Democrat start their own "War on Women"

[Salty Stan]

Appearing last night on CNN, Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen made it clear how out-of-touch many Democrats are with traditional, stay-at-home mothers.

While addressing the so-called "war on women", Rosen belched forth the following nonsense:

"What you have is Mitt Romney running around the country saying, 'Well, you know my wife tells me that what women really care about are economic issues and when I listen to my wife, that's what I'm hearing.' Guess what? His wife has actually never worked a day in her life."

She says this because Ann Romney never had what many people refer to as a "job". She was a stay-at-home mom who raised five boys....

[wy]

Try not to leave out the pertinent part of what she said:

"This is not about Ann Romney," Rosen said Thursday. "This is about
the waitress in a diner in some place in Nevada who has two kids whose
day care funding is being cut off because of the Romney/Ryan budget
and she doesn't know what to do."

Rosen said criticism from the right reflected "Republican's desire to
change the subject."

"I think the issue that I'm focusing on is does Mitt Romney have a
vision for bringing women up economically, and can he himself stop
referring to his wife as his economic surrogate? That's an important
thing. He's the one that keeps doing this. Not me," Rosen continued.

Rosen, also a CNN political contributor and a working mother, made her
original comments on CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360" on Wednesday.

"What you have is Mitt Romney running around the country, saying,
'Well, you know, my wife tells me that what women really care about
are economic issues, and when I listen to my wife, that's what I'm

hearing.' Guess what? His wife has actually never worked a day in her

life," Rosen said on CNN.

"She's never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a
majority off the women in this country are facing, in terms of how do
we feed our kids, how do we send them to school, and why do we worry
about their future," Rosen continued, adding that Romney "just seems
so old fashioned when it comes to women."

----

So the point being, that you're too dumb to see because you were too
dumb to include it, is that Rosen was mocking Romney for relying on
his wife as an "economic surrogate," whatever the hell that means, to
clue him into what he should really know himself - women's economic
issues. Which is kind of funny because he's the one who's worked in
the world of economics all his life and she's never got a pay check
all her life, and she's telling him what are important "economic
issues" for women with five kids who do have to work for a living to
support those kids because they don't have a husband with a quarter of
a billion bucks in the bank?

Context - Repugnants can never grasp it or really know what the word
means.

[Lee Curtis]

Translation: She has the LUXURY of being a stay at home mom.
How many mothers holding down several jobs to feed their family
wouldn't want that option?

[7 Dollar gas @whitehouse.org $7.00 Gas Hits Democrap California ! LOL !]

"wy" <w...@myself.com> wrote in message
news:86f48694-c2d5-491a...@12g2000vba.googlegroups.com...

> On Apr 12, 11:29 am, Salty Stan <wsjames...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Appearing last night on CNN, Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen made it
>> clear how out-of-touch many Democrats are with traditional, stay-at-home
>> mothers.
>>
>> While addressing the so-called "war on women", Rosen belched forth the
>> following nonsense:
>>
>> "What you have is Mitt Romney running around the country saying, 'Well,
>> you know my wife tells me that what women really care about are economic
>> issues and when I listen to my wife, that's what I'm hearing.' Guess
>> what? His wife has actually never worked a day in her life."
>>
>> She says this because Ann Romney never had what many people refer to as a
>> "job". She was a stay-at-home mom who raised five boys....
>
> Try not to leave out the pertinent part of what she said:

Democrats too seem perturbed by Rosen's remarks. David Axelrod, President
Obama's senior adviser, said he was "disappointed in Hilary Rosen's
comment," which he also described as "inappropriate and offensive." And
Stephanie Cutter, deputy campaign manager for Obama's reelection effort, had
this to say: "Families must be off limits on campaigns, and I personally
believe stay at home moms work harder than most of us do."

Campaign manager Jim Messina also took some time to criticize Rosen, and his
response may be the most harsh: "I could not disagree with Hilary Rosen any
more strongly. Her comments were wrong and family should be off limits. She
should apologize."


Read more:
http://www.towleroad.com/2012/04/lesbian-democratic-strategist-hilary-rosen-under-fire-for-ann-romney-comments-video.html#ixzz1rqLrn2Di

[7 Dollar gas @whitehouse.org $7.00 Gas Hits Democrap California ! LOL !]

"wy" <w...@myself.com> wrote in message
news:86f48694-c2d5-491a...@12g2000vba.googlegroups.com...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/attacking-ann-romney--yeah-thats-the-ticket/2012/04/12/gIQA3VzXCT_blog.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop

Attacking Ann Romney - yeah, that's the ticket!

By Jennifer Rubin


Overnight President Obama's faux "war on women" attack on Mitt Romney blew
up in his face. It is fitting that a gimmick should boomerang this quickly
and this severely, maybe giving Romney the first big break of the race.

By now you've probably heard that Hilary Rosen, a sometime White House
adviser and frequent visitor, on CNN attacked the most popular person in the
campaign, Ann Romney, with a cartoon version of left-leaning feminism,
declaring that the mother of five who has battle multiple sclerosis and
cancer "never worked a day in her life." (Query why the conservative on the
panel sat there like a lump on the log. Maybe a few more conservative women
on CNN would balance the coverage. He claims to have "missed it." Indeed.)
No, this really happened. Honest. But it didn't stop. Rosen took to Twitter
to dig her hole deeper and deeper, never apologizing. (At this point
Republicans should be humming Dayenu.)

But it didn't end there. Obama political hacks David Axelrod and Jim Messina
took to Twitter to condemn the remarks and to call on Rosen to apologize,
thereby making Rosen seem closer to the president's campaign (and the
campaign more responsible for her gaffe than might otherwise be the case).
And - yup - it didn't end there. Ann Romney now is on Twitter and got a
gazillion followers in just hours. Her first tweet was a keeper: "I made a
choice to stay home and raise five boys. Believe me, it was hard work."

Needless to say, the "war on women" has taken on a whole new tone. Let's
count the ways this is just awful for Obama and/or Democrats more generally.
There are a few, so find a comfortable seat.

First, Obama, as a conservative pundit put it, just went a long way toward
solidifying Romney's base, especially among social conservatives who loathe
elites who look down on stay-at-home moms.

Second, it feeds into the cliche that liberals love humanity but hate
people. In this case they love womanhood but treat their own employees and
conservative women like dirt.

Third, the "war on women" just became Romney's vehicle for narrowing the
gender gap, especially among women with children.

Fourth, this points to the absurdity of Obama's approach to the campaign -
nonstop negativity and gimmicks.When one goes awry, what's he got to say?

Fifth, there will be a new term in politics: A Rosen. That is a gaffe of
epic proportions that is magnified by the gaffer's own stubbornness and
insistence on digging deeper.

Sixth, Hilary Rosen, who makes her living in PR (irony alert), better find
other work. She's really terrible at her job, if this is any indication.

Seventh, Ann Romney becomes an even bigger superstar and asset than she was
before. Provided she doesn't overplay it, she can be truly successful in
reaching out to female voters and humanizing her husband.

Eighth, Romney has the chance for one of those revealing human moments that
the campaign has generally shied away from. Some righteous anger or a loving
defense of his wife, you can bet, is coming up. It's the equivalent of the
Al-Tipper Gore kiss. Americans, if Romney does this well, are about to say,
"Wow! He has a pulse."

Ninth, this is possibly the first Twitter-driven political kerfuffle,
playing out in the evening and without much input from either traditional
media or blogs. The good news for Republicans is they have learned to master
social media. Better news is that the Romney team moved with "lightning
speed" to capi負al虹ze on this. Team Romney is more nimble than it has been
in the past.

Tenth, I suspect not even the left blogosphere is going to save the
president on this one. Yes, the bloggers will snort that this is all
overplayed (not very credible from those who wrote thousands of words about
Etch-a-Sketch). Yes, they will say that even though Messina and Axelrod
leapt to condemn Rosen's remarks, that it is not like Obama spoke these
words. (Cue the laughter from Eric Fehrnstrom.) But really this is such a
mess, it may be better to cut their losses, condemn Rosen for being idiotic
and try to move on. Good luck with that, fellas.

By Jennifer Rubin | 07:53 AM ET, 04/12/2012

[7 Dollar gas @whitehouse.org $7.00 Gas Hits Democrap California ! LOL !]

"Lee Curtis" <clee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:o5idnSSQ9oXJYxvS...@giganews.com...

=
Yeah especially since 90 % of job losses under Obama were women's

[Lee Curtis]

$7.00 Gas Hits Democrap California ! LOL ! wrote:

>
>
> "Lee Curtis" <clee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:o5idnSSQ9oXJYxvS...@giganews.com...
> > Salty Stan wrote:
> >
> > > Appearing last night on CNN, Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen
> > > made it clear how out-of-touch many Democrats are with
> > > traditional, stay-at-home mothers. While addressing the
> > > so-called "war on women", Rosen belched forth the following
> > > nonsense: "What you have is Mitt Romney running around the
> > > country saying, 'Well, you know my wife tells me that what women
> > > really care about are economic issues and when I listen to my
> > > wife, that's what I'm hearing.' Guess what? His wife has actually
> > > never worked a day in her life." She says this because Ann Romney
> > > never had what many people refer to as a "job". She was a
> > > stay-at-home mom who raised five boys....
> >
> >
> > Translation: She has the LUXURY of being a stay at home mom.
> > How many mothers holding down several jobs to feed their family
> > wouldn't want that option?
> =
> Yeah especially since 90 % of job losses under Obama were women's

Do you have cite that backs that up?

[Vandar]

wy wrote:

> On Apr 12, 11:29 am, Salty Stan <wsjames...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Appearing last night on CNN, Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen made it clear how out-of-touch many Democrats are with traditional, stay-at-home mothers.
>>
>>While addressing the so-called "war on women", Rosen belched forth the following nonsense:
>>
>>"What you have is Mitt Romney running around the country saying, 'Well, you know my wife tells me that what women really care about are economic issues and when I listen to my wife, that's what I'm hearing.' Guess what? His wife has actually never worked a day in her life."
>>
>>She says this because Ann Romney never had what many people refer to as a "job". She was a stay-at-home mom who raised five boys....
>
>
> Try not to leave out the pertinent part of what she said:
>
> "This is not about Ann Romney," Rosen said Thursday.

Her initial remarks were on Wednesday. What she said on Thursday is
known as "damage control".

> "This is about
> the waitress in a diner in some place in Nevada who has two kids whose
> day care funding is being cut off because of the Romney/Ryan budget
> and she doesn't know what to do."

Which isn't happening anywhere because there is no Romney/Ryan budget.

Of course, there is no Obama budget either.

> Rosen said criticism from the right reflected "Republican's desire to
> change the subject."
>
> "I think the issue that I'm focusing on is does Mitt Romney have a
> vision for bringing women up economically, and can he himself stop
> referring to his wife as his economic surrogate? That's an important
> thing. He's the one that keeps doing this. Not me," Rosen continued.
>
> Rosen, also a CNN political contributor and a working mother, made her
> original comments on CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360" on Wednesday.
>
> "What you have is Mitt Romney running around the country, saying,
> 'Well, you know, my wife tells me that what women really care about
> are economic issues, and when I listen to my wife, that's what I'm
> hearing.' Guess what? His wife has actually never worked a day in her
> life," Rosen said on CNN.
>
> "She's never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a
> majority off the women in this country are facing, in terms of how do
> we feed our kids, how do we send them to school, and why do we worry
> about their future," Rosen continued, adding that Romney "just seems
> so old fashioned when it comes to women."
>
> ----
>
> So the point being, that you're too dumb to see because you were too
> dumb to include it, is that Rosen was mocking Romney for relying on
> his wife as an "economic surrogate," whatever the hell that means,

Which of those two words confuses you?

> to clue him into what he should really know himself - women's economic
> issues. Which is kind of funny because he's the one who's worked in
> the world of economics all his life and she's never got a pay check
> all her life, and she's telling him what are important "economic
> issues" for women with five kids who do have to work for a living to
> support those kids because they don't have a husband with a quarter of
> a billion bucks in the bank?

He doesn't have a quarter of a billion in the bank.

[wy]

On Apr 12, 1:46 pm, Vandar <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> wy wrote:
> > On Apr 12, 11:29 am, Salty Stan <wsjames...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>Appearing last night on CNN, Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen made it clear how out-of-touch many Democrats are with traditional, stay-at-home mothers.
>
> >>While addressing the so-called "war on women", Rosen belched forth the following nonsense:
>
> >>"What you have is Mitt Romney running around the country saying, 'Well, you know my wife tells me that what women really care about are economic issues and when I listen to my wife, that's what I'm hearing.' Guess what? His wife has actually never worked a day in her life."
>
> >>She says this because Ann Romney never had what many people refer to as a "job". She was a stay-at-home mom who raised five boys....
>
> > Try not to leave out the pertinent part of what she said:
>
> > "This is not about Ann Romney," Rosen said Thursday.
>
> Her initial remarks were on Wednesday. What she said on Thursday is
> known as "damage control".

And the original remarks were much tamer. Extract the "damage" she
needed to control:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vrE7DG1OWc

Only in America can you people see controversy in tameness and things
that are just plain factual.

>
> > "This is about
> > the waitress in a diner in some place in Nevada who has two kids whose
> > day care funding is being cut off because of the Romney/Ryan budget
> > and she doesn't know what to do."
>
> Which isn't happening anywhere because there is no Romney/Ryan budget.
>
> Of course, there is no Obama budget either.

She's obviously referring to whatever plans they have, not actual
budget. Try not to be so deliberately dense.

> > Rosen said criticism from the right reflected "Republican's desire to
> > change the subject."
>
> > "I think the issue that I'm focusing on is does Mitt Romney have a
> > vision for bringing women up economically, and can he himself stop
> > referring to his wife as his economic surrogate? That's an important
> > thing. He's the one that keeps doing this. Not me," Rosen continued.
>
> > Rosen, also a CNN political contributor and a working mother, made her
> > original comments on CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360" on Wednesday.
>
> > "What you have is Mitt Romney running around the country, saying,
> > 'Well, you know, my wife tells me that what women really care about
> > are economic issues, and when I listen to my wife, that's what I'm
> > hearing.' Guess what? His wife has actually never worked a day in her
> > life," Rosen said on CNN.
>
> > "She's never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a
> > majority off the women in this country are facing, in terms of how do
> > we feed our kids, how do we send them to school, and why do we worry
> > about their future," Rosen continued, adding that Romney "just seems
> > so old fashioned when it comes to women."
>
> > ----
>
> > So the point being, that you're too dumb to see because you were too
> > dumb to include it, is that Rosen was mocking Romney for relying on
> > his wife as an "economic surrogate," whatever the hell that means,
>
> Which of those two words confuses you?

Within the context of his wife never having held any economic position
to qualify her as an economic surrogate on national issues, both
words, when combined, confuse me.

>
> > to clue him into what he should really know himself - women's economic
> > issues.  Which is kind of funny because he's the one who's worked in
> > the world of economics all his life and she's never got a pay check
> > all her life, and she's telling him what are important "economic
> > issues" for women with five kids who do have to work for a living to
> > support those kids because they don't have a husband with a quarter of
> > a billion bucks in the bank?
>
> He doesn't have a quarter of a billion in the bank.

It's what he's worth, so that's like money in the bank. Try not to be
so deliberately dense.

[Vandar]

wy wrote:

> On Apr 12, 1:46 pm, Vandar <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>wy wrote:
>>
>>>On Apr 12, 11:29 am, Salty Stan <wsjames...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>Appearing last night on CNN, Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen made it clear how out-of-touch many Democrats are with traditional, stay-at-home mothers.
>>
>>>>While addressing the so-called "war on women", Rosen belched forth the following nonsense:
>>
>>>>"What you have is Mitt Romney running around the country saying, 'Well, you know my wife tells me that what women really care about are economic issues and when I listen to my wife, that's what I'm hearing.' Guess what? His wife has actually never worked a day in her life."
>>
>>>>She says this because Ann Romney never had what many people refer to as a "job". She was a stay-at-home mom who raised five boys....
>>
>>>Try not to leave out the pertinent part of what she said:
>>
>>>"This is not about Ann Romney," Rosen said Thursday.
>>
>>Her initial remarks were on Wednesday. What she said on Thursday is
>>known as "damage control".
>
>
> And the original remarks were much tamer. Extract the "damage" she
> needed to control:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vrE7DG1OWc
>
> Only in America can you people see controversy in tameness and things
> that are just plain factual.

