Religous prefer Romney. Non-religous prefer Obama.

[OtherCheek]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1372408.html

Link contains a clip from the Rachel Maddow show from mid march, the "Etch-A-Sketch" thing.

This was a horrible piece, IMO. A hatchet job of short sound bites completely separated from their context.

Rachel Maddow lies all the time.

Abortion: Romney's position is that the individual states should have the right to choose. Instead of federal funding and federal law binding on all 50 states that they must fund abortion. Yes, I think that is pro choice.

NRA: I know at least a few people who are members of the NRA, but don't "line up" with them on all issues.

Economy has gotten worse: Oh yes it has. I'm no fan of Bush and certainly no fan of Obama. Both are for the almighty government (the god a lot of atheists and progressives unwittingly worship) to get bigger. But Obama is worse. He's spent (wasted) TRILLIONS, with not much good to show for it. Except an overbloated healthcare plan. And did you see how he isn't going to TOUCH tort reform. He is a lawyer, and he won't do anything to hurt them. And an over abundance of them, and a mentality of "sue sue sue" has contributed a lot to our current mess.

The rest of Rachel Maddow's long, droll piece was mostly about edited soundbites that were separated from any context. That is a common way of covering a lie, when she does that.

Stealing? That's taxes, dude. Render under Caesar what is Caesar's, Render unto God what is God's.

The worst kind of stealing is when you can legalize it and enforce it with government power.

Part of being in a society is paying for things. Your post here is hyperbolic to the extreme. Valuing freedom is not incompatible with trusting in the efficacy of government Guess what? I value freedom too and, dang, I'm an atheist, a very progressive liberal, and a veteran of the wars GWB started.

Road, bridges, and defense. Social spending has only served to increase the problem of poverty, instead of making it better.

Wasting half of it? Source? Redistributing it? Don't you mean "funding programs that have legislative backing of some kind?" Since, well, thats what we do. We elect people and then their job is to keep the country running. We have a few hundred million people man, you aren't going to get everything you want.

Pork-barrel spending so far for 2012=152 projects for a total of $3,276,489,000
Your BIG GIVERnment, at work for you and me.

You like to give from the heart? Then do so. What's stopping you? What's stopping you? Wanna know something cool? Poor People give larger proportions of their income to charity than the rich do. If the issue really is that we don't have enough suger daddies keeping the world going, cutting the megarich's taxes more isn't going to help and, well, the super rich already own the majority of the country so, well, letting them keep a bigger chunk of it isn't going to make most peoples lives better any time soon.

36% of Americans pay no income tax at all. I'm all for a flat income tax or something akin to it, and cut out all loopholes. Keep charitable contributions as tax deductible, define "charities" as something that must actually help provide essentials for the poor. Do you think that it would help if that 36% were raised to say 90%? How long would that last?

Least efficient? I know that gets stated alot, but its a bit harder actually showing it. Aside from the fact that all these super rich people like Romney already have the funds to care for the poor

Yes. It is the least efficient. Just poke around on that Citizens Against Govt. Waste website I linked to.

Oh, and corrupt government? Have you read about that closed door speech your man Romney gave to those donors? Looks like another round of tax cuts to the wealthy and cuts to social programs we can, surprise, no longer afford that benefit millions of people every year so a tiny handful can live more exorbitant lives.

Source?

If you want to see what we should be doing, look to the policies of the 50's, 60's and early 70's and, if you check out this piece on alternet you'll see there is a marked difference where the wealth gap appeared and it didn't come because the super wealthy got getter at business, it got there because the system got rigged. We set up a system after a devastating financial crass precipitated by the same kinds of issues we're facing today and it worked, beautifully, for decades until people started tearing at it.

And bigger government is the answer? How 'bout we just go to a flat tax, and eliminate all loopholes for everyone. I'm fine with that. But the social Democrats don't want that. It's like they are feeding the alligator and then blaming it on Conservatives.

OC, nobody got rich on their own. We live in a society. Everyone born into it benefits, immensely, from it. Trying to destroy it now, to pretend we are all self made men, is ludicrous. Short term we might personally profit, and numerous people have made a fortune destroying the society that gave them the opportunity to do so, but it isn't right.

