Start A Petition

Case Closed: If Moderate Voters See This Video, It's Over for Obama

US Politics & Gov't  (tags: obama, americans, dishonesty )

- 2083 days ago -
This is a stunning thirteen minute video that shows Obama in his own words, with commentary from mostly mainstream media sources. If this video goes viral, it would be a big blow to the Obama re-election bid. Kyle Becker Sept. 7, '12 @11:36 am

Select names from your address book   |   Help

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.


Nancy L (141)
Saturday September 8, 2012, 10:04 pm
The choice is clear. Four more years of joblessness, runaway spending, lies and trampling the constitution or a chance to turn it all around. Romney/Ryan 2012

Past Member (0)
Saturday September 8, 2012, 10:18 pm
LOL. Have you seen the vulture capitalist running against him? Romney has put more people out of work than you have time for. He buys companies, lays off most of the people, sucks the profits out, transfers the loan to the company and lets it go under,...NEXT!

Past Member (0)
Saturday September 8, 2012, 10:19 pm
The RNC was the one full of lies. Not ONE lie was told at the DNC. FACT!

Jae A (316)
Sunday September 9, 2012, 1:49 am
Well the rightwing wish this would be a real upset but ....I don't see it being anything more than their regular hyped articles to nowhere...escially concidering the alternative and enormous flow of clips showing the lies and utter B.S. that Romney and Lyin' Ryan along with both of their questional past, though very different from each ther. Certain enough in the ever mounting sea of their clips to tell anyone neither or White House material...corporate movers and shakers...but no leaders of the most power nation in the well as the one that has the most potential to do harm to most any it deems an enemy. We've had one administartion recently that based their wars for profits on lives that ended just four years ago..I think we've had enough of the Republican corporates deciding who we should have as our leaders after those eight years of death/destruction and econmic crisis that administration sent rippling throughout the globe. That same administration suck the very life out of our economy due to their spend and borrow mindset to pay for wars based on their lies...we don't need not so much as one more corporate expert in that field back in the White House ....ever again in my opinion.....and Romneys past is one of just that.

We don 't need anyone to 'turn it all around' that would put us right back at the Dubya Bush and Cheney White House years...what we need is for the Republican Congross to give up on their efforts to stall our recovery from moving in a forward direction after the Dubya and Dick years.. We sure as hell don't need to go back to the time when the very people who took us into our nations wars for profit much less back to the years of the very same people who spent and borrowed our nation into historial debt beyond any administration in our nations history.

Jae A (316)
Sunday September 9, 2012, 3:02 am comment above is riddled with keyboard is old as are the fingers using it ,at almost 2 o'clock. in the morning :-), here is a corrected version of that above comment.

We've had one administartion recently,that based their wars for profits on lies and at the cost of many lives that ended just four years ago. I think we've had enough of the Republican corporates deciding who we should have as our leaders,especially after those eight years of death/destruction and econmic crisis that administration sent rippling throughout the globe and left our nation holding their dirty bag of wars and debt after their terms were up. That being the same administration that sucked the very life out of our economy due to their spend and borrow mindset to pay for wars based on their lies...We don't need, not so much as one more, corporate expert similar to that of Dick CHeney in the White House ....ever again in my opinion.....It's easy to know from reading and listening/watching video clips of Mitt Romneys past is one of just of sucking the assects out of a corporation then dumping it for personal and investmentors gains. No, we do not need that kind of corporate mindset,as profitable as it has been for Mitt , in charge of our nations economic/financial matters.

Nan, We don 't need anyone to 'turn it all around'...a u-turn by that would put us right back to the Dubya Bush and Cheney White House years. What we need ... is for the Republican Con-gross/Congress :-) politicans to give up on their efforts to stall our recovery and to do all they can,in fact, from doing anythingi, that would move us in a forward direction after the Dubya and Dick years. We sure as hell don't need to go back to the time when the very people, who took us into our nations into two wars for profits once, to do so again... much less back to the years of the very same people who's Spent and Borrowed' our nation into historial debt beyond any administration in our nations history...aka...the Republican Party years of Dubya and Cheney.

Jae A (316)
Sunday September 9, 2012, 3:15 am
Easy there Jason...with just those Facts About Romney that you mentioned ..If Known by Moderate Voters It Would Mean That It Would Be Over For Romney...which it really is already, anyway.. as most of the Moderates do know those things about Romney. However if one wants to view video clips that compare Romney to Obama's campaign clips...well, that's not going to happen within the GOP/Teabagger groups so why even go there as a suggestion huh.


Jae A (316)
Sunday September 9, 2012, 3:21 am
Additional correction as I did not copy and paste the correction properly either...which I attempted to do after 3a.m.
Missing first paragraph from my previous 'correction' posting :

Well, the rightwing wishes this would be a real upset but ....I don't see it being anything more than their regular hyped articles to no-where...espcially considering the alternative candidates running and their enormous flow of clips showing the lies and utter B.S. that Romney and Lyin' Ryan that are available online. Their lies and total B.S. comments along with the facts about both of their questional past, though very different from each ther.
Certain enough in the ever mounting sea of their clips that should tell anyone that neither are White House material...Corporate movers and shakers...but not the leaders of the most power nation in the world. Most powerful as well as the one that has the most potential to do the most harm to any it deems an enemy.

Jae A (316)
Sunday September 9, 2012, 3:49 am
LOL...well it is a Saturday kind of party night and all that...and so it goes that the above wasn't the corrected first more try below: Lights Camera Action ! Whatever...

.Well, the rightwing wishes this would be a real upset but ....I don't see it being anything more than their regular hyped articles to no-where...espcially considering the alternative candidates running and their enormous flow of clips showing the lies and utter B.S. that Romney and Lyin' Ryan that are available online. Their lies and total B.S. comments along with the facts about both of their questional past, though very different from each other.
We've certainly have enough in the ever mounting sea of their clips that should tell anyone that neither,Romney nor Ryan, are White House material...Corporate movers and shakers...but not as the leaders of the most power nation in the world. Most powerful as well as the one that has the most potential to do the most harm to any it deems an enemy.

We've had one administartion that based their wars for profits on lies and at the cost of many lives that ended just four years ago. I think we've had enough of the Republican corporate/Wall Street types deciding who we should have as our leaders,especially after those eight years of death/destruction and econmic crisis that the previous administration sent rippling throughout the globe. The world ,not just the U.S.A.,have had more than enough of that same administration mindset, that sucked the very life out of our economy due to their spend and borrow mindset to pay for wars based on their lies...Nope,we don't need so much as one more, corporate Wall Street expert in the White House in my opinion.....Romneys past is one of just that...sucking the assets out of a corporation then dumping it for personal and investor [s] gains. No, we do not need that kind of corporate mindset,as profitable as it has been for Mitt personally, in charge of our nations economic/financial matters.

