Tune in at 5pm Pacific/8pm Eastern and listen to our take on the debate. Call ins are most welcome. It would be great to hear what people think about the first Presidential debate last night. Click HERE to listen. Also tonight: A special announcement about things to come….
Recent Comments
freedomfairy01 on Oklahoma Is Not Ok Tonigh… Lola-at-Large on Simple Answer Propertius on Simple Answer conner43 on 3 Scandals, No Story. Matt Cavanaugh on 3 Scandals, No Story. Thank You!
Buy This Movie!
On the radio!
I am intrigued…things to come…
I’m hoping the announcement of things to come has nothing to do with the end of the world. If you know how the world ends, maybe you should keep it to yourself.
I called in, but that british lady said there were no shows scheduled.
It was on an hour earlier due to scheduling conflicts. Fight On!
Obama came, he blinked, he lost.
http://www.thedaily.com/article/2012/10/04/100412-news-debate-blinking-folo/
John, just a note…too many ads.
I am annoyed by having to scroll to find a bit of content. Too many ads.
John:
Don’t listen to this note. Scrolling is not a terribly arduous activity and we all know that you need to generate revenue.
Agreed Jay. JWS should ad up to the max.
Two of the candidates who were kept off the stage, Jill Stein and Rocky Anderson, participated in the debate in an unconventional way.
http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2012/10/4/expanding_the_debate_watch_democracy_nows_full_three_hour_special
If three hours is too long, it’s easy to fast forward through the Obama/Romney portions.
Thanks, Zal: shared on FB where my disgust with O + R already earns me contempt. Maybe one day we will have aired debates with third parties. Can we “build” this? Also, as I had to work the night of the debate, watching it this more nuanced way might stop me from swearing at the screen too often.
Fionnchu – you and Zal and your ilk should stop wishing and hoping and get up and make a 3rd party happen. I’m serious about his, not trying to be mocking. But, honestly – it infuriates me when people wax on about – oh we need a 3rd party and I wish I had another choice and if we had a 3rd party, we wouldn’t be in this mess.
1) We don’t know that having a real 3rd party choice would mean we wouldn’t be in this mess.
2) But, get off your ass and make it happen if you think that’s the answer. Go canvass for the 3rd party candidate; quit your job and work day and night to make that 3rd party dream a reality. It’s not going to happen by sitting and telling other commenters on blogs, like Zal does 24/7 that they are smarter than the average bear and everyone should just do what they tell them to do. Go put your sweat equity behind it and make it happen.
3) It kills me also that these 3rd partyniks pop up only when there is a presidential campaign. If you really want a viable 3rd party, you got to get out there and build the party from the ground up. You have to run or campaign for people for city council and state legislator and then governor and congress and senate – you know – the unsexy, unglamorous work that it takes to actually build a lasting party. Guys like Nader didn’t want to do that work, nor does Stein from what I can tell – which tells me all I want to know about what she’s really about. They want to muck up the presidential race every 4 years to make a name for themselves and raise whatever $ they can, but they aren’t really about the hard, long slog of building a party.
Run,
I agree with you that those of us wanting a third party should work on making it a reality. In my community we already have someone from the Green Party on the City Council. I am no longer able to do the things I used to do for the dems, feminists, gay rights, civil rights, etc. What I can do is donate money, which I did, and attend the rallies for Jill Stein’s campaign, and vote.
But it takes much more than that as most of us know who’ve worked on many campaigns during our lives. I don’t advocate quitting one’s job, but volunteering, even during the non-election years, would make a lot of difference.
However, if we, those of us who can’t stand the zero man, would stand together in a block and vote for another candidate like Jill Stein – not the other Party who is just as corrupt – it would go a long way to establishing the legitimacy of third parties. Unfortunately, most people are content to allow the current paradigm to continue and even put money, time, and energy to make sure they continue. The only way we change this duopoly is vote third party and do so on a regular basis until third parties are viable. That’s it. Riding the pendulum and voting with the grifters who are running for office is not a winning strategy for any of us.
I always like reading your posts even when I disagree with them.
.
Run, I know where you’re coming from. You ask the tough questions my family and friends do. Here’s my context. The year the Greens qualified for the state ballot, ’94, I registered. As more of a longtime “disaffected Dem,” I am not a come-lately dissenter; while most on this blog backed the Clintons fervently both terms, I have not voted for a major party president since Bill in ’92. Never out of total (dis-)agreement (actually the Citizens Party or Rocky Anderson’s nascent Justice Party are closer to my leanings, but as you suggest about 3P’s, they lack traction even compared to Greens) but out of determination to promote alternatives. I do this as widely as I can, but I cannot afford to make that my profession; I’d need a trust fund, more people-savvy and glad handing skills than I possess, and more than “sweat” for equity. As I disagreed with theGreen choice in ’08 of McKinney, I re-registered as “decline to state” (non-partisan).
The problem is that the GP itself gets mired in the sort of Occupy-style consensus that slows progress, however well-intended. Senneth alludes to this. Also, they have not always chosen the loyal candidates; despite me voting for them or Nader, I get ticked off at their lack of gumption: e.g., two Greens entered state assembly but went Dem 2 years later. I have supported the local GP community but it relied in LA on a core that similar to Occupy in my experience had a cadre of insiders. It does appear as Tamerlane has shown in posts this campaign, and JWS by hosting 3P guests, that hesitant or idealistic commitment is growing. Johnson’s Libertarian Party has ads, the first I ever saw for 3P in Cal aired, attracting if not me some Ron Paul supporters disgusted with R+R.
The challenge is that the system is rigged. Cal since ’53 has “listed” only seven parties: registration at 103k sustained for a party to remain on the ballot. (CA lists this fall R, D, AI, GP, P+F.). Nader played as we all know a spoiler role, but I felt he was not using the GP structure seriously. Minor more than major parties by their marginality rely on us to do heavy lifting, and I confess by my need to work f/t and raise a family I lack the leisure to do much. Analogously, I often cannot keep up with this blog, while others can and research issues and get into politics in a way I don’t have the time to, given my family and work. I do find this blog and its exchanges enable me to articulate my positions and share them with my friends and family online and in person better than I have been able to before, even if they don’t please all or convince anyone else (my listeners think I’m fascist by comparison in my O-bot environs even if I keep “polling” socially very liberal and moderately so economically!). Respect to you and all who can give more to political causes, and thanks for your post in furthering our discussions under our genial host.
workaday (at least me) folks more: that’s crippling.
Third party has already happened. And there’s more than one. Gary Johnson is the Libertarian Party candidate, and is on the ballot in 47 states and DC. Jill Stein is the Green Party candidate, and is on the ballot in 37 states and DC; also she’ll appear as a write-in candidate in 3 states and in 14 states signatures are still being collected.
Additionally, Rocky Anderson is a candidate for the Justice Party, Virgil Goode is the candidate for the Constitution Party, Roseanne Barr for the Peace & Freedom Party, Peta Lindsay for the Party for Socialism & Liberation, Andre Barnett for the Reform Party, and at least half a dozen more — all of whom have ballot access.
I’ve been contributing both money and time to getting Jill Stein on the ballot in several states. In addition to using contacts I have in other states to help with signature collection and exposure, I held fundraisers at our house in CT and our apartment in NY, to both raise money and encourage support.
Not only is a third party happening, there is more than one third party and they impact elections. Notably, it’s been argued that Ross Perot and Ralph Nader interrupted the Democratic/Republican paradigm. If more Americans had the courage to do what they say needs to be done, as Fio and Senneth and Tam and others and I are doing, we could get out of this ditch the Dem/GOP has driven us into.
Fionnchu – thanks for the thoughtful reply. I stand corrected – you are doing what you can. I also campaigned hard for the Peace and Freedom party in the ’92 elections and then tried to keep working for them after at the local level, but found that the party wasn’t interested and it fell apart – hence my disilusion.
And, Zal – of course I understand that 3rd parties exist. Who cares. My point is they aren’t viable. The Nazi party exists in this country. Doesn’t mean it’s ever going to have a viable candidate for President.
