LawTalkers
Page 66 of 125 « First 16566465 66 676876116 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   My God, you are an idiot. (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=861)

Adder 08-11-2011 05:57 PM
Re: Just because you're paranoid...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 457481)
Since you are sympathetic to the observation that we are in global markets that we can't control, let me suggest that any increases in energy prices likely have much more to do with continued strong demand in places like China, India and Brazil than with government action in the United States. China is growing like nuts and all of the people moving into the middle class start using a lot more energy.
No, Ty, it's all the fed. Sebby's run a business, and he knows.

(In other words, I've told him that before, he doesn't care because it doesn't fit his story).

Adder 08-11-2011 06:00 PM
Re: Just because you're paranoid...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 457483)
Indeed. But consider... We pump a shitload of dollars into govt projects. This causes a domestic increase for simple supply and demand reasons. That's the simple energy price inflation. The more complex one is, we pump a shitload of money into the system via QE. This gets funneled to emerging markets which provide the best returns. This creates inflation in emerging markets which inflates the price of oil there which, in a global market, causes our prices to rise. Add to that the speculation increased by policies feeding financial institutions looking for big returns cheap money with which to make bets... in a commodities bubble.

Yes. You cite contributors to energy price increases. I add the Fed to your list. How big a contributor is it? Not as big as Chinese growth, surely. But significant, I think (hence the emerging markets accusing of us of exporting inflation). And in combination with a stimulus that put few back to work while increasing energy prices a bit, I'd say the Fed easing and stimulus had a considerable impact on energy prices, and the amount of pain they caused, domestically.
I'd say you have no sense of proportion at all. This is like arguing that my purchase of rice with my lunch is causing food shortages in India because of increased demand.

Cletus Miller 08-11-2011 06:05 PM
Re: Your Tax Dollars, But Not Theirs, At Work
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LessinSF (Post 457462)
39,000 * $56.00 (maximum FUTA tax per employee, per year) = $2,184,000.

How much they paying the lawyers to defend the scheme?

Adder 08-11-2011 06:09 PM
Re: Your Tax Dollars, But Not Theirs, At Work
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Miller (Post 457492)
39,000 * $56.00 (maximum FUTA tax per employee, per year) = $2,184,000.

How much they paying the lawyers to defend the scheme?
The tribe pays the maximum state unemployment tax? If there's no state unemployment tax, the max is $434 for a total of $16.9 mil a year.

sebastian_dangerfield 08-11-2011 06:16 PM
Re: Just because you're paranoid...
 
Quote:
No, but if you're going to argue the headline is a better measure, than you should be fucking talking about deflation right now. And you should be talking about price levels and not individual prices. And, as I said, you shouldn't confuse wage stagnation with inflation if you are talking about monetary policy (i.e. you can't fix wage stagnation by keeping unemployment high with tight money).
They should be discussed in concert. One's a lot worse when you have the other working with it. Selective inflation, as I noted before. Pernicious.

Quote:
So your understanding of what I've been saying is that I expect those who have no money are going to be influenced by monetary policy???? Again, you aren't this stupid. Why do you keep pretending to be.

But lots of people (i.e. banks, corporations, you and me) have lots of money. Those people, you know, the ones with the money, are the ones we are talking about influencing with incentives.
Lots of those people won't be incentivized to hire anyone until they see the classes below them buying goods and services. You can incentivize me all day long with cheap credit. I am not hiring people until I see the guy below me demonstarting an ability consume what I make.

Quote:
You know, like you suggested with the "businesses are just waiting for Obama to go" bullshit.
These aren't contrary points, unless you have shit for bra-- Let me try this differently... Businesses want Obama gone because they don't want to be regulated, and they don't like HCR. Banks, in particular, want Dodd/Frank eviscerated far beyond its present emasculation.

