A Flip, a Flop, and another Flip...
In what can only be seen as a play for the women's vote, Mitt Romney is now promising no legislation on abortion. He told the Des Moines Register that "there's no legislation with regards to abortion that I'm familiar with that would become part of my agenda." But as the AP notes, "As recently as a presidential debate in January, Romney said the Supreme Court should overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark ruling that legalized abortion across the nation." And that came after he campaigned for governor of Massachusetts promising to preserve and protect a woman's right to choose. If your head is spinning, you're not alone.
New York Times polling guru Nate Silver says Romney has erased President Obama's convention bounce with that one debate.
Politico explores the angst of liberals who are now considering an Obama defeat for the first time in this campaign.
A U.S. military task force has been sent to Jordan to help with the crisis in Syria.
Leave a Comment:
In Politico article:
No way irrational. It was naked propaganda with hope that debate performance of Obama will be just OK, not disastrous as they was. But propaganda strategy is dangerous. After revealing lies are completely ineffective any more and with absent of substance on Obama side there is nothing more to play on.
Lowering the deficit from $1.4 trillion to $1.1 trillion and providing small businesses with 18 tax breaks diring a recession and two wars is not propaganda.
Passing health insurance for all Americans (which Republicans and Democrats have tried to do for 70 years) is not propaganda.
Ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while decimating the enemies that REALLY attacked us therby creating a safer world for everyone is not propaganda.
Campaigning for a $4.8 trillion tax cut without specifying how to pay for it AND calling it deficit neutral is propaganda.
Calling for the end of Roe vs Wade and defunding Planned Parenthood AND saying there is no abortion legislation on the agenda is propaganda.
Raising money by calling 47% of the country not his concern AND saying he is running for 100% of the country elsewhere is propaganda.
A propaganda strategy is dangerous, and with the absence of substance on the Romney side, combined with the total lack of credibility of the candidate, there is nothing more to play on.
The polls show that Romney is the one with more credibility. With independent voters even more so. President Obama won the independent,s vote by 8% in 2008, now they favor Romney 16% that is a 24 point swing. Those are people that watched the debate with their own eyes instead of taking the media at their word.
President Obama is so desparate that he is using big bird in his ads. Matt Lauer even guestioned why they would use something so trivial, and asked if they were going to remove this ad. I say keep running it because it is all you've got.
Oh, one last thing President Obama didn't lower the deficit from $1.4 trillion to $1.1 trillion, YOU MORON. The amount of money borrowed from one year to the next ( money spent that wasn't backed by tax revenues) was decreased by .3 trillion. I now understand why you are a liberal. There was no reduction in the debt. Over the two year period you refer too the "UNFUNDED SPENDING" adds up to $2.5 trillion dollar. The deficit is now over $16 trillion dollars and has had no reduction to it in the last 11 years.
I'm an independent voter and I think Romney is a bald faced liar. He has no credability at all with me. He is like a slick talking used car salesman who will say anything that he thinks you want to hear to sell you the piece of crap car you are currrently looking at. The problem is, the Presidency is much more important than a used car.
chemdmd #1.2
The Bush Administration left President Obama a $1.4 trillion deficit, a banking system in shambles and a worldwide economy reeling from the Bush economic policies. President Obama's BUDGET DEFICIT (the difference between WHAT HE SPENT and WHAT HE TOOK IN) came down to $1.1 trillion DURING A RECESSION AND TWO WARS. You will be very hard pressed to find an administration that did that either during a war or during a recession. You will also be hard pressed to find an administration that reduced the national debt during a war or a recession.
A large portion of that $16 trillion comes from two sources - the Bush Administration tax cuts and two 10-year unbudgeted wars. The war in Iraq is over, the war in Afghanistan is winding down and the world is safer today than it was 4 years ago because President Obama pursued and caught the REAL attackers instead of hunting WMD that did not exist with EIT that do not work. Tax policy would have increased revenues and a jobs bill to rebuild infrastructure, encourage new technologies and educate Americans for new jobs would have increased commerce (hence tax revenues, according to Mr. Romney) if Republicans in Congress were not committed to a sit down strike instead of the people's business. Nothing Mr. Romney or Mr. Ryan has proposed reduces the deficit according to all CREDIBLE sources, but they do reduce taxes to Mr. Romney's class (the 1%) and benefits to the middle class (the 99%).
