Economists for Romney and my opinion on Paul Ryan

http://economistsforromney.com/

Awesome. And they have 4 more Nobel prizes than Obama does.

Sidenote, as I was reading this in the office this morning, I excitedly remarked to my assistant manager “Wow! This has some of my favorite economists on it!” Then I had to stop and realize how sad it is that I actually have favorite economists. I am such a political dork :)

I haven’t posted about Ryan yet. Overall, not who I was expecting, but as an accountant/finance guy/small business owner, I like him. Is he perfect? No. He’s got two big votes in the past that I disagree with on philosophical grounds, but on both of them I can understand his reasoning. He makes up for those by knowing how to do MATH. Shocking, I know, right? Romney picking Ryan sends a message. We’re going to talk about the real issues, like how Obama is running America off of a cliff.

As soon as they announced Ryan, the media had a come apart. I heard the words “extreme” and “radical” so many times that I thought I was watching a Mountain Dew commercial. I kept waiting for Ryan to come flying onto the screen doing flips on a skateboard while being chased by a shark. No, sorry media. Tony Hawk is “extreme”. Habeneros are “extreme”. Paul Ryan is a moderate republican who stayed awake through accounting 201.

You want an example of extreme, how about Harry Reid and the democrat senate not passing a budget for THREE YEARS… Think about that. We were able to pass budgets during the Civil War. What’s their excuse now? Paul Ryan is so extreme that his budget got a couple hundred votes, while Barack Obama’s budget got zero.

Ryan’s budget is only extreme if you operate under the belief that having 51% of Americans pay no tax at all and over 100,000,000 Americans on some form of welfare is a good thing. Ryan’s budget is only extreme if you think that every single government program is sacred and can’t be cut at all, ever. The second you start to cut any program you get the screams of anguish and suffering and killing grandma and blah blah blah, so nothing ever gets cut, so the government just keeps on getting bigger and stupider, until it will inevitably mathmatically collapse. Then we get to leave our kid’s generation to figure out how to pay the tab. Bravo, democrats. How very extreme of you.

And Romney and Ryan get that. Is Romney perfect? Far from it. I talked about why I didn’t like Romney clear back in the ’08 primaries. However, the primaries are where you vote for who you want, and in the general election you vote for who you got. Romney is who we’ve got, and he’s better than Barack Obama in pretty much every way you can think of.

And save me the Libertarian purist, Lesser of Two Evils speech. No. This isn’t even close to lesser of two evils. This is a mushy moderate who sometimes thinks government is the answer when it really isn’t, but overall is a pretty decent person, who understands capitalism, free markets, and the Constitution vs. a wealth redistributing, race baiting, scandal ridden, class warfare loving, marxist.

One of these two men will be president. One of them just picked the #1 enemy of nationalized healthcare to be his running mate. The other one has a circus clown with hair plugs.

Since we’re on the topic of economics, here is a webpage I rather like that is just the facts about the national debt. http://www.justfacts.com/nationaldebt.asp#causes-tax  It is fascinating reading.

109 Responses

  1. Larry. . .

    You just gravely insulted circus clowns. . . . (grin)

  2. Here is some interesting information about the Obama and Ryan budgets, I would be interested in what you think.

    Three things stuck out at me

    1) Ryan’s plan gives more to Medicare than Obama’s, so much for the the ads that Ryan’s plan throws Grandma over a cliff (remember those?)

    2) Obama wants to spend more on Defense than Ryan

    3) Both plans are wholly unsustainable according to the National Debt charts, Interest and Revenue

    I cant vouch for the site or data but they seem to match what was proposed in each plan

    http://www.tableausoftware.com/public/gallery/spend-or-not-spend

    (you can change the chart by selecting the drop down)]

    Full article

    http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/04/interactive-map-paul-ryan-vs-obama.html

  3. I strongly suspect that even many of the ardent Obama supporters are aware of the fact that Obama’s four years in office have been an economic joke. Record unemployment, astounding increases in the debt and the deficit, no budgets being passed, etc. But due to the massive religious furor surrounding Obama, to admit they were wrong is unthinkable. You can’t claim someone is the Second Coming and then turn around four years later and go, “Uhhh, OK, maybe I was wrong.” Nope. It’s double-down time for the Obamanomics kool-aid drinkers.

    • It certainly looks that way when you see polling data but once it comes time to get dressed. leave the house and actually go vote, I suspect many will decide to stay in and eat and drink their WIC chips and food stamp beer instead

      Of course Mitt has a similar issue with an energized and motivated base, the Ryan VP helps some with this but turns off others.

    • You seem to not be cognizant of the fact that without 0bama’s policies we’d be facing 235% unemployment. So there.

      • Sorry to correct you, Mike, but you forgot to carry the 1. It’d be 335%

      • Quit sugarcoating it. Without Obama’s policies we would all be unemployed, killed, turned into zombies, then killed again as part of the evil republican health care plan.

      • All your grandmothers are belong to us.

    • Are you trying to use this as a counter-argument or are you just asking for a good fisking?

      • I think the opinion’s of the economist cited by Mitt are relevant and a valid counter argument. Tell us what exactly it is in the link that you have such a problem with and maybe it can be discussed vs everyone getting a good fisting. Why you think it would be worthy of a good fisting is beyond me, unless everything that is counter to your beliefs is evil. Go ahead and use adult words if you feel the need, its not like you are still pure if you think the thought but misspell the word

      • Steve, fisking is an entirely different word than fisting. From urban dictionary, fisking is:

        “The word derived from articles written by Robert Fisk that were easily refuted, and refers to a point-by-point debunking of lies and/or idiocies.”

        Do you feel enlightened?

      • I do, thanks for the information. Its not often I check the urban dictionary vs the regular old dictionary but I guess I should. It however does not invalidate my original point

        Thanks Julaire

      • Fisking is what I do when I take various articles and pick them apart line by line. It is a common topic on this blog.

      • Steve, someone just posted a random link on a blog with no explanation. i was simply asking what their intent was. Generally someone linking another page on a political topic falls into one of two categories:
        1. Using that article to support their opinion (or in this case since no opinion was given to counter the opinion on this blog)
        2. To request that our resident best-selling author turn his considerable talent towards fisking said article.

        Since ImanAzol gave no explanation, and the article is contrary to Larry’s opinion (it is the washington post after all), I was asking for clarification on his intent, and I apologize if my purpose was unclear.

        I only skimmed through the link but the gist of the article was that the economists who support romney based their arguments on other economists’s work, and according to the WP, those economists disagreed with the conclusions that Romney’s economists drew from it. Then I think it says it discredits everything Romney’s economists say, and possibly calls them dirty names, but I’m not sure. I’m having trouble getting the link to open back up.

        As for the last part, Steve, you must be new here or else you’d know that everyone loves a good fisking.

      • Peavybob – I thought you were trying to say fisting and took the tone of your post from there. As we have already established I was wrong and I apologize. Your explanation above makes perfect sense and its what I got out of the article also. But like you, I did not read the article very careful (it is the washington post after all) But I am still unsure how you could fisk the article based on the understanding you mention. If you can show the economists are quacks then Mitt should not be referencing them.

        I have been a reading the blog for about 10 months now and don’t remember seeing fisking but I probably just read over it without noticing

      • Again Steve, I was not giving a recommendation for a fisking, though if Larry chose to do one, it would undoubtedly be great. I was simply trying to determine Iman’s intent since he was busy going for the strong and silent look.

        Since economics isn’t my realm of expertise I have no way of telling how much of the article was political BS and how much was simple ignorance (it is the washington post after all), but since Larry’s day job is the G.I. Joe Spreadsheet, he would probably be able tell how much of it is BS, but do it in such a way as to leave you lying on the ground in pain from so much laughter.

    • Jesus Christ this is a Washington Post article and even quotes University of Chicago Commie Economics professors. Sheesh! Only the New York Times is more left Biased. The submitter should comment not just send URLs. This is a give and take Blog.

    • Right … a bunch of Chicago School Keynesians don’t like Romney’s economic strategy.

      Welp … Obambam followed their Keynesian rot to the letter, and we now have a shattered economy, and the worst unemployment since the Great Depression.

      The best thing to do with a Keynesian and their opinions is to toss them into a deep scorpion pit, and laugh at their screams.

  4. Ah, but Obama’s Nobel is worth at least 10 times what theirs are. It is for stuff that’s still in the future. Obama can say “I will do something world shakingly great in the future, and here’s the Nobel Prize to prove it.”

    The economists are all gloating about past accomplishments that have already done.

    No contest.

    And ability to do math is overrated against the ability to care about…. something.

  5. …who understands capitalism, free markets, and the Constitution…

    I’ll give him capitalism and free markets, but only by the same criteria that I’ll give him the Constitution; it’s one thing to understand it, but it’s something else entirely to defend it, even when (or especially when) it won’t win any political points to do so.

    We’ll revisit this in 2016, provided we’re not discussing the last eight years of Obama.

    Larry, I’ll just ask you point blank: do you honestly believe that the Mitt Romney Administration will be a defender of capitalism, free markets, and the Constitution? Being only slightly better than the last guy – or the last two guys, or three – doesn’t count.

    • Yes. But since I’m not a fortune teller nor a mind reader, all I can do is guess. He is a hell of a lot more likely to do so than Obama, who we know with absolute certainity will not.

