Cynical Nation

At least they can make that argument. Can you imagine if McCain lost and tried to make a similar argument?

Anyway, after yesterday, I am more convinced than ever that McCain will lose by a landslide in the general, to either Obama or Hillary. He could not even get a 50% in his state, AZ. That says it all. He is totally unelectable. Even if he picks Huckabee as his running mate (which I suspect will end up doing at the end).

Romney is the only candidate as dumb as Chimp. I would say he is kind of Stepford creepy looking. He is rich though. All it takes to be rich is a complete lack of morals and ethics, and he and Chimp have those qualities in spades.

Seriously? You Republicans. So petty!

I have to sympathize with Mitt. Except for the "richer" thing I've had to cope with that kind of envy all my life...well, maybe not so much the "more successful" thing...or the "smarter" or "better looking" things either.

Well, the fat talk show host has sung.

Mitt Romney is suspending his campaign.

"I have to sympathize with Mitt. Except for the "richer" thing I've had to cope with that kind of envy all my life...well, maybe not so much the "more successful" thing...or the "smarter" or "better looking" things either." (WF)


Yeah envy is ugly alright, WF.

The mantra of every loser the world over is, "All it takes to be rich is a complete lack of morals and ethics."

Yeah, poor old Barely's convinced that if he were just a little less virtuous, he'd be a lot more prosperous.

Now THAT really is funny!

I think both Walter Mitty and Willie Loman felt the same exact way.

Don't forget someone predicted a McCain/Huckabee ticket here in the comments of CN back on January 5. ;-)

As for Clinton/Obamarama, I think said predictor may have missed. The parrot's handlers only taught him a single one-word answer to any question, and that is "Change!" ... but hey, it may be enough to get him the Dem nomination. Smart handlers. Baraky want a cracker.

Sure JMK, you are the one in a union, hiding from honest work at an honest wage like a true socialist, and I am the multiple business owner.

Retarded people like the Bush family and the Romney's didn't make their money by creating anything. They made it through sheer criminal behavior. Stupid, but arrogant and murderously aggressive, they clawed their way to the top by using people, cheating, and breaking the law.

You just keep letting the nanny union protect you while you fight against your own best interests in supporting Corporatist politicians, dummy.

Barely, I work at the discretion of the City of NY.

I've spent two decades in the South Bronx, in two of the busiest fire companies in that city and hence the world and have spent the past three years becoming a HazMat Specialist (yes, at City & Federal expense) being sent to well over 600 hours of training around the country.

Before that I built decks for about sixteen years and had repossessed cars for about ten years, much of that overlapping my deck building years.

I've had a charmed life.

Now I'm being recruited by private sector companies for those HazMat skills and have recently become a minor partner in an oil (waste oil) recovery business.

I work hard. Always have....and I'm a really nice guy to boot.

I've always said, nice things happen to you when you're a nice person like myself.

What I desperately WANT is for mooks like you and me to keep on working and producing. I think that's best for all of us.

I have the bulk of my investments (from a lifetime of saving) in the pharmaceutical, energy and healthcare insurance industries. Those three industries employ MILLIONS of Americans and they're the ones moving this great country forward.

Workers (like you and I) are a dime a dozen. It's investors who create the wealth and breed the prosperity we all take for granted and, as they say, "pull the cart the rest of us merely ride in."

All I do is support LOW tax, smaller government policies that make it easier to generate greater prosperity.

If you don't understand why that's the case (LOW tax, smaller government policies create greater prosperity), then you shouldn't be working, you shouldn't be voting, hell, you shouldn't even be driving!

JMK,
I hate to say it, but it sounds that you vote against your own financial interests. Like most republican voters do actually. The Bush tax cuts have gone to people and corporations that do NOT need it. The extra pennies that people who need the money get, make no real difference. I think that most people vote republican against their own interests because they believe that by calling themselves "republican" they will get spontaneously rich. It is kind of laughable, actually.

The Corporatist government is working AGAINST all workers. NAFTA and all of those agreements gutted jobs and lowered wages. The influx of illegals has destroyed construction jobs and wages.

Hillary will follow Bush, just like her husband, in continuing the destruction. So will McCain. So would Romney, Ghouliani, Thompson, and the rest of the Repugs except Ron Paul.

I just don't know about Obama. My cynicism (experience) leads me to believe that he will give in to the Corporations as well, as Edwards certainly would have.

The truth is, as much fun as I have baiting and being baited by you, it doesn't matter.

The Corporatists have too much money. They have a stranglehold and won't let go. America is finished.

"I hate to say it, but it sounds that you vote against your own financial interests. Like most republican voters do actually." (BW)


Hmmmm, that may be because I'm a Democrat...a very Conservative Democrat.

None-the-less, I've been looking for someone, ANYone to make an argument that might show me how LOW TAX, smaller government policies are against my best interests.