Take it up with the Democrats who condemned her remarks.

"Disappointed in Hilary Rosen's comments about Ann Romney. They were
inappropriate and offensive" - David Axelrod

"Families must be off limits on campaigns, and I personally believe stay

at home moms work harder than most of us do" - Stephanie Cutter

"Every mother works hard, and every woman deserves to be respected" -
Michelle Obama

"Disappointed in (Hilary Rosen's) comments. As a mother of 3 there's no
doubt that raising children is work." - Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Does she make a habit of apologizing for stating a "fact"?
"I apologize to Ann Romney and anyone else who was offended" - Hilary Rosen

>>>"This is about
>>>the waitress in a diner in some place in Nevada who has two kids whose
>>>day care funding is being cut off because of the Romney/Ryan budget
>>>and she doesn't know what to do."
>>
>>Which isn't happening anywhere because there is no Romney/Ryan budget.
>>
>>Of course, there is no Obama budget either.
>
>
> She's obviously referring to whatever plans they have, not actual
> budget. Try not to be so deliberately dense.

I doubt she knows Romney's budget plan.

Apparently.

>>>to clue him into what he should really know himself - women's economic
>>>issues. Which is kind of funny because he's the one who's worked in
>>>the world of economics all his life and she's never got a pay check
>>>all her life, and she's telling him what are important "economic
>>>issues" for women with five kids who do have to work for a living to
>>>support those kids because they don't have a husband with a quarter of
>>>a billion bucks in the bank?
>>
>>He doesn't have a quarter of a billion in the bank.
>
>
> It's what he's worth, so that's like money in the bank. Try not to be
> so deliberately dense.

You have no idea what he's worth.

Read a book.

[wy]

On Apr 12, 2:48 pm, Vandar <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> wy wrote:
> > On Apr 12, 1:46 pm, Vandar <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>wy wrote:
>
> >>>On Apr 12, 11:29 am, Salty Stan <wsjames...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>Appearing last night on CNN, Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen made it clear how out-of-touch many Democrats are with traditional, stay-at-home mothers.
>
> >>>>While addressing the so-called "war on women", Rosen belched forth the following nonsense:
>
> >>>>"What you have is Mitt Romney running around the country saying, 'Well, you know my wife tells me that what women really care about are economic issues and when I listen to my wife, that's what I'm hearing.' Guess what? His wife has actually never worked a day in her life."
>
> >>>>She says this because Ann Romney never had what many people refer to as a "job". She was a stay-at-home mom who raised five boys....
>
> >>>Try not to leave out the pertinent part of what she said:
>
> >>>"This is not about Ann Romney," Rosen said Thursday.
>
> >>Her initial remarks were on Wednesday. What she said on Thursday is
> >>known as "damage control".
>
> > And the original remarks were much tamer.  Extract the "damage" she
> > needed to control:
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vrE7DG1OWc
>
> > Only in America can you people see controversy in tameness and things
> > that are just plain factual.
>
> Take it up with the Democrats who condemned her remarks.

The problem with Democrats is that they too can be dimwitted Americans
in this dumbed down age of America. What Rosen said wouldn't have
registered on anyone's Richter scale 35 years ago, nor from a Canadian
perspective does it even add up to anything of any material worth
whatsoever. That's why I'm sitting here going, what? Where's the
real story here? Or is the media trying to sell advertising time
again over fabricated hype that they hope they can protract as long as
they can? You guys have totally lost your sense of proper
perspective, but then Repugnancy has topsy-turvied all commentary and
discussions and arguments since the Reagan era in such a way that
nothing can be expressed now without a scintilla of suspicion followed
by heaps of scorn. The climate Repugnants of created with their
overzealous holier-than-thou, my-highway-or-the-highway, don't-trample-
on-what-I-say-or-think-because-you'll-be-committing-treason approach
to things has become a pervasive disease that even the left are
finding it difficult to fight off. What you guys need down there is a
liberal of the likes we had with Pierre Trudeau between the late 60s
and mid-80s. Obama himself could've been that since he has exhibited
the smarts to be that, but unlike Trudeau who put right-wingers in
their proper place and deftly humiliated them in the process for being
the idiots they were, Obama seems incapable or unwilling to play
hardball with Repugnants to get them to shut up and do the job of
being a real opposition party rather than just a bunch of do-nothing
obstructionists who bellow even louder with each time they top
themselves with something stupider than the last thing they said.
Even Canada now could use Trudeau again, but he lived to a ripe old
age and then kicked the bucket. Well, we still have his son Justin in
Parliament and he might just be ready to usurp the throne in a few
years from that goofball right wingnut Harper we're unfortunately
saddled with - if not sooner should a quirk of fate make possible a
successful no confidence vote that would topple the government.

>
> "Disappointed in Hilary Rosen's comments about Ann Romney. They were
> inappropriate and offensive" - David Axelrod
>
> "Families must be off limits on campaigns, and I personally believe stay
> at home moms work harder than most of us do" - Stephanie Cutter
>
> "Every mother works hard, and every woman deserves to be respected" -
> Michelle Obama
>
> "Disappointed in (Hilary Rosen's) comments. As a mother of 3 there's no
> doubt that raising children is work." - Debbie Wasserman Schultz
>
> Does she make a habit of apologizing for stating a "fact"?
> "I apologize to Ann Romney and anyone else who was offended" - Hilary Rosen

Sad, sad, sad, all very sad.

>
> >>>"This is about
> >>>the waitress in a diner in some place in Nevada who has two kids whose
> >>>day care funding is being cut off because of the Romney/Ryan budget
> >>>and she doesn't know what to do."
>
> >>Which isn't happening anywhere because there is no Romney/Ryan budget.
>
> >>Of course, there is no Obama budget either.
>
> > She's obviously referring to whatever plans they have, not actual
> > budget.  Try not to be so deliberately dense.
>
> I doubt she knows Romney's budget plan.

I doubt if Romney knows it himself. I think his "economic surrogate"
wife is drawing it up for him.

I knew you wouldn't get the "context" part of it. Point proven once
again.

>
> >>>to clue him into what he should really know himself - women's economic
> >>>issues.  Which is kind of funny because he's the one who's worked in
> >>>the world of economics all his life and she's never got a pay check
> >>>all her life, and she's telling him what are important "economic
> >>>issues" for women with five kids who do have to work for a living to
> >>>support those kids because they don't have a husband with a quarter of
> >>>a billion bucks in the bank?
>
> >>He doesn't have a quarter of a billion in the bank.
>
> > It's what he's worth, so that's like money in the bank.  Try not to be
> > so deliberately dense.
>
> You have no idea what he's worth.

The estimate is quarter of a billion.

http://www.wealthx.com/articles/2012/wealth-x-lists-romney-as-richest-presidential-candidate-since-tycoon-forbes-and-billionaire-perot/

I guess you had no idea yourself.

>
> Read a book.

Too busy reading your idiotic responses instead. Somehow, in a weird
sort of way, they tend to be more entertaining and fascinating for
their total absence of real substance.

[Vandar]

wy wrote:

> On Apr 12, 2:48 pm, Vandar <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>wy wrote:
>>
>>>On Apr 12, 1:46 pm, Vandar <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>wy wrote:
>>
>>>>>On Apr 12, 11:29 am, Salty Stan <wsjames...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>Appearing last night on CNN, Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen made it clear how out-of-touch many Democrats are with traditional, stay-at-home mothers.
>>
>>>>>>While addressing the so-called "war on women", Rosen belched forth the following nonsense:
>>
>>>>>>"What you have is Mitt Romney running around the country saying, 'Well, you know my wife tells me that what women really care about are economic issues and when I listen to my wife, that's what I'm hearing.' Guess what? His wife has actually never worked a day in her life."
>>
>>>>>>She says this because Ann Romney never had what many people refer to as a "job". She was a stay-at-home mom who raised five boys....
>>
>>>>>Try not to leave out the pertinent part of what she said:
>>
>>>>>"This is not about Ann Romney," Rosen said Thursday.
>>
>>>>Her initial remarks were on Wednesday. What she said on Thursday is
>>>>known as "damage control".
>>
>>>And the original remarks were much tamer. Extract the "damage" she
>>>needed to control:
>>
>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vrE7DG1OWc
>>
>>>Only in America can you people see controversy in tameness and things
>>>that are just plain factual.
>>
>>Take it up with the Democrats who condemned her remarks.
>
>
> The problem with Democrats is that they too can be dimwitted Americans
> in this dumbed down age of America. What Rosen said wouldn't have
> registered on anyone's Richter scale 35 years ago,

The technology has changed, not the rhetoric.

> nor from a Canadian
> perspective does it even add up to anything of any material worth
> whatsoever. That's why I'm sitting here going, what? Where's the
> real story here? Or is the media trying to sell advertising time
> again over fabricated hype that they hope they can protract as long as
> they can?

That's what the media does... Justice for Trayvon!

> You guys have totally lost your sense of proper
> perspective, but then Repugnancy has topsy-turvied all commentary and
> discussions and arguments since the Reagan era in such a way that
> nothing can be expressed now without a scintilla of suspicion followed
> by heaps of scorn. The climate Repugnants of created with their
> overzealous holier-than-thou, my-highway-or-the-highway, don't-trample-
> on-what-I-say-or-think-because-you'll-be-committing-treason approach
> to things has become a pervasive disease that even the left are
> finding it difficult to fight off.

Your faux outrage at one side is humorous, considering the other side
has spent the last few years trashing a wife, mother, her husband, and
her kids, including the one with Down's Syndrome.

> What you guys need down there is a
> liberal of the likes we had with Pierre Trudeau between the late 60s
> and mid-80s.

We have that now - An arrogant tool overseeing a bad economy and massive
debt.

> Obama himself could've been that since he has exhibited
> the smarts to be that, but unlike Trudeau who put right-wingers in
> their proper place and deftly humiliated them in the process for being
> the idiots they were,

I've seen no evidence of Obama's "smarts".

> Obama seems incapable or unwilling to play
> hardball with Repugnants to get them to shut up and do the job of
> being a real opposition party rather than just a bunch of do-nothing
> obstructionists who bellow even louder with each time they top
> themselves with something stupider than the last thing they said.
> Even Canada now could use Trudeau again, but he lived to a ripe old
> age and then kicked the bucket. Well, we still have his son Justin in
> Parliament and he might just be ready to usurp the throne in a few
> years from that goofball right wingnut Harper we're unfortunately
> saddled with - if not sooner should a quirk of fate make possible a
> successful no confidence vote that would topple the government.

Careful with "usurp the throne" talk. You might get invaded by the British.

>>"Disappointed in Hilary Rosen's comments about Ann Romney. They were
>>inappropriate and offensive" - David Axelrod
>>
>>"Families must be off limits on campaigns, and I personally believe stay
>>at home moms work harder than most of us do" - Stephanie Cutter
>>
>>"Every mother works hard, and every woman deserves to be respected" -
>>Michelle Obama
>>
>>"Disappointed in (Hilary Rosen's) comments. As a mother of 3 there's no
>>doubt that raising children is work." - Debbie Wasserman Schultz
>>
>>Does she make a habit of apologizing for stating a "fact"?
>>"I apologize to Ann Romney and anyone else who was offended" - Hilary Rosen
>
>
> Sad, sad, sad, all very sad.

It's a product of technology. Word travels much faster to much broader
audience than ever before.
35 years ago we wouldn't have known Biden always sticks his foot in his
mouth, that GW Bush liked to invent words and has cat-like reflexes, or
that Cheney shot a guy in the face.

>>>>>"This is about
>>>>>the waitress in a diner in some place in Nevada who has two kids whose
>>>>>day care funding is being cut off because of the Romney/Ryan budget
>>>>>and she doesn't know what to do."
>>
>>>>Which isn't happening anywhere because there is no Romney/Ryan budget.
>>
>>>>Of course, there is no Obama budget either.
>>
>>>She's obviously referring to whatever plans they have, not actual
>>>budget. Try not to be so deliberately dense.
>>
>>I doubt she knows Romney's budget plan.
>
>
> I doubt if Romney knows it himself. I think his "economic surrogate"
> wife is drawing it up for him.

Romney knows economics. His MBA with honors and resumé prove that.

You do know what "estimated" means, don't you?

The Wall Street Journal estimates between $250 and $500 million.
The New York Times estimates north of $500 million.
Money Magazine estimates around $200 million.

They don't know. Wealthx.com doesn't know. You don't know.

[wy]

Technology has nothing to do with it, but the rhetoric has gotten
worse. It was already getting worse during the Reagan era - before
there were a dozen TV news channels and sophisticated home computers
and well before the internet became a pervasive medium. Gingrich's
Contract with America solidified the rhetoric at a time when Windows
95 was all the rage and Al Gore had just flipped the on switch for the
World Wide Web to come alive.

>
> > nor from a Canadian
> > perspective does it even add up to anything of any material worth
> > whatsoever.  That's why I'm sitting here going, what?  Where's the
> > real story here?  Or is the media trying to sell advertising time
> > again over fabricated hype that they hope they can protract as long as
> > they can?
>
> That's what the media does... Justice for Trayvon!

This isn't about Trayvon.

>
> > You guys have totally lost your sense of proper
> > perspective, but then Repugnancy has topsy-turvied all commentary and
> > discussions and arguments since the Reagan era in such a way that
> > nothing can be expressed now without a scintilla of suspicion followed
> > by heaps of scorn.  The climate Repugnants of created with their
> > overzealous holier-than-thou, my-highway-or-the-highway, don't-trample-
> > on-what-I-say-or-think-because-you'll-be-committing-treason approach
> > to things has become a pervasive disease that even the left are
> > finding it difficult to fight off.
>
> Your faux outrage at one side is humorous, considering the other side
> has spent the last few years trashing a wife, mother, her husband, and
> her kids, including the one with Down's Syndrome.

What, you expect the other side to just roll over and play dead while
you throw the trash all by yourselves?

>
> > What you guys need down there is a
> > liberal of the likes we had with Pierre Trudeau between the late 60s
> > and mid-80s.
>
> We have that now - An arrogant tool overseeing a bad economy and massive
> debt.

He's a pallid comparison to what we had. Not only don't you guys know
what socialism is, you don't even know what a real liberal is.

>
> > Obama himself could've been that since he has exhibited
> > the smarts to be that, but unlike Trudeau who put right-wingers in
> > their proper place and deftly humiliated them in the process for being
> > the idiots they were,
>
> I've seen no evidence of Obama's "smarts".

Well, if you keep turning off the channel everythie he appears on
screen or throw aside anything written about him, I guess you
wouldn't. But then, to know smarts, you'd have to have smarts.

>
> > Obama seems incapable or unwilling to play
> > hardball with Repugnants to get them to shut up and do the job of
> > being a real opposition party rather than just a bunch of do-nothing
> > obstructionists who bellow even louder with each time they top
> > themselves with something stupider than the last thing they said.
> > Even Canada now could use Trudeau again, but he lived to a ripe old
> > age and then kicked the bucket.  Well, we still have his son Justin in
> > Parliament and he might just be ready to usurp the throne in a few
> > years from that goofball right wingnut Harper we're unfortunately
> > saddled with - if not sooner should a quirk of fate make possible a
> > successful no confidence vote that would topple the government.
>
> Careful with "usurp the throne" talk. You might get invaded by the British.

Wouldn't bother us. They helped us beat you guys in 1812.

> >>"Disappointed in Hilary Rosen's comments about Ann Romney. They were
> >>inappropriate and offensive" - David Axelrod
>
> >>"Families must be off limits on campaigns, and I personally believe stay
> >>at home moms work harder than most of us do" - Stephanie Cutter
>
> >>"Every mother works hard, and every woman deserves to be respected" -
> >>Michelle Obama
>
> >>"Disappointed in (Hilary Rosen's) comments. As a mother of 3 there's no
> >>doubt that raising children is work." - Debbie Wasserman Schultz
>
> >>Does she make a habit of apologizing for stating a "fact"?
> >>"I apologize to Ann Romney and anyone else who was offended" - Hilary Rosen
>
> > Sad, sad, sad, all very sad.
>
> It's a product of technology. Word travels much faster to much broader
> audience than ever before.
> 35 years ago we wouldn't have known Biden always sticks his foot in his
> mouth, that GW Bush liked to invent words and has cat-like reflexes, or
> that Cheney shot a guy in the face.

