Willard’s Plan For Redistributing Wealth

Income Gap Graph
Source: Think Progress

Pat Garofalo on Think Progress explains that while Willard (“Mitt”) Romney accuses President Obama of believing in redistribution (pointing to a selectively-edited audio clip from an October 1998 conference at Loyola University, when Obama was an Illinois state senator), Romney is the candidate who actually proposes to redistribute wealth, even though he denied it today:

“There’s a tape that came out just a couple of days ago where the president said yes he believes in redistribution. I don’t. I believe the way to lift people and help people have higher incomes is not to take from some and give to others but to create wealth for all.”

According to a Tax Policy Center analysis (PDF), Romney’s plan would increase after-tax income for those making more than $200,000 annually, while reducing it for everyone else.

The upshot of Romney’s plan is that “taxpayers with incomes over $1 million would see their after-tax income increased by 8.3 percent (an average tax cut of about $175,000), taxpayers with incomes between $75,000 and $100,000 would see somewhat smaller increases of about 2.4 percent (an average tax cut of $1,800), while the after-tax income of taxpayers earning less than $30,000 would actually decrease by about 0.9 percent (an average tax increase of about $130).”

The number one economic challenge in America is growing income inequality, and a shrinking middle class. Median household income dropped 1.5 percent and the gap between the wealthiest Americans and those in the middle grew in 2011, according to Census data. Romney wants to make this problem worse.

UPDATE: Peggy Noonan: “It’s time to admit the Romney campaign is an incompetent one. It’s not big, it’s not brave, it’s not thoughtfully tackling great issues. It’s always been too small for the moment.” Anonymous GOP strategist (Mark McKinnon?): “[T]hey have the stench of a losing campaign… There are cascading controversies and problems and they’re drowning out any positive message Romney wants to put out there and any ability for Romney to do a sustained attack on Obama.”

UPDATE: 8 Very Bad Things That Happened to Mitt Romney…Just This Morning. The Romney campaign is having another extremely bad day.

UPDATE: More fallout: Scott Brown Won’t Say If He Still Supports Romney’s Candidacy.

UPDATE: Obama Up 8 Points Nationally In Latest Pew Poll

  1. #1 by brewski on September 19, 2012 - 12:35 pm

    That is completely nonsensical.

    First of all, the TPC study has already been debunked and they even backed off from their own “study”.

    Second, people keeping their own money isn’t “redistribution”. You can call it something else, but not redistribution.

  2. #2 by Richard Warnick on September 19, 2012 - 1:30 pm

    If you change the way income is distributed, that by definition is redistribution.

  3. #3 by brewski on September 19, 2012 - 1:53 pm

    No.

    If you take money from one person and give it to another person, that is redistribution.

  4. #4 by Richard Warnick on September 19, 2012 - 2:05 pm

    Webster’s Dictionary:

    re·dis·trib·ute

    1 : to alter the distribution of : reallocate
    2 : to spread to other areas

    I state a simple fact, and you deny it with a knee-jerk reaction. Never gets old.

  5. #5 by brewski on September 19, 2012 - 2:26 pm

    Yes. it is a verb. A verb takes action. To redistribute. To reallocate. To spread. The action. Not reallocating is not reallocating. Not redistributing is not redistributing.

    Only a violent communist would see it any other way.

  6. #6 by Richard Warnick on September 19, 2012 - 2:31 pm

    If you increase the after-tax income of taxpayers with incomes over $75,000, while at the same time decreasing the after-tax income of taxpayers earning less than $30,000, that’s redistribution. Because the distribution has changed.

    The right only calls it class warfare when we fight back. You only want to call it “redistribution” when it goes the other way.

  7. #7 by brewski on September 19, 2012 - 3:48 pm

    What have we learned:
    1. You don’t know taxes
    2. You don’t know economics
    3. You don’t know English
    4. You don’t know logic

  8. #8 by Larry Bergan on September 20, 2012 - 12:11 am

    If we only had some way to reallocate or redistribute the truth, We’d have something, but that’s not where we live.

    Sooner or later, WAR is coming to America from around-the-world/over-there. People have to protect themselves. and they will.

