You definitely aren't aware you're brainwashed into thinking the people NOT in control are the problem. Go back through all your tripe and you will realize it isn't worth the time reading much less the effort you put into typing it.
-
Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community!
-
Check Out IronMag Labs® KSM-66 Max - Recovery and Anabolic Growth Complex
A Perfect Romney Flashback That Will Make You Wish We Could Repeat 2012
- Thread starter FUZO
- Start date
You definitely aren't aware you're brainwashed into thinking the people NOT in control are the problem. Go back through all your tripe and you will realize it isn't worth the time reading much less the effort you put into typing it.
charley
Registered
..That is a great point Zaphod, "You definitely aren't aware you're brainwashed into thinking the people NOT in control are the problem" to Quote you..
The fact that they always blame 'the poor' & can not stray from the 'political rhetoric' of the rich or as they like to believe 'the ruling class'.. which they seem to feel they are members in good standing...
Mccringleberry
Registered
Another stunningly articulate response. Still nothing worthwhile. Still no effort put forth to justify any of your beliefs. Just talking points and accusations.
I guess it's easier that way.
Not because it's easier, but because you aren't worth the effort. You will never realize what the truth is and where the problem is actually created.
Seems to be a lot of doubt for not having a shadow of doubt.
Blows me away people can look at the 6 years of BS Obama has given us, and say Romney could be worse. Obama has broken every promise he has made, made us even weaker internationally, and his crowning achievement is giving us a healthcare law even more broken than what we had before he got in office.
I've no idea what policy Romney ran on that was so freaking scary to the masses?
I have absolutely no doubt that Romney would have been worse. Here are the points...
1)We would be far more embroiled in multiple military conflicts. Syria and Ukraine to name 2. We'd also have a much larger presence in Afghanistan and still be in Iraq.
2)He would have gutted the EPA. We are just beginning to see the problems associated with not giving a fuck about the environment(The water in WV and that fire in Texas). Since Obama has not really done anything to reverse it I would consider that a push, but the fact that he hasn't gutted it puts him ahead of Romney overall on the environment.
3)The Republican plan to turn Medicare in to a voucher program won't work and will only lead to higher costs because people will just avoid getting preventative care until they need to go to the ER.
4)Romney would have likely implemented a tax holiday allowing companies to bring their money hidden overseas back tax free. This would have led to absolutely no benefit to the economy and is effectively tax dodging in the eyes of every conservative's hero, Ronald Reagan. This revenue should eventually be taxed so that we can reduce rates for everyone.
5)He endorsed the Ryan plan. While we should reduce our spending, this plan was garbage and most of America did not support it.
6)Finally...He is anti-science. I don't necessarily think that he doesn't believe in science, just that it is nowhere near one of his priorities. His stance on increasing oil and waiting for renewables to be competitive from a financial standpoint is archaic. Even China realizes that the next energy source is important and has invested billions to develop or find it.
My problem with both parties is that they are too myopic. Republicans immediately think you can fix a problem by removing all support and democrats believe you just need to throw money at it. When assessing a candidate, I look for the one who thinks problems through more and doesn't just go with a knee jerk reaction...Say like starting a war in a country that had nothing to do with a terrorist attack. Of the two, Obama is more pragmatic, but neither one is great which is why I voted for neither. The one thing I really like about Obama is that he has reduced our requirement to be the world police and waste billions doing things that other countries should be dealing with. People like to say that this may make the world a more dangerous place, but many of the things we have done as the world police have done the same thing. Arming Al Qaeda against the Soviet being a good example.
SWIPER for president..............because hes fucking yolked
This reasoning is what got us 4 more years of a guy who lies every time he opens his mouth to the people, and the people are apologetic about it, and give him a pass. Obama is truly the Teflon president, but it's what the people chose. Bothers me what it says about my country.
Like I said before though, I think was the best, and would certainly be doing better than President Obama to put us where we need to be, but at least the country isn't blaming Mormons every time he makes an unpopular albeit correct decision.
Bowden
Elite Member
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2009
- Messages
- 1,798
- Reaction score
- 736
- Points
- 0
The employment problem of a large percent of the population in poverty level jobs that pay less than a middle class living cannot be solved by reduced government regulations and reduced taxes on business that supply sliders like Mitt Romney state will cause economic growth and increases in middle class jobs.
