posted August 11, 2012 02:04 PM            

Not going to work!

This election is not going to be about Romney's alleged gaffes OR the alleged republican war on women OR Romney's tax returns OR Romney hates dogs OR Romney's wife rides horses OR Romney allegedly killed a woman.

posted August 11, 2012 07:26 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
i disagree...IF ROMNEY RUNS, the election will be about whether people trust a vulture capitalist over a man who is - let's face it - the embodiment of the american dream, coming from next to nowhere to become president.

---

That's the myth, anyway. Reality is probably much more jaded...Obama had inside connections to the CIA through BIC.

Then...lucky guy!...he ran unopposed for the Senate, probably thanks to his inside connections. I think there's reason to suspect he's been tight with Brzezinski since Columbia U.

Now Obama's a Wall Street shill. Mr. Bailout.

posted August 11, 2012 07:45 PM            

re the american dream i mean that "anyone can become president" bit. i for one am not particularly sold on it. nor am i sold on obama being a cia puppet or extraterrestrial plant. i tend to think politics are more prosaic than that. however allowing someone with pull to take you under their wing is not necessarily a crime.

the fact is that all politicians have to compromise, make deals with their opponents, yadayadayada...that does not make one a criminal but a negotiator. the fact that the stakes are high and many of these deals have never been so transparent before might make it look dirtier than it is.

romney on the other hand has been doing his robinhood-in-reverse act for yonks.

i AM willing to believe that they are just two sides of the same coin, called political gamesmanship, but silly me i still hold on to the possibility that good men might prevail or at least hold back the tides somewhat.

posted August 11, 2012 10:19 PM            

Bailouts repaid? What are you talking about, pray tell?

posted August 11, 2012 11:40 PM            

Rep. Alan Grayson breaks down the GAO report from Bailout Year. Short excerpt:

quote:

---

I wouldn't want anyone to think that I'm dramatizing or amplifying what this GAO report says, so I'm just going to list some of my favorite parts, by page number.

Page 131 - The total lending for the Fed's "broad-based emergency programs" was $16,115,000,000,000. That's right, more than $16 trillion. The four largest recipients, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch and Bank of America, received more than a trillion dollars each. The 5th largest recipient was Barclays PLC. The 8th was the Royal Bank of Scotland Group, PLC. The 9th was Deutsche Bank AG. The 10th was UBS AG. These four institutions each got between a quarter of a trillion and a trillion dollars. None of them is an American bank.

---

posted August 12, 2012 01:05 PM            

whatever. @ faith, yes i know reality is far less fairy tale than what i said might seem. HOWEVER, there is still a wide divide between romney and obama when it comes to means and ways.

and the wall street money is more on romney this time around, which speaks volumes of how they feel their donations were MISUSED by the recipient. OF COURSE they will continue to play both sides of the fence, the outcome is not yet clear and everyone wants to be able to say they backed the winning horse.

posted August 12, 2012 01:45 PM            

16 Trillion is a hell of a lot of money "creation" which will not and could not possibly be paid back. This created money will circulate through the economy and cause inflation...perhaps hyper inflation.

Further, Fed lending to auto companies to pay back their "bailout" loans to the US does not mean those loans were paid back. Every dollar created by the Fed is an "obligation" of the United States.

Hahaha, it's like taking money our of your left hand and putting it in your right hand...then saying, I paid myself back.

I know you would like to see Romney and Ryan withdraw and hand the election to your little Marxist Messiah con artist katatonic but that's not going to happen.

posted August 12, 2012 06:56 PM            

when i mention rush i am not repeating what someone else told me he said. you on the other hand seem to prefer the testimony of a neanderthal ENGLISH newsrag to listening to anyone american you are predisposed to dislike.

posted August 13, 2012 12:57 AM            

quote:

---

Well, you don't have to like Fox News...but at least they routinely invite and have parties on both sides of issues in their discussions.

---

posted August 13, 2012 08:12 AM            

Have to question your statement that you listen to Rush. Limbaugh lays political issues out so clearly even a 5th grader could get it. So, why don't you get it?

Hahaha acoustic

A loony-tunes leftist host interviewing a loony-tunes leftist guest on CNN or MSNBC hardly qualifies as presenting both sides of issues....as Fox News almost always does...and in most cases at Fox, both parties are on the same news show at the same time.

In fact, Fox News is well staffed with Liberals and even some leftists.

The problem with you acoustic is that if someone's political views aren't 100 light years to the left of Karl Marx, you think that person is a conservative.

posted August 13, 2012 09:31 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:

presenting a few bolshy leftists as "balance" is just another way of skewing the picture, isn't it? do you think [b]roger GOP-TV ailes doesn't know how to run the propaganda wars?

