More Republican Party hilarity...

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by shootersa

1) Give me a date and time and I'll google it for you.
2) None of it. A government that refuses to live within it's means is bad government. If tax revenue is down the government needs to adjust. Our government refuses to adjust because of political pride.
3)Give me credible stats on who pays taxes. Mine came from the IRS, not some "source" with an agenda.

And Obama talks a good game, but he hasn't accomplished anything positive for your "average American worker". That said, I believe he will be president for another four years. And that isn't going to be a good thing. The only silver lining this dark cloud is that he's more inept than Romney would be, so the damage will be less than if Romney gets in.

You don't like my source that's fine. Then show me yours. Or did you actually personally and illegally go through 230+ million tax returns to come up with your figure?

[stumbler]

Once again we get a look at the lie of conservatism as it is preached and practiced in this nation as well as one of the liars who tells it.

Rick Perry Factors Into State Budget Obamacare Funds He Had Pledged To Reject

Eight days after the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate and ruled that the federal government cannot penalize states that refuse to expand Medicaid, Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) announced that he would not open the program to more applicants. But while he was making a public show of turning down federal funds, Perry was using the additional dollars in state budget projections.

In a letter explaining how he would fill a budget gap left by Texas’ decision to defund Planned Parenthood, Perry’s office uses the money the federal government will pay states that make Medicaid available to individuals up to 133 percent of the Federal Poverty Line in its budgetary assumptions:

Greta Rymal, Deputy Executive Commissioner for Financial Services, has projected the fiscal impact of this rule for three years, assuming that all clients will be eligible for Medicaid following the expansion of the Medicaid program in January 2014 [...]

Several months ago, the Texas health commissioner signed a rule to ban Planned Parenthood or any organization the state considers an “abortion affiliate” from participating in Medicaid’s Women’s Health Program, which “provides low-income women with family planning exams, related health screenings and birth control” throughout Texas.


The state’s discrimination against a specific health provider violated federal rules and led Washington, which had financed 90 percent of the WHP through Medicaid funds, to block Texas from receiving further funding for the program.


According to a new report from the George Washington University School of Public Health, more than 52,000 people benefited from Planned Parenthood’s services as part of the Women’s Health Program in Texas in 2010.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012...-expansion-pp/

[CS natureboy]

I love this guy!

Sounds like he knows stumbler's type all to well.

[ace's n 8's]

Originally Posted by stumbler

Once again we get a look at the lie of conservatism as it is preached and practiced in this nation as well as one of the liars who tells it.

Rick Perry Factors Into State Budget Obamacare Funds He Had Pledged To Reject




http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012...-expansion-pp/

Sounds like Planned parenthood needs to get off their asses and start getting some funding from other outside sources, such as benefits, donations and bake sales.

Can the federal government be depended upon to hold up their end of the bargain by giving states a trillion dollars for 10 years, and continue to fund it after the 10 years,,not if my republican politicians have anything to say about it.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

Sounds like Planned parenthood needs to get off their asses and start getting some funding from other outside sources, such as benefits, donations and bake sales.

This is another one of those times when you jump on your pony and ride right off the reservation of sanity isn't it Ace.

What the fuck does that have to do with Rick Perry publicly announcing he will not accept "Obamacare" and then go ahead and include the funds in his proposed budget?

Not a fucking thing.

Once again the lie is right in front of you. Preach it all you want but that's not the way its practiced and never has been.

[ace's n 8's]

Originally Posted by stumbler

This is another one of those times when you jump on your pony and ride right off the reservation of sanity isn't it Ace.

What the fuck does that have to do with Rick Perry publicly announcing he will not accept "Obamacare" and then go ahead and include the funds in his proposed budget?

Not a fucking thing.

Once again the lie is right in front of you. Preach it all you want but that's not the way its practiced and never has been.

Check my post again

[shootersa]

Originally Posted by stumbler

You don't like my source that's fine. Then show me yours. Or did you actually personally and illegally go through 230+ million tax returns to come up with your figure?

Don't be silly. Of course I didn't "go through 230+million tax returns to come up with my figure." The IRS did.

http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxst...133521,00.html

All I did was go to the IRS site and hunt for the figures. Took a bit, cause, you know, it's government so you have to muddle through a lot of poop to find the facts.

Oh, and if you like nice pretty tables, try this site'

http://taxfoundation.org/article/sum...ome-tax-data-0

But it was time better spent than hunting for some other web site run by some group with an agenda. Whether a Republican/tea party/conservative bunch of idiots or a liberal/progressive/Democrat bunch of idiots.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by shootersa

Don't be silly. Of course I didn't "go through 230+million tax returns to come up with my figure." The IRS did.

http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxst...133521,00.html

All I did was go to the IRS site and hunt for the figures. Took a bit, cause, you know, it's government so you have to muddle through a lot of poop to find the facts.

Oh, and if you like nice pretty tables, try this site'

http://taxfoundation.org/article/sum...ome-tax-data-0

But it was time better spent than hunting for some other web site run by some group with an agenda. Whether a Republican/tea party/conservative bunch of idiots or a liberal/progressive/Democrat bunch of idiots.

Hey great but where does it say in any of those sources that 50% of Americans don't pay federal taxes?

I'm sure not seeing that. I'm seeing basically the same percentages I posted.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

Check my post again

I double and triple checked it Ace and it still doesn't have anything to do with Rick Perry saying one thing and doing the opposite.

[stumbler]

Rush Limbaugh On Romneycare Defense: A ‘Goldmine’ For Obama

Add Rush Limbaugh to the growing list of conservatives who are completely shocked by Team Romney’s latest move to defend itself by touting Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts health care law.



Limbaugh was literally left sputtering as he contemplated the Romney response.


Limbaugh’s criticism came just hours after political observers of all stripes were stopped dead in their tracks by Team Romney’s defense against a Democratic super PAC ad that all but accuses Romney of facilitating a woman’s death after Bain Capital shut down the steel mill her husband worked at, thereby denying the family of health insurance.


In two separate appearances on Fox News, Romney spokesperson Andrea Saul dismissed the ad and said that under Romney’s Massachusetts health care law — which Romney has repeatedly promised to strip away from the country as a whole if he’s elected president — the woman would still have insurance.


Conservatives went nuts, including Limbaugh.

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/20...re-defense.php

[shootersa]

Originally Posted by stumbler

Hey great but where does it say in any of those sources that 50% of Americans don't pay federal taxes?

I'm sure not seeing that. I'm seeing basically the same percentages I posted.

I never said half of Americans don't pay income taxes; I said half of Americans don't pay MEANINGFUL income taxes. The average tax rate paid by the bottom half of Americans is 1.85%, and represents just 2.3% of all taxes paid. That's about $500 a year based on an approximate $30,000 in income.

The top 10% of earners pay 70% of the taxes, the average tax rate for them is over 18%, and works out to about $20,000 a year based on a $112,000 annual income.

So, yeah, someone wants to give those greedy bastards a tax break, I got no issue with it.

[RandyKnight]

Originally Posted by shootersa

I never said half of Americans don't pay income taxes; I said half of Americans don't pay MEANINGFUL income taxes. The average tax rate paid by the bottom half of Americans is 1.85%, and represents just 2.3% of all taxes paid. That's about $500 a year based on an approximate $30,000 in income.

The top 10% of earners pay 70% of the taxes, the average tax rate for them is over 18%, and works out to about $20,000 a year based on a $112,000 annual income.

