Romney donates over $4 million to chairty; 30% of income

• believer

  

  tcarrier32;1278899 wrote:if i had a dog as dumb as you, i'd teach it to walk backwards, shave its ass, and shoot it in the head.

  Great....personal attacks always add to intelligent discourse.
• justincredible

  

  believer;1278474 wrote:Oh that's right....I can always go for Gary Johnson and then thump my chest and exclaim, "Don't blame me....I voted for the other guy." :rolleyes:

  :rolleyes:, indeed.
• IggyPride00

  

  [video=youtube;Ojpl-JzPDkg][/video]
• BoatShoes

  gut;1278887 wrote:LMAO...OBama's budget got 0 votes from the Dems. ZERO. (and not the first time, either). You can't spin that, it's a gross failure of leadership. Wow, what a whopper to try to blame that failure on budgets that are actually, you know, GETTING VOTES. Harry Reid wouldn't even let it come up for debate. Look no further than the liberal's tweedle-dee and tweedle dum for your blame game.

  And yet, that unicorn budget that got votes from deranged Republicans is not playing well with the electorate and Obama has incurred no demonstrable harm for his adult budget getting zero votes...hmmm.
  
  Makes sense politically when Republican's had chosen to not govern seriously...after all we're seeing your boy attack Obama for responsibly making medicare more efficient as "cutting medicare to fund Obamacare blarrrgghh" and we can be sure that similar child's play would have accompanied votes on Obama's budget.
• BoatShoes

  Footwedge;1278870 wrote:So Romney releases his charity donations but not his tax returns. Nothing like a benevolent crook.

  
• jhay78

  

  ptown_trojans_1;1277442 wrote:If Romney had any brains, he would detail in specifics how he would work with Congress to solve the debt/ tax/ and sequestration problems.

  Seriously, has any presidential candidate ever done this? Ever? How in the world is someone supposed to do that, having no earthly idea what the makeup of either legislative house will be?
  

  gut;1277467 wrote:Again, there's not some magic formula or secret plan. You're either willing and able to work with the other side, or as Obama has PROVEN you're not. I have never in my life heard, nor expected, someone to detail how they are going to sit down and cooperate with the other side. Your point is nothing more than an irrational affirmative defense of Obama - "I don't know Romney will be any better so I'll vote for the proven failure".

  I was pretty much convinced about six months ago that ptown was a stone-cold-lead-pipe-lock to pull the lever for Obama. Nothing since then has changed my opinion.
• gut

  BoatShoes;1279037 wrote:And yet, that unicorn budget that got votes from deranged Republicans is not playing well with the electorate and Obama has incurred no demonstrable harm for his adult budget getting zero votes...hmmm.
  
  Makes sense politically when Republican's had chosen to not govern seriously...after all we're seeing your boy attack Obama for responsibly making medicare more efficient as "cutting medicare to fund Obamacare blarrrgghh" and we can be sure that similar child's play would have accompanied votes on Obama's budget.

  Please explain to me what Obama accomplished by submitting a budget that lost 97-0 in the senate. What did he accomplish by submitting a budget not a single senator in his own party voted for? Please enlighten me with the great political strategy of laying such an egg.
• QuakerOats

  BoatShoes;1278845 wrote: The entire national conversation was shifted toward the right and Obama's moderate proposals were treated as blasphemous Republicans who stomped their feet and cried.

  
  "...obama's moderate proposals..."
  
  Speaking of delusional, and insulting.
• QuakerOats

  Footwedge;1278870 wrote:So Romney releases his charity donations but not his tax returns. Nothing like a benevolent crook.

  Maybe you've been away at a winery or something; his return is easily obtainable at hundreds of sites on the internet; I reviewed it this morning.
  
  Here is a guy who is paying over $2 million to the treasury and gave away another $4 million to charity ........ and he is being blasted by the hysterical left. Simply amazing ......... ANYTHING to deflect attention from obama's DISASTROUS RECORD!!
  