    Don’t be stupid!

    You can’t bomb the life out of people and expect to live. It’s simple logic.

  9. #9 by Larry Bergan on September 20, 2012 - 12:37 am

    They never hated us for our freedom, or because we used to have houses – both Bush W. quotes, (adjusted somewhat) -, they hated us because we bombed them.

    The conundrum is that we never bombed Saudi Arabia, and the “official story” says that the overwhelming number of hijackers who brought down the World Trade Centers were from Saudi Arabia.

    Where were the attackers really from?

    I’m sorry, but it’s a good question!

  10. #10 by brewski on September 20, 2012 - 5:32 am

    Today is a good day. Today is the day everyone is officially banned from using Media Matters as a source for anything, other than as an example of partisan hackiness.
    http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/18/emails-reveal-justice-dept-regularly-enlists-media-matters-to-spin-press/

  11. #11 by cav on September 20, 2012 - 8:54 am

    I think it’s natural for an administration to attempt to spin to its advantage, but given the glaring shortcomings of the DOJ (a significant part of which is attributable to time-bomb appointments by previous administrations, lack of money and just the whole political processes that have been established from regime to regime) I don’t think they’ll be able to effectively craft their own ‘truth’ so as to out-weigh the realities we’ve come to know.

  12. #12 by brewski on September 20, 2012 - 9:15 am

    The can spin all they want. But a tax exempt non profit can’t coordinate a political message with the WH. They are breaking the law.

  13. #13 by Richard Warnick on September 20, 2012 - 9:27 am

    Larry–

    We know who the 9/11 hijackers were, and where they came from.

  14. #14 by Larry Bergan on September 20, 2012 - 8:42 pm

    Richard:

    I’m NOT having this discussion with you.

    I’ve already said that I saw three buildings come down, on the same damn day – as did every other American over six years old. All three appeared to be professionally demolished.

    Razor blades?

  15. #15 by brewski on September 20, 2012 - 8:58 pm

    “All three appeared to be professionally demolished.”

    I am glad we have identified who the crazies are. Makes the birthers look intellectual.

  16. #16 by anon on September 20, 2012 - 9:05 pm

    Al CIA DUH are pros don’tcha know? Wait Bin Trippin’ denied he had anything to do with 911, remember, or did you all swill the Kool Aid?

  17. #17 by anon on September 20, 2012 - 9:07 pm

    I want Atta’s passport they found in the rubble, even though nothing else bigger than pack of smokes survived in the pile.

    Figure intact through all that carnage it must be bulletproof or something, want to make a bumper out of it for my 4WD..

  18. #18 by Larry Bergan on September 20, 2012 - 9:18 pm

    Alert the media!

    Richard and brewski have something in common!

  19. #19 by Richard Warnick on September 21, 2012 - 8:55 am

    Larry–

    Since you are immune to the facts on the subject of the 9/11 attacks, we’ll have to agree to disagree as we have before.

  20. #20 by anon on September 21, 2012 - 10:37 am

    The official conspiracy theory is so laughable, that obama has decided to release the first World Trade Center bomber, the gig is up, he really didn’t mean it..so we should let him go..right?

  21. #21 by Richard Warnick on September 21, 2012 - 10:43 am

    Who needs Faux News when we have Glenn? Ramzi Yousef is serving two life terms in Supermax. And President Obama signed the unconstitutional law authorizing indefinite preventive detention without charges, including for American citizens.

  22. #22 by brewski on September 21, 2012 - 10:56 am

    For now. But as Obama has admitted, he has lots of plans for after the election when he will have more “flexibility”.

  23. #23 by brewski on September 21, 2012 - 10:58 am

    BTW, there is an interesting article corporate tax avoidance strategies. I would post it here but since it is in the WSJ you would just dismiss without reading it. It is an article and not an editorial.

  24. #24 by Richard Warnick on September 21, 2012 - 11:25 am

    brewski–

    You’re really going to give us the crazy “Obama <3 terrorists” meme?

  25. #25 by brewski on September 21, 2012 - 11:33 am

    No idea what you are talking about.

