Why, Mr. Sallow. I'm surprised and your joy at the expense of another person's misery.
When it's a person that, himself, has caused so much misery?
I like it.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Why, Mr. Sallow. I'm surprised and your joy at the expense of another person's misery.
Obama's idea of employing people is to charge overburdened taxpayers with paying the salaries, health benefits, and Union dues of a passel of government employees with tenure and union bosses who don't play nice with people who displease them, as in rumors of decapitation, dismemberment, cement submersions, and bodies never found.I'm not saying the conservative ticket will win at the moment. That is not what I said at all. But, what I did say was that Romney is a liberal who tried to trick conservatives into believing he was "one of the good ole boys". He failed... he lost.
Romney's only good month, October, happened when he finally and abruptly pivoted away from pandering to his rabid base and etch-a-sketched his way to moderation before our very eyes in the first debate (leaving many observers, the President apparently included, slack-jawed in amazement). Yet the softening of his positions and rhetoric didn't drive away the rightwing base, it actually consolidated it because they finally felt like they were backing a winner.
If you want to run candidates who can't even try to credibly make that pivot back to the mainstream, then you're not even going to get as close as Romney got.
Exactly.
It's funny that they called Obama an empty suit, then ran one.
Rescuing a bankrupt business, reorganizing, and hiring a passel of people at better wages is misery. Well, kiss my grits.Why, Mr. Sallow. I'm surprised and your joy at the expense of another person's misery.
Priceless.
When it's a person that, himself, has caused so much misery?
I like it.
Rescuing a bankrupt business, reorganizing, and hiring a passel of people at better wages is misery. Well, kiss my grits.Why, Mr. Sallow. I'm surprised and your joy at the expense of another person's misery.
When it's a person that, himself, has caused so much misery?
I like it.
It's nothing Romney did. Obama played a dirty campaign by bribing people to vote for him. We'd need another Reagan to have beaten Obama, and we will brew one in 2016 to beat whatever democrat is running. The fact of the matter is people like free stuff, and that's what Obama offered.
Why, Mr. Sallow. I'm surprised and your joy at the expense of another person's misery.
Why is acting like decent human being such a problem for you plutocrats?
Here's the thing. I got insurance through my job. And I paid my co-pays, a little extra to get the top-notch plan because I'm getting up there in years. And then I had to get a couple of operations. And lo and behold, my company was suddenly looking to get rid of me. Imagine that. And I wasn't the only person they did this to.
What has ruined American Health care is the greed. What had ruined America is greed.
If we did what Germany, the UK, Canada did, we wouldn't have an issue with this. Instead, we are all carrying Ed Hanaway and his 72 million dollar severance package at Cigna.
You are right, greed has ruined American health care.
Your greedy ass expecting someone else to pay for your health care bills.
No, my expectation was that if I pay for insurance, I should get insurance.
Remember, this is the Plutocrats plan. "Don't have universal coverage. Trust us. We'll give you insurance if you work for us. Honest. Would we lie?"
Never had one of these mother-fuckers who didn't lie to me.
I guess I did better than the guy whose 17 year old daughter died because Cigna wouldn't spring for her liver transplant.
Now we also have them claiming that Romney NOT being a right wing religious was a bad thing.
Amazing.
Romney lost because he put Plutocracy on the ballot.
Christianity would probalby win an election pretty easily.
I'm not saying the conservative ticket will win at the moment. That is not what I said at all. But, what I did say was that Romney is a liberal who tried to trick conservatives into believing he was "one of the good ole boys". He failed... he lost.
Romney's only good month, October, happened when he finally and abruptly pivoted away from pandering to his rabid base and etch-a-sketched his way to moderation before our very eyes in the first debate (leaving many observers, the President apparently included, slack-jawed in amazement). Yet the softening of his positions and rhetoric didn't drive away the rightwing base, it actually consolidated it because they finally felt like they were backing a winner.
If you want to run candidates who can't even try to credibly make that pivot back to the mainstream, then you're not even going to get as close as Romney got.
I'm not saying the conservative ticket will win at the moment. That is not what I said at all. But, what I did say was that Romney is a liberal who tried to trick conservatives into believing he was "one of the good ole boys". He failed... he lost.
Romney's only good month, October, happened when he finally and abruptly pivoted away from pandering to his rabid base and etch-a-sketched his way to moderation before our very eyes in the first debate (leaving many observers, the President apparently included, slack-jawed in amazement). Yet the softening of his positions and rhetoric didn't drive away the rightwing base, it actually consolidated it because they finally felt like they were backing a winner.
If you want to run candidates who can't even try to credibly make that pivot back to the mainstream, then you're not even going to get as close as Romney got.
That is all well and good if all you care about is winning and the hell with your principles.
