Democrats in two clips.

[Yonivore]

lol deflection.

And Yoni, it's a known fact Wasserman is a lying POS. Doesn't really need a thread. Also, Wasserman does not reflect the Democratic body politic anymore than Ryan reflects the conservative body politic.

There's no equivalency between the lies and distortions spewed by Wasserman Shultz and Paul Ryan.

And, this woman is the chair of the Democrat National Committee -- she does represent liberal body politic; just as does Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Shumer, Barack Obama, and the rest of the lying little s of the Democrat Party.

[TeyshaBlue]

..... and the rest of the lying little s of the Democrat Party.

Ahhh...now we get to the heart of your issue.

[Oh, Gee!!]

not to piant with too broad of a brush or anything.....

[SA210]

I'd challenge you to find a liar, in the RNC, that is as putrid an example as Debbie Wasserman Schultz...and, give examples of the lie.

Well this is easy..

Liar


Example



/thread

[boutons_deux]

There's no equivalency between the lies and distortions spewed by Wasserman Shultz and Paul Ryan.

And, this woman is the chair of the Democrat National Committee -- she does represent liberal body politic; just as does Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Shumer, Barack Obama, and the rest of the lying little s of the Democrat Party.

PussyEater sees the writing on the wall (and smells the in his pants (padded crotch) ):

Sept. 4: The Simple Case for Why Obama Is the Favorite

I’ve been tiptoeing around this point, because I don’t think that our forecast model ought to represent the totality of our analysis about the election.

But if you look at the right-hand column of this page, you’ll notice that our forecast has moved toward Barack Obama over the past several days. It now gives him about a three-in-four chance of winning the Electoral College on Nov. 6.

I’ll explain a little bit more about how the model comes to that conclusion in a moment, but the intuition behind it is pretty simple:

1. Polls usually overrate the standing of the candidate who just held his convention.
2. Mitt Romney just held his convention. But he seems to have gotten a below-average bounce out of it. The national polls that have come out since the Republican National Convention have shown an almost exact tie in the race.
3. If the polls overrate Mr. Romney, and they show only a tie for him now, then he will eventually lose.
The first point is the simplest of all, but perhaps the most important. There is a lot of focus on the bounce that a candidate gets after his convention — that is, how the polls conducted just after the convention compare with the ones taken immediately beforehand.

But the more instructive comparison may be how the post-convention polls track with the actual election result — it’s Nov. 6 that we’re really concerned about, after all.

On average, between 1968 and 2008, the challenging candidate led by 10 percentage points in polls conducted just after his convention. By comparison, the challenging candidate eventually lost the popular vote by an average of three points in these years. That means the post-convention polls overrated the challenger by an average of 13 points.


http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...-the-favorite/

[Spurminator]

So, you've got nothing...

Nope, I'm choosing not to participate, and mocking you from the sideline. But if you'd like to take that to mean something more, feel free to draw a mark on your side of the imaginary scoreboard. Go Team!

[Spurminator]

[djohn2oo8]

I would say that Yoni, Darrin and WC all hate their lives or some aspect of it but its mainly that they're gawddamn re ed.

[SA210]

Well this is easy..

Liar


Example



/thread

Bueller?..

[boutons_deux]

After dozens sources, some conservative, absolutely trashed Ryan, Gecko, etc for the BRAZEN LIES last week, PussyEater tries this week, with great silliness, to stick the LIAR label to the entire Dem "little s" party.

[Clipper Nation]

Nope, I'm choosing not to participate, and mocking you from the sideline. But if you'd like to take that to mean something more, feel free to draw a mark on your side of the imaginary scoreboard. Go Team!

[Clipper Nation]

I would say that Yoni, Darrin and WC all hate their lives or some aspect of it but its mainly that they're gawddamn re ed.

Nobody who isn't totally self-loathing would want to be a political forum rag, so your theory is correct, B....

[Wild Cobra]

I would say that Yoni, Darrin and WC all hate their lives or some aspect of it but its mainly that they're gawddamn re ed.

I think you are just to limited in your thinking to even begin to understand.

[Wild Cobra]

After dozens sources, some conservative, absolutely trashed Ryan, Gecko, etc for the BRAZEN LIES last week, PussyEater tries this week, with great silliness, to stick the LIAR label to the entire Dem "little s" party.

If you are incorrectly spelling his alter ego Gecko because it's a lizzard, then know this. The correct spelling Gekko is also a lizard you moron.

And...

Are you seriously using "pussyeater' as a defamatory word?

I'll bet you have a pretty boring sex life.

[Wild Cobra]

Nobody who isn't totally self-loathing would want to be a political forum rag, so your theory is correct, B....

Speak for yourself.

[Jacob1983]

Can the Wall Street references be retired?

[Wild Cobra]

Can the Wall Street references be retired?

I think it should, but as long as Shazbot uses it, don't you think he should at least spell it like he did in 2011?

[Wild Cobra]

Government-Sponsored Sinner

Who would have thought that Republican voters would prove so accepting of sin? At least when it’s committed by a white guy, like the serial philanderer Newt Gingrich, who betrayed not one but two wives while they were enduring serious medical difficulties.

In the latest New York Times/CBS poll of Iowa Republicans, alleged philanderer Herman Cain’s once impressive support shifts to the new front-runner, Gingrich, whose richer history of marital deceit is not a problem even for the self-described evangelical Christian voters who favor him over Mitt Romney by a ratio of 3-1.

It is the first time that I have felt sympathy for a candidate experiencing the prejudice directed at a practicing Mormon. Clearly the ultimate of “squeaky clean” doesn’t cut it for a presidential contender of that faith among Republican Christian “values voters,” even when he is compared with a sexual roué of Gingrich’s considerable magnitude.

Or perhaps it is Newt’s peerless capacity to mask moral hypocrisy with the appearance of religious propriety, first as a Protestant and now as a Roman Catholic, that endears him to other Republicans who wear their religion on their sleeves. Many of those were willing to tear the country apart over the sexual wanderings of a Democrat in the White House, but now they are quite willing to send someone of Gingrich’s reputation to the Oval Office. We are speaking of a politician who was having an extramarital affair with a congressional staff member 27 years his junior, now more appropriately his third wife, during the very years when he was so energetically stoking the Clinton sex scandal.

But Newt did manage to cooperate closely with the Democratic president in passing the “welfare reform” legislation that in effect ended the main federal poverty program. Given that 70 percent of those covered by the gutted welfare program were children, it is at least consistent that the former House speaker now favors further aiding those children by wiping out the long-standing restraints on the exploitation of child labor.

Gingrich also cooperated successfully with President Clinton on the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, which legislated drastic cuts in the capital gains tax benefiting the wealthy. In addition, he was a great partner for Clinton in whipping up enthusiasm for a broader agenda of deregulation that set the stage for the housing mortgage bubble and resultant Great Recession. It is Gingrich’s hypocrisy concerning these economic matters that will prove more troubling as his chances of becoming president increase.

Given that Gingrich was on the payroll of Freddie Mac to the tune of $1.6 million, how in the world will he be able, in a one-on-one debate with Barack Obama, to logically make what has become the standard Republican case: that it was liberal do-gooders at the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac who forced the banks to make bad housing loans?

The honest answer, politically awkward of course, would be to admit that those agencies were government sponsored only on the risk end, and as for profit en ies they were owned and traded by investors in the stock market. They got in trouble for the same reason Citigroup did, because the obscenely huge bonuses of their top executives were driven by their profit performance and not the quality of the home mortgages they backed.

The packaging of hugely profitable but eventually toxic mortgage securities, with the GSE seal of approval, that is at the heart of the economic crisis was the result of a Republican-engineered deregulatory mania that Newt abetted and Clinton supported. A mania that Sen. Obama criticized, but not Gingrich, who was a highly paid booster for Freddie Mac even as the housing market was imploding.

The private/public GSE model of the two housing agencies in which the risk but not the profits was carried by the public is the very arrangement that Gingrich is on record as celebrating as late as 2007 when the crisis was visibly under way. Gingrich favored it as a model not just for housing but even the space program. “I’m convinced that if NASA were a GSE, we probably would be on Mars today,” he declared in a post on the Freddie Mac website on April 14, 2007.

Although Gingrich now claims that when he was on the Freddie Mac gravy train he was simply giving objective advice as a “historian” that sought to improve the agency’s performance, the truth is quite the opposite. Obama will no doubt delight in quoting back to Gingrich his assertion that “while we need to improve the regulation of the GSEs, I would be very cautious about changing their role or the model itself.”

Gingrich, who ran into trouble with the House Ethics Committee when he was speaker and paid a $300,000 fine, is himself a variant of a GSE, having turned his government backing into a hugely profitable enterprise. After he left office, his various personal business enterprises had revenues of about $100 million. Last week in South Carolina, Gingrich scoffed at the idea that he needed to work as a lobbyist; after all, he noted, he is paid $60,000 a speech.

You would think that with a sorry personal and political record like Gingrich’s—and there is so much more—the Republicans would never nominate him as their presidential candidate if they expected to win. But I wouldn’t rule it out, for the driving faith of the GOP has become the notion that the toxic mixture of moral hypocrisy and unfettered greed is a formula for victory. Newt could be their man.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/print...nner_20111208/

====

Repugs and their "Christian" "family values voters" love s bags.

vs Willard Gekko, The Jobs/Company Destroying predatory capitalist.

