it comes to the “correct” conclusion as determined by one Party. The Democrats do not like Tom Delay – and that is natural and normal given that Delay is a senior leader of the other side, and a damned effective one at that. But this quest to destroy Delay goes beyond the pale – it is an outrage; a negation of all that America is about…a betrayal of American political institutions.”

    These are your words Mark; the Internet never sleeps.

    • Cluster September 19, 2012 / 7:56 am


      Well again it’s early, so I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that your brain may not be fully engaged. I found it humorous that you accuse conservatives of wanting to ignore debate and compromise when from 2009 to January 2011, Nancy Pelosi not only completely shut down any opposing voices, but completely ignored the American people as well as she and Obama jammed through the affordable care act on a purely partisan basis. Do you remember that? Do you remember when she said that we would have to pass it to find out what’s in it? Does that sound like good governance to you dear?

      Do you rememebr when Obama said that republicans would have to ride in the back of the bus? Do you remember when Harry Reid said that he would immediately table, and not allow any House republican legislation to be debated in the Senate?

      Yet you bring up Mark’s defense of Tom Delay as the standard for partisan politics? That’s just too funny.

      • sarahbloch September 19, 2012 / 8:32 am

        It is early and I am on my first cup of coffee but my brain is fully engaged. The message I’m trying to convey has little to do with Delay himself, it has to do with how everyday folks who blog about politics get trapped into the need for the side to be perfect and when their side has erred they make the matter worse by trying to ignore the transgression. Trust me Cluster there were those on the Left who are still apologizing for Rostenkowski and Traficant not to mention Elliot Spitzer and Eric Holder. The thing is that these are men and women that you have elected no matter which party and they are fallible. Bloggers have choices. They can be partisan drumbeaters and not be taken seriously or they can be journalists who get beyond the cheerleading and really tackle the issues.

        Now there is no doubt where I work is a Liberal/Progressive/Socialist/Communist/GLBTQ shop. But when someone who holds our values fails the people they serve we have to take them to task. There is no ideological mandate that keeps us from writing about failure because failure and redemption is the essence of Humanity. The question Cavalor asks us every morning is “What can we do to inspire a bit more discussion across the aisles in America?” That is the driving motivation for what we do along with “What are the facts that can refute what the other side says?” Not some nugget ginned up to make gotcha points—facts.

        B4V has a voice and it has an audience. At some point [preaching to the choir loses its resonance with those who are outside the church. My question is what can B4V do to make itself more palatable to the 5% of the undecided voters?

      • Cluster September 19, 2012 / 8:40 am

        But when someone who holds our values fails the people they serve we have to take them to task

        Well then you might want to start taking Obama to task. I wouldn’t consider, nor do I think you should consider $6 trillion in debt in the last four years, increases in gas prices, increases in welfare recipients, increases in food stamp recipients, 8.2% unemployment, the lowest work force participation rate since the 1930’s, an assinated US ambassador, the ME in flames, increasing insurance premiums, and the lowest number of small business creation since the 1940’s, to be a resounding success.

        I will also remind you that here at B4V, formerly B4B, we did hold Bush accountable for his deficits, Harriet Myers, his misguided amnesty ideas, and his Prescription D program – all of which we conservatives opposed and said so.

      • sarahbloch September 19, 2012 / 9:15 am

        Cluster you have to take into account a few things, some which I have said here before. Obama was an outlier in 2008. It was expected by virtually every clearinghouse for political thought from the Right and the Left that Hillary Clinton was going to be the nominee for the Democrats. As Obama gained momentum in the late fall of 2007 going in to the primary season the Democratic Party establishment warmed to the idea of an Obama candidacy for one singular reason—Obama was an unknown commodity. The fact that an election of a person of color in America as President was secondary yet its negatives were not discounted. The campaign that would have been run against Hillary Clinton could have been far more acrimonious than any campaign against America’s first potential black President. The Right was salivating at the thought of smearing Hillary and would, I think, have done an effective enough job in convincing voters, especially young female voters, that whomever the GOP would have chosen would have won handily. The McCain campaign was a colossal failure not because it was poorly managed generally. McCain was nearly out of the race in December of 2007 and his coffers nearly empty. What McCain did was set a standard for the race that saved the GOP for at least a decade by not running a bigoted campaign against Barack Obama. What cost McCain the election was his suspension of the campaign to return to Washington in mid September 2008 to deal with the financial crisis.

        I do hold Obama to task and quite often. I felt along with Cavalor, our editor, that the Attorney General, Eric Holder should have been asked to resign after the Fast and Furious scandal broke. Fred Schwartz on the other hand felt Holder had done no wrong. I disagree with the use of Predator drones to kill people with impunity. Majordomo Pain and others in the executive suite feel this is America’s only weapon of certainty against theocratic terrorism originating in the Middle East. The point here is that I won’t parrot a lie no matter what Liberal outpost thinks it can be used to score points against the Right. Conservatives do enough to make Americans wince that there is no need to lie to make a valid point.

      • Amazona September 19, 2012 / 10:13 am


        You guys are too too precious. EXECUTIVE SUITE!!! A handful of juvenile rold-playing personas which may, for all we know, reside in the same corporal body—accounting for the “We, Ourselves” admission of lunacy—-with invented names, invented identities, invented credentials, invented histories and invented jobs on an invented newspaper, and you have an EXECUTIVE SUITE!!!

        Too too funny, in a sad pathetic “don’t laugh at the kids on the short bus” kind of way.

      • neocon1 September 19, 2012 / 10:23 am

        OMG…..TOOO damn funny

        Naked Mohammed Cartoon
        Prompts French Embassy, School Closures Across Middle East

        “Is it relevant and intelligent in this environment to add fuel to the fire?”

        answer = YES YES YES
        let the MONSTERS show them selves to the world what they are AGAIN.

      • Cluster September 19, 2012 / 11:35 am

        I loved the executive suite comment too. Priceless. I am going to use that one myself.

      • sarahbloch September 19, 2012 / 11:53 am

        Once again when the debate is lost you attack the messenger. I have plenty of time to wait for you guys to grow up and realize that to reason you have to be able to see all sides.

      • Cluster September 19, 2012 / 11:59 am


        I am still waiting for you to acknowledge the failed policies of your President, of which I have pointed out several times. How can we reason with someone who is blind to reality like you are?

      • sarahbloch September 19, 2012 / 12:22 pm

        First off he’s your President not mine. Second I’ve listed the many things where I’ve disgreed with President Obama’s policy. The reason I write about American politics in this age is I feel that America’s future will be better with Obama for four more years than Romney for four more years decades down the road.

      • dvindice September 19, 2012 / 6:44 pm

        Executive Suite. Their neighbors must have got a new fridge and gave the forkers the cardboard box to add to their cardboard space ships and pretend hand baskets.

      • neocon1 September 19, 2012 / 10:28 am


        Forker, Sarah Blach KILLED in epic battle ……..Gettysburg

      • Amazona September 19, 2012 / 10:16 am

        “It is early and I am on my first cup of coffee but my brain is fully engaged

        You just get funnier and funnier. So your “brain” is engaged? Goody. What is it in today? A demon in hell? A reporter for an imaginary newspaper—in hell, no less? A pneumatic lesbian with a string of invented “credentials”?

        Too funny, if by “funny” you mean pathetically self-delusional.

      • sarahbloch September 19, 2012 / 11:51 am

        And here is another trap you fall into Amazona. Many of us here in Hell find ourselves quoting Marshall McLuhan in this time of your Presidential election cycle. “The medium is the message.”

      • Cluster September 19, 2012 / 12:02 pm

        How is the weather in hell today Sarah? I can’t believe I even address someone so detached from reality like you are. I must be bored today. Do you ever wonder why you are so abnormal?

      • sarahbloch September 19, 2012 / 12:19 pm

        Cluster for a person in my station I see myself as relatively normal. Everyone has a quirk or two but I assure you I’m no different than anyone you work with who happens to be am openminded Liberal.

      • sarahbloch September 19, 2012 / 12:20 pm

        The weather? Since it’s winter here it’s cloudy and about 145F right now with high winds.

      • Cluster September 19, 2012 / 12:26 pm

        You are a very strange chick

      • sarahbloch September 19, 2012 / 12:29 pm

        Well my husband thinks I’m cool so it’s all good Cluster.

