Monday, July 09, 2012

Google Pushes to Legalize Love

I am in Ottawa at the moment. Highs in the seventies, blue skies with puffy little clouds. They're having a big blues festival so there are a lot of people out in the streets.

This story is kind of interesting, if only because it is not a "news story" per se. Google did not put out press releases, their spokespersons are not spinning it, the big media aren't carrying it, as far as I can tell it is just something they talked about at a conference in London and a blogger mentioned it online.

MSNBC points its readers to a site called Dot429 Magazine:

Google is launching a new campaign called "Legalize Love" with the intention of inspiring countries to legalize marriage for lesbian, gay, and bisexual people around the world.

The "Legalize Love" campaign officially launches in Poland and Singapore on Saturday, July 7th. Google intends to eventually expand the initiative to every country where the company has an office, and will focus on places with homophobic cultures, where anti-gay laws exist.

Google's Mark Palmer-Edgecumbe outlined the initiative at a Global LGBT Workplace Summit in London earlier today. "We want our employees who are gay or lesbian or transgender to have the same experience outside the office as they do in the office. It is obviously a very ambitious piece of work.

Their strategy involves developing partnerships between companies and organizations to support grass-roots campaigns.

On the decision to launch the initial phase in a country like Singapore, Palmer-Edgecumbe says, "Singapore wants to be a global financial center and world leader and we can push them on the fact that being a global center and a world leader means you have to treat all people the same, irrespective of their sexual orientation."

At the end of the day, the "Legalize Love" campaign is also good for Google's business. "We operate in many countries and have a very globally mobile workforce. We have had a number of instances where we have been trying to hire people into countries where there are these issues and have been unable to put the best person into a job in that country," said Palmer-Edgecumbe.

Harry Gaskell, of professional services firm Ernst & Young who also spoke at the conference in London, backed the argument for combining initiatives between governments, organizations, and companies. "If you are trying to change something - governments can exert diplomatic power, NGOs can martial facts and arguments - but corporations martial economic power. That is something even the most passive of countries will listen to."

Bob Amnnibale, an openly gay executive at Citi, also praised the initiative. "The fact that Google is so virtual and its appeal is very wide and young demographically means it can help spread messaging very, very quickly." Google wants the world to "Legalize Love"

91 Comments:

Anonymous Robert said...

Going to meeting, sacraments, prayer, etc., all remind me of behaviours.

Could someone have belief and commitment (i.e. faith) without having religion?

Conversely, could one have religion without having belief?

How is the law to tell the difference?

July 10, 2012 4:16 AM  
Anonymous Rut roh, Romney! Who let them lady dogs out? said...

"The five-figure-a-plate fundraising soirée for Mitt Romney brought out the elite to the Hamptons, where they could show their appreciation for a man who truly gets them. Along the way, he wondered why the hoi polloi doesn’t think that what’s good for the rich is good for everyone.

The Los Angeles Times interviewed one woman who mused that normal people just don’t get it.

A New York City donor a few cars back, who also would not give her name, said Romney needed to do a better job connecting. “I don’t think the common person is getting it,” she said from the passenger seat of a Range Rover stamped with East Hampton beach permits. “Nobody understands why Obama is hurting them.

“We’ve got the message,” she added. “But my college kid, the baby sitters, the nails [sic] ladies — everybody who’s got the right to vote — they don’t understand what’s going on. I just think if you’re lower income — one, you’re not as educated, two, they don’t understand how it works, they don’t understand how the systems work, they don’t understand the impact.”


In case you missed it, there was a not-so-veiled reference there to the right to vote, and why it should probably be taken away from the great unwashed masses.

But the unnamed rich woman wasn’t the only clueless person helping out their fellow clueless rich person.

A few cars back, Ted Conklin, the owner of the American Hotel in Sag Habor, N.Y., long a favorite of the well-off and well-known in the Hamptons, could barely contain his displeasure with Mr. Obama. “He is a socialist. His idea is find a problem that doesn’t exist and get government to intervene,” Mr. Conklin said from inside a gold-colored Mercedes as his wife, Carol Simmons, nodded in agreement.

Ms. Simmons paused to highlight what she said was her husband’s generous spirit: “Tell them who’s on your yacht this weekend! Tell him!”

Over Mr. Conklin’s objections, Ms. Simmons disclosed that a major executive from Miramax, the movie company, was on the 75-foot yacht, because, she said, there were no rooms left at the hotel.


Alas, it wasn’t all fun and games for Mitt’s elite friends. After all, how does one maintain one’s level of superiority over others when one is among one’s fellow überrich?

A woman in a blue chiffon dress poked her head out of a black Range Rover here on Sunday afternoon and yelled to an aide to Mitt Romney, “Is there a V.I.P. entrance. We are V.I.P.”

Yes you are! You are so V.I.P.!


While the very rich are no doubt different than you and me, one can’t help noting that the first woman quoted, the one lamenting the poor, uneducated common folk, was wrong. Mitt Romney is not struggling to overtake President Barack Obama because the commoners don’t understand the system. Mitt is struggling to catch on precisely because the common folk understand the system all too well."

July 10, 2012 10:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"In case you missed it, there was a not-so-veiled reference there to the right to vote, and why it should probably be taken away from the great unwashed masses"

so, now you're saying that if you mention that you think someone doesn't understand something, you are suggesting they not be allowed to vote?

that's funny because that's what the Democrats in Congress say about the American public regarding Obamacare

they say the public doesn't understand what's good for them

Nancy Pelosi must be trying to take voting rights away from anyone opposed to Obamacare

"While the very rich are no doubt different than you and me,"

I assume you aren't rich

you're right, they are different

they either succeeded at something you didn't or were given money by someone who did

you must loathe them

"one can’t help noting that the first woman quoted, the one lamenting the poor, uneducated common folk, was wrong"

she actually was wrong

people from all socio-economic realms are realizing that Obama is not right for the country

"Mitt Romney is not struggling to overtake President Barack Obama because the commoners don’t understand the system. Mitt is struggling to catch on precisely because the common folk understand the system all too well."

Romney is struggling?

the polls released so far this week either have the race tied or Romney in the lead, despite a barrage of negative campaigning by Obama in swing states

currently, the idiotic Obama is calling maintaining the tax structure we've had for the last dozen years, a tax cut

he also said the fact that the unemployment rate stayed the same as last month means "we're moving in the right direction, baby!"

with the sluggish economy, Obama is campaigning on an idea to raise taxes on a minority group, thinking the majority is so stupid that they won't realize that taxing the country's jobs creators will result in less jobs

that's right, those people who have been more successful than you create all the jobs in the country

we tax cigarettes to get less of them

people are beginning to realize that taxing job creators has the same effect

over the next six weeks, the Republicans will pass a number of bills in the chamber they control to show what will happpen if they control the other chamber and the White House

you may remember that earlier the Republicans passed the budget that Obama submitted to Congress and the Democrats rejected it unanimously in the chamber they control

face it: Obama's out of ideas

if you think the pre-election discussion in the fall will go well for Dems, you're crazy

July 10, 2012 5:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The funny thing about this "donor's" quote....is that the paper is quoting NO ONE!

The reporter didn't bother to get her name? How do we know this woman isn't completely made up by the reporter?

So the best that liberals can do against Romney is to quote some phantom woman?

July 10, 2012 7:29 PM  
Anonymous DogLoversAgainstRomney said...

"The reporter didn't bother to get her name? How do we know this woman isn't completely made up by the reporter?"

You're not so good at googling to find simple answers to simple questions, are you?

There were other reporters there for the Romney trifecta sweep through the Hamptons, and a couple of them reported the "We are V.I.P!" woman's name.

The local paper, the Southhampton Patch Staff reported:

"Laura R. Schwartz, who was waiting in line in a black Range Rover outside the East Hampton fundraiser. “Is there a V.I.P. entrance?" she asked a Romney aide. "We are V.I.P.”"

Apparently some local reporter got Ms. Schwartz' name even though the Los Angeles Times reporter noted in the cut and paste second in this thread didn't report it.

Michael Barbaro and Sarah Wheaton, reporters with the NYTimes also managed to get the name of the woman in "a blue chiffon dress who poked her head of out a black Range Rover":

Laura R. Schwartz, the woman inside the Range Rover and a fund-raiser, complained that Mr. Obama had not visited Israel as president, a slight to the country, in her eyes. “I don’t think he is good for Israel,” she said. Mr. Romney, she said, “is a fresh face.”

Her companion, Rody Mehdizadeh, who said he manufactures laundry detergent, praised Mr. Romney’s business acumen.”


Most of these rich folks prefer anonymity, maybe she's new at having money and doesn't quite get it herself yet. Or maybe she gave her name to multiple reporters because she's hoping to attract more donors to her fund-raising efforts. I'll give here this, she's braver than Karl Rove's SUPERPAC donors, who only donate because they can give their support in secret because the Supreme Court ruled their donations are "free speech."

July 11, 2012 8:49 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

When Another Perk for the Rich asked on the previous thread:

"Since when are the rich entitled to freedom of speech in secrecy? Freedom of secret speech is not in the First Amendment anywhere."

Then showed that the conservative Chamber of Commerce is spending millions of dollars to defeat Democratic candidates, while Mitch McConnell (among other Republican shills) and the aforementioned Chamber are arguing to keep their rich donors secret.

To which Anon argued:

“if you don't have the right to secret speech, you don't have any

that's obvious

it's also obvious why certain people are obsessed with the identity of speakers

not being able to counter certain arguments, they want to launch personal attacks against them in an effort to suppress their speech

it's not complicated

think about it

after you've received some remedial education”

Then on this post, (when a rich conservative donor wasn’t identified) blasted:

“The funny thing about this "donor's" quote....is that the paper is quoting NO ONE!

The reporter didn't bother to get her name? How do we know this woman isn't completely made up by the reporter?

So the best that liberals can do against Romney is to quote some phantom woman?”

Obviously, the second Anon isn’t the same as the first, since she (or he) has managed to master capitalization, punctuation, and basic sentence structure.

However, I find it amusing to see conservative minds at work here:

First, claim to require anonymity for rich donors to protect yourself from harassment by those scary liberals, then when those rich anonymous donors are quoted saying something damaging to the cause, blame it on those #%$* liberals again and claim they’re making it up.

Wow, what a plan! No hypocrisy at all! I think it shows that conservatives really like to “have it both ways.”

Have a nice day,

Cynthia

July 11, 2012 8:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"First, claim to require anonymity for rich donors to protect yourself from harassment by those scary liberals, then when those rich anonymous donors are quoted saying something damaging to the cause, blame it on those #%$* liberals again and claim they’re making it up.

Wow, what a plan! No hypocrisy at all! I think it shows that conservatives really like to “have it both ways.”"

Cinco, your mind has now deteriated to the point where you you can no longer distinguish apples from oranges.

Dems are demanding laws of disclosure, saying no one should be permitted BY LAW to make statements without public disclosure of their identity

the anon above was simply saying you don't have to believe or accept a statement from a reporter even he doesn't provide substantiation that can be verified

no one said the reporter shouldn't be allowed BY LAW to print heresay or that the source should be forbidden BY LAW from remaining anonymous

people can argue ideas anonymously

one of the arguments can obviously be that the other side cannot substantiate their facts

July 11, 2012 9:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Except multiple reporters corroborate the name of the "We are V.I.P. woman" is Laura R. Schwarts, a fund-raiser, so Anon's claims "How do we know this woman isn't completely made up by the reporter?...So the best that liberals can do against Romney is to quote some phantom woman?" off the top of his pin head, are wrong, mean-spirited, and miss the mark.

No surprise there.

July 11, 2012 10:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Correction: Laura R. Schwartz

July 11, 2012 10:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

According to a new report, Mitt Romney’s proposed tax plan would save him about $5 million dollars a year compared to what he would pay under President Obama.

Although it seems like a drop in the bucket for a man as wealthy as Romney, $5 million can go a long way. Here are some of the things that President Mitt Romney could buy with his savings:

133 Cadillacs
Ann Romney could drive more than “a couple” of Cadillacs with an extra $5 million. The newest Cadillac SRX — her preferred model — has a list price of around $43,900, meaning that she could afford 133 of them.

91 Car Elevators
The car elevator in Romney’s La Jolla home cost him $55,000, meaning that he could afford 91 of them with his tax savings.