I have discovered as I got older that the reason we have 3rd parties that aren’t (and in my opinion won’t ever be) viable is because they actually do hold fringe/minority positions. The plain truth is that most American’s just don’t believe in most of the platform of the Libertarians and the Green party. If we had a parliamentary system, those positions would have a chance of having some power in proportion to their place in the electorate, albeit minor. But, we don’t and here we are.
The Republican Party was third party in the 1850s and not viable … until it was.
As I’ve said, it takes courageous people able to think and act outside the box to vote third party, and the US today is overloaded with conventional go-alongs who’d rather complain about the status quo and feed it than do what’s actually necessary to change it.
Fine, you keep going back over 160 years to find evidence for your theory and maybe in the year 2170 you’ll finally be proven right. In the meantime, I’ve got fourscore and 20 buggy whips I need to offload – happy to sell them to you as you seem to be my target consumer. (Sheesh – b/n your 1850′s foolishness and nonsense about private equity firms, no wonder you are an Obama voter).
OK, which one of youse is Doug Henwood?
“First, Obama’s personality. In an earlier life, I spent a lot of time studying the psychoanalytic literature on narcissism. It was all part of a study of canonical American poetry, where I thought that the imperial grandiosity of the American imaginary could be illuminated by examining its underlying narcissism. But all that is by way of saying I’m not using this term recklessly. I think there’s a lot of the narcissist about Obama. There’s something chilly and empty about him. Unlike Bill Clinton, he doesn’t revel in human company. It makes him uncomfortable. He wants the rich and powerful to love him, but doesn’t care about the masses (unless they’re a remote but adoring crowd). Many people seem to bore him. It shows.
And the charms of the narcissist wear badly over time. All the marvelous things his fans projected on him in 2008 have faded. He’s no longer the man of their fantasies. And that shows too.
Which is not unrelated to a more political problem. Unlike Franklin Roosevelt, who famously said that he welcomed the hatred of the rich, Obama wants to flatter them. He made the mistake of calling them “fatcats” once, so his former fans on Wall Street turned on him. That has something to do with why he didn’t mention the 47% thing, or tar Romney as the candidate of the 0.1%. That would be divisive and offend the people whose admiration he craves. FDR came out of the aristocracy, and had the confidence to step on the fancy toes of the rich now and then. Obama came out of nowhere, was groomed for success by elite institutions throughout his impressive rise, and no doubt wants some of those nice shoes for himself.
More broadly, the political problem of the Democrats is that they’re a party of capital that has to pretend for electoral reasons sometimes that it’s not. All the complaints that liberals have about them—their weakness, tendency to compromise, the constantly lamented lack of a spine—emerge from this central contradiction. The Republicans have a coherent philosophy and use it to fire up a rabid base. The Dems are afraid of their base because it might cause them trouble with their funders.
What do liberals stand for these days? Damned if I know. It’s not a philosophy you can express in aphorisms. (Yeah, politics are complex, and slogans are simple, but if you’ve got a passionately held set of beliefs you can manage that contradiction.) Too many qualifications and contradictions. They can’t just say less war and more equality, because they like some wars and want to bore you with just war theory to explain the morality of drone attacks, and worry about optimal tax rates and incentives. Join an empty philosophy to an empty personality and you get a very flat and meandering performance in debate.
Romney believes in money. Obama believes in nothing.”
http://lbo-news.com/2012/10/04/why-obama-lost-the-debate/
Not to be contentious, but just to explain the mindset of an undecided voter: I became an undecided voter as soon as I read the words “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet.” Up to then I was a staunch Stein supporter. Now, I probably won’t know how I’ll vote until I’m in the voting booth. The first debate only made it that much easier to vote for Romney, but I’d rather vote for Stein. Have no idea which box I’ll end up checking. I’m not stupid or uninformed, I’m just torn between wanting to vote for the candidate who most shares my ideology and feeling a duty to vote for the candidate who has the best chance of kicking that dangerous fool out of the WH. Not a pleasant situation to be in. I don’t like it one bit, but it is what it is.
If that “debate,” set up and controlled by the Republican and Democratic parties and their corporate sponsors, makes it easier to vote for Romney then something is missing from how you’re coming to conclusions.
What we’re faced with is what Glinda told Dorothy when the Wicked Witch of the West showed up: “She’s worse than the other one.”
That didn’t mean the Wicked Witch of the East wasn’t horrible or that Munchkinland wasn’t better off for her being dead, it meant now we’ve got even worse problems.
We live in the United States and we have choices that kick out both of the Wicked Witches. The question is who is trying to do that and who’s trying to make sure the Wicked Witches stay alive and powerful.
JWS – Could you fix the formatting error I made after block quoting GXM’s excerpt? Thanks
On that note, I’ll remind the old timers here and “admit” to newer posters that a year ago I’d decided to hold my nose and vote for Romney, or likely any Republican who ran against Obama (I even tried to defend Romney and Perry and Gingrich – talk about holding one’s nose).
Then, doing more research, I learned that Romney wasn’t rich from a benign inheritance or from building a business, but rather from running a private equity firm (that takes apart, not builds business) and benefitting from the loopholey “carried interest” 15% tax rate that private equity partners get. And that Romney not only thinks those kinds of scummy loopholes should continue but should be amped up for wealthy individuals and corporations. Mitt Romney, I discovered, got rich from the same kinds of toxic financial instruments that created a financial meltdown in 2008 followed by an economic crisis we’re still sinking into, believes in shoring up corrupt banks too big to fail and “clean coal” (the term alone being one of the more disgusting deceits) and denigrates green energy while promising to vastly increase military spending. I realized that the principles behind the way Romney made his fortune will translate to economic and energy and war policies even worse than Bush’s and Obama’s. That’s when I changed my mind.
That’s lovely, Zal, but I wasn’t responding to you. I promise if you just give gxm17 a few minutes to have some well deserved attention for her moment of enlightenment, we’ll all get back to sitting on the edge of our seats waiting to hear even more about you
Zal, you’re preaching to the choir with me. I have the same argument with myself daily. But that “slander the prophet” shit quite literally put the fear of god in me, an atheist.
As for the debate, it just confirmed all my worst fears about what an idiot Obama is. And he’s a very dangerous, self-absorbed idiot. Romney, on the other hand, just doesn’t live up to the Dr. Evil image that ObamaNation has tried to shove down our throats. He comes across as clear-headed, smart, and reasonable. I’m not happy about this at all.
GXM – Please, particularly if you live in a swing state, just think about having to watch Obama for the next 4 years and what he will do if unleashed from the threat of having to win another election.
BTW, gxm – for what it’s worth, Zal is simply 100% wrong about how Romney made his wealth. Not every wealthy individual got rich through fraud and chicanery and Romney’s wealth did not in any way derive from “toxic financial instruments” but good ole fashioned hard work and smart decision-making about what companies to take a risk on and invest in. He’s also just thrifty, and you know what – if you make a relatively good living and are thrifty with your money – over 40 years it is actually not that hard to become rich.
I know it’s not cool to point out that sometimes rich people are rich for very justifiable and benign reasons, but that doesn’t make it false.
So, as you make your decision, please don’t make it on bad information. And, no reason to take my word for it – Romney’s record is pretty wide open for anyone to check out – unlike Obama’s. Just please don’t take Zal’s “Romney will be worse than Obama or EVEN BUSH” word for it because his “Romney will be worse than Bush” is one of those ways he slips up and shows that he is in the bag for Obama. (And, he was about to vote for Romney like I’m about to become a world renonwned supermodel).
Run, I am in a swing state and that’s why this is making me very cranky. I wish I lived in a state where I could vote Green free and not have to worry about it. But I don’t. And it weighs heavily.
should read: vote Green free and clear, and not have to worry about it.
gxm, maybe you could trade a vote with someone in a safe state willing to vote Green if you vote GOP? You’d have to be able to trust them though (absolutely no way for either of you to check).
“if you make a relatively good living and are thrifty with your money – over 40 years it is actually not that hard to become rich.”
1) You don’t accumulate $250 million from buying the generic brand shampoo;
2) if it’s so easy, how come only 1% have been able to achieve it?