The problem of a lack of job growth is being caused in part by automation that is causing dynamic shifts in the job market as to what kinds of jobs are available to people that do not have the aptitude for jobs that require a college education.
People that have a college degree cannot find employment in their fields, they are taking up jobs that do not require a college degree and this is reducing upward mobility.
Other factors are globalization and the past 30 years of off-shoring of manufacturing that has reduced the number of jobs available that can be performed by people with a high school level of education that do not have the aptitude for a job that require a college education.
People that are now seeking employment in jobs that only require a two year associate degree i.e nursing cannot find jobs and nurses are now being lay-offed.
The level of available middle class jobs that pay a living wage have been in decline since the recession of 2008.
The job market growth has mostly been on low paid, low or no benefit type job areas.
Companies are finding that they do not need as many workers as they did prior to the automation and computerization of many tasks and that is reducing the numbers of workers required.
Thus they are not hiring at the levels they did post prior recessions and reduced govenrment regulations and taxes on business is not going to lead to a sharp increase in the number of jobs that pay a living wage.
Case in point:
http://www.technologyreview.com/vie...of-us-jobs-are-vulnerable-to-computerization/
Aviva Hope Rutkin
September 12, 2013
Report Suggests Nearly Half of U.S. Jobs Are Vulnerable to Computerization
Oxford researchers say that 45 percent of America's occupations will be automated within the next 20 years.
Rapid advances in technology have long represented a serious potential threat to many jobs ordinarily performed by people.
A recent report (which is not online, but summarized here) from the Oxford Martin School?s Programme on the Impacts of Future Technology attempts to quantify the extent of that threat. It concludes that 45 percent of American jobs are at high risk of being taken by computers within the next two decades.
The authors believe this takeover will happen in two stages. First, computers will start replacing people in especially vulnerable fields like transportation/logistics, production labor, and administrative support. Jobs in services, sales, and construction may also be lost in this first stage. Then, the rate of replacement will slow down due to bottlenecks in harder-to-automate fields such engineering. This technological plateau will be followed by a second wave of computerization, dependent upon the development of good artificial intelligence. This could next put jobs in management, science and engineering, and the arts at risk.
The authors note that the rate of computerization depends on several other factors, including regulation of new technology and access to cheap labor.
These results were calculated with a common statistical modeling method. More than 700 jobs on O*Net, an online career network, were considered, as well as the skills and education required for each. These features were weighted according to how automatable they were, and according to the engineering obstacles currently preventing computerization.
Our findings thus imply that as technology races ahead, low-skill workers will reallocate to tasks that are non-susceptible to computerization i.e., tasks that required creative and social intelligence, the authors write. For workers to win the race, however, they will have to acquire creative and social skills.
The problem of a lack of job growth is being caused in part by automation that is causing dynamic shifts in the job market as to what kinds of jobs are available to people that do not have the aptitude for jobs that require a college education.
People that have a college degree cannot find employment in their fields, they are taking up jobs that do not require a college degree and this is reducing upward mobility.
Other factors are globalization and the past 30 years of off-shoring of manufacturing that has reduced the number of jobs available that can be performed by people with a high school level of education that do not have the aptitude for a job that require a college education.
People that are now seeking employment in jobs that only require a two year associate degree i.e nursing cannot find jobs and nurses are now being lay-offed.
The level of available middle class jobs that pay a living wage have been in decline since the recession of 2008.
The job market growth has mostly been on low paid, low or no benefit type job areas.
Companies are finding that they do not need as many workers as they did prior to the automation and computerization of many tasks and that is reducing the numbers of workers required.
Thus they are not hiring at the levels they did post prior recessions and reduced govenrment regulations and taxes on business is not going to lead to a sharp increase in the number of jobs that pay a living wage.
Case in point:
http://www.technologyreview.com/vie...of-us-jobs-are-vulnerable-to-computerization/
Aviva Hope Rutkin
September 12, 2013
Report Suggests Nearly Half of U.S. Jobs Are Vulnerable to Computerization
Oxford researchers say that 45 percent of America's occupations will be automated within the next 20 years.
