BS: Who will run with Romney?

Subject: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Apr 12 - 02:17 PM

Romney Mate?

Will he pick some firebrand to shore up the base?
A safe pick from a swing state?

Is Dick Cheney available?

Dan Quayle?

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: kendall
Date: 09 Apr 12 - 02:34 PM

He had better be damn careful and not make the mistake McCain made

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: catspaw49
Date: 09 Apr 12 - 02:37 PM

LOL.....Actually Kendall I am hoping he DOES make that mistake!

My best guess is Rob Portman.


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Apr 12 - 02:43 PM

Actually Kendall I am hoping he DOES make that mistake!

It would be a great concept for a tv series. "The Mannequin and the Pit Bull".

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: gnu
Date: 09 Apr 12 - 02:52 PM

I have been watching The Daily Show and The colbert Report on The Comedy Channel website just lately (just found out I could), back as far as early March, and, I gotta say, those guys are truly frightening. Especially Santorum. The guy can't even "talk" in a logical fashion. He makes as many errors as Bush did and Bush made them over NINE years.

Ron Paul doesn't frighten me but his age simply dictates it ain't gonna happen.

Can a Canuck be a US VP? If so, I have a suggestion.

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Apr 12 - 03:11 PM

Ron Paul is the scariest of all. His "solutions" are batshit crazy and would totally disrupt the world economy. He has said that health care for the poor could and should be carried out as charity from the existing doctors and hospitals. He thinks that the US government should be pared down to next to nothing. He thinks the US dollar should be put back on the Gold Standard. Which would devalue the dollar to next to zero after the Goldman Sachs & Chinese bond holders empty Fort Knox.

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: gnu
Date: 09 Apr 12 - 03:25 PM

Holy crap! I didn't see any of that, JtS. BIG oops!

I just don't follow Yankee politics. But, what I saw on those comedy shows does scare me regarding the competence of the candidates.

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 09 Apr 12 - 03:32 PM

The Mayans tried to warn us.

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 09 Apr 12 - 03:38 PM

Since Agnew, Ford and Quayle were all on winning tickets, does it actually matter? Anyway, when the chips were down, it wasn't a VP who stepped up to the plate but Secretary of State Al Haig.

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 09 Apr 12 - 06:25 PM

Running with Romney.

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Apr 12 - 07:46 PM

z-z-z-z-z....

Oh. Ummm...who will run with Romney?

Ask me if I even F-ing care! If I thought it mattered even one iota, then I might care. I think it matters less than about 800,000 other things that come easily to mind. It would be kind of cool, though, if they picked the dumbest and most ridiculous possible running mate of all for Romney, whoever that might be. It would at least lend some sick amusement factor to the pathetic media soap opera that we're all going to be enduring from now through next November in the old Alice-In-Wonderland/Wizard-of-Oz corporate-run election farce that is now standard stuff in Fortress Amerika.

I know one thing, Chongo sure won't run with him.

Whoever does get elected...watch out. They won't do what you hoped they would once they're in office. Not even close.

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Apr 12 - 08:41 PM

Charles Manson is up for parole...

Then Romney would have a good excuse when he loses...

B:~)

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Rapparee
Date: 09 Apr 12 - 09:12 PM

I think that a joint Obama/Romney ticket would be appealing. I dunno about the VP, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Apr 12 - 10:14 PM

Wouldn't it be funny interesting if no one was willing to be on the ticket with him...?

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Neil D
Date: 09 Apr 12 - 11:11 PM

I think he'd like to pick Paul Ryan but that will make it awfully easy for Obama to make the case that a vote for Romney-Ryan is a vote to finally, at long, last hand the keys to the kingdom to the oligarchs. A vote to crucify the old, the poor, the working class, students, most of the rest of us, on the cross of deep tax cuts for the wealthy.

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: GUEST,marks (on the road)
Date: 09 Apr 12 - 11:32 PM

"He had better be damn careful and not make the mistake McCain made"

Hardly a mistake, Kendall. Dopy or not, Palin breathed some life into an otherwise moribund campaign, and the Obama victory margin was less than it would have been had McCain made a more conventional pick.

Like Palin or not, she sure as shootin woke the yokels.

Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Apr 12 - 02:11 AM

"If I thought it mattered even one iota, then I might care. I think it matters less than about 800,000 other things that come easily to mind."