3) At any point in time, it is a zero-sum game; we can decide to pay one person $250 million, or 5,000 people $50,000. What’s the wiser investment?
So first we have to drop a house on the Wicked Witch of the East and THEN we melt the Wicked Witch of the West into nothingness.
I like it!
Tamerlane – if you think buying generic shampoo is the equivalent to being thrifty, then I’m not surprised if you are not rich. (And, I don’t know if you are or aren’t, but that answer leads me to suspect you aren’t – nothing wrong with that, but it is what it is). I mean things like buying a 250K house when you could afford to buy a $1M one, and one can “afford” to buy a $1M house on a 250K income because the banks will give you the loan, but you won’t get rich that way. I mean living on 25% of your income, rather than 100% (or 150% as many Americans do). So, if you make 250K, live on 60K or less – you’ll get rich pretty quick.
Plus – being rich is not having $250 million. Rich is having $1 million or more in wealth. Romney is super rich, not just rich, and he made it legitimately. I didn’t say that my definition of being thrifty and getting to rich means getting necessarily to $250 million, but you absolutely can get to $1 million or more by living on less than your means, even if you make less that 250K which is the average income for the top 10% of the US.
And, the reason only about 10% of Americans are rich (1% of Americans are superrich, but at least 10% are wealthy – with $1 million or more in assets) is because the vast majority of American’s don’t either know or want to live within their means. If people made smarter decisions, we still wouldn’t all be rich, but a great many more would
Also, I’m not sure who the “we” is making the investment decision about the 5,000 vs.1. If it’s the people who bet our tax $s on Solyndra, then I don’t trust them to make the right decision about who the 5,000 are. If it’s Warren Buffett, maybe I would. But, I can show you 5,000 people who have won lotteries of 50,000 or more who completely wasted it and ended up with nothing or worse after getting that money – so no – not a good investment to give them that money. And, you can look at Romney who used the $ he got from his first years of work and made $250 million + from it by saving and making wise decisions. Um, yeah – that was a better investment with no uber-being “paying” him the money.
Sorry, but last point as this is one I feel passionately about. I vigorously deny that we are living in a “zero-sum” game. It may seem like that because not everyone is wealthy, but humans actually are steadily increasing their standard of living across the globe while our population is growing. If we truly lived in a zero-sum game, then when our human population expanded from 100M to more than 6B, we should have decreased our standard of living across the board by an exponential amount. Instead, it has increased. I know that income inequality is still an incredible challenge; one of the major challenges of our time, in fact, but it is actually not the case that is has increased since say – Roman times – it actually has decreased.
However, it is still a moral imperative to ensure that all humans live in a healthy and productive way and can thrive. I wouldn’t be working in philanthropy, though, if I didn’t think we could get there. I just don’t think we can get there through central planning. Much of the worlds poor are in the state they are in because of that mentallity rather than allowing them to find solutions to poverty on their own.
No, Run, you’re wrong, Zal is right. Private equity firms loot and dismantle companies. Maybe not every company but certainly a great number of them. I agree with Zal, I’m just sorry that people won’t see what’s staring them in the face.
Wow, Senneth, that is one of the most evidence-free random statements I’ve seen in a while around here. Private equity firms don’t “dismantle companies.” Private equity firms are responsible for an enormous amount of the growth in technology that allows us to actually communicate via these blogs, genetic and bio research that is figuring out ways to cure Parkinson’s and AIDS, new means of helping the poor in the developing world build toilets that work without water for better sanitation and solar-based radios and washing machines, and on and on. In the foundation I work in, we work closely with private equity firms who will invest in promising technologies and ideas that we seed to help improve the human condition so that they can become sustainable. So, I actually do know what I’m talking about. Neither you nor Zal do.
Only Luddites or people stuck in a some kind of fantasy Oliver Stone/Gordon Gekko-land repeat senseless phrases like “private equity firms dismantle companies.” (And, frankly, if you could define what a private equity firm is without looking it up, I’d be amazed.)
BTW: I’ll help you out here, Senneth. What you are thinking about are leveraged buy-out firms which have to “dismantle” companies to quickly pay back the enormous amounts of debt they take out to make a fast buck. And, like Gordon Gekko, they are largely a creature of the 80′s. Private equity firms are actually the exact opposite.
Well now Run, you seem to be getting a bit snappish here. I worked for twenty plus years for a company that had a front row seat watching what private equity firms/vulture capitalists did to companies. It wasn’t a pretty sight, BTW. Those people in the video the Newt put out “When Romney Came to Town” remind me of the people who I saw losing their jobs.
However, I think you’re pretty firmly committed to Willard and will not be swayed. ‘T is a pity because you seem to be a very intelligent poster whose comments are always fun to read. You could be a leader in the third party movement, however, if you weren’t so stuck in the mud and somehow actually believe that we really only have two choices in this election for president.
Zal is right. Third parties are established and if all of us who are disgusted with politics as usual, especially those living in a swing state, were to vote for the third party alternative the message would be loud and clear to the owners of our government. But there you go, most of us can’t see the forest for the trees. I guess we do get the government that we deserve.
You are wrong, run.
Flatly and completely wrong.
At first Bain Capital focused on venture capital opportunities, then after its first big success with that, after Staples went public in 1989 and Bain made a fortune off it, Bain switched to leveraged buyouts. And it was Mitt Romney who led and oversaw that. This is a matter of public record and you just sound foolish with your fantasy version.
And that nonsense you wrote about curing AIDS and helping the poor build toilets, trying to connect anything like that to Bain or Romney is so far out there it makes me think Romneyites may be even crazier than Obamabots.
Senneth – I’ll admit I’m snappish. It’s frankly annoying to see people spit out talking points from OWS without facts maligning things they know nothing about. We have a situation here where we can’t afford the luxury of leftist evidence-free jargon anymore. So, yeah – makes me mad. And, I have no idea what kind of company would exist just to “have a front row seat” to watch other companies make money. You may have been an investment analyst – that’s the only kind of company where a comment like that would make sense. But, if you were: 1) you would know better about private equity firms; 2) if you really think that’s what private equity firms are about, then what would that make you as an analyst getting rich parasitically off those firms work?
And, Zal is just a lunatic – which places him squarely in the median bloc of Obama voters. He is outright lying about Bain and Romney’s record and – yes – it is pretty much all there for anyone to see (unlike Zal’s hero – Obama), so anyone who wants to do 5 minutes of their own research can see which of us is right. I’m enormously comfortable in knowing that I would be proven right easily.
I also would defy him to actually explain (rather than simply say – “oh that’s just nonsense” when I point out the truth) who does fund and sustain all the various advances we’ve made to make human life more comfortable over generations. It was largely private market investors – you know like all those private equity people taking risks on products and ideas with their own money. But, I doubt he could because envy such as Zal suffers from (only explanation I have for his behavior) is a very ugly thing and impervious to facts, evidence and logic which is what Obama counts on in his supporters.
BTW – this is just a few of the many, many companies that Bain invested in and helped grow. (They did the opposite of leverage buy-out hostile takeovers that was the GG model in “Wall Street”):
AMC Entertainment, Aspen Education Group, Brookstone, Burger King, Burlington Coat Factory, Clear Channel Communications, Domino’s Pizza, DoubleClick, Dunkin’ Donuts, D&M Holdings, Guitar Center, Hospital Corporation of America (HCA), Sealy, The Sports Authority, Staples, Toys “R” Us, Warner Music Group and The Weather Channel
And, in addition to these – Experian, medical products companies, technology research firms, and on and on.
All of this is easily discovered, Senneth. There’s this new thing called Wikipedia where you can start.
Remember how, allegedly, Obama et al, before a press conference would ‘peep’ into the room and then pick one of the journalists to make fun of? I’m convinced there’s a lot of that going on in the Obama-camp: Juvenile, mean snickering. And I recognized it several times during the debate, when Obama almost forgot that he wasn’t necessarily swimming in friendly waters and had to reign himself in.
One example was when he mentioned “Your running mate. Paul Ryan”, and seemed to be on the brink to make a snide comment, then stopped himself and instead looked (one of many times actually!) … genuinely hateful! Kind of scary.
