Harry Reid is a Pedophile
 

Is that how it works? Really?

Classic... for shame

A cheapshot by the least ethical to frame someone with a lie when no facts exist. It targets the most naive and least educated who automatically believe the first thing they are told.

It's called swiftboating. A common tactic promoted by those with less morals and a contempt for honesty.

Shit! I forgot the link, it wasn't me. sorry Lamp.
http://www.redstate.com/mbecker908/2012/08/02/harry-reid-is-a-pedophile/

And on that we agree. Thats EXACTLY what Ole Harry did.
I knew you'd come around eventually. :eyebrow:

Wow, it was so very republican of him...so very
Fox News.

Lol.

Lol ...

wait what? thats not Fox.

They apologized retroactively

OMFG! That's as bad as claiming that Obama is not a US citizen, or that he is a Muslim.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...,6647544.story
LA Times
Mitchell Landsberg
8/2/12

This sounds as if AP should have made the retraction, if it's not true.

Not EXACTLY. With the swiftboating and your headline, the "no facts exist" is difficult or impossible to rectify.

I am sickened-- Spexxvet, the hatemonger, states that our peaceful Muslim brothers of faith are as repugnant as a pedophile!

That's exactly right. Some right-leaning person posted a link of Facebook saying that the criticism of Romney 'undermines the Republic'. So saying bad things about a candidate who currently holds no office 'undermines the Republic', but making a significant minority of the country believe that the current President and Commander-in-Chief is illegitimate is OK?

Let's face it, that "significant minority" (ie tea bag fanatics) willfully believes that anyone to the left of Mussolini is an illegitimate, evil Sikh who opposes the flag, apple pie, and Mom. Not to mention the right of all large financial institutions or other giant corporate entities to lie, steal and be bailed out by the American working man (and woman) with not a single CEO never ever being held responsible. It's the American way after all. No one ''makes" this lunatic fringe believe anything. They've known it all along.

Pssst! Not only is the President illegitimate, he's a colored man.

It seems like Romney is running on little else than rich people pay enough taxes and repeal Romney Obamacare. That being the case, his tax payments or lack thereof are open season. I'm no Harry Reid fan but he is playing this exactly right.

I agree that what Reid di was wrong. I hate anonymous sourcees stories.

However, Romney DOES need to release his tax statements just like every other candidate has done.

Romney is one of the most secretive characters to run for president since the days of Richard Nixon. Romney is obviously covering up questionable acts or even out right malfeasance. If the man didn't have something to hide, the Romney campaign would release his tax records going back to kindergarten and gleefully shout, "See? Pure as the driven snow just like Moroni wants us to be."

The silence is damning.

Plus, Romney has been quoted more than once stating that he will not go into detail on any proposed policy changes he might make if elected to the White House. Why is that you may ask?

Well, Virginia that's a very good question. Romney answers it by coming right out and admitting that if he told the truth about what he plans to do, it would turn many voters against him.

At least he admits to that much. :eyebrow:

Umm...sorry for the misunderstanding. I was being tongue-in-cheek about Reid.

However, what may be "pure" for the elite upper class may not be "pure" for the rest of us.

Also, what may be "pure" for everyone else may not be "pure" for the angel Moroni. The tithe accountants at LDS central may notice discrepancies if they see his true income.

Pedophile, huh? Pretty fancy word for a 12 year old.

i wouldnt fuck him with somebody elses kid.

1) As a matter of fact, Romney has released the tax records required. He does not want to release more than that, because he knows that the democrats would continue to make up "something" in his return, to use as political ammunition.

The MOST secretive president has been Obama, since he had all his previous academic records sealed, from every college he went to, (three), as well as his work records for every job he's ever held, before becoming a senator. You may recall that even his long form birth certificate, was sealed!

If you know Romney, you know one thing - he's an honest guy. A typical "let me talk out this side of my mouth today, and the other side tomorrow", politician, he is not.

