When Romney gets the nomination.....

[JoeB131]

and last you had McCain...
Before him Bush...

I think it's pretty telling that we'll never elect a "staunch" Conservative.

This country is middle right, always has been, probably always will be. Keep in mind that Mitt Romney took the state of Ma from a 3 billion dollar deficit and turned that into a 2 billion dollar surplus in just 4 years without raising taxes. That's certainly conservative enough for me.
.

1) He did raise taxes.
2) He was able to do this at a time when the NATIONAL Economy grew every quarter he was in, and unemployment dropped from 6.3% to 4.5%, increasing revenues.

United States GDP Growth Rate at 1.30 percent

So he's a rooster taking credit for the dawn.

Still not impressed.

Plus he has spent the majority of his life being an extremely successful businessman who has created thousands of jobs and he is the only candidate that will take China on. We are losing 750,000 to 1 million jobs a year due to intelletual theft by China- Mitt will slam the breaks on that

Oh, please. The guy is one of the scumwads who outsourced the good jobs to China to start with.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hN-qs4udlkw]Mitt Romney: The Gold Standard In Outsourcing. - YouTube[/ame]

 

[The Rabbi]

So you prefer the pure democracy.

I prefer a system where my vote is counted equally. Don't you? The electoral college does the opposite of that.

And it's a really, really stupid system.

If you think about it...having a 200+ year old business plan is clinically retarded. Most start-ups do a 5 year plan, max. We're still living under a document written before street lights. It needs perfecting. Obviously it's no where near perfect now.

And your idea of "perfecting" it would involve what? Mandatory confiscation of property? Guarantees of income and education? "Rights" that are really calls on private wealth?

No thanks. Things have worked pretty good. In fact, we need to get back to the original Constitution.

 

[The Rabbi]

Guy, because we have this clinically retarded system called the electoral college in place is nothing to brag about.

If Anderson hadn't been there, and if the hostages had been released, that map would be the opposite colors. Most of the states were pretty damned close, and I worked as a Reagan volunteer in 1980.

You worked as a volunteer for Reagan?????????????? Really, then you should know that Mitt Romney wants to implement Reagan's trade policies, where it's free trade but it has to be fair trade. Reagan????????????? That's is hard to believe coming from you as I have read your posts.

I doubt he had anything to do with Reagan other than look at his picture. At the time Reagan was considered an unelectable cowboy and intellectual rube.

 

[Maple]

Guy, because we have this clinically retarded system called the electoral college in place is nothing to brag about.

If Anderson hadn't been there, and if the hostages had been released, that map would be the opposite colors. Most of the states were pretty damned close, and I worked as a Reagan volunteer in 1980.

You worked as a volunteer for Reagan?????????????? Really, then you should know that Mitt Romney wants to implement Reagan's trade policies, where it's free trade but it has to be fair trade. Reagan????????????? That's is hard to believe coming from you as I have read your posts.

I doubt he had anything to do with Reagan other than look at his picture. At the time Reagan was considered an unelectable cowboy and intellectual rube.

I remember that, he was also called a dumb actor by our liberal media. He will go down as one of the greatest Presidents in history. I think Romney has a lot of Reagan's characteristics, he is a conservative but you can only be so conservative when you are governor of a state that has an 85% democrat legislature to deal with. With a state that continually re-elects the likes of Barney Frank and John Kerry. I am impressed that Romney was able to get anything done in Ma especially when you consider the deck was heavily stacked against him. I think that's why Christie has endorsed him, he too, has had to deal with an overwhelming Democrat majority but he is taking it on and doing a great job.

 

[JoeB131]

[
Where does it say in the Constitution that black people are 3/5ths of white people? Please cite the section.

Article one, Section 2, Paragraph 3...

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

I don't want to live in a country where New York, California, Texas and Florida get to elect the president. We see what happens on the state level. Illinois is virtually ruled by people from Chicago for that very reason.

Obviously, if you think that, you just don't know much about IL politics. The "downstate" vote has really quite a lot of influence, more than it deserves.

The ironic thing is that is EXACTLY what is going to happen if we don't dump the EC.

CA and NY and IL are blue states. Texas will be a blue state when the Hispanics become a large enough section of the population. (They are at 37% now and will be over 50% in 2020.)

Once that happens, it won't matter how many hayseeds you have in these small states voting Republican. Those four states alone have 141 Electoral votes.

So the best two strategies the GOP has for not going the way of the Whigs or becoming a regional party are to 1) Get rid of the EC and have real democracy, competing for votes in states that are considered done deals and 2) Stop ticking off the hispanics by being racist jerkwads...

