Why didn't I live-blog the GOP convention last night? I'd thought I would, and I think I live-blogged every day of both parties' conventions in 2004 and 2008. I watched part of the afternoon roll call and all of the evening show. But I didn't want to say something about each of the speeches as I listened, though this morning I wish I had.
I watched on C-SPAN. I cannot tolerate the channels that have people who talk about what is going on while it's going one. They are obviously not listening, so what are they doing — other than getting in the way? But when you watch on C-SPAN, it's just a bunch of speeches. Speeches are speeches. There's a sameness to them. A good line now and then. A nice line reading. Themes emerge. It seemed to me that the main theme was that Americans work hard and construct their own families' economic well-being. There were a lot of "We Built It" signs (playing off the Republican's favorite Obama quote, "You didn't build that").
Chris Christie, the keynote speaker, was the main speaker who had his own distinctive theme: Truth. Americans are ready to hear the truth about government and economics. He told the truth in New Jersey, and he got elected, and he fixed things, and now this truth thing is going national. Without checking the text, I'm not sure how directly Christie associated Obama with not telling the truth, but I note that Obama was always the "dreams" guy. Talking tough about truth may be the perfect counterbalance to Obama's supremely — unfairly! — effective "hope" theme.
Who was the best speaker last night? Maybe it wasn't Christie. Maybe it was Rick Santorum. What am I saying? All that hands-touching-hands business. It got to me, and I am not a social conservative. I cried when he talked about Bella. Santorum was off the "we built it" theme. He was the one speaker — as I remember it — who talked about caring for people. But who votes based on caring? Don't those people vote Democrat?
I say that to Meade, and he goes on about how fixing the economy is the best way for government to care for people. That's not my point. Of course, that's true. That's rational. But I'm talking about the voters who imagine suffering children and feel the importance of love as they arrive at an emotion-based decision. Those people vote Democratic, don't they?
ADDED: Ann Romney carried the main "We Built It" theme by portraying Mitt as building his own wealth, starting out from nothing... basement apartment... ate a lot of pasta and tuna.... And her grandfather was a coal miner. In Wales.
But did she humanize him? I read in the press about a thousand times that it was her job to humanize him. Isn't it racist and sexist to portray Mitt Romney as inhuman?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
582 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 582 Newer› Newest»--Oh, the stresses of "normal people"!--
Not being able to afford ballet for the girls on $300K/yr.
Major stress.
I'm fed up reading about how Romney has no idea how the other half lives. As a bishop and stake president in the Mormon church, Romney had the "other half" sitting in his church office on a regular basis helping them work through their problems. And if he wasn't sitting with them in his office, he was sitting with them in their homes or apartments or by their bedsides in the hospital. He was working side by side with them in their yards and on and on and on. That's what bishops and stake presidents do in the Mormon church.
Read this and tell me Romney doesn't know how the other half lives.
they certainly hate the other guy who succeeds.
Keep in mind that while success can come about from creating things and uplifting others, wealth can also be created by destruction of others. I'll never forget hearing Larry Ellison brag about how he acquired a company that he had no interest in what-so-ever....but by owning it for a few months he was finally able to break into the Forbes TopTen list. Shortly thereafter he dismantled the company, resulting in a couple hundred job losses. His also said that his personal motto is "It is not enough for me to succeed, but the other man has to also fail". Should people who beleive as such really be applauded?
While I understand that some folks beleive that anything is acceptable in the pursuit of profits, some of us feel that greed is a sin rather than a virtue. There is a world o' difference between "saving up" and "hoarding at the expense of others"
Lots of folks see Romney as the same way: his personal wealth is a result of harming, rather than helping, society-as-a-whole. It ain't "success" that people are hatin' on, but rather the path he choose to acquire it. People are also upset that not only does he pay ~13% in taxes on his income, but he also feels that rate is way too high for rich people like him.
That really puts him out-of-touch with the common worker.
tl;dr: People ain't saying that Romney is evil 'cause he has a lot of money, but rather the claim is that he has a lot of money 'cause he is evil.
""It is not enough for me to succeed, but the other man has to also fail". Should people who beleive as such really be applauded?"
-- Let's do one of my consistency checks. How do you feel about the comment from the President about why he would not compromise as: "I won."
Not all of them - and I'd be voting if he was the candidate. From what I can tell, he was the best candidate, and the fact he could talk from his heart, and reach yours, was just a bit of the proof of that. He's no cardboard cut-out candidate, but a real human being. Unfortunately, THAT's apparently not worth fighting for, since y'all prefer a cruise with Captain Groupthink on the U.S.S. Mormonism.
There's no groupthink in Christianity?!?
--Of course, even that is no longer true; Big Dem Clinton eviscerated our welfare system 15 years ago, and what's left of our assistance programs are insufficient to serve the actual need.---
Cowboy Art & free cell phone minutes are a need?
And, I might add, he probably did it for 5 years as a bishop and 10 years as a stake president, not to mention doing similar work year in and year out as a home teacher--a "calling" in the Mormon church that never goes away.
One thing I can take away from this discussion is that everyone wants to succeed, they want their children to succeed but they certainly hate the other guy who succeeds.
"It is not enough that I win. Others must lose." The cry of the bitter, envious and pitiful throughout history.
It's funny how this "bullshit" meme gets tossed around when conservatives mention having grown up in less-than-ideal circumstances, but it's part of every Democrat's schtick. Remember poor ol' John Edwards' daddy, slaving away for the man? Or that struggling coal miner who sired Slow Joe the Scranton schmoe? Or Algore's chest-thumping boast about struggling in the tobacco fields?
I don't expect Ann or Mitt Romney to understand my troubles. And I certainly don't need them empathizing with me. I want him to cut my taxes and foster a more friendly climate for business, not call me an enemy who needs to shut up and sit at the back of the bus.
I want her to be a lady and not dictate eating choices to me or flying off on million-dollar vacations like the jumped up nouveau riche piece of trash currently in the White House.
I don't care if neither Mitt nor Ann ever broke a sweat in their life. So long as their values and attitudes mirror mine, I am happy.
Yes Mr. Cook, busineses look for lower costs to maximize profits because that's the goal of a business. If I am not making a profit then I go out of business.
The WSJ has an informative article on some large business that are moving overseas although its not cheaper labor costs being the motivating factor but lower tax rates since ours are I believe the second highest in the world.
Oaf: The Obamas were more of the real world that most people can relate to ...
Yes, yes -- the "real world" where one's wife gets her patronage-job salary tripled to $316K/yr once her husband is in position to shovel federal earmarks to her employer.
The "real world" where a Dem political machine bagman arranges favorable financing for one's home.
We can ALL relate to having our snouts in the trough of the Cook County Machine.
Crack Emcee
As of today, I'm putting you in the same category as Cedarford. When I see your name at the top of a comment, I'll just scroll on by, just as I've always done with C4. Why? Because when you've read one Crack comment, you've read them all. We get it, you don't like cults, you don't like Romney. You're just not worth the effort any more. It's a shame.
Well, Matthew, given that Romney is promising to bring us back to economic robustness, I assume that refers to government solutions to the nation's economic ills. Or does he mean he'll pray for recovery?
And, yes, it is government's role to try to address the problems facing us. I mean, what the fuck is it the government should do?
Darcy wrote: But maybe it's my comprehension skills.
Your reading is perfect. Bender just sounds bent on destruction. ;)
It really doesn't matter how Bender or Darcy or someone who is already a Romney voter (and will voice support regardless of what is said) will comprehend Christie's message.
The question is -- how do the undecided voters read his words?? Do they take them at face-value, or do they try to rationalize his words to find an interpretation that is something more favorable?
If he (or anyone else) wants to talk about the importance of R-E-S-P-E-C-T, fine. Talk about the importance of respect. But it is a confused and false understanding of both love and respect to set up one against the other. And more than that -- what the hell does this have to do with getting votes??
"Well, Matthew, given that Romney is promising to bring us back to economic robustness, I assume that refers to government solutions to the nation's economic ills. Or does he mean he'll pray for recovery?
And, yes, it is government's role to try to address the problems facing us. I mean, what the fuck is it the government should do?"
-- There are some cases where the best thing for government to do is do nothing. In this case, Romney's solutions tend towards removing government impediments to job creation.
You really don't understand the core concept behind fiscal conservatism if you're asking these basic questions.
Undecided voters aren't watching the conventions, so it doesn't matter how a hypothetical viewer will take words that he or she will never bother to expose him- or herself to. Christie's speech was solely to rally the troops.
Robert Cook said...
Of course, even that is no longer true; Big Dem Clinton eviscerated our welfare system 15 years ago, and what's left of our assistance programs are insufficient to serve the actual need
Hilarious.
I wonder if your whole act is just parody.
But I'm talking about the voters who imagine suffering children and feel the importance of love as they arrive at an emotion-based decision. Those people vote Democratic, don't they?
That was exactly Meade's response. My response to that is: I'm not talking about people like you. I'm talking about people who make decisions from within a realm of emotion
Oh. You mean like garage and allie and lindsey and shiloh ?
The special kids?
And, yes, it is government's role to try to address the problems facing us. I mean, what the fuck is it the government should do?
As little as possible.
Or if you don't like that answer, how about: nothing beyond the bounds spelled out in the Constitution.
purplepenquin said...
People are also upset that not only does he pay ~13% in taxes on his income, but he also feels that rate is way too high for rich people like him
Can you provide a reference where Romney makes any such claim?
I'd love to read all about it.
