Puterbac News Network and Political Discussion Thread

[crashcourse]

the whol 50K debt for each citizen is a little overrated

75% of the national deficit is outlays for entitlements

get rid of much of the entitlement bullshit and our budget becomes balanced

social security and especially medicare need to be altered in the face of the very powerful aarp et al

about 40% of our national debt we owe to ourselves in another stunning bit of irony

[innocentbystander]

the whol 50K debt for each citizen is a little overrated

75% of the national deficit is outlays for entitlements

get rid of much of the entitlement bullshit and our budget becomes balanced

social security and especially medicare need to be altered in the face of the very powerful aarp et al

about 40% of our national debt we owe to ourselves in another stunning bit of irony

The 44K (now 50K with Obama for one more year) of Federal debt for each and every one of the 310,000,000 of us is not the least bit overrated. Greece is about to become Argentina with a similar 38K (US dollars) debt. The only reason we haven't Greeked out and rioted (and no, I don't mean ass fuck each other) is because our Affirmative Action President does not have to begin austerity measures. The US government does not answer to an EU (or anyone.)

Our entitlment spending is ridiculous. 10,000 Baby Boomers sign up for Social Security each day, stealing from their children and grand children. And they don't give a fuck. Raise minimum retirement age from 62 to 82. And no more money for single moms. That legislation was beyond retarded. (When you pay for something, you get more of it.)

It used to be 88% that we owed to ourselves. That was just 20 years ago. The fact that it is only 40% we owe to ourselves is not ironic. It is sad and depressing.

[Jungle Rat]

And why is that? Because I don't listen to crack pots like you to form my opinion? I'm educated enough to make my own decisions, obviously you need help in that area.

Obviously, you are not yet educated enough to read. If you had even read what I typed, you would not have said this.

This is another reason why I don't want you voting.

Vote your true beliefs IB and not what others tell you to do. It's time to become your own man and think for yourself.

I am my own man, but you are still just a kid having fun.

I read what you typed and after I chuckled I responded. I'm guessing it's not fun going through life being a bitter prick because your boys lost an election to a black Muslim.

[innocentbystander]

And why is that? Because I don't listen to crack pots like you to form my opinion? I'm educated enough to make my own decisions, obviously you need help in that area.

Obviously, you are not yet educated enough to read. If you had even read what I typed, you would not have said this.

This is another reason why I don't want you voting.

Vote your true beliefs IB and not what others tell you to do. It's time to become your own man and think for yourself.

I am my own man, but you are still just a kid having fun.

I read what you typed and after I chuckled I responded. I'm guessing it's not fun going through life being a bitter prick because your boys lost an election to a black Muslim.

Rat,

Is Obama "your boy" and if so, why?

[Jungle Rat]

Yes.

A) Because he was the best option to GWB at the time of his election.

B) He still is considering what the Repubs are throwing out there.

IB, I'm not a party player, I'm an American. I loved Reagan. I loved Clinton. I love America.

[Professor Tiger]

::leans back, munches on popcorn::

[Jungle Rat]

He sorta got quiet

[innocentbystander]

Yes.

A) Because he was the best option to GWB at the time of his election.

B) He still is considering what the Repubs are throwing out there.

IB, I'm not a party player, I'm an American. I loved Reagan. I loved Clinton. I love America.

You are a Reagan Democrat. That's fine. Obama is not your boy then.

I loved Reagan and I liked Clinton. I think President Clinton was a shitty father and a real shitty husband, but a good President at a very good time (in America) to BE President. And I love America.

If you loved Reagan and Clinton, you are going to love Romney. Trust me. Do yourself a favor, and vote for the Mormon. You gave Hope and Change a chance, now lets change back to Reagan-II

[Jungle Rat]

Nope. Mitt is an ass. Ill give hopey changey 4 more years to weed out the scumbag republicans who don't really care about America. Dems too. The repubs aren't even showing a pulse right now. Karma

[innocentbystander]

Nope. Mitt is an ass. Ill give hopey changey 4 more years to weed out the scumbag republicans who don't really care about America. Dems too. The repubs aren't even showing a pulse right now. Karma

You are really going to like Mitt. I know it.