Yeah, well, I already addressed that in the other post.

> >>>>>"This is about
> >>>>>the waitress in a diner in some place in Nevada who has two kids whose
> >>>>>day care funding is being cut off because of the Romney/Ryan budget
> >>>>>and she doesn't know what to do."
>
> >>>>Which isn't happening anywhere because there is no Romney/Ryan budget.
>
> >>>>Of course, there is no Obama budget either.
>
> >>>She's obviously referring to whatever plans they have, not actual
> >>>budget.  Try not to be so deliberately dense.
>
> >>I doubt she knows Romney's budget plan.
>
> > I doubt if Romney knows it himself.  I think his "economic surrogate"
> > wife is drawing it up for him.
>
> Romney knows economics. His MBA with honors and resumé prove that.

So what does he need his "economic surrogate" wife for to tell him
things he should know himself?

> >http://www.wealthx.com/articles/2012/wealth-x-lists-romney-as-richest...

>
> > I guess you had no idea yourself.
>
> You do know what "estimated" means, don't you?
>
> The Wall Street Journal estimates between $250 and $500 million.
> The New York Times estimates north of $500 million.
> Money Magazine estimates around $200 million.
>
> They don't know. Wealthx.com doesn't know. You don't know.

It's certainly more than you'll ever amass in at least 200 lifetimes,
that much I know.

[Salty Stan]

On Thursday, April 12, 2012 1:46:38 PM UTC-4, Vandar wrote:
> wy wrote:
>
> > On Apr 12, 11:29 am, Salty Stan <wsjames...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Appearing last night on CNN, Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen made it clear how out-of-touch many Democrats are with traditional, stay-at-home mothers.
> >>
> >>While addressing the so-called "war on women", Rosen belched forth the following nonsense:
> >>
> >>"What you have is Mitt Romney running around the country saying, 'Well, you know my wife tells me that what women really care about are economic issues and when I listen to my wife, that's what I'm hearing.' Guess what? His wife has actually never worked a day in her life."
> >>
> >>She says this because Ann Romney never had what many people refer to as a "job". She was a stay-at-home mom who raised five boys....
> >
> >
> > Try not to leave out the pertinent part of what she said:
> >
> > "This is not about Ann Romney," Rosen said Thursday.
>
> Her initial remarks were on Wednesday. What she said on Thursday is
> known as "damage control".

A small fact that seems to have escaped wy's notice.

Is that a trick question?
:)

>
> > to clue him into what he should really know himself - women's economic
> > issues. Which is kind of funny because he's the one who's worked in
> > the world of economics all his life and she's never got a pay check
> > all her life, and she's telling him what are important "economic
> > issues" for women with five kids who do have to work for a living to
> > support those kids because they don't have a husband with a quarter of
> > a billion bucks in the bank?
>
> He doesn't have a quarter of a billion in the bank.

Democrats have this nasty habit of going after their opponents' wives and kids...when lackeys like "wy" apologize for and try to justify this behavior, it just vindicates my opinion of them.

[Salty Stan]

On Thursday, April 12, 2012 1:59:01 PM UTC-4, wy wrote:
> On Apr 12, 1:46 pm, Vandar <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > wy wrote:
> > > On Apr 12, 11:29 am, Salty Stan <wsjames...@gmail.com> wrote:
---
> >
> > > So the point being, that you're too dumb to see because you were too
> > > dumb to include it, is that Rosen was mocking Romney for relying on
> > > his wife as an "economic surrogate," whatever the hell that means,
> >
> > Which of those two words confuses you?
>
> Within the context of his wife never having held any economic position
> to qualify her as an economic surrogate on national issues, both
> words, when combined, confuse me.
>

"wy" - Tell me - what experience in economics did Obama gain as a community organizer that qualified him to run our economy?

[Vandar]

No it hasn't. It's toned a bit because technology has a lot to do with
it. They have be more careful about what they say.
You won't hear any politician's campaign accuse the opponent's mother of
being a prostitute from Britain who dared to marry a mulatto. That's
what John Adams did.

> It was already getting worse during the Reagan era - before
> there were a dozen TV news channels and sophisticated home computers
> and well before the internet became a pervasive medium.

Half a dozen news stations and these things called newspapers.

> Gingrich's Contract with America solidified the rhetoric at a time when Windows
> 95 was all the rage and Al Gore had just flipped the on switch for the
> World Wide Web to come alive.

The Web came alive 5 years before then.

>>>nor from a Canadian
>>>perspective does it even add up to anything of any material worth
>>>whatsoever. That's why I'm sitting here going, what? Where's the
>>>real story here? Or is the media trying to sell advertising time
>>>again over fabricated hype that they hope they can protract as long as
>>>they can?
>>
>>That's what the media does... Justice for Trayvon!
>
>
> This isn't about Trayvon.

Justice for Caylee!

>>>You guys have totally lost your sense of proper
>>>perspective, but then Repugnancy has topsy-turvied all commentary and
>>>discussions and arguments since the Reagan era in such a way that
>>>nothing can be expressed now without a scintilla of suspicion followed
>>>by heaps of scorn. The climate Repugnants of created with their
>>>overzealous holier-than-thou, my-highway-or-the-highway, don't-trample-
>>>on-what-I-say-or-think-because-you'll-be-committing-treason approach
>>>to things has become a pervasive disease that even the left are
>>>finding it difficult to fight off.
>>
>>Your faux outrage at one side is humorous, considering the other side
>>has spent the last few years trashing a wife, mother, her husband, and
>>her kids, including the one with Down's Syndrome.
>
>
> What, you expect the other side to just roll over and play dead while
> you throw the trash all by yourselves?

Who is "you"?

>>>What you guys need down there is a
>>>liberal of the likes we had with Pierre Trudeau between the late 60s
>>>and mid-80s.
>>
>>We have that now - An arrogant tool overseeing a bad economy and massive
>>debt.
>
>
> He's a pallid comparison to what we had. Not only don't you guys know
> what socialism is, you don't even know what a real liberal is.

Yes, we do. That's why we don't want one.

>>>Obama himself could've been that since he has exhibited
>>>the smarts to be that, but unlike Trudeau who put right-wingers in
>>>their proper place and deftly humiliated them in the process for being
>>>the idiots they were,
>>
>>I've seen no evidence of Obama's "smarts".
>
>
> Well, if you keep turning off the channel everythie he appears on
> screen or throw aside anything written about him, I guess you
> wouldn't. But then, to know smarts, you'd have to have smarts.

uhhh sure. Whatever you say.

>>>Obama seems incapable or unwilling to play
>>>hardball with Repugnants to get them to shut up and do the job of
>>>being a real opposition party rather than just a bunch of do-nothing
>>>obstructionists who bellow even louder with each time they top
>>>themselves with something stupider than the last thing they said.
>>>Even Canada now could use Trudeau again, but he lived to a ripe old
>>>age and then kicked the bucket. Well, we still have his son Justin in
>>>Parliament and he might just be ready to usurp the throne in a few
>>>years from that goofball right wingnut Harper we're unfortunately
>>>saddled with - if not sooner should a quirk of fate make possible a
>>>successful no confidence vote that would topple the government.
>>
>>Careful with "usurp the throne" talk. You might get invaded by the British.
>
>
> Wouldn't bother us. They helped us beat you guys in 1812.

How'd that work out for you, Commonwealth citizen?

She can tell him what concerns women. Unlike the idiot in the White
House now, whose woman tells him what to think.

Your admission that you don't know is accepted.

[Vandar]

Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 12:18:54 -0400, "$7.00 Gas Hits Democrap
> California ! LOL !" <Obama's 7 Dollar gas @ White House.org> wrote:
>
>
>>Yeah especially since 90 % of job losses under Obama were women's
>
>

> Best check the number of unemployed on Jan 20th 2009 and the
> unemployed today.

Do you think today's number would be smaller?

[Christopher Helms]

That's quite a war you morons cooked up. Let's take a look at the scoreboard over the last year, shall we?

REPUBLICANS:

No abortion, ever. End of discussion.
You need to inform your employer that you use contraceptives.
"Let's loosen the rape laws."
Ultrasound Bob in Virginia likes really, really intrusive government.
Kill Planned Parenthood even though it performs very few abortions
Kill abortion doctors
Firebomb clinics
Harass people who work in abortion clinics.
Women who have premarital sex are all whores
Women on the pill are all whores
Pre-abortion religious interventions/"Talks."
Women don't have gender specific healthcare issues
A bunch of old dudes talk to Congress about contraception
"There's a Democratic 'War On Women' out there. Honest."

DEMOCRATS:

Not a damn thing.

[Vandar]

Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

> Sure it is. Public record
>
> Bush had lost 9,000,000 jobs by the end of his term
>
> Last months he was in office--he was losing 700,000 PER MONTH
>
> First quarter Obama took office----the losses stopped--and began to
> change.

That isn't what you said or what I replied to.

"Best check the number of unemployed on Jan 20th 2009 and the unemployed
today."

There are more unemployed today.

[wy]

On Apr 12, 5:23 pm, Salty Stan <wsjames...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, April 12, 2012 1:46:38 PM UTC-4, Vandar wrote:
> > wy wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 12, 11:29 am, Salty Stan <wsjames...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>Appearing last night on CNN, Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen made it clear how out-of-touch many Democrats are with traditional, stay-at-home mothers.
>
> > >>While addressing the so-called "war on women", Rosen belched forth the following nonsense:
>
> > >>"What you have is Mitt Romney running around the country saying, 'Well, you know my wife tells me that what women really care about are economic issues and when I listen to my wife, that's what I'm hearing.' Guess what? His wife has actually never worked a day in her life."
>
> > >>She says this because Ann Romney never had what many people refer to as a "job". She was a stay-at-home mom who raised five boys....
>
> > > Try not to leave out the pertinent part of what she said:
>
> > > "This is not about Ann Romney," Rosen said Thursday.
>
> > Her initial remarks were on Wednesday. What she said on Thursday is
> > known as "damage control".
>
> A small fact that seems to have escaped wy's notice.

A small fact that seems to have escaped your notice is what I said
afterwards about it. But things like that would easily escape a right
wingnut's notice.

Vindicate it further and point exactly to what Rosen said that was a
direct attack on women, working or not, raising their kids. Make sure
you listen to the entirety of what she said and her follow-up. I
won't hold my breath for your "vindication".

[wy]

You don't even know what you're talking about anymore. First you say
the rhetoric hasn't changed, it's the technology, now you say the
rhetoric has toned down because of the technology. So which is it,
did the rhetoric not change or has it been toned down when in fact the
rhetoric has actually intensified over the last three decades? You
don't have to answer the question, it won't make any sense anyway
since you don't know what you're talking about anymore.

>
> > It was already getting worse during the Reagan era - before
> > there were a dozen TV news channels and sophisticated home computers
> > and well before the internet became a pervasive medium.
>
> Half a dozen news stations and these things called newspapers.

Yeah, so, what about them?

>
> > Gingrich's Contract with America solidified the rhetoric at a time when Windows
> > 95 was all the rage and Al Gore had just flipped the on switch for the
> > World Wide Web to come alive.
>
> The Web came alive 5 years before then.

Nobody was on it, never mind the fact that there were practically zero
web sites pre-1995.

http://website101.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/website_count_history-1995-2010.png

>
> >>>nor from a Canadian
> >>>perspective does it even add up to anything of any material worth
> >>>whatsoever.  That's why I'm sitting here going, what?  Where's the
> >>>real story here?  Or is the media trying to sell advertising time
> >>>again over fabricated hype that they hope they can protract as long as
> >>>they can?
>
> >>That's what the media does... Justice for Trayvon!
>
> > This isn't about Trayvon.
>
> Justice for Caylee!

Try working mothers.

>
> >>>You guys have totally lost your sense of proper
> >>>perspective, but then Repugnancy has topsy-turvied all commentary and
> >>>discussions and arguments since the Reagan era in such a way that
> >>>nothing can be expressed now without a scintilla of suspicion followed
> >>>by heaps of scorn.  The climate Repugnants of created with their
> >>>overzealous holier-than-thou, my-highway-or-the-highway, don't-trample-
> >>>on-what-I-say-or-think-because-you'll-be-committing-treason approach
> >>>to things has become a pervasive disease that even the left are
> >>>finding it difficult to fight off.
>
> >>Your faux outrage at one side is humorous, considering the other side
> >>has spent the last few years trashing a wife, mother, her husband, and
> >>her kids, including the one with Down's Syndrome.
>
> > What, you expect the other side to just roll over and play dead while
> > you throw the trash all by yourselves?
>
> Who is "you"?

You is "you". Boy, you're stupid.

>
> >>>What you guys need down there is a
> >>>liberal of the likes we had with Pierre Trudeau between the late 60s
> >>>and mid-80s.
>
> >>We have that now - An arrogant tool overseeing a bad economy and massive
> >>debt.
>
> > He's a pallid comparison to what we had.  Not only don't you guys know
> > what socialism is, you don't even know what a real liberal is.
>
> Yes, we do. That's why we don't want one.

You don't have any, anyway. At least not the ones that should be
running things.

>
> >>>Obama himself could've been that since he has exhibited
> >>>the smarts to be that, but unlike Trudeau who put right-wingers in
> >>>their proper place and deftly humiliated them in the process for being
> >>>the idiots they were,
>
> >>I've seen no evidence of Obama's "smarts".
>
> > Well, if you keep turning off the channel everythie he appears on
> > screen or throw aside anything written about him, I guess you
> > wouldn't.  But then, to know smarts, you'd have to have smarts.
>
> uhhh sure. Whatever you say.

See, I told you so.

>
> >>>Obama seems incapable or unwilling to play
> >>>hardball with Repugnants to get them to shut up and do the job of
> >>>being a real opposition party rather than just a bunch of do-nothing
> >>>obstructionists who bellow even louder with each time they top
> >>>themselves with something stupider than the last thing they said.
> >>>Even Canada now could use Trudeau again, but he lived to a ripe old
> >>>age and then kicked the bucket.  Well, we still have his son Justin in
> >>>Parliament and he might just be ready to usurp the throne in a few
> >>>years from that goofball right wingnut Harper we're unfortunately
> >>>saddled with - if not sooner should a quirk of fate make possible a
> >>>successful no confidence vote that would topple the government.
>
> >>Careful with "usurp the throne" talk. You might get invaded by the British.
>
> > Wouldn't bother us.  They helped us beat you guys in 1812.
>
> How'd that work out for you, Commonwealth citizen?

Really well. Will & Kate stopping by to visit for a week last summer
and proved to be a huge hit here with almost Olympics-like daily
coverage. And we don't have to worry about going bankrupt and losing
our homes over health care, so we get to live 3 years longer than you
do. Life is good. You should try it sometime and then maybe you'd
see how miserable you've actually been.

Oh, that's good, very good, a true racist Repugnant peering through
the looking glass and seeing things backwards, upside down and cock-
eyed all at once. How do you right wingnuts always do it? I can't
seem to master that trick myself.

*is* knowing (do the math), and that much I know.

[wy]

Enough to have turned an ongoing plummeting economy around from the
low point it hit three months into his term to gradually uplift it
again and get it to the point where it is now, which is about where it
was before the crash, except for the unemployment part. But thanks to
Bush, he made sure that part was nicely sabotaged enough so that any
quick fix would be impossible by any president, not just Obama.

[Vandar]

wy wrote:

> On Apr 12, 5:57 pm, Vandar <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>No it hasn't. It's toned a bit because technology has a lot to do with
>>it. They have be more careful about what they say.
>>You won't hear any politician's campaign accuse the opponent's mother of
>>being a prostitute from Britain who dared to marry a mulatto. That's
>>what John Adams did.
>
>
> You don't even know what you're talking about anymore. First you say
> the rhetoric hasn't changed, it's the technology, now you say the
> rhetoric has toned down because of the technology. So which is it,
> did the rhetoric not change or has it been toned down when in fact the
> rhetoric has actually intensified over the last three decades? You
> don't have to answer the question, it won't make any sense anyway
> since you don't know what you're talking about anymore.