Little Hawk, if you were American (US style) you would recognize how wrong that statement is. No matter what doofusses have been elected as vice presidents, the fact is they could become President. So YES. It matters a great deal.

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: GUEST,Kendall
Date: 10 Apr 12 - 04:42 PM

I was simply saying it was HIS mistake to pick Palin, or to approve of the RNC picking her.
It was lucky for us.

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: scouse
Date: 10 Apr 12 - 05:20 PM

I hope it's Roger Bannister!!! 'Nough said!

As Aye,

Phil... Outta here

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 10 Apr 12 - 06:17 PM

Watch out! I predict Paul Ryan.

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Apr 12 - 06:33 PM

I 'think' Sarah Palin has a small sense of humor.... she said the other day he should pick Alan West!

Those who watched West in the last election find it hard to believe she was serious.

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Apr 12 - 08:47 PM

Whichever side of Romney's mouth that isn't talking at the moment should run with Romney. The Romney/Romney team would be able to take both sides of every issue and thereby appeal to everyone.

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Apr 12 - 08:56 PM

Hey, if he ain't going to pick Charles Manson then why not Sarah Palin???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Apr 12 - 09:01 PM

BTW, if Romney calls me??? I ain't answerin' the phone...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Apr 12 - 03:43 AM

I go with Stringsinger- I think it will be Paul Ryan.

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Apr 12 - 03:44 AM

Unless he decides Ryan wouldn't endear him to more moderate voters.

It must be SUCH a pain to have Romney's mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: SINSULL
Date: 11 Apr 12 - 12:07 PM

Lady Gaga would get votes.

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: gnu
Date: 11 Apr 12 - 03:56 PM

Lady Gaga is too smart.

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Apr 12 - 04:05 PM

Got that right! ;-) She's way too smart for that job.

Romney would not survive a fall out of a 150 foot tree. Chongo HAS survived such a fall this very day, and he emerged without a hair out of place. Chongo can also down a 40 ounce bottle of whisky a day without blinking an eye, and Romney wouldn't get halfway through one before passing out. So why even consider voting for Romney? Or Obama for that matter.

We need a president who can drink Boris Yeltsin under the table, lie more convincingly than Bill Clinton, and arm wrestle Vladimir Putin to the ground in 2 seconds flat. Chongo can do all those things! Vote for Chongo in 2012.

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: gnu
Date: 11 Apr 12 - 04:13 PM

"... drink Boris Yeltsin under the table, lie more convincingly than Bill Clinton, and arm wrestle Vladimir Putin to the ground in 2 seconds flat.

Yeah, right, good luck with all of those. Although, Clinton never lied.

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Apr 12 - 04:23 PM

Oh? What would you call it, then?

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 11 Apr 12 - 04:27 PM

I would like to see Olympia Snowe...retired soon I think...impressive woman...would bring a Greek-American perspective..although we have also seen Dukakis and Agnew and probably others...well, I think she is Greek American anyway..could be wrong. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Apr 12 - 04:32 PM

I concur. Uniting Greek and American efforts at managing national deficit financing would be a heady tonic for all of us to take in these annoying times. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Apr 12 - 04:43 PM

Gnu, They all lie. Its just a matter of degree and topic.

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Apr 12 - 05:36 PM

More importantly for the future of the nation, who will run AWAY FROM Romney?

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Apr 12 - 06:46 PM

More words of wisdom from Chongo Chimp: "If Romney is runnin', it follows that he must be scared. Do we want someone who is scared to be our president? I don't think so! Vote for me. I won't run, I'll stand and fight like an ape!"

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Apr 12 - 06:49 PM

Sigh...

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: GUEST,BigDaddy
Date: 12 Apr 12 - 11:22 AM