 

[Maple]

and last you had McCain...
Before him Bush...

I think it's pretty telling that we'll never elect a "staunch" Conservative.

This country is middle right, always has been, probably always will be. Keep in mind that Mitt Romney took the state of Ma from a 3 billion dollar deficit and turned that into a 2 billion dollar surplus in just 4 years without raising taxes. That's certainly conservative enough for me.
.

1) He did raise taxes.
2) He was able to do this at a time when the NATIONAL Economy grew every quarter he was in, and unemployment dropped from 6.3% to 4.5%, increasing revenues.

United States GDP Growth Rate at 1.30 percent

So he's a rooster taking credit for the dawn.

Still not impressed.

Plus he has spent the majority of his life being an extremely successful businessman who has created thousands of jobs and he is the only candidate that will take China on. We are losing 750,000 to 1 million jobs a year due to intelletual theft by China- Mitt will slam the breaks on that

Oh, please. The guy is one of the scumwads who outsourced the good jobs to China to start with.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hN-qs4udlkw]Mitt Romney: The Gold Standard In Outsourcing. - YouTube[/ame]

I think you would be wise to get off of the U-Tube and actually do some studying of his previous experience and read his trade policy which is on page 58 of his job's plan. You know, when you don't do your homework it shows. One line comments are no better than our drive by media, they don't do anything to educate or inform anyone, they are shallow useless opinions without anything to back them up. It's just being plain lazy not to do so. In fact, you should be reading everything on all of the candidates before you vote. I have and I have made my decision and it's Mitt Romney.

I don't quite get what the link you provided has to do with the fact that Romney took a deep, deep, blue state that was 3 billion dollars in deficit and turned that into a 2 billion dollar surplus without raising taxes in just 4 years. What does that have to do with the current GDP??And you should be blaming the guy you voted for, for that anemic GDP ( Obama) you Reagan supporter you. LOL

 

[The Rabbi]

[
Where does it say in the Constitution that black people are 3/5ths of white people? Please cite the section.

Article one, Section 2, Paragraph 3...

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

I don't want to live in a country where New York, California, Texas and Florida get to elect the president. We see what happens on the state level. Illinois is virtually ruled by people from Chicago for that very reason.

Obviously, if you think that, you just don't know much about IL politics. The "downstate" vote has really quite a lot of influence, more than it deserves.

The ironic thing is that is EXACTLY what is going to happen if we don't dump the EC.

CA and NY and IL are blue states. Texas will be a blue state when the Hispanics become a large enough section of the population. (They are at 37% now and will be over 50% in 2020.)

Once that happens, it won't matter how many hayseeds you have in these small states voting Republican. Those four states alone have 141 Electoral votes.

So the best two strategies the GOP has for not going the way of the Whigs or becoming a regional party are to 1) Get rid of the EC and have real democracy, competing for votes in states that are considered done deals and 2) Stop ticking off the hispanics by being racist jerkwads...

Please bold the words "black" and "white" in your quotation from the US Constitution so we can see it.

You are assuming Hispanics will become Democrats. Not so. They voted heavily for Bush both times.
And no, I am not wrong about IL. 80% of the people live on 5% of the land. This is why IL alone does not have any carry permit scheme for its citizens.

 

[JoeB131]

I think you would be wise to get off of the U-Tube and actually do some studying of his previous experience and read his trade policy which is on page 58 of his job's plan. You know, when you don't do your homework it shows. One line comments are no better than our drive by media, they don't do anything to educate or inform anyone, they are shallow useless opinions without anything to back them up. It's just being plain lazy not to do so. In fact, you should be reading everything on all of the candidates before you vote. I have and I have made my decision and it's Mitt Romney.

"Drive by media"? How about you turn off the talk radio and try to grow a brain.

I have studied his "previous experience". It was shutting down factories, moving plants overseas and screwing working guys out of good paying jobs. It was the kind of stupidity that killed the goose that laid golden eggs, the American Middle Class. He and people like him got us into this mess.

And frankly, my study on Romney went something like this.

"Mormon? Not voting for that guy."

I don't quite get what the link you provided has to do with the fact that Romney took a deep, deep, blue state that was 3 billion dollars in deficit and turned that into a 2 billion dollar surplus without raising taxes in just 4 years. What does that have to do with the current GDP??

THat link allows you to read GDP growth from any period... It obviously didn't carry over my parameters. But I'll agree, you don't get it.