But did she humanize him? I read in the press about a thousand times that it was her job to humanize him. Isn't it racist and sexist to portray Mitt Romney as inhuman?
Brilliant deduction professor, I was waiting for someone to state what was already in my mind. Yes the media has attempted to dehumanize Mitt and they continue to do so 24/7 and no one utters a peep in protest.
Remember, just because someone should do something doesn't mean you should do jump out a window; sometimes someone doing something is counter productive to a thing getting done.
In fact, sometimes, something is worse than nothing (which I think is something that Althouse has said in other posts as well.)
deborah,
Okay, Crack, I'll bite. You'd vote for Santorum? You don't think Christianity is a cult?
Did you ever see me claim Christianity is a cult?
This idea - that I see everything as a cult - is a myth of other's making. I've pointed out many times that I make distinctions that y'all choose to ignore - why, I made that very point yesterday, to Paddy-O.
I'm not going to take the blame for either y'all's lack of comprehension, the determined effort to misrepresent what I say, or the unwillingness to remember it when I've repeated it a billion times - something I've heard complaints about though (as you're proving with this question) repetition seems to be the only way to get the message out there, banging through the filter of others determined to destroy it.
Now, deborah, you know - you're reading my words with your own eyes. My question to you is, the next time someone accuses me of that, are you going to speak up and make it clear that's not my position? Or are you going to be jr565 (or one of these other cult apologists trying to muddy YOUR thinking), and come back later today or tomorrow, asking the same bullshit question, but just rephrased?
And - as we go forward - I'll ask you to look for examples of that, to see this group as I do, now that I've pointed it out to you.
I'm pretty sure, then, my frustration will become yours as well,...
Robert Cook said...
And, yes, it is government's role to try to address the problems facing us. I mean, what the fuck is it the government should do?
How about you bother yourself with say, the Federalist Papers, instead of asking stupid questions on the Internet?
"People are also upset that not only does he pay ~13% in taxes on his income, but he also feels that rate is way too high for rich people like him."
-- He also feels the rate is too high on EVERYONE.
Robert Cook said...
Well, Matthew, given that Romney is promising to bring us back to economic robustness, I assume that refers to government solutions to the nation's economic ills. Or does he mean he'll pray for recovery?
Are you really so stupid? Do you really think that reducing government interference in the market is some kind of government largesse? Less government is the natural order of things, and the money I earn belongs to me, not to the government.
How do you feel about the comment from the President about why he would not compromise as: "I won."
'bout the same way I felt about when Walker and the FitzBrothers said the same thing. A whole bunch of needless chest-thumping that did more harm than good.
How do you feel about those people who said that?
And how do you feel about success? Is it always considered a "good" thing, no matter how it is acquired?
It is a religious ceremony that is only attended by people OF the religion. Many religions do this. Have a civil ceremony or open ceremony and another one that is personal between the attendees and 'their god' and only attended by the faithful of that religion. Islam, Buddhism, Catholicism.
Nothing nefarious or sinister about it.
When my parents were getting married in the Catholic Church, my mother was a devout Roman Catholic and my father a not so devout Quaker. In order to EVEN allow a ceremony to be held physically in the church, my father had to take catechism lessons and promise to raise the children in the Catholic faith. He didn't have to convert, but he could have if he wanted to. Since he wasn't a Catholic and hadn't taken First Communion or been Confirmed, the wedding ceremony was held in a side apse and not at the main altar.
I imagine that things have changed since the 1940's.
Slightly :)
I had to take Catechism classes -- 2 -- but no one was unwelcome from attending the wedding rite itself. But we were married at the altar in the Catholic Church my wife was attending. (It was a Dominican church, maybe that made a difference ;) -- were your parents married by Jesuits? )
I've never heard of someone being outright banned from a church for a wedding. Not being invited to take Communion, sure. But to witness the rite itself? What would be the point of a ban? Maybe this was something more common before I was born.
It has diddly squat to do with Presidential Qualifications, of course.
"In this case, Romney's solutions tend towards removing government impediments to job creation."
Oh, yes, right, I forgot. Businesses cannot create jobs in America because of government impediments.
Well, when government makes America safe again for sweatshop working conditions and slave wages, we'll return to full employment, I'm sure. To house all the people who've lost their homes, they'll live in Chinese-style worker dormitories.
Sounds like a worker's paradise!
purplepenquin said...
Lots of folks see Romney as the same way: his personal wealth is a result of harming, rather than helping, society-as-a-whole.
So?
You act like their stupidity is some big problem.
There are many, many stupid people in America believing many, many silly things.
Walker tried to work with the legislature. Then a bunch of them took a vacay in Illinois, was it. Notice which side constantly runs from compromise?
Robert Cook said...
Well, when government makes America safe again for sweatshop working conditions and slave wages, we'll return to full employment, I'm sure. To house all the people who've lost their homes, they'll live in Chinese-style worker dormitories.
again, I keep wondering if this is all an act.
Are you really this dumb?
I've heard the left accuse Romney and the GOP of the most vile things lately. That they are racist, against the working class, oppressors and so on. No one in the media dares challenge this narrative.
plepenquin said...
'bout the same way I felt about when Walker and the FitzBrothers said the same thing.
Can you provide a reference for that because I'm guessing you're lying.
This wouldn't be the first time...
"Oh, yes, right, I forgot. Businesses cannot create jobs in America because of government impediments.
Well, when government makes America safe again for sweatshop working conditions and slave wages, we'll return to full employment, I'm sure. To house all the people who've lost their homes, they'll live in Chinese-style worker dormitories."
I note that you A) acknowledge government policy can impact the level of unemployment yet B) only seem to think that utter dystopia is being offered from Romney, as opposed to something closer to the Bush model of more effective regulations to stop bad actors while freeing up resources for both government to use on better things and businesses to use on more things.
I think the problem is that you assume extremism is the only solution, as opposed to what would really happen (slow, careful steps towards working solutions.)
Cook - which Republican is on record saying we need to return the sweatshops?
Should people who beleive as such really be applauded?
I'm sorry, is Larry Ellison running for President?
Ah, I didn't think so.
I'm sure people view Romney the same way. People with predisposed opinions tend to believe anything that reinforces their narrow view of how the world operates.
I'm sure last year when I laid off 15 workers because I lost a contract they viewed me as a heartless bastard because I still have a nice house and some cars and still am making a profit. Then again my profits shrink if I keep on a crew that will have nothing to do. Then again I'm running a business, not a charity.
nothing beyond the bounds spelled out in the Constitution.
That damn "promote the general Welfare" one gets ya everytime...
Clinton eviscerated our welfare system 15 years ago, and what's left of our assistance programs are insufficient to serve the actual need
I've been humored by some out of touch things Mr. Cook has said in the past, but this is a new low.
We spend over $2 trillion a year on wealth transfer. Put another way, you could make a claim that virtually every dollar this country collects in taxes is spent on these "eviscerated" entitlement programs. The remainder, of the budget (the Constitutionally specified parts(!)like defense, etc.) is borrowed. You may argue that what we spend is not appropriately allocated, but you can not pretend that the Federal government spends an "insufficient" amount on helping those "in need"!!
Robert Cook said...
Oh, yes, right, I forgot. Businesses cannot create jobs in America because of government impediments.
Have you ever worked in the private sector?
purplepenquin said...
That damn "promote the general Welfare" one gets ya everytime...
You have not one utter clue as to what that phrase means.
"That damn "promote the general Welfare" one gets ya everytime"
-- Specifics trump generalities. If you can only promote the general welfare by tromping on other's property rights, then that doesn't pass muster. It would promote the general welfare to squash political dissent and solidify political control in a single party, yet no one would pretend that "promoting the general welfare" would allow for this.
Well, when government makes America safe again for sweatshop working conditions and slave wages, we'll return to full employment, I'm sure. To house all the people who've lost their homes, they'll live in Chinese-style worker dormitories.
Sounds like a worker's paradise!
You know, Robert, I try to take you seriously, so I'm presuming you haven't heard that the Triangle Fire was 101 years ago.
Clinton eviscerated the welfare system? LOL - yeah right in Cook's crazy mind trimming the fat down a bit = evisceration. That tells you how whacked out he really is!
The little animal has nothing to talk about but personality since Choom has no achievements and no ability.
Now, tell it not in Christendom, he also has no likeability.
Jay: according to Mr Obama, the private sector is doing just fine. So no problem there.
Althouse--
You ougth to amend the spelling in that head.
That damn "promote the general Welfare" one gets ya everytime...
Only if you insist on prostituting it to the extent that I'm forced to pay for your birth control.
You know what would promote the general welfare? If we simply shot repeat offenders. They clearly will only be a drain on society by imprisoning them, that money could be used giving a child cancer treatment.
Yet, oddly enough, no one would support that under promoting the general welfare. It's crazy how the general welfare sometimes is entirely utilitarian and entirely utopian to justify it, like there was no guiding principle at all.
Cook,
I stand behind people every day who buy their groceries with govt. assistance. They idea that they can't work is just bullshit. In fact, many of them do work, and some of them drive nicer cars than I do. I've had people turn down jobs because sitting at home on assistance is just preferable to working, and It's hard to argue with that, especially when you can work under the table and keep the checks too. There is far more money being handed out than what is needed. If the needy aren't getting enough, it's not because we aren't spending it. It's because it's being stolen, and the incentive is to steal more for both the takers and the politicians handing it out.