Nan, We don 't need anyone to 'turn it all around'...which would be a 'u-turn' by that would put us right back to the Dubya Bush and Cheney White House years. What we do need ... is for the Republican
Con-gross/Congress :-) politicans to give up on their constant efforts to stall our recovery and to do all they can in fact, from doing anything that would move us in a forward direction after the war mongering for profits, economicly disastours.... Dubya and Dick years. We sure as hell don't need to go back to the time when the very people, who took us into our nations two wars for profits, to do so again... much less back to the years of the very same people who's Spent and Borrowed' our nation into historial debt beyond any administration in our nations history...aka...the Republican Party years of Dubya and Cheney
Goodnight... :-)

Diane O (194)
Sunday September 9, 2012, 3:54 am
All businessmen have to make the hard decisions. If a company is failing and is not profitable then the business either merges with another company or it goes "out of business." Yes, people lose their jobs. The measure of a good businessman is to make those decisions. An idiot would continue dumping money into a failing business.

Obama conveniently missed the deadline to address cutting government jobs. This will put 12,000 people out of jobs after January 2013. But, you are okay with that, right? Are you okay with Obama ignoring our small businesses early in 2009 while he worked on his legacy healthcare bill? How many people lost their jobs then? But, you were okay with that, right?

You folks act like large corporations are bad. They provide most of your jobs and benefits. Yes, they are bad, aren't they? They also pay the lion's share of taxes in our country and fund the massive entitlement checks that pour out every month. Want to bite the hand that feeds you?

Liberals never make sense to me.

Liberals need to get a handle on how Obama is and what he stands for. It's long overdue.

Diane O (194)
Sunday September 9, 2012, 4:01 am
typo: "Liberals need to get a handle on WHO Obama is...."

Past Member (0)
Sunday September 9, 2012, 9:31 am
"All businessmen have to make the hard decisions"
Except Romney looks for businesses that are doing well. You can't suck the money of a failing business, let alone take out a loan on it. No. He looks for sound businesses that HAVE success and money flow.


large corporations are bad when workers rights are stripped and wages fall. Reaganomics has ruined this country and the right LOVE Reaganomics. WE love workers rights to collectively bargain for better wages, a better future and the American Dream. You don't understand us because you watch too much fox and corporate media. This is a battle for the middle class and you should be on our side.

Lyin Ryan was just asked why he has more foreign policy expertise. He said, "I have been in congress for 14 years. I voted to send our people to war. I've been to funerals." That was it!! That was his answer!!!

We know who Obama is. He's for the middle class. YOU need to know what a corporate fascist is and what they stand for behind their lies. They caused this depression and want to keep us here. That is a fact.

No note for propaganda garbage. Ever.

john hall (28)
Sunday September 9, 2012, 10:54 am
Jason R. Your so full of crap it's overflowing Fact UNDER Obama more people have lost there jobs then Romney . Here's a news flash for stupid one Romney has created buisnesses and jobsand under Bain i cant count how many democrat politician's and unions are making money due to the success of Romney and Bain. So if Romney and Bain are so horrible tell your people to get out of making money with them .

Past Member (0)
Sunday September 9, 2012, 11:20 am
Can you read a whole article or do you have to have fox think for you?

"President Romney" -- Why Those Two Words Should Scare You into Action This Election
Right-wing billionaires are dropping piles of dough on this election ... it'll take people power to save the day.
September 7, 2012 |

In two months we Americans will go to the polls once again to decide who the president will be for the next four years. We will not be allowed to vote on those who wield the true power in this country. On November 6th we will not vote for the chairman of ExxonMobil or JPMorgan Chase or Citibank or the Premier of China. That day will come, but not this year.

Now, I know there are a goodly number of you out there who believe there's not a snowball's chance in Kenya that Barack Obama will not be re-elected to the White House. And why would you believe otherwise? After the incredible Democratic convention this week, with the best rock-em-sock-em speeches I've heard from a Democrat's mouth since … since, I don't know when. You can't help but not have a contact high after this past week if you are of the sort who believes in economic justice, peace, and a five-dollar latte. Right now, with the buzz on, you are sitting there thinking that your fellow Americans will turn out in massive numbers, either because they want to continue the Obama era or because they're scared shitless of the barbarians at the gate – or both. You're convinced that the Republicans have blown it with all their talk of the lady parts they want to control even though we now know that they have no idea where those parts are, what they are, or how they work.

Yes, it certainly looks like the voters will reject this obscenely wealthy man called Romney — Romney of Michigan/Massachusetts/New Hampshire/ Utah/Zurich/Grand Cayman — this man who will not explain exactly how all his wealth was obtained, where he keeps it, or how much taxes he pays on it. He wants to turn the clock back to the '50s – the 1850s – and he refuses to offer any specific plan about what he'll do about anything. He wants to run the country like a corporation but he can't even control one 82-year-old actor on his own convention stage, a Hollywood legend who, in the matter of ten and a half minutes went from Good (walking onto the stage) to Bad (talking to a chair) and then to Ugly (the chair started … swearing?). It was better than the best cat-flushing-the-toilet video on YouTube and it was a gift to all of us who know that Romney is doomed come November.

Or is he?

Last week, I said on the HuffPost Live webcast that we had all better start practicing how to say "President Romney" because, living in Michigan, I can tell you that there's trouble here on the two peninsulas and it's not just because Romney is a native son or that we like to watch kids from Cranbrook chase down gay kids and chop their hair off. One recent poll here showed Romney leading Obama by four points! How can that be? Didn't Obama save Detroit?

No, he didn't. He saved General Motors and Chrysler. "Detroit" (and Flint and Pontiac and Saginaw) are not defined by the global corporations who suck our towns dry and then split town to make more money elsewhere (except, of course, they continued to design and built crap cars, so eventually they didn't make the money at all). These cities in Michigan are about the people who live here, and in the process of "saving Detroit," Mr. Obama had to fire thousands of these people, and reduce the benefits and pensions of those who were left. There's a lot of pissed off people in Michigan (and Wisconsin and Ohio), people who weren't saved even though the corporation was. I'm just stating a fact, and those of you who don't live here should know this.

The other problem facing us this election (spoiler alert – angry white guys may want to stop reading right now) … is race. We all fear there's probably a good 40% of the country who simply do not want a black man in the Oval Office. In fact, in 2008, Obama lost the white vote. He lost every white age group except young people (18-29). And yet he still won by 10 million votes! The optimistic secret the Obama people know is that only about 70% of the voters in November will be white. So if he can win just 35-40% of them, and then get a massive majority of people of color, he can win re-election. There is no question in my mind that Obama is more popular than Romney and if everyone could vote from their couch like they do for American Idol, Obama would win hands down. As I have said before, we live in a liberal country. The majority of Americans (who do not call themselves "liberal") now support most of the liberal agenda – they're for gay marriage, they're pro-choice, they're anti-war, they believe there's global warming, and they hate Wall Street for what it has done to them and their neighbors.

The Republicans know this: that we, the majority, will have sex when we want and with whom we want, will read and watch whatever we want when we want, will use marijuana if we want and if we don't want to then we certainly don't want our friends who do to be throw into prison. We are sick and tired of being poisoned, by chemicals or propaganda, we think the Palestinians have been given a raw deal and we want our friggin' jobs back! The Christian Right (and their Wall Street funders) know this all too well – America has turned, and there's no going back to not loving someone because of the color of their skin or expecting women to cede control of their bodies to a bunch of Neanderthals.

