So, the factory owners didn't build the factories...

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

Under Governor Romney’s leadership, Bain Capital invested in over 100 companies. Of those, President Obama’s campaign has accused three of shipping jobs overseas. In two of these cases, the accusations are related to events that occurred in 2000 and 2001, well after Governor Romney left Bain Capital in February 1999 to lead the Winter Olympics. In the third case, the share of domestic production actually increased, not decreased, during the time the Obama campaign points to. This attack is merely an attempt to distract voters from President Obama’s failed economic record and his refusal to stand up to China’s unfair trade practices.
The federal government has NO business stepping into the private sector, picking winners and losers in the private sector, the private sector needs to pick and choose the winners and losers, just like the the Energy Act 1703/1705

Romney’s Bain Capital invested in companies that moved jobs overseas

Mitt Romney’s financial company, Bain Capital, invested in a series of firms that specialized in relocating jobs done by American workers to new facilities in low-wage countries like China and India.

During the nearly 15 years that Romney was actively involved in running Bain, a private equity firm that he founded, it owned companies that were pioneers in the practice of shipping work from the United States to overseas call centers and factories making computer components, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...ptV_story.html

[ace's n 8's]

Originally Posted by stumbler

Romney’s Bain Capital invested in companies that moved jobs overseas




http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...ptV_story.html

There is nothing in this op-ed that factually claims that Romney was the sole reason for the outsourcing of any of the jobs. Maybe Bain Capital does it now but there is nothing that states Romney did it himself.

Under Governor Romney’s leadership, Bain Capital invested in over 100 companies. Of those, President Obama’s campaign has accused three of shipping jobs overseas. In two of these cases, the accusations are related to events that occurred in 2000 and 2001, well after Governor Romney left Bain Capital in February 1999 to lead the Winter Olympics. In the third case, the share of domestic production actually increased, not decreased, during the time the Obama campaign points to. This attack is merely an attempt to distract voters from President Obama’s failed economic record and his refusal to stand up to China’s unfair trade practices.

[spjames]

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

There is nothing in this op-ed that factually claims that Romney was the sole reason for the outsourcing of any of the jobs. Maybe Bain Capital does it now but there is nothing that states Romney did it himself.

Filed SEC documents prove that he was in charge as CEO and President of Bain as late as 2002. If so he was IN CHARGE and had to sign off on anything like that. I don't know what CEO and President of a corporation means to you but to me it means IN CHARGE you know head honcho the big cheese the top dog. Lower management does not just go ahead and do things like invest in new companies or create new ones without a sign off from the CEO and the board of directors.

Unless of course your a major bank/investment firm then the top dogs just look the other way so they can say they didn't know about it when the shit hits the fan.

[Resident of Maryland]

I can't believe this blatant troll topic got to 7 pages.

[Baddog_WOOF]

Originally Posted by stumbler

Romney’s Bain Capital invested in companies that moved jobs overseasl

Stumbler,
Do you know what venture capitalists do?
Venture capitalists invest money in companies so they can make more money.
Creating jobs isn't a priority.
The priority is making money.
Yes, it is hard for you to grasp, but that is how it works.
Try to keep up, Stumbler.

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by Baddog_WOOF

Stumbler,
Do you know what venture capitalists do?
Venture capitalists invest money in companies so they can make more money.
Creating jobs isn't a priority.
The priority is making money.
Yes, it is hard for you to grasp, but that is how it works.
Try to keep up, Stumbler.

Republicans call the one percent "job creators." They claim that is why the one percent deserve tax cuts. Where are the jobs?

[Baddog_WOOF]

The real question is why Romney, who is worth about $250 million dollars, hasn't created any jobs after he failed to get the Republican nomination in 2008.

If Romney has so many ideas about making more jobs, why was it Romney did nothing the last four years while he enjoyed the Bush tax cuts for the rich?

Where are the jobs Romney created?

Why did Romney stand on the sidelines while America needed jobs the last four years and do nothing?

If Romney had any kind of leadership, Romney could have created jobs when his country needed them.

Romney can't create jobs.
The proof is in Romney's lack of effort to create jobs the last four years when he wasn't busy and he didn't do a fucking thing.

[Baddog_WOOF]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

Republicans call the one percent "job creators." They claim that is why the one percent deserve tax cuts. Where are the jobs?

In DC.
You need to get out more, DL.

[ace's n 8's]

Originally Posted by Baddog_WOOF

The real question is why Romney, who is worth about $250 million dollars, hasn't created any jobs after he failed to get the Republican nomination in 2008.

If Romney has so many ideas about making more jobs, why was it Romney did nothing the last four years while he enjoyed the Bush tax cuts for the rich?

Where are the jobs Romney created?

