Does Romney think that America is full of rich people?

[AmericanNation]

I seriously like these conspiracy theories.  They at least attempt to weave a coherent thread of logic.  That is something that more mainstream democrat propaganda lacks (Logic).  

So, since Republicans are evil and secretly destroying america we should vote for democrats who openly advocate destructive policies.  Wait, but we'll lie about the last part.    

I want to know,
who is coordinating this massive project?
what is the end goal?  Power?  

I sometimes think that type of theory could be possible, but you would need the democrats to be intentionally repulsive in order to drive people toward the Neo-Fascist GOP.  Hey wait, repulsive democrats both driving people toward the GOP and wielding reckless power because the people not repulsed would follow them anywhere....  might be on to something    

Given the FACT that Democratic administrations, generally, preside over more 1) economic growth; 2) job creation and 3) more broad-based prosperity care to elaborate what is destructive about them?

I would dispute your "FACT."  That is a LARGE and COMPLEX issue.  I could write an economic+political history of the last 100 years, but that would take some time.  Assigning credit to presidency's is nearly impossible under 600 pages.

An easier thing would be to look at major cities across the rust belt that have been driven into the ground by 90 to 100 years of uninterrupted political domination by the democrats.  Contrast that with the economic engine/fast growing areas of america dominated by republicans and you get a good idea based off hundreds of comparisons of where "job growth" and "broad-based prosperity" comes from.  
 
  

[ModerateCoward]

I have remained consistent, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Nope. From:

I'm sick of the left's "You're on your own" obsession, but I'll bite.  
"You're on your own" is a MUCH MUCH MUCH better thing to hear than: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."

to:

Unless you have a magic plan to reverse a march to serfdom after it starts, than there isn't anything false about the dichotomy and if you honestly think about it for ten minutes you can't deny that.  You might think its 'doomsday-ish.'  IDK how to get around your feelings when referencing the facts of History.  Respectfully, maybe you should get around your feelings and think.

Keep in mind that no "facts" had been provided. Now we're here and there's a definite increase in the quality of your conversational skills.

The Republicans in Wisconsin have been brilliantly mainstream.

Historically, yes.

I don't think your "extreme" label can be justified, but I'd listen to your point if you have one.  
FYI
1)Never busted a Union
2)Is there an abortion bill you're talking about?  what's wrong with it?

Besides parts of it being struck down, I'm guessing we won't see eye to eye on what the anti-union bill in your state does. I think we can agree, however, that it certainly eliminated the brilliantly mainstream Republican majority in the Senate. Here's a total of four bills (three anti-abortion, one anti-contraception) that Walker just signed this week.
 

Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona, Ohio, Indiana, and Florida have become laboratories for extremist ideology in liberal-to-moderate states. Perhaps Virginia is next.  The GOP in those states operates with different methods, but put them together and one can just imagine what is untended when the potential for repressive power is imposed upon the states slower to adopt the Hard Right as the ideology of the day. The difference between them is emphasis so far, but don't let that fool you. The techniques are being refined for making places like San Francisco, Chicago, Boston, and even New York City unable to stand up to the power of a Hard Right that has contempt for due process, liberal tradition, and rule of law.  

It's for cheap labor, a high birth rate, the degradation of workers' rights, the fire sale of the public sector to rapacious profiteers, the transformation of public schools into propaganda mills, the peonization of the middle class, and the gutting of local control. I have yet to see militarism, racism (except in Arizona), or destruction of civil liberties as objectives... but I wouldn't trust the current GOP with those if it got the majorities with which to impose Constitutional mischief.    

I certainly hope that I am wrong -- but I can imagine a new version of Apartheid imposed upon America based upon where one's politics lie, and in which the job of a policeman or schoolteacher -- or for that matter an accountant ... let alone having a chance to attend school that allows one to learn what it takes to be middle-class in America -- depends upon being a political hack.    

Seattle is next level of difficulty, Rob McKenna will get to practice these techniques on Washington State.

I seriously like these conspiracy theories.  They at least attempt to weave a coherent thread of logic.  That is something that more mainstream democrat propaganda lacks (Logic). 

