(Source: lucilleandmitt)
(Source: timlebsack, via lalibertarienne)
Is the fact that there are some (if not many) on the “right” who are willfully ignorant of science really worse than the fact that there are some (if not many) on the “left” who are willfully ignorant of basic math and of their candidate’s lies and war crimes?
Don’t get me wrong (those who don’t already know this about me) - I think they’re all scumbags. Just playing devil’s advocate here.
It’s me.
You have no place denouncing Obama’s drone campaign if you are planning on voting for Romney next week.
Romney’s jobs plan revealed to be flim-flam | The Washington Post
[…] Post fact checker Glenn Kessler decided to take Romney’s plan at face value. And he’s made an important discovery. It turns out Romney’s plan is an even more absurd exercise in flim-flam than we thought: The studies the Romney camp itself cites in defense of the plan don’t back up the plan’s promises.
Romney’s 12 million jobs promise is based on the idea that achieving energy independence will create three million jobs; tax reform will create seven million more; and that expanding trade and cracking down on China takes us to 12 million. But, incredibly, when Kessler asked the Romney campaign to back up these claims, this is what he got back:
We asked the Romney campaign and the answer turns out to be: totally different studies … with completely different timelines.
For instance, the claim that 7 million jobs would be created from Romney tax plan is a ten-year number, derived from a study written by John W. Diamond, a professor at Rice University.
This study at least assesses the claimed effect of specific Romney policies. The rest of the numbers are even more squishy.
For instance, the 3-million-job claim for Romney’s energy policies appears largely based on a Citigroup Global Markets study that did not even evaluate Romney’s policies. Instead, the report predicted 2.7 million to 3.6 million jobs would be created over the next eight years, largely because of trends and policies already adopted — including tougher fuel efficiency standards that Romney has criticized and suggested he would reverse.
There you have it. Ten million of those jobs in Romney’s plan represent an entirely bogus promise. As for the remaining two million jobs that would be supposedly created by Romney’s trade policies, the report supplied by the Romney camp bills itself as “highly conditional” — and also doesn’t evaluate any of Romney’s policies. Kessler dubs Romney’s plan “bait and switch.”
Let’s recap what Kessler has discovered here. The plan that is central to Romney’s candidacy on the most important issue of this election — jobs — is a complete sham. This is every bit as bad — or worse — than Romney’s claim to have created 100,000 jobs at Bain, or his vow to cut spending by eliminating whole agencies without saying which ones, or his refusal to say how he’ll pay for his tax cuts.
(Source: sarahlee310, via thefreelioness)
"[Obama] is great at describing his vision, but his record doesn’t match his rhetoric."
Mitt Romney
I certainly am no fan of Romney, but he’s right on target here.
Leaked Debate Agreement Shows Both Obama and Romney are Sniveling Cowards
21st-century-classical-liberal:
Time’s Mark Halperin has made himself useful for once by obtaining, and publishing,a copy of the 21-page memorandum of understanding that the Obama and Romney campaigns negotiated with the Commission on Presidential Debates establishing the rules governing this month’s presidential and vice presidential face-offs. The upshot: Both campaigns are terrified at anything even remotely spontaneous happening.
They aren’t permitted to ask each other questions, propose pledges to each other, or walk outside a “predesignated area.” And for the town-hall-style debate tomorrow night, the audience members posing questions aren’t allowed to ask follow-ups (their mics will be cut off as soon as they get their questions out). Nor will moderator Candy Crowley.
Most bizarrely, given the way the debates have played out, the rules actually appear to forbid television coverage from showing reaction shots of the candidates: “To the best of the Commission’s abilities, there will be no TV cut-aways to any candidate who is not responding to a question while another candidate is answering a question or to a candidate who is not giving a closing statement while another candidate is doing so.” The “best of the Commission’s abilities” must be rather feeble, seeing as how almost every moment of the two debates so far was televised in split-screen, clearly showing shots of a “candidate who is not responding to a question while another candidate is answering a question.”