  26. #26 by Richard Warnick on September 21, 2012 - 11:42 am

    You implied a presidential pardon is in the works for Ramzi Yousef.

  27. #27 by brewski on September 21, 2012 - 12:50 pm

    No i didn’t. Are you in a “making shit up mood today”?

  28. #28 by anon on September 21, 2012 - 1:05 pm

    Haha this is about all blogging is good for

  29. #29 by Richard Warnick on September 21, 2012 - 1:35 pm

    brewski–

    What did you mean when you said Ramzi Yousef is in Supermax “for now,” and that President Obama “has lots of plans for after the election when he will have more ‘flexibility'”?

  30. #30 by brewski on September 21, 2012 - 2:12 pm

    I mean that Obama may send him to Egypt for them to hold him. I never said or implied anything about a pardon. You made that up yourself.

    http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/09/12/report-riots-actually-about-release-of-blind-sheik/

  31. #31 by brewski on September 21, 2012 - 2:14 pm

    “This is my last election,” President Barack Obama famously told Russia’s outgoing President Dmitry Medvedev in March, in a conversation inadvertently caught on a “hot” microphone. “After my election, I have more flexibility.”

  32. #32 by Richard Warnick on September 21, 2012 - 2:16 pm

    So your theory is that President Obama is going to release Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman after the election? Right before he resigns and moves to Kenya, I suppose.

    Just because your right-wing sources are crazy, that does not prove our President is also crazy. Obama didn’t even close Guantanamo despite the fact that President Bush already planned to close it (after releasing dangerous terrorists). Imagine if Bush had been a Democrat, what would the right-wing media say?

  33. #33 by brewski on September 21, 2012 - 2:44 pm

  34. #34 by Richard Warnick on September 21, 2012 - 2:47 pm

    Fox Falsely Suggests White House “Changing The Story” On Libya Terrorism Investigation

    The Obama administration, roiled by the first killing of a U.S. ambassador in more than 30 years, is investigating whether the assault on the U.S. Consulate in Libya was a planned terrorist strike to mark the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and not a spontaneous mob enraged over an anti-Islam YouTube video. [Associated Press, 9/13/12]

    (Emphasis added)

  35. #35 by brewski on September 21, 2012 - 3:57 pm

    Media Matters is not an acceptable source, ever.

  36. #36 by brewski on September 21, 2012 - 4:17 pm

  37. #37 by Richard Warnick on September 22, 2012 - 11:57 am

    brewski–

    You rejected the Associated Press report as a source of information, but referred to an opinion piece instead. On September 13, they reported that the Obama administration was investigating whether the assault on the U.S. Consulate in Libya was a planned terrorist strike.

    On September 16, three days later, Susan Rice was still waiting for the evidence from this investigation.

    Partisan right-wing commentators and politicians with no responsibility for foreign relations can afford to jump to conclusions. Responsible officials cannot.

  38. #39 by brewski on September 22, 2012 - 1:05 pm

    So ABC news and the San Francisco Comical both say the WH was wrong. You got nothing.

  39. #40 by Richard Warnick on September 22, 2012 - 4:50 pm

    The worst you can say about Ambassador Rice is that she was trying to spin the news. The White House never said what the Libyan attack was about until it was investigated, so the worst you can say about them is that they were stalling.

    And to get back to the original crazy, Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman is going to die in a U.S. federal prison. The imaginary terrorist-loving President Obama that Clint Eastwood was talking to in the empty chair does not exist in the real world.

  40. #41 by brewski on September 22, 2012 - 6:31 pm

    I assume that means you retract your previous posts. Nice backtrack.

    The worst that I cane say about Rice is that she is stupid and was lying and was trying to cover up for the spectacular failure Obama’s Middle East policy has been. He thought he could go over there and apologize for all of the US’s sins and they would love us. That didn’t work. Obama was naive in thinking that it was just Bush they didn’t like and all we needed was a change in leadership and tone and they will love us. They don’t. If she had been stalling she could have said a lot of other things like “we don’t know yet” but she didn’t. She lied.

