Showing posts tagged Romney

recall-all-republicans-2012:

notarepublican:

Said the LiaR N Chief.

Mitt Romney is a liar.

(Source: brupins)

(Reblogged from truth-has-a-liberal-bias)

(Source: feministglittertext)

(Reblogged from 50-shades-of-red-white-and-blue)
youcanalwayshavemorethannothing: moofles: Obama is rich too, America. I’m not sure you noticed. It’s not because Romney is rich that’s he bad. It’s that sometimes a side effect of being rich is that you have no idea what it’s like to be poor, or what poor people are like, or what they go through everyday. Obama, despite being rich, has that understanding and empathy for the poor. Obama didn’t grow up rich either, something that further alienates people from their poor constituents. Romney could easily do what many rich people do and learn more about the stigma of being poor and correct himself. But he doesn’t. He said so himself - he doesn’t care about the poor. I did it again…

youcanalwayshavemorethannothing:

moofles:

Obama is rich too, America. I’m not sure you noticed.

It’s not because Romney is rich that’s he bad. It’s that sometimes a side effect of being rich is that you have no idea what it’s like to be poor, or what poor people are like, or what they go through everyday. Obama, despite being rich, has that understanding and empathy for the poor. Obama didn’t grow up rich either, something that further alienates people from their poor constituents. Romney could easily do what many rich people do and learn more about the stigma of being poor and correct himself. But he doesn’t. He said so himself - he doesn’t care about the poor.

I did it again…

(Reblogged from youcanalwayshavemorethannothing)

Romney, Ryan Slam President Obama For Spending Too Little

tpmmedia:

When it comes to fiscal issues, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan want voters to know they’re collectively disgusted by what they see as a reckless government spending spree under President Obama the past three years.

But in a twist, they’re also contending that Obama’s government hasn’t stepped in enough to help Americans. It’s the political equivalent of “This food is terrible — and such small portions!”

Read more from TPM’s Benjy Sarlin…

PLOT TWIST.

(Reblogged from truth-has-a-liberal-bias)

timeparad0x:

youmakenosensewhatsoever:

He eventually pulled troops out of Iraq, but only to send in unmanned death machines to Pakistan? FUCK THAT.

I’m not going to pretend I don’t support his presidency still, and I apologize that this shit is going on because I’m voting to put him back in office, but I swear, not for this. My vote may be telling him I think it’s okay, and I’m sorry that’s how our republic works, but trust me, if I could vote against acts like this singly I would. There’s self defense and then there’s murder and I think the line has long been crossed.

Where does Romney/Ryan stand on the issue?

Lesser of two evils is still evil.

I had to cut a lot of what you said for the sake of brevity.

Obama still has a lot of troops in Iraq, under the guise of training their military… because that worked so well the last time, right, Bush Sr.?

You can disagree with single issues of the president. It’s called protesting, it’s supposed to be protected by the first amendment, and it’s supposed to sway political opinion. If this is an issue that’s important to you, yell about it! Bring more attention to it! I swear, if this was on our fucking televisions, we would be out of there by the end of the month. Or, if the murder of hundreds of innocent civilians you think is more important than anything else, you could vote for the only peace candidate in this race, Ron Paul.

R/R would continue the program. They haven’t commented if they would escalate it or dial it back.

If the lesser of two evils is still evil, why are you voting for evil?

Sorry - Brevity isn’t my strong point.

I know Obama still has troops over there, I should have have put in the word “most” before troops, but I changed my mind at the last second. Maybe I’ll edit it again, I dunno.

And I know you can disagree with single issue - I do disagree with single issues, that’s one reason I still support him, I only disagree with a handful of things verses agreeing only with one thing (like a few people I know voting Romney/Ryan because of some tax policies, even though they disagree with everything else).

Personally, I would protest. The sad thing is, and these are all bad and yet still valid excuses, but a) protesting is starting to get a bad rep here in America and people aren’t being taken seriously - supposed to sway political opinion, doesn’t mean it does b) no one I know cares. Hell most of America doesn’t seem to care c) My blog kind of is my way of yelling about it. And the worst reason of all, d) Obama supporters are too busy defending him, they’d most like turn on me, I’m not looking to make frenemies. 