      • Amazona September 19, 2012 / 2:08 pm

        Keep in mind, Cluster, that to the forkers, “chick” is pretty undefined, as the girls can have peepees and the boys can have hoohaws and the husbands can sit down to pee and anyone can be anything or anyone at any given time, from a tiny flicker in an interstellar hive to a pudgy middle-aged Jewish taxi driver to a “lead economist” to, probably, a unicorn trainer. They either are or consort with demons, live in hell, have imaginary jobs for an imaginary newspaper which they evidently got by inventing imaginary credentials (ARF!) and in general spin around in a cloud of self-congratulatory nonsense based on blind and irrational hatred of a totally un-understood Other.

        They do, evidently, have access to a WayBack Machine, as when they do dip a toe in anything political it is straight from 30’s Marxism lectures, complete with platitudes and cliches.

      • neocon1 September 19, 2012 / 3:09 pm

        BuB ByE…..TROLL……

      • Green Mountain Boy September 19, 2012 / 3:45 pm

        “BuB ByE…..TROLL……”

        If only it was permanent.

      • neocon1 September 19, 2012 / 3:57 pm

        I like ex blog for trollslikesasan

      • neocon1 September 19, 2012 / 4:03 pm

        say it aint soooooo…IF they capitulate, I for one will never see them again.

        Chick-fil-A Allegedly Agrees to Stop Funding Conservative Groups Opposed to Gay Marriage

        “We have no agenda, policy or position against anyone.”

      • mitchethekid September 19, 2012 / 5:49 pm

        Might be good for your lipid profile not to eat there.

      • neocon1 September 19, 2012 / 4:30 pm

        What a MORON

        Oops: Obama Can’t ‘Remember’ the National Debt Number ‘Precisely’ During *******Letterman Show******** while our ambassadors are being sodomized and murdered, the ME burns, iran gets a nuke, and this turd is on TV showing how Fn STUPID he is……


      • neocon1 September 19, 2012 / 4:34 pm


        simple things entertain simple people…..sasan is the standard for that, especially in Houston.

      • neocon1 September 19, 2012 / 4:58 pm

        1995 Obama: ‘The Entire History of America Is Towards Concentration of Power and Oppression’

      • neocon1 September 19, 2012 / 5:02 pm

        Lewinsky ‘to publish secret love letters to Clinton revealing his insatiable desire for threesomes

        billy, barry N monica ?
        well they all OCCUPIED the WH and the oral office…..

      • Green Mountain Boy September 19, 2012 / 4:59 pm

        In Houston? What happened to Germany/Norway/Austin/Charlotte? Or was it Durham? I just can’t keep up during harvest season?

        Smiles Thomas in Duis Mountain.


      • neocon1 September 19, 2012 / 5:03 pm

        houston = headquarters……

      • neocon1 September 19, 2012 / 5:37 pm

        Cant be……….

      • neocon1 September 19, 2012 / 5:44 pm

        Im sorry……but Bwaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha!!!!

        They called him Ismail (Pakistani protester dies after inhaling smoke from burning USA flag)

      • Green Mountain Boy September 19, 2012 / 6:26 pm

        Nice try Neo, next time dont post the whole link, use tiny url instead.


      • neocon1 September 19, 2012 / 6:29 pm


        camon tell me you peeked….LOL

      • mitchethekid September 19, 2012 / 6:40 pm

        Wow! Enough to make a blind dog jump off a meat wagon. Those girls should avoid Chik fil A too.

      • neocon1 September 19, 2012 / 6:59 pm


      • Amazona September 19, 2012 / 7:38 pm

        Video priority list for the Left:

        1. Romney video where he talks about the number of people not paying federal income taxes.








        9. Video of Ann Romney riding a horse







        50. Video of Muslim animals dragging the beaten and abused body of our diplomat through the streets, celebrating the pack of monsters that it took to sodomize and kill one American, while chanting “Obama, Obama, we are all Osama”.

      • Cluster September 19, 2012 / 8:01 pm

        Only in the surreal world of the American liberal media can the assassination of a US ambassador, the vandalism of two Middle east US embassies, the resignation of a justice department official, and the violation of law by the HHS secretary be trumped by a private speech to campaign donors by a challenger to the almighty king Obama.

        It’s mind boggling.

      • Amazona September 19, 2012 / 8:57 pm

        Yeah, there is the image of the battered and sodomized body of our ambassador being mauled by the mob it took to kill him, chanting that they did it because Obama killed Bin Laden, and over there are Barry and the Complicit Agenda Media bouncing up and down waving and calling OVER HERE!!!! OVER HERE!!!! THIS IS WHAT’S IMPORTANT!! OVER HERE!!!! LOOK!!! MITT ROMNEY SAID SOMETHING!!!! OVER HEEEEERRRE!!!!!!!!

      • bozo September 19, 2012 / 9:51 pm

        So, Obama should NOT have killed Bin Laden? A new low, Ammo.

      • casper September 19, 2012 / 9:55 pm

        That’s not what she is saying. It’s ok that OBL is dead, Obama just shouldn’t have told anyone.

      • casper September 19, 2012 / 10:09 pm

        i agree 100%.

      • Amazona September 19, 2012 / 10:13 pm

        And I agree with you and bozo.

        Who woulda thunk it?

      • casper September 19, 2012 / 10:23 pm

        It is now snowing in He##.

      • Amazona September 19, 2012 / 10:45 pm

        I agreed with kicking the snot out of a pushy cleric. Make of it what you will. Or lie, as that is more your M.O.

      • Amazona September 19, 2012 / 10:11 pm

        Thanks for pointing that out, casper.

        It’s just that it is two ideas and therefore quite baffling for the clown.
        1. Killing him was good.
        2. Gloating over it was stupid, and goaded the always-on-the-edge mob.

        Bush had the right idea when he responded to a query about what he thought of OBL with “I really don’t think about him all that much”. The Left, predictably, went apepoop.

        The Left first elevated Bin Laden from thug to Most Important Person In The Universe, the Left repeated that the entire War on Terrorism would be won if we would just kill him, the Left gloated about killing him, and the Left is responsible for the mob chanting “Obama, Obama, we are all Osama”.

      • bozo September 19, 2012 / 10:18 pm

        It’s weird, right? Ammo calling for the appeasement of Muslim protesters.

        As for “surviving” O’s redistribution comment, it’s not even a tiny gotcha. Without the kind of redistribution he’s talking about, we have no schools or roads or military or police etc etc. The right wing echo chamber thinks they’ve vilified the “r” word to a politically toxic degree, but, um, no. It’s a vital part of civilization.

      • Amazona September 19, 2012 / 10:36 pm

        Well, I guess if freakzo wants to define kicking the snot out of a pushy Muslim cleric “appeasement” no one cares enough to correct him.

        As I have said nothing remotely similar to appeasing any of our enemies, it’s hard to tell what voices are whispering in freaky’s head, but it doesn’t matter because no one cares.

      • bozo September 20, 2012 / 11:31 am

        Sorry to kill that moment of consensus about the pushy cleric. This blog timeline seems to defy even quantum relativity by posting into the future and then into the distant past at random intervals. I blame Al Gore for inventing a shoddy internet.


      • Amazona September 19, 2012 / 10:44 pm

        “Without the kind of redistribution he’s talking about, we have no schools or roads or military or police etc etc. “

        This is a complete lie. Spending tax revenue on services is not redistribution, and any sane rational person knows this—-which explains why the freak doesn't.

        Redistribution is something else entirely, which I think even he understands, but he is so addicted to lying in pursuit of a gotcha that truth is immaterial to him.

        Is this the statement you agreed with 100%, casper? I just want to keep up with how many utterly stupid things you say.

      • bozo September 19, 2012 / 11:19 pm

        In a progressive tax system like the one we have, the richer always pay more for highways and stuff than the poor, who also need the roads and stuff. This is redistribution by definition.

      • bozo September 20, 2012 / 12:45 am

        Maybe I’m just misinterpreting “government systems that pool resources” – I figure he meant, you know, government systems that pool resources, and not just taking rich people’s cash and giving it straight to the poor. What do you consider to be “government systems that pool resources”?

      • dognpony September 20, 2012 / 1:17 am

        Bozo, funny how when some of us read the full Obama quote, Obama’s intended meaning is clear. Makes me think some people here purposely don’t want to acknowledge the full quote so they don’t have to be proven wrong about their made-up meaning.

        Of course I’d NEVER accuse anyone here of being that disingenuous…

      • Amazona September 20, 2012 / 10:52 am

        I found a clip of We, Ourselves, leading a staff meeting in the Executive Suite—-a must-see

      • neocon1 September 20, 2012 / 6:17 pm

        I LOVE the empty chair in the executive suite….LOL

      • tiredoflibbs September 20, 2012 / 8:06 am

        But creepy, the REDISTRIBUTION that is in place are direct CASH payments only to the “poor” taken from the “rich” by the federal government. The Earned Income Tax Credit is just ONE such mechanism.

