More ad hominem, geez. What I'm saying makes sense. Mitt hasn't come out and actually said he's paid a lot in income tax. Notice that he just used the word "taxes." That's not an accident. But I'm sure you know that, jh.

Pretty much everything else I said just echos what others have said, so I guess nobody makes sense.

dajafi wrote:My suspicion is that the Ayn Rand fetishists would prefer an Option 4, in which we kill the poor and sell their organs as spares to the "job creators." But we're probably a few years from anyone feeling comfortable enough to say that out loud.

Eh, I have no problem saying it. Although I'm not a Randite, I view Ayn Rand about the same as L Ron Hubbard. I'm just rooting for a great schism resulting in a violent and bloody uprising.

romney is against obama doing what romney asked obama to do. that's all there is to it. there is no weakening of training/working requirements. enough with this crap.

this is just dog whistle racism. but maybe it's just about blah people.

Just thinking about this a bit.

Gore was absolutely the worst candidate of my lifetime. To not be able to capitalize on the success of the Clinton years is just mind bogglingly awful. And it's not like he was running against an especially likeable candidate.

Kerry wasn't great, but he still had a higher mountain to climb than Gore.
I think the environment for a challenger in 2012 is much more favorable than it was in 2004, though you could I suppose disagree. On the other hand, Romney heads a party that has more or less gone apeshit crazy. Though that's not Romney's fault, he has not handled it adroitly.

I also think a big chunk of the R establishment really doesn't want to win. (And in this sense, it's a repeat of 2008 for them--the money that's following into the elite's coffers and enriching the consultants, talk show hosts, and think tank types is much greater than it would be if they held the white house). If I'm say an oil drilling company, I might not bother spending a bunch on lobbying since the Republicans are going to do my bidding anyway.

TenuredVulture wrote:Just thinking about this a bit.

Gore was absolutely the worst candidate of my lifetime.

But Walter Mondale was a candidate in your life time as was, Jerold Ford and Jimmy Carter. McCain - Palin (old as dirt and it might have killed him leaving us with Sarah)? Ross Perot? Dukakis? Strom Thurman in 1948 running as a "Dixiecrat" (seriously - but that should be out of frame for TV).

There are plenty of bad choices available. Besides, Big Al invented the internet we call home.

There is an article on philly.com about Virgil Goode being a potential spoiler in VA taking away vote from Romney. He is projected to get up to 9% of the votes. Who the F is Goode? May Richmond knows. Article says he is loved out in the pan handle which is not close to Richmond, but is really like the moon from me.

thephan wrote:There is an article on philly.com about Virgil Goode being a potential spoiler in VA taking away vote from Romney. He is projected to get up to 9% of the votes. Who the F is Goode? May Richmond knows. Article says he is loved out in the pan handle which is not close to Richmond, but is really like the moon from me.

Former R congressman, current Constitution Party prez nominee.

How awesome would it be if Pawlenty were his running mate?!

thephan wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:Just thinking about this a bit.

Gore was absolutely the worst candidate of my lifetime.

But Walter Mondale was a candidate in your life time as was, Jerold Ford and Jimmy Carter. McCain - Palin (old as dirt and it might have killed him leaving us with Sarah)? Ross Perot? Dukakis? Strom Thurman in 1948 running as a "Dixiecrat" (seriously - but that should be out of frame for TV).

There are plenty of bad choices available. Besides, Big Al invented the internet we call home.

Those candidates were all pretty bad (though I'm not counting 3rd party candidates). But first, you have to leave out Carter, because he actually won a Presidential election. Ford was dealing with an impossible situation. Mondale was running against a popular incumbent, so he really had no chance--which is why you left off Dole, I presume. Dukakis was inept to be sure, but again, 1988 would be tough for any D. Gore though should have won in a landslide. He didn't even win his home state, a state Clinton had won in 96.

Monkeyboy wrote:jh, how do you know that what reid says is full of shit? Have you seen the returns?

I suspect he's exaggerating to put the screws to Mitt, but I don't see how you know that. Are you privy to his returns and, if so, can I get a peek? I'm sure he paid some taxes, but it was obviously very low or he's invested in some embarrassing stuff or something. Otherwise, there's no point to holding this stuff out.

I know Reid is full of shit because the allegation that someone with Romney's level of income, sources of income, etc. could have avoided paying income taxes for 10 years is absurd on its face. The articles that have examined the chances he could have pulled something like that off have come to the same conclusion.