Why did Romney stand on the sidelines while America needed jobs the last four years and do nothing?

If Romney had any kind of leadership, Romney could have created jobs when his country needed them.

Romney can't create jobs.
The proof is in Romney's lack of effort to create jobs the last four years when he wasn't busy and he didn't do a fucking thing.

You are exactly correct, if Romney is a job creator he would be doing exactly that, but he really hasn't, Romney is doing everything that you say he is doing, absolutely nothing, and Obama is in the same boat as Romney,creating nothing but his own wealth off the backs of the tax payers, along with lining his campaign coffers.

[thikdik]

99 days left for BHO communist regime.

[clarise]

I get your debate tactics now. Not just you, DL, but all your fair weather friends, too. Cut and run. That's about it. Every time someone on the right plants your faces in the dirt, you count to twenty, pull a feint, and start from some other angle, as though you didn't lose.

Trouble is, if one takes the time to go back and read the whole thread, cut-and-run comes so naturally to you that you can't keep track of your own bullshit.

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

Republicans call the one percent "job creators." They claim that is why the one percent deserve tax cuts. Where are the jobs?

Where are the jobs, DL? Right here:

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

Also, more people have private sector jobs than when Obama was inaugurated. It is the public sector that is losing jobs.

You're a piece of work, you know that?

I suppose you have a graph for every occasion. If you need to show that the private sector isn't producing jobs, you find a graph. If you need to show that the private sector has plenty of jobs, you find a graph.

There is no arguing with people who can't even keep track of their own crap.

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by clarise

I get your debate tactics now. Not just you, DL, but all your fair weather friends, too. Cut and run. That's about it. Every time someone on the right plants your faces in the dirt, you count to twenty, pull a feint, and start from some other angle, as though you didn't lose.

Trouble is, if one takes the time to go back and read the whole thread, cut-and-run comes so naturally to you that you can't keep track of your own bullshit.

If by planting my face in the dirt you mean flaming me, that happens a lot on XNXX. If you mean that I receive a rational rebuttal that logically refutes one of my arguments, that rarely if ever happens. If it happened in this thread, post the web address and the comment number, and explained how it happened.

To do that it will be necessary to prove that I posted a factual assertion that is factually incorrect, and/or that I made a logical fallacy. This will help you identify my logical fallacies if I made any:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by clarise

You're a piece of work, you know that?

I suppose you have a graph for every occasion. If you need to show that the private sector isn't producing jobs, you find a graph. If you need to show that the private sector has plenty of jobs, you find a graph.

There is no arguing with people who can't even keep track of their own crap.

Private sector job creation is lower than it has been in the past, and it was much lower under George W. Bush than Bill Clinton, because of out sourcing, and because of low consumer demand. Nevertheless, it is happening, and there are more private sector jobs than when Obama was inaugurated.

The reason the over all unemployment rate is higher now than when Obama was inaugurated is because of cuts in public sector jobs. These are what the Republican Party are calling for more of.

[clarise]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

If by planting my face in the dirt you mean flaming me, that happens a lot on XNXX. If you mean that I receive a rational rebuttal that logically refutes one of my arguments, that rarely if ever happens. If it happened in this thread, post the web address and the comment number, and explained how it happened.

To do that it will be necessary to prove that I posted a factual assertion that is factually incorrect, and/or that I made a logical fallacy. This will help you identify my logical fallacies if I made any:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

No. Planted in the dirt, as in, lost your arguments.

Sheesh, DL. And people call Baller a whiny little bitch. Go find the instances yourself.

[clarise]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

Private sector job creation is lower than it has been in the past, and it was much lower under George W. Bush than Bill Clinton, because of out sourcing, and because of low consumer demand. Nevertheless, it is happening, and there are more private sector jobs than when Obama was inaugurated.

The reason the over all unemployment rate is higher now than when Obama was inaugurated is because of cuts in public sector jobs. These are what the Republican Party are calling for more of.

Which way do you want it, DL? You socialists are constantly accusing NatureBoyCS, Aces, thikdik, myself, and others "brainwashed teabagger parrots of Fox News talking points," yet you have the gall to parrot Obama's other famous gaffe: "The private sector is fine."

On page five of this thread, "The private sector is fine." Now the private sector "is not fine."

And now, on page seven, you attribute poor private sector performance to "low consumer demand."

Your solution? Order the tax cheat, Geithner, to print another trillion dollars' worth of worthless money and pass it out to consumers, so their demand will spike for a few months, like it did in 2009-2010, right? You want Obama to sprinkle fairy dust on the economy and decree a hoard of happy consumers. Another trillion dollar bread and circus to cap off the summer. Just long enough to get the communist reelected, right?