[bluetick]

Santorum lost his last race in his home state for crying out loud. If he's too scary for the home folks, how is he supposed to win nationally? And Newt and Ron Paul aren't going anywhere, that's rather obvious.

Mitt is the only real chance the GOP has to dethrone oprama this fall. The sooner some of you knuckleheads realize that, the better for all concerned.

[Professor Tiger]

Romney is such a great candidate that Obama is dying to run against him.

[innocentbystander]

Romney is such a great candidate that Obama is dying to run against him.

Bullshit. President Obama does NOT want to run against Romney. My first wife explains why better than I ever could....

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-02-22.html

Unlike actual Establishment candidates, Romney has never worked in Washington, much less spent his entire life as a professional politician. He's had a Midas touch with every enterprise he has ever run, including Bain Capital, the Olympics and Massachusetts.

The chestnut about Mitt Romney being pushed on unsuspecting conservatives by "the Establishment" is the exact opposite of the truth. The Establishment, by any sensible definition, is virulently opposed to Romney -- and for completely contradictory reasons.

The entire NFM (non-Fox media) hate Romney because he is the only candidate who stands a chance of beating Obama.

Meanwhile, many of the pillars of the conservative establishment also implacably oppose Romney. Fox News is neutral, but its second-highest-rated host, Sean Hannity, is unenthusiastic about Romney, as is prominent Fox News contributor Sarah Palin, who has told Fox viewers she'd vote for Gingrich -- and also offered herself up as a possible presidential nominee at a contested convention. (Wouldn't a former candidate for vice president on a major party's ticket be part of the Establishment?)....

....This year, every Republican candidate for president opposes abortion, promises to repeal Obamacare, opposes raising taxes, and on and on. Only one candidate is strong on illegal immigration, which is second only to repealing Obamacare as the most important issue facing the nation.

That's the alleged liberal, Mitt Romney.

Conservatives scratch their heads wondering how the NFM can convince millions of unemployed and underemployed Americans paying $3.57 for a gallon of gas that the economy is improving simply by repeatedly saying so.

But then a large minority of those same conservatives are completely convinced that Romney is an Establishment candidate simply because they have heard that repeated so often.

As we say to dunderhead liberals: What we're looking for here is facts, not chants or epithets.

But instead of popping Champagne corks over our final triumph over Rockefeller Republicanism, some conservatives are still fighting old wars, rather like an old cold warrior prattling about the Soviet Union after the rest of us have moved onto the war on terrorism.

This strange new version of right-wing populism comes down to reveling in the feeling that you are being dissed, hoodwinked or manipulated by the Establishment (most of which happens to oppose Romney) the same way liberals want to believe that "the rich," the "right-wing media" and Wall Street Republicans (there are three) are victimizing them.

It's as if scoring points in intra-Republican squabbles is more important than beating Obama. Instead of talking about the candidates' positions -- which would be confusing inasmuch as Romney is the most conservative of the four remaining candidates -- the only issue seems to be whether "They" are showing respect for "Us."

Striking a pose as the only true fighter for real Americans may be fun, but this is no way to win elections. This is Sharron Angle on a national level.

If Michigan gets it right tomorrow (hopefully, they will) then we can focus on the general. Let Newt have his Bible belt and Romney gets the rest.

[bluetick]

Excellent article, IB. Coulter is dead-on-the-money with respect to Romney, the Establishment, and who liberals fear the most. The take-away line re: Sharon Angle was good stuff.

[Professor Tiger]

Obama can't wait to run against Romney. Willard is the dream candidate from a democrat perspective.

1. Today's news reminds us that Obamacare is the president's single most unpopular accomplishment.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/s ... 53260222/1

If Romney is the nominee, the most effective weapon against Obama is knocked out of the Republicans hand. Romneycare was the prototype of Obamacare, so there is no way Willard can argue against Obamacare without looking ridiculous and hypocritical. Obama will breathe a sigh of relief if Romney is the nominee.