Tyrone Slothrop,
We get it, you don't like cults, you don't like Romney. You're just not worth the effort any more. It's a shame.
Ahh, but you think the "I Like Romney" and "He may be in a cult (something no one's denying anymore) but I'm not going to think about that right now" statements are giving a clear picture - warts and all - of what you're getting us into?
That's really smart, Tyrone.
Fortunately, my positions are not determined by the "effort" of you glancing my way, and what's a shame is you thinking they are, to begin with:
It hardly leads me to think you've ever considered that I might come to my conclusions purely based on facts and deeply-held principles.
Why look - I'm echoing Chris Christie's theme from last night - but he couldn't have been correct in saying that, right?
No, good ol' Tyrone thinks I want to be POPULAR,...
You know, Robert, I try to take you seriously, so I'm presuming you haven't heard that the Triangle Fire was 101 years ago.
You know, Christopher, I try to take you seriously, so I'm presuming you haven't heard that workers still get hurt and killed on the job.
(Actually, that ain't really true. I quit taking you seriously when you labeled me as a liberal Democrat, and railed on&on about it. That was enough to tell me that you're a lazy thinker...)
It doesn't even have to be -stolen.- Government is inherently inefficient, with a variety of middle men and overheads that, were a charity to report as using, would be run out on a rail by any honest charity group.
"promote the general welfare" means building things that benefit all people like highways, bridges, dams. It does not mean wealth transfer programs from the rich to the poor.
Re the speeches, I thought Artur Davis' speech was very good--and he has that "preacher's cadence" which made it even better.
Looks like the republican's have a very strong bench for upcoming elections. And, I suspect, a bench that is considerable more diverse than what the Dems can offer.
Poor little rich girl neglects to mention the stock portfolio that paid for the tuna fish
Reminding viewers of the facts ought to be the press’ job. But it’s not doing it. The reports I’ve seen—including the New York Times—have made no mention of Ann and Mitt’s vast gifted wealth (and the much vaster wealth that they could of course have drawn on if in trouble). A speech eagerly reported as humanizing and successful actually had a fabricated reality at its center. ...
Worse: I doubt that Ann realizes that her tale of struggle is a fabrication. She probably really believes that living relatively frugally on a huge stock portfolio counts as economic struggle and anxiety about one’s prospects. No wonder she and her husband are so insouciant about slashing programs to benefit the poor. If I thought that’s what poverty was, I’d slash aid to me too.
Jay said...
That damn "promote the general Welfare" one gets ya everytime...
You have not one utter clue as to what that phrase means.
Remind him the word is promote, not provide.
And pengiun nad his friends would love it if we only promoted the common defense.
Bottom line, did Ann convince anyone to vote for mittens? No.
We haven't even seen poll results from last night and the little animal already knows.
Actually, if she were as ineffective as the little animal likes to think, the Lefties wouldn't have invested so much effort in trying to discredit her.
PS When the Romster left school, he made his own money, there was no nest the way Bill Gates had.
The wealth envy crowd - who have other kinds of envy for him, too - wants to forget that.
That damn "promote the general Welfare" one gets ya everytime...
Which is of course why the founders instituted an income tax, had a federal department of welfare, and housing and stuff!
Idiot.
Alex,
I've heard the left accuse Romney and the GOP of the most vile things lately. That they are racist, against the working class, oppressors and so on. No one in the media dares challenge this narrative.
Nobody challenged the Obama narrative either. And the blogoshere isn't challenging it's bullshit Romney narrative. Hell, you guys don't challenge your own narratives.
Try practicing what you preach and we might get something different for a change,...
given that Romney is promising to bring us back to economic robustness, I assume that refers to government solutions to the nation's economic ills. Or does he mean he'll pray for recovery?
You assume wrong. The solution isn't MORE government. We are praying that the government can get out of the damned way.
Market solutions and less government.
To complain that someone was smart and legally complied with the law, is only showing an inadequate ignorant small mind filled with jealousy. That isn't very attractive on you.
Here comes the straw man, courtesy of Dust Bunny Queen!
It is obvious (for those who can read) that I wasn't complaining about Mitten's tax avoidance, I was complaining about his inability to give a consistent, truthful account with respect to his inheritance.
You know, Christopher, I try to take you seriously, so I'm presuming you haven't heard that workers still get hurt and killed on the job.
[b]Really?[/b] How horrible? Does Obama know? [b]Damn[/b] that George Bush! Is there no [b]end[/b] to his perfidy?
(Actually, that ain't really true. I quit taking you seriously when you labeled me as a liberal Democrat, and railed on&on about it. That was enough to tell me that you're a lazy thinker...)
Says the man who thinks "That damn "promote the general Welfare" one gets ya everytime" is a devastating comeback.
@ Crack
"I've made distinctions, but it's never done any good to do so because someone, like jr565, will come along and ignore them like they were never stated. One that I've made, which I think is significant, is the difference between Joseph Smith and Jesus - that we have a boatload of clear-as-day evidence to say one was a fraud who made shit up, willy-nilly, and nothing but circumstantial evidence to disprove the fraud of the other. I've been very clear in saying we should expose Joseph Smith's lies, but merely laugh when people go too far with Jesus.
I've never advocated getting rid of churches, or stopping anyone from preaching, or going to church on Sunday - just to say Mormonism is a cult built on the claims of a fraud. "
Interesting. I did think you would have considered Christianity cultish/fairy-tale-ish. But you did wish everyone merry Christmas :)
Crack wrote:
Nobody challenged the Obama narrative either. And the blogoshere isn't challenging it's bullshit Romney narrative. Hell, you guys don't challenge your own narratives.
Try practicing what you preach and we might get something different for a change,...
What was the narrative that we were supposed to challenge Obama on? Forcing him to answer for the sins of his bullshit religion/cult?
For the record, I ain't saying that everything that is considered to promote the general welfare should be the role of the FedGov't....rather I'm just pointing out that the Constitution doesn't contain as many restrictions as to the role of gov't that some folks seem to think it does.
Personally, I prefer that the larger the gov't encompasses that the more libertarian it gets. I don't mind some a lil' socialism, but I want to keep it as close to home as possible.
For example, I'm ok with the idea of public education but I don't think D.C. should be running the whole system for the rest of the country. However, the opening paragraph makes it clear that such a thing is Constitutionally permitted for the Feds to do so.
"It is obvious (for those who can read) that I wasn't complaining about Mitten's tax avoidance, I was complaining about his inability to give a consistent, truthful account with respect to his inheritance."
-- Politifact has said that it is true he gave it up to charity. Politifact, which mind you is a partisan hack job designed to support Obama (or just incompetent), couldn't find a fig leaf of blame to lay on Romney. Drop it.
Of course, sarcasm works better when you get your formatting tags right, too. . .
Fascinating Diamond and the Oaf, our resident wealth enviers today, have no interest in Little Zero's inheritance, and you know Grandma, that nasty old typical white person who gave him a life of privilege and comfort, left him something nice.
Ann, please post another article soon as your con flock are getting restless "trying" to apologize/rationalize mittens.
Indeed as "we've' seen this movie played out many times over at Althouse. :D
And this thread is much the same as the other Romney apology threads.
>
Hey, if mittens was/is everything cons say he is in this thread ie fiction, how come a majority of cons still dislike him immensely? Rhetorical
"I'm just pointing out that the Constitution doesn't contain as many restrictions as to the role of gov't that some folks seem to think it does."
-- "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
That makes it pretty clear: If it is not specifically called out as a power delegated to the feds, they don't get to do it. Crazy that we'll take a few small words to justify huge expansions of power, but an entire amendment can be ignored.
Obama, please respond about the sins of Christianity. Do you REALLY think that Noah got two of every animal in his ark? What about David killing Uriah to sleep with his wife? Shouldn't he be renounced? What about the Crusades Obama? Wasn't that a war of aggression? How can you possibly believe in God, isn't that just supersticious claptrap, Obama? And you want to lead the country, believing such supersticions?
Is that the kind of vetting you think we should give for Obama?
"A vote for Obama is a vote for..."
Bankruptcy.
Penguin: Lots of folks see Romney as the same way: his personal wealth is a result of harming, rather than helping, society-as-a-whole.
Yes, because in the zero-sum bedtime-story world of Progressive Thought, life is a delivery pizza where wealthy people keeping more of their own money means all that's left for everyone else is the box.
GST Steel's employees (incl. Joe Soptic) would have lost their health care plan (not to mention their paychecks) in 1993 instead of 2001 had Bain not invested there.
Says the man who thinks "That damn "promote the general Welfare" one gets ya everytime" is a devastating comeback.
I wasn't going for "devastating" and am truly sorry you took it that way.
I enjoyed the fantasy about living in a basement apartment while Mitt Romney was in grad school....living off stock options!
No wonder they chose to be so close to Disneyland...
No Diamond, not even PolitiFact could find a hole in the claim that Romney gave away his inheritance.
Matthew-
You missed the point, as usual. Romney has lied about his inheritence (i.e., "I didn't inherit money from my parents"), and Romney and his followers have lied about the fact that his inheritence went to charity (some did, some didn't).
The fact that Romney and hacks like you are so anxious to mislead people about Romney's inheritence is the point of my comment.
Our jobs are being sent overseas by the tens of thousands because it's cheaper to employ workers overseas. Lower labor costs means higher profit margins for the companies sending their jobs away.
How is Romney going to fix that?
Big corporations are the ones shipping jobs overseas.
But the heart of US economy is the small business.