Sheesh, DL. You insist on facts. And where do you go for them? Public-funded propaganda organs, like the Associated Press and its online disinformation sites, FactCheck et. al.

Or you spit out the claptrap of your Messiah. "The private sector is fine." The "private sector grew more jobs." Blah blah.

Hint, DL: If you trot to Obama's campaign website, you'll find a pretty little graph showing that Obama added private sector jobs in 2009/2010.
Good for him! GOOD FOR HIM!

A trillion dollars' worth of stimulus money had nothing to do with it!

The weak dollar had nothing to do with it!

The rest of the world is in recession, the Eurozone especially, and countries worldwide are using the U.S. Treasury as a last refuge, and that had nothing to do with it!

Right?

And for all of that, the boost was temporary, and all indicators are pointing downward again. Meanwhile, all corporate sectors, NOT JUST THE OIL INDUSTRY, SPJAMES, are hoarding cash. And brainwashed leftist parrots like SpJames think that the corporations are motivated by "greed." Yeah. It's a good thing for companies that they can't invest in their businesses and must hoard cash instead. It's a good for them, that companies must lock their cash in overseas investments, because of the legislated disincentives to bringing the cash back home. It's a good thing that the disincentives to infrastructure and human resource investment are so steep that corporations would rather lose 6% per year in devaluation for every dollar they hold, than incur the risk of spending it.

And for all of that, despite all that worthless paper down the drain, the stark fact remains that even in 2010 we were adding jobs slower than workers were entering the marketplace, and on not a single day of Obama's presidency did the private sector have as many jobs as there were on the day Bush left office. (source, WSJ 7/30)

This is what happens to the electorate when people stop reading newspapers, and stop informing themselves. This is what happens when the full extent of human knowledge can be found in the captions beneath pretty pictures on the Internet.

Now rebut that, parrot.

Go find another pretty graph.

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by clarise

Which way do you want it, DL? You socialists are constantly accusing NatureBoyCS, Aces, thikdik, myself, and others "brainwashed teabagger parrots of Fox News talking points,"

When have I used that kind of terminology?

Also, I am a social democrat, not a socialist. On a number of occasions I have explained the distinction. I will do so again, if you ask me to.

[clarise]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

When have I used that kind of terminology?

Also, I am a social democrat, not a socialist. On a number of occasions I have explained the distinction. I will do so again, if you ask me to.

Don't bother. Just more misused words that I want back.

Corporate profits have been the one silver lining that has held the U.S. economy above water, and the moonbats are all dismissing that one silver lining as "corporate greed" perpetrated by the "one percent" at the expense of working folks and people who want to work.

Well, that one silver lining is unraveling with the collapse of the Eurozone and the steady rise of the U.S. dollar's value against other currencies. Despite the fact that we've put our great-great-grandchildren in debt with the stimulus packages and may very well toss more green paper into the flames before November.

Whether a Republican or a Democrat is elected in November, it is likely that people will be looking back wistfully at all the "corporate greed" that took place from 2009 to 2012. Yep, these will be the Salad Days, and people will be looking back and wondering why all those evil corporations can't just keep being "greedy."

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by clarise

Your solution? Order the tax cheat, Geithner, to print another trillion dollars' worth of worthless money and pass it out to consumers, so their demand will spike for a few months, like it did in 2009-2010, right?

My solution is first, to raise taxes on the well to do. According to a Gallup survey released April 9-12, 2012 62 percent of Americans think the rich are under taxed.

In November 28 - December 1, 2011 61 percent of Americans said they think wealth should be more evenly distributed.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1714/taxes.aspx

I would use the additional tax revenue to fund government work projects like the Civilian Conservation Corps, and the Federal Writers' Project. Franklin Roosevelt introduced these programs, and they helped to reduce unemployment from 1932 to 1936 from 23.6 percent to 16.9 percent.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html

I have not learned of the popularity of the Federal Writers' Project, but CCC was popular.

----------

A Gallup poll of 18 April 1936, asked "Are you in favor of the CCC camps?"; 82% of respondents said yes, including 92% of Democrats and 67% of Republicans.[30]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilia...ervation_Corps

----------

This is what President Obama should have done immediately after he was inaugurated when his approval rating was about 65 percent.

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by clarise

Don't bother. Just more misused words that I want back.

Corporate profits have been the one silver lining that has held the U.S. economy above water, and the moonbats are all dismissing that one silver lining as "corporate greed" perpetrated by the "one percent" at the expense of working folks and people who want to work.

Well, that one silver lining is unraveling with the collapse of the Eurozone and the steady rise of the U.S. dollar's value against other currencies. Despite the fact that we've put our great-great-grandchildren in debt with the stimulus packages and may very well toss more green paper into the flames before November.