That’s just it, and I know this sounds awful, but I don’t think the murder of 100s of innocents is the most important issue. Let me rephrase that - It is the most important, but these drones aren’t the only way innocents are being murdered, and no matter how big and important this drone scandal is, I don’t think it outweighs the potentially more that could die should we re-elect republicans. That’s way too dramatic, I know, you don’t have to take that paragraph seriously, but that’s a legitimate fear of mine.

About Ron Paul - He won’t get elected. I know voting for him won’t be a waste, I’ve wrongly said that in the past, showing support for something you believe in is never a waste, but he won’t get elected neither do I fully support Ron Paul. I want my vote to keep Romney out of office. Which leads me to the last statement. I, personally, can’t just not vote. I know not voting should be a political statement but no one thinks of it like that, they just think people are lazy or apathetic. If I don’t vote I am actively helping the more evil of the two get in office. Someone is going to win and be president. If I don’t help Obama get elected then there’s a slightly higher chance Romney will win. If others don’t vote for the same reason they too are contributing to the problem. If someone HAD to be in office I’d rather it be Obama, I will not in any way contribute to Romney’s win even if it means saying “Hey, Obama, I’m voting for you so this vote means I agree with everything you do, even drone strikes.” The lesser of two evils may still be evil, but he’s also doing good, a lot of good - that’s what I’m really voting for.

(Reblogged from whydidntyoulisten)
“
Let’s say Mitt Romney released 100 years of tax returns tonight,” said Alex Castellanos, a Republican media consultant who advised Romney in 2008. “What do you think the odds are that the Obama campaign would say, ‘Oh great Mitt. Thank you! Now we can put that behind us and move on to more substantive issues like entitlement reform!’ Zero.” Added Castellanos: “I’d advise Mitt to release 10 years of tax returns when Obama releases 10 years of birth certificates.

This Is CNN’s Soft Birtherism | Media Matters for America

1. Obama already released his birth certificate, so Castellanos has no legitimate complaint and is just pandering to racists at this point.

2. How is it even possible to release 10 years of birth certificates? Does Castellanos think Obama was born 10 times?

(via dendroica)

“10 years of birth certificates.” TEN YEARS.

And can I just say that those birtherism conspiracy addicts weren’t satisfied? They demand to see school files and all sorts of other nonsense.

(Reblogged from truth-has-a-liberal-bias)
reagan-was-a-horrible-president: diegueno: (via LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS: Fact or Fiction?) Our data does not support the thesis of a liberal media bias as it relates to Election 2012 coverage. If anything, our analysis suggests a media bias towards both Mitt Romney and Republicans. There are multiple data points included in our analysis. In news stories and broadcast transcripts that we analyzed over the last 3 months, newsmakers appearing in the media as partisan Republicans are quoted at a 44% higher rate than partisan Democrats. Additionally, the ratio of positive to negative coverage was 17.1% more critical of Obama than Romney. We processed 717 articles and 15,357 quotes collected between May 1 and July 15, 2012. But Republicans won’t let something like facts get in the way of lying about the so-called “liberal media”. It’s one of their all-time favorite lies, and they’re stickin’ to it! Those aren’t facts! That’s liberal bias in action right there!! Liberals made that chart and made up those statistics!!! …./sarcasm. View high resolution

reagan-was-a-horrible-president:

diegueno:


Our data does not support the thesis of a liberal media bias as it relates to Election 2012 coverage. If anything, our analysis suggests a media bias towards both Mitt Romney and Republicans. There are multiple data points included in our analysis. In news stories and broadcast transcripts that we analyzed over the last 3 months, newsmakers appearing in the media as partisan Republicans are quoted at a 44% higher rate than partisan Democrats. Additionally, the ratio of positive to negative coverage was 17.1% more critical of Obama than Romney. We processed 717 articles and 15,357 quotes collected between May 1 and July 15, 2012.

But Republicans won’t let something like facts get in the way of lying about the so-called “liberal media”. It’s one of their all-time favorite lies, and they’re stickin’ to it!

Those aren’t facts! That’s liberal bias in action right there!! Liberals made that chart and made up those statistics!!! …./sarcasm.

(Reblogged from truth-has-a-liberal-bias)

Smart Democrats should be worried about Paul Ryan

No doubt there are many Democrats rubbing their hands in glee in contemplation of reviving some version of the ad that featured an actor playing Paul Ryan pushing a grandmother in a wheelchair off a cliff. But the smarter ones are worried.