 

[The Rabbi]

You worked as a volunteer for Reagan?????????????? Really, then you should know that Mitt Romney wants to implement Reagan's trade policies, where it's free trade but it has to be fair trade. Reagan????????????? That's is hard to believe coming from you as I have read your posts.

I doubt he had anything to do with Reagan other than look at his picture. At the time Reagan was considered an unelectable cowboy and intellectual rube.

I remember that, he was also called a dumb actor by our liberal media. He will go down as one of the greatest Presidents in history. I think Romney has a lot of Reagan's characteristics, he is a conservative but you can only be so conservative when you are governor of a state that has an 85% democrat legislature to deal with. With a state that continually re-elects the likes of Barney Frank and John Kerry. I am impressed that Romney was able to get anything done in Ma especially when you consider the deck was heavily stacked against him. I think that's why Christie has endorsed him, he too, has had to deal with an overwhelming Democrat majority but he is taking it on and doing a great job.

Actually Perry is more like Reagan. Reagan also didnt want to build a fence.

REAGAN: Rather than talking about putting up a fence, why don’t we work out some recognition of our mutual problems? Make it possible for them to come here legally with a work permit. And then, while they’re working and earning here they can pay taxes here. And then when they want to go back, they can go back. Open the borders both ways.

FLASHBACK: In 1980 GOP Debate, Bush Sr. And Reagan Embraced Compassionate Approach To Immigration | ThinkProgress

Romney is nothing like Reagan. He is a big government conservative like GW Bush or Nelson Rockefeller.

 

[The Rabbi]

I think you would be wise to get off of the U-Tube and actually do some studying of his previous experience and read his trade policy which is on page 58 of his job's plan. You know, when you don't do your homework it shows. One line comments are no better than our drive by media, they don't do anything to educate or inform anyone, they are shallow useless opinions without anything to back them up. It's just being plain lazy not to do so. In fact, you should be reading everything on all of the candidates before you vote. I have and I have made my decision and it's Mitt Romney.

"Drive by media"? How about you turn off the talk radio and try to grow a brain.

I have studied his "previous experience". It was shutting down factories, moving plants overseas and screwing working guys out of good paying jobs. It was the kind of stupidity that killed the goose that laid golden eggs, the American Middle Class. He and people like him got us into this mess.

And frankly, my study on Romney went something like this.

"Mormon? Not voting for that guy."

I don't quite get what the link you provided has to do with the fact that Romney took a deep, deep, blue state that was 3 billion dollars in deficit and turned that into a 2 billion dollar surplus without raising taxes in just 4 years. What does that have to do with the current GDP??

THat link allows you to read GDP growth from any period... It obviously didn't carry over my parameters. But I'll agree, you don't get it.

You talk about "growing a brain" and then admit your analysis of Romney was "Mormon, no way"?? Really? Do you know what "irony" means?

 

[JoeB131]

Please bold the words "black" and "white" in your quotation from the US Constitution so we can see it.

Guy, only the blacks were slaves back then... don't be obtuse. Oh, wait, you were the guy who tried to argue slavery was okay.

You are assuming Hispanics will become Democrats. Not so. They voted heavily for Bush both times.

Well, not really. Bush lost the Hispanic vote both times he ran. He got 35% of the Hispanic vote in 2000 and 44% in 2004. If you factor out Cuban-Americans, those numbers get worse outside Florida. John McCain, who despite having a sensible immigration policy that didn't included electrified fences or alligators, only got 39% of the vote. Romney will get considerably less, because of his race-baiting Perry on the immigration issue and when the largely Catholic hispanics find out Mormons think their dark skin is a curse from God.

And no, I am not wrong about IL. 80% of the people live on 5% of the land. This is why IL alone does not have any carry permit scheme for its citizens.

No, we don't have it because we realize it's a profoundly stupid idea.

 

[JoeB131]

You talk about "growing a brain" and then admit your analysis of Romney was "Mormon, no way"?? Really? Do you know what "irony" means?

That I don't want a cult started by child molesting con men running my country? I call that enlightened.

 

[Maple]

I think you would be wise to get off of the U-Tube and actually do some studying of his previous experience and read his trade policy which is on page 58 of his job's plan. You know, when you don't do your homework it shows. One line comments are no better than our drive by media, they don't do anything to educate or inform anyone, they are shallow useless opinions without anything to back them up. It's just being plain lazy not to do so. In fact, you should be reading everything on all of the candidates before you vote. I have and I have made my decision and it's Mitt Romney.

"Drive by media"? How about you turn off the talk radio and try to grow a brain.

