Talk Elections

One thing I cannot stand about Romney, is when asked by a working class American about how they are struggling in life, his response is always in the frame of "I'm not going to do anything for you."

Like this:

http://thinkprogress.org/education/2012/03/05/437833/romney-to-college-student-if-you-want-affordable-college-shop-around-or-join-the-military/ (http://thinkprogress.org/education/2012/03/05/437833/romney-to-college-student-if-you-want-affordable-college-shop-around-or-join-the-military/)

"ROMNEY: The legislature in my state came together and said, ‘You know what, anyone that’s willing to serve in the National Guard, we’ll provide for tuition and fees for four years of college to make sure you get that start.’ So if you’re willing to serve, then we can be of more help. But my best advice is find a great institution of higher learning, find one that has the right price, and shop around. In America, this idea of competition, it works! [...] I want to make sure that every kid in this country that wants to go to college gets the chance to go to college. If you can’t afford it, scholarships are available, shop around for loans, make sure you go to a place that’s reasonably priced, and if you can, think about serving the country ’cause that’s a way to get all that education for free."

Well.... that's how it is now. He's only mentioning extreme or undesirable options for students that already exist. I can understand that because he's a conservative he does want the government to take an active role, but he could at least come up with a conservative private market solution that will change the current situation, because its not an ideal situation.

I can't think of one... I bet Gingrich could think of one lol.

Either way, Romney needs to remember that there are a lot of working class voters, including former Santorum voters, who don't like to be told "You're on your own."

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." 

Also, "You're on your own" general means "Freedom and Free Markets are better than serfdom and Central Planning, so I won't impose the latter on you." 

That depends entirely on one's particular situation, as I once dared to hope was obvious.


Which is, of course, a false dichotomy and the people saying it know it, even if you don't.

I love not being an American.

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.      

()

I'm wondering how many "facts of History" and non-feeling statements you feel like you've conveyed here?

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.

The Republican Party-nomics of elite-enrichment, middle class emaciation and waged slavery has proven itself to be the Road to Serfdom. It was liberalism that saved capitalism from the ravages of the Depression the result being that for ordinary people (i.e. the middle and working class) the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, in terms of prosperity :) (i.e. rising standards of living), were the best three decades ever :)

If the 'Crash of 2008' has taught me one thing its the danger of wealth becoming increasingly concentrated in the hands of the few. Had Bush 43 built on the somewhat more broad-based prosperity of the Clinton era, his presidency wouldn't have ended as it did. The wealthiest, believe it or not, thrive more when the middle and working class do but for some reason (and it can only be dogmatic ::)) you guys, obviously, don't get that!

"I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."  picture
1)I feel so bad for those people in New Orleans who were mislead their entire lives to think “The government will help you, don't worry about it” and inevitably government fails to deliver.
2)[I'm wondering how many "facts of History" and non-feeling statements you feel like you've conveyed here?]
I'm not going to write a book for you in a forum.  Go educate yourself or at least read a little, that is not my responsibility.  If you have a question state it and I may lend you my historical expertise.  
3)[It was liberalism that saved capitalism from the ravages of the Depression ]
I don't even like the use of the word 'liberalism' because it becomes completely meaningless.  Lets say you meant FDR saved capitalism... that is of course nonsense.  FDR's first two terms were a complete disaster.  Some things were not his doing others were and FDR made many mistakes that disqualify him from being a “savior of capitalism.”  In his third term he was forced out of necessity to reverse his war on business in order to build a war economy.  That reversal and half of the world in ashes led to the prosperity you're talking about.

Proof!

March to serfdom? That's a new one.  Hopefully it doesn't spread like a wildfire a la "class warfare" and "Saul Alinsky radicals."

More meaningful than 'conservatism' given the FACT that its democratic capitalism's hegemonic ideology

Exactly my point! you are talking about Classical Liberalism which is probably a good way to describe my ideology - (in part anyway...complexities).  FDR was perhaps the antithesis of Classical Liberalism.  Thus, 'Liberalism' starts meaning nothing and everything and it's a junk loaded word.  You can't call Thomas Jefferson and Fidel Castro "Liberals" it drives me nuts.       

FYI “The Road to Serfdom” is among the most influential books of all time.  Maybe get the sparknotes.

Right?


I'm not asking you to write a book. There's plenty of room on these forums to express your opinions and conjecture without having to cite it. What I'm calling you out on - and what others will continue to do - is how you want to crap on everyone else, talking about how they're not using facts and how we're all "feeling" instead of thinking. Guess what? You're not using facts either. You're simply making broad-based statements ("freedom is under attack, government's gunna getcha, road to serfdom") without backing them up with any facts. Even your more elaborate thoughts are conjecture, although a little bit better thought out.

Let's not even get on the psychological points of how you guys "think" (feel). You seem to be in denial about what constitutes a rational thought. Liberals think, rationalize and try to debate with numbers, statistics and facts. That's why we get called "elitists" and "out of touch". Conservatives feel the situation in their gut ("I just know Obama's a muslim!") and conjecture based on what their head tells them (whether it's religion, politics or life in general).

You may want to cool the antagonistic tones you're taking toward everybody. People who act like aggressive little sh**ts don't last that long, on average.

Is that your life experience in Georgia?  I have wondered if the dynamic flips in the deep south.  Elitist claims tend to flow from dismissive-ness that ignores the point.  You stumbled on my razor that a dumb republican may have idiotic reasoning, yet is more likely to come to the correct result whereas a dumb democrat may have some reasoning (usually emotional appeal), but inevitably comes to the wrong conclusion.  I maintain hope smart people can rise above.     

You should check out my profile, see where I live and compare that with the Atlas. I wouldn't hold Cheesehead Republicanism in any higher regard, however; it looks as if your legislature is more extreme than ours. The Democrats and the Tea Party actually worked together here to defeat our union-busting bill and the abortion legislation was watered down to 20 weeks (which even as a far-left social liberal, I find acceptable), and that's with nearly 2/3 Republicans in the legislature.

You should look at how you've been typing over the past 15 or so posts. If you had started off with the same style that you are using now, then there would have been more initial respect for what you are conveying. 

I have remained consistent, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.  The Republicans in Wisconsin have been brilliantly mainstream.  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?
 

I don't wanna get into this too much, but I just wanna make one point about "gut-Republicanism."

Point:

It's not that bad.

Looking on the US from the outside, it seems less like you have to be apologetic for what you believe in. In Canada, you really, really do. Free market capitalism? Cut government spending? What a heartless douchebag! At least that gut-Republicanism is unabashed. If you're a gut-Democrat it seems to me that you're hopping on the social awareness bandwagon without necessarily thinking things through.

I guess that's my gut talking.

Nope. From:


to:


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.


Historically, yes.


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. (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/04/09/wisconsin-governor-scott-walker-signs-three-anti-abortion-and-anti-contraception-bills-into-law/)
 

Stop fighting kids. What I originally intended my post to mean, was that Romney is sounding too harsh in his non-use of government to solve problems. He's sounding more like an anarchist than a conservative.

I would rather hear "I'm from the government and I'm here to help" than "You're on your own." simply because as a member of the working class, it feels like we've been on our own for a while and could use some help.

For example, my health insurance was going to run out when I turned 25, but I got it for an additional year under my parents because of Obamacare.

So if Obama is providing further assistance to make my life easier, and Romney is promising to do nothing for me, why should I vote for Romney? Because I live in paranoid fear that maybe, possibly, the smallest government assistance will lead to a future fascist or communist state? I don't think so. There aren't only two choices: 1, Of individual freedom but no government help, and 2, a centralized economy with no personal freedom.

It is possible, and normal, to have individual freedom and government assistance. You're forgetting the possibility of the welfare state, where personal freedom exists along with government assistance to make live easier. Welfare states such as Sweden are not suffering under the tyranny of their governments. They aren't marching toward fascism or communism.

When conservatives talk about "freedom" they are confusing the freedom of expression with the freedom of anarchy. People do want the freedom to choose their profession, to live where they want, and do express themselves freely without government intervention. But people do not want the freedom from a minimum wage so that they have less money, the freedom from food safety laws so that their food may be unclean, or the freedom from police and firefighters so that they can live in constantly dangerous world.

So, you don't like the first one? or the second one is really nice compared to the first one? or the second one is mean?  I'm not sure how you feel about them. 