232 Lobbyists
Romney paid a lobbyist $21,500 to help convince city officials to let him build his La Jolla dream home; he could hire him 231 more times using his extra money.

53,827 Front Row Kid Rock Tickets
Kid Rock, who endorsed Romney and appears on the candidate’s playlist, played a Romney campaign event for free before the Michigan primary. Using his tax savings, Romney could pay to see every Kid Rock concert until the end of time.

48 Dressage Horses
The cost of a dressage horse varies, but Ann Romney paid $105,000 for her horse Super Hit in 2003. She could have bought 47 more at that price (although the other costs involved with the sport are wildly expensive.)

Twelve Percent Of His Last Failed Presidential Campaign
Romney’s tax savings of $5 million would barely make a dent in the $42.3 million of his own fortune that he spent on his failed 2008 campaign.

July 11, 2012 11:19 AM  
Anonymous Goggle is not alone said...

Sixteen years after first allowing gays and lesbians to become priests and nine years after electing its first gay bishop, the Episcopal Church on Tuesday became the largest Christian denomination in the U.S. to offer religious blessings to same-sex couples.

The monumental decision, approved by a thick margin at the church's triennial General Convention in Indianapolis, means that priests in the 1.9 million-member church can officiate blessings to same-sex couples who are in long-term relationships beginning in December.

The church's House of Deputies voted 171 to 41, with nine people saying they were divided, to support a same-sex blessings liturgy that will be used during a three-year trial before the church meets again and decides if it should be permanent. The deputies' vote was done in two parts, with lay members approving the blessings by 78 percent and clergy members approving by 76 percent.

The vote followed Monday's decision by the church's House of Bishops supporting the measure by a 111 to 41, with three abstentions. Both groups have to approve new legislation.

Some Episcopal bishops currently allow same-sex blessings in their dioceses, but many have said they will not allow them unless the church has an official liturgy -- the words exchanged between a couple and a priest during the ceremony.

The new liturgy will not be mandatory. Bishops who do not approve of same-sex relationships will be allowed to bar its use in their dioceses. Priests who choose to not perform same-sex ceremonies will not face discipline.

The liturgy does not represent a religious marriage -- the church defines marriage as being between a man and a woman -- though some clergy in states that allow civil marriage officiate secular marriages in their churches.

During debate on Tuesday, many members of the church spoke in favor of same-sex blessings, while fewer spoke against them.

"I believe we are doing the loving thing, we are doing what Jesus would call on us to do," said the Rt. Rev. Michael Curry, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of North Carolina, in an interview. "We are finding a way to to support and care for people who have shown lifelong care and love for each other," added Curry, who voted for the legislation and has been officiating same-sex marriages in his own diocese since 2004.

"This singular motion ... will result in the Episcopal Church of the United States marching not simply out of step with but completely out of line with the faith," said the Rev. David Thurlow of South Carolina, a deputy who planned to vote against the proposal.

Tuesday's vote followed the church's decision on Monday to allow the ordination of transgender people. That vote to change to the church's "nondiscrimination canons" to include "gender identity and expression" overwhelmingly passed the church House of Bishops and House of Deputies. It makes it illegal to bar from the priesthood people who were born into one gender and live as another or who do not identify themselves as male or female. It added to church rules against discrimination based on race, ethnicity, national origin, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, disability and age.

July 11, 2012 11:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

if romney is struggling, so is obama

"WASHINGTON -- A new poll showing the presidential race stuck in a dead heat is prompting the political chattering class to fantasize about the prospects for a deadlocked Electoral College next fall.

The latest Washington Post-ABC News poll shows President Obama and Republican rival Mitt Romney tied at 47 percent among registered voters. Those numbers have hardly budged in 13 surveys, with either candidate holding the lead just twice during that time.

With just four months to go before Election Day and few signs that either candidate is about to pull away, political prognosticators are starting to handicap the odds of an Electoral College draw in which neither gets the 270 votes needed to win. Already several have colored in maps showing how a 269-269 tie could play out.

The latest scenario comes from Real Clear Politics's Erin McPike.

She writes that a deadlock is most likely to result if Romney carries every state John McCain won in 2008, which gives him 180 electoral votes once redistricting is taken into account. McPike then gives the Republican Indiana (11 electoral votes), Virginia (13), North Carolina (15), Florida (29), Ohio (18), and New Hampshire (4), for a total of 270 to 268 for Obama. But then she subtracts the one electoral vote Obama picked up under Nebraska's system, which eschews the winner-take-all allocation in most states. Voila! Romney ends up with just 269 and the election is sent to the House of Representatives.

At which point, Romney may still win. As President John Adams learned in the bitterly contested election of 1800 against Thomas Jefferson, the incoming Congress gets the final say in a tie."

July 11, 2012 11:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"McPike then gives the Republican Indiana (11 electoral votes), Virginia (13), North Carolina (15), Florida (29), Ohio (18), and New Hampshire (4)"

Except RCP State Polls most recently report:

Virginia (PPP) - Obama 50%, Romney 42%
Ohio (Quinnipiac) - Obama 47%, Romney 38%

That moves 31 electoral votes to Obama.

Oops!

July 11, 2012 12:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obama Leads Romney Nationally, Boosted By Unmarried Voters: Poll

"President Barack Obama leads Mitt Romney nationally by a slim 46 to 43 margin, according to a poll released Wednesday morning by Quinnipiac University.

Obama's edge comes largely among unmarried voters, the poll found. He leads Romney 54 percent to 34 percent among the single voters polled, while Romney has a 51 to 38 advantage among married voters.

"Although much has been made about the gender gap and how President Barack Obama’s lead among women fuels his campaign, the marriage gap is actually larger and more telling,” Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, said in a statement. He attributed the marriage gap to differences in age and financial security between the groups.

The results show little movement in the race since Quinnipiac's last national poll in April, when Obama led Romney by 46 percent to 42 percent."

July 11, 2012 2:27 PM  
Anonymous here it comes, another nervous election said...

unmarried persons don't vote in as high a proportion as married persons do

in a race this close, that will make a difference

"WASHINGTON — Republicans passed a bill through the House on Wednesday to repeal the nation's two-year-old health care law, a maneuver that forced Democrats to choose between President Barack Obama's signature domestic achievement and a public that is persistently skeptical of its value.

The vote was 244-185, with five Democratic defectors siding with Republicans.

The vote marked the 33rd time in 18 months that the tea party-infused GOP majority has voted to eliminate, defund or otherwise scale back the program – opponents scornfully call it "Obamacare" – since the GOP took control of the House.

Illinois Rep. Peter Roskam said: "Here's the good news. The voters get the last word in November. Stay tuned."

Also, one day after a campaigning Obama called on Congress to pass his proposal to extend tax cuts on all but the highest wage earners, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky offered to allow an immediate vote. "I can't see why Democrats wouldn't want to give him the chance" to sign the bill, he said.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., countered by blocking an immediate vote. "We'll get to the tax issues. That way we'll be able to talk in more detail about Governor Romney's taxes," he said in a reference to Democratic campaign attacks on the GOP presidential candidate's overseas investment and the relatively low rate of income tax he is required to pay.

The health care debate roiled the campaign for the White House as well as Congress.

Republicans assailed the law as a job-killing threat to the economic recovery."

July 11, 2012 7:13 PM  
Anonymous slobama said...

Obama says he wants to raise taxes on those making over 250K.

Republicans say OK, let's vote on it.

Dems say no, we want to keep campaigning on it. If we vote, we can't keep talking about it.

What hypocrisy!

"WASHINGTON (AP) — Democrats blocked a Senate vote Wednesday on President Barack Obama's plan to extend expiring tax cuts for a year for everyone but the highest earners.

The move came just two days after Obama urged Congress to vote on his proposal. Without action by lawmakers, wide-ranging tax cuts enacted a decade ago under President George W. Bush will expire on New Year's Day. That's an outcome that economists say would be a blow to the already weak economy.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., proposed votes on two amendments to a small business tax cut bill the chamber is debating. One was on Obama's plan, the other on a Republican alternative that would include top earners in the extended tax reductions.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., blocked the votes on both. "We'll get to the tax issues," Reid said. "That way we'll be able to talk in more detail about Gov. Romney's taxes," a reference to Democratic demands that wealthy GOP presidential challenger Mitt Romney release more of his income tax returns.

The White House voiced support for Reid's blocking action. Presidential spokesman Jay Carney called the GOP move "a gimmick."

Trying to take the offensive, Obama's re-election campaign released a television ad it will air in nine states where the election could be close, contrasting the middle-income tax breaks Obama has proposed with the tax cuts Romney's plan would provide for wealthy individuals and corporations. "Two plans, your choice," the announcer says.

Obama would exclude families earning over $250,000 a year from the renewed tax cuts, saying they should contribute to deficit reduction.

Republicans say by excluding those people, the plan would in effect raise taxes on many business people and stifle job creation. Republicans said Reid blocked the votes to protect vulnerable Democrats seeking re-election this fall from having to vote on Obama's plan.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said Obama's proposal "is not just an economic disaster. It's a political loser and they know it."

Out of 119 million U.S. households, just 2.5 million — or 2 percent — reported making at least $250,000 in 2010, according to Census Bureau figures.

An estimated 940,000 taxpayers reporting business earnings will earn enough money to see their tax rates rise in 2013 unless lawmakers act, according to Congress' nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation. That is 3.5 percent of taxpayers reporting business earnings — a figure Democrats use to show how few businesses would pay higher tax rates under Obama's plan.

The committee also estimated that those 940,000 taxpayers will account for 53 percent of the $1.3 trillion in business earnings reported in 2013 — a number Republicans cite to argue that the higher rates will hurt the economy and job creation."

July 12, 2012 4:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Republicans say OK, let's vote on it.

Dems say no, we want to keep campaigning on it. If we vote, we can't keep talking about it."

Oh really!? When does Boehner have this vote scheduled in the House? It can't become law unless the House AND the Senate approve it.

The Hill reports the bill to keep the bush tax cuts for those who make $250K or less will be voted on later this month in the Senate:

Democrats will vote this week on legislation extending tax breaks to small businesses. Later this month they plan to take up a bill stripping tax breaks for companies that relocate operations overseas and vote on a proposal to extend the Bush-era tax rates only for families earning $250,000 or less, according to Democratic aides.

July 12, 2012 9:40 AM  
Anonymous What's that smell?? said...

Former Vice President Dick Cheney will host a high-priced fundraiser for Mitt Romney at his Wyoming home Thursday night.

The $30,000-a-couple dinner at Cheney's home outside of Jackson Hole will follow a reception at the fancy Teton Pines country club nearby. Together, the two events are expected to raise more than $2 million for the Romney campaign.

The evening represents Cheney's "grandest gesture to pass a torch to Romney," says the Washington Post. But it also draws attention to Romney's "complicated and not always comfortable" relationship with the last Republican administration.

The Associated Press says Romney rarely appears in public with Cheney or with former President George W. Bush, and even goes out of his way at times to avoid saying Bush's name out loud, simply calling him President Obama's "predecessor."

Romney advisers characterize his relationship with Cheney as cordial, though not particularly close, and say there's little evidence of Cheney's influence on Romney's policies.

Still, Romney has on occasion voiced his admiration for Cheney, who remains a popular figure within conservative circles — and a polarizing one outside them.

Back in September 2011, Romney said that when it comes time to choose a vice president, he'd pick someone like Cheney.

"That's the kind of person I'd like to have--a person of wisdom and judgment," Romney told a crowd in Arizona.

July 12, 2012 9:45 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Anon claimed:
“Cinco, your mind has now deteriated to the point where you you can no longer distinguish apples from oranges.

Dems are demanding laws of disclosure, saying no one should be permitted BY LAW to make statements without public disclosure of their identity”


Um, no they aren’t, Anon. Try to pay attention and follow along. It will make your rants appear more on-topic and less idiotic. With any luck, they might even make sense.


No one cares if the Koch brothers get on line and do a bunch of anonymous Obama bashing, and no one is proposing any laws that would stop them from doing that. If they donate 10 million dollars to a SuperPac for issue ads, however, the American public should know where that money is coming from.

When we see an ad on TV arguing for more deregulation of the banking system, we should know whether the group putting it on was funded by George Soros, Goldman Sachs, a teacher’s union, or a front company for the Chinese government. If we are really lucky, the transparency provided by disclosure will slow down what appears to be an inevitable slide of our democracy into a plutocracy. (And no, that’s not a state where Pluto is president and doggie treats are free for everyone – look it up if you have to.)