Apart from that my take of the debate and the aftermath was very similar to this: Why The Shock That Obama Lost?
Obama was Obama. Romney was Romney.
It was the side-by-side that shocked. Obama as Obama suddenly looked so distasteful in comparison. It was like a day-old dried up hotdog next to a perfectly cooked still sizzling steak.
What a load of crap.
Seeing Obama side to side next to Hillary showed the “distasteful comparison” of Obama’s weaknesses. There was nothing shocking about Obama next to Romney, except that they’re bookends to the same horror story series.
We’re the ones who’re cooked.
Romney’s just repurposed leftover energized by FrankenFood secret sauce.
You can call it crap, but I’m talking about gut reactions on why the public was “shocked.”
People have been conditioned during the Clinton years to hate Hillary, along with the inherent sexism. So debate time, Obama just had to be articulate and sneer and the viewers fell for the Obama marketing.
But that marketing is old and dated and what’s worse, people have already tried the Obama product and found it very very lacking. Now it’s Romney, the actual Romney and not the media caricature, that’s new and interesting. And Romney, unlike Obama in 2008 that was pure vapor-ware, has an actual track record.
Live by the brand marketing paradigm, die by the brand marketing paradigm.
Like Hillary in the 2008 debates, MR came across as confident, competent, able to articulate clear proposals and ideals, and to highlight the wide difference between themselves and obama. But in 2008, obama opened the demagoguery spigot that swept reason and sanity into the gutter.
Now, obama must defend his record, a problem as: 1) it sucks; 2) it’s a novel position for him to have to have a record to defend instead of some bullshit fable to spin. I think Zal’s earlier observation, that as a narcissist sociopath, running for president is old hat and no longer holds any interest for barry, is a major factor in barry’s debate performance.
The emperor’s new clothes dynamic has finally come into play, as has Lincoln’s adage of fooling people. To mix in one more metaphor, the voters can no longer ignore the man behind the curtain.
I agree, votermom, the side by side comparison was an incredible eye opener. Too bad the latent misogyny of ObamaNation blinded them from seeing the same huge chasm between Hillary and BO in 2008.
Well at least, someone has the cajoles to settle the election. Thanks for your personal insight. I will call u on Tuesday morning so you tell me how the market did on Monday. Quarterback on Tuesday much?
Good observation on the side-by-side comparison, votermom.
Maybe I wasn’t clear enough about what’s crap here.
It happened with George Bush over Al Gore, it happened with Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton, and now for the stragglers they trot out also-ran Mitt Romney. I’ll give them this: they know their audience.
The Dem/GOP/Wall St/Corporate power machine has been careful and focused in how they choose their candidates for President. And American susceptibility to dismiss obvious flaws when shallow appeal is dangled in front of them is the reason Dem/GOP/Wall St/Corporate power keeps winning and we keep losing.
For those who haven’t noticed, there’s a trend that’s easy to track. They put up good looking candidates who seduce, charm, or as votermom put it, appear “a perfectly cooked still sizzling steak,” and Americans fall for it.
Romney, the perfectly cooked still sizzling steak, is just right for this last crowd of left-behinds: he’s the traditional Madison Avenue tall dark handsome straight white family man. (Too bad he tortured the family dog on the roof of his car, but we’ll pretend that isn’t appalling or revealing). We had our movie star Ronald Reagan, brilliant bubba rags to riches Bill Clinton, good old boy privileged family rebel Dubya, safe black man Obama, and now the last of America’s susceptibles are wooed by a retro Esquire image.
As a dog owner and lover, I admit I was sickened by the Romney dog story, until I actually heard the facts. And, would still rather be Seamus than the dog Obama ate.
Zal, are you Glenn Greenwald?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/04/third-party-us-presidential-debate-deceit
Side note: This morning, “lucky” Obama was gifted with the biggest one-month change in unemployment in two decades: a drop from 8.1% to 7.8%.
He always gets a break when he needs one. It’s no wonder he never looks concerned.
* 114K jobs created
* 342K people without a job declared ‘not unemployed’
Add 400K unemployed who were recently ‘discovered’ to have actually found work last year, and — shazzam! — obama is a “net jobs creator” and “the unemployment rate is the same as when He took office.”
In other news, tractor production is up 157%, thanks to Comrade Stalin’s sage Five Year Plan.
In other news, tractor production is up 157%, thanks to Comrade Stalin’s sage Five Year Plan.
I am so stealing that.
tamerlane, here is my theft (btw, are you on twitter? what’s your handle?)
My similar earlier tweet is pale in comparison
I am not a twit.
I hear you Kim, O gives new meaning to the term ‘Teflon Man’. However, perception is reality for most Americans. Even among those here, who of us doesn’t have a relative or friend suffering the consequences of the financial meltdown, or perhaps even in our own lives ?
The biggest change in my own family is that even the middle school age grandchildren are changing their minds about their future school and career choices, good grief, at fourteen I wanted to be a female disc jockey !
We have this discussion a lot at home. I tell my kids do what you love that will actually earn a living.
FYI – There has been significant schadenfruede among the HRC camp – and former Clinton admin people about Obama’s debate performance. As I emailed to many of my former (and some current) colleagues: “anyone who saw HRC clean Obama’s clock in the primary debates should not have been shocked by his performance.” Universally agreed. Over 3/4 of them are voting for Romney, btw.
FCS, now MSNBO is reviving the “Etch-a-Sketch” meme… “The Romney we saw at the debate was NOT the same Romney we’ve seen on our footage!”
This, after taking a public flogging for doctoring the “Romney Ryan” video a week ago. I figured this was coming as soon as I heard the post debate spin. A liar calling the man who called him out as – you guessed it: a LIAR!. Jesus. This is so lame its laughable…
votermom at 7:40 am, FWIW, I for one never, ever consider your comments to be crap. Quite the contrary. And you’ve got a great, quick wit to boot.
I think you’re spot on with the ‘gut reaction’. Having so far been introduced only – and for the most part in absentia – to the ‘Mean Mitt’ for days on end, it must have come as quite a surprise for many of the 70 mill.(!) to witness the ‘Real Romney’. Non-threatening, polite, relaxed, eloquent, knowledgeable … and actually likeable!
Whatever one makes of his politics, nothing off putting about his person(ality).
Speaking of the 70 million:
Fun Facts: 70 million people saw this debate. That’s 33% of the total population, rounded to 300 million. 23% of the total population voted in 2010, or 41% of eligible voters. Assuming watchers could and will vote, that’s 73% of all likely voters. I’d suggest that’s why Romney came on so strong in the first debate. It was his first and perhaps only chance to be seen for who he is in front of an audience that big.
The difference between Hillary and Obama in the debates was dramatic. One was an experienced adult, the other a petulant man child. However, the difference between Romney and Obama in the debates was simply staggering. Hillary won all of the debates, but she had to do it with handicaps. For example, she couldn’t completely demolish Obama because he might be her party’s nominee.
I enjoyed the Obama/Romney debate but the next morning I was struck by the realization that our president is even more incompetent and even more dangerous then I had already imagined. We’re in deep shit and my fear of a Romney presidency just pales in comparison. Obama is not just a petulant man child anymore, he’s now one who thinks he is entitled to unlimited power.
Agreed. And, it sort of reminds you of that Twilight Zone episode where a child with unlimited power terrifies a town and does unspeakable things to its population.
About those lies that Romney told (thank you, President Obama, for calling him out!)
http://campaigntrailreport.com/2012/10/05/team-obama-admits-5-trillion-tax-cut-claim-is-a-lie-video
Pop by factcheck.org — Romney wins the ‘lie off’ during the debate, though they both threw around false facts like cotton candy:
http://factcheck.org/2012/10/dubious-denver-debate-declarations/
Jay, even our hometown rag had to confess O told whoppers, although the article tallies R as about a double-whopper. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-fact-check-20121005,0,7478055.story
Jay, the difference is that Obama is calling Romney a liar publicly, and the MSM is broadcasting it. I haven’t heard one word (except for the above) about Obamas lies.