However, you and Gadawg73, make it sound like you actually believed Romney is a conservative. That is laughable at best. He's not even a moderate for crying out loud.
The "rightwing base" as you put it had to support Romney because they had been screaming "Anybody but Obama" for 2 frigging years. If Ted Kennedy were still alive and happened to switch parties (yes, I know that is not at all likely, but just go with this) and claimed he had seen the light, they would have supported Kennedy over Obama.
The rightwing base sold out its principles to beat Obama. Those who felt their principles were more valuable than the White House said "Screw that, I'm not voting for him just because he has an (R) behind his name".
Immie
Romney's only good month, October, happened when he finally and abruptly pivoted away from pandering to his rabid base and etch-a-sketched his way to moderation before our very eyes in the first debate (leaving many observers, the President apparently included, slack-jawed in amazement). Yet the softening of his positions and rhetoric didn't drive away the rightwing base, it actually consolidated it because they finally felt like they were backing a winner.
If you want to run candidates who can't even try to credibly make that pivot back to the mainstream, then you're not even going to get as close as Romney got.
That is all well and good if all you care about is winning and the hell with your principles.
However, you and Gadawg73, make it sound like you actually believed Romney is a conservative. That is laughable at best. He's not even a moderate for crying out loud.
The "rightwing base" as you put it had to support Romney because they had been screaming "Anybody but Obama" for 2 frigging years. If Ted Kennedy were still alive and happened to switch parties (yes, I know that is not at all likely, but just go with this) and claimed he had seen the light, they would have supported Kennedy over Obama.
The rightwing base sold out its principles to beat Obama. Those who felt their principles were more valuable than the White House said "Screw that, I'm not voting for him just because he has an (R) behind his name".
Immie
Tell me how Romney is NOT a fiscal conservative?
His fiscal conservatism has made many companies profitable and it turned around the Olympics he took over.
Social conservatism is not true Republican conservatism. Social conservatism is based on religious beliefs and they have no place in politics.
Goldwater predicted this 40 years with his opposition to Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell spreading their negative influences in the party.
You may like losing with your social conservatism but we don't.
Fact is Romney towed the line with the Republican platform with it's anti abortion and anti gay marriage nonsense. That alone got our ass kicked again.
Romney has a long history of fiscal conservatism and the time was NOW for that in this country.
Focusing on fiscal conservatism only is what solves our budget crisis and debt.
Immanuel "there is not a damned bit of evidence to prove that Romney is fiscally conservative when it comes to government."That is all well and good if all you care about is winning and the hell with your principles.
However, you and Gadawg73, make it sound like you actually believed Romney is a conservative. That is laughable at best. He's not even a moderate for crying out loud.
The "rightwing base" as you put it had to support Romney because they had been screaming "Anybody but Obama" for 2 frigging years. If Ted Kennedy were still alive and happened to switch parties (yes, I know that is not at all likely, but just go with this) and claimed he had seen the light, they would have supported Kennedy over Obama.
The rightwing base sold out its principles to beat Obama. Those who felt their principles were more valuable than the White House said "Screw that, I'm not voting for him just because he has an (R) behind his name".
Immie
Tell me how Romney is NOT a fiscal conservative?
His fiscal conservatism has made many companies profitable and it turned around the Olympics he took over.
Social conservatism is not true Republican conservatism. Social conservatism is based on religious beliefs and they have no place in politics.
Goldwater predicted this 40 years with his opposition to Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell spreading their negative influences in the party.
You may like losing with your social conservatism but we don't.
Fact is Romney towed the line with the Republican platform with it's anti abortion and anti gay marriage nonsense. That alone got our ass kicked again.
Romney has a long history of fiscal conservatism and the time was NOW for that in this country.
Focusing on fiscal conservatism only is what solves our budget crisis and debt.
Fiscal conservatism (more accurately fiscal responsibility) is the only thing the will solve the budget crisis, but there is not a damned bit of evidence to prove that Romney is fiscally conservative when it comes to government.
Remember, he brought Mass the precurser to Obamacare and despite his rhetoric he would not have overturned it. He is no more "anti-Obamacare" than Obama. He is no more "anti-abortion" than Obama nor is he anymore "anti-gay" than Obama not that either one of those last two ideas is the answer to their respective problems. Over turning Roe is not going to end abortions and quite frankly is not the answer to ending or even reducing abortions.
Romney is no different than Bush or Obama. He would have given us four to eight years of reduced taxes on the rich and more spending because that is what his owners want. What we need is someone that is willing to increase tax revenue even if that means increasing tax rates among the rich AND cut spending. Neither Romney nor Obama would or will do that. Both parties are poised to send us over the "fiscal cliff". We are a runaway train headed for a bridge that collapsed years ago.