Rapid advances in technology have long represented a serious potential threat to many jobs ordinarily performed by people.
A recent report (which is not online, but summarized here) from the Oxford Martin School?s Programme on the Impacts of Future Technology attempts to quantify the extent of that threat. It concludes that 45 percent of American jobs are at high risk of being taken by computers within the next two decades.
The authors believe this takeover will happen in two stages. First, computers will start replacing people in especially vulnerable fields like transportation/logistics, production labor, and administrative support. Jobs in services, sales, and construction may also be lost in this first stage. Then, the rate of replacement will slow down due to bottlenecks in harder-to-automate fields such engineering. This technological plateau will be followed by a second wave of computerization, dependent upon the development of good artificial intelligence. This could next put jobs in management, science and engineering, and the arts at risk.
The authors note that the rate of computerization depends on several other factors, including regulation of new technology and access to cheap labor.
These results were calculated with a common statistical modeling method. More than 700 jobs on O*Net, an online career network, were considered, as well as the skills and education required for each. These features were weighted according to how automatable they were, and according to the engineering obstacles currently preventing computerization.
Our findings thus imply that as technology races ahead, low-skill workers will reallocate to tasks that are non-susceptible to computerization i.e., tasks that required creative and social intelligence, the authors write. For workers to win the race, however, they will have to acquire creative and social skills.
Last edited:
Bowden
Elite Member
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2009
- Messages
- 1,798
- Reaction score
- 736
- Points
- 0
I have yet to see one supply side politician like Mitt Romney address this problem from a supply side economics and business model perspective.
Technology like computerized automation is reducing the number of workers that a business requires and no amount of reduced regulations and taxes on business is going to cause a company to hire more workers if they can computerize and automate tasks and thus reduce the number of workers required to do those tasks prior to computerizing and automating them.
Many jobs that were at the middle class job levels have been eliminated by the computerization and automation of those jobs.
Job growth is being restrained by computerization and automation.
Anyone that disagrees does not know what they are talking about.
Blaming the lack of job growth on Obama and regulations and taxes on business and supporting supply siders like Mitt Romney is not going to change those facts.
http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/515926/how-technology-is-destroying-jobs/
How Technology Is Destroying Jobs
By David Rotman on June 12, 2013
Given his calm and reasoned academic demeanor, it is easy to miss just how provocative Erik Brynjolfssons contention really is. *Brynjolfsson, a professor at the MIT Sloan School of Management, and his collaborator and coauthor Andrew McAfee have been arguing for the last year and a half that impressive advances in computer technology from improved industrial robotics to automated translation services?are largely behind the sluggish employment growth of the last 10 to 15 years. Even more ominous for workers, the MIT academics foresee dismal prospects for many types of jobs as these powerful new technologies are increasingly adopted not only in manufacturing, clerical, and retail work but in professions such as law, financial services, education, and medicine.
That robots, automation, and software can replace people might seem obvious to anyone who?s worked in automotive manufacturing or as a travel agent. But Brynjolfsson and McAfee?s claim is more troubling and controversial. They believe that rapid technological change has been destroying jobs faster than it is creating them, contributing to the stagnation of median income and the growth of inequality in the United States. And, they suspect, something similar is happening in other technologically advanced countries.
Perhaps the most damning piece of evidence, according to Brynjolfsson, is a chart that only an economist could love. In economics, productivity?the amount of economic value created for a given unit of input, such as an hour of labor?is a crucial indicator of growth and wealth creation. It is a measure of progress. On the chart Brynjolfsson likes to show, separate lines represent productivity and total employment in the United States. For years after World War II, the two lines closely tracked each other, with increases in jobs corresponding to increases in productivity. The pattern is clear: as businesses generated more value from their workers, the country as a whole became richer, which fueled more economic activity and created even more jobs. Then, beginning in 2000, the lines diverge; productivity continues to rise robustly, but employment suddenly wilts. By 2011, a significant gap appears between the two lines, showing economic growth with no parallel increase in job creation. Brynjolfsson and McAfee call it the ?great decoupling.? And Brynjolfsson says he is confident that technology is behind both the healthy growth in productivity and the weak growth in jobs.
