Democrat’s Newest Attack on Free Political Speech With Willing Assistance by Media

a. Take the guns

*Facepalm. * You actually bought into that crazy conspiracy theory? Wow…

b. Control the media.

Lemme know when there’s actually liberal media that isn’t attacked viciously by Roger Ailes and his crazy theories.

a. Control the media (take Limbaugh off the air, take Fox news off the air, control political speech on blogs)

I saw the RightOnline speeches too. They should really learn to say something more substantive than buzz words. I laughed hard. The pandering was ridiculous. Also, when you have 14 year olds copying Rush Limbaugh, it actually means his discussions are that ridiculous. Also, it’s statistically proven that Fox News makes people more ignorant. Having them as a right wing propaganda unit has not done well for the US since they were given the ability to lie.

Romney would pick 2 moderate judges who would most likely overturn Roe v Wade at the most.

… That’s pretty idealistic given their decisions.

It goes back to the states and probably 40+ states would have abortion. That would be the horror of the prochoice movement since it would show they have been lying for all these years

*facepalm*

How naive of you. You haven’t paid attention to the 1100 abortion bills that have been on the block for the last few years. I know the ultimate goal is to overturn Roe v Wade with the votes but seriously it’s been 40 years. Fighting against that ruling would not be a good idea for SCOTUS.

I dont seem to hear right wing talking heads saying talk Rachael Maddow or Chris Matthews off the air.

Where have you been? Michele Malkin was attacking Bill Press only three weeks ago. And when Chris Hayes was criticizing calling all soldiers hero for an unjust war, Fox used that as cannon fodder.

So you never said whether you want to take the $1 bet or the gentleman’s bet.

One stipulation. We both recognize that there is a massive spending difference at play.

We both recognize up front that the ads used to support certain candidates might not be in the interest of fairness. Let’s see who wins and God help us if there’s only one party in office…

It’s a Gentleman’s bet. As I said, I’m not a gambling man.

Having to follow the money, I believe the GOP is going to win on deceptive ads. These will go against what people like and it’s similar to what has occurred with Obamacare where the corporate machines spent $239 million in advertisements against the ACA instead of being able to see that they actually have benefits for it.

Having to look at the Montana ruling, I have to say that it’s not looking good right now. I’m sure that the Supreme Court will vote very conservatively even though there’s evidence that money influences politics akin to bribery. Should Kennedy not recognize that, I’ll say that’s the day that our democracy truly died. It doesn’t matter what occurs, your voice is nullified based on the spending habits of artificial people in corporations.

Romney is doing so well in the polls not because he is Romney because he isnt Obama.

Uhm… What? Romney’s doing well? Are you just looking at Rasmussen only?

You’re going to have to clarify that position. What will Romney do that’s vastly different?

Maybe cut onerous regulatuions

Such as…?

Wont waste billions on alternative energy.

Ah, more money to fossil fuels instead while they have the most profits in the world. That’s going to work wonders.

Hopefully will fully repeal Obamacare if SCOTUS doesnt do it.

And replace it with…?

Hopeflly not have tirllion dollar deficits every year.

If the last 4 Republican presidents are any speculation, they’re going to be worse. And if Romney becomes the president with all of his lies, Henry Wallace was right about American fascism.

But Obama has set such a low bar on who can do better.

I find it rather sad that the problem here is more to do with Republican obstruction and keeping the economy hostage but you have a point that Obama didn’t learn to overcome that which Clinton actually did.

RM, I can’t accept that. If your entire notion looks at seeing Romney as a leader akin to Reagan, that’s tantamount to suicidal. It’s why I’m critical of Romney to the fifth degree. He hasn’t spelled out his plans that are better than Obama. Even if I don’t like Obama, I know where he stands. Where does Romney stand but with the rich and affluent in our country? Where does Romney stand but with the corporations fueling his campaign?

How has he earned your vote when all of his policies are horrible for the country? Why do you trust a man that hasn’t released his tax returns, looks to deregulate the banks even further than Obama proposes and seems intent on cracking down on marijuana which the entirety of the country opposes?

I just don’t see how he’s a great vote and I’m genuinely curious how you’ll vote for him even though his policies are against your interests.

As for the “evil rich” . They create jobs.