Then you throw in the weird nature of the source of the allegation. This supposedly came from a 'Bain investor' whom Reid finds 'extremely credible'. Romney hasn't worked at Bain on a day to day basis for 13 years, and 'retroactively retired' from the company 10 years ago. A Bain investor would not be privy to the personal tax returns of the long departed CEO of the company (or the current CEO for that matter). After initially citing the one source, Harry then spun that to a number of people had told him Romney hadn't paid taxes for a decade. The ludicrous charge became even more unbelievable.

There are many things in life I have not seen and still know to be true. I know LeBron James would beat me in a game of 1 on 1 basketball. I've never played him, so by your standard my belief is without proof, and it'd be perfectly reasonable for me to assert that I would beat him. However looking at the available evidence and using common sense, I know that I would lose.

Monkeyboy wrote:btw, my favorite part of the political season so far is jh acting indignant about dem "lies." I imagine it's tough because he's used to the reps lying their asses off and the dems just taking it.

Of course, there's no proof that the dems are even lying about the returns. In fact, the lack of returns forthcoming from the Mittster makes it seem like maybe they aren't lyng. Maybe Mitt used creative accounting and some offshore tax havens to avoid income tax completely. When he says, "I've paid lots of money in taxes," maybe he means sales tax paid when buying elevators for his cars. Or maybe he means property tax from one of his many houses. Or maybe he means poll taxes -- oh wait, those are only for the poor.

I'm not indignant about Democrats lying. I don't really care if your rationalization for it is 'it's OK to lie because Republicans lie too' or even 'it's bad when Republicans lie because they are evil but it's OK when Democrats do it because they are good', but I do have a problem if you think the 'Democrats are just asking important questions, not lying' but would be flipping out about the tactic if the R and D were switched. That's where I'll hang my indignant hat.

The media is at least stepping up in bashing Reid. Yesterday there was the Tribune editorial calling him a birther. Today the Washington Post likened his charges to those of Joe McCarthy. Hopefully they continue to hammer him if he keeps this up so his charges get laughed off for the crap they are, and his reputation is irreparably damaged.

Phan In Phlorida wrote:

thephan wrote:There is an article on philly.com about Virgil Goode being a potential spoiler in VA taking away vote from Romney. He is projected to get up to 9% of the votes. Who the F is Goode? May Richmond knows. Article says he is loved out in the pan handle which is not close to Richmond, but is really like the moon from me.

Former R congressman, current Constitution Party prez nominee.

How awesome would it be if Pawlenty were his running mate?!

I know what I read and googled, but I just cannot see the man making an impact. 9% of VA? If he can pull those numbers from the SW of VA, how is he not in office still in some capacity? He is trying to stay on the VA ticket under threat frmo the 'big two' or maybe just one.

"Goode, served in the Virginia State Senate for 24 years before representing the state's 5th Congressional District until 2009, has spent most of his political career as a Democrat, but then switched parties twice, becoming an independent in 2000 and then a Republican in 2002."

Seems that they are on the ballot in 22 states. Pretty impressive for a "party" I am completely unfamiliar with. Their stances are predictably harsh. Hard to see how Goode flip-flopped from a democrat to this, but maybe I need a better understanding of the whole Dixiecrat movement.

Virgil Goode MIGHT steal a few votes here and there, but I seriously doubt he'll be a significant player outside of his home district. There's no fucking way that he gets 9% of the vote here. In the last election, that would've been over 333,000 votes. He was probably the least-known of Virginia's congressional members while he was in office.

I don't know where they got that "analysis" but that's a crock. Even if he steals 20% of the vote in places like Wise County, that's a drop in the bucket versus the rest of the state.

Oh and BTW, the State Board of Elections and the AG's Office is investigating Goode's ballot petitions for election fraud allegations. So... yeah.

A candidate like Goode might be a spoiler given Romney's high negatives. Yes, 9% is ridiculous, but 2% isn't, and in a close election might tip the balance. There are plenty of people out there who really believe ideological nonsense, and would rather vote for people who can pass purity tests than vote for people who can win. Romney can't win by simply not being Obama.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:jh, how do you know that what reid says is full of shit? Have you seen the returns?

I suspect he's exaggerating to put the screws to Mitt, but I don't see how you know that. Are you privy to his returns and, if so, can I get a peek? I'm sure he paid some taxes, but it was obviously very low or he's invested in some embarrassing stuff or something. Otherwise, there's no point to holding this stuff out.

I know Reid is full of shit because the allegation that someone with Romney's level of income, sources of income, etc. could have avoided paying income taxes for 10 years is absurd on its face. The articles that have examined the chances he could have pulled something like that off have come to the same conclusion.