  41. #42 by cav on September 22, 2012 - 7:16 pm

    All your ‘tone-modification’ strategies suck. There is but one option…kick more ‘sand-nigger’ butt post haste!!!!

    Or, I guess you could just kill yourself.

  42. #43 by brewski on September 22, 2012 - 8:59 pm

    Huh?

  43. #44 by Richard Warnick on September 23, 2012 - 8:55 am

    Bottom line, there are no negotiations for the release of Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman. That’s a right-wing fiction.

  44. #45 by Larry Bergan on September 23, 2012 - 10:18 am

    Fiction is duty.

    Flush it.

  45. #46 by Jonesy on September 23, 2012 - 10:34 am

    But in the meantime, progressives are incapable of spreading their lies in having to defend against this possibility. Politics. May you eat your words

    Good luck fighting the Post in NYC, it is a God there..more truth comes from it than ever from obama’s mouth or the NY Times.

    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/eyes_blind_sheik_release_0MFMrnamOFxtIJKJLpTQNL

  46. #47 by Larry Bergan on September 23, 2012 - 10:51 am

    I never lie online.

    I consider it treason of a sort, which nobody ever hears. Live with it, I guess.

  47. #48 by Larry Bergan on September 23, 2012 - 11:05 am

    47% MY ASS!

    99% is more like it.

    If Rmoney wins, the election is stolen.

    Live with THAT!

  48. #49 by Larry Bergan on September 23, 2012 - 11:11 am

    A lot drunk?

    You bet!

    I’m off work today!

  49. #50 by Larry Bergan on September 23, 2012 - 11:20 am

    Not really, (off busy), work though.

    Farly cryptic. :) Sorry. Nobody can say I’m not mad.

    There!

    You have it.

    He, He!

    NOT driving!

  50. #51 by Larry Bergan on September 23, 2012 - 12:33 pm

    However:

    Let me reiterate:

    If Romney wins, it’s a fraud-

  51. #52 by brewski on September 23, 2012 - 1:43 pm

    Bottom line, the WH was lying and is trying to cover up that their whole Middle East strategy is a failure.

  52. #53 by Larry Bergan on September 23, 2012 - 2:58 pm

    And who’s Middle East tragedy would that be; exactly?

  53. #54 by brewski on September 23, 2012 - 3:01 pm

    The guy who is president who went to the Middle East and told them that everything has changed. America promises to be nice to them not like in the past. Remember?

  54. #55 by Larry Bergan on September 23, 2012 - 3:20 pm

    The most beautiful speech I have ever heard.

  55. #56 by brewski on September 23, 2012 - 3:38 pm

    and look what happened.

  56. #57 by Richard Warnick on September 23, 2012 - 5:49 pm

    President Obama must have realized that Hosni Mubarak wasn’t going to last forever (he’s 84!) and there was no practical plan for his regime to survive him. That is realpolitik, which the right usually claims to admire.

    Similarly, it was obvious that Gaddafi in Libya, Saleh in Yemen, and Assad in Syria were due for retirement – probably the hard way. The only wild card was that it started with Ben Ali in Tunisia. A Republican president would have handled it the same as Obama did.

  57. #58 by brewski on September 23, 2012 - 5:56 pm

    Actually, neoconservatives reject realpolitik. So you are factually wrong, as usual.

    “In direct opposition to the timely practice of realpolitik in foreign affairs, the foreign policy of a country must represent its internal moral character. Maintaining alliances with dictators and unfavourable regimes is therefore abhorrent to neoconservatism.”

    http://www.e-ir.info/2009/06/01/neo-conservatism-and-american-foreign-policy/

    A Republican president wouldn’t have gone to Cairo and apologized and asked them to please like us. A Republican president wouldn’t bow to any king.

  58. #59 by Richard Warnick on September 23, 2012 - 5:59 pm

    You’re correct, neocons imagine a fantasy Middle East re-made according to their specifications using drones and cluster bombs. They are idiots.

    I was referring to those on the right who understand foreign policy.

    FYI President Obama never apologized for U.S. war crimes (though he should have, IMHO). He never bowed – that’s a right-wing fiction.