2. I'm not sure if you've noticed, IB, but the Republican base doesn't like Romney. They really, really don't. In fact, the primaries so far have proven that the conservative base is eager to vote for ANYBODY BUT Romney. The only reasons Romney is still in the race is the conservative vote has been split between the conservative (i.e. non-Romney) candidates, and the Establishment has financed tons of cash to bury the non-Romneys under negative campaign ads. Obama can't wait to run against an R nominee who is deeply unloved by the base of his own party, and who can't out-negative campaign ad spend him. The Dems also know they can crush Romney just like they did the last 3 Establishment-approved RINO's Dole, Bush Sr. and McCain.

3. Romney, your "Mr. Inevitability," has won 4 out of the 9 primaries/caucuses so far. And he's now fighting for his political life in his home state where his father was a popular governor. This supposed "inevitability" doesn't seem so inevitable.

[innocentbystander]

Obama can't wait to run against Romney. Willard is the dream candidate from a democrat perspective.

1. Today's news reminds us that Obamacare is the president's single most unpopular accomplishment.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/s ... 53260222/1

If Romney is the nominee, the most effective weapon against Obama is knocked out of the Republicans hand. Romneycare was the prototype of Obamacare, so there is no way Willard can argue against Obamacare without looking ridiculous and hypocritical.

2. I'm not sure if you've noticed, IB, but the Republican base doesn't like Romney. They really, really don't. In fact, the primaries so far have proven that the conservative base is eager to vote for ANYBODY BUT Romney. The only reasons Romney is still in the race is the conservative vote has been split between the conservative (i.e. non-Romney) candidates, and the Establishment has financed tons of cash to bury the non-Romneys under negative campaign ads. Obama can't wait to run against an R nominee who is deeply unloved by the base of his own party, and who can't outspend or out-negative campaign ad spend him. The Dems also know they can crush Romney just like they did the last 3 Establishment-approved RINO's Dole, Bush Sr. and McCain.

3. Romney, your "Mr. Inevitability," has won 4 out of the 9 primaries/caucuses so far. This supposed "inevitability" doesn't seem so inevitable.

Romney is not running for Gov of Massachusetts. He is running for President. The people of Texas/Virginia/California/New York/Georgia/Alabama/Missouri don't care that Massachusetts has a statewide healthcare mandate. They just don't want one for THEIR state. Romney gets that even if you don't.

The establishment does not want Romney. The establishment wants anyone BUT Romney. Cooler heads are prevailing with Chris Christie, Nikki Haley, Ann Coulter, John McCain, and a couple others. George Will (probably dealing from his Protestant vs LDS principals) hates Romney. Rush doesn't like him anymore (for whatever reason.) Neither does Sean Hannity, Rick Perry, Sarah Palin, Megan McCain (yup, disagrees with her dad), Ahhhnold, The Christian Coalition (a group of Evangelical Protestants which endorsed Roman Catholic Santorum), or the Wall Street Journal. Who exactly IS the GOP establishment Professor?

Romney has cash because he is damn good at raising money. That's good because he'll need to raise another billion dollars to challenge Barack Obama.

Romney won 4 out of 6. 3 of the 9 (Mizzou, Colorado, and Minnesota), don't count (since they were just beauty contests awarding no delegates.) Romney never bothered to campaign in them. And really, Romney won 4 out of 5 since Iowa was a tie (split delegates evenly.)

The GOP "base" is New Hampshire, Florida, and Nevada. That is the "base." And he won them all in a rout. The "base" does want Romney as do the independants. The Tea Party (people who work for a living, or respect people who do work) does NOT want Romney as they irrationally conclude Romney never worked. The Tea Party is not the "base" of the GOP no matter how much they think they are. The Tea Party is CHANGING the GOP dramatically, and that is good. A Reagan conservative (borrow-and-spend-on-military, but don't tax) Republican would not be elected in 2012, and Romney gets that. Romney does emulate the "communicator" aspect of the Gipper better than any GOP candidate has over the last 32 years, with the one exception of Newt Gingrich. But Newt (as perfect a communicator that he is) is as electable for President as Pat Buchanan, that is, not at all. Newt's problems stem from the fact that married women (a large part of the GOP base) fucking HATE him. So instead of 65% of all women voting Democrat and 35% voting GOP in the general, a Newt candidacy would have a net effect of 95% of women voting to re-elect Obama, the faithful family man.

[innocentbystander]

Here's another one Tiger....