I have studied his "previous experience". It was shutting down factories, moving plants overseas and screwing working guys out of good paying jobs. It was the kind of stupidity that killed the goose that laid golden eggs, the American Middle Class. He and people like him got us into this mess.

And frankly, my study on Romney went something like this.

"Mormon? Not voting for that guy."

I don't quite get what the link you provided has to do with the fact that Romney took a deep, deep, blue state that was 3 billion dollars in deficit and turned that into a 2 billion dollar surplus without raising taxes in just 4 years. What does that have to do with the current GDP??

THat link allows you to read GDP growth from any period... It obviously didn't carry over my parameters. But I'll agree, you don't get it.

That's right you are the bigot too, you big Reagan supporter.

Why don't you google search " staples" it's a company that Bain company in which Romney was a partner that was turned around from bankruptsy and now is a huge success story that employs thousands of Americans. There are many others, out of the thousands of success stories you are going to focus on the one that they could not save from bankruptsy. That's typical for a liberal bigot, so I am not surprised.

 

[Maple]

I doubt he had anything to do with Reagan other than look at his picture. At the time Reagan was considered an unelectable cowboy and intellectual rube.

I remember that, he was also called a dumb actor by our liberal media. He will go down as one of the greatest Presidents in history. I think Romney has a lot of Reagan's characteristics, he is a conservative but you can only be so conservative when you are governor of a state that has an 85% democrat legislature to deal with. With a state that continually re-elects the likes of Barney Frank and John Kerry. I am impressed that Romney was able to get anything done in Ma especially when you consider the deck was heavily stacked against him. I think that's why Christie has endorsed him, he too, has had to deal with an overwhelming Democrat majority but he is taking it on and doing a great job.

Actually Perry is more like Reagan. Reagan also didnt want to build a fence.

REAGAN: Rather than talking about putting up a fence, why don’t we work out some recognition of our mutual problems? Make it possible for them to come here legally with a work permit. And then, while they’re working and earning here they can pay taxes here. And then when they want to go back, they can go back. Open the borders both ways.

FLASHBACK: In 1980 GOP Debate, Bush Sr. And Reagan Embraced Compassionate Approach To Immigration | ThinkProgress

Romney is nothing like Reagan. He is a big government conservative like GW Bush or Nelson Rockefeller.

Perry has very little private sector business experience in fact, the only one I have seen is his work for his dad on his dad's ranch. He was a pilot in the Air Force and from there he has been a government employee and a ten year governor. He also can not debate- whether you like it or not, you are not going to beat Obama by not being able to debate, Obama will rip him to shreds because that's all Obama is good at.

I am for winning the White house, this is not a horse race and their are no prizes for 2nd place. This election is going to be the most important election of our lifetimes and I will stick with Mitt Romney as he CAN beat Obama. Perry can't.

I think your argument about Perry being like Reagan rather ridiculous, especially when you consider that Reagan was President during the early 80's and he was a Republican while Perry was a Democrat untill 1988 who supported and worked for Al Gore. That's just a little too Weird for me.

 

[JoeB131]

That's right you are the bigot too, you big Reagan supporter.

Why don't you google search " staples" it's a company that Bain company in which Romney was a partner that was turned around from bankruptsy and now is a huge success story that employs thousands of Americans. There are many others, out of the thousands of success stories you are going to focus on the one that they could not save from bankruptsy. That's typical for a liberal bigot, so I am not surprised.

Besides the fact you can't spell "Bankruptcy" (seriously, you've spelled it wrong a bunch of times, Mr. Business expert.)

Why don't you Google Search "AmPad"? Romney closed down two plants, put hundreds of guys out of good paying jobs. (MOre than they'd make stocking shelves as "Staples") They did a pump and dump that left the company 400 million in debt and the shareholders with worthless paper. And this is one of the oldest companies of its sort.

How about Damon Medical. Paid a record fine for defrauding Medicare.

Now, yeah, there were a lot of companies that succeeded, but that just meant he made good bets in a boom economy, not that his leadership made that much difference.

All it takes is Obama putting on his commercial one AmPad worker saying, "Mitt Romney didn't just take our jobs, he took our community!" What's Romney going to counter with, some minimum wage slave at Staples saying, "I'm so happy to be stocking Shelves with no medical benefits!"

I don't consider it bigotry to be biased against cults started by con men who take dozens of wives... I call that common sense.

Because, honestly, somehow, I doubt you've signed up for Mormonism if you weren't in it already.

