this is long, but if you have strong opinions about Mitt (either way), you SHOULD READ IT.

[northeast]

bean, I didn't say it wasn't biased. That does not prove that it is wrong in any way. You sound more biased than the author of the article, but I don't assume that everything you say is wrong, not yet anyway.

but the article is clearly full of all sorts of facts, facts that most people have no knowledge of, because most mainstream press does not even attempt to cover such matters.

 

[NAOS]

Bean****er hasn't even read the article, so don't bother. Just thank him for coming in here and leaving a "contribution" anyway.

 

[sirkickyass]

He also knows absolutely nothing about the military, but is pro-aggressive war.
Nobody can fix this economy unless the Fed is ousted.

It's official. TheSilencer's epic recent run has earned him the title of Jazzfanz' official south-pointing compass.

Im all for different opinions and debating. But Rolling Stone is not known for the hardcore factual journalism.

Everyone on hear would rip me apart if i posted a 'factual' article on Obama that had been written by Glenn Beck and posted on Foxnews.

This isn't any different.

So your solution was to go and do exactly that in the most lazy and insulting way possible.

I dont' think the RollingStone article is particularly fair because it's outcome-driven rather than process driven and the author doesn't seem particularly well-versed in how these kinds of companies operate. All that said, there are differences in degrees. Beck, Limbaugh, and their ilk are of an entirely different sort. You'd have a point if this was an article by Ed Schultz (who has never reached near the kind of name recognition of Beck and Limbaugh), but you didn't bother to read the article.

Traditional print media is a different beast. Niall Ferguson can get a cover story in Newsweek, David Brooks can have one of the most prominent op-ed columns in the NYT, etc etc. Talking about who wrote the piece and what they've done is significantly more illuminating if you're going for an "in the tank" charge rather than just saying "Rolling Stone sucks L0Lzers!"

 

[northeast]

I am sorry that I know I probably offended 50% of the population. I am jealous of FOX and Limbaugh, I wish there were popular counterbalancing news sources of equal effectiveness. It is sad that Rolling Stone is providing the best coverage on the issues today.

 

[TheSilencer1313]

It's official. TheSilencer's epic recent run has earned him the title of Jazzfanz' official south-pointing compass.

Absolutely.
I run south, to whose aiming the guns.

 

[TheSilencer1313]

I am sorry that I know I probably offended 50% of the population. I am jealous of FOX and Limbaugh, I wish there were popular counterbalancing news sources of equal effectiveness. It is sad that Rolling Stone is providing the best coverage on the issues today.

It's not really that sad. In fact, it's pretty refreshing.

Fox, CNN, ABC, CBS, why even watch?
All the mainstream tells you, is everything you want to hear.

Rolling Stone does do a decent job, but I believe Russia Today provides the best coverage of news anywhere.

 

[babe]

I'm especially excited to hear from PKM, Scat, Franklin, and babe.

Thanks for your time, fellas

(oh, I'm sure PearlWatson will leave a deuce in here somewhere)

NAOS, you know I've said probably about fifty or a hundred times already, Mitt is not my man, though I prefer him over Obama by ten to one. I liked Ron Paul. You didn't notice the bankers standing right behind Obama on the podium where- and when-ever Obama read the teleprompter. Not really sure Obama read the teleprompter, exactly. Might have been somebody standing behind him reading it for him. Obama is owned by the bankers, and he's paid them off in trillions of bailouts. And he's gonna be well-provided for in his upcoming retirement. Throwing a few million his way, while trucking off trillions, is good business even for bankers.

George Bush and Co. have picked Mitt, and Mitt will do no less, and no more, than he's told.

I'm sure Kicky has heard the joke about lawyers. . . . "How can you tell when a lawyer is lying?" Well, it's the same for the anointed ones who are picked to be our managers. I like Ryan because he is smarter than Obama. He knows math. He knows when the figures are just not adding up, and he knows you can't increase taxes without decreasing consumer confidence and all kinds of high-velocity consumer spending. Money in our pockets, which doesn't have to go through the bog at Foggy Bottom, will change hands about ten times as fast as money sent to Washington. Leave it in our hands, and cut taxes, and the economy will spring back to life. And lots of people will be feeling pretty happy about life.