  59. #60 by brewski on September 23, 2012 - 6:02 pm

    So then you are in favor of currying favor with mass murderers. Not surprising given you other immoral positions.

  60. #61 by Richard Warnick on September 23, 2012 - 6:14 pm

    You mean, like Bush did with Gaddafi? I’m in favor of self-determination and democracy, and I’m tired of Israeli war criminals dictating U.S. foreign policy.

  61. #62 by brewski on September 23, 2012 - 6:15 pm

    So you support Bush now?

  62. #63 by Richard Warnick on September 23, 2012 - 6:16 pm

    Currying favor with mass murderers = Bush administration policy. Which I opposed at the time. Where were you?

  63. #64 by brewski on September 23, 2012 - 6:24 pm

    You said you approve of currying with mass murderers. You said Bush curried favor with mass murderers. Therefore, you support Bush. Yea!

  64. #65 by Richard Warnick on September 23, 2012 - 6:39 pm

    No, I didn’t say that. Since you don’t know the definition of realpolitik, here it is:

    Diplomacy based primarily on power and on practical and material factors and considerations, rather than ideological notions or moralistic or ethical premises.

  65. #66 by brewski on September 23, 2012 - 6:47 pm

    In other words, currying favor with mass murderers. So you do support Bush. Thank you.

  66. #67 by Richard Warnick on September 24, 2012 - 5:59 am

    Nope. Wrong again.

  67. #68 by brewski on September 24, 2012 - 7:44 am

    You said it.

  68. #69 by cav on September 24, 2012 - 8:45 am

    “currying favor with mass murderers”.

    Bush, himself is a mass murderer. Unpunished. But he got your vote, so what the hey. F*ck you.

  69. #70 by cav on September 24, 2012 - 9:03 am

    The only issue in this election contest between Pee Wee Herman and Captain Kangaroo is how to do nothing to disturb the fantasy that we can keep living the way we do. I am coming to detest Mr. Obama for the unforgivable feats of doing absolutely nothing to oppose, resist, or remedy the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, and doing absolutely nothing to restore the rule-of-law in banking. Mr. Romney, at this point, can only be pitied as some kind of thought-experiment gone awry in an evil consumer product testing lab on a planet of oafs. His fecklessness has no modern analog. Next to Romney, Bob Dole looks Lincolnesque.

    http://kunstler.com/blog/2012/09/duty.html

  70. #71 by brewski on September 24, 2012 - 9:12 am

    I wasn’t criticizing he currying of favor with mass murderers. I was pointing out that Richard is in favor of it but now is pretending that he isn’t. If he isn’t then he admits he is a neocon.

  71. #72 by Richard Warnick on September 24, 2012 - 1:49 pm

    I love pretzels, pretzel logic not so much. ;-)

  72. #73 by brewski on September 24, 2012 - 1:52 pm

    “Diplomacy based primarily on power and on practical and material factors and considerations, rather than ideological notions or moralistic or ethical premises.”

    So if the mass murderers have the power and practical material factors and considerations, then, according to you, we should not let ideological or moralistic or ethical premises get in the way.

    No pretzel. Just arrow straight.

  73. #74 by Richard Warnick on September 24, 2012 - 3:17 pm

    brewski–

    Your solution is what – declare war on every country that’s run by a government that doesn’t respect human rights and due process? Without any consideration for the civilian population? That includes the USA, BTW, so be careful where you shoot your arrows!

    “Unforgiven” (1992):

    The Schofield Kid: It don’t seem real… how he ain’t gonna never breathe again, ever… how he’s dead. And the other one too. All on account of pulling a trigger.
    Will Munny: It’s a hell of a thing, killing a man. Take away all he’s got and all he’s ever gonna have.
    The Schofield Kid: Yeah, well, I guess they had it coming.
    Will Munny: We all have it coming, kid.

    Outlaws and outlaw nations, rules are the same.

  74. #75 by brewski on September 24, 2012 - 3:31 pm

    Then you admit it. Thank you.

  75. #76 by Richard Warnick on September 24, 2012 - 3:38 pm

    I admit that neocons don’t understand foreign policy. At all.