2) What Romney will do as president, is in large part determined by:

a) The events at that time. If Iran and Israel go to war, and the rest of the middle east joins in, that will change Romney's actions.

As Mr. Lincoln stated once "I freely confess that I have not controlled events, but it is the events that have controlled me." (loosely quoted I'm sure).

b) What Romney can do depends on what party is in control of the House of Rep., and the Senate. That all important make up will not be known until AFTER the election, of course.

c) Obama's biggest failure is the economy, and the way he has spent trillions of dollars we don't have, to try and fix it - which has not worked. His budgets have been so bad, that NO ONE (NOT ONE) senator would vote for it, in either of the last two years.

This is the worst recovery we've ever had, in the US.

Knowing this, Romney has no need to give a detailed "what I will do as president" list. He needs to keep his own counsel right now, so the democrats have very little to "chew on" and maybe "swiftboat" him with.

To put it succinctly, in Romney, we have a stellar businessman, who not only clearly knows how businesses work, but how to rescue them, as well.

We've never had a smarter businessman/politician, as president. You can say all you want about Obama's policies, but the area he worked in as a community organizer in Chicago, is in fact, poorer and more crime ridden today, with lower educational attainment, than it was 20 years ago.

If America decides to be a more socialist country, then we need to FIRST make some important changes to our country - and in our attitudes - something like what Germany has done. (Germany is a very successful, but somewhat socialist, country). Otherwise, we will wind up on the slag heap like Spain, France, Italy, Greece, etc., which are all going broke.

As Margaret Thatcher once quipped" Socialism works great, until the money runs out." (again, loosely quoted, I'm sure).

Obama's thrust has seemingly been to help the poor - but we have more people on welfare programs now, than ever before. He can tax the rich until they're wearing rain barrels for clothes, but that will NOT fix a $58,000 per second *DEBT*, that we are currently running up. Won't really make a big dent in it. All that "tax the filthy rich" stuff is 99% "look at this!, so you won't look at my stinking record".

Because Obama can't possibly run on his record. By his very own standards he has given us, he has failed. He and Jimmy Carter (another very decent human being who had no idea of how to run a federal government), are two of the worst presidents, in modern U.S. history. (Wearing sweaters inside and turning the thermostat down to 68 degree's (a Jimmy Carter idea), will not give us the energy we need to run our factories and our manufacturing businesses.)

And they can't run on wind or solar energy, at this time. Alternative energy still (even after hundreds of billions of investment dollars), amount to less than 10% of our energy needs.

Should Mitt be elected, you'll see how swiftly the economy will start REALLY recovering. Having lived through several bust and boom cycles, I can tell you it's fun to watch it sprouting up like a wonderful weed, and the smiles it puts on everyone's face.

Sounds like Wonderland.

'ere

Hey Adak!

You're wrong in about every paragraph there. I'll point out your mistakes more specifically tomorrow.

See you then!

Now now Big V, 2a was probably true, just the rest is fucked up. :haha:

There's no need to worry about finding the energy to power factories. Romney and his mates at Bain Capital have closed most of them down.

Seriously, this Rolling Stone article ( http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...pital-20120829 ) lays it out pretty well. They got rich by wrecking, not by building.

IMHO, the Romney/Ryan ticket is the epitome of what is wrong with the USA today.

:rolleyes:

*snickers*

Pappy O'Daniel: "Yeah, well, you'll be laughing out the other side of your face come November."
Pappy's Staff 2: "Pappy O'Daniel will be laughing then."
Pappy's Staff 1: "Not out the other side of his face, though."
Pappy's Staff 2: "Oh, no, no, no. Just the regular side."

--O Brother Where Art Thou

Michael Milken... Mitt Romney... Gordon Gekko.
Quasi-legal, and morally bankrupt.

