United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Video with footage that won't help Romney get theGOP nomination
Source:
You Tube
URL Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OQoBxZZPqU&feature=player_embedded#!
Published: Oct 7, 2011
Author: USERID: DefeatObamaCampaign
Post Date: 2011-10-07 01:22:28 by Ferret Mike
Keywords: None
Views: 26062
Comments: 55
-- Video title: Liberal Mitt's Greatest Hits: What Romney Doesn't Want You to See
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Ferret Mike (#0)
Riiiiight. He went on one of the highest rated biz news outlets cause he didn't want to be 'seen'....uh huh, and Owe-bama has a 99% approval rating, unicorn's exist, and unemployment is at 2% nationally.
Proxy IP's are amusing.....lmao
He went on the air because he was running for Governor of Massachusetts. That is what they wanted to hear there. Now that he is running for President as a Republican. We don't want to hear that liberal talk. Mitt says what he thinks you want to hear. Did you hear him talking about global warming. He was saying he was a believer. But not a for sure believer just possibly. He was trying to take middle ground. Again showing he will say what he thinks people want to hear. Mike. I already knew this stuff. So don't think you have had any effect with this article. Having said all that. I would take Romney over the thug in the White House any day of the week. Out of the people still standing here is my picks. Ron Paul Herman Cain ? ? ?
Exactly right. This guy has one core belief -- that he should be President. He's just like Lyndon Johnson. This is all about his personal ambition. His 59 point economic plan is extraordinarily timid as well -- it just tinkering around the edges, like the Bush's. We are in dire straights. We need someone with some vision for our future who can come in a enlist the American people into that vision to get things done in D.C. Romney is not that person. This is why I will be voting for a third party candidate once again next year.
Yep. Personally, at the moment, I'd like to see Romney and Cain on the ticket, either combination. 48 months of businessmen in the Whitehouse would go a long way to getting the economy moving again. Right now, thats the only issue that matters to everyone.
Proxy IP's are amusing.....lmao
this video is dishonest. It claims that Romney supported Obama's stimulus but the clip says that Romney supported "a" stimulus, not that he supported the President's plan (and Romney provided his own plan in 2008). It then criticizes Romney for supporting TARP. Guess who else supported TARP: Far from Nationalization, Purchase of Bank Stocks Is a Win-Win for Taxpayers By Herman Cain, October 20, 2008 Tagline for sale - inquire within
Yep. Here's the problem: We don't have any defense against a liberal Republican in the White House. Look what happened under Bush -- he spent money like a drunken sailor and what got blamed for his failures? Bush's "extreme free market policies". Bush didn't have any free market policies. But that's what got blamed and the answer, of course, was more government. With Obama in the White House, we know what to blame -- "Obama's extreme big government policies". It provides clarity. Liberal Republicans provide confusion. LONG TERM -- we will be much better off with a Democrat destroying the economy than a liberal Republican destroying the economy, because it will provide clarity to the American people.
You are aware that the current GOP leadership - Boehner, Cantor, McConnell, et al. all voted for that spending, right? Heck, all but four of the current GOP reps, including Michelle Bachmann, voted for the Paul Ryan plan to increase federal spending by $700 billion over 8 years while adding another $6 trillion to the national debt.
Tagline for sale - inquire within
Look what happened under Bush -- he spent money like a drunken sailor and what got blamed for his failures? Bush's "extreme free market policies". Bush didn't have any free market policies. But that's what got blamed and the answer, of course, was more government. I agree with everything here, with a key exception. This is not the 2006 GOP House Majority. And in 2013 we will not realize a GOP Senate Majority given to the insane excesses of that now dead idiot from Alaska who demanded a 'bridge to nowhere' because he was wearing a comic book theme'd tie (eyes rolling). The House dictates spending, the Senate ratifies it, the POTUS either signs off or veto's. I don't see how in the world barring a gigantic unforeseen emergency the next Congress, or the next POTUS, adds to the existing deficit. JMHO.
Proxy IP's are amusing.....lmao
I am blocked from the website...you should post this as an article...
Stay Hungry...Stay Foolish --Steve Jobs
LF has an edit feature. It works well when there are issues of clarity. Learn from me Boofer...
Stay Hungry...Stay Foolish --Steve Jobs
I don't like any of them. There are about 40 good people in the House and maybe a half dozen in the Senate. That's it.
All but 4 Republicans voted for more spending and higher debt. You need to remember that.