There are two reasons I give a crap about who Romney runs with: One is that I, in part, would like to see a ridiculous choice (like McCain made four years ago) to ensure he won't get elected. On the other hand, I would prefer his choice be a sane one, because as someone else pointed out, that person should actually be up to the job that they might have someday. I, like many others, have been underwhelmed by President Obama's first term. I agree with Bill Maher when he says Obama should have realized early on that there could be no compromise with the current crop of Republican'ts, and should have taken the opportunity to lead like a true Democrat, just as Dubya led (if you can call it that) like a true Republican. That said, President Obama has removed our troops from Iraq as promised. He is removing our troops from Afghanistan on schedule as promised. He has, along with our military, put an end to not only bin Laden, but several other important al Qaeda targets. We have experienced 23 consecutive months of slow, yet steady economic growth, in spite of the mess he inherited from Bush/Cheney. President Obama doesn't try to use his religious beliefs as an excuse to interfere with women's' rights. He is intelligent, compassionate, a devoted father and husband. Our domestic auto companies are back on track. President Obama believes every American should enjoy the same health coverage we provide to members of Congress. His detractors have to resort to racism and name-calling to try to defeat him. I've been around long enough to see apathy on the part of voters allow for some really scary characters to take office. So even if it means voting for the lesser of two less than ideal choices, vote anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Apr 12 - 11:49 AM

OK, underwhelmed, yes.

Then, with the Republican options, there's disgusted.

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Apr 12 - 12:50 PM

Big Daddy - Has the enormous Green Zone in Iraq been dismantled? No. Have American military bases been removed from Iraq? No. Are you aware of the vast number of privately employed corporate mercenaries that America has fielded in Iraq and who are still there? The privatizing of America's military has been going forward aggressively ever since the Bush years, through the growth of privately owned corporate entities such as Blackwater and a host of others. They are rapidly supplanting American troops on the ground and are serving as de facto occupation forces.

Obama said he'd remove American troops from Iraq. He meant government troops. He never made a peep about removing the American mercenaries from Iraq, and there are a huge number of them there, and they are well-armed. It's an unofficial occupation force, accomplished by privatized corporate mercenaries.

Nothing is said about that. The removal of government soldiers is smoke and mirrors if they are replaced by privatized soldiers. It passes under the public radar, because it is seldom even spoken of, and it's happening everywhere that America goes in its quest to forge an empire and control strategic resources. The army, navy, and air force go in first. They are quickly followed by a vast array of corporate contractors who are put there to build military bases, to provide security, to police, to interrogate, to torture, and to murder anyone who opposes the American presence.

It doesn't just happen in Iraq. And it's all about money. You see, the government has to PAY those corporates a lot of money when they land a contract to begin "reconstruction" or to provide "security" or to privatize a national industry. Virtually all of Iraq's state industries have been privatized, replaced, by American corporates who are equivalent to carpetbaggers after the Civil War, and the Iraqis who worked in the state industries have lost their jobs and are living in poverty now.

You don't hear much about that. As I said, it goes under the public radar. It becomes the invisible occupation that is not recognized as such by American media, because all they do is talk about what the official Army, Navy, and Air Force are doing. They don't talk about what the privately owned corporate mercenaries are doing. It's as if they didn't even exist. Your public is fooled by this kind of charade, but the populations in the occupied lands are not fooled. They see the direct results of American corporate policy...and those results, for them, are utterly disastrous.

Iraq has been virtually destroyed as a nation. Most of its educated class has fled the country. Its cultural heritage was looted in the wake of the invasion. Its social infrastructure and state industries are mostly destroyed. Most of its workers (once employed by state industries) have lost their jobs. It is a society immeasurably worse off now than it was under Saddam Hussein, as bad as he was.

That's what Bush's and Obama's war did to Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Apr 12 - 02:46 PM

Sigh...

How many US "mercenaries" are there in Iraq? How many are not engaged in guarding embassy property and staff?

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Apr 12 - 02:50 PM

I would like to see the source of your information, Little Hawk. I'm not saying that not every word is true but sources do matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 12 Apr 12 - 04:29 PM

Romney needs to firm up the women's vote. He might do worse than picking South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley. She's bright, attractive, conservative and a card-carrying Republican. Of course he might look bad in comparison. And has anyone seen Nikki's birth certificate?

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Apr 12 - 06:21 PM

Lil' Hawk don't need no steenkin' information or facts- he just likes to spin his fantasies regardless. Another inhabitant of ther Fact Free Environment- like the TeaPublicans, Santorum, et. al.

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 12 Apr 12 - 06:59 PM

Santorum, no brainer.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Apr 12 - 07:52 PM

Dod spending is under the wire because of two factors:

1. The military/industrial complex is also the big media/industrial complex and therefore tha American people are being kept completely in the dark and...

2. The American political system punishes 1st term presidents by making them suck up to the Big Boys in that 1st term... Obama has played it perfectly...

