Sunday, August 12, 2012

On the Democrats and Mitt Romney

All I can say is that the Democrats must really and truly hate this man (a person who even George Soros posits won't be all that different from President Obama), to not just support a crony capitalist (i.e., the President) and someone who no less a progressive icon as Noam Chomsky has referred to as a war criminal who, in many ways, is WORSE than George W. Bush but to spin for him as well. Methinks that there just might be a little bit too much hatred here...................................................................................And, no, I'm not in any way stumping for Mr. Romney. I don't have way more use for him that I do for Obama. IN FACT, I think that they're ALL a bunch of megalomaniacs who haven't garnered the absolute reality that this country essentially survives Presidents. It survived Buchanan. It survived McKinley. It survived Wilson. It survived Hoover. It survived FDR. It survived LBJ. It survived Nixon. It survived Carter. It survived George W. Bush. And, yes, it'll hopefully survive Obama and/or Romney, too....But, hey, who in the hell am I to get in the middle of a good old fashioned bitch-slapping.

29 comments:

Rational Nation USA said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rational Nation USA said...

As the flaming left winger and avowed whatever TAO used to say "the reality is"...

In this case it simply doesn't matter. The choice between Mittens and Obie that is.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

And even if this evil Romney does win, he isn't going to have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate anyway. People really need to take a chill-pill, I think.

Ema Nymton said...

.

"All I can say is that the Democrats must really and truly hate this man ..."

Oh pshaw. It is not hate. It is not the man; it is the message. The message of greed, grief, and graft of OMitt and the RepublicanT Party that is losing.

Electoral College:

Obama = 317 Needed to win = 270 Romney = 191

http://core.talkingpointsmemo.com/election/scoreboard


Ema Nymton
~@:o?
.

dmarks said...

"Oh pshaw. It is not hate. It is not the man; it is the message."

Yet, there is no greed or grief or graft in his message.

It is hate, alright. It is hate for no other reason than "we are (D),, he is (R)". It is the exact sort of hate that Limbaugh has for Democrats. So there you have it, Ema. You are just like Rush Limbaugh with one gene changed (R changed to D). And to drive the point home, you have the "not ready for prime time" inability to seriously discuss anything, and insist on playground insults in all you discuss.

Just like Limbaugh.

Rational Nation USA said...

You are right about one thing Ema... It is the message, and Obie's is generally incoherent,

Ema Nymton said...

.

"... Ema. You are just like Rush Limbaugh with one gene changed (R changed to D). And to drive the point home, you have the "not ready for prime time" inability to seriously discuss anything, and insist on playground insults in all you discuss.

Just like Limbaugh."

Oh the pain. Such a thing to say to a person (hold hand over eyes and faint away on to the divan).

Electoral College:

Obama = 317 Needed to win = 270 Romney = 191

http://core.talkingpointsmemo.com/election/scoreboard


Ema Nymton
~@:o?
.

dmarks said...

From the looks of it, at least Ema learned how to spell. Glad these people learn sometimes.

w-dervish said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
w-dervish said...

dmarks: Yet, there is no greed or grief or graft in his message.

Yet, there is... in spades. President Obama had it right when he called their tax plan, "Romney Hood"... because Romney takes from the poor and middle class to give to the rich.

Greed: The Romney/Ryan budget savagely cuts programs for the poor. It also increases taxes on the poor and middle class to give another tax cut to the wealthy (on top of the bush tax cut). They say the cuts are needed to "get our fiscal house in order", but the deficit INCREASES dramatically under the Romney/Ryan budget... which is why I would add a third "G"... for Grift.

Grief: The poor will suffer due to the cutting of programs to help them. The poor and middle class will suffer due to their taxes going up. Old people will suffer when their SS and Medicare is savagely cut.

Graft: Romney wants to INCREASE the military budget. Obviously this needs to be cut big time. This is nothing but a gift to the military industrial complex.

Romney/Ryan = Greed, Grift, Grief, and Graft.

dmarks hypocritically said: ...at least Ema learned how to spell. Glad these people learn sometimes.

This from the guy who SAYS he doesn't do spelling flames!

w-dervish said...

dmarks: Ema. You are just like Rush Limbaugh [because you] insist on playground insults in all you discuss.

If that's the case, then dmarks must be Rush's twin brother, because he is without a doubt the KING of the playground insults. How else you would describe someone who describes people's comments he disagrees with as "flinging boogers" and accuses them of eating school paste?

dmarks said...

"This from the guy who SAYS he doesn't do spelling flames!"

One spelling mistake here and there is one thing. But when someone can't even spell Romney's first name correctly even once, and they look like a real boob all the time, then it should be pointed out.

dmarks said...

Also, WD, the school paste thing was funny. Calling Romney "Omitt" and Clinton "Klinton" isn't.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

ema, wd, like I said, even if this horrific man, Mr. Romney, does get elected, he isn't going to have to a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and so it'll probably just be gridlock 2.0.......And there's nothing in Mr. Romney's background that is even remotely radical. Yeah, he kissed the right wing's ass to get the nomination but once he gets in the most that he'll probably do is go for tax reform (which is highly bipartisan) and some basic entitlement reform (also bipartisan). There isn't going to be any "savage cutting" (unless, of course, you refer to a cut in the rate of growth to be savage cutting). I mean, they just asked him about the Ryan budget and he said that it was a "good start", not exactly a ringing endorsement.............And if Romney is such a diabolical monster, then why is George Soros so basically unconcerned about him? I really think that you guys need to relax.

w-dervish said...