Quote:
You know, I don't know that much about banking regulations, but you know what I do know? There aren't any like this. There are no federal bank regulations that set credit standards. I learned that by, you know, doing work for banks and hanging out with people who represent them.
Of course it's not a direct regulation on credit standards. You knew I didn't mean that. You knew I meant the general tightening that comes with regulators monitoring banks portfolios more aggressively. Perhaps you should hang out with some people who actually worked IN banks, as opposed to representing them. I'll let you in on a secret: they think a little different than lawyers.

Quote:
Newflash: yes, and we are talking about ways to make it less of an anal cavity search, by increasing the banks' incentives to lend.
On one hand, "Please lend!" On the other, "Hi, these men in the black suits are Bob, Tom & Larry. Don't mind them. They're just looking over your loan portfolios. Some looked a bit dicey to us."

Quote:
Again, I don't think you have any understanding of corporate finance. Multinationals do not ever fully pay back their borrowing, at least not until they are being wound up. Just as no, the federal debt will never be paid back in full, nor should we ever want it to be.
Of course they don't. Eventually, however, when revenues stay flat or have anemic growth while costs are a juggernaut, the carry becomes a bit tricky. The sixty five billion isn't cited as something scary in the moment. It's cited as something so enormous, and growing, that under any circumstances, we will hit a point where we will be unable to service it.

LessinSF 08-11-2011 06:18 PM
Re: Your Tax Dollars, But Not Theirs, At Work
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Miller (Post 457492)
39,000 * $56.00 (maximum FUTA tax per employee, per year) = $2,184,000.

How much they paying the lawyers to defend the scheme?
Given that it is Holland & Knight ...

I also found this debunking of Fox News' chief climate change denier amusing - http://legalplanet.wordpress.com/201...tupid-or-evil/ .

Tyrone Slothrop 08-11-2011 06:19 PM
Re: Just because you're paranoid...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder (Post 457485)
If you are saying I can't tell him to go fuck himself after the repeated insults he has flung at me, then you can go fuck yourself too.
You can certainly tell him that. I was just hoping you'd do it nicely.

sebastian_dangerfield 08-11-2011 06:29 PM
Re: Just because you're paranoid...
 
Quote:
That I would ask you to explain, again, for the I don't know how manyth time, indicates that different people have different (generally stupid) theories about this and I want to know which one you subscribe to so I can respond to it.
I need to cite a source saying QE contributed to energy price increases? The problem is where to start.

Quote:
That you have repeatedly declined to say anything about your theory tells me that you know that it's easily shot down so you aren't going to say anything.
See above.

Quote:
It's a great tactic. I once had a client being deposed. He was a higher-ranking but still middle management sales guy. Came off like a middle school hockey coach (i.e., definitely not the brightest bulb on the tree). But the dude had no fear of looking stupid, and the DOJ lawyer could get absolutely zero admissions out of him ("yeah, I see where I wrote 'everyone in the industry is moving prices in coordination' in that email, but I don't know what that means). Congrats. You are him.
And you, the autistic Trekkie who speaks his own unique language. I could cross you for hours and non one in the room would have a clue what the fuck you were saying. And I have a fucking English degree. It is really quite amazing. In this, on the FB, anywhere we talk, you are dense in a fashion I have never encountered anywhere else. And this is high compliment in that regard, as I have hung out with some seriously strange people.

Quote:
You honestly do not know what inflation is, do you?
Not a clue. I just enjoy sparing with your unceasing wit.

Quote:
Move lazy poser bullshit. How surprising.
Which is it? Am I pretending, or a know nothing? You're a little tangled there.

sebastian_dangerfield 08-11-2011 06:35 PM
Re: Just because you're paranoid...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder (Post 457491)
I'd say you have no sense of proportion at all. This is like arguing that my purchase of rice with my lunch is causing food shortages in India because of increased demand.
I said the Fed was a contributing factor. I did not say it was the only factor. This does not, of course, fit with your narrative.

sebastian_dangerfield 08-11-2011 06:36 PM
Re: Just because you're paranoid...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 457496)
You can certainly tell him that. I was just hoping you'd do it nicely.
If you think I give a flying fuck about criticism, you don't know me.