So, yeah, someone wants to give those greedy bastards a tax break, I got no issue with it.

We are talking about Fed Income Tax and I do think you are correct..

HOWEVER...if they work, the govt swallows the 15.3% in FICA from the employer and the employee and consider that taxes even if it is not suppose to go into the General Fund...

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by shootersa

I never said half of Americans don't pay income taxes; I said half of Americans don't pay MEANINGFUL income taxes. The average tax rate paid by the bottom half of Americans is 1.85%, and represents just 2.3% of all taxes paid. That's about $500 a year based on an approximate $30,000 in income.

The top 10% of earners pay 70% of the taxes, the average tax rate for them is over 18%, and works out to about $20,000 a year based on a $112,000 annual income.

So, yeah, someone wants to give those greedy bastards a tax break, I got no issue with it.

Whoa now where'd you get your 50% don't pay "meaningful taxes" figure from the IRS information you posted?

And you never did answer my questions.

What is our current national debt and how much of that debt can be traced to the Bush Tax Cuts?

Also "meaningful" could mean just about anything you want it to couldn't it? Isn't even the use of such a vague and undefined term render your argument "meaningless"?

Finally if our taxes on the wealthy are so terrible how come their wealth has increased by 276% in the past 30 years while the average American ended up working more hours for less money.

By the way isn't the majority of those in the top 10% the bankers, stockbrokers, hedge-fund operators that just got a $13 TRILLION BAIL OUT and got to keep their bonuses? Wouldn't it be fair for them to have to pay that back?

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by RandyKnight

We are talking about Fed Income Tax and I do think you are correct..

HOWEVER...if they work, the govt swallows the 15.3% in FICA from the employer and the employee and consider that taxes even if it is not suppose to go into the General Fund...

I'll tell you what I will believe that when I see Mitt Romney's tax returns. And forget about the FICA are you saying I never paid "federal income" taxes?? They sure as fuck took withholding out of every pay check I ever got and damn sure never got all that money back.

And the thing about people working for a living is they don't get to deduct their luxury items or have tax shelters or off shore accounts.

That's why I'm betting Harry Reid is right. Romney is probably the one who paid no federal income taxes for 10 years.

[shootersa]

Originally Posted by stumbler

Whoa now where'd you get your 50% don't pay "meaningful taxes" figure from the IRS information you posted?

And you never did answer my questions.

What is our current national debt and how much of that debt can be traced to the Bush Tax Cuts?

Also "meaningful" could mean just about anything you want it to couldn't it? Isn't even the use of such a vague and undefined term render your argument "meaningless"?

Finally if our taxes on the wealthy are so terrible how come their wealth has increased by 276% in the past 30 years while the average American ended up working more hours for less money.

By the way isn't the majority of those in the top 10% the bankers, stockbrokers, hedge-fund operators that just got a $13 TRILLION BAIL OUT and got to keep their bonuses? Wouldn't it be fair for them to have to pay that back?

Well, would you consider "meaningful" to be less than 2% of income, or about $500 a year? Especially when considering the $20,000 tab the top 10% paid?

And I did answer your questions; tell me the day and time you want to know what the national debt is, and I'll Google it for you. I also told you NONE of the debt can be traced to Bush's tax cuts. I said a government that refuses to live within it's means is bad government.

I am not saying the wealthy are paying a terrible tax; I'm saying bashing them for paying 70% of the total tax bill is a lot like a spoiled brat bitching because they can't have a new video game while contributing NOTHING to the household.

And your comments about the top 10% being bankers et al. and they should pay back the TRILLIONS they got for bailout, well I'm taking that as just more class bashing. Those millionaires didn't get the trillions; their companies did. Those millionaires only got millions of it.

And no, you still can't have that new video game......at least not until you mow the lawn and clean up your room like I told you before.

[ace's n 8's]

Originally Posted by stumbler

I double and triple checked it Ace and it still doesn't have anything to do with Rick Perry saying one thing and doing the opposite.

OK,,,if the truth to be told here, there is no proof, other than assuming this is nothing more than the leftist smear machine in high gear.

If Texas does expand the medicaid program that Perry said that he wont do in order to get Obamacare funds to fill state budget gap, while defunding some of planned parenthood to fill some Texas budget gaps, then I will admit that ''THINKPROGRESS'' is a legitimate source legitimate substance and information for you leftists,,,,,,,,,,,,,BUT,,,I highly doubt that I will be able to admit that,,cuz it simply aint true.

[ridgerunner]

1. perry is a complete and total moron from word go
2. perry has failed to allow any budgetary allowances for the state employees in the last 10+ years, and deffinately none that would actualy impact the income versus expendetures ratio
3. correctional officers in texas make less than $4000/month to put thier asses on the line everyday surrounded by on average 178 convicted fellons at any given time


the prison #s i know because i worked one, my brother still works one
also the DADS has not seen a budget increase in 10+ years yet texas has a huge rainy day fund????????????

schools go to hell as perry gets a new governors mansion and makes the citizens pay for his rent hose in the mean time

you want to know how not to do things look at rick perry

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

OK,,,if the truth to be told here, there is no proof, other than assuming this is nothing more than the leftist smear machine in high gear.

If Texas does expand the medicaid program that Perry said that he wont do in order to get Obamacare funds to fill state budget gap, while defunding some of planned parenthood to fill some Texas budget gaps, then I will admit that ''THINKPROGRESS'' is a legitimate source legitimate substance and information for you leftists,,,,,,,,,,,,,BUT,,,I highly doubt that I will be able to admit that,,cuz it simply aint true.

No you won't Ace. You never admit when you're wrong.

But tell you what why don't you check your right wing noise machine sources and prove ThinkProgress wrong.

I bet you can't do that because ThinkProgress is actually pretty damned accurate.

Originally Posted by ridgerunner

1. perry is a complete and total moron from word go
2. perry has failed to allow any budgetary allowances for the state employees in the last 10+ years, and deffinately none that would actualy impact the income versus expendetures ratio
3. correctional officers in texas make less than $4000/month to put thier asses on the line everyday surrounded by on average 178 convicted fellons at any given time


the prison #s i know because i worked one, my brother still works one
also the DADS has not seen a budget increase in 10+ years yet texas has a huge rainy day fund????????????

schools go to hell as perry gets a new governors mansion and makes the citizens pay for his rent hose in the mean time

you want to know how not to do things look at rick perry

It looks like you know him well.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by shootersa

Well, would you consider "meaningful" to be less than 2% of income, or about $500 a year? Especially when considering the $20,000 tab the top 10% paid?

Well by your figures I damn sure paid "meaningful taxes" because they sure amounted to more than $500 a year.

And I don't think $20,000 is bad for people who's wages have increased 276%.

Originally Posted by shootersa

And I did answer your questions; tell me the day and time you want to know what the national debt is, and I'll Google it for you. I also told you NONE of the debt can be traced to Bush's tax cuts. I said a government that refuses to live within it's means is bad government.

No now that's one of those conservative lies. The Bush Tax cuts are the primary factor in our $16 Trillion national debt because its a conservative lie to try and claim that tax cuts create jobs and grow the economy and actually increase tax revenues.

And its a worn out lie at that and proven to be so multiple times now.

Originally Posted by shootersa

I am not saying the wealthy are paying a terrible tax; I'm saying bashing them for paying 70% of the total tax bill is a lot like a spoiled brat bitching because they can't have a new video game while contributing NOTHING to the household.

I'm not bashing them. I just don't think millionaires and billionaires should pay a lower tax rate than the people working for them do.