      Regardless of my opinion, you get one or the other. One has boned us, and next time around one thing that I am sure of is that he will bone us and put out whatever executive order he feels like without having to worry about running for reelection. Ron Paul or Gary Johnson will not be president. Period. It is Romney or Obama. So the choice is easy.

      You want to keep Romney from doing any stupid “compassionate conservative” crap, you continue to elect more guys like Mike Lee to congress and the senate.

      • Fair enough on all but the Constitutional point:

        “These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.” That’s his words, concerning his signing of MA’s permanent AWB.

        No need to be a mind-reader, man. Dude’s past speaks for itself.

      • Yeah. I quoted that here in ’08. Like I said, not a fan. But even then, still better than Obama. I’m having a hard time picturing Romney using executive priviledge to cover up the DoJ shipping guns to Mexican cartels in a botched attempt to stir up new gun control legislation.

        Keep electing Tea Party folks to congress and my issues with Romney are made moot. Plus, gun control is a dead issue nationally. We aren’t Massachusetts. Look at what the media attempted over the last few shootings and they got zero traction. Reelect Obama and you have a Marxist who doesn’t have to worry about running again with access to all the executive orders he could ever want to make. I’m not enthusiastic about Romney, but I’m terrified of four more years of Obama. So now I’m a squeeing Romney fanboy in comparison.

        It is one or the other. Wishful thinking will just get us more Obama.

  6. This thread needs a libtard to comment in it.

  7. I find it telling that the Teamsters are NOT endorsing Obama this time. The coal miners union has withdrawn thier support as well, after supporting him in ’08. Public sector unions are not endorsing him either. I can’t say I blame them he basically threw them under the bus in the Wisconsin recall election. And to come to think of it the SEIU has been mighty quiet too and they were mong his most rabid supporters in ’08.

    Rats leaving a sinking ship? or Fleas leaving a dead dog?

    • I believe even some of the unions are realizing that having the president on your side can only do so much while the economy sputters and dies. Romney may not be their “friend” but if the economy turns around under him they will be better off than four more years of stagnation and death under their buddy.

      They won’t endorse Romney but they may stay quiet.

  8. as a preson who has live in the peoples rep of mass romney was a rino did not back the gun oners in the state but will hold nose and vote for him

    • I see this ‘will hold nose and vote for him’ statement a lot (on this blog and elsewhere). I’m beginning to wonder if distributing Romney stamped clothespins prior to the election so people can pin them to their noses on election day might be a humorous thing to do, and if it might drive a point home to people who might otherwise stay home on election day because they don’t like either candidate.

  9. What if… magical words. What if Romney’s introduction wasn’t the gaffe that people think. What if Romney is going to bow out, leaving Ryan as Presidential nominee and free to make an offer to Rubio to bring on Florida and parts of the South? The Ryan-Rubio ticket has an actual fighting chance not only to win the election, but to actually shift the course of the nation. What if…

  10. Let’s not forgot the mess that the repulicans dropped into Obams lap either. It’s all easy to point the finger when the guy before him kind of screwed over the economy too. I’m not saying Obama is not a fault. He has made mistakes. Just don’t act like everything that happned before Obama was elected never happened.

    and really ” libtard”. How very mature. Not I’m not one. Tend to be more of the middle of the road type of guy who lives up north in Canada.

    • You forget that Obama knew what he was getting into well before he ran for election and chose to do so anyway. And knowing full well what he was facing he still made promises that he didn’t keep, screwed the economy even more, and generally ran things into the gutter.

      • Obama is following the very evil proposition called the The “Cloward-Piven Strategy of Orchestrated Crisis” this is a plan to drive the American economy into bankruptcy so that Obama can achieve the destruction of the United States which has been his plan all along to pay us back for our Neo-Colonial work over the past 60 years as he was trained by Frank Marshall and William Ayers. Cloward-Piven were Commie Professors at Columbia and Obama’s Political Science profs.

        Do not believe for a second Obama has a benign bone in his Marxist Leninist body. He is the ultimate Manchurian Candidate. He is guilty of arch treason. See the URL below. So many make the mistake that Obama is well intentioned. Nothing could be further from the truth he is plotting the down fall of our entire system of government and our economy.

        http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/barack_obama_and_the_strategy.html

      • I’m not denying that. Yet too many here seem to think that every problem under Obama tenure was caused by the Democrats. No way are you going to make me believe that the Dems and Obama are responsible for everything. The Republicans caused some problems too. It happens under every government. Just because you favor one does not mean they should be exempt from responsability. No government has a 100% success rate on everything. Not Repulbicans and not Democrats.

        Still you make a fair point. Obama did make a promise to fix everything and like every other president or politicla arty before him just can’t. What you think if the Repulicans or Romey get elected that somehow every problem in america is going to dissapear. No magical solution exists no matter the political party.

        At least you guys have it easy. I’m going to have to vote in provincial elections at the start of September. My 3 choices are a corrupt party that us going to lose because of some dumb politocal decisions. And no I don’t agree with the student strike but Bill 78 was imo a mistake. A party that wants to seperate the province I live in from the resto Canada (I live in Quebec) and a the third party that imo has no chance opf winning a majority made up of dissatisifed politicins from group 2

      • Sureshot –

        The problem is that pretty much, NOTHING Obama has done has worked. . . except for when he was merely continuing pre-existing BUSH policies.

        There were no secrets about the economy — the economic bubble burst because of the credit crunch caused by the mortgage bubble. . . created by government programs that forced banks to make loans to people who could not afford them or face civil rights suits. There were no real strategic secrets about the conduct of the war (this was isn’t really condusive to “strategic” secrecy, except in terms of geopolitics with wavering allies).

        EVEN BY HIS OWN STANDARDS of FAILURE (as stated in 2008), his is a FAILED presidency. Unemployent around 5-6% was unforgiveably high. . . when GW Bush was president. We HAD TO elect Obama and pass his trillion dollar stimulus plan, or unemployment might crest as high as 8%! (When was it BELOW 8% during his presidency, especially if you don’t count people who have stopped looking for work or exhausted their unemployment benefits — neither of whom count as “unemployed” under the standards by which unemployment figures are generally quoted?)

        He blew ALL of his political capital on passing health care against the expressed will of the people, and even when his party had control of BOTH houses of Congress, could not pass a budget.

    • You should hear the things libtards call us.

      As for earlier messes … The econmy under Bush was doing fine, until Barney Frank had his personal friends at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac open up the CRA mess and caused the housing bubble to burst two weeks before the election.

      Palin and McCain were winning at that point … and then a Dem deliberately caused a crisis.

      And now Obama has the gall to blame Bush for this? When do the training wheels come off of his Presidency. We are NOT going to give this retard another four years to fuck shit up.

      Obama did exactly what FDR did … he tried to spend his way out of a Depression, and ended up deepening it. The countries in Europe that did not follow Keynesian nonsense managed to recover by 1936, but due to FDR’s fiddling, the US was still deep in the hole.

      No, Mr. Canadian … you don’t really know what is going on here in the US.

      • Well with respect both sides have pretty much engaged in way too much political mud-slinging. It’s not a good thing. So while that type of thing happens it’s not a good thing imo and not something to be proud of depsite your political convictions.

        Well your not going to make me believe that Ex-president Bush tenure was a perfect one. I’m not saying he was the worst president or that he did not accompish anything postive. Unlike some of my fellow countrymen I refuse to believe that any president or prime minister in power is unable to get anything right or do postive actions because I don’t agree with his political views. Have ther been incomptant Prime Ministers or Presidents yes. But imo few and far between thankfully.

        What do you expect in a politocal race. Of course each side is going to point fingers and accuse the other of making mistakes. Both past and current. It’s what makes pol;itics so distasteful for me anyway even if I have a small interest in the subject. The Democrats will dig up dirt in the Repulicans and vice-versa. The 3 provicila parties in quebec are doing the same thing. While all are making promises that more often than not will not be able to keep. If it gets more votes it’s all fair game.

        That’s Mister Canadian Sir. If your going to act like a child I’m going to treat you like one. II watch the news. I read the newspaper. I go online and I read books on the subject. Don’t make me out to be an idiot because I don’t agree with you. Your coming across as a sterotype who only wants to hear his side and to hell with everyone else. That’s not exactly conductive to a good debate imo.

      • I am not calling you out as an idiot.

        I am calling you out as an outsider.

        I do not comment about what I consider to be errors of judgement by Canadian politicians simply because such is absolutely none of my damned business.

      • Yeah, if your not an American then you have no business having an opinion on what America does because nothing we do effects the rest of the world. Sounds kinda dumb huh Kristophr?

      • Really steve, what’s your opinion on Putin’s last election campaign? Can you give me a good analysis on the chinese change of power? They both effect the rest of the world too, but I doubt you’re familiar enough with the culture to recognize all the nuances of their politics.

        This is easily the lowest and dirtiest campaign run in recent history, and Mr. Canadian-sir just said that’s normal. Kristopher just pointed out that just because its normal in Canada, does not make it so here.

        Just because something effects you does not mean your opinion of it is automatically valid.

      • I was going to start with my views on Putin and the Chinese but since its not the central part of your argument I decided to focus on something else. I will say that if an American does not have at least a small understanding (not every nuance) of the situation in Russia and China as well as Japan and the EU (at an absolute minimum) then that person is woefully ignorant. The fact you even asked the question about Russia and China like it would be hard, says to me that you have no idea. I could be wrong, its just a guess but I am sure you will quickly google “putin last election” and “china change of power” and then come back to prove me wrong.