Tyrone Slothrop 08-11-2011 06:37 PM
Re: Just because you're paranoid...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 457499)
If you think I give a flying fuck about criticism, you don't know me.
Please -- for the children. Everybody be nice for the children.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 08-11-2011 06:40 PM
Re: Just because you're paranoid...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 457500)
Please -- for the children. Everybody be nice for the children.
But you're talking to the children? I'd suggest another tack.

Hey, Adder, Sebby, can't you see you're upsetting your mother!

Adder 08-11-2011 06:44 PM
Re: Just because you're paranoid...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 457501)
But you're talking to the children? I'd suggest another tack.

Hey, Adder, Sebby, can't you see you're upsetting your mother!
That may be the first time you have ever been funny.

Cletus Miller 08-11-2011 06:52 PM
Re: Your Tax Dollars, But Not Theirs, At Work
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder (Post 457493)
The tribe pays the maximum state unemployment tax? If there's no state unemployment tax, the max is $434 for a total of $16.9 mil a year.
So, all of the Tribes employees worked in DC, Massachusets, Mississippi, New Mexico, and South Carolina?

Employer need not pay *max* SUTA to get the 80 bip cap, just pay applicable SUTA.

sgtclub 08-11-2011 06:56 PM
Re: Just because you're paranoid...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder (Post 457503)
That may be the first time you have ever been funny.
Nope, still not funny.

And I am really enjoying the Sebby/Adder squabble. Just popped a new bag o corn.

Adder 08-11-2011 07:32 PM
Re: Your Tax Dollars, But Not Theirs, At Work
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Miller (Post 457505)
So, all of the Tribes employees worked in DC, Massachusets, Mississippi, New Mexico, and South Carolina?

Employer need not pay *max* SUTA to get the 80 bip cap, just pay applicable SUTA.
I assume they are in California, but I don't know if the tribe is subject to state unemployment tax or not.

And by "max" I mean the enough to get the maximum offset (ie 5.4%).

Adder 08-11-2011 07:51 PM
Re: Just because you're paranoid...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 457494)
They should be discussed in concert. One's a lot worse when you have the other working with it. Selective inflation, as I noted before. Pernicious.
The thing is, most people who are worrying about inflation, like those who argue our problems are structural, are often generally doing so as part of an argument to do nothing. Apparently, like the structural thing, you aren't. So, I guess, fine.

But as s pure factual matter, people have been claiming that Fed policy is going to lead to hyperinflation for almost three years. There is still no sign of even above target (i.e., greater than 2% a year) inflation, either core of headline, in this country. In addition to the absence of measured inflation, the inflation expectations implied by TIPS spreads show that the market does not expect meaningful inflation either. Despite many commentators (who have an agenda) claiming that inflation is imminent, the market disagrees.

Quote:
These aren't contrary points, unless you have shit for bra-- Let me try this differently... Businesses want Obama gone because they don't want to be regulated, and they don't like HCR. Banks, in particular, want Dodd/Frank eviscerated far beyond its present emasculation.
I'm sure that this is true of any number of conservative business leaders. But they aren't forgoing profitable investments because they don't like Obama, and in my view, few of them are baking in significant costs due to expected regulations from the Obama administration.

In others, I think this is more of a political than economic point.

Quote:
Of course they don't. Eventually, however, when revenues stay flat or have anemic growth while costs are a juggernaut, the carry becomes a bit tricky. The sixty five billion isn't cited as something scary in the moment. It's cited as something so enormous, and growing, that under any circumstances, we will hit a point where we will be unable to service it.
The 65 trillion number is false. Minor changes in inflation, growth, eligibility and benefits will make major differences in long term projections like this.