… Seriously? You bought into that rhetoric? We have negative tax rates and multiple loopholes for businesses and you still believe they’re creating jobs?

They arent sticking their money into mattresses.

No they’re not. Romney is the perfect example of money being “invested” into Swedish bank accounts. Or else he’d release his tax returns.

I dont begrudge anyone their money and as long as they earned it legally I dont care how they got it.

… You should really look into how corporatist the Supreme Court has become from corporate personhood.

THe entirety of the country isnt for Marijuana.

At the very least the intense grilling of the head of the DEA is having a LOT of people, conservative and liberal alike, to support it. IIRC, 72% of the nation supports marijuana legalization.

I think the laws need to be changed but not to legalize it.

Again, that’s footing the issue. What do you believe needs to happen if not legalization? If the stop and frisk program of NY is any indication, the ban with MJ is still racially motivated and should be changed. Hell, before this I’m aware of a ton of police departments who didn’t want to enforce such policies until it they were bribed under Reagan with asset forfeitures that now make up 14% of their budgets. Their resources could be used in better ways than with the laws enforcing drug crimes. Further, you should look into the Schafer Commission of Nixon’s era and why keeping it legal was to the massive benefit of the country. As it stands, the Drug war has been a massive failure.

If you want to go with popular things why not be for the complete repeal of Obamacare?

And I have to ask again, what will the Republicans put in its place? This is rather important. The best benefits of the ACA were massively popular with people such as the 80/20 rule and keeping kids on the insurance until the age of 26. But I have to ask you yet again, what will Republicans do as an alternative? As I’ve heard the stories, they’ll let the system destroy itself and that’s an issue. This means our healthcare system will continue to be controlled by Aetna and other healthcare providers instead of to the benefit of the people.

Look, I’m not asking for much. I just would like to know the policies that Republicans will have as an alternative. I’ve seen this story before. Everyone says “Anyone but” and I just don’t see this ending well. Mitt Romney is largely the same man as John Kerry back against Bush. It’s why I can only facepalm as conservatives learn the same lesson that they inflicted on the country a few years ago. I know that at the least, the fight for the presidency is more favorable to Obama at this current time, not Romney and with Obama currying the favor of Latinos through his implementation of the Dream Act, the passing of Obamacare which helps out the elderly, and his support from gays and women, he has a lot more going for him than Romney does currying favor with only the rich.

I hope that Romney puts out some more info later on about his policies. As it stands, having him as president isn’t going to help the country much given what’s known about him.

So when the government makes contracts for roads, bridges and vital infrastructure, that’s not helping to create jobs? How about trains and transportation in cities? Those are jobs too. Same with teachers in helping to teach the next generation. The government does create markets and I know that both parties are using conservative talking points, but government does create the markets used to build both the public and private sector. It’s rather naive to believe that the government doesn’t do anything. Even with my own Libertarian beliefs, I recognize that as government spending goes down so too does the public sector. Meanwhile the private sector has done well enough even though Republican obstruction in the House has thwarted the spending that would have made the recession far less severe.

Of course, I’m sure we’ll disagree for now. But I just fail to see how Romney, with his budget that will cost us $6 trillion in funds and confused beliefs based on who he’s pandering to, will be anything other than Kerry v Bush part II.

Teaching is not a productive job as it produces no goods and services.

WHAT?!

Government spending has not brought the economy back.

Because the government has been under conservative wrought austerity. Unless you’re going to tell me how you didn’t read my other comment about how obstructionist the Republicans have become.

Unemployment has been kept around 8% by statistical artifice not by economic growth.

Well aware of that since felons are not a part of the labor force and they make up 5.3 million Americans who are deprived of jobs and support of any kind.

Lastly, government cannot grow the economy because every dollar government gets it gets by extracting it from the economy, taking a cut and then putting it back in.

Wrong. That’s a woeful misreading of how economies work but government can create jobs and markets by regulation. Teddy Roosevelt created regulations that you enjoy such as FDA inspectors for meat so that rats don’t taint the foods. That’s a middle class job. I can understand that government policies can be good or bad, but to say that governments don’t create markets for goods is akin to saying there’s no difference between Somalia’s government and that of a European country where governments are even more restrictive.

In other words all government spending is inherently parasitic on the economy.

