September 21, 2012

Romney gave 30% of his 2011 income to charity — and declined to take the full charitable deduction they were entitled to.

Paul Caron reviews the Romneys' newly released tax return.
The Romneys’ generous charitable donations in 2011 would have significantly reduced their tax obligation for the year. The Romneys thus limited their deduction of charitable contributions to conform to the Governor's statement in August, based upon the January estimate of income, that he paid at least 13% in income taxes in each of the last 10 years.
So Romney voluntarily forked over more money to the federal government than he needed to because he didn't want the percentage to look too bad.

ADDED: Sorry for the typo in the headline. It's 30%, not 40%. He's not that generous.

353 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 353 of 353
Jason (the commenter) said...

Me: And without a global policeman the global economy our standard of living is based upon will evaporate.

Revenant: The nice thing about the above claim is that it reminds me that Democrats don't have a *complete* lock on mass hysteria.

We literally have pirates right now, taking a cut out of world trade where the US doesn't enforce law and order.

The Crack Emcee said...

exiledonmainst,

I think Crack should stop wasting his time here, where his brilliant insights are unappreciated, and write the Mormon version of "The Da Vinci Code." He's as full of shit as Dan Brown, but at least Dan Brown made some serious coin off of his conspiracy fantasies.

I really LOVE that - despite the range of opinions on Althouse - I always draw that delusional guy who decides it's his job to show me the door.

And this, despite the fact I'm THE ONLY PERSON who backs up what he says with links to source material:

Right - you guys just blabbing are waaaay more credible than anyone providing links.

Why?

Because you 100% absolutely REFUSE to deal with the information in the links.

You'll just talk, talk, talk, make assumptions, spout opinions, ANYTHING but back up what you say.

If you ask me - considering the internet was designed to provide links for the exchange of information - all of YOU should be excusing yourselves for being morons,...

The Crack Emcee said...

chickelit,

Imagine if all of us came here and spent all our time denigrating one candidate, whoring only our own blog, sucking up to one female, and pissing everybody else off?

Well, you WOULD be more interesting,...

The Crack Emcee said...

Geoff Matthews,

Domino's Pizza? The prior owner was a Catholic.
Monsanto Corporation(consulting job)?
Burlington Industries?

Were the Bain companies a hotbed for mormons?


Romney didn't start any of those - he invested through Bain Capital, his Mormon company.

chickelit said...

Well, you WOULD be more interesting,...

I disgree. You're predictable...and that's boring.

Baron Zemo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Revenant said...

Dude, calm down, he's a Gary Johnson supporter.

Johnson would be a better President than Romney. That's why I'm voting for him, too. Just because Crack's a nut doesn't mean Johnson is a nutty choice.

Are there pragmatic reasons for wanting Romney to beat Obama? Sure. But the reality is that your vote won't determine the outcome of the election. The winner of the Presidential race will be exactly the same whether you vote for Obama, Romney, Johnson, Jesus, or Frank Zappa's corpse.

So why not vote for the guy you actually want?

Dave said...

"Amartel said....the left was interested in Romney's tax returns in the first place was to exploit class warfare and bray endlessly about how Romney pays a lower rate than people since his income is from investments."

Class Warfare? Are you serious? You go there AFTER we listen to Mitt stupidly confusing the 47% who don't pay income taxes (like those Navy Seals who killed Bin Laden and other military in combat and aging members of the "greatest generation" living out their days on Social Security and Medicare) with the approximately 47% base of Obama's support. Mitt falsely and stupidly conflated the two to create a non-existent group of dependent, non-tax paying bums who comprise the totality of Obama's voting bloc. THAT's class warfare from the man enjoying the biggest entitlement there is - a special tax rate for super wealthy investors.

The Crack Emcee said...

Baron Zemo,

He just hates Mormons because they have several simultaneous happy marriages and he couldn't even manage one at a time.

In Europe, I once had a beer with an African, and his first question was, "I have five wives, how many do you have?"

My shudder at the thought was enough to ensure we didn't talk long.

But thanks for introducing yet another wonderful reason to allow the Mormon cult to political ascendence:

Polygamy politics, here we come!

exiledonmainst said...

Oh, I'm not "showing you the door," Crack. Just trying to be helpful. I mean, you're spending an awful lot of time here and on your own blog warning us about the evils of Mormonism, and you're not making a dime off of it. If you wrote a blockbuster novel, at least you wouldn't have to ask the Althouse hillbillies for financial aid - in between calling them deluded idiots for not heeding your warnings.

And I'm the "delusional" one. Heh.

chickelit said...

So why not vote for the guy you actually want?

I am. I am against negative voting. But I live in California, so my vote doesn't "count" anyways. My congressional and loacl votes do though.

Tim said...

It doesn't matter how much Romney paid in taxes; it doesn't matter how much, or how little, Romney deducted from his income taxes for charity.

The incumbent has been consistently polling under 50% for 18 months now, and no incumbent president has won under those conditions.

And then we have this: Romney Edges Obama In Univision Viewers


Romney does not need a majority of Hispanics to vote for him to win.

If a majority, even a very slim one, of Hispanics support him, Obama loses in a landslide.

Revenant said...

We literally have pirates right now, taking a cut out of world trade where the US doesn't enforce law and order.

Correction: where nobody enforces law and order.

What makes your assumption hysterical is your assertion that, e.g., if the United States wasn't playing Global Supercop the British, French, Chinese, et al, would just sit around with stupid looks on their faces will a bunch of pirates destroyed their national economies.

The reason other nations don't share the work is that we're stupid enough to provide military protection to them for free. We could quite simply refuse to protect other nations' shipping and they would either (a) step up and pay to protect it or (b) see shipping companies pull up stakes and move to America.

The Crack Emcee said...

Jason (the commenter),

The Crack Emcee,

If you're going to support Gary Johnson you really can't be making cracks about cults and magic underwear.

Also, if you could please tag your comments with #GaryJohnsonsupporter, or something similar, I think it would make your statements much more tolerable, as people wouldn't feel the need to refute them.


First, I never said I supported Johnson - you've just made another assumption - I answered the charge this either-or mindset many of you hold is bogus.

Second, what IS it with you guys and assumptions? No wonder this country is going to the shits:

You guys are nothing but an ugly confluence of conventional thinking and really bad guesses.

exiledonmainst said...

"Mitt falsely and stupidly conflated the two"

No, he didn't. You falsely and stupidly did, Dave.

Jason (the commenter) said...

Revenant: So why not vote for the guy you actually want?

Adults don't do whatever they feel like, they do what's best for the country.

Tim said...

"Mitt falsely and stupidly conflated the two to create a non-existent group of dependent, non-tax paying bums who comprise the totality of Obama's voting bloc. THAT's class warfare from the man enjoying the biggest entitlement there is - a special tax rate for super wealthy investors."

No he didn't.

You don't understand what he said.

Chances are, for partisan reasons, you never will.

Tim said...

Only idiots confuse "tax breaks" with "entitlements."

Learn the basic distinction.

Please.

Rabel said...

Harry Reid's statement:

Shrill, hysterical and classless

Geoff Matthews said...

Crack:

Romney didn't start any of those - he invested through Bain Capital, his Mormon company.


It is true that he didn't start those companies, but they involved professional endeavors of his that didn't involve the mormon church. And that was the question you asked.
As far as Bain Capital being a mormon company, I can't find any reference to Bill Bain being a mormon (using Wikipedia, if you know otherwise, please inform me). Eric Kriss, another founding member, has no mention of being a mormon on his wikipedia page, nor any information to suggest this (such as his birthplace or schooling). T Coleman Andrews III does not have a wikipedia page, so I'm coming up empty.
Of the early employees listed, only one, Fraser Bullock, is noted as being a mormon (and from Alberta too!).
Based on this, I'm having a hard time accepting your claim that Bain Capital is a mormon company.

Revenant said...

a special tax rate for super wealthy investors

How strange that sixty percent of Americans paid a lower tax rate than this mythical "special tax rate for super wealthy investors". :)

The Crack Emcee said...

heyboom,

Forget the assuming, Crack. How about your PRE-suming? As in you presuming that you know me, my family or my faith.

Wait - you don't remember writing this:

And Crack, you just go on denigrating the faith that I live but you've only read about.

What? Are you living as Buddhists? Jesus, dude, try to make sense.

You can have your own opinions of what Mormons are about, but you really don't know. I'm a convert to the LDS church, but my wife and three daughters are Catholic, baptized and schooled.

And your proof that I "really don't know" is what? chickelit already told you where I live, so where's your evidence? Do you just make assumptions for shits and giggles, or are you really this stupid?

And why isn't your whole immediate family LDS if they're so great? What does your wife see that you don't? Face it, heyboom:

You can't win trying to defend the indefensible.

That would make us a pretty weird kind of cult, now wouldn't it?

They're all weird, so you're actually nothing special,...

exiledonmainst said...

"And why isn't your whole immediate family LDS if they're so great?"

Because marriages that are religiously "mixed" are just unheard of in America.

Dave said...

"Tim said...No he didn't"

Mitt said....47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what... who are dependent upon government... These are people who pay no income tax."

Mitt was WRONG there IS one group of that size that supports Obama - some don't pay taxes some pay LOTS of income tax. Then there's another group of a similar size that is "dependent" on government who receive some specific benefit. That group includes Republicans, Democrats, Tea Party, Socialist, Old, Young, Male, Female, etc. etc.

Two DIFFERENT groups that he conflated. HE's an idiot.

The Crack Emcee said...

exiledonmainst,

Oh, I'm not "showing you the door," Crack. Just trying to be helpful. I mean, you're spending an awful lot of time here and on your own blog warning us about the evils of Mormonism, and you're not making a dime off of it.

Because you know what I make off my blog, how, exactly?

I think Ann should change the title of her blog to ASSUMPTION CITY!

For accuracy,...how many of you does that make now?

Just a sea of evidence-less morons,...

Dave said...

Crack - Maybe heyboom has his "eternal" family living next door.

LilyBart said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Crack Emcee said...

chickelit,

You're predictable...and that's boring.

Yeah, that's why everybody's talking to YOU,...

LilyBart said...

So Romney voluntarily forked over more money to the federal government than he needed to because he didn't want the percentage to look too bad.

Obama and his wife only started giving any significant amount of money to charity when he became a national political figure (check his historical tax returns).

Which is worse?

LilyBart said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
exiledonmainst said...

Crack, if you've asked people here for financial aid, well, then assuming you are not rolling in clover is entirely reasonable. Or do you just ask strangers for money for the hell of it?

exiledonmainst said...

"Yeah, that's why everybody's talking to YOU,..."

Or maybe it's because chickelit hasn't painted a big bright bullseye on his own ass.

Rusty said...

I told ya that if Romney handed out his tax returns the lefties here wouldn't be able to understand em'.

yashu said...

But the reality is that your vote won't determine the outcome of the election. [...] So why not vote for the guy you actually want?

Wow, fluking brilliant. And what a great message: hey citizens, your vote doesn't count! Now if we could just get enough people who would prefer Romney to Obama (or Obama to Romney) to think like you do...

Seriously, ugh. If Obama (god forbid) were to win, in my book those who would prefer Romney to Obama yet vote for Gary Johnson (or worse, encourage others to vote likewise) will be as much to blame as Obama voters. Like the 2008 "52%". More, and worse, because Obama voters are either clueless or committed leftists, whereas you ought to know better. I thought you knew better.

(2008 Obama voters voting for Gary Johnson are another story. That's progress, at least some acquired wisdom on their part. Anyone who voted for McCain in 2008, has experienced 4 years of Obama, and won't vote for Romney? I just can't with you.)

Who cares about being stuck with Obamacare forever and someone who uses the Constitution for toilet paper in the White House and a shameful irresponsible foreign policy and off the cliff debt etc. etc. etc., when you got the pleasure of voting for "the guy you actually want"! Why not write a letter to Santa instead? And drop that off at the polling station. I mean that's what you're doing, right?

(OK, if you like in say California or other dark blue state, I guess you're off the hook. But not for encouraging others to do likewise.)

Irresponsible, childish, idiotic.

Oshbgosh said...

All this carping about Romney tax returns by the left ignores that the Democrats own our over bloated complex tax code. They were in control of Congress from 2006 through 2010 and did nothing to simplify it and make it more equitable. I wonder why? Could it be that they benefited from it somehow? Believe it, they did.

The Crack Emcee said...

exiledonmainst,

Crack, if you've asked people here for financial aid, well, then assuming you are not rolling in clover is entirely reasonable. Or do you just ask strangers for money for the hell of it?

If I did - if my blog is monetized, as most good ones are, and as this one is - how would you decide to spin that? Could there EVER be space in that twisted mind of yours for a reality you hadn't considered? Because you're too stupid to consider anything other than what you "think" - seeing how you spit out assumptions like sunflower seeds?

Please don't speak to me about what's "entirely reasonable," Mr. Joseph Smith follower, until you're capable of showing you're able to comprehend the concept,...

chickelit said...

Jason (the commenter) said...
Dude, calm down, he's a Gary Johnson supporter. You might as well be arguing with a chair.

I wasn't overly excited. I knew the Putsch for a third party would happen sooner or later. It's just too predictable who it is and who is onboard. :(

exiledonmainst said...

Oh and any answer to Geoff Matthews' rebuttal to your stupid charge that Bain is a "Mormon company?" Or are you just going to continue to denigrate heyboom's family (which sounds like a model of tolerance to me)?

The Crack Emcee said...

exiledonmainst,

Or maybe it's because chickelit hasn't painted a big bright bullseye on his own ass.

And you're ready to put your lips on it every time, ain't cha?

Man, I love when Mormons reveal what their faith is REALLY about,...

chickelit said...

(OK, if you like in say California or other dark blue state, I guess you're off the hook. But not for encouraging others to do likewise.)

Well, I am in that deep blue state and I still don't get so discouraged that I stay home. That's surrender. I've actually mustered more than one promised new neighborhood votes.

The Crack Emcee said...

exiledonmainst,

Oh and any answer to Geoff Matthews' rebuttal to your stupid charge that Bain is a "Mormon company?" Or are you just going to continue to denigrate heyboom's family (which sounds like a model of tolerance to me)?

Anything at hand, eh, exiledonmainst? You can make no headway so - HEY! WHAT ABOUT GEOFF MATTHEWS?

You fucking Mormon putz.

chickelit said...

Yeah, that's why everybody's talking to YOU,...

Narciso, is that you?

Fen said...

And shameless, considering that not so long ago you were begging people here for money to help you out (which they gave). So you really shouldn't be talking about Charity. At all.

Crack: Because, of course, I take donations to the blog while having billions in assets, right? That makes it "shameless," correct?

Not talking about donations to your blog. I'm talking about when you came in here and begged to borrow cash from people because you were in a bad spot.

So its really rich for you to disparage Romney's acts of charity.

alan markus said...

“Guess what, the cheerleaders in college are the best athletes in college,” Biden said. “You think, I’m joking, they’re almost all gymnasts, the stuff they do on hard wood, it blows my mind.”

VP Joe Biden, 9/21/12, speaking to students at Newport High School, Newport, NH

oola said...

Fenny, that was very mean of you.

chickelit said...

@exiled: Or maybe it's because chickelit hasn't painted a big bright bullseye on his own ass.

I never saw it as a bullseye. It looks more like ripple. It's actually a glass window pane, picked up in Nottingham, and painted blue. It's translucent. I can see trees in my backyard through it.

chickelit said...

oola said...
Fenny, that was very mean of you.

I love the way your "sistah" dissed you at the other thread.

oola said...

Yeah, what a bitch!

a psychiatrist who learned from veterans said...

""I don't pay more than are legally due and frankly if I had paid more than are legally due, I don't think I'd be qualified to become president," Romney told ABC News in July. "I'd think people would want me to follow the law and pay only what the tax code requires." AndyR

You have kind of a point. It does look like we have a rich guy and an Archie Bunker all rolled into one as a Republican presidential candidate.

oola said...

Last time I stick up for her! She's a bull dike.

The Crack Emcee said...

Fen,

Not talking about donations to your blog. I'm talking about when you came in here and begged to borrow cash from people because you were in a bad spot.

I've never "begged to borrow cash from people" here in my life. I ask for donations and - considering my experience with cults - I'd say "a bad spot" is minimizing what I've dealt with to the point of exaggeration.

Or do you have three dead bodies on your resume'?

So its really rich for you to disparage Romney's acts of charity.

Yeah, "charity" to Brigham Young University.

Give me a break,...

The Crack Emcee said...

oola,

Fenny, that was very mean of you.

Some of these people - hiding behind anonymity - have no couth what-so-ever. They love being as callous to me as possible - knowing there's no end to the misery I've endured - by rubbing salt in the wound.

And then they complain because I swear.

Some are the biggest bunch of inhumane losers I could ever conceive of.

But it's cool:

They've toughened the old guy up to the point where, now, THEY beg for a reprieve instead of me:

Payback's a motherfucker,...

exiledonmainst said...

I am neither a mister or a "Joseph Smith follower." (You babble about assumptions - what about your dopey assumption that anybody who defends the Mormons must be Mormon themself?) I've known 5 Mormons in my life - 2 of them had left the religion and neither of them lived in any fear whatsoever of Mormons coming after them. The other 3 were very nice,good-hearted people who never tried to convert me or told me I was going to hell for drinking wine.

I once worked for a woman who left Scientology and she was genuinely afraid of her former Scientologist collegues. I have a friend whose husband got involved in New Age junk and ended up leaving her and their 2 children for a New Age woman he met online - my friend apparently had "negative energy" or some such shit. And I had a roommate in DC who went to a shrink who helped her "recover memories" of child abuse - and she ended up becoming a paranoid nutbag who thought -paradoxically - that she was being tracked by a cult and saw cult members everywhere - in Starbucks exchanging secret signals, wearing ties with secret symbols,speaking in code, etc. Of course, eventually she decided that everyone she knew, including me, was in the cult that existed only in her brain.

So, you see, you're not the only one who has had some experience with the dark side of New Age and the suffering it can cause. I've lurked here for a long time and I was actually once in agreement with you about the dire influence of New Age pseudo-psychology on our society and way of thinking. But your rants about Mormonism cross the line. You now remind me of the loony roommate who saw cults, cults everywhere.

Penny said...

I love your energy, Crack.

And you are one extraordinarily hardworking, son of a bitch who has an easy time lassoing Althousians.

ha ha






yashu said...

Well, I am in that deep blue state and I still don't get so discouraged that I stay home. That's surrender. I've actually mustered more than one promised new neighborhood votes.

Glad to hear it! Me neither. One of these days enough CA voters just might come to their senses. And those "enough voters" is a number made up of individual voters, like you and me and your neighbors and that guy over there, voting for Gary Johnson.

No one predicted Reagan's victory. But those individual voters (whose individual votes aren't supposed to count), actively ignored by MSM headlines and memes, made it happen. Polls don't vote, individuals on election day do.

I should say that I (personally) don't give anyone a pass this election, even in a deep blue state. Not that anyone should care what I personally feel.

Penny said...

I don't rodeo much, but I do know which cowpoke can bring down the house.

Penny said...

EVEN the Alt house.

The Crack Emcee said...

Geoff Matthews,

It is true that he didn't start those companies, but they involved professional endeavors of his that didn't involve the mormon church. And that was the question you asked.
As far as Bain Capital being a mormon company, I can't find any reference to Bill Bain being a mormon (using Wikipedia, if you know otherwise, please inform me). Eric Kriss, another founding member, has no mention of being a mormon on his wikipedia page, nor any information to suggest this (such as his birthplace or schooling). T Coleman Andrews III does not have a wikipedia page, so I'm coming up empty.
Of the early employees listed, only one, Fraser Bullock, is noted as being a mormon (and from Alberta too!).
Based on this, I'm having a hard time accepting your claim that Bain Capital is a mormon company.


As you can imagine, a well-researched break-down of Bain's Mormon connections - while in the heat of battle (which ALWAYS consists of me vs. a mob) - is near impossible. I've got so many documents on so many aspects of this subject, sometimes, I have to deal with it in a comprehensive fashion on my blog.

Look for it there,...

Penny said...

If only Crack's mama had been a Republican....

exiledonmainst said...

"You can make no headway so - HEY! WHAT ABOUT GEOFF MATTHEWS?"

No answer to Geoff? No proof that Bain is a "Mormon company." You can only scream "Mormon putz."

I thought so.

And, as I said, I'm not a Mormon.

When you ASSUME, Crackie, you make an ASS...well, you know the rest.



oola said...

Hi Penny, it's me Allie, shhhh , don't tell Crack, he'll be mad.

But I do like him after all.

The Crack Emcee said...

exiledonmainst,

You babble about assumptions - what about your dopey assumption that anybody who defends the Mormons must be Mormon themself?

I made a mistake in that post - sorry. My bad, and I knew it as soon as I hit "publish."

I hope you and these other idiots will take a lesson:

There's no shame in admitting when you're wrong.

Again:

My mistake.

oola said...

Penny, my Mama was a Republican, didn't help me any.

Methadras said...

Jason (the commenter) said...

chickelit: Imagine if all of us came here and spent all our time denigrating one candidate, whoring only our own blog, sucking up to one female, and pissing everybody else off?

Dude, calm down, he's a Gary Johnson supporter. You might as well be arguing with a chair.


Yes, Gary Johnson is the equivalent of eastwooding.

exiledonmainst said...

"I've got so many documents on so many aspects of this subject, sometimes, I have to deal with it in a comprehensive fashion on my blog."

I picture Crack surrounded by notebooks with teeny-tiny writing in them, drawing connections between Mormonism and - hot dog vendors! The inventor of Silly Putty! The red shirt guy who always dies in Star Trek episodes!
Outbreaks of foot fungus!

It's all related, people! Why can't you see it?

Methadras said...

Revenant said...

Dude, calm down, he's a Gary Johnson supporter.

Johnson would be a better President than Romney. That's why I'm voting for him, too. Just because Crack's a nut doesn't mean Johnson is a nutty choice.

Are there pragmatic reasons for wanting Romney to beat Obama? Sure. But the reality is that your vote won't determine the outcome of the election. The winner of the Presidential race will be exactly the same whether you vote for Obama, Romney, Johnson, Jesus, or Frank Zappa's corpse.

So why not vote for the guy you actually want?


Well, you live in San Diego, Ca. Seeing as California is a lock for Urkel, that might be an easy position for you to take.

The Crack Emcee said...

exiledonmainst,

Your rants about Mormonism cross the line. You now remind me of the loony roommate who saw cults, cults everywhere.

I'll say it again:

Prove me wrong - don't just say I am - PROVE IT.

Here's what the Mormon "church" is doing right now.

Defend it. Tell me how good it is. Tell me I'm wrong to want it exposed.

Then, if you want, move on to Mormonism itself.

I dare you. I double-dare you. PROVE IT'S NOT A CULT to the best of your abilities.

I've shown I can concede a point:

Can you?

Methadras said...

Rabel said...

Harry Reid's statement:

Shrill, hysterical and classless


So in essence, Harry Reid.

The Crack Emcee said...

Penny,

I love your energy, Crack.

Thanks, babe!

And you are one extraordinarily hardworking, son of a bitch who has an easy time lassoing Althousians.

ha ha


Naw, I just show up:

They're the vampires,...

The Crack Emcee said...

oola,

Penny, my Mama was a Republican, didn't help me any.

That's because you're stupid.

Why you've never considered that is a mystery,...

oola said...

Oh fuck you Crack, Fenny, go ahead and remind him about the time he begged for money.

exiledonmainst said...

"I made a mistake in that post - sorry. My bad, and I knew it as soon as I hit "publish."'

That's big of you, Crack, really. I give you points for that. And I also give you points for the George Washington Carver crack you made - that was good.

You still think I'm an idiot, well I really don't care.I think you're an idiot about the Mormons, and I know you don't care either. I appreciate you're being honest according to your lights. But sorry, I ain't buying it.

If Romney wins and we are subjected to the Great Mormon Takeover, I'll be big enough to admit I was wrong. In the meantime, there is another religion whose adherents worry me much, much more.

The Crack Emcee said...

exiledonmainst,

I picture Crack surrounded by notebooks with teeny-tiny writing in them, drawing connections between Mormonism and - hot dog vendors! The inventor of Silly Putty! The red shirt guy who always dies in Star Trek episodes!
Outbreaks of foot fungus!

It's all related, people! Why can't you see it?


And, instead, it's just a bunch of bookmarks in a browser marked "Mormons," or "NewAge," or whatever.

Sigh. I'm clearly not crazy enough to meet your expectations.

But, man - after all that - YOU'RE CERTAINLY MEETING MINE!

exiledonmainst said...

"PROVE IT'S NOT A CULT"

Prove you're not a child molester, Crack.

Logic 101: You can't prove a negative.

The Crack Emcee said...

oola,

Oh fuck you Crack, Fenny, go ahead and remind him about the time he begged for money.

ROTFLMAO!!!!

Penny said...

May be "stupid", Crack. But no mystery why you were a foster child.

Penny said...

They named you Steven!

yashu said...

Sorry to go off on you Rev, you know I'm a big fan of yours. But anyone with as clear-sighted a view of Obama as you, who's nevertheless voting for Gary Johnson because (to paraphrase) "your vote doesn't matter anyway"-- it's crazy making.

You don't have to like or love the person you're voting for. If anything, the fact that you don't love the politician-- mere politician-- that you're voting for, that he/she isn't everything you want, is a sign that you're voting rationally, with your eyes open, and not in political wish-fulfillment land (whether that's in messianic or letter-to-Santa mode).

Penny said...

Oh man, did I blow that yolk?

Steven or Stephen?

Penny said...

Broke down and Googled.

If you did too, you know the answer.

Penny said...

Not that there's anything RIGHT about the answer.

Very possible there was a spelling impaired Foster.

The Crack Emcee said...

exiledonmainst,

Logic 101: You can't prove a negative.

Listen:

If I can prove Homeopathy is a cult, and I can prove Reiki is a cult, then I can prove Mormonism is.

Your job - which you've already undertaken - is proving it ISN'T.

That's NOT trying to prove a negative.

Don't go getting all shy on me now,...

AReasonableMan said...

Newsmax;-
Former Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain says that if he was the party’s nominee, he would probably have a “substantial lead” on President Barack Obama by now.

“The reason is quite simple: I have some depth to my ideas,”

When you've lost Herman Cain ...

The Crack Emcee said...

Ooops - time for a dinner break, kids. Here:

Listen to some appropriate dinner break music, on me.

I'll be back,...

The Crack Emcee said...

AReasonableMan,

“The reason is quite simple: I have some depth to my ideas,”

You know, now that I think about it, that really does help in a presidential campaign,...

edutcher said...

There's always been some bad blood there.

Big whoop.

The Unreasonable Troll is going to keep up that theme until he actually says something funny.

How much longer until the next millennium?

Revenant said...

Wow, fluking brilliant. And what a great message: hey citizens, your vote doesn't count!

It "counts" in that it increments the popular vote total by 1.

Since (a) the popular vote does not determine the winner or the Presidential race and (b) the odds of the electoral college vote being decided by your popular vote are lower than the odds of your being struck dead by lightning while waiting in line to vote -- yes, it is safe to say that your vote doesn't count towards determining who will be President.

Now if we could just get enough people who would prefer Romney to Obama (or Obama to Romney) to think like you do...

If I knew how to get "enough people" to think like I do, Gary Johnson would win the election. :)

See, this is what makes it so funny when people say "you don't understand, Obama MUST be defeated, you can't risk costing Romney the election". If they were honest about having that as their major fear, they'd be willing to jump ship and elect Johnson instead. He is, after all, not Obama. Libertarian-leaning voters were nice enough to support Republicans over Democrats in the last couple of dozen elections; how about returning the favor?

But what they really mean when they say "Obama must be defeated" is "we must be in power".

Penny said...

With low ph, no doubt.

exiledonmainst said...

I'm not getting shy, Crack, just getting bored. Mormonism is not a topic that interests me overmuch. I'm like most Americans in that respect.

I base my opinion of Mormonism on the few I've known - decent people who, as I said, did not try to convert me and did not live in fear of the "cult" coming after them, any more than I lived in fear of the Catholic Church coming after me for not going to Mass. The ex-Scientologist I knew actually did live in fear.

When I lived in the South, I was not discriminated against or baited because I was a lapsed Catholic, but there was a definite aura of Southern Baptist/evangelicalism in the air. I was certainly conscious of being in the religious minority down there. I imagine the same is true for non-Mormons in Utah as well. Are you sure that your consciousness of being a non-Mormon in Mormonland and your hatred of the religion doesn't blind you to the genuinely good and kind actions of Mormon neighbors?

AReasonableMan said...

edutcher said...
There's always been some bad blood there.


I am not trying to be funny. I do find it funny how quickly Republicans are peeling off from full throated support for Romney. There seems to be bad blood between Romney and an awful lot of Republicans.

I still find it very hard to believe that Romney isn't going to win this thing but it is increasingly clear that this is becoming a minority view amongst Republicans.

Tim said...

"Two DIFFERENT groups that he conflated. HE's an idiot."

Compared to you, he's a rocket scientist with all the Nobel prizes in science awarded since his conception.

Jason (the commenter) said...

Methadras: Yes, Gary Johnson is the equivalent of eastwooding.

Except Eastwood didn't want the chair to be President.

Calypso Facto said...

Joe Biden is the Honey Boo Boo of Vice Presidents.

Ok, that's funny.

And then alan marcus posts proof:

“Guess what, the cheerleaders in college are the best athletes in college,” Biden said. “You think, I’m joking, they’re almost all gymnasts, the stuff they do on hard wood, it blows my mind.”

VP Joe Biden, 9/21/12, speaking to students at Newport High School, Newport, NH

yashu said...

See, this is what makes it so funny when people say "you don't understand, Obama MUST be defeated, you can't risk costing Romney the election". If they were honest about having that as their major fear, they'd be willing to jump ship and elect Johnson instead. He is, after all, not Obama. Libertarian-leaning voters were nice enough to support Republicans over Democrats in the last couple of dozen elections; how about returning the favor?

But what they really mean when they say "Obama must be defeated" is "we must be in power".


What's funny (not really) is how uncharacteristically illogical your argument is.

Hello, if Gary Johnson and the Libertarian party were at this moment in time an actual, real, viable, in-the-real-world-not-fantasy-land chance-in-hell POTUS possibility as opposed to a 3rd party spoiler, well... then we'd be living in an alternate universe. I don't vote according to fantasy alternate universes.

First you say that individual votes (yours or mine or any individual's votes) don't matter, don't determine whether Romney or Obama wins. Yet you talk about the effectiveness of "they" (a mass of Republican individuals? are you talking to me as an individual?) spontaneously, out of the blue, deciding to "jump ship and elect Johnson instead." Huh?

I'm an atheist (occasional) pot smoker small-l-libertarian who's mildly pro-choice and has nothing against the idea of gay marriage. I have no party affiliation (I'm registered as an "independent"). I have no strong sense of loyalty or belonging to the Republican party (though in recent years, I guess you could say I've de facto come to identify myself as Republican rather than Democrat). And yes, I think Obama MUST be defeated.

Am I part of the "they" who says "we" must be in power? I don't think I fit that description. And yet, as the saying goes, on Nov. 6 I will crawl over broken glass if need be to vote for Romney.

AReasonableMan said...

Virginia Republican George Allen became the latest Senate candidate to distance himself from Mitt Romney's claim that the 47% of Americans who don't pay federal income taxes think of themselves as victims dependent on the government.

Sen. Dean Heller of Nevada distanced himself Wednesday from fellow Republican Mitt Romney's comments that 47 percent of Americans are dependent on the government.

When you've lost Allan and Heller ...

Revenant said...

If anything, the fact that you don't love the politician-- mere politician-- that you're voting for, that he/she isn't everything you want, is a sign that you're voting rationally, with your eyes open, and not in political javascript:void(0)wish-fulfillment land

Yashu, Romney isn't *anything* I want. He's just less of what I don't want.

He's not willing to cut military spending, Social Security, or Medicare, which means the country will continue to be fucked. He, like Obama, Bush, and Clinton, is an adherent of the "it takes a village" school of thought that holds that abso-fuckin'-lutely every problem in America is the government's business. A vote for him is, objectively speaking, a vote for less freedom. The only argument that can honestly be made is that a vote for Obama is a vote for even less freedom.

If it was a case of choosing the lesser evil then sure, choose Romney. But you aren't choosing. It is a simple objective fact that no matter who you are or where you live, the Presidential election will not turn on your popular vote. In that scenario, "choosing the lesser evil" is indistinguishable from "supporting evil for no reason".

Would I sell out my principles if I knew it would keep Obama out of the White House? Yeah, maybe. But I'm not going to sell out my principles when doing so won't make a gnat's ass worth of a difference. Shit, if a person can't stand by his principles when they don't count for anything, when CAN he stand by them?

Penny said...

OK, so low ph, we're just going to stick with that "V" for now.

VAGINA! ha ha

Not really. Just said that to get your attention because Naomi Wolf is starving.

Starving for money? Starving for attention?

Do you care?

yashu said...

Difference #2,965 between Romney and Obama, and between current Republicans and Democrats: you don't and won't see "hostage tapes" from Republican politicians who merely express some disagreement with something or other Romney says.

Revenant said...

First you say that individual votes (yours or mine or any individual's votes) don't matter, don't determine whether Romney or Obama wins. Yet you talk about the effectiveness of "they" (a mass of Republican individuals? are you talking to me as an individual?) spontaneously, out of the blue, deciding to "jump ship and elect Johnson instead." Huh?

I'm working within your hypothetical. You're saying "we need Romney supporters + Johnson supporters to beat Obama". I'm saying "fine, vote for Johnson, then" simply to point out that the request for solidarity is disingenuous. Most Romney supporters prefer Obama to Johnson, because ultimately Democrats and Republicans are just dickering over what sort of gigantic ever-growing federal government we should have have.

Lawyer Mom said...

This isn't hard. If you want less investment, tax it more. And that's what we want -- right? -- less private sector investment?

Why encourage people to save after-tax income and invest it in businesses that produce more jobs? What a ridiculous notion. We ought to screw them with high taxes on their ROI. That'll teach 'em to invest.

But let's be clear and say what we mean: eliminate the bastard savers now. It's the only way to save -- I mean, kill -- our economy. And kill it we must, if we're ever to have "social justice."

Who wants prosperity when we can enjoy parity? And give ZIRP Wizard Bernanke a hand. He's clearly game.

http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/09/21/mitt-romneys-low-tax-rate-a-function-of-how-us-treats-capital-gains-and-dividends/

Seeing Red said...

One year Hubby & I had ore charitable donations than Al Gore I think as VP!

Cheap bastard.

AReasonableMan said...

Revenant said...
Most Romney supporters prefer Obama to Johnson, because ultimately Democrats and Republicans are just dickering over what sort of gigantic ever-growing federal government we should have have.


I am not sure that the converse is true however. A large fraction of Democrats have libertarian leanings on social issues. The primary exception being the social safety net, but since it is clearly impractical to dismantle that to any great extent they would feel safe enough voting for a libertarian.

Penny said...

So?

What do we really care about here at Althouse?

Penny said...

Hell if I know?

edutcher said...

AReasonableMan said...

There's always been some bad blood there.

I am not trying to be funny. I do find it funny how quickly Republicans are peeling off from full throated support for Romney. There seems to be bad blood between Romney and an awful lot of Republicans.


Hardly. Most have supported him in what he said.

That a couple of RINOs got cold feet isn't the whole party by a damned sight.

I still find it very hard to believe that Romney isn't going to win this thing but it is increasingly clear that this is becoming a minority view amongst Republicans.

Sure.

The Unreasonable Troll is an expert on the "feelings" of the Republican Party.

The Demos must be truly desperate if all they've got is FUD.

Penny said...

All I can say is that I feel really good when that train whistle is blowin' and my mind wanders to places it's never been before.

Penny said...

Ste"V"en Foster?

This one's for you, honey.

AReasonableMan said...

edutcher said...
The Demos must be truly desperate if all they've got is FUD.


Guess who attended a class in marketing.

yashu said...

Would I sell out my principles if I knew it would keep Obama out of the White House? Yeah, maybe. But I'm not going to sell out my principles when doing so won't make a gnat's ass worth of a difference. Shit, if a person can't stand by his principles when they don't count for anything, when CAN he stand by them?

Um, what else is going to keep Obama out of the White House other than people voting against him? How else do citizens directly make a difference in the outcome of elections and determine their country's future in a republic? Forget voting for one of the 2 viable candidates; I'm too smart for that; that's for "other people" foolish enough to think their vote counts. What?

By the way, the popular vote still has significance when it comes to tight elections and the potential for legally contesting them, cf. 2000. Also significant for the purposes of a political "mandate" (which Obama claimed for himself in 2008). Here you are complaining that Romney is too timid to push for the fiscal reforms you think necessary; well, without a decisive majority and mandate he's less likely to have the political capital to do even a fraction of a fraction of what needs to be done.

You're giving me a headache; I'm too tired right now to untangle the (IMHO) fallacy and self-deception here. "Selling out my principles"-- I don't think that means what you think it means.

What exactly are politicial "principles," and what are they good for, if they have absolutely no relation or linkage to, no purchase of cause-effect on, the real world of actual politics? Again, I don't want to insult you, because you're often one of my favorite commenters here, but "standing by your principles" (by doing what: the courageous private act of voting for Gary Johnson, which makes no difference at all other than-- in your case-- providing one less vote for Romney against Obama)... just sounds like masturbatory self-indulgence. Why not stay home and shout "Gary Johnson" in bed instead?

I guess I can understand abstaining if you think the two candidates are more or less equally bad. But if you think one evil is considerably, even devastatingly greater than the other-- you think "standing by your principles" is shirking that choice and voting a Santa Claus letter instead?

That's not "standing by your principles," acting according to your conscience, as I understand it (which involves acting in the real world, against the friction of the real world). Voting smugly and sanctimoniously for Gary Johnson in the voting booth is a completely frictionless exercise as meaningful as voting for Zombie Barry Goldwater in your closet.

Look, whatever, Rev. I'm not interested in arguing you out of it. But I do think you're ethically wrong (believing as you do that Romney is the "lesser evil" to Obama), not in voting for Gary Johnson, but rather in going on to recommend your choice to others, as the smart, rational, principled thing to do. Because after all-- your vote, my vote, any of our votes, all those votes don't matter, don't make any difference at all!

AReasonableMan said...

Lawyer Mom said...
http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/09/21/mitt-romneys-low-tax-rate-a-function-of-how-us-treats-capital-gains-and-dividends/


Did you read this article? It was not very supportive of Romney or Ryan's tax proposals.

yashu said...

PS Gotta call it a night; so good night, Rev (and others).

Still want to shake you by the shoulders and say, snap out of it man! Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good... or of the enemy of the not terribly, horribly, devastatingly bad, because terribly, horribly, devastatingly bad is what a second Obama term would be. But oh well. You do excellent work here slicing and dicing Obama and showing him for what he is, and that's worth more than any vote.

Ken Justin said...

Discount Miu Miu Sneakers sale online with the latest fashion trends, 30-day money back guarantee and fast free shipping at our Miu Miu Pumps Sparrow outlet store.

paul a'barge said...

because he didn't want the percentage to look too bad

Althouse,
How do you know this? You 're in his head?

Have you any idea how smug and arrogant you are? Do you ever read what you write or listen to yourself? Are you even as remotely self-aware as a grapefruit?

yashu said...

PPS One last thing, so tired of people complaining about voting for the "lesser evil."

Since when is *any* politician not evil, to some extent a necessary evil? As a libertarian, you should know that better than anyone: after all, government is evil, to some extent a a necessary evil, all politicians are evil, to some extent necessary evils, therefore *every* election is a matter of voting for the lesser evil.

Seems to me conservatives and libertarians-- ideologically, philosophically, and temperamentally, though in different ways-- should see every election as a matter of choosing between the lesser evil-- that's just the facts of life. To expect otherwise seems hopelessly naive and delusional. To expect otherwise is to wait for a politician who might be "the One"-- and we all made fun of that, remember?

Having said all that, I'm voting *for* Romney/Ryan (not just against Obama). The issues Romney/ Ryan have been running on are the issues important to me (i.e. issues important to me that the White House has an effect on). I'm totally rooting for them. Fluke tha MSM.

Synova said...

"The primary exception being the social safety net, but since it is clearly impractical to dismantle that to any great extent they would feel safe enough voting for a libertarian."

Since the social safety net is so impractical to dismantle how did the Democratic Party managed to have an entire convention and a couple years now of a scare campaign that Republicans would do so easily what a Libertarian couldn't manage?

In other words... bull shit.

The idea that Ryan might be a bit libertarian sent Democrats into a froth, and Romney is going to strip the "social safety net" and make women have intervaginal ultrasounds after the jack booted thugs chase them away from the pharmacies so they can't get birth control.

Do you even *notice* these howlers when you type them?

Truth is, you're right about the social safety net. Truth is, Democrats don't care about truth.

Eric said...

Did you read this article? It was not very supportive of Romney or Ryan's tax proposals.

Oh, and article from firedoglake isn't supportive of Republicans. Well, shoot, you could knock me over with a feather!

Revenant said...

I am not sure that the converse is true however. A large fraction of Democrats have libertarian leanings on social issues.

No, not really. Democrats generally just replace "you can't do that" with "you'll be fined or imprisoned if you don't help other people pay to do that". If a significant fraction of Democrats had libertarian leanings on social issues, Sandra Fluke would have been laughed off the stage at the DNC convention instead of receiving a standing ovation. :)

Cedarford said...

Sometimes people that are staunchly liberal or conservative and completely anal on their "personal purity" do not fully grasp how thet are seen as complete jerks by regular republicans, dems, libertarians - when they say:

1. Don't blame me I voted Ralph Nader because Gore wasn't pure enough for me to live with....I couldn;t lower my high standards or sell out like lesser Democrats do.

2. Hey, I thought HIllary would have been a better President, but Obama was newer and had higher ideological purity and he compromised my personal principles less. But I always though he'd be a worse President than Hillary. If you were more like me...you all could have helped find a liberal that passed all the purity tests AND was competent!

3. I am above tawdry elections. I didn't vote rather than compromise my beliefs. No one can find any fault in my decision if I don't really make one!!

Revenant said...


Um, what else is going to keep Obama out of the White House other than people voting against him?


I am voting against him. I'm voting for Gary Johnson.

How else do citizens directly make a difference in the outcome of elections and determine their country's future in a republic?

Why do you assume citizens "directly make a difference" in national elections by any means?

Forget voting for one of the 2 viable candidates

What makes Romney "viable" and Johnson "not viable"? Either man would win with sufficient electoral college votes. If you define "viable" as "able to secure those votes", then Romney is by definition not a viable candidate if he needs my vote to win and can't get me to give it to him.

By the way, the popular vote still has significance when it comes to tight elections and the potential for legally contesting them, cf. 2000.

The 2000 election was decided by several hundred votes, not by one vote. The value of your vote is equal to its chance in affecting the outcome of an election; in a winner-take-all system, the only vote that matters is the one that pushes the first-place candidate past the second-place candidate. After that it doesn't matter if he wins by 2 or 2 billion.

What exactly are politicial "principles," and what are they good for, if they have absolutely no relation or linkage to, no purchase of cause-effect on, the real world of actual politics?

If you think people adopt principles based on personal utility I'm not sure I can explain myself to you.

Look, the "real world of actual politics" is that the Republican Party's preferred policies will destroy America. Democratic policies will destroy America a little faster.

So thanks just the same, but I'm voting for someone whose policies would actually turn this country around. If the rest of the country would rather drown in its own shit, then, well, bummer. It won't be the first time in history a nation insisted on committing suicide.

Revenant said...

Since when is *any* politician not evil, to some extent a necessary evil?

The "evil" refers to results, not to moral worth.

bagoh20 said...

"What do we really care about here at Althouse?"

Convincing complete strangers who we will likely never meet that we are smarter than them.

I'll make it easy and state the obvious: I'm the smartest.

Wait! That will ruin it for everyone. Nope, it's not me. It could be you. Good luck.

Lawyer Mom said...

@reasonable man: Yep. Sure did. It's not often I cotton to old Fireboglake, but in this instance, the data was pretty damn persuasive, notwithstanding the author's unwittingly(?) self-refuting conclusions.

Methadras said...

Jason (the commenter) said...

Methadras: Yes, Gary Johnson is the equivalent of eastwooding.

Except Eastwood didn't want the chair to be President.


The empty chair would have been a better president than the empty suit we have now.

yashu said...

Rev,

If no Republican running could've garnered your vote, and you've never voted Republican in the past, fair enough.

But if you've ever voted Republican or considered voting Republican, and *this* is the election you're choosing to sit out (or, vote Gary Johnson)... I just don't get it.

In my lifetime, Romney is the Republican POTUS candidate whose campaign and platform strikes me as most appealing to libertarians like me (NB I was too young to really have my own memories of my Reagan; but I remember when the Religious Right really was headlining the GOP convention, not just in the DNC's imagination/ spin). And Obama is the Democrat POTUS/ candidate whose candidacy and presidency has been and promises to be most pernicious to libertarians like me.

I'll just quote from Instapundit's recent posts on Wayne Allyn Root:

Wayne Allyn Root, 2008 Libertarian Party’s Vice Presidential nominee and political commentator, resigned this morning from the Libertarian National Committee (LNC) to, according to his resignation letter, “elect good people and change the direction of this country outside of a third party.”

In the letter to the LNC, which is available at Independent Political Report, Root explains that his decision much is not unlike those of previous Libertarian Party presidential candidates, including Ron Paul and David Koch; both of whom left the LP to become prominent Republicans.

When I asked if he was now backing Mitt Romney, Root responded, “I am,” adding, “I don’t deny that Romney and Ryan aren’t libertarians, but Romney is a pro-business capitalist and Obama is a Marxist-socialist.”

“The economy has been trashed. This is about my kids’ future, it’s about my businesses,” said Root. “There is no hope for America if Obama is re-elected.”


And from his interview at the Reason blog, worth reading:

I believe in economic and personal freedom. I want government out of my life- out of both the boardroom and the bedroom. I believe in the limited government promised by the U.S. Constitution. I want government to get out of the way of small business owners like me- put fewer rules & regulations in our way, and allow us to keep more of our own money.

Under the Obama administration we have seen businessmen be denigrated, demonized, punished, smothered by 60,000 new rules and regulations, and attacked by the IRS. However, far too often the GOP has given only lip service to smaller government, individual rights, and the Constitution. Once elected, they ignore those ideas and grow government just like Democrats. Look at the spending under George W. Bush. Look at the 25,000 new rules and regulations under Bush (far better than Obama, but still terrible). Look at the growth of government and the rising debt under Bush. Look at the increase in compensation, pensions, and number of government employees under all GOP Presidents. This was precisely why I left the GOP.

But I believe with the birth and growth of the Tea Party, this is now changing. I was born to be part of the Tea Party.

yashu said...

(Correction: too young to have my own political memories of Reagan. I'm not that young.)

Fen said...

Crack: I've never "begged to borrow cash from people" here in my life. I ask for donations

Whatever you want to call it - you asked people here to send you cash and get you job interviews. Several of them helped out.

I wonder how much of the cash you took came from Mormons? Does that keep you up at night? Better starting scraping the skin off your hands, psycho.

Michael said...

@Crack. " And this, despite the fact I'm THE ONLY PERSON who backs up what he says with links to source material:"

Links, please. Other than to bullshit.com, crackpot.org or cultomania.gov

Bruce Hayden said...

Johnson would be a better President than Romney. That's why I'm voting for him, too. Just because Crack's a nut doesn't mean Johnson is a nutty choice.

I disagree with that Johnson would be better, based on Romney's experiences in cutting costs. He and his running mate have shown themselves to be numbers guys, extremely detail oriented when it comes to costs, and I think that important in getting the federal budget under control.

That said, Johnson is not viable. At this late date, there is no plausible way that he wins election this year - the only conceivable way is if all four major candidates die before the election. They have a lot of important things going for them that he doesn't, such as: the major party apparatuses; major party support, financially, organizationally, and with people; name recognition; support of major campaign strategists; etc. Electorate is split so that 60%-70%, or maybe even more, of the voters are pretty much going to vote for one of the two major party teams, which leaves Johnson with probably less than a third of the vote possible, and that isn't going to win the election with that.

But, he isn't going to get nearly that, or probably even 2% of the vote this time around. And, that is partially because most voters out there know that this election is a referendum on Obama. Those voting for Johnson are essentially sitting this election out. And, maybe, for them, it is better to say that they didn't vote for either, and effectively sat this election out. But the 98+% who voted for a major party candidate in this election, if their candidates lose, will view the Johnson voters as essentially voting for the other candidate. (My philosophy is that they will be effectively casting 1/2 ballot for Obama/Slo Jo, and one for Romney/Ryan). And, thus, if Obama is reelected, these voters will share some of the responsibility for another four years of Holder-style corruption, Hillary-style wishful thinking diplomacy, Chen-style energy dependence, Sybellus-style attacks on religion and health care, etc. Oh, and did I mention another $5 trillion or so in debt?

Roy Lofquist said...

Exclusive!! First candid photo of Andy R., Justin and Shiloh plotting strategy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Three_Stooges_Intro_Card_1936.jpg

yashu said...

I disagree with that Johnson would be better, based on Romney's experiences in cutting costs. He and his running mate have shown themselves to be numbers guys, extremely detail oriented when it comes to costs, and I think that important in getting the federal budget under control.

Exactly. Really, these two are ridiculously well-suited, like made to order, to be in the White House and meet our country's exigent fiscal circumstances right now. They're pretty much as close as the Republican Party gets (or has come in my lifetime) to exactly what the doctor ordered.

It frustrates me so much that so many Americans (partly blinded by the MSM, or pining for utopian fantasy candidates) don't see that.

yashu said...

(PS Again, with the exception of Reagan.)

Skipper said...

Now it's a scam to not take all tax deductions to which one may be entitled? How many deductions have Harry Reid, Obama, Clinton and the tribe not taken?

Seeing Red said...

It took Bill Gates to "encourage" Warren Buffett to donate to charity. This will cost the Treasury a few billion.

He didn't build it.

furious_a said...

Witches-and-Bitches: I'm THE ONLY PERSON who backs up what he says with links to source material...

...if by "source material" you mean "links to your own site", you might be right. Otherwise, t'aint so.

hombre said...

"It frustrates me so much that so many Americans (partly blinded by the MSM, or pining for utopian fantasy candidates) don't see that." (Yashu, 9:01 AM)

Obama, the "Great Uniter," has created a divide that will never again be breached in this country. People who see him for the incompetent hustler  he is will never descend into the Chicago slop bucket to reconcile with his supporters who, in turn, will never be able to climb out.

Pre-Obama, was it even imaginable that a candidate for President would be pilloried for paying too much in taxes while the media and his supporters ignore that the President just told bald-faced lies about Libya and Fast and Furious, two monumental screwups by his Administration that, unlike Romney's taxes, actually matter?

The Crack Emcee said...

Fen,

Crack: I've never "begged to borrow cash from people" here in my life. I ask for donations

Whatever you want to call it - you asked people here to send you cash and get you job interviews. Several of them helped out.

Job interviews? Now you've gone beyond getting the facts straight to just being nuts:

I live in Utah - that would seem to limit me to, maybe, two commenters who could help with that, neither of whom I usually agree with, and the rest are hardcore Mormons - good luck selling that line.

And, as always, I say PROVE IT - don't just make the assertion, but PROVE IT or shut up.

I said I take donations, and have even asked when the walls were closing in, which is COMPLETELY different from Mitt Romney giving money to Brigham Young University, or even closing his business to find a Mormon child - when kids disappear here in Utah almost weekly - and I hear him saying and doing NOTHING to curb the tide, but pumping up what a great qualification the belief system that leads to such behavior is.

You're a hypocrite and an asshole, Fen, and, if you're not, then you'll back-up what you say with PROOF.

Otherwise, you're just another bottom feeder, just like all the rest.

I wonder how much of the cash you took came from Mormons? Does that keep you up at night? Better starting scraping the skin off your hands, psycho.

The only thing that keeps me up at night is knowing I share the planet with revealed scumbags such as yourself.

The Crack Emcee said...

furious_a,

Witches-and-Bitches: I'm THE ONLY PERSON who backs up what he says with links to source material...


...if by "source material" you mean "links to your own site", you might be right. Otherwise, t'aint so.

So are you saying there are no links on my blog? Or are you saying you're two lazy to click twice? Or that you having to click twice disqualifies the factual nature of information? Or,...

Oh forget it - trying to counter liars, idiots, and assholes, a isn't worth my time today:

He linked to his blog when he keeps information - Oh Heaven's to Betsy!

Nothing is true after that!!!!!

The Crack Emcee said...

Bruce Hayden,

Johnson would be a better President than Romney. That's why I'm voting for him, too. Just because Crack's a nut doesn't mean Johnson is a nutty choice.

Bruce Hayden, I know you didn't say this but I took it off of your post:

That I was backing Johnson is another assumption made by Jason (the commenter) and NOT an assertion made by me. I have said repeatedly:

I am not voting for president this year, which is but one option a citizen has, instead of backing Obama or Romney, which was my point in mentioning Johnson.

I swear, speaking english to some of you is less effective than smoke signals,...

The Crack Emcee said...

Michael,

@Crack. " And this, despite the fact I'm THE ONLY PERSON who backs up what he says with links to source material:"

Links, please. Other than to bullshit.com, crackpot.org or cultomania.gov

This really is what you idiots think is a winning argument, isn't it?

That, if you have to go to my blog to see something, it doesn't qualify as real information.

God, you're STUPID.

I mean, beyond stupid - I'm talking a bunch of true drooling idiots. Dumb and Dumber. Sarah Palin's kid's playmate. Brain injury victims.

Vegetables - right out of the ground.

Every one of you that has said this is an embarrassment to thought itself.

Good Lord, I feel like I'm losing I.Q. points just talking to you,...

Revenant said...

In my lifetime, Romney is the Republican POTUS candidate whose campaign and platform strikes me as most appealing to libertarians like me

Romney's positions are indistinguishable from Bush's in 2000, save that Romney is promising to expand military adventurism instead of curtailing it.

I would also point out that what you're missing, from the Root interview, is his view that "Republicans selecting good candidates" is something that didn't happen this year. Look around Reason's site a little more -- there are plenty of articles detailing Romney's status as yet another big-government crony capitalist with an unquenchable thirst for military spending.

Revenant said...

That, if you have to go to my blog to see something, it doesn't qualify as real information.

Crack, it should be common sense that you can't support your own arguments with links to yourself.

It may be that you have links to the actual source material at your blog, but who cares? Link that material here.

tim in vermont said...

When I saw we were well over 300 comments, I knew somebody had been feeding cracky one note the attention whore.

Tarzan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tarzan said...

When a cult is around long enough and grows big enough, by my understanding it then becomes a religion. I think, like it or not, Mormonism has crossed that bridge.

No, I don't have 10 years experience as a full time counter-Mormonist investigative agent, but, damn it all I just went and expressed an opinion anyways!

The Crack Emcee said...

Revenant,

Crack, it should be common sense that you can't support your own arguments with links to yourself.

It may be that you have links to the actual source material at your blog, but who cares? Link that material here.


What? Make more effort that they're willing to make - and I've already made, by getting the stuff, presenting it, and saving it?

Look, these guys can either use their heads - and their hands - and look at the shit or not. But to charge it's fraudulent, just because it's on my blog, just says they're idiots - a fact I was already well aware of because they'd make such a silly argument.

And you want to know what REALLY blows my mind?

THERE'S MORE THAN ONE OF THEM WHO THINKS THAT'S A VALID ARGUMENT!

You link to your own blog so - without looking - I'm declaring it's bullshit.

Fucking fruitcakes,...

The Crack Emcee said...

tim in vermont,

When I saw we were well over 300 comments, I knew somebody had been feeding cracky one note the attention whore.

And, now that you're here, it's 301 and nobody's talking to you.

A fucking loser in vermont,...

The Crack Emcee said...

Tarzan,

When a cult is around long enough and grows big enough, by my understanding it then becomes a religion. I think, like it or not, Mormonism has crossed that bridge.

No, I don't have 10 years experience as a full time counter-Mormonist investigative agent, but, damn it all I just went and expressed an opinion anyways!


Yes you have, and an opinion it is!

But no - you can't make a documented fraudulent belief system from the 19th Century, that was started by a known convicted con man, into a "religion". It is, was, and always will be a cult, and cults are mental slavery and, ultimately, mental slavery is no different from physical slavery:

It doesn't matter how long it went on, how popular it was, how much money it made, or what excuses/defenses were used to maintain or perpetuate it, it could never become anything more than what it was:

An affront to our collective humanity.

Abolitionists fought alone for a long time, as well, but cultism, too, will fall. In the last two years, alone, there have been ten (10) serious cult-themed films - starting with "David Wants To Fly" and ending with "The Master" - something that, when I started my blog, I never imagined could happen, much less that they could be successful ("The Master" is already slated to win the Academy Award). But - clearly - this is now the zeitgeist, the tide is turning, and I am ahead of the wave.

Scientology will probably go first - it's losing members in droves - and then anything like it will, too. Mormonism is almost just like it - and it, too, is losing members. Basically, anything that can not stand, will not stand, no matter how many "temples" they build:

It's just a matter of time,...

Fen said...

Crack: I said I take donations, and have even asked when the walls were closing in

Stop trying to conflate a tip jar on your blog with begging people here for short term loans and job interviews.

Don't make me go back and dig up the threads. I'll post your simpering request on every thread you bring up cults.

Tarzan said...

But is Islam, or even Christianity for that matter, any less fraudulent than Mormonism? They have the foggy patina of age to lend them credence, but in the end they are one person's spiritual experience codified by fans of the founder into intellectual frameworks, or straight jackets if we're feeling cynical.

As frameworks, they can be very powerful and even helpful in addressing the painful questions about life for which there really are no hard, fast answers (what happens when we die, why do bad things happen and so on). In as much as Mormonism encourages healthy living and not putting one's self directly at war with those don't believe, I think it stands as good a chance as any of outgrowing it's status as a cult in relatively short order.

Jesus may have simply been a dorky kid who happened to be positioned in such a place and fashion and time that others around him who knew better were able to tweak his life and renown such that he appeared to gracefully fulfill the existing prophecy.

It doesn't really matter who or what he was, so much as it does who or what people think he was. As it is, people assume he was pretty great in a lot of critical ways, and his religious legacy gives sincere people an excellent framework in which people can let go of a lot of worries (most of which we can't do anything about anyways) and focus on reaching for higher qualities within themselves.

However ridiculous the origins of Mormonism may look now to some, given time, if its adherents continue to prosper and flourish (the multiple wives thing of course was an attempt to force this, just like prohibitions against contraceptives for Catholics), it won't matter.

I'm not sure, though, that any amount of time will dull the gleeming idiocity of the L Ron Hubbard set. I see them much more as a cult/secret society than a (wannabe) religion. They are much too closed and secretive to ever be trusted by the majority to any serious degree.

Mormonism, like it or no, blend a lot more skillfully with the existing society and religions than Scientology does. Most folks I know are at least interested to meet and or talk with a Mormon (as a fellow citizen) whereas most are quite on their guard should someone come along who is openly a Scientologist.

The Scientologist is going to babble on about how great their life is now, with scientology, wheras the Mormon is just going to talk baseball or whatever.

You may perhaps rightfully see that as a dark and skillful subterfuge on the part of the Morman (I personally do not), but to me, in any case, it bodes much better for the future of Mormonism as a religion than Scientology.

Just some thoughts.

Tarzan said...

I guess a fundamental idea at this point for me might be summed up like this:

In the long haul, Religions 'attract' adherent, whereas cults continuously have to 'ensnare' them.

Cults will ensnare you in the earthly realm (threats of fiscal and/or physical or emotional harm) wheras the Religions will tsk tsk and frown sadly about your not going to heaven or some such.

Islam, with it's instant flaming death for any who try to leave, counts as a cult to me. Age has really not improved anything for them. I blur my eyes and it still looks like a mess. I honestly don't know it that well, though, and can't help to reacting to all the bad press they seem to so fervently create for themselves.

Judaism is clearly a religion (I would almost say 'the' religion, even as Christianity is currently more popular) but is interesting in it's exclusivity and lack of blatant prosletysing. I digress.

Tarzan said...

I strongly credit the Mormons with at least coming up with their own mythos. I really despise the cults that don a veneer of Christianity to get the rubes past the first 'whiff' test and then dig the claws in and start raping their self esteem, bank accounts and what have you.

I digress more.

The Crack Emcee said...

Tarzan,

I answered you here,...

Thomas Smith said...

its really very nice post to read as i like the way you wrote it thnaks for posting ...
as am doing home business and earning more income to fulfill my needs and to secure my future i just joined to GDI Global Domains International and started earning without any investment for more info go to freedom.ws/webincome5 and use username webincome5 as access code to see the presentation.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 353 of 353   Newer› Newest»