Technology like computerized automation is reducing the number of workers that a business requires and no amount of reduced regulations and taxes on business is going to cause a company to hire more workers if they can computerize and automate tasks and thus reduce the number of workers required to do those tasks prior to computerizing and automating them.
Many jobs that were at the middle class job levels have been eliminated by the computerization and automation of those jobs.
Job growth is being restrained by computerization and automation.
Anyone that disagrees does not know what they are talking about.
Blaming the lack of job growth on Obama and regulations and taxes on business and supporting supply siders like Mitt Romney is not going to change those facts.
http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/515926/how-technology-is-destroying-jobs/
How Technology Is Destroying Jobs
By David Rotman on June 12, 2013
Given his calm and reasoned academic demeanor, it is easy to miss just how provocative Erik Brynjolfssons contention really is. *Brynjolfsson, a professor at the MIT Sloan School of Management, and his collaborator and coauthor Andrew McAfee have been arguing for the last year and a half that impressive advances in computer technology from improved industrial robotics to automated translation services?are largely behind the sluggish employment growth of the last 10 to 15 years. Even more ominous for workers, the MIT academics foresee dismal prospects for many types of jobs as these powerful new technologies are increasingly adopted not only in manufacturing, clerical, and retail work but in professions such as law, financial services, education, and medicine.
That robots, automation, and software can replace people might seem obvious to anyone who?s worked in automotive manufacturing or as a travel agent. But Brynjolfsson and McAfee?s claim is more troubling and controversial. They believe that rapid technological change has been destroying jobs faster than it is creating them, contributing to the stagnation of median income and the growth of inequality in the United States. And, they suspect, something similar is happening in other technologically advanced countries.
Perhaps the most damning piece of evidence, according to Brynjolfsson, is a chart that only an economist could love. In economics, productivity?the amount of economic value created for a given unit of input, such as an hour of labor?is a crucial indicator of growth and wealth creation. It is a measure of progress. On the chart Brynjolfsson likes to show, separate lines represent productivity and total employment in the United States. For years after World War II, the two lines closely tracked each other, with increases in jobs corresponding to increases in productivity. The pattern is clear: as businesses generated more value from their workers, the country as a whole became richer, which fueled more economic activity and created even more jobs. Then, beginning in 2000, the lines diverge; productivity continues to rise robustly, but employment suddenly wilts. By 2011, a significant gap appears between the two lines, showing economic growth with no parallel increase in job creation. Brynjolfsson and McAfee call it the ?great decoupling.? And Brynjolfsson says he is confident that technology is behind both the healthy growth in productivity and the weak growth in jobs.
So your problem with Romney is he is taking advantage of legal things you don't?
no kidding the market is shifting. Problem with this article is where it says nurses are being laid off. nurses have never been in more demand. i've worked in healthcare recruiting market and nurses get paid well, and in many cases can write their own tickets. brings the whole conclusions of this article into suspect when I read that
charley
Registered
...If you mean hiding Millions of Dollars so he doesn't have to pay taxes on his vast wealth , half of which he got from buying companies then bankrupting them, the other half his daddy gave him.
Mitt Romney?s Bain Capital was very good at making money for Mitt Romney. At the same time, it loaded companies Bain bought with debt, borrowed even more money to pay dividends to Mitt Romney and destroyed or outsourced lots of jobs. It even raided pension funds. Then Romney turns around and holds himself up as a ?successful businessman.?
Sure, he was successful in terms of making money for himself. But this was at the expense of workers who lost their jobs at previously successful companies when they went bankrupt?a debt loaded on them by bank-borrowed money that went directly into Romney?s pocket.
Here?s how a private equity fund such as Bain Capital works: It picks a successful company and then takes it over with a leveraged buyout (LBO). The money borrowed from a bank to pay off the owner or stockholders does not become the debt of Bain Capital. It becomes the debt of the company that was taken over.
You might ask, ?Why would a bank even loan money to place a company in debt for the purposes of being taken over by Bain Capital which does not even assume the debt?? Well, it?s for the same reason that so many subprime loans were available. The bank does not continue to hold the debt. It offloads it to investors such as pension funds so the bank doesn?t really care. They have no skin in the game.