Knowing where the money comes from in our political system is critical to making informed voting decisions. This is not a new idea, or part of a nefarious “liberal agenda.” It is part of a normal, healthy, properly functioning democracy. Without it, our politicians will be bought and sold without any pretense of trying to do what’s good for the American public at large. At least we used to have the pretense. I’m not so sure anymore.

From:

http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-there-be-less-disclosure-in-campaign-finance/current-disclosure-laws-fail-the-american-people

“Currently, the problem in our political system is too little disclosure. Groups such as Crossroads GPS (run by Republican operative Karl Rove) and Priorities USA (run by Democratic operative Bill Burton) are spending massive amounts to influence the outcome of the 2012 elections. Yet they are able to keep the sources of their money hidden, providing donors with anonymity.

The courts have repeatedly upheld contributor disclosure laws, even in the Citizens United decision. Writing for the majority in an 8-to-1 vote, Justice Anthony Kennedy stated, "We reject Citizens United's challenge to the disclaimer and disclosure provisions. Those mechanisms provide information to the electorate. The resulting transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and different messages.”

July 12, 2012 9:56 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

(Continued)

“Justice Kennedy also wrote, "With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters. Shareholders can determine whether their corporation's political speech advances the corporation's interest in making profits, and citizens can see whether elected officials are 'in the pocket' of so-called moneyed interests."

In addition, Justice Antonin Scalia stated in a recent case challenging disclosure, "Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed." Justice Scalia implored his fellow justices to recognize that without disclosure, America will "not resemble the Home of the Brave."



In short, less disclosure means a less informed electorate. Abraham Lincoln once wrote, "I am a firm believer in the people. [G]iven the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis … The great point is to bring them the real facts."


From Anon again:


“people can argue ideas anonymously”

No one denied that anon. You do it all the time. No one is proposing to force you to reveal yourself, or even proposing a law to do so.

Quite frankly, I can’t blame you for remaining anonymous. If I said 1/10th of the unsubstantiated BS you do, I wouldn’t want people knowing who I was either. Not to mention other traits about your rants that would have people wondering about mental stability. (Oops, I guess I did mention it!)


“one of the arguments can obviously be that the other side cannot substantiate their facts”


Bingo Anon,

Bingo.


Have a nice day,

Cynthia

July 12, 2012 9:57 AM  
Anonymous P U !!! said...

From The Wall Street Journal on the Cheney-Romney fundraiser:

"The event will help the likely Republican nominee tap any donors to former President George W. Bush who remain on the sidelines, while fueling Democratic efforts to tie Mr. Romney to President Barack Obama's predecessor.

Mr. Cheney remains a polarizing figure for his outspoken belief in a robust American military presence abroad, his support for sweeping executive powers and his unapologetic advocacy of harsh interrogation methods, such as simulated drowning.

Mr. Romney embraced "enhanced interrogation" repeatedly during his first presidential bid in 2008, particularly in "ticking time bomb" scenarios when American lives hang in the balance, but he made a point of saying he opposed anything defined as torture. The issue hasn't reared its head as much in this campaign, but the presumptive GOP nominee went out of his way during a November debate to say he would make a distinction between crimes and acts of war, with separate repercussions for each instance.

The July 12 fund-raiser will be a tiered event, giving donors the chance to pay a little extra for the privilege of dining with Mr. Romney and the former vice president. "

July 12, 2012 10:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In spite of such sage words from the Supreme Court about the need for disclosure so citizens know who funds political advertizing, earlier this year the campaign-finance DISCLOSE Act won support from 59 senators but yet again failed to overcome another obstructive GOP filibuster. Further, GOP leaders like Mitch McConnell, disagree with the Supreme Court and claim "the DISCLOSE Act is un-American."

Mitch McConnell is un-American.

July 12, 2012 10:15 AM  
Anonymous Even Utah evolves!! said...

Majority of Utahns oppose gay marriage, but attitudes shift toward civil unions, BYU poll finds
Utah attitudes on gay marriage shift significantly


The majority of Utah voters oppose gay marriage, but attitudes toward some legal recognition of same-sex relationships have changed dramatically over the past eight years, according to recent survey data from the Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy at Brigham Young University.

"Utah is seeing the same kind of movement that we see in the United States generally," said Chris Karpowitz, a BYU political science professor and fellow at the center. "We're getting massive change in public opinion in a very short period of time."

"What makes Utah voters different," Karpowitz says, is that they are moving "not toward full support of marriage equality but toward civil unions."

The poll found 72 percent of Utah voters oppose gay marriage. At the same time, 71 percent now favor some form of legal recognition, compared to 62 percent nationally, as reported in CBS/New York Times surveys.

In opting for this middle ground — the strong support of civil unions — Utah voters, especially younger voters, are, said another BYU political scientist, Kelly Patterson, "responding to arguments in the political environment around them, which trace back to these notions of equality and rights, but that seems to be circumscribed by their faith, and the arguments they hear about the importance of marriage."...

July 12, 2012 10:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Taxes under President Barack Obama are lower than they were under any president since Jimmy Carter, according to a report by the Congressional Budget Office.

The average household federal income tax rate fell to 7.2 percent in 2009, and the average rate for all federal taxes including payroll taxes fell to 17.4 percent.

Taxes fell for a number of reasons, including the sluggish economy and tax cuts passed as part of the 2009 stimulus package.

There is more than a little irony in the report. 2009 saw the birth of the Tea Party, which claimed to be opposed to the heavy, onerous tax burden faced by Americans. But as the Tea Party was launching its broadside against Obama, tax rates were dropping to lower levels than under Ronald Reagan or either President Bush.

Taxes fell across the board. The lowest 20 percent of earners paid just one percent of their pre-tax income to the government, while the top fifth of earners paid 23.2 percent, down from 24.7 percent in 2007.

The Romney campaign has falsely claimed that Obama has raised taxes on Americans. While some taxes have gone up under Obama, including the excise tax on cigarettes, the overall tax burden has clearly fallen dramatically...."

July 12, 2012 10:59 AM  
Anonymous Yeouch! said...

Pew Research Center reports Obama Holds Lead; Romney Trails on Most Issues

"OVERVIEW
Despite the stagnant economy and broad dissatisfaction with national conditions, Barack Obama holds a significant lead over Mitt Romney. Currently, Obama is favored by a 50% to 43% margin among registered voters nationwide. Obama has led by at least a slim margin in every poll this year, and there is no clear trend in either candidate’s support since Romney wrapped up the GOP nomination.

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted June 28-July 9, 2012 among 2,973 adults, including 2,373 registered voters, finds that Romney has not seized the advantage as the candidate best able to improve the economy. In fact, he has lost ground on this issue over the past month."...

July 12, 2012 4:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

off subject, but are you aware that Pepco is lobbying for a 5% rate hike ?

and that MC is lobbying to start building BRT, which is a 2 billion dollar project or 4K for every MC registered voter ?

and expected to bring about a 10% property tax increase ?

July 12, 2012 7:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Vice President Dick Cheney hosted a fundraiser for Romney on Thursday night at the Teton Pines Country Club in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. In just a few hours, Romney and Cheney raised more than $4 million.

Among the illustrious patrons at the fundraiser were Oklahoma City oilman Harold Hamm, 30th richest man in America according to Forbes, and New York Jets owner Woody Johnson. Foster Friess, the investment manager who lent his controversial but lucrative support to a pro-Santorum Super PAC earlier in the race, and eventually turned his support to Romney, was also invited to the event but did not attend.

The cost of attending the dinner was $30,000 per person, with perks like an invitation to the host committee reception and becoming a Founding Member of “Romney Victory” available for an extra $20,000. A more modest donation of $5,000 bought attendees a photo reception with Romney and Cheney.

Throughout the campaign, Romney has consistently avoided invoking the Bush presidency—even after four years, the Bush name remains toxic. Last night’s fundraiser was the first time Romney appeared in public with Cheney, the infamously jingoistic VP, who confidently asserted the Republican candidate’s mettle for foreign policy.

“When I think about the kind of individual I want in the Oval Office in that moment of crisis, who has to make those key decisions, some of them life-and-death decisions, some of them decisions as commander-in-chief, who has the responsibility for sending some of our young men and women into harm’s way, that man is Mitt Romney,” Cheney said.

Cheney’s support for Romney’s oft-derided foreign policy is not surprising; after all, Romney’s foreign policy team is loaded with veterans of the Bush Administration. Furthermore, Romney’s stance on Iran — criticizing the President as weak for negotiating, and advocated instead for preemptive unilateral action in the event that the country developed nuclear weapons — is right out of the former vice president’s playbook."

July 13, 2012 8:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

both Obama and Romney get support from wealthy individuals

biggest difference is that Romney's support comes from those who have profitted from substantial accomplishments and Obama's support comes largely from shallow celebrities in the entertainment industry

in 2008, Obama raised huge amounts from small donors but that source has dried up for him, as will their participation in the voting booth

January 2013: the end of an error

July 13, 2012 11:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"in 2008, Obama raised huge amounts from small donors but that source has dried up for him"

Is that what your right wing compatriots are claiming now? Don't let facts get in your way.

Boston.com reported in May:

"All the attention directed at the mega-donations that business titans are making in the race for the White House this year has eclipsed an equally critical aspect of the fund-raising war - courting the little guys. And in that boisterous battle of e-mails, celebrity-sponsored contests, and online credit card charges, President Obama is clearly winning.

As of the end of April, 43 percent of the donors who contributed to the Obama campaign gave $200 or less, generating a total of $88.5 million, according to the Campaign Finance Institute, a nonpartisan Washington research group. By contrast, only 10 percent of those who gave to former governor Mitt Romney’s campaign had made donations of $200 or less, accounting for $9.8 million.

The gap in small-donor fund-raising shows that Obama and Romney are following radically different paths to raising the hundreds of millions of dollars that each will need to run a competitive race.

While Obama has embarked on a grass-roots fund-raising drive based largely on small donations, as he did four years ago, Romney has relied on contributions from more generous donors to his campaign, and unlimited contributions from wealthy individuals and corporations to the independent super PACs sympathetic to his candidacy."


The Guardian reported in July:

"According to the Obama campaign, 706,000 people gave donations.

Romney's campaign said that about 94% of its 571,000 donors were small donors, contributing $250 or less. Small donors contributed about $22m.

The Romney campaign said it enjoyed an influx of small donations in the aftermath of the supreme court healthcare ruling. About a third of the small donations came in that period, his campaign team said.

Romney's lack of small donors is interpreted by political analysts as a lack of enthusiasm for him among conservatives distrustful of his record on healthcare reform, spending, guns and abortion."

July 13, 2012 11:28 AM  
Anonymous Liar, liar, pants on fire said...

When the Boston Globe reported yesterday that Mitt Romney continued to be listed as Bain Capital’s president, CEO, chairman and sole shareholder on SEC documents long after he claims to have left the company, Bain responded with this explanation:

“Due to the sudden nature of Mr. Romney’s departure, he remained the sole stockholder for a time while formal ownership was being documented and transferred to the group of partners who took over management of the firm in 1999,”

The problem with this: Romney himself provided a different – and more sensible – explanation when he appeared before the Massachusetts State Ballot Law Commission in 2002:

“When I left my employer in Massachusetts in February of 1999 to accept the Olympic assignment, I left on the basis of a leave of absence, indicating that I, by virtue of that title, would return at the end of the Olympics to my employment at Bain Capital, but subsequently decided not to do so and entered into a departure agreement with my former partners, I use that in the colloquial sense, not legal sense, but my former partners,”

What Romney said a decade ago makes a lot more sense than what he and Bain are saying now.

When Romney agreed in early 1999 to run the Salt Lake Organizing Committee, there was no reason for him to think he’d jump right back into politics when the games were over – and every reason for him to assume he’d return to his private equity work. In fact, by 1999 he’d already taken two similar leaves of absence, one to run Bain and Company in 1991 and 1992 and another when he campaigned for the U.S. Senate from November 1993 to November 1994. After each of those leaves, he came right back to Bain Capital.

Romney now argues that February 1999 should be considered his exit date from Bain, and that he ceased to have any input into the company’s activities after that point. But it’s important to remember the circumstances under which he first made that claim.