Just like Mitt Romney.

Originally Posted by shootersa

And your comments about the top 10% being bankers et al. and they should pay back the TRILLIONS they got for bailout, well I'm taking that as just more class bashing. Those millionaires didn't get the trillions; their companies did. Those millionaires only got millions of it.

Did they get charged with crimes? Did they get fired? Or did they get to keep their bonuses?

Originally Posted by shootersa

And no, you still can't have that new video game......at least not until you mow the lawn and clean up your room like I told you before.

I really doubt you'll be telling me anything except false right wing propaganda.

[shootersa]

Originally Posted by stumbler

Well by your figures I damn sure paid "meaningful taxes" because they sure amounted to more than $500 a year.

And I don't think $20,000 is bad for people who's wages have increased 276%.



No now that's one of those conservative lies. The Bush Tax cuts are the primary factor in our $16 Trillion national debt because its a conservative lie to try and claim that tax cuts create jobs and grow the economy and actually increase tax revenues.

And its a worn out lie at that and proven to be so multiple times now.



I'm not bashing them. I just don't think millionaires and billionaires should pay a lower tax rate than the people working for them do.

Just like Mitt Romney.



Did they get charged with crimes? Did they get fired? Or did they get to keep their bonuses?



I really doubt you'll be telling me anything except false right wing propaganda.

These are not my figures. They are the IRS figures. I just sourced them.

If the Bush tax cuts caused the enormous increase in the debt, why didn't Obama fix that while he held the majority in Congress to do that?

By the way, you do know, Obama is a member of the 1%, right?

[ace's n 8's]

Originally Posted by stumbler

No you won't Ace. You never admit when you're wrong.

Cuz,,I'm never wrong.

Originally Posted by stumbler

But tell you what why don't you check your right wing noise machine sources and prove ThinkProgress wrong.

I bet you can't do that because ThinkProgress is actually pretty damned accurate.

I believe that it can't be proven yet, nor can it be proven that ThinkProgress is correct in ''THEIR'' reporting,,but that wont stop you leftists from repeating the White House talking points

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

Cuz,,I'm never wrong.

I believe that it can't be proven yet, nor can it be proven that ThinkProgress is correct in ''THEIR'' reporting,,but that wont stop you leftists from repeating the White House talking points

Ace all you do is repeat right wing false propaganda talking points and don't even check them out for yourself.

Hell at least I look at right wing sources and even watch Fox News occasionally. But I at least try to cross check the things I post just so I'm not a sitting duck.

[ace's n 8's]

Originally Posted by stumbler

Ace all you do is repeat right wing false propaganda talking points and don't even check them out for yourself.

Hell at least I look at right wing sources and even watch Fox News occasionally. But I at least try to cross check the things I post just so I'm not a sitting duck.

STUMBLER=POT

STUMBLER=KETTLE

Dont give me lecture about repeating right wing talking points, do you ever post any links that is not Huffington Post or Think Progress??

[CS natureboy]

Originally Posted by stumbler

Ace all you do is repeat right wing false propaganda talking points and don't even check them out for yourself.

Hell at least I look at right wing sources and even watch Fox News occasionally. But I at least try to cross check the things I post just so I'm not a sitting duck.

Bahahhahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaha!!!!!

You are a phony left-wing repeating propaganda brainwashed machine!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I bet you sleep with your nuts between two autographed pictures of Barack Obama....

[reallywantapeging]

Anyone that believes anything that any of those liers say is a ass hole god we pay with are taxes to fight a war then we pay us companys with tax money to go and rebuild every thing we blow up over there .why because the rich people tell the gov what to do.you think that the us could not stop people and drugs from coming over the mex us border.come on we can spend bill loins on wars and rebuilding .but we can't stop drugs from coming in .right! Or we can't fix the roads ,railways and all the other stuff in the us.they don't really want to stop people from seeking in Tim the us who else is going to do the shit jobs and work as house keepers for the rich ,get your heads out of your assholes.

[CS natureboy]

Employee's lawsuit accuses Napolitano’s DHS of humiliating men, favoring women

Published August 10, 2012
FoxNews.com

• 
  Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano speaks at FEMA headquarters in Washington Aug. 28. (AP)
  

A longtime special agent in the Department of Homeland Security has filed a salacious discrimination lawsuit, saying he was shoved aside in favor of a woman who enjoyed "a long-standing relationship" with DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano -- who the suit claims presided over a female "frat-house"-style department that routinely humiliated male staffers.
The lawsuit, filed in May by James T. Hayes Jr., focuses on two Napolitano appointees, Suzanne Barr and Dora Schriro, who joined DHS in February 2009, five months after Hayes was promoted to director of ICE Detention and Removal Operations.
Hayes claims Schriro, who was brought on as a special adviser to Napolitano, was not qualified for the job because she lacked law enforcement experience. Hayes maintained Schriro had a relationship - which was not detailed - with Napolitano and soon began assuming his duties.
Hayes was pushed aside "because of this relationship (with Napolitano) and because he was not female," the suit says.
The lawsuit also alleges that Barr cultivated a "frat-house type atmosphere" at DHS that "is targeted to humiliate and intimidate male employees."
In one instance, the suit alleges, Barr "moved the entire contents of the offices of three male employees" to the men's bathroom. It also claims she repeatedly used "sexually offensive behavior" -- like "screaming" about an explicit sexual act at a male employee in his hotel room and "covertly" taking a male agent's Blackberry and sending a message to his female supervisor that he "had a crush" on her and "fantasized about her."
The suit also claims Barr held conference calls to discuss excuses for firing Hayes, after Schriro assumed some of his responsibilities. Hayes was later removed from his Washington ICE job and assigned to the New York office.
After the suit was first reported by blogger Debbie Schlussel, DHS issued a statement knocking down the claims.
"ICE doesn't comment on unfounded claims and will respond to Mr. Hayes' allegations as appropriate through the judicial system," a DHS spokesman said.
Hayes has held a number of high-ranking assignments at DHS, including his current post as special agent in charge of New York City ICE.
The suit says that in late 2009, DHS launched or re-opened at least six different misconduct probes against him. Those probes were concluded with a finding they were "without merit," the suit said.
"On information and belief, these investigations were initiated by the agency in order to intimidate the plaintiff," the suit said.
Hayes is seeking more than $330,000 in damages.
Schriro has since left DHS and now serves as commissioner for the New York City Department of Correction. Before joining DHS, she led Arizona's Department of Corrections.
Barr is still Napolitano's chief of staff for ICE.





Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz23ApxRN33

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

STUMBLER=POT

STUMBLER=KETTLE

Dont give me lecture about repeating right wing talking points, do you ever post any links that is not Huffington Post or Think Progress??

Yes I do and you should know that yourself Ace. I occasionally even quote Fox News.

