The biggest myth of campaign 2012

Ragnar

<--- Pic is not me
Jan 23, 2010
3,271
825
153
Cincinnati, OH
The biggest myth of the 2012 campaign? The idea that millionaire and billionaire Republican's are trying to "buy the Presidency" for rich Romney and pals and the right wing special interest verses the pure and well meaning Left wing defenders of the middle class. The truth? Millionaires and billionaires and self interested corrupt cronies abound, on both sides.

http://freebeacon.com/the-biggest-myth-of-2012/

This foundational idea—that Republicans act out of self-interest while Democrats act out of the public interest—is the keystone to the self-conceptualization and self-idealization of your everyday Democrat. It’s simplistic and bogus. And it is the biggest myth of campaign 2012.

Take for example the left-wing activist Jane Mayer’s latest article in the New Yorker, “Schmooze or Lose,”
Can Obama Win Over the Billionaires? : The New Yorker

This is a question that “Schmooze or Lose” does not even try to answer. Instead Mayer turns to a “frustrated Obama fund-raiser” who tells her, “Unlike Republicans,” liberals “have no business interest being furthered by the donation—they just like to be involved.”

Links and proof abound via the original link above. Below is just a taste...

... a June fundraiser organized by billionaire investor Marc Lasry, whose financial support for Obama in 2012 must be totally unrelated to the fact that the White House was kind enough to give a prestigious job to one of his sons (a detail that is of course left out by Mayer); and whose email solicitation to his fellow superrich liberals dangled the possibility that a $35,000 donation would buy a chance to ride in the presidential motorcade.

Tom Perriello, “a former Democratic congressman from Virginia who was defeated in 2010 after a flood of outside conservative spending in his district”—he was trounced 51 percent to 47 percent by Rep. Robert Hurt even after President Obama intervened in the race—tells Mayer, from his perch at the secretly funded Center for American Progress, that “Oil, coal, and chemical companies have billions at stake,” which is why these industries contribute so much money to campaigns. Not mentioned by Mayer is the identity of the largest recipient of donations from energy giant BP in the 2008 cycle: Barack Obama. Not mentioned by Mayer are the billionaire board members of Periello’s organization, such as Tom Steyer, who have made millions off of investments in the clean energy firms for which the Center for American Progress so lustily flacks.

These solar, wind, ethanol, and electric car companies are almost entirely dependent on government subsidies and mandates for their very existence, and have received billions of dollars in taxpayer-financed loans since Obama became president. One investor in such enterprises is George Kaiser, an Obama bundler involved in the failed solar panel manufacturer Solyndra who discussed the company in one of his visits to the White House. His name does not appear in Mayer’s article. Nor does the name Peter Schweizer, who reports in his classic exposé Throw Them All Out that more than 70 percent of loans issued by the Department of Energy under Obama went to companies with ties to Democratic bundlers and donors.

And on and on and on the article goes (read more at your own leisure), from a plethora of union cronies and goons, Hollywood, utility giants and all the usual suspects. Rub elbows with the rich and famous and powerful in the Obama administration and collect your rewards be they jobs, government grants, White House access and all the rest.

From "hope and change" to "same as it ever was" at the speed of giant electronic money transfer to team Obama. What? You thought he was different?
 
Biggest Myth?

That Obama and Romney are different. Which is a big part of the reason Romney will lose. Why change pants when the pair you have on are damn near identical to the ones you want to put on?
 
Biggest Myth?

That Obama and Romney are different. Which is a big part of the reason Romney will lose. Why change pants when the pair you have on are damn near identical to the ones you want to put on?

Yeah, absolutely no difference at all. No difference in background, philosophy, experience or policies proposed.
Yeah. Right.
 
575499_251669688279812_257084033_n.jpg
 
Not enough to matter. Same policies so we get same shit with very little difference in presidencies.

Yeah. Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter were exactly the same. Two peas in a pod.

Instead of mindlessly bleating the narco-libertarian line, why not wake up?
 
The biggest myth of the 2012 campaign? The idea that millionaire and billionaire Republican's are trying to "buy the Presidency" for rich Romney and pals and the right wing special interest verses the pure and well meaning Left wing defenders of the middle class. The truth? Millionaires and billionaires and self interested corrupt cronies abound, on both sides.

http://freebeacon.com/the-biggest-myth-of-2012/

This foundational idea—that Republicans act out of self-interest while Democrats act out of the public interest—is the keystone to the self-conceptualization and self-idealization of your everyday Democrat. It’s simplistic and bogus. And it is the biggest myth of campaign 2012.