Whether a Republican or a Democrat is elected in November, it is likely that people will be looking back wistfully at all the "corporate greed" that took place from 2009 to 2012. Yep, these will be the Salad Days, and people will be looking back and wondering why all those evil corporations can't just keep being "greedy."

Instead of answering my question you changed the subject. If Romney is elected and if he has Republican majorities in both houses of Congress I predict higher profits for the corporations, higher deficits, and higher rates of unemployment.

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by clarise

No. Planted in the dirt, as in, lost your arguments.

Sheesh, DL. And people call Baller a whiny little bitch. Go find the instances yourself.

When I make an assertion I usually substantiate it. If one of my arguments has been rationally refuted it is your responsibility to identify when that happened.

You call baller, and by implication me, "a whiny little bitch," and yet in our present exchange it should be obvious to everyone that you are being emotional, and I am not.

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by clarise

No. Planted in the dirt, as in, lost your arguments.

Sheesh, DL. And people call Baller a whiny little bitch. Go find the instances yourself.

When I make an assertion I usually substantiate it. If one of my arguments has been rationally refuted it is your responsibility to identify when that happened.

You call baller, and by implication me, "a whiny little bitch," and yet in our present exchange it should be obvious to everyone that you are being emotional, and I am not.

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by clarise

Which way do you want it, DL? You socialists are constantly accusing NatureBoyCS, Aces, thikdik, myself, and others "brainwashed teabagger parrots of Fox News talking points," ...

brainwashed leftist parrots like SpJames think that the corporations are motivated by "greed."
Now rebut that, parrot.

By calling SpJames and me a "parrot" you are doing what you falsely accuse me of doing.

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by clarise

we've put our great-great-grandchildren in debt with the stimulus packages.

We have "put our great-great-grandchildren in debt" with the Republican dogma that it is always a good idea to cut taxes, never a good idea to raise them, and that the United States should spend nearly as much money on our military as the rest of the world combined.

[clarise]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

By calling SpJames and me a "parrot" you are doing what you falsely accuse me of doing.

I am speaking both to you and to all of your fairweather friends. You are in the company of SpJames, Stumbler, Baller, BadDog, and even ObsceneCupcake on this one.

You have not substantiated anything. I have shown that for every over-simplified graph you can find on Google, I can find one to rebut it, two links down.

In one of your latest responses, you cite another mind-numbingly obvious and useless statistic: that 62% of Americans support higher taxes for "the rich." Talk about a flair for the obvious.

The leeches, moochers and losers want more. Big surprise. Doesn't matter that the Eurozone is collapsing, or that raw material purchases are down worldwide, or that China is entering recession, or that every major corporation is forecasting reductions in profits, or that corporations can't hire, or that corporations can't invest. None of that makes the slightest bit of difference. The leeches want more

They don't care that Obama has raised the federal debt higher than the last 41 presidents combined, or that he wants the Treasury to print another trillion dollars so he can send out another round of Obama money to buy himself reelection on the sweat of our great-great-great grandchildren. The debt will be pushing 17 trillion by December, but none of that matters.

62% of the pigs want more rancid slop dumped into the trough.

Yeah. Big surprise.

And from that, you conclude that it is a good idea.

Ahh, fuck. What am I even doing here?

Oh, yeah. I remember:

My Poetry Thread:

OP July 5, 2012
Posts on thread: 60, including mine.
Hits, including trolls and random accidents: 1,066
Current rank (excluding stickies): 65

This Crappy Thread:

OP July 20, 2012
Posts on thread: 321
Hits: 2,506
Current rank (excluding stickies): 1

Yeah. That's what I'm doing here. Well, that's entertainment.

[clarise]

Member CaptJohnStone posted this, on another thread, about the commie. This picture says it better than I ever could.

If you read nothing else on this picture, skip to the bottom.

[stumbler]

Murdoch's WSJ Ignores Fox News' Role In "Build That" Controversy

Today marks the two-week anniversary of Fox News' decision to launch campaign attack on President Obama over comments he made at a Roanoke, VA., campaign stop. Speaking to supporters for nearly an hour on July 13, the president touched on the topic of small business success and the collective forces that shape it, such as the U.S. infrastructure. Since then, Fox has led a right-wing charge claiming Obama insulted small businessmen and women by telling them of their accomplishments, "you didn't build that." (He was clearly referring to infrastructure.)


The Wall Street Journal recently published a newsroom review of how Obama's "build that" comment became such a big deal [emphasis added]:


<That was on Friday, July 13. Over the following weekend, state GOP communicators got calls from small-business owners grousing about the president's words, said Republican National Committee Communications Director Sean Spicer. By last Monday, what had been the germ of an idea in the brains of Mr. Spicer and other strategists grew into a full-court press.>


So according to the Journal's reporting, the idea of focusing on Obama's July 13 "build that" comments quickly took root inside the RNC, after officials were prompted by the spontaneous, angry reaction from businessmen. Then ten days later, the comment was at the center of a "full-court," "multi-pronged" GOP attack campaign, complete with commercials and two dozen staged rallies.