So, since Republicans are evil and secretly destroying america we should vote for democrats who openly advocate destructive policies.  Wait, but we'll lie about the last part.     

I want to know,
who is coordinating this massive project?
what is the end goal?  Power? 

I sometimes think that type of theory could be possible, but you would need the democrats to be intentionally repulsive in order to drive people toward the Neo-Fascist GOP.  Hey wait, repulsive democrats both driving people toward the GOP and wielding reckless power because the people not repulsed would follow them anywhere....  might be on to something   

Feudalism/Fascism. I didn't say anything that's a conspiracy theory, I am just pointing out the fact that Rob McKenna has a high(>50) a chance of getting elected and will try to implement Walker's policies in a blue state especially with the possibly compliant legislature. He also said that he will not be like Scott Walker while campaigning, but we'll see.

[Sibboleth]

This thread is really quite mad.

[Lief]

Politico's unsubtle racism never fails to amuse!

[Politico]

Politico's unsubtle racism never fails to amuse!

No such thing.

My point was that these constant, unwarranted attacks on Romney are going to backfire to such a degree that Barack Obama will be viewed about as nicely as people viewed Marlo Stanfield (Or Bill Rawls, if you prefer) while following The Wire. Team Obama needs to proceed carefully with their negative attack ads. He is a popular guy, but Obama will incur enormous backlash if his team continues to throw unwarranted mud against Romney, like people are doing by saying the Romneys are snobs who know nothing about struggling folks (not true, as you will find out once the details leak about all of the volunteer activities done by the Romneys over the past forty years). You heard it here first.

[opebo]

This thread is really quite mad.

Americans on the subject of class - collective insanity.

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

not sure if troll

Who's trolling? America's poor are pretty well off, all things considered.

[opebo]

not sure if troll

Who's trolling? America's poor are pretty well off, all things considered.

No, they're not.  You're completely misunderstanding both the system and the trend of policy if you believe that sort of nonsense.

In the first place, poverty only has meaning relative to one's owner - it doesn't matter if you make $1000/month in a place where subsistence costs $1500, or $200 in a place where subsistence costs $200 - in either case you are  desperate, miserable, and exploited.  What matters is your relative poverty compared to those who control your life (the wealthy).

In the second place, the whole meaning of neo-liberal policy is to make sure that the Western working class is laid low - brought down to the lowest common denominator of Bangladeshi-style wages.

[pbrower2a]

Politico's unsubtle racism never fails to amuse!

No such thing.

My point was that these constant, unwarranted attacks on Romney are going to backfire to such a degree that Barack Obama will be viewed about as nicely as people viewed Marlo Stanfield (Or Bill Rawls, if you prefer) while following The Wire. Team Obama needs to proceed carefully with their negative attack ads. He is a popular guy, but Obama will incur enormous backlash if his team continues to throw unwarranted mud against Romney, like people are doing by saying the Romneys are snobs who know nothing about struggling folks (not true, as you will find out once the details leak about all of the volunteer activities done by the Romneys over the past forty years). You heard it here first.

"Out of touch with reality" and "doesn't have a clue" are two of the most effective themes of a negative campaign. Negative campaigns are appropriate against extremists, failures, and sell-outs. Mitt Romney stands now for the intensification of what has gone wrong with America over the last thirty years or so with the consequences of severe inequality, vanishing opportunity, and an ineffective public sector. How bad is inequality in America? We have greater gaps in income than Mexico, a country long infamous for disparities between the rich and poor.

Trickle-down economics is predicated on the idea that if the super-rich get even more rich they will have more cast-offs to give to the non-rich. We know how that works. The alternative that the Right occasionally allows is a speculative boom, most likely in real estate, in which people buy into a bad investment that allows quick profits for a few with the government eventually being saddled with the losses. If such isn't a disaster, then what is?

As I have said before, winning politicians run on their record and win; losers run from their record and lose. Mitt Romney has run from the stances that he won on in Massachusetts. He might have won as a RINO against a President that the Hard Right believes has gone too far.  