Why not loan Mitt Romney money to take over companies? There?s good money in those commissions.
Pension funds show up again and again as the fall guys in Wall Street machinations. They are the dumb clucks who keep trying to make up for the fact they are 50% underfunded by entering into sucker bets and losing even more money. And since Romney and Bain do not assume the debt themselves, they don?t care if the overleveraged company goes bankrupt since, if it does, they lose nothing. That company is just a money conduit for Romney since, as soon as they take it over, they have the company borrow even more money in order to pay Romney a dividend.
You might ask, ?Why would the owners of a company or the shareholders sell out to Bain Capital?? Because Bain offers them a really good deal, that?s why. After all they don?t care if they overpay. They?re using OPM, other people?s money. It?s all based on a loan to the company they intend to take over, not a loan to Bain itself. Bain takes hardly any risk at all. So much for the risk takers that Romney eulogizes.
Romney pioneered the strategy of having a company Bain took over in a leveraged buyout borrow even more money to pay himself a dividend. So now the company is staggering under a huge load of debt and in many cases they can not keep up with the payments. In 1994, Bain bought medical equipment manufacturer Baxter International. After a merger with another company, it became known as Dade Behring. Bain then reduced R&D investment because Bain?s game plan was to only hold the company for five years or so. So why invest for the long haul? The money borrowed from banks for the LBO was usually for five to eight years with small monthly payments and a big balloon payment at the end. About five years after Bain had acquired Dade, it was looking to get out. But not before it drained even more money from Dade and placed the company and its workers in even more jeopardy. ?
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/05/lemon-picking-bain-capital-obama-style/
Or there are two sides to every story. Good and bad that Bain capital accomplished. Get a life bud. You are just having difficulties coming to terms with the fact you are arguing for a guy who hasn't accomplishment shit in his life other than voting "present"
Or there are two sides to every story. Good and bad that Bain capital accomplished. Get a life bud. You are just having difficulties coming to terms with the fact you are arguing for a guy who hasn't accomplishment shit in his life other than voting "present"
charley
Registered
I don't know about nurses being laid off but I do know that there aren't enough instructors for all of the nursing programs across the country so many students aren't able to get into a school if they don't have straight A's, the competition and the points required for entry are too high for many. From the reports I've read it's about 50K students a year.
I know a bunch of single mothers in Vegas that are going through this right now, so they are actually worst off then before because know they have tens of thousands in student loan debt and still no good job.
Healthcare costs could easily be brought down by 20-25% by immigrated foreign born doctors and nurses, it's exactly what they did to the folks in IT when wages got too high in the late 90's. Just import cheaper workers in on H1B visa's. But since healthcare is a protected industry we know that will never happen.
LOL, sorry bud. Again, i've worked in the heathcare industry as a recruiter placing doctors. I've worked with many foreign born H1B visa candidates. The reason isn't a lack of jobs for them, it's that the American populace doesn't want to go to a doctor no matter how qualified who has such a strong accent that the doctor can't be understood. H1B candidates complain about voice recognition software not being able to pick up their accents, and hospitals that do qualify to sponsor H1B don't like to hire them because their patient population doesn't want to go to those doctors. H1B's work in these rural towns for 3 years then as soon as they no longer require sponsorship they jump ship to larger towns that have more people like them and the hospital is forced to start looking again. I've seen hospitals pass over great candidates and wait because they would rather wait for a domestic candidate simply because their patient population demands it. It's simple supply and demand. Hire an H1B and the patient will chose to go to your competition.
........if you ever have a thought of your on let us know
Are you really this stupid? You can't possibly be can you? I'm a Mormon who didn't want Romney to even run. How is that not a thought of my own?
The article I posted showed both sides of the story and was quite balanced. You are just too closed minded to realize that because you suck from the tit of the Obama loving do no wrong masses. Shit, your entire anti bain capital post was directly from the Obama talking points. You are nothing but copy and paste.