Let me say this one more time. Government expenditures can create better markets or we can take the crony capitalist way of the GOP right now and merely try to protect dying markets. The choice is yours. We can continue to put money into fossil fuels so that Exxon makes inexorable amount of profits or we can try to find better alternatives through fossil fuels. We can try to protect the recording industry or recognize that the internet creates new markets for commerce while disrupting the old ones. We can rely on the 18th century idea of copyright to protect works when the internet allows for abundance. I’d just rather see money invested into the future than live in a past that is becoming outdated.

Sure, the government can print money (and 0bama has printed over $2T in the last 3 years) but that just fuels inflation and makes each dollar worth less.

Not Obama. That’s the Fed and it should be noted that inflation is kept at an all time low.

Government can never be the source of economic growth. If this were the case then the Soviet Union would still exist.

Again, you’re wrong in your ill conceived notion of what government policies do to create markets. That’s horribly more misguided than this belief that the private sector can grow without the public sector.

Leave it to a lefty to characterize a SCOTUS vote for free speech as “not upholding any kind of civil rights”. The sycophants on the left have been agitating for 3 years to “let 0bama be a dictator” so he can “just get things done”. They have been suggesting that we need to be more like China.

The irony is rich that when the left adores totalitarian dictators that they see the protection of rights as the removal of hem.

What they really mean is that when you protect the rights of people who disagree with them, you are removing what they see as their right to turn this country into that very totalitarian dictatorship they speak of.

Again, I find it little scary that you consider preserving someone’s freedom of speech judicial activism. Conservatives generally consider judicial activism finding rights that were previously unheard of. You consider it allowing people to actually keep their rights. And you wonder why I consider lefties fascists?

Well, they already have that right so your position is that people do not deserve their rights and that the government MUST revoke those rights in order for you to feel like you can exercise you own rights.

If you pay attention fascism is state control of corporations. It is allowing nominal private ownership as long as those corporations toe the political line of the ruling party. Two key points: You believe in having a RULING party. You believe that the government should be able to control the actions of corporations. That makes you a fascist at heart.

My point is that a person does not lose their rights because they decide to organize into a group. You believe that unless they organize into a specific group that approves of your politics that they should not have any rights.

No. Our government did not dictate to corporations how they will run their business. until 0bama, our government did not demand that corporations desiring to do business with the government disclose all heir political donations.

Dems believe that government should control corporations, what the do, what they spend, who they employ etc. The 0bama admin believes that the government should be able to dictate to companies where they can do business (like Boeing) and who they can employ (only union members). That kind of control is fascism. You do not object to that in any way.

It’s funny that 4 years ago it was the social cons that were leading the GOP into the political wilderness because they were so extreme and the left was always saying that if only the fiscal cons could get control of the party the GOP would be saved. Now the Fiscal cons have control and the left is saying the same BS as always: The GOP is controlled by extremists! Whatever. You’re an idiot.

That worked for the first part of the century in American profitability.

No. It didn’t. The government did not dictate who could get into what business. The government did not dictate what kind of workers you had to employ. The government did not try to dictate where you could set up your company. You live in some sick fantasy world if you think that we lived in some socialist state the first half of the 20th century.

You honestly believe that conservatirves hate people who are really in need of social safety nets. I am not talking about welfare queens (and yes I have known a few. In fact I have several aunts who told their daughters they need to have more babies to get bigger govt checks – no lie). but people whom are actually in need through no fault of their own of some help.
Come on Jay. I actually thought better fo than that.

Jay They want to increase the retirement age because
a. People are living longer and
b. People are generally healthier than they were even 20 years ago at that age.
c. Social security is going broke and something has to be done. You cant just tax folks more to cover the shortfall which is TRILLIONS.
I would love to be able to retire in 15 years and live the rest of my days puttering around the house. I have already come to the realization that I will most likely work till the day I die. And I have been working (for a paycheck ) and paying into SS since I was 13 years old

Sez the guy who retired in his 40s or 50s has a lifetime government pension.

Hey Jackass, maybe when you figure out the fact that other countries retire sooner along with my other discussions on Social Security, you’ll see that having an 80 year old work at Wal-mart may not be the best way to have her live the rest of her life.

Or how about the fact that income inequality plays into their lives?

Maybe it’s not a conspiracy but facts that guide me and you’re too ignorant to look at news and update your own views.