If you like what financiers like Mitt Romney did from the Executive Suite to the little guy and to our economy while hoarding hundreds of millions for themselves, you’ll love what he does from the Executive Branch of our government.
In the 1980s there was a book called Barbarians at the Gate; if you didn’t read it, you should have. Since then we’ve had plenty of other warnings, decades of them and a financial crisis just a few years ago to top it off. We’ve been bilked out of retirement and pension funds while our tax dollars bailed out rich banks. I might, someday, be able to find a smidgen of empathy for those who were fooled by Bush and Obama, maybe, but anybody who helps install Mitt Romney from the belly of the Barbarians past the gate to the Oval Office is responsible for what will happen with him as President. There’s just been too much information the past 30 years about what’s happening; there is no excuse for giving corporate greed and Wall Street the keys to the White House. None.
Oh, please – “Barbarians at the Gates?” I did read it; watched the HBO movie starring my very favorite actor James Garner. But, why not cite the cabbage patch kid craze or Tom Hanks and Melanie Griffith’s performance in Bonfire as an economic theory? Makes as much timely and relevant sense. And, Obama has been Executive in Chief for 4 years, not Romney, fool. Let’s hear your critique of his bilking of the little guy, since bilked they have been on his watch.
And, this is on a COMPLETELY serious note – Zal – if you can send me a link to an archived post of you defending Romney, Gingrich and/or Perry as you state above you have done, I will send $100 to your favorite charity. (And, needs to be a 501c3, not the Obama campaign).
Zal, So why would I want to see Obama re-elected, the great deceiver, who has paid his cronies big payouts with our monies. You can hide behind all your fifty dollars words but you are one with Obama. At least AnonyMouse was honest in her declaration to the ‘won.’
I don’t know how to do that kind of search or how to link to an archived post. If someone will teach me how, I’ll do it. And I’ll donate the $100 to John Smart.
I don’t want to see Obama re-elected and I have no reason at all to give why you would.
There are candidates other than Obama and Romney on ballots. And someone other than Obama or Romney could win if enough people have the courage and the smarts to simply vote for other than Democrat or Republican.
And those same Democrats and Republicans would make sure that a TPC would have the most impotent presidency in history. Four more years of gridlock is not what we need right now.
Four more years of gridlock?
The two parties, or somebody, really have you fooled.
We haven’t had gridlock the past four years.
The past four years there was a trillion dollar stimulus bill passed, which stimulated donors to the Republican and Democratic parties but not our economy or job creation. We had ObamaCare, which gave out gift bags to the insurance and pharmaceutical industries but did nothing to reign in cost for us or improve care for us. And working in perfect unison, Democrats and Republicans extended the Bush tax cuts (without adjusting the AMT, so more upper-middle income Americans got pushed into a higher 30+ percent tax rate while the investor class and private equity ilk like the Romneys kept their tax rate at 15%).
Gridlock would be much better than the damage Obama’s done in four years and that Romney could do in four or eight.
Zal – yeah – I didn’t think so.
On this blog we go off topic so often (and I’m one of the worst offenders), it’s hard to find when a discussion veered into this issue or that. I don’t know if this link will bring you to the August 16, 2011 thread titled In an interesting twist the devil we know may well lose to the devil we don’t know, but I’ll give it a shot:
http://johnwsmart.net/2011/08/16/in-an-interesting-twist-the-devil-we-know-may-well-lose-to-the-devil-we-dont-know/#comments
My first comment, early in the thread, and others following, defend Perry by, first, referring to a quote from a Richard Cohen piece John linked to in his front page post. I point out that Cohen’s examples of Perry’s rhetoric not matching his actions is a plus if one disapproves of Perry’s rhetoric. For instance, “if his rhetoric is abhorrent to me and his actions don’t match his rhetoric that’s good compared to Obama whose actions don’t match rhetoric I approve of.”
Then after some back and forth wherein I say I’ve not decided to vote for Perry and do not advocate for Perry, drawing a distinction between advocating for a candidate and defending him, at 7:05pm I link to a great article titled, “Rick Perry And Texas Job Numbers.” http://politicalmathblog.com/?p=1590 That article was packed with information, and links to raw data supporting it, excellently defending Perry’s claim that he can create jobs from an Executive government position.
Then the next day, same thread, I respond to a poster I liked very much (KC) who said a Republican friend who lived in Texas loathed Perry and claimed Perry’s “Texas economic miracle” was the result of the “energy industry,” implying it was therefore not translatable to anything Perry could do as President. I responded, at 7:03am, by quoting from the article I’d linked to the previous day that provided an excellent trail of information coming to the conclusion that, “take the energy sector completely out of the equation and Texas is still growing faster than any other state. …”
It’s a long thread. Later on I commented:
Zal – doesn’t even come close to supporting your bald statement above. A) you claimed that you were going to VOTE FOR ROMNEY or a Republican. What you link to doesn’t say that anywhere that I can see. B) saying that Perry could win and swatted away the ridiculous racism story by you find him smarmy and he rubs you the wrong way is really the opposite of defending him. It’s pointing out a fact – that he could win – but you don’t like him which certainly doesn’t indicate you are going to vote for him.
But, I’m giving John $50 – not because you came close to proving your assertion – and you didn’t even try to find something about your voting for Romney because you know you can’t because you never said that – but because I like John and would have done so anyway.
You never said anything about linking to a post saying I was voting for Romney or that I liked him. You said this:
In that thread I linked to I defended Perry, especially on his claims regarding economic growth in Texas. That’s what I claimed to have done, that’s what you challenged me to prove, and that’s what I proved. I showed I am a truthful man of my word and you show you have zero integrity, weaseling out of a wager you initiated, and shorting John to boot.
Zal – you seem to be only literal when it works for you, but I meant my challenge literally. When I say: “defend AS YOU STATE above you have done,” I mean literally AS YOU STATE which was find a comment where you defended a republican with the statement (or even something relatively close) that you “decided to hold my nose and VOTE (as I emphasize) for Romney, or likely any Republican who ran against Obama.”
Finding some random comment – and it tickles me no end how much time you must have taken just to find this past comment – where you could see a Republican winning even though you can’t stand him is – I think I don’t need to point out to anyone who can understand the English language, not the same as deciding to vote for them.
Oh – and btw – wager still stands as you haven’t come close to proving your end. Don’t try to out-lawyer a lawyer, ass.
What you said literally was this:
“Zal – if you can send me a link to an archived post of you defending Romney, Gingrich and/or Perry as you state above you have done, I will send $100 to your favorite charity.
Any intelligent judge would say your challenge was for an archived post of me defending Romney, Gingrich and/or Perry. Period. You initiated the wager, you spelled out the terms. The terms and boundaries of a contract exist within the words of the contract itself, not an expanded interpretation one of the parties claims was there after the contract has been satisfied.
You’re not only a cheater, if you’re an attorney you’re a lousy attorney.
I defended Perry just as I stated I had done. My defense of Perry was underscored by my posting an excellently well sourced link to an article that defended his claim of being Governor during a period of economic growth. And in addition to my comments in that thread I’ve already pointed to, subsequently in the same thread I got into an argument with Tam about the value of those jobs Perry claimed credit for that I’d posted proof of: Tam pointed that many of those jobs had been minimum wage and lower than minimum wage, and that that was nothing to brag about. I again defended Perry by taking on Tam’s argument at length, arguing that when one really needs a job $7.25 an hour is better than nothing an hour.
You’re a cheater and, further, you convince yourself that the cheat is virtuous. It’s easier to understand your support for Romney and your ridiculous claims about leveraged buyout firms. This is another example of what I mean when I say many average Americans are, themselves, part of the problem.
Send John the hundred bucks you owe him.
Zal – I know you don’t like your own words being quoted back at you because you come across (apparently even to yourself) as an obvious liar and a fool. But, again – when you find your past comments defending Romney, Perry, Gingrich or any Republican AS YOU STATED (which was a specific and stated part of my terms) by saying that you were going to hold your nose and vote for them – I’ll send John the other $50. Until then, you lose. And, I – unlike you – have been known in these parts to admit when I’m wrong and can say that I stand corrected. When you find that comment you claimed to have made I will do so even to you.