We tend now to think of Romney’s political rise as a seamless transition in 2002 from Olympic glory to the Massachusetts governorship. But his opening to run for office that year didn’t come about until very late in his Olympic tenure. Romney was clearly interested in a political future when he took the Salt Lake gig, but there were no opportunities on the horizon in Massachusetts. Both Senate seats were safely held by Democrats, while a Republican, Paul Cellucci, had just been elected to a full term, and there was reason to believe that he would run again in 2002. And even when Cellucci left in early 2001 to become ambassador to Canada, it still didn’t help Romney, since it was assumed the party would close ranks behind his successor, Jane Swift.

It was only in late 2001, when Swift’s governorship began to implode, that running in 2002 became a serious option for Romney. And it was only in 2002 that Romney actually struck a severance agreement with Bain. Before Swift’s demise, Romney’s only other possible post-Olympic political opportunity had involved Utah’s governorship, which was possibly going to open up in 2004. In the summer of ’01, Romney took some tentative steps to put his name in the mix for that race, but it was still several years away and there were real questions about how viable he’d be if he ran.

July 13, 2012 11:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

At 100, Woody Guthrie More Relevant Than Ever

"Today marks the 100th anniversary of the birth of American icon Woody Guthrie. I grew up on Guthrie’s music, though at the time I had no idea that “This Land Is Your Land” was written as a protest song. Nor could I have any sense that the centennial of his birth would be marked by the same urgent need for reform and the same defiant protest that made Guthrie a legend.

Guthrie’s story drips with Americana. Born and raised in Oklahoma Guthrie chronicled the poverty and despair that would define the early populist uprisings. His earliest writings were of tales of dustbowl refugees of the 1930s depression. And like many of our folk heroes, Guthrie’s protest was grounded in a real patriotism and love of his country–of a sense that things had gone horribly wrong for the common folk thanks to the misdeeds of a privileged few. Guthrie describes this in his 1938 “I Ain’t Got No Home In This World Anymore”:

My brothers and sisters are traveling on this road

A hot and dusty road that a million feet have trod

Rich man took my home and drove me from my door

And I ain’t got no home in this world anymore

Guthrie wrote far more songs than he recorded, and like Bob Dylan after him, Guthrie’s songs seem almost timeless yet quintessentially American. Like thousands of other Americans, Guthrie left the dusty plains and headed west, eventually securing his spot at a songwriter and activists supporting farmworkers and union movements. Guthrie always fought for and defended the poor and the powerless, and that legacy is perhaps the most resonant today.

100 years later and in the throws of a foreclosure crisis, record and chronic unemployment, and a governing elite that seems less and less tuned in to the needs of its constituency, we could use another Woody Guthrie."

July 14, 2012 9:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://signon.org/sign/md-its-time-to-act-on?source=c.url&r_by=5061811

perhaps something we can all agree on, petition to fine pepco and fire the PSC.

July 15, 2012 1:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Google Pushes to Legalize Love"

other than Jim "where did me marbles go?" Kennedy, does anyone else think love is illegal?

don't be shy

speak up

we'd like to get Jim a group rate at the funny farm

July 16, 2012 1:11 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Anon offered:

“we'd like to get Jim a group rate at the funny farm”

Why, how kind of you Anon! I guess you guys must be getting really lonely up there!

I’ll try and get my friends to write you more so you don’t get so lonely.

Have a wonderful day!

Cynthia

July 16, 2012 9:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What is Romney hiding?

"There's obviously something there, because if there was nothing there, he would say, 'Have at it.'
-Former George W. Bush aide Matthew Dowd

July 16, 2012 2:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

it's very touching..

Cinco also thinks love is illegal and wants to sign up for the funny farm too!

not to worry, I think Obamacare will cover mental health issues

oh, not minor things like ADHD and obssesive compulsive disorder but definitely hallucinatory things like imagining you're Napoleon or that the government is beaming microwaves into your head or that the government has banned love or that you're actually a different gender than you seem to be

stuff like that will be treated

help is on the way, Syncho!!

July 16, 2012 9:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

who cares what Romney is hiding?

no one

what the American people want to know is where Obama is hiding his plan for restoring America to economic health

the public will demand that he reveal his secret plans for America after the election when, as he's told Vlad Putin, he can be more flexible

what the heck are you hiding, Barry?

July 16, 2012 10:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"who cares what Romney is hiding?"

Bill Kristol cares:

"He should release the tax returns tomorrow. It's crazy," Kristol said on "Fox News Sunday." "You gotta release six, eight, 10 years of back tax returns. Take the hit for a day or two."

Alabama GOP Gov. Robert Bentley cares:

"On the sidelines of the National Governors Association meeting in Williamsburg, Alabama’s Republican governor, Robert Bentley, called on Romney to release all the documents requested of him.

“If you have things to hide, then maybe you’re doing things wrong,” Bentley said. “I think you ought to be willing to release everything to the American people.“"


GOP members of Congress care:

"Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), who heads all House GOP campaign efforts, told reporters that questions about Romney’s holdings were on target, according to CNN.

“His personal finances, the way he does things, his record, are fair game,” Sessions said. While he declined to name a specific amount of information or number of years’ worth of tax returns Romney should release, he called the issue a “legitimate question.” Romney has only released his 2010 tax return and had said he will release his 2011 return before the election."


His party cares:

Republicans are pressuring Mitt Romney to reveal more about his income taxes and his record at Bain Capital LLC as his campaign strategists weigh how to respond.

The calls come as top Romney aides discuss how to manage the tax-return issue in a way that refocuses the political debate on Obama’s economic and job creation record. The decision whether to release more personal financial information, one adviser said, rests with Romney. So far, he has remained firm in his decision not to disclose any tax information beyond his 2010 and 2011 filings.


American citizens have a right to see if he drew income from Bain in the years before he "retroactively retired" from it before we decide if we want to vote for him for President of the United States.

Meanwhile, while Romney thinks rich folks like himself should pay even less income tax than the less than 15% he paid in 2010, Team Obama and the American people are seeing eye to eye on who should pay higher income taxes to help us all to climb up and out of the Bush recession:

"Americans by a two-to-one margin say raising taxes on those who make more than $250,000 per year would both help the economy and make the tax system more fair, an encouraging sign for President Obama's election-year bid to reform the tax code.

According to a survey released Monday evening by the Pew Research Center, 44 percent say the president's tax proposal would help the economy, while an identical number say the plan would make the tax system more fair. Conversely, 22 percent say the proposed reform would hurt the economy, and 21 percent say it would make the system less fair."

July 17, 2012 8:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

all those people you cite, who supposedly "care", are politicians

people don't care what they "care" about

they mainly "care" about getting re-elected

what ordinary citizens care about is knowing what secret plans Barack Obama has for the economy

and what type of advisory role Vladimir Putin will have in the next Obama term

"American citizens have a right to see if he drew income from Bain in the years before he "retroactively retired" from it before we decide if we want to vote for him for President of the United States."

no, they don't

they simply have a right to vote for whomoever they want

this won't decide their vote

"Meanwhile, while Romney thinks rich folks like himself should pay even less income tax than the less than 15% he paid in 2010,"

when he's right, he's right

rich folks like himself already are already burdened with a wildly disproportionate share of our society's common costs

meanwhile, half of our country pays no Federal income tax, thanks to George Bush

"Team Obama and the American people are seeing eye to eye on who should pay higher income taxes to help us all to climb up and out of the Bush recession:

"Americans by a two-to-one margin say raising taxes on those who make more than $250,000 per year would both help the economy and make the tax system more fair, an encouraging sign for President Obama's election-year bid to reform the tax code."

they're wrong because taxing something produces less of it

the declining revenues eventually necessitate lower threshholds for higher brackets

that's what's happening in Maryland where O'Malley came in promising to balance the budget by taxing millionaires

also, Obama doesn't have a plan to reform the tax code

he just wants to raise rates

"According to a survey released Monday evening by the Pew Research Center, 44 percent say the president's tax proposal would help the economy, while an identical number say the plan would make the tax system more fair."

if they think forcing a minority to pay more simply because they don't have as many votes is fair, you have no idea what distinguishes America

btw, anyone know anyone who has been arrested for love?

Jim and Syncho have found out that love is illegal

July 17, 2012 9:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"if they think forcing a minority to pay more simply because they don't have as many votes is fair, you have no idea what distinguishes America"

You finally get it, Anon. Anytime you want to learn more about the majority forcing the minority around, just ask LGBT people about being denied their right to pursue happiness by marrying the person they love.

"btw, anyone know anyone who has been arrested for love?"

Well, not arrested, but shot: killed and wounded for love:

A Teen Lesbian Couple Is Shot and Left For Dead

Mary Kristene Chapa, Shot In Head, Helping Police Find Suspect Who Killed Her Girlfriend

I think Mary and Mollie would have preferred being arrested to being shot and left for dead by an apparently homophobic white male.

We know the type.

July 17, 2012 9:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Jim and Syncho have found out that love is illegal"

Have they?! And where do you see one of them saying that? Show us a quote by Jim or Cynthia saying they have found love is illegal.

If you had read the post, you'd know it's Google that is launching a new campaign called "Legalize Love" to INSPIRE COUNTRIES TO LEGALIZE MARRIAGE FOR LGBT PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD.

Google knows that there are countries around the world where being LGBT is illegal.

"Homosexuality is illegal in Uganda, along with more than 30 other countries in Africa, and activists say few Africans are openly gay, fearing imprisonment, violence and losing their jobs."

There are even states that refuse to give gays the same rights as straights:

Neb. AG: City ordinances protecting gays illegal

"Nebraska cities can't adopt ordinances protecting people from discrimination for being gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender because the state's anti-discrimination laws don't extend to sexual orientation, the state attorney general's office said in a legal opinion issued Friday...

"Nebraska statutes do not authorize political subdivisions in Nebraska, including municipalities, to expand protected classifications beyond the scope of the civil rights classifications created in state statute," Attorney General Jon Bruning said in a statement after the release.

The opinion, which critics predicted would get shot down in court, was issued in response to a request by conservative state Sen. Beau McCoy, of Omaha, who introduced legislation this year that would have barred counties and cities from adopting anti-discrimination ordinances that go beyond statewide rules. The bill didn't advance out of committee.

McCoy said the opinion frees him of having to introduce the measure again next year..."


So I guess gays are "free" to love in the state of Nebraska, as long as they don't mind being discriminated against for it in housing, employment, public accommodations, etc., even though racial and religious minorities are protected from that very same discrimination.

"if YOU think forcing a minority to SUFFER more simply because they don't have as many votes is fair, you have no idea what distinguishes America"

July 17, 2012 10:11 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Anon claimed:

“Cinco also thinks love is illegal and wants to sign up for the funny farm too!”

Hmmm… not sure if this conclusion came from you poor reading comprehension skills or you’re just laughably bad at spin. On the other hand, it could be that you believe you can read my mind, in which case this should serve as evidence of an epic fail.

I guess you didn’t notice that no one took your bait on “does anyone else think love is illegal?” But oh, you were SO hoping they would, which is why you tried to work my response into that.

But here’s a tip – if you’re going to make something like that stick, it needs to come a lot closer to reality. No one who follows this blog on a regular basis thinks that I (Jim, or anyone else) believe “love is illegal.” Anyone with a modicum of reading comprehension skills can see that “Legalize Love” is Google’s name for its campaign to legalize gay marriage. While I’m sure you thought you were pretty clever trying to spin that into “love is illegal,” you could use a few lessons from the pros on that before you start playing in the minor leagues. Maybe Karl Rove can give you some pointers.
Anyone still not sure can go back and read my posts and see that I said nothing that even came in the general vicinity of “I think love is illegal.”

Here is another tip about how reality works: Just because you post something on the internet doesn’t mean people actually believe it. The only people who might be convinced of your assertion that “Cinco also thinks love is illegal and wants to sign up for the funny farm too!” are those with an IQ struggling to get out of the 80’s. Don’t get depressed about it though, as Jimmy Fallon would say “On the bright side…!” that describes the majority of the conservative demographic, so I’m sure you scored a few points with them.

“not to worry, I think Obamacare will cover mental health issues”

oh, not minor things like ADHD and obssesive compulsive disorder but definitely hallucinatory things like imagining you're Napoleon or that the government is beaming microwaves into your head or that the government has banned love or that you're actually a different gender than you seem to be”

Hmmm, I wonder if it will cover delusional thinking like believing the rapture is imminent, that allowing gays to serve in the military will mean thousands of soldiers will leave, the protective powers of Holy Underwear, that society will be destroyed / utterly collapse if gays are allowed to marry, and gender-identity non-discrimination laws will lead to a rash of men dressing up like women to assault ladies in the restroom.