So Romney is going to fix the off-shoring/out-sourcing of US jobs by simplifying the tax code, adding sanity to regulations, and creating an atmosphere of stability where small businesses don't have to worry about the potential of new costs imposed by govt.
That will grow the economy and get small businesses hiring again.
The economy will improve dramatically after Romney is elected. Idiots, liberal trolls, and the MSM (sorry for the redundancies) will take that as proof that conservatives deliberately tanked the economy to get Obama out of office.
But those with even a minor amount of economic understanding will see that Obama tanked the economy by letting (ordering?) his agency heads to impose unnecessary and irrational regulations that punished success and imposed excessive costs on business transactions and hiring.
Obama ruined the economy on his own. All Romney needs to do (and will do), is get the federal govt out of the way, and the economy will roar back quickly.
Crack wrote:
I've been very clear in saying we should expose Joseph Smith's lies, but merely laugh when people go too far with Jesus.
If you are a true atheist, then Jesus is a liar too. As is Mohammad. So you should go much further than laugh at them. After all Christians, hold far more power than any Mormon in this country and abroad. Don't be a hypocrite. Expose ALL the lies Crack!
I wasn't going for "devastating" and am truly sorry you took it that way.
I didn't. Just pointing out that you're no Dorothy Parker.
Hey, if mittens was/is everything cons say he is in this thread ie fiction, how come a majority of cons still dislike him immensely? Rhetorical
Any source for that other than the numbers pulled out of your own ass, shiloh? In any event, it doesn't matter. You don't have to fall in love, you just have to fall in line, as Cankles once screeched.
"We built that". I'd like to know who is "we"? Scott Walker? Career government worker with zero private sector experience. Paul Ryan? Career government worker with zero private sector experience. The convention arena? Taxpayer built that. The convention itself? Taxpayers paid for that. What the fuck are they even talking about?
Robert Cook said...
Well, when government makes America safe again for sweatshop working conditions and slave wages, we'll return to full employment, I'm sure. To house all the people who've lost their homes, they'll live in Chinese-style worker dormitories.
Sounds like a worker's paradise!
Inventing such such ridiculous strawmen is an implicit admission that your policies are only preferable if the scare outcome is the only other possibility. Everyone who believes that please vote for Obama. Everyone else engage your brain.
This is the typical progressive jewish and liberal Democrat attack on "evil wealth and privilege".
It has been going on since the 60s, or the days of the Jewish Bolsheviks if you want to be more expansive.
It, like "feminist outrage" - is only a tool.
It comes up when some scion of "the easy life and privilege" like HW Bush, Dan Quayle, Romney comes along.
It is buried when Democrat "children of Privilege" - like Pelosi, Spitzer, Obama, Dean of the Park Ave Deans, John FORBES Kerry, and all the Kennedys are scrutinized.
Buried as fast as feminist outrage about a Democrat groping women or putting a cigar up an intern's cootch.
Politifact has said that it is true he gave it up to charity. Drop it.
Dear Idiot,
"Politifact" and you should check Mittens' admission about his inheritence:
"What I got from my parents when they passed away I gave away to charity and to my kids."
Of course if you don't like the facts, you can put your head back in the sand.
Diamond: He gave it away. Unless you consider a man who buys drugs as part of a sting operation a "drug buyer," then, well, you're just grasping at straws. Even Politifact couldn't find a way to turn this around to harm Romney. Let it go.
Fascinating Diamond and the Oaf, our resident wealth enviers today, have no interest in Little Zero's inheritance
Did Obama lie about his inheritance?
Go back under your rock, dumbshit.
I didn't.
Since you're the first one who even used the word "devastating" in this thread, then who was it that did think such a thing about my comment?
(NOW do you understand why it is hard to take you seriously?)
It's telling that Matthew is desperate to defend Romney's lies about his inheritance.
It never ceases to amaze me how lefties assume inheritance, which is private money that has already been taxed, belongs to the corrupt money wasting government.
Diamond: You, uh, quoted him where he said that. Sometimes he did not give a complete and full answer. Unless you assume Obama was lying about his "Muslim heritage," you can accept that sometimes people do not always give 100% of the same answer or misspeak.
So, which is it? Do you think Obama's a Muslim or do you think that maybe sometimes Romney only was quoted giving some of the details?
"Our jobs are being sent overseas by the tens of thousands because it's cheaper to employ workers overseas. Lower labor costs means higher profit margins for the companies sending their jobs away."
Obviously, you fix that by lowering the cost of domestic labor and domestic production. But I can see how that would be hard to grasp if you've started from the premise that higher profit margins are evil and that brown people overseas are stealing "our" jobs.
August 29, 2012 — Steven Hayward
"Last night Paul logged his approval of Rick Santorum’s speech, while I appended John Podhoretz’s dissent. I’m closer to JPod on this for general reasons—I’m not a big Santorum fan—though he did have some good lines in the speech, especially the line about how his immigrant grandparents got only one thing from the government: freedom."
I liked the freedom line too.
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6329595&postID=3732649494607920409
Since you're the first one who even used the word "devastating" in this thread, then who was it that did think such a thing about my comment?
Good Lord. This is like talking to an Obama voter. The word 'devastating' was being used ironically, insomuch as you presumably considered your little general welfare quip to be a dandy retort.
(NOW do you understand why it is hard to take you seriously?)
If I considered you capable of serious conversation, I'd provide it.
"They were not easy years. You have to understand, I was raised in a lovely neighborhood, as was Mitt, and at BYU, we moved into a $62-a-month basement apartment with a cement floor and lived there two years as students with no income... Neither one of us had a job, because Mitt had enough of an investment from stock that we could sell off a little at a time."
How droll...
Crack Emcee wrote:
Ahh, but you think the "I Like Romney" and "He may be in a cult (something no one's denying anymore) but I'm not going to think about that right now" statements are giving a clear picture - warts and all - of what you're getting us into?
Here are some evangelical conservatives who deny that Mormonism is in fact a cult:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/mormonism-is-not-a-cult-okay/
and
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/09/my-take-this-evangelical-says-mormonism-isnt-a-cult/
as but two examples. It's not a cult, OK?
plepenquin said...
However, the opening paragraph makes it clear that such a thing is Constitutionally permitted for the Feds to do so.
Hilarious.
Coming from someone who doesn't know what the words mean, no less!
Our jobs are being sent overseas by the tens of thousands because it's cheaper to employ workers overseas. "Lower labor costs means higher profit margins for the companies sending their jobs away.
How is Romney going to fix that?"
Big corporations are the ones shipping jobs overseas.
But the heart of US economy is the small business.
Truth.
My husband has a plumbing and well business. It is damned hard to outsource your plumber. Every single day we have to work our way around government regulations, tax issues, permitting processes, fees, insurance, bonds and various charges.....not to mention the idiotic environmental rules that have made thousands of dollars of brass valves illegal because they have a teeny tiny lead ball bearing in them. What a freaking waste.
The government (federal, state, county) is the biggest impediment to industry, agriculture and all small businesses that we have.
I don't say we should have no regulations or safety rules, but it is completely out of control. Get them to back off and quit stacking rules on top of rules and you would see this country boom.
Our jobs are being sent overseas by the tens of thousands because it's cheaper to employ workers overseas. Lower labor costs means higher profit margins for the companies sending their jobs away.
And your economically illiterate answer is to tax "profit margins" at a higher rate.
Of course you live on Social Security so I guess there is that.
And this thread is much the same as the other Romney apology threads.
Funny how the little animal feels obliged to say the same things then. You'd think he'd have made his point.
Unless, of course, even he can see the election is going the Republicans' way. Then it's just desperation.
Hey, if mittens was/is everything cons say he is in this thread ie fiction, how come a majority of cons still dislike him immensely? Rhetorical
No, just stupid.
If Conservatives hate him so, why are they defending him?
The little animal tries vainly to conceal the dissension among the Demos.
Jake Diamond said...
Fascinating Diamond and the Oaf, our resident wealth enviers today, have no interest in Little Zero's inheritance
Did Obama lie about his inheritance?
Did he even mention one?
Go back under your rock, dumbshit.
No, people like Diamond are the ones under the rocks, living malice and envy of people better than they.
As for dumb shit, I'm sure Diamond is an expert - it's the element from which he is cast.
Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula?
As you say, how droll. . .
deborah,
Interesting. I did think you would have considered Christianity cultish/fairy-tale-ish. But you did wish everyone merry Christmas :)
See? Not only clarity from my own words but, now, you even remember something that clarifies it even more. So we can be done with that "Crack thinks Christianity is a cult" line, right?
Now - have you noticed that pipsqueak, jr565, whose latched onto me, following me around like an angry puppy? Keep an eye on him - because his target isn't me but YOU. He thinks that, by passing along misinformation, he can destroy the clarity of thought I'm trying to establish. Let me give you an example:
Here he is on yesterday's thread, promoting "information" from a quack cultist named Joe Marcola - look at the first link he provides to "debunk" what I've said:
Here also is a counterpoint to your argument about the regulation of the supplement industry and the evil of Senator Hatch written 7 years later in 2008:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/07/28/durbin-on-natural-health-freedom.aspx
Now, here is the foremost online cancer surgeon discussing Joe Marcola. Notice I didn't point you to just one post but EVERY POST HE'S EVER DONE - FOR OVER 10 YEARS - ON THAT QUACK.