That's right, Romney will even put it in writing....on his etch-a-sketch.:lol2::artist:

Seriously, he has flipped on more major issues than any other candidate I can remember. Mr. "I'm a moderate Republican" meets Mr. "I'm so conservative I only sleep on the right side of the bed". When he was pandering to the right in the primary, I was half expecting him to drop a dime to the INS on his household staff to make his right wing bones on immigration policy.

2002 - Pro choice
2012 - No choice

Now that's a man you can rely on to stick to his convictions! :rolleyes:

I don't fault a person for changing their position on a given subject, even one as important as a woman's choice regarding abortion. In the case of our lawmakers, I'd like them to explain the reasoning behind their decision. That's true whether they've changed their position or not.

The reason they changed their minds matters to me. If it's for what I feel is a good reason, I can respect that. They've had a serious change of heart, they got religion, those kinds of reasons might not be my reasons but I can respect them. If the reason is to curry favor with a given part of the electorate, I can't respect that reason. For someone like Romney, who ostensibly would be representing all citizens, I don't think this kind of reason is worthy of my respect. And that looks like the basis for his change, I've certainly heard nothing to the contrary.

http://www.npr.org/2012/09/24/161685...s-funny-shapes

Very depressing story. It seems that gerrymandering to protect incumbents also has had the effect of electing extremists both left and right because one party districts are usually one by the most extreme hack. These guys can't compromise because the next douche will have room to run more extreme.

I've heard other people propose that partisan gerrymandering should be made illegal for the reasons suggested above. There will never be a perfectly fair solution but I have confidence it wouldn't be too hard to avoid completely partisan redistricting.

It seems like a simple thing, until you start digging into it.

That web based game where you get to draw districts in a fictional state to learn how gerrymandering works was really good. I learned a lot from that.

If you make each district reflect the same proportions as the whole state, then the majority will always defeat the minority party and the minority will have no representation at all in government. That's very bad. By gerrymandering the districts, you can set it up so that the minority party is able to win at least a representative or two, and have some influence in government. The down side is the extremism you mention.

I'd like to see districts that have only a very slight edge in one direction or another so that candidates have to be moderate to win, but also so that the minority party in the state has a district where things are leaning their way, so they can get some representation too. Basically, you need a benevolent dictator to draw those lines, and that kind of misses the point.

I would prefer to stay in my ignorant bubble thank you very much.

I wonder how much difference this rule would make:

The land area added by making the shape of a district convex (ie, putting a "rubber band" around it) cannot be more than 50% of the area of the district.

That would limit the weirdness of the shapes a bit.

Restrict it to counties (parishes). People would be more concerned about politicians fucking with county lines.

Ummm...

The rest of Oregon is already ticked off with Multnomah County (PDX)
because Multnomah and Lane (Eugene - Univ of Oregon) counties
already carry any/all state elections by a good sized majority.

So if something is proposed that will benefit PDX, the State legislators
try to balance that issue with at least one "goodie" for the farmers, loggers, fishermen, etc.

That will alway be the case if the power resides in the people. Areas with more people will have more power.
With gerrymandering they are fucking with that premise by creating artificial population divides to create political power, usually by the party in power to benefit their own party.
Counties could be split into districts or all representatives elected at large.
But if the voting districts were restricted to within counties, it would limit their ability to grab power from the people. Counties with larger populations would of course have more representatives, hence more power, as it should be.

Have you considered multi-member electorates?

LOL, you can't even cope with preferential voting.

LOLLL some of you can't even manage a butterfly ballot paper.

Yes, Romney has flipped on several issues, but Massachusetts is a VERY liberal state, and that's where he was governor.

If you're a pragmatic person, and you believe in states rights, you will be more liberal as it's governor. You aren't just running your own agenda, you're being a true statesman.

So what has Obama flipped on?

*deficit spending
*reforming immigration
*closing Guantanamo Bay prison
*securing our Southern border

Fortunately, your Chicago politician has brought his filthy Chicago style politics to Pennsylvania Ave, so every state that tries to limit fraudulent voting by requiring picture ID, gets taken to court by his Justice Dept.