        Every year this tired assumption that this is the dirtiest campaign in history (you qualified with recent history) is trotted out. Even if this was the dirties campaign in recent history, don’t you think 2016 would break that when it comes around. Its not like everything in life gets less politicized each cycle. But if you want to read about some real dirty politics you have to go back further in our nations history, 2012 has nothing on the 1800′s. But in fairness, from reading your response I am not even sure what you are trying to say about dirty politics here. I cant tell if you are saying it is the dirtiest, is not the dirtiest or no matter what it is, Canadians have no business commenting on it.

        You do know what the word opinion means (I checked the Urban Dictionary this time) Everyone opinion is automatically valid to them, even if its not a fact. Your job if you chose to accept it is take someone who believes something false and teach them the truth with facts and information. I know people who’s opinion is still that we did not land on the moon and no matter how much I argue with them, I cant change their opinion to match facts. Their opinion is valid even if its stupid beyond belief and counter to the facts. But, if someone was to present me with facts that proved the moon landing was faked, it would be my opinion that was wrong and I would have to change it

      • Steve, that’s exactly my point. You don’t know the relationships between whatever political persuasions there are in russia or china. you don’t know what is socially acceptable and what isn’t for politicians to do. You don’t understand the culture. To pretend otherwise would make you look silly to someone who grew up there.

        Mr. Canadian-sir is interpreting our politics with the same metric as his own when the two are inherently different. How much do you know about Canadian politics? Would you care to tell us whats wrong with their country and whose fault it is? I’ll wait for you to google it.

        I qualified it with recent history since as you put it “2012 has nothing on the 1800′s” I don’t believe there’s been a fight on the floor of congress since the civil war, but I could be wrong. They certainly aren’t killing each other in duels anymore. But anyway, if this isn’t the worse its been in recent history, please tell me when it was worse? My point is that someone foreign to the system should not be telling a member what to expect from the system. That would be like a chess player offering advice on backgammon. He has every right to express his opinion, and we have every right to tell him how wrong it is.

        The operative word here isn’t opinion, its valid.
        a. Containing premises from which the conclusion may logically be derived: a valid argument.
        b. Correctly inferred or deduced from a premise

        Everyone is entitled to an opinion, however wrong it may be. Having an opinion does not make it valid. It may seem valid to the person who has it, but again that’s their opinion. The problem is that most people don’t really think rationally. They go more by feelings and gut instinct rather than reasoned thought. They want to believe something because it makes them feel good, rather than because they’ve examined the facts and determined it to probably be true. How do you think Obama got so much support with “hope and change”? he gave people warm fuzzy feelings so they chose to believe him.

      • Your rational and conclusions are seriously flawed. First you seem to think just by living in one country you are therefor omniscient. The second is that you need to understand every nuance, every political persuasion and the entire culture to make any decision or have an opinion.

        I grew up in Minnesota, I have more in common with the average person in Manitoba than I do the average person in some States. You think the people in the Yukon have more in common with Washington State/ Alaska or Quebec. I know a TON of Canadians that know more about American politics than many Americans do. But by your logic since they were not blessed to be born in America, yet read a news paper once in awhile they have no right to speak about America. Yet the girl on camera at an American voting booth shouting Obama is going to pay her mortgage is fine just because she was born here. Jebus, go search for a few video with people asking Americans questions on the immigration test if you want to have a good cry about where our county is at. I am not saying America should be run according to some United Nations decree but someone in a country that we are bombing might have something important to say about our policy’s even if they have no idea how our government is structured. Our CIA just deposed your elected leader and put in place a dictator, well I wonder if they might have some thoughts on our actions even if they don’t know our culture and who won dancing with the stars last season.

        You also seem to think all Americans have the same culture and view on whats socially acceptable. Do you think you have the same views as every other American on Abortion, Gay Marriage, Gun laws D vs R? Probably not huh, so why would it be fine for an American to have an opinion (or vote) on If he is Pro Abortion, Gay Marriage and Gun Laws and you are Anti all of those?

        Your Chess/ Backgammon analogy is just as flawed but I assume I don’t have to go into that. You were not saying Canadia-sir can have an opinion and you have a right to tell him its flawed, you were saying he cant have an opinion.

        I don’t know every nuance, the entire culture or every political persuasion yet I frown upon much of Putin’s tactics but oddly enough it seems that at least one Russian feels the same. I am not a huge fan of state run media and again at least one Russian feels the same.

        The way Obama won is the same way EVERY President since Washington has won I would think (I exclude Washington fin this broad statement) You think people vote for who tells the truth, what are you? Canadian?

      • Granted I am an outsider yet I do try to inform myself on the subject at hand. As you can see I’m not aboslving either side for the mess that your country and politics are in. I did lurk for awhile and wanted to join in on the debate. I also want to apologize for my remark before. It was out of line. No call for it nor very respectful. I may not agree with your postion on politics yet need to accept that others have a difference in opinion.

        What I do think is that both parties need more moderates. I work in a bookstore and so many books written by those either in both parties or who vote for either party are just shall we say just filled with too much rhetoric and pointing to the other side and demonizing them to a factor of 20. I think if both sides had those in the party with more moderate views they would imo get more votes. As an outsider it’s like watching to sets of people going “I’m better” no I’m better” while seeing whatever message your trying to tel get lost.

        As an aside I was thanked by a american tourist that was visitng that I knew who Martin Luther was. Aparently two different bookstores and either they though it was Martin Luther King or had no clue. I was a nice end to a shift.

      • a. rationale, not rational. common mistake, rationale is the reasoning, rational is the descriptor.

        b. you are misinterpreting what I am saying, whether deliberately, accidentally or if you’re just making up words for me in your head I don’t know. So let me introduce you to the fine art of fisking. I’m nowhere near as good as Larry though so don’t get your hopes up.

        No, however a person will naturally pay more attention to their own politics than to that of another country since their own politics will affect them a lot more. We don’t have to worry about France levying taxes on us or outlawing our guns. Then again its France, I don’t think anyone’s really worried about them.

        Again no, but the more they understand, the better informed their opinion or decision will be. Do you really think someone from Russia will really understand the impact that subjects like slavery and racism have here? Do you know the effect of the holocaust on the national consciousness of Germany or Isreal? How about growing up under the constant threat of attack from your neighbors? Every country has their own culture, which sets a different framework for interpreting what they do, therefore the same things will mean different things to people from each country. Politics is inherently tailored to its own countries culture and consciousness since they are the only ones that vote for them. Therefore, if you don’t get the culture, you don’t get the politics.


        Name the Major political parties, their platforms, and their most prominent leaders.

        I’m from Michigan. I’ve been to Canada quite a few times. I’ve met quite a few Canadians. They’re nice people, bit of a fixation with French fries though. Comparing them to the dumbest Americans doesn’t win you any points though.

        I’m pretty sure I specifically said “He has every right to express his opinion” which I followed with “and we have every right to tell him how wrong it is” which, if you recall was exactly what happened.

        Again, any opinion they form about America will be colored by their own experiences, and if they don’t “get” the culture around which our politics revolve, then their understanding of that will be fundamentally flawed.

        Ask someone from Iran why that would be a bad thing. I guarantee you you’ll get a different answer than if you ask someone on this blog.

        When did I ever say Americans were smart?


        Yeah, “please stop killing us” comes to mind. I don’t think they’ll care to much about the scandals of the Presidency though (unless we’re talking about mexico).

        Yes, I’m sure they’ll be just chock full of helpful tips on running a successful election campaign. Romney and Obama both should hire political advisors from third world countries. Oh, wait, Obama grew up in one. No wonder he’s doing so well.

        Right, what about having all members of an ethnic group put into concentration camps (Roosevelt)? That would be bad right? How about having soldiers armed with automatic weapons patrolling the streets to keep the peace? (Mexico, most communist countries) What about engaging in racist/sexist/—ist hate speech (heavily islamic countries)? Police Brutality, drug use, prostitution. We have different standards than other countries on what is and is not acceptable.

        You keep coming back to that. This feels like high school Lit and you’re trying to understand the symbolism in the authors writing to figure out what concept they were trying to pass along. Quite trying to read between the lines and pay attention to what’s actually on them. I said twice—count it—twice that everyone is entitled to an opinion. That doesn’t make it correct. I play chess, I’m pretty good at it. I’ve played backgammon once or twice in my life, I have a general understanding of how it works, and given a few minutes I could remember how to play again, but I wouldn’t know the subtleties of the game, which tactics tend to work and which don’t. I would be able to play, but some someone who’s been playing since he was a kid would have a better grasp of it than I would, even if they weren’t very good.


        That’s quite a sound political analysis. Putin and the state run media are bad. The kittens and puppies party have a much better platform: warm fuzzy feelings all around. I’m sure a there’s a Russian who would vote for that.

        Washington didn’t get the most votes?

        Oh, burn. You’re right, we shouldn’t hold our leaders to any standard. That’s just too much work.

      • I’m having formatting problems here

      • Your rational and conclusions are seriously flawed. First you seem to think just by living in one country you are therefor omniscient. No, however a person will naturally pay more attention to their own politics than to that of another country since their own politics will affect them a lot more. We don’t have to worry about France levying taxes on us or outlawing our guns. Then again its France, I don’t think anyone’s really worried about them.