Take for example the left-wing activist Jane Mayer’s latest article in the New Yorker, “Schmooze or Lose,”
Can Obama Win Over the Billionaires? : The New Yorker

This is a question that “Schmooze or Lose” does not even try to answer. Instead Mayer turns to a “frustrated Obama fund-raiser” who tells her, “Unlike Republicans,” liberals “have no business interest being furthered by the donation—they just like to be involved.”

Links and proof abound via the original link above. Below is just a taste...



Tom Perriello, “a former Democratic congressman from Virginia who was defeated in 2010 after a flood of outside conservative spending in his district”—he was trounced 51 percent to 47 percent by Rep. Robert Hurt even after President Obama intervened in the race—tells Mayer, from his perch at the secretly funded Center for American Progress, that “Oil, coal, and chemical companies have billions at stake,” which is why these industries contribute so much money to campaigns. Not mentioned by Mayer is the identity of the largest recipient of donations from energy giant BP in the 2008 cycle: Barack Obama. Not mentioned by Mayer are the billionaire board members of Periello’s organization, such as Tom Steyer, who have made millions off of investments in the clean energy firms for which the Center for American Progress so lustily flacks.

These solar, wind, ethanol, and electric car companies are almost entirely dependent on government subsidies and mandates for their very existence, and have received billions of dollars in taxpayer-financed loans since Obama became president. One investor in such enterprises is George Kaiser, an Obama bundler involved in the failed solar panel manufacturer Solyndra who discussed the company in one of his visits to the White House. His name does not appear in Mayer’s article. Nor does the name Peter Schweizer, who reports in his classic exposé Throw Them All Out that more than 70 percent of loans issued by the Department of Energy under Obama went to companies with ties to Democratic bundlers and donors.

And on and on and on the article goes (read more at your own leisure), from a plethora of union cronies and goons, Hollywood, utility giants and all the usual suspects. Rub elbows with the rich and famous and powerful in the Obama administration and collect your rewards be they jobs, government grants, White House access and all the rest.

From "hope and change" to "same as it ever was" at the speed of giant electronic money transfer to team Obama. What? You thought he was different?
Yes, it's a myth.......

One that's been pushed by Dems for many years to try to define the ideological differences between the two parties. But it seems to have been done in a much subtler manner, perhaps with the realization that just below the surface, it's much as you have stated. Underneath we're all pretty much alike but in the end we all have to work together for the betterment of everyone.

Never have I seen such ugly, blatant attempts as I've witnessed in the past four years with not just the lower echelon but with the president himself taking a machete to the heart of this country in his attempt to divide us and to force us onto a path where few want to go.

It's only been recently that I've come to realize that this is no longer the Democrat party I used to know While I realize both parties have gotten a bit off track in their understanding of what is required of them as servants of the people, there are still good people on both sides.

And I firmly believe we can cure ourselves of the disease that has overtaken us, apathy and complacency, and begin to right ourselves. Both sides. All sides.

We need to rid ourselves of the cancer that has afflicted us. That we allowed into our homes. Then and only then can we begin to heal ourselves.
 
The biggest myth of the 2012 campaign? The idea that millionaire and billionaire Republican's are trying to "buy the Presidency" for rich Romney and pals and the right wing special interest verses the pure and well meaning Left wing defenders of the middle class. The truth? Millionaires and billionaires and self interested corrupt cronies abound, on both sides.

http://freebeacon.com/the-biggest-myth-of-2012/

This foundational idea—that Republicans act out of self-interest while Democrats act out of the public interest—is the keystone to the self-conceptualization and self-idealization of your everyday Democrat. It’s simplistic and bogus. And it is the biggest myth of campaign 2012.

Take for example the left-wing activist Jane Mayer’s latest article in the New Yorker, “Schmooze or Lose,”
Can Obama Win Over the Billionaires? : The New Yorker



Links and proof abound via the original link above. Below is just a taste...





These solar, wind, ethanol, and electric car companies are almost entirely dependent on government subsidies and mandates for their very existence, and have received billions of dollars in taxpayer-financed loans since Obama became president. One investor in such enterprises is George Kaiser, an Obama bundler involved in the failed solar panel manufacturer Solyndra who discussed the company in one of his visits to the White House. His name does not appear in Mayer’s article. Nor does the name Peter Schweizer, who reports in his classic exposé Throw Them All Out that more than 70 percent of loans issued by the Department of Energy under Obama went to companies with ties to Democratic bundlers and donors.

And on and on and on the article goes (read more at your own leisure), from a plethora of union cronies and goons, Hollywood, utility giants and all the usual suspects. Rub elbows with the rich and famous and powerful in the Obama administration and collect your rewards be they jobs, government grants, White House access and all the rest.