See:

Fox News poll: Obama's lead grows as Romney's support slips

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz23AsdkiK7

[CS natureboy]

Reid aide divulges details on source of Romney tax claim -- then retracts

Published August 10, 2012
FoxNews.com

• 
  Aug. 7, 2012: Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., speaks at the National Clean Energy Summit at the Bellagio in Las Vegas. (AP)
  

After days of silence on Harry Reid's disputed claim that Mitt Romney hasn't paid taxes for a decade, a top aide finally spilled details on the supposed source of the allegation -- only to issue a wholesale retraction of those details by Thursday evening.
Reid aide Jose Parra first made the claims in an interview on Los Angeles' KTLK radio, defending his boss' decision to trumpet the tax charge last week on the Senate floor and explaining a bit about the source.
"This person is an investor in Bain Capital, a Republican also, and somebody ... who has been dealing with Romney's company for a long, long time and he has direct knowledge on this," Parra said.
Parra's statement comes after Romney, in an interview with Fox News, challenged Reid to identify his source.
However, after some media attention on Parra's radio interview, Parra issued a statement taking those remarks back.
"I do not know the party affiliation of the source, how long he invested with Bain, or his relationship to Romney beyond the fact that he was an investor with Bain Capital, as Senator Reid has previously stated," he said.
Asked Friday about the mix-up, a Reid aide told FoxNews.com the senator "does not have any plans to reveal further information about the identity of his source."
Romney has denied any suggestion that he hasn't paid taxes for 10 years. He also has rebuffed Democratic calls for him to disprove that suggestion by releasing more than the two years' worth of returns he's provided.
Romney, speaking with Fox News earlier this week, said he doesn't believe Reid has a "credible source. "
Parra said in the radio interview that while Reid is "comfortable" with the source, it's "up to the source" whether to come forward.
The White House has distanced itself from Reid's comment. Still, the Obama campaign is launching an ad that raises those questions about Romney.
"Did Romney pay 10 percent in taxes? Five percent? Zero?" the narrator in the ad asks.





Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz23AxFTkug

[origen01]

Originally Posted by CS natureboy

*garbage*

shut the fuck up

[CS natureboy]

Originally Posted by origen01

I'm retarded

We know....

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by CS natureboy

We know....

origen01 is one of the brightest and most civil posters here.

You, CS natureboy, are neither.

[CS natureboy]

Rove: For Romney, Even Means Ahead

After absorbing three months of negative ads from President Obama, the GOP challenger is raising his game in time for the nominating convention.



By KARL ROVE

Wednesday's Gallup poll had President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney essentially tied, with Mr. Obama at 47% and Mr. Romney at 46%. That's good news for the challenger: Mr. Romney has absorbed a punishing three-month Obama television barrage that drained the incumbent's war chest. Historically, undecided voters tend to break late for the challenger.
Mr. Romney and his campaign have also raised their game. After Mr. Obama declared on July 13 that "If you've got a business, you didn't build that," Mr. Romney went on offense, saying the following Tuesday in Pennsylvania that the notion entrepreneurs didn't build their businesses was "insulting." Wednesday in Ohio, Mr. Romney attacked Mr. Obama for not having met with his Jobs Council for six months. Thursday in Massachusetts, Mr. Romney belittled the White House's explanation that the president had failed to do so because he "has a lot on his plate." The following Tuesday in Nevada before the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Mr. Romney criticized Mr. Obama over cuts in defense and veterans care.

Democratic pollster Doug Schoen on whether Mitt Romney's decision not to release his tax will hurt him in November. Plus, are voters responding to President Obama's class warfare rhetoric? Photo: Associated Press.


Each time, Mr. Romney's message was delivered in the morning and dominated the day's coverage. That change appears now to be standard procedure for Team Romney.
Last week Mr. Romney began laying out a crisper, shorter economic agenda. His "Plan for a Stronger Middle Class" is built around five priorities: promoting more domestic energy, cultivating skills for economic success, making trade work for America, cutting the deficit, and championing small business (including tax and regulatory reform and the repeal of ObamaCare). It also compares the candidates' records in office. Jobs, home values, and family income rose—while budget deficits and unemployment declined—in Massachusetts under Mr. Romney, whereas all these measures are in the wrong direction under Mr. Obama.
Enlarge Image


Close



Chip Somodevilla/Getty ImagesRepublican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.



Though it will require more detail, persistent explanation and defense, this is a better foundation on which to fight the election than last year's unwieldy 59-point plan for economic jobs and growth.
Mr. Romney is also tougher. When Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid alleged that Mr. Romney went years without paying taxes, Mr. Romney didn't ask for an apology. He responded to this smear by challenging Mr. Reid "to put up or shut up."
Mr. Romney also began running more positive ads. The election will not be won just by highlighting Mr. Obama's failures, a job better left (mostly) to outside groups. Because it can put the candidate on camera, the Romney campaign is better positioned to reassure voters that he has a plan to create jobs, reduce spending, and make America more prosperous. This is vital, since both sides have pushed up their opponent's negative ratings to the high-40s.
Mr. Obama's numbers are driven by the bad economy, so there's little he can do. And those who strongly disapprove of his handling of the economy vastly outnumber those who strongly approve. Mr. Romney's task is less difficult: Voters are asking if he is too rich to care about ordinary people, has a real economic plan that makes sense, and is both strong and presidential enough.
About Karl Rove

Karl Rove served as Senior Advisor to President George W. Bush from 2000–2007 and Deputy Chief of Staff from 2004–2007. At the White House he oversaw the Offices of Strategic Initiatives, Political Affairs, Public Liaison, and Intergovernmental Affairs and was Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, coordinating the White House policy-making process.
Before Karl became known as "The Architect" of President Bush's 2000 and 2004 campaigns, he was president of Karl Rove + Company, an Austin-based public affairs firm that worked for Republican candidates, nonpartisan causes, and nonprofit groups. His clients included over 75 Republican U.S. Senate, Congressional and gubernatorial candidates in 24 states, as well as the Moderate Party of Sweden.
Karl writes a weekly op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, is a Fox News Contributor and is the author of the book "Courage and Consequence" (Threshold Editions).
Email the author atKarl@Rove.comor visit him on the web atRove.com. Or, you can send a Tweet to @karlrove.
Click here to order his new book,Courage and Consequence.


That's why Team Romney appears focused on making certain his first presidential decision—picking a running mate—is done right and rolled out properly.
And then there is Mr. Romney's convention speech, which needs to be powerful. More Americans will watch it than any other election event except the debates. (In 2008, more than 38 million Americans watched the two candidates' acceptance addresses.) This will be Mr. Romney's best moment to provide insights into his character, share the values that guide him, and lay out a growth agenda.
Among other things, Mr. Romney should talk about his father's modest upbringing, his wife's illness, and his wealth. Americans know nothing about the first, little about the second, and (courtesy of Team Obama) much about the third. Mr. Romney can show more of his personal side, which would reveal a man of enormous decency and good character.
Mr. Romney will be on strong ground defending free enterprise as a system that rewards initiative, hard work and sacrifice—and in doing so creates widespread prosperity that he will seek to extend to every corner of the nation.
There's likely to be a modest, short-lived bump in Mr. Romney's polls after his convention speech. Ignore that. In this close election, the real benefit will be in the impression, information and values that remain with swing voters who'll make up their minds late and decide the election.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...pinion_LEADTop




</DIV>

[CS natureboy]

Defecting from Obama: The president is losing ground among 2008 supporters


July 3, 2012 12:44 pm
Share with others:


By Jack Kelly / Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
President Barack Obama is racing down the trail blazed by Sen. George McGovern, who in 1972 was buried by the largest popular vote landslide in American history. (President Lyndon Johnson in 1964 won a slightly higher percentage of the popular vote than Richard Nixon did in 1972, but LBJ's margin over Sen. Barry Goldwater was smaller.) Sen. McGovern was too far to the left, swing voters thought, and not very competent -- an image reinforced by the shambles his supporters made of the Democratic national convention.
Swing voters are forming a similar opinion about President Obama, who sometimes seems as if he's deliberately trying to dismantle the coalition that elected him in 2008.
• Mr. Obama won the Jewish vote by an astounding 52 percentage points. But -- thanks chiefly to his policies toward Israel and Iran -- he's lost more support among Jews (16 percentage points) than among any other ethnic group, according to a Pew survey in February.
• Mr. Obama won the Catholic vote 54 percent to 45 percent. Four years earlier, Sen. John Kerry got only 47 percent of Catholic votes -- and he's Catholic.
The president's share of the Catholic vote is sure to shrink, thanks to the administration's plans to force Catholic institutions to offer birth control and abortion-inducing drugs in their health insurance policies and to Mr. Obama's embrace of gay marriage. Pennsylvania Democratic state committeewoman Jo Ann Nardelli cited her concerns about gay marriage when she announced May 23 that she has turned Republican.
Not just Catholics are upset. In Mississippi last week, seven local elected officials cited the president's gay marriage stance as the reason they are switching from the Democratic Party to the GOP.
• People in upscale suburbs -- which have been trending Democratic since 1992 -- tend to be more liberal on social issues. Mr. Obama won half the votes of voters with household incomes of more than $100,000. But these people haven't liked Mr. Obama's economic policies or his class warfare rhetoric. They voted Republican, 58 percent to 40 percent, in 2010.
Moderate Democrats don't like the class warfare rhetoric either. Newark Mayor Cory Booker, who is black and an Obama surrogate, described as "nauseating" the president's attack ads on Bain Capital, Mitt Romney's old firm. Mr. Obama's rhetoric was criticized also by former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, and by former Rep. Harold Ford Jr., who is black and was the Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate in Tennessee in 2006.
Blue-collar workers whose jobs are threatened by Obama administration regulatory policies are not assuaged by anti-business rhetoric.
• In 2008, Mr. Obama's pledge to be a racial healer won him many votes. That pledge -- like most of his others -- remains unfulfilled. Former Rep. Artur Davis, who is black and was the Democratic candidate for governor of Alabama in 2010, revealed Tuesday that he may run for office in his new home state of Virginia as a Republican in part because the president has "lapsed into a bloc-by-bloc appeal to group grievances when the country is already too fractured."
• Mr. Obama lost among veterans to war hero John McCain by just 10 percentage points in 2008. This year, vets prefer Mitt Romney by 24 points, according to a fresh Gallup poll.
Heaping self-inflicted wound upon self-inflicted wound, the president has lost enthusiasm for his candidacy among environmentalists and gay marriage advocates by clumsily embracing their causes. The Democratic National Convention, to be held in Charlotte, N.C., this year, may become the biggest fiasco since the rowdy McGovern convention in Miami Beach.
Though Americans in 1972 emphatically rejected Sen. McGovern, they didn't reject the Democratic Party. The GOP gained a paltry 12 seats in the House, leaving Democrats with a post-election majority of 242-192. Democrats gained two seats in the Senate.
But if President Obama goes down this year, he'll drag lots of Democrats in Congress with him. They're identified too closely with his failed policies to avoid sharing blame. Fifty-six percent of Americans disapprove of the job House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi is doing, according to a poll by a Democratic pollster May 10. The same firm found a week later that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is under water, too, with an 18 percent approval rating.
Though few other Democrats suffered when Sen. McGovern tanked, the election produced much bitterness and recrimination within the party. Come November, those may seem to Democrats the salad days.



Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/...#ixzz23B1MqNAP

[CS natureboy]

[NewtonInk]

Yawn.

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by CS natureboy

Defecting from Obama: The president is losing ground among 2008 supporters


July 3, 2012 12:44 pm

By Jack Kelly / Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
President Barack Obama is racing down the trail blazed by Sen. George McGovern, who in 1972 was buried by the largest popular vote landslide in American history.

Actually President Barack Obama is racing down the trail he blazed in 2008. In August 10, 2008 he had a 4.4 percent lead over John McCain. In August 10, 2012 he has a 4.4 lead over Mitt Romney.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...ago_today.html

In 1972 George McGovern was unfairly associated with a counter culture that most Americans thought was morally decadent. Also, whites remembered that the ghetto riots that engulfed the United States from 1964 to 1968 ended abruptly with the election of Richard Nixon.

In 2012 Americans by a bare majority have the sense to realize that a man who made a fortune by down sizing and out sourcing is not a man who as president will orchestrate a robust job market.

[CS natureboy]

[CS natureboy]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

Actually President Barack Obama is racing down the trail he blazed in 2008. In August 10, 2008 he had a 4.4 percent lead over John McCain. In August 10, 2012 he has a 4.4 lead over Mitt Romney.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...ago_today.html

In 1972 George McGovern was unfairly associated with a counter culture that most Americans thought was morally decadent. Also, whites remembered that the ghetto riots that engulfed the United States from 1964 to 1968 ended abruptly with the election of Richard Nixon.

In 2012 Americans by a bare majority have the sense to realize that a man who made a fortune by down sizing and out sourcing is not a man who as president will orchestrate a robust job market.

32 years ago Reagan was losing to Carter by 9 points.

However, we all know Reagan went on to win in a landslide.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by CS natureboy

Rove: For Romney, Even Means Ahead

After absorbing three months of negative ads from President Obama, the GOP challenger is raising his game in time for the nominating convention.



By KARL ROVE

Wednesday's Gallup poll had President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney essentially tied, with Mr. Obama at 47% and Mr. Romney at 46%. That's good news for the challenger: Mr. Romney has absorbed a punishing three-month Obama television barrage that drained the incumbent's war chest. Historically, undecided voters tend to break late for the challenger.
Mr. Romney and his campaign have also raised their game. After Mr. Obama declared on July 13 that "If you've got a business, you didn't build that," Mr. Romney went on offense, saying the following Tuesday in Pennsylvania that the notion entrepreneurs didn't build their businesses was "insulting." Wednesday in Ohio, Mr. Romney attacked Mr. Obama for not having met with his Jobs Council for six months. Thursday in Massachusetts, Mr. Romney belittled the White House's explanation that the president had failed to do so because he "has a lot on his plate." The following Tuesday in Nevada before the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Mr. Romney criticized Mr. Obama over cuts in defense and veterans care.

Democratic pollster Doug Schoen on whether Mitt Romney's decision not to release his tax will hurt him in November. Plus, are voters responding to President Obama's class warfare rhetoric? Photo: Associated Press.


Each time, Mr. Romney's message was delivered in the morning and dominated the day's coverage. That change appears now to be standard procedure for Team Romney.
Last week Mr. Romney began laying out a crisper, shorter economic agenda. His "Plan for a Stronger Middle Class" is built around five priorities: promoting more domestic energy, cultivating skills for economic success, making trade work for America, cutting the deficit, and championing small business (including tax and regulatory reform and the repeal of ObamaCare). It also compares the candidates' records in office. Jobs, home values, and family income rose—while budget deficits and unemployment declined—in Massachusetts under Mr. Romney, whereas all these measures are in the wrong direction under Mr. Obama.
Enlarge Image


Close



Chip Somodevilla/Getty ImagesRepublican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.