        Your definition of redistribution is a joke, those are infrastructure improvements which benefit everyone.

      • mitchethekid September 20, 2012 / 1:23 pm

        But they are paid for by redistributing. Now the very word has become a pejorative. I am curious. How to you guys square what you say on this blog with the real world? I think Mark’s statement “he is toast” is one of the most profound examples of wishful thinking I have ever read.
        According to Pew, Obama is up 8 pts nationally and Romney has a net negative that is greater than any poll Pew has taken since 1988. Even your beloved Rasmussen has Obama up by 2 pts.
        And how do you address the commentary coming from conservatives about Romney? Krauthammer is now a RINO?

      • Amazona September 20, 2012 / 1:45 pm

        And the Left is busy sanitizing the word “redistribute” to try to make it mean what it does not mean. You and your kind might buy into the effort and believe it, or you might just get off on trying to pass off the lies, but in any case your pathetic efforts to redefine the term are transparent and failing.

        I was once in a discussion with a Lefty who spouted every single Leftist theme, platitude and agenda there is, but who became enraged with I referred to them as Leftist. The problem with you people is that you are so bone-deep ignorant.

        You are not arguing from a position of belief in a system, belief based upon studying it and understanding it and believing it to be the best form of government for the nation. If you were, you would be defending redistribution of wealth, as this—using this very word—–is the cornerstone of Leftist ideology.

        You would be defining your system, defending it, and arguing its merits.

        But because you are so ignorant of it, because your entire “political” position is not based on allegiance to a system or belief in it but on nothing more intellectual or noble or substantial than irrational loathing of what you falsely believe represents the opposing system, you flip out when words are used accurately and you think they are damaging to your cause—as superficial and petty as your cause is.

        Yours is a classic case of being faced with a reality that bothers you, but in your cases you lack the integrity to examine just why it bothers you, to examine the validity of your position, but instead you just try to redefine the word.

        Well, you can define the confiscation of private property and giving it to others as “farquistanding” and it won’t matter. It is what it is, it is the cornerstone of Leftist ideology, it is what the Left is BASED on, it defines the Left, and if you don’t like it you really ought to stop fussing over the word and take a hard cold look at the system you are defending.

        You are making fools of yourselves by insisting that using tax revenue to pay for services and products is “redistribution of wealth”. You might as well make the same claim about someone taking a paycheck and using it to buy a refrigerator. It’s a silly, dishonest and stupid distortion, which has been fed to you by your minders, and which you lack the intelligence or integrity to question. All you are doing is spotlighting both your ignorance and your dishonesty, and illustrating your political illiteracy as well as your completely emotional allegiance to a system you don’t even understand.

        As for Krauthammer, et al, he is one of my heroes and I think he is wonderful and incredibly smart. But as a Conservative, I have left behind the Liberal demands of absolute compliance with the conventional wisdom of the group. As I have often said, becoming a Conservative meant taking on a lot more hard work, as Conservatives study, read, discuss, argue, debate and are INVOLVED in their ideology, unlike Liberals, who are compliant lemmings. So I can think about what other conservatives have to say, agree or disagree, and make up my own mind, which is what I have been doing for the past 20 years or so.

        I also know that you people misrepresent what dissenting conservatives say, so your take on what anyone else says completely lacks credibility.

      • Amazona September 20, 2012 / 1:55 pm

        We do realize that the effort is to redefine “redistribution” as any exchange of money for any purpose, thereby lumping it in with normal commerce and stripping it of political meaning. Or this is the goal, anyway.

        This is nothing more than the realization that American are inherently offended by and turned off by the very concept of redistribution of wealth as a political theory, and panic that Obama has been so publicly associated, by his own words, with a political system that is antithetical to our Constitutional, free market, system.

        All the hoopla about redefining this term, sanitizing it, is nothing more than an admission by the Left that it can only win by disguising itself–by lying about what it does, and why.

        And the more shrill and strident the redefining clique becomes, the shall we say more STARK the difference will be between the Constitutional Conservative and the big-government, collectivist, redistributionist Leftist.

        So please continue with your silly claims that using tax revenue to pave a highway is ‘zackly the same as handing a check to a moocher who refuses to get a job.


      • mitch September 20, 2012 / 5:58 pm

        Odds are Obama will win a 2nd term.

      • neocon1 September 20, 2012 / 6:22 pm

        Odds are Obama will win a 2nd term.

        Odds are we will become somolia

      • mitch September 20, 2012 / 7:38 pm

        Hardly. Quit with the over the top hysteria.

      • mitch September 20, 2012 / 7:59 pm

        That’s just plain silly. It is difficult to misrepresent a video in which the esteemed Charles said what he did about Romneys’ moment of honest candor. I’ll take your side, I am ignorant, misinformed and have talking points delivered to my hovel by carrier pigeon. But my stupidity and inability to think critically doesn’t change the polls, doesn’t change the public’s perception of the candidates and the dislike that they have for Mr. Romney, doesn’t change down-ticket candidates not wanting to appear with Romney, or that Romney himself said today that he doesn’t think he can prevail in the debates. Oh, and here is another example of the evidence that I cite. Not misinterpret but repeat verbatim. At a fund raising event that cost $2500.00 a plate for folks who have raised as mush as $50k for Romney a poll was taken at a table of 10 donors. When asked if they thought Romney will win the election, not one answered in the affirmative. What does that tell you?
        Now as far as redistribution, money is being redistributed upwards. Subsidize oil companies but not students or veterans. (See yesterdays Senate vote.) Reduce taxes on the wealthiest citizens but privatize Medicare and turn it into a Groupon. Alienate almost 50% of the voting populace in a shameful pandering to a group of extremely wealthy donors.
        Surely you have access to the same information sources that I do so just where is the overwhelming, unquestioning support for Romney coming from? If it is this blog, then maybe you should manage his campaign because they could sure use the help.

      • Amazona September 20, 2012 / 8:52 pm

        Clearly you should not vote for him, and you should probably stock up on champagne for your big victory blowout.

        Fortunately for you, conservatives don’t riot in the streets when they lose, so you and your kind can celebrate in peace and gloat over your victory.

      • mitch September 20, 2012 / 10:21 pm

        My mother taught me not to gloat. So I don’t. But I will say that there isn’t a tax structure in history that wasn’t a redistribution. The difference now is that the word is used by the right as a synonym for communism or socialists.
        Mitt is scared. And when he gets scared he changes what he believes. Sort of like the final scene in Pulp Fiction when Samuel L. Jackson is trying to reason with Ringo, the diner thief.

      • Amazona September 20, 2012 / 10:53 pm

        “…. I will say that there isn’t a tax structure in history that wasn’t a redistribution…”

        Say it all you want to, it’s still wrong. Not only wrong, but so bizarrely stupidly wrong it is almost funny in its degree of wrongness. Unless you think, for example, that King George’s tax revenue was “redistributed” from the citizens to his treasury. Lord but you guys are dumb.

        But you guys keep trying to sanitize the Leftist word “redistribution” and trying to distance it from Leftist ideology. Yeah, that’s the ticket, you just keep flapping away at that. All you are doing is proving my point, that you are so profoundly ignorant of even the basic components of the ideology you support that you fly into denial when one of them is acknowledged.

      • tiredoflibbs September 20, 2012 / 11:49 pm

        AMA, mitchie and Watty (as well as the pResident) are of the belief that if you keep repeating a lie, it will eventually become true (at least in their minds).


      • mitch September 21, 2012 / 12:48 am

        What is the lie? And what’s up with your Avatar? It looks like a still from a 1950’s B cowboy movie staring Andy DeVine and Al “Lash” LaRue.
        Check out mine! Class all the way baby!! And modern as well. My stainless steel wings can deflect your slow moving projectiles with half of my brain tied behind my back. hahaha!!

      • tiredoflibbs September 21, 2012 / 7:24 am

        The Lie? Mitchie…
        There are several you have advanced. Most recently is your bastardized definition of “redistribution”. Look up the definition and get back to us.

        In watty’s case… there are too numerous to list as well. His latest is “obama is a centrist”.

        My avatar is an honor to all WWII veterans … the greatest generation. They were not the victims that we have today – the whiners, the ones who think that the country owes them something for nothing.

        You know those among the Occupy Anywhere for Anything movement. Those are the ones for which Romney was speaking. Of course, the left has spun it as if he were speaking of all who don’t pay taxes (which coincidentally is 47% as well as the 47% that support obAMATEUR in the latest polls). We won’t know the full story since we don’t have the full video. What did Romney say in those 1.5-2 minutes of missing video?