The rhetoric has not gotten worse, as you incorrectly claimed.
Technology has played a key role in that, in spite of what you claimed.

Try not to befuddle yourself so often.

>>>It was already getting worse during the Reagan era - before
>>>there were a dozen TV news channels and sophisticated home computers
>>>and well before the internet became a pervasive medium.
>>
>>Half a dozen news stations and these things called newspapers.
>
>
> Yeah, so, what about them?

They distibute this thing called news, which informs people in less than
24 hours. They existed during Reagan's time.
The rhetoric has gotten progressively better due to such things.

>>>Gingrich's Contract with America solidified the rhetoric at a time when Windows
>>>95 was all the rage and Al Gore had just flipped the on switch for the
>>>World Wide Web to come alive.
>>
>>The Web came alive 5 years before then.
>
>
> Nobody was on it, never mind the fact that there were practically zero
> web sites pre-1995.
>
> http://website101.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/website_count_history-1995-2010.png

It was still there.

>>>>>nor from a Canadian
>>>>>perspective does it even add up to anything of any material worth
>>>>>whatsoever. That's why I'm sitting here going, what? Where's the
>>>>>real story here? Or is the media trying to sell advertising time
>>>>>again over fabricated hype that they hope they can protract as long as
>>>>>they can?
>>
>>>>That's what the media does... Justice for Trayvon!
>>
>>>This isn't about Trayvon.
>>
>>Justice for Caylee!
>
>
> Try working mothers.

Justice for Prostitute Nuns!

>>>>>You guys have totally lost your sense of proper
>>>>>perspective, but then Repugnancy has topsy-turvied all commentary and
>>>>>discussions and arguments since the Reagan era in such a way that
>>>>>nothing can be expressed now without a scintilla of suspicion followed
>>>>>by heaps of scorn. The climate Repugnants of created with their
>>>>>overzealous holier-than-thou, my-highway-or-the-highway, don't-trample-
>>>>>on-what-I-say-or-think-because-you'll-be-committing-treason approach
>>>>>to things has become a pervasive disease that even the left are
>>>>>finding it difficult to fight off.
>>
>>>>Your faux outrage at one side is humorous, considering the other side
>>>>has spent the last few years trashing a wife, mother, her husband, and
>>>>her kids, including the one with Down's Syndrome.
>>
>>>What, you expect the other side to just roll over and play dead while
>>>you throw the trash all by yourselves?
>>
>>Who is "you"?
>
>
> You is "you". Boy, you're stupid.

That depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

>>>>>What you guys need down there is a
>>>>>liberal of the likes we had with Pierre Trudeau between the late 60s
>>>>>and mid-80s.
>>
>>>>We have that now - An arrogant tool overseeing a bad economy and massive
>>>>debt.
>>
>>>He's a pallid comparison to what we had. Not only don't you guys know
>>>what socialism is, you don't even know what a real liberal is.
>>
>>Yes, we do. That's why we don't want one.
>
>
> You don't have any, anyway. At least not the ones that should be
> running things.

I just said that.

>>>Wouldn't bother us. They helped us beat you guys in 1812.
>>
>>How'd that work out for you, Commonwealth citizen?
>
>
> Really well. Will & Kate stopping by to visit for a week last summer
> and proved to be a huge hit here with almost Olympics-like daily
> coverage.

Personality cults are for idiots.

> And we don't have to worry about going bankrupt and losing
> our homes over health care, so we get to live 3 years longer than you
> do.

That doesn't mean all of you do.

> Life is good. You should try it sometime and then maybe you'd
> see how miserable you've actually been.

I'm perfectly content with both place and direction. If I wanted to move
to Canada, I could. That I haven't and you're here discussing America
daily should tell you something.

>>She can tell him what concerns women. Unlike the idiot in the White
>>House now, whose woman tells him what to think.
>
>
> Oh, that's good, very good, a true racist Repugnant peering through
> the looking glass and seeing things backwards, upside down and cock-
> eyed all at once. How do you right wingnuts always do it? I can't
> seem to master that trick myself.

It isn't racist to say he's pussy whipped, especially when he is.

[Gary DW]

In article <jm80i6$dae$1...@news.albasani.net>, Vandar
says...

> >>She can tell him what concerns women. Unlike the idiot in the White
> >>House now, whose woman tells him what to think.
> >
> >
> > Oh, that's good, very good, a true racist Repugnant peering through
> > the looking glass and seeing things backwards, upside down and cock-
> > eyed all at once. How do you right wingnuts always do it? I can't
> > seem to master that trick myself.
>
> It isn't racist to say he's pussy whipped, especially when he is.
>
>

What evidence do you have he is "pussy whipped?"


She isn't being led around on a collar?







--
"Job creators" are not the wealthy, nor have they ever
been.

Its a robust MIDDLE CLASS having extra money to spend is
what creates jobs.

This should be the main Dem message... Nothing else.

-Gary

[wy]

On Apr 12, 9:46 pm, Vandar <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> wy wrote:
> > On Apr 12, 5:57 pm, Vandar <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>No it hasn't. It's toned a bit because technology has a lot to do with
> >>it. They have be more careful about what they say.
> >>You won't hear any politician's campaign accuse the opponent's mother of
> >>being a prostitute from Britain who dared to marry a mulatto. That's
> >>what John Adams did.
>
> > You don't even know what you're talking about anymore.  First you say
> > the rhetoric hasn't changed, it's the technology, now you say the
> > rhetoric has toned down because of the technology.  So which is it,
> > did the rhetoric not change or has it been toned down when in fact the
> > rhetoric has actually intensified over the last three decades?  You
> > don't have to answer the question, it won't make any sense anyway
> > since you don't know what you're talking about anymore.
>
> The rhetoric has not gotten worse, as you incorrectly claimed.
> Technology has played a key role in that, in spite of what you claimed.
>
> Try not to befuddle yourself so often.

Of course it's gotten worse. It's gotten stupider, louder and more
callous, especially over minutiae, the mundane and the irrelevant.
But then, you'd be too stupid yourself to know that.

>
> >>>It was already getting worse during the Reagan era - before
> >>>there were a dozen TV news channels and sophisticated home computers
> >>>and well before the internet became a pervasive medium.
>
> >>Half a dozen news stations and these things called newspapers.
>
> > Yeah, so, what about them?
>
> They distibute this thing called news, which informs people in less than
> 24 hours. They existed during Reagan's time.
> The rhetoric has gotten progressively better due to such things.

There you go peering into the koo-koo looking glass again.

>
> >>>Gingrich's Contract with America solidified the rhetoric at a time when Windows
> >>>95 was all the rage and Al Gore had just flipped the on switch for the
> >>>World Wide Web to come alive.
>
> >>The Web came alive 5 years before then.
>
> > Nobody was on it, never mind the fact that there were practically zero
> > web sites pre-1995.
>

> >http://website101.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/website_count_histor...
>
> It was still there.

And it was still without people caring much about it being there -
till Windows 95 kicked in.

>
> >>>>>nor from a Canadian
> >>>>>perspective does it even add up to anything of any material worth
> >>>>>whatsoever.  That's why I'm sitting here going, what?  Where's the
> >>>>>real story here?  Or is the media trying to sell advertising time
> >>>>>again over fabricated hype that they hope they can protract as long as
> >>>>>they can?
>
> >>>>That's what the media does... Justice for Trayvon!
>
> >>>This isn't about Trayvon.
>
> >>Justice for Caylee!
>
> > Try working mothers.
>
> Justice for Prostitute Nuns!

Hollow cries of protest falling on deaf ears. You'd be better off
watching bad TV while drowning yourself in several cans of Bud.

> >>>>>You guys have totally lost your sense of proper
> >>>>>perspective, but then Repugnancy has topsy-turvied all commentary and
> >>>>>discussions and arguments since the Reagan era in such a way that
> >>>>>nothing can be expressed now without a scintilla of suspicion followed
> >>>>>by heaps of scorn.  The climate Repugnants of created with their
> >>>>>overzealous holier-than-thou, my-highway-or-the-highway, don't-trample-
> >>>>>on-what-I-say-or-think-because-you'll-be-committing-treason approach
> >>>>>to things has become a pervasive disease that even the left are
> >>>>>finding it difficult to fight off.
>
> >>>>Your faux outrage at one side is humorous, considering the other side
> >>>>has spent the last few years trashing a wife, mother, her husband, and
> >>>>her kids, including the one with Down's Syndrome.
>
> >>>What, you expect the other side to just roll over and play dead while
> >>>you throw the trash all by yourselves?
>
> >>Who is "you"?
>
> > You is "you".  Boy, you're stupid.
>
> That depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

Is not.

>
> >>>>>What you guys need down there is a
> >>>>>liberal of the likes we had with Pierre Trudeau between the late 60s
> >>>>>and mid-80s.
>
> >>>>We have that now - An arrogant tool overseeing a bad economy and massive
> >>>>debt.
>
> >>>He's a pallid comparison to what we had.  Not only don't you guys know
> >>>what socialism is, you don't even know what a real liberal is.
>
> >>Yes, we do. That's why we don't want one.
>
> > You don't have any, anyway.  At least not the ones that should be
> > running things.
>
> I just said that.

Well, don't make it sound like you'll ever get one to not want one.

>
> >>>Wouldn't bother us.  They helped us beat you guys in 1812.
>
> >>How'd that work out for you, Commonwealth citizen?
>
> > Really well.  Will & Kate stopping by to visit for a week last summer
> > and proved to be a huge hit here with almost Olympics-like daily
> > coverage.
>
> Personality cults are for idiots.

I'd do Kate.

>
> > And we don't have to worry about going bankrupt and losing
> > our homes over health care, so we get to live 3 years longer than you
> > do.
>
> That doesn't mean all of you do.

Yeah, I guess you don't know much about averages, too. Let's put it
this way, I've got a much better chance of lasting 3 years longer than
you do - and still not go bankrupt or lose a home in the process.

>
> > Life is good.  You should try it sometime and then maybe you'd
> > see how miserable you've actually been.
>
> I'm perfectly content with both place and direction. If I wanted to move
> to Canada, I could. That I haven't and you're here discussing America
> daily should tell you something.

It tells me I'm dodging Zimmerman bullets by being up here, another
reason why I'll last 3 years longer than you will.

>
> >>She can tell him what concerns women. Unlike the idiot in the White
> >>House now, whose woman tells him what to think.
>
> > Oh, that's good, very good, a true racist Repugnant peering through
> > the looking glass and seeing things backwards, upside down and cock-
> > eyed all at once.  How do you right wingnuts always do it?  I can't
> > seem to master that trick myself.
>
> It isn't racist to say he's pussy whipped, especially when he is.

It is if there's nothing to back up the pussy-whipping.

[Vandar]

Gary DW wrote:

> In article <jm80i6$dae$1...@news.albasani.net>, Vandar
> says...
>
>
>
>>>>She can tell him what concerns women. Unlike the idiot in the White
>>>>House now, whose woman tells him what to think.
>>>
>>>
>>>Oh, that's good, very good, a true racist Repugnant peering through
>>>the looking glass and seeing things backwards, upside down and cock-
>>>eyed all at once. How do you right wingnuts always do it? I can't
>>>seem to master that trick myself.
>>
>>It isn't racist to say he's pussy whipped, especially when he is.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> What evidence do you have he is "pussy whipped?"

Her mother lives with them. I mean, C'MON!

> She isn't being led around on a collar?

It's a harness.

[Gary DW]

In article <jm7j98$q35$2...@news.albasani.net>, Vandar
says...

Do you think it would be better with McCain and a Pub
Congress?


Explain somehow if so....

THIS SHOULD BE FUN!!

[Slackjaw]

wy wrote:

> On Apr 12, 11:29 am, Salty Stan <wsjames...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Appearing last night on CNN, Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen
> > made it clear how out-of-touch many Democrats are with traditional,
> > stay-at-home mothers.
> >
> > While addressing the so-called "war on women", Rosen belched forth
> > the following nonsense:
> >
> > "What you have is Mitt Romney running around the country saying,
> > 'Well, you know my wife tells me that what women really care about
> > are economic issues and when I listen to my wife, that's what I'm
> > hearing.' Guess what? His wife has actually never worked a day in
> > her life."
> >
> > She says this because Ann Romney never had what many people refer
> > to as a "job". She was a stay-at-home mom who raised five boys....
>
> Try not to leave out the pertinent part of what she said:
>

> "This is not about Ann Romney," Rosen said Thursday. "This is about

> the waitress in a diner in some place in Nevada who has two kids whose
> day care funding is being cut off because of the Romney/Ryan budget

> and she doesn't know what to do."

No that's what she said later as part of her damage control. Did you
not know that? How stupid are you, really?

>
> Rosen said criticism from the right reflected "Republican's desire to
> change the subject."
>
> "I think the issue that I'm focusing on is does Mitt Romney have a
> vision for bringing women up economically, and can he himself stop
> referring to his wife as his economic surrogate? That's an important
> thing. He's the one that keeps doing this. Not me," Rosen continued.
>
> Rosen, also a CNN political contributor and a working mother, made her
> original comments on CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360" on Wednesday.
>
> "What you have is Mitt Romney running around the country, saying,
> 'Well, you know, my wife tells me that what women really care about
> are economic issues, and when I listen to my wife, that's what I'm
> hearing.' Guess what? His wife has actually never worked a day in her
> life," Rosen said on CNN.
>
> "She's never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a
> majority off the women in this country are facing, in terms of how do
> we feed our kids, how do we send them to school, and why do we worry
> about their future," Rosen continued, adding that Romney "just seems
> so old fashioned when it comes to women."
>
> ----
>

> So the point being, that you're too dumb to see because you were too
> dumb to include it, is that Rosen was mocking Romney for relying on

> his wife as an "economic surrogate," whatever the hell that means, to

Sorry that you're not intelligent enough to understand it.

Maybe you should move to a simpler newsgroup, one more suited to your
intellectual level.

> clue him into what he should really know himself - women's economic
> issues. Which is kind of funny because he's the one who's worked in
> the world of economics all his life and she's never got a pay check
> all her life, and she's telling him what are important "economic
> issues" for women with five kids who do have to work for a living to
> support those kids because they don't have a husband with a quarter of
> a billion bucks in the bank?
>

> Context - Repugnants can never grasp it or really know what the word
> means.



--
---
If ignorance is bliss, why are there so many miserable liberals?
---

[Slackjaw]

No need wasting your time with wy - he's an idiot.

[wy]

On Apr 12, 10:21 pm, Vandar <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Gary DW wrote:

> > In article <jm80i6$da...@news.albasani.net>, Vandar

No, it's called a free nanny. Often Barack and Michelle will be off
in two different directions at the same time tending to whatever
political or public matters they each are dealing in, leaving the kids
home alone with nanny granny to look after them, somebody they should
have around, especially if something tragic should happen to one or
both parents. You got something against a wholesome family
upbringing? You Repugnants are so riddled with hypocrisy about "the
family" that you would totally demean it when it involves a black
family, including a presidential one. People like you are so puke-
inducing.

[Slackjaw]

No seriously, what were his qualifications to be the best choice to run
our economy? What experience did he have, what successes in economics
management can you point out before he was elected?

[Vandar]

Mosaic says hi.

>>>>>>>nor from a Canadian
>>>>>>>perspective does it even add up to anything of any material worth
>>>>>>>whatsoever. That's why I'm sitting here going, what? Where's the
>>>>>>>real story here? Or is the media trying to sell advertising time
>>>>>>>again over fabricated hype that they hope they can protract as long as
>>>>>>>they can?
>>
>>>>>>That's what the media does... Justice for Trayvon!
>>
>>>>>This isn't about Trayvon.
>>
>>>>Justice for Caylee!
>>
>>>Try working mothers.
>>
>>Justice for Prostitute Nuns!
>
>
> Hollow cries of protest falling on deaf ears. You'd be better off
> watching bad TV while drowning yourself in several cans of Bud.