Bottom line here is what scares the hell outta righties and Republicans... They have seen just how clever Obama has been at learning the job of president that they are now very much fearful that he will be re-elected and come out swinging in his 2nd term...

They don't want to take that chance and are poised to spend as much $$$ to see that that doesn't happen...

This is why it is imperative to re-elect Obama...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Apr 12 - 12:17 AM

For your source, folks, I recommend the book "The Shock Doctrine" written by Naomi Klein, a Canadian political analyst and writer. Focus on the later chapters regarding Bush's war in Iraq, and the aftermath, and what has been happening in the disastrous occupation and utter ruination of that country.

Here's a link to something that could get you started:

The Shock Doctrine

I'm surprised that you would have any objection to this stuff I'm mentioning, Greg. I thought it would be right up your alley. After all, you are always saying you hate capitalism, right? Have a look at the link and investigate. I highly recommend to anyone to read this book about what aggressive corporate capitalism has done in the world since the early 1960s. It's brilliant. It gets right to the point. And it's exhaustively researched and documented. The only way you'll ever find out about it is to read it. If you don't read it, then all you'll have is a kneejerk negative reaction to something I mentioned which you don't actually know about yet, and I can't see any rational basis for that...can you?

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Apr 12 - 12:41 AM

Here's Amazon's page on The Shock Doctrine.

Have a look, and read the comments and reviews.

Note, Greg, the comment from The Guardian in the UK.

The Shock Doctrine

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 13 Apr 12 - 02:06 AM

Excellent book.
Explains A LOT.
See also...Iraq for Sale...Why We Fight...Armed Madhouse...

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: GUEST,BigDaddy
Date: 15 Apr 12 - 02:56 AM

So, Little Hawk, what do you see as a realistic alternative come election time? Even if you subscribe to the "lesser of two evils" idea, do you not believe it's imperative that we not elect Romney? I don't believe you and I are that far apart ideologically. I do however believe that the Repubs are scarier than anything the democrats offer.

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Apr 12 - 09:23 AM

Yeah. That's the problem, allright. I follow your point, BigDaddy.

Well...sadly enough, I don't see that there is any realistic alternative come election time. Not in an American election. If I was there, I'd probably vote for the Democrats...I guess...but if I was there, I'd also be thinking very seriously of moving to another country.

But that's easier for me to say, because I wasn't born in the USA. So I don't feel the same sense of deep connection to being there as someone would who was born there.

I agree that the Republicans are usually scarier than the Democrats. But I feel sort of like this about it...in an American election the public loses no matter which party they elect. It's set up that way with those 2 parties. Heads they win, tails you lose. The 2 parties have a quite different outer style, and they are backed by quite different sets of people ideologically...and I am far more in accord with the sets of people who normally back the Democrats. The trouble is, those same people usually get betrayed by the damn party as soon as they've elected it...because once in power it enacts right wing domestic legislation and pursues a rightwing agenda in foreign affairs too. That tells me that it's really controlled by the same corporates who control the Republicans, and that your elections are a "bait and switch" game to keep the public guessing while a rightwing corporate agenda goes inevitably ahead regardless.

Why is this? Because the few very richest people in society run the system, and a rightwing agenda makes them all richer! And they run both parties. And they pick the candidates who are going to run for both parties, right from the start of the process, and use their mass media propaganda to make it happen that way.

The same thing basically happens in Canada and the UK too. And in other places. The British liberals and left, for example, were utterly betrayed by Tony Blair after they elected him!

What the hell can the public do in a situation like that?

You tell me. I have no solution to such a situation, other than to continue living my own private life in the best way I can manage.

I don't talk about it because I imagine I have a solution. I simply talk about it because it deeply concerns me, and I wish to speak my mind about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Elmore
Date: 15 Apr 12 - 09:36 AM

Moroni

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 15 Apr 12 - 01:14 PM

Maybe Romney should pick a dog as a Vice-Presidential running mate, shore up his support among dog owners. Some of them are evidently still concerned about his treatment of his old Irish setter Seamus way back in 1983.

Can't you see the campaign slogan "Vote for Romney and the Big Bow-Wow." But someone would probably bitch about that as well...

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Apr 12 - 09:16 PM

I should add, BigDaddy, that what I mean is...I see no short range solution. Over 200 million Americans would have to radically change a lot of their basic beliefs about economics and government before a short range solution could possibly be found.

