Margaret, isn’t this an amazing country we live in? Anyone can grow up and run for President no matter how many animals they slept with. Who saw Rick Santorum making that big of a comeback? I guess the same people who championed Michele Bachman, then Rick Perry, then Herman Cain, then Newton Leroy Gingrich… Gosh it’s hard to swallow that Romney pill. Taking Santorum to avoid Romney. Iowa, are you crazy?
I guess you can’t be all that crazy because you saw through Rick Perry. I can only hope that Texans will finally realize what Iowans figured out in a few short months – Rick Perry is all hat and no cattle. I only wish Rick would stay in Iowa rather than come back to Texas and “assess” the ass-whipping he just took. The big man from Texas edged out Michele “Jesus Said I Could” Bachmann and Jon “The Other Mormon” Huntsman. How do Republicans in Texas face themselves in the morning?
But really you do have to like that Michele Bachmann. What a loveable little loon she is. Totally clueless and still heading on to New Hampshire. I like her spunk, but she’s no Sarah Palin. ( I miss putting lipstick on that pig. ) At least you could laugh at Sarah’s stupidity. With Michele, I just feel sorry for her. She takes those voices in her head seriously. And those voices are telling her that people in New Hampshire are stupid enough to vote for her. She really should give it up and join Cain on the sidelines for some pizza. I’m pretty sure Perry already placed his order for a large, thin curst with extra crow – oops I meant sausage.
And Newt, honey, politics is a messy business. It doesn’t matter how many negative ads were run about you. They didn’t change a thing. People have thought you were an ass for a long time now. Go home, honey. You’ve sold a ton of books. Go home and give that current wife some new jewelry from Tiffany’s and order yourself a meat lovers to go.
Huntsman who?
So that leaves us with Romney, Paul and Santorum. Three wise men who couldn’t find a star on a moonless night much less a family of three in a manger. And even if they could, Romney wouldn’t be able to decide on which star to follow; Paul would want to argue about the price of gold, frankincense and myrrh; and Santorum would be too busy molesting the cattle lowing in the stable.
Folks, let’s get serious. Since 2008 we’ve reduced our wars by 50%, avoided another Great Depression, advanced women’s rights in the workplace, ended Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and passed a law intended to provide healthcare for the sick and the poor. Not bad for a Muslim born in Kenya. Republicans not wanting to re-elect Obama isn’t exactly newsworthy. They like war and they hate gays, women and those damn government-cheese-sucking poor people. But wanting to put Rick Santorum in the White House? He thinks birth control should be outlawed. Without birth control you’re going to have more government-cheese-sucking poor people.
This is how the Republican Party recovers from nominating Sarah Palin as VP? Honey, that man-on-dog just don’t hunt. If this pack is truly the best your party has to offer, maybe you should consider a new party – one where they don’t serve tea.
Forget 2012 and nominate a serious candidate in 2016. I mean it. Really.
Thought for the day:
“Eternal suffering awaits anyone who questions god’s infinite love.”
― Bill Hicks
By: PFesser on January 23, 2012
at 4:40 AM
THE REPUBLICAN WAY:
A NEW WAR START (IRAN) MEANS WE NEED A NEW TAX CUT.
They will also figure a way to go back into Iraq as well SO MAYBE TWO NEW TAX CUTS.
BUT, he is a Mormon.
GOOGLE; SPREADING ROMNEY
By: JuneauJoe on January 20, 2012
at 8:32 AM
ALL THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES, except Paul, INSIST UPON ANOTHER WAR IN IRAN!!!
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN???
WE NEED ANOTHER TAX CUT, I am thinking.
Just putting that Republican logic to work for you.
By: JuneauJoe on January 20, 2012
at 8:15 AM
WHY MITT ROMNEY AND FRIENDS SHOULD PAY MORE TAXES
http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/01/why-mitt-romney-should-pay-higher-taxes
They are not using their low tax rate to produce jobs, if you follow the numbers.
So what about carried interest? What’s that all about? Carried interest is a feature of the way partnerships are taxed, and private equity funds are essentially partnerships. In a partnership, it’s frequently the case that one person puts up the money and another person manages the business. Both partners get equity in the enterprise: The former gets ordinary, garden variety equity and the latter gets “sweat equity.” When the enterprise is sold off (hopefully at a profit), both are taxed at capital gains rates.
Bain Capital acted as a managing partner in most of its transactions, so this was a pretty good deal for them. After all, most of us who work as managers, even if our pay comes in the form of a bonus that’s based on the profitability of the company, have to pay ordinary income tax rates. That’s because this kind of work is known as “labor.” But if you manage a private equity fund, that exact same kind of work is defined as sweat equity and gets taxed at capital gains rates.
This is pretty hard to defend. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. Except in this one case, where it’s sweat equity. There’s really not much justification for it.
By: JuneauJoe on January 20, 2012
at 8:08 AM
The Wall Street Journal presented these facts:
Income taxes All Federal Taxes
Top 1% 18.8% 29.5%
81 to 99% 11.8% 22.8%
21% to 80% 4.2% 4.7%
Bottom 20% -4.7% 4.7%
Source Congressional Budget Office, 2011
Moody’s has downgraded the Illinois state debt to the lowest of the 50 states. Illinois has followed some of the policies that the SEIU wish Wisconsin would follow. In contrast, Moody’s has praised Governor Walker’s budget as “credit positive for Wisconsin” saying the money-saving reforms “bring the state’s finances closer to a structural budgetary balance” Chief Executive magazine moved Wisconsin’s business climate ranking from 41 to 17. Illinois dropped to 48 from 45.
If Wisconsin fires Governor Walker, the voters will get what they deserve, and Iowa may be able to persuade some of its businesses to move here, where our economy is relatively good.