  76. #77 by brewski on September 24, 2012 - 5:43 pm

    The financial daily Handelsblatt writes:

    “Three years after Obama’s speech in Cairo, which was supposed to initiate a new beginning in the Middle East, the United States now has even less support in the region than before. That’s not a failure of this president. Instead, it is the consequences of an American foreign policy that for decades favored power over democracy, and a hard line over human rights — and which will suffer from a credibility problem for a long time for precisely those reasons.”

    So much for power over ideology. So much for realpolitik.

  77. #78 by Richard Warnick on September 24, 2012 - 8:08 pm

    Just to be clear, I think President Obama ought to have closed Guantanamo, renounced U.S. war crimes, and prosecuted those responsible. He took an oath to defend the Constitution.

    What President Obama did was refuse to apologize for anything, and continue to use force irresponsibly. He even tried to justify unilateral warfare in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech!

    In the Cairo speech, he tried to appeal to residual goodwill toward the USA from before we went rogue under Bush. But the actions that followed didn’t match the words.

    The Obama administration’s realpolitik consists of doing damage control in the post-Bush Middle East, Afghanistan and Pakistan while continuing the illegal use of force to avoid criticism from out-of-power neocons. At least there’s logic to it.

    What about Romney? He criticizes President Obama for NOT closing Guantanamo, even though Romney opposes closing it (he famously said he wanted to “double Guantanamo”). Romney took every position it was possible to take on the Libya intervention, and Afghanistan. Today he can’t explain how his foreign policy would be any different from the one we have.

  78. #79 by brewski on September 24, 2012 - 8:20 pm

    What??!! I thought it was all about power and morals were supposed to have nothing to do with it.

  79. #80 by Richard Warnick on September 24, 2012 - 8:27 pm

    I think it’s about being true to the principles that made America admired in other countries. That’s our greatest strength, “soft power” if you will. Military power is always overrated by politicians like Obama and Romney who never served.

  80. #81 by brewski on September 24, 2012 - 9:02 pm

    Principles????!!! But realpolitik has no principles. It is just about power. According to you.

  81. #82 by Richard Warnick on September 25, 2012 - 9:11 am

    In 1821, John Quincy Adams explained American foreign policy better than I can:

    Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will [America's] heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.

    This morning, President Obama reaffirmed our principles at the United Nations.

  82. #83 by brewski on September 25, 2012 - 9:45 am

    That sounds pretty neocon and not realpolitik.

  83. #84 by Richard Warnick on September 25, 2012 - 10:32 am

    How do you explain the invasion of Iraq? John Quincy Adams would not have approved.

  84. #85 by brewski on September 25, 2012 - 11:10 am

    Realpolitik. Power. Your philosophy, until it isn’t.

  85. #86 by Richard Warnick on September 25, 2012 - 11:23 am

    Military power is the least effective means of achieving peace. It’s meant to be a last resort to defend ourselves and our allies. Neocons don’t get that because they never studied military science or the history of diplomacy.

  86. #87 by brewski on September 25, 2012 - 12:00 pm

    Was Hillary studying military science when she was filing false SBA loan applications?

    Was Obama studying military science when he was getting C’s at Columbia?

  87. #88 by Richard Warnick on September 25, 2012 - 12:08 pm

    I studied military science in the 1970s, and diplomacy too. That’s how I know the neocons are wrong.

  88. #89 by brewski on September 25, 2012 - 12:49 pm

    Last time I checked you weren’t the president of the United States.

  89. #90 by Richard Warnick on September 25, 2012 - 1:59 pm

    Correct. And the neocons are still wrong.

  90. #91 by brewski on September 25, 2012 - 2:25 pm

    You just don’t like neocons even when they agree with you.

  91. #92 by Richard Warnick on September 25, 2012 - 2:29 pm

    That could never happen.

  92. #93 by brewski on September 25, 2012 - 3:16 pm

    So you agree with Pat Buchanan and the paleo conservatives.

  93. #94 by Richard Warnick on September 25, 2012 - 3:18 pm

    I agree with me.

  94. #95 by brewski on September 25, 2012 - 4:00 pm

    And you studied military science 30 years ago taught by people who lost the last war. So we should trust you.