There is a parable that ends like this; remove the plank from your own eye before you remove the speck from your neighbor's eye.
You tell him, Northern'! I see you!! :-)
Isn't this cute! The right wingers are quoting polls again! Ha Ha Ha! I thought the polls were fixed! Ha Ha Ha!! I'm sorry chem I can't take you seriously since you clowns were just all whining, bitching, crying and moaning regarding the inaccuracy and outright falsehood of the polling just a week ago. HYPOCRITE! Ha Ha Ha!
Chris thank you for the heads up on the PBS Frontline. It really helps understand what made these two men and their vision and underlying forces which would drive them to seek the highest office of the land.
I think Leo gave us a window into the conservative mindset. They are always right no matter which way they change their minds or what they say or their own overconfidence. It is the way to win elections unfortunately it is also the predictor of bad governance.
So far Romney has promised all things to all people and hey, good luck on that delivery. For whatever reason, when it is time to sit in the Oval Office, when their candidate shows their feet of clay, the Republicans are genuinely shocked at who this guy is..... and if we think that they left Bush in droves, then if I were Romney.... I would really think that the real power in his party is just waiting to use and abuse him... good luck on that one too.
Go Obama, you are going to win in 2012
Carol (with all the numbers),
The Frontline was great, but did you notice the simularities between Bobby Rush & Mitt Romney, both slapped him around very badly. Now I know you do not like to hear that, but latest polls show (and I really hope I am so wrong), he better adapt the "Chicago Way of fighting," and not bring debating points to a knife fight!
Your Posts are Great as ever!
Carol,
Obama just now spoke to his debate performance (on CNN Headlines), he said "he was too polite!!!!"
This is what he comes away with?????????
Pathetic!
Ricky, let's continue to hope in our President one more time. Tuesday awaits him (and us).
My president was "too polite". It's a euphemism for I "F-ed" up, of course. One can't say that in polite conversation.
Carol,
Thanks Carol for elevating dialog into existential heights of most paradoxical problems of existence.
To give you food for elaboration in this direction I will ask the question. Can you prove even for one instance for any person in whole history that in spite of thought that he or she is wrong but that person nevertheless acted in erroneous way? I think you cannot just because there is no way to trace reasoning process. If any person acted in some way it means that he or she thinks that it is the best for the moment. Adaptation to ever changing conditions is the attribute of any successful spices.
So even you write some nonsense I will presume that at the moment you think that you do a right thing even if you should know that you are demonstrating very childish way of expressing yourself because your decision that there are more important priorities for you to obey.
Leo that is what drives literature, fate and destiny. It is a tragedy in the making when the fools rush in, as we always do, and then everything is set into motion.
For the rest, yes the ego thinks it is right. If we never question if we are coming from the ego or our higher angels, then we display a certain rigidness of spirit. The modern Republican party has that element of the old Moral Majority which morphed into the Religious Right... telling words. Of course the Repbulicans whom I know well around here are all very religious. I live in the Bible Belt as one would expect it to be this way. What I have noted is the certitude with which their minds wander, these absolute ways which I do not know if they would ever question or consider would help them to question. I find most of the arguments come from the emotional brain, so the lymbic system is the fear network. I have spent 2000 and 2004 handing out voting cards next to my neighbor who stand there with a huge abortion is a sin and accosts people with her being pro life and in no question, life begins at conception.... I would bet money she never thinks that this is questionable to other people. Her world view, she is pro life. I must be pro death. What I find lacking is the ability to hold a paradox in our minds and to realize we really don't know anything. All is projection and we live in a world of appearances.