I appreciate your attempt here, I sincerely do, but aside from the fact that your argument amounts to, "Since you get less tax money back then a guy earning $1 MILLION or more a year, you should oppose these tax cuts just like I do," there is little more to your argument and that is hardly a compelling argument, in and of itself.

I mean the above is a pretty fair distillation of your argument is it not?

Well, like most working people (90+%?), I get NO/ZERO benefit from government social programs.

So, all those social programs designed to combat poverty, by giving people handouts that they quickly become addicted to, COST ME money.

On the other hand, when a fiscally Conservative politician cuts tax rates across the board and my wife and I get a 3% cut on our relatively meager earnings (amounting to say seven or eight grand a year), it costs me NOTHING that a guy who earned $3 Million dollars that year got back $90,000.

See how that works?

More government programs and higher taxes, take money out of my wife's and I's pockets. Money we believe we know how to use far better than the government does.

Tax CUTS, on the other hand, cost us NOTHING. The fact that people who earn far more (and PAID far more in taxes) also get more back, costs us NOTHING at all, as well!

Perhaps there's more to your argument, because as it stands, it isn't really an argument at all, as it seems your arguing, "When you see that high income earner getting back ninety grand, doesn't it make you feel foolish getting back onl;y seven or eight?"

Actually, I'm quite grateful to get back the money I did get back.

Moreover, if you believe the government "needs more money" (I DON'T), then it is YOU who are voting against that interest by voting for tax hikers, as I've shown here numerous times (and no one has, as yet, refuted it) that tax cuts (down to about the 20% range) INCREASE tax revenues as more high income earners take MORE of their income up front and NON-deferred, while tax hikes (except those target at lower wage earners, with LESS disposable income) actually DECREASE tax revenues as those with higher incomes and more disposable income respond to the incentive to save and defer more of their income in tax deferred vehicles.

What part of that is difficult for you to understand? Or put another (perhaps nicer) way, What part of that do you disagree with and what's your rationale for disagreeing?


And since we're theorizing on why people vote the way they do, let me add my own theories. I think that the majority of those who vote Republican vote that way because the GOP has, over the past fifty years or more, consistently put up the MOST Conservative candidates for national office.

Many people vote for Conservatives because they want violent criminals PUNISHED and not given therapy.

Others vote that way because they (incredulously enough) actually believe in things like "equality before the law" and "equal opportunity" (the SAME standards applied to all) and realize that things like race/gender preferences stand squarely against those principles.

Still others vote that way because they want their porous borders secured (they've been badly disappointed by BOTH Parties).

I appreciate the argument BW, I very much do, but you can see clearly why it is an unacceptable one, can't you?

"The Corporatist government is working AGAINST all workers. NAFTA and all of those agreements gutted jobs and lowered wages. The influx of illegals has destroyed construction jobs and wages."

"Hillary will follow Bush, just like her husband, in continuing the destruction. So will McCain. So would Romney, Ghouliani, Thompson, and the rest of the Repugs except Ron Paul." (BH)


GAK!

(1) Free Trade has actually created some 16 Million more jobs than have left the country. Since you couldn't find anything to refute that, I consider that accepted.

(2) Ron Paul is a LIBERTARIAN...and as such, he supports FREE TRADE and advocates for OPEN BORDERS.

GAK!!!

(3) How many such wrong-headed fur balls are you going to gak up?!

Ron Paul's demented views on ILLEGAL immigration and on the WoT, are two of the reasons I am NOT a Libertarian.

His "9-11 Truther" views put him in the "Dennis Kucinich realm" of batshit craziness. In fact, Ron Paul's about as certifiably insane as....well, as you are.

I said Ron Paul wasn't a Corporatist, stupid.

Real wages are down. Standard of living, down. Everything for the middle class is DOWN. Everything for the elite few is sky high.

"Supply side" just means steal from the poor and give to the rich (stupid bitch).

Are you drinking excessively.....AGAIN???

Let's see Ron Paul on the issues;

Ron Paul voted YES on MORE immigrant (H-1B) visas for skilled workers.

Vote to pass a bill to increase the number of temporary visas granted to highly skilled workers from 65,000 to 115,000 by the year 2000.

Ron Paul voted AGAINST removing oil & gas exploration subsidies.

He voted AGAINST keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore.

He voted in FAVOR of permitting new oil refineries.

He voted AGAINST raising CAFE standards and against incentives for alternative fuels.

He voted AGAINST prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR.

He voted AGAINST on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)

Ron Paul argued in favor of repealing the gas tax.

Rep Paul signed onto the Republican Liberty Caucus's trade agreement that said, "The U.S. government should inhibit neither the exportation of U.S. goods and services worldwide, nor the importation of goods and services.

On Labor, Ron Paul "Supports the right to organize; but no special benefits for unions.

His view is that "The minimum wage takes away opportunities, especially for blacks.

Has voted AGAINST "sexual orientation" in Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

He's voted AGAINST any restrictions on employer interference in union organizing.