I hope stuff like that will be treated.


“help is on the way, Syncho!!”


Thanks Anon! You just gave me an idea for the name of my new album “Synchonicity!”


Enjoy the Jell-O.


Cynthia.


Oh, BTW, anyone taking bets on whether or not the guy who shot the lesbians came from a “Judeo-Christian” background?

July 17, 2012 10:16 AM  
Anonymous Romney gets Swiss-boated! said...

TheHill.com reports:

"...there are signs the negative ads and focused discussion on Romney’s business background are hurting the Republican in much the same way the attacks on John Kerry’s Vietnam service hurt the Democratic nominee in the 2004 race, when national numbers held but key biographical metrics began to erode for Kerry.
In a swing-state survey from Purple Strategies released Monday, nearly 4 in 10 voters said new information they had learned in the past week made them consider Romney less favorably than they had before, and 42 percent of independents said Romney was “too out of touch” to be president. In Colorado, Virginia and Ohio, Romney’s favorability numbers have dropped from June.

According to Google, Internet searches for Bain Capital have increased exponentially within the last week, as questions about Romney’s tenure have swirled. The states showing the largest uptick in search traffic include Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and North Carolina — indicating targeted advertisements by the Obama campaign and its allies are driving interest."

“You don’t have to be a political scientist to look at these numbers and see the ads are having an impact,” said Bill Burton, a former White House aide and the senior strategist for the super-PAC supporting the president’s reelection. “The Romney campaign is clearly panicked, or they wouldn’t have sent him out to do every network interview he’s doing.”

Polling on the issue reveals eerie parallels to the 2004 race, when Kerry was “Swift-Boated” on his military service — similarities that could hold a warning sign for Romney...

July 17, 2012 10:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Has Grover Norquist gone too far? The uncompromising starve-the-beast activist — before whom (nearly) all Republicans bend a cowering knee, for fear of violating his anti-tax-hike pledge — has always had a way with the over-the-top sound bite. On Monday, he reaffirmed his penchant for lethal toxicity and may have finally stepped over the line, when he called a conservative Republican senator a liar who appears to have developed Stockholm syndrome.

The senator in question is Oklahoma’s Tom Coburn, and there’s some history here. Coburn and Norquist have been tussling with each other for years, providing much delight to liberal spectators who are probably hoping that neither party is left standing after a 12-round heavyweight fight. Their most recent disagreement centered on Norquist’s contention that abolishing a tax break for ethanol constituted a tax hike that must be matched by other cuts. Coburn, who introduced the amendment to get rid of the tax break, argued that Norquist’s position was ridiculous: Getting rid of tax loopholes negotiated by special interests should not be considered the equivalent of tax hikes.

In a Monday op-ed in the New York Times, “A Greater American Pledge,” Coburn upped the ante. Not only did he reiterate his scorn for Norquist’s position on matching every tax loophole eradication with another tax cut, but he also took matters a serious step further, declaring that Republicans were willing to cut a “grand bargain” with Democrats that included revenue increases.

Crazy talk! In the Church of Norquist, Coburn’s assertion is equivalent to saying that the Vatican is ready to cut a deal with Planned Parenthood that would allow some abortions. Norquist wasted no time communicating his dismay to The Hill.

"Norquist told The Hill that the piece is filed with “lies” and said that Coburn is violating, and trying to get colleagues to violate, a pledge they made to voters…

He also said that Coburn’s claims about his colleagues turning their backs on the pledge are false.

“When Coburn stands up and says, ‘I want to raise taxes,’ he stands alone,” Norquist said.

Norquist said that Coburn … appears to have “gone native or developed Stockholm Syndrome” from spending too much time with Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) in Gang of Six meetings."


While the notion that Tom Coburn is the 21st-century’s equivalent to Hearst-heiress-turned-Symbionese-Liberation-Army-terrorist Patty Hearst is amusing to contemplate (who knew that liberal Democratic senators were so adept at psychological warfare!) the real story here is that cracks in the GOP’s Great Wall of Anti-Taxes are finally starting to show. Coburn makes a convoluted case that the real villains here are Democrats who have been pumping up Norquist as a political “boogeyman” as part of their evil plan to make Republicans look intransigent, but he’s fooling nobody. Republicans have indeed been extraordinarily intransigent, to the point that the government’s ability to accomplish even the most trivial legislation has been hamstrung. And Norquist is a big reason why, which of course explains why Coburn’s been taking him on in such high-profile fashion."

July 17, 2012 2:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“If you got a business, you didn’t build that, somebody else made that happen” Barack Obama
“Do we believe in a an American that is great because of government or do we believe in an America that is great because of free people that are allowed to pursue their dreams and build their futures…The idea to say that Steve Jobs didn’t build Apple, that Henry Ford didn’t build Ford motor company, to say something like that is not just foolishness it is insulting to every entrepreneur, every innovator in American and it is wrong. President Obama attacks success and therefore under President Obama we have less success and I will change that”. Mitt Romney
Finally, Mitt’s grown a pair. The latest remarks from Obama are so outrageous how could he not.

July 17, 2012 6:27 PM  
Anonymous i love to laugh said...

"No one who follows this blog on a regular basis thinks that I believe “love is illegal.”

this is funny

syncho says this in the midst of a lengthy four paragraph denial of this very thought

sounds to me like syncho is worried that many believe that

"...there are signs the negative ads and focused discussion on Romney’s business background are hurting the Republican"

actually, what's really starting to worry Obama is that he's spent a significant portion of his funds on the current blitz of negative ads against Romney and the polls haven't budged

it's similar to how three and half years of trillion dollar deficit stimulus and near-zero interest rates haven't budged the economy under Obama's watch

this fall, after Obama has spent his wad and the economy is collapsing with a fiscal tax cliff on the horizon, what will Barry do?

blame Bush, of course!

btw, the Boy Scouts won't be bullied by gays the way the APA was four decades ago:

"NEW YORK — After a confidential two-year review, the Boy Scouts of America on Tuesday emphatically reaffirmed its policy of excluding gays, angering critics who hoped that relentless protest campaigns would force change.

The Scouts cited support from parents as a key reason for keeping the policy and expressed hope that the prolonged debate over it might now subside.

The Scouts' national spokesman, Deron Smith, told The Associated Press that an 11-member special committee, formed discreetly by top Scout leaders in 2010, came to the conclusion that the exclusion policy "is absolutely the best policy" for the 112-year-old organization.

Smith said the committee, comprised of professional scout executives and adult volunteers, was unanimous in its conclusion – preserving a long-standing policy that was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000.

As a result of the committee's decision, the Scouts' national executive board will take no further action on a resolution submitted at its recent national conference asking for reconsideration of the membership policy.

The Scouts' chief executive, Bob Mazzuca, contended that most Scout families support the policy, which applies to both adult leaders and Scouts.

"The vast majority of the parents of youth we serve value their right to address issues of same-sex orientation within their family, with spiritual advisers and at the appropriate time and in the right setting," Mazzuca said."

The Scouts did not identify the members of the special committee that studied the issue, but said in a statement that they represented "a diversity of perspectives and opinions."

"The review included forthright and candid conversation and extensive research and evaluations – both from within Scouting and from outside of the organization," the statement said."

July 17, 2012 7:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

agreed

the conversations were forthright and candid!!

July 17, 2012 7:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the investigation is complete

Barack Obama forged his birth certificate

"PHOENIX -- Investigators for an Arizona sheriff's volunteer posse have declared that President Barack Obama's birth certificate is definitely fraudulent.

Members of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's posse said in March that there was probable cause that Obama's long-form birth certificate released by the White House in April 2011 was a computer-generated forgery.

Now, Arpaio says investigators are positive it's fraudulent.

Mike Zullo, the posse's chief investigator, said numeric codes on certain parts of the birth certificate indicate that those parts weren't filled out, yet those sections asking for the race of Obama's father and his field of work or study were completed.

Zullo said investigators previously didn't know the meaning of codes but that the codes were explained by a 95-year-old former state worker who signed the president's birth certificate."

so, Obama will have to be taken off the Arizona ballot on November

question now is: who wants to vote Joe Biden in as President?

July 17, 2012 11:07 PM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Anon pasted:

“Zullo said investigators previously didn't know the meaning of codes but that the codes were explained by a 95-year-old former state worker who signed the president's birth certificate”

Hmmm… very interesting. Would this former STATE worker who signed the president’s birth certificate 50 years ago been in the STATE of *Hawaii?*

“so, Obama will have to be taken off the Arizona ballot on November”

ROFLMAO. Keep hoping Anon!

“question now is: who wants to vote Joe Biden in as President?”

According to Karl Rove’s latest electoral map, if Obama were somehow taken off the list, a guy named “Toss-Up” has more Electoral College votes in the bag than Romney. I haven’t heard much about him, what his foreign policy or economic views are, but I doubt he deducted $77,000 for his pet horsey.

From the Karl Rove map (of 7/16/12):

Obama: 194
Romney: 101
Toss-up: 129

Why does this remind me of the “anyone but Romney” mantra of the Republican primary? By the way, why hasn’t Romney released his long-form birth certificate? I heard his grandmother say she saw him being born in Mexico.

Have a nice day,

Cynthia

July 18, 2012 10:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Would this former STATE worker who signed the president’s birth certificate 50 years ago been in the STATE of *Hawaii?*"

actually, psycho, I thought of that too

for him to alter his birth certificate, that means there was one

"Why does this remind me of the “anyone but Romney” mantra of the Republican primary?"

well, I think the "anyone but Obama" will be the more dependable voter

btw, you might want to stick to pollsters that focus on likely voters

Obama registered a bunch of people in 2008 that won't show up this year- unless provoked, which Obama is desperately trying to do

unfortunately for Obama, he's incompetent

"By the way, why hasn’t Romney released his long-form birth certificate?"

his policy is not to release anything unless he has to

"I heard his grandmother say she saw him being born in Mexico."

his father was born in Mexico

Mitt's from these parts

July 18, 2012 1:53 PM  
Anonymous Oh yes he did! said...

"WASHINGTON -- Some tax experts are alarmed by Mitt Romney's apparent admission that Bain Capital set up offshore accounts in the Cayman Islands to help wealthy investors avoid paying U.S. taxes.

During an interview with the National Review's Robert Costa, Romney said that offshore sub-companies in the Cayman Islands help foreign investors avoid paying taxes on investments in the United States. Bain Capital currently has 138 such sub-companies headquartered in the Cayman Islands.

"The so-called offshore account in the Cayman Islands, for instance, is an account established by a U.S. firm to allow foreign investors to invest in U.S. enterprises and not be subject to taxes outside of their own jurisdiction," Romney said. "So in many instances, the investments in something of that nature are brought back into the United States. The world of finance is not as simple as some would have you believe. Sometimes a foreign entity is formed to allow foreign investors to invest in the United States, which may well be the case with the entities that Democrats are describing as foreign accounts."

By taxes "outside of their own jurisdiction," Romney is referring to taxes imposed by the U.S. government.

"He's basically admitting here that the Bain funds are set up in the Cayman Islands to help people avoid tax," said Rebecca Wilkins, senior counsel for federal tax policy at Citizens for Tax Justice, a nonprofit tax reform group. "If you want to cheat on your taxes, boy, they're making it really easy.""

July 18, 2012 5:03 PM  
Anonymous we're the party people night and day said...

let's just revoke the constitutional amendment allowing the government to tax income and find another way, that doesn't violate our basic privacy, for the government to raise money to waste

btw, momentum is building to stop the gay agenda:

"Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy -- the son of company founder S. Truett Cathy -- addressed his franchise's "support of the traditional family."

Cathy's said of charges he contributed to pro-family organizations: "Well, guilty as charged."

He went on to note, "We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that...we know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles."

Cathy then reiterated his stance:

"I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say 'we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage' and I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about," Cathy said.

Cathy's remarks quickly sparked the vicious ire of a number of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) advocates and bloggers.

The Atlanta-based company's contributions have been well reported. Earlier this month, Equality Matters published a report on a newly-released analysis of Chick-fil-A's charitable work that found that the fast food chain donated nearly $2 million to anti-gay groups over the course of 2010. Among those to reportedly receive donations through Chick-fil-A's WinShape Foundation were the Marriage & Family Foundation ($1,188,380), Exodus International ($1,000) and the Family Research Council (also $1,000)."