        But if it makes people like you and watty feel better to keep repeating the lies of the left as if (hoping really) they were fact, be my guest. It continues to show your abject ignorance.

      • mitch September 21, 2012 / 9:47 am

        The GI Bill helped to build the middle class. Another government hand out. On Wednesday, the Senate voted to deny veterans benefits that would have funded such things as education. It was fully paid for and yet it was defeated. Why? Don’t give me this crap about getting something for nothing. As far as OWS, it has fallen apart and it is an assumption on your part that it was they Romney was referring to. Whether or not I am ignorant, stupid, repeating “lies” etc doesn’t matter.
        The comment made in the video is just the latest in a series of statements made by Romney that have given people pause. He has been abandoned by his own staff (see Pawlenty) down-ticket candidates, conservative pundits and analysts and just the plain ole voter. As long as Obama has more support (and votes) than Romney, Obama will win. Ironically, Obama is a centrist and his outlook is conservative. Not conservative in the extreme sense that you all use it, but in a much more historical aspect. But, again, all of this arguing is academic. Take a peek into the what the majority agrees is reality and you will see Romney being toasted into the toast Mark likes so well. The really sad thing is, Romney did this to himself.

      • Amazona September 21, 2012 / 10:25 am

        I see mitche is completely on board with the Redefinition Machine. He admits that it doesn’t matter how stupid, ignorant or lying he is, which is at least a feint at honesty, unusual for mitche, but it does nothing to counter his litany of Redefined Terms.

        Let’s see. The payment to servicemen for their service during WW II is now a “handout” and not part of their benefits for service. (No doubt those spiffy uniforms, the guns and the tents and the meals, are now also redefined as “REDISTRIBUTION’ by the Sanitizing Committee of the RRL)

        Taking a better job, a paying job to support one’s family, is now “ABANDONING” not only the old job but any belief that the old job was important, legitimate, etc.

        Obama is now a “CENTRIST”: (Funny, isn’t it, how this lie has popped up everywhere this week. It seems to pass with the PL, who after all can’t define Left or Right so of course would be tickled to have a term handed to them which they can latch on to as neither one.)

        Obama’s “outlook” is now “CONSERVATIVE”.

        (But oh, we have a disclaimer here. Obviously this claim is so bizarre even to the politically illiterate mitche that it needs to be massaged a little, so now we are told that Obama is not really “conservative” in the “extreme” sense we all use—-that is, the POLITICAL sense—–but in a more “historical” sense—–undoubtedly in the sense of not wearing stripes with plaid.)

        Good job, mitche. Four redefined terms, to try to fit Leftist fantasy into real-world reality. Or, rather, to try to apply Leftist fantasy to real-world reality. Four frantic efforts to try to rewrite history, to reinvent meanings.

        In the Good Old Days when the Left really had some clout, they could just pick up the books, burn them, and issue new books with new “histories” and new definitions and new realities. Now the poor babies are stuck with sending out mindless cannon fodder like mitche, with invented definitions and rewrites they have to try to pass off in real time, and this is soooo much harder.

        Of course, when Barry and the Boyz are back in office and get control of the Internet, this will change…….

      • mitch September 21, 2012 / 12:21 pm

        I guess sarcasm isn’t your strong suit. It is amazing how many times you make assumptions about what I am talking about when clearly you do not have a clue. I am not a leftist and even if I was, so what. You see things in stark contrast, there is no middle for you so since I am not a screaming right wing extremist crazy person, I just have to be a “leftist”. Tired said that the WWII generation didn’t expect something for nothing. I pointed out that a benefit of serving in that war was the GI Bill, which enabled millions of GI’s to be able to further their education with government subsidizes. Funny how no one complained back then. No one said they were lazy good for nothings. Do you not find it disingenuous (now) that the same party that lauds the military then denies the members any sort of assistance? Are they part of the 47%? Must be. You also like to argue about linguistics and semantics, so go a dwell about the commonly understood meaning of redistribution. For some reason you are a very angry person. Angry that what is agreed upon as reality, doesn’t fit into your insistence that it is not. Therefore, to you, it is somehow a sham. The leftists burned books! They must have burned witches as well, although they must have missed some of those history books that recorded it actually wasn’t the left. Next you delve into conspiracy theory and claim that once the president starts his 2nd term (glad you accept the odds in that) he’s going to manipulate the internet. But as a closet birther, I am not surprised.
        Lastly, I will leave you with this link. I have said before that Obama is conservative using the word “conservative” in the same manner of multiple interpretations that you take offense of me using the word “redistribute”. I know you will slam both the author and the content but a salient point is being made. And, before I forget, I think that the age of the crowd here is part of our “issues” I believe you are over 60, I know Neo is and I assume that Tired is as well. Hence his homage to WWII vets. I am not disparaging the elderly, but there are certain behavioral conditions that become more pronounced with age. Like a decrease in open mindedness and flexibility and an increase in defensiveness and hostility. Anyway, enjoy the article!

      • tiredoflibbs September 21, 2012 / 4:54 pm

        mitchiethebitchie: “I believe you are over 60, I know Neo is and I assume that Tired is as well.”

        You ASSumed wrong.

        “I pointed out that a benefit of serving in that war was the GI Bill, which enabled millions of GI’s to be able to further their education with government subsidizes. Funny how no one complained back then. ”

        It was a benefit for their service. That is right no one complained and expected entitlements for NOTHING like they do now.

        mitchie you can spin and lie all you want. But not matter how many times you say them, they are still lies and will never become truth.

        It is obvious that you cannot differentiate between a handout and an EARNED benefit. Until you can distinguish the difference you will be bitchie-slapped again and again.

      • mitch September 21, 2012 / 6:35 pm

        Maybe I a masochist. Explain why the Senate voted to deny benefits to veterans just this week. Explain why benefits were also denied to 9/11 responders. Explain why student loans are denied but subsidizes to oil companies are OK. Explain why Romney paid a 14% tax rate. Oh wait, I know. So he could be “consistent”. (His words.) And once he loses, he can refile to get an even lower rate. This debate is pointless. You are in a fact free bubble and I can perceive reality, and the reality is, not only is Romney losing, he’s losing badly and he has no one to blame but himself. Today is tax dump Friday and in true form, Romney brought attention to a subject he didn’t feel was necessary to talk about.

      • Amazona September 21, 2012 / 7:03 pm

        I don’t know if you are a masochist or not, and don’t care—not that there is anything wrong with that.


        But you do seem to be as dumb as a box of hair.

        Have you looked at the bills that have you in such a tizzy? Have you checked to see if there are any of the famed Leftist poison pills in them, making passage fraught with unacceptable unintended consequences? This is, after all, a favorite tactic of the Left. Have you put any effort at all into sussing out the facts of the situation, or did you just listen to Ed and Rachel and scurry on over here to emote?

        What “subsidizes (sic)” go to oil companies?

        Are student loans really denied? Really?

        Is this like the horrible plan of Romney to have every employer DENY ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE FOR WOMEN !!?????? (I’m still trying to figure that one out—-will Lefty bosses still have their female employees followed to DENY THEM ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE if they try to slip into a gyno’s office on the sly?

        “Explain why Romney paid a 14% tax rate”

        Because that is his tax rate, the going tax rate for dividends, interest and long term capital gains, after deductions for things like the $4M he gave to charity.

        I pay a base rate of 15% on my similar income, though it is similar only regarding its source and not its volume. So do you, if you have any income from investments.

        And it is consistent—consistent with the law.

        Sorry this has been such a bad day for you, what with Romney producing his tax return, showing he did not make $250M as some loon (you?) said he did, not being a felon, complying with the law, and so on. But really, mitche, you need to tone it down. You were so shrill the dogs in your neighborhood are probably still howling.

