You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 03, 2016, 09:39:26 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: So... Mitt Romney  (Read 15460 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline gaggedLouise

  • Quim Queen | Collaborative juicy writer
  • Champion
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Location: Scandinavia
  • Gender: Female
  • Bound, gagged and unarmed but still dangerous.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #125 on: September 15, 2012, 08:34:25 AM »
A bit off topic, read last night about this guy in Kansas who had filed a plea for investigation into Obama's birth certificate (of which he doubts the authenticity) and the issue of whether Obama's father was a U.S. citizen (of course he wasn't but that's no part of what's been required for a presidential candidate within the last several decades or maybe even century). The elections overseer board or something is Kansas - three GOP guys - said they formally had to investigate this but demoted it till after the election. Other states might have complaints on the same old theme.

It seems insane this can still be a topic of debate! Are the "birthers" really going to matter in this election campaign?
« Last Edit: September 15, 2012, 08:38:43 AM by gaggedLouise »

Offline mia h

Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #126 on: September 15, 2012, 09:01:42 AM »
It seems insane this can still be a topic of debate! Are the "birthers" really going to matter in this election campaign?
Wanna annoy a "birther", just ask them where John McCain was born.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #127 on: September 15, 2012, 09:19:32 AM »
That's silly Mia, don't you know that doesn't matter? He is clearly American!

I think this gets too much media attention, a bunch of asshats who refuse to accept they were wrong.

Offline gaggedLouise

  • Quim Queen | Collaborative juicy writer
  • Champion
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Location: Scandinavia
  • Gender: Female
  • Bound, gagged and unarmed but still dangerous.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #128 on: September 15, 2012, 09:37:35 AM »
Wanna annoy a "birther", just ask them where John McCain was born.


*nods*

Some republicans must be miffed that Schwarzenegger was clearly Austrian from the beginning.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #129 on: September 15, 2012, 09:43:26 AM »

*nods*

Some republicans must be miffed that Schwarzenegger was clearly Austrian from the beginning.

Used to be a running gag in Shadowrun that 'Senator' Schwarzenegger was blackmailed not to run forPresident after the passage of an amendment.

Offline Stattick

Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #130 on: September 15, 2012, 01:27:15 PM »
Interesting... it appears that the voter suppression laws are threatening to drive many counties into bankruptcy. Way to help out the economy, GOP.

Online TheGlyphstone

Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #131 on: September 15, 2012, 01:38:21 PM »

*nods*

Some republicans must be miffed that Schwarzenegger was clearly Austrian from the beginning.

They'll always have the Simpsons...

Offline Ironwolf85

  • Eletronic Scribe of naughty things.
  • Lord
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: May 2010
  • Location: New England Somewhere I won't tell you
  • Gender: Male
  • Here to have fun, Role play, and maybe get laid
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #132 on: September 16, 2012, 01:24:31 AM »
I admit I do like the GOP's retoric on economics, and a few of their more well thought out plans.
But I'm not Voting for Romney, it took me a while to decide and every time I started to think "well he might not be so bad he might...." was followed by "sweet holy... what the... is he... he IS? he HAS? he Was?"

for example
Well he's a mormon, I'll take a look into them... they aren't so bad... just another sect of... awww hell no... he is their equivilent of a arch-bishop? and STILL IN OFFICE? that is a conflict of church and state, wouldn't elect a orthodox patrarch, wouldn't elect a catloic bishop, or anyone else still in practice as a priest, former priest is fine.
or I get a look at his baen captial and govoner records... every time the train of thought comes to a screeching halt. like a sappy book with a sour ending really.

Offline Stattick

Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #133 on: September 16, 2012, 01:32:27 PM »
Unfortunately, there's nothing more to the GOP rhetoric on economics other than the rhetoric itself. The economic philosophy of the GOP since the Reagan years has gone under a variety of names: Reaganomics, Voodoo Economics, Trickle-down, and Supply Side economics. The gist of their philosophy is to tax the poor and middle class, and force them to carry the majority of the economic burden. The rich and the big corporations do not pay a fair share of the tax burden. If they're particularly clever with their money, utilizing tax shelters and undeclared income, they may get away with paying no taxes at all. The Republicans have argued that this is a necessary evil. They say that if you tax the rich, that they'll move their money abroad, hide it, or lie to dodge paying their taxes. They say that the rich are the ones that are creating jobs, and that taxing them will suppress the economy, in turn perhaps forcing a down turn or even a depression. Further, they say that deregulation and smaller federal regulatory agencies are needed else they too may suppress the economy.

Most of the economists that helped Reagan forge his economic policy truly believed what they were working on. To most of them, it was an innovative approach. It had been nearly eighty years since something like that had been tried on a wide scale. Reagan was able to sell his vision to the public. It worked too. The deregulation caused a boom in the economy. For years, we enjoyed the Reagan boom. What people conveniently forget was that in the last couple of years Reagan's presidency, the economy collapsed. It seems the deregulation caused the bankers to make a ton of high risk gambles with other people's money, and that a strong gust of wind came along and knocked the house of cards over. The risky gambles they'd made wouldn't have been possible before the deregulation; it would have been illegal.  But people forget the repression of the 90's, and hail Voodoo economics.

