Harry Reid is a Pedophile

[Adak]

Originally Posted by SamIam

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.

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.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by Adak

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.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Adak

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..

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

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.

[Stormieweather]

2002 - Pro choice
2012 - No choice

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

[Adak]

Originally Posted by richlevy

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

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.

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!

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!

[Lamplighter]

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.

@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

There are a couple of nuggets of truth in this broadly distributed e-mail,
but its main point is dead wrong on a couple of counts.

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.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Adak

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.

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?

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

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?

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.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Adak

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.

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.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Adak

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.

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

Originally Posted by FoxNews.com via FactCheck via Lamplighter

A preliminary study by FOXNews.com found that the data do not support the charges. Among the dealerships set to close, 12 percent of a random 50 selected for review donated to Republicans and 8 percent to Democrats. Of the dealerships remaining open, 14 percent of a random 50 selected donated to Republicans and 10 percent to Democrats. In both samples, the average size of donations was similar for both parties.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

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

Adak will not answer this question.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Adak

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.

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.

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.

Stimulus?

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.

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

Obama has taken over $716 million out of senior care, to help fund Obama care.

...

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

IRONY ALERT! IRONY ALERT! IRONY ALERT!

Taking Money from Medicare?

Ryan continued the campaign’s false line of attack that Obama had “funneled” money out of Medicare to pay for the federal health care law “at the expense of the elderly.” But that’s contradicted by Medicare’s chief actuary, in a statement at the end of the most recent report of the system’s trustees (our emphasis added):

Medicare’s money isn’t being taken away. The Affordable Care Act calls for slowing the growth in spending, a move that — if successful — would keep the hospital insurance trust fund solvent for longer than if the reductions didn’t happen.

Ryan himself proposed keeping most of these same spending cuts in his most recent “Path to Prosperity” budget. Yet, Ryan criticized Obama’s cuts as “the biggest, coldest power play of all” and suggested seniors would suffer as a result.

The Affordable Care Act calls for a $716 billion reduction in the future growth of Medicare spending over 10 years, with most of that — about $415 billion — coming from a reduction in the future growth of payments to hospitals through Medicare Part A. And Medicare Part A’s trust fund, as we’ve explained before, is in trouble financially. It’s set to be insolvent in 2024, even with these spending cuts. Without them, the trust fund wouldn’t be able to fully pay projected benefits in 2016, the Medicare trustees estimate.

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

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

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Adak

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.

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.

The most damning aspect of the Salt Lake tab wasn't the final amount, but how it was being spent. In their exhaustively researched Sports Illustrated accounting, Barlett and Steele explain how many Olympics projects amounted to little more than slush funds for wealthy donors to the games. Wealthy Utahns used the games as an excuse to receive exemptions for projects that would otherwise never meet environmental standards, or to receive generous subsidies for improvements of questionable value to the games—but with serious value to future real estate developments. In one example, a wealthy developer received $3 million to build a three-mile stretch of road through his resort. Where'd he get the money? Federal funds that had been deposited in the Utah Permanent Community Impact Fund.

So much more it's sickening.