There are always longterm solutions to major social and political problems, but they can take decades to unfold.

The Neocon/Neoliberal philosophy whose basic tenets are dismantling the public sphere, privatizing everything, waging corporate wars, gutting public services, moving First World jobs to any country with the cheapest labour, destroying unions, removing trade protections for domestic industry (which they call establishing "Free Trade"), and giving the biggest international banks the power to create vast amounts of public debt that render all governments helpless servants of those banks........

...those are ultimately insane policies which lead to wordwide disaster. They enrich a very tiny elite while impoverishing entire populations almost everywhere. They cause wars and financial meltdowns. They cause millions to lose their job security and their public services and their civil rights.

Being insane as well as criminal, this Neocon/Neoliberal philosophy that has been pushed by Milton Friedman and his followers in government in the past 50 years is bound to sew the seeds of its own eventual demise. Whether that demise will occur as a result of war....or a financial collapse...or a revolution (either peaceful or violent)....or a gradual rejection of the whole thing by millions of people worldwide waking up to what is happening...I don't know. I very much doubt that the process will complete itself during our lifetimes.

But yes, a solution will certainly be found, because the present corrupt philosophy that is dominating in world governments and finance cannot survive its own insanity in the longrun. And it will fail. And it will be rejected by the public. And something else will replace it. Time herself will provide the solution, as society, one way or another, shakes off the chains of debt and moral corruption and wars of choice by large powers that it is presently wearing...in the false and totally misleading garb of establishing "free markets" and "democracy" (this latter claim an outright lie!)...by robbing and impoverishing just about everyone except those few at the very top of the financial feeding chain.

Like Rome, this lunatic world financial empire will fall. The question is...when? And how?

Don't expect any of your present political parties to get you there, because they are its handmaidens.

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Elmore
Date: 15 Apr 12 - 09:38 PM

Ann Romney

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Apr 12 - 11:37 PM

The Shock Doctrine
Paperback: 720 pages
Publisher: Picador; 1st edition (June 24, 2008)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0312427999
ISBN-13: 978-0312427993

So your most recent
source is june 2008? seven months before the current president. the one you are moaning about, took office?

Is this more of you "Chongo" nonsense, disguised as conversation?

"Obama said he'd remove American troops from Iraq. He meant government troops. He never made a peep about removing the American mercenaries from Iraq, and there are a huge number of them there, and they are well-armed. It's an unofficial occupation force, accomplished by privatized corporate mercenaries."

Why don't you back up your bullshit or stick to your fantasy??

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Elmore
Date: 16 Apr 12 - 01:29 AM

Danny Ainge

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Apr 12 - 02:50 AM

I don't bother answering belligerent, hostile, insulting questions from individuals who are completely unwilling to show any respect or goodwill to those with whom they disagree on some political or religious or other matter. If you can't control your own temper or rise above having such a vicious attitude toward people you disagree with, why should I talk to you? Would I approach a snarling dog to talk to it?

That's why I usually don't bother to respond to your hostile posts.

I do recommend you read the book, though. It has to do with a political/financial system that long preceded George W. Bush, matter of fact, it basically got started in the early 1960s. It's what is termed a plutocracy or an oligarchy. Some of its really notable disciples have been Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and some of the key people appointed under Obama too (specially those dealing with finance, such as Secretary of the Treasury, Timothy Geithner).

It easily outlasted George W. Bush, it is still in control of the overall USA agenda, the CFR, the IMF, the UK, Canada, Israel, and the World Bank, and it will very likely considerably outlast Obama and whatever figurehead follows him too. Obama is not the problem. That overall coporatist political/financial system and philosophy is the problem. Obama's just a temporary marketable face that's been pasted on it like one of those "happy face" stickers, because a new face always gives the common people some hope in desperate times. That's what Bush was too, just a temporary face, but he wasn't nearly as cuddly or likable a face as Obama, that's for sure. (At least not if you're not a Republican! Some of them thought he was the next thing to God.) Once Obama can no longer be marketed effectively or has simply finished his 2nd term, then they'll stick some other face on their system with another bogus election, to again give people some false hopes. We'll have to wait a bit to see which face it turns out to be. I have no confidence in any face they pick, because if he (or she) gets that far as to be elected president, then he or she has already sold out to the corporates a long time ago.