[HagridOfTheDeep]

What, you're suggesting Obama will run on his record? That's laughable. If his "record" is Obamacare and "getting bin Laden" (which has been horribly politicized, considering the work was done by a bunch of skilled advisors), that's nothing. Obama is creating a new record for himself that totally ignores reality. He's running from his record more than Romney is, in that Obama isn't telling anything close to the full story.

And the difference here is, EVERYONE is familiar with Obama's record--it's harder for him to run from it. Romney can run on whatever he wants, because no one really knows what he did in Massachusetts except the people who lived in Massachusetts. Bottom line though: Romney's record means dick-all. This election is about Obama.

As for your attacks on "inequality" and "vanishing opportunity"... I wonder if you understand what these terms mean. Opportunity to live your life how you want, with a good job? Opportunity to move up the social ladder based on your own merits? How exactly has Obama created opportunity over these last three years? You think the buffet rule speaks to an Obama agenda of equality? You think high corporate taxes and regulations create a good business environment where employers are going to want to hire people?

This is the flaw I see in Democrats. You folks believe opportunity is something that comes from the government. It ain't.

[Progressive Realist]

This is the flaw I see in Democrats. You folks believe opportunity is something that comes from the government. It ain't.

Absolutist, black-and-white, false dichotomy?

Yeah, you're a Republican.

[opebo]

This is the flaw I see in Democrats. You folks believe opportunity is something that comes from the government. It ain't.

No, it comes from being rich.

[LINCOLN REPUBLICAN]

This new R-WI troll is great, he's like a computer program that shoves Fox News memes into common sentence structures and prints the result.

Sidenote: The R-WI avatar has a pretty bad history, doesn't it? Not quite equal to the (almost!) entirely negative connotations of R-IN, but it might be getting there.

And then there's R-RI, which has been ruined forever by Winfield.

But, back on topic(s), Romney's too rich and Scott Walker's an HP.

What your personal misguided opinion of me is really of no consequence.

What matters is America's future.  The choice is clear.  Four more years of a President, Obama, clearly in over his head on the economy, who really has no clue in restoring America's economic future, other than to wage a policy of class warfare, or a new President, Romney, proven, both in the private and public sectors, as a capable economic manager, who has the experience, the wherewithal, and the economic program to bring America back from the brink of disaster to a once again booming and vibrant economy.    

[Governor Scott]

This new R-WI troll is great, he's like a computer program that shoves Fox News memes into common sentence structures and prints the result.

Sidenote: The R-WI avatar has a pretty bad history, doesn't it? Not quite equal to the (almost!) entirely negative connotations of R-IN, but it might be getting there.

R-WI has an even worse history in real life than here, unfortunately.

[oakvale]

This is the flaw I see in Democrats. You folks believe opportunity is something that comes from the government. It ain't.

Absolutist, black-and-white, false dichotomy?

Yeah, you're a Republican.

In his short time on this forum I don't believe HagridInTheDeep has ever posted anything that couldn't be ripped from the website of any generic Republican candidate for any office.

"I think 9/11 was bad. And freedom? Well, I think that's just a little bit better."

[HagridOfTheDeep]

yeah, cuz you're a basket of roses too.

I'm not going to dignify Democrat rhetoric with anything more than Republican rhetoric. Sorry.

pbrower can say all he wants about what he believes trickle-down economics is based on, but it will always have that little Democrat twist. IE, rhetoric. Maybe he's just better at hiding it than I am, but he wasn't exactly using facts either.

I mean...
"Trickle-down economics is predicated on the idea that if the super-rich get even more rich they will have more cast-offs to give to the non-rich. We know how that works."

is the least substantive thing I've ever heard. "We know how that works"?? As if it's some fact? Give me a break. I can't reply to points that pretend to be factual with actual facts. Where would you even start?

And lastly... At least I'm not a snappy jackass to everyone (as you always seem to be to me Oakvale). Next time, don't put words in my mouth.

[oakvale]

yeah, cuz you're a basket of roses too.

I'm not going to dignify Democrat rhetoric with anything more than Republican rhetoric. Sorry.

pbrower can say all he wants about what he believes trickle-down economics is based on, but it will always have that little Democrat twist. IE, rhetoric. Maybe he's just better at hiding it than I am, but he wasn't exactly using facts either.