The majority ended?  The Legislature is out of session.  A senator resigned for family reasons at the end of the session.  She probably didn't like the harassment and death threats either.  She also has a medical practice to run. 

As for the "war on women" stuff.  Didn't manufacturing that issue blow up in Chicago's face the last few days? 
The Wisconsin Dems are pathetically pinning their hopes on it anyway.
Wis Dem Spokesman Zielinski, In Lefty Publication, Admits Collective Bargaining Issue Not Hurting Walker; Dems Will Instead Focus On "War on Women" and "Secret" John Doe
http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/04/scott-walker-recall-wisconsin-democrat-union

         

Obama - I'm from the government, and here are my chicago thugs. Payup for healthcare.

Romney - I'm from the government, and here are my mormon homeboys, Payup for healthcare.

Neither candidate wants to leave me alone.

FYP

Wonkish...

Back to the original thread topic, I do think that Romney's mental image of the "average American" is substantially better off than the truth. People surround themselves with other similar people and perceptions get skewed. It's like how in polling, just about everybody reports being middle class. But, again, that's hardly limited to Romney. We could all use a wider breadth of experience. Particularly candidates for President.

Thank You.

We got this topic way too off-topic, so I was hesitating to reply but this will be my last response. I meant that you sounded like a 15-year old coming into the topic and as it went on, you brought your conversation up to par. That's all I was really addressing in the first place. As far as the legislature goes, yes, it's closed now. You guys lost two seats in recalls and Pam Galloway was facing one too. I guess she resigned out of fear of losing more than anything. If she had things to worry about in her personal life, she shouldn't have ran for office in 2010, even if there's nothing left to do this cycle (so why resign unless you're afraid of a recall? Death threats, smeath threats). And Chicago had nothing to do with Rosen's comments and we certainly handled it better than Romney with the LL Fair Pay Act. It won't negatively impact Democrats' standing with women. Didn't Walker and the legislature also just repeal an equal pay bill in WI, too? You can PM me if you want to continue the discussion.

Geez, what's wrong with republicans in WI ?

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.

You seem to be trying to beat him though.

I don't think he interacted with many people outside of his social class.

Mitt and Ann have interacted with people of all backgrounds through their charitable activities, including a following list for Ann alone (the exhaustive list will leak the further along we go in the general election campaign):

- Since being diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis in 1998, she has been an active Board Member of the New England Chapter of the MS Society. She has been a leading fundraiser for advocacy and research for MS.

- Governor’s Liaison to the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives

- Initiator, Co-Chair and Member of the Faith and Action Committee serving at-risk youth

- United Way Board Member

- United Way Executive Committee

- United Way Community Impact Committee

- Involved with the international program Right to Play

- Volunteers time and leadership to equine therapy programs to physically disadvantaged children

- Volunteers for the annual Scholastic Reading event

- Volunteers for Partners for Youth with Disabilities

- Volunteers for the American Red Cross

- Volunteers for the Perkins School for the Blind

- Was a Board Member for the Massachusetts Children’s Trust Fund

- Received the 2006 Lifetime Achievement Award from Operation Kids

- Director of Best Friends addressing needs of inner-city girls

- Volunteer instructor at Mother Caroline Academy

- Board Member of Families First

- Served on the Women’s Cancer Advisory Board of Massachusetts General Hospital

I feel sorry for Democrats. Consider this a warning on trying to paint the Romneys as if they are the Kerrys. If you keep building this up, the testimonies on behalf of the Romneys are going to destroy your campaign. Barack Obama will end up looking like Marlo Stanfield in the eyes of voters.

No wonder Mitt thinks his problems can be fixed by writing a check.  Have the Romneys ever spend leisure time with someone not part of the upper class?  You know, the kind of time where people relax and say what they really think instead of what they think the person writing the check wants to hear?

Yes, after reading this I realize the election is all but over for Obama.

I think the witty Marlo Stanfield reference is what really convinced me. Obama is totally comparable to an inner city drug lord. Spot on comparison!

this guy=President Obama, obviously
()

Classical liberalism did not end slavery, the last vestiges of serfdom, the subordination of women to men, child labor, monopoly power, racism, militarism, or the subjection of working people on its own. Classical liberalism may have been a huge improvement over the elitist statism that preceded it, but it never presented itself as a point at which all progress could end. Classical liberalism provided the tools of later progressive movements that Recognized the necessity of civil liberties, checks and balances, and competitive politics.