July 18, 2012 6:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"the biblical definition of the family unit."

Can anybody show me anywhere in the Bible where it says there is anything special about a marriage between one man and one woman? As I recall, that is not the common pattern in most of the Bible.

July 18, 2012 6:40 PM  
Anonymous we'll help ya party it down! said...

read the first three chapters of Genesis

while many biblical characters did have more than one wife, the traditional model is always portrayed as the ideal

in the early church, scripture said leaders in the church could only have one wife

further, women with more than one husband were considered adulterous

also, same gender sexual relations are characterized as an abomination whenever mentioned in scripture

btw, Barack Obama gave a pathetic interview to 60 Minutes on Sunday, talking about how he was shocked that he couldn't break through the partisan and petty atmosphere in Washington

then, at the commercial break, he runs an ad mocking Romney for singing America the Beautiful offkey and airing footage

I guess he's trying to change the Washington atmosphere to that of a middle school lunch room

and, how about this:

President Obama recently said, "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

Comments like that are a slap in the face to the American Dream and reveal the President's naïve view that government, and not the hard work, talent, and initiative of people, is the center of society and the economy. Clearly, this President doesn't understand how our economy works.

Mitt Romney knows from experience that hard-working individuals create successful businesses. Americans have run out of patience -- send President Obama back to Chicago this November.

July 18, 2012 7:15 PM  
Anonymous hands up, they're playing our song, party in the USA said...

President Obama recently said, "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

The reason why Obama has to go is that he’s soaked in the toxic philosophy of anti-capitalism.

There is a moral case that must be considered here. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) took it to Facebook. His thoughts are worth reading in full, but here is the core of the argument:

"The President recently suggested that a central government — not individuals — deserves the credit for building successful businesses. This sentiment makes for terrible economics, but also reveals a confused morality. In a free community, everyone co-operates by voluntarily offering unique gifts: some invent, some invest, others labor, or sell while customers reward the best producers and providers by buying their products and services. . . . A free economy and strong communities are the best means to reward effort with justice, to promote upward mobility, and to build solidarity among citizens. The President’s vision of a government-centered society — reflected in both his troubling rhetoric and his failed policies — belittles fair rewards for labor and enterprise."

There it is — the argument against Obama’s collectivism. Whether Ryan is on the ticket or not, he is already articulating the best message Romney can deliver, made possible by the president’s own words.

This is not an isolated Obama “gaffe,” of course. Obama’s philosophy has been spelled out again and again.

in November, we need to end this error

July 18, 2012 7:29 PM  
Anonymous it's my party and I'll laugh if I wanna said...

oh, the American people will end it

tonight, the NY Times/CBS poll is reporting that Romney is now ahead nationally

Obama has significantly drained his campaign treasury airing substance-free negative attacks against Mitt Romney and a backlash is talking hold

who didn't see that coming?

July 18, 2012 7:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon, I'm not going to shop around or a version that has what you say. I went to a rather readable Bible in modern English here: Bible

Genesis Book 1 says nothing about any mariage, it mentions multiplying and made them male and female, nothing else.

Book 2 introduces Adam and Eve. Hey, look at this:

But for Adam[f] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs[g] and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib[h] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

23 The man said,

“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man. ”
24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.

25 Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.


OK, that establishes that women are inferior and shows a kind of marriage where a guy marries someone who is created out of his own flesh, more like Twilight than the Cleavers.

Book 3 is about the apple. God curses her with childbearing pains and says that Eve's husband will rule over her, and Adam is cursed to work until he dies. Then:

And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side[e] of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

Not clear what happened to Eve.

So anon, there is nothing in the first three chapters of Genesis to suggest that monogamy is preferred or required or anything else. A guy marries his own flesh and then gets cursed for trusting her when she was tempting him ... where is the "traditional marriage" in that???

And tell me, who did Cain and Abel marry? Siblings? Of course. How traditional is that?

Maybe you have chapter and verse where "scripture said leaders in the church could only have one wife"

I don't think you do. The Bible doesn't tell anyone that one man and one woman is the preferred marriage.

July 18, 2012 8:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the NIV Bible you quoted is commonly used by evangelicals but is not a translation but, instead, a paraphrase

anyway, here's Titus 1:5b-6:

"appoint elders in every town as I directed you— if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife,and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination"

btw, in Matthew 19:4b-5, Jesus refers to the realtionship of Adam and Eve as a marriage:

"“Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh."

July 18, 2012 9:00 PM  
Anonymous that ain't no way to have fun, son! said...

btw, the NYT/CBS poll also has Obama's approval rating at 44%

just to let you guys in on a secret well-known to historians:

when polls show a race close and the incumbent has a less than 50% approval rating, the incumbent loses

hope that helps

wouldn't want you guys to waste your money sending contributions to Obama that he will just waste on negative ads, dragging himself down, looking petty and unpresidential

July 18, 2012 9:10 PM  
Anonymous I been told you never slow down, you never grow old said...

good news for America!!

Obama is on the way out!!

the poll from NYT/CBS also shows that 78% of Americans are either more likely to vote for Romney because of or don't care about Bain or his wealth

Barack probably feels a little silly now

details from NYT/CBS (warning- if you're a TTFer, sit down):

"Romney leads Obama among respondents by a margin of 49 percent to 41 percent on who can best handle the economy and jobs. People who think the economy is getting better dropped from 33 percent in April to 24 percent now -- owed largely to a series of bad jobs reports.

Obama gets a heaping of blame for not turning the economy around. Almost two-thirds of respondents said the president's policies contributed to the economic downturn. Only 17 percent of respondents said the president's policies on the economy were "improving it now."

The economy, in short, is drowning out the political conversation surrounding Romney's private equity career, at least on the national level. Romney's years at Bain Capital made 14 percent of voters more likely to vote for him and 23 percent less likely to vote for him. A fuller 60 percent of voters said it didn't matter. Romney's wealth made 5 percent of voters more likely to vote for him, 20 percent of voters less likely to voter for him, and didn't matter to 73 percent."

Americans must like Mitt's singing too!

thanks for paying to put it on air, Barry!!

July 18, 2012 10:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

WATCH: Drought Spreads Across Country

What else do polls show these days?

Record Heat Wave Pushes U.S. Belief In Climate Change To 70%

How does Mitt feel about climate change? It depends on when you ask him, of course. As governor of Massachusetts, he had one view, and now that he's running for President, he says his view has changed.

"Before doing an about-face toward the end of his term as he began to prepare for his first run for president, Romney pushed to close old coal-fired plants, encourage the development of renewable energy and contain sprawl — steps similar to some President Obama has taken.

Indeed, one of Romney's top environmental staffers, Gina McCarthy, now runs the air pollution unit of the Environmental Protection Agency under Obama. John Holdren, a scientist Romney turned to on at least one occasion to discuss climate change, is the White House senior advisor on science and technology issues.

Romney's gubernatorial record on energy and the environment has little in common with the positions he has staked out in the presidential race, those who knew him in Massachusetts say. The presumptive Republican nominee expresses doubts about climate science like the majority of his party, and his official website has no mention of environmental policy, except for reining in the Clean Air Act and the EPA.

The gulf between his past actions and current rhetoric has many, including some Republicans, wondering which positions he would take if he won in November. Would Romney stick to an energy plan heavily tilted to boosting oil and gas development and reducing regulation? Or would he tack back to the moderate positions he once embraced as Massachusetts governor?

Romney's top energy donors are from fossil fuel companies. Oil, coal and natural gas interests are pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into defeating Obama. And the Republican base is not shy about speaking out on global warming or oil drilling."

July 19, 2012 7:50 AM  
Anonymous like it's 1999 said...

no one denies that climate change is occurring

nor that it has taken place on the planet many times in the past

there is, however, no proof that it is caused by human activity and, even if it is, there is no eveidence that there is any reasonable change the global community could make to alter it

there are ways, other than government manipulation of individual behavior, that might feasibly alter

massive explosions in remote location, for example, could affect the climate

no rush, though

meanwhile, Barack Obama's disregard for the constitution will be a major topic for the fall

"WHEATON, Ill. (AP) – Wheaton College, a top evangelical school, is joining a raft of lawsuits challenging the Obama administration mandate that most employers offer health insurance that cover morning-after birth control.

The college, based in Wheaton, Ill., filed the federal suit Wednesday in the District of Columbia.

Last May, Roman Catholic dioceses, schools, charities and health care agencies filed a dozen federal lawsuits around the country, arguing the requirement violates religious freedom. Among the plaintiffs in those suits are the University of Notre Dame and Catholic University of America.

Health and Human Services adopted the mandate as part of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul. A religious exemption generally allowed churches and other houses of worship to opt out, but kept the requirement in place for religiously affiliated nonprofits, including hospitals, colleges and charities.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a nonprofit law firm, is representing Wheaton. With the addition of Wheaton, Becket said a total of 24 lawsuits have been filed challenging the mandate in the Affordable Care Act."

July 19, 2012 9:03 AM  
Anonymous Inconvenient facts said...

details from NYT/CBS (warning- if you're a TTFer, sit down)

Nice spin, but don't forget these other two most recent polls:

Gallup: Obama 47, Romney 45

FOXNEWS: Obama 45, Romney 41

July 19, 2012 9:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bill Frist calls for GOP to get over opposition to healthcare law

"WASHINGTON – As Republicans continue to fight implementation of President Obama’s healthcare law, one former party leader is urging them to get over it and embrace a central pillar of the new law.

In an op-ed published Wednesday in “The Week,” a weekly news magazine, former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a surgeon from Tennessee, said state leaders in both parties should move quickly to establish state-based insurance exchanges where consumers who don’t get insurance through an employer will be able to shop for health insurance plans.

The law envisions these exchanges will allow consumers to compare plans online much as they now compare airline tickets or hotel rooms. Those making less than four times the federal poverty line will also be eligible for government subsidies. And by 2019, about 24 million Americans are expected to buy coverage on an exchange.

But several GOP governors nationwide have said they will not set up exchanges in their states, a move that would prompt the federal government to step in and run one for residents in those state.

Frist said the resistance is misguided, noting that the exchanges were originally a Republican idea.

“As a doctor, I strongly believe that people without health insurance die sooner. Sure, they can eventually go to an emergency room. But it is often too late. They wait longer to get a breast lump checked out. They wait until their nagging cough turns into a fulminant pneumonia. They skip preventive care and then show up to the ER with severe, costly, late-stage symptoms that are harder and more expensive to treat,” he wrote.

“State exchanges are the solution. They represent the federalist ideal of states as "laboratories for democracy." We are seeing 50 states each designing a model that is right for them, empowered to take into account their individual cultures, politics, economies, and demographics. While much planning has yet to be done, we are already seeing a huge range in state models. I love the diversity and the innovation. … Simply put, state exchanges represent a distinctly American opportunity to improve our local communities and at the same time help our nation avert a major crisis. Let's take the plunge.”

Frist is one of several leading former GOP politicians and administration officials calling on their party to stop fighting the healthcare law and implement it, as many of its central provisions reflect conservative ideas.

Among those are former Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt, who served as Secretary of Health and Human Services under President George W. Bush, and Tom Scully, who oversaw the Medicare and Medicaid programs in the Bush administration...."

July 19, 2012 9:54 AM  
Anonymous hot damn, summer in the city said...

"Nice spin, but don't forget these other two most recent polls"

oh, I saw the other polls but any spin is on you

the point is that Obama is campaigning around the country as if it's late October and spending significant amounts of his campaign funds with all-out negative TV advertising against Romney and polls show he's going backwards as far as support goes

meanwhile, Romney refuses to release his tax returns, waffles on his private enterprise history, and vacations at a plush lakeside estate in New England and, yet, momentum builds on his side

easy to see without looking too hard that the American people want to make some changes

"Frist is one of several leading former GOP politicians and administration officials calling on their party to stop fighting the healthcare law and implement it..."

Obamacare is unpopular and was passed by trickery by one vote

in the following midterm election, voters discarded most of the legislators responsible but not were up for election to enact repeal

we now have an opportunity to finish the job in November

why quit now?