From "hope and change" to "same as it ever was" at the speed of giant electronic money transfer to team Obama. What? You thought he was different?
Yes, it's a myth.......

One that's been pushed by Dems for many years to try to define the ideological differences between the two parties. But it seems to have been done in a much subtler manner, perhaps with the realization that just below the surface, it's much as you have stated. Underneath we're all pretty much alike but in the end we all have to work together for the betterment of everyone.

Never have I seen such ugly, blatant attempts as I've witnessed in the past four years with not just the lower echelon but with the president himself taking a machete to the heart of this country in his attempt to divide us and to force us onto a path where few want to go.

It's only been recently that I've come to realize that this is no longer the Democrat party I used to know While I realize both parties have gotten a bit off track in their understanding of what is required of them as servants of the people, there are still good people on both sides.

And I firmly believe we can cure ourselves of the disease that has overtaken us, apathy and complacency, and begin to right ourselves. Both sides. All sides.

We need to rid ourselves of the cancer that has afflicted us. That we allowed into our homes. Then and only then can we begin to heal ourselves.

Well put. More people ought to subscribe to the idea that the other side is "not evil, just wrong" in the general discourse. (granted that takes some of the fun away)
 
Biggest Myth?

That Obama and Romney are different. Which is a big part of the reason Romney will lose. Why change pants when the pair you have on are damn near identical to the ones you want to put on?

How can they be the same if they want differant things?

Yes the monied interests beat on anyone whos in office and work their power to get what they want.

Why vote for the one ( reps) who have the exactly same thing in mind as the monied interests
 
Not enough to matter. Same policies so we get same shit with very little difference in presidencies.

Yeah. Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter were exactly the same. Two peas in a pod.

Instead of mindlessly bleating the narco-libertarian line, why not wake up?

Then I am sure you can name some of those HUGE differences. Let’s see them.

Between Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan? Are you insane?
 
Biggest Myth?

That Obama and Romney are different. Which is a big part of the reason Romney will lose. Why change pants when the pair you have on are damn near identical to the ones you want to put on?

How can they be the same if they want differant things?

Yes the monied interests beat on anyone whos in office and work their power to get what they want.

Why vote for the one ( reps) who have the exactly same thing in mind as the monied interests

Did you see the picture? That's what I mean. Same foreign policy,same economic policy of thinking the government can fix the economy,neither will end or audit the fed...blah who cares I am not voting for either of them.
 
Biggest Myth?

That Obama and Romney are different. Which is a big part of the reason Romney will lose. Why change pants when the pair you have on are damn near identical to the ones you want to put on?

How can they be the same if they want differant things?

Yes the monied interests beat on anyone whos in office and work their power to get what they want.

Why vote for the one ( reps) who have the exactly same thing in mind as the monied interests

Did you see the picture? That's what I mean. Same foreign policy,same economic policy of thinking the government can fix the economy,neither will end or audit the fed...blah who cares I am not voting for either of them.

Yeah, they both wear pants. They both go to the bathroom. They both eat breakfast. See, no difference at all!
 
"How has Obama and his stimulus and temporary targeted tax breaks done?"

I hear this question repeated often by Republican pundits, but it is impossible to answer in fact. Many (if not most) economists suggest that it did a great deal of good by preventing job loss at the peak of the recession and possibly avoided a complete economic depression. It certainly reduced the unemployment rate somewhat--and, in fact, many economists suggest that the stimulus was too small.

It is worth noting, perhaps, that the recovery actually stalled after the 2010 elections brought a Republican majority of radical right wing extremists to House majority.

Very little has been said about that uncomfortable fact.
 
Biggest Myth?

That Obama and Romney are different. Which is a big part of the reason Romney will lose. Why change pants when the pair you have on are damn near identical to the ones you want to put on?

Except they arent identical. As has been pointed out multiple times before.

Romney's support for State's rights just one of many differences.
 
"How has Obama and his stimulus and temporary targeted tax breaks done?"

I hear this question repeated often by Republican pundits, but it is impossible to answer in fact. Many (if not most) economists suggest that it did a great deal of good by preventing job loss at the peak of the recession and possibly avoided a complete economic depression. It certainly reduced the unemployment rate somewhat--and, in fact, many economists suggest that the stimulus was too small.

It is worth noting, perhaps, that the recovery actually stalled after the 2010 elections brought a Republican majority of radical right wing extremists to House majority.

Very little has been said about that uncomfortable fact.

Probably because it's not at all factual.
 

Forum List

Back
Top