If there is a fault with the Democrats is that we are not as rigid in our doctrine. So we do not fight well. The path we take is to have that paradox in what to do when we have an angel on each shoulder whispering in each ear. We realize nobody is objective and we are all judgmental. In some ways we are irrational in trying to be rational. That is why Obama got punked by Romney... he was in that paradox and what to do when what he heard from his opponent was directly opposite to the Republican platform which Romney accepted to carry forward as the banner for his party.
Of course I write nonsense, everybody does. I am not that deluded to think I know any answers or what anybody else is really doing... just trying to make sense and to act with integrity. What matters is the thinking with the heart, the compassion and the general intent of moving our nation forward. I do not know that Romney will not do it. I do know if I were in charge of the party, I would be finding out his intention since he may be like a horse with a bit in his mouth.....
Still for Obama vote 2012
Carol,
I am really impressed. But...
I am not sure that such thing as Democrats doctrine exists.
My doctrine as Darwinist is that at any given moment any object (definition of the object here is tricky but for simplicity sake let's take as example animals, humans, societies) can to do actions these results to it survival for some time ahead. The longer this time the more right is decision to act that way.
Can you formulate "Democrats doctrine" in short paragraph?
Ricky's Rant"
"Tonight’s Presidential Debate Will Be Decided by Body Language"
Reviewing articles from the Harvard Business Review (last 30 days), I came across this interesting scholar piece, what being unique is that it was written some hours before the actual debate, knowing the result make for a discussion. The discussion is mine, I wrote this, and I was replying to article in Harvard Business Review!
A lot was riding on the candidates’ performances for the presidential debates, a make or break for Romney. Most people thought Romney “kicked-butt!” I agree, even though I am a staunch Obama Supporter. It is no secret that Romney ran away from every position he was campaigning on (the strategy of running to the middle), in effect of “flip-flopping on his flip-flops!” He ran over the moderator, smirked when calling Obama a liar every time he (Obama) brought up a fact that Romney had promulgated, and looked straight into camera and lied about his tax-cuts (he called them revenue neutral tax cuts) is absurd on the face of it, or he really cared about the 47%.
It was an amazing performance, nothing of substance, but full of perception (a cross between Huey Long & Joe McCarthy), making excellent use of body language that for the 1st time had Romney coming across credible.
The result (national polls now with likely voters swinging/leading edge to Romney), and my brethren (liberals & democrats) talking about substance and debate points.
The author Amy J.C. Cuddy (before the debate) spoke of voters paying attention to what‘s being said, while neglecting (consciously) paying attention to body language and non-verbal’s, which have a bigger influence than what’s actually being said.
It spoke to:
Ms. Cuddy is a smart, intelligent person who greatly understands truth, fact and reason, and how to present yourself around smart people. But what I did not read in the (scholar) source, was that there is another way to present yourself around not so smart people, remaining undecided, whom could not have a clue yet what side to come down on this election, whom react (swing) to bumper-stickers (perception) and not substance, how arrogant of my brethren for thinking that everyone thinks like us. Body language is perception.
Bibliography
Cudd, A. J. (2012, October 3). Tonight's Presidential Debate Will Be Decided by Body Language. Harvard Business Review, HBR Network.
Leo #4.1
I can formulate the Democratic doctrine in one sentence. To Democrats, the PEOPLE count (not corporations like Mr. Romney believes), not their wealth, social status, age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation or position on social issues. This is the Christian way, following Jesus who treated all like brothers and sisters. This is the Founding Fathers' way when they began the Constitution with WE THE PEOPLE. Conservatives have demonstrated time and time again that ONLY CERTAIN PEOPLE who THINK LIKE THEY DO count. Those who do not have something wrong with them and must be excluded from rational debate. This is the attitude that produced the 47% comment, vouchers for Medicare and public education, ultrasound probes for women, projected $2,000 tax increases for the 99% to fund $250,000 breaks for the 1% and what cost Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette their heads.
Thomas Paine wrote in The American Crisis: 'A generous parent [would say] "If there must be trouble, let it be in my day so my child may have peace." We see trouble brewing, and the end result of this trouble will be a society patterned on 1984, not our Constitution. Resolve the trouble now BEFORE that occurs.