"Among those are former Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt, who served as Secretary of Health and Human Services under President George W. Bush, and Tom Scully, who oversaw the Medicare and Medicaid programs in the Bush administration...."

you say several leading former GOP politicians and administration officials are calling on their party to stop fighting the healthcare law and those two are all you can come up with?

I find myself unconcerned...

July 19, 2012 10:55 AM  
Anonymous One of "you people" said...

Out of respect for that unwritten rule about candidate's spouse's comments being off limits (even though it's probably pretty dumb), I won't offer my opinion on Ann Romney's argument in defense of keeping Mitt Romney's tax returns secret. Instead, I'll just help her get her message out by posting it right here:

Ann Romney dismissed concerns about her husband’s tax returns Thursday, contending that the two of them have “given all you people need to know.”

“You know, you should really look at where Mitt has led his life, and where he’s been financially,” the potential first lady said on ABC’s “Good Morning America.” “He’s a very generous person. We give 10 percent of our income to our church every year. Do you think that is the kind of person who is trying to hide things, or do things? No. He is so good about it. Then, when he was governor of Massachusetts, didn’t take a salary for four years.”

“We’ve given all you people need to know and understand about our financial situation and how we live our life,” she added later.

July 19, 2012 11:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I tend to agree with Ann

Romney has released last year's tax returns and will release this year's when it's complete

there's no legitimate reason anyone needs to see any more than that- especially when the Obama campaign has distorted everything it does know and made many more false accusations to distract attention from the issues

just think what would happen if they had ten years of returns to look through

you'd never be able to nail them down on the big secret Barry is hiding- how he plans to reshape our economy after he is flexible and can accomodate Vladimir Putin

if Americans think presidential candidates should release all their past tax returns, they can amend the constitution to require it

if they want them to do it voluntarily, they can refuse to vote for someone who doesn't do it

but that won't happen

because outside the beltway, no one gives a crap about Bain, Mitt's wealth, or his tax returns

they just want a decent economy that gives them a chance to build a future for their families

Obama got his at-bat

he struck out

Mitt's on deck

from his past success, he looks like a slugger

July 19, 2012 1:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

agreed

he looks like a slugger

July 19, 2012 1:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Are you sure Mitt's a slugger?

Maybe Mitt's daddy bought him two uniforms, a Michigan State Trooper AND a baseball player.

It's totally unfair for a rich family like the Romneys to pay a lower percentage income tax than a middle class families pay. Is Romney’s amazing $100 million IRA legal?

I want to know what else the Romneys might be hiding in other years' tax returns, and I'm not alone.

USAToday.com reports a few hours ago: Poll: Most say Romney should release additional tax returns

"WASHINGTON – A majority of Americans, including almost a third of Republicans, say GOP presidential contender Mitt Romney should release more tax returns than the two years he has promised to disclose, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds.

The issue is one Democrats have been hammering, including an open letter to Romney signed by almost two dozen mayors released Thursday that noted controversial disclosures in the 2010 return he already has released and demanded: "What else are you trying to hide?"

Those surveyed are divided on whether the likely Republican nominee is trying to hide anything. While 42% predict the release of additional returns would not reveal anything politically harmful, 44% believe it would include damaging information — including 15% who say they believe the revelations would be so serious that they would "show he is unfit to be president."

The national survey of 539 adults, taken Wednesday, has a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.

Romney has resisted calls to release more years of returns, noting that four years ago Republican nominee Sen. John McCain also released just two years of returns.

"We've given all people need to know and understand about our financial situation and about how we live our life," Ann Romney said in an interview Thursday on ABC's Good Morning America. Mitt Romney told National Review Online that Democrats are simply trying to get more details about his finances that opposition researchers can "pick through, distort and lie about."

Still, even some leading Republicans, including former Mississippi governor Haley Barbour, have advised Romney to defuse the issue by releasing more years of returns. Romney has released his 2010 returns and promised to release his 2011 returns.

"Public release of your tax returns is the only way the American people can know if they can trust your judgment, perspective and motivations," said the mayors' letter, signed by mayors from Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Milwaukee, San Antonio, Charlotte, Minneapolis and elsewhere."

July 19, 2012 3:26 PM  
Anonymous richie rich said...

"Are you sure Mitt's a slugger?"

compared to Obama?

yeah, I'm positive

"Maybe Mitt's daddy bought him two uniforms, a Michigan State Trooper AND a baseball player."

we do so hope the class warfare rhetoric continues

American voters are turned off by resentful attitudes among its politicians

"It's totally unfair for a rich family like the Romneys to pay a lower percentage income tax than a middle class families pay."

talking about percentages is disingenuous when people like Romney already pay for most of our public services and private charities

when you tax something, the result is you get less of it

we'll all be a lot poorer is we have less people succeeding finacially

"Is Romney’s amazing $100 million IRA legal?"

if it's been publicized, you can rest assured the IRS will look at it

"I want to know what else the Romneys might be hiding in other years' tax returns, and I'm not alone."

so what?

you probably would like to invade the privacy of many other people as well

resentful unsuccessful people are often like that

"USAToday.com reports a few hours ago: Poll: Most say Romney should release additional tax returns"

what distinguished the American revolution from the French one was that, here, even rich minorities have rights that the majority can't take away

I think it's a positive sign of Romney's character that he is resisting this pressure from the talking heads of the beltway

hope he sticks to it

July 19, 2012 6:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"even rich minorities have rights that the majority can't take away"

The problem is, the Romneys, as so ably demonstrated by Ann yesterday, reside inside a plutocratic bubble and think they are better than and have more rights than "you people," who are otherwise known as WE THE PEOPLE.

"Like everyone else following the news, I’ve been awe-struck by the way questions about Mr. Romney’s career at Bain Capital, the private-equity firm he founded, and his refusal to release tax returns have so obviously caught the Romney campaign off guard. Shouldn’t a very wealthy man running for president — and running specifically on the premise that his business success makes him qualified for office — have expected the nature of that success to become an issue? Shouldn’t it have been obvious that refusing to release tax returns from before 2010 would raise all kinds of suspicions?

By the way, while we don’t know what Mr. Romney is hiding in earlier returns, the fact that he is still stonewalling despite calls by Republicans as well as Democrats to come clean suggests that it could be something seriously damaging.

Anyway, what’s now apparent is that the campaign was completely unprepared for the obvious questions, and it has reacted to the Obama campaign’s decision to ask those questions with a hysteria that surely must be coming from the top. Clearly, Mr. Romney believed that he could run for president while remaining safe inside the plutocratic bubble and is both shocked and angry at the discovery that the rules that apply to others also apply to people like him. Fitzgerald again, about the very rich: “They think, deep down, that they are better than we are.”

O.K., let’s take a deep breath. The truth is that many, and probably most, of the very rich don’t fit Fitzgerald’s description. There are plenty of very rich Americans who have a sense of perspective, who take pride in their achievements without believing that their success entitles them to live by different rules.

But Mitt Romney, it seems, isn’t one of those people. And that discovery may be an even bigger issue than whatever is hidden in those tax returns he won’t release."

July 20, 2012 7:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The problem is, the Romneys, as so ably demonstrated by Ann yesterday, reside inside a plutocratic bubble and think they are better than and have more rights than "you people,""

well, I didn't see any indication that Ann thought she was better than "you people"

in context, "you people" was referring to the beltway crowd, especially reporters, who actually believe they are smarter than the average bear, or American for that matter

but, even if she did, I'm personally not so insecure as to feel threatened by someone else thinking that

I also didn't see any indication she thought she had more rights than others

indeed, the beltway class seems to think Romney has fewer rights than anyone else

is anyone else putting their tax return for the last two years on the internet, as Romney is?

"Like everyone else following the news, I’ve been awe-struck by the way questions about Mr. Romney’s career at Bain Capital, the private-equity firm he founded, and his refusal to release tax returns have so obviously caught the Romney campaign off guard."

why would you say he was caught "off guard"?

his rivals for the Repub nomination brought this all up and Romney handled it fine

as he's doing now- his poll numbers are starting to inch up as Barack Obama has succeeded in making Romney a sympathetic character with his spurious negative attacks

July 20, 2012 10:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Shouldn’t a very wealthy man running for president have expected the nature of that success to become an issue?"

he's actually going to get a lot of positive publicity over the next month as his success in saving the 2002 Olympics is going to be brought out

his time at Bain is also a plus for most- they made SEC filings which are public if anyone wants to see them

his personal tax returns won't tell you much about his business

"Shouldn’t it have been obvious that refusing to release tax returns from before 2010 would raise all kinds of suspicions?"

among the average voter, it hasn't raised any suspicion at all

"By the way, while we don’t know what Mr. Romney is hiding in earlier returns,"

nor do we know what is hiding in your tax returns

"the fact that he is still stonewalling despite calls by Republicans as well as Democrats to come clean suggests that it could be something seriously damaging."

is that why you're keeping your tax returns confidential?

"Anyway, what’s now apparent is that the campaign was completely unprepared for the obvious questions,"

they seem to be doing fine with it

"and it has reacted to the Obama campaign’s decision to ask those questions with a hysteria that surely must be coming from the top."

he has simply answered questions of reporters and made responses to Obama's inflammatory accusations

don't notice any other reaction at all, much less "hysteria"

"Clearly, Mr. Romney believed that he could run for president while remaining safe inside the plutocratic bubble"

well, obviously, he can

he's doing it

"and is both shocked and angry at the discovery that the rules that apply to others also apply to people like him. Fitzgerald again, about the very rich: “They think, deep down, that they are better than we are.”"

when Washington reporters and political talking heads start releasing their tax returns, let us know

"O.K., let’s take a deep breath."

not necessary, but thanks for the suggestion

"The truth is that many, and probably most, of the very rich don’t fit Fitzgerald’s description. There are plenty of very rich Americans who have a sense of perspective, who take pride in their achievements without believing that their success entitles them to live by different rules."

really?

are they all releasing their tax returns?

how about the middle and lower classes?

face it, Romney just wants the same privacy every other American enjoys

you are the one that wants to put him in a different category

"But Mitt Romney, it seems, isn’t one of those people. And that discovery may be an even bigger issue than whatever is hidden in those tax returns he won’t release."

actually, he's a lot like other rich people

he just has some achievements in other fields, like politics and charity work, that many other people, wealthy or not, don't have

btw, Martin O'Malley is pushing through a bill to allow a casino to open in PG County, which will wind up on the ballot in November

this will energize anti-gambling groups to flock to the polls

since a lot of those same people also oppose the gay redefinition of marriage, this will also cause the gay marriage referendum to reject the gay marriage bill

thus, gay "marriage" won't be coming to Maryland

a lot of people don't know that

July 20, 2012 10:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

is anyone else putting their tax return for the last two years on the internet, as Romney is?

Yes, they are. Every serious candidate for President in 2012 has put out at least 2 years of them, and often more than 2 years.

For example:

Rick Perry's Federal Tax Returns 1987-2010

Gingrich’s 2010 tax return shows he paid 31.3 percent to Uncle Sam

Rick Santorum Tax Returns: Republican Candidate Releases Four Years' Worth Of Documents

Personal finance profiles of recent years and images of all reports for Ron Paul are available here.

Rep. Michele Bachmann (-Minnesota, 6th) - Personal Financial Disclosures

July 20, 2012 10:27 AM  
Anonymous gulping absinthe said...

we all know that most politicians have been bullied into releasing these personal details

you said Romney thought he was better than WE THE PEOPLE

the confidentiality WE THE PEOPLE's tax returns are guaranteed by law

as are Romney's

he can release what he wants to and let the American voter decide if that is sufficient

so far, there is no indication anyone has changed their vote over this non-issue

July 20, 2012 11:06 AM  
Anonymous pelosi agrees with romney said...

Facing questions about why she and other top Congressional officials won’t release their tax returns, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) downplayed her previous demands for presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney to release his, calling the issue a distraction.

As recently as Wednesday, Pelosi had strongly urged Romney to provide further disclosure of his tax returns. But today Pelosi said the issue was trivial compared with economic issues.

“We spent too much time on that. We should be talking about middle-income tax cuts,” Pelosi said after answering two questions about the issue.

The Minority Leader faced questions about the issue after a McClatchy News report showed only 17 of 535 Members released their tax returns when asked.

July 20, 2012 11:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pelosi must think she's better than "you people"

that's why she says the American people would support Obamacare if they understood it

July 20, 2012 12:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

John Boehner, Nancy Pelosi Agree Lawmakers Shouldn't Have To Release Their Tax Returns

WASHINGTON -- It turns out House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) agree on at least one thing: they don't want to release their tax returns.