So, what's a Rightie to do now that we've turned the joint into Sodom and G? They have to suppress the vote! They have to stop as many liberals from voting as possible. So they've passed many voter suppression laws to make it hard for the poor, the minorities, the disabled and students to vote. They honestly believe they can pull this off – and they just may. The only "positive" thing about this is that their need to have such laws in order to win the election is an admission on the part of the Republicans that they know the U.S. Is a liberal country and that the only way they can now win now is to cheat. Trust me, if they believed that America was a right-wing country they'd be passing laws making it so easy to vote you could do it in the checkout line at Walmart.

But the voting on November 6th will not take place at Walmart or on any potato's couch. It can only happen by going to a polling place – and, not to state the obvious, the side that gets the most people physically out to the polls that day, wins. We know the Republicans are spending tens of millions of dollars to make sure this very thing happens. They have built a colossal get-out-the-vote machine for election day, and the sheer force of their tsunami of hate stands ready to overwhelm us like nothing we've ever seen before. Those of us in the Midwest got a taste of it in 2008. Traditionally Democratic states – all of which voted for Obama – saw our state legislatures and governor seats hijacked by this well-oiled machine. We didn't know what hit us, but these new Republicans wasted no time in dismantling some of the very basic thing we hold dear. Wisconsin fought back – but even that huge grassroots uprising was not enough to stop the governor bought and paid for by the Koch brothers. It was a wake up call, for sure – but have we really woken up?

It's been a great week in Charlotte. It's OK for us to take a couple days to high-five each other, but I cannot stress enough to you that unless you and I are doing something every day for the next 60 days to get people out to vote, then there is a chance we will all be saying "President Romney" come January. Don't think it can't happen. Hate, sad to say, at least in America these days, is a far greater motivator than love and feelin' groovy.

For those of us who believe that the history of the Democrats and the Republicans is to do the bidding of the 1% (Obama's #1 private contributor in '08 were the people at Goldman Sachs), and that while the Dems are a kinder/gentler bunch, they are also just as quick to want to take us to war and sell us out to the corporate interests (and, yes, Obamacare is a $$ gift to the insurance companies; only a single-payer system will stop that), this election is a bit of a bitter pill. We were hugely disappointed when President Obama didn't charge out of the gate after his inauguration and undo the damage that had been done (as FDR did in his first hundred days) – and only when Wall Street stopped writing him the big campaign checks this past year did he get his mojo back and start fighting the fight that needs to be fought. He's a good and decent person (when he's not sending in drones to kill Pakistani civilians or prosecuting government whistleblowers), and his election four years ago was a high point of such emotional intensity I just couldn't get over how hopeful I was that this country had changed and we had found our moral footing. Reality set in a few weeks later when he put Tim Geithner and Larry Summers in charge of economic policy and then he changed his mind about closing Gitmo.

OK, so people like me, just once in our lifetime, would like to get our way all the time! Is that too much to ask? Of course, there is a different question that is in the air now — shall we give the country back to the crowd who gave the country to the 1%? I think not. So let's join in with our liberal majority and be fierce and relentless in these next two months. Let's spend this time educating people what we mean when we say things like "single-payer" and "Blackwater." Politics and the fate of the nation (and the world – sorry, world) are on the front burner and those of us who want to wrestle control of our society out of the hands of the few can take healthy advantage of these coming weeks. Don't sit it out. Don't try to convince anyone Obama has magically transformed us – just tell them four years is simply not enough time to undo all the hurt caused by biggest economic crash since the Great Depression and the biggest military blunder/lie in our history.

I'm going to go with my optimistic side here (sorry, cynics, you know I love you) and imagine a Second Term Obama (and a Democratically-controlled Congress) who will go after all the good that our people deserve and put the power of our democracy back in our hands. There's good reason why the Right is terrified of a Second Term Obama because that is exactly what they think he'll do: the real Obama will appear and take us down the road to social justice and tolerance and a leveling of the economic playing field. For once, I'd like to say I agree with the Right – and I sincerely hope their worst nightmare does come true.

Past Member (0)
Sunday September 9, 2012, 11:23 am
Even old school Republicans bash what their party has become!

Former GOPer: How Republicans Went Crazy, Dems Lost Their Mojo, and the Middle Class Got Shafted
Bill Moyers talks with Mike Lofgren, a long-time Republican who describes the modern dysfunction of both the Republican and Democratic parties.
September 5, 2012 |

Mitt Romney disembarks from his campaign plane at St. Paul International Airport in Minneapolis, Minnesota this week. A multi-hued line up for next week's Republican party convention is meant to belie its image as the party of middle-aged white men.

Bill Moyers talks with Mike Lofgren, a long-time Republican who describes the modern dysfunction of both the Republican and Democratic parties. In Lofgren's view, Republicans have become overly obsessed with obstructing President Obama, and the Democrats suffer from political complacency. Lofgren's new book is The Party is Over: How Republicans Went Crazy, Democrats Became Useless, and the Middle Class Got Shafted.

Bill Moyers: The growing power of the religious right is one reason my guest left the Republican Party and became an Independent. "The mixture of politics and religion," he says, "debases both, and has turned the GOP into an apocalyptic sect." He has his problems with Democrats, too. For one thing, he says, both parties "are captives to corporate loot."

Others may share those opinions, but what gives Mike Lofgren more clout than the rest is decades of insider experience on Capitol Hill. He was a Fulbright scholar with two degrees in history when he went to work in Congress and became a senior staff member of the House and Senate Budget committees. His specialty was the cost of national security. After 28 years of government service, Mike Lofgren retired and sat down to write a powerful manifesto that took off like a rocket when it was posted on the website

It's now a book: "The Party is Over: How Republicans Went Crazy, Democrats Became Useless, and the Middle Class Got Shafted." As you can tell from the title, he spares no one.

Mike Lofgren, welcome.

Mike Lofgren: Good to be here.

Bill Moyers: The title of your book is "The Party Is Over: How Republicans Went Crazy." How did Republicans go crazy?

Mike Lofgren: I think they went crazy when they started identifying Obama as the Antichrist.

Bill Moyers: Meaning?

Mike Lofgren: Meaning, "He's not a legitimate president. We must do everything we can to obstruct him."

Bill Moyers: The second subtitle, "The Party Is Over: Democrats Became Useless." How did Democrats become useless?

Mike Lofgren: I think they got complacent during the '60s, '70s, and '80s. And then finally after that period, they woke up, found they had lost three straight presidential elections. So they had to retool and make themselves more corporate friendly.

Bill Moyers: Corporate friendly?

Mike Lofgren: Absolutely. And it certainly helped Bill Clinton get elected. And while he did some good things like balancing the budget, he also unleashed Wall Street by repealing Glass-Steagall, and he signed bills that would end regulation on derivatives. So he is at least to some degree responsible for the Wall Street debacle.

Bill Moyers: And that's how, to quote a third of your subtitles, "The Middleclass Got Shafted"?