As an aside – as “any intelligent judge would point out” even what you posted as some kind of “defense” would only be a “defense” in your twisted world view. And, it was the opposite of what you claimed in your previous post which was that you were going to vote for the Republican nominee.
Come on – I’ll wait while you find that previous comment. You implied that you’d said it many times, so shouldn’t be hard and you clearly have time on your hands.
Actually, I need to correct myself. The $ I sent to JWS was $ I was going to send anyway; had nothing to do with this bet, but the discussion reminded me I needed to send it. So, if you can actually find what I bet you to find; will still send a full $100 as I initially bet.
You challenge me to prove something I’ve said. I don’t know how and ask for help in how to do a search, nobody responds. I decide to let it go. You ridicule me for not doing it. I think, okay, see what kind of person this really is, put in the time and find a post. I do it, I post the proof. You dismiss the proof, which might be a matter of interpretation except at the same time you snaked around trying to change the goalpost of the whole bet itself, and that’s a clear indicator your mindset is to weasel out of your bet.
Then, and this is very telling, you actually ridicule me for taking the time to find the post that you challenged me to find.
This speaks volumes about you.
People like you and Lola (who bragged of being “devious and deceptive”) have helped me better understand who’s supporting Romney, and I’m coming to understand you’re even worse than those who supported Obama, and they were worse than those who supported Bush — but you’re all the same ilk. This ilk of the American population, which unfortunately is very large, faction by faction, group by group, posse by clique, are taking this ship down, as I’ve been explaining here for over a year, and this little piece from you is another tiny bit of evidence that proves my point. I get who you are, and I appreciate the opportunity to learn more about human nature.
Hmmm – heard a lot of whining there; still didn’t hear/see any proof that you actually ever said what you claimed to say – that you defended Romney/Gingrich/Perry because you were going to vote for them. You were just lying when you said that to try to make some point and you know it. You just didn’t think you’d get called on it.
And, I do ridicule you, Zal – based on your arguments and your style and with facts at my disposal. I admit it. And, I do it for 3 reasons: 1) it’s easy to do because you are so unremittingly pompous;
2) you are clearly in the tank for Obama and have steadily outed yourself over the last months, and I seriously dislike the duplicity involved in that. Your outrageous posting of that absolutely gross and misogynistic video of an Ann Romney caricature was vintage Obama supporter circa 2008 – you aren’t even being very original. And, you now are on a tack that Romney is worse than Obama AND BUSH and Romney supporters are worse than Obama supporters were because we refuse to back down in the face of your arrogance and pomposity. Again – extreme obviousness. Yeah – me calling you out on your silly, baseless arguments about Romney’s business dealings, your ramblings on private equity in general, your inane arguments about 3rd parties etc. (check out most of the other commenters here who discuss 3rd parties if you want to learn persuasive argumentation) is definitely the equivalent of people screaming racism every 5 seconds, calling HRC a monster who wanted to assasinate Obama, questioning Palin’s maternity of her child and ridiculing her baby’s down’s syndrome. Of course it is. Only an arrogant, leftist Obama supporter would consider that in any way equivalent.
3) Finally, I started ridiculing you because I watched from the sidelines how much of an ass you’ve been to people for a long time and decided I needed to speak up and come back at you with facts and the ultimate antidote to bullying – ridicule. Yes. You are a cyber bully – even though not a very good one – still bullies need to taste their own medicine. I mean, for crying out loud, man – you have people who actively tell you not to respond to them because you’ve been such a bully to them. That – and the fact that no one came to your aid when you asked for help searching archives, even with a suggestion – should tell you a lot. But, I doubt it will.
General ridicule is not what I pointed out.
And I reiterate this because it’s important in a larger sense as well.
What you revealed about yourself is much worse.
I’ll spell it out.
You started with this:
And, this is on a COMPLETELY serious note – Zal – if you can send me a link to an archived post of you defending Romney, Gingrich and/or Perry as you state above you have done, I will send $100 to your favorite charity. (And, needs to be a 501c3, not the Obama campaign).
You made, or pretended to make, a “COMPLETELY serious” challenge that would obviously take time to satisfy.
When I didn’t take it on, you pushed for it by goading: “Zal – yeah – I didn’t think so.”
I took on the challenge, invested the time to provide what you asked for “on a COMPLETELY serious note,” and your response was to ridicule my having put time into it.
then this:
Dismissing my effort that was made in good faith and at you request, changing the boundary of the challenge, and then mocking, with glee, my investing the time to answer your challenge indicates a level of sociopathy, of not only impaired conscience and empathy but an active pleasure (“it tickles me no end”) in hurting.
Lola expressed, in her article about trolling, exactly the same deviousness and pleasure in causing discomfort (or “paranoia, wasted her time, and likely raised her blood pressure”). This is a mental disorder I’ve often written about growing in our population, notably, increasingly, present in Bush supporters, Obama supporters and now Romney supporters. You’re finding your leaders.
Zal – you were the one who mentioned ridicule; I know you didn’t say general ridicule, but I thought – hey, I’ll take that as an opening to tell him what I think.
But, your larger point is so sadly funny in so many ways. Now, according to you, I have a mental disorder because you can’t back up your own words, you’re mad that you’ve been called on it, and you are trying to throw s–t against the wall to distract from the fact that you are absolutely trying to weasel out of your claim that you were going to vote for Romney or whomever the Republican was.
(This you still haven’t even tried to address, btw. Not even to say – I did say that; I just can’t find it; because you know darn well you were lying. Oh – and just a note. It actually would have been much easier – if you’d really said that at some point in the past – to string a search together for your comments and “voting for” and some Republican’s name than the pathetic attempt you made (which clearly did amusingly cost you some significant amount of time) to find something which bizarrely insulted Perry at the same time you thought it was a defense).
Zal – you clearly don’t realize this, although you should by now, but I specifically added the phrase “AS YOU STATE ABOVE YOU HAVE DONE” because I knew you weren’t going to be able to find anything where you said you were going to vote for one of these guys (I am and was 100% sure you were lying about that). By adding that phrase, I thought – hey, if he’s going to approach this honestly – he’d re-read his comment and realize that he needed to find something where he actually expressed direct electoral support (even if grudgingly) for one of them to win the bet. And, then I thought you’d just ignore it b/c you weren’t going to be able to do that. However, I admit, I thought there was at least a 50% chance, if not more, that you’d go weaselly and try to say that meant you just had to find anything where it appeared you had said something that could be read as some backhanded kind of defense (even one where you said you still couldn’t stand them which is all you ever do), but which was not what I challenged you to do; I challenged you to back up YOUR OWN WORDS. I actually was hoping for the latter, because I knew it would lead to much fascinating bloviating by you when I pointed out that wouldn’t cut it. You haven’t disappointed.
I really do feel sad for you that you have this compulsion to lie and that it’s now killing you that someone called you on it and you know you’ve been caught. I wouldn’t say that rises to the level of a mental disorder – just general assholishness. (However, I could engage in your kind of pop psychology here and hazard a guess that people who throw around accusations of mental disease may have had some diagnosis of it themselves at some point in their lives. It’s just too weird and over-the-top of a thing to throw out over even a heated and insult-laden disagreement).
Oh – and yeah – I do take an active pleasure in ridiculing bullies. Most normal people do. It’s the sociopaths who take to the proactive bullying in the first place.
It has nothing to do with what I did or didn’t do, it has to do with your feelings as you characterize them in response to what you perceive. Your being “tickled” sounds like the Joker in Batman. Has nothing to do with me, it’s your feelings and your characterization of them.
As for voting for Romney, I haven’t addressed that because it wasn’t necessary But you keep pressing it, fine. This is what I wrote that your challenge is taken from (emphasis added):
“On that note, I’ll remind the old timers here and “admit” to newer posters that a year ago I’d decided to hold my nose and vote for Romney, or likely any Republican who ran against Obama (I even tried to defend Romney and Perry and Gingrich – talk about holding one’s nose).”
I don’t claim in that paragraph to have ever written a comment that said I was going to vote for Romney or anyone else in particular. I say “I’d decided to,” and I had. If I commented on third party candidates at that time it was never to say I’d vote for one of them. It wasn’t until after the GOP primary debate I decided -and wrote this in a comment- that I wouldn’t vote for any of the GOP candidates, and began to scout for an alternative.
The part of the sentence that indicates action, though not one specific comment, is, “I even tried to defend …”, which I did and have linked to. I didn’t say I defended any of them without qualification, I said “I even tried to defend.” You can say my defense of Perry, in that thread I linked, wasn’t a good defense, or ineffective, or even stretch it to say that my calling him smarmy while defending him cancelled out my defense, but to say it wasn’t an attempt to defend him is plain wrong. Again, if you’re an attorney you’re a really lousy one if you can’t correctly interpret and characterize simple words and sentences. My characterization was accurate, I’ve provided proof of that, and did so in good faith. I’m fully comfortable with that and it’s a shame you’ve welched on the hundred bucks I’d directed to John.
You feel sad for me and you’re tickled — you really do sound like the Joker.
Feeling sad for me is silly; this back-and-forth is not killing me, it’s not emotionally affecting me at all. I have a point to make, I’ve made it; it’s not connected to my feelings, it’s observation.
Hah – busted! You write: “I don’t claim in that paragraph to have ever written a comment that said I was going to vote for Romney or anyone else in particular. I say “I’d decided to,” and I had.” I didn’t say that I believed you had written a comment either. In fact, I know you didn’t. I said – prove your claim by linking to something verifiable. Given your compulsion to ramble on and on and on, if you really had been about to vote for a Republican you surely would have written it somewhere because you can’t seem to stop spewing out comments about everything that comes into your head. Don’t you even claim to have or have had your own website? Can’t remember, but I’m sure you could have found a link if you’d ever come to such a momentous conclusion about your vote.
You are deliberately missing the whole point here which is that I’ve proved you NEVER EVER were going to vote for any Republican and you know it. The fact I called you out on your lies is why you can’t stop trying to argue that you were right and obfuscate from the bald-faced lie you threw out. (And, getting more and more desperate and weird with each reply – first I had a mental disorder; now I’m a Batman Villian – wow how long did that take you to come up with??!)
Look – as I’ve already pointed out. You are not that hard to figure out. You just throw out lies like that because you want to try to get people to believe that you have . . . oh, after such deep reflection and consideration . . . finally come around to the fact that Romney is satan and now worse than Obama AND BUSH. And – “oh, see people, my credibility is unimpeachable because – as you see – I was going to actually vote for him at one time.” Then, when it’s pointed out to you that people can see through this silliness, you come unhinged and claim all sorts of persecution.
You’re not being persecuted; you’re just an idiotic and obvious buffoon – who can’t even fully understand the full context and import of what you write yourself. Another indication of your being an Obama voter (and as I suspect, more than a little drunk when you post your comments).
I’ll fill you in on a little secret – getting insulted in comments is not the same as being persecuted. You’ve called me a lousy attorney; I could care less, and I certainly don’t feel persecuted. Having a fatwa on your head is being persecuted.
But, I do feel even more sad for you now. Because your last note – casting me as the Joker – makes me think you actually believe you are some kind of mythic Batman figure; a courageous caped crusader if you will. Seriously – get some help, dude.
The only thing you’ve proved is you welch on a bet you initiate.
Anybody is welcome to wade through those threads from a year ago. That’s the reason I posted a link to a long thread when the discussion was about a Republican candidate. There are many others. I recently read countless posts from a year ago and it’s clear, not only from what I wrote but also from the attacks from posters like Mouse and her posse, I was [and still will] vote for anybody but Obama, and back then it’s also clear I had no intention of voting third party. There’s nothing left but the GOP candidate. Most everybody here, including NES who is clearly not fond of me or at least my style, have been very clear that it was obvious then that I loathed Obama and would never vote for him. That flies way over your head but only proves you don’t see what’s real, you see what you want to see. Whether or not I wrote one specific comment that I will vote for a Republican is made irrelevant by my clear and honest way of writing that “I’d decided to hold my nose and vote for Romney, or likely any Republican who ran against Obama.” I mean what I write and what I wrote there was 100% accurate and true.
You’re embarrassing yourself with your unstable attacks when every bit of evidence shows what I wrote is the truth.
Send John the hundred bucks you owe him.
You clearly are ignorant of the basic, even layman, definition of “evidence.” If there are countless posts that verify what you specifically and unequivocally claimed, then find one and I’ll pay the bet. What you found doesn’t verify what you claimed.
That should be easy enough for you to understand. Although, maybe not, since your last post is unintelligible even for you – hitting the sauce again, huh? Because, a “clear and honest” way of writing (hah, funny!) is not exactly evidence. (I sure hope you aren’t a lawyer.)
Oh, I also could care less what anyone else says about you. I see right through you. No one else wants to take the risk of being hounded with your insanity. That’s why they won’t call you out. Although, that said – you KNOW I’m not the only one who started to see my point when you posted that really embarrasing (for you) video.
Finally, as a black person, I’m not one to use the phrase “calling the kettle black” but you calling me unstable after you compared me to a Batman villian (meaning, I guess that you are Batman) is probably the epitome of “calling the kettle black.”
You come to the most bizarre –and revealing– conclusions.
No, dear, I am not Batman.
REALLY? Then, why did you – completely out of the blue – call me the Joker, not once but twice. Like your claim that you were going to vote for Romney, did you write that in a drunken haze and then forget what you wrote?
I’d break it down but when I explain something to you, you only insist it can’t be true. Anybody who reads my posts and thinks I cast myself as the caped crusader has severely retarded powers of observation.
Zal said: “Your being “tickled” sounds like the Joker in Batman.” And: “you really do sound like the Joker.”
And, you said both of those with the utmost seriousness. (Not surprisingly, since you seem to be one of the only people in this whole commenter community with not a trace of a sense of humor). Now, I know you often have a hard time remembering what you’ve posted or comprehending your own words, but it should be pretty easy for even you to understand how that makes you come across as casting yourself in the role of “superhero” when you compare me – in all seriousness – to a villian in a superhero comic. Not rocket science here. (Although it is truly bizarre – you must have a little of ole crazy joe biden in you).
An observation – Spending the weekend in Palo Alto to see friends. Gas prices here are $5.05 for regular. $5.40 for premium. And, not everyone who lives here is Mark Zuckerberg.
The prices have reached $6 at some places down here in Los Angeles.
There have been reports of long lines & gas pumps closed because of supply issues – see any of that?
Not in my neighborhood, Votermom, but it’s on the news.
I just filled my tank for appx. 95 dollars in No. CA.
And, NES, I’m supposing that you don’t drive a tank.
Rofl, Jay. Nope, not a tank (I wish!). Not even an infamous gas guzzler.
Although currently in NY, we will be returning to Fl. to vote.
If I still voted in NY, I might vote third party. But our votes Do count there,
I may vote R for the first time in over 40 years of voting.
A second O term will be so racked with investigations,
scandals and class warfare, nothing productive will be done
for the country, unless you count Obamacare as productive.
O is just the face of a very nasty bunch of backers, most of whom
do not have the best interests of the country at heart.
Conner43/sophie…your vote will count in Florida and it is needed…I am a transplant here in Florida after living in Los Angels/Santa Monica for many, many years…essentially we are stuck with two choices…imho…O must go…he is not only dishonest to the nth degree, but he is also a slacker…lazy, not paying attention…really out of his league…his Presidency is not about us or the country, it is about HIM…if nothing else, with Romney we will get someone in there to start cleaning out the mess and at least get things in order…I understand the concerns of many re: Romney…I have many of those same concerns…but given O and his Chicago thieves…or Romney for 4 years to get our “books” in order…Romney is a safer choice…unlike O, the media will be watching Romney like a hawk…just getting rid of O and his multitude of unappointed CZARS will be a good start…voting R is difficult, but let’s face it, ‘D’ for Democrats no longer means what it once did…this is Obama’s party, not the democratc party that so many of us were so loyal to and loved at one time…it’s gone…it’s O’s cult now…
I beg to differ,sophie
I live in Manhattan. There is no way that I could believe that NY is going anything but D, but I will still vote R.