I agree. But growing the size and power of government, and raising taxes isn't the solution.

From my article, "The 1 percent didn’t get there just because they were great entrepreneurs or because they were smarter than the rest of us. They got there because they pressed for tax cuts for the super-rich and the deregulation of Wall Street. Those twin policies poured the money into their coffers and stalled our middle-class dead in its tracks. Those policies also crashed the economy and destroyed the jobs of millions of Americans."

Flatter Tax. No Loopholes. You should support that. You should also support a tax structure that promotes jobs in the private sector, instead of a tax plan that redistributes wealth and stifles jobs and success.

[Darth Executor]

Stealing? That's taxes, dude. Render under Caesar what is Caesar's,

If there is a Caesar equivalent in the states, it is not the president or congress, it is the people. Even if I went along with your interpretation, it would not automatically mean it's not theft just because we have to obey.

Render unto God what is God's. Part of being in a society is paying for things.

When those things are largely Democratic party special interests, it's not really paying for "society". It is in fact a violation of the often touted "social contract" which, incidentally, would include spending money wisely. Giving money to corporations so they help reelect Obama (or any other politician for that matter) is theft, plain and simple.

[lilpixieofterror]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1372408.html

Link contains a clip from the Rachel Maddow show...

That tells me it is not worth watching.

[Jaecp]

This was a horrible piece, IMO. A hatchet job of short sound bites completely separated from their context.

Time constraint coming from sheer volume.

Watching a dozen or more full speeches to give "context" that isn't actually needed is too cumbersome to work in television. Your free to try to cite what you will to disprove specific things she said, but simply saying

Rachel Maddow lies all the time.

doesn't cut it.

Abortion: Romney's position is that the individual states should have the right to choose. Instead of federal funding and federal law binding on all 50 states that they must fund abortion. Yes, I think that is pro choice.

Pro Choice?

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi...aception_bill/

"I am prolife. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother."

NRA: I know at least a few people who are members of the NRA, but don't "line up" with them on all issues.

What this is, and what you aren't seeing, is him trying to look like a far right conservative to win the primary, which required him to say and act quite differently than he governed in Massachusetts. On one day, he says that he doesn't agree with them on everything, on another he touts his membership. The dude is playing you.

Economy has gotten worse: Oh yes it has. I'm no fan of Bush and certainly no fan of Obama. Both are for the almighty government (the god a lot of atheists and progressives unwittingly worship) to get bigger. But Obama is worse. He's spent (wasted) TRILLIONS, with not much good to show for it. Except an overbloated healthcare plan. And did you see how he isn't going to TOUCH tort reform. He is a lawyer, and he won't do anything to hurt them. And an over abundance of them, and a mentality of "sue sue sue" has contributed a lot to our current mess.

A healthcare plan surprisingly similar to previous republican plans from the 90's? A plan surprisingly similar to romneycare? I'd love for their to be a single payer system instead of the individual mandate. The IM was the compromise solution. Our healthcare system is completely backwards compared to the rest of the industrialized western nations and its sad.

Tort reform isn't an issue I deal with much and isn't a part of the conversation. Oh, and "god of atheists?" what the hell?

The rest of Rachel Maddow's long, droll piece was mostly about edited soundbites that were separated from any context. That is a common way of covering a lie, when she does that.

Be cool if you could give us the context that makes his statements suddenly make sense, but I have a feeling that Rachel isn't stupid enough to do anything so obvious as a quote mine.

The worst kind of stealing is when you can legalize it and enforce it with government power.

Again, what?

All your doing is looking at taxes and declaring it theft.

We live in a society. Stuff has to get paid for somehow. Ergo, Taxes.

36% of Americans pay no income tax at all. I'm all for a flat income tax or something akin to it, and cut out all loopholes. Keep charitable contributions as tax deductible, define "charities" as something that must actually help provide essentials for the poor. Do you think that it would help if that 36% were raised to say 90%? How long would that last?

Man, I wonder if that's because those 36% are really freaking poor and, well, everyone pays taxes. That the super poor don't pay taxes on income doesn't surprise me when their income is miniscule. There are a number of charts in that link, but here is the gist.