Mike Lofgren: Both parties don't really seem to care about having a vibrant manufacturing base in this country, regardless of their rhetoric. I remember throughout the '90s the Clinton administration was lobbying relentlessly for free trade deals. And the promise for each one was, it will bring jobs to America. And in every case, the jobs left.

Bill Moyers: The Republican Party now has the super rich and its corporate wing funding it and the religious right provides the ground troops. Why are so many everyday folks out there in the pews defending the prerogatives of the rich?

Mike Lofgren: That's something of a mystery. The Federal Reserve, in one of their recent reports, found that net household income fell about 40 percent since 2007. That's a tremendous drop. Yet, here we have as the nominee for one of the two major parties, we only have a binary choice in this country, is by all accounts the richest man ever to run for president and was a leverage buyout artist.

The party is really oriented towards the concerns of the rich. It's about cutting their taxes, reducing regulation on business, making things wide open for Wall Street. Now you're not going to get anybody to the polls and consciously pull the lever for the Republicans if they say, "Our agenda is to further entrench the rich and, oh by the way, your pension may take a hit."

So they use the culture wars quite cynically, as essentially rube bait to get people to the polls. And that explains why, for instance, the Koch brothers were early funders of Michele Bachmann, who is a darling of the religious right. They don't care particularly, I would assume, about her religious foibles. What they care about is the bottom line. And these religious right candidates, many of them believing in the health and wealth, name it and claim it prosperity gospel, believe that the rich are sanctified and the poor punished

Bill Moyers: Many of those people on the right would tell you that the fall in the income of middleclass people and others has been because of Obama's economic policies.

Mike Lofgren: I think they're suffering from selective amnesia. They also don't understand that George Bush doubled the national debt, that the original meltdown on Wall Street occurred during George Bush's watch, and by the time Obama became president in 2009, we were already well into the recession. Now I don't defend him in every way. I don't say that everything he's done is right by any means. I have all kinds of issues with him on the health care legislation. For instance, his willingness to play ball with pharma made the bill cost a lot more than it need.

Bill Moyers: The pharmaceutical industry?

Mike Lofgren: Yes. That said, he was legitimately elected. We were in a very, very serious situation in this country. If the economy had fallen any further, it would be comparable to the Great Depression. So what is Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in the Senate, what is his first priority for the country? Is it getting jobs for people? Is it restoring the solvency of the financial system? Is it foreign policy? Is it any of those things? No, it's making sure Obama is a one-term president.

Bill Moyers: It seems that some of these people are willing to see the government go down in order to win.

Mike Lofgren: That would be the case. I grew up in a party that believed in the traditions of Eisenhower, and for that matter, even Reagan. He raised taxes several times when the deficit threatened to get out of control. He pleaded with Congress to send him a clean debt limit extension bill without any extraneous riders on it. He knew what the stakes were.

But now it's basically obstruct. They're no longer a parliamentary loyal opposition. They want to seize up the wheels of government. And to most people that means you don't have federal inspectors of airliners. You don't have federal inspection of food safety. Your national parks will be closed. Federal law enforcement will go home. That's what that means.

Bill Moyers: Why did you leave the party? You'd been a Republican, what, all your life?

Mike Lofgren: I left the party because it was becoming an apocalyptic cult. Because you cannot govern a country of 310 million people that is the greatest economic power on earth and the greatest military power on earth as if it's a banana republic. You can't govern it with people who think that Obama was born overseas or who believe in all manner of nonsense about climate change. They don't even know, apparently, where babies come from, if we're to believe Todd Akin.

Bill Moyers: What do you mean "apocalyptic cult"?

Mike Lofgren: Well, I mean it literally in some cases. There's a very strong element in evangelical or fundamentalist religion that said the apocalypse is coming. And one sort of sees it subliminally in people like Michele Bachmann when the debt ceiling crisis came to a head and people were warning that we would be downgraded. And if we actually defaulted, we would possibly have to lower our standard of living and credit from abroad could dry up. And her attitude was sort of, "Bring it on. If we're all going to abide in the bosom of the Lord, by and by, it really doesn't matter whether we default."

Bill Moyers: Was that just rhetoric we heard on television?

Mike Lofgren: Oh, that's mainly rhetoric. But I think it does carry over into the mentality of maximalist obstruction, no compromise, because of course when you are with the saints and the opposition is with the sinners, you are doing evil if you compromise.

Bill Moyers: You write that we now have a de facto religious test for public office, notwithstanding that the Constitution says we must not have one. How does this play out?

Mike Lofgren: Well, we saw it in 2008, when a pastor brought Obama and McCain before a live audience and quizzed them about their religiosity. That was Rick Warren. We really don't need that sort of religious test. It's banned in the Constitution. We had it play out last year when some preacher in Texas started criticizing Romney because as a Mormon, this man thought he wasn't a Christian.

Pastor Jeffress: The Southern Baptist Convention, which is the largest Protestant denomination in the world has officially labeled Mormonism as a cult. I think that Romney's a good, moral man, but I think those of us who are born-again followers of Christ should always prefer a competent Christian to a competent non-Christian like Mitt Romney.

Mike Lofgren: The media went off on that for a few days. And as I recall, some of the reporters were badgering the other Republican candidates as to whether they thought Romney was a Christian. So the media actually allowed itself to be used as a tool in this aspect. Bill Moyers: Candy Crowley kept pressing Herman Cain and, and Michele Bachmann in the primaries on this very issue.

Candy Crowley: Is Mitt Romney a non-Christian?

Herman Cain: I'm not running for theologian-in-chief. I'm a life-long Christian, and what that means is, one of my guiding principles for the decisions I make is I start with, do the right thing. I'm not getting into that controversy.

Candy Crowley: But it still will beg the question that you dodged a direct question, which is, is Mitt Romney not a Christian?

Herman Cain: He is a Mormon. That much I know. I am not going to do an analysis of Mormonism versus Christianity for the sake of answering that. I'm not getting into that. I am a Christian—

Candy Crowley: Even knowing it will look like you're dodging it [...] And let me just, because I gave Herman Cain the same opportunity, you know that, that by not answering the direct question "Do you think Mitt Romney is a Christian?" you leave open the possibility that people are going to say that you dodged the question, the direct question.

Michelle Bachmann: No, I think what the real focus is here, again, is on religious tolerance.

Mike Lofgren: Well, I'll give them credit. They didn't answer her, because the question didn't deserve an answer. Romney's religion is his own business.

Bill Moyers: What brought you to the moment you decided to make a break, and to issue that cry from the heart if I may say so, that went out on "Truthout"? What was the trigger?

Mike Lofgren: The trigger was the debt ceiling crisis of the summer of 2011. I thought it was so transparently needless, yet they did it. And that was the straw that broke the camel's back. Now it wasn't just a publicity stunt that gave the United States a black eye. Just the transaction costs for having to manipulate all the money and stave off the debt ceiling cost, according to the Government Accountability Office, $1.3 billion.

Bill Moyers: And why did that impasse occur? Why couldn't they solve the deficit crisis? Or why wouldn't they solve the deficit crisis?

