Magox

That´s it, he´s a proven winner. You cannot rationally argue with the facts, he was one of the best in the business when he was with Bain Capital, the incredible job he did with the Salt Lake city Olympics and his fiscal record in blue state Mass. Lets be real here, he is much more qualified to be president than the one who is in there now.

These lemmings dont see it that way. I am all for corporate lobbying as long as their is still lobbying for unions. Of course they don´t see how Union wages and benefits have placed states and local governments on the verge of bankrupcty and have indeed caused local and state taxes to go up virtually almost everywhere in the U.S causing us the taxpayers to foot the bill. No, but its ok, its always corporate greed that is at fault, never the ones they support. Conservatives are for the private sector, and libs for big government, of course I´m over generalizing but thats pretty much what it boils down to in regards to who our representatives are bought off from. So you get more corporate lobbying from the side of the conservatives and more union lobbying for the libs. If you want to get money out of politics, you do it across the board. No union or corporate lobbying. Also this notion of taking money out of politics is being corrupted because of Corporate money is ridiculous and hypocritical. Here are some more fun facts about money and politics. You can verify those numbers in a number of different sources, and it doesnt just go back to these past elections, it goes way back. So i don´t wanna hear you lemmings mention the influence of corporate money in politics without prefacing it with the even more disgusting amount of money that unions use, and in many cases against the will of their members, which makes it even more appalling.

It was actually intended to be an insult at the OP, because you know he doesn´t like black people, but your partisan instincts assumed I was defending Haley Barbour. You see Buftex, do you get it now? do you? Ok

Did I just read Baltimore say something about Conservatives allowing drug companies to make more money? Guess you must have been absent during the health insurance debate of 09/10 http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/03/22/us-usa-healthcare-industry-factbox-idUSTRE62K1IV20100322 Enough of the ¨Pious Bologna¨ the fact of the matter is in order for our ¨Agent of change promising of hope and transforming how Washington works high esteemed¨ president to get through his Awful health insurance bill, he cut a deal with the drugmakers to not oppose the bill and recieve advertising funds to fight FOR it. In exchange, they got all these benefits. If he really cared about lowering costs, he would of allowed Imported drugs to come from Canada, but he didnt. So enough of the bull ****.

I think you been reading too much Maureen Dowd But funny enough, that is how it will be portrayed

If the exit polls coming out of New Hampshire is a harbinger of things to come, then it bodes really well for Romney, considering that out of all the evangelicals, he won that group, even more so than Gingrich and Santorum. But when they see the Obama machine and surrogates come out with all their hollow attacks that fool all the suckers such as Lybob, PastaJoe, David N. etc, this will anger those evangelicals so much that they will go out to vote not so much because they like Romney, but because they hate everything Obama and the libs stand for. All Romney needs is a solid VP choice and he has this race locked up.

Take off your partisan glasses for a sec Buftex, I know you can do it. Come on, just give it a try. The fact is, I don´t give a shid about this topic, hence the yawn.

Of course, you totally missed the whole point of what I was saying. But thanks for playing youtube boy

I love it!

*yawn*

Try creating an original thought, it´s kinda cool, really.

Dante, you were asking what sort of people fall for this line of crap? Here you go, Pasta Joe, king of the lemmings.

The Tea Party definitely don´t like Mitt, but they hate Obama more than they dislike Mitt and that trumps everything.

I didn´t say it was ok, I said it was cheesy. In other words, without taste. And as to your last comment, Mitt will defend outsourcing? ok, if you wanna get ridiculous, then Obama will defend Socialism.

That´s ok, it´s the line of attack that I question. What sort of conservative criticizes one for effectively and successfully implementing the free market system? Firings have to happen in some circumstances, if you read the WSJ findings, most of the businesses they took over were on the verge of failing, and he turned most of those companies around. That´s what is in question here.

That ad by Romneys Pac was cheesy. But if you noticed, I stated that Romneys ¨firing¨ comment was a gaffe, simply because the optics allow it to be, even though it was taken out of context. But you are missing the whole point of my post, it wasn´t that they took what he said out of context it was the actual content of the attack In other words, what I´m saying is that they are attacking his capitalist credentials and tremendous success he had and painting him as some sort of ¨corporate raider¨ . That´s not what wise ¨conservatives¨ would do, it wreaks of desperation, and at the end of the day will hurt those ¨conservatives¨ that choose those line of attacks. Now for the liberal lemmings, you guys will eat that **** up, because thats your type of red meat, much like abolishing EPA, education system is fodder for the right.

Hell No! Newt is too easy to pick apart, just like Sarah but only different. 1) Marco Rubio 2) Jeb Bush (never gonna happen) 3) Chris Christie 4) Susana Martinez 5) Nikki Haley Thats who his choices should be in that order Anyone one of those five, he most likely wins with over 60% chance at winning Of course it is. Lemmings are plentiful. It´s gonna be about who gets their message out more effectively. Havent you heard how these occupy morons interrupt these GOP stump stops parroting what the DNC or other political ads spew? same ****. So yeah, its gonna be a messaging war, and the only shot Obama has in winning this election is by going negative, he has very very little to run on that is positive. So its gonna get ugly, if Romney doesn´t do a good enough job of winning the message war, he´ll be caste as a much worse villain than Bush ever was. It wasn´t Sarah who endorsed him it was her husband Todd.

Obama is moving back more to the left, they realized that his shift to the middle since the midterms of 2010 didn´t move the needle whatsover with independents, so their strategy is simple. Shore up the kooky left with the move to the left and spend a record amount of money on negative ads against Mit Romney in the general elections and paint him as the greedy, ¨callous, insensitive¨ Wall street dude and hope that, that gains enough traction to win just enough independents to win the general election.

This will be the number one attack issue, independents wont give two ***** about romneycare, it will all be about the occupy wallstreet theme of greed, and Romney is the perfect villain for that role. So as Romney says, this will be a battle for America´s soul, capitalism vs democratic social justice policies. It will be up to Romney to explain to the independents that capitalism in its entirety is a net plus for our economy and that Obama has failed miserably when it comes to reviving the economy. I don´t care how you slice it and dice it, if the workforce was the same size that it was in 2008, the unemployment rate today would be at 10.9% And that is a failure.

It´s going to be up to Romney to make this logical argument in a way that most independents will be able to understand.. And everything I have seen out of Romney makes me believe that he can. Having said that, I´m listening to some of these extreme right wing kooks, and the disdain they have for Romney. I just hope they decide to go out and vote for Romney in the general elections, my guess is that they will, but damn their dislike for Romney is evident, and it wouldnt surprise me that more than what I anticipate decide not to participate in the elections. But again, I´m guessing their hatred for Obama will trump their dislike for Romney enough to go out and vote.

How pathetic does the REST of the GOP field sound, when criticizing Romney for his ¨¨firing¨¨ people comment? They sound like a bunch of liberals. Thats what you want in a president, someone who is going to make the cuts necessary to make the system flow more efficienty and guide us to a direction where demand dictates jobs. Plain and simple

I read a charles lane WAPO article talking about this subject morning. That panel has concluded The latest authoritative warning came last week from the California High-Speed Rail Peer Review Group, which called the program “an immense financial risk” for the state and refused to recommend that the state legislature sell $2.7 billion in bonds to start a 130-mile initial stretch of the system. Yet the president said Yet So, we all know that there were many red flags with Solyndra and now with this highspeed rail, and they are gonna simply ignore it. Why? well we talked about this many times here before, the president is an idealogue, idealogy trumps logic. He wants green energy and high speed rails so badly that they ignore all the warnings. If Obama was a venture capitalist, and was heading Bain Capital, they would of folded in the first 6 months.

No, the CRA was designed as just another ¨social justice¨¨ program that helped lead to financial disaster. And in regards to your comment regarding not forcing banks to lend money, thats bull ****, everyone knows that there would be blowback for those banks that didn´t comply, and it was only further reinforced in 99. Your link has absolutely 100% nada to do with what we are talkin about. Many causes are what led us to the financial shitstorm, but Youtube boy´s link is a strawman which at most played a .00001% role in the crisis. Yes, government housing policy wasn´t the sole factor, mortgage underwriters, failure of the ratings agencies, banks incessant desire to make money off of anything that moves with their insane exotic Las Vegas style betting mechanisms, low interest rate policies, repeal of GS, explosion of funds made available in mortgage bonds, greed greed greed. A number of reasons, but CRA is at the heart of the problem, because anyone who has the understanding of what transpired and has the ability to deduce the unfolding of the events understands that you have to look at the core of the problem, which was housing demand. This is a bubble that had been forming for many many years, sure it didn´t translate in prices, but the demand in homes was building up relative to housing affordability. So when the **** hit the fan, all those years of unsustainable demand, fueled by government housing policies unraveled.

Of course it was a gaffe on his part, simply because the optics of that comment fit right in with the caricature they will try to portray him as, which is the evil wall streeter who got rich off of the miseries of others. Having said that, the statement was taken totally out of context. http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/01/mitt-drops-the-fbomb-110153.html

we´re arguing two different things here. I was talking about gasoline, you are talking about natural gas, and yes I agree that there are many jobs to be had in the energy sector, and even more so if the EPA slows down their incessant desire to block these projects. I didn´t say that I didn´t support social safety nets such as unemployment benefits, just that they have to reform them. I can unequivically say without a doubt that the social safety nets that we have in place today, without reform is leading us into a permanent high unemployment society that will continue to rely on government handouts. We gotta address this issue. We would be wise to look back at some of the German unemployment reforms, that initially outraged their more liberal members of Bundestag, but at the end of the day produced great results that today, no one can deny. Think about this for a second, the work force has shrunk so dramatically from where it was three years ago, if you had the same work force we did back in 2008, the unemployment rate wouldn´t be 8.5% it would be 10.9% This is very very troubling. This means that people have given up or that they simply decided to suck off the tit of the American people. One of the two, thats is. Not good.