Joseph,
So how Democrats count people? By:
What Democrats counts people for if they do?
Maybe you wanted to use verb "care" instead "count" but realized that Democrats do care about only themselves as everybody else?
Leo #4.4
The people that want women's reproductive rights protected count.
The people that do not want their spouses, children or neighbors dying in endless wars overseas count.
The people who want their parents (and themselves) to have Medicare instead of a voucher and insurance companies to deliver health care services count.
The people who want a banking system to protect their deposits instead of having them 'invested' in instruments and assets known to be risky without their consent count.
The people (and the businesses who need them as customers) want $2,000 in their own pockets instead of funding $250,000 payments to the 1% count.
The people who want their leaders to have concern for 47% on the citizens of this nation count.
The people who want their voting rights protected instead of suppressed count.
Conservatives have come out at one time or another AGAINST ALL THESE THINGS. Nothing on this list stands in the way of any citizen's rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. We do not try to exclude anyone but if conservatives want to work against these things they can exclude themselves all they please.
Joseph,
Are these conservatives count?
Could you give your definition of word "count"? It's so confusing like Obama's usage small denomination coins in slogan at 2008 campaign?
Leo #4.6
Conservatives are citizens of this nation and are just as entitled to benefit from these policies as anyone else. This is called a level playing field for all citizens.
Conservatives maintain only men can make all the health care decisions for their bodies. Women have to submit to much more scrutiny like medically unnecessary ultrasound probes when pregnant.
Conservatives maintain that only companies in the energy business should make decisions on where to find and develop oil or gas without scrutiny. Citizens whose homes no longer have clean water and air because of this must suffer.
Conservatives maintain that banks and financial institutions should be able to invest depositors' savings any way they see fit without even notifying depositors of the risks. Depositors who lose money must have made bad decisions.
These things are in place to protect everyone's (including conservative's) wives, daughters, environment and banking system (the institution conservatives NEED to MAKE THEIR MONEY), so they automatically count. Conservatives want to COUNT OUT the 47% and that is wrong in America.
Sorry Joseph you give me nothing to learn about "democrats doctrine".
Let me give a shot in formulation of doctrines for extreme left vs. one of extreme right.
Extreme conservatives proclaims that Government has to convince people to pay taxes because it is in their own interest for defense, security, maintaining law and order sake.
Extreme leftists dreams to convince majority that it is fair to impose additional tax on rich minority to support paupers.
If society is prosperous leftists have no chance. So their primary goal is to bury middle class.
Agree?
As always Leo serves as comic relief...
Since Leo supports the highly regressive policies of the Republicans as well as the Republicans themselves even though he constantly claims he once was and evidently still is now a Democrat, I guess he believes the Republicans are devolving into apes or perhaps fish. He may actually be slowly convincing me as it pertains to his crazy Social Darwinistic theories now that I think about it. Ha Ha Ha Ha!
Society is prosperous because there is a middle class. The larger the middle class, the more customers for capitalists and the rising tide lifts everybody's boats. Progressives promote policies that level the playing field for rich and poor alike, encouraging the growth of the middle class. Conservatives promote policies that entrench and enrich the rich at the expense of the middle class, tossing people off the boats.
Theodore Roosevelt knew these things. He broke up trusts and ensured pure food, drugs, air and water for all Americans, rich and poor.
Dwight Eisenhower knew these things. He took people's wealth and improved this country's transportation infrastructure for all Americans, rich and poor.
Richard Nixon knew these things. He took people's wealth and created a Cabinet level department, the Environmental Protection Agency, to further protect our air, water and land from those who would destroy them so the 1% could profit.
None of these Presidents were liberals but adopted policies we all benefit from today, not just their party. Progressive policies try to continue this, conservative policies do not.
Joseph,
Specific examples, please. This statement looks like an interpretation not actual policy. Example - no right winner proposes to tax paupers to give every millionaire nice gold bar signed by Obama. Opposite is true - leftists propose to tax millionaires more to give tax child credit to paupers.