Mike Lofgren: Because they believed that they had Obama over a barrel. And that they could force him to do what they wanted, which was to radically downsize all domestic discretionary spending. And he wasn't going to do it. And that's how we got to that situation.

Bill Moyers: What do you think's going to happen after the election, no matter who wins? Because the popular expectation is that we're heading toward a fiscal cliff. Are we going to go through, in those few months between the election and the inauguration, what we went through with the deficit crisis that you just talked about?

Mike Lofgren: I would say the likeliest possibility is that we'll get some sort of short-term extension of the provisions to kick the can down the road a little bit. Now I'm not saying that that will happen. There's also a possibility if past is prologue that the Tea Party faction in the House could dig in its heels and say no, just as they did with the debt ceiling crisis.

Bill Moyers: And what then would be the consequence of that, as you can anticipate it?

Mike Lofgren: The consequence would be immediate and severe spending cuts, both on domestic discretionary, and on national defense

Bill Moyers: Both parties catering, as you write so vividly in here, to their funders, their donors, the billionaires, the Wall Street financiers, the corporations. And yet they, one or the other keeps getting away with it.

Mike Lofgren: It's happened before in our country. It happened after the Civil War with the Gilded Age. So it's not surprising it can occur when money starts infusing into politics. They will capture the governmental mechanism, just as Wall Street has captured it now. Wall Street has captured Washington at its source, the capital.

Bill Moyers: Just give me one example.

Mike Lofgren: One example would be banks that we are bailing out. Why not compensation limits on their CEOs and top executives? We didn't get that. But we did get limits on the compensation and the benefits of U.A.W. employees when we bailed out General Motors and Chrysler.

Bill Moyers: We got from unions what we didn't get from the financiers on Wall Street?

Mike Lofgren: That is correct.

Bill Moyers: How come? How so?

Mike Lofgren: Money from Wall Street into the pockets of campaigns.

Mike Lofgren: If somebody texts $20 to their favorite candidate, okay, that's $20. And they're not really expecting anything other than they like that candidate and they want him to win. But when savvy businessmen like Sheldon Adelson, who've shelled out $36 million so far and expects to spend $100 million before the end of the election cycle, when somebody like that is spending that kind of money, they expect a tangible, monetizable payoff.

BILL MOYERS Another example?

Mike Lofgren: When you see legislation, for instance, having to do with casinos, and I think the key word there is Jack Abramoff, you see these things happening.

Bill Moyers: Did anything about the Abramoff scandal surprise you?

Mike Lofgren: Not at all. It was totally par for the course.

Bill Moyers: What do you mean?

Mike Lofgren: That's the way influence works in Washington.

Bill Moyers: Do you think it's still working now after Abramoff?

Mike Lofgren: I think it's working in a similar fashion. When we see how Ralph Reed and Grover Norquist, they were the two other members of the Three Amigos. They're still out doing their thing

Bill Moyers: But what do we do about it? Nothing seems to tame the power of money in politics.

Mike Lofgren: The only thing that will achieve it is fundamental political reform. And the only way you're going to get that is mass defection from the parties. Because the parties simply do not serve our interests anymore.

Bill Moyers: But the less we pay attention, the more of us who give up, the smaller the base and the number of elites who run those two parties. That's what some of them want.

Mike Lofgren: That may be, but there is a point where if there is mass public outrage at this, just as there was in the prairies in the 1880's and 1890's, eventually they'll get the message.

Bill Moyers: What's your greatest fear?

Mike Lofgren: My greatest fear is that this whole impasse simply carries on. And this country becomes more and more polarized and ungovernable. And we could be faced with a very bad situation, internationally and domestically.

Bill Moyers: And what is your greatest hope?

Mike Lofgren: My greatest hope is that we can govern ourselves again in a spirit of bipartisanship.

Bill Moyers: Do you think that's a realistic hope?

Mike Lofgren: We must let our hopes be greater than our fears.

Bill Moyers: Well, I consider "The Party Is Over" must reading. And I hope my audience will spend these days between one convention and the other getting acquainted with your analysis of what's happening. "The Party Is Over: How Republicans Went Crazy, Democrats Became Useless, and the Middleclass Got Shafted." Mike Lofgren, thank you for being with us.

Mike Lofgren: Thank you very much.

john hall (28)
Sunday September 9, 2012, 11:35 am
Jason R. Obama is a bad president and your your loyal to your party you cant see straight again ROMNEY will put this country back on ut's feet something Obama promised to do knowing he was lying about it and then when it didnt work he found the blame game.

Past Member (0)
Sunday September 9, 2012, 11:58 am
No John. Republicans make BAD presidents. Obama has been KEPT from making progress. What is it about this depression that you don't want to believe? Can you answer that?

I'm loyal to the middle class. The Left is loyal to the middle class. You're so confused.
I see by your page that you have no causes and are afraid to list your politics. May as well now, eh? lol


Past Member (0)
Sunday September 9, 2012, 12:00 pm
10 Rankest Hypocrisies of Mitt Romney and the Republican Party
The hyper-hypocrisy of today’s GOP has spread through the party’s bloodstream.
September 7, 2012 |

White House hopeful Mitt Romney, pictured on September 1, joined the latest chorus of criticism launched by fellow Republicans at President Barack Obama on Wednesday, attempting to take the shine off the Democratic convention.

Modern Republicans give us an opportunity to peer into the soul of a party that has embraced an open aversion to the truth. Meanwhile, their hypocrisy has reached historic proportions. It’s as if they have lost the ability to recognize the obvious contradictions they put forth. Or, more likely, they just don’t care, since lies and hypocrisy are an efficient way to score political points and smear opponents. The hyper-hypocrisy of today’s GOP has spread through the party’s bloodstream. Below is a sampling of the most recent examples of rank right-wing hypocrisy.

1. Romney has promised that his first action on day one of a Romney administration would be to repeal Obama's Affordable Care Act. Of course, he wouldn’t have any authority to do that and attempting to pass legislation in congress would get stopped short in the Democratic-controlled senate. However, he may want to have a discussion with his running mate. It was recently disclosed that Paul Ryan quietly applied for funding for a Wisconsin healthcare clinic in his district. The funds would come entirely from the Affordable Care Act that Ryan and Romney now propose to repeal.

2. In an interview on the Bill Bennett radio show, Mitt Romney lashed out at what he considered to be false ads by a pro-Obama super PAC. In the course of his tirade he lamented that “in the past, when people pointed out that something was inaccurate, why, campaigns pulled the ad.” Romney said this even as he refused to pull his own ads that had been rated “Pants-on-Fire” lies by PolitiFact. Subsequently, the Romney campaign decided to abandon any pretense to honesty and declare that fact-checkers had “jumped the shark,” and that they would no longer “let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers.” In other words, we will lie if we feel like it.

3. At the GOP convention in Tampa, Ann Romney gave a keynote speech in which she told women, “You are the best of America. You are the hope of America. There would not be an America without you.” It was a naked attempt to appeal to women voters the GOP is having trouble connecting with. However, beyond her flattery she never uttered a word of support for issues of importance to women. There was no mention of equal pay, gender discrimination in the workplace, parental leave, or child welfare services like healthcare or nutritional programs. The only references she made to education were how fortunate her husband and children were to have the benefit of attending first-rate institutions that most Americans will never see. And the GOP platform strikes a markedly different tone by banning access to family planning services and effectively asserting that women, “the hope of America,” are not competent to make decisions about their own bodies.