The things is, as things bounced along, on a faster and faster roller coaster, a lot of the economists of the time, even Reagan's own people, started looking hard at Voodoo. They've concluded that Reaganomics just plain doesn't work. It makes the rich, richer. It makes the poor, poorer. It strangles the middle class, forcing them closer and closer to poverty. In the Bush years, we've slashed taxation on the rich even further. So far as I know, there's never been a period in American history where the taxes on the rich have been proportionally smaller to the taxes on the middle class and poor than what they are today. We have an upside down tax structure, one that Democrats have been trying to eliminate, but the Republicans have been fighting tooth and nail, using obstructionism and the filibuster in the Senate to great effect.

The first experiment with Supply Side economics was in the 1890's. It was partially responsible for the Panic of 1896, a serious down turn of the economy. Deregulation led to the Great Depression, the "Recession" (because no one wanted the panic that would have resulted from actually calling it a depression) of the 90's during Reagan's presidency, and the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression, the current mess that we're in today. All of these were caused by the same economic policies that today's GOP lauds as the highest economic principles.

The words that they use for their policies sound good. They are good at selling it. Their rhetoric is strong. But the actual policies that they're selling are toxic. Our present economy is a direct result of their failed policies. Yet they continue to push them, and to run on a platform of continuing the same policies that got us here. It seems that at some point, the rich have lost sight of the fact that a bad economy hurts everyone, including themselves. So taking a short sided view that refuses to acknowledge the lessons of history, they push an agenda that guarantees short term gains for them, while guaranteeing long term losses for the nation. They've used their deep, deep pockets to buy the GOP, and to use the party as their proxy to get the economy that they think they want, and the rest of us pay the price for it.

Offline Ironwolf85

  • Eletronic Scribe of naughty things.
  • Lord
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: May 2010
  • Location: New England Somewhere I won't tell you
  • Gender: Male
  • Here to have fun, Role play, and maybe get laid
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #134 on: September 16, 2012, 03:09:30 PM »
exactly, the ideals that the wealthy contribute to the economy, and should do so, that free enterprise should be encouraged. Those are good ideas.
I think repeating the Regan economic model, then being suprised when it implodes for the third time is not a good idea.

A country's economic health is usually dependent on the middle class, who drive the purchase side of the economy, you can "Supply" all you want, if nobody can afford it, then the economy stagnates.

Offline MasterMischief

Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #135 on: September 16, 2012, 08:23:36 PM »
The wealthy are often out of touch with the rest of society.  Why else would they suggest they eat cake.  Euphemisms like 'job creators' and 'socialism' are just more of the same.  The Democrats may not be saints, but they maintain a small bit of their soul still.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #136 on: September 17, 2012, 11:02:51 AM »
exactly, the ideals that the wealthy contribute to the economy, and should do so, that free enterprise should be encouraged. Those are good ideas.
I think repeating the Regan economic model, then being suprised when it implodes for the third time is not a good idea.

A country's economic health is usually dependent on the middle class, who drive the purchase side of the economy, you can "Supply" all you want, if nobody can afford it, then the economy stagnates.

The thing is..even using his Reagonomics..Reagan INCREASED capital gains, estate taxes, upper income taxes several times during his two terms. The folks that copied him didn't.

Offline Chelemar

Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #137 on: September 18, 2012, 11:20:10 AM »
A bit off topic, read last night about this guy in Kansas who had filed a plea for investigation into Obama's birth certificate (of which he doubts the authenticity) and the issue of whether Obama's father was a U.S. citizen (of course he wasn't but that's no part of what's been required for a presidential candidate within the last several decades or maybe even century). The elections overseer board or something is Kansas - three GOP guys - said they formally had to investigate this but demoted it till after the election. Other states might have complaints on the same old theme.

It seems insane this can still be a topic of debate! Are the "birthers" really going to matter in this election campaign?

Obama's name has been added.  The person who lead the objection has dropped it.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/17/obama-to-appear-on-kansas-ballot-after-birther-challenge-dropped/

He, the challenger, claims he received threatening phone calls which prompted him to drop his claim.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #138 on: September 18, 2012, 11:28:16 AM »
He, the challenger, claims he received threatening phone calls which prompted him to drop his claim.

Probably from the ASPCA and PETA, on behalf of the horse.

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #139 on: September 18, 2012, 11:31:49 AM »
There was a spoof article (Daily Kos, maybe?) detailing how the Obama administration turned around and demanded that Kansas prove it's a legitimate state by providing the long-form original state constitution. It was marginally amusing.

Offline Sabby

Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #140 on: September 18, 2012, 12:48:05 PM »
This just came to me through Twitter, but apparently the stories from back in 2011. Romney goes for an easy photo op having lunch with a Vietnam vet. His face is priceless when he realizes he's sharing the table with the guys husband as well. He shakes the guys hand after telling him his spouse will get none of the benefits of being with a veteran and then he's out of there as quick as he can move.