The top 20% of the country, for any given metric, tends to have 60-80% of it. So the bottom 36 % of americans don't pay income tax? Well dang, that sounds terrible, until you look at figure 4 in my link with an annoted section

figure 4

Note: In the "Actual" line, the bottom two quintiles are not visible because the lowest quintile owns just 0.1% of all wealth, and the second-lowest quintile owns 0.2%.

© source where applicable

Quintile being "20% of the nation"

So, the bottom 40% have around .3% of the wealth and the top 20% of americans control about 85% of the wealth of the country. The 1% tend to have around half of that, mid 40's. Its a cool lil paper, lots of pictures.

And a flat tax isn't the solution. Closing the loopholes is great, and I am all for that, but flat tax plans all come out as being highly regressive.

Road, bridges, and defense. Social spending has only served to increase the problem of poverty, instead of making it better.

Forgive me for not taking your wood on it.

Pork-barrel spending so far for 2012=152 projects for a total of $3,276,489,000
Your BIG GIVERnment, at work for you and me.

If a project is bad, then its bad. Specificity is important in these. If you picked an example that was obvious waste, I'd probably agree with you on it. However, you seem to think all government spending is bad and, well, I just don't buy that. Not with what you've said so far least of all.

Yes. It is the least efficient. Just poke around on that Citizens Against Govt. Waste website I linked to.

I read somewhere that "The solution to bad religion is good religion, not no religion"

So, in this context, "The solution to bad government is good government, not no government."

Source?

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news...undraiser?lite

This was all over the media a couple weeks ago man. Romney, closed door fundraiser, dramatic tax cuts that primarily benefit people in the top 1% at the expense of the rest of us.

Of course we get shoddy service at government agencies when one of our political parties is doing its best to starve them and ask them to run for miles on empty :-/

And bigger government is the answer? How 'bout we just go to a flat tax, and eliminate all loopholes for everyone. I'm fine with that. But the social Democrats don't want that. It's like they are feeding the alligator and then blaming it on Conservatives.

If you want to streamline government, make it efficient, I am all for that.

What you want to do is slash and burn and that just isn't going to work out well. A flat tax is, again, highly regressive. Remember the flat tax Herman Cain suggested?

Here's a graph of how that would affect the tax burden, compared to our current system.

We have a graduated system in place for a reason.

I agree. But growing the size and power of government, and raising taxes isn't the solution.

Flatter Tax. No Loopholes. You should support that. You should also support a tax structure that promotes jobs in the private sector, instead of a tax plan that redistributes wealth and stifles jobs and success.

Whats happening is that people who benefited from the infrastructure and support that we've traditionally used to raise up the country as whole to have begun to tear down that infrastructure for their own personal gain and the personal gain of a tiny minority of moneyed interests.

We had a growing economy when the top marginal tax rates were 91%, under Eisenhower, even 70 under kennedy. It wasn't until we've dropped the top marginal tax rates to staggeringly low amounts while burdening the especially poor with a larger and larger share of the tax burden that these issues have cropped up. Cutting taxes, again, which is what would happen under a flat tax system, is only going to further starve the system and push us further into oligarchical rule.

If there is a Caesar equivalent in the states, it is not the president or congress, it is the people. Even if I went along with your interpretation, it would not automatically mean it's not theft just because we have to obey.

Pay under Caesar was is Caesar's just means "pay your taxes" and calling taxes theft, while certainly motivating to people pissed off about guvment is just, well, an angry talking point. Color me not impressed.

When those things are largely Democratic party special interests, it's not really paying for "society". It is in fact a violation of the often touted "social contract" which, incidentally, would include spending money wisely. Giving money to corporations so they help reelect Obama (or any other politician for that matter) is theft, plain and simple.

So work to get the money spent better. Go after specific stuff.

Slash and burn is just going to hurt the little guy

That tells me it is not worth watching.

Really? I figured for an independent minded voter like yourself you'd like the fire and research that goes into what I've seen from her. Even Roger Ailes respects her take on things, he gave her a favorable quote on the back of her book, so it surprises me greatly that you would dismiss someone so easily who gets taken seriously by people polar opposite her that are, literally, in the business of competing with her on a national level.