True capitalists know this as well. Henry Ford raised the salaries of his employees and his fellow rich CEO's were furious and even took him to court over it, arguing that Ford would force them to raise their employees salaries because all the good workers would simply quit and work for Ford if they didn't. But Ford told the judge he was raising his workers salaries because he wanted workers that could afford to buy his cars. The judge found in Fords favor.
Todays American capitalists have become too greedy and forgotton how money is made. Part of the problem is these corporations are now multi-national and they just see America as one profit center out of many. They prefer to turn us into just another third world nation with low wages, no benefits and high unemployment so employees will take any job for any low wage offered. Soon however, they wont be able to sell their goods because most people wont be able to afford them.
It's their same approach to government. Cut incoming funds (taxes and profits) and cut spending and costs. Give the majority of the funds to those at the top. This is the old feudal way or class system of ruling. This was exactly the system America revolted against and became so successful because we offered success and wealth to everyone. Unfortunately the Republican party have turned that on its head over the last three decades.
Again this skunk, SadLoseMare.
Examples that enrich the rich....
15% Cap gains tax
O&G subsidies among many corporate subsidies for profitable corporations many of which don't pay any taxes at all.
Massive building subsidies and profits for things like sports stadiums to billionaires paid for by tax payers both initially and afterwards through ticket sales parking etc.
Tax free bond issues used by corporations as a method to invest their own profits at high interest rates insured by government.
Tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas.
Just to name a few.
Corporations are publicly owned enterprises. Practically everybody has share (directly or not) of every big corporation via mutual funds and so on.
.
No. "Practically" everyone doesn't. That 47% Mitt spoke of are largely composed of the working poor and middle class who only get wages, no benefits and live paycheck to paycheck. They do not have 401K's, pensions or mutual funds. In fact many retirees lost all of their retirement in the Bush crash.
Even so what's your point. Are you saying that the billions in free tax payer welfare these corporations get while not paying taxes is justified because some people own stock in those companies? Well, everyone is a citizen and at some point works for a company in this country so I guess no one should pay any taxes at all right? Who needs fire fighters, cops, roads bridges water or the military. Who needs traffic lights, electrical grids, airports or homeland security right? You like all modern Republicans have no idea how societies work or are structured and are selfish, undereducated children.
Carol, took a while to read to the end of this thread: You deserve your "star"!! Hooray!
Yeah Sed! Roads, cops, fire fighters...are externalities corporations have decided they can do without. Let those others pay for all of it.
Leo #4.11
The Sherman Antitrust Act and the Pure Food and Drug Act are EXAMPLES of policies enacted by Theodore Roosevelt that benefit all Americans.
The Interstate Highway System is an EXAMPLE of a policy enacted by Dwight Eisenhower that benefits all Americans.
The Environmental Protection Agency is an EXAMPLE of a policy enacted by Richard Nixon that benefits all Americans.
This would be sufficently clear for any high school student. I hope it is for you.
Welcome back Sed.
Joseph,
You don't understand the question. Read it again.
Leo #4.21
Changing Medicare to a voucher program so seniors are forced to pay approximately $6,000 more for health care coverage to insurance companies that can deny insurance coverage entirely means seniors would PAY MORE so insurance companies would GET MORE.
Reducing taxes and eliminating deductions in such a way that the middle class would pay $2,000 extra to fund a $250,000 break for the rich means the middle class would PAY MORE so the rich would GET MORE.
Eliminating the same deductions but not subsidies to oil companies (which are slated for their own tax cut) means the middle class would PAY MORE so the oil companies would GET MORE.
All these things are on the conservative agenda and does not even address cuts in public education, Pell grants, food stamps, etc. that are also on the conservative agenda. This is why superpacs are such a booming business - the 1% is investing in this 'redistribution' to THEM. Progressives want equal opportunity for all, conservatives want to hoard what they have and take more.