Run boy. Run from the change!

Offline kckolbe

Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #141 on: September 18, 2012, 12:58:38 PM »
On the whole Obama birther issue, I admit that I no longer care, but it does seem foolish that we do not require candidates to prove eligibility for office before being able to participate in debates, be on primary ballots, etc.  That seems the kind of thing that should be implemented for future elections.  Imagine if I ran for president and got a lot of support only for all of my supporters to learn I wasn't 35 until after they'd decided they wanted to vote for me.

No matter Obama's status, the issue exposed an oversight in the process that should be corrected.

Offline gaggedLouise

  • Quim Queen | Collaborative juicy writer
  • Champion
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Location: Scandinavia
  • Gender: Female
  • Bound, gagged and unarmed but still dangerous.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #142 on: September 18, 2012, 01:07:23 PM »
This just came to me through Twitter, but apparently the stories from back in 2011. Romney goes for an easy photo op having lunch with a Vietnam vet. His face is priceless when he realizes he's sharing the table with the guys husband as well. He shakes the guys hand after telling him his spouse will get none of the benefits of being with a veteran and then he's out of there as quick as he can move.

Run boy. Run from the change!

*laughs*  I can so see that happening!

Online TheGlyphstone

Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #143 on: September 18, 2012, 03:04:23 PM »
This just came to me through Twitter, but apparently the stories from back in 2011. Romney goes for an easy photo op having lunch with a Vietnam vet. His face is priceless when he realizes he's sharing the table with the guys husband as well. He shakes the guys hand after telling him his spouse will get none of the benefits of being with a veteran and then he's out of there as quick as he can move.

Run boy. Run from the change!

That's hilariously ironic enough that my cynicism meter is wobbling, it sounds like an urban legend in a 'too good to be true' sense.

Offline Sabby


Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #145 on: September 18, 2012, 03:19:42 PM »
I'm kind of curious to see how they put the 'don't ask don't tell' back into the military.

Offline MasterMischief

Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #146 on: September 19, 2012, 09:30:33 AM »
I do not imagine they would.  They would be too busy repealing the Affordable Health Care Act (for big Pharma), disbanding the EPA (for Big Oil) and maybe starting a war with Iran (for Military Contractors).  Do you really think they care about the Evangelicals or their issues?  There is no money in that.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #147 on: September 19, 2012, 09:43:09 AM »
I do not imagine they would.  They would be too busy repealing the Affordable Health Care Act (for big Pharma), disbanding the EPA (for Big Oil) and maybe starting a war with Iran (for Military Contractors).  Do you really think they care about the Evangelicals or their issues?  There is no money in that.

Problem is.. They don't do for the flock... The flock starts turtling in and not voting.. They've done it before on off years, that is how you lose your majority in the house and or seats in the senate.

Offline Ironwolf85

  • Eletronic Scribe of naughty things.
  • Lord
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: May 2010
  • Location: New England Somewhere I won't tell you
  • Gender: Male
  • Here to have fun, Role play, and maybe get laid
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #148 on: September 19, 2012, 12:56:52 PM »
The thing is..even using his Reagonomics..Reagan INCREASED capital gains, estate taxes, upper income taxes several times during his two terms. The folks that copied him didn't.

The funny thing is this increase lead to increased federal revenue it part of why he was soncidered a success.
Not that anyone I've seen on the republican side of the teleprompter has the balls to say that.
My father's a republican, and a bit far right on a lot of issues, but he's not crazy, and he's quite intelligent in his views. If the party had more guys like my old man, I might actually vote for them. The man is more pro-choice, pro capatalisim (as in actual Wealth of nations style, not Lazzie-fare style), pro-america, and for fiscal Responsability.

I remember him flipping off the television when Bush cut the taxes way back when. "we're in a war you don't cut taxes in wartime."
his response to the gay marrage thing was my favorite "let them get married, just don't force churches to marry them if they don't want to. we have to respect Religious Freedom." was the gist of it.
Like 80% pof all republicans I know he fins somthing "offputting" about Romney, if he didn't dislike Obama. This is genuine dislike for his policies for example how healthcare was handled, he thinks we need proper reform but pelosi's "don't read it, just vote for it or we'll never pass it" line was bullshit and actions such as what he saw as an apology tour in the middle east, not based on "he's a socialist muslim destroyin our country" proppaganda.

Thing is, I have some stuff I don't like about obama, but I'm not going to vote for someone just because I have issues with his opponent. I am going to vote based on their actions, history, and what I believe is ability to manage this country.
Thus far I've seen his record and Romney has not impressed me, he comes across more akin to a republican Joe Biden than someone who can actually help this country.

Offline Stattick

Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #149 on: September 19, 2012, 03:45:44 PM »
A lot of Republicans have talking about massively reducing or eliminating the FDA, as well as pushing through a lot of deregulations in farming and food handling. As someone's who's suffered serious food poisoning from mishandled food, I cannot help but be horrified by their plans, and speak out against it.