Are any of you guys ever going to realize it does not matter who is in office, the morons are the ones that believe we the people have any control over the government. Voting is a fucking illusion to make you think you have a say, YOU DONT!!!
the end result of what happens when almost an entire population is to poor to travel beyond it's own borders and believes that corporate owned media outlets provide factual news content which is an actual depiction of "the real world".
1)I'm basing that on the GOP not wanting to leave when we were scheduled. Also on this article from the Washington Post in 2011 where Romney was quoted as saying he was against the withdrawal. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...q-withdrawal/2011/10/21/gIQAp03o4L_story.html
2)I'm basing this on his continued opposition to cutting carbon emissions. The people polluting need to be taxed to prevent them from doing it or at the very least minimizing it. Whether you believe in global warming or not, why not have a clean planet. He values $$$ over the environment, I don't think anyone could deny that.
3)That's the point, we need to direct people to preventative care. One of the primary reasons people don't get it is because they don't have insurance. Obamacare isn't a fix but at least it addresses the problem. Tort reform and allowing people to shop over state lines won't do this.
4)A tax holiday is right in the Romney tax plan, if this is too much speculation for you and not enough evidence, I don't know what to do to get you to take off your blinders. Right here, 2nd paragraph under description of plan. http://taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/upload/description-Romney-plan.pdf
5)I don't believe cutting back should come from seniors or poor people. It should start with defense and subsidies, Ryan increased defense and didn't address subsidies.
6)Anybody who ignores what a 95%+ consensus of scientists in any field because it would cost too much is anti-science, plain and simple.
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2013
- Messages
- 1,643
- Reaction score
- 28
- Points
- 83
Obama true believers:
http://olbroad.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/1-1-head-up-ass4.jpg
Hard to image how people can still support Obama until you realize where their head is; once you realize where their head is, it makes sense.
http://olbroad.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/1-1-head-up-ass4.jpg
Hard to image how people can still support Obama until you realize where their head is; once you realize where their head is, it makes sense.
Maybe it'd be more illustrative of his nature to say, "Mitt Romney would have been the first POTUS sued for Racketeering."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jw0pYHSgxpQ
It's not just that he has so much money or where he has it.... it's that he got it via organized crime and fucking Americans out of their jobs, insurance, and pensions. He is so low and slimy he could walk upright under the belly of a serpent.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jw0pYHSgxpQ
It's not just that he has so much money or where he has it.... it's that he got it via organized crime and fucking Americans out of their jobs, insurance, and pensions. He is so low and slimy he could walk upright under the belly of a serpent.
Bowden
Elite Member
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2009
- Messages
- 1,798
- Reaction score
- 736
- Points
- 0
I don't care if it's Obama or Romney any politicians head is up their self promotional ass.
People run for President because they desire political positions that grant them great political power, control and financial benefit.
Do you think the reason that people on the tea party end run for big Federal government Washington DC House and Senate seats is because they want to reduce the size of big government?
Or is it that they are interested in being a part of the same big government they state they want to reduce?
In example a congressman makes 170k a year and gets perks the rest of Americans can only dream of.
Like free big government socialist healthcare paid for by the taxpayers.
The networking connections these politicians make while in office allow them to achieve wealth while they are in office.
They get paid off in many ways by people buying influence and that goes for Tea party right wing politicians as well as left wing democrats.
Be it the Koch brothers or whomever else.
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2013
- Messages
- 1,643
- Reaction score
- 28
- Points
- 83
Bowden; how many TEA party gatherings have you been to?
You're clueless as to what the TEA party is about. But as long as you continue to listen to your Democrat media outlets you will believe as you do now, so it's a waste of time to even talk to people who have their head up their ass so far.
Take a realistic look at your Democrat leaders; Obama, Reid, Schumer, etc. they are all complete liars who are in power to keep power and to keep the people who vote as stupid as you are, Keep lapping up their shit. If you could open your eyes for a minute you would see that at every opportunity the Democrats want to dumb down the population so they will believe the Democrat lies. For instance, take a look at school vouchers. Vouchers work, they improve the kids education; so what do Democrats do? They shut them down in order to support the NEA union, which of course is one of the Democrat party money machines. Harry Reid rants on the Senate floor about the Koch Brothers; all the while accepting money from the Unions who give their members no choice in where their dues are spent and it's all spent on Democrats. The Koch Brothers are #59 on list of big donors the vast majority of big donors are Unions which all donate only to the Democrats.