And the diehards in both parties are the coal that powers that train.
Immie
That is all well and good if all you care about is winning and the hell with your principles.
However, you and Gadawg73, make it sound like you actually believed Romney is a conservative. That is laughable at best. He's not even a moderate for crying out loud.
The "rightwing base" as you put it had to support Romney because they had been screaming "Anybody but Obama" for 2 frigging years. If Ted Kennedy were still alive and happened to switch parties (yes, I know that is not at all likely, but just go with this) and claimed he had seen the light, they would have supported Kennedy over Obama.
The rightwing base sold out its principles to beat Obama. Those who felt their principles were more valuable than the White House said "Screw that, I'm not voting for him just because he has an (R) behind his name".
Immie
Tell me how Romney is NOT a fiscal conservative?
His fiscal conservatism has made many companies profitable and it turned around the Olympics he took over.
Social conservatism is not true Republican conservatism. Social conservatism is based on religious beliefs and they have no place in politics.
Goldwater predicted this 40 years with his opposition to Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell spreading their negative influences in the party.
You may like losing with your social conservatism but we don't.
Fact is Romney towed the line with the Republican platform with it's anti abortion and anti gay marriage nonsense. That alone got our ass kicked again.
Romney has a long history of fiscal conservatism and the time was NOW for that in this country.
Focusing on fiscal conservatism only is what solves our budget crisis and debt.
Fiscal conservatism (more accurately fiscal responsibility) is the only thing the will solve the budget crisis, but there is not a damned bit of evidence to prove that Romney is fiscally conservative when it comes to government.
Remember, he brought Mass the precurser to Obamacare and despite his rhetoric he would not have overturned it. He is no more "anti-Obamacare" than Obama. He is no more "anti-abortion" than Obama nor is he anymore "anti-gay" than Obama not that either one of those last two ideas is the answer to their respective problems. Over turning Roe is not going to end abortions and quite frankly is not the answer to ending or even reducing abortions.
Romney is no different than Bush or Obama. He would have given us four to eight years of reduced taxes on the rich and more spending because that is what his owners want. What we need is someone that is willing to increase tax revenue even if that means increasing tax rates among the rich AND cut spending. Neither Romney nor Obama would or will do that. Both parties are poised to send us over the "fiscal cliff". We are a runaway train headed for a bridge that collapsed years ago.
And the diehards in both parties are the coal that powers that train.
Immie
No, business hates the insurance model. Unions love it. It started because of unions in WWII Joe. Wage controls banned them from paying more during the war so they offered free health insurance to lure workers to defense plants.
You union guys fucked it up. Before that everyone was responsible for their own health care.
Business, just like they did when they were smart and went away from pensions plans into contribution plans, want employees to be in charge of their own affairs and make their own decisions.
Group health care alone brought GM down. At one time their unfunded future health care costs for retirees was over $1K a car plus the over 1K a car for existing employees.
[
Econ 101: decrease taxes and revenue increases. The pie grows.
When you increase taxes on the wealthy what do they do? Put their $$ into tax free municipal bonds and other tax free investments.
.
Now we also have them claiming that Romney NOT being a right wing religious was a bad thing.
Amazing.
Romney lost because he put Plutocracy on the ballot.
Christianity would probalby win an election pretty easily.
I agree as communists and socialists can not stand free enterprise.
They look down on those of us that save our money and invest it.
Stalin would be proud.
No, business hates the insurance model. Unions love it. It started because of unions in WWII Joe. Wage controls banned them from paying more during the war so they offered free health insurance to lure workers to defense plants.
You union guys fucked it up. Before that everyone was responsible for their own health care.
Business, just like they did when they were smart and went away from pensions plans into contribution plans, want employees to be in charge of their own affairs and make their own decisions.
Group health care alone brought GM down. At one time their unfunded future health care costs for retirees was over $1K a car plus the over 1K a car for existing employees.
Guy, you are starting to sound more and more like a shrilll dittohead... seriously.
Business hates the insurance model now because it costs too much. 20 years ago, they had a hissy when Hillary tried to transition us to single payer.
And the 401K is the biggest scam on the planet, really. Another excuse for Wall Street to play games with the rest of our money.
Now, you do almost have a non-retarded point about retirees... yes, GM Has a lot of retirees, and it's unfunded because instead of putting money aside for that, GM was buying big office buildings and paying huge salaries for executives and other bullshit like that.
Simple enough solution. Single payer, government pays for everything, rich pay their fair share of taxes to pay for it all.
Just like every other industrialized country does.
[
Econ 101: decrease taxes and revenue increases. The pie grows.
When you increase taxes on the wealthy what do they do? Put their $$ into tax free municipal bonds and other tax free investments.
.
Wow, it's someone who believes in the Supply Side Fairy. Wow.