Though it will require more detail, persistent explanation and defense, this is a better foundation on which to fight the election than last year's unwieldy 59-point plan for economic jobs and growth.
Mr. Romney is also tougher. When Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid alleged that Mr. Romney went years without paying taxes, Mr. Romney didn't ask for an apology. He responded to this smear by challenging Mr. Reid "to put up or shut up."
Mr. Romney also began running more positive ads. The election will not be won just by highlighting Mr. Obama's failures, a job better left (mostly) to outside groups. Because it can put the candidate on camera, the Romney campaign is better positioned to reassure voters that he has a plan to create jobs, reduce spending, and make America more prosperous. This is vital, since both sides have pushed up their opponent's negative ratings to the high-40s.
Mr. Obama's numbers are driven by the bad economy, so there's little he can do. And those who strongly disapprove of his handling of the economy vastly outnumber those who strongly approve. Mr. Romney's task is less difficult: Voters are asking if he is too rich to care about ordinary people, has a real economic plan that makes sense, and is both strong and presidential enough.
About Karl Rove

Karl Rove served as Senior Advisor to President George W. Bush from 2000–2007 and Deputy Chief of Staff from 2004–2007. At the White House he oversaw the Offices of Strategic Initiatives, Political Affairs, Public Liaison, and Intergovernmental Affairs and was Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, coordinating the White House policy-making process.
Before Karl became known as "The Architect" of President Bush's 2000 and 2004 campaigns, he was president of Karl Rove + Company, an Austin-based public affairs firm that worked for Republican candidates, nonpartisan causes, and nonprofit groups. His clients included over 75 Republican U.S. Senate, Congressional and gubernatorial candidates in 24 states, as well as the Moderate Party of Sweden.
Karl writes a weekly op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, is a Fox News Contributor and is the author of the book "Courage and Consequence" (Threshold Editions).
Email the author atKarl@Rove.comor visit him on the web atRove.com. Or, you can send a Tweet to @karlrove.
Click here to order his new book,Courage and Consequence.


That's why Team Romney appears focused on making certain his first presidential decision—picking a running mate—is done right and rolled out properly.
And then there is Mr. Romney's convention speech, which needs to be powerful. More Americans will watch it than any other election event except the debates. (In 2008, more than 38 million Americans watched the two candidates' acceptance addresses.) This will be Mr. Romney's best moment to provide insights into his character, share the values that guide him, and lay out a growth agenda.
Among other things, Mr. Romney should talk about his father's modest upbringing, his wife's illness, and his wealth. Americans know nothing about the first, little about the second, and (courtesy of Team Obama) much about the third. Mr. Romney can show more of his personal side, which would reveal a man of enormous decency and good character.
Mr. Romney will be on strong ground defending free enterprise as a system that rewards initiative, hard work and sacrifice—and in doing so creates widespread prosperity that he will seek to extend to every corner of the nation.
There's likely to be a modest, short-lived bump in Mr. Romney's polls after his convention speech. Ignore that. In this close election, the real benefit will be in the impression, information and values that remain with swing voters who'll make up their minds late and decide the election.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...pinion_LEADTop


</DIV>

But the problem with this you brainwashed parrot is President Obama and Mitt Romney are not even. President Obama is ahead by 4 to 10 points depending on what poll it is.

And did you mean this Karl Rove?

Why is Rove insulting Romney?

One of the latest jabs at Romney came July 27th from Karl Rove on Fox News in response to Romney's foreign kerfuffle. Sandwiched in between platitudes making the best of it ("not a big deal"), he said "You have to shake your head ... [platitudes] ... but nonetheless, the damage was done". Admittedly, I may be giving Karl Rove too much credit here for purposefully starting and ending his response with a criticism, but read on.
Rove July 18 in a WSJ opinion piece,

“The Romney campaign's response—which included whiny demands that the president apologize for his attacks—has unsettled GOP activists, causing them to wonder how prepared Mr. Romney and his team are for the mud-fest they've entered.”

Karl Rove: Romney Blew It In London (VIDEO)

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/20...ndon-video.php

Originally Posted by CS natureboy

Defecting from Obama: The president is losing ground among 2008 supporters


July 3, 2012 12:44 pm
Share with others:


By Jack Kelly / Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
President Barack Obama is racing down the trail blazed by Sen. George McGovern, who in 1972 was buried by the largest popular vote landslide in American history. (President Lyndon Johnson in 1964 won a slightly higher percentage of the popular vote than Richard Nixon did in 1972, but LBJ's margin over Sen. Barry Goldwater was smaller.) Sen. McGovern was too far to the left, swing voters thought, and not very competent -- an image reinforced by the shambles his supporters made of the Democratic national convention.
Swing voters are forming a similar opinion about President Obama, who sometimes seems as if he's deliberately trying to dismantle the coalition that elected him in 2008.
• Mr. Obama won the Jewish vote by an astounding 52 percentage points. But -- thanks chiefly to his policies toward Israel and Iran -- he's lost more support among Jews (16 percentage points) than among any other ethnic group, according to a Pew survey in February.
• Mr. Obama won the Catholic vote 54 percent to 45 percent. Four years earlier, Sen. John Kerry got only 47 percent of Catholic votes -- and he's Catholic.
The president's share of the Catholic vote is sure to shrink, thanks to the administration's plans to force Catholic institutions to offer birth control and abortion-inducing drugs in their health insurance policies and to Mr. Obama's embrace of gay marriage. Pennsylvania Democratic state committeewoman Jo Ann Nardelli cited her concerns about gay marriage when she announced May 23 that she has turned Republican.
Not just Catholics are upset. In Mississippi last week, seven local elected officials cited the president's gay marriage stance as the reason they are switching from the Democratic Party to the GOP.
• People in upscale suburbs -- which have been trending Democratic since 1992 -- tend to be more liberal on social issues. Mr. Obama won half the votes of voters with household incomes of more than $100,000. But these people haven't liked Mr. Obama's economic policies or his class warfare rhetoric. They voted Republican, 58 percent to 40 percent, in 2010.
Moderate Democrats don't like the class warfare rhetoric either. Newark Mayor Cory Booker, who is black and an Obama surrogate, described as "nauseating" the president's attack ads on Bain Capital, Mitt Romney's old firm. Mr. Obama's rhetoric was criticized also by former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, and by former Rep. Harold Ford Jr., who is black and was the Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate in Tennessee in 2006.
Blue-collar workers whose jobs are threatened by Obama administration regulatory policies are not assuaged by anti-business rhetoric.
• In 2008, Mr. Obama's pledge to be a racial healer won him many votes. That pledge -- like most of his others -- remains unfulfilled. Former Rep. Artur Davis, who is black and was the Democratic candidate for governor of Alabama in 2010, revealed Tuesday that he may run for office in his new home state of Virginia as a Republican in part because the president has "lapsed into a bloc-by-bloc appeal to group grievances when the country is already too fractured."
• Mr. Obama lost among veterans to war hero John McCain by just 10 percentage points in 2008. This year, vets prefer Mitt Romney by 24 points, according to a fresh Gallup poll.
Heaping self-inflicted wound upon self-inflicted wound, the president has lost enthusiasm for his candidacy among environmentalists and gay marriage advocates by clumsily embracing their causes. The Democratic National Convention, to be held in Charlotte, N.C., this year, may become the biggest fiasco since the rowdy McGovern convention in Miami Beach.
Though Americans in 1972 emphatically rejected Sen. McGovern, they didn't reject the Democratic Party. The GOP gained a paltry 12 seats in the House, leaving Democrats with a post-election majority of 242-192. Democrats gained two seats in the Senate.
But if President Obama goes down this year, he'll drag lots of Democrats in Congress with him. They're identified too closely with his failed policies to avoid sharing blame. Fifty-six percent of Americans disapprove of the job House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi is doing, according to a poll by a Democratic pollster May 10. The same firm found a week later that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is under water, too, with an 18 percent approval rating.
Though few other Democrats suffered when Sen. McGovern tanked, the election produced much bitterness and recrimination within the party. Come November, those may seem to Democrats the salad days.



Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/...#ixzz23B1MqNAP

Now a few months ago the parrots were squawking the right wing propaganda that President Obama had to have the independents to win and was going to lose because he lost the independents.

New Poll Puts Mitt Romney In The Deep End

But the real problem for Romney may be among independents. According to the new poll:



--Obama's gained back ground he'd lost among independents. In late May he fell numerically underwater among independents for the first time since December (45-52 percent favorable-unfavorable). He's now back far in front of Romney in this group, largely because of gains among independent women.



--Among all independents, Obama's favorability rating is now 16 points higher than Romney's (53 percent vs. 37 percent). At the same time, that narrows among independents who are registered to vote - 46 percent favorable for Obama, 38 percent for Romney.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/...2#.UCV_hqP5DV8

[CS natureboy]

Poor stumbler. Obama is going to lose big time this November and you know it.

Obama knows it too......

Politics
Why Obama Will Lose in a Landslide

• Posted on May 31, 2012 at 5:22pm

Wayne Allyn Root is a former Libertarian vice presidential nominee. He now serves as Chairman of the Libertarian National Campaign Committee. He is the […]
Wayne Allyn Root is a former Libertarian vice presidential nominee. He now serves as Chairman of the Libertarian National Campaign Committee. He is the best-selling author of "The Conscience of a Libertarian: Empowering the Citizen Revolution with God, Guns, Gold & Tax Cuts." His web site: www.ROOTforAmerica.com [ x ]




Most political predictions are made by biased pollsters, pundits, or prognosticators who are either rooting for Republicans or Democrats. I am neither. I am a former Libertarian Vice Presidential nominee, and a well-known Vegas oddsmaker with one of the most accurate records of predicting political races.
Neither Obama nor Romney are my horses in the race. I believe both Republicans and Democrats have destroyed the U.S. economy and brought us to the edge of economic disaster. My vote will go to Libertarian Presidential candidate Gary Johnson in November, whom I believe has the most fiscally conservative track record of any Governor in modern U.S. political history. Without the bold spending cuts of a Gary Johnson or Ron Paul, I don’t believe it’s possible to turnaround America.
But as an oddsmaker with a pretty remarkable track record of picking political races, I play no favorites. I simply use common sense to call them as I see them. Back in late December I released my New Years Predictions. I predicted back then- before a single GOP primary had been held, with Romney trailing for months to almost every GOP competitor from Rick Perry to Herman Cain to Newt- that Romney would easily rout his competition to win the GOP nomination by a landslide. I also predicted that the presidential race between Obama and Romney would be very close until election day. But on election day, Romney will win by a landslide similar to Reagan-Carter in 1980.
Understanding history, today I am even more convinced of a resounding Romney victory. Thirty-two years ago at this moment in time, Reagan was losing by 9 points to Carter. Romney is right now running even in polls. So why do most pollsters give Obama the edge?
http://www.theblaze.com/contribution...n-a-landslide/

[shootersa]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

.............................

In 2012 Americans by a bare majority have the sense to realize that a man who made a fortune by down sizing and out sourcing is not a man who as president will orchestrate a robust job market.

Okay, lets talk about down sizing and outsourcing and how that effects the job markets.

In 2003 the State of Indiana requested bids to upgrade the unemployment claim system. The winning bid was won by the US subsidiary of TATA Consultancy Systems, an India based company. US bids came from DeLoitte Consulting and Accenture, but the TATA bid was $8.1 Million less than the US bids that came in at around $24.3 Million.

So, the State of Indiana outsourced the upgrade project for the unemployment system that protects Indiana employees from unemployment, to a foreign firm. TATA planned to hire only 18 in state employees, but they would bring in from India 65 of their own employees.

The Republicans made it a campaign issue, and the Democratic Governor canceled the contract; paying TATA almost $1 Million for the work that they had started. The Democratic governor then ordered that the project be broken into smaller segments so Indiana firms could bid on it, and added other provisions to keep foreign owned firms from bidding or winning if they did bid.

Since then, what with multiple bids, law suits, and state obfuscation, the cost of the project cannot be even approximated, except that it surely cost far more than either the $15.2 Million originally bid, or even the $23.3 Million US firms bid. And, it still isn't completed.

So, consider this;
A Democratic Pro Labor protectionist administration outsources a significant project not only to an out of state firm, but to a foreign owned firm that was going to use primarily it's own foreign employees.

The free trade tax cut Republicans squash the deal.

So, who exploits who?

The Democrats who talk protecting American jobs but outsource a major project to save money by sending jobs overseas?

OR

The Republicans who talk free trade but squash an otherwise good deal in the name of politics, driving up employer taxes and making government less effective?

[ace's n 8's]

Originally Posted by CS natureboy

Poor stumbler. Obama is going to lose big time this November and you know it.

Obama knows it too......

Politics
Why Obama Will Lose in a Landslide

• Posted on May 31, 2012 at 5:22pm

Wayne Allyn Root is a former Libertarian vice presidential nominee. He now serves as Chairman of the Libertarian National Campaign Committee. He is the […]
Wayne Allyn Root is a former Libertarian vice presidential nominee. He now serves as Chairman of the Libertarian National Campaign Committee. He is the best-selling author of "The Conscience of a Libertarian: Empowering the Citizen Revolution with God, Guns, Gold & Tax Cuts." His web site: www.ROOTforAmerica.com [ x ]




Most political predictions are made by biased pollsters, pundits, or prognosticators who are either rooting for Republicans or Democrats. I am neither. I am a former Libertarian Vice Presidential nominee, and a well-known Vegas oddsmaker with one of the most accurate records of predicting political races.
Neither Obama nor Romney are my horses in the race. I believe both Republicans and Democrats have destroyed the U.S. economy and brought us to the edge of economic disaster. My vote will go to Libertarian Presidential candidate Gary Johnson in November, whom I believe has the most fiscally conservative track record of any Governor in modern U.S. political history. Without the bold spending cuts of a Gary Johnson or Ron Paul, I don’t believe it’s possible to turnaround America.
But as an oddsmaker with a pretty remarkable track record of picking political races, I play no favorites. I simply use common sense to call them as I see them. Back in late December I released my New Years Predictions. I predicted back then- before a single GOP primary had been held, with Romney trailing for months to almost every GOP competitor from Rick Perry to Herman Cain to Newt- that Romney would easily rout his competition to win the GOP nomination by a landslide. I also predicted that the presidential race between Obama and Romney would be very close until election day. But on election day, Romney will win by a landslide similar to Reagan-Carter in 1980.
Understanding history, today I am even more convinced of a resounding Romney victory. Thirty-two years ago at this moment in time, Reagan was losing by 9 points to Carter. Romney is right now running even in polls. So why do most pollsters give Obama the edge?
http://www.theblaze.com/contribution...n-a-landslide/

Damn CS,,,you is on a roll...........You do my heart and soul proud....

[CS natureboy]

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

Damn CS,,,you is on a roll...........You do my heart and soul proud....

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

Damn CS,,,you is on a roll...........You do my heart and soul proud....

Anyone can find stuff on the internet they agree with. CS Natureboy seems limited when it comes to writing his own material.

[ace's n 8's]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

Anyone can find stuff on the internet they agree with. CS Natureboy seems limited when it comes to writing his own material.