Tagline for sale - inquire within
There isn't any real leadership Congress and there isn't any sense of urgency. Newt Gingrich is right about this -- Boehner should be passing a new bill every week to cut waste, streamline taxes, reign in our of control regulatory agencies, etc. They aren't doing it. Sure, they passed a budget and it died in the Senate. Yes, they passed one bill to cut the projected increase in the debt, and it died in the Senate. Now, they are just sitting there doing nothing. This is why people are pissed at the Congress. We need clarity. Clarity would be the House passing a flat rate income tax; or consolidating the 72 federal welfare programs into 2 or 3 programs; or passing a sane and needed infrastructure bill that is paid for by spending cuts elsewhere; or passing a comprehensive "all of the above" energy bill that reigns in Obama's crazy regulatory Czars... They should pass the bills and then blame Harry Reid for doing nothing. Instead, they are doing nothing and opening themselves up for attacks from Obama. I don't trust that they will fight back against big government proposals from Romney. They will just go along like they did under Bush.
All but 4 Republicans voted for more spending and higher debt. Utter nonsense. If you are talking about the Ryan budget, it decreased projected increases in spending and new debt by $4 trillion over the next 10 years. Is this enough? No. I preferred Tom Colburn's budget that reduced projected increases in spending and debt by $9 trillion over the next 10 years and gave us a balanced budget at the end. But Ryan's proposal was much better than the massive new spending and debt that current plans call for, let alone what the nutty Kenysians want. Right now, I'll take any progress over no progress or making things worse.
Now, they are just sitting there doing nothing. They've actually passed ten or more bills that Reid blocked to date related to the economy, the deficit, trade, etc. And lets be honest, its campaign season. Not by the choice of the House GOP, but the choice of the most desperate administration since Carter at this point in 1979. Finally, I don't see any 'big goverment proposals' from Romney, and I am watching closely. That kind of thing flat out died with Owe-bama's insane stimulus that failed, and the equally insane Owebamacare. Basically, what you are asserting here is Romney, or whoever the GOP nominee is, desires to be what Owe-bama undoubtedly will be, a one term failure. Sorry, I don't see that kind of counter personal interest thing happening. I do understand the tendency towards a jaundiced viewpoint. I just think it requires ignoring multiple special elections, and a landslide last November, combined with ignoring political types think self preservation first.
Proxy IP's are amusing.....lmao
If so, then no one knows about them. A great leader is part visionary and part salesman. Boehner and McConnell are neither. Boehner did not architect and lead the landslide in 2010, like Gingrich did in 94. Boehnher just happened to be there to benefit from the results. Now, he's not leading. This is a problem for them.
It called for increasing the federal budget to $4.5 trillion by 2019, and adding $6 trillion to the national debt.
Tagline for sale - inquire within
Which is $4 trillion LESS than the current projections. It's called progress.
So basically the Tea party doesn't think the government spends enough or has enough debt.
Tagline for sale - inquire within
Chyea... It's called... Stay Hungry...Stay Foolish --Steve Jobs
What do you know, we agree on something. This video was compiled by conservatives alarmed by Romney. I found it interesting because it lays things clear this guy panders to a crowd much too much for his own good if he wants the GOP nomination. This guy as POTUS would do whatever it takes to feather his nest. He's more for himself then the people. I know Obama can beat him. But I never want to see a person this slimy and smarmy become a nominee to any party.
Just stop it. Go play your games with yukon or mad dog or gnu no taxes, but don't do it with me.
Obama will top out at 43% of the vote no matter who the GOP nominates. The guy is too incompetent to get any more than this. Most of the independents will abandon him just like they abandoned Carter and the first Bush. The only way Obama can stay in the White House is if someone substantial from the center-right (like Perot in 92) runs as an independent and takes all of the swing voters away from their default choice (the GOP nominee). The only person with the national persona that could do that right now is Donald Trump. I don't think that he is going to do it. We're going to be stuck with Romney.
We'll see if he indeed becomes the nominee. I would like to see Cain nominated. Now, his matchup with President Obama would be an epic battle. It would be two marketting ninjas going head to head. The slugging would go all the way to round fifteen. I might add that ome really foul racists would probably have their heads explode too. Talk about a win for the general human environment there. ;-)
Good. The racists infected the Democrat party for most of the nation's history. Now they are trying to tag along with the GOP. Nominating Cain would send them somewhere else. Good point.
Actually they are all there, viewable, if you want to look jw. Fox has reported them for a 24 cycle every time one is passed, then Reid announces he won't allow a vote. How you blame that on Boehner or McConnell (who I'm not a fan of) is beyond understanding.
Proxy IP's are amusing.....lmao
Ah, wrong on multiple counts, AKA Stone, and Ferret. 1. LBJ never wanted to be President. 2. LBJ could not have been elected President without being VP, then President first, under the bizzare circumstances of a POTUS assasination. 3. No man has ever run for POTUS without 'personal ambition' so thats simply a throw away line thats totally meaningless in the scope of the conversation.