(Reblogged from andrewmin)

Richard Cohen: The gap in the ‘you didn’t build that’ fight

abaldwin360:

My boyhood friend Jack became a doctor — and a conservative. He had gone to public schools, attended college with the help of a government scholarship, went to medical school on the Army’s dime, and learned his specialty in military hospitals. He insisted that the government had done nothing for him. In that way, he is both the soul and the wit of the Republican Party.

It was in rebuttal to the Jacks of this world that Barack Obama earlier this month updated John Donne’s “No man is an island” by knocking the idea that individual success is always the product of individual qualities, such as industriousness: “Let me tell you something: There are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.”

This observation, so obvious you’d think it didn’t have to be stated, was then followed by what became a gotcha sound bite: “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.”

The entire GOP, including its claque in the press, pounced. You would have thought Obama had just belittled self-discipline and other virtues and quoted from “Das Kapital” or, even worse, a ditty by Pete Seeger. To his critics, Obama’s version of It Takes a Village was further proof of his commie creds, possibly Islamic as well. Mitt Romney found the line totally — and I mean like totally — “disconcerting.” As to the charge that Obama was being quoted out of context, Romney declared that “the context is worse than the quote.” OMG!

Of course, the president has nothing but truth and history on his side. Every schoolchild in my neck of the woods learned that the Erie Canal, which made New York truly the Empire State, was government-funded — $7 million appropriated at the insistence of Gov. DeWitt Clinton. The railroads did not come from nowhere and neither did the ports or the highway system. Government played a role. Government hasalways played a role. If it just got out of the way, the mindless mantra of the tea party’s heavy thinkers, we would all be in deep trouble.

read more

Seriously guys. Examine your life. It takes a fucking village and don’t you forget it.

(Reblogged from truth-has-a-liberal-bias)
And this was today, after the little squabble. Obviously I’m not the one who’s butthurt anymore, though I respected his wishes no matter how wrong he was. View high resolution

And this was today, after the little squabble. Obviously I’m not the one who’s butthurt anymore, though I respected his wishes no matter how wrong he was.

This is between a friend and I on Facebook, things got spicy.

*Edit - Fixed, threw in an extra pic by mistake.

I’m waiting for him to say “If Obama gets reelected and I can’t repeal ACA then I’m moving to Canada!” I hope it happens. I like to point and laugh.

I’m waiting for him to say “If Obama gets reelected and I can’t repeal ACA then I’m moving to Canada!”

I hope it happens. I like to point and laugh.

(Source: eclecticbanana)

(Reblogged from truth-has-a-liberal-bias)
“
If people had been in Massachusetts under Governor Mitt Romney’s healthcare plan, they would’ve had healthcare.

Romney campaign press secretary ANDREA SAUL, in response to an ad by the pro-Obama super PAC Priorities USA that claimed Bain Capital indirectly led to the death of a woman from cancer.

To which Republican critics responded by calling for Andrea Saul to be fired.  Seriously.

LOLpublicans.

(via The Daily Show)

(Reblogged from inothernews)
“
This initiative will provide daily reasons—concrete, factual, plain—to re-elect Barack Obama, and will also provide likely outcomes of a Romney presidency. Articulating these reasons will be a wide range of well-known Americans, their ranks proving that there is, indeed, a growing movement that acknowledges not only that Obama needs four more years, but that we actually need to participate to make it happen. Romney’s poll numbers are neck and neck with Obama’s, and the Republican party has raised and will continue to raise more money than Obama will or can. The only chance Obama has to win is if we can harness the same populist enthusiasm we did when we made history in 2008.