      • mitch September 21, 2012 / 8:56 pm

        The $250m comment was made by someone else and he (she?) made an immediate correction. I do not begrudge Romney his wealth. Although from a moral standpoint I find it repugnant because he has created wealth for himself by creating debt and bankruptcy for others. He didn’t “build” anything nor did he manufacture anything. He’s a capitalist who bought existing companies. What he did “create” was mostly debt for others and money for himself. Yeah, there were a few businesses Bain purchased that were profitable so it made no sense to drive them into bankruptcy and on this alone he hangs his “job creator” creed.
        As far as his tax returns, again, at this point they only go to further reinforce the negative image he has within the body politic. He declined to claim deductions he could have, in order to show that he was consistent with 2010 and that he could say “I complied with the law”. He can also refile and reclaim those deductions so as to get a nice “redistribution” from the government and no one but him will be the wiser. And bully for him and our tax code. But if he does refile and reclaim those deductions, he will pay a tax rate of 1%. Additionally, this; as of now, 14% is far less than the percentage that the 47% he has written off pay in payroll and withholding taxes.
        But wanting to be the president becomes at some point an issue of character. He keeps money in off shore accounts. Good for him. I wish I was that rich but I am glad that I am not that cynical about America nor that much of a hypocrite. Becoming president means having enough of a sense of common humanity as to be aware of how the things you say can either be an insult or a term of endearment. (Look at the PR disaster his travel to England and Israel was. Look at how he turned up his nose to the cookies that a small group of regular folks offered him.) It’s the little things can can offer judgement and insight into what kind of a person one is. The old sayings about how you can tell allot about someone by how they treat animals, children and waiters comes to mind. The fact is, people do not like Romney. If you say that likeability isn’t important, then why do politicians go on talk shows? The honest answer is to show their humanity in an effort to be liked. Unfortunately Romney could care less about being liked and consequently when likeability becomes an important factor in his undertaking, he is at a loss.
        Politics is also about being able to relate to and gain the trust of the lowest common denominator and the widest swath of people. Romney is an abject failure at this. As is the entire conservative movement. Yeah, there were some victories but the long game is the taste in the pudding and a swelled head can’t fit into a helmet. And unfortunately for the extreme right: which would have supported Charles Manson had he been the nominee, is getting their unprotected skull bashed in.
        On this blog alone, whom did you wet your pants over early on? Gingrich. Then Perry. The self-congradulatory, break my arm patting myself on the back stuff comes back to haunt in the long game. I think that you would be happier living in the late 1700’s in a purist commune. A life of almost total self-sufficiency. But you don’t so you have adopted and ideology that is squarely at odds with modernity and not only are you frustrated by it, but you are angry and hostile because of it.
        I am not an “enemy”. I just point out the obvious and in this case, Romney will lose and he will take radical, extremist, fanatical, religiously infused, pathologically obsessed, free market zealots, and movement conservatives with him. And the result will be a return to reason and sanity and governing from the center of gravity. Ask yourself this. If you are so correct in your defense of Romney, why are the Republican governors not defending him? Why are down-ticket candidates running as fast as they can away from him? Why is his poor wife whining about “leave poor Brittany (oops! Romney) alone”? Give me an honest answer. Not some attempt at an intellectual put down. Because you can’t. Because I am smarter than you. And it pisses you off because you don’t know how to deal effectively with a challenge without becoming snide, defensive and condescending. But I still have hope that you can be nice.

      • Amazona September 21, 2012 / 9:33 pm

        mitche, you are so full of it.

        Why not just admit that you are utterly clueless about how business operates, instead of just regurgitating the sour old whines about how Romney’s wealth is tainted because, as you put it, “…he has created wealth for himself by creating debt and bankruptcy for others….”

        Businesses came to him for financial help. He and his partners risked their own capital to invest in the futures of the companies that asked for help. As in any effort to rescue a faltering, failing business, financing took place. Sometimes the efforts succeeded, sometimes they failed. When they failed, businesses went under that were already sinking fast before they went to Romney for help, and they would have sunk earlier if he had not tried to turn things around. When they were successful, the businesses flourished. It is the way things are in the business world, and only the economically illiterate and the terminally dishonest find it impossible to understand it or necessary to misrepresent it.

        Your whole screed is nothing but one snarl after another, based on the most petty and superficial criteria, which is exactly what I would expect from you after seeing post after post, for so long, completely devoid of anything but resentment and nastiness.

        You have found a multitude of things to complain about, regarding Romney. Well, good for you. Of course it is all focused on Identity Politics, but that’s OK—-that is what we expect from you, too.

        You are a sturdy little Obama soldier, supporting a system you don’t understand by smearing the representative of another system you understand even less, and every post just solidifies this impression of you.

        Fine. You have chosen to reduce the important business of choosing the way our nation will be governed to a snarling, petty, American Idol popularity contest, which is apparently your level of involvement. And you have some strange compulsion to share your pathology with us. As long as you can refrain from overt violation of blog rules I suppose your silly screeds will remain. But do not delude yourself—-we know that is all they are, and we know this is all you are capable of.

        You just continue to wallow in your spite and malice, and the grownups will talk about what is important—the utter failure of Obama’s foreign policy in the M.E., the coverup of the Libyan fiasco, the economy, the assumption of royal power in ruling by edict instead of by legislation, the back-room illegal maneuvering to get the CAFE standards raised while ignoring the additional dangers foisted upon us by the more unsafe cars necessary to make them possible, the litany of lies that form the backbone of the Obama campaign, the craven apologies to terrorists for something that may not even exist, the decision that lives are expendable if they are the lives of brown-skinned people south of the border if that is what it takes to push an anti-gun agenda, the specter of the American government supporting one murderous drug cartel and helping it wipe out its opposition, the fund-raising while our embassies burn, the failure to sit in on daily security briefings, the $16 T in debt, the lack of a legally mandated budget, etc.

        You stick with what you can understand, which is how much unspecified people LIKE other people. That seems to be your speed.

      • tiredoflibbs September 21, 2012 / 11:23 pm

        Ama, after reading mitchie’s posts, there are two major things that stand out.

        1) He is trying to convince himself the obAMATEUR is not going to get tossed out after failing miserably with the economy.

        2) He thinks he is voting for the next American Idol, rather than President.

      • Amazona September 21, 2012 / 9:46 pm

        I just went back through your vile little rant again, and it is even more vicious and nasty the second time through.

        (As well as more delusional—you smarter than any of us conservatives on this blog? Too funny, in a sad pathetic self-delusional kind of way.)

        As you rant and rave about your fantasies, your elaborate theories, etc. the only thing that comes through is a very disturbed pathology, reeking of loathing for people you have never met, based evidently on your evaluation of their political position.

        Which is pretty funny, since you can’t even elaborate on YOUR political position, and when you have tried to describe ours the result has been so devoid of reason and reality all your efforts did was further damn you as nothing more than a really really demented and hostile gasbag.

        You spin so wildly, you must be dizzy. First Romney doesn’t pay enough in taxes, then he pays too much in taxes,both of which are equally sinister in your tinfoil-hat world. He didn’t pay enough because he is a crook, he paid too much because he is dishonest. You can’t for the life of you figure out his tax rate, when it is common knowledge, and when it is explained to you you just simper. The fact that his current tax rate is based on income earned by money he already paid the full earned income tax on just flies right over your pointy little head, but then you are so economically illiterate none of it makes any sense to you.

        You’re just a mess—-a sad, sour, resentful, surly, envious, hostile mess.

      • tiredoflibbs September 21, 2012 / 7:10 pm


        What facts? You present talking points! First off, there are no subsidies to oil companies. Democrats have once again REDEFINED “subsidies” just like they (and loyal mindless drones like you) are trying to redefine “redistribution”.

        Oil companies get the same DEDUCTION on their taxes for capital equipment depreciation like ANY OTHER BUSINESS!

        The Senate denied benefits? Why? You have to ask Harry Reid. While you are at it, ask him why he has not allowed a budget to the floor for debate! Perhaps he does not want to explain a budget full of deficit spending during an election year.

        You are truly one desperate and ignorant individual. Enjoy the pain.

      • Amazona September 21, 2012 / 10:27 am

        tired, what have you heard of the “Justice” Department pursuing criminal charges against the guy who sneakily and illegally made this video. It was not only made, it was then distributed across state lines. Wouldn’t you think the FBI had made some progress in its investigation by now?

      • Amazona September 21, 2012 / 10:31 am

        You think that mishmash of clutter is CLASS???

        But then you think Obama is a centrist, so go figure.

        The only way you could use that half of your brain would be if you could pull it out in time, and it appears to be pretty firmly stuck where the sun don’t shine. The other half is evidently on sabbatical, wandering around the Fiction stacks looking for your definition of Redistribution.

      • tiredoflibbs September 20, 2012 / 10:24 pm

        Ama: “…and you should probably stock up on champagne for your big victory blowout.”

        Not to worry, Ama. They can always get champagne from the 18 foot champagne tower from the fund raiser with Beyonce and Jay-Z! You know the fund raiser he went to not long after the several magazine interviews in between embassy attacks, just before the campaign stop in Nevada! Then he went on a really tough hard hitting interview on David Letterman where he could not “remember” the national debt and thought that it was not a problem. The debt now is higher ($6 trillion higher from his policies) than what is was when he referred to as unpatriotic and irresponsible. The higher debt now that we owe, according to him, to ourselves, since we are heavily invested in it rather than to the Bank of China that he also referred to not to long ago.