If you want to say "under the circumstances as I see them" rather than "in any circumstances" fine, I will not disagree with you. But I think you exaggerate all of the inputs to get to your conclusions.

Adder 08-11-2011 07:57 PM
Re: Just because you're paranoid...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 457497)
I need to cite a source saying QE contributed to energy price increases? The problem is where to start.
I would like you to cite a coherent source for how that happened. I'm aware that there are tons of blogs and commentaries that make that assertion through assumption.

But you already gave the best argument I'm aware of. You said that a tiny (compared to the world economy) amount of deficit spending and fed easing led to slightly stronger demand here and abroad. That's logical. But you have to think that the tiny dollar amounts involved are enough to move the needle on the world scale.

I don't think they are, and I think arguing that those factors outweigh the much longer term growth trends in India, China and Brazil is close to laughable. I say "close to" only because supply of oil is pretty inelastic, so maybe tiny additional demand could have an exaggerated effect. But I still have to put supply interruptions in Libya ahead of the the demand effects of a bit of monetary and fiscal easing here.

Quote:
And I have a fucking English degree.
No wonder you can't think your way out of a business or economic paper wet paper bag.

(Yeah, couldn't resist the gratuitous shot. Sorry.)

Tyrone Slothrop 08-11-2011 08:01 PM
Re: Your Tax Dollars, But Not Theirs, At Work
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder (Post 457507)
I assume they are in California, but I don't know if the tribe is subject to state unemployment tax or not.

And by "max" I mean the enough to get the maximum offset (ie 5.4%).
Actually, maybe you could go back to cursing at Sebby.

Adder 08-11-2011 09:25 PM
Re: Your Tax Dollars, But Not Theirs, At Work
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 457510)
Actually, maybe you could go back to cursing at Sebby.
Y'all are low-life bastards. ;)

sgtclub 08-11-2011 11:09 PM
Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
I watched 20 minutes of the debate tonight. Initial thoughts:

Romney: Ugg, too plastic and fake. Reminds me of an actor on NBC playing the president.

Paul/Cane: Side shows.

Gingrich: Smart, but too flakey. Not presidential.

Bachman: Palin 2.0

Santorum: Seems smart and sincere. Want to hear more, but I remember Sebby saying something about him that wasn't very positive.

Huntsman: Don't know much about him. Want to hear more. Seems like the only candidate I possibly could vote for. Probably not electable.

Tyrone Slothrop 08-11-2011 11:33 PM
Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sgtclub (Post 457512)
I watched 20 minutes of the debate tonight. Initial thoughts:

Romney: Ugg, too plastic and fake. Reminds me of an actor on NBC playing the president.

Paul/Cane: Side shows.

Gingrich: Smart, but too flakey. Not presidential.

Bachman: Palin 2.0

Santorum: Seems smart and sincere. Want to hear more, but I remember Sebby saying something about him that wasn't very positive.

Huntsman: Don't know much about him. Want to hear more. Seems like the only candidate I possibly could vote for. Probably not electable.
I can see voting for Huntsman. Quite electable. Just not in a GOP primary.

Hank Chinaski 08-11-2011 11:37 PM
Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 457513)
I can see voting for Huntsman. Quite electable. Just not in a GOP primary.
I just hope the Rs somehow get someone not totally insane, because to the bulk of the country Obama is starting to look unelectable.

Icky Thump 08-11-2011 11:39 PM
Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
so England, how's that austerity looking?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/11/op...dows.html?_r=1

Secret_Agent_Man 08-12-2011 12:12 AM
Re: Your Tax Dollars, But Not Theirs, At Work
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder (Post 457507)
I assume they are in California, but I don't know if the tribe is subject to state unemployment tax or not.
Really?

S_A_M

Tyrone Slothrop 08-12-2011 12:43 AM
Re: Your Tax Dollars, But Not Theirs, At Work
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Secret_Agent_Man (Post 457516)
Really?