        The second is that you need to understand every nuance, every political persuasion and the entire culture to make any decision or have an opinion. Again no, but the more they understand, the better informed their opinion or decision will be. Do you really think someone from Russia will really understand the impact that subjects like slavery and racism have here? Do you know the effect of the holocaust on the national consciousness of Germany or Isreal? How about growing up under the constant threat of attack from your neighbors? Every country has their own culture, which sets a different framework for interpreting what they do, therefore the same things will mean different things to people from each country. Politics is inherently tailored to its own countries culture and consciousness since they are the only ones that vote for them. Therefore, if you don’t get the culture, you don’t get the politics.

        I grew up in Minnesota, I have more in common with the average person in Manitoba than I do the average person in some States. Name the Major political parties, their platforms, and their most prominent leaders. You think the people in the Yukon have more in common with Washington State/ Alaska or Quebec. I know a TON of Canadians that know more about American politics than many Americans do. I’m from Michigan. I’ve been to Canada quite a few times. I’ve met quite a few Canadians. They’re nice people, bit of a fixation with French fries though. Comparing them to the dumbest Americans doesn’t win you any points though.

        But by your logic since they were not blessed to be born in America, yet read a news paper once in awhile they have no right to speak about America. I’m pretty sure I specifically said “He has every right to express his opinion” which I followed with “and we have every right to tell him how wrong it is” which, if you recall was exactly what happened.

        Again, any opinion they form about America will be colored by their own experiences, and if they don’t “get” the culture around which our politics revolve, then their understanding of that will be fundamentally flawed.

        Yet the girl on camera at an American voting booth shouting Obama is going to pay her mortgage is fine just because she was born here. Ask someone from Iran why that would be a bad thing. I guarantee you you’ll get a different answer than if you ask someone on this blog.

        Jebus, go search for a few video with people asking Americans questions on the immigration test if you want to have a good cry about where our county is at. When did I ever say Americans were smart?

        I am not saying America should be run according to some United Nations decree but someone in a country that we are bombing might have something important to say about our policy’s even if they have no idea how our government is structured. Yeah, “please stop killing us” comes to mind. I don’t think they’ll care to much about the scandals of the Presidency though (unless we’re talking about mexico).

        Our CIA just deposed your elected leader and put in place a dictator, well I wonder if they might have some thoughts on our actions even if they don’t know our culture and who won dancing with the stars last season. Yes, I’m sure they’ll be just chock full of helpful tips on running a successful election campaign. Romney and Obama both should hire political advisors from third world countries. Oh, wait, Obama grew up in one. No wonder he’s doing so well.

        You also seem to think all Americans have the same culture and view on whats socially acceptable. Do you think you have the same views as every other American on Abortion, Gay Marriage, Gun laws D vs R? Probably not huh, so why would it be fine for an American to have an opinion (or vote) on If he is Pro Abortion, Gay Marriage and Gun Laws and you are Anti all of those? Right, what about having all members of an ethnic group put into concentration camps (Roosevelt)? That would be bad right? How about having soldiers armed with automatic weapons patrolling the streets to keep the peace? (Mexico, most communist countries) What about engaging in racist/sexist/—ist hate speech (heavily islamic countries)? Police Brutality, drug use, prostitution. We have different standards than other countries on what is and is not acceptable.

        Your Chess/ Backgammon analogy is just as flawed but I assume I don’t have to go into that. You were not saying Canadia-sir can have an opinion and you have a right to tell him its flawed, you were saying he cant have an opinion. You keep coming back to that. This feels like high school Lit and you’re trying to understand the symbolism in the authors writing to figure out what concept they were trying to pass along. Quite trying to read between the lines and pay attention to what’s actually on them. I said twice—count it—twice that everyone is entitled to an opinion. That doesn’t make it correct. I play chess, I’m pretty good at it. I’ve played backgammon once or twice in my life, I have a general understanding of how it works, and given a few minutes I could remember how to play again, but I wouldn’t know the subtleties of the game, which tactics tend to work and which don’t. I would be able to play, but some someone who’s been playing since he was a kid would have a better grasp of it than I would, even if they weren’t very good.

        I don’t know every nuance, the entire culture or every political persuasion yet I frown upon much of Putin’s tactics but oddly enough it seems that at least one Russian feels the same. I am not a huge fan of state run media and again at least one Russian feels the same. That’s quite a sound political analysis. Putin and the state run media are bad. The kittens and puppies party have a much better platform: warm fuzzy feelings all around. I’m sure a there’s a Russian who would vote for that.

        The way Obama won is the same way EVERY President since Washington has won I would think Washington didn’t get the most votes? (I exclude Washington fin this broad statement) You think people vote for who tells the truth, what are you? Canadian? Oh, burn. You’re right, we shouldn’t hold our leaders to any standard. That’s just too much work.

      • screw it. As I said I’m not as good as Larry, I can’t even get bold and italics to work. Anyway, the first version somehow only has my comments, and partially italicised. The second one has steves piece with my comments interspersed. Have fun sorting out that mess.

      • I am not even going to bother trying to understand what your points are. The formatting is as bad as the supposed fisking. So I will just make a few comments. Larry’s rants are clear and his stance and points are obvious (not to mention funny. its not the formatting or italics that are the issue with yours)

        I excluded Washington from the list because he did not actively seek the Presidency. After the war he wanted to return home and spent much of his time restoring Mount Vernon. He was elected because of his actions, not because of his campaign.

        I read both of your posts and I seriously don’t even understand what you are saying. I have no idea what slavery, racism or the Holocaust have to do with voting or having an opinion. Like I said before, a country the size of the USA has no single view or culture. And if an outsider cant understand our culture, why are immigrants allowed to vote once they become and American citizen. Taking a test may prove you know about the US but according to you it cant help you understand slavery. Even in a small country like Israel there is no single view on the Holocaust (beyond its bad maybe) You think the person who spent time in a camp and lost his entire family thinks the same thing as every 18 year old kid who may not have a direct link?

        As you so cleverly mentioned, Obama was not born in America, he was not raised in the American culture yet he seems to be doing pretty well in station (not action)

      • “I am not even going to bother trying to understand what your points are”

        Right, you’ll just keep on making up words for me in your head. Obviously the fact that I’m not as skilled a writer as Larry automatically renders my arguments invalid. But then it doesn’t really matter what I say does it? No matter what facts I bring to the table, you will refuse to believe them because your own ideology makes you feel warm and fuzzy.

        The washington reference was an example of a literary device known as a joke. The particular format of this example involved the reversal of the expectations of the reader. The reader expected an example of how Washington was different and superior to all the other Presidents, and instead was presented with an equally obvious interpretation of the preceding statement that implied the opposite. Since that interpretation was also blatantly untrue, the reader is left with an incongruity and humor results.
        Now for something completely different, picture the above paragraph spoken by Mr. Spock

        As to the comment on racism, the holocaust, and concentration camps, the point is that different since different nations have different cultures, they have different standards on what is socially acceptable. How many of the “civilised” countries would allow one of their ethnic groups to be rounded up and put in concentration camps? America did that in WWII. How many countries besides the US have Diversity laws and affirmative action? How many countries think that women should be kept locked out of site? Note, that I’m not saying what the individuals in that country believe, but what is social custom. Even if you believe that ethnic minorites are inferior beings, you aren’t going to go spouting of that nonsense in public without everyone else calling you an idiot. As i said before, you can have an opinion, you can share your opinion, and everyone else can tell you you’re wrong. Here’s another example, you said theres no single view of the holocaust in isreal. Try telling a few holocaust jokes there, see how far you get.

        “And if an outsider cant understand our culture, why are immigrants allowed to vote once they become and American citizen”

        A. I never said they couldn’t vote. Stop putting words in my mouth.
        B. They have to be a permanent resident for at least 3 years before they can apply for naturalization, which is a good start for culture indoctrination.

        Finally, I did not say Obama wasn’t born in America. I said he was from third world country. I’m from michigan, I wasn’t born there.

        Again, this goes back to that literary device I mentioned earlier. I obviously don’t believe Obama to be a one man dynamo who rose to the presidency through sheer force of will, no matter what his biography says. To steal a quote from the man himself: “somebody else made that happen.”

        Anyway steve, calm down think a little and reread this argument. I’m pretty sure I’m not saying what you think I’m saying.

      • Peavybob – ” I’m pretty sure I’m not saying what you think I’m saying.”

        That’s the problem peavybob, I guess I don’t understand what you are saying. I re-read your posts several times and I cant make out what you are trying to say for sure. I can assure you I was not trying to put words in your mouth, I was honestly trying to respond to your posts as I understood them

        I guess I will just pass over your posts so we can stop the huge text wall. Have a nice weekend

  11. Personally, I want to see Obama leave office following a massive electorial landslide ala Regan/Mondale ’84. That would send quite the message, one even RINO’s would get- “Don’t Do What Obama Did!”

    • Wishfull thinking when you see that folks vote for Obama because he is a minority. I would LOVE to see dozens of faithless electors. Of course If Obama loses watching whole neighborhoods burn down and shops destroyed ect in protest will be a new sport for about a week.

  12. I have a hard time even thinking of Ryan as a fiscal Conservative. The guy voted for two completely unfunded wars, TARP and a whole host of other completely unfunded projects, yet they are running him as some sort of accounting guru. Bottom line is, the rich are getting more tax cuts and the middle class is stuck with the bill for two wars, we didn’t want. At least I didn’t want them, I lost friends playing the WMD edition of where’s waldo in Iraq. I’m not a huge fan of Obama, for a lot of reasons but the GOP ticket is a joke, this year, Flip flop Romney and Do nothing Ryan. Though I guess I should thank him for saving me some money on my archery products.