        … I am sure he had a lot of time to spin that up for Letterman, but has no time to meet with an ally, Israel.

      • tiredoflibbs September 20, 2012 / 2:03 pm

        No mitchie they are paid for by taxation.

        Is the military funded by “redistribution”?

        Are you serious? No you are just that stupid….


      • Amazona September 19, 2012 / 10:41 pm

        I didn’t actually say “shouldn’t have told anyone”. I said not to gloat and goad the insane into some excuse for killing more Americans.

        I guess I should be grateful you actually got within spitting distance of the truth for a change, but of course it was temporary.

        I would have pumped poison gas into the tunnels in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and shot anyone trying to escape. I would have gotten rid of OBL without raising him to mythic status and then strutting about killing him. According to the freaky lying clown, this would qualify as “appeasement” in which case I would appease the s**t out of them.

      • Amazona September 19, 2012 / 10:47 pm

        freaky, are you saying that the distortion of a private comment by Romney is more important than the acts of war against the United States and the butchery of our citizens and representatives?

        BTW, surreptitious recording of conversations without the knowledge of the speakers is a crime in Florida. Are you calling for prosecution of the criminal?

      • neocon1 September 19, 2012 / 3:13 pm


        ROTFLMAO…… out did your self this time, I almost ruined my keyboard again. 🙂 🙂 🙂

      • Amazona September 19, 2012 / 2:13 pm

        “Now there is no doubt where I work is a Liberal/Progressive/Socialist/Communist/GLBTQ shop”,—-in Hell, staffed by people (personas, no telling how many actual BODIES are represented, given the We, Ourselves admission) with lengthy and imaginary credentials, spouting outdated and worn-out Marxist cant proven to be nonsense fifty years ago, run by demons and some interstellar hive.

        You “staff meetings” must be a hoot. For an idea of what they have to be like, there is a YouTube video of a Mork and Mindy episode where Mork is in a holding cell with the lunatic preacher, who is exhorting his invisible disciples.

    • Amazona September 19, 2012 / 2:25 pm

      The Internet never sleeps.

      So there is a record of the Left trying to destroy an honorable man for an act that was legal when he did it.

      And there will be a record of the Pseudo Left trying to destroy another honorable man, Mitt Romney, with lies and distortions and innuendo, based on irrational hatred.

      And there will be a record of a clump of juvenile role-playing poseurs pretending to be journalists, spouting a bizarre combination of utter nonsense and toxic mental excrement—hopefully some of you, if there is even more than one, will outgrow this infantile behavior and have the grace to be embarrassed by your absurdity, just as adults are so often embarrassed by their youthful silliness.

  9. Cluster September 19, 2012 / 7:59 am

    This just in – that liberal intellectual giant known as sarahbloch has informed us all that SS recipients do not pay income taxes. How did we ever miss this?

    • Retired Spook September 19, 2012 / 8:41 am

      Cluster, we didn’t miss it because it’s not true; I know, shocking, isn’t it? In 2009, median annual income for married couples receiving social security was over $43,000. The income threshhold for taxpayers filing jointly for whether or not any social security benefits are taxable (legislated during the Clinton administration, IIRC) is $32,000, I don’t know how many married couples earned between $32,000 and the median of $43,000, but it’s safe to say that well over half of married couples on social security paid at least some income tax on their social security benefits. For wealthier taxpayers, up to 85% of social security benefits can be taxed at the taxpayer’s normal rate.

      • sarahbloch September 19, 2012 / 8:51 am

        Spook the number you need and that I will be looking for, is how many of these couples filed separately.

      • Retired Spook September 19, 2012 / 9:16 am

        Spook the number you need and that I will be looking for, is how many of these couples filed separately.

        Yeah, I saw that — single filers only had a median income of $17,000, and the threshold for single filers is $25,000, so a significant number of single filers would reduce the number of social security recipients who pay income taxes. By all means find that figure, in fact, consider that your homework assignment for the day. I think you’ll still find that a significant number of social security recipients pay income taxes.

      • sarahbloch September 19, 2012 / 9:38 am

        Spook, with Pain’s help, I found this from a 2005 report that shows on page CRS-22 that 51% of SS recipients earn less than $25,000 per year.

        Looking for more recent data.

      • Amazona September 19, 2012 / 10:25 am

        “51% of SS recipients earn less than $25,000 per year”

        Yep. Did your report bother to go on to explain WHY? Because this is key to the whole theme of this discussion, both the legitimate side and the shrill hysterical “let’s-try-to-make-this-a-scandal” side.

        It’s because the plantation mentality of so many Americans, fostered by the Dems, is that the job of the government is to take care of them, so they do nothing to save and plan for their futures but expect Social Security (that once-promised TEMPORARY social engineering program) to fully provide for them.

        Social Security was intended, and presented, and promised to be, a safety net for people who had been taking care of themselves and through no fault of their own found themselves destitute. It was never intended to be the sole retirement income for the elderly.

        And the fact that so many think it IS—-51% of retirees according to your figures—-is proof of the desperate need to reform our very way of thinking as well as our programs, to try to get people taking some responsibility for their own lives again, and to have government able to provide a true “safety net” for when things go wrong.

        You people look at Social Security as the end game in a cradle-to-grave government provision of all that is necessary to live in this country, from housing to health care to Head Start to school feeding programs that now include breakfast, supper and summer feeding, government subsidies for employment, collectivism in the workplace, and then the government providing all of the retirement income for the elderly.

        This is the problem and I appreciate you pointing it out.

      • Cluster September 19, 2012 / 11:49 am


        I have an acquaintance down the street, an very nice elderly gentleman, who works part time though probably about 30 hours a week. He collects social security but because he virtually has no deductions, he does pay income taxes. He and I had a casual conversation one day while I was taking a walk, and of course we got onto politics, and he made the comment that he was still paying for his daughters entitlements. She was a single mom, with kids from different fathers, and collecting food stamps, disability, etc., and he was just beside himself that he raised her, and is still paying for her.

      • sarahbloch September 19, 2012 / 12:17 pm

        No the report didn’t explain why Amazona. I feel that the role of government is to be there for people who for lack of a better phrase have been ground down by the grist mill of capitalism. I’m sure you’ll have a problem with that belief but it is mine and I own it—fully. I also believe there needs to be a redistribution of wealth in America from the mega-corporations, the banks and the hedge funds to the people. That was your money once and once corporations were positive stewards of American economic security. Now most large corporations, I am not speaking of small businesses here, have become nothing more than carpetbaggers that have finally found their method to get as much from their marketing of things you don’t need.

        As far as a plantation mentality goes the analogy though it blows a big dog whistle for the anti-Others here at B4V it rings hollow. Even in the dark depths of slavery a hard day’s work got a slave shelter and food. Now in corporate run America neither of those is seen as a worthy entitlement for merely being a Human Being by the standard of your candidate.

        You asked me a question earlier now I have one for you. Why were those widows of coal miners in the 1920s whose support was the inspiration for SS, destitute in their old age? Why hadn’t they saved? Why weren’t they responsible for their lives? My answer is that the corporate structure of coal mining and the forced debt of the “company store” made it nearly impossible for miners to rise to the middle class until they realized that the union would do for them what their corporate master would not.

        I take it from your comments that some people deserve to starve for bad decisions, for addictions for poor child bearing choices, for getting old and not being rich. I get it. Why not have everyone who has over a $1 million saved for their retirement not be able to get a monthly check? Have Mitt Romney make that suggestion for SS reform and see how far he gets with seniors or the 53%.

      • Cluster September 19, 2012 / 12:25 pm

        Why not have everyone who has over a $1 million saved for their retirement not be able to get a monthly check? – sarahbloch

        Means testing is actually a conservative position supported by Romney, and opposed by democrats. I am glad you see that issue our way.

        In response to the “capitalist grist mill” comment, I will remind you that corporations are the only private companies that pay union wages, most small business’s can’t afford them, corporations also offer generous health benefits, and have largely been responsible for creating the middle class – think Boeing, GM, Ford, Apple, Microsoft, Kroger’s, JPL, etc, etc.

        Sarah, I think you are young, naive, and fully invested in false premises.

      • Amazona September 19, 2012 / 1:57 pm

        “ground down by the grist mill of capitalism.”


        “ whistle …”


        Too bad your silly screed didn’t last longer, you might have squeezed in some more goofy Leftist platitudes.