4. The comments of GOP senate candidate Todd Akin regarding “legitimate rape” caused a firestorm of criticism from both Democrats and Republicans. Many on the right insisted that Akin withdraw from the Missouri senate race. However, most of the criticism was directed at the harm Akin caused to the GOP’s prospects of winning the seat, rather than to the offensive views he articulated. There was abundant gnashing of teeth over Akin’s stupidity for putting the election at risk. But when it comes to women, the right’s policies are actually a logical conclusion of Akin’s dumb outburst. In fact, Paul Ryan and Akin cosponsored a bill in the House that sought to redefine the term “rape.” Their bill would make federal funds unavailable for victims unless the crime was deemed “forcible,” which would have excluded many assaults that were statutory, incest or under duress.

5. Fox News and Romney have both recently made an issue of legislation in Ohio that would remove early voting availability for all voters except those in the military. The Obama Justice Department challenged the law arguing that every voter should have early access to the polls. Romney and Fox responded by accusing the president of wanting to make it more difficult for soldiers to vote, even though the administration’s position is to make voting easier for everyone. What Romney and Fox did not mention was that their position would have denied early voting to over 900,000 Ohio veterans (in addition to millions of other Ohio residents) who were not included in the GOP’s bill. [Note: An Ohio court just ruled in favor of the administration's position, but the Ohio Secretary of State insisted he would defy the court order to open the polls.]

6. Mitt Romney’s problems with his financial records are well known. He continues to refuse to release more than two years of his tax returns even as more evidence comes out that he has engaged in shenanigans involving off-shore banks and other tax avoidance schemes. Nevertheless, Romney had the audacity to address a group of donors and complain about big businesses that “save money by putting various things in the places where there are low-tax havens around the world.” Apparently that’s only acceptable for wealthy presidential candidates.

7. Are you better off now than you were four years ago? Mitt Romney says yes. The key issue of the Romney campaign from its inception has been his contention that the economy is in dismal shape and that it’s the president’s fault. Romney has said on numerous occasions that Obama may have inherited a troubled economy, but he made it worse. However, when asked by radio host Laura Ingraham about improving economic indicators, he said, “Well, of course it’s getting better. The economy always gets better after a recession.” Ingraham was stunned and gave Romney a second shot noting that he wasn’t helping his argument. Romney held firm saying, “Have you got a better one, Laura? It just happens to be the truth.” Soon after, Romney went back to falsely accusing Obama of making things worse.

8. While running for the GOP nomination for president in 2007, Romney was asked by reporters if he agreed with comments by then-candidate Obama that if Osama bin Laden were discovered in Pakistan he would take action if the Pakistanis did not. Romney responded, “I do not concur in the words of Barack Obama in a plan to enter an ally of ours.” Earlier this year, on the anniversary of the death of bin Laden (who was killed by American Special Forces in Pakistan), Romney diminished President Obama's role by claiming, “Anybody would have made that call.” Well…not just anybody.

9. Romney was a vocal opponent of the auto industry bailout orchestrated by the Obama administration. He famously wrote an op-ed for the New York Times with the title "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt." Fast-forward a couple of years to a newly profitable and growing automobile industry and we find that Romney has shifted his position. Today he not only claims he supported the bailout, but he considers himself responsible for its success. He told ABC News that “I’ll take a lot of credit for the fact that this industry’s come back.” That’s a little like Pontius Pilate taking credit for Jesus coming back.

10. When Romney ran for the senate in Massachusetts in 1994, he claimed to support abortion rights and punctuated his commitment to that position with a story about a close relative who died as the result of an illegal abortion. In a debate with his opponent, Ted Kennedy, Romney referenced his family’s loss and said “It is since that time that my mother and my family have been committed to the belief that we can believe as we want, but we will not force our beliefs on others on that matter. And you will not see me wavering on that.” So Romney once made an unwavering commitment never to force his beliefs on others, but now he’s pushing for a constitutional amendment to ban abortion. Is he through with grieving now? Is he comfortable with the grief that other families will suffer if his promise to repeal Roe v. Wade is fulfilled?

Hypocrisy and the Republican Party have never been separated by much The GOP was the originator of the healthcare insurance mandate, but flipped to opposing it after it was proposed by a Democratic president. The GOP supported the DREAM Act until Obama put it on the legislative agenda. Cap and trade was a GOP innovation. And the war hawks of the Republican right – Bush, Cheney, Rove, Boehner, Bolton, Limbaugh, Hannity, Kristol, Beck, et al. – never saw a day of combat. Mitt Romney, after protesting in favor of the draft to send other kids to Vietnam, avoided service via his Mormon missionary work in Paris, and received multiple academic deferments.

The lies that have been so freely disseminated by the right are a serious impediment to democracy. But the GOP's hypocrisy is just as thickly applied and just as deceitful. It is emblematic of the character (or lack thereof) of the Republican Party.

Past Member (0)
Sunday September 9, 2012, 12:07 pm
The romney/ryan budget plan for the wealthy fascists...

Past Member (0)
Sunday September 9, 2012, 12:15 pm
Greed and Debt: The True Story of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital
How the GOP presidential candidate and his private equity firm staged an epic wealth grab, destroyed jobs – and stuck others with the bill

By Matt Taibbi
August 29, 2012 7:00 AM ET

The great criticism of Mitt Romney, from both sides of the aisle, has always been that he doesn't stand for anything. He's a flip-flopper, they say, a lightweight, a cardboard opportunist who'll say anything to get elected.

The critics couldn't be more wrong. Mitt Romney is no tissue-paper man. He's closer to being a revolutionary, a backward-world version of Che or Trotsky, with tweezed nostrils instead of a beard, a half-Windsor instead of a leather jerkin. His legendary flip-flops aren't the lies of a bumbling opportunist – they're the confident prevarications of a man untroubled by misleading the nonbeliever in pursuit of a single, all-consuming goal. Romney has a vision, and he's trying for something big: We've just been too slow to sort out what it is, just as we've been slow to grasp the roots of the radical economic changes that have swept the country in the last generation.

The incredible untold story of the 2012 election so far is that Romney's run has been a shimmering pearl of perfect political hypocrisy, which he's somehow managed to keep hidden, even with thousands of cameras following his every move. And the drama of this rhetorical high-wire act was ratcheted up even further when Romney chose his running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin – like himself, a self-righteously anal, thin-lipped, Whitest Kids U Know penny pincher who'd be honored to tell Oliver Twist there's no more soup left. By selecting Ryan, Romney, the hard-charging, chameleonic champion of a disgraced-yet-defiant Wall Street, officially succeeded in moving the battle lines in the 2012 presidential race.