I mean...
"Trickle-down economics is predicated on the idea that if the super-rich get even more rich they will have more cast-offs to give to the non-rich. We know how that works."

is the least substantive thing I've ever heard. "We know how that works"?? As if it's some fact? Give me a break. I can't reply to points that pretend to be factual with actual facts. Where would you even start?

And lastly... At least I'm not a snappy jackass to everyone (as you always seem to be to me Oakvale). Next time, don't put words in my mouth.

I was actually quoting a popular situation comedy as opposed to suggesting you literally said that, but okay. This is like the time Politico reported me for "trolling" for posting an Onion article.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I don't report people, that's weak.

[AmericanNation]

I have remained consistent, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Nope. From:

I'm sick of the left's "You're on your own" obsession, but I'll bite.  
"You're on your own" is a MUCH MUCH MUCH better thing to hear than: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."

to:

Unless you have a magic plan to reverse a march to serfdom after it starts, than there isn't anything false about the dichotomy and if you honestly think about it for ten minutes you can't deny that.  You might think its 'doomsday-ish.'  IDK how to get around your feelings when referencing the facts of History.  Respectfully, maybe you should get around your feelings and think.

Keep in mind that no "facts" had been provided. Now we're here and there's a definite increase in the quality of your conversational skills.

The Republicans in Wisconsin have been brilliantly mainstream.

Historically, yes.

I don't think your "extreme" label can be justified, but I'd listen to your point if you have one.  
FYI
1)Never busted a Union
2)Is there an abortion bill you're talking about?  what's wrong with it?

Besides parts of it being struck down, I'm guessing we won't see eye to eye on what the anti-union bill in your state does. I think we can agree, however, that it certainly eliminated the brilliantly mainstream Republican majority in the Senate. Here's a total of four bills (three anti-abortion, one anti-contraception) that Walker just signed this week.
 

Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona, Ohio, Indiana, and Florida have become laboratories for extremist ideology in liberal-to-moderate states. Perhaps Virginia is next.  The GOP in those states operates with different methods, but put them together and one can just imagine what is untended when the potential for repressive power is imposed upon the states slower to adopt the Hard Right as the ideology of the day. The difference between them is emphasis so far, but don't let that fool you. The techniques are being refined for making places like San Francisco, Chicago, Boston, and even New York City unable to stand up to the power of a Hard Right that has contempt for due process, liberal tradition, and rule of law.  

It's for cheap labor, a high birth rate, the degradation of workers' rights, the fire sale of the public sector to rapacious profiteers, the transformation of public schools into propaganda mills, the peonization of the middle class, and the gutting of local control. I have yet to see militarism, racism (except in Arizona), or destruction of civil liberties as objectives... but I wouldn't trust the current GOP with those if it got the majorities with which to impose Constitutional mischief.    

I certainly hope that I am wrong -- but I can imagine a new version of Apartheid imposed upon America based upon where one's politics lie, and in which the job of a policeman or schoolteacher -- or for that matter an accountant ... let alone having a chance to attend school that allows one to learn what it takes to be middle-class in America -- depends upon being a political hack.    

Seattle is next level of difficulty, Rob McKenna will get to practice these techniques on Washington State.

I seriously like these conspiracy theories.  They at least attempt to weave a coherent thread of logic.  That is something that more mainstream democrat propaganda lacks (Logic). 

So, since Republicans are evil and secretly destroying america we should vote for democrats who openly advocate destructive policies.  Wait, but we'll lie about the last part.     

I want to know,
who is coordinating this massive project?
what is the end goal?  Power? 

I sometimes think that type of theory could be possible, but you would need the democrats to be intentionally repulsive in order to drive people toward the Neo-Fascist GOP.  Hey wait, repulsive democrats both driving people toward the GOP and wielding reckless power because the people not repulsed would follow them anywhere....  might be on to something   

Feudalism/Fascism. I didn't say anything that's a conspiracy theory, I am just pointing out the fact that Rob McKenna has a high(>50) a chance of getting elected and will try to implement Walker's policies in a blue state especially with the possibly compliant legislature. He also said that he will not be like Scott Walker while campaigning, but we'll see.

So Walker is a Feudal-Fascist? ? ?