A plutocracy doesn't really care which new face they market to you...as long as they can get you to buy it for a few more years. They market 2 faces to you at election time. The public picks one of those two, because there IS no one else to pick. Heads they win, tails you lose. Tails they win, heads you lose. Either way, they win. And they have most of the money. So they can do that marketing very effectively indeed. Money is power. Media coverage is the message. And the media are about 98% controlled and subservient now...they've been "embedded" (with a few minor exceptions here and there, because it isn't yet possible to shut up absolutely everyone in the media who dares to break ranks and speak the unspeakable....). What is the unspeakable in a plutocracy? The unspeakable is the truth...the truth about invasion, murder, fraud, torture, neocolonialism, lies, dictatorship, and ruthless empire building for the benefit of the wealthy few.

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Apr 12 - 02:59 AM

Does this help?

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Elmore
Date: 16 Apr 12 - 09:54 AM

Mike Lee

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Apr 12 - 10:42 AM

It is well to beware of ALL sweeping generalizations about what "they" do to keep power and impose "their" system on all of "us". The implication is that Obama and others are perfectly aware they are being "used" by the 'plutocracy', but shrug about it.

If you can't see a major difference in the various approaches to governing, even when needed changes are slow in coming, I suspect it is beyond MY ability to type enough words to convince you.

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 16 Apr 12 - 10:56 AM

Selfishness, personal ambition, greed and indifference will run with Romney.
Ryan might be a good choice for that.

We need a candidate that cares about working people, working women, not gun toting GOPlers who "stand their ground" with the NRA and distort the Second Amendment. We need a candidate that will respect government to protect the public from unscrupulous businessmen. We need a government that will protect the public from Libertarians who think only of their own needs and not the needs of the hurting public.

We need a nourishing candidate who will fight for human rights, not tying dogs to cars or dressage horses in place of human needs.

We need a candidate that will not blow with corporate winds.

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Elmore
Date: 16 Apr 12 - 11:01 AM

Orrin Hatch

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 16 Apr 12 - 11:04 AM

We need a candidate that doesn't espouse jingoistic jargon and attempt to hijack
important issues such as job creation. Jobs do not come from austerity programs.
Jobs come from generosity not constipated views of corporations.

We need a candidate who cares about the health of all Americans, not just the privileged few.

We need a candidate who will bring back the jobs that have been outsourced by greedy corporations.

GOP diarrhea and propaganda will run with Romney.

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 16 Apr 12 - 11:08 AM

You've got to bear in mind that Obama is vulnerable as a black man in an important position and is walking on eggshells.

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 16 Apr 12 - 11:27 AM

I should have thought that anybody with a working brain cell would be running away from him.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Apr 12 - 11:48 AM

"I don't bother answering belligerent, hostile, insulting questions from individuals who are completely unwilling to show any respect or goodwill to those with whom they disagree on some political or religious or other matter. If you can't control your own temper or rise above having such a vicious attitude toward people you disagree with, why should I talk to you? Would I approach a snarling dog to talk to it?"

I am familiar with the book "Shock Doctrine." There is nothing in it that says that the current President has replaced the troops that were withdrawn from Iraq with mercenaries. That was libelous bullshit on your part. Libelous bullshit that is far too common. There is nothing in what Akenoten posted that confirms your wild accusation. I repeat the question. If OBAMA has replaced 120,000 fighting men and women withdrawn from Iraq with mercenaries, how many mercenaries are there and how many have duties other than guarding embassy personel and property?

You are the barking dog of this forum. A little yipping toy dog arf arf arfing at the foot of every conversation about certain topics. Too busy talking to educate on current US politics, you simply ASSUME that the graphs drawn your mind from the dribs and drabs of paranoid screeds that you have glanced at over the course of your life have continued apace. You have no evidence. You have given this no real thought. You just bark.

You are mocking adult conversations with your childish antics. Your "Chongo" writings are just another example of this mockery. You insult the members you talk to and this whole forum when you pretend to engage in conversation, when you pretend that you have the first clue what you are talking about. But mockery is your only purpose, disruption your only goal.

I knew you couldn't respond to my very reasonable question as to the numbers of mercenaries and their duties. I knew that you would find an excuse to evade the question. That is what bullshitters who get caught do.