---

posted August 13, 2012 10:13 AM            

Lay out Murdoch's connection to the "New American Century" crowd...your conspiracy theory.

Facts please and only facts. Oh and the fact all the parties are mammals isn't relevant.

Oh and btw, your nonsense doesn't in any way diminish the fact that Fox News puts on guests from both sides of issues...unlike the screechers at MSNBC or CNN..like Fareed Zakaria who had to be suspended for plagiarism..and who routinely rant about this issue or that with no counterbalance to their nonsense.

I think you need a refresher in word roots. Words like Neo-Conservative.

Oh, and here's another question for you Faith...just in case your conspiracy theory happened to be right.

Who would you rather see as the sole super-power in the world?

Communist China?
Russia?
An Islamic Theocracy?
The United Nations?
The United States?

posted August 13, 2012 01:45 PM            

Through the Weekly Standard (and scores of other Murdoch-run news venues, besides) PNAC's vision for global dominion has been given a solid platform for propagandizing.

What's funny is, brainwashed neocons think this is "the American Way," neverminding the fact that Murdoch is Australian, and PNAC is largely comprised of dual US-Israeli citizens.

posted August 13, 2012 03:00 PM            

There's no rational basis for your comments.

quote:

---

A loony-tunes leftist host interviewing a loony-tunes leftist guest on CNN or MSNBC hardly qualifies as presenting both sides of issues....as Fox News almost always does...and in most cases at Fox, both parties are on the same news show at the same time.

---

Clearly you aren't watching the other news networks. They do do that, and have done that for years. I can't even believe you're attempting to suggest otherwise. Is Meet the Press a Fox News show? Would you like to look at any prominent Conservative's schedule to see what non-Fox News shows they'll be on, because I can tell you, they'll be on plenty.

quote:

---

The problem with you acoustic is that if someone's political views aren't 100 light years to the left of Karl Marx, you think that person is a conservative.

---

posted August 13, 2012 06:59 PM            

But, you ducked the important question I asked you! And Faith, I believe it's the most important question you should be prepared to answer...if to no one but yourself.

posted August 14, 2012 12:39 AM            

quote:

---

Who would you rather see as the sole super-power in the world?

Communist China?
Russia?
An Islamic Theocracy?
The United Nations?
The United States?

Oh, and don't attempt to duck the question by saying NO ONE! The history of the world shows very clearly that there will be a dominant nation.

---

There is nothing to "duck" because I owe you absolutely nothing.

But I will answer you in case anyone else is reading this and is curious about the matter, and my take on it.

What's a country? I'll just assume you mean, a country's Constitution and government, since in context, that is what would theoretically be "taking over."

It looks to me like multinational corporations will continue to have greater sway in establishing global hegemony, by far, than any country's Constitution.

Simultaneously, a technopoly reflecting the interweaving agendas of the power elite is gradually taking over the world, moreso than any country.

Consider the longstanding alliance between the Bush and bin Laden families, forged over oil. What "country" is the US-Saudi alliance?

posted August 14, 2012 08:36 AM            

I think you almost said what you meant..a world without borders at all...no nations. But that's the dream of one world loony tunes nuts flacking for the UN. George Soros loony tunes.

Btw, the bin Laden family in Saudi Arabia is not in the oil business..with Bush or anyone else. They made their money in the CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS. Just a nitpicking little point.

Oh, and the US has more oil and natural gas than the entire middle east. In fact, the US has the largest energy reserves of any nation in the world. Another nitpicking little point.

posted August 14, 2012 09:09 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jwhop:
You gave a weasel answer...so you ducked the question.

---

You can't appreciate any kind of thinking outside your television box, apparently.

quote:

---

Btw, the bin Laden family in Saudi Arabia is not in the oil business..with Bush or anyone else. They made their money in the CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS. Just a nitpicking little point.

---

SBG is a construction group, true, but Osama's older brother Salem was a major investor in Bush's Arbusto oil. Because so much money in Saudi Arabia is tied to oil, and diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia are heavily influenced by the US need for Saudi oil, and for other reasons, I think it's fair to say that oil is at least one of the major ways in which the Bushes and bin Ladens bond.

quote:

---

Oh, and the US has more oil and natural gas than the entire middle east. In fact, the US has the largest energy reserves of any nation in the world. Another nitpicking little point.

---

Oh and I have unicorns prancing around in my backyard.

quote:

---

We have a fundamental disagreement over where the power lies in the US. With our system of government, the ultimate power is always in the hands of citizens...not the government and not corporations.

---