Like John McCain four years before, Romney desperately needed a vice-presidential pick that would change the game. But where McCain bet on a combustive mix of clueless novelty and suburban sexual tension named Sarah Palin, Romney bet on an idea. He said as much when he unveiled his choice of Ryan, the author of a hair-raising budget-cutting plan best known for its willingness to slash the sacred cows of Medicare and Medicaid. "Paul Ryan has become an intellectual leader of the Republican Party," Romney told frenzied Republican supporters in Norfolk, Virginia, standing before the reliably jingoistic backdrop of a floating warship. "He understands the fiscal challenges facing America: our exploding deficits and crushing debt."

Debt, debt, debt. If the Republican Party had a James Carville, this is what he would have said to win Mitt over, in whatever late-night war room session led to the Ryan pick: "It's the debt, stupid." This is the way to defeat Barack Obama: to recast the race as a jeremiad against debt, something just about everybody who's ever gotten a bill in the mail hates on a primal level.

Last May, in a much-touted speech in Iowa, Romney used language that was literally inflammatory to describe America's federal borrowing. "A prairie fire of debt is sweeping across Iowa and our nation," he declared. "Every day we fail to act, that fire gets closer to the homes and children we love." Our collective debt is no ordinary problem: According to Mitt, it's going to burn our children alive.

And this is where we get to the hypocrisy at the heart of Mitt Romney. Everyone knows that he is fantastically rich, having scored great success, the legend goes, as a "turnaround specialist," a shrewd financial operator who revived moribund companies as a high-priced consultant for a storied Wall Street private equity firm. But what most voters don't know is the way Mitt Romney actually made his fortune: by borrowing vast sums of money that other people were forced to pay back. This is the plain, stark reality that has somehow eluded America's top political journalists for two consecutive presidential campaigns: Mitt Romney is one of the greatest and most irresponsible debt creators of all time. In the past few decades, in fact, Romney has piled more debt onto more unsuspecting companies, written more gigantic checks that other people have to cover, than perhaps all but a handful of people on planet Earth.

By making debt the centerpiece of his campaign, Romney was making a calculated bluff of historic dimensions – placing a massive all-in bet on the rank incompetence of the American press corps. The result has been a brilliant comedy: A man makes a $250 million fortune loading up companies with debt and then extracting million-dollar fees from those same companies, in exchange for the generous service of telling them who needs to be fired in order to finance the debt payments he saddled them with in the first place. That same man then runs for president riding an image of children roasting on flames of debt, choosing as his running mate perhaps the only politician in America more pompous and self-righteous on the subject of the evils of borrowed money than the candidate himself. If Romney pulls off this whopper, you'll have to tip your hat to him: No one in history has ever successfully run for president riding this big of a lie. It's almost enough to make you think he really is qualified for the White House.

The unlikeliness of Romney's gambit isn't simply a reflection of his own artlessly unapologetic mindset – it stands as an emblem for the resiliency of the entire sociopathic Wall Street set he represents. Four years ago, the Mitt Romneys of the world nearly destroyed the global economy with their greed, shortsightedness and – most notably – wildly irresponsible use of debt in pursuit of personal profit. The sight was so disgusting that people everywhere were ready to drop an H-bomb on Lower Manhattan and bayonet the survivors. But today that same insane greed ethos, that same belief in the lunatic pursuit of instant borrowed millions – it's dusted itself off, it's had a shave and a shoeshine, and it's back out there running for president.

Mitt Romney, it turns out, is the perfect frontman for Wall Street's greed revolution. He's not a two-bit, shifty-eyed huckster like Lloyd Blankfein. He's not a sighing, eye-rolling, arrogant jerkwad like Jamie Dimon. But Mitt believes the same things those guys believe: He's been right with them on the front lines of the financialization revolution, a decades-long campaign in which the old, simple, let's-make-stuff-and-sell-it manufacturing economy was replaced with a new, highly complex, let's-take-stuff-and-trash-it financial economy. Instead of cars and airplanes, we built swaps, CDOs and other toxic financial products. Instead of building new companies from the ground up, we took out massive bank loans and used them to acquire existing firms, liquidating every asset in sight and leaving the target companies holding the note. The new borrow-and-conquer economy was morally sanctified by an almost religious faith in the grossly euphemistic concept of "creative destruction," and amounted to a total abdication of collective responsibility by America's rich, whose new thing was making assloads of money in ever-shorter campaigns of economic conquest, sending the proceeds offshore, and shrugging as the great towns and factories their parents and grandparents built were shuttered and boarded up, crushed by a true prairie fire of debt.

Mitt Romney – a man whose own father built cars and nurtured communities, and was one of the old-school industrial anachronisms pushed aside by the new generation's wealth grab – has emerged now to sell this make-nothing, take-everything, screw-everyone ethos to the world. He's Gordon Gekko, but a new and improved version, with better PR – and a bigger goal. A takeover artist all his life, Romney is now trying to take over America itself. And if his own history is any guide, we'll all end up paying for the acquisition.

Read more:

Carol D (346)
Sunday September 9, 2012, 11:19 pm
Jason...You do well copying and pasting but that's about all!! Why not come up with some actual facts instead of the typical liberal just don't get it do you!!

Can't wait to see this video Barb...I want to see 2016 also!! I hear it's a good one! Obama is sinking!!

Jae..Are you alright!? LOL...

Sherry H (67)
Saturday September 15, 2012, 8:52 pm
Great video Barb!
Not one lie? Great tale about his mother.

Past Member (0)
Saturday September 15, 2012, 10:23 pm
"Jason you sound like the typical Liberal...Just take away from the rich who worked for what they have and give it to those who would rather stick it in their arm or up their nose"

You drank the hate koolaid. Elaine. The people you THINK your 12 cents go to are a fraction (0.0000012) of the victims of this money hoarding depression has ruined.
Answer this without the first thought being, let them die...

If 100% employment is impossible, what do we do with the unemployed?

Lets take a lesson in economics, k? Our economy, the middle classes, the people's economy used to have $13+- trillion circulating amongst us, long ago (30 yrs) Clinton suspended Glass/Stiegal and then Bush suspended most of the other laws that protected the people. Enter the greed rich that already have too much money. Our money that makes up OUR economy. They begin to run the biggest con ever perpetrated on the world. Soon. 2006. 750k jobs a month start drying up while the rich loot us blind. Obama stated in 3 seconds allowed on CNN, "We tried to go after them but they broke no laws." Truth and fact. he started up the Consumers financial protection bureau. The fascist right blocked naming a director for 3 long years. They didn't and don't want these protected laws on the books. Meanwhile, the looting continued.

Now, our economy has about $4+- trillion circulating. 45 million adults are on food stamps. You want to deny people just like you, prosperity because you hate 0.0000012% of the people? You want to keep quiet about a $3 trillion war we were lied into by a guy that let 911 happen (FACT) and forced Obama, whom you obviously hate, to put it on the budget book along with the Afgan war that should have ended at Tora Bora, 12? years ago and hate on a few people?

You don't get to be totally ignorant of reality and talk down to me. You don't get to let Fox do your thinking for you and attempt to belittle some one that knows the truth. CAPIECH???

Here's my first line of the NWO constitution:
We, the people, shallow no person or entity to own and hold any more than $15 million dollars.
You must pass your business down and go fishing.