But - even after all that time and evidence - jr565 still "thinks" (if you can call what he does thinking) that Joe Marcola is a source capable of convincing YOU - not me - there's something rotten in Denmark.
deborah, have you ever seen the movie Contagion? There's a character in it, Alan Krumwiede, who spends all of his time trying to gain power and money by spreading misinformation during a disease outbreak, without a care for all the people dying. That's the role jr565 has chosen for himself in life, and his promotion of Joe Marcola is the evidence.
Don't be fooled - and attack anyone attempting to do so - like I said:
He knows he can't get me,...
Robert Cook said...
"'The best thing we can do for suffering children is to get America back to being the powerful economic engine it once was, which includes getting more Americans back to the American work ethic.'"
It's not that we're lacking an "American work ethic," we're lacking American work.
Our jobs are being sent overseas by the tens of thousands because it's cheaper to employ workers overseas. Lower labor costs means higher profit margins for the companies sending their jobs away.
How is Romney going to fix that?
8/29/12 11:44 AM
Maybe he will, maybe he won't. But for damn sure after nearly four years you know that Obama and the democrat's war on business will accelerate offshoring.
Shiloh do you take any deductions? because if you do, then you are an immoral bastard as well.
Since when does complying with the law under the duress of going to prison become a moral act?
Bill Gates also came from a privileged background but does anyone say he didn't built Microsoft on his own?
PS The mindless automaton uses the word "droll" as if he knows what it means.
"Keep in mind that while success can come about from creating things and uplifting others, wealth can also be created by destruction of others"
You're buying into a false dichotomy that only exists in the minds of people who see the world as a zero-sum game. I'm not surprised that Larry Ellison, who's a dick, thinks this way, but I'm surprised that you accept his flawed logic without question.
"People ain't saying that Romney is evil 'cause he has a lot of money, but rather the claim is that he has a lot of money 'cause he is evil."
And you can tell he's evil by the fact that he has lots of money. Oh, and he's not a Democrat. Know the signs!
This is what is generally known as a "circular argument".
Machine typed. I enjoyed the fantasy about living in a basement apartment while Mitt Romney was in grad school....living off stock options!"
You obviously dont know what a stock option is. You should bone up, dude, you look the fool.
Another thing that used to be a virtue is now a vice when Republicans do it: Frugality and living within their means. Damn the Romneys for making sure they spent money on things like education, Ann Romney's medical bills and their kids! How dare they not understand the trials and tribulations facing those who can't find a way to get their girls to ballet practice!
Crack Emcee said...
No, good ol' Tyrone thinks I want to be POPULAR,...
Obviously you don't want to be popular. If you did, you wouldn't be a one-trick pony.
No scientologist, no Mormon, no new ager is as focused and passionate about their cause than our very own Crack who is, clearly and pai fully, a cult of one. No Scientologist can find hidden meaning faster or with more conviction. Does the anti cultist form his own cult? Would he if only, if only, if only people listened. Because he is right. Always. Just ask.
Jobs told Mr. Obama that Apple employs 700,000 factory workers in China because it can't find the 30,000 engineers in the U.S. that it needs on site at its plants. "If you could educate these engineers," he said at the dinner, "we could move more manufacturing jobs here."
Good luck with that.
Mormon covenant ceremonies are consecrated in a Temple, not a church. Non-Mormons are not allowed in a Temple. Non-Jews were not allowed in the Temple in Jerusalem. Paul was almost stoned to death because he was accused of bringing gentiles into the Temple. Non-Mormons are allowed in Mormon churches and tabernacles. It seems the Romneys had two ceremonies, one outside the Temple and one inside. Why is that a problem?
P.S. I am a Presbyterian, but I know Mormons.
Tyrone Slothrop,
Obviously you don't want to be popular. If you did, you wouldn't be a one-trick pony.
Or - just as obviously - you can't read. I just explained that above, to deborah. Here it is again:
I'm not going to take the blame for either y'all's lack of comprehension, the determined effort to misrepresent what I say, or the unwillingness to remember it when I've repeated it a billion times - something I've heard complaints about though (as you're proving with this question) repetition seems to be the only way to get the message out there, banging through the filter of others determined to destroy it.
Makes *perfect sense* to me, considering you're acting as a prime example of the phenomena.
Up your game, Tyrone, I'm not the enemy:
All these fools, going around and around, over the goodness of either Obama or Romney - without a single word from the liberals about Obama's faults or one from conservatives about Romney's - are the people trying to deceive you.
I say they're both badly flawed, for a lot of the same reasons, but nobody dares to broach that - because it'll point to that ugly thing called "reality."
And nobody - including you apparently - wants to see that make a comeback,...
Thanks, Crack. Are you a Christian? I would be interested in hearing your opinion of jr's two linked pieces at 12:37.
Michael,
No scientologist, no Mormon, no new ager is as focused and passionate about their cause than our very own Crack who is, clearly and pai fully, a cult of one. No Scientologist can find hidden meaning faster or with more conviction. Does the anti cultist form his own cult? Would he if only, if only, if only people listened. Because he is right. Always. Just ask.
You left out that I also provide links - to credible sources - which is something I've never seen my critics do. They just talk, which is enough for you to pounce on me.
What a guy,...
Gov. Mitt Romney's campaign toasted its top donors Wednesday aboard a 150-foot yacht flying the flag of the Cayman Islands....
How drôle...
I would like to hear a credible reason why Obama should be entrusted with another four years as President. He certainly hasn't been able to articulate a reason he's deserving of re-election so perhaps one of his syncophants can rise to the task.
Bender, my point was that it is YOU who sees Christie's words as setting up love and respect against each other. I see what he said as the two going hand in hand. It's also what I believe, so I may be biased. I think many people have expressed this in the comments here as well. Again, I did not hear or read a conflict. You did.
You're also assuming this will be controversial to persuadable voters. I think the alarm is unwarranted. We can't know what develops into a hot button or sore spot, though. True.
Robert Cook said...
Well, Matthew, given that Romney is promising to bring us back to economic robustness, I assume that refers to government solutions to the nation's economic ills. Or does he mean he'll pray for recovery?
No, you uncomprehending dolt, it means hell get the government to stop screwing up quite so much. Leash the EPA and NLRB, allowing businesses to grow. Give the permits for the Keystone XL Pipeline, so a private company can build it, and other companies can use it.
Cut government spending, so more money is available for the private economy. Repeal ObamaCare. Maybe pass some tort reform laws.
IOW, he'll stop hitting the US Economy on the head w/ a hammer, unlike President Obama.
If union thugs STOP firebombing your work site, this helps your business. Does the union then get credit for your business growing?
deborah,
Thanks, Crack. Are you a Christian? I would be interested in hearing your opinion of jr's two linked pieces at 12:37.
No, deborah, I'm an atheist. But one determined to crawl through this web of deceit, rather than doing as the rest of these guys are, and merely attacking what they see as "the other side." I've even criticized some of the biggest atheists out there, for attempting to deceive.
Trying to find/reveal some truth, needless to say, makes me a lightning rod for those with a dog in the fight - I have none:
I want us all on the same page, but without the constraints and control of ANY group.
It's cultish groupthink I hate more than anything else. Why? Because I/we are AMERICANS and our freedom - as a country and as individuals - should be our highest priority. My people (if you can call them that) didn't emerge from physical slavery just so I can be turned over to mental slavery. As Ben Franklin said, the Founding Fathers gave us a republic - "if you can keep it."
I plan on doing so:
Damn The Torpedoes!
The Crack Emcee said...
I say they're both badly flawed, for a lot of the same reasons, but nobody dares to broach that - because it'll point to that ugly thing called "reality."
The same was said of people like Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson. I understand what your point is, but that's always going to be the case.
As Rummy once noted, ya go with the army you've got.
If you don't like the choices, then you'd better get off the sidelines and have more of a voice in who gets picked.
purplepenquin said...
nothing beyond the bounds spelled out in the Constitution.
That damn "promote the general Welfare" one gets ya everytime...
Do you say that because you're so ignorant you don't know that the Preamble doesn't actually grant the Federal Government any powers, or is it just that you're so dishonest you don't care?
So, Purple P @ 10:50 (<-- that rhymes, BTW) Romney HARMED people making his money rather than building viable profit making businesses? Did some fail? Of course.
That. Is. The. Way. It. Goes.
But it means the investors and managment lost also if a business closed. If it was reconfigured so that it became more productive, then yes, some people lost jobs ... BUT NOT ALL.
If a nonproductive (<--- how do these people get paid? With what funds? OH! Government Bail Outs! Of course. That makes sense!) or struggling business isn't salvaged and restructured EVRERYONE working there loses his/her job.
How hard is that to understand?
Romney didn't make his money firing everyone and closing businesses. Then there is no source of profit and no investors and no jobs or busnesses to manage.
Do Progs have checkbooks to balance, or unlimited overdraft accounts? Let their children (if they have any) pay the debts.
Darcy,
Bender, my point was that it is YOU who sees Christie's words as setting up love and respect against each other. I see what he said as the two going hand in hand. It's also what I believe, so I may be biased.
You are. Here's what he said - emphasis mine:
"Tonight, we're going to choose 'Respect' OVER 'Love.'"
That's not hand-in-hand, but one walking three paces behind the other,...
garage mahal wrote (12:26) that Paul Ryan is a "Career government worker with zero private sector experience". He could have written that he had "zero experience as a small business owner or manager", which would have been true, but he just couldn't resist lying for political advantage. Working at the family business, working at McDonald's, and (famously) driving the Wienermobile for Oscar Meyer adds up to quite a bit more than "zero" experience in the private sector.
