Romney's wealth...very interesting!

If a child of privilege gives all his wealth to charity as you claim, then he is left with no wealth.

That means he is poor . . . Which Romney clearly never was.

Can't you keep your story straight?

The Salt Lake Olympics was never a "sinking ship." Mormon Bishop Romney sought out and was GIVEN the job of overseeing the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics as a means of building up his political resume. What makes you think it was a sinking ship?

Sure, Romney did OK in the business world. The political and social infrastructure that would later facilitate his business success was already being set up for Mitt while he was still in diapers.

And you claim Romney is some sort of self-made man??!!

What a joke . . .

There is nothing real about the man. He has very little in common with the vast majority of Americans.

Mitt was secure, is secure, and will continue to be secure in his own entitled status from the day his nanny changed his first dirty diaper until the day he dies.

Not only has he always been rich, but he has always been LDS. He's a Latter Day Saint . . .

A Saint by God . . . and therefore far superior to the mass of us mere mortals who toil and struggle and work so that he can have the tax cuts to which he is ENTITLED.

There is nothing real about Mitt Romney.


It's no wonder Romney fits in so well with the unreal expectations and beliefs and delusions of the Latter Day Conservatives who make up the Latter Day Republican Party.


As for your defense of Reaganism, that's an even bigger joke. The Laffer curve especially is a laugh.


The economy rebounded under Reagan's administration, but not because of Reagan's policies. The economy rebounded because the price of world oil fell to fraction of what it had been during the Carter administration. And cheap energy energizes the economy like nothing else. Reagan had NOTHING to do with the fall in the price of world oil during his administration.

http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm

The Laffer curve is another way of expressing the law of diminishing returns. Although lower taxes can promote economic growth, the positive effect diminishes at some point. Obviously the Reaganistic vestiges of the GW Bush administration point that out. GW's tax cuts, which made taxes much lower for high earners than they were during the booming Clinton administration, don't seem to be working, do they? That's because those tax cuts were excessive. They succeeded only in diminishing national revenue and in vastly increasing the national debt. Basically, the Bush tax cuts did much more harm than good.

Reaganism is a bane upon this nation and the world.

Reaganism essentially states that we can have our cake and eat it too. It's a popular notion in Right Wing La La Land, but even a small child knows better than that.


By the way, the Cato Institute is just another fake Right Wing "think tank" that comes up with phony "evidence" for the supposed prowess and superiority of right wing thought.


They can call themselves Liberatarians, but they're just a sub-species of Right Wing Nut Job.

No child of privilege wants for anything. Remember, you and I work to keep ourselves fed, clothes on our backs, and a roof over our head, and if we are smart to invest and grow it. Children of privilege never worry about any of those things, as it is all taken care of for them.

If you or I were given an inheritance, my guess is we would invest it, to grow it, and protect it, so we would have it. Someone who donates his inheritance clearly does not have any of these concerns.

Romney has never been anything but rich. There is no story to keep straight. But he did donate his inheritance, and he did make a lot of money by working. Now, there are plenty of children of privilege who would not have done that, who would have kept their inheritance and lived off of it. John John Kennedy pretty much did that. He did the schooling he was "suppose to do", and pursued his interests, and so on and so forth. Romney on the other hand worked, and made a lot of money. Romney is a success.

Romney is a self made man. Did he have connections? You bet he did, tons of them by way of his family, by way of his church, and probably another ten ways. Children of privilege have that going for them. So what.

Romney has also shown, in real life, leadership skills in established institutions. That includes the business world, charity, politics, and his church. Those kind of skills do matter, and it does matter how and where you gained them. First in the Pinewood Derby does not count, and neither does organizing a protest.

He did save the Salt Lake Olympics. You clearly are not familiar with the scandal surrounding those Olympics. It would have been a black eye for the United States, the State of Utah, Salt Lake City, and Mormons in general. The Olympic Committee can very close to pulling Salt Lake as the host city, and there was a lot riding on fixing what had been broken. Romney was not given the job, he did not get it because he was a Romney, he was brought in to save Salt Lake City as the host city, and he did. It was a pretty amazing feat for anyone to pull off, considering the amount of damage done.