    • Who did you want to see nominated?

    • Jeremy:
      Considering that my daughter was a Naval Officer through the whole darn thing from 2003 through 2012; and indeed she and I both lost friends and as well. Just who are you supporting. Now is not the time to walk away and shucks Mr. perfect is not running. The comments about the war’s are interesting given the fact of 2001 and the impending nuclear capabilities and threats of Islam in general, just what would you have done. Saved the money???

      Just outline your geopolitical plan and who do you support for Leaders. You comment looks like Democratic Party talking points.

      • Regardless of how I or you feel about the wars, you missed my point. My point was Ryan isn’t some great Fiscal conservative, he has no history of being one either.

      • And you missed our points as well.

        If you wait for Mr. Perfect, then you will just be holding your breath while Obama gets another four years to fuck us with.

        If you want better Republican candidates, then I would suggest Joining your local party, and participating at precinct meetings, and your county and state conventions.

        Just sitting on the couch and bitching about the quality of the nominees after the fact does not cut it.

      • If you both have lost friends then I would think Paul would be your candidate. 4 of his top 5 contributors are departments of defense so he seems to be the candidate for active duty personnel also.

        I know some people will start to throw a fit when you mention anyone besides Mitt but the R Convention is not over and Mitt is not the official R candidate yet.

        And even when he is I don’t see enough of a difference between Mitt and Obama to justify my vote. I don’t buy into the belief that I have to chose the lesser of two evils or that I should hold my nose when I vote for anyone. I vote for who I support to be president, not who ever is the second worst and I certainly don’t vote for who the Republican party tells me to.

      • Steve, first paragraph… No. The military isn’t a hive mind. And just because a bunch of folks in uniform gave Ron Paul money doesn’t make him the pick of everyone in uniform. Since you see no difference between the two worth noting, I wonder then why those military folks you cited tend to vote 75-85% republican?

        Second paragraph, in what possible scenario does Ron Paul come out of the republican national convention as the nominee? No, seriously. Give us a scenario, not involving magic, genies granting wishes, or time travel, where Ron Paul becomes the GOP nominee this election.

        When you say stuff that sounds delusional, don’t be surprised when people don’t take you seriously.

      • Strawman, no candidate is the pick of any single group and certainly not one as large as the Military. But the fact 4 of his top 5 donors are defense departments certainly mean something while Mitt’s is 5 for 5 big banks. You know the big banks that help cause the housing crash (With Barney) The ones that got HUGE taxpayer funded bailouts. If you want to vote for the candidate who backs the big banks just because hes not Obama that’s your decision to make.

        It does not matter for me if Paul comes out of the convention with the nomination or not because I don’t vote for who the Republican party tells me to. I covered this in the second paragraph. I don’t vote for someone if I have to hold my nose to do it just because the other guy is worse. I don’t care if people think I am wasting my vote first of all because its my vote and second of all because we don’t elect on popular votes.

        I would be interested in seeing your source for the fact that 75-85% vote Republican. The last article I read about (and it was a long time ago) said the figures we not public. But based on some guesses put the number at around 50% R and the Independents were even larger than D’s. Donations to Obama were up sharply from the Military compared to previous years because he was able to get the independents to vote for him vs Macain. So he wont the D’s as well as the Independents plus some R’s due in the military due to his stance on the War (they believed he would live up to his promise to pull them out)

      • Steve, a valid argument might have been that 4 out of 5 military groups gave more money to Ron Paul than anyone else. Since that would show support compared to the other candidates. Simply saying that his largest contributers were the military proves nothing, as they could have donated the same amount to each candidate, and Ron Paul simply didn’t have anything larger. Let me put it like this:

        “I’m running for president in 2040, and I have the full support of the democratic party because President Obama is my largest campaign contributor. I mean, he gave me 20 times more money than everyone else combined. Well, actually he just handed me a 20 and said ‘good luck with that’ but it was still more than the 50 cents I got from each of my parents. I feel really good about my chances.”

        Now this may or may not be the case for Ron Paul, but my point is you should phrase your arguments better.

      • I made a valid argument. The fact that Mitt’s top contributors are all to big to fail banks and Paul’s are mostly Dept of Defense is valid in itself. If you would like to see where the Dept of Defense, Army, Navy ect contribute to other candidates that would certainly be interesting but it would not invalidate my argument. But I was curious so I poked around a bit, I cant find a good list of donors by Employer that goes beyond top 5 but I did find this (granted its from Jan 5th)

        http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/01/military-donors-still-prefer-paul.html

        Paul is easily in first place but even more interesting is notice who is in second, Obama. Mitt is a VERY distant 3rd. Obama raised more than 5 times as much as Mitt from Military folks

        I think the more shocking thing is that Mitts top contributors are all Banks, the number one reason we are in this mess in the first place yet people will hold their nose and vote for him. Its tough to pick a number 1 reason but since Government does what special interests tell them I chose to pick the special interest groups vs the Government that is just doing what its paid to do

      • Interesting numbers, but its from before romney won the nomination. What are the contribution numbers now that romney is the official candidate? I honestly would have preferred Ron Paul to Romney as well, but since he didn’t get the nomination he doesn’t have a chance of winning the election. So Romney it is.

        However, the chart you linked does not say the same thing as your last post. The chart says military members gave more to Ron Paul than the other candidates. This is a good argument (though a little out of date, are there updated numbers anywhere?). what you said before was that the military was Ron Pauls biggest contributor, which tells me nothing. Saying banks were Romney’s biggest contributor tells me nothing about who they really support. It needs a comparison to the other candidates to be relevant. how do you know the banks didn’t make equal contributions to Obama as well, just to hedge their bets?

        Finally, blaming the mess on the banks is like blaming an athlete with his kneecaps busted for losing a race, rather than the thug who took a bat to him. The banks made bad loans because the government wanted them too. They changed the laws to “encourage” that kind of behaviour then turned around and blamed the banks when it blew up in their face.

      • Telling you that Paul’s biggest contributor is the Military and that Mitts largest is the Banks certainly does tell you something. It may not tell you everything you want but I assumed if a person had questions they would look it up themselves. I know that Banks did not contribute to equal amount to Paul and Mitt for two reasons 1) Company’s don’t hedge like that 2) I looked it up prior. Even without looking it up if all 5 of the top contributors to Mitt are banks and 4 of the top 5 for Ron Paul are Dept of Defense then common sense tells us that banks and Dept of Defense did not contribute to each candidate equal amounts.

        But I did a little looking on the site previously linked and found this

        Top 5 Contributors by Candidate

        http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contriball.php

        Top 20 contributors to Mitt

        http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00000286

        It looks like a huge percent of the top 20 are banks or investment firms (18 of 20 maybe but not sure)

        I said in my statement its hard to rank who is the most responsible, banks or government. You take the stance that government was the bad guy and told banks to do something bad and the poor banks simply did what they are told. I take the stance that banks (or HUGE special interest) buy government and tell the government what to do. You think government repealed glass-steagell because they came up with the idea and thought it would be good for us? You think government changed/ leased the lending laws, FED policy, SEC because they thought it would be good for us? Banks made a killing on writing these mortgages, a killing on MBS, a killing on fees, a killing breaking the laws and not being held accountable by Justice, the SEC or anyone else. Banks make a killing on a mortgage even if you default, how is that possible? How did Corzine vaporize 6 Billion investor dollars by an illegal process and is walking around free?

        The Banks that we bailed out in 2008 because they were to big to fail have gotten bigger since then, not smaller. They are recording record profits still. And when they crash again everyone is going throw their hands up and say there was no way we could have known again even though people are all over screaming the market( and the Dollar) are dead or dying. Just read the first few articles on almost any respectable trade site. I personally like http://www.zerohedge.com/ as they cover a wide range of topics. Some of the articles are a bit advanced for anyone who does not live their life by the markets but you can still get a ton of information. Anyone who does not at least have a rudimentary understanding of money is a fool

      • To clear the air here, losing friends a.k.a. “Absent Companions” as the toast goes at any military ball.is not a reason to vote for Democrats. Also, do not confuse how those in the force would vote versus Defense Contractors. Mr Correia is right clear majority of Military voters vote republican. Hence Mr. Axlerod’s Justice Department suite in Ohio not to let armed services members have extra time to vote in the election. I think that tells the whole story about these Commie Democrats. So on with the discussion.

        Ryan like all members of Congress are constantly faced with the dilemma of voting for ugly bills as the lesser of evils. His budget still only reduces the deficit 5 Trillion or so it does not wipe it out; but it is a start and he wrote a budget bill he hoped would pass, which is intrinsically flawed, because a budget designed to truly bring government spending into control would never pass. this election is not about perfect candidates it is about stopping the train from running off the tracks in the near future. Obama is running like hell toward the Clowen-Piven,(that wonderful Marxist Leninist / Socialist Husband-Wife team that taught Obama at Columbia) goal of bankrupting the country and seizing control of the entire governmental apparatus in an act of so called kindness so the EBT credit cards will still work while the rest of us working citizen stiffs just suck it up.