It’s okay to believe again. It’s time to believe again. We must believe again.
“90 Days, 90 Reasons,” or: our new favorite thing (via barackobama)
(Reblogged from barackobama)
fawfulfan: redbloodedamerica: Simple but correct. Seriously? This is the kind of shoddy, infantile sound bite that underwrites all Republican thinking these days. In case you haven’t noticed, Romney’s tax plan is downright predatory, and every credible economist says it’s a terrible idea. Estimates vary, but Romney’s tax plan will cost average middle-class Americans anywhere from $500 to $2,000 a year, all in the name of a tax cut for people making more than $3 million, which will amount to somewhere between $87,000 and $250,000 a year. This is completely ridiculous. The previous decade’s long string of tax cuts for the rich was the third biggest cause of the deficit (behind the two wars and the entitlement expansions, also of Republican doing). And economic growth during that time was much more sluggish than several other times in our history when taxes on the rich have been far higher. Growth, to be sure, is too complicated to pin on a single variable, but one thing that is certain is that the tax cuts had no demonstrable positive effect. They did not create any new jobs, and they did not create any new wealth. All President Obama wants to do is return to the 1990s marginal income tax rates. How’s that unreasonable? Particularly after the trickle-down experiment fell flat on its face? You Republicans bluff and bluster, but the numbers are not on your side, and there is no conceivable way to twist it so that they are. Clinton balanced the budget. Obama slashed the deficit by $122 billion in just one year. Yes, he really did…look it up. And before you scoff and say “oh, that wasn’t Obama’s doing, that was Congress…”, his gigantic deficit reduction happened while Democrats still controlled the House. The only Republican of the last forty years to lower the deficit was George H. W. Bush…all of the others sent it sky high. Also, the Tea Partiers in Congress cost us our nation’s triple-A credit rating…Standard & Poor’s cited congressional dysfunction as the reason for the downgrade. Your tax dollars aren’t just going to food stamps and handouts. They funded construction projects, gave us the spending power to enforce our laws, and all kinds of other goodies. You really want to see spending cuts? First let’s see you reject all government support in your life. Oops, now you don’t have water or power! I’d wager I understand the economic principles that conservatives invoke a lot better than you do. Go and read my article here to understand what actual conservatism involves: http://fawfulfan.tumblr.com/post/29049022552/conservative-truth-republican-delusion#disqus_thread The Republicans are increasingly rejecting all of the basic necessities of modern society. And it’s scaring me. View high resolution

fawfulfan:

redbloodedamerica:

Simple but correct.

Seriously? This is the kind of shoddy, infantile sound bite that underwrites all Republican thinking these days.

In case you haven’t noticed, Romney’s tax plan is downright predatory, and every credible economist says it’s a terrible idea. Estimates vary, but Romney’s tax plan will cost average middle-class Americans anywhere from $500 to $2,000 a year, all in the name of a tax cut for people making more than $3 million, which will amount to somewhere between $87,000 and $250,000 a year.

This is completely ridiculous. The previous decade’s long string of tax cuts for the rich was the third biggest cause of the deficit (behind the two wars and the entitlement expansions, also of Republican doing). And economic growth during that time was much more sluggish than several other times in our history when taxes on the rich have been far higher. Growth, to be sure, is too complicated to pin on a single variable, but one thing that is certain is that the tax cuts had no demonstrable positive effect. They did not create any new jobs, and they did not create any new wealth.

All President Obama wants to do is return to the 1990s marginal income tax rates. How’s that unreasonable? Particularly after the trickle-down experiment fell flat on its face?

You Republicans bluff and bluster, but the numbers are not on your side, and there is no conceivable way to twist it so that they are. Clinton balanced the budget. Obama slashed the deficit by $122 billion in just one year. Yes, he really did…look it up. And before you scoff and say “oh, that wasn’t Obama’s doing, that was Congress…”, his gigantic deficit reduction happened while Democrats still controlled the House. The only Republican of the last forty years to lower the deficit was George H. W. Bush…all of the others sent it sky high. Also, the Tea Partiers in Congress cost us our nation’s triple-A credit rating…Standard & Poor’s cited congressional dysfunction as the reason for the downgrade.

Your tax dollars aren’t just going to food stamps and handouts. They funded construction projects, gave us the spending power to enforce our laws, and all kinds of other goodies. You really want to see spending cuts? First let’s see you reject all government support in your life. Oops, now you don’t have water or power!

I’d wager I understand the economic principles that conservatives invoke a lot better than you do. Go and read my article here to understand what actual conservatism involves: http://fawfulfan.tumblr.com/post/29049022552/conservative-truth-republican-delusion#disqus_thread

The Republicans are increasingly rejecting all of the basic necessities of modern society. And it’s scaring me.

(Reblogged from fawfulfan)