Beer sucks. Justice for Pepsi!

>>>Really well. Will & Kate stopping by to visit for a week last summer
>>>and proved to be a huge hit here with almost Olympics-like daily
>>>coverage.
>>
>>Personality cults are for idiots.
>
>
> I'd do Kate.

Good for you.

>>>And we don't have to worry about going bankrupt and losing
>>>our homes over health care, so we get to live 3 years longer than you
>>>do.
>>
>>That doesn't mean all of you do.
>
>
> Yeah, I guess you don't know much about averages, too. Let's put it
> this way, I've got a much better chance of lasting 3 years longer than
> you do - and still not go bankrupt or lose a home in the process.

I certainly won't have the latter two happen and that average has no
effect on a comparison of two individuals.

>>>Life is good. You should try it sometime and then maybe you'd
>>>see how miserable you've actually been.
>>
>>I'm perfectly content with both place and direction. If I wanted to move
>>to Canada, I could. That I haven't and you're here discussing America
>>daily should tell you something.
>
>
> It tells me I'm dodging Zimmerman bullets by being up here, another
> reason why I'll last 3 years longer than you will.

Yeah. I'll be shot 3 years before you die.

[Vandar]

Gary DW wrote:

> In article <jm7j98$q35$2...@news.albasani.net>, Vandar
> says...
>
>
>
>>Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 12:18:54 -0400, "$7.00 Gas Hits Democrap
>>>California ! LOL !" <Obama's 7 Dollar gas @ White House.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Yeah especially since 90 % of job losses under Obama were women's
>>>
>>>
>>>Best check the number of unemployed on Jan 20th 2009 and the
>>>unemployed today.
>>
>>Do you think today's number would be smaller?
>
>
>
>
> Do you think it would be better with McCain and a Pub
> Congress?

With McCain, yes. With a Republican majority, probably not, but there's
a good chance it would be better than it is now.

[David Hartung]

What Obama's supporters cannot admit is that not only does Obama have no
training, qualifications or experience before becoming president, his
record since taking office is horrid.

[wy]

On Apr 12, 10:43 pm, "Slackjaw" <Oklah...@spacealliance.com> wrote:
> wy wrote:
> > On Apr 12, 11:29 am, Salty Stan <wsjames...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Appearing last night on CNN, Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen
> > > made it clear how out-of-touch many Democrats are with traditional,
> > > stay-at-home mothers.
>
> > > While addressing the so-called "war on women", Rosen belched forth
> > > the following nonsense:
>
> > > "What you have is Mitt Romney running around the country saying,
> > > 'Well, you know my wife tells me that what women really care about
> > > are economic issues and when I listen to my wife, that's what I'm
> > > hearing.' Guess what? His wife has actually never worked a day in
> > > her life."
>
> > > She says this because Ann Romney never had what many people refer
> > > to as a "job". She was a stay-at-home mom who raised five boys....
>
> > Try not to leave out the pertinent part of what she said:
>
> > "This is not about Ann Romney," Rosen said Thursday. "This is about
> > the waitress in a diner in some place in Nevada who has two kids whose
> > day care funding is being cut off because of the Romney/Ryan budget
> > and she doesn't know what to do."
>
> No that's what she said later as part of her damage control. Did you
> not know  that? How stupid are you, really?

That is what she said afterward. This is what she said first:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vrE7DG1OWc

Which is the video of what Salty Stan originally posted above, which I
then followed up with Rosen's follow-up text which appeared on the CNN
site.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/12/democrat-defends-ann-romney-comments-amid-firestorm/

So tell me, how really stupid are you?

More like this group is probably the simplest one there is and you're
incapable of rising to the challenge of knocking down my level of
intellect. I make you think too hard, which is why you want me out -
to spare you all the migraines you keep getting from the way I keep
bashing up that wet noodle of an IQ of yours.

[wy]

In case you didn't notice, the Constitution doesn't stipulate any
experience in anything to be required in order to run for president.
Hell, even you could do it - but you're too stupid to even succeed at
it.

[wy]

You're talking a mole hill, I'm talking a mountain.

> >>>>>>>nor from a Canadian
> >>>>>>>perspective does it even add up to anything of any material worth
> >>>>>>>whatsoever.  That's why I'm sitting here going, what?  Where's the
> >>>>>>>real story here?  Or is the media trying to sell advertising time
> >>>>>>>again over fabricated hype that they hope they can protract as long as
> >>>>>>>they can?
>
> >>>>>>That's what the media does... Justice for Trayvon!
>
> >>>>>This isn't about Trayvon.
>
> >>>>Justice for Caylee!
>
> >>>Try working mothers.
>
> >>Justice for Prostitute Nuns!
>
> > Hollow cries of protest falling on deaf ears.  You'd be better off
> > watching bad TV while drowning yourself in several cans of Bud.
>
> Beer sucks. Justice for Pepsi!

Whatever.

>
> >>>Really well.  Will & Kate stopping by to visit for a week last summer
> >>>and proved to be a huge hit here with almost Olympics-like daily
> >>>coverage.
>
> >>Personality cults are for idiots.
>
> > I'd do Kate.
>
> Good for you.

It would be.

>
> >>>And we don't have to worry about going bankrupt and losing
> >>>our homes over health care, so we get to live 3 years longer than you
> >>>do.
>
> >>That doesn't mean all of you do.
>
> > Yeah, I guess you don't know much about averages, too.  Let's put it
> > this way, I've got a much better chance of lasting 3 years longer than
> > you do - and still not go bankrupt or lose a home in the process.
>
> I certainly won't have the latter two happen and that average has no
> effect on a comparison of two individuals.

Averages determine the likelihood of one's odds. The likelihood of my
odds outliving you are better, going by the averages.

>
> >>>Life is good.  You should try it sometime and then maybe you'd
> >>>see how miserable you've actually been.
>
> >>I'm perfectly content with both place and direction. If I wanted to move
> >>to Canada, I could. That I haven't and you're here discussing America
> >>daily should tell you something.
>
> > It tells me I'm dodging Zimmerman bullets by being up here, another
> > reason why I'll last 3 years longer than you will.
>
> Yeah. I'll be shot 3 years before you die.

One less Repugnant to deal with.

[Vandar]

I'm talking about the program that is credited with catapulting the web
into popularity before Win 95 was released.

>>>>>>>>>nor from a Canadian
>>>>>>>>>perspective does it even add up to anything of any material worth
>>>>>>>>>whatsoever. That's why I'm sitting here going, what? Where's the
>>>>>>>>>real story here? Or is the media trying to sell advertising time
>>>>>>>>>again over fabricated hype that they hope they can protract as long as
>>>>>>>>>they can?
>>
>>>>>>>>That's what the media does... Justice for Trayvon!
>>
>>>>>>>This isn't about Trayvon.
>>
>>>>>>Justice for Caylee!
>>
>>>>>Try working mothers.
>>
>>>>Justice for Prostitute Nuns!
>>
>>>Hollow cries of protest falling on deaf ears. You'd be better off
>>>watching bad TV while drowning yourself in several cans of Bud.
>>
>>Beer sucks. Justice for Pepsi!
>
>
> Whatever.

Justice for Indifference!

>>>>>Really well. Will & Kate stopping by to visit for a week last summer
>>>>>and proved to be a huge hit here with almost Olympics-like daily
>>>>>coverage.
>>
>>>>Personality cults are for idiots.
>>
>>>I'd do Kate.
>>
>>Good for you.
>
>
> It would be.
>
>
>>>>>And we don't have to worry about going bankrupt and losing
>>>>>our homes over health care, so we get to live 3 years longer than you
>>>>>do.
>>
>>>>That doesn't mean all of you do.
>>
>>>Yeah, I guess you don't know much about averages, too. Let's put it
>>>this way, I've got a much better chance of lasting 3 years longer than
>>>you do - and still not go bankrupt or lose a home in the process.
>>
>>I certainly won't have the latter two happen and that average has no
>>effect on a comparison of two individuals.
>
>
> Averages determine the likelihood of one's odds. The likelihood of my
> odds outliving you are better, going by the averages.

If you ignore all other variables (aka reality)

>>>>>Life is good. You should try it sometime and then maybe you'd
>>>>>see how miserable you've actually been.
>>
>>>>I'm perfectly content with both place and direction. If I wanted to move
>>>>to Canada, I could. That I haven't and you're here discussing America
>>>>daily should tell you something.
>>
>>>It tells me I'm dodging Zimmerman bullets by being up here, another
>>>reason why I'll last 3 years longer than you will.
>>
>>Yeah. I'll be shot 3 years before you die.
>
>
> One less Repugnant to deal with.

Of course, I'm quite certain I'm more than three years older than you,
so there goes your average.

[linuxgal]

Slackjaw wrote:

> No seriously, what were his qualifications to be the best choice to run
> our economy?

I don't want anyone running our economy except Adam Smith's dead hand.

[pyjamarama]

On Thursday, April 12, 2012 3:10:42 PM UTC-4, wy wrote:

> On Apr 12, 2:48 pm, Vandar <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > wy wrote:

> > > On Apr 12, 1:46 pm, Vandar <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >>wy wrote:
> >

> > >>>On Apr 12, 11:29 am, Salty Stan <wsjames...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >

> > >>>>Appearing last night on CNN, Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen made it clear how out-of-touch many Democrats are with traditional, stay-at-home mothers.
> >
> > >>>>While addressing the so-called "war on women", Rosen belched forth the following nonsense:
> >
> > >>>>"What you have is Mitt Romney running around the country saying, 'Well, you know my wife tells me that what women really care about are economic issues and when I listen to my wife, that's what I'm hearing.' Guess what? His wife has actually never worked a day in her life."
> >
> > >>>>She says this because Ann Romney never had what many people refer to as a "job". She was a stay-at-home mom who raised five boys....
> >
> > >>>Try not to leave out the pertinent part of what she said:
> >
> > >>>"This is not about Ann Romney," Rosen said Thursday.
> >

> > >>Her initial remarks were on Wednesday. What she said on Thursday is
> > >>known as "damage control".
> >
> > > And the original remarks were much tamer.  Extract the "damage" she
> > > needed to control:
> >
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vrE7DG1OWc
> >
> > > Only in America can you people see controversy in tameness and things
> > > that are just plain factual.
> >
> > Take it up with the Democrats who condemned her remarks.
>
> The problem with Democrats is that they too can be dimwitted Americans
> in this dumbed down age of America. What Rosen said wouldn't have

> registered on anyone's Richter scale 35 years ago, nor from a Canadian

> perspective does it even add up to anything of any material worth
> whatsoever.

Would this "register", asswipe?

"Nothing very interesting about it. It's just Jews being Jews, only in it for themselves." – Putrid little nazi 'wy' shows his true, anti-semitic colors on Sept. 14th, 2011

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/2a46a06cbaa601d9?hl=en&dmode=source

That's why I'm sitting here going, what? Where's the
> real story here? Or is the media trying to sell advertising time
> again over fabricated hype that they hope they can protract as long as

> they can? You guys have totally lost your sense of proper

> perspective, but then Repugnancy has topsy-turvied all commentary and
> discussions and arguments since the Reagan era in such a way that
> nothing can be expressed now without a scintilla of suspicion followed
> by heaps of scorn. The climate Repugnants of created with their
> overzealous holier-than-thou, my-highway-or-the-highway, don't-trample-
> on-what-I-say-or-think-because-you'll-be-committing-treason approach
> to things has become a pervasive disease that even the left are

> finding it difficult to fight off. What you guys need down there is a

> liberal of the likes we had with Pierre Trudeau between the late 60s

> and mid-80s. Obama himself could've been that since he has exhibited

> the smarts to be that, but unlike Trudeau who put right-wingers in
> their proper place and deftly humiliated them in the process for being

> the idiots they were, Obama seems incapable or unwilling to play

> hardball with Repugnants to get them to shut up and do the job of
> being a real opposition party rather than just a bunch of do-nothing
> obstructionists who bellow even louder with each time they top
> themselves with something stupider than the last thing they said.
> Even Canada now could use Trudeau again, but he lived to a ripe old
> age and then kicked the bucket. Well, we still have his son Justin in
> Parliament and he might just be ready to usurp the throne in a few
> years from that goofball right wingnut Harper we're unfortunately
> saddled with - if not sooner should a quirk of fate make possible a
> successful no confidence vote that would topple the government.
>
>
> >

> > "Disappointed in Hilary Rosen's comments about Ann Romney. They were
> > inappropriate and offensive" - David Axelrod
> >
> > "Families must be off limits on campaigns, and I personally believe stay
> > at home moms work harder than most of us do" - Stephanie Cutter
> >
> > "Every mother works hard, and every woman deserves to be respected" -
> > Michelle Obama
> >
> > "Disappointed in (Hilary Rosen's) comments. As a mother of 3 there's no
> > doubt that raising children is work." - Debbie Wasserman Schultz
> >
> > Does she make a habit of apologizing for stating a "fact"?
> > "I apologize to Ann Romney and anyone else who was offended" - Hilary Rosen
>
> Sad, sad, sad, all very sad.
>
>
> >

> > >>>"This is about
> > >>>the waitress in a diner in some place in Nevada who has two kids whose
> > >>>day care funding is being cut off because of the Romney/Ryan budget

> > >>>and she doesn't know what to do."
> >
> > >>Which isn't happening anywhere because there is no Romney/Ryan budget.
> >
> > >>Of course, there is no Obama budget either.
> >
> > > She's obviously referring to whatever plans they have, not actual
> > > budget.  Try not to be so deliberately dense.
> >
> > I doubt she knows Romney's budget plan.
>
> I doubt if Romney knows it himself. I think his "economic surrogate"
> wife is drawing it up for him.
>
> >

> > >>>Rosen said criticism from the right reflected "Republican's desire to
> > >>>change the subject."
> >
> > >>>"I think the issue that I'm focusing on is does Mitt Romney have a
> > >>>vision for bringing women up economically, and can he himself stop
> > >>>referring to his wife as his economic surrogate? That's an important
> > >>>thing. He's the one that keeps doing this. Not me," Rosen continued.
> >
> > >>>Rosen, also a CNN political contributor and a working mother, made her
> > >>>original comments on CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360" on Wednesday.
> >
> > >>>"What you have is Mitt Romney running around the country, saying,
> > >>>'Well, you know, my wife tells me that what women really care about
> > >>>are economic issues, and when I listen to my wife, that's what I'm
> > >>>hearing.' Guess what? His wife has actually never worked a day in her
> > >>>life," Rosen said on CNN.
> >
> > >>>"She's never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a
> > >>>majority off the women in this country are facing, in terms of how do
> > >>>we feed our kids, how do we send them to school, and why do we worry
> > >>>about their future," Rosen continued, adding that Romney "just seems
> > >>>so old fashioned when it comes to women."
> >
> > >>>----
> >

> > >>>So the point being, that you're too dumb to see because you were too
> > >>>dumb to include it, is that Rosen was mocking Romney for relying on
> > >>>his wife as an "economic surrogate," whatever the hell that means,
> >
> > >>Which of those two words confuses you?
> >
> > > Within the context of his wife never having held any economic position
> > > to qualify her as an economic surrogate on national issues, both
> > > words, when combined, confuse me.
> >

> > Apparently.
>
> I knew you wouldn't get the "context" part of it. Point proven once
> again.
>
>
> >

> > >>>to clue him into what he should really know himself - women's economic

> > >>>issues.  Which is kind of funny because he's the one who's worked in
> > >>>the world of economics all his life and she's never got a pay check
> > >>>all her life, and she's telling him what are important "economic
> > >>>issues" for women with five kids who do have to work for a living to
> > >>>support those kids because they don't have a husband with a quarter of
> > >>>a billion bucks in the bank?
> >

> > >>He doesn't have a quarter of a billion in the bank.
> >
> > > It's what he's worth, so that's like money in the bank.  Try not to be
> > > so deliberately dense.
> >
> > You have no idea what he's worth.
>
> The estimate is quarter of a billion.
>

> http://www.wealthx.com/articles/2012/wealth-x-lists-romney-as-richest-presidential-candidate-since-tycoon-forbes-and-billionaire-perot/

>
> I guess you had no idea yourself.
>
> >

> > Read a book.
>
> Too busy reading your idiotic responses instead. Somehow, in a weird
> sort of way, they tend to be more entertaining and fascinating for
> their total absence of real substance.