        It is a simple lie to now try to claim that Social Security was put in place to take care of coal miner widows, or whatever point you think you were making. The very poor in our nation had never had a “safety net” other than family or community. No, it was prompted by the predicament of those who HAD saved and invested and lost those savings in the crash of ’29, and spurred by the fact that by the mid 30s the population had become almost equally urban and rural and the community and family support for the aged was less in cities.

        So drop your pathetic effort to drag coal miner widows into this. Yes, in that time, in that place, unions played a valuable role. So???? None of this has anything to do with anything but an age-old, outdated but cherished, Lefty whine about the eeeeeeeeevil capitalists and the eeeeeeeeevil corporations.

        “I take it from your comments that some people deserve to starve for bad decisions, for addictions for poor child bearing choices, for getting old and not being rich. I get it.”

        No, you didn’t “get it”. You invented it. What we call a lie. Nothing I said here, or have ever said in any place in any context, could possibly be construed to mean this if examined by any fair, decent, or honest person.

        Clearly you are not included in any of those categories.

        Yes, you might believe this vicious lie, but then we just have to look at the other ridiculous and bizarre things that make up your “reality” to see just how much credibility any of your beliefs have.

        (About that “husband”—is it a real husband, with dangly parts and an Adam’s apple, or an Ellen DeGeneres kind of “husband” with a tampon in “his” pocket? Your reality is so bizarre and so skewed and so rooted in a sad sick combination of fantasy and a need to hate, it is always hard to tell just what you are talking about.)

        No. sarah, every time you post you try, briefly, to make a little sense, but then your pathology takes over and you are quickly in the weeds, mouthing Marxist platitudes from the 30s and OWS whines and trying to condemn contemporary politics and people based on politics and people long dead.

        What I see from you, and your fellow travelers, is a passion for listing problems, but no interest in solutions, other than saying “the federal government should fix them”. It is simplistic and simple-minded but it is all you are capable of doing.

        What you never even try to address is how the federal government, which is severely restricted as to size, scope and power by our Constitution, is supposed to be able to simultaneously become unlimited as to size, scope and power to step in and assume all the responsibilities you have decided it should have.

        What you never even try to address is where this massive and ever-expanding government is going to get the resources to do what you want it to do, without capitalism providing the revenue.

        What you never even try to address is that capitalism is a system which only functions when it is rewarded for success, and that when it is deprived of profit it simply shuts down, so your childish “solution” of just penalizing productivity by socking it to those who make money is self-defeating.

        What you never even try to address is the unrelenting history of the utter failure of the system you seem to be supporting, though you lack both the intellectual capacity and the integrity to come right out and define and defend it.

        What you never even try to address is the foundation of your belief system in Magical Thinking—that “this time it will be different” if you even give it any thought at all, beyond the superficial fantasy of everything being funded by THE RICH .

        You do, in fact, represent a huge swath of the Pseudo Left—those who ardently support the Leftist system of government while remaining ignorant of its actual ideology and history, motivated not by allegiance to an understood and adopted ideology but merely by spite and malice toward those you have been led to believe are its opposition.

        You’re just goofier because of your silly role-playing.

      • Amazona September 19, 2012 / 2:20 pm

        “…I feel that the role of government is to be there for people who for lack of a better phrase have been ground down by the grist mill of capitalism….”

        …although without the revenue provided by capitalism the government can only be an impotent figurehead, baying at the moon, like the Left is now.

        Check out the success of government when capitalism does not exist. There is plenty on the subject, but an examination of the miseries of life in the USSR, the starvation, the deaths due to freezing in unheated rooms, the lack of adequate clothing, the lack of medical care, all of which sarah thinks the government should provide, ought to show her how well this Magical Thinking fantasy works without capitalism.

    • sarahbloch September 19, 2012 / 8:52 am

      tired, The full transcript has been post in several places this morning. The editing of the 1:46 seconds of the video initially was due to an embargo on naming the individual who hosted the event.

      • Caveat Emptor, I'm A Demon! Not a pathetic adolescent with no Social Skills living in Mom's Basement. September 19, 2012 / 6:45 pm

        Just make this stuff up? Lie first, hope they forget to check.

    • Bozo September 20, 2012 / 10:26 am

      I thought Romney accepted the video as is, and made no “out of context” claims. If he had claimed to have said “just kidding, I LOVE the poor” and that was edited out, ok, you got ’em. But he owned it, to his credit..

      • tiredoflibbs September 20, 2012 / 11:00 am

        I never said Romney claimed “out of context”.

        I just find it amazing that proggies accept an edited video as 100% accurate, but not an unedited video of their guy making stupid and untrue comments.

  10. Retired Spook September 19, 2012 / 9:33 am

    Several people have commented that the video upon which this thread is based is 14 years old and, therefore, irrelevant. Cluster has explained that it was a tongue-in-cheek post designed to point out the absurdity of the Romney video and the media’s reaction to it. If we really want to to press the point, you don’t have to go back very far to find video’s of Obama saying much more damning things; things that the average person would have an aversion to. I don’t have time to get the links right now, but three that come to mind are the comments during the 2008 campaign: “We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK.”

    And the one where he talks about developing the coalitions of power to affect redistributive change. And the one where he talks about the major flaw of the Constitution being that it limits what the government can do TO YOU, but it doesn’t describe what the government MUST DO FOR YOU. I’m sure there are lots of others. YouTube is not Barack Obama’s friend. Come to think of it, there are probably enough clips out there to make a really interesting thread.

  11. watsonredux September 19, 2012 / 2:23 pm

    Cluster and RetiredSpook have told us that this entire thread was a joke, tongue in cheek “designed to point out the absurdity of the Romney video and the media’s reaction to it.”

    The problem with that is that the Romney campaign itself point to this old video of Barack Obama as some kind of rebuttal to the comments Romney made at his fundraising. They didn’t appear to be joking. And joke or not, B4V played the part of dutiful soldier in repeating the Romney message.

    Little Amy, response to the fact that 51% of Social Security recipients earn less than $25,000 per year, dismisses these individuals has having “the plantation mentality of so many Americans, fostered by the Dems,” in which “the job of the government is to take care of them, so they do nothing to save and plan for their futures but expect Social Security (that once-promised TEMPORARY social engineering program) to fully provide for them.”

    Oh. I thought the official B4V conservative was that these Social Security recipients were simply receiving their own money back–money they paid into the system. Now they are “victims” who lack the ability to take responsibility for themselves, and have a “plantation mentality”?

    Then there’s the family of five making $55,000 a year. The parents work for a living, but pay no federal income taxes because of the child tax credit–a policy, incidentally, that has been championed by conservatives for years, including Ronald Reagan and George Bush. I guess they are victims as well.

    Meanwhile, we’re still waiting for Governor Romney to put forth more specifics to his proposals, as he promised us he would. What loopholes will he close? I can’t wait to find out.

    • Amazona September 19, 2012 / 2:33 pm

      watson, they ARE getting their own money back. Duh.

      Your propensity for mangling the meaning of anything is truly stunning.

      The fact that these people had this money taken from them and are now getting it back has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that they apparently viewed this transaction as the duty of the government, which was to completely support them in their old age.

      Approximately half of all SS recipients understood that this SUPPLEMENT was never intended to be more than a supplement, and took it upon themselves to be responsible for their own lives by saving and investing money, participating in pension plans, etc. This is why they have a higher income level than those who helplessly let Uncle Sam take money every two weeks or every month and do whatever with it, who did nothing else to prepare for their own retirement.

      Everyone on SS is getting back money paid in. But about half seemed to think that this was supposed to be their sole source of income in their older years, and that it was the job of government to take care of them.

      The fact that you can’t understand this says all we need to know about you.

      That, or the fact that you do understand it but are so dishonest that you find it acceptable to lie and distort what was said in a feeble effort to make a point.

      Either option paints you as irrelevant, either stupid or a liar but firmly in the camp of those who passionately support a system you do not understand because you hate another system you understand even less.

      • watsonredux September 19, 2012 / 4:04 pm

        Sorry, Little Amy. You yourself said the reason 51% of SS recipients earn less than $25,000 per year is because they have a “plantation mentality.” Mitt dismisses them as victims who will never, ever take self responsibility. I’m sorry if it gets tiresome seeing your own words–and those of your presidential choice–repeated back to you, but then maybe you shouldn’t have said them in the first place.

        But don’t despair. It’s all a joke, anyway. I must say, though, that it is a sad commentary on Mitt Romney when his own campaign messaging is indistinguishable from jokes made by his supporters. And he was your first choice?

      • watsonredux September 19, 2012 / 4:04 pm

        Oh, and how are those specifics coming along? Do you think we’ll see them today, or do we need to wait until tomorrow?