Obama is worse than a conservative ideologue reciting a rant about the Constitution, he's a liberal ideologue dreaming of being the one to spend everybody's money on his own pet project. . . . a monument to himself we're gonna be commanded to pray to. But even worse than that, he's completely insane and dysfunctional, a madman nothing less. He should be locked up at the funny farm, because he thinks he's living his dream, and not doing exactly what he's told by the bankers.

I'll take a knowing liar who knows he's lying, any day, over a paranoid schiz who's simply delusional.

Besides, I've noticed that companies run by top notch players who can skim a few or maybe a hundred million off a company reorganization are the ones that survive, after all the ideological managers go bankrupt. It might not be the America I'd make of it, but I believe it's our best bet between what's offered.

So, all you Republican partisans, hang on to your hat, and your wallet. We're not going to get rid of Obamacare, we're just going to get less than we pay for more and more. Romneycare will be no care. And you still won't be able to just do homeopathy or superfoods, and thumb your nose at the medical monster. You'll pay for it still. And Big Pharma will still be runnig ads on TV about whatever ails you, and the Media will still be hyping the new flu shot every year, and the cures for Cancer will still kill you. And there will still be more agencies writing laws and regulations to tell you not to walk on the lawns or the deserts or the forests, and making sure you can never figure out how to get your ideas put into business because of all the red tape, and you'll still have education required to enter a workforce to "earn" a wage that will keep you in the "broke" class when they pull the plug on you as a useless eater. Yep, and you deserve it.

Not even Ron Paul can save you from yourselves.

 

[Coloradojazzfan]

Rolling Stone does do a decent job, but I believe Russia Today provides the best coverage of news anywhere.

Nothing like that good old Russian Pravda.

Why am I not surprised you would take news funded directly by the Kremlin.

Of course the Russians are well known for providing unfiltered and unbiased news.

 

[Revolution 9]

The whole purpose of capitalism to feast on the outskirts of the herd.

Which is why Capitalism, and Christianity cannot go hand in hand. All I truly want is for Republicans to stop feeding their masses with their claim that
this is a Christian party. It is a pro-buisness/corporation party, or was. Capitalism cares nothing for humanity, education, or it's people. Only the strong survive, fine. We do need that in society, and government.
On the same token stop demonizing Socialism as some great evil of the world. They both can't live without the other. The middle is where we thrive.

Republicans needs to get back what they used to do best. Be the pro-business party, and get their hands out of religion.

 

[Qman]

Which is why Capitalism, and Christianity cannot go hand in hand. All I truly want is for Republicans to stop feeding their masses with their claim that
this is a Christian party. It is a pro-buisness/corporation party, or was. Capitalism cares nothing for humanity, education, or it's people. Only the strong survive, fine. We do need that in society, and government.
On the same token stop demonizing Socialism as some great evil of the world. They both can't live without the other. The middle is where we thrive.

Republicans needs to get back what they used to do best. Be the pro-business party, and get their hands out of religion.

Why should a political party be associated with one religion or another? So you are exactly right. They do it because it is a way to show the voters we are 'Christians' just like you. The same way the Democratics try to leverage any ethnic minorities.

I think the debate between Capitalism and Socialism is miscast usually. Many people that are 'pro-capitalism' are really pro-small government. They want to reduce the number of federal organizations and social programs to what they consider the bare minimum.

 

[franklin]

I like Ryan... He knows when the figures are just not adding up, and he knows you can't increase taxes without decreasing consumer confidence and all kinds of high-velocity consumer spending. Money in our pockets, which doesn't have to go through the bog at Foggy Bottom, will change hands about ten times as fast as money sent to Washington. Leave it in our hands, and cut taxes, and the economy will spring back to life. And lots of people will be feeling pretty happy about life.

Obama is worse than a conservative ideologue reciting a rant about the Constitution, he's a liberal ideologue dreaming of being the one to spend everybody's money on his own pet project. . . . a monument to himself we're gonna be commanded to pray to. But even worse than that, he's completely insane and dysfunctional, a madman nothing less. He should be locked up at the funny farm, because he thinks he's living his dream, and not doing exactly what he's told by the bankers.

Holy **** this is money. Non-partisan, discarded the bull **** side show & sees the bottom line money on both Ryan & Romney.

 

[Siro]

Holy **** this is money. Non-partisan, discarded the bull **** side show & sees the bottom line money on both Ryan & Romney.