How fascinating.


But what did Rupert Murdoch's Journal conveniently leave out of its tick-tock report on how the "build that" controversy unfolded? The indisputable fact that Rupert Murdoch Fox News promoted the whole story, and that if it weren't for Fox there would be no "build that" campaign for the GOP to run on Romney's behalf. And if it weren't for Fox and its purposefully dishonest promotion of the "build that" quote, the story would not be in play two weeks later.



Fact: The "build that" tale was sponsored by Fox News, which has replaced the RNC as the launching pad for campaign attacks ads. After the story was bubbling on conservatives blogs, it was Fox that helped take Obama's "wildly out of context" comments and turn them into a national story. And it was Fox that obsessively spent hours of programming time spread out over two weeks hyping the falsehood that Obama said business owners didn't build their success.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/07...ild-tha/189011

[clarise]

From the Communist Party USA website
June 27, 2012

CPUSA Says Re-electing Obama is “Absolutely Essential”

Cliff Kincaid — June 27, 2012




A writer for the Communist Party USA says that “…re-electing Obama is absolutely essential,” and warns that “divisions among Democrats and a potential wave of bad economic news can combine to threaten President Obama’s reelection.”

Marxist John Case, who writes for various CPUSA publications, has written a piece, “The danger of a Romney election,” for the party publication People’s World, which warns that “Re-electing Obama is not sufficient to bring economic recovery or even relief to our people. Only a different class configuration in political power can do necessary minimum reforms to give us a chance. But re-electing Obama is absolutely essential. Now is not the time for hand washing the complexities and tactics away—or failing to triage the most critical questions from those that are less critical. We cannot win everything at once!”

In reality, the CPUSA’s endorsement of Obama for a second term is not surprising. Various CPUSA officials, including Jarvis Tyner and Joelle Fishman, have openly expressed support for the U.S. President and his agenda.

Since 1988, the CPUSA has not run its own candidates for president and vice-president, preferring instead to work through the Democratic Party. Its support for Obama in 2008 and again this year has been open and outspoken.

The Case article offers a rationale, mostly on economic grounds, for getting Obama re-elected to a second term. He claims that the Republicans intend to do on a national level what Scott Walker has done as governor in Wisconsin—reduce government spending and the power of organized labor. Case refers to the prospect of a national “Walker-like regime.” Case laments the fact that “many private sector workers,” including 25 percent of Wisconsin union members, supported Walker.
In that case, as we have reported, Obama’ progressive allies were soundly defeated by Walker and his conservative backers.

Obama’s support in the CPUSA, a political entity once funded and directed by Moscow, has become an open secret, although the major media treat the subject as something not worthy of serious discussion. This silent treatment extends to the matter of Obama’s mentor, a member of the CPUSA named Frank Marshall Davis. Members of the party have known of Obama’s connection to Davis for many years, which may account for their support of the Democratic Party politician in 2008 and now in 2012. A congressional friend of Obama’s from his Chicago days, Rep. Danny K. Davis, still associates with the CPUSA and even accepted an award from them.

Obama isn’t the only Democrat getting various kinds of communist support. Workers World Party, an openly Marxist-Leninist party, endorsed Democrat Charles Barron for the U.S. House in the 8th Congressional District in New York City. However, in that primary election, which was held on June 26, Barron lost.

The Workers World Party newspaper referred to Barron, a city council member, as “a former Black Panther who continues to connect with many sectors of the progressive movement. He has marched alongside oppressed activists and Occupy Wall Street in the fight against poverty, budget cuts, foreclosures, racial profiling like stop-and-frisk, police brutality, the prison-industrial complex, and all forms of injustice at home and abroad.” It said Barron had won the endorsement of District Council 37, the city’s largest public employee union, representing 125,000 members and 50,000 retirees, and the black-oriented Amsterdam News.
The Workers World Party was investigated by the House Internal Security Committee for its support of the North Korean regime and Arab terrorist groups. But the House Committee was disbanded by liberals in Congress.
The CPUSA writer John Case has not been without criticism of Obama, saying that the Democratic President made a huge mistake by firing Van Jones as White House Green Jobs czar after his communist background came to light. Case wrote last year that Jones’ “Rebuild the Dream” campaign “contains all the elements that save the Obama presidency that discarded him, and the party that failed to come to his defense.”
There is speculation that Jones was fired because the chain of command that hired him led to the Oval Office, including Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett and Obama himself.