[JimL]

[QUOTE=OtherCheek;3396647]This was a horrible piece, IMO. A hatchet job of short sound bites completely separated from their context.

Rachel Maddow lies all the time.

Abortion: Romney's position is that the individual states should have the right to choose. Instead of federal funding and federal law binding on all 50 states that they must fund abortion. Yes, I think that is pro choice.

NRA: I know at least a few people who are members of the NRA, but don't "line up" with them on all issues.

Economy has gotten worse: Oh yes it has. I'm no fan of Bush and certainly no fan of Obama. Both are for the almighty government (the god a lot of atheists and progressives unwittingly worship) to get bigger. But Obama is worse. He's spent (wasted) TRILLIONS, with not much good to show for it. Except an overbloated healthcare plan. And did you see how he isn't going to TOUCH tort reform. He is a lawyer, and he won't do anything to hurt them. And an over abundance of them, and a mentality of "sue sue sue" has contributed a lot to our current mess.

The rest of Rachel Maddow's long, droll piece was mostly about edited soundbites that were separated from any context. That is a common way of covering a lie, when she does that.



The worst kind of stealing is when you can legalize it and enforce it with government power.


Road, bridges, and defense. Social spending has only served to increase the problem of poverty, instead of making it better.



Pork-barrel spending so far for 2012=152 projects for a total of $3,276,489,000
Your BIG GIVERnment, at work for you and me.



36% of Americans pay no income tax at all. I'm all for a flat income tax or something akin to it, and cut out all loopholes. Keep charitable contributions as tax deductible, define "charities" as something that must actually help provide essentials for the poor. Do you think that it would help if that 36% were raised to say 90%? How long would that last?


Yes. It is the least efficient. Just poke around on that Citizens Against Govt. Waste website I linked to.



Source?


And bigger government is the answer? How 'bout we just go to a flat tax, and eliminate all loopholes for everyone. I'm fine with that. But the social Democrats don't want that. It's like they are feeding the alligator and then blaming it on Conservatives.


I agree. But growing the size and power of government, and raising taxes isn't the solution.

You should also support a tax structure that promotes jobs in the private sector, instead of a tax plan that redistributes wealth and stifles jobs and success.

So, you support the Scott Walker model in Wisconsin, who along with his republican legislature, laid of thousands of public sector workers, cut their benefits, cut corporate taxes, and then watched as his state created the least amount of jobs in the entire country. Romney also, a great admirerer of Walker and his policies, as Govenor of Massachusetts was 47th in the nation in job creation and guess who the three states that came in behind Massachusetts were, yeah thats right, the three states hit by hurricane katrina, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. Thats what he is running on for heavens sake, the fact that he knows how to create jobs, but the facts prove differently, both in private and public life he was a job killer not job creator. As far as abortion, and your states rights defense of him goes, it was Romney not the state of Massachusetts who created and signed the bill providing for abortion into law. Are you really so anti-abortion as you let on? It doesn't seem to me that you are if you can so easily support an unprincipled pro choice liar.

[lilpixieofterror]

Really? I figured for an independent minded voter like yourself you'd like the fire and research that goes into what I've seen from her. Even Roger Ailes respects her take on things, he gave her a favorable quote on the back of her book, so it surprises me greatly that you would dismiss someone so easily who gets taken seriously by people polar opposite her that are, literally, in the business of competing with her on a national level.

I've watched her part of her show and end up changing it because I can't take the bias 'Republics bad, democrats good' ranting anymore and the ranting about things like what Newt Grinch's ring tone is (cause oh yeah, that is oh so important :ahem) then I can take the 'Democrats bad, republicans good' ranting from the other talking heads and radio personalities on the air.

[JimL]

I've watched her part of her show and end up changing it because I can't take the bias 'Republics bad, democrats good' ranting anymore and the ranting about things like what Newt Grinch's ring tone is (cause oh yeah, that is oh so important :ahem) then I can take the 'Democrats bad, republicans good' ranting from the other talking heads and radio personalities on the air.

So, you're saying that you can't take the facts?

[JimL]

Are you jealous because of another's success and achievement? Where would any jobs come from if it weren't for people who know how to run a business and be successful?