And everyone on his "Enemy's List", gets turned over to one of the investigative arms of his office - usually the IRS.

And every GM car dealer that was closed, when GM got into financial problems and had to be saved by the fed's, was a Republican party donor, except one black dealer.

Despite the objection by his commerce department, he lent over half a million dollars to a big supporter, to open a solar energy plant. Now they're bankrupt, of course. I wonder if our gov't will get their money back ?? Our money.

He says he's going to cut taxes for the middle class. Well, he's not, and his many tax "cuts" so far, have been from merely extending the Bush tax cuts, which he keeps trying to chip away at.

His spending will require, sooner or later, a large increase in taxes, and cuts in services. That tends to be how Socialism works - it's great until the money runs out. Then you're screwed.

Obama has taken over $716 million out of senior care, to help fund Obama care. Since Obama care allows companies to get exemptions from it, and 90+% of our largest companies have requested an exemption, Obama care is going to cost a LOT more than we were told.

Of course.

When the fact checkers are giving Obama "4 Pinnoccio's" for his lies while campaigning, you know that:

1) He's lying, big time, and

2) He can't run on his record of achievements, because he doesn't have anything worth a damn.

Now if he can just get enough people on welfare, and get them to stop looking for a job, he'll get this high unemployment problem, fixed right up! :rolleyes:

His EPA is right on the ball however. They wanted to ban plywood and oriented strand board (which is used to make just about every building in the country, and EVERY home), because the glue they use produces some volatile gases.

So what should we use to build with? EPA has no idea, and doesn't care. Any studies to show the way it's used is harmful? Nope. They just decided it was bad. Finally, had to be told to stop the nonsense when the recession hit the housing market so bad.

Now the EPA wants to have every puddle of water, treated like it's a lake or river, and require an environmental report, if a truck drives through the puddle of water. Any idea what an environmental impact report costs? You can kiss the timber industry good bye if this becomes law. They could never afford such nonsense.

But hey! We're the EPA, and we make the law, with no interference from anyone else except the President, hey hey! :mad:

@Adak: Your cherry Kool Ade got mixed in with the lemon.

If you're going to re-post libertarian views from the DailyPaul,
you should use copy/paste. The bullet point was Chrysler, not GM.

And just as with any Karl Rove award-winning utterance, it takes a few paragraphs get into back into the real world.
Here is FactCheck.org

And for what it's worth...

On May 24, 2011, Fiat paid back $7.6 billion in U.S. and Canadian government loans.
On July 21, Fiat bought the Chrysler shares held by the United States Treasury.

I'm having trouble parsing the conspiracy theory here. It seems to say that Obama shut down one black dealer for not donating to Republicans, or shut down one Republican donor for being black, neither of which make much sense. Or maybe all GM dealers were Republican donors except one black one, who is now the only GM dealer left in the country?

Are you talking about Solyndra? If so, there is a lot wrong with the statement.

Either way, you are complaining about a single investment that went bad. It happens and was expected to happen. Smart and investing involves diversification and that is what the Stimulus did. I'm pretty sure we are well above zero if you take all the invested companies into account, not just cherry picked ones.

Stimulus?

So Reagan and both Bushes were socialists?!?!?! STARVE THE BEAST!!

IRONY ALERT! IRONY ALERT! IRONY ALERT!

http://factcheck.org/2012/08/ryans-vp-spin/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ed-716-billio/

Yes, it takes a "true statesman" to lead the state to 47th in job growth, and number 1 state in debt per person.

Oh and good business man Thurston... er, Mitt, saving the Olympics? Bullshit.
The Olympics were saved by $1.5 Billion of our tax money, more than all seven previous American Olympics, even adjusted for inflation.

Worse, how the money was spent.
So much more it's sickening.