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2011-11-16.html

The mainstream media keep pushing alternatives to Mitt Romney not only because they are terrified of running against him, but also because they want to keep Republicans fighting, allowing Democrats to get a four-month jump on us.

Meanwhile, everyone knows the nominee is going to be Romney.

That's not so bad if you think the most important issues in this election are defeating Obama and repealing Obamacare.

There may be better ways to stop Obamacare than Romney, but, unfortunately, they're not available right now. (And, by the way, where were you conservative purists when Republicans were nominating Waterboarding-Is-Torture-Jerry-Falwell-Is-an-Agent-of-Intolerance-My-Good-Friend-Teddy-Kennedy-Amnesty-for-Illegals John McCain-Feingold for president?)

Among Romney's positives is the fact that he has a demonstrated ability to trick liberals into voting for him. He was elected governor of Massachusetts -- one of the most liberal states in the union -- by appealing to Democrats, independents and suburban women.

He came close to stopping the greatest calamity to befall this nation since Pearl Harbor by nearly beating Teddy Kennedy in a Senate race. (That is when he said a lot of the things about which he's since "changed his mind.") If he had won, we'd be carving his image on Mount Rushmore.

He is not part of the Washington establishment, so he won't be caught taking money from Freddie Mac or cutting commercials with Nancy Pelosi.

Also, Romney will be the first Republican presidential nominee since Ronald Reagan who can talk. Liberals are going to have to dust off their playbook from 30 years ago to figure out how to run against a Republican who isn't a tongue-tied marble-mouth.

As we've known for years, his negatives are: Romneycare and Mormonism.

We look forward with cheery anticipation to an explosion of news stories on some of the stranger aspects of Mormonism. The articles have already been written, but they're not scheduled for release until the day Romney wraps up the nomination.

Inasmuch as the Democrats' only argument for the big-eared beanpole who's nearly wrecked the country is that you must be a racist if you oppose Obama, one assumes a lot of attention will be lavished on the Mormon Church's historical position on blacks. Church founder Joseph Smith said blacks had the curse of Cain on them and banned blacks from the priesthood, a directive that was not revoked until 1978.

There's no evidence that this was a policy fiercely pushed by Mitt Romney. To the contrary, when his father, George Romney, was governor of Michigan, he was the most pro-civil rights elected official in the entire country, far ahead of any Democrat.

No one is worried Romney will double-cross us on repealing Obamacare. We worry that Romneycare will make it harder for him to get elected.

Focus on what I highlighted. Romney is not the establishment candidate the way John McCain was. In truth, there was no establishment candidate this time around, not like there always is. Well, that is not true, Rick Perry was GOP establishment, thank goodness we had GOP debates and people bothered to watch them. So now, what we have left are true conservative candidates, that can truly talk, talking about true conservative issues.

Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Newt, & Mitt, they all get it. John McCain, Rudy, and Huckabee might not have gotten it 4 years ago, but these guys get it. They understand what voters in this country care about (what their gripes are with President Obama.) And really, the only thing that matters is the GOP nominating the one person who has the ability to get as many of those Reagan Democrats (the Jungle Rats) that voted for Obama last time, to vote GOP this time. We need to get the ones who regret what they did, have a willingness to swallow their pride and vote with their heads instead of their hearts. We may not get Rat, but we will get others.

[Professor Tiger]

LMAO. Romney isn't the Establishment candidate. The hundreds of millions of dollars pouring into his superpac are from the common folk. The minority of states that have voted for Romney (including that well-known Republican bastion New Hampshire and Mormon-rich state of Nevada) are, by definition, the base. The states which did not vote for Romney, as well as the whole Tea Party, are not the base. The Republican voters of Alabama, Texas and Alabama don't have a problem with Romneycare and the individual mandate, and won't hold it against Romney.

Wow. I see that denial is not just a river in Egypt.

PS, the Establishment is a small group of fabulously wealthy businesspeople, mostly from the northeast, that want one of their own to be the president. What they want out of their man is an economic environment where they can get even more fabulously wealthy. That's it. They don't care about any other conservative issues. They picked Romney at least a year ago, and will send his superpac as much money as it takes to buy enough negative campaign ads to make sure he wins. There's nothing illegal or immoral about that, but they are not the base of the party. The R base is not a few dozen billionaires who want to become the first trillionaires, and care nothing about other issues that conservatives care deeply about, especially the social issues.