Proxy IP's are amusing.....lmao
Bull. Then why did he want the Democratic nomination in 1960? Kennedy didn't chose LBJ because he liked him, it was a politically expedient move to put him on the ticket to bring his faction in. And looking at how close that election was in november, that was a wise move for the moment. There is much disturbing indications that LBJ was one of the powerful people who were able to kill JFK and cover up their crime and keep it out if history - for now. That belief would not have any legs without the irrefutable truth that LBJ wanted the presidency.
He didn't.
Proxy IP's are amusing.....lmao
Sure he did. And he was upset that a Catholic beat him for the nomination.
He did. He was a powerful man in the Senate who would not have been a write-in at the convention if he did not sanction and bless that being an option. Conventions were different back then, and Johnson was too smart to run in the primaries and lose being his appeal was mainly as a favorite son of Texas. He did not like being number two, and would not of run for a term of his own in 1964 if he had not had an agenda in this regard all along.
He was one of the most powerful SML's in the last century, but his own bio says he never wanted to be VP or POTUS. I don't take anything from wiki seriously, on ANY topic.
Proxy IP's are amusing.....lmao
lmao
Proxy IP's are amusing.....lmao
It was later thought he wanted to get it via the back door to prevent disclosure and discussion of his shady past.
You obviously were a thumb sucker at best, during that era.
Well, it's hardly just on Wiki. If I was worried, I wouldn't of bothered showing off the candidate gallery in that link. Wayne Morse of Oregon also ran and as a student at the University of Oregon I specifically focused on that year's presidential contest from primary to the general. Instead of stubbornly going along with your first wrong impression of te past, you should verify, then correct your statement when you see you are wrong.
Do you think he would actually state in writing that he coveted the position of a man who was assassinated? You must have been born yesterday.
I voted for Kennedy in first grade and but scant years beyond that stage, but as an Irish ethnic person who grew up in New England, I have always been deeply interested in John Kennedy and it was tragic his life and time were stolen from him. Johnson was a main mover in the assassination, and he was willing to kill to be president.
And there was only one man who had the influence in Dallas to pull it off.
That's not the point. Most people don't have time to look. The GOP House need a visionary / salesman who will articulate and sell a simple program that busy people can get their arms around. Gingrich did this with the Contract for America. Boehner has not. He's not the guy.
I was addressing THIS comment you made, jw. And yes, it is the point and the 'rebuttal'. That the leftleaning media isn't reporting it so 'enough people' know it is true, but beside the point.
Proxy IP's are amusing.....lmao
Comments (42 - 55) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestVideo title: Liberal Mitt's Greatest Hits: What Romney Doesn't Want You to See
#2. To: Badeye, Ferret Mike (#1)
Riiiiight. He went on one of the highest rated biz news outlets cause he didn't want to be 'seen'....uh huh,
#3. To: A K A Stone (#2)
Mitt says what he thinks you want to hear.
Honest Socialism
#4. To: A K A Stone (#2)
I would take Romney over the thug in the White House any day of the week
#5. To: Ferret Mike, A K A Stone (#0)
Earth to taxpayers! Owning stocks in banks is not nationalization of the banking industry. It’s trying to solve a problem.
The unprecedented financial crisis has caused the Treasury of the United States to take unprecedented measures to help solve the problem of frozen credit and cash flow for U.S. businesses.
Most of us had dreams of what we wanted to be when we grew up as children. Some of us wanted to grow up and become a fireman, a policeman, a doctor, a nurse, a lawyer, a teacher, an actor, an engineer, a writer, a dancer, a chef or any number of other professions.
But some of us wanted to own a bank because that’s where the money is!
Wake up people! Owning a part of the major banks in America is not a bad thing. We could make a profit while solving a problem.
But the mainstream media and the free market purists want you to believe that this is the end of capitalism as we know it. It is not for several reasons that they have conveniently not explained.
First, instead of buying toxic mortgage-related assets of banks as originally proposed, the Treasury has changed tactics and will buy equity positions called preferred stocks, which gives us as taxpayers an ownership stake in their success for a limited period of time.
Preferred stock means we get paid a dividend before any other stockholders get paid a dividend when they make a profit. You got a problem with that?
Second, the purchase agreement between the Treasury and the participating banks has an incentive for the banks to re-purchase the stock back from the Treasury within five years.
If the banks do not re-purchase the stock in five years then we get a bigger dividend until they do re-purchase the stock. That’s a good deal!
The free market purists’ objection to this is that it smacks at government control of the banking industry, which is called nationalization. They are correct. It smacks, but it is not nationalization because that would require the government to own at least 51 percent of the entity for an indefinite period of time.
The ownership by the taxpayers is going to be relatively small and nowhere near the amount needed to be called nationalization. So what’s the problem?
The problem is economic illiteracy and media incompetence. Some people want to continue to fan the flames of anger and outrage over how we got into this mess in the first place. Anger and outrage will not solve the problem.
Unprecedented problems require unprecedented solutions. The actions by the Treasury are a win-win for the taxpayer. But the mainstream media does not get brownie points for reporting win-win solutions for the taxpayers. Their focus is doom and gloom.
These actions by the Treasury, the Federal Reserve Bank and the actions by the Federal Depositors Insurance Corporation (FDIC) are all intended to help solve an unprecedented financial crisis. Unlike steps taken prior to and during the Great Depression, these actions have a high probability of success.
In order for these collective actions to work, the media needs to calm its crisis rhetoric, and Congress needs to just shut up with its political rhetoric.
Now don’t tell Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, but if this works, and I believe it will, the Bush Administration will have gotten this one right.
As we say in the South, y’all hush!
#6. To: Badeye (#4)
(Edited)
I would take Romney over the thug in the White House any day of the week
Honest Socialism
#7. To: jwpegler (#6)
(Edited)
he spent money like a drunken sailor
#8. To: jwpegler (#6)
Here's the problem: We don't have any defense against a liberal Republican in the White House.
#9. To: go65 (#5)
#10. To: Badeye (#8)
And in 2013 we will not realize a GOP Senate Majority given to the insane excesses of that now dead idiot from Alaska who demanded a 'bridge to nowhere' because he was wearing a comic book theme'd tie (eyes rolling).
#11. To: go65 (#7)
You are aware that the current GOP leadership - Boehner, Cantor, McConnell, et al. all voted for that spending, right?
Honest Socialism
#12. To: jwpegler (#11)
There are about 40 good people in the House and maybe a half dozen in the Senate. That's it.
#13. To: Badeye (#8)
(Edited)
Honest Socialism
#14. To: go65 (#12)
(Edited)
There are about 40 good people in the House and maybe a half dozen in the Senate. That's it.
Honest Socialism
#15. To: jwpegler (#13)
Sure, they passed a budget and it died in the Senate. Yes, they passed one bill to cut the increase in the projected debts, and it died in the Senate.
#16. To: Badeye (#15)
They've actually passed ten or more bills that Reid blocked to date related to the economy, the deficit, trade, etc.
Honest Socialism
#17. To: jwpegler (#14)
If you are talking about the Ryan budget, it decreased projected increases in spending and new debt by $4 trillion over the next 10 years
#18. To: go65 (#17)
It called for increasing the federal budget to $4.5 trillion by 2019, and adding $6 trillion to the national debt.
Honest Socialism
#19. To: jwpegler (#18)
Which is $4 trillion LESS than the current projections.
#20. To: jwpegler (#18)
It's called progress.
#21. To: jwpegler, Badeye, A K A Stone (#3)
"He's just like Lyndon Johnson. This is all about his personal ambition."
#22. To: go65 (#19)
So basically the Tea party doesn't think the government spends enough or has enough debt.
Honest Socialism
#23. To: Ferret Mike (#21)
(Edited)
I know Obama can beat him.
Honest Socialism
#24. To: jwpegler (#23)
#25. To: Ferret Mike (#24)
I might add that ome really foul racists would probably have their heads explode too.
Honest Socialism
#26. To: jwpegler (#16)
If so, then no one knows about them.
#27. To: Ferret Mike, A K A Stone (#21)
"He's just like Lyndon Johnson. This is all about his personal ambition."
#28. To: Badeye (#27)
"LBJ never wanted to be President."
#29. To: Ferret Mike (#28)
Bull. Then why did he want the Democratic nomination in 1960?
#30. To: Badeye (#29)
He didn't.
#31. To: Badeye (#29)
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29_presidential_primaries,_1960
#32. To: Ferret Mike (#31)
#33. To: mininggold (#30)
Sure he did. And he was upset that a Catholic beat him for the nomination.
#34. To: Ferret Mike (#31)
Conventions were different back then, and Johnson was too smart to run in the primaries and lose being his appeal was mainly as a favorite son of Texas.
#35. To: Badeye (#33)
lmao
#36. To: Badeye (#32)
#37. To: Badeye (#32)
He was one of the most powerful SML's in the last century, but his own bio says he never wanted to be VP or POTUS.
#38. To: mininggold (#35)
"You obviously were a thumb sucker at best, during that era."
#39. To: Ferret Mike (#38)
Johnson was a main mover in the assassination, and he was willing to kill to be president.
#40. To: Badeye (#26)
Actually they are all there, viewable, if you want to look jw.
Honest Socialism
#41. To: jwpegler (#40)
Yes, they passed one bill to cut the increase in the projected debts, and it died in the Senate. Now, they are just sitting there doing nothing.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]