... By destroying democracy such people as Fidel Castro, Ayatollah Khomeini, Moammar Qaddafi, Hugo Chavez, and Robert Mugabe are not liberals any more than Adolf Hitler and Agosto Pinochet.     

+1000.

"Classical" liberalism became reactionary conservatism a long time ago.

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.

Back to the question... The contrast merits making.

I am satisfied that Barack Obama learned some things as a community organizer. He met lots of people who did hard blue-collar work for a living. He dealt with people like schoolteachers and social workers. He met cops and parole officers. I am sure that he figured that the criminals who mugged grandmothers  for social security checks  were not so much misguided souls in need of help as they were predators as untrustworthy as big cats on the loose. He recognized that drugs degraded such humanity as addicts had.

For a liberal politician he has no bleeding heart. This is just as well. Having an excessively optimistic view of human nature could have made him into another Jimmy Carter and a political disaster.  

.......

It's easy for those brought up in privilege to have a distorted view of reality. The only poor people that they meet frequently are their domestic help whose poverty is hidden on the job through uniforms. They may interact with corporate bureaucracies, but with much insulation from people who struggle to make ends meet. They meet financial analysts and directors of accounting -- not accounting clerks.  As a rule they were not themselves small businessmen who had to deal with customers and working staff. If they encounter waiters they encounter those in the most expensive places and can tip generously. A 20% tip on $500 in meals and drinks is $100, which is a very high amount of income for a waiter even if that must be shared with  bus staff.  

The separation from working-class reality begins early with expensive boarding schools that effectively price out all but rich kids. Thy are unlikely to see fellow students born out of wedlock or kids raised by parents who aren't certifiable adults by behavior. They won't see the kids of such people as farm laborers, salesclerks, assembly-line workers, fast-food counterpeople, bank tellers, or for that matter, teachers, cops, fire fighters, letter carriers, or traveling salespeople.

The only time in which people of privilege can be sure of meeting people in all walks of life is when they are drafted into military service or enlist in the intention to avoid becoming "light infantry" (a/k/a cannon fodder), in which case,



(Irving Berlin)

But those lyrics didn't apply to him.


He has been dealing with the so-called political and economic 'experts' who suggest the same solution for economic woes -- cut taxes for the rich, weaken unions that interfere in profits, make it easy to shift work to the places with the cheapest labor, and gut regulation of business. This is not what one would expect of someone struggling to make ends meet -- who might find a job in the public sector far preferable to cashiering in a dollar store soon after graduating from college with a substantial student loan.    

 

Not to pick on Ann Romney, who I generally respect and who is facing tough health care battles, but sitting on the boards of charities and planning their fundraisers and social events is exactly what wealthy women in Ann Romney's position do. It mostly involves spending time with other wealthy individuals. It's better than lounging on a yacht, but it doesn't imply that she's working in the trenches like a real volunteer.

Romney is known to be cheap- he flies coach for example... which is where he had his brawl with the rapper

I've seen his stables in NH, his property adjoins a friend's - they are larger than my house and a lot nicer. Some people are selectively thrifty but spend money like crazy elsewhere. To the best of my knowledge Romney is no spendthrift, but nor is he a miser.

Wouldn't that imply he likes to fly first class because normal rappers like to show off their money?(LMFAO isn't normal though).

You seem like a sensible left-leaning person so while we're talking about how much money Romney spends I feel I must ask why some people on the left, particularly the Keynesians, are annoyed about Romney spending so much of his money on nice stuff, while he's really just pumping his money into the economy?

You mean there are actual poor people in America? I don't see it.

not sure if troll

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   

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.  
 
  

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.

This thread is really quite mad.

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.

Americans on the subject of class - collective insanity.

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.

"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.  

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.

Absolutist, black-and-white, false dichotomy?

Yeah, you're a Republican.

No, it comes from being rich.

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.    

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

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."

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.

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

So Walker is a Feudal-Fascist? ? ?