Did you know that 0bama’s policies actually increase income inequality and under W income inequality went down?

Did you know that income inequality went up during Bush’s administration as well as Clinton? It’s been a growing trend since Washington has been bought by the bankers.

I don’t care what other countries do.

That’s your problem. The fact is that the plans of the US have been implemented in Europe to massive failure. The UK is in a double dip recession from austerity. Greece is the model example of what’s going to happen in the US. All countries effectively promoted austerity programs and they’ve all failed. Hell, even Germany, kicked that habit and has powerful unions by law and is kicking the ass of the US. You might want to educate yourself because I’m sure that will force the Republicans to eventually abandon their austerity plans. The ones that have done the worst are the red states that believe in the tax cuts.

Retirement age has to be based on what you can afford. We cannot afford to pay for everyone to retire at 65 anymore.

Like I said, these people have paid their entire lives and your argument isn’t new. Close the $100,000 loophole and you get rid of the insolvency problem (pdf).

And retirement is not a constitutional right you fool. It is something you earn.

How random of you. No one said it was. It just works better when you let the old have some rest and allow new workers to work in their place. It’s a lot more humane than having to work until you’re 80.

And retirement is entirely a modern invention

So is the TV and the internet. Your point?

It has not happened in the thousands of years of human history before.

So is the TV and the internet. Your point?

In the ages past you relied on your family to take care of you if you were fortunate enough to live into old age.

Yes, I’m sure you are going to be 70 working at Walmart saying “Get off my lawn” while waiting until you’re 75 because the age was increased again. Again, your point on this random tangent?

To bad the left destroyed the family unit with their socialist policies that rewarded fatherless families and the murder of a generation in the womb.

BWAAAHAHAHA! Those socialist policies brought down teen birth rates. They allow women to have access to contraception so they can work jobs. Hell women have careers because of birth control pills.

But let’s view a few conservative policies. Nixon’s Drug War. How has it gone so far? It has failed. It’s lead to the massive incarceration of minorities while leading to fatherless families that can get NO public education, few jobs, and have to face the fact that the government doesn’t care, it will make them the best criminals money can buy. And with all of this comes a conservative feeling that this is the way to treat people in a germane manner? Have the Supreme Court take away their basic rights in jail because they become second class citizens unworthy of their time or attention? And the fact is, more men are being raped than women by our prisons. But wait, there’s more! Women are raped in the military and I hear little outcry from you about that. And you expect me to believe that the military that you support wholeheartedly in bombing Iran or fighting in Yemen or Pakistan isn’t a conservative group with the money from the War on Terror?

You expect me to believe you in the facts that conservative ideology is going to push us to prosperity? You are sadly deluded. When you can find a way to show how the GOP and most conservatives haven’t become racist, misogynistic, war mongers, maybe I’ll believe you. I’ll believe you when the GOP actually has alternatives to what has been presented in congress to help the weak, the poor, the sick and the destitute. As it stands, if your best argument is random tangents based on a “gut feeling” forgive me, but your gut feeling has no basis in reality. The reality is the US has become much more authoritarian and it has had dire consequences around the globe such as Europe. Obama sure isn’t the answer, but looking at what Romney will do, that just fuels the fire of the need for campaign finance reform as well as electoral reform. If you need a billion dollars to run for the presidency, I highly doubt you will have the best interests of the nation at heart.

Source?

Tx doesnt have to kill one. Obama is doing a great job of killing lots of them. As for Romney being worse for the economy. LOL. I dont see how. Ref Roe V Wade. As I said. Leave it to the states to decide. Abortion will still be legal. Maybe not partial birth abortion or late term abortion or abortion because you dont like your baby’s sex. And maybe doctors wil have to actually try to save a baby who survived an abortion attempt but regular ole abortion will still be legal in most of the states.

Dumbass. The Bush tax cuts didn’t give us 0bama’s $6T in additional deficit. the revenue generated by those tax cuts would ave been far less and the actually total tax revenue was projected to potentially decline as the wealthy moved to defer taxes and reduce their taxes.

The DREAM Act was never anything but an 0bama pander to illegal aliens and an affront to anyone who entered this country legally. As for Lilly Ledbetter, why not ask when 0bama will start treating women equally in the White House?