[Salty Stan]

Right, I didn't think he had any qualifications either.

[Salty Stan]

On Thursday, April 12, 2012 8:28:59 PM UTC-4, wy wrote:
> On Apr 12, 5:23 pm, Salty Stan <wsjames...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 12, 2012 1:46:38 PM UTC-4, Vandar wrote:
> > > wy wrote:
> >
> > > > On Apr 12, 11:29 am, Salty Stan <wsjames...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >

..

> >
> > Democrats have this nasty habit of going after their opponents' wives and kids...when lackeys like "wy" apologize for and try to justify this behavior,  it just vindicates my opinion of them.
>
> Vindicate it further and point exactly to what Rosen said that was a
> direct attack on women, working or not, raising their kids. Make sure
> you listen to the entirety of what she said and her follow-up. I
> won't hold my breath for your "vindication".

You mean where she said 'Well, you know my wife tells me that what women really care about are economic issues and when I listen to my wife, that's what I'm hearing.' Guess what? His wife has actually never worked a day in her life."

If you don't see anything wrong with that, maybe (to quote Vandar) you should take it up with the Democrats who condemned her remarks.

[wy]

You're still talking mole hill. Stop struggling to make it any more
than it is.

There's no ignoring. There's just your inability to accept the fact
that you're at the losing end of the scale.

>
> >>>>>Life is good.  You should try it sometime and then maybe you'd
> >>>>>see how miserable you've actually been.
>
> >>>>I'm perfectly content with both place and direction. If I wanted to move
> >>>>to Canada, I could. That I haven't and you're here discussing America
> >>>>daily should tell you something.
>
> >>>It tells me I'm dodging Zimmerman bullets by being up here, another
> >>>reason why I'll last 3 years longer than you will.
>
> >>Yeah. I'll be shot 3 years before you die.
>
> > One less Repugnant to deal with.
>
> Of course, I'm quite certain I'm more than three years older than you,
> so there goes your average.

But you could die today and I could end up living six years more,
which would put things back in my favor.

[wy]

So what are you complaining about if none is required? Boy, you're
stupid.

[wy]

Awww, Pee-pee, you're so sweet for remembering. How can I repay
you? I know, I'll send some Orthodox Jews to your door, you know,
the ones with those long, funny sideburns, black hats and coats, and
have them read the Torah to you as you stand against a wall and bang
your head against it while listening to the whole book be recited.
That should make your day.

[wy]

Mitt has a business degree and he's listening to someone who doesn't
have a business degree tell him things he should already know
himself? What's wrong with that picture? Not to mention he avoided
the draft 3 times during the Viet Nam war era. Nice, huh, for a
potential commander-in-chief?

[Vandar]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/95/Mosaic_browser_plaque_ncsa.jpg

Justice for Mole Hills!

>>>Averages determine the likelihood of one's odds. The likelihood of my
>>>odds outliving you are better, going by the averages.
>>
>>If you ignore all other variables (aka reality)
>
>
> There's no ignoring. There's just your inability to accept the fact
> that you're at the losing end of the scale.

*I* may or may not be. You also may or may not be.

>>>>>>>Life is good. You should try it sometime and then maybe you'd
>>>>>>>see how miserable you've actually been.
>>
>>>>>>I'm perfectly content with both place and direction. If I wanted to move
>>>>>>to Canada, I could. That I haven't and you're here discussing America
>>>>>>daily should tell you something.
>>
>>>>>It tells me I'm dodging Zimmerman bullets by being up here, another
>>>>>reason why I'll last 3 years longer than you will.
>>
>>>>Yeah. I'll be shot 3 years before you die.
>>
>>>One less Repugnant to deal with.
>>
>>Of course, I'm quite certain I'm more than three years older than you,
>>so there goes your average.
>
>
> But you could die today and I could end up living six years more,
> which would put things back in my favor.

But wouldn't be in line with the average.

[lsrlts]

On 4/13/2012 8:50 AM, wy wrote:
> Nice, huh, for a
> potential commander-in-chief?

Go eat some maple bear claws, you witless canuck troll.

[lsrlts]

On 4/13/2012 8:44 AM, wy wrote:
> How can I repay
> you? I know, I'll send some Orthodox Jews to your door, you know,

How long have you been a neo nazi?

[lsrlts]

On 4/13/2012 8:44 AM, wy wrote:

> Boy, you're
> stupid.

Boy, you're a witless canuck troll.

[Vandar]

What's wrong is that you think a business degree means one is aware of
what the other gender is thinking.

> Not to mention he avoided
> the draft 3 times during the Viet Nam war era.

He received the same deferments every other student and missionary
received. When they ran out, he was assigned a draft number.

> Nice, huh, for a potential commander-in-chief?

And where was Clinton during Vietnam? Or Obama during the Gulf War?
At least Clinton had experience running a government before he became
POTUS. Obama barely had any experience running a household.

[lsrlts]

On 4/13/2012 8:23 AM, wy wrote:
> But you could die today and I could end up living six years more,

NO, please reverse that.

[wy]

> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/95/Mosaic_browser_pla...

>
> Justice for Mole Hills!
>
> >>>Averages determine the likelihood of one's odds.  The likelihood of my
> >>>odds outliving you are better, going by the averages.
>
> >>If you ignore all other variables (aka reality)
>
> > There's no ignoring.  There's just your inability to accept the fact
> > that you're at the losing end of the scale.
>
> *I* may or may not be. You also may or may not be.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>>>Life is good.  You should try it sometime and then maybe you'd
> >>>>>>>see how miserable you've actually been.
>
> >>>>>>I'm perfectly content with both place and direction. If I wanted to move
> >>>>>>to Canada, I could. That I haven't and you're here discussing America
> >>>>>>daily should tell you something.
>
> >>>>>It tells me I'm dodging Zimmerman bullets by being up here, another
> >>>>>reason why I'll last 3 years longer than you will.
>
> >>>>Yeah. I'll be shot 3 years before you die.
>
> >>>One less Repugnant to deal with.
>
> >>Of course, I'm quite certain I'm more than three years older than you,
> >>so there goes your average.
>
> > But you could die today and I could end up living six years more,
> > which would put things back in my favor.
>
> But wouldn't be in line with the average.

If I'd be 75 now, it would. But regardless of age, the average is
still in my favor, not yours, so I have something to rely on with that
basis, you don't. Yeah, I know, sucks to be you.

[lsrlts]

On 4/13/2012 9:19 AM, wy wrote:
> But regardless of age, the average is
> still in my favor,

You are an old, stupid canuck troll.

Drop dead.

[wy]

You didn't like that little fact of Mitt's avoiding the draft 3 times
during the Vet Nam War, huh, Israelites? Hey, and he even lived in
France for almost three years during the height of the War as well.
Talk about perfect timing to stay away and the corrupting influences
of the French on him, I tell ya. So tough Mitt titties for you.

[lsrlts]

On 4/13/2012 9:24 AM, wy wrote:
> huh, Israelites?

Why are you a nazi?

[Gary DW]

In article <jm848u$j0o$2...@news.albasani.net>, Vandar
says...

Chrysler and GM would both be distant memories.

The stimulus would have been vetoed... thus AT LEAST 2
million more on the unemployed lines... possibly 4
million.

We'd be facing close to 20% unemployment, and the only
answer McCain would think of would be more spending
cuts.

Nope Randoid-Vandar.

The country avoided the 2nd Great Depression.


The only people that don't think so are you cult
members.











--
"Job creators" are not the wealthy, nor have they ever
been.

Its a robust MIDDLE CLASS having extra money to spend is
what creates jobs.

This should be the main Dem message... Nothing else.

-Gary

[Gary DW]

In article <jm82is$gq0$1...@news.albasani.net>, Vandar
says...


>
> Gary DW wrote:
>
> > In article <jm80i6$dae$1...@news.albasani.net>, Vandar
> > says...
> >
> >
> >
> >>>>She can tell him what concerns women. Unlike the idiot in the White
> >>>>House now, whose woman tells him what to think.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Oh, that's good, very good, a true racist Repugnant peering through
> >>>the looking glass and seeing things backwards, upside down and cock-
> >>>eyed all at once. How do you right wingnuts always do it? I can't
> >>>seem to master that trick myself.
> >>
> >>It isn't racist to say he's pussy whipped, especially when he is.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > What evidence do you have he is "pussy whipped?"
>
> Her mother lives with them. I mean, C'MON!


You are a complete moron sometimes.


>
> > She isn't being led around on a collar?
>
> It's a harness.

[Gary DW]

In article <3b1458f7-0bb9-4dc3-bd53-e26ef6ab23d5
@f6g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>, wy says...

>
> On Apr 12, 10:21 pm, Vandar <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Gary DW wrote:

> > > In article <jm80i6$da...@news.albasani.net>, Vandar

> > > says...
> >
> > >>>>She can tell him what concerns women. Unlike the idiot in the White
> > >>>>House now, whose woman tells him what to think.
> >
> > >>>Oh, that's good, very good, a true racist Repugnant peering through
> > >>>the looking glass and seeing things backwards, upside down and cock-
> > >>>eyed all at once.  How do you right wingnuts always do it?  I can't
> > >>>seem to master that trick myself.
> >
> > >>It isn't racist to say he's pussy whipped, especially when he is.
> >
> > > What evidence do you have he is "pussy whipped?"
> >
> > Her mother lives with them. I mean, C'MON!
> >

> > > She isn't being led around on a collar?
> >
> > It's a harness.
>

> No, it's called a free nanny. Often Barack and Michelle will be off
> in two different directions at the same time tending to whatever
> political or public matters they each are dealing in, leaving the kids
> home alone with nanny granny to look after them, somebody they should
> have around, especially if something tragic should happen to one or
> both parents. You got something against a wholesome family
> upbringing? You Repugnants are so riddled with hypocrisy about "the
> family" that you would totally demean it when it involves a black
> family, including a presidential one. People like you are so puke-
> inducing.



I imagine Vandar considers anyone in a relationship with
a woman that isn't either a subservient bimbo, or a
trophy wife is "pussy whipped."

What an ugly thing to say about Obama... it gives you
insight into the typical rightie brain though, doesn't
it?

[lsrlts]

On 4/13/2012 10:12 AM, Gary DW wrote:
> Chrysler and GM would both be distant memories.

Chrysler is owned by FIAT.

GM is still heavily govt. and union owned.

Next.

[lsrlts]

On 4/13/2012 10:14 AM, Gary DW wrote:
> You are a complete moron sometimes.

Whereas you reside there always.

[lsrlts]

On 4/13/2012 10:23 AM, Gary DW wrote:
> I imagine

That's been well-documented here, yes.

[wy]

Why are you an Israelites?

[wy]

On Apr 13, 12:17 pm, Vandar <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> wy wrote:
> > On Apr 13, 9:25 am, Salty Stan <wsjames...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Thursday, April 12, 2012 8:28:59 PM UTC-4, wy wrote:
>
> >>>On Apr 12, 5:23 pm, Salty Stan <wsjames...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>On Thursday, April 12, 2012 1:46:38 PM UTC-4, Vandar wrote:
>
> >>>>>wy wrote:
>
> >>>>>>On Apr 12, 11:29 am, Salty Stan <wsjames...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>..
>
> >>>>Democrats have this nasty habit of going after their opponents' wives and kids...when lackeys like "wy" apologize for and try to justify this behavior,  it just vindicates my opinion of them.
>
> >>>Vindicate it further and point exactly to what Rosen said that was a
> >>>direct attack on women, working or not, raising their kids.  Make sure
> >>>you listen to the entirety of what she said and her follow-up.  I
> >>>won't hold my breath for your "vindication".
>
> >>You mean where she said 'Well, you know my wife tells me that what women really care about are economic issues and when I listen to my wife, that's what I'm hearing.' Guess what? His wife has actually never worked a day in her life."
>
> >>If you don't see anything wrong with that, maybe (to quote Vandar) you should take it up with the Democrats who condemned her remarks.
>
> > Mitt has a business degree and he's listening to someone who doesn't
> > have a business degree tell him things he should already know
> > himself?  What's wrong with that picture?
>
> What's wrong is that you think a business degree means one is aware of
> what the other gender is thinking.
>

It's not about what the other gender is thinking, it's about
economics, stupid, and realizing that a lot of women aren't as
privileged as Mitt's wife to be able to just stay home on a quarter-
billion dollar wealth cushion and raise five kids with the help of
nannies, maids, cooks, tutors, whatever else she can take advantage of
that most women can't. And it doesn't take a business or any other
degree or the wife of a rich gay telling her rich husband that most
women are generally worse off economically than men for him to get it
- unless he's that genetically dumb.

>
> > Not to mention he avoided
> > the draft 3 times during the Viet Nam war era.
>
> He received the same deferments every other student and missionary
> received. When they ran out, he was assigned a draft number.

Yeah, and his number was so high that there was no possibility of his
ever being drafted. Clever bastard, he worked it out perfectly. But
he could've volunteered, you know.

>
> > Nice, huh, for a potential commander-in-chief?
>
> And where was Clinton during Vietnam? Or Obama during the Gulf War?
> At least Clinton had experience running a government before he became
> POTUS. Obama barely had any experience running a household.

You see what happens when the shoe is on the other foot? The very
thing you Repugnants cry about - lack of military service for a
liberal - is the very thing you defend when it's one of your own who
did everything he could to avoid it himself. Bunch of raving right-
wingnut hypocrites you all are.

[wy]

So? You'd prefer 100,000 more people out of work and a million other
peripheral job losses instead? Well, sure you would, because that's
the Repugnant way of doing things - backwards, upside down and cock-
eyed and actually believing it'll work.

[David Hartung]

On 04/13/2012 12:12 PM, Gary DW wrote:
> In article<jm848u$j0o$2...@news.albasani.net>, Vandar

> says...
>
>
>>
>> Gary DW wrote:
>>
>>> In article<jm7j98$q35$2...@news.albasani.net>, Vandar
>>> says...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 12:18:54 -0400, "$7.00 Gas Hits Democrap
>>>>> California ! LOL !"<Obama's 7 Dollar gas @ White House.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah especially since 90 % of job losses under Obama were women's
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Best check the number of unemployed on Jan 20th 2009 and the
>>>>> unemployed today.
>>>>
>>>> Do you think today's number would be smaller?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you think it would be better with McCain and a Pub
>>> Congress?
>>
>> With McCain, yes. With a Republican majority, probably not, but there's
>> a good chance it would be better than it is now.
>
>
>
>
> Chrysler and GM would both be distant memories.
>
> The stimulus would have been vetoed... thus AT LEAST 2
> million more on the unemployed lines... possibly 4
> million.
>
> We'd be facing close to 20% unemployment, and the only
> answer McCain would think of would be more spending
> cuts.
>
> Nope Randoid-Vandar.
>
> The country avoided the 2nd Great Depression.

Interesting opinion, but it is only that, an unsupported opinion.

[wy]

On Apr 13, 5:40 pm, David Hartung <da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote:
> On 04/13/2012 12:12 PM, Gary DW wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > In article<jm848u$j0...@news.albasani.net>, Vandar
> > says...
>
> >> Gary DW wrote:
>
> >>> In article<jm7j98$q3...@news.albasani.net>, Vandar
> >>> says...

>
> >>>> Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 12:18:54 -0400, "$7.00 Gas Hits Democrap
> >>>>> California ! LOL !"<Obama's 7 Dollar gas @ White House.org>  wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Yeah especially since 90 % of job losses under Obama were women's
>
> >>>>> Best check the number of unemployed on Jan 20th 2009 and the
> >>>>> unemployed today.
>
> >>>> Do you think today's number would be smaller?
>
> >>> Do you think it would be better with McCain and a Pub
> >>> Congress?
>
> >> With McCain, yes. With a Republican majority, probably not, but there's
> >> a good chance it would be better than it is now.
>
> > Chrysler and GM would both be distant memories.
>
> > The stimulus would have been vetoed... thus AT LEAST 2
> > million more on the unemployed lines... possibly 4
> > million.
>
> > We'd be facing close to 20% unemployment, and the only
> > answer McCain would think of would be more spending
> > cuts.
>
> > Nope Randoid-Vandar.
>
> > The country avoided the 2nd Great Depression.
>
> Interesting opinion, but it is only that, an unsupported opinion.