      • Amazona September 19, 2012 / 7:27 pm

        “You yourself said the reason 51% of SS recipients earn less than $25,000 per year is because they have a “plantation mentality.” ”

        Yes. YES. I said it, I admit it, why are you still fussing about it? OK, I can’t speak for all 51%. But in general, if you reach retirement age and you have done nothing to provide for yourself but have counted on a government program to support you, even though it consists of returning money it has forced you to save over the years, then yes—YES—you have a plantation mentality.

        Just as, if you choose to reproduce with no means of caring for your children other than government handouts, you have a plantation mentality.

        Just as if you choose to live in a state which uses its work requirement waiver to allow you to collect welfare without doing anything for it, you have a plantation mentality.

        Just as if you think of black and Latino people as inherently less competent or capable of caring for themselves without the patronizing pat on the head and paternal handout from the government, YOU have a plantation mentality.

        Just as if you choose to keep groups of people dependent on the government to ensure their votes, you have a plantation mentality.

        You know, now that you have explained how dumb your mother is, it is easier to see how and why you are are so bumfuddled by all this.

      • watsonredux September 19, 2012 / 9:33 pm

        Ah, nothing but insults from Little Amy. No one is surprised.

        You can’t even conceive that a guy might have worked in a factory all of his life without union benefits or a retirement, and at the end of it all he’s left with not much more than Social Security. You know, most jobs DON’T include a pension, in case you haven’t heard. No, in your way of thinking it’s his fault. End of story.

        Or the family that earns a reasonable living and has a couple of kids, making them eligible for earned income tax credits that Republicans once thought was a good idea. Ronald Reagan went so far as to describe them as a “sweeping victory for fairness” and “perhaps the biggest anti-poverty program in our history.”

        But in your warped world, these hard-working folks are simply being irresponsible for trying to raise a family. Maybe the irresponsible ones were presidents Reagan and Bush who pushed so hard for these tax credits.

        Hey Amy, there was an article today which includes a transcript in which Paul Ryan describes Social Security as “a collectivist system,” a “welfare transfer system.”

        So which is it? Please, as the keeper of conservative wisdom, explain it to us once and for all.

        Is it nothing but a “welfare transfer system?”

        Is it individuals simply getting their money back?

        Do they have a “plantation mentality”? Are they “victims” lacking “self-responsibility”?

        You guys keep telling me that Social Security is not an entitlement (because you’re all receiving it) and yet you call the recipients such condescending names.

        So please, Amy, define the conservative regarding Social Security once and for all.

      • Amazona September 19, 2012 / 11:03 pm

        wattle, you sure have your lying hat on today. Hint: Restating what I just said to try to make it mean something else is quite transparent and quite a signal that you are not only profoundly dishonest but not very bright.

        Some people save a little every paycheck, some don’t. Yes, sometimes it is hard, but this is where discipline comes in. A small amount put aside every paycheck does add up over thirty or forty years, as millions of people have learned. But it calls for the attitude of being responsible for one’s own future.

        “But in your warped world, these hard-working folks are simply being irresponsible for trying to raise a family. ”

        This is not only a complete lie, it is insane in its viciousness and utter stupidity. You really are disgusting. This is such an unwelcome peek into a sick pathology that it is disturbing to see that there are people like you out there.

        The intrusion of the federal government into the private lives of citizens, and the control this gives the government over those lives, is an example of collectivist thinking and action.

        Social Security deductions from paychecks are mandatory, and the worker has nothing to say about how this money is invested, thereby being restricted to the management of the government. This is a collectivist concept.

        But when it has happened, and the money is finally returned to the person who first earned it, it is not a giveaway of government money, it is a return of the person’s money.

        I know you think you are being clever, but all you are doing is spotlighting not only your abject ignorance but your addiction to spite and malice and your really stunning stupidity.

        And please quit lying. It is so annoying. For example, i am not collecting social security, and I know many other conservative posters are not, either. You just make stuff up because you love the taste of lies in your mouth.

        I do not call all social security recipients anything, much less condescending names.

        Sorry you don’t like the depiction of the dependent class. Sorry if it bugs you to have it pointed out to you that at least half of retirees DID take responsibility for their own lives. Sorry that you are stuck with defending a political and economic system that has an unbroken history of failure but are too stupid and ignorant to even understand it. Sorry that your entire political position is based on seething surly loathing of all who in your mind represent an opposing political and economic system which you also do not understand. Sorry that the only thing that motivates you is spite and malice.

        Not my problem.

  12. Green Mountain Boy September 19, 2012 / 3:43 pm

    I do have a suggestion here. Just an idea. You can catalog everything that liberals say they stand for then under that catalog you can put every single disgusting post sasan/thomas/james has ever poluted B4B/B4V with.

    It would be a very interesting contrast. Not true? The symbolism then the substance.

  13. tiredoflibbs September 19, 2012 / 4:26 pm

    What specifics watty?


    Are you that incompetent, where you can’t go to his website and look them up for yourself?

    You need us to hold your hand?

    What am I saying? I expect watty to take the initiative, think for himself and look it up on his own? He can only regurgitate proggy themes and attacks.


  14. mitchethekid September 19, 2012 / 5:53 pm

    Romney Tries To Massage The 47 Percent Message

    It’s not producers vs parasites, or the makers vs the takers. Coordinated with the Drudge report, he cites a 1998 clip from Obama:

    “There’s a tape that came out just a couple of days ago where the president said yes he believes in redistribution. I don’t. I believe the way to lift people and help people have higher incomes is not to take from some and give to others but to create wealth for all.”

    Here’s what Obama said:

    “I actually believe in some redistribution, at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody’s got a shot.”

    This is not socialism. It’s about trying to ensure that “everybody’s got a shot.” It’s centrist American liberalism. But Romney cannot back away from his 47 percent speech, or he loses the base. He can’t intensify it, either, because of increasing damage from independents. So he’s trying to make the whole thing some condescending message on why he’s an American in his economic philosophy and Obama isn’t. Nice try. But redistribution is inextricable from the progressive income tax code, and long has been in America. So why isn’t Romney favoring a flat tax?

    • Amazona September 19, 2012 / 7:21 pm

      “This is not socialism. It’s about trying to ensure that “everybody’s got a shot.” It’s centrist American liberalism. ”

      Oh bulls**t. What a steaming pile of mental excrement. You guys not only can’t define or defend your ideology, you can’t even define your terms without lying.

      This nation offers equal opportunity. Everyone has a shot.

      True, some have a better shot than others. Thomas Sowell, for example, growing up black and poor and fatherless in the ghetto reared by his grandmother had a better shot than most of his contemporaries because his grandmother respected and promoted education, and told him his whole life that he could be what he wanted to be

      Government handouts to a mother or grandmother focused on her next crack hit are not going to transform her into a nurturing and inspiring parent, so her kids are not going to have much of a shot. Whose fault is that?

      ” redistribution is inextricable from the progressive income tax code, and long has been in America. So why isn’t Romney favoring a flat tax?”

      Good point and good question. We’ll be sure to bring that up to President Romney–can he count on your support?

      • tiredoflibbs September 19, 2012 / 9:07 pm

        Ama, when arguing with mitchie I am reminded of this:

        Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

  15. chrissyann September 19, 2012 / 6:44 pm

    I am a senior who pays income tax. Not everyone on SS lives on $500 a month. My standard of living is much higher than a tenamant in some slum. I was not offended by what Romney said. It was the truth. It is why I will vote for the mormon and not the moron!

  16. bozo September 19, 2012 / 9:45 pm

    How dare Obozo speak of redistribution from the top down! Has he not learned that it is only acceptable in this nation from the bottom up?

    The nerve.

  17. mitch September 20, 2012 / 8:03 pm

    Breaking news. Tim Pawlenty “resigns” as Romney campaign co-chair. Must have gotten a better offer elsewhere.

    • Amazona September 20, 2012 / 8:13 pm

      Well, did he or didn’t he? When people don’t know how to use quotation marks, their comments are often gibberish.

      Do you not know if he got another offer he chose instead? Or is this a clumsy effort to be coy and pweshuss?

      This is your idea of breaking news? Trying to get a titter out of it?

  18. mitch September 21, 2012 / 9:27 pm

    I will add something else about Romneys honesty. A few months ago he declared that “if I didn’t pay what I was legally responsible to pay in taxes, including all deductions, then I am not qualified to be president”. Well, I guess he is not qualified because he chose NOT to declare all of the deductions LEGALLY available to him so as to be consistent with his % of tax liablity in 2010. So by his own, convoluted admission of omission, he has just disqualified himself. Maybe he should quit now while he is ahead and spare his wife a psychotic breakdown.

Comments are closed.