        Obama is the quintessential metro-sexual, Al Green singing, golf playing, super cool personable (as vouched by Maureen Dowd), and Oh! so caring, deadly vote attractor for the weak minded Occupying Wall Street youth of this country, (read that as college students majoring in Journalism, Sociology, Psychology, Theater, Fine Arts, English, Geography, etc.) who will never understand that collectivism and socialism is not free. (Mainly because their Liberal Progressive professors assure them it is not only free but the moral thing to do). When Obama runs out of other peoples money, (sad to say my damn money) we will all suffer very, very much; but, I am sure somehow that will be Bush’s fault. So bottom line we either stop Obama now or have a totalitarian government run by the same rats in Washington, except they get to stay forever. Another 4 years and Obama will consummate his plan to destroy America, and enslave the working producers who will feed the burgeoning masses of the EBT card holders forever. Voila’ there you have it the consummation of the Liberal Progressive dream orchestrated over 70 years of diligent effort of our dedicated NEA teachers and college professors; and, you thought Bill Ayers was just another guy in the neighborhood. And by the way you better buy and hide those guns while you can because the gun laws and second amendment roll back is on the way. Nothing a socialist totalitarian leaders wants more is a prostrate, unarmed citizenry. It makes it easier to collect taxes and silence any one who objects.

  13. My prediction is that it’s going to be a very close race imo. Neither side will win it in a landside. It’s going to be down to a few votes. I’m not sure the eletoral public is ready to embrace the Republican completey. Yet neither can the Democrats count on them winning like they did last time.

    • This is based on statements by pollstitutes like Zogby and company, and by statements by left-wing network reporters on CNN and the three old networks, and unaware repetition of the same on the CBC, I’ll bet.

      Rasmussen will give you better data, as well as actually talking to folks in the US outside of leftist venues.

      Obama is staring into the face of a Republican landslide in the Electoral college. The people in charge at the Democratic Party know this, and are starting to act unhinged as a result.

  14. I don’t want either to be president.

    • If you have no reason to actively support either, then the question changes from “who do you want to be president” to “who do you want to NOT be president”.

      Absolute indifference between the two is unlikely (though not impossible), since it means the two come out exactly the same in every single factor you consider. That would suggest the two are identical – not similar, not leaning the same way, but identical – in every relevant aspect. Surely there is at least one measurable difference between them.

      If nothing else, electing Romney means we don’t have to put up with Mrs. Obama’s regular impressions of Marie Antoinette any more. That by itself ought to be worthy of consideration.

      • I absolutely agree not having to suffer Mrs. Obama in her Marie Antoinette impersonation would be a boon to mankind. Her yammering the operative paraphrase of “Let them eat broccoli” is getting on my last nerve. Relieving that from the air weaves is reason enough to vote republican for the rest of my life.

  15. Can we please leave the feeling based wishful thinking to the leftist? What one likes & what one wants are often not the same as how things are & what one has to do.

    But you don’t like choosing the lesser of two evils? Well, tough. Life will often give you a crappy choice… or no choice at all.

    So, let us get a clue. Ron Paul will not be the Republican nominee, and voting Libertarian is NOT going to cause the RNC to wholesale adopt YOUR personal political platform. A political party who’s only realistic goal is “get on the ballot” and “take votes away from the guy who’s not pure enough” really needs to have a sit down and rethink their whole purpose.

    And, if you are hoping that another Obama term will crash the country into bloody chaos so that you can rebuild according to your own plan, on behalf of me, my family, and my friends, please kindly sod off and die in a fire.

    • The Republican Party was a third party at one point so by your logic people should have voted for Dem or Whigs vs voting for a 3rd party candidate that supported their values?

      Contrary to your wishful thinking (funny as you rail against it then make statements about feelings) I have a choice. I don’t have to hold my nose and vote if I don’t want to. I am free to vote my conscience. If Obama wins the election, then the people have spoken and he is your President. Want to cry about it after the fact, that’s what the Internet is for. Assuming you don’t get reported https://my.barackobama.com/page/s/report-an-attack

      The stock market/ dollar is going to crash at some point regardless if Obama or Mitt wins. If Mitt was talking about ending the Fed I would vote for him, but hes not. I am not saying its going to happen today or in 5 years but our current debt is not sustainable. Go do a bit of research and see what happens to just our interest payments if just interest rates where to rise. This is not including the debt expanding or future debt obligations that are already promised but are not part of the current debt. Rep don’t have solutions either since if you talk about actual solutions you would never get elected. It seems like you are just as bad as the people you lampoon for voting on how things are vs how they want them to be.

      I don’t plan to die today, but I have life insurance to protect my family if I did. And I don’t plan to have my dollar worth zero today but I have plans in place to protect my family if it ever does. I don’t plan to be forced to work for the Gov without pay, have my business taken because the government needs it today or be killed in a drone strike today by my over-reaching executive branch. But I have plans in place to help if those happen

      • You have plans? You would be ok with the USA falling apart, chaos and a large number of your fellow countrymen dying and starving because you have plans?

        What in the hell is the matter with you?

        I know it may be hard to believe, but sometimes, it may happen that your plans may not work out (first time in the history of ever, right?).

        We’re in this mess because a good number of people wanted free stuff without thinking about the consequences. Hoping that they die off is just evil.

      • Repeublican party was founded in 1854, 2 years after the Whig party split and fell apart, and had a large number of the anti-slavery whigs in it. you could say they took over the whig party, almost like (gasp) tea partiers.

        I must say I admire your rugged individualism though. Not many people would have the guts to say “I’m gonna do whatever I want, and let the country go to hell.” maybe throw in a bah humbug, and decreasing the surplus population.

      • You seem to misunderstand planning. Do you have a life insurance policy? If so do you have one because you want to die?

        On the contrary, I believe I am doing more to help this country than you are (this is my belief and I could be wrong of course) I believe that Mitt and Obama will both pile on debt, they both will allow wall st to profit off the people and will allow the FED to continue to fleece us.

        I believe that I am doing more for this country by voting for neither of them and maybe by posting here than you are. I am trying to warn you, so we all can try to avoid it.

        But if you would rather play fabricated Red vs Blue debate than listen and it does happen. Well I have a plan and its not my fault if you don’t. I don’t wish it upon you or anyone else.

        I don’t want it to happen. I have a pretty good life, I have all the food I need. A decent home and a great job. I have good friends and a fun social life. The only person in their right mind who would want another depression is the people who planned it

        I wish we had a leader like President Jackson who could take on our central bank and get rid of it like he did. I wish more people understood what the FED is and what it is not. But wishes only come true in Fairy tales so I have to accept reality.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bank_of_the_United_States

        I challenge you to research the FED, research how money is created and why WE HAVE TO PAY INTEREST TO PRIVATE BANKS to create our own money. And look-up fractional reserve banking and how our debt based system works.

      • Peavybob – The Dem and Whig party were still active so the Rep party was a 3rd party even if it was a split. And I have no problems with this as I think that is how its supposed to work if the Party does not reflect your beliefs. I was responding to Joe who seemed to be condemning a 3rd Party while telling people to get on board and vote for his party that was formed as a 3rd party long ago.

        But I am glad you bring up the Tea Party. Who is closer to the original Tea Party, Mitt or RP?

        If you are fine with holding your nose to vote for Mitt just so Obama does not win that is your decision. Just like its my decision to vote for neither since neither reflects my beliefs. I vote my conscious and what happens after that is the will off the people (or the electorate)

      • So here’s my question for you, Steve, since you seem to go on about how you don’t want to vote for Romney or Obama. It’s pretty clear that at least these four names will be on the ballot in Nov:

        Barak Obama
        Mitt Romney
        Gary Johnson
        Roseanne Barr

        (probably a few other smaller 3rd party options as well, depending on your state)

        Which of those four are you going to vote for, or are you going to just leave that section blank, or are you not going to bother to show up at the polls at all?

        I see you going on and on about how bad Romney is, but I don’t see you talking about voting *for* anyone (aside from some vague references to Ron Paul, who clearly won’t be on the ballot). Given that list above, who would you vote for?

        I like Gary Johnson, and, for the sake of argument, let’s say I decided to vote for him. If I do, he’s still not going to win– the libertarian party doesn’t have enough nationwide traction to win an election; Johnson will be lucky to garner even 1 electoral vote. And by voting for him, I’m going to be indirectly helping Obama win. If I don’t want Obama (or alternatively, a Romney win with a repeat of the 2000 electoral college/popular vote debate and all the whining about how Bush stole the election from Gore), then my only realistic option is to vote for Romney. As Larry says above, either Obama or Romney will be president this election cycle. Johnson, Barr, and any others on the ballot won’t stand a chance.

        Let’s pick a state like Ohio as an example. Say Johnson gets 10% of the vote (probably really high estimate, but I’m crafting an example), Barr gets 5%, The ‘other’ candidates get 1%. That leaves 84% of the vote to split between Romney and Obama, and it’s a close race. Say that split goes 43% Obama, and 41% Romney. Obama wins Ohio with all those electoral votes. If half of those Johnson supporters had voted for Romney instead, then Romney wins Ohio with 46% of the vote. As much I would personally like it to be different, realistically, a vote for Johnson is a vote taken away from Romney and helps Obama (and conversely for the left-leaning, a vote for Barr takes a vote away from Obama and helps Romney). You can vote your conscience, of course, if your conscience insists you vote for Johnson, but do so with open eyes and realize that you’ll be helping Obama by doing so.

      • Steve you seem to be forgetting that the president doesn’t make laws (unless you’re obama with an executive order). That job is reserved for congress. Which candidate That has a chance of winning) will actually work with the tea party and libertarians? As Larry pointed out, just keep electing tea partiers, and that will keep romney in line. Obama won’t give a s***.