[Professor Tiger]

No one is worried Romney will double-cross us on repealing Obamacare.

Anybody who knows Romney as Mass. Governor should absolutely be concerned that he will double cross us on Obamacare. He explains his liberal record by saying he really didn't mean it when he was champion of government-run health care and the individual mandate. Maybe he was crossing his fingers behind his back when he supported more gun control laws and abortion too. He says he was just doing what he had to do to get elected.

Among Romney's positives is the fact that he has a demonstrated ability to trick liberals into voting for him. He was elected governor of Massachusetts -- one of the most liberal states in the union -- by appealing to Democrats, independents and suburban women.

Well, if he was lying to the voters of Massachusetts to get elected governor, then he is just as likely to be lying to us in order to get elected president. For all we know, he might suddenly change his position on repealing Obamacare just like he had sudden and self-serving conversions to pro-life and pro-2A. If he were to somehow win the election, he might just spontaneously support Canadian-style single-payer healthcare for all we know.

[innocentbystander]

LMAO. Romney isn't the Establishment candidate. The hundreds of millions of dollars pouring into his superpac are from the common folk. The minority of states that have voted for Romney (including that well-known Republican bastion New Hampshire and Mormon-rich state of Nevada) are, by definition, the base. The states which did not vote for Romney, as well as the whole Tea Party, are not the base. The Republican voters of Alabama, Texas and Alabama don't have a problem with Romneycare and the individual mandate, and won't hold it against Romney.

Wow. I see that denial is not just a river in Egypt.

Romney will not win a single Bible-belt state in the GOP Primaries. Newt will probably win them all (or maybe Santorum) but this has nothing to do with "The Establishment" or "Romneycare." It has to do with the planet Kobald, Joe Smith, magic underwear, and saving souls from eternal damnation.

Of course, after 4 years of the Annointed One, the whole Bible Belt WILL be voting for the Temple Recommended one in the general election, eternal damnation be DAMNED!

PS, the Establishment is a small group of fabulously wealthy businesspeople, mostly from the northeast, that want one of their own to be the president. What they want out of their man is an economic environment where they can get even more fabulously wealthy. That's it. They don't care about any other conservative issues. They picked Romney at least a year ago, and will send his superpac as much money as it takes to buy enough negative campaign ads to make sure he wins. There's nothing illegal or immoral about that, but they are not the base of the party. The R base is not a few dozen billionaires who want to become the first trillionaires, and care nothing about other issues that conservatives care deeply about, especially the social issues.

Horseshit.

These Captains and the Kings that you are writing about, exist only in a Taylor Caldwell novel and 1976 mini-series. The Captains and the Kings do NOT exist in reality as there are millionaires financing Newt's Super-PAC and there are millionaires financing Santorum's Super-PAC. You assume that all people with big dollars think they same. They most certainly do not. But it doesn't suprise me that you might feel that way if you never held a job outside of academia.

Moreover, if Romney was "The Establishment" candidate now, why didn't "The Establishment" pick him in 2008? Why NOW but not THEN? What, was John fucking McCain BETTER for "The Establishment" at making them money than Willard Mitt Romney? Are you high? Or perhaps John had the name recognition that Willard Mitt didn't have? (Probably.) The fact that Romney won so many states (most Caucus states) in 2008 against "The Establishment" candidate says more about Romney's electability than any money given to his Super-Pac from those ficticious Captains and the Kings.

You are really smart Professor, one of the smartest people on this board, so I expect that you try and think critically. I expect much more of you that I would Jungle Rat. Why has Santorum (but not Rick Perry, Michelle Bachman, Tim Pawlenty, or Herman Cain) been putting up such a strong fight? Why has Newt disappeared from view (but is still ahead by 10 points in Georgia?) Why has Ron Paul NOT attacked Willard Mitt Romney in the debates? Why HAS Santorum been attacking Willard Mitt Romney in the debates? Why was Santorum the ONLY ONE to attack Willard Mitt Romney on Romneycare in the debates? There are very good, very specific reasons for these things, and if you think about this pragmatically for just 5 minutes, all will be clear to you without me explaining it.