How many "rags to riches" stories per capita do you think there are in other countries compared to America when it wasn't as socialist as it is today?

When it wasn't as socialist as it is today it was a horror show for the majority, which is the way it is heading once again due to the insatiable greed of the ultra wealthy, the banks and the corporations and the stupidity of the american electorate who are so easily persuaded to vote "against" their and the countries own best economic interest and "for" the very politicians that are selling them out. They, all of them, limbaugh, Hannity, Orielly, Beck, Daryl Issa, Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, etc. etc. are laughing at you as they destroy your country and its future with your assistence in order to further enrich themselves and their wealthy benefactors.

[Cow Poke]

When it wasn't as socialist as it is today it was a horror show for the majority, which is the way it is heading once again due to the insatiable greed of the ultra wealthy, the banks and the corporations and the stupidity of the american electorate who are so easily persuaded to vote "against" their and the countries own best economic interest and "for" the very politicians that are selling them out. They, all of them, limbaugh, Hannity, Orielly, Beck, Daryl Issa, Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, etc. etc. are laughing at you as they destroy your country and its future with your assistence in order to further enrich themselves and their wealthy benefactors.

And the rich liberals actually care about me and my country?

[lilpixieofterror]

So, you're saying that you can't take the facts?

Facts eh? Sorry Jimmy, it is propaganda, but I already know that you are so bias and absorb propaganda of your party puts out with without any thought.

[Jaecp]

Dispute the facts if you can

Otherwise... Why should we listen to you?

[lilpixieofterror]

Dispute the facts if you can

Otherwise... Why should we listen to you?

Facts? Sorry, but Rachael Maddow's show is pretty much a practice in, "Republicans bad, democrats" good sort of rhetoric. As for the 'facts' yeah, I'm sure reporting what Newt Grinch's ring tone is is sure something news worthy.

Edited to add: It really doesn't take long to find her being loose with facts, much as many other talking heads on TV are. Here is one where she opened her mouth and quickly seems to have been pretty well refuted and this one is from this month!

[lilpixieofterror]

When it wasn't as socialist as it is today it was a horror show for the majority, which is the way it is heading once again due to the insatiable greed of the ultra wealthy, the banks and the corporations and the stupidity of the american electorate who are so easily persuaded to vote "against" their and the countries own best economic interest and "for" the very politicians that are selling them out. They, all of them, limbaugh, Hannity, Orielly, Beck, Daryl Issa, Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, etc. etc. are laughing at you as they destroy your country and its future with your assistence in order to further enrich themselves and their wealthy benefactors.

I love paranoia when it is without facts, perhaps you can answer a few things for us:

1. What brand of computer did you write this rant with? Is it one built by a large company like HP, Apple, or Dell?
2. What internet service do you have? It is something by AT&T, Cox, or Comcast? Are those large companies too?
3. What operating system do you use? Most likely, it is Windows or Apple OS, are those operating systems programed by rich companies too?
4. Where did you buy your computer from? Did you get it from Wal-Mart, Target, Best Buy or the other half dozen or so rich companies out there that sell these computers?

So I would suggest that you quickly stop supporting those evil rich companies with buying their products or do you want to keep looking like a hypocrite? Anyway, how many rich democrats are in congress or are in our executive branch? 7 of the 10 richest people in congress are democrats. Our president has a net worth in the millions of dollars, right along with his Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton. So why would they pass laws against the rich when they are rich themselves? Does that make any sense to you Jimmy? Yet again, you seem to be drinking that Occupy Wall Street kool-aid and swallowing whatever they say, without question. Nice, got to love those blinded by propaganda and ideology.

[JimL]

And the rich liberals actually care about me and my country?

Yeah, thats why they are liberals my friend. Do you think that the patriotic millionaires are supporting raising their taxes because they only care about their personal wealth?

[Cow Poke]

Yeah, thats why they are liberals my friend. Do you think that the patriotic millionaires are supporting raising their taxes because they only care about their personal wealth?

If they're so patriotic, my friend, then why don't they just GIVE money, and quit whining about it? Why do they have to have a tax increase? You know -- lead by example.