      • You certainly have a point but much of your plan has to apply to future congress as the one we have now only seems to stop terrible bills based on political maneuvers vs whats best for the county. Think about some of the bills this congress has passed, NDAA has to be at the top. The current crop in congress would not be much of a check on Mitt because its not much of a check on Obama. And even if the congress was a check on Mitt, it could be a check on Obama also so it would not matter who’s President. Executive Orders are not impressive

        While the president does not make laws, he does have veto power and a pulpit to preach from. Neither Mitt or Obama has the right message for me. I don’t make the decision to NOT vote for Mitt lightly, if he was even talking about a few things that are critical I would vote for him. But hes not, so I cant put my support behind him. If he cant reach the people in the middle (or enough at least) to beat Obama, then the people have spoken.

        Our Financial System has a sucking chest wound and it underpins the entire structure of the US and Mitt message is that we should take 2 aspirin, elect him and call him in the morning. The fact that Obama is punching us in the head currently does not make Mitt worth a vote in my opinion. In fact, when it comes to the financial health, banks and the FED Mitt may turn out to be even worse since hes bought and paid for by the banks.

      • You mean like the congress we’ll be voting in at the same time as obama? That congress? lol

        As to the headpunching thing. Are you saying you don’t care whether you get attempted murder or ineffectual help while the ambulance is over an hour away?

      • a) Not all congress members are elected this year. lol

        b) If enough congress members are elected to stop Obama or Mitt, then it wont matter, right?

        c) No, if I have a sucking chest wound I would not care who treated me if one rifled thru my pockets and the other took my boots, neither are effective and not much of a choice. But if you read what I said, I imagine Mitt will be worse for the nation as it relates to wall st. And since I was specifically talking about Wall St/ Financial that seems relevant.

        Was it a slip that you said we would be electing Congress the same time as Obama or do you believe that Obama will win?

        I figured it was safe to respond to this post since it was short and clear.

      • we’re replacing the house and a third of the senate. that should change the dynamics a bit.

        i said keep romney in line, not stop him. he can’t sign any crap laws if they don’t reach his desk. But he’ll probably go along with whatever the republicans send him. They’ll definitely repeal obamacare. Obama will just veto that and it’ll be harder to get the 2/3 majority necessary to override it.

        Just a question, you keep blaming everything on wall street, where do you stand on the whole %99 thing? Who has more riding on the economy improving, the government or wall street? Since the economy is wall streets life-blood, then what does that say about who they think will be best for it?

        I sincerely hope Obama loses, but since he currently is president my brain synonimized the two and replaced president with Obama.

      • Peavybob – “Just a question, you keep blaming everything on wall street, where do you stand on the whole %99 thing? Who has more riding on the economy improving, the government or wall street? Since the economy is wall streets life-blood, then what does that say about who they think will be best for it?”

        This is a great question and once you understand the answer, you will understand why the financial system is by far our greatest issue. The term financial system is a very broad label, I will try to give you a few pointers to get you started but I encourage you to keep investigating further. Like most items, people argue over everything. I am simply going to give you some information and you can research and decide for yourself

        1) Depressions happen fairly often with fiat money, but depressions are merely a symptom of a much larger problem So it would be valuable to understand them from a historical perspective. Much has been written about the great depression (this is one of many depressions) so start there. Read this link and notice how many of the items mentioned are in play today.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Great_Depression

        2) When you take out a mortgage or borrow money to buy a car, fix your house or start a business, how does your bank find the money to pay for that? Do they walk into the vault and pickup the money others have on deposit with them? Not really, they simply create the money from thin air for the most part. This is thanks to a process known as fractional reserve lending

        Here is a quick video that explains the mortgage crisis and shows a bit why the banks created it vs the Government (the Gov encouraged it)

        3) Here is a quick video on the Fed that explains its corruption. I am not telling you everything in any of these videos is 100% agreed on. They are merely starting points for you to do your own research. This is a long series but if you don’t understand the concepts you are doing yourself a great disservice.

        Those will get you started, but its just the beginning. To try and answer your question is difficult to simplify, but I will try with very basic outline but it skips over the foundation that the links above will get you started with. Depressions\ Recessions are a great buying opportunity’s for people with vast stores of money and access to the FED. The destruction of money only happens to the 99% in a depression, to the 1% things are fine. Labor is cheaper and so are commodities and they still have the fed to backstop them.

        Here is an interesting article from the former special inspector general of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) While it has lots of good information and links, this quote stood out to me as it relates to our discussion. While the average person is lucky just to have a job and his earnings have stagnated, his purchasing power decreased due to inflation. The banks that caused this have grown 23% in this time. Does it sound like recessions effect the Banks the same as the people?

        “The top banks are 23 percent larger than they were before the crisis”

        http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-22/bungled-bank-bailout-leaves-behind-righteous-anger.html

      • Steve, the Whig party disintegrated in 1852 over slavery — the anti-slavery side managed to prevent the Whig incumbent from being renominated. By 1856, the majority of the party leaders had either left politics altogether or had joined other parties — with teh anti-slavery group joining with anti-slavery Democrats as the Republican party.

      • Thanks for re-writing the information from a wiki but can I ask why you are directing this at me? I simply said the Rep’s were a third party at one point when the Whigs and Dem’s were the two main party’s. Is that not true?

        Did they disintegrate in 1852 or where they still active in 1856 even though most of the leaders had left? I am not sure how both statements can be true. It might be more accurate to say the party split in 1852 over slavery.

      • Well, Steve, I responded the way I did because you got it pretty much 180 degrees backwards.

        By the time the Republican Party got started, it was the WHIGS who had fallen to third party status — because the Republican party was founded by defecting Whigs, not that an already existing (but minor) party was suddenly bolstered by a bunch of converts from the Whigs.

        It’s basically the same thing that happened that formed the modern Democrat Party and the old Whigs, by a split in the Democratic-Republican Party of teh early Federal period.

        The closest a third party has come to actual success was the Bull Moose party of TR (split off from the Republicans to challenge the GOP incumbant). . . and the Bull Moose Party managed as it’s high water mark, to get the Democrat Woodrow Wilson elected. Meanwhile, the bitter taste the Bull Moose Party left pretty much killed off the Progressive wing of the Republicans.

        The ONLY way a third party has success on a national level is when they take over an existing party from the inside, or they are formed in a power vacuum where one major party has self destructed. It’s simply the inherent nature of our electoral system. It’s different in Westminster type systems — but even in Congress (where occaisionally a third party or “independant” candidate wins — and the independants are almost invariably incumbants who have left their major party AFTER election), a third party or “independant” legislator votes for organization as if they were members of one of teh two major parties. There is, for example, no “Teriary Speaker of the House” representing third parties, only a Majority and a Minority Speaker.

        There’s a reason Ron Paul runs as a Republican. It’s because, as a Libertarian, he probably wouldn’t win — and he would likely end up helping the Democratic challenger in his race win.

        Vote for a third party in the general election where there IS a credible candidate for each of teh two major parties, and you are in effect casting half a ballot for the candidate whose party you agree with LEAST, and half a ballot AGAINST the candidate whose party you agree with the MOST. Hell, you’d be better off (from your own ideological perspective) NOT VOTING AT ALL, and making it unmistakeably clear to the local party apparatis WHY you aren’t voting.

      • Your verbal diarrhea was painful to read so I am going to just respond with 2 items

        1) “By the time the Republican Party got started”

        So the Dem and Whig party were active first, then came the Republican party. So the Rep party was 3rd, right? Who got the most votes is not important when you talk about what came first, second 3rd.

        By the way I think the system worked how it should have, when a party does not reflect the way its members feel that party should be dumped. The problem is that is next to impossible now because of the way the 2 party system is setup.

        2) The blabber about voting and Ron Paul (or anyone else) was pure garbage. I vote for who I think is the best candidate, period. Its not half a vote for this and half a vote for that. If my candidate loses then the voters have spoken and I move on.

        And I have no idea how not voting at all could make it “unmistakeably clear to the local party apparatis WHY you aren’t voting.” vs voting specifically for a candidate that is saying what I believe is right. How could 1 more person not voting be any clearer than voting for Bill the Cat because I believe he has the best ideas? Ack!

        http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/0/9/6/3/7/3/5/Bill-the-Cat-68185492923.jpeg#Bill%20the%20Cat

      • Steve —

        First off, I find it amusing that YOU, with your screeds on fractional banking, choose to characterize anyone else’s writing as “verbal diarrhea”. Seriously. {grin}

        I gave a short answer (one brief paragraph). You responded with accusing me of doing nothing but giving a Wiki quote. And you STILL got your facts wrong, asking me specifically, to explain my point. I _DID_. Now you complain that it is too much for you to read.

        1. The Democratic Party was in existence. That’s ONE major party.

        The Whig Party has disintegrated into a third party status TWO YEARS before the republican Party was founded, so that when the Repubs came on the scene they STARTED out larger than the Whigs were. So the Whigs were not the second major party in existence at the time when the Republicans moved in –

        In the very first election cycle they were formed, the Republicans were already more significant than the Whigs – the Republicans were a real second major party, and the Whigs were a decrepit minority party already.