This would end the hoarding that is causing this depression. Put greed in check. Don't like it? See a shrink.

Calling what Mitt Romney did to businesses and people, work, while he amassed hundreds of millions of dollars, in ten years, is ridiculous at best. Defending them is treasonous.

I'm so Fing tired of your stupidity. It's killing us.

Diane O (194)
Sunday September 16, 2012, 3:31 am
I wonder how college students would feel about redistributive wealth if this same tactic applied to their college exams. If someone makes an A after intense studying and their classmate made a D because they didn't put any time into studying, then by the same guidelines, that student who made the A should drop down to a C to give the D student a C. It's the same thought process. And it's wrong.

Liberals are all about redistributive wealth until it involves them personally. France is now raising taxes on the rich to an unprecedented level. Anyone earning over $1 million will get taxe 75%. When that happens a country loses their rich because they leave and take their businesses with them. France will now run out of rich people to pay for the slackards who have no ambition of their own.

Greece ran out of rich people. Italy is running out of rich people. Portugal has run out of rich people.

Past Member (0)
Sunday September 16, 2012, 9:17 am
If 100% employment is impossible, what do we do with the unemployed?

Can you name the 5 happiest countries in the world?

Right wing hate gets you nowhere. It's the koolaid of the economy destroying, billionaire, money hoarders. To support them and what they're doing to us is insane!

Diane O (194)
Sunday September 16, 2012, 9:37 am
The United States of America cannot be compared with any other country. We are a Republic. We have a Constitution. Our country was built on capitalism and capitalism is the only thing that will save it. Immigrants came across the ocean decades ago to start a new life, a life of freedom to chart their own financial paths, open businesses, buy a home and raise their children in a free society.

Eventually countries who are now in "utopia" will eventually run of their rich to cover the financial needs of the people. Why? Because the rich will eventually move to another country to relocate their companies where taxes are lower. It has already happened in the United States. The countries you are referring to are small countries and at some point they will go bankrupt with their government in control of their needs.

Jason, there's no right wing hate. Personally, I'm a logical thinker and a pure realist. I look at history and I compare it to where we are today. With Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain in a downward spiral one needs to look at the reason why they are in decline and will not recover. Redistributive wealth doesn't work. It destroys innovation and growth. The word stagnant comes to mind.

Past Member (0)
Sunday September 16, 2012, 10:05 am
We are a "Democratic Republic".

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

What part of "promote the general Welfare" do you not understand? Republicans have destroyed our welfare. Capitalism was and is known to be thee worse form of government on earth. This is why we had protective laws to insure our general Welfare. The wealthy struck them down and looted us.

No right wing hate? Then why does Fox promote it 24/7? Why do I see it all the time?

Did you look at our history before 1981? Remember the american dream? Remember when the people were consumers with savings and dreams? Now, it's proven that a college education isn't worth the debt you'll leave at your death! Is that the capitalism you love?

Let's talk about secession from each other. We can't live with the right wing brain washed and they sure as hell hate Liberals. There is no other solution, so what is keeping us from discussing divorce? I want it. You want it. let's quit arguing and get it done already.

What is the most avoided question you can ask a republican?
If 100% employment is impossible, what do we do with the unemployed?

They won't answer because they know they're supposed to be ashamed of it.

Past Member (0)
Sunday September 16, 2012, 10:11 am
Kirkpatrick Sale of the Middlebury Institute recently observed that there is presently ”more attention being paid to secession than any time since 1865? and predicts that “one of the American states will vote for its independence in the next 10 years.” Neo-secessionist sentiments are frequently stereotyped as a characteristic exhibited primarily by “right-wing extremists.” Yet there are serious reasons why genuine progressives should consider secession. Among the most compelling reasons why the Left should consider dissolving the U.S. into multiple nations, regions, or city-states are:

-Break-up of the U.S.A. means an end to the American empire that has killed millions of people throughout the world over the last sixty-five years, including perhaps two million Iraqis, three million Southeast Asians, hundreds of thousands of Central Americans, half a million Timorese, thousands of Afghanis, and many, many more.

-Without the support of the U.S., international capitalist organizations such as the IMF, World Bank, WTO, etc. would be much less powerful and influential.

-The demise of the federal regime would mean an end to U.S. aid to Israel, and a fighting chance for the Palestinians.

-The collapse of the U.S. federal system would mean an end to federal corporate-welfare, bank-welfare, and, above all, the death of the military-industrial complex.

-No more federal regime means no more DHS, FBI, CIA, DEA, BATF, Bureau of Prisons, Bureau of Indian Affairs, federal drug war, federal mandatory minimums, or the national police state built up around the war on terrorism. What could be more successful at overturning the “terror war” legislation of the last eight years than complete disintegration of the federal government itself?

-An end to federal corporate welfare means a severe weakening of Big Pharma, agribusiness, or local developers utilizing federal money in efforts at gentrification.

-The disintegration of the U.S. means not only the end of federal drug prohibition but an end to U.S. support for the international drug war and the America-centric structure of international drug prohibition, thereby allowing other nations to develop more progressive policies on this matter.

Diane O (194)
Sunday September 16, 2012, 10:38 am
Jason, you are way too far "out there" for me. Living in fantasy land. I have no response to your comments.

Except this comment: The United States of America is still the richest and strongest country in the world. I have no fears. Unlike you, I believe in America.

Past Member (0)
Sunday September 16, 2012, 10:55 am
Too far "out there"? lol

I know it must be very difficult to comprehend other things that fox didn't teach you. One of the most frightening things since reagan is calling facts fantasy. We all saw the RNC. We know who's in fantasy land. People that won't be controlled by fact checkers. Here's another fact. Bush LET 911 happen. The evidence is all in. No doubt. Why? Because we are living amongst the 3rd anti christ. A card carrying member of the 4th reich.
GW Bush Is Mabus, page 1
In ancient Greek the word Mabus would mean, Mr. Bush. So literally in ancient Greek, Nostradamus' inference that "The third Antichrist Mabus shall come" (from one of his epistles) is written as "The third Antichrist Mr. Bush shall come".
He has killed enough innocent people to qualify and cement it.

Would you respond to just one thing, though? Please!

If 100% employment is impossible, what do we do with the unemployed?


Diane O (194)
Sunday September 16, 2012, 11:07 am
There are several reasons why some Americans are unemployed. Some simply don't need to work. Some are retired and have invested well through the years. Some aren't old enough to work. Some are too old to work. Some are independently wealthy. Some would rather be homeless than work and pay taxes so they live under a bridge or on park benches.

Past Member (0)
Sunday September 16, 2012, 9:20 pm
More truth...

Past Member (0)
Monday September 17, 2012, 11:57 am
Why can't you admit that you are wrong about everything? Are you trapped or something?

Past Member (0)
Tuesday September 18, 2012, 9:54 am
If 100% employment is impossible, what do we do with the unemployed?

Cam V (417)
Thursday September 20, 2012, 6:26 pm
Great story Barb! Thankxs for posting this!
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story

Loading Noted By...Please Wait


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in US Politics & Gov't

Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.