Robert Samuelson called Obama’s Keystone Pipeline decision “an act of insanity.”
Actually as we know from posts here, it was cold political calculation which put Obama’s job ahead of the country.The State Department had studied the project for three years and appeared ready to approve it before the environmental issue became public.
These are more indirect reasons why I support Changeling Romney.
By: James on January 20, 2012
at 7:37 AM
Juneau Joe, Eric Holder is a racist and is either so incompetent or disengaged that he let Fast and Furious happen. Otherwise, he knew, approved it and is lying. I want him fired.
Mitt Romney is the best of a bad lot, in my opinion. He has more economic knowledge than Obama and more pre-office successes. I support Romney though I might agree when you cricitise him. One thing going for Romney is he is not Obama.
I would rather see a brokered convention which chooses another candidate.
Deciding to pay our $7,000.00 property tax installment with a credit card during the farm depression was on a par with voting for Romney, but when your choices are limited, you take the least damaging.
By: James on January 20, 2012
at 7:06 AM
Mageen -
I agree with you; these guys – at best – are embarrassingly poor comedy. Jesus, how did people like this get into high office?!
How is everything going?
By: PFesser on January 20, 2012
at 6:13 AM
Sorry. Anon was me. I’ve been installing Google Chrome on all my computers and forgot to fill in the ID blanks on WordPress.
I was having a helluva time with Firefox being realllllllllllllly slow. Chrome seems to have fixed that; my son-the-computer-expert tells me the new Firefox “sucks.” Sure seems to.
By: PFesser on January 20, 2012
at 6:09 AM
Oh, good Lord! Caught a bit of the SC primary debate. Look at what’s left! In a way I am very thankful that I both live and work in proximity to Congress Critters. Newtie is a past master of High Dudgeon, even if you ask him the time of day. Do not know how the evangelicals in SC could vote for anyone on stage last night, especially if they do not think that Mormons are Christians (even technically) and have a hard time with any kind of high regard for Catholics. And the fourth guy has come across sounding like he does not have an ounce of belief in the Good Samaritan.
And just think! Florida’s primary is coming up!
Oxygen, quick!
By: mageen in old virginny on January 20, 2012
at 6:03 AM
Anon opined:
“Funny how they condemn someone else for things they do themselves on a daily basis.”
As I like to say, if you are allergic to irony, you are a dead man.
Firstly, the “liberals” are not running for president; Newton is, so “their” morals are not the question – although I would like to know how someone knows the morals of each and every one of millions of people he’s never met. Newt’s, OTOH, are pretty much on display for the world to see, so judgement there is pretty easy.
Secondly, as for “doing … on a daily basis” – it his Newt himself who was eviscerating a sitting president for doing precisely what HE was “doing on a daily basis,” so that dog don’t hunt, as they say. (Don’t start with the, “they impeached him because he lied” stuff, either. We both know they were looking for any way to destroy Clinton and the Democrats, fair or unfair.)
That kind of behavior tells me all I need to know about Newt’s intemperate character. Actually, his being a horn-dog doesn’t bother me that much -some men just have voracious sexual appetites – nor did Clinton’s. My beef is how they treated those women. I am f’in furious with Obama, but by all reports he is a straight arrow vis a vis his wife and family and that goes a long way.
By: Anonymous on January 20, 2012
at 5:59 AM
FROTHY; YOU ARE SO………… insert appropriate word here
You are too embarrassed to say you are for NEWT!!! Sorry about that
(I would be embarrassed as well if NEWT were my choice)
FROTH; I hope you have new material tomorrow, you seemed kind of lost actually.
GOOGLE; SPREADING ROMNEY
By: JuneauJoe on January 20, 2012
at 12:07 AM
Bottom line is Gi-Jo-Gina, you punked out, in front of everyone. Nuff said. Hopefully know one who knows you reads this so you can hide your shame. Night Night kiddo.
By: Anonymous on January 20, 2012
at 12:01 AM
FROTHY; Swear words now. You must be frustrated.
FROTH; You being all macho and kick ass, I see you as being for MR. FAMILY VALUES his own self – NEWT – THE FAMILY MAN!!!
http://nycfaultline.com/2012/01/20/mitts-unconventional-ira-doesnt-add-up/
Interesting about Mitt and his 401K. Mitt has some explaining to do on this one.
FROTH; Wouldn;t it be great to have 20 to 100 Million in a 401K when you can only put in $2000 per year. Mitt must be pretty old.
GOOGLE; SPREADING ROMNEY
By: JuneauJoe on January 19, 2012
at 11:56 PM
Blaming Bush for Debt
Reid, Aug. 1: We had a surplus when he took office of $7 trillion over 10 years. We’re now — because of the unpaid wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the unpaid taxes and drug programs — we’re now [at] $1.4 trillion.
That’s wrong on two counts. The projected surplus wasn’t $7.19 trillion when Bush took office, and $3.7 trillion of the $14 trillion in total debt has been added since he left.
On the projected surplus, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued a report in January 2001 — the month Bush took office — that estimated budget surpluses of “$5.6 trillion over the 2002-2011 period,” not $7 trillion as Reid claimed. That CBO report said that “much of the current debt will be paid down over the next several years” if the surpluses materialize. Of course, the projected surpluses did not materialize — in part because of the recession that began shortly after Bush took office — something CBO did not anticipate in its projections.
Also, the total public debt stood at $75.7 trillion on Jan. 20, 2001, the date of Bush’s inauguration. And when he left, the total debt was $100.6 trillion. That’s a huge increase, to be sure. But to suggest Bush’s policies were to blame for the entire $14.3 trillion debt ignores what happened before and after Bush’s presidency.
By: Anonymous on January 19, 2012
at 11:51 PM