I REALLY REALLY try to avoid joining political discussions, but I'm wondering why you think Babe's comment was non-partisan (aside from the fact that you agree with it), even ignoring the rhetoric about Obama building a monument or whatever. My understanding is that we've had significant tax cuts for the past decade, without any clear benefit to the economy at large. Is there any proof that lowering taxes even further is a better idea to improve the economy than to have more government intervention and higher taxes? I know you have informed views on the economy, and I wonder what makes you agree with Babe.

 

[franklin]

I REALLY REALLY try to avoid joining political discussions, but I'm wondering why you think Babe's comment was non-partisan (aside from the fact that you agree with it), even ignoring the rhetoric about Obama building a monument or whatever. My understanding is that we've had significant tax cuts for the past decade, without any clear benefit to the economy at large. Is there any proof that lowering taxes even further is a better idea to improve the economy than to have more government intervention and higher taxes? I know you have informed views on the economy, and I wonder what makes you agree with Babe.

It wasn't about agreement. It was Babe's ability to see the economic big picture & understand how things work that hit home for me. The political commentary was aside his underlying points.

As far as non-partisan goes, it may not be on the surface but the comment contained a strong rebuke of Ryan's federal debt growth strategy ALTERNATIVE. He's also maligning Obama from a leftist perspective for being too Wall Street republican, as viewed by most Americans anyway. Obama's republicanism is something that should strike a chord inside all of us. I see leftist criticism of a fascist righty where you likely read rightist attack on a leftist leader.

 

[Siro]

It wasn't about agreement. It was Babe's ability to see the economic big picture & understand how things work that hit home for me. The political commentary was aside his underlying points.

As far as non-partisan goes, it may not be on the surface but the comment contained a strong rebuke of Ryan's federal debt growth strategy ALTERNATIVE. He's also maligning Obama from a leftist perspective for being too Wall Street republican, as viewed by most Americans anyway. Obama's republicanism is something that should strike a chord inside all of us. I see leftist criticism of a fascist righty where you likely read rightist attack on a leftist leader.

I don't view Obama as a leftist leader. He's a social moderate and his economic policies are pretty similar to George W. Bush and all mainstream politicians. I see no real difference in policy between the parties, aside from rhetoric, and I have no interest in their politics until a viable alternative is introduced (I don't like Ron Paul either). It appears you share the 'conservative' view that less government and lower taxes are a better solution to the current depression than the opposite. My knowledge on economics is pretty limited, but I understand that the paradigm established by the New Deal and prevailed for several decades produced superior results to current corporatism. I'm probably misreading you, since you tend to be cryptic, but I am curious about your opinion of the 'larger picture'.

 

[franklin]

It appears you share the 'conservative' view that less government and lower taxes are a better solution to the current depression than the opposite.

I'm pro-New Deal, as is babe in his own right. Credit has to be given to the Austrian views on government uncertainty & future taxation limiting business expansion--it is a very real drag--although I think stable policy that includes tax reforms could be telescoped to the market just fine.

The ALTERNATIVE I was alleging is letting us spend our own money (& go into deep "debt" federally) vs. letting Obamas buddies write legislation to spend it into their own pockets (& go into deep "debt" federally) as opposed to an FDR type program that benefits the masses. The money funnels into the same pockets either way, so my vote is little more than a path preference.

 

[TheSilencer1313]

Nothing like that good old Russian Pravda.

Why am I not surprised you would take news funded directly by the Kremlin.

Of course the Russians are well known for providing unfiltered and unbiased news.

Name any other news program that interviews Alex Jones, and then the next day does an interview with a liberal?

 

[TheSilencer1313]

(I don't like Ron Paul either). My knowledge on economics is pretty limited

Well at least now you've explained yourself.
Because Ron Paul has specialized in government economics for over 30 years.

 

[TheSilencer1313]

I'm pro-New Deal, as is babe in his own right. Credit has to be given to the Austrian views on government uncertainty & future taxation limiting business expansion--it is a very real drag--although I think stable policy that includes tax reforms could be telescoped to the market just fine.

The ALTERNATIVE I was alleging is letting us spend our own money (& go into deep "debt" federally) vs. letting Obamas buddies write legislation to spend it into their own pockets (& go into deep "debt" federally) as opposed to an FDR type program that benefits the masses. The money funnels into the same pockets either way, so my vote is little more than a path preference.

This country would never have needed a "New Deal" had the Federal Reserve not had bankrupted this country in a little over 10 years.

The minute we left the gold standard, is the minute we were all based paper upon paper.

 

[babe]

This country would never have needed a "New Deal" had the Federal Reserve not had bankrupted this country in a little over 10 years.

The minute we left the gold standard, is the minute we were all based paper upon paper.

gold is a commodity. It's just not very consumable, or necessary to life, but it has enduring value in the mind of man. So it makes pretty good money. But it's not the gold standard that made anyone prosper, it's productivity. A restrained fiat currency policy, which may sometimes be used to keep people working productively--- and kept in moderation to keep the thievery of inflation minimal, is a great convenience. It's just not a convenience we want to put in the banker's hands, like we do with the Fed. Let congress manage our money, and run a national bank, and balance our budget, and do that with tariff proceeds, and we'll do OK. If we will roll out of bed and go to work, productively.

I like Ron Paul's "End the Fed" and his realization that floating funny money is no solution to anything. Keeping government small, and everyone doing real work, will make us free and prosperous.

 

[NAOS]

NAOS, you know I've said probably about fifty or a hundred times already, Mitt is not my man, though I prefer him over Obama by ten to one. I liked Ron Paul. You didn't notice the bankers standing right behind Obama on the podium where- and when-ever Obama read the teleprompter. Not really sure Obama read the teleprompter, exactly. Might have been somebody standing behind him reading it for him. Obama is owned by the bankers, and he's paid them off in trillions of bailouts. And he's gonna be well-provided for in his upcoming retirement. Throwing a few million his way, while trucking off trillions, is good business even for bankers.

George Bush and Co. have picked Mitt, and Mitt will do no less, and no more, than he's told.

I'm sure Kicky has heard the joke about lawyers. . . . "How can you tell when a lawyer is lying?" Well, it's the same for the anointed ones who are picked to be our managers. I like Ryan because he is smarter than Obama. He knows math. He knows when the figures are just not adding up, and he knows you can't increase taxes without decreasing consumer confidence and all kinds of high-velocity consumer spending. Money in our pockets, which doesn't have to go through the bog at Foggy Bottom, will change hands about ten times as fast as money sent to Washington. Leave it in our hands, and cut taxes, and the economy will spring back to life. And lots of people will be feeling pretty happy about life.

Obama is worse than a conservative ideologue reciting a rant about the Constitution, he's a liberal ideologue dreaming of being the one to spend everybody's money on his own pet project. . . . a monument to himself we're gonna be commanded to pray to. But even worse than that, he's completely insane and dysfunctional, a madman nothing less. He should be locked up at the funny farm, because he thinks he's living his dream, and not doing exactly what he's told by the bankers.

I'll take a knowing liar who knows he's lying, any day, over a paranoid schiz who's simply delusional.

Besides, I've noticed that companies run by top notch players who can skim a few or maybe a hundred million off a company reorganization are the ones that survive, after all the ideological managers go bankrupt. It might not be the America I'd make of it, but I believe it's our best bet between what's offered.

So, all you Republican partisans, hang on to your hat, and your wallet. We're not going to get rid of Obamacare, we're just going to get less than we pay for more and more. Romneycare will be no care. And you still won't be able to just do homeopathy or superfoods, and thumb your nose at the medical monster. You'll pay for it still. And Big Pharma will still be runnig ads on TV about whatever ails you, and the Media will still be hyping the new flu shot every year, and the cures for Cancer will still kill you. And there will still be more agencies writing laws and regulations to tell you not to walk on the lawns or the deserts or the forests, and making sure you can never figure out how to get your ideas put into business because of all the red tape, and you'll still have education required to enter a workforce to "earn" a wage that will keep you in the "broke" class when they pull the plug on you as a useless eater. Yep, and you deserve it.

Not even Ron Paul can save you from yourselves.

I agree with what you say here almost entirely. "Obama" (not just the man, but the movement) has been thoroughly appropriated by the bankers that have been in control since at least Reagan. I think there were reasons to believe otherwise when "Obama" was a candidate, but the writing is ****ing plastered on the walls.

That said, I'm not casting a vote for Romney. I'm not sure how you (even jokingly) get a 10:1 preference for Romney when you seem to acknowledge a fairly small actual difference.