Slush money and kickbacks were a staple of the Olympics, at the highest level. Just this year, a few more of their highest international directors, were blatantly exposed for it.

In 2000, you either went along with the prevailing way the IOC ran things (and the national IC's beneath them also had problems with this), or you had no olympics - period. Through 2012, that is still true, they are finding out.

Romney saved the Salt Lake City Olympics, when it was hanging with both feet over it's grave.

He didn't do it with great bookkeeping, and he didn't do it for free. When you have to pay contractors for over time, and double time, and triple time, you're damn right, it costs a LOT of money.

The incredible thing, is that he was able to save the Salt Lake City Olympics, at all. And, they are the ONLY Winter Olympics to date, that have shown a profit.

That's another one of those FACTS, that are of no interest to you.

I'm confident that YOU, sitting back in your recliner 12 years later, could have done a MUCH better job, however. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Yikes! No.

Numerous dealers had to be shut down, due to GM's fiscal crisis. They had a number of dealers that had to be closed.

To achieve that number of dealer closings, Obama made sure that every GM dealer selected for closing, was NOT a contributor to his party, EXCEPT one black dealer.

The Unions made out because they now are part of the ownership/management of GM. Democrats made out because their dealerships were left open.

Stockholders in GM were screwed, although by law, they should have been protected in some cases.

And the Gov't now tells GM what it wants them to do, since they own a portion of it, as well as having extensive regulatory powers.

Where were talk show extremists when Consumer Reports said, over a decade ago, that a majority of GM dealerships must be closed. GM has a problem. Too few dealerships did close.

Why attack Obama for not doing something when Consumer Reports is guilty of citing that problem and a solution? Why not attack the messenger? Oh. That would not promote the political agenda.

GM - not Obama - revoked dealership franchises. Should have been done over a decade earlier when the problem was obvious. Helpful is to first learn facts rather than soundbytes.

GM was revoking dealership franchises or made life difficult for any dealer who complained about crap GM products and other 'destroy jobs' GM policies (ie dumping warranty costs on the dealers). Before Obama, GM attacked dealers who best represented the interests of GM and America. Did extremist rhetoric also forget to mention that? Probably. But then soundbytes are a poor source of honesty.

So let's do something that never appears in extremist rhetoric. Numbers. GM's market share was once 50%. When market share dropped to 20%, did the responsible (patriotic) management close dealerships? Of course not. By 2007, GM had increased to 6000 dealerships. Responsible management said that number had to drop to 3600. It probably should have been less. After Obama became president, GM management relented.

GM still has 5000 dealerships. Why so many? Did all those dealerships contribute to the Obama campaign and remain open? A lie best defined by the resulting laughter.

Too many in GM are still business school graduates. Cannot make hard decisions. Even after Obama fired the clearly dumb and wacko extremist Rick Wagoner. If responsible, then another 1000 GM dealerships would be closing. Why did you forget to include these numbers? Apparently your sources are political; not into facts and reality. Business school graduates are poor decision makers. Too many remain in GM even after Obama eliminated the top MBA - the worst of GM's problems. Numbers, that you routinely forget to include, are damning.

Are you rephrasing what the conspiracy theory is, or trying to claim that it is true?

Adak will not answer this question.

Of course, we'll never know exactly HOW he "saved" the Olympics because he ordered all the files destroyed.

Oops.

waiting for your retraction, classic!

It must be fun to be the fox in charge of the hen house.

You know, if you want to talk about gerymandering, you should talk to a Qld'er. We were in a gery state for about 20 years during my childhood and early adulthood. Some electorates only had about 5 people living in them! And they were the ones the National party relied on to get them into power every election for 2 decades.

Whether the party did a good job or not is beside the point. When the farmers are getting the say in how the state is run wholus bolus and people in other industry and urban areas have no say, life is not good for some. Many in fact. And that's not even talking about the criminal corruption evident at the time!