Which means some of the rules below that both campaigns stipulated to in a desperate attempt to wring any serendipity out of the events may be honored in the breach:
- “The candidates may not ask each other direct questions during any of the four debates.”
- “The candidates shall not address each other with proposed pledges.”
- “At no time during the October 3 First Presidential debate shall either candidate move from his designated area behing the respective podium.”
- For the October 16 town-hall-style debate, “the moderator will not ask follow-up questions or comment on either the questions asked by the audience or the answers of the candidates during the debate….”
- “The audience members shall not ask follow-up questions or otherwise participate in the extended discussion, and the audience member’s microphone shall be turned off after he or she completes asking the questions.”
- “[T]he Commission shall take appropriate steps to cut-off the microphone of any…audience member who attempts to pose any question or statement different than that previously posed to the moderator for review.”
- “No candidate may reference or cite any specific individual sitting in a debate audience (other than family members) at any time during a debate.”
- For the town-hall debate: “Each candidate may move about in a pre-designated area, as proposed by the Commission and approved by each campaign, and may not leave that area while the debate is underway.”
Here’s the full document:
The 2012 Debates - Memorandum of Understanding Between the Obama and Romney Campaigns
Obama sucks, Romney sucks, Biden sucks, Ryan sucks. Pass it along.
(Source: weathered-tune)
I have something to say that may shock some people.
Both Obama and Romney are dismantling/have dismantled/will dismantle human rights. They’re both awful. Let’s not choose either of them.
Deal?
When all else fails, blame the Paulbots
Clearly it is all our fault.
All because we won’t fall in line and support a warmongering corporatist like Mitt Romney. If Romney doesn’t win they have no one to blame but themselves. The Republican Party and Romney can go fuck themselves.
Can we just get one thing out of the way, here, before we continue?
Criticism of Obama does not imply support for Romney, or vice versa.
Paul Ryan loves free markets so much he supported a bailout of banks in 2008
(Source: rigatonideology)
Free Broccoli: Wow, I surprised myself
maxvoluntarist, I have already asked you to explain to me how Romney is the same as Obama, as you so persistently insist. You have yet to enlighten me.I’ll go ahead and answer this.
They are both:
- Pro-bailouts
- Pro-war
- Pro-Federal Reserve
- Pro-corporatism
- Pro-NDAA
- Pro-Patriot Act
Those are just a few specifics. They’re also both disingenuous; do you really think that any conservative stance that Romney claims now is real? Romneycare is also a big deal; the fact that he argues for state-run healthcare systems still means that he thinks it’s acceptable for a state to run such a system.
Understand that most libertarians are thinking in terms of fundamental principles rather over practical considerations (as you seem to be doing). If Politician A thinks that your income should be taxed at 50% and Politician B thinks it should be 55%, there is no fundamental difference between them. They both think that the government should tax your income; therefore they are both statists and are not worth supporting. When you say “vote for A because he wants to tax less”, you’re effectively consenting to the idea that your income should be taxed at all, especiallyif there’s another candidate who is correct. Mitt Romney doesn’t believe in freedom; therefore anyone who loves freedom has no business supporting him.
I just reblogged this quote from LALiberty, and it’s relevant here:
If you endorse or vote for “lesser evils,” don’t be surprised when evil claims your consent.
I restate that the reason we have a candidate as lousy as Mitt Romney is because Republican voters have shown that they will unthinkingly vote for and defend any presidential candidate with an (R) next to his name. Please don’t be one of those people.
Mitt Romney vows to ban pornography by installing a filter on every U.S. PC
Before he was the presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney was just a guy giving a speech, trying to woo conservative voters. In 2007 Romney exposed some of his more extreme positions while speaking during a town hall meeting in Ottumwa, Iowa at the Hotel Ottuma. One such position which Mitt rarely discloses now is his deep desire to make it mandatory for pornography filters to be added to all new computers entering The United States.via megalextoria.comI thought this was a joke until I saw the video.