S_A_M
Dear Lord, don't encourage them.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 08-12-2011 07:50 AM
Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 457514)
I just hope the Rs somehow get someone not totally insane, because to the bulk of the country Obama is starting to look unelectable.
You may not be watching the polling, but right now he beats all comers in head to head, and he beats that mythical generic republican. Also ahead in recent polling in key swings like North Carolina and Colorado.

I know you're a big Michelle Bachman fan yourself, but over the last three years, what Republican officeholders are you proud of?

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 08-12-2011 07:53 AM
Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sgtclub (Post 457512)
I watched 20 minutes of the debate tonight. Initial thoughts:

Romney: Ugg, too plastic and fake. Reminds me of an actor on NBC playing the president.

Paul/Cane: Side shows.

Gingrich: Smart, but too flakey. Not presidential.

Bachman: Palin 2.0

Santorum: Seems smart and sincere. Want to hear more, but I remember Sebby saying something about him that wasn't very positive.

Huntsman: Don't know much about him. Want to hear more. Seems like the only candidate I possibly could vote for. Probably not electable.

Huntsman is eminently electable in a general election, but there is no way in hell he survives a Republican primary. Republicans suffer from the fate Dems sufferred from in the 70s: a primary system that plays almost exclusively to the party faithful. Without more open primaries and ex-officio delegates who have to stand for election among the entire population, a guy like Huntsman is really running for VP.

Adder 08-12-2011 08:48 AM
Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sgtclub (Post 457512)
I watched 20 minutes of the debate tonight. Initial thoughts:

Romney: Ugg, too plastic and fake. Reminds me of an actor on NBC playing the president.

Paul/Cane: Side shows.

Gingrich: Smart, but too flakey. Not presidential.

Bachman: Palin 2.0

Santorum: Seems smart and sincere. Want to hear more, but I remember Sebby saying something about him that wasn't very positive.

Huntsman: Don't know much about him. Want to hear more. Seems like the only candidate I possibly could vote for. Probably not electable.
I didn't see any of the debate, but most of that fits my expectations. The big divergence is Santorum. His history of comparing gay relationships to incest and "man on dog" sex and his history of fierce opposition to reproductive rights make him unacceptable, almost regardless of what else he says.

Adder 08-12-2011 08:48 AM
Re: Your Tax Dollars, But Not Theirs, At Work
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 457517)
Dear Lord, don't encourage them.
Yes, really ;)

futbol fan 08-12-2011 09:18 AM
Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icky Thump (Post 457515)
so England, how's that austerity looking?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/11/op...dows.html?_r=1
What they need to set things right is a party of cowboys and jesus freaks to come in and fix everything, guided by good old-fashioned common sense and the occasional word in the ear from God, which is luckily what we've got here, so we're saved. Or raptured. Same thing.

Hank Chinaski 08-12-2011 10:00 AM
Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ironweed (Post 457524)
What they need to set things right is a party of cowboys and jesus freaks to come in and fix everything, guided by good old-fashioned common sense and the occasional word in the ear from God,
this part was excellant.

Quote:
which is luckily what we've got here, so we're saved. Or raptured. Same thing.
This is called "stepping on your joke." You show that you don't trust your reader's intelligence with this bit. I mean we got the joke (you can PM the final part to Adder so he gets it too). Trust me I'm a published author and have had feedback from editors.

sebastian_dangerfield 08-12-2011 10:00 AM
Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sgtclub (Post 457512)
I watched 20 minutes of the debate tonight. Initial thoughts:

Romney: Ugg, too plastic and fake. Reminds me of an actor on NBC playing the president.

Paul/Cane: Side shows.

Gingrich: Smart, but too flakey. Not presidential.

Bachman: Palin 2.0

Santorum: Seems smart and sincere. Want to hear more, but I remember Sebby saying something about him that wasn't very positive.

Huntsman: Don't know much about him. Want to hear more. Seems like the only candidate I possibly could vote for. Probably not electable.
The only coherent person on the stage was Gingrich.

The thing was an utter waste of time to watch, except for that one beautiful display where Gingrich beat the shit out of Chris Wallace.

ETA: Correction. Romney was coherent, and sleazy as hell in his pre-packaged dodges. Nice to see he didn't waste the last three years. Apparently, he spent them in law school.

Santorum's defense of a ban on abortions even in cases of rape was a new low. Disturbing. I now do not merely wish him to lose, but actually feel that, karmically, and for the betterment of the human race, some horrible accident should remove him from the planet entirely.

futbol fan 08-12-2011 10:06 AM
Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 457529)
this part was excellant.


This is called "stepping on your joke." You show that you don't trust your reader's intelligence with this bit. I mean we got the joke (you can PM the final part to Adder so he gets it too). Trust me I'm a published author and have had feedback from editors.
It must be nice having someone to check your spelling. Do these "editors" get paid a lot?

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 08-12-2011 10:06 AM
Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 457530)
The only coherent person on the stage was Gingrich.

The thing was an utter waste of time to watch, except for that one beautiful display where Gingrich beat the shit out of Chris Wallace.

ETA: Correction. Romney was coherent, and sleazy as hell in his pre-packaged dodges. Nice to see he didn't waste the last three years. Apparently, he spent them in law school.

Santorum's defense of a ban on abortions even in cases of rape was a new low. Disturbing. I now do not merely wish him to lose, but actually feel that, karmically, and for the betterment of the human race, some horrible accident should remove him from the planet entirely.
So who you going to support this time?

futbol fan 08-12-2011 10:10 AM
Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 457530)
Romney was coherent, and sleazy as hell in his pre-packaged dodges. Nice to see he didn't waste the last three years. Apparently, he spent them in law school.
I didn't watch it. What was he dodging? I am guessing his health care plan and Not Being The Right Kind Of Christian. I don't know what else he's got in his closet that Iowa wouldn't dig, except maybe that he's a Wall Street guy, but all I ever hear him talking about is how his business world experience is what sets him apart and I can't see him running from that.

Adder 08-12-2011 10:13 AM
Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ironweed (Post 457533)
I didn't watch it. What was he dodging? I am guessing his health care plan and Not Being The Right Kind Of Christian. I don't know what else he's got in his closet that Iowa wouldn't dig, except maybe that he's a Wall Street guy, but all I ever hear him talking about is how his business world experience is what sets him apart and I can't see him running from that.
He gets to explain why marriage is a federal question but health care must be leftbto the states. Probably has to dodge on abortion too. Wasn't he once pro choice?

Adder 08-12-2011 10:14 AM
Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 457532)
So who you going to support this time?
By this time next year Obama will be the only moderate republican in the race.

Hank Chinaski 08-12-2011 10:17 AM
Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ironweed (Post 457533)
I didn't watch it. What was he dodging? I am guessing his health care plan and Not Being The Right Kind Of Christian. I don't know what else he's got in his closet that Iowa wouldn't dig, except maybe that he's a Wall Street guy, but all I ever hear him talking about is how his business world experience is what sets him apart and I can't see him running from that.
I know that as to our credentials here real world experience is seen as less important than blog reading, but it doesn't work that way in the real world.


Conf to Ironhead: see what I left out?

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 08-12-2011 10:53 AM
Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ironweed (Post 457533)
I didn't watch it. What was he dodging? I am guessing his health care plan and Not Being The Right Kind Of Christian. I don't know what else he's got in his closet that Iowa wouldn't dig, except maybe that he's a Wall Street guy, but all I ever hear him talking about is how his business world experience is what sets him apart and I can't see him running from that.
Romney is usually dodging his support for whatever he opposes. Every now and then, like with healthcare, he opens up and admits he both supports and opposes it.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:11 PM.
Page 66 of 125 « First 16566465 66 676876116 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com