  
• BoatShoes

  gut;1279218 wrote:Please explain to me what Obama accomplished by submitting a budget that lost 97-0 in the senate. What did he accomplish by submitting a budget not a single senator in his own party voted for? Please enlighten me with the great political strategy of laying such an egg.

  Oh Gut, he didn't really accomplish anything...it's just not the big disaster you claim it to be and in spite of it it's looking like he's going to roll to a W with the Senate in Democratic control despite this fact. But I suppose he could've submitted a budget promising to cut the deficit, raise spending and not raise taxes all at the same time and have it pass!:laugh:
• gut

  BoatShoes;1279415 wrote:Oh Gut, he didn't really accomplish anything...it's just not the big disaster you claim it to be and in spite of it it's looking like he's going to roll to a W with the Senate in Democratic control despite this fact. But I suppose he could've submitted a budget promising to cut the deficit, raise spending and not raise taxes all at the same time and have it pass!:laugh:

  Why even bother? Didn't "accomplish" anything? What does it do for Obama, or the Dems, to submit a budget that NO ONE votes for? Abject failure are the words you're looking for.
  
  How does Obama have even a shred of credibility on fiscal/budget policy when he can't even get a single member of his own party to vote on his budgets?
• queencitybuckeye

  BoatShoes;1279415 wrote:Oh Gut, he didn't really accomplish anything...

  Arguably, he broke a vow he took on 1/20/09. Nothing important to partisan hacks like yourself.
• stlouiedipalma

  gut;1277590 wrote:Spoken after nearly two years of watching Obama and the Dems ramrod failed policy after failed policy thru Congress.
  
  Clinton had a very similar circumstance. And after voters gave Repubs Congress, Clinton moved to the center. Obama moved further left and reaps what he sows.

  
  Your math is as half-assed as Romney's. McConnell made that statement in February 2009, less than one month after Obama was sworn in.
  
  It's obvious that your hatred for Obama has clouded your reasoning.
• gut

  stlouiedipalma;1279846 wrote:Your math is as half-assed as Romney's. McConnell made that statement in February 2009, less than one month after Obama was sworn in.
  
  It's obvious that your hatred for Obama has clouded your reasoning.

  You might want to re-read that article that Isadore posted. I know it's confusing for the intellectually challenged, but McConnell made that statement in 0ct'10 (and this can also be verified with a simple google search).
  
  Do you feel even dumber now?
• BoatShoes

  queencitybuckeye;1279442 wrote:Arguably, he broke a vow he took on 1/20/09. Nothing important to partisan hacks like yourself.

  No, it's not really arguable that getting a budget voted down constitutes a violation of the Oath of Office. He faithfully executed his duty by submitting a budget.
  
  The beef people should have is with the democrats in the Senate as, Sherrod Brown for example, fully supports the gist of that budget but voted it down because it would've been bad politically to have Josh Mandel playing ads saying that he voted for a tax increase.
• BoatShoes

  gut;1279435 wrote:Why even bother? Didn't "accomplish" anything? What does it do for Obama, or the Dems, to submit a budget that NO ONE votes for? Abject failure are the words you're looking for.
  
  How does Obama have even a shred of credibility on fiscal/budget policy when he can't even get a single member of his own party to vote on his budgets?

  Well, for one it shows that he's an adult because he proposed a budget that makes sense given our current economic scenario. Also, as QCB alluded to, it's the President's duty to submit a budget...whether it passes or not is another story. It's not like it didn't mesh with the priorities of most of the democratic Senators.
  
  But that's what you seem to be missing here.
  
  Why is it so hard for you to understand that the Democrats in the Senate didn't vote for it, not because of its inherent terribleness, but because it would've been bad for them politically. You claim to be a rational pragmatist but you fail to grasp this simple, obvious fact. You don't think Barbara Boxer agrees substantively with what the President proposed? C'mon.
  
  If anyone committed a dereliction of duty here it is the Democrats in the Senate for not passing a budget...But, it's looking like it's not going to harm them politically because the government is still running and they didn't have to endure ads calling them out for raising taxes, etc.
• gut

  BoatShoes;1279869 wrote: Why is it so hard for you to understand that the Democrats in the Senate didn't vote for it, not because of its inherent terribleness, but because it would've been bad for them politically. You claim to be a rational pragmatist but you fail to grasp this simple, obvious fact. You don't think Barbara Boxer agrees substantively with what the President proposed? C'mon.

  LMAO, you lose all credibility when you try to take on this one. Maybe nobody voted for it because it was a terrible budget? Heck, even now he's proposing 25% of GDP - a full 25% higher than historic norms. Let's face it, it's a tough sell as a "winner" when it comes in dead last. And the reality is the inability to get any votes is a complete failure of leadership. He might has well have submitted a 10 quadrillion dollar budget - just as productive, effective and he wouldn't have wasted anyone's time.
  
  Again, how can Obama reach across the aisle when everyone in his own party rejects his hand? The guy is a failure. Not enough lipstick to make that pig look pretty.
• BoatShoes

  gut;1279870 wrote:LMAO, you lose all credibility when you try to take on this one. Maybe nobody voted for it because it was a terrible budget? Heck, even now he's proposing 25% of GDP - a full 25% higher than historic norms. Let's face it, it's a tough sell as a "winner" when it comes in dead last. And the reality is the inability to get any votes is a complete failure of leadership. He might has well have submitted a 10 quadrillion dollar budget - just as productive, effective and he wouldn't have wasted anyone's time.
  
  Again, how can Obama reach across the aisle when everyone in his own party rejects his hand? The guy is a failure. Not enough lipstick to make that pig look pretty.

  :rolleyes: If we were living in a world with 60 Democrats in the Senate and Democrats in control of the House and/or election season wasn't right around the corner the budget would have passed in all likelihood. Democrats and much of the country would be more comfortable with closer to 25% of GDP than the historical norm because most people realize we're going to have to spend a little more and take in a little more as a percentage of GDP if we're going to be taking care of our baby boomer seniors (even Romney/Ryan know this as they trumpet medicare "cuts" even though they intend to govern differently). But I digress.
  
  I realize this is your pet issue and are looking at every turn for evidence of BHO's unbearable incompetence but the onus in this matter is on the Senate. And, that is kind of what P-town is getting at when you just constantly want to rail about "Obama is a failure blarrghh." But, as is becoming clear, the public is not convinced that BHO's budget getting zero votes is evidence of rank incompetence
  
  Perhaps it's time to start calling your boy the failure since he's somehow got enough lipstick to make that pig look pretty eh?
• stlouiedipalma

  gut;1279858 wrote:You might want to re-read that article that Isadore posted. I know it's confusing for the intellectually challenged, but McConnell made that statement in 0ct'10 (and this can also be verified with a simple google search).
  
  Do you feel even dumber now?

  Gee, it looks like we're both wrong. Either way you look at it, it's still not 2 years. And you don't need a search to figure that out, just ten fingers and ten toes.
  
  And yes, I feel dumber now. Gee, we have something in common.
• gut

  stlouiedipalma;1280272 wrote:Gee, it looks like we're both wrong. Either way you look at it, it's still not 2 years. And you don't need a search to figure that out, just ten fingers and ten toes.
  
  And yes, I feel dumber now. Gee, we have something in common.

  LMAO....I said nearly two years. I wasn't wrong, you were. Next time, keep your stupidity to yourself.
  
  Also comical how in the other thread you are criticizing Fox for getting a date wrong, and here you are doing the same thing. You really need to learn to educate yourself instead of relying on those liberal rags you get your [bad] info from. Learn to educate and think for yourself and THEN you and I will have something in common.
  
  Alternatiely, if you'd learn to read - instead of chastising others who actually can read - you might have caught that the February date in that article was not referring to McConnel's comment.
• stlouiedipalma

  I stand corrected.
• gut

  BoatShoes;1280096 wrote::rolleyes: If we were living in a world with 60 Democrats in the Senate and Democrats in control of the House and/or election season wasn't right around the corner the budget would have passed in all likelihood.

  Oh, so now we don't pass budgets in election season? What about his first two years? He had 58 votes in his pocket, or should have, it wasn't hard to pass a budget with even a modicum of leadership. They passed Obamacare, but they can't pass a budget? Spare me.
  
  The guy is a failure. Just admit the only reason you're voting for him is because he's willing to spend like 1/10th of what your keynesian models tell you is good for the economy.
  
  And, no, it's simply not hard to find evidence of BO's incompetence. Maybe if he had put 1/10th of the time in his non-stop campaigning on doing the job we wouldn't be in this mess. It's been almost nothing but a 4-yr re-election campaign, and the results show. I had my doubts about Barry, but I was still excited and hopeful I'd be wrong. This isn't about Romney having all the answers, it's BO proving he has none.
• stlouiedipalma

  gut;1280289 wrote:Oh, so now we don't pass budgets in election season? What about his first two years? He had 58 votes in his pocket, or should have, it wasn't hard to pass a budget with even a modicum of leadership. They passed Obamacare, but they can't pass a budget? Spare me.
  
  The guy is a failure. Just admit the only reason you're voting for him is because he's willing to spend like 1/10th of what your keynesian models tell you is good for the economy.
  
  And, no, it's simply not hard to find evidence of BO's incompetence. Maybe if he had put 1/10th of the time in his non-stop campaigning on doing the job we wouldn't be in this mess. It's been almost nothing but a 4-yr re-election campaign, and the results show. I had my doubts about Barry, but I was still excited and hopeful I'd be wrong. This isn't about Romney having all the answers, it's BO proving he has none.

  The new Republican Party (read teabaggers) has rendered a 58-vote majority to be useless against the threat of filibuster. This goes back to the McConnell leadership of "making Barack Obama a one-term President".
• gut

  stlouiedipalma;1280295 wrote:The new Republican Party (read teabaggers) has rendered a 58-vote majority to be useless against the threat of filibuster. This goes back to the McConnell leadership of "making Barack Obama a one-term President".

  Again, he only has to change TWO votes. And, besides, the "fillibuster" is BS that Harry Reid has been hiding behind to protect his members from even debating potentially sticky issues. The fillibuster has actually not been used nearly as often as the dubious "cloture vote" in this period. What happens is Harry Reid operates on the assumption anything he doesn't like will be fillibustered, and takes a vote to block it. When it doesn't get 60 votes, he kills the bill. He's absolutely abused it to control the agenda, and then blames the Repubs for his actions.
• gut

  Let's bring a little meat to the discussion:
  https://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts.htm
  
  Look at the abuse of cloture votes. Cloture is a move to end debate. Notice how it has spiked - roughly double historical rates. But also look at how many have passed - almost 60% (vs. historical averages @40%). So this confirms Reid using it as a political tool (trying to find the stats on Reid's quick cloture trigger-finger).
  
  Now look at how many motions have actually failed because of cloture - @29% (vs. a historical average of @ 40%).
  
  I'm using simple averages, but the point is clear - there are not more motions being blocked by fillibuster. What IS happening is Reid trying to ramrod legislation, and end debate prematurely, by calling quickly for cloture (hence the spike in the number of votes). This is how he has built his case for obstruction, but the data clearly doesn't support that. What the data does show is use of cloture to control the agenda.
  
  Point being, a cloture vote does not mean there was a filibuster. It doesn't even mean there was any real debate. Reid has been using cloture votes to ramrod his agenda, and when that fails it has the added bonus of making the Repubs look obstructionist.