@ PP 10:50
Somehow seeing Larry Ellison and Mitt Romney being connected in a comment is causing my brain to buzz.
I think there is a heck of a lot of projection going on in these comments by many as they cannot imagine having a ton of money and being in touch with anything common.
Maybe they don't know any wealthy people who don't get there by craving listings in the Top Ten.
Weird, as other pointed out, that Progs have no problem with their rich politicians.
And the Prog rich tend not to give it away like the filty rich non Progs do. (The former like to give *other* people's money away for them.)
I second Col Angus's comment: lots of comments against Mr Romney; would anyone care to provide reasons for why Mr Obama deserves a second term?
"That was exactly Meade's response. My response to that is: I'm not talking about people like you. I'm talking about people who make decisions from within a realm of emotion."
What about people who don't at all agree that the position Meade put out there is logical. Do they not count? I suppose not, in the moral universe of this blog.
"That was exactly Meade's response. My response to that is: I'm not talking about people like you. I'm talking about people who make decisions from within a realm of emotion."
What about people who don't at all agree that the position Meade put out there is logical. Do they not count? I suppose not, in the moral universe of this blog.
Oddly enough Weevil, Scott Walker -also- has private sector experience, per Wiki: "During college he worked part-time for IBM selling warranties. His IBM job led to a full-time position in marketing and fundraising at the American Red Cross from 1990 to 1994."
In a party reinvigorated by lies it is amusing to hear the "truth" meme starting to surface. Lies and a bad memory are not a very good campaign strategy. How about owning up to 1) the degree that Republican policies (not just Republican certainly) lead to the economic meltdown, 2) the degree that Republican opposition has lead to the failure of any real reform of the mess they helped to create, 3) denouncing the extremist, racist elements in the so called Tea Party, 4) acknowledging that Bush is the one that began the current round of deficit spending (remember the Clinton surplus?) with the full support of most of the people who are currently criticizing government spending. Might be a good start instead of Bush Who?? Pointing out hyopocrisy is not bad manners. Both parties spend like drunken sailors on leave. One party wants to pay for it with more revenue and one wants to write hot checks. Ryan's plan to throw grannie off of her medicare to pay for yet another round of tax breaks for the people who do not need it is not a very good strategy either.
The Crack Emcee said...
I say they're both badly flawed, for a lot of the same reasons, but nobody dares to broach that - because it'll point to that ugly thing called "reality."
Nobody's perfect. But you think the optimum choice is to stay home on election day, cursing the LDS. Face it, one of two things is going to happen on November 6th-- either Romney is going to be elected, or Obama is going to be reelected, and nobody is going to give a flying fuck about old Crack mumbling away in his darkened room. You have to pick one candidate or the other, despite their flaws, or remain irrelevant. I know you are philosophically closer to the way I think than to, say, jr565. Why do you insist on advocating the wrong action on election day?
Crack, if you read the transcript, you can see the context of that.
I provided context here as well. But now, for heaven's sake YES I will admit that SOME will take it the way you and Bender did.
Because you did. I think it is an illogical interpretation, though.
Carry on. I'm out. :)
When Obama forced the closure of Chrysler and GM dealerships, can anyone explain why that was ok and what Bain Capital did wasn't?
harrogate said...
"That was exactly Meade's response. My response to that is: I'm not talking about people like you. I'm talking about people who make decisions from within a realm of emotion."
What about people who don't at all agree that the position Meade put out there is logical. Do they not count?
No, they don't. because no one could actually honestly THINK that. They could FEEL it, but thinking requires logic and reason. And anyone with any connection to the real world, logic, and reason knows that what Meade said is the absolute truth.
Pragmatist: The Ryan plan increases tax rates and spending. If you're going to lie and go on a rant, at least have it be a factual rant.
Pragmatist, anyone who includes denouncing the extremist, racist elements in the so called Tea Party in his screed forfeits the right to be taken seriously.
And this is without even addressing your shopworn DNC-approved Ryan's plan to throw grannie off of her medicare to pay for yet another round of tax breaks for the people who do not need it is not a very good strategy either lie.
edutcher,
As Rummy once noted, ya go with the army you've got.
If you don't like the choices, then you'd better get off the sidelines and have more of a voice in who gets picked.
Nope - it's a lie to say I have to choose one of two cultists. There are others running, and I have the choice to do exactly what I've chosen - sit this one out. There's something about my commitment to freedom that seems to bother you guys - which is weird.
You guys set this game up - Ann put Obama in and the rest of you grabbed Romney - I had nothing to do with it and won't. This appears to be the last of the Boomer Battles - you screwed things up and now demand I go along with your choice on how to fix it. But - as the people who screwed things up - I know you're no better at this than before. The back-and-forth of this thread proves it:
None of you is actually THINKING, all you're doing is reacting to what "the other side" says, when THERE IS NO OTHER SIDE.
And that's how the politicians get you, every time.
We are the citizens of these United States - that's our "side" - and we should be trying to protect that (as Ben Franklin warned) but, instead, you want to let CULT GROUPS direct things. First Obama's, and now Mitt's. The idea, that you should electing a man or woman unencumbered by such nonsense is beyond you. Which isn't surprising, considering you're the generation that brought us everything from the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi to The People's Temple and Oprah. As Yuri Bezmenov predicted, you are incapable of operating any other way:
"Most of the people who graduated in the 60's, dropouts or half-baked intellectuals, are now occupying the positions of power in the government, civil service, business, mass media, and educational systems. You are stuck with them. You can't get through to them. They are contaminated. They are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern. You can not change their mind even if you expose them to authentic information. Even if you prove that white is white and black is black, you still can not change the basic perception and the logic of behavior.
The demoralization process in the United States is basically completed already for the last 25 years,...Most of it is done by Americans to Americans thanks to lack of moral standards,...exposure to true information does not matter anymore. A person who was demoralized is unable to assess true information. The facts tell nothing to him, even if I shower him with information, with authentic proof, with documents and pictures. ...he will refuse to believe it.... That's the tragedy of the situation of demoralization."
Sorry but that's not - and never will be - me,...
Well, Matthew, given that Romney is promising to bring us back to economic robustness, I assume that refers to government solutions to the nation's economic ills. Or does he mean he'll pray for recovery?
I love quotes like this.
I remember reading a liberal columnist, forget who, and she was trying in her sincere way to comprehend Tea Partiers and she just couldn't get it. What do these people want, she kept asking. Obama and his administration are doing everything they can think of to help people. Why can't the Tea Party understand this?
The possibility that the government could help by doing less was not on her map at all. She was entirely blind to the Tea Party message.
The liberal mindset is:
(1) Notice a problem.
(2) Gather some smart people to come up with a solution.
(3) Pass laws for solution.
(4) Spend money for solution.
(5) Add new taxes to pay for solution.
(6) Repeat as necessary.
It's not a bad approach. It's worked, sometimes quite well. However, step 6 will eventually bankrupt society and then this approach becomes the problem.
But if that's the only approach you know -- and it seems to be the only one Democrats know -- you're worse than stuck, and you won't be able to see a solution.
Thanks, Matthew Sablan (1:32pm). I didn't bother to check Scott Walker's private-sector experience because of the old principle falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus ("false in one thing, false in all").
I could also have impugned gm's statement about the convention ("Taxpayers paid for that"). Conventions are partly paid for by tax dollars, but as far as I can tell in a quick Bing those dollars come from the voluntary $3 contributions you can make with your taxes if you want to - not the same thing as paying for them with dollars extracted from all taxpayers under threat of imprisonment, which is what most of us mean when we say 'paid for by tax dollars'.
"Our jobs are being sent overseas by the tens of thousands because it's cheaper to employ workers overseas."
Do you really think it's the corporations who made the domestic costs too high? They chose to have high costs here?
Those Chinese people aren't going anywhere, and we can't stop them from making stuff. If the American companies don't go there, then others will and the jobs won't come here anyway. Nobody pays more than they have to to get what they want.
We have to compete, period. Every hurdle or cost we add to companies sends more jobs out. The U.S. could kick the world's ass in manufacturing. Politics, environmentalism, safety at all costs, and coddling losers is why we can't.
Just think what would have been done with all that Solyndra money if it was left in the hands of the successful people it was taken from for that pet project. Then multiply that by millions and you have a vibrant full employment economy here, paid for by nothing more than leaving the money where it's already working. The fact that those companies were taxable in the first place proves they were using it effectively. Solyndra will pay us no taxes - ever.
I would also like to hear a credible explanation from Democrats how we can continue our profligate spending without completely devaluing the dollar or condemning the American taxpayer to essentially indentured servitude to the national debt?
Isn't it racist and sexist to portray Mitt Romney as inhuman?
Funny, Chris Matthews said Romney looked inhuman followng his wife's speech:
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/08/15/Chris-Matthews-Non-Human-Android-Romney-Just-Picked-The-Next-President-Ryan
Colonel Angus--damn, sir--you keep asking pertinent questions and none of our left leaning colleagues have bothered to respond--understandable, of course, because they cant put together credible answers.
Pragmatist -- Bush tried to intervene in the Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac mess and the Dems blocked him.
Or don't you remember the inconvenient facts? Barney Frank said "Evvverthins is fine!!"
Ask Jaimie Gorelick and Franklin Raines and James Johnson how they sleep at night after cooking the books and carrying off MILLIONS of dollars for doing it.
Shouldn't they be serving time?
What the fuck are they even talking about?
Garage, maybe it means they built the banner...