Jones remains a major figure in the progressive movement backing Obama, however, and was a featured speaker at the “Take Back the American Dream” conference recently held in Washington, D.C. Participants in the conference included Communist Party activists Jarvis Tyner and Joelle Fishman.

[clarise]

CPUSA calls its goals, aims and activities the progressive movement. Just a coincidence, I suppose. Right.

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by clarise

In one of your latest responses, you cite another mind-numbingly obvious and useless statistic: that 62% of Americans support higher taxes for "the rich." Talk about a flair for the obvious.

The leeches, moochers and losers want more. Big surprise. Doesn't matter that the Eurozone is collapsing, or that raw material purchases are down worldwide, or that China is entering recession, or that every major corporation is forecasting reductions in profits, or that corporations can't hire, or that corporations can't invest. None of that makes the slightest bit of difference. The leeches want more...

62% of the pigs want more rancid slop dumped into the trough.

Yeah. Big surprise.

And from that, you conclude that it is a good idea.

Ahh, fuck. What am I even doing here?

Oh, yeah. I remember:

My Poetry Thread:

OP July 5, 2012
Posts on thread: 60, including mine.
Hits, including trolls and random accidents: 1,066
Current rank (excluding stickies): 65

This Crappy Thread:

OP July 20, 2012
Posts on thread: 321
Hits: 2,506
Current rank (excluding stickies): 1

Yeah. That's what I'm doing here. Well, that's entertainment.

Fifty-three percent of self-identified Republicans back an increase in taxes on households making more than $250,000, a sentiment at odds with the party’s presidential candidates...

More than two-thirds of all Americans back higher taxes on the rich and even larger numbers think Medicare and Social Security benefits should be left alone, according to a Bloomberg-Washington Post national poll conducted Oct. 6-9.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-1...s-in-poll.html

-------

clarise,

You are writing the way rich Republicans talk when they do not think anyone else is listening.

Instead of writing poetry and fiction I wish you wrote campaign speeches for Republican candidates. The voters, and especially the white blue collar workers whose votes have become essential for Republican electoral victories have the right to know how much contempt rich Republicans and their paid for politicians have for most of them.

I suspect you would like to return to private property qualifications for voting. After all, it is what "the Founding Fathers" supported. Well, it is not going to happen.

[clarise]

The progressives love to split hairs. Social Democrat. Socialist. Communist. Sophistry, my friends, sophistry. It all boils down to Collectivism, and the idea that Big Brother Will Provide to Each According to his Needs.

nn

[clarise]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

------

clarise,

You are writing the way rich Republicans talk when they do not think anyone else is listening.

Instead of writing poetry and fiction I wish you wrote campaign speeches for Republican candidates. The voters, and especially the white blue collar workers whose votes have become essential for Republican electoral victories have the right to know how much contempt rich Republicans and their paid for politicians have for most of them.

I suspect you would like to return to private property qualifications for voting. After all, it is what "the Founding Fathers" supported. Well, it is not going to happen.

Not at all. You compartmentalize, and you assume that I do, too.

You see Republicans as "the rich," and you vilify their beliefs until their nonsense appears to support your thesis (as above).

Republicans are not "the rich," DL.

More than 50% of this country consists of leeches. That designation does not split across party lines.

Half of the Republicans are leeches and moochers, too. Subsisting from paycheck to paycheck on government handouts. Republicans have their noses at the trough, too. Far too many of them.

[clarise]

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by clarise

CPUSA calls its goals, aims and activities the progressive movement. Just a coincidence, I suppose. Right.

I have known and liked members of the American Communist Party. They were intelligent, well informed, and civil. They were not hysterical name callers like you are.

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by clarise

Not at all. You compartmentalize, and you assume that I do, too.

You see Republicans as "the rich," and you vilify their beliefs until their nonsense appears to support your thesis (as above).

Republicans are not "the rich," DL.

More than 50% of this country consists of leeches. That designation does not split across party lines.

Half of the Republicans are leeches and moochers, too. Subsisting from paycheck to paycheck on government handouts. Republicans have their noses at the trough, too. Far too many of them.

The Republican Party is the party for the rich. Unfortunately, many people who are hurt by Republican economic policies vote Republican because they are delusional enough to think they will get rich before they die, or because they are motivated by non economic considerations.

That is why I wish you wrote Republican campaign speeches that resembled the comments you are posting here.

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by clarise

The progressives love to split hairs. Social Democrat. Socialist. Communist. Sophistry, my friends, sophistry. It all boils down to Collectivism, and the idea that Big Brother Will Provide to Each According to his Needs.

nn

A mark of intelligence is the ability to make distinctions. There is a vast distinction between Scandinavian Social Democracy and the society that existed in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin.