The smaller the margins, the more the local elected officials will walk on thin ice, hence the more they will listen to the “voice of the people”. Lets not forget that they want to milk the cash cow that is the (alleged) 2 party system for as long as they can, and as long as we vote 3P in “protest” (impotently, ridiculously and without any real effect, imo), the longer they will be able to get away with what they’ve been getting away with thus far. Begin by putting your foot down, and voting squarely against them. Third Party Candidates, unfortunately, do not count. They are irrelevant simply because of the (alleged) 2 party system.
If our local elected officials know that we’re fed up with the status quo and and our votes can cause them to be unemployed (like many in their districts), they will change their ways if only to try and guarantee themselves another corrupt term in office.
When enough people get fed up and believe that their vote really counts, things will change. There is no other option. Its too late this year, but there is hope for the future. People need to wise up, and I have no faith that will happen, but it has to start somewhere, and I don’t mind taking the lead.
My vote counts. Everybody’s vote counts. If they didn’t, the corrupted GOP and Democratic Party and Wall Street and Corporations wouldn’t spend so many billions to influence our votes.
If you like what Republicans and Democrats have done, what Wall Street has done, what big Corporations have done, vote the way they want you to. If you don’t like what they’ve done to our country and you’re voting for more of it, that sounds like the old definition of insanity: doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome.
interjection about gas prices in CA. I do not need to drive much as I usually work from home – but did today and was shocked. things went nuts over night. 4.60 on my corner after being 3.97 a day or two before. Intended to post about it but the overnight spike seems to be a CA event and not happening elsewhere. And 4.60 is apparently very cheap in CA right now. The price is high,but the shocking thing was how quickly they spiked.
I heard that the CA gas prices are caused by refineries having a sully issue – not sure why.
CA gas prices spiked because a SoCal refinery lost power, which reduced supply. The power was back on yesterday and prices should come down next week.
Anthony, I lived in NYC for many years, you are correct to vote your conscience, but will it give the D machine pause to win by a hair ? I confess to skepticism. Although a Republican did win an off year election in, I think, the Bronx, but I haven’t a clue as to how that has worked out. While there may have been a few meltdowns, I don’t think anyone died, at least, not yet.
You’ve good reason to be skeptical of Anthony’s hare brained reasoning.
In New York City we voted in a Republican Mayor in 1993, 1997, 2001, and 2005 (and, after bullying to overturn of NYC’s term limit law so he could run again in 2009, Fascist Bloomberg is still Mayor). Further, the Republican Party controls the New York State Senate. Contrary to what outsiders may believe about New York, voting Republican in the state or the city is by no means an act of rebellion and has proven to have as little impact on Democratic Party antics as on Republican Party shenanigans.
Thirty years ago, a decade ago, maybe even five years ago, holding out hope one of the two parties would act on behalf of The People, that we could use our vote to force them to, was understandable; but today there’s so much evidence of what’s actually going on between them and Wall Street and Big Business, anybody who recognizes this system is broken and corrupt and continues to vote for it is simply part of the problem they complain about.
Zal, I know, conner knows and you know that I was talking about Obama/Romney vote. Once again: you really need to stop with the personal insults and attacks. You aren’t the know it all you believe you are, you don’t have the last word on anything and your narcissism clearly dominates your weak personality. Stop now.
You may know who’s been Mayor but you don’t know what you’re talking about, Anthony, or you wouldn’t have written, “The smaller the margins, the more the local elected officials will walk on thin ice, hence the more they will listen to the ‘voice of the people’.”
That just smacks of profound ignorance or idiocy.
We’ve voted in Democrats and we’ve voted in Republicans and rather than the alliance between them and Wall St/Corporations getting thinner, it’s stronger every year. If you can’t see that in Manhattan, of all places, you’re as delusional as bots were about Obama.
“The smaller the margins, the more the local elected officials will walk on thin ice, hence the more they will listen to the ‘voice of the people’.”
Just to be super clear: the margins couldn’t be smaller than in New York. The State Senate is split Dem/GOP by barely a hair. Mayor Bloomberg was a Democrat then switched to Republican and is now Independent. Margins don’t get smaller than that. This razor thin margin has been a boon to the investor class and hasn’t been helpful to The People. There’s a long list of how Bloomberg walks as if the ice is miles deep and gets away with it, as will Romney if elected, thanks to enablers like you. The most recent being his push to shrink the minimum size of city apartments to 300 square feet, casting these as fabulous “micro-apartments” that’ll make Manhattan living affordable for regular folk. But really it’s only another example of the uber rich pretending to help The People when in truth they’ll collect big profits building these human warehouses and The People will rent legally-legitimized closets for an obscene amount of money.
What part of this do you not understand? If THAT margin is small enough, the Dems in NY will walk a straighter line. You know this, yet you insist on remaining purposely obtuse, just to try your best to be “right” about something. If you still continue to hammer away at your points which have nothing to do with what I actually said, than you’re just being an asshole who needs to make a lot of noise and be noticed. Like Obama.
Present some evidence that this is true, otherwise I stand by the evidence I’ve presented that the hair’s breath margin we’ve seen in New York, and across the nation in Presidential elections, has done nothing except further empower both parties to screw us and serve moneyed interests. That Bloomberg, the king of moneyed interests, has pulled this off in NYC is a harbinger of what Romney and his moneyed interests will do with control of our Executive Branch. I’ve presented facts to support my claim; do you have any?
What you call “facts” are nothing more than your opinions. We all have them, and they often differ. Get real.
It’s not my opinion that the margin between Democratic and Republican votes is narrow, nationwide, in Presidential races for many years now. That’s a fact.
It’s not my opinion that Mayor Bloomberg was a Democrat then switched to Republican before first running for Mayor and then to Independent before running for his last term. That’s a fact.
It’s not my opinion that the NY State Senate is evenly split between Democrats and Republicans. That’s a fact.
I use facts to come to informed conclusions. So far you’ve presented no facts, no evidence at all that supports your silly notion that voting for Romney would make New York elected officials “listen to the voice of the people,” or even what voting for wealthy tax loopholey financier Romney would say the people want from elected officials.
And that’s never mind the fact that in terms of Wall Street and Corporate influence there’s virtually no difference between Obama and Romney, between Democrats and Republicans anyway.
Yes – Anthony. Zal is full of completely misinformed opinions that he likes to tout as facts. (Just like my former weird neighbor – the “internationally known man”) But, you know the saying about opinions and a certain anatomy part that all of us have . . . .
for a reality check, please take a look at the video clip at this site…
Conner, please do not vote absentee in Florida, especially Broward…the whole set up is rigged…
http://www.local10.com/news/5-felons-dead-woman-voted-in-2011-Dania-Beach-municipal-election/-/1717324/16842096/-/o21y60z/-/index.html
*******************************************
this is what we are up against…and I suspect this is going on across the whole country…
Angel..No worries, we vote in Palm Beach County, the home of hanging chads and Jews who love Pat Buchanan. We always vote in person.
Catherine Baker Knoll, the late Lt Gov of PA always carried voter registration forms and urged folks to fill them out and she’d get them to the courthouse for them. The Tea Party, The PUMAs and the Independents all fit into the category of “persuadable” voters who merely need “worked.” One needn’t quit a job and do this full time. The same amount of time you’d volunteer for a candidate can be dedicated to getting a 3rd Party on its feet. Stay on the block for two years, and you’d be taken seriously. Create a Committee that will circulate nominating petitions for third party candidates and get them on the ballot. The Public is receptive to a message that leaving the two party system has potential. Decide on an inclusive identity and invite folks to 1. change their registration to it and 2. form a committee to fund candidates who don’t get their party’s endorsement. Go after local elections, School Boards, for example. All of Congress is up for re-election every two years. Take one lap around that track to learn the lay of the land and you might be VERY surprised at the number of donors who will find you once they’re convinced your work is legitimate.
Run, thank you so much for babysitting Zal and keeping him busy all this time. Sending him on a snipe hunt was pure genius.
shhh.