Bill Gates also came from a privileged background but does anyone say he didn't built Microsoft on his own?
He created the company but his genius seems in recognizing the value of what others created and putting their creations into indispensible practical use.
Re: Romney wealth, just curious if Bill Gates decided to run for prisdent, would his $$billions make himn unelectable?
I would also like to hear a credible explanation from Democrats how we can continue our profligate spending without completely devaluing the dollar or condemning the American taxpayer to essentially indentured servitude to the national debt?
Also, I would like to hear the answer the this question: Let's say Obamacare is enacted as planned. It stays. Then what? Do we say, "OK, that was the last, huge expansion of goverment needed"...? If not, what's next? If you could implement every new program you want, what would America look like? What's the end game?
Lemon: That matters. What party is he running in?
The Crack Emcee said...
edutcher,
As Rummy once noted, ya go with the army you've got.
If you don't like the choices, then you'd better get off the sidelines and have more of a voice in who gets picked.
Nope - it's a lie to say I have to choose one of two cultists. There are others running, and I have the choice to do exactly what I've chosen - sit this one out. There's something about my commitment to freedom that seems to bother you guys - which is weird.
You guys set this game up - Ann put Obama in and the rest of you grabbed Romney - I had nothing to do with it and won't. This appears to be the last of the Boomer Battles - you screwed things up and now demand I go along with your choice on how to fix it. But - as the people who screwed things up - I know you're no better at this than before.
Don't accuse me of wanting all that spending. I never asked for it, never supported it.
Keep in mind, also, that the Boomers are hardly monolithic; there are the blue-collars that went to 'Nam, the college Conservatives who were the backbone of the Reagan Revolution, and the campus commandos that you and most people erroneously conflate with all Boomers.
But, as to your not liking either party, you want to go third party, do it. The Tea Partiers toyed with the idea, but figured undergrounding the Republicans would be the better route.
If you have a better way, make it work - you may even win me over, but sitting on your thumbs accomplishes nothing.
Crack wrote: That's not hand-in-hand, but one walking three paces behind the other,...
Here's the background for the Christie quote you and Bender got all bent out of shape over followed by my interpretation:
The greatest lesson Mom ever taught me, though, was this one: she told me there would be times in your life when you have to choose between being loved and being respected. She said to always pick being respected, that love without respect was always fleeting -- but that respect could grow into real, lasting love.
Now, of course, she was talking about women.
But I have learned over time that it applies just as much to leadership. In fact, I think that advice applies to America today more than ever.
I believe we have become paralyzed by our desire to be loved.
Christie isn't talking about pitting love against respect--only a casual reader would think that. And he's only really mentioning the "getting" aspect of love and not the "giving" part. What Christie is really talking about is the pathological need some feel for craving "loving" attention:
If love is sought as a child seeks gifts, from giving to getting its value then shifts
Crack, have you become paralysed [sic] by a desire to be loved?
Well I am just hoping that someone will offer some explanation other than 'we just don't like your guy', but I fear you are correct.
"No, they don't. because no one could actually honestly THINK that. They could FEEL it, but thinking requires logic and reason. And anyone with any connection to the real world, logic, and reason knows that what Meade said is the absolute truth."
Well, that settles it then. If it is that obvious that there is only one logical way to view the economy and the proper functiom of government, and that way represents the "absolute truth," then maybe we should seriously consider straight up criminalizing those who are getting in the way.
Darcy,
Crack, if you read the transcript, you can see the context of that.
I don't have to read the transcript - which is about as good as us NOT talking face-to-face.
I don't have to read it because I saw and heard it with my own eyes and ears.
The context of what he said was Mia "Love" and Ann Romney's speech on "Love" - so I KNOW what he said, and how he meant it. He said his Mom was no B.S. and he wasn't going to be either - then he destroyed the whole "Love" theme.
Just because you didn't catch it - or want to imagine it's different - doesn't make it so.
re: Bill gates....he runs as Dem
Thank you, chickelit!
Colonel Angus: the turbo tax cheat Timmy's response is applicable here: we dont have a plan but we dont like yours
and apropos the discussion way up thread about tax evasion and tax avoidance: Timmy is a tax evasionist (as was little tommy Daschle); Romney and many others are tax avoidance--the former is a crime; the latter is perfectly legal.
Oh, then like John Edwards or Kerry, his money is a legitimate function of his effort and worth as a person, and truly is an example of the success of American spirit.
You are quite welcome, Darcy!
re: Romney wealth, why no outcry against wealthy members of congress?
chickelit,
What Christie is really talking about,...
See, I don't do that - imagine I'm inside another person's head and can determine what he's "really talking about" better than his words. That way lie dragons:
Like blacks and liberals claiming whites and conservatives are REALLY speaking in racist code.
You don't want to be one of THEM, do you?
purplepenquin said...
Of course, no one "starts from nothing"
'cept for all those businesses that built it themselves, of course....
Yep.
Carry on, Crack.
take care, blessings
edutcher,
If you have a better way, make it work - you may even win me over, but sitting on your thumbs accomplishes nothing.
Yes it does:
It keeps the blood off my hands,...
Pragmatist said...
In a party reinvigorated by lies it is amusing to hear the "truth" meme starting to surface. Lies and a bad memory are not a very good campaign strategy. How about owning up to 1) the degree that Republican policies (not just Republican certainly) lead to the economic meltdown, 2) the degree that Republican opposition has lead to the failure of any real reform of the mess they helped to create, 3) denouncing the extremist, racist elements in the so called Tea Party, 4) acknowledging that Bush is the one that began the current round of deficit spending (remember the Clinton surplus?)
It's quite amusing that someone with such an absurd view of events views himself a "pragmatist". Surely he's using it in the way Ezra Klein does, which is "I'm a hardcore ideologue but because I can identify reasons for my ideology I've convinced myself I'm a pragmatist."
The aswers to questions 1-3 are "almost none", and question 4 is irrelevant. But from someone who supports Democrats, a party that lies about lies, what do you expect? A certain amount of idiocy is required.
"purplepenquin said...
Of course, no one "starts from nothing"
'cept for all those businesses that built it themselves, of course...."
Actually, most start at less than nothing by borrowing money against a promise. A business then has to be successful and pay it back. It would be cool if they could just tax other businesses instead, but that monopoly is taken.
I want to note that the Ryan plan is a fairly bi-partisan plan and that he was able to work with many members of Team Blue before Obama tossed his own deficit commission's study and pretty much poisoned the well.
You, uh, quoted him where he said that. Sometimes he did not give a complete and full answer.
Yeah, Mittens is a fibber. He does it all the time, even about silly, irrelevant things when he should know better. Sometimes he admits he inherited money, sometimes he denies it. Sometimes he claims it all went to charity, sometimes he admits he gave a chunk to his children. Mittens just can't help himself.
It's hilarious to watch Republicans try to defend Mittens' serial lying. Romney's a fiboholic, and clowns like Matthew and edutcher keep themselves busy trying to excuse each of Mittens' lies.
harrogate said...
If it is that obvious that there is only one logical way to view the economy and the proper functiom of government, and that way represents the "absolute truth," then maybe we should seriously consider straight up criminalizing those who are getting in the way.
Because we're not Democrats?
So, Diamond. He's a liar because he... uh... said what you said he said while thinking he didn't say what he said, because he also said other things that elaborate on what he said but you think he didn't say the thing he said, that he did say, so clearly he lied because he said what he said, but he didn't say everything he said before, so you think he lied by saying what he said and also what he also said?
So, did you follow that? Because I don't. I'm going to just assume you think he's a liar because, partisanship.
Maybe we could get the government to send us some quality lefty arguments. It is a total shut out in here. The DNC must be holding it's fire till their convention. The talking points have totally dried up lately.
chickelit,
Carry on, Crack.
take care, blessings
Change your handle from "chickelit" to chickenshit.
It's amazing - I come to you guys in good faith but few of you has the capacity to admit when a valid point is made. I noticed Colonel Angus did:
Well I am just hoping that someone will offer some explanation other than 'we just don't like your guy', but I fear you are correct.
What's wrong with the rest of you?
Are you really so insecure in your "beliefs" you can't say "My Bad" every once in a while, but rely instead on just cutting out? Both you and Darcy pulled the same crap back-to-back - and then patted each other for defending your nonsense.
Look, if links and evidence bothers you, then learn to provide PROOF yourselves. Don't think your word is good enough to win an online debate. The internet was invented for LINKS.
Jesus,...
Ah. Wait. I get it. Diamond just doesn't understand that sometimes a question that brings about a response is different. For example, if someone asked did you inherit money, you could say yes if you were Romney, on a technical level. But, you could also say: Not really, I gave it all away, so I didn't get a cent.
So, mattering on the wording of the question, you could prime either response. Likewise, you might only need to tell the part about the school if you're just talking about the things you did with the money related to charity, whereas you might mention the part about the kids if you are talking about the whole thing.
The confusion is assuming that at every point and time, a Republican must be held to a tougher standard than a Democrat.
I see there is no credible argument offered as to why Obama deserves re-election.
The non-credible arguments to re-elect Obama seem to consist of Romney didn't give away his entire inheritence and that he ended up rich anyway.
I'd like to thank Purple Penguin for the link but seriously dude, they were praising "Newsroom" for calling the TeaParty American Taliban. Do you have like a real link to a real news site? That was worse, well equal, to reading Prison Planet.
Weevil, Matthew: re "zero private sector experience"...
Garage gives "pulling it ouf of his *ss" a bad name.