Romney is not a "diabloical monster", he is a rich a-hole who does not give a damn about the poor because he thinks the wealthy are superior, and that government should be organized to their benefit (a theory that Will and dmarks both strongly subscribe to). And Romney isn't all by himself going to ruin this country. He is (possibly) the one who will accomplish a task that began with Reagan. That task being the transformation of American from a democracy to an oligarchy.

Haven't you read about his budget ideas Will? More tax cuts for the wealthy at the expense of everyone else -- and a budget that does nothing to reduce the deficit, but INCREASES it instead. Perhaps we could survive Romney, perhaps not. But I think we're running out of rope.

Also, I've never heard or saw anyone refer to Romney as "Omitt", so I do not know what the hell dmarks is talking about. "Mittens" is the only nickname I'm aware of.

Rusty Shackelford said...



O.K. WD,I heard your mommy calling...you've gotta go upstairs,take a shower,brush your teeth,put you jammies on,put your retainer in and go to bed...no more computer tonight,no more Halo today...and above all none of that under the blankets stuff...you keep doing that all the time you're going to go blind.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

"a theory that Will and dmarks both strongly subscribe to."......This is exactly why people despise you so much, wd - the lies. You know perfectly well that I came out strongly IN FAVOR of the Chuck Schumer compromise of returning the top tax rates back to the Clinton era for everybody making over a million a year (hell, I would even be willing to lower the threshold mother fucker). And you also know very well that I am in favor of doing away the special consideration for capital gains so clowns like Romney, Buffett, Soros, Perot, etc. end up paying a respectable rate. You really need to start fact-checking you assertions, wd.

The Heathen Republican said...

Ema, I don't know you at all, but by appending projected electoral vote totals to your comments, I'm guessing you feel very sure of an Obama victory. I'd love for you to name any wager you choose on the outcome, and I'll take you up on it.

Such overconfidence is not warranted in mid-August.

The Heathen Republican said...

Will, luckily a filibuster-proof Senate won't be required to overturn the ACA. As the Democrats taught us, it only takes 51 votes (or 50 votes and a Vice President) to pass a "budget" bill (wink wink) using reconciliation.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

So, if the Republicans take majority control in the Senate, they could simply vote to unfund it?...And did you notice how wd referred to Romney as a "rich a-hole"? He had to throw the rich in there to remind us that the dude has dinero.

The Heathen Republican said...

Not just defundingit. Because it was passed through reconciliation, it can be repealed through reconciliation. The ACA's outsized effect on the federal budget will be the justification.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I thought that it was passed when the Dems had the 60 vote super-majority. No?

w-dervish said...

Will: This is exactly why people despise you so much, wd - the lies.

How is it a lie if I don't mention every position you hold every time I comment? FYI, the fact checking is the large number of posts you have written in which you whine and cry about the tax burden shouldered by the rich being to high... you do this by comparring apples and oranges... the percentage of the total national income the rich "make" comparred to the percentage of the tax load they bear.

Will: He had to throw the rich in there to remind us that the dude has dinero.

I threw that in there to make the point that Romney is a class warrior... he has a history of waging war on the middle class and poor and wants to bring that experience to the presidency. You object because you worship rich a-holes like Romney.

Rusty Shackelford said...



Looks like little "poopsie" (thats what his mommy calls him)got up early this morning,and it looks like he woke up pissed off at his betters.....again.

The Heathen Republican said...

"I thought that it was passed when the Dems had the 60 vote super-majority. No?"

Will, the history went like this:

7-Nov-09: House passes Affordable Health Care for America Act 220-215

24-Dec-09: Senate passes Patient Protection and Affordability Act 60-39 after securing Ben Nelson with the "Cornhusker Kickback"

19-Jan-10: Scott Brown elected to replace Ted Kennedy in the Senate for Massachusetts

With the election of Brown, the Senate was unable to pass the House version of the bill, so Obama asked the House to give up on the Affordable Health Care for America Act.

The House then passed PPACA with amendments.

Those amendments were passed by the Senate through reconcilization on a vote of 56-43.

So Will, you're right that the bill passed the Senate by 60 votes. To get to the final version to satisfy the House, reconciliation was used to bypass the filibuster. I concede to your greater knowledge.

The Heathen Republican said...

Although... I think my point still stands. But for the plan to use reconciliation, I don't believe the House ever would have passed the Senate's bill. They didn't like it.

I use the term "believe" advisedly because it's purely a matter of faith. There's no way to know for sure. Perhaps Obama/Pelosi would have strong armed the House members into passing the Senate bill without any amendments.

In any case, PPACA would not be the law of the land absent the use of reconciliation.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Another lie, wd. I have NEVER said that the tax burden on the rich is too high (AGAIN liar, I said that I was willing to co-opt the Chuck Schumer compromise). I have merely pointed out the idiocy of this notion that they haven't been paying their fair share and that a 2.2:1 ratio (percentage of total income taxes to the percentage of total AGI) sounds about right.......And YOU calling anybody else a "class warrior" is absolutely uproarious (you, a person who seems utterly incapable of making any point with referencing those who've done infinitely better than you).......And what in the hell SHOULD the percentages be. The top 1% should make 2% of the income and pay 98% of the income taxes? AND OF COURSE THE FUCKING INCOME IS DIFFERENT FROM THE TAXES (duh). The only fucking way that they'd be the same is if the government frigging confiscated everything. My God, what a small, jealous, and bitter man you are.

dmarks said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
dmarks said...

Will...um, yeah. You've consistently and repeatedly said that you wanted taxes on the wealthy to go up.

If someone wants taxes on a certain group higher, that directly contradicts any idea that this person thinks that the certain group is "overtaxed". Simple logic. There's no way to get around this, is there?