CS is searching for material on the internet,the type of material that you leftists tend to ignore,,hypocritically of course.

[Distant Lover]

My vote will go to Libertarian Presidential candidate Gary Johnson in November, whom I believe has the most fiscally conservative track record of any Governor in modern U.S. political history. Without the bold spending cuts of a Gary Johnson or Ron Paul, I don’t believe it’s possible to turnaround America.
http://www.theblaze.com/contribution...n-a-landslide/

When have "bold spending cuts" lead to a better job market, and/or to significant increases in the per capita gross domestic product?

When president Roosevelt cut government spending in 1937 the unemployment rose from 16.9 percent in 1936 to 19.0 percent in 1938.

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

Per capita gross domestic product in 1996 dollars declined from $6,721 in 1937 to $6,436 in 1938, after having increased steadily since Franklin Roosevelt's inauguration in 1933.

http://www.singularity.com/charts/page99.html

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

CS is searching for material on the internet,the type of material that you leftists tend to ignore,,hypocritically of course.

I usually write my own material, using the internet to document assertions made in my own arguments.

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by CS natureboy

Poor stumbler. Obama is going to lose big time this November and you know it.

Obama knows it too......

Politics
Why Obama Will Lose in a Landslide

• Posted on May 31, 2012 at 5:22pm

Wayne Allyn Root is a former Libertarian vice presidential nominee. He now serves as Chairman of the Libertarian National Campaign Committee. He is the […]

August 10th

A series of new polls has confirmed that, in the wake of his disastrous July, Mitt Romney is losing serious ground to President Obama.

Three polls that were conducted in the first week of August show President Obama leading Romney by seven or more percentage points. CNN has Obama up 52-45, Reuters/Ipsos has Obama up 49-42, and Fox News has Obama leading 49-40. All three of these margins are up from previous surveys.

For Romney, the most troubling finding of the polls is his damaged reputation. While Obama’s favorable/unfavorable spread is +14 in the CNN poll and +12 in the Fox News poll, Romney’s is just -1 and +1, respectively. The CNN poll shows that 48 percent view Romney unfavorably, up six points from last month. His unfavorable rating in the Fox News poll is at 45 percent, up five points from last month. This suggests that Obama’s string of negative ads attacking Romney are resonating with voters, and should be a major concern for the Romney campaign.

The polls contain other warning signs for Romney. According to the CNN poll, 63 percent think that Romney should release additional tax returns (compared to 36 who say he should not, and just 2 percent who have no opinion.) The Reuters/Ipsos poll shows that voters think President Obama is stronger than Romney on the traditionally Republican-dominated issue of taxes by a 49-38 percent margin. According to the Fox News poll, only 26 percent would be “extremely” or “very comfortable” with Romney as president, compared to 33 percent who would be “somewhat comfortable” and 38 percent who would be “not at all comfortable” with Romney as Commander in Chief. On almost every issue, it seems that Obama is successfully outflanking Romney.
http://www.nationalmemo.com/new-poll...mpaign=website

[CS natureboy]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

I usually write my own material, using the internet to document assertions made in my own arguments.

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

CS is searching for material on the internet,the type of material that you leftists tend to ignore,,hypocritically of course.

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

My vote will go to Libertarian Presidential candidate Gary Johnson in November, whom I believe has the most fiscally conservative track record of any Governor in modern U.S. political history. Without the bold spending cuts of a Gary Johnson or Ron Paul, I don’t believe it’s possible to turnaround America.
http://www.theblaze.com/contribution...n-a-landslide/

When have "bold spending cuts" lead to a better job market, and/or to significant increases in the per capita gross domestic product?

When president Roosevelt cut government spending in 1937 the unemployment rose from 16.9 percent in 1936 to 19.0 percent in 1938.

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

Per capita gross domestic product in 1996 dollars declined from $6,721 in 1937 to $6,436 in 1938, after having increased steadily since Franklin Roosevelt's inauguration in 1933.

http://www.singularity.com/charts/page99.html

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

August 10th

A series of new polls has confirmed that, in the wake of his disastrous July, Mitt Romney is losing serious ground to President Obama.

Three polls that were conducted in the first week of August show President Obama leading Romney by seven or more percentage points. CNN has Obama up 52-45, Reuters/Ipsos has Obama up 49-42, and Fox News has Obama leading 49-40. All three of these margins are up from previous surveys.

For Romney, the most troubling finding of the polls is his damaged reputation. While Obama’s favorable/unfavorable spread is +14 in the CNN poll and +12 in the Fox News poll, Romney’s is just -1 and +1, respectively. The CNN poll shows that 48 percent view Romney unfavorably, up six points from last month. His unfavorable rating in the Fox News poll is at 45 percent, up five points from last month. This suggests that Obama’s string of negative ads attacking Romney are resonating with voters, and should be a major concern for the Romney campaign.

The polls contain other warning signs for Romney. According to the CNN poll, 63 percent think that Romney should release additional tax returns (compared to 36 who say he should not, and just 2 percent who have no opinion.) The Reuters/Ipsos poll shows that voters think President Obama is stronger than Romney on the traditionally Republican-dominated issue of taxes by a 49-38 percent margin. According to the Fox News poll, only 26 percent would be “extremely” or “very comfortable” with Romney as president, compared to 33 percent who would be “somewhat comfortable” and 38 percent who would be “not at all comfortable” with Romney as Commander in Chief. On almost every issue, it seems that Obama is successfully outflanking Romney.
http://www.nationalmemo.com/new-poll...mpaign=website

"I usually write my own material" Really?
Perhaps you should tell nationalmemo.com to stop plagiarizing your work?

DL, if you ever had an original thought, it would probably bounce around in that empty head of your's and cause some serious damage.

[ace's n 8's]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

I usually write my own material, using the internet to document assertions made in my own arguments.

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

August 10th

A series of new polls has confirmed that, in the wake of his disastrous July, Mitt Romney is losing serious ground to President Obama.

Three polls that were conducted in the first week of August show President Obama leading Romney by seven or more percentage points. CNN has Obama up 52-45, Reuters/Ipsos has Obama up 49-42, and Fox News has Obama leading 49-40. All three of these margins are up from previous surveys.

For Romney, the most troubling finding of the polls is his damaged reputation. While Obama’s favorable/unfavorable spread is +14 in the CNN poll and +12 in the Fox News poll, Romney’s is just -1 and +1, respectively. The CNN poll shows that 48 percent view Romney unfavorably, up six points from last month. His unfavorable rating in the Fox News poll is at 45 percent, up five points from last month. This suggests that Obama’s string of negative ads attacking Romney are resonating with voters, and should be a major concern for the Romney campaign.

The polls contain other warning signs for Romney. According to the CNN poll, 63 percent think that Romney should release additional tax returns (compared to 36 who say he should not, and just 2 percent who have no opinion.) The Reuters/Ipsos poll shows that voters think President Obama is stronger than Romney on the traditionally Republican-dominated issue of taxes by a 49-38 percent margin. According to the Fox News poll, only 26 percent would be “extremely” or “very comfortable” with Romney as president, compared to 33 percent who would be “somewhat comfortable” and 38 percent who would be “not at all comfortable” with Romney as Commander in Chief. On almost every issue, it seems that Obama is successfully outflanking Romney.
http://www.nationalmemo.com/new-polls-show-romney-in-deep-trouble/?utm_source=sendgrid.com&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=website

Where is your argument in this post of yours????

Friday, August 10, 2012

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...tracking_poll/