Jake Diamond,
Mittens is a fibber. He does it all the time, even about silly, irrelevant things when he should know better. Sometimes he admits he inherited money, sometimes he denies it. Sometimes he claims it all went to charity, sometimes he admits he gave a chunk to his children. Mittens just can't help himself.
Bullshit - he got the reputation for being a "Flip-Flopper" from all those years he worked and slaved at the local IHOP.
Didn't you hear his wife's speech last night?
So, Diamond. He's a liar because he... uh... said what you said he said...
Romney's a liar because he said he "didn't inherit money from my parents." That statement isn't true, is it, Matthew?
See, I don't do that - imagine I'm inside another person's head and can determine what he's "really talking about" better than his words.
Once you say, "what he was really talking about" or "what he really meant," then you have lost the argument. The typical listener -- especially the undecided voter -- is a casual listener, he's not going to spend any time trying to figure out "what he was really talking about," rather, the typical listener will take the words at face value in the context of the whole.
If your listeners must go through some exegesis exercise to figure out what was meant, then that is conclusive evidence that you should have kept your mouth shut in the first place.
Colonel Angus-- I suspect you knew there would be no responses to what I thought was a reasonable question. And the left leaning commenters did not disappoint. All they offer are attacks, and without substantive solutions. Oh well--we can decide in November.
I've tried to explain this to you. He explained what he did with his inheritance. So, he acknowledges he got one, he just chose to give it all away.
But, I'm not going to bang my head against the wall. Democrats have done something amazing this election cycle: I actually like Romney enough to bother defending him now.
From Rod Dreher's article
Anyway, it is especially offensive, at least to me, to hear Christians speak of Mormonism as a “cult.” Usually when you hear that word being applied to a church or religious group, it’s designed not to describe, but solely to marginalize. Was it Tom Wolfe who said that a “cult” is a religious group without political power? That’s mostly right. I think cults really do exist, and can be identified in part by their overweening desire to be secretive and controlling of their adherents — e.g., Scientology. (It should be noted that one can find cultish behavior within mainstream religions too.) But I think the Guardian blogger Andrew Brown is more or less correct when he says that a “cult” can be defined sociologically as being far from a society’s mainstream — though by that definition, one would have to call the Amish a “cult,” and maybe even cloistered Catholic and Orthodox monks and nuns a “cult”?
Anybody want to do that? Anybody?
Didn’t think so. So why so hard on the Mormons? Especially given that it’s hard to find a more idealistically American group of people anywhere in this country.
All this talk of what is or isn't a cult, makes you realize that the term cult is very often in the eye of the beholder.
Are the Amish a cult? This is not an especially apt description, since Tom Cruise is also mainstream and Scientology is what I would view as more of a cult (though a more mainstream one than say Charles Manson's cult)
As I have indicated before, I am nervous about thinking of religion primarily in terms of “truth claims,” which seems closer to what is appropriate in science. Religion provides answers to such questions as “How shall I live?” and “What is the meaning of the universe?” that science has no capacity to answer. But because answers to such questions are incapable of empirical testing by scientific methodology, how can we evaluate the answers that various religions give? As I have said above, the truth of religious beliefs can be seen in the lives of people who live by those truths. And if we see remarkable individuals in other traditions than our own we can accept that they have some kind of truth even if it is not completely the same as ours. When Martin Luther King, Jr. found in Mahatma Gandhi a role model for his non-violent protest he was recognizing the truth that Gandhi always claimed to stand for. King could see that there must be some things of great value in Hinduism to produce such a person as Gandhi, while at the same time seeing that Jesus was also a great exemplar of non-violence, though Christians have long evaded Jesus’s total rejection of violence. So Gandhi helped King to understand another religion while also understanding his own in a deeper way. This is not relativism, nor is it saying all religions are identical. Christianity and Hinduism overlap in some areas but differ greatly in others.
As stated, the test of a religion is the type of people that it produces. This doesn't answer whether it is a cult or not, but from my perspective most Amish are in fact very mainstream (except for their belief in magic underwear) and hardworking etc.
Christie's comments about "respect over love," which he so proudly made, were ill-advised and wholly unnecessary. Whatever the hell he was trying to say, he said it poorly. He did a bad job.
Jake Diamond said...
So, Diamond. He's a liar because he... uh... said what you said he said...
Romney's a liar because he said he "didn't inherit money from my parents."
Actually he said he gave it away. So one fact is established: you're a liar.
"I did get a check from my dad when he passed away. I shouldn’t say a check, but I did inherit some funds from my dad. But I turned and gave that away to charity. In this case I gave it to a school which Brigham Young University established in his honor. ... And that’s where his inheritance ended up.
Crack- why do you feel the need to comment re Romney and Mormons? It is tiresome to see the same old same old- I suggest you take a walk- get some fresh air.
FWIW, I don't get and never did get the mass adulation and appeal of Bob Dylan but you don't see me bashing Dylan everytime Althouse posts about him.
Didn't you hear his wife's speech last night?
I'm waiting for Rafalca's speech. I want to hear again how Mittens rescued poor Rafalca from the glue factory and taught her to dance.
Matthew Sablan,
I actually like Romney enough to bother defending him now.
And there's your fuck-up:
You're not supposed to be defending HIM - you're supposed to be looking out for YOURSELF.
Man, you guys are rubes,...
Obama is a liar because he said he would close Guantonamo and would not increase the deficit.
Is this what the debate comes down to? Which politician told more lies?
See, the problem is, if you let lies about say, Romney or Ryan slide, then you have to stop the "all conservatives like to watch minorities drown" B.S. jokes. No. Best to stop the specific lies in their place instead of having to fend off "Tea Partiers are all racists!"
Jake Diamond: Dressage horses do not dance; the Vienna Riding School Lipizanners "dance." But nice try.
I can't believe how many people here have assigned authority status to Crack. He's just another troll, ignore him.
I've tried to explain this to you. He explained what he did with his inheritance. So, he acknowledges he got one, he just chose to give it all away.
And that explains why he said "I didn't inherit money from my parents?"
Alex,
I can't believe how many people here have assigned authority status to Crack. He's just another troll, ignore him.
You're as bad as Romney:
One day I'm a nobody, who you pity, and the next day I'm someone with so much "assigned authority status" that you feel the need to try and brush them all away.
You're a joke, Alex,...
Actually he said he gave it away.
And he also said he didn't inherit any money. So once again Mittens is caught telling fibs.
but I did inherit some funds from my dad. But I turned and gave that away to charity. In this case I gave it to a school which Brigham Young University established in his honor. ... And that’s where his inheritance ended up.
Elsewhere Mittens admits passing some of his inheritance to his children. So in one instance he says he gave it charity, and in another instance he admits he gave some of his inheritance to his kids. Yet another example of Mittens' serial fibbing.
Crack Wrote:
See, I don't do that - imagine I'm inside another person's head and can determine what he's "really talking about" better than his words. That way lie dragons:
Like blacks and liberals claiming whites and conservatives are REALLY speaking in racist code.
You don't want to be one of THEM, do you?
It looks like chickelit provided a bunch of words used by Christie to come up with his interpretation of what Christie was saying.
Roger J. ,
Jake Diamond: Rafalca has more tricks than you. You are most definitely a one trick pony.
O.K., the arguments are getting really sophisticated now,...
The Crack Emcee said...
Matthew Sablan,
I actually like Romney enough to bother defending him now.
And there's your fuck-up:
You're not supposed to be defending HIM - you're supposed to be looking out for YOURSELF.
Man, you guys are rubes,...
Weren't you just yesterday asking why regulars don't stick up for you? This is your answer.
Jake Diamond,
And let's not forget that he "saw" his father march with MLK (except his father never marched with MLK) and then - in 1978, the same year his "church" decided blacks weren't "cursed" - he claimed he marched with MLK himself.
This is the man they trust.
A smart man would say "I don't trust Mitt Romney as far as I can throw him, but I'm voting for him to beat Obama," but, instead, you rubes are trapped in this groupthink that says - because you're forced to vote for him - you have to make him your Mystery Date.
It's a sad sight to behold, man,...
Bryan C said in response to..
"Our jobs are being sent overseas by the tens of thousands because it's cheaper to employ workers overseas. Lower labor costs means higher profit margins for the companies sending their jobs away."
Obviously, you fix that by lowering the cost of domestic labor and domestic production. But I can see how that would be hard to grasp .........
=======================
America's "Owner Class" sometimes talks about that.
They get most of the wealth (the part that goes to the US at least) that comes from employing cheap Chinese labor in making products...and talk about the eventual solution being Americans making 1.75-2.50 an hour.
It is called "wage levelization".
Of course the obvious problem with this "Free Trade for Freedom Lovers" setup is you only get that when you destroy the standard of living of a 1st World country (outside an elite oligarchy of 1-2% of the population) to match that of the 3rd World Countries now doing the labor for America's Elites.
No one believes in "Trickledown" any more. So the question is will the American masses accept that free trade and Open Borders will royally screw them? Or will they become more and more inclined to accept Tariffs, higher taxes (far higher!) on the rich?
The Crack Emcee said...
It's amazing - I come to you guys in good faith
Good one. Thanks for the laugh.
Dressage horses do not dance
You're absolutely right, I should have said "horse ballet" instead of "dance."
Jake Diamond said...
And he also said he didn't inherit any money. So once again Mittens is caught telling fibs.
He told the true story on national TV. The only incontrovertible fact is that you are a liar.
Post a Comment