Then you throw in the weird nature of the source of the allegation. This supposedly came from a 'Bain investor' whom Reid finds 'extremely credible'. Romney hasn't worked at Bain on a day to day basis for 13 years, and 'retroactively retired' from the company 10 years ago. A Bain investor would not be privy to the personal tax returns of the long departed CEO of the company (or the current CEO for that matter). After initially citing the one source, Harry then spun that to a number of people had told him Romney hadn't paid taxes for a decade. The ludicrous charge became even more unbelievable.

There are many things in life I have not seen and still know to be true. I know LeBron James would beat me in a game of 1 on 1 basketball. I've never played him, so by your standard my belief is without proof, and it'd be perfectly reasonable for me to assert that I would beat him. However looking at the available evidence and using common sense, I know that I would lose.

Monkeyboy wrote:btw, my favorite part of the political season so far is jh acting indignant about dem "lies." I imagine it's tough because he's used to the reps lying their asses off and the dems just taking it.

Of course, there's no proof that the dems are even lying about the returns. In fact, the lack of returns forthcoming from the Mittster makes it seem like maybe they aren't lyng. Maybe Mitt used creative accounting and some offshore tax havens to avoid income tax completely. When he says, "I've paid lots of money in taxes," maybe he means sales tax paid when buying elevators for his cars. Or maybe he means property tax from one of his many houses. Or maybe he means poll taxes -- oh wait, those are only for the poor.

I'm not indignant about Democrats lying. I don't really care if your rationalization for it is 'it's OK to lie because Republicans lie too' or even 'it's bad when Republicans lie because they are evil but it's OK when Democrats do it because they are good', but I do have a problem if you think the 'Democrats are just asking important questions, not lying' but would be flipping out about the tactic if the R and D were switched. That's where I'll hang my indignant hat.

The media is at least stepping up in bashing Reid. Yesterday there was the Tribune editorial calling him a birther. Today the Washington Post likened his charges to those of Joe McCarthy. Hopefully they continue to hammer him if he keeps this up so his charges get laughed off for the crap they are, and his reputation is irreparably damaged.

Well I doubt Reid really believes he paid NO taxes, but that's not really the point. He's just raking him over the coals for not releasing his taxes like pretty much every other candidate does. I don't know why this has you all worked up. Reid is probably lying about the extent of Romney's tax avoidance, but it's probably still pretty valid that he paid less that most people. Meanwhile, Romney has been flat out lying about Obama's support of the voting bill in Ohio. I'm actually not someone who likes lying in politics, but why should I get upset at Reid pointing out that Romney is obviously hiding something in his taxes when Romney's people are just plain making things up in Ohio?

There's obviously something there that he doesn't want people to see. He's probably paid low taxes, hid some money in foreign accounts, and had some investments in foreign companies that don't look good. I wouldn't think that's enough to not release them, but he obviously doesn't agree. So maybe there's something worse, who knows? Maybe he made a TON OF MONEY in Italy in a move that still has average Italian citizens upset and he doesn't want to answer questions about it since many in Italy see the move as illegal or borderline illegal. Maybe he doesn't want people to know exactly how many car elevators he bought in 2008, I don't know.

It's hard to say with Mitt because he's not really one of us. He's one of them. He's one of those people who are born with a silver spoon in their mouth and spend much of their lives patting themselves on the back for it. He doesn't come from the working class. He's a blue blood.

"If you hold back information and surprise people, you lose their trust."
- Mitt Romney, 1999

Issue #854 that Mitt has flipflopped on.

It's hard to trust a guy who's constantly flipflopping about everything.

Also, he sent American jobs overseas and is proud of it because it helped make his rich friends and himself even more money. A real American wouldn't do that.

The RCP average is inching away from the margin of error. 3.9% lead for Obama.

still really early though. Many people won't really start tuning in until after labor day.

but yeh, team obama is probably feeling better than mitt's group.

Monkeyboy wrote:It's hard to say with Mitt because he's not really one of us. He's one of them. He's one of those people who are born with a silver spoon in their mouth and spend much of their lives patting themselves on the back for it. He doesn't come from the working class. He's a blue blood.

For instance his schooling as a child, public grade school, then prep school, was a lot different from Obama. Oh wait, it's the same. He's worked a hell of a lot more than Obama did.

I like Wayne Root's idea for both of them. Romney show's his taxes, Obama releases his college files. Shuts everyone up.

cshort wrote:He's worked a hell of a lot more than Obama did.

In what sense?