My thanks to Colorado!

As a devoted Democrat, I would like to thank the Colorado Republican voters for their actions at the polls last night.

Just as serious talk was occuring about Rick-San getting out of the race, you gave him hope, ergo he will carry on.

This will undoubtably draw the nomination process out even longer and cost millions and millions more spent on ads knocking each other around until you finally decide on Willard. By this time, he will be so beat up, no big donor will touch him because they know they are betting on a losing horse.

You have 4 candidates.

1. Mitt Romney - Millionaire with Swiss bank accounts.

2. Newt Gingrich - "Rocket Man" wants to leave Earth for the Moon, while preaching Catholic family values with his third wife.

3. Rick Santorum - Wants every woman to follow the Duggars model concerning birth control.

4. Ron Paul - Where do we start?

Republicans seem to be using the POTUS race as cover for their Congress majority in the House.

hahahahahaha

No, we're coming after that too.

Thanks Colorado!

You liberals are nothing but snobs

A "devoted Democrat".

How about a devoted AMERICAN?

That post spoke volumes about Obama supporters, and it wasn't anything to be proud of.

Carry on- we know you will. ;)

beereel wrote:

A "devoted Democrat".
How about a devoted AMERICAN?
That post spoke volumes about Obama supporters, and it wasn't anything to be proud of.
Carry on- we know you will. ;)

Their arrogance won't allow them to comprehend what American means

Holy Cow!

Do you know who wrote this speech?

"We Are Coming After You"

We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.
Speech of May 1, 1927.

Hitler.

Enough said.

GarageGuy wrote:

<quoted text>
Their arrogance won't allow them to comprehend what American means

If they were smarter they would be dangerous.

Aggie Nostic wrote:

Holy Cow!
Do you know who wrote this speech?
"We Are Coming After You"
We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.
Speech of May 1, 1927.
Hitler.
Enough said.

Sounds so familiar...On second thought, he got the citizens of Germany to slaughter millions, didn't he?

Maybe the fact that the liberals AREN'T smart is what is so dangerous.

GarageGuy wrote:

<quoted text>
Their arrogance won't allow them to comprehend what American means

You can't have the USA without US.

With the left, it's all about ME.

beereel wrote:

<quoted text>
If they were smarter they would be dangerous.

I can't imagine....they're too damn dangerous now

Aggie Nostic wrote:

<quoted text>
You can't have the USA without US.
With the left, it's all about ME.

Yup!

Sounds like Carter supporters did when he was running against Reagan.

They all said he was unelectable.

Twice. ;0

hahaha

Righties call everything that they hate like feeding the poor and tending to the sick, socialism.

Socialism isn't a bad word.

Only people with HAMM radio equiped basements packed with Spam and ever-ready batteries fear socialism.

All your candidates are preaching that ole "fear the left" sermon. It ain't working anymore.

Your Congress members have burned all their bridges with women, Hispanics, LGBTs, Unions, Muslims, Seniors, college students, teachers, firemen, policemen, soldiers,... who is going to vote for mitt other than those who look like Mitt?

Conservatives give far more to charity than liberals.

And there are plenty of Democrats who look just like Mitt.

Social policies are not Socialism.

Your prejudices are showing.

Are you saying that all those groups of people think, or should think, the same way because of what they want FROM gov't?

I think better of them than that. We aren't Greece- yet.

Cathouse Mouse wrote:

hahaha
Righties call everything that they hate like feeding the poor and tending to the sick, socialism.
Socialism isn't a bad word.
Only people with HAMM radio equiped basements packed with Spam and ever-ready batteries fear socialism.
All your candidates are preaching that ole "fear the left" sermon. It ain't working anymore.
Your Congress members have burned all their bridges with women, Hispanics, LGBTs, Unions, Muslims, Seniors, college students, teachers, firemen, policemen, soldiers,... who is going to vote for mitt other than those who look like Mitt?

Why do ya even bother postin' here when your arrogance won't even allow an arguement? You won't listen to any reasoning outside of yourself....you're a very sick lady....get some help

Barak Obama has done a little better than some of his peers for charitable giving.$10,772 of the $1.2 million they earned from 2000 through 2004 to charities, or less than 1 percent, according to tax returns for those years.

The Obamas increased the amount they gave to charity when their income rose in 2005 and 2006 after the Illinois senator published his book. The $137,622 they gave over those two years is about 5%. No new data.

Romney paid $6.2 million in taxes in 2007 and donated $7 million to charity, including $4.1 million to the Mormon church.

Mormons promise to give 10%. But Romney has give 15% consistantly, to the tune hundreds of millions of dollars throughout his life.

In fact, in those two years, 2006-2007, he paid 16% percent.

And what about Biden? The Bidens gave an average of $369 to charity a year for the decade before he moved to the Naval Observatory – about 0.3 percent of their income. Back in 1997, then veep Al Gore and his then wife Tipper gave $353.

Since becoming veep, Biden hasn’t become much more generous. In 2010, he gave $5,350, about 1.4 percent of income. That same year, Romney gave some $3 million. The national average is about three percent.

How about John Kerry?

$500.00 haircuts, botox injections and $3,000 silk and mohair suits. When Kerry was required to release his financial disclosure forms, the final tally was a whopping $260,000,000 net worth. Most from his heiress wife. In 2004 he gave nothing to charity. Kerry’s 1991–1995 charitable contributions were ($0,$820,$175,$2039,$0), less than one-half of one percent of his income for the period. Last year, however, after media attention, he gave $43,735.

However, it was painless giving. Kerry published a book about his positions on public policy issues. He is drawing from the proceeds to pay his taxes and giving the rest to charity.

In other words, he's polishing his image with proceeds from a book written to further his political career.

George W. Bush gave($28,236,$31,914,$31,292) in 1991–1993. His highest giving was 15.7 percent of income.

Conservatives give through charity. Liberals bribe through politics.

All I'm saying (and not arrogantly) is that at some point - maybe after he gets the official nomibation - Willard will have to stop bashing his opponents with million dollar ads and actually lay out some sort of plan for our country during the next four years.

All I've heard from him policy-wise is that he will provide more tax cutys for corporations and overturn the American Healthcare Act.

Not many people think giving corporstes more tax cuts is a plan, nor do I think there's much of an appetite for bringing back pre-existing conditions clauses in their insurance policies.

The problem with Willard is, even when you get past all the jokes and take him serious in thought, he just don't pan out.

Regular Guy wrote:

Barak Obama has done a little better than some of his peers for charitable giving.$10,772 of the $1.2 million they earned from 2000 through 2004 to charities, or less than 1 percent, according to tax returns for those years.
The Obamas increased the amount they gave to charity when their income rose in 2005 and 2006 after the Illinois senator published his book. The $137,622 they gave over those two years is about 5%. No new data.
Romney paid $6.2 million in taxes in 2007 and donated $7 million to charity, including $4.1 million to the Mormon church.
Mormons promise to give 10%. But Romney has give 15% consistantly, to the tune hundreds of millions of dollars throughout his life.
In fact, in those two years, 2006-2007, he paid 16% percent.
And what about Biden? The Bidens gave an average of $369 to charity a year for the decade before he moved to the Naval Observatory – about 0.3 percent of their income. Back in 1997, then veep Al Gore and his then wife Tipper gave $353.
Since becoming veep, Biden hasn’t become much more generous. In 2010, he gave $5,350, about 1.4 percent of income. That same year, Romney gave some $3 million. The national average is about three percent.
How about John Kerry?
$500.00 haircuts, botox injections and $3,000 silk and mohair suits. When Kerry was required to release his financial disclosure forms, the final tally was a whopping $260,000,000 net worth. Most from his heiress wife. In 2004 he gave nothing to charity. Kerry’s 1991–1995 charitable contributions were ($0,$820,$175,$2039,$0), less than one-half of one percent of his income for the period. Last year, however, after media attention, he gave $43,735.
However, it was painless giving. Kerry published a book about his positions on public policy issues. He is drawing from the proceeds to pay his taxes and giving the rest to charity.
In other words, he's polishing his image with proceeds from a book written to further his political career.
George W. Bush gave($28,236,$31,914,$31,292) in 1991–1993. His highest giving was 15.7 percent of income.
Conservatives give through charity. Liberals bribe through politics.

Obama also donated the entire $1.4M of his Nobel Prize to charity.

Cathouse Mouse wrote:

<quoted text>
Obama also donated the entire $1.4M of his Nobel Prize to charity.

Good for him. He didn't earn it. I gave him credit where credit is due, but can you imagine the outcry if he hadn't donated the money? Much like the money he is returning from the Mexican druglord this week, or the $700K form Jon Corzine, ex gov. of NJ, his financial advisor for the stimulus, who just robbed MF Global clients of $3BILLION. He "lost" it.

Politics, nothing more and nothing less.

Cathouse Mouse wrote:

All I'm saying (and not arrogantly) is that at some point - maybe after he gets the official nomibation - Willard will have to stop bashing his opponents with million dollar ads and actually lay out some sort of plan for our country during the next four years.
All I've heard from him policy-wise is that he will provide more tax cutys for corporations and overturn the American Healthcare Act.
Not many people think giving corporstes more tax cuts is a plan, nor do I think there's much of an appetite for bringing back pre-existing conditions clauses in their insurance policies.
The problem with Willard is, even when you get past all the jokes and take him serious in thought, he just don't pan out.

Have you read much of Mitt's history and policy proposals? Very moderate, smart, he is man who knows the art of the deal. That is sorely lacking these days. Of course, people are listeneing to class envy B.S. instead.

And as for spending money, well, please. Obama is on track to raise $1BILLION for his campaign, and is now going to take SuperPac monies that were made available through Citizens United, even though he was already getting the union dollars and publicly chastized our Supreme Court for it. How do you think Dingy Harry Reid got re-elected? His Patriot America SuperPac created by his ex-campaign manager.

You are coming for the House? Why? So that they can dig our kids' and grandkids' futures deeper in debt?

BTW, the pre-existing clause counter in ObamaCare is a MESS. You have to get 3 denials and then appeal. What insurance company will be in a hurry to provide denials? I have tried to help some folks with that in my business. There are no cost controls, either.

Yes, scoff now, pay later. Or I guess make someone else pay your share. Are you entitled or just naive?

Regular Guy wrote:

<quoted text>
Have you read much of Mitt's history and policy proposals? Very moderate, smart, he is man who knows the art of the deal. That is sorely lacking these days. Of course, people are listeneing to class envy B.S. instead.
And as for spending money, well, please. Obama is on track to raise $1BILLION for his campaign, and is now going to take SuperPac monies that were made available through Citizens United, even though he was already getting the union dollars and publicly chastized our Supreme Court for it. How do you think Dingy Harry Reid got re-elected? His Patriot America SuperPac created by his ex-campaign manager.
You are coming for the House? Why? So that they can dig our kids' and grandkids' futures deeper in debt?
BTW, the pre-existing clause counter in ObamaCare is a MESS. You have to get 3 denials and then appeal. What insurance company will be in a hurry to provide denials? I have tried to help some folks with that in my business. There are no cost controls, either.
Yes, scoff now, pay later. Or I guess make someone else pay your share. Are you entitled or just naive?

I'm entitled to equality. I'm entitled to get sick without my protective insurance company sucking everything my family owns into their off-shore bank accounts.

I'm entitled to having my say without some sour-puss Rightie calling me names.