  95. #96 by Richard Warnick on September 25, 2012 - 4:12 pm

    Tell me how 100,000 Americans were supposed to fight and win a counterinsurgency in a landlocked country the size of Texas halfway around the world, with a population of more than 30 million people and a weak, corrupt central government.

    If you’re such an expert.

  96. #97 by brewski on September 25, 2012 - 4:28 pm

    I never claimed to be an expert. Why do you have such a hard time reading?

  97. #98 by Richard Warnick on September 25, 2012 - 4:46 pm

    Trust me, don’t trust me. I’m right about this stuff. The question is, why do you still believe the neocons after watching them run U.S. foreign policy and national security policy into the ground during the Bush administration?

  98. #99 by brewski on September 25, 2012 - 5:37 pm

    You’re right about this stuff? Which time? You keep contradicting yourself so I can’t tell which you I am supposed to have this religious faith in.

  99. #100 by brewski on September 25, 2012 - 5:38 pm

    The John Quincy Adams school of thought won the day in 1938. How did that go?

  100. #101 by Larry Bergan on September 25, 2012 - 6:36 pm

    Since the “neocon” word keeps coming up, I would like to point people to the place I first heard it. It was an impassioned speech given by Congressman Ron Paul a few months after I started carrying my Impeach Bush sign.

    Actually, it was an incredible speech!

    Seemed to put things in perspective for me anyway.

    I would be interested to know where everybody else first heard the term.

  101. #102 by Larry Bergan on September 25, 2012 - 7:20 pm

    Please tell me Ron Paul didn’t throw his support to Mitt Romney.

    Makes no sense.

  102. #103 by Richard Warnick on September 26, 2012 - 9:20 am

    brewski wins the Godwin award for this thread.

  103. #104 by Jonesy on September 26, 2012 - 10:21 am

    cliff, obama is a serial liar like bush, how soon we forget when cognitive consonance rules our subconscious, and only fails to yield cognitive dissonance in the most addled and mentally ill of patients.

    cliff have you been seeing your therapist? Taking your medication?

    Are you as well a serial liar? Well, anyone who has dealt with cliff knows the answer to that.

    Oh, before I forget, the lie and un-fullfilled promise. One of dozens.

    http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/203727-obama-promise-to-close-prison-at-guantanamo-still-unfulfilled

    Man seems to have no trouble doing the internationally illegal. He has signed by his own order (hand) almost 350 drone attacks, killing some 4500 not involved people. Yet close Gitmo? NEVER!!

    As I said in a prior post, romney to date has no blood on his hands, though that cannot be said of the current criminal inhabiting the White House.

  104. #105 by brewski on September 26, 2012 - 10:25 am

    The point stands.

  105. #106 by Jonesy on September 26, 2012 - 10:26 am

    Richard, in answer to your question about Afghanistan.

    Very brief, unless you are interested in never ending war, and costs, you simply don’t go. That hardly takes a genius, or an IQ of 110 if you do even a marginal bit of reading. Safe to say that with regard to Afghanistan the effort is..

    1) Inspired by evil.

    2) Inspired by a retard.

  106. #107 by Richard Warnick on September 26, 2012 - 11:25 am

    Correct. The U.S. Army manual on counterinsurgency says that the first rule of counterinsurgency is don’t do it unless you have no other choice.

  107. #108 by Jonesy on September 26, 2012 - 11:34 am

    As Eisenhower (president) once stated, any idiot who would argue for wars of pre-emption would be “bodily thrown from my office”.

    This is the man who sent millions to their deaths, and who stood toe to toe with a real enemy, the Soviet Union, who owned more than old arty round bombs and bomb jackets. 50k tanks, 30k aircraft, 8 million man army, etc etc..

    Obama and America are some chicken shit people now.

  108. #109 by Jonesy on September 26, 2012 - 11:49 am

    In other news Fascist America is on the rise, right in your own back yard. If you don’t have an opinion then we own your kids..

    http://www.utahnsagainstcommoncore.com/park-city-high-school-collecting-dna/

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: