Romney 2012?

Cycloptichorn

Clint Eastwood doesn't understand; there's a world Great Recession going on, and the GOP has been stopping most of the job creating legislation that Obama presented to the congress.

What an asshole.

Did they leave anything out?



Oh yeah. Abstinence is misspelled.

Rubio, a lot of criticisms of Obama extending the lies about the stim bill not providing jobs, and lots of platitudes without detail about what Romney is going to do.

Another typical conservative liar, and even using the god (bible) to support their "cause."

Where's the meat?

He's now talking about college students encumbered with student loans unable to find jobs, and the GOP did not approve lowering the interest on those loans.

They all mention their parents and their religion, then go on and lie.

From the Washington Post.

I have a question for Romney. How is he going to create those "millions of jobs?" He can't very well transfer his expertise in company make-overs into creating jobs as the president. Unless, he buys out private companies in the US with tax monies, and offshores those jobs to China and India to make a "profit."

Anybody?

Why not be fair and ask obama the same question. I bet you'll get the exact same answer.

How does any president "create jobs"? The simple fact is that, except for government employees whose salaries are paid out of the taxes collected chiefly from private sector employers and employees, the President doesn't create ANY jobs.

Instead jobs are created by entrepreneurs and private companies. At best the President and governing party either facilitate or inhibit the actions of private sector economic actors by the actions they take or don't take. More often than not our government inhibits productive economic action in its various regulatory and taxation activities. Even in a favorable political environment the time required to get environmental permit for any major economic project is measured in years, not days or months. In general more government means more government waste and foolish regulatory intrusion on truly productive economic activity. I agree that much of this is necessary and beneficial. However, a period of major worldwide contraction is not the moment for a far-reaching increase in the intrusive powers of government acting in pursuit of often narrow special interests.

The simple, observable fact here is that the current Afdministration has overseen the slowest economic recovery from a major recessiuon since the 1930 s. Instead of facilitating the expansion of private economic activity it has forcefully acted to expand government and the reach 0f regulators and thereby inhibit new private sector economic activity. Even in the highly selective direct support of favored economic activities by the current governent, the results have involved far more failure and bankrupcy than success, and far too much in the way of payoffs for key political supporters.

The much-vaunted "stimulus legislation" involved far more direct subsidies of already over inflated state and local government bureauocracies and protection for government employee unions, than real economic stimulus, and at a time when our economic survival really required the elimination of waste and self-serving corruption among these institutions. In effect the so-calles stimulus merely delayed a much needed reform for over a year at exactly the wwrong time.

Our current president has managed to inhibit much needed economic activity that adresses real, practical economic needs, while wasting large amounts of borrowed public money on failed enterprises like Solyndra and to reward major political supporters like public sector labor unions, and he has done so in clear defiance of urgently needed reforms in both areas.

I believe that Cicerone merely repeats the fundamental errors and assumptions of naive and power-seeking "Progressive" politicians -- i.e. the foolish assumtion that a government-run "solution" to a perceived social or economic problem is necessasarily the best or only course of action. The readily observable fact is that progressive political and economic planners rarely forsee the eventually dominant side effects of the "remedies" they propose and enact. Moreover they too often assume that those governed by their usually ill-conceived programs won't figurre out ways to corrupt them or co-opt them to achieve their own ends (and in doing such things are usually far more creative and energetic than the lethargic bureaucracies that attempt to manage their lives. Examples of this are abundant including; the ill-conceived ethanol program; the insane regional and seasonal recipies for gasoline that impose vast inefficiencies on a ubiquitous fuel and do so for only small, marginal evnironmental gains; the wasteful subsidies for solar cell manufacturing enterprises that are unable to compete with offshore competitors; and many others.

First Obama would have to be interested in trying.

You forgot keeping the poor and elderly from voting by making them buy state photo id's.

And putting blacks in chains

lets go thru your list...

1. Not gonna happen
2.not gonna happen
3.Maybe
4.Thats a state issue, not the federal govt
5.I have no problem with this
6. I have no problem with this
7.Dont know their plan
8.YOU are full of **** on this one
9.Doubtful
10.doubtful
11.WRONG
12.WRONG
13.WRONG
14.No plan for that
15.No plan for that
16.You borrow money, there is always interest on the lan
17.No plan for that
18.maybe
19.maybe, but doubtful
20.Good idea
21. ??? I need to see proof of this one
22.prove this one to me
23.good idea
24. Good idea
25.Prove this one, please
26.Prove this one, please
27.This is pure BS on your part, and you know it.


So, I have gone thru your list and given my opinion. Now, its up to you to provide evidence in support of the ones I called you out on. To make it simple, here they are...
8,11,12,13,14,15,17,19,20,21,22,25,26,and 27

So, lets see if you can back up your claims, or if you are full of BS

for this one and all others - do your own freaking reading

I'll make it easy. #25 has been in the news quite a bit lately - there has been discussion on at least three threads here.

Look things up yourself.

Since the claims about what the repubs want is coming from the left, its up to the left to prove their claims.

So lets examine one of those claims, OK.
Show me one Republican, one conservative anywhere, that has proposed making single parenting illegal.
Any piece of legislation, any proposed legislation, anything to back up that claim.

Wisconsin Lawmaker Introduces Law To Classify Single Parenthood As Child Abuse

http://www.kennyonline.net/profiles/blogs/senator-grothman-wants-it-to-be-illegal-to-be-a-single-parent

While one can quibble about the purpose of the language. It's rather hard to quibble about the idiocy of the person that wrote it. Another Aiken, it seems.
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/wisconsin-senator-who-introduced-anti-single-parent-bill-says-women-trained-lie-about-planne

I don't blame mysteryman for not know about that Bill, I haven't heard about it either. Sick. The proposed bill I mean.

shouldn't you be more interested in what the republicans want? do some reading man.

I will say flat out that the Senator sponsoring this bill is an idiot, with no business being elected dogcatcher, let alone a state Senator.
However, what he is saying about single parenting being a contributing factor in child abuse is correct, as are many other factors.

I saw nothing in his bill that would "outlaw being a single parent, and the blog you linked to also doesn't make the claim, it just questions his motives.

So I willsay this again, show ne anything from the Republican party that wants to "outlaw" being a single parent.