Be warned. I know what you are doing, so does most of the forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 16 Apr 12 - 12:16 PM

Heard him described on the radio the other day as, "The Mormonator"

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Apr 12 - 01:00 PM

Maybe he could call in Dan Quayle...

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 16 Apr 12 - 01:17 PM

Every time I hear Dan Quayle's name I want to buy a vowel.

(Done by some comedian years back.)

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Apr 12 - 01:36 PM

The recent history of vice presidents has been one of picking assassin deterrents.

I can see in my minds eye dozens of would be killers with a Bush or Obama in their sights lowering their guns and walking away when they realized that their action would only put a Quayle or Cheney or Biden in the White House.

It is like the old joke about the two men running from the bear. One guy says, we can't outrun a bear. The other guy says, I just have to outrun you.

I know what you are all thinking "what about Al Gore?" Gore was TOO much like Clinton, except that he was less entertaining.

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Elmore
Date: 16 Apr 12 - 04:00 PM

Allen West.

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 16 Apr 12 - 07:43 PM

Yes, Allen West would balance the Republican ticket nicely, and elevate the national debate. Pond scum still rises to the top, doesn't it?

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Apr 12 - 07:49 PM

Adam West would be better.

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Elmore
Date: 16 Apr 12 - 07:50 PM

the donald

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: GUEST,Marks (on the road)
Date: 16 Apr 12 - 07:57 PM

Allen West as pond scum?
That's a bit of a stretch.
Care to elaborate?
Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Elmore
Date: 17 Apr 12 - 09:28 AM

Tom Coburn

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Apr 12 - 05:01 PM

I believe back in the first part of the 19th century you could have the same running mate attached to several presidential candidates. Might be entertaining if they brought that one back.

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 17 Apr 12 - 05:40 PM

Guest Marks-

You may have been on the road too long. Here are Rep. Allen West's recent comments about the Progressive Caucus in Washington:

Rep. Allen West (R-Fla) gave a characteristically energetic speech at a town hall event Tuesday evening, where he estimated that around 80 U.S. Representatives are Communist Party members.

After one person asked him about "card-carrying" Marxists in Congress, West responded to those who brushed aside the query.

"No, it's a good question," he said, adding: "I believe there is about 78 to 81 members of the Democratic Party that are members of the Communist Party."

West is way over the top, and would certainly reinforce Romney's appeal to the far right extremists.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Elmore
Date: 17 Apr 12 - 08:09 PM

Eric Cantor

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 17 Apr 12 - 09:33 PM

Fred Phelps

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: MarkS
Date: 17 Apr 12 - 09:50 PM

Thanks Charlie

I found the source and even though Rep Wests comments in context were not quite as outrageous as reported, they still hit the top of the scale on the dumbometer.

And you are right - I probably have been on the road too long!


Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Elmore
Date: 18 Apr 12 - 09:32 AM

Rand Paul

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Apr 12 - 03:17 PM

In what context could "I believe there is about 78 to 81 members of the Democratic Party that are members of the Communist Party" be other than "outrageous"?

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Apr 12 - 04:53 PM

An insult to Commies everywhere   :0(

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Apr 12 - 06:00 PM

I read Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine" a few years ago, after hearing her being interviewed on my local NPR affiliate. A lot of good points, but she did get the wrong end of the stick on a number of issues.

I heard a good quote this morning. Can't remember who it's attributed to:

"Cynicism is a luxury indulged in by people who don't want to get involved."

Don Firth   Dante

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: MarkS
Date: 18 Apr 12 - 07:07 PM

Hi McGrath

I reset my cookie. Still on the road though!

The source I found had West saying that he had "heard" that xxx to xxx members etc.

Outrageous - Gawd yes. I just think repeating stupidity is not quite as bad as advocating stupidity.

And anybody in the public eye should be smart enough to make sure the brain is in gear before releasing the clutch on the mouth.

Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Apr 12 - 07:22 PM

Don't get me wrong. Naomi Klein is one very bright woman, and she pretty well knows what's going on in the world. Among other things, she is a regular columnist in The Nation magazine, and I read her regularly.

Rethinking it, I'm not all that sure that she really did get the wrong end of the stick. I think some of her readers did, though.

Example:   once again, Little Hawk fastens on the idea that all our political leaders, and we as well, are being manipulated like puppets. And, I think, like a fundamentalist Christian combing through the Bible and cherry-picking verses to support what he believes he believes, there are those who will read what Naomi Klein wrote in "The Shock Doctrine," conclude (yet again!) that "the fix is in," and that nothing can be done about it.

If Naomi Klein truly believed that, she probably wouldn't have bothered to write the book.

The book WAS written a few years ago. One should really keep up with what she's been writing lately.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Elmore
Date: 18 Apr 12 - 07:22 PM

Ted Nugent

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Apr 12 - 03:34 AM

As far as cynicism is concerned, I seen nothing wrong in Little Hawk or others presenting the world as it is, to this forum.

Surely the really cynical, are those who being in posession of these facts, still promote the idea that the system can somehow be repaired?

It is not only the economic and social system which has become corrupt and redundant, but the huge swathe of people who are "converted" to the religion of money.....and the belief that it is a problem solver, when we can all see the problems that it creates.

Competition in life or sport is never fair, and we are about to be exploited by the powerful, just as we have always exploited the weak.

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Apr 12 - 03:40 AM

Politics is NEVER about right and wrong, always about bolstering power.

Until we learn that lesson things will never change.

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 19 Apr 12 - 07:52 AM

Condoleezza Rice but her first name is too long. Mitt will feel insecure.

But "Mitt and Con" would sound wicked sharp.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: skarpi
Date: 19 Apr 12 - 07:55 AM

well I can run with , 5 miles ...no problem .....

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Elmore
Date: 19 Apr 12 - 09:47 AM

Jim DeMint

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Elmore
Date: 20 Apr 12 - 01:34 AM

Karl Rove

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Elmore
Date: 20 Apr 12 - 07:40 PM

Scott Walker

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Elmore
Date: 21 Apr 12 - 11:50 AM

Jeff Sessions

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Apr 12 - 11:59 AM

Ohh..Elmore.... stop... you're scaring me!

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Apr 12 - 12:00 PM

No... wait...I see the point.

Bobby Jindal

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Apr 12 - 12:11 PM

Jeb Bush suggests Marco Rubio. If not himself.

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Elmore
Date: 21 Apr 12 - 03:06 PM

Bill D: Right. How about Rep. Joe Wilson SC?

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Apr 12 - 03:17 PM

Hey...they always want women governors!*grin* How about Jan Brewer of Arizona...?

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 21 Apr 12 - 04:14 PM

Ann Coulter oughta wrap it up for 'em.

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Apr 12 - 06:01 PM

Joe Wilson would be "on message" This promises to be the "Obama hater" election especially in the ad wars.

This is what we are seeing in the GOP primaries

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Elmore
Date: 21 Apr 12 - 07:39 PM

Dick Cheney finally has a heart.

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Elmore
Date: 21 Apr 12 - 07:46 PM

Still, Cheney needs a brain transplant. Perhaps the lovely George Allen would be a better candidate.

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Apr 12 - 07:51 PM

Well, the way TeaNation is talkin' Romney probably feel he's thier boy so I'm lookin' for him to mistakenly take a moderate...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Elmore
Date: 22 Apr 12 - 10:03 AM

Bobert, I agree. Romney's doing all that he can to appeal to the far right, including a pilgrimage to Falwell College. (aka Liberty U) It would make sense to pick someone moderate as his running mate.

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Apr 12 - 10:11 AM

His wife seems to be abot the only one who really LIKES him.... do you suppose..... naawwwww... probably illegal....


still.........

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Apr 12 - 07:36 PM

"His wife seems to be abot the only one who really LIKES him.... do you suppose..... naawwwww... probably illegal...."

1) It's an election year. Of course she likes him.

2) Nothing in what's left of your constitution says they couldn't be running mates.

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Apr 12 - 10:58 AM

HA!

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: catspaw49
Date: 24 Apr 12 - 11:59 AM

Still going with Rob Portman. He's a jackass but at least not one with a lightning rod mounted on his head.


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Apr 12 - 10:08 AM

It is legal for Cheney to to be VP

Romney "I like firing people"
Cheney "I like firing squads"

Subject: RE: BS: Who will run with Romney?
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Apr 12 - 12:13 PM

The American voter seems to like Ann Romney better than Mittwit...that's why we've been seeing her a lot lately accompanying and introducing Romney during his campaign speeches. She seems more personable and genuine than Romney himself, and Romney realizes this.