        In other words, the Republicans went straight from non-existance to major party status, without a stop as a third party – when the abolitionists defected wholesale from the Whigs, the Whigs were immediately reduced to impotence as a national party . The gap between the resulting collapse of the Whig Party as a major party power and the actual organization of those Whig (and antislavery Democrats) defectors into Republican Party means the Republicans never truly held third party status – they were like a supersaturated solution crystallizing out of what looked like empty water.

        2. I mention Ron Paul, because in current events, he is pretty much epitome of what a third party candidate is supposed to be, is treated as a third party candidate despite being a registered Republican, and he and his supporters ACT as if he is a third party candidate. Anyone competent to discuss current US partisan politics intelligibly can use him as a common point of reference.

        The reason NOT VOTING AT ALL and making sure the local party organization knows WHAT and WHY you did what you did will send a stronger message to the major party apparatus least objectionable to you is simple. If you vote in an off-party primary, you are disregarded as being relevant to that party when they look at your voting record (yes, unless your state puts ALL party primary candidates on the same ballot, they can tell which primary you vote in when they check the Registrar’s records – just not who you voted for. . . and they do exactly that after each election, and the records are already computerized for easy analysis). So, if the local GOP realizes you vote in the Democratic primaries, or the Green primaries, or Constitionalist primary, they UTTERLY DISREGARD your input – because you are obviously NOT a Republican. (Likewise in reverse for Democrats.) If you “vote for the Wookie” in the general, AFTER someone else has secured the GOP nomination, it is viewed as a spoiler vote by a someone who likely wouldn’t have voted for any nominee who wasn’t the Wookie. . . even if you tell them. (Plus, there is uncertainty as to whether or not you actually voted the Wookie — self-reporting of who you voted for is demonstrably unreliable.) If you do not vote AT ALL, and make it patently clear (especially beforehand) that you aren’t voting because you cannot support the party nominee, and you are known as a reliable party supporter – THAT sends a message. You cannot be dismissed as a near-cultist, or someone who held their nose, but is being disingenuous so as to look more Wookie like – they can TELL you didn’t vote at all.

        It’s the normally “party reliable” who don’t vote who are considered the low-hanging fruit in turnout. . . and elections are all about turnout. So, if you sit out, YOU just got moved to the head of the “we gotta convince this guy next time,” list. The only way to have more influence in candidate selection would be, frankly, to be an active, participating, constructive, member of the party apparatus yourself, so you can influence the party machinery from within.

        PRIMARIES are where you cast protest votes – GENERALS are where you support the _feasible_ candidate you most agree with (or least disagree with). Any other option, under our political system (at least federally), is self-delusion and self-disenfranchisement.

    • Honestly I have not made up my mind yet. I am waiting to see what happens at the convention and the state ballots and beyond.

      But I wont be voting for Mitt unless something crazy happens like cabinet positions are mentioned and they are spectacular. If Obama wins because Mitt could not get conservatives/ libertarians/ independents to hold their nose and vote for him, its not our fault.

      I think this is one of the problems with the 2 party system and primary’s. The Rep pick their candidate and the Dems pick their candidate. And the hard core R will always vote R and the Hard core D’s will always vote D. But that leaves the people in the middle (who frequently decide the election) to have to pick the one they hate the least. Instead of having a R and D primary it would be nice to just have one big primary and all voters get to vote on all candidates. But that is wishful thinking and does not help us today.

      On a side note I have never voted D in anything beyond a local election. And when I did vote for a D it was because I knew the guys record and he was a superior candidate. He was more conservative than most R’s and certainly more conservative that his R’ opponent

      http://www.gallup.com/poll/151943/record-high-americans-identify-independents.aspx

      Independents = 40%
      Democrat = 31%
      Republican = 27%

      Have a nice weekend everyone

  16. The problem is if you don’t vote than imo you can’t complain whe the candidate that gets pciked makes a mess of things imo. I get into arguemtns all the time with the younger employees and once even had a manger talk to me because after awile you get tired of those who did not vote complain. I just no longer wanted to hear about politiican xyz is ruining the country. My question always is did you vote. No than I’m not interessted in listening to what you have to say. I vote whenever I can. Only one time I did not because I was sick with a fever and could barely move.

  17. According to Dave Mustaine of Megadeath Obama is behind the recent rash of shootings in the US. Might as well accuse Geroge Bush of being behind 9/11. Sad to see such a once great musician go off the rails.

    • Obama had fast and furious. Can you blame the guy for getting a little confused? lol

    • As another blogger has said, we expect our entertainers to entertain. The King didn’t expect his court jester or the organ grinder’s monkey to be sage advisors on politics, and neither do I.

      So, to Dave Mustaine (and all the other “celebrities” who feel that entertaining me qualifies them as experts in ANY field outside entertainment), I say:

      “Shut up and DANCE MONKEY, DANCE!”

      • I’m an entertainer… Are you telling me to shut up about politics?

      • Foot meet mouth. Lets try to backpedal out of this quickly!

      • On a side note I disagree with your assessment of the court jester. They actually often served a very valuable role in the court as one the few people who could mock the court (and King)

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jester

        Maybe Geodkyt should shut up and dance

      • Herethe thing if say David Mustaine had said something that would help the republican cause or not so outlandish I would have ignored it. Accusing the president of the USA of orchestrating the recent spree of gun shooting to implement gun control is unbeleivable to say the least. I hold the same people who say that Bush orchestrated the 9/11 attacks to bolster his popularity. In comtempt and wonder if they should be wearing tinfoil hats. I got into a majopr argument with a cousin a few motnhs back because I laughed in hi face and said “no I don’t think that’s what happened”. He could not understand and refused to drop the topic. After awhile got fed up and had a few choice words.

        AS for choice words: http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/todd-akin-legitimate-rape.php . This is really not helping the repulican cause either. Talk about making a verbal blundr on such a sensitive topic.

      • Nope, Larry — there is nothing prohibiting an entertainer from being knowledgable outside their art. You happen to have an understanding of a wide range of topics outside writing. . . and being a professional (and successful) author is simply more likely to have wide ranging knowledge, if only from research, than an actor or singer.

        The problem is that so many glitterati assume they are experts in anything from military strategy, to nuclear physics, to epidemiology, etc.

        As for me, Steve, I don’t consider myself an entertainer. As for the jester — keeping the king somewhat sane IS a valuable function, but it does’t require any actual KNOWLEDGE of politics. . . as your Wikipedia “source” points out, many jesters were simply mentally disturbed. (Yes, some were astute political commentators, but the j-o-b of a jester was to keep the king sane and human. There is a name for the guy who is supposed to be the royal political advisor. . . it’s called, let me think, . . . oh, yes, “prime minister”.)

      • Sureshot –

        It matters not to me whether Mustaine said something helpful to the Democrats, helpful to the Republicans, or (as he did), something unbelieveably STUPID that was merely hurtful to the nation as a whole(you REALLY think anyone is going to change their vote from Romney to Obama because of a musician’s tinfoil beret allegations?).

        As far as I know, he has all the credibility as an expert on politics as Rosie ODonneil has on firearms use, Jenny McCarthy on pharmacology, or Bradford Manning on honor. That is, NONE.

      • No I’m not expecting anyone’s vote to change because of Mustaine dumb comments. Or very little. My point was when an entertainer whether he be republican or democratic that engages in that type of behavior is imo not doing any favors for his/her political party on the public relations end of thigs.

        But don’t discount any type of publicity. The Conservatives were all but wiped out in the early 90s from Canadain politics. Now they have a majority. A few bad decisions from the other politocal parties. Lack of any unity or imo a strong contentder in Canadian politics and a party that everyonbe thought was dead rose from the ashes.

      • Rick Randall – Your dismissive attitude toward my “source” is amusing. Its a simple wiki that plainly points out that Jesters were more than mad imbeciles (or at least could be) Any person with a grain of intelligence could read that wiki and if they were curious use it as a spring board to do their own research to find out about the historical jesters and their political contributions if you were so inclined. It even has sections at the bottom with interesting headers like References, External Links, Further Reading not to mention the links in the body.

        If you expect me to spoon feed everything to you, I am sorry but you will be disappointed.

        But even if you could not figure out how to navigate the Wiki or cant figure out how to use Google I think the fact one jester was able to get a King to abdicate his throne to him for 15 days says something about his political knowledge or at least his indulgence in a risk

      • Steve —

        I didn’t “disregard” your Wikipedia source – in fact, I read it and examined it for your assertion. It’s a good reference for basic information on jesters.

        I merely disagree with your cherry-picking interpretation. There is a large gap between “disregard” and “disagree”.

        Simply because SOME jesters had political influence, and SOME of them were actually valuable in that role, does NOT automatically equate to the idea that the role of a jester is a member of the innermost political advisors in all, most, or even a large minority of cases. Nor does it mean that “serious political advisor” is part of the standard job description.

        As analogy — even though Richelieu, Mazarin, Dubois, de Fleury, Wolsey all effectively ran secular nations or their civil governments, does that mean that part of the job description and normal duties of a Roman Catholic cardinal is “de facto” (and at times, “de jure”) “head of government for a secular state”.

        Kings have trusted the political advice of people from all walks of life, including slaves, body servants, grooms, and yes, jesters – but none of these roles is primarily an advisory one, even though some who have held them have also been used as advisors.

  18. As an economist turned lawyer, I agree whole-heartedly Larry. Thanks for your books and your fiscal sanity.

  19. [...] Praise! to Monster Hunter Nation] “As soon as they announced Ryan, the media had a come apart. I heard the words [...]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 8,487 other followers

%d bloggers like this: