Ann Coulter defended the Republicans' choice of presidential candidate in her commentary "Romney Was Not The Problem." Of course Romney was the problem and the reason the Republicans lost. Obama got less votes than McCain in 2008; only a pathetically bad candidate could actually lose to an incumbent President who inspires so little support. Coulter says the idea that Romney was "a weak, moderate candidate" is "preposterous." Actually Romney is the problem, and so are commentators like Ann Coulter who justify and promote such weak, moderate candidates.
Coulter made a bizarre argument to justify Romney's candidacy: Reagan didn't have a "bold contrasting vision" either, and you conservatives supported him against Carter, thus you should have supported Romney against Obama even if he wasn't a whole lot different. She also pointed out that Romney may have been a liberal governor, but so was Reagan as governor of California when he "signed the most liberal abortion law in the country and imposed the three largest state tax hikes in the nation's history." This is a terrible argument to make to conservatives who are supposed to want a candidate who is actually different from the Welfare State Democrats.
Coulter proclaimed, "If Republicans continue to tell themselves comforting myths about our candidate being the problem, they better get used to losing a lot more elections." The opposite is true: If Republicans continue failing to differentiate themselves even from the likes of Obama, their party will die.
Image Source: Anthony Catalano
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 421
The problem is a failed ideology promoted through hate, fear and rage by liars, charlatans and fools, uninspiring and unlikeable bottom of the barrel low-brows who are following the dictum of a dead sociopath and her tawdry novels.
Hate, fear, rage, liars, charlatans, fools, uninspiring, unlikeable, bottom of the barrel, low brow, sociopath, tawdry, not bad for one sentence.
Thinks he's describing someone besides himself too, the cutie.
"low-brows"
-duh
BTW:. Larry, I am a non-drinker and have been for nearly 25 years. And, no, I am not an alcoholic in recovery. My choice not to drink was a religious one.
You fell for the a new age religion I see. That's much worst than wine.
I believe all faiths are true, as expressed in their core teaching known in the Judeo-Christian heritage as the Golden Rule: to love others as yourself.
That's classic New Age man made religion. New Age religion has no hope. Seek Jesus Christ my friend.
Golden Rule: to love others as yourself.
If I didn't love you, I wouldn't be trying to point you in the right direction
But, but, but, Larry loves you
A perfect example and the living definition of sanctimony and self-righteousness.
Also a common refrain of abusers--"I'm only doing this for your own good."
Why don't you go first, you can let us know about it. You and Harry Houdini.
The problem I have is that Romney had the best resume of any candidate to be president in my lifetime. His accomplishments. His success. When Ann was pregnant with his 4th child many questioned him, especially since he was spending so much time volunteering as a bishop for his church. He was always a doer, not a complainer. Never, ever pointed fingers or blamed others when facing adversity. He is an American success story.
We are in an age when those who complain and point fingers are seen as leaders. It won't be a long lived age because Romney's tenancy to be embarrassed about his success was his downfall. People like strength. Obama was strong in his belief that those at the bottom supersede those at the top. That was the only argument he had to make, other than the guy he was running against was going to put blacks back in chains, throw grandparents off cliffs, let children starve to death, ship ever job to China, impregnate women, lock them in kitchens and take away their shoes, etc, etc, etc... Convince 51% of the country that the other guy is out to get you and you win. That's what Obama did.
Truth. Of the last two candidates of the big two, at least. He would have done the job.
You're right. The most accomplished bitcher won. And a sweet trick it was, since all there was to bitch about was his own performance.
Two lousy campaigns, Romney didn't have Clinton to push him over the top.
Statist vs statist. The People picked the one with conviction. All are punished.
As far as your jealousy and envy of Romney, I can't help you with your character flaw.
It's funny, Rory has boasted over the strength of Canada's economy before and how it's doing far better than America. The major difference? Canada's governed by right wingers. Hmm....
R.F. I have to agree with you Romney did lose. Bad campaign. He isn't a loser he just isn't a pure politician like Obama.
Little bunnyman, Canada's economy is not strong because of the right wingers leading it, quite the contrary. Canada did not suffer as much as the US and Europe in the Global Financial Collapse of 2008 (you know, the Bush collapse?) because our previous Liberal government under Paul Martin and Jean Chretien would not allow Canadian banks to merge with larger US banks and get into the riverboat gambling they were engaged in (Harper was in opposition at the time and opposed the government's decision).
After the 2008 collapse (the Bush collapse, don't forget) Harper -- who was Prime Minister but in a minority parliament where his power was limited and the influence of opposition parties enhanced -- almost saw his then newly elected government fall over some changes to electoral financing rules and his rosier than real economic forecast which claimed Canada would not go into recession nor run a deficit.
A few months later Canada was in recession (though shorter and shallower than the American one) and Harper ended up running up the largest single year deficit in all of Canadian history. The opposition forced him to bring in a stimulus package that helped shorten our recession, upgrade Canadian infrastructure, keep our workers working and show the power of involved government to improve people's lives. (I personally spent almost half a million of those dollars on capital projects to the public housing community I manage, employing dozens of trades people and giving business to several local businesses and suppliers, preserving the viability of our housing stock for decades to come. It was a great program, but sure wasn't Harper's idea!)
Romney is not a whiner??? Are you people nuts?
The answer to those questions is pretty clear.
"This is hard!" Ann Romney
"Forty-seven percent will vote for Obama no matter what." Mitt Romney
"Women and minorities wanted gifts." Mitt Romney
"There were too many debates." Mitt Romney
"I'm not finished speaking." (in the debates) Mitt Romney
Way to take that personal responsibility he's always talking about. But that only applies to others. He's not like other people, he really feels pain.
There actually were hearings about the potential financial collapse starting with the big bank lending policies guaranteed by GSEs like Fannie Mae. Regulators actually found accounting flaws and suggested reforms. A home loan bank regulator with more powers was suggested but it never got out of committee because certain politicians didn't see a problem with the housing market or the lending practices that caused the financial collapse in 2008. You can blame Bush because he was the president but it takes congress to pass laws and reforms. Politicians in congress blocked reforms. Guess who hated regulation and blocked reforms? Republicans right? They deregulated everything right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyqYY72PeRM
Wrong again Rory.
Actually the democrat leading senate never ONCE produced a bill. So your claims that fiscal programs were blocked is pure Bull-$hit R.F. Try telling the truth for once. You call others hypocrite while spreading crap like that around?
Yeah I know you are just repeated what you were told and probably think it was true but do some research. If a fiscal budget bill was produced and the senate committee blocked it from a vote or it was filibustered by republicans you would have a point but that NEVER happened. Show me when that happened R.F. (crickets chirping) Just like the CSPAN video I produce of democrats blocking efforts from regulators that were trying to warn of and prevent an enterprise failure among the home loan banks, you just say republicans deregulated the banks. Pure B.S. R.F. Just like Rory. who says Bush policies crashed the home loan banks and that Canadian liberals blocked attempts to engage in risky mortgage practicing that America was. Guess what? Canadian P.M. Paul Martin did stop that from happening. In 1998! Bush wasn't in congress, let along President at the time bank policies were changing. Clinton was president!
"""Canada did not suffer as much as the US and Europe in the Global Financial Collapse of 2008 (you know, the Bush collapse?) because our previous Liberal government under Paul Martin and Jean Chretien would not allow Canadian banks to merge with larger US banks and get into the riverboat gambling they were engaged in"""
You guys just lie flat out. It's like diarrhea of the mouth with you guys. Pure straight up B.S. I produce videos of actual democrats blocking regulators from doing their job and you just say republican deregulation caused the collapse. You have no credibility. You are just a lying hack.
Rush Limbaugh has been saying that for 20 years, I ripped it off from him and used it many times over the past 6 years here on Gather. so don't pretend to hold a patent on it.
"" Republicans and Democrats were to blame for the collapse.""
You score mega points for intellectual honesty on that one. However, I don't have a problem with lending practices that are now called predatory. The standards were just lowered too much through social experiments on the theory that everybody could be responsible if given a chance. Democrats and republicans were all taking credit for the policies that lead to record home ownership. They all instantly suffered from amnesia when the markets collapsed because of those very policies and started blaming others.
adj.
1. Of or relating to government expenditures, revenues, and debt:
2. Of or relating to finance or finances.
Nothing about jobs there.
R.F., Obama signed the largest jobs program in American history early in his first term. He then signed a tax cut extension into taw in 2010, BEFORE the TEA party booted your guys out of office. They then haggled on budget deals that lead to an agreement that is now leading up to what the media calls "the fiscal cliff".
Tell me what "jobs" bill was blocked, filibustered, stalled, or voted on, that failed. Try being honest this time.
Second Coming, I actually used one of the predatory lending practices to get my house. It was an interest only loan for 3 years at 6%. I didn't have enough money to afford the regular loan payments because my credit rating was low, due to the fact that I didn't have a lot of credit history and my credit cards had high balances, so I had three years to improve my rating and pay down my credit cards and then be subject to the going interest rates 3 years later. Interest rates actually came down if you held your end of the bargain and improved your credit. I am now at 3.5%, just refinanced last summer, and I feel so blessed that I got the opportunity because this house is my dream home and it never would have been possible if it weren't for a predatory loan.
Obviously the recession and job loss played a large roll in the foreclosure rate but other major reasons for the foreclosure rate, at such a large scale, were lack of discipline among those with a mortgage that couldn't get their budgets in order and people who didn't want to continue to pay for a mortgage that was 30 to 50% higher than the current market value after the equity crash. I think it's bad for the country to completely let those who squelched on their financial obligations off the hook and just blame banks.
The problem is that if somebody can afford to make payments but doesn't like an underwater mortgage and they just walk away from their commitment, who do you think they are going to vote for? The guy who said you were irresponsible and liable for your debt or the guy that says your were a victim of greedy banks?
Harry Reid never even put them up for a vote. If he did you would have a case but the problem was that Harry couldn't even get enough democrats to support that second stimulus because they were up for election and were afraid that Americans didn't want another boondoggle. It was NEVER introduced so the bill wasn't blocked. Nice try. The republicans actually did put up Obama's budget bill and it didn't receive a single vote. Democrats spun the no votes by accusing republicans of tweaking Obama's actual bill and they challenged them to point out the modifications. They said they would fix anything they claimed was modified from Obama's original bill. No democrat took that challenge.
Also, Americans don't want to bail out states and municipalities that can't keep a budget. We don't want to fire teachers and firefighters but the state has to get their finances in order like Wisconsin did. Scott Walker was able to balance the budget. Why should we spend federal money just to keep union power in tact?
Second Coming, There were a lot of loan officers pushing extremely risky loans just to sell off to the big banks and cash in on the closing costs I agree. I am not giving Wall Street banks a pass, I am just saying there is a lot of blame to go around.
The Veterans jobs bill was blocked but I agreed with the reasoning at the time since there were already 6 active veterans jobs bills and no oversight on results plus there was spending violations in the bill that made it illegal with the Statutory pay As You Go Act passed by congress and signed by Obama just a couple years ago.. There was a move by moderates compromise and make it legal but it was shot down instantly by the hardliners on both sides.
Protect American Jobs from the Threat of New, Onerous Regulations:
â– 1.4 Million Jobs: In April, the House passed the Energy Tax Prevention Act (H.R. 910) to prevent the Administration from imposing a backdoor national energy tax that will drive up gasoline prices and put as many as 1.4 million American jobs at risk, according to the House Energy & Commerce Committee.
â– “At Least 100,000 to 200,000 Jobs”: The House passed a resolution (H.J.Res. 37) prohibiting the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from pursuing a government takeover of the Internet that a New York Law School Advanced Communications Law & Policy Institute study says would have “devastating impacts,” costing the U.S. economy “at least 100,000 to 200,000 jobs per year over the next five years.”
â– 1,000 South Carolina Jobs: The Protecting Jobs From Government Interference Act (H.R. 2587), passed by the House last month, will help rein in unaccountable National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) bureaucrats that are attempting to stop Boeing from creating what the company says would be 1,000 new jobs in South Carolina. The bill will not only protect jobs in South Carolina, but will also prevent the NLRB from dictating where companies can or cannot create jobs in the United States – a policy that would have a “chilling effect on job creation.”
â– More Than 15,000 Jobs: In a letter to the White House last month, Reps. Steve Chabot (R-OH) and Geoff Davis (R-KY) urged President Obama to support the Cement Sector Regulatory Relief Act (H.R 2681) to stop excessive regulations on the cement industry that the Energy & Commerce Committee says could force up to 20 percent of the nation’s plants to shut down. In the letter, Reps. Davis and Chabot cited a study conducted by experts at Southern Methodist University that found that: “[S]hould 10 percent of the domestic industry disappear, the direct, indirect and induced job losses would exceed 15,000. And this figure doesn’t include possible job losses in the huge construction sector that might occur in the face of higher concrete prices.”
â– 224,000 Jobs: Last week, the House passed legislation (H.R. 2250) that would stop burdensome new regulations impacting thousands of job creators that use boilers – including hospitals, factories, and even colleges. These regulations would impose billions of dollars in new costs and put 224,000 jobs at risk, according to the Council of Industrial Boiler Owners.
â– “As Many As 316,000 Jobs”: The bipartisan, House-passed Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act stops excessive regulations on energy producers and gives states the power to implement regulations for coal ash that balance the need to protect both jobs and the environment. According to the National Association of Manufacturers, the bill will protect “as many as 316,000 jobs.”
Remove Barriers to American Energy Production to Help Lower Gas Prices & Create Jobs:
â– 250,000 New Jobs in the Short-Term, 1.2 Million New Jobs in the Long-Term: The House passed a series of American Energy Initiative bills (H.R. 1229, H.R. 1230, H.R. 1231) that will roll back the Obama Administration’s de facto moratorium on American energy production that has already cost the economy thousands of jobs. Louisiana State University professor Dr. Joseph Mason estimates that these bills could create 250,000 jobs in the short-term and 1.2 million jobs in the long-term.
â– 54,000 New Jobs: The Jobs and Energy Permitting Act (H.R. 2021) will end permitting delays in Alaska and other areas to boost offshore energy production, help lower gas prices and create an estimated 54,000 jobs, according to a Northern Economics research study.
â– More Than 20,000 New Jobs: The North-American Made Energy Security Act requires the Obama Administration to make a determination by November on whether or not it will allow the Keystone XL pipeline expansion to move forward. According to the Energy & Commerce committee, “the pipeline expansion project is estimated to directly create 20,000 jobs for its construction and many thousands more related to the effort.”
Actually, what's uncalled for is sticking up for someone after they've made a statement like that by chastising the one person that called him out for it.
Racism...racist......RACIST!
...as you overlooked the comment that drew said criticism.
"... we got out bred by the moochers and deadbeats on one front and on the o her front, we let ourselves get invaded by deadbeats from all over the world."
Renee Nal Nov 24, 2012, 12:30am EST
Hey Rory - I know this is not my post, but that is totally uncalled for.
Really? Really? Another example of why I don't read or comment on your posts.
At the very least Romney would have done the job he was hired to do. Obama seems to be doing everything but.
I do part company somewhat with the rest of what you said ... we are not yet outnumbered by illegals and the small number of immigrants who vote for the exact kind of government they came to the US to avoid.
We ... meaning Romney, were outvoted not because US citizens approved of or agreed more with Obama. Nor were Obama's numbers more than we could have overcome (he garnered over 7 million less than he did in 2008); Romney and this country gained more prgressivism for the next four years because many Conservatives et al. fell for the Obama attack-line and/or either stayed home, wrote someone else in or actually voted some third party or other (something we just could not afford this time around).
No one should ever say again that their votes don't count. This time they certainly did; it's just that they counted for Obama. Fault? No... just seems to be factual.
Spirit of 1966 Nov 23, 2012, 10:45pm EST
Maybe Romney wasn't the best, I don't know although I think he would have have been good if given a chance. I said this a lot but in reality, we got out bred by the moochers and deadbeats on one front and on the o her front, we let ourselves get invaded by deadbeats from all over the world.
Which now seems to be the norm, judging from the poor participation in the comments section of her last few posts. Apparently, people are driven away when their substantive comments get deleted. Who'd a thunk it?
Sorry to confuse you Tony,
You and your ilk turn over every stone in your looking for racism, you even find racism where it does NOT exist.
Spirit posted no racist remarks.
Maybe Romney wasn't the best, I don't know although I think he would have have been good if given a chance. I said this a lot but in reality, we got out bred by the moochers and deadbeats on one front and on the o her front, we let ourselves get invaded by deadbeats from all over the world."
Canada,
Where is the racism in that comment?
My comments page has many examples.
You didn't confuse me - I spotted your nonsense straight away.
"You and your ilk turn over every stone in your looking for racism, you even find racism where it does NOT exist.
Spirit posted no racist remarks."
I disagree.
"...we got out bred by the moochers and deadbeats on one front and on the o her front, we let ourselves get invaded by deadbeats from all over the world."
Where is the racism in that comment?
So you're saying Spirit is talking about American WASPs here? You're saying there is no coded language meaning minorities, blacks, Latinos, Mexicans here.
Huh, I hadn't thought you were quite that naive. Good to know.
I am a racist, I don't like White Statists or Statists of any color. No point in convincing them, so why should I? We need somebody like a Dr. House from "House," a "jerkass" that is not afraid to tell the truth and will not backdown and apologize.
Seriously, Obama earned our bike, some say, he stole our bike, well, I assume the latter but hey, it is their turn, things are going to Hell and will continue to do so, crap, I wonder if we are too far gone where Romney could not help us. Maybe in a way, it was better that Obama and his minions have won, if we collapse, I'd rather have it go off under someone like him and his supporters, as R. Lee Ermey eluded to in "Full Metal Jacket" (BTW, I'm a Stanley Kubrick movie junkie), "the more it hurts, the more they will learn." I'm a believer in tough love.
If compassion was gasoline, I'm like a 1968 Mercury Park Lane with a quarter tank of gas and payday is a long time away. Time to knuckle down and get tough. We need to find some jerkass who is not afraid to pull any punches and dish it out in 2016.
So even though Spirit didn't actually post anything racist.....You read his mind and know what he really meant?
Thanks for elaborating on how you find racism where it does not exist......You make it up!
P.S.
Referencing the President's playing golf (like some of your prog brethren have suggested) isn't racist either.
By your "logic" all the witnesses at murder trials must be murderers, since they are accusing others of murder.
But sane people attribute racism to those who exhibit it, not to those who expose it.
So, go ahead, presume whatever you like. I could not possibly care any less than I care right now.
No, that's not Graham's logic at all, but your "logic," and it's what seems to be the problem. Graham never said anything about people who actually witness racism being racists. He's talking about one person, namely Rory, who hasn't witnessed anything of the kind but continues to fabricate something that doesn't exist in the minds of others. So because he knows it doesn't exist in the minds of those whom you are accusing, he's asking a legitimate question. Since racism is the only point of reference from which you see many issues, and probably any issue that involves non-whites, it's in your head and not witnessed in those whom you accuse so he naturally wonders whether you might be a racist or not.
This isn't the first time I've seen your accusations like this. Everything seems to be reduced to race with you whenever there's a person of color involved. How can you possibly blame anyone for wondering what Graham does?
This is clearly a shot at minorities, ie, non-whites. To suggest anything else would be completely disingenuous. Rory got it right by calling out this distasteful comment and anyone sticking up for 666 (or whatever he's calling himself) is in the same hateful boat.
Rory compared the deadbeats comment to what people in a courtroom testifying to real evidence of murder would use to call someone a murderer. If calling people deadbeats in Rory's mind means only people who are of color are deadbeats, that is in his head and no one else's here (in no one's head you would label a connie, at least) as far as I see it without a barrel of imagination. Of course, look at with whom I'm wasting my time here. "This is the first picture of Coulter that I've seen in which she looks like a woman."
Here's a guy who thinks that this is the first time Ann Coulter looks like a woman. Why? Is it because she shows sagging boobs and is wearing matronly eyeglasses? Is that your definition of what a woman is supposed to look like? Don't you ever let me see you comment about women's rights; not with that skewed perception of what a woman is supposed to look like. These people who are so concerned about racism and sexism are the ones I'd least want in my corner as a woman and if I were of color I'd run away as fast as possible.
I am not addressing anything you've said there except what you quoted of mine as promised. We don't even agree on what does and doesn't constitute a discussion. And that's part of why even the thoughts of having a discussion with you if that were even possible disgust me to uncontrollably puking all over you.
Don't you love it when they try to be sarcastic and condescending and only make themselves look infantile and petulant.
Always makes me smile.
And I love RF's girlie sign off. he might just as well say "Talk to the hand cuz the face ain't listening." Surprisingly I never had him down for a fourteen year old airhead blonde.
The Glasses, though somewhat "Trendy" and fetching in an odd sort of way, certainly could be seen as 'Matronly;' and that's certainly not Chopped Liver she's got in that shirtful of Body. Therefore, you and I come to the same conclusion: there is nothing in that photo that presents Ann any differently than she has otherwise presented herself before. A Woman.
I'm with you; those who claim to combat "sexism" and "racism," yet make comments like that, are full of something...and it isn't what Coulters shirt is full of.
Get 'em (those hypocrites) away from me....
I'm always shocked by that thought, as well, Sue.
Oh well, one day he might get enough gather points to buy a snip and tuck operation and finally become the person he always wanted to be.
And if I am truthful and as we are now on the subject until a few months ago I was convinced that R.F was a lady that's why I was probably so respectful to him-her.
Funny you also had the same impression about his gender for a long time. Using only initials doesn't help either.
Forgive me to say, but I know Women pretty well, Sue. Unless they're desperately repulsed by their admirer, Women love nothing more than to be appreciated for their 'Charms'...;]
Make of that what you will.
Graham, Mark-John, Ian and fellow "connies," it appears that he's even hearing our voices now. I know I've never spoken to him. Have you?
Hey guys while you're here, you might want to check out these so "menacing" looking photos of Ann Coulter.
Thank You for the photo's, Sue. I've not seen most of these.
Hmmmn...5'5", 123 lb.'s, large-breasted, somewhat attractive, largely seductive, beautiful Hair, wears a short skirt as well as anyone, knows what she thinks and says what she knows, Conservative.
Yesss...I can see why limp-wristed Leftist "males" are absolutely horrified by her...
And, YES...she does look like a Woman. And, a somewhat fetching one, at that. While most of those photo's were an attempt to show her in the worst possible light, as you've said, I suspect they will be forced to endeavour to re-double their efforts...
Those fools and lovers of charging "sexism"...if there is something they cannot abide, it is a Conservative Woman. And, when she's a well-built and Sexy Woman, it nearly makes their Heads pop from their Shoulders...
Thanks, Sue. You, as well.
("Is that the first thing you notice, boobs?... No. It appears to be your definition since you noticed it [boobs] and I didn't.")
Mark-John, imagine if boobs could blog....hmmm... wait a minute now, somehow I think they've evolved.
I've already expressed to you what I think of this nonsense of crying sexism. The men who cry the loudest about it are the most sexist from my experience. It was never equal money or opportunity that was the problem, but more the problem of raising a child alone, not often having the same vacations and days off that made being a woman in the work force more difficult. I don't know what they've done about that since it was my problem, but I don't see much discussion about that since the problem seems to have been been solved their cookie-cutter way with kids spending most of their lives in daycares with others raising them. The whole country's basic mechanism is based on a factory philosophy now. They come out of college like trained seals so what do you expect?
It's impossible to argue with their warped logic of course, the best we can do is help them show they are certifiably insane.
RF & TS, get back on the meds guys, or at least give up the recreational drugs.
Mark-John, imagine if boobs could blog....hmmm... wait a minute now, somehow I think they've evolved.
I think you are onto something here, there are a couple of boring little tits posting comments in this thread.
Like Graham and yourself, I'll give up my nuts for no-one; leastwise not to lying, limp-wristed Leftists who think that the false accusation of "sexism," like that of "racism," will be used to effect.
It won't.
I can commiserate with your difficulties as a Single Mother. I'll wager that it was tough. But that is something Leftists love, and promote, today...because they love the thought of 'raising the Children'...to become good little Leftists. Hitler Youth comes to mind. I hear that they want our own from the age of 2, now. A lot of damage can be done between the ages of 2, and Graduate School.
It looks as though it's working...
Hmmmn...blogging Boobs. Let me give that some more thought.
But in your story the thing that makes you not a tit is that you felt like what it is to be one because you realized what you'd done. The tits here would never admit to that story, not even to themselves. No, they'd instead insist that they were correct and offer a solution. Why don't you take your vacation someplace else and have your mother visit you where you live instead? They'd use something like that or some such other variation of what they consider would be appropriate for you. (someone else) So in their minds they're geniuses who've solved yet another unsolvable problem. hahahahah
which, in their cases it's probably not their fault because they're incapable of veering off their single-tracked
R. F. Nov 27, 2012, 9:21am EST
"He is an idiot, isn't he."
There was nothing said about that personal attack at all, but someone speaks truth in generalities, not at all referring to anyone personally, responding to a real story that happened, and suddenly it's an attack party. No,"to have fun at other's [sic] expense," is not the thrust here, but you can interpret whatever makes you think you're the good guys and we're the bad guys if that's your major pleasure. We like to see you happy, don't we, Ian?
The phrase you were grasping for was "look who's talking".
"Something that really is a personal attack on another individual gets totally ignored."
And I always love the two wrongs make a right defense. That's not grade school at all.
No, there is no "two wrongs" defense here. If someone says, "Something really is something, and is comparing it to something else, it means that something else is not the same thing. So there is only one wrong here, and that wrong is the one I quoted.
Of course, responding to your inanity is just my own lunacy, I suppose, because I can't think of any reason any sane person would bother otherwise.
"No, there is no "two wrongs" defense here. If someone says, "Something really is something, and is comparing it to something else, it means that something else is not the same thing. So there is only one wrong here, and that wrong is the one I quoted."
I suppose that in your world of doublespeak, that actually made sense.
Correction, several people hiding behind a faux attempt at speaking in generalities, while actually specifically talking about people in this thread. You're not slick.
This time I was addressing you so it wasn't meant to be deep.
If you really want to do sarcasm, follow Ian around. Take a look at his Fawkes comment herein. That's what you call sarcasm, but no one got it because they're used to what you call sarcasm, "Wow. Deep." For people who really enjoy good sarcasm, you just have no idea how that attempt makes you appear since it had nothing to do with any attempt on my part to be deep. It was just a retort that you didn't know how to handle so you thought inserting what looks like sarcasm would work. Like I said, you only fool the fools.
Graham, the same thing I sent you in the e-mail response yesterday applies today. Respond to this by e-mail if you'd like. This page is slow to load now, and it's not worth the effort.
No thank you. As some here could undoubtedly testify, I am quite knowledgeable in that arena, and don't need to consider any of your unrequested advice. I will, however, reread your comment and chuckle once again at your melodramatic, drawn-out response to the two words I posted. It's called decaf - look into it.
Anytime, R.F. The pleasure is all mine. ;)
The problem is that the low-information voter does not consider the devastating policies of the administration, but they like to watch Obama on Letterman, the View, etc.
Romney would have been great. He was not perfect, but I do think he would have been a good president.
The only thing they really had on him was the fact that he is wealthy and he is a Mormon. And so, they just harped on it. Santorum was portrayed as a woman hating bible-thumper, I mean - anyone would have been beat up in the press. I will say I was frustrated by the fact that he did not call out Obama on the easy stuff. I mean....outsourcing (so easy to disprove)? Their records in Private vs. Public equity...? If Romney just pointed to Obama's conflicting statements......? But I get that Romney was working to tout his own record.... The RomneyCare thing was good, but they had to tread lightly on that one - they could not really criticize it, since they love that job-killing, death panel endorsing ObamaCare. ;-)
19minutes of flip flopping
It's simple juxtaposition Renee. You could do it with Obama but it would be a much shorter video. But what happened to squeaky clean?
waits 8 months
Not during the campaign.
They marginalise
Both sides did, beyond the excepted norm. Romney wasn't a conservative martyr, you all agreed, he was the best you had.
Plus, it's very telling how many top-tier Romney surrogates were throwing him under the bus after his loss. It's like they were relieved to be able to finally get off their chest how they really felt about the guy. Anyone thinking media spin had anything to do with Willard's downfall is either delusional, or so full of sour grapes that they still won't admit what a disappointing candidate he was to the republican party.
Report: Romney used to impersonate police officers
Do you honestly think a venture capitalist was the best candidate to run in spite of the GFC?
Sorry, it is getting a bit late - what is the GFC?
It should also be a felony to use a "charity" loophole for 15 years so you don't have to pay any taxes.
Progressive propagandist fabrication.
Maybe not squeaky clean...But hey look what you've brought!
"Report: Romney used to impersonate police officers"
Sheesh...Dog on roof, he cut some kids hair and he's got lots and lots of money.
Evil I tell ya!
Tony Stark fabricated that Progressive and propagandist lie is cogent and relevant as well as fact.
Oh, I guess you haven't heard, it really is true....
Romney Avoids Taxes [for 15 years] via Loophole Cutting Mormon Donations
"It should also be a felony to use a "charity" loophole for 15 years so you don't have to pay any taxes."
From referenced source,
" to defer taxes"
"de·fer/diˈfÉ™r/
Verb:
Put off (an action or event) to a later time; postpone."
Oh yah I forgot, flip flop.......Still not much.
Till death is a long time to postpone. That's why it's now illegal.
Well maybe you should show us what else "more" that you brought maks,
cause I didn't read anything else posted by you.
To your response,
obfuscation in light of you not being able to backup what you claim.
(Re-post for correction)
Well maybe you should show us what else "more" that you brought maks,
You had 2 goes at it and it still doesn't make sense Dan. My posts in this thread addressing the original point are there, yours that in fact attempt to obfuscate it , are noted.
It is also quite disingenuous...
Why don't you boys simply admit that your candidate was completely outclassed...which guaranteed him the Victory with Leftists, takers, and fools (a redundancy).
She's really quite good, isn't she, Maks?
..."the media" would be the leftist lamestream media. And we all know that a SUCCESSFUL CAPITALIST won't fly with any communist inspired media.
A successful Capitalist vs. a two-bit "community organiser"...no contest..
Agree. We should consider the level of success (ie, job building) by Bain versus the "public equity" failure of Green stimulus, As far as the Global Financial Crisis, Obama directly contributed to it in the first place, and his policies will make it worse, if we survive at all.
What we saw in Texas and on the news agrees with what you say, Renee. I agree with what you said. Sadly, O's record in 4 years is worse than Bush's was in 8... and yet we allowed him to be voted back in.
Renee again..., The problem was the mainstream media, who helped Obama and friends with the fake image of Romney as a felon, not paying his taxes, out of touch with people, a millionaire, etc. ... Romney would have been great. He was not perfect, but I do think he would have been a good president.
I agree with those points of view also ... especially with the fact that it was a fake image.
Romney was not perfect and was no angel ... none of us can claim that, especially not a politician; but he was the only official candidate offered up who even had a chance of defeating Obama's progressive and harmful agenda. He fought hard... we (the electorate) failed him (and ourselves in the bargain), not the other way around. +shrug+
I was just with a dear lady two nights ago (for Thanksgiving) when the conversation turned to politics. I saw first hand what we've all heard about ... Obamaregret. She was shocked at what she did not know about him before the election.
I don't think it was a matter of her not considering his policies, it was that she just had no idea about some of them - because the media for the most part is not doing its job ...
Lee Y. Nov 24, 2012, 11:50am EST
...because the media for the most part is not doing its job ...
Any factual analysis of the media's coverage of the election and politics shows that Republicans received just as much coverage as Democrats, if not more. The number one news network by viewership, Fox News, is a Republican Party/Tea Party mouthpiece. Talk Radio is dominated by conservative voices. The rest of the TV news networks have their own biases, but none is so blatantly in support of the Democrats or liberalism as Fox is of Republicans and conservativism. While the print media does have some out and out leftist publications, it also has some out and out right wing publications as well.
In this day and age of the Internet, there is no reason why anyone could not inform themselves of the policies, platforms and statements of any of the candidates. Even Jill Stein of the Green Party, who received no media coverage whatsoever, was only a click of a mouse away.
What conservatives do not want to face up to and acknowledge is the simple face that the majority of the voters saw very clearly what Obama and the Democrats stood for and just as clearly what Romney and the Republicans stood for, and they rejected Romney on that basis.
Anecdotal stories about the odd voter who voted first and informed themselves second are irrelevant.
...democrats stood for FREE STUFF without having to work for anything, and Romney stood for creating jobs which the freeloaders thought that they might actually have to go out and acquire.
Actually, not paying taxes for 15 years is worthy of absolute ridicule. It's about as un-American as it gets - that's why congress put a stop to it in 1997.
"Why don't you boys simply admit that your candidate was completely outclassed...which guaranteed him the Victory with Leftists, takers, and fools (a redundancy)."
Why? Because it's not true.
Agreed, no contest. Four more years. :)
Haahahaahahahaha!!!
Conservatives LAUGH...Fools and RINO'S eat this garbage up. Just as you'd have them to do. Try your twisted thinking and your B.S. elsewhere.
I try not to, Gorgeous.
She is nothing but a snake oil salesperson selling a bottle of whatever ails you. Those flat-earthers and believers line up ever time ready to drink another bottle of fear and loathing. That's right it's the best hustle in town. Just about anyone calling themselves a rabid right winger pundit can make millions off these imbecilic dimwitted morons.
lol
He'd have been a good Prez, we need a great one, we have a poor one. This will be a tough, tough few years.
He was no Conservative...but he would have been somewhat useful.
That makes establishment-types queasy...
Funny and sad.
Please do.
Bears repeating...ad infinitum.
Case rested. You may go.
We let the stupid vote along with the deadbeats and look where it got us.
We let the stupid vote along with the deadbeats and look where it got us. "
This sounds like the first steps along the road back to feudalism. Perhaps you should change the date to 1066?
Anyhoo, at present, we are headed towards a system where the serfs of 1066 had more rights than we do now and had less of their property confiscated by The Man. IIRC, 25% of what they made was taken, in many cases, more is taken today. We had more freedoms under King George III than we do now yet our Founding Fathers knew we were being abuse and revolted and rightly so.
The stupid and moochers should not be able to vote, period.
If you are a wealthy individual then you truly believe that you should be served by everyone who is not, as slaves. Which makes you scum in my books.
If you are not a wealthy individual then you have such low self esteem that you don't think you should have the freedom to speak freely and participate in decisions. You are a sycophant and a damaged person.
In either event the world you wish for is a nightmare. It is a world that used to exist, but we overcame it. You would drag us back into it. That I would fight to prevent.
Now go ahead and report me to Gather, I could not care less.
Are you the real Guido Fawkes.
i think you have a good point. Peple who receive benefits or work for the Government should not be allowed to vote, there is a conflict of interest that ought to disqualify them.
It eliminates all seniors, all veterans, all disabled as well as all the 4.3% of the population receiving welfare. It eliminates all police, soldiers, park rangers, judges, district attorneys and politicians along with all the other millions of civil servants. It eliminates all business owners who receive grants from government, which includes the oil industry. It eliminates everyone who drives on government built roads and bridges and eats food inspected by government inspectors and buys products that receive government certification. It eliminates all who drink water purified in government built and operated treatment plants.
How typically right wing. In trying to block the rights of all those you think might disagree with you, you would disenfranchise all those you label "takers" but miss the fact that everyone receives government service and, of course, discount all the ways in which you "take".
This illustrates well why I find the right wing so repulsive.
Programmer Testifies About Rigging Elections via Vote Counting Machines
It's all on you, boy. I told you months ago who was going to win what, and I was right. Had nuthin' to do with anything but obdurate Republican stupidity.
Go cry in your beer.
Sociopaths don't think ahead, disregard consequence.
If it happened, I doubt it was exclusive or decisive, with those margins.
You may not think a 3% difference in the vote is significant, and perhaps it wouldn't be if it applied only to the presidential contest... but it didn't. Democrats also had a 3% margin in the over-all house and senate races. In other words, Democrats won EVERYTHING except governorships by 3%. Gerrymandering saved your asses in Congress, but people move and population shifts. By the time the next two Senate cycles run, Democrats will own both houses. And if you can't come up with a sensible campaign based on the real needs of American citizens... you're done. TEA-Twits, TEA-Publicans and TEA-Vangelists alike will be outside looking in. You need to stop the stupid (promoting your religion and trying to beat down science) and concentrate on the economy and infrastructure of America.
Lol Oh listen to you preacher. You and your atheism religion.
The two most important things they got wrong by doing this, in reverse order of importance, are: 1) the meaning of their own faith, which they got backwards, and; 2) the meaning of religious freedom, which they also got backwards.
Christianity, the espoused religion of the majority of the conservative voter block in the USA, actually is antithetical to the majority of the conservative platform.
Religious freedom means being free to hold and practice, or not, any faith you choose... not the "freedom" to impose the dictates of your faith on others. That is the opposite of religious freedom.
And be like you? Relax Chuck, I'm here to help you.
Chuck Larlham Nov 24, 2012, 9:20pm EST
@Larry Crowne... Please don't try to help me. I don't want your ignorance anywhere near me.
You grumpy old fart.
Merry Christmas Chuck
Stop it.
A shill for the tobacco industry.
Gerrymandering certainly helps. In my state of NC. the representatives went from 7-6 Democrats in 2008 to 9-4 Republicans in 2012.
I'm not so sure with your assessment that the Democrats will win both houses of Congress in 2014 but a lot could happen before the next election. My guess would be lots of gridlock with a bit of compromise for the next two years. But in the I doubt either house will switch after the next election. The Republicans might pick up a seat or two in the Senate but I doubt they'll get enough to form the majority.
Ann Coulter is a vicious hate-filled propagandist and I don't know why anyone thinks anything she has to say is fact-based because once you peel away the vitriol there's nothing left to consider. Mind you, all politicians are like this to some extent but the ones who win elections are better at presenting strong positions without descending into personal attacks.
I can respect a strongly-held opinion (even if it is in total opposition to my own beliefs) but I don't listen to anyone spewing two-year old temper tantrums as 'truth'. Ann Coulter may well be the problem herself since she makes the Republicans look like daycare run amok.
"but the ones who win elections are better at presenting strong positions without descending into personal attacks."
...hmm, I must have missed that "winning" trait in Obama's campaign. Oh, unless more Americans like the idea of destroying America. Romnesia? Stealing from the rich? Free cell phones? Free birth control? Free free free. Yeah, I get that "strong position" now.
Also, Maher makes sense, Coulter does not. And he is likeable, even if abrasive a lot of the time. Coulter is simply repulsive in every way.
Lol........................ Now that's funny.
Out of respect for the weak minded, I will say no more.
You may not be interested in or agree with my opinion [previously given in one form or another] but here goes anyway...
According to the numbers I have at this moment in time, apparently the electorate was not very enamored of either candidate...
We ... meaning Romney, were outvoted not because US citizens approved of or agreed more with Obama.
Nor were Obama's numbers more than Conservatives could have overcome had they cared enough to vote for Romney... (Obama garnered over 7 million less than he did in 2008 - that's over 7 million disapproving, disenchanted, disgusted, or lazy people who simply could not be bothered to or would not come out to for him).
Romney and this country gained more prgressivism for the next four years because many Conservatives et al. fell for the Obama attack-line and/or either stayed home (having fallen for the line that their votes didn't count anyway), wrote someone else in or actually voted some third party or other (and more than any other time in history, this was something we just could not afford this time around).
No one should ever say again that their votes don't count. This time, with an incumbent whose record is the worst of any in recorded history, they certainly did; it's just that all the novotes, writeins and third party votes counted in Obama's favor. Whine? Fault? No... just seems to be factual.
Linda B. Nov 24, 2012, 11:10am EST
Why did Romney lose? The people didn't like what he was selling. (They might not have loved what Obama was selling but they liked Romney less than Obama).
Ann Coulter is a vicious hate-filled propagandist and I don't know why anyone thinks anything she has to say is fact-based because once you peel away the vitriol there's nothing left to consider. Mind you, all politicians are like this to some extent but the ones who win elections are better at presenting strong positions without descending into personal attacks.
I can respect a strongly-held opinion (even if it is in total opposition to my own beliefs) but I don't listen to anyone spewing two-year old temper tantrums as 'truth'. Ann Coulter may well be the problem herself since she makes the Republicans look like daycare run amok.
The percentage of eligible voters who turn out to vote is a big, complex issue with many contributing factors in it. It is not factual to say:. "it's just that all the novotes, writeins and third party votes counted in Obama's favor." This assumes that all those who did not vote, for whatever reason, would have voted for Romney if they'd bothered to vote. In all likelihood they would have been just as evenly divided as the rest of the nation.
It is even further from factual to say: "... an incumbent whose record is the worst of any in recorded history...". You don't have to dig very far back in history to disprove the statement, either. His immediate predecessor had a far worse record.
Speaking to Linda B. on why Romney lost, I said, "You may not be interested in or agree with my opinion [previously given in one form or another] but here goes anyway... Then I gave my opinion on the Romney loss.
And it was all my opinion until the paragraph in which I started talking about people's votes in general, in regard to which I combined two thoughts ... one another matter of opinion depending on one's perception of what constitutes good and what constitutes bad. The other a thought that has traditionally been considered a fact.
The 'opinion' part goes like this and can be found set apart by commas in one of my sentences:The part that has traditionally been thought of as fact goes like this:
Agreed.
Then you said, "It is not factual to say:. "it's just that all the novotes, writeins and third party votes counted in Obama's favor." This assumes that all those who did not vote, for whatever reason, would have voted for Romney if they'd bothered to vote. In all likelihood they would have been just as evenly divided as the rest of the nation.
Except at the time I said that, I was not speaking of all voters in general. I already eliminated many of the ones who wouldn't have voted for Romney in any case when I spoke of all those who actually did not vote for Obama this time around ie: The ones I was speaking of when I said that, were those Conservs, Repubs, and Libertarians who actually made the conscious decision to stay home (wasting their vote and making it easier for Obama to win even though he got over 7 million fewer votes than he did the first time around) ... thus, no matter who they would have chosen to vote for had they chosen to vote, their nonvote ... their absence ... counted in favor of Obama.
Or to put it another way, since they didn't choose for themselves, someone else chose for them -- meaning all those who *did* come out and vote chose the winner as well as the loser in the absence of those who chose to sit it out whether O would have been their choice or not.
Still not referring to all those who did not vote... Even though I forgot to go back and change the 'et.al.' to reflect it, I think the context given in the previous paragraph ......makes it somewhat clear that I was referring to Conservatives, Libertarians and Repubs who chose to write someone else other than Obama in or who actually voted for someone else other than Obama, who was never going to beat Obama.
...Also making it easier for Obama to win even though he garnered over 7 million fewer votes in this election than he did in 2008. Thus, all of their votes and writeins however principled or potentially fruitful in the long run, also actually counted in Obama's favor since they did not vote for the person who had the chance to win however slight it may have been.
I guess I have to agree with you that that is an opinion statement. But so is yours in regard to his predecessor.
In fact, my opinion is (parts of which can be backed up with fact) that what ever Bush did that was not quite above board O has doubled or tripled down on almost all of it, including his so called Constitutional oversteps and secrecy.
Further, while Bush overspent, overborrowed, and left office with a "total public debt" of (according to this site anyway):And according to the same site, Obama has racked up a "total public debt" of:
(Here's a clue for you: no one!)
Lick you wounds and move on. That's what we did loser.
Just a few examples:
1. Our message didn’t get out.
2. Outside groups bought the election!
3. We lost…but not as bad as we should have!
4. This is not a national referendum on President Barack Obama.
December 2, 2010
Liberal Excuses for Conservative Victory...
Excuse #9. Talk Radio did us wrong.
Excuse #8. Conservatives must compromise now.
Excuse #7. It's not my fault.
Excuse #6. Voters are stupid.
Excuse #5. The conservative victory was purely emotional
Excuse #4. There is too much money in politics.
Excuse #3. This was the nastiest campaign ever.
Excuse #2. We lost because we didn't get our message out.
Excuse #1. Conservatives did not tell the truth about us.
Just curious, Nate - besides Gather - where else did you hear those "excuses"?
Are you sure you want to challenge my bona fides as a "True American?" 'Cause I'm pretty sure I'd judge you as "not." Let's start with when you served, where you served and in which branch of service. If your answer is, "I didn't, but...," you are unqualified to hold an opinion on whether or not I'm a "True American."
Rory, tell all of us how it feels to be a sore loser.
Did you actually misunderstand all of my comments or are you confusing me with someone else.
Rory, tell all of us how it feels to be a sore loser.
Did you actually misunderstand all of my comments or are you confusing me with someone else.
My bad Rory. I thought you were referencing me when you wrote:
Who made you the arbiter of what a "true American" is?
(Here's a clue for you: no one!)
My sincere apology.
Lloyd
Less than 1% of the population. A real victory, but tenuous, ephremal. If peoples' lives, whom you claim more responsibility over than they are allowed for themselves, don't improve significantly, you'll spend the next decade in the wilderness.
Fresh out of other peoples' money and facing an impatient mob. I expect one more looting of the treasury and a rush for the exit.
Exactly what I expected. You consider yourself a "true American" and a "Patriot," but you just couldn't be bothered. I am not surprised. BTW - I consider you neither.
You are but a piker in comparison. You've nothing but a big mouth and a pathetic attitude...and an ignorance of America, and what She IS, and what She STANDS FOR. You wouldn't know American Ideals, Values and Morals if they bit you. You wouldn't know if a copy of the Constitution snapped shut on your fingers. And we all know that you're certainly not in danger of that.
You are in danger of learning something, though, if you were big enough to listen to me.
And we all True Americans know that you're not big enough for that...
It is not a nice word, because it is used to describe a person who never served their country, but accuses others who have, of not being True Americans.
My bad Rory. I thought you were referencing me...
My sincere apology.
Lloyd
Thank you. Very gracious. We're cool.
You are but a piker in comparison. You've nothing but a big mouth and a pathetic attitude...and an ignorance of America, and what She IS, and what She STANDS FOR. You wouldn't know American Ideals, Values and Morals if they bit you. You wouldn't know if a copy of the Constitution snapped shut on your fingers. And we all know that you're certainly not in danger of that.
You are in danger of learning something, though, if you were big enough to listen to me.
I vote Republican for the most part since it is closest to my values among being pragmatic although I have a strong libertarian side. I learned one thing, they are like zombies, they have to learn on their own, they will not listen to no matter what we say. Still, we must keep going since if we do not confront what is wrong by speaking up, we condone it and it will go on. We can't stand still. They are like alligators, no (or little ears) and all mouth. I just say until they learn the hard, way, screw 'em, punch the gas and go on.
Exactly. Well done.
We are cool.
Lloyd
Circular Firing Squad...geniuses...
I expect one more looting of the treasury and a rush for the exit.
And that would be the good news...
jay o Nov 25, 2012, 12:09am EST
Republicans lost because they came up 3 million votes short. It's not that complicated.
Less than 1% of the population. A real victory, but tenuous, ephremal. If peoples' lives, whom you claim more responsibility over than they are allowed for themselves, don't improve significantly, you'll spend the next decade in the wilderness.
Fresh out of other peoples' money and facing an impatient mob. I expect one more looting of the treasury and a rush for the exit.
You lost, we won. Lick your wounds and move on.
Sadly correct, Lee. 1%.
This will not sit well with my Friends; Libertarians, in their narcissism, preferred to flex muscle and throw tantrum, than to put "County,' and it's GOOD, ahead of themselves...
A PITY.
A God-Damned shame.
Food stamps is welfare ... no matter the reason, no matter who or how many people are on them. And no matter what pretty name they may be called these days, being on them still means one is on the public dole.
There is no shame is accepting help in the form of welfare/food stamps. Temporary help as a last resort and with the attitude that if one is able (not old and infirm or truly incapacitated in some way) one will get off the public dole as soon as possible and work very hard not to have to get on it again. ..Not as a way of life the way this admin (others before them?) advertises that kind of thing.
Rumple Stiltskin said, "I was not talking semantics Lee, welfare is not food stamps, you apply for the two separately. I was not using welfare as a compassionate word, I was referring to the program.
I am guilty of not reading all 2 million comments before yours to get the actual context of your remark; however, from your own explanation I can tell you I understood your comment exactly the way you meant it.
I also was referring to the program ie:
Rumple Stiltskin Nov 28, 2012, 4:47pm EST
I was not talking semantics Lee, welfare is not food stamps, you apply for the two separately. I was not using welfare as a compassionate word, I was referring to the program. You can not take your SNAP card and pay for your rent.
I know it is hard to deal with facts, but if the two were the same there would not be two separate statistics. Did I contradict the amount of people on food stamps, no.
It is not hard, Either Mitt Romney lost by a large number of votes or admit there are not a large number of people on Welfare, the actual program, not your fuzzy feel good emotion.
My husband got to go to Columbia thanks to the G.I. bill - and from there, Hopkins made him an offer too good to refuse, so after getting his B.A. in French, he moved to BAltimore and eventually got his Ph.D. in language and literature from Hopkins - an opportunity that never would have happened had it not been for the G.I.bill enabling him to attend Columbia U.
Those belly injections do suck. I had to do those for a whole year a few years ago when I had a dragon in me trying to kill me : ) I lost a lot of weight from treatments , lol sheesh........
It sounds like he's putting up a pretty good fight. And having a good wife helps as much as the meds.
You tell him Jesus is coming soon and he better get better.
Columbia University's History of Progressive Insanity
Understand that, and you'll understand America.
The narcissism of the Leftist anti-American, revealed.
Now; who has the courage to expose it?
Who?
Part of the reason he went there is he is a New Yorker. His sister, who had a severe seizure disorder, went to a clinic near there, and because she was living with John when he came back - it was just convenient at the time.
@Larry: Yeah, the clinic is run out of Union Memorial Hospital here. They have their own pharmacy technician and everything. He can't take any aspirin or NSAIDS at all because of other problems. So he's stuck with the warfarin and injections. One reason for the clinic is they are still adjusting all the doses. They keep saying the injections are just "a bridge" until the warfarin kicks in....I'm thinking in about twenty years? LOL. Those injections are expensive, too! They give him a weeks supply of needle - prefilled - to take home each time. Otherwise - that one week supply would cost nearly seven hundred dollarsl~ Someone is getting rich from people with blood clots!
Before all this happened - before he went in the hospital - with what was going on with him - he lost ninety pounds within ten months. His appetite was off completely and he looked like a ghost.
Mark-John: How is it narcissism to choose what we want in terms of government? I thought it was freedom?
jeanne; America has nothing to do with "birth." Nothing to do with "votes." Nothing to do with "taxes." Nothing to do with ignorance. Nothing to do with your confusion.
Understand that, and you'll understand America."
I think you are the one who doesn't understand.
Citizens are born--any person born in the United States of America is a citizen, regardless of how their parents came to be here.
The Revolutionary War was fought over 'taxation without representation.' Remember hearing about the Boston Tea Party? That the current Tea Party based their formation on?
Ignorance is a desirable character trait in voters for the political talking heads since a group of people who will, unquestioning, do as they are told is one of the primary ways they garner support. Planks in the platforms--for both parties--aren't determined by high moral positions but by groups who promise to deliver X number of voters to the candidate that promises to carry out their agenda...'special interest groups' and 'voting bloc' are the terms for the players.
As far as being a 'true American'....the only qualification any of us have to have is a voter registration card. I have one and I exercise my right to vote in every election. Having served in the military doesn't grant one special status in terms of citizenship rights--though it SHOULD garner a certain level of respect among ALL citizens since our veterans and active duty personnel have and are putting their lives on the line to uphold the American ideals of democracy, free speech, freedom of religion and freedom to make our own opportunities.
You have 'Freedom' and 'democracy' confused. Which is what I've been trying to explain to you all along...
There are Naturalised Immigrants who better-understand what being an American is than do American-borne Leftists, jeanne.