None of these proposals will transfer money from pour to rich. Some of them could result in smaller redistribution wealth from rich to pour but nothing principally new. So policy if both parties can be reduced to the fight about specific level of redistribution wealth from rich to pour. Leftist want more and more taking current level as a base to get more and more and then even more. Conses are afraid that economy will be crashed as result but in need to bribe electorate as well. And we are running to the fiscal cliff all together in best of their irresponsibility.
ALL of these proposals would transfer money FROM those who have LESS TO those who have MORE.
ALL of these proposals would reduce the middle class even more, therby making it TOUGHER to expand the economy and everone's wealth INCLUDING the 1%'s.
If you continue to believe that concentrating wealth in the hands of the rich benefits all Americans then you are as out of touch as the Romney/Ryan ticket. Continue to delude yourself.
You lie.
Ha Ha Ha! Taking taxpayer monies paid in from the poor and giving subsidies to rich corporations who pay nothing in taxes doesn't transfer money to the rich! You are not only in denial you are stupid.
How about the 7 trillion dollar tax payer bailouts of corporations and banks that FAILED? HA HA HA! Was that a transfer of money from the poor to the rich? Ha Ha Ha!
sedwinmars
Leo can delude himself all he pleases. As far as I am concerned, he can be ignored here until he demonstrates he is in touch with reality. Enjoy the debate.
Joseph,
I asked this skunk sadlosemare to leave me alone, but he is keeping to comment any my post. You are tar-doll too. Stay away, stupid.
LeoKRUT, you can take your ball and go home. We have "balls" and its our field too!
I comment Leo'sKrappyButt because I know it annoys you so much! Ha Ha Ha!
Skunk farts again.
Tell your wife to stop eating beans! Ha!
Do'nt get to cocky Krut.One Etch "a" Sketch debate does not a President make.First Romney's Pro-Life then he's Pro-Choice, he does'nt want more teacher's then he want's more teacher's, he campaigns to give the 1% or what he call's the "job creator's trillion's in tax cut's now he say's they wo'nt have their tax's lowered,he said he does'nt care about the 47% now he love's the 47%.He's still the same Romney as before the debate just with a different spin.He will say or do anything to get elected and it's fool's like you that believe his bulls!it. The guy's got more position's than the Kama-Sutra.
Actually, if you google Mitt and look at the video history of his stand on abortion it has never changed. However, you can find that he has chosen to vote in favor of the people that put him into the various offices that he has held. What a novel idea represent those that voted for you. Take a minute and you will see that he believes that abortion is wrong, but he also doesn't think that he has the right to force that belief on others.
You could compare it to someone thinking that drinking is bad for his health, or you could be vegan and believe that eating meet is bad for yourself. Yet, you don't condemn people that don't see things the same as you. Just because I don't drink doesn't mean everybody else needs to stop too. Mitt doesn't agree with abortion, yet has found a way to not force his belief on you. Isn't that the liberal way?
What are you talking about?He told Mike Huckabee that he support's a personhood amendment.That is no provision for rape or incest and some provision's against contraceptive's.And now he say's he does support abortion in cases of rape or incest.He has also said he think's Roe v Wade should be repealed.He was pro choice when he ran for gov.of Mass,now he's pro life.He say's he's evolved,I say he's revolved like a revolving door.
Chemed,
Actually Chem I agree with about Romeny and abortion, but if Congress comes back with some severe curtail of reproduction rights, and says (for example)offer Romney a none capital gains tax compromise, Romney will believe in rectifying the scourge of no-choice (well actually right-wing choice) on women so quick, that............, well you get my meaning!
Romney exhibits "Borderline Personality Disorder," he will always act for gain over substance, right & wrong, it is what he is!
Why does right-wing always feel women are chattel, and not grown-ups whom can make up their own mind when it comes to their body. Which side do you think "Goldwater" would be on?
That's funny when I goggle Romney I can find him taking every possible position there is on abortion. EVERY single possible position! Pro choice, Pro life, with exceptions, without exceptions, with some exceptions, without others, even support of personhood.