You would've preferred that it actually happened? Well, yeah, of
course you would've preferred that - at least you could've seen with
your own eyes what you utterly fail to see with your own mind, at
which point it would've been too late and a second Great Depression
would've materialized. You're not much into preventative action, are
you? It's gotta be the low IQ in you.

[Vandar]

You obviously know nothing of Romney or his family.

>>>Not to mention he avoided
>>>the draft 3 times during the Viet Nam war era.
>>
>>He received the same deferments every other student and missionary
>>received. When they ran out, he was assigned a draft number.
>
>
> Yeah, and his number was so high that there was no possibility of his
> ever being drafted. Clever bastard, he worked it out perfectly. But
> he could've volunteered, you know.

Why? Did you volunteer? Did Clinton?

>>>Nice, huh, for a potential commander-in-chief?
>>
>>And where was Clinton during Vietnam? Or Obama during the Gulf War?
>>At least Clinton had experience running a government before he became
>>POTUS. Obama barely had any experience running a household.
>
>
> You see what happens when the shoe is on the other foot? The very
> thing you Repugnants cry about - lack of military service for a
> liberal - is the very thing you defend when it's one of your own who
> did everything he could to avoid it himself. Bunch of raving right-
> wingnut hypocrites you all are.

You don't know what you're talking about.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy/msg/5b6116d9fb9c0831?hl=en

[Vandar]

Gary DW wrote:

> In article <jm848u$j0o$2...@news.albasani.net>, Vandar
> says...
>
>
>
>>Gary DW wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <jm7j98$q35$2...@news.albasani.net>, Vandar
>>>says...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 12:18:54 -0400, "$7.00 Gas Hits Democrap
>>>>>California ! LOL !" <Obama's 7 Dollar gas @ White House.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Yeah especially since 90 % of job losses under Obama were women's
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Best check the number of unemployed on Jan 20th 2009 and the
>>>>>unemployed today.
>>>>
>>>>Do you think today's number would be smaller?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Do you think it would be better with McCain and a Pub
>>>Congress?
>>
>>With McCain, yes. With a Republican majority, probably not, but there's
>>a good chance it would be better than it is now.
>
>
>
>
>
> Chrysler and GM would both be distant memories.

No they wouldn't. They would've declared bankruptcy, just like did under
Obama, and emerged a leaner company.
If they eventually failed, oh well. If there was a hole in the market as
a result, a new company would pop up to take their place.
Capitalism is a bitch.

> The stimulus would have been vetoed... thus AT LEAST 2
> million more on the unemployed lines... possibly 4
> million.

The stimulus failed. It should never have been passed.

> We'd be facing close to 20% unemployment, and the only
> answer McCain would think of would be more spending
> cuts.
>
> Nope Randoid-Vandar.
>
> The country avoided the 2nd Great Depression.

Pure speculation based on nothing than the left's wish to paint
themselves as some sort of savior.

> The only people that don't think so are you cult
> members.

And many economists.

[Vandar]

Those people wouldn't have been out of work for long.

[Vandar]

Gary DW wrote:

> In article <jm82is$gq0$1...@news.albasani.net>, Vandar
> says...
>
>
>
>>Gary DW wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <jm80i6$dae$1...@news.albasani.net>, Vandar
>>>says...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>She can tell him what concerns women. Unlike the idiot in the White
>>>>>>House now, whose woman tells him what to think.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh, that's good, very good, a true racist Repugnant peering through
>>>>>the looking glass and seeing things backwards, upside down and cock-
>>>>>eyed all at once. How do you right wingnuts always do it? I can't
>>>>>seem to master that trick myself.
>>>>
>>>>It isn't racist to say he's pussy whipped, especially when he is.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>What evidence do you have he is "pussy whipped?"
>>
>>Her mother lives with them. I mean, C'MON!
>
>
>
> You are a complete moron sometimes.

And you're a humorless twat most times.

[Vandar]

I'm still not a rightie, skippy. And there is little doubt Michelle is
an overbearing goon of a wife. Obama confirms it almost every time he
talks about her "She lets me do this", "she allows me to get away with
that", etc.
The guy is supposed to be a leader of the most powerful nation on Earth.
He doesn't even lead his own family.

[wy]

Just as you know nothing of Obama and his family. But up front and on
face value, between the two of them, the who says the most dumb things
is clearly Romney.

>
> >>>Not to mention he avoided
> >>>the draft 3 times during the Viet Nam war era.
>
> >>He received the same deferments every other student and missionary
> >>received. When they ran out, he was assigned a draft number.
>
> > Yeah, and his number was so high that there was no possibility of his
> > ever being drafted.  Clever bastard, he worked it out perfectly.  But
> > he could've volunteered, you know.
>
> Why? Did you volunteer? Did Clinton?

Well, that's the real joke of your argument, isn't it? Proving you
can't cry about Democrats not having served when there are just as
many Repugnants who haven't either, and especially when there's no
Constitutional stipulation of having to have served before seeking
office. So stop whining already, it's a non-issue. Nothing worse
than a whining right wingnut.

>
> >>>Nice, huh, for a potential commander-in-chief?
>
> >>And where was Clinton during Vietnam? Or Obama during the Gulf War?
> >>At least Clinton had experience running a government before he became
> >>POTUS. Obama barely had any experience running a household.
>
> > You see what happens when the shoe is on the other foot?  The very
> > thing you Repugnants cry about - lack of military service for a
> > liberal - is the very thing you defend when it's one of your own who
> > did everything he could to avoid it himself.  Bunch of raving right-
> > wingnut hypocrites you all are.
>
> You don't know what you're talking about.http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy/msg/5b6116d9fb9c0831?hl=en

Then stop whining about it already. Waah, waah, waaaaahhhh.

[wy]

On Apr 13, 6:12 pm, Vandar <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Gary DW wrote:

> > In article <jm848u$j0...@news.albasani.net>, Vandar
> > says...
>
> >>Gary DW wrote:
>
> >>>In article <jm7j98$q3...@news.albasani.net>, Vandar
> >>>says...

>
> >>>>Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>
> >>>>>On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 12:18:54 -0400, "$7.00 Gas Hits Democrap
> >>>>>California ! LOL !" <Obama's 7 Dollar gas @ White House.org> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>Yeah especially since 90 % of job losses under Obama were women's
>
> >>>>>Best check the number of unemployed on Jan 20th 2009 and the
> >>>>>unemployed today.
>
> >>>>Do you think today's number would be smaller?
>
> >>>Do you think it would be better with McCain and a Pub
> >>>Congress?
>
> >>With McCain, yes. With a Republican majority, probably not, but there's
> >>a good chance it would be better than it is now.
>
> > Chrysler and GM would both be distant memories.
>
> No they wouldn't. They would've declared bankruptcy, just like did under
> Obama, and emerged a leaner company.

You're one hell of a stupid goofball, we've had this discussion
before. For the automakers to have emerged out of bankruptcy at that
time would've meant banks lending tens of billions of dollars to them
to make it feasible. The banks were frozen with that kind of lending,
they had hit rock bottom themselves along with the stock market when
it was scraping at the 6400 level. Nobody was getting that kind of
money for any failing company. The only source of rescue for that
kind of bailout was the government. The only other option was to
disappear and take a couple of million jobs with them. Snap out of
your coma, for fuck sakes.

> If they eventually failed, oh well. If there was a hole in the market as
> a result, a new company would pop up to take their place.
> Capitalism is a bitch.

Yeah, oh, well. Poof, another two million jobs lost, something more
to blame Obama about, right? Fuck, you're demented.

>
> > The stimulus would have been vetoed... thus AT LEAST 2
> > million more on the unemployed lines... possibly 4
> > million.
>
> The stimulus failed. It should never have been passed.

You can't prove it failed. Economy is up, stock market is up, rich
people are richer than they've been before, employment numbers are up,
though slowly, but blame Repugnants for that sluggishness, the country
averted a major collapse in the spring of '09. Where has it failed?
Try not to gag on your answer.

>
> > We'd be facing close to 20% unemployment, and the only
> > answer McCain would think of would be more spending
> > cuts.
>
> > Nope Randoid-Vandar.
>
> > The country avoided the 2nd Great Depression.
>
> Pure speculation based on nothing than the left's wish to paint
> themselves as some sort of savior.

Everything's speculation after the fact. Just stick with the facts as
they are now and not any fantasies you cream over of what might've
been. Try living in the present, you might get further ahead that
way.

>
> > The only people that don't think so are you cult
> > members.
>
> And many economists.

And many more economists think otherwise, so there.

[wy]

Yeah? What jobs would they have found in the summer of 2009 when
unemployment was still climb towards the 10.1% that it would peak at
in December? You guys are still complaining about all the ones who
are still out of work 3 years later and oh, why can't Mr. Miracle Man
Obama snap his fingers and get them all jobs overnight? Fuck, you're
stupid. Not even boy, you're stupid, but fuck, you're stupid.

[wy]

You're as right as your right hand. You don't fool anybody. Your
posts reek of right wingnutism, I can smell them coming even with my
computer shut off.

> And there is little doubt Michelle is
> an overbearing goon of a wife. Obama confirms it almost every time he
> talks about her "She lets me do this", "she allows me to get away with
> that", etc.

You mean the way Romney bends over backwards for his "economic
surrogate" wife, who's never had a job nor a business degree, and she
tugs his hear to whisper into it everything he should know about the
economy and especially women so he can get a clue?

> The guy is supposed to be a leader of the most powerful nation on Earth.
> He doesn't even lead his own family.

You know nothing about him or his family. Hey, but where did I read
that before and from whom? Hmmmm.....

What a repugnant Repugnant you are.

[lsrlts]

On 4/13/2012 1:23 PM, wy wrote:
> a lot of women aren't as
> privileged as Mitt's wife

Or as Obama's either, so?

[lsrlts]

On 4/13/2012 1:23 PM, wy wrote:

Shut up, nazi.

[lsrlts]

On 4/13/2012 1:25 PM, wy wrote:
> On Apr 13, 1:29 pm, lsrlts<dd...@gnail.invalid> wrote:
>> On 4/13/2012 10:12 AM, Gary DW wrote:
>>
>>> Chrysler and GM would both be distant memories.
>>
>> Chrysler is owned by FIAT.
>>
>> GM is still heavily govt. and union owned.
>>
>> Next.
>
> So? You'd prefer

Fuck off canuck, we stuck your nation with GM ownership too, you idiot.

[Vandar]

Not even close to true.

57 states
breathalyzer/inhaler ("inhalator")
Claims his existence was made possible by the march in Selma... which
happened 4 years after he was born.
Claims his uncle was one of the first men to enter the newly liberated
Auschwitz... The Russians did that.
10,000 people have died in Kansas flooding... actual number of deaths = 12.
Sees many of our "fallen heroes" in the audience at a Memorial Day speech.
Claims the Afghanis speak dialects of Arabic... they do not.
Claims Chavez came into power because of Bush's policies... he came into
power 3 years before Bush was elected.

There are numerous others.

You're the one who brought it up.

[lsrlts]

On 4/13/2012 3:19 PM, wy wrote:
> Nothing worse
> than a whining

...canuck Jew-hating troll.

[lsrlts]

On 4/13/2012 3:37 PM, wy wrote:
> You know nothing about him or his family. Hey, but where did I read

You are without question a world class ignoramus.

[Vandar]

My posts reek of anti-Obama...ism. There's a difference.
I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Obama is fiscally
liberal and socially retarded.

>>And there is little doubt Michelle is
>>an overbearing goon of a wife. Obama confirms it almost every time he
>>talks about her "She lets me do this", "she allows me to get away with
>>that", etc.
>
>
> You mean the way Romney bends over backwards for his "economic
> surrogate" wife, who's never had a job nor a business degree, and she
> tugs his hear to whisper into it everything he should know about the
> economy and especially women so he can get a clue?

You really should see someone about your strawman fetish.

>>The guy is supposed to be a leader of the most powerful nation on Earth.
>>He doesn't even lead his own family.
>
>
> You know nothing about him or his family.

Of course I do. Everyone who follows politics does.

[Vandar]

Like I said: Capitalism is a bitch.

Don't like it? There's always North Korea.

>>If they eventually failed, oh well. If there was a hole in the market as
>>a result, a new company would pop up to take their place.
>>Capitalism is a bitch.
>
>
> Yeah, oh, well. Poof, another two million jobs lost, something more
> to blame Obama about, right? Fuck, you're demented.

Hey stupid... The auto bailout was from TARP, which was signed by Bush.
Obama doesn't get the credit or blame from that money.
Remember you talking points Obama gets all the credit and none of the
blame. The blame is all on Bush.

>>>The stimulus would have been vetoed... thus AT LEAST 2
>>>million more on the unemployed lines... possibly 4
>>>million.
>>
>>The stimulus failed. It should never have been passed.
>
>
> You can't prove it failed. Economy is up, stock market is up, rich
> people are richer than they've been before, employment numbers are up,
> though slowly, but blame Repugnants for that sluggishness, the country
> averted a major collapse in the spring of '09. Where has it failed?
> Try not to gag on your answer.

It failed because those things only rose once the stimulus spending
ended. The declined when the checks started flowing.
Solyndra says hi.

>>>We'd be facing close to 20% unemployment, and the only
>>>answer McCain would think of would be more spending
>>>cuts.
>>
>>>Nope Randoid-Vandar.
>>
>>>The country avoided the 2nd Great Depression.
>>
>>Pure speculation based on nothing than the left's wish to paint
>>themselves as some sort of savior.
>
>
> Everything's speculation after the fact. Just stick with the facts as
> they are now and not any fantasies you cream over of what might've
> been. Try living in the present, you might get further ahead that
> way.

The facts as they are now is that there is a better chance the economy
would've been better off if Obama had done nothing.

>>>The only people that don't think so are you cult
>>>members.
>>
>>And many economists.
>
>
> And many more economists think otherwise, so there.

No they don't.

[Vandar]

wy wrote:

> On Apr 13, 6:13 pm, Vandar <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>wy wrote:
>>
>>>On Apr 13, 1:29 pm, lsrlts <dd...@gnail.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>>On 4/13/2012 10:12 AM, Gary DW wrote:
>>
>>>>>Chrysler and GM would both be distant memories.
>>
>>>>Chrysler is owned by FIAT.
>>
>>>>GM is still heavily govt. and union owned.
>>
>>>>Next.
>>
>>>So? You'd prefer 100,000 more people out of work and a million other
>>>peripheral job losses instead? Well, sure you would, because that's
>>>the Repugnant way of doing things - backwards, upside down and cock-
>>>eyed and actually believing it'll work.
>>
>>Those people wouldn't have been out of work for long.
>
>
> Yeah? What jobs would they have found in the summer of 2009 when
> unemployment was still climb towards the 10.1% that it would peak at
> in December?

One of them thar fancy "shovel ready" jobs.

They would've found work with other manufacturers who would've scrambled
to fill the void and greatly increase their market share.

> You guys are still complaining about all the ones who
> are still out of work 3 years later and oh, why can't Mr. Miracle Man
> Obama snap his fingers and get them all jobs overnight?

"You guys". I've never said any such thing. I know that Obama isn't
capable of coming up with a viable job creation plan.
He's an economic retard. Exactly what we don't need in the White House.
If the Dems had someone with a record of economic successes to rival
Romney's, then I wouldn't care who wins the election.
Instead, they seem to think that all problems can be solved with a
speech and a blank check.