Will be very entertaining to watch the flip-flopping battle royale, s bag vs moneybag.

It will be hilarious if the entire Repug power structure and almost all of the Repugs in Congress are against Noot, but Willard Gekko implodes into a pile of gaffes, handing the nomination to Noot.

Willard Gekko vs Noot Slimebag

Representin the Repugs perfectly

Willard Gekko's $10K bet was pure "in your faces, 99%" macho grandstanding and adolescent gotcha game-playing.

This group of plutocratic Repug assholes is irrefutable evidence of how morally and socially bankrupt and perverse the Repugs are, and that true of the entire charade of American "democracy".

Gingrich is unelectable.

The majority the Repug Congresspeople, the Repug power structure, and Wall st (giving their money to their boy Willard Gekko) don't want, would detest, Gingrich as their candidate.

Willard Gekko also slimed Barry for not bombing the drone in Iran.

"GOP = officially buttf*cked"

but since so many other people already knew about the phrases's KKK/nativist/xenophobic/exclusionary/white-supremacist usage, one would think that Willard Gekko's deep pockets could pay for researchers on this staff to reduce his foot-in-mouth outbreaks.

or maybe Willard was desperately dog-whistling to those hate groups.

Buyout Profits Keep Flowing to Romney

In what would be the final deal of his private equity career, he negotiated a retirement agreement with his former partners that has paid him a share of Bain's profits ever since, bringing the Romney family millions of dollars in income each year and bolstering the fortune that has helped finance Mr. Romney's political aspirations.

The arrangement allowed Mr. Romney to pursue his career in public life while enjoying much of the financial upside of being a Bain partner as the company grew into a global investing behemoth.

In the process, Bain continued to buy and restructure companies, potentially leaving Mr. Romney exposed to further criticism that he has grown wealthier over the last decade partly as a result of layoffs. Moreover, much of his income from the arrangement has probably qualified for a lower tax rate than ordinary income under a tax provision favorable to hedge fund and private equity managers, which has become a point of contention in the battle over economic inequality.

But since Mr. Romney's payouts from Bain have come partly from the firm's share of profits on its customers' investments, that income probably qualifies for the 15 percent tax rate reserved for capital gains, rather than the 35 percent that wealthy taxpayers pay on ordinary income. The Internal Revenue Service allows investment managers to pay the lower rate on the share of profits, known in the industry as "carried interest," that they receive for running funds for investors.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=882047&f=19

==========

When their was talk a while back of taxing income from fees paid by funds (not gains from personal investments) as normal income (not capital gains), the wealthy fund mgrs bought enough Congressmen to keep their extremely lucrative loophole wide open, even with the Repugs and tea baggers screaming falselhy about deficits.

[TeyshaBlue]

After dozens sources, some conservative, absolutely trashed Ryan, Gecko, etc for the BRAZEN LIES last week, PussyEater tries this week, with great silliness, to stick the LIAR label to the entire Dem "little s" party.

Wasserman certainly wears the label proudly.

[boutons_deux]

Wasserman ain't on the Dem ticket of liars.

otoh, Gecko and Ryan are the Repug ticket of liars, with lying, slandering assholes like Rove and Bob Perry spewing LIES non-stop from here to the election with Yoni's "treasure".

[TeyshaBlue]

She's the DNC chairperson. She engineers the ticket.

And LO ingL at blasting Rove while ignoring Wasserman. You really are the blueteam fluffer on this issue.

[FromWayDowntown]

I would say that Yoni, Darrin and WC all hate their lives or some aspect of it but its mainly that they're gawddamn re ed.

Nobody who isn't totally self-loathing would want to be a political forum rag, so your theory is correct, B....

Speak for yourself.

Wait -- did Wild Cobra just admit that he wants to be a political forum rag?

[Winehole23]

nm

[djohn2oo8]

Wait -- did Wild Cobra just admit that he wants to be a political forum rag?

[Winehole23]

A reading of the Republican Party’s platforms from 2008 and 2012 reveals that Republicans have toned down language in their platform related to Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem.


The revelation comes just a day after Republican Jewish groups, and presidential candidate Mitt Romney himself, blasted Democrats on the first day of their convention for removing key pro-Israel provisions, on Jerusalem and other issues, from the Democratic platform.

The Republican platform changes included removing the adjective “undivided” from references to Jerusalem, and cutting the sentence supporting the relocation of the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

The 2008 platform included the sentence “We support Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel and moving the American embassy to that undivided capital of Israel.”

In the 2012 platform, that sentence is missing, with the only reference to Jerusalem – “Israel with Jerusalem as its capital” – lacking the word “undivided.” Support for moving the embassy to Jerusalem is excised entirely.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/republi...from-platform/