Check your Google chem. Maybe you should "shake" your PC like an "etch a sketch." Ha Ha Ha!
"The angst of liberals" is overrated.
On the up-side, anyone who thought they should stay home Nov 6 - knows now where they should be - at the ballot.
Wait til you see the footage of Mitt's speech in OH this AM; topped even his own self for amount of lies packed into the shortest time and the most shocking ones yet. We're still wretching from it.
No Leo I can not since that would be like trying to herd cats.
I do invite you to look up what Darwin really taught. It is not the survival of the fittest. I learned this in 1962 high school honors biology. I did a science fair project on DNA and the findings of Darwin accomodation considering the double helix. I was WAY beyond my ability to say the least. Last year I actually heard it said that Darwin did not say the survival of the fittest, it is the survival of the kindest. Some of the evidence was the success in animals joining together in packs to hunt for food being more successful than the lone ranger hunter. It still has not gotten out to the general public and I wonder what is being taught in school today?
Thanks for the laugh and would recommend to drop the BUT because truth has no opposite.
If we were writing a novel and Obama would be cast as the orphan and his journey in fate can include Daddy Warbucks. Romney would be the rich man in the Bible who can drop his valuables and "come follow me". Both are winning hands if the fates are kind and there is a swift breeze at your back.
Carol,
Title of Darwin book: "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." contains complete formulation of the concept. It did not guess what fittest will be (it could be kindness, most cruel or smartest.. depends). At any given moment one needs to flip or flop to survive. If not - too bad.
I appreciate that you don't try to formulate "Democrats doctrine" - wise.
Leo,you are A good FAKE-Dogwinist.Why not A"Republicans doctrine?in short paragraph is called"PHARISEEISM.Good job Carol-in all your BLOG-10/10/12.@
KABAZINI@,
Because I have no idea what it is also. I am not republican. I am registered democrat only by reason to be disgusted by W and like Clinton.
"Dogwinist" - very respectful, you moron.
Good MR.Leopatra,now you are coming out from"Republican JUDASINIST closet?you had been FAKE with Democrat Bloggers for so LONG.Wash your hands.Sorry,i took back Dogwinist.Sed,Carol,Ricky,can take care of you.@
Leo if you look further than a title of a book and what the incorrect interpretation by people who are not scientists, you will find the flaw in this natural selection and something must die for you to live. I read the article in Science magazine about four or five years ago..... when I have some time (big barn day with farrier and equine dentist) I will see if I can find an Internet article if you would wish to read it.
Why I think it is important is in the same way as when I listened to the Dali Lama yesterday when he spoke at the College of William and Mary. We are evolving and we are evolving into the "Buddha Brain" and are able to access our frontal cortex. This phenomenon helps us realize it is better to co operate in a world where we have seven billion people, to work together since history has shown empires fall, wars destroy progress, and when we leave the fear element and pick our strength, our ability to come from "our higher angels" then whatever you want to call this source that is driving creation and "overcoming" entropy, we will survive and thrive.
In this paradigm, integrity matters and when we find a candidate like Romney, a man with great conceit of himself, this is not going to be representative of the way the world must go or we will destroy ourselves.
Carol,
Imaginable that it could be not true. But if so I believe the same is applying to you, no? So what?
The main distortion of Darwinism by leftists is the claim that its followers embraces any specific model of society. No. It is not correct. Depend on all current factors there could be some social model that fits criteria of survival best at any given moment of history. It could be anarchy, communism, capitalism, hedonism - whatever if it works it is right.
Leo: According to your argument the Republicans have now tried their supply-side theory for 32 years and failed miserably. They have not once balanced the budget. They have managed to completely devastate the middle class. They caused the biggest economic disaster since the Great depression and this was world wide. They have caused the U.S. to drop from the the top three ratings in three dozen metrics of success to the bottom 27 to 32 in ratings out of all the westernized democratic countries.
According to your theory of societal success the Republican model and policies have failed and failed miserably. Not only on the governmental level but on the corporate level as we have been forced to bail out the corporations to the tune of trillions several times now.