I could easily call you a fascist, or a Nazi. I do not. Rather than call you anything I would like to show people the comments you have posted in this thread, and let them decide for themselves what you are.

[clarise]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

The Republican Party is the party for the rich. Unfortunately, many people who are hurt by Republican economic policies vote Republican because they are delusional enough to think they will get rich before they die, or because they are motivated by non economic considerations.

That is why I wish you wrote Republican campaign speeches that resembled the comments you are posting here.

Crap, DL, crap! The Republican Party is the party of the faithful. It is the party of farmers. It is the party of pro-life. It is the party of the bitter clingers. All of those people are rich?

I suppose the Democratic Party is the party of the working man, huh? The tired and the poor? Oh yeah, the Democrats have empowered the downtrodden, haven't they? More than 95% of blacks handed their allegiance to the Democratic party in 2008, without thinking, and they probably will again. That's a principled decision, is it? Yeah, the Party of Jim Crow sure has lifted their boats.

You are a victim of your own stereotypes, and you put your foot in your own mouth without even trying.

Say, how do you like all the incendiary crap I'm posting? This shit is just about as easy to find as all your useless graphs.

[clarise]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

I have known and liked members of the American Communist Party. They were intelligent, well informed, and civil. They were not hysterical name callers like you are.

A lame deflection. And also an ad hominem attack, as just about all of your posts are. You bristle at the notion that one would call Obama a communist, yet you yourself call him a progressive. Yet progressive is a euphemism that the Communist Party uses, throughout its literature, in references to its own goals and aims.

They have taken the word, with an Orwellian flourish, and bastardized it.

They can have Communist.

I want Progressive back.

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by clarise

nn

(UPDATED) In case you weren't properly terrified at the prospect of President-elect Obama and his "terrorist pals" remaking this country into a Communist police state, the right-wing blogosphere would like you to get a load of this prescient quote from a past leader of the Soviet Union:

"We cannot expect Americans to jump from capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans small doses of socialism until they suddenly awake to find they have Communism."

-Soviet Leader Nikita Khrushchev, 1959

Except, um, so far as anyone has been able to prove, Comrade Khrushchev never said any such thing.

Long history

Folks have been trying to authenticate the passage, to no avail, ever since it was first foisted on the American public around 1959-60. The late Rep. Morris Udall chronicled his own efforts to do so in an article published in The New Republic some 46 years ago. Among other dead ends, his query to the Library of Congress yielded this reply:

We have searched the Legislative Reference Service files, checked all the standard reference works on quotations by Khrushchev, and consulted with the Slavic division of the Library of Congress, the Department of State, and the US Information Agency, in an attempt to determine the authenticity of this quotation. From none of these sources were we able to produce evidence that Khrushchev actually made such a statement.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/b/2008...unds-again.htm

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by clarise

Crap, DL, crap! The Republican Party is the party of the faithful. It is the party of farmers. It is the party of pro-life. It is the party of the bitter clingers. All of those people are rich?

If you read my comment with better reading comprehension ability you would know that I did not say that all or even most Republicans are rich.

[stumbler]

Mitt Romney Ohio Ad Stars Business Owner Who Relied Heavily On Government Contracts

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1719463.html

[clarise]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

If you read my comment with better reading comprehension ability you would know that I did not say that all or even most Republicans are rich.

You know, I suppose my reading comprehension is poor.

You said the Republican Party is the party for the rich.

Enlighten me.

What the hell does that mean?

Because you're right: I don't get it.

[clarise]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

...

Except, um, so far as anyone has been able to prove, Comrade Khrushchev never said any such thing.

Long history...

And Lincoln didn't really cut down the cherry tree.

Sure, Kruschev likely did not say this. That is no big revelation, but it persists because it nails his mindset.

For instance, he is known to have said, "... we will bury you." Of course he did not literally mean that the U.S.S.R. would put the U.S.A. in its grave. What he meant was that he believed that the communist ideology would win over the capitalist ideology, and that we would become like them.

It should be no surprise that Kruschev believed this, since it stands at the core of Marxist philosophy. Marx, believed that the progression from capitalism to socialism is natural and inevitable.

If only we could prove unequivocally that Barack Obama believes it, too. Man, do I ever wish I could find anything from his Occidental days! He is rumored to have propounded a desire to engineer and witness the collapse of U.S. economic systems, so that socialism could rise from the ruins. I have no proof, of course, because his Occidental records are sealed, just like his Columbia records, his Columbia thesis, and virtually everything he said or did at Harvard.

As far as I am concerned, the Occidental stories are unsubstantiated allegations in the absence of proof.

All that reasonable people have to go on are his personal associations through those years. In the absence of any substance whatsoever, we have to rely on what little we know about the company he kept.

