Jeff Bush would tax orphans.

Quoted from leitskev Jeff Bush would tax orphans.

And any writer who does their slugs wrong...

Those would be thrown in Guantanamo!

Thank you.  Thank you.  Thank you all.

I'd like to start by saying that my cabinet will be comprised of former orphans, who I rescued and took off the lonely street they were living on.

Jagermeister will become our national drink.

And finally, UFC events will be free to all who know how to construct a strong sentence with proper punctuation.

Thank you for your time.

His cabinet will be all female, all bikini, all the time.

State of the Union will be biggest party of the year.

Quoted from leitskev Then there's the treasonous divulging of secrets for political gain. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-Xfti7qtT0

Kev,

Dam good points made here. What he's done to the confidence of the American people with regards to the office of the President and selling out secrets is astounding.

There is a huge differience in making political decisions and making decisions based soley for political gain.

Shawn.....><

To give up intelligence secrets that put the country's security at risk, just to pick up a point or two in the polls...we've never seen anything like this administration. Except maybe when Clinton gave high tech secrets to the Chinese because the Chinese were funneling money into his campaign. But even that seemed more like a blunder than a coherent effort.

I remember that!

When Clinton arrived with dozen of C-130 planes and greeted the Chineese Prime Minister at Tinian square.

I threw up a little...

Shawn.....><

I don't remember all the details, but there was a Chinese American... Huang maybe? who got convicted. He was taking money from the Chinese government. And the
Clinton's approved a technology transfer, through a Chinese company related to this character, that sent technology that could be used to guide missiles against the west coast. Treason has a long history in certain circles.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/campfin/stories/satellite123198.htm
This article only identifies a businessman named Schwartz, a big Dem contributor whose company gave tech to the Chinese, approved by Clinton. But I definitely remember that the Chinese were caught funneling money to Bill Clinton's campaign. And the connection continues as in 2008 another Chinese American was caught bundling Chinese money to Hillary. Dirty people.

I think it's fairly goofy to talk about one particular president or one particular party being dirty or disillusioning the American people or anything of that nature.  Surely the only difference between any of them is how often or how completely their actions are exposed.  To me, having confidence that any party in the States or Canada is acting completely legally is fatuous.  I don't really care, either; I guess the question for me is whether they seem to be trying to act justly.  Of course, often they don't.

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

I don't have confidence in either party. Probably in any party. In the US, while I don't like the red staters, they are far less of a threat to freedom and opportunity than the blues. Far less.

Both parties are corrupt. But the party that is built around the idea that the never ending expansion of government is a desirable thing is always going to be more corrupt. People that look to make their fortune through influence and connections will tend to flock there.

In modern history, we have never seen the level of corruption we see now. That's because of the size of the spending. BTW, much of the corruption I am referring to is legal, so will never be cited in prosecution. You bundle millions for the President, and his Dept of Energy happens to give your company a huge stimulus loan, unless one can show quid pro quo, it's legal. This admin has done more of that by far than any other, more than all others combined actually.

edit: other differences that matter

education: even many liberals are discovering that it's the unions that have utterly destroyed American school systems.
cost of healthcare: frivolous law suits are a huge factor. Blue party won't address because the American Trial Lawyers Association is one of their biggest donors, and along with the teachers unions, owns them.
regulations/energy policy: doing more damage to the middle class and to the economy than any other government policy. You want to open a small business? Good luck with the red tape.

These are real differences that have short and long term impact.

Obviously Mitt Romney is a now punchline (as well as an amusing hashtag: RomneyShambles) in the birthplace of punchlines after his comical howler re: the Olympics; however, this article and superb response to Mitt's rank hypocrisy needs as many eyes as possible: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79866.html?hp=l4

Quoted Text Romney's campaign has been predicated on negativity from the beginning, Axelrod says. He got the nomination by eviscerating his opponents with negative media and then complained that they whined about it. He challenged the president's patriotism and stood mute when a woman accused the president of treason. And now he is moralizing on the tone of the campaign? It's absurd. It's pious nonsense.

Personally, I'm to the point of simply voting out the incumbents. They've all jacked us up real nicely, and while the new one might not be much better than the old one, at least we can get a new one and hope he does something better. And if he doesn't, we'll just get another new one.

And Obama is only well spoken when he has his teleprompter. Set him free and the man will put his foot in his mouth quicker than Dubya will error in grammar.

Quoted Text I've been fantastic brother! I've got one I'm writing right now but won't be done for a few. Will give you a shout when it is. How about you? Something up here you would like for me to have a go at? Opinions! You nailed it Andrew. Everyone seems as though if you (for some reason) are not completely in line with everything the media is churning out, then you are a F**king loon. I'm personally sick of it! No, I don't think every illegal immigrant should be automatically given the rights that Americans have fought and died for. No, I don't support same sex marriage. No, I don't think we should bankrupt our country by handing out free EVERYTHING to lazy none working f****rs who defraud the system. Yes, I do think it's the best country on earth. And YES! If you do work your as$ off, you can make something of yourself here. I'm just very tired of all of the self entitlement going around that says, give me what I want and give me what you have. f*** THAT!!! Go out and work for it like I do! Thats the AMERICAN WAY!!! Shawn.....><

After this summary, I thought I'd add my own - these are, of course, just my own opinions:

- Tough to summarise on the multi-faceted immigration debate, but an amnesty (although potentially incentive for bad behaviour and a message to those who sit it out long enough) is the sensible, practical solution.

- Completely support same sex marriage. I do, however, believe no religious institution should be forced to carry out ceremonies against their will.

- I support raising taxes on the very richest in society (which by implication means no tax hike on the middle class), on top of a more transparent system that eliminates the type of loopholes that make Romney filthy rich. I reject the notion that it will reduce investment, especially in lieu of actual evidence.

- All for tax reduction across the board once a fair, one rule for all tax system is in place. Reducing top rates and effectively rewarding bad behaviour for gaming the rules before implementing a more transparent system is obviously arse backwards. I also support more scrutiny of the distinctions between tax avoidance and tax evasion.

- The social democracies in Scandinavia carry debt to GDP ratios of 20-30% whereas the biggest advocates of the Friedman school of thought (UK and US) carry 80%+. It's just not working and it needs to be changed. We should also bear in mind Obama's proposing a return to Clinton rates - a period the Republicans now champion.

- I would vote in favour of retaining US levels of spending at the very least (a very different argument for allocation). To inject fact-based analysis into the equation, US spending on welfare as a proportion of GDP hovers around the 15% of GDP mark. Denmark and Sweden equals roughly 30%. The argument put forth about welfare spending and tax rates is plainly illogical. No one denies the need for efficiencies in welfare spending and the desire to not encourage idleness, but for the far right to project the US as a country besieged by welfare costs is demonstrably false.

- I think the US is a great country, but I don't think any country should try and qualify itself as the best in the world. Sorkin wrote (and Daniels delivered) a sharp riposte to this thinking.

- I support a strong union presence and collective bargaining. The idea of sitting a representative on the board remuneration meetings is common sense, too.

There are many other views, but I don't have the time to post them all!

Welcome to Detroit, the future of America under the creeping tide of Leftism.

http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/17404

http://www.inquisitr.com/242581/half-of-detroit-street-lights-to-go-dark/

Streets are dark, crime out of control, neighborhoods in huge swaths of the city abandoned. And yet the bureaucracy continues to bloat. They can't even get ride of the 'horseshoer' , despite having no horses.

Conservatives can slow the tide, but not stop it. Nothing it seems can stop it. The Tea Party movement is the closest, but it tends to get distracted by side issues like abortion, which are not what it was originally about. Leftism is the cancer of civilization for which there is no cure. Except the end of that civilization. Makes for good dystopian scripts though!