 

[Maple]

I doubt he had anything to do with Reagan other than look at his picture. At the time Reagan was considered an unelectable cowboy and intellectual rube.

I remember that, he was also called a dumb actor by our liberal media. He will go down as one of the greatest Presidents in history. I think Romney has a lot of Reagan's characteristics, he is a conservative but you can only be so conservative when you are governor of a state that has an 85% democrat legislature to deal with. With a state that continually re-elects the likes of Barney Frank and John Kerry. I am impressed that Romney was able to get anything done in Ma especially when you consider the deck was heavily stacked against him. I think that's why Christie has endorsed him, he too, has had to deal with an overwhelming Democrat majority but he is taking it on and doing a great job.

Actually Perry is more like Reagan. Reagan also didnt want to build a fence.

REAGAN: Rather than talking about putting up a fence, why don’t we work out some recognition of our mutual problems? Make it possible for them to come here legally with a work permit. And then, while they’re working and earning here they can pay taxes here. And then when they want to go back, they can go back. Open the borders both ways.

FLASHBACK: In 1980 GOP Debate, Bush Sr. And Reagan Embraced Compassionate Approach To Immigration | ThinkProgress

Romney is nothing like Reagan. He is a big government conservative like GW Bush or Nelson Rockefeller.

I think you would be wise to get off of the U-Tube and actually do some studying of his previous experience and read his trade policy which is on page 58 of his job's plan. You know, when you don't do your homework it shows. One line comments are no better than our drive by media, they don't do anything to educate or inform anyone, they are shallow useless opinions without anything to back them up. It's just being plain lazy not to do so. In fact, you should be reading everything on all of the candidates before you vote. I have and I have made my decision and it's Mitt Romney.

"Drive by media"? How about you turn off the talk radio and try to grow a brain.

I have studied his "previous experience". It was shutting down factories, moving plants overseas and screwing working guys out of good paying jobs. It was the kind of stupidity that killed the goose that laid golden eggs, the American Middle Class. He and people like him got us into this mess.

And frankly, my study on Romney went something like this.

"Mormon? Not voting for that guy."

I don't quite get what the link you provided has to do with the fact that Romney took a deep, deep, blue state that was 3 billion dollars in deficit and turned that into a 2 billion dollar surplus without raising taxes in just 4 years. What does that have to do with the current GDP??

THat link allows you to read GDP growth from any period... It obviously didn't carry over my parameters. But I'll agree, you don't get it.

What do you think you are proving by giving a link of the GDP over time, what does that have to do with the fact that Mitt Romney inherited a 3 billion dollar deficit and turned that into a 2 billion dollar surplus without raising taxes in just a short 4 years. Explain your link, because it means absolutely nothing to me as it does not deal with this. The GDP had nothing to do with Romney turning a deficit into a surplus, unless you are trying to make that case that the economy was good and he was taking in more revenues as more people were working. In that case you would have been better served by linking an employment chart. Just the same it took tremendous budget cuts and efficiency in order to accomplish this goal. But you probably just threw it out there in the hopes that you will look smart, you don't.

I know this is long and I doubt you will read it, as you would rather use your bigotry and your ignorance to post more stupid posts. Read it and weep.

Mitt Romney - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JoeB131]

What do you think you are proving by giving a link of the GDP over time, what does that have to do with the fact that Mitt Romney inherited a 3 billion dollar deficit and turned that into a 2 billion dollar surplus without raising taxes in just a short 4 years. Explain your link, because it means absolutely nothing to me as it does not deal with this. The GDP had nothing to do with Romney turning a deficit into a surplus, unless you are trying to make that case that the economy was good and he was taking in more revenues as more people were working. In that case you would have been better served by linking an employment chart. Just the same it took tremendous budget cuts and efficiency in order to accomplish this goal. But you probably just threw it out there in the hopes that you will look smart, you don't.

Once again, Romney RAISED taxes. He called it closing loopholes, but it's taking money that you weren't taking before. That's a tax increase.

Second, and I know that this is difficult for a business genius who can't spell bankruptcy, but it's like this.

GDP Growth mean- Low unemployment, higher revenues. MA had a deficit because there were unemployed people, there were people on medicaid and welfare and state assistance. When the economy got better and those folks got jobs and companies started making money again, revenues increased and expendatures decreased. It's simple economics, guy, and it had nothing to do with the Corporate Raider from Kolob.

Here's a more telling figure, despite the rosy scenario you try to paint. In 2005, in the middle of all this wonderfulness you paint, was behind all his rivals in MA in the polls.

