Mitt Romney for President--Part something

You do realize that those two facts (Romney's statement and the chart) are in no way conflicting. Private sector earnings can go up in a "government run economy", it will just be biased to those large corporations and interests that are favored by those in power.

If you were to describe Barack Obama in one word (counting everything, not just his economic policies), which would you use?

I know what word the majority of his opponents would use.

Highlight to reveal.

Black

Fair enough, from now on I’ll terms like modern history.

So back to my original point, why does it matter?

Pragmatist?


I think the mistake his detractors make is that assuming he's an ideolog. Which isn't to say that he's not a liberal or that he doesn't believe in the power and responsibility of government to affect change. But his liberalism isn't for the sake of liberalism.

Fine but the charge is that Barack Obama has changed things from the W years, by turning what was a private-sector economy into a government run economy. That is what Romney is implying. As with most Romney statements, it is partisan nonsense.

Kenyan?

Where's Yossarian when we need him?

That's the catch...

Well I suppose it's better than Portnoy's Complaint references.

Basically,

<the internet + a piece of liver = Portnoy's complaint>

Is "pink slip Obama" some kind of euphemism for fingerbanging our Commander in Chief?

That's not the one I would go with, but to each his own.

Of course he is. Almost all politicians are. And there's nothing wrong with that. Being an idealouge means you have beliefs and that you follow through on them. Even if Barack Obama's beliefs are terrible, he has them.

In what way is he not a pragmatist? Or are you saying that he is, but that's not his defining characteristic?

No, being an ideolog means that the person follows through on the beliefs even when it's detrimental to the greater cause, even his own. Today's Republicans display a demonstrated value in ideological purity over prosperity or function. I don't care how much you disagree with Obama, you can't say that about Obama.

That it's not his defining characaristic. When the history is written, that won't be #1.

I absolutely can, and will.

Barack Obama believes in authority. He opposes medical marijuana, despite the high levels of support for it and many states making it legal. What other reason can there be for this crusade?

He has prosecuted more whistle blowers than all other Presidents combined. How does this game him popularity?

He has doubled down on one of the most unpopular agencies there is, the TSA.

None of these things seem popular, yet he does them. What other explanation is there?

How are you going to argue now that there's no more neg rep?

I'm going to end this debate once and for all:

"Ideologue."

So your argument is that Barack Obama, the President who admitted to smoking pot and trying cocaine as a candidate, is opposed to legalizing marijuana on an ideological basis? I hope not, because that's a really, really stupid argument. There are many people who oppose legalizing marijuana (whether medicinal or not) and Obama, whatever his ideological feelings on it, just doesn't want to waste political capital on dealing with them. That's the definition of pragmatism.

Or possibly because the first African-American President in the country's history would never be able to amass enough political capital to legalize marijuana, no matter what partisan control of Congress were nor the economic conditions of the state.

Romney rules

Examples:

1. Context doesn't matter. Anything you say I may use against you, e.g., by making it sound like you said the opposite.

and

5. I may erase the memory of my record of past moderation by attacking my opponents for their imagined moderation.

and

12. I may deny that I said what I said yesterday and refuse to talk about it.

Everything example is linked to corroborating evidence, often multiple times.

Oh, and one last little find from this rabbit hole...

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/06/times-have-changed-its-ok-lie

The scope and breadth of Romney's lying really does strike me as breaking a barrier. I think, however, that Kevin Drum doesn't give enough credit to Sarah Palin. She wasn't a presidential candidate but she WAS on the ticket, and Romney basically is following her approach to lying.

The your e-cards series is great!

Mitt today said that the difference between him and President Obama is that Mitt better understands what Americans are going through. You go with that, Mitt. You go.

Not a coincidence that he's the first businessman we've had running for President in 75 years. Mitt spent his career bait-and-switching acquisition targets -- promising them an initial higher price, then renegotiating a lower price once the target committed. He's been lying a long darned time.

W doesn't count? Or was he a businessman the same way he was a National Guardsman?

No and yes.

See, here's the difference between W and Mitt. W really thought that the WOMD were in Iraq. Mitt would damn well know they weren't, but would invade anyway to win the 2004 election. Mitt would have skinned W in a business transaction. Then again, he would have had a lot of company in that.