Both party leaders were asked, in light of Mitt Romney facing increasing pressure to release more of his tax returns, whether they think members of Congress should be held to the same standard as presidential candidates.

"I've never released my tax returns. That's my private business just like it's your own private business," Boehner told reporters at his weekly briefing.

Asked why members of Congress shouldn't have to follow the same rules as people running for president, Boehner demurred. He said what's important is that Democrats are keeping alive the issue of Romney's tax returns for purely political reasons.

"It's a sideshow. That's all it is," he said. "The American people are asking questions, 'Where are the jobs?' They're not asking, 'Where are the tax returns?'"

Pelosi, who is among those who have been calling on Romney to release more of his tax returns, turned the tables on the press when asked if she should do the same.

"Some people think the same standard should be held of the ownership of the news media in the country ... What do you think about that?" she asked.

Pelosi said at issue is the fact that it is "custom" for presidential candidates to release their tax returns. "Why wouldn't you? It's a relationship between the person running for president and the American people," she said. "If you release them, you tell a story. If you don't release them, you leave it up to the imagination of anybody who wants to talk about it."

Pressed on why she shouldn't have to apply those same rules to herself and other lawmakers, Pelosi reiterated that it is "a tradition" for presidential candidates, not members of Congress, and that the public expects to be able to see those records for anyone seeking a White House bid.

"When I run for the president of the United States, you can hold me to that standard," she said, adding that there aren't actually official requirements that anyone make their tax records public. "There are no rules. There's no rule about Romney releasing his tax returns."

Still, Pelosi added, the longer he goes without releasing his returns, the more suspicious he looks.

"The longer he takes to release them," she said, "it doesn't make me sad."

July 20, 2012 3:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How’s the economy looking for Obama? This week’s jobless claims are up far more than anticipated. After horrible retail-sales numbers, most economic forecasters downgraded their expectations for overall growth somewhere around 1.5 percent annualized for the second quarter.

James Pethokoukis of the American Enterprise Institute notes that the only two presidents to face re-election with the consumer-confidence numbers Obama has to show for himself were Jimmy Carter and the first George Bush — both one-termers.

In 2004, the election was also a referendum on the incumbent, and the incumbent convinced Americans he had done the right things.

In 2012, what is the incumbent going to do — talk about somebody else’s tax returns for the next 109 days?

He could always do some partyin' down!!

"Hi, I'm Michelle Obama.

Barack turns 51 next month, and there will be a little celebration at our house in Chicago.

We'd like to give supporters an opportunity to join in the fun. You guys deserve it, and I know Barack would personally love to see you there.

Donate $3 today and you'll be entered to get your name added to the guest list.

Barack's birthday is one of the last opportunities he'll get for a little downtime before the final weeks of the election.

That won't stop me from teasing him about all those new gray hairs he has -- though I think it's fair to say he's earned every one.

So if you're standing with Barack for the final months of his final campaign, there's no better way to show it than by making a $3donation today.

If you do, you'll be entered for the chance to join him for his birthday celebration in Chicago. We'll also fly you out and take care of all the travel arrangements.

When we win, we'll tax it out of the 1%!"

July 20, 2012 3:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"In 2012, what is the incumbent going to do — talk about somebody else’s tax returns for the next 109 days?"

No, he won't have to. Obama can leave that task to the press, the pollsters, and the many GOP members who have never warmed to Romney and still hope for a Convention surprise.

Obama will talk about using tax dollars to rescue the US automobile industry, saving thousands of American jobs in the country, while Romney can point to his "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" editorial and once again remind Michiganders their "trees are the right height."

Obama will talk about how despite having inherited one of the worst economic messes since the Great Depression, 4.3 million private sector jobs have been created in America under Obama's policies, and indications are that the economy is slowly improving.

"most economic forecasters downgraded their expectations for overall growth somewhere around 1.5 percent annualized for the second quarter."

The keyword in your phrase is "GROWTH." Bush left us careening down into the deepest economic pit since the Great Depression. Thank God Obama's policies turned that freefall around.

Obama will talk about the need for the widely supported Buffet Rule so millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share of taxes like the rest of us do, while Romney will hide his assets in off-shore accounts in places like Switzerland, Bermuda and the Caymen Islands.

Obama will remind voters no US troops are dying in Iraq anymore, and no Americans are dying because of plans drawn up by Osama bin Laden anymore while Romney can show us his Michigan State Police Uniform.

Obama can remind voters he thinks women should have access to free preventive health care and seniors should not fall into Bush's donut hole while trying to pay for their medications, while Romney can remind voters he wants to "get rid of" Planned Parenthood and enact Ryan's budget into law, giving bigger tax breaks to the rich while reducing Medicare to a voucher system, costing seniors $6,400 more per year for health care.

July 20, 2012 5:17 PM  
Anonymous cock-a doodle-doo said...

when a private citizen boycotts Chik-fil-a because they disagree with the owner's religious beliefs, that's someone exercising their constitutional rights

when the mayor of a city tries to ban Chik-fil-a because he doesn't like the owner's constitutional rights, you have a violation of the constitution

"BOSTON (AP) — The mayor of Boston is vowing to block Chick-fil-A from opening a restaurant in the city after the company's president spoke out publicly against gay marriage.

Mayor Thomas Menino told the Boston Herald on Thursday that he doesn't want a business in the city "that discriminates against a population."

Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy told the Baptist Press this week that his privately owned company is "guilty as charged" in support of what he called the biblical definition of the family."

hey, that last post by a TTFer was funny, wasn't it?

"he won't have to. Obama can leave that task to the press,"

and yet, Obama can't stop talking about it himself

"Obama will talk about using tax dollars to rescue the US automobile industry, saving thousands of American jobs in the country,"

wonderful. why didn't he save all the other businesses going under?

unemployment is still way over 8%

nothing to crow about

"Obama will talk about how despite having inherited one of the worst economic messes since the Great Depression, 4.3 million private sector jobs have been created in America under Obama's policies, and indications are that the economy is slowly improving."

every recession in america has been followed by a recovery

under obama, however, the recovery hasn't restored us, as all others have

the result wouldn't have been any worse if, say, Carol Burnett had been president

July 21, 2012 12:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

sign of a sick society:

SAN DIEGO -- San Diego's gay pride parade included active-duty troops marching in military dress, the first time that U.S. service members participated in such an event while in full uniform.

Dozens of soldiers, sailors, and Marines marched alongside an old Army truck decorated with a "Freedom to Serve" banner and a rainbow flag. They were joined by dozens more military personnel in civilian clothes, but the uniforms stood out among the flower-bedecked floats and scantily clad revelers.

July 22, 2012 2:32 AM  
Anonymous nutshell, baby said...

“Do we believe in an America that is great because of government or do we believe in an America that is great because of free people allowed to pursue their dreams?”

And that’s the fall election in a nutshell.

July 22, 2012 1:31 PM  
Anonymous Ban Assault Weapons said...

Mexican President Felipe Calderon urged the United States to reconsider its "mistaken" gun laws in a series of tweets Saturday following the movie theater massacre last week in Colorado.

Calderon first offered his condolences for the shooting spree that left 12 dead and injured nearly 60 others during a midnight screening of the latest Batman film.

"I express my condolences to the American people for the tragedy in Aurora, Colorado," Calderon tweeted.

But the Mexican president then urged American lawmakers to reconsider gun control legislation.
"Because of the Aurora, Colorado tragedy, the American Congress must review its mistaken legislation on guns. It kills," Calderon said.

Calderon has been a frequent critic of American gun laws. During a 2010 address before a joint session of Congress, the outgoing Mexican president urged Congress to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004.

“I fully respect, I admire the American Constitution. And I understand that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to guarantee good American citizens the ability to defend themselves and their nation,” Calderon said. “Many of these guns are not going to honest American hands, instead, thousands are ending up in the hands of criminals."

On Sunday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) also tied the Colorado shooting to a push to re-authorize the bill.

"Weapons of war don't belong on the streets," Feinstein said on Fox News. "This is a powerful weapon, it had a 100-round drum; this is a man who planned, who went in, and his purpose was to kill as many people as he could in a sold-out theater. We've got to really sit down and come to grips with what is sold to the average citizen in America.”

Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-Colo.), the congressman who represents Aurora, also urged for a reinstatement of the assault weapons ban.

July 22, 2012 3:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

all that needs to be said here is that Mexican law enforcement is doing such a poor job that the Marines won't even let their personnel visit Tijuana

after they've found a way to maintain a safe environment in their own country, they can come lecture us

Feinstein? from a place with strict gun laws where she once became mayor after the elected mayor had been shot

let's face it- if the patrons at the theater in Aurora had been armed, fewere lives would have been lost

July 22, 2012 3:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Dozens of soldiers, sailors, and Marines marched alongside... flower-bedecked floats and scantily clad revelers"

anytime an institution participates in the normalization of homosexuality, the result is to degrade that institution

our proud military is now marching with this lascivious display of moral gangrene

hard to escape the conclusion that this is yet another part of Obama's agenda to lower the status of America

in November, put a stop to it before it's too late

July 22, 2012 7:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

From Wikipedia

1 Countries that allow gay people to serve
1.1 Albania
1.2 Argentina
1.3 Australia
1.4 Austria
1.5 Bahamas
1.6 Belgium
1.7 Bermuda
1.8 Brazil
1.9 Canada
1.10 Republic of China
1.11 Colombia
1.12 Croatia
1.13 Czech Republic
1.14 Denmark
1.15 Estonia
1.16 Finland
1.17 France
1.18 Germany
1.19 Greece
1.20 Republic of Ireland
1.21 Israel
1.22 Italy
1.23 Japan
1.24 Lithuania
1.25 Luxembourg
1.26 Malta
1.27 Netherlands
1.28 New Zealand
1.29 Norway
1.30 Peru
1.31 Philippines
1.32 Poland
1.33 Portugal
1.34 Romania
1.35 Russia
1.36 Serbia
1.37 Slovenia
1.38 South Africa
1.39 Spain
1.40 Sweden
1.41 Switzerland
1.42 Thailand
1.43 United Kingdom
1.44 United States
1.45 Uruguay

July 22, 2012 7:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

countries with the most powerful military in the world:

1. the last one to allow homosexuals in the military

how loing will it last?

we are already seeing signs of degradation of the military's image

July 22, 2012 9:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Obama will talk about the need for the widely supported Buffet Rule so millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share of taxes like the rest of us do,"

these people already pay much more than the rest of us

indeed, they pay for most of our government, as well as countless other public philanthropy which contribute to this utopia we live in

about half of the rest of us pay no income tax at all

and, yet, since the wealthy make up a small part of the electorate, the vast majority, who pay little or nothing are subject to an attempted manipulation by our socialist president who clearly wants to redistribute income

you can use a lot of words for this attempted coercion but it's hard to see how "fair" could be one of them

I'm confident the American public will reject socialism as they always have before

"while Romney will hide his assets in off-shore accounts in places like Switzerland, Bermuda and the Caymen Islands."

why can't he put his assets where he wants to?

are you making a public list of all your assets available?

"Obama will remind voters no US troops are dying in Iraq anymore,"

actually, that was already true when Obama got into office

Bush won the war with the surge strategy

"and no Americans are dying because of plans drawn up by Osama bin Laden anymore"

Bush was president for years after 9/11 and foiled al quaeda at every turn

"Obama can remind voters he thinks women should have access to free preventive health care"

actually, I think he wants them to be required to pay higher insurance premiums to pay for it

don't know where you get "free" from

Obamacare required the standardization of health insurance policies and requires us to pay for what he's decided we should have

July 22, 2012 10:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm confident the American public will reject socialism as they always have before

Well if you're calling the Buffet Rule "socialism" in this instance, you are wrong and apparently blind to the fact that 60% of the American public tells pollsters it wants the Buffet Rule and thinks it's fair.

July 22, 2012 11:13 PM  
Anonymous zlabli10 said...

it hasn't been fully explained to them

Warren Buffett has made these accusations while refusing to pay a billion dollars the IRS says he has owed for ten years

if he's so anxious to pay more he has a great opportunity

stop fighting the IRS assessment

he's playing games with PR and knows that the wealthy pays more than their fair share

and so will everyone else when the subject is fully aired in the fall

July 22, 2012 11:22 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home