Again, to RECAP; Ron Paul is PRO-H-1B Visas, PRO-Free Trade, ANTI-Kyoto, PRO-drilling for oil and gas in ANWAR and off our coasts and voted against removing oil and gas exploration subsidies (despite now claiming he now opposes them), and voted AGAINST increased CAFE standards and AGAINST incentives (subsidies) for alternative fuel development.

And uhhhh, yeah, that in sum, is a "Corporatist agenda."

I KNOW because I agree with him on all of the things mentioned above.

Socialism is a rigged system.

Free markets (Supply Side policies) result in an open market where the likes of you and I are free to compete on an equal footing with the sharks.

A more free and open market is better/fairer for over 90% of the population.

It may not be better for the top 5% or the bottom 5%, but it's great for everyone else.

Supply side results in what we have today: economic disaster.

Reagan was a traitor to America, but the hero of the elite few who will rule over the peasants here like in Mexico.

Mission accomplished!

Oh, I almost missed the "equal footing" idiocy! LOL!

OK JMK, where can I buy that radio station? TV station? No. How about a factory. Hmmm, I don't have enough money. Gee, I wonder who that leaves? Oh yeah, the mega rich.

They buy up and consolidate, and your Coporatist (supply side) friends allow them to create monopolies against the public interest, to illegally run competitors out of business by using their wealth to sustain losses, etc...

As always, you are an idiot.

We have a 5% UNEMPLOYMENT rate - HALF waht it was under Jimmy Carter's "Worst economy since the Great Depression," we have a 2.4% INFLATION rate - about a quarter of what it was under Jimmy Carter's "Worst economy since the Great Depression." and we have Low Interests rates - mortgage rates today are nearly half what they were under Jimmy Carter's "Worst economy since the Great Depression."

So, I guess that would make your "economic disaster" statement factually wrong, which of course, is par for the course with you.

And yes a free market puts the littlest investor on "an equal footing," or level playing field" with the biggest and best investors.

A friend of mine derided that as saying, "You're lauding the fact that the free market allows me to get into the ring with a Mike Tyson and because we both have on boxing gloves, and will abide by the same rules, it's a level playing field?"

Yes, yes it is. Just because the other guy may have superior physical attributes and skills, or decades more investor experience and skills doesn't make it an "unequal footing."

We are all endowed with various and sundry skills and skill levels. That shoud be obvious here with your consistent inability to make a sensible argument.

It's NOT the government's job to keep those who are more "blessed" from winning out over those who are less so....THAT free market viewpoint that opposes government intervention in economic matters is what creates an "equal footing," OR "level playing field."

The fact that putting me and Mike Tyson in a ring together and calling that a "level playing field" (same rules) doesn't bode well for me, is no excuse for seeking to change the rules.

This economy of ours has NEVER been advanced by workers, much as I love the workingman. This economy of ours is the biggest and most dynamic in the world because of entrepreneurs and investors who create new industries out of mere ideas and put millions of us working folk (like you and me) to work.

In real terms, we have higher unemployment now than when Carter was in office. Your statistics ignore the LONG TERM UNEMPLOYED and those who were coddled unionized firemen, no wait, air traffic controllers, who now make minimum wage as a Walmart greeter.

Under Bush, record numbers of workers have just given up on their field of work. Carpenters give up faced with the Bush Approved Mexican invasion. Programmers give up because first the Corporatists brought a million Indians over here to be trained, and then sent them back with our jobs (to work even cheaper in the squalor of India). Only the elite programmes, like me, can continue to work in the field.

If what say were true, then why do retail sales go down every year? Americans have ZERO savings. Negative savings. We aren't saving our money, and we obviously aren't spending it on retail goods. What gives?

Hey stupid, maybe people just don't have as much money! Maybe, because of supply siders like Reagan and Chimp, real wages have gone down and the price of everything else (like gasoline) has gone up!

Yeah, that would explain it!

Stop listening to Rush, and your mind might clear eventually, union boy.

We don't have air traffic controllers any more?

WRONG!

We have more air traffic controllers today than we did back in 1980.

Yet another "Barely" factual error?

And if we had more people out of work, who'd given up finding work, the POVERTY numbers would be significantly higher than they were in, say, 1980.

Well, they AREN'T!

We had 12% of the country in poverty in 1980 and 12% of the country is in poverty today.

Seriously? What's wrong with you???? I know you have some "emotional issues," as you call them, but to be honest, I don't care about your "issues,"they're your problems to deal with.

Stop stating things as "facts" when they are clearly and demonstrably wrong.

Look things up if you don't know....like the poverty rates in America over the past 25 years....it's real easy to do, even for EDPs, such as yourself.

I've tried to be kind to you and I'm aware of your condition, but I've already told you, you really need to seek some sort of professional help with that. There's no shame in that.

I sum the Romney supporters' (if you substitute the words "nitwits' with shit for brains" for "Romney supporters'" then you're interested in accuracy rather than courtesy) statements up as a variation on a break up excuse, i.e., "It's not me, it's you."