[Slackjaw]

Salty Stan wrote:

> On Friday, April 13, 2012 12:31:30 AM UTC-4, wy wrote:

> > On Apr 12, 10:48 pm, "Slackjaw" <Oklah...@spacealliance.com> wrote:
> > > wy wrote:

> > > > On Apr 12, 5:27 pm, Salty Stan <wsjames...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, April 12, 2012 1:59:01 PM UTC-4, wy wrote:

> > > > > > On Apr 12, 1:46 pm, Vandar <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > wy wrote:

> > > > > > > > On Apr 12, 11:29 am, Salty Stan <wsjames...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > ---
> > >
> > > > > > > > So the point being, that you're too dumb to see because
> > > > > > > > you were too dumb to include it, is that Rosen was
> > > > > > > > mocking Romney for relying on his wife as an "economic
> > > > > > > > surrogate," whatever the hell that means,
> > >
> > > > > > > Which of those two words confuses you?
> > >
> > > > > > Within the context of his wife never having held any
> > > > > > economic position to qualify her as an economic surrogate
> > > > > > on national issues, both words, when combined, confuse me.
> > >
> > > > > "wy" - Tell me - what experience in economics did Obama gain
> > > > > as a community organizer that qualified him to run our
> > > > > economy?
> > >
> > > > Enough to have turned an ongoing plummeting economy around from
> > > > the low point it hit three months into his term to gradually
> > > > uplift it again and get it to the point where it is now, which
> > > > is about where it was before the crash, except for the
> > > > unemployment part.  But thanks to Bush, he made sure that part
> > > > was nicely sabotaged enough so that any quick fix would be
> > > > impossible by any president, not just Obama.
> > >
> > > No seriously, what were his qualifications to be the best choice
> > > to run our economy? What experience did he have, what successes
> > > in economics management can you point out before he was elected?
> >
> > In case you didn't notice, the Constitution doesn't stipulate any
> > experience in anything to be required in order to run for president.
>
> Right, I didn't think he had any qualifications either.
>
> > Hell, even you could do it - but you're too stupid to even succeed
> > at it.

No worries, he'll be gone on Jan 20, 2013.

--
---
If ignorance is bliss, why are there so many miserable liberals?
---

[Slackjaw]

No, but rightards prefer to elect candidates that are qualified for the
office, not just because they happen to be black.

> Hell, even you could do it - but you're too stupid to even succeed at
> it.

[Slackjaw]

wy wrote:

> On Apr 13, 9:25 am, Salty Stan <wsjames...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 12, 2012 8:28:59 PM UTC-4, wy wrote:
> > > On Apr 12, 5:23 pm, Salty Stan <wsjames...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > On Thursday, April 12, 2012 1:46:38 PM UTC-4, Vandar wrote:
> > > > > wy wrote:
> >
> > > > > > On Apr 12, 11:29 am, Salty Stan <wsjames...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> >

> > ..
> >
> > > > Democrats have this nasty habit of going after their opponents'
> > > > wives and kids...when lackeys like "wy" apologize for and try
> > > > to justify this behavior,  it just vindicates my opinion of
> > > > them.
> >
> > > Vindicate it further and point exactly to what Rosen said that
> > > was a direct attack on women, working or not, raising their kids.
> > >  Make sure you listen to the entirety of what she said and her
> > > follow-up.  I won't hold my breath for your "vindication".
> >
> > You mean where she said 'Well, you know my wife tells me that what
> > women really care about are economic issues and when I listen to my
> > wife, that's what I'm hearing.' Guess what? His wife has actually
> > never worked a day in her life."
> >
> > If you don't see anything wrong with that, maybe (to quote Vandar)
> > you should take it up with the Democrats who condemned her remarks.
>
> Mitt has a business degree and he's listening to someone who doesn't
> have a business degree tell him things he should already know

> himself? What's wrong with that picture? Not to mention he avoided
> the draft 3 times during the Viet Nam war era. Nice, huh, for a
> potential commander-in-chief?

Mitt has a business degree and economic experience, and Obama has
nothing.

Who do you think is better qualified to get us out of this recession?

[Slackjaw]

wy wrote:

> On Apr 13, 12:50 pm, lsrlts <dd...@gnail.invalid> wrote:
> > On 4/13/2012 9:24 AM, wy wrote:
> >
> > >  huh, Israelites?
> >
> > Why are you a nazi?
>
> Why are you an Israelites?

"Israelites" - he can't even spell that word right. What an idiot.

[Slackjaw]

LOL! Now that's hilarious. How come we don't hear more of these?

[wy]

Oh, I've got you beat by a mile, and with none of this "there are
numerous [invisible] others" either.

“We're going to have to talk about that, and housing foreclosures and
bankruptcies and higher taxation. We're going to hang him [Obama], uh,
so to speak, metaphorically, with, uh, with, uh – you have to be
careful these days, I've learned that – with an Obama Misery Index."
- Yeah, no racist lynch-the-nigger coded language there at all.

On Pakistan: “We don't want to just pull up stakes and get out of town
after the enormous output we've just made for the region. Look at
Indonesia in the '60s. We helped them move toward modernity. We need
to help bring Pakistan into the 21st century, or the 20th, for that
matter.” - By Indonesia he was talking about the bloody, CIA-backed
coup of General Suharto of Indonesia which ushered in one of that
country’s most brutal eras. And, of course, bringing Pakistan into
“the 21st century, or the 20th, for that matter” is another noble
objective.

"I saw my father march with Martin Luther King." - Romney's campaign
later admitted that they didn't march on the same day, or in the same
city.

"You sit down with your attorneys that tell you what you have to do,
but obviously the president of the United States has to do what's in
the best interest of the United States against a potential threat." -
On whether he would consult Congress about invading Iran – gotta talk
to the attorneys first. Woah, that’s scary.

"I purchased a gun when I was a young man. I've been a hunter pretty
much all my life." - Romney's campaign later said he hunted only
twice, once at 15, and once in 2006 at a Republican fundraiser – “all
my life”.

"PETA is not happy that my dog likes fresh air." - On strapping his
dog to the top of the car.

"My sons are all adults and they've made decisions about their careers
and they've chosen not to serve in the military and active duty and I
respect their decision in that regard. One of the ways my sons are
showing support for our nation is helping me get elected because they
think I'd be a great president." – Yeah, who needs to fight for one’s
country when all you have to do is help get your dad in as president
so you can party at the White House. Ahh, the luxury of the filthy
rich.

“I should tell my story. I’m also unemployed.” — Romney’s campaign sob
story to a group of unemployed Floridians talking about their
difficulties in finding a job. His net worth is estimated to be over
$200 million, so what’s he got to be worried about on the same level
as the unemployed group he was speaking to?

“I’m running for office, for Pete’s sake – I can’t have illegals.” -
Oct. 2011 Republican debate, suggesting that he’d hire them if he
weren’t running for office. And he actually did when he wasn’t!

"Hugo Chavez has tried to steal an inspiring phrase, 'Patria o muerte,
venceremos.' It does not belong to him. It belongs to a free Cuba." –
Translated to "Fatherland or death, we shall overcome," Castro has
used it to close his speeches for years, and which is associated with
Cuban oppression.

"Well, the question is kind of a non sequitur, if you will. And what I
mean by that -- or a null set." - After being asked during a
Republican debate whether it was a mistake to invade Iraq.

"Only talk about income inequality in quiet rooms." – Why?

"We should double Guantanamo!" – But, but, but….

"I'm happy to learn that after I speak you're going to hear from Ann
Coulter. That's a good thing. I think it's important to get the views
of moderates." - Right before Coulter called John Edwards a "faggot".
Hate to imagine what an extremist would be.

"It's not the language I would have used" - On Rush Limbaugh's
comments about Sandra Fluke. Well, what language would he have used?

"I have some friends who are NASCAR team owners" - How many Nascar
fans have friends who are team owners? Think he has relatability
issues?

"Planned Parenthood, we're going to get rid of that" – Yep, he stands
by women through thick and thin alright.

"Ann Drives a couple of Cadillacs" – Uhh, yeah.

"The answer is self-deportation, which is people decide they can do
better by going home" - Mitt Romney living in a fantasy world.

"Corporations are People."

“It's very easy to excite the base with incendiary comments... I'm not
willing to light my hair on fire to try and get support."

"There’s a senator [Kerry] from my state, you may have heard, that
wants to get elected president. And I don’t know why he wants to do
that because, of course, if he won, he’d have to move into a smaller
house." – Try to figure out what’s stupid about that one.

“Rick, I’ll tell you what: 10,000 bucks? $10,000 bet?” - It takes
half of Americans 5 months to earn $10,000.

“I like being able to fire people who provide services to me.” What
sadist enjoys firing people who provide services to him?

“I get speaker’s fees from time to time, but not very much.” -
Romney’s fees are $374,000 … not very much.

“Somebody who’s fallen from the middle class to poverty, in my
opinion, is still middle class.” - It’s heartening to know that the
middle class are living in poverty. Hell, they shouldn’t even need a
safety net if they’re all middle class - and all poor.

“We have a president, who I think is a nice guy, but he spent too much
time at Harvard, perhaps.” – Complaining about Obama being out of
touch and over-educated. Incidentally, Romney also spent “too much
time” at Harvard in addition to Stanford, not to mention pretty out of
touch himself.

The "humorous" closing of plants story: "One of [the] most humorous I
think relates to my father. You may remember my father, George Romney,
was president of an automobile company called American Motors. ...
They had a factory in Michigan, and they had a factory in Kenosha,
Wisconsin, and another one in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. And as the
president of the company he decided to close the factory in Michigan
and move all the production to Wisconsin. Now later he decided to run
for governor of Michigan and so you can imagine that having closed the
factory and moved all the production to Wisconsin was a very sensitive
issue to him, for his campaign." - A good laugh had by all the
unemployed. Well… not.

But you keep whining about it. Waah, waah, waaaaahhhh.

[wy]

Typical backwards, upside down and cock-eyed Repugnant language.
You're talking to an independent who knows and smells a liberal when
he not only sees it, but senses it. You haven't got a liberal hair on
you.

>
> >>And there is little doubt Michelle is
> >>an overbearing goon of a wife. Obama confirms it almost every time he
> >>talks about her "She lets me do this", "she allows me to get away with
> >>that", etc.
>
> > You mean the way Romney bends over backwards for his "economic
> > surrogate" wife, who's never had a job nor a business degree, and she
> > tugs his hear to whisper into it everything he should know about the
> > economy and especially women so he can get a clue?
>
> You really should see someone about your strawman fetish.

You're not disputing it, so I must be right.

>
> >>The guy is supposed to be a leader of the most powerful nation on Earth.
> >>He doesn't even lead his own family.
>
> > You know nothing about him or his family.
>
> Of course I do. Everyone who follows politics does.

What did Obama have for lunch today? Where did Michelle and the kids
go shopping this week?

[wy]

If they had done what you would've like to have seen done, the US
would probably be North Korea right now.

>
> >>If they eventually failed, oh well. If there was a hole in the market as
> >>a result, a new company would pop up to take their place.
> >>Capitalism is a bitch.
>
> > Yeah, oh, well.  Poof, another two million jobs lost, something more
> > to blame Obama about, right?  Fuck, you're demented.
>
> Hey stupid... The auto bailout was from TARP, which was signed by Bush.
> Obama doesn't get the credit or blame from that money.
> Remember you talking points Obama gets all the credit and none of the
> blame. The blame is all on Bush.

What do you think TARP is? It's stimulus money, goofball. You can
call it anything else you want, TRAP, CARP, TWAT, CRAP, WHATEVER, it
still adds up to stimulus money aimed at "stimulating" economic
activity, especially for companies that are in dire need of financial
stimulus, i.e. loan, bailout, rainy day fund, whatever else you want
to call it. The end result doesn't change with whatever name you give
the money - it still went to the automakers to help them get back on
their feet and it succeeded in doing so.

>
> >>>The stimulus would have been vetoed... thus AT LEAST 2
> >>>million more on the unemployed lines... possibly 4
> >>>million.
>
> >>The stimulus failed. It should never have been passed.
>
> > You can't prove it failed.  Economy is up, stock market is up, rich
> > people are richer than they've been before, employment numbers are up,
> > though slowly, but blame Repugnants for that sluggishness, the country
> > averted a major collapse in the spring of '09.  Where has it failed?
> > Try not to gag on your answer.
>
> It failed because those things only rose once the stimulus spending
> ended. The declined when the checks started flowing.
> Solyndra says hi.

Stimulus spending ended last year, not in the middle of 2009.

http://useconomy.about.com/od/candidatesandtheeconomy/a/Obama_Stimulus.htm

>
> >>>We'd be facing close to 20% unemployment, and the only
> >>>answer McCain would think of would be more spending
> >>>cuts.
>
> >>>Nope Randoid-Vandar.
>
> >>>The country avoided the 2nd Great Depression.
>
> >>Pure speculation based on nothing than the left's wish to paint
> >>themselves as some sort of savior.
>
> > Everything's speculation after the fact.  Just stick with the facts as
> > they are now and not any fantasies you cream over of what might've
> > been.  Try living in the present, you might get further ahead that
> > way.
>
> The facts as they are now is that there is a better chance the economy
> would've been better off if Obama had done nothing.

What "facts"? I gotta hear this. Where's my popcorn?

>
> >>>The only people that don't think so are you cult
> >>>members.
>
> >>And many economists.
>
> > And many more economists think otherwise, so there.
>
> No they don't.

Prove it. You can't. I win.

[lsrlts]

Probably not the great teleprompter speech-maker.

[lsrlts]

On 4/13/2012 5:00 PM, Slackjaw wrote:
> wy wrote:
>
>> On Apr 13, 12:50 pm, lsrlts<dd...@gnail.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 4/13/2012 9:24 AM, wy wrote:
>>>
>>>> huh, Israelites?
>>>
>>> Why are you a nazi?
>>
>> Why are you an Israelites?
>
> "Israelites" - he can't even spell that word right. What an idiot.
>
>

Sad case.

[wy]

On Apr 13, 7:37 pm, Vandar <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> wy wrote:
> > On Apr 13, 6:13 pm, Vandar <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>wy wrote:
>
> >>>On Apr 13, 1:29 pm, lsrlts <dd...@gnail.invalid> wrote:
>
> >>>>On 4/13/2012 10:12 AM, Gary DW wrote:
>
> >>>>>Chrysler and GM would both be distant memories.
>
> >>>>Chrysler is owned by FIAT.
>
> >>>>GM is still heavily govt. and union owned.
>
> >>>>Next.
>
> >>>So?  You'd prefer 100,000 more people out of work and a million other
> >>>peripheral job losses instead?  Well, sure you would, because that's
> >>>the Repugnant way of doing things - backwards, upside down and cock-
> >>>eyed and actually believing it'll work.
>
> >>Those people wouldn't have been out of work for long.
>
> > Yeah?  What jobs would they have found in the summer of 2009 when
> > unemployment was still climb towards the 10.1% that it would peak at
> > in December?
>
> One of them thar fancy "shovel ready" jobs.
>
> They would've found work with other manufacturers who would've scrambled
> to fill the void and greatly increase their market share.

You're too stupid even for yourself and you don't even know how stupid
you are. You think there's a scintilla of credibility in that couple
of puny sentences that add up to nothing but a big fat zero in logic?
If you want to make sense, itemize in step-by-step fashion exactly how
it would've happened using the economic realities of 2009. Anything
short of 100 convincing steps and you fail. On second thought, don't
bother. You've already failed.

> > You guys are still complaining about all the ones who
> > are still out of work 3 years later and oh, why can't Mr. Miracle Man
> > Obama snap his fingers and get them all jobs overnight?
>
> "You guys". I've never said any such thing. I know that Obama isn't
> capable of coming up with a viable job creation plan.

Yeah, that's why there are 4 million more people working now than in
2009. Wow, some letdown of a job creator he is, huh?

> He's an economic retard. Exactly what we don't need in the White House.
> If the Dems had someone with a record of economic successes to rival
> Romney's, then I wouldn't care who wins the election.

What economic success did Romney have?

"When Romney was Governor of Massachusetts, he had one of the worst
economic records in the nation. His state ranked 47th in job creation,
wages for workers fell nearly two percent, and he raised taxes on
individuals and businesses."

Glimpse your Romney future:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/07/29/romneys_economic_record/

There's a reason why he only lasted a single term.

> Instead, they seem to think that all problems can be solved with a
> speech and a blank check.

Working so far. Think how much quicker things would've gotten better
had it not been for Repugnants always getting in the way.