Mitt Romney Trailing in Massachusetts poll

A new University of Massachusetts poll shows Governor Mitt Romney (R) trailing any of his potential 2006 re-election opponents. Romney trails Attorney General Tom Reilly — the Dem frontrunner — by 15%. Secretary of State Bill Galvin and former USDOJ official Deval Patrick (D), by contrast, only leads Romney by single-digits.

For some reason, he decided that he wasn't going for a second term. Oh, yeah, that's right, he was running for President after that.

 

[The Rabbi]

Please bold the words "black" and "white" in your quotation from the US Constitution so we can see it.

Guy, only the blacks were slaves back then... don't be obtuse. Oh, wait, you were the guy who tried to argue slavery was okay.

You are assuming Hispanics will become Democrats. Not so. They voted heavily for Bush both times.

Well, not really. Bush lost the Hispanic vote both times he ran. He got 35% of the Hispanic vote in 2000 and 44% in 2004. If you factor out Cuban-Americans, those numbers get worse outside Florida. John McCain, who despite having a sensible immigration policy that didn't included electrified fences or alligators, only got 39% of the vote. Romney will get considerably less, because of his race-baiting Perry on the immigration issue and when the largely Catholic hispanics find out Mormons think their dark skin is a curse from God.

And no, I am not wrong about IL. 80% of the people live on 5% of the land. This is why IL alone does not have any carry permit scheme for its citizens.

No, we don't have it because we realize it's a profoundly stupid idea.

OK, so it had to do with slave status, not color, because there were plenty of freed blacks as well. Glad we cleared up that your udnerstanding of the Constitution is wrong.
And I never argued slavery was right. I only challenged others to argue it was wrong. And no one could do it.

So the electoral college and carry permits are profoundly stupid? Is this on the Planet Marx you are speaking of?

 

[The Rabbi]

What do you think you are proving by giving a link of the GDP over time, what does that have to do with the fact that Mitt Romney inherited a 3 billion dollar deficit and turned that into a 2 billion dollar surplus without raising taxes in just a short 4 years. Explain your link, because it means absolutely nothing to me as it does not deal with this. The GDP had nothing to do with Romney turning a deficit into a surplus, unless you are trying to make that case that the economy was good and he was taking in more revenues as more people were working. In that case you would have been better served by linking an employment chart. Just the same it took tremendous budget cuts and efficiency in order to accomplish this goal. But you probably just threw it out there in the hopes that you will look smart, you don't.

Once again, Romney RAISED taxes. He called it closing loopholes, but it's taking money that you weren't taking before. That's a tax increase.

Second, and I know that this is difficult for a business genius who can't spell bankruptcy, but it's like this.

GDP Growth mean- Low unemployment, higher revenues. MA had a deficit because there were unemployed people, there were people on medicaid and welfare and state assistance. When the economy got better and those folks got jobs and companies started making money again, revenues increased and expendatures decreased. It's simple economics, guy, and it had nothing to do with the Corporate Raider from Kolob.

Here's a more telling figure, despite the rosy scenario you try to paint. In 2005, in the middle of all this wonderfulness you paint, was behind all his rivals in MA in the polls.

Mitt Romney Trailing in Massachusetts poll

A new University of Massachusetts poll shows Governor Mitt Romney (R) trailing any of his potential 2006 re-election opponents. Romney trails Attorney General Tom Reilly — the Dem frontrunner — by 15%. Secretary of State Bill Galvin and former USDOJ official Deval Patrick (D), by contrast, only leads Romney by single-digits.

For some reason, he decided that he wasn't going for a second term. Oh, yeah, that's right, he was running for President after that.

I gotta give this one to Joe. The economy was booming in 2005. A state would have to have been an economic basket case like MI not to experience growth in its economy. Romney is a big gov't type who thinks gov't "solves" problems. Feh to that.

 

[JoeB131]

OK, so it had to do with slave status, not color, because there were plenty of freed blacks as well. Glad we cleared up that your udnerstanding of the Constitution is wrong.
And I never argued slavery was right. I only challenged others to argue it was wrong. And no one could do it.

So the electoral college and carry permits are profoundly stupid? Is this on the Planet Marx you are speaking of?

I think it's the world where you realize most people are idiots and you don't want them walking around with guns settling arguments over who gets the last donut with lead.

Again, if you want to continue to obtuse about the slavery and race thing, not sure if there is much I can do for you.

(Oh, yeah, everyone whomped you on the whole "slavery is wrong" argument. Even Jake Snarkey.)