Look at the metrics. The policies of the Democrats have by far been more successful than the Republicans especially since the Republicans have had majority control over the past 32 years.
There are those among us in his audience who've concluded Chris Matthews is often caught "playing to the tune of his new Comcast/Roberts family" patrons, and this looks to me to be the case (yes, Chris, strong e-mail to follow).
And some of us are insulted by that "angst among liberals" claim; if you believe some of us hadn't considered the possibility of a Romney victory, you've underestimated your own audience.
Please don't project your own "angst" on us, and I won't do what I did to Andrew Sullivan. Word is over on Newsvine a foulmouthed cabdriver called him a theatrical streetwalker and drove up on to the sidewalk to where he ducked inside a building.
SL Cabbie,
You see I love that stuff, why don't us dem's embrace that more, why do we always have to be above it all the time, in regards to campaigning, not governing, that is key!
Chris, I'm getting to the point where I can't watch you. Ever since the night of the debate, when I was seriously afraid you were going to have a stroke, you have acted like the sky is falling and the President has no way to beat Romney.
"It's whatcha do with whacha got"? Well, clearly, the debate was worse than the jobs numbers - who's still talking about the jobs numbers?
Yeah, Bill Clinton's great. Of course he's in VEGAS. How about putting him on a bus through the midwest where people completely think Obama was born in Africa and WILL take away their medicare?
You're dooming the President's reelection already, as you've been doing for the past month, and I can't watch that anymore!
Why are all of us so mad at Chris for? Because he should show some back-bone, some "down & dirty," he is one of us, and he (like myself) is pissed off at this playing the "contact sport" of politics like Backgammon.
Their is a divine reason why Sunday political shows come on before Football every week!
Don't be hating the messenger!
It is a blow to the ego when we feel like Obama got punked. Most likely just get back on that old horse and keep on keeping on. Frankly I got the best insight ever concerning Romney and if he had not shown himself in that debate, this character would have been hidden. Mostly Obama gave himself enough rope and he hung himself in the long run.
The rest of this is vanity, we all hate to look the fool yet we can learn from our mistakes and convert them into our strength. Like bones, we get stronger in the broken places.... so move on people... and vote 2012 GObama
I support Chris for doing his job (as he so plainly put it yesterday on the show). GOChris! GOBIDEN/GOBAMA 2012!
A major point that should be made in the health care debate is that the Republicans’ positions and principles are causing an expansion of health care costs as well as reducing the life span of many Americans.
I can think of no position where life is supported by a Republican policy after a person is born. I have asked some conservative friends about this and they scoff but have not come up with any life extending policy. Let’s look at the facts:
I could go on and on. The bottom line is that the policies of Romney-Ryan and the Republicans have increased health costs and have not had an objective of increasing the life span of our citizens. This should be put around the Republicans necks! It is not religious and not moral for this to not be the goal of government regarding health care. If we can extend life at lower costs, this is a win for everyone. This is not the objective of the Republicans as demonstrated by the examples above. It is the objective of the Democrats.
Bobo09,
Yes, all I can say is:
*Bin Laden still Dead
*GM still Alive (and hiring)
*and the RIGHT-WING STILL BATSH*T!
Obama 2012
Morning, fellow Americans, anyone watch the Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell last night; some of the discussion was about Romneys varied views on abortion, and then Lawrence mentioned a recent story, that broke a few days ago, about a republican congressman(I think from North Carolina), who is antiabortion.....but, get this, he requested his mistrees(yes, mistress) to have an abortion.
Really? Hmmm....so, he gets his mistreess pregnant, but now...a change of mind. For what? Selfish reasons.
Abortion? I disagree. However, who am I(a man) to tell a woman, what she should, or should not do, with her body. Why are men making legislation that they have, quite simply, no first-hand experience with? They are not women, plain and simple. It is like saying women should draft legislation for evasive, obtrusive, degrading, prostate exams.
How about penile blood-flow probes? Did I say that? Hell yeah.