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by clarise

And Lincoln didn't really cut down the cherry tree.

That was George Washington.

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by clarise

You know, I suppose my reading comprehension is poor.

You said the Republican Party is the party for the rich.

Enlighten me.

What the hell does that mean?

Because you're right: I don't get it.

The Republicans Party advances the interests of the richest 10 percent of the country. What else it talks about is an effort to win the votes of those who are hurt by Republican economic policies.

I give the GOP credit for one thing. Since 1980 the prison population has tripled. This is a major reason the crime rate had declined by one third.

http://www.jacksonprogressive.com/is...punishment.pdf

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

Ronald Reagan also stopped the Equal Rights Amendment.

Nevertheless, while Ronald Reagan raised taxes several times, the top tax rate declined from 70 percent to 28 percent.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfa....cfm?Docid=213

Consequently, real after tax income for 80 percent of the population declined,

http://investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?...g&mid=10153698

and the national debt grew.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...idential_terms

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by clarise

Sure, Kruschev likely did not say this. That is no big revelation, but it persists because it nails his mindset.

Quite a few right wingers like to quote historical figures in order to make points. Frequently the quotes are fraudulent, so I am in the habit of doing internet searches on the internet.

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by clarise

For instance, he is known to have said, "... we will bury you." Of course he did not literally mean that the U.S.S.R. would put the U.S.A. in its grave. What he meant was that he believed that the communist ideology would win over the capitalist ideology, and that we would become like them.

It should be no surprise that Kruschev believed this, since it stands at the core of Marxist philosophy. Marx, believed that the progression from capitalism to socialism is natural and inevitable.

In The Communist Manifesto Karl Marx advocated:

"A heavy progressive or graduated income tax."

and

"Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx...festo/ch02.htm

These were good ideas. They have been adopted everywhere by by democratic electorates.

Nikita Khrushchev expected Marx's other ideas to be adopted democratically in the West. This was a legitimate aspiration on his part, and did not indicate a desire for military conquest.

[AZRIEL]

nest egg.jpg

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by clarise

From the Communist Party USA website
June 27, 2012

CPUSA Says Re-electing Obama is “Absolutely Essential”

Cliff Kincaid — June 27, 2012




A writer for the Communist Party USA says that “…re-electing Obama is absolutely essential,” and warns that “divisions among Democrats and a potential wave of bad economic news can combine to threaten President Obama’s reelection.”

On July 31st, just days before Reagan went to Neshoba County, The New York Times reported that the Ku Klux Klan had endorsed Reagan. In its newspaper, the Klan said that the Republican platform “reads as if it were written by a Klansman.” Reagan rejected the endorsement, but only after a Carter cabinet official brought it up in a campaign speech.
http://hnn.us/articles/44535.html

I like the American Communist Party, and dislike the Klu Klux Klan. The only reason I do not hate the KKK is because it is a shadow of its formal self.

[clarise]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

The Republicans Party advances the interests of the richest 10 percent of the country. What else it talks about is an effort to win the votes of those who are hurt by Republican economic policies.

I give the GOP credit for one thing. Since 1980 the prison population has tripled. This is a major reason the crime rate had declined by one third.


Ronald Reagan also stopped the Equal Rights Amendment.

Nevertheless, while Ronald Reagan raised taxes several times, the top tax rate declined from 70 percent to 28 percent.


Consequently, real after tax income for 80 percent of the population declined,


and the national debt grew.

I am not a Republican, so your first paragraph does not exactly cut to the quick. I will only remark that the Democratic Party panders to 90% of its constituency, too, while they take it in the neck like docile lambs.

You give the GOP credit for tripling the prison population. Well, I think it is a disgrace. Don't get me wrong: criminals belong behind bars. And I happen to be against drug legalization, so the more we lock up, the better. What I find disgraceful is that people cannot motivate themselves, exercise initiative, and participate productively in society. The prison numbers are a societal failure, and I blame the entirety of government for it. By extension, in keeping with my earlier remark that we have the government that we have chosen, I blame us.

In that respect I think Murray is dead on (the article I posted above). As an objectivist, like Murray, I lament our society's loss of virtue.

I won't remark on the tax bit at the end. Nothing will sway you about that. Absolutely nothing.

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by clarise

You bristle at the notion that one would call Obama a communist, yet you yourself call him a progressive.

I do not remember calling the President a "progressive." I think he is a moderately liberal Democrat. The only thing that is very liberal about him is his health plan, which is very similar to the one Mitt Romney introduced in Massachusetts, and which is popular there.

---------

RomneyCare remains exceptionally popular among state residents. Studies repeatedly confirm that 67-84% of Massachusetts residents are happy with the plan and would not go back to the old system if given the chance.
http://mittromneycentral.com/resources/romneycare/