Romney's being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is what it is, he is a "Mormon". He also held high positions within that church. There is nothing about his "Mormonism" that concerns me, no more so than Jack Kennedy's "Roman Catholicism" should have concerned anyone in 1960. The problem we have right now is a naked Marxist is the chief executive of our country, and the country is suffering because of it. Any supposed concern with Romney is just to distract at what a disaster Obama is as a president as far as I am concerned.

Mitt Romney is real. He is WYSIWYG, just like Obama. There will be no surprises under a Romney Administration, as he will take a bunch of pages from Reagan's book. Should he get all RINO or neocon, and takes a page from Bush 41's, or Bush 43's book his approval rating will drop like a stone.

No conservative is delusional about Romney, we do not expect a great deal beyond Supreme Court nominations, fixing the economy, and not getting involved in any military adventures. Expectations are actually quite low. What we on the right want is an end to the Obama Administration, and we would vote a ham sandwich into office to do that, and Romney ain't no ham sandwich.

My defense of Reagan's economic policies is spot on. I can even lay out what the criticisms are of those economic policies, as I have studied both sides of the policies.

Oil was part of the reason the economy rebounded for sure, no doubt. But it is also important to point out that had Carter been elected to a second term that the falling of the world oil prices would not have altered the Carter Administration one bit, and the bump would not been anywhere as dramatic. Remember, according to the Carter Administration oil was suppose to run out sometime during President Clinton's second term. Hmmm? And most of the wells in the United States sit capped, and it is estimated that there is 100 years worth of oil right here in the United States.

I highlighted what the theories were, and once implemented what happened. The economic recovery had some tough times in the early 1980s, but by Reagan's second term the recovery was in full swing because of the policies, and those had little to do with the price of oil.

The Laffer curve clearly demonstrates that the tax and spend mindset of the left is not viable, and that lowering income taxes stimulates the economy. What you seem to miss about the whole thing is this, the so called "rich", those making over 200K or 250K, whatever the number is today, many of those people are small business owners, and most small businesses provide jobs for a vast amount of people in the country. If you wanted to go after the top one percent, I would say go for it, as the top one percent will just move their money out of reach of Uncle Sam, and you will slide right down that Laffer curve so quick you will think you are on a roller coaster. But slamming the people who make 200K and up is just stupid economic policy for America.

Reagan got it mostly right, and the RINOs and the Democrats still can not stand it. But in the 24 years since, neither has made much headway economically as they can say look what we did, we did better than Reagan. Has not happened, so it is all bunk. You can crow all day long about Clinton, but there is not much to see there except fiscal conservatives kept him from doing what he really would have like to do.

The Cato Institute is exactly was it says it is, a libertarian think tank. They want less regulation, they want the free market to be less restrained, typical libertarian stuff. Nothing shocking there at all. The debate for them would be Milton Friedman vs. Ludwig von Mises, as the tax and spend, entitlement mindset is a complete clusterf**k to them. Where we sit right now, it appears they are 100% correct.

Right Wing Socialism and Marxist Socialism are at polar opposites.

"Conservative or right-wing socialism[1][2] is defined as type of socialism in which institutional aggression is employed to maintain the social status quo and the privileges certain people or groups of people enjoy"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...



Marxism seeks to unite the workers of the world. Nazissm sought to unite the Aryan German People to prevail over everybody else.

The Communists were wiped out by Hitler in Germany not long after he took power. Ever heard of the Reichstag fire? Hitler blamed it on the Communists and pretty much all of them in Germany were executed or sent to concentrations camps.


I studied political science in college over 20 years ago, and Fascism was deservedly located on the extreme Right on the political spectrum.

Since Reagan however, Right Wing Nut Jobs have sought to rewrite history and redraw the political spectrum. So I don't doubt that fake academics in fake Right Wing "Think Tanks" have created all kinds of fake knowledge for their simple-minded counterparts, Right Wing True Believers who can completely block out any reality that contradicts their idiotic ideology.

Hitlers Right Wing followers were the same way.

Hitler took an anti-capitalist position early on in order to attract unemployed and frustrated Germans away from the Communist Party. But as you may notice (but block out) only his early rhetoric was anti-capitalist.

But he never walked the talk. As I already explained, Hitler became the number one supporter of the big oligopolistic Capitalists.

"Initially Nazi political strategy focused on anti-big business, anti-bourgeois, and anti-capitalist rhetoric, though such aspects were later downplayed to gain the support of industrial owners for the Nazis, and in the 1930s focus was shifted to antisemitic and anti-Marxist themes."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

The insane fervor of the Nazis, and their simple-minded obsession and dedication to Hitler's Master Race Myth is eerily similar to America's Right Wing , Latter Day Conservatives, and their dedication to the Myth of Reagan.

It's creepy.

America is on a continent, and is actually separated from Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, and Antarctica. Geography 101.

Conservatives and Libertarians hold true to the Constitution by upholding the principles of it, and by reading it for what it was written to mean. That is how. Libertarians cite the Constitution constantly, and if you have ever read a book by, or watch an interview with Ron Paul you would know that. True Conservatives also hold true to the text and meaning of the Constitution as written. It is people on the left who are very selective with the document, and it is people on the left who would like to edit it.

Classical Liberalism is about human rights granted by the Creator, and that supersedes any government. That is timeless, and its time has not gone anywhere. In fact it is even more important today than it ever was, in the face of power hungry governments. Left-wing ideologies have been collapsing under their own weight since Marx published his first book. Bismarck tried out various schemes, and rejected them as they did not work, but that did not stop German academia from exporting those ideas all over the globe. Nazi Germany was defeated, Fascist Italy was defeated, the U.S.S.R. collapsed, Cuba will collapse, and anywhere else that tries this stuff will fold under the weight of the ideology. Even here in the United States with our vestiges of the New Deal, and the Great Society we are having to deal with the unsustainable expenditures of such left-wing programs, and they will collapse under their own weight. After all, eventually you run out of other people's money to spend.

I am a PaleoConservative, and that is based upon Classical Liberalism. It is pretty simple and straight forward.

You want to know how the statement, "Hate and intolerance is at its apex within ideologies, not so much so outside of ideologies," is that relevant to the discussion. Simple. The Nazi's were a Nationalist, Socialist, and Fascist Worker's Political Party. Who were their greatest enemies? Communists, Socialists, and other practitioners of various flavors of Marxism. This is similar to how the left in this country celebrates Anti-Americanism, Anti-Capitalism, less government, lower taxes, and personal responsibility. How the left wants special rights for certain people (the left's master race I suppose), wants special compensation for some companies, while it "punishes" others (very much like Nazi Germany business practices). If there is a Totalitarian or Fascist element in the United States it is with the left, and with their left-wing propaganda.

The right is not without sin, but the left has done more damage to the United States than anyone.

Uh huh . . . . America is on a continent. I think I got it.
And Europe, Asia, Africa, and Australia are on continents too. I think I follow you so far.

But then what? Do you have a point? We’ve got a bunch of continents, the inhabitants of which can communicate instantly through various digital means, even on Soda Head. So what’s your point? I thought I had it . . . but it just floated by. Maybe, it wasn’t really there. Maybe your little introduction was completely pointless.

And no, many modern Conservatives and Libertarians absolutely do NOT hold true to the Constitution. They try to subvert it at every opportunity. After all, the Constitution, the Law of the Land, tells us how this nation should be GOVERNED by a Central GOVERNMENT. And Libertarians and Conservatives who despise government naturally despise the document that created that government.

PRETENSE is the defining quality of Conservatives and Libertarians. Thy pretend to be Constitutionalists but are instead blatantly Anti-Constitutionalist. SELF-DECEPTION defines Conservatives and Libertarians. They actually believe their own lies.

It is absolutely false that " . . . Conservatives also hold true to the text and meaning of the Constitution as written . . “

Conservatives constantly refer to the “original intent” of the founding fathers, as if they know; and they completely disregard the text in favor of their perceptions of that suppose “Original Intent.” . . . More self-deception . . . More Pretense.

The founding fathers varied in their opinions with each other and even with themselves over time, but by and large, the founding fathers absolutely were NOT Classical Liberals.

And with all your talk about "COLLAPSE" (Oh Dear!!), it is YOU who sound like a wild eyed ideologue.

Hitler incessantly talked about the imminent "Collapse" of his enemies . . . even in the hours preceding his suicide.

You sound like a nut. Of course you do. That's because you ARE a Nut.

lol

You have your pretense, and self-deception, and denial, and projection, and repression, and suppression to cushion you from the terrible blows of reality. But that in not way makes you righteous, or good, or noble.

It just makes you a NUT.

Where do you think the term "Right Wing Nut Job" comes from anyway?