There are a few people who care about the country, but the Democrat media do all they can to insure people like you don't have a clue what they're really all about. You want to believe that Romney is an evil man because the Democrats lied and continue to lie about him; the Democrat media machine is also in on this and does all they can to destroy anyone who could challenge their Democrat candidates. It's sickening that we have no journalism all we have now is a huge propaganda media run by and controlled by the Democrat party.
You're clueless as to what the TEA party is about. But as long as you continue to listen to your Democrat media outlets you will believe as you do now, so it's a waste of time to even talk to people who have their head up their ass so far.
Take a realistic look at your Democrat leaders; Obama, Reid, Schumer, etc. they are all complete liars who are in power to keep power and to keep the people who vote as stupid as you are, Keep lapping up their shit. If you could open your eyes for a minute you would see that at every opportunity the Democrats want to dumb down the population so they will believe the Democrat lies. For instance, take a look at school vouchers. Vouchers work, they improve the kids education; so what do Democrats do? They shut them down in order to support the NEA union, which of course is one of the Democrat party money machines. Harry Reid rants on the Senate floor about the Koch Brothers; all the while accepting money from the Unions who give their members no choice in where their dues are spent and it's all spent on Democrats. The Koch Brothers are #59 on list of big donors the vast majority of big donors are Unions which all donate only to the Democrats.
There are a few people who care about the country, but the Democrat media do all they can to insure people like you don't have a clue what they're really all about. You want to believe that Romney is an evil man because the Democrats lied and continue to lie about him; the Democrat media machine is also in on this and does all they can to destroy anyone who could challenge their Democrat candidates. It's sickening that we have no journalism all we have now is a huge propaganda media run by and controlled by the Democrat party.
Romney is done. Nobody needs to continue to pound him into the ground, he is no political threat. Everything you've just stated are things the republicans are guilty of. Just because one "side" does it doesn't mean it's okay for the other to do it. That sort of thinking is why this country is in the mess its' currently in. None of the "issues" are liberal vs. conservative issues, they are issues used to keep the populace divided so the two (one) parties can keep their stranglehold on their power over their government. I call it their government because they are the ones that control it, we don't. Voting? What a farce. Nobody gets elected that those in power, whether behind the scenes or out in front, don't want to be elected.
Journalism controlled by the democratic party? What are you? A brain dead idiot tripping on acid 24/7? 90% of the media outlets are controlled by six corporations all with one goal in mind: To control what you think. That control is so complete that they are violating laws limiting how many media companies they can own and in how many media markets. They want to keep us divided by trivial non-issues so they can continue what they are doing which is fucking us in the ass.
The state of education, defense and welfare spending, and anything else you care to name is the way it is because both parties want it that way. They both want unemployment, they both want people to be uneducated, they want people to be poor, they want illegal immigrants, etc. because it benefits both "sides". "Conservatives" want dumb workers that are just smart enough to do the job and too stupid to complain about the work conditions and low pay. Neither one is on your side. Neither is the tea party you seem fond of.
Journalism controlled by the democratic party? What are you? A brain dead idiot tripping on acid 24/7? 90% of the media outlets are controlled by six corporations all with one goal in mind: To control what you think. That control is so complete that they are violating laws limiting how many media companies they can own and in how many media markets. They want to keep us divided by trivial non-issues so they can continue what they are doing which is fucking us in the ass.
The state of education, defense and welfare spending, and anything else you care to name is the way it is because both parties want it that way. They both want unemployment, they both want people to be uneducated, they want people to be poor, they want illegal immigrants, etc. because it benefits both "sides". "Conservatives" want dumb workers that are just smart enough to do the job and too stupid to complain about the work conditions and low pay. Neither one is on your side. Neither is the tea party you seem fond of.
charley
Registered
... I never said I was a democrat , you with your 'morman insight' assumed that I was, & it ain't the 'tit' of the right your sucking, you do all your sucking below the belt, you're a boring, repetitive man. Get a life my pious morman pal or bud or whatever it is that you like to say.
Similar threads
